ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 16,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
#72—219
V.
CITY OF MASCOUTAH
)
THOMAS CENGEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ON BEHALF
OF
THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
WILLIAM
R.
POSTON,
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(BY SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Complaint was filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
against the City of Mascoutah alleging that on or before July
1,
1970, continuing
through the close of the record in this proceeding,
the City operated the coal—fired boilers of its municipal power plant
so as to cause,
threaten or allow the emission of particulate matter
and other contaminants
into the atmosphere,
so as
to cause air pollu-
tion,
in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
and Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of
Air
Pollution
(Air
Rules).
The complaint also alleges that the
Respondent city failed
to file
a Letter of Intent and Acerp
in violation of Rules 2-2.112 and 2—2.41 of the Air Rules
and that
the City installed a Diesel unit and Tu Buell multiclone collector
on its No.
2 boiler, without securing permits in violation of Rule
3—2.110 of the Air Rules.
A cease and desist order and such further
orders as the Board deems necessary are sought.
A perfunctory hearing was held on December
4,
1972,
at which time
a stipulation between the parties and a proposed order were submitted
with the view of disposing
of the proceeding.
The stipulation recites
that the power plant has been owned and operated by the City since
the early 1900’s and constitutes
the sole source of electricity within
the City and serves a small unincorporated area adjacent to the City,
serving a population of approximately 5,000 persons as well as five
schools and eight local industries.
The plant is capable of generating
9802 KW while its safe sustained generating capacity is 7732 KW.
The
plant consists
of two coal—fired boilers, three turbine generators
and five Diesel units, of which the No.
4 Diesel unit was installed
in 1968 without an installation permit from the Air Pollution Control
Board.
The primary sources of electrical generation are the five
6—515
Diesel
units
with
a
combined
capacity
of
5,304
KW.
The
No.
1
coal-fired boiler is used only during the months of
December,
January and February for purposes of heating the power plant and
meeting power demands exceeding the 5,304 KW capacity of the Diesel
units.
The
No.
2
coal-fired
boiler
is
used
only
during
the
peak
loading
months
of
July,
August
and
September
to
meet
electrical
demands
exceeding
the
5,304
KW
capacity
of
the
Diesel
units.
The
peak
loads
of
the
power
plant
for
the
past
six
years
has
been
as
follows:
1967
—
4,800
KW
1968
—
5,340
KW
1969
—
5,650
KW
1970
—
6,250
KW
1971
—
6,500
KW
1972
—
6,900
KW
The
No.
1
coal-fired
boiler
is
a
chain
grate
stoker
having
a
rated
heat
input
of
approximately
19.4
x
10b
BTU/hr.
and
does
not
employ
any
particulate
control
equipment
other
than
a
baffled
settling
chamber.
The
No.
2
coal-fired
boiler
is
a
spreader
stoker
with
100
reinjection,
having
a
rated
heat
input
of
approximately
40.9
x
106
BTU/hr
and
is
controlled
by
the
Tu
Buell
multiclone
collector,
which
was installed in
1968
without
an
installation permit from the
Air
Pollution Control Board.
The
Stipulation
further
recites
that
if
Otis
H.
Banes
would
testify,
he
would
testify
that
he
is
an
Environmental
Protection
Agency engineer,
that he had calculated emission rates
for Boilers
Nos.
1
and
2
by
use
of the.equation and emission factors,
as follows:
Boiler
No.
1
=
1.74
lb/b6
BTU
Boiler
No.
2
=
5.61
lb/b6
BTU
pursuant
to
calculations
attached
to
the
stipulation
as
Exhibit
3.
In
arriving
at
the
calculated
emission
rates,
a
collection
efficiency
of
20
for
the baffled settling chamber
in
Boiler
No.
1
was
assumed
and
a collection efficiency of
70
for
the
multiclone
used
in
Boiler
No.
2
was
assumed.
In
arriving
at
the
foregoing
calculations,
the
9.9ash
content
and
an
11,380
BTtJ/lb
heat
content
of
the
coal
were
assumed.
Stack
tests
conducted on Boiler No.
2
on
August
29,
1972 showed emission rates of
.1597
lb/b6
BTU
and
.2974
lb/la6
BTU
per emission tests
set forth in Exhibit
4.
The
Stipulation
further
provides
that
if
Fred
Smith,
a
Source
Emission Specialist, employed by the Agency, were called upon to
testify,
he
would
state
that
the
foregoing
test
does
not
adequately
reflect
the
actual
emission from the stack pursuant to his
calcula-
tions contained in Exhibit
5 attached to the Stipulation.
The stipulation further provides that if Bruce F. Barnes of
the
firm
of Barnes,
Henry,
Meisenheimer
and
Gende,
Consulting
Engi-
6—516
neers,
were
to
testify,
he would state that Boiler No. 1 has not
been tested since the
filing
of
the
complaint because it was not
in
operation
until
November
1,
1972
and
that
efforts
to coordinate
testing
subseguent
thereto,
were
unsuccessful.
Stipulation further provides that the City Council of Mascoutah,
DO
October
25,
1972, authorized the preparation of bid specifications
~or an additional dual
fuel diesel unit of not less than
2,000
KW
Dapacity
and
fuel
oil burners for Boilers No.
1 and No.
2,
and sub-
sequently,
resolved
that
fuel oil burners installed in Boiler No.
2
~e in place before July
1,
1973 at
a cost of approximately $40,000.
The Stipulation further recites that
the
City of Mascoutah has joined
with eleven other
Illinois municipalities in a complaint before the
Federal Power Commission to seek interconnection with the Illinois
Power Company.
Under
the proposed interconnect contract,
the City
would maintain 20
generated capacity above its peak load.
If an
interconnect is ordered between the City and Illinois Power Company,
the
City would interconnect to a 138 KV line located approximately
one mile south
of
the City’s power plant.
The interconnection would
be beneficial
to the City in enabling use of a larger amount of its
total capacity.
Alternatives as
to the future use of the No.
1 boiler
are considered dependent on the result of the FPC case, which alterna-
tives include retirement of the unit, replacement by a diesel unit or
conversion
to fuel oil burnincj.
Lastly,
the Stipulation rocites
that no Letter of Intent or
Acerp from the City of Mascoutah appear in the records
of the Agency.
Rule 3-3.112 limits emissions from each boiler
to 0.6 lb/iD BTU.
The
Agency computation using standard calculation procedures and esti-
mates of coal characteristics and efficiencies of gas cleaning devices
above noted estimated the emissions,
as follows:
Boiler No.
1 estimated emission
=
1.74 lb/l0~BTU
Boiler No.s2 estimated emission
=
5.61 lb/lU
I3TU
As stated above, the Boiler No.
1 baffled settling ~hamber was consi-
dered
to have a
20
removal efficiency and Boiler No.
2 to have a
70
removal efficiency.
The Board’s independent review of the liter-
ature indicates
a higher removal efficiency than that assumed by the
Agency.
Assuming a
50
efficiency for the baffled settling chamber
on Boiler No.
1 and a 94
efficiency for the multiclone on Boiler
6
No.
2,
emissions fo~Boiler No.
1 would be at a rate of
.091 ib/lO
ETU and for Boiler No.
2,
1.1 lb/b6
BTU,
indicating violations of
Rule 3-3.112,
even using the higher estimates of collection efficiency.
Analysis of the stack tests performed on Boiler No.
2 indicate that whii
there may be some room for error based upon incorrect performance
of the Orsat analysis, absence of mention of sampling port locations and
the failure of the sampling velocity to be isokinetic, the conclusion
—3—
8
—
517
must
be
reached
that
the
stack
tests
results
are
not
so
erroneous
as
to
signify
measurements
that
would
exceed
the
0.6
lb/lU6
BTU
as
~rovided
in
the
Regulation.
Accordingly,
irrespective
of
either
the
Agency’s ori9inal estimate of 5.6 lb/iD0 BTU or the revised figures
o~ 1.1
lb/b0~
BTU
based
on
increased
collection
efficiency,
it
would
a~pear that
Respondent
had
successfully
rebutted
the
Agency’s
case
with
res~ect
to
Boiler
No.
2
and
we
find
no
violation
with
respect
to
this facility.
Emissions from Boiler No.
1 by either the Agency’s
estimate or the modified estimate
based
on
higher
collection
efficiency,
would
indicate
a
violation
of
the
0.6
lb/lU6
BTU
standard.
The suggested order proposed by the parties would provide as
follows:
“1~
The
City
of
Mascoutah
shall
have
installed
and
operational
fuel oil burners in its No.
2 boiler capable of complying with all
applicable rules and regulations before peak loading requires its
operation
in
the summer of 1973, but in no event later than July
1,
1973;
(a)
Said boiler shall not otherwise be operated unless
an emergency requires its operation;
(b)
Said emergency would exist only if the non-operation
of Boiler No.
2 would curtail electrical service
to
the people of the City of Mascoutah;
(c)
If such emergency should exist, the City of Mascoutah
must
notify
the
Agency
within
twenty-four
(24)
hours
after beginning operation of the extent and nature
of the emergency and the circumstances of operation.
2.
That Boiler No.
1 shall not be operated after
this winter until
the City of Mascoutah can exhibit to the Environmental Protection Agency
that
said
boiler
complies
with
all
applicable
rules
and
regulations:
(a)
Said boiler shall not otherwise be operated unless
an
emergency
requires
its
operation;
(b)
Said emergency would exist only if the non-operation
of
No.
1
boiler
would
curtail
electrical
service
to
the people of the City of Mascoutah;
(c)
If
such
emergency
should
exist,
the
City
of
Mascoutah
must notify the Agency within twenty-four
(24) hours
after beginning operation of the extent and nature of
the emergency and the circumstances of operation.
—4—
6—518
3.
If
so
ordered
by
the Pollution Control Board, the City
of Mascoutah shall submit
a performance bond in the amount of
$40,000 in a form satisfactory to the Agency,
to guarantee per-
formance of the preceding orders, within 35 days of the date of the
Board’s order.
The parties leave
to the Board’s discretion, the determination
of
the
amount
of
monetary
penalty,
if
any,
to be assessed in the
above-captioned matter.”
While the contemplated program
to bring the operation into
compliance
is somewhat speculative and uncertain, particularly in view
of the uncertainty of the proposed interconnect order with Illinois
Power Company, we believe the program represents a reasonable effort
to achieve compliance and will approve
it, retaining jurisdiction for
such other and further orders as might be appropriate.
We do feel,
however,
that
the
failure
of
the
City
to
file
a
Letter
of
Intent
and pursue an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program, coupled with
the proven violations with respect to Boiler No.
1 call
for the imposi-
tion of a penalty which we assess in the amount of $500.
Were Respon-
dent other than a municipality, the penalty would be far more severe.
is because of the failure to comply with the regulations that emissions
have continued unabated over the years and have frustrated the objec-
tives
that the air pollution control legislation was designed to achiev?
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board:
1.
Penalty in the amount of $500
is assessed against the City
of Mascoutah for failure
to file a Letter of Intent and Air
Contaminant Emission Reduction Program for emissions from
its Boiler No.
1 in excess of limitations contained in
Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Control of Air Pollution and for violation of Rule 3-2.110
in
failing
to
obtain
a
permit
for
installation
of
its
Diesel Unit No.
4 and the Tu Buell collector on Boiler
No.
2.
Penalty payment by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal
Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois 62706k
by Feb.
25,
1973.
2.
The City of Mascoutah is directed to pursue the program
of pollution control set forth in the suggested order con-
tained in the Stipulation filed herein and specifically,
shall achieve the following:
(a)
Fuel oil burners for the No.
2 boiler shall be in
compliance
with
all
relevant regulations by
July
1,
1973
and shall be used prior to said date only for emergency
operations when its failure to be in use would curtail
—5—
6—519
electrical services to the City of Mascoutah,
In the
event such emergency does
exist, the City shall notify
the Agency within 24 hours after operation as to the
extent and nature of the emergency and the circumstances
of operation.
(b)
Boiler No.
1 shall be in compliance with all relevant
regulations by April
1,
1973 and shall operate prior to
said date only when emergency conditions
exist as set
forth in sub—paragraph
(a) above, and subject to the same
terms and conditions of notification to the Agency.
(c)
Performance bond in the amount of $40,000 in form
satisfactory to the Agency
to
guarantee performance of
the
foregoing
provisions
of
this
order
shall
be
filed
with
the
Fiscal Services Division,
Environmental Protec-
tion Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
Cd)
The Board retains jurisdiction of
this
matter for
such other and further orders as may be appropriate,
until July 15,
1973.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify ~that the above Opinion and Order was adopted onthe
/~
day of
~
1973,
by
a vote of
~
to
~
—6—
6
—
520