ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

29, 1972

ILLINOIS POWER CO.

v.

)

#72—297

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Preliminary Order of the Board

(by Mr. Currie)

This petition seeks a modification of the variance we

granted September 30,

1972,

allowing Illinois Power to operate

its Hennepin generating station while completing a program

approved by the old Air Pollution Control Board to bring its

particulate emissions into compliance with that Board’s

regulations

(Illinois Power Co.

v. EPA,

#71—193).

Under

that program Hennepin Unit #2 was to be controlled

by

a high-

ly efficient precipitator by June 30,

1972,

and Unit #1, which

was not to be as effectively controlled, was to be operated

on such fuels and at such capacities

that emissions from the

two units through

a common stack would not exceed regulation

limits after the June 1972 date.

The company now informs

us that

a deteriorating natural gas supply situation and

increasing potential for electric supply problems may make

it necessary in “very

limited situations”

to operate the

poorly-controlled Unit #1 by itself,

in violation of the

regulations, when #2

is out of service.

At the same time,

the

company has decided to install a 99.5

precipitator on

#1 in order to eliminate this problem and to comply with our

new and more restrictive regulations.

A variance is sought

to allow occasional operation of Unit #1 in excess of regu-

lation limits until June 30,

1974, when the new precipitator

is to be completed.

We scheduled no hearing,

believing that the issue re-

lating to this substantially improved control program could

probably be resolved on the basis of the petition and the

Agency’s recommendation.

That recommendation,

however, raised

a significant factual issue on which we should appreciate

the company’s response.

The Agency maintains that Illinois

Power stated, after filing the petition,

that construction

of the precipitator was expected to be completed no later

than February of 1974,

and that in another communication to

the Agency the company declared that bids had been sent out

some six months in advance of the date contemplated even by

5

—

309

---

—2—

the February 1974 completion schedule.

Consequently EPA

asks that the terminal date for construction be placed at

September,

1973, with compliance by November 1,

1973 rather

than June 30, 1974 as requested by

the company.

This

difference is important,

as the law requires compliance

as

soon as

is practicable.

We invite the Agency to submit within twenty days written

or sworn documentation of these facts so they may be con-

sidered as in evidence and request the company to respond

within twenty days with whatever additional argument or

factual material, supported by affidavid or documentation,

may be necessary to our decision.

We also call the com-

pany’s attention to the other specific conditions the Agency

asks us

to impose on the grant of any variance and invite its

response.

Should the company desire the opportunity to

present evidence in a formal hearing in support of its

petition, we shall be glad to authorize such

a hearing pro-

vided an appropriate waiver is filed extending the 90-day

period in which otherwise we are required to render a

decision.

It

is

so ordered.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted

the above Prelimin~ryOrder

this

~

day of August,

1972 by a vote of

~

C

5

—