ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
January
6, 1972
MT.
CARMEL
PUBLIC
UTILITY CO.
PCB 71—15R
V
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDER
AND
OPINION
(BY
MR.
LAWTON):
On
November
11,
1971,
the
Board
entered
an
Order
granting
Mt
Carmel
Public
Utility
Co.
a
variance
for
a
one-year
period
allowing
it
to
emit
particulates
in
excess
of
the
particulate
emission
regulations
and
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Pro~
tection Act, subject to the following terms
and conditions:
“1~ This
variance shall continue
for
a period of one year
from this
date,
if
the
Utility wants
a continuance
of this variance
it
shall file
a petition for renewal
of the variance within ninety
(90)
days prior to the
date the variance expires.
The Board may authorize
a
hearing on that supplemental petition and shall make
such further order
as
it deems necessary
at that time.
2.
The Utility shall proceed with
the following program:
(a)
The Utility shall complete the conversion
of
Boiler
#5 from a coal-fired boiler
to
a boiler
fired
by
oil
and
natural
gas
by
March
30,
1973;
(b)
The Utility shall complete the
69 KV
line from
Mt. Carmel
to Keensburg by January,
1973;
(c)
The Utility shall
exert every effort to complete
the
138 1W line
from Keensburg
to Albion before
June,
1974.
In that respect,
the Utility shall
file
quarterly
reports with the Board and the
Agency,
beginning on December
1,
1971, which re-
ports shall detail the efforts made by the Utility
to expedite the completion of the 138
1W
line
herein described;
and
(d)
The Utility shall not operate Boilers
#1 and
#4
in violation
of the particulate regulations
after the installation of the
138 XV
line referred.
to in paragraph
4,
or June
30,
1974,
whichever
occurs
first.
3.
The Utility shall post a bond in a form approved by
the
Agency to guarantee performance of the conditions of
the
granting of this variance.
Said bond shall be in
the
amount of $500,000.
4.
Failure to comply with any of the conditions of this
variance shall result in the revocation of the grant
of this variance.”
On December 6,
1971, we received a Motion for Reduction of
Performance Bond,
or,
in the alternative,
for a stay.
The company
asserts that the $500,000.00 bond required was arbritarily determined
and constitutes a penalty, and as such,,is unjust, discriminatory
and unlawful.
In support of its
assertion,
the company alleges an
increase in its total indebtedness and represents that the proposed
construction will entail additional borrowing in the approximate
amount of $680,000.00.
Petitioner also alleges that the requirement
of the Environmental Protection Agency that the obligation of the
bond be shown as a liability in the company’s corporate financial
statements will impair its credit and hinder its ability to obtain
the necessary funds to p~1rsueits abatement program.
Lastly, the company asserts that the order of the Board
is discriminatory when considered
in light of other orders entered
requiring posting of a bond.
We deny the motion for reduction, or in the alternative, in
the stay of the bond.
Normally, in cases of this sort, we have .r~uired
a bond in the approximate amount of the construction cost anticipated.
However, in instances where the construction is in the millions of
dollars, we have often required a bond in the amount of $500,000.00,
feeling that this will furnish adequate assurance that the program
of abatement upon which the variance was granted will be pursued
to final completion.
Cf. Illinois Power Company v. Environmental
Protection Agency, Nos. PCB71-193,
195,
196,
197,
198.
Petitioner has asserted no facts suggesting in any way that
our order
is arbitrary or unreasonable,
and, accordingly,
the motion
for reduction or stay is denied.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
tha~tthe above Supplemental Order and Opinion was adopted on the
~ day of January,
1972 by a vote of 4-0.
3
—
340