ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
14,
1971
COMMONWEALTH
EDISON COMPANY
)
v.
)
PCB 71—129
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr.
Richard E.
Powell
and Mr.
Charles
E. Whalen of
Isham,
Lincoln
& Beale, Attorneys
for Commonwealth Edison Company
Mr. Thomas
M. McMahon and Mr.
Delbert Haschemeyer, Assistant
Attorneys. General, Attorneys
for Environmental Protection
Agency
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr. Kissel):
On May
28, 1971, Commonwealth Edison
(“Edison”)
filed a
variance petition with the Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
seeking permission to continue violating Rule 2-2.11 of the
Rules
and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,
regarding particulate emissions
of various units
at three of
its coal-fired stations.
Edison sought the variance for
its
Fordam Station in Rockford
(which consists of six units), for
units
1,
2,
3 and 4 of Powerton Station in Pekin, and
for
units
1,
2 and
3 of the Will County Station near Romeoville.
Edison’s Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
(“ACERP”)
for bringing the above facilities into compliance was approved
by the Air Pollution Control Board
in 1968,
and
it provided
for
a long-term schedule
for bringing the various coal-fired units
into co~npliancewith the applicable particulate regulations.
(Ex.
7).
However,
this Board decided that such an ACERP pro-
gram for Edison’s Joliet facility was,in effect,
a variance
and hence demanded annual reapproval
(Environmental Protection
Agency
v.
Commonwealth Edison Company, PCB 70-4, February 17,
I~71).
Therefore, Edison filed
this petition concerning these~
three facilities.
Edison contends that its ACERP was not
a
variance under the Air Pollution Control Act and is,therefore,
still in effect, thereby nullifying the need
for reapproval
by this
Board.
But,
in the event such approval is necessary
due
to changes
in the original program,
the company asks that
the Board grant the affected facilities variances
in order to
permit their continued operation during the completion of the
abatement. program.
2
—
627
The
Fordam Station
The Fordam Station near downtown Rockford is scheduled to
be retired by October 31,
1971
in accordance with the approved
ACERP.
From the time of
the application for the variance until
the unit’s retirement, Edison has a firm contract
for off-peak
natural gas; except for those days when the average daily tempera-
ture
is 32°or less, Fordam will be operated at its maximum gas
burning capability.
All but one of the Fordam boilers
is
capable of operating with
gas, but the remaining~five
do not
have sufficient capability to Operate with maximum power solely
on natural
gas.
Only two
of the boilers are equipped with
mechanical dust collectors which will bring them into compliance
with the Illinois standard.
When using only coal the uncon-
trolled units do not meet the standard.
The Fordam Station
presently has
a capacity of 60 megawatts.
Edison contends that
this station’s availability
is essential in order to provide
zone protection to the downtown area of the City of Rockford.
This downtown area has
an aggregate peak demand of about
50
megawatts.
With Fordan~unavailable,
load reductions during
periods of peak demand might be necessary if there were outages
in the connection system.
The problems
in the connection
system are being alleviated,
so that retirement can be accom-
plished by October
31,
1971,
We
are satisfied that to deny the
variance
and thereby force
a premature shutdown at Fordam
would impose an unreasonable hardship upon Edison and upon the
downtown area of Rockford dependent upon this plant.
In grant-
ing the variance we will continue to insist that Edis.on main-
tain its plans to use natural gas whenever available.
On
appropriate conditions, the variance as
to the Fordam plant is
granted.
The Agency also asks that the Board impose
a penalty for
Edison’s failure to transfer
the multiclone presently installed
on boiler 10 to boiler
9.
The multiclone was installed on
boiler 10
in 1940; boiler
10
has
not been operated since
1961.
Boiler
9
is still in operation with 100
coal.
The precipi-
tator on boiler 10
is designed for
a negative operating pressure.
The only possible location on boiler
9 for
the precipitator would
be after the induced draft
fan,
a positive pressure
area.
The
Fordam plant superintendent stated that in this location the
precipitator would not perform its function competently.
We
believe that the different pressures on the units would signifi-
cantly mar any compatibility, thereby making transfer unfeasible.
A penalty is not in order on this account.
2
—
628
The
Powerton Station
The Powerton Station is located southwest of Pekin.
The
ACERP program approved in 1968 provided that the
four units at
Powerton would
all be eventually shut down;
the phaseout sched-
ule for
the units was
as follows:
Units
1 and
2, October,
1974;
unit
3,
October,
1976;
and unit
4, October,
1977.
Edison has
revised its phaseout schedule
so as to retire units
3 and
4
each one year earlier than originally scheduled,
The Powerton
facility consists of twelve pulverized coal—fired boilers,
with no control equipment,
served by three stacks all over
300 feet tall.
Powerton has available
364 megawatts generating
capability.
Edison, claims that it needs
the full generating capability
of the Powerton Station
in order
to provide power during necessary
maintenance
outages.
Even more critical
for the Powerton Station
is Edison’s need for
160 megawatts of generating capability to
provide first contingency protection
for the Crawford substation
serving downtown and mid-north Chicago on the
69 kv line,
Edison
defines first contingency protection
as that generating capability
necessary to tolerate the
loss of
(a)
two major generating units,
(b) one generating unit and one transmission line,
or
(c)
one
major transmission
line.
Edison has established
a long—range
program intended to eliminate
its dependence upon the Powerton
facility
for first contingency protection.
That program contem-
plates
converting the outdated 69 kv transmission system to 138 kv.
The first step in this changeover
is to convert the Humboldt Park
transmission substation to 138 kv;
then it will be possible to
add support to
the Crawford Station by changing it over to
Edison’s
345 kv grid system.
The Humboldt Park conversion
will
not be completed until mid-1974, with September,
1974
as the
so-called
“date of reliability”.
As of that date then, Edison
intends to retire Powerton
1 and
2,
the oldest units.
Powerton
3 and
4,
it estimates, will be necessary into 1975
in order to
maintain system reserve at the then-projected 13.3,
The
Agency
recommended
that
the
petition
as
to
Powerton
be
granted
until
June
1,
1972,
subject
to
several
conditions.
It asked that Powerton not be allowed
to operate above
160 mega-
watts
and that no such power generated leave Illinois.
The
Agency also asked that Edison begin
a program of design and con-
struction
for sulfur dioxide removal at the Powerton unit
5 which
is now under construction.
The Agency also. sought the imposition
of
a penalty.
2
629
Neither
the
testimony
at
the
several
days
of
hearings
nor
the Agency’s brief ever established any basis
for the imposition
of
a
penalty.
Edison
has
maintained
a
commitment
to
its
1968
ACERP and,
in fact, has improved upon
it.
The Board has con-
sistently held that
if
a company is following the schedule
detailed
in
a proposed ACERP, there is
a shield against
the
imposition of
a penalty,
and no penalty shall be imposed.
The Board also sustains
the Hearing Officer’s ruling that the
subject
of Powerton
5 and possible
502 removal was beyond the
scope of
this hearing.
Powerton
5
is not presently on
line
and thus
is
in no need of
a variation from the existing regula-
tions.
The testimony of the Pekin and Peoria residents, however,
established
the effect of the heavy uncontrolled emissions from
Powerton.
Billy Keen
of’ Pekin complained that the smoke would
sometimes
blot
the
sun
out
and
that
ash
often
covers
his
yard
and house.
Ray Riek described the grayish brown smoke emanating
from the plant.
The
Tazewell County Director of Environmental
Health indicated
that
his
department
had
received
numerous
com-
plaints regarding emissions from Powerton.
William L.
Rutherford
described the plume from Powerton as extending several miles
from
the
plant.
The
hardship
imposed
upon
the
Pekin
residents
by
such
emissions
is
considerable.
During
the
course
of
the
hearing,
Edison
moved
to
significantly
lessen
the
present
and
projected
emissions
from
Powerton
by
amending
its
variance
so
a~ to
provide
for
decreased
use
of
the
facility.
With
two
exceptions,
Edison
indicated,
Powerton
will
be
the
last
facility
on
its
system
to
be
committed,
and
the
first
to
be
taken
off
after
the
daily
peak
period
has
passed.
When
it
is
committed,
this
will
be
done
only
with
sufficient
lead
time
to
ensure
availability
for
the
peak
daily
period.
The
two
exceptions
are
as
follows:
When
the
system
load
is
expected
to
equal
or
exceed
70
or
80
of
the
estimated
yearly
peak
load,
Powerton
must
generate
at
least
160
megawatts
as
first
contingency
protection
to
Crawford;
during
ice
formation
conditions,
Powerton
must
be
operated
at
approximately
240
megawatts
to
prevent
ice
buildup
on
the
transmission
lines.
It
is
expected
that
these
operating
con-
ditions should reduce operating time at P.owerton by two-thirds,
thus bringing emissions down to one-third of present levels.
Under the operating conditions which Edison has applied
to the Powerton facility, the hardship to the residents will be
minimized.
If the Board were
to deny the variance,
it would be
2— 630
placing
a large
area of downtown Chicago in imminent jeopardy of
losing its power
source.
In essence,
Powerton will
not be
operated except under emergency conditions.
The variance
shall be granted for all units until October
15,
1972,
subject
to extension until October
31,
1974.
This variance
is being granted on the basis
of the hardship Edison alleges con-
cerning the changeover on
the
69
kv and 345 kv transmission
lines,
It is not clear on the record that the two changeovers will be
completed by October
31,
1974, with the need for Powerton thereby
ceasing as of that date,
We hope that
in its subsequent variance
petition Edison can clarify this question for the Board,
The
Will County Station
For the Will County Station, Edison seeks
a variance
for
unit
1 until December
31,
1971;
for unit
2 until March
1,
1973;
and
for unit
3 until June
1,
1973.
On those respective dates,
unit
1 will have particulate and sulfur dioxide controls,
and
units
2 and
3 particulate controls.
These units have
a capacity
of 609 megawatts.
All three units presently have precipitators
which, prior to
1968, did not achieve their design efficiency.
Edison’s
1968 ACERP
for Will County committed it to
a program
of interim improvement schedules
to be completed in 1969 and
costing $500,000.
The interim improvements were completed
according
to schedule.
Edison also committed itself
to
a long-
range improvement program intended to bring Will County into
compliance
as follows:
Unit
1,
spring,
1972; unit
2,
fall,
1972;
and unit
3,
spring,
1973.
The program
for unit
1 is presently
ahead of schedule,
that for unit
2,
four months behind.
As regards unit
1,
Edison is presently completing the
installation of
a Babcock
and Wilcox sulfur removal system with
a Venturi scrubber designed for particulate collection effi-
ciency of 98.
The sulfur removal system is designed to limit
SO2 emissions while burning 3,5
sulfur coal
to those emissions
experienced while burning
.75
sulfur coal,
Total installation
cost for unit
1
is over
$7 million.
The precipitator
to be
installed on unit
2 will be in series with
the existing pre-
cipitator and
is designed to achieve
a 99
collection effi-
ciency.
Unit
2 installation cost
is about
$4 million,
On
unit
3,
Edison will install an additional precipitator,
again
in series,
to achieve
a collection efficiency of 99.
The
estimated cost
is
$7.8 million,
Both units
2 and
3 will burn
low sulfur coal,
The Agency recommended that
the petition be granted until
June
1,
1972.
The Agency asked that any grant be subject to
the condition that all units be operated at
a capability factor
2
—
631
greater than 25
only when necessary to maintain a daily pro-
jected actual reserve of 10.
They also asked that Edison
begin
a program of sulfur dioxide control for units
2,
3 and
4
at Will County.
Several citizens did testify regarding emissions
from Will County, but we do
not find their testimony conclusive
that air pollution results from sulfur dioxide emissions from
this facility.
In the absence of such proof,
this Board
is con-
strained from holding that sulfur dioxide emission abatement
equipment must be installed.
(See Environmental Protection
Agency v.
City of Springfield,
supra, and Illinois Power
v,
Environmental Protection Agency, supra).
The Agency’s suggested limited operation of Will County
would place
the facility on an intermittent operation schedule.
At present Will County represents about 10
of Edison’s system
capability.
This Board realizes that Edison’s reserve capacity
has been severely strained over the past several years as
a
result of extended
lag times before Dresden III and
the Quad-
Cities facilities were able to come on—stream,
On
the evidence
in the record,
it
is clear that this tight reserve condition
will persist at least for
the next yearS
The Board realizes
that heavy dose of emissions from the Will County facility has
a strong adverse effect on the ‘area around
the plant.
None-
theless,
this hardship must be balanced by the great need
for
the Will County facility in the Edison system.
Further,
a posi-
tive control program is proceeding at Will County which, within
a short space of
time, will bring the facility into compliance.
With its
new installations
on units
2 and
3, Edison
iiatends to
burn
low sulfur coal;
by December 31,
1971,
it will control
sulfur emissions from unit
I.
In addition,
any intermittent
operation of the facility may inflict serious metallurgical
damage
to the Will County units.
In order that the Board may
reexamine the variance in the light of changing reserve conditions,
the variance, except
for Will County
1,
shall be grantedfor
a
period of one year subject
to the appropriate conditions.
Though the Agency has not sought
a penalty
for the delay
in the implementation of the ACERP for Will County,
we
feel
that this Board should face that question.
The original date
given by Edison in the 1968 ACERP
for compliance on unit
2 was
fall,
1972.
That compliance date has now been delayed until
March
1,
1973;
this was occasioned by Edison’s taking several
months
out of
the implementation schedule in early
1971
to
study whether
a wet scrubber system could be used on unit
2 as
a means
of controlling particulate emission instead of the
precipitator.
Due
to cost, weight, water treatment,
and waste
2—632
disposal problems with
the wet scrubber, Edison elected to
proceed with the precipitator
as originally planned.
Not
until this hearing did Edison notify the Agency or the Board
that it was undertaking a scrubber feasibility study which
would delay the implementation of the ACERP,
This
is
a
four
month delay in an implementation plan spread over several years.
The precipitator which Edison intends to install obtains
99
particulate collection efficiency rather than the
98
under
the original ACERP.
The Board has previously stated its disin-
clination to impose money penalties on anyone who in good
faith adhered to an approved program.
(Environmental Protection
Agency
v.
Commonwealth Edison Company,
PCB
70-4, and Moody
v.
Flintkote
Company,
PCB 70-36,
71-67).
Edison’s overall program
for these three units shows substantial compliance with the
ACERP dates, with advancement of the date on
some of the units,
including Will County
1.
This case is not so serious
as Illinois Power Company
v.
EPA, PCB 71-198
(September 30,
1971)
,
where
the company had
~~iarted
from its ACERP by substantially increasing rather than
decreasing
its use of certain ill—controlled boilers,
But
here too there was an unapproved deviation from the promised
schedule, which exposes the neighbors of the Will County plant
to an additional
four months of pollution.
It may well be
that
if Edison had asked permission
to risk
a few months’
delay
in order to test an experimental
scrubber, the delay would have
been approved.
But it is important that such permission be
requested rather than that
a company unilaterally decide whether
or not
the experiment
is in the public interest.
The decision
whether or not the delay is justified
is for the Board and not
for the company to make,
For the above reasons, we
do not
believe that
a penalty should be imposed
for the delay occa-
sioned on the Will County units.
The
One-Year ACERP Issue
In the instant case, Edison asks that the Board disaffirm
its holding in EPA v.
Commonwealth Edison,
PCB
70-4,
that the Air
Contaminant Emission Reduction Program was
not
a variance under
the Air Pollution Control Act and
is,
therefore, not subject to
automatic cancellation
one year after
it has been granted,
Edison contends that
the ACERP program was enacted under Section
5
of the prior Act and not under Section
11.
But,
as this Board
reaffirmed most recently:
an ACERP is
a variance whose duration
is explicitly limited to one year by statute,
The
ACERP authorizes emissions in excess
of regulation
limits,
and on the ground that immediate compliance
2
—
633
would cause unreasonable hardship; this
is the
very essence of
a variance.
.
.
.
any doubt on
this issue
is resolved by the specific statutory
provision that all variance requirements apply to
ACERPS.
This
does
not mean all programs must be
completed in one year.
Renewals
are authorized
on adequate proof.
But
a prudent reexamination
of such dispensations
is rightly required by
statute.”
(Illinois Power Co.
v.
EPA,
PCB 71—193,
195—8)
One-Year
Limitation on Variances
Also, Edison contends that under
the present Act
the Board
can grant variances
for more
than
one year.
Section
36(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act states:
“Any variance granted pursuant to the provisions
of this section shall be granted
for such period
of time,
not exceeding one
year,
as shall be
specified by the Board
,
.
.
(Emphasis supplied)
But Edison contends that the word
“section” in
36(b)
limits
the Board to that type of case
set forth under Section 36(a).
Thus,
a Section
36 variance would
be one where the
“hardship complained
of consists solely of the need
for
a reasonable delay’in which
to correct
a violation”;
a Section
35 variance would be one neces-
sary to avoid an “arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship”.
It is clear
that
the Act did not intend
to establish two different variances,
each requiring different proof.
It is also clear that the word
“section” refers to the entire variance section,
or Title
IX of
the Act,
and we
so hold.
In addition, Section
38 provides
in part:
“All the provisions of
this Title shall apply
to petitions
for extensions of existing variances
and to proposed contaminant reduction programs de-
signed to secure delayed compliance with
the Act or
with Board regulations.”
This reference to
“all provisions of
this Title
.
.
.
refers
to
Title
IX variances, which Title contains Section
36(b)
within its
one—year limitation.
The instant case indeed concerns
an extension
of
a proposed contaminant reduction proqram and thus, h~
r~F~r~nr~
2
—
634
comes under the one-year limitation,
Finally,
Section
36(a)
of
the Act directs that
the Board in granting
a variance
“may impose
such conditions as the policies of
the Act may require”.
In this
case, we
find that the policies of the Act require an annual review
of the variance
and the progress toward compliance.
As Edison
has often reminded the Board,
the power industry is one that is
subject to daily,even hourly,
changes.
Faced with such
a volatile
situation, we have no choice but to conduct an annual review.
In
the hypothetical
futute,
it
is entirely possible that Powerton
3
and
4 can yet be retired earlier than Edison now projects,
or that
a further extension may be necessary at Will County
3 in order to
provide
for the additional installation of
a sulfur dioxide removal
unit.
Thus,
the grant of the variance shall be for one year, with
appropriate extensions,
We would also remind Edison,
in their
expressed concern over the rñultiplicity of hearings which may be
called for,
that in
a variance case hearings need not be scheduled
if either the Board in its discretion does not conclude that one
is advisable
or if the Agency or other person does not object to
the grant of the variance.
(Section
37).
Of course,
once com-
pliance
is attained, no further hearings will be necessary.
The above constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
Upon examination of the record, Commonwealth Edison is here-
by granted
a variance
to emit particulate matter
in excess of regu-
lation limits
as follows:
1.
For the Fordam Station until October
31,
1971,
provided
that:
(a)
Edison shall operate this facility
so
as
to make maximum use of gas.
Edison may use
coal
to avoid
a voltage reduction in the Rockford
area when power
is unavailable
for purchase from
another facility.
Edison may use
coal
if neces-
sary to keep these units fired up
so that they
can be used as ready reserves.
(b)
Edison shall submit a report by November
15,
1971,
to the Agency stating for the month of
October
the amounts of electricity produced and coal
burnt at Fordam.
2
—
635
2,
For unit
1 at
the Will County Station until December
31,
1971.
3.
For
unit
2 at the Will County Station until October
15,
1972,
subject to extension
to March
1,
1973.
4.
For unit
3 at the Will County Station until October
15,
1972,
subject to extension
to June
1,
1973.
5,
At the Powerton Station,
for units
1,
2,
3 and
4
to
October
15,
1972, subject
to extension until October
31,
1974,
provided that:
(a)
Powerton shall be
the
last units on the
Edison system committed to service and the first
taken off after the daily peak period has passed.
Powerton shall be committed only with sufficient
lead time
to ensure the unit’s availability
for the
daily peak period.
When Powerton capacity is re-
quired to meet tth predicted daily peak load plus
the operating reserve,
the station will be initially
loaded to approximately 50
capacity.
Before the
remaining capability
of the Powerton units will
be
utilized, all other units on the Edison system
--
including the fast-start peaking units
--
will be
brought to full operating
load,
exclusive of emer-
gency capability.
(b)
The restrictions set forth :~nparagraph
5(a)
above shall not
apply
if
weather
conditions which
may cause icing on the transmission lines exist or
if
Edison’s
acted daily peak load equals or exceeds
70
of the projected annual peak
load,
(c)
In the absence of such conditions
as
described in paragraph 5(b)
of
this order,
Powerton
shall not be operated above
160 megawatt capacity.
6.
Commonwealth Edison shall make maximum use of avail-
able gas
to minimize the necessity
for burning coal in units not
meeting standards when coal is used,
7.
All existing emission control equipment shall be
maintained and fully utilized,
2
—
636
The company shall within
35 days after receipt of this
order post with the Agency a personal bond or other security
in
the amount of
$500,000 in
a form satisfactory to the Agency,
which sum shall be forfeited
to the
State of Illinois in the event
that
the conditions
of this order
are not complied with
or the
facilities in question are operated after expiration of these
variances
in violation of regulation limits.
The Agency shall
remit
such portions
of the bond as
it deems suitable upon the
comoletion of
the installation of
the control unit
on
Will County
2.
9.
The company shall
file quarterly reports, commencing
December
31,
1971, with the Agency,detailing its progress toward
completion of
its program.
Such reports shall also detail Edison’s
orojected annual peak
load, ~ts daily projected peak
load, and
the Powerton Station generation for each day
in each month com-
pared to the power generation for the
same
day in
the
same month
in the previous
two years, prepared much
in the manner as Common-
wealth Edison
Ex,
No.
53.
10.
Failure to adhere
to the program as presented or to
the conditions
of this order shall be grounds for revocation of
this
variance.
11.
The company shall apply
for any desired extensions
of these variances
to complete programs approved
in this variance
not later than
90
days before
the expiration of these variances,
I,
Regina
E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the Board adopted the
above Opinion and Order
on the
14
day of October,
1971.
2
—
637
