ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

21,

1971

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC

SERVICE COMPANY

)

 PCB 71-261

PCB 71—262

v.

)

 PCB 71—263

)

 PCB 71—264

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

THOMAS L. COCHRAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE

COMPANY

DELBERT

 D. HASCHMEYER, ATTORNEY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Kissel):

On September

3,

 1971,

 the Central Illinois Public Service

Company

 (CIPCo)

 filed

 a petition for variance with

 the Board for

four of its generating stations

 Coffeen

 (PCB 71-261), Hutson-

yule

 (PCB 71-262), Meredosia

 (PCB 71-263),

 and Grand Tower

(PCB

 71-264)

 from

the applicable particulate regulations.

 Each

generating station was under

 a program to install emission control

equipment as detailed later in this opinion.

 CIPC0 had been granted

an ACERP by our predecessor Board,

 the Air Pollution Control Board,

but sought this variance because of our previous decision in the

Commonwealth Edison case which held that ACERPs were indeed

variances and could only be granted for

 a period of one year.

See

Commonwealth Edison Company

v.

 EPA,

 PCB 70-4, February 17,

 1971.

The Environmental Protection Agency filed separate recommendations

for each of the stations generally advising that

the

variances

should be granted with exceptions noted later in this opinion.

Hearings were held

 in October and November of 1971 before Arthur

Rosenblum, Hearing Officer.

Case 71-261 involves the CIPC0 Coffeen Power station which

is located three miles south of the city of Coffeen,

 Illinois in

Montgomery County.

 It is surrounded mostly by

 farm lands.

Presently,

 the Coffeen station has one coal fired unit in operation

(Coffeen Unit

 #1) which has an operating capacity of 365 MWE.

 This

Unit #1 presently emits its off gases through

 a 350—foot chimney,

and

is presently equipped with

 a mechanical dust collector with an

efficiency of

 34.5.

3—27~

The key unit in CIPCo’s future plans is one presently under

construction at the Coffeen station

 Coffeen Unit

#2.

 The sched~-

uled completion date for this unit is March of

 1972.

 It will have

an operating capacity of

 600 MWE,

 and will be equipped with

an

electrostatic precipitator with

 a collection efficiency of 99.

A new 500—foot stack is being built at the Coffeen station and the

off gases of both units will be emitted through the new,

 larger

stack.

 The 350-foot Unit

 #1 stack, now being used, will,

 then,

be dismantled.

Coffeen Unit #2 will from the inception of its operation comply

with

 the existing regulations concerning particulate emissions,

according to CIPC0,

 and therefore

 no variance is being sought for

the operation of that unit.

 Because of its size, however, bring-

ing it in line in March of

 1972 will have an effect on the other

“dirtier” CIPC0 units,

 as will be discussed later in this opinion.

CIPCo does

 say, however,

 that Coffeen Unit #2 will need about six

months time of operation before the other units

 in the line can

be taken off.

Coffeen Unit

 #1, on the other hand,

 is presently violating

the particulate regulations.

 The present stack emission of Coffeen

Unit

#1,

 calculated by CIPCo is

 4.0 pounds per hour per million BTU,

and the applicable regulations only permit 0.8 pounds

an

 hrnr per

million BTU.

 The Agency calculated Coffeen Unit #1 emits 12,000

tons of particulates per year into the atmosphere.

 In addition,

the emissions from the Coffeen Unit #1 are causing

 a problem with

the

 local residents.

 Several of Coffeen’s neighbors testified at

the hearing and described the dust from the unit which affects their

lives.

 To the neighbors,the particulate emissions represented an

almost unbearable source of dust so that windows in homes can’t be

kept open,

 air conditioners had to be bought, yards could not be

used

for

barbecuing,

furniture

gets

dirtier

faster

and

the

paint

cars

comes

off.

Agency

witness

who

did

some

ambient

air

sampling

testified

being

near

the

plant

and

feeling

 the dust get

his

eyes.

There

question,

 from the uncontradicted evidence

the

record,

that

the

particulate

emissions

are

interfering

 with

the

life

and

property

the

people

near

the

plant.

CIPC0

did

present

program for controlling the particulate emissions from

Coffeen

Unit

—

the

installation

electrostatic

precipitator

with

 a collection efficiency of 99.

 When installed,

 the precipi-

tator will bring Coffeen Unit #1 into compliance with

 the existing

particulate emission regulations.

 The Agency did not disagree with

this,

 but the Agency did suggest that the time schedule for instal-

lation of the precipitator could be accelerated.

 CIPC0’s schedule

on Unit #1 calls

 for receipt of the precipitator in July of

 1972,

but not actually installing it until

 1973.

 (The actual date on

which Coffeen Unit #1 will have the precipitator installed and

operating is June

9,

 1973,

 and the unit will be shut down on March

4,

8— 27*

1973,

 to begin the tie-in of the precipitator to Unit #1.

 Unit

#1 will not be operated between March

 4 and June

9,

 1973.

See

CIPCo’s petition for variance, paragraph 5).

 In the hearing

the Agency suggested that Unit #1 be shut down some time in the

fall of 1972

 (after Coffeen Unit #2 is reliably operational)

and

complete the installation before the time suggested by CIPC0.

CIPCo’s witnesses agreed that from a technical standpoint the

Agency’s suggestion on timing of installation could be done, but

CIPCo argues that from a system reliability standpoint Coffeen

 Unit #1 cannot be shut down until

 1973.

 CIPC0 argues that it

has a scheduled planned maintenance program which requires Coffeen

Unit

#1

 to be in operation until March 1973 so that certain other

units

 in their system can operate efficiently and give reliable

electric service to the CIPC0 customers when Coffeen Unit

#1

is taken down for installation of the precipitator.

 In addition,

CIPC0 is

 a member of the Illinois-Missouri Power Pool, which

also includes Illinois Power Company and Union Electric Company

(Missouri).

 The membersof this Pool have scheduled staggered

shutdowns~ofmajor turbine generators of the respective companies

so that several

 large units are not out of service for planned

maintenance at any one time.

 CIPC0 says that if the shutdown of

Coffeen Unit #1 were required before March of 1973,

 this “would

probably postpone the maintenance plans

 for other units thus

affecting each of the three companies” and “would place all three

companies in the vulnerable position of not having performed

planned maintenance as scheduled resulting in decreased reliability”.

According to CIPC0, a hardship to CIPC0’s customers could result.

While we feel that control equipment should be put on as early

as possible, we agree with CIPCo’s position in this case.

The

need for reliable electric power is

 an important consideration and

outweighs the few months

 (five at most)

 during which Coffeen

Unit #1 would not emit excessive amounts of particulate matter.

Five months is

 a short time, particularly because they are late

fall and winter months when the neighbors would be less likely

to use the out-of-doors which has been taken from them by CIPCo

in the past.

 CIPC0, then, will be granted a variance to operate

Coffeen Unit #1 for one year in violation of the applicable par-

ticulate standards with the understanding that its program is to

shut down Coffeen Unit #1 on March

 9, l973,for the installation

of an electrostatic precipitator and connection of the new 500-foot

stack.

In its recommendation filed in this case,

 the Agency recom-

mended granting of the variance, but only on the condition that

within ten months from the granting of the order of the Board,

CIPCo develop a sulfur dioxide

 (SO2)

 emission program for Coffeen

Units #1 and #2, which will”significantly reduce the sulfur dioxide

emissions

 or before June

 1, 1974”.

 See paragraph 10(b)

 of the

3— 27*

Agency recommendation.

 To substantiate the need for SO2 reduction,

the Agency introduced testimony of many neighbors who identified

a sulfur odor in the area, which, the Agency said, was indicative

of an SO2 problem.

 In addition,

 the Agency also mathematically

calculated the ground level concentrations of SO2 and found

 tha:.

if the mixing height of the stack was 5000

 feet,

 the ground level

concentration of SO2 between 5.8 miles and 6.8 miles from the

stack would be approximately 641

 mg/rn3

 (about

 .25 ppm).

 If the

mixing height were lOCO feet,

 rather than 5000 feet, the cancer-

tration of SO2 would vary between 400-3861 mmg/n3

 (.17 ppm to

1.5 ppm)

 in an area between 2.3 and 50 miles from the plant.

If

the model were

 to be believed, concentrations near 1.5 ppm could

pose a serious health problem, but as pointed out by a CIPC0

witness, one of the assumptions made by the Agency in its calcu-

lations was wrong, namely,

 the Agency assumed that the 350—foot

stack would still be used for the emission of off gases from Coffeen

Unit

#1.

 In fact, CIPC0 plans

 to discontinue use of that stack

and emit the off gases from both Coffeen Units

 #1 and #2 through

a new 500-foot stack.

 CIPCo’s witness testified that this would

make

effective stack height greater, first, because the stack

height itself will be higher and, second, because the greater

heat flow through the one stack

 (rather

 tha’i two stacks) would cause

the emissions to go higher in

 the air.

 The Agency calculations

also assumed

 (when the high SO2 concentrations occurred)

 that the

emissions from the Coffeen Units would not break an emission layer

 at 1000 feet.

 According to CIPC0, if both units are vented through

the one 500-foot stack, any inversion at 1000 feet will be broken

by the stack of off gas.

 CIPCo calculated that the ground concen-

trations on a one—hour

 basis would be

 .17 ppm SO2 which calcula-

tion is a factor of ten less than the Agency calculation.

The Board is faced with deciding between two mathematical

calculations, which differ by a factor of

 ten.

 The Agency calcula-

tions were not based on the proper assumptions,

 and, therefore,

if

we were to accept one set of calculations

 or the

other,

would

accept that of CIPC0.

 However, we do not feel that it is appro-

priate for the Board to consider the question of SO2 reduction in

this case for basically two reasons.

 First,

 the Board

 is presently

considering the adopti.on of statewide regulations on SO2 reduction,

and second,

 the Agency only presented half a case here.

As

 to the

second point, we have previously held that where an SO2 problem

was identified and control equipment was generally shown to be

available and adaptable, we would order a boiler operator to install

such equipment.

 See EPA v. City of Springfield, PCB 70—9, May 12,

197

However,

 that case was different from this case because that case

was an enforcement case brought by the Agency to get SO2 control

 equipment installed and because

 in that case the Agency demonstrated

3— 2*0

at least on

 a prima

 facie basis

 that control equipment could be

installed.

 The Agency here has demonstrated

 a possible problem,

but has

 not demonstrated even on

 a prima

 facie basis that control

equipment can be installed.

 In this

 case we

 feel,

 therefore, that

CIPC0 need not submit a plan

 for controlling SO2 emissions.

 It may

be, however,

 that in other cases where

 a variance is shown,that

we will require

 the emitter or discharger to come forward with

plans

 to control the source of pollution, even where the Agency

has offered us proof that such equipment is available.

 There-

fore, we will not require

 that CIPC0 study

 the ways of reducing

SO2 emissions

 from its Coffeen plant at this time.

 This does

not preclude, however,

 the Agency’s bringing an enforcement case

against CIPC0 and proving at

 that time that control equipment is

available and that the SO2 problem is

 a real

 one.

 Nor does our

decision prevent the Board from adopting regulations in the near

future which would require CIPC0 to install SO2 control equipment

on the Coffeen units.

Case #71-262 involves

 the Hutsonville Power station, which

is located along the Wabash River

 in Crawford County,

 Illinois,

two miles north of the City of Hutsonville.

 Hutsonville has

four

turbine

generating

units

served

six

coal-fired

boilers

(Boilers

1-4

serve

Units

and

#2,

 Boiler

serves

Unit

#3,

and

Boiler

serves

Unit

#4).

CIPCo’s

petition

for

variance

the

Hutsonville

Power

station

only

involves

Units

and

#2.

Unit

 #3 already has an electrostatic precipitator installed with

a tested efficiency of 99

 (CIPC0 has not yet operated this unit

on other

 than

 a test basis).

 Unit

 #4 was scheduled

 to be shut

down on October

3,

 1971 to have

 an electrostatic precipitator

installed,

 and the unit was to be placed back in service on

November

20,

 1971.

CIPC0 does

 not intend to install any control equipment on

Units

 #1 and #3.

 What CIPCo requests is that a variance from the

particulate regulations be granted to CIPC0

 for Units

#1

and

#2,

so that those untis will be allowed

 to operate on

a

 “hot standby”

basis until September 30,

 1972, and then operate on “cold standby”

until January

1,

 1980.

 “Hot standby” means

 the boilers are main-

tained near normal operating pressure and can be fired up to be

able to produce steam in

 a minimal time.

 Generally,

 the furnace

is fired 15-30 minutes every

 4 to

 6 hours

 to keep

 the pressure up.

“Cold standby” means

 that no pressure

 is maintained in the boiler

and

 to operate it

a

 fire would have

 to be placed in the boiler.

However,

 in order to assure that the unit can be operable,

 a fire

must beplaced

 in the boiler about every three months

 for a 4-6

hour period.

The reasons~given by CIPC0

 for needing Units

 #1 and #2 on

a

hot standby basis

 is to allow

 for time for testing the new Coffeen

Unit

 #2, which

 is scheduled

 to go on line in March,

 1972.

 CIPCo

says

 that until there

is

 an adequate shakedown of Coffeen Unit #2

(about six months),

 it will

 not be

 a reliable enough unit and

3—281

—6—

therefore the Hutsonville Units #1 and

 #2 will provide the backup.

While the Agency recommended that.Hutsonville Units

 #1 and *2

be placed on

 “cold standby” when Coffeen Unit #2 comes on line,

we

 feel that CIPC0’s position has merit.

 The need for reliable

electrical service during the summer demands of 1972 are impor-

tant and there was no testimony that the present operation of

Hutsonville Units

 #1 and

#2

 (presently on

 “hot standby”)

is

causing any problem with

 the neighbors.

In

 fact, the emissions

should be much lessened from the whole plant because the two

larger units at Hutsonville now are supposed to have operating

electrostatic precipitators

 to reduce the

 off gas emissions.

We

will,

 therefore, allow the Hutsônville Units #1 and #2 to operate

on

 a “hot standby” basis until September

30,

 1972.

The second part of the petition

 for variance regarding the

Hutsonville units

 is a more difficult question.

 CIPCo asks

 that

Hutsonville Units

 #1 and #2 be allowed to operate on

 “cold standby”

until January

1,

 1980.

 During this time,

 (from September

30,

1970

to January

1,

 1980)

 it may very well be

 that Units

 #1 and

 #2 will

never be operated excepf at the three—month intervals, but the

 likelihood is that the units will be operated at some time.

In

either case, however, this Board has not favored programs which

stretch

 far into

 the future and which do not contain pollution

control programs.

 See Mt.

 Carmel Public Utility

v.

 EPA,

PCB

 71-15,

PCB 7l-l5R, decided April

 14, l97land November

11,

 1971.

 If Units

#1 and #2 are valuable

 to CIPC0 and if they are to be opez~at~4at

any time during the next eight years,

it

 is worth the price now

to install the necessary control equipment.

 We can understand

that CIPC0 needs the units on

 “cold standby”

for

 a short time,

until January

1,

 1974, but after

 that,

 if CIPC0 wants to use the

units,

 it can only do so if it complies with the Act and the

applicable regulations.

 We will, therefore, approve the use of

Units #1 and #2 on a “cold Standby” basis after September

30,

 1972,

as long as it is on

 a long term program to use those units after

January

1,

 1974 only

 if their emissions comply with

 the Act and

the applicable regulations.

Case 71-263 involves the Meredosia Power Generating Station

which

 is located along the Illinois River about one mile south

of Meredosia, Illinois

 in Morgan County.

 Meredosia plant has three

 turbine power generating units served by

 five boilers

 (Boiler 1-4

serve Units

#1

and

 #2 and are connected

 in such

 a way so

 as to

permit any boiler to supply steam to etther of the

 two units, and

Boiler

 5 serves Unit #3).

 CIPCo’s petition for variance regarding

the Meredosia Station only involves Boilers #3 and

 4 which serve

Units #1 and

#2.

 ~An electrostatic precipitator has already been

installed on Unit

 #3 and by now already is operating.

 Boilers

#3

3— 282

and

#4

 are Dresently having an electrostatic precipitator installed

beginning on October

24,

 1971, and completion of the precipitator

was scheduled for November

20,

 1971.

Boilers

#1

and

#2

 are the subject of the variance petition

here.

 CIPCo’s

 plan calls

 for shutting down

 the boilers beginning

on March

26,

 1972, with

 the boilers scheduled to have construction

of

 the precipitators completed on April

22,

 1972.

 Presently

Boilers

 #1 and

 #2 each

 vent through

 a separate stack

 and emit approxi-

mately

 6.66 pounds per million BTU, which

is

 in excess of the present

state standard of

 0.8 pounds per million BTU.

 The Agency recom-

mended granting of

 the variance

 for the time specified by CIPC0.

We

 -ac~ree.

 There

is

 no evidence

 that CIPCo can shut down Boilers

#1 and

 #2 now to complete

 the installation

 sooner.

 While

the

Agency did receive some complaints

 about

 the emissions,

 no one

appeared to testify that the schedule on Boilers

 #1 and

 #2 should

be moved up.

 We think that

 the schedule

 for completion of instal-

lation

is

 a reasonable one,

 and hereby grant the variance as re-

quested by CI?Co for

 the Meredosia Power Station.

Case 71-264 involves the Grand Tower Power Station which is

located on

 the Mississippi River approximately three miles north

of the City of Grand Tower in Jackson County,

 Illinois.

The

Grand Tower Station has four turbine generator units which are

served by nine coal-fired boilers

 (Boilers

 1-6 provide steam for

Units

 #1 and

 #2, and each boiler can produce steam

 for either unit,

Boilers

 7 and

 8 provide steam

 for Unit

#3,

 and Boiler

 #9 provides

steam for Unit #4).

 Units

 #3 and

#4

 are presently operating with

installed electrostatic precipitators with collection efficiencies

in the range of 95.6

 to 98.7.

 Only Units

 #1 and #2,

 each with

a generating capacity of

 25 MWE,

 are the subject of the petition

for variance.

 The Units

#1

and

 #2 are presently on “cold standby”

and CIPCo’s request for variance

 asks that we allow these units

to

remain on cold standby until September 1972, when Coffeen Unit

#2 will be able

 to provide reliable electric service.

 After that

date CIPC0 intends to retire the units.

 The Agency recommends

granting of the variance,

 but suggests that the Board require the

units to be physically dismantled at that time.

While we aqree with

 the Agency

 that

 the variance should be

granted,

 we do not

 agree that we should require as

 a condition of

the variance that the units be physically dismantled.

 Without a

variance, CIPCo cannot operate the units

 on any basis,

 “cold

standby” or otherwise, without control equipment.

 Since these

units would be the only

 “non-controlled” emission sources on the

site,

 it would be relatively easy

 to know

 if and when the units

3- 283

are operated.

 We think that CIPCo has demonstrated

 a need

 for the

“standby” of

 these units until September

30,

 1972.

 The “standby”

status will allow CIPC0

 some flexibility

 if Coffeen

 #2 doesn’t

operate

 to specifications and,therefore, will allow CIPCo

 to pro-

vide reliable electric service

 to its customers.

 Here,

as

 in two

of the three other cases,

 no one testified as

 to any effect of

the particulate emissions;

 rather the people interviewed by the

Agency had no objection

 to .the granting of

 the variance.

We will, however,

 require that CIPC0 report to

 thEa Bottd~

and the Agency within ten d~s after any operation of

 the two

units.

 This includes the testing of the units as well.

 If the

units are fired other than

 for testing,

 CIPCo will have

 to state

in the written report to

 the Board and Agency

 the reasons

for

the use of the units.

As

 a general condition

 to the granting

 of. th~variances,

the

Board will require that CIPCo post

 a bOnd

 to insure performance

of the acts detailed

 in~the granted program.

 The Agency recom-

mended that

 a bond be required,

 and we believe that under

 the Act

a bond is rnar~datorybecause the hardship complained of consists

 “solely of the need for

 a reasonable delay in which to correct

a

violation of the Act or of

 the Board regulations’.

 Section

 36(a)

of the Act.

In addition to the bond,

 the Board will also require,

as

it

has in other cases of this

 type, quarterly reports from CIPCo

which must detail how CIPC0 is progressing on each of

 the control

facilities.

 See Illinois Power v.

 EPA, PCB 71-193,

and

 PCB 71-195-8,

decided September

30,

 1971.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings

 of fact and

conclusions

 of law.

ORDER

Upon examination of

 the record,

 CIPCo

 is hereby. granted

a

variance for

 a period of one year from this date

 to emit particu-

late matter in excess

 of regulation limits as follows and so long

as

 the program outlined below is complied with:

1.

 (PCB 71-261)

 From Unit #1 at the Coffeen

Station until March

9,

 1973.

3— 284

2.

 (PCB 71—262)

 From Units #1 and #2,

 at the Hutson—

ville

Station,

until

January

1974,

provided

that:

a.

 Units *1 and *2 shall be

“hot

standby”

as defined in the Board’s opinion only

until

September

30,

1972;

and

After

September

30,

1972,

Units

and

shall be placed

“cold

standby”

de-

fined in the opinion,

 only until January

1,

1974.

3.

 (PCB 71-263)

 From Boilers

 #1 and #2,

 at the

Meredosia

Station,

until

March

26,

1972.

4.

 (PCB 71-264)

 From Units

#1

 and #2, at the

Grand

Tower

Station,

until

September

30,

1972,

provided

that

during

this

period

the

Units

shall

only

operated

“cold

standby”

basis

defined.

All

condition

that

 the following are met:

5.

 All existing emission control equipment shall

be maintained

 and fully utilized.

CIPCo

shall

within

thirty-five

(35)

days

after

receipt of this order post with the Agency

a

bond

other

security

the

amount

$500,000

form

satisfactory

the

Agency,

which

sum

shall

forfeited

the

State

Illinois

the

event

that

conditions

this

order

are

not

complied

with

the

facilities

in question are operated after expiration

of these variances in violation

 of regulation

limits.

CIPCo

shall

file

quarterly

written

reports,

commencing

March

31,

1972,

with

the

Agency

and

with

the

Board,

detailing

its

progress

toward

completion

the

program.

CIPCo

shall,

within

ten

 (10)

days

after

 use,

file a written report with

 the Board and with

the Agency, detailing when,

 for how long, and

why any units or boilers on

a

 “cold standby”

basis were used.

3— 28~

.9.

 Failure to adhere to the programs as pre-

sented or to the conditions of this order

shall

 be grounds for revocation of these

variances.

10.

CIPCo

shall

 apply for any desired extensions

of any of these variances

 to complete the

programs approved today not later than ninety

(90) days before expiration of that particular

variance.

I,

 Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board

 certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

this

1st

 day of December, 1971 by

 a vote of 4—0.

Christan Moffe

Acting Clerk

3—2*0