ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
8,
1972
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
v.
)
##
72—91, 72—150
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Richard E. Powell and Charles
E. Whalen, for Commonwealth Edison Co.
Nicholas G. Dozoryst II, Assistant Attorney General, for the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Dr. William B. Martin,
for Waukegan Citizens Action Program,
Intervenor,
in #72—150
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr. Currie):
Commonwealth Edison Company, Illinois’ largest electric
utility, petitions for variances from current limits on particulate
emissions for three of its generating stations, essentially on the
ground that initial attempts to deal with the troublesome problem
of sulfur dioxide have impaired or deferred the effective collection
of particulates.
The requests are partly granted and partly
denied for reasons indicated below.
Regulations adopted by our predecessor the Air Pollution
Control Board in 1967 and presently applicable
(Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,
Rules
2—2.11, 3—3.112;
see Environmental Protection Act, ~ 49(c);
PCB Regs., Ch.
2, Rule 114) limit particulate emissions from
individual stacks at plants such as Edison’s to not over 0.6
pounds of particulate emission per million BTU of heat input,
with more stringent limits based upon shorter stacks and upon
the aggregation of several
stacçs
at a single site.
This Board’s
new regulations, adopted in April 1972 as
a central part
of
the State’s implementation plan for achieving compliance with
federal air-quality standards,
require. that particulate emissions
be reduced to 0.1 lb/mbtu
(or up to 0.2 for units already
meeting the latter standard) and sulfur dioxide emissions
to
1.8 lb/mbtu in certain metropolitan areas by May 30,
1975.
PCB
Regs,
Ch.
2,
Rules 203(g),
(i),
204(c).
The petitions before us concern three of Edison’s generating
stations.
At the Will County station
(#72-91)
near Joliet Edison
is now testing and debugging a full-scale
(163 mw)
limestone scrubber
to reduce both sulfur dioxide and particualte emissions and asks
5—
101
—2—
permission
to use an old precipitator that does not meet the
regulations while ironing out the scrubber’s
initial operating
difficulties.
At the Sabrooke (Rockford)
and Waukegan stations
(both #72-150)
Edison contends that its recent switch to low-
sulfur coal has impaired the performance of existing particulate
collection equipment,
asking to be allowed excessive particulate
emissions while experimenting,
for. example with additives,
to
correct the problem at Waukegan and while •converting to
clean oil burning at Sabrooke.
Aware of the costs and uncertainties of sulfur dioxide
control, we concluded in the rule-making proceeding recently
concluded that the job can and must be done by 1975.
See our
detailed opinion explaining
the
new regulation
in
‘In
the
Matter of Emission Standards,
#R7l—23
(April 13,
1972).
We
applaud Commonwealth Edison for its efforts, illustrated by
the present cases,
some time in advance of the deadline to
alleviate sulfur dioxide problems and to determine the most
effective means
of meeting the new regulation throughout the
Edison system.
Recognizing the importance of Edison’s success
to pollution control efforts all over Illinois and elsewhere,
we heartily encourage Edison to continue both its scrubber
and its low-sulfur coal programs, with particular emphasis on
getting any remaining bugs out of the scrubber and perfecting
the use of additives for improved particulate collection.
In
view of the statutory direction that we grant variances when
a balancing of costs and benefits reveals that compliance would
impose an arbitrary or unreaâonable hardship
(Environmental
Protection Act,
§ 35; see Environmental Protection Agency v.
Lindgren Foundry Co.,
#70-1,
Sept.
25, 1970), and in view of the
importance of Edison’s program to sulfur dioxide control in
general,
we are persuaded that some temporary deterioration of
particulate collection can be permitted, where truly necessary,
in order to promote perfection of techniques for simultaneous
control of sulfur dioxide and of particulates,
so long as the
public health is not seriously endangered.
We find,
as t~orefully spelled out below, that Edison
has encountered legitimate and expectable difficulties in the
startup of its scrubber at Will County; that although the
particular problems encountered have been readily solved,
others can be expected; that nothing in the record suggests any
essential flaw in the scrubber; and that it is reasonable
to
allow somewhat excessive emissions during further debugging,
when necessary, during a further period of six months.
Edison
also asks that it be allowed to bypass the scrubber because
it has not yet determined how to render the sludge
it collects
of suitable consistency for landfill disposal, but we conclude
this request is premature because Edison has capacity to store
the sludge it expects to produce for the next several
nottths.
5
—
102
—3—
If it later appears the problem cannot be solved before storage
capacity is exhausted,
a further petition may be filed detail-
ing progress toward
a solution.
Cf. Village of Wilmette v.
EPA,
*72—5
(Jan.
17,
1972)
In the cases of Sabrooke and Waukegan,
the company~s
plans
for improving control of particulate emissions
should by all means be pursued, but we do not
find in the present record that excessive particulate emissions
have been or will be brought about by
the low-sulfur coal pro-
gram or by any other exculpatory cause.
At Waukegan there
is
little evidence beyond an o~erator~ssubjective assessment that
the plume
is dirty and an unsubstantiated graph estimate to
suggest what emissions may be when low-sulfur coal is used.
At
Sabrooke there are tests showing had emissions when low-sulfur
coal
is used but insufficient evidence that the collection devices,
three of which are mechanical collectors that Edison admits should not
be affected
by
coal sulfur content, worked any better
lately
on high-
sulfur
coal.
At neither plant
is
there adeauate proof that additives
cannot
cure
whatever
orobiem
may
arise.
The
Waukeaan
and
Sabrooke
variances~
therefore,’rnust
be
denied
without
prejudice.
This
decision in
no
way
requires
Edison
to
close
down
the
boilers
or
to
abandon
its
low—sulfur
coal
program,
whthh
we
have
endorsed,
it
mere:Lv
means
we
cannot
on
this
record
grant
what
is
in
essence
a
declaratory
judqment
that
no
penalties
would
be
imposed
for
parttcuate
violations
ii
a
complaint
were
to
he
filed.
See
Flintkote
Co.
V.
EPA,
~)7l—68
(Nov.
11,
1971)
We
have
indicated
in
this
opinion
our
wil1in~ness
to
excuse
a
tolerable
degree
of
particulate
violation
if and
when
that.
is
proved
necessary
to
the
development
or
establishment
of
sulfur
and
particulate
abatement
technology.
Such
proof
has
not
here been made;
Edison
is
free
to
make
it
upon
filing
of
another
variance petition or by way of defense under
§ 31(c~ of the
statute
if
a complaint should be filed
A detailed exposition of
the
facts
follows.
I.
Will
County
Edison
requests
a
variance
for
unit
1
of
the
Will
County Station from particulate regulations 2-2.11,
3-3,112
and 3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the
Control
of Air Pollution.
A scrubber system was installed
in early
1971 on this 163 mw unit to remove SO2 and particulates.
Since startup problems have existed, and are expected to exist
in the future, which cause the scrubbing unit to be shutdown,
Edison requests leave to bypass the SC~removal unit during
these times
and. to utilize an existing~electrostaticprecipitator
~ ich admIttedly will not meet the above particulate standards.
—4—
Edison also anticipates possible shutdown of the scrubber
unit due to insufficient storage capacity for the solid wastes
generated by the SO2 removal process.
On the basis of 1970 tests on unit
2 (supposedly
equivalent
to unit
1), the existing electrostatic precipitator
on unit
1 has an emission rate of 0.8 lb/mbtu at full load of
163 mw
(Ex.
L,
u.
5).
A
fire also took place in this unit
in l97l,but the precipitator, while not retested
CR.
92), was
allegedly
returned to its original condition
(R.
96).
Since
May 5,
1972, Edison has not been able to run the unitat full
load because of temporary repairs to the air heater section;
has
consequently
been
restricted
to
115
mw;
and
as
the
follow-
ing table shows, has
been meeting the emission limitation
of 0.6 lb/mbtu
(Ex.
7):
Load
Efficiency
Emissions
MW
of full load
Particulate Control,
lb/mBtu
163
100
62.5
0.8
122
75
73
0.6
115
71
74.5
0.57
Edison indicates permanent repair of the air heater will take
place
in
November, 1972
(Ex.
L,
p.
7), which will again allow
operation at full load.
It is also maintained that unsuccess-
ful attempts were made to upgrade the precipitator
CR:
98-99),
and that the only alternative to bring about compliance with the
particulate regulation, with the scrubber out of operation,
is
to order a new precipitato;
Based on experience with order-
ing a replacement for unit 2,
this would require
28 months
(P.
99)
.
Although the Agency recommended that we require the
precipitator to be upgraded as a condition of the variance,
it introduced no evidence to dispute Edison’s case that such
a
course was not feasible.
The scrubber system which removes both particulates
(with a venturi
scrubber) and SO2 (with an absorber) consists
of two parallel processing trains of equal capacity
(Ex.
3,
No.
2).
When operating as designed the outlet particulate
level
should
be
0.05
lb/mbtu
(Ex.
L,
No.
8).
To
date
270
hours
is the longest continuous operation for either of the
processing trains, and from Feb.
23 to July 1,
1972,
each
of the processing trains had been in operation 25-30
of the
total time
unit
1 was in service
(Ex.
K.
p.
7-8).
Edison
estimates
that
3 months’
storage of scrubber sludge is available
if the SO2 removal system operates 70
of the time
(Ex.
3.
p.
11).
Difficulties are also noted about the undesirable chemical
consistency
of
the
sludge,
which
may make it unfit for many
uses
(Ex.
3,
p.
9-11).
However,
it
was
admitted
that
5
—
104
It
would
not
he
prudent
to
design
and
install
a
sludge
treatment
system
until
operation
of
the
scrubber
has
been
stabilized
and
the
system
is
producing
sludge
with
relatively
uniform
characteristics
(Ex.
J.,
p.
11)
Until
the
scrubber
unit
operates
for
longer
than 25
of the
time,
this stabilization
is
not
likely.
But
with
more
unit
downtime storage of sludge will be less of
a problem.
We
sympathize
with
Edison~s
attempts
to
start
up
an
SO2
removal
unit
for
which
it
has
no
previous
operating
experience.
We
recognize
that
downtime
has
existed
and
is
likely
to exist in the future until all such problems
as outlined in
Ex.
3
are solved.
On the other hand we wish to encourage
Edison to diligently pursue startup
of this unit and expedite
solution of solid waste problems as well as operating upsets.
As Edison’s witness noted,
solid. waste control awaits steady
state operation,
and. until such operation is reached,
the sludge
disposal problem does not appear to be immediate.
Edison
asks
a
full
year
to
permit
additional
debugging;
we
agree
with
the
Agency
that
there
is
no
basis
in
the
record
for
believing
that,
with
diligent
efforts,
debugging
will
take
that
long.
We
will
allow
six
months
from
today,
and
Edison may
apply
later
if
necessary
for
more time on
a showing of satisfactory
progress.
II.
Sabrooke
The Sabrooke station employs four boilers,
three of which
(Hi,
2, and
3)
are equipped with mechanical cyclone particulate
collectors and the fourth with an electrostatic precipitator
(R.
499—501).
Edison states that the design efficiency of all
four collectors,
as modified to date, was 95,and
that emissions
should have been 0.14 lb/mbtu for ##l-3 and 0.18 for #4 if the
collectors worked. up to design
(ibid.)
,
but no acceptance test
was
run on any of the four units to determine whether they ever
operated as intended
(R.
518,
543).
Emission tests were first
run after Edison began using Eastern Kentucky low-sulfur coal
along with some Illinois coal
(R.
489;
Ex.
29)
.
Tests on units
#1 and #3
in May and August of 1971,
using coal varying from 2.2
to 0.8
sulfur,
indicated serious violations
of the emission standard
of 0.6 lb/mbtu
(0.97
to 1.94 and 1.52
to 1.97 lb/mbtu, respective-
ly); unit
#2 was said to be very similar in design and infer-
entially in emissions to
#3; and “limited” testing with “incon—
sistent” results on #4 using 1.4-sulfur
coal suggested a truly
5
—
105
disturbing
emission
rate
of
about
4.3
lb/mbtu
(R.
500-iti
Edison
proposes
to
correct
its
particulate
problanc
Sabrooke
by
converting
all
four
units
to distillate
oil
W.L
the
following
shutdown
schedule:
UNIT
SHUTDOWN
DATE
9
/3
0/7
3
11/30/73
2/28/7
4
9/30/74
(H,
50 2~
504),
This
conversion
should
bring
the
station
.into
compliance
not
only
with
thefl current
particulate
regu.la~t.ion
but with our new emission regulations for both sulfur dioxide
and carticulate as well.
No proposal
is made for improving
particu..late
performance
in
the
meantime.
Edison has shown that all four Sabrooke units are
seriously in violation of the particulate standard.
Needless
to say,
this is not enough to justify
a variance; proof of a
violation dces not excuse it,
See Decatur Sanitary District
v.
EPA,
171—37
(March
22,
1971)
.
Edison further argues that
Sal rooke~sgenerating capacity is needed to assure uninterrupted
serv.ice to its customers and to permit orderly shutdown of other
units for maintenance and repair.
For present purposes we
can assume, without deciding, that Edison~sevidence on this
pobnt is sufficient that we would not order Sabrooke shut down
in light of the harm it may cause to persons in the vicinity
according to this
record.
But
even
on
this
assumption we
wou.ld not be required to go further and give Edison a shield
against possible money penalties for excessive emissions while
continuing
t.o operate, which
is what a variance (unless very
narrowly worded)
would do.
In one of our earliest decisions
we stressed that, as in zoning cases where the statutory stanin
is similar,
a self—inflicted hardship is no justification for
a variance.
EPA v. Lindgren Foundry Co.,
#70-I
(Sept.
25,
l970).~
Even in cases involving the treatment of municipal sewage,
where
a shutdown would be inconceivable, we have refused
variances when there were inadequate allegations or proof
of justification for past delays in complying with the regulation.:~
E.g., Decatur Sanitary District v,
EPA,
#71—37
(March
22, l971)~
Metropolitan Sanitary District v.EPA, #71-183
(Nov.
11,
1971)
At times we have granted variances in such cases conditioned
upon the payment of money penalties,
e.g., Marquette Cement
Mfg.
Co. v.
EPA,
#71-23
(Jan.
6,
1971)
;
but we have consistently
declined to give the complete shield of a variance without
penalties in the absence of proof justifying or excusing the
present emissions.
5
—
106
lison appears to recognize this point, since its
a
variance
at Sabrooke is based upon the assertion
date violations there are excusable due to Edison’s
efforts
to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
We do
~-l
is assertion has been proved.
We have no test
t
r1~
sate
that the mechanical
or electrostatic collectors
~
ever
worked
properly,
and
we surely cannot presume
e’~din
in
the absence of proof.
As an Edison witness
tesin
‘‘~o,
~ assume that the precipitator was in fair quality,
in never been tested.
We don’t have a bench mark on
hich to compare
it, beyond the commen~.from the
T’d~sternPrecipitation which was a claim of 95 percent
eF’~icient,
For all we know it was only 80 percent
~egin with.
(H.
51
Moreover,
in
the case of the three mechanical collect-
s:c’s own witness testified that there is no reason to
exaces
L~at the
use of low—sulfur coal would in any way reduce
collemt
c
efficiency; electrostatic collection is allegedly
affec~
because low sulfur means high particle resistivity,
o~t r~~ustivity
is irrelevant when particles are collected by
rents
ci
force:
“The sulfur comes into the picturE
not at
,l
~r
~
irtechanical collector, because it has no
eff ~ct what-’
noevei”
‘?,
535—36)
.
Apart from a graph discussed
in
connection
N inogan,
the only evidence even suggesting that low-sulfur
ccti
:~
nsde
a difference consists of rather subjective
ouser’
~‘t
rs of increased wear on fan blades, said
to
indicate
the
pa~’~
r
of more particulates;
a shorter time reqeired to
tiean
0
~sh
from the precipitator hoppers, suggesting that
less
flinch
is
being collected;
and a deterioration ol
plume
~npearance
(R.
475—77); plus the conclusion, uncorroborated
by
con
analyses, that the new coal has a higher ash content and
lower
leininq
value than the old, producing about l.~’6pounds
of
as~
per
therm
as compared with 0,60
(R.
475).
We
find,
the
chse’~v~L~ons
too subjective
to carry the weight of proving
Obe
new
:o~I
was the cause of serious deterioration in performance;
md
the
sa
data,
even if it were supported by analyses,
would
:L,~t
orove
that
coal with low sulfur and low ash
per
therm
could
~o”~
‘easonably have been obtained, as it was at Waukegan
accoinin~~
to the evidence in the same case
(R.
146)
.
Nor has
E3is~~nusosed
that
Sabrooke’s
particulate
problems,
to
whatever
extes
“cy are caused by low—sulfur coal, cannot be alleviated by
‘~‘he ~e
in additives as will be attempted at Waukegan.
short Edison failed to establish that its present
parti
u.,,
problems
at
Sabrooke are the necessary result of its
commeln,s
effort
to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.
For
ci
v
now,
as Edison’s witness testified
(R.
543),
Sabrcoke
~
been
in violation of the particulate standards all
5
—
107
—8—
along.
If
it
has
been,
the
recent
use
of
low—sulfur
coal
cannot
excuse
earlier
violations.
While
we
think
Edison
would
be
well
advised
to
proceed
posthaste
with
its
plan
of
conversion
to
oil,
which
on
this
record
affords
the
best
and
quickest
assurance
of
long—term
reduction
of
both
sulfur
and
particulates
(H.
520),
we
are
not
convinced
from
this
record
that
Edison
has
been
doing
all
it
could
to
keep
particulates
down
in
the
meantime,
or
that
its
present
emissions
are
excusable,
The
variance
request
for
Sabrooke
must
be
denied
without
prejudice.
III,
Waukegan
The
initial
petition
alleged
that
there
were
seven
turbine
generating
units
at
Waukegan,
all
contr clled
to
some
degree by electrostatic precipitators;
that the precipitators
serving units 1-3 and
5, while designed for 95
collection
efficiency,
“never met this rated efficiency after installation”
but achieved emissions of about 0,6 lb/mbtu;
and that the
precipitator on unit 7, designed for 98
efficiency, was found
when tested in August,
1971 to remove as little as 84
of the
particulates, emitting up to 0,82 lb/mbtu.
On these facts
the testimony indicates not only that unit
7 was in violation
of the individual stack limit of 0,6 but also that the plant
as
a
whole, because of the failure of the precipitators on units
1-3,
5, and 7 to meet design standards,
failed to meet the
applicable site standard, which Edison computed to be 0,21
lb/mbtu
(H,
270; Ex,
24).
A variance was sought to permit continued emissions at
the level described while pursuing a corrective program.
As
later refined by the date of hearing,
the plan was as follows:
Units 1-3 are to be retired in October, 1972, when this suer’s
peak electric demand is past;
the two precipitators now serving
Units
1-3 and 5 will be attached in parallel to the remaining
Unit
5, which will be taken out of service to make this connection
in March 1973.
Increasing the precipitator capacity for the
single unit, Edison predicted, would reduce its emissions to
about 0.2 lb/mbtu, assuming,
as the petition did, continued use
of high-sulfur coal
(see petition;
R.
272-75),
Minor modifications
already
made
to the Unit
7 collector have increased its efficiency
when using Illinois
coal
to
an
“average” of 95
and an “average”
emission of 0.40 lb/mbtu, and further modifications to
allow
the
application of “more high voltage power” are expected to pro-
vide further improvement by May 1973
(H.
278).
At that time,
given tested emission rates for the remaining Units
6 and
8 of
0.13 lb/mbtu
(H.
275,
278)
and a revised site emission limit
of
0.23
(R.
249)
,
the plant and each of its stacks would be in
full compliance with the 1967 regulation if high-sulfur Illinois
coal were still to be used
(R.
270),
5
—
108
—9—
The
initial
petition
said
nothing
about
additional
problems that might result from the increasing use of low-
sulfur coal at Waukegan;
the posture of the case was significantly
altered on the day of the hearing when Edison revealed, apparently
without prior notice to the Agency, that
it wished
to amend
its petition to seek additional relief based upon alleged. pro-
blems with low-sulfur coal
(H.
6).
Heserving the right to recall
witnesses and to amend its recommendation
(which had not in any
event been filed)
,
the Agency did not object to proceeding with
evidence on the amended petition,
nor did the intervening Waukeqan
Citizens Action Program
(H.
7-8).
The low-sulfur question will be discussed at length, but
the amendment by no means moots the initial request for a variance
to allow increased emissions resulting from the inadequacy of
the precipitators;
the revised petition plainly asks not only
general relief to accommodate low—sulfur fuel (paragraphs
(a)
and.
(d)), hut an additional allowance until the precipitator
improvements are completed
(paragraphs
(b)
and
(c)).
We there-
fore pause to consider, apart from the low—sulfur coal question,
whether or not we can grant
a variance excusing such cxcessmve
emissions as will occur between now and May 1973 as a result of
the inadequacy of the precipitators themselves.
As we said in connection with Sabrooke,
nothing that is
done with respect to low—sulfur coal can excuse violations that
would occur even if such coal were not used.
We find no satis-
factory explanation of why Edison waited until this late date to
come up with a program to bring its plant into compliance with
regulations adopted in 1967,
It is said that “acceptance” tests
on the 1—3 and
5 precipitators revealed they “never” were up to
design efficiency, and that a July 1971 test revealed deficiencies
in unit
7
(H.
272,
277).
it is and
has
been
Edison~s
obligation
both to find out whether its precipitators operate properly and
to fix them if they do not,
If the acceptance tests were per-
formed shortly after construction in 1955
(H.
272),
as seems to be
the logical
inference,
there is no evidence to justify waiting
until
now
to
correct the known problem.
If the tests were delay-
ed until recently, there is no evidence to justify such
a delay
in
ascertaining
the
facts.
Asfor
Unit
7, which was
installed
in
1958
(H.
277)
,
there
is
no
evidence that any tests were made
prior to 1971
(see
H.
312)
or that the precipitator itself was
so new that there was no opportunity for earlier testing.
We
do not say Edison cannot make such proof in some future proceed-
ing; but it has not on this record given any justification for
its failure to correct these violations sooner, and we cannot
therefore give Edison
a shield against possible money penalties
relating
to
the
inadequacies
of
its
Waukegan
precipitators.
The
proposed improvements, of course, should be pursued with dis-
patch to terminate the violations and hence the risk of penalties
as soon as possible.
5
—
109
~~10~
Of greater long-term sin:
contention,
first raised the day
gressive
shi ft
to lower-sulfur
cc
will
cause
further
deterioration
ul
Edison predicts that,
even after
ments are completed in 1973, tot~
0.35 lb/mbtu
(compared with the in
sulfur coal were burned and
0.76
intervening citizens’
group and ti?
content is reduced to 1.0
(Ex.
2”;
only one of the four units
then
ic’
assumption meet the single stact
t
The theory behind these premlictioc
high resistivity and consequently
to
the
precipitator
electrodes
(P
that it is possible to design
a
1
low—sulfur coal efficiently, as
confirm, and that the company
is
Will County units not involved in
avoid backfitting costs and delays
precioltators, however, Edison
p1
t:
alleged problem by injecting addit
or
the proprietary chemical Koppe
reduce resistivity.
Preliminary
concentratiots of sulfur trioxif
all hut
“less
than one part per
and was not i::schurged from
the
by resulting
in
visibly cleanex
is to he further yur sued at Wau”r
variance
Is
sought to permit in
using low-sulfur coal until
ti,e
native
15
fully perfecsed.
fui
thor’
“ts pr)—
3
~ifl(T
ar.d.
inion.
r imprc”’e~
ilct reach
J’j
if
l.Si—
nalsed the
—
“nilfur
7
,c
~c’ur,Edison says,
the latter
H,
(mx,
24)
u
means
3,
‘rt~cleo
~iiowledqe~
c
i
‘
am
so hnndle
imtrnl
to
1’
,~
nc’m’ of j1’~
~
2
Fd,
Te
cx~sting
~cc~Te tnt
trio~ Ida
~
~sc~
c
to
i
c’”’”’e’~~
sm~~,1
As
stated
in
the
introd’
n
to
this
iin’iinn,
we
en-
courage
Edison
to
continue
its
“m,c
P
w~in
alti
t’in
te
improve
electrostatic
collection
of
pdrticulatee
roe. in
sin~’ur
coal,
1.
Edison
has
referrec
repeatedy
in
trio
t~’P
~c”mi3
‘
rid eleada~gsto
what
is
termed
a
“public
coned
tment”
ma,
e
o~
T’
rre’Jious
time
by Edison to the Cztv of Wauinqan and
t1
,:‘Pe”,ss
Citizens
Action
Program
to
reduce
trio
sulfur
con
3
‘~
o
coal
burn’~
ed at
the
Vlaukegan Station
to 1.81
b~
~“~‘
,,
jin2,
and to
1.0
by
early
1973.
At
the
time
that
the
cr,,r,.,t’,:~nt
was
made
Edison
apparently
suspected
that
a
par
icainto
a”ia
ssion
problem
might
arise
as
a
result
in
the os
in
row
sulfur
coal
(H.
25’—258, 372-373) hut had no ac”i~n, ta”’t data
as
to
the
extent
or
magnitude
of
the
prchlam
~‘c’.
,i14,
367).
This commitment may help explaln tie circe
,s~crs
wnich
led
to the present particulate omission probles
r~~edo not
view this commitment, however,
as in any
way
excusing
or
mitigating the effects of the problem.
-
o
~,~nch
t
ri
last
o
‘
vu en ~o1~s
aged Edison
a
~‘
t
use in aldi tivas
~,
3~J
~
~)
.
A
p5’~
,ictrd
e’bssi~s
Jue to
eve
r~
aes’~
01
same
a ter—
5—110
and upon adequate proof
of
necessity
we
would look favorably
upon a limited
variance
request
to shield the activity from
possible penalties,
However, we do not find satisfactory proof
of that necessity
in
the present record,
The predicted emissions
from units
6,
7, and 8 are not based upon tests of those or
comparable
units
burning
low-sulfur
coal
CR.
383).
They
are
illustrated by,
or based
upon,
what
an Edison witness described
as
a
“typical
curve
attempting
to
predict
the
behavior
of
precipitator efficiency
with
changing sulfur levels,” which
he characterized
as showing
a very rapid deterioration
in
efficiency when sulfur content falls below 1.5
(H. 133-34;
Ex,
23)
No attempt was made to substantiate this curve, but it was re-
portedly based on “data” supplied by ResearchCottrell in 1962
(R. 162—163)
.
We have no way of knowing what these
“data” are,
or when, where, and how they were obtained.
Indeed Edison’s
witness specifically denied that he had any firm information
as to the effect of low—sulfur coal upon precipitator
efficiency:
Q
,
.
.
Have you available data which indicates the
relative rate of degradation relative to reduction in
sulfur content among the coals with which you have had
experience?
A
No,
I don’t have good data.
.
.
.
I am going by
observations of station personnel as to when they felt
that they could see a distinct change or when they could
see a fairly consistent change in the appearance of the
emissions
.
(H.
161).
Given the conceded availability of standard methods
of testing actual emissions,
we think
a mere eyeballing
of
the
plume at varying sulfur contents wholly inadequate
to demon-
strate that low-sulfur fuel has or will have the effect Edison
claims upon particulate emissions,
Before—and-after tests
were run on unit
5, and the results with low-sulfur coal were
markedly worse
(65
efficiency after vs.
88—93
before)
(H,
272—
74)
.
However, the high—sulfur test was an
“acceptance” test
presumably conducted shortly after installation of
1955; the low-
sulfur test was conducted
in
April
1972
(ibid.),
The apparent
17-year gap between tests raises a serious question whether the results
can be fairly compared and leaves us even as to this unit with
insufficient evidence that low-sulfur coal is the cause of worsen-
ed emissions.
Significantly, there is no attempt to show that
normal precipitator performance cannot be obtained, as Edison
intends to attempt, by the use of additives.
Until such proof
is made, we cannot grant the variance requested~ We can neither
give an insurance policy against possible violations that may
never materialize nor give blanket approval to excessive emissions
that have not been shown
to
have an excusable cause;
to do
either would encourage less than diligent efforts to prevent
avoidable violations.
Edison should do all it can to assure,
with or without low-sulfur coal,
that emissions do not exceed
the standards,
and should be prepared to make proof that it has
done so in any subsequent proceeding.
5—111
—12—
Section
37 of the Act places a heavy responsiblity upon
the Environmental Protection Agency, which is represented in these
proceedings by the Attorney General,
to see to it that anything
in opposition
to a variance petition is put into the record be-
fore this Board.
Absent such participation,
the Board would have
to decide most variance cases entirely on the basis of evidence
selected by the petitioner, as we lack authority or resources
to make an independent investigation.
In the Will County case
the Agency’s recommendation
was not filed by the Attorney General
until two days before- the hearing, and in the Waukegan-Sabrooke
case not until the hearing was over.
In each case the recommendation
came too late to serve its purpose of informing the petitioner
of the Agency’s position so it could intelligently respond.
In both cases the recommendation contained factual allegations
respecting such matters as the condition of control equipment
or the adverse effect of emissions on those
nearby,
yet no
proof was offered in either hearing to support these allegations.
The recommendation is
a pleading, not evidence; we must disre-
gard unproved allegations.
The State’s participation in both cases
was limited to cross-examination, which did not substantially
affect the Edison~scase.
No evidence was introduced
to detnonstrate
that,
as the new regulations contemplate,
it is indeed feasible
to control sulfur dioxide and particulates simultaneously.
Finally, a briefing schedule was set, and we received timely briefs
from Edison;
in the Waukegan—Sabrooke case
we
received from the
State
not
a
brief
but
the
tardy
recommendation,
which
still
did not address itself to the central issue of simultaneous
control of sulfur and particulate emissions.
We point all
this out because we think it important to stress that only
diligent and full participation by the Agency and the Attorney
General can assure that the public interest is protected against
the dangers of our having to decide cases upon one—sided records.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
l.(#72-9l)Commonwealth Edison Co.
is hereby granted
a variance
until February 8,
1973,
to permit particulate and smoke emissions
in excess of emission limits from Will County Unit #1, provided
the following conditions are met.
a)
Such
emissions
shall
occur
only
as
a
result
of
legitimate debugging of operating problems respecting
the limestone scrubber; and
b)
All reasonable efforts shall be made to eliminate
such problems, and to perfect a program of sludge
disposal,
in
the
shortest
practicable
time;
and
5—
112
—13—
c)
The precipitator on Unit
#1 shall be utilized
whenever the scrubber is out of service, and
emissions at such times shall not exceed 0.8 lb/mbtu;
and
d)
Unit #1 shall be operated at less than capacity
levels to assure that emissions do not exceed
applicable standards when the scrubber is out
of service, except when system demands cannot be
met
without
using
units
whose
emissions
exceed
the standards;
and
e)
Edison shall file monthly reports with the Agency
on its progress in debugging the scrubber and in
solving the sludge disposal problem, commencing
September
1,
1972;
and
f)
Edison shall
specify in such monthly reports the
percentage of total operating time that Unit
#1
is expected to be at full load; and
g)
Edison shall post with theAgencywithin 35 days
after
receipt
of
this
order,
a bond or other adequate
security
in
the
amount
of
$30,000
to
assure com-
pliance with the terms of this order.
2.
(#72-150)
The petition for variances for the Sabrooke
and
Waukegan
stations
is
hereby
denied
without
prejudice.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
that the Board adopted the above Opinion this
.?~“‘
‘~
day of August,
1972, by
a vote of
-
-~2~
~
5
—
113
