ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

17,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

 PCB 74—102

INTERCONTINENTAL ALLOYS CORPORATION,

an Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

MR. JAMES K.

 JENKS,

 II, Assistant Attorney General, appeared

for the Comp1ain~int;

MR. BERYL A. BIRNDORF, Attorney,

 appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Zeitlin):

Intercontinental Alloys Corporation

 (Intercontinental)

operates an aluminum alloy manufacturing facility north of

Crest Hill,

 in Will County,

 Illinois. Intercontinental

operates two gas—fired aluminum melting reverberatory furnaces,

each having

 a capacity of 85,000 pounds.

 Every 24 hours,

Intercontinental charges each of these ovens with between

40,000 and 60,000 pounds of aluminum scrap;

 an additional

30,000 pounds of molten aluminum

 (heel)

 is customarily

retained in each furnace during each melting cycle.

Respondent Intercontinental uses chlorine to clean the

molten metal

 in these furnaces.

 That chlorination process

is engaged in for approximately one hour during each day

that the furnaces are in operation.

On March 20,

 1974,

 the Agency filed a Complaint alleging

multiple violations of both the old Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Polution,

 (enacted by the Air

Pollution Controt. Board, predecessor of this Board), and

Chapter

 2: Air Pollution of the Pollution Control Board

Rules and Regulations,

 at Intercontinental’s aluminum alloy

facility.

 On July 10,

 1974,

 an Amended Complaint was filed

by the Agency, alleging additional violations of the Environmental

Protection Act

 (Act)

 and Chapter

 2: Air Pollution.

In

summary, the following violations are alleged

 in the Amended

Complaint:

18—

118

—2—

AMENDED COMPLAINT:

Count

I.

emissions)

VIOLATION

 DATES

July

1,

 1970 thru

Dec.

 31,1973

Count II.

 (particulate

emissions)

Regulation 203(a)

Sec.

 9(a)

Jan.

1,

 1974 thru

filing of the

Complaint.

Count III.

 (smoke

emissions No.

 2 or

darker on Ringelmann

chart)

Rule 3—3.122

 Sept.

24,

 1970;

 Sept.

28,

 1970;

 Sept.

30,

1970;

 Oct.

 1970;

Oct.

6,

 1970;

 Oct.

15,

1970;

 Oct.

19,

 1970;

Feb.

18,

 1971;

 Jan.

20,

1972; May

4,

 1972;

Oct.

24,

 1972;

Oct.

 27, 1972

Count IV.

 (visible

emissions greater than

30

 and 60

 opacity)

Regulation 202(b)

Sec.

 9(a)

Nov.

6,

1973

Count V.

 unreasonable

interference with

passing motorists)

Sec.

 9(a)

 April

3,

1974

Count VI.

permit)

(operating

 Regulation

103(b) (2)

Sec.

 9(b)

Dec.

1,

 1972 thru

filing of the

Complaint

Count VII.

 (installa-

tion permit, reverber-

atory furnace)

Count VIII.

 (installa-

tion permit, reverber-

atory furnace)

Count

IX.

 (installa-

tion permit, control

device:

 hood)

Rule 3—2.100

Rule 3—2.100

Rule 3—2.100

Sec.

 9(b)

1967

1970

1971

 “Section1’ refers to a section of the Act; Rule refers to a

Rule of the old Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air

Pollution, promulgated by the Air Pollution Control

Board and continued

 in effect by Sec.

 49(c)

 of the Act;

“Regulation” refers to the Regulations in Chapter

 2; Air

Pollution,

 of the Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

(particulate

 Rule 3—3.111

18—119

—3—

A hearing was held in Joliet on September

5,

 1974.

The

parties at that time stated their intent to submit a Stipulation

and Proposed Settlement to the Board.

 No other evidence or

testimony was taken at that time.

A Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was received

by the Board on November 14,

 1974.

 In an Interim Order

adopted January

3,

 1975,

 the Board noted that the Stipulation

was generally acceptable,

 but it ignored certain of the

Counts and alleged violations

 in the Amended Complaint.

The

original Stipulation, the Board stated, did not provide

sufficient information on which the Board could adequately

resolve the entire issue.

 The Board’s Order required that

the parties submit an Amended Stipulation to cure the defects

which were noted.

On February 11,

 1975,

 the parties submitted a Stipulated

Motion for Dismissal and Addendum to Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement

 (Amended Stipulation).

 This latter submission

adequately resolved the defects noted in the original Stipulation,

 by moving dismissal of those alleged violations not addressed

in the original Stipulation.

Under the present state of the pleading,

 (i.e.

 Amended

Stipulation),

 Intercontinental admits

 to several violations,

and the Agency has agreed to the dismissal of several of the

violations alleged in the Amended Complaint:

(a)

 Intercontinental admits to excessive

particulate emissions,

 in violation of

Rule 3-3.111 of the old Rules,

 from July

1,

1970 to December 31,

 1973.

(b)

 Intercontinental admits to excessive

particulate emissions in violation of

Regulation 203(a),

 from January

1,

1974

to March 20,

 1974.

(c)

 Intercontinental admits to the emission

of smoke which was Number

 2 or darker on the

Ringelmann Chart,

 in violation of old Rule 3-3.122,

on October

1,

 1970,

 January

20,

 1972, May

4,

 1972,

October 24,

 1972, and October 27,

 1972.

(d)

 Intercontinental admits to having caused

and allowed visible emissions in excess of

30

 opacity for a period of greater than eight

minutes, as well as an emission in excess of

60

 opacity,

 in violation of Regulation 202(b),

on November

6,

 1973.

(e)

 Interc3ntinental admits to having operated

 its metal processing facility from December

1,

1972 until the present, without an operating

permit from the Agency,

 in violation of

Regulation 103(b) (2) and Section

 9(b) of the Act.

18

—

120

—4—

The parties jointly moved for the dismissal of the

Ringelmann violation

 (old Rule 3-3.122)

 alleged in Count III

of the Amended Complaint,

 for the following dates: September

24,

 1970, September 28,

 1970,

 September 30,

 1970,

 October

6,

1970, October 15,

 1970,

 October 19,

 1970,

 and February

8,

1971.

 The parties have also stipulated to dismissal of the

alleged violation of Section

 9(a)

 of the Act on April

3,

1974, as contain2d in Count V of the Amended Complaint.

The parties have also agreed that Counts VII, VIII, and

IX of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed alleging

violation of old Rule 3—2.100 in connection with Intercontinental’s

failure to obtain an installation permit as required under

the old Rules for the construction of the two reverberatory

furnaces

 (in 1967 and 1970),

 and a hood to control emission

(in 1971);

 in addition, Count IX also alleged a violation

of Section 9(b)

 of the Act.

Intercontinental also agreed to several other actions

 under the Amended Stipulation.

 It will immediately obtain

the installation and operating permits needed from the

Agency for the facilities in issue here,

 as well as for all

the devices, alterations, modifications, and procedures

which will be required under the proposed settlement.

Intercontinental will install hooding,

 ducts,

and

blowers on one of its reverberatory furnaces by February 28,

1975,

 and direct the emissions from that furnace to either

the furnace itself, or a combustion chamber, for incineration.

That furnace is to be tested and “de-bugged” by June

1,

1975.

 The second reverberatory furnace

 is to be backfitted

for control purposes in the same manner as the first, but by

a date no later than September 1, 1975.

 (However,

 if refractory

materials are not available by that date,

 the conversion is

to take place no later than January

1,

 1976.)

During the interim, while the two reverberatory furnaces

are being backfitted as described above, Intercontinental

will attempt to purchase and use only scrap material which

will result in the l.~astpossible emissions during charging

operations.

Further, Intercontinental has agreed to convert its two

furnaces to use what is known as the “Derham process.” That

process is intended to reduce particulate emissions from

the furnaces during chlorination. Intercontinental is bound

by a non-disclosure agreement as regards the Derham process,

 which is

 a secret process under a Canadian Patent.

The

Agency has agreed that any information it receives regarding

that process will be treated as

 tvconfidential information”,

18

—

121

—5—

aId ~ ~l

 t be released;

 information regard~

i~J1be used

 y the Agency only to deterrn~

~ t~ ~

~

 or coa~o1iancewith app~ioa~

~d t~ei~u

 cc of the necessary perrrits

 ~e~gerc

ss

an

 nPa~et.

ao~c

t

p y

Air

r

~ec

c urocess

ie

 ceeptability

 ~egulations,

 sure of

~

by

c

Au

 ~i1e

i

e

 or ese~

I

Coint

 Seti

J~

 Ic’

r

e ±

 rrot~c

IGI

IS

r un

f the

ice~D~

p

ad

Ii

i’~1~

Ic

5

 legations

n

~is iratLer are dismissed

—6—

a.

 Those portions of Count

 III of the Amended

Complaint alleging violation of old Rule

3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution,

on the following dates:

 September 24,

 1970;

September 28,

 1970;

 September 30,

 1970;

October

6,

 1970;

 October 15,

 1970;

October 19,

 1970; February

8,

 1971;

 Counts V, VII, VIII, and

IX,

 in their

entirety.

4.

 Respondent Intercontinental Alloys shall comply

with all other provisions of the Stipulated Proposal for

Settlement submitted by the parties to this action on November

14,

 1974, as more fully set out in the accompanying Opinion.

I, Christan L. Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

 hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

we e adopted on the 10th day of July,

 1975 by a vote of

stan L.

Mo.

Illinois Pollution

 ol Board

18—

123