ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
31,
1975
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
OLD FORT INDUSTRIES,
INC.,
an Indiana Corporation,
ILLINOIS BRICK COMPANY DIVISION,
)
Respondent,
PCB 74—192 and
and
)
PCB 74—221
Consolidated
ILLINOIS BRICK COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Mr.
Lorence
H.
Siutzky, Assistant States Attorney,
appeared
on behalf of the State of Illinois;
Mr.
Fredric
J. Entin, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency;
and
Mr. Patrick
J. Phillips,
Jenner and Block, appeared on
behalf of Old
Fort
Industries.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This case comcs before
the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon stipulation of facts and proposed settlement by
the parties, People of the State of Illinois and the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
(Agency) and Illinois Brick
Company Division, Old Fort Industries,
Inc.
(Illinois Brick).
Illinois Brick owns and operates a brick manufacturing
facility located
at. 127 Street and Francisco Avenue,
Blue
Island,
Cook County,
Illinois,
where
it manufactures
common
brick,
hand molded colonial brick, and various other build-
ing type bricks.
Clay, which
is the principle
raw material
in
Illinois Brick’s manufacturing operation,
is extracted
from a clay pit located on the premises of the facilities.
The
clay
is transported to the plant, introduced into a
granulator where either water or grog,
if necessary,
is
introduced.
The material
is then introduced into stone
extracting rolls, where most of the stone
is removed, con-
veyed to crusher ~ol1s where remaining stone is crushed
within the capabilities of such equipment,
conveyed to the
18
—
221
—2—
plug mill where necessary water
is added for proper ex-
trusion by bric~ machine and introduced into the brick
machine where tl~eclay is compressed and extruded in
a twin
column.
The twin column
is passed through a brick cutter
which cuts the b.~icksinto proper lengths and the bricks,
thus cut,
are ccnveyed along a belt beside which are sta-
tioned men who pick the bricks off the belt and place them
on dryer cars.
When filled,
conveyer cars are transported
to the dryer and are placed in the dryer on various tracks.
Succeeding cars are placed on the tracks and the cars
are
moved through the dryer.
When the cars reach the discharge
end of the dryer,
they are placed on the transfer car which
transports the cars
to the kiln setting site.
Illinois Brick utilizes the scove—kiln process in the
actual firing of their bricks.
The scove—kiln
is constructed
entirely of bricks.
After the green bricks are stacked in
an area,
they are enclosed by walls
of burned bricks and
sealed with clay siurry through which gas burners are fired
into the mass of green bricks.
Some anthracite coal screen-
ings had been
adde.3
to the clay prior
to the plug mill for
bricks located near the walls of the kiln.
Recently Illinois
Brick found it necessary to add anthracite screening to all
of the green bricks due
to hardness problems with their
finished product.
The scove—Iciln
is fired for an average period of
55
hours,
at which
time the gas burners are turned off.
After
this,
the kiln remains undisturbed for
18 hours
to complete
the firing and cooling process.
In general,
Illinois Brick
schedules their kiln burns over the weekend.
On the basis of the land survey dated May
3,
1961,
and
updated on July
1,
1.974, and the quantity of bricks sold,
Illinois Brick estimated that on August
30,
1974,
the clay
pit had a remaining useful life of approximately
3
to
6
years.
The facility is located in
a mixed area.
To the
east and south and northwest of the facility is
a resi-
dential neighborhood
in which the closest homes
are 750 feet
away.
To the north is Mount Hope Cemetary,
and to the west
is Beverly Cemetery.
To the southwest,
approximately 3/4 of
a mile
from Illinois Brick’s facility on the Cal—Sag Canal,
is
a Texaco Oil Company Refinery.
Emissions are produced throughout the length of the
kiln burn and during the 18 hours after the natural gas
burners are shut off.
The nature of the emissions change
throughout
the
burr1
and
correspond
to
three
identifiable
processes:
dehydration,
oxidation,
and
vitrification.
In
dehydration, most of the emissions are steam caused by a
mechanical water dehydration.
After all the mechanical
water has been evaporated,
oxidation takes place
in which
18
—
222
—3—
all of the organic material,
including the coal,
is oxidized
and
a blueish grey haze
is emitted along with some chem-
ically combined m~’i.sturecausing a small amount of steam
emission.
Vitrifi~ationtakes place immediately after and
also concurrently with the oxidation phase,
the blue-grey
emission continuing throughout from oxidation of the impur-
ities
in the clay.
Background of Litigation
Investigatien of Illinois Brick’s manufacturing facil-
ities began
in January of 1970 after receipt of complaints
from a nearby resident.
Investigations continued through
1970 and 1971 and interviews with citizens and observations
of investigators indicated that the problem was continuing.
In 1972 discussions were held between Illinois Brick and the
Agency and the Attorney General resulting in Illinois Brick
engaging several c~nsultingengineering firms of various
types
to determine whether Illinois Brick’s emissions com-
plied with app1i~ab1elocal and state statutes,
regulations,
and ordinances.
On May 24,
1974, the Complaint was filed by the Agency
against Illinois Brick Company alleging the operation of the
scove-kiln witho~itoperating permits
in violation of Rule
103(b) (2)
of Chapter 2 of the Pollution Control Board Air
Regulations
(Regulations) and Section
9(b)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act).
In addition, violation of
Section 9(a)
of the Act was alleged in that the emissions
from the brick making facility caused an unreasonable inter-
ference with the enjoyment of life and property.
The Agency
also alleged that Illinois Brick had allowed emissions of
smoke and particilate matter of an opacity greater than
30
as measured by equilavent numbers on the Ringlemann chart
in
violation of 202(b)
of the Regulations.
On June
12,
1974,
Illinois Brick filed a petition for
review of refusal to issue permit before the Board.
This
action was consolidated with the enforcement action pursuant
to
a Motion for Corsolidation filed on July
2,
1974.
The
stipulation of facts and the proposed settlement comes
to
the Board addressing the issues raised by Complainant’s
Fourth Amended Complaint filed on April
18,
1975,
and the
Consolidated
Perrrit Denial Appeal.
The Fourth Amended
Complaint incorporated some legal refinements of the first
complaint and added an allegation of violation of Rule
203(f) (1)
of the Fegulations, allowing the emission of
fugitive particulate matter.
T..~rmsof Proposed Settlement
The parties,
herein, decided,
after extensive dis-
covery,
that the interests of the public and of the parties
would best be served by resolution of the proceedings with-
out further litigat~onunder terms and conditions agreed
18—
223
—4—
upon by all concerned pursuant to Rule
333
of
the
Board
Regulations.
Iliinois
Brick stipulates that it has only
enough clay left
in
its
pit
to continue operations
at the
facility
for,
at the most,
six years and that
in the year
1974 and the first quarter of
1975,
the facility operated at
a net loss to the Company.
Illinois Brick has decided,
in
recognition of the limited time for continued operations and
the current unprofitability
of their Blue Island,
Illinois,
brick manufacturing operation,
that the expenditure of
additional
funds for the installation of emission reduction
devices would not he
in their best economic interest.
It is
additionally stipuLated
that at no time during the course of
this
litigation did the Complainant ever propose that Illinois
Brick discontinue its operation.
The stipul2tion entered into between the parties pro-
poses that Illinois Brick permanently discontinue the present
brick manufacurir1q operation operated by Illinois Brick
in
Blue Island,
Illinois, within
90 days of the date of the
signing of the stipulation.
In addition Illinois Brick
agrees that during this 90-day operation only one kiln burn
will be made in any calendar week, commencing no earlier
in
the week than Monday at
6 a.m. nor later in the week than
Tuesday at
5 p.m. and that there will be no increase of the
present weekly rate of production of 1,500,000 bricks per
week.
Illinois Brick will pay a penalty of $5,000 per burn
for each and every burn that might occur after
90 days from
the date of signing of the stipulation and,
if it decide.s
to
resume brick manufacturing at the Blue Island,
Illinois,
brick manufacturing facility,
Illinois Brick will not do so
prior to obtaining all necessary state,
county,
and local
permits and licenses.
Illinois Brick will withdraw its
petition for Review of Refusal to Issue Permit, Pollution
Control Board Case No.
74—221.
We do not, by our acceptance of the stipulation herein,
prejudge any future violation which may occur, nor do we
intend to pre—assess any penalties
for said future violations.
It is furthcr stipulated
that nothing in the stip-
ulation shall be construed to be an admission by Illinois
Brick of the existence of violations alleged in complaints
filed herein and that Illinois Brick agrees that,
in the
event the Board finds any violations alleged have occurred,
Illinois Brick shall remit and shall pay the sum of $5,000
to the Treasurer of the State of Illinois.
In addition,
all
parties agree that
if and when the stipulation and proposed
settlement is accepted by the Board, and so long as the
parties adhere to the provisions set forth in the stipulation,
no further litiqa~ionwill be taken by the parties with
respect to the subject matter of the case.
18—
224
Stipulation of Testimony and Evidence
It is agreed by the parties that the following
testi-
mony
and evidence would be introduced at a hearing should
it
be held.
1.
Concerning the allegation that Illinois Brick has
operated the facility without an operating permit:
a)
Illinois
Brick still does not have an operating permit despite the
continuation of its operations;
b)
that it applied in
November of 1972
for such permit and was rejected by the
Agency because,
in the Agency’s opinion,
the operation was
in violation of standards and limitations of the Pollution
Control Board Air Regulations.
Illinois Brick contends that
its failure to obtain an operating permit was due to the im-
proper refusal of
~he
Environmental Protection Agency to
issue said permit.
2.
Concerning the alleged violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
interference with the enjoyment of life and
property:
a)
approximately
21 residents
of the nearby
area
would testify that they have suffered interference with
their enjoyment of life and property as
a result of emis-
sions from Illinois Brick’s facilities;
b)
that they exper-
ienced the emissions throughout the year and almost always
on weekends;
c)
that the emissions cause them to keep their
windows closed;
d)
at times they were unable to use the yard
and engage
in outdoor activies in the summer.
In addition,
certain citizens have complained that the emissions cause
a
burning sensation of their eyes,
noses and throats,
cause
nausea,
coughing,
and difficulty
in breathing.
In oppo-
sition,
approxim~.telyfive residents
of the nearby area
would testify,
if called by Illinois Brick, that while they
have observed the above—described emissions,
that such
emissions did not interfere with their enjoyment of life and
property.
3.
Evidence would be introduced to the effect that
suitable control equipment exists for the abatement of Illinois
Brick’s pollution.
In addition,
the Agency
is prepared to
introduce evidence that one of their investigators, who
is
a certified smoke reader,
has observed the emissions from
the brick manufacturing facility to have an opacity of
greater than
30~.
An investigator for the Cook County
Department of Environmental Control
is also prepared to
testify that he observed emissions from the brick manu-
facturing facility at an opacity greater than
30.
In
opposition,
representatives of commercial testing companies,
if called as witnesses by Illinois Brick, would testify that
on various dates other than those referred to by Complain-
ants, they observed emissions from Illinois Brick’s manu——
facturing facility which had an opacity of less than
30.
18— 225
—6—
4.
Illinois Brick contends the particulate emission
test conducted by Particle Data Laboratories on January
13
through
15,
1975,
establishes
that
Illinois
Brick
is
in
com-
pliance with Rule 203(b)
of the Regulations which,
they
allege,
constitutes
a defense to the allegations in the
complaint.
The Aaency disagrees that Illinois Brick,
as
a
result of a test, established compliance with Rule 202(b)
stating they are prepared to call Howard 0.
Chinn, Chief
Engineer of the Environmental Control Division, Office of
the Attorney General,
to testify that there could be partic-
ulate emissions
in excess of that allowed by Rule 202(b)
of
the Regulations.
The Agency,
in addition,
is prepared to
present testimony that an observer saw particulate matter
emitted from Illincis Brick’s manufacturing facility that
was
visible
to
him,
looking
generally
toward
the
Zenith
at
a
point beyond the property line of the facility.
Consideration of the Rules, Stipulation of Facts and Settlement
The Board accepts the stipulation of
facts as being the
most reasonable
rtethod of determining this case.
Consider-
ing the stipulated. evidence,
the Board finds that Illinois
Brick has violated Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter
2 of the Board’s
Air Pollution Regulations and Section 9(b)
of the Act in
that they operated their scove-kiln without obtaining the
required operating permits
from the Agency.
In addition,
the Board finds
a ~jiolation of Section
9(a)
of the Act in
that the emissions
from the brick making facility caused un-
reasonable interference with the enjoyment of life and
property.
The Board finds
a violation of Rule
202(b)
of the
Regulations
in that Illinois Brick has allowed emissions of
smoke and particulate matter of an opacity of greater than
30
to be emitted by their facilities.
The Board fails
to
find violation of Rule 203(f) (1)
of the Regulations since
the stipulated evidence was insufficient to find such violation.
The stipulation,
as submitted,
calls for penalty
in the
sum of $5,000 should the Board find any of the violations
alleged
to have occurred.
The Board finds from the stip-
ulated evidence that said violations have occurred and finds
that a penalty of $5,000 is appropriate.
The Board accepts
the proposed stipulation of facts and settlement
in this
case and incorporates,
by reference,
the terms thereof
in
this Opinion and Order as
if fully set forth herein.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law
in this matter.
18
—
226
—7—
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Board that the parties to this
action,
pursuant
to the stipulation signed by said parties
June 16,
1975,
shall effect such agreed stipulation con-
ditions
as fo1lo~s:
1.
Illinois Brick Division,
Old Fort Industries,
Inc.,
shall permanently ~1iscontinue the present brick manufacturing
facility operated oy Illinois Brick in Blue Island,
Illinois,
within
90 days of
the date of the signing of the stipulation;
2.
Illinois Frick, during the final
90 days of opera-
tion,
shall not co’umence
a scove-kiln burn earlier in the
week than Monday at
6 a.m. nor later in the week than Tuesday
at
5 p.m.;
3.
Illinois Brick, during the final
90 days of opera-
tion,
shall not increase production beyond the present
weekly rate of l,~00,000bricks per week;
4.
Illinoi3
.Tirick, during the final
90 days of opera-
tion,
shall produce no more than one scove—kiln burn in any
calendar week;
5.
Illinois Brick shall pay a penalty of $5,000 per
burn for each and every burn that occurs after
90 days
from
the date of the ~~igning of the stipulation;
6.
If Illinois Brick decides
to resume brick manu-
facturing at the ~lue Island,
Illinois, brick manufacturing
facility,
it will not do so prior to the obtaining of all
permits required by the Act;
7.
Illinois Brick shall withdraw its Petition for
Review of Refusal to Issue Permit,
Pollution Control Board
Case No.
74—221;
8.
Illinois Brick shall pay a penalty of $5,000 for
violation of RulEs
103(b) (2)
and 202(b)
of the Regulations
and Sections
9(a)
and 9(b)
of the Act, payment to be made by
certified check or money order within 35 days of the date of
this Order
to:
State
of
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opnion
and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
_________,
1975 by a
vote of
~
Christan
L. Moffett~1erk
Iiiir~nis
Pr,lliii-,rrn
4-rr~1
~