ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    3,
    1975
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY
    COMPLAINANT
    )
    PCB
    74—102
    INTERCONTINENTAL ALLOYS CORPORATION
    RESPONDENT
    )
    INTERIM
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Marder)
    This
    action
    involves
    a
    Complaint
    filed
    March
    20,
    1974,
    by
    the
    En-
    vironmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    against
    Intercontinental
    Al-
    lays
    Corp.
    (Respondent).
    On July 10, 1974,
    the Board received a
    Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
    Said Motion was grant-
    ed.
    The
    Amended
    Complaint
    incorporates
    the
    March
    20,
    1974,
    Complaint
    and
    adds
    additional
    new
    counts
    inserted
    as
    Counts
    IV
    and
    V.
    Respondent
    owns
    and
    operates
    a
    facility
    located
    between
    Illinois
    Route 53 and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
    Said facility is
    used for the manufacture of aluminum alloys.
    The equipment in quest~
    ion
    consists of two gas-fired aluminum melting reverberatory furnaces,
    each with a capacity of 85,000 pounds.
    These furnaces are charged
    with between 40,000 and 60,000 pounds of aluminum scraps and approxi-
    mately 30,000 pounds of molten aluminum
    heel
    usually remains from pre-
    ceding charges.
    As an integral part of the process cycle, Respondent
    utilizes chlorine for one hour per day.
    The Agency alleges that during the operation of the abovementioned
    furnaces, certain violations of the Board~sRules and Regulations oc-
    curred as follows:
    1.
    From
    July
    1, 1970,
    to December 31,
    1973, Respondent operated
    its facility so as to exceed the particulate discharge limits
    as required by Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Govern-
    ing the Control of Air Pollution.
    2.
    From January
    1,
    1974,
    till the date of this Complaint,
    Respondent
    operated its facilities so as to allow discharges of particulates
    in excess of Rule 203
    (a)
    of Chapter 2
    (Air Rules).
    3.
    On September 24,
    September 28, September
    30, October
    i, October
    6, October 15, October 19 of
    1970,
    and February 18,
    1971, Jan-
    uary
    20,
    May
    4,
    October
    24,
    and
    October 27 of 1972, Respondent
    operated its facilities
    so
    as
    to
    emit
    smoke
    of
    greater
    than
    *2
    Ringelmann in violation of Rule 3-3.122 of the Rules and Regula-
    tions Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
    15
    —
    49
    4.
    On November 6,
    1973, Resgonden~operated its facilities
    so
    as to emit smoke
    ~n excess of 3~lopa~ccyfor longer
    than eight minutes, and had a single emission greater
    than 60
    opacity in violation of Rule 202
    (b)
    of the
    l~irRules.
    5,
    On April
    3,
    1974, Pespon3ent operated its facilities in
    such
    a manner as
    to emit
    fumes
    tnto the ambaent atmosehere
    which unreasonably interfered
    Wi~fl
    the enjoyment of life
    or
    property.
    It is alleged that Respondent~sem~s~~ons
    ~o interfered with normal traffic on Rte.
    53 tnat local
    ~lice
    officers were called out to direct traffic.
    6,
    It is alleged that Respondent~sfacilities were operated
    without
    a receipt of an Agency-issued operating permit in
    violation of Rule 103
    (b) (2)
    of the Air Rules.
    7-8.
    Respondent installed its furnaces
    in 1967 and 1970 with-
    out an installation permit as required by Rule 3-2.100 of
    the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
    of
    Air
    Pollution.
    9.
    Respondent installed hoods to be used as air pollution
    control devices in 1971 without the receipt of an install-
    ation permit as required by Rule 3-2.100 of the Rules and
    Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
    Hearing was held on September
    5,
    1974,
    at which time
    the
    only parties
    present were representatives from the Agency and the Respondent.
    No
    members of the public attended the hearing.
    The hearing consisted sole-
    ly of the submission of a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
    The Stipulation
    as entered adequately handles certain counts
    (or
    parts of counts)
    and is generally acceptable to the Board,
    However,
    the Stipulation ignores certain other counts.
    There are no facts upon
    which
    the Board can make judgment, nor is there a Stipulated Motion
    for Dismissal of such counts.
    The Board thus has no way of adequately
    resolving the counts of the Complaint which were not addressed.
    The
    entire Stipulation then must fall.
    The Board hastens to add that the
    Stipulation has merit
    and could be amended to cure the abovementioned
    defects.
    We will thus allow reasonable time for such corrections
    be-
    fore
    ordering the proceeding to additional hearings.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that within
    60 days
    from the date of this Order the parties to this matter shall submit
    to
    the
    Board an Amended Stipulation which
    will
    cure the defects ad-
    dressed in this opinion.
    Should the parties be unable to comply witri
    the above,
    the Clerk of bhe Board stall set the matter for additional
    hearings
    as
    ray
    be
    required.
    15 —50
    —3
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Order
    was
    adopted
    by
    t~ie
    Board on the
    ________
    dcty of
    1974,
    by a vote of
    ~
    to
    (~
    15—51

    Back to top