ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    14,
    1975
    INTERCONTINENTAL ALLOYS CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    )
    PCB 74—432
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle):
    Intercontinental Alloys Corporation owns and operates a
    facility north of Crest
    Hill,
    Will County,
    Illinois
    for the
    manufacture of aluminum alloys.
    Equipment
    at this facility
    includes two gas-fired reverberatory furnaces having
    a capacity
    of 85,000 lb.
    Particulate emissions from the furnaces are not
    controlled.
    Petitioner has filed
    a Petition for Variance in which relief
    is sought from Rule 203(a)
    of the Air Pollution Control Regu-
    lations until such time as air pollution control equipment can
    be installed.
    Current plans call for the installation
    of hooding
    ducts and blowers on furnace
    #1 by February 28,
    1975 and on
    furnace
    #2 by September 1,
    1975.
    However,
    if refractory materials
    are not available then furnace
    #2 will not be controlled until
    January
    1,
    1976.
    In the operation of its furnaces Petitioner charges each furnace
    with 40,000 to 60,000 lbs.
    of aluminum scrap every
    24 hours.
    A
    molten heel of 30,000 lbs.
    is customarily maintained in each
    furnace during each melt cycle.
    Chlorine is used in the process
    to clean contaminants from the molten metal.
    Not all melts require
    a cleaning with chlorine,
    When the chlorine process is required
    it is used
    for approximately
    1 hour per day.
    Emissions from the furnace vary with
    the quality of scrap
    aluminum used.
    The use of dirty scrap causes a higher emission
    rate than clean scrap because the dirty scrap
    is contaminated by
    oil and paint.
    Petitioner estimates that emissions from the two
    furnaces are 10,7 lbs,/hr.
    (based
    on. a process weight rate of
    60,000 lbs./day),
    and computes the allowable particulate emission
    rate at 7~58lbs./hr.
    15
    —
    517
    —2—
    The allowable emission rate of 7.58 lbs./hr. appears to
    have been determined using the equation in Rule 202(b) which
    is not the applicable Rule in this case.
    Petitioner states
    that tables “from the U.
    S. Environmental Protection Agency~
    were used to calculate the actual emission rate of 10.75 lbs./hr.
    Table 7.8-1 of AP—42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
    Factors, Second Edition, shows an emission factor of 4.3 lbs.
    particulates per ton of aluminum scrap for an uncontrolled re-
    verberatory furnaöe.
    Using this emission factor it can be
    determined that a process weight rate of 120,000 lbs./day
    (60
    tons) woñld have to be used in the calculations instead of
    60,000 lbs./day to arrive at an emission rate of
    10.75
    lbs./hr.
    The total process weight rate for both furnaces was 120,000 lbs.
    per day and we conclude that total emissions from both furnaces
    were 10.75 lbs./hr.
    The Agency submits the following data:
    Emissions during normal melting
    (23 hrs/day)
    =
    10.7 lbs/hr.
    Emissions during chlorination
    (1 hr/day)
    =
    167 lbs/hr.
    Average emissions
    =
    17.2 lbs/hr.
    Allowable emissions
    =
    3.0
    lbs1’hr.
    It
    is unclear from the record how the Agency arrived at an
    allowable emission rate of
    3.0 lbs./hr.
    Excluding chlorine
    usage,
    a source processing 120,000 lbs./day
    (2.5 tons/hr.)
    is
    allowed under Rule 203(a)
    to emit 4.14
    lbs. particulates per hour.
    Since the record fai1ed to show the amount of chlorine used in
    the process, we cannot calculate the allowable emission rate at
    this time.
    This deficiency does not prevent a decision in this
    matter, however,
    since the data that is available shows that
    Petitioner
    is in violation of Rule 203(a), which is one of the
    preliminary requirements for receiving
    a variance.
    In an enforcement case involving these two parties
    (PCB 74-10)
    Intercontinental Alloys stipulated that it would install hooding
    ducts and blowers to collect and incinerate its emissions.
    Under
    this Stipulation Petitioner will alter and convert its two furnaces
    so as to utilize a secret patented process
    to reduce particulate
    emissions during chlorination.
    Information on the process, known
    as the “Derham Process” has been made available to the Agency on
    condition that the Agency consider such information confidential.
    In its Recommendation the Agency reports that Agency personnel
    reviewed information on the “Derham Process” and concluded that
    Petitioner’s proposed control program should bring the facility
    into compliance with Rule 203(a).
    The Agency also found Petitioner’s
    Project Completion Schedule to be reasonable.
    15 —518
    Petitioner’s facility is located in
    a rural
    area.
    Complaints
    about the operation have been received from area residents “from
    time to time”
    but there were no objections to the granting of
    this variance.
    The environmental impact
    is
    not large.
    The
    Agency recommends granting
    this
    variance ~ubject tc certain
    conditions.
    We will grant the variance and shall require a bond in the
    amount of $30,000 for the installation of the pollution control
    equip:nent.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact and
    conclusions of law.
    Mr.
    Henss dissents.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Inter-
    continental Alloys Corporation be granted variance from Rule 203(a)
    of the Air Pollution Control Regulations to and including
    January
    1,
    1976 for the purpose of installing pollution control
    equipment at its Crest Hill, Illinois facility.
    This variance
    is subject to the following conditions:
    1.
    Petitioner shall apply to the Environmental Protection
    Agency for construction and operating permits.
    2.
    Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports to
    the Agency.
    Said progress reports shall commence on March
    31,
    1975 and shall provide details of Petitioner’s progress
    toward achieving compliance with Rule 203(a)
    3.
    Petitioner shall, by March
    31,
    1975, post a bond in
    the amount of $30,000 in
    a form acceptable
    to the Environmental
    Protection Agency, such bond to be forfeited in the event
    Petitioner fails to install and operate the pollution control
    equipment.
    Bond shall be made to:
    Fiscal Services Division,
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
    Road,
    Springfield, Illinois 62706.
    4.
    Within 35 days of the completion of installation
    of the control equipment for each furnace, Petitioner
    shall cause a stack test to be conducted on that furnace
    by an independent testing company.
    Petitioner shall notify
    the Agency in writing at least 7 days prior to the testing
    15—519
    —4—
    and shall allow Agency personnel to witness all tests.
    Written notification shall be made to:
    Environmental
    Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control,
    Surveillance Section, Naval Armory, East Randolph and the
    Lake, Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    /~/~‘~
    day of February,
    1975 by a vote of
    Christan L.
    offe
    Cler
    Illinois Pollution
    ontrol Board
    15 —520

    Back to top