ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 23,
1994
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
AMEROCK CORPORATION, ROCKFORD
FACILITY, SITE-SPECIFIC
)
R87-33
RULEMAKING
PETITION FOR
)
(Rulemaking)
AMENDMENT TO 35 ILL.ADN.CODE
)
PART 304, SUBPART C
)
Adopted Rule.
Final Order.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on Amerock Corporation’s
August 24,
1987 petition for site-specific rulemaking.
Amerock
seeks site-specific relief at its Rockford manufacturing facility
from the effluent limitations for chromium (total and
hexavalent), copper,
zinc,
cyanide, and total suspended solids
(TSS).
The general effluent limitations currently applicable to
Amerock are set forth at 35 Ill.
Adin. Code 304.124(a).
Amerock
asks that those concentration—based limitations be revised to
mass-based limitations.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act (Act).
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1992).)
The Board
is charged by the Act to “determine, define
and implement the environmental control standards applicable in
the state of Illinois.”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b)
(1992).)
More
generally, the Board’s rulemaking charge is based on the system
of checks and balances integral to Illinois environmental
governance:
the Board bears responsibility for the rulemaking
and principal adjudicatory functions, while the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
is responsible for
carrying out the principal administrative duties.
The Agency’s
duties include administering the regulations that are proposed
for adoption in this rulemaking.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A merit hearing on this petition was held in Rockford on
January 25,
1988.
Briefs were filed by both Ainerock and the
Agency.
On April 19,
1988,
the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources(ENR)
issued its decision that it would perform an
economic impact study
(EcIS)
on the requested site—specific
2
rule.’
That EcIS, entitled “Economic Impact Study on Amerock
Site—Specific Rule Change”, was filed with the Board on November
19,
1990.
(Exh.
17.)
An economic impact hearing was held in
Rockford on July 18,
1991.
Amerock subsequently filed an
additional brief, although the Agency did not.
On February 3,
1994,
the Board proposed to grant Azerock’s
request for site—specific relief, and proposed a rule for first
notice.
That proposal was published in the Illinois Register on
February 18,
1994, at 18 Ill.Reg.
2560.
The Board received no
public comments during the first notice period, and proceeded to
second notice on May 5,
1994, without making any substantive
changes to the proposed rule.
The Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
considered the proposed rule at its
June 14,
1994 meeting.
On June 21,
1994, the Board received
JCAR’s statement of no objection to the proposed rule.
Today the
Board adopts the rule.
BACKGROUND
Ainerock owns and operates a facility in Rockford, Illinois
which manufactures high—quality decorative hardware products.
The facility includes a wide variety of manufacturing operations
necessary to convert alloys of steel,
zinc, and copper, as well
as plastics,
into finished products for the home.
Manufacturing
operations at the plant include sheet metal fabrication,
zinc
diecasting, plastic molding, burnishing,
buffing, cleaning,
electroplating,
coloring, painting and lacquering,
assembling,
packaging, and shipping.
Amerock employs approximately 1500
people at its Rockford facility.
(Tn. at
8_9.)2
Most work areas, where dust or metal—containing particles
are generated,
are vented to the outside air.
Amerock states
that this venting
is done to comply with the requirements of the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, and to otherwise
ensure employee health and safety.
Amerock states that all of
its air emission sources are in compliance with the Board’s air
pollution regulations.
However, some of the material exhausted
to the atmosphere (primarily metal-containing particulate)
settles on the roof of the facility and is washed into the roof
drainage system by rain and snow melt.
The roof drainage system
I
Section 27 of the Act formerly provided for ENR to
perform EcISs.
(See, e.g.
Ill.Rev.Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½, par.
1027.)
That statutory provision was repealed in 1992
(P.A.
87—
860), and EcISs are no longer part of the regulatory process.
2
“Tn. at
“
indicates the transcript of the January 25,
1988 merit hearing, and “Tr2. at
“
refers to the transcript of
the July
18,
1991 economic impact hearing.
3
is routed to eight separate outfalls
(numbered 000-007 in
Amerock’s NPDES permit) which discharge into North Kent Creek.3
Outfall 003 transports non—contact cooling water
in addition to
the roof drainage.
(Tr2. at 69-70.)
In 1983 Amerock discovered that effluent discharges from the
eight outfalls exceed, from time to time, effluent limitations
for chromium (both hexavalent and total),
copper, cyanide,
zinc,
and TSS.
Ainerock petitioned this Board for a variance for those
parameters, and the Board granted variance on September 20,
1985,
in PCB 84-62.
As modified on November 21,
1985, the variance
expired on September 1, 1987.
On August 24,
1987, Amerock filed
a petition for extension of that variance, as well as the instant
petition for site-specific rulemaking.
The Board granted the
variance petition on January 9,
1992,
in PCB 87—131.
As modified
on February 6,
1992,
the variance extended from December 21,
1987, to December 21,
1992.
On February
4,
1993,
in PCB 92-120,
the Board granted an extension of variance until December 22,
1995,
or until final action on this request for site-specific
relief.
REQUESTED RELIEF
Section 27(a)
of the Act provides that the Board may adopt
regulations specific to individual persons or sites.
In making
our rulemaking decisions,
the Board is required to consider:
the existing physical conditions,
the character of the
area involved,
including the character of surrounding
land uses,
zoning classifications,
the nature of the
existing air quality,
or receiving body of water,
as
the case may be,
and the technical feasibility and
economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the
particular type of pollution.
(415 ILCS 5/27(a)
(1992).)
Arnerock contends that although there are technically
feasible options for compliance with the effluent standards, the
cost of those options fan outweighs any environmental benefit to
be gained by compliance.
Thus, Amerock argues that compliance is
economically unreasonable, and that the Board should grant
Amerock’s request for mass-based,
rather than concentration-
based, effluent limitations for chromium (total and hexavalent),
copper,
zinc, cyanide, and TSS.
Amerock
notes
that
stormwater
permit
rules
became
effective on November 16,
1990, pursuant to the Clean Water Act,
but states that its NPDES permit
already
included
a
stoninwater
component.
(Tr2.
at 93.)
4
COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVES
As
part of its compliance evaluation, Amerock retained Lancy
International
to
identify
compliance
options.
(Exh.
1, App. B.)
Lancy identified five options:
1)
collection and treatment of
the contaminated run—off water;
2)
source abatement (installation
of air pollution control equipment;
3) discharge of the roof run-
off to the sanitary sewer;
4) combination of all outfall
discharges with the cooling water discharges from outfall 003
before final discharge to North Kent Creek; and 5) collection and
hold-up of all run—off water with slow—bleed into the cooling
water outfall.
Ainerock did not further evaluate options four and
five because it believes that those options are contrary to the
non—dilution principle in the Board’s regulations.
(Tr2. at 73;
see 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 304.102.)
After the merit hearing in this
matter, Amerock further studied the sanitary sewer discharge
option
(option three), and decided that it was not an appropriate
control option when compared to options one and two.
(Tr2.
at
74—75.)
The collection and treatment option involves collecting the
stormwater run-off and transporting it to a new wastewater
treatment facility on Ainerock’s property.
The run—off would be
neutralized and any heavy metals removed, and the treated
stormwater would be discharged either to North Kent Creek or to
the Rockford Sanitary District sewer system.
The cost of this
option was estimated at $l.485 million in November 1986, with
estimated operating costs of $300,000 per year.
This option has
the advantages of treating the
entire
stormwater run—off, and an
enclosed treatment facility at a single location.
Amerock states
that the disadvantages of the collection and treatment option are
high
equipment
maintenance
costs,
high
capital
costs
to
treat
relatively
clean
water,
increased
sewer
user
fees,
production
of
a
hazardous
waste,
and
additional
permitting requirements.
(Tn.
at 20—21; Exh.
5(a).)
The source abatement option involves the installation of
baghouses to capture zinc diecast melting furnace exhaust, and
wet scrubbers to capture the plating and other finishing
operation exhaust.
The installation cost of this option was
estimated at $1 million in November 1985, with a
1987
estimate
of
$306,000
for
the baghouse only, excluding engineering,
transportation,
ducting,
and
other
installation
charges.
Annual
operating
costs
were
estimated
at
$200,000.
The
source
abatement
option
has
the
advantage
of
eliminating
the
contamination
at
the
source,
and
is
less
costly
than
the
collection
and
treatment
option.
Aiuerock
states
that
the
disadvantages
include
extensive
equipment
maintenance,
the
possibility
that
effluent
produced
by
the
wet
scrubbers
will
exceed
the
capacity
of
the
existing
pretreatment
facilities,
the
requirement that baghouse dust be
handled
as
either
a
special
waste
or a hazardous waste, and
additional
permitting
requirements.
(Tn.
at
21-23;
Exh.
5(b).)
5
The
EcIS
also
evaluated
the collection and treatment option
and
the
source
abatement
option.
The
EcIS
found
that
the
source
abatement
option
would
have
total
costs,
over
a
25—year
period,
of $1.8 million, while the collection and treatment option would
have total costs of $1.9 million.
The study concluded that the
source abatement option was least costly, and that it would
remove nearly 100 percent of the contaminants.
By contrast,
collection and treatment fails to achieve the same removal
efficiency, especially since some particulates are blown off the
roof and would not enter a collection system.
(Exh.
17 at 9-10;
77—100.)
Amerock, however, contends that the EcIS fails to adequately
evaluate the scope and costs of both of these compliance options.
Amerock maintains that the present value cost of the collection
and treatment option is in excess of $2.5 million, and the
present value cost of the
source
abatement
option
is
approximately $7 million.
(Tr2. at 79—94,
133—142;
Exh.
16.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Amerock
contends
that
its
stormwater
discharges
cause
virtually no adverse environmental impact on North Kent Creek.
Ainerock maintains that biological stream studies demonstrate that
there are a greater number and a greater diversity of benthic
macro—invertebrates,
as well as a greater number of fish and fish
species, downstream
of
Amerock’s
discharges
than upstream.
(Trl.
at 16—17; Exh.
1, App.
D; Exh.
2,
3, and 4.)
Amerock also states
that
macroinvertebrate
biotic
indices
establish
that
the
downstream
biological
integrity
of
North
Kent
Creek
has
not
been
adversely
affected
by
Amerock’s
discharges.
(Exh.
4,
Table
2.)
Amerock further contends that water quality sampling over a three
year period showed only two marginal water quality violations,
for
zinc.
(Exh.
17 at 46.)
Finally, Amerock maintains that
stream sediment analyses demonstrate that there is no
accumulation of cyanide, total chromium, or hexavalent chromium
in the sediments of North Kent Creek.
(Exh.
1.)
The Agency disagrees
with
Amerock’s
conclusions on the
environmental impact of Amerock’s discharges.
The Agency argues
that
much
of
the
evidence
presented
by
Amerock
is
based
upon
flawed
assumptions,
so
that
Amerock’s
conclusions
are
unsupported.
For
example,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
sampling
was
too
limited
in
scope,
in
terms
of
the
number
of
sampling
events
and
the
failure to obtain a true composite.
The Agency
also
believes
that
were
more
than
two
water
quality
violations,
including
several
upstream
from
Amerock’s
discharges.
(Agency
Brief,
3/9/88,
at
9—li.)
The
EcIS
also
addressed
the
environmental
impact
of
Amerock’s
stormwater
discharges.
The
EcIS
concluded
that
there
is
a
potential
hazard
to
aquatic
life
from
copper
and
possibly
6
zinc,
even
though
North
Kent
Creek
is a relatively good biotic
resource.
The EcIS further concluded that the metallic
constituents are not toxic to humans or non—aquatic animals at
concentrations found either by contact or through accidental
ingestion.
(Exh.
17
at
152;
see
generally
Exh.
17 at 104-154.)
In response, Amerock argues that the environmental conclusions in
the
EcIS
are
of
very
limited
value,
and
contends
that
the
conclusion
that
there
is
a
potential
hazard
to
aquatic
life
from
copper
and
zinc
is
unfounded.
ECONOMIC
REASONABLENESS
As
noted
above,
Amerock
admits
that
compliance
with
the
applicable effluent limitations is technically feasible.
However,
Ainerock
maintains
that
compliance
costs
must
be
evaluated
in
relation
to
the
environmental
benefit
to
be
achieved
from compliance.
Amerock contends that in this case, the cost of
any
technically
feasible
compliance
option
far
exceeds
any
conceivable
environmental
benefit.
Therefore,
Ainerock
argues
that compliance with the existing effluent standards is
economically unreasonable.
The Agency criticizes the evidence submitted by Amerock on
the issue of economic reasonableness,
stating that Amerock has
failed to provide any evidence on the economics of the compliance
options in the context of Ainerock’s overall operations.
The
Agency contends that Amerock, as proponent, has an obligation to
provide adequate economic information to provide a basis for cost
comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the testimony,
exhibits, and arguments of
the participants in this case,
the Board finds that site-specific
relief is warranted.
It is undisputed that compliance is
technically feasible, but we agree with Amenock that comparing
the costs of compliance with the minimal environmental impact of
Amerock’s stormwater discharges leads to a conclusion that
compliance, at this time,
is economically unreasonable.
We
believe this case is analogous to the Board’s decision in
Petition for Site-Specific Volatile Organic Material Emission
Limitations for National Can Corporation (January 22,
1987), R85-
28, where the Board found that requiring the installation and
operation of control equipment would impose a financial hardship
without conferring a measurable environmental impact.
There is
some dispute over the environmental impact of Amerock’s
stormwater discharges, and some questions remain unresolved.
However, Amerock has not requested relief from the water quality
standards, and we reiterate that relief from the effluent
standards does not provide a defense to any water quality
violation.
We believe that Ainerock has presented sufficient
information to conclude, at this time,
that the environmental
7
impact of Ainerock’s stormwater discharges is minimal.
However, the Board is uncertain what effect the air toxic
provisions of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC S7401 et
seq.),
as well as the air toxic control provisions of the state
Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.5
(1992)), may have on
Ainerock’s
practice
of
venting
its
workspaces
directly
to
the
air,
without
add—on
controls.
If
Amerock
were
to
be
required
to
discontinue
venting
those
workspaces
without
add—on
controls,
the
run-off
problem
may
be
negated.
If
so,
the
need
for
this
site-
specific
relief
would
no
longer
exist.
Therefore,
we
will
grant
a
temporary
site-specific
rule,
until
December
31,
2000.
This
period will allow the impact of the air toxic programs to become
clear,
so
that
we
can
be
fully
informed
before
granting
a
permanent
site—specific
rule.
ORDER
The Clerk is directed to file the following adopted rule
with the Secretary of State:
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART C:
TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section 304.303
Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility
a)
This Section applies only to stoniuwater discharges from
Ainerock Corporation’s Rockford facility into North Kent
Creek in Winnebago County,
Illinois.
b)
Instead of the general effluent limitations set forth in
Section 304.124(a)
for the following listed parameters,
stormwater discharges from Ainerock’s Rockford facility shall
not exceed the following limitations:
STORET
LIMITATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(lbs/mo)
Chromium
(total)
01032
j~Q
Chromium
(hexavalent)
01033
1.0
Co~~er
01042
20.0
cyanide
00720
Zinc
01092
60.0
Total Suspended Solids
00530
300.0
~j
This Section is not effective after December 31.
2000.
8
(Source:
Added
at
18
Ill.Reg.
_________,
effective
__________)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
M.
McFawn
abstained.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
opinion
and
order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
_______________,
1994,
by
a
vote
of6~_.
~
2~u,
Dorothy M.
,~unn,
Clerk
Illinois P~lutionControl Board