ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 3,
1994
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
ANEROCK
CORPORATION,
ROCKFORD
)
FACILITY,
SITE-SPECIFIC
)
R87-33
RULEMAKING
PETITION
FOR
)
(Rulemaking)
AMENDMENT TO 35
ILL.ADM.CODE
)
PART 304, SUBPART C
)
Proposed Rule.
First
Notice.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on Ainerock Corporation’s
August 24,
1987 petition for site-specific rulemaking.
Ainerock
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
Ainerock are set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124(a).
Ainerock
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 sea.
(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.
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
rule.1
That EcIS,
entitled “Economic Impact Study on Ainerock
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That statutory provision was repealed in 1992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
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.
BACKGROUND
Amerock 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.
Ainerock employs approximately 1500
people at its Rockford facility.
(Tn. at
8_9.)2
Most work areas in which 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.
Ainerock 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
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.
Amerock 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,
Ainerock filed
a petition for extension of that variance, as well as the instant
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.
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
stormwater
component.
(Tr2.
at 93.)
3
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)
.)
Amerock contends that although there are technically
feasible options for compliance with the effluent standards,
the
cost of those options far 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.
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.
Amerock 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. Adm. 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.)
4
The collection and treatment option involves collecting the
stormwater run—off and transporting it to a new wastewater
treatment facility on Amerock’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 $1.485 million in November 1986, with
estimated operating costs of $300,000 per year.
This option has
the advantages of treating the entire storawater run-off, and an
enclosed1 treatment facility at a single location.
Ainerock 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.
Amerock 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).)
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 ~ource abatement option is
approximately $7 million.
(Tr2. at 79—94,
133—142; Exh.
16.)
5
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Ainerock
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 nupiber of fish and fish
species, downstream of Ainerock’s discharges than upstream.
(Tn.
at 16-17;
Exh.
1, App.
D; Exh.
2,
3, and 4.)
Ainerock 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, Arnerock 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 Ainenock’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.
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
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,
Ainerock admits that compliance with the
applicable effluent limitations
is technically feasible.
However, Amerock maintains that compliance costs must be
evaluated in relation to the environmental benefit to be achieved
from compliance.
Ainerock contends that in this case, the cost of
any technically feasible cpmpliance option far exceeds any
conceivable environmental benefit.
Therefore, Amerock argues
that compliance with the existing effluent standards is
6
economically unreasonable.
The Agency criticizes the evidence submitted by Ainerock on
the issue of economic reasonableness,
stating that Arnerock has
failed to provide any evidence on the economics of the compliance
options in the context of Aiuerock’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 Ainerock that comparing
the costs of compliance with the minimal environmental impact of
Amenock’s stormwaten 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 fon 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 Amerock has presented sufficient
information to conclude, at this time, that the environmental
impact of Ainerock’s stormwaten 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
Amerock’s practice of venting its wonkspaces directly to the air,
without add-on controls.
Therefore, we propose to grant only a
temporary site-specific rule, until December 31, 2000.
This
period will allow the impact of the air toxic programs to become
clean,
so that we can be fully informed before granting a
permanent site—specific rule.
ORDER
The Clerk is directed to file the following proposed rule
with the Secretary of State for first notice publication in the
Illinois Register:
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
7
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 stormwaten discharges from
Aiuenock 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,
storawaten discharges from Ainerock’s Rockford facility shall
not exceed the following limitations:
STORET
LIMITATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(lbsfmo~
Chromium (total)
01032
4.0
Chromium (hexavalent)
01033
1.0
Copper
01042
20.0
Cyanide
00720
3.0
Zinc
01092
60.0
Total Suspended Solids
00530
300.0
c)
This section expires on December 31,
2000.
(Source:
Added at 18 Ill.Reg.
__________,
effective
-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
N. McFawn abstained.
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab
e opinion and order was
adopted on the
~
day of
_______________,
1994, by a vote
of
~
.
7
Dorothy N. G9~7h,Clerk
/
Illinois Pol~tionControl Board