ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 18, 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF AMEROCK

CORPORATION, ROCKFORD FACILITY,

FOR SITE-SPECIFIC RULEMAKING

PETITION FOR AMENDMENT TO 35 ILL.

ADM. CODE 304.303

)

R01-15

(Site-Specific Rulemaking - Water)

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):

On September 14, 2000, Amerock Corporation (Amerock) filed a petition (Pet.) for

site-specific rulemaking. Amerock’s site-specific rule (35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.403) for its

facility at 4000 Auburn Street in Rockford, Winnebago County, Illinois (facility) expired

December 31, 2000. See Amerock Corp., Rockford Facility, Site-Specific Rulemaking

Petition for Amendment to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304. Subpart C (June 23, 1994), R87-33.

Amerock’s site-specific rule allowed it to discharge higher levels of chromium (total and

hexavalent), copper, cyanide (total), zinc, and total suspended solids into the North Fork Kent

Creek (Creek) than would otherwise be permissible pursuant to the rule of general applicability

at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124(a). Pet. at 2-3.

In its petition Amerock requested that the Board remove the December 31, 2000 sunset

provision from its site-specific rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.303 and renumber the rule as 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.233. Amerock also requested that the Board incorporate the record from

docket R87-33 into the instant docket and waive the requirement that it file a petition signed by

at least 200 persons as required at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202.

1 Pet at 2, 6.

In this order, the Board finds that Amerock’s amended petition (Am. Pet.) for relief,

like its original petition, is deficient. The Board directs that Amerock file a second amended

petition addressing the specific points listed below. If Amerock fails to file a second amended

petition by June 29, 2001, or if Amerock fails to comply with the specifications of this order,

the Board will dismiss this matter.

Description of Facility

Amerock’s facility has a variety of manufacturing operations that convert raw materials

such as steel, zinc, copper, and plastics into household products. The facility releases dust and

metal-containing particulates into the air, which Amerock claims are in compliance with the

Board’s air pollution control requirements and applicable air emission limitations. Some of the

1 The Board has adopted new procedural rules effective January 1, 2001. All citations in this

order are to these new rules.

air emissions, primarily metal-containing particulates, settle on the roof of the facility and are

washed into the roof drains. The roof drainage is discharged into the Creek. Pet. at 2-3.

Procedural History

In October 2000, the Board issued an order in which it found that Amerock’s initial

petition was deficient in several respects. Specifically, the Board found that the petition did

not contain most of the information which the Board must consider in promulgating a rule as

specified at Section 27(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act). 415 ILCS 5/27(a)

(1998). The Board also found that the petition did not contain an adequate statement of

reasons as required at Section 28 of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/28 (1998). Furthermore, the Board

found that the petition did not satisfy all of the requirements at Sections 102.202 and 102.210

of the Board’s procedural rules. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202, 102.210. The Board ordered

Amerock to submit an amended petition by November 6, 2000. If Amerock failed to submit an

amended petition, the Board stated that it would dismiss the petition as inadequate. See 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 102.212(a). The Board also reserved ruling on Amerock’s request to incorporate

the record from docket R87-33 and the request to waive the petition signature requirement.

See Amerock Corp., Rockford Facility, for Site-Specific Rulemaking Petition for Amendment

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.303 (October 5, 2000), R01-15.

On November 2, 2000, Amerock filed a motion for extension of time to file the

amended petition. Amerock stated that it was preparing additional documentation for the

amended petition and needed additional time to collect the relevant information. On November

13, 2000, the hearing officer issued an order granting Amerock’s motion. Pursuant to the

hearing officer order, Amerock timely filed its amended petition on November 27, 2000.

DISCUSSION

Existing Physical Conditions, Character of the Area to be Affected, Nature of the Existing

Receiving Body of Water - Section 27(a) of the Act, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.210(b), 102.210(c)

In its October order, the Board determined that Amerock did not provide current

monitoring data on water quality, biological activity, or sediment analysis in the Creek to support

its assertion that its discharges have minimal environmental impacts.

Amerock Corp., R01-15,

slip op. at 2.

In its amended petition, Amerock indicated that it had hired Huff & Huff to

conduct new biological and sediment studies in the Creek during the spring of 2001. However,

Amerock did not mention studying the impact of the contaminants of concern on water quality or

fish tissue. The Board directs Amerock to analyze water quality (at points upstream, between,

and downstream of Amerock’s outfalls) and to provide new data in its amended petition.

As part

of its analysis, Amerock must also provide information on past and current water quality data

in the Creek and compare this data to the Board’s water quality standards. Amerock must also

provide data on the presence of contaminants of concern in fish tissue.

The Board notes that the then-existing Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR) conducted an economic impact study during the proceedings in docket R87-33.

2 The

DENR expressed some concern that chromium emissions which did not land on Amerock’s

roof might be dissolving in the soil. Samples from two nearby water wells had high levels of

chromium, and the DENR considered Amerock as a possible source. Amerock must submit a

groundwater impact demonstration as part of its second amended petition.

Although Amerock provided information on zoning and surrounding land use in the

amended petition, the information that it provided is dated November 1990. Am. Pet. at Exh.

4. The Board directs Amerock to provide more recent data on zoning and surrounding land

and Creek uses, including (but not limited to) information on nearby parks and recreation

areas, residential areas, and downstream fisheries.

Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness of Compliance Options - Section 27 (a) of

the Act, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(b), 102.210(b) and 102.210(c)

In its October order, the Board determined that Amerock had relied on evaluation of

compliance options from 15 years ago and had not provided an updated cost analysis or an

updated evaluation of compliance alternatives. Amerock Corp., R01-15, slip op. at 2. In its

amended petition, Amerock identified the same compliance options from its original petition

and updated the costs of those compliance options to reflect the rate of inflation since 1990.

Am. Pet. at 5,6. The Board does not find this analysis to be complete.

Furthermore, of the three non-dilution compliance options presented in docket R87-33,

Amerock identified only two (source abatement and collection/treatment) in the amended

petition. Amerock Corp., R87-33, slip op. at 5-6. Amerock did not consider the third

compliance option (discharge to a sanitary sewer) in the amended petition. Furthermore, it is

unclear if the costs presented in the amended petition are capital costs or annual operating

costs. The Board directs Amerock to analyze all three compliance options presented in docket

R87-33 including a feasible means to address any safety or hazardous waste diposal concerns

associated with the sanitary sewer discharge option. Amerock must also analyze the capital

and annual operating costs of each option.

The Board also directs Amerock to analyze pollution prevention options such as new

inputs or manufacturing processes that lower airborne emissions from the facility. Amerock

also must analyze air emissions controls other than bag houses, including new advances and

equipment suitable for air emission controls.

The Board notes that the Amerock facility has grown in size from 750,000 square feet

(according to the R87-33 docket) to 850,000 square feet as described in the initial petition.

Amerock must address the changes in plant operations that would increase or decrease the

2 The Department of Energy and Natural Resources is now known as the Department of

Natural Resources.

pollutant load in the roof runoff, including changes in manufacturing processes, raw materials,

and venting practices.

Amerock must analyze all compliance options for technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness (including a breakdown of capital costs and annual operating costs). The Board

directs Amerock to determine if advances in technology or new equipment have caused the real

cost of compliance options to decrease. The Board also directs Amerock to compare cost

figures for compliance options to its overall operating budget.

The Board also directs

Amerock to present information on other facilities that must

comply with the rule of general applicability.

Statement of Reasons/Statement of Facts/Statement of Purpose - Section 28 of the Act, 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 102.202(b)

Amerock states that the lack of environmental impact and substantial compliance costs

are reasons for the site-specific rulemaking. The statement of reasons will not be adequate and

it will not be fruitful to schedule a hearing until Amerock provides a more complete analysis of

compliance options and submits further biological, water, sediment, and groundwater sampling

as directed above.

As part of its analysis, the Board directs Amerock to provide information (such as

discharge monitoring reports) on compliance with its recently-expired site-specific rulemaking

at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.303. Amerock must prove to the Board that it was able to comply

with its recently-expired site-specific rule before the Board will consider adopting a new

nearly-identical site-specific rule.

Petition Signature Requirement - Section 28 of the Act, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(f)

In both the petition and amended petition, Amerock requested that the Board waive the

petition signature requirement. The Board will wait until after Amerock files the second

amended petition to rule on this request.

Proposed Language – 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(a), 102.210(a)

The Board notes that the next available statutory reference at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304

Subpart B is Section 304.223, not Section 304.233. Amerock’s proposed site-specific

rulemaking, if adopted, would be at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.223.

The Board also notes that Amerock should amend its proposed language to request that

the site-specific rule apply to the North Fork Kent Creek as opposed to North Kent Creek.

North Fork Kent Creek is the name that the United States Geological Survey uses for this

waterbody.

Synopsis of Testimony – 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(c)

In the second amended petition, Amerock must submit a complete synopsis of its

testimony for hearing.

Amendment of Existing Board Rule – 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(h)

Amerock must certify that its proposal amends the most recent version of its recently-

expired site-specific rulemaking. This is a new requirement pursuant to the new procedural

rules.

Justification for Missing Information – 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(j), 35 Ill. Adm. Code

102.210(f)

In its petition and amended petition, Amerock failed to justify its failure to provide

recent information on zoning and land use. It also failed to justify its failure to provide a

complete set of compliance alternatives and information on current water and sediment quality.

If Amerock cannot provide the information specified above in the second amended petition,

Amerock must provide a complete justification for the omission of the specified information.

Consistency with Federal Law – 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.210(d)

In the amended petition, Amerock states that it “is not requesting relief from water

quality standards, and the Board can grant the requested relief consistent with federal law.”

Am. Pet. at 8. The Board is not satisfied with this statement. Amerock must provide

information on the current status of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit and how its petition will affect its NPDES permit.

Incorporation of the Record from Docket R87-33

In both its initial petition and its amended petition, Amerock requested that the Board

incorporate the record from docket R87-33 into this docket. The Board will incorporate the

June 23, 1994 final opinion and order from docket R87-33 and the exhibits attached to

Amerock’s amended petition (most of which were part of the record in R87-33). However, the

Board will not simply incorporate the entire record from R87-33. In its second amended

petition, Amerock must provide specific reasons for incorporating individual documents from

the record in R87-33.

CONCLUSION

The Board directs Amerock to submit a second amended petition that satisfies the

informational deficiencies outlined in this order. In the second amended petition, Amerock

must:

Submit the results of the Huff & Huff biological and sediment studies.

Conduct new studies on water quality (at points upstream, between and

downstream of Amerock’s outfalls) in the Creek and analyze the data.

Analyze fish tissue samples from the Creek for the presence of the contaminants

of concern.

Provide information on past and current water quality data in the Creek and

compare this data to the Board’s water quality standards.

Submit a groundwater impact demonstration.

Provide more recent data on zoning and surrounding land and Creek uses,

including (but not limited to) information on nearby parks and recreation areas,

residential areas, and downstream fisheries.

Analyze the three non-dilution compliance options presented in docket R87-33.

Analyze pollution prevention options such as new inputs or manufacturing

processes that lower airborne emissions from the facility.

Analyze air emissions controls other than bag houses, including new advances

and equipment suitable for air emission controls.

10.

Address the changes in plant operations that have increased or decreased the

pollutant load in the roof runoff, including changes in manufacturing processes,

raw materials, and venting practices.

11.

Analyze all compliance options (see points 5, 6, 7, and 8) for technical

feasibility and economic reasonableness, including a breakdown of capital costs

and annual operating costs.

12.

Determine if advances in technology or new equipment have caused the real cost

of compliance options (see points 5, 6, 7, and 8) to decrease since 1990.

13.

Compare cost figures for compliance options (see points 5, 6, 7, and 8) to its

overall operating budget.

14.

Present information on other facilities that must comply with the rule of general

applicability.

15.

Provide information (such as discharge monitoring reports) on compliance with

its recently-expired site-specific rulemaking at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.303.

16.

Change the citation for its proposed site-specific rulemaking to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 304.223.

17.

Amend its proposed language to request that the site-specific rule apply to the

North Fork Kent Creek as opposed to North Kent Creek.

18.

Submit a complete synopsis of its testimony for hearing.

19.

Certify that its proposal amends the most recent version of its recently-expired

site-specific rulemaking.

20.

Provide information on the current status of its NPDES permit and how its

petition will affect its NPDES permit.

21.

Provide a complete justification for the omission of the specified information

above if it cannot provide the information.

Amerock has indicated that it is conducting biological studies, and the Board has

required water quality, sediment, and groundwater studies. In order to provide Amerock with

sufficient time to complete and analyze the studies, the Board will give

Amerock until

June 29, 2001, to submit a second amended petition.

The Board reminds Amerock that the pendency of this docket does not excuse non-

compliance with the general effluent standards at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.

If Amerock fails to submit the second amended petition by June 29, 2001, or if Amerock

fails to comply with the specifications of the instant order in the amended petition, the Board will

dismiss Amerock’s petition as inadequate. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.212(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member M. McFawn abstained.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that

the above order was adopted on the 18th day of January 2001 by a vote of 6-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board