CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Sharon A. Hwang , President ! Adam Salzman, Executive Director

______________________________________________________________________________
Downtown Office

Suite 750

Chicago, IL 60606

211 W. Wacker Dr.

Phone: 312-726-2938

Fax: 312-726-5206

TDD: 773-731-3477
Greta M. Doumanian

Keith I. Harley
Marta C. Bukata

Daryl Grable

June 15, 2020
Illinois EPA
Attn: Jeff Guy, Hearing Officer
P.O. Box 19276
1021 North Grand Avenue
Springfield, IL 627-94-9276
Submitted Via Email To:

epa.publichearingcom@illinois.gov
jeff.guy@illinois.gov

Re: Public Comments on the Draft Permit for General III, LLC, 11600 S. Burley, Chicago, IL
60617, Application No. 19090021, I.D. No. 031600SFX
To The Hearing Officer:
Please be advised that I represent the Southeast Environmental Task Force (“SETF”). SETF is
an environmental education and advocacy organization based on Chicago’s southeast side.1
SETF’s members include individuals who live, work and recreate on the southeast side. SETF’s
mission is to ensure a healthy and safe environment for its residents, to preserve regional
ecological resources and to achieve a sustainable economy that enhances local communities.
SETF’s comments are supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and its
thousands of members and activists in the City of Chicago, including those who reside on
Chicago’s southeast side.2 These comments are also supported by the Chicago South East Side

1

http://setaskforce.org/

2

https://www.nrdc.org/

1

 Coalition to Ban Petcoke3, a community-based organization that is dedicated to the health, safety
and welfare of the people who live, work and recreate in the Calumet region. Because of the
scope of their public comments, it wasn’t possible for these aligned organizations to coordinate
fully on a single set of comments. Consequently, additional comments that are also supported by
SETF will also be submitted by these organizations focusing on other aspects of the proposed
rules.
SETF’s comments are divided into two sections. In its first set of comments, SETF asserts the
draft permit fails to meet critical legal requirements that are designed to protect public health,
safety and welfare. Neither the permit process nor the draft permit achieves environmental
justice mandates imposed by federal and state law and Illinois EPA’s own environmental justice
commitments. SETF’s second set of comments assert additional permit measures are needed to
address the air pollution impacts of fugitive releases of auto shredder residue, volatile organic
emissions and odors.
For purposes of the record, I’m attaching and incorporating by reference several correspondences
with Illinois EPA that SETF submitted regarding this permitting transaction:
1. An October 30, 2019 request for IL EPA to conduct its permitting activities in a manner
consistent with its environmental justice commitments, including a request for a full opportunity
for public participation and for an environmental justice analysis to ensure the permitting of this
facility will not create a significant adverse and disproportionate impact on the adjacent
environmental justice community.
2. Correspondences regarding the operating history of the existing General Iron facility, from
which General III’s business, operations and several pieces of equipment will be transferred.
Page 50 is the City of Chicago’s May 18, 2020 Emergency Closure Order following two separate
explosions at the General Iron facility that also mandates:
“A review of the entire operations has to be conducted by the City of Chicago to ensure
the appropriate safety measures are in place to prevent this from happening in the future.”
3. A request for the public process regarding this permit be delayed until the Governor’s and
Mayor’s Covid-19 restrictions on public gatherings are lifted.
4. A request for all adjacent and integrated business operations located at or near 11600 S.
Burley, Chicago, IL to be regarded as a single source for purposes of permitting.
All of these correspondences are compiled and attached to these comments and labelled as SETF
General III Draft Permit Comments Exhibit One.

3https://www.facebook.com/SSCBP60617/

2

 Comment - Illinois EPA failed to conduct an environmental justice analysis as part of its permit
review.
SETF made the following request at the opening bell of this permit transaction:
“Moreover, considering the characteristics of the immediately surrounding area, the NGO
coalition is formally requesting IL EPA to conduct an environmental justice analysis as
part of its permitting process.
There is a strong justification for an environmental justice analysis and for a full and
complete opportunity for public participation. According to information derived from the
demographic feature of U.S. EPA’s ECHO database, there are 68,947 people living within
a three-mile radius of General III’s proposed facility. 49% of the people who live in that
three-mile radius are Hispanic, and 30% are African American. The ECHO database also
indicates that there are 26,624 households in this area as well as 19,051 minors younger
than 18. Nearby residential communities include the East Side, South Deering and
Hegewisch. The facility would operate immediately adjacent to the Calumet River. In
addition, the facility is less than one mile from Washington High School. This area scores
above 90% in eleven categories assessed by U.S. EPA’s EJ screening tool, including PM
2.5, diesel PM, NATA air toxics cancer risk, NATA respiratory hazard index, traffic
proximity, lead paint indicator, superfund proximity, risk management plan proximity,
hazardous waste proximity and wastewater discharge proximity.”
The complete October 30, 2019 correspondence that includes this request is in SETF Exhibit
One.
Notably, Illinois EPA characterized this permit transaction as triggering its environmental justice
obligations when it distributed a public notice announcing the submission of a permit application
by General III. In its public notice about the draft permit, Illinois EPA provided a link to its
general environmental justice policies, but offers no description about how these environmental
justice commitments affected its review of the permit application, its interactions with the permit
applicant or its Draft Permit.
Neither the Notice of Comment Period, the Project Summary nor the Draft Permit make any
reference to an environmental justice analysis. The Illinois EPA’s Environmental Justice Officer
did not testify at the virtual public hearing. Consequently, it’s entirely unclear if and how Illinois
EPA incorporated environmental justice into its permit review process. By contrast, like SETF,
most public participants in the hearing specifically invoked environmental justice issues,
including Mark Valez, Gina Ramirez, Meleah Geertsma, Andy Douglas, Olga Bautista, Charles
Stark, Kijana Courtney, Juan Rojas, Alfredo Romo, Peggy Salazar, Jocelyn Rangel, James
Kinney, Corrina Mendoza and Damon Watson. Consistent with the metrics presented in U.S.
EPA’s EJ screening tool, all of these individuals expressed concern about the significant, adverse
3

 and disproportionate harm that will result by permitting General III in an already overburdened,
primarily minority community.
For example, East Side resident Mark Valez questioned the impacts of General III’s operations
and emissions on a nearby neighborhood park, Rowan Park, that includes outdoor baseball
diamonds, playgrounds and a football field. Charles Stark is a teacher at nearby Washington
High School who pointed out that the prevailing wind direction will transport General III’s
emissions to this nearby High School as well as Washington Elementary School and Rowan
Park, where already overburdened populations of susceptible children will experience the
cumulative impacts of this new source in combination with many other nearby polluting
facilities. Jocelyn Rangel, a lifelong southeast side resident and locally employed registered
nurse questioned the potential impacts of this facility on a local population that already
experiences high asthma rates and prevalent co-morbidities.
IL EPA is prohibited from engaging in actions that have the effect of discriminating on the basis
of race, color and national origin. Pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity which, like Illinois EPA, receives federal financial assistance. The Illinois Civil Rights
Act of 2003 (740 ILCS 23/5) similarly prohibits discrimination on the basis of “[R]ace, color,
national origin, or gender”. Section (a)(2) also prohibits using methods and policies that have
disparate, discriminatory impacts on any of these protected classes.
At the opening bell of this permit transaction, SETF alerted Illinois EPA that its responsibilities
in this case included conducting an environmental justice analysis to ensure that its permitting
actions do not result in a significant, adverse and disproportionate harm on a predominantly
Lantinx and African American community. In response, Illinois EPA’s Public Notice, Project
Summary, Draft Permit and public hearing comments are devoid of any evidence of any effort to
address these issues. This months-long omission – which continued at the public hearing in the
face of public testimony about the environmental injustices being perpetrated by Illinois EPA –
fails to meet the requirements of federal and state law and Illinois EPA’s own environmental
justice policies. Moreover, this months-long omission cannot be remedied post-hoc; the public
will not have the opportunity to review and comment on any analysis the Illinois EPA jerry rigs
once the public comment period concludes.
In fact, Illinois EPA repeatedly exercised its discretion in ways that will result in a significant,
adverse and disproportionate harm on the surrounding environmental justice community. At
multiple decision points in this permitting process, IL EPA made discretionary choices that have
a discriminatory effect on the environmental justice community near this facility. In the
following comments, SETF identifies multiple discretionary choices made by Illinois EPA that
are discriminatory and also fail to comply with clear legal mandates designed to protect the
health, safety and welfare of Illinois residents.
4

 Comment – Contrary to its own well-established permitting standards, Illinois EPA fails to
incorporate several related, co-located facilities in its Draft Permit. Consequently, the Draft
Permit is based on an incorrect source determination that does not include all of the pollutantemitting activities that are part of a single source. General III and the other facilities co-located
at 11600 S. Burley are a single source, but are being segmented into constituent operations for
purposes of permitting. Illinois EPA’s decision to allow this single source to be segmented for
purposes of permitting is to the advantage of the permit applicant, but is contrary to the health,
safety and welfare of the nearby environmental justice community. This is especially
problematic because other related, co-located facilities that will operate with General III as a
single source are being registered and/or permitted by Illinois EPA in contemporaneous but
completely separate processes. Even more egregious, for these other facilities, these activities
are necessary because Illinois EPA apparently completely neglected to require proper registration
and/or permitting over many years.
IL EPA's standard permit language states that separate facilities can be considered a single
stationary source if they:
“a. belong to the same industrial grouping or operate as a support facility,
b. are located on contiguous or adjacent properties, and,
c. are under common ownership or common control.
Common control differs from common ownership in that there is an inherent limitation on a
facility's ability to operate "but for" another facility providing its services."4
In the present case, the 11600 S. Burley facilities include Napuck Salvage, Reserve Marine
Terminals, South Chicago Recycling, RSR Partners/Regency Technologies, General III LLC and,
perhaps, Calumet Transload. Based on a review of Illinois EPA documents acquired using FOIA,
it appears that Illinois EPA concludes that these facilities constitute a single source. Despite this,
the agency appears to be conducting separate permitting activities which inappropriately segment
a single source into its constituent operations.
Illinois EPA has not received a permit application or issued a Draft Permit that properly
characterizes this entire source, its complete operations, its aggregate emissions, the full range of
its emission controls, its source-wide protocols for testing and monitoring emissions, and its
comprehensive recordkeeping and reporting protocols to verify compliance. In keeping with its
history of neglect in ensuring compliance for the operations located at 11600 S. Burley, Illinois
EPA only has a partial and incomplete picture of this single source, and consequently has an
On November 26, 2019, U.S. EPA issued a new guidance document regarding single source determination that
clarified that adjacency, not functional relatedness, is the decisive factor is establishing a single source. While this
doesn’t change the analysis for the co-related, adjacent operations at 11600 S. Burley, this may necessitate a change
in Illinois EPA’s standard permit language.
4

5

 inadequate, incomplete basis to grant or deny any request for any constituent operation including
General III. For this reason, Illinois EPA must deny any request by any current or proposed
segmented facility that will, in fact, operate as part of a single source at 11600 S. Burley.
Illinois EPA’s claim that the facilities can be integrated as part of a subsequently issued operating
permit must be viewed of its failure to complete an operating permit for the predecessor General
Iron facility – and indeed for many Illinois facilities – for years and decades. General Iron’s
operating permit application hasn’t been acted on by Illinois EPA since it was submitted in 2005.
Deferring the single source determination to an operating permit is an inadequate response to this
comment.
Comment – Contrary to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Illinois EPA fails to take
account of the compliance history of General Iron, which is transferring its business, operations
and equipment to the 11600 S. Burley facility. Illinois EPA’s decision is to the advantage of the
permit applicant, but contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the nearby environmental
justice community.
Illinois EPA’s first authority pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39(a) is this:
"In making its determinations on permit applications under this Section the Agency may consider
prior adjudications of noncompliance with this Act by the applicant that involved a release of a
contaminant into the environment.”
Illinois EPA’s second authority pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39(a) is this:
“In granting permits, the Agency may impose reasonable conditions specifically related to the
applicant's past compliance history with this Act as necessary to correct, detect, or prevent
noncompliance.”
Illinois EPA’s third authority pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39(a) is this:
“The Agency may impose such other conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes
of this Act, and as are not inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the Board
hereunder.”
As an initial matter, SETF believes that Illinois EPA’s lawyer fundamentally mischaracterized the
law on this matter during the public hearing, misleading public participants and unfairly
discouraging them from testifying on compliance matters relevant to the permit application.
Illinois EPA’s lawyer did not refer to the three constituent parts of 415 ILCS 5/39(a), but rather
conflated them in a completely confusing and misleading fashion. The lawyer justified Illinois
EPA’s position by alluding to court decisions, but provided no reference to any specific case.
The lawyer did not distinguish between cases that preceded the legislation described above by
contrast to cases that interpret these specific provisions. In response to testimony that was
6

 clearly relevant under the second and third parts cited above, the lawyer incorrectly stated that
Illinois EPA was precluded from considering this testimony. This is part of an overall pattern of
Illinois EPA’s misleading and unfair conduct in the public process that will be discussed later in
these comments. Illinois EPA’s interpretation of its authority of 415 ILCS 5/39(a) is problematic
and its public statements are confusing and misleading; in the present case, this created an unfair
public process.
The three authorities granted to Illinois EPA in 415 ILCS 5/39(a) are all at issue in the present
matter. In terms of specifically adjudicated matters, neither the Draft Permit nor the Project
Summary reference In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No.
EPA-5-19-113(a)-IL-08. In this case, U.S. EPA asserts that General III significantly
underestimated its metal shredder’s VOM emissions when the shredder, in fact, had a potential to
emit more than 100 tons of VOM per year.5 Despite this, General Iron did not have any emission
capture or control equipment to achieve an overall reduction of uncontrolled VOM emissions of
at least 81 percent, nor did it have the appropriate operating permit that corresponded with its
VOM emissions.6 U.S. EPA identified the magnitude of the VOM emissions through inspections
using its FLIR camera and a Section 114 Information Request.7 As part of an August 22, 2019
Administrative Consent Order, General Iron agreed to complete the installation of a regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO) with a minimum VOM destruction efficiency of 98%.8 This is legally
relevant to the present case because the RTO mandated by U.S. EPA’s Administrative Consent
Order is to be transferred to the proposed General III facility. This U.S. EPA-mandated RTO is
the very piece of pollution control equipment that exploded at the General Iron facility a few
days after the public hearing. By not incorporating U.S. EPA’s August 22, 2019 Administrative
Consent Order, Illinois EPA is improperly ignoring an adjudication and creating perilous
conditions for an environmental justice community.

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 4. Attached and also available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
5

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 5. Attached and also available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
6

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 4. (“35. During the May 24 & 25, 2018 inspection, EPA observed and recorded hydrocarbons
exiting the hammermill shredder with a FLIR infrared camera.”). Attached and also available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
7

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-19-133(a)-IL-08, U.S. EPA
Region 5, August 22, 2019 at 7. Attached and also available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/
documents/general_iron_industries_inc_aco.pdf
8

7

 Illinois EPA’s second authority pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39(a) - “In granting permits, the Agency
may impose reasonable conditions specifically related to the applicant's past compliance history
with this Act as necessary to correct, detect, or prevent noncompliance” – is also directly relevant
to the present case. An adjudication is only one way that relevant information related to
compliance can be presented to Illinois EPA. Another way is information derived by partner
agencies, for example, the City of Chicago. NRDC will be submitting extensive information
about multiple enforcement initiatives currently underway on the city level. NRDC’s analysis
doesn’t need to be repeated in SETF’s comments apart from a specific example that was
presented to the Illinois EPA during its permit deliberations. In this example, a city inspector
completed a written report based on a firsthand inspection of the General Iron facility (something
Illinois EPA rarely if ever did). In presenting this December, 2019 inspection report, I will
highlight all of the inspector’s observations that are directly relevant to the subject of compliance
with the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, especially because General Iron’s pollution
control equipment will be transferred to the proposed General III facility:
“CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONDED TO A
CITIZEN?S COMPLAINT REGARDING ODORS AND AN EXPLOSION HEARD IN THE
MORNING COMING FROM THE FACILITY AT 1909 N CLIFTON AVE, GENERAL IRON
INDUSTRIES (GII, LLC). GII LLC OPERATES A RECYCLING FACILITY PURSUANT TO A
CLASS IVB RECYCLING PERMIT (ENVREC1063430) ISSUED BY CDPH.WHILE CANVASSING
THE AREA SURROUNDING GII, LLC ON FEBRUARY 10, 2020, ODORS WERE OBSERVED AT
THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: HOME DEPOT (1232 W NORTH AVE) PARKING LOT,
INTERSECTION OF THROOP ST WABANSIA AVE, AND INTERSECTION OF THROOP ST
WABANSIA AVE. IT IS A PUNGENT ODOR OF SWEET METAL THAT BURNS MY
NOSTRILS. I ALSO OBSERVED AN ODOR OF BURNING MATERIAL. THE SAME ODORS
OF SWEET METAL WERE ALSO OBSERVED ONSITE.UNTREATED EMISSIONS WERE
OBSERVED ESCAPING THE TOP AND THE SIDES OF THE SHREDDER. I ALSO
OBSERVED SMOKE LEAVING THE SHREDDER AND TRAVELING THROUGH THE
PROPERTY ACROSS FROM THE NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER. THE SHREDDER IS
NOT AN ENCLOSED PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. IT DOES CONTAIN A HOOD TO CAPTURE
THE EMISSIONS AND PROCESS THEM THROUGH A REGENERATIVE THERMAL
OXIDIZER (RTO) AND A WET SCRUBBER TO REMOVE VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (VOCS), HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPS), AND OTHER AIRBORNE
SOLVENTS. BEING ABLE TO OBSERVE EMISSIONS ESCAPING THE SHREDDER LEADS
ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE EQUIPMENT CAPTURING THE EMISSIONS IS
INSUFFICIENT. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THE RECENTLY INSTALLED
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT TO PROCESS THE EMISSIONS SINCE THEY
ARE ESCAPING AT THE SHREDDER BEFORE THE TREATMENT PROCESS.AUTO FLUFF/
AUTO SHREDDER RESIDUE WAS OBSERVED ON THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY
SOUTHWEST AND ACROSS THE NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER. AUTO FLUFF IS A
PRODUCT OF SHREDDING OPERATIONS AND IT CONSIST OF FINE PARTICLES OF
GLASS, FIBERS, RUBBER, METAL, PLASTIC, DIRT, AND AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS.
FUGITIVE DUST WAS ALSO OBSERVED ONSITE WHEN WORKERS DISTURBED
MATERIAL PILES AND MOVED MATERIALS TO AND FROM TRUCK TRAILERS. MISTING
CANNONS WERE OBSERVED TO NOT BE IN OPERATION TO CONTROL AIRBORNE
PARTICLES AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION. OBSERVING AUTO FLUFF IN THE OUTSIDE
OF GII, LLC?S PROPERTY AND FUGITIVE DUST WITHOUT OPERATING MISTING CANNONS
LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT REASONABLE MEASUREMENTS WERE NOT AND ARE NOT
BEING TAKEN TO ENSURE DUST, DEBRIS, AND DIRT WON?T MIGRATE OFF SITE AND
INTO THE PUBLIC WAY.I SPOKE TO JIM AND HE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS AN
EXPLOSION IN THE SHREDDER DURING THE MORNING HOURS BETWEEN 7:30AM ?

8

 7:40AM. HE SAID THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE.A NOV CITATION #E0000***** WAS
ISSUED FOR AIR POLLUTION PROHIBITED (11-4-730) AND HANDLING OF MATERIAL
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BECOMING WINDBORNE (11-4-760[A]). A NOV CITATION #E0000***** WAS
ISSUED FOR VIOLATING ANY CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE PERMIT (11-4-030[B]) SPECIAL
CONDITION 46 WHICH REQUIRES THE PERMITTEE TO CONTROL AND SUPPRESS DUST
AND OTHER MATERIALS TO PREVENT OFF-SITE MIGRATION AND NUISANCE IN
CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS (7-28-080). THE HEARING DATE FOR THE CITATIONS WILL
BE ON APRIL 30, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M. AT 400 W. SUPERIOR ST. THE CITATION WILL BE SERVED
VIA US MAIL TO GENERAL IRON INDUSTRIES (GII, LLC) AGENT LISTED ON THE ILLINOIS
SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT. THE AGENTS NAME AND
ADDRESS ILLINOIS CORPORATION SERVICE C AT 801 ADLAI STEVENSON DRIVE,
SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703.”

This information is directly relevant to the applicant's past compliance history with this Act as
necessary to correct, detect, or prevent noncompliance, particularly since the pollution control
equipment from this facility will be transferred to the General III facility. Illinois EPA’s
categorical refusal to consider this evidence is contrary to its authority pursuant to 415 ILCS
5/39(a) and will create perilous conditions for the nearby environmental justice community.
Illinois EPA’s third authority pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39(a) - “[T]he Agency may impose such
other conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act, and as are not
inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the Board hereunder” – is also directly relevant
to the present case. The plain language of this provision stands in stark contrast to another
fundamentally misleading statement made by an Illinois EPA representative at the public hearing,
whose testimony was subsequently introduced into the permit repository in written form. By
contrast to the cited authority granted in 415 ILCS 5/39(a), he stated:
“In its review of an application, the Illinois EPA has no choice legally but to issue a
construction permit to a source if the source will be in compliance with all state and
federal air pollution control regulations.”
Illinois EPA is not at liberty to ignore the authorities and responsibilities provided by the
legislature, and it is not at liberty to misstate the plain language of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act. In permitting, Illinois EPA is expressly authorized to impose conditions that 1.
are necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act, and, 2. are not inconsistent with the
regulations. Illinois EPA can impose conditions that go beyond the regulations if they are “not
inconsistent” with the regulations and accomplish the purposes of the Act. Again, Illinois EPA’s
interpretation of its authority of 415 ILCS 5/39(a) is problematic and its public statements are
confusing and misleading; in the present case, this created an unfair public process.
As a practical matter, critical measures beyond technical regulatory compliance are authorized by
law and are essential to health, safety and welfare of the environmental justice community. For
example, 415 ILCS §5/9(a) states:
No person shall: (a) Cause of threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any
contaminant into the environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution
9

 in Illinois, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, so as to
violate regulations or standards adopted by the Board under this Act.
This same provision is repeated in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 201.102, approved as part of
the federally enforceable SIP for the State of Illinois on May 31, 1972. 37 Fed. Reg. 10842. This
SIP approval also included 35 Illinois Administrative Code 201.101, which defines air pollution
as “…the presence in the atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and
of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant or animal life, to health, or
to property, or to unreasonable interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.”
Public testimony and written comments that address air pollution that is injurious to human,
plant or animal life, to health, or to property, or which unreasonably interferes with life or
property is legally relevant to this permitting. This is especially true because the same pollution
control equipment used by General Iron will be transferred to the proposed facility. If these
issues are raised – as they have been repeatedly in the present case - mere assurances of technical
compliance are not adequate. To this point, Laura Compton, a resident who lives near the current
General Iron facility testified about years of poor performance, serial violations and specific
health impacts (burning eyes) she experienced as a result of that facility’s operations. Jordan
Diaz, another resident living near General Iron, testified about negative health consequences and
a history of violations, prompting the Illinois EPA attorney to immediately intervene to discount
this testimony. Another General Iron neighbor, Brian Kavanaugh, testified that there were severe
impacts from its current operations that have no place in the city or anywhere else because of
negative effects on its neighbors.
Illinois EPA will be tempted to respond to this comment by asserting these are enforcement not
permitting matters. If so, SETF requests Illinois EPA to include the record of its enforcement
activities at the General Iron facility, the record of its enforcement referrals to the Attorney
General for this facility as well as any operating permit it issued anytime over the past 15 years.
It is hypocritical for Illinois EPA to fail to fulfill fundamental enforcement and permitting
responsibilities and then rely on these failures to justify agency inaction in the present case.
Using Illinois EPA’s past omissions to justify present inaction is a vicious cycle and evidence of
a failed Agency, unfortunately at the expense of the health, safety and welfare of Illinois
residents.
Comment – Illinois EPA is ignoring the catastrophic failure of the pollution control equipment
that will be transferred from General Iron to General III. Illinois EPA’s decision is to the
advantage of the permit applicant, but contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the nearby
environmental justice community.
During the recent General III public hearing, IL EPA indicated that the equipment employed by
General Iron would be moved to the proposed General III facility, including the RTO and other
pollution control equipment. Consistent with this, the pending application and the draft permit
are based on the operating characteristics of existing equipment employed by General Iron. In
10

 this way, General III’s permit application is not typical because it proposes to move existing
pollution control equipment from General Iron to a new location. This may be a new facility, but
it’s utilizing used parts, specifically the emissions capture hood, cyclone, filter and RTO and
associated pollution control equipment. Provisions relating to the air pollution control
equipment that will be transferred from General Iron include Paragraphs 9a and 11a – 11h.
Equally important, the emission limits in the Draft Permit are based on the effective operation of
this transferred pollution control equipment. If this transferred pollution control equipment does
not operate effectively, it is also uncertain if the facility can maintain a potential to emit for air
pollutants consistent with a minor source designation.
Much of the Draft Permit is based on the performance of this transferred equipment. In turn, the
performance of this equipment is legally relevant because of the mandate imposed by 35 IAC
201.160 “Standards for Issuance”:
a) No construction permit shall be granted unless the applicant submits proof to the
Agency that:
1) The emission unit or air pollution equipment will be constructed or modified to
operate so as not to cause a violation of the Act or of this Chapter
Pursuant to 35 IAC 212.324(f), the owner or operator shall maintain and repair all pollution
control equipment in a manner that assures that emission limits and standards in 35 IAC 212.324
shall be met at all times.
Consequently, it’s essential for Illinois EPA to ask this simple question – has the pollution control
equipment that is being transferred to the General III worked effectively at General Iron?
Especially in light of the explosion, the answer is unmistakably no.
Because of this, SETF now asserts that the pending permit application and the resulting Draft
Permit do not accurately represent the operation of the equipment that will be employed at the
proposed new General III facility. The permit application is an inadequate basis for permit
review and is incomplete. SETF's assertion is based on the explosion that occurred at General
Iron shortly after the public hearing, coupled with the long history of compliance issues related
to this equipment that are detailed in NRDC’s comments. Initial reports suggest the explosion
originated in the RTO, one of the pieces of pollution control equipment that is to be transferred to
the proposed General III facility. Moreover, even if the operation of the RTO is not the only
cause of the explosion, the transfer of any equipment that can cause this kind of catastrophic
failure suggests the applicant’s representations must be revisited as part of any credible permit
review.
The pending application is incomplete because the applicant's representations about the proposed
use of any equipment, its control efficiency, and the applicant's ability to operate the equipment
safely and effectively can no longer be accepted without a complete investigation of the
11

 explosion incident. In light of the explosion, the applicant cannot prove this transferred air
pollution equipment will be constructed so as to not cause the violations of the Act that result
from catastrophic failure, fires, explosions and the uncontrolled release of pollutants. Moreover,
existing emission estimates and air quality models that do not account for emissions during
periods of catastrophic failure also must be reassessed. Additional permit terms and conditions
may be necessary to prevent future accidents and to ensure the integrity of the equipment and the
applicant’s operating systems, all of which are relevant permitting considerations. This analysis
is also consistent with the health, safety and welfare of nearby schools, parks, river users and
residential neighborhoods.
For this reason, SETF asserts the pending permit application is incomplete and does not provide
a basis for Illinois EPA to make permitting decisions about the General III facility. Illinois EPA
must not proceed to final permit decisions until it acquires information about the equipment that
the applicant is proposing to transfer and its ability to operate this equipment in a safe and
effective manner, as required by 35 IAC 201.160. In the meantime, we urge IL EPA issue a
Notice of Incompleteness regarding the pending permit application or an outright permit denial.
Comment - Despite the pleas of local residents, Illinois EPA conducted a virtual public hearing
during the pandemic and the written comment period during a period of civil unrest. This is
contrary to Illinois EPA’s own environmental justice guidelines and unfairly impedes public
participation. Illinois EPA’s decision is to the advantage of the permit applicant, but contrary to
the health, safety and welfare of the nearby environmental justice community.
On April 22, 2020, SETF sent the following communication to Illinois EPA via Brad Frost and
the Agency’s Environmental Justice Coordinator:
Please be advised that I represent the Southeast Environmental Task Force. As you know,
SETF and its community partners have placed the highest priority on public participation
in IL EPA permitting transactions related to the General III facility, which would be colocated with several existing, related facilities at 11600 S. Burley in southeast Chicago.
SETF prides itself on being a responsible community partner with IL EPA when, as in the
present case, it requests public participation. Specifically, SETF has played a central role
in publicizing and facilitating public hearings with IL EPA over a 25+ year period. Even
when it disagrees with IL EPA, SETF has been a good faith partner with IL EPA because
its interests in public participation align with the Agency.
Unfortunately, SETF believes IL EPA's proposed virtual hearing for the General III air
construction permit will not be successful. SETF cannot remedy the problems it
foresees. It's concerned that large segments of the public will not be heard as part of this
important permitting process.

12

 Neither SETF's members nor other local residents have participated in this type of
hearing. Many do not have the technology and/or technical capability to participate.
SETF cannot provide training to remedy this problem because its office is closed and its
leadership, members and local residents are required to be distant from one another. As a
small non-profit, SETF is experiencing almost insurmountable complications to continue
functioning, let alone to mount a major campaign to facilitate public participation in an
unfamiliar venue.
Under these circumstances, SETF is concerned that a public hearing will suppress public
participation, effectively exclude many potentially affected residents and skew the public
record in favor of more sophisticated participants who may not represent community
members and their interests. Even though I will prepare written comments on behalf of
SETF, this is not a surrogate for the testimony of the full range of local residents who
would participate in a traditional public hearing.
SETF acknowledges that you and other IL EPA personnel are working under very
difficult circumstances due to the pandemic. Having said this, the legislators who
mandated intractable permit decision deadlines were not contemplating a pandemic.
Surely, the permit applicant wouldn't want to foreclose public participation or gain any
advantage by virtue of a pandemic that no one could foresee. SETF believes there should
be a moratorium on further permit proceedings in this case until the Governor concludes
Illinois can return to in-person social interactions.
Illinois EPA never responded to this message and proceeded to its virtual public hearing.
Predictably, most of the participants who testified asserted that Illinois EPA’s decision was
fundamentally unfair and defeated the purpose for a public hearing. From my notes, the
testimony of participants included the following:
Mark Valez – His family has lived on the East Side for 70 years, and he has a petition with 2,000
signatures of local residents opposing General III. Despite this, because there was no
information in Spanish, very few local residents knew about the hearing or how to participate,
including people who use nearby Rowan Park and families whose children attend nearby
Washington High School.
Gina Ramirez – It’s unfair to have a hearing during the pandemic. This reflects the racism that
causes southeast Chicago to be a sacrifice zone.
Olga Bautista – Many members of the public are unable to login because they are required to
download an app on their phones but either don’t have the storage for the app or can’t afford to
purchase additional storage. The hearing is inaccessible for them. Spanish speaking and hearingimpaired individuals face obstacles preventing their participation. Is this ADA compliant? It’s
unfair to hold a public hearing in such desperate times when people are facing so many other
challenges.
13

 Meleah Geertsma – In light of the emergency conditions, this is an unfair process that excludes
many community members.
Kiana Courtney – The compressed timeline for the public process unfairly inhibits public
participation. There was a lack of outreach for Spanish speakers. Was the public notice
available in Spanish?
Peggy Salazar – Holding a meeting during the pandemic is unjust and an insult to the
community, and disregards local residents.
Carolyn Pedroza – East Side resident who strongly objects to the “pandemic hearing”. The
hearing excludes poor people who lack the technology and technical skills to participate. The
Spanish-speaking residents who are the most directly affected are the most excluded. Many of
her own family members are unable to participate.
Damon Watson (NAACP) – The disproportionate impact of the pandemic on southeast and
southwest side communities is compounded by the environmental injustice being perpetrated by
IL EPA.
Illinois EPA’s conduct is contrary to its own environmental justice commitments, developed in
large part to resolve earlier civil rights complaints against the Agency for this type of unfair
conduct. Illinois EPA’s Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy identifies a series of
public participation initiatives that apply “to all permitting transactions.” These commitments
include:
1. providing early and meaningful public involvement throughout the permitting process;
2. making a determination of the appropriate outreach based on factors like the type of
permit, potential impact of the project, type of source or level of interest.
Illinois EPA’s failure to provide early and meaningful public involvement, appropriate outreach,
a meaningful public hearing and an adequate written comment period works to the advantage of
the permit applicant, but is contrary to Illinois EPA’s own environmental justice commitments.
Comment – Illinois EPA has not assessed the air quality impacts of emissions from new truck
traffic that will move through local communities to access the General III facility. On a weekly
basis, General III’s operations will attract hundreds of trucks carrying junk automobiles,
appliances and other scrap metal; this is an essential part of General III’s business. Even if
Illinois EPA cannot regulate tailpipe emissions from these mobile sources, it is Illinois EPA’s
responsibility to assess these emissions to determine if they will cause or contribute to unhealthy
air quality for nearby residents. This omission is compounded by the Illinois EPA’s failure to
include well-established standards in Illinois law to reduce the release of materials from the
kinds of vehicles that will be aggregating on local roadways. This omission is also compounded
14

 by the lack of anti-idling provisions is the draft permit for trucks on the proposed General III
property and waiting to enter this property. Illinois EPA’s omissions are to the advantage of the
permit applicant, but contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the nearby environmental
justice community.
The General III facility cannot operate unless it receives deliveries of scrap metal by truck. This
essential aspect of General III’s operations will bring hundreds of trucks – and their associated
tailpipe emissions – to its location every week. These trucks and their cumulative emissions will
be a new, permanent source of air pollution in nearby residential neighborhoods, both when they
come to and go from the General III facility using local roadways. These impacts will be
compounded if trucks are allowed to idle at or near the facility.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160 - “Legally enforceable procedures” – Illinois EPA has both the
authority to include an assessment of the air quality impacts from mobile sources in its
permitting decisions. Illinois EPA must assure that the construction or modification of a facility
will not result in interference with attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the State
in which the proposed source (or modification) is located. 40 CFR 51.160 (a)(2). Such
procedures must include means by which the State or local agency responsible for final
decisionmaking on an application for approval to construct or modify will prevent such
construction or modification if it will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national
standard. 40 CFR 51.160 (b)(2). The nature and amount of emissions to be emitted by mobile
sources associated with a facility is expressly referenced as a relevant inquiry. 40 CFR 51.160 (c)
(1). Illinois EPA must assess its activities in the context of a broader control strategy that
includes consideration of “changes in relocation of residential, commercial, or industrial
facilities or transportation systems.” 40 CFR 51.100.
The relocation of the business and operations of General Iron to the proposed General III facility
will result in the introduction of hundreds of trucks every week of every year into southeast
Chicago, including many diesel vehicles. Despite this, Illinois EPA has taken no steps to assess
if this result, directly associated with the proposed General III facility, will interfere with
attaining and maintaining healthy air standards in the environmental justice community on
Chicago’s southeast side.
In fact, at the opening bell of this permitting, SETF provided information about the potential
impacts of truck traffic and tailpipe emissions on the southeast side. It appears this information
was ignored. Even absent General III, the area surrounding the proposed General III facility
scores above the 90% percentile in several risk-based, transportation related categories assessed
as part of U.S. EPA’s EJ screening tool, including PM 2.5, diesel PM, NATA air toxics cancer
risk, NATA respiratory hazard index and traffic proximity. The tailpipe emissions that will result
from the trucks needed to service the proposed General III facility will only exacerbate these
risks, but remain unassessed by Illinois EPA. This omission is to the advantage of the permit
applicant, but places the environmental justice community in peril.
15

 In addition, Illinois EPA’s draft permit fails to incorporate the existing mandates of Illinois law
designed to prevent the release of pollution from truck loads, specifically, the requirements
contained in 35 IAC 212.315 “Covering for Vehicles”:
No person shall cause the operation of a vehicle of the second division as defined by 625
ILCS 5/11-127 or a semi-trailer as defined by 625 ILCS 5/1-187 without a covering
sufficient to prevent the release of particulate matter into the atmosphere, provided that
this rule shall not pertain to automotive exhaust emissions.
Finally, as to trucks, Illinois EPA could have but did not incorporate provisions to prevent idling
by vehicles on the General III property or waiting to enter the General III facility in a manner
consistent with state statute and Chicago Municipal Code. In order to protect human health and
the environment, 625 ILCS 5/11-1429 prohibits diesel vehicles in Cook County from idling for
more than a total 10 minutes within any 60 minute period, with only specifically delineated
exceptions. The Chicago Municipal Code Section 9-80-095 limits idling of on-road diesel
powered vehicles within City borders to a total of three minutes within a sixty-minute period,
also for air quality and public health purposes. For air quality and public health purposes,
Illinois EPA should impose a three minute standard to limit truck idling on the General III
facility and for trucks waiting to enter the facility.
Comment – Illinois EPA should require a FLIR monitoring system to detect releases of volatile
organic materials, coupled with permit obligations to engage in corrective action when these
releases are detected.
Metal shredders – whether classified as large recycling facilities or consequential facilities - are
significant sources of volatile organic materials (VOMs).9 VOMs are photochemical oxidants
associated with a number or detrimental health effects, which include birth defects and cancer, as
well as environmental and ecological effects.10 In the presence of sunlight, VOMs are influenced
by a variety of meteorological conditions that have the ability to create photochemical smog,
reacting with oxygen in the air to produce ground-level ozone.11
As noted, in the case In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No.
EPA-5-19-113(a)-IL-08, U.S. EPA concluded that General Iron significantly underestimated its
metal shredders’ VOM emissions when it, in fact, had a potential to emit more than 100 tons of

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 6. Attached and vailable at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
9

10

Id.

11

Id.

16

 VOM per year.12 Despite this, General Iron did not have any emission capture or control
equipment to achieve an overall reduction of uncontrolled VOM emissions of at least 81 percent,
nor did it have the appropriate operating permit that corresponded with its VOM emissions.13
U.S. EPA identified the magnitude of the VOM emissions through inspections using its FLIR
camera and a Section 114 Information Request.14 As part of an August 22, 2019 Administrative
Consent Order, General Iron agreed to complete the installation of a regenerative thermal
oxidizer with a minimum VOM destruction efficiency of 98%.15
The General III permit should include mandatory FLIR monitoring requirements for processing
equipment and storage piles. The permit should include monitoring using an infrared camera
that is capable of detecting fugitive VOM releases. This protocol should be implemented and/or
verified by qualified, independent third party vendors. This monitoring protocol should be
incorporated into permit provisions that include appropriate recordkeeping, reporting and
corrective action requirements. Mere projections regarding VOM emissions are inadequate given
the history of the equipment that will be transferred to General III, and also fail to meet the
requirements imposed as part of every State Implementation Plan.
“Projections of the effect of planned air pollution control measures contained in the SIPs
are not merely assumed but are enforced by regulations adopted as part of the SIP.
Therefore, if the control measures are not implemented sufficiently to result in required
reductions, the State or local agency, or EPA, can take action to enforce implementation
of the regulations. 57 F.R. 13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992). The fundamental principles
for SIPs/Control Strategy include: (1) baseline emissions from the source and the control
measures must be quantified (specific amount of reductions can be ascribed to measures)
(2) measures must be enforceable (specify clear, unambiguous, and measurable
requirements) (3) source-specific limits must be permanent and reflect assumptions used

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 4. Attached and vailable at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
12

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 5. Attached and available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
13

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-18-IL-14, U.S. EPA Region 5,
July 18, 2018, at 4. (“35. During the May 24 & 25, 2018 inspection, EPA observed and recorded hydrocarbons
exiting the hammermill shredder with a FLIR infrared camera.”). Attached and available at: https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/general_iron_industries_inc._nov-fov.pdf
14

In the Matter of General Iron Industries, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Docket No. EPA-5-19-133(a)-IL-08, U.S. EPA
Region 5, August 22, 2019 at 7. Attached and available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/
documents/general_iron_industries_inc_aco.pdf
15

17

 in SIP demonstrations and contain means to track emission changes at sources and
provide for corrective action. Id. at 13567-13568.
Absent a real-time VOM monitoring system like FLIR, fugitive VOM releases will be
undetected and unaddressed.
In order to demonstrate the technical credibility of this technology – commonly referred to as
FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radiation) monitoring – SETF is attaching an Environmental
Technology Verification Report prepared by Batelle under a cooperative agreement with U.S.
EPA. Generally speaking, FLIR cameras are a technology that uses infrared detectors to take
pictures or videos. It works by having sensors take in infrared radiation (IR) and using
differences in the wavelengths of radiation to create images. Variations in temperature cause the
variations in IR wavelength that the detectors can register. This allows the detector to pick up
objects or trends that are not necessarily visible to the naked eye, such as colorless gases, if they
have a different temperature than their surrounding environment. IR also passes through some
solid objects that visible light is not able to, allowing FLIR systems to effectively see through
walls in some contexts.
The technology was originally developed in the late 50’s to early 60’s. It has historically been
used mostly for police and military reconnaissance and surveillance due to its portability (such as
being attached to aircraft and drones), its ability to see through walls, and it being harder to
detect than other systems like radar. FLIR systems have only begun being used in a larger variety
of uses in the past few decades due to decreasing production costs and improved software that
increases resolution and sensitivity. More recently, the technology has seen wider applications in
security, public safety, and manufacturing. In particular, FLIR technology has proven useful for
detecting and monitoring gas leaks in industrial settings.
For gas leaks, the cameras rely on detecting minute differences in temperature between the gas
and the surrounding environment. The software on the cameras can be calibrated to look for very
specific, pre-defined temperature differences that are known to be associated with very specific
gases. Studies have shown these cameras are very accurate and precise for the compounds they
are programed to detect. There are multiple companies that produce FLIR cameras. However, the
largest one is a company called FLIR Systems. FLIR Systems produces a camera that is
specifically designed to detect VOMs and Methane, called the FLIR GF320. The camera was
first released in 2005, and it is still available through the company directly as well as specialized
dealers.
For these reasons, IL EPA should mandate FLIR monitoring for processing equipment along with
corresponding recordkeeping, reporting and corrective action requirements. This is the only
credible way for facilities to detect and, in turn, respond to VOM releases that otherwise would
pose an undetected, unaddressed danger to the local community.
Comment – All auto shredder residue processing equipment and storage areas must be enclosed
to prevent this material from becoming airborne and being deposited on nearby residential areas
18

 and the Calumet River. The permit should include requirements to (a) conduct all auto shredder
residue (“ASR”) processing in fully enclosed buildings outfitted with robust air pollution
controls, (b) move all ASR between the shredder and any subsequent enclosed residue processing
buildings via fully enclosed conveyors, and (c) store any ASR in fully enclosed structures with
appropriate air pollution controls.16
Automotive shredder residue (“ASR” or "auto-fluff") is a byproduct of scrap metal recycling
facilities. ASR is usually generated by hammermill industrial shredders when vehicles,
household appliances, and other manufactured metal products are collected and reprocessed for
commercial value.17 Chemically, ASR is primarily composed of aluminum, carbon, and zinc.18
However, ASR may also contain polymers and/or hazardous contaminants, including heavy
metals, PCB's, and petroleum hydrocarbons. ASR can vary in chemical and physical composition
depending on the treatment process. Untreated ASR may contain a heterogeneous mixture of
materials, including plastics, rubber, foam, fabric, carpet, glass, wood, road dirt, debris, and other
residual metals. Physically, ASR can range from small granular particles to identifiable pieces of

16 According

to court documents in the case regarding Northern Metals, the former Minneapolis shredder created
significant amounts of dust from processing of ASR subsequent to the auto shredder but before any treatment or
storage of residue. See: In the Matter of Revocation of Air Emission Permit 05300480-003, OAH Docket No.
60-2200-33647, Memorandum in Support of MPCA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at paragraphs 22, 26 and
57-67 (describing processing of shredder residue to recover additional metals, including (a) at a Metals Recovery
Plant in which “particulate matter coated the equipment in the building, as well as the floors and fixtures” and which
had garage doors that remained open during processing and openings for conveyors, as well as (b) outdoors next to
the Metals Recovery Plan without any controls). The proposed replacement shredding operation in Becker,
Minnesota, appears to better control this processing step, with materials conveyed between the new shredder and the
new Metals Recovery Plant via a covered conveyor, and the Metals Recovery Plant itself controlled by a baghouse.
See: In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Northern
Metals, LLC Becker Sherburne County City of Becker, Minnesota, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order,
June 13, 2018, available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-ear2-134b.pdf, at paragraphs 12 and 13.
(Note that our citation of this decision is not an endorsement of its findings or conclusions, but is included solely to
show that measures can and should be taken to control fugitive dust from the shredder residue processing step. We
also note our concerns with allowing the Becker facility to store auto fluff in a covered three-walled bin instead of a
full enclosure.)
17

Ins%tute of Scrap Recycling Facili%es (California Chapter): Treatment of Auto Shredder Residue, available at
h>ps://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/ISRI_ASR_Study_JPM_8_2_13.pdf
18 Gerdau: Material Data Safety Sheet for ASR, available ath>ps://www2.gerdau.com/sites/default/files/

downloadable_files/Automobile%20Shredder%20Residue%20_ASR_%20MSDS%20_NA_%202-15-12.pdf

19

 material (i.e. small pieces of glass, wood, etc.).

ASR can be a characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA because of the toxicity of entrained
metals and other components of the waste. As described in its Material Data Safety Sheet, ASR
contains multiple toxic substances in addition to cadmium, lead and zinc. In Illinois, ASR is
characterized as a special waste (specifically, "a waste material generated by shredding
recyclable metals").19 According to 35 IAC § 808, special wastes are given a "toxic score." The
generator of a special waste has the burden of characterizing their waste according to ASTM test
methods to determine the toxic score of the waste.20 Because of the hazardous constituents of
ASR, Illinois EPA should mandate specific measures to control every aspect of ASR
management. These measures include screening scrap materials, rejecting components in these
wastes that commonly include hazardous substances and managing and storing ASR in full
enclosures.
Illinois EPA should mandate strict controls to screen for and exclude hazardous materials to
minimize the quantity of hazardous substances that will be entrained in ASR, to prevent these
hazardous constituents from becoming airborne. This should include should prohibitions on
components that can accompany scrap metal wastes, including switches, batteries, gas and
propane tanks and any components that contain traces of transmission fluid, gasoline, diesel fuel,
lubricating oils and antifreeze. These prohibitions require stringent enforcement practices by the
facilities. Visual gate inspections of incoming loads of scrap materials for prohibited components
are essential but not adequate. Facilities should be required to employ photoionization detectors
19 Illinois EPA, “Do I Have a Special Waste?” available at h>ps://www2.illinois.gov/epa/topics/waste-management/

waste-disposal/special-waste/Pages/do-i-have.aspx
20 See 35 Ill. Admin. Code 808.121(a)

20

 to screen for volatile organic compounds and other gases, as well as radiation detectors. Based
on screening, facilities should be required to categorically reject “materials requiring special
handing”, and maintain documentation detailing the supplier, the screening technique that was
utilized and the basis for rejecting the materials.
Illinois EPA should mandate that all ASR-related operations (storage, management, processing
and transportation) should take place in fully enclosed and controlled structures. This is
necessary to prevent the release of hazardous substances into two environmental media. First, as
discussed elsewhere in these comments, material, including entrained hazardous substances, can
be released from outdoor ASR piles into the air. Second, rainfall and snowmelt can penetrate
outdoor ASR piles, causing contaminated leachate (containing suspended solids and hazardous
constituents) that can be resuspended as airborne particles. Enclosure prevents the uncontrolled
release of airborne particulate matter. Enclosure also prevents rainfall and snowmelt from
penetrating ASR piles, minimizing the release of contaminated leachate and the resuspension of
airborne particles.
Comment - Provisions of Illinois law that are part of the approved Illinois SIP characterize odors

as contaminants that should not be released in a manner that injures nearby residents. Under 415
ILCS §5/9(a):
No person shall: (a) Cause of threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any
contaminant into the environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution
in Illinois, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, so as to
violate regulations or standards adopted by the Board under this Act.
This same provision is repeated in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 201.102, approved as part of
the federally enforceable SIP for the State of Illinois on May 31, 1972. 37 Fed. Reg. 10842. This
SIP approval also included 35 Illinois Administrative Code 201.101, which defines air pollution
as “…the presence in the atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and
of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant or animal life, to health, or
to property, or to unreasonable interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.” The definition of
contaminant explicitly includes odors:
Sec. 3.165. Contaminant. "Contaminant" is any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor,
or any form of energy, from whatever source. (Source: P.A. 92-574, eff. 6-26-02.)
The concerns of the local environmental justice community about releases of odors from the
proposed General III facility are legally relevant to the proposed permit. As revealed by the
analysis prepared by NRDC, odor concerns are not mere speculation, but rather are identified as
a recurrent problem at the existing General Iron facility despite the use of the same pollution
control equipment that will be transferred to General III. These odors are not merely unpleasant,
they evidence fugitive releases of categories of regulated pollutants including metals, volatile
organic materials and particles. Even in the single Inspection Report included in these comments,
21

 the city inspector experienced from an off-site location “a pungent odor of sweet metal that burns
my nostrils,” an “odor of burning material” and fugitive dust. She was able to attribute these
releases to General Iron because she observed the same effects on-site as well.
Because General Iron’s existing pollution control equipment – which will be transferred to
General III – is inadequate to control these releases, Illinois EPA’s approach in Paragraph 11a of
the Draft Permit is uninformed and inadequate. General III should be required to develop an
odor management plan proactively that will address the severe, recurrent releases that are
constantly reported at the General Iron facility, and which are clearly injurious to human health
and the use and enjoyment of property. As a precondition for commencing construction, the
permittee must be required to develop and implement a comprehensive odor management plan
that identifies changes in material, installation of controls and other measures to control odors,
and that mandates a corrective action plan if odors are observed or odor complaints are received
by facility operators or regulators. The odor management plan should require General III to
identify and implement odor monitoring equipment to detect the characteristic odors that are
related to its characteristic metallic, volatile and particulate emissions. Illinois EPA’s deferral of
this issue in the Draft Permit is to the advantage of the permit applicant, but damaging to the
nearby environmental justice community.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments or if I can provide additional
information.
Sincerely,

Keith Harley, Attorney for the Southeast Environmental Task Force
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
211 W. Wacker, Suite 750
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 726-2938
kharley@kentlaw.iit.edu
Enc

22