ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    1,
    1979
    SIMMONS
    REFINING COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—73
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Dur~ie1leI:
    On April
    6,
    1979 Petitioner filed for a variance from
    the limitations on the discharge of mercury into a sewer
    system in Rule 702(a)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution.
    An
    Amended
    Petition was filed on August
    20,
    1979.
    The Agency
    has recommended that a variance be granted for two years,
    subject to conditions. Petitioner has accepted this recommendation.
    No hearing was held.
    Petitioner’s discharge of mercury,
    resulting from the
    processing of scrap metals, exceeded amounts contained in
    the ordinance of The Metropolitan Sanitary District of
    Greater Chicago
    (MSD) Sewer and Waste Division and Rule
    702(a).
    In September of 1977, MSD informed Petitioner that
    measurements of mercury indicated a discharge of up to 26.3
    ugh.
    Petitioner does not use mercury in any of its processes.
    However, reagents used in the refining process may be a
    possible source of mercury contamination.
    The mercury
    contamination occurred on a basis which could not be predicted
    either with respect to the occurrence,
    or the resultant
    mercury level.
    Petitioner,
    in cooperation with MSD, attempted
    to minimize the amount of mercury discharged by altering
    in—house practices and seeking out
    a pollution control
    equipment manufacturer which had
    a system or process available
    to reliably meet MSD and Board requirements.
    Neither the
    MSD suggestion of the “Ventron” system
    for mercury removal
    nor that of Charles Licht Engineering Associates,
    Inc. could
    guarantee that Petitioner would meet the Rule 702 requirement
    of less than 0.0005 mg/i
    as
    Hg at any time.
    Furthermore,
    Petitioner has been advised that the search
    for a viable
    system will continue, but that, to date,
    no system appears
    to be available to do the job.
    In its Amended Petition for Variance, Petitioner proposes
    that a five year variance be granted, as was requested in
    its original petition.
    Petitioner adds, however,
    that if no
    new technology exists after two years,
    Petitioner will
    follow the recommendation of Patterson Associates,
    Incorporated,
    36—35
    —2—
    environmental consultants,
    for interim controls.
    Patterson
    recommended the coagulation treatment process on a batch
    treatment basis as the most reliable technology available
    for mercury pollution abatement.
    Patterson also points out
    that although the effluent limitations cannot be reliably
    met,
    the random peaks of mercury contamination can be minimized
    at a cost
    in excess of $25,000.
    The Agency supports the variance from Rule 702(a)
    of
    Chapter
    3 for a period of
    two years,
    finding that harmful
    effects
    to the environment caused by granting the variance
    would be minimal; that there is no feasible technology
    available
    to Petitioner to reduce the mercury concentration
    in its discharge; and that
    it would be an unreasonable
    hardship to deny a variance to Petitioner.
    The Board finds that
    a denial of the variance would
    constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
    The
    costs
    of completely eliminating the discharge under presently
    available technology are high and the suggested measures for
    elimination or reduction of the discharge do not guarantee
    that Petitioner will meet the requirements
    of Rule 702.
    Although
    a change is pending which would raise the acceptable
    levels of mercury in sewer systems
    (R76—21), the Board does
    not believe that Petitioner should rely on this contingency
    but should continue to seek
    a viable means of reducing its
    mercury discharge. Consequently, the Board concurs with the
    reasoning of the Agency in this matter and finds the conditions
    imposed on Petitioner during the period of its variance
    to
    be reasonable.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact
    and conclusions
    of
    law
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    It
    is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
    Petitioner
    be
    granted a variance from the restrictions on
    the discharge of mercury into a sewer system contained in
    Rule 702(a) of Chapter
    3: Water Pollution for a period of
    two years
    from the date of this Order,
    subject to the following
    conditions:
    1)
    Petitioner shall conduct a study of means of removing
    mercury—containing scrap metals prior
    to processing.
    2)
    Petitioner shall conduct further studies
    (a) to find
    suppliers of mercury—free reagents to use for its
    refining process and
    (b) to identify other possible
    sources
    of mercury contamination in its processes and
    means of reducing such contamination.
    36—36
    —3—
    3)
    Petitioner
    shall submit
    a report as to information
    developed in subparagraphs
    (1) and
    (2) to the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    Compliance Unit,
    Division of Water Pollution Control,
    2200 Churchill
    Road,
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706 within ten months of
    the date of this Order.
    4)
    Petitioner shall keep abreast of published research and
    development
    in the area
    of mercury control and evaluate
    its suitability for its processes.
    Petitioner shall
    submit a report as to information developed in this
    regard to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    Compliance Unit, Division of Water Pollution Control,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
    Illinois 62706 within
    20 months of the date of this Order.
    5)
    Within 45 days
    of the date of this Order, Petitioner
    shall execute of certification of acceptance and agreement
    to be bound to the terms and conditions of this variance.
    This
    45 day period shall
    he held in abeyance
    if this
    matter is appealed.
    The certification shall he forwarded
    to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Compliance
    Unit,
    Division of Water Pollution Control, 2200 Churchill
    Road,
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706 and shall read as
    follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I
    (We),
    __________________
    ____
    having read
    and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79—73, hereby
    accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms
    and conditions.
    SIGNED
    ____
    ______________________________
    TITLE
    _____________________________
    DATE
    ____
    _______________________________
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby cei~ti4ythe above Opinio
    and Ord r
    were adopted on the
    ___________________
    day of
    __________________
    l979byavoteof
    ___f-/~O
    —.
    Christan L. Moffet
    ,
    Cle~U
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    36—37

    Back to top