ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

8, 1976

BIRD & SON, INC.,

)

Petitioner,

)

 PCB 76—116

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Zeitlin):

This matter is before the Board on a Petition for Variance

filed by Petitioner Bird

 & Son,

 Inc., on April 26,

 1976.

 A Recom-

mendation from the Environmental Protection Agency

 (Agency) was

filed on June

 4, 1976.

 No hearing was held

 in this matter.

Bird

 & Son again seeks relief from the 0.0005 mg/I

 (0.5 ppb)

limitation on mercury discharges

 to sewers in Rule 702(a) of

Chapter

 3: Water Pollution,

 of the Board’s

Rules

and

Regulations.

Such relief was previously granted in Bird

 & Son,

 Inc.

v.

 EPA,

PCB 75—4,

 16 PCB 463

 (1975), subject t~certain conditions.

 Bird

&

Son claims here that the factors which led to the grant of a Variance

PCB

75—4 are still present,

 and again justify such a grant.

Bird

 & Son also now asks that a Variance be granted either perma-

nently or for a longer period of time than previously granted, and

 that the conditions to such

 a grant be eased.

Bird

 & Son operates a factory in an industrial area on the

south side of Chicago where various paper and wood wastes are

recycled for the production of roofing felt.

 Operations

 at that

plant remain essentially the same as described in PCB 75-4, supra,

except as noted:

1.

 Water usage has been reduced to 115,000

gallons per day,

 of which 25,000 gallons are evap-

orated as steam and 90,000 gallons are discharged

through sewers to the Metropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago’s Calumet Sewage Treatment

 Works;

2.

 A coal-fired boiler has been converted to

oil.

 Cf.,

 Bird

 & Son,

 Inc. v.

 EPA, PCB 75-166

(Nov.

fl,

 1975).

—

53

As was the case in PCB 75—4, Bird

 & Son’s effluent to sewers

consistently exceeds the 0.0005 mg/l standard for mercury discharges

to sewers.

 Data

 in the Agency’s Recommendation shows Bird

 & Son

discharging an average flow of

 .09 million gallons per day to sewers,

with mercury concentrations ranging from 0.0019 to 0.0036 mg/l.

These levels are within the 0.0038 mg/i standard set as

a

condition to Variance grant in PCB 75-4.

 In addition, the data

contained

 in the Agency’s Recommendation indicates that these

 sewer

discharges do not cause a violation of the 0.0005 mg/l standard in

the Caiumet sewage treatment plant’s discharge to waters of the state.

Our order in PCB 75-4 also required that Bird

 & Son undertake,

and report to the Agency, on a study program for the elimination of

mercury from its effluent.

 Although the studies initiated by Bird

&

Son covered the mercury concentrations in alternate sources of raw

materials, various mercury removal methods, and the effects of other

water purification concepts on mercury removal, none have been

successful.

 Bird

&

Son does note,

 however, that it

 is still pursuing

the matter by investigating two unproven mercury removal methods.

Based on its lack of success, Bird

 & Son asks that it be relieved

of the burden of pursuing such expensive studies.

We find that Bird

 & Son has once again

 shown that a Variance

is warranted for its operations.

 Its use of recycled materials

causes a problem which present technology is apparently unable to

solve.

 In addition, no environmental harm has been shown.

We shall, however, require that Petitioner continue to investi-

gate means of removing the mercury from its effluent.

 Although this

need not take the form of the “concentrated” study which Bird

 & Son

engaged in over the last year, we shall require that

 it continue

to

investigate the two unnamed methods noted above, and that it continue

to actively keep abreast of current literature on the subject.

We

shall require that Bird

 & Son report to the Agency on its success

with the two untried mercury removal methods, and that it report to

the Agency whether its monitoring of research by others reveals any

processes or removal methods worth further investigation.

 Should

either of the two aforementioned, untried mercury removal methods

prove adequate for Bird

 & Son’s needs or,

 if any other process or

method is found which will allow compliance with the applicable

standard,

 Bird

 & Son will be required to implement such methods

within one year.

As

 a final condition to the grant of this Variance, we shall

recommend

 in keeping with Bird

 & Son’s argument that the present

mercury sewer discharge standards are unreasonable

-—

 that Bird

&

Son participate in any regulatory proceeding before this Board with

regard to that general standard.

 Such participation should include

a presentation of Petitioner’s experience and research efforts under

this and the preceding Variance.

—

54

—3—

Because the facts before us here do not indicate that any

 promising technology or other mechanism for mercury removal applic-

able to Petitioner’s problems

 is about to appear, we

 shall grant a

Variance for a two-year period.

 Because of the inherent dangers of

mercury, we do not feel that any longer period can be justified.

This Opinion constitutes

 the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board

 in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that Petitioner

BIRD

&

SON,

 INC. be granted a Variance from Rule 702(a) of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution,

for

 a period of two years,

 from April

24,

 1976 until

April 24,

 1978, subject to the following conditions:

a.

 Petitioner’s discharge of mercury to the Metropolitan

Sanitary District of Greater Chicago shall not exceed a concentration

of greater than

 .0038 mg/i at any time,

 or a total discharge of

more than 1.2 pounds of mercury per year.

b.

 Petitioner shall submit to the Environmental Protection

Agency, within 180 days of the date of this Order,

 a report of the

efficacy of the two mercury removal methods detailed

 in its Petition

in this matter.

c.

 Petitioner shall, by the end of each of the two years

encompassed in the above granted Variance,

 submit to the Environ-

mental Protection Agency a report detailing its analysis of the

 literature on the subject of mercury removal,

 noting any

 technology

or methods which are promising with regard to Petitioner’s effluent;

such reports and those required under paragraph

(b)

 of this Order,

above,

 shall be submitted to:

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Variance Section

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

d.

 Should any technologically feasible and economically

reasonable method for the removal of mercury from Petitioner’s

effluents be found, either by Petitioner or any one else, Petitioner

shall,

 within ninety

 (90) days of receiving notice thereof,

 submit

to the Environment.al Protection Agency a plan to implement such

method within one year of receiving such notice, and shall thereafter

comply fully with such plan.

—

—4—

e.

 Petitioner shall, within thirty

 (35) days of the date of

this Order, execute and forward to the Environmental Protection

Agency, Control Program Coordinator,

 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois

 62706, a certificate of acceptance in the following form:

I,

 (We), ______________________________,

 having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in case

No. PCB 76-116, understand and accept said Order, realizing

 that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto

binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I,

 Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

 day of

________,

 1976, by a vote of~p

~

Illinois Pollution

 ol Board

—