ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
18,
1989
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC RULE
CHANGE FOR REILLY CHEMICAL
)
R88-9
CORPORATION, GRANITE CITY
)
(Rulemaking)
FACILITY:
35
ILL. ADM.
CODE 307.1102
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N. Nardulli):
This matter comes
before the Board
on a Petition for Site-
Specific
Rule Change
filed
on behalf
of
the Reilly
Industries,
Inc.’s,
Granite City Facility.’
The petition was
filed with the
Board
on March
8,
1988.
Presently,
the concentration of mercury
in the wastewater discharge from the Reilly Chemical Corporation’s
Granite
City facility
is governed by the effluent standards
for
mercury in
35 Ill.
Adin. Code Section 307.1102.
Section 307.1102 (a)
limits the concentration of mercury in any discharge to
a publicly
owned, or publicly regulated, sewer system to 0.0005 milligrams per
liter, subject to the averaging rule contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.104(a).
The existing exceptions
to the standard established
by Section 307.1102(a)
are laid out in the subsequent paragraphs
of Section 307.1102.
The Petitioner petitions the Board to further
amend 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code Section 307.1102.
On April
27,
1989,
the Board proposed the requested rule for
Second
First
Notice.
The
proposed
rule
was
published
in
the
Illinois Register on May 19, 1989
(Volume #13, Issue #20, p. 7530)
Three
public
comments
were
received
by
the
Board
during
First
Notice,
two were
from the Department
of
Commerce
and
Community
Affairs
stating
that this proposed
rule
will have
no
effect
on
small
business.
The
other
was
from
the
Administrative
Code
Division of the Secretary of State’s Office.
The recommendations
of
the
Administrative
Code
Division
have
been
adopted
in
the
amendments for Second Notice.
On July
13,
1989 the Board proposed the rule,
substantively
unchanged
from
Second
First
Notice,
for
Second
Notice.
The
proposed
rule was sent to the Joint Committee on
Administrative
Rules
(“JCAR”)
on July
24,
1988.
The Second Notice Period began
1Since this rulemaking was initiated,
petitioner has changed
its
name
from Reilly
Tar and
Chemical
Corporation”
to
“Reilly
Industries,
Inc.”
F)4..4r37
2
on July 25,
1989 and ended September 8,
1989.
On August
3,
1989,
the Board received JCAR’s “General Problems or Questions Concerning
Proposed Rulemaking.”
JCAR asked that the Board “explain why it
has not named the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, Granite city
Facility,
specifically in Section 307.1102(g),
as Reilly,
not any
other coal tar facility,
is seeking the site—specific relief?”
No
other
public
comments
were
received
during
the
Second
Notice
period.
After discussions between JCAR and the Board, an agreement to
modify the proposed rule was reached.
On September
1,
1989,
the
Board received JCAR’s “Certification Of No Objection To Proposed
Rulemaking.”
The Board’s Final Notice Proposal is consistent with
the above—referenced agreement.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner,
Reilly Industries,
Inc.
(“Reilly”)
operated
under a variance from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 307.103
as
it applies
to
Reilly’s discharge from Reilly’s Granite City plant until August
31,
1989.
The variance was granted to allow Reilly time to seek
a site-specific rule through
this proceeding.
Since the record
from PCB 88-47,
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation
v.
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
was
incorporated
into
this
proceeding
(R.
9), the Board finds it useful to reiterate some of
its earlier statements.
Reilly
distills
coal
tar,
which
is
a
by-product
of
coke
production at its refinery in Granite City.
Its products include:
coal tar pitch; creosote
oil,
a pesticide used to treat railroad
tins,
utility
poles,
etc;
an~ pipeline
coatings,
used
on
underground
gas
and
oil
transmission
pipelines.
Reilly
employs
about 50 persons at the Granite City plant.
Reilly batch processes the total production of coal tar from
Granite
City
Steel.
The
distillation
process
removes
various
amounts
of
creosote oil to produce various grades
of pitch.
At
the start of distillation water contained in the coal tar is first
removed
in
a separate distillation
cut.
Wet scrubbers
prevent
particles
of
creosote oil from polluting the
air.
Wet scrubber
water is recirculated until the creosote oil concentration is about
50,
at which point the mixture goes
to an oil—water separator.
This separated water becomes part of the wastewater produced.
In
a
March
29,
1985
quarterly
progress
report,
Reilly’s
mercury concentration by wastestream was reported as follows
(Pet.
Appendix
B-5):
3
SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF MERCURY
PRESENT IN WASTEWATER AT RTCC’S GRANITE CITY PLANT
Hg Conc—
Volume of
Mercury
Percent
entration Wastewater
Load
of
Sources
(mg/fl
(gal/wk)
(g/wk)
Total
I.
Water Decantation
A.
Tar Storage
0.006
750
0.017
0.08
B.
Front End Oil
0.008
9,000
0.273
1.25
Storage
C.
#1 Creosote Oil
0.081
5,250
1.612
7.40
Storage
II.
Stormwater
(tank 100) 0.003
53,700
0.611
2.80
III. Wet Scrubbers
0.012
1,500
0.068
0.31
IV.
Wet Distillate Cut
0.129
39,300
19.214
88.16
V.
Miscellaneous Water
NA*
50,000
______________
Total
21.795
100
Not analyzed.
The discharge limit for mercury in 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 307.103
is 0.0005 mg/i
(0.5 ppb)
.
Reilly’s discharge limit is 0.035 mg/l,
subject to the averaging rule of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.104(a).
The
City’s NPDES effluent limit
is 0.0005 mg/i.
Reilly asserts that
the n~ercuryis present in the coal tar,
regardless of source, and
is known to occur naturally
in coal.
Reilly’s pretreatment
system,
constructed in
1983,
consists
of the following:
An industrial wastewater pretreatment facility
consisting of a 50,000 gallon primary settling
tank,
a
100,000 gallon primary settling tank,
two settling pans with oil skimmers,
a 50,000
gallon flow equalization tank with mechanical
mixing,
three
250,000
gallon
bio-oxidation
tanks, two 2,800 gallon rectangular clarifiers,
and
all
necessary
pumping,
piping
and
appurtenances designed to treat wastewater from
a coal tar pitch and creosote oil manufacturing
operation with the discharge of (30,000 gpd DAF;
45,000 gpd
DMF;
300
PE)
and tributary
to the
Granite City Sewer Treatment
Plant.
(Agency Rec.
p.
3)
ir~44FY1
4
On
February
22,
1985,
Reilly
commenced
discharging to the
City’s treatment plant.
Prior to that time, Reilly had discharged
to a lagoon, which
is undergoing
RCRA
closure.
The RCRA closure
plan requires that a maximum of about 43,000 gpd of contaminated
groundwater
be
removed
and
treated
through
the
pretreatment
facility.
The Agency noted that the 43,000 gpd, when added to the
26,000 gpd from process and storrawater
(when it rains) exceeds the
hydraulic
capacity
of
the
facility,
thus
reducing
its
effectiveness.
Reilly, however, asserts that the system over the
years
has
exceeded
the
predicted
efficiency
and
is
able
to
effectively treat the 70,000 gpd being fed to
it.
(Agency Rec.
p.4,
Pet.
p.
4)
During the time of Reilly’s discharge,
the City’s treatment
plant effluent did not exceed 0.0005 mg/l in 1986
(Appendix A,
p.
A—i).
However,
in 1987 and through April, 1988 the Agency compared
three apparent excursions
of the City’s treatment plant effluent
with
Reilly’s
discharge
(Pet.
Table
9,
Agency
Rec.
p.
4,5)
as
follows:
Discharge Monitoring
Granite City
Reilly
(Table 9)
Report
mg/i
mg/i
Feb.
1987
0.00084
0.007
Oct.
1987
0.0017
0.0022
10/2
0.0078
10/9
0.0039
10/16
0.0089
10/23
0.0069
10/30
Jan.
1988
0.0130
0.0014
1/8
0.0016
1/15
0.0038
1/22
0.0211
1/29
There
is no
firm correlation between discharges
from Reilly
and excess discharges by Granite City.
The Board also references
the PCB
84-82
Opinion,
which
notes
that
the
City
exceeded
its
mercury effluent limit a number of times between October 1981 and
June 1984, all prior to the time Reilly started discharging to the
City’s treatment plant.
One underlying problem has been the tests for total mercury,
which can be uncertain at such low levels in a complex matrix such
as Reilly’s,
where organo—mercury compounds are present.
Reilly
searched
for,
and
feels
it has found,
a laboratory
that
can give
reliable
results;
however,
Reilly
asserts
that
the
results
are
still
questionable
from
a
statistical
standpoint.
The
Agency
agrees
that
the
tests
are
complicated
by
the
organo-mercury
compounds; however,
the Agency believes that the Standard Method~
For Examination of Waste and Wastewater,
14th Edition does contain
1fl4-4~Y)
5
methods
to
eliminate
interferences
and
suggests
that
Reilly’s
statistical variability
is probably caused by the variability of
the raw material and batch operations.
The Agency noted that both
Reilly and the City have programs to improve testing accuracy.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
Among
the
factors
considered
by
the Board
in
reviewing
a
request
for
a site—specific rule
is whether compliance
with
the
general rule
is technically feasible and economically
reasonable.
Central
Illinois
Light
Co.
v.
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
511
N.E.
2d
269,
271,
110
Ill.
Dec.
434,
436
(1987),
Proposed
Amendments
to
35
Ill..
Adm.
Code
212.209,
Village
of
Winnetka
Generating Station, R86-4l (November
3,
1988).
As required by the
Board order in PCB 88-47, Reilly has evaluated methods of reducing
the concentration of mercury in its effluent.
At hearing, Reilly
reviewed a number of technologies that it has investigated.
These
technologies
include modification
of the clarifiers,
filtration,
coagulation, adsorption in powdered activated carbon and synthetic
resins,
chemical reaction and ultrafiltration.
Reilly maintained
that some of these technologies proved ineffective in reducing the
mercury concentration
of the Reilly
refinery effluent to
levels
below
the
0.003
ing/l
limit
while
other
technically
feasible
alternatives are not economically reasonable for Reilly’s Granite
City operation.
Mr. Roder, a senior research chemist for Reilly testified as
to
Reilly’s
experiments
with
various
means
of
operating
its
clarifiers.
The
system
is
presently
operating
with
the
two
clarifiers
in parallel
and one of the clarifiers being
equipped
with
baffles
(R.
67).
Mr.
Roder
testified
that
mercury
concentration
in the effluent could
be reduced by
5
to
10,
or
approximately
1.5
ppb,
by
baffling
the
second
clarifier
and
removing a large amount of sludge from each clarifier on
a daily
basis
(R.
76).
The
cost
of
installing
the
baffles
would
be
approximately
$7,500
(R.
70)
and the additional
operating
cost
would be about $118,000 per year
(P. 76).
Mr. Roder also testified
that an increase
in the volume or number of clarifiers would not
substantially increase the removal
of mercury
(P.
99).
Reilly
performed
coagulating
tests
on
the
influent
and
effluent of the clarifiers with alum and some polymeric coagulants.
While
coagulation
was
a
viable
method
for
reducing
solids,
including mercury,
in
lab tests
it was not
practical
in plant
operations because the precipitate could not be recycled back into
the stills.
Consequently, this waste sludge, which would include
mercury, would need to be incinerated or landfilled
(P.
80).
Mr.
Roder estimated that the cost of incinerating the sludge would be
over $500,000 and the cost of landfilling would be over $180,000
(P.
81).
lr)4
LOi
6
Powder activated carbon was considered for use as a scavenger
but
in
plant
test
it
actually
resulted
in
a
lowering
of
the
efficiency
of
the
clarifiers
because
it
caused the
solids
to
flocculate and float instead of settling out
(P.
82).
Filtration
was
also
tried
but
proved
operationally
inefficient
(P.
88).
Further, Mr. Roder also testified that it would not be beneficial
to combine some or all of these changes to the clarifiers to reduce
mercury because the resulting reduction in mercury would not be the
sum of the expected gains from each method employed individually
(R.
87).
At the suggestion
of
the Agency,
Reilly attempted
to treat
the water decantation and the process water from the stills, which
are the two high mercury streams,
separately.
However, attempts
to use coagulation and precipitation and/or
filtration
on these
streams did not reduce the mercury concentration
in effluent
(R.
93)
In
laboratory
experiments,
two
methods
were
found
to
be
effective
in reducing the level
of mercury.
These methods were
ultrafiltration and ion exchange.
However, both methods are very
expensive
and
experimental
in
nature.
Ultrafiltration
would
require a $500,000 capital investment and an annual expenditure of
over $1,900,000 for the incineration of the side stream waste
(P.
86).
Further,
ultrafiltration
is
not
a
proven
technology
in
operations with low concentration metals.
It
is unknown whether
a performance level below 0.003 mg/I could be reliably maintained
on a plant scale
(R.
104-105).
To test ultrafiltration
on a plant
scale would require the construction of the entire process at the
Reilly plant
(R.
84).
Similarly,
ion exchange is an unproven technology that cannot
be tested
on
a plant scale without constructing
and implementing
the
entire
process
at
the
Granite
City
plant.
The
cost
for
construction
of
the
ion
exchange
system
is
estimated
at
over
$500,000
(P.
104).
Ion exchange would
also produce
side
waste
stream of sludge that would need to be landfilled or incinerated
at an annual cost of well over $1,000,000 per year
(R.
104).
Reilly submitted confidential financial information in a post-
hearing filing on October
7,
1989.
By a Board order of October 20,
1988 the information was classified as “Not Subject to Disclosure.”
A review of this
financial
information will not be
necessary in
making
a determination
of the economic reasonableness
of Reilly
complying with the general
rule.
The determination of economic
reasonableness will ~
~sed
on the cost of compliance with respect
to the environmental i~p~utand n~~t
on the petitioner’s ability to
afford compliance.
In its post-hearing comments of February 14,
1989, the Agency
estimated the cost of removal of an additional gram of mercury from
Reilly’s effluent would be from $1264/gram to $2537/gram depending
1(14
492
7
on the technology employed.
The Agency also noted that there
is
no firm correlation between discharges from Reilly and exceedances
from the Granite City Raw Water Treatment Plant.
The concentration
of mercury
in the effluent from the Granite City treatment plant
is reduced in two ways.
First, the activated sludge plant reduces
influent mercury by approximately 70
through incorporation in the
sludge.
Second, the mercury concentration of Reilly’s effluent is
heavily
diluted
at the Granite
City treatment
plant.
Reilly’s
contribution to Granite City’s effluent mercury concentration
is
0.08
ug/l.
This concentration
is below commonly used detection
limits
even without any removal
by
Granite
City.
Further,
the
Granite City treatment plant has reported that Extraction Potential
toxicity test for mercury in its sludge have been within required
limits
(Ex.
A, p 4—3).
There is also no evidence of a correlation between the mercury
discharge from Reilly’s plant and a public health problem in either
the Chain
of Rock Canal
or the Mississippi River downstream from
the Granite City discharge point.
The petitioner
supplied data
from
the U.S.
Geological
Survey on
mercury
levels upstream
and
downstream of the Granite City discharge
(Ex.
A, tables 4-2 and 4-
3).
The survey shows that the contribution of mercury from Granite
City does not appear to be measurable.
The low concentration
of
mercury in the Mississippi is corroborated by the analysis of the
intake of the Illinois-American Water Company located approximately
four miles downstream from the Granite City discharge plant.
The
mercury concentration of water at the Illinois—American intake has
been
at or below 0.5 ug/l since Reilly began discharging
in the
Granite
City treatment plant
in
1984
(P.
124).
The Agency also
testified that fish testing for mercury in the fish tissue has not
been
done
in
the area
for
four
years
(R.
125).
However,
the
historic results from fish testing show the mercury level
in fish
in the area to be below Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
A
review
of
the
Board’s
opinion
in
R70-5,
in
which
the
regulations designed to limit contamination
of water and soil by
mercury
were
adopted,
reveals
that
the
present
standards
for
mercury concentrations in effluent were not directly related to
a
determinable
health hazard
limit.
Testimony
in the rulemaking
indicated that any exposure to mercury could result
in long—term
neurological damage, chrornosomal aberration and teratogenic effects
in human beings.
In the Matter of Mercury Standards Opinion, March
31,
1971,
p.
3.
The Board did not have the benefit of a federal
standard to guide its rulemaking.
As a result,
the Board took a
no-threshold
approach to the problem
and
set
the water
quality
standard at 0.0005 mg/i.
The same standard was set for effluent
to sewers and from treatment plants.
The standard was established
at 0.0005 mg/i because it was determined that this was the lowest
concentration of mercury that could be accurately measured
(~).
The
opinion
went
on
to
address
the
use
of mercury
in
various
industries
and
to
express
the
fact
that
variances
and site-
specific relief would need to be considered for various situations
1(14—493
8
(i~
at 4-7).
While the opinion did not specifically address coal
tar
refining,
this
situation
does
appear
to
be
of
the
type
requiring special consideration.
DECISION
In its comments of February 14,
1989,
the Agency stated that
it believes the Board can grant the site-specific relief for Reilly
and Granite
City
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section
307.1102.
The
Agency based its decision on a balancing of the projected cost to
reduce mercury with the lack of a measured effect on water quality
or aquatic life.
The Agency also states that Reilly’s contribution
to
any
increase
in
Granite
City’s
allowable
effluent
limit
of
0.0005 mg/i
of mercury
is not ascertainable.
As
a
result,
the
Agency urges that the present effluent limit in 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
Section
304.126(a)
be
retained
for the
Granite
City
treatment
plant.
The Board agrees with the Agency’s recommendation.
In light
of
the high
incremental
cost
of
reducing the
concentration
of
mercury
in
Reilly’s
effluent with
respect
to
the
undetermined
detrimental effect the higher concentration has on water quality
or aquatic life,
compliance with the general rule
is economically
unreasonable.
This
determination
is
enforced
by
the
Board’s
opinion
in
R70-5
which
explained
that
the
general
rule
was
established at the lowest measurable concentration and may require
review
and
adjustment
for
individual
situations
when
better
information is available concerning the environmental impact of the
presence of mercury.
The Board also agrees there
is no reason to
adjust the allowable effluent limit
of 0.0005 mg/l of mercury
in
304.126(a)
for
Granite
City’s treatment plant.
The Agency
also
recommended
that the
Board
state
any site
specific
rule
in
this
matter
on
a
mass
basis
to
provide
for
averaging
of
the variable mercury concentration
and
to
fix the
mercury loading at the present operation level
of the plant.
In
response to this recommendation,
Reilly proposed an amended rule
which
has
been
adopted
by
the
Board.
Additionally,
after
discussions with JCAR,
the rule as proposed
in the instant Final
Notice specifically references Reilly Industries,
Inc.,
Granite City Facility.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposed the following amendment to 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code Section 307.1102.
The Board directs the Clerk
of the
Board
to submit the amendment to the Secretary
of State’s Office
for Final Notice publication.
9
PART
307
SEWER
DISCHARGE
CRITERIA
SUBPART
B:
GENERAL AND
SPECIFIC PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Section
307.1101
General and Specific Requirements
307.1102
Mercury
307.1103
Cyanide
SUBPART
B:
GENERAL SPECIFIC PRETREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Section 307.1102
Mercury
a)
Except as provided below, no person shall cause or allow
the
concentration
of
mercury
in
any
discharge
to
a
publicly
owned
or
publicly
regulated
sewer
system
to
exceed the following level, subject to the averaging rule
contained in 35
111. Adm.
Code
304.104(a):
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
mg/l
Mercury
71900
0.0005
b)
It
shall
be
an
exception
to
subsection
(a)
if
the
discharge
is
to a publicly owned
or publicly regulated
sewer system which
is required to meet a limitation less
stringent than the 0.0005 mg/l mercury concentration
in
which case the discharge limitation shall be the same as
that applicable to the publicly owned or regulated sewer
system to which it discharges.
c)
It
shall
be an
exception to
subsection
(a)
if
all the
following conditions are met:
1)
The
discharger
does
not
use
mercury;
or,
the
discharger
uses
mercury
and
this
use
cannot
be
eliminated;
or, the discharger uses mercury only
in
chemical analysis or in laboratory or other equipment
and takes reasonable care to avoid contamination of
wastewater; and,
2)
The
discharge
mercury
concentration
is
less
than
0.003
mg/i,
as
determined
by
application
of
the
averaging rules of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.104(a); and,
3)
The
discharger
is
providing
the
best
degree
of
treatment consistent with technological feasibility,
economic
reasonableness
and
sound
engineering
1(14-495
10
judgment.
This may include no treatment for mercury;
and,
4)
The discharger
has
an
inspectIon
and maintenance
program likely to reduce or to prevent an increase
in the level of mercury discharges.
ci)
The discharge of wastes from medicinal or therapeutic use
of mercury, exclusive of laboratory use,
shall be exempt
from
the
limitations
of
subsection
(a)
if
all
the
following conditions are met:
1)
The
total plant discharge
is
less than
227 g
(one
half pound)
as Hg in any year;
2)
This discharge is to a public sewer system; and
3)
The discharge does not, alone or in conjunction with
other
sources,
cause
the effluent
from
the
sewer
system or treatment plant to exceed 0.0005 mg/i
of
mercury.
e)
No person shall cause
or allow any discharge of mercury
to a publicly owned
or
publicly regulated
sewer system
which, alone or in combination with other sources, causes
a violation by the sewer treatment plant discharge of the
water
quality
standard
of
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
302
for
mercury applicable in the receiving stream.
f)
For purposes of permit issuance the Agency may consider
application
of
the
exception
of~ subsection
(h)
or
(c)
to
determine
compliance
with
this
Section.
The
Agency may
impose
permit conditions necessary or required to assure
continued
application
of
the
exception.
When
subsection
(b)
or
(c)
applies,
the Agency may
impose
an
effluent
limitation
in the permit which allows the discharge of a
concentration of mercury greater than 0.0005 mg/i but not
more than 0.003 mg/i.
gj
The mercury standards of Section 307.1102 shall not apply
to
the
Reilly
Industries,
Inc.
Granite
City
which
discharges
to
any publicly-owned
treatment
works
which
receives such a manufacturing facilities wastewater.
The
amount
of mercury discharged
by
any such manufacturing
facility shall not exceed a monthly average of 0.025 mq/~
nor a maximum of 0.035 mg/l or 7.5 grams per day,
subject
to the Board’s averaging rules during any one day~
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
1(14 496
11
I,
Dorothy M Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab~v~Qp~inion
and Order was adopted
on the
/~V~-~
day of
~
,
1989,
by a
vote of
~‘7’~
Dorothy M.
94acn, Cler~k,
Illinois Po~.-lutionControl Board
ir’ 4—
L~(17
