ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

30,

19Th

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

sHwEh

DISCHARGE

CRITERIA

P.

74—3

AMENDMENTS

-

-

MERCURY

OPINION

Q~

rPHE

BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This

Opinion

accompanies

the

Regulation

adopted

by

the

Boath

on

5eptember

29,

1975,

providing

a

limited

exemption

for

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industry

from

the

sewer

discharge

criteria

for

Mercury

in

Rule

702

of

Chapter

3~Water Pollution,

ci

the

Pollution

Control

Board

Rules

and Regulations.

The

exemption

will

last

for

approximately two years, and is tied to

strict

conditions.

Thu

origlflal

Regulatory

Proposal

in

this

matter

was

u~eiittuc.

By

rae

Protessional

Laundry

~nst~tute

of Chicagolano

on

Mnxch

29,

1974,

and

was

designated P.74—3

by

the

Board.

It

was

followed

by

a

Supplement to Regulatory Petition, filed by

the

same

proponents

on

March 21,

1975,

(Ex,

1,

2).

eursuanu

to

putilcation,

~Ex,

3,

4,

~)

,

nearings were

held

en

Peoria

on

April

28,

1975, and in Chicago on May

19,

1975.

~n

addetimn

to

testimony

from

witnesses for

the

proponents,

the

Board

ceard

testimony

from

the

Institute for Environmental

çualiry,

the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, and the

Metropolitan

Sanitary District of

Greater

Chicago.

huither

the

proponents

nor

any

of the witnesses addressed

the

Innerent

dangers

of

mercury

pollution.

Pursuant to a

orethearing

conference,

at

which

the

Agency

and

the

proponents

were

recresented,

the

Board~s

prior

Opinion

in

P.70—5, In

the

Baiter af

Mercury

Standards,

I

PCB

411

(1971)

,

was

ent~s

th

exhibIt

at

the

commencement

of

the

first

hearing

in

Peoria,

I)

There

was

no

objection

by

any

of

the

parties

to

this

:rcceduro

nor

d:Ld

anyone

question

the

Board

s

statements

in

as

to

tie

overall

magnitude

of

the

health

and

environmental

roolexe

which

can

—and

have-

resulted

from

mercury discharges.

Instead,

the

proponents

and

all

of

the

parties

concentrated

on

tfle

following

1SSUCS~

1~

The

sources

of

mercury

entering

commercial

laundries

and

cleaners

are

uncontrollable

by those

industries,

19—

182

---

2.

Present

technology will

not

allow

mercury

removal by those industries

which

would

meet

existing general Board

standards contained in Rule

702.

3~

The

specific

exemption

for

mercury

sewer

discharges

from

the laundry

end

cleaning

industries will not cause

health

or related environmental problems.

4.

If

the

Board

did

not

grant

the

requested

exemption,

essentially

all

of

the

mercury

presently

discharged

by

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industry

would

nonetheless

be

discharged

into

sewers

or

waterways,

by

home,

commercial,

or

industrial

sources

doing

their

own

cleaning,

even

if

the

laundries

and

cleaners

went out of business.

Before

examing

these specific issues,

however, it would

be

beneficial

to examine the background of this regulatory

proceeding~

BACKGROUND

Pr;

March

31,

1971,

tie

Board

enacted

its

general mercury

standards,

in

R70-5,

supra.

In

the

Regulations

adopted

there,

the

Board

set water quality

and

effluent standards of 0.0005 mg/i

for

mercury

or any of its compounds.

I

PCB

at

426.

Of

particular

importance

here

is

the

fact

that

the

effluent standards included

any

effluent

~zc1

the

waters

of

Illinois

or

to

a

public

sewer

system

.

Id,

at

425,

(emphasis

added).

Those

standards

thTEc~Tater

codified

by

the

Board

into

the

present

identical

water

c:uality,

effluent

and sewer discharge

criteria standards.

PCB

Regs~,

Ci,

3~ Rules

203(f),

408(a)

702(a),

The exemptions

to

the

mercury

standards

contained

in

P.70—5,

and

later

codified

into

Rule

702(b),

have subsequently expired under their own

limitations.

The

Metropolitan

Sanitary District of Greater

Chicago

ItSD~ ben

adopted

into

its own ordinance the same standards

as th~Board

promulgated under P.70-5,

(P..

236).

Over the next

few

years,

the

Laundry

Institute

coordinated

a

group

effort

of

the

clc.aninq

and

laundry

establishments

in

the

Chicago

area

to

meet

this standard,

as well as

the

other

standards

in

MSD

ordinances,

(e.g~, P.,

13,

17,

25,

109,

112,

259).

The

principal

efforts

were

not,

however,

directed

to

mercury

affluent

control;

instead

the Laundry Institute and the MSD

19

—

183

---

c.,r.ccyrrt~don methods to control hexane solthle discharges

int~o

sears.

heavy

metal,.

and other

~n:pounds,

CR. 72).

In

tic.

wcJrc~5

c.:

one

MSD

witness,

Stanley

wniteblocm,

••

.

.

like

cvtrybcdj

elso,

.

.

.

,

we

assumed

that

there

was

some

tree -m3nt

av.ialable

for

mercury,

and

as

time

progressed,

we

Lotnu

taat

there

was

none.’

CR.

236).

‘That

same

conclusion

was

reached,

eventually,

by

the

i~.undry

~aa

cleaning

industry,

which

had

stated

in

the

original

nt’.rcur”

.le4r..ngs

that,

“establishing

stringent

mercury

discharge

reç@.at.onb

need

not

øe

a

handicap

to

the

laundry

and

linen

;tq,p..,

:.aduutrie.~.”

Quoted

in

R70—5,

1

PCB

at

416,

Cciting

the

he

.:it

o:

7aa.

77,

1971

at

pp.

328,

329).

Their

discovery

that

1

‘x.’

~s’

.~

z~.d.

bc

caable

to

meet

the

general

Board

standards

for

~~tarcury ~uøaequent1y

led

to

the

instant

Regulatory

Proposal.

ziO’JtCES

CF

MERCURY

IN

LAUNDRY WASTEWATERS

t~ ‘sc. -ange contcu.ced considerable testimony on the sources

~

.~..rcu:y

c’~.enngLaundry

and cleaning plants.

Testimony

~

that

there

are

two

possible

sources

of

mercury:

;.

chemicals and soaps used in the

cse&ning irocess by the industry itself.

~.

ratenala to be cleaned.

•

..nc.

t.

tutimony indicated that not all

mercury

has

.,

:c r

:.

noveã

from

the

cnemicals

and

soaps

‘ised

in

commercial

a

-

•~3a

laundering,

it

did anda:ate

t.~at

most

of

the

mercury

r..

acc:~

rernrred,

(e.g.,

R.

88,

94;

Lupp.

Pet.

Ex.

D).

There

is

‘r.n.

,omo

..1ication

as

to

whether

all

mercury

can

be

removed

-

.~j

c.’ier4icals

ant.

soaps,

CR.

64—68,

259).

However, the

:a :~

tf

_ssp

.at

fron the industraer

caemicasr~,

soaps and processing

(.CIs?O

.~

~,

i,

and

has

been,

eliminated

to

the

point

where

the

.1

.sLc,ta’tO$

have no mercury probicz wath those materials.

..l-&n..:taticg:y

:0w—mercury soaps ira processing chemicals

are

~‘.l

I..;’

:ae

Leac.ing

supplier

in

the

Chicagc

area,

but

not

else—

~

?r. a.s

WdS

4

reaction

to

our

general

mercury

Regulation

and the

1Ji~

ordinance,

a.

73.)

r.sna’.4:ang posnb.e

source

of mercury in

laundry

and

~catt’

i’idurtrj effluents is in the materials being cleaned.

a

.;enera

ccnstcksus

of

afl

the

parties

that

this is

.ne

csi,.tqjai

3aurce

of

mercury.

Mercury

is

apparently

present

in

‘~

all,

of

the

soils generated in our society, in

.•,

..~i.rat.certJsufficient

to

cause

violations

of

the

mercury

.~

cc

ci~CAar3C

criteria of 0.0005 mg/i.

This seems to be

true

actrar

the

materials

to

be

cleaned

are

industrial

wiping

cloths,

si:ens,

aniforms

or

family

laundry,

Ce.g.,

Supp.

Pet.

Ex.

D).

—184

---

~or

~t

~t

poss~bie for

the launthits

to

classify

the

urliuntu

to

he

washed

or

cleaned

with

a

vnew

toward

eliminating

the

worst

so:s

entering

the

~ndividual

establishments,

d~.

2i5,

21~j.

Mercury concentrations in identical items

~crar~T

wi~

~ly,

~Supp.

Pet.

Ex,

D)

Based on these facts,

the

:~

argue

that

it

is

impossible

for

them

to

eliminate

~:ha

source

ol

mercury

input

into

the

laundry

and

cleaning

in~usty,

without

eliminating

the

industry

itself.

gECaNOLOGY

~ND

ECONOMICS

OF

MERCURY

REMOVAL

~nere

was

a

consensus

on

this

point:

no economically

onati.

and

technologically

feasible

method

of

removing

mercury

:~n~

~a~nr

and

cleaning

industry

wastes

presently

exists.

t~~t~cn.

t~oculation,

precipitation

and

ot1~iermethods

were

a~L.u~cu~n~ea

in

the

exhi~its

and

at

hearing,

and

it

was generally

agreed

cuat.

no

adequate

treatment

method

now

exists.

Cr

~tua~,

hrrcury_in

Laundry

Wastewaters,

a

literature

~tua’~

~ ~epar~ct

~or

the

institute

for

Env~ronmental Quality

by

~rrn~s

:~atterson,

reported

a

successful

carbon

filtration

~r.Q

Dec.

No.

73~l0,

(Ex.

12)

.

However,

further

si

tnis

method,

developed

by

the

U.

S.

Army

for

~sa

use,

~nd~cated

that

is

is

simply

not

compatible

ccte~

and

wastewater

volumes

generated

in

commercial

~h.

234~286).

Problems

with

cost,

sludge

generation

in

•:Y:.~r icchors

would

prohibit

any

commercial

use

of

the

Army

c~rn,

Dr~

~ue~Hinq

of

the

MSD

stated

that

use

of

that

method

~y

~

c;L:

generate

7,000

addit~onai

tons

of

sludge

per

day,

a~

opposed

to

tne

750

tons

generated

now,

(R,

280).

i~ not

to

say

that

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industries

~vt

~oi:

~tcemptod

to

tina

some

truatment

metnod

wtiicti

will

work.

r~~C

a

general

effort

to

comply

with

MSD

discharge ordinances,

•:~ir~’

L~rtstute

investigated

various

methods,

including

one

-~

t;tc.i

assistance,

none

of

which

proved

to

be a viable

~o ~he

mercury

problem,

(R~

~l2—ll4,

23).

Individual

•n~sss.~

have

also

attempted

to

find

a

workable

mercury

cmoioqv~

~t

uhe~r

own

expense,

without

success,

(R,

85,

212).

Psrnsnçn

the

treatment

technologies

attempted

were

initially

i~spied

to

treat

other pollutants,

such

as

hexane solubles,

ouct

nc~

5130

tried

as

a

mercury-~control

method,

without

success.

In

:•~

r•~, the

record

demonstrates

clearly

that

it

is not presently

or

~

tor

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industry to meet the Board’s

~

c-ic/I

sewer

discharge

criteria

for

mercury.

—

---

HEALTH

AND ENVlRONNENTH~EFFECTS

AlthoucJ

Dr.

Lue—Hing

did

state

that

:Launary

industry

d-’~qea

into

sewers

contribute

to

violations

of

the

nercary

standard

in

MSD

effluents,

we

nonetheless

feel

that

atie

qiana

ci

a

temporary

exemption

wiia

not

cause

any

serious

asaith

etfects or

environmental

damage,

~R,

251,

265)

The

testimony

sr.Lulcates

that

present

MSD

effluents

into

Illinois

waters

are

qeneraaL

within

the

mercury

standards,

with

i~waiaeo

otiaLuent

standard

violations,

(e~g,

,

R.

250)

The

hecord

intacatect

only

one

minor

violation

of

the

mercury

wuier quality

standard

in

the

area

receiving

discharge from

yq~

~orth

Side

Treatment

Plant.

That violation is

quite

localized

and

snort—lived,

El. th

Sc;

viru:LE~nt a

poison

as

mercury,

however,

it

might

b~ciiqueG. that

V~oiationof

the

effluent

or

water

quality

studs

should

not

be

tolerated.

However,

the

denial

of this

exemutiori

would

serve

no

health

or

environmental

purpose;

the

mercury

would

not

be

eliminated.

ALTERNATIVES

TO

THE EXEMPTION

Thstoard~a

Opinion

in R70~5,

supra,

noted

that

the

mercury

raculat

sans

adopted

tnere

might

have

the

effect

of

driving

some

:Lndussrles

oat

of

business,

if

they

were

not

able

to comply

with

ucurv

:RequThtions.

1

PCB

at

424

(Supplemental

Opinion

of

at.

ALaricis~

Here,

however,

the

retention

of

the

general

mercury

snaudath,

which

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industry

cannot presently

.naaa1~

would

not

eliminate

the

mercury

presently

entering

sewers,

eras

the

laundry

and

cleaning

plants

were

closed.

In

addition,

ware

ant

the

case,

there

would

appear

to

be

a

likelihood

that

c

~.

~-

~

~~~5atL~

~o

~ewers

matnu

~cuu~

~y

increase

if

uncon—

cnemicaa

compounas

and

soaps

were

to

be

generally

used.

This

po:na~

which

we

find

val:Ld;

as.

based

on

the

reasoning

that

Ii tha

laundry

and

cleaning

industry

plants

were

to

close,

ttinshe~

and

other

materia:Ls

presently

being

cleaned

at

thotu

q~ants would

stil:L

be

cleaned,

probably

by

the

present

customers

of

the

laundry

and

cleaning

industry.

Ia

ahit

s:~tuation,

the

mercury

in

the

soils would

still be

:caleaseci.,

whether

from

family

facilities

or

from

small individual

laundry

or

cleaning

facilities

at

coimnerciai

or industrial

:~tions,

to

include

hospitals,

hotels,

factories,

and

restaurants,

or

other

service

facilities,

In

addition,

the

onemicals

and

soaps

usea

by

many

smailer

tacalities

would be

more

tittiCUit

to

control,

The

mercury

ifl

eacn

individual

all

bent

would

unuoubtedly

be

smaller,

and

even

diluted to

sower

concentrations,

but

the

mercury

would

nonetheless be

d.ischcrqed,

(e.

cr.

A.

258)

---

—6--

THE

REGULATION

Pole

702me).

The exemption provided here is set in a new,

separate

subsection

of tne sewer discharge criteria Regulation

tot

mercury

to

keep

it

separate

from

the

other

present

and

expired

exemptions

contained in subsections

(b)

and

(c).

Subsection

702

(e) Ci)

.

To

standardize the definition

of the

:cnaustrrses

attectea

Dy

tne exemption,

anci

particularly

as

a

I:cmitation~,

the

Board

adopted the Standard Industrial

Classification

Nanual

definition

issued

by

the United States Government.

The

daisnstion

offered

by

this

subsection

is more

limited

and specific

man

the

qeneral

~1aundry

industry~definition offered

in the

oripinal

sroposal,

it

was

our

intent,

in

using

the

adopted

definition,

to

exclude

small

laundry

or cleaning operations

whion

are

used

on—site

by some other sndustry, for

which

there

ssiqht

be

more

difficulty

in ~o1icing the further limitation

in

subsection

~ii)

bib:secti.on 702

Ce)

Cii)

By

limiting the amount of mercury

that

tnose

ut:L

lung

the

exemption

may

add

to

that entering in

-uu~rinr

tne

inuus1~ues

affeetea

to

reauce

me

levels

of

mercury

in

their

effluents.

Where

mercury

discharge

:b~vs-is

are

presently

low,

tnis

subsection

will

prevent

future

050

ol

nie~s~mercury

scaps

or

cleaning

compounds,

which

might

ine:reasis

elf

luent

mercury

concentrations.

in

effect, we are

reulrinq

the

:Laundry

and.

cleaning

industrses

to

continue

their

uresecct

efforts,

and

to

do

all

that

is

possible

to lower the

amount

of

mercury

in

their

effluents.

Swc

sect

con

702

(e)

(iii)

.

We

are

confident

that

some of the

research

in

roqress,

whether

by

the

individual laundry

or

abeansnq

companies,

theIr

associations,

or

others,

will

eventaa~iy

cc

successful,

it

was

~uen

sn

the

record

here

that

xiv

be

close

to

a

technologically

feasible

and

economically

reasonable

method

of removing

mercury

from

laundry

and cleaning

:Lndustry

effluents.

This

subsection,

in

conjunction

with

the following

one,

is

intended

to

keep

present

research

going,

and to emphatically

:lcromqt

further

future

efforts,

The record here simply will not

supuort

a

permanent

exemption.

---

—7~

Subsection

702

(e) (iv).

The two year time limitation

was

based

rally

on~he

A~~cy’ssuggestion at the Chicago

hearing.

We

feel

that

no

permanent

exemption has been

justified.

A two

:~‘ear exemption

will

allow

us

to

review

the

state

of

the

art

~~or mercury

removal

before

granting any continued exemption

in

the

Regulation.

I,

Christen

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

soard,

hereby certify

the

above

Opinion

was

adopted

on

the

~

day

of

________________,

1975,

by a vote of

~stanL.ofe~

Illinois Pollution

ntrol Board

19— 188