ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
24,
1975
MONSANTO COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—289
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Durnelle):
This case concerns
a Petition for Extension
of Variance
submitted
to
the Board on August
5,
1974 by Monsanto
Company.
The extension is requested for Monsanto’s W,G,
Kruminrich
Plant,
(Monsanto)
located in Sauget in St.
Clair County,
to
allow the plant to continue to discharge mercury to the
Village of Sauget sewer system in excess of the 0.5 part per
billion
(ppb)
(or 0.0005 mg/i)
limit specified by Rule 702(a)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations.
Previous variances,
which provided the same relief,
were granted by the Board on November
1,
1973
(PCB 73~320),
October
31,
1972
(PCB 72~-336)
,
and November
8,
1971
(PCB
7i-~
110).
In each case the variance was granted subject to
limitations on Monsanto’s discharge of mercury from the
plant.
The initial variance, PCB 7i~-ll0, limited the discharge
of mercury to an average of 0.5 lb/day;
the
next variance,
PCB 72~336, limited the discharge to 0.33 lb/day, based on
a
six~monthmoving average, but not to exceed 0.5 pound in any
24-hour period, and the most recent variance, PCB 73~320,
limited the discharge to 0.25
lb/day, based on a six~month
moving average but not to exceed 0,4 pounds
in
any 24~-hour
period.
Although the Petition for Extension of Variance asked
for an extension of the variance until November
6,
1975, an
Amendment to Second Supplemental Petition for Extension of
Variance, filed with the Board on March
5,
1975,
asks for a
permanent variance from Rule 702 of the Water Pollution
Regulations; citing
as the basis Section
35 of the Environ-
mental Protection Act.
The Board notes that legislative intent
is for the Board to not grant permanent variances,
in that the
General Assembly felt it necessary to amend the Act to allow
the Board to grant 5-year variance to those individuals
required to obtain NPDES permits.
As Monsanto’s discharge
16
—429
—2—
is to the Village of Sauget Sanitary Sewage Treatment Plant,
no NPDES
permit is required of Monsanto.
Therefore,
the
Board may only grant one year variances in this case.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
recommended a denial of the Petition until and unless Monsanto
provided certain information;
and recommended certain condi-
tions if a variance extension were to be granted.
A public hearing was held on February 26,
1975 in
Belleville at which three representatives from Monsanto
testified.
Monsantovs
Krummrich plant manufactures approximately
1.2 billion pounds of chemicals annually, distributed between
70 major organic and inorganic compounds.
The plant employs
1270 people
with an annual payroll of $26 million
CR,
16).
For the purposes of this proceeding the plant can be divided
into the chloralkali facility, where mercury
is used as a
carrier of electricity in producing chlorine,
hydrogen,
sodium hydroxide,
and potassium hydroxide;
(R,
20)
and the
remainder of the plant where the only use of mercury is in
instrumentation
(R.
96).
The products of the chlor~~aikali
facility are in turn used in manufacturing approximately 80
of the products manufactured by the plant
CR.
22).
Monsanto states that a denial of the variance extension
could result,
if all other remedies fail,
in a shut down of
the chior-alkali facility, the only recognizeable source of
mercury at the plant
(R.
50).
This could in turn jeopardize
the operation of the entire plant since it is dependent on
the products of the chlor-alkali facility, there being
shortages
in the supply of these products from outside
sources
(R. 24~28). Questioned by the hearing officer as to
other remedies that might be pursued if a variance extension
were not granted, the witness mentioned further efforts. to
achieve a 0.5 ppb mercury effluent concentration;
an appeal
of the Board~sdecision; and a change in the standards
(R.
60)
as alternatives to discontinuing operations.
The main issue is the ability of Monsanto to comply
with the 0.5 ppb mercury standard.
The chlor-alkali facility
is designed for the complete recycle of mercury; however,
possible sources of mercury loss from the facility include
water discharges,
filter backwashing, brine
leaks,
caustic
leaks, equipment wash water, and spills.
These sources are
collected and treated by a mercury removal system before
being discharged
to the sewers.
In 1974, the mercury discharged
from the chior—alkali facility averaged less than
0.1 lb/day
(R.
99).
The remainder of the plant is involved with mercury
in instrumentation,
in switches, and in raw materials.
Individual sources contribute minute or zero amounts of
mercury; the remainder of the plant, however, when aggregated,
16—430
—3—
discharges approximately 0.15 lb/day of mercury to the
sewers
(R. 100-101).
The total plant discharge is therefore
approximately 0.25 lb/day.
In terms of concentration,
the
Monsanto wastewater stream averages 3 to
4 ppb of mercury,
based on daily sampling of the wastewater
(R.
198-199).
We
note as an aside that this indicates a wastewater flow rate
of 8.6 MGD.
As mentioned previously,
the chlor-alkali facility
employs a mercury removal system.
The system utilizes
sulfide plus activated carbon treatment to reduce the mercury
concentration in the wastewater to 20 to
50 ppb
(R.
172).
The chlor-alkali facility is isolated from
th,~
remainder of
the plant so that all liquid wastes, process water and
rainfall runoff are collected in a sump basin and discharged
to the sulfide treatment plant consisting of chemical addition,
clarifier,
sand filter,
activated carbon filter, and polishing
filter
(R. 112-113).
During January, 1975 theeffluent from
this treatment system averaged 27 ppb of mercury
(R.
186);
and since the solubility of mercury sulfide is from 18 to 20
ppb,
this system is limited to approximately 20 ppb
(R.
256)
Monsanto has continually investigated other mercury
removal systems since the sulfide treatment system was
installed in
1970
(R. 228-230).
None of these was able to
produce an effluent mercury concentration of 0.5 ppb, the
minimum concentration resulting being
8 ppb for a system
using resins
(R. 245-246).
Monsanto~sprimary efforts
recently, however, have been focused on optimizing their
existing treatment system, with further upgtading scheduled
for 1976 and 1977
(R.
182)
According
to
Monsanto,
even
if
the
chlor—aikaii
treat-~
merit
system
was
able
to
remove
all mercury~
the
remainin
elant
discharge
would
still
contain
more
than
3.
ppb ci
mercury
.(~,
231)
.
To reach the
standard
a
reducticn
in
the
mercury
discharged
from
the
remainder
of
the
plant
would
therefore
he necessary.
Monsanto states that the effect
cf
their
0.25
lb/day
mercury discharge on the environment is insignificant based
on sampling of the receiving stream, the Mississippi River,
and the aquatic biota
(R. 129—139).
Based on an average
mercury discharge of 0.25 lb/day from the plant, and the
minimum river flow in the last
10 years of 34,600 cfs, the
mercury concentration in the Mississippi River would increase
by 0.00000134 mg/i
(R.
131)
.
Analyses of fish samples
(Exhibits 11-13)
showed no mercury concentrations exceeding
0.5 ppm, which is generally accepted as safe for human
16—431
—4—
consumption
(R.
132).
One
Mississippi
River sampling point
s~venfeet from the outfall did show a mercury concentration
ot
1.4 ppb,
(R.
137)
exceeding the mercury standard.
The
Board notes that in the case of mercury there is no mixing
zone since the effluent and water quality standards are
identical.
The evidence indicates that Monsanto should receive an
extension to their variance from Rule 702(a),
and we will so
order,
We will require Monsanto to continue with their
investigations of improved mercury removal systems, their
upgrading efforts regarding the existing chior—alkali facility
mercury treatment plant, and their plans to decrease the
amount of water used and waste discharged.
In addition we
will require Monsanto to decrease their discharge of mercury
to 0.20 lb/day, based on
a six-month moving average, but not
to exceed 0.30 pound in any 24-hour period.
Monsanto,
in its testimony by Robert L.
Harness, environmental
engineer,
stated that only 76
of the mercury used in the
chlor—alkali plant could be traced
(R.
104—11.1).
Spills,
sludges, theft and atmospheric losses are examined but it would
appear that annually some 10,880 lbs or 5.44 tons of mercury
is not fully accounted for (computed as
34
of 32,000 ibs).
The
Board is concerned that this considerable amount of
a toxic
heavy metal is being lost perhaps via the air route in the
cellhouse ventilation system where the measuring method is
admittedly unreliable
(Pet. Ex,
6, footnote on p.1).
Secondly,
the precision in effluent readings measured by the atomic
absorption method is said to be ±51 at the 0.5 ppb level
(R.
218).
It is suggested in future material balance
computation that Monsanto use the more exact neutron activation
measurement method.
Monsanto raises the issue in its brief filed on April
16,
1975,
that by operation of law pursuant to Section
38 of
the Act, Monsanto~srequest was granted 90—days after the
~fi1ing of its original petition on August 2,
1974.
The
original 90-day decision period would have expired on October
31,
1974,
On August 15, and September 18,
1974, Monsanto
amended its original variance petition.
On November 18,
1974, Monsanto filed a waiver of the statutory 90-day rule
which sought to preserve its right to maintain that its
request had been granted by operation of law when the Board
failed to take action on or before October 31,
1974.
Monsanto
again amended its petition on March
5,
1975.
Rule 408 of the Board~sProcedural Rules
states that
“where the petition for variance is amended, the 90—day
period shall commence from the date of the amendment”.
Petitioner had notice that the amendments of August
15 and
September 18, 1974 would start the 90—day period running
16
—
432
—5—
anew~ On August
8,
1974 the Board found Monsanto’s petition
to be inadequate and ordered Monsanto to amend its petition
by filing additional information
(13 PCB 345).
This order
clearly states that “the 90~rdaydecision period set by
statute shall run from the date of
filing, the additional
information”.
The Board rejects the contention of Monsanto
that the variance was granted by operation of law on ~October
31,
1974,
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conelus~onsof law,
1.
The W.G, Krummrich plant of Monsanto Company is
hereby granted a variance from Rule 702(a) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations,
for a period of one year from
November
6,
1974 to November 5,
1975,
2.
Monsanto shall limit theit discharge of mercury
from the Krummrich plant to 0.20 lb/day based on a six~month
moving average, but not to exceed 0.3 pound in any 24~hour
period.
3,
Monsanto will continue their investigations of
mercury removal processes, and the upgrading of the ch1or~
alkali mercury treatment plant.
4.
Monsanto shall continue to reduce the volumes of
wastewater generated and mercuiy discharged.
5.
Monsanto shall report, starting within 30 days of
the date of this Order, quarterly,to the Agency regarding
items two through four of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, her by certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the ~~day
of April,
1975 by
a vote of
Illinois Pollution’
Board
16
—
433