ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    24, 1975
    BIRD AND SON,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—4
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin)
    This case,
    a Petition for Variance from the requirements of Rule
    702(a), Mercury,
    of
    the Water Pollution Control Regulations, was filed
    with the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    on January
    3,
    1975;
    an Amended
    Petition was filed on February
    6,
    1975.
    The Recommendation of
    the
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) was filed on February
    6,
    1975,
    and an Amended Recommendation was filed on March 13,
    1975.
    No hearing
    was
    held.
    Petitioner is
    a manufacturer of roofing felt,
    and operates a felt
    mill
    at 2648 E.
    126th St.,
    in an industrial area of Chicago.
    It uses as
    its
    raw
    materials substances which would ordinarily be considered waste
    products.
    These recycled materials are mostly of wood and paper composition.
    The quantities involved are as follows:
    Mixed Paper
    40
    tons
    Corrugated Paper
    25 tons
    Wood Chips
    38 tons
    Wood flow
    (sawdust)
    17 tons
    (all quantities are shown on a daily basis)
    (Pet.
    5)
    These materials are carried through the manufacturing process by a
    continuous flow of water.
    The paper and wood are processed through
    various devices,
    including a hydrapulper,
    to reduce them to the component
    fibers,
    and are
    then pressed into felt paper on a rotating screen.
    Approximately 110 tons of roofing felt are produced daily at
    the mill,
    which operates on a four—shift,
    twenty—four hour basis, employing
    65
    persons in the process.
    Petitioner uses approximately 225,000 gpd of fresh water,
    65
    of
    which
    is taken from the Little Calumet River, and 35
    of which is received
    from the Chicago municipal water supply
    (Am.
    Pet.
    1).
    This water
    is
    recycled through the manufacturing process about 1000 times before it is
    discharged.
    The discharged water is screened to reduce fiber content,
    and the overflow from the screening tank is discharged into a sewer
    of
    the Metropolitan Sanitary District
    of Greater Chicago
    (Sanitary District).
    No water is returned
    to the Little Calumet River
    (Pet.
    5 &
    6).
    16—463
    —2—
    Rule 702(a)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution,
    of the Board’s Rules and
    Regulations,
    allows a concentration of
    .0005 mg/l of mercury
    (Hg)
    for
    any effluent to a public sewer system.
    The concentration of Hg
    in
    Petitioner’s effluent has varied from .001 to
    .002 mg!l for composite
    samples and from
    .009
    to
    .0038 mg/l
    for grab samples
    (Ag.
    Rec,
    3).
    Petitioner alleges that the mercury content of its effluent originates
    in its
    raw materials, which are recycled waste products.
    Petitioner states
    that its own
    operations,
    discounting the mercury originating in
    the recycled
    raw materials, contribute less than 0.00002 mg/l Hg
    to the total mercury con-
    tent
    of
    that effluent.
    The sewer to which the plant discharges
    is tributary
    to Sanitary
    District’s Calumet Sewage Treatment Plant.
    In 1974,
    the average influent
    concentration to this treatment plant was
    .00033 mg!l Hg, while the
    effluent contained an average of
    .00023 mg!l Hg, well below the
    .0005
    mg!l levels set by the
    Board.
    Petitioner contributes less than
    .33
    of
    the total Calumet Plant mercury influent,
    The total yearly discharge
    from Petitioner’s plant
    is about
    1.2
    lbs
    (Ag.
    Rec,
    3).
    Petitioner alleges that
    it knows of no way to come into compliance
    with
    Rule 702(a)
    except to reduce
    the recycling of the water used, thus
    increasing the amount of water used and the dilution of its effluent,
    but not reducing the total amount of mercury discharged
    (Pet.
    10,
    11),
    Noting the fact that Petitioner is using recycled products,
    that
    its discharge is a small fraction of the total mercury influent to the
    Calumet Plant,
    and that the Calumet Plant is not discharging mercury in
    excess of standards, the Agency recommends granting a variance for a one
    year period.
    In neither its original Recommendation nor the Amended
    Recommendation filed later did the Agency claim that a technologically
    feasible abatement method for reducing the mercury content of Petitioner’s
    effluent presently exists,
    (Nor, it should be noted,
    did the Agency
    state that a feasible method does not exist.) The Agency instead cited
    earlier cases where the Board has dealt with problems of mercury effluent
    and where the Board ordered the Petitioners to undertake a program of
    research and development on the subject of mercury compliance~
    Based on these factors, the Board must assume that the Agency does
    not dispute the claim of Petitioner Bird & Son that no such method is
    presently technologically feasible.
    Weighing this apparent determination
    by the Agency, with Petitioner’s laudable use of re—cycled materials in
    its manufacturing,
    the Board will concur with the Agency’s Recommendation
    and grant the variance requested for a period of one year.
    The Board has in fact held,
    in the absence of a presently feasible
    technology,
    that a program of continuing research and development was a
    viable alternative to a compliance program.
    Union Oil Co.
    v.
    EPA, PCB
    72—447,
    10 PCB 217,224
    (1973)
    (cyanide);
    Sherwin Williams
    v.
    EPA,PCB 71-
    111
    3 PCB
    37
    (1971).
    Therefore, the Board will require Petitioner to
    study and develop a program regarding mercury abatement,
    including a
    closer examination of present raw materials and alternative sources of
    recycled materials with lower mercury content.
    of, ~y~o
    Products v.
    EPA,
    PCB 74—414, Feb.
    6,
    1975,
    and cases cited.
    16—464
    -.3—
    It must also be noted that
    in its variance Petition Bird & Son has
    raised several other issues,
    some of which are not properly part of a
    variance petition, and some of which are explicitly not decided by
    the
    Board
    in this matter.
    Petitioner has claimed that portions of
    the
    Board’s Water Pollution Regulations,
    as applicable here, are unconstitutional
    or contrary to the General Assembly’s mandate to
    the Board in the Environmental
    Protection Act.
    These allegations we summarily dismiss.
    Armstrong Chemcon,
    v.
    Pollution Control Board,
    18 Ill,
    App.
    3d 753,
    310 N.E.
    2d 648
    (1974).
    Petitioner has also claimed that Rule 702
    is inherently arbitrary and
    unreasonable insofar as it fails to distinguish between the various
    chemical forms in which mercury can be
    found; this would be more properly
    raised in a proposed regulatory amendment procedure. The Board specifically
    refuses to make
    a part
    of its finding in this matter Petitioner’s contention
    that no effluent treatment method exists which would achieve compliance
    with Rule 702;
    the Board’s decision here is limited narrowly to the
    facts and pleadings before
    it,
    and cannot be read as applying
    to problems
    of mercury discharges in general.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of
    the Board that Petitioner Bird
    & Son be granted
    a Variance from Rule 702(a)
    of Chapter
    3 for a period
    of one year from
    the date of this Order,
    subject
    to the following conditions:
    a)
    Petitioner’s discharge
    of mercury to the Metropolitan
    Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
    shall not exceed a concentration
    greater than
    .0038 mg/l at any
    time,
    or a total discharge
    of more than
    1.2
    lbs.
    of mercury per year.
    b)
    Petitioner shall submit, within 90 days of
    the effective
    date of
    this Order,
    a proposed mercury abatement study program for the
    purpose of bringing its discharge into comp1iance~with the standards set
    forth
    in Chapter 3 of the Board’s Regulations.
    This program shall then
    be pursued during the remainder of
    the Variance period with progress
    reports made
    to the Agency
    on the first day of
    the sixth, ninth,
    and
    twelfth months of the Variance period.
    All reports shall be submitted
    to
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Variance Section
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    c)
    Within 35 days of the adoption of this Order,
    Petitioner
    Bird and Son,
    Inc.,
    shall execute and forward
    to the Agency,
    a certification
    of acceptance in the following form:
    CERTIFICATION
    I
    (We) ______________________________________
    having read and fully understood
    the Order
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    in
    PCB
    75—4, hereby accept said Order and the
    Variance granted thereby, understanding that
    such acceptance is irrevocable and renders
    binding all terms and conditions thereof.
    Signed
    _______________________
    Title __________________________
    16—465
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Opinion apd Order were adopted
    on the ____________________day
    of
    __________
    _________,
    1975
    byavoteof
    4
    to
    p
    .
    (I
    Christan
    L. Moffett,/Q~k
    Illinois Pollution Coti~olBoard

    Back to top