ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
8, 1971
MONSANTO COMPANY
v.
)
PCB
71—110
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Messrs. Hackbert, Rooks,
Pitts, Pullagar
& Poust, by Mr. Harlan
L.
Hackbert,
for Monsanto Company
Mr. Fred C. Prillaman,
for
the Environmental Protection Agency
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr.
Durnelle)
Monsanto Company
(Monsanto)
petitioned for
a variance to be
allowed
to discharge mercury
(Hg)
into the waters of Illinois
beyond the limitation specified in recently adopted Mercury Regula-
tions
(Docket No. R70-5).
In response to the Recommendation filed
by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Monsanto filed
an
amended petition which recounted additional mercury—controlling
measures and specified attainable effluent concentrations on
a daily
average basis.
We grant the requested variance
to
the extent of
allowing
a maximum daily output of 0.5 pounds.
The daily amount
is approximately equivalent to
5 ppb on
a total plant effluent
basis and is about 10 times the
maximum
discharge permitted under
the regulation.
The instant petition was filed with the Board on May
14,
1971.
A hearing
in the matter was held in Sauget, Illinois on September
9
and 10,
1971.
The petitioner made an express waiver of the ninety
day requirement of the Environmental Protection Act and the Board’s
Rules in a stipulation joined by the Environmental Protection Agency
and filed with the Board on July
22,
1971.
The regulation from which the company sought to be exempt was
adopted by the Board on March 31,
1971.
The regulation was initially
proposed on August 19,
1970.
Its enactment represented IIliriois~
response to the much heralded mercury environmental hazard.
At
the
rule-making proceeding
it was demonstrated that an exemption should
be provided to preclude
the necessity of forcing an industrial
enterprise to shut down iirmediately upon the effective date of the
regulation.
The exemption was provided for discharges which would
be at least 95
controlled within eight months
of the adoption of
the regulation and which,
in the aggregate, would not exceed five
pounds per year.
The exemption was put in as the result of
testimony from the paint manufacturing industry.
3—a
The mercury regulation is
both
a water quality and effluent
standard.
The limitation of both the water quality and effluent
standard is 0.0005 mg/l as
Hg
(approximately 0.5 ppb).
The
effluent standard applies
to mercury discharges into all Illinois
waters including discharges into sewers.
All users
of more than
15 pounds per year of mercury and those who discharge any mercury
are required
to submit annual reports to the EPA describing
the
nature of the mercury use,
the amount discharged and programs
underway taken to reduce or eliminate the discharge of mercury—
bearing wastes.
The regulation also deals with the disposal of
mercury bearing sludge and provides that recycling be used where
feasible
and
for
disposal
in
such
a
manner
so
as
to
minimize
both
air
and
water
hazards
if
the
sludge
containinci
mercury
residues
can
not
be
practicably
reclaimed.
The
effluent
standard
was
set
at
the
same
0.5
ppb
level
as
the
quality
standard
as
a
reflection
of
the
principle
that
no
discharge
of
mercury
should
be
allowed
unless
it
is essentially unavoidable.
Because mercury discharges are
not degradable and therefore cumulative and because mercury
is
so
highly toxic the effluent standard was set to preclude discharges
wherever possible.
Incorporated in the Mercury Regulations are the analytical
methods by which mercury’concentrations
are to be determined.
Both
flameless atomic absorption spectroscopy and neutron activation
analyses are specified as acceptable methods for determining mercury
levels.
At the rule-makng hearings
the Director of the Water Puri-
fication
Laboratory
of
the
City
of
Ch.tcago
testified
that
they
have
refined
their
analytical
technique
with
the
f
ciess
atomic
absorp-
tion
method
to
detect
0.1
part
per
billion
with
cceptable
precision.
The
precision
is
reported
to
be
greatly
increased
at
the
level
of
0.5
ppb.
Other
testimony
by
Dr.
Leonard
C,
Goldwater
indicated
that
the
neutron
activation
method
of
analysis
was
more
precise,
could
possibly
be
available
on
a
contract
basis,
and
for
large
scale
use
would
probably
not
be
economically
prohibitive
when
compared
with
other
analytical
methods.
Dr.
Goldwater
stated
that
the
neutron
acti-
vation analyses could detect mercury down to the presence
of
one
atom of mercury.
Since 1917 Monsanto has owned and operated
at Sauget,
Illinois
an industrial plant known as its
“W.G,
Krurmnrich Plant’s, one
portion of which
is
a chlor-alkali facility which uses mercury.
The
plant employs 1,350 persons and produces about
a hundred different
chemical products
(R.25).
Mercury
is
not
a raw material
at the plant but
is
used chiefly
as
a
carrier
of
sodium
or
potassium
ions
and
a
conductor
of
electricity
in
the
production
of
chlorine
gas
and
sodium
hydroxide
(NaOH)
or
potassium
hydroxide
(KOH)
.
By
passinq
a
direct
electrical
current through
a flowing salt brine from
a fixed anode
throuqh
the
brine
to
a
flowing
mercury
cathode
the salt is converted
tc
chlorine
gas
and
to
a
mercury—sodium
(or
potassium)
amalgam.
amalgam
is
passed
through
a
decomposer
where
it
is
reacted
wI
01:
and
forms
NaOH
or
EON,
hydrogen
gas,
and
elemental
mercury
~0~4;
The
mercury
is
then
returned
to
the
cell to be reused as thece
The NaOH or EON is processed and sent to storage and
the hyOr
gas
is processed and compressed for use in other processor.
ho::c:~:
is also present
in the plant
in various instruments and d~:~
as thermometers, manometers and electrical switches
‘R.
are more than
2,000 instruments
in
the plant which
cc:r’~a±.:~
CR.
122—123)
.
These devices contain
840 pounds of recrc~:ry
The principal concern about mercury, however,
is
th:-:
ar:ouet
~ee
and reused in the chlor-alkali process.
In
that,
erecese
0h~ein:r.
is presently using mercury at the rate of
32,010
:~e
/~‘ee;
For calendar year 1970 the plant’s usage was
~0910
puec0~
TO:
consumption for
1969 was approximately ~
ar 0~1970
yO. ~22l~
The
total
plant
discharge
of
waste
water
Os
00
per
minute
or
about
13,000,000
gallons per
de’:
10i~:
cIarit’~
wastes
are
collected
first
in
the
compler
se::~r:
rv::~eee~
:;
0
0:
those
from
the
chlor—alkali
facility
arc
tr:etcd
a::htO:r
Lc:Le:
with
the
rest
of
the
plant’s
wastes
are
reute
h~
Sauget
sewers
which
lead
to
the
Sauget
e.::’eet
eOen:
~~::
into
the Mississippi River.
Samples of
the plant effluent taken
A~:0u~:t1~0
show
a
discharge
of
0.72
pounds/day
or
mrrc::v
er
r:t:
7
ppb
Hg
on
a
total
plant
basis
(H.
145,
100,,
embarked
upon
its
mercury
control
prograc
dischrr”::
rc::
approximately ten times higher.
In January.
1971
the
dhsehe:’
was estimated
to be
7.7 pounds/day as Hq~
The company has since becoming aware cr
ohe DrOt:~:rit
1970, installed
a sulfide precipitation
proe:~ss for Oh~
mercury
from
its
waste
streams
in
the
chlo~~.;:0hefo tefo~r:y
It
103).
The
research
and
engineering
progr:c:
f’:::
the
oe~e:..
process
cost
$400,000
(R.103)
and
the
coSt:
c
:.i::0Lac1c:~
~
process
was
$600,000
(R.lll)
The
plant
sewer
system
was
changed
so
the
0
eJ,O
lIe
~eLe
in
the
chlor—alkali
facility
are
collectee
Ici
teeetereY-
b~’ the
sulfide
process
(R.l06—l07,
Pet.
Ex.
4,5)
.
Tfoeewe::
~
Ot
been
modified
to
provide
a
closed
collection
see
:e~e~he
concept”
(H.
111).
The
process
wastes
f1o~r;
frc:m
et
re
c
tee
to
a
collection
basfo,
the
pH
is
adjusted
with
self’ ri:
et~f art
foe
wastes
are
pumped
to
a
storage
tank.
The
matcrriei
0:
re
teetted
with
sodium
bisulfite
and
transported
to
the
clarifier
Ole
~::lids
3
11
settle out and
are removed on
a batch basis
(H.
107)
.
After the
clarifier
the
effluent
stream
goes
through
sand
filters,
polishing
filters,
and
an
activated
carbon
filter
(H.
108)
.
The effluent is
then
moved
to
storage
for
reuse
or
discharge.
Two
tanks
which
can
be
alternately
used
are
available
for
storage
and
the
effluent
can
be
analyzed
before
discharge
into
the
sewer
(H.
109).
An
effort
is
being
made
to
use
recycled
water
in
every
place
possible
(R.
110)
The
sulfide
removal
system
was
designed
by
Monsanto
and
is
the
only
facility
of
its
type
operating
on
a
commercial
scale
in
the
United
States
(R.
202)
.
The
removal
process
was
designed
to
accept
wastes
in
the
5,000
to
7,000
ppb
Hg
range
and
discharges
an
effluent
con-
taining 200 or less ppb Hg (R~ 230).
The operating efficiency of the
system is better than 99,
A recent measurement was
at 99.2
removal
CR.
234)
.
Expressed
as amounts,
the mercury removal process has
a
mercury discharge
in
the
range of 0,08
—
0.11 pounds/clay
(R.
152—153).
The sludge drawn from the clarifier
is predominantly mercury
sulfide similar to
the naturally occurring cinnabar
(B,
108).
The
liquid which
flows from the dewatering when the sludge
is transferred
from
the
clarifier
to the dumpster
for land disposal
is recycled
back through the treatment system
CR.
110—111).
The solids from the
removal process
are deposited on
the
company’s own
land disposal site
located west of the plant~and across the highway from it
(B.
204—205)
The sludge or gyp accumulates
at
a rate of approximately
500 to
1,000
pounds per week and is buried at the site.
The
range of mercury
concentration of
the sludge
is not known
(R.
235—236)
Mr.
Jack
W. Nolloy, Manufacturing Manager of the plant testified
that no commercially feasible
system was available
to achieve
‘the
limitation
of
the
mercury
regulation,
0.1 ppb Hg
(B,
104,
120,
152).
He said
that
he
and
others
evaluated
other
known
processes
(B. :L03-l04)
and concluded that
the sulfide treatment process
in use at the
plant.
was
reflective of the best use of uresent technology
(B.
154—157)
A summary of the measures taken to reduce the use of mercury
and reduce the concentration of mercury
in
the effluent include
the
installation
of
steel
bottoms
in the cells, modification
of
existing
sewer
system
to
implement
the
bathtub
concept
waste
water
reuse
and
flow
reduction,
and
research,
engineering
and installation
of
the
sulfide
removal
process.
As
a
result
of
the
mercury
abatement
measures
significant
reductions
in
mercury
loss
have
been
noted.
Although the company has acted with
dispatch
it
must
not
either
stop or slow the pace
at which it
is working but must continue to
consider new and untried measures such as sewer cleanups, improvements
in monitoring
and selection of incoming raw materials, improvements
in the levels of Hg contamination of
products
used
and
shipped
and improvements in plant practices.
It is clear
that although
virtually all of the mercury is used at the chlor-alkali
facility
the bulk of the mercury contamination of the waste water is
coming from the remainder of the plant.
Perhaps some unknown
interconnections
still
exist.
In
that
portion
of
the
plant
other
than
the
chlor—alkali
facility
in
which
essentially
no mercury is
being
used
the
company
must
continue
to
decrease
mercury
levels
in
its
effluent.
Quite
obviously
the
use
of
mercury
at
the
Xrunmtrich
Plant
represents
a
first
order
environmental
concern.
The
annual
usage
c.f
32,000
or
69,000
pounds
of
mercury
has
to
go
somewhere.
That
amount
which
does
not
leave
with
the
plant’s
effluent
which
is
not
environmentally broadcast as an air emission
and
which is not co~t-
pletely inventoried at the solid waste disposal site must be lea’.’in~
the plant as a product contaminant
and
thereby being distributed.
The
present
rate
of
use
is
approximately
half
of
the
toner
rate
of
use
due
to
the
mercury
control
program
now
in
effect.
This
reduse~
rate of consumption represents a net dollar savings to the company
of about $140,000.
The fraction of the nercury consumption o.
direct concern in this proceeding is of course, only the 3moun:
in
the
riant’s aqueous effluent.
Monsanto reported on a river testing program undertaken by
independent consultants.
Mr. Molloy testified to the effect that
allowance of a variance permitting the discharge of 0.5 pounds/day
of mercury wou.d make no measurable change in the background level
of the Mississippi River
(R.
161—167).
An3lysis of fish taken from
the River a!
showed less than 0.5 parts per million of mercury
(ft. 163).
?~3thounhthis testimony sho’~sthat there is no
immediate
hazard in tho r~’er
~
cannot feel secure that no mercury pollution
threat exists.
We learned in our rule-waking hearings
that
the principal
difficulty with mercury pollution is the phenomenon of biological
magnification.
Mercury compounds are concentrated in aquatic
or7anisms by direct uptake
from
the rater and sediment and
subsequent inr;estion of the smaller species by larger fish.
Some
:~ishat the ond of the food chain are known to have levels of
mercury
thout 3,000 tines as great as the mercury concentration of
the
water
in which they were caught.
Further,at this tine we cannot
~e sure that norcry in the bottom sediment is not a future problem.
:e find that application of the Mercury Regulation would
work
at
‘in ‘easonable hardship on the petitioner in this case and
acuordinçly c’rant a variance.
Up to this point of time the
petitioner has seenirn.y
made all practicable efforts to reduce
the amount of ~e~curydischarged from its operations.
It must
continue to do no less.
We grant the variance for one year to the
extent of allowing the discharge of up to 0.5 pounds/day from the
W.R. Icrummrich Plant.
The grant is a conditional one with three condi-
tions precedent to its continuance.
First is a requirement that
the company monitor the mercury content of its waste water in
the storage tank immediately prior to sewer discharge and when
necessary to reprocess the wastes for further removal of mercury.
3—13
ct.
cr.
~
2’3fl~’
‘—c.
i’
—
t
••r
a
?c~
I:.
i~
“t?.
•t
c1oLp:.uy w~:~ti.t
Tr!ttt~y
rpcrta
tc.
-
.
-
tr
:~cior.
tJ.
c :‘~.crosa
~
its
rtc:c.’ r’
•
.“.
~pcrt
ot
t’?
mu
oury
~OflCOt~tfltir’.S
-
•:
C
.itT.~t.
Thf’
~—crtz
:‘~
i’tvcrt~..t
.
•-t’~or.
c’et.
tcs
as
-
m~:xss~
•
•
~.•
•
:
4?~
ic L~:a..q
nad:.
te
ec
net
qizt.
•
•
4#:
r~v.c
nf
C14COen’tr
~cr
t’w
t
rst
•
.
•
~ c in
-t.r4~cr ra~
:c.m
ci
cc~r
•
‘.:~..
—Jv2x
‘_It
?.tk.~’
crc!t.
vhc
pi
esen
x.t.~te sit” ~Zc!
r~.ttt
~t~th
n~prrts
•
.i
:c..nabL.
it:
..~
‘V
.~r
9c~
cn~:f
t~e
:-
~
..nriod
e:c.:r4
hevc.~i two
wceks.
• ‘~ts_,
0
‘~
i•~.
~•
.1..
‘C’
—
I
I.
.~
VWt.
-“C
.
:v
.t..
,.•
•.
t.
•.
r~
v
v’.
c.r”
•.
~ti~
r.~”i4
L
:~
V...
-
•
.-
.
Ca
•
..
‘)U
..~C’
ti
it.
-1*’
at.
-
•
.r.
h
C.
tk’c
-
-
C~
ti
t
‘
.
~
flnat
.~-.
.s,
ie.
s:ctlLn
.:
.“e
zr. “—s:’-
I
••
•
•
.~
t
eq.
— .s
.—
‘S
~
•
.
.;
;t
•d7I~
.!
tL.
‘
a.
.
4
The
Board
buying
con
icrud
ib.
oa~ Thon
:~uc~men;Th
~ion,
transcript
and
rxhibits
in
tnTh
r’~~
~
‘~i:;
Comoany
a
variance
from
the
cpecati~)fl
o~rha
Peccur~
‘~atat~n
(Docket
No.
R70—5)
subject
to
the
L~o.
a~c conditions:
1.
Variance
is
granted
to
the
extent
of
permittina
discharge
of
mercury up to 0.5 pounds/day
as
a daily average.
2.
Variance herein granted extends
to November
7,
1972.
3.
Monsanto
shall
sampl.e
and
analyze
the
Tnercury~-bearinq
waste
water
which
is
alternately
put
in
one
of
the
two
storage tanks prior to release
to the village sewers and
treatment plant.
If
the
concentration
of
mercury
is
too
high
the wastes must be rerouted
for
further
f-reatment.
4.
Monsanto
wall
submit
to
the
EPA
and
the Board monthly
reports
on
the
progruss
of
its
mercury
abatement
program.
The
first
report
shall
cover
the
period
through
December
31,
1971.
The
reports
shall
include
a
listing
of
the
mercury
concentration
of
tilO
waste water storage
tanks
before
discharge
and
shall
be
submitted
a reasonab’e
time
atter
the
end
of
the
month.
5.
Monsanto
shall submit
to
the
EPA
and the
Board
within
six
months
from
dato
a
report
de-s1in~ ;~dth
thu
feasibil~
ty
of
alternaticc,
non—mercLry
using
met~ods o~ production
of
sodium
(or
poaassium)
hydroxi
le
on:
Thlnolne
at
the
Erummrich
Plant.
6.
Failure
to
a There
to
any
of
tfe
oonTh tions
of
this variance
sholl be rrcunds
for
revocation o:
the
carThrice.
CLrist~n
7tolfstt,
~ctinq
Clerk
o~ the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
~oard,
ocr tlly
that
the
Poarri
adortod
the
shove
Opinion
and
Order
on
the
~dsy
of
Nru7cnhur
,
0 ‘7.1..
/
~
.
-
/
/
(
~
~/
Christen
Moffett,
Acting
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board