ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTflOL
BOARD
March 31, 1971
In the Kitter of.)
)
)
1R70—5
)
MERCURY
STANDARDS)
opinion
of the
Board
(by
Mr.
Currie):
The Board has today adopted nqw regulations designed to limit the
contamination of water and soil by mercury and requiring the report±ng
of substantial mercury uses.
This opinion explains and gives the reasons
for the Board’s action.
Mercury is a virulent poison whose indiscriminate discharge into
the environment has
more
than
once
resulted
in
human
tragedy.
In
the
1950’s one hundred ten persons were killed or severely disabled from
eating fish contaminated by mercury compounds discharged from a plastic
manufacturing plant in Ilinamata,
Japan.
Still more recently, children
in.a New Mexico
amily were porrrnontly disabled from eating pork rrom
an animal that had been fed me~cury—troatedseeds.
~\nd
in March 3970
the Canadian governtent susponcied co:~:c~t~icl
fishing in Lake St. Clair
because of nercury coñcentratior~siu
ish as h4gh as S ppm, attrinutable
to discharges from plants nanufacturin~chlorine and caustic scd~~. (See
Oct.
8 Lx.
2, pp.
1—33; Lx.
4, p.
2).
The Lake St. Clair experience has prompted an enormous concern over
mercury pollution.
As a result of rapid fedoraI and etate action, sig-
nificant reductions in mercury discharges
to Lake St. Clair and ovh~r
heavily
affected areas have been brought about.
Texas and Wiscor:sir.
have adopted effluent standards for the first time dealing specifically
with
mercury.
Although
we
had
no
reason
to believe
thz:t
a
serious vrohio::
of
mercury
contamination
existed
in
Illinois,
we
proponed
a
highly
restric
tive
mercury
standard
(1
microgrtm
par
liter)
1)0th
as
an
effluent
rtantiz&rd
and
as a water quality standard for all Illinois waters in a\ugust,
1970.
After public hearings we published a modified proposal
i:i :evotb.r,
which tightened the standards to one half microgram pet liter, nade the
proposal
applicable
to
discharges
to the sewers
as
well as to
the
waters,
and
added
provisions
requiring
safe
disnosal
of
solid
wasles
containing
mercury
and
the
reporting
of
n’~~rcury
uses.
The
amendcd
proposal.
unliku
the
original,
was
of
serious
concarn
to
the
paint
industry,
wh3su
c:is-
charges
in
this
State
are
to
the
sewors
only;
we
held
:.n
additional
hearing
in
January
at
their
rcquest.
On
the
brsis
of
the
transcripts
and
exhibits
in
this
procee:ing,
we
f•ind
the
ct ri r:t~nt rc~ctu’
:.ti~~n
of
:~ercury
Ci
sc:harges
to
the
waters
and
sewers
iu
s4~c~.:~z.r;
:
.
-
;~t
~
spuui.f
.1 e~l.y
th~ Collowin:~
1.)
Although
varIous
ztnrcury
compounds
are
of
varying
toxiei
ty
-
all
are
subject
to
bacterial
conv~rsf
on
into
the
bight!
toxic
r:othyl
1
—411
compounds.
This conversion is likely to occur under conditions common
-
to Illinois stream beds and to soils
(Oct.
14, pp.
11, 44,
73; Oct.
8
Ex.
2, App.
I, pp. 14—15).
Accordingly it makes sense to deal with all
discharges of mercury and its compounds on the assumption that they
may
end up in methyl form.
2;)
Once mercury gets into ths environment it neither degrades to
harmless substances nor teases to exist.
Mercury deposits presently existinc
on stream beds will be a continuing source of methyl mercury to the waters
for many yoars
(Oct.
14, pp.
471
56).
Dredging of deposits has so far
proved ofdoubtful value, since it stirs up the mercury and increases
water concentrations for the short term
(
Oct. 14, p. 54).
Moreover,
mercury in bottom sediments is often converted to the volatile dinethyl
mercury, whioh escapes to the atmosphere and comes down in the rain many
miles-away
(Oct.
14, pp. 44—45).
In short, mercury once put into the
environment remains where it can do harm for a very long time.
3;)
Mercury is biologically concentrated by fish on the order of
3000tiTnes
(Oct.
14, p.
11; Oct.
8 Ex.
2, App.
I, pp. 15—16).
This means
that very low concentrations in water will result in substantially higher
concentrations is fish, which people eat.
•
4.)
The toxic attributes of mercury can be summarized as follows:
First, as to fish and aquatic life,
0.008 mg/i of mercury from mercuri:
chloride is said to have injured -or kiiicd stirtklebacks, and 0.006 ng/i
to have immobilized daphnia, an important ±ishfood,
in 64 flouts
(Oct.
8,
Ex.
2, App.
I, pp.
5-6).
There was testimony that the behavior of gold-
fish is affected adversely when water concentrations reach three parts
per billion
(Jan.
27, p. 226).
•
Second, the federal Public Health Service has tentatively adopted
the U.S.S.R. standard of 0.005 mg/i as
a drinking water standard
(Oct.
8,
p.
6).
The basis for this standard is as follows:
the blood cells of
a person showing definite symptoms of nercurialism contained 1.2 ppm
of mercury; his intake of mercury was estimated at one milligram per
day; a safety factor of ten results in an allowable total intake of
0.1 mg/day; drinking water is assumed to contribute 1/10 of the total
intake, or .01 mg/day; the average water intake of 2 liters per day
permits a concentration of .005 ng/l in drinking water.
(Oct.
8 Ex.
5,
p.
4).
Third, Canada has adopted, and the Food and Drug Administration
has proposed, a standard of 0.5 ppm in fish
(Oct.
14, p.
13).
Sweden
has prescribed 1.0 ppm for fish, with the caution that fish should be.
eaten no more than once per week
(Oct.
14, p.
77; Oct.8 Ex.
2, App.
I,
p. 37).
Fish in Minamata Bay at the tine of the disaster contained
an average of 50 ~ipm(Oct.
8, Ex.
2, p.
2).
pinaily, one witr&ss
rty-’c’3t0z1
that
there may be no threshold for
some
types
of
mercury
poisoning:
1—412
“Work by Professor Center.
.
.
indicated
in
some studies of urinary
excretion
that
the
mercury
excreted
was
entirely
in
forms
bound
to
tissue
fragments.
His
belief
is
that
mercury
does
not
get
out
of the animal except as cellular debris.
If this is the case,
then any exposure to mercury results in a long-term loss of nerve
cells.”
(Jan.
27, p.
226)
Dr. Albert Fritsch, testifying before a Congressional committee last
summer,
stated
that
“when
speaking
of
neurological
damage,
chromosomal
aberrations,
and
teratogenic
effects
in
human
beings,
we
are
speaking
of
mercury
contaminated
substances
of
the
order
of
parts
per
million
(and parts per•billion in air and water)’: (Oct.
8 Ex.- 4,
p.
3).
Whether or not the no-threshold thesis is accepted, it is clear
that we deal with a highly dangerous substance that can cause damage
to aquatic life in concentrations as low as a handful of parts per
billion, and that
may
be harmful to man in the parts-per-billion range.
5.)
The above evidence, we believe, amply justifies the setting
of a water quality standard at 0.0005 mg/i, which can be roughly trans-
lated as one half part per billion.
Such a level leaves a margin of
safety below concentrations at which direct adverse effoct•u of mercury
in the water have been detected ci thor in man or in aquatic life. More-
over, it is necessary to keeo mc~rcurvin the watex at least this low if
we are to dbsurc th”t concentrations
in
fish do not exceed the Canadian
and FDA—proposed standards for human ccn:tr•tpt5nn.
It is not enough to
make the water safe for drinking without also assuring that fibh living
in the water will be safe to eat.
In order to protect against a con-
centration of
1 ppm in fish that concentrate mercury 3000 times we
would have to limit the water concentration to about thtee tenths of
a part per billion.
Our water quality standard, therefore,
is certainly
none too tight for this purpose.
It shopld be added that although
City of Chicago sampling has failed to reveal any mercury in Lake
Michigan despite tests reputedly accurate down to one tenth of a part
per billion
(Oct.
14, pp.
90, 96),
fish have been found in the Lake
with as much at 1.5 ppm ef mercury
(Oct.
14,
p.
57).
Moreover,
a strict
water quality standard is in accord with the non-degradation policy
expressed in all existing standards.
Although the City of Chicago has
detected no mercury in Lake Michigan, another tester reports readings
in the Lake in the vicinity of
0.5
ppb
(Jan.
27, p. •33~),and the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has detected no
concentrations above 0.5 ppb in sampling its waterways
(Oct.
14, p.
107).
Indeed, both the fish concentration factor and the low background levels
in Illinois waters so far tested suggest the possibility of an even
tighter water quality standard.
We are convinced by the evidence,
however, that 0.5 ppb is about the lower limit of reliable measurement
without resort to neutron activation, which is not readily available;
a lower standard would therefore be largely illusory.
Thus: the. strict
w:t•or
r:n:~?:tv
ctz::t:~-trdof
0.0005
mg/i
provides
a
margin of safety against direct actveL-sc effects of mtrcury ir the water;
1—413
is necessary to protect against the occurrence of unsafe concentrations
of mercury in fish; is necessary to avoid degradation of waters presently
relatively
free
of
mercury;
and
permits
reasonably
accurate
measurement
without
undue
expense.
6.)
Water
quality
standards
are
useful
benchmarks
to
assess
the
adequacy
of
pollution
control
racasures,
but
the
heart
of
any
control
program
consists
of
enforceable
limitations
on
what
may
be
disc~targed
to
the
water.
At
a
minimum
Quch
effluent
standards
must
assure
that
the
water
quality
standards
will
not
be
exceeded,
now
or
in
the
distant
future.
The
quantity
of
water
in
the
receiving
stream,
therefore,
can
be
a
relevant
factor
in
setting
an
effluent
standard,
for
in
the
absence
of
dilution
a
given
effluent
can
more
rapidly
result
in
an
adverse
effect
on
overall
stream
quality.
In
the
case
of
a
nondegradable
poison
like
mercury,
however,
the
•concept
of
a~similative
capacity
has
a
less
-
important
place
than
in
the
case
of
the
biodegradable
oxygen-
demanding
wastes
for
which
the
concept
was
designed.
In
a
body
of
water
with
relatiyelt
little
outflow,
the
input
of
a
constant
concentration
of
nondegradablo
contaminants
may
under
appropriate
conditions
result
in
a
gradual. buildup
in
overall
contaminant
levels,
as
the
pollutant
may
be
left
behind
as
the
water
evaporates.
One
is
reminded
of
the
saltiness
of
the
ocean.
Noreover,
in
the
case
of
wnrcury,
the
low
solubility
and
high
density
of
the
materi•z:l
cause
it
largely
to
settle
out
in
the
vicinity
of
the
discharge
(Oct.
14,
p.
9),
so
thatt
complete
mixing
cannot
be
assumEc
Accordingly,
whils
soacial
attontion
must
be
civan
to
mercury
discharges
to
waters
wi alt
vary
low
calution
capacity,
we
cannot
in
the
case
or
nondegradable
contaminants
like
mercury
rely
with
full
confidence
on
dilution
to
justify
effluent
standards
more
lax
than
the
standard
for
the
stream
itself.
Furthermore,
even
apart
from
the-
nondegradable
aspect
of
mercury
• pollution,
it
would
be
folly
to
sot
effluent
standards
at
such
a
level
as
to
permit
existing
poliut~on
sources
in
every
case
to
degrade
the
water
to
the
level
set
by
the
standard.
To
do
so
would
transform
~tanctard
designed
to
protect
the
environment
into
licenses
to
degrade.
It
would
ignore
the
fact
that
a
water
quality
standard
prescribes
not
the
ideal
condition
of
the
environment,
but
an
outer
limit
of
dirtiness
that
sheul.
be
avoided
if
it
reasonably
can
be.
It
would
commit
us
to
the
philoscphy
of allowing the environment to be
as
dirty
as
we
can
bear
it,
when
our
correct philosophy should be
to
make
the
environment
as
clean
as
we
reasonably
can.
Finally, to allocate to existing users
the
entire
waste-diluting
capacity
of
the
environttent
would
leave
no
room
for
new
industry,
encourage
inefficient
practices,
and
either
discriminate
against
new
entrants
or
require
a
re-examination
and
tightening
of
effluent
limit
whenever
a
now
facility
was
contemplated.
M;
:•-cn!irc:d
3w
section
27
of
the
Environmental
Protection
?~ct,
VZ
have
connic~crcd ~a
c::.
-V.
•:
Ciu3nt
and
water
quality
stancarce
ought
to
be
affected
by
di~!fering 1~nS. co:;d±
t~!
ons,
such
as
the
ciu,•lity
of
the
receiving
water,
the
uses
to
which
it
is
put,
and
the
qu..:t;
~
1 —414
of water available.
We have concluded that, because mercury discharged
into
a
waterway
not
now designated
for
aquatic
life
or
for
public
water
supply
is
likely
to
find
its
way
into
wathrs
that
are
so
designated,
and
because
mercury
discharged
today
may
interfere
with
any
later
up-
grading of water use designations of such waters, there is no basis for
drawing distinctions based upon present differences in use, with one
exception for small sewer discharges discussed below.
Present water
quality is taken into account both by the general provision that,
not-.
withstanding the water quality standard, no body of water is to be
degraded below its present quality in the absence of a strong showing
offnecessity and lack of harm, and by the provision that an effluent
containing more than 0.0005 mg/l of mercury is permitted if it contains
no more mercury than the water used as a source of supply.
The quantity
of-water in the receiving- stream,
as well as its quality, has been taken
into-account by providing that no discharge shall be permitted that causes
a3violation of the water quality standard.
This provision,would be
unnecessary, because the effluent standard is the same as the water
quality
standard,
but
for
the
facts
that
mercury
tends
to
accumulate
around
the
outfall;
that
it may
remain
behind
after
evaporation
of
the
water in which it is contained; and that there is a special provision
for,small dischargers that is not phrased in terms of the water quality
standard.
Beyond this, however, we have concluded that no greater discharge
should be
allowed
in
the
case
of
mercury
to
a
larqe
body
of water
th;tn
to a small one.
Because mercury is so highly toxic; because it is
not-
degradable; because it is biologically cQncentrated in fish; and because it
readily converted to its most toxic form, we believe that mercury
discharges everywhere should be kept as low as is reasçnably feasible.
The principle underlying the regulation we adopt today is that no
discharge of
mercury
shall
be
allowed
unless
it
is
essentially
unavoid-
able.
To the extent that one
half part per billion represents both
natural background concentrations and the lower limit of reliable detection
this effluent standard means that no mercury shall be added to the water.
7.)
The question then arises as to the technical feasibility
and economic reasonableness of a strict effluent limitation on mercury.
Section 27 of the statute properly requires that we consider these
factors.
It is almost always feasible to terminate discharges of a
pollutant by going out of business, and if the pollution is devastating
enough, it may be economically reasonable to require it.
We do not
believe that is the situation with regard to any mercuty discharger
in- Illinois today, base4 upon the present record.
The record contains considerable information as to Illinois users
of:mercury.
We
are
fortunate
in
that
apparently
there
are
no
large
Illinois
mercury
discharges
from
chlorralkali
plants
(which
manufacture
chj.orine
and
caustic
soda
in
cells
containing
mercury),.
such
as
caused
the •problem
in
Lake
SL.
Cz.~ r.
This
inriustry
is
the
laraest
mercury
user
in
the
Unitgd
States,
and
belore
the
recant
crir;5.:
scy,y
ei?or—a::!l•i
plants
discharged
as
much
as
sixty-six
pounds
of
mercury
in
a
s~:t~.:.c!
day
(Oct.
8,
Ex.
2,
App.
III,
p.
4;
Oct.
14,
p.
7).
Monsanto,
which
operates
a
chlor—alkali
plant
in
Sauget,
Illinois,
wrote
us
a
letter
‘-4ndlv
explaining
that
hospitals
night
have
difficulty
in
ncetinçj
our
4-~nAard,
but
offered
no
facts
on
which
we
could
1—415
ba*~a
Is
iincun;
01.
narcmnp
in
its
own
oporotion
Wx.
13—5);
rjth.jr
C4V~:.’;3
5n.gr;t’lts
that
Monsanto
t•.
~y discharge
rorcury
to
tL~waters
(.:t.
8
.x.
2,
j~pp. V,
Table
I,
p.
1).
A
seconc
letter
iro:a
:•lonsanto
rece~vLd
afttr
publication
of
the
seconO
proposed
final
draft
coniluded
that
chlot-
:Thnlj
vlants
coud
not
meet
the
0.0005
mg/l
standard
but
gave
insufficient
:
etc
e
justify
any
eit.end:aent
of
the
reçulation.
We
have
delayed
this
actio,.
4s
long
as
we
can;
if
tonsanth
has
trouble
with
the
regulation
it
is
free
to apply for a variance.
Information
from
the
laundry
industry
made
clear
that
mercury
is
not needed in its operations.
?.llhough mercury has been used as a
bactericide
and
mildew
control
agent
in
laundries,
an
alternative
has
been
developed
that
is
equally
efrective
and
that
does
not
contain
any
other
polluting
materials.
The Professional Laundry Institute
reports
that
the
businesses
it
represents
have
discontinued
the
use
of mercury
(Ex.
15-8).
Coaseguently,
as
a
supplier
testified,
“establish-
ing stringent mercury dscharge regulations need not be a handicap to
the laundry and linen supply industries”
(Jan.
27, pp. 328-29).
Hospitals
utilize
mcrcury
as
a
diuretic,
as
a
tissue
preservative,
as-an
antiseptic
(mercurochromn),
and
for
various
purposes
(such
as
pressur~i moasui-~uient in
manomota~s)
in
Iahoratories.
Two witnesses
estir,tatec’L
that
a
small
hospital
micht
discharge
as
much
as
150
pounds
oUm~rcury per
year
(Oct.
14,
p.
42;
Jar).
27,
p.
258).
Obviously
this
quantit-y
of
mercury
is
o’
concern.
The Director of the Department
of
)3iochnnistly
at
MicL~el Rec’:’c
i:ospital
in
Chicago,
however,
testified
that
n,.!rcuroch’~o:ae use
has
decli~.”J to
about
ten
gra.tts
ocr
year
in
that
hospital;
that
the
total
a;~unt of
the
most
common
diuretic
used
there
last
ye.r
was
abeut
4
gr.::•-;
;-nd
that
the
only
significant
hospital
me~c’u,, prob?”m.
Wa::
thtt
of
thu
l”i nrator’,’
(Jan.
21,
p.
161).
We
arc
co:~vi
i”c-J
by
Ui1
5
tnsti:.ony
th.t
thn
prob2
c
:.i
of
:~er~’ury In
)iotpi tal
effiuc’nts,
cs7fl-1
t
f
,o~.
1$
nn’tory
tnntcs,
is
Lou
bi-tali
to
be
ef
ana
I herefoi’e
t~u
have
pro’/tc1ec~~r.
exemption
allowing
hospital
wastes
to
the
sewer?
not
excecuin’
o:.o
1.’tlf
round
p~r year
from
sources
other
than
I aburateri
c’s,
pro’;i
~•
iJ
I hat
the
ef
I I
t.”nt
from
the
sower system
does
riot
itse1f
violate
the
efflu~nL stawi4rd.
The
laboratory
prnlilrrr
is
a
ctr,neral ,one
and
much
more
serious.
-
lt
Is
not
conttn-!cI
to
h’:-; it
.3:-;
un3vcarritit~,
industry,
and
otht~rs have
shut
Icr
probl c:~s.
Mtc!.at1
h~’u(~’
I s
sai a
t’
lose
twt’nty
to
thi rty
pound:;
of
mnrcrry
per
year
thr.,u
h
braa~c
o,
cpill~.gc,
and
other
labni-atory
trorbies
(Jam1.
27,
p.
162).
Fortunatt~ly
the
technology
is
at
hand
to
achieve
suhstantisl
r~’~ictiomssin
laboratory
lon:cs.
Good
practice
is
to
collect
c-pi’ed
i
.~rcury by
vrcuuning
and
then
to
reuse
it
(3w.
27,
p.
180)
.
tic reury
traps
mack
of
copper
i:.esh,
wc~.were
told,
can
be
and
hw”
b”en
instaliect
$n
lal.oratc
ry
drains
to
recover
mercury
for
rc’uhe;
with
narcury
at
$2•:
p~r porn-i,
Jic
traps
tore
than
pay
their
cost
(Jan.
27,
pp.
168—72).
We
thInk
it
ic’~.:onebe
to
require
that
such
steps
be
taken
by
ci
laboratories
to
~in3:ar?e
t-he
loss
of
mercury
down
the
drain.
We
don’t
have
sigures
on
the
nerc-ar”
concentrations
to
be
expected
in
tiw
of I ‘uont
Ire::,
ci
wel1~’keptlaberatory
doin~
its
best
to
Mini ~i
?O
I os&es;
suffien
i t
to
s~’ the
board
wi 11
he
receptive
to
claims
of
hardship
on
heha2r
c.:
a
Ir,ber”.toc,’
tb-it
has
do.’r’
all
it
can
and
has
reduced
dS•zcL:.racs
to
a
few
ounces
a
year,
if
there
rOL~ain’4
P,
i~:
!“
3’
v
Cr.
::t’?t
the.
ccL’-t~”tr~t-ionstan~ard
and
if
thn
c’Lfluent
Ito:-,
u.~
~
~.:
vL.~
:;‘
~‘—
:-“~•
.
-
~•
U’
~t ,.e
-I
vi
-1_
L-2
th”
c’ffluc :,t
standard.
Virtual
lv
the
only
oppo-;i
I-i on
to
th”
nrouoned
effluent
stantird
c-tnt
the
paint
ixtn’tJ aeLui—er~ a:~d
flC1~~’
a
ha .‘~r
~ti
t•r
.
¶u’l:e
p
LI
..I
In
t2:. t
‘
Is
the
third
larejest
!n”rcury
u:nr
in
the
country
(Oct.
14,
p.
8),.
1—416
Mercury compounds
(principally phenyl mercury compounds) are used for
two related purposes in this industry:
to prevent the deterioration of
latex paints during their shelf life before use, and to prevent mildew
in
ekterior
paints,
both
latex
and
solvent-based,
after
they
are
applied
(Jan.
27,
pp.
197—99).
In
the
United
States
in
1968,
40,000
pounds,of
mercury were used
(at an
average concentration of 30 ppm)
as a latex
paint shelf preservative, and 120,000 pounds were used to fight mildew
in exterior paints
(at an average concentration of 500
pp:ci) (Jan.
27,
p.
197).
without a shelf preservative, bacterial action would destroy
the latex paint before it could be applied
(Jan.
27, pp. ‘199-200).
Mildew
protection
adds
one
to
two
years
to
exterior,
paint
durability
•(id.,
‘p.
199).
Mercury
discharges
from
paint
mantftcture occur when paint residues
are
washed
from
th°
tanks
in
which
latex
paints
are
mixed
(id.,
p.
185).
There
is
no
effluent
from
equipr-ent
washing
in
the
case
of
solvent-
based
paints,
and
therefore
any
mercury
discharges
from
the
manufacture
of
nonrlatex
paints
are
accidental
and
sporadic
(id.,
p.
201).
The
paint
industry
has
been
winding
down
its
use
àf
mercury
and
promises
that
it
will
“substantially
reduce”
its
mercury
effluents
in
the
“very
near
future”
(id.,
p.
191).
It
maintains
that
at
the
present
ti:t3
there
is
no
wholly
satisfactory
substitute
for
mercury
compounds in all products and asks that it be given
more
time-—the
figure
usually’
mentioned
is
o.~eyear--in
which
to
come
up with an
answer
(e.g., December 22,
pp.
59-62;
Jan.
27,
p.
323).
There
was
considerable testimony as to mercury substitutes.
Dc Soto,
Inc. testified
that it had found non-mercurial mildew préventatives that were n.ore
effective than mercury; that it had discontinued the use of mercury
‘for this purpose in all but a few of its products and would replace
mercury in the rest during 1971; that it had not yet found
a satisfactory
alternative to mercury for shelf preservation of latex paints; but that
it planned to eliminate even this use of mercury by Deccmber L, 1971
(Jan.
27, pp.262-64).
Glidden testified that it eliminated mercury
from its non-latex paints two years aço and that in January 1971 it
eliminated mercury from its interior latex paints,
leaving mercury
only in its exterior latex products, as to which it estimates another
two
years will be required
(Jan.
27,
pp.
311—12).
Arnold Nilsen, a small
Chicago paint manufacturer, has been ~taking’bothlatex and non-latex
paints without mercury since December of 1969, and he’ testified that
his substitute shelf preservative--barium’ metahorate, purchased from
Buckman Laboratories-—is more effective as well as safer than mercury
(Jan.
27, pp. 273—75).
Buckman testifled that it has ceased to manufactur
mercurials and stated’flatly that “there are effective non-mercurials
available for the control of microorganisms” in paint, while conceding
that time willbe required to achieve a complete changeover
(Jan.
27,
pp. 281—91).
Other industry spokesmen warned the Board
that
they could
not
rush
into
the
use
of
substitutes
without
prior
assurance
that
they
would
not ,be
~tor~
han:?’~3,
z:,’:?t
::‘~rc’t::”; we
were
reminded
of
the
abortive
switch from phosphates to
~iA
in
tue
detor~jer3Lindustry,
and
we
‘c:c’::c’
warned by Board Member Aldrich that boron can be highly to*ic to pla’~ts
(Dec.22, pp.,60,
108).
While seeking substitutes for norcury, the paint industry has also
~
f-n
reduce
mercury
discharges
b~’improved housekeeping and by
-
,
i’,.
,a,,,,-4_,,,,
nrfl(~flse5.
‘n
the
lions’ ken! in-! n.”nq~ry,Glldc?zs t~ntifirsJth at it had reduced the wastage
of l,tex
1/ti:.t:
cur:.:--
t:.1:
~In~-::i:,’;
1.7
:qtt’
e:en5ng
the
tanks
and
re—
unr.g the c~.;tunA
ce.’5
~
(acn.
26, pp.
:~L5—lC),and wat exporiu-enting
~i
1-h
puttin~, r
‘rc
z’y
corrnunu!;
di r’2ctty
ntn each paint can instead of
into
the
nixirn
tank
so
~:;
1-’
avail
any
r~crcury discharge
in
thc
wash
water
(id.,
p. 33).
Thttnrou,;
cor.panic.
including
Gliddei.
said
they
;z~.re
atte:,~~inq to rr’r,cle
ii”,
tcs,~h
~ccor (e.g., id.,
p.
314), althou3h
one comp
.a~
‘;tid
r-’uic
was
n ~t
f.~asibJe
for a
co:.~panyirUng
large
numbers
ol
different
rroducts
because
of the storage problem (id., p. 245).
Treattnnt for the rcnovzl of mercury from effluents has been
tried and found hi’jhly succoss’ul, yet so far incapable of meeting the
ut~’ndatci~f cne h~Ifpart p~rbillion
in
paint wasinater.
DeSoto has
Installed
‘
chc:tical
flocc’i?,.tion
bystem,
foI1o~’cd
by a
biological
1.rez
tu-r.t
ryate:.,
th:’t
rcro”cs
a
nu:,l~r of
contarAnants
including
99w;
of
the
i,crc’:fl’
in
c&c4-’ia
pr
i~
ice.
i~1thou’th
DcSc
to has reduced its
discharoe
tn
0.0
o”nce of :..crcary per day (1es~than 1/4 bound
par
yez~r),
it
.o
-s not nent the h~)f—part-per—bill&onstandarc!.
(Dcc.
22,
pp.
63—6);
~‘
n.
26, p.
269).
Insta1nt~n of the chc’rtical
floc’calation
uni t
e
t
an~
:
.int
co’-.~any,
P.
So--n ra iC, ccuid
1
ac~:o’a!s Ir&d with!n
idna rnnll.:
t.’\’c.
2,
p.
77).
.
rc’c-
.:~
~rt4cc
,n C~c’;’.icaI and
E
.cxnuen:
h-.:z;
des’r
~‘
“
but cv’,i’ul
rr,ov,tl
of
:
crcury
i~ycnrbon
~thsoryticn
tOWfl
to
1
or
2
r’’~~
~
b~Ilton
(Dec.
22,
~.
1?;
tdfl.
26,
p.
204);
t’en:tco
h-ts
)i;j
~
‘.-:‘
-
? ent
auccass
wt
h
ah~~”’
~:
an
v-s
t
r;
nnct
in
if e”es
the
~,.
-r—ur-
c.n
1)
r’
:.
£
-d
~.ftcr
i”wnr;tin
ei
-
n
u:oi
(:
n.
26,
pp.
234,
2l~~
‘crc y
CL‘~c~.l Co
•
,
which
La2-’~’
tct.
u
‘,
:
I cr~i.,
-
-
d,
~
for
the
pM nt
I ndustr_’,
lirs
no
x- -ccu
di:’ehar;e
at
‘:11;
it.
:.
na;os
cC:.:1et3
iecycfln’j
o~
Idol
cny
vt.’tes,
ieea~
turivq
tl:e
nct’r:’
frcr
-
u,.JL3,
and
is
pre~ared
to
let
o~liars
co:y
itJ
wa,;tet: ater
;v,;ic::
.‘itn’
u
charge,
.tile
r’
)~.tainJ
out
th.41
its
roji”~s
are
not
iCect-ical
to
th”; e
of
the
paint
ranu-acturct
(Dcc.
22,
pp.
lIS—r).
To
requiie
the
paint
anust~’
at
once
to
t’eet
a
flat
effluent
standdrd
or
one
half
pact
pet
‘~il1ion t:oul,1
:
~‘L r1ony
of
the
m-tn.:f~.ctuz
~rs
teniporar
iv
out
ot
the
late:-
n’tnt
I usin~.ts,
t’hich
has
extnndcj
;ln~e
it:
co::.,~.~o.:ez.tIn
l9-~3 to
.:~race
‘‘
‘at
70~ o
the
:,,tr)-ct
(Jin.
2o,
p.
190).
We
would
not
h~vo to
do
vitheut
paint
in
th-.t
event,
aut
in
addition
to
thc
hvrdshipb
that
such
a
move
~‘ou)d
~fl~fliC
on
the
na~nt in-
dustry
Its’ V
the
~olvent—bc.-ad
p:antr
arc
no.
wth(ut
their
a-rn
envi ran’: ‘ntci
prcbi
~rs,
sach
as
atr
nnl
3 ution
from
the
esca2e
of
react3
.d
solvents
(?nc.
27,
‘.
65).
These
pr
bc,ns
.‘.y
aot
in
thc
long
run
ne
as
seriou~
~J
it~
‘reury
cont
t~
nation.
But
ow
choicer
arc’
not
ou”
to
abolish
latex
pcThts
t3da~ rr
t~ nut
u~with
t,~.r:t.tujJ
‘1crcury
pot ;onsnt.
We
are
convinc’
ci
U-c p~i~
t
in~u-nry t-’itl
so’.::
ii-
out
&
‘-hc
mercury
business:,
and
w~mt.an
to
~
~
a~on~towarU
1-hat
mit.
itt
the
sa:e
time
w~~.rct
~ot
cc,nfront~ ‘,jth
~L’.
typ-t
of
i:,,t ,ac1itte
c’-tsjs
that
tsas
presnntn-J
1 y
tia’
cnornotj
iiLrczz...r~ z-
n’
n—’rc~.:y I r~:ar
3~~r—&1kc.1i
j’lr nt,;
C,.
Lake
St.
(flair.
~‘tq
r,enttont-.,.
&-oVt.
,
~.no
&.lc”~—aIk&li-pl’nt
~-a.
rc, ‘:.:~s.’L
r ~:
‘
‘~
~“
rn-’
t
cz--v,
t-’h4ic
tl’-3
larc’ers
mercury
Uircharçu
~
~
-‘‘~~
&
-
-
‘-
•‘
--
:.
;
I :en
7P
~rr’s
1—418
~.:
year
(Jan.
26,
p.
322).
This
is
too
:reh,
and
the
industry
coner
‘~j
that
this
disch~trc.je should
be
r2utol
by
90
,
pro:
c :;in~
ci
st:nu~rd
allowing
any
single
source
to
din-Lrrge
u~ to
0.03
I’C-U~CJ
(i3—X-I
~
--
of.nercury
per
clay,
or
7.8
pounz..~in
a
yw-r
(id.,
p.
322).
Sher;ñn-
Williams,
with
no
control
equ~
p:
:.t
for
it-
rcury,
discharges
tt:o
to
tour
grams
per
day
(Oct.
14,
p.
145;
Dece’Jnr
33,
p.
114).
DaSoto,
with
99
rortoval, discharges
lc.s
than
3/C
iound
per
year
(fl:c.
22,
p.
69;
Jan.
26,
p.
269).
Effluent
concentrations
(whoiher
after
dilut4
on
with
other plant tzastes is undoer) range
froz-.i 0.115 to 5.0 parts j~r
million, substantially
above
the
general
standard
(Dcc.
22,
p.
82).
A parts-par—billion standa.d is nocersarily
a
crude
tool.
It
requires
special
provisi
ons
to
prevent
cirr”mvention
by
dilution;
it
misses
an
iicportaitt
point
by
£oc;.ring
on
concentration
rather
than
on
total
quantities
dischartec;
it
c
..i
per-’.! so
those
t’ho
have
substant
I‘dly
reduced
their
pounds
of
po~lt-:2
a
~
rr ‘r: ‘Ii r~, ii
they
have
to
din e!.rga
a-relatively
concentrated
bLt
-
:.~s
çu-intity
of
blowdown;
it
rails
to
recognize
that
our
principal
intcfl-L;t
is’
in
toeoing
es
much
of
a
pollntant
out
of
the
water
as
it.
feasible.
In
the
field
of
air
poll’~tion
we
have
long
pince
largely
t’ot
~way
~ro:a
the parts-per-million conc ‘-t
in
favor
of
a
~.orc
rncanintn
u
--~.~,‘3:’tio:.
relutinj
tha
counc’s
oC
ccxc.
--
that
ztay
be
dischrrcred
to
the
:--‘
:ucti
~4
.r
of
the
urocuss
(503
tho
It.i”;
anc’
ltegul.tic::u
Goccr:J’.:
U
--
C.:
:-‘o
~
:J.r
PolluiJori.
1~is
tiu~’
that
in
aédi
L~nnto
U:.1itiu7
r’
~.
:~
~‘.
c
-
aatc;e :~:
orclcr
to
assur:
th~.
me
uf
goad
cr,nlrol
trc-Ijneio:-,’
3:
‘a:’
-
p,crc.,..r.l
to
ii~x:;n
aCut2
-~:
lii tits
in
ordc
‘to
iu cu4
ci
t-:nt.
z.L;
c.
r
‘:,
:-r
‘j’m
I
1t7
stz-nu
‘~‘
a
arc-
it
oxc:er’c-d
by
the
aqgrce,rtte
02
w...ll—co.tr’
‘ccl
:or~c-e.
It. i~ Ctl:~~,.
t
U’.
thc.t-
the
de~c1.opmcnt ot
-.ccurc
‘-n
pn
~.
c1a- ;‘rr--Cav
13:’: tn
tJ
Io::d
1
nt’i
to
the
control
capabi
3
i C oJ
c’
ez
ch
i’c”.r ~ry
c-lit1
to
the
avct
-
labi
c
Li
uL~on
water
is
a
cnm~lxcatoc1 proc~.;s,
and
th.
c
we
cannot
a. font
10
p~su
ic:.’
all
actien
until
‘ze
ha’.e
co.:ple..rd
i~.
lt
is
for
this rc-cooa 12~I
are
content
in
the
shcrt
run
to
cio?t -A
an~.rtr
in
tt mr
o
an
c
•
~
-‘
the—board
c’nc~n;rattcn
in
portc per
n
him-
or
hi Ilion.
Lut
V.,
r-U.:,.
ii—
istrative
care
01
tuc-.h
a
stan-.z”
ci
I,s1
“‘
d
not-
b
-
3’
ci.
us
to
1. cs
d
“~t.t:L
s
or
to
the
dorir$$1i
ty
of
a~’otin~an
tJLI
r:actti”..s
roun(:;—i1cr—ct.y
•;~.
.:.
.
when
we
havc
the
infor. ntion
to
emwl
us
to
Co
&o.
We
hate
somo
of
that
infot:-ntion
in
t1’~rc-ntnt
situati.cn.
h-
know
that
‘
nu:.J.ier
of
~ai nt
cn:.ipcnies,
e.a~l
oyi :.r
rathar
rc,~
hi.-ti
c-. ~td
control
equ~~-tan?, could
net
•aet
the
!:~4’f—.~r~--;’
-r—bLll”oa
sL.n~
-.‘t
at
the
prc.
ant
time.
We
aLo
It; ot-’
th .t
tI-c
c~-ta.titics
o:
m:rcury
‘.c’,’
disch~rge
~ce
it
sct~ cases
ex~:cla1y .‘n.l),
on
tha
order
of
les.~
~
a
pound
a
y--cr.
Moreovcr,
thase
disC.1r7
.5
&LC
not
to
s..a~Jl,~
.-n-
v’a
designatce
Lor
aquatic
life
or
for
dr1:..~:.a water
but
~
the
s’mrr
of
very
large
rc.ni
tar:r
d etricts,
so
that
Usair
c’)
nc’han
et~lac,’;
hoc-n
di) t’te.~
beyond
tha
~cint
of
datec~5’z
before
t1’~1ri-act
w~tcr in
~hic’i
Li-.!.
are
expected
to
live.
We
ha’.e
~hare.orc
e:i.wtd
thn
fine).
r~irlat~ei
to
provide
an
exception
for
Ci r;cth.r~saof
u..d-
-c
Li
‘ici
pounCs
p-:r
~‘cc.r
to
sewier:’
s~---i’
-
a
;
I.
:.~
t
a’:
-
c’tr
25,010
~
; ‘:iction
oqtivaln:.tr,
provscl’.u
t-i.~t.
t
~‘a-:c.
....
-
-
:
-
.
-
-
-
.u
r C” ~o
ruch
~)
:-c Larcy--~
by
providing
re:~oval or
not
lc~s tr’..
~.
r-
-
~
-
::
-
cIischarq~-d in
the
abs:n..c
of
castro!
•.‘-‘ore
D’c-
.bnr
1,
1971.
,ti.c.
u
dischar;i
nj
more
tIc n
if~
vu
~t:ncs
to.. a”
c,.x.
c..’:.-
1 :~
3
to
“o
so
e:
J y
t.rnn
receiving
a
variance
fron
U,1 c
3o~
mc
C
t-r
a
~!.
wj :~g
r.C
arbi
ti
a’
z
n.J
unreasonable-hardship, which-must contain a
firm
program for substantial
reduction of n.escury discharges in the neer future.-
Moreover, all rercury
ç’schargers
(with the exccptio~of hospital uses under one half pound per
~ ar) not-meeting the 0.0005 mg/I standard; regardless of the amount
discharged, must demonstrate 95t control of mercury by the ffrst of Dacerber.
Finally, because the principal proble’a is with the paint industry, which
has said it will soon be cole to terminate mercury use altogether, we have
provided that the five-pound exception will terminate at the end of 1974.
The propriety of our limiting discharges to the sewers has been
questioned.
Our doing so is prompted not by any desire to make the
sewers a place where fish can thriva or thirsty people find fresh water,
but by the convict~onthat without limiting sewer discharges we cannot
adequately protect either tbe waters oi~the soils from mercury contamin-
ation.
One of two things can nappen to mercury discharged to the
sewers; it may pass through the treatment plant and into the public taters,
or it may be deoosited in the sludge during sewage treatment.
In the
former case dilution nay nake thc rercuty undetectable as it enters the
stream, but the discharge neverthcless ray contribute to the gradual
buildue of.merc~ryin the waters.
‘Cercr:’ in sludge is equally a problc,
for.the heat drying or incineration of sludge is likely to put mercury
into the air, while heavy t’etals in slud’e ere a serious drawback to
the-possible use of sludge as fertilizer because of the danger of con-
taminatingplants and soils.
Our eLthortty to reçulate discharges to
the-seten derives !ro’. t~osc’arc-cr.
First, for reasons just given,
rcgula ion of sLch disc) ~rges
£3
necessaty to p’cvont pollution of the
streak s and lakes and inc..cfore ;:ithin
tzte genera! grant of authorit~,
to adopt reç.uiasons to prevt-nt
--fler
c~1lution(scction 13).
Moreorer,
we h-we
CXpsuS~
aL~hor’tyuwzor section l’(~)to peescrThe effluent
stanc’ards :or disclargcn to aay ..-tcrs,
and
‘s~terc”
ate defined in
section 3(o) to include t,nder.n r~grtj’icial c~a’nnels.
Se’vers
therefore qua)s~yas waters ror
:n:ci—
bc.
car’ preicribo caischarge
sta-dards directly,
a44y oth~rconrr,iction would cripple o~rpozc-r to
protect ajain:t pollution of
‘-he
~trceas and soils.
‘the nresert r~atao:
is rot the first to reach se’er d4scna.’cee; Stt-5
adopted Ly our pr~-
decessot
ti-c S-zi~.ryt .ter
303G
uncor a far
Less ~.icrensi”e
°tat-u:e,
forbids all discharç,es of c~’~t’id~
to ~:~escvlers, for rcasons that c..boely
parallel our reasons for limiting discharcas of 4crrnr~.
It shoiJ.o be added that ti,, oroblern of water pollution froa~dsr,ct
discharges of efflucnts containi
~:ercu:y is only one of the many
probleas of mercury in the environrent, and that it may
‘tot,
in Illinois,
aLleast, even be the most important oac.
•We have hear’-l evidence tnat
well pumps nay contain as much as thirty—five pounds of nar~ury,which
has been known to find its nay i’to piblic water supplies on the rupturia;
of-a seal
(Jan.
26.
p. 334), and titat ‘t~ercuryis used in trickling
filters for sewage treatment
(id., p
343).
Air pollution by mercury
is-said to be a problem in lahoratories
(id.,
p.
163)’ ‘rercury is said
to-be relcased to the air in tao conb~stionof fossil fuels
(Oct.
14,
pp-. 120-21) and throufl the in’~neraLion o~mercury street lamps and
offlong—life alkaline batteries
(Jan. 26, p.
344; Oct.
14, p. 42).
These
battcries contain 8~a
n3rcury,
Union C irbide, which nanufactures then,
responded La ct’r t:.’t.r” by e~tt.atingthat 3,600 pounds of mérc.zr~‘~‘c:~
used for b..trc:ias
1
:1
1:.-
--
:.
.
:1
2
!‘‘
c-llously observing that
it
c
ssumed the exhaustea b~’i.tras
:~-
i
a.
s~-j
d o
~
wit~ i~-
.,~2:~-_z
gz rbage
U-::.
14—5).
V.e Inct~tute for Environncntal Qualicy is con-
ducti
;g
.ttudies that nay Ic-ad
co a’IatUonal regulations on some of these
subject:1.
1—s
Moreover, in the paint industry and elsewhere, our environmental
problems
are
by
no means solved by merely removing -mercury from the
effluent
discharged
to
the
waters.
Doing
that
is
of
very
little
use
if
the
sludge
containing
the
extracted
mercury
is
disposed
of
ira
a
way
that
returns
the
mercury
to
the
waters
through
loathing
or
deposits
it in
soil
whore
there
ray
be
a
danger
that
it
will
be
taken
up
by
9rowing
crops.
Consequently the present regulation requires
that
sludges be
disposed
of
in
a
safe
manner,
and
reclaimed
if at all possible.
This
requirement may prove difficult to meet in some cases, &nd this difficulty
alone may áuggest that substitution of other substances for mercury is far
preferable to treatment of the
effluent.
Further,
it may yet prove that
the
paint industry’s greatest mercury problem is not direct effluent dis-
charge but the wholesale broadcast of mercury into the environment as
paint is applied to houses and other surfaces.
The mercury in paint does
not :disappear after the paint is used; it may be slowly eroded by the air
&nd:by the rains, in which case it contributes to the pollution of air,
water, and soil;or it may be incinerated or otherwise rebascd
when
the :painted materials are ultimately demolished
In any event the
mercury will sooner or later find its way from the paint into places
where it can do harm, and
in
quantities exceeding by several orders of
magnitude the amounts now being discharged
to the streams and sewers
as a result of washing residues out of the mixing tanks.
We refrain
from
outlawing
the
use
of
mercury
in
paints
today,
both because no
such
pxuyosal
has
hncn
directly
before
us
in
this
pro-
ceeding
and
becausc
it
secms clear that to do so at
QACO
would
impose
severe
hardship
on
the
paint
industry
that
is
not
warranted
by
the
seriousness
of
the
situation.
But
the
industry
is
aware
that
the
handwriting
is
on
the
wall,
and
it
is
in
hot
pursuit
ot
substitutes.
The time must soon come when man stops the deliberate broadcasting of
long—lasting, cuitulative poisons into the environment, whether in-
paints,
in
long-lived
mercury
pesticides;
or
in
batteries
that
put
volatile
mercury
into
the
air
when
incinerated
-
We
have
not
finished
with the subject of mercury; let those who have an interest in sprezadin’j
mercury or similar substances around the environment take notice that
we shall very likely be holding further hearings looking toward the
elimination of these practices in the near future.
The reporting’ requirement adopted today will give the enforcement
agçncy necessary information on which to protect the public from
mercury
dangers
and
will
give
the
Board
information
on
which
possible
additional regulations can be based.
-
This
requirement
implenonts
the
‘Agency’s authority under sections
4 (b)
and
(h) of the Environmental
Protection Act and is in accord with our authority to adopt regulations
to:prevent water and land pollution under sections 13, 13
(i),
22,
and 22(d) of the Act.
I, Regina
E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution
Co:atrol
Ucr:’d,
c.~rti1v
that the Board adopted the above
opinion
and order this
-
~/
dLty
of t2Z-4-!~J1
1971.
~
e6A-fr?-~M2
REthrA E.
ItYAW
n,,.~.
fl~
PUj-~
BOARD
1—421
