ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
11, 1971
The Sherwin—Williams Company
PCB 71—111
v.
Environmental Protection Agency
Graham Paint
& Varnish
Co..,
Inc.
PCB 71—114
Environmental Protection Agency
General Paint
& Chemical Company
v.
)
PCB 71—115
Environmental Protection Agency
Enterprise Paint Manufacturing Company
v.
)
PCI3
71-116
Environmental Protection Agency
Armstrong Paint Company
v.
)
PCB 71—117
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Jewel
Paint
& Varnish Company
v.
)
PCB
71—118
Environmental Protection Agency
The Valspar Corporation
v.
)
PCB 71—119
Environmental
Protection
Agency
NL
Industries,
Inc.
PCB
71—120
Environmental Protection Agency
J
—
37
Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar
&
Poust, by Mr.
James T. Barrington,
appeared
for The Sherwin-Williams Company;
O’Toole, Westrick
& Harrison, by Mr. Edward F.
O1Toole, appeared
for the remaining Petitioners;
Mr. Rogert
C.
Ganobcik,
Legal Services Division,
appeared for the
Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Allen S.
Lavin, Attorney, by Mr. Phillip Rothenberg, Senior
Assistant Attorney, appeared for The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago,
Intervenor.
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr.
Dumelle)
The eight cases considered in this Opinion present common
issues relating to the recently enacted Mercury Regulation
(Docket
No.
R70-5).
This opinion is in support of Board Orders adopted
in each of these cases on November
8,
1971.
The petitioners
are
paint manufacturers, seven are in the Chicago area, and The
Vaispar Corporation is
located in Rockford,
Illinois.
Petitioners
request to be allowed to discharge mercury
(Hg)
into
the waters of
Illinois
in excess of the limitation prescribed
in the regulation.
In response
to the Motions to Dismiss and the Recommendations
filed
by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) petitioners
filed
amended petitions which requested specific limitations
to be applied
in each case.
Additionally,
the amended petitions more specifically
outlined the petitioners! plans and programs.
The amended petitions
stated in pounds per day and concentration limitations
the exemption
requested for each discharger.
The instant petitions were filed with the Board on May
14,
1971.
The cases were consolidated for hearing and hearings were held in
Chicago on August
17,
18,
19
and September 22.
All petitioners 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
EPA.
After the cases were filed the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
(MSD)
sought to and was allowed intervention
as
a respondent in opposition to the grant of any variances with all
the rights of an original party.
The Environmental Protection Agency filed motions
to dismiss
in each of these cases and a response in opposition was also filed
by each petitioner.
The Agency’s motion pointed to certain deficiencies
in the petitions which were cured with the filing of
the amended peti-
tions.
Ruling on the motions was reserved for
the Board.
We deny
the EPA’s motion to dismiss in each of these instances.
3
—38
On March
31, 1971
the Pollution Control Board took official
cognizance of the environmental
mercury
problem
with
the adoption
of
a regulation sharply limiting the allowable concentration of
mercury in the waters of Illinois.
The regulation
is both an
effluent standard and water quality standard and is applicable
therefore both to discharges and receiving waters.
In each case the
standard
is set at 0.0005 mg/l as Hg
(approximately 0.5 ppb).
The
regulation provided for a certain limited exception to adherence to
the standard.
The exemption was put into
the regulation as the
result of testimony by paint manufacturers to the effect that
certain operations would have to be stopped immediately if the 0.5 ppb
standard was to be complied with.
Recognizing the hardship,
the
Board provided for an exemption. for those mercury •discharges which
were
95
controlled eight months after the enactment of the regula-
tion and which,
in the aggregate,
did not amount to more
than
five pounds
of mercury per year.
Additionally to be within the
exemption the discharger’s
effluent was to be treated by
a sewage
treatment plant which discharged no more mercury than that allowed
by the effluent standard.
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 des-
cribing the nature
of the mercury use, the amount discharged and
outlining the measures being
taken to reduce or eliminate the
discharge of mercury—bearing wastes.
The regulation also deals
with the disposal of mercury bearing sludge and provides for
recycling where feasible
and disposal
in such
a manner so
as to
minimize both air
and water hazards
if the sludge containing
mercury residues
can not be practicably reclaimed.
The regulation
clearly requires that mercury users know what their solid waste
scavengers
do with the mercury—bearing sludges.
The rationale in setting the standard at the low level of
0.5 ppb was
to “eliminate all measurable, non—natural concentrations”
of mercury from whatever source.
The limitation of the regulation
was recognition of the principle that no discharge of an environ-
mentally dangerous substance such as 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—making hearings the Director of the Water Puri-
fication Laboratory of the City of Chicago testified that they have
3—39
refined their analytical technique with
the flameless atomic absorp-
tion method to detect
0.1 part per billion with acceptable precision.
The precision
is reported to be greatly increased at the level of
0.5 ppb.
Other testimony by Dr. Leonard
G. 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
activation analyses could detect mercury down
to the presence of
one atom of mercury.
The paint manufacturing industry is one of the major mercury
consuming industries
ira
the United States.
Organo—mercurial
compounds are widely used
as bactericide—fungicide agents as
additives to both oil and water-based paints.
The mercurials
protect the paints from bacterial fermentation before application
and retard fungus growth after the paint has been used as
a coating.
The bactericide
is used to prevent putrefaction of the paint and
spoilage until the coating is used by the ultimate consumer.
The
fungicide is necessary to prevent mildew on the painted surface
(R.
532)
.
Phenylmercurials are the most used of the several popular
mercury compounds.
We grant
a variance
in specific amounts in each of these
cases.
The
size of
the exemption asked for in most of these
petitions
is clearly too high.
We cannot grant variances
to
protect mercury users against the result of their own carelessness
or unforseen accidents.
For
the latter contingency it
is sufficient
that
the statute and the Board’s Rules allow for an arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship as
a proper defense to an enforcement
action.
We will require each of the mercury users to submit monthly
reports as to
the progress of their mercury abatement programs.
The reports are important both to the companies and the government
agencies as
a means of knowing whether any progress
in fact
is being
made.
We do not wish
to be
in
a position,
a year from now, of
discovering
for the first time that no progress has been made in
further reducing mercury pollution.
The first report shall cover
the period from the present through December
31,
1971.
Petitioners
should submit such reports to the EPA and the Board
a reasonable
time after the end of the month but in no case shall this period
extend beyond two weeks.
It is only reasonable
to expect that
petitioners apply assiduous efforts to continue
to work for
elimination of mercury—containing products and where immediate
cessation of use
is not possible for complete recycle of wash
water which contains
the residue of necessary compounds.
The goal should be the replacement of mercury compounds
in paint.
3 —40
How clearly attainable this is as an objective is demonstrated by
the fact that the largest manufacturer of all the petitioners,
the
manufacturer with the most varied product line
had eliminated
the use of mercury compounds before the first hearing date of these
proceedings.
We are hopeful that with the grant of the several variances
here
the petitioners will continue
to exert their best and fullest
efforts
to comply with
the existing standard,
to come
as close
to the regulatory requirement as possible and to continue to improve
the quality of their plant effluents.
Unquestionably crash programs
for substitution of mercurials are
indicated.
No manufacturer
should be sitting on its test fences
waiting
-
up
to
a year and
a half
-
(R.473)
for
the results
to come
in.
It
is obviously important
to put
the evaluations
into
a time
press
and make judgments on the results of accelerated aging and
exposure tests.
The petitioners here
(as well
as other paint makers
at the
rule—making hearings)
have repeatedly made statements regarding
the desirability of elimination of mercury compounds as paint
additives.
There
has been
a general recognition that
the mercurials
are environmentally
hazardous.
Elimination of use of the mar—
curials is desirable because of the uncertainties involved in
total reliance on drumming waste water
and disposing of it at a
landfill
and recycling systems; because of the liklihood of
occasional spills
with recycling and drumming; and because the
mercury compounds put into paint products must,
by the very nature
of their use, be ultimately widely broadcast throughout the air
and water environment.
All the petitioners appear to be embarked
upon
a program of mercury additive elimination,
some faster than
others,
and for such forsight and concern we commend their actions.
The record demonstrates that the paint industry,
as represented by
the instant petitioners,
has acted with dispatch to alleviate
the
environmental strain of mercury pollution once
it became fully
aware of the problem.
Each of the petitioners
is
to be commended
for
its efforts
and actions
to date.
Those manufacturers who have
not yet fully eliminated
the use of mercurials
or are not near
the
tape in that race have adopted
a no—discharge of wash water policy
either by installing
a recycling system or disposing of wash water
on landfill
sites.
All
this shows that petitioners have recognized
that mercury pollution abatement of our environment can best be
effected by directing attention and control efforts
to the source
of
the environmental broadcast.
We will reuuire as
a condition of the variance grants that
petitioners assure themselves and the EPA
and
~he Bo;~rdthat
petitioners’
scavengers are disposing of
thc
~lid
‘‘a~te,sludges
and wash waters in such
a manner so
as to min~nizeto
the greatest
extent feasible all hazards of environmental contamination.
Petitioners
in
their
monthly
submissions
must
make
a
full
report
on
the
disposal
procedures
in
effect
at
their
several
operations.
Mercury
contamination
of
raw
materials
and
supplies
may
or
may
not
be
an
important
source
of
mercury
in
a
process
effluent
depending,
of
course,
on the amount of
the
material
used,
the level
of mercury contamination and whether
the mercury compound
leaves
the process as part of the product or with the process
effluvia.
Caustic soda use, because of the quantity involved,
is obviously
an important consideration to Sherwin—Williams while
its use
is
of virtually
no consequence
to the other petitioners.
There was testimony by
Dr.
Goldwater and Nr.
Joseph Thornton
that
there was
no commercially available system
to reduce mercury
concentrations
in
a waste stream to 0.5 pph or below
(R.l46-l53,
388—390)
Surely
if
this
is
the
case it must act
as
a
spur
to
the
leaders
of
American
industry
to
develop
and
perfect
such
waste
troa~ment
capanilities.
It
is
apparent
from
the
record
that
even
wath
the
elimination
of
the
knowing
use
of
mercury—hearing
materials
enouah
mercury
is
entering
and
leaving
the
plant,
probably
as
a
contaminant
of
incoming
raw
materials,
to
elevate
the
concentration
of
mercury
in
plant effluent above the
level
found
as
background
in
the plant~s incoming water
supply.
The
Board in grantino
these
variances
has taken into account
the
burden
upon
th
2
public.
Unknowns
are
present,
but
the limited
period
of
these
grants
coupled
with
the
fact
that
petitioners
have
made
great
progress
and,
promise
to
continue
to
do
so
lead
up
to
the
conclusion
that
the
balance
thus
struck
allows
us
to
issue
these
licenses
to
pollute.
The
MSD
has
stated
that
if
the
petitioners
are
granted
variances
then
it
too
must
have
an
exemption.
We,
of
course,
cannot
‘mrant
any
variance
absent
the
required
statutory
showing,
hut
must
certainly
take
the
licenses
to
pollute
which
we
grant
today
into
account
when
considering
the
output
from
the
various
MSD
treatment
plants.
The
Sherwin-Will
i
~
The
Sherwin—Williams
Company
(Sherwin—Will
iams)
owns
and
operates
a
manufacturing
plant
in
Chicago,
which
manufactures
paint,
varnish,
and
lacquer
products;
organic
pigments
and
organic
chemicals
and
piain
and
printed,
metal
containers.
The operation
located
at
1154
Souta
Cn
n~1ain
Avenue
i’
da~,adcci
~to
:
~.
asio’~ coatings
chemicals,
and
containers,
the
plant
was
established
in 188a
and
covers
98
acres.
It
employs
2,175
persons
with
an
average
tenure of
14
years.
Seven hundred fifty
items are manufactured
in
the Chemical Division,
2,800 finished products are manufactured
in
the
Coatings
Division
with
665
different
intermediate
formulations,
and
2,684 items
are manufactured
in
the Container Division,
for
a
total of
6,900 different items which are manufactured
at the plant.
Fifty—three million pounds of chemicals,
17 million gallons
of coatings, and 138 million cans are produced annually,
for
a total
value of $71,800,000.
The Chemical Division uses approximately
165 million pounds of
300 different raw materials at
a cost of
$9,800,000,
The Coatings Division uses 210 million pounds of
1,450
raw materials
for
a
total cost of $21,000,000,
and the Con—
‘tamer Division
uses
68 million pounds of
200
different raw materials
with
a cost of $7,500,000
annually.
The plant operates
a system of in—plant sewers
for the collection
of wastes
(S—W
Ex.
3)
.
Winety percent of
the waste water
is collected
in
the Kensington Avenue sewer
(R.69)
.
The Kensington Avenue
industrial
sewer is served by
a neutralization system
for the control
of pH.
In the sewer
sump are
a flow meter and
a continuous sampler
(R,7l—72).
Caustic soda in aqueous form is used for neutralization.
The company also operates
a treatment pit for the removal of suspended
solids
in the waste water
from the paint manufacturing operations
(R,76)
The
daily
flow
of
2,000.000
to
3,000,000
gallons
of
waste
water
is discharged to
the Chicago
sewers
and from there to the sewage
treatment plant operated by
the MSD
(R.47,64—65,
S—W Ex.
13)
Samples of the plant effluent have shown concentrations in excess
of the 0,5
pph limitation of
the regulation
(Joint Ex.
1).
Mr. Kenneth
F.
Brown,
the General Manager of the plant, testified
that non-mercurials were substituted for mercury compounds
as
early
as 1962:
At
that time mercury compounds were removed from
exterior latex paints where they were being used
as
a fungicide
because of faulty film characteristics of the coating
(R.50,
59,
118).
After the Illinois rule—making proceeding was under way, but before
enactment
of the regulation,
the company started to remove all mercury
compounds from its formulations
(R.50)
.
At
a later date
the plant
manager issued
a directive that the manufacture of mercury-hearing
products cease immediately and that no further mercury—bearing raw
materials be purchased or received
(S-W Ex.2, R.50-52)
.
The plant
manager further testified that the company intended not to use
such
products in
the future
(R.54)
.
Mr. Joseph Thornton,
the Technical
Administrative Assistant, was charged with
the responsibility of
enforcing
the order
and testified that no
mercury—bearing
raw
materials
were received by the plant after January
4,
1971,
(R.ll8).
The last
regular batch of material containing mercury was made on March
4,
1971, and one further batch was made an April
6,
1971 due
to an
error
(R,119—l20)
As
a result of the
error, mercur~’—bearingraw
materials were soe’ceqated
so
that they could not
be
used
by
mistake
As
a
second
step
in
its
mercury
abatement
program
Sherwin-Williams
testified
that
they
will
continue
to
survey
suppliers and
to test raw materials and supplies.
Mr. Thornton,
charged with carrying out this program, reported on the results
to date
(P.128,
et
seq.)
Several raw materials which were used
in significant amounts were tested by Sherwin—Williams
and found
to contain sizable concentrations of mercury.
The two most signi-
ficant mercury—contaminated raw materials were pigments
and
caustic
soda.
As to pigments,
it was testified that using average
figures
for the concentration of mercury in
the pigments and the
amount of pigments contained in the rinse water
from one batch of
paint,
1/10,000
lb. mercury might be contained
in each washing
(R.l4l)
and that no substitutes were available for
the natural
pigments
used
in paint
(R.l43)
Caustic soda presented another problem.
It
is used in
neutralization of the effluent from the main industrial
sewer,
in
the
Chemical
Division,
and
in
miscellaneous
uses
throughout
the
plant
(F.
145)
.
Approximately
35
million
pounds
a
year
are
consumed
at
the
plant
(F.
137—139)
-
The
total
amount
of
mercury
in
the
caustic
used
in
the
treatment
sumy
to
neutralize
the
plant
effluent
was
calculated
on
average
concentrations
as
approximately
.086
lbs.
per
year
(F.
75)
,
Both
ammonia
and
spent
lime
were
considered
as
substi-
tutes
and
rejected
because
of
problems
with
the
sewers
or
treatment
plant
(F. 74)
.
Sodium
bicarbonate
was
also
considered
and
rejected
on
technical
and
economic
grounds
(P.76)
The
other
significant
use
of
caustic
within
the
plant
was
in
the
para
cresol,
azo
pigments,
phthalocya.nine
color,
and
alkali.
blue
processes.
Mr.
Deich,
staff
coordinator
of
the
Chemical
Division,
testthicd
as
to
the
problems
presented
by
these
processes.
The
para
cresol
process
consumes
25
million
pounds
per
year
of
caustth
as
a
100
percent
solution
(F.
176)
.
He
stated
that
caustic
soda
was
t:he
oniy
substance
which
made
the
process
feasible
and
that
no
technically and economically
feasible substitutes were available
(P.179)
.
The para cresol that comes from this process constitutes
two thirds of
‘the national
supply and
a large percentage of the world
supply
(P.177—178),
The material is used
as
an anti—oxidant
in
various
applications
as
well
as
for
other
purposes.
The
total
con-
tribution
of
mercury from the caustic soda in that process calculates
to
be
.64
nounds
per
year
based
on
average
concentrations
in
the
caustic
used
(P.
180)
.
Phthalocyanine
color
is
blue
pigment
used
in
dyes
and
inks
and
no
substitute
for
the
use
of
caustic
in
that
process
was
known
(F.
182-183)
.
Azo pigment
is
a red dye,
and
alkali blue is also
a dye.
Here
too thdre ~Were no known substitutes
for
the use of caustic
in the manufacturing processes.
It
thus appears
that the company has undertaken
a major effort
to determine the sources
of mercury in its
raw materials
and to
find
substitutes.
The effort must continue.
3
—
44
Sherwin-Williams has completely eliminated the use of mercury
.ompounds
in
the
manufacture
of
paint
(P.52,
122)
.
Yet the company
still
finds
itself
in
violation
of
the
regulation
(Joint
Ex.
1)
It
must
be
noted
that
in
arriving
at
the
requested
figure
of
10 pounds/year the status quo
is assumed
(R.l68)
.
Further progress
must
be
made.
Serious
consideration
should
be
given
to
cleaning
residues
from the drainage
and sewer system;
the trans, manholes
and other
low spots where mercury
is likely to have settled or
plated—out over
the years.
installation of mercury traps in all
laboratory
sinks and
a periodic schedule for cleaning of the
traps
would appear to be part of the necessary effort
in a mercury
abatement program.
The logic,
simplicity and directness of the thrust of Sherwin-
Williams mercury abatement program
—
elimination at the source
-
by merely discontinuing the use of mercury-bearing compounds must be
applauded.
The other aspects of
the companYs program also cannot
be faulted.
Sherwin—Williams
in addition to continuing
to use non-
mercurials
in their paint formulations has pledged to
(1)
continue
to survey its suppliers of raw materials
and. supplies
and
‘to
obtain certification of the mercury content of the materials
(2)
substitute raw materials and supplies of lower mercury content where
appropriate
(3)
enforce strict handling practices of mercury and
(4)
clean sumps.
In granting the requested variance
we
will hold the petitioner
to its promises
in its mercury abatement program as
well, as imposing
other conditions.
We
grant
a
‘variance
to allow the discharge
of un
to
5 ppb as
a daily average and further limit
the
discharge
so
as
not
to
exceed
10
pounds/year.
Graham
Paint
& Varnish Company
71-114
Graham
Paint
&
Varnish
Company
(Graham)
is
located
at
4800
South
Richmond
Street
in
Chicago,
manufactures
a
variety
of
paint
products
at
its
plant
at
that
location
and
employs
60
persons
(F.
531)
The
company has
found
a substitute for the mercurial
which
it
had
been
usina
as
a
bacteriacide
hut
has
not
found an adequate
substitute to use
as
a miidewcide.
It thus continues
to use phenyl
mercury
oleate
and
phenyl
mercury
acetate
to
serve
both
purposes
(F.
533)
For
‘the
first
nine months of this year Graham used
2240 pounds
of
mercury
additives
(A.
534)
.
It
is
unspecified.
if
this
figure
represents
the
total
amount
of
the
mercury
compounds
or
just
the
quantity
of
mercury
in
the
compounds.
It
would
be
desirable
to
reduce
the
amount
to
zero
as
other
paint
manufacturers
with
very
complicated
product
lines
have
done,
Substitution
is
not
only
possible
but
very
likely
a
lot
easier
than
any
of
us
might
have
believed
a
short
year
ago.
3
4~
One
of
the
three
mercury
samples
analyzed and presented in
evidence
showed
an
extremely
high
mercury
concentration.
On
June 18,
1971
a mercury concentration of 900 ppb was noted
in
the plant effluent.
Mr. Thomas O~Connell, the assistant manager
theorized that the sample was taken at
a time when
a tank not
included in the recycle program was being washed
(R.
546).
The
sample analyses and attendant explanation perhaps explains more
about
the ill—advised use and consequent environmental broadcast
of mercury compounds than any other single piece of evidence
adduced
at the hearing.
Particularly dramatic
is
the illustration when one
looks at the
two other’ samples on either side of the
900 ppb sample
and Mr. O’Connell’s further explanation.
Analyses of the plant
effluent on June
17,
1971 showed a mercury concentration of 1.4 ppb.
On August
1 the concentration was
2.7 ppb.
In explaining away
the seemingly anomalous
900
ppb, taken between the above dates,
Mr.
O’Connell said,
“IThe sample was taken at
the time
when
they
were washing out one of
the tanks,
latex tanks.... They washed
it
down.
He just happened to grab
it
at that particular time.
If
he
had grabbed
it
five minutes earlier or fifteen minutes
later,
it
would have probably been nil”
(R.546).
Nothing
could
be
more eloquent
testimony to
the desirability of eliminating the use of mercury
compounds and short of that,
if
it
was
impossible to eliminate their
use,
to completely recycle and safely dispose of contaminated wash
water.
It
is obvious that
even after this company removes mercury
compounds
from
all
of
its
formulations
they
will
still
require
exemption
from
the
limitation
in
the
regulation,
at
least
for
some,
hopefully short, period.
The 2.7 ppb mercury concentration was
noted
in
the
plant
effluent
in
a
sample
which
was
taken
three
days
after
the
company
had
stopped
all
effluent
from
the
plant
except
the
sanitary
and
cooling
water
(R.
548).
Graham
is
placing
its
reliance
on
recycling
(F.
560).
At
best,
this
can
only
be
an
interim
answer
as was illustrated by the effluent sample analyses in this
case.
Mr. Raymond Shilvock
the President
of
the
company
testified
that
after
the
first
of
the
year
recycling
of
‘the
plant’s
wash
water
will
be
complete
while
Mr.
O’Connell
testified
that
recycling
was
a reality at the time of the hearing
(R.
539—540,
550,
566).
In
any
event
the
company’s
recycling
program
will
be
in
100
operation
at
an
early
date
and
thereafter
there
will
be
no
tank
washings
flushed
to the sewer whatsoever.
Graham
has
had
an
independent
contractor
clean
out
the
catch
basin
and
manhole
areas
and
has
pledged
to
continue
this
procedure
on a regular bi—monthly schedule
(F.
557,
559).
The material
removed was taken to
a land disposal
site.
Again we must point out
the
petitioner’s
obligation
under
the
regulation
to
dispose
of
the
sludge
in
such
as
way
“so
as
to
minimize
to
the
greatest
feasible
extent all hazards... ‘(of
environmental contamination”
(Reg.
R70—5,
:3
—
46
No.3).
We
will
require
Graham
to
include
information
regarding
ultimate disposal in the reports which it makes
to the EPA and
the
Board.
Graham has requested an exemption averaging
30 ppb of its
annual flow of waste water
(R.56l-562).
On
the state of the record
it is an unrealistic request.
We grant a variance in this case
to
shield the company from prosecution
in an amount which the evidence
shows would work an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on the
petition-er.
We will not issue
a license to pollute far beyond any
showing of the evidence.
We will allow Graham to be protected up to
a
24 hour average concentration of
5 ppb and
a total annual amount
of 0.75 pounds.
General Paint
& Chemical Co., PCB
71—115
General Paint
& Chemical Co.
(General)
operates
a plant
at 2001 Mandell Street in Chicago at which it employs 75
to 100
people
(F.
303-304).
The entire production of the plant
is made
for General’s parent company
(F.
305).
The principal product,
70
of the plant’s production
is latex paint.
About
80
of
the latex
production is
a white formulation
(F.
309).
General uses phenyl mercury compounds at the rate
of about
15,000 pounds/year as
a
10
Hg solution
(R,
314).
Non—mercurials
are available and feasible and it is to be hoped that General is
working rapidly to eliminate the use of mercurials.
We will set
a figure of
5 ppb as an upper limit as
a daily
average for General’s discharge in granting
this variance.
Enterprise Paint Manufacturing Co.,
PCB 71-116
Enterprise Paint Manufacturing Co.
(Enterprise)
is located
at
2841 South Ashland Avenue In Chicago.
Surface coatings,
—---~‘‘~
—-—-~
‘‘~‘~
CL
L
LLLCL
L
~L)L,cL
L..t.’JLI
CL
L.
W~LU.Li
CLk)L)
UL
JU
pt~Op~Le
are
employed
(F.
465-466)
Mercury
compounds
are
used
only
in
the
paint
formulations
(about
200)
other
uses
having
been
eliminated
as
recently
as
early this year
(F.
466—468).
In
1970
the
company
used
about
11,000
pounds
of
phenyl
mercury
compounds
ranging
in
cbncentration
of
mercury
from
10
to
59
(F.
469—470)
Mr.
Arthur
F.
Bohnert,
vice
president
in
charge
of
research
and
development
‘went
through
a
catalog
of
difficulties
attendant
to
accumulting and reusing wash waters
(F.
479—482).
The
number
and
variety
of
problems
is
enough
to
convince
any
skeptic
that
recycle
of
wash
water
is
only
a temporary solution and that elimina-
tion of use
must
be
achieved
to
fully
protect
against
any
environmental
hazard.
It
is
not unreasonable
to expect that Enterprise phase out
its
use
of
mercury
compounds
at
an
early
date.
Enterprise
has
requested
their
material
suppliers
to
inform
them
of
the
mercury
concentration
of
their
incoming
materials
(F.
470-471).
They
must
continue
this
program
and
use
the
results
appropriately.
Enterprise asked
to
be
permitted
to
discharge
35 ppb Hg with
a further limitation of
12 pounds/year.
The request
is
for permission
to discharge an amount approximately equal to the concentration noted
in the plant effluent
(R.
499-500).
The plant’s waste water dis-
charge is
43 million gallons per year
(F.
498)
.
We will allow the
petitioner to discharge up to
35 ppb Hg as
a daily average and
further limit the discharge to
7 pounds/year.
Armstrong Paint Company,
PCB 71-117
The Armstrong Paint Company
(Armstrong)
petition was originally
filed by
~mstrong
Chemcon,
Inc.
Motion to substitute Armstrong
for its predecessor company was allowed,
Armstrong operates
paint manufacturing
facilities at 1330
S. Kilbourn in Chicago and
employs about
300 people
(F.
567-570).
Phenyl mercury compounds are still used in about 500 formula-
tions
(R.
572).
About
2,000 pounds
(as Hg)
of the mercury pre-
servatives were used
in 1970
(F.
573)
At the
time of the rule-making hearing way back
in December of
1970
the paint industry expressed the opinion that substitution of
mercury—containing additives could be effected within one year.
Now after 75
of that year has passed Armstrong
is asking for more
than another year to
‘field test”
non—mercury containing coatings
(F.
580).
it is demonstrably feasible to compress
the time frame
of effecting substitution and Armstrong should be doing this.
Armstrong
is asking its suppliers
to inform it of the mercury
content of
its
raw materials
(F.
574, Armstrong Ex.
1)
.
More than
paper shuffling should be
the results of
the program.
Action must
be
taken where indicated.
Mr. Kenneth F.
Schultz, vice—president of Armstrong testified
that the company’s request to be allowed to dump
10 pounds/year
of mercury into
the
sewers was based on the
16
ppb sample analyses
(F.
614).
Additionally the company asked
for
a
50
ppb daily
average.
The record does not sustain the burden for such
a loose
license.
We will allow petitioner to discharge up to
10
ppb Hg as
a
daily average and up to
8 pounds for the year.
Jewel Paint
& Varnish Co.,
PCB 71—118
Jewel Paint
& Varnish
Co.
(-Jewel)
is
a paint manufacturer
located at 345 North Western Avenue
in Chicago with about
65 employes
(R.
316)
Phenyl mercur1
U
~puu~ua
CLr~
.~..
a about
200
to 250 formula—
dons
(F.
319).
‘The
1970 usage was
.,,.~i2 pounds as
a
10
Hg soiu—
tion
(R.
343).
The
company
has
a
relatively
small
annual
discharge
of waste water of about 1.5 million gallons
(R.
321).
Analyses of samples for mercury content showed less than
0.5 ppb Hg on June
23,
1971, and 17.4 and
2.2 ppb on June 15 and
June 16
(R.328, Joint EX.
4).
Another analyses on July
12,
1971
had an Hg content of 1.7 ppb
(R.
329).
We grant
a variance to the extent of allowing
the discharge
of mercury from the plant up to
10 ppb
as
a daily average and
limited
further
to
a
maximum
of
0.25
pounds/year.
The
Valspar
Corporation,
PCB
71-119
The
Valspar
Corporation
(Valspar)
is
the
only
company
among
the instant petitioners which is not located in the Chicago area.
Vaispar is located at 200 Sayer Street in Rockford, manufactures
paint and varnishes there and has about 200 employes
(R.270-27l).
Of the more
than 200 formulations used
at the plant, mercury
compounds have been eliminated
in about
110 of them
(F.
274,298)
Mercury
compounds,
namely
diphenyl
mercury,
dodecenyl
succinate,
phenyl
mercury
oleate,
chloromethoxyacetyloxymercuropropane
and
phenyl
mercury
acetate
are
still
being
used
(F.
272)
although
the
quantity
of
mercurials
consumed has been reduced 65
as compared
to the
1970 usage
(F.
282).
The annual rate of usage of mercury
compounds was reported as 31,500 pounds as
is
(F.
291).
Mr. Lloyd
Owen, vice-president of Valspar, anticipated that substitution by
non-mercurials should be completely effected by
the end of 1971
(F.
282—283)
The
company
discharges
about
20
million gallons of waste
water
per
year
(F.
275-276).
Samples of the plant effluent showed
mercury concentrations of
less than 0.5 ppb,
92.7,
0.9,
1.6,
0.3,
and
again 0.3 ppb
(F.
288).
It is anticipated that
in
this
case
as
in all of the others
a variance may be needed even
after mercury compounds have stopped
being used.
We will allow Valspar
to discharge up to
a daily average
of
5 ppb Hg with
a further limitation of no more than 1.0 pounds
per
year.
NL Industries,
Inc., PCB
71—120
NL Industries,
Inc.
(NL)
manufactures paint and allied pro-
ducts, battery oxides and
lead carbonates
at its plant at 12042
South Peoria Street in Chicago.
The company employs about 150
people
(F.
1,97—198)
Phenyl mercury compounds are used both as bactericides and
mildewcides
(F.
199).
The
total
1970
consumption
of
mercury
compounds was 65,500 pounds on an as is basis
(F.
239).
—
49
The plant discharges
18 million gallons per year of waste water
(F.
203-204,
239).
Mercury
concentrations
in
the
plant
effluent
were noted at 6.0,
0.6,
0,6,
0.7,
34.5,
1.9 and 0.6 ppb
(R. 210—211,
Joint Ex.
5).
NL,
as well as other petitioners, testified that it
was their belief that if they either eliminated
the use of mercury
compounds or completely recycled their wash water they would be in
compliance with the effluent limitation in the regulation.
This
has proven not to be the case.
Mr. Clarence
P.
Smith,
plant manager
of NL,
explained the problem
of residual mercury,
a’ common concern of all
of the petitioners,
in
the
following
manner:
Q.
Have you any opinion as to
what
would
be the effect
on the sewer pipes of your company by reason of your
having used mercury for many years, discharging
your waste water
f’rom your mixing
tanks, filling
equipment,
into the municipal sewer?
A.
I am sure that some of the compounds have accumulated
in the sewer
system,
in the pipes,
in the low spots
and remain there.
Q,
How would this affect the amount of mercury in your
effluent if your company were able
to stop using
mercury
in any form
in any of its products?
A,
If we stop using mercury and put
no
more down,
I
am
sure
that
we would continue
to
show
some
mercury
in our effluent because the residual mercury in the
system
would
gradually
free
itself
and
tend
to
wash
itself
out
over
a
period
of
time.
Q.
Have you any idea as to how long
that would take?
A.
I
could
not
say,
could
not
venture to guess on how
long
it
might
take
because
we
don’t
know
where it is,
where
it
is
located,
anything
else.
Q.
Would you
have
any
idea as to what effect in parts
per billion of mercury would occur
in this period
of
time while
it was being washed?
A.
No,
I couldn’t say because
I have no idea, no way
of
me
knowing how
fast it would be released, whether
released in bunches,
slowly,
or just in what manner.
Q.
Do you know of any way of getting that out of
there?
A.
No way that
I know of
for getting it out of
there.
(F.
204—205)
3
—
~50
Apparently
a
variance
will
be needed by NL even after
they
have eliminated the use of mercury compounds.
NL has asked to be
allowed to discharge
6 pounds/year.
On the basis
of their annual
waste
water
discharge
this
would
average
out to be something more
than
40
ppb,
a
greater concentration than any
of the samples
analyzed.
Additionally the company has asked
to be able to dis-
charge a daily average concentration of
60
ppb.
We grant
a
variance to allow the discharge of up to
20 ppb as
a daily average
and further limit the discharge
so as not to exceed
3.0 pounds/year.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of
law.
I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Cojitrol Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion on
7/
day of November,
1971.
~
,~
/~)
/.~
~
Christan Moffett,~~ting
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
3—
51
