ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

14,

1972

IN THE MATTER OF

PROPOSED REGULATION BANNING PHOSPHATES

)

 R71-l0

IN DETERGENTS AND OTHER CLEANING

PRODUCTS

Supplemental Statement by Jacob

 D. Dumelle

Mr. Lawton’s excellent opinion of the Board summarizes

the

testimony and the reasons

 for the decision not

 to ban phosphorus

in detergents at this time.

 I should like to capsule my thoughts

in this matter and perhaps stress additional points.

In my own analysis of environmental matters

 I follow

 a three—

question format.

 These

 are:

(1)

 Is there

 a problem?

The problem may be present or

 future.

 It may be latent

(asbestos causing mesothelioma

 30 years after exposure

is an example)

 or immediate.

(2)

Is

 there

 a solution

 to the problem?

If there

 is no solution

 to an environmental problem

then all

 a Board can do

is

 to encourage research toward

a solution.

(3)

 Can the solution be afforded?

A solution toward meeting air quality standards for auto—

generated gases

 in Chicago’s Loop is to ban auto traffic.

What are these costs and

 is the problem severe enough

to warrant this type of instant action?

Let us examine

 the phosphorus situation from this 3—question

format:

1.

 Is phosphorus

 in water

 a problem Illinois?

 Based

upon an incomplete record on this topic we would have to

say “No.”

 Algae do not bloom at all on the Illinois River

even with

 large amounts of phosphorus present.

 And the

four months of plankton data

 (October

1971

 January 1972)

supplied to us late

 in these proceedings on March

 2 and

March

16,

 1972 by the Illinois State Water Survey show

counts at 42 locations which are well below the 20,000

diatoms per ml.

 visible bloom level.

—

However,

 we must add

 that it

is

 in the hot summer

when most algae blooms occur,

 if they occur at all.

And

 the State Water Survey plankton data supplied do

not cover the summer period.

 The Fox River

 noted

for

its

 “pea—green” appearance

 in the summer,

 has October

1971

 January 1972 plankton counts that

 are less than

other Illinois streams sampled in the

 same months.

So

the data

 are not complete and we simply do not know,

except for the Illinois

 River,

of

 the presence or

absence of nuisance algae

 levels at any time of

the

year.

 By September 1972

 we should have

 a summer’s

data from the State Water Survey and should know better

the extent of the problem,

 if any.

2.

 Is there

 a solution to the problem?

Mr.

 Lawton’s

opinion discusses

 the alternatives to phosphorus removal

at sewage plants versus banning of phosphorus—containing

detergents.

But

 if there

is

 no problem how can this

Board ban a product used

 in interstate commerce such as

phosphorus—based detergents,

 and expect such

 a ban to

survive the inevitable appeal to

 the court system?

The

answer to my first question determines if we have

to

consider the second~

 The Chicago phosphorus regulation,

in the absence

 of an algae problem on the Illinois River~

and of course with no discharge

 to Lake Michigan of

Chicago effluents,

 then becomes

 a secondary means of

inducing the detergent industry to change

 its formulation.

If the industry changed its formulation

to

 low or no-ohos-

phorus,

 then less phosphorus would go to Lake Michigan

in the interim ueriod before December 1972 when

80

 phos-

phorus removal

 is achieved by each

 state discharging

to the Lake.

But

 I question whether this secondary

effect could legally warrant an Illinois ban on phos-

phorus detergent.

3.

 Can the solution be afforded?

 One of the consequences

of a ban on phosphorus detergents might be more injury

to

children from some

 of the substitutes.

 This too,

is

a

cost and no one willingly creates

 a hazard

 if it can be

avoided.

 Were there strong assurances that dangerous

detergent substitutes would be kept off

 the market then

we might feel relieved of this worry.

But

 inì an era when

we still have

 coats made with asbestos

 and inflammable

night clothes for children we cannot be sure.

 See the

statement of Dr.

 Robert Gosselin

 (R.l92)

 and as quoted

on pp.10-13

 in Mr.

 Lawton’s opinion.

In closing,

 the suggestion by Mr.

 So? 0, Gershon of Lever

Bros.

 that

an

8.7

 phosphate level be set nationally by legislation

is an attractive one.

 This would eliminate higher phosphorus

4—94

blends,.

 The Reuss Committee

 is said to have recently recommended

this level with

 a lower level of 2.2

at

 some later date.

I do not agree with the statements attributed to Dr. Paul F.

Derr of FMC

 that phosphorus control is useless in preventing eu-

trophication of lakes.

 If he is correct then Lake Michigan is

doomed.

 We all might just as well throw up our hands.

 In a

few weeks

 the Phosphorus Technical Committee

 for Lake Michigan

will meet and discuss the newest water quality sampling data.

And

hopefully,

 the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference will shortly

reconvene and discuss the Committee report

 arid bring us

 al:L up to

date on the latest data and findings on eutrophication and its

prevention.

Lastly

 I do want to touch upon an implication contained

 in the

last pages

 of Mr. Lawton~sopinion

 (pp.

 18—22)

 that the proponents

of this regulation bear the burden of proof.

 See p~ 21 for example,

“The proponent failed to establish that phosphorus poses

 a pollution

problem in any flowing stream in Illinois.”

 This Board is not to

be

 a passive board in regulatory matters waiting for parties

to

bring it data.

 It has its own access

 to resources; principally the

Institute for Environmental Quality,

 the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and the State Water Survey.

 In the airport noise

regulation proceedings

 (R 70—13)

 also citizen—initiated,

the

Institute established

 a prestigious multidisciplinary task force

which has provided much technical analysis

 to the Board.

 The burden

of proof for noise regulations was lifted from the citizen group,

We cannot expect citizen groups

 to also finance or somehow obtain

volunteer

 scientists

 to testify.

 If the problem, whether known

or postulated,

 is significant, then the Board has

 a responsibility

to obtain the best scientific thinking available.

~ / ~

~‘

 ,~5i~ob

 D. Dumelle

‘I

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois PollutionControl

Board, hereby certify the above Supplemental Statement was filed on

the c~~~aday

 of March,

 1972.

Christan L. Noffet

 ~~erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—