ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

28,

1972

In the matter of

)

 P31—15

PLANT

NUTRIENTS

Concurring Opinion by Jacob

 Dumelle

While

 I voted with the 5-0 majority to defer action on the

proposed regulation

and

 to conduct more research

 I did so with

reluctance because there was simply nothing else

 to do at this

time.

 A vote for

 “more research”

 is often

 a common way

 to avoid a

decision and it must be remembered that

 “not to decide is

 to decide.”

To my mind,

 the Board

 (and

 I include myself)

 at an early

 stage

in these hearings ought to have analyzed the record and asked that

specific witnesses be brought in to discuss the validity of the

45 mq/l NO1 standard;

 the cost of nitrate removal by municipal

water planes;

 and alternatives

 to the proposed regulations.

 iinfor—

tunatelv the hearings focused almost exclusively on fertilizer

movement in soil and were at best incidentally directed to these

other important questions.

 Consequently the abilities of various

state aqencies to draw upon expert knowledge for answers was not

adeauatelv utilized early in this rule-making process.

 In the

Effluent Standards proceedings

 (R70—8)

 the Board

 in early 1971 decide~

that cost data on industrial treatment methods was badly needed and

obtained it in a short time with Institute assistance.

 In the Air

Regulations

 (R71—23)

 the Board in recent public sessions discussed

areas where evidence was lacking and as

 a result received further

information, largely from the Agency.

In my recent statement on the Proposed Phosphate Detergent Ban

CR71—b)

 filed March

 22, 1972

 I discussed

 a three question approach

to

 the decision

 not to act on that proposal.

 Let me do the same

in

 this proceeding.

The

 three questions are:

1)

 Is there

 a problem?

2)

 Is there

 a solution to the problem?

3)

 Can the solution be afforded?

To the first question we would all have to say

 “yes.”

 Both

the Illinois drinking water standards and water quality standards

are now being exceeded

 as regards nitrates.

 Robert Harmeson of the

Illinois

 State Water Survey listed the following rivers where levels

137

equal

 to or exceeding

the

 45 mg/i NO3 standard have been measured:

Wabash, Embarass,

 Illinois, Vermilion,

CR.

 162, Nov.

3,

 1971)

Mr.

Harmeson also named additional rivers where the nitrate levels

are trending upward toward the

 standard.

 These include the Edwards,

Kankakee,

 Kaskaskia, Mackinac and Sanqamon.

 Six of these nine rivers

are used

 as municipal drinking water

 sources.

 As recently as early

March

1972

 a report was released by

 the Macon County

 (Decatur area)

Health Department by Dr. Fred Grosz showing nitrate violations on

16 days between December

27,

 1971 and February

1,

 1972 of 21 days

tested in Lake Decatur which

is

 fed by the Sanoamon River.

How severe is the problem?

 We do not know on

 the record the

extent of the “safety factor,’

 if any, built

 into the 45 mg/i NO3

standard

 and so we do not know how urgently to view the necessity

to take action.

 Are high nitrates

 in drinking water as urgent

to

reduce as mercury or pesticide residues

 for example?

Dr. Abraham Ceiperin,

 a physician

 at the University of Illinois,

indicated an abrupt threshold of

 no methemogiobin in infants

 at water

nitrate levels below 35 mg/i

 (August

4,

 1971,

p.

 127-8)

 Presumably

some methemoglobin can be tolerated by infants and the 45 mg/i

standard would seem to 1~ave some safety margin built into

it.

 Of course,

this

 is not conclusive, all we seem to know

is

 that the prestigious

U.S. Public Health Service set the 45 mg/i NO3 standard

 in i962 (per-

haps earlier)

 and that the World Health Organization has followed

 suit.

On the other hand,

 the State of California

 (alone of the

50

 states)

has

doubled the standard to 90 mg/i.

Dr.

 Geiperin,

in

 an extended appearance before the Board

on

August

4,

 l97i, discussed his preliminary findings based on crude data

of a significant increase of 56.8

in

 the death rate of female babies

in high nitrate water Illinois counties compared

 to low nitrate water

Illinois counties over

 a ten year period.

Dr.

 Gelperin promised to

refine his data prior to December

10,

1971

 (the last scheduled Board

hearing in this proceeding)

 and at this writing, almost four months

later,

 has not done so

(p.

 135).

 I would urge him to complete his

study.

 What could be more urgent than the prevention of infant deaths?

Another disappointment to me in this proceeding was

 the lack

of data from blood testing of persons for methemoglobin levels in the

Decatur area compared to St.

 Louis

 (where presumably

 no drinking water

nitrate problem exists).

The

 study was promised to be completed by

March

 31, 1972 but just got underway

 in March.

 Preliminary data show

Decatur methemoglobin levels twice

 those of St. Louis residents but

the significance of the finding is not validated or known.

 Furthermore

the postulated existence of adults with enzymatic deficiencies

 such

that high nitrates cannot be tolerated

 is yet to be proven.

 Again,

a

public health problem may exist but we do not know its dimensions.

—

138

To the second question,

 one can outline other solutions not

explored

 in this record.

 Since nitrates are high in Decatur for only

short periods in

 a year,

 the water supply authority could presumably

dilute

 its purnpage by 10

 or more with

 a low nitrate water source,

if one

 is available.

Or

 the water department might remove nitrates.

But we do not know the feasibility and cost of either of

 these alter-

natives.

 And they do have

 the disadvantage of putting the cost

burden on parties which did not cause the high nitrates.

 Other al-

ternatives such

 as restricting

 the use of nitrate fertilizers in

selected watersheds such

 as the Sangamon River should be considered.

 The record suggests

 that agriculture

 is likely the greatest single

contributor

 of. nitrates

 in certain streams

 such as the Sangamon.

There

is

 no basis

 in the record for assuming either that the present

rate of nitrate application is environmentally proper or

 that it

is

 even that

 rate at which ontimum uptake by the crop occurs.

The

record does indicate

 that because

 a farmer has no adequate method

for determining the nitrogen content of his soil

 (soil profile)

the

individual farmer may well be applying nitrogen beyond that level

necessary for optimum crop growth with the result that needless excess

almost certainly flows

 to the streams of Illinois.

 Once

 a widely—

used method

 for determining soil profile

 is developed, rate restrictions

alonq

the

 lines of

 the proposed regulations may well be in order.

While

 the kind of regulations needed

for

 a complete answer to the pro-

blem

 have

 not been fully explored

 a restraint on rate of application

could have

 some desirable environmental effect without disrupting

food

 supply.

Let us draw the parallel between watersheds

 and airsheds.

The

watershed

 leading to Lake Decatur

 is overloaded with nitrates.

To

lessen the concentration by dilution one either adds to the water

 supply by

 a ground water source or by inter-basin diversion of addi-

tional water.

 This

is

 like pulling additional

 fresh air into Chicago

and

 is certainly more feasible to

 do with water than with air.

But

if we

 leave the water supply as being

 fixed in quantity,

 then we

obviously have

 too many nitrate sources

 for the assimilative

 capacity

of the water

 (legally defined as

 45 mg/l NO3)

 And the parallel is

to have

 too many air pollution sources,

 even well—controlled,

 in a

limited airshed.

 Since on

the

 state of

 this record we cannot adequately

answer the second question

as

 to the solution of the problem we are

left adrift with the third question which

 asks if the solution can

he afforded.

I

 can only urge

 the Institute for Environmental Quality

to bring

 in what relevant testimony

 it can within

 a short time and

certainly no later than October

 1972.

A further point in this record needs

 to be addressed.

 Agricul—

tural. witnesses

 in this proceeding made the point repeatedly

 that if

nitrates are

 a problem then education and the voluntary approach

to

fertilizer reduction are the best methods to use.

 I am not sure

139

based upon Illinois~experience in soil conservation that the voluntary

approach will work,

 In the 1967 publication, Water

 for Illinois:

a

~

 for action the statement appears that only

29

 of Illinois

 farms

containing

23

 of the acreage had conservation

 plans

(p.

 200)

One

may well

 ask, if in

30

 plus years of voluntary soil conservation

programs only

29

of

 the farms had seen

 fit to comply then is volun-

tary compliance the way to reduce what may he

 a severe public health

nitrate hazard?

 Former Secretary of the Interior Walter J.

 Hickel,

in his

 new book Who Owns America?,

 in discussing the generally

unsuccessful attempts of Interior’s Bureau of Mines

 to get mine owners

to voluntarily comply with safety standards, capsules his analysis

and decision

as

“.

.after fifty years of trying

 to educate it was

time to get

 a good deal

 firmer.”

 I hope

 that Illinois will shortly

find

 a way to solve its high nitrate drinking water problem.

~ ç~\~

(;.

4~L.

~.•

J

 ob D

 Duinelle

B~ardMember

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cer~tifythe above Concurring Opinion was submitted and

filed on the

~

 day of April 1972.

...

,~.‘

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

140