ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14
,
1972
IN MATTER OF PROPOSED REGULATION
BANNING PHOSPHATES
IN DETERGENTS
)
#R71-lO
I~NDOTHER CLEANING PRODUCTS
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(BY MR. LAWTON):
Pursuant to Section
28 of the Environmental Protection Act, Earthforce,
Inc.
and Northwestern Students
for
a Better Environment submitted
a pro-
posed regulation for consideration,
providing
as
follows:
“No detergent or other cleaning product containing
phosphorus compounds may be sold in Illinois after
June
1,
1972.”
The Board found that the petition satisfied the procedural requirements
of Section 28, was not plainly devoid of merit and did not deal with
a
subject on which
a hearing had been previously held.
Hearings were held
in Chicago and Peoria.
The presentation of the proponents consisted primarily of
a statement
attributed to Dr. Wesley 0.
Pipes, which was read into the record at the
first hearing,
Dr. Pipes appearing for cross-examination at a later hear-
ing.
Speaking
in support of
the proposal were H.
W. Poston,
Commissioner
of Environmental Control
for the City of Chicago;
Lee Botts,
Executive
Secretary of the Lake Michigan Federation;
and three witnesses on behalf
of Armour—Dial,
Inc.
Principal opponent of
the proposed regulation was
The Soap and Detergent Association which presented industry witnesses
and
a substantial amount of written material.
Mr. Ralph Evans appeared
as
a Board witness.
Section
27 of the Environmental Protection Act requires that in pro-
mulgating regulations,
the Board shall
take into account the technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness of reducing the particular pollu-
tion involved.
Title III,
Section
11,
dealing with the Board’s powers
with respect to prohibition of water pollution states as one of the
purposes of the title
the assurance that no contaminants
are discharged
into
the waters of the State without being given the degree of treatment
or control necessary
to prevent pollution.
Phosphorus
and phosphate discharges
into the waters of Illinois have
been
the subject of considerable concern and action by the Board since
its inception.
Regulation #70-6 established water quality and effluent
standards for phosphorus discharges into Lake Michigan.
In adopting
state-wide effluent standards,
#R70-8, we limited emission of phosphorus
4
71
Regulation #71-14, Water Quality Standards,
adopted March
7,
1972,
provides
as
follows:
“203(c)
Phosphorus
(STORET number
-
00665)
:
Phosphorus
as
P
shall not exceed 0.05 mg/i in any reservoir
or lake,
or in any stream at the point where
it
enters
any reservoir or
lake.’
Section
206
limits phosphorus
in Lake Michigan to
.007 milligrams
per liter.
The opinion
in support
of the regulations
states
as follows:
“203(c)
provides
a phosphorus limit for reservoirs
and lakes
and
for streams tributary
to them.
The evidence
is strong
that phosphorus
above this
level in relatively still water
can give
rise to obnoxious algae blooms.
The evidence does
not
support the
need for
a phosphorus standard in other situations,
and
the proposal
for such
a standard
is here omitted.
So is the
earlier
proposal
for
an
algae
limit,
which
was
too
stringent
to
indicate
the
presence
of
a
nuisance.
The
evidence
does
not
support
any
numerical
standard
for
algae,
and
we
rely
upon
the
nuisance standard of 203(a)
.
We have not defined “reservoir”
or worked out on a case-by—case basis in light of
the policy
here expressed.
Not every navigation dam will be held to create
a lake for
this purpose.
Despite the uncertainty,
it does not
seem appropriate
to
postpone necessary regulation for lack of
a
perfect
definition.”
The
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Board
manifest
an
intention
to
minimize
the
discharge
of
phosphorus
and
phosphates
into
the
waters
of
the
state
where
such
limitation
is
necessary
in
furtherance
of
our
statutory objectives.
However,
the record in the present proceeding
does not support adoption of
the
regulation
as
proposed.
Accordingly,
the petition for adoption of
the regulation must be denied at this time.
In arriving at this decision, we
do not foreclose further consideration
of this regulation or one of similar import.
Our holding today
is
merely
a determination that on the record
of the present proceeding,
a
state-wide phosphate ban for detergents
is not justified.
The principal issues emerging from the hearings
are first, whether
phosphorus
removal
at the source
is necessary
in lieu of or in addition
to phosphate
removal at the sewage treatment plant,
secondly, whether
satisfactory substitutes exist
for phosphate in consideration of requisJt~
detergent capabilities,
and lastly, whether such substitute materials
are reasonably safe to those who use them as well
as those in their
proximity.
Phosphate
is
used
in
detergents
to
increase
efficiency
of
the
surfa
active
agent,
to keep dirt particles suspended
in wash water,
to furnisl
necessary alkalinity
for proper cleaning,
to provide resistance against
4
—
73
criteria
for phosphorus without phosphate removal processes at
treatment plants.
The technical feasibility and economic reasonable-
ness ci phosphate
removal at waste water treatment plants is conceded.
However,
if
detergent phosphate
is banned,
it is contended that
sub-~
stantial savings will be effected
in
the
treatment plant operation
resulting from the decreased
use of
chemicals and decreased costs
of
sludge disposal.
Also,
with
a detergent ban, petitioners contend that
in some instances, phosphate removal processes would
not
be necessary
at
all in order to meet water
quality effluent standards,
The decrease
in chemicals needed for treatment would save much—needed resources
(R,39,)and at
the same time lessen the dissolved solids entering the
receiving waters.
Petitioner concludes as follows:
I. That installation of phosphate
removal processes at municipal waste water plants is technically feasi-
ble and economically reasonable;
2.
That phosphate removal would
still be required in many instances, even if phosphates are banned
from
detergents;
3,
That in flowing streams which provide adequate
dilution, water quality protection will be assured even without the
e:nployment of phosphate removal processes
if
a phosphate detergent
ban
is
invoked;
4. The banning of phosphates from detergents
is an attrac-
tive alternative to
the
installation of phosphate removal processes
at all municipal waste water treatment plants because the money saved
by not installing phosphate removal equipment can be used to solve other
water pollution problems, because phosphate removal processes will
con-’
sume
resources and energy,
because some phosphate removal processes
add to the chloride and sulphide content of the effluent and because
all phosphate removal processes increase the problem of sludge disposal.
(R,41)
Dr. Pipes next considers the sources
of phosphorus in surface waters
considering the relative contribution of storm water and land
run-off and observing that efforts to control agricultural run—off as
well as urban storm drainage and effluent control are necessary to
resolve the phosphorus problem.
As stated in the testimony,
“The
banning of phosphorus detergents will not solve the entire problem of
phosphorus in the surface waters.
We realize the control
oE dispersed
sources of pollutants
is more difficult than the control of identifiable
discharges.
We believe that the limitation of phosphorus content in
effluents
is an essential step in arriving at the solution to the phos-
phorus problem.
We also support the Board in their attempts to take the
necessary steps
to solve the other parts of the problem,”
(R.44)
Dr. Pipes next discusses phosphorus
as
a pollutant,
observing that
phosphates discharged into municipal and industrial effluent serve as
nutrients for algae and other aquatic vegetation.
While the effect of
excessive algal growth in lakes has not been disputed, the point of
controversy has been whether the phosphates
or other nutrients such
as
carbon or nitrogen are the controlling factors which limits excessive
algal growth.
Publication entitled “The Effect of Carbon on Algal
Growth
-
its Relationship
to Eutrophication”
is referred to, in which
4
—
75
and
by
using
pickling
liquor,
a
steel
waste
product,
“one
pollutant
can be used
to get rid of two”,
(Exhibit
l2A and
B)
Three witnesses
from Armour-Dial,
Inc.
testified in support of
the
proposed
regulation,
addressing
themselves
principally
to
a
non—
phosphate detergent called
‘Triumph’
in which
the phosphate builder is
replaced by sodium carbonate.
The product
is manufactured by DeSoto,
Inc. and is identical
to products distributed by Sears,
Roebuck
&
Company and Whirlpool Corporation under other brand names.
The sub-
stance of their testimony was
that the sodium carbonate-based detergent
they have been working with is ecologically preferable to
a phosphate-
based detergent,
that it does
not possess attributes
of toxicity or
corrosiveness exceeding most phosphate—based detergents,
that phosphate—
based detergents
are
as hazardous
and that the dangers resulting from
non-phosphate detergents have been over—dramatized.
Lastly,
the
Armour-Dial,
Inc. witnesses contend that its product
is
as good
a
detergent as
the best-selling phosphate product and superior to
a consi-
derable number of others in terms
of soil removal,
performance on fabrics1
water softening,
absence of film
and other considerations by which the
effectiveness
of detergents are judged.
(R.60
to
84)
With respect
to the possible reduction of flame-retarding finishes,
the witness observed that such
fabrics presently in use have been de-
signed for use with phosphate-based detergents
and that other resins
used
for flame retardation could be employed that would not be affected
by sodium carbonate based detergents
(R.83)
A witness
for DeSoto,
Inc.
supporting the testimony of the Armour—
Dial,
Inc. witnesses discussed the subject of precautionary labeling,
observing that no detergent, phosphate or non-phosphate,
is safe
to
eat,
put in the eye, or leave on
the skin for long periods of time and
that
all detergents should have precautionary labels with first-aid
instructions.
(R.85).
He concluded that it is not fair to say that
there is no safe and effective substitute
for phosphate detergents and
that
the DeSoto product cleans
as well
and is
as
safe as phosphate-
based detergents in use for many years
(R.95)
The foregoing constituted
the principal testimony in support of the
proposed regulation.
~r. Ralph Evans
(R.l26),
Head of the Water Quality Section of
the
Illinois State Water Survey,
appeared as
a Board witness.
He testified
that there is
no question
that phosphorus
is
a major algal nutrient and
the most controllable of many nutrients required for algal productivity,
which alone makes it attractive for control purposes.
Phosphorus,
on
the other hand,
is
not toxic,
does not directly degrade water quality and
serves usefully in detergent formulations for cleaning purposes.
He
observed that the current controversy regarding phosphorus has developed
from its association with the term “eutrophication”, which,
in essence,
is the process
by which
a body of water becomes over—nourished from
4
—
77
James
N.
Carlisle,
Manager
of
the
Great
Peoria
Sanitary District,
testified
that
even
with
removal
of
phosphates
from
detergents,
the
final
effluent
from
the
treatment
facility
would
contain
3
or
4
milligrams
per
liter
of
phosphorus,
which
would
require
phosphorus
removal
at
the
plant
in
order
to
meet
the
1
milligram
per
liter
pro-
posed
for
certain
streams,
If
pickle
liquor
is
employed,
the
two
major
costs
~ouid~be
for
chemical
and
sludge
removal.
In
his
judgment,
the eva
ability
of
chemicals
locally
would
reduce
chemical
costs
and
sludge
remc
costs
would
remain
essentially
the
same.
He
believes
that
the
benefit
of
a
phosphate
ban
would
no.t
be
considerable
because
treatment
at the
plant
would
still
be
necessary.
In
his
view,
“at
the
present
time,
there
are
too
many
conflicting
opinions,
unsupported
by
proven
data
which
make
the
benefits
derived
(from
a
phosphate
ban)
questionable.’
(R. 136.)
Keith
A.
Booman,
Technical
Director
of
the
Soap
and Detergent Asso-
ciation,
testified in opposition
to the proposed regulation
(R.l44)
He summarized the uses
of phosphate
in
detergents,
including
water
softening,
dirt
suspension,
alkalinity
and
emulsification
of
oil
and
grease,
stressing
the
safety
of
the
phosphates
to
humans,
aquatic
life,
fabrics
and
machinery.
Also
emphasized
was
the
use
of
specialty
deter-
gents used in hospitals,
restaurants,
dairies,
food processing plants
and meat and poultry plants.
The statement
of
Dr.
Steinfeld,
Surgeon
General
of
the
United
States
was
read into the record in part:
“...I am concerned.. .with another danger which
deserves our attention, danger that the national outcry
over the levels
of phosphates
in detergents will become
so great
as
to obscure the health or environmental im-
pact of alternatives to phosphates..
Lew Theoharous, Associate Director of Research for Proctor
& Gamble
Company reviewed the relation between phosphates
in detergents
and
eutrophication.
His review of statements made by scientists to the
Federal Trade Commission during April and June of 1971
lead to the
following conclusions:
that accelerated eutrophication is limited to
a small portion of the country and does not create
a public health
problem,
that where eutrophication is
a problem, removal of phosphates
from detergents will have little or no effect on
the growth of algae
and that the consensus of opinion was that replacement
for phosphates
should be authorized only when
such replacements have been adequately
tested for environmental
safety.
Simulated experiments conducted in
apartment house complexes where phosphate detergents were
not used,
suggested that the waste water without phosphate detergent would have
the same algal-producing characteristics
as waste water in which phos-
phate detergent was present and that treatment by precipitation of
sewage containing phosphate detergent would eliminate algal growth
(R.165)
The use of soap in place of phosphate detergents was considered.
In the judgment of this witness, soap is
a suitable cleaning material
4
—
79
Analysis of several dozen non-phosphate laundry detergents re-
presented a distinct hazard in the home because of the high alkalinity
of these
products.
Toxic
household
products
can
express
their
toxicity
when they
are
used. without
adequate
precautions
for
their
intended
use
or when
grossly
misused.
The
usual victim of
episodes
of
misuse
is
the
young
child
between
one
and
four
whose
natural
curiosity
often
leads
him to put into
his
mouth
materials
that
no
adult
would
consider palatable.
Accidental poisoning
is conceded to he the leading cause of death of
young children
in this age group and, of course, non—fatal injuries
are
far more common
than
fatal
ones.
Both
liquid
and
granular
house-
hold
detergents
are
involved
frequently
in
such
accidental
ingestions.
According
to 1969 statistics, approximately
15
of all inquiries
at
poison centers
in the United States concerned the accidental ingestion
of household cleaning and polishing agents of children under five years
of
age.
In
1969,
this
amount
consisted
of
10,978
reports
of
which
about
one-third
involved
detergents
~nd
chemicals.
Often,
the
results
are
nothing
more
than
mild
sore
throat
without
permanent
injury
and
rarely
lead to clinically significant illnesses, which only require mild measures
of first-aid.
Such reassurances cannot be extended
to
cases involving
high alkalinity detergents which are presently appearing on the American
market and alerting to the dangerous consequences of these materials
cannot be expected to prevent injury.
In the words
of Dr. Gosselin:
“There is nothing about the appearance or packaging of
the newer products
that would in any way discourage the
young child from mouthing them,
in the same way that his
older brothers
and sisters may have sampled the phosphate
detergents when they were toddlers.
Accordingly,
we must
expect that ingestion episodes involving non-phosphate
detergents will
soon accumulate in substantial numbers.
It
is
my expectation, based on considerations
to be presented
in a few moments,
that many of these exposures will result
in serious and even permanent injuries.
These injuries are
expected to take the form of chemical burns
in the mouth,
esophagus and eyes.
“Certainly,
no toddler will be dissuaded by
a warning
label
on
the
package.
In
any
case,
many of
these containers
bear no warning.
Among others one sometimes finds nothing
more than the bland statement:
‘Keep out of reach of children’.
Thus,
even the intelligent and alert mother may have little
basis today
for recognizing
that most of the new non—phosphate
detergents have significantly higher toxicity potential than
the phosphate preparations with which she has had long experience.
In March,
1971, the Food and Drug Administration seized two
highly alkaline laundry detergent products, because of inade-
quate cautionary labelling,
and in June they acted to require
such labelling on
25 additional products.
Since then,
several
manufacturers of similar products have added warning statements
on the package,
but the practice
is still far from general.
4—
81
predictions
are
based
on
experimental
studies
in
dogs
and
rabbits
and
on
at
least
one
clinical
episode
in-
volving an automatic dishwasher preparation no more alka-
line than several phosphate—free products that are now being
promoted
as
home
laundry
detergents.
4.
Thesepradictions
are
supported
by
recent
scattered
reports
of
personal
injuries
from
the
use
and
misuse
of
these
phos-
phate substitutes.
The recent death of an infant in Conn-
ecticut has been ascribed to Mouthing and then inhaling
the powder of one such product.
5
•
In
my
opinion
these
products
should
carry
a
warning
label
of the type prescribed under the Federal Hazardous Sub-
stances
Act.
However,
I
do
not
expect
such
cautionary
labeling
to
prevent
a
considerable
number of
serious
per-
sonal
injuries
if these products gain general consumer
acceptance.
6.
In my opinion the use of phosphate detergents should not
be discouragedtntil there is available at least
one
alter-
native product that is established to be safe as well as
effective.
The home is still an important part of our
environment,
and
ecological
principles
should
apply
inside
as
well
as
outside
the
home.”
John
C.
Livengood,
Product
Manager of
Monsanto
Industrial
Chem-
ical
Company
testified
that
the
evaluation
of
forty-six
non-phosphate
detergents
show
a
substantial
amount
of
soditun
carbonate
and
a
higher
alkalinity
than
phosphate-based
products
(R.205).
Dr.
Louis
P.
Scharpf,
also
of
Monsanto,
testified
that
on
the
basis
of
experiments
conducted
on
the
eyes
of
rabbits,
using
both
phosphate
and
non-phosphate
detergents
(R.206)
irritation
was
found
to be far more severe, long-lasting and deteriorating when caused by
high
alkalinity
non-phosphate
detergents
than
by
using
phosphate
deter-
gents.
Where
high
alkali
detergent
was
used,
not
only
was
the
initial
injury
more
severe,
but
the
period
of
healing
far
longer.
Experiments
conducted
on
the
stomachs
of
dogs
again
showed
a
more
severe
and
longer
impact where carbonate-based detergents were utilized.
Dr.
Edwin
R.
Loder,
from
DuBois
Chemicals
Division,
CHEZ4ED Cor-
poration, testified on the subject of institutional and industrial
detergent products (R.222).
It is his view that the composition
of detergents presently containing phosphate should not be altered until
the use of substitutes for hospital, restaurant
and
food processing
uses
could
be
ascertained.
Detergents
are
needed
for
removal
of
food
pathogens and spoilage microorganisms
for
restaurants,
hospitals
and
institutional sanitation
and
forced modification of present industrial
and
institutional
detergents
could
have
a
devastating
effect
on
the
public health aspects of cleaning and sanitizing.
Approximately twenty
4—83
Dr.
Paul
F.
Derr
appeared
on
behalf
of
FMC~s Inorganic
Chemicals Division,
He
testified
to
the principal causes of eutro~
phication stating
that
in
his
judgement,
detergent
phosphates
“are
not
and
never
have
been
a
cause
of
eutrophication,”
(R,256)
,
It was
his
belief
that
excessive
discharges
of
carbon-containing
organic
wastes have caused both
the increase in
alga?
growth
and
simultaneously,
an
increase
contained
in
phosphate
found
in
solution.
Thus,
increased
phosphat;e
concentration.is
a
result
of
organic
pollution and eutrophi-
cation,
not a cause.
In his judgement,
although phosphorus is one
oi
some
i5
to
20 nutrients required for growth of all plants, in-
cluding algae,
any attempt to control eutrophication by limiting the
input
of
phosphorus
to
a lake is doomed to failure;
first, because
of the relatively small amount of phosphorus
needed for growth,
secondly,
that
there
are
such
large
uncontrollable
natural
supplies
of phosphorus
that
it
will
never
be
feasible
to
control
phosphate
input
to
a
lake at extremely low levels which would be required to
inhibit algae growth.
All
lakes contain excessive amounts
of phos-
phates, most of which is found in the bottom sediments.
In contrast,
other
important
inorganic
nutrients
such
as
carbon,
nitrogen
and
potassium
remain
totally
undissoived
in
the
lake
water,
If
phosphate
input
to
a
lake
were
completely
stopped,
phosphates
in bottom sedi-
ments would merely redissolve to maintain essentially
a constant
concentration of phosphate in the
lake waters for many years.
Thus,
an increase or decrease of phosphate
added to
a
lake has little or
not effect on the growth of algae.
The primary nutrient required
by algae
is
carbon
in the
form of carbon
dioxide.
Algae
is composed
of between
50
to 75
carbon,
Bacterial decay of organic matter
supplies the large amount of carbon dioxide essential to support
algae growth.
Bacterial
decay of sewage leads
to depletion of dis-
solved oxygens creating
the death of fish
and aquatic animal life
and
also major chemical changes which greatly increase the release of
nutrients,
including phosphorus from the sedimentation.
In his judge—
ment,
the answer to
all these problems was adequate sewage treatment,
including adequate chemical processes.
Secondary sewage treatment
permits natural biological processes to convert carbon in both the
dissolved and suspended organic matter into carbon dioxide gas which
is expelled into the atmosphere.
In summary,
this witness stated that
“No one has ever shown that removal of phosphates
from deter~ents
will have any effect whatsoever on excessive growth of algae in
lakes.
Good sewage treatment is the only method for correcting
the
problem.”
Incorporation of chemical precipitation processes removing
carbon—containing organic wastes greatly increases the removal of
all nutrients.
Stacey
L.
Daniels appeared on behalf of Dow Chemical Company
and discussed the technology available for removal of phosphorus
from sewage and waste water
(R.275)
.
He stated that 30
to 70
of
the phosphorus present in sewage is contributed by detergents.
The
process of phosphorus removal must be practiced at waste water treat-
ment plants even if there is
no detergent phosphorus contribution
to
4
—
85
she
has
regarded
as
hazardous
and
which
she
has
tried
to
keep
out
of
reach
of
children.
1ather
suddenly,
as
one
result
of
growing
alarm
over
eutrophication
problems
(which
alaim
the
Department
of
Health,
Education
and Welfare
shares)
and
consequent
moves
to
limit
or
ban
phosphates
in
or
from
detergents,
many
producers
turned
to
alternative
builders
and
some
marketed
products
which
were
highly
alka-
line
and
highly
caustic.
Some
of
these
products
were
capable
of
inflicting
harm
on
the
unwary
housewife
and
her
children,
but
the
hazard
had
not
been
adequately
drawn
to
her
attention
before
the
press
conference
of
September
15,
1971.
Admittedly,
some
manufacturers
of
detergents
had
complied with
the
law.
But
some
had
not.
And,
although
the
Food and Drug Administration will continue to test detergent
products, the
frequent
changes
of
product
composition
for
the 200 or so detergents
now
marketed will
tax
the testing
capacity
of
this
Agency.
Dr.
Mitchell
then
considers
the
consequence
of
ingestion
of
phosphate-containing
detergents
as
contrasted
with
those
of
highly
caustic
content
and
concludes
that
change
in
labelling
alone would
not
be
a
sufficient
protection,
particularly
among
children
who
are in-
capable
of
understanding
them.
“The
causticity
of a product
varies
directly
as
the
pH
differs from neutrality, which is to say, the
more
alkaline
(or the more acid)
the material, the stronger will be
its
corrosive
properties.
An
important
factor
in
determining
the
ultimate
effect
is
the
reserve
alkalinity
which
is
an
indication of the ability of the offending material to
pre-
serve its highly alkaline state while reacting with tissue.
“The physical state of the product may be either liquid
or solid.
Liquids,while more readily swallowed and more
capable of~achingthe stomach, may be somewhat more readily
diluted, neutralized and flushed away from a surface, such
as the mouth
and
eye, than is a particulate matter.”
He discusses the detrimental consequences of contact of highly
caustic alkaline
material
on
the
skin, eye ,mouth
,larynx,
esophagus,
stomach
and
tracia,
noting
that
a
child
would
not
have
the
ability
to
neutralize
the
effect
of
such
contact.
He
notes
that
it
is
too
soot
to
enumerate
the
accidents
which
have
occurred
since
the
first
of
the
many
alkali
products
in
detergents
began
but
there
have
been
acci-
dents
from
some
of
these
products.
Citing
the
death
of
a
fif teen—
month-old
chili
who
aspirated
one
of
these
products
and
a
St.
Louis
child
who
suffered
mouth
burns,
he
discounts
the
effects
of
cautionary
labeling
in
furnishing
suitable
protection
to
those
using
or
caning
in
contact with
the
product.
He
states:
“To
my
knowledge,
there
has
been
very little
public
out-
cry
against
the
hazardous
nature
of
some
of
the
highly
alka-
line
laundry
products.
Attention
has
been
focused
on
the
hazard
posed
by
phosphates
in
respect
to
waters.
There
has
been
4—57
a matter of interest
and concern,
it cannot be the controlling
element in imposing
a state~wideban on a household product.
It
appears undisputed that approximately 50
of the phosphate content
in municipal sewage is contributed by phosphate detergents and
proponents suggest that the banning of phosphate detergents may
enable some small and middle-sized
communities to meet Board
effluent standards without undertaking the additional cost of
phosphate
removal.
This conclusion,
at least with regard to
middle-sized communities
is refuted by testimony regarding Peoria
which would need phosphate removal facilities
even if phosphate deter-
gents were banned.
In any event,
it would appear that operational
cost
br phosphate removal would be reduced by no more
than 30
if
phosphate detergent
is prohibited.
Economic savings alone to the
extent shown do not justify the adoption of
a ban on phosphate
detergents.
We are mandated to control pollution.
Economic
reasonableness must be considered when
a particular pollution con-
trol measure is proposed.
However, we do not believe
the statute
envisions our imposing
a product ban
for purposes
of affecting
economies on the local
level.
Likewise,
considerations of safety
are such
that we do not feel
justified in imposing the ban at this
time until we are satisfied that replacements
for phosphate do not
possess toxic or caustic propensities
creating substantial dangers
to those using or in the vicinity
of the product involved.
By this
holding, we are making no judgrn~ntthat all phosphate products
are
good and all sodium carbonate products
are evil.
The record demon-
strates that it
is
the alkalinity and not the element that determines
the
danger.
The evidence demonstrates
that some phosphate—based
detergents have high alkalinity with attributes
of danger while some
sodium
carbonate
products
appear
reasonably
safe.
However,
we
cannot conclude
that
on
the
basis
of
the
limited
testimony
in
this
respect that an outright phosphate ban would be in
the best interests
of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The record demon-
strates that many sodium carbonate detergents do have high alkalinity
with resulting dangers
from causticity.
While some evidence was introduced
on both the safety
and effectiveness
of
a particular non—phosphate detergent,
these
findings
cannot be extrapolated
to all non—phosphate detergents.
The
critical consideration in determining causticity
is
the percentage
of
alkalinity
in
a
particular
product
and not the phosphate or sodium
carbonate character of its base.
The record is devoid of evidence
demonstrating
the comparative safety of non-phosphate cleaning products
as
a class.
Opposition witnesses
did offer evidence that on the
average,
non—phosphate products did contain
a higher degree of alka-
linity and,
therefore,
causticity,
than phosphate—based products.
The
evidence did demonstrate
that non-phosphate detergents with alka-
line content on the order of 40
exerted disruptive
effects
in mucous
membranes in the stomach of dogs, rabbits
and monkeys
(R,202)
.
Other
studies evaluating forty—six non—phosphate detergents demonstrated
4
—
89
casually
proceed
on
a
dearth
of
information,
The
record
does
not
adequately show
the
technical
feasibility
of
the proposed
ban
Petitioner offered
as
additional areas
of problem algae growth,
the
Illinois River in
certain
sectors,
the Skokie Lagoons
(R.49,
370)
,
certain sections
of
the banks of
the
Mississippi River,
certain
shallow,
low-flow areas
of
the Kankakee River
(R.327)
,
and
the
North
Branch of the Chicago River
(R.370)
No water quality data and no
evidence
of
pollution
problems
in
these
areas
due
to
algae
growth
were offered in support of these conclusions~ Absent supporting
evidence or
a showing of first-hand knowledge of the water quality
of these areas,
the mere conclusion that
they suffer from nuisance
algae growth
is
legally insufficient
to
persuade us
on this
issue.
The proponent failed to establish that phosphorus
poses
a pollution problem in any flowing stream in Illinois.
Beyond
our previous decisions affecting the Fox River
and Lake Michigan,
we remain open to future evidence of nuisance
algae blooms in other
waters
of the state.
At present,
the limited evidence of phosphorus
pollution does not warrant
a
remedy
of
the
magnitude
of
a
state—wide
prohibition on phosphate detergents.
Nothing we do today restricts those Illinois
coirurtunities
along
the Fox River or which discharge sewage effluent
to Lake Michigan
or other municipalities which may be faced with nuisance algae growth
in their reservoirs
or lakes
from
acting
to reduce their local pollu-
tion problems
and to deal with their need to cut sewage treatment
costs.
Indeed,
the ability
to impress upon housekeepers
the need
to use discretion
in purchasing detergents would seem considerably
easier in
a local area when undertaken by
a local governing body than
would
he the
case if a statewide ban
of
phosphate
detergents
were
imposed.
We
do
not
rule
out
a
reopening
of
this
issue before the
Board
when
clearer
evidence
exists
of
a
threat
of
degradation of the
waters
of
Illinois
from
phosphorus
effluent.
Nor do we restrict the possibility of holding rule—making
hearings on
a proposal to ban
the
sale
of
phosphate
detergents
on
a
regional basis
in those
areas affected by eutrophication,
when
the
evidence
of
adequate
available
substitutes
for
phosphate
detergents
is
more
convincing.
The
record
in
this
case
demonstrates that
a
phosphate
detergent
ban
would
result
in
a further reduction
of the
total
pounds
of
phosphorus
discharged
to
a
receiving
body
of
water
even when phosphorus is removed at the sewage treatment plant in order
to meet an effluent standard
(R.l32)
.
Given
the
threat
that
bottom
deposits may pose
a considerable long—term eutrophication problem
(R.128,
129)
,
even if an effluent standard is being enforced in an
area suffering from nuisance algae blooms,
such
a regional ban on
phosphate detergents
could,
in
the
future, be
a necessary step to
reducing the total amount of phosphorus
discharged
to
an
over—enriched
body
of water.
By our existing regulations, we have endeavored
to
