ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 29,

1977

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY AMENDMENTS,

)

R74-l,

~-8~~9

HEXANE

(FREON)

SOLUBLES

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Goodman) :*

The original proposal in this matter (R74~l) was

filed

by the

Associated Milk’ Dealers,

Inc.,

on January

9,

1974,

requesting amend-

ment of existing standards in Rule 408(a)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollu-

tion,

as they apply to “Oil

(hexane solubles or equivalent)

~“

Two

additional proposals were received on August

2,

1974,

from Borden,

Inc.,

and the Soap and Detergent Association

(R74-~8and R74~9,

respectively).

At its meeting of August 29, 1974, the Board

n1id~t~

the

three proposals and authorized hearings.

An Interim Order was then

entered on July 24,

1975, however, granting p~oponents~motion to

cancel hearings which had been set.

Pursuant to a further motion by

the Associated Milk Dealers,

filed October

3,

1975,’ hearings were

reset, with the first two held on March

8,

1976,

~Chicago

and

April

5,

1976,

in Springfield.

On April

8,

1976,

the Board entered another Interim Order

denying the Environmental Protection Agency~smotion of March

29,

1976,

for dismissal.

An additional hearing was held on April

26,

1976,

in Chicago.

Proposed amendments

to the original proposals were then

received from the Environmental Protection Agency

(Novercther 13,

1976)

and the original proponents

(December 9,

1976).

These amended pro-

posals were the subject of a prehearing conference held on i)ecernber

7,

1976,

(open

to the public), and an additional public hearing held

Jaunary

24,

1977,

in Chicago.

*The Board wishes to thank Vincent

P.

Flood, Jr., Attorney, Hearing

Officer in this matter,

for his assistance

in the preparation and

drafting of this Opinion.

~cz~-5~

26-~39-

---

—2—

An Economic Impact Study,

as required

under

filed by the Institute for Environmental Quality c.~ ~

I.I.E.Q. Doc.

No.

77/17, Economic Impact of ProposcJ

~i~i

Water Pollution Regulations for Hexane Extractable Ma~e

—8,

—9.

Hearings on that study were held in Ch1

ago

and in Springfield on June

7,

1977.

In addition~,t~w~

reopened the record on the technical merits of

the ~v’

at the June

7, 1977 Springfield hearing.

THE PROPOSALS

The three original proposals were published

in

r

#91, dated September 11,

1974, with a summary of

the

rationale.

Because all the proponents concurred

ir

a

proposals, we n~ednot repeat them here;

instead,

we u~

each of the original proposals would have effectiveiv

“polar hexane extractable material”, alleged

to be L’~~

compatible with treatment in publicly owned

treatmen

~

quately regulated by the allegedly parallel

standarc~

Chapter

3 for deoxygenating wastes

(BOD5).

The

e~i~t~

would have been kept only for “non—polar hexane

ext~~

(allegedly refractory or mineral oil).

The amended proposals as published in

Environ~iv~

4~

#138

(December 14,

1976)

would, without totally

de~r4

hexane extractables, accomplish the same final

resu.

proposal of November 15,

1976, would allow dischargc~s

(15 mg/l)

levels

Eo4~both polar and non-polar

he~ane~

materials:

“Constituent

Storet Number

Oil

(Hexane

00550,

00556

Extractable Material)

00560

**Oil may be analytically separated

ii

non-polar components.

If such

separ~

neither of the components may exceed

mg/i polar hexane extractable

matet~

L.

non—polar hexane extractable materi.~

2

---

The proponents’

amended

proposal

is

much

the same

as the

Agency’s, but adds additional language adopted iron another regu-

latory proposal, R76-21,

submitted by the Institite for Environ-

mental Quality,

with regard to testing and avera/ing for compliance

determination:

“Constituent

Storet Number

Concentration

(mg/1)

Oil

(Hexane

00550,

00556

15,0*

Extractable Material)

00560

FOil may be analytically separated

:tn:o

its polar and

non-

polar con~onents.

if

such

separation is

done,

neither

of the components may exceed 15 mg/i

(i.e.,

15 mg/i

polar

hexane

extractable

materials

and

15 mg/I non~polar

hexane

extractable

materials).

Compliance

with

this

numerical

standard shall be determined on

the

basis

of

:24 hours com-

posite samples, averaged over any

consecutive

30 day

period;

provided,

however,

no

single

24

hour

composite

shall be

greater

than

2

times

the

numerical standard

and

no grab sample shall be greater than

5 times

the

numerical

standard..”

Additional proposals were submitted by the

National

Renderers

Association

(R,637)

and Mr. Clark Rose,

an Interested private citizen,

(R.668).

In essence,

these proposals would have called for individual

determinations of biodegradability for each

discharger’s

effluent.

While the concept behind these proposals may be

superior to

the less-

precise, general ~1~ssiFi~tinns

of “polar”

and ~‘r~on~polar”,

such

individual testing was generally conceded to

be unworkable,

(e.g.,

R.65l).

The participants

in this matter contested strongly a

definition

of biodegradability; an adequate test

for

biodegradability

(see discussion below)

is

simply

not

supported

by the record..

THE

ISSUES

Surprisingly,

none

of

the

original

proponents,

and few

members

of

the

Associated

Milk

Dealers

or

the

Soap

and

Detergent

Association,

would

be

directly

affected

by

the

proposed

regulatory change,*

In-

se~ad,with the notable exception of the Metropolitan Sanitary

Disttict

of

Greater

Chicago

(MSD),

most

of

those

participating in

this matter either discharge to sewers tributary

to

publicly

owned

treatment works, or represent such sewer dischargers.

(In addition

*Inagmuch

as

nearly

all

participants

in

this proceeding concurred in

the

Miended

Proposal

of

December

9,

1976,

set

forth above, we

shall

limit

our

discussion

to

that

proposal,

unless

noted

otherwise.

---

to the proponents, MSD and the

National

R.r’

e

mitted considerable testimony and documentary e~

there are

few major

direct

dischargexTs or was~ew~

using fats and oils.

See,

Ex.. E-l,

IIEQ Doe. No

Table

11.

The reason why

indirect

disLhargers br~ugt’

the

Board,

and

carried

the burden at hearing,

~

original

proposals:

our

limitations on hexane

by

municipal

treatment

works

require

that

the

merit

works

stringently

limit,

in turn, ~iischa~es

sewers.

For example, MSD’s

ordinance

limits

ht~~~

discharges to 100 mg/i;

other municipa1iti~esor sina~

.

have even lower

limitations,

(Id.,

Table

~‘,

at

charge limitations,

the

proponents

clam,

xesu~.tii

ey1

unnecessary pretreatment

requirements, of little ox

ii

quality of the

waterways

to

which the treatme~

.

discharge.

The only reason

such

pretreatment

etctnu

it is argued,

is to

allow

municipal

dischargers

cC.

tions;

it

is alleged

that

they

serve no other purpn~.

The

proponents

argued that polar bexane CoIL

is’

equivalent,

as will

be discussed below

are made c~

grease arid oils of animal or

vegetable origin, and a~

Being biodegradable,

and

allegedly

anaiogous ~v

treatment purposes, polar

hexane

solubles are ai~.e~.d

nents to be more properly

treated in municipal trecit en

not by sewer dischargers.

At

the initial hearings

c~~

proposals, the existing BOD5

1imit~ationwas

c?

~J1~G

adequate protection for

the receiving water~ a.~tnu

accepted the Agency~s

proposed limit of 15

ng’I Lox

c~

solubles,

the proponents

never abandoned this cant u

In light of

these

contentions,

the tjlloninc

resolved:

*

1.

What

is the present

stdte of

~ater

regard to

hexane

extractable

materials?

2.

Would a

regulatory

amEndment

iOOi.?

allowed or actual

discharges~~

3.

How would

such increases,

lx.

~.ounc

water quality?

*It should

be~c1~that

exxstein.e

c

av~

for treatment

cx pretreatrntnt was

c

seriously

raised

during

thess

‘r~

~w~ed tq~.

)7~

/~

---

—5—

4,

What

would be

the

economic

effects,

i

treatment

cos~sfor sewer

dischargers,

or

existing

re~udtio~, as

compared

to

the

ec~~

of the

amended

proposal?*

5.

In light

of

the above,

-that

regulator

(unchanged,

arendt’d

proposal,

or some

other

warranted?

6.

How

should compliance with the adopte

if

any

—

-

be

measured?

MEASUREMENT

Turning

fitst

o tF~e

last of those

issues,

t

general

consensus

that

‘oil

(hexane

solubles

or

as

presently

limited in Rule 408(a),

does

not cons.~.

x

discrete,

identifiable

pollutant.

Rather, the n

in

ted

are defined by

the

test procedure.

“Oil”,

as

presen

y

regulated,

covers

a

wiuc

i

chemicals,

compounds

and physical

states.

Hexan.

~n.~1ude

“hydrocarbons,

hign

molecular

weight

fatty

acici

lipids.

The

major

fractions,,

in

sewages have

e

comprised of

glycerides

and fatty

acids or sa~

s

~

is

citation

omitted

ne long

chain fatty

acids

~i

lauric, palmitic,

stea~.c,

oleic

and

linoleic

a

and Lordi,

Hexane

~xfr

fF3h1~~Materials and

Prc

~i

tu-ucipal

Treatment

Plants,

Repcrt No.

75-9,

N

rnpc~1if~n~

x~,trict

of

Greater

Chicago,

May

1975, at

1.

As noted

i

~.

N

~.hods

for the

Exarninati.on

of Water and

Waste

Water,

..

i ~on

(1971),

unlike some

con~t utents

--

which

represen

chemical

eleme.uts,

lorib,

compounds

or

grou~,

pounds

--

greases are

in effect defined

by toe

used for

their determination.

(Part 209,)

~It was argued

that

ti c Board

should

not

cons

ide

economic

effects

of changes

in pretreatment

stard..

s

,

oats,

based on the

contention that

such standards

are

u..~

I

c. us;

a

change in the

Board

a

standards

will not

necessa~

,.

~

c~mmen-

surate changes

in

~

requirements

by

ub

conichargera.

We disagree:

(1)

the Board

welcomes anyone

with

3~

properly

presented data

to participate in

Regulatory

mat

c

3

2)

while

changes in ~

L~L.,utizLstandards

may not

be

req

‘~

Boird

action

on direct

discharge limits, such

changes

constit,

e

I

ossibi—

lity, and have a

valid

connection

to the

pr~~n~f

~

a

~

of

economic and/or

environmental

potential

effects

±~rb~vtr~

~onsidera-

tion.

See,

~

Ex.

E-l,

---

In

that

same passage,

St~’p4ard~

Methods notes that grease may “be

said to include fatty acia~, sàaps,

fate, waxes,

oils

and any other

material which is extracted by these solvents from an acidified

sample and which

is

•.“

Id.

The problem of definition here is further complicated by the

fact that “hexane solubles” may be further separatea into polar and

non—polar components.

As noted above, it is the crux of the pro-

ponents case that polar hexane solujles are alleq~oto be, generally,

of animal or vegetable origin and readily biodegradable; the acronym

FOG

(fats,

oils and grease)

was generally used to indicate the polar,

“biodegradable”

fraction.

However,

‘“organic substances other than grease and oil are

recovered by the techniqi.~suggested in Standard Methods...long

chain carbon compounds used by industry as lubricants and emulsifiers

may

not be completely recovered,

and short chain hydrocarbons and

simple aromatics may be lost by the partition gravimetric method of

recovery.”

(Ex.

E-l, at 8).

There was considerable discussion on

this issue at hearing, and witnesses for the proponents agreed that

the polar/non—polar distinction is not perfect in this regard.

The

distinction is, however,

generally valid.

Further muddling the E~easurementissue

is the fact that the

Agency’s amended proposal., and the proponents amended proposal,

both

would allow the use of three different test procedures, none

involving hexane extraction;

instead,

freon

(trichlorotrifluoro-

ethane)

extraction is used?

Finally, in this regard,

Dr. James W. Patterson testified on

behalf of the Illinois Effluent Standards Advisory Group

(IESAG) on

the subject of averaging.

As noted above,

the amended

proposals

before the Board would allow compliance

to be based

on

24-hour

composite samples averaged over any consecutive ~

d. ~ period, with

individual 24-hour composites limited to two times

cue numerical

standard, and grab samples limited to five times the numerical

standard.

As Dr. Patterson noted,

(R.699), the “proocsed averaging

procedure does represent a relaxation

of

the standard)

to an extent.”

However, while such averaging would allow half

the

composite samples

to be “quite hight’,

at least half would also have ~c he quite low,

“to average out.”

(id.)

With some reservations,

(as noted below), we fecI

bhat the pro-

With regard to the two new STORET numbers oroocaud (00550 being

3~1~

C7

~

---

7—

presently

used)

the Board has

previously

stat~

The

STORI £ materials

themselves

are

alternative methods are allowed, and

105 ex~essly so stat~es,

The

STOREI

serves tnly to aid in

definition

and

tate comparison of data....In the Ma te

Water

Q~j~

Standards_RevT~T5ns,R7O

~

PCB 40i7~T

(1972).

By

specifying additional STORET numbs

Board

will,

in effect

merely

be

adding

Jitio

those

already

potentially defined under

dET

noted

above,

the testing

procedure

define~

the

case,

rather

tRIm tt~reverse

Rule 105, An~

allow

the

use of standard methods, or “other geis

a

procedures.”

While the Board has generally stat

II

agree

to

give such decisive authority to one pa

the

Board

has generally

allowed

the

Agency to de

testing

standards.

3 PCB

at

403;

see

In

the

Mite

!2~tion~,

R73—1l and 12,

14

PCB

661,

675

(l9~4)

While it is oavious from the record that

RI

numbers give different testing results,

(e.g.

667;

Ex.

E-1 at

8),

it is assumed that a disc

testing method quantifying all

as nearly a

x’~

of its discharges;

i.e., that method giving ti

~

results

for

the discharger.

With

regard to the averaging issue,

testtim

(January

24, 19”7)

indicates that

the

requested

I

engineering

practice,

for

design,

economic

a

d

Because

influents

exhibit

strong

variabilit1,

(e

and

Lordi,

~

the present averaging systerl r~

design

of

treatment plants

to

avoid

violation,

qi

I

benef it

to the receiving stream;

it

seems

impracti

treatment

plant design to prevent violation be an

variability,

at a much lower figure than our ef~

With

regard

to a

distinction

between

“polar

materials,

the record also supports change in

lid

the

test

is

far from perfect,

inasmuch as some pol

not

biodegradable,

(e.g..,

R..662),

the

presence

of

compounds

in

the types of

wastes

likely

to

be

riecis

pected,

(R.601).

26~5

•

ORET

62

3,

~~at

~

Ie~

o a Je

I~

‘~rson

aed good

y

~oses,

QI

ue

lUng

~ ax reme

over-

e

esultant

xc

uire

that

b

cu

of such

.,

i

~.

qlile

a

al is

c.

a h

r,

harmful

iS

iot ex—

the

uild

td

s

ciniot

r versy,”

I

tical

S

---

—8—

a

,

the

polar materials are

“more

r

a

s~

4)

Despite

apparent

opposi~T~nat

the

i

the

Pç~cn

..y

agreed

with

proponents contention a

t

y

solo

a

a

.lose

of the record,

(id.).

~.st

a

a

~ ra

i

a

ccl

much

of the Petitioners’

case,

a

1

3

190)

While

there ~wisopposition

t

tI

I

a

Hug

and

Lordi,

~

at

59;

but

see,

i

of

a

evidence

indicates

a

valid correlatior

bs

polar)

content

and

biodegradability.

d

tirctiou

between

the two is justified.

WATER QUALITY

xc

is

water

quality standard

for

hexane

stead,

Rule 203(a) prohibits,

“...vis

ral

so

turbidity,

or matter in concentrations

r

C

rmfui

to

human,

animal, plant or aquat~

s

ra

coxrpliarce

with

this standard,

the

Board

enactci

t.

li

402,

pxoh~bitingviolation of

water

quality

a

40

o±±enb~~i!2hares,

which requires

that

~i

i~ oil,

re

urn..

,color, odor and

turbidity

must

be

r

dii

a

~o

ci

w

ci~ levels.’

i

eristirig

15

mg/i limitation on oil

(hexare

)

aleitj

was

adopted because,

“the

nuisance

va

c

ii

x

a

s

a

it,

together

with

its

adverse

effects

on

aquat

~LiIci

a

oil

discharges

be

kept

to

a

minimum,”

3

PCB

•41

..

1

uci

dci

r

ceo

d

was

clear

that such “nuisance value”

is

n

~

in

a

absence

of

oil

spills or plant malfunctions,

tIe

i

us

whether

piesent

discharges

or

those

under

the

proposcid

arc

idm

nt

~ouId

‘ause

dan4. e

to

aquatic

life.

ole

u

tuck

quantity

of

hexane-or-freon soluble

~r

1

s~yci is

not

known;

sampling

is

not

performed

Lj

I

Ge.

~

~

Survey,

the

Agency,

U.S.

EPA

or

the

Illino

~,

tta~

cy

Uncontested

Testimony by Dr. Bates cited

studs

t

the

feet

that

freon

extractable materials are not

consider

c

Ia

a

pr

blem

in

Illinois.

Dr.

Booman, assuming that

BOB-

liii

4a

~ld

be

adequate

to cover freon soluble discharges

.~t I ~d

tic.

at

the

~vels

present...in

question....oils

and

r

ase

o

an

rz~a

o

egetable

origin have no other adverse

so.

e~t~

r

qualic

‘fe.

‘

(R

475).

Similar testimony was received

Ixon

‘.ttarson

Ther.

sas

little

valid testimony with regard

t

th

uant.itati.ve

r

quai

ty

effects

of

a

regulatory change.

Dr

B~:es,

at

the

7-W~7

---

—9—

economic

impact

hearings,

stated

that

the

maximum

expectable

in-

crease

in freon soluble levels in Illinois waterways would be

1

mg/i.

Although

non-polar

freon

solubies

might

be

toxic

to

some

aquatic

life

forms at this level,

most

freon

extractable

materials

discharges

are

polar,

(R.l2,

Economic

Impact).

There

is

also

a

stronger

water

quality-based

argument

supporting

the

Proposals.

In

fact,

many

(if

not

most)

municipal

and

direct

dis-

chargers

are

not

in

compliance with existing FEM standards;

that

being

the

case,

it

is

unlikely

that

FEM

levels

in

waterways

would

increase

by

anywhere

near

the

maximum

amounts

propounded

by

the

Institute’s

contractor.

In

essence,

the

proposal

can

be

justified

as

an

attempt

to legitimize

the

present

situation,

there

being

no

indicated

environ-

mental damage occurring under the present situation.

This analysis was also supported by testimony for MSD by Dr.

Lue-Hing.

He stated

that present discharges

by

the

MSD

are

not

causing a water quality problem,

(R.69l),

and would be in compliance

under the proposed regulation,

(R.690).

Such

testimony was supported

by MSD data and witnesses

for the

proponents

showing that municipal

sewage

is largely composed of

polar HEM

(FEM).

That being the case,

there is no

information before the Board

indicating that the proposed

regulation

would harm water quality or

prove detrimental

to aquatic life.

ECONOMIC

EFFECTS

The

Institute’s

economic

impact

study,

Ex.

E-l,

supported the

regulatory

proposal.

The

data

on

which

such support

was

based,

how-

ever, was also valuable for analysis

because it presented a

range of

potential economic and environmental

effects.

The Institute’s study

presented

the

cost

and

benefits associ-

ated with three potential Board decisions:

(1)

dismissal of the

Proposals;

(2)

enactment of the amended proposal, with subsequent

elimination of local ordinances limiting discharge of oils into

sewer systems

(but assuming primary treatment required and adequate

biological capacity

at receiving treatment

works); and

(3) enactment

of the amended proposal, without relaxation

of sewer

discharge

ordinances by municipal dischargers.

Under the first

of those

scenarios,

incremental capital, opera-

ting and maintenance

costs

were expected to

be

$800,000-l,700,000

per year, with

neglible benefits,

Under scenario

two, estimated

---

—10—

savings

would

be

between

$20,000,000

and

~22,000

~i

.

~4..L

year,

and $12,000,000

per

year

thereafter.

Under

the

t~.

0

~.e

of

assump-

tions, benefits

front

reduced

operating

costs

of

a’

a

dI~ohargers

were

estimated

between

$31,000

and

$110,000

per

y~.aL

(xc

aldition

to

elimination

of

the

$800,000—$l,700,000

cost

under

ciO4...

ar

c

one).

Because

we

cannot

assume

that.

municipal

discharge.~s

ii

in

fact

eliminate

sewer

discharge

ordinances,

it

is

I’RIiy

‘~rt the

actual

benefits

which

might

be

realized

would

fail

ciOffiC

-xc

between

those

presented

in

scenario

two

and

scenario

thrso~

The

impact

on

individual

firms,

whether

direct

disehargers

or

sewer

dischargers,

would

vary

greatly,

often

depend~.ng

OIL

firm

size.

While

the

net

increase

in

profits

for

large

firms

would

be

in

the

realm

of

1”,

and

as

much

as

5

for

“medium

size

F~h1i~hm~nfs”,

the

profits

froint

small

firms

could rise as

much

as

20

and

~extra

small esf~b1ic~hm~nts”

might

increase profits by

as

nuci

as

100

(based on extremely low profit levels at present)

the study found

that enactment of the amended

proposal

would tend t

increase compe-

tition and

“keep

prices from rising as rapidly as

they

otherwise

would....”

(Dr. Bates,

R.25—26, June 6,

1977)..

With regard to the

various factors set

forth

in

..~.ctid4.6(b)

of the Act,

the study specifically discussed

each,

C

Ve.~ing poten-

tial benefits

arid costs.

For

both

scenario

1

and

~canario

2,

the

study found that damages to the

environment

and rexated

so

iai

activities,

in connection with each economic segment, w~uldbe

either “none” or

“insignifi~n1-”,

Increased

costs would result

only from increased testing expenditures

(as much as

$4’~000 annually)

and increased sewer use charges,

(up

to

$2,137,000

While the rtudy’s environmental findings or

dciSU

ion~axe of

course not conclusive,

they parallel closely the evide

e evailabie

to the Board.

Our analysis of

those

factors suppo ts tIe study’s

economic findings, and

-

in

turn

-

the

amended proposal.

THE REGULATION

As can be seen from the

analysis above,

enactmert of the amended

proposal would result in little,

if indeed any,

damage

I

tie

environ-

ment..

On the other hand,

the

positive economic

inpa~’

ot

a regulatory

change would be significant..

A change in the regulatiar

is

there—

£ore, warranted.

26-~64B

---

The proposal

which

we

11

s

ot

toe~

Final Draft is

that filed

by

RI

ponents

a

was the intention

of

the

proporar

a,

it

i~ en.

mony

presented

before

that

date

and

the

terti

brought

was

designed

solely

t

ide

fuith

r

question

raised

with

regard

~

amended

p

of

using

“30-day”

aver~ging

pe

~.

as

opr°~

periods;

the

MSD

alleged,

(R

6

Econ

mic

Inutci

t

averaging

period

would

be

more

consistent

witr

quirements.

MSD

has

also

xaisc-d

thxs

isioe

r

the

provision

here.

Since

ii

‘~

~ontersoino

butted, we

shall adopt a

“monthly

averac’e

rc’

should be

adopted in R76

21,

consisteic’

term

“30-day

average”

is

adopted

there,

to

change

this

provision

At

any

rate

it

is

sentence of

the proposal

~idopf ad

h~~’rp

tl’~

p

similar provision

be

adooted

We

shall also,

consistent

w’tI

~

t

stir

tables”

rather than ‘hexane

ext

ac’

ables

The

original

propor~ents

t

-

I

so.-’

Association,

the

Metropiditar

“~-~~r

tr

and all

other participants

ar~

be

~.r.er’d~

their presentations,

in an a ~‘s

i~Lh~snot

studied.

.~.

6.

V

iP

testi

-,

~

extly

ci

-

~rting

re~

t

‘~eurce of

‘~

t

j

unre—

t

‘~hat

term

‘a)rai

If

the

a

iratter

tIe

final

I

rc

P71

21’

x

y

of

‘~.

wide.

This Opinion

ns1~i~-nt~

a

findh”~~

~

of

law

of the Board

in

thic

c

I,

Christan L,

Moffett,

~ ide.

iiu

“

‘

n

nrrol

Board,

hereby

certify

the

al

v~

idn

o

r~’

~

.d.o~

~

the

~c4’~

day

-f

~

-

-

I

‘~

~.

A

Ti)

~

D

‘—:i

‘~4

3.~7~i~b