ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 18, 1982
    ALTON WATER CO.,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 82—13
    CONCURRING OPINION (by J.D. Dumel le):
    My reasons for concurring in this matter are the failure
    of the petitioner to present water quality levels computed
    at the edge of the mixing zone and the absence of a full
    analysis as to the effects,
    if any,
    upon aquatic life from
    the alum discharge.
    Exhibit
    1 is the Illinois
    on the subject water treatment
    report
    “a 10
    mixing”
    is used.
    whether or not this 10
    figure
    rules which require that water
    the edge of the mixing
    zone.
    State Water Survey’s report
    plant.
    On p. 21 of this
    No statement is given as to
    is equivalent to the Board’s
    quality standards be met at
    Secondly, the aluminum concentration in the water re-
    sulting from the estimated discharge of 150 lbs. of alum
    (alum sulfate) is not computed nor compared to aquatic life
    tolerance levels.
    Does the aluminum ionize?
    Or does the
    excess alum (that not tied up in
    f1cc)
    ionize?
    The record
    is silent.
    The Board does not have a specific water quality
    standard for aluminum but does have prohibit:
    substances toxic to aquatic
    life.
    chairman
    I,
    Christan L. Moffet,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hreby certify the above Concurring Opinion
    was submitted on the
    ~day
    of August,
    1982.
    Christan L. Mo~~t,Clerk
    Illinois Pollut±’onControl Board
    47-535

    Back to top