ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
January
6, 1972
In the Matter of
)
EFFLUENT
CRITERIA
)
R70-8
In the
Matter
of
WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
)
R71-14
REVISIONS
In
the Matter
of
WATER
QUALITYSTANDARDS
)
R71-20
REVISIONS
FOR
INTRASTATE
)
WATERS
(SWB-14)
)
Supplemental
Statement
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
This
is
a belated
filing
of
my
comments
on
this extremely
important
set
of
effluent
standards
which I heartily
endorse.
Mr.
Curri&s
excellent
opinion
deals
well with the reasons
for effluent
standards
and the status
of reasonable
technology
for
achieving those
standards.
My remarks
which follow
cover
these
topics:
1.
Certain
effluent
standards,
which
as
adopted,
could
have
and
should
have been tighter
based
on the record
in this proceeding
or
on
the
exercise
of prudence.
2.
The
effluent
standards
in some
cases
were
adjusted
to
an
individual industry’s
need which
could
have been better
left
to the
variance
procedure
for
solution.
3.
Effluent
standards
should be
revised
soon after
two major
Federal
documents
are
issued this
year.
4.
A possible
conflict
exists
with ORSANCO
standards.
3
429
GENERAL
The
publication
‘~ToxicSubstances’t
by the
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
(April 1971)
capsules
the difficulty
in
standards-setting
with this
pass age
The
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
Registry
Number
System
has registered
some
1. 8
million
chemical
compounds,
and the list
is
growing by
the
addition
of
250, 000
chemicals
each
year.
Approximately
300 to
500 new
chemical
compounds
are
introduced
annually
into
commercial
use.
(p.
3)
It would
be unrealistic
to expect
the Board
to
enact
standards
(either
effluent
or
water
quality)
on
every
chemical
and for various
combinations
with others.
For
this
reason,
narrative
standards
which
proscribe
materials
causing
harm
are
always
necessary
and are
the first
and most
general
line
of
defense
of our water
environment.
Second
come
water
quality
standards
which gear
amounts
of
chemicals
to
known effects
or
to
qualities
which
are
desired
or
are
set to
prevent
degrada-
tion.
Water
quality
standards
are
difficult
to
enforce
if multiple
sources
are
present.
The third
line then becomes
effluent
standards
which are
relatively
easy
to enforce
and ideally are
geared
to
achieving water
quality
standards.
But time
consuming
and expensive
river
basin
studies
are
needed to relate
effluent standards
exactly to
water
quality
standards.
A base
level
of treatment
is
desirable
as
a first
cut toward
cleaning
the
waters
of Illinois.
The
Council
on Environmental
Quality
in its
report
cited
above
gives
an
excellent
example
of the
complications
caused
by
synergism.
Synergism
is
another
complicating
interaction.
Two or
more
compounds
acting together
may
have
an
effect
on
organisms
greater
than the
sum
of their
separate
effects.
For
example,
the
toxic
effects
of mercuric
salts
are
accen-
tuated
by
the presence
of trace
amounts
of
copper.
Cadmium
acts
as
a synergist
with
zinc
and
cyanide
in the
aquatic
environment
to
increase
toxicity.
(pp.
8-9)
3
—
430
To
me,
what
is extremely
important,
is that
“good treatment”
may keep
out of Illinois water substances about whose synergistic effects we know
little and in all probability will never
know.
Prevention is a better
remedy than a costly cure
or a cure which is never applied because the
problem is not recognized.
Thus where a choice in this proceeding has to be made between two
levels of treatment, both reasonable in cost,
I would lean toward the tighter
standard on the ground that we ought to keep out of the environment all sub-
stances
that
may be harmful.
1.
Harmful
Substances
The
majority
opinion,
in which
I join,
dealt at length with the
testimony
of Dr.
Wesley
Pipes
of Northwestern
University
(pp.
9-10).
Dr.
Pipes listed
seven
elements
“
which function
only as
toxic
agents
(and)
should be eliminated
from the water as much as possible.”
He
goes on to list barium, cadmium, lead, chromium, mercury, selenium
and
silver
as
examples
of these
toxic
agents.
The
regulation
adopts
2. 0 mg/l
as
a
standard
for
barium.
Weston
stated that
barium
is
readily
reduced to levels
of
1. to
2 mg/I
(see
Currie
opinion,
p.
12).
I
would have
set
a
standard
of
1. 0 mg/I.
This
would also
have made
low
flow
streams
with
high barium
flows
usable
for
drinking
water
supplies
without
dilution.
The
effluent
standard
for
cadmium
as
adopted was
0.
15 mg/I.
Cadmium
is
highly toxic
as
the
Currie
opinion
points
out
(p.
13).
The
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
report
mentioned
above
states
Some
preliminary
studies
indicate
that
exposure
to
low levels
of
cadmium
from
sources
present
in the
environment
may lead to hypertension
and
heart
disease
and perhaps
to
cancer.
(p.
11)
The
synergism
of
cadmium
with
zinc
and cyanide
in the
aquatic
environment
resulting
in increased
toxicity
has been
mentioned
earlier.
All
of the
known effects
of
cadmium,
in my opinion,
place
it
in
a category
very
similar
to that
of mercury.
It appears
to
be a highly
dangerous
metal that
ought
to be kept
out
of the
environment
to
the greatest
extent
possible.
I would have opted for the
level
of
0.
01
mg/l
as
a cadmium
effluent
standard
as
suggested
by
Dodge
in this
record.
Again since
the
0.
01
mg/l
level
is
the
drinking
water
supply
standard
it
would
make
possible
this use for
low flow streams
into
which high volumes
of cadmium-
bearing
effluents
are
discharged.
Prudence
calls
for
cadmium
control.
3
—
The
regulation
adopts
1.
0 mg/l
for trivalent
chromium
and
0.
3 mg/i
for
hexavalent
chromium.
I would have
adopted
0.
1 mg/i
for
each
type of
chromium
based
upon
the
clear
statement
in the record
by
Dr.
James
W.
Patterson
and Dr.
Roger
A.
Minear
of
the Illinois
Institute
of Technology.
In their
study
“Wastewater
Treatment
Technology”
published in
August
1971
by
the
Illinois
Institute
for Environmental
Quality
and
a part
of this record
they describe
a
1959 report
of an industrial
plant
which
discharged
zero
hexavalent
and
0. 06
mg/i
trivalent
chromium
(p.
44).
It seems
reasonable
to assume
that technology
would
have improved
chromium
removal
techni-
ques
in the past
13 years
so the
0.
1
mg/i
for each form
of
chromium
seems
an eminently
justifiable
level
of treatment.
And as
before,
the
0.
1 mg/l
level
would
approach
drinking
water
standards.
An effluent
standard
of
0.
1 mg/i
for lead
has been
adopted in this
proceeding.
The
drinking
water
standard
is
50
of this
level
or
0. 05
mg/i.
Patterson
and Minear
in their
report
cited
above
state
Little
data
is
available
on
effluent
lead values
after
treatment
costs
have been found.
However,
the
extreme, insolubiities
of both lead hydroxide
and lead
carbonate,
the
two most
common preci-
pitation
products,
would indicate
that
good
conversion
of
dissolved
lead to
insoluble lead
should be
achieved.
(p.
133)
My preference
would have
been for
the tighter
0. 05
mg/i
standard.
The
Council
on
Environmental
Quality report
states
•
.
.
the
critical
question
today
is
whether
the total
body
burden
produced
by inhaling
air
polluted
with
lead
and by
drinking
water
containing
small
amounts
of lead
is
sufficiently
large
to produce
any adverse
effects.
The
data
are
not
conclusive,
but
in the
opinion of at least
one recognized
expert,
“There
is
little
doubt that
at the present
rate
of pollution,
diseases
due to lead toxicity
will
emerge
within
a few years.”
The
expert
referred
to above
is
Dr.
Henry
A.
Schroeder,
a physician
at Dartmouth
Medical
College,
who has
done
a great
deal
of research
into trace
metal
toxicity.
The
recent
IIEQ work
“A
Study of
Environmental
Pollution
by
Lead”
(November
1971)
states
Other
authorities
believe
that biological
changes
are
exhibited
at
all
lower
exposures
(to lead),
that
no threshold
exists
below which
no
damage
results.
(p.
91)
3
—
432
One
can
argue
that the
above
statements
have merit
only
when
applied
to the lead
level
at the point
of
consumption,
i. e.
in the
drinking
water
supply.
But
we
do
not
know for
certain the
concentration
mechanisms
of biota
on
lead.
Prudence
would say that
we ought
to keep
as
much
lead
out
of the
environment
as
we reasonably
can.
The mercury
standard
of
0. 0005
mg/l
developed
in
R70-5
has been
retained.
It
is
interesting
to
note that
the
latest
draft
of the
new Federal
drinking
water
standards
discussed
later
has
lowered
the
tentative
level
of
0. 005
mg/i
for
mercury
to
0. 002
mg/I
and is
thus
now
much
closer
to
the
year-old
Illinois
standard.
The
mercury
standard
is
a
good
example
of this
Board’s
action
on
a
no
threshold”
and
cumulative
pollutant.
The
same
sort
of prudence
is
called
for
in
similar
situations
with other
pollutants.
The
effluent
standard
for
selenium
adopted
in this
standard
was
1. 0
mg/i.
The
drinking
water
supply
standard
is
0.
01
mg/i
and
Dodge
testified
on
this
record
that
the
tighter
figure
could be
achieved
as
an
effluent
standard,
Because
of the
toxicity
of
selenium
which
is
recognized
in
the
Currie
opinion
(p.
18)
1
would have
enacted
the
0.
01
mg/i
standard
stated
to
be
attainable
by
Dodge.
Again,
this
level
might
make
certain
streams
usable
directly
as
drinking
water
supplies.
The
standard
for
effluents
in
Illinois
for
silver
is
adopted
here
as
0.
1
mg/i.
The
drinking
water
supply
limit
is
0. 05
mg/i
or
50
as
much
and
is
the
value
I
would
have
desired.
The
Patterson-Minear
report
states
The
value
of
silver
makes
recovery
from
process
streams
attractive..,
co-precipitation
with other
metal
hydroxides
under
alkaline
conditions
improves
silver
removal
to
less
than
0.
1 mg/i...
.
Very
low
residual
silver
concentrations
are
possible
with
ion
exchange.
(p.
229)
The
above
indicates
to
me
that
0. 05
mg/i
is
a technically
feasible
and
economically
reasonable
effluent
standard
for
silver.
And
since
silver
is
a precious
metal
in
short
supply
such
a standard
would
directly
follow
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act purpose
“to promote
the
development
of technology
for
environmental
protection
and
conservation
of natural
resources.
‘
Sect.
2(a)4
This
completes
an
analysis
of the
seven
elements
which
Dr.
Pipes
stated
“should
be
eliminated
from
the
water
as
much
as
possible.”
3—433
2.
Standards
or
Variances?
One
of the dilemmas
faced
in setting
a standard
is
the
problem
of
how
much
reliance
to place
upon
a single
industry’s
testimony.
Are
the
facts
alleged
true
industry-wide
or
a problem
unique
to that
plant
with
its
own
special
equipment
and processes?
In this
proceeding
there
appear
five
effluent
standards
which
were
set
based
wholly or
partly
on
a single
industry’s
testimony.
To
examine
each
in detail
would
require
too
much
in time
and
space,
I
will
list
the
parameters
here
and
ask
that
a revision
to these
standards
investigate
more
fully the
individual
plant
question.
If a standard
cannot
he
met,
except
by
unreasonable
costs,
at
an individual
plant,
then
a variance
is
the
mechanism
to use.
And
this
variance
could
well
he
a perpetual
variance,
renewed
from
year
to year
until
the
plant
has
been
retired.
This
procedure
has
the
advantage
of
ensuring
that
new plants
will
be
built
to
the tighter
(and also
feasible)
standard,
The
arsenic
standard
of
0. 25
mg/I.
is
based
partly
on
the
Abbott
Laboratories
testimony
a~dis
500
of the
drinking
water
standard.
The
copper
standard
of
1. 0
mg/l
appears
to have
been
based
largely
upon
the
Olin
Corporation
testimony.
The
Currie
opinion
(p.
14) quotes
Patterson
as
stating
that
0.
1
to
0,
3
mg/I
are
achievable
and
Weston
as
stating
that
0.
5
mg/l
can be
reached
for
costs
comparable
for
removal
to other
metals
regulated
by this
proceeding.
The
fluoride
standard
of
2.
5
mg/i
is
based
to
a large
extent
upon
Olin
Corporation
testimony
for
its
Joliet
fertilizer
plant.
Both Weston
and
Dodge
stated
that
1,0
mg/I
was
readily
achievable
though
Patterson.did
not.
The
manganese
standard
of
1. 0
mg/i
seems
to
be
based
entirely
upon
the
Carus
Chemical
Company
testimony.
Patterson
and
Weston
indi-
cate
that
0. 05
mg/i
can
be
achieved
but
there
is
some
doubt
as
to
applica-
bility
of this
standard
to
industrial
wastewaters.
The
phenol
standard
of 0.
3
mg/i
seems
to
be
based
entirely
upon
the
Monsanto
Corporation
testimony.
The
drinking
water
supply
standard
is
0.
001
mg/i
and
consequently
a stream
flow
300
times
that
of
an
effluent
at the
maximum
phenol
standard
is
required
to
achieve
this
use,
Patterson
and
Minear
in their
report
show
that
high
phenol
concentrations
are
attractive
from
an
economic
standpoint
for
recovery
(p.
197-200),
Thus
high levels
phenols
(
500
mg/i)
can be
dropped
from
consideration
here
since
their
treatment
pays
for
itself,
And
intermediate
levels
(5-500
mg/i)
appear
to
cost
about the
same
as
sewage
to treat
(p.
203-4)
which
(at
10
cents
per
1000
3
—
434
gallons)
we
would
agree
is
not
an
excessive
cost.
We
are
thus
left
with
the
consideration
of the
low levels
of
phenolic
wastes
(under
5
mg/i).
And
the
Patterson
evidence
seems
to
indicate
costs
of
from.
4
to
15
cents
per
1000
gallons
(Fig.
6,
p.
211)
depending
upon
the
flow,
These
do
not
seem
to
be
excessive
costs
even
when
added to the
previous
iO
cents
per
1000
gallons
and
seem
greatly
at
variance
with the
Monsanto
figure
of
$1. 25
per
1000
gallons
additional
cost
to
reduce
phenols
from
0.
3
mg/i
to
0,1
mg/i,
3.
Effluent
Standard
Revision
Needed
Two
major
Federal
documents
will
be
issued
in
1972.
The
revision
of the
1962
Public
Health
Service
Drinking
Water
Standards
is
anticipated
in June
1972.
This
new
edition,
incorporating
the
latest
findings
on
effects
of pollutants
in
water,
is
.expected
to include
some
parameters
such
as
sodium,
that
have
never
before
been
listed.
These
effluent
standards
should
be revised
in light
of this
new
information.
Similarly,
the
1972
updating
of
the
1968
Water
Quality
Criteria
is
expected
from
the
Federal
government
in September
1972,
This
document
will
in all
probability,
contain
new
parameters
and
new
numerical
levels,
all
of which
should
be
considered
in
a revision
to these
effluent
standards.
The
list
of
“Threshold
Limit
Values,
‘
which
contains
more
than
500
pollutants,
is
revised
annually
by the
American
Conference
of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists.
Annual
revision
of’
all
standards,
whether
effluent
or
water
quality
is
a
desirable
goal.
In
this
way
the latest
scientific
knowledge
is
embodied
into
regulation.
And
plants
which
may
be
otherwise
subject
to
costly
retrofitting
may
be
caught
at
the
pre-design
stage
by
frequent
revisions.
4.
The
ORSANCO
Effluent
Standards
Illinois
is
a party
to
the
Ohio
River
compact
(ORSANCO)
and is
bound
by the
regulations
issued
by
that
body.
Effluent
standards
have
been promul-
gated
by
ORSANCO
which
generally
are
tighter
than
those
here
enacted.
While
most
of
Illinois
industry
is
not located
along
the
Ohio
River
it
is
still
a
confusing
situation
to have
two
sets
of
effluent
standards
legally
effective
in the
state.
President
Nixon’s
Message
on
the
Environment
of February
8,
1971
states
I
again
propose
that
Federal-State
water
quality
standards
be
revised
to
impose
precise
effluent
3—435
limitations
on
both
industrial
and
municipal
sources.
If this
power
to
set
effluent
standards,
is
given
to
the
Federal
government,
then
Illinois
may be
subjected
to
a third
set
of
standards
which
will
make
simplification
of
standards
all
the
more
desirable.
SUMMARY
Effluent
standards
are
a better
tool
for
enforceñ~ent than
are
water
quality
standards.
President
Nixon’s
Message
on the
Environment
mentioned
above
puts
it
(Water
quality
standards)
provide
a poor
basis
for
enforcement:
without
a precise
effluent
standard,
it is
often
difficult
to
prove
violations
in
court,
So
I
am
happy that
this
first
set
of
State-wide
effluent
standards
has
been
enacted.
I hope
the’ foregoing
comments
may he
used
in
a
forthcoming
revision
to make
these
standards
an
even better
mechanism
to
clean
up
and protect
our
water
environment.
/
.(~
(~
Jacob
U.
Dumelle
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Supplemental
Statement
was
submitted
on
the
____
day
of
May,
1972.
~
~:
~
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Cletk
(7
.
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
3— 436