ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

5,

1988

IN THE MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

SUBTITLE C:WATER POLLUTION.

)

R8529

FECAL COLIFORM AND

SEASONAL DISINFECTION

PROPOSED RULE

SECOND NOTICE

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.

C.

Flemal):

The Board has long been grappling with the problem of

chlorination of sewage treatment plant effluents.

The problem

occurs because chlorination

of effluents, which

is

a nearly

universal practice

in Illinois,

has

a negative

impact on the

aquatic community of the streams and lakes

to which the

chlorinated effluents are discharged.

For this reason prudent

environmental management demands that chlorination should

at.

least be selectively discontinued.

However, chlorination also constitutes

a mechanism for the

removal of pathogenic organisms from effluents.

Hence,

chlorination decreases

the possibility of waterborne infections

and disease.

For this reason prudent environmental management

demands that chlorination should at least

be selectively

continued

in those circumstances where water—borne infections or

disease are possible.

The principal difficulty facing the Board has been

in

delineating those circumstances under which chlorination should

be discontinued: and those circumstances under which chlorination

should

be retained.

Further compounding

the issue are multiple

questions of how the selective discontinuance of chlorination

should be effectuated, which includes such matters as:

Should

chlorination be replaced by an alternative disinfection

process?

How does one determine circumstances under which risk

to human health outweigh environmental damage?

Can

a general

rule suffice to cover

all possible contingencies?

Etc.

Today the Board adopts for second notice

a proposal

which,

the Board believes,

answers the deficiencies found

in previous

efforts to address the effluent chlorination problem.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

The instant proposal has three elements, which respectively

would amend

the fecal coliform sections

of the Board’s General

Use Water Quality Standards at 35

Ill.

T~dm.Code Part 302,

89—189

---

—2—

Subpart

A;

the Public

and Food Processing Water Supply Standards

at

35

Ill. Mm. Code Part 302, Subpart C;

and the Effluent

Standards at

35 Ill. Mm. Code Part 304.

The

first element, which addresses Part

302, Subpart

A,

would limit applicability of the present fecal coliform water

quality standard

to those general use waters defined as

protected waters,

and then only during

the months May through

October.

Protected waters are defined within the amendments

to

include waters which,

“due to natural characteristics,

aesthetic

value,

or environmental significance, are deserving of protection

from pathogenic organisms”..

Explicitly included within the

definition are all waters which “presently support 9r have the

physical characteristics to support primary contact

or which

“flow through or adjacent

to parks or residential

areas”.

Primary contact

is itself defined

at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 301.355

as

“Any recreational or other water

use

in which

there

is prolonged

and intimate contact with the

water

involving considerable risk

of ingesting water

in quantities sufficient

to pose

a significant

health hazard,

such as swimming and water skiing”.

The Part

302, Subpart

A, amendments would additionally

exempt from the general use fecal coliform standards, on

a year—

round basis,

“waters unsuited

to support primary contact uses

because of physical, hydrologic or geographic configuration and

are located

in areas unlikely to be frequented by the public on a

routine basis”.

The second element, which addresses Part 302, Subpart

C,

would provide an exception to the conditions of the Subpart A

amendments.

Specifically,

it would

impose

a water quality

standard applicable

at any point where water

is withdrawn for

public and food processing purposes.

The standard

is a geometric

mean of 2000 per 100 ml, based

on

a minimum of five samples taken

1 The geometric mean,

based on

a minimum of five samples taken

over not more than

a

30 day period, shall

not exceed

200 per ml,

nor shall more

than 10

of the samples during

a

30 day period

exceed 400 per ml.

35.

Ill. Adm. Code

302.202..

For purpose of

simplicity, this standard

is hereinafter referred

to as

the

“200/100 ml” standard.

2 The original Agency proposal has this phrase ending

“.

.

.to

support primary contact recreation”

(P.C.

#27

at

4; emphasis

added).

In P.C.

#35 the Agency requests that the word

“recreation”

be deleted from the phrase

for purposes of

clarity.

That request

is accepted.

As the Agency notes,

the

term recreation

is already included within the definition of

primary contact, and the intent of the Agency has been

to exactly

equate

the use of primary contact

in the instant amendments with

the definition of primary contact at 301.355.

89—190

---

—3—

over not more than

a

30 day period3, applicable

at all times.

The 2000 per 100 ml standard here identified

is the same as the

standard applicable

to raw water supplies,

as found at

35.

111

Adm. Code 604.501(c).

The net result of

the Part

302 amendments would be

to set up

several classes of waters with respect

to fecal coliform

standards,

based on the use of the water and the time of year:

Applicable Standard

May—October

November—April

Protected Waters

200/100 ml

None

P&FP Water Supply

in

a Protected Water

200/100 ml

2000/100 ml

P&FP Water Supply

in other waters4

2000/100 ml

2000/100 ml

Other waters

None

None

The third element of the proposal addresses the fecal

coliform effluent standard.

Specifically,

the proposal retains

the current requirement that all effluents governed by Part 304

contain no more than 400

fecal coliforms

per 100 ml,

but provides

for the first time that an exemption can be obtained.

To obtain

the exemption,

a discharger must demonstrate to the Agency that

the receiving water

is not

a protected water

or

a Public

and Food

Processing Water Supply,

and that the discharge will

not. cause

a

violation of any General Use or Public

and Food Processing Water

Supply standard at

a downstream point.

The exemptions,

which are

to be granted

by the Agency, may be on a year—round basis or

a

seasonal basis, depending upon the individual circumstances.

The

exemption process would be carried out

as part of the NPDES

permitting process and would be governed by rules and appeal

processes therein.

Additionally, the Agency has entered into the

record

(P.C.

#27, attachment)

a copy of proposed guidelines

for

review of exemption petitions.

It proposes

to promulgate

these

guidelines upon completion of the instant action.

For purpose of simplicity,

this standard

is hereinafter

referred

to as the “2000/100 ml”

standard.

The Board notes that since raw water

supplies are by necessity

located on bodies of water

of substantial

size, these bodies of

waters

in almost all cases are likely to be protected waters.

Thus,

it

is unlikely that public and food processing water

supplies will be located on other

than protected waters.

89— 191

---

—4—

HISTORY

Institution of Fecal Coliform Standards

Widespread municipal wastewater disinfection via

chlorination

is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating only to

the 1960’s

(47 PCB 554).

Its intent is

to kill disease—causing

organisms which may have survived other steps

in the effluent

treatment process.

In 1972, shortly after

the organization of the Board,

the

Board adopted ambient water quality standards and effluent

standards which had

the effect of requir~Lngeffluent

disinfection~. The

standards did not specifically identify that

disinfection had

to take place, but rather limited the number of

fecal colifor~bacteria, an indicator of microbial

contamination0, which could be discharged

and which could be

present

in the ambient aquatic environment.

However, since

almost all undisinfected municipal wastewater effluents contain

fecal coliform bacteria in numbers greater than the standards,

the effect was

to require essentially universal disinfection.

In its 1972 action the Board was following the conventional

wisdom of

the times,

as

is witnessed by the adoption

in 1973 of

fecal coliform standards by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency

(“USEPA”).

However,

conventional wisdom began to change very rapidly,

occasioned by accumulating evidence that chlorination was causing

more problems than

it was solving.

One of the consequences was

that

in 1976 the USEPA reversed itself and deleted the fecal

coliform standards

it had adopted only three years previously.

Moreover, other states began to change or repeal

their previously

adopted fecal coliform standards,

or

to adopt none

if they had

not reacted

to the earlier conventional wisdom.

In the Matter of: Effluent Criteria, R70—8,

In the Matter

of:

Water Quality Standards R7l—l4, and In the Matter of: Water

Quality Standards Revisions for Interstate Waters

(SWB—l4), R7l—

20.

See Board Opinions and Orders at

3 PCB 755—76 and

4 PCB

3—

40.

6 Direct detection of disease—causing organisms

is difficult.

Therefore, standard practice

is

to set limits on,

and monitor

for, more easily detectable surrogate organisms whose presence

indicates

the possible presence of disease—causing organisms.

Fecal coliform bacteria are ubiquitous inhabitants of the

intestinal tract of warm—blooded animals and are not themselves

the cause of disease.

89—192

---

—5—

R77—12D Proceeding

Illinois firs~readdressed effluent chlorination

in the

proceeding R77—12D

.

The R77—l2D proceeding produced

a

voluminous

record,

including

transcripts of eight merit hearings

and three economic impact hearings,

64 exhibits, and 105 public

comments,

The Board

found that the record clearly showed that

chlorination caused significant aquatic environmental damage.

Among

the observations weighed by the Board were:

that residual

chlorine stunts

the growth of fish, halts

or reduces

spawning,

and

is lethal at concentrations of

less than 0.1 mg/i;

that fish

avoid

levels of residual chlorine as low as 0.01 mg/i;

that

estimated value of lost angling days was then from $2,000,000

to

$4,400,000;

that chlorinated hydrocarbons produced as

a result of

chlorination are hazardous materials whose toxic effects are of

uncertain,

but likely real

concern; and that chlorination may

negatively impact other

effluent parameters,

including ammonia

and dissolved oxygen

(47 PCB 570—2).

The Board also reviewed an extensive record contesting

the

efficacy of chlorination in preventing waterborne disease

(47 PCB

561—4).

The Board pointed out that the record indicated that

effluent chlorination

is of dubious value

in killing intestinal

parasites and deactivating viruses.

It also pointed out that

there were no studies of human disease which showed that

disinfection of sewage produces any measurable public health

benefits related

to reduction of disease.

In summary,

the Board concluded:

If disinfection were first proposed

for adoption

today,

it is quite clear that the record would not

support

its widespread

use.

Now, however, available

evidence of the harmful effects and limited, at best,

health benefits has greatly increased.

47 PCB 574.

In response to

its findings in R77—12D,

the Board on October

14, 1982

issued

a final ruling encompassing these actions:

1)

Repeal

of the fecal coliform water quality

standard applicable

to secondary contact waters;

2)

Repeal

of the fecal

coliform water quality

standard applicable

to general use waters; and

In the Matter

of: Amendments to Chapter

3: Water

Pollition

(Effluent Disinfection).

See Board Opinions and Orders at 43 PCB

479—80,

47 PCB 549—83,

and 49 PCB 183—4.

89—193

---

—6—

3)

Repeal

of the fecal coliform effluent standard

except

for those dischargers situated within 20

stream miles from a public bathing beach

or

a

water

intake used for public and food processing

water

supply.

The reason

for addressing action to the fecal

coliform

bacterial standards rather

than directly

to chlorination

is that

chlorination

is the accepted practice by which compliance with

a

fecal coliform standard is achieved.

Thus,

removal of the

standard obviates the need

to continue the offending chlorination

practice.

The Board’s action in R77—l2D was appealed though

the State

Court system by the Illinois Attorney GeneraL

The First

District Appellate Court upheld

the Board’s repeal

of the fecal

coliform water quality standard

for secondary use waters,

but

overturned

the Board’s actions with respect to

the fecal coliform

standards for general use waters and effluent discharges.

People

of

the State of Illinois

v.

Pollution Control Board,

119 Ill.

App.

3d

561, 456 N.E. 2d 909

(1983)).

The Illinois Supreme Court

upheld the appellate court’s actions

in People of

the State of

Illinois

v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,

103

Ill.

2d..

441,

469 N.E.

2d 1102

(1984).

The higher

courts’

decisions were based not on any one facet

of

the Board’s decision, but rather on

a combination of facets,

including but not limited

to:

(a) arbitrariness of the 20—mile

limit;

(b)

failure

to provide adequate protection

to primary

contact waters;

(c)

failure

to fully consider possible microbial

standards other

than fecal coliform bacteria;

and,

(d)

failure

to

adequately consider alternative means

of disinfection.

Instant Proceeeding

The instant proceeding

comes before

the Board

as an

outgrowth of a motion filed on November

8,

1985 by the

Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District

(“BNSD”) and the

Illinois Association

of Sanitary Districts (“IASD”)

which

requested that the Board adopt an Emergency Rule providing

for

seasonal disinfection.

The rationale was

that the adoption of

a

seasonal disinfection program would simultaneously meet the

objections of the courts and at least partially address the

chlorination problem.

The Board denied

the BNSD/IASD motion in

a December

5,

1985

Order,

based on failure

to find that an emergency existed.

However, on the belief that the BNSD/IASD proposed emergency rule

might have merit as a permanent rule,

the Board opened the

present docket

in the same Order.

89— 194

---

—7—

Public hearings on the BNSD/IASD proposal were held May 5,

1986

in Bloomington and June

2,

1986 in DeKalb,

at which time

various testimony and exhibits were received.

On the basis of

this record, plus the twelve public comments

(P.C.

#l—#12)

received

as of that date,

the Board on November

6,

1986 adopted

an Opinion and Order sending

the proposal

(with some

modifications)

to first notice.

First notice publication

occurred

at

10

Ill. Reg.

19647, November 21,

1986.

Eight public

comments

(P.C.

#lJ—#20) were filgd

in response

to

the

first

notice of the BNSD/IASD proposal

On February 17,

1987,

in response to opposition

to

the

proposed rule change,

BNSD filed

a motion requesting another

hearing.

That motion was granted by Board Order

of March

5,

1987,

and the hearing was held June

4, 1987 in Chicago.

An

additional public comment,

P.C.

#21, was filed by the

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

in response

to

questions raised by the Board at that hearing.

Concurrently with

these activities,

the Illinois Department

of

Energy and Natural Resources undertook

a study expressly

targeted

to this docket and

titled Assessment of Wastewater

Disinfection Technologies

(“AWDT Study”).

This study was filed

with

the Board on September

1, 1987 as

P.

C.

#22.

It considers

many facets of disinfection, including the rationale for

wastewater disinfection, different disinfection technologies,

costs of disinfection, public health

and environmental benefits

and costs, and

a discussion of regulatory strategies.

By Order

of September 10,

1987

the Hearing Officer set a

special comment period on

the AWDT Study.

Four comments were

received

(P.C.

#23—#26).

On February

4,

1988 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

filed an alternative proposal,

which was

docketed as P.C.

#27.

The Agency had

not previously been a

proponent in the instant matter, but had actively participated

in

the hearings.

The Agency filed

the proposal

in the spirit of

offering a cure

to some of

the objections raised to the earlier

BNSD/IASD proposal.

The Agency’s proposal was sent to first

8 Not

included in this tally are comments filed on January 22,

1987 by Illinois—American Water Company (“Illinois American”)

and

on January 27,

1987 by the Illinois Attorney General

(“AG”).

These were filed after closure of

the 45—day first notice comment

period, and hence were not at that time accorded public comment

numbers.

The Board, on its own motion and

for

the sake of

completeness of

the record, hereby accepts

these into the public

comment record,

wherein they shall be referred

to as Supplemental

Public Comment

(“S.P.C.”)

#1 and

#2,

respectively.

89—195

---

—8—

notice pursuant

to an Order

of the Board

of February 4,

1988,

with publication occurring

at 12

Iii. Reg.

4305,

February 26,

1988.

It is this alternative proposal which constitutes the

basis of today’s action.

Today’s proposal differs from the BNSD/IASD proposal

in that

the BNSD/IASD proposal would have retained the 200/100

ml fecal

coliform standard during May through October

for all general use

waters irrespective of whether primary use was likely

to occur.

Additionally,

the earlier proposal would have granted

a blanket

exemption

to the 400/100 ml effluent standard during the months

of May through October,

rather than providing

for

the site-

specific exemption demonstration required by the current proposed

rule.

In total,

forty—two public comments, representing

23

different individuals, organizations,

or governmental entities,

have been received

in this matter.

Of these,

the

latter fifteen

(P.C.

#28—#42) ~ave been filed

in response to first notice

of the

Agency proposal

.

With two exceptions, both filed by Illinois

American

(P.C.

#33 and #41),

the public comments express support

for the Agency proposal.

Professor Charles Haas, who had earlier

expressed objection

to the BNSD/IASD proposal

(P.C.

#2,

#3,

#14),

endorses

the Agency proposal

(P.C.

#28).

The AG, who had also

expressed objection

to the BNSD/IASD proposal

(P.C.

#11; S.P.C.

#2),

has not commented on

the Agency proposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Aquatic Life

The principal argument presented

in favor

of discontinuing

universal disinfection by chlorination

is that chlorination

causes significant environmental damage.

The damage

is largely

focused on the aquatic community, which suffers as

a consequence

of exposure

to residual chlorine and to a variety of chlorine

reaction products, many of which are toxic organochiorine

compounds.

Total residual chlorine

(“TRC”)

refers

to the sum of

unreacted free chlorine plus chlorine which has reacted with

ammonia

to produce chioramines

(NH2C1, NHC12, and NC13).

It is

well established through laboratory studies that TRC is toxic

to

a wide variety of aquatic organisms at relatively low

The first notice comment period

for the Agency proposal expired

on April

11,

1988.

Upon motion from Illinois American Water

Company this was extended

to April

29,

1988 by Hearing Officer

Order

and

an affirming Board Order of April

21,

1988.

89—196

---

—9—

concentrations.

The literature on TRC toxicity, plus

its

coT~onents, is extensively summarized

in Exhibit 22,

pages

6—

18

.

It

is also noted that chloramines have been discharged

from Illinois sewage treatment facilities at concentrations as

high as 1.05 to 5.17 mg/i; many fish species cannot tolerate

chioramine levels above 0.1 mg/l,

and even ~re

tolerant fish

species are killed at

levels above

1.2 mg/i

In addition to chloramines, reaction products are produced

when chlorine reacts with organic substances

in the wastewater

stream or

the receiving body of water.

These include such

recognized toxicants as methyl chloride, chloroform,

trichloroethylene,

tetrachioroethylene,

and dichlorobenzenes

(Ex.

22).

Field demonstrations of environmental damage to aquatic

life

due

to chlorination are many.

Among

these

are

a three—year study

conducted

on Sugar Creek below the BNSD outfall, which showed

a

marked decline

in intolerant

fish species,

fish species

diversity, and total number

of

individual fish within the zone of

total

residual chlorine persistence downstream from the BNSD

outfall

(R.

at

22—3;

Exh~. 19).

One of the more extreme cases presented

in this record

concerns the East Branch of the DuPage River.

The Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission

(“NIPC”)

notes that the East Branch

“once supported

a game fishery,

including large mouth bass and

northern pike”,

but is now characterized “as very poor, being

dominated by carp and suckers”

(P.C.

#7, p.

1).

Modeling studies

of

the effect of various toxicants

in the East Branch indicate

that residual chlorine

is

a major contributor

to the poor

10 “Environmental Impact and Health Effects of Wastewater

Chlorination”, by Gary

R.

Brenniman,

ENR Document 81/27, July,

1981.

11 “Wastewater Disinfection:

A Review of

the Technical and Legal

Aspects

in Illinois”, The Metropolitan Sanitary District of

Greater Chicago,

Report No.

84—17.

This document has been

admitted into the record

as Exhibit

6.

89—197

---

—10—

character of the aquatic community’2.

Based

on these results,

NIPC has concluded that even with the advent of advanced

wastewater treatment at all East Branch treatment plants,

“fish

toxicity will still be

a problem due

to the presence of residual

chlorine”

and that

it

is only when chlorine

is eliminated

that.

“toxicity drops

to tolerable levels throughout much of the river”

(Id.

at 5).

In summary, NIPC notes that “if present chlorination

practices continue,

it will be impossible

to achieve

a high

quality fish community

in much of

the East Branch even when

advanced wastewater treatment

is implemented”

(Id.

at 6).

Field studies have also demonstrated that the elimination of

chlorination can lead to a restoration of the health

of an

aquatic community.

A particularly pertinent study, carried out

in Ilj~noisin 1983 by Drs. Roy C.

Heidinger and William M.

Lewis

,

found that

in three central Illinois streams temporary

discontinuation of chlorination by sewage treatment plants

resulted

in the rapid restoration of what had been extremely poor

fish communities.

Restoration was

to the level characteristic of

ambient areas above

the outfalls,

and could be directly

attributed

to reductions

in residual chlorine

(Exh.

3 at 88).

As

a general conclusion, Heidinger and Lewis determined that “the

elimination of residual chlorine from good quality secondary

sewage effluents derived primarily from domestic wastes will

result

in quantitative and qualitative improvement

of the fish

communities

in most Illinois streams”

(Id. at 88—9).

In a separate submission

to the record Professor Heidinger

points out that many fish species,

including endangered and

threatened species,

live or spawn

in headwater streams where

they

are subject to TRC toxicity.

He concludes that he wishes

to

“make

it very clear that from the

fisheries standpoint the best

solution

is to stop chlorination altogether or

to dechlorinate”

(P.C.

#8

at

2).

The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

(“MSDGC”) has also undertaken a study of comparative fish

populations under chlorination/non—chlorination regimes.

In

April,

1984, MSDGC ceased chlorinating effluent discharged

from

its North Side Sewage Treatment Works pursuant

to deletion of the

secondary use fecal coliform standard.

The effluent had received

12 Dennis

W.

Dreher, “Study of Fish Toxicity

in the East Branch

DuPage

River”, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Staff

Paper, June 1981.

This document has been admitted

into the

record

as part of P.C.

#7.

13 Heidinger and Lewis,

“Relative Effects of Chlorine and Ammonia

from Wastewater Treatment Facilities

on Stream Biota”.

This

document has been admitted into the record as Exhibit

3.

89—198

---

—‘‘-

continuous chlorination prior

to that time.

During

fish sampling

conducted

in each of

the seven preceding years and carried out

0.7

to 1.7 miles downstream from the outfall,

a total

of

20

individual

fish representing six species had been collected.

In

contrast,

a collection made in that same area on November

5,

1984,

seven months after

cessation of chlorination, totalled 115

individual fish representing

9 species

CR. at 112—3).

Concerns over environmental damage associated with

chlorination have persuaded other states

to reduce requirements

for chlorination.

Among

these

are the neighboring

states of

Ohio,

Indiana,

Minnesota,

Iowa,

and Missouri, each of which has

instituted seasonal chlorination

(R.

at 14;

Ex.

1).

Wisconsin

recently adopted a program similar

to

the instant proposal

in

that

it provides

for year—round disinfection where protection of

public drinking water supplies

is required,

seasonal disinfection

where only protection of recreational uses is

required, and

elimination of disinfection

in other

circumstances (AWDT Study at

94).

A Wisconsin official has estimated

that under this program

about half

of the municipal dischargers are not required

to

disinfect at all, about 40 percent are required

to seasonally

disinfect, and about

10 percent are required

to disinfect year—

round

(Id.).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Ageny (“USEPA”)

is also on

record as endorsing

a reduction in universal wastewater

chlorination.

Commenting

in

a letter written by the chief of

USEPA’s Technical Support Section

to an official of

the BNSD, the

USEPA noted

that

it:

encourages

the reduction

in disinfection by the use

of chlorine where aquatic life protection is

a

desired use,

and public health requirements do not

outweigh this consideration..

EPA encourages seasonal

disinfection as

a reasonable way

to avoid chlorine

discharges when justified.

(Ex.

2).

Finally,

the Agency also concludes that “reduction in the

amount of chlorine released

to the environment

in Illinois can be

expected

to have

a positive impact on the aquatic communities

(R.

at 190).

Human Health

The

two long—standing arguments in opposition to any

curtailment of disinfection concern possible health impacts on

downstream water supplies and human recreational use of waters.

The problem of

impact on downstream public water supplies has

been capsulized

by Mr.

James Park,

representing the Agency:

The Agency

is concerned

..

-

about the possible impact

of existing and the potential impact of new

89—199

---

—12—

discharges of wastewater containing high counts of

fecal coliform

in

the immediate vicinity of public

water supply intakes

...

While public water

supply

clarification, filtration and chlorination facilities

can effectively deal with

a relatively wide range of

raw water quality,

the elevated and fluctuating

bacterial levels associated with unchlorinated

secondary effluent do have

the potential to overwhelm

public water supply chlorination facilities

if the

natural mitigating effects of dilution and instream

die—off do not have

a chance

to operate.

(R..

at 188—

9).

Mr. Clarence Blanck of Illinois—American Water Company,

which provides public water supply of one million Illinois

residents,

has also noted

the following concerns:

Disinfection at the source

...

provides the

initial

barrier

to the transmission of waterborne disease.

The removal

of this barrier

simply transfers an

additional burden

to the potable water

purveyor.

*

*

*

*

*

Disinfection of the effluent assures some minimal

level of protection

for downstream users and

at least

reduces the levels of microbiological contamination

during periods when plants are not operating

properly.

*

*

*

*

*

Any quality degradation

in the water supply caused by

the cessation in disinfection will probably create

increased chlorine requirements at the downstream

water treatment plants.

This will increase the

trihalomethane levels formed by chlorination of the

raw water,

since they are directly related

to

chlorine dosage.

R.

at 428—430

Accordingly, Illinois—American Water Company urges the Board

to allow modification of existing chlorination rules only to the

extent that such modification does not increase the health risk

to public water supply users

(P.C.

#41 at

2).

Human health impacts have also been the principal focus of

public comments by the AG and Professor Haas.

The AG points out

that phenomena such as the survival of viruses and bacteria at

low temperatures and viral shedding during late summer

and early

fall require consideration of year—round disinfection of effluent

89—200

---

—13—

discharges

located upstream of public water supplies or

recreational areas

(P.C.

#11 at

3—4).

The AG additionally

contends

that. treatment of drinking water

is

“an imperfect

process”

which “is not immune

from operational problems which

allow bacteria and viruses

to pass through to the users”

(Id.

at

5).

Given

this circumstance, the AG urges continued disinfection

where

its absence would otherwise “eliminate an important barrier

protecting

the health of drinking water

users”

(Id.).

Professor Haas emphasizes

that:

It

is necessary

for any proposed revisions of

wastewater disinfection regulations

to recognize the

need

for year—round disinfection of those effluents

in proximity to intakes and/or

in low dilution

receiving waters.

Without this recognition,

any

relaxation of effluent disinfection

is technically

unsupportable.

(P.C.

#3,

p.

3)

At hearing and in

P.

C.

#12, BNSD offered rebuttal of

the

position that adoption of uniformly—applicable seasonal

disinfection would adversely impact downstream water supplies.

Among other matters, BNSD notes that existing regulations require

water suppliers utilizing surface water

as

a

raw water

source

to

employ coagulation, clarification,

rapid sand filtration, and

continuous post—chlorination.

BNSD contends “that each of these

treatment processes

in themselves

are bacterialcidal and

virucidal”

and that when “employed in

a series treatment scheme

they provide adequate protection of the public health”

(P.

C.

#12

at 1—2).

BNSD also provided documentation from other

states

where seasonal chlorination

is the accepted practice which notes

that no known human health problems have been associated with

seasonal chlorination.

Additionally, BNSD contests the

applicability

to Illinois of the studies cited by the

AG in

support of his contention of winter bacterial

and viral survival,

contending that

the studies are old and were conducted on Alaskan

streams very different both physically and chemically

from those

in Illinois

(Id.

at 8—15).

ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS,

The Illinois Department of

Energy and Natural Resources

(“ENR”)

concluded on September

26,

1986,

that

a formal economic

economic

impact study (“ECIS”)

is not necessary in

the

proceeding, noting

that this declaration

is approoriate based

on

the statutory criteria

in

Ill. Rev. Stat.,

ch.’ 96~’/2, par.

7404(d)(2).

The Economic Technical Advisory Committee (“ETAC”)

concurred

in this determination on October

10,

1986.

It

is

to be noted that the proposal before ENR and ETAC was

the BNSD/IASD proposal

of May 1986 rather than the Agency—

89—20 1

---

—14—

sponsored proposal which

the Board considers today.

Section

27(b)

of

the Act,

however,

in addition

to requiring

that. economic

impact studies be prepared, also allows

the Board

to modify and

subsequently adopt any proposed regulations without additional

economic study by ENR

if the modification does not significantly

alter

the intent

arid purpose of

the proposed regulation which was

the subject of

ENR’s determination.

The Board finds

that the

proposal considered

today

is not significantly altered

in intent

or purpose from the May 1986 proposal.

The Board consequently

believes

that no additional determination by ENR regarding the

necessity of an EcIS

is required.

The AG has objected

(P.C.

#11, p.

9—11)

to this matter

proceeding on the basis

of an alleged necessity of conducting

a

EcIS pursuant to Section

27(b)

of

the Environmental Protection

Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.,

ch.

lll~/2, par.

1027).

The AG contends that

the record before the Board

is insufficient to allow

the Board

to

reach

a determination on the economic reasonableness of the

proposed amendments.

Aside from the determination of ENR and

ETAC that an EcIS is not necessary,

the Board notes

that an EcIS

was conducted

in R77—l2D,

and that thç same has been admitted

into the current record as Exhibit

211.4.

Moreover,

the AWDT

Study

(P.C.

#22), which was filed subsequent to the AG’s

objection, contains substantial new and updated economic

information.

The Board finds

that the significant information

contained in the R77—l2D EcIS remains pertinent,

and that this,

in combination with the record developed

in the current

proceeding,

provides information sufficient

for the Board

to make

its mandatory economic determination.

The record identifies

two economic benefits and three

costs.

The benefits are related

to decrease in cost associated

with disinfecting wastewaters and increase

in quality of the

aquatic environment.

The costs

are related

to possible increased

incidence of waterborne disease to

a)

primary contact users and

b)

consumers of water withdrawn for human consumption, and

increased costs of treatment of water withdrawn

for human use.

The R77—l2D EcIS determined

that

the more than 1,400

municipal,

industrial, and commercial treatment facilities

in

Illinois which are required to disinfect their

final effluents

14

“The Economic Analysis of Health Risks and the Environmental

Assessment

of Revised Fecal Coliform Effluent and Water Quality

Standards”,

Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, Document No.

81/15, March l98L

89—202

---

—15—

spend over

$4 million annually doing so~~D.These are annual

operational

costs,

and do not include amortization of

chlorination equipment

(Ex 21,

P.

158).

Under

the assumption

that approximately halving the time period when chlorination

would be required would approximately halve

total operational

costs,

the expected savings associated with the current proposal

would be on the order

of

$2 million annually.

This figure

is

consistent with

a

1985 IASD study,

which showed that 22 large

municipal plants serving

a population of

2 million people spend

$960,000 annually to disinfect final effluents

(R.

at 12).

The AWDT Study provides estimates of 1987 disinfection costs

based on treatment plant capacity.

For disinfection via

chlorination, expressed

in $l,000s,

these estimates include

(P.C.

#22 at

28,

31):

——

Plant Capacity

(mgd)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

Basic Construction

40.0

88.0

340.0

1400.0

Annual Operations

4.6

16.8

78.7

589.5

Those facilities

that would be allowed

to cease chlorination

entirely as

a consequence of these amendments would realize

savings for full operational costs and any costs associated with

equipment replacement.

Those facilities which would be required

to maintain seasonal chlorination would realize

a savings of

a

portion of their annual operations costs.

The AWDT Study also provides estimates

of the marginal

charges

to the user of a chlorination disinfection system per

1000 gallons of wastewater flow

(P.C.

#22 at

40).

For three

different chlorination situations

these are:

15 The annual cost of disinfection

in Illinois as cited

in

Exhibit

21 was approximately $6.9 million (Table 6—3,

p.

159).

Included

in that sum was the amount spent annually by MSDGC,

approximately $2.8 million.

Since MSDGC’s plants discharge only

to secondary contact waters,

the plants are no longer required

to

provide disinfection and

NISDGC has ceased

the practice of

chlorination.

The best estimate

of current disinfection costs

is

therefore the State

total minus

the MSDGC cost, expressed

in the

dollars current

for the Exhibit

21

study.

89—203

---

—16—

Plant Capacity

(mgd)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

No Disinfection

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Six—Month Disinfection

$0.29

$0.07

$0.03

$0.02

Year—Round Disinfection

$0.34

$0.09

$0.03

$0.02

The second principal economic benefit to be expected as

a

consequence

of

a reduction

in chlorination consists

of improvent

in the aquatic environment.

Unfortunately, this

is

a

historically difficult benefit

to quantify.

One of the methods

which has been used

is estimation of the increase

in angling days

occasioned by increased

fish populations.

This was estimated

in

the R77—12D EcIS under

the condition of elimination of all

disinfection.

The magnitude of the benefit under

the current

proposal

is not likely to be accurately estimated by halving

the

R77—l2D figure of $2.0

to

$4.4 million per annum.

Nevertheless,

the determination that seasonal chlorination would contribute

to

the health of the aquatic community implies that some benefit in

angling potential could be expected to accrue.

The only cost associated with chlorination cessation as

determined

in the R77—12D EcIS was

a small increased risk of

viral disease.

For

a proposal which included protection of

downstream water supplies and recreational areas,

as does today’s

proposal,

the estimated annual cost was $11

to $1200

(Ex..

21,

p.

169)..

The AWDT Study concludes that

a reduction in required

chlorination might produce a greater increase

in the incidence of

gastrointestinal

illness among swimmers than was found

in the

R77—12D EcIS

(P.C.

#22 at

53);

the principal increase is

associated with swimming during April and November.

However,

this conclusion is challenged by MSDGC

(P.C..

#23 at

2—3)

and the

Agency

(P..C.

#27 at

2)

on the basis of use of

a questionable

model and questionable

input data..

The AWDT Study itself

cautions that the model developed therein “is subject to

considerable uncertainty”

(AWDT Study at

51).

The MSDGC contends

that the uncertainties are

so large “that

the predictions derived

from the model cannot be meaningful”

(P.C.

#23 at

2).

The Agency

further contends that the contact recreational use rates employed

in the model “seem far

too high”

and that the use rates “suggest

bathing beaches”

(P.C.

27 at 2).

The Agency continues with the

observation that “it

would be highly improbable

to find total

immersion anywhere during April

and November”

(Id.)

as postulated

in

the AWDT model..

The Board notes that much of the question of

the validity of the AWDT Study’s estimates of gastrointestinal

illness becomes irrelevant

if,

as

is

the case here,

reduction

in

chlorination

is only permitted upon demonstration that no

significant primary contact use

(swimming included)

occurs.

89—204

---

—17—

The additional

issue

of whether

the proposed amendments

would cause water treatment plants operating downstream of sewage

treatment plant effluents

to

incur increased costs in

chlorinating their

finished water was addressed at hearing.

Dr.

Lue—Hing of the MSDGC testified that such would

not be expected

to occur,

as

the processes used prior

to chlorination

in the

water treatment process are effective

in removing particulate

material, including bacteria.

Therefore,

Dr. Lue—Hing concluded

that water treatment plants would not have to use additional

chlorine during their treatment operations as

a result of

the

proposed

regulations.

This issue also becomes irrelevant

if, as

is the case here,

upstream effluent dischargers who significantly

impact downstream water supplies are required

to maintain

continuous chlorination.

CONCLUSIONS

The arguments presented

in favor of

a reduction in

chlorination, where such can be accomplished without impacting

human health,

are similar

to

those presented

to the Board

in R77—

l2D.

The Board

found these arguments compelling

in R77—l2D,

and

does so again here.

If anything, the passage of time since the

Board’s action

in R77—12D has provided even more compelling

reason to conclude that chlorination as

a disinfection process

causes significant environmental damage.

The higher courts found in R77—12D,

among

other matters,

that the Board went too far

in repealing the need to disinfect

in

all

circumstances..

In particular,

the higher courts

found that

a

bacterial

standard, and thereby disinfection, must

remain when

there

is reasonable prospect that there will

be primary human

contact with the waters

in question; under

this circumstance, the

concern for human health outweighs the negative aspects of

chlorination.

The Board believes that the present proposal cures

this

aspect of the higher courts’

concern..

Under

the proposed rule

the present fecal coliform water quality standard would be

retained for all protected general use waters during that time of

year when primary contact can be expected

to occur.

Protected

waters are not only those which “presently support or have

the

physical characteristics to support primary contact recreation”

(proposed 302.202(a)(l)),

but also those which otherwise “flow

through or

adjacent

to parks or residential areas”

(proposed

302.202(a)(2)).

A protected water

is thus more encompassing than

the primary contact waters..

The rationale for extending the protection afforded by a

fecal coliform standard

to streams which

flow through or adjacent

to parks or

residential areas

is succinctly expressed by the

Agency:

89—205

---

—18—

Year—round relief

from

disinfection)

would not be

allowed

in streams that flow through residential

neighborhoods and certain recreational

areas.

These

streams may often invite public contact simply due

to

their accessable locations without regard

to their

suitability for primary contact recreation.

Streams

in such locations would be treated as

if primary

contact were possible.

P.C..

#27

at

3.

During the remaining six months,

when human contact

is

expected

to be minimal

or non—existent,

the prime concern would

shift

to addressing

the damaging aspects of chlorination.

The

Board

also believes that this perspective

is consistent with the

holding of the higher courts which upheld

the Board’~6repealof

the

feca’

coliform standard

for secondary use waters

-

The most common objection to earlier efforts

to limit

chlorination was failure

to fully weigh

the impact of

nondisinfection on downstream water withdrawal

uses, particularly

withdrawal

for human consumption.

This

is a concern that the

Board itself has shared throughout both the R77—l2D and current

proceedings.

In R77—12D the Board attempted

to address this

issue

by requiring continuous chlorination at all facilities

located within twenty—miles upstream of

a public water supply

intake.

However,

the higher courts

reversed the Board

on this

issue,

finding that the twenty—mile limit was arbitrary and

capricious since

it was incorporated without any scientific

justification.

Today’s proposal encorporates an alternative remedy, which

consists of maintaining an ambient water quality standard for

fecal coliform at sites where water

is withdrawn for public and

food processing water supply, as set forth

in proposed Section

302.306.

The Board believes that this element of

the proposal

addresses the concern

for downstream public water

supplies

expressed in the R77—l2D and current records,

and also addresses

the concern expressed by the higher courts.

Under existing regulations,

the raw water used by public and

food processing

water suppliers

is subject

to the 200/100 ml

fecal coliform limit on

a year—round basis.

The limit exists

because, pursuant to Section

302.301,

Public and Food Processing

Water

Supply Standards are cumulative with General Use

16

Secondary contact

is defined

in

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code

301.380

as

“Any recreational or other water

use

in which contact with the

water

is either incidental

or accidental and

in which the

probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water

is

minimal, such as

fishing, commercial

and recreational boating and

any limited contact incident

to shoreline activity.”

89206

---

—19—

Standards.

That

is,

the General Use Standards apply,

in addition

to the Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards,

at all

points where water

is withdrawn for public and food processing

supply purposes.

Under

the proposed

rule, absent Section 302.306,

there would

be

no fecal

coliform standard during November through April at

points

of water withdrawal

for public

and food processing

supply

purposes.

The inclusion of Section 302.306

rectifies this matter

by retaining the essential status quo of

a

fecal coliform

standard at such points.

The Board believes that retention of

a

fecal coliform

standard applicable

at points

of water withdrawal

for public and

food processing supply addresses much

of the concern which has

been expressed,

and which

the Board has shared, about curtailment

of disinfection.

With the inclusion of Section 302.306, upstream

facilities would not be permitted

to discontinue disinfection

if

failure

to disinfect. caused

the water at

a downstream withdrawal

point

to exceed

the 2000 per

100

ml standard.

Although the

number

of thusly affected effluent dischargers

is expected to be

small

(R.

at 189), and the expected human health gain has not

been demonstrated

to be large,

the Board nonetheless believes

that the substantial expression of concern

in this area warrants

prudence at this time.

Section 302.306 proposes the 2000 per 100 ml standard rather

than the 200/100 ml standard ~.ihich

currently exists

in the

General Use

Standards.

The latter number

is inappropriate

because

it is based

on protection of human contact and

recreational uses, which are not at

issue here.

The selection of

2000 per

100

ml

is based on the same rationale employed

in the

promulgation of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 604.501(c), which sets raw

water quality standards

for Public Water Supplies.

That

rationale

is that 2000 per 100 ml

is “determined as

a level

required to yield

a safe supply after

normal

treatment”

(In the

Matter of Public Water

Supplies, R73—l3,

15 PCB 103,

146, January

3,

1975).

The Board

is well cognizant of the equation of disinfection

with chlorination which has permeated both this and the R77—l2D

proceeding.

The Board

is also cognizant of

the prospect that

disinfection might

be achievable by means other

than

chlorination,

as

is clearly recognized in the AWDT study and has

been pointed out by the AG

(P.C.

#11).

The Board

in fact

strongly encourage STW operators and

their associations

to

continue

to actively explore disinfection alternatives.

It

is

only when chlorination

is completely replaced by an

environmentally—sound alternative that the full “chlorination

problem” will have been addressed.

However, given

the present de

facto synonymity of chlorination with disinfection,

the Board

must now address “the chlorination problem” by those means at

39—207

---

—20—

hand and

to the degree

that technology and economics

allow..

Having recognized

the egregious nature of chlorination,

the Board

would be remiss

if

it

failed to do otherwise.

CHANGES FROM FIRST NOTICE

The proposal which

the Board today sends

to second notice

is

unchanged

in substance and intent from that proposed

at first

notice.

However,

it is notified

in nonsubstantive ways intended

to provide greater clarity

to the rule.

The first change consists of rewording of Section

304.121(b).

The change

is made pursuant

to

a request by the

Agency

(P.C.

#29).

At second

first notice this section read:

b)

The Agency shall exempt

a discharger from this

standard only

in accordance with

the protection

status of waters pursuant

to Section 302.209.

1)

The discharger must provide documentation

to

show that:

A)

The receiving stream does not meet the

definition of

a protected water

(Section 302.209),

B)

The discharge will not cause downstream

protected waters

to exceed water

quality standards.

2)

Exemptions

to the standards may be issued on

a year-round

or seasonal basis.

As currently proposed by the Agency

(P.C.

#29),

and adopted

by the Board herein for purposes of second notice,

this section

reads:

b)

The Agency shall exempt

a discharger

from this

standard only

in accordance with the requirements

of Sections 302.209 and 302.306.

1)

The discharger must demonstrate and document

the following:

A)

The character of the receiving waters

pursuant

to Sections 302.202,

302.209,

and 302.306..

B)

The discharge will not cause downstream

waters

to exceed

the applicable fecal

coliform water quality standards.

89—2fl8

---

—21—

2)

The Agency shall grant exemptions

to

the

standards on

a year—round

or seasonal basis

consistent with the documentation provided

by the discharger.

In support of the these changes

the Agency comments:

I.

Section 304.121(b):

The amendment

substitutes reference to “the requirements of

Sections

302.209 and 302.306” for

“the

protection status of waters”

to eliminate

possible confusion that the scope of the

exemption process

is limited to “protected

waters”

of Section 302.209(a).

The addition

of

the reference to Section 302.306 makes

explicit the Agency’s intention to provide

protection

for public and food processing

water supplies under this proposed exemption

proceeding

-

2.

Section 304.12l(b)(l):

Amendments were made

to stress

the demonstration and documentation

requirements

of

the discharger

and

to modify

the language

to ensure grammatical

consistency with the changes

below..

3.

Section 304.l2l(b)(l)(A):

The Agency has by

this amendment eliminated

the inference that

all protected waters would

be required to

meet the year—round

fecal coliform effluent.

limitation of Section 304.121(a),

notwithstanding the demonstration that the

discharger

is entitled

to seasonal

disinfection.

In addition,

the Agency has

changed

the reference of “stream”

to “waters”

to broaden the scope of downstream bodies

to

lakes and other surface waters and has

delineated

the means and methods for

evaluating receiving

streams by the addition

of Sections 302.202 and 302.306 water quality

and specific use criteria.

4.

Section 304.l2l(b)(l)(B):

The reference to

“protected” has been eliminated

to avoid

the

confusion that this proceeding

is restricted

to “protected water”

requirements of Section

302.209(a).

In addition, the Agency has

included “fecal coliform”

to the water

quality standard reference to ensure that the

focus of this exception proceeding will be on

the applicable fecal coliform water quality

standard of Subtitle

C.

B9—209

---

—22—

5.

Section

304.12l(b)(2):

This subparagraph has

been amended

to make explicit the nature of

the Board directive of administrative

responsibilities

to the Agency.

ORDER

The Board hereby directs that Second Notice of the following

proposed amendments be submitted

to the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules.

PART 302

Water Quality Standards

Subpart A:

General Water Quality Provisions

Section 302.202

Purpose

The general use standards will protect the State’s water for

aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural

use,

~

a~ secondary

contact use and most industrial uses and ensure the aesthetic

quality of the State’s aquatic environment.

Primary contact uses

are protected for all general use waters whose physical

configuration permits such

use..

Section 302.209

Fecal Coliform

a)

During

the months May through October, Bbased on

a

minimum of five samples

taken over not more than a

30

day period,

fecal coliform

(STORET number 31616) shall

not exceed

a geometric mean of 200 per 100 ml, nor shall

more than 10

of

the samples during any 30 day period

exceed 400 per 100 ml~in protected waters.

Protected

waters are defined

as waters which,

due

to natural

characteristics,

aesthetic value or environmental

significance are deserving of protection from pathogenic

organisms.

Protected waters will meet one

or both of

the following conditions:

1)

presently support

or have

the physical

characteristics

to support primary contact

2)

flow through or adjacent to parks

or residential

areas.

b)

Waters unsuited

to support primary contact uses because

of physical, hydrologic or geographic configuration and

are located

in areas unlikely

to be frequented by the

public on

a routine basis are exempt from this standard.

89—210

---

—23—

SUBPART

C:

PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER

SUPPLY STANDARDS

Section 302.306

Fecal Coliform

Notwithstanding

the provisions

of Section 302.209,

at no

time shall

the geometric mean,

based on

a minimum of five samples

taken over not more than

a

30 day period,

of

fecal coliform

(STORET number

31616)

exceed 2000 per

100 ml.

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.121

Bacteria

No e~en~ gove~rte~~y thES Pa~wh~e~ se~~es~e

gerte~~t~sew~erssha~ exeeed 49G ~eea~ eo~~o~nt

pe~~9O n~d~

a)

Unless specifically exempted pursuant

to paragraph (b),

effluents discharged

to

all general use waters shall not

exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml.

b)

The Agency shall exempt

a discharger

from this standard

only

in accordance with the

requirements of Sections

302.209 and

302.306..

1)

The discharger must demonstrate and document the

following:

A)

The character of the receiving waters pursuant

to Sections 302.202,

302.209,

and 302.306..

B)

The discharge will not cause downstream waters

to exceed

the applicable

fecal coliform water

quality standards.

2)

The Agency shall grant exemptions

to the standards

on

a year—round or seasonal basis consistent with

the documentation provided by the discharger.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

SQ—~11

---

—24—

Board Member Jacob

D. Dunelle concurred.

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

~

,

1988,

by a vote

of

T~—e~

~

/L~

Dorothy M.

unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

89—212