ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 19,

1992

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R91—3

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

)

 (Identical

 in Substance Rules)

UPDATE, PHASE II

AND

COLIFORN

)

RULES

 (7/1/90

—

 1/31/91)

)

IN THE MATTER OF

:

)

 R92-9

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

)

 (Identical in Substance Rules)

PHASE

 I CORRECTIONS

)

 (Consolidated)

Adopted Rule.

 Final Order.

OPINION OF THE

BOARD

 (by J. Anderson):’

SUMNARY OF TODAY’S ACTION

Pursuant to Section 17.5 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act), the Board today updates its regulations that are identical

in substance to USEPA regulations implementing the Safe Drinking

Water Act

 (SDWA).

 The Board rules are contained in 35 Ill.

 Adm.

Code 611.

 The text of the rules appears

 in a separate order,

adopted this same day.

Section 17.5 of the Act provides for quick adoption of

regulations that are “identical

 in substance” to federal

regulations; Section 17.5 provides that Title VII of the Act and

Section

 5 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act

 (APA)

 shall not apply.

 Because this rulemaking is not subject to

Section 5 of the APA Ill.

 Rev. Stat.

 1991 ch.

 111½, par.

 (1005-5

et seq.),

 it is not subject to first notice or to second notice

review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

 (JCAR).

As discussed more fully below,

 this rulemaking involves

major revisions and additions to the Illinois SDWA rules,

as

originally adopted August

9,

 1990,

 in docket R88-26

 (effective

September 20,

 1990).

 It includes the federal amendments to the

coliforin rules,

 as adopted by USEPA January

 8 and 15,

 1991,

January 15, 1992,

 and June

10,

 1992; the Phase II amendments of

January 30,

 1992;

 and the Phase II corrections and Phase IIB

rules of July

1,

 1991.

1

 The Board wishes to acknowledge the efforts of those

staff members who participated in the preparation of these

adopted amendments.

 Morton F. Dorothy,

 attorney, assembled the

proposal for public comment.

 Under the direction of Kathleen M.

Crowley, Senior Attorney, Michael

 J. McCambridge, attorney,

assisted by LouAnn

C.

 Burnett, environmental scientist,

 reviewed

the public comments received and drafted the final opinion and

order.

U~)

2

The result of these amendments has been a significant

rewrite and reorganization of the Illinois SDWk regulations.

Originally delayed by the sheer volume of the January,

1991

amendments, the Board adopted a proposal for public comment on

March 11,

 1992.

 Further delay resulted from the volume and

nature of the comments received.

For the convenience of the regulated community,

 the Board

then decided to include the July

1,

 1991 Phase II corrections and

certain elements of the Phase IIB rules, along with the coliform

amendments of January and June,

 1992.

 Additionally, while the

Board was assembling this adopted rule, USEPA submitted comments

highlighting certain corrections necessary for Illinois to

maintain state primacy.

 We are accordingly consolidating R92-9,

the reserved docket for those corrections, with the R9l-3 Phase

II docket,

 and are including amendments to the existing rules

addressed to the primacy issues.

Finally, the Board must observe that its experience in

developing the SDWA rules does not exactly parallel its

experience in developing identical in substance regulations in

other federal program areas, such as the RCRA and UIC hazardous

waste programs.

 The federal hazardous waste programs, for

example,

 are relatively new programs created largely out of

“whole cloth”.

 They regulate a relatively new industry.

The federal SDWA program,

 in contrast,

 is an overlay on

state programs which

 in many areas pre—date the adoption of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act in 1970.

 They regulate

municipal,

 community, private and other water supplies which have

been delivering drinking water to their customers for

generations.

 The relationship of the state,

 through the Board,

the Agency, and the Department of Public Health, with these

supplies has historically been one that relies less on the threat

of enforcement in achieving compliance,

 than on the trust in a

partnership whose goal

 is to safeguard the public health through

the provision of adequate quantities of the best possible quality

of drinking water.

The public comments filed early in this proceeding lead the

Board to conclude that the reworking of the drinking water rules,

commenced in R88-26 in response to the SDWA identical in

substance mandate, was not responding to the needs of the Agency

and the regulated community as well as the Board had hoped when

the rules were adopted.

 In adopting these Phase II rules,

we

have revisited some of the language and regulatory structure

adopted in the original Phase

 I rulemaking.

 Our intent has been

to make the rules more “user friendly”.

 Our goal was to better

reflect industry practice and terminology, as well as the

Agency’s experience inadministering the rules in light of the

 continuing evolution of USEPA guidance documents interpreting

sometimes less—than-perfectly—drafted federal regulations.

 37-025L~

3

We believe that our joint efforts have resulted in a

regulatory framework and base text that will prove to be more

readily usable by affected agencies and entit~.es,and more easily

capable of being updated,

 than were our early rules

 in this area.

FEDERAL ACTIONS COVERED BY THIS RULEMAKING

The SDWA program was drawn from 40 CFR 141

 (national primary

drinking water regulations or NPDWRs) and 143

 (national secondary

drinking water regulations or NSDWRs).

 The nominal update period

of this docket was from July

1,

 1990 through December 31,

 1990.

No federal amendments occurred during that period.

 By our March

11,

 1992 opinion and order,

 the Board extended the update period

through January 31,

 1991,

 in order to embrace the significant

federal Phase II NPDWRs, which USEPA adopted on January 30,

 1991.

Therefore,

 for this extended update period, the principal

amendments to the federal regulations occurred as follows:

56 Fed. Reg. 636

 January

8,

1991

56 Fed.

 Reg. 1556

 January 15,

1991

56 Fed.

 Reg. 3578

 January 30,

1991

The January

 8 action amended the federal coliforin sampling

regulations.

 The January 15 rulemaking stayed a portion of the

June 29,

 1989 federal total coliforin NPDWR.

 The January 30

action adopted Phase II NPDWRs for a number inorganic, volatile

organic,

 and synthetic organic chemical contaminants,

 as well as

monitoring requirements for

 a number of unregulated inorganic and

organic chemical contaminants.

USEPA subsequently corrected and amended the affected

sections in a way that makes

 it desirable for the Board to use

the following later federal actions in the present update period:

56 Fed. Reg.

26547

 June 7,

1991

56 Fed.

 Reg.

30266

 July

1,

1991

57 Fed.

 Reg.

1850

 January 15,

1992

57 Fed.

 Reg.

22178

 May 27,

1992

57 Fed.

 Reg.

24744

 June 10,

1992

The June

 7 action was the lead and copper rules.

 The July

 1 and

May 27 actions are the federal Phase IIB amendments and

corrections to the Phase II rules, which affects the earlier

Phase II regulations in some regards.

 The January 15 and June 10

actions affect the coliform rules.

 (The majority of the June

7

action (except that portion pertaining to the definition of

“maximum contaminant level”)

 and those segments of the Phase IIB

rules promulgating new MCLs are not the subject of this docket.

Rather, they are the subject of docket R91-15.)

Finally, USEPA completed its primacy review of the Board’s

Phase

 I rules during the time since the proposal for public

0137-0255

4

comment,

 in March.

 The corrections, although not major, affect

several Sections of the existing rules adopte3 in P88—26,

in

August

 1990.

 Since the time is short for the Board to adopt the

necessary corrections, we hereby consolidate the corrections

docket, R92-9, with the Phase II and coliform amendments docket,

R91-3,

 in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in assuring that

the Phase I rules are “identical in substance” to USEPA rules as

required by Section 17.5 of the Act.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Board received some public comments in advance of the

formal proposal in this Docket.

 They are summarized as follows:

PC

1

 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

(Stephen C. Ewert,

 Deputy Counsel), June 17,

1991

PC 2

 Agency (Stephen C.

 Ewert, Deputy Counsel), June

19,

1991

PC

3

 Environetics, mc,

 (Lee Flores, National Sales

Manager), February 10,

1992

PC

4

 Agency, January 23,

1992

PC 1 and PC

 2 are preliminary comments by the Agency, which

the Board received in the course of developing the Proposal.

PC

3 and PC 4 requested inclusion of the January

15,

 1992 Federal

Register,

 in which USEPA approved the MMO-MUG test for total

coliform.

 The inclusion of this test is discussed in detail

below.

The Board has since received the following additional public

comments:

PC

5

 USEPA Region V (Charlene J. Denys,

 Chief, Drinking

Water Section, to Roger D.

 Selberg, Manager,

Division of Public Water Supplies, Agency), April

20,

1992

PC 6

 Secretary of State, Administrative Code Division,

May 12,

1992

PC 7

 Northern Illinois Water Corp.

 (Andrew J.

 Keiser,

P.E., Production Manager), May 22,

1992

PC 8

 Environetics

 (Lee Flores, National Sales Manager),

May 28,

1992

 (and June 2,

 1992 correction)

PC

9

 Illinois Department of Commerce and Community

Affairs

 (DCCA), Regulatory Flexibility Unit

 (Linda

D.

 Brand,

 Manager), June

1,

1992

0~370256

5

PC 10

 Agency

(S.

 Ewart), June 4,

1992

PC

11

 Environetics

(L.

 Flores), June

17,

1992

PC

12

 Agency

(S.

 Ewart), November 10, 1992

 (with

attached July 3,

 1992 letter from Chritiane Saada—

Blume,

 Chief,

 State Programs Unit, USEPA Region V

to Lou Allyn Byus, Assistant Manager, Field

Operations Agency)

PC 13

 Regulatory Workgroup Minutes (Board and Agency),

June 26,

1992

PC 14

 Agency (Roger

D.

 Selburg, Division Manager,

Division of Public Water Supplies; enclosing June

22,

 1992 letter from Edward P. Watters,

 Chief,

Safe Drinking Water Branch, USEPA Region V), July

21,

1992

PC 15

 USEPA (Christiane Saada-Blume, Chief,

 State

Programs Unit, Region V; to Agency, LouAllyn

Byus), August 24,

1992

In summary,

PC

 5 highlights the need of USEPA to receive a

completed “crosswalk”, indicating the correlation between the

federal provisions and Illinois provisions,

 so it can conduct its

review of the proposed rules.

PC

 6 cites a few Illinois

Administrative Code format corrections necessary before final

adoption.

PC

7,

 PC 10, and PC 12 comment on various substantive

aspects of the proposed amendments.

PC

 8 and PC 11 request that

the Board include the June 10,

 1992 USEPA approval of the

Colilert test for

 E. coli,

 which is discussed in detail below.

PC 9

 indicates that DCCA has found no negative economic impact

for the proposed rules.

PC

 13 through PC 15 highlight revisions

necessary to the R88-26 Phase

 I rules in order to maintain state

primacy for the drinking water program.

 PC 14 embraces the

details of the USEPA review of Illinois’ Phase

 I rules, PC 13

includes the jointly formulated Illinois response, and PC 15 is

the USEPA reply.

REASONS

FOR

DELAY

ORDERS

AND

SUBSEQUENT

DELAY

Section

 7.2(b)

 of the Act requires that identical in

substance rulemakings be completed within one year after the

first USEPA action in the batch period.

 If the Board

 is unable

to do so,

 it must find that an “extension of time”

 is necessary,

give the reasons why the one year period is insufficient, publish

the finding and reasons in the Illinois Register and specify a

date when the Board anticipates completion of the rulemaking.

The Board entered a reasons for extension Order on January

9,

 1992.

 This appeared in the Illinois Register on February 14,

01

31-0257

6

1992

 (16 Iii. Reg.

 2708).

 The Board cited federal errors in the

Phase II rules and indicated that we hoped to have

 a proposal out

by March

1,

 1992 and to adopt final

 amendments’ by June 4,

 1992.

We adopted a proposal for public comment on March 11,

 1992.

It

appeared in the Illinois Register on April 10,

1992

 (16 Iii. Peg.

5582).

Subsequently anticipating further delay after reviewing

public comments, we adopted another reasons for delay order on

June 23,

 1992.

 It appeared in the Illinois Register on July 31,

1992

 (16 111.

 Reg.

 12241).

 That notice cited the difficulties in

adapting the federal rules to the Illinois scheme and the public

comments received as the reasons for delay.

 The newly—projected

date for completion of this rulemaking was October

1,

 1992.

Further delay occurred due to unforeseen and uncontrollable

circumstances.

 The rules have undergone significant structural

and substantive change since the proposal for public comments.

The USEPA Phase II corrections that occurred on July 1,

 1991 and

May 27,

 1992 have been added because they changed the direction

for several of the federal provisions.

 For similar reasons, the

January 15,

 1992 and June 10, 1992 federal revisions to the

coliform rule have been added.

 Finally,

 in order to maintain

Illinois primacy authorization, USEPA comments relating to

 provisions not previously involved have been incorporated into

this docket.

 The deadline for state

 (both Board and Agency)

action on these Phase

 I corrections is December 3,

 1992.

 This

does not allow the use of a separate docket for the corrections,

P92-9, as originally planned.

SDWA

REGULATORY

HISTORICAL

 SUMMARY

The Board adopted the initial round of USEPA drinking water

regulations, including the “Phase I” rules,

 adopted by USEPA

prior to June 30,

 1989, as follows:

R88—26

 114 PCB 149, August 9,

1990

 (14 Ill. Reg.

 16517,

effective September 20,

 1990).

Subsequent dockets updated the regulations to include federal

amendments since that time:

R90—4

 112 PCB 317, June 21,

 1990 (dismissal; no USEPA

amendments July

 1 through December 31,

 1989)

R90-13

 117 PCB 687, December 20,

1990

 (15 Iii.

 Peg.

 1562,

effective January 22,

 1991)

 (January

1,

1990

through

June

30,

1990)

R90—21

 116 PCB 365, November 29,

1990

 (14 Ill.

 Reg.

20448,

 effective December 11,

 1990)

 (Corrections

P88—26)

0

 37-0258

P91-3

Present

docket,

proposal

for

public

comment

March

11,

1992

 (USEPA Phase

 II and Coliforms; July

1,

1990 through January 31,

 1991)

P91-15

 Reserved docket

 (USEPA Lead and Copper and Phase

IIB; February

1,

 1991 through July 1,

 1991)

R92-3

 Reserved docket

 (USEPA Phase V; July 2,

1991

through December 31,

 1991)

P92-9

 Present docket, consolidated

 (Corrections to Phase

I rules, P88—26)

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PRESENT ISSUES

Most of this Update concerns the USEPA “Phase II” rules.

This involves the adoption of “revised MCL5” for several

inorganic chemical contaminants

 (IOCs), volatile organic chemical

contaminants

 (VOCs),

 and synthetic organic chemical contaminants

(SOCs, including pesticides and PCBs).

 Accompanying these

revised MCLs is a major overhaul of the monitoring and reporting

requirements.

 Other segments of the amendments relate to

biological testing for coliform bacteria in drinking water.

Finally, segments of the adopted amendments are corrections to

the existing rules from P88-26, adopted by the Board on August

9,

1990.

 USEPA highlighted several deficiencies in those rules.

These corrections are necessary to retain state primacy under the

 federal regulations.

The Board staff began working on the Phase II and coliform

rules

 in February,

 1991,

 shortly after the rules appeared in the

Federal Register.

 The Phase II and coliform rules required

considerable work over

 a 13—month period,

 in order to prepare the

proposal for public comment that the Board adopted on March 11,

1992.

 In response to the public comments received, we felt

several revisions were necessary.

 The Board spent a period of

another seven months making these significant revisions to the

proposed rules, preparing them for final adoption.

 During the

public comment period, Board staff had significant interaction

with Agency and USEPA staff, as well as with the regulated

community,

 in developing these changes.

Normally, the Board’s final opinion reiterates the

discussions contained in the proposed opinion.

 As a result of

the changes made to the text of the rules, and in light of the

nature of the comments received, the Board deviates from that

practice

 in this proceeding.

 The following discussion limits

itself to discussing the source and nature of the amendments made

and a discussion of the issues raised by the public comments.

Persons desiring a fuller discussion of the issues raised by the

federal approach should consult the proposed opinion of March

Il,

1992.

 This opinion will not review that discussion except to the

0137-0259

8

degree necessary and within the scope of the detailed, section—

by—section discussions that follow.

 However, these discussions

will highlight the differences between the proposed version and

the text of the rules as amended.

Overview of the Federal Actions Involved

On January 8,

 1991,

 at 56 Fed. Peg.

 643, USEPA amended the

microbiological

monitoring

requirements

adding

new

method

for

detection

of

 E. coli

and

modifying

existing

method

for

detection

total

coliforms

for

determining

compliance

with

the

microbiological

MCLs.

(Suppliers

that

detect

the

presence

total

coliforms

must

test

for

 E. coli.)

The

amended

methodology

for

total

coliforms

the

MTF

Technique

Presence-Absence

(PA)

Coliform

Test.

The

revisions

relate

transfer

coliform-

positive

cultures

medium.

The

new

presence—absence

test

methods

for

E.

 coli

 involved the use of EC medium or nutrient

agar

supplemented

with

4-methylunbelliferyl-/~-d-g1ucuronide

(MUG)

and

observance

fluorescence

upon

ultraviolet

irradiation

after

incubation.

January

15,

1991,

Fed.

Peg.

1557,

USEPA

granted

stay

the

ban

variances

and

exemptions

from

the

total

coliform

MCL

for

certain

systems.

supplier

that

demonstrates

that

violation

the

total

coliform

requirement

due

the

persistent

growth

coliforms

the

distribution

system

can

obtain

variance

exemption

(adjusted

standard

the

Illinois

scheme).

The

supplier

must

show

that

the

problem

does

not

result

from

fecal

pathogenic

contamination,

treatment

from

lapse

deficiency,

from

distribution

system

operation

maintenance

problem.

January

30,

1991,

Fed.

Peg.

3578,

USEPA

promulgated

the

Phase

regulations.

This

instituted

maximum

contaminant

levels

(MCLs)

for

basically

five

categories

not

have

specified

MCLs:

unregulated

inorganic

chemical

contaminants

(aldrin,

benzo (a) pyrene,

butachior,

carbaryl,

dalapon,

di(2-ethylhexyl)

adipate,

di(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalates,

dicamba,

dieldrin,

dinoseb,

diquat,

endothall,

glyphosate,

hexachlorobenzene,

hexachlorocyclopentadiene,

3—hydroxycarbofuran,

methoinyl,

metolachlor,

metribuzin,

oxamyl

(vydate), picloram, propachlor,

 simazine, and 2,3,7,8-tcdd

(dioxin))

and

unregulated

organic

chemical

contaminants

(antimony,

beryllium,

nickel,

sulfate,

thallium,

and

cyanide).

The

federal

rulemaking

adopted

new

cyclical

monitoring

scheme

for

these

contaminants.

USEPA

initiated

system

three—year

compliance

periods

and

nine—year

compliance

cycles

for

monitoring.

(One

compliance

cycle

includes

three

compliance

periods.)

The

first

compliance

cycle

and

the

first

compliance

period

begin

January

1993.

This

means

that

the

first

compliance

period

ends

December

31,

1995

and

the

first

compliance

cycle

ends

December

31,

2001.

soon

one

compliance

period

compliance

cycle

ends,

new

one

begins.

USEPA

requires

routine

monitoring

each

compliance

period,

which

varies

frequency,

primarily

contaminant

group.

For

asbestos,

USEPA

requires

one

sample

each

entry

point

during

the

first

compliance

period

each

compliance

cycle.

For

nitrate,

four

quarterly

samples

are

required

during

the

first

year

the

first

compliance

period

the

first

compliance

cycle,

and

one

sample

each

year

after

that.

USEPA

contemplates

single

sample

for

nitrite

during

the

first

compliance

period.

For

all

other

lOCs,

USEPA

requires

one

sample

during

each

compliance

period

for

groundwater

supplies,

and

annual

sampling

for

surface

water

and

mixed

supplies.

For

SOCs,

USEPA

requires

four

consecutive

quarterly

samples

the

first

compliance

period,

then

one

sample

each

compliance

period

for

supplies

serving

fewer

than

3,300

persons

two

for

suppliers

serving

3,300

persons

more.

For

VOCs,

USEPA

requires

four

consecutive

quarterly

samples

each

entry

point

the

first

compliance

period,

then

two

annual

samples

the

second

compliance

period

and

one

sample

each

subsequent

compliance

period

for

groundwater

supplies,

continuing

annual

samples

beginning

the

second

compliance

period

for

surface

water

and

mixed

supplies.

Significant

the

monitoring

scheme

the

federal

use

mechanisms

reduce

the

burden

and

cost

monitoring

for

suppliers,

areas

sampling

points

that

meet

certain

criteria.

For

example,

USEPA

will

allow

the

use

existing

monitoring

results

that

generally

comply

with

the

new

scheme

and

which

was

collected

after

certain

dates,

rather

than

requiring

new

results.

USEPA

contemplates

the

use

waivers

that

reduce

the

frequency

0137-0261

10

monitoring

under

certain

circumstances

for

source

water,

sampling

point

area

and

the

enforcement

authority

has

made specific findings.

 A “use” waiver

 is supported by a finding

that

chemical

has

never

been

made,

used,

transported,

stored,

used

the

area.

“susceptibility”

waiver

based

finding

that

the

source

supply

not

vulnerable

contamination

chemical

because

such

factors

data,

contaminant

transport

and

persistence,

source

protection,

etc.

The

waivers

expire

varying

times

for

the

various

chemical

contaminants,

but

they

range

duration

from

one

compliance

period

entire

compliance

cycle.

Some

are

renewable

indefinitely

without

additional

monitoring,

but

others

are

not

require

reduced

monitoring,

depending

the

variables

cited.

One

mechanism

for

reducing

the

burden

monitoring

that

the

Agency

does

not

support

and

the

Board

has

not

adopted

composite

sampling.

Under

this

scheme,

suppliers

can

composite

the

samples

from

five

distinct

sampling

points

for

single

analysis.

For

systems

serving

fewer

than

3,300

persons,

multiple

suppliers

can

composite

together.

Otherwise

only

single

supplier can composite from multiple sampling points within a

single

system.

The

problems

with

composite

sampling

are

that

method

detection

limits

sometimes

not

allow

the

conclusion

that

composited

sampling

points

are

below

the

MCL

and

unless

such

conclusion

possible,

the

supplier(s)

must

singly

repeat

the sampling for each composited sampling point and analyze each

sample

separately.

The

Agency,

10,

has

stated

its

support

for

this

approach.

The

detected

presence

contaminant

the

water

from

sampling

point

can

trigger

 frequent monitoring under the new

federal

scheme.

This

means

that

the

chemical

contaminant

present

above

either

the

maximum

contaminant

level

some

lower

“action

level”,

the

supplier

must

sample

that

point

increased

frequency

for

that

contaminant.

The

“action

level”

varies

contaminant

group.

the

increased

monitoring

supports

finding

the

enforcement

authority

that

the

presence

the

contaminant

“reliably

and

consistently”

below

the

MCL

the

“action

level”,

the

supplier

can

return

reduced

monitoring

frequency.

For

lOCs

generally

the

action

level

the

MCL,

but

for

nitrate

and

nitrite

one-half

the

NCL.

For

VOCs

and

SOCs

generally

the

action

level

“detection”

the

MCL,

but

for

vinyl

chloride

increased

monitoring

“detects”

one

seven

surrogate

VOC5.

The

increased

monitoring

frequency

quarterly

ongoing

basis,

least

until

the

supplier has a specified minimal amount of data to support a

“reliably and consistently” determination.

 Then the monitoring

returns

the

frequency

generally

required.

The

sampling

for

the

unregulated

chemical

contaminants

single

round

for

each

sampling

point.

The

supplier

must

complete

0137-0262

11

the

monitoring

for

the

unregulated

contaminants

before

the

end

the

first

compliance

period

(December

31,

1995).

USEPA

has

provided

for

grandfathering

data

these

contaminants

and

for

waivers

the

monitoring

 requirement.

The

federal

scheme

specifies

other

aspects

monitoring

well.

The

rules

set

forth

sampling

and

analytical

protocol.

They

specify

analytical

methods

and

sampling

points.

These

vary

the

water

source

the

contaminant

interest.

Some

the

methods

are

new.

Other

aspects

the

Phase

regulations

have

prompted

action

the

Board

because

the

federal

rules

involved

either

have

substantive

impact

they

would

not

adapt

well

the

Illinois

regulatory

scheme

and

they

are

optional

provisions

not

required

the

state.

Having

substantive

impact

are

maximum

contaminant

level

goals

(MCLGs)

for

each

the

lOCs,

VOC5,

and

SOCs.

This

the

level

contaminant

that

USEPA

considers

goal

for

MCL,

although

most

cases

the

NCL

actually

adopted

higher.

They

are

not

 required provisions,

the

Board

has

not

adopted

them.

example

optional

provisions

not

adapting

well

the

Illinois

scheme

are

those

USEPA

made

for

composite

sampling for chemical contaminants.

 The Board has similarly not

adopted these.

On July 1,

 1991,

 at 56 Fed.

 Reg.

 30274,

 USEPA promulgated

the

Phase

IIB

regulations.

These

amendments

added

new

IOC

(barium)

and

four

new

SOCs

(aldicarb,

aldicarb

suif oxide,

aldicarb

sulfone,

and

pentachiorophenol).

(Those

aspects

are

the

subject

docket

P91-15,

not

this

proceeding.)

They

also

amended

the

general

monitoring

requirements

and

effected

several

corrections to the Phase II rules.

 The main amendments to the

monitoring requirements included updating several methods,

expansion of others to include a new chemical contaminant,

elimination of consumer tap sampling for VOCs, rewording some of

 the existing provisions,

 inserting an effective date of January

1,

 1993 for several requirements, setting forth laboratory

certification requirements for PCB analyses, and selection of

seven two—carbon chlorinated compounds whose detection will

trigger the need to monitor quarterly for vinyl chloride.

The Board has adopted those segments of the Phase IIB

amendments that pertain to monitoring or which constitute

corrections to the January 30,

 1991 Phase II rules at this time.

They directly affect the amendments under consideration from

Phase

II.

 We did not adopt the new MCLs and the requirements

directly related to those five new contaminants.

 Those are new

material not directly related to the amendments involved in the

proposal for public comment.

On January

15,

 1992,

 at 57 Fed.

 Reg.

 1852, USEPA approved

another presence—absence test for

E.

 coli.

 Suppliers using the

0137 -o263

12

MMO-MUG

Test (minimal medium ortho-nitrophenyl-~-d-

galactopyranoside-4-methylumbelliferyl-$-d-glucuronide

test)

for

total

coliforms

are

now

required

further

test

the

samples

for

E.

 coli

transferring

the

coliform

positive,

MUG-negative

culture

from

the

 MMO-MUG

test

medium

supplemented

with

MUG

and

test

for

fluorescence

upon

ultraviolet

irradiation

after

incubation.

urges

the

Board

include

this

method

the

present

docket.

The

Agency

also

brought

the

Board’s

attention

May

27,

1992,

Fed.

Peg.

22178,

USEPA

imposed

partial

stay

 certain of the July

1,

1991

Phase

IIB

regulations.

 USEPA stayed the MCL5 for three new SOC

contaminants

 (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide,

 and aldicarb

sulfone).

 USEPA left the monitoring and certain of the public

notice requirements for these contaminants intact.

 However, the

Board needs to take no action based on this federal action at

this time.

 That action will occur when we adopt the new MCLs for

those chemical contaminants in docket P91-15.

Finally, on June 10,

 1992,

 at 57 Fed. Reg. 24747, USEPA made

changes to the MMO-MUG tests for total coliform and

 E. coli.

Suppliers could use hepes buffer instead of phosphate buffer when

using the MMO-MUG test for total coliforms.

 When the supplier

uses the hepes buffer,

 it could use the total coliform test

sample for detection of

E.

 coli,

 by testing for ultraviolet

fluorescence and further incubation and testing for fluorescence

if total coliform positive.

 USEPA simultaneously made the

additional testing of MMO-MTJG coliform-positive samples in EC

medium supplemented with

MUG

and optional test.

 PC 8 and PC 11

request that the Board include this test in this docket.

Federally-Initiated Corrections to Existing Phase

 I Pules

In addition to the amendments derived from federal

regulatory action, this docket includes numerous corrections to

the existing rules.

 These are corrections addressing USEPA

comments submitted upon its primacy review of the existing Phase

I regulations adopted in P88-26, on August

9,

 1990 (effective

September 20,

 1990).

The USEPA comments identified various deficiencies

 in the

Illinois Phase

 I program.

 The majority of the deficiencies are

in those segments of the program administered by the Department

of Public Health

 (relating to non-community water supplies).

As

to those relating to the Board- and Agency-administered segments

of the drinking water program, their volume is not large, and

many of them are very minor.

 Of the 34 USEPA comments relating

to the Board’s rules,

 16 do not require rulemaking corrections,

six involve correction of typographical errors,

 and five are

minor corrections to the language selected by the Board in its

rules.

 The actions in response to the other seven USEPA comments

01 37-026~4

13

require the restoration of snippets of federal language omitted

by the Board in adopting R88-26

 (four), the c)arification of

certain limitations on state authority under federal law to grant

a certain type of adjusted standard without USEPA concurrence

before it becomes effective

 (one), the deletion of references to

Agency delegation of authority to units of local government

(one),

 and correction of the edition of an analytical method

referenced

 (one).

DETAILED SECTION-BY-SECTION-ANALYSIS

With the above general discussion of the federal actions

involved in this proceeding, the Board discusses the amendments

on a more detailed, section—by—section basis.

 This discussion

focuses on the details of the actions taken,

 not on the

generalities of the federal actions discussed above.

 This

discussion will not repeat that discussion.

Definitions——Section 611.101

The definitions section does not derive from any single

provision of the USEPA drinking water regulations.

 Although the

federal rules do have a definitions section

 (40 CFR 141.2), many

more of the definitions adopted by the Board derive from terms

and phrases as used and defined by USEPA elsewhere in its rules.

Where definitions derive from a specific USEPA provision,

 a Board

Note accompanying the definition so notes.

The Board adds definitions of “compliance cycle”,

“compliance period”,

 “distribution system”,

 “entry point”,

 “GWS”

(“groundwater

 system”), “initial compliance period”,

 “L”,

 “MFL”,

“mg”,

“mg/L”,

“mixed

system”,

“nm”,

“old

MCL”,

“Phase

I”,

“Phase II”,

 “Phase IIB”,

 “reliably and consistently”, “repeat

compliance period”,

 “representative”,

 “SEP”,

 “source”, “SWS”

(“surface water system”),

 “SOC”

 (“synthetic organic chemical

contaminant”), “transient, non—community water system”

(“transient non—CWS”),

 “treatment”,

 “jig”, and “USEPA”.

 Most of

these words,

 abbreviations, and phrases are used extensively by

USEPA in the federal regulations from which the Board derives the

Illinois rules, and USEPA describes many.

 The rest are used in

 the Illinois version of the rules for convenience or clarity.

The Board further amends several existing definitions:

“Act”,

 “Agency”, “best available technology”, “CT” (“CT~”),

“CT~9”, “community water system”

 (“CWS”), “diatomaceous earth

filtration”, “disinfectant contact time”,

 “disinfection”,

“GC/MS”,

 “groundwater under the direct influence of surface

water”,

 “inactivation ratio”,

 “maximum total trihalomethane

potential”

 (“MTP”),

 “near the first service connection”, “non-

community water system”

 (“non—CWS”),

 “non-transient non-community

water system

 (“NTNCWS”), “performance evaluation sample”,

0

 I 37-0265

14

“Picocurie”

 (“pci”),

 “Public Health”,

 “public water system”

(“PWS”),

 “residual disinfectant concentration”

 (“RCD” or “C”),

“sanitary

survey”,

“slow

sand

filtration”,

“supplier

water”

(“supplier”),

“surface

water”,

“system

with

single

service

connection”,

 “total trihalomethanes”

 (“TTHN”),

“trihalomethane”

(“Tm.!”),

 “virus”,

 “VOC”

 (“volatile organic chemical

contaminant”), and “waterborne disease outbreak”.

Finally, the Board updates all references to the Code of

Federal Regulations to the 1991 edition, eliminating unnecessary

references to the Federal Register, wherever these appear.

 Many

of these definitions are not specifically referenced as amended.

Due to the routine nature of these amendments,

 the Board will not

specifically refer to them in this opinion.

The definitions added and amended in this proceeding are

listed below.

 This listing indicates the nature of the action

and any change since the proposed version of the text and any

pertinent comments received:

“Act”

 (amended):

 Cited now as the 1991 edition, and “1/2”,

which appeared in the original and in the proposal for

public comment,

 is now rendered as

“½”.

“Agency”

 (amended):

 we added a Board Note in response to an

Agency comment

(PC

 12) explaining that to the extent

that the Department of Public Health regulates non-

community supplies by reference to the Board’s rules,

“Agency” will mean the Department.

“Ai” (“inactivation ratio”)

 (added):

 used as a formula

abbreviation in the definition of “inactivation ratio”

throughout the existing text.

“Best available technology”

 (amended):

 “Which”, which

appeared in the original and in the proposal for public

comment,

 is now rendered as “that”, for grammatic

correctness.

“CT” (“cT~”) (amended):

 The abbreviation, as

 it appeared

in the original and in the proposal for public comment,

is now rendered in the way most commonly encountered in

the literature and most readily understood by the

regulated community, using the subscript.

“CT~9” (amended):

 The abbreviation,

as

 it appeared in the

original and in the proposal for public comment,

 is now

rendered in the way most commonly encountered in the

literature and most readily understood by the regulated

community,

 using the subscript.

0

 37-0266

15

“Community

water

system”

(“CWS”)

(amended):

The

adopted

version

eliminates

the

need

elsewhere

seek

definition

 abbreviation used,

 as was required in

the

original

and

the

proposal

for

 public comment.

The

opening

wording

was

changed

from

the

original

and

the

proposal

for

public

comment

for

the

sake

stylistic

consistency.

“Which”,

 which appeared in the original

and

the

 proposal for public comment,

 is now rendered

“that”,

for

grainmatic

correctness.

“Compliance

cycle”

(added):

Derived

from

the

USEPA

definition at 40 CFR 141.2,

 as adopted at 56 Fed. Peg.

3578

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal Phase II and Phase

IIB requirements institute a cyclical system for

monitoring drinking water contamination.

 A nine—year

“compliance cycle” comprises three three—year

“compliance periods.

 The first compliance cycle and

compliance period begin January 1,

 1993.

 Subsequent

compliance periods begin

 in three—year intervals

thereafter,

 and compliance cycles begin in subsequent

nine-year periods.

 The adopted version eliminates the

need to elsewhere seek definition of an abbreviation

used,

 as was required in the original and the proposal

for public comment.

“Compliance period”

 (added):

 Derived from the USEPA

definition at 40 CFR 141.2,

 as adopted at 56 Fed. Reg.

3578

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal Phase II and Phase

IIB requirements institute a cyclical system for

monitoring drinking water contamination.

 A nine—year

“compliance cycle” comprises three three—year

“compliance periods.

 The first compliance cycle and

compliance period begin January

1,

 1993.

 Subsequent

compliance periods begin in three—year intervals

thereafter,

 and compliance cycles begin in subsequent

nine-year periods.

“Diatomaceous earth filtration”

 (amended):

 USEPA corrected

misspelling

its

CFP

141.21(f)

(3) (ii)

(corresponding

with

Ill.

 Adm.

Code

611.526(e)

(2))

use

“membrane”

Fed.

Reg.

24747

(June

10,

1992).

USEPA

did

not

correct

the

misspelling

its

CFR

141.2

 definition of “diatomaceous earth

filtration”,

but

the

Board

makes

the

correction

this

definition.

“Disinfectant

contact

time”

(amended):

The

opening

wording

was changed from the original and the proposal for

public comment for the sake of stylistic consistency.

“Disinfection”

 (amended):

 “Which”, which appeared in the

original and in the proposal for public comment,

 is now

U

 37-0267

16

rendered as “that”,

 for grammatic correctness.

“Distribution system”

 (added):

 This is

 a phrase used

extensively throughout the substantive portions of the

federal Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without

definition.

 The Board proposed this definition at

Sections 611.601(a),

 611.631(e), 611.646(a),

611.648(a), and 611.658(e)

 because we felt that

definition of such a vital phrase would benefit the

clarity of the regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt

the definition as a global definition,

 applicable

throughout Part 611, rather than adopt the definition

separately at each of the other sections as proposed.

The Board revises the proposed version of the

definition by adding the phrase “to the point of

consumer ownership”,

 in order to clarify that the

distribution system does not

 include consumer plumbing.

“Entry point”

 (added):

 This

 is a phrase used extensively

throughout the substantive portions of the federal

Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without definition.

The Board proposed this definition at Sections

611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.646(a),

 611.648(a),

and

611.658(e)

 because we felt that definition of such a

vital phrase would benefit the clarity of the

regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt the definition

as a global definition, applicable throughout Part 611,

rather than adopt the definition separately at each of

the other sections as proposed.

 The Board adopts the

proposed version of the definition without revision.

“GC/MS”

 (amended):

 The opening wording was changed from the

original and the proposal for public comment for the

sake of stylistic consistency.

 The adopted version

eliminates the need to elsewhere seek definition of an

abbreviation

used,

was

required

the

original

and

the proposal for public comment.

 An illustrative

abbreviation was added to the end of the original and

proposal

for

public

comment

versions

indicate

the

meaning

part

the

abbreviation

defined.

“Groundwater under the direct influence of surface water”

(amended):

 The Board corrects the reference to Section

611.212 from how it appeared in the original and in the

proposal for public comment.

“GWS”

 (“groundwater system”)

 (added):

 This is a phrase used

extensively throughout the substantive portions of the

federal Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without

definition.

 The Board proposed this definition at

Sections 611.600(d),

 611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.640,

611.646(a),

 611.648(a),

 and 611.658(e)

 because we felt

U

 37-0268

17

that

definition

such

vital

phrase

would

benefit

the

clarity

the

 regulations.

 The Board decided to

adopt the definition as a global definition,

 applicable

throughout Part 611, rather than adopt the definition

separately at each of the other sections as proposed.

The adopted version eliminates the need to elsewhere

seek definition of an abbreviation used,

 as was

required in the original and the proposal for public

comment.

 “Which”, which appeared in the proposal for

public comment,

 is now rendered as “that”,

for

grammatic correctness.

“Inactivation ratio”

 (amended):

 The abbreviations,

 as they

appeared in the original and in the proposal for public

comment, are now rendered in the way most commonly

encountered in the literature and most readily

understood by the regulated community,

 using the

subscript.

“Initial compliance period”

 (added):

 Derived from the USEPA

definition at 40 CFR 141.2,

 as adopted at 56 Fed. Reg.

3578

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal Phase II and Phase

IIB requirements institute a cyclical system for

monitoring drinking water contamination.

 A nine—year

“compliance cycle” comprises three three—year

“compliance periods.

 The first compliance cycle and

compliance period begin January

1,

 1993.

“L”

 (added):

 The original and the proposal for public

comment lacked a definition of this frequently-used

abbreviation.

 This

 is especially important where,

as

here,

 the Board uses a non—standard abbreviation.

“Maximum total trihalomethane potential”

 (“MTP”)

 (amended):

The opening wording was changed from the original and

the proposal for public comment for the sake of

stylistic consistency.

 The adopted version eliminates

the need to elsewhere seek definition of an

abbreviation used, as was required in the original and

the proposal for public comment.

 The Board changes

from using “deg.”,

 as used in the original and in the

proposal for public comment, to using the symbol

“°“

because the symbol is readily recognized by the

regulated community.

“NFL”

 (added):

 The Board proposed this definition at this

Section and at Section 611.600(d) because we felt that

definition of such a vital phrase would benefit the

clarity of the regulations.

 We have deleted the

Section 611.600(d)

 duplicate definition.

 Otherwise, we

adopt the proposed version of the definition without

revision.

0137-0269

18

“mg”

(added):

The

original

and

the

prcposal

for

 pubic

comment lacked a definition of this frequently-used

abbreviation.

“mg/L”

 (added):

 The original and the proposal for pubic

comment lacked a definition of this frequently-used

abbreviation.

 This is especially important where,

as

here, the Board uses

 a non—standard abbreviation.

“Mixed system”

 (added):

 This is a phrase used extensively

throughout the substantive portions of the federal

Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without definition.

The Board proposed this definition at Sections

611.600(d), 611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.640,

611.646(a),

 611.648(a),

and

611.658(e)

 because we felt

that definition of such a vital phrase would benefit

the clarity of the regulations.

 The Board decided to

adopt the definition as a global definition,

 applicable

throughout Part 611, rather than adopt the definition

separately at each of the other sections as proposed.

“Which”, which appeared in the original and in the

proposal for public comment,

 is now rendered as “that”,

for grammatic correctness.

 Otherwise, we adopt the

proposed version of the definition without revision.

“MUG”

 (added):

 This commonly—used abbreviation represents a

reagent with a lengthy chemical name.

 The Board uses

the abbreviation throughout the text of the rules and

provides a definition here,

 giving the chemical name.

“Near the first service connection”

 (amended):

 The adopted

amendments include an revision that eliminates the need

to elsewhere seek definition of an abbreviation used,

as was required in the original and the proposal for

public comment.

“nm”

 (added):

 The original lacked a definition of this

frequently-used abbreviation.

 The Board changed the

text of the proposal for public comment by adding a

parenthetical indicating the fraction represented.

“Non—community water system”

 (“non—CWS”)

 (amended):

The

opening wording was changed from the original and the

proposal for public comment for the sake of stylistic

consistency.

 In response to an Agency comment

 (PC 12),

we added a new abbreviation for this term,

 “NCWS”,

for

possible future use.

 We did not go further at this

time and incorporate this abbreviation into any

substantive provisions, preferring to give fuller

consideration to the possible consequences before doing

so.

 The adopted version eliminates the need to

elsewhere seek definition of abbreviations used,

 as was

(3 37-0270

19

required in the original and the proposal for public

comment.

 “Which”, which appeared in the original and

in the proposal for public comment,

 is now rendered as

“that”,

 for grammatic correctness.

“Non—transient non-community water system”

 (“NTNCWS”)

(amended):

 The adopted version eliminates the need to

elsewhere seek definition of abbreviations used,

 as was

required

the

original

and

the

proposal

for

public

comment.

“Old MCL”

 (added):

 The adopted rules add this definition,

which did not appear in the proposal for public

comment.

 Due to the parallel existence of two sets

each of NCLs for inorganic and organic chemical

contaminants,

 the Board found it necessary to make a

distinction between them in the monitoring and

analytical provisions.

 This definition clarifies the

terms used in those substantive provisions.

 A Board

Note clarifies that the use of “old MCL” in Subpart 0

refers only to organic chemical contaminants.

“Performance evaluation sample”

 (amended):

 In response to

an Agency comment (PC 12), we deleted the present

reference to the Department of Public Health with

respect to non-community systems and added references

to the Department of Public Health, with respect to

microbiological samples, and to the Illinois Department

of Nuclear Safety, with respect to radiological

samples.

 The adopted version eliminates the need to

elsewhere seek definition of an abbreviation used,

as

was required

 in the original and the proposal for

public comment.

“Phase I”

 (added):

 It has become common to refer to the

federal regulations and the contaminants that they

regulate by the “phase” in which USEPA promulgated

them.

 The Board reverted to this common usage in the

adopted regulations and added this definition for the

sake of clarity, giving the date and cite of the

principal federal action involved.

 At some future time

when there is no difference in regulatory impact based

on the date of federal implementation, the Board may

drop this usage.

“Phase II”

 (added):

 See discussion of “Phase I”.

“Phase IIB”

 (added):

 See discussion of “Phase I”.

“Picocurie”

 (“pci”)

 (amended):

 The opening wording was

changed from the original and the proposal for public

comment for the sake of stylistic consistency.

0137-0271

20

“Public Health”

 (amended):

 we added a Board Note in

response to an Agency comment

 (PC 12) explaining that

to the extent that the Department of Public Health

regulates non-community supplies by reference to the

Board’s rules, “Agency” will mean the Department.

“Public water system”

 (“PWS”)

 (amended):

 The opening

wording was changed from the original and the proposal

for public comment for the sake of stylistic

consistency.

 The Board revised the original and the

proposal

for

public

comment

relocating

the

last

explanatory phrase to the main body of the definition

and by eliminating the need to look elsewhere to

provide meaning for the abbreviations used.

 “Which”,

which appeared in the original and in the proposal for

public comment,

 is now rendered as “that”,

for

grammatic correctness.

“Reliably and consistently”

 (added):

 This is a phrase used

extensively throughout the substantive portions of the

federal Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without

definition.

 The Board proposed this definition at

Sections 611.600(d)

 and 611.640 because we felt that

definition of such a vital phrase would benefit the

clarity of the regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt

the definition as a global definition,

 applicable

throughout Part 611, rather than adopt the definition

 separately at each of the other sections as proposed.

In response to an Agency comment

 (PC 12), the Board

revised the proposed version of the definition by

adopting a version of the definition set forth by the

Agency as already reviewed and acceptable to USEPA.

The focus of the revised version is on the Agency

determination based on factors set forth.

 Those

factors are similar to the core of the proposed

definition.

 The Board believes that the proposed

definition was more precise and enforceable, but we

deferred to USEPA and the Agency in this instance.

“Repeat compliance period”

 (added):

 Derived from the USEPA

definition at 40 CFR 141.2,

 as adopted at 56 Fed. Reg.

3578

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal Phase II and Phase

IIB requirements institute a cyclical system for

monitoring drinking water contamination.

 A nine—year

“compliance cycle” comprises three three—year

“compliance periods.

 The first compliance cycle and

compliance period begin January

1,

 1993.

 Subsequent

compliance periods begin in three—year intervals

thereafter,

 and compliance cycles begin

 in subsequent

nine—year periods.

“Representative”

 (added):

 This is a phrase used extensively

Ut

37-0272

21

 throughout the substantive portions of the federal

Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without definition.

The Board proposed this definition et Sections

611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.646(a),

 611.648(a), and

611.658(e)

 because we felt that definition of such a

vital phrase would benefit the clarity of the

regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt the definition

as a global definition,

 applicable throughout Part 611,

rather than adopt the definition separately at each of

the other sections as proposed.

 The Board

significantly revises the proposed version of the

definition by adopting language suggested by the Agency

in PC 10

 (at page 13).

 The Board agrees that the

Agency-suggested language more fully reflects the

intended federal usage of this term.

“Residual disinfectant concentration”

 (“RCD” or “C”)

(amended):

 The Board adopted the definition of “RDC”

in R88-26.

 The Board intended to add language to make

clear

that,

for

purposes

the

requirement

Section

611.241(d)

 of maintaining a detectable RDC in

the

distribution

system,

 “RDC”

means a residual of free

combined

chlorine.

However,

this

change

was

inadvertently

omitted

from

the

 final Order.

 The Board

has

therefore

 amended the definition in this Docket.

There

was

change

from

the

text

the

proposal

for

public

comment.

“Sanitary

survey”

(amended):

The

adopted

version

eliminates

the

need

elsewhere

 seek definition of an

abbreviation

used,

was

 required in the original and

the proposal for public comment.

“SEP”

 (added):

 Throughout the text of the rules, the Board

adopts use of the abbreviation for special exception

procedure.

 This definition supports the use of the

abbreviation.

 We have not changed the text of the

proposal for public comment.

“Slow sand filtration”

 (amended):

 The adopted version

eliminates the need to adopt a definition for an

abbreviation used,

 as would have been required by the

original and the proposal for public comment.

“Soc”

 (“synthetic organic chemical contaminant”)

 (added):

USEPA groups chemical contaminants into various

categories in its regulations and imposes differing

requirements on each group.

 To do so, USEPA refers to

the groups by paragraph where they appear in the

 federal regulations.

 The Board believes it is less

cumbersome to use the abbreviations that USEPA commonly

uses

 in its discussions of these contaminant groups.

0137-0273

22

Therefore, we revert to this common usage in the

adopted regulations and added this definition for the

sake

clarity,

giving

the

date

and

cite

the

principal federal action involved.

 We prefer the use

“.

 chemical contaminant” to

“.

 chemical, as

suggested by PC 10, because none of these compounds

appear naturally.

“Source”

 (added):

 This is a phrase used extensively

throughout the substantive portions of the federal

Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without definition.

The Board proposed this definition at Sections

611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.646(a),

 611.648(a), and

611.658(e)

 because we felt that definition of such a

vital phrase would benefit the clarity of the

regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt the definition

as a global definition, applicable throughout Part 611,

rather than adopt the definition separately at each of

the other sections as proposed.

 The Board adopts the

proposed version of this definition without revision.

“Supplier of water”

 (“supplier”)

 (amended):

 The adopted

version eliminates the need to elsewhere seek

definition of an abbreviation used, as was required in

the original and the proposal for public comment.

“Surface water”

 (amended):

 “Which”, which appeared in the

original and

 in the proposal for public comment,

 is now

rendered as “that”,

 for grammatic correctness.

“SWS”

 (“surface water system”)

 (added):

 This is a phrase

used extensively throughout the substantive portions of

the federal Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without

definition.

 The Board proposed this definition at

Sections 611.600(d),

 611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.640,

611.646(a), 611.648(a),

 and 611.658(e)

 because we felt

that definition of such a vital phrase would benefit

the clarity of the regulations.

 The Board decided to

adopt the definition as a global definition,

 applicable

throughout Part 611, rather than adopt the definition

separately at each of the other sections as proposed.

The Board revises the proposed version of the

definition by eliminating the need to elsewhere seek

definition of an abbreviation used and by eliminating a

cross-reference to another definition.

“System with a single service connection”

 (amended):

“Which”, which appeared in the original and in the

proposal for public comment,

 is now rendered as “that”,

for grainmatic correctness.

“Total trihalomehanes”

 (“TTHN”)

 (amended):

 The opening

37-0271k

23

wording was changed from the original and the proposal

for public comment for the sake of stylistic

consistency.

 The adopted version eJiminates the need

to elsewhere seek definition of abbreviations used,

as

was required in the original and the proposal for

public comment.

 We amended the Board Note in response

Agency

comment

(PC

12)

add

cross—reference

to the definition of trihalomethane for a listing of

the four compounds that USEPA considers

trihalomethanes.

 We did this despite our general

tendency not to cross—reference definitions or repeat

the essence of one definition within another.

“Transient,

 non—community water system”

 (“transient non—

CWS”)

 (added):

 Although these systems are beyond the

Board’s and the Agency’s statutory authority to

regulate

 (the Department of Public Health regulates

them), the Board adopts the totality of the USEPA

drinking water regulations, and USEPA

 (PC 14) has

suggested that Public Health use the Board’s rules in

its enforcement.

 The Board adds the definition, which

 does not appear in the federal rules and which did not

appear in the proposal for public comment.

 In response

to an Agency comment (PC 12), we added a new

abbreviation for this term,

 “TNCWS”,

 for possible

future use.

 We did not go further at this time and

incorporate this abbreviation into any substantive

provisions,

preferring

give

fuller

consideration

the possible consequences before doing so.

 Also in

response

this

comment,

added

the

word

“daily”

refer

“public

water

supplies”

and

“non—community”

the last line.

“Treatment”

 (added):

 This is a phrase used extensively

throughout the substantive portions of the federal

Phase II and Phase IIB regulations without definition.

The Board proposed this definition at Sections

611.601(a),

 611.631(e),

 611.646(a),

 611.648(a), and

611.658(e) because we felt that definition of such a

vital phrase would benefit the clarity of the

regulations.

 The Board decided to adopt the definition

as a global definition,

 applicable throughout Part 611,

rather than adopt the definition separately at each of

the other sections as proposed.

 The Board revises the

 proposed version of the definition by repunctuation,

by

changing a cross—reference to other definitions to

accommodate the changed location, and by replacing

“which” with “that”, for granunatic correctness.

In

response to an Agency comment (PC 12), we added

references to include microbiological and radiological

treatment and changed “chlorination” into

“disinfection”.

0137-0275

“Trihalomethane”

 (“THN”)

 (amended):

 The opening wording was

changed from the original and the proposal for public

comment

for the sake of stylistic consistency.

“Mg”

 (added):

 The abbreviation as it appeared in the

original and in the proposal for public conunent,

 is now

rendered in the way most commonly encountered in the

literature and most readily understood by the regulated

community, using the Greek “M”

 (“mu”)

 for “micro”.

“USEPA”:

 This is an abbreviation commonly used in Board

Notes and other areas of the regulatory text.

The

Board adds this definition to the original and the

proposed versions of the text for the sake of clarity.

“VOC”

 (“volatile organic chemical contaminant”)

 (amended):

USEPA groups chemical contaminants into various

categories

 in its regulations and imposes differing

requirements on each group.

 To do so, USEPA refers to

the groups by paragraph where they appear in the

federal regulations.

 The Board believes it is less

cumbersome to use the abbreviations that USEPA commonly

uses in its discussions of these contaminant groups.

Therefore, we revert to this common usage in the

adopted regulations and added this definition for the

sake of clarity, giving the date and cite of the

principal federal action involved.

 We prefer the use

chemical contaminant” to

“.

 chemical, as

suggested by PC 10, because none of these compounds

appear naturally.

“Virus”

 (amended):

 “Which”, which appeared in the original

and in the proposal for public comment,

 is now rendered

as “that”,

 for grammatic correctness.

“Waterborne disease outbreak”:

 “Which”, which appeared in

the original and in the proposal for public comment,

is

now rendered as “that”,

 for grammatic correctness.

The

adopted version eliminates the need to elsewhere seek

definition of an abbreviation used,

 as was required in

the original and the proposal for public comment.

Revisions to the Analytical Requirements

USEPA extensively updated and revised the analytical

procedures allowed for specific biological and chemical

contaminants.

 Discussion of these revisions is important to

subsequent discussions of the updates to the incorporations by

reference and the substantive analytical requirements.

At

 56 Fed.

 Peg. 642

 (Jan.

8,

 1991), USEPA amended one

microbiological method for total coliform and added two

0137-0276

25

microbiological methods for

 E. coli.

 The methods themselves are

set forth in the USEPA rules.

At 56 Fed.

 Reg.

3582

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 USEPA added 40 CFR

141.23(k)

 to change the former 40 CFR 141.23(f) inorganic

chemical analytical procedures.

 According to the federal

requirements, community water supplies (CWSs) and non—transient,

non—community water systems (NTNCWSs) must use these methods for

demonstrating compliance with the MCLs of 40 CFR 141.62

(corresponding with the “revised MCLs” of 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code

611.301,),

 and transient,

 non—community water systems must use

these methods to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 141.11

(corresponding with the “old MCL5 of 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 611.300)

or 40 CFR 141.62

 (the “revised MCL5”),

 as appropriate.

 At 56

Fed. Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 USEPA amended 40 CFR 141.23(k) to

make some corrections to the January 30,

 1991 amendments.

At 56 Fed. Req.

3583

 (Jan.

30,

 1991), USEPA amended 40 CFR

141.24(e)

 (corresponding with 35 Ill.

 Adin.

 Code 611.645)

to

change the analytical method for the sole organic contaminant for

which an MCL remains at 40 CFR 141.12(a)

 (corresponding with 35

Ill.

 Adm. Code 611.310(a)):

 endrin.

 (Lindane, toxaphene,

and

niethoxychlor are now listed in new section 141.61(c)

 (35 Ill.

Adm. Code 311(c))

 as SOCs,

 and heptachior and heptachior epoxide

are now listed at both Sections 611.310 and 611.311 due to

additional state requirements that apply to them.)

 USEPA

replaced the previous methods with a single new method.

 At 56

Fed.

Reg.

3585-86,

USEPA

added

141.24(f)(16)

(corresponding

with

Iii.

Adm.

Code

611.646(p)),

setting

 forth new methods for the

CFR

141.61(a)

(9)

through

(a)

(18)

(corresponding

with

Ill.

Adm. Code

611.311(a))

Phase

VOCs,

and

141.24(h)

(12)

(corresponding with 35

 Ill. Adm. Code 611.648(1)), setting forth

new methods for the 40 CFR 141.61(c)

 (Section 611.311(c))

 SOCs.

This action update “Organic Methods” from the September,

1986

edition to the December,

 1988 edition.

 Unaffected were the 40

CFR 141.61(g) (10)

 (corresponding with 35

 Ill.

Adm.

Code

611.647

(j))

 methods for the 40 CFR 141(a) (1) through

 (a) (8)

(Section 611.311(a))

 Phase

 I VOCs and the 40 CFR 141.30(e)

(Section 611.685) methods for TTHN.

At 56 Fed.

 Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991) USEPA added 40 CFR

141.23(q)

 to correct a deficiency in the January 30,

1991

amendments.

 By the January 30,

 1991 amendments, USEPA left no

requirements for analytical methods for CWSs and NTNCWS5 for the

40 CFR 141.11

 (old inorganic)

 MCLs.

 USEPA reinserted the former

analytical requirements for the 40 CFR 141.11 inorganics at 40

CFR 141.23(1) through

 (q).

 40 CFR 141.23(q) represents the

analytical methods.

At 56 Fed. Reg.

 30277-79

 (July 1,

 1991), USEPA amended the

applicability and organic chemical analytical methods at 40 CFR

141.24(e),

 (f)(l6),

and

 (h)(12).

 At subsection

 (e), USEPA

01370277

26

corrected an error and added a new method for the 40 CFR

141.12(a) MCL for endrin.

 At paragraph

 (f)(16), USEPA made the

 methods originally for Phase II VOC5 applicab’e to both Phase

I

and Phase II VOC5.

 At paragraph

 (h) (12) (iv),

 TJSEPA expanded the

method to include and additional SOC, and at paragraphs

(h) (12) (vi) and

 (h) (12) (vii), USEPA updated the methods to

subsequent versions.

 Also at 56 Fed.

 Peg.

 30279, USEPA limited

the existing monitoring requirements

 (and analytical methods)

of

40 CFR 141.24(g)

 for the Phase

 I VOC5.

 Essentially, those

existing requirements

 (and methods) apply only to existing

facilities for the purposes of initial monitoring until January

1,

 1993.

At 57 Fed.

 Reg.

1852

 (Jan.

15,

 1992), USEPA expanded a

microbiological method for total coliforin, the “EC Medium

+

MUG

Test”, to require persons using it to further use it to test for

E. coil.

 The method itself is set forth in the USEPA rules.

At

57 Fed. Peg.

24747

 (June 10,

 1992) USEPA approved the

“Autoanalysis Colilert System”

 (the “Minimal Medium ONPG-MUG

Test”)

 for testing for the presence of total coliforms and

E.

coil.

 USEPA simultaneously changed the status of the “EC Medium

+

MUG

Test” by approving it for use for

E.

 coli

 as an alternative

 to the “Minimal Medium ONPG-MUG Test”.

 USEPA incorporated a

journal article by reference for the method.

In general,

 as to 40 CFR 141.21(f), USEPA has approved four

new microbiological presence-absence methods:

 one for fecal

coliforxns,

 two for

E.

 coil,

 and one combined test for total

coliforms and

E.

 coil.

 The federal rules set forth the new

methods, with the following two exceptions:

 USEPA incorporated

the method for making EC medium supplemented with MUG from

“Standard Methods”, and it incorporated “Minimal Medium ONPG-MUG

Test” from a journal article.

In general,

 as to 40 CFR 141.23(k)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.611)

 (which applies by its terms to all CWSs and NTNCWSs as

to the 40 CFR 141.62

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.301) MCLs and to

transient systems as to the 40 CFR 141.11

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.300)

 and 141.62 MCLs for nitrate and nitrite), where USEPA

did not add

 a new method or delete an existing method, these

amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 edition to

the 1983 edition, updated the version of the ASTM method, or

updated “Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition.

 It also specified the use of appendix 200.7A as

a

supplement to “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 where

that method appeared.

In general,

 as to 40 CFP 141.23(q)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.611)

 (which applies by its terms to all CWSS and NTNCWSs as

to the 40 CFR 141.62

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.301) MCLs and to

transient systems as to the 40 CFR 141.11

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.300)

 and 141.62 NCLS for nitrate and nitrite), where USEPA

0137-0278

27

did not add a new method or delete an existing method,

 these

amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 edition to

the 1983 edition,

 updated the version of the ASTM method,

or

updated “Standard Methods” from the

14th

edition

the

16th

edition.

 It also specified the use of appendix 200.7A as a

supplement to “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 where

that method appeared.

In general,

 as to 40 CFR 141.24(e)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.645)

 (which applies to the old MCL for endrin), amended 40

CFR 141.24(f)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.646)

 (which applies to

VOC5),

 and 40 CFR 141.24(h)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.648)

 (which

applies to SOC5),

 all methods are new.

 As to 40 CFR 141.23(g)

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.647)

 (which applies to Phase

 I VOCs),

there is no change.

 However, this subsection applies only to

existing suppliers until January 1,

 1993 for the purposes of

initial monitoring (already completed).

 See 40 CFR 141.24(g),

as

amended at 56 Fed.

 Peg.

30279

 (July

1,

 1993).

 There

 is no change

in the methods of

 40 CFR 141.30(e)

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.685)

(which apply to TTHM).

USEPA is also requiring the Board to revert in one method to

an earlier version

 in the corrections to the Phase

 I rules.

USEPA commented (PC 14)

 that the Board should have used the 16th,

rather than the 17th,

 edition of “Standard Methods” for Methods

908 and 909 at Section 611.531.

The Board makes all revisions made or required by USEPA,

including the one to the existing text of the Phase

 I rules.

In

effecting the amendments,

 except as to “Organic Methods” 515.1

and 525.1,

 we delete the version of the rule as it would appear

in the substantive provisions of the rules.

 Rather, the

incorporations by reference in Section 611.102 indicate the

appropriate version.

 The Board corrects four obvious USEPA

errors

 in citing wrong methods for arsenic,

 fluoride,

 lead,

and

mercury.

 USEPA revised the “Inorganic

Methods”

arsenic

method

from the 1979 edition to the 1983 edition in adopting 40 CFR

141.23(k) (2),

 at 56 Fed.

 Reg.

 3582, then reverted to the 1979

 edition in the Phase II corrections,

 at 56 Fed.

 Peg.

 30275.

USEPA did not highlight this change as a correction,

 so the Board

retains

the

1983

reference.

CFR

141.23(k)

(3)

cites

methods

“43 A and C” of “Standard Methods”, which do not exist.

 Methods

413A and 4l3C are for fluoride, which the Board assumes is what

USEPA intended.

 40 CFR 141(q) (8)

 cites methods 301A II and 301A

III of the 16th edition of “Standard Methods”.

 These methods do

not exist

 in the 16th edition, although they appear in the 14th.

The Board corrects the reference to the 14th edition.

 Finally,

40 CFR 141(q) (8)

 cites ASTM method D3223—69 for mercury, whereas

previous

 40 CFR 141.23(f) cited D3223—79 and 40 CFR 141.23(k) (1)

now cites D3223-86.

 The Board believes that USEPA intended to

retain D3223-79 at section 141.23(q),

 and has adopted this

correction.

 Another deviation from the federal text is that the

0137-0279

Illinois Administrative Procedure Act,

 Ill. Rev.

 Stat.

 1991 ch.

127,

 par.

 1001-1

 et seq.,

 will not allow the Board to incorporate

the journal article by reference.

Instead

 the Board has

extracted the method described in the article and set it forth in

Appendix

The following describes the essential details of the changes

in analytical methodology by test:

Arsenic:

56 Fed.

 Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (2), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

(There is no new 40 CFR 141.62(b) NCL for arsenic.)

 These

amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 to the

1983 edition; updated “Standard Methods” from the 14th

edition to the 16th edition; and deleted “Inductively

Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7.

56 Fed.

 Reg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991) amended 40 CFR 141.23

(k) (2)

change

the

“Inorganic

Methods”

back

the

1979

edition;

update

the

 ASTM methods to D2972-88A and D2972-

888; and to update “USGS Method” 1—1062-78

 (1979 ed.) to I-

1062—85

 (1986 ed.).

 It restored “Inductively Coupled Plasma

Method” 200.7 and updated it to include appendix 200.7A

(as

a supplement).

 It also replaced former “Standard Methods”

301A VII,

 404A,

 and 404B(4) with new methods 307A and 307B.

 56 Fed. Peg. 30276—77

 (July

1,

 1991)

 also added 40 CFR

141.23(q)

 to change the analytical methods that apply for

the purposes of the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL for arsenic.

 This

updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 edition to the

1983 edition, deleting Method 206.4; updated the ASTM

methods to D2972-88A and D2972-88B; updated the “Standard

Methods from the 14th edition to the 16th edition, replacing

former Methods 301A VII,

 404A,

 and 404B(4) with new Methods

307A

and

307B;

updated

“USGS

Method”

1—1062—78

(1979

edition)

1-1062—85

(1986

edition);

and

updated

the

200.7

“Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” to include appendix

200.7A as a supplement.

The Board has updated all analytical methods

accordingly, with the exception that we have corrected the

obvious USEPA error and included the 1983 edition of

“Inorganic Methods” 206.2,

 206.3, and 206.4

 at Section

611.102 for the purposes of Section 611.611(b).

 Changed

since the proposal for public comment are the addition of

Section 611.612,

 to restore the text of the previous methods

deleted and subsequently restored by USEPA to 40 CFR

141.23(q); deletion of the editions of methods at Sections

611.611 and 611.612 and their inclusion at the

t_~

~J~)/U

incorporations by reference at Section 611.102; updating the

method number (version)

 of the ASTM methods; updating the

“Standard Methods” by deleting Methods 301A VII,

 404A, and

404B(4)

 and replacing them with Methods 307A and 3078 of the

16th edition; and restoration of the “Inductively Coupled

Plasma Method” 200.7 as supplemented by appendix 200.7A.

Asbestos:

56 Fed. Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1992)

 added 40 CFR

141.23(k) (1), which added analytical methods for this new

contaminant of interest.

 “Asbestos Methods” is added.

The

Board has updated the analytical methods accordingly.

 There

is no change since the proposal for public comment.

Barium:

56

 Fed. Reg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

These amendments deleted the previous ASTM methods; updated

“Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 to the 1983 edition;

updated “Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition, replacing former Method 301A IV with Methods 303C

and 304; and supplemented “Inductively Coupled Plasma

Method” 200.7 with appendix 200.7A.

56 Fed. Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991) did not amend the 40

CFR 141.23

 (k) (1) methods for barium.

 56 Fed. Peg. 30276-77

(July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR 141.23(q) to change the

analytical methods that apply for the purposes of the 40 CFR

141.11 MCL for barium.

 This updated “Inorganic Methods”

from the 1979 edition to the 1983 edition; updated the

“Standard Methods from the 14th edition to the 16th edition,

replacing former Method 301A IV with new Method 308

 (which

references Methods 304 and 303C); and updated the 200.7

“Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” to include appendix

200.7A as a supplement.

The Board has updated all analytical methods

accordingly.

 Changed since the proposal for public comment

are the addition of Section 611.612, to restore the text of

the previous methods deleted and subsequently restored by

USEPA to 40 CFR 141.23(q); deletion of the editions of

methods at Sections 611.611 and 611.612 and their inclusion

at the incorporations by reference at Section 611.102;

updating the “Standard Methods” by deleting Method 301A IV

and replacing it with Methods 303C and 304 of the 16th

edition; and by updating the “Inductively Coupled Plasma

Method” 200.7 to include appendix 200.7A as a supplement.

0137-0281

30

Cadmium:

56

 Fed. Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f)

 and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCL5 of section 141.62(b).

These amendments deleted the previous ASTM methods; updated

“Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 to the 1983 edition,

deleting Method 213.1; updated “Standard Methods” from the

14th edition to the 16th edition, replacing Methods 301A II

and

301A

III

with

Method

304;

and

supplemented

“Inductively

Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 with appendix 200.7A.

56 Fed.

 Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991) did not amend 40 CFR

141.23

 (k) (1) with regard to cadmium.

 56 Fed. Reg. 30276-77

(July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR 141.23(q) to change the

analytical methods that apply for the purposes of the 40 CFR

141.11 MCL for cadmium.

 This updated “Inorganic Methods”

from the 1979 edition to the 1983 edition; updated the

“Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition,

 replacing former Methods 301A II and 301A III with

new Method 310A (which references methods 303A and 303B);

and updated the 200.7 “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” to

include appendix 200.7A as a supplement.

The Board has updated all analytical methods pertaining

to the revised MCL for cadmium at Section 611.301 according

to the federal amendments.

 However, at 56 Fed. Peg. 30276,

USEPA repealed the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL (old MCL) for cadmium,

effective July 30,

 1992.

 Changed since the proposal for

public comment are the deletion of the editions of methods

at Section 611.611 and their inclusion at the incorporations

by reference at Section 611.102; updating the “Standard

Methods” by deleting Methods 301A II and 3OlA III and

replacing them with Method 304 of the 16th edition; and by

updating the “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 to

include appendix 200.7A as a supplement.

Chromium:

56 Fed. Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

These amendments deleted the previous ASTM methods; updated

“Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 to the 1983 edition,

deleting Method 218.1; updated “Standard Methods” from the

14th edition to the 16th edition, replacing former Methods

301A II and 301A III with Method

 304; and supplemented

“Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 with appendix

200. 7A.

0137-0282

31

56 Fed.

 Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 did not amend 40 CFR

141.23

 (k) (1) with regard to chromium.

 56 Fed. Peg. 30276—

77

 (July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR 141.23(q) to change the

analytical methods that apply for the purposes of the

 4.0 CFR

141.11 MCL for chromium.

 This updated “Inorganic Methods”

from the 1979 edition to the 1983 edition, deleting Method

218.2; updated the “Standard Methods” from the 14th edition

to the 16th edition, replacing former Methods 301A II and

301A III with Method 312A (which references methods 303A,

303B,

 and 304); and updated the 200.7 “Inductively Coupled

Plasma Method” to include appendix 200.7A as a supplement.

The Board has updated all analytical methods pertaining

to the revised MCL for chromium at Section 611.301 according

to the federal amendments.

 However, at 56 Fed. Peg. 30276,

USEPA repealed the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL (old MCL)

 for chromium,

effective July 30,

 1992.

 Changed since the proposal for

public

comment

are

the

deletion

the

editions

methods

at Sections 611.611 and their inclusion at the

incorporations by reference at Section 611.102; and by

updating the “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 to

include appendix 200.7A as a supplement.

Fluoride:

56 Fed.

 Peg. 3581-82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (3), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCL5 of section 141.62(b).

These amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979

to the 1983 edition and updated “Standard Methods” from the

14th edition to the 16th edition.

 56 Fed. Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 did not amend 40 CFR 141.23

 (k) (3)

The Board has updated all analytical methods

accordingly, with the exception that we have corrected the

obvious USEPA error and substituted “Standard Methods” 413A

and 413C for Methods “43A” and “43C”.

 Changed since the

proposal for public comment are the addition of Section

611.612,

 to restore the text of the previous methods deleted

by USEPA,

 as updated by USEPA (although USEPA did not

restore them for the purposes of the old MCL for fluoride),

and deletion of the editions of methods at Sections 611.611

and 611.612 and their inclusion at the incorporations by

reference at Section 611.102.

Lead:

56 Fed. Reg.

 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section.

 This

eliminated the methods for lead.

 (There is no new 40 CFR

141.62(b) MCL for lead.)

U

 I 37-0283

56 Fed.

 Peg. 30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR

 141.23(q) to change the analytical methods that apply for

the purposes of the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL for lead.

 (56 Fed.

Peg.

 30274 repealed the old MCL for lead effective December

7,

 1992, the date the new lead and copper rules become

effective.)

 This updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979

edition to the 1983 edition and updated the “Standard

Methods from the 14th edition to the 16th edition.

The Board has updated all analytical methods

accordingly, with the exception that we have corrected the

obvious USEPA error and included the 14th edition of

“Standard Methods” 301A II and 301A III at Section 611.102

for the purposes of Section 611.612(f)(3).

 Changed since

the proposal for public comment are the addition of Section

611.612, to restore the text of the previous methods deleted

and subsequently restored by USEPA to 40 CFP 141.23(q); and

deletion of the editions of methods at Section 611.612 and

their inclusion at the incorporations by reference at

Section 611.102.

Mercury:

56

 Fed. Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f)

 and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

These amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979

to the 1983 edition; updated “Standard Methods” from the

14th edition to the 16th edition, replacing Method 301A VI

 with Method 303F; and updated ASTM method D3223—79 to D3223—

80.

56 Fed.

 Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991) amended 40 CFR 141.23

(k) (1) to change the version of the ASTM method to D3223-86.

56 Fed.

 Peg. 30276—77

 (July 1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR 141.23(q)

to change the analytical methods that apply for the purposes

of the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL for mercury.

 This updated

“Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 edition to the 1983

edition, deleting Method 206.4,

 and updated the “Standard

Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th edition,

replacing former Method 301A VI with new Method 320A

(referencing Method 303F).

The Board has updated all analytical methods pertaining

to the revised MCL for mercury at Section 611.301 according

to the federal amendments.

 However, at 56 Fed. Reg.

 30276,

USEPA repealed the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL (old MCL) for mercury,

effective July 30,

 1992.

 Changed since the proposal for

public comment are the deletion of the editions of methods

at Sections 611.611 and their inclusion at the

incorporations by reference at Section 611.102 and updating

01 37-028i~

33

the method number

 (version)

 of the ASTM method.

Nitrate:

56 Fed.

 Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

 CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k) (1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

These amendments deleted previous ASTM method D992-71 and

updated methods D3867-79A and D3867-79B to methods D3867—85A

and D3867-85B; updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 to

the 1983 edition, deleting Method 352.1 and adding Method

300.0

 (retaining Methods 353.1,

 353.2, and 353.3); updated

“Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition, replacing Methods 419C,

 419D, and 605 with Methods

418C and 418F; and added Orion Research ion selective

electrode method WeWWG/5880 and Millipore Corp. method B—

1011.

56 Fed.

 Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 amended 40 CFR 141.23

(k) (1) to update the ASTM method to D3867-90.

 56 Fed. Peg.

30276—77

 (July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR 141.23(q) to change the

analytical methods that apply for the purposes of the 40 CFR

141.11 MCL for nitrate.

 This updated “Inorganic Methods”

from the 1979 edition to the 1983 edition and updated the

“Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition.

The Board has updated all analytical methods pertaining

to the revised MCL for nitrate at Section 611.301 according

to the federal amendments.

 However, at 56 Fed. Peg.

 30276,

USEPA repealed the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL (old MCL)

 for nitrate,

effective July 30,

 1992.

 Changed since the proposal for

public comment are the deletion of the editions of methods

at Section 611.611 and their inclusion at the incorporations

by reference at Section 611.102 and updating the ASTM

methods by replacing D3867-85A and D3867—85B with D3867-90.

Nitrite:

56 Fed.

 Peg.

 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR

141.23(k) (1), which sets forth the analytical requirements

for the revised MCL5 of section 141.62(b).

 These amendments

added “Inorganic Methods”

 (1983 edition)

 300.0,

 353.2,

353.3,

 and 354.1; “Standard Methods”

 (16th edition)

 418C and

418F; ASTM Methods D3867-85A and D3867—85B; and Millipore

Corp. method B-lOOl for nitrite.

 56 Fed. Reg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 amended

 40 CFR 141.23

 (k) (1) to update the ASTM

methods to D3867-90.

The Board has updated all analytical methods for

nitrate according to the federal amendments.

 Changed since

0137-0285

34

the proposal for public comment are the deletion of the

editions of methods at Section 611.611 and their inclusion

at the incorporations by reference at Section 611.102 and

the updating of the method number

 (version)

 of the ASTN

 methods.

Selenium:

56 Fed. Peg. 3581-82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section and added new

subsection

 (k)(1), which sets forth the analytical

requirements for the revised MCLs of section 141.62(b).

These amendments updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979

to the 1983 edition, deleting Method 270.3; updated

“Standard Methods” from the 14th edition to the 16th

edition, replacing Method 301A VII with Methods 303E and

304; updated ASTM method D3859-79 to methods D3859-84A and

D3859—84B;

 and updated “USGS Method” 1—1667—78

 (1979)

 to I—

3667—85

 (1985).

56

 Fed. Peg.

30275

 (July

1,

 1991)

 amended 40 CFR 141.23

(k) (1)

 to update the ASTM method to D3859-88; to delete

“Standard Method” 303E; and to delete “USGS Method” 1-3667-

85.

 56 Fed. Peg. 30276—77

 (July

1,

 1991)

 added 40 CFR

141.23(q)

 to change the analytical methods that apply for

the purposes of the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL for selenium.

 This

updated “Inorganic Methods” from the 1979 edition to the

1983 edition; updated the “Standard Methods” from the 14th

edition to the 16th edition, replacing former Method 301A

VII with new Method 303F; and updated “USGS Method” 1-1667-

78

 (1979)

 to 1—1667—85

 (1985).

The Board has updated all analytical methods for

 selenium according to the federal amendments.

 However, at

56 Fed. Peg.

 30276, USEPA repealed the 40 CFR 141.11 MCL

(old NCL) for selenium, effective July 30,

 1992.

 Changed

since the proposal for public comment are the deletion of

the editions of methods at Sections 611.611 and 611.612 and

their inclusion at the incorporations by reference at

Section 611.102; updating the method number

 (version)

 of the

ASTN methods to method D3859-88B (for gaseous hydride) and

D3859-88A (for furnace technique); deleting “Standard

Method” 303E; and deleting “USGS Method” 1—3667-85.

Silver:

56 Fed. Peg. 3581—82

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) repealed former 40

CFR 141.23(f) and the methods at that section.

 This deleted

“Inorganic Methods” 272.1 and 272.2,

 “Standard Method” 3OlA

II,

 and “Inductively Coupled Plasma Method” 200.7 for

silver.

 At 56 Fed.

 Reg. 30276,

 USEPA repealed the 40 CFR

141.11 MCL (old MCL) for silver, effective July 30,

 1992.

0 37-0286

35

The Board has updated all analytical methods for silver

according to the federal amendments.

 There is no change

from the proposal for public comment witi’ regard to silver.

VOCs:

At 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3583,

 USEPA amended 40 CFR 141.24(e) to

change the analytical method for the sole organic

contaminant for which an MCL remains at 40 CFR 141.12(a):

endrin.

 (Lindane,

 toxaphene,

 and methoxychlor are now

listed

 in new section 141.61(c).)

 Deleted were “Pesticide

Methods”, ASTM D3086-79, “Standard Method” 509A

 (14th

edition), “USGS Methods” chapter A—3, and SPE-500.

 The new

method is “Organic Method” 508.

SOCs:

At 56 Fed. Peg.

 3583,

 USEPA amended 40 CFR 141.24(e) to

replace “Pesticide Methods”, ASTM Method D3086—79, “Standard

Method” 509A (14th edition), “USGS Methods” chapter A-3, and

SPE-500 with “Organic Method” 508 for the purposes of the

sole section 141.12(a) MCL for endrin.

 USEPA added 40 CFR

141.24(f) (16) to add “Organic Methods”

 (1988 edition)

 502.1,

502.2

503.1,

 524.1, and 524.2 for the Phase II VOCs.

 USEPA

updated “Organic Methods”, at 40 CFR 141.24(e),

 (f) (16),

and

(h) (12)

 to the December 1988 edition, leaving the reference

at 40 CFR 141.24(g) (10)

 as the September,

 1986 edition.

USEPA added 40 CFR 141.24(h) (12) to replace “Pesticide

Methods”, ASTM Method D3478-79, “Standard Method” 509B,

and

USGS Methods” chapter A-3 for 2,4-D and 2,4,5—TP

 (Silvex)

and add “Organic Methods”

 (1988 edition)

504

 (for

dibromopropane and dibromoethylene),

505

 (for alachlor,

carfofuran,

 chlordane,

 heptachlor, heptachior epoxide,

toxaphene,

 and as a PCB screen),

507

 (for alachior and

atrazine),

508

 (for chlordane, heptachlor,

 heptachlor

epoxide,

 lindane, methoxychlor, and as a PCB screen), 508A

(for decachlorobiphenyl,

 if PCB is detected using 505 or

508),

 515.1 for 2,4—D, pentachlorophenol, or 2,4,5—TP),

525

for alachlor, atrazine, chlordane, heptachlor, heptachior

epoxide,

 lindane, methoxychlor, or pentachlorophenol), and

531.1

 (for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone,

or carbofuran)

 for the SOCs.

 (USEPA promulgated the MCLs

for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide,

 aldicarb sulfone, and

pentachiorophenol on July

1,

 1991 as Phase IIB contaminants.

These are the subject of docket R91-15.)

At 56 Fed. Peg.30277-79

 (July

1,

 1992), USEPA amended

the applicability and analytical methods at 40 CFR

141.24(e),

 (f)(16), and (h)(12).

 Added to the subsection

(e) method applicable to the 40 CFR 141.12(a) MCL for endrin

is “Organic Methods”

 (1988

 edition) Method

 505.

The

paragraph

 (f) (16) methods for Phase II VOCs now also apply

0137-0287

36

to the Phase

 I VOCs.

 Finally,

 at paragraph

 (h) (12), USEPA

expanded “Organic Method” 508 to include toxaphene and

updated “Organic Method” 515.1 to revision 5.0

 (1991

edition) and 525 to 525.1, revision 3.0

 (1991 edition).

The Board updates the analytical methods according to

the federal amendments.

 Changed since the proposal for

public comment are the expansion of the methods at Section

611.646(p)

 to include the Phase

 I VOCs; the expansion of

“Organic Methods” 505 and 508,

 at Section 611.648(1)

to

include endrin and toxaphene (508 only);

 and updating

“Organic Methods” 515.1 to revision 5.0

 (May,

 1991)

 and 525

to 525.1, revision 3.0

 (May,

 1991).

Nicrobiologicals

At 56 Fed. Peg.

642

 (Jan.

8,

 1991), USEPA amended one

microbiological method for total coliform and added two

microbiological methods for

 E. coli.

 The methods themselves

are set forth

 in the IJSEPA rules.

 USEPA only incorporated

the methods for preparing the EC medium and agar medium by

reference.

 The reference incorporated is Method 908C of

“Standard Methods”,

 16th edition.

At 57

 Fed.

 Peg.

1852

 (Jan.

15,

 1992), USEPA expanded a

microbiological method for total coliform, the “EC Medium

+

MUG Test”, to require persons using it to further use it to

 test for

E.

 coil.

 The method itself is set forth

 in the

USEPA rules.

 At 57 Fed. Peg.

24747

 (June 10,

 1992)

 USEPA

approved the “Autoanalysis Colilert System”

 (the “Minimal

Medium NNO-MUG Test”)

 for testing for the presence of total

coliforms and

 E. coli.

 USEPA simultaneously changed the

status of the “EC Medium

+ MUG

Test” by approving it for use

for

 E. coil

 as an alternative to the “Minimal Medium ONPG-

MUG Test”.

 For the method, USEPA incorporated a journal

article by reference:

 S. Edberg,

 H. Allen

&

D.

 Smith,

“National Field Evaluation of a Defined Substrate Method for

the Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliforms and

Escherichia coli from Drinking Water:

 Comparison with

Pres.ence—Absence Techniques”,

 Applied and Environmental

Microbioiogy,

 vol.

55,

pp.

 1003-1008.

Incorporations by Reference——Section 611.102

In light of the foregoing discussion of changes

 in the

analytical methods, the Board makes the following amendments to

the incorporations by reference:

1.

 The phrase,

 “in this Part refer to”,

 is added since the

proposal for public comment to clarify that the defined

abbreviations apply only for the purposes of Part 611.

0! 37-0288

37

2.

 The abbreviations are amended as follows:

 “Asbestos

Methods” is added;

 “Indigo Method” is amended to use the

exact method number used in “Standard Methods”

 (17th ed.)

(“03” changed to “03”)

 (changed since proposal for public

comment);

 “Inorganic Methods”

 is amended to indicate its

availability from ORD Publications;

 “MMO-MtJG Test”

is

amended to show that the test is now available from

Environetics,

 Inc.;

 “Pesticide Methods” and “SPE Test

Method” are deleted (changed since proposal for public

comment).

3.

 Access Analytical Systems, Inc.

 is amended to show that

the MMO—MUG Test

 is now available from Environetics,

 Inc.,

and “See” is now capitalized

 (changed since proposal for

public comment).

4.

 ASTM methods:

 a colon and a phone number are added;

methods D992—71, D1687—77D,

 D3086—79 (changed since proposal

for public comment), D3478—85

 (changed since proposal for

public comment),

 and D3557-78A and B (changed since proposal

for public comment)

 are deleted; and methods D2972-88A or B

(changed since proposal for public comment), D3223-86,

D3859-88

 (changed since proposal for public comment), and

D3867—90

 (changed since proposal for public comment) are

 updated.

5.

 “Standard Methods

 (13th ed.):

 method 302 is

repunctuated

 (changed since proposal for public comment).

6.

 “Standard Methods

 (14th ed.):

 methods 301A IV, 301A

VI,

 301A VII,

 404A,

 4048(4),

 419C,

 419D, 509A (changed since

proposal for public comment), 5098 (changed since proposal

for public comment), and 605 are deleted; method 2l4A is

added

 (changed since proposal for public comment); methods

3OlA II and 301A III are retained (changed since proposal

for public comment); and methods 302 (punctuation changed

since proposal for public comment), 320 and 320A

 (“s” added)

and 412D

 (number changed)

 are corrected (changed since

proposal for public comment).

7.

 “Standard Methods

 (16th ed.):

 method 2l4A (changed

since proposal for public comment)

 is deleted; and methods

303C,

 303E,

 303F,

 307A (changed since proposal for public

comment), 307B (changed since proposal for public comment),

418C,

 and 418F are added.

 In response to an Agency comment

(PC 12),

 we amended “Ph” to “pH” for Method 423.

8.

 “Standard Methods

 (17th ed.):

 method 4500—03 is added

(changed since proposal for public comment).

9.

 Environetics punctuation corrected (changed since

Q~37-0289

38

proposal for public comment).

10.

 J.T. Baker Chemical Co.

 is deleted with the “SPE Test

Method”

 (changed since proposal for public comment).

11.

 Millipore Corp.

 is added with Method B-lOll.

12.

 NTIS:

 repunctuated

 (changed since proposal for public

comment); phone number added

 (changed since proposal for

public comment); “Analytical Method of Determination of

Asbestos Fibers in Drinking Water”,

 “Methods for Chemical

Analysis of Water and Wastes”

 (1979 and 1983 ed.; 1979 ed.

added since proposal for public comment), and “Methods for

Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water”

 (1986

and 1988 ed.; 1986 ed. added since proposal for public

comment)

 are added;

 “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water

and Wastes”

 (document number)

 is amended; and limitations on

the utility are added to “Methods for Chemical Analysis of

Water and Wastes”

 (1979 and 1983 ed.)

 and “Methods for

Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water”

 (1986

and 1988 ed.).

13.

ORD

Publications is added since the proposal for public

comment because the USEPA rules state this as the source of

“Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes”.

14.

 Orion Research,

 Inc.

 is repunctuated since the proposal

for public comment.

15.

 Technicon Industrial Systems,

 Inc.

 is repunctuated

since the proposal for public comment.

16.

 USEPA:

 repunctuated since the proposal for public

comment; Appendix 200.7A is referenced by number in method

200.7

 (changed since proposal for public comment);

 “Methods

for Organochlorine Pesticides and Chloro-phenoxy Acid

Herbicides in Drinking Water and Raw Source Water” is

deleted; and “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and

Wastes”

 is corrected and its availability from ORD

Publications is stated

 (changed since proposal for public

comment).

 In response to an Agency comment, we replace a

now obsolete telephone number with an address used by USEPA

in the Code of Federal Regulations text of its rules with

regard to the availability of these references.

17.

 USGS:

 “Methods for Analysis of Organic Substances in

Water” is deleted

 (changed since proposal for public

comment); and “Methods for Determination of Inorganic

Substances

 in Water and Fluvial Sediments”

 is corrected

(changed since proposal for public comment).

18.

 Code of Federal Regulations:

 all references are

0137-0290

39

updated to the 1991 edition.

 A reference to 40 CFP Subpart

G, which sets forth the limitations on the state’s authority

to grant exceptions to a federal requirement of general

applicability.

 discussion of Alternative Treatment

Techniques, belOw.)

Special Exemption Permits--Section 611.110

The federal Phase

 I and Phase II regulations contemplate a

system of waivers of sampling and monitoring requirements.

 They

also contemplate that the states will allow suppliers to use

existing monitoring data and relax increased monitoring

frequencies.

 In R88-26, the Board chose a method whereby the

Agency will evaluate such requests from general requirements and

set forth criteria that authorizes the Agency to issue “special

exception permits”

 (“SEPs”).

 This provision is centrally located

in Section 611.110, and various substantive provisions located

throughout the SDWA rules contain authorizations for the Agency

to grant SEPS under certain circumstances pursuant to this

Section.

At 56 Fed. Peg. 3578-97

 (Jan.

30,

 1991), USEPA promulgated

the Phase II regulations.

 At 56

 Fed. Reg. 30274—81

 (July

1,

1992), USEPA extensively corrected and amended the Phase II rules

when it promulgated the Phase 118 rules.

 Most significantly,

these amendments extended the use of waivers to an additional

group of VOC5 and to new SOCs.

 These amendments included

definite factors for consideration in evaluating a request for a

 SEP from certain of the provisions.

 Both expedience and the

federal actions have prompted the Board to significantly amend

the central SEP provision of Section 611.110 to accommodate the

federal rules.

Initially,

 for convenience, the Board has replaced the

repeated use of the words “special exception permit” with the

abbreviation “SEP”,

 both here and elsewhere in Part 611.

Further, the Board has added subsection

 (d) to clarify that there

are two ways for a SEP to be issued:

 the supplier may request

one, or the Agency may initiate one at its discretion.

 A new

Board Note,

 added since the proposal for public comment,

clarifies that the authorization provisions throughout Part 611

are not intended to mandate that the Agency exercise its

discretion and initiate a SEP.

In response to the federal amendments,

 and since the

proposal for public comment, the Board adds subsection

 (e), which

sets forth the factors the Agency must consider in evaluating a

SEP request submitted pursuant to certain substantive provisions

of the rules.

 USEPA codified these factors within the segments

of the substantive rules that authorize a grant of a SEP.

The

Board has chosen to centrally locate the factors here to avoid

undue distraction and repetition in those rules.

 The new federal

0

 37-0291

40

 waiver provisions that set forth factors for consideration are

codified at 40 CFP 141.24(f)(8)

 (as to VOC monitoring),

l41.24(h)(6)

 (as to SOC monitoring), and 141.40(n)(4)

 (as to

unregulated organic and inorganic compounds).

 Sections

141.24(f) (8) and 141.24(h) (6) are stand—alone provisions, and the

section 141.40(n) (4) provision references the factors set forth

at section 14l.24(h)(6).

 There is substantial identity of the

factors between the two subsections of section 141.24, with

limited factors unique to the VOCs,

 on the one hand,

 and SOC5 and

unregulated compounds,

 on the other.

 Therefore, placing all of

the factors in a single location with clear statements of their

applicability is desirable.

 For these reasons, the Board has

chosen.not to engage

 in actual separate listings of the factors

at Sections 611.631(d)

 or 611.658(d)

 (consolidated since the

proposal for public comment as Section 611.510(d),

for

unregulated chemical contaminants), at Section 611.646(h)

 (for

VOCs),

 or at Section 611.648(f)

 (for SOCs).

 Rather, those

provisions each reference Section 611.110(e).

 In response to an

Agency comment

 (PC 12), we added a cross-reference to the Agency

regulations that

 it uses to determine the zone of influence.

SDWA

 c 1415 Variances——Section 611.111

USEPA amended 40 CFR 141.4(b)

 at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 1557

 (Jan.

15,

1991).

 It stayed the effective date of the prohibition against

granting a variance or exemption from the MCL for total coliforms

under certain circumstances.

 In essence, the stay allows

Illinois to grant a variance or adjusted standard from the total

coliform MCL if the supplier demonstrates that the persistent

growth of total coliforms is not from fecal or pathogenic

contamination and it

 is not due to a treatment lapse or

deficiency or a operation or maintenance problem in the

distribution system.

The Board adopts the federal stay with minimal deviation in

the language.

 The Board divides the language of subsection

(f)

into two subsections.

 The stay is couched in subsection

 (f) (1)

in terms of exceptions from a general declaration that the Board

will not grant a variance or adjusted standard from the total

coliform MCL unless certain circumstances exist

 (the

 federally-

enumerated conditions are fulfilled).

 For clarity, and changed

since the proposal for public comment, the word “from” is added

to begin each conditional clause.

The Board makes a small number of minor amendments to the

pre—existing text of Section 611.111,

 since the proposal for

public comment, for increased clarity.

 “That”

 is substituted for

“which” in four clauses of subsections

 (b) (1) and

 (g), and

“level” is added to the second sentence of subsection

 (g), for

consistency with the defined usage in the first sentence.

A

comma is removed from subsection

 (g).

 Finally,

 the Board Note is

updated to the 1991 Code of Federal Regulations.

UI 37-0292

SDWA

c

1416 Variances——Section 611.112

The major,

 federally—derived amendment

 tc.. Section 611.112

arises from the USEPA 40 CFR 141.4(b) stay of the prohibition

against exemptions or variances from the total coliform MCL, as

amended at 56 Fed. Reg.

1557

 (Jan.

15,

 1991).

 The Board amends

subsection

 (g) by dividing it into two subsections and adding the

federal stay language, identical to that added to Section

611.111(f)(1).

 As with Section 611,111(f), the Board adopts the

federal stay at Section 611.112(g) (1) with minimal deviation in

the language by dividing the existing language of subsection

(g)

into two subsections and couching it in terms of exceptions from

a general declaration.

 Also,

 for clarity, and changed since the

proposal for public comment, the word “from”

 is added to begin

each conditional clause.

As with Section 611.111, the Board makes amendments not in

the proposal for public comment for clarity.

 We change “that”,

at subsections

 (d) (1) (A),

 (d) (1) (B), and

 (d) (2).

 Subsection

(c) (2)

 is reworded and a comma is removed from,

 and a full

subsection number is added to, subsection

 (d) (2)

 for clarity.

Finally, the version of the Code of Federal Regulations is

updated in the Board Note.

A final correction made to Section 611.112 subsequent to the

proposal for public comment

 is driven by USEPA comments on Phase

I primacy

 (PC 14).

 USEPA commented that the Board must state at

this Section that we will not grant a variance from the residual

disinfectant concentration requirements of Sections 611.241(c)

and 611.242(b)

 (40 CFR 141.72(a) (3) and (b)(1)).

Alternative Treatment Techniques—-Section 611.113

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board has added

amendments to Section 611.113.

 These are wholly derived from

USEPA Phase

 I primacy comments

 (PC 14).

 USEPA commented that

except for certain contaminants listed at 40 CFR Subpart G, only

USEPA can allow an alternative treatment technique pursuant to 40

CFR 142.46.

 USEPA stated that the Illinois rules must state that

USEPA concurrence is necessary for the Board to grant an adjusted

standard or allow an alternative treatment technique,

 in order

for the Illinois rules to fulfill the stringency requirements of

SDWA S1413(a)(1)

 (42 U.S.C.

 5300g—2(a)(1)) and 40 CFR 142.10(a)

an 142.11(a) (1).

In response, the Board amends Section 611.113 by adding a

 new subsection

 (e).

 This new subsection states that all adjusted

standards allowing an alternative treatment technique are subject

to the limitations of 40 CFR 142 Subpart G and do not become

effective until approved by USEPA pursuant to 40 CFR 142.46.

UI 37-0293

42

Maximum Contaminant Levels and Finished Water Quality--

Section 611.121

Originally,

 Section 611.121 derived from the federal

definition of “maximum contaminant level” at 40 CFR 141.2.

The

original structure of that federal definition gave it the

substantive effect of a prohibition against certain levels of

contamination at certain locations in the distribution system

(the consumers’

 taps).

 At 56 Fed.

 Reg.

26547

 (June

7,

 1991), as

part of the lead and copper rules amendments (the subject of

docket P91-15), USEPA amended this definition (and others).

USEPA removed the references to the consumer tap (“free flowing

outlet of the ultimate user”)

 and contaminants added in the

course of treatment.

 The Board makes this amendment at this time

and since the proposal for public comment because this is a

fundamental definition,

 and certain other issues raised in the

course of Board deliberations makes

 it expedient to make them

without delay.

During the course of Board deliberations and since the

 proposal for public comment, an issue arose concerning relating

to the lack of a general narrative standard.

 The previous

narrative standard,

 at Section 604.201, was erroneously repealed

in the large—scale repeals of former rules as part of

implementation of the Phase

 I rules,

 in R88-26.

 The Board notes

this error and the deficiency it creates in the rules,

 so we

restore the standard of that Section at this time.

We codify the former narrative standard as subsection

 (b),

with minimal rewording for clarity.

 The substantive aspects of

the amended federal definition of maximum contaminant level is

codified as subsection

 (a).

 This takes the form of a prohibition

against exceeding an MCL for any contaminant in the water as

delivered to the consumer.

We note that the monitoring provisions of Subparts K through

Q require suppliers to use specific locations to demonstrate

compliance.

 However, we do not construe these location

restrictions as inhibiting other persons from seeking to enforce

compliance by performing independent monitoring.

As a whole,

 Section 611.121 now essentially prohibits

delivering deleterious water to consumers.

 It prohibits

delivering water that exceeds the

IICL,

that is deleterious to

health or the distribution system, or that is offensive to the

senses.

 It requires that the operator employ good practice in

 treating water, in that it requires that contaminants added

during the course of treatment appear in the water delivered to

consumers in concentrations no greater than those required by

good practice or not at all,

 as is the case for those that have

deleterious or unknown physiologic effects.

0! 37-D29L~

43

Filtration and Disinfection:

 General Requirements--

Section 611.220

Section 611.220 derives from 40 CFR 141.70.

 Since the

proposal for public comment, USEPA Phase I primacy comments (PC

14) have prompted amendments.

 40 CFR 141.70(b) (1)

 refers to

section 141.71

 (corresponding with 35

 Iii. Adm. Code 611.230

through 611.233).

 The Illinois rule referred to Section

611.230).

 USEPA commented that the Board should change this

reference to Sections 611.230 through 61L.232, which we do now by

amendment.

 40 CFR 141.70(b) (2)

 refers to sections 141.73 and

141.72(b)

 (corresponding with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.250 and

611.242, respectively).

 The Illinois rule referred to Sections

611.230 and 611.232

 (corresponding with 40 CFR 141.70 preamble

and 141.71(b)).

 USEPA commented that the Board should change

these references to Sections 611.250 and 611.242, which we do now

by amendment.

 We also use this opportunity to change “1/2” to

“½”

and update the version of the Illinois Revised Statutes to

1991, at subsection

 (c), and update the version of the Code of

Federal Regulations,

 in the Board Note.

Filtration and Disinfection:

 Site-Specific Conditions—-

Section 611.232

Section 611.232 derives from 40 CFR.141.71(b).

 Since the

proposal for public comment, USEPA Phase 1 primacy comments

(PC

14) have prompted amendments.

 40 CFR 141.71(b) (1) (ii)

 requires

the supplier to meet certain of the disinfection requirements for

unfiltered sources at all times.

 USEPA commented that the caveat

at subsection

 (a) (2),

 “unless the Agency determines that the

failure was caused by circumstances that were unusual and

unpredictable”,

 made the Illinois provision less stringent.

40

CFR 141.71(b) (1) (iii), pertaining to certain other of the

unfiltered source disinfection requirements, does include such a

caveat relating to a state finding of unusual circumstances.

As

drafted, the Board rules originally combined both federal

paragraphs into a single subsection, which caused the caveat to

apply to both requirements.

 The Board corrects this by splitting

subsection

 (a) (2) into two subsections,

 (a) (2) (A) and

 (a) (2) (8),

and restricting the caveat to subsection

 (a) (2) (B)

 (corresponding

with 40 CFR 141.71(b) (1) (iii)).

USEPA also commented that subsection

(C)

refers to Agency

delegation to a unit of local government, even though the state

represented that no such delegations would occur.

 The Board

corrects this by deleting the reference and concomitantly

rectifying the sentence grammar.

 We update the Code of Federal

Regulations Reference in the Board Note.

0~37-0295

44

Filtration and Disinfection:

 Unfiltered Supplies--

Section 611.241

Section 611.241 derives from 40 CFR 141.’,2(a).

 Since the

proposal for public comment, USEPA Phase I primacy comments (PC

14) have prompted amendments.

 40 CFR 141

•

72(a) (4) (i)

 (pertaining

to unfiltered systems and corresponding with 35 Iii.

 Athn. Code

611.241(d) (1)) refers to 40 CFR 141.74(b)(6)

 (pertaining to

sampling points for

RDC

in unfiltered systems and corresponding

with 35 Ill.

Mm.

 Code 611.532(f)).

 The Illinois rule referred

to Section 611.532(e)

 (pertaining to continuous monitoring for

RDC

in unfiltered systems and corresponding with 40 CFR

141.74(b) (5)).

 USEPA commented that the correct reference to the

RDC

measurement point is Section 611.533(c) (1)

 (which corresponds

with 40 CFR 141.74(c), relating to filtered systems).

In

response to the USEPA comment, we amend the reference at

subsection

 (d) (1)

 to “611.532(e)” to read “611.532(f)”, rather

than referring to filtered systems,

 as suggested by USEPA.

We

use this opportunity to update the version of the Code of Federal

Regulations in the Board Note.

 In response to an Agency comment

(PC 12), we changed the reference to “CT” in the preamble to

subsection

 (a) to “CT~9”. This is despite the fact that it

appears as “CT” in 40 CFR 14l.72(a)(1).

 The definitions Section

makes “CT” synonymous with “CT~”, which is not what USEPA

intended here.

Filtration and Disinfection:

 Filtration——Section 611.250

Section 611.250 derives from 40 CFR 141.73.

 Since the

proposal for public comment, USEPA Phase I primacy comments

(PC

14) have prompted amendments.

 USEPA highlighted the omission of

the word “filtered”

 at subsection

 (a) (2), which we now restore.

In a general comment, USEPA questioned the Board’s use of

“must” and “shall”.

 USEPA stated that the Board’s usage

eliminated Illinois’

 (the Agency’s) discretion to choose to

exercise an option when certain circumstances arise.

 Without

elaboration of differences in federal and Illinois administrative

law and usage conventions, the Board has reviewed the cited

provisions (including this one) and decided that amendment is

appropriate.

 40 CFR 141.73(a) (1) includes the following

 language:

 “I)f

 the State determines

 the State may

However,

 in no case may the state

..“

 P88—26 rendered this

as,

 “(I)f the Agency determines

 the Agency shall

However, in no case shall the Agency

..“

 The Board drafted

Illinois law requirements into the first sentence cited.

The

Agency has full discretion in its evaluation of the situation,

but once it has determined that the conditions supporting a

finding exist,

 Illinois law does not permit it to deny relief on

some arbitrary or uncodified basis.

 As to the second sentence,

use of “shall” in the negative case is grammatically incorrect.

0137-0296

45

The Board amends this to “may”.

 We further update the Board Note

to the most recent version of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Treatment Techniques:

 General Requirements--Section 611.295

Section 611.295 derives from 40 CFR 141.110, added by USEPA

at 56 Fed. Reg.

3594

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 It states that the

treatment techniques of Subpart D (40 CFR 141 subpart K),

established in lieu of MCLs for specified contaminants,

 constitute national primary drinking water regulations

 (NPDWRs).

Changed since the proposal for public comment is the version of

the Code of Federal Regulations in the Board Note.

Treatment Techniques:

 Acrylamide and Epichiorohydrin--Section

611.296

Section 611.296 derives from 40 CFR 141.111, added by USEPA

at 56 Fed.

 Reg.

3594

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 It establishes a

limitation on polymer treatment:

 the dose rate of polymer (parts

per million) times the unreacted monomer content of the polymer

(weight percent)

 cannot exceed 0.05 for acrylamide or 0.20 for

epichiorohydrin.

 The Board has changed the structure and

language for clarity since the proposal for public comment.

The

maximum products that a supplier cannot exceed are placed in a

separate subsection,

 in order to highlight those numbers.

The

provision relating to certifications

 (now subsection

 (c))

is

changed grammatically and for clarity.

 The source of the

certification is now stated consistent with subsection

 (a).

“May”, which is more clearly permissive and more consistent in

usage with the style of Illinois’ regulations,

 is used in place

of “can”.

 We believe that this structure follows the federal

rule more closely than that suggested by the Agency in PC 10.

Also changed since the proposal for public comment is the version

 of the Code of Federal Regulations in the Board Note.

MCLs:

 Old MCLs for Inorganic Chemicals——Section 611.300

Section 611.300 derives from 40 CFR 141.11, amended by USEPA

at 56 Fed.

 Reg.

3578

 (Jan.

 30, 1991)

 and 56 Fed. Reg. 30274

 (July

1,

 1991).

 The federal amendments immediately deleted the entry

for silver; made the entries for cadmium, chromium, mercury,

nitrate, and selenium expire on July 30,

1992

 (the effective date

of the revised MCLs of section 141.62(a)); will make the entry

for lead expire on December 7,

1992

 (the effective date of the

lead and copper rule, which are the subject of docket R91-15);

and will delete the entry for barium expire on January

1,

1993

(the effective date of the Phase IIB rules,

 also the subject of

R91-15).

 The Board makes these amendments with minor deviation

from the federal text.

Initially,

 the Board added notations with regard to the

future expiration of the entries for lead and barium without

UI

37-0297

46

giving dates certain for their expiration.

 We do not believe

that USEPA intends that there be no MCLs for these chemical

contaminants in Illinois.

 Rather,

 since we btlieve that USEPA

intended them to expire when their respective new regulations

 take effect, we added a note explaining the federal dates and

state that their deletion from this Section will occur in a

future rulemaking.

The Board makes other revisions, to the text since the

proposal for public comment.

 Since July 30,

 1992 is past,

we

delete the language from the preamble to subsection

 (a) that

related to a future expiration date,

 and we actually delete the

entries for cadmium, chromium, mercury, nitrate, and selenium and

their corresponding notations as to future expiration

 (now past).

We have also added an explanation of the existence of listings at

both this Section and Section 611.301(a)

 (corresponding with 40

CFR 141.62(b))

 for fluoride.

 We also restore the note,

erroneously omitted, which designates manganese as an additional

state requirement.

 Since USEPA has brought about dual listings

of MCL5,

 the adopted rule now refers to those of this Section as

“old MCLs”

 in the section heading and subsections

 (a),

 (b), and

(C)

 (and those of Section 611.301 elsewhere in the rules as

“revised MCL5”).

 We render “which” as that in subsection

 (e) (1)

for grammatic correctness; update all references to the 1991 Code

of Federal Regulations; delete the applicability cross-reference

from the Board Note to subsection

(b)

 and the reference to

“Public Health” from subsection

 (d)(2), as superfluous in light

 of the Board Note that follows; and clearly state in the Board

Note to subsection

 (d) that Public Health may regulate nitrate.

MCLs:

 Revised MCLs for Inorganic Chemicals——Section 611.301

Section 611.301 derives from 40 CFR 141.62,

 added by USEPA

at 56 Fed.

 Reg.

3594

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and amended at 56

 Fed. Peg.

30280

 (July 1,

 1991)

 (excluding barium, which is the subject of

docket R91-15).

 Federal subsection

(a)

 is reserved.

 Federal

subsection

 (b) establishes MCL5 that differ in applicability.

Fluoride applies only to community supplies

 (CWSs).

 Asbestos,

cadmium, chromium, mercury, and selenium apply to CWSs and non-

transient, non-community systems

 (NTNCWSS).

 Nitrate, nitrite,

and total nitrate and nitrite apply to CWSS,

 NTNCWSs, and

transient,

 non—community supplies (transient non-CWS5).

 Federal

subsection

 (c) sets forth the treatment techniques that USEPA has

identified as the best available technology

 (BAT)

 for each

inorganic chemical contaminant.

In the proposal from public comment, the Board deviated from

the federal text.

 We retain part of that deviation and correct

the rest.

 In the subsection

 (b) statement of applicability we

chose to refer to the contaminants by name, stating that all of

 the MCLs apply to CWSs,

 all apply also to NTNCWS5 with exception,

and others apply also to transient non—CWSs, rather than

0137-0298

47

referring to them by a paragraph number.

 We retain this form,

but we delete the name of selenium as an exception for NTNCWSs.

USEPA clearly made the MCL for this contaminar~tapplicable to

these supplies.

 We further correct the BAT treatment techniques

for asbestos (deleting differentiation based on asbestos source

not in the federal rule)

 and barium (adding electrodialysis in

response to PC 10) to correct errors in the proposal for public

comment.

 (Although it might have been desireable for USEPA to

make a distinction in asbestos BAT based on whether the asbestos

is from the raw water source or from corrosion in the

distribution system, this is not part of the federal rule and we

do not add it to the adopted rule.)

The Board makes additional revisions since the proposal for

public comment.

 In subsection

 (a) we reserve the section by

clearly stating that USEPA has reserved it and we are using the

statement to maintain structural consistency.

 Although it is

lengthier than the original cross—reference, we received

criticism for using a meaningless cross reference.

 We correct

the punctuation of subsection

 (b) by adding a period.

 We resort

to use of the technical symbols

“?“

 and “Mg” because these are

more readily understood by the technical community that uses the

Board’s rules.

 Finally, the Board updates the version of the

Code of Federal Regulations in the Board Note.

MCLs:

 Old MCLs for Organic Chemicals——Section 63.1.310

Section 611.310 derives from 40 CFR 141.12, amended by USEPA

at 56 Fed. Reg. 3578—79

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and 56 Fed. Reg.

30274

(July

1,

 1991).

 The federal amendments delete the J4CLS for

lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene,

 2,4—D, and 2,4,5—TP

 (Silvex).

USEPA has adopted “revised MCLs” for these chemical contaminants

at new section 141.61

 (corresponding with Section 611.311).

(Along with MCL5 for chlordane,

 heptachlor,

 and heptachlor

epoxide.)

 (This creates MCL5 at both Section 611.310 and Section

611.311 for heptachlor, heptachior epoxide, and 2,4-D.

 The Board

retains both MCL listings because the state MCLs at Section

611.310 are more stringent than the federal MCL5, but violation

of the federal MCLs of Section 611.311 impose more stringent

reporting, monitoring, and notice requirements.

 The Board now

believes that deletion of the Section 611.311 (corresponding with

40 CFR 141.61) entries for these three chemical contaminants

would render the state regulations less stringent for the

purposes of primacy.)

The Board adopts the federal amendments with additional

revision since the proposal for public comment.

 Initially, we

deleted the listings for chlordane,

 lindane, methoxychlor, and

toxaphene,

 at subsection

 (a), and that for 2,4,5—TP

 (Silvex), at

subsection

 (b).

 The new federal MCL of section 141.61 for

chiordane is more stringent than the former state MCL for this

contaminant.

 Retaining a listing as this Section would be

37-0299

48

inconsistent with and less stringent than the new federal NCL.

As to lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex),

the July 30,

 1992 effective date of the revisezl MCLs is now past.

We further delete subsection

 (d) to integrate the TTHN MCL into

subsection

 (C),

since the July

1,

 1992 effective date for small

systems is now past,

 and amend the Board Note that follows to

clearly indicate that the TTHM MCL is an additional state

standard to the extent it applies to small systems.

 We amend the

Board Notes to reflect the most recent Code of Federal

Regulations and extensively amend those that follow subsections

(a) and

(b)

 to explain the dual MCL listings of heptachior,

heptachior epoxide, and 2,4—D.

 In response to an Agency comment

(PC 12) that we capitalize “state” in the Board Note to

subsection

 (a), we changed this to “Illinois”.

 Throughout

various passages of the rules we refer to “additional state

requirements” and otherwise use the wod “state” without

capitalization.

 We prefer to remain consistent.

 Therefore,

we

made this substitution here.

)ICLs:

 Revised MCLs for Organic Chemicals——Section 611.311

Section 611.311 derives from 40 CFR 141.61, added by USEPA

at 56 Fed. Reg.

3593

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and amended at 56 Fed. Reg.

30280

 (July

1,

 1991)

 (by adding MCLs for aldicarb, aldicarb

sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, and pentachiorophenol, which are the

subject of docket R91-15 as Phase IIB contaminants).

 This added

MCLs for ten new VOCs at subsection

(a)

 (o—dichlorobenzene,

 cis—

1, 2-dichloroethylene,

 trans-i,2—dichioroethylene,

 1,2—dichloro-

propane,

 ethylbenzene, monochlorobenzene, styrene, tetrachloro-

ethylene, toluene, and total xylenes).

 At subsection (c),

it

added MCLs for six SOCs for which there were previously no MCLS

(alachlor,

 atrazine, carbofuran, dibromochioropropane,

 ethylene

dibromide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), amended the MCL5

for five SOCs formerly listed in section 141.12

 (Section 611.310)

(2,4-D,

 lindane, methoxychior, toxaphene, and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)),

and added MCLs for three SOC5 for which an MCL previously existed

 at Section 611.310 only as an additional state requirement

(chlordane, heptachlor,

 and heptachior epoxide).

 At subsection

(b) the amendments set forth the best available treatment

technology

 (BAT)

 (whether granular activated carbon or packed

tower aeration)

 for each of the VOC and SOC contaminants

(including the Phase I VOCs).

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board has changed

the regulatory text.

 Significantly, the Board has revised the

phraseology used to refer to the contaminants to use words closer

to those used by USEPA.

 We now refer to “Phase I” and “Phase II”

“volatile organic chemical contaminants”

 (“VOCS”)

 and “synthetic

organic chemical contaminants”

 (“SOC5”) and have reworded

portions of the preambles to each of subsections

 (a) through

(C)

accordingly.

 We have removed all references in subsection

 (a) to

the July 30,

 1992 effective date since that is now past.

 We have

U

 37-0300

49

corrected the BAT at subsection

(b)

 for toluene and listed those

for seven SOCs omitted from the proposal

 (aidicarb, aldicarb

sulfoxide,

 aldicarb sulfone,

 2,4-D, heptachloi, heptachior

epoxide, and pentachlorophenol).

 This is even though those for

four

 (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, and

peritachiorophenol)

 are Phase IIB contaminants

 (the subject of

docket R91-15).

 Listing the BAT without listing an MCL imposes

no substantive requirement.

 At subsection (c)we have added

entries for three SOCs (2,4-D,

 heptachlor, and heptachlor

epoxide) previously omitted due to the existence of more

stringent state MCL5.

 The reasons for this are explained in the

preceding discussion, and the Board has modified the Board Note

appended to subsection

 (c) to highlight the dual listings for

these three contaminants.

 We believe that this comports with the-

Agency’s comments in PC 10.

 In response to another Agency

comment

 (PC 12), we deleted the decimal point from the MCLs for

toluene and total xylenes because the decimal does not appear in

the federal text.

 The Agency comment requested that the Board

add a Board Note explaining the fact that if the Department of

Public Health regulates non-CWS5 by reference to the Board rules,

“Agency” will mean “Public Health” as to those entities.

 Instead

of doing this here,

 we did it in the definitions of “Agency” and

“Public Health”

 in Section 611.101.

 “Public Health” appears in

multiple locations in the rules.

 Finally, we update all

references to the 1991 Code of Federal Regulations.

MCLs:

 Turbidity--Section 611.320

The Board adds amendments to Section 611.320

 (corresponding

with 40 CFR 141.13)

 in response to the USEPA Region V Phase I

primacy comments

 (PC 14).

 USEPA stated that the Board neglected

to state that the MCL requirements for filtered systems applies

until June 29,

 1993.

 We amend to add this statement.

 We also

change the date of the Code of Federal Regulations.

General Monitoring Requirements:

 Unregulated Contaminants—-

Section 611.510

Section 611.510 derives from 40 CFR 141.40(n), added by

USEPA at 56 Fed. Peg. 3592

 (Jan.

30,

 1992).

 USEPA is requiring

suppliers to sample and analyze their waters for compounds for

which there are no MCLs.

 CWSS and NTNCWSs must take four

consecutive quarterly samples at each sampling point for each of

the listed organic chemical contaminants

 (aidrin, benzo(a)pyrene,

butachior,

 carbaryl, dalaphon, di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate, di—

(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate, dicamba, dinoseb,

 diquat, endothall,

glyphosate,

 hexachlorobenzene, hexahlorocyclopentadiene,

3-hydroxycarbofuran, methomyl, metolachior, metribuzin, oxamyl

(vydate), picloram, propachlor,

 simazine, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD

(dioxin))

 and one sample at each sampling point for each of the

listed inorganic chemical contaminants

 (antimony,

 beryllium,

nickel, sulfate, thallium, and cyanide).

 Suppliers serving fewer

0137-0301

50

than 150 service connections may send a letter to the state

before January

1,

 1994 stating that its system is available for

sampling, rather than actually performing the sampling and

analyses.

 The federal rule allows the use of waivers

 (SEP5)

 from

the requirements:

 from the unregulated organic chemicals on the

same basis as for SOCs (discussed below)

 and from the inorganic

chemicals on the basis of data collected after January 1, 1990.

The sampling points are each entry point and, for surface water

and mixed systems only, at points in the distribution system that

are representative of each source after treatment.

 USEPA allows

confirmation sampling for questionable results.

 (USEPA also

allows composite sampling,

 a provision not adopted by the Board.)

In the proposal for public comment, the Board proposed this

provision in two segments:

 one pertaining to unregulat~d

inorganic chemical contaminants

 (Section 611.631) and one

pertaining to unregulated organic chemical contaminants

 (Section

611.658).

 We have chosen to instead follow the USEPA format and

consolidate these into a single Section.

 We have therefore

reverted to language that more closely follows the USEPA rule,

with certain structural exceptions.

 We have taken identical

language from federal paragraphs

 (n) (5) and

 (n) (6)

 (corresponding

with subsection

 (e) and

 (f)) relating to alternative sampling

points and consolidated it into subsection

 (1), adding the

condition that the Agency must approve these alternative

locations by SEP.

 We did not adopt a counterpart to federal

paragraph (n)(9), which pertains to composite sampling.

 Since

the proposal for public comment, we have moved the definitions

that we proposed for Sections 611.631 and 611.658 to the general

definitions, at Section 611.101.

 Finally, we have deleted the

use of multiple Board Notes throughout the text in favor of two

notes

 (following subsections

 (i) and (1))

 as to the source of the

Illinois rule and updated the references to the Code of Federal

Regulations.

Microbiological Monitoring Requirements:

 Repeat Coliform

Monitoring-—Section 611.522

The Board amends Section 611.522 since the proposal for

public comment in response to USEPA Phase I primacy comments.

USEPA commented that the Phase rules limit the Agency’s

discretion to allow certain actions once it has determined that

certain conditions exist.

 The foregoing discussion of the

differences between what Illinois and federal administrative law

require

 (at Section 611.250) support the Board’s original

approach.

 The Agency has the discretion to evaluate the

circumstances and formulate its determination, but once it has

determined that the circumstances set forth by rule exist,

 it has

no discretion to arbitrarily and capriciously deny relief.

In

this instance,

 if the Agency determines that the supplier cannot

repeat sample within 24 hours,

 it has no further authority to use

some other basis for not allowing an extension.

 However,

in

0137-0302

51

reviewing this Section in light of the USEPA comments, the Board

noticed that subsection

 (a) does not have the customary language

relating to the Agency determination.

 We add that language.

Additionally, we replace “which” with “that”

 in the appropriate

places in subsections

 (a) and

(c)

 for grammatic correctness and

update the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations in the

Board Note.

Microbiological Monitoring Requirements:

 Invalidation of Total

Coliform Samples——Section 611.523

The Board amends Section 611.523 since the proposal for

public comment in response to USEPA Phase

 I primacy comments.

Subsection

 (a) (3)

 states that the Agency “determines that a total

coliform—positive result is due to a circumstance or condition

which does not reflect water quality in the distribution system”.

USEPA criticized the Illinois Phase I rule because it does not

enunciate a standard for Agency determination.

 The federal rule

uses “substantial grounds to believe” as a standard.

 Despite the

difficulty of such language, we amend this sentence in

significant part as follows:

 “determines that there are

substantial ~rounds to believe that a total coliform-positive

.“.

 We use this opportunity to modify the references to the

subsections within subsection

(a)

 for clarity and to update the

Board Note reference to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Microbiological Monitoring Requirements:

 Invalidation of Total

Coliform Samples——Section 611.523

Section 611.526 derives from 40 CFR 141.21(f), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 642—43

 (Jan.

30,

 1991),

 57 Fed.

 Reg. 1852

(Jan.

15,

 1992), and 57

 Fed. Reg.

24747

 (June 10,

 1992).

The

effect of the federal amendments is to amend three analytical

methods for fecal coliforms

 (multiple tube fermentation

 (MTF) or

P-A coliform test, membrane filter

 (MF) test,

 and the

1010-MUG

test with hepes buffer techniques), to approve three methods for

E. coli

 (EC medium supplemented with

MUG,

nutrient agar

supplemented with MUG, and the minimal medium ONPG-MUG (MMO-MUG)

test), and to approve an alternative test to the lIMO-MUG test for

 coli

 (incubation and observation of total coliform-positive,

MUG-negative

 lIMO-MUG

samples using EC medium supplemented with

MUG).

 The Board amends Section 611.523 in accordance with the

federal amendments.

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board makes a few

changes.

 We add the federal amendments to 40 CFR 141.21(f) that

occurred in January and June,

 1992:

 adding the lIMO-MUG test with

hepes buffer for total coliforms (subsection

 (c)(4)), the minimal

medium

MMO-MUG

test forE.

 coli

 (subsection

 (f)(3)), and the

alternative MMO-MUG

 (supplemented EC medium) test for

 E. coli

(subsection

 (g)) and amending the multiple tube fermentation

(MTF)

 or P-A coliform test to delete the word “bottle”

0 37-0303

52

(subsection

 (e) (1)).

 We repunctuate subsections

(C)

(1) through

(c) (3) and

 (f) (2)

 for consistency and clarity.

 We delete the

editions of methods at subsections

(C)

(1) (A),

(C)

(2) (A),

 (d), and

(f) (2),

 instead relying on the incorporations by reference at

Section 611.102 for this information.

 We substitute “that” for

“which” as subsection

 (e) (2) and use the familiar scientific

notation characters

 (“±“,

“°“,

 and “ag”) at subsections

 (e) (2),

(f) (1), and

 (f) (2).

 Finally, the Board updates the reference to

the Code of Federal Regulations and £ncludes later references to

the Federal Register in the Board Note.

Turbidity Monitoring--Section 611.560

The Board amends Section 611.560 since the proposal for

public comment in response to the USEPA Phase

 I primacy comments.

USEPA commented that the Phase rules limit the Agency’s

discretion to allow certain actions once it has determined that

certain conditions exist.

 The foregoing discussion of the

differences between what Illinois and federal administrative law

require

 (at Section 611.250) would normally support the Board’s

original approach.

 The Agency has the discretion to evaluate the

circumstances and formulate its determination, but once it has

determined that the circumstances set forth by rule exist,

 it has

no discretion to arbitrarily and capriciously deny relief.

However, subsection

 (a) (1)

 involved here refers to the Department

of Public Health, which actually regulates non-community systems

in Illinois.

 In this instance, use of the word “may”

 in place of

“shall” is appropriate.

 The Department does not derive its

authority from the Environmental Protection Act.

 We amend that

subsection accordingly.

 Additionally, we replace “which” with

“that” in the appropriate places in subsection

 (d) for grammatic

correctness, repunctuate the methods references and remove the

edition (see the foregoing discussion)

 at subsections

(a) (2) (A) (i) and

 (a) (2) (A) (ii),

 and update the reference to the

Code of Federal Regulations in the Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Violation of State MCL——Section 611.591

The Board has renumbered Section 611.591 from Section

611.602

 in response to the federal Phase II amendments.

Originally proposed without amendment (despite the erroneous

underlining), since the proposal for public comment we make

amendments.

 Consistent with the changed approach of calling the

previous MCLS of Section 611.300 “old MCLs”, we add “old” where

necessary and add a reference to Section 611.300 in the preamble

for further clarity.

 We substitute “that” for “which” in the

preamble for grammatic correctness.

 In response to an Agency

comment

 (PC 12), we added “that” to subsection

 (g).

i37-03OL~.

53

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Frequency of State Monitoring--

Section 611.592

The Board has renumbered Section 611.592 from Section

611.603 in response to the federal Phase II amendments.

Originally proposed without amendment (despite the erroneous

underlining), since the proposal for public comment we make

amendments.

 Consistent with the changed approach of calling the

 previous MCLS of Section 611.300 “old MCLs”, we add “old” where

necessary in the preamble and add a reference to Section 611.300

for further clarity.

 We substitute “that” for “which” in the

preamble for grammatic correctness.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Applicability--Section 611.600

Section 611.600 derives from the preamble of 40 CFR 141.23

and the listing of detection limits in paragraph

 (a) (4) (1).

USEPA amended the preamble and added the detection limits at 56

Fed.

 Peg.

3579

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 All systems

 (CWS5 and NTNCWSs)

must use the methods of section 141.23

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.600

through 611.611) to determine compliance with the MCLs of section

141.62

 (Section 611.301).

 (Additionally, the federal language

requires that transient, non-CWSs must use these methods for the

nitrate and nitrite MCLs of section 141.11

 (Section 611.300)

 “as

appropriate”, but the federal amendments do not leave any MCLs

for those species at that section.

 Nevertheless, the Board

follows the federal language.)

 The detection limits set forth

have a dual purpose:

 they indicate the level of necessary

performance of analytical laboratories, and they give the

threshold level where a contaminant is “detected”.

 (This latter

concept

 is vital for the purposes of monitoring VOC and SOC

species

 (see below discussion), but not so for inorganic

 contaminants.)

Since the proposal for public comment, we change the

regulatory language.

 We moved all of the definitions of proposed

subsection

 (d) to Section 611.101 and renumbered proposed

subsection

 (e) to subsection

 (d).

 We follow our scheme of

referring to the MCLs of Section 611.300 (40 CFR 141.11)

 as “old

MCL5” and those of Section 611.301 (40 CFR 141.62) as “revised

MCLs” in the preamble.

 We correct the reference to Section

611.Appendix A in the table entry for barium.

 Finally, we update

the reference in the Board Note to the 1991 Code of Federal

Regulations.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 FrequencY——Section 611.601

Section 611.601 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(a) (1) through

(a) (3)

and

 (a) (5), which USEPA amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 3579

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 (Former Section 611.601 in the Illinois rules now

appears as Section 611.635; there is no Illinois counterpart to

40 CFR 141.23(a) (4), which relates to composite sampling.)

The

0137-0305

54

federal rule now requires each supplier to take at least one

sample at each entry point and,

 in the case of surface water and

mixed source suppliers, at points in the distribution system

representative of each source after treatment.

 For multiple

source systems, the sampling must occur when water representative

 of all sources is used.

 The federal rules allow for the use of

alternative sampling points

 (in Illinois by SEP), composite

sampling (not adopted in Illinois),

 and it sets forth the

monitoring frequencies (cross—referenced to other provisions in

the Illinois rules).

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board has changed

various segments of Section 611.601.

 We moved all of the

definitions of proposed subsections

 (a) to Section 611.101 and

renumbered proposed subsections

 (b) through

 (e) to subsections

(a) through

 (d).

 Subsection

 (a), which requires suppliers to

take representative samples, corresponds with portions of federal

paragraphs

 (a) (1)

and

 (a) (2).

 We add the federal January

1,

1993

effective date.

 We divided subsection

(a)

 into subsections and

restored to subsection

 (a) (2) certain federal language relating

to representative samples, rather than rely on the defined word

“representative”,

 and made a new subsection

 (a) (3) to contain

certain language repeated at the end of both federal paragraphs.

Subsection

 (b), which sets forth the required sampling points,.

derives from elements of federal paragraphs

 (a) (1) through

(a) (3).

 The Board has “fleshed out” the formerly abbreviated

language of subsection

 (b) to make it follow the federal language

 more closely, restoring the language of subsection

 (b) (3)

 in its

entirety.

 We have added explanatory language in favor of a cross

reference to the “dummy section”, subsection

 (c).

 Finally, we

substitute “following” for indicated in the preamble of

subsection

 (d) and update the Code of Federal Regulations

reference in the Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Asbestos——Section 611.602

Section 611.602 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(b), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3580

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 (Former Section

611.602 in the Illinois rules now appears as Section 611.591.)

The federal rule now requires each supplier to sample and analyze

for asbestos once in the first compliance period of each

compliance cycle.

 It allows the state to waive this requirement

if it determines that the system is not vulnerable to

contamination from the raw water source or corrosion of asbestos—

cement pipe.

 Waivers expire at the end of each compliance cycle.

On the other hand,

 if the system is vulnerable only from the

source water, the supplier must sample at the entry points or

from representative points in the distribution system,

 as per the

general rule.

 If the system is vulnerable to pipe corrosion, the

supplier must sample at a consumer tap served by asbestos-cement

pipe under circumstances when corrosion is most likely to occur.

A supplier whose system exceeds the MCL for asbestos must begin

0137-0306

55

quarterly monitoring.

 The state may reduce the monitoring

frequency if it determines, based on consecutive quarterly

samples

 (two for groundwater systems or four for surface water

and mixed systems), that the supplier’s water is reliably and

consistently below the MCL.

 USEPA allows the use of existing

data collected after January 1,

 1990 if it is generally

consistent with the monitoring requirements.

In adapting the federal rules to the Illinois scheme, the

Board has made certain accommodations.

 Chief

among the

revisions, we have chosen to use the special exception permit

(SEP) mechanism in place of waivers and other determinations that

allow actions apart from the general rule.

 The Agency may grant

a SEP that waives the monitoring requirement under the federally-

enumerated circumstances.

 The Agency may by SEP reduce the

quarterly monitoring frequency if it makes the “reliably and

consistently” determination.

It

 is by SEP that the Agency may

“grandfather” existing data.

 Aside from this,

 the deviations

from the federal text are format and non—substantive.

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board revises the

rule text, mostly to follow the federal text more closely.

We

add the federal January

1,

 1992 effective date to subsection

(a) (1).

 We cite the factors for consideration in the end of

subsection

 (b).

 We add “or both” to the preamble of subsection

(c)

 for clarity and restore the federal “and the corrosive nature

of the water” to subsection

 (c) (2).

 Similarly, we add a

references to SEP and asbestos contamination to subsection

(d)

for clarity.

 We substitute “that” for “which” at subsection

 (h).

By integrating the essence of proposed subsection

(1)

(3), we

reword subsection

 (i) (1)

 for clarity and for consistency with

other similar provisions that provide for Agency determinations

based on its consideration of criteria set forth.

 To subsection

(i) (2) we add “at a minimum” to restore an essential federal

minimum data requirement.

 Proposed subsections

 (i) (4) (A) and

(i) (4) (B), now integrated into a unitary subsection

 (1) (3), have

no counterpart in the federal language of 40 CFR 141.23(b) (9).

Therefore,

adopting

 a trigger level other than the MCL for

increased monitoring would have constituted an additional state

requirement.

 We substantively change proposed subsection

 (i) (4),

now renumbered to subsection

 (i) (3), so that it is the MCL and

not some arbitrary contaminant level that trigger

 a return to

quarterly

monitoring.

Partly

response

 PC 7, we restore the

federal “grandfather clause” for existing data from 40 CFR

141.23(b) (9), omitted from the proposal for public comment, to

new

subsection

(j).

Finally,

move

the

Board

Note

the

end

the

Section

and

update

the

Code

Federal

Regulations

reference to 1991.

37-0307

56

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Barium,

 Cadmium. Chromium. Fluoride,

Mercury,

 and Selenium--Section 611.603

Section 611.603 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(c), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Peg. 3580

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 (Former Section

611.603

 in the Illinois rules now appears as Section 611.592.)

The federal rule requires each supplier to monitor for barium,

cadmium,

 chromium, fluoride, mercury, and selenium:

 groundwater

suppliers once each compliance period and surface water and mixed

suppliers once each year at each sampling point.

 It allows the

state to waive this requirement as to any of these contaminants

to a minimum of once each compliance cycle

 (nine years)

for

surface water and mixed systems

 (based on the results from at

least three consecutive annual samples) or groundwater systems

(based on three rounds of sampling)

 if it determines that all

previous analytical results were below the MeL.

 The state must

consider such factors as reported analytical results, the

variability of the results, and other circumstances that affect

contaminant levels

 (groundwater pumping rates, changes in system

configuration and operation, and stream flows or characteristics)

in determining the appropriate reduction in monitoring frequency.

Waivers expire at the end of each compliance cycle.

 On the other

hand,

 a supplier whose system exceeds the MCL for any of these

inorganic chemical contaminants must begin quarterly monitoring.

The state may reduce the monitoring frequency if it determines,

based on consecutive quarterly samples

 (two for groundwater

systems or four for surface water and mixed systems), that the

supplier’s water is reliably and consistently below the MCL.

Although USEPA does not expressly allow the “grandfathering” of

existing data,

 it parenthetically allows the use of existing data

to obtain a waiver,

 so long as at least one sample was collected

after January 1,

 1990.

In adapting the federal rules to the Illinois scheme, the

Board has made certain accommodations.

 Chief among the

revisions, we have chosen to use the special exception permit

(SEP) mechanism in place of waivers and other determinations that

 allow actions apart from the general rule.

 The Agency may grant

a SEP that waives the monitoring requirement under the federally-

enumerated circumstances.

 The Agency may by SEP reduce the

quarterly monitoring frequency if it makes the “reliably and

consistently” determination.

 Finally, the federal rules do not

expressly mention mixed systems.

 The Board adds references to

mixed systems together with references to surface water systems

at subsections

 (a) (1)

and

 (C),

consistent with the USEPA’s

approach for other chemical contaminants.

 Aside from this,

the

deviations from the federal text are format and non—substantive.

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board revises the

rule text,

 mostly to follow the federal text more closely.

In

the preamble, we refer to the Section 611.301 MCL5 as “revised”

MCLs.

 We add “samples” to the preamble of subsection

(a)

 and add

37-0308

57

“at least” to both subsections

 (a) (1)

and

 (a) (2) to clarify that

this is a minimal requirement.

 We add “SEP” to the titles of

subsections

 (b) through

 (f), “SEP that allows” to subsection (b),

“grant a SEP that allows” to subsection

 (d), and “during the term

of the SEP” to subsection

(e)

 for clarity.

 We cite the factors

for consideration in the end of subsections

 (c) and

 (d).

 We add

language to the beginning of subsection

 (f) (2) that requires the

Agency to state the basis for issuing the SEP.

 We restore the

federal phrase “changes in” to subsection

 (e) (3) where it refers

to stream flows or characteristics.

 By integrating the essence

of proposed subsection

 (h) (3), we reword subsection

 (h) (1)

for

clarity and for consistency with other similar provisions that

provide for Agency determinations based on its consideration of

criteria set forth.

 Susection

 (h) (1)

 is further corrected so

that the federally—designated reduction to the original

monitoring frequency replaces annual.

 Proposed subsections

(h) (4) (A)

and

 (h) (4) (B), now integrated into a unitary subsection

(h) (3), have no counterpart in the federal language of 40 CFR

141.23(d) (2)

and

 (d)(3).

 Therefore, adopting a trigger level

other than the MCL for increased monitoring would have

constituted an additional state requirement.

 We substantively

change proposed subsection

 (h) (4)

 so that it is the MCL and not

some arbitrary contaminant level chosen by the Agency that

triggers a return to quarterly monitoring.

 Finally, we

updatedthe Code of Federal Regulations reference to 1991 in all

 of the Board Notes.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Nitrate--Section 611.604

Section 611.604 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(d), which USEPA

amended at 56

 Fed.

 Reg. 3580-81

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal

rule requires each Community water system

 (CWS)

 and non—

transient,

 non-community water system (NTNCWS)

 supplier to

monitor for nitrate:

 groundwater suppliers once each year and

surface water and mixed suppliers once each quarter at each

sampling point.

 (Transient non-CWSs must monitor annually.)

Unlike for the other inorganic contaminants, the federal rule

does not allow the state to waive this requirement based on the

results from previous samples.

 A supplier whose system is equal

to or exceeds one-half the MCL for nitrate must begin quarterly

monitoring for at least a year following the quarter in which the

exceedance occurred (four consecutive quarters for surface water

systems and no express mention of mixed systems).

 The state may

reduce the monitoring frequency to annually if it determines,

based on the consecutive quarterly samples, that the supplier’s

water

 is reliably and consistently below the MCL, for groundwater

systems,

 or one—half the MCL, for surface water systems (there is

no express mention of mixed systems).

 A surface water system

must return to quarterly monitoring if the nitrate level in any

sample is equal to or greater than (actually written as less

 than,

 an obvious error)

 one-half the 1(CL.

 (There

 is no express

mention of groundwater and mixed systems returning to quarterly

0131-0309

58

monitoring.)

 Systems returning to annual monitoring must sample

during the quarter that previously resulted

 in the highest

nitrate level.

 USEPA does not allow the “grax:dfathering” of

existing data for nitrate.

In adapting the federal rules to the Illinois scheme, the

Board has made certain accommodations.

 We have significantly

restructured the federal provision while retaining its

substantive provisions intact.

 Chief among the substantive

revisions, we have chosen to use the special exception permit

(SEP) mechanism to allow a reduction in monitoring frequency.

The Agency may by SEP reduce the quarterly monitoring frequency

if it makes the “reliably and consistently” determination.

We

provide a violation of the MCL as the trigger at subsection

(b) (2) (B)

 for groundwater systems to return to quarterly

monitoring, something that USEPA did not expressly provide at

paragraph

 (d) (2).

 Further, we correct the federal error

 in using

“

 50 percent of the MCL” in paragraph

 (e) (2) when referring to a

return to quarterly monitoring.

 We use “greater than or equal

to” in subsection

 (c) (2).

 Aside from this, the deviations from

the federal text are format and non-substantive.

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board revised the

rule text,

 mostly to follow the federal text more closely.

We

have reverted to the federal language at subsection

 (a),

eliminating differentiation between (or mention of)

 groundwater

and surface water systems and following the base federal

requirement of one sample for each sampling point during the

first compliance period.

 Initiation of a state-designated

monitoring regimen for nitrite would constitute an additional

state requirement.

 We add the federal language relating

subsection

 (b) (1) to GWS suppliers.

 We have deleted the former

cross—reference at “dummy” subsection

 (b), replacing it with an

explanation.

 We have designated proposed subsection

 (c) (1) as

subsection

 (c) (1) (A)

 (adding a subsection heading), so we could

add the federal provision,

 as subsection

 (c) (1) (B), that

quarterly monitoring continues for a minimum of four consecutive

quarters.

 Proposed subsections

 (c) (2) and

 (c) (2) (b) are

integrated subsection

 (c) (2) and reworded consistent with other

provisions by which the Agency makes determinations based on the

facts presented to allow reduced monitoring.

 We substantively

change proposed subsection

 (c) (2) (B)

 so that it is the MCL and

not some arbitrary contaminant level chosen by the Agency that

triggers a return to quarterly monitoring.

 Proposed subsections

(C)

(2)

 (C) (i) and

 (c) (2) (C) (ii), now integrated into a unitary

subsection

 (c) (2) (B), have no direct counterpart in the federal

language of 40 CFR 141.23(e)(3).

 Therefore,

 adopting a trigger

level other than the MCL for increased monitoring would have

constituted an additional state requirement.

 We add “samples” to

the preamble of subsection

 (a) and add “at least” to both

subsections

 (a) (1)

and

 (a) (2) to clarify that this is a minimal

requirement.

 Therefore, adopting a trigger level other than the

0137-03

I 0

MCL for increased monitoring would have constituted an additional

state requirement.

 The former cross—refererace in “dummy”

subsection

(d)

 is replaced with an explanatior..

 In response to

an Agency comment

 (PC 12), we corrected the reference to

“subsection

 (g)” to “subsection

 (b) (1)” in subsection

 (b) (2) (B)

and deleted “for any contaminant”.

 Finally, we update the Code

of Federal Regulations reference to 1991 in all of the Board

Notes.

Inoraanic Monitoring:

 Nitrite--Section 611.605

Section 611.605 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(e), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Peg. 3581

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal rule

requires each Community water system

 (CWS),

non—transient, non-

community water system (NTNCWS), and transient non-CWS supplier

to take at least one sample during the first compliance period

(January

1,

 1993 through December 31,

 1995)

 at each sampling

point to monitor for nitrite.

 Like nitrate and unlike for the

other inorganic contaminants, the federal rule does not allow the

state to waive this requirement based on the results from

previous samples.

 Like nitrate, a supplier whose system is equal

to or exceeds one-half the MCL for nitrite must begin quarterly

monitoring for at least a year following the quarter in which the

exceedance occurred (four consecutive quarters).

 The state may

reduce the monitoring frequency to “the frequency specified by

the State”

 if the initial sample

 is less than one-half the MCL.

However,

 after quarterly monitoring, the reduced frequency is

annual if the state determines,

 based on the consecutive

quarterly samples, that the supplier’s water is reliably and

consistently below one-half the MCL.

 (There is no

differentiation between groundwater, surface water, and mixed

systems.)

 Systems returning to annual monitoring must sample

during the quarter that previously resulted in the highest

 nitrite level.

 USEPA does not allow the “grandfathering” of

existing data for nitrite.

In adapting the federal rules to the Illinois scheme, the

Board has made certain accommodations.

 We have significantly

restructured the federal provision while retaining its

substantive provisions intact.

 Chief among the substantive

revisions, we have chosen to use the special exception permit

(SEP) mechanism to allow a reduction in monitoring frequency.

The Agency may by SEP reduce the quarterly monitoring frequency

if it makes the “reliably and consistently” determination.

 Aside

from this, the deviations from the federal text are format and

non-substantive.

Since the proposal for public comment, the Board revises the

rule text, mostly to follow the federal text more closely.

In

subsection

 (b) (1) the language is shifted to an affirmative

statement of obligation.

 Similarly,

 subsections

 (b) (2) and

(C)

(1) are reworded consistent with other provisions by which the

0137-0311

60

Agency makes determinations based on the facts presented to allow

reduced monitoring.

 We substantively change proposed subsection

(b) (2) (C)

 so that it is the MCL and not some arbitrary

contaminant level chosen by the Agency that triggers a return to

quarterly monitoring.

 Proposed subsections

 (b) (2) (C) (i) and

(b) (2) (C) (ii), now integrated into a unitary subsection

(b) (2) (C), have no counterpart in the federal language of 40 CFR

141.23(c)(8).

 Therefore, adopting a trigger level other than the

MCL for increased monitoring would have constituted an additional

state requirement.

 Although we correct this Section in response

to PC 10, the Board cannot adopt the full language suggested by

that comment for this reason.

 We rephrase subsection

 (c) (2) (A)

to “A request for a SEP

.“

 and add “the results from

for greater clarity.

 At subsection

 (d) we substitute “that” for

“which”,

 add the parenthetical plural to “quarter(s)”

(in

response to PC 7 and PC 10), and add “previously”.

 Finally, we

updated the Code of Federal Regulations reference to 1991 in all

of the Board Notes.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Confirmation Samples--Section 611.606

Section 611.606 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(f), which USEPA

amended at 56

 Fed.

 Reg. 3581

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal rule

allows the state to require a second sample at the same point if

the analytical results reveal that a sample exceeds the MCL

(as

soon after the original as possible for asbestos, barium,

cadmium,

 chromium, fluoride, mercury, or selenium, but no longer

than two weeks after the original sample, or within 24 hours of

notice of the results for nitrate or nitrite, completing the

analysis within two weeks).

 If the supplier cannot comply with

the reanalysis time limit for nitrate and nitrite,

 it must

immediately give its consumers the required public health

notices.

 The average of the results of the original sample and

the confirmation sample are used to determine compliance.

 USEPA

allows states the discretion to delete the results of obvious

sampling errors.

The Board proposed this provision with only minimal

deviation from the federal text.

 Since the proposal for public

comment, the Board has revised parenthetical language that

appears at the end of subsection

 (a) to more closely follow the

federal text.

 In response to PC 7 and PC 10, we add “or

confirmation” to subsection

 (c),

 in order to provide for suspect

confirmation samples.

 We further amended reference to the Code

of Federal Regulations to the 1991 edition in the Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 More Frequent Monitoring--Section 611.607

Section 611.607 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(g),

 which USEPA

added at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3581

 (Jan.

 30, .1991).

 The federal rule

allows the state to require more frequent monitoring and

confirmation sampling of “positive or negative results” at the

01 37-03~2

61

 discretion of the state.

 The Board did not propose such a

provision.

 Rather, we merely proposed renumbering former Section

611.607 to Section 611.603, which we now do.

 Since the proposal

for public comment we add an explanatory statement.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Additional Optional Monitorina--

Section 611.608

Section 611.608 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(h), which USEPA

added at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3581

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The Federal rule

allows suppliers to engage in additional optional monitoring

without prior approval.

 The Board adopts this provision, only

changing the date of the Code of Federal Regulations date in the

Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Averaainci--Section 611.609

Section 611.609 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(i), which USEPA

added at 56 Fed. Reg. 3581

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and amended at 56 Fed.

Reg. 30275—76

 (July

1,

 1991).

 The federal rule provides how

compliance is determined.

 Compliance is determined through the

results from samples from each sampling point (severally).

For

asbestos, barium, cadmium,

 chromium, fluoride, mercury, and

selenium there are two methods for determining compliance.

If

the monitoring is more frequent than annually, compliance is

determined from a one—year running average of samples from each

individual point, with one exception:

 if any single sample would

cause the running average to exceed the MCL, the system is out of

compliance immediately.

 (Samples below the method detection

limit are counted as zero for the purposes of averaging.)

 If the

system is monitoring annually or less frequently, compliance is

determined by the results from the individual samples from each

sampling point, unless a confirmation sample is used

 (in which

case the average of the two samples

 is used).

 For nitrate and

nitrite the results from the individual samples are used to

determine compliance, without regard to sampling frequency, but

use of a confirmation sample is required (and the average of the

two samples

 is used)

 if the result exceeds the MCL.

 The federal

rule provides that a supplier need only make public notice of the

violation to the portion of the system affected if the

distribution system is separable form all other parts and there

are no interconnections.

The Board proposed Section 611.609 with only minor deviation

from the federal text.

 Since the proposal, we make a small

number of minor revisions for clarity and to more nearly track

the federal provision.

 “Suppliers which are monitoring”

 is now

rendered “suppliers that monitor” in subsections

 (a) and

 (b).

We

restore the language in subsection

 (b) to “method detection

limit.”

 The “method detection limit”

 is determined by USEPA and

 set forth in Section 611.600.

 This is different from the “method

detection limit”, which is determined statistically based on

0137-0313

62

analytical results pursuant to 40 CFR 141.36, appendix B.

 We add

an explanatory note.

 USEPA made this amendment at 56 Fed. Reg.

30274.

 To subsection

 (c) we follow the federal text to add a

statement that Section 611.606 requires confirmation sampling.

We reword subsection

 (d) by restoring the federal condition

relating to interconnections and the language “persons served by

that”.

 We further reword subsection

 (d) by substituting the

permissive

 “may” in place of “shall”,

 so that it is no longer a

requirement but an exception from a general rule,

 like it is in

the federal rule, adding clarifying phrases “that is out of

compliance” and “of the distribution system”, and substituting

“required by” for “pursuant to” in relation to Subpart T.

Finally, we update the reference to the Code of Federal

Regulations at the end.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Monitoring Times——Section 611.610

Section 611.610 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(j), which USEPA

added at 56 Fed. Reg. 3581

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 The federal rule

requires suppliers to monitor during the compliance periods at

the times designated by the state.

 The purpose is apparently to

 avoid overtaxing state resources by having too many suppliers

monitor at the same time.

 The Board’s proposal for public

comment included this provision with only minor deviation from

the federal text for clarity.

 The only change since the proposal

for public comment is updating the Board Note reference to the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Analytical Procedures-—Section 611.611

Section 611.611 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(k), which USEPA

added at 56 Fed. Reg. 3581-83

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and amended at 56

Fed. Reg. 30275—76 (July

 1, 1991).

 (Previously,

 40 CFR 141.23(f)

set forth the analytical methods.)

 The federal rule sets forth

the analytical methods a supplier must use in sampling for the

inorganic chemical contaminants.

 The Board has already discussed

the details of the federal and state changes in analytical

methodology in a foregoing discussion preceding the

incorporations by reference.

 We will not repeat that overview of

the federal action involved and the Board’s approach on a method—

by—method basis.

 Rather, we now focus on the changes in this

Section since the proposal for public comment.

As previously mentioned,

 all editions of methods appear in

the incorporations by reference at Section 611.102.

 The Section

is significantly repunctuated for consistency.

 We add to the

preamble to subsections

 (a) and

(d)

 a reference to the Sections

to which these methods apply (Sections 611.600 through 611.604).

For all references to Inductively Coupled Plasma Method 200.7 we

add reference to supplementation by Appendix 200.7A (subsections

(a)(2)(C),

 (a)(3)(B), and

 (a)(4)(B)).

 Following the USEPA

amendments at 56

 Fed.

 Reg. 30275, we update the ASTI4 method

01 37-03lt~

numbers (at subsections

 (a) (5) (A) (ii),

 (a) (6) (A) (ii),

(a)(6)(C)(ii),

 (a)(7)(B)(ii),

 (a)(7)(C)(ii),

 (a)(8)(B)(ii),

(b) (2) (B) (ii), and

 (b) (3) (B) (ii))

 and the USGS method number

(at

subsection

 (b) (2) (D)).

 We add the methods previously omitted for

selenium (ASTM D3859-88A for gaseous hydride atomic absorption)

and arsenic (Inductively Coupled Plasma method 200.7 as

supplemented).

 We correct the Standard Methods for arsenic to

those cited by USEPA (subsection (b)(2)(C)).

 We add a Board Note

to subsection

 (c) (1) (C) to indicate that the Standard Methods

cited are a correction to an obvious USEPA error.

 We eliminate

duplicative language from the references in sample collection to

the use of hard or soft glass or plastic

 (at subsections

(d)(1)(B),

 (d)(2)(B),

 (d)(3)(B),

 (d)(4)(B),

 (d)(5)(B),

 (d)(6)(B),

(d)(7)(B),

 (d)(8)(B),

 (d)(9)(B), and (d)(lO)(B)).

 We use the

technical symbols

“°“

 instead of “degrees”

 (at subsections

(d)(1)(A),

 (d)(7)(A),

 and (d)(9)(A))

and

“±“

instead of

“+/—“

(subsections

 (e) (2) (B) through

 (e) (2) (I)).

 We change “which” to

“that” in subsection

 (e) (1)

 and delete “which are” from the

preamble of subsection

 (e) (2).

 We implement the federal

correction at 56 Fed.

 Peg.

 30275 to use a maximum mercury sample

shelf—life of

 28 days whether stored in plastic or glass

(at

subsection

 (d)(6)(C)).

 Finally, we correct the date of the Code

of Federal Regulations in the final Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Analytical Procedures for Old MCLS--

Section 611.612

Section 611.612 derives from 40 CFR 141.23(1) through

 (q),

which USEPA added at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 30275—76

 (July

1,

 1991).

(Previously, 40 CFR 141.23(f)

 set forth the analytical methods.)

Since subsections

 (a) through

 (e) are updated versions of those

formerly codified at Section 611.601, we chose to renumber that

Section and amend

 it to account for the federal updates.

Subsection

 (f), the actual analytical methods, was formerly

codified as Section 611.606, even though it appears here as

added.

 The federal rule sets forth the analytical methods a

supplier must use

 in sampling for the inorganic chemical

contaminants listed at Section 611.300

 (the old MCLs;

corresponding with 40 CFR 141. 11).

 The Board has already

discussed the details of the federal and state changes in

analytical methodology in a foregoing discussion preceding the

incorporations by reference.

 We will not repeat that overview of

the federal action involved and the Board’s approach on a method-

by-method basis.

 Rather, we now focus on the deviations from the

federal text supporting this Section.

The amendments to the language of former Section 611.601

primarily focus on assembling a Section that is substantively

identical-in-substance and structurally similar to 40 CFR

141.23(1) through

 (q), with the addition of provisions for the

additional state requirements.

 This has required the deletion of

the existing language for contaminants whose MCLS have already

0137-0315

64

expired

 (cadmium, chromium, mercury,

 nitrate, and selenium,

expired on July 30,

 1992),

 a “grandfather” clause long since

obsolete (subsection

 (d)), and an authorizatioi for the state to

determine compliance and commence enforcement action, which is

redundant as a matter of Illinois law (subsection

 (a)(4)).

The

Board has maintained a structure that is linear to the federal

structure except as to the analytical methods of subsection

(f)

(corresponding with federal subsection

 (q)), even though this has

created a number of “dummy” subsections

 (subsections

 (a) (3),

(a) (4),

 (d), and

 (e)).

 Rather than reiterating the methods for

fluoride at subsection

 (f) (4), since fluoride appears in Section

611.300 with an “old MCL” and Section 611.301 with a “revised

MCL” we cross—reference to the methods of Section 611.611(c).

All of the Board Notes of former Section 611.601 now appear

consolidated in the final Board Note.

 That Board Note explains

why the Board deleted several analytical methods that appear in

the federal rule (because the MCLS expired).

Finally,

 in the course of updating the analytical methods

for the federal analytical methods, we update the state methods

for copper,

 cyanide,

 iron, manganese, and zinc.

 We use the 16th

edition of Standard Methods, the 1983 edition of Inorganic

Methods, and the most recent version of ASTM in our present

possession

 (1985).

 We supplement the Inductively Coupled Plasma

Method with Appendix 200.7A

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Special Monitoring for Sodium--

Section 611.630

Section 611.630 derives from 40 CFR 141.41.

 USEPA did not

amend this provision in the present update period.

 Rather, the

amendments of 56 Fed. Peg. 3581-83

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and 56 Fed.

Reg. 30275-76

 (July

1,

 1991)

 have prompted the Board to renumber

this provision from Section 611.610.

 We proposed using this

opportunity to amend “special exception permit” in subsection

(b)

to the abbreviation “SEP” used elsewhere throughout the amended

rules.

 Since the proposal for public comment, we further amend

subsection

 (d) (1) to delete the edition of Standard Methods,

in

favor of using Section 611.102 for that purpose; to add the full

ASTM method

number

to subsection

 (d) (3); and to update the

version of the Code of Federal Regulations in the Board Note.

Inorganic Monitoring:

 Special Monitoring for Inorganic

Contaminants——Section 611.631

The Board originally proposed splitting 40 CFR 141.32

 into

two Sections:

 Section 611.631,

 for unregulated inorganic

contaminants, and Section 611.658, for unregulated organic

contaminants.

Since

the

proposal

for

public

comment,

have

instead decided to keep with the federal format and retain both

in a single location.

 We now codify both as Section 611.510.

However,

 for the convenience of the regulated community,

 we place

01370316

cross-reference

and

brief

statement

 at this Section to alert

the

reader

those

requirements.

Organic Monitoring:

 Definitions-—Section 611.640

Section 611.640 does not derive from any particular federal

section.

 Rather,

 it derives from usages of 40 CFR 141.24 and

others developed by the Board in response to the federal

amendments.

 The federal addition of the Phase II VOCs and the

SOC5 left the Board with the problem of designating these

chemical contaminants in groups.

 As to the new contaminants of

40 CFR 141.61

 (corresponding with Section 611.311), USEPA used

the means of numbering the tabulated contaminants and referring

to them by section, subsection, and paragraph numbers.

 The Board

has chosen instead to refer to them in the manner actually used

by USEPA and the regulated community in discussion of them.

 That

makes these “Phase I” and “Phase II” “volatile organic chemical

contaminants”

 (“VOCs”)

 and “synthetic organic chemical

contaminants”

 (“SOCs”)

 (without regard to whether they are indeed

“synthetic” or “volatile”).

 As to the MCLs for organic

contaminants remaining at 40 CFR 141.12

 (endrin, including those

for

which

there

 is and additional state requirement:

 aidrin,

2,4-D, DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide, but

excluding

TTKMs;

corresponding with Section 611.310), the Board

has

chosen

refer

them

“old

 14CLs” for the sake of

convenience.

We have significantly revised this Section since the

proposal for public comment.

 What

we proposed at “eight organic

contaminants”

now

defined

 as “Phase

 I VOCs”.

 What was “eleven

pesticides

and

PCBs”

now

“Phase

SOCs”.

 What

we proposed as

“ten

organic

contaminants”

now

“Phase

VOCs”.

also

moved

several

definitions

used

elsewhere

into

the

general

 definitions

Section

611.101:

“GWS”,

“mixed

system”,

“reliably

and

consistently”,

“revised

MeL”,

and

“SWS”.

(We

instituted

general definition of “old MCL” but have chosen to retain a more

specific local definition at this Section.)

 Additionally, the

Board has reworded the definition of “old MCL” for clarity and

added 2,4-D, heptachlor,

 and heptachlor epoxide to the definition

of “Phase II SOC” and added Board Notes to the definitions of

“old MCL” and “Phase II SOC” explaining the dual status of these

contaminants.

 We have corrected the former “derived from”

references in the Board Notes because, as explained above, there

is no single source for these definitions.

 However, we add

references to the locations in the federal regulations where

USEPA sets forth the contaminants of each type.

 We believe

Agency comment PC 10 generally supports this approach.

Organic Monitoring:

 Old MCLs—-Section 611.641

Section 611.641 derives from 40 CFR 141.24(a) through

 (d),

which USEPA amended at

Fed.

Reg.

3583—85

(Jan.

30,

 1991).

The

0137-0317

66

federal

 rule sets forth the requirements for analyzing the “old

MCLs” of 40 CFR 141.12(a)

 (endrin,

corresponding

with

Section

611.310).

 In proposing this Section for public comment, the

Board chose to continue to use it for monitoring the additional

state requirements of Section 611.310

 (aldrin, 2,4—D, DDT,

dieldrin, heptachior, and heptachlor epoxide).

 The proposed

amendments involved changing the references to “Section

611.310(a)

and

 (b)” to “the old MCLs”

 (subsections

(a)

and

 (b))

and rendering “MCL” as “old MCL”

 (in subsection

 (c)).

 We further

substituted “SEP” for “special exception permit”, keeping with

our trend to use the abbreviation throughout the text of the

rules.

 Since the proposal for public comment, we only add “of”

to subsection

 (a), restored “contaminant” to subsection

 (b),

corrected the reference in subsection

 (c) to “subsection

 (a)”,

and updated the reference

mt

he Board Note to the Code of

Federal

Regulations.

Organic Monitoring:

 Analytical Methods for

Old

MCLs--Section

~11.645

Section 611.645 derives from 40

CFR

141.24(e),

which

USEPA

amended at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3583-85

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and 56 Fed. Peg.

30277

 (July

 1, 1991).

 The federal rule sets forth the analytical

methods for analyzing the “old MCL5”

 of 40 CFR 141.12(a)

 (endr.in,

corresponding with Section 611.310).

 In proposing this Section

for public comment, the Board chose to reference Section

611.648(1), the methods for Phase II SOCs.

 Since the proposal

 for public comment we have deleted subsection

 (a) that limited

the reference to Section 611.310 and updated the Code of Federal

Regulations reference in the Board Note.

 (We also found it

necessary to add “endriri” in Section 611.648(1)

 under the same

methods as set forth in 40 CFR 141.24(e)

 in order to complete

this federal requirement.

 As to the additional state

requirements old MCLs, 2,4-D, Heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide

are already listed in that Section in response to the federal

amendments.

 As to DDT and dieldrin, the Board has chosen to add

them to methods 505 and 508 because both are in the class of

chlorinated pesticides included by those methods and dieldrin is

a strereoisomer of endrin.)

Organic Monitoring:

 VOC5-—$ectjpn 611.646

Section 611.646 derives from 40 CFR 141.24(f), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 3583—85

 (Jan.

30,

 1991) and

 56 Fed. Peg.

30277—79 (July

1,

 1991).

 The federal rule sets forth the

monitoring and analytical requirements for the volatile organic

chemical contaminants (VOCs).

 Suppliers must apply this

provision for demonstrating compliance with the MCLs of 40 CFR

141.61(a)

 (corresponding with 35 Ill.

 Adin.

 Code 611.311(a))

beginning January

1,

 1993.

 Groundwater suppliers must take one

sample at each entry point that is representative of each well

 after treatment.

 Surface water and mixed source suppliers must

0137-0318

67

sample

each

entry

 point or at points in the distribution

system that are representative of each source after treatment.

If the system uses multiple sources, the sampling must occur at a

time of normal operating procedure.

 The sampling is quarterly

for four consecutive quarters for all of the VOCs but vinyl

chloride for community water systems

 (CWSs)

 and non—transient,

non-community water systems (NTNCWSs).

 If the initial monitoring

is completed by December 31,

 1992 and the system did not detect

any VOC contaminant, the

 (GWS or SWS) supplier can go to annual

monitoring beginning January 1,

 1993.

 After a minimum of three

years of annual monitoring and no detection of a VOC contaminant,

a GWS (not SWS) supplier can shift to sampling once per

compliance period (three years).

After

completion

the

initial

 monitoring and having not

detected

any

VOC

contaminant,

GWS

SWS

supplier

may

apply

the

state

for

waiver

from

certain

the

monitoring

requirements.

 Such waivers granted to a GWS last a maximum of

six years and to a SWS they last a maximum of one compliance

period.

 USEPA set forth factors for state consideration of a

waiver request, including consideration of known previous use of

the contaminant in the watershed or zone of influence of a well,

previous monitoring results, the proximity to a potential source

of contamination, the environmental persistence and transport of

the contaminant, the number of persons served by the system and

its proximity to a larger system, and how well the source is

protected from contamination.

 The GWS supplier granted such a

waiver must take one sample during the term of the waiver for the

purposes of the state reconfirming the waiver.

 (For a SWS

supplier, this reconfirmation is once during each compliance

period, and for

 a GWS it is once during the maximum six—year term

of the waiver.)

supplier

detects

any

VOC

 contaminant, excluding vinyl

chloride,

must

begin

 monitoring quarterly at each sampling

point

where

detected

the

VOC.

However,

the

state

may

decrease

the

monitoring

frequency

annual

during

 the quarter(s) that

previously showed the highest contaminant level if

 (based on a

minimum of two consecutive quarterly samples for a GWS or four

for a SWS) the state determines that the VOC level is reliably

and consistently below the MCL.

 If a minimum of three

consecutive annual samples demonstrate that the level of VOC is

reliably and consistently below the MCL, the state may reduce the

monitoring further by granting a waiver as described in the

preceding paragraph.

Vinyl chloride is treated differently for monitoring

purposes.

The

initial

round

 of four quarterly samples applies to

the

VOCs

excluding

vinyl

chloride.

 a GWS supplier detects one

seven

other

two-carbon

chlorinated

VOCs

 (1,2-dichloro—

ethane,

1, 1-dichloroethylene,

cis-l,2—dichloroethylene,

 trans—

1, 2-dichioroethylene,

tetrachioroethylene,

1,1,

1-trichloro-

•

Ir~

0~i-0319

ethylene,

 or trichloroethylene)

 it must sample quarterly for

vinyl chloride at the sampling point(s) where it detected the

two-carbon

VOC.

the

results

the

first

sample

not

detect

vinyl

chloride,

the

state

may

allow

reduction

one

sample

each compliance period.

If a supplier violates the MCL for any VOC,

 it must begin

sampling quarterly at the sampling point(s) that violated the

MCL.

 After a minimum of four consecutive quarterly samples that

show that the VOC level is reliably and consistently below the

MCL, the state may allow annual monitoring during the quarter

that previously indicated the highest level of the VOC

contaminant.

The federal regulatory scheme for monitoring VOCs has a few

other

features.

The

states

 may require a supplier to initiate

confirmation sampling for positive or negative results.

 USEPA

allows

the

states

 to use composite sampling for up to five

sampling points.

 Compliance is determined based on the levels at

each sampling point, based on a running average of the last

year’s samples for systems sampling more frequently than annually

(with any single sample that would cause the average to exceed

the MCL demonstrating immediate non—compliance)

 and based on

individual samples and the MCL for systems sampling annually or

less

frequently.

 As with the inorganic chemical contaminants,

a

system

that

separable

and

without

interconnections

must

only

submit public notice of a violation to those persons served by

portions

the

 distribution system affected.

 USEPA allows the

states to increase the monitoring frequency in order to detect

variations in the distribution system, and USEPA requires

suppliers to monitor at a time specified by the state.

 States

may allow the use of existing data collected after January

1,

1988

 (“grandfather”)

 if the data are consistent with the

requirements of this section, and those that did not detect any

VOC

need

only

begin

 annual sampling on January

1,

 1993.

USEPA

sets

forth

the

 analytical methods laboratories must

use to test for the VOCs.

 It approved three gas chromatographic

(GC) methods from “Organic Methods”

 (502.1,

 502.2, and 503.1)

and

two gas chromatographic-mass spectroscopic (GC—MS) methods (524.1

and 524

2).

 To obtain USEPA approval,

 a laboratory must analyze

performance samples provided by USEPA or the state and achieve

results within ±20 percent of the actual contaminant content

when that content is greater than 0.010 mg/i or within ±40

percent if the level

 is less than 0.010 mg/i,

 and the laboratory

must achieve a method detection limit of 0.0005 mg/i as

determined using 40 CFR 136, appendix B.

 Laboratory

certification is separate but similar for vinyl chloride.

The

laboratory

must

 obtain certification for all of the other VOCs,

then achieve a result within ±40 percent of the actual level of

vinyl

chloride

the

sample

and

method

detection

limit

0.0005 mg/i for vinyl chloride.

0137-0320

The Board proposed the federal rules with deviations

from

the

federal

text.

 The first deviations are definitions.

We

proposed subsection

(a)

 as a definitions provision.

 Those

definitions do not derive from any particular provision of

the

federal rules.

 Rather,

 as with many of the definitions involved

in this proceeding, these definitions derive from USEPA usage.

Despite the lack of federal definitions, we feel that express

definition of such fundamental terms

 is important.

 As we adopted

this Section, subsection

(a)

 is still a definitions provision,

but we have retained only those definitions that take on meanings

peculiar to this Section.

 Therefore, the definitions of

“distribution system”, “entry point”,

 “GWS”,

 “mixed system”,

“representative”,

 source”,

 “SWS”, and “treatment” now appear in

Section 611.102.

 We retain the definition of “detection” as a

definition of “detect” or “detection”, with modification, and we

add a definitions of “method detection limit”, an independent

concept.

In defining “detection” as 0.0005 mg/i, the Board followed

confusing federal regulatory language.

 For VOCs, USEPA uses

0.0005 mg/i as the minimum “method detection limit” involved.

Pursuant to subsection

(t)

 (corresponding with 40 CFR

141.24(f) (20)), the “method detection limit”

 is derived by

statistical analysis of analytical results pursuant to 40 CFR

136, appendix B.

 Federal paragraph

 (f) (20) provides in

significant

part

follows:

Each

laboratory

must

determine

the

method

detection

limit

 (MDL)

 at which it is capable of detecting

VOC5.

The

acceptable

MDL

0.0005

mg/I.

This

concentration

the

detection

concentration

for

purposes of this

section.

What USEPA means by “detection concentration” is capable of more

 than one interpretation,

 depending on what “this” refers to, the

MDL

of the first sentence or the 0.0005 mg/i of the second

sentence.

 Use of the phrase “detection concentration” does not

add clarity because this term is used nowhere else in the

section, and USEPA could intend “detection limit”.

 However,

federal paragraph

 (f) (7) parenthetically states that “(fjor the

purposes of this section, detection is defined as ?O.0005 mg/i,”

and paragraph

 (f) (11)

 states,

 “if

 a contaminant

is

detected at a level exceeding 0.0005 mg/i in any sample

See also 40 CFR 141.24(f)(14)(i).

 Therefore,

 apparently USEPA

intends that 0.0005 mg/i is the “detection limit” for the

purposes of increased monitoring.

 (Further,

 for all other

contaminants the “detection limit”

 is the number that defines the

minimally-acceptable “method detection limit”.)

 We noted the

ambiguity in the Board Note accompanying the definitions in

subsection

 (a).

A change was made to the phraseology used in this Section.

Ut~)/

Previously,

 we referred to the Phase I VOCs as the “eight organic

compounds” and the Phase II VOCs as the “ten organic compounds”.

 As explained in an earlier segment of this discussion, we found

it easier and less potentially confusing to r?~ferto these as

“Phase

 I VOCs” and “Phase II VOCs”.

 This substitution occurred

throughout the Section.

The preamble to federal subsection

 (f) and paragraphs

 (f) (1)

and

 (f) (2)

 set forth the basic sampling requirements for

groundwater source suppliers and surface water and mixed source

suppliers, respectively.

 The Board codified these as subsections

(b) and

 (c) (1) through

 (c) (3).

 Federal paragraph

 (f) (3)

 is a

provision for multiple source suppliers, which we codified as

subsection

 (c) (4).

 We followed the federal provisions within

these subsections, and modified the structure and language to

make it follow the USEPA rule more closely and to account for

USEPA amendments of July 1,

 1991.

 We phrased the basic sampling

requirements affirmatively in subsections

 (c) (1) and

 (c) (2),

rather than stating the location of the sampling points.

To

these two subsections we also restored federal language relating

to the fact that samples must be “representative of each well

after treatment” or “representative of each source”.

We

similarly added “after treatment” to the provisions for entry

point sampling locations.

 We reworded the subsection

 (c) (3)

requirement for taking samples from the same point unless the

 Agency has granted

 a SEP to allow another point so it appears as

a requirement for the supplier

 (as it appears in the federal

language),

 rather than a requirement for the Agency, like it

appeared in the proposal for public comment.

 Further removed

from subsection

 (c) (3) was certain language that USEPA deleted

relating to consumer tap sampling.

 Subsection

(C)

(4) now relates

the requirement

 (appearing at the ends of federal paragraphs

(f)(1)

 and (f)(2)) that relates the requirement for multiple

source systems to sample at times when water from all sources is

used.

 We read general support in PC 10 to this changed approach

in subsection

 (c).

Subsections

 (e) through

(j)

 (corresponding with federal

paragraphs

 (f) (5) through

 (f) (10)) relate the provisions for

reduced monitoring frequencies.

 These have been significantly

reworded since the proposal for public comment so they follow the

federal language more closely.

 Subsection

 (e), which applies to

all suppliers,

 is now captioned “reduction to annual monitoring

frequency”.

 Subsection

 (f), which applies only to GWS suppliers,

now appears without subsections, and it is captioned “GWS

reduction to triennial monitoring frequency”.

 We added “three-

year” as descriptive of compliance period to subsection

(f)

for

clarity.

 We integrated proposed subsection

 (g) and its

subsections into a single statement,

 like it appears in the USEPA

rules.

 The Board’s trend has been to reword similar federal

provisions in terms like “the Agency shall grant a SEP

.“

in

this rulemaking.

 We relied on Section 611.110 to make it clear

0137-0322

that

the

supplier

can

request

SEP.

did

not

reword

this

provision

“the

Agency

shall

.“

 because there is a

significant

precondition

each

request

and

subsection

(h)

(corresponding with 40 CFR 141.24(f) (8))

 sets forth factors for

Agency consideration.

 A Board Note indicates that the parallel

provisions that relate to the term of a SEP (“waiver” in the

federal) appear in subsections

 (i) and

 (j),

and “detect”

is

defined in subsection

 (a).

The Board further changed the language of subsections

(h)

through

(j)

 since the proposal for public comment.

 We moved the

federal factors for consideration in granting a SEP (“waiver”)

from subsection

 (h) to Section 611.110(e).

 We have already

discussed with relation to Section 611.110 why we have done so.

We also added to subsection

(h)

 a reference to subsections

(e)

and

 (f) to which this provision applies.

 Federal paragraph

(f) (7)

 is specific to GWSs, and paragraph (f) (10) to SWSs.

We

incorporated the elements common to both into subsection

(g)

and

placed those specific to GWSs in subsection

 (i).

 In response to

an Agency comment

 (PC 12), we substituted “re-apply” for “filing

a new application” in subsection

 (i).

 Subsection

(j)

 applies

specifically to SWS5 and mixed systems.

 We changed the segment

of subsection

 (i) relating to reconfirmation of the vulnerability

assessment to language closer to that used by USEPA.

We

corrected the language of subsection

 (i) (1) to make it clear that

the verification of the vulnerability assessment does not grant a

SEP

 (“waiver”)

 for two more compliance periods.

 Rather, the

reconfirmation can only grant a SEP for the second compliance

period up to the maximum term of six years.

 We added a Board

Note that explicitly states that subsection

 (1) does not apply to

surface water and mixed source systems.

 We revised subsection

(j),

which relates to a SEP granted to SWS5 and mixed systems.

(USEPA did not expressly include mixed systems, but the Board has

followed the general federal practice of grouping them together

with surface water systems and done so here.

 PC 10 supports this

approach.

 We added an explanation to the Board Note.)

Unlike all other federal provisions that the state may

specify a monitoring frequency in granting a SEP, the Board

believes that retaining the authority for the Agency to specify a

monitoring frequency is important for subsection

(j)

(2)

 (proposed

as subsection

(j)

(1)).

 We base this conclusion on our reading of

the federal rules.

 Initially, USEPA does not specify an explicit

reduced monitoring frequency for VOCs in parallel paragraph

(f) (10)

 as it does for other contaminants.

 Second, VOCs are the

only contaminants for which reconfirmation is required once the

SEP

 (“waiver”) has been granted.

 Third, USEPA seems to place a

greater emphasis on VOCs than on the other contaminants.

Finally, the VOC content of the source water can vary widely for

surface waters,

 and the Agency is in the best position to

determine the vulnerability of a source water to contamination.

For the Board to conclude that allowing the Agency to specify a

O~370323

monitoring

frequency

“additional

state

requirement”

would

likely force a USEPA finding that the Illinois regulations are

“less

stringent”

than

the

federal

rules.

would

also

result

the

Agency

granting

fewer

these

SEP5

from

the

burdensome

monitoring requirements of this Section.

 We believe that

requiring

the

Agency

base

its

determination

its

vulnerability

assessment

and

the

provisions

the

Environmental

Protection Act relating to permit appeals adequately protect

against any arbitrary Agency selection of frequencies.

Subsections

 (k) and

(1)

 (corresponding with 40 CFR

141.24(f) (11) and (f)(12))

 are parallel provisions that relate

the actions necessary if a supplier detects a VOC.

 Subsection

(k) relates to increased monitoring if a VOC is “detected”,

and

subsection

(1)

 if the level exceeds the MCL.

 In both cases, a

SEP

allowing

decreased

monitoring

frequency

possible

the

Agency determines that the VOC level is “reliably and

consistently” below the MCL.

 Both contemplate a return to

quarterly

monitoring

this

proves

not

true.

Since

the

proposal

for public comment, we used “that” for specificity as to the

contaminant and the sampling point in subsections

 (k) (1) and

(1) (1),

the

provisions

that

relate

the

federal

requirements

for

quarterly monitoring.

 In subsections

 (k) (2) and

 (1) (2) we

the

federal

provision

for

Agency

grant

SEP

(“waiver”)

the

contaminant

level

reliably

and

consistently

below the MCL.

 We reworded subsections

 (k) (2) (A) and

 (k) (2) (C)

and

 (1) (2) (A) and

 (1) (2) (C), consistent with similar provisions

for other contaminants, so that the Agency must grant the SEP if

it makes a “reliably and consistently” determination, and the

Agency cannot specify an arbitrary level of contaminant to

trigger

quarterly

monitoring

once

again.

specifying

“trigger

level”

for

renewed

quarterly

monitoring

for

subsection

(k)(2)(C), however, the Board used the MCL as the threshold that

prompts

return

quarterly

monitoring,

just

did

for

subsection

 (1) (2) (C).

For

all

other

similar

provisions,

either

the

MCL

(or

some fraction of the MCL, as in the case of nitrate and nitrite)

that triggers the increased monitoring

 (even for subsection

 (1),

relating to VOCs).

 This makes it easy in those instances to use

the “trigger level” as the level that prompts a return to

quarterly

monitoring.

the

case

increased

VOC

monitoring

frequency

prompted

“detection”,

appears

that

USEPA

intended to promptly assure that increased monitoring would

detect any upward trend in the concentration of a group of

contaminants of particular interest.

 As to the VOC5,

 it is

apparent that USEPA intended that if no such trend asserted

itself decreased monitoring could result.

 However, USEPA also

intended that increased monitoring would again result if the VOC

 level no longer appeared “reliably and consistently” below the

MCL--i.e., by this provision USEPA intended that the system must

increase

its

monitoring

frequency

there

upward

trend

O~37-032ti

contaminant

level.

For

federal

paragraph

(f)

(12)

(corresponding

with

subsection

(1)),

USEPA

uses

the

MCL

itself

the

trigger

for increased monitoring.

 Therefore, it appears that any level

VOC

contaminant

reliably

and

consistently

below

the

MCL

situation

wherein

reduced

monitoring

acceptable.

For

these

reasons, the Board used the MCL as the level that triggers a

return to quarterly monitoring for the purposes of subsection

(k).

 If subsequent comments make it appear that there is a

better

alternative,

the

Board

can

revisit

this

issue

later

docket.

response

and

revised

subsections

(k) (3)

and

(1) (2)

(D)

that

the

monitoring

occurs

the

“quarter(s)”

that previously resulted

the

highest

VOC

level.

This

contemplates problems with multiple peak VOC levels occurring in

more than one quarter.

 Subsection

 (k) (4)

 (which does not have a

counterpart

subsection

(1))

allows

relaxation

the

monitoring

frequency

that

allowed

Agency

vulnerability

assessment

under

subsection

(g),

allowing

little

one

sample

six

year

period.

reworded

this

for

clarity

since

the

proposal

for

public

comment.

USEPA

added

paragraph

(f)

(11)

(v)

(corresponding

with

subsection

 (k)(5)) on July 1,

 1991.

 This applies when a supplier

must monitor directly for vinyl chloride.

 A correponding

amendment

did

not

appear

the

proposal

for

public

comment.

Basically, as described in the foregoing discussion, the supplier

must

test

quarterly

for

vinyl

chloride

detects

any

seven

“surrogate”

VOCs.

The

Agency

may

issue

SEP

obviating

reduce

the

frequency

testing

for

vinyl

chloride

once

every

three

years

 if none is detected in the first round of sampling.

Subsections

(m),

(n),

(0),

 (r), and

 (s) concern the handling

the

data

obtained

from

monitoring,

and

subsection

(u)

requires

suppliers

monitor

times

specified

the

Agency.

Subsection

(m)

 (corresponding with federal paragraph

 (f) (13)

allows

the

Agency

require

confirmation

sampling

for

any

results it finds doubtful.

 Since the proposal for public

comment, we chose the SEP mechanism for the Agency to require

confirmation

samples.

proposed,

 the supplier must detect a

VOC in a sample before the Agency can use this mechanism.

In

response to PC

 7 and PC 10, we add “or confirmation” to

subsection

 (m) (3),

 in order to provide for suspect confirmations

samples.

Averaging

results

pursuant

subsection

(o)

used

to determine compliance, unless the Agency determines that

sampling error occurred for the original sample.

 The Board

adopted no counter part to federal paragraph

 (14), which relates

composite

sampling.

Rather,

since

the

proposal

for

public

comment,

subsection

(n)

became

 “dummy” provision explaining

this

fact.

Subsection

(0)

sets

forth

the

procedure

for

averaging

results

obtained

greater

than

annual

frequency

basis.

similar

all

other

data

averaging

provisions

the

Phase

O~370325

rules.

Since

the

proposal

for

public

comment

received

only

minor

revisions

for

clarity.

Subsection

(r)

the

“grandfather”

clause, allowing the use of existing data.

 Since the proposal

for

public

comment,

added,

subsection

(r) (2),

that

SEP

the vehicle for Agency approval of existing data.

 This is partly

in response to PC 7.

 Subsection

 (s), unchanged since the

proposal,

allows

the

Agency

specify

frequent

monitoring

or more numerous sampling points if it determines that such is

necessary to detect variations in a distribution system.

Subsections

 (p),

 (q), and

(t)

 (corresponding with 40 CFR

141.24(f) (16),

 (f)(17), and (f)(20)) relate to analytical

laboratories performing VOC (and vinyl chloride) analyses.

Subsection

(p)

 sets forth the analytical methods that

laboratories

must

use,

previously

discussed.

Subsection

(q)

sets

forth

the

procedure

for

laboratory

certification

for

all

VOCs,

including

vinyl

chloride.

The

Board

repunctuated

this

subsection since the proposal for public comment.

 We also added

subsection

 (q) (2)

 in response to the USEPA amendments of July 1,

1991.

 It sets forth the certification procedure for vinyl

chloride.

Subsection

(t)

requires

laboratories

determine

the

method

detection

limit

 (MDL)

using

the

method

CFR

136,

appendix

originally

worded,

the

Board

adopted

this

requirement

for

certification.

The

USEPA

structure,

which

reverted, states this as a requirement for certified

laboratories.

 Those laboratories are required to achieve a

MDL

0.0005

mg/i

less.

The

Board

omitted

the

final

sentence

the federal provision:

 “This concentration is the detection

concentration for purposes of this section.”

 As described above,

this

statement

confusing

the

least.

means

that

0.0005

mg/i

the

“detection

limit”,

for

the

purposes

the

VOC5,

superfluous

light

CFR

141.24(f)(7),

(f)(11),

and

 (f)(14)(i).

Organic

Monitoring:

Phase

VOC5

(Initial

Monitoring,

until

January

1993)——Section

611.647

Section 611.647 derives from 40 CFR 141.24(g), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 30279

 (July

1,

 1991).

 The federal rule

sets forth the initial monitoring and analytical requirements for

the Phase

 I volatile organic chemical contaminants

 (VOCs).

Suppliers must apply this provision for demonstrating compliance

with

the

MCLs

CFR

141.61(a)

(1)

through

(a)

(8)

(corresponding with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.311(a)) until January

1, 1993.

 The federal amendments imposed the termination date of

 January 1,

 1993 and limited application of this provision to the

Phase I VOCs (benzene, carbon tetrachloride, p-dichlorobenzene.,

1 ,2-Dichloroethane,

 1, l-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1—trichloroethane,

trichloroethylene,

vinyl

chloride).

the

proposal

for

public

comment,

the

Board

proposed

adding

mixed

systems

subsections

(b)

and

(h) (2);

substituting

0

 37-0326

“SEP”

for

“special

exception

permit”

where

appeared

(subsections

(h),

(h)(4),

(i),

and

(m));

adding

 “dummy” cross—

references

provision

stating

the

potential

applicability

Public Health rules

 (subsections

 (d)(2)

and

 (e));

 limiting the

applicability of subsection

 (h) to until January

1,

 1993; and

using “eight organic contaminants” throughout.

 Since the

proposal for public comment we limited the applicability of this

Section to until January 1,

 1993 and added the other federal

amendments

that

limit

this

initial

monitoring.

reverted

using “Phase

 I VOCs” to refer to the contaminants.

We

substituted “that” for “which” in subsections

 (f),.

 (i),

(k) (1)

(A).

corrected

various

passages

the

federal

rules:

 “GWS suppliers” and “entry points” (subsection

 (a)),

“suppliers” and “shall”

 (subsection

 (b)),

 “system” (subsection

(c)),

and

 “NTNCWS”

(subsection

(i)).

add

the

technical

symbols

“°“

(subsection

(g)(1)(B))

and

“±“

 (subsections

(k) (1) (C),

 (k) (1) (D),

and

(k) (2) (B)).

response

Agency

comment

(PC

12),

added

“or

fewer”

and

deleted

“less

than”

subsection

 (h) (1) (B) (ii) and

 (h) (2) (B) (ii) because this is the

number

used

USEPA

CFR

141.24(g)

(8)

(i)

(B)

(1)

and

(g) (8) (ii)

(B)

 (1).

substituted

explanatory

“dummy”

for

the

cross-reference

subsection

(m).

Organic

Monitoring:

SOCs—-Section

611.648

Section

611.648

derives

from

~CFR141.24(h),

which

USEPA

added at

 56 Fed. Reg. 3585-87

 (Jan.

 30, 1991)

 and amended at 56

Fed. Reg.

30279

 (July

1,

 1991).

 The federal rule sets forth the

initial

monitoring

and

analytical

requirements

for

the

Phase

synthetic organic chemical contaminants

 (SOCs).

 Suppliers must

apply

this

provision

 for demonstrating compliance with the MCLs

CFR

141.61(c).

The

federal

rules

require

all

 CWSs and

NTNCWSs

take

four

quarterly

samples

each

sampling

point

during the first compliance period beginning January

1,

 1993.

The

sampling

points

are

each

entry

point

that

representative

each

well

after

treatment,

for

GWSs,

each

entry

point

that

representative

each

source

each

entry

point

the

system

after

treatment,

for

surface

water

systems

and

mixed

systems.

If during the initial monitoring in the first three-year

compliance period the supplier does not detect any SOC, the state

may reduce the monitoring frequency

 (to a minimum of two

quarterly samples each compliance period for systems serving

3,300 of fewer persons or to

 a minimum one sample per compliance

period for systems serving more than 3,300 persons).

 The federal

rules allow the state to grant waivers of the monitoring

requirements lasting for a single compliance period each upon

consideration

specified

factors,

including

consideration

known

use

the

contaminant

the

watershed

zone

influence

well,

monitoring

results,

the

proximity

potential

source

contamination,

the

environmental

0137-0327

persistence and transport of the contaminant, how well the source

protected

from

contamination,

elevated

 nitrate levels at the

source, and the use of PCBs in equipment used to treat and

distribute

water.

the

state

determines

that

the

contaminant

was not used, transported,

 stored, or disposed in the area,

it

may grant a waiver without consideration of the other factors.

If a supplier detects any SOC contaminant

 (defined by a

specified level for each contaminant.),

 it must begin monitoring

quarterly at each sampling point where it detected the SOC.

However, the state may decrease the monitoring frequency to

annual during the quarter(s) that previously showed the highest

contaminant

level

(based

 minimum of two consecutive.

quarterly

samples

for

GWS

four

for

SWS)

the

state

determines

that

the

VOC

level

reliably

and

consistently

below

the

MCL.

minimum

three

consecutive

annual

samples

demonstrate

that

the

level

VOC

reliably

and

consistently

below

the

MCL,

the

state

may

reduce

the

monitoring

further

granting

waiver

described

the

preceding

paragraph.

the monitoring detects one or more related contaminants

(aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide,

 or aldicarb sulfone or heptachlor

or heptachlor epoxide), subsequent monitoring must include all of

the

contaminants.

supplier

violates

the

MCL

for

any

SOC,

must

begin

sampling

quarterly

the

sampling

point(s)

that

violated

the

MCL.

 After a minimum of four consecutive quarterly samples that

show that the SOC level

 is reliably and consistently below the

MCL, the state may allow annual monitoring during the quarter

that previously indicated the highest level of the SOC

contaminant.

The

federal

regulatory

scheme

for

monitoring

SOCs

has

few

other features.

 The states may require a supplier to initiate

confirmation sampling for positive or negative results.

 USEPA

allows

the

states

use

composite

sampling

for

five

sampling

points.

Compliance

determined

based

the

levels

each sampling point, based on a running average of the last

years’ samples for systems sampling more frequently than annually

(with

any

single

sample

that

would

cause

the

average

exceed

the MCL demonstrating immediate non—compliance)

 and based on

individual samples and the MCL for systems sampling annually or

less frequently.

 As with the inorganic chemical contaminants and

the VOCs,

 a system that is separable and without interconnections

must

only

submit

public

notice

violation

those

persons

served by portions of the distribution system affected.

 USEPA

allows the states to increase the monitoring frequency in order

to detect variations in the distribution system, and USEPA

 requires suppliers to monitor at a time specified by the state.

States may allow the use of existing data collected after January

1,

1990

(“grandfather”)

the

data

are

consistent

with

the

requirements

this

section,

and

those

that

did

not

detect

any

0137-0328

VOC

need

only

begin

annual

sampling

January

1993.

USEPA

sets

forth

the

analytical

methods

laboratories

must

use to test for the SOCs.

 It approved six gas chromatographic

(GC) methods from “Organic Methods”

 (504,

 505,

 507,

 508, 508A and

515. 1), one gas chromatographic-mass spectroscopic (GC—MS) method

(525.1), and one HPLC method (531.1), specifying which method is

acceptable for which contaminants.

 If the system detects one or

more PCB5 suing the general methods

 (505 or 508), it must

reanalyze the sample using a specified method

 (508A)

 to quantify

the PCB content as decachiorobiphenyl.

 To obtain USEPA approval,

a laboratory must analyze performance samples provided by USEPA

or the state and achieve results within ±40 to ±45 percent,

0

to 200 percent, or 2 standard deviations

 (depending on the

particular contaminant)

 of the actual contaminant content.

The Board proposed the federal rules with deviations from

the federal text.

 The first deviations are definitions.

We

proposed subsection

(a)

 as a definitions provision.

 Those

definitions do not derive from any particular provision of the

federal rules.

 Rather,

 as with many of the definitions involved

in this proceeding,

 these definitions derive from USEPA usage.

Despite the lack of federal definitions, we feel that express

definition

such

fundamental

terms

important.

adopted

this

Section,

subsection

(a)

still

definitions

provision,

but

have

retained

only

those

definitions

that

take

meanings

peculiar to this Section.

 Therefore, the definitions.of

“distribution

system”,

“entry

point”,

“GWS”,

“mixed

system”,

“representative”,

source”,

“SWS”,

and

“treatment”

now

appear

Section

611.102.

retained

the

definition

“detection”

definition

“detect”

“detection”,

with

modification,

and

added

definition

“method

detection

limit”,

 independent

concept.

A change was made to the phraseology used in this Section.

Previously,

 we referred to the Phase II SOC5 as the “eleven

organic

compounds

and

PCBs”.

explained

earlier

segment

this

discussion,

found

easier

and

less

potentially

confusing to refer to these as “Phase II SOCs”.

 This

substitution

occurs

throughout

the

Section.

also

frequently

substituted

“that”

for

“which”

for

most

restrictive

relative

clauses and use “three—year” as descriptive of “compliance

period” for greater clarity.

 Subsections

(j)

and

 (p) now appear

as explanatory “dummy” subsections, rather than as the proposed

cross—references.

 Subsection

 (k) (3)

 is clarified by adding “for

 a supplier out of compliance”.

 Finally, all references to the

Code of Federal Regulations are updated in the Board Notes.

The

preamble

federal

subsection

(h)

and

paragraphs

(h)

(1)

and

 (h) (2)

 set forth the basic sampling requirements for

groundwater

source

suppliers

and

surface

water

and

mixed

source

suppliers,

respectively.

The

Board

has

codified

these

O13~0329

subsections

(b)

and

(c)

(1)

through

(c)

 (3).

 Federal paragraph

(h) (3)

 is a provision for multiple source suppliers, which we

have codified as subsection

 (c) (4).

 We follow the federal

provisions within these subsections, and have modified the

structure and language to make it follow the USEPA rule more

closely and to account for USEPA amendments of July 1,

 1991.

We

phrased the basic sampling requirements affirmatively in

subsections

 (c) (1) and

 (c) (2), rather than stating the location

of the sampling points.

 To these two subsections we also

restored federal language relating to the fact that samples must

 be “representative of each well after treatment” or

“representative of each source”.

 We similarly added “after

treatment” to the provisions for entry point sampling locations.

reworded

the

subsection

(c)

(3)

requirement

for

taking

samples

from

the

same

point

unless

the

Agency

has

granted

SEP

allow

another

point,

appears

requirement

for

the

supplier

(as it appears in the federal language), rather than a

requirement

for

the

Agency,

appeared

the

proposal

for

public comment.

 Further removed from subsection

 (c) (3) was

certain language that USEPA deleted relating to consumer tap

sampling.

Subsection

now

relates

the

requirement

(appearing at the ends of federal paragraphs

 (h) (1) and

 (h) (2))

for multiple source systems to sample at times when water from

all sources is used.

Subsection

(d)

(corresponding

with

federal

paragraph

(h)(4))

sets

forth

the

monitoring

frequencies

for

GWS

and

SWS

suppliers.

added

language

since

the

proposal

 for public comment that

clarifies the compliance period intended in each clause, whether

the

first

compliance

period

subsequent

compliance

period.

Subsections

 (e) and

(f)

 (corresponding with federal

paragraphs

 (h) (5) through

 (h) (9)) relate the provisions for

reduced or increased monitoring frequencies.

 These have been

significantly

reworded

since

the

proposal

for

public

comment

they follow the federal language more closely.

 Subsection

 (e),

which

applies

all

suppliers,

now

captioned

“reduction

annual monitoring frequency”.

 We integrated proposed subsections

(e) and

 (f) and their subsections into single statements, as they

appear in the USEPA rules.

 The Board’s trend was to reword

similar federal provisions in terms like “the Agency shall grant

a SEP

.“

 in this rulemaking.

 We relied on Section 611.110 to

make it clear that the supplier can request a SEP.

 We did not

reword this subsection

 (e) to “the Agency shall

.“

 because

subsection

(f)

 (corresponding with 40 CFR 141.24(h) (6)) sets

forth factors for Agency consideration.

The

Board

further

changed

the

language

subsection

(f)

since

the

proposal

for

public

comment.

moved

the

 federal

factors

for

consideration

granting

SEP

(“waiver”)

Section

611.110(e).

have

already

discussed

with

relation

Section

611.110

why

have

done

so.

also

added

this

subsection

0137-0330

reference to subsection

(e)

 (and hence to

 (d)) to which this

provision applies.

Subsections

(g)

and

(h)

 (corresponding with 40 CFR

141.24(h) (7) and

 (h) (8)) are parallel provisions that relate the

actions necessary if a supplier detects a VOC.

 Subsection

(g)

relates to increased monitoring if a VOC is “detected”, and

subsection

(h)

 if the level exceeds the MCL.

 In both cases,

a

SEP allowing a decreased monitoring frequency is possible if the

Agency determines that the VOC level is “reliably and

consistently below the MCL.

 Both contemplate a return to

quarterly monitoring if this proves not true.

 In subsections

(g) (2) and

 (h) (2)

 we related the federal provision for an Agency

grant of a SEP

 (“waiver”)

 if the contaminant level is reliably

and consistently below the MCL.

 We reworded subsections

(g) (2) (C) and

 (h) (2) (C), consistent with similar provisions for

other contaminants, so that the Agency must grant the SEP if it

makes a “reliably and consistently” determination, and the Agency

cannot specify an arbitrary level of contaminant to trigger

quarterly monitoring once again.

As was discussed with regard to VOCs, there is some

difficulty in selecting a “trigger level” that prompts an

increased monitoring frequency after a reduction from quarterly

monitoring prompted by a “detect”.

 For the same reasons as for

the VOC5,

 discussed above,

 it appears that any level of SOC

contaminant reliably and consistently below the MCL is a

situation wherein reduced monitoring is acceptable.

 For these

reasons, the Board used the MCL as the level that triggers a

return to quarterly monitoring for the purposes of subsection

 (k).

 As for the VOCs,

 if subsequent comments make it appear that

there is

 a better alternative, the Board can revisit this issue

later

docket.

In response to PC

 7 and PC 10 we revised subsections

 (g) (3)

and

 (h)(2)(D)

 so that the monitoring occurs in the “quarter(s)”

that

previously

resulted

the

highest

SOC

level.

with

VOC5,

this

contemplates

problems

with

multiple

peak

VOC

levels

occurring

than

one

quarter.

Subsection

(g) (4)

(which

does not have a counterpart in subsection

 (h)) allows a

relaxation of the monitoring frequency to that allowed by an

Agency vulnerability assessment under subsection

 (f), allowing as

little as one sample in a three year period.

 We reworded this

for clarity since the proposal for public comment.

Subsections

 (i),

 (k),

 (n), and

 (o) relate to handling the

data obtained from monitoring, and subsection

 (q) requires

suppliers

monitor

times

specified

the

Agency.

Subsection

(i)

 (corresponding with federal paragraph

 (h) (9)

allows

the

Agency

require

confirmation

sampling

for

any

results it finds doubtful.

 Since the proposal for public

comment,

chose

the

SEP

mechanism

for

the

Agency

require

0137-0331

confirmation samples.

 As proposed, the supplier must detect a

SOC in a sample before the Agency can use t-his mechanism.

In

response to PC 7 and PC 10, we add “or confirmation” to

subsection

 (i) (3),

 in order to provide for suspect confirmations

samples.

 Averaging of results pursuant to subsection

(k)

 is used

to determine compliance, unless the Agency determines that

sampling error occurred for the original sample.

 The Board has

adopted no counterpart to federal paragraph

 (h) (10), which

relates to composite sampling.

 Rather,

 since the proposal for

public comment, subsection

(j)

has become a “dummy” provision

explaining this fact.

 Subsection

(k)

 sets forth the procedure

for averaging results obtained on

 a greater than annual frequency

basis.

 It is similar to all other data averaging provisions in

the Phase II rules.

 Since the proposal for public comment it

received only minor revisions for clarity.

 Subsection

(n)

 is the

“grandfather” clause, allowing the use of existing data.

 Since

the proposal for public comment, we added,

 as subsection

 (n) (2),

that a SEP is the vehicle for Agency approval of existing data.

This is partly in response to PC

7.

 Subsection

(0)

 allows the

Agency to specify more frequent monitoring or more numerous

sampling points if it determines that such is necessary to detect

variations in a distribution system.

 Since the proposal for

public comment, we have added non-limiting factors enunciated by

USEPA at federal paragraph

 (h) (15)

 as examples of when additional

monitoring is necessary.

 A Board Note explains the source and

nature of the factors.

Subsections

 (1),

 (m),

 (r), and

(s)

 (corresponding with 40

CFR l41.24(h)(12),

 (h)(13),

 (h)(18), and (h)(19))

 relate to

analytical laboratories performing SOC (and PCB) analyses.

Subsection

(1)

 sets forth the analytical methods that

laboratories must use,

 as previously discussed.

 Subsection

(m)

sets forth the methods for PCB5.

 Subsection

 (r) gives the

detection limits for the various SOCs.

 We divided this into two

subsections since the proposal for public comment and added the

detection limits for the PCB5,

 which USEPA added on July 1,

 1991.

Subsection

(s)

 sets forth the procedure for laboratory

certification for all SOC5,

 including PCB5.

 USEPA added this

subsection on July 1,

 1991,

 and we added this subsection since

the proposal for public comment.

Organic Monitoring:

 Monitoring for 36 Organic Contaminants—-

Sections 611.651 and 611.657

Sections 611.651 and 657 derived from 40 CFR 141.40, which

USEPA amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 3592

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 It set forth

requirements for monitoring for 36 organic contaminants for which

there were no MCLs at that time, and the monitoring was to have

been completed by January

1,

 1992.

 USEPA adopted MCLs at 40 CFR

141.61 for 13 of the 36 contaminants (trans-1,2—dichloroethylene;

monochlorobenzene;

 cis-1,

 2—dichloroethylene; o—dichlorobenzene;

toluene; p-xylene, o-xylene, and m—xylene, conjunctively as total

~fl

 3j-0332

xylenes; 1,2-dichioropropane; ethylbenzene; styrene; ethylene

dibromide

 (EDB); and dibromochioropropane).

 The federal rules

also set forth the analytical procedures for these compounds.

Although USEPA has not repealed this provision, the Board does so

because the time for compliance is past and its continued

 existence could result in confusion.

Organic Monitoring:

 Special Monitoring for Organic Compounds--

Section 611.658

The Board originally proposed splitting 40 CFR 141.32 into

two Sections:

 Section 611.631, for unregulated inorganic

contaminants,

and

Section

611.658,

for

unregulated

organic

contaminants.

 Since the proposal for public comment, we have

instead decided to keep with the federal format and retain both

single

location.

 We now codify both as Section

611.510.

However,

for

the

convenience

the

regulated

community,

place

a. cross—reference and

 a brief statement at this Section to alert

the reader to those requirements.

Reporting and Public Notice:

 MCL Violations-—Section 611.851

Section 611.851 derives from 40 CFR 141.32(a), which USEPA

amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 3585-87

 (Jan.

30,

 1991).

 USEPA amended

paragraph

 (a) (1) (iii)

 (corresponding with 35 Ill. Adm. Code

611.851(a) (3) (C)) to add “nitrite” and change the references to

section 141.62

 (corresponding with Section 611.301) for the MCLS

and section 141.23(i) (3) for the determination of compliance.

The Board proposed the addition of nitrite, but failed to change

the reference for the revised MCLs.

 Since the proposal for

public comment we added the reference to the new MCL5.

In

response to an Agency comment

 (PC 12), we changed the existing

reference to

“CWS”

in subsection

 (c) (2) to “non—CWS” because it

is to non-CWSs that this provision applies.

Reporting and Public Notice:

 Other Violations—-Section 611.852

Section 611.852 derives from 40 CFR 141.32(b), which USEPA

did not amend during the present update period.

 Since the

proposal for public comment, the Board added amendments in

response to the USEPA Phase I primacy comments.

 We added a

statement to the end of subsection

 (c) (1) that requires a

supplier to repeat notice by hand delivery every three months as

long as the variance or adjusted standard remains in effect.

We

also changed “PWS” to “non-CWS” in subsection

(C)

 (2).

 We further

made the “that”-”which” substitution in the preamble and updated

the Code of Federal Regulations reference in the Board Note.

Reporting and Public Notice:

 Mandatory Health Effects Language--

Section 611.855

Section 611.855 derives from 40 CFR 141.32(e), which USEPA

0137-0333

82

amended at 56 Fed.

 Reg. 3587-92

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and 56 Fed. Reg.

30279—80

 (July 1, 1991).

 However, the Board did not need to

 amend this Section in response to those amendments because the

segments affected appear in Section 6l1.Appendix A.

 Rather,

since the proposal for public comment, the Board added amendments

in response to the USEPA Phase I primacy comments.

 We changed

the cross—reference to Section 611.854.

 We further completed the

reference to Section 6l1.Appendix A and updated the Code of

Federal Regulations reference in the~Board Note.

Mandatory Health Effects Information--Section 63.1.Appendix A

Section 6l1.Appendix A derives from 40 CFR 141.32(e), which

USEPA amended at 56 Fed. Reg. 3587—92

 (Jan.

30,

 1991)

 and 56 Fed.

Reg. 30279-80

 (July 1,

 1991).

 The federal rule sets forth the

contaminant—by-contaminant mandatory health effects information

that suppliers must submit to the public when they violate an

MCL.

 The USEPA amendments of January 30,

 1991 added mandatory

information for 33 chemical contaminants for which there are new

MCL5

 (asbestos, cadmium,

 chromium, mercury, nitrate, nitrite,

selenium, acrylamide,

 alachlor, atrazine, carbofuran, chlordane,

dibromochloropropane

 (DBCP), o-dichlorobenzene,

 cis-1,2—dichloro-

ethylene,

 trans-i,2-dichloroethylene,

 1, 2-dichioropropane,

 2,4-D,

epichlorohydrin, ethylbenzene, ethylene dibromide (EDB),

heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,

 lindane, methoxychlor, mono-

chlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls

 (PCBs),

 styrene, tetra-

chloroethylene, toluene, toxaphene,

 2,4,5—TP (Silvex), and

xylenes

 (total)).

 The Board added these notices.

 The July 1,

1991 amendments added notices for five chemical contaminants

(barium, aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide,

 aldicarb sulfone, and

pentachlorophenol).

 The Board did not adopt these five notices

because they are for new Phase IIB contaminants, which are the

subject of docket R91-15.

The Board further made a small number of corrections to the

existing notices.

 We deleted the Board Note on the notice for

1,1,1-trichloroethane

 (paragraph

 8) and amended those for

fluoride (paragraph

 9) and at the end of the appendix to reflect

the most recent Code of Federal Regulations.

 We corrected

misspellings of “caused”

 (in paragraph 10) and “contaminated”

(in

paragraphs ii and 12).

 Since the proposal for public comment we

substituted an explanatory sentence in place of a cross—reference

at “dummy” paragraphs 13,

14,

 16,. 25-27, and 46, reserved by

USEPA.

 We also corrected the language of notices for 2,4-D,

heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide, so they now appear as in the

federal regulations.

 PC 10 supports this addition.

Autoanalysis Colilert P-A Method--Section 611.Appendix D

Section 611.Appendix D derives from a method in a journal

that USEPA incorporated by reference at 40 CFR 141.21(f) (3) (iv)

 (corresponding with Section 611.526 at 57

 Fed. Reg.

24747

 (June

01 37-O33~

83

10,

 1992).

 The article, National Field Evaluation of a Defined

Substrate Method for the Simultaneous Detection of Total

Coliforms and

 Escherichia coil

 from Drinking hater:

 Comparison

with Presence-Absence Techniques”, appeared

 ii: the April,

1989

issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

 It evaluated a

method for simultaneous measurement of total coliforms and

E.

coli.

The Board cannot incorporate the method by reference because

it is not “rules,

 regulations, standards,

 and guidelines of an

agency of the United States or a nationally or state recognized

organization or association

.“.

~

 Ill.

 Rev.

 Stat.

 1991 ch.

127, par.

 1005-75.

 We therefore had to extract the method from

the descriptions in the article and set it forth in this

appendix.

 This did not appear in the proposal for public

comment.

 A Board Note cites the source of the article and where

in the federal and Illinois rules it is used.

Fecal or Total Coliform Density Measurements--Section 611.Table B

Section 611.Table B derives from 40 CFR 141.71(b)(l).

 USEPA

did not amend this provision during the present update period, so

•the adopted amendments were not part of the proposal for public

comment.

 Rather, the Board amended this table in response to the

USEPA Phase

 I primacy comments

 (PC 14).

 We corrected the first

entry

 in the table so that it includes 500 persons served.

We

also updated the Board Note citation to the Code of Federal

Regulations.

Fecal or Total Coliform Density Measurements——Section 611.Table C

Section 611.Table C derives from 40 CFR 141.71(b) (5)

and

(C)

 (2).

 USEPA did not amend these provisions during the present

update period, so the adopted amendments were not part of the

proposal for public comment.

 Rather, the Board amended this

table

 in response to the USEPA Phase

 I primacy comments

 (PC 14).

We corrected the first entry in the table so that it includes 500

persons served.

 We also updated the Board Note citation to the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal Effective Dates--Section 611.Table D

Section 611.Table D derives from no particular federal

provision.

 Rather, the Board believes that setting forth the

federal effective dates for the various federal MCLs would prove

useful to the regulated community.

 We have added this for

reference since the proposal for public comment.

CONCLUSION

This final opinion supports the Board’s final order of this

same day.

 The Board will promptly file these rules with the

0137-0335

84

Secretary

State

 for publication in the Illinois Register.

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, h~xeby

certify

that

the

above

final

opinion

was

ado,pted

the

 /C7~~

day

 7/~—~-’--~-’

,

1992, by a vote of

7~

/7

Dorothy

th~nn, Clerk

Illinois Ppllution Control Board

37-0336