ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 14,
1978
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO THE
)
R77-13
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
REGULATIONS
PROPOSED OPINION OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle)*:
On August
5,
1977 the Agency filed a Petition which called
for widespread revisions
to Chapter
6: Public Water Supplies.
The Petition was published
in Environmental Register ~l53 on
August
12,
1977,
Hearings were held on November
1,
1977
in
Springfield and November
15,
1977
in Chicago.
An Amended Petition
(Exhibit
4)
was submitted at the second hearing.
A study entitled
Economic Impact of Revisions of the Public Water Supply Regulations
was filed with the Board on June
13,
1978.
Economic impact hear-
ings were held on August
1,
1978
in Chicago and August
4,
1978
in
Springfield.
Additional amendments
to the Agencyts Petition were
submitted to the Board on July 25,
1978, August 21,
1978 and
October
6,
1978.
On November 30,
1978 the Board adopted proposed
amendments
to Chapter
6 which
are supported
in this Opinion.
In
addition this Opinion summarizes amendments which were adopted on
August
24,
1978.
This Opinion references the record with roman numerals
(RI—b,
RII-l5,
etc.).
This system was used because the page numbering
was not continuous.
The roman numerals refer to individual hear-
ing transcripts.
PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The main impetus behind this proceeding has been the
assumption of primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy)
under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).
Section 1413 of SDWA
(42 U.S.C.
§300 g-2)
sets out
a procedure which states must follow to obtain
primacy.
Specifically Illinois must show that its regulations are
no less stringent than the national interim primary drinking water
regulations
(NIPDWS)
.
In addition, Illinois must employ adequate
inspection, monitoring,
and record keeping procedures.
Exhibit
1
contains the SDWA and the Federal regulations promulgated under
it which describe these requirements
in greater detail.
*The Board expresses its appreciation to Richard Christopher
for his work as Hearing Officer in this proceeding and to Carolyn
Hesse for her technical support.
Both of these Administrative
Assistants collaborated
in the preparation of this Opinion.
:32—307
—2—
Section 2(j)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(the Act)
defines
a public water supply as a system which serves or
is
intended
to serve ten or more separate lots.
The Federal
regulations apply to every system with at least
15 service
connections or
25 daily users at least
60 days of the year.
Since
the Federal definition
is broader than the authority vested
in the
Board, Illinois
is asking USEPA to approve a program of split
jurisdiction.
The Agency’s proposal here would have no effect on
those systems which are smaller than the definition
in Section
2(j)
of the Act.
The Illinois Department
of Public Health will retain
jurisdiction over these systems.
Primacy will be split between
the two agencies
(RI—23)
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
NIPDWS were adopted
in two increments.
All but the
standards concerning radionuclides were adopted on December 24, 1975
(40 F.R.
59566).
The radionuclide portion followed on July
9,
1976
(41 F.R.
28402)
.
They can
be found at 40 CFR §141.
Much
of the Agency’s Petition copies these standards verbatim.
This
rigid application of Federal guidance can be justified for three
reasons:
1)
It leaves little doubt that the Board’s standards are
no less stringent than Federal;
2)
It removes any confusion which
may result from a recent amendment to Section 35 of the Act which
requires Board variances to be consistent with SDWA;
and
3)
It
recognizes the fact that the Federal standards have been binding
on Illinois public water supplies since June
24, 1977.
Those portions of the Agency’s Petition which align
Chapter
6 with the Federal standards were adopted by the Board
on August 24,
1978.
This action was taken quickly
in an attempt
to obtain primacy by September 30,
1978,
the end of the Federal
fiscal year.
A summary of the changes follows.
The new definitions
in Rule 104 all come from NIPDWS except
for the following two.
“Certified laboratory”
is defined as any
laboratory meeting the minimum standards prescribed
in Sections
4(o)
and 4(p)
of the Act.
“Chemical analysis”
is defined to
differentiate the types of analyses which must be performed.
The twelve month running average standard for compliance
with chemical and physical water quality standards has been
dropped
in the new Rule 304(b) (3).
In its place
is the NIPDWS
requirement that any analysis exceeding a standard in Table
I
be reported to the Agency, with additional monitoring and
possible public notification.
In Table
I of Rule 304(b) (4)
the following maximum contaminant
levels
(MCL’S)
were lowered.
Arsenic
-
from 0.1 mg/b to 0.05 mg/l
Fluoride
-
from 2.0 mg/l to 1.8 mg/l
32—308
—3—
Endrin
-
from 0.0005 mg/l to 0.0002 mg/l
Lindane
-
from 0.005 mg/l to 0.004 mg/i
The allowable excursion over the nitrate standard has been
dropped.
The old fluoride standard is retained for those northern
Illinois counties with an annual average maximum daily air
temperature of 58.4 to 63.8°F.
An additional monitoring and public
notification requirement is included in the event any sample exceeds
the turbidity standard.
The compliance dates in Table
I have
all been deleted because they have either passed or been pre—empted
by NIPDWS.
A new Rule
304(c)
has been added to include NIPDWS requirements
concerning
radiological quality.
Rule 309 has been amended to incorporate NIPDWS standards
for sampling frequency.
The new Rule 310 picks up NIPDWS require-
ments for reporting and record maintenance.
A new Rule 313(d)
provides for a Federally mandated elaborate
system of public
notification in the event a water supply exceeds a standard or is
granted a variance.
ADDITIONAL REVISIONS
In addition to the revisions necessary for primacy, the follow-
ing MCL’s have also been revised.
Color and Odor
The standards for color and odor are being dropped since
both standards were based entirely on aesthetics and did not
directly indicate the safety of a drinking water supply (R.III-27).
The major problem which could result from dropping the standards
is that consumers might switch to
a less safe, but colorless
and/or odorless, water supply if color and/or odor become too
objectionable,
(Ex.
8,
p. 111-27)
However,
in Illinois,
the color
(Ex.
9)
and odor levels are relatively low so that no problem
is expected from dropping either standard.
Foaming Agents
The standard for foaming agents is no longer necessary since
the surfactant that was limited by this standard is no longer
used in laundry detergents
(Ex.
9, pp. 21-22).
Hence, the
standard for foaming agents
is dropped.
No economic impact is
anticipated from this action.
The maximum contaminant level for copper
is raised from
1 mg/i to
5 mg/b, measured as Cu.
Copper
is an essential
mineral and its presence
in drinking water
is not likely to
32—309
—4—
cause any adverse health effects.
The taste threshold for
copper
in water
is 1—5 mg/l with levels greater than 5—7.5 mg/l
making the water undrinkable
(Ex.
7).
Dosages as high as
30
mg/i have been consumed with no adverse health effects
(Ex.
7).
Since no water supplies exceed copper concentrations
of
5 mg/b at
the present time, raising the standard would eliminate the need
for five communities to remove copper.
The only remaining costs
associated with the copper standard will be for sampling once per
year or once per two years.
However, retaining a standard would
protect consumers
from excessive levels of copper that may exist
in a new water supply or contamination of a current supply.
The
copper concentration of
5
mg/l was chosen since that is the level
at which water starts becoming undrinkable due to taste
(as opposed
to taste threshold).
(Ex.
7).
Five supplies were identified with copper levels between
1-5 mg/i
(R.III-54,55).
The cost savings to these supplies have not
been quantified, but were estimated as small.
(Ex.
9,
p.32;R.III-55)
Iron and Manganese
The Board
is raising the standard for iron from 0.3 mg/I to
1.0 mg/i,
measured as Fe, and the standard for manganese from
0.05 to 0.15 mg/l, measured as Mn.
Although these standards
are not health based, dropping them could lead to problems due
to aesthetics
(i.e. color and taste)
and material damages from
staining of laundry and plumbing fixtures or decreasing the
carrying capacity of water mains due to deposition.
Information in the record
(Ex.
7)
indicates that iron
levels
in excess of
1 mg/b cause
the water to taste
so unpleasant
that most people would not drink it.
This concentration represents
4.0-0.2
of the estimated lethal dose range of 28—460 g
(1 ounce—
1 pound)
for a 150 pound man
(Ex.
7).
The
exact lethal dose of
iron for a healthy person is uncertain since most of the iron
toxicity data was obtained from medication overdoses
(Ex.
7)
Five letters which addressed the problems of iron in public water
supplies were received as public comments
(P.C.
1,3,5,6,7)
.
One
of the individuals who wrote a letter also testified at hearing
regarding this matter
(starting on R.I-98).
According to the Board’s R73-l3 Opinion
(15 PCB 103, Janu-
ary 3,
1975)
adopting the current drinking water regulations, man-
ganese can cause a worse laundry spotting problem than iron.
The
Board also takes notice of Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, July 1976
(the “Red Book”) which states
that “Consumer complaints arise when manganese exceeds a concentra-
tion of 0.15 mg/i in water supplies.”
These complaints are
“.
.
primarily from brownish staining of laundry and taste”
(p.
95).
Hence,
the Board finds that some protection from excessive levels
of iron and manganese is needed and except for small supplies
is
most economically provided at the water treatment plant.
32—310
—5—
According to IEPA data, there are currently 566 public
water supplies
(including numerous wells under the jurisdiction
of a single supplier) which do not meet the old iron and/or
manganese standards.
By raising iron to 1 mg/i and manganese to
0.15 mg/l,
the number of sources that would have to treat for one
or both of these elements would be reduced by half.
The
same
treatment method may be used to remove both iron and manganese
(Ex.8)
.1
The number of supplies that would have to treat for
iron and/or manganese would be
further reduced since supplies
which provide less than 10,000 gallons per day and non-community
water supplies will be exempt from this rule.
It was estimated
(Ex.9,
pp.33—34)
that completely dropping
the iron and manganese standards would result
in an annual savings
of $14.2 million.
This estimate was described as being “on the
order of
50,
plus or minus.”
(R.III-65)
The Board has chosen not
to drop the standards but to raise iron to
1 mg/i and manganese
to 0.15 mg/l and
to exempt small water supplies.
Data from Reference
8, Appendix
4,
Exhibit
9,
indicate
that
22 supplies which would be above the new levels will be
exempt due to the 10,000 gpd limit.
These smaller supplies
typically have per capita treatment costs which are higher by 50
or more compared to larger supplies
(Reference
8, Appendix 4,
Ex.
9)
.
Thus,
the cost savings to these smaller supplies due to
the exemption may be low in an absolute sense, but they are large
on a per capita basis.
The annual per capita treatment cost for
the larger sources
is approximately $5.00 or less.
This cost is
small compared to an estimated annualized average cost of $204.
for home treatment for a
family of four
(Ex.
9,
p.
37)
or an
undetermined amount of damage from laundry staining.
Annual per
capita treatment costs for small supplies were estimated as
high as $31.50
(Ex.
9,
p.
33).
Nitrite-Nitrogen
(nitrite—N)
The Board finds that the standard for nitrite-N
is not
necessary since nitrite—N rapidly oxidizes to nitrate—N on
contact with air (R.III,
31) and has not been found in any Illinois
water supplies
(R.II,
18).
Exposure to oxidizing agents,
such
as chlorine which is frequently used for disinfection, would also
oxidize nitrite—N to nitrate-N
(R.II-9).
The author of the economic impact study concluded that
No significant environmental or economic impact may be
anticipated to result from its
(nitrite—N’s)
omission.
.
.“
(R.III—3l)
Carbon—Chloroform Extract Organics
The standard for carbon-chloroform extract organics is being
dropped since no one
is sure what the test for this group
of chemicals really measures
(R.III—30).
This particular test mea-
:32—3 11
—6—
sures only those carbon fractions which are extractable with
chloroform
(Ex.
9,
p.
24)
and is not related to health or other
effects.
More sophisticated tests are done for specific pesticides
which may pose a health hazard.
Hence,
it appears that testing
for carbon—chloroform extract organics is not necessary.
The
economic impact of dropping this standard was described as
“negligible”
(R.III—30)
PARATHION
Since parathion decomposes rapidly and would not be expected
to be found in drinking water supplies, the Board finds that the
standard for parathion
is unnecessary.
Parathion’s half—life
ranges from 65 hours to one week
(Ex.
16)
.
Therefore,
it is rare—
ly detected in the routine surveillance of natural waters.
However,
even with such a relatively short half life, there may be sufficient
time to permit the contamination of public water supplies due to its
inadvertent application to areas immediately adjacent to water
supply intakes
(Ex.
16).
Although parathion is not among the sub-
stances known to be carcinogenic and is reported to be non—terato—
genic, removal of the standard may pose some adverse environmental
effects which are not yet knownfl~x. 9).
Similarly, there could
be some adverse economic impact from dropping this standard, but
none
is anticipated at present (R.III-30).
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
(2 ,4-D)
The MCL for the herbicide dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4—D)
is raised from 0.02 mg/i
to 0.1 mg/i which
is in accord with the new
federal regulation.
The relaxation has been proposed because of
improved knowledge of its toxicity and its long history of relatively
safe use
(R.III-29).
Although 2,4-D is not a known carcinogen or
mutagen,
it
is a known teratogen
(Ex.
16)
.
The no adverse effect
level suggested
in an NAS—NRC report is 0.09 mg/i which
is comparable
to the new MCL of 0.1 mg/i
(Ex.
16).
The record does not indicate
what precise economic impact,
if
any,
this relaxation will have.
ZINC
The standard for zinc of
5 mg/l, measured as Zn,
is being retained.
Zinc imparts a bad taste to water at concentrations greater than
5 mg/i which is considerably below the concentration necessary to
produce any known adverse health effects
(R.
111—35,
Ex.
8).
At
concentrations ranging from 675
to 2,280 mg/i,
zinc acts as an acute
but transitory emetic
(Ex.
7).I
Since no supplies currently ex-
ceed
5 mg/i of zinc
in Illinois,
the only economic impact from
retaining the current standard would be the cost of analysis.
Re-
taining the standard protects consumers from contamination of new
or existing supplies which would taste bad due to excessive levels
of zinc.
RULES 104 and 105
The definition of “standards”
in Rule 104
is being changed to
32—312
—7—
conform with the most recent edition of the Recommended Standards
for Water Works as adopted by the Great Lakes-tipper Mississippi
River Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
The allowable analytical techniques are described in Rule
105.
The revised rule conforms Chapter 6 with NIPDWS and allows the
Agency to prescribe techniques for those standards not covered by
NIPDWS.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Changes in the Illinois regulations which were necessary to
obtain primacy should be viewed as having minimal economic impact.
Public water supplies in the state are already subject to USEPA’s
regulations.
Conforming Illinois’
regulations to the Federal reg-
ulations
in order to obtain primacy does not change what is required.
Obtaining primacy does make Illinois eligible for Federal funds
which would otherwise be unavailable.
Approximately $200,000
in
additional
funds could result from primacy for 1979.
After
1979,
primacy is a prerequisite to obtaining any grants for public water
system supervision programs
(Ex.
9,
pp.
30-31).
There are several changes made to the Illinois regulations
which are not being made to conform the Illinois and federal require-
ments.
Hence,
some economic impact may be attributable
to these
rule changes.
These changes were discussed above.
The Board hereby makes the determination, pursuant to §27(b)
of the Act,
that the regulation has no significant adverse economic
impact on the people of the State of Illinois.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on
the
______________
day of
_______________,
1978 by a vote of
Illinois Pollution
~i Board
32—313