ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 4,
1985
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL ADM. CODE
)
R84-12
604.203 AND 605.104 OF
)
SUBTITLE ~:
PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLIES (Trihalomethanes)
PROPOSED RULE BY THE BOARD.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3.
D.
Dumelle):
On October
5,
1982,
the Board adopted amendments to Chapter
6:
Public Water Supply (now 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Subtitle
F)
in
R81—11
(49 PCB
l0l).*
That action established
a maximum
allowable concentration of
0.10 mg/l for Total Trihalomethanes
(TT~1M) in finished drinking water
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.203),
as
well as
a sampling program (35 Ill. Adm
Code 605,104).
Those
rules, however, applied only to water supplies serving over
10,000 individuals.
In the Second Notice Opinion issued on July
21, 1982
(47 PCB 453),
the Board stated:
Since
these smaller supplies generally use
ground water sources and have shorter
transport times,
they are considerably less
likely to have TTHM levels exceeding the 0.10
mg/i standard.
At the same time,
universal
applicability would greatly increase the
number o~water sample analyses which the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency would
have
to perform.
After more data are gathered
on existing TTHM levels,
the Board may
consider
an additional
rulemaking
to protect
public water supplies serving less than 10,000
people.
Thus,
on May 3, 1984,
the Board entered
an Order authorizing
inquiry hearings ~to consider expanding the appplicability of
35
Ill. Mm. Code 604.203 and 605.1O4.’~ Two such hearings were held
on August 16 and 28,
1984.
Trihalomethanes are organic chemicals consisting of one
carbon atom, one hydrogen atom and three halogen atoms
(R81—11,
*Given the close relationship between this proceeding and
R81—ll, the Board incorporates by reference the record, opinions
and orders of that proceeding into this one.
References
to the
R81—ll transcript and exhibits will be given as (R81—ll,
___)
and
(R81—1l,
Ex.
___
)
respectively.
63-339
—2—
Trihalomethanes are organic chemicals consisting of one
carbon atom,
one hydrogen atom and three halogen atoms
(R81—ll,
21).
These are formed when free chlorine reacts with naturally
occurring compounds which are generally produced by decaying
vegetation
(R81—ll, 21).
Thus, TTRM are unlikely to be found
in
water supplies which are not chlorinated or which has a water
source lQw
in organics.
Research by the National Cancer
Institute and the National Academy of Sciences shows that TTHMs
may be carcinogenic and can lead to liver
or kidney disorders,
birth defects and central nervous system damage
(R81—ll, 23 and
R81—l1,
Ex.
9).
In recognition of these possible adverse health effects,
the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated
federal regulations
(44 Fed.
Reg.
68624, R81—ll, Ex.
4, R81—ll,
23—24) establishing
a maximum allowable concentration of total
trihalomethanes
of 0.10 mg/i and monitoring schedules.
The
federal regulations are part of the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
(40 CFR Part 141)
under
the Safe Drinking Water
Act
(42 U.S.C.
300f et
se9.) which
requires states
to adopt
rules
at least as stringent as the USEPA rules
to retain primary
enforcement responsibilities
(R8l—1l, 27).
If primacy is not
retained,
federal funding of the program could be lost for the
entire public water supply program (R8l—1l,
28—29).
The present TTRM standard
of 0.10 mg/l applicable
to public
water supplies serving over 10,000 people was set on the basis of
the USEPA standard which
in turn was at
a level which was
estimated to allow for “one excess cancer death
for every 10,000
to 100,000 people with
a lifetime exposure
to this
in their
drinking water’
(R81—11,
24).
This has allowed the state
to
retain primacy.
The only testimony presented at the two inquiry hearings was
by Agency personnel.
The Agencyts position was summarized by Ira
Markwood, Manager of the Public Water Supply Section:
Okay.
I’m not convinced that
trihalomethanes are really a problem.
IIm
also not convinced that they’re not
a
problem.
I think that the question
is
a
little
too hazy to be resolved really by
reasonable regulations based upon the fact
that there is not
an infinite reservoir
of
resources.
If we had all the resources that we needed,
it would be nice
to go ahead with, but we
don’t,
It has
to be selective.
So, on that
basis,
I would not think that trihalomethane
regulations would be
a priority for
regulation
at this time
(R.
42—43).
63-340
—3—
It
is the coricensus of the Board of Trustees
that research to date does not justify the
current requirement that establishes
a maximum
allowable concentration of 0.10 mg/l
for Total
Trihalomethanes
(TTRM)
In drinking water
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code 604.203).
That is, we feel it
ha~not been proven that trihalomethanes at
this concentration level are carcinogenic.
Accordingly, we see no reason
to extend
the
current rule, which covers supplies over
10,000 individuals,
to smaller supplies.
Our opposition to further extension of the
TTHM regulation
is not to be construed to
imply that individuals from smaller
communities are not entitled to the same
protection as those from larger communities.
Rather,
it
is based on our opinion that
current regulation is unwarranted and its cost
therefore unjustified.
On the other hand,
the
Illinois Section would be the first to
encourage the universal application of any
regulation that had been proven to be
essential to health protection.
There are two initial questions:
(1) Are low level TTHMs
carcinogenic? and
(2)
Is the cost of
a monitoring program
justified?
The Agency and the AWWA are unconvinced that TTHMs
are carcinogenic, and the Agency also believes that the chance of
TTHM exceedances
in small supplies
is very low.
The USEPA,
however, continues
to require states
to have limitations and
monitor supplies over 10,000
in order to retain primacy.
While
the Agency supported the present regulations,
it made it clear
that the sole reason was to retain primacy
(and the concomniitant
federal funding).
The cost of sampling
is $25—80 per
sample (R8l—ll, Ex.
4 and
Ru. 6),* and the Agency argues that
it simply could not meet the
sampling requirements
if they were extended
to smaller supplies
(R.
11—12
and 15).
In fact,
the Agency is currently 20,000
analyses
(or three months)
behind
in its sampling program
(R.
23,
24,
32 and 33).
Covering all supplies would add 27,364 analyses
per year
(R.
32).
This
is because there would be 340 additional
surface water supplies covered for which
four samples per quarter
*The transcripts of the August 16 and
28 hearings both begin
on page
1.
Therefore,
references to the August
16 transcript
will be referred
to as (R._)
and
to August 28 as
(RII._).
(continued)
83-341
—4—
or sixteen
samples per year
are required.
Thus,
6,841 additional
samples per year would be required resulting in the 27,364
analyses since four
analyses are performed on each sample.
According
to the Agency, these costs must be borne by
it, not by
the affected supplies
(R.
11).
In regard
to the health effects
of TTHMs, about all that
is
clear
is that the effects areuncertain.
As summarized by the
Economic Impact Study prepared for R8l—ll,
“despite the fact that
epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results,
the
consensus of opinion regards TTHMs as
a potential health hazard”
(EcIS p.
53).
Mr. Mar!~woodattended National Drinking Water
Advisory Council meetings concerning TTHM at which
“some
speakers were
in favor
of very strict trihalomethane
regulations,” while others
“were not convinced that the
trihalomethanes were carcinogens”
(R. 7—8).
He concluded that
“the arguments on both sides were equally valid
so that the
question as to whether trihalomethanes were carcinogens was very
indeterminate”
(R.
8),
Ames tests
to determine the
carcinogenicity of chloroform have been negative (Rh.
13).
A
study
by Dr. Jorgenson of Stanford Research using
rats and mice
who had been fed for 105 weeks varying doses of up to 1800
milligrams per liter
of chloroform,
“found that the rats that
were fed even at the highest dosage were the sleeker, healthier
appearing animals
and
actually seemed
to have
a longer life
span than the control animals” (Rh. 24).
However,
some kidney
tumors were found in the
rats (Rh,
25).
Other
studies before
the Board
are also inconclusive
(Ex.
2).
Based
on the record presently before
the Board,
it appears
that TTHMs
are
a potential, but not a proven, health hazard.
Thus,
a fundamental question arises as
to how great
the potential
harm to
the public health must be before the Board will regulate
to avoid that harm.
The answer
is
in large part dependent upon
the cost of the regulatory program which includes sampling,
analysis and compliance
costs.
There are several treatment techniques
for TTHM removal.
(See EcIS,
pp. 38—45 and Ex,
I.)
Mr. Joseph Harrison, Chief of
the
I’7ater Supply Branch, Region V Office of the USEPA, has
indicated that compliance can be achieved through only minor
alterations
of treatment processes resulting
in minimal
cost
increases
(EcIS, p.
50).
Although this was
in reference to
supplies serving over 10,000 people, there
is no apparent reason
why that would not also be true of smaller supplies.
Further,
Mr.
Markwood testified that based on the Agency’s “experience,”
it “would expect that the smaller supplies
...
would
...
not
exceed
the maximum allowable concentration”
(R.
11).
That being
the case, there
is no reason to expect significant compliance
costs.
Thus, only sampling and analysis expenses appear
to be of
concern.
The Agency believes that “any expense for analyses
of
drinking water from these supplies would not serve any useful
63-342
—5—
purpose”
(R.
11).
Karl Reed, Manager of the Quality Assurance
and Laboratory Certification Section of the Division of
Laboratories for
the Agency,
testified that the Agency has
estimated that expanding the trihalomethane testing requirement
to all public water supplies would add 340 surface and 1,401
groundwater supplies representing 6,841 new trihalomethane
samples per year and, since there are four analyses per sample,
this results
in 27,364 analyses
(R. 32).
He also testified that
additional resources
required to analyze the 6,841 samples
include three gas chromatographs at $32,000 each,
a data system
attached to the chromatographs at $28,000;
and two refrigerators
at $1,000 each for a total of $126,000
(R. 33).
Further, the
Agency would need two additional chemists at approximately
$20,000 per year, one lab technician at $15,000 per year and one
lab helper mainly to prepare bottles at $12,000 per year
for
total personnel costs of $67,000 per year
(R, 33).
Expenses for
chemicals and glassware would be $30,000
(R.
33 and 34).
Finally,
the laborabory would need approximately 800 square feet
to absorb the additions of equipment, people and to provide room
for mailing out the estimated 300 sample bottles per week.
No
estimate of that cost was given.
There are, however, alternatives
to simply eliminating the
10,000 person limitation.
If the Board were to make
the finished
water quality standard applicable to all
supplies,
but not
require sampling or analysis, all these expenses would be
avoided.
Of course, minimal enforcement of the standard would be
expected.
There
is also a large middle ground which can be created by
varying the size of the class of supplies required to sample and
the sampling frequency.
There appears to
be little
reason,
for
example, to require sampling of groundwater supplies since
the
risk of such supplies exceeding the TTHM standard
is minimal and
does not appear
to justify the expense.
Elimination of
those
supplies reduces the number
of affected supplies to
340, thereby
reducing the number of additional samples by 1401 per year.
Further, since the smaller surface water supplies are less likely
to exceed
the TTHM standard
it is reasonable to reduce sampling
frequency.
Surface supplies serving over 10,000 people must,
at
least
initially,
submit four samples per quarter
(16 samples per
year).
On the other hand, groundwater supplies serving over
10,000 people need only submit one sample per year unless
a
problem is found,
Since TTHM exceedances are not anticipated for smaller
supplies, annual sampling should provide adequate protection of
the public health, especially since
the only evidence of harm
from TTHM is based upon long—term effects.
Under such
a rule,
only 340 additional samples per year would
be required rather
than the 6,841
that the Agency objects
to,
and 1,360 analyses
rather than 27,364.
This would add less than one week to the
Agency’s analysis backlog and would avoid most,
if not all,
of
the additional expenses listed by the Agency.
The cost
to the
83-343
—6—
Agency,
therefore,
should be about $10,880 per year for
the
additional analyses
(assuming $32 cost per sample analyzed).
This does not appear
to be
an unreasonable administrative expense
given the potential adverse health effects of TTHM.
Therefore,
the Board proposes to amend
35
Ill. Adm. Code
604.203 such that the TTHM standard of 35 Ill. Mm, Code 604.202
will
be made applicable
to all public water supplies by January
1,
1988,
and to amend
35
Ill. Adm. Code 605.104 such that the
sampling requirement will
be extended
to surface water supplies
serving fewer
~
10,000 people,
Such supplies will be required
to sample
in
~ame manner
as groundwater
supplies which serve
10,000 peopft
~ore.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes the following amendments to the
Illinois Administrative Code Title
35:
Environmental Protection;
Subtitle
F:
Public Water Supplies; Chapter
I:
Pollution Control
Board,
as follows:
Section 604.203
Exceptions to Maximum Allowable
Concentrations
a)
Fluoride:
Those counties of the State north of and
including the counties of Henderson,
McDonough,
Fulton,
Tazewell, McLean, Ford and Iroquois shall have a maximum
allowable fluoride concentration of 2.0 mg/i.
b)
Iron and Manganese
1)
Community water supplies which serve a population of
1000 or less or 300 service connections or less shall
be exempt from the standards for
iron and manganese.
2)
All other water supplies shall comply with these
standards by July 1,
1981.
Iron
in excess of 1.0
mg/I and manganese in excess of 0.15 mg/i may be
allowed at the discretion of the Agency
if
sequestration tried on an experimental basis proves
to be effective,
If sequestering
is not effective,
positive iron or manganese reduction treatment
as
applicable must
be provided.
No experimental use
of
a sequestering agent may be tried without previous
Agency approval.
C)
Nitrate—Nitrogen:
The provisions of Section 604.204
notwithstanding, compliance with the maximum allowable
concentration for nitrateshall be determined on the basis
of the mean of two analyses.
When a level exceeding the
maximum allowable concentration for nitrate
is found,
a
second analysis shall be initiated within
24 hours,
and if
the mean
of the two analyses exceeds the maximum allowable
63-344
—7—
concentration,
the owner or operator
of the public water
supply
shall report his findings to the Agency pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm, Code 606.102 and shall notify the public
pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 606.
d)
Total Trihalomethanes:
1)
The average of Total Trihalomethanes concentration in
the
finished water of four samples of any four
consecutive quarters per treatment plant or per
aquifer shall not exceed
the limit listed
in Section
604.
202.
2)
Supplies serving ~S7999 10,000 or more individuals
shall comply withthe Total Trihalomethanes standard
listed
in Section 604.202 ~y ~e
e~eet~vedate e~
~e~e
rege~ena.
Supplies serving ~87989
~O
~4~999
fewer_than 10,000
individuals
shall comply with this
standard by Nevembe~5y~983~a~rll9~i.
Th~S
e~nda~does ne~a~p~y~e s~pp~4esse~v4ftg~ess than
~979OO
v~id~a~s,
3)
If the average of samples covering any twelve—month
period exceeds the Maximum Allowable Concentration
for Total Trihalomethanes,
as listed
in Section
604.202,
the owner or operator
of
the supply shall
notify the Agency pursuant
to Section 606.102 and
give notice to the public pursuant
to Sections
606,201
—
606,205 of these Rules,
Monitoring
after
public notification shall be at the frequency
required by Section 605.104.
e)
Turbidity:
1)
Turbidity in drinking water shall not exceed one
turbidity unit at a point where water enters the
distribution system unless
it can be demonstrated
that a higher turbidity not exceeding
5 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units
(NTU)
does not:
A)
interfere with disinfection,
or
B)
cause tastes and odors upon disinfection, or
C)
prevent the maintenance of an effective
disinfection agent throughout the distribution
system,
or
D)
result
in deposits
in the distribution system,
E)
cause customers to question the safety of their
drinking water.
63~345
—8—
2)
The provisions of Section 604.204 notwithstanding,
if
a turbidity measurement exceeds the maximum allowable
concentration,
a resample must
be taken as soon as
practicable, and preferably within one hour.
If the
check—sample confirms that the standard has been
exceeded,
the Agency must be notified within 48
hours.
The value of the check—sample shall
be the
value used
in calculating
the monthly average.
If
the monthly average of the daily samples taken
in
accordance with 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 605.109 exceeds the
maximum allowable concentration, or
if
the average of
tvio samples taken on consecutive days exceeds
5 NTU,
the owner
or operator
of the public water supply
shall report to the Agency and notify the public as
directed
in 35
111.
Adm. Code 606.
Section 605.104
Frequency of Trihalomethane Analysis
Sampling
a)
Surface Water Sources
Su
lies Serving Over 10,000
Individuals:
Supplies serving over 10,000 individuals
shall submit at least four samples per treatment plant per
quarter
for analysis
or analytical
results from a
certified laboratory for Total Trihalomethanes to the
Agency.
After results
of four consecutive quarters
demonstrate consistent Total Trihalomethanes
concentrations below the Maximum Allowable Concentration,
and upon written application by the supply,
the Agency may
reduce
the sample frequency to one sample per quarter
until
the Maximum
Allowable
Concentration is exceeded
or
until
a
significant
change
in
source or treatment method
is made.
b)
Surface Water Sources for Supplies Serving Fewer Than
ua
s:
Sur
ace
water sources
or
su
lies
serving
ewer than
,
individuals shall submit at
~
for MTP
is.
After written r~ !tb
the supply and the
~inationb~
enc
!tthe
results
of
the
sample
and
local
conditions
indicate
that the supp1y~is not
~2l
t2a
r2ach
or
exceed
the Maximum Allowable
~ration,
th~sulsh!ll
continue to submit one
~
t of ~
~
the sample
exceeds the Maximum Allowable Concentration or cannot be
~
ized
for MTP, thesu
1
shall
submit
samp~esin
accordance with Section 605.104(a).
c)
Ground
Water
Sources
~~i~~vingOver
10,000
Individuals:
Supplies
serving
10,000
individuals or more
shall submit at least one initial sample per treatment
plant
for MTP analysis.
After written request by the
supply and the determination by the Agency that the
63~346
—9—
results
of the sample and local conditions
indicate that
the supply is not likely to approach or exceed the Maximum
Allowable Concentration,
the supply shall continue to
submit one annual sample per treatment plant,
or report of
analysis by a certified laboratory to the Agency.
If the
sample exceeds the Maximum Allowable Concentration or
cannot be ananlyzed for MTP,. th~supply shall submit
samples in accordance with Section 605.104(a),
d)
Ground Water Sources for Supplies Serving Fewer Than
10,000
Individuals:
Supplies serving fewer th~nl0,PO0
individuals
are
0 required to submit any samples for
~ana~is.
ee)
Significant changes
in water sources
or treatment will
require testing
in accordance with Section 605.104(a).
df)
If the result of an analysis made pursuant
to the reduced
monitoring schedules provided by Section 605.104(a)
indicates that the level
of Total Trihalomethanes exceeds
the Maximum Allowable Concentration listed
in Section
604.202 the owner
or operator
of the supply shall
initiate
analysis of one check sample promptly after
the exceedance
is reported to the supply.
If the check samples confirms
that the level
of Total Trihalomethanes exceeds the
Maximum Allowable Concentration, the supply shall sample
in accordance with the frequency set out
in Section
605.104(a),
for
at least one year.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above P opo~edOpinion and Order
was adopted on the ~
day of
_____________________,
1985,
by
a vote of
5—~
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
63-347
