ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
4,
1993
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SAFE DRINKING WATER
ACT
)
R92-3
UPDATE, PHASE IIB
AND LEAD AND
)
(Identical in Substance Rules)
COPPER RULES
)
(6/1/91
—
12/31/91)
)
Proposal for Public Comment.
Proposed Opinion of the Board (by 3. Anderson):
SUMMARY OF TODAY’S ACTION
Pursuant to Section 17.5 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act), the Board today proposes to update 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 proposed 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.
127,
par. 1005-1
et seq.
5
ILCS 100/5—1 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
revisions and major additions to the Illinois SDWA rules, as
originally adopted August
9, 1990,
in docket R88—26
(effective
September 20,
1990),
and amended November 19,
1992,
in docket
R91-3 and R92-9
(consolidated)
(effective December
1,
1992).
It
includes the federal Phase IIB amendments to the chemical
contaminant rules, as adopted by USEPA July 1,
1991, and the lead
and copper rules of June 7,
1991, July 15,
1991,
and June 29,
1992.
The result of these proposed amendments will be to add MCLS
and monitoring and notice requirements for one inorganic chemical
contaminant (barium) and four synthetic organic chemical
contaminants (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, and
pentachiorophenol), although the MCLs for the three aldicarbe is
concurrently administratively stayed pending future action.
These proposed amendments further add significant new
requirements relating to lead and copper in drinking water as
drawn from consumer taps.
The discussions that follow consider
and discuss these amendments in detail.
0139-U 133
2
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.
This rulemaking docket is delayed.
The Board entered a
reasons for delay and extension of time order on December 3,
1992.
The Notice of Public Information on Proposed Rules
appeared in the Illinois Register on January 22,
1993
(17 Iii.
Reg.
872).
As explained in the December 3,
1992 order:
The Board hereby finds)
that necessary delays in
adopting the amendments involved in R91-3 have resulted
in unavoidable delay in proceeding with the amendments
of dockets R91-15 and R92-3.
The amendments involved
in both dockets interrelate with those of docket R91-3
in such a way that it was impossible to proceed with
the R92-3 amendments until the R91-3 amendments were
adopted.
Many of the same Sections are involved in
both proceedings,
and, in fact, docket R91-3 included
many amendments nominally within the present time-frame
of docket R92—3~
It was even impossible until
completion of the R91-3 amendments to predict when the
Board could complete the R92—3 amendments.
Further,
USEPA did not release the guidance documentation
relating to Lead and Copper rules until November,
1992.
We find this guidance information important to deciding
how to approach various issues raised by the federal
rules.
Therefore, we find that an extension of time is
warranted and necessary and enter this order at this
time.
The Board projected in that order that it would adopt this
proposal for public comment on or before February 25,
1993 and
adopt a final rule on or before June 3,
1993.
FEDERAL ACTIONS COVERED BY
THIS
RULEMAKING
The SDWA program was drawn from 40
CFR
141
(national primary
drinking water regulations or NPDWRs),
40 CFR 142 (NPDWRs
implementation), and 40
CFR
143
(national secondary drinking
water regulations or NSDWRs).
The nominal update period of this
docket was originally from July 1,
1991 through December 31,
1991.
The Board order of December 3,
1992 expanded the time-
frame to include federal amendments of June 7, 1991
(the federal
lead and copper rules).
0139 -0
3
In addition to the June 7, 1991 lead and copper rules, this
docket includes a few other federal actions.
On July 1,
1991,
USEPA made certain corrections to the Phase II rules (dealt with
in the November 19, 1992 opinion and order in R91-3) and
promulgated the Phase IIB rules.
On May 27,
1992, USEPA issued
an administrative stay as to certain of the Phase IIB rules.
Finally, on July 15,
1991 and June 29, 1992, USEPA corrected
certain of the lead and copper rules.
The Board includes certain federal action outside the
nominal time-frame of this docket.
Rather than adopt rules with
the knowledge that USEPA has since revisited the issues involved
in a way that will require further Board action, the Board has
included those later federal actions due to their intimate
association with the June and July,
1991 actions.
Therefore,
for this extended update period and including
subsequent federal actions affecting the same matter, the
principal amendments to the federal regulations occurred as
follows:
56 Fed. Reg. 26547
June 7,
1991
(lead and copper rules)
56 Fed. Reg.
30266
July 1,
1991
(Phase IIB rules)
56 Fed. Reg.
32113
July 15,
1991
(lead and copper
corrections)
57 Fed. Reg. 22178
May 27,
1992
(Phase IIB partial stay)
57 Fed. Reg.
28787
June 29,
1992
(lead and copper
corrective amendments)
(Significant portions of the June 7 action that related directly
to corrections to the Phase II rules, and that portion of the
June 7,
1991 action that related to the definition of “maximum
contaminant level” were the subject of docket R91—3.)
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)
(Connie L.
Tonsor, Assistant Counsel), February 2,
1993.
PC 1 is a preliminary comment by the Agency, which the Board
received in the course of developing the Proposal.
In summary,
PC 1 requests that the Board repeal two Sections in Part 605 that
are now superseded by Section 611.521.
It further requests that
the Board delete certain segments of Section 611.521(b) because
it represents the repeal of a more stringent state standard in
R88-26, on August 9,
1990.
Finally, the Agency requests that the
Board repeal the state-only copper MCL of Section 611.300(b)
because its retention would render the Illinois program less
0139-0135
4
stringent than the federal program.
Basically, Pc 1 memorializes
the Agency’s position enunciated during the January 27,
1993
meeting of the Regulatory Work Group formed to discuss issues
raised by USEPA SDWA rules adoptions.
The Board requests public comments on this proposal for
public comment.
A number of issues are specifically noted to
elicit comments.
The Board will receive comments for 45 days
after a Notice of Proposed Amendments appears in the Illinois
Register
The Board will then act promptly to adopt amendments
based on the federal amendments involved in this docket.
Interested persons should address their comments to the
Clerk of the Board.
They should provide one original and nine
copies and reference docket number R92—3 on the front of each
copy.
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 Ill. Reg.
1562,
effective January 22,
1991)
(January 1,
1990
through June 30,
1990)
R90—2l
116 PCB 365, November 29,
1990
(14 Ill. Reg.
20448, effective December 11,
1990)
(Corrections
to R88—26)
R91—3
——
PCB
——,
November 19,
1992
(16 Ill. Reg.
19010,
December 11, 1992, effective December 1,
1992)
(USEPA Phase II and coliforms——consolidated with
R92-9; July 1,
1990 through January 31,
1991)
R91-15
--
PCB
--,
dismissed December 3,
1992 (February 1,
1991 through May 31,
1991)
R92-3
This proceeding (USEPA Phase IIB and lead and
copper; June 1,
1991 through December 31,
1991)
R92—9
——
PCB
——,
November 19,
1992
(16 Ill. Reg.
19010,
0139-0136
5
December 11,
1992, effective December
1,
1992)
(Corrections to Phase
I
•rules, R88-26)
R92—12
——
PCB
——,
dismissed December
3, 1992
(June 1,
1992 through June 30,
1991)
R93—1
Reserved docket
(USEPA Phase V; July 1,
1992
through December 31, 1992)
GENERAL
DISCUSSION OF
PRESENT
ISSUES
This Update concerns the USEPA “lead and copper” rules and
the “Phase IIB” rules.
The lead and copper rules involve
instituting a new scheme for monitoring drinking water, as
sampled from the consumers’
taps,
for the appearance of lead and
copper.
Rather than traditional MCL5, this monitoring scheme
uses “action levels” for these two contaminants.
If the
frequency and magnitude of contaminant occurrence so warrants,
this regulatory scheme could require a water supplier to engage
in further monitoring investigation, disseminate warning notices
and engage in public education on the hazards of lead,
treat the
source water,
optimize the corrosion control in its distribution
system, and replace lead service lines.
The Phase IIB rules
involve the adoption of “revised MCL5” for one inorganic chemical
contaminant
(IOC)
and four synthetic organic chemical
contaminants (SOCs).
Accompanying these revised MCL5 are
additions to the monitoring and reporting requirements relating
to them.
The following discussions consider the federal actions
in greater detail.
June 7.
1991 Federal Action--Lead and CoDper
On June 7,
1991, at 56 Fed. Reg. 26547, USEPA amended the
definitions section and added an entire new subpart relating to
control of lead and copper at consumer taps.
All the new
definitions, except the amendments to
the
definition of maximum
contaminant level, related to implementation of new 40 CFR 141,
Subpart I--Control. of Lead and Copper.
The amendments caused the
former MCL for lead to expire on November 9,
1992,
the
effective
date of the lead and copper rules.
In its place, new Subpart I
instituted a complex scheme for control of the appearance of lead
(and copper) at consumers’
taps.
USEPA divided the universe of suppliers into large, medium-
sized, and small, depending on
the
number of persons they serve.
The effective date and effect of the substantive regulations
depends on the size of the supplier’s system.
Large suppliers
(serving more than 50,000) were to have begun monitoring for lead
and copper at consumer taps beginning on January
1,
1992.
Medium-sized suppliers (serving more than 3,300 and up to 50,000)
were to have begun ‘on July 1,
1992, and small suppliers (serving
3,300 or fewer persons) will begin on July
1,
1993.
0139-0137
6
Before the applicable monitoring effective date, each
supplier must have completed a materials assessment of its
distribution system.
The purpose is to select a set of targeted
sampling locations.
The greater the number of persons served by
the supplier, the greater the number of sites the supplier must
sample.
For example, for lead and copper, under standard
monitoring,
a supplier serving 100,000 or more persons must
sample 100 sites, one serving 3,300 to 10,000 must sample 40, and
one serving 100 or fewer must sample 5.
The pool of possible
sampling sites includes “tier 1 sampling sites”
(those sirgle-
family residential buildings that have copper pipe with lead
solder installed after 1982, which have lead pipes,
or which are
served by a lead service line),
“tier
2 sampling sites”
(those
multiple-family residential buildings that otherwise fulfill the
criteria of tier 1 sampling sites), and “tier
3 sampling sites”
(those single-family residential buildings that have copper pipes
with lead solder installed before 1983.’
A community water system
(CWS) supplier is required to use
tier
1 sampling sites exclusively for monitoring unless multiple—
family residential buildings comprise at least 20 percent of its
overall sampling pool or it has an insufficient number of tier 1
sites on its distribution system.
If a
CWS
supplier has an
insufficient number of tier 1 and tier
2 sites, it may make up
the deficiency in its sampling pool with tier 3 sites.
Transient, non—community water system (NTNCWS) suppliers must use
tier 1 sampling sites.
If the NTNCWS has insufficient tier
1.
sites,
it must use the alternative sites.
If the supplier’s
system has lead service lines, half of its sampling pool must
have lead service lines and half copper pipe with lead solder.
During the initial phases of monitoring, the supplier must
sample each site every six months, using the same sites
in
subsequent six-month monitoring periods unless there is some
appropriate reason for not using the same sites.
The supplier is
to ascertain the “ninetieth—percentile level” for lead and copper
in its system based on the monitoring data
(by rank-ordering the
data and selecting that result that corresponds to the ninetieth
percentile of all the data).
Large suppliers must monitor for
two consecutive six—month monitoring periods and medium—sized and
1
The scheme actually differs for CWSs and NTNCWS5.
Although otherwise identical, tier 1 sampling sites for CWSS
includes only “single—family structures” at 40 CFR 141.86(a) (3).
It is “buildings” for NTNCWSs at 40 CFR 141.86(a)(6).
There are
no “tier 2” or “tier 3” sites for
NTNCWSs
at section
141.86(a) (7).
Rather, that federal paragraph describes
alternative sites for NTNCWSs if there are not enough tier
1
sites.
The Board has rendered this scheme as described on page
16 of this opinion.
0139-0138
7
small suppliers must monitor for each successive six—month
monitoring period until it either exceeds the “action level”
(0.015 mg/l for lead and 1.3 mg/i for copper) or it has met the
action levels for two consecutive monitoring periods
(when it can
go to reduced monitoring)..
Sampling locations will vary with the type of monitoring.
The tap water sampling for lead and copper occurs at consumers’
taps.
Source water sampling occurs at entry points to the
distribution system
(a sampling location established in the Phase
II rules in docket R91—3).
Corrosion control sampling occurs at
both consumers’ taps and at entry points
(on a biweekly basis).
Suppliers must “optimize corrosion control”
in their
distribution systems or undertake “corrosion control treatment
steps”.
The state may deem a supplier as having optimized
corrosion control if the supplier provides certain information
that demonstrates that it has engaged in steps equivalent to the
applicable corrosion control steps.
Alternatively,
a small or
medium-sized supplier that has met the lead and copper action
levels for two consecutive six—month monitoring periods is deemed
to have optimized corrosion control (and may even cease further
corrosion control steps it has already undertaken immediately
after it has done so, but it must begin again where it left off
if it subsequently exceeds either action level).
Finally,
a
supplier that can demonstrate, based on two monitoring periods’
data, that the difference between its source water lead level
and
its ninetieth-percentile lead level is less than the “practical
quantitation level” for lead (0.005 mg/i)
is deemed to have
optimized corrosion control.
The deadlines for undertaking the various corrosion control
treatment steps varies with the size of the supplier’s system.
Large system suppliers must adhere to the following schedule:
Step 1:
complete two periods of monitoring by January
1,
1993;
Steo 2:
complete corrosion control studies and recommend
optimal corrosion control to the state by July 1,
1993;
Ste~~:the state must designate optimal corrosion control
for the supplier by January 1,
1994;
Step.A:
the supplier must install optimal corrosion control
by January 1,
1997;
SteD 5:
the supplier must complete follow-up sampling by
January
1, 1998;
Step
6:
the state must review the installation and
designate “optimal water quality control parameters” by
0139-0 139
8
July 1,
1998; and
Step 7:
the supplier must continue to operate in compliance
with the state-specified water quality control
parameters and continue tap—water sampling.
Medium—sized and small system suppliers must adhere to the
following schedule:
Stei
1:
conduct initial sampling in successive monitoring
periods until it either exceeds either the lead or
copper action level
(in which case it must undertake
corrosion control studies and recommend optimal
corrosion control to the state within six months of the
exceedance)
or becomes eligible for reduced monitoring
(without undertaking further steps until it exceeds
either action level);
Stei, 2:
the state may either require the supplier to
perform corrosion control studies and make a
recommendation within 12 months of an exceedance of
either action level, or the state must specify optimal
corrosion control within 18 months for medium—sized
system or 24 months for small system suppliers;
Step 3:
the system must complete corrosion control studies
and make a recommendation to the state within 18 months
of when the state requires it to do so;
Step 4:
the state must designate optimal corrosion control
for the supplier within six months after the supplier
makes its recommendation;
Step 5:
the supplier must install corrosion control
treatment within 24 months of when the state designates
optimal corrosion control;
Step 6:
the supplier must complete follow-up monitoring
within 36 months of when the state designates optimal
corrosion control;
Step 7:
the state must review the supplier’s installation
of optimal corrosion control and designate water
quality control parameters within six months of
completion of the follow-up sampling; and
SteD 8:
the supplier must continue to operate in compliance
with the state-specified water quality control
parameters and continue tap—water sampling.
Each supplier required to undertake corrosion control
studies must evaluate the effectiveness of certain treatment
0139-0I~0
9
processes in its system (alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium
hardness adjustment, and addition of phosphate- or silicate—based
corrosion inhibitors)
in bench—scaled testing or by documentation
of tests in similar systems.
The supplier must report certain
analytical results for water quality control parameters from its
testing to the state
(lead,
copper, pH, alkalinity,
calcium,
conductivity, temperature,
and any inhibitor residual),
as well
as any chemical or physical constraints on using a treatment
method.
In designating optimal corrosion control treatment, the
state must consider the effects of treatment on the water quality
control parameters and other of the supplier’s treatment
processes.
The federal regulations similarly specify how the
state is to specify the supplier’s water quality control
parameters.
After the state has specified the water quality control
parameters,
a large system supplier must commence monitoring the
parameters every six—month monitoring period.
A medium—sized or
small system supplier must monitor during each six—month
monitoring period in which it exceeds the lead or copper action
level
in tap water sampling.
The number of water quality control
parameter samples a supplier must collect varies with the size of
its distribution system.
For example a supplier serving 100,000
or more persons must sample 25 sites,
one serving 3,301 to 10,000
must sample
3, and one serving 100 or fewer must sample
1.
In
addition to the semi—annual tap water samples, the supplier must
sample each entry point to the distribution system on a biweekly
basis.
A state must review its determination and modify it when
it determines
(on its own initiative or on request) that such is
necessary to ensure optimal corrosion control.
USEPA has
reserved the prerogative of reviewing state determinations.
In addition to applying optimal corrosion control,
a
supplier that exceeds either the lead or copper action level must
fulfill certain source water monitoring and treatment
requirements.
A source that exceeds either the lead or the
copper action level must undertake the following steps within the
times indicated:
SteD 1:
the supplier must complete source water lead and
copper monitoring and make a treatment recommendation
to the state within six months of exceeding the action
level;
Step~:
the state must make a source water treatment
determination within six months of when the supplier
submits its recommendation;
Step
a:
the supplier must install any source water
treatment within 24 months of when the state submits
its determination;
0I39-0lL~,I
10
Step 4:
the supplier must complete followup tap water and
source water monitoring within 36 months of when the
state makes its determination;
Step 5:
the state must
.
review the supplier’s installation
and operation of source water treatment and specify
maximum permissible lead and copper concentrations for
the source water within six months of when the supplier
completes its followup monitoring; and
Step 6:
the supplier must continue source water monitoring
and adhere to the source water lead and copper
limitations on an ongoing basis.
A state must review its determination and modify it when it
determines
(on its own initiative or on request) that such is
necessary to ensure that the supplier minimizes the copper and
lead intake from its source water.
USEPA has reserved the
prerogative of reviewing state determinations.
Another activity required of suppliers relates to the
replacement of lead service lines.
A supplier that has
implemented optimal corrosion control or source water treatment,
and which still exceeds the lead or copper action level, must
undertake a program of replacing the lead service lines in its
distribution system.
The system must annually replace at least
seven percent of the original number of lead service lines in .its
distribution system.
The state may also require a supplier that
fails to install optimal corrosion control or source water
treatment when required to do so to begin lead service line
replacement.
The first year of service line replacement begins
on the date the supplier exceeds the lead or copper action level.
After performing a distribution system materials evaluation and
identifying to the state all of the lead service lines in the
system, the supplier must begin with the seven-percent—per—year
replacement program.
The state may stipulate a shorter
replacement schedule than seven percent per year if it determines
that this is feasible for the supplier.
Certain limitations apply to service line replacement,
however, and the supplier need not replace all lead lines under
limited circumstances.
The supplier does not need to replace any
individual service line for which it can Show that all tap water
samples are taken were less than or equal to 0.015 mg/i lead.
Further, although the supplier is presumed to control the entire
service line and must replace the entire thing, the supplier is
not required to replace only service lines and portions of
service lines under its control.
The supplier can demonstrate
that a service line or a portion of a service line is beyond its
control.
Where the supplier need only replace a portion of the
service line,
the rules provide that it can notify the consumer
that it will replace that portion and tell the consumer that it
O139-01L~2
11
will replace the consumer’s portion of the service line at the
consumer’s expense.
The supplier who removes only a portion of
the service line must also conduct sampling after the replacement
and report the results to the consumer if the consumer responds
affirmatively to a required notice of the partial replacement and
offer to sample.
Finally, a supplier may cease its service line
replacement program if the results from two consecutive
monitoring periods indicate lead level is below the action level.
However, the supplier must recommence replacement at the original
rate if it later exceeds the lead action level.
Finally, a supplier that exceeds the lead action level in
tap water samples must begin a public education program.
The
federal rules specify the content of the printed and broadcast
notices that the supplier must disseminate as part of this
program.
The notices set forth information on the health effects
of lead,
instruct the consumer how to obtain help in reducing the
amount of lead in their homes’ plumbing systems and the amount
consumed, bow to reduce corrosion in their plumbing systems, how
to obtain laboratory analyses for lead in their water, and how to
have children tested for lead accumulation.
The supplier is to begin its public education program within
60 days of when it fails to meet the lead action level in tap
water samples.
The supplier must insert the specified
information into customers’ water bills;
submit the information
to the major local newspapers; and deliver the information to
local schools, health departments, to certain local childrens’
and womens’ programs, to local hospitals and clinics, to local
pediatricians, to local family planning clinics, and to local
welfare agencies.
The supplier must submit the information to at
least five local radio and television stations serving the area.
the supplier must periodically repeat this dissemination--every
12 months for the dissemination to all but television and radio
stations, to whom the supplier must disseminate every six months
(a NTNCWS need only disseminate to consumers,
newspapers, and
television and radio stations once a year).
A supplier can
discontinue public education if it met the lead action level in
the most recent monitoring period.
If, as a result of this
public education effort, a consumer requests an analysis for lead
in its tap water, the supplier must collect the sample, but it is
not required to pay for the sampling and testing.
Thus far, this discussion has primarily focused on the
supplier’s actions if it exceeds the lead or copper action
levels, requiring it to undertake certain mitigating actions.
There are provisions for reduced monitoring (aside from those
already cited that allow the cessation of corrective measures
already begun).
If a medium—sized or small system supplier meets
the lead and copper action levels for each of two consecutive
monitoring periods,
it may reduce the number of tap water samples
it collects and reduce the frequency to annual.
The state may
0139-01k3
12
allow any supplier that maintains the range of values for its
water quality control parameters for each of two consecutive
monitoring periods to reduce its tap water monitoring frequency
and the number of samples it takes.
Further,
a medium-sized or
small system supplier that meets the lead and copper action
levels and any supplier that meets its water quality control
parameters
(with state permission)
for each of three annual
(reduced frequency) monitoring periods may further reduce its tap
water monitoring frequency to once every three years.
As with
standard monitoring, the number of required reduced—freque~cy
samples a supplier must take varies with the size of its
distribution system.
Following the standard-frequency example
given above,
for reduced monitoring the minimum number of tap
water samples for lead and copper for a supplier serving. 100, 000
or more persons is 50 sites,
one serving 3,301 to 10,000 must
sample 20, and one serving 100 or fewer must sample
5.
(Systems
must conduct reduced-frequency monitoring during June,
July,
August, or September.)
Of course, the state may revise its
determinations upon receipt of new monitoring or treatment
information.
Similarly,
there
are
provisions
for reduced monitoring for
water
quality
parameters.
A
system
that
maintains
the range of
values for its water quality control parameters that reflects
optimal corrosion control during each of two consecutive
monitoring
periods may collect samples every six months from a
reduced number of
sites.
For
example
a
supplier
serving
100,000
or more persons must sample 10 sites, one serving 3,301 to 10,000
must sample
3, and one serving 100 or fewer must sample 1.
After
three
consecutive
years
of monitoring (six consecutive six—month
monitoring periods) that demonstrates that the supplier has
maintained optimal corrosion control, the supplier may reduce its
frequency to annual, collecting the samples evenly throughout the
year to reflect seasonal variations.
After another three
consecutive years
(three annual rounds) of maintaining the range
of values for optimal corrosion control,
a supplier may reduce
its
monitoring
frequency
to
triennial
(annual
in
the original,
since corrected).
If the supplier on reduced water quality
control parameter monitoring fails to maintain optimal corrosion
control,
it must resume standard semi—annual monitoring in the
next—subsequent six—month monitoring period.
The lead and copper rules amend the analytical procedures
for lead and institute procedures for copper, pH, conductivity,
calcium, alkalinity, orthophosphate,
silica, and temperature.
They also impose recordskeeping and reporting requirements.
Another important aspect of the federal amendments is the
imposition of limitations
on
the
state’s
discretion
in
granting
variances or exemptions
(adjusted standards) from the general
lead and copper rules.
These include restrictions on the
requirement
for
the
use
of
bottled water or point—of-use devices
as
a
condition
to
relief.
Essentially,
these
amendments
restrict
O139-OI~
13
the state’s discretion as to when the use of bottled water or
point-of—use
devices
is
possible,
and
they impose quality control
requirements on the use of bottled water.
July
1.
1991 Federal Action--Phase IIB
On July 1,
1991,
at 56 Fed. Reg.
30274, USEPA promulgated
the federal Phase IIB rules.
Since these amendments were
interspersed with corrections to the Phase II rules, the Board
dealt with many of them in the November 19,
1992 order in docket
R91—3.
Those amendments are discussed in the accompanying
opinion of that date.
The still outstanding federal amendments
related to the establishment of one revised and four new MCLS for
chemical contaminants.
USEPA established a revised MCL for one
inorganic chemical contaminant, barium, and for four SOCs,
aldicarb,
aldicarb,
aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, and
pentachlorophenol.
This
includes
the
standard
public
notices
for
each
of
these
contaminants.
July
15.
1991
Federal
Action--Lead and CoDper
On
July
15,
1991,
at
56
Fed. Reg.
32113,
USEPA
made
certain
corrections to the lead and copper rules.
These corrections
changed
the
effective
date
for
the lead and copper rules to
December
7,
1992 for the corrosion control treatment, source
water
treatment,
lead
service
line
replacement,
and
public
education
requirements
and
the
expiration
of
the
old
MCL
for
lead
(from November 9,
1992, leaving the effective date for monitoring
at July 7,
1991.)
The corrections also modified a provision for
consumer
sampling
that obviated the consumer handling nitric acid
to preserve the samples.
MaY 27.
1992 Federal Action-—Phase lID
On May 27,
1992, at 57 Fed. Reg. 22178, USEPA imposed a
partial stay of certain of the July 1, 1991 Phase IIB
regulations.
USEPA stayed the new MCL5 for three of the SOCs:
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide,
and aldicarb sulfone.
In staying
the substantive limitations for these contaminants, USEPA left
the
monitoring
and
certain
of the public notice requirements for
these
contaminants
intact.
This
action
did not affect the MCLs
for barium and pentachlorophenol.
June 29.
1992 Federal Action--Lead and CoDper
Finally, on June 29,
1992, at 57 Fed. Reg.
28787, USEPA made
corrective amendments to the lead and copper rules.
These
amendments
change
the
effective date statement so that section
141.80,
the
federal
general
provisions
section,
became
effective
on
December
7,
1992.
It corrects a cross—reference and sample
names in one section, cross—references in two others, a reference
to a threshold level in another section, spelling in a fifth,
a
0139-01L45
14
system size reference in a sixth, and a reference to an
analytical
method
in a seventh.
More substantively, the
amendments imposed a limitation on analysis of consumer—obtained.
samples
until
at
least
28 hours after acidification.
They also
provide
that
a
supplier
required
to
resume
standard
tap
monitoring for lead and ôopper is also required to resume
standard water quality parameter monitoring.
Finally, the
corrective amendments changed the reduced frequency for water
quality parameter monitoring after three consecutive years of
annual testing from annual to triennial.
DETAILED SECTION-BY-SECTION-ANALYSIS
The Board proposes amendments in response to these federal
actions.
In codifying the lead and copper rules, we created a
new Subpart G to contain them.
We have attempted to make the
correlation of state to federal rules as linear as possible——
which
is
easier
in this proceeding than the Board has found it
with
previous
federal
SDWA
rules because the new federal sections
are smaller, each with a narrower focus than in the past rules..
Thus,
federal Subpart I, sections 141.80 through 141.91 appear in
the Illinois rules as Subpart G, Sections 611.350 through
611.361.
Generally,
it has even been possible to linearly
correlate subsection designations with the federal rules.
The
following detailed discussions indicate those areas where the
Board has found it necessary to deviate from the federal
structure.
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.
Routine,
General
Amendments——All
Sections
As a routine matter, the Board updates the references to the
Code of Federal Regulations throughout the text of the rules to
the 1992 version.
This volume is now available form the
Government Printing Office.
The General Assembly has derived a
new codification scheme for the statutes, the Illinois Compiled
Statutes, revamping the entire method for citation.
For the
present, citations in the Illinois Administrative Code will
appear in the old format with the addition of the new cite in
brackets.
To implement this scheme, the Board will amend all
statutory references to “Ill. Rev. Stat.
1991 ch.
111½, par.
10——” to read as follows:
“Ill. Rev. Stat.
1991 ch.
111½,
par.
10—— 415
ILCS 5/——)”.
The
Board
is
wary
of
the
overuse
of
acronyms
where
such
use
could
lead
to
confusion
or
delete
from
the
readability
of
0139-01146
15
regulations.
An exception to this is that we will use commonly—
used acronyms if their meaning is clear in context.
In
assembling this proposal for public comment, we use “NTNCWS” to
describe
non—transient,
non-community water supplies.
The Board
believes
this use is commonly understood, and it will not detract
from the readability of the rules.
The Board has also performed a number of standard deviations
from the text of the federal rules.
The rationale behind many of
these
is
discussed
in the August
9,
1990 opinion and order in
docket
R88—26
(Phase
I
rules),
and
we
will
not
repeat
those
discussions here.
Others are so minor as to warrant no
explanation.
The standard changes are as follows:
1.
We use the special exception permit where the federal rules
allow the state to make a determination based on specified
criteria
that
allows
a
supplier
to deviate from the standard
monitoring
scheme.
We
assign
to
the
“Agency”
all
decisiorimaking
authority
delegated
to
the
“state”
in
the
federal rules that is in the nature of a permit decision,
and we retain to the “Board” all that is in the nature of a
variance or adjusted standard determination.
Thus,
deviations from the general rule by determinations based on
specified criteria and state designations of optimal
corrosion control, water quality criteria, source water
control, etc. are rendered by SEP.
2.
We substitute “supplier”, to refer to a person who owns or
operates
a
water supply,
in place of the words “water
supply”, as used in the federal rules.
3.
Where
the
federal
rules
require an action “by” a certain
date,
the Board renders that as “on or before” that date.
4.
Where
USEPA
uses
““,
“?“,
““,
and
“?“
in narrat.ive text,
the
Board
has
substituted
the
narrative language.
5.
The
Board
adds
several
subsection headings to aid use of the
rules, and where appropriate, we break longer federal
provisions into several subsections for this same purpose.
6.
We have changed various of the subsections to the active
voice, rather than following the federal use of the passive
voice.
7.
Whereas USEPA rules provide that the state “designates”
water quality parameters, optimal corrosion control, and
source water treatment,
the Board construction differs.
We
believe that Agency designation of these items could put the
Agency
in
the
position
of
a consulting engineer, or it could
require
the
Agency
to
retain
a
consulting
engineer,
if
the
Agency
is
confronted
with
a
supplier
that
fails
to
make
0139-01147
16
appropriate recommendations.
This would be unacceptable.
Rather, the Board changes the rules so the Agency “approves”
the appropriate course.
We request comment on this issue.
8.
In 40 CFR 141.86(a) and 141.90(a), USEPA uses the phrase
“tier
1 sampling sites” in relation to both CWS and NTNCWS
suppliers,
“tier
2 sampling sites” and “tier 3 sampling
sites” with regard to
CWS
suppliers,
describes an
alternative set of sites a
NTNCWS
supplier may use, and
describes an alternative se~of sites a CWS supplier can use
that fits within the definition of CWS tier
2 sampling
sites.
The tier 1 sampling sites are differently described
for
CWS
and NTNCWS suppliers.
We have defined
“CWS
tier 1
sampling sites”,
“NTNCWS
tier
1
sampling
sites”,
“CWS tier 2
sampling sites”, “CWS tier 3 sampling sites”, and
“alternative NTNCWS sampling sites” in Section 611.356(a) (3)
based on the USEPA descriptions of each group.
The Board
has further included the CWS alternative sites that fit
within the definition of “CWS tier
2 sampling sites” within
that group.
We do not believe any additional definition of
these
terms
is
necessary for Section 611.360(a) (2)
(corresponding with 40 CFR 141.90(a) (2)) because the
reporting requirement of that Section specifically
references those portions of Section 611.356(a) (4) under
which the supplier made the determination that triggers the
reporting.
9.
In
several
places,
the
USEPA rules provide that the state
may
undertake
an
action
if
it
“concludes”
something.
Where
this
construction
appears,
the
Board
keeps
with
our standard
construction
and
use
“determines”.
One
problem
in
adapting
the
federal
lead
and
copper
rules
relates to several general exceptions built into the general
rules.
These
provisions state that the state may make a
determination
that
essentially
exempts
a
supplier
from certain
requirements.
We
have
provided
in
these
provisions for a state
determination
as “the
Agency
shall
grant
a
SEP
that
exempts
the
supplier
.
.
.
if it determines
.
.
.“.
That has been the
Board’s general approach to the drinking water rules since the
Phase I rules of docket R88-26.
However,
in the lead and copper
rules, USEPA includes three provisions that essentially state
that “a supplier is deemed
.
.
.
if
.
.
.“.
We have interpreted
this as “deemed by rule”,
so we have not provided for an Agency
grant of a SEP under these circumstances.
The exemption flows
automatically from the supplier having met the regulatory
criteria, and no Agency determination is necessary in these
instances.
These “deemed—by—rule” provisions are the following:
Section 611.350(dU2):
Any supplier that complies with
Agency—approved corrosion control treatment requirements is
deemed
in
compliance
with
optimal
corrosion
control
0 139-0 1148
17
requirements.
Section
611.351(b)
(1):
Small and medium-sized systems
meeting lead and copper action levels are not required to
complete corrosion control steps.
Section 611.351(b) (3):
Any system is deemed to have
optimized corrosion control if tap water and source water
monitoring results for two consecutive six—month monitoring
periods indicate that the difference between the 90th
percentile lead level and the highest source water lead
level
is less than the PQL.
Similarly,
40 CFR 141.86(a) (8) and
(a) (9)
(corresponding
with Section 611. 356(a) (4) (C) and
(a) (4) (D)) has suppliers make a
set
of
sampling
site
selections based on criteria set forth.
If
a
supplier
cannot
select
all
“tier
1 sampling sites”, or if it
cannot
identify
a
sufficient
number
of
lead
service
lines,
it
must
submit
justifications
to
the
Agency
pursuant
to
sections
141.86(a)
(8) and 141.90(a) (2)
(corresponding with Section
611.356(a)(C)(i)
and
(a)(C)(iii)) or 141.90(a)(4)
(corresponding
with Section 611.360(a) (4)).
Despite the informational
submissions required of suppliers, USEPA does not require the
state
to
authorize the selection of sampling sites before the
suppliers
commence
sampling.
Similarly,
the
40
CFR
141.88
(e) (1)
and
(e) (2)
(corresponding with Section 611.388(e)
(1)
and
(e) (2))
provisions for reduced source water monitoring include this
“demonstrates”
construction
without
expressly requiring state
approval
of
the reduction.
The Board has therefore not imposed a
prior SEP approval under any of these provisions.
Such a
requirement
could
unduly
burden the Agency and the suppliers
needing
to
make
these alternative selections, and the Board is
aware
that
this
segment
of
the lead and copper program is already
well underway.
On the other hand, USEPA uses “demonstrate”,
which could imply that an Agency determination
(i.e.,
a SEP) is
intended.
We
request
comments
on
these
issues.
Corrections
to
Existinct
Microbioloaical
Rules——Sections
605.101.
605.102. and 611.521
During the course of discussions with the Agency and
regulated community over assembly of the Phase IIB and lead and
copper rules proposal, errors to existing microbiological rules
were cited to the Board.
These revisit Sections 605.101,
605.102, and 611.521, each of which was involved in docket R88—
28.
The Agency stated by PC 1 that the addition of a sunset
provision to Sections 605.101 and 605.102 was an error.
These
provisions pertain to microbiological monitoring (Subpart L) and
the
language
as
amended
in
R88—26 causes them to expire when a
supplier becomes subject to the filtration and disinfection
0139-01149
18
requirements
611.Subpart
B.
The
Agency goes further in noting
that
Section
611.521 has now fully superseded these older
provisions.
We
agree
and
propose
to
repeal
both Sections.
However, we note that if
there
is
any supplier to whom these
older provisions might still apply,
a possible alternative to
repeal is to amend the preamble language of both Sections by
replacing the reference to Subpart B with a reference to the
Subpart L microbiological requirements.
The Board specifically
requests additional comment on this issue.
The Agency further noted problems with Section 611.521.
Subsection (b)includes language that would require the Agency to
reduce the
routine
coliform
monitoring
frequency
of certain small
groundwater-supplied CWS and non-CWS suppliers.
The Agency felt
that it was inappropriate to do so.
The Agency notes that prior
to the August
9,
1990
adoption
of
R88—26, Section 605.101 stated
the minimum sampling frequency was monthly, which the Agency
regards as adequate for the protection of public health.
Thus,
the pre—existing monthly—minimum sampling requirement represents
a more stringent state standard that the Board should not have
totally
repealed
in
that docket.
The Agency urges the Board to
correct
the
error and restore the more stringent state standard
by deleting the quarterly reduction language used by USEPA.
For the reasons stated by the Agency, the Board proposes
restoring the more stringent state monitoring frequency reduction
provision by deleting the federal quarterly language.
In doing
so,
we
note further that subsections
(C)
(1) and
(C)
(2)
include
similar quarterly-minimum language that the Agency attacked in
the discussions that led to the submission of PC 1.
Therefore,
we propose the deletion of that similar language, requesting that
the Agency clarify its position as to those two subsections.
If indeed the Agency desires that the Board not delete those
segments of subsections
(c) (1) and
(c)
(2),
those
provisions
further
include
certain
language
imposing
a
mandate
on
the
Department of Public Health.
At the very least, the Board would
replace
these
Section
611.521 references with references to “the
Agency”.
It has come to our attention that
the
Department
of
Public
Health
(DPH)
is
in
the
process
of
incorporating
the
provisions of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 611 in order to comply with its
segment of the federal SDWA program.
We understand that DPH will
render all references to the Agency as meaning DPH.
We request
comment on these issues.
Definitions——Sections
611.101.
611.350(a)
&
611.640
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),
and
significant
portions
of
Section
611.101
derive
from
that
section,
many
more
of
the
definitions adopted by the Board derive from
0139-0150
19
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 several definitions in response to the
federal amendments.
However,
those federal definitions are
limited in applicability to the lead and copper rules.
Therefore, the Board has proposed codifying these definitions of
limited
scope as local definitions at subsection
(a) of Section
611.350, the introductory provision of new Subpart G, which
contains the lead and copper rules.
This will help to avoid
potential confusion with the general definitions applicable
throughout
Part 611, and
it
will
more clearly limit the
applicability
of the lead and copper definitions.
Of course, the
Board has attempted to use the federal terms as exactly as
possible.
However, the rules have required occasional changes in
phraseology and the addition of a few additional definitions in
order
to
avoid confusion.
The
sole substantive amendment to Section 611.101, the
general
definitions
Section,
is
the amendment of the existing
definition of “maximum contaminant level” in response to the
federal
amendment
of
June
7,
1991, at 56 Fed. Reg.
26548.
The
definition formerly referenced Section 611.121 for the meaning.
The
proposed
amendment retains the cross—reference but also
includes
the
language
of
the
federal
definition as amended.
The
only
deviation
in
text
is the addition of the word “that”.
The
federal amendments to 40 CFR
141.2,
at
56
Fed.
Reg.
26547
(June
7,
1991), requires the addition of an entire
subsection
(a)
to the general lead and copper rules provision,
Section 611.350.
USEPA added definitions of “action level”,
“corrosion
inhibitor”,
“effective
corrosion inhibitor residual”,
“first
draw
sample”,
“large
water system”,
“lead service line”,
“medium—size
water
system”,
“optimal
corrosion
control”,
“service
line sample”,
“single family structure”, and “small water
system”.
The terms of the federal definitions of “effective
corrosion inhibitor residual”,
“large water system”, “medium—size
water system”,
“optimal corrosion control”, “single family
structure”, and “small water system” limit their applicability to
federal Subpart
I.
The meanings of the rest of these definitions
are such that their applicability is limited to the lead and
copper rules.
Therefore, we have made them all purely local
definitions restricted to the purposes of state Subpart G and
dropped all limiting language from the individual definitions
(because such language already appears in the preamble to this
subsection).
However, the Board adds definitions to further
clarify the lead and copper. rules:
“exceed”, “meet”,
“method
detection limit”
(“MDL”), “monitoring period”, “multiple—family
structure”,
“90th percentile level”, and “practical quantitation
limit”
(“PQL”).
On a definition-by-definition basis, the Board
proposes the following definitions for Section 611.350(a):
~fl
39-0 151
20
“Action level”:
The Board’s has found it necessary to
deviate from the federal language in this definition.
The
federal definition references subsection
(c)
for the actual
action levels.
The proposed Illinois definition replaces a
cross-reference with the actual numbers used by USEPA in 40
CFR 141.80(c) (1) and (c)(2).
We accomplish other, minor
changes for clarity.
~çorrosion inhibitor”:
The Board uses the federal language
without deviation.
“Effective corrosion inhibitor residual”:
The Board adds a
descriptive phrase for clarity.
“Exceed”:
The Board adds this definition,
as well as a
definition of “meet”, because throughout the text of the
lead and copper rules, USEPA refers to a supplier that
“meets” or “exceeds” the lead or copper action level as
decisive of the need for further action.
Although the Board
feels that the intended uses of these terms is close enough
to their common English meanings, we believe that defining
them enhances clarity and stresses their pointed use.
“First draw sample”:
The Board makes very minor changes
from the federal language for clarity.
“Large system”:
The Board drops the word “water” from the
phrase as redundant.
This actually eases the usage in the
text,
“large system supplier”.
We also add the limitation
“regularly provides water to” because we believe this
limitation is intended by USEPA.
The lead and copper rules
apply to CWSs and NTNCWSs.
The definitions of both of those
terms include a “regularly serves” limitation.
The. Board
does not believe that USEPA intended this definition to
apply to such public facilities as an amusement park,
restaurant,
concert hall, or sports facility, that,
although
it serves the requisite number of persons, those persons’
exposure to the water is transient.
“Lead service line”:
The Board makes only minor changes in
wording for clarity.
“Medium—sized system”:
The Board renders this as “medium—
sized” and drops “water”.
We add “regularly provides water
to”.
See discussion of “large system”.
“Meet”:
The Board adds this definition.
See discussion of
“exceed”.
“Method detection limit”
(“MDL”):
The Board adds this
definition,
consistent with its addition to Section
0139-0 152
21
611.646(a)
in R91—3
(Nov.
19,
1992).
This definition cross—
references the Section 611.646(a)
definition of this term,
then proceeds to set forth the actual numbers from 40 CFR
141.89 (a) (1) (iii).
A Board Note references the source of
this definition.
We note, however, that USEPA may have
erred in setting forth the detection limits for lead and
copper.
In 40 CFR 141.89(a) (1) (iii) (A) and
(a) (1) (iii) (B),
USEPA adds “(only if source ~ter
compositing is done under
§ 141.23(a)(4)).”
Initially,Iif no source water compositing
is done, there is no MDL for
lead
and copper.
We do not
believe that this is what USEPA intended.
Second, the Board
did not adopt the 40 CFR 141.23 (a) (4) compositing provision,
and not having a MDL for lead and copper for failure to
adopt an optional provision is not a result the Board
desires.
We request comment on this matter.
“Monitoring reriod”:
USEPA uses “monitoring period” in the
text of its lead and copper rules and in its guidance
documents.
It is possible that use of “monitoring
interval”, rather than “monitoring period”, would avoid
confusion with the use of “compliance period”, presently
defined at Section 611
•
101; used throughout Subparts K,
N,
and 0; and used in the Section 611.358 source water sampling
provisions.
Where some interval other than specifically six
months is intended
(e.g.
for Section 611.358 source water
monitoring or Section 611.360 reporting), we use “sampling
period”.
The Board believes that this change in phraseology
and the use of a definition and Board Note will avoid such
confusion.
“Mu1ti~le-familyresidence”:
The Board added this
definition to avoid possible confusion caused by the
presence of a definition of “single—family structure”.
USEPA defined the latter term, but not “multiple-family
residence”.
We infer from the wording used,
“multiple—
family residence”,
from the definition of “single-family
structure” as including commercially—used structures, and
from the lack of a definition that USEPA intends that that
term include only structures actually used as residences.
The definition makes this clear,
as well as the fact that
the focus is on the structure’s present multiple-family
residential use.
“90th Dercentile level”:
USEPA uses this phrase, without a
formal “definition”,
in the context of a determination that
has a significant substantive effect on a supplier’s lead
and copper compliance program.
The Board believes that
definition of the phrase will add clarity to the rules.
The
Board Note cites the source of this definition.
“ODtimal corrosion control”:
The Board uses the federal
language with minimal deviation.
We use “ensuring” in place
Q~39_0153
22
of “insuring”.
“Practical auantitation limit” (“POL”):
USEPA uses “PQL”
without definition.
Rather, the Board used 40 CFR 141.89-
(a) (3) and
(a) (4) and the federal preamble, at 56 Fed. Reg.
26511—12
(June
7,
1991), to define these numbers by
implication.
The numbers themselves have sufficient
substantive impact that the Board believes a definition is
desirable.
The Board Note gives the source of this
definition.
“Service line sample”:
The Board uses the federal language
without deviation.
“Single-family structure”:.
The Board makes only minor
modifications to the text of the federal definition for
greater clarity.
Further, we render the phrase as “single-
family”, rather than “single family”, throughout the text of
the rules.
“Small system”:
The Board drops “water”.
We add “regularly
provides water to”.
See discussion of “large system”.
We
make a minor correction so that “fewer” more clearly
modifies the word “persons”.
Revisions to the Analytical Methods/Incorporations by Reference
and Monitorina and Analytical Provisions——Sections 611.102,
611.359(b).
611.560(a),
611.611
611.612(f).
611.630(d),
611646(o).
611.647(j)
& 611.648(1)
&
(m)
At 56 Fed. Reg. 26560
(June
7,
1991) and 57 Fed.
Reg. 28789
(June 29,
1992) USEPA added new section 40 CFR 141.59 (a), which
sets forth the analytical methods for the lead and copper rules.
This prescribes methods for lead,
copper, pH, conductivity,
calcium,
alkalinity,
orthophosphate, silica, and temperature.
(The Board has already dealt with the USEPA July 1,
1991, 56 Fed.
Reg.
30275, amendments to the analytical procedures made as part
of the Phase II corrections and Phase IIB rules in docket R91—3/-
R92-9
(Nov.
19,
1992).)
The Board proposes codifying the
analytical methods requirements in the location parallel to that
in the federal rules, while setting forth the version information
in Section 611.102, the incorporations—by—reference Section.
This is our usual practice in identical—in—substance proceedings.
The effect of the new lead and copper rules methods is to
add new methods for copper (although the Board’s rules set forth
methods at Section 611.611 that relate to the state-only MCL for
copper), pH, conductivity, calcium,
alkalinity, orthophosphate,
silica, and temperature, and to amend the prior methods for lead,
at 40 CFR 141.89(a)
(corresponding with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
611.359(b)).
0139-01514
23
The prior federal methods for lead are still codified at 40
CFR 141.23(q) (8)
(corresponding with Section 611.612(f) (3)).
Although USEPA deleted the MCL to which the federal methods
applied, it did not delete the methods themselves.
The Board
proposes deleting the methods for lead at Section 611
•
612 (f), in
order to avoid any possible confusion with the methods at Section
611.359 (b).
As discussed with the segment on MCL5, the Board is
requesting comments on deleting the state-only copper MCL as
incompatible with the federal scheme of regulation.
If that
deletion occurs, we would follow through and delete the copper
methods relating to the state-only MCL at Section 611.611(f) (5).
Otherwise,
we will update those methods
(as subsection
(f) (4)) to
comport with those chosen by USEPA for the lead and copper
program.
The proposal includes the updated approach to the
methods.
Based on the federal action in adopting the lead and copper
rules,
the Board makes the following methods changes
(* denotes
that a parallel deletion, amendment, or addition to Section
611.102(b)
incorporations by reference is also necessary):
Lead:
Deletion of ASTM Methods D3559-78A* and D3559-78B*,
Standard Methods (14th edition) 301A (II)* and 301A (III)*
(neither any longer used for any contaminant), USEPA
Inorganic Methods 239.1 and 239.2, and ICP Method 200.7 from
Section 611.612(f) (3) and addition of ASTM Method D3559-
85D*, USEPA Inorganic Method 239.2, Standard Method (17th
edition)
3113*, ICP-MS Method 200.8*, and AA-Platform
Furnace Method 200
•
9* at Section 611.359(b) (1).
Cooter:
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Methods 220.1 and
220.2; ASTM Methods D1688—90A* and D1688—90C*; addition of
Standard Methods
(17th edition) 3111~B*,3113*, and 3120*;
ICP Method 200.7, rev.
3.2*;
ICP-MS Method 200.8*; and AA-
Platform Furnace Method 200.9* at Section 611.359(b) (2), and
updating ASTM Methods D1688-84D* and D1688-84E* to methods
D1688-90A* and D1688-90C*; Standard Methods
(16th edition)
303A,
303B*
(no longer used for any contaminant), and 304 to
methods
(17th edition) 3111-A*,
3113*, and 3120*; updating
ICP Method 200.7 to rev. 3.2* and adding ICP-MS Method
200.8* and AA-Platform Furnace Method 200.9* at Section
611.612(f) (4)
(formerly subsection
(f) (5)).
‘iii
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Method 150.1, ASTM Method
D1293-84B*,
and Standard Method (17th edition) 4500-H~*at
Section 611.359(b) (3).
Conductivity:
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Method 120.1,
ASTM Method Dl125-82B*,
and Standard Method
(17th edition)
2510* at Section 611.359(b) (4).
0 139-0 155
24
Calcium:
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Methods 215.1 and
215.2; ASTM Methods D511—88A* and D511—88B*; Standard
Methods (17th edition)
3500-Ca D*,
3111-B*, and 3120*; and
ICP Method 200.7, Rev. 3.2* to Section 611.359(b) (5).
Alkalinity:
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Method 310.1, ASTM
Method D1067—88B*, Standard Method
(17th edition) 2320*, and
USGS Method 1—1030—85 to Section 611.359(b) (6).
Orthophosohate:
Addition of USEPA Inortjanic Methods 365.1,
365.2, and 365.3; ASTM Method D515—88A* and D4327—88*;
Standard Methods
(17th edition) 4500-P E* and 4110*; USGS
Methods 1—1601—85, 1—2601—85, and 2598—85; and Ion
Chromatography Method 300.0* to Section 611.359(b) (7).
Silica:
Addition of USEPA Inorganic Method 370.1; ASTM
Method D859-88*; Standard Methods (17th edition) 4500—Si D*,
E*, and F*; USGS Methods 1-1700-85 and 1-2700—85; and ICP
Method 200.7, Rev. 3.2* to Section 611.359(b) (8).
Temperature:
Addition of Standard Method (17th edition)
2550* to Section 611.359(b) (9).
In addition to adoption of the new methods, the federal lead
and copper rules have prompted a number of unrelated chemical
analytical amendments throughout the text of several provisions
of Part 611.
The Board hopes to ease identification of these
methods in the text of the rules where their names appear.
These
changes are based on commonly used references to them.
The Board proposes renaming what formerly appeared as
“Inorganic Methods” and “Organic Methods” (“Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes” and “Methods for the Determination
of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water”), both by USEPA and cited
by USEPA as “EPA” methods, to “USEPA Inorganic Methods” and
“USEPA Organic Methods”.
We believe that using these names used
also by USEPA will more clearly identify these references where
they appear throughout the various analytical Sections.
With the advent of anew inductively-coupled plasma method,
the updating of an existing one, and a new atomic absorption
spectrometric method, we believe redesignating these methods will
more clearly identify each.
Thus, the former “Inductively
Coupled Plasma Method” becomes “ICP Method 200.7”, updated
inductively-coupled plasma method 200.7, rev. 3.2 becomes “ICP
Method 200.7, Rev.
3•2N1
new inductively-coupled plasma—mass
spectrometry method 200.8 becomes “ICP-MS Method 200.8”, and new
atomic absorption—platform furnace method 200.9 becomes “AA—
Platform Furnace Method 200.9” where each of these appear in
analytical Sections.
Similarly, the Board renders the new ion
chromatography method 300.0 as “Ion Chromatography Method 300.0”.
0139-0156
25
Special Exception Permits—-Section 611.110
The federal lead and copper regulations in two places
include mandates for a supplier to provide information to the
state on request.
These are in the context of the state
designation of optimal corrosion control, at 40 CFR 141.82 (d) (2)
(corresponding with Section 611
•
352 (d) (2)), and the state
determination of source water treatment, at 40 CFR 141.83(b) (2)
(corresponding with Section 611.353(b) (2)).
The Board does not
believe that adding this mandate to the text of the rules would
create any affirmative duty.
Whatever authority the Agency would
have to demand information would derive from the Environmental
Protection Act, and not from Board rules.
However, since this is a federal requirement that USEPA will
seek in reviewing the Illinois SDWA regulations, we believe it
necessary to codify some obligation to submit requested
information.
The Board believes that the SEP provisions is the
appropriate place for such a requirement because the Agency will
designate optimal corrosion control treatment and source water
treatment by SEP.
New subsection
(f) restates the Agency’s legal
authority in this context.
It provides that if a supplier
refuses to submit necessary additional information on request or
in a timely manner, the Agency may either deny the SEP or grant
it with conditions.
At 40 CFR 142.18
(1992), the federal rules reserve in USEPA
the authority to review and nullify Agency determinations of the
types.
These are state determinations made pursuant to 40 CFR
141.23(b),
141.23(c),
141.24(f),
141.24(h), and 141.24(n)
(corresponding with Sections 611.602, 611.603,
611.646, 611.648,
and 611.510)
and, at 40 CFR 141.82(i) and 141.83(b) (7)
(corresponding with Section 611.352(i) and 611.353(b) (7)) and
142.19
(1992), the discretion to establish federal standards for
any supplier, superseding any state determination made pursuant
to 40 CFR 141.82(d),
141.82(f),
141.83(b) (2), and 141.83(b) (4)
(corresponding with Sections 611.352(d),
611.252(f) (f),
611.353(b) (2), and 611.35.3(b) (4)).
These include state
authorizations to reduce inorganic chemical contaminant, VOC, and
SOC monitoring frequencies; to designate optimal corrosion
control and water quality parameters; and to designate source
water treatment and maximum permissible source water lead levels.
The Board has included a Board Note at Section 611.110
citing USEPA’S reservation of authority.
We also include at
Sections 611.352(i)
and 611.353(b) (7) text nearly identical to
that which appears at 40 CFR 141.82(i) and 141.83(b)(7).
The
Board does not believe that this language has any substantive
effect, but it does make USEPA’s reservation clear, and USEPA may
consider this language an essential element of the Illinois
program.
0139-0 157
26
We also make a minor correction to the existing text of
Section 611.110.
We correct segments of subsections
(b) and
(C)
as follows:
“a —SEP”, to delete the extra space.
Limitations on Board-aranted SDWA Adiusted Standards and
Variances——Sections 611.111. 611.112.
611.113
& 611.130
Similar to USEPA review of Agency SEP determinations, at 40
CFR 142.23 USEPA reserves the prerogative of reviewing and
negating Board SDWA §S 1415 and 1416 variance and adjusted
standard determinations.
As we included a note to this effect in
the Board Note to Section 611.110, the Board includes a note
relating USEPA’s section 142.23 reservation in the Board Notes to
Sections 611.111 and 611.112.
The federal lead and copper rules included amendments to 40
CFR 142.62 that impose substantive limitations on the Board’s
discretion to grant variances and exemptions
(adjusted
standards).
As a result of these amendments, the Board carefully
reviewed the federal Part 142 amendments for other, similar
substantive limitations.
Although 40 CFR 142 generally sets
forth the federal requirements for state programs and the
procedures for federal review of those programs, the Board’s
review revealed that 40 CFR 142, Subpart G does include some
additional limitations on Board discretion.
40 CFR 142, Subpart G includes a number of USEPA limitations
on a state’s discretion to grant certain relief from some of the
drinking water rules.
Most would require the state to impose
very definite conditions when granting relief.
Two of them
prohibit certain relief altogether, and one imposes a limitation
on the nature of the relief.
The provisions for which Subpart G
limits relief include the following:
inorganic chemical contaminant MCL5 of 40 CFR 141.62
(corresponding with Section 611.301),
the fluoride MCL of that section
(given separate
consideration),
the VOC and SOC MCLs of 40 CFR 141.61 (corresponding with
Section 611.311),
the TTHM MCL of 40 CFR 141.12 (corresponding with Section
611.310 to the extent that MCL applies to a CWS that apply
disinfection and which regularly serve 10,000 or more
persons),
the corrosion control treatment requirements of 40 CFR
141.81 and 141.82 (corresponding with Sections 611.351 and
611.352),
0 139-0 158
27
the source water treatment requirements of 40 CFR
141.82
(corresponding with Section 611.353),
the lead service line replacement requirements of 40 CFR
141.84
(corresponding with Section 611.354),
the 40 CFR 141.63 MCL for total coliforms (corresponding
with Section 611.325), and
the filtration and disinfection requirements of 40 CFR 141,
Subpart H and 141.72(a) (3) and
(b) (2)
(corresponding with
Subpart B and Sections 611.241(c) and 611.242(b),
respectively).
The federal restrictions vary according to the requirement
from which relief is sought and the type of relief sought:
A S1415(a)
(.~
(A) variance from an inorganic chemical
contaminant, a SOC. or a VOC MCL of 40 CFR 141.61 or 141.62:
The supplier must have first applied BAT, unless the
supplier can demonstrate that application of the best
available control technology
(BAT) would result in only a
“de minimis”
reduction in contaminant.
If the supplier has
not applied BAT, a condition to relief must require ongoing
examination of specified alternative methods for reduction.
If a “technically feasible” method becomes apparent, the
supplier must apply that alternative.
The State may impose
a condition requiring the supplier to use bottled water,
point-of—use devices, or point—of-entry devices to avoid
unreasonable risk to public health.
(40 CFR 142.62.)
A c1415(a) (1) (A) variance from the TTHM MCL of 40 CFR 141.61
and the fluoride MCL of 141.62:
A condition to relief must
require the supplier to apply BAT, unless the supplier can
show that BAT is not “available and effective” for TTHM or
fluoride control.
If the supplier does not apply BAT, a
condition to relief must require ongoing examination of
specified alternative methods for reduction.
If an
alternative method appears “available and effective”, the
supplier must apply that alternative.
The State may
impose a condition requiring the supplier to use bottled
water,
point—of—use devices, or point-of—entry devices to
avoid unreasonable risk to public health.
(40 CFR 142.60.)
Any variance or exemotion from the optimal corrosion control
treatment reauirements of 40 CFR 141.81 or 141.82:
The
State may impose a condition requiring the supplier to use
bottled water or point—of—use devices to avoid unreasonable
risk to public health, but the state may not require the use
of point-of—entry devices.
(40 CFR 142.62(f).)
Any variance or exemption from the source water treatment
0139-0 159
28
requirements of 40 CFR 141.83 and the lead service line
requirements of 40 CFR 141.84:
The State may impose a
condition requiring the supplier to use point-of-entry
devices to avoid unreasonable risk to public health.
However, the supplier must assure that the use will not
cause increased corrosion of lead— and copper—bearing
materials so as to cause increased contaminant levels at the
tap.
(40 CFR 142.62(f)
& (h)(7).)
If bottled water is used pursuant to a condition of relief
from an MCL or from the corrosion control treatment
source
water treatment,
or service line reolacement reauirements:
The supplier must monitor the water annually for all
contaminants and report the results annually to the state.
The supplier must receive the bottled water supplier’s
certification the bottled water supplier is an FDA-approved
source, that it monitors the water provided in compliance
with FDA regulations, and that the water complies with the
FDA rules, and the supplier must provide all persons on its
distribution system with “sufficient quantities” of bottled
water by door-to-door delivery.
(40 CFR 142.62(g).)
If a point—of—entry or ooint—of—use device is used pursuant
to a condition of relief from the source water treatment or
service line replacement requirements:
The supplier must
assure the state that it will properly operate and maintain
the device; that the use will provide equivalent health
protection; that the supplier will assure the
microbiological safety of the use; that is has adequate
standards of performance; that it has field tested the
device; that it has conducted an engineering design review;
that the operation and maintenance of the devices will
account for any.increased microbiological activity due to
the device; that it will provided those on its distribution
system with sufficient devices properly installed,
maintained, and monitored to protect all persons; and,
if a
point-of-entry device required for relief from the treatment
requirements of the lead and copper rules, that no increased
corrosion will occur to lead and copper bearing materials in
its distribution system through the use of the devices so
that elevated lead and copper levels result at the tap.
(The state may not require a supplier to use a point—of-
entry device as a condition of relief from corrosion control
treatment requirements.)
(40 CFR 142.62 (h).)
Limitation of variances and exemotions from total coliform
I4CL:
A state may not grant a variance or exemption
(adjusted standard) from the MCL for total coliforms unless
the violation is due to inadvertent persistent growth.
(40
CFR 142.63.)
Prohibition against variances from the filtration and
0139-0 160
29
disinfection requirements or exemptions from the residual
disinfectant concentration reauirements:
A state may not
grant an exemption (adjusted standard)
from the residual
disinfectant concentration requirements.
(40 CFR 142.64.)
Of all the substantive limitations
in 40 CFR 142, Subpart G,
only those of section 142.62(f)
and (h)(7)
are new at 56 Fed.
Reg. 26562
(June 7,
1991).
These new restrictions relate to the
use of point—of-use and point-of—entry devices for relief from
the lead and copper rules.
The balance of the restrictions in
this federal subpart evolved with the federal drinking water
program
USEPA adopted the section 142.60 provisions relating to
relief from the TTHN MCL on Feb.
28,
1983
(48 Fed. Reg. 4814).
USEPA adopted section 142.61, relative to relief from the
fluoride MCL on April 2,
1986
(51 Fed. Reg. 11411).
Both
sections have thus remained without amendment.
USEPA adopted the section 142.62 provision relative to SOC5
with the Phase I rules, on July 8, 1987
(52 Fed. Reg. 25716),
making corrective amendments on July 1,
1988
(53 Fed.
Reg.
25111).
•USEPA amended it with the Phase II rules on January 30,
1991
(56 Fed. Reg.
3596).
Those amendments dropped the
applicability to “synthetic organic chemicals”,
in the generic
sense,
in favor of applicability to VOC5 and SOCs,
as used in the
Phase II rules.
The references to the BATS became contaminant—
specific, renumbering of subsections occurred, and the wording
changed for certain of the renumbered subsection
(h) restrictions
relating to point—of-use and point-of-entry devices.
With the
lead and copper rules, on June 7,
1991
(56 Fed. Reg. 26563),
USEPA added the limitation to subsection
(f) that suppliers could
not use point—of—entry devices as a condition for relief from the
lead and copper corrosion control treatment requirements, while
allowing their use as a condition to relief from the service line
replacement or source water treatment requirements.
USEPA also
added paragraph
(h) (7), which requires assurance that any use of
a point-of—entry device as a condition to relief not cause
increased corrosion of lead— and copper—bearing materials so as
to increase contaminant levels at the tap.
USEPA adopted the section 142.63 ban on variances and
exemptions (adjusted standards)
from the MCL for total coliforms
and the similar section 142.64 ban with regard to disinfection
and filtration requirements in separate actions on June 29,
1989
(54 Fed. Reg.
27568
& 27540, respectively).
USEPA subsequently
amended section 142.63 on January 15,
1991
(56 Fed. Reg.
1557),
staying its effect for certain systems that can demonstrate that
their violation of the total coliform MCL is due to persistent
growth, rather than from fecal or pathogenic contamination, from
a treatment lapse, or from operational or maintenance problems.
0139-0161
30
We note that in the Phase
I corrections, USEPA required the
Board to adopt the limitations of 40 C?R 142.63 and 142.64 in
order to maintain Phase I primacy.
(See November 19,
1992
opinion and order in R91-3/R92-9).
The Board had not included
these two restrictions in docket R88-26.
USEPA cited this as a
programmatic deficiency that threatened state primacy unless
corrected.
The Board adopted them in the docket R92-9 Phase
.1
corrections because we did not want to lose state primacy in this
program.
From that experience the Board learned that USEPA.
considers some of the 40 CFR 142, Subpart G provisions as
substantive limitations that it considers essential elements
of.
the state program.
The Board believes that the rest of the federal Subpart G
provisions are substantive limitations on state authority to
grant variances and exemptions
(adjusted standards).
We also
believe that as substantive limitations,
it is within the
interest of the state that the Board adopt them in order to
maintain state primacy.
The balance of the Subpart G
restrictions appear very similar to those of sections 142.63 and
142.64, with the exception that the these two sections that USEPA
has already required the state to adopt are outright prohibitions
against relief, whereas the balance of the provisions appear as
limitations on relief granted.
We do not perceive this as a
distinction with a difference.
Thus, the Board believes we are
required to adopt them in order to maintain state primacy.
For
this reason we propose not only the limitations adopted by USEPA
with lead and copper, but also the pre-existing Phase
I and Phase
II segments of this section..
The Board’s approach to the federal limitations on state
authority to grant variance or exemption (adjusted standard)
relief has been to try to retain the essence of the federal
language while compressing the entire federal ~subpart into a
single section.
This is possible by rewording the limitations
and using cross—references to other Sections for BAT where
possible.
Because sections 142.60,
142.61, and 142.62(e) require
the state to impose an alternative treatment when one appears
viable, we have added,
as subsections
(a) (2) and
(a) (3),
(b) (2)
and
(b) (3), and
(C)
(2) and
(c) (3), paired duties for the supplier
to submit results of ongoing investigations to the Agency and for
the Agency to petition the Board to reconsider the relief if it
determines that the alternative treatment viable.
We referenced
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.Subpart K for the authority for the Agency
to move for reconsideration, without intending to foreclose the
Agency from being able to do so if it makes the necessary finding
relative to an alternative method.
The Board has placed all the restrictions in new Section
611.130 as follows:
Subsection
(a) derives from 40 CFR 141.60.
This relates to
0139-0162
31
the application of BAT as a condition to relief from the MCL
for TTHM.
USEPA uses the phrase “available and effective”
as the key to whether application of BAT is required,
it
then goes on to define this as “technically appropriate and
technically feasible for that system or would only result in
a marginal reduction in TTHN for the system”.
The Board
drops the “available and effective” phrase in favor of using
the definitional language directly.
We note (and add
language to subsection
(b) (1) and to the Board Note to this
subsection) that this limitation applies only to certain
suppliers.
USEPA regulates TTHM for CWS suppliers that add
a disinfectant at any stage of treatment and which regularly
provide water to 10,000 or more persons.
Subsection
(bi derives from 40 CFR 141.61.
This relates to
the application of BAT as a condition to relief from the NCL
,for fluoride.
It is very similar to the provision for TTHM,
except “available and effective” means “technically
appropriate and technically feasible for the system” in the
changed context.
This provision applies only to CWS
suppliers.
We have revised the language accordingly.
Subsection
(c) corresponds with 40 CFR 142.62(a) through
(e).
These subsections apply to the CWS and NTNCWS
suppliers’ application of BAT as a predicate or condition to
relief from an inorganic chemical contaminant, a VOC, or a
SOC MCL.
As for the TTHM and fluoride provisions of section
142.60 and 142.61,
it imposes an ongoing obligation to seek
an alternative means of contaminant reduction as a condition
to relief,
unless the supplier makes a necessary showing.
The showing, however,
is not “available and effective”.
Rather, the supplier must show that application of BAT would
only, result in a
“de minimis
reduction in contaminants”.
The Board has rendered this as “minimal and insignificant
reduction in the level of contaminant”.
The Board cross—
references other, existing provisions for identification of
BAT for the contaminants.
Subsection
(d) corresponds with 40 CFR 142.62(f).
This
provision allows a state to require the use of bottled
water, point—of—entry devices, or point—of—use devices to
avoid an unreasonable risk to public health when granting
relief from an inorganic chemical contaminant, a VOC, or a
SOC MCL.
Originally, this provision did not appear to limit
state discretion.
However,
as amended with the lead and
copper rules,
it includes an expressed limitation on the use
of devices.
It expressly prohibits the use of point-of-
entry devices as a condition to an exemption (adjusted
standard) from the corrosion control treatment requirements.
It states that the state may require their use as a
condition to relief from the source water treatment or lead
service line requirements, which may implicitly limit the
0L39-0163
32
similar use of point—of—use devices for this purpose, but
the Board cannot now determine whether this is true.
Subsection
(e) corresponds with 40 CFR 142.62(g).
This
provision includes restrictions that the state must impose
on those using bottled water as a condition to relief.
Those using bottled water as a condition to relief must
either initiate testing for the inorganic chemical
contaminants, the VOCs, and the SOCs and provide sufficient
water door—to—door to all persons on its system, or the
supplier must obtain certain assurances from a supplier of
FDA-approved bottled water that complies with FDA rules and
assure adequate door—to—door provision to all persons it
serves.
In drafting, federal paragraph
(g) (1)
became
subsection
(e) (1) through
(e) (3), paragraph
(g) (2) became
subsections
(e) (4) and
(e) (5), and paragraph
(g) (3) became
(e) (6).
The Board omitted the portion of federal paragraph
(g) (2) that provided that a sister state’s monitoring
program was sufficient.
If the Board were to codify this,
we would expand the subsection by adding a new subsection
(e) (6) and making proposed subsection
(e) (6) into subsection
(e) (7).
However, Illinois administrative law would not
allow us to grant a blanket approval to all sister state’s
bottled water monitoring programs.
Subsection
(f) corresponds with 40 CFR 142.62(h).
This
provision includes limitations on the use of point—of—entry
and point-of—use devices as a condition to relief.
The
unique aspect of this set of restrictions is that they apply
to any PWS granted relief from a National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation
(NPDWR), not just from lead and copper or
MCL requirements.
The thrust of the requirements is to
assure proper installation, operation, and maintenance of
these devices, that their use does not result in increased
heterotrophic bacteria growth, and that their use does not
cause corrosion that will elevate lead and copper levels at
the tap.
The Board has not included the essence of 40 CFR 142.63 and
142.64 in Section 611.130 because we believe that the present
language in Sections 611.112 and 611.113 adequately addresses
their restrictions.
At Sections 611.111(g),
611.112(h), and
611
•
113 (f) we have added a statement that the provisions of
Section 611.130 apply to relief granted under those Sections.
Use of Bottled Water and Point-of-entry Devices-—Sections 611.280
& 611.290
The Board has added the restriction on the use of point-of-
entry devices as a condition to relief, added June 7,
1991 at 56
Fed.
Reg. 26564 as 40 CFR 142.62(h) (7), to the Section 611.280
provision regarding these devices.
Section 611.280 derives from
0139-01614
33
40 CFR 141.100.
USEPA did not amend this provision with the lead
and copper rules.
However, the Board believes the restriction
against increased lead and copper levels at the tap through the
use of these devices is desirable and well within USEPA’s intent
in imposing the restriction on the states’ granting variance and
exemption relief.
The text of 40 CFR 141.100(b)
through
(e)
parallels that of 40 CFR 142
•
62(h) (1) through
(h) (6).
We believe
that USEPA did not similarly add the language of 40 CFR
142
•
62(h) (7) as 40 CFR 141.100(f) through oversight.
We
therefore added it.
We further note that Section 611
•
280(c) (3) limits use of
point—of—entry devices to use pursuant to a SEP.
We amend the
language of this subsection to read according to what has evolved
to become our present standard language in this regard:
Use of point-of-entry devices must be approved by
apocial exception pormita SEP aranted by the Agency
oursuant to Section 611.110.
Section 611.290 derives from 40 CFR 141.101.
USEPA did not
amend this provision in the current period.
40 CFR 141.101 (and
Section 611.290)
includes a prohibition against the use of point—
of—use devices or bottled water as a means of compliance with an
MCL.
It allows the temporary use of these devices or water to
avoid an unreasonable risk to health.
The Board has found minor
problems with this provision that we now try to remedy.
Initially,
the Board notes that the federal (and Illinois)
section heading does not optimally describe the contents of the
section.
We have amended the heading to read “Use of Point-of—
Use Devices or Bottled Water”.
We feel this is superior because
bottled water is not
‘a “device” in the mechanical sense by which
this’ phrase is commonly understood.
Second, we note that the use of point—of—entry devices,
under Section 611.280, requires a SEP.
we
believe it desirable
that a supplier obtain Agency approval before using any exception
from the general rule.
The general rule prohibits the use of
bottled water or point-of-use devices to comply with a MCL.
The
exception is the permissive use to avoid an unreasonable risk to
health.
We have amended this Section by adding language to
subsection
(b) requiring prior Agency approval by the SEP
mechanism.
The Agency SEP approval process works efficiently
enough that we do not believe this restriction significantly
impedes the use of this water or these devices where necessary to
avoid the unreasonable risk to health.
Finally, we note that 40 CFR 142.62(g)
imposes a number of
restrictions on the state’s discretion to allow an exemption
(adjusted standard) or variance that allows the use of bottled
water or point—of—use devices.
If this federal provision does
0139-0165
34
not apply to Section 611.290 decisions to allow the use, the
Board believes that it is at least desirable that it apply to
Agency determinations in the same way it would apply to Board
determinations.
Therefore, we add new subsection
(c) that
renders the substantive limitations of Section 611.130(e)
applicable to Agency determinations to allow the use of bottled
water or point-of-use devices.
Since Section 611.130(e)
contemplates Board review, we specifically reference that the
compliance plan is submitted for Agency review, rather than for
Board review.
Alternative Treatment Techniques--Section 611.297
One significant segment of the lead and copper rules is
corrosion control treatment.
The Board added Subpart D in R91-3
to accommodate NPDWRs keyed to a treatment technique, rather than
a MCL.
At that time, the only such requirements were the
treatment polymer application restrictions of 40 CFR 141, Subpart
K (sections 141.110 and 141.111),.for unreacted epichlorohydrin
and acrylamide monomers.
Although USEPA did not add any
reference to the corrosion control treatment techniques segments
of the lead and copper rules to this subpart.
The Board proposes
doing so in the interest of helping the regulated community more
readily recognize and locate those requirements.
Treatment of
water to control the lead and copper content of water appears
very like a treatment technique such as polymer application to
control exposure to unreacted monomers.
Further, we do not wish
to disrupt the cohesive structure of the lead and copper rules at
Subpart G by relocating the corrosion control provisions to
Subpart D.
MCL5——Sections 611.300,
611.301. and 611.311
Section 611.300 derivesfrom 40 CFR 141.11, amended by USEPA
at 56 Fed. Reg. 26548
(June 7,
1991)
and 56 Fed. Reg.
30274
(July
1,
1991).
The Board dealt in part with both sets of federal
amendments by adding statements as to the future expiration of
the MCLs for lead and barium.
We now delete that language along
with the MCLs for those two contaminants.
In amending Section 611.300 in response to the lead and
copper rules, the Board is requesting comments as to whether we
should delete the “additional state requirement” for copper in
light of the new lead and copper rules.
This MCL is potentially
not consistent with the federal requirements.
The federal rules
may also render the copper MCL superfluous.
The federal rules
require determination of the 90th percentile copper level to
determine compliance.
The state—only MCL for copper applies to
any single sample of water.
It is possible that the state-only
copper MCL would render the state program inconsistent with the
federal scheme because the monitoring frameworks are so
different, and the methods for determining compliance are so
0139-0 166
35
different.
The Agency, by PC 1, states that retention of the state-only
copper MCL would render the Illinois regulations less stringent
than the federal SDWA rules.
The Agency cites the inconsistency
with the federal scheme for copper.
It further notes that copper
contamination generally results from corrosion of household
plumbing.
Although we do not propose the deletion at this time,
we note the Agency’s public comment on this issue and state that,
unless additional public comments convince us otherwise, we are
inclined to ultimately follow the Agency’s suggestion.
We do not
yet follow the Agency’s suggestion so we can exhibit additional
proposed language in case the Board ultimately determines to
leave the copper MCL intact.
That language is an added Board
Note to this Section that would explain the existence of the
federal lead and copper action levels and the reason we would
have retained the state—only MCL for copper.
the Board
specifically requests public comment on these issues.
Section 611.301 derives from 40 CFR 141.62, amended by USEPA
at 56 Fed. Reg.
30280
(July
1,
1991).
The Board dealt in part
with these amendments in R91-3.
We now add the new MCL for
barium and revise the MCL for fluoride to read 4.0 mg/l (adding
the additional significant digit.
We further amend the entry for
asbestos so that we now use the standard abbreviation “NFL” in
place of “million fibers/L (longer that 10 micrometers)”, which
is subsumed by the definition of NFL in Section 611.101.
Section 611.311 derives from 40 CFR 141.61, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed.
Reg.
30280
(July
1,
1991).
USEPA added MCL5 for
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, and
pentachlorophenol.
On May 27,
1992, at 56 Fed. Reg. 22178, USEPA
indefinitely stayed the effectiveness of the aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone MCL5.
US’EPA made it clear in
granting the ‘stay that the monitoring requirements for these
three SOC5 would promptly go into effect on January
1,
1993.
We
adopt all four MCL5.
We adopted the BAT listings for all four
contaminants in R91—3, however,
it is necessary to move the
listing for pentachlorophenol to its proper alphabetical
position.
We add language to the Board Note to subsection
(c)
that notes an administrative stay until further action by the
Board.
We reference the parallel federal provision and the May
37,
1992 stay.
This is similar to the approach taken by the
Board in our August 26,
1991 order in RCRA docket R91-1, when
confronted with a similar federal stay.
(See 125 PCB 117, 128
&
224—26.)
Lead and CoPper:
General Provisions——Section 611.350
Section 611.350 derives from 40 CFR 141.80, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed.
Reg.
26549, on June 7,
1991, corrected at 56 Fed.
Reg.
32113, on July 15,
1991, and amended at 57 Fed. Reg.
28788,
on
0139-0 167
36
June 29,
1992.
It sets forth the general lead and copper
requirements.
The preceding general discussion considers the
substantive aspects of this Section,
so this discussion will
focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal format and
language.
Subsections
(a) and
(c) through
(k) correspond
linearly with the federal subsections.
The Board has changed
subsection
(b) as described below.
To accommodate the changed structure and keep with our usual
practice of pairing scope and applicability statements, the Board
has rendered federal subsection
(b)
(“Scope”) as subsection
(a) (2).
Since the federal effective date of November 9,
1992 in
this provision is now past, the Board has omitted federal
paragraph
(a) (2).
The Illinois lead and copper rules will become
effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
In subsection
(a) we have omitted the “Unless otherwise indicated” in the
applicability statement.
The Subpart applies generally to CWSS
and NTNCWSS, as stated in the federal and the Board’s proposed
texts.
If any other provision applies to a smaller universe,
as
do Sections 611.355(c) (2) through (c)(5), 611.356(a) (4) (A)
through
(a) (4) (C), and 611.360(a) (2) and
(a) (3), statements
within those provisions will limit their applicability.
This
renders the federal limiting phrase at this location superfluous,
so we have omitted it.
For the reasons discussed earlier, we rendered the federal
definitions as subsection
(b), and we added other definitions for
clarity.
We do not repeat the discussion of the definitions
here.
In subsection
(c)
is revised by changing the federal
wording.
In subsections
(a) (1) and
(a) (2), we drop the federal
cross—referential language for computation of the 90th percentile
level because the added definition includes it.
Subsection
(c) (3)
is phrased in the active voice, imposing the duty on the
supplier to calculate this level.
Subsection
(c) (3) (B) includes
added language relative to determining the ordinal number of the
90th percentile sample because that is the object of this
arithmetic computation.
The changes from the federal text for subsections
(e)
through
(g) are very minor.
In light of the Board’s choice in
viewing a “system” as a thing and a “supplier” as a responsible
person, we have rendered the federal “system exceeding” as
“supplier whose system exceeds”.
In subsection
(k), the Board has rendered the federal
language relating to “requirements established by the State” to
read “conditions imposed by the Agency by special exception
permit”.
This focuses on the Illinois chosen vehicle for
imposing any requirements on a site—specific basis that the Board
can only provide for broadly on a state—wide basis by
0139-0168
37
establishing a regulatory basis for site-specific determinations.
Lead and Copper:
Corrosion Control Treatment Provisions--
Sections 611.351
& 611.352
Sections 611.351 and 611.252 derive from 40 CFR 141.81 and
141.82, added by USEPA at 56 Fed.
Reg. 26549 and 26550, on June
7,
1991.
Together they set forth the corrosion control treatment
requirements.
The preceding general discussion considers the
substantive aspects of these Sections, so this discussion will
focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal format and
language.
The Board’s chosen structure remains largely parallel with
that of the federal rules.
The only exception to this is that we
have subdivided subsection
(C)
into five subsections,
(c) (1),
(c)(1)(A),
(c)(1)(B),
(c)(2), and (c)(3).
To the parentheticals
at. subsections
(a) (1) and
(a) (2) describing large, medium-sized,
and small system suppliers, the Board has added the same
“regularly serving” language added to the definition of these
entities.
We have added “one of” to the end of subsection
(a) (2)
for clarity; provided for “equivalent activities” determinations
at subsection
(b) (2) by providing (in the active voice) that the
Agency “shall deem”
if it “determines that”,
as is our common
construction; punctuation using commas is shifted in subsection
(b) (3); segments of subsection
(c) and
(e) are reworded for
clarity; and references to SEP5 are added to subsections
(b)(2),
(c)
,
(d) (3)
,
(e) (2)
,
(e) (4)
,
and
(e) (7)
The structure of the federal rules has required the Board to
break with our standard practice and retain one past effective
date at subsection
(d)(1).
40 CFR 141.81(d) (1)
requires that
suppliers must have completed the initial monitoring by January
1,
1993.
Because the balance of subsection
(d) carries a time—
line forward from this point, we felt that deleting this date
would substantively alter the entire scheme embodied in the
entire subsection.
We included a Board Note explaining this
inclusion.
A noteworthy deviation from the federal language appears at
Section 611.352 (h).
The federal language would have almost
required the Agency to formally consider modifying its treatment
decision if a third party submitted a written request along with
supporting information.
Because this would raise issues of Board
review of Agency permit decisions and other related issues under
Sections 39 and 40 of the Act, the Board changed the structure.
As drafted, the Agency may modify its decision on its own
initiative or in response to a request by the supplier.
Under
these circumstances, Sections 39 and 40 would apply.
However, at
added subsection
(h) (4), we provide that “any interested person
may submit information to the Agency bearing on whether the
Agency should
.
.
.
modify its determination
.
.
.
.“
We
0139-0169
38
expressly provide that an Agency determination not to act on this
submitted information is not an Agency determination for the
purposes of Sections 39 and 40.
In adding
(i), we state that
USEPA “has reserved the prerogative” because the use of “may”
appears as though the Board is granting an authorization to
USEPA.
An alternative is to delete this paragraph altogether,
however, we believe its inclusion warns the regulated community
of the fact that USEPA could modify or negate the Agency
determination.
We request comment on these issues.
Lead and Copper:
Source Water Treatment Provisions-—Section
~1.
1
•
353
Section 611.353 derives from 40 CFR 141.83, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed. Reg. 26552, on June 7, 1991.
It sets forth the source
water treatment requirements.
The preceding general discussion
considers the substantive aspects of this Section, so this
discussion will focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal
format and language.
We have found it necessary in rendering,
this provision to subdivide federal paragraphs
(b)(2)
(b)(4), and
(b) (6) into subsections to enhance their clarity.
As for Section
611.352 (i),
in adding federal paragraph
(b) (7), we state that
USEPA “has reserved the prerogative” because the use of “may”
appears as though the Board is granting an authorization to
USEPA.
An alternative
is to delete this paragraph altogether,
however, we believe its inclusion warns the regulated community
of the fact that USEPA could modify or negate the Agency
determination.
We request comment on these issues.
Lead and Copper:
Lead Service Line Replacement Provisions—-
Section 611.354
Section 611.354 derives from 40 CFR 141.84, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed. Reg.
26552,
on June 7,
1991, and amended at 57 Fed.
Reg. 28788, on June 29, 1992.
This Section sets forth the lead
service line replacement requirements.
The preceding general
discussion considers the substantive aspects of this Section, so
this discussion will focus on the Board’s deviations from the
federal format and language.
The Board has found it necessary to
subdivide most of the federal subsections and to add subsection
headers to enhance readability.
We have also reworded the first
sentence of subsection
(b)
(subsection
(b) (1)),
a few sentences
of subsection
(d), the end of subsection
(e)
(subsection
(e) (2)),
and segments of subsections
(f) and
(g)
(subsections
(f) (1),
(g) (1), and
(g) (2)) to enhance the clarity of these provisions.
Otherwise, the Board adheres to the structure and language while
retaining the substance of the federal provision.
Lead and Copper:
Public Education and Supplemental Monitoring
Provisions--Sections 611.355
& 611.A~pendixE
Sections 611.355 and 611.Appendix E derive from 40 CFR
0139-0170
39
141.85, added by USEPA at 56 Fed. Reg. 26553,
on June 7,
1991,
and amended at 57 Fed. Reg.
28788, on June 29,
1992.
These
Sections set forth the public education requirements for the lead
and copper rules.
The preceding general discussion considers the
substantive aspects of this Section, so this discussion will
focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal format and
language.
The only significant shift in structure to this
Section is to place the entirety of the required notice of
federal subsection
(a)
into a new Appendix E.
The Board could
not retain the structure of the required notice and retain it as
subsection
(a).
Further, this notice is lengthy.
In subsection
(b) we use “broadcast”
in place of “broadcasting” because this is
more grammatically correct.’
We have added mandatory language at
the end of subsection
(C) (2) that did not appear in the federal
text, rendered “fails to meet” as “exceeds” in subsection
(c) (2),
added “required by” to subsections
(c) (2) (A) and
(c) (2) (B), added
“the” to subsection
(c) (2) (C)
(ii),
added the abbreviation
“
(WIC)”
to subsection
(C)
(2) (C)
(iii),
and rendered “if” as “after” and
“recommence” as “begin anew” in subsection
(c) (6).
The Board
restructured subsection
(c) (3), subdividing this subsection, to
clarify the required actions and associated frequencies.
The Board wishes to highlight a potential error in federal
subsection
(c) (4).
Federal paragraph
(c) (4) references “the
public education materials contained in paragraphs
(a) (1),
(2),
and
(4)
of this section” as the public education required of
NTNCWS5.
The cited paragraphs are the introductory, health
effects, and exposure reduction portions of the required lead
notice (codified as Appendix E).
We believe it possible that
USEPA intended to cite paragraphs
(c) (2) (i),
(c) (2) (ii), and
(c) (2) (iv), requiring notice to schools, the health department,
and hospitals.
We have left the references as drafted by USEPA,
so that it now requires an
NTNCWS
to post and distribute only a
part of the public notice, but we request comment on this issue.
Lead and CoPper:
TaD Water Monitorina Provisions-—Sections
611.356. 611.Table D.
611.Table E
& 611.Table Z
Sections 611.356, 611.Table D, and 611.Table Ederives frc~
40 CFR 141.86, added by USEPA at 56 Fed. Reg.
26555, on June 7,
1991, àorrected at 56 Fed. Reg. 32113, on July 15,
1991, and
amended at 57 Fed.
Reg. 28788, on June 29,
1992.
They set forth
the tap water monitoring requirements for lead and copper.
The
preceding general discussion considers the substantive aspects of
this Section, so this discussion will focus on the Board’s
deviations from the federal format and language.
This Section
proved the most problematic in drafting.
As for Section 611.355,
the Board found it necessary to subdivide the subsections and to
add subsection headings for clarity.
The major problems,
however,
involved the language and structure of federal
paragraphs
(a) (3),
(a) (4), and
(d) (4).
0139-0171
40
The first sentence of federal paragraph
(a) (1) was divided
into two subsections for clarity and ease of reading.
We
rendered the second and third sentences of this subsection’in the
active voice,
and added “or capable of removing” to the last
sentence.
The Board can envision the use of some devices, such
as activated carbon, that are designed to remove organic
contaminants but also are capable of removing lead or copper.
The Board has left the citation to 40 CFR 141.42(d)
intact
in subsections
(a) (2) (A) and
(a) (2) (B).
This is a federal
requirement for special monitoring for corrosivity that the Board
did not adopt in R88-26 because its deadlines were past.
There
is no parallel state provision to cite, so we use the federal
cite.
Significant in the Board’s deviations from the federal
structure in rendering subsection
(a) (3)
is adding clarity to
defining the sampling tier structure.
We refer the reader to the
discussion on page 16 for how the Board defined and applied the
tier structure.
This has led to extensive rewording and
restructuring of subsections
(a) (3) and (a) (4), while attempting
to remain identical in substance to the federal rules and retain
a parallel structure.
The federal language mixes the definitions
and sample pool selection provisions throughout paragraphs
(a) (3)
through
(a) (9).
In the restructured provisions, the Board has
included all definitions at subsection
(a) (3) and the sampling
pool selection provisions at
(a) (4).
Federal paragraphs
(a) (4)
through
(a) (9) have, more or less linearly, become subsections
(a)(4)(A) through
(a)(4)(D).
Subsection (a)(4)(A) sets forth the
selection criteria for CWS suppliers,
subsection
(a) (4) (B) sets
forth the criteria for
NTNCWS
suppliers,
subsection
(a) (4) (C)
is
the provision that requires suppliers to justify the use of
anything other than tier 1 sampling sites, and subsection
(a) (4) (D)
is the special requirement for using sampling sites
with lead service lines.
The revisions to subsection
(b) and
(C)
are fairly minor.
In subsection
(b) (2) (E) the active voice is used.
We add
“calculated as being” to subsection
(b) (3) (B) (i) and “single
family Structure”
(the term actually defined by USEPA)
in place
of “single family residence”
in subsection
(b) (3) (B) (iii).
To
subsection
(b) (4) (A) the Board adds “follow—up”, since it was
follow-up sampling that USEPA intended.
We have reworded and
restructured subsection
(c)
for clarity and ease of reading by
incorporating the table of 40 CFR 141.86(c)
into new Section
611.Table D, rearranging the prepositional phrases, and adding
“six—month” and “reduced” to differentiate the monitoring periods
intended.
This has made it necessary to renumber former Table D
into Table
Z.
Similarly, most of the revisions to subsections
(d) and
(e)
are minor, with the exception of the rewording and restructuring
0139-0172
41
of subsection
(b) (4).
We have incorporated the table of 40 CFR
141.86(d)
into new Section 61l.Table E.
We added subsection
headings.
We added “consecutive”, “action level”, and “each of”
to subsection
(d) (1) (B),
(d) (1) (E), and
(e) where necessary for
clarity.
We subdivided subsections (d)(4)(B) and (d)(4)(C) to
accommodate the Board’s standard, active—voice SEP provision
format.
We added references to subsection
(d) (4) (B) (i)
throughout the other subsections of
(d) (4) (B)
for clarity because
of the proximity to subsection
(d) (4) (C), in which a different
determination is made.
The Board specifically requests public
comment on its approach to this Section.
Lead and CopPer:
Water Quality Monitoring Provisions--Section
611.357. 611.Table F
& 611.Table G
Sections 611.357, 611.Table F, and 611.Table G derives from
40 CFR 141.87, added by USEPA at 56 Fed. Reg. 26557, on June 7,
1991, and amended at 57 Fed. Reg.
28788, on June 29,
1992.
They
set forth the water quality monitoring provisions for corrosion
control.
The preceding general discussion considers the
substantive aspects of this Section, so this discussion will
focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal format and
language.
The Board has subdivided subsections
(a) (2) (B),
(b),
(C),
(d), and
(e) (2) and added subsection headings for clarity.
Similar to Section 611.356, the Board has used the active voice
and added phrases like “six—month”, “annual”, “action level”,
“original
.
.
.it seeks to confirm”, and “it took” to various
passages for clarity.
The tables 40 CFR 141.87(a)(2),
(e), and
(f) are codified as new Sections 611.Table F
(40 CFR 141.87(a) (2)
and ~e) together) and 611.Table G.
The information in ‘Table G is
noted by USEPA as being for illustrative purposes only; it
summarizes the narrative requirements rather than independently
imposing any requirements.
The Board could omit this table
altogether, and we request comments on whether we should do so.
At 57 Fed. Reg. 28788, USEPA amended subsection
(e) (2) to
provide for triennial monitoring for suppliers that maintain the
range of water quality parameters for three consecutive annual
reduced monitoring periods.
However,
it did not add a reference
to paragraph
(e) (3) requiring a supplier sampling triennially to
sample to reflect seasonal variation, as it does for a supplier
sampling annually.
The Board has added this requirement by
referencing triennial monitoring in subsection
(e) (3).
The Board
specifically requests public comment on its approach to Section
611.357.
Lead and Copper:
Source Water Monitoring Provisions——Section
611.358
Section 611.358 derives from 40 CFR 141.88, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed. Reg.
26559, on June 7,
1991,
and amended at 57 Fed.
Reg.
28788, on June 29,
1992.
This Section sets forth the source
0 139-0 173
42
water monitoring requirements for lead and copper.
The preceding
general discussion considers the substantive aspects of this
Section, so this
discussion
will focus on the Board’s deviations
from the federal format and language.
As for the other Sections,
the Board has engaged in some minor subdivision of subsections,
addition of subsection headings, minor rewording, and rewording
of various provisions to active voice for clarity.
In subsection
(a) (2) (A), we have codified the two week limitation so that it
appears more clearly as a substantive provision.
We also reword
subsections
(d) (1) (B) and
(e) (2) to remove the parentheticals by
expressly naming mixed system suppliers.
The Board has found’ it
necessary to add the phrase “of the appropriate duration provided
by subsection
(d) (1)” to define “monitoring period” in subsection
(e) (3).
Subsection
(d) (1) provides that these periods are a
compliance period for a GWS and annually for a SWS or mixed
system supplier.
This clarifies the Board’s interpretation of
this rule:
that the rule does not intend a six—month monitoring
period.
We request comment on this issue.
Lead and Copper:
Analytical Provisions-—Section 611.359
Section 611.359 derives from 40 CFR 141.89, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed~.Reg. 26559, on June 7,
1991, and amended at 57 Fed.
Reg. 28789, on June 29,
1992.
This Section sets forth the
analytical requirements for the lead and copper program.
The
preceding general and analytical methods discussions considers
the substantive aspects of this Section, so this discussion will
focus on the Board’s deviations from the federal format and
language.
See pages 22 through 24 for the discussion of the
methods themselves.
The Board has defined the method detection
limits for lead and copper in Section 611.350(a) and moved the
methods from a tabular format at subsection
(a) into a text
format in subsection
(b).
(There is no federal subsection’(b)
for this section).
In adapting subsection
(a), which embodies
the federal laboratory and analytical requirements
(apart from
the methods), the Board has only minimally revised the federal
text.
We add “performed for the purposes of
.
.
.“
to subsection
(a) (1)
and “under this Subpart” to subsection
(a) (2) and
subdivided subsections
(a) (3) and
(a) (4) and added subsection
headings.
We request comment on our approach to the analytical
methods requirements.
Lead and Copper:
Reportina Requirements--Section 611.360
Section 611.360 derives from 40 CFR 141.90, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed.
Reg. 26561, on June 7,
1991.
This Section sets forth
the reporting requirements for the lead and copper program.
The
Board has managed to adopt the federal language with a number of
changes so minor that no individual change warrants much
discussion.
For example, most of the changes involve adding
clarifying phrases like “requirements of”, “pursuant to”,
etc.
and changing “by” to “on or before”.
We add “annually” to
0139-OJ7L~
43
subsection
(e)(1)(C); “number
.
.
.
in its distribution system”
to subsection (e)(2)(A); the subsection (e)(2)(B) demonstration
language,
“that the supplier has replaced”,
and “combined with
the total number of” to subsection
(e) (2) (C); “originally” to
subsection
(e) (3) (A); “actually” to subsection
(e) (3) (B); “over
the service lines” to subsection
(e) (4) (B); “calendar” to
subsection
(f) (1); and “continues to” to subsection
(f) (3) for
clarity.
At subsection
(g), the Board uses “sampling period” to
avoid confusion with “monitoring period” because the time periods
contemplated may range from a six—month monitoring period to a
nine—year compliance cycle.
The Board specifically requests
comment.
Lead and Copper:
Recordskeeping Requirements--Section 611.361
Section 611.361 derives from 40 CFR 141.91, added by USEPA
at 56 Fed.
Reg.
26562,
on June 7,
1991.
This is the
recordskeeping requirement for the lead and copper program.
The
Board adopts the federal language with only one revision:
the
change of “no fewer than” to “at least”.
Organic Monitoring Reauirements Definitions—-Section 611.640
The Board adds a definition of “Phase IIB SOC” to this
Section.
This definition includes a Board Note explaining that
while USEPA stayed the MCL5 for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and
aldicarb
sulf oxide,
it did not stay the monitoring requirements
for these contaminants.
See the discussion of the MCLs at pages
34—35.
Phase I VOC Sampling-—Section 611.647
In addition to changing the names of the analytical methods,
as discussed above,
the Board proposes the deletion of subsection
(h).
This provision expired on January
1,
1993
•
We propose
replacing it with “dummy” language to maintain structural parity
with the corresponding federal rule 40 CFR 141.24(g).
USEPA has
not repeal that provision.
The Board specifically requests
comment.
Phase II SOC Samplina—-Section 611.648
In addition to changing the names of the analytical methods,
as discussed above, the Board proposes adding a Board Note to
subsection
(b) that explains that USEPA stayed the MCLs for
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide but did not
stay the monitoring requirements for these contaminants.
See the
discussion of the MCL5 at pages 34-35.
The Board specifically
requests comment.
0 139-U 175
44
Reporting
and
Public
Notice:
MCL
Violations——Section
611.A~~en-
dixA
Section
611.Appendix
A
derive
from
40
CFR
141.32,
amended
by
USEPA at 56 Fed. Reg. 26548 (June 7,
1991)
and 56 Fed. Reg. 30279
(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 federal
amendments
added
notices
for
aldicarb,
aldicarb
sulfoxide,
aldicarb sulfone, pentachlorophenol, copper, and lead.
The Board
adopts the federal language without material deviation.
We use
“USEPA” for clarity in each notice and render “ground water” as
“groundwater” wherever it appears throughout the Appendix, which
is
the
Board’s usual convention.
We update the CFR reference in
the Board Note.
Federal
Effective
Dates——Section
611.Table
Z
Section 611.Table Z 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 as Table D
in
R9l-3
for
reference.
As
a
result
of
the
addition
of
additional
tables
in
this
docket,
the
Board
has
renumbered
this
Section to 611.Table Z.
We add the effective dates for the
federal lead and copper program and the Phase IIB amendments.
We
made
multiple
entries
for
lead
and
copper
because
40
CFR
141.81
through 141.85 had a later effective date than 40 CFR 141.86
through 141.91.
For the Phase IIB rules, the Board has separated
the Phase IIB IOC (inorganic chemical contaminant) and Phase IIB
SOC entries.
The latter entry notes the federal stay of the MCLs
for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide.
See the
discussion of MCLs at pages 34—35.
CONCLUSION
This proposed opinion supports the Board’s proposed order of
this same day.
The Board will promptly submit these proposed
amendments to the Secretary of State for publication in the
Illinois Register.
B. Forcade concurred.
0139-0176
45
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, h~~bycertify ~at
the above proposed opinion was ~dopted
on the ~
day of
~
1993,
by a vote of
~
Dorothy M.7~unn,Clerk
Illinois P~’1lutionControl Board
0139-0 177
