ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 25, 1990

DIANE MARIE BARRY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 89—29

(Enforcement)

VILLAGE OF FOX RIVER 

GROVE,

Respondent.

MS. DIANE MARIE BARR~ APPEARED, PRO SE.

MR. PETER ROSENTHAL, OFROSENTHAL, MURPHEY, COBLENTZ & JANEGA,

APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

This matter comes to the Board on a complaint filed January

18, 1989, by Diane Marie Barry (“Ms. Barry”) against the Village

of Fox River Grove (“Fox River Grove” or “the Village”). That

complaint asserts that the Village is providing drinking water

that is pink in color, that the pink color is caused by excessive

levels of potassium permanganate, and that such excessive levels

violate Section 18 of Title 4 of the Environmental Protection Act

(“the Act”). A hearing was held on April 27, 1989. No briefing

schedule was requested, and no briefs were filed.

Title 

of the Act governs public water supplies for the

purpose of protecting public health and all beneficial purposes.

As part of the implementation of that goal, Section 18(a) of the

Act provides:

Owners and official custodians of public water

supplies shall direct and maintain the

continuous operation and maintenance of water-

supply facilities so that water shall be

assuredly safe in quality, clean, adequate in

quantity, and of  satisfactory mineral

character for ordinary domestic consumption.

At hearing, the testimony by Complainant’s witnesses focused

primarily on the color of the water provided in the public water

supply. The color of the water was variously described as pink

(R. 4,6,7,14,19), slight pink to fuchsia pink (R. 4), almost

violet (R. 7), light pink (R. 8), the pink was very, very dark

(R. 10), and fuchsia pink to very dark (R. 15—16). The Village

does not dispute that at times the water has been pink in color.

(R. 6).

107— 195

—2—

The pink water was first noticed in 1987. (R. 8). It

continued through 1988 and on until March 17, 1989. (R. 12, 14,

15, 16, 21, 24—25, 30). The water would not be pink at all

times. It would be pink for a while and then the color would

disappear. (R. 11). The number of times that pink water would

appear varied from one time to seven times per month. (R. 11,

24—25).

The pink color in the drinking water in the Village of Fox

River Grove comes from the chemical potassium permanganate which

is added during the water treatment process to remove some

contaminants. Fox River Grove has two wells, one set at 140

feet, one set at 120 feet. These wells contain iron and

manganese which is removed by treatment and filtration in the

four green sand filters~ green sand is also called zeolite. It

functions much like the zeolite that is found in the household

water softeners. The potassium permanganate which is added to

the ~iater prior to filtration is a fairly strong oxidant. It

helps remove from the water undesirable levels of such things as

taste and odors, iron, and manganese. The potassium permancanate

oxidizes the iron and manganese, changes them from the soluble

state into an insoluble form, which allows them to be removed by

the filters in the system. (R. 34—36, 45—47, 60).

The potassium permanganate comes in a 110 pound drum of dry

powder. The material is mixed in a 45 gallon solution tank. The

solution tank is mixed to a 2.6 per cent solution. This solution

is transferred at a slow rate by a chemical feed pump into the

water main before the filters. It takes approximately 15 days to

pump the 45 gallons of solution into the water main, and then the

process is repeated. (R. 34—37).

Fox River Grove pumps about three gallons from the solution

tank into the water mains each day, which is added to the normal

daily pumping volume of about 400,000 gallons. This results in a

potassium permanganate concentration of about 0.2 mg/l prior to

the filters. The level where color starts to appear is about 0.1

mg/l. (R. 48—54). As explained by the Village’s consulting

engineer, the color should be removed in the filters:

What’s going into the water supply is what

remains after it goes througn the filters. If

the filters were in a depleted condition, in

other words not all of the active sites were

at capacity with manganese oxide, all of the

potassium ~ermanganare would be used up by the

filters and by the iron oxidation process, and

there would be no potassium permanganate get-

ting into the water system. The potassium

permanganate only goes up to the water system

if there is more potassium permanqanate than

is needed for oxidizing the iron and manganese

and if the filter is saturated with it. (P. 50

—

51).

107—196

—3—

It is the breakthrough of excess potassium permanganate from the

backside of the filters into the public distribution system which

causes the pink water about which the witnesses complain.

With one exception, the sole complaint about the drinking

water was its color. No one complained about the taste or odor

of the water. In fact, the complainant admits that the water

tastes perfectly normal. (R. 16). No one has complained of

illness from drinking the water, and the witnesses specifically

refute illness as a result of consumption. (R. 13, 28). It is

undisputed that potassium permanganate is not a carcinogen (P.

45), and that the level where acute effects (such as brown stains

in the mouth and diarrhea) first appear is around 250 mg/’l (P.

49), three orders of magnitude higher than the levels added to

the water. Lower levels would be expected to be found in the

distribution system under normal operations. Based on the

Village consulting engineer’s best knowledge, the levels present

in the distribution system are below the level of concern for

chronic consumption. (P. 53—54, 57—58). The lack of health

effects at levels presently under consideration was supported by

testimony of a representative of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency. CR. 73).

The one possible connection between the “pink water” and

health effects was raised by Ms. Barry in regards to her three

and one—half year old son. For clarity, the entire transcript on

this point will be reproduced here:

Question by the Hearing Officer: Is there

anything else you want to tell us?

~Answer by Ms. Barry: I guess for the whole

of last year my son, when I would give him a

bath, would get like raised pimples all over

his rear end and his legs, and now that the

pink water is gone, it does not appear.

How old is your son

A. He is now three and a half. And I don’t

know that that is 

- -

it may be coincidence.

But it is not there any longer.

When would this rash or pimples appear ?

A. It would appear right after he got in the

bathtub, and then it would leave within a

matter of about an hour after he was out of

the tub. (P. 16 

—

1~).

Ms. Barry was subsequently questioned on this point by

Mr. Rosenthal, the attorney for the Village:

107— 197

—4—

Question by Mr. Rosenthal: In terms of the

pimple that you noticed on your son, does your

son have any allergies ?

Answer by Ms. Barry: Not to my knowledge,

no.

Q.  Did you ever take him to a doctor for

examination ?

A.

I did take him to the doctor for

examination and was given a cream to put on

it. They have no idea, of course what did it.

It would get quite raised and red.

Q.  You don’t have any idea as to what

actually caused it ?

A. No.

Q.

And you don’t know whether it was

potassium permanganate or not ?

A.  No, sir. All I know is he doesn’t have

any more since pretty much the beginning of

the year, when this stopped.

Q.  But this was also after you started

putting cream on it?

A. No, the cream did not work. (P. 27—28).

Some additional information was provided by the Village’s

consulting engineer when asked if potassium permanganate is a

skin irritant, “In the material safety data sheets they list

that dilute solutions can be mildly irritating but they don’t

define what dilute means. :n other words is it 2.6 percent

solution dilute or is it the level that we are talking about

dilute. There is no information provided on that.” (R. 54).

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Board finds

that a causal connection between the potassium permanqanate

levels in the drinking water supply and the skin irritation

described in the testimony has not been established in this

record. The tenuous nature of the testimony supporting such

connection, the multiplicity of other possible causes for the

problem, and the sionificant amount of testimony asserting no

adverse health effects at levels presently under consideration

force the Board to conclude that the causal connection has not

been shown here to be more likely true than not.

Of particular importance in this proceeding are the

undisputed facts that potassium permanganate is added for

purposes of water treatment only, and that it is not good water

107—1 

8

—5—

treatment practice to have that material break through the

filters to the distribution system. The Board has regulations

governing such practices at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.201 (b):

Substances used in treatment should not remain

in the water in concentrations greater than

required by good practice. Substances which

may have a deleterious physiological effect,

or for which the physiological effects are not

known, shall not be used in a manner that

would permit them to reach the consumer.

Fiere, the Village’s consulting Engineer states that good practice

would remove the permanganate in the filters (P. 52 & 58), the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency representative stated

that allowing the permanganate color to remain was definitely not

good practice (P. 67 & 69), and the plant operator tacitly agreed

that better practices were needed to control the permanganate

color (P. 38—40). No one remotely asserted that allowing the

permanganate color to remain could result from good practices.

The Board must conclude that the Viliage used potassium

permanganate in the treatment of water and that it remained in

the water in concentrations greater than required by good

practices, in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.201 (b) during

the time frames considered in this proceeding.

Section 33 (c)

In making its orders and determinations in enforcement

proceedings the Board must consider six factors listed in Section

33 (c) of the Act. Those factors are:

c.  In making its orders and determinations,

the Board shall take into consideration

all the facts and circumstances bearing

upon the reasonableness of the emissions,

discharges, or deposits involved includ-

ing, but not limited to:

1.  the character and degree of injury

to,  or  interference with the

protection of the health, general

welfare and physical property of the

people;

2.  the social and economic value of the

pollution source;

3.  the suitability or unsuitability of

the pollution source to the area in

which it is located, including the

question of priority of location in

the area involved;

107—199

—6—

4.  the technical practicability and

economic reasonableness of reducing

or  eliminating the emissions,

discharges or deposits resulting

from such pollution source;

5.  any economic benefits accrued by a

non-complying  pollution  source

because of its delay in compliance

with pollution control requirements;

and

6.  any subsequent compliance.

The violations have ceased and the Village presently appears to

be in compliance. For that reason, and considering the nature of

the Board’s Order today, the discussion of the Section 33 (c)

factors need not be too extensive. Toe Board finds that the

character and degree of injury was slight and that the source is

of substantial social and economic value. The Board finds that

the water supply is not only suitable, but is essential to the

area in which  is located. The Board finds that it is

teconically practical and economically reasonable to achieve

con,pliance and that the Village has not accrued economic benefit

from delayed compliance. The Board finds that the Village is

presently in compliance.

Based on the record the Board believes that the best remedy

at this time is to Order the Village to cease and desist from

future violations of Section 604.201(b) and to require the

Village, for a period of one year ‘from the date of this Order, to

conduct a daily visual inspection of the water after leaving the

filters. The color of the water should be observed and recorded

(to determine whether the water is pink and therefore has

excessive potassium permanganate) and the results of such

inspection tabulated monthly. Such monthly reports of the

tabulated values shall be available for public inspection at the

Village Hall, and one copy of the tabulation shall be sent to the

coo~lainant and to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

each month.

Because the Board has determined that the Village violated

Section 604.201 (b), the Board need not address whether the facts

involved here constitute a violation of Section 18(a) of the Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter. This is a Final Order issued

and entered by the Board, and, pursuant to Section 33(d) and 42

of the Act, it is enforceable by injunction mandamus or other

appro~riate remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction.

107—200

—7—

ORDER

The Village of Fox River Grove violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code

604.201 (b) from time to time between 1988 and March 17, 1989.

The Village shall cease and desist from future violations of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.201(b).

The Village of Fox River Grove is hereby Ordered to conduct

a daily visual inspection for a period of one year of the color

of its public water after the point where it leaves the

filters. The visual color of the water shall be recorded as to

whether it indicates the presence of potassium permanganate. The

results of such daily inspections shall be tabulated monthly into

a report which shall be available for public inspection at the

Village Hall. A copy of each monthly report shall be mailed

promptly to the complainant in this case and to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.

Stat. 1987, ch. lll~’, par. 1041, provides for appeal of final

Orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme

Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Board Member J. ‘Theodore Meyer concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the aboye Opinion and Order was

adopted on the ~   

day of   

, ~• ~

1990, by a

vote of 

~ —

7’

/

~-‘

zDorothy M. Günn, Clerk

Illinois P,pllution Control Board

I r)7-~9flI