ILLINOIS POLLUTI3N
CONTROL BD~RD
November
6,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO
)
SU3TITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION.
)
R85—29
FECAL COLIFORM AND
SEASONAL DISINFECTION
PROPOSED RULE
FIRST NOTICE
OPINION AND ORDER OF TdE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a December
5,
1985,
Order
of
the
Board
which Droposed amendments
to 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.209
and 304.121
relating
to fecal coliform standards
for
general
use
waters and effluent discharges.
roday,
the Board
submits these prooosed amendments,
with
a minor modification
to
§304.121
and the addition of
a DroDosed §302.306,
for first
notice publication.
PRDCEDUR~L HISTORY
The present matter has antecedents
in
a previous Board
docket,
R77—l2.
On October
14,
1982,
in R77—12 Docket
D,
the
Board reoealed the fecal coliform water quality standard for
general
use and secondary contact waters
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.209
and 302.406,
resoectively)
and amended
the fecal coliform
effluent limitation
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.121).
Upon review of
this action,
the
First District .ooellate Court upheld
the
Board’s
reDeal of
the fecal coliform water quality
standard for
secondary
contact waters (~3~2.406),but overturned
the Board’s
actions with respect
to the
fecal coliform standards for general
use waters (~302.209) and effluent discharges (~304.12l).
People
of
the State
of Illinois v.
Pollution Control Board,
119 Ill.
App.
3d
561,
456 N.E.
2d 909
(1983)).
The Illinois Supreme Court
u?held
the ao~el1ate court’s actions
in People of
the State
of
Illinois
v.
Illinois Pollution Control Board, 103
Ill.
2d.
441,
469 N.E.
2d 1102
(1984).
‘On November
21,
1935,
the Board adopted
a peremptory
rulemaking
in R77—12 Docket
D,
intending
to reestablish §~302.209
and 304.121
as
they existed
prior
to the Board’s October
1982
action, pursuant
to the mandate of the appellate
and Supreme
Courts.
The use
of peremptory
rulemaking
in these circumstances
was challeged by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(“JC~R”), and remained
in
doubt
until
recently.
At
essentially the same
time
(November
8,
1985)
the
Bloomington and
Normal
Sanitary
District
(“BNSD”)
and
the
Illinois Association
of Sanitary Districts
(“IASD”) moved
the
74-73
—2—
Board
to adopt
an Emergency Rule which would have provided
seasonal ao’licability
to the fecal coliform standards
for
general
use waters and effluents,
and thus would have had the
effect of making disinfection requirements seasonal;
such
rule
would have been
in effect for
150 days, pursuant
to
statutory
provisions
for Emergency Rules.
On December
5,
1985,
the Board denied the motion
for
emergency rulemaking,
noting in part:
The Board believes that BNSD and IASD have
failed
to
demonstrate that
an emergency exists.
While they
have made various unverified allegations which,
if
proven, could perhaos support
the adoption
of
a
permanent rule,
those allegations cannot simply be
accepted as true
in order
to support
a finding
that
an emergency
exists.
In
recognition of
the possible merits
of
a permanent
rule
similar
in character
to that proposed
in the BNSD and IASD
motion,
the Board
in the same December
1985 Order opened
the
present docket (R85—29)
and therein proposed amendments
to
§~302.2O9 and 304.121 which would make the fecal
coliform
standards of
these two sections applicable only from May through
October.
On May
22,
1986,
the 3oard amended
its December 1995
proposed permanent
rule
in R85—29 with the intent of
accommodating the difficulties with the peremptory
rulema~ing
as
perceived by JCAR.
The May 1986 amendments did not change the
language
of either section relative
to that of
the December 1985
proposal, but rather
treated both sections
as though they were
entirely de novo.
Subsequent
information provided
to
the Board
by JCAR has indicated
that the two sections have been
reinstituted
as
a consequence
of
the peremptory rulemaking
activity,
and hence
that the Board’s May 1986 amendments
are not
required.
Accordingly,
the Board today recedes from
its May 1986
proposed language and readopts its December 1985 proposal,
with
modifications
as discussed
below.
HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT RECORD
Public hearings in
P.85—29 were held May
5,
1986,
in
Bloomington,
Illinois,
and June
2,
1986,
in DeKalb,
Illinois.
Testimony
in support
of allowing seasonal disinfection was
presented
by John
M.
Callahan of
the Bloomington and Normal
Sanitary District, Roger
C.
Andrew of the Springfield Sanitary
District,
Dr. Cecil
Lue—Hing
of the Metropolitan Sanitary
District
of Greater
Chicago
(“MSD”), Robert
S.
Flick
of
the
Decatur Sanitary District,
James
P.
Browning
of
the Galesburg
Sanitary District,
and Lawrence
C.
Cox
of the Downers Grove
Sanitary District.
Mr.
James
D.
Park of the Illinois
74.74
—3—
Environmental Protection Agency also
testified
in general
support
of
the concept
of seasonal disinfection, but with reservations
relating
to possible impact on public water
supply withdrawals.
In
addition
to testimony,
the Board also received
prior
to
completion
of the hearings
a number
of written comments
expressing
general sup~ort for
a reduction
in disinfection
requirements.
Included were comments from Larry Dressel
of the
DuPage County Department
of Public Works,
Robert
0.
Burns
of
the
the Village of Roselle, Lawrence
B.
Christmas and Dennis
W.
Dreher
of
the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (“NIPO”),
James
L.
Daugherty of the Thorn Creek
Basin Sanitary District,
Ronald
A.
Johnson of
the Glenbard Wastewater
Authority,
John
Churchill
of the City of Wood Dale,
the Board of Trustees of
the
Springfield Sanitary District, Dennis Streicher
of the City of
Elmhurst,
and George Feltz
of
the Kish—Rock Operators Association
and the City
of Harvard.
One written comment,
submitted by Dr.
Charles
N.
Haas of
the Illinois Institute
of Technology,
expressed oo~osition to the proposal.
Subsequent
to the hearings,
the Board received two written
public comments.
The first, Public Comment
#11,
filed
on June
19, 1986,
consists of
objections
raised by the Attorney General
of the State
of Illinois
(“AG”).
The second,
Public Comment
#12,
filed
on August
18,
1986,
by BNSD,
consists of
responses
to the
AG’s objections.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The principal argument presented
in favor
of the oroposed
amendments
is that the chlorination necessary
to
achieve
comoliance with the fecal coliform standards causes significant
environmental damage.
The damage
is largely focused
on the
aquatic
community, which suffers
as
a consequence
of exoosure to
a variety of
chlorine reaction products.
Among
the most
troublesome of the chlorine reaction products are chioramines,
which are produced
in
the wastewater chlorination process
and
which have been discharged
from Illinois sewage treatment
facilities
at
levels as high
as 1.05
to 5.17 mg/i;
many fish
soecies cannot tolerate chloramine levels above
0.1 mg/i,
and
even more
tolerant fish species are killed
at levels above
1.2
mg/l1.
1
“Wastewater Disinfection:
A Review of
the Technical
and Legal
Aspects
in Illinois”,
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater
Chicago,
Report No.
84—17.
This document has been
admitted
into
the
record
as Exhibit
6.
74.75
—4—
Field demonstrations
of environmental damage
to aquatic life
due
to chlorination are many.
Among these
are
a three—year
study
conducted
on Sugar
Creek below
the BNSD outfall,
which showed
a
marked decline
in
intolerant
fish soecies,
fish
species
diversity,
and total number
of
individual
fish within the zone
of
total
residual chlorine persistence downstream
from the BNSD
outfall
(R.
at 22—3).
One of the more extreme cases presented
in this record
concerns
the East Branch of the DuPage River.
It
is noted that
the East Branch “once
supported
a game fishery,
including large
mouth bass and northern pike”, but
is now characterized
“as very
poor,
being dominated
by carp and suckers”
(NIPC,
Public Comment
#7,
p.
1).
Modeling studies of
the effect
of various toxicants
in the East Branch
indicate that residual chlorine
is
a major
contributor
to the poor character of the aquatic community
Based
on these results, NIPC has concluded that even with the
advent of advanced wastewater treatment at all East Branch
treatment olants,
“fish
toxicity will
still
be
a problem due
to
the presence of
residual chlorine”
and that
it
is only
when
chlorine
is
eliminated
that “toxicity drops
to tolerable levels
throughout much of
the river”
(Id. at
5).
In summary,
NIPC notes
that
“if present chlorination practices continue,
it
will
be
impossible
to achieve
a high quality fish community in much
of
the East Branch even when advanced wastewater treatment
is
implemented’1
(Id.
at
6).
Field studies have also demonstrated
that the elimination of
chlorination can lead
to
a restoration of the health of
an
aquatic community.
A particularly pertinent study,
carried out
in Il~inoisin 1983 by
Drs.
Roy
C.
Heidinger and William
M.
Lewis
,
found that
in three
central Illinois streams temporary
discontinuation
of chlorination
by
sewage treatment plants
resulted
in the
rapid restoration of what had been extremely poor
fish communities.
Restoration was
to the level characteristic
of
ambient
areas above
the outfalls, and could
be directly
attributed
to reductions
in residual chlorine
(Id.
at
88).
As
a
general conclusion,
Heidinger and Lewis determined that “the
elimination of
residual chlorine from good quality secondary
sewage effluents derived
orimarily from domestic wastes will
result
in quantitative and qualitative
improvement of
the
fish
communities
in most
Illinois streams”
(Id.
at
88—9).
2 Dennis
W.
Dreher,
“Study
of Fish Toxicity
in the East Branch
Du
Page
River”, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Staff
Paper,
June
1981.
This document
and
its indeoendent appendix
3
have been admitted into the
record
as Exhibit
6.
~ Heidinger
and
Lewis,
“Relative Effects
of Chlorine
and
Ammonia
from Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Stream Biota”.
This
document has been admitted into
the
record
as Exhibit
3.
74-76
—5—
The MSD undertook
a similar
study, with similar
results.
In
April,
1984, MSD ceased chlorinating effluent discharged from its
North
Side Sewage Treatment Works.
The effluent had received
continuous
chlorination prior
to
that
time.
During
fish samoling
conducted
in each of the seven preceding years and carried
out
0.7
to 1.7 miles downstream from the outfall,
a total
of
20
individual fish representing
six species were collected.
In
contrast,
a collection made
in that same area
on November
5,
1934,
seven months after cessation
of chlorination, totalled 115
individual
fish representing
9
species
(R.
at 112—3).
Concerns over environmental damage associated with
chlorination have persuaded other states
to
reduce requirements
for chlorination.
Among
these
are the neighboring
states of
Ohio,
Indiana, Minnesota,
Iowa,
and Missouri,
each
of which
has
instituted seasonal chlorination
(R.
at
14;
Ex.
1).
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Ageny (“US~PA”),commenting
in
a letter
written by the chief
of USEPA’s Technical Support Section
to
an
official
of
the BNSD,
also noted
that
the USEPA
encourages the reduction
in disinfection by the use
of
chlorine where aquatic life protection
is
a
desired use,
and public health requirements
do not
outweigh this consideration.
EPA encourages seasonal
disinfection
as
a reasonable way
to avoid chlorine
discharges when justified.
(Ex.
2;
emphasis added).
The
Board itself has previously reached
the determination
that chlorinat~oncauses
significant aquatic environmental
damage.
In
R77—12 Docket
D
(In the Matter
of:
Amendments
to
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution
(Effluent Disinfection),
47 P05
555,
570
et seq.,
August 18,
1982)
the Board observed that residual
chlorine stunts
the growth
of
fish,
halts
or reduces
spawning,
and
is lethal
at concentrations of
less than 0.1 mg/l;
that
fish
avoid levels of residual chlorine
as
low as
0.01
iTig/l;
that
estimated
value of lost angling
days was then from $2,000,000
to
$4,400,000;
that chlorinated hydrocarbons produced
as
a result
of
chlorination are hazardous materials whose
toxic
effects are of
uncertain but likely real
concern;
and
that chlorination may
negatively impact other effluent parameters,
including ammonia
and dissolved oxygen.
Given
the weight
of those observations,
the Board concluded that “if disinfection were
first proposed for
adoption today,
it
is quite
clear
that the record would
not
support its widespread
use”
(Id.
at
574).
A principal argument presented in opPosition
to the
amendments
as proposed prior
to
today
is that seasonal
disinfection would negatively imoact downstream water
sucolies.
This position has been capsulized by Mr.
Park,
representing
the
Agency:
The Agency
is concerned
..
.
about the possible
impact
of existing
and the potential impact of new
74,77
—6—
discharges
of wastewater containing high counts
of
fecal coliform in the immediate vicinity of public
water
supply intakes
...
While public water supply
clarification, filtration and chlorination facilities
can effectively deal with
a relatively wide range
of
raw water quality,
the elevated and fluctuating
bacterial levels associated with unchlorinated
secondary effluent do have
the potential
to overwhelm
public water
supply chlorination facilities
if the
natural mitigating effects of dilution and instream
die—off do not have
a chance to operate.
(R.
at 188—
9).
This concern aside,
the Agency does conclude that “reduction
in the amount
of chlorine released to the environment
in Illinois
can be expected
to have
a positive impact on
the aquatic
communities while reducing operating costs
for wastewater
treatment plants”
(R.
at 190).
This argument related
to impact on downstream water
suoplies
was also raised
in the Public Comments by
the AG and Professor
Haas.
The
AG contends that survival
of viruses
and bacteria in
river water
is greatest
at the lower temperatures characteristic
of the winter months
(Public Comment
#1.1,
P.
3)
and that viral
shedding appears
to be greatest
in late summer
and early
fall
(Id.
at
4).
The
AG additionally noted that treatment of drinking
water
is
“an imperfect process” which
“is not immune from
operational problems which allow bacteria and viruses
to pass
through
to
then users”
(Id.
at
5); given this circumstance,
the AG
contends that the “present proposal,
if
accepted, would eliminate
an
important barrier protecting
the health of drinking water
users”
(Id.
at
5).
Professor Haas asserted that:
There
is
...
a potential
for serious conflict between
the proposal and the drinking water regulations.
During winter months,
in low dilution streams,
near
the source of
an effluent discharge,
the
colifori-n
counts will
be substantially above the numbers
in
the Public Water Suppy Regulations,
Section
504.501.
Thus,
the potable water plant will
be
at
least
in nominal violation.
In addition, excess
costs
of
treatment will occur
at drinking water
plants
in
these situations due
to the need
for
a
greater
degree of treatment.
It
is necessary
for any proposed revisions of
wastewater disinfection regulations
to
recognize the
need
for year—round disinfection of those effluents
in proximity to
intakes and/or
in low dilution
receiving waters.
Without this recognition,
any
relaxation of effluent disinfection
is
technically
unsupportable.
(Public Comment #3,
p.
3)
74.78
—7—
At hearing
and
in Public Comment
*12,
BNSD offered rebuttal
of
the position that adoption of
the proposed amendments would
adversely impact downstream water
supplies.
Among
other matters,
BNSD noted
that existing
regulations require water
suppliers
utilizing surface water
as
a
raw water source
to employ
coagulation, clarification,
rapid sand filtration,
and continuous
post—chlorination.
BNSD contends “that each of
these
treatment
processes
in themselves
are bacterialcidal
and virucidal”
and
that when “employed
in
a series treatment scheme they provide
adequate protection
of the public health”
(Public Comment
*12,
p.
1—2).
BNSD also provided documentation from other
states where
seasonal
chlorination
is the accepted practice which notes
that
no known human health problems have been associated with seasonal
chlorination.
Additionally, BNSD contests the applicability to
Illinois of the studies cited by the AG
in support
of his
contention of winter bacterial and viral survival, contending
that the studies are old and were conducted on Alaskan streams
very different both physically and chemically from those
in
Illinois
(Public Comment #12,
p.
8—15).
A second objection raised by the
AG
concerns the question
of
whether the proposed amendments
“fail
to consider the possibility
that bacteria and viruses which
are discharged
untreated into
rivers
and streams during
the winter months may accumulate and
survive
in the sediments”, which
thus presents
“the possibility
that undisinfected wastewater discharged
in winter may endanger
both drinking water supplies
and recreational users
long after
the actual discharge
took place”
(Public Comment #11,
p.
6).
Professor
Haas also raised this issue,
noting
that “during non—
disinfection months,
sediments could
serve
as
a reservoir for
survival
of populations”
and that “when bathing commences
(even
though
the effluent
is disinfected),
sediments would
serve as
a
source
for microorganisms into the water column”
(Public Comment
*3,
p.
3).
The subject matter
of this objection was addressed both
at
hearing
(R.
at
26—8,
45—7,
134—7,
148—50)
and
in Public Comment
*12
(p.
20—4).
There
it
is alleged that the scouring efficiency
of
late winter and early spring high
flows makes
it unlikely that
residual sediments would
be released
as postulated by the
AG and
Professor Haas;
that other states which employ seasonal
disinfection have made no mention of
a health hazard associated
with sediment scour;
and that the studies cited by the AG portray
conditions
not generally applicable
to Illinois
(e.g.,
discharge
of primary treatment products).
The final
argument raised
in opoosition
to
the proposed
amendments
notes
that disinfection might be accomplished by means
other
than chlorination, and that therefore it might be possible
to retain disinfection requirements without suffering the
negative aspects
associated with chlorination.
The
AG contends
that other viable means of achieving disinfection do exist,
and
that therefore “the Proponent’s arguments that chlorination
is
74.79
—.3—
environmentally problematic and
an economic hardship
do not
provide the basis
for
ceasing disinfection”
(Public Comment #11,
p.
8).
The counter argument presented
by BNSD
is that alternative
disinfection methods, specifically ozonation and ultraviolet
irradiation,
have been
found
to
be effective
on research and
pilot scales,
but “are not cost—effective for scale—up
to actual
wastewater treatment facilities”
(Public Comment #12,
p.
24).
BNSD further notes
that ability
to secure federal and state
grants
for new and upgraded wastewater
treatment facilities
is
predicated
on demonstrating
that the most cost—effective
technology
is employed; BNSD contends that the overwhelming
nationwide utilization
of chlorination as the means
of
disinfection
is thereby evidence that chlorination
is the most
cost effective disinfection process
(Id.
at 24).
ECONOMIC REASONA3LENESS
The Illinois Department of
Energy
and Natural Resources
(“ENR”)
concluded on September
26,
1986,
that a formal economic
economic
impact study
(“EcIS”)
is not necessary in the
proceeding,
noting that
this declaration
is appropriate based on
the statutory criteria
in
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch. ~~-/2,
par.
7404(d)(2).
The Economic Technical Advisory Committee
(“ETAC”)
concurred
in this determination on October
10,
1986.
It
is
to be noted that the proposal
before ENR and ETAC was
that of May 1983 rather
than the proposal which
the Board
considers today.
Section 27(b)
of the Act, however,
in addition
to requiring that economic
impact studies
be prepared,
also
allows
the Board to modify
and subsequently adopt any proposed
regulations without additional economic study by ENR
if the
modification does not significantly alter
the intent
and purpose
of
the proposed regulation which was
the subject
of ENR’s
determination.
The Board
finds
that the proposal put forward
today
is not significantly altered
in intent or purpose from the
May 1986 proposal.
The Board consequently believes that no
additional determination by ENR regarding the necessity of
an
EcIS
is warranted.
The AG has objected
(Public Comment
*11,
p.
9—11)
to this
matter proceeding on the basis of
an alleged necessity of
conducting
a EcIS pursuant
to Section 27(b)
of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
1111/2,
par.
1027).
The AG
contended that
the record before
the Board
is insufficent
to
allow
the Board
to reach
a determination on the economic
reasonableness
of the proposed amendments.
Aside from the
determination of ENR and ETAC that an EcIS
is not necessary,
the
Board notes that an
EcIS was conducted
in R77—12 Docket D,
and
that the same has been admitted
into
the current record
as
74.80
—9—
Exhibit 2l~.
The Board finds that the significant information
contained
in the R77—l2 EcIS remains pertinent, and
that this,
in
combination with
the record developed
in the current proceeding,
provides
information sufficient for
the Board
to make
its
mandatory economic determination.
The P.77—12 EcIS determined
that the more than 1,400
municipal,
industrial,
and commercial
treatment facilities
in
Illinois which are required
to disinfect their
final effluents
spend over $4 million annually doing
so
.
These are annual
operational
costs,
and
do not include amortization
of
chlorination equipment (Ex
21, p.
158).
Under
the assumption
that halving
the time period when chlorination would
be required
would also halve
total operational
costs,
the expected savings
associated with the current proposal would
be on the order
of
$2
million annually.
This figure
is consistent with
a 1985 IASD
study,
which showed that 22 large municipal plants serving
a
population of
2 million people spend $960,000 annually
to
disinfect
final effluents
(R.
at
12).
The second principal economic benefit
to be expected
as
a
consequence
of
a
seasonal
reduction
in
chlorination
consists
of
an increase
in angling
days.
The magnitude
of this benefit under
the current proposal
is not likely to
be accurately estimated
by
halving
the P.77—12
figure of $2.0
to $4.4 million per
annum.
Nevertheless, the determination that seasonal chlorination would
contribute
to the health of the aquatic community implies that
some benefit
in angling potential could
be expected
to accrue.
The
only
cost
associated with chlorination cessation as
determined
in
the
R77—12
EcIS
was
a
small
increased
risk
of
viral
disease.
For
a proposal which included protection of downstream
water supplies, as does today’s proposal
(see following),
the
estimated annual cost was $11 to $1200
(Ex.
21, p.
169).
For
a
proposal which excluded protection of downstream water supplies,
the estimated annual cost was $681
to $10,200
(Id.
at 169—70).
“The Economic Analysis of
Health Risks and the Environmental
Assessment of Revised Fecal Coliform Effluent and Water Quality
Standards”,
Illinois Institute
of Natural Resources,
Document No.
81/15,
March 1981.
The annual cost of disinfection
in Illinois
as cited
in Exhibit
21 was approximately $6.9 million (Table
6—3,
p.
159).
Included
in
that sum was the amount spent annually by MSD, approximately
$2.8 million.
Since
MSD’s plants discharge only
to secondary
contact waters,
the plants
are no longer required
to provide
disinfection and MSD has ceased
the practice of
chlorination.
The best estimate of current disinfection costs
is
therefore the
State total minus
the
MSD
cost,
expressed
in
the dollars current
for the Exhibit
21
study.
74.81
—10—
The
additional
issue
of
whether
the
proposed
amendments
would cause water treatment plants operating downstream of sewage
treatment plant effluents
to incur
increased costs
in
chlorinating their
finished water was addressed at hearing.
Dr.
Lue—Hing testified that such would not be expected
to occur,
as
the processes used
prior to chlorination
in the water treatment
process are effective
in removing particulate material,
including
bacteria.
Therefore,
Dr. Lue—Hing concluded that water
treatment
plants would not have
to use additional
chlorine during their
treatment operations
as
a result of the proposed regulations.
This issue becomes
irrelevant
if upstream effluent dischargers
who significantly impact downstream water supplies are required
to maintain continuous chlorination,
as the Board
today proposes.
CONCLUSIONS
The arguments presented
in favor
of
a reduction
in
chlorination, where
such can be
accomplished without impacting
human health, are similar
to
those presented
to the Board
in
P.77—
12.
The Board
found these
arguments compelling
in P.77—12,
and
does
so
again here.
If
anything, the passage of time since
the
Board’s action
in P.77—12 has provided even more compelling
reason
to conclude that chlorination as
a disinfection process causes
significant environmental damage.
The higher
courts
found
in R77—12,
among other matters,
that
the Board went
too
far
in repealing the need
to disinfect
in
all
circumstances.
In particular,
the higher courts
found
that
a
bacterial standard,
and thereby disinfection, must remain when
there i~reasonable prospect that there
-will
be primary human
contactu with the waters
in question; under
this circumstance,
the concern for human health outweighs
the negative aspects
of
chior ination.
The Board
believes that the present proposal cures this
aspect
of the higher courts’
concern.
Disinfection would
continue
to be required during the
six months of the year when
human contact via recreational use of and primary contact with
downstream waters could reasonably be expected
to occur.
During
the remaining six months, when human contact
is expected
to
be
minimal
or non—existent,
the prime concern would
shift
to
addressing
the damaging aspects of chlorination.
The Board also
believes that this perspective
is consistent with the holding
of
6 Primary contact
is defined
in
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 301.355
as “Any
recreational
or
other water use
in which
there
is
prolonged
and
intimate contact with the water
involving considerable
risk
of
ingesting water
in quantities sufficient
to pose
a significant
health hazard,
such
as swimming and water
skiing”.
74-82
—11-
the higher courts which upheld
the Board’s rep~al of
the
fecal
coliform standard for secondary contact waters
The most common objection to the Board’s proposal as
it
existed before
today
is that the proposal failed
to weigh
the
impact of nondisinfection on downstream water withdrawal
uses,
particularly withdrawal
for human consumption.
This
is
a concern
that the Board
itself has shared throughout both the
P.77—12 and
current proceedings.
In P.77—12 the Board attempted to address
this issue by requiring continuous chlorination
at all facilites
located within twenty—miles upstream of
a public water
supply
intake.
However,
the higher courts reversed
the Board on this
issue,
finding that the twenty mile limit was arbitrary and
capricious
since
it was incorporated without any scientific
justification.
Today
the Board proposes an alternative remedy,
which
consists of maintaining an ambient water quality standard
for
fecal
coliforrn at sites where water
is withdrawn for public and
food
processing
water
supply,
as
set
forth
more
fully below.
The
Board believes that
this
addition to
the December 1985 proposal
addresses the concern
for downstream public water supplies
expressed
in
the
P.77—12 and current records,
and also addresses
the concern expressed by the higher courts.
The Board
is well
cognizant
of the equation
of disinfection
with chlorination which has permeated both this and
the R77—12
proceeding.
The Board
is
also cognizant
of the prospect that
disinfection mdght be achievable by means other than
chlorination,
as the AG has emphasized.
Clearly,
if alternative
disinfection means were demonstrated
to be readily available,
were demonstrated
to be economically
reasonable,
and were
demonstrated not
to present
hazards greater than their expected
benefits,
this and the P.77—12 proceeding might have taken
different
turns.
Accordingly,
if and when such demonstrations
can be made,
the Board would greatly welcome
their presenta-
tion.
The fact remains, however,
that these
dernonstations have
not been made,
and that chlorination must
therefore and at least
for
the present be considered
a de
facto synonym
for
disinfection.
Given this situation,
the Board
can do nothing but address
what is
“the chlorination problem” by those means which would
appear
to be
at hand.
In
fact,
having recognized
the egregious
~ Secondary contact
is defined
in 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code
301.380
as
“Any recreational
or other
water
use
in which contact with the
water
is either incidental
or accidental
and
in which
the
probability
of ingesting appreciable quantities
of water
is
minimal,
such as
fishing, commercial
and recreational boating and
any limited contact
incident to shoreline activity.”
74.83
—12—
nature
of chlorination,
the Board would be remiss
if
it
failed
to
act
immediately
to correct
the problem given only the speculative
nature of alternative means of disinfection.
Regarding
the
AG’s assertion that the economic
impact of the
proposal cannot
be ascertained without the preparation of
an
economic
impact study,
the Board concludes that there exists
sufficient information
in the record
for the Board
to fulfill
its
obligation
to make
a determination regarding the economic impact
of the proposed amendments.
Moreover,
the Board notes
that it
does not consider
that the economic record alone provides
controlling reason
for
today’s action.
The Board
today proposes
these regulations
for first notice publication largely because
of
its determination that the adverse environmental effects
of
chlorination warrant
that the practice be limited
to
seasonal
use.
The substantial excess of benefits over costs supports this
action, but
is not essential
to
it.
FIRST NOTICE PROPOSAL
The principal modification, relative
to its previous
proposal, which
the Board offers today
is the inclusion of
a new
section 302.306
to
the Public and Food Processing Water Supply
Standards.
This new section,
in combination with
§302.301,
requires
that fecal coliform bacteria, based on
a geometric mean
of
a minimum
of five samples
taken over not more than
a thirty
day period,
shall
not exceed 2000 per 100 ml
at any point
at
which water
is withdrawn for treatment and distribution as
a
potable water supply or for food processing.
Section 302.306
is
intended
to address the commonly
expressed concerns regarding the effect on water supplies of the
prooosed amendments
to §302.209.
Under existing regulations,
the
raw water
used by public and food processing water suppliers
is
subject
to
a
fecal coliform limit of
200 per 100
ml, with
appropriate considerations for averaging and frequency of
sampling.
This limit applies year—around.
The limit exists
because, pursuant
to §302.301,
Public and Food Processing
Water
Supply Standards are cumulative with General Use Standards.
That
is,
the General Use Standards apply,
in addition
to
the Public
and Food Processing Water Supply Standards,
at all points where
water
is withdrawn
for public and food processing supply
purposes.
Under
the proposed rule,
absent the addition of §302.306,
there would
be
no fecal coliform standard during November through
April
at points
of water withdrawal
for public and food
processing supply purposes.
The addition of §302.306 rectifies
this matter by retaining the essential
status quo
of
a
fecal
coliform standard
at such points.
74-84
—13—
The Board believes that
retention of
a fecal coliform
standard apolicable at points
of water withdrawal
for public and
food
processing
supply
addresses
much
of
the
concern
which
has
been exoressed,
and which the Board
has shared,
regarding the
proposed amendments.
With the inclusion of §302.306, upstream
facilities would
be required
to continue November
through April
disinfection
if failure
to disinfect caused
the water
at
a
downstream withdrawal
ooint to
exceed
2000 per 100 ml.
Although
the number
of thus affected effluent dischargers
is
expected
to
be
small
(R.
at 189),
and the expected human health gain
has not
been demonstrated
to be large,
the Board nonetheless believes
that the substantial expression
of concern
in this area warrants
prudence at this
time.
Proposed §302.306 uses
a
2000 per 100 ml
limit rather than
the
200
per 100
ml limit which currently exists
in the General
Use Standards.
The
latter number
is inappropriate because
it
is
based
on protection of human contact and recreational
uses, which
are not
at issue
here.
The selection of
2000 per
100
ml
is based
on the same rationale employed
in the promulgation
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 604.501(c),
which
sets
raw water quality standards for
Public Water Supplies.
That rationale
is
that 2000 per 100
ml
is
“determined
as
a level
required
to yield
a safe supply after
normal treatment”
(In
the Matter
of Public Water Supplies, R73—
13,
15 PCB
103,
146, January
3,
1975).
Inasmuch as
the Board’s
proposal
for the addition of
§302.306
is new today,
the Board would particularly encourage any
interested groups
or
individuals
to offer comments on
this aspect
of
the proposed
rule during
the first notice period.
The second modification which the Board
today offers
to its
December 1985 proposal consists
of
insertion of the phrase “or
during any portion of November through April”
into the second
sentence of amended §304.121.
The intent of
this modification
is
to forestall the possibility that
a facility might escape
the
requirement
of recommencing disinfection “in such
a manner
as
to
minimize any potential adverse effect on aquatic life”
by ceasing
disinfection for some time less than
the full
“November through
April”
period.
Finally,
the Board wishes
to emphasize that
it views
today’s
proposal
as fully consistent with the holdings of the higher
courts
in P.77—12.
At the same
time
it need be
recognized that
the proposal
is not intended
to be
a fully definite response to
all
of
the concerns raised
by the higher courts during
review of
P.77—12.
Rather,
such other matters raised by the higher courts
which extend beyond
the scope
of
the instant proceeding may
necessarily require additional Board action.
74-85
—14—
ORDER
The Clerk
shall cause
first notice publication of
the
following proposed
amendments
in the
Illinois Register:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER 1:
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PART
302
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
GENERAL
USE
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
Section
302.209
Fecal
Coliform
During
the months May through October,
bBased
on
a minimum
of
five samples
taken
over not more than a
30 day period,
fecal
coliform (STORET number
31616)
shall
not exceed
a geometric mean
of
200
per
100 ml,
nor shall more than 10
of
the samples during
any 30 day period exceed
400 per
100 ml.
SUBPART C:
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER
SUPPLY
STANDARDS
Section
302.306
Fecal
Coliform
Notwithstanding
the provisions
of
Section 302.209,
at no time
during the months November through April shall the geometric
mean,
based
on
a minimum of
five samples taken over not more than
a
30 day period,
of
fecal coliform (STORET number 31616)
exceed
2000 per
100
ml.
PART
304
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Section
304.121
Bacteria
During the months of May through October,
nNo effluent governed
by this Part which discharges
to general
use waters shall exceed
400 fecal
coliform per 100 ml.
Any facility which ceases
disinfection during November through April,
or during any portion
of November
through April,
shall recommence disinfection
in such
a manner
so as
to minimize any potential adverse effect on
aquatic
life.
74.86
—l 5—
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
Board Members
Joan
Anderson, Jacob
D.
Dumelle, Bill Forcade,
and John Marlin concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~
day of
-~&~-‘
,
1986,
by
a vote
of
_________.
~
~
Dorothy
M.
unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
74-87
