ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 28,

1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

A PLAN FOR PROTECTING

)

R86—8

ILLINOIS GROUNDWATER.

REPORT OF THE BOARD (by R.

C. Flemal):

The Board has been mandated

to participate in a

comprehensive review of groundwater protection in Illinois.

The

Board has further been mandated to publish its findings and

conclusions regarding groundwater protection.

This Report

constitutes publication of said findings and conclusions.

The Board makes three principal findings:

(1)

Groundwaters of the State constitute a major and

matter of assurance of public health and social

and economic well—being.

(2)

Water quality standards specific to the

protection of groundwater should be promulgated.

(3)

A separate proqram designed to reduce and

authorized and implemented.

The Board reaches these principal findinqs based

uPOfl

consideration of the voluminous record developed in this

proceedinq and upon the Board’s experience and judqment.

The

bases for these principal findinqs, and the many subsidiary

findinqs and conclusions of the Board

in this matter, are

developed in the body of this Report.

In summary, the principal subsidiary findings and

conclusions,

in the order

in which they are developed, are that:

PUBLIC

POLICY

TOWARD

GROUNDWATER:

——

groundwater protection must be based on a well—defined

public policy.

——

the Board recommends adoption of the proposed policy

statement of the Illinois State Water Plan Task Force, with

minor modification.

—1—

72-143

---

——

resource groundwaters, including waters of both present and

potential use, should be the primary focus of groundwater

protection; consideration should be given to including

degraded qroundwaters

in the definition of resource

groundwater s.

——

present non—resource groundwaters should not be

automatically excluded from protection, lest these find use

at

a latter date.

——

Illinois groundwater currently is,

in the main,

of high

quality;

however,

there is increasing recognition of

contamination.

——

groundwater protection is predicated on maintaining quality

of

a resource;

hence, demonstration of contamination should

not be

a condition necessary to justify institution of

programs to prevent groundwater contamination.

——

consideration of groundwater legislation by the U.S.

Congress should not be reason

for Illinois to delay progress

in developing a State groundwater protection program.

——

groundwater protection programs must give consideration to

whether the programs are directed to just groundwaters, or

to the larger set includinq all underground waters.

——

groundwaters differ

in many critical respects from surface

waters,

including water quality, rate of movement, direction

of flow, accessibility, and use;

these differences dictate

differences

in

protection

strategy.

——

the

variety

of

compositions

and

uses

of

groundwater

makes

the

objective

of

groundwater protection less readily

identifiable

than

that

for

surface

water

protection;

the

groundwater

objective

is

not

likely

to

be

the

same

as

that

for

surface

water.

——

reinediation

of

groundwater contamination is likely to be

difficult

and

expensive;

accordingly,

the

primary

long—term

measures for protecting groundwater resources are those that

prevent contamination.

——

classification of qroundwaters designed

to recognize the

different characteristics and uses of groundwater is a

useful management technique;

its utility should not be

dismissed.

——

identification of sensitive aquifers and recharge areas is

an essential prelude to successful groundwater management;

it is

to these aquifers and areas that the prime focus of

groundwater protection should be directed, at least

initially.

—i-i—

72-144

---

——

groundwater monitoring needs to be expanded and the fiscal

support necessary to accomplish the task needs to be

provided.

——

groundwater monitoring should include at least

representative statewide samplinq of private, as well as

public, wells.

——

groundwater monitoring should also include a focus on

defining the extent of possible contamination from

agricultural chemicals.

——

accessibility to existing groundwater monitoring data needs

to be improved.

——

successful implementation of a groundwater protection

program will require coordination of efforts not only among

various State agencies,

but also coordination between State

and local government.

——

it

is recommended that a lead State agency for groundwater

protection be designated, and the programs necessary for

this agency to carry out its charge be centralized within

this agency; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is

the most appropriate lead agency.

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS:

——

water quality standards functionally serve a multiplicity of

purposes,

includinq establishment of the level at which use

is acceptable and definition of the minimum goal of

protection;

standards also are essential to the enforcement

process.

——

existing ambient water quality standards are not ideally

suited

to the task of protecting groundwater.

——

ambient

standards

suitable

to protection of qroundwaters are

likely

to

be

significantly

different

from

those

designed

to

protect surface waters.

——

a single set of ambient groundwater standards may not be

sufficient

to

protect

the

broad

range

of

ambient

ground~waters and

the

various

uses

to

which

these

groundwaters are or may be put.

——

recommendations for

the application of

either

“general

use”

or

“drinking

water”

standards

to

groundwaters

cannot

be

endorsed

at

this

time;

both

recommendations

contain

aspects

which

might

find

merit

during

a

consideration

of

groundwater—specific

standards,

but

these

aspects

will

need

—

iii—

72-145

---

to be given individual evaluation before their merits can be

finally assessed.

——

non—degradation should be an essential component of the goal

of groundwater protection; however, its sufficiency as

a

water quality standard is questionable.

——

groundwaters may not be amenable to a standard of protection

at other than that of the highest potential use without risk

of long—term or permanent loss of the highest use.

——

consideration must be given to what,

if any, distinction

should be made between groundwater standards applied to

public versus private water supplies.

——

development of groundwater quality standards can usefully

draw not only on the experiences of Illinois, but also on

the experiences of other

states; among such experiences are

those of states which have developed multiple—tier standards

for groundwater protection and management.

——

where

they can be developed, numerical water quality

standards are to be preferred over narrative standards.

——

in the absence of numerical standards for possibly hazardous

substances

in groundwater,

it is prudent to consider such

substances “guilty until proven innocent” with respect to

their tolerable limits.

PREVENTIVE

PROGRAMS:

——

assignment of authorities and responsibilities among various

strata of local government and State government will be a

most critical issue in the workability of any proposal which

involves land—use control,

land—use planning, and zoning.

——

the State will need to be willing

to commit fiscal resources

to obtain progress

in any preventive program.

——

data necessary to implement many of the recommended

preventive programs do not presently exist;

additional

efforts will be required.

——

the Agency’s recommendations for prevention of groundwater

contamination provide

a positive starting point

for

development of actual proposals.

——

continued emphasis on waste reduction and reuse is

art

important element in reducing the potential for groundwater

contamination.

——

full implementation of federal and State programs,

exemplified by RCRA and banning of landfillinq of liquid

—iv--

72-146

---

wastes,

constitutes a major step toward reducing the

potential for groundwater contamination; thus full

implementation should accordingly proceed as expeditiously

as possible.

——

full implementation of existing and developing federal and

State programs is

a necessary,

but not necessarily

sufficient, step towards groundwater protection.

——

designation of possible sources of groundwater contamination

into categories, such as primary and secondary sources,

has

utility in bringing focus to the types of activities which

have potential for groundwater contamination; however, how

such lists would be utilized in regulatory programs has to

be better defined.

——

the Plan’s two major recommendations

for preventive

programs, the set—back recommendation and the recharae area

protection recommendation, have merit in concept; however

additional development of both is needed before full

evaluation of

them is possible.

——

among major matters requirinq additional development within

both the set—back and recharge area protection

recommendations are their scope of applicability, activities

to be regulated, exception procedures,

identification of

priority efforts, and

fiscal responsibilities.

——

among additional matters which require further development

for the set—back recommendation is the appropriate set—back

distance.

——

among additional matters which require further development

for the recharge area protection recommendation is the

method of delineation of recharge areas.

——

assurance of water supply is an appropriate provision of a

groundwater protection program.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:

——

a number of practices which have the potential for

exacerbating groundwater pollution need to be taken under

review;

included are closing of abandoned wells,

chemigation, regulation of closed—loop heating circuits and

test borings,

and underground injection of wastes.

——

consistency of State regulations with federal regulations

should be weighed in evaluating

the merits of any proposed

State regulatory program.

——

control of non—point sources of groundwater contamination

~

in any comprehensive groundwater

72-147

---

——

public education can be instrumental

in reducing groundwater

contamination and

in reducing the negative impacts of

contaminated groundwater; continued public education

is to

be encouraged.

——

quantity of groundwater

is intimately related

to many

aspects of groundwater quality, and this role should be

considered

in any groundwater protection program.

CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION

Board Mandate

Hearings

Record

Definitions

II.

FOUNDATION FOR A GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLAN

Groundwater Protection Policy

Resource Characteristics of Groundwaters

Resource Groundwaters

Non—Resource Groundwaters

Current Groundwater Use

Domestic Water Supply

Other Withdrawal Uses

Natural Discharge “Uses”

Status of Groundwater Quality

Federal Versus State Initiative

III. GENERAL ISSUES

Groundwater Versus Underground Water Protection

Dissimilarities Between Surface and Groundwaters

Water Quality Variability

Rate of Movement

Direction of Flow

Accessibility

Water Uses

Ramifications for Protection Policy

Prevention Versus Remediation

Classification of Groundwaters

General Principles

Application in Illinois

Illinois State Water Plan Task Force Proposal

Identification of Sensitive Aquifer and Recharge Areas

Monitoring

Recommendation of the Plan

Scope of Monitoring

Monitoring for Agricultural Chemicals

Data Accessibility

Coordination of Programs

—vi—

72-148

---

IV.

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Existing Standards for Groundwater Protection

Overview

Water Pollution Standards (Subtitle C)

Public Water Supply Standards (Subtitle

F)

Other State Groundwater Regulations

Federal Standards

Rationale for Water Quality Standards

Recommendations for Groundwater Standards

Applicability of Surface Water Standards

to

Groundwater

“General Use” Standards

“Drinking Water” Standards

Non—degradation

Summary

Recommendation of the Board

Additional Considerations for Groundwater Standards

Narrative Versus Numerical Standards

Point of Application of Standards

Preventive Action Limits/Notice Limits

Public Versus Private Water Supplies

Single Versus Multiple Standards

Zero Standards

V.

PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS

General Considerations

State Versus Local Authority

Availability of Fiscal Resources

Adequacy of the Data Base

Recommendations of the Plan

Major Approaches

Control of Contamination Sources

Land—Use Control

Management of Wastes

Implementation of Existing Programs

Designation of Groundwater Contaminant Sources

Enhancement of Enforcement

Set—Back

Provision

Merits of Set—Backs

Scope of Applicability

Set—Back Distance

Regulated Activities

Rights and Authorities

Federal Programs

Recharge Area Protection

Merits of Recharge Area Protection

Recharge Area Delineation

Sufficiency of Local Resources

Local Siting Review

Definition

of

Jurisdiction

Scope of the the Planning Mandate

Notification Requirements

Assurance of Water Supply

Summary

—vii—

72.149

---

VI.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

Abandoned Wells

Chemigation

Citizen Complaints

Closed—Loop Heat Circuits/Test Holes

Consistency with Federal Regulations

Non—Point Sources

Public Education

Quantity

Radioactive Waste Storage Sites

Right—To—Know

Underground

Injection

of

Wastes

Well Drilling Oversight

Wetlands Protection

VII.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL

BOARD

MEMBERS

By

3.

Anderson

By J.

D. Dumelle

By B.

Forcade

By

3.

Marlin

By 3. Theodore Meyer

APPENDIX

CERTIFICATION

72.150

---

SECTION

INTRODUCTION

BOARD

MA.N

DATE

Public Act 83—1268, which was signed into law in August,

1984,

amended the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”)

to provide

for,

among other matters,

a three phase program for review of

protection of groundwater

in Illinois.

Phase one consisted of

preparation of

a study of groundwater quality in the State.

This

duty was assigned

to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources

(“ENR”)

and completed

in July,

1985, upon release of a report

titled:

“An Assessment of Ground—Water Quality and Hazardous

Substance Activities

in Illinois with Recommendation for

a

Statewide Monitoring Strategy”.

This report is presented

in the

record as Exhibit 35.

Phase two consisted of formulation under

the direction of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”)

of a

groundwater protection plan.

Phase two has also been completed

and

a report produced titled:

“A Plan

for Protecting Illinois

Groundwater”

(“Plan”).

The phase

two plan was submitted

to the

Governor,

the Illinois General Assembly, and the Board in

January, 1985.

It

is present in the record as Exhibit

1.

Phase

three consists of

a specific mandate to the Board:

Following the completion of the groundwater

quality study and the groundwater protection plan,

the Pollution Control Board shall conduct public

hearings on the results and recommendations as

provided

in Title VII

of the Act.

Upon conclusion of

such hearings, the Board

shall publish its findings

and conclusions on the areas covered by the study and

the plan and the testimony received.

(Act, Section

13.1(d)).

HEARINGS

The Board has conducted seven days of hearings, held as

follows:

April

30,

1986

Springfield, Illinois

May 14, 1986

Rockford, Illinois

May 15, 1986

Lisle, Illinois

May 28, 1986

Belleville,

Illinois

June

16, 1986

Rock

Island, Illinois

June 25

& 26,

1986

Champaign,

Illinois

I—i

72-151

---

Notice of the hearings was published pursuant to the

provisions of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 102.122.

Additionally, notice of

the hearings was mailed

to over 850 individuals and

organizations,

based upon

a list compiled by the Agency and

augmented by requests for notification directed

to the Board.

The hearings were conducted pursuant to the Board’s rules for

Regulatory and other Nonadjudicative Hearings, as codified in 35

Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle A, Subpart

D.

RECORD

During the hearings, the Board received sworn testimony from

39 individuals, including representatives of a broad spectrum of

public, private, and individual perspectives.

The stenographic

record of the seven days

of hearings aggregates 1540 pages.

The

record also contains 94 exhibits*

(“Ex”)

and

8 public comments

(“PC”),

lists of which are appended hereto.

The record is rich

with insightful testimony and documents commensurate with the

level of investigation and thought which has preceded and been

occasioned by the Board’s hearings.

The Board extends its

appreciation to the many individuals,

and particularly to the

Agency and ENR,

for the excellent character of the record

presented to the Board.

DEFINITIONS

In following sections the Board will introduce definitions

pertinent to the specific matters under consideration.

There

are,

however, several definitions essential to a general

understanding of the present matter, and hence these are

presented

at the onset.

The principal among

these is the

definition of groundwater**:

“Groundwater”: underground water contained

in

interconnected pores located below the water table

in

an unconfined aquifer or located

in a confined

aquifer.

A practical definition of groundwater

is that it is

underground water

which occurs within the saturated zone.

Other

principal definitions include:

*

After

the

last of the scheduled hearings

in this matter had

been completed,

the Board became aware of three documents whose

value warrant their addition to the record.

These documents are

listed as Exhibits

92 to 94 on the appended Exhibits

List.

**

Also variously spelled as ground—water and ground water.

1—2

72-152

---

“Aquifer”:

underground rock or

sediment in which the

pore spaces are saturated with water

and which is

sufficiently permeable to transmit economic

quantities of water

to wells or springs.

“Confined Aquifer”:

an aquifer that is overlain by a

confining bed.

The confining bed has a significantly

lower hydraulic conductivity than the aquifer.

“Saturated

Zone”:

the zone of the earth’s subsurface

in which pore spaces are filled with water

at a

pressure greater than atmospheric.

“Unconfined Aquifer”: an aquifer

in which there are

no confining beds between the saturated zone and the

surface.

There will be a water

table in an

unconfined aquifer.

“Underground Water”: water

located beneath the

surface of the earth;

underground water includes

water

in the saturated zone and

in the unsaturated

zone.

“Unsaturated

Zone”:

the zone between the land surface

and the water

table.

The pore spaces contain water

at less than atmospheric pressure, as well as air and

other gases.

Saturated bodies, such as perched

groundwater, may exist

in the unsaturated zone.

“Water Table”:

the top of the saturated zone

in an

unconfined aquifer; pore water pressure is

atmospheric.

The definitions as presented above are conventional

definitions as used within the professions which deal with the

phenomenon of underground water.

They are also the definitions

used within the course of the Board’s hearings, and on the whole

are consistent with definitions found

in the Board’s rules and

regulations.

It is noted,

however, that there are occasional

discrepancies between the conventional definitions and certain

definitions which appear

in present regulations.

Specific note

is made to the following two definitions, both of which occur

in

35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code 601.105:

“Confined Geologic Formations” are geologic water

bearing

formations protected against the entrance of

contamination by other geologic formations.

“Ground Water” means all natural or artificially

introduced waters found below the ground surface,

including water from dug, drilled, bored or driven

wells, infiltration lines, and springs.

1—3

72.153

---

The former of these two definitions offers confusion with

the term “confined aquifer”.

The latter definition is not only

inconsistent with the conventional definition of groundwater, but

also appears to be inconsistent with use and definitions found

elsewhere within Illinois statutes

Ill.

Rev. Stat.

ch.

1111/2,

par.

1003

and the Board’s regulations

35

Ill.

Adni. Code

301.420.

In particular, the

601.105 definition appears to

establish an identity between “ground water” and “underground

water”, whereas conventional use considers groundwater

to be a

subset of underground water

(R. at 1531).

Since

these

differences

in definition appear

to be the source of some

confusion,

the Board will propose

to amend these definitions

in

the earliest appropriate regulatory proceeding.

1—4

72-154

---

FOUNDATION FOR A GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

PLAN

The Board believes that any institutional program must be

founded on a clear

and acceptable policy.

Accordingly,

in this

section the Board proposes a Groundwater Protection Policy for

the State which it believes provides the appropriate

foundation.

In this section the Board additionally discusses

issues implicit to this policy,

including the resource properties

of groundwater, uses to which groundwater is applied,

the current

status of groundwater quality in Illinois, and the

interrelationships between federal and State initiatives.

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION POLICY

The Board believes

that the starting point for development

of

a groundwater protection plan must be a clear understanding of

the State’s policy toward groundwater protection.

Such policy

should express the will

of the people of the State;

it should be

consistent with other

State policies;

it should concisely state

the rationale

for the policy;

and it should be capable of serving

as a standard of judgment for the appropriateness of specific

proposed actions.

The Board believes that the following

Groundwater Protection Policy meets

these conditions, and the

Board recommends its adoption:

~t

is the policy of the

State of Illinois to protect

the

groundwater resources of the State, as a natural

and

public resource.

The State recognizes the

essential and pervasive role of groundwater in the

social and economic well—being of the people of

Illinois, and its vital

importance to the general

health, safety, and welfare.

It

is further recognized as consistent with this

policy that the groundwater resources of the State be

utilized for beneficial and legitimate purposes; that

unreasonable waste and degradation of the resources

be

prohibited;

and that the underground water

resource be managed to allow for maximum benefit of

the

people of the State of Illinois.

The Board acknowledges the contribution of the Illinois

State Water Plan Task Force

(Ex.

20), from which this policy

statement is borrowed freely and with only minor modification.

The Board believes that the proposed Groundwater Protection

po1ic~’embodies several critical concepts:

that groundwaterS

constitute

a major resource; that quality and quantity of the

groundwater resource is intimately related to matters of public

11—1

72-155

---

health and social and economic well—being;

and that effective

management of the resource may be required for its continued

beneficial utilization.

The magnitude of the groundwater resource in Illinois can

in

part be measured by the degree to which groundwater

is presently

used.

Approximately 1.1 billion gallons per day are withdrawn

(Ex.

80,

p.

9).

In perspective, this is equal to a withdrawal

rate of approximately 1,700 cubic feet of water every second.

As

of 1980,

49 percent of the State’s more than 11 million people

used groundwater

as their source of water

(Ex.

3, p.

199), and

significant portions of the economic sector, including industry

and agriculture, drew upon groundwater.

Further, groundwater

is

a major source of flow to surface waters, and thus is critical in

maintaining the resource constituted

by surface waters.

The Board

finds that the high degree of human association

with groundwater, principally because groundwater

is

a major

source of water supply for human consumption, requires that

groundwaters of the State be protected as a matter of assurance

of public health.

In this aspect, the Board finds that the

proposed Groundwater Protection Policy is consistent with Article

XI of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, which specifies

that:

The public policy of the State and the duty of each

person is

to provide and maintain a healthful

environment for the benefit of this and future

generations.

The Board

finds the the proposed Groundwater Protection

Policy is also consistent with Section 11(b) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act, which specifies that:

It is the purpose of this Title to restore, maintain,

and enhance the purity of the waters of this State in

order

to protect health, welfare, property, and the

quality of life...

The Board also finds that the groundwaters of the State

constitute an economic resource of high value, and that this

resource requires protection commensurate with its value.

The Board additionally finds that there is need for the

development of

a well—conceived, well—framed, comprehensive, and

fully—supported program for groundwater protection at this time.

RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUNDWATERS

Because

the justification for protecting groundwaters

is

that groundwaters constitute a valued resource upon which the

Citizenry of

Illinois depends, the Board

finds it appropriate to

initially consider groundwaters classified on the basis of their

11—2

72-156

---

utility as

a resource.

Such consideration sets the framework for

any program designed

to protect groundwaters.

This

classification considers groundwaters as:

I)

Resource Groundwaters

A)

Groundwaters Presently in Use

B)

Groundwaters of Potential Use

C)

Groundwaters of Restricted or Impaired

Use due to other than Natural Conditions

II)

Non—Resource Groundwaters

A)

Naturally Low—Quality Groundwaters

B)

Groundwaters of Limited Quantity and/or

Extractability.

Resource Groundwaters.

It

is the resource groundwaters to

which the bulk of commentary, both at hearing and within the

submitted record, has been directed.

Resource groundwaters are,

at the minimum,

those groundwaters which are presently being put

to conventional use by reason of being of suitable quality,

having

local demand, and having been actually developed.

Much of

the record also indicates that resource groundwaters ought also

to include those groundwaters which have the potential for being

put to conventional use.

This perspective is straightforward,

in

that it suggests that potential resources should be protected

against the eventuality that at least some of them will find use

in the future.

The Board believes that this is a wholly correct

perspective, and accordingly concludes that resource groundwaters

should include groundwaters of potential use.

Further, this

perspective is already recognized

in part in the Board’s

regulations which requires that groundwaters which have the

potential for being

a source for public and food processing

supply shall be protected with standards appropriate to this use

(see 35

Ill. Adm. Code 303.203 and p.

IV—2 herein).

Somewhat less certain in the record

is whether groundwaters

which have lost their ability to serve as

a resource ought to be

considered as resource groundwaters.

Groundwaters have probably

most often reached this condition by virtue of having become

contaminated beyond use.

Other groundwaters,

or perhaps more

appropriately, the earth materials which contained such

groundwaters, have lost their utility as sources of water due to

overextraction.

It

is the Board’s belief that such groundwaters

should in fact continue

to be considered as resource

groundwater,s.

This belief is based on the observation that prior

use implies that there are no natural impediments to use, and

therefore human remedial actions or natural

recovery processes

may eventually return such groundwaters to a usable condition.

Thus,

the Board concludes that even a degraded source of

groundwater may have a potential for future use, and that this

potential ought to be protected as any body of groundwater with

potential use should be protected.

Furthermore, any contrary

policy could serve as an inappropriate incentive

to allow

degradation of high quality groundwater.

11—3

72-157

---

The Board realizes that the definition of a resource

groundwater as presented is

a “soft” definition in that it

includes aspects of subjective evaluation, as for example, what

constitutes “potential” and what constitutes “conventional

use”.

However, we believe that this definition is too central to

the overall matter of groundwater protection to allow us to make

a more extensive determination on the record presently before

us.

Rather, the Board finds that in whatever forum the State’s

groundwater protection plan proceeds hereafter,

be

it via

Legislative initiative, rulemaking before the Board,

or some

other vehicle, that a central issue

to be addressed

is the

definition of a resource groundwater.

Non—Resource Groundwaters.

There are many waters within the

groundwater system of the State wherein the current quality of

the water

is naturally unacceptable for most,

if not all,

conventional uses.

These groundwaters are of poor quality due

to

natural processes associated with groundwater development and

evolution which are beyond human control.

They include, but are

not necessarily limited to, saline brines encountered at depth

in

many portions of the State

(R.

at 702—3)

and near the surface in

some limited localities.

The naturally low quality groundwaters

may not at present be viewed as a resource for most conventional

uses

(R. at 697—8, 701—2,

1509;

Ex.

41,

p. 63).

Similarly,

there are many groundwaters in the State which

are non—resource grounc3waters by virtue of existing

in small

quantity and/or being non—extractable

(R. at 697).

This

condition stems from the fact that some earth materials have

physical properties which allow them to contain only very limited

amounts of waters

(low porosity)

and/or

to transmit water only

very slowly (low hydraulic conductivity).

Thus, there may be

little water available in these earth materials,

or, if present,

the water may not be

free to migrate to a well or elsewhere to

where it might be used.

Because of their property of being non—resource

groundwaters, the rationale for protection of these groundwaters,

if such rationale does exist,

is expected

to be different from

that for

resource groundwaters.

The record in this proceeding

does not provide much guidance on the matter of protection of

non—resource groundwaters, and the Board will accordingly not at

this time give the matter deliberation equal

to that afforded

resource groundwaters.

However,

the Board does wish to note that

there are characteristics of the non—resource groundwaters which

may warrant attention to them in any comprehensive groundwater

protection program.

Among

these characteristics are that the

non—resource groundwaters may be in contact with, or may through

activities such as leakage or natural migration between aquifers

be brought in contact with, resource groundwaters.

As a

consequence of this contact the resource groundwaters can

experience unacceptable degradation.

Moreover, history has

repeatedly

shown

that

today’s

non—resource

becomes

tomorrow’s

11—4

72-158

---

valued resource.

Further, it

is the policy of the federal

government and the State of Illinois to maintain the natural

quality of all waters, used as resources or not, absent a showing

of an overriding public interest to be served by allowing, limited

degradation

(see

33 U.S.C.

1251,

Ill. Rev. Stat.

ch.

111½, par.

lOll, and 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.105).

The Board therefore

concludes that, while

the greatest immediacy for action may lie

with protection of the resource groundwaters as currently

identified,

a comprehensive groundwater plan will also need

to

give consideration to the appropriate management of non-resource

groundwaters.

CURRENT GROUNDWATER USE

Domestic Water

Supply.

The largest single use of

groundwater in Illinois is withdrawal by public water suppliers

(Ex.

1,

p.

44;

Ex.

80,

p.

31).

Approximately 88 percent of the

public water supply systems in Illinois use groundwater as

a

supply source, serving over five million people

in 1,200

communities

(Ex.

1,

p.

3).

This use consumes approximately one—

half billion gallons per day

(Ex.

1,

p.

3; Ex.

35,

p.

7)

and

constitutes 43 percent of the total groundwater withdrawal within

the State

(Ex. 80,

p.

3).

Much, but not all, of this withdrawal

is for domestic use,

since many public water suppliers also

provide water

for

industrial and other non—domestic consumption.

An additional 11 percent of the total withdrawal is taken

from private wells for domestic use

(Ex.

80,

p.

27,

31).

Nearly

90 percent of the rural population of the State depends on

groundwater

as its water source

(R.

at 114).

Collectively,

public and domestic private groundwater withdrawals therefore

constitute

54 percent of the total groundwater withdrawal use.

The proportion of public and domestic private water supply

provided by groundwater varies

in different parts of the State

from zero to 100 percent

(Ex. 80, tables 17

and 18).

In the

former category are locales where surface water

is of sufficient

availability and quantity to offer

a preferable source.

Salient

among these areas

is the region of northeastern Illinois,

including Chicago, which is served by water

withdrawn from Lake

Michigan.

Problems associated with both quantity and quality of

groundwater

in the northeastern region is currently prompting

many communities

to shift to Lake Michigan or other surface

waters to meet their water needs.

In the remaining portion of the State,

groundwater is

generally the preferable source

for public water supply systems

if both surface and groundwaters are equally available.

This is

generally due

to the lesser treatment costs and greater

uniformity of quantity normally associated with groundwaters.

However, surface and groundwaters are seldom equally available,

and therefore choice is not always possible.

I 1—5

72-159

---

In contrast, there is seldom an option between surface and

groundwater sources for private domestic water supplies due to

the inherent expense associated with development and treatment of

surface waters.

Water supplies to homes located outside of the

distribution limits of public water services are therefore almost

exclusively drawn from groundwater.

It is estimated that there

are currently approximately 500,000 private water supply wells in

the State

(Ex.

1,

p.

24;

R. at 56).

Other Withdrawal Uses.

The two principal additional

withdrawal uses of groundwater

in Illinois are supplies to

agriculture

(24 percent)

and industry

(21 percent)*.

Irrigation

is the largest agricultural use, accounting

for approximately 18

percent of total annual groundwater withdrawals as of 1984

(Ex.

80, tables 15 and 17).

Irrigation use has shown dramatic

increases in recent years, with an estimated rise from 150,000 to

208,000 irrigated acres between 1980 and 1984 alone

(Ex.

80, p.

7).

The second largest agricultural use of groundwater

is for

livestock watering, which accounts for approximately

5 percent of

total groundwater withdrawals.

Among industrial uses the largest individual use

is

manufacturing, which accounts for approximately 14 percent of

total annual groundwater withdrawals.

Mineral extraction

accounts

for

5 percent, electrical power generation for

1

percent, and miscellaneous industrial

uses for

2 percent

(Ex.

80,

p. 16—31).

Fish and wildlife management accounts for approximately

1

percent of annual withdrawal use

(Ex.

80,

p.

31).

The matter of whether there

is choice between surface and

groundwater sources is often the same for agriculture and

industry as

it is for domestic users.

That

is, although in some

instances choice may exist,

often matters of quantity, quality,

cost, and development dictate that groundwater

is the only viable

source.

Natural Discharge “Uses”.

In additional to withdrawal by

man, natural discharges of groundwater constitute

a significant

facet of an overall picture of groundwater utility.

While not

conventionally considered a “use” of water,

these discharges are

a major contributor to the natural aqueous environment.

Therefore, some consideration of the role they play is warranted

and should be borne

in mind in any planning for groundwater

protection.

*

Excluded from both of these figures is the groundwater

provided these sectors by Public Water Systems.

11—6

72-160

---

Natural groundwater discharges are most obvious at the site

of springs.

However, natural groundwater discharges also occur

into streams,

lakes, and wetlands.

As such, they contribute

water

to these environments,

and

in some cases and at some times

are the dominant source of water

added to the environment in

question

(Ex.

1, p.

3—4;

Ex.

41,

p.

4;

Ex.

35, p. 67—9).

Clearly,

the quality of the groundwater resource therefore has

ramifications on the quality of the environment into which the

groundwaters discharge.

STATUS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The status of groundwater quality in Illinois has been

assessed and the results published by ENR in July,

1985,

in “An

Assessment of Ground—Water Quality and Hazardous Substance

Activities in Illinois with Recommendations for a Statewise

Monitoring Stragegy”

(Ex.

35).

ENR found that most groundwater quality information existing

at the time of its assessment

(i.e., data from 1902 through 1983)

consisted of data regarding such traditional parameters as

alkalinity, hardness, total dissolved solids (“TDS”),

and the

major cations and anions.

Data regarding the toxic substances of

greatest concern today

(e.g., synthetic organic compounds and

heavy metals) were not “of sufficient number or spatial

distribution to support any statewide ground—water quality

assessment”

(Ex.

35,

p.

3).

Using data primarily generated since 1970, ENR prepared

histograms for

21 selected parameters where there was sufficient

data

to do so

(Ex.

35, Figures 29—33 and Appendix B).

Additionally, mapping of elevated concentrations was

undertaken.

A limited number of such maps were presented in

Exhibit 35 showing the location of elevated concentrations of

TDS, nitrates, chlorides, barium, and total organic carbon

(“TOC”)

(Figures 34—40).

For both the histograms and the maps,

data are subdivided into three general

aquifer classifications:

sand and gravel, shallow bedrock, and deep bedrock.

This

information clearly shows

that, based on the relatively few and

traditional parameters

for which data was available, groundwater

quality

in Illinois

is generally good

(R.

at 1401).

With the

exception of mercury*, concentrations of substances were

generally far below their maximum concentration limits

(“MCLs”)

for drinking water

standards where MCLS have been established.

For those parameters not having MCLs, the data also indicate

*

Reportedly, the situation for mercury is an artifact of

outdated analytical and record keeping procedures.

The MCL was

set lower than the previous “practical analytical detection

limit”

and “detection limits were frequently entered

in the data

base as actual concentrations”

(Ex.

35,

p.

57, 66).

I1—7

72.161

---

generally good quality.

For example, the median TDS

concentrations for each of the three aquifer types were less than

500

ing/L,

in comparison

to the definition within UIC—RCRA waste

disposal regulations that an

“underground

source

of

drinking

water”

is an aquifer with TDS concentrations less than 10,000

mg/L 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

702.110.

In summary, as one ENR

witness testified,

“by and large...

the quality in the ground is

as good or better than the drinking water

standards that have

been set”

(R.

at 185).

An assessment of general groundwater quality in Illinois

also appeared

in one of the State Water Plan Task Force’s

publications.

It was consistent with other information

in the

record cited above.

In pertinent part that assessment was:

“Overall the quality of underground water

in Illinois

remains good, despite the contamination potential of

industries, urban areas,

and modern agriculture.

Incidences of serious degradation are few in number

and of only local

impact.

However, regional changes

have occurred

in population centers, such as the

Metropolitan Chicago and East St. Louis areas.

(Ex.

20,

p. 12).”

Nevertheless,

there

is information

in the record showing

there are wide areas of the State where such naturally occurring

contaminants as barium and

radium exceed drinking water standards

(e.g.,

R.

at 185—186) and there are scattered areas of

contamination correlated with human activities such as waste

disposal, storage tanks, and industrial activity.

ENR witnesses

testified that, although they have not conducted

a comprehensive

study to compile a statewide listing of contaminated groundwater

areas and affected public water supply wells, they are aware of

various sites in Illinois where human activities have resulted in

contamination of groundwater

(R.

at.

172—186).

ENR reports

regarding studies of such problems in the Winnebago County area,

where both private and public water supply wells were

contaminated by organic compounds such as trichioroethylene

(“TCE”), were submitted on the record

(Ex.

18, Ex.

19).

In this

case, it was necessary to close down several public water supply

wells

(R. at 126)

and

to recommend against use of between 200 and

250 private water supply wells

(R.

at 415) due to contamination

by synthetic organic compounds.

Other witnesses referred

to

other

areas of contamination such as southeast Chicago

(R. at

233—4).

Agency testimony was placed on the record showing that there

already are data conclusively showing groundwater contamination

from human activity in various parts of Illinois, and that

relevant ongoing studies are developing additional information.

Preliminary results from ongoing studies have found at least

trace levels of contamination by organic compounds in 29

of the

public water supply wells tested

(R. at 522).

Many of these

organic compounds present health risks, although not necessarily

11—8

72-162

---

at the levels at which they have been detected

(R. at 522).

In

spite of these data, an accurate determination of the extent of

contamination by organic compounds cannot be done.

The 29

of

wells showing presence of organic substances overemphasizes the

number of occurrences in public water supply wells, since samples

were selected based on the likelihood of contamination being

present;

it is estimated that the full population of public water

supplies would show

a rate of approximately 15 to 20

(R.

at

855).

Similarly, there

is question as

to whether occurrences at

some of the low reported concentrations are due to contributions

from adhesives,

lubricants, and corrosion prohibiters used

in

well construction rather than from groundwater contamination

(R.

at 958—9).

On the other

hand, the sample contains no private and

non—community wells, which, by virtue of their tendency to be

shallow, are considered to be more susceptible

to man—made

contamination

(R.

at 420).

In balance,

it therefore seems

to the Board that substantial

definition of the groundwater contamination problem is still

required.

While it may be appropriate

to characterize the

quality of most Illinois’ groundwater as generally good,

this is

insufficient to justify

a lack of action.

There are many

indications and trends which suggest that we may just be begining

to understand

of the scope of the problem.

Moreover, the Board believes that a groundwater protection

program would be justified even

if there were no demonstrated

groundwater contamination

in Illinois

(which, of course,

is not

the case).

This conclusion follows from the mandate of the

Constitution of the State of Illinois, as noted on

p. 11—2,

to

“provide and maintain

a healthful environment” and from the

mandate of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, as also

noted on

p.

11—2,

to “restore, maintain, and enhance the purity

of the waters of this State”.

Given these public policies,

it

would be highly inappropriate to wait for contamination to occur

before taking action; groundwater quality must,

at the least, be

maintained.

FEDERAL VERSUS STATE INITIATIVE.

Any program developed by the State must obviously take into

consideration actions occurring at the federal level to the

extent that these might circumscribe or impose direction on a

State progr,am.

Congressional interest in groundwater protection

is

presently high

(R. at 1060—90) and has achieved partial

culmination in the groundwater provisions of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1986.

All indications are that

development of federal programs will continue

(R. at 1088).

The

Board

also notes that Senator David Durenberger, member of the

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and sponsor

of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986,

has indicated

in the Congressional Record

(S

6290, May 21,

1986)

his desire to

11—9

72-163

---

recommend

to the U.S. Senate a comprehensive groundwater

protection program (see p. IV—15).

The principal question which states need to address at this

time is whether the current federal activity should cause states

to delay their own initiatives while awaiting more definitive

exposition of the direction of federal programs.

The concern is

that federal programs might override state programs, thereby

causing resources expended

in the development of state programs

to have been wasted.

The Board believes that the federal actions are not cause

for the State

to delay development of its own groundwater

protection program.

Illinois must not only reserve the right to

promulgate its own regulations, but in fact is charged to do

so

by the citizenry and its representatives, whenever

it is judged

that there

is

a need

to protect the health and welfare of the

people of the State.

The Board believes that the need for

a

groundwater protection program does currently exist, and that

therefore the State must proceed on its own course of action with

all due speed and deliberation.

Moreover, there is good reason

to believe that delay might restrict the ability of the State to

accomodate

to and benefit from possible federal programs, rather

than the converse.

Recently,

a report of the Environmental

Law Institute

indicated that there is strong reason to believe that states will

continue

to play the lead role in groundwater protection

(Ex. 41,

p.

29).

Among reasons cited

are:

1)

A well developed system of statutory and common

law already exists to govern the use and

allocation of groundwater in each state, and

states see it as their responsibility to

continue using

these authorities to protect the

health and welfare of their citizens.

2)

Groundwater hydrology, geology, and

contamination vary from state to state, making

the establishment of a uniform or comprehensive

federal law impractical.

3)

Many of the solutions proposed to protect

groundwater

from the threat of contamination

require the exercise of land use controls, which

states and local governments are

in the best

position to do.

They have historically

protected the health and welfare of their

citizens by restricting and regulating the use

of property under their “police power”; and they

have the requisite intimate knowledge of the

institutional and political forces affecting

their land resources.

11—10

72-164

---

4)

States are increasingly assuming administrative

authority over the national pollution control

laws that affect groundwater.

(Ex.

41, p.

29).

Similar conclusions have been reached

in a recent report of

the Environment

& Energy Study Institute

(“EESI”)*.

EESI notes

that most decisions affecting groundwater are necessarily local

decisions.

EESI’s recommendation therefore flatly rejects any

massive new federal program.

Rather, EESI calls upon Congress to

“establish

a national goal” stressing prevention of

contamination, while awarding states “real flexibility and

authority” coupled with adequate financial and technical support.

If,

indeed,

the direction of federal initiative in

groundwater protection

is to be toward promoting state—level

programs, Illinois will want to be prepared to take advantage of

any special programs and resources made available from the

federal government.

This can be done most effectively if

Illinois

is aware of the directions

it wishes to take and has

developed the expertise necessary to qualify for and utilize the

federal resources.

Additionally, if the federal direction is

toward promoting state “primacy” in groundwater protection,

as

has been the case

in other recent federal environmental programs,

Illinois would also want to be prepared to assume primacy at the

earliest reasonable date.

*

Text of the EESI document was not available to the Board as of

the date of this Report.

All characterization of the EESI

document used herein has been drawn from a summary of the

document published in Inside E.P.A., August

8,

1986,

p.

13, of

which the Board

takes judicial notice.

Il—li

72-165

---

GENERAL ISSUES

One of the difficulties inherent in developing a groundwater

protection plan

is associated with recognizing the many

variations which exist in the type of complex groundwater system

which typifies the State of Illinois.

It is only when these

variations are recognized that focus on critical problems can

properly be made.

In this section the Board calls attention to

some of the general issues which

it concludes will have to be

addressed before more specific recommendations regarding a

groundwater protection plan can be successfully implemented.

Among

these

issues are:

(1) whether protection should focus

on just groundwaters, or whether underground waters in general

should be included;

(2)

policy considerations which follow from

consideration of the dissimilarities between surface waters and

groundwaters;

(3)

the need for emphasizing prevention over

remediation in groundwater protection;

(4)

the utility of

groundwater classification;

(5) the need

to focus on sensitive

areas;

(6)

the need for monitoring;

and,

(7)

the need

for

coordination of State programs.

GROUNDWATER VERSUS UNDERGROUND WATER PROTECTION

The mandate of P.A. 83—1268, as well as most of the

testimony in this proceeding and all

of the recommendations for

protection programs, focus on groundwater protection rather than

on the broader issue of protection of all underground waters.

The distinction is that groundwater refers only to water within

the saturated zone, whereas underground refers

to all subsurface

waters,

including water

in both the saturated and unsaturated

zones

(see definitions,

p. 1—2).

Given the Board’s mandate and the record presently before

it,

the Board

is not prepared to determine which,

if any, of its

many findings and conclusions on the matter of groundwater

protection would

also apply to underground waters

in general.

It

is clear

in the record that processes and activities which occur

in the unsaturated zone can have major impact on the quality and

character of water

in the saturated zone

(R. at 1355—6;

Ex.

49,

p.

13).

Furthermore, since all waters are presently protected

under both federal and state law (e.g., via applicable water

quality standards and anti— or non—degradation requirements), it

would be inappropriate to retract that protection

administratively.

Therefore, the Board does conclude that any action taken to

protect groundwaters of the State should be taken with

consideration as to whether the action is also appropriately and

111—1

72-166

---

necessarily applied to all underground waters, and

in no case

should the present level of protection of all underground waters

be compromised.

DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN SURFACE WATERS AND GROUNDWATERS

Much of the existing Illinois groundwater protection

program, particularly in the realm of water quality standards,

is

an extension of and

is derived from the State’s surface water

protection program.

There are,

in fact,

many similarities

between the two aqueous environments.

However, there are also

some critical dissimilarities which,

if not recognized, may lead

to

incorrect perspectives being brought to bear on

groundwaters.

It

is therefore useful

to note some of these

dissimilarities, and their consequences for groundwater

protection.

Water Quality Variability.

The State’s groundwaters span a

far broader range of variation in natural chemical quality than

is normally encountered

in its surface waters.

At one extreme

are groundwaters which have quality better

than the criteria for

potable water supply,

and hence are drinkable without treatment,

directly as withdrawn from the ground.

These are among the most

prized of groundwaters precisely for this reason.

The principal

concern for these waters from an

environmental

perspective

is

maintaining

this prized quality.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are groundwaters which

have higher concentrations of dissolved materials than does

seawater.

These waters have little present use and generally are

considered to be wastes requiring special disposal when they are

encountered,

as occurs

in some activities such as oil

production.

The present principal concern for these waters from

an environmental perspective

is preventing their introduction

into other environments, particularly surface waters and high

quality groundwaters.

Between the extremes is a range of naturally occurring water

qualities.

Some noteworthy groundwaters are those which are

close

to potable water quality, but exceed such standards for

a

limited number of parameters.

Examples are the elevated barium,

radium,

and fluoride waters encountered

in several areas of the

State

(Ex. 35,

p. 45—78).

Rate of Movement.

A second dissimilarity between surface

waters and groundwaters is that groundwaters have substantially

slower

rates of movement.

Accordingly, whereas ft/sec

is often a

convenient unit of velocity measurement for surface

waters,

velocities characteristic of groundwater flow

in aquifers are

best expressed in units of ft/day or ft/year (e.g.,

Ex. 18,

p.

50; Ex.

49,

p.

25,

99).

In practical terms this translates into

much longer times

for groundwater

to respond to alterations

in

quantity and quality.

This may have positive ramifications, such

111—2

72.167

---

as providing

a workable response time in the event that

a

pollutant

is introduced into the ground.

Slow rates of movement

also mean that under some circumstances

a contaminant may be

expected to migrate only very limited distances over long periods

of time.

The slow rate of groundwater movement also has some negative

considerations, however.

For example, flushing of

a contaminant

beyond an area of use may occur at such slow rates

in groundwater

that

it may be unreasonable to expect that the use can be re-

established in

a reasonable time frame

(R. at 1331—3).

Also, the

low rates of movement of groundwater mean that mixing occurs at

much slower

rates than is the case

in surface waters.

Therefore,

mixing as a concept of environmental protection has less

applicability with groundwater

than with surface waters.

However,

the concept of a “mixing zone”

is not necessarily

inapplicable

to groundwaters

if it

is expanded

to include other

various processes that may contribute to or attenuate contaminant

transport (i.e., adsorption, desorption, precipitation,

dissolution, ion exchange, biochemical reactions, and chemical

transformations).

Unfortunately, prediction of these processes

is much more complex

(Ex.

35,

p.

29—31)

than is prediction of

mixing

in surface waters

(Ex.

49,

p.

35, 99—100).

Further, the differing rates of movement may cause some

management strategies suitable for surface water protection to be

unsuitable when applied to groundwater.

As

a case in point,

it

is commonly technically feasible (other considerations aside),

to

upgrade the quality of surface waters

to accommodate a desired

“higher”

use through actions by upstream users.

In this

circumstance a cost—effective and environmentally sound

management strategy is to protect surface waters to the level

demanded by current use and to subsequently upgrade the quality

if and when the desire for a higher use arises.

Illinois

practices this strategy

in its surface water program by requiring

application of the General Use Standards, which provide for

maintenance of aquatic habitat and recreational use, and then

requiring application of Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards

if and when this higher

use comes into effect.

It is

critical to note that this strategy can function only because

stream water quality will respond rapidly to changes in upstream

discharges.

In contrast, the slow rates of groundwater movement make the

response time

for alteration of groundwater quality generally

much longer than for surface waters.

Depending on specific

conditions,

the interval between changing an input for

groundwater

and

a response at even a nearby well or discharge

point may be years,

decades, or even centuries or more (Ex.

41,

p.

19),

and complete flushing of contaminants will take even

longer

(R. at 1351—3).

The strategy of protecting for some lower

use and then upgrading

if and when a need for higher use arises

thus may not be practicable.

If so, the only appropriate

strategy may be to protect initially for the higher use.

This

111—3

72-168

---

perspective underlies the position of the several witnesses who

advocate a high standard of groundwater protection,

either

in

terms of in—ground standards akin to the Public Water Supply

Standards or

to absolute non—degradation.

Lastly, the slow rates of groundwater movement often mean

that the interval between introduction of a pollutant into the

ground and recognition of the pollutant in

a groundwater source

may span

a significant time, including years or even decades.

As

a consequence, much of the groundwater contamination being

identified

today may be the result of actions undertaken many

years ago, and the actions of today

(or lack thereof) may not be

recognized

for many years to come.

This situation has

significant implications for the legacy this generation will pass

on to future generations, as well as practical implications

in

such matters as the ability

to identify parties

responsible or

perhaps liable for the groundwater contamination.

Direction of Flow.

In rivers and streams, water flow is

from upstream to downstream.

In most major standing bodies of

waters more complex patterns of flow generally exist due

to

currents, but

flow remains basically from the upstream inlet(s)

to the downstream outlet.

Surface water flow is thus often

adequately addressed by viewing it as a directed one—dimensional

phenomenon, which greatly simplifies matters such as tracking the

source of a contaminant or determining the path that an

introduced contaminant will take.

Conversely, groundwater flow is generally three—

dimensional.

That is, groundwaters may flow from a given point

toward any direction

in the horizontal plane, as well as move

vertically, either upward and downward.

The direction which will

be taken is determined by the local hydraulic head,

or driving

force

for

the groundwater movement.

In very simple groundwater flow systems,

the direction of

groundwater flow at any point can generally be accurately

estimated by

a competent hydrogeologist without detailed

analysis.

However,

complicated systems abound, and even

seemingly simple systems often reveal themselves to be

complicated due

to heterogeneous soil properties, layering, or

unusual boundary or

internal conditions

(Ex. 49,

p.

31).

In such

cases,

the only means to reasonably describe the associated

groundwater movement is through computer solution of

sophisticated mathematical equations, and then only after

detailed hydrogeologic surveys have been conducted to provide the

necessary data (Ex.

49,

p.

31).

Flow systems also change

in

response to actions such as fluctuations in recharge and

variations in numbers of wells and amount of water withdrawn from

wells.

Furthermore, as noted with regard to rate of movement

above, various processes which take place may contribute to or

attenuate contaminant transport in flowing groundwaters.

111—4

72-169

---

Complex flow systems are very common

in Illinois,

particularly in the geologically complicated drift aquifers of

the State.

From the practical perspective,

it

is often

impossible,

without detailed investigation,

to determine the path

of groundwater flow and the movement of entrained contaminants;

identification of the source of a groundwater contaminant is

equally difficult (e.g.,

Ex.

18).

This sets major constraints

on

the ability of regulatory and enforcement groups to carry out

their charges.

Accessibility.

Groundwaters, which are accessible only in

wells or at points of surface seeps,

are far less accessible than

are surface waters.

This observation, which on its face is so

obvious that it seemingly might not require special notice,

is

nevertheless a critical facet

to be considered

in groundwater

protection.

It produces,

among other matters, major restrictions

on the ability to monitor

or otherwise assess the quality of

groundwaters, on the ability to determine the dynamic conditions

that drive groundwater

flow, and on the ability to apply remedial

actions when a groundwater contamination problem is

identified.

Water Uses.

The major use of groundwater

in Illinois, both

in terms of quantity used and number of users,

is for domestic

consumption, including drinking;

other major uses include

withdrawals for agricultural and industrial use (see section II,

herein).

This balance of uses

is significantly different from

that for surface waters, where the principal uses include,

in

addition, direct recreational use (e.g.,

swimming), habitat for

aquatic organisms, and, from a practical standpoint, disposal

of

wastewaters.

A significant facet of domestic consumption of groundwater

is that most of the groundwater

is not treated before use

(R. at

536, 565).

This

is true of many public water supplies and the

great majority of private water supplies; such treatment as is

normally applied consists of processes such as as disinfection,

fluoridation, and water—softening.

This condition can exist

because most groundwaters used for domestic consumption do not

need treatment to comply with drinking water standards

(R. at

739, 861).

The opposite

is true for surface waters, where

treatment is the expected norm.

Ramifications for Protection Policy.

The dissimilarities

between surface and groundwaters, as noted above, have

ramifications on the program which would most suitably protect

Illinois groundwaters.

Each of these ramifications is developed

more fully in following sections.

Among

these are:

——

The variety of compositions and uses of grovndwater makes

the objective of groundwater protection less readily

identifiable than that for surface water protection;

the

groundwater

objective is not likely to be the same as that

for surface water.

111—5

72-170

---

——

Standards suitable to protection of groundwaters may be

significantly different from those designed to protect

surface waters.

——

A single set of groundwater standards may not be sufficient

to protect the broad range of ambient groundwaters and the

various uses

to which these groundwaters are or may be put.

——

Groundwaters may not be amenable to a standard of protection

at other than that of the highest potential use without risk

of long—term or permanent loss of the highest use.

——

Remediation of groundwater contamination is generally far

more difficult and expensive than is remediation of surface

water contamination.

——

An appropriate groundwater

protection plan may strongly

emphasize prevention over remediation.

——

Classification of groundwaters designed

to recognize the

different characteristics and uses of groundwater may be an

essential management technique.

——

More extensive monitoring of groundwaters may be required

than is practiced in surface water management if the full

spectrum of groundwater quality conditions

is to be

recognized.

PREVENTION VERSUS REMEDIATION

A consensus throughout the materials before the Board is

that remediation of groundwater contamination is

a most difficult

task.

While there apparently have been some successful remedial

efforts,

remediation of groundwater contamination

is generally

concluded

to be difficult, expensive, and require lengthy periods

of time

(R. at 524, 669—71, 858—9,

1350—1; Ex. 40, p.

8;

Ex.

41,

p.

19).

There are two general techniques

for remedying groundwater

contamination: containment and treatment.

Both techniques are

generally applicable only if the source or extent of

contamination can be determined,

a condition not always

possible.

The intent of containment is

to retard the spread of

contamination; approaches such as pumping wells to draw in

contaminants and surface capping of contaminant sources to

prevent rain from washing contaminants into groundwater may be

employed.

The long—term effectiveness of these approaches has

not been demonstrated

(Ex.

41,

p.

21).

Treatment usually

involves pumping water from the contaminated aquifer and treating

it at the surface.

Treatment may alternatively be in situ by,

for example, injection of microorganisms to degrade organic

contaminants.

Either type of treatment requires months or years

of operation, and

is costly

(Ex.

41,

p.

21).

111—6

72-171

---

Due

to the inefficacy and difficulty of remediating

groundwater contamination, there exists the additional consensus

that in the realm of groundwater management there

is a particular

need to emphasize prevention programs over remediation programs

(R. at 614, 619,

670; Ex.

40,

p.

8), particularly where

persistent toxic chemicals are involved

(Ex.

1,

p.

18).

The Plan

recognizes this need in its Recommendations section:

In the long run, groundwater protection needs to be

more prospective (prevention—oriented)

to be truly

effective since full restoration of groundwater

quality can be very difficult and costly once

contamination occurs.

The EPA has found that

Illinois

is vulnerable with respect to this concern,

and needs

to take positive action to address this

matter.

(Ex.

1, p.

34).

In discussing

its recommendations

for a program of

prevention of groundwater contamination, the Agency further

noted:

Essentially, the thrust of the entire program

is that

it is much more reasonable,

it is cheaper, and it

is

certainly more safe

to prevent groundwater

contamination from reaching water supplies, from

reaching aquifers, or any kind of groundwater that

would render

it unusable than

it is to remediate

contaminated groundwater.

(R. at 525).

ENR also cited the need for prevention programs, noting

prevention should be

a goal of any groundwater plan:

The only effective,

long—term measures

for protecting

the Illinois groundwater resource are those that

prevent contamination.

Clean—up is expensive and

seldom 100 percent effective.

The State program

should aim, therefore, to prevent any groundwater

pollution, within economic and technical limits.

(R.

at 114;

Ex.

22,

p.

3).

Similar conclusions have been drawn on the national level.

Noteworthy among these

is the conclusion of the National Research

Council’s Committee on Ground Water Quality Protection:

Programs that base coherent intergovernmental

activities on protection of ground water as a

resource appear

to have a greater potential

for long

term success that those that focus on remedial action

as has often been the case in other environmental

protection programs.

(Ex.

40,

p.

9).

111—7

72-172

---

The Board strongly agrees with these perspectives, and hence

with the need to stress contamination prevention in Illinois’

groundwater protection program.

As

a generality, the Board

believes that pollution prevention is preferable to pollution

remediation irrespective of the environmental medium under

consideration.

However,

in the realm of groundwater the need for

prevention is particularly acute.

Accordingly, the Board finds

that a strong program for prevention of groundwater contamination

is

a necessary component of

a groundwater protection program.

CLASSIFICATION OF GROUNDWATERS

General Principles.

Classification of groundwaters consists

of the systematic grouping of waters and/or the host earth

materials in which the waters occur into classes based on common

properties.

Classification may be done simply for the purpose of

clarifying the variety of conditions under which groundwater

exists

in nature,

or for the more formal purpose of defining to

which waters and/or host earth materials specific standards and

regulations apply.

An additional benefit of groundwater

classification, whether done exterior to or within a regulatory

program,

is that it provides focus as to where limited state and

local

resources may be most effectively directed

(Ex. 40, p. 80).

Classification of groundwaters in an informal sense has a

long standing history and utility

(R.

at 903—5).

The record

is

replete with examples of such.

Groundwaters, among many examples

of quality considerations,

may be classified as brines

if they

possess unusually high salinities, as high—radium waters if the

natural radium concentration is above

a specified level,

or as

low—hardness waters

if hardness is less than

a specified value.

Groundwaters may be further classified as being located in the

“Deep Aquifer”

or the “Shallow Aquifer”, which generally relates

to the depth of occurrence, but also has connotations of the

stratigraphic units involved.

Groundwaters are also regularly

classified depending upon their being hosted

in “Drift Aquifers”

or “Bedrock Aquifers”,

a classification system based on the

character of the host earth material.

The Board has itself found

it useful to call on

a classification of groundwaters based on

their resource properties, as presented in section II above, so

as to bring

focus to the policy basis of groundwater protection.

An issue before the State

in the instant matter

is whether

classification should be carried

to the more formal level wherein

groundwaters are grouped toward the goal

of providing

differential standards and/or protection to the several groups.

Twenty—two states have either adopted or proposed some type

of formal classification system

(Ex.

28,

p.l3).

The criteria

involved in the classification systems has some diversity,

including the following elements:

types of use, degree of

treatment required for use, salinity—quality levels,

111—8

72-173

---

vulnerability to contamination, importance of aquifers, and

availability of other water supplies

(Ex.

28,

p.

13).

A survey

conducted by ENR

(Ex. 52)

found that twelve states classified

groundwaters on the basis of TDS concentration, seven states

classified on the basis of use designation, and one state on the

combination of TDS concentration and use

(R. at 772—3).

Application

in Illinois.

The only recommendation in the

Plan regarding groundwater classification is the recommendation

that the State not attempt formal classification of aquifers in

terms of water quality at the present time.

This perspective is

based on the Agency’s experience that such classification has

inherent difficulties due

to cross—connections between aquifers,

variations in water quality and physical parameters within

a

single aquifer,

direct observation problems, and absence of a

positive reception by the public at the Agency’s hearings

(Ex.

1,

p.

21;

R.

at 895—901).

The Agency’s perspective may be correct.

However, the Board

concludes that it is premature to discard the concept of formal

classification of groundwater

in general.

The record supports

the determination that groundwater classification can have

substantial utility,

and that this utility should not be

discarded without careful analysis of whether the potential gains

outweigh the difficulty of implementation.

In subsequent sections of this Report, the Board develops

the rationale for

a two—fold groundwater protection program with

provisions for both water quality standards development and

a

contamination prevention program.

In both recommendations

it is

implicit that groundwaters be formally classified.

With respect

to the matter of water quality standards,

the Board believes it

necessary that a review of standards consider the broad spectrum

of natural groundwater characteristics.

This is not obviously

accomplishable with a single set of numerical standards, and

hence formal classification would seemingly be required to

identify to which groundwaters specific standards would apply*.

*

The Board notes that such classification does in fact

presently exist in State regulations, wherein groundwaters

classified as constituting

a present or potential source of water

for public or

food processing water supply are identified as

having specific standards applied

to them which differ from those

not in this classification category (see p.

IV—2,3).

The Board

also notes that the existence of underground injection of wastes

(see p.

VI—5) constitutes a de facto classification of aquifers

for disposal rather than for water supply, and that the Agency

endorses the concept of classifying some groundwaters as “limited

use” groundwaters due

to impaired quality

(R.

at 905—il).

111—9

72-174

---

Similarly,

the Board’s recommendation for

a contamination

prevention program would logically seem to require

differentiating among

a variety of possible relationships between

groundwater characteristics and land use activities.

Hence,

it

would also seem to be necessary that there be identified classes

to which particular preventive actions would be directed.

Much of the objection raised in the record to classifying

Illinois groundwaters appears to be based on the premise that

classification implies allowable degradation of groundwaters.

As

one witness noted: “The plan must have as its goal the non—

degradation of Illinois groundwater; nothing less will do.

Within this concept there is simply no room for classification of

groundwater”

(R.

at 357).

The Board disagrees with this

premise.

On the contrary,

a properly defined classification

system could assist a non—degradation policy by providing a

framework for identification of ambient conditions.

The National Research Council

(“NRC”), in its review of

groundwater classification (Ex. 40), has reached conclusions

similar

to those of the Board.

On the utility of classification

the NRC’s committee notes:

A comprehensive classification system....can be an

effective tool for optimizing ground water protection

efforts.

Maps prepared on the basis of a

classification system can be used to guide activities

such as the development of standards for water

supply, land use management,

source controls, and

remedial action.

By directing the location of

potential sources of pollutants away from critical

areas,

classification can also reduce the cost and

controversy associated with case—by—case siting of

facilities.

In addition,

a mechanism for

coordination between state and local governments is

provided.

(Ex.

40,

p.

12)

The NRC committee’s recommendation regarding classification

is also similar to that of the Board:

The committee recommends that states consider

classifying

their ground waters in conjunction with a

mapping program that specifically identifies critical

areas and resources

for special protection.

If data

are not sufficient,

they should be obtained to

provide for classification and mapping in

a phased

approach.

The lack of complete data should not

necessarily preclude the development of a

classification system.

The classification criteria

should be adopted through a public process.

States

with advanced protection programs may opt to give

equal protection to all ambient waters of drinking

quality.

(Ex.

40,

p.

12; emphasis added)

111—10

72-175

---

A further consideration on the matter of whether

Illinois

ought to formally classify itsgroundwaters

follows from actions

on the federal level.

The United States Environmental Protection

Agency

(“rJSEPA”)

has been noted as advocating

a three—fold

classification of groundwaters based on their respective value

and their vulnerability to contamination

(Ex.

1,

p.

16).

At

present, the USEPA only recommends use of this classification

system.

However, there are some indications that the USEPA may

begin using it more formally and require states

to use

it in

programs requiring federal/state coordination

(R. at 902).

Under

the circumstances, Illinois may be well advised

to have available

the necessary data to so classify its groundwaters.

The

availability of special federal programs which require

groundwater classification,

as is the case with the groundwater

demonstration program authorized under

the Safe Drinking Water

Act Amendments of 1986, may also be incentive for Illinois to

undertake the effort of formal groundwater classification.

Illinois State Water Plan Task Force Proposal.

The most

specific groundwater classification proposal for Illinois

presented

in the record before the Board

is the proposal of the

Illinois State Water Plan Task Force.

This proposal identifies

four classes of groundwater based on use potential (Ex.

20, p.

1—

3).

The four classes are:

——

Domestic Use Underground Waters: Underground waters

capable of being used directly

for domestic use or

food processing with no or minimum treatment.

Minimum treatment shall include disinfection and

fluoridation for public water supply use of

underground water.

——

General Non—Domestic Use Underground Waters:

Underground waters capable of being used

for

agricultural, industrial, recreational

or any other

legitimate beneficial non—domestic uses.

——

Limited Use Underground Waters: Underground waters

whose naturally occurring characteristics render them

generally unsuitable for withdrawal from the ground

for domestic or general non—domestic use.

——

Imminent Surface Return Flow Underground Waters:

Underground waters which are below the geomorphic

flood plain and hydraulically connected to the

surface waters within that plain.

Although the Board

is not prepared to reach conclusions on

the detailed merits of this proposal without review of the

proposal

in a proper

regulatory forum, the Board does conclude

that a classification system of this general type is consistent

with, and would

offer support to, the State Groundwater Policy

proposed herein

(p.

Il—I).

Ill—Il

72-176

---

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AQUIFERS AND RECHARGE AREAS

The issue of identification of sensitive* aquifers and

recharge areas arises

for several reasons.

The principal of

these are that there is no merit in undertaking groundwater

protection efforts in areas where these efforts will not affect

groundwater protection, and that the limit on available resources

makes

it imperative that efforts be concentrated in such

a manner

as

to bring about the greatest amount of protection.

Based on these premises, it has been proposed, and the Board

endorses, that groundwater protection,

at least initially,

be

focused on groundwaters and recharge areas sensitive to

contamination.

The Board concludes that research presently being conducted

by ENR,

in conjunction with other State agencies as appropriate,

leading

to the statewide identification and prioritization of

critical recharge areas, would be of very great value in enabling

such areas to eventually be protected.

This research would

hopefully result

in as detailed an identification as reasonably

possible of both the sensitive recharge areas and the aquifers

involved and include mapping of them.

A high priority is

appropriately placed on completing

this work as soon as

possible.

If limited resources mandate that less than

a state-

wide effort takes place,

at least some of the research undertaken

should be directed towards the identification and mapping of the

most sensitive areas

(i.e., those aquifers which allow, because

of their character, rapid flow of groundwater and contaminants).

MONITORING

Recommendation of the Plan.

The Plan recommends continued

and expanded efforts at monitoring of groundwater

(Ex.

1,

p. 30-

1).

The Board

finds these efforts to be necessary.

As the plan

notes,

the overall objectives of monitoring are to establish

baseline groundwater quality and trends,

identify problems, and

develop future problem solving approaches

(Ex.

1,

p. 30).

The

Board concludes that meeting all of these objectives

is essential

to protection of groundwater.

It may further be concluded that

much of our present understanding of groundwater quality has

derived

from monitoring,

and that all future understanding will

*

The Board notes that this term is regularly used

to refer

to

aquifers and/or recharge areas which have a high susceptibility

to or potential for becoming contaminated.

However, the term has

not yet been defined to the degree which would be necessary in

any regulatory or legislative program.

111—12

72-177

---

be critically dependent upon maintaining and expanding monitoring

efforts.

The Agency has already instituted

a program for monitoring

of groundwater

(R.

at 23,

117), the major provisions of which

involve monitoring all community* water supply wells for organic

substances

(Ex.

1,

p. 49—51)

over a four—year period, expansion

of analytical facilities

to allow detection of

a broad range of

possible pollutants, provision

for follow—up monitoring, and

identification of regional problem areas and specific known or

suspected areas of groundwater contamination

(Ex.

1, p.

30—1).

Other State agencies, principally the research divisions of ENR,

also conduct specialized groundwater monitoring.

The Department

of Public Health additionally monitors some non—community water

supplies and private water supplies by request for bacterial and

nitrate contamination.

The Board commends these present efforts,

as well as the continuing efforts of the responsible officials

for

improvement and expansion of their monitoring programs.

Scope of Monitoring.

The Board concludes,

however,

that the

scope of the present monitoring program requires expansion.

In

this regard, the studies and recommendations of ENR merit special

attention.

ENR points out that the Agency’s present monitoring

program should be more appropriately designed in order

to meet

the goal of establishing baseline groundwater quality and

trends.

At the least, private and non—community wells should be

brought into the network, frequency of monitoring should be

selectively adjusted to suit aquifer/well conditions, and data

collection should be coordinated

(R. at 123—7,

1236;

Ex.

22, p.

6—7).

Mr. Jeffery

S. Brown, Environmental Manager of Velsicol

Chemical Corporation, speaking on behalf of the Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group

(“IERG”), was supportive of this

aspect of ENR’s recommendations when he noted that:

The network of monitoring wells proposed on page 30

of the report

Plan

fails

to recognize that public

water supply wells are not representative of the

geology or contaminant sources of Illinois.

The

network should be based on a statistically

representative sample of Illinois’ ground water

resource rather than on the most convenient well.

(R. at 1128—9; Ex.

65, p.

3;

emphasis in original)

*

Community and non—community water supplies are varieties of

public water supplies by definition in the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act.

The term “private water supply”

is used herein

as a water supply which is not a public water supply, as this

latter term is defined

in the Act

(see p. IV—3,4).

This

is the

sense in which the term “private water supply”

is used

in the

Plan

(R.

at 1453), as well as apparently throughout the record in

this proceeding.

111—13

72-178

---

The Board does not believe that present monitoring

is

conducted only on the basis of convenience of well location, as

the above statement implies.

However, the Board

is particularly

concerned that there

is no present, systematic monitoring of

private and non—community water supplies for critical potential

contaminants.

This raises several specters, including the

possibility that the significant portion of the population which

utilizes

or

is exposed to water

from private and non—community

water wells may not be subject to the hazard alert afforded by

monitoring;

that some portion of the population may actually be

exposed

to hazardous contaminants without their awareness or

without the awareness of officials;

and that significant

groundwater resources may become contaminated, possibly beyond

the availability of remedial measures, before the existence of

the problem is recognized.

The Board

is also concerned that private and non—community

water supplies are often derived from shallower sources than are

community water supplies.

Under

these circumstances, private and

non—community water supplies run a greater risk of contamination

due

to activities originating at the ground surface

(Ex.

1,

p.

23).

Thus, absence of data

in the monitoring record

from these

supplies may lead

to a significant underevaluation of, and

reaction

to,

the problems of groundwater contamination.

The Board

is aware of the magnitude of the fiscal resource

which would be needed to integrate all of the approximately

500,000 private wells in Illinois into

a fully comprehensive

monitoring program.

However, the Board believes that this fact

need not require the exclusion of all private and non—community

wells

from the Agency’s systematic monitoring program.

Rather,

it would seem that

a useful program could be designed which would

integrate data from both community and private and non—community

water supplies.

Such a program might,

for example, include

as

regular members of the sampling group private and non—community

wells selected for representative conditions,

including types of

local land use, geographic locale, recharge area, depth,

source

aquifer, and intended water

use.

Data from the regular members

of the private and non—community sampling group might then be

further augmented and checked by sampling of randomly selected

members of the remaining population of private and non—community

wells

(R. at 374).

The Board additionally suggests that

monitoring efforts could have special focus on areas where

potential contaminant sources are known to occur, and thereby

enchance effective use of the limited monitoring resource.

An additional provision of a monitoring program which the

Board concludes warrants further consideration is the

recommendation of ENR

(R. at 126) and other witnesses

(R. at 335,

342,

372)

that it be made mandatory that all wells be tested for

a broad range of contaminants when first drilled and/or whenever

111—14

72-179

---

the well changes ownership*.

This would appear

to be a matter

requiring action on the part of the General Assembly, and the

Board refers

it to that body for consideration.

The Board would

note that, among other matters, implementation of this

recommendation would appear

to require identification of the

party or parties responsible

for bearing the cost and undertaking

the effort of collecting and analyzing the sample(s)

and for

interpreting resultant data.

Monitoring

for Agricultural Chemicals.

Concern about the

possible presence of agricultural chemicals in Illinois

groundwaters was commonly expressed during the hearings

(e.g.,

R.

at 329—37, 1262—8).

Although the extent and significance of the

levels of agricultural chemicals in groundwater is a subject of

some debate, many witnesses believe that Illinois must conduct

a

monitoring program to better define agricultural chemical

contamination.

There

is particular concern that the recognition

of agricultural chemicals

in groundwaters

in many states (e.g.,

Exs.

41, 47, 85—88,

94)

implies, given the high use of

agricultural chemicals

in Illinois,

that Illinois groundwaters

may be similarly contaminated.

At present,

there

is little demonstration of the presence of

agricultural chemicals in Illinois groundwater.

For the most

part, the few studies that have been undertaken have indicated no

significant contamination.

However, the extent of monitoring has

been neither large nor comprehensive.

The first detailed study

is currently being undertaken by the Illinois State Geological

and Water Surveys.

This study focuses on pesticide occurrences

in

soils and groundwaters in a region of Mason County.

The

purpose of the study is

to determine whether widely used

pesticides are leaking into groundwater

in a region highly

susceptible

to such contamination.

Unfortunately, results of

this study were not available during the hearings or during the

public comment period.

The Board commends the efforts of the Surveys, and supports

continued efforts to better define the occurrences and extent of

agricultural chemical contamination in groundwater.

In this

context, the Board notes the conclusion of the National Research

Council’s Committee on Ground Water Quality Protection that

information on chemical usage patterns, chemical characteristics,

and hydrologic conditions can be employed to minimize the cost of

a monitoring program

(Ex. 40,

p.

122).

*

Many lending institutions require testing for bacteria and

nitrates as a condition for granting mortgages

CR. at 412,

415).

However, more extensive analyses are apparently not

generally required.

111—15

72-180

---

Data Accessiblity.

Concern has been expressed about the

availability of monitoring data

CR.

at 125—7).

Most of the data

which presently exists

is apparently available only in file—form,

and cannot be machine retrieved or

read.

Consequently, data

access

is limited.

The Illinois State Water Plan Task Force

recommended:

To most effectively address the issue of monitoring

and managing Illinois underground resources,

it is

recommended than an expanded “real time” computer

based analyses of already routinely collected

underground water quality data, with adequate quality

control be developed.

Results from that effort would

form the basis

for interagency decisions in

establishing additional data collection priorities.

To address the multiple underground water quality

data needs of state and local plannng agencies,

a

technical advisory committee representing interested

State and Federal agencies should be established to

periodically review the results of continuing data

interpretations and modify monitoring recommendations

to meet emerging needs and priorities.

(Ex.

20,

p.

6).

The difficulty with accessing existing water quality data

was additionally emphasized during the hearings, when it was

noted that requested monitoring data could not be provided by the

Agency to the Board

or the public

in “anything short of a month

without disturbing our existing operations or monitoring”

(R. at

1473).

On these bases,

it appears clear that data accessibility

requires improvement.

COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS

There is broad support

throughout the record before the

Board, including both the Agency through the Plan

(p.

55)

and ENR

in its submissions

to the record

(R. at 115—6,

135—6;

Ex.

22,

Ex.

90,

p.

3), that there be

a coordination of efforts among State

agencies responsible for groundwater protection as a necessary

condition to effective groundwater management.

Local

governmental officials have also noted

their uncertainty

regarding the responsible State agency for various aspects of

both present and proposed groundwater protection, and the need to

coordinate with local agencies

(R. at 406—7).

The Illinois State Water Plan Task Force also addressed this

issue,

noting:

Illinois agencies currently regulate

a

broad

spectrum of potential

sources of groundwater

contamination.

The regulations, however, have been

adopted

for

a variety of different purposes and at

111—16

72-181

---

different times by at least nine different

agencies.

Consequently, Illinois lacks the

comprehensive approach to the protection of ground

water quality needed

for adequate control of all

sources of ground water pollution.

The present

patchwork of miscellaneous statutes and regulations

provides too many opportunities for gaps and overlaps

in regulatory control.

(Ex. 20,

p. 8).

The Board concludes that the broad support for coordination

of groundwater management efforts is evidence of its necessity.

The Board therefore concludes that effective management of the

State’s groundwaters requires appointment of a lead agency to

oversee and coordinate the State’s groundwater management

program;

the lead agency would appear to most logically be the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which presently has the

prime responsiblity for groundwater protection and which

presently administers the most closely related programs.

However, because groundwater management is

a multifaceted and

interdisciplinary field, the Board concludes that the lead agency

should be prepared to draw upon the many perspectives and

expertises present among

the diverse agencies of both State and

local governments.

Effective coordination by the lead agency would also appear

to require, or at the minimum to be enhanced by, bringing

appropriate programs under

the administrative authority of the

lead agency.

Among candidates for grouping under the lead

agency’s direction are the well drilling and well closing

oversight programs presently administered by the Department of

Mines and Minerals, the private well oversight and monitoring

programs presently administered by the Department of Public

Health, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program

presently administered by the State Fire Marshal.

111—17

72.182

---

WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS

A principal issue in the record before the Board concerns

the application of water quality standards to groundwater.

In

this section,

the Board reviews existing standards, the several

proposals which have been presented for alternative standards,

and other matters related

to application of standards to Illinois

groundwaters.

EXISTING STANDARDS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

Overview.

The State of Illinois presently has water quality

standards which are directed to protection of groundwater, or

which otherwise involve groundwater

use.

Additionally, certain

federal standards are applicable to groundwater protection.

The

Illinois water quality standards are contained principally in two

subtitles of 35 Ill. Adm. Code:

Subtitle

C, Water Pollution, Parts 300—312

Subtitle

F, Public Water Supplies, Parts 601—607

In the following, all citations to Subtitles, Parts, Subparts,

and Sections

(

) are to 35 Ill. Adm. Code unless otherwise noted.

Water Pollution Standards (Subtitle C).

The largest portion

of existing groundwater protection regulations exists within the

Pollution Control Board’s Subtitle C,

Rules and Regulations for

Water Pollution.

Within this subtitle underground waters are

defined and are identified as being subject to two bodies of

standards and to

a general provision

for non—degradation.

Underground waters and waters are defined respectively as

follows:

Underground Waters: Any waters of the State located

beneath the surface of the earth.

(

301.420)

Waters: All accumulations of water, surface and

underground, natural,

and artificial, public and

private, or parts thereof, which are wholly or

partially within,

flow through, or border upon the

State of Illinois...

(

301.440)

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act also contains a

definition of waters identical

in substance to that of

301.440:

“WATERS” means all accumulation of water, surface and

underground, natural, and artificial, public and

private, or parts thereof, which are wholly or

partially within, flow through, or border upon this

IV-l

72.183

---

State.

(Ill.

Rev. Stat.

ch.

1111/2, par. 1003,

3(oo)

).

The two bodies of standards which are applicable to

groundwaters are the General Use Standards contained in Subpart B

of Part 302 and the Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards contained in Subpart C of Part 302.

Applicability of

the two sets of standards to groundwater

is determined by:

Section 303.201

General Use Waters

Except as otherwise specifically provided, all waters

of the State must meet the general use standards of

Subpart B of Part 302.

Section 303.203

Underground Waters

The underground waters of Illinois which are

a

present or

a potential source of water

for public or

food processing supply shall meet the general use and

public and food processing water supply standards of

Subparts

B and

C,

Part 203, except due to natural

causes.

The Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards, where

applicable, are always cumulative with the General Use

Standards.

That is, they apply in addition to the General Use

Standards.

Their principal effect is to supply more restrictive

or stringent limits for some of the General Use parameters,

as

well as to

increase the number of parameters for which numerical

standards exist.

303.203 determines that the cumulative General Use and

Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards are applicable

to groundwaters* which are

a present or a potential source of

*

It has been noted

CR. at 1441)

that the definition of Public

and Food Processing Water Supply found at

301.360 identifies

such supplies as water withdrawn from surface water and fails to

mention underground water.

The

301.360 definition is asserted

to be a cause of confusion and to allow a reading that Public and

Food Processing Water Supply Standards are not to be applied to

water withdrawn from underground waters even though that water

may otherwise meet the criteria of

a Public and Food Processing

Water Supply

(R. at 1441—9).

The Board notes that such a reading

would be clearly inconsistent with both

303.203 and the Board’s

expressed intentions at the time of adoption of the water quality

standards (in R7l—14,

3 PCB 755).

So that this source of

possible confusion may be corrected, the Board will propose to

amend the definition of Public and Food Processing Water Supply

found at

301.360 in the earliest appropriate regulatory

proceeding.

IV-2

72-184

---

water

for potable use or

for food processing, except where

deviation is due to natural causes.

It is significant to note

that these standards apply in situ; that is, they are ambient

water quality standards.

They also apply irrespective of whether

the waters are used by a public water supplier,

a private water

supplier, or only have the potential for being so used.

301.420,

301.440, and

303.201 also seemingly determine

in combination that the General Use Standards apply to

groundwaters of the State wherever these do not have present or

potential use as water supplies.

However,

to the Board’s

knowledge this issue has not been specifically addressed

in any

judicial forum.

An additional provision of Subtitle C, Water Pollution,

which applies to groundwaters, is the non—degradation

provision.

Specifically it states:

Section 302.105

Nondegradation

Waters whose existing quality is better than the

established standards at the date of their adoption

will be maintained in their present high quality.

Such waters will not be lowered

in quality unless and

until

it is affirmatively demonstrated that such

change will not interfere with

or become injurious to

any appropriate beneficial uses made of,

or presently

possible

in, such waters and that such change is

justifiable as a result of necessary economic or

social development.

As

is the case with the standards of Subpart B, the non—

degradation provision applies to groundwaters because

groundwaters are waters of the State, pursuant to

301.420 and

301.440.

The Board notes that the federal term “anti—

degradation” might more accurately describe

302.105 since,

clearly, this section does not completely preclude degradation,

but allows limited degradation after an adequate showing that it

is necessary for important public purposes and only after

appropriate public participation.

Public Water Supply Standards

(Subtitle F).

The Public

Water Supply Standards of Subtitle F apply to public water

supplies, except for those designated as non—community water

supplies, irrespective of whether the source of the water is

groundwater or surface water.

A public water supply is defined

in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act:

“PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY” means all mains, pipes and

structures through which water

is obtained and

distributed

to the public,

including wells and well

structures,

intakes and cribs, pumping stations,

treatment plants,

reservoirs, storage tanks and

appurtenances, collectively or

severally, actually

IV-3

72.185

---

used or intended for use for the purpose of

furnishing water

for drinking or general domestic use

and which serve at least 15 service connections or

which regularly serve at least 25 persons at least 60

days per year.

A public water supply is either

a

“community water supply”

or

a “non—community water

supply”.

(Ill. Rev. Stat.

ch.

ll?-h~, par. 1003,

3(u)).

Community and non—community water supplies are also defined

in the Act:

“COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY” means

a public water supply

which serves or is intended to serve at least 15

service connections used by residents or regularly

serves at least 25 residents.

(Ill.

Rev. Stat.

ch.

1111/2, par.

1003,

3(rr)).

“NON—COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY” means a public water

supply that is not

a community water

supply.

The

requirements of this Act shall not apply to non—

community water supplies.

(Ill.

Rev. Stat.

ch.

1111/2,

par. 1003,

3(ss)).

Public Water Supply Standards are found

in Part 604.

They

are applicable at each service connection (“point of

distribution”)

of

a Public Water

Supply.

As such,

they are

applicable

to waters irrespective of source,

including waters

derived from either surface or groundwater sources.

Their

principal purpose is

to assure that water delivered to a user by

a Public Water Supply is consumable without additional treatment

by the user.

The standards do not apply to private water

supplies, which are those which fail to meet the criteria in the

definition of Public Water Supply (see footnote, p. 111—13).

The Illinois Public Water Supply Standards have major

foundation in federal

law, particularly in the Safe Drinking

Water Act (“SDWA”)

and its amendments.

The Illinois standards

are no less stringent than those of the SDWA, but may be more

stringent in some particular provisions.

It

is anticipated that

the 1986 amendments to the SDWA, which mandated promulgation of

83 maximum contaminant levels (“MCL”)

by the USEPA over the next

three years, will significantly increase the number of parameters

covered by the Public Water Supply Standards.

Other State Groundwater Regulations.

The Board’s

regulations contain other groundwater pollution control

provisions, principally those which control waste disposal found

in Subtitle G.

State regulations for hazardous waste are

essentially identical with federal regulations required under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).

These include

regulations

for both interim and final status groundwater

protection operating requirements.

The intent of these

is

illustrated by Part 724 of Subtitle G, which specifies

IV-4

72-186

---

groundwater quality standards to be met in the uppermost aquifer

underlying

a waste management area at and beyond the point of

compliance.

The standards,

or constituent maximum concentration

levels

(“MCL5”)* are identical to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s

currently effective interim drinking water standards for metals

and organic pesticides.

For constituents not having such

standards,

the concentration “must not exceed

the background

level

of that constituent in the groundwater at the time that

limit is specified in the permit”

(

724.194).

The point of

compliance

is defined as being “a vertical surface located at the

hydraulically downgradient limit of the waste management area

that extends down into the uppermost aquifer”

(

724.195).

This

effectively provides for

a “mixing zone”

or “zone of attenuation”

directly underlying the waste management area.

As opposed

to hazardous waste disposal sites, State

regulations for sanitary landfills contain no provisions specific

to the protection of groundwater quality other than

a general

prohibition against water pollution

(

807.313) and the

requirement that information be submitted with the permit

application sufficient to describe groundwater conditions,

show

that water pollution will not occur, and show that water quality

standards will be complied with

(

807.316).

On—site disposal

of

waste not listed as

“hazardous”

is exempted

from even this

narrative requirement since

a ,permit is not necessary in such

cases

Ill.

Rev. Stat.

ch.

111½, par. l021(d)(i).

Federal Standards.

The federal government does not

presently have generally applicable groundwater standards**.

Rather, the principal areas where federal standards respecting

groundwater come into play are with regard to public water supply

standards promulgated under

the SDWA and regulations to protect

groundwater from contamination by land disposal

of waste.

State

standards may be more stringent, but must at

a minimum

incorporate these federal standards.

Furthermore, as is the case

in Illinois, many states adopting water quality standards for

surface waters as required under

the Clean Water Act

(22 USC

1313)

have included standards for groundwater.

After approval

by the USEPA,

these become federally enforceable standards.

*

Under

the SDWA,

the term used for drinking water standards is

maximum contaminant level

(“MCL”).

The equivalent term under

Illinois regulations is Maximum Acceptable Concentration

(“MAC”).

Additionally, health—based recommended standards under

the SDWA are known as recommended maximum contaminant levels

(“RMCL”)

**

As the Board has previously noted

(p.

11—9),

there is impetus

in Congress to develop groundwater protection legislation.

It is

possible that provisions for federal groundwater quality

standards could be included.

IV-5

72.187

---

The Board has previously adopted any new federal MCLs into

the State regulations after hearings are held and an economic

impact analysis

is undertaken.

Thus,

the federal MCLs and the

State Public Water Supply Standards are essentially

coincident*.

As

is the case with the State’s Public Water Supply

Standards of Subtitle

F, the federal public water supply

standards do not apply to ambient groundwaters, but rather

to

finished waters as delivered to consumers.

Federal hazardous waste regulations, as noted above, are

also essentially identical

to those which have been adopted in

Illinois.

Land disposal of wastes not listed as hazardous is

supposed to comply with criteria established

under Subtitle D of

RCRA.

Those criteria essentially require compliance with

drinking water standards in groundwater beyond the solid waste

boundary.

Although Illinois has yet to adopt

these criteria, it

will be required

to do so

for at least those facilities handling

small quantity generator and household hazardous wastes no later

than November,

1987, according to recent amendments

to federal

law.

Additionally, these criteria are to be upgraded and it

is

expected that Illinois will be required to adopt the upgraded

criteria by approximately September, 1989

(42 U.S. Code

6955).

RATIONALE FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Before discussing the various proposals present in the

record

for modification of the present water quality standards,

the Board believes

it instructive to first briefly review the

rationale for water quality standards themselves.

Opinions

expressed at hearing are that the purpose of water quality

standards is to set the measure of compliance

CR. at 91)

and to

aid enforcement actions

(R. at 851, 1416).

While the Board

acknowledges the utility of standards

in the enforcement process,

it concludes that water quality standards serve several

additional

and vital functions.

Certainly

a very vital function of water quality standards

is to define for

a potential user the conditions under which use

of a particular water

is believed to be harmful.

This probably

is the principal perception of water quality standards held by

the public.

A second major function of water quality standards is to

provide

a firm definition of the minimum expected level of

protectionl

As the Board noted

in 1972 when it adopted the water

quality standards essentially in place today,

“the standards

represent not optimum water quality, but the worst we are

*

The Board notes that it is currently considering the merits of

adopting standards for two parameters not covered by federal

MCL5.

These are trihalomethanes

(R85—l2)

and aluminum (R86—29).

IV-6

72-188

---

prepared

to tolerate

if economic considerations so

require’”

(in

the matter of Water Quality Standards Revisions, R7l—l4,

3 PCB

765).

Another view is expressed in the State Water Quality

Management Plan, which noted that “water quality standards are

the numerical expression of the aspiration of the people of

Illinois for their water resources”

(Vol.

1,

p.

54,

83).

Other

important functions of water quality standards include

providing greater clarity to environmental protection goals;

serving as an alert mechanism for corrective action;

serving as a

goal for remedial action; providing guidance in devising permit

conditions; and serving as a standard of judgment for management

alternatives.

Each of these additional functions can also

actually provide environmental protection by clarifying what is

expected of all individuals concerned, and hence sometimes

obviate the need for enforcement.

For example, design of new

facilities can be guided to assure no violation of standards.

Lastly, the Board believes that specifically defined

standards serve as the embodiment of an environmental protection

philosophy.

The Board believes that this

is well illustrated

in

the instant proceeding wherein proponents of differing

perspectives have regularly associated established classes of

water quality standards with their philosophies.

For all of the above reasons, the Board concludes that clear

and appropriate water quality standards serve an important

environmental protection role.

The Board further concludes that

clear and appropriate water quality standards constitute a

fundamental facet of any groundwater protection program.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER STANDARDS

A substantial portion of the record before the Board

addresses the issue of what water quality standards are most

appropriately applied to the State’s underground waters.

There

have been three principal recommendations, which may be generally

characterized as:

that present standards be replaced by “general

use”

standards; that present standards be replaced by “drinking

water standards”; and that the standard be absolute non—

degradation.

There

is some confusion in the record concerning the

terminology within which recommendations have been couched.

This

is particularly true with respect

to proponents of the

application of “general use” standards to groundwaters.

In

several cases, cross—examination showed that the user of this

term was envisioning application of use—based standards to

groundwater

(R. at 604, 636,

870,

986), and not necessarily that

the General Uses Standards as presently defined in Part 302 be

applied to groundwater.

The Plan’s

(Ex.

1,

p.

29) recommendation

IV-7

72-189

---

for groundwater standards is itself

a

recommendation for use—

based standards

(R.

at 36,

604,

607)

and not a recommendation for

application of the Part 302 standards,

a point not obviously

appreciated by all witnesses nor

in all submissions to the

record.

For these reasons, the Board will refer

to such

recommendations as recommendations

for “general use” standards,

enclosing the term in quotation marks.

A similar difficulty exists with proponents recommending

application of “drinking water” standards, wherein there is

evident confusion on the part of some witnesses concerning the

distinction between the Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards and the Public Water Supply Standards.

In spite of

their similarity in name,

the two sets of standards differ

substantially in concept and in some of their specific

provisions.

In concept,

the Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards are intended to assure that

a raw water source is of

sufficient quality that

it can be applied

to domestic consumption

or food processing use without extraordinary treatment;

the

standards are ambient water quality standards; with respect to

groundwater, they apply in the ground at the point at which water

is withdrawn or has the potential for being withdrawn for public

or food processing use.

In contrast, the Public Water Supply Standards are intended

to assure that

a consumer of water

is furnished

a suitable

product by the distributor

irrespective of the level

of treatment

needed to bring the water

to standard; the standards are finished

water

standards;

the application point is within the distribution

system.

The two sets of standards also differ

in some specifics,

including the parameters which are specified and the numerical

limits of the parameters.

In general,

but not exclusively, the

parameters present in the Public Water Supply Standards are more

numerous and have stricter limits than the Public and Food

Processing Water Supply Standards.

Although many efforts were made at hearing

to assure that

witnesses were aware of these distinctions, it is not apparent

that the efforts were always successful.

It is therefore

difficult

for the Board

to know whether a particular witness was

conceiving of “drinking water” standards or even “potable water”

standards as coincident with the concepts and specifics of Public

and Food Processing Water Supply Standards, with the concepts and

specifics of Public Water Supply Standards, with the concepts and

specifics of a combination of the two, or none of the above.

Table

1

is provided to show how some aspects of the various

recommendations differ.

It does not necessarily recognize all

the variations

which the various proponents of alternate

recommendations may have considered.

Also included

is the

recommendation of the Board on the matter of groundwater quality

standards and, fo~r~ferençe,the system of standards presently

applicable to Illino.s surface waters.

IV-8

72-190

---

TABLE 1.

PRESENT AND RECOMMENDED APPLICABILITY

OF NUMERICAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO GROUNDWATERS

Ambient,

exclusive of

points of

withdrawal

for Public

and Food

Processing

Water Supply

Point

of

withdrawal

for Public

and Food

Processing

Water Supply

Distribution

point

of

Public Water

Supply

Present Illinois

Surface Water

Standards

Present Illinois

Underground

Water Quality

Standards

General Use1

Cumulative2

General Use

and Public and

Food Processing

Water Supply

Cumulative

General Use

and Public and

Food Processing

Water Supply

Cumulative

General Use

and Public and

Food Processing

Water Supply

Public Water

Supply

Public Water

Supply

Recommendation

of

“Use—Based”

Standards

“General

Use”

Public and Food

Proces~ingWater

Supply~

Public Water

Supply

Recommendation

of “Drinking

Water—Based”

Standards

“Dr ink~.ng

Water””

“Drinking

Water””

Public Water

Supply

Recommend tion

of Non—degra-

dation

Standards are equal

to the

natural water quality

Public Water

Supply

Board

Recommendation

Separate set(s) of standards

specific to the protection of

groundwaters

Public

Water

Supply

(1)

In some special circumstances, standards other

than General Use apply (i.e.,

Lake Michigan or

Secondary Use Standards).

(2)

Applicable only to underground waters which are

a present or

a potential source of water

for

Public and Food Processing Water Supply.

(3)

In some recommendations “general use” rather

than Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards would apply.

IV-9

72-191

---

(4)

Applicable in different recommendations

to

groundwaters

in

general

or

only

to

“resource

groundwaters”.

Applicability of Surface Water Standards to Groundwater.

The only specific endorsement

in the record of which the Board

is

aware for application of the General Use Standards of Part 302 to

groundwaters is that of the Illinois State Water Plan Task Force

(Ex.

40,

p.

4).

Nevertheless, it is clear that some witnesses

believed that this is a recommendation of the Plan.

In general,

this interpretation of the Plan was not received favorably

(R. at

120—1;

Ex.

22, p.

5).

The Board itself therefore concludes that

it is useful

to lay out its position concerning General Use

Standards because these are currently applicable to some

groundwaters, and will remain so unless

a regulatory revision is

undertaken.

It is clear from both the record

in the instant matter and

from previous matters before the Board that standards

for

groundwater

have been something of a stepchild

in the general

arena of water quality standards.

That is, while substantial

deliberation has gone into the development and refinement of

surface water standards,

in the past comparatively little

attention has been focused on the special conditions encountered

in groundwater.

To some degree this is understandable,

given

changing perspectives on groundwater quality

(Ex.

1, p.

11) and

a

growing awareness of

a whole new generation of potential

groundwater contaminants

(Ex.

1, p.

18).

A part of this new view

of groundwater

is the concern that standards promulgated

for

surface waters have been extended to groundwaters without

sufficient consideration of the dissimilarities which exist

between the two

(R.

at 119—20;

Ex.

22,

p.

5).

From the practical perspective,

the dissimilarities between

surface waters

and groundwaters would suggest that the General

Use Standards,

in large part conditioned on protection of habitat

for aquatic life and for recreational uses, may not be

appropriate

to groundwater protection.

An example in point is

302.210 of the General Use Standards, which relates to

substances toxic

to aquatic life.

It provides that waters shall

not contain any substance toxic to aquatic life

in concentrations

exceeding one—tenth of the 96—hour median tolerance limit for

native fish or essential fish organisms, with USEPA registered

aquatic—use pesticides being excepted.

A plain reading of this

section,

in combination with the provisions of

302.201 and

303.203, could lead

to the conclusion that groundwaters are

subject to this aquatic toxicity limit.

It may,

in fact, be

appropriate that groundwaters be so subject given that some

groundwaters discharge to surface waters

(see p.

11—6,7).

However,

it

is possible that such

a determination would be judged

arbitrary and capricious given the questionable applicability of

aquatic—life criteria to ambient groundwaters.

IV—lO

72- 192

---

There are other, less obvious, examples of the questionable

application of General Use Standards to groundwater.

Several

General Use parameters have more restrictive General Use limits

than Public Water Supply limits.

This generally exists because

some substances have detrimental effects on aquatic life at

significantly lower levels than those which produce an effect on

humans.

Copper

is an example.

Copper

is toxic

to certain

elements of the aquatic food chain, and accordingly the General

Use Standard

is set at the relatively low level of 0.02 mg/L.

Humans, however, are substantially more tolerant of copper, to

the point where copper piping

is commonly employed

in water

systems.

The Public Water Supply Standard

for copper is

correspondingly 5.0 mg/L*,

250 times larger than the General Use

Standard.

This raises the question as to whether

it is

appropriate

to protect groundwaters, which are generally

considered

to have the highest use

in human consumption, with a

copper standard based on toxicity to aquatic life.

This question

is not answered

in the record currently before the Board, but the

Board believes that this and similar questions are of sufficient

importance that they should be answered.

The general aquatic life toxicity provision and the copper

standard of the General Use Standards are but two illustrations

of possible inappropriateness of the General Use Standards as

applied

to groundwaters.

Other examples of questionable

application may also exist.

It is not our purpose

to expand

further upon these,

but rather to note that their existence,

even

if only a possibility, recommends a thorough review of the

applicability to groundwaters of standards which are of surface

water derivation.

Although discussion of the inappropriateness of applying

surface water standards

to groundwater has focused on the General

Use Standards, there may also be question as to whether the

current Public and Food Processing Water Standards are

appropriate for groundwater protection.

Water withdrawn

from

surface waters

for public and food processing purposes

is always

treated before use.

This is not the case with water withdrawn

for the same purpose from groundwater

(R. at 120, 861).

Nor is

it necessarily reasonable to expect that all groundwater used for

public and food processing can be feasibly treated.

This is

because

the great majority of groundwater withdrawals are at

family residences, where economics and maintenance needs may

dictate that treatment beyond

the most simple is infeasible.

The Board

is not sure whether the implied presence of

treatment with surface waters versus the implied absence of

treatment with groundwaters render the present Public and Food

Processing Water Supply Standards unsuitable for application to

*

USEPA has recently proposed an RNCL of 1.3 mg/L,

based on new

data.

IV—ll

72-193

---

groundwaters.

However, the Boards does conclude that this is a

matter which should be addressed in a regulatory proceeding which

focuses on groundwater quality standards.

“General Use” Standards.

The principle behind applying

“general use” standards to groundwaters is that

it is best to

protect a resource to the level where its uses are

maintainable.

Underlying

this principle are the further beliefs

that not all groundwaters are of equal utility

to humans or the

natural environment, and that application of

a uniform most—

restrictive set of standards would therefore be economically

inefficient.

The Board finds merit in the perspective that groundwater

uses should be maintained, and concludes that this

is consistent

with the proposed Groundwater Protection Policy presented in

section II

(p. 11—1).

However,

the Board has some difficulty

with how this principle is applied

in some of the recommendations

for application of “general use” standards to groundwater.

Among

the several issues here

is whether the “general use”

recommendation is meant to apply standards which are capable of

supporting some or even most uses, but which would be

insufficient to support others.

The Plan appears to take this

interpretation:

Existing Pollution Control Board regulations for

water pollution control have the effect of

designating most underground waters as drinking

waters requiring compliance with drinking water

standards

in the ground.

In contrast, the IEPA

believes that drinking water standards should only

apply at the point where water enters the

distribution system to a public water supply and not

in the ground.

(Ex.

1,

p. 29).*

The Plan goes on to acknowledge that water which meets

“general use” standards might not meet drinking water standards

(Ex. 1,

p.

29),

and specifically suggests that in this

circumstance treatment “can be applied prior

to distribution to

achieve the drinking water standards”

(Ex.

1,

p.

29).

The Board

has difficulty with this interpretation.

As the Board noted

previously,

there are characteristics of groundwater which

*

The Board notes that the two references to “drinking water”

standards in this passage illustrate the duality of use of this

term as previously discussed.

The first use in the passage would

appear to equate “drinking water standards” to the Public and

Food Processing Water Supply Standards,

since

it is these which

apply to “most underground waters”.

The second use would appear

to equate

to the Public Water Supply Standards,

since these apply

in the distribution system, and not in the ground.

IV—l2

72-194

---

seemingly suggest that “groundwaters may not be amenable to a

standard of protection at other than that of the highest

potential use without risk of long—term or permanent loss of the

highest use” (see p. 111—6).

Drinking use,

in the Plan’s

interpretation,

is certainly

a higher use than “general use”.

Moreover, it is also the most common use of groundwater.

The

Board therefore does not and could not recommend that standards

be applied

to groundwater which would place limits on the ability

of groundwater

to be used both

in its highest and most common

capacity.

The concern about needing to add on treatment to upgrade

from “general use” to drinking water standards was voiced by

several witnesses

(R. at 120,

317,

338,

358), illustrated by Ms.

Olive

Fenton:

To me as

a layman

I read that if

I turn on my tap

water tomorrow morning and my water is polluted,

then

I have to worry about getting a very expensive water—

treatment system to clean it up, because there is no

provision under

these goals to prevent the pollution

from occurring before it reaches me.

I do not think

we should

lower

our water—quality standards from

drinking water quality in either

the public or

private wells.

(R.

at 317—8).

The Board notes that there is no implication in the

recommendation for applying “general use” standards

to

groundwater that groundwater would thereby be allowed to be

“polluted”, as the above passage might

imply.

However, as noted,

the Plan does acknowledge

(Ex

1,

p.

29) that water which meets

groundwater “general

use” standards might not meet drinking water

standards.

In this case, treatment would be necessary.

The Board has difficulty with this provision of the Plan.

The Plan’s perspective perhaps is more appropriate for surface

waters where treatment

is an implied condition for use.

But the

same is not necessarily true for groundwaters, where the implied

and generally existing condition

is that treatment is not

needed.

Moreover, the Plan’s implication is that treatment

necessary to meet drinking water standards

is available easily

and as a matter of fact.

The Board cannot accept,

nor does the

record support, this implication.

Rather,

the type of treatment

necessary to remove the most serious of the potential

contaminants would seem to be costly and perhaps beyond the reach

of many community water supplies.

Neither does the Plan appear

to give consideration to the far more numerous private and non—

community water supplies for which treatment may be even more

economically unreasonable.

An even more fundamental difficulty with the Plan’s

perspective on treatment

is the implication that the user should

bear the burden of maintaining the use, rather than that the

burden be borne by the contaminator.

The Board

is uncertain that

IV—13

72-195

---

the Assurance of Water Supply recommendation (see p. V-20) would

be sufficient to address this concern.

Clearly, Assurance of

Water Supply would

impose

a burden on the user

to identify and

provide proof of the source of contamination,

a burden which the

Board believes would be difficult and should not have be to borne

by many separate users.

At issue

further is whether application of groundwater

“general use” standards would constitute or allow downgrading of

water quality from that which is mandated under current Board

regulations.

The Board could not abide any proposal which would

allow such downgrading without a very careful and extensive

review pursuant to the provisions of the Board’s non—degradation

provision at

302.105.

Further,

the Board could not abide

degradation of the groundwater resource to such an extent that

the resource could no longer be viably used as a source of

drinking water where the present and future use is

for drinking

water supply.

The Board can not determine whether the recommendation of

groundwater “general use” standards as presented in the record is

in fact a recommendation which would allow downgrading.

That

could only be determined by

a provision—by—provision review of a

specific proposal with the current Board regulations.

Given these uncertainties, the Board declines

to endorse at

this time the recommendation of the Plan that groundwater

“general use” standards be adopted.

Rather,

the Board concludes

that

the appropriateness of any such adoption can be determined

only in review of

a specific proposal.

“Drinking Water” Standards.

The most common recommendation

in opposition to the Plan

is the recommendation that “drinking

water” standards be applied to groundwaters

in general, or

to

some specific subset of groundwaters.

The general conception is

that groundwaters find their most common, highest, and most

demanding use in serving as sources of drinking water.

Thus,

groundwaters ought to be protected for drinking water

use.

ENR has been one of the principal proponents of this

position.

ENR believes that “drinking water” standards should be

applied

to all in situ groundwater in the State, except

to those

groundwater resources presently violating drinking water

standards by either man—induced contamination or naturally

occurring groundwater constitutents” (R. at 121).

Upon cross-

examination

it was determined that representatives of ENR held

the views that “drinking water” standards ought to be applied

only to “resource groundwaters”

(R.

at 1531), and that “drinking

water” standards were viewed as being coincident with the Public

Water Supply Standards of Subtitle

F (R. at 1522).

The Agency recommends against

a broad application of

“drinking water” standards to groundwaters

(R. at 37, 871).

In

IV—14

72-196

---

part, this reflects a belief that the standards ought to be set

consistent with the use to which the water is

to be put.

In part

it also reflects a belief that “drinking water” standards, at

least as manifest in Public Water Supply Standards,

include some

provisions which may not be appropriate

for ambient water quality

standards

(R. at 38—9,

605).

A somewhat similar perspective has

been voiced by Senator David Durenburger

in discussing on the

floor of the U.S. Senate his sponsorship of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1986:

I want

to say that we are especially sensitive to the

relationship between the drinking water programs both

by the Federal Goverment and among

the several

States..

In particular,

we are concerned about the

use of standards promulgated under

the drinking water

law as central elements of ground water protection

programs developed by the States and as cleanup

standards under the Federal Superfund program.

Mr.

President,

I

am one Senator who does not believe that

the maximum contaminant levels established under the

Safe Drinking Water Act are appropriate for use

in

either of these ways.

Drinking water MCL’S, as

I

have tried

to make clear here today,

are not simply

health standards but include other factors, as

well.

Rather

than use these standards developed in

one context for

a public health program,

in an

entirely different setting for resource—based

decision in regard to ground water protection,

it

would be far better

to simply develop ground water

protection and correction standards directly.

I hope

soon

to suggest

a comprehensive ground water protec-

tion program to the Senate.

(S. 6290,

May 21, 1986).

The Board finds merits

in Senator Durenberger’s arguments,

and would similarly conclude that it would be better to develop

groundwater protection and correction standards directly.

As the

Senator’s comment suggests, it is possible that federal

directives may be forthcoming.

However, the Board believes that

it remains necessary for the State to undertake its own effort,

and coordinate this with any federal actions as such may develop.

The Board also has at least one other reservation which it

believes needs to be satisfied before “drinking water” standards

can be broadly applied to groundwaters.

The reservation

is that

for some non—drinking uses certain parameters are considered

to

require more stringent limits than the limits

for drinking

water.

The example of boron, which must be carefully limited

in

irrigation water, but for which there is no limit

in drinking

water, has been cited

in the record as an example

(R. at 1357—

8).

Thus,

it is possible that setting all parameters at

“drinking water” levels might actually be adverse to some water

uses.

IV—15

72.197

---

In declining

to recommend at this time that the State adopt

“drinking water” standards as a general set of standards

for

groundwater,

the Board does wish

to emphasize that it is not

excluding its own concurrence in the application

of any precepts

associated with “drinking water” standards to groundwaters or

some subset of groundwaters.

Rather, the Board believes that

each precept requires the type of individual evaluation which can

only be obtained within the framework of

a regulatory proceeding

in which groundwater—specific standards are considered.

In view of existing applicable water quality standards,

applicable federal and State laws addressing anti—degradation,

the fact that most groundwaters in Illinois appear to be of

naturally good quality,

and the fact that the predominant use of

groundwater

in Illinois is for drinking water supply, it is

expected that standards very similar

to the federal maximum

contaminant levels would be major facets of any groundwater—

specific water quality standards.

Non—Degradation.

The recommendation of non—degradation as

a

basis for water quality standards is that standards ought to be

determined

by the status quo water quality or natural background,

and that no deviation from this condition be permissible.

This

perspective was capsulized

by Dr.

Lou Marchi, speaking on behalf

of the McHenry County Defenders

(R. at 358):

When

I say non—degradation of groundwater,

I mean

very simply this: whatever the groundwater analysis

was before man began to contaminate it, that should

be our baseline standard.

If at some future date

there

is

a contaminant

in that water that’s beyond

what was there originally,

then this would not be

acceptable.

The most compelling arguement for protecting all groundwater

at natural quality

is that this quality may be necessary to meet

future needs.

Non—degradation not only protects against the

difficulty of accurately predicting future needs, but also

against our lack of knowledge about safe levels of contamination.

Nevertheless, non—degradation as a water quality standard

is

noted in the record

as presenting several practical

difficulties.

Among these are the difficulty of determining

natural background conditions given the great variety which

exists and uncertainty regarding past water quality conditions

(R. at 450—3, 889—91).

This is of major concern

in the case of

human—caused contamination where the contaminants also occur

naturally.

For synthetic contaminants the natural background

level is

zero.

There is the additional question of the appropriateness of

non—degradation as a standard because non—degradation by itself

fails to achieve several of the purposes of water quality

IV—l6

72-198

---

standards.

Included is failure to identify the minimum quality

acceptable

for use.

Non-degradation has also been cited as

having limited utility in enforcement actions

(R.

at 1423—8).

On

a more basic level, there

is the perspective that

a

modern society,

or perhaps any society, cannot assure absolute

non—alteration of any environment with which

it has contact

(Ex.

41,

p. 66).

Several witnesses noted

that absolute non—

degradation might require prohibition of

a great many activities,

illustrated by road salting

(R. at 1094), use of agricultural

chemicals

(R.

at 1172—5, 1235, 1365), sewage treatment plants,

coal mines, power plants, and landfills

(R.

at 1422), oil and gas

production

(Ex.

41,

p. 66), and private septic systems.

The

Board notes that taken to its logical end, even the most mundane

of human activities which involve contact with the ground or with

waters which seep into the ground, could have some influence on

groundwater quality and thus violate absolute non—degradation.

An alternative perspective on non—degradation, which may

perhaps be better characterized as “anti—degradation”,

is that

its best service

is as

a water quality goal

rather than as a

water quality standard.

This

is the perspective enunciated in

the Plan

(Ex.

1,

p.

29),

by ENR (R. at 121), and several

witnesses.

Ms. Joanna Hoelscher,

speaking on behalf of Citizens

for

a Better Environment, expressed this perspective

in noting:

Citizens

for

a Better Environment

recognizes that

achieving a goal of no degradation

is not always

possible.

However, the difficulty of determining

groundwater movement, detecting contaminant loadings,

and setting “safe”

levels of contamination for

drinking water and other uses,

coupled with the

diffuculty and high cost of clean-up, makes

it

imperative that we at least strive

to do so.

The

emphasis must always be on preventing contamination

to the maximum extent possible.

(R.

at 1251;

Ex.

74,

p.

3; emphasis in original).

ENR commented similarly, noting:

We are talking

in the

ideal world as our goal of

being non—degradation, and you have to recognize that

as being the ultimate goal for

a water plan.

In

reality, you have to consider uses,

existing

conditions, and all the rest in setting standards.

(R.

at 713).

We think that non—degradation should be set as

a

goal,

and what we recommend is that you then through

proper siting and proper management practices try to

achieve that goal.

(R.

at 716).

IV—l7

72.199

---

The Board

finds that anti—degradation serves a most useful

purpose as a water quality goal.

The Board, in fact, recommends

adoption of the groundwater policy as discussed

in Section

II

herein,

a provision of which is “that unreasonable waste and

degradation of the resources be prohibited”.

Summary Recommendation of the Board.

The Board finds that

existing groundwater quality standards, while they may provide

adequate protection under most circumstances, are not ideally

suited to their

task.

The Board therefore recommends that there

be a comprehensive review of standards as they apply to

groundwater.

The Board further recommends that there be

developed water quality standards specifically tailored

to the

needs of groundwater protection.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER STANDARDS

The comprehensive review of groundwater standards

recommended herein is certain to bring into focus many

considerations of the setting of groundwater standards not

clearly delineated within the record before the Board.

However,

the record does contain information on some aspects of

groundwater standards which would seem to merit consideration

during the review process,

and which have not been discussed

in

previous sections of this Report.

In the following,

the Board

presents its overview of this information.

Narrative Versus Numerical Standards.

Some discussion

exists

in the record as to whether groundwater standards should

be narrative or numerical.

The Board concludes that,

in general,

numerical standards are to be preferred.

Where adequate

information exists,

it should be used

to set specific numercial

standards.

Where

a lesser degree of information exists,

a

suitable general methodology that can be used

to determine

specific numerical standards should be delineated.

The greater

specificity of numerical standards generally better serves the

purposes of standards,

including offering greater definition of

of the expected level of protection and protection goals, and

better serving as an alert mechanism for preventive and remedial

actions.

Enforcement action also tends to be more effective when

citation to specific numerical limits can be made

(R.

at 1416).

The Board

further concludes that the State’s experience with

numerical standards for surface waters has on the whole been very

favorable, and that this favorable experience warrants being

carried over into groundwater standards.

The majority of states which employ narrative standards do

so only for lower quality aquifers

(R. at 776).

However, some

states, including Connecticut, have adopted generally applicable

narrative standards, believing that “the use of narrative

standards streamlines the regulatory process by eliminating

public standard—setting procedures”

(Ex.

40,

p.

100).

The Board

IV—l8

72-200

---

believes that “eliminating public standard—setting procedures”,

however expedient,

is not only not meritorious, but would be

contrary to law and policy if applied to Illinois.

Some states which favor narrative standards, including

Connecticut, do provide numerical compliance limits in discharge

permits

(Ex.

40,

p.

100).

While the Board believes that some

discretion on the part of permitting agencies is necessary in the

permitting process,

it also believes that the public forum of

standard setting better serves both the public and the permittee.

Point of Application of Standards.

It is necessary that the

point of application of standards be clearly specified for any

standards adopted.

This

is of particular significance with

regard to potential sources of contaminants.

For example,

existing federal regulations for hazardous wastes and RCRA

Subtitle D facilities specify both standards and precisely where

those standards are to be met.

If these standards differed

in

any substantial way from general Illinois water quality standards

for ambient groundwater,

it would be necessary to specify

precisely how the transition from one set of standards to the

other was

to be made.

A major point with regard to where standards are

to be

applied

is whether some type of “mixing zone” or “zone of

attenuation” should

be allowed

in the vicinity of potential

sources of contaminants.

In the case of such point sources as

landfills, such a concept

is incorporated into both existing

federal and Illinois regulations

for hazardous wastes and federal

criteria for Subtitle D facilities.

Preventive Action Limits/Notice Limits.

Some states have

found

it appropriate to define a multiple tier of standards for

groundwater

(R.

at 782—3,

1293—9; Ex.

52, Ex.

53; Ex. 75).

In

such systems, there exists a conventional set of standards plus

at least one second set of standards having numerically lower

limits.

The conventional set consists of maximum allowable

concentrations and serves most of the conventional purposes of

standards, whereas the second set serves to trigger some action

and/or

to serve

in a management capacity.

Wisconsin,

which has adopted such

a system, terms the second

set of standards “preventive action limits”

(“PALs”).

The

Wisconsin PALs are set variously at 10,

20,

or 50

of the

conventional standards, depending upon the properties of the

individual substance.

Wisconsin uses the PAL figures

in several

capacities,

including setting design standards for facilities and

in setting regulations

(Ex. 40,

p.

98).

The PALS also serve to

trigger regulatory response.

Agencies responsible for

groundwater protection are required by law to evaluate and take

actions when monitoring determines that

a PAL is exceeded; the

actions may include prohibiting continuation of the activity that

is the source of the problem

(Ex.

40,

p.

99).

IV—l9

72-201

---

Kansas also has a two—tiered standards system, with the

second set of standards set at 1/100th of the conventional

standards.

The second set are termed Notice Levels, and their

exceedence triggers notification of the well operator, either

private or public,

to the fact.

In both of the above noted multiple—tiered systems,

the

purpose of the second set of standards is

to provide opportunity

to react before conventional standards are exceeded.

The

reaction might be on the part of the responsible state agency, or

on the part of the polluter, who might either establish

a less

drastic phased—in treatment/removal plan or demonstrate a

specific alternate standard.

PALs and notice limits recognize that the ability to

successfully react to groundwater contamination problems requires

a degree of early warning not necessarily associated with

contamination of other media, and that systematizing the process

offers better guarantee of the early warning.

The Board finds

that there

is merit in this perspective, and concludes that the

comprehensive review of standards ought to give consideration to

adoption of a preventive action/notice limit system of standards.

Public vs.

Private Water Supplies.

Testimony on the record

indicates a high degree of concern by citizens and government

officials that both public and private water supplies be included

in any groundwater protection program

(R. at 318,

329, 396).

For

example, Mike Bacon, Director of Environmental Health for the

Winnebago County Health Department, testified that:

The protection of groundwater

is essential not only

obviously for public water supplies but private water

supplies as well.

(R.

at 397).

At issue here are at least three matters relating to the

inclusion of private water supplies in the protection program.

These

are:

Are private water supplies to be protected by ambient

groundwater quality standards?

Are private water supplies also

to be covered by the Public Water Supply Standards?

Are private

water supplies

to be afforded protection under whatever

contamination prevention provisions are developed?

At present private water supplies are protected

by ambient

water quality standards, and the Board can see no justification

for an alteration of this policy.

As noted previously in this

section

(p.

IV—2,3), the cumulative General Use and Public and

Food Processing Water Supply Standards apply to all underground

waters which have

a present or potential use for potable water or

for food processing water

supply.

This condition exists

irrespective of whether the user is

a public water supplier or

a

private water supplier, or, in fact, whether there

is no user at

all.

Admittedly,

the use of the word “Public”

in the Public and

IV—20

72-202

---

Food Processing Water Supply Standards has caused some confusion

on the part of some individuals as to whether private water

supplies are thereby included.

The Board hopes that this

exposition serves to rectify the confusion.

In contrast, the Public Water Supply Standards do not

currently apply to private water supplies.

As noted previously,

they apply only to those “public water supplies” defined as being

“community” water supplies by virtue of having 15 or more service

connections or regularly serving at least 25 residents for at

least 60 days per year (see p. IV—3,4).

Public Water Supply

Standards thus have no legal force and effect with regard

to

private wells, even though these may serve as drinking water

supplies.

Making the Public Water Supply Standards applicable to

private wells would constitute

a major change in policy.

Without

a full review of the ramifications of such

a major policy change,

the Board is not prepared to offer a recommendation at this

time.

However, the Board does note that there are several

obvious questions which would require addressal before an

informed decision could be made.

These include:

Is the private

well owner’s legal

right to protection from contamination of his

groundwater supply adequately addressed by the existence and

enforcement of ambient groundwater quality standards such as the

cumulative General Use and Public and Food Processing Water

Supply Standards?

Can the State impose regulations on the use of

water within private residences without causing an infringement

of individual rights?

What enforcement would be brought against

a private well owner who continued to use waters which violated

the Public Water Supply Standards?

Regarding the third issue related

to private water supplies,

the Board

fully concurs with the recommendation of the Agency and

the Plan that private water supplies be included

in all programs

designed

to prevent groundwater contamination (see section V,

following).

In this context, the Board agrees with the

perspectives of Agency Director Dr. Richard Carison, who

addressed the issue of protection of private wells during the

November,

1985, Agency hearings.

In so doing,

he stated that

there

is “both a political need and an environmental need,

(and)

maybe a public health need”

to address private well contamination

problems

(Ex.

9,

p.

27—8).

Single Versus Multiple Standards.

The Board has noted

previously herein

(p.

111—2) the large range of natural variation

encountered

in the groundwaters of the state.

Given this natural

variation,

there is some question as to whether single values of

water quality parameters,

or single sets of standards,

can be

appropriately applied to groundwater.

Zero Standards.

In addressing the issue of how groundwater

protection ought to consider contaminants for which no standard

has been set,

the Plan (Ex.

1, p.

22)

notes:

IV—21

72-203

---

Perhaps

the single most commonly heard statement at

the public workshops held by the Agency around the

State was that,

in prescribing groundwater standards

for man—made contaminants, the State should err on

the side of public safety by adopting a “Zero

Standard”

for all contaminants

for which no numerical

standard has been otherwise established by the USEPA

or the Pollution Control Board

(PCB).

The general

consensus seemed to be that “zero”

should be equated

with the detection level of a given contaminant, and

that the burden of proof of the validity of a given

numerical standard other than zero should be on the

polluter.

This position also finds support

in the Board’s record

(R.

at 613;

Ex. 40).

The Board itself finds merit in the position.

When dealing with synthetic organic chemicals,

a substantial

number of which have been demonstrated to be,

or are suspected of

being, environmentally hazardous,

and whose numbers are

constantly being

increased,

the Board believes that

a “guilty

until proven innocent” posture constitutes

a prudent policy.

Dr.

Lou Marchi recommended extending the concept of zero

standards to all synthetic chemicals, irrespective of whether

there exists

a basis

for setting

a standard above zero

(R.

at

390).

This would be consistent with the current non—degradation

regulation of

303.105.

The Board notes at least one difficulty with the concept of

zero standards, which is that it has the potential for raising

legal problems when an advancement in analytical procedures

allows detection levels to drop.

This difficulty may be

partially addressed by defining “zero” as being the current level

of detection.

IV—22

72.204

---

SECTION Vs

PREVENTIVE

PROGRAMS

As

previously discussed

(p. 111—6)

there

is a broad

consensus, with which

the Board

is in agreement, that a

successful groundwater protection program include provisions

for

prevention of groundwater contamination.

However, there

is

disagreement as to precisely what provisions should be employed,

as well

as where and under what circumstances they should be

employed.

In this section the Board presents some general

considerations which need

to be undertaken and reviews the

various recommendations presented in the record.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Board believes that there are at least three

fundamentally important issues whose resolution are the sine quo

non of a successful program for the prevention of groundwater

contamination.

These issues are the matters of State versus

local authority, availability of fiscal resources, and adequacy

of the data base.

State Versus Local Authority.

Many aspects of preventive

programs require that controls be placed on land use.

This can

be done

in several possible ways,

including zoning, permitting,

imposition of design and performance standards,

or by some

combination of these.

Whatever method may be employed, the

decision must be made as to who would be empowered with the

responsibility for undertaking

these efforts.

While some

matters, such as setting of performance standards, would appear

to logically fall within the State’s authority, and others might

similarly be viewed as logically falling under local authority,

there

is

a broad gray area wherein “turf battles” can surely be

anticipated.

There are at least three ways

in which the authority to

impose land use control for the protection of groundwater might

delegated.

Full delegation of authority could be made to the

State;

full delegation of authority could be made to local

government; or some system utilizing

a mixture of authority could

be used.

While some mixture might, in the final analysis, prove

to be more workable than either extreme,

it

is instructive to

consider the extremes.

The initial possibility

is that the State assume authority

to impose land use controls.

This option would help to ensure

consistency and continuity in planning from the statewide

perspective, and would free local governments from the burden of

initiating and overseeing both the planning effort and

implementation of any plans.

The difficulty with this approach

V-l

72.205

---

is expected

to be associated with unwillingness of local

government

to allow the State responsibility for performing such

planning and implementation of land use controls resulting from

the planning.

The

Board

notes that the issue here may very well be

construed as imposition of State “zoning”.

The Plan itself

notes:

In its several communications with the general

public,

the Agency found

a clear majority of persons

in favor of some form of State zoning for the

protection of groundwaters serving as drinking water

supplies.

There is no clear preference

for one type

of zoning over another,

however.

(Ex.

1,

p. 20;

emphasis

in original).

While

the Board does not dispute that State zoning could be

advisable or necessary in this specific case, the Board is

dubious about the implication that it will receive majority

support.

The previously unsuccessful track record of State

zoning proposals would

imply otherwise.

The second possibility is that local government be the

principal authority in the planning effort, possibly with

technical,

administrative,

and economic assistance from the

State.

This would

allow localities to retain the authority for

resolving issues within their jurisdictions.

Whether local

government has the legal authority to carry out such planning and

to implement appropriate land use controls that may result from

it are questions which cannot be conclusively answered by the

record in this proceeding.

Similarly, whether local government

would have the ability, for example, to limit facility

development in sensitive recharge areas, while simultaneously

weighing proposals for development,

is an issue of some doubt.

The Board notes that local government is itself

heterogeneous, with several strata of government

(e.g., special

districts, municipalities,

townships, counties) having

overlapping jurisdictions.

The Board would expect, and the

record supports, that planning conflicts between these strata

could be anticipated.

Availability of Fiscal Resources.

Most of the

recommendations

for preventive programs will require substantial

fiscal support

to be effective.

Included

is the need to

adequately fund the groups and agencies responsible for

administering the programs, as well as the groups and agencies

which will be needed

to provide the data and expertise necessary

to implement and support the programs.

As the National Research Council’s (“NRC”) Committee on

Ground Water Quality Protection noted

in its review of state

and

local groundwater protection strategies:

V-2

72-206

---

All ground water protection programs reviewed by the

committee indicated a lack of adequate funding, which

constrained

the development and implementation of a

comprehensive ground water protection program.

(Ex.

40, p.

10).

This

is clearly a position

in which Illinois should not wish to

find itself.

Although the NRC report continues on to recommend that

federal fundinq be increased to help state and local governments

fully develop and implement their groundwater protection programs

(Ex. 40,

p.

10), it is uncertain that this recommendation will

weigh heavily

in the current era of cutbacks in federal

spending.

Similarly, it may be unrealistic to expect that

financial resources will

be found at the local level

to fund very

extensive programs.

The vast majority of the resources that do

exist at the local level are undoubtedly being used to maintain

other essential

local services already adversely affected by

budget cuts.

Admittedly, resources are similarly tight at the State

level.

Hopefully, however,

adequate fundina for preventive

programs is more likely to occur at the State level, where

the

broader focus of State government might recognize the necessity

of protecting Illinois’ groundwater resource.

Such a broader

focus hopefully would allow preventive programs to successfully

vie for funding against other programs seeking State resources.

Groundwater protection programs also need not necessarily be

in competition for general revenue funds for their complete

support.

Alternative funding mechanisms,

including use of

enforcement receipts and producer, user, and disposal fees should

be considered.

Adequacy of the Data Base.

Preventive programs which are

not guided by an appropriate information base are certaiii to

encounter difficulties of acceptance and implementation, and,

ultimately to be less effective and efficient than they might

otherwise be.

At a minimum,

data must include sufficient

hydrogeological information

to allow at least larqe scale aquifer

mapping and determination of general groundwater flow patterns

and quality.

Groundwater uses and threats must also be

catalogued and mapped.

Utilizing this information, it is

possible to identify those sensitive areas most in need of

protection: areas of influence

in the immediate vicinity of wells

and aquifer recharge areas.

Only then can appropriate regulatory

mechanisms be put

in place to protect groundwater throuqh land

use control, source control, or any combination of these two

approaches

(Ex. 92,

p.

65—132).

72-207

---

Some

significant

progress

has

been made in establishing the

necessary

data

base,

particularly

through the efforts of the

Agency and ENR.

Nevertheless,

it

is evident that at present the

data base

is inadequate

to the task.

Among actions which need to

be continued or initiated are the monitoring and sensitive

aquifer and recharge area delineation discussed

in section III

(p.

111—12).

Additionally, ENR needs to be supported in its

capacity of gathering basic data on a broad range of groundwater

matters.

(Ex.

90,

p.

4).

At either the local or State level

inventories of actual and possible groundwater contamination

sources, past, present, and proposed, need to be developed.

And,

not the least,

access to data has be improved.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLAN

Major Approaches.

There exist two major approaches to the

prevention of groundwater contamination: control of existing,

potential, and actual contamination sources,

and control

of land

use in sensitive areas.

The former approach includes actions

such as effectively managing wastes, reducing waste volumes, and

actively enforcing existing regulations.

The latter approach

relies heavily on regulations and ordinances adopted by local,

regional,

and State authorities to protect the public health,

safety, and welfare.

These include regulations and ordinances

adopted by local health agencies,

zoning by—laws, and municipal

ordinances, but may also include such

items as public education,

incentive programs

(e.g., government purchase of development

rights), and government acquisition of sensitive areas where

practical

(Ex.

40,

p. 135—6).

The Plan recommends

a dual

course of action,

in which a

mixture of the control—of—sources and land—use—control approaches

are employed.

Control of Contamination Sources.

The Plan’s

recommendations

for

regulation

of

contamination

sources

are

contained

in

parts four and five of the recommendations section

(Ex.

1,

p.

33—7).

There are four principal elements:

1) Continued emphasis on managing wastes

in

an

environmentally sound manner, with

a prioritized

order

of:

a)

Waste reduction and reuse;

b)

Waste recycling and composting;

C)

Waste incineration with energy recovery;

d)

Landfilling.

2) Full implementation of the provisions of various

existinq or proposed programs, including:

V-4

72-208

---

a)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);

b)

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA);

c)

Leaking Underground Storage Tank program (LUST);

d)

State ban on landfilling hazardous wastes and

liquids;

e)

Environmental Toxicology Act by the Illinois

Department of Public Health; and

f)

Continued operation of the Industrial Material

Exchange Service by the Agency in cooperation

with the State Chamber of Commerce.

3) Designation of potential groundwater contamination

sources.

4) Enhancement of enforcement procedures for routine violations

at

sanitary

landfills.

Land—Use

Control.

With

regard

to

control

of

land

uses

in

sensitive

areas

the

Plan

recommends

legislation

be

developed

and

adopted

for

a

statewide

program including:

I)

Establishment

of

minimum

and

maximum

“set—back”

zone

requirements

for

protection

of

public water supply

wells

from

primary

and

secondary

sources and minimum

requirements

for

private

wells

varying from

200

to

1,000

feet.

2)

Establishment

of

recharge

area

protection

planning

out

to

a

maximum

of

the

“20—year

capture zone”

for

public

water

supply

wells.

3)

Establishment

of

a

provision requiring notification

of

the

Agency by anyone proposing

to

site

a

new

primary source of potential groundwater

contamination.

4) Establishment of a

requirement that anyone who causes

contamination

of

any

underground

water

source

must

assure replacement of that source “to applicable

standards”.

Each of the principal elements of the Plan’s recommendations

for regulation of contaminant sources and the control of land use

is discussed more fully below.

MANAGEMENT OF_WASTES

The record contains relatively little discussion of the

Plan’s recommendations

for prioritizing management of wastes.

The Board believes this to reflect that general agreement exists

with these recommendations.

The Board also notes that the

V-5

72-209

---

recommended prioritization scheme is essentially the same as that

adopted as public policy in Section

2 of the Illinois Solid Waste

Management Act passed by the General Assembly this year,

House

Bill 3548 Enrolled.

The difficulty would appear to be with

translating

the prioritized list from policy into practice.

A similar conclusion has been reached by the National

Research Council’s

(“NRC”)

Committee on Ground Water Quality

Protection, which noted that the best long—term strategy for

groundwater protection is to reduce and/or eliminate the sources

of contamination;

thus, waste reduction should have high priority

in any groundwater protection program

(Ex 40., p.

16).

However,

the NRC concludes that additional incentives and information are

needed to accelerate and expand source reduction efforts.

Recommendations of the NRC include state—level regulatory and

economic incentives for source reduction by industry, government,

commercial interests, and the public; educational programs

devoted to dissemination of waste reduction information; and

technology, and additional fundinq for the development of waste

reduction technologies

(Ex. 40,

p.

17).

The NRC further

recommends that states and local entities consider strategies

for

reducing improper disposal of household and other

small quantity

hazardous wastes

(Ex.

40,

p.

17).

IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

The Plan gives considerable emphasis

to the need

to assure

that authorized proqrams are fully implemented,

including

attainment of State administrative authority of federal programs

(R..

at 1432—3).

The Board concurs

in this observation.

Existing

federal and State regulations are intended

to, or contain

provisions

for, addressing some of the potentially most serious

sources of groundwater contamination, particularly hazardous

wastes.

The full implementation of these programs, therefore,

is

a major

step forward in groundwater contamination prevention.

Progress can and will continue to be made on this issue via

implementation of already mandated source control programs,

including implementation of the state’s policy that waste

reduction and reuse are the highest priority for management of

waste and landfilling the least desirable method;

implementation

of the State’s ban on landfilling hazardous liquids and wastes;

implementation of both Subtitles C and D of RCRA (including new

requirements pertinent to hazardous wastes, the leaking

underground storage tank program, and

a permit program with

appropriate regulatory criteria for Subtitle D facilities such as

sanitary landfills and on—site industrial waste disposal

facilities);

implementation of the Environmental Toxicology Act;

and continued operation of the industrial material exchange

service.

V-6

72.210

---

Implementation

of

existing

programs

has

not

been

and

cannot

be

expected

to

be

automatic.

In

particular,

it

is

essential

that

adequate funding be available to allow their

implementation.

A

case

in point is the Agency’s difficulty with fully carrying out

its mandate

to regulate landfills.

The Agency’s efforts have

been by necessity directed to three hazardous waste landfills,

while little attention has been paid to the other 272 solid waste

landfills in the State,

60

of which accept special waste and all

of which may accept small quantities of hazardous wastes

(R. at

1407—36).

According

to one of these witnesses, even though solid

waste landfills are likely to pose the same kind of

risk to

groundwater as do hazardous waste landfills,

the Agency is not

regulating them to the extent necessary now.

The reason for this

situation was described as lack of both resources and assigned

priority

(R. at 1435—6).

An issue raised

in the record

(R.

at 1094—5,

1101—8,

1132—8,

1429—36;

Ex.

40,

41;

PC

6)

is whether existinq programs, assuming

complete implementation,

are by themselves sufficient to provide

comprehensive prevention of groundwater contamination.

One

view,

as expressed by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

(“IERG”),

is that:

There

is insufficient evidence

in the record

to

demonstrate any problem areas that cannot be

addressed by proper

implementation of the existing

federal and state regulatory framework and,

therefore, there

is no justification for additional

groundwater

protection

regulations

or

legislation.

(PC

6,

p.

1).

In

spite

of

this

perspective,

the

consensus

appears

to

be

that existing programs leave some regulatory gaps, and that

therefore a State initiative may be necessary to address some or

all

of

them.

Examples of activities possibly requiring

regulatory attention cited by representatives of IERG itself

include road salting,

sewer systems, septic tanks,

pesticide

runoff, and disposal of household wastes

(R. at 1102).

IERG also

indicated the belief that this list is not necessarily inclusive

(R. at 1137—8).

Other witnesses also cited examples of activities which

possibly require additional regulatory attention.

Citizens for

a

Better Environment cited deep—well injection of wastes

(R. at

1258)

and on—site storage, treatment, and disposal of wastes

(R.

at 1260—2).

Mr. William Schubert, speaking on behalf of Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc.,

added the examples of feed lots,

crop lands,

oil fields,

brine ponds, and industrial facilities

(R. at 956).

Mr. Schubert additionally expressed the view that

“98

of the non—natural groundwater contamination sources,

impactinq public supply wells, originate at points other than

sanitary landfills”

(R.

at 956),

a source generally viewed as a

principal contributor

to groundwater contamination.

V-7

72.211

~

---

DESIGNATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SOURCES

A major recommendation of the Plan

is the recommendation

that there be enacted legislation to define “potential

groundwater contamination sources”

(Ex.

1,

p.

34).

Such sources

would consist of categories of facilities and/or activities

which, by their operation, have the potential for leading to

groundwater contamination.

Examples provided by the Plan include

landfills*, major industrial facilities, small

business, and salt

pile storage

(Ex.

1,

p.

34).

Specifically, the Plan recommends designation of two major

categories,

~4mary

and secondary sources, of which landfills and

major industrial facilites are cited as examples of possible

primary sources and small businesses and salt pile storage areas

are cited

as examples of possible secondary sources.

Primary

sources are recommended to receive State monitorinq of siting and

compliance activities;

secondary sources are recommended to

require periodic reporting by local government

(Ex.

I,

p.

34).

At least one intended application of the list of primary

sources is to have the proposed siting of any new primary source

reported

to the Agency, and subsequently to local government

(Ex.

1,

p. 36—7;

see also following).

However,

the Plan provides no

further elaboration on the regulatory programs which would be

directed toward activities placed

in either the primary or the

secondary categories; neither does the Plan make recommendations

for inclusion of specific activities in either category

(R. at

526).

This absence of further detail provided

a fertile field

for testimony and questioning during

the Board’s hearings.

The Board shares concern about the uncertainties of the

source designation recommendation.

The Board realizes that a

exercise

in designating sources would, by itself, allow better

focus on the types of activities which can or do impact Illinois’

groundwaters.

Although this would certainly be meritorious, the

Board

is uncertain that it would be sufficient justification in

light of the magnitude of the effort.

However,

it would appear that source designating

is also

intended to be coupled with the recommendations for set—backs and

recharge area protection (see following), althouqh exactly how

this coupling would occur has not been specified.

Presumably,

*

The Board notes that landfills currently are recognized as

potential sources of groundwater contamination within both

federal and State regulations.

Additionally,

the Board notes

that

a review of all Board waste disposal regulations, including

landfilling,

is currently being undertaken

in

a separate Board

proceeding,

R84—l7.

V-8

72-212

---

the list of primary and secondary sources would identify which

activities

would

be

regulated

in

the

set—back

and/or

recharge

areas,

and

perhaps

also

the

form

that

the

regulation

would

take

(i.e.,

prohibition,

permitting,

desiqn

standards,

etc).

ENR

has

asked

that

these

matters

be

clarified

(R.

at

1515),

and

the

Board

agrees.

The

Board

also

notes

that

if

coupling

of

preventive

programs

is

indeed

intended,

then

it

will

be

necessary

to

give

very

close

scrutiny

to

how

individual

activities

are

assigned,

if

at

all,

to

either

the

primary

or

secondary

category.

Additionally,

there

will

be

the

need

to

develop

review

and

appeal

procedures

for

individual

designations

and

to

define

the

forum

in

which

the

designations

are

made.

ENHANCEMENT

OF

ENFORCEMENT

The Plan’s recommendation for

the State

to adopt an

administrative citation enforcement mechanism appears,

at least

in part,

to have been addressed.

During

the Spring 1986

legislative session, an administrative citation enforcement

program passed both Houses as part of Senate Bill 2117, which

is

currently awaiting the Governor’s action.

This administrative

citation program allows either

the Agency,

or

a unit of local

government subject to

a delegation aqreernent with the Agency,

to

issue

a citation

to the owner

or operator

of

a sanitary landfill

for some types of violations.

Examples include open burning,

leachate movement beyond

the landfill boundaries, uncovered

refuse, failure

to provide final cover,

acceptance of wastes

without necessary permits, and failure

to submit required

reports.

If the person named in the citation fails to petition

the Pollution Control Board for

a review of the citation within

35 days of service, a $500 penalty is automatically imposed for

each violation.

This new procedure

is essentially a streamlined and

simplified

field enforcement or “ticketing” procedure.

The

purpose

is to provide

a new mechanism for

enforcing sanitary

landfill

violations and encourage

a higher rate of compliance

for

sanitary landfills.

Normal enforcement actions are extremely

costly and time consuminq and generally actions against sanitary

landfill operators have

a lower priority relative to hazardous

waste enforcement actions

(R.

at 1435).

Thus, while any single

sanitary landfill violation may not be one which has

a major

impact on groundwater, the Board believes that enhanced

enforcement against them

in aggregate could have major importance

in preventing groundwater pollution.

SET—BACK PROVISION

The Plan’s recommendation regarding well set—backs consists

of establishing

a zone around wellheads,

both public and private,

within which certain activities would be regulated

(Ex.

1,

p.

V-9

72.213

---

35).

This

proposal has several facets warranting individual

discussion,

including the merits of set—backs, defining the set-

back distance, the types of activities which would be regulated,

and matters of rights and authority.

Much of the difficulty that the Board has in reviewing

the

set—back recommendation is that the recommendation has been

presented to the Board

as a concept,

rather than as

a fully

developed proposal or program.

Conclusions and findings are

therefore difficult to make on other

than general matters.

Accordingly, the Board principally offers its observations on

matters

which

should

be

considered

in

a

fully

developed

set—back

proposal.

Merits of Set—Backs.

The intent of establishing set—backs

is

to provide a minimum level of protection for well

sites by

restricting

the occurrence of potentially polluting activities

within

a specified distance from

a wellhead.

The use of set-

backs

in groundwater protection has a precedent in the Illinois

well code, which requires separation between wells and septic

systems

(Ex.

56).

Set—back restrictions constitute one possible facet of

larger programs designed to provide wellhead protection.

Wellhead protection

is generally looked upon as the first line of

action in preventing groundwater contamination using source

controls.

This situation

is recognized

in the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1986 which,

in Section 1428,

mandate that

wellhead protection proqrams be developed by the state by 1989

(see following).

A set back—program could be

a cornerstone of

Illinois’ wellhead protection program.

Set—backs are not, however, without some conceptual

difficulties.

Among

these are that set—backs tend

to be

arbitrary,

in that they fail to recognize the individuality of

the hydrologic conditions which exist around any well.

An

additional difficulty is that set—backs do not necessarily

protect groundwater

itself.

Rather, should

a spill

occur

at a

properly set—back source,

the existence of the set—back affords a

greater time for the well operator

to react than

if the source

was not set back

(R. at 1398—401); the groundwater still becomes

contaminated, however.

The Board is not certain whether these difficulties would

constitute fatal

flaws in any proposal for applying setbacks.

The Board does note, however, that any proposers of set—back

regulations should be cognizant of these possible difficulties.

Scope of Applicability.

It has not been established within

the Board’s record

whether the set—back provision is intended

to

apply to all water supply wells or

to some subset of water supply

wells.

Clearly, this is

a most important consideration yet to be

undertaken.

The Board believes that

it would be necessary to

V-lO

72-214

---

provide

a

strong

defense

for

universal application of set—backs,

given

the

substantial

variation which exists in local conditions

around wells and the susceptibility of different wells

to

contamination.

The recommendation that set—backs be applied to sensitive

aquifers and recharge areas

(see p.

111—12) may be an appropriate

approach to defining the conditions under which set—backs would

be required.

This clearly implies that sensitive aquifers and

recharge areas would be defined previous to application of the

set—back limits.

Set—Back Distance.

One of the principal difficulties with a

set—back provision is defining the appropriate set—back

distance.

The Agency has offered that the minimum set—back

distance

should

be

200

to

400

feet

(R.

at

528).

It

has

also

offered that local conditions might warrant distances up to 1000

feet,

with

extension

to

the greater distances occasioned by a

demonstration by local government that the greater distance is

“reasonable, rational and necessary”

(R. at 528).

Substantial testimony was received directed toward

the

appropriateness of 200 feet, 400 feet, 1000 feet, as well as

other distances.

The Board concludes that this testimony is

reflective of the difficulty in establishing

a single distance,

or even several distances, which would afford the intended

protection under all, or even most, conditions.

As the record

abundantly indicates, variation in local conditions, including

geology, hydrology,

and pumpinq rates, would seem to warrant a

range of appropriate set—back distances.

Moreover, absent

a

showing

to the contrary,

the Board is concerned that restriction

of activities within

a simple circumference around a wellhead

could

be

judged

to

be

an

arbitrary

application

of

regulations.

Given

these

conditions,

the

Board

recommends

to

whomever

may

propose specific set—back regulations that due deliberation be

given to the matter of defending the general applicability of any

specific set—back distance(s).

The Board moreover believes that

it may be necessary to specify exception procedures, as the Plan

recommends

(Ex.

1,

p.

35), which would allow

for circumstances

where a circular set—back area

is inappropriate for local

conditions.

Regulated Activities.

The Board

is not clear

as to the

specific activities proposed to be regulated in the set—back

areas.

Various activities have been cited

in portions of the

record as possible candidates,

including, as examples, landfills

and chemical storage facilities

(R. at 1280).

However, no

specific list has been provided

to the Board.

Inasmuch as this

is

a most critical facet of any set—back program,

and an issue

which would be determinative of the success of any set—back

program,

the Board recommends that this issue be immediately

addressed in any future

forum.

v-lI

72 -215

---

As noted

above, among

the candidates for

a list of excluded

activities would be the list of primary and secondary sources

proposed

in the Plan.

However,

it would first be necessary to

determine what sources are

to be placed in each category, and

subsequently to determine if the lists are compatible with the

intentions of set—backs.

Only then might

a reasoned judgment be

made as to whether primary and/or secondary sources are

appropriately regulated within set—back areas.

However this may

proceed, the Board recommends that this matter be given serious

consideration.

A related facet of the set—back provision which would

require specific attention in any program is the form of

regulation which would be imposed within set—back areas.

In some

portions of the record it would appear that prohibition is the

assumed form of regulation

(e.g.,

R.

at 704).

However,

consideration has also been given by the Agency to the

possibility

of

regulation

via

the

imposition

of design and/or

performance

standards

(R.

at

578).

Rights

and

Authorities.

Substantial

questions

of

rights

and

authorities

must

be

addressed

as

part

of

any

specific

proposal

for wellhead set—backs.

Some of these are discussed

in the Plan

and

in the Board’s record, but the Board believes that

considerable thought and discussion yet needs to be undertaken

in

this area.

Among questions which need

to be addressed are:

Who

would determine, and

in what forum, the activities regulated

in

the set—back areas?

What would be the disposition of existing

facilities within set—back areas?

Does well development or

source development have priority in future planning?

What role

does local government play in determining the parameters of the

set—backs, including set—back distances and regulated

activities?

What appeal

recourses are

to exist?

The Board also has concern that the setback provision not be

used

in ways not contemplated by the Plan.

For example, some

assurance would have

to be provided that wells not be drilled in

anticipation of and with the sole intention of forestalling or

frustratinq prospective facility siting.

Similarly, should the

Agency’s recommendation of saleable waivers

(R. at 568—9) be

implemented, it may be necessary to provide assurance against

unnecessary well drilling for speculative purposes.

Federal Pr~9Lams. A development of potential importance to

the State’s development of a set—back provision is the recent

amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide for state

programs for the establishment of wellhead protection areas.

It

is too early to tell how this program will be implemented, but it

has several potentially significant ramifications.

To begin

with, although the new law emphasizes state implementation it

provides a new avenue for federal involvement in groundwater

protection through the approval or disapproval of proposed state

V-12

72-216

---

programs.

Secondly, the federal assistance for groundwater

protection planning that may be obtained by states with approved

programs, limited

as it

is, provides

a source of funding where

there

previously

was

none.

This

program

is

apparently

applicable

only

to

wellhead

protection areas

for public water supplies.

That term is broadly

defined in the statute as “the surface and subsurface areas

surrounding a water well or wellfield,

supplying a public water

system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move

toward such water well or welifield”.

The statute also requires

USEPA to issue technical guidance for determining these areas

within one year

(Ex. 36;

PC 5).

However, by this definition,

wellhead protection areas would apparently include within them

set—back zones, and possibly also critical recharae areas,

for

public water supply wells.

RECHARGE AREA PROTECTION

One of the most controversial aspects of

the Plan has been

the recommendation for

a recharge area protection proqram.

The

controversy has not so much been over the philosophical merits of

the proposal,

but rather with the many perceived difficulties

associated with its development.

The Board has much the same difficulty in reviewing the

recharge area protection recommendation as it has

in reviewing

the set—back recommendation.

Namely,

the recommendation has been

presented to the Board as

a concept,

rather than as a fully

developed proposal or program.

As is

the case with the set—back

recommendation,

the Board therefore principally offers its

observations on matters which should be considered

in

a fully—

developed recharge area protection proposal.

The Board also notes that many of the questions associated

with recharge area protection are identical with the questions

associated with the the set—back recommendation, including

matters such as the activities which would be regulated and

issues of rights and authorities.

In full, the Plan’s recommendation for recharge area

protection is:

Establishment of Recharge Area Protection.

In some

situations, well site protection will probably not be

adequate for the long—term protection of public water

supplies.

This stems from the fact that the water

which replenishes the well may enter the ground many

miles away.

Thus, contamination could occur quite

far from the well site and eventually be drawn into

the well after years of travel underground.

V-13

72.217

---

The

legislation

should

require

local

governments

to

start

the

development

of

“recharge

area

protection

plans within two

years

after

enactment

of

the

program.”

Such plans should delineate,

up to the 20—

year capture zone,

the geographic areas of primary

protective concern

(for example, see Figure 9).

Within

this context,

the plan should establish

control

requirements for existing and new potential

groundwater contaminations sources.

If a sole source

aquifer represents the groundwater use base, then the

control

requirements

should

address

the

entire

20—

year area.

If alternative supplies are readily

available, then the control requirements should

reflect a strategy for preventing, containina and

remedying contamination from primary and secondary

sources within the recharge area.

The strategy

should

consist

of

the

most cost—effective measures

which

are

appropriate

for

the

character

of

land

uses

within

the

recharge

area,

the susceptibility of the

area

to contamination and should ensure the continued

availability

of

groundwater

for

public

use.

The DENR and the IEPA should provide technical

guidance

regarding

means

for

determining

capture

zones and addressing potential hazards associated

with

primary

and

secondary

sources.

An

outreach

program would greatly enhance these efforts and

assist

local

governments.

The program should include

technical support and workshops.

These recharge or protection plans should be subject

to a formal public hearinq after proper notice and

opportunity for citizen participation and review.

Upon adoption by the local government,

a copy of the

plan should be filed with IEPA.

If

a complete plan

has not been filed within four years from the

enactment of the State legislation, the IEPA should

conduct

a “hazard assessment”.

Such assessments should identify those primary and

secondary sources which represent a hazard to the

continued availability of groundwaters for public use

given the susceptibility of the area to

contamination.

The IEPA should provide a copy of

this assessment to the local government.

If the IEPA

finds ‘that these hazards represent a significant

risk,

then the local government and the general

public should be so notified.

Where the population of the community served is not

more than 5,000,

the IEPA may be requested

to conduct

a “hazard assessment”, including an evaluation of the

degree of protection provided by the Statewide set—

V-l4

72.218

---

back requirements.

The community should be

authorized

to

use

this

assessment

as

the

basis

for

their

plan.

Owners

of

any

primary

or

secondary

sources,

which

have been aggrieved by a decision of the local

government, should be authorized to contest the

matter

before

the

PCB.

The

PCB

should

only

be

empowered to review the record which was before the

local government.

Similarly,

a third pary, with

proper standing at the local level, should be able to

appeal

a

decision

to

the

PCB.

The

legislation

should

require

the

IEPA

to

provide

a

comprehensive

status

report

to

the

Governor

and

the

General Assembly within five years after the

legislation

is enacted.

Special attention should be

given

to

the

progress

made

by

local

governments

to

implement

the

program.

Where

IEPA

assessments

have

been

conducted

due

to

tardy

action

by

local

governments,

specific

recommendations

should

be

provided

for

future

completion

or

protective

requirements.

(Ex.

1,

p.

35—6).

Merits of Recharge

Area

Protection.

Several

witnesses

expressed belief that recharge area protection is the most

appropriate focus for groundwater protection.

Illustrative of

this perspective

is that of Mr. Mike Bacon, Director of

Environmental Health of

the Winnebago County Health Department,

who contrasted

it with the set—back proposal:

The concern about the distances

in circumference

around a public water supply well

of 200, 400, or

1000 feet

I think are questions that are difficult to

answer adequately.

And, as such,

I think that

probably the concept of recharge protection,

particularly the idea of capture zones, probably is

a

more important way to look at

a protection strategy

related

to land—use controls as opposed to some kind

of magical circumference around public—drinking—water

wells.

(R.

at 394).

Citizens for

a Better Environment has expresed

a similar view,

noting:

IEPA has proposed drawing

a

200 to 400—foot circle

around most public and private water supply wells

in

determining the area in which siting restrictions

would apply.

While this circular approach may be the

easiest to implement in the short term, CBE believes

that a time—related capture zone more realistically

delineates the area of highest risk around

a well.

(R.

at

1253).

v-is

72.219

---

The

Board

agrees

with

these

assessments

that

the

“capture

zone” or

recharge area of a well

is the appropriate target area

for groundwater protection.

Focus on the recharge area

eliminates much of the arbitrariness implicit in

a specified set-

back distance and more realistically identifies those surface

areas

from which groundwater contamination might derive.

Recharge Area Delineation.

Implicit in developing recharge

area protection is the ability to adequately identify recharge

areas.

At

several

places

in

the

record

there

is

raised

the

question of whether recharge areas can be sufficiently delineated

(R.

at

538,

620,

634—41,

1350).

As

Mr.

Robert

Layer,

staff

engineer for the McHenry County Department of Planning, noted:

“In

our

county,

I

find

it

would

be

almost

impossible

to

determine

an

area

of

recharge

accurately

and

reasonably,

if

you

are

using

it in

a regulatory sense”

(R. at 538).

ENR,

for

the

most

part,

expressed

a

different

perception.

Included

has

been

the

conclusion

that

“defining

the

recharge

area

is

a

relatively

simple

task

to

do”

(R.

at

652)

and

the

skills

to

develop

appropriate

maps

exist

(R.

at

674—82).

Some

of

this

disparity

of

view

would

appear

to

arise

out

of

different

perceptions

of

the

degree

of

accuracy

needed

in

recharge

area

delineation.

From

the

planner’s

perspective

there

occurs

questions

of

whether

or

not

specific

parcels

of

land

might

lie within or outside of a recharge area,

or even whether

portions

of

a

specific

parcel

of

land

are

within

or

outside

of

a

recharge area.

A matter which therefore needs to be addressed is

that of

the fineness with which recharge areas can be delineated,

and

whether

this

is,

in

fact,

sufficient

for

regulatory

purposes.

An

additional

matter

associated

with

delineating

recharge

areas

is

the

matter

of

how,

and

by

whom,

the

recharge

area

is

to

be

defined

(and

presumably

defended

if

challenged).

Several

witnesses

argued

that

local

resources

are

not

up

to

the

task

(see

below).

If true, consideration will therefore have

to be given

to

the

allocation

of

State

resources,

including

personnel.

Sufficiency of Local Resources.

Several witnesses

questioned the ability of local governmental units to carry out

the mandated recharge area protection plan

(R. at 320, 403,

621,

660).

The belief is that both local technical expertise and

local financial resources are inadequate to the task,

particularly in areas where groundwater flow is complicated and

recharge areas are difficult to define.

Local

Siting Review.

The Plan recommends that the decision

to

site

facilities

within

groundwater

protection

zones

be

made

at

the

local

level

(Ex.

1,

p. 58;

R.

at 542, 580—1).

The Agency

further recommends that there be some minimum criteria

established by the State

so that local governments

(e.g., cities

V-l6

72.220

---

or counties)

can make consistent decisions

(R.

at 524).

The

Board finds merit

in these concepts, but

is concerned about the

practicality

of

their

application.

Issues

which

need

to

be

addressed and resolved

include, among others, the forum in which

the

State

would

establish

its

minimum

criteria;

the

local

governmental

unit

responsible

for

the

siting

decision,

particularly where jurisdictions overlap or where recharge occurs

within

another

jurisdiction;

the

format

of

the

local

decision;

State oversight,

if any, of the local decision; and forums of

appeal of both local and State decisions.

The

Board

notes

that

the

State

has

some

experience

with

a

similar

program in the local siting review of new regional

pollution control facilities.

The particulars of this process

are found

in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Section

39.2*.

The

Board

notes

that

the

high

level

of

adjudicatory

activity

both

before

the

Board

and

in

State

courts,

the

need

to