ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

3,

1975

In the Matter of

Public Water Supplies

)

R73—13

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by

Mr.

Marder)

The following Opinion constitutes the rationale the Board used

in adopting Chapter

6 of

the

Rules and Regulations of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board.

Six days

of

hearings were held on this

matter,

at which times testimony was elicited on virtually every

rule covered.

As adopted, these regulations institute

a number of

major provisions:

Supplant all existing public water regulations now

in use, including

the

Public Health Requlations

and, in—

corporating

by

reference

in

the

Technical

Policy

State-

ments,

the

Ten-State

Standards.

In

doing

so,

the

new

regulations initiate an easily understandable set of

rules

common

to the entire gamut of water supplies.

in addition to continuing the Agency practice of re-

quiring construction permits,

also introduce the con-

cept of operating permits.

These one-time permits will

allow the Agency to render a final check on a system be-

fore

it

is actually allowed to distribute water to the

public.

Delegates

the

authority to the Agency to issue algicide

permits, thereby deleting unnecessary delay and expense

from the process of controlling algae in public water

supplies.

Establishes the concept of emergency permits which will

allow public water supplies to effectively deal with prob-

lems as they arise.

Establishes reasonable, safe limits for bacteriological

levels

in

public

water

supplies,

as

well

as

detailing

which

type

of

tests

and

procedures

shall

he

followed.

Introduces

enforceable

limitations

for

a

whole

gamut

of

chemical

constituents.

The

analysis

of

these

numbers

in-

corporated

a complete review of all constituents and re-

flects the best current knowledge.

For the first time,

requires chlorination

in all public

drinking water supplies.

Establishes

criteria

for

boil

orders

which

will

protect

the

public

safety

under

emergency

situations.

15

103

---

Reevaluates Rule 204 of Chapter

3 to bring it into

accord

with

this

new

Chapter

6

and

also

reviews

the

con~

stituef~tsto reflect the best available knowiedge~

Since

their

formation

in 1970 pursuant to the Environmental Protect~

ion

Act,

the

Agency

and

the

Board

have

leen

rE.lying

on

the

Public

Health

Regulations

as

they

apply

to

drinking

water

standards

Under

Section

17

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

the

Board

was

given

the

a.uthor~

ity

to

adopt

regulations

covering

the

area

of

public

water

supplies~

The last revision of these rules was accomplished in 1960,

and as such

was

in

dire

need

of

review

and

upgrading.

We

ate

dealing

with

at

area

which

can

so

easily

and

seriously

affect

the

public

health

thai

it

be~

comes

even

more

necessary than usual to constantly critically review

such regul.ations.

Data relating to various constituents are in a

fluid.

state, more

is

being

learned

about

chemicals

every

day,

and

new

hazards

are uncovered

each

time

a

new

pesticide

or

iPsecticide

is

introduced

to

the

market

place.

Therefore,

these

regulations

can

be

best

termed

an

up-to-date

starting

point

review

will

be

needed

from

time

to

time

as

new situations and

information

arise

Noticeably

missing

in

these

reg~

ulations are criteria for radiation~ This is simply because at the

present time not enough is known to write

a meaningful regulation in

this area.

The Board is well aware of its responsibility to change the

regulations

as more information becomes available,

and will endeavor

to do so.

Adherence

to

Title

7,

Section

27,

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

General

criteria

to

be

followed

by

the

Board

in

adopting

substantive

regulations

are

detailed

ia

Section

27

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

Throughout

the

hearings

and

deliberations

on

these

regulations,

these

general

constraints

were

kept

in

mind.

It

is

the

Board~s

opinion

that

these

regulations reflect the legislative intent of Section 27.

Section

27

mandates

attention to different problems in different geo~

graphical

areas,

attention

to

short—term

health

efdects,

and

existing

physical

conditions,

including

the

technical

feasibility

and

economic

reasonableness

of the enacted regulations.

As can be determined from

the rule by rule discussion which follows,

attention was given to each

area.

A case in point would

be the Board~scognizance of the inherent phys-

ical differences

between ground water and surface waters

Different

geographical areas

of the state require that public water supplies de~

rive their feed from either ground or

surface water.

The

physical

nat-

ure of these supplies plays a significant role

in what would be allowed

in such feed.

Water

drawn from

an

aquifer may have natural contamin-

ants in quantities

in excess of what would normally be found in surface

water.

A

look

at

Rule

204, chapter

3,

reveals

that

suiphates

for

pub-

lic water supplies are limited at

250 mg/la

Table I of these regula-

tions makes

no

such

provision.

This reflects the knowledge that many

ground

water

supplies

have sulphates in excess of 250 mg/l,

Exhibit

41

reflects

some

130 such supplies.

Exhibits and testimony show no ad-

verse

health

effubts of sulphates, and

Exhibits

A5

and PC-~7show signif~

Is

—

104

---

icant costs

for removal.

When balancing these three considerations:

egg., health effects, physical and geological nature, and costs, the

Board has deleted this ‘~aesthetic”parameter from its regulations~

This

attention

to

Section

27

is

manifest

throughout

our

deliberations

on

each

rule,

and

is

reflected

in

the

rule—by—rule

discussion

below~

Before

coirmiencing

with

a

rule—by-rule

discussion,

it

is

necessary

to

express

our

satisfaction

with

the

manner

in

which

these

proceedings

were

carried

forth~

The

Illinois

Envirc.nmental

Protection

Agency,

Division of Public Water Supplies, otiginally proposed these regula-

tions on October 24,

1973,

During the course of six hearings much vig-

orous discussion of the proposal w.as encountered~ The Agency listened

and

modified

its

proposals

in

an

earn.est

attempt

to

propose

rules

which

will

protect

the

pub±~c.heaath

and

at

the

same

time

not

create

an

un—

reasonable

burden

on

the

owners

and

operators

of

public

water

supplies.

This

type

of

attitude

on

the

part

of

the

Agency

made

it

much

easier

for

t.he

Board

to

accept

almost

all

of

the

Agency~s proposals.

It

was

evi-

dent

that

there

was

an

almost

universal

respect

for

this

division

of

the Agency,

and a general feeling that theBe rules will be applied

fairly and honestly by the members of this divJ.sion~

it is also nec-

essary at this time to express our appreciation to the many represent-

atives of the municipalities and the public water supply industry, who

by their expertise and meaningful attention to this matter,

assisted

this

Board

in

formulating

meaningful

and

protective

regulations:.

The following is

a ruie—by~rulediscussion of the rationale used

by the Board in adopting Chapt.er

6.

15—

105

---

—4—

SUMMARY

OF

RULES

AND

REGULATIONS

CHAPTER

6

Rule 101

Authority

This rule simply cites Section 17

of

the Environmental Protection

Act,

which

authorizes

the

Board

to

promulgate regulations

in

the

area

of

public

water

supplies.

This

rule

is

the

standard

opening

on

all

Board

regulations.

No

public

comment

was

received.

Rule 102

Policy

This

rule states that the

main

purpose

of

these

rules

is to serve

as a guide for

the

design, preparation, and operation of

public

water

facilities.

It

further

defines

the

words shall and must

as mandatory,

based

on

enough

expertise

to

warrant

such

a

use.

Other

terms

(e.g.,

should,

recommended)

denote

desirable

methodology,

but

are

open

to

dev-

iation.

The

rule

further

encourages new technology, but in view

of

the

potential

hazards

which

might

occur

due

to

faulty

instal:Lations,

outlines

the

safeguards which must be

taken by a supplier

or

engineer.

Use

of

a

new

type

of

water

treatment

method

or

equipment

may

not

simply

be

installed

and

considered

as

satisfaction

•of

these

regulations,

Sim-

ply

meeting

specific

parameters

will

not

alone

guarantee

that

the

re-

sultant water

is

safe

for

human

consumption.

Such

a

new

system

must

have

been

previously

used

and

thoroughly

tested

on

a

full-scale

install-

ation or tested on a pilot plant system.

Such proof will

he

required

by the Agency before such

Rule 103

Repeals

103

(a):

This paragraph states which rules and regulations will

be superseded by these rules.

103

(b)

:

States that when the rules in Chapter

6 are adopted, all

Agency technical policy statements will be effective.

Rule

212 will

be the appropriate mechanism for technical policy changes, and allows

ample opportunity for public comment.

The technical policy statements are the tools to be used to imple-

ment the intent of these rules:

to maintain a safe and controllable

water

supply.

These

statements

are

analogous

to

electrical

or

piping

codes and rightly belong as separate documents, rather than as part

of these rules.

Exhibit

9

is

a

copy

of

Agency

Technical

Policy

Statements

and

has

been

distributed

for

public

comment.

Technical

policy

statements

have

been in use in

other departments of the Agency.

For

the

sake of com-

pleteness,

Rule

103

(b) was modified to make clearer the

fact.

that the

method

for

chanqe

of

technical

policy

statements

subsequent to adopt-

ion

ot

these

r.iles

is

via

Rule

212.

Rule 10$

Definitions

Most:

cit

the

terms

it

ttirs

rule

are

eel f~e.xp1anatorr

;

howeve.r

15

—

106

---

problems have arisen in the following.

1.

“Operational Testing”:

This definition was added to clarify

Rule

315.

There was some confusion as

to exactly what type of labora—

tory facilities

is required.

It

is

the

intent of Rule 315 to insure

that if

a water supply is treating

its

water, it has adequate labora—

tory

facilities

to

monitor

and

safeguard

the

water.

It is not the in-

tent to require each water supply to have facilities on hand to quali-

tatively or quantitatively analyze their water for constituents

found

in Table

1.

While this is desirable,

it is clearly beyond

the

finan-

cial scope of~asmall community

(R.

683).

2.

Public Water Supply System:

(Deleted.)

The original Agency pro--

posal

included

this

definition.

Public comment

(City of

Springfield)

pointed

out

that

the

proposed

definition

could lead to confusion when

read

in

combination

with

Section

3

(j)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

In

addition,

the

proposed

definition

did

not

specifically

relate

a

population

cutoff

as

does

Section

3

(j).

The

Agency

agreed

to

delete

this

definition

and

will

rely

on

the

definition

found

in

the

Act.

“(j)

‘Public

water

supply’

means

all

mains,

pipes

and

structures

through which water is

obtained

and

distributed to the public, inclu-

ding wells

and well structures,

intakes

arid cribs, pumping stations,

treatment plants,

reservoirs, storage tanks and appurtenances, coll-

ectively or severally,

actually used or intended for use for the pur-

pose of furnishing water for drinking or general domestic use in in—

~orporated municipalities; or unincorporated communities where

10 or

more separate lots or properties are being served or intended to be

served; State—owned parks and memorials; and State—owned educational,

charitable, or penal institutions.”

The word “Supply” is now defined as

a public water supply as

above

(R,

198,

705)

3.

“Twelve—Month—Running Average”:

Some confusion was apparent

as

to

why

this

definition

was

incorporated,

and

how

it

is

to

be

used.

This

definition

is

to

be

used

by

the

Agency

to

define

exactly

what

type

of records it will be required to accumulate in order to prove a viola-

tion of Rule 304.

It is not the intent of these regulations

to mandate

that each water supply maintain a twelve-month running average.

This

is not required by these regulations

CR.

Rule 105

Analytical Testing

This rule defines the acceptable methods which shall be used to an-

alyze water,

The phrase “to determine compliance with these rules and

regulations, all sampling and” was added to make it clear that a labor-

atory was not required by these rules, but rather that any laboratory

testing water, whether Agency or private, shall use standardized meth—

odology.

Rule 106

Limit of Public Water Supplies

This

rule

is

self-explanatory.

It

simply

states

that

a

public

water

15

—

107

---

—6—

supply

is responsible

only

up to the point at which it connects to the

ultimate water user’s supply.

Some possible problems

with

this defin-

ition were raised at the Carbondale hearing

(R, 1065-1074).

Because of

the fact that the water supply’s responsibility ends at the property

line,

a

multi-service distribution system was thought to

be

inadequately

covered.

For example, a large

shopping

center or industrial

complex

could have many services after the main tie—in.

Under the definition

in the Environmental Protection Act, such services could not be covered

by these rules,

Mit, Ira Markwood (Illinpis Environmental Protection

Agency) explained that such a contingency

is covered in two ways:

I)

a public water supply is still responsible for back contamination in-

to its distribution system,

and 2)

the State Department of Public Health,

through its administration of plumbing codes, could control any problems.

This logic is acceptable to the Board and we accept the rule

as proposed.

Rule 107

Severability

This rule protects the integrity

of

the entire package against de—

fault

if

any individual rule is held invalid.

15

—

108

---

—7—

PART

II:

PERMITS

~le 201

Construction Permits

This

rule

was

the

subloct

of

much

heated

comment.

The basic prob—

1cm

was

to

write

a

regulation

which

would

protect

the

public

from faulty

construction

work,

and

at

the

same

time

allow

public

water

supplies

to

maintain

existing

systems

in

an

orderly

manner.

The

main

controversy

centered

around

where

maintenance

‘ends

and

new

construction

begins.

The

cities

of

Chicago,

Springfield,

and

Galesburg

were most vocal

ifl

their

opposition

to

Rule

201

as

originally

proposed.

The

contention

was

that

a

construction

permit

would be ceiuired every

time

a

water

main

break

was

repaired

or

a

pump

failed.

Clearly

this

would

be

an

impossible

situation.

The

City

of

Chicago

stated

that

in

ten

months

of

1973

they

made

a)

19,422 hydrant repairs,

b)

2,498 valve

repairs,

c)

3,506

water

main

repairs,

d)

17,090

service

repairs,

and

e)

repairs to

12,740 meters.

(R.

455.)

Al!

parties

would

agree

that if

a permit were

required for

each of these changes, the Agency would

be inundated and literally cease

~o

function.

The

other

side

of

the

coin

is

the

potential

disaster

which

could

oc-

cur

if

faulty

engineering

was

followed,

The

extreme case of a replace-

ment

of

a

six-inch

main

with

a

thirty—six

inch

main was raised, More

realistically

a

pump of insufficient capacity could be installed,

there—

v

ailowi.ng

the distribution system, following

the

pump,to

be

pulled

wn and leave

the

whole

system

open

to

contamination

by

back

siphonage.

The Agency amended Rule 201

to

exempt

a

large

number

of

items

which

can be adequately handled on a routine basis.

It also allowed for re-

placement of equipment with “identical” parts.

The word

“identical”

was

ambiguous

in

that

it

implied

a

specific brand or model

number

was

the

only

acceptable

replacement

(R.

1014,

939).

The word was changed

to

“equivalent”

(R.

1015),

and

this

would

seem

to

solve

the

problem.

The problem still exists when

a

water

supply

must,

by

necessity,

for

economic reasons,

or to protect

the system,

go beyond the alterations

allowed

in

Rule

201.

The Agency stated, and will make

a

part of their

Technical Policy, that

a telephone number is available at

all times

for

construction approval in such a case.

If a situation arises under which

emergency repair must be made at the time

a failure of part of the

sys-

tem

1:3 noted,

the owner

of such a system may substitute a formal written

permit with

a verbal O.K.

At this time the Agency will make

a note

of

the telephone call,

and its verbal decision.

The Agency will then follow

up

with

a

formal

written permit.

Upon consideration, the Board felt that

such a procedure should be an express part

of

the

regulations.

In

this

way

this unique

alternate

would

have

ecual standing

(under

special

con-

ditions)

with

the

formal

written

procedure.

The

Board

again

emphasizes

that

this

procedure

is

instituted

because

in

some

instances

the

delay

caused

by

a

permit

would

be

a

hazard

to

the

public

safety

or

cause

an

undue

burden

on

the

public

water

supply.

Rule

213

now

covers

this

con-

tingency..

15

—

109

---

—8—

Rule

202

9j~~i~

The area of operating

permits

raised

a

storm

of

controversy

at

hear-

ing.

The reasons for this controversy centered about

three

points:

A)

The

requirement

is

a

new

one and the need for such a per-

mit

was questioned.

B)

The possibility of construction being completed, and an

operating permit then being refused.

C)

The Agency’s rationale for this requirement and the

hard-

ship such a system would impose.

The Agency took great pains

to discuss and defend

its position in re-

gard to operating permits.

The need for such a permit was pointed out

by two major problems which have occurred in the past,

for which no ac-

ceptable remedy was available

(R.

33).

This permit will

simply be a

final check of a facility to allow

the

Agency

to

determine if

the

cond-

itions laid out in the construction permit have been followed.

It

seems

reasonable that the Agency should insure that the original permit con-

ditions have been followed and that the facility starting up is the same

(physically)

as the one for which permission to construct was granted.

A second major point

is that any construction permit requires proper

disinfection of the facility before start up.

The present permit system

does not allow the Agency to insure that such disinfection has occurred.

The

new

system would serve as a check to allow assurance that the sys-

tem is safe for use by the public.

It is also important to note that this

rule differs from the usual

operating permit requirements

in two very important ways.

First,

the

operating permit

is a one-time affair,

It lasts for the life of the

facility and has no renewable date,

Secondly, only new facilities are

required to obtain operating permits.

Existing plants are exempt

(R,

59).

This is in the spirit of the system that the permit

is an insurance

policy that proper construction and disinfection have taken place. Anal-

ysis of operating reports is the

continuing tool which would allow the

Agency to monitor proper operations.

The fear that a facility could be constructed

(in the

case of munici-

palities

financed by bonds)

and then not allowed to operate was expressed

by many witnesses

(R,

589, Freeport;

R.

876, Oak Lawn).

This fear was

reinforced

by the originally proposed Rule 213 (Exhibit

#5, Pg.

8). This

proposed rule stated that the Agency may change any permit to bring it in-

to conformance with a new regulation adopted by

the Board.

This proposed

rule was deleted, in that it is not necessary.

No permit can be issued

unless all rules and regulations are followed.

It was pointed out that

if a regulation is to be changed,

it would require the process described

in the Board’s Procedural Rules, Part II, and that ample opportunity

for

public comment would be available.

This concept was summed up by

Mr.

John Anderson

(Mgr. Public Water Div.,

EPA)

as follows:

“I would not~think that we would have the authority to

do that.

The whole purpose of the operating permit pro-

15—110

---

—9—

gram is to give us the opportunity to

come out and

look at a major midification of your plant

and

see

that it was constructed in fact according

to the plans

that were initially submitted,

and then probably

the

most important concern we have on the whole

operating

permit program is

to insure that the equipment

is

prop-

erly disinfected prior to being placed in

operation.

“Now,

that whole operating permit is based

on the

fact that you have followed the plans initially submit-

ted for your construction permit.

I can’t see how we

would have the authority to just throw

in

some

change

in the rules at that point without going back

to

the

Board and getting authority

to

do

that.

“The operating permit is merely in there to help as-

sure that the initial plan was followed and is going

to

be

placed

in

operation according to proper

methods.”

(R,

792—793)

The question of additional burden on the public water supplies

was

raised.

A new permit system always has the potential of generating an

undue amount of paper work.

The Agency stressed the

fact that this

system would be

as simple as possible

(R.

33).

The very concept

of

such a permit

(e.g., could be termed

a start—up permit)

allows for

sim-

plification.

The possibility, indeed probability, of a combined con-

struction/operating permit application form was espoused

by

the

Agency

(IL

33,

1075)

.

The entire concept

is

to

generate a system with the

minimum possible delay and the least possible

paper

work.

After weigh-

ing

all the

facts of this controversy, the Board feels that the pro-

posed operating permit

is

a needed safeguard and can be administered

with

a

minimum

of

red

tape.

Rule

203

Algicide

Permits

The initiation of this type of permit system is a somewhat different

concept than other systems.

The best analogy here would be the case

of open burning permits

in the Air Pollution Control Division.

The

Agency is, by this system, given the right to allow additions of copper

sulphate

in order to control undesirable algae growth in surface water

used for drinking water supplies.

Through experience the Board has

found that such additions of algicide are needed on some lakes each

year;

the variance route is unduly costly and may generate unnecessary

delay.

It was agreed by all parties that

a permit system can be admin-

istered speedily and still preserve the public interest.

Comment

was

generated

about

the

types

of

algicides

available

for

use.

Mrs.

D, Bennett

(Agency chemist) noted that while biodegradable

algicides

such

as

Hydrothol-47,

Aquathol-K,

and Diquat, have

been

found

to

be

effective,

each

has

a

particular

drawback.

It was also

noted

that

not

enough

is

known

about

the

products

of

degradation

to

alio~

the~r

use

with

absolute

safety

The

o’ily

algicide

which

has

been

rsed for years

(since 1900), md seemingly has no adverse effects,

is

copper sulphate~ Rule 203 shall be limited to the use of copper sulphate.

---

—

10

Dr. Muchmore

(Southern Illinois University) entered and spoke to

Exhibit 65 which supported the establishment of a permit system for

copper sulphate and the potential danger of same.

Dr. Muchmore ex-

plained that a large percentage

of

copper

added

is

precipitated

out

and settles

to

the

bottom

in

the

form

of

hydroxides

and

carbonates.

Analysis of lake bottoms

(Half

Moon

Lake,

Wisconsin)

has

shown

hiqh

copper concentrations

at

least

ten

inches

deep.

It

has

been

proposed

that the chemical forms of copper in the lake bottoms are of a low

toxic nature, and the potential for aquatic harm is very low.

In

summary,

Dr.

Muchmore

stated

that

between

1950

and

1969,

130

lakes

have been treated

with

copper

sulphate

-

a

total

of

1,585,059

pounds.

No major problems

have

been

encountered.

Dr. Muchmore also entered PC-54

into the record, which is a pre-

liminary study of lakes in Illinois.

This

reporc: tentatively shows

that the same precipitation

effect

has

been

found

in

Lake

DuQuoin

and

Little

Grassy

Lake

as

has

been

reported

in

the

abovementioned

Wiscon-

sin

lakes.

Lake

DuQuoin

has

a

sediment

copper

concentration

of

20

times what would be expected if no algicide were used

(copper sulphate

in use for 34 years).

If algicide use were terminated,

it is expected

that future bottom sediments would return to background levels, Again,

no aquatic damage due to these bottom concentrations was reported,

Rule 204

Applications_- Contents

A)

Specifies generally

what

type

of

information

will

be

required

along

with

an

operating

permit

application.

The

five

items

are

ones

which

should

be available to anyone undertaking the design of a water

system

or

addition,

and

should

cause

no

undue

inconvenience

or

ex-

pense.

Item five calls for submission of specifications and warrants

special discussion.

The Agency encourages the submission of standard

specifications

(H. 1078).

The response to a request to most suppliers

and engineering

firms for this information was sparse.

If standard

specifications are not submitted,

each addition must be accompanied

by its own specifications.

It would seem a simple task to get these

records on file,

The Agency’s

service

in

this area could greatly

re-

duce

delay and should be used by

anyone

dealing in this

area.

B)

Reaffirms the Legislature’s intent that all plans must be signed

by a Registered Professional Engineer.

There was some comment that

such

a procedure is unnecessary.

All

argument on this point comes to

naught

because neither the Agency nor

the

Board

has

the

authority

to

supersede applicable

state

laws.

C)

This subparagraph simply states which information

is

required

on

an operating

permit

application.

The intent is to allow speedy compil-

ation

of

construction

and

operating

permits.

The name and certificate

number of a

certified

operator

is

required

to

insure

that

Rule

302 is

being

adhered

to.

D)

This

subparagraph deals with information required when submitting

an

algicide

permit.

Because of the potential harm which could occur in

the

improper

use of such algicides,

it

is incumbent on the Agency to

gather

as much data as it can.

These data not only serve as

a

basis

15—112

---

—

11

—

for determining the issuance of the instant permit, but also build

a

sound

backlog

of

information

for

the

Agency

to

draw

on

in

future cases.

The City of Springfield vigorously opposed

(R.

699)

the term,

“the

history of any past algae problems.”

it was argued that there

is no

time limit on these data,

and if a city has been using algicides for

a large number of years, it would be impossible to supply it all.

The

recommendation that “all historical data which is readily available”

be used was made,

The Agency commented that this interpretation could

leave too large a loophole in the system.

Perhaps more important is

the Agency’s comment that they expect to be reasonable in their requests

for information.

The Board sees

no

reason why the original language

cannot

be

used

when

applied

with

the

Agency’s

intent

mentioned

above.

B)

This is

a general proviso to allow the Agency to prescribe

forms and adopt procedures

to determine compliance with these regula-

tions

and

the

Act.

Rule

205

~

ns,Si

natures

and

Auth oriz ations

This

rule

is

self-explanatory

and

no

public

comment

was

received

at

any

hearing

in

regards

to

it.

Rule 206

Applications_- Filing and Final Action by_Agency

This

rule

describes

the

methods

under

which

a

permit

application

is

to

be

received

and

handled

by

the

Agency.

A)

Much

discussion

centered

around

when

a

permit

application

was

to be considered received.

The original Rule 206

(A) stated that the

permit was not to be considered received until such time

as all inform-

ation and documents were received.

The intent was to allow the Agency

to request additional information without starting the 90-day clock.

However, comment

(R.

698,

709, 940) was entered that this procedure

could

become

an

unintentional

delay,

The

final

wording

clearly

states

that the permit application shall be considered received upon the date

of the initial receipt of the document.

B)

This subparagraph

mandates

that

the

Agency

take

positive

action

on

permits

within

a

maximum

of

ninety

days.

Failure

to take such act-

ion would result in an automatic permit grant.

Subparagraph

(C) allows

for a waiver of the ninety-day limitation by the applicant.

There was some concern over the intent of this ninety—day time lim-

it

(H.

41,

1082).

Comment

was

entered that ninety days

is an inordinate-

ly long period

of

time

for

an

applicant

to

wait

for

a

permit.

It

is

clearly not the intent

of

this rule to mandate

a ninety—day review period

for

each permit, but rather to

set

a maximum time for review.

This max-

imum time limit

is consistent with past Board practices and the Environ-

mental Protection Act

(see

Sect.

38, Environmental Protection Act, and

Chapter

7,

Rule

205

(g). Clearly, the intent

of

this

rule

is to insure

an applicant that his application

is

being

given speedy consideration,

and that he will be given an

ans~ier within

a

reasonable

time.

15—113

---

—

12

—

D)

This subparagraph states the method in which notification of

final

action by

the Agency will be transmitted to the applicant.

Rule 207

Standards for Issuance

This

rule pertains to the standing rule that the Agency may not is-

sue a permit unless

it is proven

that the public water supply conforms

with the

standard design criteria under Rule 212.

A question

of

intent was raised

by

the City of Springfield

(H.

1182)

and requires

some

clarification.

The question was whether, when applying

for a permit,

the applicant

must submit

proof that the entire system is

in compliance,

or just

the work to be done is in compliance.

In the case

of

a water system the size of Springfield’s, a showing of proof of com-

pliance

of the

entire system as a prerequisite for work on a water main

extension

would be unduly

burdensome.

The intent of the Agency and the

Board is best summed up

in the following

quote

by Mr. Markwood:

“The permit

is issued

strictly

on

the basis of the con-

struction work which has

been done.

Nothing in the con-

struction

work posed can violate the rules,

It

bears no

re-

lationship to any other part of the

system.”

“The operating permit only refers to

the

construction

work for which it is

issued.

Obviously,

in

a complete new

water supply there would have to be some type of assurance

that

there

is

a

policy

to

eliminate

cross—connections.

On

an

existing

water

supply

there

is no

provision

for

an

oper-

ating permit.

Therefore we would not be concerned with

that.”

(R,

1184—1185)

This language should clear up any doubts as to what is required

in

the

way

of

“adequate

Rule

208

Duration

of

Permits

This

rule

caused

quite

a

bit

of

concern

at

the

early

hearings.

Mayor

Bersted

(Monmouth)

expressed apprehension about this rule when coupled

with

the

originally

proposed

Rule

213

(Exhibit 5,

Pg.

8)

.

The original

combination of rules would have allowed the Agency to modify

permits

be-

fore

construction began, but potentially

after

bonding was secured by a

municipality.

Mayor Bersted stated that the time to build a water tower

from tnd.issuancè of a contract to the tower startup

is on the order of

84-90 weeks

(R.

730).

Once bonding is received, the bonding institution

would want some assurance that

the job to be done will be done as

init-

ially proposed.

Concern was also expressed that

a major modification

in the

facility may run in

excess

of the bond limit and new financing

would have to be secured.

After much discussion

it was determined that

Rule

213 as originally

proposed

and

entitled

“Modification

of

Permits”

was

the

main

stumbling

block.

It

was

this

rule

which

led

to

the

fear

of

arbitrary

changes

in

a

permit

after

bonding

was

secured.

The

intent

of

this

rule

was

sum±ned

up

by

John

Anderson

as

noted

on

pp.

8

and

9

of

this

Opinion.

15—114

---

—

13

—

Thereafter, Mr. John Parker (hearing officer)

ally proposed.

Rule 209

in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

a project was constructed without a permit, the Agency may require

built plans.”

whether there are any inconsistencies

in construction.

to note that the submission of “as built” plans

prosecution.

an inconsistency between this rule and Rule 213

Conditions).

The two conditions are very much different.

Under Rule

213,

the

Agency will verbally allow construction based on a verbal un-

derstanding of how the work

is

to be accomplished, pending a submission

of plans as soon as possible.

This procedure will act as a construction

permit and will indeed be a shield from prosecution

Rule 210

Conditions

This allows the Agency to set conditions on a

permit

which may be

necessary to insure consistency with any Board rule or regulation. An

~xample would be a condition on a permit detailing methods for sludge

isposal from a public water treatment plant.

Such sludge could be

a

otential pollutant under Chapter

3 or Chapter 7 of the Illinois Poll-

ution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

The original language of this rule was somewhat misleading,

as it

did not accurately reflect that a conflict with any Board rule would

be disallowed.

The language of Rule 206

(a)

of Chapter 7 concisely

states the required facts and has been herein repeated as Rule 210 of

Rule 211

Appeals from Conditions

in Permits

This is the standard appeal route clause as found in all Illinois

Pollution Control Board chapters.

It assures the applicant the right

to appeal any conditions imposed by the Agency.

Under this rule a con-

tested condition has the same weight as a permit denial and may be

appealed under Section

Rule 212

Design, Operation,

and Maintenance Criteria

This section gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority

to adopt technical policy statements.

Part

(A)

outlines the rationale

under which such a change should be made

(e.g., change in the state

of the art).

Part

(B) outlines the specific procedures under which

such a change could be made.

Rule 103

(B)

allows the adoption of the technical policy state—

~nts

as published in accordance with these rules.

Any new technical

15—

115

---

—

14

—

policy

statements

will

fall

under

the

province

of

this

rule.

Technical

policy

statements

are

the

tools

of

the

Agency

to

allow

the

proper

administration

of

these

rules.

These

statements

detail

what will

be

required

of

a

public

water

supply

so

as

to

comply

with

these

rules,

and

serve

as

a

guide

for

proper

construction

and

opera-

tion

of

facilities.

Guidelines

are

also

incorporated

for

the

proper

minimum

chlorine

residuals,

fluoridation

procedures,

safety

precaut-

ions,

and

any

other

pertinent

specifications

(R.

23,

943).

Certain

witnesses

expressed

a

fear

that

technical

policy

statements

would

allow

the

Agency

to

dictate

all

facets

of

public

water

supply

and”potentially

interfere

with

normal

maintenance

(Ex.

29,

P.

6,

R.

860).

This

fear

is

unfounded.

In

the

first

instance,

Rule

212

(B)

allows

ample

time

for

public

comment

•

In

the

second

instance,

if

an

owner

of

a

public

water

supply

feels

that

a

condition

to

his

permit

was

in-

corporated

on

the

basis

of

an

unjust

technical

policy

statement,

his

appeal

to

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

could

very

well

raise

this

point.

Technical

policy

statements

have

been

used

in

other

div-

is

ions

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

and

would

appear

to

be

working satisfactorily.

Rule 212

(B) was the subject of minor controversy.

212

(B) (1) out-

lines

the

method of

how

notification

of

a

proposed

technical

policy

change

shall

be

given.

As

proposed,

the

rule

would

have

given

the

Agency

the

choice

of

publishing

the

change

in

either

the

Board

News-

letter

or

in

a

comparable

publication.

This

led

to

questions

of

what

a

comparable

publication

was

(R.

1018,

Ex.

21,

P.

10).

The

Agency’s

response

was

that

should

the

frequency

of

the

Board’ s

Newsletters

change,

delay

might

be

caused

in

waiting

for

publication.

The

News-

letter

is

the

generally

accepted

media

for

state

environmental

affairs

and

as

such

should

be

used

for

matters

of

this

type.

However,

the

Agency

should

be

allowed

the

option

of

additionally

publishing

the

pro-

posed

change

in

,a

comparable

publication

if

it

deems

it

necessary.

The

present

rule

reflects

this

option.

Rule

212

(B) (3)

raised

doubt

as

to

the

intent

of

the

45-day

deferral

of

adoption

clause

(R.

720).

The

conflict

was

mainly

a

misinterpreta-

tion

of

the

intent

of

the

section.

The

intent

is

not

to

limit

comment,

but

to

allow

ample

time

to

receive

and

consider

public

comment.

Rule

213

Permits

under

Emergency

Conditions

This

rule

was

added

to

the

original

proposal

as

a

response

to

a

series

of

valid

potential

problems

which

were

raised

at

hearing.

(Mr.

Pavia

of

the

City

of

Chicago

(Ex.

29,

P.

6)

It

became

clear

that

a

method

to

carry

out

emergency

operations

and

still

fulfill

the

require-

ments

of

Rules

201

and

202

was

mandatory.

Public

water

supplies

are

facilities

which,

if

left

inoperable

for

an

indeterininant

length

of

time,

could

potentially

inflict

much

serious

harm to

the

public

health;

it

is

also

realized

that

lack

of

proper

installation

is

a

serious

health

hazard.

Rule

213

allows

for

the

best

possible

compromise.

It allows

the

Agency

to

become

aware, of

the

proposed

intent

(and

methodology)

o

a water works,

while

deleting

the

necessity

for

a.

pre—received

permit

15—lie

---

The

term

~emergency~ is, of course, open to

discussion,

and in the

Board~sopinion there is no satisfactory way to define it.

Emergencies

will vary from

time

to time and place

to

place,

and can

only

be

deter-

mined by direct discussion between the Agency and the applicant

(by

telephone).

Both the Agency and the owner of

a public water supply have

the duty to conduct themselves

in a manner which puts the public safety

first.

Nothing in these proceedings has led the Board to believe that

the parties will act in any other manner,

The Board feels that

Rule

213

as written will amply serve its intended purpose.

Rule 214

Permit_Revocation

This section

as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is

a major departure from past nractice.

The Agency felt that it should

have the right to revoke a permit after issuance

(R.

46).

The Board

finds no reason why the traditional revocation power of the Board

should be transferred to the Agency.

Permit revocation can only

come

about as a result of a violation of a rule or regulation, or if the per-

mit was improperly obtained.

These conditions leading to revocation

should be determined at hearing before the Board in accordance with

Title

8 of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

A

review

of

rules

con-

cerning

revocation

reinforces

our

position

that

the

Board

has

held

to

this

precept

(see

Chap.

VI,

Rule 206;

chap.

VII,

Rule 212;

Chap.

II,

Rule

102

(f);

Chap.

III,

Rule

942).

Rule

214

herein

now

reflects

this

philosophy.

Rule

215

Permit Limitations

This rule

is simply a proviso stating that all local laws shall be

complied

with

before

a

permit

will

be

considered

valid~

There

was

no

public

comment

on

this

section

of

the

rule,

and

it stands as proposed.

A

question

of

whether

it

would

he

wiser

to require receipt of other

permits

(e.g.,

Illinois

Commerce

Commission)

before

the

grant

of

an

Environmental

Protection

Agency

permit

was raised

(Ex.

I,

P.

2).

The

Agency

responded

that

requiring

such

a

grant

would lead

to

unnecessary

delay and red tape.

The

Agency

stressed

that

the

proposed rule follows

past

Agency

practice,

and

no

problems

have

resulted

in

the

past

(R.

49).

Mr.

A. Rae

(Lane

Western

Corp.)

pointed out that in order to get a well

drilling permit from the Department

of

Mines

and

Minerals, the Depart-

ment will check with the Environmental Protection Agency to find if

the plans have been approved.

The proposed change would put us

on

an

endless belt,

The rule was adopted as presented.

15— 117

---

—

16

PART III:

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Rule

301

Required

Supervision

This section outlines the standard

logic

pertaining to proof

of

ownership.

Notice must be given each time ownership

is

changed,

Al-

though

a

comment

was

generated

(R,

861)

delineating undue paper work

as a result of this

rule,

the Board finds that

the

advantages of such

knowledge far outweigh the minor inconvenience on the part of

the

Rule 302

Operator~sCertification

This rule specifies that each public water supply shall

be

under

the supervision of a certified operator.

This provision is important

in that the certified operator is the first line

of

defense against

plant upsets which could conceivably present a public hazard.

This

provision is also an extension of

“An Act to Regulate the Operating

of a Public Water Supply”

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.,

1971,

Ch.

111

1/2,

§501

et

seq.).

This law states

E~T

11

facets of

a public water supply

are to be under a certified operator~scontrol.

It is the intent of this rule to cover connected supplies as well

as initial supplies.

The logic of this

is that a connected supply

may contain equipment and operations

(e.g., tanks,

chlorination) which

are not under the control of the initial supplier.

The potential for

contamination in a connected supply is equally as great as it

is

in

an initial supply.

The Board realizes that this requirement may place

a burden on the smaller communities; however,

the advantages

of

having

a competent operator dictate that the time and expense required to

Rule 303

Notification of Change of Ownership or Responsible Personnel

This rule is self-explanatory.

It

simply is

a requirement that

when a personnel change of significance occurs, the Agency shall be

so notified.

The City of Freeport

CR.

303) objected to this clause

on the grounds that it would be a needless waste of time (reference

to

change

of

certified

operators),

in that the operators are the agent

of the public water supply,

and,

as long as they are certified,

this

should be the stat&s only concern.

While this argument has merit,

it overlooks the fact that the Agency should be able to have immediate

contact with an operator in the event that this becomes necessary.

The

Agency should also be able to develop a rapport with the operators so

that the benefit of their knowledge may be easily and quickly trans-

ferred.

The minor inconvenience of notification

is vastly outweighed

Rule 304

Finished Water Quality

This rule

is the heart of the regulation, and will be discussed in

detail.

It

for the residents of the state.

As denoted by the title, this rule deals

---

—

17

—

with

finished

water quality; and as such is water after treatment has

occurred,

Rule 307 of this chapter and Rule 204 of

Chapter

3 deal

pri-

marily with raw water quality. Detailed testimony and exhibit data have

been accumulated to support each parameter included in this rule,

This

rule must be read in combination with Rule 307, which details how many

and how often samples must be taken.

As will be discussed later

in

this opinion,

it is the intent of the Agency to lend its fullest assist-

ance to communities in analytical work.

The intent is

to insure that

every water supply will provide safe water.

The Agency, through its

laboratories, has absorbed and will continue to absorb a substantial

portion of the financial burden as

it pertains to analytical

costs.

The major testimony regarding bacteriological testing and parameters

came from Mr. Edwin E,

Geidreich.

Mr. Geldreich is a consulting bact-

eriologist for Water Supply Research Laboratory, National

Environmental

Research Center,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,

Ohio,

Perhaps the most significant fact regarding this facet

of testimony is

that,

other than minor questions

(mainly asking for clarification),

no

challenge

was

raised

as

to

the

validity

of

either the test procedures

or

the

magnitude

of

the

bacteriological

limits.

The logical

conclusion

is that the data presented are necessary,

reasonable, and generally ac-

cepted in

the field.

The proposal initially presented by the Agency

has been adopted in full.

Rule 304

(A)

Bacteriological Quality

This

part

of

the rule deals with methods of determining, and maximum

quantities

for, coliform allowable under these rules.

Rule 304

(A) (1)

sets guidelines for the standard samples to be used

in

performing

anal-

yses for the coliform group.

~o

methods are generally acceptable in

the field.

These methods have different absolute allowable numbers

of

coliform;

however, when the amount

of

sample is taken into account,

the degree of contamination

is equivalent.

The fermentation tube method has been the traditional

analytical

tool in the field.

It requires less equipment and is less

expensive

to operate than is the membrane filter technique

(see below)

.

Most mun-

icipalities which have their own laboratories utilize this method. The

major drawback is that

a sample takes

48 hours to run.

The second method of coliform detection is the membrane filter tech-

nique.

This method has the disadvantage of

being

more

expensive

to

run

(capital

costs)

than

the fermentation tube method; however,

it has the

significant

advantage

of

allowing

a

result

to

be

run

in

24

hours

rather

than

48

hours.

Rechecks

can

also

be

run

in 24 hours.

The

minimum

allowable

sample

is

100 ml.

As

reported

by

Dr.

Geidreich,

(Ex.

26,

Pg.

10)

a

larger

sample

would

be beneficial,

in

that

we

are

looking

for

a

small

amount

of

contamination.

The two main reasons for picking a 100 ml sample rather than a lar-

ger one are:

The impracticability of shipping larger

(e.g.,

1

liter)

samples; and the difficulty of filtering large samples when turbidity

pluggage of membranes occurs.

Dr. Geidreich concludes:

15— 119

---

18

“Establishment of

a 100 ml minimum test sample for pot-

able water may not be the ultimate volume desired, but does

represent a realistic compromise between the problem of in-

creased cost for transportation of large volume samples to

the

central

or

branch laboratory and the desire to tighten

baseline

sensitivity for coliform detection.”

The allowable coliform counts are self~explanatoryin the rules and

will

not

be

discussed

in

this

opinion.

Suffice it to say that there

was no public disagreement with the validity of th~senumbers.

The

main point here

is that the

absence

of

the

coliform group in potable

water is evidence of

a bacteriologically safe Supply, and a low coli~

form level

is also a good indication of a supply free of viruses

(R.

277, Ex.

26, Pg.

8)

Rule 304

(A) (3)

pertains to check samples required in the event

that an excessive coliform level

is detected.

The rule

is seif~explan~

atory, and is generally accepted as valid.

Rule

304

(A) (4

and

5)

deal with bacterial plate counts, and

is

an

additional

test which may be required by the Agency.

Although this

rule is somewhat of a departure from the normal

“shall” rules because

of the rationale shown, the Board feels that the Agency~sproposed lang~

uage

is

proper.

Plate counts are an additional test which will uncover

the many other micro-organisms

(besides coliform) which could exist in

finished water~ When the M,F, or F,T, methods of analysis show the pres~

ence of such other groups, the Agency must have the option of either

rui4

ning or asking the municipality to run plate counts so as to try and de~

tennine the extent of these interfering groups,

Accordinq to

Dr. Gel-

dreich,

most

of

the other micro—organisms are non—pathogenic.

Some nay

create taste, odor,

or spoilage problems in nanufactured products.

It

is

also possible that the presence of such micro~organismsmay mask the

presence of the coliform group.

Dr. Geldreich further reports that the

plate count test

is easy to conduct, economical, and requires no spec-

ial equipment

(Ex,

26, Pg.

13).

It must be remembered that under Rule

309 most bacteriological testing for small communities will be conduct-

ed by the Agency.

Rule

304

(B)

deals with the chemical and physical quality of fin~

ished water.

Rule 304

(B) (I)

is

a

general proviso

requiring

that

finished

drinking

water

be

of

such quality so as

to protect the

health

of the consumer

and the stability of the water supply.

While no absolute limits on any

contaminants have been set in this subsection,

it lays the ground rules

for Table

1.

Rule 304

(B) (2):

This subsection simply states that when chemicals

are used

in the ordinary treatment of water, excessive amounts of such

chemicals shall be removed before the water is distributed.

The typical

example of such a problem would be the operation of a softening plant

in which lime and alum are used to precipitate calcium and magnesium.

Facilities must be designed to provide sufficient retention capacity or

filtering capacity to remove all but a trace of the treating substances

15—

120

---

—

1?

Rule

304

(B) (3):

This

was

the

sub3ect

of

nuch

discussion

and

mis-

undarstartcting

ml

major

miscorr.epti-’n

was

the

feeling

that

each

water

suppsy

.‘ou.Ld

be

required

to

niair~tc,a.na

12

-month

runaina

average

•

Tn..s

was

ne~er the

Age’icy’

s

posit tone

thE.

12—month

ruanis

ave..age

is

a

pre—

taaas.~ te

that

the

Açency

zru..,t

c.otnps

with

in

order

to

psove

a

vio...a-

tion

thi.

orsg na~~orc”~c

ird

c~~a

c

~mp1ianc.e”

wae

changt

to

‘no”i-

c.ozrapsian..’

~ct

as ~.obetter illabtri~.~he

~r’ter

•

“‘his

ruse

trien

pro-

cctc

the

~wnc

of

-

,zatcr

sucol,’

prom

~

enforce’aert

action

shoni I

tie

,tç,ercy

dccentte

t~1ot

grar.’

satrt:

r

5

aeitj.v

ovcr

t~e regulttot

lilt :t

Th”rt

ir,,st

how..,er.

L~. edi..tj.

.

a)

r.,tec..ior~n

the

enrt

of a

o.atio

o’~tic

~

tic..

c

o’

.

C t~.me

thc..

rogui

‘o~

ca...ue

,ac this se..

at. tn

-o~c.r

iiJt

tot a one~..aaeex~1zasor

t

e

ri..

This

1

-.

-

it’

ene..c.e

preemots

the

12—montr

runt.

rq

averag

rear

rc real..

Ecr

-

F

-

ii

tic

ti’.

~ c~. action

P~

the

Agenc

Onc

furti’...” conuent i.

atn..’u..rtate.

The

..equirament

o4

a

12—morn

r~’r.ntngave age puts te puoh.c ~zatera posy on noticr that the Acer

is aware ~

a prth.em.

.I!hc.

Agery

as atared by

24

tiara

od,

R

29) c~iJ -Is’.

aintaL-s a very c ose saxvcitance on a particular rrcb

1’

-

.

ac

*

B) ‘4

:

the iogica

cc.x’.’ asior. of

tlic rrevtous rule

:a’n.T~

~ErC

~TS’t

_

after the tgea~ger

rates

a ii montb

t-v.’.it~,

evcrrge

oa.3

in”s a

;att.x sip~lyto tace r r~jua1.cd

pa. arta,.

abo’

that. fc

,.,a

~

ii~

‘?absc.. 1, this sr4aU be

9rnL~ds for

Ci

terceter

r.C,103ad

‘1q.4

30’

J

3

~a.3

siCO.

C.1E.E.C

flit

ai(QG5~

fl~

-

‘C’ U

wi

~.

ot

“n kgety

to aC.! bibbtai ~e&

cc, Zab..s

or ~

e ergeri ~

~.

L...’c-mvltrs

p0

-~

c

Perrrent

c’ wJeb ‘tntld te tier. made

h

tie

£

aad

W..1’.

;o

acre’

i’

pstr4jCc

vith

tI~ ~‘ercy’s

‘ntent

we

t..at

a

ersr

i~’

‘o0

rvat..one

as

~c

t n.s

.‘i

e’

s

1og~ I

.

~

qaestior

ti

:trtu.srj

prons’or

for

suca

a

ruc

q,~

rtisto

IL

Zxhiblt

P—l8

‘Li...

j,en...”s

rs’

.r’e

~Bx1ii4”it

“..-20

sates

that

there

as

no

clear-c

w..Ovisi)u

7

t~6

t

VsrOAflertc,1

?r~t~L~n

.-~n.

vh...c

£

wou.!

justify

su:.

a

ru~.o, au4

t’ at

S’actior

3.1

.1

tic~Ac-

cou.d

allow

tha

type

of

action.

¶sto

Board

aust

diiaqree

t?

tnis

rat±~a1eann

tr.erefore

deleteu

nt~

rule.

Ta,lel

Maxsmt. a

ll~~j_

~v’1ve-tnLi

Average

Concertrations

?i’iiahed

Water Qvality

Table I liscs tha var~oaconstituents which are to oe regulated in

all public water supplies.

Coirpllar’ct dates are listed for each

con-

stituent.

Certain

cons

tttuents

were

originalI~

included

in

the

Agancy

‘s

~o—

posal.

and

have

since

been

deleted.

Chlorides

carbon

alcoho

extract,

an~c ulphates

‘ia”e

been

.cemovad.

C’or

trol

of

these

contaminants

either

could

not

be

economically justified whet health effects were balanced

agains c

cost

of

compl~.ance,

or

the

test

procedures

were

not

accurate

15—121

---

20

—

The

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Exhibit

PC-43)

recommend

ed

that

the

standard

for

organophosphate

was

weak

in

that

the chiorin-

esterase

inhibition

(C,I.)

method

of detection was of doubtful

scienti-

fic

value.

Our

original

footnote

(d)

detailed

the

(C.I.)

method

as

the preferable technique.

The EPA now relates that gas chromatographic

methods will be used

“if a standard is to be included in the federal

standards.”

The Board has deleted Note

Cd) but will retain the 0.1

standard for parathion,

As pointed out by Mr. Anderson

(R.

360)

,

aesthetic rationales are

related to health rationales in that very high chlorides or sulphates

(for example)

could drive the consumer to an unsafe water supply, While

this

is a justifiable fear,

testimony by Dr. Larson in regards to a

person~sadaptability

to high levels of such parameters, coupled with

the high cost of removal, have led the Board to strike all reference

to these contaminants.

The following is an item-by-item discussion of the various substances

listed in Table

1,

or proposed.

Certain parameters have footnotes added;

in such a case,

the note will be discussed along with the specific para-

meter.

Arsenic:

Compliance date

—

effective date of these rules; maximum

concentration

—

0.1 mg/l; number of communities known to be exceeding

this standard

-

1.

Arsenic is a metalloid that occurs in nature and is acutely and ch

—

ically toxic to man.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has re

ommended 0.1 mg/l

as a limit on this substance.

Mr. McCabe

(U.S.

Envi

onmental Protection Agency) offered testimony to support the limit pro-

posed in Exhibit 23.

He stressed that at the 1962 setting of

a 0,01 mg/l

standard, there was concern expressed that arsenic might be carcinogenic.

Mr. McCabe stated that extensive testing

(study in Chile where arsenic

in the water supply was 0.8 mg/l)

showed no adverse health effects.

Mr.

McCabe further pointed out that arsenic

is not cumulative in the human

body but is excreted

(R. 341-343).

The Environmental Health Resource Center commented on

the possible

effect of arsenic on the human liver but offered no detailed cites.

Business and Professional People for the Public

Interest

also

voiced

concern over the 0.1 mg/l level

(Exhibit PC-2l),

Here we have received

strong documentation for a reduced level.

After due consideration of

the data generated,

the Board finds that the federal position is better

supported and we will adopt the 0, mg/i level.

Barium:

Compliance date

—

Jan.

1,

1978; maximum concentration 1.0

mg/l;

number of communities known to be exceeding standard

—

21 to 23,

all in

northern

Illinois

(Figure

1).

Barium is known to be highly toxic to man with effects on the heart,

blood vessels, and nerves.

The limit proposed by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency is

1,0 mg/I

(Exhibit

23,

Pg. A-43).

Mr. Tardiff (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency)

reflected that in comparison

to other

constituents the data on barlu.m are sparse, and that the proposed wat~

15

—

122

---

FIGURE

1:

CONTENT

OF

BAPIUM

ABOVE

1.0

mg/i

IN

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

‘/.

A

—7.

1

ILLINOIS

XALE5TAWT5

MFLES

0

0

30

30

30

$0

M3

79

15—123

---

standard is based on extrapolatio

i

f

ion

the “barium un air standard”

witn the application of

a safety factor ~barium in air 0.5 mg/m3~

Mr.

Tardiff emphasized that exuerimentation is underway and if a need fcr

change in the standard is discov~rea, such information should be acted

on.

Mr

Tardiff related that the factor of safety used was ~about 10”

(R. 353~

The Environmental Hea3th Resource Center comments

in

xhibit

49 that a safety factor of two was not high enough.

As mentioned above,

the factor actually used was

IC,

As

readily admitted because

of

li~ited

data,

an educated approximation was partially used in arri7ina at the

1.0 mg/i level.

Technical feasibility and economics must also

be

cons Ldered

An

accepta~iemethod of barium removal i’~ ion exchange

(P.

1435)

Exhib-

its 85 and PC-7 are the only indication the Board has as regards tne

cost of barium removal,

These figures range from

$500

to $100,300, de-

per.ding on the amount

of

barium present, the amount of flow,

and otter

factors.

The

above

figures do not reflect complete costs

as

they only

cover capital equipment costs and disregard installation enclosures,

operating costs,

etc.

In

spite

of the sparsity of economJc informaton

generated,

the Board must carefully consider a reasonable comnliance

date, We note,

however, that the health effects mandate an enforceable

limit,

Because of the fairly sizable number of communitic.s which exceed

the 1.0 mg/i level

(Exhibit 41)

and the need for installation of eq’cip-

ment to remove this constituent,

a future date was picked for compliance

with

this

rule.

The Illinois Environmental Protectiun Agency recom.mend~

June

1,

1976.

Although

no

other

comments

on

a

reasonable

dead±inew~.

given, Exhibit

46 sheds

some light on the subject. Mr. A.

Rae (Layne-

Western Corp.) wrote that a 1979 date would be more feasible.

Mr.

Rae

further reported

(R. 1124-1125)

that his discussions with the consulting

firm of Warren and Van Sprague raised problems

(time delays)

due to

mun—

£cipal bonding as well as equipment delivery.

i4r. John Anderson (Ill-

inois Environmental Protection Agency)

stated

(R.

1127)

that the June

1976

date would probably necessitate some variances.

Because of

the

costs

thvolved

and

the

magnitude

of

the

projects

to be undertareu, the

Board feels that

a compliance date of January

1,

1978,

would

be

reason-

able.

This would give communities sufficient time to be well underway

with their programs before requesting a variance,

if

needed.

Cadmium:

compliance date

effective date of these regulatllns;

maxi~m~3~centration

0.01 mg/l, number of communitius known to exceed

standard

-

0.

Various studies

(see Exhinit 23, Pg. A—46

—

A—49)

have ~ndicated that

cadmium has been associated with bone and kidney disease.

It has a~so

been shown

5haL the human b~ujcannot excrete cadmium, and it ~o~dc.

seem to accumulate in the tissue of man

Cadmium has been found to be

a non-essential element biologicallp

and thu3 should be held to ~n all

soute minimum

Ti~esaEety factor incorporated ~nso the 0.01 Pigute

is

?

CR.

P~.

366

The

c~ur1erllldea~th csuutc

ec

Ded ~

3

t~

guru

a

lleren ed

the ~ederx.

ca.~

.

Thai:da

ll~

,rci,~

~ropo~~e

lr

u

tFnll

.

I

e

~

—

124

---

—

22

—

Board takes note that this proposed level

is

in conflict

with

all data

lenerated to date and has no knowledge of its

validity.

In

light

of

the

large amount of

data

supporting the 0.01 mg/i limit, the

Board

will

adopt

it.

Chlorides:

Both chlorides and sulphates are constituents

which

add

und~rable taste to water.

Evidence exists that excessive amounts

cause consumer reactions that may result in individual treatment

or

rejection of the supply.

There was

no

evidence or suggestions entered

which indicate

that

either sulphates or chlorides are a health

hazard.

These constituents are purely aesthetic,

and any health

hazards

are

indirect (e.g., use of inferior supplies by consumers)

In the above context, economics and technological feasibility

are

of paramount importance. Here the evidence strongly suggests that

the

cost of removing chlorides and sulphates is excessive,

and the technol-

ogy is

at best in the infant stage.

It

is also noteworthy that this

particular problem will most affect those least able to

afford

such

abatement,

as those supplies usually are in communities of less than

1500 population

(R.

540,

Dr. Larson).

Dr. Larson further suggested

that limits for these constituents not be made mandatory

(R,

544)

This would be in conformance with the federal approach to the problem.

The only cost data

we

have received was Exhibits

85 and PC-7. A typ-

ical capital investment for removal of chlorides would be $60,000 and

for sulphates it would

be

about the same.

This figure relates to a

flow

of approximately

80 gallons per minute. Clearly, with no health hazards

the Board cannot under Sect.

27 of the Environmental Protection Act

re—

~uire mandatory removal of~thesesubstances.

The Agency had recommended a proposal

which

called for a

referendum

to be held in the area serviced by a public water supplier.

Should

51

of the users

so vote, the limits then contained in Table

1

would

have

been enforceable against that suppiler by the Agency.

The

plan

also

allowed the consumers to choose a level higher than that

in

Table

1 for

the

Agency

to

enforce.

The

reasons

for

this

proposal,

brought

out

at

the hearing in Carbondale

(R. 950-966)

,

were that since

chlorides

and

suiphates are in the regulation for basically aesthetic reasons,

“the

people using the water will

be

able to determine whether

they

want

the

limits enforced.. ,This, we feel,

gives the people who will

have

to

pay

for the

removal

of

chlorides

and

suiphates

the right

to

determine if

they are willing to

have

a limit lower than that supplied, but

higher

than the

Table

1 limits”

(R,

950,

Ira

Markwood)

For the following reasons, the Board. finds

it

necessary

to

delete

this provision from the regulation.

The proposal speaks of using a referendum.

Referendum

is

the

right

of the public to have submitted for their approval

or

rejection

an

act

passed by the legislature. City of Litchfield

v,

Hart,

306

Ill.

App.

621

(1940)

.

Initiative means the

ower

Of

till

people. to propose laws and bills

and

to

e.nact or reject then. at th?~polls, independent of

any

legisla—

ass

~

at titdll ~ld

Tart

~5eDta

15— 125

---

FIGURE

2: CONTENT OF CHLORIDE ABOVE

250

mg/i

IN PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

‘0-

$9-

ILLINOIS

3CALE-S1AT(/l~

MILES

M379

15

—

126

---

Chapter 46, Section 28-1, of the Illinois

Revised

Statutes

(1973)

provides for the

method

of

holding a~

~tiononteSubmission

of

Questions of Public Policy.

Referendum,

as defined above~

is

clearly inappropriate

for

what

the

Agency wants

to

do.

There would be no legislative

action

for

the

public

to

ratify.

At one time,

Illinois did have an initiative statute for “commission”

cities

(24 S.H.A,

4-5-18).

This section

was

repealed

in

1965,

leaving

no initiative statute in Illinois.

Initiative is probably closer to

what the Agency had in mind in

its

proposal.

Initiative

would allow

the public to enact an ordinance setting the levels of

the

constituents.

Without an initiative statute in Illinois, we cannot

put

one

into

our

regulations.

A Board regulation cannot dictate

to

a

city

that

initia-

tive

can

be

used

to

enact

ordinances,

without the

1egis1ature~s

approval.

Submission of a question of public policy is a

method

of the people

informing their government of their opinion on

a

subject.

It

is

not

binding on the

legislative

body

(City

of

Litchfield

v.

Hart

supra.)

Therefore,

it would also be inappropriate to

put

this

method

in

our

Regulations.

To institute

any

measure that would require

an

election,

there

would

also

need

to

be

a

change

in

the

Election

Code

(Chapter

46,

111.

Rev.

Statutes,

1973)

to hold such an election.

The

Board

cannot

~é~ii~ite

the

~T~tT~

Code.

This must be done by the legislature.

Second, the Board feels that it cannot delegate its authority

to

regulate to the general public.

The Board is given express power

to

set

up

regulations

for

public

water

supplies,

under

Sec.

37

of

the

Act.

The Act indicates that the Board has numerous conditions

to

con-

sider before it

is allowed to regulate.

The Board must consider:

1)

Physical

conditions

and

the

character

of the

area

2)

The nature of the present environmental quality;

3)

Technical feasibility and economic reasonableness

of control.

By allowing a referendum to do our rule setting, the Board is

in

fact abrogating its duty

to

consider

these conditions.

Though we would

be setting a

bottom

line

figure,

the public

is not the

group

to

deter-

mine what the limits should

be,

as they will probably

not

consider

these

elements.

It

is

also

a possibility that under the criteria

listed

above,

the Board will not be able to justify the limit as

proposed.

For these reasons the Board must reject the Agency proposal.

As mentioned before, the Board has no reference to

chlorides

or

sul—

3hates

in its

formal regulation.

However, we do

note

that the recommend—

ed levels for these two constituents

are 250 mg/l.

This value is

chosen

15

—

127

---

—

24

—

to

be

slightly below the average taste threshold.

Should a public

water supply wish to remove suJphates or chlorides,

the 250 mg/i nium-

her

would

be

an

excellent target to aim at.

Figure

2 shows now chlcr

ides are distributed in Illinois.

Chromium:

Compliance date

effective date of these regulations,

~

0 05

n.g/l; number of communilles

crown

tc e~ceee

this standarci

-

0.

There are data to prove that dlloi~iumis toxic to man, causinu lung

tumors when inha’ ed and inductng sk~n sensitization

One stud

smms-’cd

that at levels of 0.5 ing/l no visibic effects were noted.

The p~obi~

(as pointed out by Mr

Tardirf

R.

372)

is that there is indication

that

the

human

boay can excrete chrommmm at leve~a belo’ 10

ug

Th

Basing intake on

2 literb/uerson/day,

a 0.05

flIy

:tandard

~i

a

safety factor of 100.

Color:

Compliance date

effective date of these regu1ation.~ ra~—

imu~5~centratior.

-

.5 color unit.~’number ot commas ~ties kn~w at

exceed this standard

-

0.

This

is basically as aesthetic quality hut a ver

impcr’~ar.tone.

I

pointed out by Mr

Robeck

(H.

373), while coior does not uecess~ri1y

denote an unsafo supply, it could prompt certain people to turn to

a

potentially unsafe supply

Color

as most typicail

caused bT natu~xh

contaminants such as leaves and bark; how~ver,high

ron conuentuat~o~

are also known to generate coatr booThs.

the

value “15 color units”

as a somewhat all ara p but useful num-

ber.

It

is bascd on

a standard solution used a’~ a ussus

for comparj

son

(see Ex.

23, A’~60’

Copper:

Compliancc

date

offecti~edate of these regulations;

Ipax

Than

concentration

I

.

~ mg/i; number of comnun

bi

e”

c’

ow’

uc exceed to

standard

-

I.

Copper

is

an elament of known bene~iciaivalue to

juan,

and

is undeed

required on the order of 2.0 mg/day for adults and 1.1 mg/day

for pre~

school children.

Deficiency of copper in infants’ diets

can 1~’ad to

nutritional

anemia.

High concentrations

of

c~pperare postulated to

have adverse side effects;

fortunately, copper

is readily excreted crom

the human body.

The

primary

criteria for controlling copper

is aesthetic in that

taste problems could result above about

3 mg/i

(H.

375).

Because of

the fact that there is no economic burden to comply with the proposed

limit, we will adopt the 1.0 mg/l love

as mandatori.

The one known

community which exceeds this regulation

is

a moderate—sated community

of

about

10,000 people.

Although an isolated economic burden may occur,

the

potential health effects outweigh a rule change.

This community

has

a

variety

of

options, including the Board~svariance route, if add-

itional

time

for

compliance

is needod.

Cyanide:

Compliance

date

-

effective date of these regulations; max—

imum

concentration

0.2 mg/l; number of communities known to exceed this

15 ~128

---

tandard

-

0

Cyatide is a well-known toxican~and in 50-6~mg single doses

~

known to be

fatal.

However,

ir sm~lle amounts

(lC mg or less)

the

I

unan body can readily detoxiry cyar ide.

Ti is

is accomplished by cer—

‘iersioi to the thic.laridc form

ate ~evel proposed by the U.S. En-

~tronmeitai Protectior

Age: op at

(

.~

og/

~ro ides actequate safety at

humar.

son~

ampcion and tue ~

a

~ Ci

mr~/~

found

ir

Chapter

3,

H

04,

has

ocr’

ound

to

b~ unally

restrictive

~urLaeJ’

ore

if

a

com.uur aty

is

to

~chlorintc

aid

t.

water

~a

w~th—

iI

a

r~’asonablo

pH

rarge,

the

I

ce~auior

of

oh’

rare

sta.

any

cyanide

which

is

pres~rI

would

f’ r

~

‘cciu

I

e

‘urea.

trat~o

of

free

cyanrd~

f’~U

de~trullron

of

tao

cyaric

2.1.1.

‘Exh~outP~-2l

cok

ij5V0

U

t.e

.2

mg’l

proposal

and

urged

etenator of the

931

0.01

a!.

~

I~~as ponted cut tnat

newer

induntrial

isocyanides

increa~a

~

overali

exoo~ure

to

uyanide

ano

that

this

factor

wa’

not

~aken

amto

a~oount.

Ho~ever,

when

ore

apnlieo

a

tw~ I’oa~/person

Ia :ake,

the

ingestior

fror

water

would

at

4

mg~dav o

safety

factor

of

23,

v~hicI the

L,S.

Eruironmental

Prc

tection

Agency

deerm

aiequa~

Also,

note

toe

oaaianal

in

EXhibfL

6i

Pg.

41

for

ti

•

1362

Staudards,

agreei.~g

that

0

2

i~

.afe

fcr

humar

cc asumption.

Thamride:

Coru’nca

date

Jar’aa~y

~,

l9~8

r~ri

am

co~certra~

~ Cmj~

ut:r

li

corm’unitaau

known

~o

exceed

the

s~.an~ard

-

i1n~

Liz

thu

souc~n

part

of

Inc

s’n.te

~may

not

i~

oe

r’ excess

a

br~

lime).

Fluoride

‘~

deemed

an

“ssential

nutrlln

ty

the

Cc”

d

am

Ni

~rit1on

Borne

of

the

tat uoual

Rese~un.t

Counc

I

h

‘~

in

llE

the

Stall

.~egiaId-

ture

onenuad

U e

Thom ic

T atea

Su0nJ p

ntrol

thw

regal

no

that

all

p’lltc

watea

pu~’s

orovide

fluoniriatior

oetwe~r

the

limits

of

0

9

no/i

to

1,2

mg/i

(~osad on

aver~ge

aumient

temperature)

ctThies

havc

shown,

hommier

~Ex

23,

A-66)

that

li

onide

concen~ations

above

the

uppar

ccntrol

iuvei

can

induce

t1uoros~s

of

the

tecth

(Ill,

Lnvironm~r-

tal

Psotection

\gencp~Exnitia

5

be-s

3

C

ng/~. as

this

thresh~d

limrt,.

Hignea

concentiaticun

hate

been

associated

with

bone

c~ianges

‘~-20 mg/I.

crippll.zg

fluorosas

~2li

mg/I

,

death

at

single

doses

above

2,250

ng

Mr.

Robeck

(U.

S.

Environmertal

Protection

Agency)

stated

that

fo

the

clinatic

conustions

ir

Illino~s

a

maximum

~evel

of

1.5

mg/I

(versus

thu adopted 2,0 mg/I) would be indicated.

Mr. Robeck further stated

that

due

to

the

difficulty

of

fluoride

removal

(see

below)

and

the

fact

that

small

communities

are

mainly

involved,

coupled

with

tne fact that

fluorosis

~tooth

mottling)

is

not

visible

below

the

3-4

mg/I

level,

the

U.S.

Environmencai

Protsation

Agency

would

be

reluctant

to

push

for

a

1,5

:ag/1

limit

in

Illinois.

Mr.

Ande. son

stated

that

they

would

be

willing

to

change their proposal

to

2.5

mg/I

i,R,

387); however, this

was based

on

the

assumption that olly a very few

communities

would

be

affected.

Fluoride is pamhaps

the

most

difficult

of

all

the

proposed

health—re-

!

ated parameters

to

remove,

and

available

technology

and econon.ics must

e

weighed

along

with

health

effects.

Exhibit

93

shows

one

community

---

—

26

—

of

2974

persons

with

a

fluoride

level

above

8.0

mg/l and many above

4.0

mg/l.

As

mentioned,

most

communities

affected

are

small

ones

(e~

clusively

ground

water

supplies),

who

will have significant difficulty

in

raising

funds

to

abate the problem.

The

alternates

open

to

the

community

are

to

find an alternate water

supply or to treat part of the supply so

as to get the average final

concentration to 2.0 mg/I.

Activated alumina, softening, or ion ex-

change are the possible technologies available

at

this time

(H.

387).

Dr. Larson~stestimony

(R.

1332)

to the effect that he does not know

of any community that

is removing fluoride successfully highlights

the problem.

Exhibits 85 and PC-7 shed the only light

on

costs

involved

in

this

area.

Again, the comments related to

the

shortcomings

of

these

data

as

discussed

under

barium

apply

here,

Base

costs

(capital

equipment)

range

from $4000

to $300,000

(community over 20,000 population)

.

While

it

was stated

(R.

1436)

by

Mr. Rae that beneficial side effects

(possible

removal of iron and manganese)

could exist, we are still in the area

of relatively new technology.

Mr. Anderson~scomments that the tech-

nology may not have been fully utilized because of lack of legal necess-

ity has merit

(R. 1333); however, this Board must set a reasonable time

for

compliance.

Fortunately

the health effects of excess fluorides are

not

as

great

as other constituents, and a delayed compliance date can

be

adopted.

A

date

of

January

1,

1978, should give communities ample

time

to

explore

their alternatives, and is

adopted.

Foaming

Agents:

Compliance

date

-

effective

date

of

these

regula1

tions;

maximum

concentration

0.5

mg/l;

number of communities known to

exceed this standard

-

0.

This parameter

is basically aesthetic.

Foaming in water is unsight—

ly

and

could

cause

one

to

seek

an

alternate,

and

while

aesthetically

pleasing, unsafe water supply.

Foaming is generally

formed

by

the

presence of surfactants

(e.g., synthetic detergents) and cannot

be dir-

ectly measured.

However,

a maximum level of 0.5 mg/I will prevent foam-

ing in drinking water.

The generally acceptable method for detecting

foaming agents is the methylene-blue method.

While

this

technique rec-

ords more than just foaming agents, this is not considered

a problem

in

public

water

supplies.

This

fact,

however,

can

only

serve

to

arti-

ficially

set

a

more

stringent

standard

for

foaming

agents

in

that

any

interference in the test will be recorded

as

foaming

agents.

Iron:

Compliance

date

—

January

1,

1978;

maximum

concentration