ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 4, 2008
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT
UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS (January
1, 2007 though June 30, 2007)
)
)
)
)
R08-5
(Identical-in-Substance
Rulemaking - Public Water Supply)
)
SDWA UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS
(January 1, 2007 though June 30, 2007 and
June 3, 2008)
)
)
)
R08-7
(Identical-in-Substance
Rulemaking - Public Water Supply)
)
SDWA UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS
(July 1, 2007 though December 31, 2007)
)
)
)
R08-13
(Identical-in-Substance
Rulemaking - Public Water Supply)
)
(Consolidated)
Proposed Rule. Proposal for Public Comment. Deadline Extension Order for R08-7/R08-13.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
SUMMARY OF THIS ACTION
The Board today adds proposed amendments to the Illinois regulations that are “identical
in substance” to drinking water regulations adopted by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). These amendments are corrections to the amendments proposed in
this consolidated docket on August 7, 2008. They are minor corrections to the amendments
adopted in a prior consolidated Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f
et seq.
(2007)) update docket, as described below, which the Board should have included in the
presently pending proposal in this consolidated docket. The Board has determined that these
proposed corrections are significant enough to warrant publication in the
Illinois Register
.
The Notices of Proposed Amendments for the consolidated R08-5/R08-7/R08-13
wastewater pretreatment and SDWA update docket appeared in the August 29, 2008 issue of the
Illinois Register
, at 32 Ill. Reg. 14032 (Part 307), 14054 (Part 310), and 14065 (Part 611). The
public comment period will end on those notices on October 13, 2008. The Board presently
intends to consider adoption of the R08-5 wastewater pretreatment amendments based on those
segments of the proposal at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 6, 2008.
The Board will, however, deconsolidate the docket R08-5 wastewater pretreatment
amendments from the consolidated R08-7/R08-13 SDWA amendments. The Board presently
intends to proceed separately on the wastewater pretreatment amendments to Parts 307 and 310
of the rules in docket R08-5 based on the August 7, 2008 proposal and August 29, 2008
Illinois
Register
notices.
2
The Board will withdraw the August 29, 2008 Notice of Proposed Amendments relating
to the Part 611 amendments, which was based on the August 7, 2008 Board proposal. The
captions of future orders will reflect this deconsolidation. The Board will cause a new Notice to
appear in the
Illinois Register
that also reflects the changes made today.
The new Notice of Proposed Amendments will combine the text of Part 611, as it
appeared in the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment, with the revisions described in this
supplemental opinion and order. There is no reason for the Board to repeat in this supplemental
opinion and order those segments of the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment that
pertain to the SDWA amendments and which remain unchanged. The discussions included in
this supplemental opinion and order add to the material relating to SDWA that was contained in
the August 7, 2008 opinion and order.
The delay caused by publication of a new Notice of Proposed Amendments will delay
adoption of these SDWA amendments. This makes it necessary for the Board to extend the
deadline a third time for the SDWA amendments, from the current deadline of December 1, 2008
to the newly extended deadline of December 31, 2008. This extension of the deadline for the
Board to complete action on these amendments is discussed beginning on page 10 of this
supplemental opinion and order.
THE REASON FOR ADDED SDWA CORRECTIONS
The Board adopted amendments to the drinking water rules in a prior consolidated update
docket during Summer 2007.
See
SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 2006 though
June 30, 2006), R07-2, and SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 2006 though December
31, 2006), R07-11 (consol.) (July 26, 2007). The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) submitted e-mails and a letter that outlined corrections that the Board needed to make
in the amendments, which had already been filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The
Board docketed the Agency correspondence as public comments in the prior update docket R07-
2/R07-11 (as PC 4 and PC 5), and in the then-reserved docket R08-7 (as PC 1 and PC 2). The
two comments are described as follows:
PC 1 August 10, 2007 through August 13, 2007 e-mail exchange between Stefanie
Diers, Division of Legal Counsel, Agency and Michael J. McCambridge, hearing
officer.
PC 2 November 20, 2007 letter from Stefanie Diers, Agency (received November 21,
2007).
The Board had intended at the time the Agency comments were received to include the
corrections in the next SDWA update docket, which was R08-7. The Board inadvertently
overlooked those comments and the corrections they contain in the preparation of the August 7,
2008 proposal for public comment. Thus, the proposal for public comment did not include the
corrections to the R07-2/R07-11 amendments.
3
The reserved docket SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 2008 though June
30, 2008), R09-7 (Aug. 21, 2008) was dismissed for lack of any federal actions during the first
half of 2008. That means the next SDWA update proposal for public comment will not appear
until at least early 2009. The Board would prefer to complete the corrections in this docket.
The Board has examined each of the corrections offered by the Agency in PC 1 and PC 2.
The Board has determined that, although none of the individual corrections are particularly
significant, they are, in aggregate, sufficiently important that withdrawal of the August 29, 2008
Notice of Proposed Amendments for Part 611 and publication of a new Notice of Proposed
Amendments in the
Illinois Register
will be necessary. Publishing a new Notice of Proposed
Amendments in the
Illinois Register
that includes these changes will optimize the opportunity of
the public to comment on the new revisions in the context of the overall rulemaking. It will do
so at the expense of only slight delay in final adoption of the amendments.
CONSIDERATION OF THE AGENCY-SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS
The Agency offered eight corrections to the text of the R07-2/R07-11 amendments and
one correction to an error in the opinion. The Board is proposing corrections to the text of the
rules based on seven of the eight Agency suggestions. The Board has included corrections
needed to complete the corrections suggested by the Agency. Thus, the corrections suggested by
the Agency to Section 611.920(c)(1)(D) through (c)(1)(H) prompted further corrections to
Section 611.920(c) and (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(C).
Most of the corrections prompted by PC 1 and PC 2 are derived from the one Agency
suggestion in PC 2 that the Board has not followed
verbatim
. The examination of the text
prompted by the issues raised by this suggestion has resulted in a series of corrections to the text
of the rules. These corrections are to Sections 611.381, 611.480, 611.526, 611.531, 611.611,
611.612, 611.645, 611.720, 611.1004, and 611.1007. They relate to designation of alternative
methods by USEPA using the streamlined authorization procedure for analytical methods, which
USEPA first employed in its June 3, 2008 amendments. The June 3, 2008 amendments were
included in the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment.
The corrections that resulted from the Board’s examination of the rules are intended to
clarify the Agency’s existing ability to approve alternative analytical methods that have been
approved by USEPA, like those of June 3, 2008. The gist of the Agency’s suggestion was that
only USEPA has the authority to approve alternative analytical methods. The Board concludes
that it is USEPA that makes the determination that an analytical method is equivalent to an
existing approved method. The Agency has the ability to approve an alternative method for use
in Illinois (once determined equivalent by USEPA). This would allow use of the method in
Illinois in the time before the Board can adopt identical-in-substance rules that would
incorporate the new method into the Illinois regulations.
All of the corrections prompted by evaluation of the Agency comments in PC 1 and PC 2
involve limited segments of Sections 611.101, 611.381, 611.480, 611.526, 611.531, 611.611,
611.612, 611.645, 611.720, 611.801, and 611.920. Most of the individual corrections are such
that no specific discussion is necessary. Instead, the Board has tabulated all of the corrections,
4
outlining the location and nature of each correction made. This includes indication of the
sources of the changes,
i.e.
, whether each correction derived from the Agency, the Board, or
both. That table appears below, beginning on page 14 of this supplemental opinion and order.
The Board cannot correct the already-issued opinion in consolidated docket R07-2/R07-
11, but the Agency is correct that the segment in the opinion that discussed “40/60 certification”
should have referred to “40/30 certification.”
See
SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (January
1, 2006 though June 30, 2006), R07-2, and SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 2006
though December 31, 2006), R07-11 (consol.) (July 26, 2007), slip op. at 9.
It is the Board’s usual practice to set forth the entire text of Sections of the rules when
proposing amendments. This helps minimize the possibility of errors in managing the text as the
amendments appear in Board orders,
Illinois Register
notices, and in filing. The order segment
of this supplemental opinion and order includes only the segments of the Sections that require
correction. The segments of text included in this supplemental opinion and order will be
combined with the full text of the amendments as they appeared in the amendments to Part 611
included in the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment.
The discussion that follows relates only to the Agency suggestion that the Board did not
follow
verbatim
, but which, nevertheless, prompted a series of corrections to clarify the text of
the existing rules.
Agency-Suggested Correction Relating to Approval of Alternative Methods
The Agency suggested that the Board change the language of Section 611.381(a). As
adopted in R07-2/R07-11, this preamble statement requires a supplier to use only those
analytical methods listed in the subsections that follow for the applicable contaminants. It
allows the supplier to use “alternatives as approved by the Agency.” The Agency suggested in
PC 2 that the Board should substitute “USEPA” for “Agency,” since it is USEPA that approves
alternative methods. The Board agrees with the Agency’s premise that it is USEPA that
approves all alternative methods, but the Board does not agree that the premise necessitates the
Agency’s suggested changes in this provision.
The Board believes that the existing regulations preclude the Agency from approving any
methods that are not approved by USEPA or designated as alternative methods by USEPA. The
Board further believes that making the change requested by the Agency would potentially deny
the Agency the flexibility in the future to approve USEPA-designated alternative methods when
the Board has not yet adopted amendments to the Illinois rules based on that federal
designation.
1
1
Section 7.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/7.2(b) (2006)) allows the
Board one year to complete rulemaking on federal amendments. Section 7.2(b), however,
further provides a means by which the Board may extend the deadline when necessary.
5
Section 611.480 of the Illinois rules provides that the Agency can approve the use of “an
alternative analytical technique,” with the concurrence of USEPA. This provision derives from
40 C.F.R. 141.27, which provides that USEPA may approve “an alternate analytical technique”
that is “substantially alternative to the prescribed test in both precision and accuracy,” with the
written approval of the state.
On June 4, 2008, USEPA approved 99 alternative test methods for analysis of
contaminants in drinking water.
See
73 Fed. Reg. 31616 (June 3, 2008). This was USEPA’s
first use of a new streamlined mechanism to determine alternative methods. Section 1401(1) of
SDWA (42 U.S.C. § 300f(1) (2006)) authorizes USEPA to determine alternative methods by
guidance published in a
Federal Register
notice without the formalities of a full rulemaking
action. USEPA listed the methods, however, in a new appendix to 40 C.F.R. 141. The Board
included that listing in this consolidated docket.
The Board’s focus in the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment was on how best
to fit the June 3, 2008 USEPA-approved alternative methods into the Illinois regulations.
See
Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 2007 though June 30, 2007),
R08-5, SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 2007 though June 30, 2007 and June 3,
2008), R08-7, and SDWA Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 2007 though December 31,
2007), R08-13 (consol.) (Aug. 7, 2008) (proposal for public comment), slip op. 10. The Agency
comments on approval of alternative methods in PC 2 prompted Board examination of the issues
relating to the scope and desirability of the Agency having authority to approve alternative
methods already determined equivalent by USEPA.
This analysis has convinced the Board that it is necessary to clarify the existing
regulations that reference the Agency’s authority to do so. The Board agrees that the Agency
has no role in determining that a method is equivalent to an approved method, since it is USEPA
alone that can make that determination. The Board concludes, though, that the Agency still has a
role in approving USEPA-designated alternative analytical methods for use in Illinois—even
though that role is limited to allow the use of those methods in Illinois until such time as the
Board adopts them in a identical-in-substance rulemaking.
Prior to USEPA’s first use of the streamlined procedure on June 4, 2008, USEPA
approved new analytical methods by full notice-and-comment rulemaking. USEPA described
the approval of methods by rulemaking as follows:
When [US]EPA establishes a monitoring requirement for a drinking water
contaminant, [it] also specifies at least one reference analytical method that can
be used to determine the contaminant’s concentration in drinking water. Public
water systems must currently use a testing method listed in the regulation when
performing analyses of samples to demonstrate compliance or for use in
unregulated contaminant monitoring.
Methods that are incorporated into the regulation are approved through a
rulemaking process. In general, this means that [US]EPA publishes a proposed
rule, citing the method along with a discussion of how the method can be used to
6
analyze samples. The method is proposed for approval in conjunction with
monitoring requirements for one or more specific contaminants. [US]EPA
solicits public comment. After consideration of the comments, [US]EPA decides
whether to approve the method. If the method is deemed suitable, it is included in
a final rule. The method is not approved for analysis of compliance or
[unregulated contaminant monitoring regulations] samples until it is referenced in
a final rule. 72 Fed. Reg. 17902, 17903 (Apr. 10, 2007).
USEPA also describe the streamlined procedure authorized by SDWA:
Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, authorizes [US]EPA to
approve alternative testing methods outside the normal notice-and-comment
rulemaking process. * * * Once [US]EPA has approved one testing method
through the rulemaking process, section 1401(1)(D) allows [US]EPA to approve
additional (alternative) testing methods for the same contaminant through an
expedited process that simply involves publishing the alternative method in the
Federal Register. To use this expedited process, [US]EPA must first find that the
alternative testing method is “equally effective” as the method that was approved
through rulemaking.
* * * * *
After a method is demonstrated to be suitable for analyzing compliance or
unregulated contaminant monitoring samples for a specific contaminant, and
[US]EPA deems it to be “equally effective” as the originally promulgated
method, [US]EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce that
determination. * * *
* * * * *
The expedited method approval process will improve [US]EPA’s ability to make
new technologies and improved analytical techniques available in a timely
manner. Under the current process, after a method is shown to be suitable . . . , it
cannot be used for that purpose until the rulemaking process is completed. The
traditional rulemaking process in some cases can take two to three or more years
to complete. * * * Under the expedited process described in this notice, the
method will be available as soon as [US]EPA publishes a Federal Register notice
announcing that the method can be used for analyzing drinking water . . . samples.
[US]EPA anticipates most alternative methods will be approved in this manner
within six to eight months . . . . 72 Fed. Reg. at 17904.
The Board presently believes that USEPA may use this streamlined procedure with some
regularity, now that it has used it for the first time. The ability of the Agency to approve
alternative methods that have been determined equivalent by USEPA could prove both useful
and desirable. It would allow the early use of alternative methods before the Board has
incorporated them into the Illinois regulations. Making the change from “Agency” to “USEPA”
7
in Section 611.381, as suggested by the Agency, would foreclose such prompt approvals in
Illinois, even though USEPA has determined that the method is “equally effective.”
See
42
U.S.C. 300f(1) (2007).
This is not to say that the USEPA streamlined procedure does not pose potential
problems in Illinois. Although these problems have not yet arisen, the Board must outline one of
them here. If it arises, the problem could pose a significant challenge to overcome.
USEPA originally contemplated the procedure as mere publication of
Federal Register
notices of its determinations.
See
72 Fed. Reg. at 17904 (explaining that the alternative methods
would not appear in the body of the regulations). If USEPA does not incorporate its alternative
analytical methods into rules, however, several problems will arise. The principal problem for
the Board is that the
Federal Register
notice that publishes a determination of equivalency will
not give the Board a codified rule upon which to base corresponding action with regard to the
Illinois regulations.
See
415 ILCS 5/17.5 (2006) (requiring “federal regulations or amendments
thereto” for identical-in-substance rulemaking).
If unable to pursue the identical-in-substance procedure, the Board would be forced to
proceed using the general rulemaking procedure of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act (415 ILCS
5/27 and 28 (2006)) to adopt the alternative method. This, however, would prove expensive in
time, money, and resources, since two public hearings and additional notices would be required.
2
See
415 ILCS 5/27 and 28 (2006). This would defeat USEPA’s purpose of rapid deployment of
newer methods.
USEPA, however, appears to have removed this potential problem. In its first use of the
streamlined procedure, USEPA incorporated the alternative methods into a new appendix A to
subpart C of 40 C.F.R. 141.
See
73 Fed. Reg. 31616 (June 3, 2008). This gave the Board a
codified regulation upon which to base identical-in-substance rulemaking action.
3
It is apparent
that USEPA had this in mind when it added the appendix to its rules, and that it intends to
continue to use and update the appendix:
2
While the expense in time, money, and resources is justified where the Board must make a
determination on the merits in adopting and amending rules, there would be no such
determination where the Board is not exercising discretion, but merely incorporating a federal
action into the Illinois rules without reference to its merits.
3
The Board notes that USEPA carefully avoided characterizing its action on the equivalent
methods as rulemaking:
This action does not add regulatory language, but does, for informational
purposes, add an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR part 141 that lists the
newly approved methods. Accordingly, while this action is not a rule, it is adding
CFR text and therefore is being published in the “Final Rules” section of this
Federal Register. 73 Fed. Reg. at 31617
8
In the future, if [US]EPA withdraws approval for a method that was approved via
the expedited process, the Agency intends to update the table at Appendix A to
Subpart C of Part 141 to reflect both the approval and withdrawal dates for the
method in question.
* * * * *
One approach that [US]EPA is using to assist States is to add an appendix in the
CFR that lists all alternative methods approved using the expedited process.
States can cite this appendix (Appendix A to Subpart C in 40 CFR 141) when
they update their regulations. 73 Fed. Reg. at 31619.
4
Having examined Section 611.381(a) to weigh the Agency suggestion that the Board
amend the provision, the Board has determined to retain the reference to Agency authorization of
alternative methods. This prompted review of the several similar provisions contained in the
rules. The Board notes that Sections 611.611(a) and 611.645 include similar provisions, but
there are differences in the language of Sections 611.381(a), 611.611(a), and 611.645. Section
611.381(a) refers to “their equivalents as approved by the Agency.” Section 611.611(a) refers to
“alternative approved pursuant to Section 611.480.” Section 611.645 refers to “equivalent
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480.” The Board has decided to revise
each of these to refer to “alternative method” or “alternative methods,” depending on the context.
USEPA refers to the methods as “alternative methods.” The standardized use of the label for
these methods that is used by USEPA will serve to further the understanding that this refers to
methods approved by USEPA using the streamlined procedure. The Board adds “pursuant to
Section 611.480” to each reference that did not include it for the same purpose.
Further search of the rules disclosed that several of the methods provisions did not refer
to the Agency’s ability to authorize alternative methods. The Board has corrected this at each
location where the rule requires use of a list of methods. Thus, the Board has added “or an
alternative method approved by the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480” or “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480,” as appropriate in the context, to
each of Sections 611.526(c), 611.531, 611.612(f), 611.720, 611.802(c)(2), 611.1004(a) and (b),
and 611.1007(c)(1). This will clarify that the Agency may approve any USEPA-designated
alternative methods pending Board rulemaking action on the federal designation.
This review disclosed one final set of necessary corrections relating to approval of
alternative methods. These all relate to Section 611.480, which is the key provision that
authorizes the Agency to approve the methods.
4
With regard to the withdrawal of methods, USEPA has stated that it will use rulemaking to
withdraw methods approved by rulemaking, and it will use the streamlined procedure to
withdraw methods determined equivalent by the streamlined procedure. 73 Fed. Reg. at 31619.
9
First, the corrections to Section 611.480 change “alternate method” to the standardized
usage “alternative method” where it appears throughout the provision. This harmonizes this key
provision with the usage selected by USEPA.
Second, the corrections to Section 611.480 remove the sentence (derived from
corresponding 40 C.F.R. 141.27) that would impose the determination of method equivalence on
the Agency.
5
The determination that a method is equivalent to an already-approved method is a
USEPA determination. The Board agrees with the Agency’s comment to the extent that it
asserts that the Agency has no role in the determination of equivalence.
See
PC 2 at 1. The
removal of this sentence will avoid any possibility for confusion as to the Agency’s role in the
approval of alternative methods.
Finally, the Board has revised the first sentence of Section 611.480 to clarify when the
Agency should approve an alternative method. First, the Board follows the usual practice and
replaced “may” with “must” and added a statement of the determination that the Agency must
make to authorize use of an alternative method. This determination is two-fold: (1) that USEPA
has approved the method as an alternative method by adding it to the
Code of Federal
Regulations
; and (2) that the Board has not completed rulemaking action on the method. When
the Agency makes the threshold determination that USEPA has approved the method and that
the Board has not yet incorporated the method into the Illinois regulations, the Agency must
issue the special exception permit (SEP) (
see
35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.110 (2006)) to authorize the
method.
Thus, the Board has examined the contexts of the existing rules and USEPA’s use of the
streamlined procedure for authorization of alternative methods. The Board has concluded that it
is USEPA that makes the determination that an analytical method is an alternative method to an
approved one, but that the Agency does have authority to approve USEPA-determined
alternative methods for immediate use in Illinois. This examination has resulted in the Board
correcting various segments of the existing rules to clarify both the existence of that authority
and the limitations on its use.
TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETION OF THIS RULEMAKING AND
EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR FINAL ACTION
Under Section 7.2 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/7.2(b) (2006)), the Board must complete this
rulemaking within one year of the date of the earliest set of federal amendments considered in
this docket. USEPA adopted the earliest federal amendments that required Board attention on
March 12, 2007, so the deadline for Board adoption of these amendments under that provision
was March 12, 2008.
5
The text of corresponding federal provision stated, “An alternate technique shall be accepted
only if it is substantially equivalent . . ..” 40 C.F.R. 141.27(a) (2007). The wording of the
Illinois provision more clearly imposed a burden on the Agency: “The Agency must approve an
alternate technique if it is substantially equivalent . . ..” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.480 (2006).
10
Section 7.2(b), however, further provides for extension of the deadline for final Board
action by adoption of a Board order and publication of a Notice of Public Information on
Proposed Rules that extends the deadline. By an order dated March 6, 2008, the Board used this
provision to extend the deadline. The Board did so again in the August 7, 2008 original proposal
for public comment that included the SDWA amendments, extending the deadline until
December 1, 2008. Further delay has resulted from corrections based on late consideration of
Agency comments submitted in 2007 and inadvertently overlooked during the assembly of the
August 7, 2008 original proposal for public comment. This has necessitated withdrawal of the
Notice of Proposed Amendments for Part 611 published in the August 29, 2008 issue of the
Illinois Register
. These are the principal factors that make an extension of the deadline for final
action on Part 611 necessary.
6
The Board today again extends the deadline for completion of the
consolidated R08-7/R08-13 docket.
The final Board action to adopt these amendments is now December 31, 2008. This
extended deadline has a slight amount of extra time added to allow for any minor unforeseen
delays in finalizing the amendments.
Considering the proposal of these SDWA amendments on this date, the Board presently
projects the following will occur in the progress towards completion of these amendments:
Original due date:
March 12, 2008
Extended due date (by a March 6, 2008 order):
August 15, 2008
Extended due date (by an August 7, 2008 order):
December 1, 2008
Extended due date (by this supplemental order):
December 31, 2008
Date of Board vote to propose amendments:
September 4, 2008
Submission for
Illinois Register
publication:
September 15, 2008
Probable
Illinois Register
publication dates:
September 26, 2008
Estimated end of 45-day public comment period:
November 10, 2008
Likely date of Board vote to adopt amendments:
November 20, 2008
Probable filing and effective date:
December 1, 2008
Probable
Illinois Register
publication date:
December 31, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Board invites public comment on the corrections included in this supplemental
opinion and order. In particular, the Board urges the Agency, USEPA, and the regulated
community to carefully examine the corrections relating to Agency approval of alternative
methods that are designated as such by USEPA and to comment on those corrections. The Board
notes again that this is a supplement to the proposal for public comment adopted by the Board on
August 7, 2008. The Board will submit a new Notice of Proposed Amendments pertaining to all
6
The projected timetable that appears on this page indicates that it may still be possible to
complete these amendments by December 1, 2008, but that would not permit any delays at any
stage of this proceeding. The Board would prefer to allow for unforeseen delays in final
adoption, rather than risk failing to meet the deadline.
11
of the amendments to Part 611 for publication in the
Illinois Register
. The Board presently
intends to adopt amendments based on the proposal at the regularly scheduled meeting of
November 20, 2008. Prompt submission of comments will assure timely Board consideration of
those comments and adoption of the amendments.
As discussed above at page 2 of this opinion, the Board received two public comments
prior to the start of the public comment period. Both comments were submitted by the Agency
and both related to the prior consolidated SDWA update docket, SDWA Update, USEPA
Regulations (January 1, 2006 though June 30, 2006), R07-2, and SDWA Update, USEPA
Regulations (July 1, 2006 though December 31, 2006), R07-11 (consol.) (July 26, 2007). The
Agency submitted e-mails and a letter that outlined corrections that the Board needed to make in
the amendments, which had by then been filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The
Board docketed the Agency correspondence as public comments in the prior update docket R07-
2/R07-11 (PC 4 and PC 5), and in the then-reserved docket R08-7 (PC 1 and PC 2). The two
comments are described as follows:
PC 1 August 10, 2007 through August 13, 2007 e-mail exchange between Stefanie
Diers, Division of Legal Counsel, Agency and Michael J. McCambridge, hearing
officer.
PC 2 November 20, 2007 letter from Stefanie Diers, Agency (received November 21,
2007).
The Board received other comments relating to the amendments involved in this docket.
Prior to publication of the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment, the Board received two
e-mail responses to inquiries about obtaining copies of individual analytical methods. Those
comments are the following:
PC 3 July 8, 2008 through July 10, 2008 e-mail exchange between Jayne Brown,
Chemistry Support, Waters Crop. (with attached copy of Method 6500, rev. 0
(Feb. 2007)) and Michael J. McCambridge, hearing officer.
PC 4 July 8, 2008 through July 10, 2008 e-mail exchange between Pat Fair, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, USEPA and Michael J. McCambridge,
hearing officer.
Following issuance of the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment in the
consolidated docket R08-5/R08-7/R08-13, the Board received e-mails from the Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules (JCAR) that included suggestions for corrections to the rules:
PC 5 August 18, 2008 e-mail from Deborah Connelly, JCAR to Michael J.
McCambridge, hearing officer (pertaining exclusively to the wastewater
pretreatment amendments in docket R08-5, deconsolidated from the R08-7/R08-
13 SDWA amendments).
12
PC 6 August 18, 2008 and August 19, 2008 e-mail exchange between Deborah
Connelly, JCAR and Michael J. McCambridge, hearing officer.
The JCAR comments included in PC 6 have prompted revisions to the current version of
the text of the amendments, which will appear in the new Notice of Proposed Amendments. The
Board has also made a limited number of miscellaneous corrections in the text. The table that
appears beginning on page 17 of this supplemental opinion and order lists the revisions that have
occurred in the text since August 7, 2008.
JCAR noted one passage in the text and expressed its desire for a better wording and
structure for that provision. In PC 6, JCAR stated that Section 611.257(e)(2)(B) was awkward.
The Board agreed, but explained that the structure presented in the proposal for public comment
was the best that the Board could devise in the context. The next segment of this supplemental
opinion and order explains the structure and wording of Section 611.357(e)(2)(B).
THE STRUCTURE AND WORDING OF SECTION 611.357(e)(2)(B)
Section 611.357(e)(2)(B) is derived from 40 C.F.R. 141.87(e)(2)(ii), as amended by
USEPA in 2000.
See
65 Fed. Reg. 1950 (Jan. 12, 2000). The federal provision is a very long
sentence that is difficult to read. It provides that a supplier may engage in reduced monitoring if
it fulfills three preconditions.
See
40 C.F.R. 141.87(e)(2)(ii) (2007).
When it adopted the existing State counterpart in SDWA Update, USEPA Amendments
(January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000), R01-7 (Jan. 4, 2001), the Board divided USEPA’s
single sentence into four separate segments in subsections (e)(2)(B) and (e)(2)(B)(i) through
(e)(2)(B)(iii). Subsection (e)(2)(B) stated that the supplier may engage in reduced monitoring if
it fulfills the conditions, and subsections (e)(2)(B)(i) through (e)(2)(B)(iii) recited the conditions,
punctuated with semicolons and conjoined by “and” to clarify that the supplier must fulfill all
three of the conditions.
USEPA added a second sentence to 40 C.F.R. 141.87(e)(2)(ii) as part of its amendments
to the Lead and Copper Rule.
See
72 Fed. Reg. 65574 (Oct. 10, 2007). The added sentence
stated a condition subsequent to commencement of reduced monitoring. Thus, 40 C.F.R.
141.87(e)(2)(ii) now reads as follows:
A water system may reduce the frequency with which it collects tap samples for
applicable water quality parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section to
every three years if it demonstrates during two consecutive monitoring periods
that its tap water lead level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the PQL
for lead specified in § 141.89 (a)(1)(ii), that its tap water copper level at the 90th
percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L for copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and that
it also has maintained the range of values for the water quality parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by the State under §
141.82(f). Monitoring conducted every three years shall be done no later than
every third calendar year. 40 C.F.R. 141.87(e)(2)(ii) (2007), as amended at 72
Fed. Reg. 65574 (Oct. 10, 2007).
13
The Board added the new federal sentence as subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv) of Section 611.357,
leaving the ending period at the end of subsection (e)(2)(B)(iii), and adding language in
subsection (e)(2)(B) to clarify that reduced monitoring is possible where the preconditions of the
first three subsections are met, but that it is subject to the limitation of the fourth subsection.
Thus, the amendments to Section 611.357(e)(2)(B) state as follows after today’s corrections to
the August 7, 2007 proposal for public comment:
B)
A water supplier may reduce the frequency with which it collects tap
samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in subsection
(e)(1) of this Section to every three years if it demonstrates the following
that it has fulfilled the conditions set forth in subsections (e)(2)(B)(i)
through (e)(2)(B)(iii) of this Section during two consecutive monitoring
periods:, subject to the limitation of subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv) of this
Section.
i)
That The supplier must demonstrate that its tap water lead level at
the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the PQL for lead
specified in Section 611.359(a)(1)(B);
ii)
That The supplier must demonstrate that its tap water copper level
at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/ℓ for copper
in Section 611.350(c)(2); and
iii)
That The supplier must demonstrate that it also has maintained the
range of values for the water quality parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by the Agency under Section
611.352(f).
iv)
Monitoring conducted every three years must be done no later than
every third calendar year.
JCAR stated in PC 6 that subsections (e)(2)(B)(i) through (e)(2)(B)(iv) are awkward, and
expressed a desire for an alternative structure for this provision. The Board agrees, but cannot
devise better without resort to wording and structure that would depart even further from the
wording and structure of corresponding 40 C.F.R. 141.87(e)(2)(ii). The wording chosen by the
Board for this provision is similar to that used in similar circumstances in other identical-in-
substance proceedings.
7
Generally, the Board has found that this structure was clear when
7
Examples are Sections 611.381(b)(2)(C) and (b)(2)(D); 611.1007(c)(1)(E); and 611.1021(f)(3),
(f)(3)(E), (f)(4), (f)(4)(C), (f)(7), and (f)(7)(C) in the prior SDWA update docket. SDWA
Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 2006 though June 30, 2006), R07-2, and SDWA
Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 2006 though December 31, 2006), R07-11 (consol.) (July
26, 2007), slip op. at 214-16.
14
accompanied with language in the preamble that clarifies the relationship among the various
coordinate subsections in the provision.
The basic logical structure of Section 611.357(e)(2)(B), as proposed by the Board, is “X
if A, B, and C, but subject to D.” The Board believes that this chosen structure is clear and
unambiguous, and the best alternatives for clarity would require many more words to retain this
level of clarity. Other alternatives, such as following the two-sentence structure in a single
subsection, as used by USEPA, would lose clarity. The Board believes that the punctuation
given the subsections, together with the use of the words, “if it demonstrates that it has fulfilled
the conditions set forth in subsections (e)(2)(B)(i) through (e)(2)(B)(iii) . . ., subject to the
limitation of subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv) of this Section,” makes the requirement clear.
In the course of seeking better wording and structure for subsection (b)(2)(B), however,
the Board made two changes in the wording. The Board changed “subject to the conditions of
subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv)” to “subject to the limitation of subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv).” The word
“limitation” more closely describes the nature of subsection (b)(2)(B)(iv) than does the word
“conditions.” The Board also added the words “the supplier must demonstrate” to each of first
three subsections, which state the conditions precedent to the triennial monitoring.
The Board believes that the language and structure chosen, combined with the changes
made today, state the federal requirements with optimal clarity. The option chosen does not so
significantly depart from the language and structure used by USEPA as to create ambiguity
through an attempt to clarify the provision. The Board invites public comment on the wording
and structure chosen for Section 611.357(e)(2)(ii).
CORRECTIONS TO THE R07-2/R07-11 AMENDMENTS
Section
Source
Revision(s)
611.101 “initial
distribution system
evaluation”
Agency,
Board
Correct “Subpart X” to “Subpart I of this Part”
611.101 “initial
distribution system
evaluation” Board
note
Agency,
Board
Correct “40 CFR 611.601(c) (2006)” to “40 CFR
141.601(c) (2007)”
611.101 “wellhead
protection area”
Agency,
Board
Correct “Section 17.2 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/17.2)” to
“Section 17.1 of the Act [415 ILCS 5/17.1]”
611.381(a)
Board
Correct the reference to Agency approval of alternative
method by changing “their equivalents as” to “alternative
methods” and adding “pursuant to Section 611.480”
15
611.480
Board
Corrected “may approve” to “must approve” and added
“if it determines that USEPA has approved the method as
an alternative method by adding it to 40 CFR 141 and
that the Board has not incorporated the federal approval
into this Part 611”; corrected “alternate” to “alternative”
(three times); corrected the procedure by removing the
sentence, “The Agency must approve an alternate
technique if it is substantially equivalent to the prescribed
test in both precision and accuracy as it relates to the
determination of compliance with any MCL.”
611.526(c)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or in accordance
with an alternative method approved by the Agency
pursuant to Section 611.480” as a parenthetical offset by
a comma
611.531 preamble
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by commas
611.611(a)
Board
Correct “alternative approved” to “alternative method
approved”
611.612(f)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by a comma
611.645 preamble
Board
Corrected “equivalent methods” to “alternative methods”
611.720(a)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by a comma
611.801(b)
Agency
Correct “evaluations or the hydrogeologic sensitivity” to
“evaluations of the hydrogeologic sensitivity”
611.802(c)(2)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by a comma
611.920(c)
Board
Correct “subsections (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(D)” to
“subsections (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(E)”; correct
“subsections (c)(1)(E) through (c)(1)(G)” to “subsections
(c)(1)(F) through (c)(1)(H)”
611.920(c)(1)(A)
Board
Correct the entry by adding the omitted language “is not
part of a combined system, or a supplier that serves the
largest population in a combined distribution system, and
which” from the headers in the table at corresponding 40
C.F.R. 141.600(c)(1)
16
611.920(c)(1)(B)
Board
Correct the entry by adding the omitted language “is not
part of a combined system, or a supplier that serves the
largest population in a combined distribution system, and
which” from the headers in the table at corresponding 40
C.F.R. 141.600(c)(1)
611.920(c)(1)(C)
Board
Correct the entry by adding the omitted language “is not
part of a combined system, or a supplier that serves the
largest population in a combined distribution system, and
which” from the headers in the table at corresponding 40
C.F.R. 141.600(c)(1)
611.920(c)(1)(D)
Board
Correct the entry by adding the omitted language “is not
part of a combined system, or a supplier that serves the
largest population in a combined distribution system, and
which” from the headers in the table at corresponding 40
C.F.R. 141.600(c)(1)
611.920(c)(1)(E)
Agency,
Board
Correct the listing of action deadlines by adding the
omitted entry that appears as “(v)” in the table at
corresponding 40 C.F.R. 141.600(c)(1), with revisions to
the federal format and language
611.920(c)(1)(F)
Agency
Renumber the subsection to accommodate the addition of
subsection (c)(1)(E)
611.920(c)(1)(G)
Agency
Renumber the subsection to accommodate the addition of
subsection (c)(1)(E)
611.920(c)(1)(H)
Agency
Renumber the subsection to accommodate the addition of
subsection (c)(1)(E)
611.1004(a)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by a comma
611.1004(b)
Board
Correct the recitation of methods by adding a reference to
Agency approval of alternative method “or alternative
methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480” as a parenthetical offset by a comma
611.1007(c)(1)
Board
Correct “analyzed” to “must analyze”; corrected the
recitation of methods by adding a reference to Agency
approval of alternative method “or alternative methods
approved by the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480” as
a parenthetical offset by a comma
MISCELLANEOUS REVISONS TO THE AMENDMENTS
SINCE AUGUST 7, 2008 NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXT OF
THIS SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER
The table below lists a number of corrections and amendments that are not based on
current federal amendments. The need for corrections has become evident since the August 7,
17
2008 proposal for public comment, including corrections based on comments from JCAR. The
amendments will appear in the new Notice of Proposed Amendments that will appear in the
Illinois Register
, but they are not included in the text presented in this supplemental opinion and
order.
Section
Source
Revision(s)
611.101 “approved
source of bottled
water” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “CT
99.9
”
Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “40/30
certification” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “groundwater
system” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition (twice), including removal of
the obsolete
Federal Register
citation
611.101
“hydrogeologic
sensitivity assessment”
Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition, including removal of the
obsolete
Federal Register
citation
611.101 “inactivation
ratio” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “inorganic
contaminants” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “MFL” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “mixed
system” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “radioactive
contaminants” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “reliably and
consistently” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “sanitary
survey” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition (twice), including removal of
the obsolete
Federal Register
citation
611.101 “significant
deficiency” Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition (twice), including removal of
the obsolete
Federal Register
citation
611.101 “special
irrigation district”
Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition; updated the citation to the
United States Code
to the most recent edition
18
611.101 “standard
monitoring” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “SWS” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “system-
specific study plan”
Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “very small
system waiver” Board
note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 “wellhead
protection area”
Board
Changed the parentheses to brackets for the citation
“[415 ILCS 5/17.1]”
611.101 “wellhead
protection program”
Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.101 Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 A
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 B
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 C
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 D
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 E
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9221 F
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
19
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9222 A
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9222 B
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9222 C
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9222 D
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9222 G
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9223
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.102(b),
“AWWA,” Standard
Methods, 20th ed.,
Method 9223 B
JCAR
Add underlining to the added method
611.350 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.351 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.353 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.354 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.355 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.356 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.357(e)(2)(B)
JCAR,
Board
Correct “subsections (g)(4)(C)(i) through (g)(4)(C)(iii)”
to “subsections (e)(2)(B)(i) through (e)(2)(B)(iii)”;
changed “subject to the conditions” to “subject to the
limitation”; correct “subsection (g)(4)(C)(iii)” to
“subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv)”
611.357(e)(2)(B)(i)
Board
Added “the supplier must demonstrate”
611.357(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Board
Added “the supplier must demonstrate”
611.357(e)(2)(B)(iii)
Board
Added “the supplier must demonstrate”
611.357 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.358 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.359(a) Board note JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
20
611.360 Board note
JCAR
Correct “October 12, 2007” to “October 10, 2007”
611.480 Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
611.801 Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition (twice), including removal of
the obsolete
Federal Register
citation (twice)
611.920 Board note
Board
Updated the citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations
to the most recent edition
TEXT OF THE CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENTS
The corrections to the text of the August 7, 2008 proposal for public comment follow:
Section 611.101
Definitions
As used in this Part, the following terms have the given meanings:
* * * * *
“Approved source of bottled water,” for the purposes of Section 611.130(d)(4),
means a source of water and the water therefrom, whether it be from a spring,
artesian well, drilled well, municipal water supply, or any other source, that has been
inspected and the water sampled, analyzed, and found to be a safe and sanitary
quality according to applicable laws and regulations of State and local government
agencies having jurisdiction, as evidenced by the presence in the plant of current
certificates or notations of approval from each government agency or agencies
having jurisdiction over the source, the water it bottles, and the distribution of the
water in commerce.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 142.62(g)(2) and 21 CFR 129.3(a) (2006)
(2007)
. The Board cannot compile an exhaustive listing of all federal, State, and
local laws to which bottled water and bottling water may be subjected. However, the
statutes and regulations of which the Board is aware are the following: the Illinois
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [410 ILCS 620], the Bottled Water Act [815 ILCS
310], the DPH Water Well Construction Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 920), the DPH
Water Well Pump Installation Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 925), the federal bottled
water quality standards (21 CFR 103.35), the federal drinking water processing and
bottling standards (21 CFR 129), the federal Current Good Manufacturing Practice in
Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food (21 CFR 110), the federal Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act (15 USC 1451 et seq.), and the federal Fair Packaging
and Labeling regulations (21 CFR 201).
* * * * *
“CT
99.9
” is the CT value required for 99.9 percent (3-log) inactivation of Giardia
lamblia cysts. CT
99.9
for a variety of disinfectants and conditions appear in Tables
1.1-1.6, 2.1 and 3.1 of Appendix B of this Part. (See “Inactivation Ratio.”)
21
BOARD NOTE: Derived from the definition of “CT” in 40 CFR 141.2 (2006)
(2007).
* * * * *
“40/30 certification” means the certification, submitted by the supplier to the
Agency pursuant to Section 611.923, that the supplier had no TTHM or HAA5
monitoring violations, and that no individual sample from its system exceeded
0.040 mg/ℓ TTHM or 0.030 mg/ℓ HAA5 during eight consecutive calendar
quarters.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.603(a) (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Groundwater system” or “GWS” means a public water supply (PWS) that uses
only groundwater sources, including a consecutive system that receives finished
groundwater.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.23(b)(2) and 141.24(f)(2) note
(2006) and 40 CFR 141.400(b), as added at 71 Fed. Reg. 65576 (Nov. 8, 2006)
(2007).
* * * * *
“Hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment,” for the purposes of Subpart S of this
Part, means a determination of whether a GWS supplier obtains water from a
hydrogeologically sensitive setting.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.400(c)(5), as added at 71 Fed. Reg.
65574 (Nov. 8, 2006) (2007).
“Inactivation ratio” or “Ai” means as follows:
Ai = CT
calc
/CT
99.9
The sum of the inactivation ratios, or “total inactivation ratio” (B) is
calculated by adding together the inactivation ratio for each disinfection
sequence as follows:
B =
∑(Ai)
A total inactivation ratio equal to or greater than 1.0 is assumed to provide a
3-log inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from the definition of “CT” in 40 CFR 141.2 (2006)
(2007)
.
* * * * *
22
“Initial distribution system evaluation” or “IDSE” means the evaluation,
performed by the supplier pursuant to Section 611.921(c), to determine the
locations in a distribution system that are representative of high TTHM and
HAA5 concentrations throughout the distribution system. An IDSE is used in
conjunction with, but is distinct from, the compliance monitoring undertaken to
identify and select monitoring locations used to determine compliance with
Subpart X I of this Part.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 611.601(c) (2006) 141.601(c) (2007).
“Inorganic contaminants” or “IOCs” refers to that group of contaminants
designated as such in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
regulatory discussions and guidance documents. IOCs include antimony, arsenic,
asbestos, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, mercury, nickel,
nitrate, nitrite, selenium, and thallium.
BOARD NOTE: The IOCs are derived from 40 CFR 141.23(a)(4) (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“MFL” means millions of fibers per liter larger than 10 micrometers.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.23(a)(4)(i) (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Mixed system” means a PWS that uses both groundwater and surface water
sources.
BOARD NOTE: Drawn from 40 CFR 141.23(b)(2) and 141.24(f)(2) note (2006)
(2007).
* * * * *
“Radioactive contaminants” refers to that group of contaminants designated
“radioactive contaminants” in USEPA regulatory discussions and guidance
documents. “Radioactive contaminants” include tritium, strontium-89, strontium-
90, iodine-131, cesium-134, gross beta emitters, and other nuclides.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.25(c) Table B (2006)
(2007). These
radioactive contaminants must be reported in Consumer Confidence Reports
under Subpart U of this Part when they are detected above the levels indicated in
Section 611.720(c)(3).
“Reliably and consistently” below a specified level for a contaminant means an
Agency determination based on analytical results following the initial detection of a
contaminant to determine the qualitative condition of water from an individual
sampling point or source. The Agency must base this determination on the
consistency of analytical results, the degree below the MCL, the susceptibility of
source water to variation, and other vulnerability factors pertinent to the contaminant
detected that may influence the quality of water.
23
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.23(b)(9), 141.24(f)(11)(ii), and
141.24(f)(11)(iii) (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Sanitary survey” means an onsite review of the delineated WHPAs (identifying
sources of contamination within the WHPAs and evaluations or the
hydrogeologic sensitivity of the delineated WHPAs conducted under source water
assessments or utilizing other relevant information where available), facilities,
equipment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a public water
system (PWS) to evaluate the adequacy of the system, its sources, and operations
for the production and distribution of safe drinking water.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.2 (2006) and 40 CFR 142.16(o)(2),
as added at 71 Fed. Reg. 65574 (Nov. 8, 2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Significant deficiency” means a deficiency identified by the Agency in a
groundwater system pursuant to Section 611.803. A significant deficiency might
include, but is not limited to, a defect in system design, operation, or maintenance
or a failure or malfunction of the sources, treatment, storage, or distribution
system that the Agency determines to be causing or have potential for causing the
introduction of contamination into the water delivered to consumers.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 142.16(o)(2)(iv), as added at 71 Fed.
Reg. 65574 (Nov. 8, 2006) (2007). The Agency must submit to USEPA a
definition and description of at least one significant deficiency in each of the eight
sanitary survey elements listed in Section 611.801(c) as part of the federal
primacy requirements. The Board added the general description of what a
significant deficiency might include in non-limiting terms, in order to provide this
important definition within the body of the Illinois rules. No Agency submission
to USEPA can provide definition within the context of Board regulations.
* * * * *
“Special irrigation district” means an irrigation district in existence prior to May
18, 1994 that provides primarily agricultural service through a piped water system
with only incidental residential use or similar use, where the system or the
residential users or similar users of the system comply with either of the following
exclusion conditions:
The Agency determines by issuing a SEP that alternative water is
provided for residential use or similar uses for drinking or cooking to
achieve the equivalent level of public health protection provided by the
applicable national primary drinking water regulations; or
The Agency determines by issuing a SEP that the water provided for
24
residential use or similar uses for drinking, cooking, and bathing is
centrally treated or treated at the point of entry by the provider, a pass-
through entity, or the user to achieve the equivalent level of protection
provided by the applicable national primary drinking water regulations.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.2 (2006) (2007) and sections
1401(4)(B)(i)(II) and (4)(B)(i)(III) of SDWA (42 USC 300f(4)(B)(i)(II) and
(4)(B)(i)(III) (2000) (2007)).
“Standard monitoring” means the monitoring, performed by the supplier pursuant
to Section 611.921(a) and (b), at various specified locations in a distribution
system including near entry points, at points that represent the average residence
time in the distribution system, and at points in the distribution system that are
representative of high TTHM and HAA5 concentrations throughout the
distribution system.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.601(a) and (b) (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“SWS” means “surface water system,” a public water supply (PWS) that uses only
surface water sources, including “groundwater under the direct influence of surface
water.”
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.23(b)(2) and 141.24(f)(2) note (2006)
(2007).
“System-specific study plan” means the plan, submitted by the supplier to the
Agency pursuant to Section 611.922, for studying the occurrence of TTHM and
HAA5 in a supplier’s distribution system based on either monitoring results or
modelling of the system.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.602 (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Very small system waiver” means the conditional waiver from the requirements
of Subpart W of this Part applicable to a supplier that serves fewer than 500
persons and which has taken TTHM and HAA5 samples pursuant to Subpart I of
this Part.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.604 (2006) (2007).
* * * * *
“Wellhead protection area” or “WHPA” means the surface and subsurface
recharge area surrounding a community water supply well or well field,
delineated outside of any applicable setback zones (pursuant to Section
17.2 17.1 of the Act ([415 ILCS 5/17.2 5/17.1)]) pursuant to Illinois’
Wellhead Protection Program, through which contaminants are reasonably
likely to move toward such well or well field.
25
BOARD NOTE: The Agency uses two guidance documents for
identification of WHPAs:
* * * * *
“Wellhead protection program” means the wellhead protection program for the State
of Illinois, approved by USEPA under Section 1428 of the SDWA, 42 USC 300h-7.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.71(b) (2006) (2007). The wellhead
protection program includes the “groundwater protection needs assessment” under
Section 17.1 of the Act [415 ILCS 5/17.1] and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 615-617.
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.2 (2006) (2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.102
Incorporations by Reference
* * * * *
b)
The Board incorporates the following publications by reference:
* * * * *
AWWA. American Water Works Association et al., 6666 West Quincy
Ave., Denver, CO 80235 (303-794-7711).
* * * * *
“Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater,” 21st Edition, 2005 (referred to as “Standard
Methods, 21st ed.”).
* * * * *
Method 9221 A, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique
for Members of the Coliform Group, Introduction,
referenced in Sections 611.526 and 611.531.
Method 9221 B, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique
for Members of the Coliform Group, Standard Total
Coliform Fermentation Technique, referenced in Sections
611.526 and 611.531.
Method 9221 C, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique
26
for Members of the Coliform Group, Estimation of
Bacterial Density, referenced in Sections 611.526 and
611.531.
Method 9221 D, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique
for Members of the Coliform Group, Presence-Absence (P-
A) Coliform Test, referenced in Sections 611.526.
Method 9221 E, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique
for Members of the Coliform Group, Fecal Coliform
Procedure, referenced in Sections 611.526 and 611.531.
Method 9221 F, Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique for
Members of the Coliform Group, Escherichia Coli
Procedure (Proposed), referenced in Section 611.802.
Method 9222 A, Membrane Filter Technique for Members
of the Coliform Group, Introduction, referenced in Sections
611.526 and 611.531.
Method 9222 B, Membrane Filter Technique for Members
of the Coliform Group, Standard Total Coliform Membrane
Filter Procedure, referenced in Sections 611.526 and
611.531.
Method 9222 C, Membrane Filter Technique for Members
of the Coliform Group, Delayed-Incubation Total Coliform
Procedure, referenced in Sections 611.526 and 611.531.
Method 9222 D, Membrane Filter Technique for Members
of the Coliform Group, Fecal Coliform Membrane Filter
Procedure, referenced in Section 611.531.
Method 9222 G, Membrane Filter Technique for Members
of the Coliform Group, MF Partition Procedures,
referenced in Section 611.526.
Method 9223, Chromogenic Substrate Coliform Test (also
referred to as the variations “Autoanalysis Colilert System”
and “Colisure Test”), referenced in Sections 611.526,
611.531.
Method 9223 B, Chromogenic Substrate Coliform Test
(also referred to as the variations “Autoanalysis Colilert
System” and “Colisure Test”), referenced in Sections
611.802 and 611.1004.
27
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.350
General Requirements
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.80 (2002) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October 10,
2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.351
Applicability of Corrosion Control
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.81 (2003) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.353
Source Water Treatment
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.83 (2002) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October 10,
2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.354
Lead Service Line Replacement
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.84 (2003) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.355
Public Education and Supplemental Monitoring
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.85 (2002) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
28
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.356
Tap Water Monitoring for Lead and Copper
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.86 (2003) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.357
Monitoring for Water Quality Parameters
* * * * *
e)
Reduced monitoring.
* * * * *
2)
Reduction in monitoring frequency.
* * * * *
B)
A water supplier may reduce the frequency with which it collects
tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in
subsection (e)(1) of this Section to every three years if it
demonstrates the following that it has fulfilled the conditions set
forth in subsections (e)(2)(B)(i) through (e)(2)(B)(iii) of this
Section during two consecutive monitoring periods:, subject to the
limitation of subsection (e)(2)(B)(iv) of this Section.
i)
That The supplier must demonstrate that its tap water lead
level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the PQL
for lead specified in Section 611.359(a)(1)(B);
ii)
That The supplier must demonstrate that its tap water
copper level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to
0.65 mg/ℓ for copper in Section 611.350(c)(2); and
iii)
That
The supplier must demonstrate that it also has
maintained the range of values for the water quality
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment
specified by the Agency under Section 611.352(f).
29
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.87 (2002) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.358
Monitoring for Lead and Copper in Source Water
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.88 (2003) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.359
Analytical Methods
* * * * *
a)
Analyses for lead and copper performed for the purposes of compliance with this
Subpart G must only be conducted by laboratories that have been certified by
USEPA or the Agency. To obtain certification to conduct analyses for lead and
copper, laboratories must do the following:
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Subsection (a) is derived from 40 CFR 141.89(a) and (a)(1)
(2005) (2007), as amended at 57782 (October 10, 2007).
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.360
Reporting
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.90 (2003)
(2007), as amended at 57782 (October
10, 2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.381
Analytical Requirements
a)
A supplier must use only the analytical methods specified in this Section or their
30
equivalents as alternative methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480 to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Subpart I and
with the requirements of Subparts W and Y of this Part.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.480
Alternative Analytical Techniques
The Agency may must approve, by a SEP issued pursuant to Section 611.110, an alternative
analytical technique if it determines that USEPA has approved the method as an alternative
method by adding it to 40 CFR 141 and the Board has not incorporated the federal approval into
this Part 611. The Agency must not approve an alternative analytical technique without the
concurrence of USEPA. The Agency must approve an alternate technique if it is substantially
equivalent to the prescribed test in both precision and accuracy as it relates to the determination
of compliance with any MCL. The use of the alternative analytical technique must not decrease
the frequency of monitoring required by this Part.
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.27 (2002) (2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.526
Analytical Methodology
* * * * *
c)
Suppliers must conduct total coliform analyses in accordance with one of the
following analytical methods, incorporated by reference in Section 611.102, or in
accordance with an alternative method approved by the Agency pursuant to
Section 611.480 (the time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not
exceed 30 hours, and the supplier is encouraged but not required to hold samples
below 10° C during transit):
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.531
Analytical Requirements
The analytical methods specified in this Section, or alternative methods approved by the Agency
pursuant to Section 611.480, must be used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
only 611.Subpart B; they do not apply to analyses performed for the purposes of Sections
611.521 through 611.527 of this Subpart L. Measurements for pH, temperature, turbidity, and
RDCs must be conducted under the supervision of a certified operator. Measurements for total
coliforms, fecal coliforms and HPC must be conducted by a laboratory certified by the Agency
31
to do such analysis. The following procedures must be performed by the following methods,
incorporated by reference in Section 611.102:
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.611
Inorganic Analysis
Analytical methods are from documents incorporated by reference in Section 611.102. These are
mostly referenced by a short name defined by Section 611.102(a). Other abbreviations are
defined in Section 611.101.
a)
Analysis for the following contaminants must be conducted using the following
methods or an alternative method approved pursuant to Section 611.480. Criteria
for analyzing arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, sodium, and
thallium with digestion or directly without digestion, and other analytical
procedures, are contained in USEPA Technical Notes, incorporated by reference
in Section 611.102.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.612
Monitoring Requirements for Old Inorganic MCLs
* * * * *
f)
Except for arsenic, for which analyses must be made in accordance with Section
611.611, analyses conducted to determine compliance with the old MCLs of
Section 611.300 must be made in accordance with the following methods,
incorporated by reference in Section 611.102, or alternative methods approved by
the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.645
Analytical Methods for Organic Chemical Contaminants
Analysis for the Section 611.311(a) VOCs under Section 611.646; the Section 611.311(c) SOCs
under Section 611.648; the Section 611.310 old MCLs under Section 611.641; and for THMs,
TTHMs, and TTHM potential must be conducted using the methods listed in this Section or by
equivalent alternative methods as approved by the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480. All
methods are from USEPA Organic Methods, unless otherwise indicated. All methods are
incorporated by reference in Section 611.102. Other required analytical test procedures germane
32
to the conduct of these analyses are contained in the USEPA document, “Technical Notes of
Drinking Water Methods,” incorporated by reference in Section 611.102.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.720
Analytical Methods
a)
The methods specified below, or alternative methods approved by the Agency
pursuant to Section 611.480, incorporated by reference in Section 611.102, are to
be used to determine compliance with Section 611.330, except in cases where
alternative methods have been approved in accordance with Section 611.480.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.801
Sanitary Surveys for GWS Suppliers
* * * * *
b)
For the purposes of this Subpart S, a “sanitary survey,” as conducted by the
Agency, includes but is not limited to, an onsite review of the delineated WHPAs
(identifying sources of contamination within the WHPAs and evaluations or of
the hydrogeologic sensitivity of the delineated WHPAs conducted under source
water assessments or utilizing other relevant information where available),
facilities, equipment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a
public water system to evaluate the adequacy of the system, its sources and
operations and the distribution of safe drinking water.
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Subsections (a) through (c) are derived from 40 CFR 141.401, as added at 71
Fed. Reg. 65574 (Nov. 8, 2006) (2007). Subsection (d) is derived from 40 CFR 142.16(o)(2), as
added at 71 Fed. Reg. 65574 (Nov. 8, 2006) (2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.802
Groundwater Source Microbial Monitoring and Analytical Methods
* * * * *
c)
Analytical methods.
* * * * *
33
2)
A GWS supplier must analyze all groundwater source samples collected
pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section using one of the analytical
methods listed in subsections (c)(2)(A) through (c)(2)(C) of this Section,
or alternative methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480, subject to the limitations of subsection (c)(2)(D) of this Section,
for the presence of E. coli, enterococci, or coliphage:
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.920
General Requirements
* * * * *
c)
Schedule. A supplier must comply with the requirements of this Subpart W on
the schedule provided in subsection (c)(1) of this Section based on its system
type, as set forth in the applicable of subsections (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(D)
(c)(1)(E) of this Section, subject to the conditions of subsections (c)(1)(E)
(c)(1)(F) through (c)(1)(G) (c)(1)(H) of this Section:
1)
Compliance dates.
A)
A supplier that is not part of a combined distribution system, or a
supplier that serves the largest population in a combined
distribution system, and which serves a population of 100,000 or
more persons must either have submitted its standard monitoring
plan, its system-specific study plan, or its 40/30 certification or
must have obtained or have been subject to a very small system
waiver before October 1, 2006. The supplier must further
complete its standard monitoring or system-specific study before
September 30, 2008 and submit its IDSE report to the Agency
before January 1, 2009.
B)
A supplier that is not part of a combined distribution system, or a
supplier that serves the largest population in a combined
distribution system, and which serves a population of 50,000 to
99,999 persons must either have submitted its standard monitoring
plan, its system-specific study plan, or its 40/30 certification or
must have obtained or have been subject to a very small system
waiver before April 1, 2007. The supplier must further complete
its standard monitoring or system-specific study before March 31,
2009 and submit its IDSE report to the Agency before July 1,
2009.
C)
A supplier that is not part of a combined distribution system, or a
supplier that serves the largest population in a combined
34
distribution system, and which serves a population of 10,000 to
49,999 persons must submit its standard monitoring plan, its
system-specific study plan, or its 40/30 certification or must obtain
or be subject to a very small system waiver before October 1,
2007. The supplier must further complete its standard monitoring
or system-specific study before September 30, 2009 and submit its
IDSE report to the Agency before January 1, 2010.
D)
A supplier that is not part of a combined distribution system, or a
supplier that serves the largest population in a combined
distribution system, and which serves a population of fewer than
10,000 persons (and which is a CWS) must submit its standard
monitoring plan, its system-specific study plan, or its 40/30
certification or must obtain or be subject to a very small system
waiver before April 1, 2008. The supplier must further complete
its standard monitoring or system-specific study before March 31,
2010 and submit its IDSE report to the Agency before July 1,
2010.
E)
A supplier that is part of a combined distribution system which
does not serve the largest population in the combined system,
which is a wholesale system supplier or a consecutive system
supplier, must submit its standard monitoring plan, its system-
specific study plan, or its 40/30 certification or must obtain or be
subject to a very small system waiver; must further complete its
standard monitoring or system-specific study; and submit its IDSE
report to the Agency at the same time as the supplier in the
combined system that has the earliest compliance date.
EF)
If, within 12 months after the date when submission of the
standard monitoring plan, the system-specific study plan, or the
40/30 certification or becoming subject to a very small system
waiver is due, as identified in the applicable of subsections (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this Section, the Agency does not approve a
supplier’s plan or notify the supplier that it has not yet completed
its review, the supplier may consider the plan that it submitted as
approved. The supplier must implement that plan, and it must
complete standard monitoring or a system-specific study no later
than the date when completion of the standard monitoring or
system-specific study is due, as identified in the applicable of
subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this Section.
FG)
The supplier must submit its 40/30 certification pursuant to
Section 611.923 before the date indicated in the applicable of
subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this Section.
35
GH) If, within three months after the due date for submission of the
IDSE report identified in this subsection (c)(1) (nine months after
this date if the supplier must comply on the schedule in subsection
(c)(1)(C) of this Section), the Agency does not approve the
supplier’s IDSE report or notify the supplier that it has not yet
completed its review, the supplier may consider the report that it
submitted to the Agency, and the supplier must implement the
recommended Subpart Y monitoring as required.
* * * * *
BOARD NOTE: Derived from 40 CFR 141.600 (2006) (2007).
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.1004
Source Water Monitoring Requirements: Analytical Methods
a)
Cryptosporidium. A supplier must analyze for Cryptosporidium using USEPA
OGWDW Methods, Method 1623 (05) or USEPA OGWDW Methods, Method
1622 (05), or alternative methods approved by the Agency pursuant to Section
611.480, each incorporated by reference in Section 611.102.
* * * * *
b)
E. coli. A supplier must use methods for enumeration of E. coli in source water
approved in 40 CFR 136.3(a), or alternative methods approved by the Agency
pursuant to Section 611.480, incorporated by reference in Section 611.102.
* * * * *
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
Section 611.1007
Source Water Monitoring Requirements: Grandfathering Previously
Collected Data
* * * * *
c)
Cryptosporidium sample analysis. The analysis of Cryptosporidium samples
must meet the criteria in this subsection (c).
1)
Laboratories analyzed
must analyze Cryptosporidium samples using one
of the following analytical methods, or alternative methods approved by
the Agency pursuant to Section 611.480:
* * * * *
36
(Source: Amended at 32 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ______________________)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that
the Board adopted the above supplemental opinion and order on September 4, 2008, by a vote of
4-0.
____________________________________
John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
