By JULIE A. DUTTON Local control of chlorination

LEGISLATION under consideration by the Illinois General Assembly has raised questions over chlorination of public water supplies: when it must be done, how much it costs and whether it has associated health risks.

Illinois has no statutory provision requiring chlorination, but the Illinois Pollution Control Board has promulgated regulations on the use of the disinfectant. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is charged with enforcing these regulations. Since January 1982, exemptions on chlorination have been granted under special circumstances (see box). The legislation under consideration would change those exemptions. Currently 133 public water supplies have a chlorination exemption. According to some estimates, the proposed legislation would allow a chlorination exemption in about 450 public water supplies — of which about 12 might apply.

Public water supplies serving communities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants would be able to forego chlorination under two identical bills — S.B. 78, sponsored by Harlan Rigney (R-35, Freeport) and H.B. 203, sponsored by Myron Olson (R-70, Dixon). This stipulation would replace the current primary basis for exemption — that less than 100 gallons of water per capita be pumped daily and that no more than three miles of distribution piping be used for delivering water to consumers. All other requirements for the present chlorination exemption are retained in the proposed legislation.

Two new requirements for gaining nonchlorinating status would be added, however. Announcement of the intention to seek a chlorination exemption must be made in the local newspaper and be followed by a public meeting. The community must also submit to the IEPA a "hold harmless and indemnification agreement," acknowledging consumers' risks from unchlorinated water and absolving the state of liability from any infection, disease, health effects or death that might occur from the consumption of unchlorinated water.

Testimonies on H.B. 203 were presented to the House Energy and Environment Committee on March 15 while public hearings on S.B. 78 were held on March 16 by the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Corrections Committee. Sen. Rigney urged the Senate committee to favorably report his legislation because it is an important attempt "to give small towns of Illinois a certain measure of their own determination concerning . . . the chlorination of their drinking water supplies."

Jim Barnes, mayor of Oregon (pop. 3,639), testified before both committees that his town does not chlorinate, nor does it want to; the cost, taste and possible health effects are too unattractive. It would also cost an estimated $60,000 to install chlorination equipment in Oregon.

There was also vociferous opposition to the bills. Michael Barcelona, head of the Illinois State Water Survey's aquatic chemistry section, opposed S.B. 78 because he views chlorination "as a form of insurance" against water-borne diseases. Not only can water quality change over time, said Barcelona, but deficiencies in the water distribution system can cause health problems too. During 1971-78 there were 224 outbreaks of water-borne diseases, of which about 15 percent — involving 10,010 people — resulted from problems in the distribution system. Chlorine is especially

Chlorination regulations SINCE January 1982, chlorination has not been required in communities that pump less than 100 gallons of water per capita daily and that have no more than three miles of distribution piping. The following stipulations must also be met: • the community water supply must originate from properly constructed wells not subject to contamination; • the water must have been free of persistent or recurrent contamination for the last five years; • the water must not receive any raw water treatment other than fluoridation (because any water treatment introduces the possibility of contamination); • a water-consumer education program on preventing water contamination must be conducted; • a person registered with the IEPA must assume responsibility for the water supply; and • twice as many samples must be submitted for IEPA analysis than is required for chlorinated water.

helpful in solving the problem because residual amounts remain in the outlaying areas of the distribution system. Among the possible water-borne diseases are salmonella and dysentery.

Typhoid fever and cholera can also be transmitted via water, said Clarence Blanck of the American Water Works Service Company, which provides management and engineering services to the water utilities owned by its parent company, the American Water Works Company. Blanck also pointed out that chlorination can protect "the distribution system from incursions of toxic materials, such as cyanide. The presence or absence of chlorine . . . can be an indicator of certain forms of contamination."

The health of the transient public must be considered too, stressed Blanck, who "would hate to see us revert back to the past when signs were posted at the city limits warning that the water supply was potentially unsafe ..." and was to be drunk at the consumer's own risk.

Another source of consternation for some witnesses was the "hold harmless" provision. Ken Alderson of the Illinois Municipal League testified that his organization will oppose the bills if the provision is not removed. "If you have an exemption from the law . . . you don't have to have a hold harmless requirement to indemnify lawmakers in some way," contended Alderson in testimony before the Senate committee. Alderson further observed that if there is a hold harmless provision for not chlorinating, there needs to be similar provision for chlorinating, since health risks can be associated with chlorination as well.

Alderson's remarks on possible health effects of chlorinating refer to trihalomethanes (THM) — the result of chlorine acting on organic compounds. A 1980 report from the Council on Environmental Quality states that while studies "... are not sufficient to establish a causal relationship between chlorinated organic contaminants in drinking water and cancer, they do contain evidence which supports such a relationship for rectal cancer, and, to a lesser extent, for bladder and colon cancer."

Apparently both the House and the Senate viewed the "hold harmless" provision to be dispensable too, for after being favorably reported out of their committees, both bills were amended in their respective chambers to delete this provision. The amendment — identical in both bills — further provides that a referendum be held in a community considering applying for a chlorination exemption and eliminates the requirement for a newspaper notice and public meeting. □

Julie A. Dutton is a research associate with the Illinois Legislative Council's science unit.

June 1983 | Illinois Issues | 21