When Is Water Quality Considered Hazardous to Health?

A couple weeks ago I received an email from a reader, about a note issued with residents' October water bills (mailed in September). The Public Works Department detected total coliform bacteria in two separate water samples, but further testing revealed no threat to consumer health, according to the notice. The reader wanted to know:

• Why test results from the beginning of August weren't issued to residents until the end of September
• Why the notification was not published on the village website

Despite the positive bacteria results, the village is not in violation of EPA water quality standards. Officials say residents using water from the DuPage Water Commission were never in danger, which is why the notice was not posted elsewhere.

The village’s department tests water levels approximately 25 times each month, as required by the Environmental Protection Agency. While coliform bacteria are naturally occurring, it is tested because it is an ‘indicator bacteria’—that is, if coliform are present, more dangerous contaminants are also more likely to be present. Coliform bacteria itself is 'mostly harmless,' according to the EPA website.

The note issued at the end of September stated that coliform bacteria was detected on two occasions in August, equivalent to 10 percent of tests conducted that month. Coliform sample results on the EPA website show that tests for coliform bacteria came back positive on both Aug. 1 and 3, for residents except those living in Oak View, Four Lakes and Meadows neighborhoods. These were the first positive results for bacteria recorded for village water in five years.

After the positive results, Public Works Director Jason Elias said the areas were re-tested on Aug. 5 for more serious bacteria, including e. Coli and fecal bacteria. He said the additional tests came back negative, and Public Works flushed the areas where bacteria were identified. Subsequent quality checks have also come back negative, or 'absent.'

“Essentially it wasn’t an emergency of any sort,” said Elias.

However, the EPA requires municipalities to alert water customers when more than one test result comes back positive.

"The Village is required to send out a public notice within 30 days of learning of the violation," said IEPA spokesperson Maggie Carson. "Once they get the letter from our IEPA stating the Agency received a Public Notice Advisory and need to issue a public notice, this is the start time for the 30 days."

Records show the EPA requested that the village send a public notification to water customers on Sept. 13. The notification was mailed out on Sept. 26, according to Elias, which falls within the EPA's deadline for notification.

Elias said a boil order was not required at any time, although the statement sent along to customers warned ‘people with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and some elderly may be at increased risk' to develop related illnesses.

The notification came with an additional request: “Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing home, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.”

Elias said the notice was not posted to any village buildings because it was not an emergency situation, and village hall staff confirmed the information was not published on the village website.

"It wasn't anything that was deemed an emergency or public health issue, so we just did what we needed to do per the EPA. Obviously if it was considered a serious health issue, or something that required a boil order or something of that nature, we would have gotten the word out using our corporate system," Elias said.

Municipalities are not required to take additional steps to alert schools, nursing homes, or multi-family housing, according to Carson.

The village did not violate any contaminant levels in 2010, according to the latest edition of the annual Water Quality Report. The last recorded violation occurred in July 2006, when tests also revealed the presence of coliform bacteria.