ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 1, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY P. A. 94-849

FOR REPORTING RELEASES OF

RADIONUCLIDES AT NUCLEAR POWER

PLANTS: NEW 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1010

)

)

)

)

)

)

R07-20

(Rulemaking - Water)

Adopted Rule. Final Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):

Pursuant to P.A. 94-849, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

proposed rules for prescribing standards for detecting and reporting unpermitted releases of

radionuclides from nuclear power plants. The Board has held two hearings and accepted

comments on the proposal. On December 6, 2007, the Board proposed for first notice the rule as

proposed by the Agency, with only minor changes. The rule was published in the

Illinois

Register

on December 21, 2007.

See

31 Ill. Reg. 16685 (Dec. 21, 2007). The Board received no

additional comment and held no additional hearings during first notice. On March 6, 2008, the

Board filed the rule for second notice with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR).

JCAR voted a certificate of no objection on April 15, 2008, and suggested no changes.

Therefore, the Board will adopt the rule for final notice today.

The Board’s opinion opens with procedural history, background, and a summary of the

rule. Next, the Board summarizes the testimony and comments in the record. Finally, the Board

will discuss the reasons for adopting the rule for final notice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 25, 2007, the Agency filed a proposal as required by Section 13.6(e) of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/13.6(e) (2006)). The proposal included a 10-

page statement of reasons (Reasons). On June 21, 2007, the Board accepted the rulemaking for

hearing.

On July 13, 2007, in accordance with Section 27(b) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27(b)

(2006)), the Board requested that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

(DCEO) conduct an economic impact study for this rulemaking. On August 7, 2007, the Board

was informed that the DCEO had decided not to conduct an economic impact study for this

rulemaking. At the public hearing held on October 10, 2007 (Tr.2), the Board solicited

comments on DCEO’s decision not to conduct an economic impact study. No comments were

offered. Tr.2 at 5-6.

On August 24, 2007, the Board has received pre-filed testimony from Zigmund Karpa on

behalf of Exelon Nuclear (Exelon) (Exh. 3) and Richard Cobb on behalf of the Agency (Exh. 1).

---

2

The Board held two hearings in this proceeding before Hearing Officer Marie Tipsord. The first

hearing was held on September 5, 2007, in Chicago (Tr.1) and the second October 10, 2007, in

Springfield (Tr.2). At those hearings the Board heard testimony from:

Kyle Rominger and Richard Cobb on behalf of the Agency;

Zigmund Karpa on behalf of Exelon.

At the close of hearings a November 1, 2007 deadline for public comments to be filed was set.

The Board has received two public comments in this matter, both from the Agency (PC 1, PC 2).

On December 6, 2007, the Board adopted the rule for first notice. The proposed rule was

published in the

Illinois Register

on December 21, 2007. The Board received no additional

public comment and no requests for additional hearings. Therefore, on March 6, 2008, the Board

proceeded to second notice and filed the rule with JCAR. JCAR issued a certificate of no

objection on April 15, 2008, and suggested no changes to the rule.

BACKGROUND

The Agency submitted this proposed rulemaking pursuant to P.A. 94-849 that added

Section 13.6 to the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)). Reasons at 1. Section 13.6 required the

Agency, in consultation with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), to “propose

rules to the Board prescribing standards for detecting and reporting unpermitted releases of

radionuclides.” 415 ILCS 5/13.6(e) (2006). Section 13.6 further requires “the detection and

reporting of unpermitted releases of any radionuclides into the groundwater, surface water, or

soil at nuclear power plants, to the extent that federal law or regulation does not preempt such

requirements.” 415 ILCS 5/13.6(a) (2006). Section 13.6 requires that “[w]ithin 24 hours after

an unpermitted release of a radionuclide from a nuclear power plant, the owner or operator of the

nuclear power plant where the release occurred shall report the release to the Agency and the

Illinois Emergency Management Agency.” 415 ILCS 5/13.6(c) (2006).

Section 13.6 was added to the Act following a series of leaks of tritiated water at the

Braidwood Nuclear Power Station (Braidwood Station) in Will County, Illinois. Reasons at 2.

The tritium leaks resulted in groundwater contamination and impacted a nearby residential well.

Id

. A number of other nuclear power plants had also experienced tritium leaks, which resulted in

groundwater contamination.

Id

.

The Agency consulted with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Groundwater

(ICCG), the Groundwater Advisory Committee (GAC), and IEMA following the passage of P.A.

94-849 in order to develop these rules. Reasons at 3. The Agency also worked with Exelon

Corporation (Exelon) while developing the proposed rules.

Id

. Exelon owns and operates all of

the nuclear power plants in Illinois, either itself or through related entities.

Id

. The Agency also

considered feedback on the proposed rules from the GAC-hosted stakeholder outreach meeting,

to which state and federal legislators, representatives of local government, representatives of

IEMA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Exelon, the American Medical Association,

and nuclear and environmental interest groups were invited. Reasons at 3-4.

---

3

SUMMARY OF THE RULE

The rule includes procedures for reporting releases of radionuclides at nuclear power

plants. The procedures will allow licensees of power plants to fulfill their obligation under

Section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)) to report unpermitted releases of radionuclides

to the Agency and Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA). These procedures

establish a requirement that within 24 hours of any unpermitted release of radionuclides into the

groundwater, surface water, or soil, the licensee must evaluate the release to determine whether it

needs to be reported and, if reporting is necessary, make a report to the Agency and IEMA

within that same 24 hours.

See

Section 1010.200. The rule gives the proper procedure for

reporting the releases, including the appropriate reporting phone numbers for the Agency and

IEMA as well as instructions on electronic reporting.

See

Section 1010.202. The rule further

requires a follow-up written report be sent to the Agency and IEMA within five days after

reporting the release.

See

Section 1010.204. This follow-up report must contain the information

required for the initial report as well as supplemental information on the release utilizing the best

data available.

Id

.

Under the rules, a radionuclide is deemed to have been detected if an unpermitted release

of liquids either: 1) results in tritium concentrations of 200 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) or more

outside the licensee controlled area, or 2) contains tritium at quantities of 0.002 Curies (Ci) or

more. PC 2 at 2.

Tritium is a radionuclide that is a natural byproduct of electricity production in nuclear

power plants. Exh. 1 at 3. Tritium is also naturally produced in the atmosphere when cosmic

rays collide with air molecules.

Id

. Naturally occurring tritium is found in trace amounts in

groundwater worldwide.

Id

.

Based upon information from the Braidwood station, the background level for tritium is

35 pCi/L. However, in commercial, State, and private laboratories (other than research

laboratories), the lowest amount of tritium that can be practically detected is 200 pCi/L. That is

why the reporting levels for this rule are 200 pCi/L. PC 2 at 3. The quantity of 0.002 Ci as

another reporting requirement is a practical level. Exelon’s staff is familiar with this level and it

can be determined without analytical testing. PC 2 at 4. Releases of quantities of less than 0.002

Ci are not expected to result in concentrations of 200 pCi/L of tritium or more outside the

licensee controlled area.

Id

.

These provisions of the rules are uniform across all contaminant sources and all

geographic areas within the State. PC 2 at 4. These provisions do not apply outside Illinois, nor

do they make special provision for alert and abatement standards and procedures respecting

occurrences, emergencies of pollution or other short-term conditions constituting an acute danger

to health or the environment, or regulations specific to individual persons or sites. PC 2 at 4-5.

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

Below the Board will summarize the testimony from the hearings in this proceeding. The

Board will first summarize the Agency’s testimony and then Exelon’s testimony.

---

4

Agency Testimony

The Board will summarize the testimony of the Agency’s primary witness, Richard Cobb.

Then the Board will summarize the testimony of Kyle Rominger.

Richard Cobb

Mr. Cobb’s testimony spoke to the purpose and background of the regulations, a

summary of the releases that lead to the new regulations, as well as explaining each section of

the proposed regulations in turn. The following paragraphs will summarize each section of his

testimony.

Purpose of the Rulemaking.

According to Mr. Cobb, the purpose of the Agency’s

proposed regulations is to establish requirements for the owners and operators of nuclear power

generating facilities to fulfill their obligation under Section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6

(2006)) for reporting releases of radionuclides to soil, groundwater, or surface water to the

Agency and IEMA. Exh. 1 at 1. Mr. Cobb also testified that the purpose of “this regulation is

not to set standards for radionuclide releases, but to merely establish requirements for reporting a

release of radionuclides.”

Id

.

Background.

Mr. Cobb stated that these proposed regulations can be traced back to

three groundwater contamination incidents at the Exelon nuclear power generating facilities

located in: Dresden, Grundy County; Braidwood, Will County; and Byron, Ogle County. Exh. 1

at 2. The contamination at Dresden resulted from numerous leaks from underground piping,

which contaminated the groundwater with tritium. Exh. 1 at 3. At Braidwood, water mixed with

tritium was released from a vacuum breaker, through a blowdown line, and into the Kankakee

River. Exh. 1 at 2. The Byron contamination involved internal inspections at the plant, which

reported standing water containing tritium that was found in six concrete vacuum breaker vaults

in the ground that are part of the blowdown line running to the Rock River. Exh. 1 at 7. Though

Exelon monitoring wells showed tritium, independent testing of drinking water wells at nine

homes closest to the property line showed no signs of tritium.

Id

.

Summary of Releases.

The release at Braidwood station involved approximately three

million gallons of tritiated wastewater released from a blowdown line in 1998, causing a

groundwater contamination plume. Exh. 1 at 3. The release at the Braidwood Station reached as

high as 20,000 pCi/L.

Id

. Mr. Cobb states that the background concentration of tritium at

Braidwood was found at 35 pCi/L using an enriched tritium testing method to test the waters in a

cooling water pond on site. Exh. 1 at 4. However, Mr. Cobb testified that enriched tritium tests

are primarily used only in research laboratories due to their costs and technical requirements.

Id

.

Mr. Cobb further testified that 200 pCi/L is the practical qualification limit (PQL) for tritium, the

lowest concentration or level that can be reliably measured with 95 percent confidence in the

value.

Id

. Mr. Cobb also testified that the Agency believes the use of 200 pCi/L is a more

appropriate standard to use for reporting releases, because Exelon, IEMA’s Division of Nuclear

Safety, and other commercial laboratories can readily perform testing to this level.

Id

.

---

5

The unpermitted release of tritiated water from the Dresden station in 2004 was

discovered when concentrations of tritium in the range of 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 pCi/L were

detected in monitoring wells that had been installed following a previous release in 1994. Exh. 1

at 5. Mr. Cobb testified that according to Exelon officials, the highest concentration of tritium

found on the site was 20,000,000 pCi/L.

Id

. According to Mr. Cobb, Exelon investigations

found that the tritium contamination originated from a release in a condensate storage tank

system through a pipe that passed under a liquid nitrogen tank.

Id

.

Agency’s Proposed Rule.

The following paragraphs will summarize Mr. Cobb’s

testimony in support of the specific rule language proposed by the Agency.

Section 1010.200 Evaluation of Releases.

Mr. Cobb testified that Section 1010.200

contains the key thresholds for detecting and reporting releases of tritium that may cause,

threaten, or allow degradation of surface or groundwater resources beyond the licensees’

boundary area. Exh. 1 at 7. The proposed off-site reporting threshold for tritium is based on the

PQL of 200 pCi/L. According to Mr. Cobb, this measure is used in the existing Board’s

preventative notice and response provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.305 and 620.310 and is a

measure reasonably achieved in commercial, State, and private laboratories. Exh. 1 at 8. Mr.

Cobb further testified that the Agency and Exelon are in agreement with this threshold.

Id

. Mr.

Cobb also stated that tritium is being used for reporting because it is the only radionuclide being

found.

Id

.

Mr. Cobb went on to testify that a level of 0.002 Ci of tritium is the suggested level for

on-site reporting. Exh. 1 at 8. Releases of quantities of less than 0.002 Ci are not expected to

result in concentrations of 200 pCi/L of tritium or more outside the licensee controlled area,

making it a quality indicator of when reporting is necessary.

Id

. According to Mr. Cobb, the

Exelon staff is familiar with this measure and can report it rapidly upon occurrence rather than

waiting for analytical tests.

Id

. Mr. Cobb explained that in determining whether a 0.002 Ci on-

site standard would be sufficiently conservative to predict if 200 pCi/L would be exceeded

beyond the licensee controlled area, a groundwater fate and transport model was used

(BIOSCREEN

see infra

6).

Groundwater Principles.

Mr. Cobb testified that water entering the soil may evaporate,

or be used by plants and transpired. Exh. 1 at 9. The rest of the water travels down through pore

spaces until reaching the “water table,” which is the zone where all pore spaces are filled.

Id

.

The height of the water table is determined by measuring the elevation of water in wells that are

dug into the saturated zone.

Id

. Usually, the surface of the water table will rise and fall along

with the overlying land surface, but in a more subtle and smoother fashion.

Id

. The water table

can intersect with the ground surface in certain places creating lakes, perennial streams, and

springs, which are natural areas of groundwater discharge.

Id

. Mr. Cobb further explained that

while gravity makes surface water move downhill, groundwater moves downhill from areas of

higher potential energy to areas of lower potential energy, moving toward areas that are less

filled with water.

Id

.

The area where infiltration occurs is called a recharge zone and the area where

groundwater discharges into streams or lakes is called the discharge zone. Exh. 1 at 9.

---

6

According to Mr. Cobb, groundwater movement can be estimated using a map that shows the

elevations of the water levels in observation wells. Generally, the water flow will run

perpendicularly to the contours of the map.

Id

. The rate of groundwater movement is related to

the permeability of the aquifer and the slope of the potentiometric surface.

Id

.

When measuring groundwater flow, “hydraulic conductivity” is used instead of

permeability and is a function of the size and shape of pore spaces, the degree of interconnection

of the spaces, and the type of fluid passing through the medium. Exh. 1 at 9. As a water-soluble

contaminate migrates hydrolically through a groundwater field, its concentration will tend to

decline progressively due to dilution, retardation and transformation. Exh. 1 at 11. With a

release of tritium, mixture with uncontaminated groundwater will dilute the tritium contaminated

water as it moves along.

Id

.

Modeling Approach.

Mr. Cobb testified regarding the modeling approach that the

Agency used to determine whether a 0.002 Ci on-site standard would be sufficiently conservative

to predict if 200 pCi/L would be exceeded beyond the licensee controlled area. Mr. Cobb stated

that first a hypothetical source of tritium contamination was identified for each site, representing

a nuclear generating station. Exh. 1 at 11. The BIOSCREEN modeling system was then used to

determine whether a 0.002 Ci on-site standard would be sufficiently conservative to predict if

200 pCi/L would be exceeded beyond the licensee controlled area. Exh. 1 at 12. Mr. Cobb also

testified that the models used represented “conservative” or “reasonable worst case” scenarios.

Exh. 1 at 13. Mr. Cobb identified three basic objectives in this modeling approach:

1)

Determine if a release of 0.002 Ci of tritium from a representative source

at a nuclear generating station would migrate off-site;

2)

Predict the migration of the tritium in groundwater with respect to the

licensee controlled area, and with respect to adjacent properties and water

bodies; and

3)

Use the modeling results to calculate leakage rates and associated

concentrations (e.g., 0.71 gallons per minute and 17,248 pCi/L) to

determine if they are realistic.

Id

.

The modeling scenario, according to Mr. Cobb, assumed that a release of tritiated water

would occur most commonly in buried pipes and would be discovered within 30 days. Exh. 1 at

13. 30 days was used because, according to Mr. Cobb, with Exelon’s monthly integrity tests of

underground piping and blown down lines as well as real time moisture sensors in VB vaults, no

leak should go undetected for more than 30 days. Exh. 1 at 14.

Mr. Cobb explained that this system was used to model a contamination at the Braidwood

station using a hypothetical release of 30,633 gallons of tritiated water, which equals a

concentration of 17,248 pCi/L for 30 days. Exh. 1 at 14. The simulation showed that the plume

would move approximately 595 feet in 237 days and the concentration of tritium in the water

would be reduced to 200 pCi/L at that distance via dispersion. Exh. 1 at 15. Braidwood was

used as the example because, as Mr. Cobb testified, the Agency knows how Braidwood’s

---

7

hydrogeologic susceptibility varies as compared to the other Exelon facilities and so it can be

useful as a reference point. Exh. 1 at 16. According to Mr. Cobb, this information is helpful to

the Agency because it shows that with an estimated mass of tritium being released from an

underground pipeline or waste water conveyance, in a setting more or less susceptible than

Braidwood, the Agency can know what the potential fate and transport will be at distances more

than or less than 595 feet.

Id

.

Mr. Cobb concluded his explanation of the modeling approach by explaining that the

modeling results, combined with knowledge regarding Exelon’s stations show that 0.002 Ci is a

conservative reporting threshold for on-site releases of tritiated water. Mr. Cobb further

explained that Exelon’s detection monitoring program will act as a backup to the occurrence

based detection on site. Exh. 1 at 17.

Section 1010.202 Reporting Releases.

According to Mr. Cobb, this Section controls the

form and format of how releases must be reported to the Agency and IEMA. Exh. 1 at 17. Mr.

Cobb testified that the Agency duty officers and first responders have established communication

protocol with IEMA and the State Emergency Operations Center, which uses cellular phones,

satellite technology through smart phones, and other wireless devices. Exh. 1 at 17-18.

Section 1010.204 Follow-up Written Report.

This section requires a follow-up written

report to the initial rapid response report. Exh. 1 at 17-18. This report will clarify and

supplement information in the rapid response report, granting greater information to the public

and providing a practical bridge to the Right-to-Know provisions of the Act (415 ILCS 5/25(d)

(2006)), and the Board’s Community Relations Activities Performed in Conjunction with

Agency Notices of Threats from Contamination (35 Ill. Adm. Code 1600).

Id

.

Response to Questions.

When asked how Exelon will find out if there has been a

release and how they will go about the detection and reporting process, Mr. Cobb testified that

there is a visual inspection that is done of blowdown lines or other areas where releases have

occurred in the past. Tr.1 at 15. The Agency along with IEMA, and the Department of Nuclear

Safety Inspectors are conducting quarterly inspections to assure that the proper inspections are

being done on site. Tr.1 at 15-16. There is also 24 hour a day on-site personnel from IEMA and

the NRC. Tr.1 at 16. Mr. Cobb further testified that the real time sensors for detecting moisture

in vacuum breakers as well as a complex set of groundwater monitors act as backups to the

visual monitoring. Tr.1 at 17. If releases are detected through these systems, an alarm will be

triggered so staff will know to go inspect the situation.

Id

.

Mr. Cobb went on to state that calculations of releases by on-site inspectors can be done

because the inspectors generally know the pCi/L concentrations because they have the NRC

permit that regulates the concentration and the inspectors have been trained to be “pretty

accurate” concerning the number of gallons released. Tr.1 at 19. So when a release is detected,

the inspector can visually estimate the number of gallons released and calculate the amount of

tritium released according to the pCi/L concentrations in the NRC permit.

Id

.

When asked whether the rule language should include a distinct subpart or section

addressing the detection of releases, Mr. Cobb testified that the detecting portion is included in

---

8

the evaluation of releases. Tr.1 at 12. According to Mr. Cobb, ongoing monitoring programs are

beyond the scope of Section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)). Tr.1 at 13. Mr. Cobb

believes that the rules are clear that the detection is built into the evaluation process.

Id

. Mr.

Cobb also pointed out that analytical methods for detection are already present in Part 611.101 of

the Board’s regulations and are incorporated by reference in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620, the

Groundwater Quality Standards.

Id

. Mr. Cobb testified that by estimating the mass and

calculating a concentration in pCi/L immediately without waiting for a laboratory to do the work,

this detection method will be more preventative in nature than a method which relies on

gathering samples and sending them to a laboratory. Tr.1 at 14.

Mr. Cobb testified that the Agency’s position is that the monitoring requirements should

not be in the rules because the monitoring programs that are in place coupled with the inspection

programs are all that is needed. Tr.1 at 22-23. Mr. Cobb then again emphasized that the

groundwater monitoring system that is in place is only a back up to the visual inspection and

monitoring program that is ongoing. Tr.1 at 25. Mr. Cobb also testified that the inspection

process is something that is already in place under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309. The Agency already

had authority to inspect the wastewater conveyances, under Part 309, and now the Agency is

teaming up with IEMA to do a dual inspection. Tr.1 at 30.

Mr. Cobb further testified that underground piping and other areas that have leaked in the

past have been analyzed by the Fleetwood studies, so there are more detection devices in places

where you might expect possible leaks. Tr.1 at 21-22. According to Mr. Cobb, underground

piping, blowdown lines, and VB vaults are the primary areas for monitoring and all of these

areas will be monitored under the integrated testing. Tr.1 at 22.

Mr. Cobb was asked whether concentrations of radionuclides in a blowdown which are

greater than the concentration allowed by the NPDES permit but are permitted by the NRC are

considered unpermitted releases. Tr.1 at 31. Mr. Cobb testified that the wastewater constituents

in the wastewater/tritium mixture have their own NPDES limits while the tritium is diluted to

meet the NRC limits.

Id

. The wastewater constituents are regulated by the state NPDES permit,

but the tritium is regulated by the NRC only. Tr.1 at 32.

Mr. Cobb stated that the primary thing the Agency was looking at in protecting

groundwater was the beneficial use of the groundwater resource. Tr.1 at 33-34. Mr. Cobb

testified that a private well owner was the lowest common denominator in examining how to

protect the groundwater for beneficial use by not causing, threatening, or allowing a release of a

contaminant that is not removed by ordinary treatment techniques under the Board’s

Groundwater Quality Standards. Tr.1 at 34. Mr. Cobb went on to testify that he does not believe

any radionuclide, other than tritium, will function as an indicator of release because the other

radionuclides are removed via reverse osmosis and other technology. Tr.1 at 36. When asked

what types of remedial actions are typically seen with these types of releases, Mr. Cobb

explained that all remedial actions are different based upon the site hydrology and concentration.

Tr.1 at 36-37.

Mr. Cobb also testified that the proposed sections 1010.202(c) and 1010.204(c), requiring

the Agency to post the reports concerning a release that causes, threatens, or allows an

---

9

exceedance of the standards on its website were a good idea in parallel with the Right-to-Know

provision of the Act (415 ILCS 5/25(d) (2006)). Tr.1 at 42. Mr. Cobb also stated that every site

center generated notice or well centric generated notice is published on the Agency’s Right-To-

Know website.

Id

.

When questioned on whether posting of reports and other information on the Agency’s

website would compromise security at the Exelon facilities, Mr. Cobb stated that any security

sensitive information would have been redacted before posting. Tr.1 at 43.

Kyle Rominger

Mr. Rominger testified that while creating the reporting forms, the Agency found that

they wished to make a change in Section 1010.204. Tr.2 at 7. The changes to the proposed rule

would require a copy of the follow-up report be sent to IEMA and would therefore also insert

IEMA address where the copy should be sent.

Id

. According to Mr. Rominger, the changes

would also require the follow-up report to be submitted in both hard copy form and

electronically. Tr.2 at 7-8. Mr. Rominger stated that the hard copy would get an additional five

days to be submitted under this new proposal to avoid any issues with timeliness. Tr.2 at 8.

Exelon Testimony

Zigmund Karpa

Mr. Karpa testified that NRC establishes the regulations and guides for the construction

and operation of nuclear reactors. Exh. 3. at 3. Mr. Karpa further explained that utilities

licensed by the NRC are responsible for designing, constructing, testing, and operating their

facilities safely.

Id

. NRC regulations establish protection standards for nuclear facilities,

including standards for the protection of members of the public.

Id

. Mr. Karpa went on to point

out that 10 C.F.R. §20 requires that radioactive materials released from a facility must not cause

the radioactive dose received by members of the public to exceed specified levels, as a result of

the release.

Id

. These levels are meant to protect public health and wellbeing. Mr. Karpa stated

that usually the release is a planned release and is done according to the established procedures

of the facility. Exh. 3. at 4. Mr. Karpa further testified that plant inspectors first verify that the

release will not exceed the dose limitations imposed by the NRC regulations.

Id

. Also, a pre-

release permit is issued for these releases, and the releases are monitored to confirm that they

actually conform to the prerelease plan.

Id

.

Agency’s Proposed Rules.

Mr. Karpa testified that Exelon will not object to Agency’s

proposed rules as currently written and offers no changes to the proposed rules. Exh. 3. at 4.

Mr. Karpa further testified that since the proposed rules only apply to reporting of unpermitted

releases of radionuclides under Section 13.6 of the Act, the vast majority of releases from Exelon

facilities would not be governed by the rule. Exh. 3. at 4-5. The majority of releases from

Exelon are controlled releases done under Exelon’s NRC license.

Id

. Mr. Karpa went on to

testify that Exelon anticipates that it will use the Section 1010.104 provision, which expressly

provides that the rules do not prevent or preclude reporting of radionuclides that are not required

---

10

to be reported under section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)), to voluntarily report

releases that are not governed by these rules.

Id

.

Mr. Karpa testified that in the event of a release at an Exelon station that cannot be

quantified for any reason, the release will be reported within the 24-hour notification process and

will be clarified with a report under Section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)). Tr.1 at

45. When asked about Exelon’s security concerns regarding the reports, Mr. Karpa testified that

there may be areas of the plants that are confidential and those reports would be submitted

indicating that there is sensitive information either by NRC or US computer requirements. Tr.1

at 46. Mr. Karpa also stated that they have filed such reports in the past when submitting

Exelon’s hydrogeologic investigations for each site.

Id

.

Mr. Karpa, when addressing the economic reasonableness of the proposed rule, stated

that nothing that Exelon is doing outside of their self-imposed groundwater or industry imposed

groundwater monitoring programs, would result in additional costs for Exelon at this point. Tr.1

at 48. Mr. Karpa testified that frequent inspections are already being conducted at the Exelon

facilities and the only other costs will be in providing information to IEMA and Agency when

they conduct their quarterly inspections, so the costs would be reasonable. Tr.1 at 49.

Mr. Karpa commented that, with regard to Mr. Cobb’s pre-filed testimony, Exelon does

not believe that calculating background using a single sample is necessary. Tr.2 at 9. Mr. Karpa

believes that the background calculation should be done using a much more scientific evaluation.

Id

.

DISCUSSION

Section 13.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)) was enacted by P.A. 94-849 and

amended by P.A. 95-066 (eff. Aug. 13, 2007). Section 13.6 regulates the release of

radionuclides and requires detection and reporting of unpermitted releases. 415 ILCS 5/13.6(a)

(2006). Unpermitted releases must be reported to the Agency and IEMA within 24 hours. 415

ILCS 5/13.6(b) (2006). Under Section 13.6, the Agency was required to propose rules to the

Board prescribing standards for detecting and reporting of unpermitted releases. The Agency

fulfilled the statutory obligation by proposing these rules to the Board. In addition, Section 13.6

of the Act (415 ILCS 5/13.6 (2006)) requires the Board to adopt the rules within one year of the

Agency’s proposal being filed. The Board proceeds to final notice today to ensure the timely

adoption of the rules.

Section 27 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2006)) provides, in part that:

the Board shall take into account the existing physical conditions, the character of

the area involved, including the character of the surrounding land uses, zoning

classification, the nature of the exiting air quality, or receiving body of water, as

the case may be, and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of

measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2006).

---

11

Although only one corporation is impacted by these rules, the rules apply statewide and will

apply to any successor corporation. Therefore, the rules are of general applicability and the

Board must determine whether the rules are technically feasible and economically reasonable.

At first notice, the Board determined that the inspection and detection procedures show

that the technical aspects of this proposed rule are already in place and that the detection devices

and employee training are already being utilized in the Exelon facilities. Thus, the Board found

that there would be no additional technological burden placed upon nuclear energy providers

through this rule. The Board further found that the inspections already performed at the facilities

assist in detecting unpermitted releases in a timely manner, which will be protective of the

environment and human health.

The Board found at first notice that based on the record before the Board, the rules are

economically reasonable and technically feasible. In addition, the Board found that the proposed

rules are protective of the environment and human health. As stated previously, the Board

received no additional public comment on this rulemaking during first notice. The Board

therefore found that proceeding to second notice with the rule as proposed at first notice was

warranted and the Board adopted the rule for second notice.

On April 15, 2008, JCAR voted to issue a certificate of no objection to the proposed

rules. JCAR did not make any suggestions for changes to the rule. Therefore, the rule adopted

by the Board is identical to the rule as proposed for second notice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the record before the Board, the Board finds that the rules are economically

reasonable and technically feasible. The Board also finds that the proposed rules will be

protective of the environment and human health. Therefore, the Board finds that the record

supports proceeding to final notice with these rules.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to cause the publication of the following rule for final notice

in the

Illinois Register

.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE I: ATOMIC RADIATION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 1010

PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING RELEASES OF RADIONUCLIDES AT NUCLEAR

POWER PLANTS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

---

12

1010.100

Purpose

1010.102

Applicability

1010.104

Scope

1010.106

Definitions

1010.108

Severability

SUBPART B: REPORTING

1010.200

Evaluation of Releases

1010.202

Reporting of Releases

1010.204

Follow-up Written Report

AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 13.6 and Section 27 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13.6, 27].

SOURCE: Adopted at 32 Ill. Reg. _________, effective _____________.

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1010.100

Purpose

This Part prescribes standards for detecting and reporting unpermitted releases of radionuclides

from nuclear power plants pursuant to Section 13.6 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Act) [415 ILCS 5/13.6].

Section 1010.102

Applicability

This Part applies to licensees of nuclear power plants that are required under Section 13.6 of the

Act to report an unpermitted release of a radionuclide.

Section 1010.104

Scope

This Part sets forth the procedures licensees of nuclear power plants must follow to satisfy their

obligation under Section 13.6 of the Act to report unpermitted releases of radionuclides to the

Agency and to IEMA. This Part addresses only the reporting of unpermitted releases of

radionuclides required under Section 13.6 of the Act. The requirements of this Part are

independent of, and do not replace or supersede, any other reporting requirements in state or

federal law or regulation. This Part does not prevent or preclude licensees from reporting

releases of radionuclides that are not required to be reported under Section 13.6 of the Act.

Section 1010.106

Definitions

Except as stated in this Section, or unless a different meaning of a word or term is clear from the

context, the definition of words or terms in this Part shall be the same as that applied to the same

words or terms in the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5].

---

13

“Act” means the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5].

“Agency” means the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

“Curie” or “Ci” means the quantity of radioactive material producing 37 billion nuclear

transformations per second.

"Groundwater" means underground water which occurs within the saturated zone and

geologic materials where the fluid pressure in the pore space is equal to or greater than

atmospheric pressure

. [415 ILCS 5/3.64]

“IEMA” means the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

“L” means liter.

“Licensee” means the holder of a license issued for a nuclear power plant under Chapter I

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

“Licensee controlled area” means the land or property that is owned, leased, or otherwise

controlled by the licensee.

“Picocurie” or “pCi” means the quantity of radioactive material producing 2.22 nuclear

transformations per minute. One pCi is one trillionth (10

-12

) of one curie.

"Person" is any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, company, limited liability

company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust, estate, political

subdivision, state agency, or any other legal entity, or their legal representative, agent,

or assigns.

[415 ILCS 5/3.315]

“Station generated liquids” means liquids used in, or as a part of, the power generation

process at a nuclear power plant and that contain, or potentially could contain, radionuclides.

“Surface water” means all water that is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff.

“Unpermitted release of a radionuclide” means any spilling, leaking, emitting,

discharging, escaping, leaching, or disposing of a radionuclide into groundwater,

surface water, or soil that is not permitted under State or federal law or regulation.

[415

ILCS 5/13.6(c)]. “Unpermitted release of a radionuclide” does not include the discharge

of a radionuclide from a point source at a designated process water or cooling water

outfall identified in the nuclear power plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System permit, provided the discharge is authorized in the nuclear power plant’s United

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating license.

1010.108

Severability

---