R1~CE~VFD

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA1~~ERK’S

OFFICE

DEC 22

2O~4

INTHEMATTEROF:

)

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

REVISIONS TO

RADIUM

QUALITY

)

R

04-2 1

STANDARDS: PROPOSED NEW

35

ILL. ADM

)

(Rulemaking—Water)

CODE 302.307 and AMENDMENTS TO

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.207 and

302.525

)

NOTICE

TO:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

SEE

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

I

have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board the

MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT

TO PREVENT MATERIAL PREJUDICE FROM GROSSLY MISLEADING

SUBMISSION IN THIS PROCEEDING,

a copy ofwhic

ewith served upon you.

~

Dated: December

22, 2004

GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS

Roy M. Harsch

Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP

191 North Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 569-1441

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

RE C

~VE !D

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLERK’S

OFFICE

CEC 22

2~4

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

REVISIONS TO RADIUM QUALITY

)

R 04-21

STANDARDS: PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM

)

(Rulemaking—Water)

CODE 3 02.307 and AMENDMENTS TO

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.207 and 302.525

)

MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT TO PREVENT

MATERIAL

THIS PROCEEDING

The

City of Joliet (“City”),

by its attorneys Gardner

Carton

& Douglas LLC and

pursuant to 35 Il. Adm. Code 102.108(b), moves to submit an additional public comment

to the Board in this proceeding. This comment is intended to respond to a grossly

misleading submission made during the public comment period to the Illinois Pollution

Control Board (“Board”) that would materially prejudice the City if allowed to remain

unrefuted in the record. In support thereof, the City states as follows:

1.

The City has been an active participant in this matter at the hearings and in

public comments, and has expended its own funds to put to the test technology by Water

Remediation Technologies (“WRT”) alleged to be the solution to the issue ofradium in

drinking water. The Cityhas also engaged a preeminent Certified Health Physicist, Mr.

Eli Port, to assist with comments to the Board.

2.

Mr. Port reviewed Public Comment Number 26 filedby WRT which

includes in part the December 7, 2004 letter from Dr. Adams. As set forth in Exhibit 1,

Mr. Port believes the analysis of Dr. Adams to be a gross misrepresentation ofapplicable

---

standards, unduly alarming and greatly exaggerated on the health risks, and unfounded by

reference to standard sources ofinformation. These include:

1.

Reliance upon an obsolete standard;

2.

Failure to use a tissue weighting factor;

3.

Relying upon a physical impossibility.

Mr. Port has specifically requested the opportunity to file an additional public comment,

which is attached to this motion as Exhibit 1.

3.

The City believes it would be materially prejudiced and the Board and

public maybe mislead if these comments were allowed to remain unrefuted in the record.

Section 102.108(d) ofBoard rules allow the hearing officer orthe Board to accept

comments filed outside the public comment period where material prejudice would result

if those comments were not permitted. 35 II. Adm. Code 102.108(d). The claims in this

comment were not made in the hearings and could consequently not be refuted.

4.

Mr. Port’s comments can only help the Board and the public to understand

the issues in this proceeding.

WHEREFORE, the City of Joliet moves the hearing officer or the Board to accept

the public comment ofMr. Port, attached to this

Dated: December 22, 2004

GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS

Roy M. Harsch

Sheila H. Deely

Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP

191 North Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 569-1441

CHO2/ 22357154.1

---

J?

5j5/

63/2 West Oakton Street

Morton Grove. IL 60053-2723

847-965- / 999

Fax 847- 965 /99/

December 22, 2004

Dennis Duffield, P.E., Director

Department of Public Works and Utilities

City of Joliet

921 Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

Dear Mr. Duffield:

I have read the misleading December 7, 2004, comments filed by

Water Remediation Technology’s Health Physicist, Theodore G.

Adams, and find that the gross errors and misstatements in the

filing require a response. The analyses in the Adams letter are

a misapplication of the science and principles of radiation

protection and are not supported by theory or fact. Their gross

exaggerations of public dose and the consequences may serve the

interests of Mr. Adams’ client but they do not serve the

interests of the public or of workers, whom they purport to

protect. I am requesting that you ask Roy Harsch to file this

letter with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)

The Adams letter ranges over a wide variety of issues in

addressing five subjects and contains analyses that are

unintelligible and scientifically unsupportable. In this letter

I address the first subject in the Adams letter,

Potency of

radium

particles and behavior in POTWs.

It is important to note that the Adams letter cites the concerns

of the NRC and the Agreement States. Illinois is an Agreement

State and the Division of Nuclear Safety of the Illinois

Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) is among the most respected

Agreement State programs in the country. It would be advisable

for the board to turn to IEMA for their input on public and

worker radiation safety. The chief of the Bureau of

Environmental Safety and other members of IEMA’s staff are

professionals certified by the American Board of Health Physics,

the certifying body for the profession of Radiation Protection.

An obvious failure of the Adams letter is the constant reference

to a dose of 320 mrem/hr, calculated from a standard that is no

longer used (Page 1)

.

Adams acknowledges that the current

standard averages dose over 10 cm2, but continues to refer to the

---

RSSI

Dennis Duffield

December 21, 2004

Page 2

dose calculated using an obsolete standard, one that averages

the dose over an area of 1 cm2 (Attachment 1, Page 4)

An additional defect in the Adams letter is the failure to use a

tissue weighting factor,

WT

for skin dose. The annual public

dose limit, 100 mrem, is for whole body exposure. When dose is

to the skin, a tissue weighting factor is used to normalize the

risk. Tissue weighting factors are intended to ensure that a

dose to various organs produces broadly the same degree of

detriment irrespective of the tissue or organ. The risk to an

individual depends upon which tissues or organs received a

radiation dose and the fraction of the organ that is involved.

The NCRP 60 weighting factor,

WT,

for the skin of the whole body

is 0.01. This may be further adjusted for the fraction of skin

of the whole body represented by 10 square cm.

The analysis in the Adams letter is predicated upon a three gram

bolus of hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) with a Ra-226

concentration of 70,000 pico curies per gram (pci g~’) passing

through a sewage treatment plant (Attachment 1, Page 3)

.

This

is without scientific basis and may result from a failure to

understand that the specific activity of a microscopic particle

is not representative of the specific activity of the mass in

which the particle may be found.

HMC is added to drinking water at the rate of 1 milligram per

liter in a radium removal process. The HMO with the attached

radium is collected on filters. As the HMO and other finely

divided particles accumulate on filters, the flow is inhibited

and it is necessary to backwash the filters. The backwashed

material is disposed of to the sanitary sewer system through

which it flows with other wastes to the wastewater treatment

plant.

In the wastewater treatment plant, the finely divided particles

are further mechanically mixed with other wastes and are

eventually removed in the sludge at the end of the treatment

process. It is not physically possible for the speculated three

gram mass of particles in the effluent of the drinking water

plant to flow through the sewer system, pass through the

wastewater treatment plant, and be reconstituted as a solid

bolus of concentrated material.

---

RSSI

Dennis Duffield

December 21, 2004

Page 3

Rather than hypothesizing a physically impossible solid bolus of

concentrated material, Mr. Adams should have used the actual

maximum concentration in Joliet sludge, 18.3 pCi g1. Working

the material into the soil would further reduce the

concentration. To be conservative, it is assumed that some

sludge material is not diluted by being mixed with soil and

could be on a skin surface. Using the skin dose conversion

factor from the Adams letter, the skin dose from 18.3 pCi g’ is

correctly calculated below.

Ra-226 concentration in sludge

=

18.3 pCi g’

Mass of sludge

=

3 g

Ra-226Area

overskinwhiledose doseconversionis averagedfactor

=

10(SDCF)cm2

=

0.25 rem hr’/pCi g’

=

0.01 Effective Dose/skin

=

2.5dosex i0~ mrem hr1/pci g1

18.3 pCi g’

•

3 g •2.5x104 mrem hr’/pci g’ cm1

•

0.01

=

l.4x105 mrem hr’

This results in a dose of10

cm8.4x102

5 mrem in a six hour period

rather than the 32 mrem or 320 mrem repeatedly stated by Adams.

Thus, Adams exaggerated the skin dose to the public by more than

five orders of magnitude and Adams also overstates the risk.

Adams repeatedly refers to unnecessary risks of skin cancer and

lesions. The risk of skin cancer from the dose he calculated is

essentially zero. Lesions and other acute effects have never

been reported from doses in the range of Adams’ calculations.

As in the case of his gross exaggeration of skin dose, Adams

similarly uses a concentration that is not supportable in

calculating internal dose. Using his method and the correct

conservative sludge concentration, the internal dose resulting

from the ingestion of two grams of sludge containing 18.3 pCi g’

Ra-226 is calculated below.

---

•

•

RSSI

Dennis Duffield

December 21, 2004

Page 4

CEDE

=

5 rem x 2g x 1.83 x i0~pCi g’/2 j.iCi

=

9.2 x 10~rem, or 0.092 mrem

The public dose from ingestion of sludge is more than three

orders of magnitude lower than the exaggerated 350 mrem Adams

value (Page 1)

Later, toward the end of his letter, Adams returns to the

subject of the potency of radium particles and their behavior in

POTW5. Mr. Adams first discusses the impact from uranium in

Kiski Valley, Pennsylvania. He fails to mention that the

incident he described resulted from the processing of nuclear

fuel. He also omits the fact that on June 22, 2004, prior to

the date of his letter, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

determined that the ash described by Mr. Adams could be released

for unrestricted use (SECY—04—0/02)

.

It is difficult to relate

the release of material from the processing of nuclear fuel to

the release of radium in concentrations found in well water.

Mr. Adams goes on to discuss the release, in Ohio, of one to two

grams of cobalt 60 (Co-60)

.

He fails to disclose that the

specific activity of Co-60 is 1100 curies per gram and that the

activity of cobalt 60 released in Ohio was at least several

thousand curies. Again, it is difficult to correlate this

release, thousands of curies of Co-60, with the release of

radium in the concentrations in well water. The discussions of

these releases can only serve to mislead the Board.

The above assessments demonstrate that the Adams letter is not

credible based upon its lead subject. Other sections also may

prove to be fatally flawed. It may be best if the Board ignores

the Adams letter and seeks IEMA’s counsel on issues of public

and worker radiation safety. Please call me at 847-965-1999 if

you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Eli A. Port, CHP, CIH, P.E.

H:\HOME\400001 Health Physics\Joliet\comments on Adams 20041207 letterhead.doc

---

the following:

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 WestRandolph Street, Suite 11-600

Chicago, Illinois 60601

and

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35 East WackerDrive, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Matthew J.

Dunn

Office ofthe Attorney General

188 West Randolph,

20th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Amy

Antoniolli

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Claire A. Manning

Posegate & Denes

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

6001 W. Pershing Road

Dennis L. Duffleld

Department ofPublic Works & Utilities

Joliet, Illinois 60431

Stanley Yonkauski

Illinois Department of

Natural

Resources

Office ofthe Attorney General

188 West Randolph,

20th Floor

William Seith

Total Environmental Solutions

631 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 315

8 East Main Street

Lisa Frede

2250 E. Devon Avenue, Suite 239

Letissa Carver Reid

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606-6404