)
)
)
)
)
)
)
R04-2
1
Rulemaking
-
Water
CLERK’S OFF~E
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
U ~
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ~LLh~OIS
PoUuttofl Control Board
iN THE MATTER OF:
REVISIONS
TO RADIUM WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS:
PROPOSED
NEW
35
ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307
AND AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL. ADM1N.
CODE 302.207 AND
302.525
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on January 4,
2005,
we filed with the
Office of the
Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
an
original
and ten copies of the
attached
OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO SUBMIT COMMENTS FILED BY THE CITY OF JOLIET ON DECEMBER
22, 2004,
a copy ofwhich is served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois
60606
(312) 876-8000
WATER
By:
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CLERi’g
O~CE
BEFORE THE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
fl
!~
~
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE
OF ILLI~iS
Pollution Control ~oarc~
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
)
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
)
QUALITY STANDARDS:
PROPOSED
)
R04-21
NEW 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307
)
Rulemaking
-
Water
AND
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL. ADMIN.
)
CODE 302.207
AND
302.525
)
OPPOSITION TOMOTION TOSUBMIT COMMENTS FILEDBY THE
CITYOFJOLIET ON DECEMBER
22, 2004
Water Remediation Technology LLC (“WRT”) through its attorneys, hereby objects to
the Motion filed on December 22, 2004, by the City ofJoliet
to
file “additional public comment.”
The rhetoric used by the City and its
consultant is grossly inappropriate and should be struck
from the record in this proceeding.
The City ofJoliet
is attempting, at this late date, to insert
facts without an affidavit that were the subject oftestimony at the August and October hearings,
and included in pre-filed testimony each time.
The City had the opportunity to present the
witness who now professes to be complaining.
For the following reasons, the Motion should be
denied and the proffered public comment stricken from the record.
In support ofthis Objection,
WRT states as follows:
1.
The Board’s procedural rules require that a Motion that relies on evidence that is
not ofrecord must be supported by affidavit or certification.
35 IAC
101.504.
That was not
done here.
Moreover, the “facts” asserted in the Motion and in the “Exhibit” are so rife with
misstatements that the lack ofsworn testimony is not surprising.
On the other hand, if the Board
chooses to consider this late public comment, then WRT requests that the Board also consider
the response ofMr. Ted Adams.
(Attachment
1 hereto; hereafter
“Adams Letter”)
2.
The “Exhibit” on which Joliet relies is a letter from a Mr. Eli Port.
In it, he
challenges
one point made in the December 8 Public Comment submitted by Mr. Ted Adams:
Adams calculation ofthe radioactive potency ofan HMO particle. (Hereafter Adams December
Comment).
Port also makes factual assertions relating to the North East Ohio Regional Sewage
District (“NEORSD”) POTW and the Kiski Valley POTW.
These are issues as to which Mr.
Adams has provided pre-filed testimony in August, and been subject to examination at various
times over 3
days ofhearings, by Board members, Board assistants, the Agency counsel and
even Joliet’s lawyer.
The assertions made by Mr. Port relating to these three issues are
misleading and incomplete.
3.
With respect to
the NEORSD situation,
it is not clear where he had obtained his
information.
His claim, that “the activity
...
was at least several thousand curies,” is not only
without any documented support, it is
incorrect for several reasons.
a)
The NEORSD assessedhow much radiation had been disposed ofinto the
sewer system over the 20 year period at issue.
The total mass found was less than
0.5
Curies.
(See Adams October pre-filed testimony, Ex
14, p
4 and Attachment F).
This
documentation comes from the report done for NEORSD as part of its clean-up efforts.
b)
The NRC and agreement states prohibit the release into a sewer ofmore
than
1
curie per year.
(10 CFR 20.2003).
There is no evidence that the licensee released
any more than what it was authorized to do by the regulations,
a fact brought out by the
hearings and Adams Letter,
p. 9.
2
c)
The quotations
from Mr. Lenhard ofNEORSD in the Adams December
Comment, p. 4,
clearlyindicate that a “tiny fraction ofan ounce, a gram or two” was the
cause ofcontamination of 174,000 cubic yards ofash and ofthe millions in clean-up
costs incurred by NEORSD.
(See Adams Letter, p 9.)
4.
With respect to the Kiski
Valley, PA situation,
there is one citation given, but Mr.
Port’s use ofit is grossly misleading.
a)
The action taken by the NRC is ajurisdictional
step.
The Kiski
Valley
POTW is still subject to PADEP requirements, which will
“only” cost about $1 million.
(See Exhibit 4, p. 4;
August hearing transcript at 13; Adams Letter, pp.
8-9).
b)
According to the PADEP, they would NOT allow the Kiski Valley POTW
to land applythis sludge,
as asserted by Mr.
Adams’ August testimony and recently
confirmed.
(See Adams January Letter, p. 9.)
c)
The uranium released to the Kiski sewer system was from anNIRC
licensed fuel fabrication/research facility/laundry, not “from the processing ofnuclear
fuel”.
There
is a big difference. (Id).
5.
Mr. Adams is directly involved in working with the Kiski Valley and the
NEORSD POTWs on the problems they have encountered in receiving radioactive solids.
He
has seen first hand the substantial costs and
damage caused by levels ofradiation approximately
0.58 Ci in Kiski
Valley and
0.5
in NEORSD released over decades
that could easily appear in
Illinois’ POTWs Joliet
produces 0.3
Ci per year
The NRC amended its rules to prohibit
discrete radioactive particles from being flushed down the sewer.
(See generally, Exhibit 4,
3
Attachment B).
IEMA has the same rule in place 32
JAC 340.1030(a)
which WRT has
specifically recommended to the Board for adoption here.
6.
Mr. Port appears
to not appreciate the non-homogeneous nature ofthese discrete
particles, such as those that can be formed by the HMO process.
The Kiski
sludge levels vary
from 2.6
to 923 pCi/g illustrating the non-homogeneous nature ofradioactive solids. They are
not evenly distributed
as Mr. Port would calculate at his desk.
And he has given no such
qualifications showing any familiarity with these issues.
The superficial nature ofhis comments
on these two situations, and the mistakes made in his reports
submitted in November suggests he
is lacking in applicable knowledge and maynot have read the exhibits ortranscripts ofthis
proceeding.
7.
The other topic areaMr. Port addresses is the calculation done in Attachment 2 to
Mr. Adams December Comment.
Inthat comment, Mr. Adams presents his assumptions and.
calculations in painstaking detail to document the conclusion that an individual exposed to a
discrete radioactive particle could be exposed to a years’ worth ofallowable radiation.
He
provides sufficient detail that the reader could follow the assumptions made and decide if they
agreed with them or not.
The rhetoric ofMr. Port
is inappropriate.
Nevertheless, Mr. Adams
response to these assertions
is attached and the Board is invited to consider them.
But consider
these facts:
a)
In his December Comment, Mr. Adams does the calculations,
presents the
alternative ways oflooking at conservative risk factors, and reports a calculated dose
based on those assumptions.
Obviously, if one changes those assumptions, the resulting
calculation can be changed.
But to
call that “grossly misleading” and “gross errors and
misstatements” is ridiculous.
4
b)
Some ofthe assertions Port makes are patently not correct.
He claims that
18.3 pCi/g is the “actual maximum concentration in Joliet sludge” when the record in this
proceeding shows that another Joliet treatment plant had a value of 47.2 pCilg.
These are
the
oniy
two samples Joliet claims to have ever taken ofits sludge!
With only two
samples one
ofwhich is higher
how can any scientist say that
18 pCi/g is
“the actual
maximum?” Moreover, the IEPA/JEMA document included as Exhibit
11
in this
proceeding estimated sludge concentrations of94.5 and 98.4 pCi/g for the two Joliet
plants!
And one would expect that once treatment ofthe groundwater supply begins, if
the water treatment plant filtrate is flushed down the sewer as suggested by Port
that the
levels in the sludge would only increase as the radium is taken out of the water supply.
Port ignores all ofthese factors in his letter.
c)
There also appears to be a unit error in his skin and ingestion dose
calculations, as noted by Mr. Adams January Letter, p. 6.
d)
Mr. Adams has had first hand experience with the effects ofthese discrete
particulates.
He was aware and disclosed the recent “assumption” that NRC would allow
in calculating dose.
But he questions whetherthis new assumption
-
which is based on
testing using pig’s skin
-
will stand further evaluations particularly as applied to risk
to
children..
(See Adams Letter, p. 4).
Moreover,
in this context, where there remains a
choice as to what standards to set for new drinking water treatment facilities, why would
an agency encourage the spreading of this carcinogen, when it is technically feasible to
remove it and there is no
evidence that
suchtechnology is economically unreasonable!
ALARA As
Low As Reasonably Achievable
would require no
less.
(Id. pp
4-5).
5
8.
For all ofhis rhetoric, Port never defends the mistakes exposed by Mr. Adams’
simple and understated critique ofMr. Port’s reports. (See, Adams December Comments, Page 2,
and Attachment 2).
Mr. Adams identified several questions that go to the assumptions and basis
used by Mr. Port in documents submitted by Joliet on November 22 and ostensibly prepared by
him.
It appears that a review ofthese comments show that the Port documents submitted in
Novemberby Joliet confuse the eastside and westside plants, have different calculations ofthe
amount of waste disposed,
and lack references.
Perhaps most embarrassing to Mr. Port are the
comments on Page 8 ofAttachment 2 ofAdams December Comments.
On this page, Mr.
Adams identifies statements that were made by Mr. Port that are not true.
Mr. Adams documents
his statements with references
--
Mr. Port has not responded.
And the “expert” Mr. Port,
stated
that Ra228 was an alpha emitter; that
is not true
--
it is a beta emitter.
(Id., p.8.)
Port has also
not responded to this point.
9.
Having gone to
the effort and expense ofpreparing a late comment, allegedly to
protect the City ofJoliet from “material prejudice”, it is startling what Joliet and Port DO NOT
dispute.
Given these admissions, the proposed comment is not going to
solve any “prejudice”
to
the City:
a)
Mr. Port is endorsing the use ofsome IEMA rules.
WRT agrees that
IEMA has appropriatejurisdiction here and has filed permit applications before IEMA.
(See Exhibit 17).
In its December 8 Public Comment, WRT has also
urged the Board to
include the IEMA prohibition on releasing discrete radioactive particles down the sewer,
as provided in 32 IAC 340.1030(a).
The
Sierra Club also
stated its
proposed water
quality standard is premised on
“the assumption that the radium is present in a soluble
form” and urges the IEPA and the TPCB
“to take measures to
ensure that highly
6
radioactive particulates are not released to Illinois waterways.”
Post-Hearing Comment
of Sierra Club
and Environmental Law and Policy Center, at II.C, p.
9. The IEMA
comment even cites the same rule, but on another sub-paragraph.
But Joliet appears to
want something different
-
to reserve the right to choose HMO technology and discharge
radioactive particles into its
own sewer system, and without IEMA oversight.
b)
Mr. Port does not contradict Mr. Adams’ calculation which shows that,
with an influent to Joliet’s plants of
5
pCi/l, Joliet would barelymeet the existing MOA
level of0.1
pCi/g for applying radium contaminated sludge to crop lands.
Clearly,
radioactive particles cannot be backwashed into the Joliet POTWs and still meet this
limitation. (Adams December Comment, Attachment 6.)
c)
Port does not explain where the missing 0.2 Ci per year ofradium have
gone in Joliet.
(See Adams December Comment,
Attachment 3).
Is it in the facilities and
pipes? Is it going into the waters? Is there more going onto
the croplands than what is
represented by the sludge testing?
This is a substantial amount ofradiation to be
unaccounted for;
something that neither the NRC nor IEMA would allow their licensees
to do.
d)
Port also does not contradict the conclusion of Adams’ Attachment
5
that
the Joliet Westside plant is exceeding the sludge application rate agreed upon by IEMA
and IEPA.
e)
Port does not explain what happened to the testing data on the West Side
plant that Mr. Duffield testified at the October 22 hearing had been done.
Mr. Duffield
claimed that report showed conditions in that plant were below the levels projectedby the
7
generalized ISCORS model presented in August by Mr. Adams. (October 21
hearing,
transcript at
393).
But there was no such report submitted by the City ofJoliet in their
November22,
2004, filing,
a fact noted by Mr. Adams.
(Adams December Comment,
p.
2).
But Mr. Port is
apparently not concerned
about that and even at this very late date,
we still don’t have that report that Mr. Duffield promised.
(October 22 transcript at 408).
f)
The submission by Mr. Port relies on dilution to solve the exposure issue
relating to radiumparticles.
He admits that the HMO particles are caught on a filter.
He
does not dispute that these particles may range from 10,000 pCi/g orup to
70,000 pCi/g.
But he would have these “disposed ofinto the sanitary system through which it flows
with other wastes to the wastewater treatment plant.”
(Port letter p 2).
These discrete
particles are at levels that could not even be disposed ofin a low level radioactive waste
facility. (See,
Ex
5,
p.
7, figure 3, and August transcript at
35).
g)
Mr. Port does not challenge the existing Memorandum ofAgreement
(“MOA”) limitation of0.1
pCi/g in sludge applied to crop
lands, nor does he challenge
the
5
pCi/g cleanup standard adopted by U.S. EPA and Illinois for West Chicago.
While
it may be that IBMA licensees may discharge 60 pCi/L into a POTW, that does not mean
that the POTW can spread whatever level of radiation it chooses onto crop land, as
documented by a simple calculation.
(E.g. Adams December
Comments, Attachment 6).
A
5
pCi/L level in the incoming level to a POTW, with a 50 percent removal rate in the
treatment plant,
the sludge will barely qualify under the 0.1
pCi/g limitation contained in
the existing MOA. (Id).
8
10.
Mr. Port endorses some of IEMA’s regulations, while ignoring the prohibition on
disposal ofradioactive particles.
The levels ofradium removed from drinking water in cities like
Joliet are not trivial.
They are substantial and should be subject to
the same safety procedures
that other similar sources ofradioactivity are
For example, IEMA rules
require that any licensee
possessing more than 100 uCi ofradium is a “major possessor”
(32 JAC 426.40),
and that
a
licensee must post signs for employees warning ofradiation hazards where there is more than
1
uCi ofradioactive material.
(Id. 340.920).
At the levels recorded forJoliet that amount of
radiation will accumulate
at each well
in less than two days! (Adams Letter, p 6).
We think
these standards are relevant, and perhaps Mr. Port does too.
11.
There is no
“material prejudice” to
Joliet here.
Joliet participated in all
3 days of
hearings attended by Mr. Adams, and had ample opportunity to examine him.
This late motion
appears as much designed to counter the reality ofradioactive solids having significant health
implications, whether in a POTW or in croplands.
Joliet promised to provide data on testing Mr.
Port had done at its west side plant.
That report is still missing.
12.
One fact should be clear from the instant Motion
-
the decision on what to do with
the residue from the drinking water treatment is a crucial issue.
(See August transcript
at 10).
The type oftreatment facilities that can safely meet the drinking water standard is relevant to this
proceeding; we believe the Board should take that issue into account if it chooses to proceed on
this record.
13.
WRT and Mr. Adams have participated in these rulemaking proceedings.
Mr.
Port has not been made available at any ofthe hearings, though he was under contract with Joliet
and had submitted a draft report before the October hearings were held.
We are concerned that
Joliet
is attempting to avoid any examination ofMr. Port, by the Board,
by the Agency, by the
9
Sierra Club, by the public, or by WRT.
IfJoliet is different from other communities, it can
always initiate its
own proceeding.
Or it can ask for another hearing, at which time Mr. Port’s
“opinions” can be
examined.
But seeking to file a late comment, claiming “material prejudice”
in these circumstances, is not appropriate.
WHEREFORE, WRT requests that the Board deny the Motion to File Additional Public
Comment to Prevent Material Prejudice from Grossly Misleading sic
Submission
in this
Proceeding, filed by the City ofJoliet dated December 22, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC
By:
I~
One of its Attorneys
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-8000
11820878
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney,
certifies that he/she has served upon the individuals named
on the attached Notice ofFiling true and correct copies of
OPPOSITION TO MOTIONFILED
BY THE CITY OF JOLIET ON DECEMBER
22, 2004,
by First Class
Mail, postage prepaid,
on January 4, 2005.
SERVICE LIST
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Deborah J. Williams
Stefanie N. Diers
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Stanley Yonkauski
Acting General Counsel
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62701
Roy M. Harsch
Sasha M. Engle
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive
Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606-1698
Amy Antoniolli
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Joel J. Sternstein, Assistant Attorney General
Matthew J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office ofthe Illinois Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph
20t~~
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water ReclamationDistrict
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes
111
North Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
R04-21
Lisa Frede
CICI
2250 East Devon Avenue
Suite 239
Des Plaines, IL
60018
William
Seith
Total Environmental Solutions
631
East Butterfield Road
Suite
315
Lombard, IL 60148
Albert F. Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35
East Wacker Drive
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
John McMahon
Wilkie & McMahon
8 East Main Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Dennis L. Duffield
City ofJoliet
Department ofPublic Works and Utilities
921
East Washington Street
Joliet, IL 60431
Abdul Khalique
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
6001
West Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
ni
—fr
T. G.
ADAMS
and ASSOCIATES, INC.
11
West Main Street
Springville,
NY
14141
(716)592-3431
FAX(7l6)592-3439
January
4, 2005
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
West
Randolph
Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
R04-21
Rulemaking
-
Water
Dear Ms. Antoniolli:
Over the last several months, I have attended three
days ofhearings; reviewed hundreds
if not thousands ofpages ofmaterial and testimony, provided sworn testimony and have
undergone examination by the IPCB, IEPA and other interested parties.
During this time,
I have openlyand honestly expressed my concerns regarding the IEPA proposed rule
change.
The areas that I have covered to facilitate an understanding of my concerns were
based on my real hands-on experience or involvement with contaminated POTWs and the
associated regulatory,
financial and liability burdens that were associated with these
unfortunate, yet preventable events.
To assist the IPCB, IEPA and the public to gaina better
understanding ofthe potential
impacts ofthe proposed rule change, I tried to provide a “Big Picture” view.
I provided
this “Big Picture” because, in my opinion, to fully understand the potential impacts
related to the revisions to the existing water quality standard (the back-end ofthe
treatment process) one needs to examine the release of the radioactive particulate material
from the water treatment to the POTW and to the resultant sludge or effluent (the front-
end ofthe process).
The bottom line
is to evaluate the whole process and focus on
impacts due to the high activity radium particulates released to the sewer.
It is the
insoluble particulates that are the major concernhere, not the type ofwater treatment
process, the type ofthe radionuclide, or the type ofPOTW.
To me the answer is a simple
one, if one prohibits the discharge of insoluble radioactive (including radium) particulates
down the sewer, then one doesn’t have to worry about the impacts to the POTW worker,
or what concentration is in the sludge and how much can be
spread on a landfill, or what
are the impacts to the child playing in the field.
Thus, my testimony addressed topics
such as:
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4,
2005
Page -2-
-
Detailed background and history ofthe POTWs that were contaminated because of
radioactive particulates being allowed to be discharged downthe sanitary sewers
-
Efforts that were undertaken by the GAO, AMSA, and ISCORS to provide first time
information regarding the amounts ofradioactive (including NORM) particulate material
coming into the POTWs
and potential impacts on
POTW workers and on the public
which resides on contaminated sludge augmented soil.
I also presented that neither of
these agencies examined the specific impacts to a unique situation, the release of
concentrated radioactive particulates down the sanitary sewers
-
NRC and agreement states (including Illinois) efforts to
address the POTW
contamination issues by promulgating a “no insoluble material down the sewers”
requirement in their respective radiation protection standards and the universally accepted
and NRC and agreement state requirement for maintaining all radiation exposures As
LowAs Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
-
Potential impacts of the radioactive radium material on the aquatic biota using a DOE
standard and the Biota Dose methodology.
I also presented data from a reputable Florida
organization for several Florida lake ecosystems which demonstrated that it is possible to
exceed the DOE protective standard for aquatic organisms (i.e. mussels)
-
Recommendations and concerns from the US EPA regarding howto handle water
treatment residuals/sludge (i.e. don’t apply radium treatment residuals to
the soil
as an
augmentation agent unless the treatment residauls provide
a clear benefit.
-
Comparison and related discrepancies betweenJEPA and Joliet POTW data/calculations
regarding Radium activities in the sludge.
There is a significant difference of .2 Ci that
needs to be addressed
-
Comparison ofthe Joliet pre-HMO particulates (i.e. pre-radium particulates) being
released down the sewer and into the sludge
-
Comparison ofthe Joliet radium sludge concentrations and the IEMA limit of 0.1
pCi/g
and identification that little
to no sampling (until most recently) ofthe radium
concentrations in the POTW sludge and in the Illinois fields where contaminated sludge
has been placed
Therefore, I strongly encourage
the IEPA, JEMA and responsible water treatment
and
POTW facilities to work together to examine the “Big Picture” and do what is right, take
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4, 2005
Page -3-
the appropriate action to prohibit the discharge ofradioactive radium particles down the
sewer.
Response to Mr.
Port’s letter (Mr. Harsch’s filing
dated December 22, 2004)
Since part ofmy testimony and
public comments (December 7, 2004)
have been
challenged by the City ofJoliet and their consultant citing words such as “misleading”,
“misapplication”, “unintelligible and scientifically unsupported”, “gross exaggeration” to
name a few, I am compelled to provide responses to the motion filed by Mr. Harsh dated
December 22, 2004.
First of all, as part of my involvement with the proposed JEPA rule change and the
related hearings, I haveprovided my testimony in both documented and verbal form.
The
IPCB, JEPA, members of the public and other interested parties were provided ample
opportunity to examine me directly.
Second ofall, I don’t have an agendato “serve the
interests ofmy client” at the expense of“serving the interests ofthe public or ofthe
POTW workers”.
On the contrary, my experience working with AMSA, ISCORS, and
several POTWs
and working side by side with their workers, interfacing and negotiating
with representatives ofthe NRC an agreement state (Ohio) and
a soon to
be agreement
state (Pennsylvania), as well as my experience in cleaning up contaminated sites and
receiving unrestricted release from the NRC or agreement state
and my close working
relationship with the concerned public, has allowed me to
see the broad picture from
several client, regulatory,
worker, and public perspectives.
Simply put, I have been there, done that,
got the T-shirt and continue to wear it.
At no
time were my efforts intended to be misleading, gross exaggerations or anything to the
like.
If there is/was a perceived opinion that my testimony or public comment was such,
then perhaps further explanation is required on my part orperhaps my intended
communication point(s) were not fully understood by the receiving party.
Certainly, I did
not repeat all ofmy prior testimony when I prepared the comments that Mr Port has
apparently reviewed.
General
Comment
On the first page ofMr. Port’s letter to Mr. Duffield dated December 22,
2004, Mr. Port
states “The Adams letter ranges over a wide variety ofissues in addressing five subjects
containing analyses that are unintelligible
and scientifically unsupported.
In this letter, I
address the first subject in the Adams letter,
Potency ofRadium Particles and Behavior in
POTWs
“.
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4, 2005
Page -4-
Response
With that statement, I conclude that Mr. Port has chosen this topic (only one ofthe five
subjects) because he has concerns over this topic and has chosen to not address my
comments in the other four subjects.
Calculation of Dose to
Skin
and Ingestion from Discrete Radium Particles
Pages
1
through 3 ofMr. Port’s Letter
Comment
On these pages Mr. Port attempts to criticize my presentation of potential skin and
ingestion doses to a child playing in a field augmented with high activity particulate
radium contaminated sludge.
I believe five points address and/or answer his comments.
Response
First, I did include both standards, a rather detailed history, and
both calculations.
The
purpose
was to show the IPCB, IEPA and others that for over 40 years the issue of hot
particles and their potential impact to the
skin has been debated.
Regulations were
established by the NRC and had been in effect for several years that required licensees to
determine the skin dose based on an area of
1cm2.
Only recently (2002), was a
revision
to that requirement implemented by the NRC which now allows the dose to be
averaged
over a
10 cm2 area.
In this situation, where the Board is adopting a prospective regulation, I believe that the
Board needs to
understand the scientific uncertainty relating to this
issue.
Significant
information has been reviewed by national and international radiation agencies and
individual researchers regarding the appropriate area to use and
what dose to the
skin
actually causes an impact (fatal and non-fatal skin cancers, erythema reddening
or
tinting ofskin,
epidermal necrosis
cell
killing,
acute ulceration break
in the skin which
forms a scab,
and dermal thinning slight
depressions in the skin).
Most ofthe research
has beenbased on the use ofpig’s skin as well as some in-vivo animal studies and in-
vitro cell
transformation studies to correlate dose to impact.
Whether pig’s skin
is a
suitable substitute for a child’s skin, has yet to be demonstrated.
There continues to be a debate as to whether these “hot particles”, sometimes known as
“discrete radioactive parrticles” and in my calculation, represented by HMO particles,
should have an enhanced carcinogenicity factor.
In my opinion the answer isn’t yet
final.
More research will be conducted
and the discussions will likely to continue.
In
the meantime, why do we want to expose individuals ofthe public (especially children)
to radioactive particles when we have the ability to prevent it?
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4, 2005
Page
-5-
This goes against the basic radiation protection principle of ALARA, which is to
maintain radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable (economic and social
factors being taken into account).
Furthermore, our fundamental radiation protection
framework, the foundation which we use to establish our standards, protection guides,
levels and limits,
is based on thepremise that any dose received as a result ofexposure
involves some incremental risk.
The second issue raised by Mr Port I.also believe is not a fair characterization ofmy
calculations and presentation.
I did not compare the results ofmy skin dose calculations
toa whole body dose.
I clearly stated that the dose was to “that area in a 6-hr period” If I
had intended to correlate the potential skin dose to the whole body a tissue weighting
factor (Wt) would have been used.
In regard to this comment, there was no intent to
“mislead by using an obsolete
standard”.
I believe I clearly presented both standards and attempted to educate the
audience on such.
Third, there seems to be some misunderstanding by Mr. Port regarding my presentation
and assumptions pertaining to the
3 gram ofradium particulates.
It was not my intent nor
do I believe I communicated that a 3
gram bolus ofHMO/radium particles ofa
concentration of70,000 pCi/g would pass through the sewage treatment plant. The
POTW process concentrates radioactive particulates into the sludge or ash as a matter of
its operation and objective (to remove solids out ofwater).
As part ofthat process, I have
experienced in my working with POTWs, re-concentration ofradioactive particulates in
the resultant sludge/ash/grit.
Thus, the radioactive material in the sludge! ash or grit is
not homogenous, but made up ofdiscrete high activity particles.
The actual distribution
ofthe particles depends on the POTW treatment and handling process.
I have
seen
instances with several particles aggregated together which when analyzed, contained
hundreds to thousands ofpCi ofactivity.
I have even experienced an aggregate of
particles in a golf ball size clay-like mass.
All ofthese materials have gone through the
rigorous POTW treatment and handling process and some have survived even through
incineration.
Based on these experiences, I used a 3
gram aggregate ofhigh radium particulate activity
for the potential skin dose (and a 2 gram aggregate for the potential ingestion dose) to
show what could be the potential dose to a child under these circumstances and
documented assumptions.
I understand that other individuals may have differences of
opinions regarding my experience and assumptions and I am respectful ofthose opinions
whether I agree with them or not.
I do not perceive them to by their nature misleading or
mis-applications or gross exaggerations.
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4, 2005
Page -6-
Fourth, I do not agree with Mr. Port’s use ofthe 18.3 pCi/g radium concentration in his
skin dose or ingestion dose calculations for the following reasons:
1)
This concentration
is not the “actual maximum concentration in Joliet sludge”. In
Mr. Port’s earliertestimony, Exhibit 4 ofMr. Harsch’s filing dated November 24,
2004, he presents as part ofhis RESRAD Dose modeling a maximum radium
concentration from the Joliet Westside Plant of47.2 pCi/g.
The
18.3 pCi/g is
reported for the Eastside Plant.
This is in comparison to the JEPA radium sludge
concentrations for Joliet’s Eastside and Westside Plants ofapproximately 94.5
and 98.4 pCi/g, respectively.
There is a significant difference here that needs to
be addressed.
2)
The
18.3
p Ci/g value represents pre-HMO treatment and release conditions.
It
does not reflect sludge concentrations with radium particulates:contained within,
as I believe based on my experience will be the case.
3)
I believe there is a “unit “error in his skin and ingestion dose calculations.
I
believe the units for the skin dose conversion factor is rem/hr/uCi/cm2_rather than
rem/hr/uCi/g..or.rem/hr!uCi!glcm.
In his calculation for ingestion, I believe the
unit for activity should be
1.83
x
10-5 ~j/g
rather than
1.83
x
10-5 ~~j/g.
Fifth, I disagree with the suggestion that the risk posed by
radioactive materials
represented by the Joliet situation is not substantial..
According to IEPA, Joliet pumps
16
MGD ofdrinking water.
At an average of13.3 pCi/l, this is 804.448 micro Curies/day
16
MOD x 3.785
liters per gallon x 13.3 pCi/i.
A
“major possessor” ofradium is one
who is
licensed to
use, possess or store
100 micro Curies of radium.
32 IAC
326.40.
A
typical
1000 gpm well processing
13.3 pCi/I waterwould accumulate 72.49 micro Curies
per day.
Thus, in less than a day and a half, each such well would
be a “major
possessor”.
And by comparison to the quantityofradiation that caused the problems in Ohio
and
Pennsylvania, the quantity is “major”.
JEPA calculates the quantity ofradiation in Joliet
to be about 0.3 Ci per year.
For NEORSD, about
0.5
Ci had to be remediated from 20
years ofsewer discharge and Kiski Valley now has 0.58 Ci to remeidate,
resulting, from
at least 20 years ofdischarge.
Turning the naturally occurringradium into “hot” discrete
radioactive particles, or “techically enhanced” NORM, could create future problems for
Illinois’ POTWs, the state, and the affected citizens.
In summary, my analysis
clearly showed it was based on a “hot” or discrete radioactive
particle, not on the diluted or overall blended average in
sludge,
These are the kinds of
particles that represent the greatest risk.
These are the kinds ofparticles I have seen in
my experience, causing substantial damage to POTWs.
And these are the kinds of
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4,
2005
Page -7-
particles that the NRC, and the POTWs with whom I have worked, have banned from
being sent down the sewers into a POTW.
Feedback from NEORSD
and
KISKI
POTW Representatives
Page 4 ofMr. Port’s Letter
Pertaining to
KISKI
Comment
Mr. Port states on this page that “he (Adams) fails to mention that the incident he
described resulted from the processing ofnuclear fuel.
He omits the fact that on June 22,
2004, prior to the date ofhis letter, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that
the ash described by Mr. Adams could be released forunrestricted use (SECY-04-0/02)”
Response
I am very aware ofthe NRC deèision and the
status ofthe KISKI situation since I was
involved in with this sitejust after the discovery and notification by the Pennsylvania
environmental authorities ofthe uranium contaminated ash in the lagoon in 1994. For
almost
10 years I have been directly involved in characterization, remediation planning,
and
interface and negotiations with the NRC, PADEP, KISKI and the party responsible
for releasing the uranium to. the KISKI sewers.
Early in the project after adequate
characterization data was available, I proposed and personally sought, through the
application ofthe RESRAD
dose assessment methodology,
to have the site accepted by
the NRC for unrestricted release (i.e. meet the 25 mRem/yr NRC criteria). The NRC at
that time did not agree with that assessment and proceeded to perform additional
evaluations and 3-D modeling ofthe site.
After a number ofyears ofdiscussions,
meetings, and additional evaluation, the NRC finally made its
decision to allow the ash to
be released forunrestricted use on June 22, 2004.
However, please note that while the NRC may consider this material to be released for
unrestricted use, the final decisionrests with the PADEP.
My discussions with the
PADEP KISKI Project Representative identified that this decision is at least6~months
away.
Both the radiological and waste management sections ofPADEP must be fully
satisfied with the proposed remediation and ultimate disposal at a local PADEP permitted
landfill.
There will also be a public comment and public hearing on the proposed
remediation/disposal plan.
The total volume ofcontaminated ash at Kiski
is 12,000 cubic yards.
The uranium
concentration ofthe ash ranges from 2.6
to
923 pCi/g, with an average total uranium
Ms. Amy Antoniolli
January 4, 2005
Page -8-
concentration of78.7 pCi/g.
It has taken over 10 years to address the impact ofthe
release of0.58 Ci ofinsoluble uranium particulates
down the Kiski sewer.
The PADEP Representative also
confirmed my understanding that this material would
not be permitted to
be applied to farm fields as a soil augmentation agent and would have
to be disposed ofin
a landfill..
Ifthe remediation/disposal plan was accepted by
PADEP, the material would be removed from the lagoon under radiological controls and
sampling/monitoring of the material and workers would be required.
It should be noted that the uranium that was released to the KISKI sewer was from the
controlled discharge of uranium from a NRC licensed fuel fabrication facility and related
laundry.
It was not a “release ofmaterial from the processing ofnuclear fuel” as stated
by Mr Port.
There is a big difference.
Finally, the discharge was halted,
over 10 years ago, as soon as it was discovered.
Kiski
Valley has adopted a pre-treatment ordinance to prohibit any further discharge.
Pertaining to NEORSD
Comment
Mr. Port states “Mr. Adams goes on to discuss the release, in Ohio, ofone to two
grams
ofcobalt 60
(Co-60).
He fails to disclose that the specific activity ofC0-60 is
1100
curies per gram and that the activity of cobalt released in Ohio was at least several
thousands curies.”
Response
In making this statement, I am afraid that Mr. Port didn’t understand or read the whole
presentation.
First ofall, like KISKI, I have been involved and am still involved in the
aftermath ofthe Co-60
contamination ofthe
174,000 cubic yards ofsludge/ash/grit at the
NEORSD Easterly and
Southerly Plants.
Again, I was involved in the characterization,
remediation and attempted release ofcertain parts ofthe sites for unrestricted use.
Once
again, the NRC did not accept the assessment.
In 1999, Ohio become an Agreement
State and the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau ofRadiation became the regulatory
agency.
The status to date is that the NEORSD will be applying for an Ohio Radioactive
Materials License sometime in January 2005.
A radiological control plan and related
procedures will be implemented andfull-tiine radiological coverage will be provided.
Mr. Port’s conclusion that the “activity ofcobalt 60 released
in Ohio was at least several
thousands ofcuries
is incorrect forthe following reasons:
Ms.
Amy Antoniolli
January
4,
2005
Page -9-
1)
In my filed public testimony dated October 8, 2004,
Section ifi page 4,
I clearly
stated that that the aggregate radioactivity disposed of into the sewer system over
a 20 year period was less than 0.5
Curies (i.e.
.455
Curies) and in Exhibit F, I
included an excerpt (Page
3-15)
from the “Site Remediation Plan forthe
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio” September
1996, rev. 0,
B. Koh and Associates, Inc.
On this, page there is documented the total amount ofCo-60 contained in the ash
at the NEORSD sites. Thus, the total Co-60 activity for the sites when all
is added
up is approximately 0.5 curies, not “thousands of curies.”
2)
The release of“thousands ofcuries” over a 20 years period is not permitted by the
NRC,
Even the pre- 1991
version of 1OCFR 20.2003 allowed only
an average
concentration of 6.0 E-7 uCi/mi of radium to be released to the sewer in one
month and limited the radium activity released to the sewers in a yearto
1
curie.
Even over a period of20 years, the most radium that the NRC would
permit
would be a total of20 curies not “thousands ofcuries”.
From my review ofthe
licensee’s discharge records and discussions with the NRC, the licensee’s releases
were always maintained within the NRC authorized limits.
I am sure that both
parties (both the regulator and the licensee) would be adamant about defending
their position against anyone who suggested that ‘thousands ofcuries were
released” into the sewers.
3)
In my objective to provide the most accurate and direct information, I
documented Mr. Lenhart’s comments verbatim.
Even at the risk of comments by
others,
I did so as to preserve the integrity ofmy testimony and to make certain
not to mislead or misapply the words ofothers.
He did
state as I quoted him in
my December 7, 2004 public comment letter. But it is here that I believe Mr. Port
incorrectly interpreted Mr. Lenhart’s communicationpoint Thepoint is that it
was a very small amount ofCo-60 (0.5 Ci) that resulted in the costly aftermath (
$2 million) that
is still going on at NEORSD
and Mr. Lenhart tried to provide the
reader a unit that could be understood (i.e. “a tiny fraction ofan ounce, only a
gram or two”) to compare how such a small quantity could cause such a
tremendous financial impact.
I don’t know if Mr. Lenhart is aware ofwhat the
specific activity ofCo-60 is and its relation to his reference to a gram or two.
What I do know is that he is certainly aware that a small
quantity ofradioactive
particulates released into a POTW can result in a costly cleanup and continuous
attention until the material has decayed to acceptable levels and/or the site is
accepted for unrestricted use by the state of Ohio.
Since
Co-60 has a half life of
5.3
years, allowing storage for decay is a viable alternative.
Ms.
Amy Antoniolli
January
4, 2005
Page -10-
Again, as soon as the discharge was discovered, itwas halted, by the POTW
and the
discharge pipe sealed.
While the relatively short half-life of Co-60 allows NEORSD to
allow the original incident to take its course, with the Ra-226 halflife being
1600 years,
a
cautionary approach is required to avoid the same perils that have damaged other
POTWs.
In summary, I want to thank the IPCB fortaking thetime to
consider my comments.
I
hope I was able to provide additional informationthat will help those readers to
understand the “Big Picture”.
In all
honesty, I can’t understand way anyone would allow
the release ofradioactive particulates down the sewer in light ofthe experience ofother
POTWs, especially when they can be concentrated and captured and disposed ofin a
more environmentally safe manner.
TheNRC and the agreement states did the right
thing and prohibited further releases ofthese kinds of particles. As I stated in earlier in
this
response, it really doesn’t matter, whetherthe material is licensed or not, what
matters is the material is made up ofa high activity radioactive particles. Neither the
IEPA, nor the POTWs really know
the true magnitude ofthe adverse environmental,
social and financial impacts are going to be due to the release ofsuch particulates.
They
need to do their homework and work together to solve the “Big Picture” radium issue in
Illinois.
Respectfully submitted
Theo
ore Adams
TOTRL
P.11
