1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
April 1, 2004
3
4
5
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
6
)
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
)R04-21
7 QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED )Rulemaking - Water
NEW ILL. ADM. CODE 302.307
)
8 and AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. )
CODE 302.207 and 302.525
)
9
10
11
12
13
14
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the
15 hearing of the above-entitled matter, taken
16 stenographically by Julia A. Bauer, CSR, before Amy
17 C. Antoniolli, Hearing Officer, at James R. Thompson
18 Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Room 8-033,
19 Chicago, Illinois, on the 1st of April, A.D., 2004,
20 at the hour of 1:30 p.m.
21
22
23
24
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
3
JAMES R. THOMPSON CENTER
100 West Randolph Street
4
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
5
(312) 814 - 3956
BY: MS. AMY C. ANTONIOLLI, Hearing Officer
6
MR. NICHOLAS J. MELAS, Board Member
MR. ANAND RAO, Board Member
7
MS. ALISA LIU, P.E., Board Member
8
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
9
1021 North Grand Avenue
East P.O. Box 19276
10
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782 - 5544
11
BY: MS. DEBORAH J. WILLIAMS, Assistant Counsel
12
ALSO PRESENT: ABDUL KHALIQUE, Metropolitan
13
Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago;
14
MARGARET MCEVILLY, City of
15
Joliet;
16
SUSAN HEDMAN, DCEO;
17
JERRY KUHN, the Agency
ROBERT MOSHER, the Agency
18
BLAINE KINSLEY, the Agency
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
1
HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon my
2
name is Amy Antoniolli, and I'm the hearing
3
officer assigned to this proceeding,
4
entitled, In The Matter of Revisions to
5
Radium Water Quality Standards: Proposed New
6
Illinois Administrative Code 302.207 and
7
Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code
8
302.207 and 304.525.
9
Right now it is about
10
1:30, and we are going to go off the record
11
again here in a few minutes and wait for the
12
Agency attorney to arrive, as well as the
13
three witnesses who will testify today.
14
(Whereupon, a discussion
15
was had off the record.)
16
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. We're back on
17
the record, and right now it is 2:06 in the
18
afternoon. Again, my name is Amy Antoniolli,
19
and I've been appointed hearing officer for
20
this rulemaking proceeding, entitled -- and
21
I'm going to change the name -- or read the
22
caption again into the record to correct it,
23
because I initially read the caption and it
24
was wrong. So it's, In the Matter of
4
1
Revisions to Radium Water Quality Standards
2
Proposed New Illinois Administrative Code
3
302.307 and Amendments 235 Illinois
4
Administrative Code 302.207 and 302.525,
5
which the Board has docketed as R04-21.
6
In this proceeding, the
7
Agency is seeking to amend at the Board of
8
Water Quality Standards, and this rule making
9
was filed on January 13th, 2004, by the
10
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
11
Today is the first of two scheduled hearings
12
in this matter. The second hearing will take
13
place on May 6th, 2003, starting at 2:30 in
14
the afternoon in the Board's office in
15
Springfield.
16
To my right is member,
17
Nick Melas, the board member assigned to this
18
matter, and also present from the board today
19
are two members of our technical unit, Anand
20
Rao and Alisa Liu.
21
MR. RAO: Good afternoon.
22
HEARING OFFICER: Today's hearing is
23
governed by the Board's procedural rules for
24
regulatory proceedings. All information
5
1
that's relevant and not repetitious or
2
privileged will be entered into the record.
3
All witnesses will be sworn and subject to
4
cross questioning.
5
There are three people
6
who will be testifying on behalf of the
7
Agency today, Mr. Jerry Kuhn, Mr. Robert
8
Mosher and Mr. Blaine Kinsley. If the
9
pre-filed testimony is not lengthy, we'll
10
have the testimony read into the record; or
11
if they so wish, they can make a brief
12
summary of their testimony, and then we can
13
enter in the pre-filed testimony as an
14
exhibit.
15
We'll allow all of the
16
witnesses to testify first, and then we'll
17
allow questions to be asked after. When we
18
get to the questioning period, anyone can ask
19
a question. If you do ask a question, state
20
your name and who you represent before you
21
begin your questions. We will also allow
22
anyone who wishes to testify the opportunity
23
to do so at the close of the pre-filed
24
testimony. And for the court reporter please
6
1
speak up and try not to speak over each
2
other, so the transcript is clear. Please
3
note that any questions asked by Member Melas
4
or the staff are intended to help build the
5
complete record for those members of our
6
staff who can't be here today, and not to
7
express any preconceived notion or bias.
8
So at the side of the
9
room I've also brought today current copies
10
of the current service list and notice list.
11
There's a copy of the board order accepting
12
this rulemaking for hearing. There's a copy
13
of the notice of hearings, the Agency's
14
statement of reasons and also the pre-filed
15
testimony. So at this time, Member Melas,
16
would you like to add anything?
17
MR. MELAS: No. I'm glad that you all
18
got here safe and sound.
19
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So at this
20
point we'll turn it over to the Agency's
21
attorney, Ms. Deborah Williams, for an
22
opening statement, if you have any.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My
24
name is Deborah Williams, and I'm an
7
1
assistant counsel for the Bureau of Water
2
with Illinois EPA. I am representing the
3
Agency today in support of its rulemaking
4
proposal, which was just identified. The
5
caption was read. I won't read the whole
6
caption back again by the hearing officer,
7
but this proposal amends the existing radium
8
water quality standards.
9
On behalf of the
10
director, I'd like to thank the Board for its
11
consideration of this rulemaking proposal and
12
this opportunity to provide testimony and
13
support thereof. I have with me today, three
14
experienced staffs from the Bureau of Water
15
to present their testimony. All three have
16
submitted pre-file testimony to the Board,
17
and all parties on the service list prior to
18
today's hearing and are prepared to read that
19
testimony into the record, if that's the
20
hearing officer's preference.
21
First, we will hear from
22
Jerry Kuhn, to my far left, who is the
23
manager of the permit section in the division
24
of public water supplies. We'll discuss the
8
1
impetus of this proposal from the community
2
water supply perspective. Then we have Bob
3
Mosher of the standard section in the
4
division of water pollution control, who will
5
discuss the history of radium water quality
6
standards and the technical basis for the
7
proposed changes, and Bob is to my immediate
8
left. And in between Bob and Jerry is Blaine
9
Kinsley, who will also present testimony.
10
Blaine is with our industrial permit unit and
11
will discuss effectiveness of the existing
12
publically owned works treating radium.
13
Following the testimony of all the witnesses,
14
we'll be happy to answer any questions from
15
the board or public. So I'll turn it over to
16
Jerry now.
17
HEARING OFFICER: Before you begin,
18
we'll have the witnesses sworn in and then
19
we'll go ahead with the testimony. Would you
20
like to go ahead?
21
COURT REPORTER: Sure.
22
(Witness sworn.)
23
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. You can
24
go ahead.
9
1
MR. KUHN: My name is Jerry Kuhn. I
2
am the manager of Permit Section For the
3
Division of Public Water Supplies of the
4
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and
5
have held that position since October of
6
2000. The permit section is responsible for
7
the review of construction permit
8
applications by community water supplies. A
9
construction permit is required by the
10
Illinois EPA for construction of any new
11
community water supply and for changes or
12
modifications to an existing community water
13
supply including water main extensions and
14
water treatment plant modifications. I've
15
worked for the Illinois EPA for approximately
16
21 years, including 11 years in the Division
17
of Water Pollution Control Permit Section and
18
eight years in the Bureau of Land as the RCRA
19
Unit Manager in the Permit Section. Prior to
20
my time at the Illinois EPA, I worked for a
21
consulting engineering firm.
22
COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you
23
slow down a little bit. I'm so sorry. Just
24
a little bit.
10
1
MR. KUHN: Okay. I received a
2
Bachelor of Science in Engineering Degree
3
from Bradley University in 1975 and a Master
4
of Science in Thermal and Environmental
5
Engineering Degree from Southern Illinois
6
University at Carbondale in 1985. I have
7
been an Illinois Licensed Professional
8
Engineer since 1980.
9
Today I will testify in
10
regards to the Illinois EPA's proposed
11
changes to the water quality standards for
12
radium and the proposal's impact on Illinois
13
of community water supply systems.
14
Regulations for radionuclides in drinking
15
water were first promulgated in 1976 as
16
interim regulations under the authority of
17
the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The
18
standard was proposed for revision upward to
19
20 picocuries per liter in 1991, but
20
eventually it was determined that the
21
original 5 picocuries per liter should remain
22
the MCL standard. On December 7th, 2000,
23
U.S. EPA finalized revisions to the 1976
24
radionuclide regulations, which have since
11
1
been adopted by the Illinois Pollution
2
Control Board. The Board's regulations were
3
finalized on October 4th, 2001, in rulemaking
4
docket R01-20. These regulations retained
5
the existing maximum containment level of 5
6
picocuries per liter for radium 226 and 228
7
combined and 15 picocuries per liter for
8
gross particle activity. The rule became
9
effective on December 8th, 2003.
10
Entities regulated by
11
this rule are public water systems that are
12
classified as community water systems.
13
Community water systems provide water for
14
human consumption through pipes or other
15
constructed conveyances to at least 15
16
service connections or serve an average of at
17
least 25 people year-round. Over 100
18
community water supplies in Illinois are
19
impacted by these regulations, due to the
20
presence of the radionuclides in their source
21
water used for drinking at concentrations
22
higher than the MCL. The radionuclides found
23
in Illinois groundwater wells are naturally
24
occurring and located primarily in deep
12
1
bedrock aquifers.
2
Community water supplies that exceed the MCL
3
for radionuclides have three basic options to
4
lower their radium levels: Blend their water
5
with a source of water with no or low amounts
6
of radium to meet the MCL, acquire another
7
source for their drinking water with radium
8
below the MCA, or install treatment for their
9
source water.
10
Under the Safe Drinking
11
Water Act, U.S. EPA must specify best
12
available technologies for treatment of each
13
MCL. In regards to treatment for removal of
14
radionuclides, U.S. EPA considers ion
15
exchange, reverse osmosis and lime softening
16
to be the best available technology.
17
Additionally, small systems, those serving
18
less than 10,000 people, compliance
19
technologies include green sand filtration,
20
hydrous manganese oxide filtration and
21
enhanced coagulation filtration. All of
22
these radionuclide removal technologies
23
produce residual waste streams that must be
24
dealt with. Anywhere from 5 to 25 percent of
13
1
the water obtained from well sources and
2
treated by one of the radium removal
3
technologies ends up as a wastewater
4
containing radionuclides removed from the
5
source water and discharged to the local
6
wastewater treatment plant. Depending on the
7
initial groundwater concentration, removal
8
efficiency in the wastewater treatment plant
9
and the dilution available in the receiving
10
stream, communities with radionuclides in the
11
source of their drinking water have or will
12
have, once they implement a radium removal
13
technology, a problem with violations of the
14
existing radium water quality standard as it
15
applies to most -- to most of the water of
16
the state.
17
It is my opinion that the
18
Agency's proposed changes to the Board's
19
water quality standards for radium will
20
assist community water supplies in coming
21
into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
22
Act and prevent their efforts to reduce
23
radium in drinking water from becoming an
24
issue of non-compliance with surface water
14
1
quality standards for publicly owned
2
treatment works while still protecting
3
surface water quality.
4
Finally, I would like to
5
thank the Board for the opportunity to submit
6
this pre-filed testimony and for its
7
consideration of the Agency's rulemaking
8
proposal.
9
MR. MOSHER: My name is Bob Mosher,
10
and I have been employed by the Illinois
11
Environmental Protection Agency for over 18
12
years with more than 16 years experience in
13
the Water Quality Standards Unit. I am an
14
aquatic biologist by training with a
15
specialization in stream ecology and
16
laboratory aquatic life toxicity studies.
17
Most recently I have been involved in the
18
development of water quality standards for
19
nutrients, radium and sulfates for eventual
20
adoption by the Illinois Pollution Control
21
Board as well as water quality standards
22
implementation support for the Permit and 401
23
Water Quality Certification Sections of the
24
Bureau of Water. I have a Bachelor of
15
1
Science degree in environmental biology and
2
zoology from Eastern Illinois University and
3
a Master of Science degree in zoology also
4
from Eastern Illinois University. My
5
pre-filed testimony in this matter will
6
address the history and backgrounds of the
7
Board's current radium water quality
8
standards and the justification for the
9
Illinois EPA's proposed changes to those
10
standards.
11
Radium is a naturally
12
occurring radioactive metal that exists in
13
several isotopes. Radium forms when two
14
other radioactive metals, uranium and
15
thorium, decay. These substances are
16
naturally found in the rocks and therefore
17
radium is ubiquitous in the environment.
18
Radium is usually measured in picocuries per
19
liter. A picocurie is a very small amount of
20
radioactivity. One picocurie is associated
21
with about one trillionth of a gram of
22
radium. Radium 226 emits alpha radiation and
23
radium 228 emits beta radiation. The
24
half-life of radium 226 is 1,600 years while
16
1
radium 228 has a half-life of 5.7 years.
2
There are two other natural isotopes of
3
radium that have half-lives of just a few
4
days.
5
Radium may exist in small
6
Illinois streams below sewage treatment
7
plants serving communities that utilize high
8
radium groundwater as drinking water at
9
levels exceeding the existing general use
10
water quality standard of 1 picocurie per
11
liter. Discharges to larger streams probably
12
receive sufficient dilution to meet the
13
standard. Recent stream concentrations
14
measured in the Fox River were under 1
15
picocurie per liter. The Fox River flows
16
through a region where many communities
17
depend on high radium groundwater,
18
illustrating that ambient river water is very
19
low in radium and that the overall effect of
20
dischargers is minor. The vast majority of
21
Illinois community water supply facilities
22
with high concentrations of radionuclides in
23
their source water, all groundwater, are
24
located in the northern half of the state and
17
1
in a region that stretches from Henderson
2
County in the west to Cook and Lake Counties
3
in the northeast. Sewage treatment plants
4
discharges to very small streams where no
5
dilution water is present have the potential
6
to contain as much as 5 to 10 picocuries of
7
radium defending on concentrations in the
8
groundwater and efficiency of treatment in
9
removing radium to the sewage sludge.
10
The existing general use
11
water quality standard for radium 226 is 1
12
picocurie per liter and is found in 35
13
Illinois Administrative Code 302.207. This
14
standard was adopted by the Board as part of
15
its initial set of water quality regulations
16
first promulgated in 1972 in docket R71-14.
17
An identical standard first appeared in the
18
regulations for the Lake Michigan Basin in
19
1997 due to a change in the format of how
20
Lake Michigan standards were presented. This
21
standard has been continuously applicable in
22
Lake Michigan since 1972, however. The
23
Board's 1972 opinion accompanying adoption of
24
the radium standard mentioned that the new
18
1
regulation, quote, retains existing
2
radioactivity levels, unquote, which implies
3
that this standard existed prior to 1972 in
4
the Sanitary Water Board, the precursor to
5
the Agency and Board regulations. A
6
justification document that appears to have
7
accompanied the rulemaking also simply says
8
that the radioactivity standards, quote,
9
retain existing radioactivity levels,
10
unquote. We now have reason to believe that
11
the Board's 1972 radium 226 standard did not
12
preserve a then existing state standard but
13
rather was derived from a federal suggested
14
value current at that time.
15
The Illinois Sanitary
16
Water Board had numerous regional water
17
quality standards in place by 1966 and these
18
included either a radium 226 standard or an
19
alpha omitters, which was presumably the
20
Sanitary Water Board meant alpha emitters
21
standard depending on the region. This may
22
have been due to the fact that standards for
23
interstate waters reflected the neighboring
24
state's preference, some choosing to regulate
19
1
radium 226 and some alpha emitters. The
2
numeric value was the same for either
3
parameter and for all regions, 3 picocuries
4
per liter. This standard was found in the
5
Public Water Supply Intakes category and it
6
was noted that these standards were intended
7
to protect, quote, river quality at the point
8
at which water is withdrawn for treatment,
9
unquote. This is consistent with the intent
10
underlying the Public and Food Processing
11
Water Supply Standards, Subpart C, in the
12
current Board regulations. It is also
13
interesting to note that the standard for
14
strontium 90 was 10 picocuries per liter and
15
gross beta concentration was 1,000 picocuries
16
per liter in these Sanitary Water Board
17
standards while the existing general use
18
water quality standards for strontium 90 and
19
gross beta are 2 picocuries per liter and 100
20
picocuries per liter respectively and are
21
found in 35 Illinois Administrative Code
22
302.207.
23
In looking to the origin
24
of the Sanitary Water Board's Standards, a
20
1
federal source called the Public Health
2
Service Drinking Water Standards published by
3
the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
4
Welfare in 1962, and also cited in the
5
Agency's rulemaking proposal, is implicated.
6
In the 1962 document, finished drinking water
7
standards are given: 3 picocuries per liter
8
for radium 226, 10 picocuries per liter for
9
strontium 90 and 1,000 picocuries per liter
10
for gross beta radiation. These are the
11
exact values adopted by the Sanitary Water
12
Board for raw water being used as a public
13
water supply.
14
In a later federal
15
source, the Green Book, formally referred to
16
as the Report of the Committee on Water
17
Quality Criteria, dated April 1st, 1968, and
18
cited in the Agency's proposal, a table is
19
given in the section on Public Water Supply
20
Standards, which gives two values for each
21
parameter, a, quote, permissible value and a,
22
quote, desirable value. The permissible
23
value is 3 picocuries per liter for radium
24
226, while the desirable value is less than 1
21
1
picocurie per liter. For strontium 90 these
2
values are 10 and less than 2 and for gross
3
beta 1,000 and less than 100 picocuries per
4
liter, respectively. The Green Book cites
5
the 1962 Public Health Service document as
6
the source of its permissible criteria, but
7
it seems that the desirable criteria are its
8
own invention. The Green Book specifically
9
states that these values apply not to
10
finished water but, quote, can be used in
11
setting standards for raw water quality only,
12
unquote, which implies that these were
13
intended to be point of intake standards.
14
Taking a finished water standard and applying
15
it as a raw water standard adds conservatism,
16
since any treatment provided by the community
17
water supply would reduce concentrations. It
18
appears that the Green Book took this liberty
19
with the 1962 drinking water standards.
20
The Green Book appears to
21
be the source for the Pollution Control Board
22
general use water quality standards of 1972.
23
The Sanitary Water Board adopted their
24
standards before publications of the Green
22
1
Book and interpreted the 1962 Public Health
2
Service values as point of intake standards
3
for public water supplies. The Pollution
4
Control Board apparently changed two things,
5
making these standards general in
6
applicability and taking the more stringent
7
Green Book desirable value as the standard,
8
simply dropping the less than sign. The
9
record indicating that the Board said it,
10
quote, preserve the existing standard,
11
unquote, may therefore mean that it was the
12
1968 Green Book desirable recommendation
13
rather than the standard applicable to
14
Illinois at that time, adopted by the
15
Sanitary Water Board, that was being
16
preserved. It seems certain that the
17
ultimate origin of the Sanitary Water Board's
18
radioactivity water quality standards was the
19
federal Public Health Service documents of
20
1962, while the Pollution Control Board's
21
source was the Green Book. For reasons of
22
concentration, 1 picocurie per liter instead
23
of 3 picocuries per liter, and applicability,
24
general use instead of public and food
23
1
processing water supply, the present radium
2
standard, and the radioactivity standards in
3
general, are more conservative than ever
4
intended by the original source.
5
As explained in Jerry
6
Kuhn's pre-filed testimony, the current U.S.
7
Environmental Protection Agency finished
8
drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level or
9
MCL for radium 226 plus radium 228 is 5
10
picocuries per liter. This standard is based
11
on the fact that radium is a carcinogen.
12
Persons drinking water over a lifetime will
13
theoretically be protected from cancer at an
14
acceptable risk level of ten to the minus
15
six -- ten -- no, it's ten to the sixth to
16
ten to the fourth power, if the concentration
17
of radium in drinking water is less than 5
18
picocuries per liter. Since the MCL is a
19
finished drinking water standard, this makes
20
the previous federal standard of 3 picocuries
21
per liter applicable at the point of intake,
22
which applies to raw water, upon which the
23
Sanitary Water Board standard was based, very
24
conservative. Protecting nearly all waters
24
1
at 1 picocurie per liter is excessively
2
stringent. This level of protection is
3
undocumented and is unwarranted.
4
Radium is a recognized
5
carcinogen and therefore standards protecting
6
sources of drinking water are necessary and
7
important. However, as far as may be
8
determined, no other uses of water are known
9
to be adversely impacted by radium. The
10
Illinois EPA conducted a literature search
11
for radium impacts to aquatic life and found
12
no scientific papers or other information on
13
this subject. Consultation with USEPA region
14
five water quality standards staff also found
15
no indication that radium is anything but a
16
threat to human health via drinking water.
17
Other states regulate
18
radium in a similar manner to that proposed
19
by the Agency. Oklahoma has a standard of 5
20
picocuries per liter at the point of intake
21
for public water supplies. The Ohio River
22
Sanitation Commission has a water quality
23
standard for the Ohio River of 4 picocuries
24
per liter applicable everywhere in the river
25
1
outside of the mixing zones. ORSANCO
2
considers the entire Ohio River to be a
3
public water supply. Indiana has an intake
4
raw water standard of 3 picocuries per liter,
5
which may be an artifact of the old Green
6
Book standard. Several other states were
7
contacted, including California, Utah and
8
Arizona, western states that have had hard
9
rock mining issues. Even these states have
10
no aquatic life water quality standards for
11
radium. Illinois appears to be unique in
12
this regard.
13
The Agency's proposal to
14
remove the general use in Lake Michigan
15
standards and establish a Public and Food
16
Processing Water Supply standard at the
17
federal MCL for radium 226 and 228 is
18
protective of all uses that may be impacted
19
by radium. Radium would then be regulated in
20
a manner similar to other substances that may
21
cause problems in drinking water yet do not
22
have to be regulated as stringently for other
23
uses. These substances are those listed
24
under 35 Illinois Administrative Code
26
1
302.304. For example, chloride is regulated
2
at 250 milligrams per liter under 302.204 to
3
protect drinking water intakes from excess
4
salts. There is no reason to regulate
5
general use waters at this low level since
6
all other uses of waters are protected at
7
higher chloride concentrations. The existing
8
general use standard regulates radium
9
unnecessarily and causes compliance issues at
10
communities struggling with drinking water
11
problems.
12
While there is no data
13
for radium to indicate what the threshold
14
concentration would be to protect aquatic
15
life, the Illinois EPA is confident that it
16
is much higher than the 5 picocuries per
17
liter level given the lack of concern for
18
this exposure route by the scientific
19
community, the extremely low mass per volume
20
concentration that this standard represents
21
and the fact that barium, a much more common
22
metal related chemically to radium, is not
23
toxic to aquatic life at the low part per
24
million level. Presently, the known source
27
1
of the radium to the surface water
2
environment are public water supplies that
3
utilize high radium groundwater. These are
4
typically no higher in concentration than the
5
groundwater, and as explained in Blaine
6
Kinsley's pre-filed testimony to follow,
7
usually somewhat lower. Even direct
8
discharges of wastewater resulting from
9
treatment of high radium groundwater, should
10
these ever occur, constitute only about
11
double the radium loading expected from a
12
sewage treatment plant. Other types of
13
discharges are unknown. Should a new source
14
of radium be proposed, the antidegradation
15
standard would be imposed to require the new
16
source to justify the radium discharge, which
17
would include studies of treatment
18
alternatives and steps to minimize any
19
necessary radium discharges.
20
It is apparent from our
21
investigation into the scientific information
22
and the lack of concern in other states and
23
at the federal level that drinking water
24
protection is the only beneficial use
28
1
classification of Illinois streams and lakes
2
that warrants a radium water quality
3
standard. This conclusion is based on
4
concentrations existing or expected to be
5
realized in Illinois surface waters from
6
either naturally occurring conditions or
7
those resulting from water treatment plant
8
wastes or their affiliated publicly owned
9
treatment works in those parts of the state
10
that rely on radium-containing groundwater as
11
their portable raw water source.
12
The proposed changes to
13
the general use and Lake Michigan Basin water
14
quality standards removes the radium standard
15
and replaces it with a standard that protects
16
surface water intakes for raw drinking water
17
at the established finished drinking water
18
MCL standard. This change is protective of
19
the sensitive designated use of Illinois
20
waters to radium and provides a framework in
21
the regulations for a sensible approach to
22
radium in surface waters. Radium will now be
23
regulated as a combination of radium 226 and
24
228 at Public and Food Processing Water
29
1
Supply intakes at a concentration of 5
2
picocuries per liter.
3
I would like to thank the
4
Board for the opportunity to submit this
5
pre-filed testimony and for its consideration
6
of the Agency's rulemaking proposal. I will
7
be pleased to answer any addition questions
8
presented by the Board or members of the
9
public regarding the Agency's rulemaking
10
proposal.
11
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr.
12
Mosher.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: At this time the Agency
14
does have a couple exhibits for the Board
15
that illustrates some of the items presented
16
in Mr. Mosher and Mr. Kuhn's testimony. I'm
17
not sure if given this rule -- that it's the
18
rulemaking proceeding you're concerned about
19
authenticating the exhibits, but we have two
20
maps that I can --
21
HEARING OFFICER: Sure you can go
22
ahead and make a motion and then --
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. First I have a
24
map of the state that I've identified as
30
1
Exhibit 1.
2
HEARING OFFICER: Sure.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Jerry, why don't you
4
identify it. Can you tell us what it is?
5
MR. KUHN: Okay. It's the location of
6
all the public water supply -- actually,
7
community water supply surface intakes in the
8
state of Illinois.
9
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: And if there is no
11
objection if I could have that admitted as
12
Exhibit 1?
13
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Seeing no
14
objections, we'll admit this public water
15
supply intakes map as Exhibit 1.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And I have a
17
second map. Maybe, Jerry, I'll ask for you
18
to identify the second map for us also.
19
MR. KUHN: Okay. These are the
20
locations of, I believe, the majority of the
21
radionuclide communities service. The
22
communities that do have a radionuclide
23
detection over the MCL and their source
24
water.
31
1
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: And I've marked this
3
second map as Exhibit 2.
4
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. If there are
5
no objections, I'll go ahead and admit this.
6
This additional map of a radionuclide MCL
7
violations for Illinois community water
8
supply facilities as Exhibit 2.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: And if there are no
10
objections, I'd like to move to have it
11
entered.
12
HEARING OFFICER: And -- sorry, and
13
we'll enter it as Exhibit 2, if I haven't
14
done that already.
15
HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Kinsley, you can
16
go ahead, and if you prefer you can read your
17
pre-filed testimony into the record or just a
18
summary. It's your choice.
19
MR. KINSLEY: It's not very long.
20
I'll just go ahead and read it.
21
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
22
MR. KINSLEY: Good afternoon. My name
23
is Blaine Kinsley. I am the manager of the
24
Industrial Unit in the Division of Water,
32
1
Pollution Control Permit Section. I have
2
been in that position since December of 2002.
3
The Industrial Unit is responsible for
4
application review an issuance of National
5
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, also
6
referred to as NPDES, permits and state
7
construction permits for industrial
8
facilities including backwash discharges from
9
public water supply facilities. I have
10
worked for the Illinois Environmental
11
Protection Agency, Illinois EPA, for nine
12
years, all of which have been spent in the
13
industrial unit. Before coming to the
14
Illinois EPA, I worked for a consulting
15
engineering firm in Louisville, Kentucky. I
16
received a Bachelor of Science degree in
17
Geological Engineering from the University of
18
Missouri-Rolla in 1994. I have been an
19
Illinois Licensed Professional Engineer since
20
2001.
21
My testimony today will
22
focus on the fate of radium and publicly
23
owned treatment works, which I will refer to
24
as POTWs. The specific concerns I will
33
1
discuss in my testimony are how much radium
2
can be expected to be removed in the various
3
types of treatment systems and whether the
4
affected systems will be able to meet the
5
existing water quality standard for radium
6
226.
7
There is little published
8
information available on the fate of radium
9
226 in POTWs. The state of Wisconsin
10
probably has more experience with radium than
11
any of the states in U.S.EPA's region five,
12
which is the region that includes Illinois.
13
A 1985 report by the Wisconsin Department of
14
Natural Resources studied five Wisconsin
15
communities with varying degrees of radium
16
226 and 228 in their wastewater. That study
17
concluded that biological sludges, both fixed
18
media and suspended growth, absorb soluble
19
radium and that insoluble radium is also
20
removed in wastewater treatment processes by
21
either physical settling or biological
22
uptake. All of the communities studied had
23
either activated sludge or Rotating
24
Biological Contractor, RBC, treatment
34
1
processes. Removal efficiencies, based on
2
influent versus effluent concentrations,
3
ranged from a low 29 percent to a high of 97
4
percent.
5
For the purpose of this
6
comparison and to address the lack of
7
existing treatment efficiency or effluent
8
data, the Agency used the fate of barium in a
9
POTW to estimate the removal efficiencies for
10
radium by the same wastewater treatment
11
facilities. Both radium and barium are Group
12
IIA metals on the Periodic Table of Elements,
13
which means they have similar chemical
14
properties. Influent and effluent sampling
15
data for barium does exist for some POTWs in
16
Illinois especially those with approved
17
pretreatment programs. The influent
18
concentrations of barium at a sampling of
19
these POTWs were well below the anticipated
20
concentrations of radium. Removal
21
efficiencies, based on influent versus
22
effluent sampling, ranged from 25 percent to
23
62 percent. Four of the five POTWs reviewed
24
utilized activated sludge and one use
35
1
trickling filters. There did not appear to
2
be a correlation between the types of
3
treatment and the removal efficiencies based
4
on the limited number of facilities where the
5
data was available.
6
The Illinois EPA is in
7
the process of requiring radium sampling of
8
sludge at POTWs where high levels of radium
9
are found in the community's source water.
10
In addition, new state construction permits
11
for the discharge of radium backwashes to
12
POTWs require influent and effluent sampling
13
at the affected POTW. This requirement is
14
necessary to ascertain the percent removal of
15
radium in the treatment processes and to gage
16
the number of facilities that may have
17
problems meeting the 1 picocurie per liter
18
water quality standard for radium 226. To
19
date, the Illinois EPA has received only a
20
limited number -- limited data from this type
21
of sampling. Based on the data submitted by
22
one discharger with two wastewater treatment
23
plants, the radium removal efficiencies are
24
between 31 percent and 60 percent. Both of
36
1
these wastewater treatment plants employ an
2
activated sludge treatment process. The
3
difference between the two plants is that the
4
plant with a 60 percent removal efficiency
5
receives much more of its influent from
6
combined sewer flows. The combined sewer
7
flows would act to dilute the radium
8
concentration coming to the plant which would
9
increase its apparent removal efficiency.
10
Considering typical raw
11
water concentrations and expected removal
12
efficiencies, it is anticipated that many
13
POTWs discharging to streams with little or
14
no continuous flow may have trouble meeting
15
the existing radium water quality standard.
16
The changes proposed by the Agency would
17
assist these communities in remaining in
18
compliance with water quality standards while
19
still protecting all existing and future uses
20
of the state's lakes and streams.
21
Finally, I would like to
22
thank the Board for the opportunity to submit
23
this pre-filed testimony and for its
24
consideration of the Agency's rulemaking
37
1
proposal.
2
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,
3
Mr. Kinsley, Mr. Mosher and Mr. Kuhn, all for
4
your testimony and for being here today.
5
Next, we'll go on to the questioning period,
6
and I'd also like to note for the record that
7
there are three members of the public here
8
today. And do any of you have any questions
9
for the witnesses? (Nodding). We do have
10
some questions prepared today from our staff
11
that we'd like to include in the record. If
12
you're prepared to answer them today, then
13
please do; and if not, there's -- we also
14
have that second hearing scheduled in May at
15
which time you can follow-up. So, Anand,
16
would you like to start?
17
MR. RAO: Yeah. Sure.
18 BY MR. RAO:
19
Q. Yeah, I have some questions for all
20 the three of you, and any one of you can jump in and
21 answer these questions. Basically, they are all,
22 kind of, clarifications to get information into the
23 record.
24
Mr. Kuhn, in your testimony
38
1 you mentioned that there -- you list that three
2 basic options are available for community water
3 supplies in compliance with the same drinking water
4 act radium standards. At this time, does the Agency
5 have any information as to how many of this,
6 approximately 100 or so, community water supplies
7 that have opted to treat their source water instead
8 of blending or...
9 BY MR. KUHN:
10
A. The vast majority of the plans I'm
11 looking at are -- are -- they're treating their
12 source water. Some are hooking onto a system that
13 doesn't have a radium problem. We've had some that
14 are blending their water with -- the radium is a --
15 is a deep well phenomena, and we had some that are
16 drilling shallow wells and then blending the shallow
17 with the deep well to meet the MCL; but I'd say,
18 vast majority are providing some type of treatment.
19
Q. And but -- the community water
20 supplies opting for -- opting to treat their source
21 water. Do you know if most of them are disposing of
22 their, you know, waste that's generated by treatment
23 to their local, publicly owned treatment works, or
24 did they have other means to dispose it of?
39
1
A. All of the one's -- they all generate
2 a wastewater, so, yes, they would be disposing of
3 that into the -- in the sanitary source or to the
4 local POTW.
5
Q. One of the things that was mentioned,
6 I think, it was in Mr. Mosher's testimony, it was
7 that a scenario that was presented where they may
8 have non-compliance problems would be in a situation
9 where the POTW is discharging into small stream with
10 no dilution. Does the Agency have any information
11 as to number of these affected treatment plants
12 which are discharging to low-flow streams?
13 BY MR. MOSHER
14
A. It would be the majority of those
15 communities to low-flow or zero-flow streams.
16 BY MR. RAO:
17
Q. When you say majority of those
18 communities, if we look at this map, which is marked
19 as Exhibit 2, are you saying that most of these
20 facilities are discharging to low-flow streams?
21
A. Yes, that's generally true across the
22 state; and there's nothing in this group of
23 communities that's any different.
24
Q. Right.
40
1
A. Just glancing through there, you know,
2 a few of these are located on -- on larger rivers,
3 but, you know, most of them are small towns; and
4 most small towns are located on small streams and
5 that's where they discharge.
6
Q. I know. Prior to the Board's option
7 and the Agency's implementation of this radium MCL,
8 did the Agency, in the past, encounter any
9 compliance issues with the existing radium water
10 quality standard?
11
A. Well, the fact of that matter is we
12 have not attempted to regulate that for that
13 standard. It's assumed that any of these sewage
14 treatment plants affected in these communities would
15 not -- would cause the radium standard that exists
16 now not to be met in those small streams, but the
17 Agency has not attempted to regulate, knowing that
18 there is no alternative, no reasonable alternative.
19
Q. Do you believe that, you know, removal
20 of radium in drinking water could still become a
21 non-compliant issue if the current water quality
22 standard was taken from 1 picocurie per liter to 5
23 picocuries per liter for combined radium?
24
A. Well, I think we try to illustrate
41
1 that the groundwater itself ranges up to 20
2 picocuries per liter, and if you are pumping that
3 kind of water out of the ground, removing it from
4 the drinking water, but then putting -- putting the
5 radium back in the sewer system so it gets to the
6 sewage plant anyway. So there's no -- there's no
7 real change here between a town that is treating for
8 radium in its drinking water and a town that has not
9 yet. It all gets back to the sewage treatment
10 plant. And then if sewage treatment plant removes
11 at the efficiencies that Blaine has researched --
12
HEARING OFFICER: Thirty-one to 60
13
percent?
14
MR. MOSHER: Yeah.
15
MR. KINSLEY: Yeah, based on the
16
barium data.
17
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
18 BY MR. MOSHER:
19
A. So given all that, there's a potential
20 in these zero-flow streams that are dominated by the
21 sewage plant effluent for something, like, you know,
22 15 picocuries per liter on down. So if we change
23 the general standard to 5 picocuries, we would still
24 probably have several communities that would not
42
1 meet that standard and would have no good
2 alternative to meet that standard.
3
HEARING OFFICER: And you mentioned
4
that there -- in some of the pre-filed
5
testimony, you mentioned that some states do
6
what this proposal proposes to do. Are there
7
some states that also have a general used
8
water quality standard for radium that is
9
greater --
10
MR. MOSHER: No.
11
HEARING OFFICER: -- such as, similar
12
to 5.
13
MR. MOSHER: No. I think I mentioned
14
in my testimony in that where Illinois is
15
unique in that regard.
16
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
17
MR. MOSHER: As far as we -- now, we
18
did not interview every state.
19
HEARING OFFICER: Mm-hmm.
20
MR. MOSHER: We interviewed our
21
neighboring states in the Midwest, and then I
22
specifically looked at western states where
23
uranium mining occurs and things like that
24
where you would expect more radium, and none
43
1
of them are setup either.
2
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
3
MR. MOSHER: So everyone else that we
4
know of is regulating at the public supply
5
intake point.
6 BY MR. RAO:
7
Q. Just for clarification purpose, what
8 you're saying is, basically the load on the publicly
9 owned treatment work, the radium load won't change
10 because of the drinking water treatment plant is
11 removing radium out of the source water because it's
12 finally going to end up in the treatment plant
13 anyways?
14 BY MR. MOSHER:
15
A. That's correct. The only way it's
16 going to change is if that community abandons that
17 deep well as their source. And, Jerry, I think you
18 just said that not many are really doing that.
19
MR. KUHN: The vast majority, right,
20
are choosing to treat.
21 BY MR. RAO:
22
Q. Now, I have a couple of questions to
23 deal with in the implementation of the Public and
24 Food Processing Water Supply Standards now since we
44
1 are moving this radium standard from the general use
2 to the Public and Food Processing Water Supply
3 Standards. Can you explain how those rules are
4 implemented? You know, when going over your
5 testimony and looking at the rules, it seems like it
6 applies at the point of intake. So if at the point
7 of intake the levels are higher than 5 picocuries
8 per liter, you know, will the public water supply be
9 responsible to treat it? I just wanted to get that
10 clear and how we implement that standard.
11 BY MR. MOSHER:
12
A. Well, those standards are protected by
13 Agency regulatory policies. We would not let a
14 radium discharger discharge radium into a water that
15 has a public water supply intake point downstream.
16
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
17 BY MR. MOSHER:
18
A. We would make sure there would be no
19 mixing zone at that point of intake, of course,
20 that's in the mixing zone standards. We -- we
21 cannot let a mixing zone do that. And the -- the --
22 really the fact of the matter is there is no known
23 case where that would occur.
24 BY MR. RAO:
45
1
Q. So there's no discharger anywhere
2 near --
3
A. No. And, again, it's a matter of
4 geology, I guess, that dictates that the -- if you
5 compare these two maps that we passed out, there's a
6 large blank area in Northern Illinois where there
7 are few, if any --
8
Q. Intakes.
9
A. -- surface water intakes. Well,
10 that's because groundwater is abundant. Groundwater
11 is cheaper to produce into public water supply,
12 and -- and the opposite is true for the rest of the
13 of state that a lot of people are using surface
14 water. So there are few, if any, discharges of
15 radium in -- you know, in the area where people are
16 using surface water, so that works out.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: And maybe, Jerry, could
18
you explain a little bit for the Board what
19
the -- what you looked into as far as intakes
20
and tested for radioactivity.
21
MR. KUHN: Okay. As part of our --
22
the public water supply requirements, we
23
require surface water intake -- or not the
24
intakes, but surface water plant is also
46
1
sample for radionuclides, and I took a look
2
at some of the data. Now, the sampling is
3
done at entry point, which is in the entry
4
point into the system and not at the route of
5
water source, but I looked at all the -- the
6
sampling results, and we didn't have anybody
7
that had any problems that would -- that
8
would have a problem with meeting the MCL.
9
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
10
MR. KUHN: So the treatment that they
11
provided in the surface water plants would
12
meet the standard.
13 BY MR. RAO:
14
Q. I have one more question. Mr. Mosher,
15 in your testimony dealing with the history of the
16 Board's radioactivity standards, you, kind of,
17 concluded that, you know, the level of protection
18 that was adopted by the Board was undocumented and
19 unwarranted in case of radium. Do you believe that
20 the same rational holds for strontium 90 and gross
21 beta?
22 BY MR. MOSHER:
23
A. Yes, but the same factors are present
24 with those other two substances. We are not
47
1 proposing that we change those because there is no
2 economic or compliance reason to do so. And if we
3 did propose to change those, we would have had to do
4 triple the research that we did for radium; and
5 given our staff situation and resources right now,
6 we said there's no reason, there's no economic or
7 social reason that we need to change those so we
8 won't change those. We'll conserve our resources.
9
Q. Okay. I'm done.
10 BY HEARING OFFICER:
11
Q. One more question for Mr. Kinsley. As
12 you just mentioned that the EPA requires radium
13 sampling of sludge at POTWs where high levels are
14 found in the community's water source, and also that
15 new state construction permits for discharge of
16 radium backwashes the POTWs require influent and
17 effluent sampling. Are those requirements new or
18 included in permits, or how -- what are those
19 requirements exactly.
20 BY MR. KINSLEY:
21
A. I believe, you're referring to me.
22
Q. Okay.
23
A. Those are written into state
24 construction permits currently that basically a
48
1 state construction permit is required when a POTW
2 wants to hook onto the -- or let me backup.
3
When a public water supply
4 needs to hook onto the POTW and we would consider
5 that a new source of wastewater to that POTWs, that
6 backwash discharge. So that when we -- when we
7 write those permits and we're still trying to get a
8 hold -- a handle on, since we don't have that much
9 data yet, what the expected removal efficiencies of
10 those POTWs are, and that's the reason that we've
11 been requiring the influent and effluent sampling
12 when those permits are written. So that we can --
13 then we know exactly what the removal efficiencies
14 are, what -- how much of the radium is being
15 retained in the sludge for those particular POTW and
16 how much are expected to be discharged. Does that
17 answer your question?
18
Q. Yes, it does.
19
A. Okay.
20 BY MR. RAO:
21
Q. Just for follow-up to that. So, would
22 construction permits be required of all of these
23 POTWs, which will accept this radium backwashes?
24 BY MR. KINSLEY:
49
1
A. Primarily, yes, because normally
2 what's been the case, is that the POTW may -- or I'm
3 sorry. I keep getting the terms confused. The
4 water treatment plant may have sand filters or some
5 type of filtration, but the rating removal requires
6 more treatment, which -- which results in another
7 backwash discharge, say, for an example, of ion
8 exchange or the reject from an RO unit.
9
Q. Okay.
10
A. So any time there's a new source like
11 that, it requires a construction permit from the
12 state to hook onto that POTW.
13
Q. There's also a new source of waste to
14 the POTW, does that also require any kind of NPDS
15 permit modification or...
16
A. Normally those POTWs are -- are
17 designed to a certain capacity, a design average
18 flow. And until they're -- when they're first
19 brought on-line, they're much below that design
20 capacity, and as connection permits -- construction
21 permits are written to that POTW, there's no need to
22 normally go back and re-rate those plants or to do
23 any special monitoring. But in this case, with the
24 radium, we just wanted to get a handle on what the
50
1 removal efficiencies are since that really wasn't
2 tracked in the past.
3
Q. Okay. Because one of the things I
4 think maybe it was in Mr. Mosher's testimony was
5 that if there's a new radium discharge, there would
6 be an antidegradation analysis; but in this kind of
7 a situation that you are describing, there won't be
8 an antidegradation analysis required for all of
9 these treatment plants?
10 BY MR. MOSHER:
11
A. No, because they're already supplying
12 the radium to the sewage treatment plants. It's not
13 a new loading source.
14
Q. Thank you.
15 BY MS. LIU:
16
Q. Just out of curiosity, just one more
17 question. You mentioned that water from radium that
18 will be removed in the treatment process would end
19 up in sludge. Are the radium levels high enough in
20 the sludge to require special disposal of the
21 sludge?
22 BY MR. KINSLEY:
23
A. We have a memorandum of understanding
24 with the -- used to be the Illinois Department of
51
1 Nuclear Safety, but now they've been under the
2 umbrella of the Illinois Emergency Management, but
3 it's the same folks, and we've been discussing the
4 terms of the agreement and seeing if we need to
5 revise that. And so far, as far as I know, we
6 haven't -- there's nothing that's come up that we
7 have revise that -- that agreement. Keep in mind
8 that the radium in these source waters was always
9 going to these POTWs, and that, you know, now it's
10 just being taken out of -- out of the drinking water
11 side, but it's still going right back in, as it
12 always did, to the wastewater treatment center. So
13 we're looking at that, and we're under -- currently
14 deciding if we need to change those understandings,
15 so, and that ties into why we're requesting that
16 data.
17
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you.
18
Are there any other questions? (Nodding).
19
Okay. Julie, can we go off the record for a
20
minute?
21
COURT REPORTER: Sure.
22
(Whereupon, a discussion
23
was had off the record.)
24
HEARING OFFICER: The Board has a
52
1
second hearing scheduled for May 6th, 2004,
2
as I mentioned before, in Springfield, and
3
the hearing is at 2:30 p.m. in the Illinois
4
Pollution Control Board hearing room at 1021
5
North Grand Avenue East. People who would
6
like to testify at the next hearing should
7
pre-file the testimony by Thursday, April
8
22nd. We expect to have the transcript of
9
today's hearing in our Chicago office by
10
about 10 days from today, which brings us to
11
April 10th or 11th. Soon after we receive
12
it, the Board will post the transcript on our
13
website, and the website address is
14
www.ipcb.state.il.us, bear the transcript as
15
well as the Agency's proposal and all of the
16
Board orders throughout this proceeding as
17
well as the pre-filed testimony will be
18
viewable and downloadable at no charge.
19
Alternatively, you can order a copy of the
20
transcript from the clerk of the Board at
21
$0.75 per page. Anyone can file a public
22
comment in this proceeding with the clerk of
23
the Board, but please note that when filing a
24
public comment, you must serve all of the
53
1
people on the service list with the copy of
2
the public comment; and, again, copies of the
3
current service list are available today at
4
the side of the room or you can contact me or
5
Lynn Hughes, who is our secretary and you can
6
reach her -- do you have Lynn's phone number?
7
MR. MELAS: Yeah, 814-3624.
8
HEARING OFFICER: At 814-3624. If
9
there's nothing further, I wish to thank all
10
of you for your comments and your testimony.
11
This discussion will continue at the next
12
hearing, and today this hearing is adjourned.
13
Thank you.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
54
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF WILL
)
3
4
I, JULIA A. BAUER, CSR, do hearby state
5 that I am a court reporter doing business in the
6 City of Chicago, County of Will, and State of
7 Illinois; that I reported by means of machine
8 shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing
9 cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as
11 aforesaid.
12
13
14
_____________________
Julia A. Bauer, CSR
15
Notary Public,
Will County, Illinois
16
17
18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this _____ day
19 of _________, A.D., 2004.
20
________________________
21 Notary Public
22
23
24