BEFORE
THE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
RECE~V~D
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
REVISIONS TO
RADIUM
WATER
)
AUG 112004
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
)
R04-21
STATE
OF
ILUNOIS
NEW
35
ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307
)
Rulemaking
- ~~~tlOfl
Contro’ Board
AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADMIN.
)
CODE 302.207
AND 302.525
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on August 11, 2004, we filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Illinois
Pollution Control Board, an original and ten copies ofthe attached Testimony
Of
Theodore G. Adams
On Behalf Of Water
Remediation Technology,
LLC
a copy of which is served upon you.
WRT Environmental Illinois LLC
‘~fIts~
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
THIS FILING
IS BEING SUBMITTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
REVISIONS
TO
RADIUM
WATER
)
AUG 112004
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
)
R04-21
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
NEW
35 ILL.
ADMIN.
CODE 302.307
)
Rulemaking fWt~*~niControl Board
AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADMIN.
)
CODE 302.207 AND 302.525
)
TESTIMONY OF THEODORE G. ADAMS
ON BEHALF OF WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC
I.
INTRODUCTION
My name is Theodore G. Adams. I am President of T. G. Adams and Associates, Inc., an
environmental and radiological consulting firm located in Springville, New York. My educational
background consists of a B.S. in Environmental Biology from the University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA and a M.S. in Health Physics from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. I have
25 years’ experience in the areas of Radiation Safety and Environmental Protection, Radioactive
Waste Management, and Decontamination and Deconimissioning/Remediation for both
commercial and government clients.
I have extensive experience in providing radiological consulting expertise to Public Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) and currently serve as the Radiological Safety Officer for the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, a POTW located in Cleveland, OH. I am a certified
Radiation Expert in the State of Ohio and a certified Project Management Professional (PMP
#185793).
I am also a licensed remediation service provider in the State of Ohio
(License No. 03219990004). My resume is attached as Exhibit A to my testimony.
I have reviewed the transcripts and other information submitted to the Pollution Control Board in
this matter. It is my testimony that the proposed rule change, and the prior testimony in this
matter, does not take into account the safety and liability issues relating to treatment of a raw
water supply containing elevated levels of Radium-226 or Radium-228.
In the transcript of the April 1, 2004 hearing, the hearing officer, Ms. Antoniolli, asked a very
important and critical question ofMr. Kinsley. She asked “are the radium levels high enough in
the sludge to require special disposal ofthe sludge?” (S~Hearing Transcript dated April 1, 2004
at 50:19-21.) That question was not squarely answered. In my experience, the answer is a
resounding “Yes.” The sludge requires special handling and special disposal.
Treatment of raw water with elevated radium levels creates safety and liability issues at both the
water treatment plant works and the POTW. The handling and disposal of the contaminated
sludge poses a significant concern and a major impact, both economic and regulatory, to POTWs.
Of equal concern is the potential radiological exposures to the POTW worker, the family who
resides on property where contaminated sludge has been applied and the biota (terrestrial and
aquatic animals and plants) exposed to the contaminated effluent and sludge released from the
POTW.
My testimony will address each ofthese areas in detail to show that allowing the disposal ofwater
treatment residuals into the public sewer, and subsequent treatment and disposal by POTWs, could
result in significant operational, economic, regulatory and worker safety issues/impacts for the
POTWs, as well as environmental impacts to the biota, and health impacts to residents residing on
sludge-applied land.
2
II.
POTW RESPONSIBILITIES
There have been many situations where radiological contaminants have been discharged to POTWs
without the knowledge of the POTW or the ability to take precautionary measures. These
discharges, even ofsmall amounts of radiological materials over time and at then-accepted levels,
have caused these POTWs to undertake expensive cleanup measures and, for some, to come under
the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA or U.S. EPA) adoption of the drinking water standard for radium
should cause all concerned to carefully review that prior record and take precautions to avoid
repeating those situations.
The economic and operational impacts of radiologically contaminated influent/sludge on POTWs
are well documented. Table 1 summarizes the POTWs across the United States where the
acceptance, processing, or handling ofradiological contaminated influent and resulting sludge have
caused major impacts. While some impacts required minor corrective action/response, others
(i.~,Cleveland, OH and Tonawanda, NY) required significant expenditures of resources (dollars
and manpower) to satisfactorily address the problem of dealing with contaminated hardware,
facilities and product (i.~,sludge, ash and grit).
Two cases that I am personally familiar with are the contaminated POTWs of NEORSD,
Cleveland, OH and KVWPCA, Kiski, PA. Since 1993, the NEORSD has spent more than
$2 million to remediate three contaminated ash lagoons and surrounding areas and place the
Co-60-contaminated ash (174,000 cubic yards) into two Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) permitted onsite disposal facilities at its Southerly Plant and to remediate Co-60-
contaminated soil/grit at its Easterly Plant. The cleanup criteria established by the NRC was 8
pCi/g. Ash contaminated above this limit was remediated and placed into two onsite disposal
areas
—
one area had average and maximum concentrations of 30 pCi/g and 458 pCi/g, and the
other area had average and maximum concentrations of 19 pCi/g and 112 pCi/g. But that cleanup
did not resolve the situation.
Contaminated ash remains throughout the Southerly Plant and at isolated locations at the Easterly
Plant. NEORSD has had to retain the services ofa licensed remediation contractor to provide the
necessary radiological coverage to address the radiological issues during excavation, movement,
and drilling ~
normal construction projects/activities) at any onsite location where ash is
present. At the present time, the Ohio Department ofHealth, Bureau ofRadiation (ODH) (Ohio is
an Agreement State) is considering requiring the NEORSD to become a radioactive materials
licensee. If this becomes reality, then the NEORSD will be required to develop its own
Radiological Control Program, hire qualified radiological expertise, procure necessary radiological
equipment, incur additional annual costs to.maintain its license, and be subject to the inspections
and potential notice of violations/fines from the ODH if the NEORSD Radiological Control
Program is not properly carried out.
The situation at KVWPCA has been going on for more than 10 years. The radiological material in
an ash lagoon containing 11,700 yards of enriched uranium is on the POTWproperty and has been
sampled with concentrations found ranging from 2.6 to 923 pCi/g. The land remains unusable
(even though current plans for expansion of the plant require the additional space that the lagoon
could provide), while the NRC and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
3
(PADEP) continue to be in disagreement about the ultimate disposition of the material. Ifthe ash
must be disposed of at a licensed radioactive disposal facility, the estimated cost is
$6 million
—
about six times the cost of ordinary off-site disposal.
These are two instances ofwhich I have personal involvement. In each case, the POTW has been
saddled with extraordinary costs and required to undertake significant monitoring activities.
Costs associated with dealing with contaminated piping, hardware, facilities, and sludge/ash,
which as shown can be substantial, normally have been the responsibility ofthe POTW. The NRC
and/or agreement states have not required any discharger (i.~, licensees) to pay for the
remediation/cleanup of the contamination ofthe POTWdue to licensed discharge. As in the case
of the NEORSD, economic restitution normally is sought in public court. In short, the POTW is
left holding the bag!
Investigations into the safety and regulatory requirements for discharges to POTWs
As a result of the NEORSD POTW contamination (and others), in 1994 the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report entitled “Nuclear Regulations and Actions Needed to Control
Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants” (GAO/RCED-94-133). The GAO report
recommended that “the NRC determine the extent to which radioactive contamination of sewage
sludge, ash and related by-products from sewage treatment plants is occurring; directly notify the
POTWs that receive discharges from NRC’ s and the Agreement States’ licensees ofthe potential
for radioactive contamination because of the concentration of radioactive material and of the
possibility that the plants may need to test or monitor their sludge for radioactivity content; and
establish acceptable limits for radioactivity in sludge, ash and related by-products to protect the
health and safety of POTW workers and the public.”
A joint House/Senate hearing was held in 1994 to officially release and address questions raised in
the GAO report. The hearing was prompted by the concern related to the contamination of the
NEORSD POTW in Cleveland, Ohio. The GAO stated that, over the past 20 years, NRC had
documented elevated levels of radioactivity in sewage sludge or sludge incineration ash from
certain POTWs (s~Table 1); however, there had been no national surveys of radiation levels
present in sewage sludge or sludge incinerator ash to determine the extent of potential radioactive
contamination.
On the basis of limited information on radiation levels on sewage sludge and ash across the
country, the GAO concluded that re-concentration ofradionuclides may have been associated with
authorized effluent releases from both NRC and Agreement State licensees; however, these
problems occurred prior to the revision to NRC’s regulation with regard to release from NRC
licensees (soluble and biologically dispersible) which became effective in 1991.
(S~Exhibit B
—
“Overview of Federal Efforts to
Protect POTWs from Impacts from
Receiving Radioactive Materials from NRC-licensed Facilities”.)
While the GAO and Congress were dealing with the issue of radiological contamination at
POTWs, the POTWs decided to conduct their own evaluation.
In 1996, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) conducted a limited,
confidential, voluntary survey of the concentration of radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash
4
samples from some of its member POTWs. The results of the AMSA study are presented in
“Characterization of Radioactivity Sources of Wastewater Treatment Facilities” (The National
Biosolids Partnership, May 1999). (A copy ofthe relevantportions of this report are attached as
Exhibit C.) The objective of the study was to develop a better estimate of the concentration of
radioactivity in sewage sludge and sludge-incinerated ash. A total of
55
POTWs located in 17
states supplied voluntary sludge and ash samples, which were analyzed for radioactivity. These
plants were distributed across the United States and ranged in size from small (10 MGD) to some
of the largest POTWs in the country (100k MGD). The study found that the most significant
levels of radioactivity were the naturally occurring potassium and radium isotopes.
This independent study served as the first real effort at gaining an understanding of the extent to
which radioactivity was entering a POTW and the impacts on the resultant sludge or ash.
Background information on the nature ofradioactivity in sewage sludge can be found in the NRC
Reports entitled “Evaluation of Exposure Pathway to Man From Disposal of Radioactive
Materials Into Sanitary Sewer Systems”
(NUREGICR-5814)
and “R econcentrationofRadioactive
Material Released to Sanitary Sewers in Accordance with 10 CFR 20”
(NUREG/CR-6289),
published in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Other useful background documents are:
• Radioactivity of Municipal Sludge
(EPA, 1986)
• Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sewers
(Eisenbud
and Gesell, 1997)
• Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures to Technologically Enhanced Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material
(National Academy of Sciences, 1999)
Based on the 1994 GAO report recommendations, the NRC and the EPA, in cooperation with the
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), decided to jointly fund a
voluntary survey of POTW sewage sludge and ash to help assess the potential need for NRC
r
and/or EPA regulatory decisions.
The NRC and the EPA conducted a pilot study involving nine POTWs to field-test the feedback
L
questionnaire, validate sampling methods and analytical procedures, and obtain feedback from
participating POTWs. The results of the pilot study were documented in EPA-833-R-99-900,
May 1999.
The final voluntary survey had two components: a questionnaire and a program for sampling and
analyzing sewage sludge and incinerator ash. Based on the results of the questionnaire, the NRC
and the EPA selected 313 POTWs to be evaluated. The selection emphasized POTWs with the
greatest potential to receive waste from licensees and in areas with higher levels of naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM). All together, 311 sewage sludge samples and 35 ash
samples were obtained. The samples were analyzed by Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education (ORISE) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and by the EPA’s National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama.
The results of the analyses revealed that POTW samples primarily contained NORM such as
radium.
5
The NRC and the EPA joint survey and the sampling and analysis program results are presented in
“ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey Results and
Analysis
(ISCORS Technical Report 2003-02, November 2003).
(A copy of the relevant portions
of this report is attached as Exhibit D.)
In addition to the survey and sampling/analyses results report, ISCORS also prepared two
supplemental reports. (Copies of the relevant portions ofthese reports are attached as Exhibits E
and F, respectively.) The first report, entitled “ISCORS Assessment ofRadioactivity in Sewage
Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation Doses”
(ISCORS 2003-03, November 2003),
is a dose
assessment report that describes the exposure scenarios for sewage sludge processing, use and
disposal. (S~Section III of my testimony.)
The second report, entitled “ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:
Recommendations on Management ofRadioactive Materials in Sewage Sludge and Ash at Publicly
Owned Treatment Works”
(ISCORS Technical Report 2003-04, November 2003),
provides
recommendations for POTW operators on determining sources of radioactivity at POTWs,
describes sampling and analysis procedures and suggests alternative corrective actions if
circumstances (ç~g~,location of high NORM area) or actual measurements indicate that a problem
exists. (See Section III of my testimony.)
Sununary
It is clear that POTWs bear the brunt of discharges to their sewers of radiological materials,
including Radium-226 and Radium-228. It is also clear that numerous regulatory agencies are
looking into these issues. Over the last decade, NRC has tightened its restrictions on allowable
discharges to POTWs
—
now only materials that are soluble are allowed. (S~Exhibit B
—
“Overview of Federal Efforts
to Protect POTWs from Impacts from
Receiving Radioactive
Materials
from
NRC-licensed Facilities”.) EPA also has convened a working group and
published two recent guidances, in 2000 and 2004, on this issue. The EPA guidance documents
recommend against any release to sanitary sewers offiltrate collected from treatment of rawwater
to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for Radium-226 and Radium-228. These issues
will be reviewed in subsequent sections of my testimony.
6
Table 1. Sewage Treatment Plants Where Elevated Levels of Radioactive Material Were Found
Location
Year Found
Radionudides
Actions Taken
Tonawanda, New
York
1983
Americium-241
State spent over $2 million cleaning up
treatment plant. No fmal decision has been
made regarding radioactive material found in
the landfill.
Grand Island,
New York
1984
Americium-241
Hydrogen-3
Polonium-210
No plant cleanup was warranted.
Oak Ridge,
Tennessee
1984
Cobalt-60
Cesium-134
Cesium-137
Manganese-54
Soil around sewer line cleaned up, and some
special sludge disposal occurred.
Royersford,
Pennsylvania
1985
Manganese-54
Cobalt-58
Cobalt-60
Strontium-89
Zinc-65
& others
No plant cleanup was warranted.
Erwin, Tennessee
.
1986
Americium-241
Plutonium-239
Thorium-232
Uranium
Sludge digester cleaned up.
.
Washington,
D.C.
1986
Carbon-14
Hydrogen-3
Phosphorous-32 &
33
Sodium-22
Sulfur-35 & others
No plant cleanup was warranted.
Portland, Oregon
1989
Thorium-232
Sewage lines cleaned up and pretreatment
system added.
Ann Arbor,
Michigan
1991
Cobalt-60
Manganese-54
Silver-108m, 1 lOm
Zinc-65
No plant cleanup was warranted.
Cleveland, Ohio
1991
Cobalt-60
Treatment plant cleanup and related activities
have cost over $2 million.
Kiski Valley,
Pennsylvania
1994
Enriched Uranium
(Uranium 234, 235)
Decontamination and deconmiissioning plan.
Prepared remediation cost range from $1-6
million.
Pottstown,
Pennsylvania
2004
Cobalt-60
Delay in treatment and disposal of Royersford
sludge. $50,000 charge for treatment service.
In nearly all of these cases, the release of radioactive materials to the sewers was halted or
modified to correct the contamination problem.
7
III.
ADVERSE IMPACT IN POTW WORKER FROM EXPOSURE TO
RADIUM-
BEARING SLUDGE
As presented in Section II of my testimony, there have been a number of cases of radionuclides
discovered in sewage sludge and ash. These incidents made clear the need for a comprehensive
determination of the prevalence of radionuclides in POTW sewage sludge and ash around the
country and the level of potential threats posed to human health and the environment by various
levels of such materials.
To provide a reasonable bound on the amounts of radionuclides that actually occur in sewage
sludge and ash, the EPA and the NRC, in conjunction with ISCORS, conducted a limited survey of
radioactivity in POTW sludge and ash across the United States and, as a subsequent effort,
undertook a dose assessment to help assess the potential threat that these materials may pose to
human health.
Dose modeling was performed by ISCORS using the sewage sludge
95th
percentile results (13
pCi/g for Radium-226 and
5.1
pCi/g for Radium-228) under various exposure scenarios to
estimate potential doses to workers and the public. The modeling results were presented in an
ISCORS Draft Report
—
Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge. Modeling to Assess
Radiation Doses (ISCORS Report 2003-03 November 2003).
(S~Exhibit E to my testimony.)
The exposure scenarios chosen by ISCORS reflect the observationthat most ofthe public exposure
to sewage sludge results from its land application, disposal in a landfill, or incineration.
Exposures of a worker through proximity to or direct contact with the sludge can occur during
processing, sampling, loading, transport, or application. Such exposure scenarios also were
evaluated by ISCORS. The exposure scenarios were designed so that exposures to the seven listed
groups below were explored. ISCORS did not explore a family farm scenario where sewage
sludge had been used as a fertilizer.
1.
Residents of houses built on agricultural fields formerly applied with sludge;
2.
Recreational users of a park where sludge has been used for land reclamation;
3.
Residents of a town near fields upon which sludge has been applied;
4.
Neighbors of a landfill that contains sludge and/or ash;
5.
Neighbors ofa sludge incinerator;
6.
Agricultural workers who operate equipment to apply sludge to agricultural lands;
and
7.
Workers at a municipal treatment plant involved in sampling, transport, and
biosolids loading operations.
Based on the ISCORS modeling results, the largest potential dose (420 mRemlyr) is to the POTW
Biosolids Loading Worker for exposure to Radium-226, Th-228 and indoor radon. This relatively
high dose estimate is consistent with estimates developed in previous studies
(Kennedy, et al.
8
1992,).
This dose significantly exceeds the annual exposure limit (100 rnRemlyr) set for members
of the general public. Although a relatively significant potential dose to a POTW Biosolids
Loading Worker (specific case) was determined, ISCORS concluded that there was no widespread
or nationwide public health concern identified by the sewage assessment survey. However,
ISCORS stated clearly that “The survey was not designed to identify unique or isolated instances
in which high levels ofradionuclides may be present in sewage sludge or ash and inferences to
high levels of radionuclides cannot be made from the survey results alone.” It would appear that
the treatment of groundwater in northeastern Illinois to meet the federal drinking water standard
for radium presents just such a local or unique situation. A discharge of concentrated radium
sludge from a water treatment plant is a unique high level of concentrated radioactivity.
To evaluate this situation, I assessed the potential doses to POTW workers and the public from
water treatment facility effluent containing radium at various concentrations in raw waste
(5
-
25
pCi/L), various dilution volumes (0 and
50)
and various radium removal efficiencies (20,
80 and 90). The anticipated radium concentrations in POTW discharge (sludge and effluent)
and related assumptions are presented in Table 2, attached as Exhibit G. These analyses bracket
the actual radium levels found in groundwater by WRT and presented in Mr. Williams’s
testimony.
Using a typical radium concentration of raw waste of 15 pCi/L for the 6 POTWs and using
ISCORS methodology, a correlation to a potential doseto a POTW Biosolids LoadingWorker was
made (Table 3). This table differentiates the effect of radium going to the POTW sludge or the
water discharge.
I next compared the exposure to a POTW worker in a wastewater treatment plant with these
amounts of radium in the sludge. The following table demonstrates the impact on those workers.
Inevery case involving substantial radium removal from the sanitary wastewater, the workers will
be exposed to levels in excess of the 100 mRemlyr allowable exposure. Also, the resulting levels
ofexposure are higher than or very comparable to the levels in Ohio and Pennsylvania, discussed
above, where expensive cleanup is being required. And, as documented below, virtually every
scenario results in workers being exposed to radiation levels high enough to trigger regulatory
oversight and standards.
9
Table 3
Plant’
Potential Concentration of Radium
in Sludge (pCi/g)
TEDE mRem/yr
~
with radon
w/o radon
A
103
3,626
130.8
B
155
5,456
196.9
C
92
3,238
116.8
D
138
4,858
175.3
E
23
810
29.2
F
34.5
1,214
43.8
Worst Case Plant B
@25pCi/L
259
9,117
328.9
‘Radium concentration of raw water
=
15 pCi/L
These results indicated the substantial issues raised by putting Raclium-226 and Radium-228 into a
sanitary sewer. Only two of the plants (E and F without radon) have potential dose estimates
below the 100 mRemlyr limit established by the NRC for exposure to ionizing radiation to the
public. Even a concentration of approximately 77 pCi/g ofradium in the sludge would result in a
potential dose of 100 mRemlyr.
One scenario (Plant B) was run using concentrations in raw water of25 pCi/L (found in Illinois
groundwater) with 259 pCi/g in the sludge, associated with high solids removals. The results of
the dose assessment indicated exposures to the Biosolids Sludge Loader of 9,117 mRem/yr. By
comparison, occupational radiation workers are allowed only 5,000 mRem/yr.
Sununary
Thus, it is foreseeable in Illinois that flushing filtrate from a water treatment plant down a sanitary
sewer would result in exposure twice those levels, and without any ofthe personal protections and
monitoring that are required by the NRC for individuals with an exposure exceeding 100
mRemlyr. When the contributionto indoor radon is included, all plants/POTW Biosolids Workers
exhibit potential doses significantly exceeding the 100 mRemlyr limit. In fact, many approach the
limit established by the Federal Government (NRC, Department of Energy (DOE)) for
occupational exposure of 5,000 mRemlyr. To be able to place these potential doses to the POTW
Biosolids Loading Worker, in perspective, a summary of current federal dose limits for the
exposure to ionizingradiation is provided in the table included in Exhibit H (Table 4).
10
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF PERSONNEL EXPOSED TO
RADIUM
FROM TREATMENT OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
A.
EPA’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN ITS 2000 GUIDANCE
The EPA, in its November 2000 draft guidelines for handling and disposal of drinking water
treatment containing technologically enhanced naturally occurring radium material (TENORM)
recommends the following exposure guidelines for water treatment facility personnel which may
be applied to POTW personnel as well. A copy of the relevant portions ofthe EPA guidance is
attached as Exhibit I.
Routine Operations
1.
Ambient radiation levels in areas ofwater treatment plants removing radionuclides
from drinking water should be monitored at least yearly, using gamma survey
instruments or equivalent monitors.
2.
Radiation levels in the vicinity of components that concentrate radioactive materials
should be monitored at least quarterly.
3.
Additional measurements should be performed when a component that accumulates
radioactivity is replaced, if the treatment process is changed, ifthe length ofservice
is increased, or if significant increases in radionuclide levels are observed in the
source water.
4.
Radiation doses to personnel working in a drinking water treatment facility should
not exceed an administrative control level no greater than 100 mRem/yr, and be
kept as far below that level as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
5.
If areas in a treatment plant are identified where an individual working in an area
could receive a short-term exposure that would be a significant fraction of the
above limit, such as 1 mRemlworking day, those locations should be clearly
marked “Caution Radiation” and restricted to specified personnel.
6.
Persons working in areas marked “Caution Radiation” should have appropriate
radiation protection training and their radiation exposure should be monitored
through area monitoring or personnel monitoring, as appropriate.
7.
Radon levels in the air should be monitored, and action taken where appropriate, to
reduce indoor radon levels as much as possible. Because of short-term conditions
that may result in elevated exposures, such as during maintenance of treatment
units, the time period over which radon concentrations are averaged should be
chosen to correspond to normal working hours and conditions.
Improved
ventilation should be considered for the reduction of airborne radon.
8.
Sludge storage sites, evaporation beds, and drying lagoons should be fenced to
prevent unauthorized intrusion.
11
Handling and Shipping Radioactive Wastes for Disposal
1.
When removing and preparing wastes containing radionuclides for transportation
and disposal, the process should be evaluated to keep radiation exposures As Low
As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This may entail special training, tools, or
shielding. In addition, personal protective equipment, such as respirators and
protective clothing, may be necessary to reduce exposures in some situations.
2.
Only properly trained personnel should handle radioactive wastes.
3.
Personnel handling radioactive wastes, including those involved in shipping the
wastes, should have their radiation exposure monitored at all times.
4.
When handling and shipping radioactive wastes, the appropriate local, state, and
OSHA health and exposure regulations should be followed.
5.
When shipping radioactive materials whose concentrations exceed 2,000 pCi/g, the
appropriate Departmentof Transportation standards must be followed as prescribed
in 49 CFR Parts 100 to 179.
B.
EPA’s
2004 GUIDANCE
Most of the substantive recommendations ofthe 2000 Guidance are also in the revised guidance,
“A Regulator’s Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water
Treatment Technologies” (August 4, 2004), excerpts are included in Exhibit I.
With respect to disposal of solid residuals, the report states:
EPA does not encourage the land spreading or soil mixing of such
TENORM unless there is a demonstrated benefit to the public from
the material involved. Where benefits from land application are
construed to exist, EPA believes that such benefits should be
weighed against the potential hazards and risks ofthe practice. The
main concern is the potential for build-up or movement of
radionuclides to create contaminated sites that would require
remediation and/or use of institutional and engineering controls.
Id. at p. 12. Clearly, the EPA has some of the same concerns as documented by my testimony
here. The EPA also expressed concernwith release of liquid residuals into sanitary sewers. The
EPA recommended that in all disposal options, the water treatment facility contact the State and
the POTW to insure that the release of the water treatment residuals into the sanitary sewer will
not interfere with POTW operations or cause a violation of the POTW’s National Pollutant
Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) permit, and will be accepted by the POTW. Again, EPA
recognized, as had ISCORS, the potential for elevated radium levels in unique circumstances to
adversely affect the operations of the POTW. Id. at p. 16.
12
The 2004 Guidance further recognized that relatively undetectable levels ofradionuclides in source
waters could accumulate in measurable or hazardous quantities in piping, pumps, holding tank
scale or sludge, IX and granular filters, backwash and other residual sludge. Radon gas can
accumulate in closed or poorly ventilated buildings when thorium, radium and certain other
radionuclides-containing materials are present.
The EPA recommended additional precautionary measures be undertaken where the accumulation
of radon occurs:
1.
The facility should contact a professional radiation protection specialist or health
physicist for assistance conducting radiation surveys.
2.
The facility should check for the presence of radon in buildings encasing water
treatment equipment.
3.
Use of an OSHA-approved respirator to avoid inhalation of biological pathogens
and chemically toxic materials in residuals. Simple dust masks may not provide
adequate protection.
4.
Limit time spent at land disposal sites to reduce inhalation of contaminated dust.
5.
Shower after exposure to potentially radioactive materials andlaunder work clothing
at the system, if possible. Workers should avoid wearing contaminated clothes
home.
Work boots or shoes should be wiped and cleaned after potential
contamination.
6.
Use gamma survey instruments or equivalent monitors at least once annually to
monitor system’s ambient radiation levels in areas where radionuclides are
removed.
7.
Monitor levels of radiation to which staff are exposed. Systems should contact, or
be referred to, state or other radiation experts for more information on how to
monitor radiation levels.
8.
Apply the radon action level (j
4 pCi/L) used for homes and schools for water
treatment buildings.
And if radionuclides or radiation have been found in a drinking water supply or at a system, the
EPA strongly recommended that operators should be trained in treating for radionuclides, and
handling, disposing of, and transporting TENORM waste. ~çi.at pp. 19-22.
C.
ISCORS RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA is not the only entity recommending precautions be taken.
ISCORS (Technical Report 2003-04) recommends that there is no need for further action when
estimated doses, using screening calculations, are below 10 mRem/yr. However, if the doses are
13
estimated to be 10 mRemlyr or greater, ISCORS advises the POTW operator to contact its State
Radiation Protection Regulatory Agency for further guidance and action.
ISCORS provides guidance on conducting surveys and sampling of POTW operations and
interprets the results to determine if there is a problem with radioactive sludge/ash at the POTW.
ISCORS also provides additional guidance for monitoring radiation levels to potentially exposed
POTW workers, for training, and supports keeping doses to workers ALARA.
Sununary
Thus, if sanitary sewers are used for the disposal of radium-contaminated filtrate, it is clear that
the POTWs should take numerous additional precautions to protect their workers. Indeed, the
measures to be taken may be as extensive as required for workers at nuclear power plants. And
undertaking these measures requires financial and human resources.
14
V.
LAND
APPLICATION
Obviously, discharging radium-contaminated materials down the sewer transfers responsibility to
the POTW where the radium is likely going to end up in the sludge. This section ofmy testimony
demonstrates that those radium-contaminated sludges pose unique problems and added impacts to
the environment, unless they are placed into a secure landfill.
As part of the ISCORS modeling effort, several scenarios were examined to evaluate exposureto
the public from land application of sludge contaminated with radionuclides (including radium).
Specifically, the exposure scenarios that were evaluated by ISCORS related to land application
were:
• Residents of houses built on agricultural fields formerly applied with sludge (single and
5-year application)
• Recreational users of a park where sludge has been used for land reclamation
• Residents of a town near fields on which sludge has been applied
• Agricultural workers who operated equipment to apply sludge to agricultural lands
(single and 5-year application)
ISCORS did not explore a family farm scenario where sewage sludge had been used as a fertilizer.
Water Remediation Technologies, LLC (WRT) contracted American Radiation Services, Inc. to
estimate the potential increased exposure in the “critical groups” scenarios of the ISCORS Report
that would result from high radium concentration in sewage sludge, higher than those modeled in
the ISCORS Report (ARS Report, “Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) Calculations for
Radium-Bearing Sewage Sludge Under Various Exposure Scenarios,” January 26, 2004), copy
attached as Exhibit J1. Radium removal systems used by municipal and water entities to bring
drinking water into compliance with the EPA
5
pCi/L radium limit are examples of unique
situations that were not specifically evaluated by ISCORS. The EPA’s radionuclide rule of
December 7, 2000 requires municipalities generating drinking water with radium activity levels
greater than
5
pCi/L to install radium removal systems. Disposal of water treatment residuals
from radium removal systems into the sanitary sewer can result in the productionof sewage sludge
at the POTW with elevated radium activity levels greater than those identified by the ISCORS
survey. The radium-bearing sewage sludge is either disposed ofat a local landfill, incinerated or
used as fertilizer for farming application.
ARS calculated potential radium activity levels in sludge generated by two typical POTWs in use
today: a Standard Treatment System and an Activated Sludge System. Generally, a Standard
Treatment System and an Activated Sludge System will generate approximately 0.8 and 0.23
grams of sludge per gallon of influent, respectively. (S~Exhibit J at p. 4.)
1 While ARS prepared this report, I have reviewed it and its assumptions and calculations and fmd them to be
reasonable.
15
ARS selected an average initial radium calculation in groundwater of 10 pCi/L, which
corresponded to 148 pCi/g in sludge from an Activated Sludge System and 43 pCi/g in sludge
from a Standard Treatment System. ARS also explored a family farm scenario where sewage
sludge was used as a fertilizer. ARS utilized the same dose modeling methodologies employed by
ISCORS in its dose assessments.
The results of the ISCORS and ARS dose assessments are summarized in Table
5.
Table
5
Comparison of ISCORS Report Exposures with Exposures Resulting from Higher
Radium Concentrations in Sewage Sludge
Scenario
NRC/EPA
ISCORS Report
TEDE Value
(mRem/yr)1
TEDE
based on ISCORS
Radium and Progeny
Analytical Results
(95)
Scaled to 43 pCi/g combined
Ra-226fRa-228 Activity
(mRem/yr)2
TEDE based on ISCORS
Radium and Progeny
Analytical Results
(95)
Scaled to 148 pCi/g
combined
Ra-226/Ra-228 Activity
On-site Resident,
(mRem/yr)2
Single Application
3
6.92
34.1
On-site Resident,
Five-Year Application
14
23.5
116
Sludge Application
Worker, Single Application
0.15
0.39
1.98
Sludge Application
Worker, Five-Year
Application
0.77
1.30
6.41
Incinerator Neighbor
Scenario
7.7
5.27
12.0
POTW Biosolids Loading
Worker Scenario, Without
Indoor Radon Contribution
26
60
170
POTW Biosolids Loading
Worker Scenario, With
Indoor Radon Contribution
420
1520
5210
Family Farm Scenario,
Single Application
Not Evaluated by
ISCORS
5.04
17.36
Family Farm Scenario,
Five-Year Application
Not Evaluated by
ISCORS
24.3
83.90
Note 1:
ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation Doses, Table 7.1, ISCORS 2003-03, NUREG-1783,
November 2003.
Note 2:
Only Ra-226, Pb-210, Ra-228 and Th-228 activity values are scaled to relate to a combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 activity of 43 pCi/g or
148 pCilg. Pb-210 is assumed to be 31 of the Ra-226 activity. Th-228 activity is assumed to be 80
of the Ra-228 activity.
16
Dose modeling performed by ARS estimated that a POTW Biosolids (sludge) Loading Worker
could receive a dose of5,210 mRemlyr from sludge containing radium at an activity level of 148
pCi/g and a dose of 1,520 mRemlyr from sludge containing radium at an activity of 43 pCi/g.
The 5,210 mRemlyr and the 1,520 mRemlyr TEDE include doses from indoor radon. Without
the indoor radon dose component, a Biosolids Loading Worker could receive a dose of 170
EnRemlyr and 60 mRem/yr from sludge containing radium at an activity of 148 pCi/g and 43
pCi/g, respectively.
These potential doses are significant to both the POTW worker and members of the public as they
exceed regulatory limits and guidelines designed to protect individuals. Additional observations
are made with respect to these doses:
• Potential doses would/could be a liability issue to municipalities/POTWs
• Typically, POTW workers are not considered or trained as occupational radiation
workers (they are members of the public)
• The above exposures to the Biosolids Loading Worker (with radon component) exceed
those of the typical nuclear power plant worker
• Even without the radon component, the exposure to the Biosolids Loading Worker
could be almost twice the limit allowed to the general public (170 vs. 100 mRem/yr)
• Average annual dose to nuclear power plant worker, occupational radiation workers
and workers in medical industry who received measured non-zero-dose-are 700 and 240
mRemlyr, respectively. Average to all radiation workers in the United States in 1980
was 210 mRem/yr
ARS also estimated the TEDE to a member of a family farm where radium-bearing sludge had
been applied as fertilizer. It was estimated that an on-site resident living in a house located on
land where five annual applications of 148 pCi/g radium-bearing sludge had been applied would
receive a TEDE of 116 mRem/yr. This exceeds the 100 mRem/yr limit allowed to the general
public.
17
VI.
PROPER DISPOSAL OF
RESIDUE
FROM TREATED RADIUM-CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER
The ALARA philosophy is a fundamental objective ofall effective radiation protection programs.
It forms the basis of the national regulatory structure for radioactive materials and is specifically
included as the principle of Illinois regulations. 32 Ill. Admin. Code 340 (NRC 10 CFR
20.1101(b)). Reducing or minimizing individual (worker) or collective (public) exposure is
desirable. Control of radiation exposure is based on the assumption that any exposure to ionizing
radiation involves some risk. This radiation exposure control philosophy has been presumed
repeatedly in the guidance provided by organizations such as the National Council of Radiological
Protection and Measurement (NCRP), the International Commission of Radiological Protection
(ICRP) and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation (NAS-BEIR). The NRC issued specific guidance to licensees on designing an acceptable
program for establishing and maintaining ALARA levels for gaseous and liquid effluents at
materials facilities
(NRC Regulation Guide 8.37: ALARI4 Levels for Effluent From Materials
Facilities (July 1993)).
Thus, maintaining individual and collective radiation exposure ALARA is a critical element ofany
radiological control programlphilosophy, regardless if the radiological material is man-made,
NORM, or TENORM.
The fact that discharges ofradioactive material (including radium) to the sanitary sewer system can
result in appreciable doses to the POTW worker and to the public was demonstrated in Section III
of my testimony.
In concert with the Illinois IDNS/IEMA regulations and the widely held ALARA principle,
reduction of exposure to the worker or the public should be implemented commensurate with
economic and social consideration. If at all possible, engineering processes and controls should be
implemented to reduce/minimize the radiation exposure.
Mr. Williams’s testimony demonstrates that using any of several engineered and economical cost-
effective water treatment removal techniques, coupled with NOT ALLOWING the resultant water
treatment residue to be disposed of into the sanitary sewer, represents the best application of the
ALARA principle and minimizes the potential exposure to the POTW worker, the public and the
environment.
The EPA office of Groundwater and Drinking Water issued draft guidance entitled “Draft
Suggested Guidelines for Handling and Disposal ofDrinking Water Treatment Waste Containing
Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials”
(EPA, November 2000).
(~
Exhibit I.)
This draft guidance supersedes the June 1994 Office of Drinking Water Report entitled
“Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Water Containing
Radioactive Waste.” The guidelines presented in this document were designed to assist water
treatment facilities in selecting responsible and cost-effective options forhandling and disposition
of waste containing TENORM. The report recognizes that “Unquestionably, waste by-products
produced by drinking water treatment facilities can be ofsufficiently high radioactivity to warrant
18
the implementation of special precautions for their handling and disposal and to use caution when
considering the use of technologies that have a high capacity for radionuclide removal. Since these
technologies also have a great capability to concentrate these radionuclides in processed wastes.”
The guidance evaluates various treatment technologies and highlights those (j~.,AX, CX, HMO)
that have high removable efficiencies for radionuclides such as radium. It also notes that “great
caremust be exercised in selecting and using this technology since radionuclide (i.~,radium) may
become so concentrated on the resin and in waste drains that they may not be disposed ofsafely.”
With respectto potential exposure of water treatment personnel and the public, the EPA guidance
embraces the ALARA principle and states that the guidance was issued “to assist water system
owners and operators to minimize their exposures, that of their staff, and future generations.”
The EPA guidance regarding water treatment sludge is summarized below:
• The EPA does not recommend application, mixing or spreading of water treatment
waste containing radionuclides at any concentration onto open land ~
farm land,
pasture land, woodland, construction sites, road beds, etc.) for several reasons
including:
-
Health risks due to radium inhalation are significantly greater in buildings
constructed on land that has been treated with fertilizers or sludge
containing radium.
-
Data relating to plant, animal and human uptake of radionuclides that may
result from land application of TENORM from drinking water treatment
facilities have not been analyzed extensively.
-
Some radionuclides are extremely long lived. It is difficult to ensure the
long-term control, monitoring and safety of sites not specifically designed
for waste disposal.
-
The EPA has not collected or reviewed information on surface runofffrom
land application sites for water treatment wastes containing radionuclides.
Preliminary risk assessments indicate that runoff from these sites and
subsequent surface water contamination may pose a significant risk to the
general population.
-
Although some sludge has been found to have beneficial properties as
amendment to agricultural soils, the EPA has not determined that the
benefit of application outweighs the potential negative ~
food chain
contamination, impacts on surface and groundwater) for wastes containing
radionuclides.
19
The EPA recommendations for disposal of radium-contaminated water treatment sludge include:
up to 3 pCi/g
Placement in a standard municipal landfill.
3
-
50 pCi/g
Burial to
minimize gamma exposure. Isolation to reduce risk of
disturbance or misuse. Placement in RCRA-permitted hazardous
waste landfill.
-
50
-
2,000 pCi/g
Disposal in accordance with 40 CFR 192 (uranium mill tailings)
either in RCRA-permitted hazardous waste site or NORM disposal
site.
2,000 pCi/g
Disposal at a licensed Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW)
disposal site.
The EPA also recognized that, under 40 CFR Part 403, discharges that would interfere with
wastewater treatment operations or sludge disposals are prohibited.
In addition, if the
accumulation of radioactivity is observed in a sanitary sewage distribution system or in a POTW,
the discharge of drinking water treatment waste into the sanitary sewer should be discontinued.
Summary
Based on the information presented above (the NRC and IDNS/IEMA regulations, the ALARA
principle and the EPA guidelines), it is my opinion that disposal ofwater treatment sludge/residual
containing radium into the sanitary sewer or via land application is inappropriate due to the
potential unnecessary exposure and risk to POTW workers, the public and the environment.
These exposures and risks can be eliminated by disallowing disposal of water treatment sludge into
the sanitary sewer or land application and instead requiring disposal ofthe material directly into a
permitted solid waste, RCRA, NORM or licensed LLRW disposal facility, commensurate with the
radium concentration in the sludge, where it will be isolated from the public and maintained in a
controlled manner.
20
VII.
ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON BIOTA ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO
RADIONUCLIDES
No one disputes that radium is a human carcinogen. It is common knowledge in the environmental
community that human carcinogens are carcinogens or create harmful effects on other living
organisms. Of course, often biota and animals are used to screen chemicals to determine if those
chemicals also cause adverse health effects, such as cancers, in humans.
In reviewing the transcripts of the hearing, I was struck by the testimony to the effect that the
IEPA
had done a literature search and found no literature indicating that radium was harmful to
aquatic and terrestrial biota.
(~
Hearing Transcript dated April 1, 2004 at 24:9-11 and 26:12-
24.) The scope of the literature search was not given.
There has, in fact, been a great deal of scientific study of the effect of ionizing radiation on
terrestrial and aquatic biota. Just one example is the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, Report No. 109 entitled “Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms,”
which references in excess of 50 publications on this topic. A second example is the Biota Dose
Assessment Committee established by the DOE that has broad representation from DOE offices,
national laboratories, universities and the private sector (BDAC).
A description of the BDAC can be obtained from the BDAC web page at
http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac, and the information contained is too voluminous for this
testimony. The BDAC has reviewed and commented on the numerous studies relating to the
adverse effects of radioactivity on biota and also references in excess of 50 sources.
Clearly, there are reports and studies that are available and that could be used by the IEPA to
conduct studies to assess impacts of radium on biota. It is not accurate to claim either (a) that
there is no literature on the subject or (b) that there is no evidence that radionuclides in a particular
radium cause harm to aquatic and terrestrial biota.
21
VIII.
CONCLUSIONS
• Radium and its by-products are known carcinogens to animals and humans.
• There is scientific literature available with respectto the adverse impacts of radium on
aquatic and terrestrial biota.
• Radionuclides including radium, disposed of in the sanitary sewer, have created
significant economic and operations impacts to the POTWs.
• The removal of radium by HMO and certain other processes from the groundwater
creates an “insoluble waste” ~
particulates). NRC and Illinois Department of
Nuclear Safety regulations prohibit the disposal of “insoluble waste” into the sanitary
sewer. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is allowing the disposal of
insoluble radium waste to be disposed of in the sanitary sewer. This appears to be
inconsistent with their sister agency’s prohibition on insoluble waste being released
into the sanitary sewer system.
• Radium concentration (ISCORS data) in POTW influent and concentrated sludge has
been shown to result in elevated potential POTW worker and public exposures. A
POTW sludge loader is estimated to receive 420 mRemlyr dose (from radiumlradon) at
sludge concentrations of Radium-226 and Radium-228 of 13 and 5.1 pCi/g,
respectively. (ISCORS dose modeling.) This is greater than 4 times the allowable
limit to the general population (100 mRem/yr).
• ISCORS did not model unique isolated instances in which higher levels ofradium were
released into sanitary sewers. WRT/ARS demonstrated, via their POTW operations
data and dose modeling approach similar to ISCORS, that POTW operators’ exposure
could be greater than the 100 mRemlyr limit without the radon contribution. With the
radon contribution included, the POTW worker dose would approach andcould exceed
that of a nuclear power plant radiation worker (5,000 mRem/yr).
• The As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle is a fundamental objective
of all DOE, EPA, NRC and State radiation projects. Program procedures and
engineering controls are used to maintain exposures to workers and public ALARA.
Allowing the disposal of radium residue into the sanitary sewer resulting in
unnecessary exposures to POTW workers, the public and the biota rather than
requiring treatment (engineering control) anddisposal (via permitted RCRA orlicensed
NORM or LLRW disposal facility procedure) is inconsistent with the ALARA
philosophy.
• The EPA recommends against land application of any sludge containing elevated
radium levels.
• The EPA is investigating the issues associated with elevated levels of radium in filtrate
from treatment of groundwater for drinking water consumption.
However, the
guidance from the EPA supports a prohibition on the discharge of filtratewith elevated
levels of radium from a drinking water treatment plant.
22
Based on the above, it is my opinion that radium-contaminated water treatment sludge/residuals
should not be allowed to be disposed of in the sanitary sewer via dispersion, but should instead be
disposed ofin an environmentally safe, secure and isolated permitted landfill or licensed disposal
facility. I would recommend to the Pollution Control Board that it retain a radium general water
quality standard and adopt a specific prohibition on disposal ofwater treatment sludge/residuals in
the sanitary sewers.
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certify that I have served upon the individuals named on the
attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the Testimony Of Theodore G. Adams On Behalf
Of Water Remediation Technology, LLC
and First Class Mail, postage prepaid on August 11, 2004.
SERVICE LIST
R04-21
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Amy Antoniolli
Hearing Officer
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
Joel J. Sternstein, Assistant Attorney General
Matthew
J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph
20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Jonathan Furr, General Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62701
Abdul Khalique, Radiation Chemist
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Of Greater Chicago
6001 West Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
Roy M. Harsch
Sasha M. Engle
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive
Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606-1698
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes
111 North Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
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
John McMahon
Wilkie & McMahon
8 East Main Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Abdul Khalique, Radiation Chemist
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
6001 W. Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
