BEFORE THE

~

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

OCT 82004

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED

NEW

35

ILL. ADMIN. CODE

302.307

AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADMIN.

CODE

302.207 AND 302.525

)

)

)

)

)

)

STATE OF

ILUNO~S

PoLtution ControL Board

R04-21

Rulemaking

-

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

See Attached Service List

Please take notice that on October 8, 2004, we filed with the Office of the Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, an original and ten copies of the attached

Supplemental Testimony Of Theodore

G. Adams

On Behalf Of Water Remediation

Technology, LLC

a copy ofwhich is served upon you;

Jeffrey C. Fort

Letissa Carver Reid

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

8000 Sears Tower

233 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-6404

WRT Environmental Illinois LLC

One of Its Attorneys

THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

BEFORE

~ A~

BOARD

OCT-8

OFF~E~

2004

STATE OF ILLJNOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

POllUtiOn Control Board

)

REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER

)

QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED

)

R04-21

NEW

35

ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307

)

Rulemaking —Water

AND AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADMIN.

)

CODE 302.207

AND

302.525

)

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF THEODORE G. ADAMS

ON BEHALF OF WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC

I, Theodore G. Adams, President of T. G. Adams and Associates, Inc., hereby

respectfully submit supplemental testimony to address questions raised by the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (the “Board”) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(the “IEPA” or the “Agency”) during the prior hearing in this matter held on

August 11,2004.

I previously submitted testimony to the Board. Certain areas of my prior

testimony were the subject of questioning, and the purpose of this supplemental

testimony is to address any ambiguities for the record.

I.

WHAT WOULD BE A SAFE LEVEL OF

RADIUM IN GENERAL USE

WATERS

OF ILLINOIS?

(August 11, 2004 Hearing Transcript at pp. 62-63.)

The existing standard of 1 pCi/L for Radium 226 generally is recognized as a

background condition in surface waters of Illinois.1 Given that radium is a recognized

carcinogen, and a degradation product of uranium and thorium, it is not surprising that

the Board set such a level. By doing so, any variations from that standard would require

careful consideration. From the analyses I have performed, it appears that any increase

over the existing standard could result in an excessive radium exposure. Clearly, the

Biota-Dose Assessment Committee approach would not allow for a general increase over

these background levels without a careful data collection and site by site analysis and

justification.

But the effect of the Agency’s proposal is to eliminate ANY water quality

standard for this carcinogen from most Illinois waters. Attachment A hereto is a map

compiled from the Agency’s exhibits 1 and 2; the public water supply wells with known

1

Jacqueline Michel, Predicting the Occurrence of 228Ra in Ground Water, Health Physics Vol. 51, No. 6

(December), pp. 715-721 (1986).

1

---

radium levels over

5

pCi/L are shown in red, and the downstream receiving waters are

shown in yellow. Clearly, the effect ofthe proposal is to wipe out any radium limits for

Illinois waters, even those receiving levels over background.

The Biota-Dose Assessment Committee (“BDAC”) approach demonstrates that

adverse effects from radium in waters may occur at levels slightly above background.

Using the BDAC approach, I have calculated that beginning at levels in the range of 1.4

to 1.88 pCi/L for Radium 226, the water quality would exceed the general biota dose

limit.. Attachment B to my supplemental testimony is a summary of the approach used,

and the calculations I have performed. These show that even if there is no radium

contamination in the sediment, the general biota dose limits would be exceeded at

1.88 pCi/L of Radium 226, in the presence of 1.88 pCi/L of Radium 228. Using the

combined radium limit approach put forth by the Agency for drinking water standards,

the safe limit could be

3.75

pCi/L.

(~

Attachment B at p. 2.) But if sediment levels are

12.2 pCi/g (as documented by the Florida studies in Attachment D), then the safe level

would fall to 1.4 pCi/L for each. Clearly, there is very little room to relax the existing

water quality standard without further data and analysis. And clearly, the expected

effluent of

5

-

10 pCi/L, from several ofthe example POTWs contained in C. Williams

Testimony Table

5,

would fail the BDAC criteria. (S~Attachment B, cases 3 through

6.)

I believe that the approach taken by the BDAC merits considerable weight. The

Department of Energy (“DOE”) is responsible for managing and controlling, at its

facilities, a large portion of the country’s radioactive materials, subject to oversight by

EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) and the states, and has devoted

substantial resources to protecting the environment from radiation. The BDAC approach

is based on the DOE order to its contractors, which has been recognized by EPA and

other states, an important criteria for avoiding impact to human health and the

environment. (See attachment C.) If the Board wants to have water quality standards

that protect aquatic life and the environment, it would appear that the existing standard

may be appropriate.

Moreover, new information arising out of sampling and investigations done in

Florida, including data just published in August of this year, would indicate that radium

levels in the very range that meet the BDAC biota dose limit may adversely affect

mussels, including mussels such as those listed as endangered or threatened in Illinois.

Attachment D hereto is a letter from one ofthe Florida researchers who has evaluated the

bio-concentration in sediments and mussels from various lakes in Florida. These lakes

must be replenished by pumping groundwater, which has radium at the levels I consider

background

i.e., 1-2 pCi/L. The recently published data show that the mussels in

these lakes bio-accumulate radium to levels at 200 pCi/g.

Illinois has many endangered mussels which inhabit the waters threatened to be

de-regulated by the proposed rule. Attachment E hereto are maps taken from the IDNR

website showing river basins where these endangered species may be found. I do not

know if there is a relationship between the “background” radium and these endangered

species, but clearly the effect ofthis proposed rule has not been adequatelyconsidered.

2

---

In conclusion, radium can cause adverse effects on aquatic life and riparian

animals. It is a carcinogen to humans. And it bio-accumulates in mussels and up the

aquatic food chain.

Though the current standard may be virtually the same as

“background,” I would urge that a compelling case is required before relaxing the general

water quality standard for such a material.

II.

ARE

THERE OTHER SOURCES OF RADIUM DISCHARGING?

The explicit assumption made by the IEPA was that an exceedance ofthe existing

standard would occur ONLY as a result ofthe presence of elevated radium in drinking

water or the treatment of drinking water. I would note that the

goal

ofthe EPA drinking

water standard is zero; the

5

pCi/L reflects a risk of 1 in 10,000. But left unaddressed in

this proceeding is the question, “who else could be a source?”

My prior testimony showed that radium is a degradation or breakdown product of

other nuclear radioactive materials. These include thorium and uranium. But there is no

evidence presented in this proceeding of who or where those potential or actual sources

are, whether industrial, commercial or municipal. It seems likely that other discharges of

radium exist.

At least one of the participating facilities in the AMSA study was a publicly

owned treatment works (“POTW”) in the northeastern Illinois area. This POTW is in an

area that has a high concentration ofradium in groundwater withdrawals. Because ofthe

confidentiality terms in the AMSA and ISCORS study, I am not at liberty to divulge the

name of the plant. But I can testify that, given the groundwater levels known to exist in

that locale, the sludge levels reported for that POTW are consistent with the predicted

sludge levels and worker exposure levels presented in my prior testimony.

This observation led me to seek information about other documented dischargers

of radium. Time did not permit a review of radium dischargers in Illinois. But we did

find that at least one nuclear power plant reported radium discharge levels exceeding the

current standard. For the LaSalle plant, Radium 226 was reported for two outfalls at 2.6

pCi/L, and total radium values were 4.1 and 9.0 pCi/L. In a couple of instances, it

appeared that the amount ofradium increased across specific wastewater processes. (S~

Attachment I.)

The record in this proceeding does not identify other sources beside municipal

drinking water treatment plants might be the beneficiary of this de-regulation. There may

be others. Indeed, even among the group that was identified as needing regulatory relief

—

communities that need to treat their groundwater supply to meet the new drinking

water standard

—

some already have decided that they do not need to flush their

treatment water filtrate down the sewer and still can save hundreds of thousands of

dollars.

3

---

III.

WORKS BEYOND THOSE IN AGENCY EXHIBIT 11?

The JEPA suggests in its Exhibit 11 that the POTWs will benefit by avoiding

certain costs if this proposed rule were adopted. But there are other costs that will result

from the adoption of the proposed rule. The overall costs appear actually to be much

greater when one considers all the implications ofthe Agency’s proposal.

The IEPA has not provided this proceeding with evidence concerning testing or

monitoring of any sewage sludge levels for radium. Yet, the economic and operational

impacts of radiologically contaminated influent/sludge on POTWs are well documented.

For example, in Cleveland, Ohio, Advanced Medical Systems, a NRC licensee,

discharged minute amounts ofnon-soluble radioactive particles ofCo-60 over a period of

20 years into the sewer system. These minute radioactive particles contaminated the

POTW and the resulting sludge. The aggregate radioactivity disposed of into the sewer

system over the 20-year period was less than

0.5

Curie (i.e., 0.445 Curie).

(See Attachment F.) Nevertheless, the NEORSD incurred more than $2 million in clean-

up costs when these elevated radiation levels were discovered by chance. An enormous

amount of radioactive contaminated material which occurred as a result of a “miniscule”

amount of radioactivity is still present at the NEORSD. Co-60 has a half-life of

approximately five to six years, and Co-60 does not produce radon as a by-product. In

contrast, Ra226 has a half-life of 1600 years, and does produce radon as a by-product.

In comparison, a moderately-sized city with elevated radium levels may exceed

this quantity in its sludge. I have completed a calculation for the amount of radium

contamination found in sewer sludge from the City of Joliet’s sewer system for a period

of one year. The amount ofradium contamination found in Joliet’s sewer sludge over the

course ofjust a single year was 0.29399 Curie. (See Attachment G, page 12 of Agency

Exhibit 12.) The amount of radium contamination found in Joliet’s sewer sludge over a

period ofone year was more than half the amount ofradioactive contamination (for a 20-

year period) found in the sewer system in Cleveland, Ohio. Thus, over a similar 20-year

period, the Joliet POTWs would appear to generate more than 10 times the quantity of

radiation that caused substantial injury to the sewer system in Cleveland, Ohio. And the

Radium 226 will take longer to degrade than would the Cobalt.

On the other hand, if the radium-laden residuals (j~, Technically Enhanced

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (“TENORM”)) are disposed of into the sewer,

then the public water systems, the POTWs, and the State of Illinois can expect to have the

following increased costs:

•

The uncontrolled discharge ofradium residuals wouldlcould be a liability

issue to municipalities/POTWs (as cited in Cleveland, Ohio);

•

POTW workers will require training, personnel exposure monitoring and

medical monitoring as occupational radiation workers;

•

Sewer sludge and handling areas will require on-going testing;

4

---

•

The POTW maybe required to obtain a radioactive materials license;

•

Application of sewer sludge to farm land will require on-going

monitoring; and

•

Sewer pipes and the POTW itself (or parts thereof) may require

decontamination.

These costs are the practical result ofthe Agency’s proposal.

There is another environmental cost of the proposal.. The Agency expects that

water treatment plants will flush filtrate materials down the sewer. This activity requires

the pumping of additional groundwater to carry out the backflushing operation. The

amount of groundwater may be on the order of

5

to 25 percent of the quantity of water

being pumped for human consumption. Areas already relying on deep aquifers for

potable water supply are in the same areas where the groundwater resource is being

depleted. As an example, although Joliet was already extracting the largest quantity of

well water from deep aquifers in

1995,

there continues to be a further drawdown in the

groundwater level by over 25 feet. This is among the largest drawdowns since 1995 in

the northeastern Illinois area.

($~

“A Comparison of Potentiometric Surfaces for the

Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifers of Northeastern Illinois”,

1995

and 2000, Table 2 and

Figure 9 attached hereto as Attachment H.) For Joliet, backflushing would therefore

increase the groundwater drawdown by

0.5

to

2.5

million gallons per day. Moreover,

Kane County shows the largest growth in deep well pumping of any county in the area.

j~at Table 1. This is not surprising in light of its growth. At the same time, Kane

County communities have some of the highest radium levels in groundwater. Thus, the

amount of water containing elevated levels of radium being extracted from the deep

aquifers seems likely to continue to increase. Allowing the use ofbackflushing in these

areas, would only increase the demand on the deep aquifer resources. And the discharge

to surface waters will carry increased amounts of radium.

IV.

CONCLUSION

The existing standard represents background conditions. Interestingly, the BDAC

approach, required of all DOE facilities, would require site specific data and further

analysis on any water quality condition over this general background level. There is

clearly no basis to remove radium as a general water quality criterion withoutmore data..

Removing the radium standard, without first imposing a control on storm and

sewer discharges of radium comparable to those required of facilities regulated by the

IEMA allows TENORM radium to be backwashed down sewers. This not only re-

introduces a carcinogen back into the environment, it potentially exposes POTW workers

to radium levels above that allowed even for workers in a nuclear plant. And it results in

radium being applied to crop soils as part of the municipal sludge.

From an

environmental view point, all radium TENORM, especially radioactive solids, should not

be permitted down sewers, regardless if one is a licensee of IEMA ornot.

5

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

OCT 8 2004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

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

Supplemental

Testimony Of Theodore G. Adams On Behalf Of Water Remediation Technology,

LLC

and First Class Mail, postage prepaid on October 8, 2004.

---

SERVICE LIST

Dorothy Gunn

Clerk ofthe 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 ofthe Illinois Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph

20t~~Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Jonathan Furr, General Counsel

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62701

Richard Lanyon

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

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

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

John McMahon

Wilkie & McMahon

8 East Main Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Dennis L. Duffield

City ofJoliet

Department ofPublic Works and Utilities

921 East Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

Abdul Khalique

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago

6001 West Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60804

R04-21

11777572

---

m

---

Distribution

Area

Cumberlandia monodonfa

Status: Endangered (state), Federal candidate (Category 2)

A

S

Radionuclide Violations

Public Water

Supply

Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

Otherstreams

•

..

o..

~.

LakeCoPWD

S

~‘

c:-.

‘

Sr

kesrNav

Waukegan

A ove5.~

M H ry

W i

riflgLakes \

~olorth Chicago

H

WestShore kSudv

A

~Lake Forest

-,

~.

~. r~.

I

Wyn

noWtr

~

‘A

ElmOakMutual

Wir

Syst

-

-

Zunc

AA

A

_HighlandPark

Royal M

roe PlOA~

~Highwood

~0.

.

—

—Northbrook

-. ~•

-~

—Glencoe

AiIm

n Par

ce Tm

k A

~Winnetka

~~Silv Glen

~

Prospect eights’ /

~

Sycamo~A

c’

i

aple Park

\

as Plaines

PA

eM P

Evanston

D0KaIVA

/

K AW a

an Di

Coril

nd

4

Elbu

till kRae m

i

•

Chicago

~D~on

ro

an Com~MHP

m

A~

s head hi

Cook

•

.~ ~

•‘

avia

IoS Au ra

/

~.

/

ra

B

ea MHP

Chicago

0

Su r :e

Ro

00

il~

0

~Fmncisca

Q •Hamrnond

IN

Plainfie

State ille Crctl Cir

5e0e

4Lo

rt

Rock Island Arsenal

-

•“~ -~-,.‘

ndot

hot

ICtr

AJolie

HOAoIFo

S v

c ae

Rock

Isla

•~

. .

~

• •• 0.• •.-

-

I PrairieEstS

Ken elm

hannahon

st

-

:~,

•. .

., ••.

0

-o.

B e

R

Addnlmprv

C

~oo1i~

nO

Fie sHilllmprvA

Coo

~

nah

at

WU

~

I

ddA

O)tac~T0.

a

0

r

Do

A pn

V~1l6y

A

P neOa

Eat

_ANeponset

.

~ Wilmmn ton

•

•--~‘.•

•---

~-

AKwanee BureauJuncti

A~0

~

~

i~’~ .

ak

d oresl p an

.Vi~ts

-~

~

f

W~bljfeMRP

ull

Gaa

Aradfowi

~

•

•u’

mingn

A

K

kee

ste

.~

‘•n’’_’~

~-

~.

•.~R ck

ahllirmois-Kakakee

0~~

tAV~O

tqr°

ion

U

•~

~

Hon

Princevill

. -.~ 4~

e

•

L 9

r A

ou

AKfl0~~~~ _f

~“EcLelti

~/~Co~e~

IAWC Pontiac

•~, ~4j~

~rt~oti~ld’

.~0OdHrrany ~~‘‘~a

n

~

• •~~.

I-’

0•

OOO~

•.-~n -‘ 0

a n

m1tI~1oC.1

‘.~.

‘lot.

0.

l~(C.

.

1~~~

Bloc ington

5

.Lj.i’3arfle

7050W

Bloomington

ndrnsville

AB shnel

C ~

4 °

pfetauI

•Ma

b

.,

joiMjne

-

~‘•

Verm

~:0

0

.

•

~•0~~

It

0

10

20

Sceie mIen

CD

Coulterville

~

R0090iph

vansville~SteelC lieter

Percy

IH

—~

-

---

Exhibit B

---

ATTACHMENT B TO SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF

TECHNOLOGY, LLC

The purpose of this Attachment is to provide background on the guidance cited in my

prior testimony in this matter.

The federal Department of Energy (“DOE”), Office of

Environmental Policy and Guidance together with the Biota Dose Assessment Committee

(“BDAC”) has prepared and made available a DOE technical standard, “A Graded Approach For

Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota” (DOE

—

STD. 1153-2002) (the

“Biota Protection Standard”).

($~

Attachment C). The BDAC is sponsored and chaired by the

DOE Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance, Air, Water and Radiation Division; it is

multidisciplinary and brings together expertise in health physics, ecology, radio ecology,

environmental monitoring, and risk assessment.

The DOE Memorandum dated August 27, 2002, (also part ofAttachment C) states: “The

technical standard provides screening methods and, if needed, methods for more detailed

analysis within the general framework that can be used for demonstrating compliance with

requirements contained in DOE Order 5400.5” “Radiation Protection Of The Public And The

Environment”. “DOE Order 5400.5 specifies the radiation protection requirements that DOE

and DOE contractor employees must meet to protect aquatic animals.” These limits are less than

1.0 RAD per day for aquatic animals and less than 0.1 RAD per day for terrestrial and riparian

animals.

-

The 0.1 RAD per day for riparian animals is a relatively high radiation dose. It is the

equivalent of 730,000 mrem per year exposure to man. In my earlier testimony, I stated that

radiation workers are limited to an exposure of 5,000 mrem per year and that this dose must be

kept as low as reasonably achievable (“ALARA”). In fact, the average nuclear plant worker

receives a small fraction of this amount. One hundred (100) mrem is the maximum allowable

exposure to a member ofthe public.

The Biota Protection Standard provides a screening method to determine whether or not

the 1.0 RAD per day (aquatic animals) and the 0.1 RAD per day (terrestrial and riparian animals)

DOE standard will be exceeded in any situation.

Assessment is done by reference to specific Biota Concentration Guides (“BCGs”) for

both water and sediment for aquatic and riparian animals and to the “Organism Responsible for

Limiting Dose” for each ofwater and sediment.

-

Each BCG is specifically referenced to the applicable radionuclide. Table 6.2 of

Attachment C shows the following:

Nuclide

BCG

Organism Responsible for Limiting Dose in Water

Radium 226

4 pCi/L

Riparian Animal

Radium 228

3 pCi/L

Riparian Animal

Attachment B

---

And for sediment, Table 6.2 provides:

Nuclide

BCG

Organism Responsible forLimiting Dose in Water

Radium 226

100 pCi/g

Riparian Animal

Radium 228

90 pCi/g

Riparian Animal

During the screening level process, each of the BCGs is calculated based on the

assumption that it is the only radiation to which the Biota is exposed, and that exposure at the

BCG level is equal to the DOE mandated level of maximum exposure for a terrestrial and/or

riparian animal of 0.1 RAD per day and for an aquatic animal of 1.0 RAD per day. Divide the

actual level by the BCG. Ifthe result is greater than 1.0, the screening level has been exceeded~

Where more than one radionuclide (i.e., Radium 226 and Radium 228) is involved and

where there is more than one source of radiation (i.e., water plus sediment), then divide each

BCG by the actual radiation level for each radionuclide for each ofwater and sediment resulting

in four fractions. Ifthe aggregate sum of these four fractions is more than 1.0, then the screening

level has been exceeded

Sample Calculations of Water Quality Using the BCG Approach

In the pages following the text of this Attachment, I have presented calculations ofhow

the BCGs could be applied to the water quality situation for POTWs receiving water from wells

with elevated radium levels. Page B-S presents the basic formula for Radium 226 and 228 from

the DOE Guidance. The next page then illustrates a sample calculation that provides an estimate

of the water quality level at which the DOE Guidance would deem to be safe for purposes of

protection of aquatic life. As one can see from that page, at a combined radium level of 3.75

pCi/L, without any contribution from total radium in the sediments, the water quality is deemed

acceptable. (I then proceeded to examine the various cases described in Table

5

of Charles

Williams’ August testimony to document that cases 3, 4,

5

and 6 all result in an exceedance of

the bio-dose criteria adopted by the BDAC.)

These calculations may understate the risk to aquatic life, since they include no calculated

contribution from radium deposited in sediment. The IEPA has provided no figures -for the

present or expected radiation levels in the sediment. However, it is my opinion that

-

the

radiation in the

sediment will increase due

to the continued discharge of radium into low-

flow and no-flow streams.

Radioactive Contamination of Sediments

It is instructive to consider the potential effect on the “safe” calculation by adding in a

value for radium in sediments. The information provided by Attachment D provides data on-not

only the uptake of radium by benthic organisms, but also on the accumulation ofradium in the

surficial sediments.

-

In that case, lake levels were augmented by input water from deep water wells, the

introduction oflow radioactive input water (2 to 3 pCi/L ofRadium 226). According to the 2000

2

---

and 2004 Technical Report to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the resulting

sediment contamination averaged 12.1 pCi/g of Radium 226; and the mussels had radiation

levels in the flesh in excess of 205 pCi/g (and a RAD dose of

5.5

RAD per day). ~

Attachment D.) These mussels contain radiation at levels higher than acceptable for

disposal anywhere, but at a low level radioactive waste disposal site.

Although lakes differ from streams, in my opinion, the constant, daily, incremental

discharge ofradium into low-flow or no-flow streams, year after year, will cause an increase in

the radioactive content ofthe sediment over time. Further studies would- have to be undertaken

to project the future levels of radioactive contamination in each particular stream. However,

assuming that the ultimate contamination was 20 pCi/g combined radium (split

50/50),

then (as

shown in the final page of this Attachment B) any radium in the water in excess of 2.72 pCi/L

would cause the screening level to be exceeded. And, on a combined radium basis, based on

these assumptions, the level

of Radium

226

needed to exceed the screening level ranges

drops from 1.88

pCi/L to 1.36 pCi/L.

- -

These calculations indicate that the existing general water standard of 1.0 pCi/L of

Radium 226 water is not unreasonably low on a general, state-wide basis, and is very close to the

level needed to avoid exceeding the screening level provided by the Biota Protection Standard.

It is important to remember that, in radiation matters, the fundamental principle is that all

radiation should be kept ALARA

—

this is especially true with radium for which the maximum

contaminant level goal ofboth the U.S. EPA and the IEPA is zero, which has a lengthy half-life,

and for which, under both U.S. and Illinois state regulations, there is no allowable exempt

amount and no allowable exempt concentration. The DOE committee’s approach reflects this

approach and is supportive ofthe basis ofIllinois water quality standard for Radium 226.

3

---

Case

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 1.73E+OO

Sum of Water Ratio: 1.73E+OO

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 4.77E-03

Water

•‘

H

Concentration PBCG

Limiting

(pCIIL)

(pCi/L)

I°~LJSJ

Organism

Ra-226

3.20E+OO

4.08E+OO

7.85E-

Riparian

Ra-228

3.20E+OO

3.40E+OO

9.42E-

Ripanan

-•

Nuclide Concentration(pCilg)

(pCi/g)BCG

Ratio

Or9anismLimiting

Ra-226

F

2.24E-O1

LO1E+O2

2.22E-

Riparian

I

03

Animaf

Ra-228

2.24E-01

r8.78E+Ol

2.55E-03

RiparianAnimal

I

---

Case 3-

MAX

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 2.98E+OO

Sum of Water Ratio: 2.97E+OO

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 8.19E-03

aer-~

•~•

~~ide Concentration(pCiIL)

• (pCi/L)

BCG

Ratio

Organism

Limiting

Ra-226

5.50E+00

4.08E+00

Riparian

Ra-228

5.50E+00

3.40E+00 ~

~

¼

-

Nuclide

Concentration(PCI!9)

r

(pCi!g)

BCG

Ratio

OrganismLimiting

______

_____~+~

3.8iB~R~ari:n

Ra.228

3.85E01

~8E+o1 ~

~

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 1.16E+OO

Sum of Water Ratio: 1.1 6E+OO

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 3.20E-03

1~~lideConcentration

BCG

Ratio

Limiting

(pC1IL)

(pCi/L)

••

Organism

Ra~226

2.15E+00

4.08E+00

5.27E-

Riparian

Ra-228

2.15E+00

3.40E+00 6~E ,~

~

~iuclide Concentration

-

BCG

Ratio

Limiting

I

•

(pcwg)

~p~Wg~

I

Organism

~a12~...

1.51~-01

~+o2~ 1.49E~FR~arian

r~

~

1.71E~-r ~

---

Case 4-

MAX

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 2.03E+OO

Sum of Water Ratio: 2.02E+OO

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 5.59E-03

U

Vvater

NucIide~

C0~~ ~~tb0t1

Ratio

cgnisn

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 2.71E+0O

Sum of Water Ratio: 2.70 E+00

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 7.45E-03

e

i

Nuclide Concentration

BCG

Ratio

(pCi/L)

(pCi!L)

Organism

Ra-22’3

5.OOE+O0

-

I

Riparian

Animal

e

‘Nuclide ~concentration

BCG

Ratio

-~ - Limiting

~pCi/g~

~p~i!g~

j

Organism

I .OiEi-02

34tE-

Rip~rian

03

,hII~maI

8 78E÷01 3.99E-

Riparian

I

03

Anim3l

5.OOE+00

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 1.84E+00

Sum of Water Ratio: I .84E+00

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 5.06E-03

P~uclide Concentration ~~G

Ratio

•

Limiting

(pCIIL)

1 (pCi!L)

-

Organism

-

Ra-226

3.40E+00

-~ 4.08E+00

8.34E-01

Ra 228

3 40E+00

40E+00 ~

~

Se

Nuclide Concentration

BCG

.

Ratio

(pCilg)

(pCilg)

Organism

Ra-226

2.38E.01

1.01 E+02

2.35E-

Riparian

03

Animal

Ra-228

2.38E-01

8.78E+01

2.71E-

Riparian

I

m

•

03

Animal

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 3.25E+00

Sum of Water Ratio: 3.24E+00

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 8.94E-03

Nuclide concentration

~atio

Ra-226

6.OOE+00

4.08E+00

Ar

Ra-228

3.40E+00 ~~“L

~

-,

rNuclide

concentration

BCG

F~ati

Limiting

I

•

(pCiIg)

(pCi!g)

Organism

Ra.226r

4.20E-01

~~E+02 4.15E-

Piparian

Ra~228 r

4.20E01

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 4.87E+00

Sum of Water Ratio: 4.86E+00

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 1 .34E-02

~

0:0

1

-

~jcBde Concentration

BçG

-

Rato

I

(pCi!L)

(pCIIL)

-

‘

LOrganism

Ra-226

9.OOE+00

4.08E+00 ~

Ra-228

9.OOE+00

~~E÷00~_ ~

Nuclide Concentration,(pCilg)

(pCiIg)

m

BCG

-~

~

Ratio

-

Organism

Limiting

T Ra-226

r

6.30E-01

1.O1E+02

6.23E-

Riparian

I

I

m

03

Animal

~Ra~228E~01

~~

---

CASE

1-With Sediment Concentration of 12.2

pCi/g and a Resultant Water Concentration of 1.38

pCi/I to meet the BCG (or = 1)

Sum of Total Ratio: 1.OOE+00

Sum of Water Ratio: 7.45E-O1

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 2.60E-O1

-0

~uclide

________________________

Ra-226

I -

•

‘:•~‘•-.~

•

n--~’

.

~

Concentration

BCG

Limiting

Organism

1.38E+00

4.08E+00

fliParian

Ra228

t22E+0i~&78E+O1!

Ra-228

1.38E+00

3.40E+00

4.06E.

Riparian

•

01

Animal

-

k~

~

Concentration

I

BCG

.

Limiting

Nuclide

(pCilg)

.

m

(pCi!g)

.

Ratio

Organism

r Ra-226 r~1.22E+01

1.OIE+02

1.21E- I~~iPanan

-

---

DOE

/ Biota Dose Assessment Committee

Biota Protection Screening Levels

BDAC established a screening formula to establish the allowable level of

radium in water for protection of aquatic biota

Water

Water

Sediments

Sediments

Ra-226

Ra-228

R-a-226

I

Ra-228

4.08

3.4

101

87.8

•Tf:

-

- —

X is greater than 1, biota is at risk and site specific studies must

be done

—

X is less than 1, no additional studies are required

A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic

and Terrestrial Biota DOE — STD — 1153-2002

---

DOE / Biota Dose Assessment Committee

Biota Protection Screening Levels

Example:

Ra-226

=

2.04, Ra-228

=

1.7;

.5 Ra-226 and .5 Ra-228

in

sedimen~.s

2.04

+

1.7

+

.5

-F-

=

1

01

4.08

3.4

101

87.8

(

.5

+

.5

+

.005

+

.005

)

• Therefore:

—

If Ra-226

+

Ra-228 is greater than

3.75

pCi/L, the result will

always be greater than 1, biota is at risk and additional studies

are required

-r_____________

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 3.52E-O1

Sum of Water Ratio: 3.51 E-O1

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 9.68E-04

~

Ratio

Ra-226

6.50E01

4.08E+0O

1.59E-

Riparian

~i28~

6.50E-01

3.40E+00 1.9iE~ ~~na~

Nuclide

~t~ion1

~

j

Ratio

Ra-226

4.55E-02

1.OIE+02

4.50E~I Riparian

04

Animal

Ra-228

4.55B02

~8E+01 ~

I ~paci:n

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 5.95E-O1

Sum of Water Ratio: 5.94E-O1

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 1 .64E-03

Concentration

BCG

R

Nuclide

(pCiIL)

(pCiIL)

at!o Organism

l.1OE+00

1.1OE+00

:~

Nuclide Concentration

BCG

(pCi!g)

(pCilg)

Organism

I Ra226 f

7.70E-02

~1E+02 ~

Ir Ripari:n

-

Ra~228

7.7OE~02

~

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 2.33E-O1

-

Sum of Water Ratio:

2.32E-O1

Sum of Sediment Ratio:

6.40E-04

-

Nucllde Concentration

BCG

~pci/L~

~p~i!L~

Organism

Ra-226

4.30E-01

4.08E+00

1.05E-

Riparian

-

Ra-228

4.30E-01

3.40E+00

1.27E-

Riparian

Nuclide Concentration

BCG

Ratio

(pCilg)

(pCilg)

Organism,

~:;—• 30~02 r1~02r2~rRipari:n

~a.228~3.01E..02

~

3.43B

Pipari:n

---

Aquatic BCG Report for Level I

Sum of Total Ratio: 4.06E-O1

Sum of Water Ratio: 4.05E-01

Sum of Sediment Ratio: 1 .12E-03

Nuclide rconcentration

BCG ~tio

I

(pCiIL)

(pCiIL)

Organism

Ra-226

7.50E.01

4.08E+00

1.84E-01

RiparianAnimal

Ra-228

7.50E-01

j3.40E+00 ~2.21E- ~Parian

n

Nuclide Concentration

BCG

Ratio

-

(pCilg)

(pCi/g)

Organism

Ra-226

5.25E-02

-~01E+02 5.19~

Riparian

04

Animal

Ra.228~525E..02~E+01

j ~

Piparian

---

m

C)

-

----

—

-

H---------------

-----z-

-

---

DOE-STD-1 153-2002

A Graded Approach for

-

Evaluating Radiation Doses to

PRINCIPLES AND

APPLICATION

Attachment C

---

DOE-STD-i 153-2002

I Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is accountable to Congress and the public for the safe

conduct of its

activities, including facility operation, waste management and disposal activities,

and

remediation

of environmental contamination. These

routine activities

may result in

releases of radionuclides to the air and water, accumulation of radionuclides in soil and

sediment, and the potential for plants, animals, and members of the public to be exposed to

radiation. DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment”

(1990a), lists the environmental radiation protection requirements that DOE and DOE-

contractor employees must meet to protect aquatic animals. In addition, dose limits below

which deleterious effects on populations of aquatic and terrestrial organisms have not been

observed, as discussed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

(NCRP 1991), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992), are considered by

DOE to be relevant to the protection of all aquatic and terrestrial biota on DOE sites.

1.1

Purpose

This DOE technical standard provides a graded approach (including screening methods-and

methods for detailed analyses) and related guidance that DOE and DOE contractors may use

to evaluate compliance with specified limits on radiation dose to populations of aquatic animals,

terrestrial plants, and terrestrial animals due to anthropogenic sources at DOE sites.

Specifically, the technical standard provides dose evaluation methods that can be used to meet

the requirements for protection of biota in DOE Orders 5400.1, “General Environmental

Protection Program” (DOE 1990b), 5400.5 (DOE 1990a), and the dose limits for protection of

biota developed or discussed by the NCRP (1991) and IAEA (1992) Accordingly, this technical

standard uses the biota dose limits specified below within a graded approach to demonstrate

that populations of plants and animals are adequatelyprctected’ftam the effects of ionizing

radiation:

Aquatic Animals. The absorbed dose to aquatic animals should not exceed I rad/d

(10 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the aquatic

environment. This dose limit is specified in DOE Order 5400.5.

Terrestrial Plants. The

absorbed dose to terrestrial plants should not exceed I rad/d

(10 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the terrestrial

environment.

Terrestrial Animals. The absorbed dose to terrestrial animals should not exceed 0.1 rad/d

(1 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the terrestrial

environment.

Avoiding measurable impairment of reproductive capability is deemed to be the critical

biological endpoint of concern in establishing the dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota.

Module 1, Section 1.2.2 discusses this issue further. Guidance for interpreting and applying

Mi-i

---

DOE-STD-I 153-2002

these dose limits with respect to the length oftime and geographic area over which actual

doses should be compared with the limits is provided in Module 2, Section 3.

DOE has proposed these dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota under proposed rule

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 834 (10 CFR 834), “Radiation Protection of the

Public and the Environment” (DOE 1993). DOE has decided not to promulgate these dose

limits until guidance for demonstrating compliance has been developed. Consequently, this

technical standard was developed, in part, in response to comments and recommendations

received by DOE through the proposed rule comment period. Principal themes in the

comments included: (1) requests for development of cost-effective methods to support the use

of DOE’s existing and proposed biota dose limits, (2) support for a multi-tiered approach to

include screening, (3) requests for guidance on biota monitoring, and (4) requests for

development of a generic method to promote consistency, while retaining some flexibility for

site-specific methods and information. These themes served as the guiding principles for

development ofthe methods contained in this technical standard.

The specific methods and guidance in this technical standard are acceptable for use by DOE

and DOE-contractors when evaluating doses to biota in relation to the above dose limits.

The methods and guidance in this technical standard should also be useful to ecological risk

assessors who must evaluate risks to biota from radionuclides that occur on DOE sites. Using

the graded approach provided in this technical standard, risk assessors can use soil, sediment,

and water radionuclide concentration data to determine whether radionuclide concentrations at

a site are likely to result in doses in excess of those listed above and would, therefore, have the

potential to impact resident populations of plants and animals. The methods can also give risk

assessors an immediate qualitative assessment of the importance of doses of ionizing radiation

to the resident receptors. The dose equations in this technical standard also provide methods

of estimating upper-bound (e.g., conservatively derived) doses to specific plants and animals.

Refer to Module 1, Section 3, for a description of intended and potential applications of the

DOE graded approach.

1.2

1.2.1 Increasing Interest and Need for Biota Dose Evaluation Methods

There is growing national and international interest in establishing a regulatory framework (e.g.,

to include standards or criteria) and supporting evaluation methodologies for demonstrating

protection of the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. Regarding environmental

protection, the ICRP statement that

“. . .

if man is adequately protected then other living things

are also likely to be sufficiently protected” (ICRP 1977; 1991) uses human protection to infer

environmental protection from the effects of ionizing radiation. This assumption is most

appropriate in cases where humans and other biota inhabit the same environment and have

common routes of exposure, and less appropriate in cases where human access is restricted or

pathways exist that are much more important for biota than for humans. The inclusion of

-

M1-2

-

---

DOE-STD-1 153-2002

radiation as a stressor within ecological risk assessments is also a consideration. Ecological

risk assessments at contaminated sites being considered for remediatiori under-the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) generally

require an assessment of all stressors, including radiation. Assessments of radiation impacts

on contaminated ecosystems are currently underway in the U.S. under CERCLA regulations

(EPA 1988).

Nationally and internationally, no

standardized methods have been

adopted for evaluating doses and

demonstrating protection of plants and

animals from the effects of ionizing

radiation. In 1999, the IAEA convened

a technical committee examining

protection of the environment from the

effects of ionizing radiation and

provided recommendations and

discussion points for moving forward

with the development of protection

frameworks and dose assessment

methods. The resulting IAEA

Technical Document, “Protection of

the Environment from the Effects of

Ionizing Radiation” (1999) references

multi-tiered screening as a potentially

cost-effective and easy way of

demonstrating compliance with

radiation criteria for protection of biota.

The IAEA has subsequently hosted a

series of Specialists’ Meetings on radiological protection of the environment, and the Nuclear

Energy Agency (NEA) and the ICRP have sponsored a series of fora on this issue. It is hoped

that the methods and guidance provided in this DOE technical standard will serve as a platform

for national and international discussion of radiation protection frameworks, standards, and

dose assessment methods for biota.

1.2.2 Basis for Biota Dose Limits Applied in this Technical Standard

A dose limit for controlling radiological impacts from DOE activities to native aquatic animals is

specified in DOE Order 5400.5. At present, DOE Orders do not specify dose limits for

terrestrial organisms. However, an intended objective of DOE Orders 5400.1 and 5400.5 is to

protect the aquatic and terrestrial environment, including populations of plants and animals,

within and beyond the boundaries of DOE sites from impacts of routine DOE activities. The

dose limits in this technical standard are consistent with (a) the intent of DOE Orders 5400.1

Benefits of a Screening Process

“A multi-tiered screening approach is normally used in

ecologicalrisk assessments. Screening may also be a

potentially cost-effective and easy way of

demonstrating compliance with radiation criteria or

standards forprotection of the environment. Screening

values should be used to identify radionuclides in

situations of concern, and to determine whether these

radionuclides warrant further assessment, or if they are

at levels that require no further attention. In practice,

this initial screening isexpected to be sufficient in the

majority of cases. When initial screening falls,

additional analysis or assessment may be needed. A

two- or three-tiered scheme would help ensure that the

magnitude of the assessment effort would be scaled to

the likelihood and severity of environmental impacts.”

From: IAEA-TECDOC-1091, Protection of the

Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation:A

Report forDiscussion (July 1999)

Mi-3

---

DOE-STD-1 153-2002

and 5400.5, (b) the dose limit for aquatic animals specified in DOE Order 5400.5, and

(c) findings of the IAEA and NCRP regarding doses below which deleterious effects on

populations of aquatic and terrestrial organisms have not been observed. They are also

consistent with the intent of the IAEA document, ‘The Principles of Radioactive Waste

Management” (IAEA 1995), in which Principle 2 states that “radioactive waste shall be managed

in such a way as to provide an acceptable level of environmental protection.” The background

for the dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota is briefly discussed below. These dose limits

represent expected safe levels of exposure, and are- consensus No Adverse Effects Levels

(NOAEL5) for effects on population-relevant attributes in natural populations of biota.

1.2.2.1 Aquatic Organisms

At the request of DOE, the NCRP (1991) reviewed the literature on the effects of radiation on

aquatic organisms and prepared a report on the then-current understanding of such effects.

The report also provided guidance for protecting populations of aquatic organisms, concluding

that a chronic dose of no greater than 1 rad/d (0.4 mGy/h) to the maximally exposed individual

in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection of the population.

The IAEA examined and summarized the conclusions regarding aquatic organisms of several

previous reviews (IAEA 1992):

Aquatic organisms are no more sensitive than other organisms; however, because they

are poikilothermic animals, temperature can control the time of expression of radiation

effects.

The radiosensitivity of aquatic organisms increases with increasing complexity, that is,

as organisms occupy successively higher positions on the phylogenetic scale.

The radiosensitivity of many aquatic organisms changes with age, or, in the case of

unhatched eggs, with the stage of development.

•

Embryo development in fish and the process of gametogenesis appearto be the most

radiosensitive stages of all aquatic organisms tested.

• The radiation-induced mutation rate for aquatic organisms appears to be between that

for

Drosophila

(fruit flies) and mice.

Furthermore, the 1992 review found that the conclusions of an earlier IAEA review (1976) were

still supported; namely, that appreciable effects in aquatic populations would not be expected at

doses lower than I rad/d (10 mGy/d) and that limiting the dose to the maximally exposed

individuals to less than I rad/d would provide adequate protection ofthe population.

MI-4

---

DOE-STD-1 153-2002

1.2.2.2 Terrestrial Organisms

The IAEA (1992) summarized information about the effects of acute ionizing radiation on

terrestrial organisms as follows:

•

Reproduction (encompassing the processes from gametic formation through embryonic

development) is likely to be the most limiting endpoint in terms of survival of the

population.

• Lethal doses vary widely among different species, with birds, mammals, and a few tree

species being the most sensitive among those considered.

• Acute doses of 10 rad (100 mGy) or less are very unlikely to produce persistent and

measurable deleterious changes in populations or communities of terrestrial plants or

-

animals.

The IAEA (1992) also summarized information about the effects of chronic radiation on

terrestrial organisms:

• Reproduction (encompassing the processes from gametogenesis through embryonic

development) is likely to be the most limiting endpoint in terms of population

maintenance.

•

Sensitivity to chronic radiation varies markedly among different taxa; certain mammals,

birds, reptiles, and a few tree species appear to be the most sensitive.

•

In the case of invertebrates, indirect responses to radiation-induced changes in

vegetation appear more critical than direct effects.

• Irradiation at chronic dose rates of I rad/d (10 mGy/d) or less does not appear likely to

cause observable changes in terrestrial plant populations.

•

Irradiation at chronic dose rates of 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) or less does not appear likely to

cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. The assumed threshold for

effects in terrestrial animals is less than that for terrestrial plants, primarily because

some species of mammals and reptiles are considered to be more radiosensitive.

•

Reproductive effects on long-lived species with low reproductive capacity may require

further consideration.

The NCRP and IAEA concluded for aquatic organisms and the IAEA concluded forterrestrial

organisms that the statement by the ICRP (1977; 1991), “...if man is adequately protected, then

other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected” was reasonable within the

M1-5

---

DOE-STD-1 153-2002

limitations of the generic exposure scenarios examined. A similar assessment was made at a

DOE-sponsored workshop (Barnthouse 1995) held to evaluate the adequacy of existing effects

data and approaches to radiation protection of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to support

moving forward with setting regulatory limits. DOE workshop participants agreed that

protecting humans generally protects biota, except under the following conditions: (I) human

access to a contaminated area is restricted but access by biota is not restricted, (2) unique

exposure pathways exist for plants and animals that do not affect exposure of humans, (3) rare

or endangered species are present, or (4) other stresses on the plant or animal population are

significant.

1.2.2.3 Additional Summaries and

Reviews

NCRP and IAEA Findings

UNSCEAR.

In 1996, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects ofAtomic

Radiation (UNSCEAR) summarized and reviewed information on the responses to acute and

chronic radiation of plants and animals, both as individuals and as populations (UNSCEAR

1996). The conclusions from the UNSCEAR reviewwere consistent with findings and

recommendations made earlier by the NCRP and IAEA concerning biota effects data and

appropriate dose limits for protection of biota. In 2002, UNSCEAR reported that these dose

rate criteria (1 rad/d for aquatic animals and terrestrial plants; 0.1 rad/d for terrestrial animals)

remain defensible for protection of populations of plants and animals. The UNSCEAR plans to

develop a new scientific annex to further address radioecology and effects of radiation on the

environment (Gentner 2002).

UK Environment Agency.

In 2001,

the

Environment Agency of the United Kingdom (UK)

conducted a review of the available body of radiation effects data on biota (Copplestone et al.

2001). They concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any significant effects in:

• populations of freshwater and coastal organisms at chronic dose rates below 400 uGy/h (or

1 rad/d; 10 mGy/d);

•

terrestrial plant populations at chronic dose rates below 400 uGylh (or I rad/d; 10 mGy/d);

and

• terrestrial animal populations at chronic dose rates below 40 uGy/h (or 0.1 rad/d; 1 mGy/d).

It is noteworthy that the UK Environment Agency’s review findings are largely consistent with

the findings and biota dose recommendations of the NCRP, the IAEA, and UNSCEAR cited

above. Additionally, they concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any significant effects in

populations of organisms in the deep ocean at chronic dose rates below 1,000 uGy/h (or 2.5

rad/d; 25 mGy/d).

M1-6

---

DOE-STD-l 153-2002

ACRP. In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Radiation Protection (ACRP), charged with

providing advice to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regarding approaches

needed for the radiological protection of the environment, provided recommendations

concerning appropriate dose rate criteria for protection of biota. The ACRP recommended that

the generic dose rate criterion for protecting biota should be in the range of 1-10 mGy/d (0.1-I

rad/d). The ACRP indicated that this dose rate criterion is based on population-level effects

and, given the current state of knowledge and consensus views of radiation effects on biota,

represents the level at which ecosystems will suffer no appreciable deleterious effects. The

criterion is specified in terms of daily dose rather than annual dose. The intent is to avoid, for

example, what would be the annual dose at this dose rate criterion being received in a few

days. The ACRP further recommended that there should be some flexibility in the averaging

time used in interpreting this dose rate criterion (CNSC-ACRP 2002).

1.2.2.4 Application of Biota Dose Limits as “Dose Rate Guidelines” for Evaluating Doses

to Biota

The biota dose limits specified in this technical standard are based on the current state of

science and knowledge regarding effects of ionizing radiation on plants and~anima!s.They

should not be interpreted as a “bright line” that, if exceeded, would trigger a mandatory

regulatory or remedial action. Rather, they should be interpreted and applied more as “Dose

Rate Guidelines” that provide an indication that populations of plants and animals could be

impacted from exposure to ionizing radiation and that further investigation and action is likely

necessary.

1.2.3 Protection of Populations

The intent of the graded approach (i.e., the screening and analysis methods) in this technical

standard is to protect populations of aquatic animals, terrestrialanimals, and terrestrial plants

from the effects of exposure to anthropogenic ionizing---r-adiation. As noted above, certain taxa

are more sensitive to ionizing radiation than others. Based on this observation, it is generally

assumed that protecting the more sensitive taxa will adequately protect other, less sensitive

taxa. Hence, in cases where site-specific evaluations may be required, receptors should be

selected that (1) are important to the structure and function of the community, (2) are expected

to receive a comparatively high degree of exposure (e.g., expected to receive a radiation dose

to reproductive tissues which is relatively high per unit of radionuclide present in the ecosystem,

in comparison with other receptors in the same community), and (3) have a comparatively high

degree of radiosensitivity (e.g., radiation effects of concern occur at relatively low doses, in

comparison with other receptors in the same community). Figure 1.1 shows the relative

radiosensitivity of various taxa for both aquatic and terrestrial systems.

Participants at the DOE-sponsored workshop to evaluate the adequacy of existing effects data

and approaches to radiation protection of aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Barnthouse 1995)

concluded that existing data support the application of recommended dose limits to

Ml-7

---

Table 6.2 Blota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Water and Sediment (In Special Units) for Use in Aquatic System

Evaluations. For use with measured radionuclide concentrations from co-located water and sediment.

144Ce

2E+03

Aquatic Animal

3E.i-03

Riparian Animal

135CS

5E+02

Riparian Animal

4E+04

Riparian Animal

137Cs

4E÷01

Riparian Animal

3E+03

Riparian Animal

60Co

4E+03

Aquatic Animal

-

1 E÷03

Riparian Animal

154Eu

2E+04

Aquatic Animal

3E+03

Riparian Animal

155Eu

3E+05

Aquatic Animal

3E÷04

Riparian Animal

3H

-

3E÷08

Riparian Animal

-

4E+05

Riparian Animal

1291

-

4E+04

Riparian Animal

3E+04

Riparian Animal

1311

-

1 E+04

Riparian Animal

5E+03

Riparian Animal

239Pu

2E+02

Aquatic Animal

6E+03

Riparian Animal

~6Ra

4E+00

Riparian Animal

1

E+02

Riparian Animal

-

~8Ra

3E+00

Riparian Animal

9E+O1

Riparian Animal

125sb

4E+05

Aquatic Animal

7E+03

Riparian Animal

90Sr

99Tc

232Th

233jj

3~+0-2

7~+05

3ç+02

2Et+02

Riparian Animal

Riparian Animal

Aquatic Animal

Aquatic Animal

6E÷02

4E+04

1 ~+03

5E~+03

Riparian Animal

Riparian Animal

Riparian Animal

Riparian Animal

234(J

21+o2

Aquatic Animal

5F+03

Riparian Animal

235~J

2E+02

Aquatic Animal

-

4E~+03

Riparian Animal

238~J

2~+02

Aquatic Animal

2~+O3

Riparian Animal

65Zn

1 E:+01

Riparian Animal

1

Riparian Animal

95Zr

7:+03

Aquatic Animal

2÷03

Riparian Animal

241Am

4E÷02

Aquatic Animal

5E+03

Riparian Animal

---

-1

United States. Government.. ~-

Deba~n~eflt~Eflcr~Y

rem-~o..-ra:n-durn

DATE:

August 27, 2002

REF’LYTO

ATTN OF:

Office ofEnvironmental Policy and Guidance: Domotor: 6-0871

SUBJECT:

Availability ofDOE-Approved Technical Standard, “A Graded Approach forEvaluating

Radiation Doses to

Aqi.tatic

and Terresirial Biota (DOB~STD-1153-2002),” for Use in

DOE

Compliance and Risk Assessment Activities

TO:

Distribution

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you on the availability ofthe recently

approved Department of Energy (DOE) technical standard, “A Graded Approach for

EvalUating RadiationDoses to Aquatic and TerrestrialBiota (DOE-S1D-1153-.2002).”

The technical standard provides methods arid guidance within

a graded approach

for use

In demonstrating protection ofbiota (plants and animals) from potential effects of

ionizing radiation. This voluntary consensus technical standard was prepared by the Air,

Water, and Radiation Division (EH-412) and the Department’s Biota Dose Assessment

Committee, an approved DOE Technical Standards Program topical committee

comprised ofrepresentatives from across the DOE complex.

The technical standard provides screening methods and, if needed, methods for more-

detailed analysis within a graded framework that can be used for demonstrating

compliance with re uirements contained in DOE Order

5400.~,

“Radiation Protecti9~of

-

the Public and the Environment.” it can also be use o support environine~italprotection

program elements within Enviromnental Management Systems at

DOE

sites, and for

conducting ecological risk assessments ofradiological impact. DOE Order

5400.5

specifies the radiation -protection requirements that IDOE and

DOE contractor

employees

must meet to protect aquatic animais. In addition, dose rate guidelines below which

deleterious effects have not

been

observed in populations of aquatic or terrestrial

organisms, as

recommended

by tin National Council on Riidiation Protection and

—Measurements, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, are considered by DOE to

be relevant for the protection ofaquatic and terrestrial biota at DOE sites.

This technical standard is responsive to DOE’s needs and to increasing stakeholder and

regulator interest concerning protection ofthe environment (biota and ecosystems) from

the effects of radiation. Internationally, the general practice ofusing human radiation

protection to infer ecological protection is being re-considered for certain radiological

contamination scenarios. Accordingly, explicit guidelines arid methods for

demonstrating radiological protectionofthe environment are being considered or are

already under development by certain countries and international organizations. The

evaluation ofradIation as a stressor within ecological risk assessments is also a

consideration. Ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites being considered for

remediation (e.g., under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act, CERCLA) generally require an assessment ofall stressors, including

---

V~f~/U4

.L~.’;ZU !~AA

bU4 ~

14U5

V. B.

MCINTYRE LAW’ CORP.

1~Joo~

radi.ation.

Pinally,

DOE

long-term stewardship (LTS) planning documents at the local

and

national level

indicate

that protection of

natural resources is integral to a successftl

LTS program, and

cited radiological impact on wildlife as a public concern at

radiologically-contaminated sites requiring long-term stewardship.

The Department’s graded approach for evaluating doses to biota was designed for

flexibility and acceptabi1ity~It provides users with a tiered approach for demonstrating

compliance with biota dose rate guidelines that is cost-effective and easy to implement, it

allows for the use ofmeasured radionudilde concentrations in enviromnental media

typically collected as part ofDOE routine site environmental surveillance programs, it

incorporates ecological risk assessment concepts, and it provides guidance for site-

specific biôta dose assessments where needed. A copy ofthe technical standard and the

RAD-:BCG Calculator (a companion software progmm for use with the technical

standard) can be downloaded from the 3iota Dose Assessment Committee web site

(http://honier.ornj. gov/oepa/óubliofbdac) and.from the DOE Technical Stand~ds

Program home ‘page (http://tis.ehdoe~g~ov/techstds/standard/standfrmhtni1).

The Biota Dose Assessment Committee is available as a technical resource concerning

the implementation ofmethods arid guidance contained in this technical standard.

Requests for Committee assistance should be -coordinated through the chairperson (IVir~

Stephen Dornotor, EH-412,202-586-0871, tenhen.Domotor(~,eh.doe.gov).Questions

concerning thIs technical standard, requests for a copy ofthe technical standard, or

communication oflessons learned from its implementation should also be coordinated

through Mr. Domotor (E~-I-412).

fry ~

Andy Lawrence

Director

Office ofEnvironmental Policy and Guidance

Distribution:

Attached

cc:

Biota Dose Assessment Committee

Environmental Radiological Control

Coordinating CormnIttee

Annual Site Environmental Report

Points ofContact

---

Exhibit E

---

Distribution Area

Veriusfaconcha ellipsiformis

S~S~~

Status: Species of special concern

A

Radionuclide Violations

• Public WaterSupply Intakes

Area of streams

withno

Radium

protection

~-~-

Otherstreams

- -~:~----

--

-

-

- -

--

..S~

~

-

LakeCo PWD

~

f

)~k~

-~5

gr

n-

1~$~a

5

—

-~

-~

-~

~

~

W

~

pg ~,.kès

S

-~CLCJAWA~North

Chicago

I

W

Weal

neW~ghore

.,~

V

-‘

~LakeElm

Oak

ForestMutual

Wtr

Syst

-~

Zun

-A

A

_HighlandPark

;~5~:~

—H~hwood

~~In

~

:/

~~lme~

-~

~

S

~

~

•

Chicago

V

~

IN

~

~

i

‘1!~t

iif~tis~ ,Jol

C

Prpirl~stS

an~boo- ~

~

__

~

J5-~9-

~

1~S~~ontieo

s-

~—

1’ ~

4anm~eld~2~/r/

~

~

c

bc--’--..

:-~-~Co~-

soo

j-~,

r~—-~—1

-

c-m-

arnW~tork

—----5

~W(~

~IU~ ington

—

-~

-5

S

-

5

~

-~-

-.

-

-

~-

~

Bloomington

-~

—:---c

~-

--~-

-

-

~-~--. .--i-~oeon~-

r~he~

C~n ~

£‘~A

preton

—-

-

on

Mines

- -

-~

~0

1eP~erl~~

-

—~-

Rock Island Arsenal

;-:

~

~

:.

Rock Is!

-

-

-

-

&~:~

~~‘-:

~OC1iSInd

(

He

a

—

le

- ~

‘-~

--

~.

and~la

J

~

araatv~ ç

—

0

10

20

Scaw - .~es

Coulterville

~

Randolph

Steel

anaville~C

lie

tar

Percy

---

\

A ~

oa~f~1&~°iwtsyst

__

Distribution Area

Simpsonaias ambigua

~

I

~L

~

Arliil$-~far~

/sinetka

Status Endangered

(state)

Federalcandidate

(Category 2)

1

~

$dv~

~EPEst~S

~

~

~

~~a~t~Ton

A

RadmnuclideViolations

he

~

0

S

Chicago

S PublicWaterSupply Intakes

I

Area ofstreams

with

no

-5

-~

—

—

,r ~

~vl~

Radiumprotection

Jio0n~

n

~

~

I

e~~A

I

Chicago

~

Otherstreams

—

~—

-5

~ l~~mm0~~

IN

~--c~-.-

~--‘-:~:~

-

5~

~

-~a~

ofChicago

i~jaInfie

St~tc

e-çcct~tr

RockIsland Arsenal

—

-

-

-

-

—

ndp

--

-~

~

--

-:-

---

-

~5

.

i~t

--~ -

iCtr~

--

~

-

-

-

Rock

Isla

~- i

Prajri~atS

k

arn~bon- i~1

is:

oH

1

-‘

7

~

—j

~

~

wit

Is

~-

~

~

Otfawa

~.~

too~siu

a -~

-

~

~la

-5

~

I

~

~ lUe” t pr

\~ey

~

Wi~dlifeMRPj

~‘--~

-

;-~

~

~.:

~

~

~7-~~-

~

~

-

~

U

-~~g

~“~-~-I-

~°I—~-~

Po1sH~

4t4)atwitf

A

-

~Ate(l~ etor

I

i(s~Ka kakee

le

Is

haIl0~

—5

-5

a~sieal(

I

I~ns.

4~p

eeilIeA

AA

a

LIV

toil

A(ulojipjo

kn~,c~i1

IA~oi1iao

?

Coulterville

dons

~ re

-5

\

4~nmf~eld

-5

—

Sa

naville

enm~oro

I

W~

~

:~

~

ington

H d ph

Percy

-5

Bloomington

Steel lIe

-

‘

laridifi’tiyilid

~

-

-~ —:

-~-

--

- --

-V

-‘oH0015e -

-

-

-

(

~i

A

~

pTe(Orl

C

tar

ämi~~

~

-

I

N

dr~a~v~

-~

s-

IIHPPL

Vet~~i~rlf

~

0

10

20

---

Distribution Area

Quadrula

fragosa

UI 011.5.0 II

V S~-5W.

Status: Endangered (Federal)

A

Radionuclide Violations

S

Public Water Supply Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

-5~~--5—~,-

Other

streams

Lake Co PWD

~North Chicago

7CLCJAWA

yn neWtr

NANA

AA

~LakeWaukeganForest

RoyatMZuric rneF~tOA_~

_Highland—HighwoodElm

Oak MutualPark Wtr Syat

~-~---~

0

~&-~--5s~_-~

‘~h

I

t

~

JI

\

~7___

-I-V -

-

-

-

~I-i.

-i~~—~

:

- -

-

~--

~

-

d~~f

:-~

-; .‘

:-:~~

-

-/

_-L~ ~

2~

ThflTt~~I~~Glencoe

/ Aj1in~t~nPars F~aceTrek A A ‘A~~—Winnetka

~

(~\

~~Sitr1

~

~

/~

~

-

- -

~

Sycamo~A

~

eM P

0

-‘

-

~

DeKal~A

I

AW s

anDi

—

-

-

Vs

I

Cortl nd~

Elbu

ill

Rec m is

S

Chicago

i~~’L~~’!

ixon~Dmon rct tr

an Com~MH~ dm

A4

heart hi g

Co

-

-

~

~ - ---I

~

,—~

/

~ ~

~ ~a MHP

Chicago

-

-~:-~--

~~--“

-

Loe7

s

u r

ye

A

Q

•Hammond IN

-

-

,—~

Ro eo lie

~sFranciaca

of Chicago

-

-

-

~-s~: -

Plainfie

State lie Crctl ~r

-

.:—-~

-

Solia

4Loc

Rock IslandArsenal

~

---

-- ‘t~

ndo

1St

ICtr

AJolie

- 0-

-

-

HOA0fFo

S

V

ca

RockIsla

--

-

- -

1

-

°--

-~

I Prairie

EatS

Kerdal

hannahon

at

-

-,

-

-

_

i -

- -s

-

-

a~

R

Addnlmprv

n

~ooIoi

vi

-‘

ie

S

HilllmprvA

Cia ~

nah

WV

Hd

ddA

Ottawa

A

oodsmo

De

A pn Valley

A

P neOs Eat

-

V

-s

i—--

—

Neponset

aterCor

i mm

on

I;-~

~

~

~K wanes BureauJuncti

,

Wh ering~iesMtP

/

Ca

ill

Dia W~k

oresI P Sn

e I 4

* ~

Ga a

A radford

ndard

Coun AcresM

AR

m

A

u Wilming n

-

-

—~

-

PoIne~

ALcetant

-

-

-.

--

-~

-

-

--

-~

-

-

Sb

-

Red ick

aIllinois-Ka kakee

-

- -

-

-

-

-

—

IAWCS eator

-

Ion

tohi

-

- •

-

oC~_-,s0000

-

5

--

•---~

-

—

‘--:00

-

-

1~--.-~:

V — -~I~ods

-Y ~-

~

-i-—:

--

-

PrincevilleA

AA

arshall

LI flg ton

•\.;~~-5 ~

~

-;

~a~c~ii ~

“Edels n Wtr Corp

IAWC Pontiac

ig

-

-

-

--

01 -~

ABrimfield

-

I

dips ~

V I aIred

-

0

:

-

--

-1

--- -

-

_

—

--

-~---

-

-

--

-

eo~

Wad’oid

-~

-4-

-

;-t0.~

V

•~i

-

-

-

1.

--‘

--

•

-~

—-

--~ I

eaCi

-

~~V&

--

sV I-°’H

IAWCPe r

—

I

armington

Bloo regIon

—

—

-

Bloomington

000

-

-

ti~~il~ ~

“-~

A

TazwII

:~T—’--is.~-:-4 ~te1;~---~~-_-

A pleton

d

- --

—

.1

V-•’)—•-M

b.

-~-•~-

—

;

stonMines

)Htimdbns

1

0r~aW~

ppI~-—

00

-5

/eT~1onf

__________________

0

10

20

ac.5le

-

odes

Coulterviie

~

Randolph

Steelansville~Ch lietar

Percy

---

Distribution

Area

Plethobasus cyphyus

~--~1-~~I---

5-

1

1

f

r~---~-~’~

~

C

Ir

LakeC0PWD

-5-

-5

I~

-5

1

~

4

~

Gr

kestNav

Waukegan

-~

550

_•_~___

~ -~ ~

~

- ~

-7 :

W~ata

~

50

A~ren~,re~

~

~

~p

is

W

ri~gLakes

LaO

\

~NorthChicago

-V

-5

~l-,-c’°~r

WestShore kSudv

A

-LakeForest

1

•-5 In

—V

I

~

neWtr

••~••

~‘A

Elm OakMutual WtrSyat

I

~V

~

I

A•_•

~

Zunc

AA

A

_HighlandPark

~~‘~•~0~

~

~

~

~

~

~

--- yalM

rneHOA~A

_F.?o1hb~OOk

p

~

I

‘~

_o

~

~~—“°i-

sO

—Glencoe

-

IV

- •I-~’~

~~00

~

~

--

—-4-5- -

+A~

~ r

ceTra A

~t~innetka

-

~

~en

£~tetn P~

eights’

/

~

S

~cafn~e~A

~p1IP~k

s

M P

Di

—

0~~

“

‘° Oo~tlFId ~

~EI)~tt

ill

c m is

S Chicago

-5

______A~

/-5-5~1-54~

,ALI

Chicago

-

‘

-

-~°‘~

8

_1

~ 9 Hammond IN

S

I~iS

~

‘~Fwirtc

of Chicago

1

-

-

i.

V

Said

PLainfie

State e-~ctt

Rock Island Arsenal

~

—

0:~o_5~s,.~0e~i.

00

—

’.~~.,~A,c4-Vl°o

nclp

~

1

~

i~t F 116tH

Ito

~•o

Rocklsla

ç o

I

-

PrajrIp~stS

Re

~

~~~‘-

~-~-:‘~-=~ ~

~

--

~-~--

-

~

-5

-

Pd

-.

—

~-

~trawa

~

I0~ig~I

a AsdTp~-~/~

-5

-

~

4-5

__

-

Y~J

~

i~(

ie~

Os

- ~i1t

~~sI

I~oSs.

~n~llle&

AA

a

L S ci

10

-

AMopinoi

i

4

_f

n.W(nCo~n.

IAWC~4ntiOO I’

1di04

:‘

~

~‘-~L~-

~Brfi~’

~

~

-

-4

-5

d~hId—

00

I

—

~

~

edti

~

°

~.~—‘~‘--~

~emoi~ors

Wl~

~

‘~

n,gton

—

-_

I

Bloomington

N~iivob’

tanthfftil

~11

~tinel - ~

~n — ~

A’

p~of~fl

-

—

Ma

tr

-

GnMities

p

-‘

—

fttt

e

_

WV

—

I

_________________________________________

HtimilCollr

—

ar~ath

~

5

s.

—

I

0

10

20

Scale

-

relies

Status: Threatened (state)

A

S

Radlonuclide Violations

Public Water Supply Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

Otherstreams

---

Distribution Area

Potamilus

capax

5.0,1. M,o,Nes0IIUay&.5w&p..~

Status: Endangered (Federal)

A Radionuclide Violations

• Public Water Supply Intakes

Area ofstreams with no

Radium protection

~-~-

Other

streams

- ~

LakeCoPWD

1

~

W ~

A

M

~ ~ V~

ri~r~eas~~

\

~k~cnago

—

-:

0~

--

WeatShom kSudv

A

~CLCJAWA

-.

-

-

-:

- --

- -

~‘~•‘;~-~

I

yn

Royalne ZudcWtrM

raeNAHOA~

NA

A

LakeElm

Highwood

OakForestMutual

Wtr

Syst

Adin nPar

ceTra A

Giencoe

-

-~-

-

-

Sycamo?eA~Sitr

GlenapleEstat~Park

\

asProspectPlaines

e~h~

PA

/

/

~

~

-

-,

~

--

-~ -

-10--

DeKal~4CodI nd~

/

Elbu

Kane

AW 5 - an Di- t

e M ~

Evanston

Dixon rct r

an Co~MH~ dm

A~

ill kRec

is

Coo

SChicago

La

avia

ort

Au ra

-

—

- -

-

-

--

-

--

-

1

Su r

ye

ra

B

ea

oP 58

MHP

ChIcago

-

Rock Island Arsenal

Ro eo

ili~

~ 9Hammond IN

Rock Isla

-

-

-

- -

ndot

Plainfle

State iteF~~~i~

ofChicago

~

--

- -

--

-~-

HOAofFo

~

tat r

lCtr

I Praine EatS

K V

0

-I

.

~1~-

- - --

-‘

F

AddnImprv

hannahon

at

-- -

‘-;

-~

00

HSn

ddA

ie S Hill ImprvA

0515W

—

Ottawa

A

nah

St

Wi:

ANeponeet

De

A pn

~

—

~A

oodsmo

an

-

~

~

AK wanes Bureau Juncti

ark

~

~

P

Ca

ill~

Wdrni~~~Oa

Eat

00 ull

Ga a

A radfordG

i

dad

~oU

~

in

n

Dia

d

d

oresI p

an

—

1

-

VS

s.4t~lt5tahf

-

AR

m

A

ou

Wilming ~

en

—

Ion

—

—

C

reator

Red ick

a IllinoisKa kakee

—

K

a?s)ea~

ig~s

AMge

ou

Aknoxvil

PnncevilleA

A

a

L ~ to

d15011

Wa

ABnmfj4

—

Ectielti nWtnCofp~.

IAWC Pontiac

n n

a e

Coulterelle

a

I~W~

-V-‘

Bloo

ington

an:ville~

ndinsvilie

S

H V iph

—

Ma

bA

rshnel

Can

A

-

Bloomington

Steel lie

Percy

~

i0~(

M~es

C ter

Veonof

0

10

20

Scaie - rides

I

I

-

--——-——--

—-

i--~

—--—~

——-

-

---

Distribution Area

Lamps//is higgins!!

1001. III,a.s.o.aIlnos,.w.c.paco

Status: Endangered (Federal)

A

Radionuclide Violations

• Public Water Supply Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

-~---‘_--

Other

streams

-s

--

Is ~-1-

-

- -

I~

S

henson

-

-

-

-,

Winnebon

-4

1-

••

I-

-

4Dson rc

an

L

-4

ç~I

LakeCoPWD

A ove)JJ

M ~

Gr

(Boo

W

Sudv Lakes

\

~

yn neWtr

N

A ~CLCJAWA

Zuric

NA

A

__Lake Forest

Royal M

me HOA~~A

~H~htand Parts Wtr

Syst

AiIm

—

—Highwood

Com~fsSYcamjeACo0~nd

DaKas

MHP~Silv

~

/iiaPlePark\Elbu

AElgin

AW

Par esPkanes

illceank

Tm

Rec

D

k

Ae~

-

M

/

—Northbrook~~JJ~0ehGlencoeEvanston

,yroa~vi~ dm~avit

00

m ~

Cook

Chicago

RockIslandAmen I

oo~-

Su r

ye

ra

B

ea MHP

RockIsla

a

0

—

R

A

Chicago

—~ In~

—

— 1

—

-‘

ddA

ndo Fie

R

IHOAofFosHill

~~:n~:rv

Imprv~

S

IC

5

v

K dPlainflewt eor Ilie6trhannahon

State

~lie“~F

illeCrctlCtr

a

Q

9HammondofChicago IN

-

-

-

ANeponset

De

A

-

Oflawa

A

CianW

n

-‘

~

~

:~::~

~

~

~smo

-

Is

hoe

I ga~

£

en mou

AKno~il

Pnnceville

A

mhel~~AC

~

L g I

—

a Illinois Ks kakee

~

-

~

tantan

ep~:

,~‘;

~

IAWC Pontiac

—

—

landinsvilta

•

Ma

bA

shnel

n ~

4

TroaSa —

Bloo ~gton

are)rto

Bloomington

r~a~v4s-~

McDo h

A

_____________________

-5

-s

-

-~

It

0

10

20

Scaie - silas

Coulterville

~

Randolph

SteelnsvilleC lieter

Percy

---

Distribution Area

Fusconaia

ebena

500.5 UM0,NU5~0II00OS00W.1.poXO2

Status: Species of special concern

A

S

Radionuclide Violations

Public Water Supply Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

Other streams

ci

Lake Co PWD

Is

C

Gr

kesaNav

Waukegan

W,nocbago

A

ove)~5tfc

04 Henip

W i

riflg

Lakes

\

~North Chicago

WestShore k Sudv ~

A ~ Lake Forest

Wyn

neWtr

N

5’A

Elm Oak Mutual Wtr Syst

Zunc

A

A

Highland Park

Royal M

rneHOA~

—Highwood

-

-

—

—Northbrook

-

‘0~~

-~

-

-

-

-

—Glencoe

; ‘:-;

-

‘,.

Mm

Par

ceTra A

~Winnetka

~

~

-~

~~~5ilv

6tenEsta~~ esPia~ ~ghts’

/

‘~(enDworth

Sycam~eA

M P

-

..

-

-

-

0~

--

-

--

DeKaS1A

AW

anDi

-s

--:

-

-, -~

--

‘

5

I~-

Cool nd~

Elbu

iii

Rec m is

S

Chicago

n Com~MH~~dma’

A4

he:rt hi

Coo

P50

/

~

r

~~am

~ A~amMHP

Chicago

---

--

-,00

s.

-

-~

—

- : -

—

Q

HammondIN

1

~

_/

Ro eo iil~

‘~~FrancIsca

ofChicago

--

_/

Plainfle

State ‘lie CrctlCtr

ss.

‘-

Salle

ALoc

RockIslandArsenal

- -c--

-

-

ndol

hot

ICtr

AJohie

--

HOAofFo

S v

c a

RockIsla

-

---

-~-

--- 1

I PrairieEatS

Kendsil

hannahon

at

--

-,

s.- -- -

-

-

5

5

Va

R

AddnImprv

n

~ooP~,1aidod

I

Fie S

HillImprvA

Ons

Vp

nah

at

WI

-

ddA

Ottawa

A

oodsmo

-

i

-

- ----

o-o-V~5

-~ :

IDe

A pri

Valley

1A~A

A

P noOa

Eat

- --

-

;;-

:

-

Neponset

starCo

i mm

on

-~ ~

~•5

:-~~

ip~

AK

wanes Bureau Jun -

• Whi

ring

si

Ca

ill

Dia W~k

d

real p

n

4.

-

4

A AW

~~

Ga

A

rd

d~d

Coun AcresM

AR

m

A

u Wilming

on

- -

~

--

1

- -;‘~-

-

--~~

1S’P

Lostant

Red ick

Illinois-Ks kakee

-

-

—-5—

•‘-~~

-‘Vs--~ ~V

-

IAWC

ator

-

Ia

/

Kna

-

L,,nslon

s.V

AMonmou

AKfloXvil

~

w’~°

V

IAWCPontiac

A

Wa~

I’~VO!~~~,

dial

—

~

~

~

l~W er

Bloo ington

L+~arfle

/

—

—

Bloomington

-

-

~-

landinsvilta

AB~hn3O1,,--

/ ‘~

-~

—

-~-.-~----~

-

-~

-

P~

-

T~

fl

I

•Ma

b

~-?.~~-‘;--‘

—-:;

ines

•

hage

MD

WV’ A.

_____________________

I-lam~lfonn

—-

1

I

~- ~-c

-

-s_:d-Ia

00_5

VeT))lerlt

__________

--

It

0

15

20

Sceie

-

rnsles

Coulterville

Ia

-

Percy

---

Distribution Area

E!!iptio

d/Istsfs

Sllid.Nt..U1~S~S.p..~m

Status: Species of special concern

S Rsdionuclide Violstions

• Public Water Supply Intakes

Ares of streams with no

Rsdium protection

~N,-

Other stresms

-~!~‘~

~-c~

‘

~‘~-“~

.

-#~--...-7.-c---’---,--

~--

.‘~

~

r~ LskeC0PWD

‘

—~

~‘

—

‘.

p_i,

p

~‘

~

__

_~

(c_

~-

~ Qr

kw~rfls

Wsukegsn

~

~

-a

sth

~

A

~

:1

-~

~

ann’

W

npgfs~s

,NodhChicsgo

W~rnbSw~

~

~

Lfl~

,~

CLCJAWA

_s

(_ca,

-~eosISho~g

~

‘

~LskeFomsI

~

_-_

~_

—

~

_-

w

fleW~

~

“i

ElmOak Mutual

Wtr Syst

~

~ ~ ~

~

~

~‘:~

~4s’

~

Zu~

~As~~A

~ _—HiphlsndPsrk

__

_-

(

L

~

__-,~

Etqtwilt*

NQ~

-f~?orthbrook

—

—Glencoe

:1,.

:.fif~

~t

A:

c.

~Winnet~

,~:~

~

~j~’P!

~

Y

?1~

~

*n~

~pgii’

Evsnslon

-

as ~

•Chicsgo

;f

bscot

‘

~rd ~#

44

h

r

Plaiutle

‘

State

I

eQccttotr

—

RockIslandAmensi

ndp

~.

i~t

r LOW

dol

Es

e

1~IOAofFo

S ‘~

Rockisis

t

PrajrfflstS

k dt

an*o’~ iii

-~oand~

MS

-

cIA

~

:~

SI::

~54tIwpbna

Y

~Wflij

e#Qa

Ep(

‘.~Wanes-

~

~

nnq~j~j

Os

ilL

d

real

~L*4

JL*~~~

~tdfdrd~

td

A4.~)S(aM

A?

&~u~nun

keç

~ Lu

-

IPM~Q~t

~bn~Ks kskee

-

Pqbevi1l~4. is

a

Livugn

AMopmo~

~\creiti rbWtr Cofiu.

IAtVLi’l~onkao c~

~

~

~

‘: c..~

~

-ç

.Y

-~

_‘

-

:~-~—--~

Wt,~

~Ste~sigton

-‘

Bloomington

1

Nptkoa-

anda’tiyØla

41 §fWS

~

•

4

s

Ms

~

enMines

Hamilten-

•

~

-

1W

-_

S

________________

saW

1i3~ja5ju1~

—

—

—

/eifljc~rlI(~’

_________

it

n

10

20

scale

-

mIca

Chicago

Hammond IN

of

Chicago

e

H

—V

---

Distribution Area

V!I!osa

iris

6.55.5

Status: Endangered (state)

A

S

Radionuclide Violations

Public Water Supply Intakes

Area of streams with no

Radium protection

Other streams

o e s

Is

--—

¶

-‘c-:,

‘~r

4

-

ci

l~e~iNa

-

-

-

_~Waukegan

LaReCoPWD

W

~

A ~ 00

W

M

W

H

5~~

~eW(l-$horeW

5~t19

-

V

1

~atthit

—

-

-

-i

-

000~

-

~Lake,,NorthCheagoElm

OakForestMutual Wtr Syst

-

Zuri

A

A

_Highland

Park

‘--Forthbrook

-

-~

---

-

-~

—Glencoe

no-

I 00

~-

~:

-

1- ~~~Vinnetka

C 10

5-~Sitr Oh tt-E1~~ :,r::~~ F

:/

~Evanston

SycammviaA

~

-

--

-

-

0

-

P

DeKalb~A

,C..0XH120 ‘w a

at~i

‘~----

-

-

-

Cortl~’nd4

~.

~

-

~:

~

~

n

-.;-‘

SChicago

Dixon rc

an Com~MHP

4~

t ~1 - ~-

~~l1.:

.~

~roaa

rth(-.-~/;

s-

/p

yl~-.

--

~4l~ry~

i

L

/‘

:

-

—

9

Chicago

Hammond IN

—-5—

~

-

~

~O

(~)

I

--~~mtti~’

-

‘

ofChicago

--

-

-

-~wg~

-

-

Sth~

~ct~Ctr

-

Sale

-~

--

.~

1-j

I-’t—

-

RockIslandArsenal

ndo

,

,t~-s

--

~t• -

16t~ .lItol

- - -

~

Ea

HOAofFo

S v

-~

Rockisl

-

I PraideEst

1

~

0

1.

-

‘an~tioe

:~

-

oh

~

R

AddnIm

- -

,n.~,-

_

--

a

-

-

--0

-:-:~I

-

Hock I! vi Viola

~00Hu:AGaAK

~

Cnsc~ il~ ~

ion

a11

~Q~t~:r-5

~

K

PnncevmhleA

AA

e

L

ft Ste

AMonmou

AKsOXVil

~‘Edelsn Wir

I!C~ceheo

s~

Hd

A

WVci~

II~

ABrimftald

~

~

noon

-

pitoV~0,:

~-

- --

-

.

‘-0~

-

~

a sCi

‘

~--~:-~-~

- ‘-

-‘

--

-

armington

lAW

~

:

-5ShiI~

ington

Is

La Harpe

T

Bloomington

Nauvoo

landinavihle

AB

shnel

Can nb

A

pleto

~ 1

•Ma

b

- ton

~a’

-

A

ryan~~

t~--~

SC

hage

McDo

P

•.1~-,

Hamilton

-

0

~-‘

—- --

arsaw

Hancock

V~IV

:-~-

Vermont

-

It

0

10

20

Scale

- riSes

Coultereille

~

RanSteel

daiph

nsville~Ch

lie

ter

Percy

---

ni

~11

---

-

L~rs

ON

x~/XJJ ~:gT ~

-

-

-

SJTE RE1~EDIAT1OMPLAN

FOR

THE

NORTJIEA$T

OHIO REGXOXAL SEWER DIST~i

- -

SOTJTKEBLY

WASTEWAEER TREATMENT PL.~NT

CUYAHOGA

BEIGflTS,

OHiO

conclusion can be drawn from the locations of the more highly contarnth~ttedm~ierial,nor is.

there any indication that other areas of higher concentrarion. exist.

The amount

of

Co-60 contained in the inciBerator-ash deposited in the

?~TA

an~the Old Sludge

Lagoon was calculated as

405.9

mCi. Additionally, the Northern

secC~.l~i

~f

the ~FA contains

38.5 mCi of Co-60 in the fom~of contaminated sludge (B. Kob. and-Associates. I~ic.,February

1995).

3.1.4.10

Main Plant

Based upon the -results of the radiological analyses performed by RSO, lri,,

levels of

Conta.mination associated with the Main Plant do not present radiological hazards to workers

exceeding the exposure limits specified .by the NRC in 10 CPR 20.

The estimated activity from the Fume Incinerator Tanks, Pume Incinerator Tank #1(104 ~.Ci),

FWDe

Incinerator Tank ~2 (12 ~Ci) and Fume Incinerator Tank

#3

(400 ~Cfl resulted in ~ total

activity of approximately 0~5

mCi.

3.2ALARA

-

-

NEORSD

is

committed

to keepIng

radiation exposure to employees and the general pubUc as low

as reasonably achievable (ALARA), commensurate with sound ~c~nomic and social

consideratioxis. The NEORSD management has demonstrated their comtiiitincn~‘Dy &SS2~D3fl~

b5~ltpriority to procedure changes arid work plans that will reasonably reduce personnel and

cnvironmentai radiation etpo~ures. Furthennore, NEORSD will place primary enapbasis on

design and engineering features to ixiairitain exposure ALARA. When practical, design fealnres

will be selected in lieu of administrative controls to iuai.ri.tain exposures ALARA. The exi.sting

NEORSD Radiological Control Plan (Dames & Moore, March 1993) promu.lgates :b.e NEORSD

BKA000I .NEO:NBO-Qj

Septertmer 1996,

P~EV.0

3-15

B Koh

an~

Asso~jares,Inc.

sw~p~~

d~:80 ~o co

da~

Attachment F

---

m

0~

-h

C)

---

‘WRT

December

17, 2003

12

-

ATTACHMENT

City ofJoliet

-

Water and Wastewater Plants

-

Radium Capture in Sewage Sludge

The following is a hypothetical analysis of radium being captured in sewage sludge assuming all

water pumped from city, wells reaches the sewage plant.

Water Supply

-

2003 data used (Source: September 2003 Engineering Evaluation Report)

Average Daily Pump age = 16 mgd

Average Radium Content

13.3 pCi/L (Range: 8.1 to 17 pCi/L)

Radium Production

Average Daily: 16 mgd x 3.785 L/gal. = 60.56 E±06L/day

60.56 E+06 L/day x13.3 pCifL = 805.45 E+06 pCilday

Annual:

805.45

E±06pCi/day x 365 days/year = 293.99 E-4-09 pCi/year

1 Ci = E+12 pCi

—

293.99 E+09 / E+12 293.99 E-03 = 0.294 Cilyear

Sewage Plant

(2002 data from DWPC data base)

West Plant

East Plant

Totals

Ave.Daily Flow

-

7.628 mgd

17.7986 mgd

-

25.4266 mgd

Annual Sludge

-

Production (2002)

988 dry tons

2400 dry tons

3388 dry tons

Approved

Application Rate

2.4-2.6 dry tons/acre

3.3-3.5 dry tons/acre

Proportionate Flow: West plant 7.628/25.4266 = 30; East Plant 17.7986/25.4266 70

Assume all radium from the water supply is captured in the sewage plant sludge.

Assume 1 gram radium = I Ci (original definition)

—

I pCi radium = 1.0 E-12 grams radium

Attachment G

---

WRT December 17, 2003

13

West Plant

Sludge: (988 dry tons)(2000 #/ton)(453.5924 gr/#) = 8.963 E+08 grams

Proportionate Radium: 293.99 E+09 pCi x 30 = 88.2 E+09 pCi radium

RadiumlSludge Mix: (88.2 E+09 pCi radium) /(8.963 E+08 gr Sludge) 98.40 pCi/gram

Sludge Loading: (2.5 dt/ac)( 000 #/ton~53.S924gr(#~=52.065 grams/sq.ft.

(1 acre)( 43560 sq.ft/ac)

Radium Loading: (98.40 pCi/gr) /(52.065 gr/sq.ft) = 1.8899

—

1.89 pCi/sq.ft.

Assume soil weight = 120

#Icu.ft.:

(120#fcu.ft) x (453.5924 grf~)= 54431.09 grams/cu.fi.

Assume 0.5 ft. plow down:

(1.89 pCi/sg.ft)

= 6.94 E-O5 pCi/gram Radium/Soil

(54431.09 gr/cu.ft)(0.5 fi)

Fie)d Mix

Application Area: (988 dry tons) / (2.5 thy tons! acre) = 395.2 acres

East Plant

Sludge: (2400 dry tons)(2000 ~/ton)(453.592-4gr/#) = 2.177 E+09 grams

Proportionate Radium: 293.99 E±09pCi x 70 = 205.79 E+09 pCi radium

Radium/Sludge Mix:(205.79E±09pCi radium)/(2. 177 E+09 gr Sludge) = 94.S3pCi!grarn

Sludge Loading: (3.4 dtfac)(2000 #!ton~53.5924gr/#) = 70. 809 grams! sq.ft.

-

(1 acre)( 43560 sq. ft/ac)

Radium Loading:

(94,53

pCi/gr) /(70.809 gr/sq.ft) = 1.33

5

pCi/sq.ft.

Assume soil weight = 120 #/cu.ft : (120#/cu.ft) x

(453.5924

gr/#)

34431.09 grams/cuff

Assume 0.5 ft. plow down: (1.335 pCi/sg.ft’)

= 4.90 E-05

pCi/gram

Radium/Soil

(5443 1.09 gr/cu.ft)(0.5 ft)

-

Field Mix

Application Area: (2400 dry tons) / (3.4 dry tons! acre) = 705.9 acres

---

Exhibit H

---

of Northeastern Illinois,

-

1995 and 2000

by

Stephen L. Burch

Illinois State Water Survey

A Division of the

Illinois

Department

of Natural Resources

2002

Attachment H

---

A Comparison of Potentiometric Surfaces

for the Camb rian-Ordovician Aquifers

of Northeastern Illinois, 1995 and 2000

by

Stephen L. Burch

Illinois State Water Survey

Champaign,

IL

---

Table 1. Distribution ofPumpage from Deep Bedrock Wells in Northeastern Illinois, 1995-1999 (mgd)

Year

County

Public

-

Industrial

Total

Year

County

Public

Industrial

Total

1995

Cook

4.97

6.20

11.17

1998

Cook

4.43

6.74

11.17

DuPage

2.02

0.30

2.32

DuPage

1.52

0.25

1.77

Grundy

2.59

6.36

8.95

Grundy

2.66

6.96

9.62

Kane

13.77

0.40

14.17

Kane

16.10

0.30

16.40

Kendall

1.58

0.31

1.89

-

Kendall

2.03

0.30

2.33

Lake

2.46

1.07

-

3.53

Lake

2.89

0.94

3.83

McHenry

2.68

1.53

4.21

MeHenry

3.00

2.40

5.40

Will

15.18

5.91

21.09

Will

15.33

5.27

20.60

Total

45.25

22.08

67.33

-

Total

47.96

23.16

71.12

1996

Cook

4.42

-

6.58

11.00

1999

Cook

4.17

7.04

-

11.21

DuPage

2.27

0.25

2.52

DuPage

1.80

0.25

2.05

Grundy

2.58

6.98

9.56

Grundy

2.76

7.12

-

9.88

Kane

-

15.50

0.50

16.00

Kane

16.12

0.34

16.46

Kendall

1.65

0.29

1.94

Kendall

2.15

0.30

2.45

Lake

2.51

1.03

3.54

Lake

3.07

0.83

3.90

MeHenry

2.36

1.92

--

4.28

McHenry

3.53

2.09

-

5.62

Will

15.23

6.06

21.~9

Will

15.14

5.23

20.37

Total

46.52

23.61

70.13

Total

48.74

23.20

71.94

1997

Cook

3.80

6.43

10.23

DuPage

2.28

0.25

2.53

Grundy

2.56

6.78

9.34

Kane

15.57

0.32

15.89

Kendall

1.75

0.30

2.05

Lake

2.71

0.93

3.64

McHenry

3.20

2.35

5.55

-

Will

15.62

5.82

-

21.44

Total

47.49

23.18

70.67

--

—

~

---

Groundwater withdrawals from the deep bedrock aquifers declined and then steadied

briefly

at the end of the twentiethcentury,

as public water supplies in Cook, DuPage, and Lake

Counties switched to Lake Michiganwater. Demand on the deep bedrock aquifers increased

slowly in the southwest counties (Lake, McHenry, and Kane). During the 1995-1999 period,

pumpage for public and industrial supplies from deep bedrock wells (Cambrian-Ordovician) rose

slightly from 67.3 to about 72 mgd. Table 1 shows the distribution ofpumpage in the eight-

county Chicago region between 1995 and 1999, subdivided by public and industrial use

categories, and by counties.

The Chicago region has about 150 public water-supply facilities and another 100

industrial facilities. Most ofthese thcilities are small users and are not especially important when

consideredindividually. Consequently, it has been found convenient to examine the membership

ofthose public water-supply facilities pumping more than 1.0 mgd from the deep bedrock

aquifers in 1999. The number offacilities is the same as in the last report (Visocky, 1997). The

composition of the group has changedto include the communities ofLemont, Oswego,

Romeoville, and Plainfield, however. Bartlett, Beliwood, Elgin, and Lockport dropped offthe

list because their daily pumping rates decreased to less than 1.0 mgd. Pumpage at the other

facilities ranged from 1.15 to 10.05 mgd, as shown in Table 2. Joliet and Aurora are decidedly

the largest deep bedrock public water supplies in the Chicago region.

Table 2. Public- Water-Supply

Facilities in the

Chicago Region

Pumping More than

1.0 mgd from Deep Bedrock Aquifers, 1999

Community

Pumpage (mgd)

Joliet*

10.05

Aurora

5.80

Crystal Lake

2,25

Lake Zurich

-

1.95

-

Morris

-

1.81

Batavia

1.60

-

West Chicago

1.58

Montgomery

1.46

NorthAurora

1.40

Geneva

1.33

St. Charles

1.32

Lemont

1.27

Oswego

1.26

Western Springs

1.23

Romeoville

1.15

Plainfield

1.15

Note~

*This number reflects the last-report from Joliet for 1995 pump age.

15

---

Figure 9. Changes in groundwater level in deep bedrock wells

in northeastern Illinois between

1995

and 2000

-

30

---

m

0~

-1-

---

/

Form Approved.

0MB

No. 2040-0086.

FORM

U.S.

ENVINONMENTA~~P~~OT~~TJONAGENCY

I. EPA I.D. NUMuER

-

-.‘~ r~””’”.~

~r~’~’”~

$Ar~f~j

“I 1 Y

~

~enioJida~d P.m,itsProgram

-

F

~i LD 0

0 0 8 0 3 6 4 3

D

GENERAL

(R.cd

th~

~GenercI1nitna~ions”

bffor

•tartin5.)

‘

1.

-

I.

II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS

--

INSTRUCTIONS Complete A through

J

to

dst,nnlne

whether

you need to

submit any permit ipplication forms to

the EPA. If you

answer “yes”

to any

qussions, you must

submit this form and

the

supplemental

formTisted

ii~

the

psrentheiisfoil~wing

the

question; Mark “X” In the-

boxin the third column

If

the supplemental form Is attached It you

answer • no’ to each question you need

not

submitany

of these forms. You

may enst~~

“p0” If your activity

is excluded from permit

requirements; see

Section C of the

iintructioni. See also, Section a

:of di~

InstructiOàs

fqr

definitions ofbotd—faCId tenns.

.

--

-

.

-

SPECIFiC QUESTIONS

A. h this f~c4lityapubliCiy owned lrsatmant.woqlti

C. Is that

i

facility whiCh currently results

in.diicharg~

So waters of the IJ.5 ~th.r than those

descrebed

in

A or B

above? (FORM

2C)

vt,•

-~-

X

:ii:

L6J

no

~

,~

..~

A

~

spsciric QUESTIONS

8. ~-~‘‘t~:

diachargs

to

waters

of the

U.S.?

(FORM28)

0. Is this

a proposed

facIlity

(ether than those deaca-ib&

In A or B pbove~

which will result

In a dlechargs ~o

.

wetefi of

thiU.S.?

(FORM 2D1

-

MAR

~

~0

~

,,

~

—

X

~

K ~

~

,

,,

•

.

E.

Does

or will this facility treat, store, or

dimose

of

hazardous

waStes?

IFORM ~u)

-

~,

F.

Do

.yâu or

wItI.you inject at

thIi.tedItIty indUstrIal os~.

-

municipalteining,

wIthinefffumone

below

quertir

the

mile

lowermost

of thu

stttumcri

!N.lI

bore~.

undsrgroufld ources of drinking water? (FQRM 4i~~

—

X

.~

—

-

G

Do you or wall you inject at ths~taCilily any

oduced

th~

...

water or o

h

Cr

I

UI

“

S W

h

a

Ii Cr br

ought

th.

turf

H. DO

.

YOU or wi!

.

you

lnj.ct

.

at

.

at ac ~SYf ii

.

;

crap.-

--

in connacuon with conventional Oil or natural gas pro.

x

CR1 PVOCS

~

as

mining o Ma

ur y

x

-

- procese-~oluslonmining

of mineral,

ln.alttr conibus-:

ductici’. inject fluids uSed 0 Sfl aflCCU recovery ,o

.

;.-

.. .

.. ~

.

~-

.

-

oil or natural

gas

or inject flu.dt

for

storage of

liquid

—

~~of Jowl

,,~e or ~açovery o gao

hy9u(enerpv

—

hydrocerbOfll? (FORM 4)

a.-... -

~,

..

-

~i~•

~

.

:‘~.-$~

~

,, .

I.

~

is this facility -e

proposed Itetionary Iou,c.

which is

~J. a

this

facilIty:.

proposed itatlonary iourc~whIcfrw.

one of thu 28 ,ndu,ir,$l categorIes

~lsted

in the in

NOT one of the 2a

fndu,trial cetego,lef.U4$.d~~tie

Structions

and ~

potentially ,mil-;lOOgns

X

.:..insts~tjon~’vhlthwj!1potentially-i .2 ion,

X

per

year

of any air pollutant regUlated

under fIts

per

y~ar.of

I.e’

air po8qta t

regulated under~th.gJ.~p4

Clean

Air Act and rnay eRect or be

located~

nan.

~.Aiç

Act

~I~JOW,ffSMiW

b

located Iq in.~tte,flq~t

~

~ ~ ~

NoRMs)~fi~u~

.

~

~

~-

~

-III.

~.F_

flSNIPLASALLE

NAME OF

I

FACILITY~

I I I I I I I

COUNTY

I I I I 5 I

STATION

•

I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

JIIIi~

-.

Ii ~

.,‘;

~

..~: .

•~~

-.

;..-.

.

. .4~_,_.,.

ii-

IV. FACILITY CONTACT.

A NAME & TITLE (lees

firJ ~

.~e

PHONr

(arI~u

codr&

nq;’

ci

I

Ii

i

I

I

I

I

i

i

a_i_I

i

i

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1I

I

I f

I

i

i

~FATORA,~

•S.T•E-~V~E~N~

•-. •CHEM~I~S~TRY~

MGaR 8~1~5J4.1.5J 3~2~0~0

Il.

•• ••

0

II

.

It

SI

-.--3)

V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS

I

A.-S1REET OR P.O. SOX

-

-

-

c

II

I

I

I

II

III

IIIiII

I

Iii

II

III

~260l NORTH 21ST ROAD

D. CITY OR TOWN

1C~57A1~

0. ZIP CODE

I

III

iiaiaaiiiaIIIII

ii

I

I

II

-

~

~~I.LI

61~3~4~1

VI. FACILITY LOCATION

A. STREET. ROUTE NO. OR OTHEI SPECIFIC IOEN.TIPIER

- - -

.

- -

~

•2•i~S•T :R:O.A.D.

: : : : : : :

fl COUNTY NAME

I

II

IIIII1

III

III

LASALLE

-

.

• ~ ~

~ •

~

C.CITYORTOWN

~

~

F.COINTY COOC

*ARSEI

•LL~E~S

~

L~ 1341J

L. .~

EPA Form 3510-1 (0-90)

CONTINUE ON REVERSE

-

Attac1in.iei~t

i

---

CONTINUED FDflM TI.IF PRONT

SIC CODES

(4.o’igir

in

order

I

I

I

(specIJy~

~4 ,91

iJ ELECTRICAL

GENERATION & DISTR

ii

~

.

Ii

I

I

(specify)

I. II

-

.

C. THIRD

0. FOURTH

I

I I

i(spec-ify~

7...j

S II

—

IS

I I I

(specify)

OS~..

7J...

It

VIII. OPERATOR INFORMATION

A. NAME

~.

lsthenams

tla~.d-)~

C

I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I S I I I I I i I I I II

I I

i

~ i I I i

j-

~ I

ItS1TtVIll.Aai,O-tIl~

~XELON

GENE,RAT ION COMPANY,

LLC

-J

fs

EJNO

C. STATUS OF OPERATOR

(Enter

the ,zppr ,priati~kiter into thc answer box; it~Ot1w’”.specify.)

0. PHONE

(a’Ta Code &

F

-

FEDERAL

M

-

PUBLIC

(Other than federal or nate)

~specij

-

-

S

-

STATE

0

=

OTHER

(sprcIf~j

- -

-

.

P

PRIVATE

-

0

-

C

I I

II

II

I

I

I

-

A

63 O~.5

321 5

II

~ •

ti

i.

a,

is

-

.

E. STREET OR PD. flOX

III IIIIIIIII IIIIII III IIIIIII I

4300

,_S•

WINF1ELD

F. CITY OR TOWN

ROAD

-

-

-

IS

H.ZIPCODE~

IXINDIANLAND

B~\VARRENVILLE

I I I I I I I I

.1

I I

I

I

IILI

60555

ts

IS

- --

-

-

-0

-

-II

£2

U

•

CS

X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS~

Isthef5clktylecstedotLlndianlsnds’

A. NPDES

(OLichalies to Surface W~I.r)

o.

p50 (~fIc

Eminlor.s

from

Fr6

posed Source:)

cvi

II

I Ii

I II

I I II

15,1,

•

cvi

I I I I II

II

III

I

?.I!1,,I..

•

-

e.

usc

(Linde,round

Injection

of

Fluids)

:~~

‘

:

:‘‘

‘

~

E. OTHER

(spec1fy~

~l.~.:l~5:o.0~4ioo816:

.

•

-

~.~~PERAT1NGPER1VIIT(FESOP)

C.

RCRA

~‘Hao,dOs&,Wastes)

5. OTHER

(specify)

~1~1,1~:_:5:1:4:

XI. MAP

—

: : :

:

~•

9:i.:J..’v

~—

j-~.:

: : : :

: : :~

(Sped/f)

~

Attach

to this

lfO~~.opogr~p

ié ma~~ Ui

ex~endingt~a1

k~i

~

the outline

of

the

faciIIty.1’tht~location

of each of its existing a~d

proposed

Intake end

dIscharge~strUC~téres

eacfiof its h~rdou,wa~

treatment storage, ‘~r

d~posaT

~acIIIt1eSand

each

Well

~whereIt Injects

fluids

underground. mci de~’aU.spt~ngs

~rI~.I s

*nd’dther

surface

-water-bodies

~

Xli NATURE OF BUSINESS

(proi~We.a

brief

d~,scr,pnon!

GENERATION

OF

ELECTRIC POWER..

XIII.

CER~rIFICATION(sce/nst,vctions)

-.

/ certify under penalty of law

that

/ have personally

exammed

and am familiar with theJnforrnation

s~ibmltted

in Ibis application andelf

attachments and that,

based

~n my inqui,y of

those

persons Immediately respoAsible br obtaining -the information contained/n

th~.

application, / believe that -the information is

true,

accurate and complete. / am aware that there are -significant penalties for submitting

false information, including thepossibility of fine and imprisonment.

--

A. NAME & OFFICIAL

TITLE.(tvpeorpthlt)

0.

SIGNATURE

C. DATE SIGNED

SUSAN R. LANDAFIL PLANT MANAGER

~

,i~

~/~L(

/0

-

V-

03

COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

c

I Il-I

41111-I

I-I-I

4--I--.I-.d.-I-.4.-~I.J.-L

11111111111

III

ii

I

I

lISflAkII

2_I

EPA Form 3510-1 (8-90)

---

Fomi Approved.

0MB No. 2000-0059 Approval

~

EPA I.D. NUMBER

(copy from Item I of

form

1)

~

FORM

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY