Microsoft Word - R04-21 102104 transcript

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

5 IN THE MATTER OF:

)

7 REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER )

8 QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED ) R04-21

9 NEW 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE

) Rulemaking -

10 302.307 AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ) Water

11 ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.207 AND )

12 302.525

)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the

15 above-entitled cause before Hearing Officer Amy C.

16 Antoniolli, called by the Illinois Pollution Control

17 Board, pursuant to notice, taken before MARGARET

18 MAGGIE JANKOWICZ, CSR, a notary public within and

19 for the County of Lake and State of Illinois, at The

20 Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Room

21 02-025, Chicago, Illinois, on the 21st day of

22 October, A.D., 2004, scheduled to commence at 1:30

23 o'clock p.m., commencing at 1:30 o'clock p.m.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3900

BY: Ms. Amy C. Antoniolli, Hearing Officer

Mr. G. Tanner Girard, Ph.D., Board Member

Mr. Thomas E. Johnson, Board Member

Mr. Anand Rao, Board Staff

Ms. Alisa Liu, Board Staff

SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP,

8000 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 876-2380

BY: MR. JEFFREY C. FORT

Appeared on behalf of Water Remediation

Technology, LLC;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

BY: MS. DEBORAH J. WILLIAMS

MS. STEFANIE N. DIERS

Appeared on behalf of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency;

GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS,

191 North Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698

(312) 569-1441

BY: MR. ROY M. HARSCH

Appeared on behalf of the City of Joliet.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

ALSO PRESENT:

Dr. Theodore G. Adams

4 Dr. Brian D. Anderson

Mr. Charles Williams

5 Mr. Robert G. Mosher

Mr. Jerry Kuhn

6 Mr. Blaine Kinsley

Mr. Jeff Hutton

7 Ms. Sarah Adams

Mr. Doug Dobmeyer

8 Mr. Dennis L. Duffield

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Good

afternoon everybody, welcome to the Thompson

Center. My name is Amy Antoniolli, and I've

been appointed hearing officer in this

Illinois Pollution Control Board rulemaking.

The Board has captioned this proceeding In

The Matter Of: Revisions to Radium Water

Quality Standards: Proposed New Illinois

Administrative Code 302.307 and Amendments to

35 Illinois Administrative Code 302.207 and

304.525 which the Board has docketed as

R04-21.

In this proceeding the Agency is

seeking to amend the Board's radium water

quality standards. The rulemaking was filed

on January 13th, 2004 by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency. The Board

accepted the proposal for hearing on

January 22nd, 2004 and today is the fourth

hearing. The first hearing took place on

April 1st, 2004 at the Thompson Center, the

second hearing took place on May 6th at the

Board's offices in Springfield, the third

also took place in Springfield on August

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

25th, and then we're here today.

To my right is Member Tom Johnson

and seated to the right of Member Johnson is

Member Tanner Girard and seated -- oh, we

don't have Andrea with us yet. Okay. Also

here from the Board today is -- from the

technical unit is Mr. Anand Rao and this is

Alisa Liu.

If you would like to testify

today, I've put a sign-up sheet at the back

of the room. Also at the back of the room

are copies of the service list and a notice

list and the Agency's statement of reasons

for the proposal. Today's proceeding is

governed by the Board's procedural rules; all

information that's relevant and not

repetitious or privileged will be admitted

into the record.

At the last hearing we heard

testimony from Water Remediation Technology

Environmental's two witnesses, Mr. Adams and

Mr. Williams, which was followed by questions

by the Agency. Mr. Harsch was in the process

of questioning the WRT witnesses when this

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

hearing was adjourned last time and for this

hearing WRT Environmental has pre-filed

testimony for additional testimony from

Mr. Adams and the testimony for two new

witnesses, Dr. Brian Anderson and Ms. Angela

Tin, for today's hearing.

For readability purposes and

efficiency, we thought we'd continue where we

left off with questions, if there's no

objections, by Mr. Harsch.

MR. HARSCH: We would prefer if you

would let WRT proceed with their additional

testimony, I think some of those points

they're making clarify prior testimony and

eliminates the need for some questions.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

And you can consolidate your questioning into

one.

MR. HARSCH: We'd be more than happy

to and after -- let them -- I would think it

might make more sense if we let them present

their additional detailed testimony since

they're hard at it and see what questions the

Board might have and what questions the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Agency might have and then we'll proceed with

our questioning.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay. We

can -- if there's no objections, we can do it

that way, continue with WRT Environmental's

witnesses, summaries of their testimony, and

then go back to questioning by Mr. Harsch and

the Agency and then members of the public who

wish to comment.

Please note that any questions posed

by Board members and staff are designed to

help develop the complete record for the

Board's decision and do not reflect any bias.

And after the presentation by the witnesses

and questioning, anyone else can testify

regarding the proposal. Like all witnesses,

those who wish to testify will be sworn in

and may be asked questions about their

testimony. We'll conclude today's hearing

with a few procedural items. Member Johnson,

before we begin, would you like to add

anything?

MEMBER JOHNSON: Just briefly. I want

to welcome you all here and thank you for

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

coming. I also want you all to understand

that the Board recognizes how important this

rulemaking is and we're going to give it the

attention it deserves in order to develop a

clear and complete record. Thanks.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: For the

court reporter who is transcribing today's

proceeding please speak up and don't talk

over one another so that we produce a clear

transcript.

With that, are there any questions

about the procedures that we follow today?

(No response.)

I'd now ask that the court reporter

swear in WRT Environmental's witnesses for

the day.

THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right

hands, please. Do you solemnly swear that

the testimony that you are about to give is

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth?

DR. ADAMS: I do.

DR. ANDERSON: I do.

MR. WILLIAMS: I do.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

And as you testify, please introduce

yourselves and let us know your position and

title.

MR. FORT: Madam Hearing Officer, we'd

like to start with Dr. Anderson. We have

pre-filed testimony from Dr. Anderson. We

realize that -- as we were looking over

things that there are two charts that he

refers to in his testimony that did not get

appended to what was filed so I've got -- I'd

like to mark his testimony, if I may, as the

next exhibit, and I have some extra copies if

anybody wants to have the extra charts. It's

identical except for a typo or two, but ...

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Now these

charts are in addition to the charts that are

in?

MR. FORT: They are duplicative of two

of the charts but there should have been two

more charts. So if you have this document,

you will have all four, yeah. They're

labeled so I think you can pick out what's

additional.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you mind if we just

clarify for the record?

MR. FORT: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm assuming that when

you say the testimony is identical to what

was filed, that you mean identical except for

the references to --

MR. FORT: That's right. Thank you

for --

MS. WILLIAMS: -- the third witness?

MR. FORT: Dr. Anderson is here so

that Dr. Anderson is going to be presenting

the testimony. We weren't sure we were going

to be able to get him back for this hearing

and that's why Ms. Tin was also here who

collaborated part of the pre-filed testimony,

but it will just be Dr. Anderson today.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

And you're entering this into -- as an

exhibit now?

MR. FORT: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you

like to enter that along with the pre-filed

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

testimony?

MR. FORT: Sure, that's fine.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay. So

we are at Exhibit No. 13 now?

MR. FORT: Right. I don't know if you

need the pre-filed testimony if you're

marking this because the substance is

identical except it has two additional charts

and it does not have a reference to Ms. Tin.

I'm happy to mark them both if

that's easier for you, I'm trying not to have

too many things that look almost the same.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Are there

any objections to entering this testimony of

Dr. Brian Anderson with the two additional

charts in?

MS. WILLIAMS: It just doesn't look

identical to me and I'm not arguing with the

substance it's just I have reviewed it on a

page -- you know, based on the page numbers

or what have you on the original it looks

like -- I mean I'm just looking at the

paragraphs, they don't start the same. None

of the paragraphs seem to start out the same

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

just in skimming it.

Could you just clarify, is it just

that what's been --

MR. FORT: We removed the reference to

Ms. Tin. We removed the reference that one

of the two of them would be presenting

depending upon schedules. We made it first

person "I" instead of Dr. Anderson. There

are a couple of references that did get

corrected.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right. Okay.

MR. FORT: And we added two of the

charts at the back.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. That seems fine.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: So what

we do is we have this as your pre-filed

testimony and this is actually what we're

entering in as Exhibit No. 13 for today.

MR. FORT: That would be great, thank

you.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: If there

are no objections, I'll go ahead and enter

this as Exhibit 13 and seeing none, you can

go ahead with your testimony.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

ORAL TESTIMONY

BY DR. ANDERSON

Thank you. My name is

Dr. Brian D. Anderson, I am currently the

Chairman of the Department of Biology and

Physical Sciences at Lincoln Land Community

College in Springfield, Illinois. I was

formerly the Director of the Office of

Resource Conservation of the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources, the Director

of the Office of Scientific Research and

Analysis of the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, the Conservation 2000

Coordinator for the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Director of the Illinois

Nature Preserves Commission, and Natural

Heritage Database Coordinator for the

Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission.

I hold a Ph.D. in Biology from the

University of Louisville, and a master's

degree in Zoology from DePaul University, and

a bachelor's degree in Biology from Kalamazoo

College.

This testimony will comment upon

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency's report that, and I quote, Illinois

EPA conducted a literature search for radium

impacts to aquatic life and found no papers

or other information on this subject (Mosher,

2004), end of quotes. It will also submit --

it will also submit information that is

contrary to the testimony of IEPA, hereafter

Agency, staff that there is -- quote, there

is no data for radium to indicate what the

threshold concentration would be to protect

aquatic life and contradicts the conclusion

that elimination of the general water quality

standard for radium is justified because,

quote, the Agency's proposal to remove the

General Use and Lake Michigan standards and

establish a Public and Food Processing Water

Supply standard at the federal MCL for

radium 226 and 228 is protective of all uses

that may be impacted by radium. Also Mosher,

2004. End of quote.

In the first matter, I conducted a

literature search using abstract services

available via the Internet to any resident of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

the Lincoln Land Community College District,

all or parts of nine counties surrounding and

including Sangamon County. I searched the

FirstSearch and EBSCOhost abstracts,

searching only for the keyword "radium" in

the title of the journal. Five hundred and

fifty-three citations were returned, which

met the search parameters. Of these, 37

dealt with the release to, transport within,

or impacts upon, ecological systems. Of

those, 12 specifically reference the uptake

of radium by non-human organisms in their

titles.

I supplemented this information

with Internet searches using search

parameters including the word "radium" which

returned results which included fact sheets

and toxicity profiles from several of the

Agency's sister state and federal agencies.

It would appear that the Agency's literature

search was overly narrow and totally ignored

the literature on the biological effects of

radiation generally from radioisotopes.

Since biological damage is caused by the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

radiation, rather than the chemical activity

at the molecular level, all such information

is relevant to an assessment of the effects

of radium on biota.

Contrary to the Agency's testimony

before the Board, the available scientific

information that was found establishes that:

First, radium produces alpha, beta

and gamma radiation like all other

radioisotopes. There are over 40 -- there

are 40 radioisotopes like radium which are

known to occur naturally.

There is 50 years of data

identifying the various negative impacts of

radiation upon a broad spectrum of animals

and plants.

Also, it isn't necessary to do

species specific studies on whether radium

can harm a particular species inhabiting in

Illinois. All radiation can have harmful

effects upon living cells.

Also, risk increases directly with

increases in exposure to radiation, no matter

the source.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Further, no increase in radiation

above background levels is without risk. In

other words, there is no "safe" level, only

levels with minimal increases in risk,

according to the Illinois Department of

Public Health, 2004.

Radium is also a known carcinogen,

Illinois Department of Public Health, 2004.

It is bioaccumulative and bioconcentrating

according to the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry, 1990.

Radium is also closely related

chemically to calcium, it moves easily

through the environment and it can become

very concentrated in calcium-rich tissues

like bones and mollusk shells.

Radium also concentrates in

sediments and sewage sludge, potentially

creating hot spots in the stream sediments

below discharges and contaminating sewage

treatment facilities.

In Florida, according to a

Technical Report to the Southwest Florida

Water Management District, 2000, in lakes

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

that are recharged with groundwater

containing low levels of radium 226, levels

less than five picoCuries per liter, it was

found that the sediments, which contain 20.4

picoCuries per gram of radium 226, are over

3.5 times the EPA cleanup standard of five

picoCuries per gram over background.

Typically the increase of radium in the

sediments is ten times over background.

They also found that freshwater

mussel flesh contained as much as 200

picoCuries per gram radium 226. A level that

would require the flesh of those mussels to

be sent to a low level radioactive waste

site.

It was also found that elevated

levels of radium have been found in fish bone

and fish flesh.

The concentration of radium in

newly deposited sediment is increasing

dramatically as new sediments are being

deposited. And please refer to the charts

that we just discussed earlier done by the

University of Florida in 2004.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

At Elliot Lake, Canada, in a lake

that has only two picoCuries per liter radium

226 below a Uranium Mine, elevated radium has

been found in cattails and in the muskrats

that eat the cattails. Clulow, 1996.

Clearly it has been shown that the

biological mechanisms and pathways of

exposure exist to allow radium to present a

risk to aquatic life if discharged at

concentrated levels into the environment. It

is particularly problematic when

bioaccumulation of radium in mussels occurs.

The Illinois mussel fauna is already under

severe pressure with 27 species of mussels

listed as endangered or threatened species in

the state, Endangered Species Protection

Board, 1999.

The Illinois Department of Natural

Resources possesses site specific information

for all known occurrences of listed species

and the IEPA has a statutory obligation under

the Illinois Endangered Species Protection

Act to consult with IDNR on potential impacts

to listed species associated with any

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

proposed action. Further, predation on

mussels by fish, waterfowl, otters, raccoons,

and muskrats is well documented. Some

species like raccoon, common red horses, and

many species of diving ducks, including

commercially valuable, hunted species like

the ring-necked duck or, quote, bluebill,

selectively feed on mussels and could both be

in danger of receiving concentrated exposures

and subsequently, serving as pathways to

other predators and scavengers, like bald

eagles or other raptors.

On another front, the land application

of waste treatment sludge that exhibits high

concentrations of radium opens up the

possibility of many terrestrial pathways for

exposure, including bioaccumulation in

indigenous vegetation or in planted crops, or

uptake by birds, snakes, turtles, or shrews

when they eat earthworms.

With regard to the levels of

radium that would pose a threat to aquatic

life, considerable scientific consideration

has also been given this question. The U.S.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Department of Energy, Biota-Dose Assessment

Committee has developed a standardized

methodology that calculates that radium

levels over 3.75 picoCuries per liter in

water of combined radium 226 and radium 228

is above the threshold to protect aquatic and

riparian wildlife populations, from the

Biota-Dose Advisory Committee, 2000. This is

in DOE Standard 1153-2002, it's called A

Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation

Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. It

was specifically developed to identify

threshold levels for specific radioisotopes

below which impacts to biota have not been

observed.

In conclusion, contrary to earlier

IEPA testimony, this scientific literature

clearly documents the risk that radium

presents to aquatic biota. We, therefore,

recommend that the current general standard

for radium 226 of one picoCurie per liter

remain in place (recognizing, of course, that

there is a concomitant contribution of

radiation from radium 228), until such

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

time -- they should be left in place until

such time that the Agency familiarizes

themselves with the environmental risks posed

by radium and DOE Standard 1153-2002, and

formulates a more defensible proposal. In my

opinion, if there is an affordable technology

available that avoids the need to reintroduce

radium to the environment, it should be

employed.

I thank you for your attention,

and I'll be glad to answer any questions that

you may have.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Thank

you, Dr. Anderson.

MR. FORT: Would you like us to go to

our next witness?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Why don't

you go ahead with Dr. Adams.

MR. FORT: That would be fine. Let me

tender as an exhibit here. We realized after

we filed this that some of the attachments to

Ted Adams' testimony were in the wrong order

and had a couple phone calls with people

saying I don't follow this so my apologies;

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

that was our fault in terms of making

photocopies.

We have -- would like to have

entered as an exhibit, and I have extra

copies, of the amended attachments, it's A --

one of the maps in A and E were transposed

and Attachment B has the pages in order and I

think we had them numbered too so we should

not have the problem. My apologies again for

that pagination issue.

So if we could mark -- so what

I've got here, Madam Hearing Officer, to mark

as an exhibit is Mr. Adams' pre-filed

testimony with Attachments C, D -- with all

the attachments as filed except for A, B and

E which have now been put in the correct

pagination order.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you

like to take -- let the Agency take a look at

it?

MR. FORT: Sure.

MS. WILLIAMS: We don't have any

objection.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay. If

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

there are no objections, I'll enter this

pre-filed testimony of Ted Adams along with

the corrected exhibits as Exhibit 14.

MR. FORT: Thank you. Okay,

Mr. Adams.

ORAL TESTIMONY

BY DR. ADAMS

I, Theodore G. Adams, President of

T.G. Adams and Associates, hereby

respectfully submit supplemental testimony to

address questions raised by the Illinois

Pollution Control Board, here known as the

Board, and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (the "IEPA" or the

"Agency") during the prior hearing in this

matter held on August the 11th, 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.

The first question: What would be

a safe level of radium in general use waters

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

of Illinois? The existing standard of

one picoCurie per liter of radium 226

generally is recognized as a background

condition in surface waters of Illinois.

Given that radium is a recognized carcinogen,

and a degradation or decay product of uranium

and thorium, it is not surprising that the

Board would 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

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

2; the public water supply wells with known

radium levels over five picoCuries per liter

and they are shown in red, and the downstream

receiving waters are shown in yellow.

Clearly, the effect of the proposal is to

wipe out any radium limits for Illinois

waters, even those receiving levels over

background.

The Biota-Dose Assessment

Committee or 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 picoCuries per liter 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 picoCuries per liter of radium 226,

in the presence of 1.88 picoCuries per liter

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

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

picoCuries per liter, and I ask you to refer

to Attachment B, Page 2. But if the sediment

levels are 12.2 picoCuries per gram (as was

documented by the Florida studies that are

included in Attachment D), then the safe

level would fall to 1.4 picoCuries per liter

for each. Clearly, there's very little room

to relax the existing water quality standard

without further data and specific analysis.

And clearly, the expected effluent of five to

ten picoCuries per liter, from several of the

example POTWs contained in Mr. Williams'

testimony Table 5, would fail the BDAC

criteria. I refer you to Attachment B, cases

three through six.

I believe that the approach taken

by the BDAC merits considerable weight. The

Department of Energy is responsible for

managing and controlling, at its facilities,

a large portion of the country's radioactive

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

materials, subject to oversight by the EPA,

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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. I refer you to

Attachment C. And if the Board wants to have

water quality standards to 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, and including data just published in

August of this year, would indicate that

radium levels in the very range that meet the

BDAC dose -- 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 of the Florida researchers who has

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

evaluated the bioconcentration in sediments

and mussels from the various lakes in

Florida. These lakes must be replenished by

pumping groundwater, which has radium at

levels I consider background; in other words,

one to two picoCuries per liter. The

recently published data shows that the

mussels in these lakes bioaccumulate radium

to levels over 200 picoCuries per gram.

Illinois has many endangered

mussels which inhabit the waters threatened

to be deregulated 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's a relationship between the

background radium and these endangered

species, but clearly the effect of this

proposed rule has not been adequately

considered.

In conclusion, radium can cause

adverse effects on aquatic life and riparian

animals. It is a carcinogen to humans and it

bioaccumulates in mussels and up the aquatic

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

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.

Question No. 2: Are there other

sources of radium discharging? The explicit

assumption made by the IEPA was that an

exceedance of the existing standard would

occur only as a result of the presence of

elevated radium in drinking water or the

treatment of drinking water. I would note

that the goal of the EPA drinking water

standard is zero; the five picoCuries per

liter reflects a risk of one 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 they be industrial,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

commercial or municipal. It seems to me that

there are likely other dischargers of radium

that exist.

At least one of the participating

facilities in the AMSA study was a publicly

owned treatment works in the northeastern

Illinois area. This POTW is in an area that

has a high concentration of radium in

groundwater withdrawals. Because of the

confidentiality of the 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

additional information about other documented

dischargers of radium. However, time did not

permit a review of radium dischargers in

Illinois, but we did find that at least one

nuclear plant reported radium discharge

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

levels exceeding the current standard. For

the LaSalle plant, radium 226 was reported

for two outfalls at 2.6 picoCuries per liter,

and total radium values were 4.1 and 9.0

picoCuries per liter. In a couple of

instances it appeared that the amount of

radium increased across specific wastewater

processes. I refer you to Attachment I.

The record in this proceeding does

not identify other sources beside municipal

drinking water treatment plants might be the

beneficiary of this deregulation. 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.

Question No. 3 asked: Are there

other impacts on publicly owned treatment

works beyond those in Agency Exhibit 11? The

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

IEPA 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 of the Agency's proposal.

The IEPA has not provided this

proceeding with evidence concerning testing

or monitoring of sewage slush 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, an NRC licensee, discharged

minute amounts of non-soluble radioactive

particles of Cobalt 60 over a period of 20

years into the sewer system. These minute

radioactive particles contaminated the POTW

and the resulting sludge. And the aggregate

radioactivity disposed of into the sewer

system over the 20-year period was less than

a half of Curie. I refer you to Attachment

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

But nevertheless, the NEORSD

incurred more than $2 million in cleanup

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 Northeast Ohio Region District. Cobalt

60 has a half-life of approximately five to

six years, and Cobalt 60 does not produce

radon as a by-product. In contrast, radium

226 has a half-life of approximately

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've completed

a review of the IEPA 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 of

radium contamination found in Joliet's sewer

sludge over the course of just a single year

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

was .293 Curie. Refer you to Attachment G,

Page 12 of the Agency's Exhibit 12. The

amount of radium contamination found in

Joliet's sewer sludge over a period of one

year was more than half the amount of

radioactive contamination for a 20-year

period found in the sewer system in

Cleveland, Ohio. And thus, over a similar

20-year period, the Joliet POTWs would appear

to generate more than ten times the quantity

of radiation that caused substantial injury

to the sewer system in Cleveland, Ohio. And

the radium 226 will take longer to decay or

degrade than the Cobalt.

On the other hand, if the

radium-laden residuals, i.e., Technically

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive

Material commonly known as TENORM,

T-E-N-O-R-M, 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: One, the

uncontrolled discharge of radium residuals

would or could be a liability issue to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

municipalities and POTWs (as cited in

Cleveland, Ohio); two, POTW workers will

require training, personnel exposure

monitoring and medical monitoring as

occupational radiation workers; three, sewer

sludge and handling areas will require

ongoing testing; four, the POTW may be

required to obtain a radioactive materials

license; five, application of sewer sludge to

farmland will require ongoing monitoring; and

last, sewer pipes and lines and the POTW

itself (or parts thereof) may require

decontamination. These costs are the

practical result of the Agency's proposal.

And there's another environmental

cost to the proposal. The Agency expects the

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 five to 25 percent of the

quantity of water being pumped for human

consumption. Areas already relying on deep

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

aquifers for portable 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.

And I refer you to a quote of the Comparison

of Potentiometric Surfaces for the

Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifers of Northeastern

Illinois, 1995 and 2000, Table 2, Figure 9

attached hereto as Attachment H.

For Joliet, backflushing would

therefore increase the groundwater drawdown

by .5 to 2 and a half million gallons per

day. And, moreover, Kane County shows the

largest growth in deep well pumping of any

county in the area. See Table 1. And 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. And thus, the amount of water

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

containing elevated levels of radium being

extracted from the deep aquifers seems likely

to continue to increase. Allowing the use of

backflushing 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.

In conclusion, the existing

standard represents background conditions.

And 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's clearly no basis

to remove radium as a general aquatic quality

criterion without more 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, T-E-N-O-R-M, radium to be

backwashed down sewers. This not only

reintroduces a carcinogen back into the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

environment, it potentially exposes POTW

workers to radium levels above that allowed

even for workers in a nuclear power plant and

it results in radium being applied to crop

soils as part of the municipal sludge. From

an environmental viewpoint, all radium

TENORM, especially radioactive solids, should

not be permitted down sewers, regardless if

one is a licensee of IEMA or not. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Thank

you, Mr. Adams. At this point we'll return

to Mr. Harsch, return to his questions.

MR. HARSCH: I believe that -- I think

it might be more appropriate if the Agency

has the proponent to proceed.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Are you

ready to proceed at this point?

MS. WILLIAMS: I can. I mean my only

issue is I have quite a few questions again

on the new stuff so I did sort of monopolize

the last hearing so I want to make sure

that --

MR. HARSCH: We have two days.

MS. WILLIAMS: -- the Board and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

everybody else gets a chance, but I'm ready

to go any time, so whenever you want.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: That's

understandable, but you can go ahead and ask

questions.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm going to

come around if that's okay so I can see.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Also let

me know if any of your witnesses need to be

sworn in.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Yeah, I guess

just for the record maybe I can introduce the

folks that I brought with me today. I'm

Deborah Williams, assistant counsel of the

Illinois EPA, and with me also I have

Stefanie Diers also assistant counsel in our

legal department. Maybe the technical staff

can introduce themselves and what they do.

MR. MOSHER: Okay. I'm Bob Mosher,

and I'm the manager of the Water Quality

Standards Unit.

MR. KUHN: I'm Jerry Kuhn, I'm manager

of the Permit Section of the Division of

Public Water Supplies.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. KINSLEY: Blaine Kinsley, acting

manager of the Industrial Unit, Permit

Section, Bureau of Water.

MR. HUTTON: Jeff Hutton, I'm an

environmental protection specialist, and I

deal with the sludge application program.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I don't see any

reason to swear in our folks at this time.

I'm assuming at some point the Board might

want to ask some more questions and we can do

it then.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We can do

that at that time.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I

guess I'll start with Dr. Anderson first.

Thanks for joining us today. I'm going to

apologize a little bit ahead of time, I kind

of -- Mr. Adams knows last time I sort of

went through the testimony and organized my

questions by going page by page through the

testimony so my page numbers might be a

little off, it might take me a second to

adjust to the new version.

MR. FORT: Excuse me. If you have the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

other version, he can refer from that.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is that okay?

MR. FORT: That's fine, yeah. He'll

find it.

5 WHEREUPON:

DR. BRIAN D. ANDERSON,

7 called as a witness herein, having been previously

8 duly sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

By Ms. Williams

Q. Okay. Why don't we start out,

12 Dr. Anderson, could you tell us a little bit about

13 your prior experience before this matter dealing

14 with radium or other radiological elements?

A. Well, general training, physical

16 chemistry, those kinds of things in the university.

17 The last several weeks I have intensively studied

18 the issue, conferred with chemists, conferred with

19 other radiologic experts, reviewed the literature so

20 I've done --

Q. But prior to this case that wasn't a

22 particular function of your work at the Department

23 of Natural Resources in the past really?

A. No, not necessarily except that in my

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 capacity as director of the office of scientific

2 research and analysis, I did oversee the state water

3 survey and the issue of radium in drinking water of

4 course has been an ongoing concern there for 25,

5 30 years or so.

Q. Right, the drinking water.

A. In that capacity, there was a lot of

8 discussion about radium in the drinking water.

Q. And have you participated in, I'm

10 assuming, in water quality standards rulemaking

11 before the Board in the past?

A. Yes, I have. I was involved in the

13 arsenic rulemaking. In the capacity that I served

14 at with the Department of Natural Resources there

15 have been occasions when the Agency did, in fact,

16 consult with DNR on rulemaking and because of my

17 capacity as more or less chief scientist there, I

18 was involved with discussions with the division of

19 resource review in coordination with some primary

20 point of contact with the IEPA.

Q. And in the arsenic rule that you talk

22 about, was that a drinking water rulemaking or a

23 water quality standard rulemaking?

A. I don't recall actually. I'd have to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 review the paperwork.

Q. If I were to tell you that I believe

3 it was the drinking water rulemaking, would you

4 think --

A. No, I would not contradict that.

Q. Then are you familiar with the

7 national guidelines for deriving water quality

8 standards published by USEPA I think in 1986?

A. Well, in the context of general

10 discussions about Clean Water Act and my

11 understanding was that the concept was that the

12 national standards were established and that state

13 standards were only to be modified in the presence

14 of existing data and then usually only to establish

15 a stricter standard than the national standards but

16 that appears not to have been a procedure we were

17 generally following in this case.

Q. Excuse me? You said it's not the

19 procedure we're following in this case?

A. Well, given that the Agency is

21 testifying in the absence of information on impacts

22 of radium on aquatic biota, that we should eliminate

23 the standard that would seem contrary to that

24 general concept.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. Are you aware of whether there is one

2 of those federal criteria for rating?

A. There is not.

Q. And are you familiar with the kind of

5 studies that USEPA guidance requires the states to

6 look at when developing water quality standards?

A. Well, I need to be educated.

Q. Okay. Well, we'll do that for you

9 later if you want to hang around. Let's talk a

10 little bit about you describe in your testimony the

11 Internet research that you did --

A. Uh-hum.

Q. -- and can you just describe I guess

14 for me about how long it took?

A. Oh, couple of days.

Q. And did you review -- I think you said

17 you came up with like 500 and some hits, correct?

A. True.

Q. And then of those, about 12 looked at

20 uptake and --

A. Uptake and organisms.

Q. -- organisms? Did you review those 12

23 studies?

A. Well, with these search engines, some

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 of -- some of those articles are abstracts so you

2 have abstracts of the content. Some of them in the

3 title it's obvious so I only looked at things that

4 are specifically referenced in the testimony frankly

5 because there were only two weeks to prepare

6 material to present.

Q. So you didn't -- so just to be clear,

8 you didn't look at those 12 studies that you're

9 saying are relevant to this particular case?

A. Not all of them. The ones that are

11 referenced are here.

Q. There are two studies in particular

13 that I believe are referenced in your testimony.

14 Were those two studies -- did you get them as hits

15 on your -- is that where you found them, were they

16 hits on your --

A. Which ones?

Q. -- in your Internet research? I

19 believe there's a study from Florida that you

20 discussed in some detail and then I got --

A. No, actually I was made aware of

22 that --

Q. By whom?

A. -- in discussions with WRT.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. Okay.

A. And I think they actually shared that

3 with -- in their testimony with the Agency.

Q. So you would not be testifying today

5 that you found that study in your Internet search?

A. No. I actually found it on the

7 website as PCP and is part of the record.

Q. Thank you. So you couldn't tell us

9 today that any of the articles that are out there on

10 the Internet would tell the Agency or the Board what

11 the proper water quality standard for radium should

12 be?

A. I would not presume to. I mean,

14 that's a jurisdiction of the Board and the Agency.

15 Are you, in fact, asking whether there is a

16 threshold that has consensus within the scientific

17 community for protection of aquatic life?

Q. I'm actually not asking that question.

A. Am I hearing you right?

Q. But I will ask that question.

A. Good.

Q. And I think I'll ask that question,

23 I'd like to phrase it maybe a little differently.

24 On what I have as -- let's see. Okay. On Page 4, I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 believe it's about -- of the original testimony, I'm

2 not sure, it will be the last page probably still of

3 the new version.

A. Okay.

Q. There is a paragraph, I guess it's

6 three from the bottom if you count the last sentence

7 where that word threshold comes up.

A. Beginning with regard to the levels?

Q. Beginning with regard to the levels.

10 I'd like to talk about the second sentence.

A. Okay.

Q. And I'll just repeat it --

A. Okay.

Q. -- for the rest of us to be focused.

15 It says, the U.S. Department of Energy Biota Dose

16 Advisory Committee has developed a standardized

17 methodology that calculates that radium levels over

18 3.75 picoCuries per liter in water of combined

19 radium 226 and 228 is above the threshold to protect

20 aquatic and riparian wildlife populations.

I'd like to ask you a couple

22 questions about that. I guess the first question I

23 have is did you find this figure 3.75 picoCuries per

24 liter in that document?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. No. It provides the formula and it

2 also provides what they call the BCGs, they are

3 factors that can be used to differentiate between

4 the relative power of a radioactive decay for

5 different isotopes so they have a table with all the

6 radioactive isotopes, they provide the formula and

7 you plug in --

Q. And does it just have one table or

9 does it have multiple tables?

MR. FORT: Excuse me, can he finish

his answer?

12 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I mean, it's actually presented in

14 several places, the formula. So you take --

15 basically it's the picoCuries of all the

16 radioisotopes over the conversion factors added

17 together.

Now I've presented this in the

19 context of radium 226 and 228. This standard is

20 actually a standard which is for all radiation. So

21 the assumption here in calculating it's 3.75

22 picoCuries for all radiation but it's protective of

23 aquatic and riparian life.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Really?

A. Yes.

Q. So it would be 3.75 for uranium or

5 other --

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. No, and this is something that --

9 there seems to be a confusion throughout the entire

10 record. Radiation is the agent that causes

11 biological damage. Radium is not the only potential

12 source of radiation, there is uranium in water in

13 many cases in Illinois. There may be other sources

14 of -- and in this case radium is primarily an alpha

15 emitter.

So in order that the standard that

17 is protective is 3.75 picoCuries of radiation, no

18 matter what the source is. And you have to add all

19 the sources together to determine if it goes over

20 that threshold.

Q. Let's talk about what you mean by

22 threshold. The second part of this sentence you say

23 is above the threshold to protect aquatic and

24 riparian life populations. The first question I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 have is isn't it true that this calculation, using

2 the DOE screening tool, was done -- well, first of

3 all, was it done by you or done by Mr. Adams?

A. I may have seen his calculations in

5 the testimony. Again, I reviewed the entire record

6 that was on the website so I'm sure that I've seen

7 it there, but I re-read the entire Graded Approach

8 for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and

9 Terrestrial Biota.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: If I can

interrupt you there. We have several

references in the pre-filed testimony and

today to this document that you're referring

to. We have in the pre-filed testimony

Module 1 entered, and I think that the

equation you're also referring to is found in

another section of that document.

MR. FORT: It's possible.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And so if

there's no objection, I'd like to enter into

the record the entire document.

MR. FORT: Fine.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: So we all

have -- I have an extra copy or two if anyone

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

needs to take a look at it, but I think that

all of us that have been involved have taken

a look at the document already and have you

had a chance to look at it yet?

MS. WILLIAMS: I have all of Module 1

which -- I believe they did provide all of

Module 1, but I wouldn't say that I have the

whole thing. I believe it's available on the

Internet.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: It is and

we have a copy here for you too if you'd like

to take a look but it includes where he found

the equation which --

MR. HARSCH: Does that include the

preliminary module as well?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Yes.

MR. HARSCH: I guess sort of a

foreword to the document?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Yes.

It's the entire thing and you can take a look

at it here too, but...

MS. WILLIAMS: I certainly have no

objections to entering that document.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: If

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

there's no objection, I'll go ahead and enter

that as --

MR. HARSCH: I would like to look at

it first.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Yes.

MEMBER JOHNSON: Give you maybe

40 seconds to read that.

MR. FORT: Can I make a suggestion on

this? Maybe if we -- if the question is is

that the complete document or not --

MR. HARSCH: We have no objection.

MR. FORT: -- 14, whatever the

complete document is, will be I think it's

15.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Exhibit

15. Okay. Now you can go ahead.

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Okay. The first question I want to

19 get back to is isn't it true that the calculation

20 used was focused on riparian mammals, correct?

A. The limiting organisms are riparian

22 mammals.

Q. But had they looked at aquatic life or

24 humans, we would have gotten a different answer?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. Well, no.

Q. Or aquatic life or plants let's say.

A. The threshold for aquatic life,

4 fishes, you know, things that are in the water all

5 the time, is one rad per day. The limiting factors

6 actually on riparian organisms, higher organisms,

7 mammals primarily, and that's .1 rads per day.

Q. And .1 rads per day, what was used?

A. We used the basis for the calculation

10 that derives the 3.75 picoCuries per liter.

Q. You keep using this word threshold.

12 Can you tell us what this tool, which I'm going to

13 call screening tool, I believe that's what the

14 document calls itself, what the screening tool is

15 intended to be used for?

A. Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I

17 thought I heard two questions, could you read that

18 back?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

22 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Okay. As described by BDAC in this

24 document, the threshold, that figure, is the level

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 of radiation exposure below which no population

2 level effects on the biota has been documented.

3 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Isn't it --

A. That's what it is.

Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Anderson, that this

7 tool was designed for the Department of Energy to

8 look at sites to evaluate whether additional study

9 was needed or not to say if you're below this, no

10 additional study is needed; if you're above this,

11 well, maybe we should take a look and see what's

12 going on?

A. If it's above this, there may be

14 potential biotic impact and we should take a look.

15 It's almost identical to TACO which the Agency is a

16 proponent of. In fact, the graded approach and the

17 tear approach are virtually the same crossed

18 process.

Q. And those are both used primarily in

20 the cleanup process, right, where something has

21 already been polluted by --

MR. FORT: Objection. You know, if

you've got the document, instead of you

trying to characterize the document, let's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

let the document be used as opposed to a

general, you know, lawyer's gloss on it.

Because I don't think the document, if you

read it, it will not be as limiting as you're

trying to make it out to be.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Well, she

can go ahead and ask questions as long as

it's --

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't agree.

10 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Did you consult the author of the

12 document as part of your research?

A. It was multiple authors.

Q. Did you consult any of the authors as

15 part --

A. It's an available public document.

Q. You read it, you did in part?

A. Yeah, it's monstrous.

Q. Are there any studies that you were

20 aware of that document a no effect level for radium?

A. That's what this number does.

Q. This is based on an observed --

A. No population level effects. That

24 means that even at these levels, there could be

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 effects to individuals like threatened endangered

2 species.

Q. Is this model based on any papers and

4 studies that document no effects?

A. It's not a model. What do you mean by

6 model?

Q. Are there any controlled observational

8 experiments that were the basis for this study?

A. That do what? I mean, yeah. I mean,

10 there's a huge literature on the impacts of

11 radiation on biota, these guys are the experts in

12 the world.

Q. That's your testimony?

A. Pardon?

Q. Your testimony there's -- Go ahead,

16 repeat it. There's a huge ...

A. There is a huge body of literature --

Q. Yes.

A. -- on the impacts of radiation on

20 biological species whether --

Q. Controlled experiments?

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?

23 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Are there controlled experiments?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. Absolutely. In fact, there's a

2 wonderful reference done by a guy in Patuxent, it's

3 a synoptic guide to the impacts of radiation on

4 wildlife, fish and in birds, 147 pages. Lists all

5 the species that have been tested, the various

6 isotopes that were used as the sources and the

7 effects, huge body. This is one of the most

8 intensively studied phenomenon in science, the

9 impacts of radiation on organisms.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'd like to go off the

record and talk to my client for just a

second if you don't mind.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

Why don't we take a break right now. We can

go off the record. We'll take a ten-minute

break and come back at 2:45.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

We're back on the record, and we will

continue with questions by the Agency.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. I guess, Dr. Anderson, maybe I

3 apologize for some confusion because I felt that at

4 the last hearing we were all in agreement that the

5 graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to

6 aquatic and terrestrial biota was a model rather

7 than an observational or experimental study?

A. I mean it's a standard methodology.

9 Everything is a model, your entire regulatory

10 framework is a model because you don't go out and

11 look at the actual impacts, you set standards based

12 on toxicological studies and then assume it's going

13 to be protected.

Q. And toxi- -- by that, toxicological

15 studies, you mean studies in a laboratory that look

16 at impact --

A. They look at three things: One, the

18 species -- a particular species, a dose and the

19 impact of that species. And the reason there is no

20 work done with radium like that is A, you're

21 interested in the impacts of radiation and B, radium

22 is too dangerous to work with.

Q. But you agree there's no work like

24 that that's been done with radium?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. FORT: I would like you to let him

finish his sentence. I mean he says

something and then you say but you agree.

MS. WILLIAMS: I thought he was

finished. Were you not finished?

THE WITNESS: No. What I'm saying

is --

MS. WILLIAMS: I thought he answered

the question I should say actually. I asked

the question and I think he answered it,

but ...

THE WITNESS: Okay. What I'm -- all

I'm saying is is that it would not be prudent

to look at impacts of radiation on biological

species in the laboratory using radium as the

source of radiation. There are much safer

things, much more available things. Things

that don't degrade radon and cause problems

because it's a gas so that so ...

20 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. But you agree, right --

A. I agree --

Q. -- that there are none -- there

24 have -- there are no lab studies done?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. I would not say definitively there are

2 none. There are none on the ecotype database which

3 is probably what IEPA consulted.

Q. Okay. And that would be normal in

5 setting water quality standards to consult that

6 database, right?

A. Well, if it's a radionucleotide, it

8 would also be normal to look at the radiological

9 literature to determine if radiation harms plants

10 and animals, and it does.

Q. And I'm getting the assumption from

12 what you're telling me then that your criticism is

13 that we should have looked at radiation generally

14 rather than focusing in, narrowing in on radium in

15 particular, correct?

A. Not really because in terms of

17 fate/transport where it bioaccumulates, that is a

18 function of the chemical reactivity of the

19 radionucleotide. In terms of the damage it does,

20 that's purely a function of the radiation.

Q. So if we are to set a standard of

22 water quality standard for radiation generally,

23 would that address the concerns that you're

24 expressing?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. As a general water quality standard?

Q. Right, if we had a general water

3 quality standard of X number of picoCuries per liter

4 of radiation?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Are you aware if we have any such

7 standards in Illinois right now?

A. For general water quality standards?

Q. Uh-hum.

A. My understanding is you do not.

Q. You're not aware that -- Well, there

12 are no general water use -- general use water

13 quality standards for radiation is what you're

14 saying to the best of your knowledge?

A. The one picoCurie per liter radium 226

16 is the only one that I'm aware of.

Q. Are you aware if they have a gross

18 beta standard?

A. I am not aware of that.

Q. If there was a gross beta standard,

21 would that address some of your concerns about there

22 being no --

A. Well, radium is primarily an alpha

24 emitter so not necessarily.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. Are you familiar with part 302 of 35

2 Illinois Administrative Code where the Agency has

3 its water quality standards?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what assumptions were

6 used in developing the DOE screening tool?

MR. FORT: I'm sorry, what was the

question?

9 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. What type of assumptions were used

11 about exposure, time, method, concentration, whether

12 there was dilution?

A. It's all discussed in the material in

14 the standard --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, in the

standard what?

17 BY THE WITNESS:

A. It's all discussed in the standard. I

19 mean, I'm aware of what's in that document.

20 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. The assumptions are all discussed,

22 okay.

A. Did I memorize it? No.

Q. But it's true, correct, that the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 document assumes no dilution, it assumes a constant

2 concentration?

A. No, I don't think that that's true

4 because these are contaminated sites, contaminated

5 with uranium -- with some radionucleotide, and there

6 are -- they don't deal with assumptions, for

7 example, about organisms coming and going from the

8 site and those exposures so it isn't necessarily an

9 assumed that there's a constant exposure.

On the other hand, what you're

11 proposing, if you're sampling quarterly for these

12 things, it sounds like you're making the same

13 assumption anyway. Otherwise, why would you sample

14 periodically?

Q. Are you asking me a question now?

A. No, I'm not. Sorry.

Q. Isn't it true that the DOE screening

18 tool assumes, for example, that a riparian mammal

19 would get all his food, all his water from that

20 particular source?

A. It could. I mean, I think that's

22 reasonable and that's not necessarily an illogical

23 assumption if you're talking about something like a

24 raccoon living in the riparian corridor next to a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 stream --

Q. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a

3 week?

A. How long is a riparian corridor?

Q. Three hundred sixty-five days?

A. How far is the level of contamination?

Q. In the middle of the stream?

A. In the middle of the stream?

Q. And assumes that there's --

A. Outside of --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

For the court reporter, let's not talk over

each other.

15 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Isn't it true that it assumes that a

17 riparian mammal would be in the middle of the

18 stream, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days

19 a year?

A. Not a riparian mammal, we don't have

21 dolphins. Well, it assumes that it's eating and

22 drinking from the stream predominantly.

Q. Isn't riparian mammal the term that is

24 used in this document?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. Riparian refers to the area next to

2 the stream, vegetations only.

MS. WILLIAMS: Could you read back for

me what he said it assumes?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

8 BY THE WITNESS:

A. The riparian area is the vegetative

10 zone next to the stream, it's next to the stream. I

11 think what I said previously was that it is not

12 unreasonable to believe that a riparian mammal would

13 drink and eat from the stream.

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. My question really wasn't was it

16 reasonable to believe, my question was that an

17 assumption that this model was based on in order to

18 achieve the calculations that are in your testimony?

A. The latter one I do agree with.

Q. The answer is yes?

A. Yes.

Q. I'd like to go over a few of the

23 bullet points in your testimony, if that's okay.

24 The second bullet point on Page 2 of the version

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 that was originally filed states: There is 50 years

2 of data identifying the various negative impacts of

3 radiation upon a spectrum of animals and plants.

Can you tell us what the dose

5 rates are that are associated with specific negative

6 impacts?

A. You -- I would --

MR. FORT: Object to the --

THE WITNESS: -- refer --

MS. WILLIAMS: Or one negative impact.

11 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I would refer you to the Patuxent

13 study, the citation is Ronald Eisler --

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Uh-hum.

A. (Continued.) -- synoptic -- or impacts

17 of radiation on wildlife and fish and invertebrates

18 a synoptic guide.

Q. Okay.

A. And that, again, 147-page document and

21 he presents table after table of species, the

22 isotope that was used to assess the radiation

23 impacts, the level of -- the dosage of radiation and

24 the various observable impacts.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. Was that the type of information that

2 was used in developing this DOE?

A. Oh, sure.

Q. Do they cite in the Patuxent study?

A. I don't remember. Eisler might have

6 even been on the BDAC, I didn't --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I

can't hear you.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Eisler might

have even been on BDAC, I didn't review the

membership.

12 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. What's BDAC?

A. The Biota --

Q. Oh, BDAC.

A. -- Dose Assessment.

Q. In your second --

MR. FORT: Excuse me, just a second.

Just for the record, the reference study is

listed on the references in the document

we've marked as Exhibit 15, the Biota Dose

Assessment Committee document.

MS. WILLIAMS: Which module or portion

of the study have the sites in it?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. FORT: Well, it's in the first

part, it's for Module 1 so it's the

reference --

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. The preliminary.

MR. FORT: -- at the beginning. It's

really the outline and the list of

references, it's at the very beginning.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. FORT: And that's all part of it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

12 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. In bullet point No. 3 you state that

14 it isn't necessary to do species specific studies on

15 whether radium can harm a particular species

16 inhabiting in Illinois.

Are you aware of what species

18 would be the most sensitive?

A. The limiting factors used by BDAC for

20 one rad per day aquatic wildlife, that what they

21 cited was gametogenesis -- interruption of

22 gametogenesis in fish, and I actually believe for

23 the .1 they didn't specifically reference it beyond

24 riparian wildlife, what the actual mechanism is,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 it's probably the same mechanism that causes cancers

2 and fatality in humans. I mean, they're mammals.

Q. Right. And they -- so they didn't

4 reference this particular species for the .1 rad?

A. I don't have any recollection of any

6 specific reference than -- other than saying that it

7 was terrestrial mammals because they're higher on

8 the --

Q. Right.

A. -- biogenetic.

Q. And had they used the species that

12 were referenced, which I'm not going to try and

13 pronounce, gametos --

A. Gametogenesis in fishes? Again,

15 that's for the aquatic.

Q. Okay. And that would have resulted in

17 a much higher number than this 3.75 picoCuries per

18 liter?

A. If you used -- if you ignored the

20 wildlife and the riparian zone that feeds and is

21 supported, drinks and eats --

Q. Well, I'm not saying that but if

23 you --

MR. FORT: Excuse me.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. WILLIAMS: He's not answering my

question, that's why I'm clarifying.

MR. FORT: Well, but let him finish

his question, maybe he'll get to the rest of

your question, you know, if you give him a

chance.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

You can go ahead and finish answering and

then you can continue.

10 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yeah. If you do not consider riparian

12 wildlife at all, the potential impact to them, then

13 the -- it would lead to a higher number than 3.75,

14 that's correct.

15 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. In your fifth bullet point you state

17 that no increase in radiation above background

18 levels is without risk.

Wouldn't drinking levels above

20 background then involve a risk?

A. Absolutely, that's why the MCL is

22 promulgated. And if it went from five to zero,

23 there would be even less risk.

Q. Less risk, that's my question. Are

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 you recommending that we ban drinking water with

2 levels above zero?

A. This has been a 20-year debate

4 extensively -- intensively studied, intensively

5 debated. I'm comfortable with the federal MCL at

6 five picoCuries per liter for drinking water.

Q. Then can you explain for the Board why

8 you're comfortable with five picoCuries per liter

9 for human consumption but you're recommending in

10 your testimony retention of one picoCuries per liter

11 for water that's discharged today from a sewage

12 treatment plant to a low-flow stream?

A. Okay. Yeah, I can do that. Well,

14 first of all, you have to remember that one -- that

15 this current standard is one picoCurie per liter

16 radium 226.

Q. Okay.

A. There will be a concomitant

19 contribution from 228, it runs -- could run 40 to

20 60 percent either way so really one is two so we're

21 already at two. If -- Do you understand that?

Q. Well ...

A. That's really key because there is

24 some confusion in the record before the Board.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. Uh-hum.

A. It over and over states that we're

3 moving the standard from one picoCurie to four or to

4 five, it's one picoCurie radium 226, it's five

5 picoCuries combined --

Q. Correct.

A. -- 226, 228 so that's an important

8 consideration. If you have a situation where you're

9 delivering water -- drinking water at five

10 picoCuries, and let's say the water where -- that

11 you don't concentrate the radium and you send it to

12 a sewage treatment plant at five picoCuries, you're

13 going to lose part of it to the sediment, roughly

14 half, depending on the proportion of radium 226,

15 228, depending on the absorption levels of the

16 sludge in the treatment plant but 50 percent is a

17 reasonable calculation, so you've got 2.5 going out

18 into the stream which is pretty close to the two.

So -- and what I -- and I'm

20 recommending one be put in place because the

21 proposal is to eliminate it completely and have no

22 standard.

Q. So if there was a different number in

24 place, you might recommend a different combined

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 standard rather than the existing one picoCurie per

2 liter of radium 226?

A. I think now that you've clearly

4 reviewed the graded approach and started to look at

5 the numbers, there may be a reasonable way to

6 address the concerns of POTWs that might have

7 trouble meeting the one picoCurie per liter

8 standard. But it's sure not a rational approach to

9 do away with the standard for everybody to address

10 the needs for a few POTWs as per the IEPA testimony.

Q. I understand. In general, would you

12 say it's better to have -- in general, would you say

13 a combined standard of radium 226 and radium 228

14 would be preferable to just a radium 226 standard?

A. Yeah, probably. And you could even go

16 to alpha emitters, a combined -- a standard that

17 dealt with all alpha emitters.

Q. Are you aware of what the drinking

19 water standard is for alpha emitters?

A. Fifteen? Fifteen or 20.

Q. I think 15 is correct. Are you aware

22 of what the drinking water is for beta?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what the Department

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 of Energy effluent limit is for radium for -- Well,

2 I don't think it's the Department of Energy -- what

3 nuclear power plants' effluent is regulated by?

A. I don't think I do. I don't think

5 I've seen that.

Q. You spend a significant portion of

7 your bullet points referring to a study out of

8 Florida?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. I believe you call it Technical Report

11 to the Southwest Florida Management District 2000.

A. Uh-hum.

Q. In your what is the first bullet point

14 on my Page 3 --

A. Okay.

Q. -- it starts radium is closely related

17 chemically to calcium?

A. Yes.

Q. You state in there that it moves

20 easily through the environment?

A. Right.

Q. Isn't that statement contradictory to

23 the Florida study on Page 7?

A. Which says?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. If you would like to take a look at

2 it.

MR. FORT: You're referring to one of

the attachments to Mr. Adam's testimony?

MS. WILLIAMS: Exhibit H.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: It would

be D.

MS. WILLIAMS: Exhibit D? Did I get

it wrong?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Uh-hum.

Attachment D.

12 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Sorry. Yeah, Page 7, Paragraph 2 of

14 Exhibit D. It says the last sentence referring to

15 radium, consequently it is usually not a mobile

16 constituent in the environment?

A. Well, you have to read the sentence --

18 the rest of the sentence.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, read the rest of the

20 sentence.

A. Radium does not degrade in water by

22 means other than radioactive decay, and it may be

23 readily absorbed by soils.

Q. Soils.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. Absolutely. Consequently, it's

2 usually not a mobile constituent in the environment.

3 That's specifically referring to its affinity to

4 build up in things like sewer sludge and sediments.

Q. Well, what is your --

A. But the components that don't are

7 biologically mobile. I mean, that's how human

8 cancers develop, it's absorbed into the bones and it

9 irradiates the bone marrow.

Q. Do you know what those percentages

11 are?

A. Well, I've seen numbers in absorption

13 in sediments and sewer sludge range from 20 to

14 80 percent.

Q. It's very variable, the data that's

16 out there?

A. Yes, absolutely. That's why I

18 testified previously that often they use 50 percent

19 when it ends up in the sewage treatment plant but

20 it's highly variable.

Q. Would some of that variation be based

22 on solubility?

A. Well, solubility is a consideration

24 and if radium is in a soluble state, it's probably

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 less problematic, for example, than radium that's

2 precipitated out using HMO. A precipitant that

3 forms it as a particle, if you then take it and land

4 apply it, that's problematic; you get an earthworm

5 picks up a particulate form of radium rather than it

6 being evenly spread across the land, so it's just

7 another way that it's concentrated.

So yes, the form that it exists in

9 can affect its mobility and the potential pathways

10 for exposure for biomagnification through the

11 ecosystems.

Q. Do you think it would need to be

13 soluble to be -- for there to be an uptake by

14 mollusks for example?

A. No. You know, in the Florida study

16 they actually -- I think, I don't know, I'm

17 trying -- I was trying to read between the lines

18 frankly.

Q. Right.

A. And this is purely a judgment, you

21 know, they don't say this, but they seem surprised

22 at the levels of concentration. It might be because

23 it's a siphon feeder and it's taking in

24 particulates, it could also be because for some

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 reason the muscle -- I mean, the muscle in the

2 mussel -- has a particular affinity for the soluble

3 form, it's -- that's very speculative. I don't

4 know.

Q. I believe you said that like calcium

6 if it is taken in by the organism, it would

7 primarily concentrate in the bones or like mollusk

8 shells?

A. Those are places where there is a lot

10 of calcium. I mean, typically in vertebrates it's

11 skeletal system, nerves and muscles.

Q. And I would assume for humans and for

13 larger mammals it's safer that it be there than in

14 the flesh, correct?

A. No. No, the bone is the most

16 dangerous place because it's a carcinogen.

Q. Right, but if it's in -- I'm sorry,

18 being in the mussel shell or the fish bone --

A. Oh, we're talking -- I'm sorry.

Q. -- if you're to -- as a predator.

A. Yes. Yes, because they would be

22 eating the flesh.

Q. Okay. With regard to the Florida

24 study, that was a study of Round Lake; is that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 correct?

A. That was one of the lakes studied.

3 Actually, I remember there were several.

Q. There was only one lake from which

5 they took water samples I believe, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And that was Round Lake?

A. I believe so.

Q. Do you know -- are you aware of what

10 the loading of radium was to that lake? I believe

11 the study talks about the concentration. Do you

12 know if it talked about the loading? And do you

13 know what I mean by loading when I say that?

A. Yeah, you're talking about the

15 concentration of radium in picoCuries per liter.

Q. But I mean are -- no, I know it talked

17 about the concentration but it didn't talk about the

18 quantity. So in that study I guess for folks that

19 probably didn't read it, water was being pumped from

20 the groundwater into the lake, correct?

A. Yeah, it was being supplemented.

Q. Do you know how much groundwater was

23 pumped into the lake?

A. I'd have to -- I would have to refer

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 to the document. Sorry.

Q. Do you know why they needed to pump

3 groundwater into the lake?

A. Well, actually, it was drawn down

5 associated with the -- I think they were just

6 supplementing it to keep the water level high for

7 the benefit of wildlife and the fish.

MR. FORT: Mr. Adams has further

information on that.

MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we can talk about

it when we get to his testimony then.

MR. FORT: I didn't know if you wanted

the answers here or someplace else.

MS. WILLIAMS: No, that answer can

wait.

16 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Do you know if that study was ever

18 peer-reviewed or published?

A. Technical reports are not typically

20 peer-reviewed.

Q. Can you think of any real world

22 examples in Illinois that would be comparable to the

23 facts in the Florida study where groundwater was

24 being used to recharge a lake for example?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. You know, we get 60 inches of rainfall

2 per year. We have severe strains on our drinking

3 water supplies, I would not be surprised if it's not

4 atypical. I mean, I can't think of a situation.

Q. Right.

A. It's not impossible. Some homeowners

7 association who lost their lake and has the money

8 might be happening, but I can't -- I wouldn't do it

9 in northeastern Illinois.

Q. And isn't really that the conclusion

11 of the Florida study that that's probably not the

12 best idea to take high rating groundwater and

13 recharge your lake with it?

A. That's one of the conclusions. I

15 would also conclude that you shouldn't discharge

16 radium into aquatic systems at all if you can help

17 it, if there's any economically feasible

18 alternatives.

Q. But you're not -- again, you're not

20 recommending that we don't use this water for

21 drinking?

A. This water?

Q. That we -- you don't recommend that we

24 ban using high radium groundwater for drinking if it

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 can meet the MCL?

A. If it can meet the MCL for drinking

3 water, no, I agree with that.

Q. Are you aware of whether the Florida

5 study -- Strike that.

Isn't it true that the Florida

7 study didn't conclude a specific adverse impact on

8 the mussels in Round Lake?

A. No, I think their concerns were the

10 things that would be eating the mussels and the

11 biomagnification process that would move it up in

12 the food chain.

Q. And they also concluded they didn't

14 have enough information to determine whether any

15 specific animals that might be eating these mussels

16 would be in danger, correct?

A. And that is not uncommon with any

18 pollutant. It's very difficult to demonstrate that

19 the pollutant itself was the cause of any lethality,

20 mortality or loss, that's very difficult and

21 expensive work and it's not typically done; that's

22 why the regulatory framework is a model.

Q. Do you know anything about the

24 geologic formation at the bottom of Round Lake and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 what it's composed of?

A. Gosh, I don't recall. I don't recall

3 a discussion of that. I'm sorry.

Q. Do you recall if they took any pH

5 samples in that study of the lake?

A. Oh, I'm sure they did, but I don't

7 remember them. I mean, that's typical when they're

8 doing a water quality study.

Q. It would be typical to take a pH

10 sample when you're doing a water quality study?

A. Yes. Right.

Q. Do you know if the state of Florida

13 took any action in response to this Round Lake

14 study?

A. No, but Ted may. Do you know?

DR. ADAMS: I don't believe they did

at the time.

18 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. In the very last paragraph -- full

20 paragraph I guess of your testimony you state that

21 in your opinion if there is affordable technology

22 available that avoids the need to reintroduce radium

23 to the environment, it should be employed.

Is it your testimony that the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Board should set new best available technology for

2 drinking water beyond that established by USEPA?

A. I would not presume to tell the Board

4 what it --

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Could I

have you both speak up a little bit more just

for the public too?

THE WITNESS: I would not presume to

tell the Board what it should -- should or

should not be doing in that regard.

MEMBER RAO: Just as a matter of

clarification about that particular

statement. Were you talking about this

affordable technology for treating -- for

drinking water, or ...

THE WITNESS: Once you concentrate the

radium to reduce the radium level in their

delivered drinking water, I mean the best and

most logical thing is to remove the radium

from the system, it avoids what are likely

detrimental which -- what will be detrimental

impacts on the biota, but it also just takes

it out of the system. You don't have to deal

with any of these issues of exposure to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

sewage treatment workers, you don't have to

deal with potential exposure pathways with

land application; you get it out of the

system, you put it in a storage facility, you

don't have to deal with it. You don't have

to deal with potential costs building up in

the sediments.

What if you've got to dredge those

sediments some day? Now they're hot and it's

incredibly expensive. It's just the logical

approach in my opinion, but I do not presume

to testify that there is an economically

feasible way. There are other folks who are

more informed in that regard, that is not my

expertise.

MEMBER RAO: And this technology that

you're referring to is more towards

getting -- you know, dealing with radium post

drinking water --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MEMBER RAO: -- treatment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MEMBER RAO: So because when

Ms. Williams mentioned best available

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

technology, that's USEPA --

THE WITNESS: Terminology.

MEMBER RAO: -- yeah, terminology

which applies to drinking water.

THE WITNESS: And I have no expertise

in that.

MEMBER RAO: Thank you very much.

MEMBER GIRARD: Could I just --

MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah.

MEMBER GIRARD: So just to clarify the

clarification. You think it should be a

public policy goal for the state of Illinois

to remove radium from the environment when

possible.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Because as

a radiation source wherever you put it, if

it -- if any organism can come into contact

with it, even for small periods of time, it

increases risks of detrimental biological

effects, it's just the nature of radiation.

MEMBER GIRARD: Thank you.

22 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Do you have an opinion on what the

24 background level of radium is in the northern part

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 of Illinois that we're discussing?

A. No, I don't.

Q. There were some exhibits attached to

4 Mr. Adam's testimony that were maps --

A. Yes.

Q. -- about endangered species? Have you

7 reviewed those?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. I'd like to direct you to one in

10 particular, this is not our area of expertise, it's

11 the Department of Natural Resources as you

12 indicated. This map is -- I believe it was Exhibit

13 E, is that --

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: I think

there were two maps, so ...

MS. WILLIAMS: There was one in --

Exhibit A had one map, Exhibit E had several.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: This is

Exhibit E.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I think it's the

sixth one though they're not numbered. I

believe it's titled Distribution Area

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Lampsilis higginsii.

THE WITNESS: Higginsii mussel I

believe, yes.

4 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Is that it?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Is it your testimony that that's an

8 accurate reflection of the range of that species?

A. Well, first of all, this isn't part of

10 my testimony, but ...

Q. No.

A. But I do have some expertise in this

13 regard. These -- my understanding is these are

14 historic ranges for these threatened endangered

15 species. They do not imply that the shaded area is

16 a place where that threatened endangered species is

17 currently found. If it was, it wouldn't probably be

18 endangered because there would be a lot of them but

19 that's what this is.

Q. And would you agree that's true of all

21 the maps they provided?

A. Yes. So what this is trying to -- I

23 think the point that they're trying to make, you

24 know, and I don't mean to speak for you, but is that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 you could impair the recovery of the threatened or

2 endangered species if it meets these habitats within

3 its specific range and they're no longer potentially

4 available because of the impacts of radium

5 discharge.

Q. Is that how the department looks at

7 whether potential impacts will result in taking of a

8 threatened or endangered species?

A. It is a consideration. The impact on

10 potential habitat is something that is considered

11 but frankly you need to consult with the department.

Q. Okay. And are you aware of that

13 particular endangered species where it's found?

A. I'm personally not familiar with that

15 particular organism. I'm a bird guy and lots of

16 other things but not a mussel guy.

Q. I could ask lots of things about

18 birds, but I'll stick to this subject here.

A. I'd love to answer.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think I'm almost done

with Dr. Anderson, but I'd like to talk with

my folks real quick.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I

have for Dr. Anderson. It's up to the Board

whether you'd like folks to finish asking him

questions and then move on to Dr. Adams?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: You can

go ahead and ask Dr. Adams as well unless

you'd like to take a break.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine. A break

is always good, but I can keep going. Hi,

Mr. Adams, how are you?

THE WITNESS: Good, thanks.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: At this

point you may have questions that may answer

other peoples' questions and we'll let you

ask them. You're lucky.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I'm so lucky.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And we

can also take another break shortly, so ...

MS. WILLIAMS: Find Dr. Adams'

testimony first.

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

By Ms. Williams

Q. Okay. On the first page of your

24 testimony, Dr. Adams, you state something that I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 think is new to me anyway. You state that the

2 existing standard of one picoCuries per liter for

3 radium 226 generally is recognized as a background

4 condition in surface waters of Illinois and then you

5 provide a citation.

Could you explain that to us a

7 little bit more?

A. Explain?

Q. Well, I have not read this attached

10 publication. So are you saying it's -- what do you

11 mean by generally recognized I guess?

A. Oh, okay. Yeah, I think if you look

13 at typical literature that documents the background

14 levels of radium 226 or other radionuclide for that

15 matter, that in Illinois you would see in surface

16 waters background ranges that would be less than one

17 picoCurie --

Q. Less than one?

A. -- per liter and up to one, it varies,

20 it varies. So I was trying to give an idea, an

21 average background concentration that we could start

22 from.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Mosher talked about

24 data from the Fox River that we had that found the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 concentration at 0.1 picoCuries per liter? Would

2 you find that to be a common background that might

3 be found?

A. I think it would be within the range.

5 I don't remember it specifically, but I would say

6 that it can be less than one and up to one up to

7 two.

Q. Would you mind providing this article

9 to the Board that you cite?

MR. FORT: We'll get the reference.

We'll get it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

13 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Is it your testimony that the Board

15 was intending to set the water quality standard at

16 background?

A. No.

Q. No. Your testimony is that it's a

19 coincidence the water quality standard is the same

20 as what you consider background?

A. I think what I was communicating and

22 testifying is that one picoCurie per liter current

23 standard is at or near Illinois surface water

24 background and that that being the case and there

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 was no -- the Agency hasn't provided any further

2 justification to change that particular standard,

3 that I would support leaving the standard at one.

Q. Okay. But you're not aware if the

5 Board considered what background levels were when

6 they adopted this standard?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Also on that page you said it appears

9 that any increase over the existing standard could

10 result in an excessive radium exposure.

Would you tell us what you mean by

12 excessive? Do you see where I'm reading from?

A. Right. Okay. I think we need to go

14 back to the sentence just before that so that we can

15 pick up: By doing so, any variations from that

16 standard would require careful consideration. From

17 the analyses I have performed, and those analyses

18 would be based on the bio dose assessment

19 calculations, which would indicate that anything

20 over, depending on the calculation, 1.36, 1.88 which

21 is clearly above one, then there could be the

22 potential of an adverse effect on the aquatic

23 organisms and it clearly would exceed or does exceed

24 the limiting requirement that's established by the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 BDAC.

Q. What exceeds the BDAC?

A. If there was an increase in the

4 picoCurie per liter concentration in the range of

5 1.36 and 1.88.

Q. So by could result in excessive radium

7 exposure you're saying it could result in some

8 impact?

A. Correct.

Q. Because it would be?

A. That's correct.

Q. You don't know what impact that would

13 be?

A. (No audible response.)

THE COURT REPORTER: Is that a no?

THE WITNESS: Yes -- I'm sorry -- we

do not know, correct. I'm sorry.

18 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. When we were talking about the biota

20 dose committee approach, that's this report, right,

21 that's been entered as an exhibit?

A. That's correct.

Q. And we discussed that briefly at the

24 last hearing too, correct, or no?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A. We introduced it, I don't think we did

2 discuss any details.

Q. Is this a regulatory requirement, this

4 approach?

A. It is a standard that is used by the

6 DOE, it is established on the DOE contractors.

Q. And how do they use that standard as

8 you put it?

A. As part of their environmental

10 monitoring program DOE requires all of its

11 contractors as part of reporting the environmental

12 monitoring results post human, the public, the

13 worker and the environment, it is part of the annual

14 environmental market that the DOE contractors put

15 out every year.

Q. And if the contractor finds values

17 that exceed the screening tool, isn't it correct

18 that the next step is then to do further tests?

A. That is correct, the next step is to

20 do specific -- gather information, specific -- site

21 specific information gathering activities.

Q. Have you consulted with any of the

23 authors of this study --

A. Yes, I have.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Q. -- in preparation for this hearing?

A. Mr. Steve Domotor, he is the DOE

3 chairman of the BDAC.

Q. And isn't it true that Mr. Domotor

5 cautioned you against the use of this approach in

6 setting water quality standards?

A. Not to my knowledge. Not to my

8 recollection.

Q. He didn't suggest that this was overly

10 conservative for this purpose?

A. We talked about its use and the fact

12 that there were conservative assumptions put into

13 that approach, but that's part of the methodology.

14 It's part of the screening and then from the

15 screening one goes into more detailed site specific

16 information.

Q. Okay. Great. Thanks. Would you mind

18 maybe explaining for us in a little bit more detail

19 about some of these conservative assumptions, what

20 they are based on?

A. Well, there are a number of default

22 values, what you're calling input or conservative

23 values, they range anywhere from distribution

24 coefficient values that would be looking at how much

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 radium or radionuclide might be in the sediment as a

2 result of a certain concentration of radioactive

3 material in the water. It may also look -- or one

4 assumption would be how much time a particular

5 organism spends in the impacted area.

Q. And how much time is that?

A. It all depends on the individual.

8 There are default --

Q. What is the default value for that?

10 I'm sorry.

A. That is an approach. It's a limit, a

12 value and there's several of them so there's

13 probably 40 or 50 of them that are used to develop

14 the methodology or to exercise the methodology and

15 that depends on whether it's an animal or an aquatic

16 organism. So one can go to the default value table,

17 look at what that default value is and identify

18 that.

Q. Do you agree that the default value

20 for the riparian mammal was 24 hours a day exposure?

A. That was what the default value was,

22 that's correct.

Q. And it also -- the default value also

24 would assume that the mammal got all of its food,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 all of its water --

A. That's also correct.

Q. -- from that? Is it also correct that

4 the default assumption is that there is a constant

5 concentration, no dilution coming in when it rains?

A. It is the concentration of the water

7 or the sediment set for that particular scenario so

8 it is --

Q. So it --

A. -- it is what it is being investigated

11 but the bottom line is that we're still measuring

12 against a limiting value of either one rad per day

13 or in the case of the riparian .1. So there's no --

14 there's no confusion that there are certain default

15 values that are being used and from that, one needs

16 to take the next step when you exceed the BCGs, the

17 Biota Concentration Guides, to gather more

18 information. That's what's required.

Q. Site specific information?

A. That's the way it's set up, there's no

21 surprises there.

Q. All right. That's helpful, thank you.

A. Okay. And I don't see the Agency

24 doing that.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

100

Q. Right. And by what you mean you don't

2 see the Agency doing it, you mean you don't see us

3 gathering site specific data that could then be

4 plugged in to this model to determine what an

5 appropriate water quality standard would be for the

6 state of Illinois; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. We have entered in now the entire DOE

9 document, correct?

A. That is my understanding.

Q. I believe. In your -- in exhibit to

12 your testimony, Exhibit C, you provided portions of

13 that document, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And there is a table I believe at the

16 end of that. It's page M1-38. This -- is this --

17 this is one of the tables, right?

A. That's one of the tables, that's

19 correct.

Q. About how many tables are there, do

21 you know?

A. There are a number.

Q. And just explain -- I mean, I think I

24 understand but why don't you explain for everybody

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

101

1 why you put this one and not all the other ones?

A. Right. Well, the other tables --

3 there are different purposes for the other tables.

Q. Uh-hum.

A. This particular table, Table 6.2, is

6 entitled Biota Concentration Guides, BCGs, for Water

7 and Sediment. This particular table is in special

8 units as opposed to other units, special units being

9 our picoCuries per gram, picoCuries per liter, and

10 it's for use in aquatic system --

Q. Okay.

A. -- evaluations. And so what we have

13 here is a table that lists the radionuclides, it has

14 the established BCG for water and for sediment,

15 water being picoCuries per liter, sediment being

16 picoCuries per gram, and then the organism

17 responsible for limiting the dose in water or the

18 limiting dose in sediment. There are other tables

19 that provide other information like tables on the

20 default values, for example.

Q. Okay. And there would be a different

22 table, say, for aquatic life, this table?

A. There would be a different table for

24 terrestrial life.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

102

Q. Okay.

A. There is another table in the -- for

3 aquatic systems in the other units.

Q. Okay. This is for an aquatic system

5 but it's looking at a riparian animal, right? So

6 there's also a table that would say aquatic systems

7 and aquatic animal, right, for radium? Here under

8 radium 226 and radium 228 it says riparian animal or

9 it only lists -- are you saying it only lists -- Go

10 ahead, maybe explain it.

A. No, go ahead.

Q. I've got to tell you I'm not sure,

13 this stuff is over my head I think, and I think it's

14 over the head of most of the folks that I usually

15 rely on to explain all this stuff. So do I look at

16 this table for aquatic systems and you're saying

17 another one for terrestrial systems?

A. That's correct.

Q. Can you tell me which table that would

20 be?

A. I can. If you give me the document, I

22 probably could identify it. Well, that's 6.2 but

23 I'm thinking it's either 6.1 or wait a minute. On

24 table -- excuse me -- Table 6.4.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

103

Q. Okay.

A. Which is page M1-40, that is the

3 bioconcentration guide to water and soil in

4 terrestrial systems.

Q. Now I looked over this stuff this

6 morning and I think I understand now, best I'm ever

7 going to, how you did these calculations. Could you

8 maybe walk through them a little bit for the Board?

A. May I refer to my calculations in

10 my --

Q. Of course.

A. -- testimony?

Q. Sure.

A. I think it would be easier. You may

15 want to keep your finger or thumb on page M-38. I'm

16 going to use my amended version because the pages

17 are in the proper order. If we could go to Page B-5

18 in my testimony. And also hold --

Q. You mean Exhibit B, Page 5, is that

20 what you mean, or ...

A. Exhibit B, Page 5, correct.

Q. Okay.

A. I'll wait for everybody to get there

24 and we'll proceed.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

104

Q. Okay. Was this page on the original?

MR. FORT: Yeah, it was in there, it

wasn't at the front of all the calculations.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And

that's the reason for the amended pre-filed

testimony because now the pages --

MR. FORT: This is actually what they

called it, the Hearing Officer gave me, was

concerning about where it says Page B-5.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Now, do

you want to take a break now before we go on?

MS. WILLIAMS: Fine.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Why don't

we do that. Let's take a break, ten minutes.

It's about ten to now, we'll be back at

4:00 o'clock.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We are

back on the record and it is about five after

4:00 now and --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

105

MR. DOBMEYER: The EPA lawyer isn't

here yet.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We'll

note for the record that she hasn't joined us

yet, but we will go ahead with a public

comment I believe.

MEMBER JOHNSON: There is an EPA

lawyer present.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Deb

Williams is not in the room but we would like

to -- Are you prepared to go ahead with that

now?

MS. ADAMS: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. ADAMS: I'm Sarah Adams and I live

in Chicago but I have family in southern

Illinois, and they have a farm and they have

many creeks and little streams that go

through their farm as well as ponds that they

fish in and they also use well water and I

was very concerned about the water systems in

southern Illinois and my question for the EPA

would be why, if it's been the same for

however many years, why do you even want to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

106

change it? So that's my question.

MR. MOSHER: Yeah, I think I can

answer that.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

And --

MR. DOBMEYER: Sir, would you talk

louder, please.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you

like to be swore in? Can you swear him in

first?

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly

swear that the testimony that you are about

to give is the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth?

MR. MOSHER: I do.

(Witness sworn.)

17 WHEREUPON:

ROBERT G. MOSHER,

19 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

20 sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:

MR. MOSHER: Okay. There is a radium

built in northern Illinois, there are a few

cases of radium being found in groundwater

elsewhere in the state, in southern Illinois,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

107

Sparta area has some radium in the

groundwater. This water quality standard has

been on the books since 1972, and we have, I

believe, gone on record to say that we have

not enforced this water quality standard as

far as regulating sewage effluence to this

point.

We realize that the communities

that are using this groundwater in these

areas of the state don't have another source

and that the common methods of treating that

water or not treating that water result in

compliance problems with the drinking water

standard of five picoCuries per liter.

When we looked at the dilemma that

these communities were in as far as having no

other source of water and yet being forced to

discharge to the waters of the state sewage,

we said well, let's go and look at that

radium standard to see if it's justified,

does it have to be one picoCurie per liter in

all waters of the state and that's what

really brought this rulemaking forth. If the

radium standard was not in question of being

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

108

met in its existing form, we wouldn't be here

today but it's these hundred plus communities

in the state that we felt we needed to do

something, we needed to look at the existing

standard, is it appropriate, is it overly

protective; we decided yes, it was, that's

why we're here.

To not address this standard,

which we are doing today, would -- and to

then begin to enforce it as permanent limits

for these sewage treatment plants would cause

widespread non-attainment no matter what

method people use to treat for radium in that

drinking water source.

So the Agency feels that we're

trying to set the water quality standards

right, just trying to get to look at what

science is available, set it right and we

believe doing that would take the problem of

discharge of the radium from the sewage

treatment plants and remove that as one of

the problems that these communities face.

MR. DOBMEYER: I have follow up.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

109

like to continue?

MS. WILLIAMS: Uh-hum. Hang on or can

you -- I'm sorry I was late, can you fill me

in on what we're -- are we opening up? I'm a

little confused.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: No, this

is a -- it was a comment by Clean Water and

they have a scheduling conflict and can't be

at the hearing tomorrow should it continue

and would you like to repeat your question

briefly?

MS. ADAMS: I was just wondering --

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Please

identify yourself too again.

MS. ADAMS: Oh, I'm sorry.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Thank

you.

MS. ADAMS: I'm Sarah Adams, and I

said that I live in Chicago but I have family

in southern Illinois and they have a farm

that has creeks and rivers and stuff going

through there, and I was concerned about the

water systems in southern Illinois and I was

wondering why -- why even change the standard

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

110

if it's been the same way for so long so that

was my question.

MR. DOBMEYER: And I would like to

follow up on that, my name is Doug Dobmeyer.

I guess the -- what I've heard today from

science and from what I heard in Springfield

in April -- or on August 25th was the

sciences said this is either a dangerous

situation or we don't know what the hell it

is because we don't have enough science to

know what it is. And what I heard from the

EPA lawyer was well, don't worry about it,

we're going to do what we're going to do.

My question is if this is so

dangerous or if there's no science available,

why are -- why is the EPA even pushing this

standard? It sounds to me like there's a lot

of politics going on as opposed to science,

and I think this is a scientific issue.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you -- I'm not sure

what you mean by politics, maybe could you

clarify that?

MR. DOBMEYER: Well, if you want to go

to Politics 101, we can do that over a beer

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

111

afterwards but I'm not going to sit here and

explain Politics 101. Politics is the give

and take in government, in society over

whether or not one standard or another

standard. If you really want to pursue that,

we can, but I think you know what I'm talking

about.

MEMBER JOHNSON: Let me, Bob -- and

because I think there's been some general

confusion and there's been some specific

confusion I think when I read the public

comments submitted by Clean Water.

Just as a follow-up to you and to

try and eliminate some confusion that might

be out there, there is the EPA or nobody for

that matter is proposing any change in

drinking water quality standards and -- water

quality standards for drinking water,

correct?

MR. MOSHER: Correct.

MEMBER JOHNSON: This is only, and I

think the confusion is there because we

continue to talk about the role of water

drinking and the removal of radium from the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

112

drinking water has in the general water

quality standards which is what this proposed

change is regarding, correct?

MR. MOSHER: Correct.

MEMBER JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. DOBMEYER: Well, nonetheless,

there is a problem with the wastewater that's

left from the treatment of the drinking

water. I mean --

MEMBER JOHNSON: I was just trying to

clear up whatever conclusion --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I

didn't hear the rest of your statement.

MR. DOBMEYER: I said there's a --

nonetheless, there's a problem with the

wastewater from the treatment of the drinking

water that puts, under the current

mechanisms, puts the water right back into

the environment thus, I think, increasing the

danger and I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson, you

started to say something?

MEMBER JOHNSON: No, and I was just

trying to clear up what I thought was a

specific misunderstanding in one paragraph in

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

113

your public comment and so -- and that's what

we're here to do, we're here to listen to

both sides of the issue and to come out with

a proposed rule for public comment sometime

in the future.

MR. DOBMEYER: I am really concerned

as well as other people that signed that

letter that Illinois is going to get

railroaded again through the system and

that's going to hurt the environment and

going to hurt the people and going to hurt

the wildlife.

MR. HARSCH: Madam Hearing Officer, I

would like to place this witness under oath

so he can testify --

MR. DOBMEYER: I would be glad to.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And if

you -- Would you be willing to be sworn in

and testify?

MR. DOBMEYER: Absolutely.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: All

right. Can you go ahead and do that. I just

want to clarify also for the record before we

go ahead with any swearing in that it was a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

114

public comment that we're referring to, it

was one that was filed on the 19th of October

and it was filed by Clean Water and it's on

the Board's website as well, so ...

MR. DOBMEYER: And I have copies if

anyone wants to see them.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Uh-hum.

MR. HARSCH: I made that statement

because he signed in as a witness today.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Right.

MR. DOBMEYER: I signed in because I

saw another person, I didn't know that we

weren't supposed to sign in.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And if

you have --

MR. DOBMEYER: But that's the only

reason. But if you want to swear me in,

that's fine, I have no problem with that.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We can

swear you in if you feel that you would like

to testify any further, but at this point --

MR. DOBMEYER: Well, I would like to

be equal with everyone else.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Do you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

115

have any further questions for the Agency?

Okay. Go ahead and swear him in.

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly

swear that the testimony that you are about

to give is the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth?

MR. DOBMEYER: Absolutely.

(Witness sworn.)

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Does

anyone at this point have questions for

Mr. Dobmeyer?

MR. HARSCH: Or does he have anything

else to say?

MR. DOBMEYER: I have nothing else to

say, both Sarah and I have asked the

questions we wanted to ask.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

And realizing this is an information

gathering hearing at this point and some of

the questions that you raised or at least

most of the questions that you raised may be

answered by the Board's opinion and order in

the rulemaking but if the Agency can answer

at this point, you can go ahead.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

116

MS. WILLIAMS: If we can answer what?

I think there was a comment made, I don't

believe there was a question.

MR. DOBMEYER: The question that was

asked, Ms. Williams, why is the EPA doing

this that will hurt the people in the state,

hurt the environment. Mr. Mosher gave some

answers on it which I don't think addressed

the issue.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think he answered the

question.

MR. DOBMEYER: Well you were out of

the room, how would you know?

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Well, she

was here for much of what he said and I think

also that the question that you do raise is

one that will be addressed by the Board in

its opinion and order.

MR. DOBMEYER: Good.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And

whether something is harmful to the

environment or to humans will be something

that the Board makes in its determination.

MR. DOBMEYER: Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

117

MR. HARSCH: I have some questions of

the witness.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Go

ahead.

5 WHEREUPON:

DOUG DOBMEYER,

7 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

8 sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

By Mr. Harsch

Q. Who is Clean Water Illinois?

A. It's a new organization that got

13 started specifically around this issue to address

14 water issues, this is the first point we've taken

15 up.

Q. Are you a registered lobbyist in the

17 state of Illinois?

A. No, I'm not. I have been registered

19 in the past, I'm not registered right now.

Q. Is Clean Water Illinois a

21 not-for-profit corporation?

A. It's not been incorporated yet.

Q. Do you have any business relationships

24 with WRT or any of the owners/operators --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

118

A. No, but I have talked to them.

Q. You have no financial position with

3 respect to those areas?

A. No.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain what

you mean when you say you talked to them?

MR. DOBMEYER: I've had conversations

with them just like I've had conversations

with Albert Ettinger, just like I've had

conversations with other people in this room.

MS. WILLIAMS: Have you contacted the

Agency up till now about your concerns?

MR. DOBMEYER: I sent a letter on the

19th electronically, it's posted on the

website.

MS. WILLIAMS: To the Board, right,

but to the Illinois EPA have you contacted

us?

MR. DOBMEYER: Well, I thought it was

inappropriate to do that since this is being

put before the Control Board and the

correspondence going to them.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine. Thank

you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

119

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

Thank you for your comments today, and I

think where we left off before we took a

break was with questioning by the Agency for

WRT environmental's witnesses.

MS. WILLIAMS: I apologize for not

being here when we reconvened to the Board

members in particular.

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

(Continued)

11 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Mr. Adams, I'm going -- I really don't

13 remember where I left off, I'd really like to start

14 fresh if that's okay with you?

A. Sure.

Q. On Page 2 of your testimony I believe

17 there's a statement that you feel the existing

18 standard may be appropriate; is that correct?

A. Could you help me find that, please?

Q. Yeah. In the second full paragraph,

21 the last sentence: If the Board wants to have water

22 quality standards that protect aquatic life and the

23 environment, it would appear that the existing

24 standard may be appropriate, correct?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

120

A. That's part of my testimony, correct.

Q. Isn't it true that at the last hearing

3 Mr. Williams from WRT testified that the existing

4 standard was too low?

MR. FORT: I object, I think that's a

mischaracterization of the testimony. If you

want to point him to a particular transcript

and see the context of any question and

answer.

MS. WILLIAMS: I would like him to

answer the question.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: You can

answer the question if you can answer.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I

simply don't recall.

MR. FORT: Do you want him to answer

it?

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you aware of any

other --

MR. FORT: Would you like Mr. Williams

to answer since he's sitting here?

MS. WILLIAMS: Has he been sworn in?

It's fine with me.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Yes,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

121

together they have been.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I had stated if I

remember correctly, and I just read it again

last night, was that it is a low standard.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say it was too

low?

MS. WILLIAMS: You didn't say too low,

you just said that it was low.

MR. WILLIAMS: I said it was a low

standard.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry for

mischaracterizing by saying too low.

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Are you aware of any other states with

16 standards as low as one picoCurie per liter of

17 radium 226?

A. No.

Q. But it's your recommendation that the

20 Board should retain the existing standard?

A. Well, my recommendation is the Board

22 has an existing standard that's one picoCurie per

23 liter, my question is on what basis are you using to

24 increase it? I think that's lacking in your bases.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

122

Q. Okay. Well, and I think that's a

2 reasonable question but what I want to know is what

3 basis would you use to keep it at one?

A. I would use the BDAC which would

5 indicate part of the calculations in my testimony

6 that a water concentration in the range of 1.36,

7 1.88 without taking into consideration sediment does

8 not exceed the biota dose limits established by the

9 Biota Dose Committee.

Q. Do you know in Illinois what -- if

11 there's a number higher than that that would cause

12 no observed affect to aquatic life in Illinois?

A. I'm not sure I understand your

14 question. Is there -- please repeat it.

Q. I'm trying to get at how conservative

16 or not conservative your conclusion is. Are you

17 aware of a -- if we set it at two, would there be an

18 observed affect to aquatic life to your knowledge?

A. Once again if it's greater than 1.88

20 based on the BDAC, it exceeds their criteria and

21 that's --

Q. Right, and their criteria asks you to

23 look at more specific --

A. Absolutely it does include that.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

123

Q. Okay. That's fine. I think I

2 understand. I asked Mr. -- or Dr. -- sorry --

3 Dr. Anderson some questions about the Florida study

4 of Round Lake and he was not aware of the amounts of

5 radium in lake and groundwater that were pumped into

6 that lake, do you know the answer to that question?

A. I don't recall the loading, I do

8 recall the concentrations of sediment and water,

9 groundwater.

Q. Okay. Do you recall how often the

11 lake would be completely empty?

A. I don't. No, I don't.

Q. Would you agree that the amount of

14 loading would have an impact on the sediment levels

15 of radiation?

A. Help me to understand your terminology

17 of loading.

Q. No, okay. No, I understand, you're

19 right, and I'm not sure I'm using that in a

20 technically scientific way. But if, for example,

21 they needed to add -- I'll use easy numbers -- a

22 hundred gallons in order to keep the level of the

23 lake at the level they were adding it and that

24 hundred gallons was at a concentration of two

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

124

1 picoCuries versus if they had to add a million

2 gallons at the same concentration, would you expect

3 to see different levels of radium in the sediment?

4 That's how I'm thinking of loading, does that make

5 sense to you? It's very basic.

A. Well, let me try it differently.

7 Okay. What I do know is take the study, take the

8 information.

Q. Uh-hum.

A. What you had in the groundwater coming

11 in was in the order of a couple picoCuries per

12 liter.

Q. Uh-hum. That was my example, two.

A. One or two. And the lake water was

15 slightly the same, it wasn't significantly

16 different, one or two or three. But what we saw or

17 what the study showed was that when you look into

18 the aquatic organisms such as the mussels, there was

19 an incredible increase in the concentration, there

20 was a bioaccumulation --

Q. Right.

A. -- a biofactor phenomena going on and

23 the sediment itself was around 12, 12.2 I think was

24 the average picoCuries per gram, so we're going from

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

125

1 one to two in the groundwater, approximately the

2 same two or three in the lake water -- and I have

3 that backwards, excuse me, the other way around and

4 yet we're seeing 12 in the sediment, we see an

5 increase, a significant increase in the tissue of

6 the mussels. That's what the bio dose is trying

7 to -- that's exactly what the DOE model is trying to

8 do, to answer the question.

Q. Can you answer the question that I

10 asked?

A. I'm trying to explain.

Q. Which was -- which was --

MR. FORT: I think he's trying to

answer your question, he said I can't answer

it that way but I can answer it this way,

so ...

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. The question was pretty simple. Would

19 there be a difference in the sediment levels if

20 there was more radium? I mean, I think it's pretty

21 simple.

A. Okay. It's simple.

Q. And you don't know the answer?

A. I think I've answered the question.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

126

Q. I'd like to read you something from

2 the module.

MR. FORT: Excuse me, counsel, if

you -- Mr. Williams thinks that he can answer

it, but it's not a simple answer.

MS. WILLIAMS: No, I mean I would like

the Hearing Officer to ask him to answer

unless you feel that he's answered it.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Well, if

you feel that you've answered the best that

you can, then we can continue on and

Mr. Williams can answer your question if you

would like him to.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's okay, I'd like

to stick with Mr. Adams.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. I would like to read you a sentence

19 from page M1-3, the Module 1 of the Biota Dose

20 Assessment just to see if you would agree with it.

A. I'm sorry, M?

Q. M1, Page 3. Just Page 3 of the

23 module. Did you find it? I'll read it for you.

A. Sure.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

127

Q. Nationally and internationally, no

2 standardized methods have been adopted for

3 evaluating doses and demonstrating protection of

4 plants and animals from the effects of ionizing

5 radiation.

Do you agree with that statement?

A. Well, that's -- that statement is made

8 in light of a need to do that type --

Q. To do this --

A. -- of that research and that's what

11 this is all about. This is the DOE approach to

12 addressing that.

Q. Right, but you testified that this

14 approach just tells you when you need to look

15 further, correct? It doesn't tell you the dose that

16 would cause harm to plants or animals, correct?

A. I'm having a difficult time following

18 you in your questioning. What this methodology does

19 is establish criteria, the one rad per day -- the .1

20 rad per day --

Q. And that's the dose --

A. -- that is consistent with the IAEA,

23 the NCRP, the folks from Canada, the folks from --

24 the folks from Canada or the advisory committee on

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

128

1 radiation protection, Canadian Nuclear Safety

2 Commission, the UK Environmental Agency. I mean,

3 it's not just the DOE, it is a group, in my opinion,

4 internationally known and recognized and accepted

5 agencies that have clearly identified a need to look

6 at protection of the environment and exposure to

7 radiation and that's what this methodology is

8 talking about.

Q. On, I think it's on that same page,

10 you refer to -- yeah, down -- the last -- well,

11 second to the last paragraph I guess, yeah. You say

12 moreover, new information arising out of sampling

13 and investigations done in Florida including data

14 just published in August of this year.

Can you explain for us where the

16 data you're referring to was published this year?

A. Sure. It is of the same nature of the

18 2000 data, it was by the same folks, the HSWMR, the

19 Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research

20 folks exhibit.

Q. The exhibit -- Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. Those folks published it. Where was

24 it published at?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

129

A. Under the same type of publishing

2 requirements as the 2000.

Q. But I mean this study in 2000 was just

4 a contract study, right, it wasn't published in a

5 scientific publication? Are you saying that later

6 data was published in a peer-reviewed publication?

A. It was published in a publication,

8 yes, it was.

Q. Which one?

A. Peer-reviewed, I'm not ...

Q. The reason I'm asking is it's not

12 listed on the author's CV that I could tell so I

13 just want to clarify is there somewhere I can look

14 to that a peer-review journal has looked at this

15 study and published it, I would like to see that

16 that would have some impact I think on the Agency if

17 that has occurred. That's fine, take your time.

A. It's 2004 --

Q. No, it's 2000 -- according to your

20 testimony, it's this year August of 2004.

A. Well, that's part of my testimony.

22 It's part of my attachment or exhibit.

Q. So you mean it was published in your

24 testimony? I know that's not what you mean, I'm

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

130

1 sorry but I'm confused.

A. You asked me about a particular

3 publication, are you referring to the August 2000

4 one?

Q. No.

A. No.

Q. I'm referring to where you say in your

8 testimony that data has been published in August of

9 this year.

A. Correct. And my response was there is

11 a similar document, a follow-up publication, similar

12 to the publication that is in my Attachment D --

Q. Right.

A. -- that is dated August 2004, it's

15 additional information.

Q. And it was -- but it wasn't in a

17 peer-reviewed journal, it was just supplementary

18 information?

A. When you say peer-reviewed journal,

20 would you consider -- if I may ask -- is this a

21 peer-reviewed journal?

Q. According to Dr. Anderson it was -- it

23 is not, no, and I don't think it is.

A. Well, maybe the simple answer is I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

131

1 don't know.

Q. Okay. Well, I was wondering maybe the

3 answer was that you meant to say August 2002, I

4 guess, maybe that's what you meant and you were just

5 ref- -- I wasn't sure if you were referring to a new

6 publication, if you meant to say August 2000 or if

7 there actually was something new in a new journal.

A. It's something new.

Q. Okay. I just want you to understand

10 we are trying to look at everything that, you know,

11 maybe other folks have found that we have not found

12 and this is something that you referred to that if

13 we need to look at it, we would like to.

A. Sure. And let me check that, how's

15 that?

Q. That would be great. It's in your

17 post-written comments, you can address that, that

18 would be great.

A. We can do that, that's a better

20 answer.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: If you

found the citation to the article, are you --

THE WITNESS: No, wait a minute. Hang

on.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

132

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I move on? Because

I'm happy with you just telling us later.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: You can

go ahead.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine with me.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

8 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. On Page 3 of the testimony you start

10 out with a question, are there other sources of

11 radium discharging, and also you attach an Exhibit

12 I, a copy of a permit from the LaSalle station.

Are you aware of what source of

14 cooling water the LaSalle station uses?

A. The source?

Q. Yes.

A. I'm not.

Q. So you don't know if they use

19 groundwater for cooling there?

A. No, I do not.

Q. On Page 3 there is a part of your

22 testimony that I found very vague and I understand

23 you're saying that due to confidentiality you cannot

24 tell us the name of the facility that you're

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

133

1 referring to and that's fine, but can you at least

2 provide us information on the concentrations?

A. Yes.

Q. You state that the sludge levels are

5 consistent with predicted sludge levels. Could you

6 at least tell us what they were?

A. If you give me the liberty to go back

8 to my August testimony.

Q. Oh, you can look at whatever you need

10 to?

A. I can show you.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We're

putting you on the spot here. Are you ready?

THE WITNESS: I've got to help you to

find it, it's part of Exhibit C of my former

testimony. It's part of the tables that show

the biosolid results of the various

numbered --

19 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Would you mind if I look off you?

A. Those are the tables, samples taken

22 from various POTWs.

Q. Okay.

A. Not names but numbers --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

134

Q. Uh-hum.

A. -- for identification.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Can you

all speak up for the Board and for the court

reporter?

6 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. Is one of the numbers representative

8 of the Illinois?

A. Yes, 118. One hundred eighteen

10 picoCuries per gram.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And was that a

12 measured value then?

A. Yes, it was. Measured being

14 analytically derived, calculated.

Q. Okay. Can you explain how you

16 calculated that?

A. Well, by the lab. The lab took

18 samples of the sludge of the cake actually, sludge

19 cake, it was sent off to one of two laboratories

20 that were selected by the AMSA committee and that

21 sludge was then subject to analytical procedures and

22 118 picoCuries per gram for radium 226 was provided.

Q. You have provided an attachment, I

24 believe it's Attachment G regarding your

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

135

1 calculations for the city of Joliet; is that

2 correct?

A. My review of the calculations --

Q. Your review.

A. -- that were performed by the IEPA,

6 not my calculations.

Q. So is this piece of paper your review

8 or is this piece of paper --

MR. FORT: Just for the record,

Counsel, so we're not confused, his

Attachment G is two pages out of your

Exhibit 12 and it's two pages that had the

calculation, I think it was called Attachment

1, the calculations on the content of the

Joliet material.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Are we

talking about his last -- the last pre-filed

testimony for the August hearing?

MR. FORT: No, it's the Agency's

Exhibit 12 that they put in.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right, I understand and

you resubmitted it as a new exhibit.

MR. FORT: We just took that page so

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

136

that you could get the page as opposed to

everything else that was in that letter. I

think that was the IEMA letter.

MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to confer

to see if I'm done for a second.

(Brief pause.)

7 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q. You know, I did want to ask you one

9 other question that I asked Dr. Anderson. Do you

10 know what the effluent limit is for nuclear power

11 plants?

A. Well, that depends -- that's

13 established by the NRC and it would be very specific

14 to the radionuclides that the power plant is

15 discharging.

Q. I'm sorry, for radium. Did I say for

17 radium?

A. No, you did not.

Q. I'm sorry. Thank you. I meant for

20 radium. What would it be for radium?

A. Well, radium is a natural occurring

22 radionuclide and there probably would be no reason.

Q. No reason to have it?

A. Unless there was some special

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

137

1 man-enhanced process that would discharge radium.

Q. Like using groundwater?

A. Well, whatever the source is. It's

4 regulated at a discharge point not from the source.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I

have.

MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I'm sorry, I

apologize, could you read that answer back?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MS. WILLIAMS: I asked that question

because someone had told me they thought

there was a limit of 60 picoCuries per liter

but I don't know if that's true, I thought

you know a lot about these things, you might

know.

THE WITNESS: I don't.

MS. WILLIAMS: You don't?

THE WITNESS: I don't know what that

particular -- that particular license

includes, what the standards are. They

are --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, they

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

138

are what?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't know

what the particular LaSalle license, NRC

license is. You have to look into the

details and the discharge limits would be

specified on that license.

MEMBER GIRARD: Could I ask a question

then? Could someone introduce this into the

record, either the Agency, or ...

MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, we can look into

that both if there is a standard for LaSalle

and if there is an NRC effluent limit.

MEMBER GIRARD: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: In fact, we would hope

that maybe we can try and get that from the

Division of Nuclear Safety at IAE and they

would be the ones that would know that I

think, that will be what we'll try and do.

MEMBER GIRARD: While I'm asking

questions along that line, is it -- we seem

to be having some conflicting testimony about

the radium standards throughout the United

States and various states, and you've

presented information on mostly the Region 5

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

139

states but we've got some information now on

Florida. Is it possible for you to go

through and give us a spreadsheet on what the

standards are in the different states?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that would

take -- I think that would take serious

research commitment that I'm not sure we

could do in the time that we have. I know

that we have done a lot more research even

since the last hearing expanding on that if

you would like testimony from Bob on what he

knows more broadly, we can do that here today

and see what -- I mean, I just don't know if

I can make a commitment for his time because

we don't have a spreadsheet like that, we

have to create it. We can do our best to

create it with what we have.

MEMBER GIRARD: Certainly the more

testimony to enhance your record would be

great but I mean if you've got a spreadsheet,

please put it into the record. Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think I have

any more questions at this point for either

witness so I would like to rest if that's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

140

okay. I mean, not rest rest but rest my

case.

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

Let's go off the record for a moment.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: It is

about ten to 5:00 now and we have this

hearing room again tomorrow, we'll be --

we'll see each other again back here at

9:00 o'clock in the morning unless anyone

else -- I'll take any other requests for

comments at this point.

(No response.)

HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And

seeing no further requests, I'll adjourn the

hearing for today and we'll reconvene

tomorrow morning. Thank you all for being

here.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

141

(Whereupon, the

proceedings were

continued until 9:00

o'clock a.m. on October

22nd, 2004 pursuant to

agreement.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

142

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

2 COUNTY OF L A K E )

I, MARGARET MAGGIE JANKOWICZ, a notary

5 public within and for the County of Lake and State

6 of Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore,

7 to-wit, on the 21st day of October, A.D., 2004,

8 personally appeared before me at The Thompson

9 Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Room 02-025, in

10 the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of

11 Illinois, the transcript of proceedings were called

12 by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in a certain

13 cause now pending and undetermined before the

14 Illinois Pollution Control Board in regards to

15 Revisions to Radium Water Quality Standards:

16 Proposed New 35 Ill. Admin. Code 302.307 and

17 Amendments to 35 Ill. Admin. Code 302.207 and

18 302.525.

I further certify that the said

20 witnesses were by me first duly sworn to testify the

21 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in

22 the cause aforesaid; that the testimony then given

23 by them was by me reduced to writing by means of

24 shorthand in the presence of said witnesses and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

143

1 afterwards transcribed upon a computer, and the

2 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the

3 testimony so given by them as aforesaid.

I further certify that the reading

5 and signing of said proceedings will be

6 presented to the Illinois Pollution Control Board

7 for review and deliberations.

I further certify that the taking of

9 the proceedings were pursuant to notice to the

10 public, and that there were present at the taking of

11 the proceedings the aforementioned parties.

I further certify that I am not

13 counsel for nor in any way related to any of the

14 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way interested

15 in the outcome thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto

17 set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 2nd of

18 November, A.D., 2004.

______________________________

MARGARET MAGGIE JANKOWICZ, CSR.

Notary Public, Lake County, IL

Illinois License No. 084-004046

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292