ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS
DEC 082004
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
)
~
~
~-1
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
)
R04-21
NEW
35
ILL. ADM1N. CODE 302.307
)
Rulemaking
-
Water
AND AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL. ADMIN.
)
CODE 302.207 AND
302.525
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on December
8,
2004, we filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies of the attached
COMMENTS
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF WA TER REMEDIA TION TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
a copy of
which is served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
WATER R~f~DIATIONTECHNOLOGY,
LLC
By:
One
L2//
o~4t~VA~tomeys
(~t
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-8000
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ORIGINAL
CLERK’SOFF!cE
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC 082004
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOISBoard
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
)
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
)
R04-21
NEW 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307
)
Rulemaking
-
Water
AND AMENDMENTS
TO
35
ILL. ADMIN.
)
CODE 302.207 AND 302.525
)
COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC (“WRT”)
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(‘IEPA) proposal to eliminate the
general
water quality standard for radium should be rejected. The proposed removal of the existing 1
pCi/L of radium 226 standard is to accommodate the enforcement of the federal drinking water
standard of
5
pCi/L combined radium 226
+
radium 228. But IEPA did not address what it
expects communities to do with the radium removed from the drinking water supply
--
can the
removed radium simply be flushed down the sewer, and into the waters and fields ofIllinois? Or
should this removed radium be disposed of safely by other means? This proposal thus raises two
interrelated issues:
(1) If the standard is to be changed, is there an alternate quality
standard which is safe and is protective of the Illinois
environment?; and
(2) Will the Illinois Pollution Control Board (the ‘Board) authorize
the use ofPOTWs and public waterways as a disposal location for
the radioactive materials that are removed from the groundwater
supply to provide suitable drinking water?
The fundamental question for the Board in this proceeding is this: “Is dilution a solution
to pollution for radioactive particles and materials?’ We think not. Or should the question be
answered, as Board Member Girard asked?:
‘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, ifs just the nature ofradiation~’(Tr. October 21,
2004 p87 line 10-20.)
Not only does the testimony presented on behalf of WRT, the Environmental Law and
Policy Center and the Sierra Club establish this to be a wise policy and environmental decision,
it is clear that the General Assembly has established this to be the policy ofthe State of Illinois.
We respectfully submit that the Board does not have the authority to allow radioactive
materials removed or formed by the treatment ofgroundwater to be released into the waters and
lands of Illinois. Even if the General Assembly had not provided clear directions on this issue,
under the Board~sdiscretionary rulemaking under
§
27(a) of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/27(a)(2004)),
that action should not be taken.
I.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS CLEARLY PROHIBITED WHAT THE IEPA
PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW:
THE INTENTIONAL RELEASE OF
RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES INTO SEWERS
AND
HENCE WATERS AND
LANDS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
The General Assembly has provided unambiguous instruction to prevent the intentional
release of radioactive particles into sewers and waters of the State of Illinois. The Illinois
Pollution Prevention Act; the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act; the Illinois Low Level
Radioactive Waste Management Act, the Illinois Endangered Species Act and the Environmental
Protection Act all evidence the legislature’s clear intent: the Board should fulfill that intent and
prohibit the release of radioactive particles, formed by the treatment of groundwater, into
publicly owned treatment works (POTW~)and the environment ofIllinois.
These radioactive materials are far more potent and have tolerable levels dramatically
lower than what most POTWs encounter. Instead ofcontaminants in the part per million range,
picocuries are in the range of 1 in a trillion. Yet, just one of these particles, if it came into
dermal contact with a worker, with a member of the public, or with a child, could duplicate a
yeafs worth of allowable radiation exposure in a mere six hours. Two particles and the “safe
exposure’would be exceeded. The issues are the same for any other community using a process
suchas an lIMO, which generates these concentrated particles.
The Illinois Pollution Prevention Act was enacted to reduce the disposal and release of
toxic or hazardous materials. (415 ILCS
115/5(c)
(2004)). It unambiguously states that
treatment in an environmentally sound manner should be utilized. The disposal and treatment of
toxic or hazardous materials is allowed
only as a last resort,
when treatment of such materials is
not possible. (415 ILCS
115/5(b)
(2004)). Indeed, one ofthe Board’s purposes is to stimulate
pollution prevention strategies. Allowing radium residuals to be flushed down a sewer is
contrary to that Act.
Similarly, the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act was adopted to protect the land and
acknowledges the essential and pervasive role ofgroundwater in the social and economic well-
being ofIllinois citizens, as well as its crucial importance to the general public health, safety and
welfare. Finding that contamination ofIllinois groundwater will adversely impact the health and
welfare of its citizens (415 ILCS
55/2(a)
(2004)), the Groundwater Protection Act is a reflection
of the State’s policy to restore, protect, and enhance the groundwaters ofIllinois as a natural and
public resource. Consistent with this policy, the Board recognized the Illinois Groundwater
Protection Act as the directive that the groundwater resources of the State are utilized for
2
beneficial and legitimate purposes and that waste and degradation of groundwater resources be
prevented. See In the Matter of: Groundwater Quality Standards, 1991 WL 303600, *2 (Ill. Pol.
Control Bd.). Allowing radium residuals to be discharged to streams and added to POTW sludge
and spread on farmland conflicts with this directive.
The Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act was enacted by the General
Assembly due to the finding that low-level radioactive waste produced in Illinois poses a
significant risk to the public health, safety and welfare ofthe people ofIllinois. (420 ILCS 20/2
(2004)). In the Act, the General Assembly recognizes the State’s obligation to its citizens to
provide for the safe management ofthe low-level radioactive wastes produced within its borders.
The purpose of this Act is to establish a comprehensive program for the storage, treatment, and
disposal of low-level radioactive waste in Illinois. Programs established under this Act must
provide for the management of low-level radioactive waste in a manner that creates the
least
risk
to human health and the environment. (420 ILCS 20/2(b) (2004)). Allowing the discharge of
radium residuals down the sewer, an activity which would be prohibited for a radioactive
materials licensee, conflicts with these legislative directives.
Moreover, the Illinois Endangered Species Act also precludes adoption of the proposed
rule. This law prohibits the possession, taking, disposal, or transport ofspecimens orproducts of
animals or plants of species in danger of extinction and statewide extirpation. (520 ILCS 10/1
(2004)). Here, the record demonstrates that several endangered species are downstream of the
communities who will be treating their radium water supply.
($~
Hearing Exhibits 1, 2 and 14
Tab A & E.). All State and local government agencies are directed to enter into a consultation
process with the Department of Natural Resources to evaluate whether actions authorized,
funded, or carried out by the agencies are likely to jeopardize the continued existence ofIllinois-
listed endangered and threatened species or are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the designated essential habitat of such species. (520 ILCS 10/11(2004).) That
consultation has not occurred.
($..~
Hearing Exhibit 13.)
Finally,
§
27(a) ofthe Act states that the Board shall consider certain specific factors. The
lack ofsupporting information for the IEPA’s proposal is detailed in the following section. Here,
it is enough to note that the Board’s broad rulemaking authority is not limited by the extent of
hardship that a regulation may cause to the discharger. Granite City Division of National Steel
Company, et al. v. The Illinois Pollution Control Board,
155
Ill. 2d 149, 182-83, 613 N.E.2d 719,
734-35 (1993).
In Monsanto Company v. The Pollution Control Board, the Court was faced with the
applicability of a limitation on mercury. It stated that the Board need not conclude that
compliance with a proposed regulation is ‘~echnical1yfeasible and economically reasonable’
before it can adopt such regulation. Monsanto Company v. The Pollution Control Board, 67
Ill. 2d 276, 292-93, 367 N.E.2d 684, 690-91 (1977). ‘The Board can promulgate standards which
it has found to be technically infeasible. Ifthe Board, in its discretion and based on its technical
expertise, determines that a proposed regulation is necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act,
it may adopt technology-forcing standards which are beyond the reach of existing technology.
Further, ut is not necessarily arbitrary and capricious conduct for the Board to set a standard
which a petitioner cannot adhere to at the present time or, if absolutely necessary to protect the
public, set a standard with which there can be no foreseeable compliance by petitioner~’
3
(Emphasis added.). Finally, ‘lilt is well within the power of the Board, in safeguarding the public
health, to determine what is the maximum pollution tolerable from any one source, and to refuse
to permit deviations from that maximum even when faced with protestations ofimpossibility’ 67
Ill. 2d at 292-93, 367 N.E.2d 684, 690-91. In this case, the undisputed testimony is that there are
a number ofalternative technologies which can achieve the required standard.
Thus, the General Assembly provides clear instruction to prevent the release of
radioactive materials, and especially radioactive particles, into the sewers and waterways of the
State of Illinois in the Illinois Pollution Prevention Act, the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act,
the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act, the Endangered Species Act and the
Environmental Protection Act. Illinois courts have consistently struck down rules adopted by the
Board where the Board has acted contrary to directives established by the General Assembly.
In Ashland Chemical Company v. The Pollution Control Board, the Illinois Appellate
Court invalidated a regulation adopted by the Board where the Board failed to prepare an
economic impact study of the regulation as required by an amendment to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act. 64 Ill. App. 3d 169, 381 N.E.2d
56
(3d Dist. 1978). The Court
stated that ‘the more specific requirements concerning economic impact prescribed by the 1975
amendments were of substantial significance~64 Ill. App. 3d at 175-76, 381 N.E.2d at 61, thus
the Board’s failure to comply with the amendment required that the regulation be vacated.
Likewise, the Court in Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. The Pollution Control
Board vacated the Board’s readoption of regulations where the Board failed to consider an
economic impact study as required by the 1975 amendments to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act. 67 Ill. App. 3d 839, 384 N.E.2d 922 (1st Dist. 1978). Adopting the Illinois
Appellate Courfs reasoning in Ashland Chemical, the court opined that the Board was required to
follow existing procedural rules at the time the regulations were readopted, including the
requirement under the Act that the Board prepare an economic impact study. 67 Ill. App. 3d at
845, 384 N.E.2d at 928.
Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court in Celotex Corporation v. The Pollution Control
Board, invalidated part of a rule adopted by the Board due to its failure to consider the economic
reasonableness ofthe rule as required under~27 of the Environmental Protection Act. 94 Ill. 2d
107, 445 N.E.2d 752 (1983). Holding that invalidation ofthe entire rule was overly broad, the
Court in Celotex remanded the matter to the Board in order to give the Board the opportunity to
either validate the rule in accordance with the statutory requirements of§27 or to adopt a
substitute rule.
Therefore, it is indisputable that the General Assembly has established the policy ofthe
State of Illinois to prohibit the intentional release ofradioactive particles in the public sewers and
waterways. It also is clear from Illinois case law that to the extent that a State agency’s
regulations do not comply with the explicit directives ofthe General Assembly, those regulations
will be invalidated.
This directive from the General Assembly is environmentally sound. Indeed, the
circumstances relating to Northeastern Illinois present a unique environmental issue. The limited
and decreasing amounts of Lake Michigan water supply available to Illinois communities are
4
well known. Moreover, the communities that are growing the fastest are those in Kane County
and in the Joliet area, which communities depend upon deep groundwater well supplies -- the
same supplies that are high in radium. The amount ofradioactivity being pumped to the surface
for use as drinking water will only increase in the future. Thus, more radioactivity will be
released to the surface waters unless it is captured by the drinking water treatment plants and
prevented from being re-released into the surface environment. That radioactivity is not now in
the surface environment ofIllinois
--
it is buried deep underground.
II.
IEPA’S PROPOSAL
AND “EVIDENCE”
SUBMITTED TO THE
BOARD ARE
FLAWED
AND
DO NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED
The Environmental Protection Act provides that in rulemaking under § 27(a), such as this
one, the Board ~i~iiconsider various factors in making a decision. The factors that shall be
considered are: (1) the existing physical conditions; and (2) the character ofthe areas involved
including
--
the character of the surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of the
receiving body ofwater and the technical and economic reasonableness ofmeasuring or reducing
the particular type of pollution. Here, IEPA, as the proponent, has failed to do its job. Even
when certain POTWs have joined in, the record still is missing necessary information.
A.
IEPA HAS NOT PROVIDED CRITICAL INFORMATION ON THE
EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.
The proponent of a regulation is expected to present basic data on the need for the
regulation and the existing physical conditions.
IEPA did not present any quantitative
information on either topic until the afternoon of October 22, 2004, for some specifics. IEPA
has introduced as exhibits only two maps, and three other documents which were submitted
without a sworn witness to sponsor the exhibits. What the record shows here is that the need for
a regulatory change has not been demonstrated and it is very unclear who would benefit from the
rule and why that benefit is justified.
The only category which allegedly has a “need” for revising the radium water
quality standards consists of communities that have elevated radium levels in their water
supply.
Ifthe maximum allowable drinking water level is
5
pCi/L combined for Radium
226
and 228, does this mean that the same communities cannot meet a discharge into a receiving
stream of 1 pCi/L of Radium 226? That case has not been made. A community which barely
meets the Federal Drinking Water Standard of
5
pCi/L likely has Radium 226 at levels ranging
from 40 to 60 ofthat total. The evidence in the record indicates that, on average,
50
ofthe
radium in wastewater finds its way into the sludge. Operation of these two very elemental
processes reduces the radium levels in the potential POTW effluent down to approximately 1.25
pCi/L of Radium 226, at the point of discharge. Without any infiltration or inflow into the
sanitary sewers, and before any mixing zone in the receiving stream, the discharger would be
only slightly above the treatment standard. Thus, only those entities that discharge into low-flow
streams likely would be in need of any adjustment. And even there, increases in the treatment
efficiencies at the treatment plant still might attain the 1 pCi/L standard. Looking at the lists of
receiving streams from the elevated radium communities, it is not clear which of these really
5
need regulatory relief. The existing conditions case has not been made that there is even a need
for these
Lack
communities.
of information
1
on existing radium contamination. In
September 1984, IEPA
and IDNS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)‘tbr the purpose of delineating
certain responsibilities of IEPA and IDNS regarding the disposal of sludge resulting from
treatment of water or sewage and contained in radium occurring naturally from groundwaters’
(~Hearing Exhibit
5,
Attachment 1, Attachment A, para. 4(B)(2).)
However, it appears that this MOA has not been observed and data on the practices
followed has not been recorded. IEPA did not look at the impact of the sludge material from the
treatment of the drinking water before applied to the crop land. (Tr. October 22, 2004 p 372,
line. 12; p 374 line 24.) IEPA did not look at the impact of this sludge material on POTW
workers or on the impact upon farmland. (Id., p 374, line 11-13.) It was only in March 2004
--
months after this petition was submitted
--
that IEPA asked high-radium communities for
information on their sludge. (Id., p 329, line
11-15.)
IEPA had no explanation as to why they
had not been following these sludge issues under the MOA. (Id., p 335, line 10; p 336, line
5.)
Neither IEPA nor a POTW has presented data on whether the criteria for soil
conditioning established by the MOA (0.1 pCi/g) has been met. But a simple calculation
suggests that the MOA has been violated for some time. (See T. Adams Comment, Aftachments
4,5.)
Moreover, it appears that the existing permits for sludge disposal do not even require the
permittees to monitor their sludge for radium. Of the 59 communities for which IEPA sought
radium information, only 25 have responded. Only two permits have been issued to require
ongoing monitoring of sludge. Simply put, no one seems to how much radium has already been
applied to the crop lands through the application of sludge from these high-radium communities.
Indeed, the information provided by IEPA (Exhibit 11) and the City of Joliet (RSSI report
submitted at Tab 3 on November 24, 2004) indicate that 0.2 Curies is unaccounted for.
(See Comment of Ted Adams, Attachment
5
and 6.) That means that there are 200 billion
picocuries ofradium per year that are missing! A nuclear licensee would be required to account
for ALL the radium. IfIEPA or Joliet knows where the~’are they have not put that information
in the record and instead propose to abolish any controls.
Levels in croplands to which radium-containing sludge is and has been land-
applied. Though the 1984 inter-agency
agreement between IDNS and IEPA called for JEPA to
monitor the application of radium-contaminated sludge to fields, no such information has been
1
The POTWs and IEPA appear to disagree on how great the need was for the rule change. According to
Bob Mosher the affected facilities would be those that are “on small, zero or low 7 Q10 stream flow.”
(Id., p. 378, line 15-17.) But Mr. Duffield for Joliet insistedthat it would be 100. (Id., p 226, line 15-22).
2
The Joliet sewer ordinance allows the discharge ofHMO waste to the sanitary sewer. (Tr. October 22,
2004 p 430 line. 12-14.) However, that ordinance would not be lawful under the rules of the
IDNS/IEMA.
6
provided. Apparently, it was never collected. It appears that no one knows to what levels
radium now exists in the crop lands receiving sludge from high-radium containing waters. There
was testimony that this practice of pumping from the deep qualifiers with elevated radium levels
has been occurring for decades, and we believe so too have these sludges been applied. With a
half-life of 1,600 years, even if the 0.1 pCi/g application rate specified by the MOA were
observed, it is possible that these fields have already accumulated radium at levels that have been
declared by EPA to require a Superfund clean-up. At the Reed Kepler Park in West Chicago,
U.S. EPA determined (and IEPA concurred) that the clean-up level of
5
pCi/g over background
was necessary and appropriate to protect public health. Though 50 years may seem like a long
time, since Radium 226 has a half-life of 1,600 years, this is a critical issue that should have been
addressed to the Board. IEPA was a signatory to the West Chicago clean-up. ($~Attachment
A hereto.)
Levels of Radium in sludge. Only
in the afternoon of the fifth day ofhearing (October
22, 2004), and under cross-examination, did IEPA admit (1) that before filing this petition, it had
not looked at the levels in sludge from the communities with high radium levels in their drinking
water supplies, (2) that although it had requested that information in March, it had not brought
that information to the Board in this rulemaking, and (3) that about half of the POTWs with
permits to dispose of sludge on cropland had not answered the request for information and that
another 8-10 facilities had declined to answer on the grounds that they were going to stop land-
applying their sludge and send it to local landfills. Only after a specific order from the Hearing
Officer, and on November 24, did IEPA provide rudimentary lists that do not describe fully what
radium levels have been applied, and over what period oftime, by POTW sludge application. It
is unclear why IEPA would not disclose this information, particularly when its whole
justification for this proceeding is to allow the continued uncontrolled application of radium-
contaminated sludge. Indeed, if filtrate from the drinking water treatment plants are allowed
down the sewers, one would expect a much higher concentration ofradium in the sludge in the
future.
Presence of endangered species in the waterways for which the existing radium
standard would be completely removed. One ofthe
few exhibits the Agency did provide was
a map of the streams showing drinking water intakes. Though IEPA did not make it clear, by
combining their first two exhibits, one could piece together what streams would no longer have a
radium water quality standard. (Hearing Exhibits Ex 1 and 2.) But IEPA did not disclose
--
and
apparently never considered
--
whether these areas had particular endangered species. And
clearly, IEPA did not consult with DNIR about this condition.
B.
IEPA PROVIDED VIRTUALLY NO INFORMATION ON THE NATURE
OF THE RECEIVING STREAMS.
There is a statement in Bob Moshefs April 1, 2004 testimony that the levels ofRadium in
the Fox River are ‘below 1 pCi/U’ While that statement certainly is generally consistent with
WRTs view that the Board may have set the existing standard near or a few multiples above
‘background level’ (not surprising for a known carcinogen), it does not address any other of the
relevant questions. No information is provided on flow, on the levels ofradium in the sediments
of Illinois streams and lakes, or on the indigenous biota.
7
The literature survey. JEPA’s only justification
for removing the radium water quality
standard for Illinois was based on a literature search. Apparently, IEPA did not look at the
radiological data bases, only the chemical data bases. Moreover, for a radiological material, one
does not need to look at radium alone
--
any of several radiological materials can yield results
since it is the radiation that causes damage to living organisms, not a particular chemical
mechanism. Allegedly, IEPA asked Region V
--
but it apparently was also unaware of a
toxicological profile of radium published by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry.(ATSDR) (Hearing Exhibit 16.) During the fifth day of hearing October 22, 2004, the
IEPA representative said it would be helpful if U.S. EPA provided better guidance.
C.
NEITHER IEPA NOR ITS POTW ALLIES HAVE PROVIDED
ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF
MEETING
THE EXISTING STANDARD;
AND
NONE
HAVE
DISAGREED WITH THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY WRT HERE
THAT SEVERAL TECHNOLOGIES ARE CAPABLE OF MEETING THE
EXISTING STANDARD OR AN EQUIVALENT STANDARD IN TERMS
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
The existing standard has not been shown to be technically infeasible. The reason given
for the need for this rulemaking
--
that communities do not have a practical alternative to meet
the 1 pCi/L standard
--
is wrong. Not only can the WRT technology meet the standards, but all
of the major water treatment technologies either currently prevent or can be designed to prevent
the re-release ofradioactive particles into the sewers and surface water.
WRTs system is capable of meeting the existing water quality standard as treated
drinking water. Moreover, simply by taking into account the relative distribution between
Radium 226 and 228, and the relative efficiencies in the POTW and infiltration into the sewer
system, a drinking water supply on the order of 4 pCi/L likely would result in compliance with
the water quality standard.
The WRT system is innovative and involves the application to public drinking water
supplies oftechnology used in the mining industry. The WRT system involves a granular media
that absorbs the radium from the drinking water, is simple to install and the radiation protection
issues are addressed by WRT. (Attached as an Attachment B to this public comment is a DVD
describing the WRT process.) At the August 25, 2004 hearing, testimony was presented, which
has not been contradicted, that there are many technologies that can be adapted to avoid
discharging radioactive materials down the sewer, to meet the 1 pCi/L limitation and to allow
attainment of the existing water quality standard. ($~C. Williams’ Comment in Reply to RSSI
Report for actual Joliet data and WRT performance.)
Neither the POTWs nor IEPA presented testimony on what technology they would use to
meet the drinking water standard, and hence presented no information on the materials that
would be put into the sewers. One technology favored by Joliet (HMO) would have radioactive
particles containing 10,000 pCi/g or more in the filtrate. (Hearing Exhibit.
5,
p. 10; see
Comment of T. Adams, Attachment 1.) Rather than remove that radioactive waste from the
drinking water plant, it intended to flush the filters which would have collect the radioactive
particles, and dump the radioactive particles back down the sewer.
8
The lIMO process includes a chemical reaction that precipitates onto a particle, which is
collected on a filter. One design
--
apparently the one contemplated by Joliet
--
is to send it
down the sewer. (Tr. October 22, 2004 p 427, line. 2-7.) There is an option to do something
else, including taking it to a landfill. (Id., line. 14-18.) But, rather than keeping the radioactive
particles out of the environment, the lIMO design considered by Joliet would flush them down
the sewer and into the waters ofIllinois and into the crop lands. Joliet tells the Board “doift tell
me how to design my treatment plant~’Joliet does not intend to get a license from the IDNS. (Tr.
October 22, 2004 p. 431, line 1-4.) Joliet is resting on a loophole
--
“it has always been my
position that if you don’t dewater that they don’t occur as just solids, they occur as part of the
slurry.
. .
so long as I don’t separate them, I have not created that situation~’(Tr. October 22,
2004 p 432, line 22; p 433 line 3). Joliet was not aware that there could be 10,000 pCi/g or more
in these HMO particles. (Id., line. 20 to 434 In. 1.) The Board shall give guidance to Joliet.
Moreover, U.S. EPA policy discourages the disposal offiltrate down the sewer, in favor
oflandfill disposal (EPA guidance). EPA does not recommend application, mixing or spreading
of water treatment waste containing radionuclide at any concentration into open land
(e.g., farmland, pasture land, woodland, construction sites, road beds, etc.). (Ex. 4, T. Adams’ 1
at p. 19; Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 47). Indeed, EPA recommends radium-contaminated water
treatment sludge at levels between 3 and 50 pCilg (the range of almost all the municipal sludges
identified in this proceeding) to be buried and isolated by depositing in a RCRA permitted
hazardous waste landfill. (j4. at p. 20.)~ EPA also expressed concern for the POTW workers
who are exposed to radium from treatment ofdrinking water supplies. (j~.at pp. 11-13).
D.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
DEMONSTRATES
THAT ADOPTING THE PROPOSAL
HERE
LIKELY WILL COST MORE THAN RETAINING IT AND KEEPING
RADIOACTIVE SOLIDS OUT OF THE SEWERS OF POTWS.
The only cost justification from IEPA relates to the cost of monitoring.
1EPA’s
proposal will cost the State ofIllinois more than any of the minor”saving~’tothe POTWs.
There is no evidence that designing a system to meet the existing standards costs any
more than any ofthe other approaches. In fact, the WRT system is reported to be saving small
communities hundreds of thousands of dollars. The secondary effects of IEPA proposal
--
allowing radioactive particles to be discharged down the sewers
--
exposes streams, POTWs,
farm lands, workers and the public to costs that have not been recognized by IEPA’s proposal.
(~ T. Adams’ Comment, Attachment 2.)
Moreover, failing to consider the requirements for radium-sludge disposal now exposes
communities to having to redesign their facilities if they do not take precautions now. Several
different factors could require a retrofit to those water filtration designs that assumes the ability
to flush the radioactive materials back into the environment.
~At levels over 2,000 pCi/g, disposal is recommended at a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal
site. (Id.)
9
• U.S. EPA policy discourages the discharge ofradioactive solids. This policy
may become applicable to POTWs through the U.S. EPA veto of NPDES-
proposed permits by IEPA.
• The levels ofradium in the filtrate is comparable to -- and even exceeds
--
the
quantity ofradioactive materials that the NRC and the IEMA have prohibited
from being discharged as particles into a POTW.
• There is a substantial history of significant costs being incurred by POTWs
which receive radioactive particles into their system. These situations have
been discovered by accident
--
but they have caused significant costs to be
borne by the POTWs. (~ Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab B.)
• U.S. EPA and IEPA have created a cleanup level for radium-contaminated
soils at
5
pCi/g over background. (See EPA Superfund Record of Decision:
Kerr-McGee (Reed
-
Kepler Park) OU1 West Chicago, Illinois, 9/13/2002.
EPA/ROD/RO5-02/072.)Attachment A hereto A release of over this amount
may create CERCLA liability.
• The radioactive particles that can be formed are analogous to ‘Thel fleas’ Fuel
fleas are small ‘hot’ radioactive particles found in nuclear power plants and
great care is taken by nuclear power plants to prevent these small particles
from being released from the confines of the controlled plant. The proposal
before the Board would be to allow the creation and the uncontrolled disposal
of radioactive particles into the Illinois environment. These particles may
have enough radiation in that a single particle to cause a yeafs worth of
allowable radiation exposure. (See T. Adams Comment, Attachment 1.)
• If the radioactive particle is inhaled or ingested then the exposure could
be significantly higher.
~.
• These particles will end up in farms, in subdivisions, in backyards, and in
streams and stream sediment. The radium in these particles will have a half-
life of 1600 years.
• The proposed rule making would permit the ongoing discharge of these
particles year after year.
• The exposure ofPOTW workers and others to radioactive particles discharged
down the sewer creates occupational safety and health issues, including the
potential need for monitoring, safety plans and other affirmative measures to
safeguard workers’ health.
• The radioactive particles that may be discharged down the sewers are at levels
potentially exceeding 10,000 pCi/g (and could be up to 70,000 pCi/g). At that
level, the material would qualify as a high-level radioactive waste. Diluting it
to a lower level may not change that classification. Even at a low-level
10
radioactive waste, specific requirements for disposing of that material in a
secure landfill are specified.
• The cost estimate submitted by the City of Joliet reflects significant costs
increases if they cannot land apply their sewer sludge. Ifthese hot radioactive
particles are mixed with the ordinary sewage sludge land application may well
become prohibited. Again, those costs are avoided, however, by separating
those particles at the point they are generated
--
and handling them separately.
Those costs are very likely to be incurred if the design change suggested
above is not included by any HMO vendor or buyer. The cost of disposal in a
landfill is a very real risk, given the EPA guidance on sludge and on the very
clear rules provided by the IEMA and the NRC on discharges to POTWs from
licensed facilities.
• There will be costs if the Board or the communities disregard the hard lessons
that other POTWs have experienced, when they received radioactive particles
from NRC-licensed activities. Hundreds of thousands or millions ofdollars of
cleanup costs can be incurred by virtue of these materials. That is why the
NRC specifically has amended its regulations (as did the IDNS) to preclude
the discharge of these particles. (10 CFR 20.2003; 32 IAC 340.1030; see
Exhibit 4, Attachment B.)
• The cleanup criteria adopted for the Kerr-McGee Superfund Site in West
Chicago also should be considered here. The cleanup level established there
is
5
pCi/g for radium
over background. Even applying the 0.1 pCi/g standard
for land applications established by the MOA, in a mere 50 years of land
application, that level would be exceeded. With a half-life of 1,600 years,
farms that receive 50 years of sludge application may be over the West
Chicago cleanup criteria. We note that the cleanup criteria was established
not for homes being built on those properties, but for occasional use as an
athletic field or other recreational activities. Without knowing what the
existing conditions are, there is a real potential cost of extraordinary cleanup
measures.
• It seems quite possible that other costs maybe incurred if sales of farmland or
the crops grown, were halted or diminished due to radium levels.
• U.S. EPA guidance recommends that several precautionary measures be
undertaken for POTW workers who may be exposed to wastewater from
radium-contaminated drinking water treatment activities. These monitoring
and other precautions are at costs that have not been taken into account in this
proceeding.
• IEPA has not presented any evidence of the treatment costs, either on a unit
basis or on any comparative basis, among the various treatment technologies.
Only WRT has been willing to come forward into this proceeding and endure
11
examination and scrutiny. What are the economic costs ofother technologies?
That is the burden ofthe proponent
--
whether IEPA or the communities with
high radium levels who expect to install treatment.
E.
IEPA’S PROPOSAL IGNORES THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH
RISKS.
• One of the disappointing aspects of this proceeding is the casual attitude
expressed by IEPA and the POTWs concerning health safety issues relating to
radium. IEPA admits that radium is a human carcinogen. But, it never
addresses the clear implication to public health.
• IEPA recognizes that technically-enhanced natural occurring radioactive
material (TENORM) is different from natural occurring radioactive material
(NORM). One IEPA witness stated that he just understood TENORM to be
the residual from the treatment ofNORM. (Tr. October 22, 2004 p 347 line
17-19.) IEPA’s witnesses were not aware of whether the efficiency of a
POTW would remain the same with treating TENORM or not. (Id., p 380,
line. 3; p 381, line. 16.) IEPA was not aware whether the TENORM material
would behave in the same manner as metals in regular municipal sludge. (Id.,
p 382, line. 18-23.) However, the ISCORS model, when applied to the Illinois
situation, indicates that there could be excessive radiation exposure due to
radium in the treated drinking water. Even at sludge levels approximating 25
pCi/g, POTW workers could be exposed to more than 100 milligrams per year
--
above the allowable exposure before workplace conditions would trigger
extra scrutiny, monitoring and protection. (Hearing Exhibit 4, pp. 9-10; Ex.
5
at 9-10, Table 3.) Indeed, plants with high solids removals could have
exposure to workers who are in excess of exposure for workers in a nuclear
plant. (Id., at 10). It is not surprising that U.S. EPA’s guidance recommends
that special training, shielding, personal protective equipment, (including
respirators and protective clothing) monitoring of workers and following
OSHA health and exposure regulations should be included.
Testimony from the City of Joliet indicated that there were lower levels of radium and
radon exposure at the West Side treatment plant. (Tr. October 22, 2004 pp. 417, 416).
Purportedly this study was done by a consultant to Joliet. Purportedly there was a report to be
prepared (Trans. 419) and a report was to be provided relating to worker safety. (Id. ln. 14-17).
But the only report that was provided was one related to the WRT process. (~ Tab 3 to
November24 submission on behalf ofthe City ofJoliet.) The testimony by Joliet appears to rely
to the WRT process
--
which Mr. Duffield described as’tiear background’(Tr. October 22, 2004.
420, lii 4-6) not to the existing wastewater treatment plant
--
which was the representation made
to the Board by Mr. Duffield in his October 22, 2004 testimony. (~ Trans. 393, ln. 1
--
394 ln.
22.) It is not clear what happened
--
is there another study that has not been produced, or did Mr.
12
Duffield and Dr. Port get confused on what was being monitored?4 In any event, RSSI ignored
any evaluation ofthe impact ofputting TENORM particles down the sewers in Joliet.
With respect to the other study Joliet done by RRSI, that study dealt with the scenario of
building homes on land areas that formerly had crop land with soil treated with radium sludge.
(See Tab 4 to Joliefs submission.) However, that report is of virtually no use; it changes many
common assumptions made in these models, without any explanation or supporting data. Of
particular note, however, is the clear assumption that no one lives on any ofthese lands for more
than seven years. While Mr. Duffield claimed that soil was always moved to build basements,
hence the radon exposure would not occur, the accumulation of radium over time can pose
significant threats. (The West Chicago cleanup makes this clear). Further discussion and
commentary on the errors and omissions from this analysis are included in Mr. Adams’ public
comment.
F.
IF THE
BOARD
IS TO ADOPT A REVISED WATER QUALITY
STANDARD, WHAT IS IT?
The BDAC criteria is the only criteria that has been introduced in the proceeding, which
provides any symmetric and applicable approach to determining “safe” levels for aquatic life and
riparian mammals. At least in this proceeding, we have an agreement with IEPA that the riparian
mammal is the appropriate species for protection. The protection here is obliteration of the
species, not preservation ofthe individual endangered species plants.
Joliet and IEPA suggested at the October 22 hearing that the BDAC approach was “very
conservative.” That is plainly not so. As documented by the additional comment of Brian
Anderson, the BDAC approach for aquatic animals does not assume ingestion, it is not based
upon exposure to those waters. It does not include the alpha ray component of Radium 226
VERIFY. Indeed, it is not conservative, but maybe liberal in this context.
Indeed, having made this acknowledgement, one should consider the actual results of
applying the BDAC criteria. Ifthere is no sediment contamination with radium, the maximum
allowable levels of combined Radium 226 and 228 is 3.75 pCi/L. Assuming a 50/50 split
between Radium 226 and 288, this means an allowable level ofonly 1.87 for Radium 226
--
not
much above the existing standard.
But considering the Florida criteria the sediment contribution can be extremely
significant. The Florida study demonstrated that sediments can accumulate very high levels of
radium. While IEPA attempted to criticize the replicability of Florida situation because it
included a lake, they appear to agree that the sediments would be where the radium would
accumulate. The Florida situation showed dramatic increases in radium levels at the surface of
the sediment water interface. These conditions are very comparable to sedimentation processes
and Illinois’ rivers and streams.
“There are several other inaccuracies in this report in the West Side plant. These are addressed by Mr.
Williams’ comment.
13
When one applies these sediment levels the BDAC criteria shrinks further. The Florida
situation documented sediment levels at 12 pCi/g. With this sediment input, the BDAC water
quality criteria falls to 2.72 pCi/g. (Hearing Transcript 14 Tab). Now the Radium 226
component is roughly 1.36
--
even closer to the existing standard.
But, applying the Florida criteria, we have found that the stated purpose of the BDAC
criteria
--
to approximate the DOE ordered standard of 1 RAD per day of aquatic organisms, and
0.1 RAD per day for mammals, is not protected by the BDAC criteria. Ted Adams did a review
of the actual data included in the Florida study. His findings agree with that of the authors of
that study
--
the actual exposure and dose exceeds 1 RAD per day.
It is of little solace that some part of the mussel population in the Florida lakes are still
apparently alive. What other species that should be there are not? Are these species endangered
in Florida? What we do know is that these mussels (with a radium concentration of205 pCi/g
--
once removed from the lake in question
--
would have to be disposed of as a low-level
radioactive waste.
The lack ofunderstanding ofthe radioactive regulatory requirements evidenced by IEPA
is disappointing. Moreover, the suggestion by one comment that the existing standard of 0.1
pCi/g for a sludge application rate is too low reflects a lack of awareness of federal and state
cleanup criteria of
5
pCi/g over background. Radium is an extremely toxic material. It is a
carcinogen and has a halflife that is measured in centuries, not days.
Therefore, we believe that from a standpoint of protecting human health and
environmental quality, that the existing standard is protective. Certainly, there is no convincing
case that
G.
it should
THE
be changed.
“TESTIMONY”
5
PRESENTED BY IEPA, JOLIET AND MSD,
SHOULD BE STRUCK FOR VIOLATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
ORDER THAT ALL TESTIMONY BE WRITTEN
AND
PRE-FILED BY
OCTOBER 9.
WRT was prejudiced by IEPA, and the City of Joliet knowingly failing to follow the
Board’s Order to submit pre-filed testimony. The Hearing Officefs Order, dated September 21,
2004, explicitly states that’1~persoriswho plan to testify at the.
. .
hearing must pre-file testimony
no later than October 9, 2004~’Therefore, the testimony presented during the October 22,
2004 hearing by IEPA, Joliet and MSD should have been pre-filed and was submitted in
violation ofthe Board’s directive to provide pre-filed testimony.
IEPA knew that the Board was interested in the BDAC approach, and knew from the
August 25, 2004 hearing that the levels of radium in sludge were at issue. Indeed, WRT had
~While Bob Moser purportedly talked to a representative ofthe water quality branch within Region V, it
is our understanding that several other offices with jurisdiction relating to this proceeding have not been
consulted. It appears that there was inadequate consultation within IEPA and no consultation at all with
IDNR
--
as required by statute
--
so to it appears to have been a one-step consultation with Region V of
U.S. EPA.
14
asked JEPA in September for that information. Joliet was preparing information on their sludge
disposal costs, as evidenced by the August 2004 report from Clark Dietz. A major reason for
pre-filed testimony is to allow questions be asked to develop the record. The completeness,
accuracy and relevancy of much of the testimony presented by these parties are very much at
issue, as noted by these comments and those of Messers Adams, Anderson and Williams.
Accordingly, the “evidence’ presented by IEPA and the POTWs, during the October 22, 2004
hearing, should be stricken for violating the Hearing Officer Order. Ifprincipal participants like
IEPA are excused from these requirements, why should anyone go through the effort and be
subject to examination that has been prepared well in advance. Alternatively, if the Board does
not exclude this testimony, it should be given minimal weight.
III.
IF IEPA ABANDONS OR MODIFIES ITS PROPOSAL, OR IF THE
BOARD
DECIDES TO ATTEMPT ITS OWN SOLUTION, THEN WE URGE THE
BOARD TO PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY AND RETURN TO FIRST NOTICE.
The Agency should withdraw its proposal. It is clear that it cannot be supported. It was
not thought through
-
the Agency did not even do its homework on the radium levels in sludge
being generated before more would be added by the treatment of radium to remove it from the
groundwater. Only a piece meal review was given to USEPA. It was hardly a surprise that the
POTWs would be in favor ofavoiding monitoring costs and doing whatever they or their design
engineers wished. And the proposal was not clear to even those who first read it
-
and even
today it is not clear what will be the applicable requirements for Lake Michigan. And even when
WRT offered a potential alternative approach
-
the DOE BDAC approach
-
the Agency first
resisted, and then “investigated” it only by making a few phone calls. Even on the last day of
hearing the Agency was so aloof from the proposal that it claimed it did not have the capability
of running the model with different sets of assumptions. Instead, Bob Moshur said he wished
U.S. EPA would provide guidance, instead of this issue proceeding one state at a time. (Tr.
October 22, 2004 p 385 line 14-18.)
Or, maybe the Agency has another idea. We don’t know, though we have asked.
However, some communities evidently think that the rule need to be changed. But we
have yet to see a single comment which claims to have done any technical analysis. All they
clamor for is to be relieved of responsibility. And they say they agree
-
this time
-
with the
Agency.
As we have stated from WRTs first involvement in this matter, we do believe that many
of the Illinois communities need guidance. While we first thought that particularly true of the
smaller communities, even a larger town of Joliet appears not to understand the nature of
TENORM and the environmental and health issues presented by radiation materials. Therefore,
should the Agency change its proposal, or the Board decide to offer its own to provide relief to
communities with elevated radium levels in their drinking water supply, we offer the following
two sections.
15
A.
THE BOARD SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING AS
UNCONTESTED FACTS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
The following facts are uncontroverted in the record and should be taken into account by
the Board to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, not only under section 27(a), but also the other
applicable statutes.
• The existing general water quality standard effectively prohibits the
reintroduction of radium from drinking water to the land and waterways of
Illinois. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 47 lines 5-10; Hearing Exhibit 14 Tab A.)
• Under the existing rule, Illinois is among the national leaders in protecting its
streams, rivers and lakes by preventing radioactive carcinogens from being
discharged into the waterways. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 47 lines 10-13;
Hearing Exhibit 14 Tab A.)
• The processes that discharge radium into the sewer, as currently allowed, are
not environmentally sound, best practices. After going through the sanitary
treatment process, the resulting sludge contains concentrated amounts of
radium that is then spread on Illinois farmland and open lands, many in the
fast-growing collar county areas ofNorthern Illinois. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p.
47 lines 14-18.)
• Radium and its by-products are known carcinogens to animals and humans.
(Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 22 lines 15-16.)
• There is scientific literature available with respect to the adverse impacts of
radium on aquatic and terrestrial biota. (Tr. August 25, 2004 Pg. 22 lines 16-
18.)
• An unintended consequence of sewer disposal is that in the absence oftesting,
monitoring, and notice, sewer workers are not made aware oftheir exposure to
radiation or trained or equipped to handle it. (Tr. August 25, 2004 Pg. 22
lines 18-2 1 see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab E.)
• Radioactive particles, disposed of in the sanitary sewer, have created
significant economic and operations impacts to the POTWs. (~ Hearing
Exhibit 4 Tab B.; Tr. August 25, 2004 Pg. 12 lines 6-16 see also Hearing
Exhibit 4 Table 1 page 7.)
• The removal of radium by HMO and certain other processes from the
groundwater creates an ‘Insoluble waste’ (i.~,particulates). NRC and IDNS
regulations prohibit the disposal ofinsoluble waste’ into the sanitary sewer.
IEPA is allowing the disposal of insoluble radium waste to be disposed of in
the sanitary sewer. This appears to be inconsistent with their sister agency’s
prohibition on insoluble waste being released into the sanitary sewer system.
(Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 22 lines 20-24; p 23 lines 1-5.)
16
• Radium concentration (ISCORS data) in POTW influent and concentrated
sludge has been shown to result in elevated potential POTW worker and
public exposures. A POTW sludge loader is estimated to receive 420
mRem/yr dose (from radiumlradon) at sludge concentrations of Radium-226
and Radium-228 of 13 and 5.1 pCi/g, respectively. (ISCORS dose modeling.)
This is greater than 4 times the allowable limit to the general population (100
mRem/yr). (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 14 -17 see also T. Adams August 11,
2004 Pre-filed testimony Table
5
page 16.)
• ISCORS did not model unique isolated instances in which higher levels of
radium were released into sanitary sewers. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p 23 lines
13-20 see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab D & F.) WRT/ARS demonstrated, via
their POTW operations data and dose modeling approach similar to ISCORS,
that POTW operators’ exposure could be greater than the 100 mRemlyr limit
without the radon contribution. With the radon contribution included, the
POTW worker dose would approach and could exceed that ofa nuclear power
plant radiation worker (5,000 mRemlyr). (Tr. August 25, 2004 Pg 23 lines
13-20 see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab J.)
• The As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle is a fundamental
objective of all DOE, EPA, NRC and State radiation projects. Program
procedures and engineering controls are used to maintain exposures to
workers and public ALARA. Allowing the disposal ofradium residue into the
sanitary sewer resulting in unnecessary exposures to POTW workers, the
public and the biota rather than requiring treatment (engineering control) and
disposal (via permitted RCP.A or licensed NORM or LLRW disposal facility
procedure) is inconsistent with the ALARA philosophy. (Tr. August 25, 2004
p. 23 line 20; p. 24 line 6 see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab I.)
• The EPA recommends against land application of any sludge containing
elevated radium levels. (Tr. August 24, 2004 p. 24 lines 7-8 see also Hearing
Exhibit Tab I.)
• The EPA is investigating the issues associated with elevated levels ofradium
in filtrate and backwash from treatment of groundwater for drinking water
consumption. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 24 lines 8-10 see also Hearing Exhibit
Tab I.)
• The guidance from the EPA supports a prohibition on the discharge of filtrate
and backwash with elevated levels ofradium from a drinking water treatment
plant. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 24 lines 11-12 see also HearingExhibit Tab I.)
• Not only are the absorptive media technologies, such as that of WRT,
approved by the agency to provide a total removal in a cost-effective manner,
but all ofthe competing technologies can be re-engineered to provide a similar
total solution. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 47 lines 21 -24 & Pg 48 Line 1.)
17
• This total removal approach does not require a new bureaucracy to enforce the
regulations governing the discharge of radium particulates into the sewer, the
spreading of radioactive sludge on the farmland or the discharge of
radioactive carcinogens into the streams and waterways. It does not require
the discarding of longstanding state and federal environmental regulations:
(Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 48 lines 1-7.)
(a)
Existing Radium Water Quality Standard
—
In force for 30 years.
(b)
No radioactive particles permitted to be discharged to sewer
—
In
force for 11 years.
• The result of this proposed rule change will be to allow the unmonitored and
unrestricted discharge of large quantities ofcarcinogenic radioactive material
to Illinois streams and the environment. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 48 lines 8-
11.)
• IEPA has no knowledge of HMO TENORM, its properties or radioactive
concentration.
• Joliet has no knowledge of HMO TENORM, its properties or radioactive
concentration:
Question to Mr. Duffield: ‘~Are you familiar with the concept of
TENORM?’
Answer: ‘No sir’ (Tr. October 22, 2004 p. 420).
Question to Mr. Duffield: “You don’t know what a TENORM radioactive
particle really is?’
Answer: ‘No sir~’
Question to Mr. Duffield: ‘Or its appearance?’
Answer: “All I know is that I have radium; I have to take it out. Thafs
what I understand.
. .
in an HMO process, ifs part of a manganese block~’
(Tr. October 22, 3004 p. 421, line 8).
Question to Mr. Duffield: ‘~Doyou know the concentration ofthe radium
in the HMO process on a dry weight basis?’
Answer: ‘No~’(Tr. October 22, 2004 p. 424, lines 4)
• Mr. Duffield confirms that he does not have enough information of HMO
facilities and what has happened to the sludge over the years, ‘~HMOis a
relatively new process as well, and so rm not sure how many facilities are
really operating and what the impact is, anybody has ever looked at what
happens in the treatment
—
wastewater plant or sludg&’ (Tr. October 22, 2004
p. 439)
18
B.
THE
BOARD
SHOULD
FOLLOW
THE
“PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE” AND FOLLOW AN APPROACH THAT PROVIDES
RELIEF ONLY TO THOSE
WHO
NEED RELIEF,
AND
THEN ONLY
UNDER CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE MONITORED AND VERIFIED.
While IEPA initially proposed to deregulate any controls on radium for most of the
waters of the State of Illinois, at the fifth day hearing, and at the last possible moment
(November 24, 2004), IEPA finally identified the communities that might be affected, and what
stream segments they discharge to. There are clearly other potential discharges, including runoff
from uranium and thorium tailing sites, from former gypsum stacks and from other potential
sources ofradium releases in Illinois. There is also potential runofffrom radium which has been
land applied.
The Board should not allow disposal of other materials that are regulated as a low-level
radioactive waste to be put into the public sewers and the waters of the State of Illinois. Illinois
farmland should not become a disposal ground.
The DOE approach by the BDAC committee shows that there is not much room to relax
the existing standard and still be protective. 2.7 pCi/L combined radium 226 and radium 228 is
the total radium in the water allowable using the sediment levels in FL. There is no other
information here. And in the Florida situation, though the BDAC formula would have said the
conditions were acceptable, the total radiation dose accumulated by the mussels exceeded the
acceptable DOE dose for aquatic life. The Florida example also indicates that the build up of
radium occurs over time and may result in increasing concentrations at the surface of the
sediment
-
and hence lowering the”safe’level in the waters.
The proposal before the Board is to remove all obstacles to the continuous ongoing
discharge ofradium, including radioactive particles, into Illinois streams and onto Illinois fields.
Radium is bio-concentrating and bio-accumulating. The decision made by the Board will affect
the Illinois environment forever.
Any approach should follow a process ofproviding an exception to the existing standard,
with conditions that meet these criteria. The criteria should not allow communities to dump
radium at levels that a licensed facility could not dump, and should not allow disposal into
waters ofmaterials that cannot be disposed ofexcept in a licensed landfill or at levels exceeding
the CBRCLA clean-up criteria in Illinois. A proposal that would fit these criteria is as follows.
Add a new subsection (c) to 302.207
(c) The standard for radium 226 contained in subsection (b) shall not be applied to a
POTW who meets all ofthe following conditions in this subparagraph (c):
(i)
The POTW is a publicly owned treatment works
which receives wastewater from one or more communities which
extract, for drinking wateruse, groundwater which contains radium
226 at levels exceeding 1 pCi/l (a’High Radium Community); and
19
(ii)
The POTW requires, as a pretreatment requirement,
that all of the High Radium Communities which provide treatment
of their groundwater in order to comply with the federal drinking
water standard of 5.0 pCi/i total combined radium 226 and 228
only discharge radium removal residuals which would be in
compliance with the sewer discharge limitations contained in 32
Ill. Admin. Code 340.1030(a) identical to 10 CFR 20.2003(a);
and
(iii)
The POTW produces an effluent that does not
exceed 2.72
-
3.75 pCi/i, measured as combined total radium 226
and 228.
The proposal is structured as an exception to the existing general water quality standard
for radium.
It provides relief only to municipalities operating a POTW which receives
wastewater from communities which have radium over the existing standard. It does nor provide
relief to medical waste facilities, other facilities licensed by IEMA, industrial sources with
cooling water taken from groundwater supplies or used for smelting or other manufacturing
activities such as gypsum. Nor does it provide relief to superfund clean-up sites, which often
have contaminated surface and groundwater issues. Therefore, any action in this proceeding will
not have any affect on other regulatory programs. And it will not reward anyone who has “laid
low” during this proceeding, hoping to catch the benefits of the regulatory roll-back.
There are two straightforward and sound conditions to receive the exemption. (1) The
POTW much require that any treatment activities necessary to meet the federal drinking water
standard must also meet the sewer discharge conditions contained in the IEMA rules for sewer
discharges. The condition cited is simple, and is the rule that “radioactive solids cannot be
discharged down a municipal sewer.” While there are many other conditions that could be
imposed, including safety requirements for workers and further monitoring requirements, this is
the rule that avoids the problems evidenced in other situations: clean-up costs to the POTW,
exposing the POTW workers to the TENORM, as well as their associated costs. (2) The POTW
effluent must be at a level that is safe for aquatic life. We expect others may have an opinion on
this issue; the proposed language merely recites the two values that WRT has calculated using
the BDAC approach
-
recognizing that these may not be protective in practice for specific
situations for whole populations ofbiota. This issue may be one for consultation with IDNR, as
the endangered species issue here clearly would affect the choice to be made.
These conditions keep highly radioactive particles out of streams, farms and future parks
and subdivisions. It also protects POTW workers and the POTW facilities themselves. By doing
all of these, it minimizes secondary liability issues. It can be met by many technologies, not just
WRT. HMO will need to add a step to remove solids on the filter, rather than backflush down
the sewer, but it can be done. We also expect ion exchange would qualify. So this is not a
proposal that benefits WRT to the benefit ofanyone else. It benefits the environment. And that
has been the focus ofall ofWRT’s testimony through these hearings.
20
CONCLUSION
WRT has appreciated the opportunity to go public with its technology and provide
testimony to the Board. The opportunity to answer direct questions and provide technical
information has been very worthwhile.
In response to a question from the attorney for Joliet on why WRT is participating, the
President ofWRT testified.
‘Ifs a good question. Any why am I here is really what he’s asking.
And frankly, rm here for a couple ofreasons.
First of all, Illinois is the first state in the nation to be actively
enforcing the radionuclide rules. That puts you guys out at the
forefront.
For over two years we have been attempting to establish a dialogue
with IEPA over these issues. And in all honesty, we have
received: ‘Hey, you guys are just trouble makers and yoti’re trying
to sell your equipmenf response. And this is the first forum we
have had to actually get in front of the public and the decision-
makers that radium is a problem. It is not the radium itself but the
radiation that comes off of it. And it was our opportunity to put
before the public and the government our views, not just for
Illinois, but for all the states that follow.
Will WRT benefit if you keep the standard at one? Absolutely.
However, ~llreiterate that in the event that you keep the standard at
one
--
and other treatment processes, they can be modified to do
the same thing. We are not the only company. You mentioned
Layne Christianson. They are certainly a direct competitor that
does exactlywhat we do, and yet they’re solid on this issue.
I can understand why Tonka is solid on this issue because HMO
going into the water treatment facility would be detrimental to their
sales. But they do have the ability to refilter that backwash and
keep it out of the POTW and out of the environment of Illinois.
And I think thafs important for everybody to hear. We wererit
getting the message out~’(Tr. October 22, 2004 pp. 179-8 1.)
This is a principled position. Illinois ought to welcome the innovation, even if it is not
consistent with what someone at the Agency thought was a good idea at one time. One of the
virtues ofthe Illinois system is that ALL the information that the public views as relevant can be
considered and those issues are not compartmentalized; clearly, the relevant information is much
broader than what the Agency thought at the time it started this proceeding.
21
We ask that the Board do’the right thing~based on the law and the facts.
Respectfully submitted,
WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC
By:
____
One ofits Attorneys
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-8000
11801870.8
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that he/she has served upon the individuals named
on the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of
COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON
BEHALF OF WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY LLC
by First Class Mail, postage
prepaid, on December 8, 2004.
SERVICE
LIST
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Deborah J. Williams
Stefanie N. Diers
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Stanley Yonkauski
Acting General Counsel
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62701
Roy M. Harsch
Sasha M. Engle
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive
Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606-1698
Amy Antoniolli
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Joel J. Sternstein, Assistant Attorney General
Matthew J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office ofthe Illinois Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph
~
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes
111 North Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
R04-21
Lisa Frede
CICI
2250 East Devon Avenue
Suite239
Des Plaines, IL 60018
William Seith
Total Environmental Solutions
631 East ButterfieldRoad
Suite3lS
Lombard, IL 60148
Albert F. Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
John McMahon
Wilkie & McMahon
8 East Main Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Dennis L. Duffield
City of Joliet
Department ofPublic Works and Utilities
921 East Washington Street
Joliet, IL 60431
Abdul Khalique
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
6001 West Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
Exhibit A
EPAIRODIRO5-021072
2002
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
KERR-MCGEE (REED-KEPPLER PARK)
EPA ID: 1LD980824007
OUo1
WEST CHICAGO, IL
09/13/2002
Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable-in
SDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below:
Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy.
0
0
0
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
0
II
Document is available at the Records Center.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
II
Rev. 07/10/02
SDMS US EPA Region V
Imagery Insert Form
Document ID:
11169548
FIGURE 1.2- SITE
MAP
Includes
_______
COLOR or
RESOLUTION variations.
Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more
legible than the images. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center.
II
II
Confidential Business Information
(CBI).
This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are
not available in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document.
II
Unscanriable Material:
Oversized
______
or
Format.
Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The
original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records center.
Page 1
Reed-Keppler Park
Record of Decision
West Chicago, Illinois
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region
5
September 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
DECLARATION
1
1.1
SiteName andLocation
1
1.2
Basis andPurpose
1
1.3
Description ofSelected Remedy
1
1.4
Statutory Determinations
2
1.5
Authorizing Signatures
2
1.6
Support Agency Acceptance
3
2.0
DECISION SUMMARY
4
2.1
Site Description
4
2.2
Site History and Enforcement Activities
6
2.3
Community Participation
8
2.4
Scope and Role ofOperable Unit
8
2.5
Site Characteristics
8
26
Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses
11
2.7
SiteRisks
11
2.8
Remediation Objectives
12
2.9
Description ofAlternatives
13
2.10
Comparative Analysis ofAlternatives
13
2.11
Selected Remedy
17
2.12
Documentation of Significant Changes
17
3.0
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
18
FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Site LocationMap
5
Figure 1.2
Site ExcavationMap
7
Figure 2
Monitoring Well Locations and Groundwater Contours
9
APPENDIX A
-
Letter of Concurrence from Illinois EPA
Reed-Keppler Park Record of Decision
West Chicago, Illinois
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the remedy selected for the Reed-Keppler Park
(RKP) site in West Chicago, DuPage County, Illinois. This ROD is organized in three
sections: a Declaration, a Decision Summary, and a Responsiveness Summary.
1.0
DECLARATION
This section summarizes the information presented in the ROD and includes the authorizing
signature page.
1.1 Site Name and Location
The RKP site is a 100-acre community park located in the northwestern portion of West
Chicago, DuPage County, Illinois. West Chicago, Illinois, is located about 30 miles west
of Chicago, Illinois. The RKP site is located north of National Street and west of Arbor
Avenue. The majority of the RKP site is owned by the City of West Chicago, and is leased
to and operated by the West Chicago Park District (Park District) for use as a public
recreation area. The park is used for a variety of activities including tennis, swimming,
volleyball, soccer, and baseball/softball. Land use within one mile of the site is
primarily residential. The Park District’s Family Aquatic Center is also located in the
northeast section of the RKP site.
1.2 Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedy for the RKP site in West Chicago,
Illinois. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCL~), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). Information used to select the remedy is contained in the Administrative
Record file for the site. The file is available for review at the US EPA Region 5 Records
Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, and at the West Chicago Public
Library, located at 118 West Washington Street, West Chicago, Illinois.
The State of Illinois concurs with the selected remedy.
1.3 Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for the RKP site is No Further Action, along with monitoring to insure
that future concentrations of total uranium in the RKP site groundwater meet the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) drinking water standard of 30 micrograms per liter (ug/L), which
is equivalent to 27 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). This monitoring will continue in all
nine existing site monitoring wells until it has been demonstrated that the MCL5 have been
achieved, and maintained, for three consecutive sampling events.
The expected cost to implement this selected remedy is $15,000 per sampling event, to pay
for the collection and analysis of nine groundwater samples from the RKP site for total
uranium. Groundwater sampling will be conducted semi-annually (twice per year) initially,
resulting in an annual cost of $30,000. Sampling frequency may be increased, or decreased,
based upon the results from future sampling events. Also, because this remedy results in
contaminants remaining at the site above MCL5, US EPA will review this action no less
often than every five years after the date of this Record of Decision.
The RKP site is being addressed as one operable unit under the CERCLA framework. This
operable unit encompasses both soil and groundwater at the site. Therefore, the selected
remedy specified in this Record of Decision will serve as the final action for the entire
RKP site.
1.4
Statutory Determinations
US EPA has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the RKP site. US EPA
issued an Action Memorandum for the RKP site in 1996, which reported that the median level
of soil contamination, based upon soil samples collected at RKP, was 286 picoCuries per
gram (pCi/g) of total radium, with a maximum exceeding 15,000 pCi/g. The Action Memorandum
concluded that contaminated soil should be removed until a cleanup criterion of 5 pCi/g of
total radium (radium-226
+
radium-228) over background was achieved. The background
concentration for the RKP site was determined to be 2.2 pCi/g, thereby establishing the
cleanup criterion for the RKP site at 7.2 pCi/g.
Kerr-McGee Chemical Limited Liability Company (Kerr-McGee) performed the excavation and
restoration work of a time-critical removal action at the RKP site from April 1997 to
November 2000. The soil contaminated above the cleanup criterion has been successfully
removed from the site. Since exposure to the cleanup criterion of 7.2 pCi/g does not
represent an unacceptable risk to human health, no further action is necessary to protect
the public health or the environment at the RKP site. The sole remaining remediation
objective is to insure that future concentrations of total dissolved uranium in RKP
groundwater comply with the drinking water standard for total uranium promulgated on
December 7, 2000, in 65 FR 76708, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
1.5 Authorizing Signatures
-__________
____
William E. Muno, Director
/
Date
Supcdund
Division
LJnftcd
Siateg Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5
1.6
Support Agency
Acceptance
The Illinois EPA has provided their formal concurrence with the selected remedy in a
letter to US EPA, a copy of which is attached in Appendix A.
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 Site Description
The RKP site is a 100-acre community park located in the northwestern portion of West
Chicago, DuPage County, Illinois, as shown in Figure 1.1 on page 4. West Chicago,
Illinois, is located about 30 miles west of Chicago, Illinois. The RKP site is located
north of National Street and west of Arbor Avenue. The majority of the RKP site is owned
by the City of West Chicago, and is leased to and operated by the West Chicago Park
District (Park District) for use as a public recreation area. The park is used for a
variety of activities including tennis, swimming, volleyball, soccer, and baseball!
softball. Land use within one mile of the site is primarily residential. The Park
District’s Family Aquatic Center is also located in the northeast section of the RKP site.
Much of the focus at the RXP site is on a 1-acre area within the park, which represented a
historical sand and gravel quarry. In the early 1900’s, the RKP site was mined as a quarry
to provide rock and embankment material for construction of the Chicago, Wheaton and
Western Railway (now the Illinois Prairie Path embankment owned by Commonwealth Edison).
This Old Quarry Area was left as a topographic low area and was subsequently opened to
solid waste (household and commercial garbage) disposal. Aerial photographs taken as early
as 1939 show significant waste disposal activity occurring in five distinct areas in the
Old Quarry Area. By 1954, the five dumping centers present in 1939 had been reduced to one
landfill-like zone reached via a haul road off the main park road. The last aerial
photograph that shows any dumping activity was taken in 1967, although US EPA obtained
testimony that thorium tailings were dumped in Reed-Keppler Park in 1972 and 1973. A 1974
aerial photograph shows that all landfilling operations had ceased, and a maintenance
building had been constructed to the west of the Old Quarry Area.
Among the solid wastes found at the RKP site were thorium mill tailings generated at the
West Chicago Rare Earths Facility (REF), operated in West Chicago by Lindsay Light and
Chemical Company, and its successors, from 1934 until 1973. The REF produced radioactive
elements, such as thorium, radium and uranium, along with gas lantern mantles, for private
entities and the United States government’s use in Federal atomic energy programs.
Production of these radioactive elements resulted in the generation of radioactive mill
tailings. The REF produced these elements by extracting them from monazite ore sands,
bastnasite, fluorspar and other ores using an acid leaching process. The processed sands,
or “tailings,” retained residual levels of thorium, radium and uranium, as well as,
certain other insoluble metals. In the earlier years of operation, the potential hazards
of these tailings were not generally recognized. Some of these tailings were apparently
used as fill material at the RKP site. In 1967, Kerr-McGee purchased the REF and
maintained operations until the facility was closed in 1973.
2.2
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Radioactivity surveys were performed at the RKP site by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and the US EPA, which resulted in the RKP site being placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1990. Several supplemental investigations were conducted, and, in
1996, US EPA determined that the level of contamination in the surface soils at RKP
warranted a time-critical removal action. The need for the time-critical removal of
radioactively contaminated materials from the site is documented in an Action Memorandum.
The Action Memorandum reported that the median level of soil contamination, based upon
soil samples collected at RKP, was 286 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g) of total radium, with a
maximum exceeding 15,000 pCi/g. The Action Memorandum concluded that contaminated soil
should be removed until a cleanup criterion of 5 pCi/g of total radium (radium-226
+
radium-228) over background was achieved. The background concentration for the RKP site
was determined to be 2.2 pCi/g, thereby establishing the cleanup criterion for the RKP
site at 7.2 pCi,’g. The Action Memorandum, along with an Action Criteria Document that
explained the radiation cleanup level, formed the basis for US EPA’S Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO), which required Kerr-McGee and the City of West Chicago,
k
o
t3~
3*0
Urn
I4
p
*#JIilkuflia.F~
~pcI*pItwwJ
FIpw. 1-i
N*t4M~4*d
Al
!t’I
•.
•S
Illinois, to conduct removal activities at the RKP site to address the radioactive
contamination and protect human health and the environment.
The excavation of the RKP site was divided into several different excavation areas. Figure
1.2, on page 6, is a site map that shows the excavation areas of the RKP site. These
excavation areas are described below, along with chronological initiation and completion
dates:
•
Excavation activities at the Band Shell, Old Pond and Tennis Courts were initiated
in April 1997. These three excavations were completed in June 1997, and the interim
restoration activities were completed by August 1997.
•
Excavation activities at the Boy Scout parking lot were started in September 1997.
This excavation was completed in October 1997, and interim restoration was completed
in December 1997.
•
Excavation at the Maintenance Building parking lot was initiated in September 1997.
This excavation was completed in December 1997, and interim restoration was
completed in January 1998.
•
By far, the largest area excavated was the Old Quarry Area. The site preparation
activities started there in January 1998. Excavation activities at the Old Quarry
Area extended below the water table. Excavation of material above the water table
began in 1998, and the removal of material below the water table began in July 1999.
Verification below the water table consisted of ensuring that a predetermined depth
based on data collected previously through borehole gamma logging) had been
reached using common land surveying techniques. The excavation below the water table
was completed in August 1999. Backfilling of the Old Quarry Area excavation followed
immediately behind the excavation, with the placement of rock below the water table
and the placement of segregated clean soil cover above the rock. All segregated
clean soil was placed a minimum of three feet below the final cover grades.
Placement of imported backfill to within six inches of final grade was then
completed in December 1999.
Final restoration activities for the RKP site were completed in November 2000. A total of
114,652 loose cubic yards of contaminated material were removed from the RKP site between
April 1997 and October 1999. These materials were then shipped to the REF facility for
separation of clean material from contaminated material, which was shipped to an NRC
licensed disposal site. A Final Report for the RKP removal action was submitted to US EPA
in April 2002, which confirms that the removal action met all of the requirements and
cleanup criteria specified in the Action Memorandum and the Action Criterion Document for
the RKP site.
2.3
Community Participation
The Proposed Plan for Reed-Keppler Park was made available to the public for comment on
May 6, 2002. Copies were placed in the Administrative Record file, located at the US EPA
Records Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, and at the local repository,
located at the West Chicago Public Library, 118 West Washington Street, West Chicago,
Illinois, before the start of the 30-day public comment period. Copies were also
distributed to forum members participating at the Intergovernmental Forum meeting on April
26, 2002. The notice of the availability of the plan was published in the
Daily Herald
on
May 5, 2002. A public comment period was held from May 6, 2002 to June 6, 2002. In
addition, a public meeting was held on May 16, 2002, at the West Chicago City Hall, to
present the Proposed Plan. The notice announcing the public meeting was published in the
Daily Herald
on May 15, 2002. Representatives of US EPA and the Illinois EPA were present
at the public meeting to answer questions regarding the proposed remedy. Responses to
comments received during the comment period and public meeting are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is Section 3.0 of this ROD.
2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
The RKP site is being addressed as one operable unit under the CERCLA framework. This
operable unit encompasses both soil and groundwater at the site. Therefore, the selected
remedy specified in this ROD will serve as the final action for the entire RKP site.
2.5 Site Characteristics
US EPA has determined that all action necessary to protect human health and the
environment has been taken with respect to the soils at the RKP site. More information on
the successful completion of the soil removal action at RKP can be found in Section 2.2 of
this ROD and in the
Removal Report for the Reed-Keppler Park Site,
dated April 2002.
Groundwater data were collected in 1994 and 1997 at RKP as part of investigation efforts
at the site. Figure 2, below, shows the current locations of RKP monitoring wells, along
with the historical locations of Monitoring Well #4 (MW-4) and Monitoring Well #5 (MW-5).
Concentrations of total dissolved uranium, elevated above background, were detected in
MW-4 and MW-5 in October 1994. These wells are shown on the Figure below, but they were
abandoned during site excavation and are no longer in existence. The total dissolved
uranium concentrations at that time were 56.5 and 34.9 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L),
respectively. MW-4 and MW-5 again showed elevated concentrations in 1997 with the
dissolved concentrations of total uranium at 64.8 pCi/L in MW-4 and 32.6 pCi/L in MW-S.
MW-4 and MW-5, along with MW-l, MW-2 and MW-3, were subsequently abandoned or removed from
the site during excavation of contaminated soil.
Kerr-McGee installed five new monitoring wells (numbered RKP #1 to #5) at the RKP site in
November 1997. Monitoring Wells #7-9 were also subsequently installed to replace.some of
the original site wells that had been removed as part of site excavation activities.
i..
•
I.—,wd.
In August 2001, additional RKP groundwater samples were collected from the nine existing
RKP wells (RKP#1-s and MW #6-9) to determine if residual groundwater contamination levels
achieved the remedial objective (drinking water standard) following completion of the
removal action at the RKP site. One well (RKP-5) exhibited concentrations of total uranium
in exceedance of the drinking water standard for total uranium in 40 CFR 141. This
standard, also known as the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), is 30 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) for total uranium. This corresponds to a radioactivity level of 27 picoCuries per
liter (pCi/L). The concentration of uranium in RKP-5 in August 2001 was 37.1 pCi/’L, in
exceedance of the 27 pCi/L standard. All of the other RKP monitoring wells were in
compliance with the MCL.
US EPA cleanups conducted under CERCLZA are legally required to comply with all Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR5). The MCLs in the Safe Drinking Water Act
are considered an ARAR for all CERCLA sites that overlie aquifers that are used, or may be
reasonably anticipated to be used, as a drinking water source in the future. US EPA
promulgated the MCL for total uranium in 65 FR 76708, National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, on December 7, 2000. The State of Illinois has designated the groundwater
aquifer underlying RKP and the City of West Chicago as Class I
-
Potential Potable
Groundwater Resource.
Due to the exceedance of the drinking water standard for uranium in monitoring well RKP-5,
at the RKP site, US EPA intends to require monitoring of the nine site wells until
sufficient data is collected to insure that all groundwater concentrations are decreasing
and that the drinking water standard for uranium in 40 CFR Part 141 (30 ug/’L or 27 pCi,’L)
has been attained in all site wells. US EPA does not expect that active treatment of the
groundwater underlying the RKP site will be required for the following reasons:
1)
The source of the uranium contamination (the radioactively contaminated
surface and subsurface soils at the RKP site) has been removed as part of the
removal action, conducted by Kerr-McGee from 1997 to 2000. Therefore, there is
no continuing source of uranium in the soil to leach to groundwater and cause
the concentrations in groundwater to increase.
2)
Only one of the nine wells at the RKP site (RKP-S) exhibits groundwater
contamination above the MCL drinking water standard for uranium (30 ug/L or 27
pCi/L). Six of the nine RKP monitoring wells are located in areas that are
considered downgradient from the former quarry and landfill areas at the site.
RKP- 5 was also sampled in January 1998, and the concentration of uranium in
the well at that time was 7.43 pCi/’L, which is below the MCL. Because RKP-5
was in compliance with the MCL when it was sampled in 1998, and because of the
fact that the result in August 2001 is only marginally above the MCL, there is
a high probability that the 37.1 pCi/L result is an isolated sample result
that will diminish within a reasonable time. In fact, beginning in December
1997, a total of 15 samples have been collected from the nine RKP groundwater
wells, and the 37.1 pci/L result from RKP-5 in August 2001 is the only
exceedance of the MCL in the data set.
3)
Although the shallow aquifer underlying the RKP site is considered a potential
drinking water source, there are currently City of West Chicago restrictions
that prohibit use of the groundwater at the site. In addition, the City of
West Chicago obtains its drinking water from a total of nine operational
wells, two of which are in the vicinity of RKP. These wells are screened in a
deep aquifer system, which is separated from the shallow aquifer by a Silurian
dolomite and Maquoketa shale layer that inhibits the vertical flow of
groundwater from the upper aquifer to the underlying formation. Therefore, it
is extremely unlikely that surficial contaminants could migrate to the draw
zones of the City wells. Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the RKP site
is not used as a drinking water source. Since there is no known conduit
between aquifers, and since site related contaminants have not been detected
in any of the nine City wells above background concentrations, there is no
reason to believe that a complete pathway to human receptors currently exists,
nor is one expected to form given the City of West Chicago’s ordinance
prohibiting use of groundwater in the area.
2.6 Current and Potential Future
Site
and Resource Uses
The majority of the RKP site is owned by the City of West Chicago, and is leased to and
operated by the West Chicago Park District (Park District) for use as a public recreation
area. The park is used for a variety of activities including tennis, swimming, volleyball,
soccer, and baseball/softball. Land use within one mile of the site includes residential
housing. The Park District’s Family Aquatic Center is also located in the northeast
section of the RKP site. There are no restrictions being placed on the use of the property
because the soil removal action conducted by Kerr McGee from 1997 to 2000 resulted in a
concentration of radium in soil that is considered protective of human health and the
environment.
Although the shallow aquifer underlying the RKP site is considered a potential drinking
water source, there are currently City of West Chicago restrictions that prohibit use of
the groundwater at the site. In addition, the City of West Chicago obtains its drinking
water from a total of nine operational wells, two of which are in the vicinity of RKP.
These wells are screened in a deep aquifer system, which is separated from the shallow
aquifer by a physical layer composed of Silurian dolomite and Maquoketa shale. This layer
inhibits the vertical flow of groundwater from the upper aquifer to the underlying
formation. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that surf icial contaminants could migrate
to the draw zones of the City wells. Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the RKP site
is not used as a drinking water source. Since there is no known conduit between aquifers,
and since site-related contaminants have not been detected in any of the nine City wells
above background concentrations, there is no reason to believe that a complete pathway to
human receptors currently exists, nor is one expected to form given the City of West
Chicago’s ordinance prohibiting use of groundwater in the area.
2.7
Site Risks
In order to determine the need for a removal action to address contamination at the RKP
site, US EPA conducted a baseline human health and screening level ecological risk
assessment in 1996. Risks were quantified for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
contaminants. The risk associated with the intake of a known, or suspected, carcinogen is
reported in terms of the incremental lifetime cancer risk presented by that contaminant of
concern, as estimated using the~appropriate slope factor, and the amount of material
available for uptake. The acceptable risk range, as defined by CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), is 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 (one human in ten thousand to one human in
one million incremental cancer incidence). Potential human health hazards from exposure to
non- carcinogenic contaminants are evaluated using a Hazard Quotient (HQ). The HQ is
determined by the ratio of the intake of a contaminant of concern to a reference dose, or
concentration for the contaminant of concern that is believed to represent a no observable
effect level. The specific EQ for each contaminant of concern is then summed to provide an
overall Hazard Index (HI). EPA guidance sets a limit of 1.0 for the comprehensive HI.
The conclusion from the 1996 baseline risk assessment was that, for all scenarios
considered (construction worker, maintena~~k~’~r$recreational visitor), the risks
associated with radionuclides in surface soil, subsurface soil, or sediments exceeded the
limit of the acceptable CERCLA risk range of 1 x 10-4. Risks associated with surface soil
in the enclosure area of the RKP site exceeded 1 x 10-2. More detailed information with
respect to how this risk was calculated can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report,
Kerr-McGee Reed-Keppler Park Site, March 21, 2002.
This risk assessment led to the
conclusion by US EPA that an immediate response was necessary to minimize potential
exposures and risks to the population surrounding the RKP site and to park visitors. US
EPA issued a UAO to Kerr-McGee and the City of West Chicago, Illinois, in March 1996 to
require immediate removal of the radioactively contaminated surface and subsurface soils
at RKP. Since the removal action successfully achieved the cleanup standard of 7.2 pCi/’g
for total radium, exposure to RKP site soils is now considered protective for human
health.
As part of the Remedial Investigation of the RKP site, a baseline screening ecological
risk assessment was also conducted, in order to determine the need to address significant
adverse ecological effects at the RKP site. The results of the ecological risk assessment
showed slight exceedances of the target HQ of 1.0, in the 2 to 7 range, due to organic
compounds and metals in site soil and sediments. More detailed information with respect to
how the HQ was calculated, and how it was compared to the target HQ, can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report, Kerr-McGee Reed-Keppler Park Site, March 21, 2002.
Due to
the fact that the ecological screening assessment was considered to be extremely
conservative, the exceedances were considered minor and did not warrant a more detailed
analysis of ecological risks at RKP. In any event, the removal action, conducted by
Kerr-McGee, resulted in these organic compounds and metals being removed from the site
soil and sediment down to levels that are considered to be protective of the ecological
environment.
2.8 Reinediation Objectives
The removal action conducted at the RKP site has already achieved the cleanup objectives
for soil, as specified in the Action Memorandum and Action Criteria Document for the site.
The sole remaining remedial objective is to insure that future concentrations of total
dissolved uranium in RKP groundwater comply with the drinking water standard for total
uranium promulgated on December 7, 2000, in 65 FR 76708,
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
This rule established an MCL for total dissolved uranium at 30 ug/L. For the
MCL rulemaking, US EPA assumed a typical conversion factor of 0.9 pCi/ug for the mix of
uranium isotopes found in public water systems. This converts the mass concentration of
uranium in groundwater to an equivalent “activity” level, which relates to the radioactive
decay of uranium. The 0.9 pCi/ug conversion factor results in an activity-based drinking
water standard of 27 pCi/L.
2.9 Description of Alternatives
Alternative #1: No
Further Action
Estimated Capital Cost:
$0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
$0
Estimated Months to Construct:
none
Regulations governing the Superfund program require that the “No Action” alternative be
evaluated at each site to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this alternative, no
further action would be taken to address residual contamination levels in soil or
groundwater at the RKP site.
Alternative
#2: No Further Action with Associated Groundwater
Monitoring
Estimated Capital Cost:
$0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
$30,000
Estimated Months to Construct:
none, the wells required for monitoring are
already
in place at the RKP site
Under this alternative, US EPA asserts that all action necessary to protect human health
and the environment has been taken with respect to the soils at the RKP site. More
information on the successful completion of the soil removal action at RKP can be found in
the Final Removal Report for the Reed-Keppler Park Site, dated April 2002. However, due to
an
exceedance of the drinking water standard for uranium in one of the nine existing
groundwater wells at the site, US EPA intends to require monitoring of the nine site wells
until sufficient data is collected to insure that all groundwater concentrations are
decreasing and that the drinking water standard for uranium in 40 CFR Part 141 (30 ug/’L or
27 pCi/L) has been attained in all site wells.
In the unlikely event that total uranium concentrations in RKP groundwater fail to
decrease, or if they continue to increase, in the future, more active remediation methods
will be considered for the groundwater at RKP.
2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Nine criteria are used to evaluate the different remediation alternatives individually,
and against each other, in order to select a remedy. The nine evaluation criteria are (1)
overall protection of human health and the environment; (2) compliance with
ARAR5;
(3)
long-term effectiveness and permanence; (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of
contaminants through treatment; (5) short-term effectiveness; (6) implementability; (7)
cost; (8) State/support agency acceptance; and (9) community acceptance. This section of
the ROD profiles the relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria,
noting how it compares to the other options under consideration. A description of the nine
evaluation criteria, and how they relate to the alternatives considered, follows:
2.10.1 Threshold Criteria: Must be met for an alternative to be eligible for selection
Criterion 1: Overall Protection of human health and the environment
This criterion addresses whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats
to public health and the environment through institutional controls, engineering controls,
or treatment. Alternatives #1 and #2 meet the criteria for protection of human health and
the environment, as the unacceptable risks posed by the soil contamination at the RKP site
were addressed during the time-critical removal action conducted by Kerr-McGee, pursuant
to the UAO and Action Memorandum for the RKP site. All residual soil contamination
concentrations meet the cleanup standard of 7.2 pCi/g for total radium (radium—226 and
radium-228), which is considered to be protective of human health and the environment.
There is no current pathway for exposure to groundwater at the RKP site for area
residents, and a City of West Chicago ordinance prohibits the installation of wells in
this vicinity. For these reasons, RKP groundwater is also protective from a potential risk
standpoint.
Criterion 2: Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at CERCLA sites attain legally
applicable, or relevant and appropriate, Federal and State requirements, standards,
criteria, and limitations that are collectively referred to as “ARAR5,” unless such ARARs
are waived under CERCLA Section 121(d) (4). Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a
remedy will meet all of the applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements, of
Federal and State environmental statutes.
Applicable Requirements are those substantive environmental protection requirements,
standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically address hazardous substances, the remedial action to be implemented at the
site, or other circumstances present at the site. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
are those substantive environmental protection requirements, standards, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under Federal or State law which, while not applicable to the
hazardous materials found at the site, the remedial action itself, the site location, or
other circumstances at the site, nevertheless address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well-suited to the site.
ARARs are of three types. They are chemical-specific, location-specific, and/or
action-specific:
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health or risk-based numerical values, or
methodologies, which, when applied to site-specific conditions, result in the
establishment of numerical values. These values establish the acceptable amount, or
concentration, of a chemical that may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient
environment. For the RKP site, “Maximum Contaminant Levels”, or “MCL5”, established under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, constitute chemical- specific ARARs. They apply to the
groundwater beneath the RKP site, as well as, areas downgradient of the site that may have
been affected by site contamination. Both Alternative #1 and Alternative #2 will meet this
ARAR, but US EPA prefers Alternative #2 because monitoring of the site groundwater is
required to demonstrate that all of the RKP monitoring wells will meet the MCL drinking
water standards in 40 CFR 141 in the future.
Location-specific ARAR5 are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous
substances, or the conduct of activities, solely because they are located in specific
locations, e.g. flood plains, wetlands, historic places, etc. For the RKP site, no
location-specific ARARs have been identified that would affect the selected alternative.
Action-specific ARARs are usually technology or activity-based requirements, or
limitations, on actions taken with respect to hazardous wastes. These requirements are
triggered by the particular remedial activities that are selected to accomplish a remedy.
In the case of the RKP site, no active remediation is being considered. Therefore there
are no action-specific ARARs to consider with respect to the selected alternative.
2.10.2 Balancing Criteria: Used to weigh major trade-of fs among alternatives
Criterion 3: Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of
a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time.
Only Alternative #2 provides some degree of long- term protectiveness. The implementation
of groundwater monitoring at the RKP site is necessary to ensure that future
concentrations of uranium in groundwater are decreasing until they are in compliance with
the drinking water standard in 40 CFR 141.
Criterion 4: Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies in reducing the harmful effects of principal
contaminants, reducing their ability to move in the environment, and reducing the amount
of contamination present. Since neither of the alternatives includes treatment, this
criterion does not require further evaluation. All necessary remediation at the RKP site
was accomplished previously, as part of the removal action conducted by Kerr-McGee.
Criterion 5: Short-term effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy, and
any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers and the community during construction and
operation of the remedy until clean-up goals are achieved. Both of the alternatives
included in this Proposed Plan demonstrate short-term effectiveness. There is no
construction time, or preparation time, required to implement groundwater monitoring at
the RKP site, as the wells that are required to monitor site groundwater conditions are
already in place. The site is currently protective of human health and the environment
because there is presently no pathway from the groundwater contamination at RKP to any
surrounding receptors. The purpose of the proposed monitoring is to insure that the
uranium concentrations in groundwater eventually meet the drinking water standards and the
protection of human health of the environment is maintained at RKP.
Criterion 6: Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
the alternative from design through construction and operation. Factors such as
availability of services and materials, administrative feasibility, and coordination with
other governmental entities are also considered. Since Alternative #1 involves no action,
there is no time or cost required for implementation. Alternative #2, no further action
with monitoring, requires no time to implement other than the usual amount of time
required for groundwater sampling in the field (2-3 days).
Criterion 7: Cost
-
The range of costs is zero dollars ($0) for Alternative #1, No Action, to approximately
$15,000 per sampling event for Alternative
#
2, the sampling and analysis of groundwater
for total uranium from the nine RKP
wells and comparison to the drinking water standard in
40 CFR 141. Groundwater sampling will be conducted semi-annually (twice per year)
initially, resulting in an annual cost of $30,000. Sampling frequency may be increased, or
decreased, based upon the results from future sampling events.
2.10.3
Modifying Criteria: To be considered after public comment is received on the
Proposed Plan and of equal importance to the balancing criteria
Criterion 8: State/Support Agency Acceptance
US EPA, and the State of Illinois, believe that Alternative #1
,
No Further Action,
currently provides adequate protection of human health and the environment. However, it
could result in
future
unacceptable risks, since it would result in leaving uranium, in
RKP groundwater, above the levels allowed by the drinking water standard in 40 CFR 141.
Therefore, both agencies support the selected remedy, Alternative #2, which calls for no
further action with monitoring, to insure that uranium concentrations in the site
groundwater meet the MCL in the future.
Criterion 9: Community Acceptance
This section considers whether the local community agrees with US EPA’s analyses and
Preferred Alternative. US EPA received seven comments on the Proposed Plan for the final
remedy at RKP. Responses to these comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary,
which is Section 3.0 of this ROD. None of the comments expressed disagreement with the
selected remedy, and, in fact, several expressed support for the remedy US EPA is
selecting in this ROD.
2.11 Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedy is Alternative *2, No Further Action, along with monitoring to insure
that future concentrations of uranium in the RKP site groundwater meet the MCL drinking
water standard of 30 ug/L, or 27 pCi/L. This monitoring will continue until it has been
demonstrated that the MCLs have been achieved, and maintained, for three consecutive
sampling events.
Expected cost to implement this selected remedy is $15,000 per sampling event, to pay for
the collection and analysis of nine groundwater samples from the RKP site for total
uranium. Groundwater sampling will be conducted semi-annually (twice per year) initially,
resulting in an annual cost of $30,000. Sampling frequency may be increased, or decreased,
based upon the results from future sampling events. Also, because this remedy results in
contaminants remaining at the site above MCL5, US EPA will review this action no less
often than every five years after the date of this Record of Decision.
In the unlikely event that total uranium concentrations in RKP groundwater fail to
decrease, or if they continue to increase, in the future, more active remediation methods
will be considered for the groundwater at RKP.
2.12
Documentation of Significant Changes
Although this ROD will be signed and finalized, new information may be received or
generated that could affect the selected remedy. US EPA, as the lead agency for this ROD,
has the responsibility to evaluate the significance of any such new information. The type
of documentation required for a post-ROD change depends on the nature of the change. Three
categories of changes are recognized by the US EPA: non- significant, significant, and
fundamental. Non-significant post-ROD changes may be documented using a memo to the
Administrative Record file. Changes that significantly affect the ROD must be evaluated
pursuant to CERCLA Section 117 and the NCP at 40 CFR 300.435(c) (2) (I). Fundamental
changes typically require a revised Proposed Plan and an amendment to the ROD. Significant
or fundamental changes to the ROD for RKP are not anticipated.
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This Section of the ROD presents stakeholder comments regarding the Proposed Plan for the
RKP site and provides a response to the comments considered in selection of the final
remedy at RKP. Five written comments were received during the 30-day public comment period
from May 6, 2002, to June 6, 2002, and two formal comments were received during the public
meeting on May 16, 2002. The comments and the responses to the comments are presented
below:
Comment #1: In accordance with U. S. EPA, Region S’s instructions during the public
meeting of May 16, 2002, the West Chicago Park District, operator of Reed-Keppler Park, is
submitting its comment on the “Proposed Plan for Final Cleanup Action at Reed-Keppler Park
Site” dated April, 2002. The Park District has now had the opportunity to review and
consider that Proposed Plan which calls for No Further Action with periodic ground water
monitoring until MCL’s are reached for total uranium. It is the Park District’s
understanding that if the total uranium concentrations in the ground water beneath the
Park increase or fail to meet MCL’s after an appropriate period of monitoring, U. S. EPA
may consider supplemental action as to ground water. With that understanding, the Park
District supports the adoption of the Proposed Plan.
Response #1: This Record of Decision does indeed include language that stipulates that
additional active remediation of groundwater at the RKP site may be necessary if total
uranium concentrations fail to decrease, or if they increase, in the future. Section 2.11
-
Selected Remedy, states “In the unlikely event that total uranium concentrations in RKP
groundwater fail to decrease, or if they continue to increase, in the future, more active
remediation methods will be considered for the groundwater at RKP.”
US EPA considers it unlikely that concentrations of uranium will remain above the MCL of
30 micrograms per liter (ug/L), or 27 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) in RKP-5, or any of the
other wells at RKP, for several reasons: (1) the source of the contamination has been
removed from the RKP site soils; (2) Only one of the nine wells at the RKP site (RKP-5)
exhibited groundwater contamination above the MCL drinking water standard. RKP-5 was also
sampled in January 1998, and the concentration of uranium in the well at that time was
7.43 pCi/’L, which is below the MCL. Because RKP-5 was in compliance with the MCL when it
was sampled in 1998, and because of the fact that the result in August 2001 is only
marginally above the MCL, there is a high probability that the 37.1 pCi/L result is an
isolated sample result that will diminish within a reasonable time. In fact, beginning in
December 1997, a total of 15 samples have been collected from the nine RKP groundwater
wells, and the 37.1 pCi/L result from RKP-5 in August 2001 is the only exceedance of the
MCL in the data set, and finally; (3) groundwater velocity estimates at the RKP site range
from 20 to 1,300 feet per year, with an average of 200 feet per year. The distance from
the areas at RKP where the highest contamination were found to RKP-5 is between 400 and
500 feet. Even if it assumed that the groundwater has been flowing at the slowest possible
velocity (20 feet per year) since the waste material was placed at Reed-Keppler Park in
the 1940’ s and 1950’s, the contamination should have reached the RKP-5 location in 20 to
25 years (in the 1960’ s or 1970s). If this were true, groundwater samples collected at
RKP-5 from that time on would show radioactive contamination in the groundwater at the
location of RKP-5. RKP-5 was not installed and sampled until January 1998, but if
contamination from the RKP site had migrated to RKP-5 any earlier than 1998 (as it should
have), then the contamination would still show up in the groundwater sampling results
(which it did not). In fact, other site wells which are downgradient, and even closer to,
the contamination source area, have never shown exceedances of the MCL, which would
indicate that a contamination “plume” has never reached these wells. Groundwater sample
results from RKP-5 and other RKP monitoring wells do not support the possibility that
groundwater contamination has migrated from the contamination zones to offsite areas.
Given that RKP-5 was in compliance with the MCL in 1998, it is likely that the exceedance
seen in RKP-5 in 2001 is an isolated result, and not part of an overall site “plume”. US
EPA is requiring groundwater monitoring at RKP to verify the fact that the MCL exceedance
was an isolated event, and that there is not a continuing source of contamination that
has not been identified.
Comment
#2: In accordance with U. S. EPA, Region S’s instructions during the public
meeting of May 16, 2002, the City of West Chicago, owner of Reed-Keppler Park, is
submitting its comment on the “Proposed Plan for Final Cleanup Action at Reed-Keppler Park
Site” dated April, 2002. The City has now had the opportunity to review and consider that
Proposed Plan which calls for No Further Action with periodic ground water monitoring
until MCL’s are reached for total uranium. It is the City’s understanding that if the
total uranium concentrations in the ground water beneath the Park increase or fail to meet
MCL’s after an appropriate period of monitoring, U. S. EPA may consider supplemental
action as to ground water. With that understanding, the City supports the adoption of the
Proposed Plan.
Response #2: This Record of Decision does indeed include language that stipulates that
additional active remediation of groundwater at the RKP site may be necessary if total
uranium concentrations fail to decrease, or if they increase, in the future. Section 2.11
-
Selected Remedy, states “In the unlikely event that total uranium concentrations in RKP
groundwater fail to decrease, or if they continue to increase, in the future, more active
remediation methods will be considered for the groundwater at RKP.”
US EPA considers it unlikely that concentrations of uranium will remain above the MCL of
30 micrograms per liter (ug/L), or 27 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) in RKP-5, or any of the
other
wells at RKP, for several reasons: (1) the source of the contamination has been
removed from the RKP site soils; (2) Only one of the nine wells at the RKP site (RKP-5)
exhibited groundwater contamination above the MCL drinking water standard. RKP-5 was also
sampled in January 1998, and the concentration of uranium in the well at that time was
7.43 pCi/L, which is below the MCL. Because RKP-5 was in compliance with the 1’ICL when it
was sampled in 1998, and because of the fact that the result in August 2001 is only
marginally above the MCL, there is a high probability that the 37.1 pCiJL result is an
isolated sample result that will diminish within a reasonable time. In fact, beginning in
December 1997, a total of 15 samples have been collected from the nine RKP groundwater
wells, and the 37.1 pCi/L result from RKP-5 in August 2001 is the only exceedance of the
MCL in the data set, and finally; (3) groundwater velocity estimates at the RKP site range
from
20 to 1,300 feet per year, with an average of 200 feet per year. The distance from
the areas at RKP where the highest contamination were found to RKP-5 is between 400 and
500 feet. Even if it assumed that the groundwater has been flowing at the slowest possible
velocity (20 feet per year) since the waste material was placed at Reed-Keppler Park in
the 1940’ s and 1950’s, the contamination should have reached the RKP-5 location in 20 to
25
years (in the 1960’s or 1970’s). If this were true, groundwater samples collected at
RKP-5 from that time on would show radioactive contamination in the groundwater at the
location of RKP-5. RKP-5 was not installed and sampled until January 1998, but if
contamination from the RKP site had migrated to RKP-5 any earlier than 1998 (as it should
have), then the contamination would still show up in the groundwater sampling results
(which it did not). In fact, other site wells which are downgradient, and even closer to,
the contamination source area, have never shown exceedances of the MCL, which would
indicate that a contamination “plume” has never reached these wells. Groundwater sample
results firm RKP-5 and other RKP monitoring wells do not support the possibility that
groundwater contamination has migrated from the contamination zones to offsite areas.
Given that RKP-5 was in compliance with the MCL in 1998, it is likely that the exceedance
seen in RKP-5 in 2001 is an isolated result, and not part of an overall site “plume”. US
EPA is requiring groundwater monitoring at RKP to verify the fact that the MCL exceedance
was
an isolated event, and that there is not a continuing source of contamination that
has not been identified.
Comment #3: No plan? My concern is that there are no action criteria for action whether
uranium goes up or down. Seems to me if uranium goes above 50 pCi/L or goes up three
period in a row, we blew and need to reevaluate. Maybe some boreholes upstream etc to see
if much uranium around. Also if dips below 30 and stays for a while/ you decide how long!,
stop monitoring and pack up and go home. Believe these should be defined in advance so
everybody knows the rules.
Suggest that results be released by EPA for publications as soon as available and any
action announced. You cannot force publication but can do press release, put a notice in
library, and post on City Hall bulletin board. This has been a citizen driven remediation
and suggest agency go out of its way to make the information available.
Would still like to see background papers and plan when available. Thanks.
Response #3: Section 2.11
-
Selected Remedy states that “The Selected Remedy is
Alternative #2, No Further Action, along with monitoring to insure that future
concentrations of uranium in the RKP site groundwater meet the MCL drinking water standard
of 30 ug/L, or 27 pCi/L.
This monitoring will continue until it has been demonstrated that
the MCL5 have been achieved, and maintained, for three consecutive sampling events.’
US
EPA is requiring compliance with the MCL for three consecutive sampling events to insure
that uranium concentrations will not “rebound” after an acceptable concentration has been
measured. Section 2.11 also states that “Sampling frequency may be increased, or
decreased, based upon the results from future sampling events,” and that “In the unlikely
event that total uranium concentrations in RKP groundwater fail to decrease, or if they
continue to increase, in the future, more active rémediation methods will be considered
for the groundwater at RKP.” The source of any potential contamination in groundwater has
been removed from the RKP soils, therefore, there is every expectation that, with time,
the uranium concentration in RKP groundwater will decrease. US EPA may elect to increase
the sampling frequency if concentrations increase to determine whether the results are
“seasonal” in nature, or whether they vary with groundwater elevation changes caused by
heavy rain or drought. US E~Amay also, as you have suggested, collect further soil
samples to try to determine whether there is a source area that was missed during the
removal action at RKP. In any event, before US EPA could take more active measures for
groundwater at RKP, a revised Proposed Plan and ROD amendment, along with the appropriate
30-day public comment period, would be required, as described in Section 2.12 of this ROD.
~y reports or publications generated as a result of future groundwater monitoring will be
available for public review in the Administrative Record for the RKP site and the local
repository at the West Chicago Public Library. In addition, US EPA routinely makes these
reports available to individuals when requested. US EPA will announce when these reports
are
available for public inspection. US EPA appreciates the community involvement
associated with the RKP site, and continues to encourage the submittal of any comments or
questions regarding the RKP site.
Comment #4: This is in regard to your news letter dated April 2002, “US EPA issues
Proposed Plan for Final Cleanup at Reed-Keppler Park site”. My family and I live in
unincorporated West Chicago and request EPA inspection of our well water. This seems only
fair! If City water users have this inspection/monitoring, why not monitoring on wells? We
pay taxes! Since when is cost a reason for this discrimination against home owners with
wells? The gas and electric company read our meters. Why not the EPA getting samples from
our sill corks and checking for uranium contamination? When a residence is sold the DuPage
County Health Department checks water, but not for uranium contamination. Please protect
all of the people under your jurisdiction, not just some of the people!
Response #4: As you mentioned, the City of West Chicago does perform testing on City
drinking water for certain potential contaminants, as required by the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The concentrations of uranium and! or radium seen in drinking water in the City of
West Chicago are a result of background conditions in the aquifer (not from the Kerr-McGee
sites) from which the City draws its drinking water, and they do not represent an
unacceptablehealth risk to residents of the City. US EPA typically only performs testing
of private wells as part of ongoing remedial efforts, and not on a routine basis, as
routine testing of residential drinking water is usually performed on a local government
level or by property owners themselves. In the past, the Illinois Department of Nuclear
Safety (IDNS) has performed testing on private wells in unincorporated West Chicago at the
request of the property owner, at no cost to the owner. US EPA has verified that this
program still exists, and that IDNS would be willing to test your private well at your
request. To request that your well be sampled by IDNS, please contact:
Tim Runyon
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
1301 Knotts Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 786-6365
IDNS will collect a sample of the water from your well and provide results to you.
Comment #5: I don’t believe there should be any question as to which one to choose.
Alternative #2 offers some sort of limited safeguard to the community. It is certainly
better than none. I also feel the City or powers to be consider the probability of
securing Lake Michigan water
-
as a back-up source of water.
Ultimately
-
I, like the rest of my fellow neighbors and citizens, would like to believe
that our government and the agencies funded by our taxes
-
will continue the process begun
and work to protect us and our generations of children to come, from the invisible toxins
once buried in our community.
Response #5: US EPA understands that you support the Selected Remedy and appreciates your
comment.
Comment #6: (From the public meeting of May 16, 2002)
-
I want to say I want to thank
everybody here for all the work they have done on this, and this has been a great effort
to get our park to this point. But having said that, the second alternative, I think it
goes without saying, that it is in the best interest of the people of West Chicago, my
neighbors, and constituents.
Response #6: US EPA understands that you support the Selected Remedy and appreciates your
comment.
-
Comment #7: (From the public meeting of May 16, 2002)
-
If there is no monitoring between
the source and the well and you cut off your monitoring before that contamination has a
chance to travel to that well, you could be missing a potential problem. It would seem to
be in the interest of protecting the environment to
-
before you reach a cutoff date, to
figure out the groundwater rate and how far it is from the well and then you would do your
three consecutive tests because I understand and support and realize what level the
cleanup was at the park.... But if there is something in the groundwater that is already
contaminated and you cut it off before it would reach a monitoring well, you could be
missing an opportunity. I also support the monitoring compared to no monitoring....
Response
#
7:
The Remedial Investigation Report for the Kerr-McGee Reed-Keppler Park Site,
dated March 21, 2002, states that “Groundwater pore velocity estimates ranged between 20
feet per year and 1,300 feet per year, with an average probable velocity of 200 feet per
year.” This velocity is in a south south-easterly direction from the contamination areas
to the area of monitoring wells RKP-2, RKP-3, RKP-4, and RKP-S and MW-7, MW-8 and MW-9.
The only well that has shown an exceedance of the MCL for uranium is RKP- 5, which is
located about 400 feet east of the former enclosure area, where high contamination levels
were observed in RKP soil. Even if it assumed that the groundwater has been flowing at the
slowest possible velocity (20 feet per year) since the waste material was placed at
Reed-Keppler Park in the 1940’s and 1950’s, the contamination should have reached the
RKP-5 location in 20 to 25 years (in the 1960’s or 1970’s). If this were true, groundwater
samples collected at RKP-5 from that time on would show radioactive contamination in the
groundwater at the location of RKP-5. RKP-5 was not installed and sampled until January
1998, but if contamination from the RKP site had migrated to RKP-5 any earlier than 1998
(as
it should have), then the contamination would still show up in the groundwater
sampling results (which it did not). It should be noted that monitoring wells MW-7, MW-B
and MW-9 are located in the immediate vicinity (within 100 feet) of the area where the
highest soil contaminant concentrations were located, and these wells do not contain
uranium in exceedance of the MCL. Given that RKP-5 was in compliance with the MCL in 1998,
it is likely that the exceedance seen in RKP-5 in 2001 is an isolated result, and
not part of an overall site “plume”. US EPA is requiring groundwater monitoring at RKP to
verify the fact that the MCL exceedance was an isolated event, and that there is not a
continuing source of contamination that has not been identified. US EPA also understands
that you support the Selected Remedy and appreciates your comment.
Appendix A
Letter of Concurrence from Illinois EPA
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Kerr-McGee Reed-Kepler Park National Priorities List Site
West Chicago, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document represents concurrence by the State of Illinois on the selected
Final Remedial Action for the Kerr-McGee Reed-Kepler Park National Priorities List Site
(“Site”) in West Chicago, Illinois. This action was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
(“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) and to the extent practicable, with the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (“NCP”, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) 300).
The decisions contained herein are based on information contained in the administrative
record for this site.
ASSESSMENT OF TEE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site were addressed by a
time critical removal action required by a United States Environmental Protection Agency
(“U.S. EPA”) Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”). The time critical removal action
removed 114,652 cubic yards of contaminated soil between April 1997 and October 1999 to a
radiological cleanup level of 7.2 picocurios per gram (pCi/g)
.
Excavated areas were then
backfilled with a minimum of three feet- of clean fill.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RE~DY
The response action selected in this Record of Decision (“ROD”) is No Further Action with
groundwater monitoring. The groundwater monitoring portion of the selected remedy is to
insure that concentrations of uranium in groundwater meet the maximum contaminant level
(“MCL”) drinking water standard for uranium of 30 micrograms per liter (ug/l). Groundwater
monitoring will continue until it has been demonstrated that the MCL5 have been achieved
and maintained for three consecutive sampling events. Selection of this remedy was based
upon groundwater sampling results that revealed one well with a concentration of 33 ug/l
for uranium. Sampling will initially be performed twice a year and will be reassessed
annually, depending upon the results. The frequency of sampling may have to be reevaluated
if
the groundwater standard continues to be exceeded.
STATUTORY DETERNINATIONS
The removal action performed in accordance with the UAO and the ROD meets all the nine
threshold criteria established by the NCP and CERCLA. U. S. EPA, with the assistance of
Illinois EPA, will evaluate any new information identified to ensure that the selected
remedy remains protective. Significant changes will be evaluated pursuant to Section 117
of CERCLA and 40 CFR 300.435(c) (2) (I). Any change to the ROD necessitated by new
information will be conducted through an Explanation of Significant Differences (“ESD”) or
a ROD Amendment.
m
GD
