ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 7, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER QUALITY ) R04-21
STANDARDS: PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. ) (Rulemaking – Water)
CODE 302.307 and AMENDMENTS TO )
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.207 and 302.525 )
Proposed Rule. Second First Notice.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):
Today the Board proposes its own revised general use water quality standard for radium
based on the testimony and comments the Board has received since first-notice publication. At
first-notice, the Board adopted the proposal filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency). The Agency proposed to change the general use and Lake Michigan water
quality standards for radium from 1 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) radium 226 to 5 pCi/L combined
radium 226 and 228 and apply the proposed standards specifically to surface waters used for
public and food processing water supplies.
As a result of first-notice comments and because of the extent of the changes to the first-
notice proposal, the Board finds it appropriate to publish the proposal for a second first-notice.
Out of 38 public comments, 36 were filed with the Board subsequent to first-notice publication.
The Board finds that the changes in today’s rules from those originally proposed are warranted
and that a second first-notice will maximize the opportunity for public comment on the amended
proposal. The testimony and comments clearly indicate a need for further research and analysis.
The record also demonstrates a need to maintain a general use water quality standard, protective
both of human health and riparian mammals in the environment. Yet, compliance must also be
reasonable for Northern Illinois publicly owned treatment works located in areas where naturally
occurring radium is prevalent in source water. The Board finds that today’s proposal meets
those objectives.
The Board does not anticipate holding additional hearings in this proceeding, but any
person may request an additional hearing. 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b)(5); 35 Ill. Adm. Code
102.412(b). Second first-notice publication in the
Illinois Register
will begin period of at least
45 days for interested persons to file public comments with the Board. The Board will withdraw
first-notice publication of this rulemaking that appeared in the
Illinois Register
on July 8, 2004.
The Board first gives this rulemaking’s procedural history before providing an overview
of the change in water quality standards and discussing the specific provisions of the first-notice
proposal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
On January 13, 2004, the Agency filed a proposal to amend Part 302 of the Board’s
water quality standards.
1
The Agency proposed to change the general use and Lake Michigan
water quality standards for radium from 1 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) radium 226 to 5 pCi/L
combined radium 226 and 228 and apply the proposed standards specifically to surface waters
used for public and food processing water supplies. According to the Agency, these changes
would make the radium water quality standards consistent with the federal finished water
maximum contaminant level (MCL) and ensure the protection of surface water intakes for raw
drinking water in the State. The Agency argued the proposed changes would also relieve a
regulatory burden for many existing publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that receive,
treat, and discharge wastewater from public water supplies that remove radium from high radium
groundwater.
The Board accepted this proposal for hearing on January 22, 2004. The Board has held
five days of hearings before the Board hearing officer, members, and staff. The first hearing was
held on April 1, 2004, at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago.
2
The second hearing was
held on May 6, 2004, at the Board’s offices in Springfield.
3
Both hearings allowed the
proponent and any other interested party the opportunity to present testimony on the merits and
economic impact of the rulemaking proposal.
On June 2, 2004, WRT Environmental (Illinois), L.L.C. (WRT Environmental) moved
the Board for an additional merit hearing. On July 8, 2004, the Board adopted the Agency’s
proposal for publication of first-notice in the
Illinois Register,
but noted by hearing officer order
that the Board would grant WRT Environmental’s motion for a third hearing. First notice was
published in the
Illinois Register
on August 6, 2004. 28 Ill. Reg. 32, pg. 10887,
eff
. Aug. 6,
2004. First-notice publication in the
Illinois Register
began a public comment period for
interested persons to file comments with the Board. The Board granted the motion and held a
third hearing on August 25, 2004, in Springfield.
4
The Board gave notice of hearings a fourth
time and they continued on October 21 and 22, 2004, in Chicago.
5
The Hearing Witnesses
The Agency presented three witnesses at the various hearings. Mr. Jerry Kuhn is the
manager of the permit section, responsible for reviewing community water supplies’
construction permit applications, for the Division of Public Water Supply of the Agency. Mr.
Bob Mosher is an aquatic biologist in the Agency’s Water Quality Standards Unit. Mr. Blaine
1
The Agency’s Statement of Reasons included in the rulemaking proposal will be cited as
“Statement at _.”
2
The transcript of the first hearing will be cited as “Tr.1 at _.”
3
The transcript of the second hearing will be cited as “Tr.2 at _.”
4
The transcript of the third hearing will be cited as “Tr.3 at _.”
5
The transcript of the fourth hearing will be cited as “Tr.4 at _.”
3
Kinsley is a manager of the Industrial Unit in the Division of Water Pollution Control permit
section.
WRT Environmental opposes the Agency’s proposal because all radium or uranium
removal processes generate radioactive residuals. Yet, WRT Environmental contends that many
communities do not have the expertise to safely handle, transport, or dispose of radioactive
residuals. At the third and fourth hearings, the participants discussed the technical feasibility,
economic reasonableness, and environmental impact of the proposal, and the infeasibility or
unreasonableness of the existing standards. Three witnesses testified on behalf of WRT
Environmental: Mr. Ted Adams, Mr. Charles Williams, and Dr. Brian Anderson.
Mr. Dennis Duffield presented testimony on behalf of the City of Joliet (Joliet). Joliet
contends that WRT Environmental presents information related to treatment technologies that
can be used to meet the radium public water supply standards and to provide an alternative to the
resulting sludge. Joliet argues, however, that treatment technologies have nothing to do with this
rulemaking, which addresses only the general use water quality standards for radium in surface
waters.
At the fourth hearing, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Sierra Club
(collectively, environmental groups) testified in favor of WRT Environmental’s proposal. Both
Mr. Albert Ettinger, on behalf of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Dr. Cynthia
Skrukrud, on behalf of the Sierra Club, provided testimony.
Dr. Abdul Khalique, a radiation chemist, provided both public comment and testimony
on behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
Mr. Doug Dobmeyer, on behalf of Clean Water, was present at the third and fourth
hearings. Mr. Dobmeyer presented a public comment in opposition to the Agency’s proposal.
Throughout the four hearings, the Board received a total of 17 exhibits. Because of the
technical nature of this rulemaking, the Board requested and received changes to the hearing
transcripts. The Agency, WRT Environmental, the MWRDGC, and Joliet all submitted changes
to the hearing transcripts. The Board received and posted the corrected transcripts on
December 7, 2004.
Summary of Public Comments
The Board received a total of 37 public comments in this proceeding as well as a motion
by Joliet to file an additional public comment after the close of the first-notice public comment
period.
6
6
On December 22, 2004, Joliet moved the Board to submit additional comments after the end of
the public comment period. On January 4, 2005, WRT opposed the motion, stating that if the
Board considers the late public comment, the Board should also consider a response by Mr. Ted
Adams. Neither party submitted affidavits supporting the additional public comment. The
Board accepts the additional public comments from both parties and considers the comments
4
Supports Agency Proposal
Opposes Agency
Proposal
Seeks More Information
1.
Village of Channahon (PC
5)
WRT Environmental
L.L.C. (PC 1)
Citizens Against Ruining
the Environment (CARE)
(PC 4)
2. Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago (PC 7)
Environmental Law and
Policy Center and Sierra
Club (PC 2)
Kane County (PC 6)
3.
Illinois Association of
Wastewater Agencies
(IAWA) (PC 10)
Clean Water – Illinois (PC
9)
Openlands Project (PC 8)
4.
Village of Romeoville (PC
13) (but with a numerical
standard)
Des Plaines River Valley
Restoration Project (PC
25)
Illinois Farm Bureau (PC
16)
5.
Village of Manhattan (PC
14)
Citizens for Conservation
(PC 25)
6.
Village of Hampshire (PC
15)
Illinois Audubon Society
(PC 25)
7.
Howard J. Hamilton, P.E.-
CFM (PC 17)
Prairie Woods Audubon
Society (PC 25)
8.
Robert E. Hamilton, P.E.
(PC 18)
9.
Albert J. Zanzola, P.E. (PC
19)
10.
Curtis A. Craigmile, P.E.
(PC 21)
11.
City of Braidwood (PC 22)
(but with a general use
standard)
12.
Village of Minooka (PC 23)
13. Illinois Emergency
Management Agency (PC
24) (supports limit of
5pCi/L for food and water
processing supplies, but
proposes an interim general
use water quality standard
of 60pCi/L)
14.
Village of Sugar Grove (PC
30)
Illinois Division Izaak
Walton League of America
(PC 25)
John A. Djerf, P.E. (PC 20)
below. The Board refers to the additional public comment submitted by the City of Joliet as PC
36, and the responsive public comment filed by WRT Environmental as PC 37.
5
15.
Village of Montgomery (PC
31)
16.
United City of Yorkville
(PC 32)
17.
Illinois Water Utility
Council (PC 34)
18.
City of Batavia (PC 35)
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN RADIUM WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR SECOND FIRST-NOTICE
Today the Board proposes a general use water quality standard of 3.75 pCi/L combined
radium 226 and 228 to replace of the existing radium 226 standard of 1 pCi/L. This new
standard will apply to all general use waters of the State as well as the Lake Michigan Basin.
Further, today’s proposal applies a combined radium standard of 30 pCi/L to stream segments
that receive discharge from POTWs receiving wastewater discharge from public drinking water
supplies using groundwater with a high radium concentration. The 30 pCi/L combined radium
226 and 228 standard will apply from the point of discharge to one mile downstream of the
discharge outfall.
The Board finds that the proposal for second first-notice will be protective of the
sensitive designated use of the State’s waters. Additionally, the Board finds that the proposal
will also achieve the Agency’s goal of relieving a regulatory burden for many existing POTWs
that may not comply with the existing general use radium water quality standards. POTWs that
receive wastewater from public drinking water supplies using high radium groundwater as the
potable raw water source will benefit because the proposed rulemaking will provide a higher
combined radium standard for stream segments receiving their discharge.
AGENCY PROPOSAL AND PRE-FIRST-NOTICE COMMENTS
In July 2004, the Board adopted the Agency’s proposal without making any substantive
changes. In summary, that proposal eliminated the existing general use water quality standard
for radium 226 at Section 302.207, but retained the standards for strontium 90 and gross beta.
Second, the proposal established a new public and food processing water supply standard of 5
pCi/L of combined radium 226 and 228 at Section 302.307 that corresponds to the federal
finished drinking water MCL.
7
Statement at 7. The proposal also deleted the radium 226
standard from the Lake Michigan basin water quality standards at Section 302.525.
The July 2004 proposal retained the existing radioactivity standards for both Strontium
90 and gross beta for the Lake Michigan basin. In summary, the first notice changes would set a
radium standard that protects only surface water intakes for raw drinking water at the same level
applicable to finished drinking water. Statement at 8.
7
This federal drinking water standard became effective December 8, 2003. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclide; Final Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 76707 (Dec. 7, 2000).
6
In the proposal, the Agency stated that radium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal
that exists in several isotopes, and is commonly found in Illinois groundwater. The Agency
stated that its basis for making the proposed standard applicable only to public and food
processing supplies is that there is no indication that radium is anything but a threat to human
health via drinking water. The Agency further noted that radium is a known carcinogen and,
accordingly, standards that protect drinking water are necessary. Statement at 9. Other than
human health, the Agency stated it was not able to find any evidence of any other use impacted
besides drinking. Tr.4 at 256. The Agency states its research proves that Illinois is unique
compared to other states with radium regulations in having aquatic life water quality standards.
Statement at 9. Therefore, according to the Agency, the proposed changes protect all uses that
radium may impact. Statement at 9. However, the Agency stated it would look at more
information that would provide the Agency with guidelines for a different number if one exists.
Before the Board’s first-notice opinion and order, WRT Environmental submitted
comments in opposition to the Agency’s proposal and moved the Board for a third hearing. PC
1. Additionally, the environmental groups supported the motion for a third hearing and opined
in comments that the record was inadequate. PC 2.
FIRST-NOTICE COMMENTS
The participants in this rulemaking raised a number of issues concerning the proposed
amendments after the adoption of the first notice opinion and order on July 8, 2004. These
issues include whether data exists regarding the impacts of radium on aquatic life, what level of
protection is necessary to protect human health and the environment, the safety of POTW
workers, the land application of sludge containing radium, and available radium removal
technologies. In post-hearing comments, the participants also suggested various alternatives to
the Agency’s proposal that was adopted by the Board at first notice. The testimony and
comments presented by the participants are summarized below, accompanied by the Board’s
findings.
The Nature of Radium in Illinois
By way of background, the Agency relates that the Board adopted the 1 pCi/L general
use water quality standard for radium 226 in 1972. Statement at 3; citing
In re
Water Quality
Standards Revisions, R71-14 (Jan. 6, 1972). The same standard appeared in the Lake Michigan
Basin water quality standards in 1997. The standard has applied to Lake Michigan since 1972,
but the 1997 regulation merely reflected a change in format of how Lake Michigan standards
were presented in the Board’s rules. The Agency contends that a federal source called the Green
Book (Report of the Committee of Water Quality Criteria. April 1, 1968) appears to be the
source for the Board’s general use water quality standards of 1972. Statement at 5. The Green
Book recommends a “permissible” value of 3 pCi/L for radium 226 and a “desirable value” of
<1 pCi/L. These values for strontium 90 are 10 and <2 pCi/L, and for gross beta, 1000 and <100
pCi/L. These values were intended to provide guidance for setting standards for raw water
quality at point of intake. Statement at 5. When the Board adopted the radium standards, the
7
Board chose the more stringent “desirable values” and also made the standards generally
applicable.
Id
.
The current federal finished drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
radium 226 plus radium 228 is 5 pCi/L. Drinking water must meet this standard at the
consumer’s water tap. Since the MCL is a finished water standard, the Agency argues that
protecting nearly all intake waters at 1 pCi/L, the current Illinois general water quality standard,
is excessively stringent. Statement at 6.
Radium is a recognized human carcinogen. Tr.4 at 25. Mr. Williams and Mr. Adams, on
behalf of WRT Environmental, both agree that radium is a “bone-seeker” that replaces calcium
in the bone and its decay gives off particles that cause bone cancer. Tr.3 at 124. The principle
pathway in which radium enters the body is ingestion and inhalation.
Id
.; Tr.4 at 160. Radium
undergoes radioactive decay. The half-life of radium 226 is 1,600 years while radium 228 has a
half-life of 5.7 years. During the decay process, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are released.
Tr.4 at 16, 259. Radium 226 emits alpha radiation and radium 228 emits beta radiation. Alpha
particles can travel only a short distance and cannot travel through skin. Beta particles can
penetrate through skin, but they cannot go all the way through the body. Tr.3 at 101. Gamma
radiation can go all the way through the body.
Radium exists at levels exceeding the existing general use water quality standard of 1
pCi/L in some Illinois streams below sewage treatment plants serving communities that utilize
high radium groundwater as the raw water source for drinking water. Statement at 2.
Discharges into larger streams generally receive enough dilution to meet the standard. For
example, recent stream concentrations in the Fox River measured less than 1 pCi/L. Statement at
2-3. Most Illinois community water supply facilities with high concentrations of radionuclides
in the source water are located in the northern half of the State of Illinois and in a region that
stretches from Henderson County in the west to Cook and Lake Counties in the northeast.
Statement at 3. Sewage treatment discharges to very small streams where no dilution is present
have the potential to contain as much as 5 to 10 pCi/L depending on concentrations in the
groundwater and efficiency of treatment in removing radium to the sewage sludge.
Id
.
Mr. Williams states the average concentration of combined radium 226 and 228 at
various sites in Illinois is 12.8 pCi/L, and the highest level that WRT Environmental has
encountered in Illinois averages 22.6 pCi/L. Hearing Exh. 5, Table 1. WRT Environmental
derived these numbers from testing it conducted at various sites in Illinois.
Id.
The City of Joliet draws its raw water from an aquifer with a naturally occurring high
radium content. The radium concentration in the City of Joliet water supply is between 6 pCi/L
and 10 pCi/L. City of Joliet Supplemental Information, Exh. 4. At hearing, Joliet emphasized
the need for the resolution of this rulemaking. Joliet stated that the communities in Northern
Illinois are required to comply with the drinking water standard and in order to achieve
compliance, they must select a treatment method. According to Joliet, any delay in the selection
of a treatment method will result in violations of compliance commitments and consent decrees
with the Agency, result in fines, and force users to continue to drink water that exceeds the
drinking water standard. Tr.4 at 387.
8
Joliet contends that by proposing the rule change, the Agency is not allowing additional
radium to be discharged into waters of the State. Instead, the regulations appropriately recognize
that the existing discharges of radium and allow communities to continue a practice that has
occurred over many years. Tr.4 at 390-91. Joliet asserts that the separation and recombining of
the radium with the water does not alter the impact on the environment but protects the health of
the water consumer.
Evidence of Adverse Impacts of Radium on Aquatic Biota
In the proposal, the Agency contends it found no evidence that any other use was
impacted by radium other than humans via the consumption of drinking water. In comments and
at hearing, the parties disputed this conclusion, arguing there exist many studies, models, and
other literature regarding the impacts of radium on the aquatic biota. For example, WRT
Environmental contends there are 50 years of data identifying the various negative impacts of
radiation upon a broad spectrum of plants and animals. Tr.3 at 16. The Agency states that after
consulting the ECOTOX database,
8
it found no toxicological studies on radium. Tr.4 at 358.
According to the Agency, the studies it uses to derive water quality standards are done in a
laboratory setting, repeatable, and performed in accordance with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance and methodologies. Further, the results of
the studies are almost always published in peer-reviewed journals. Tr.4 at 282. The Agency
also notes that it is not a research entity. Tr.4 at 357. It is the United States Environmental
Protection Agency that has the laboratories and scientists to perform research.
Id
.
In post-hearing comments, the environmental groups stated that the scientific community
has expressed concern about the effects of radium on non-human life forms as evidenced by
years of detailed study, resulting in numerous peer-reviewed publications. PC 28, Exh. 1, 4.
The environmental groups state that the record establishes that a water quality standard is needed
to protect aquatic life and riparian wildlife.
At the third hearing, WRT Environmental discussed various models and studies
regarding the impact of radium on aquatic and terrestrial life. The first is a publication by the
National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) entitled the “Effects of Ionizing Radiation on
Aquatic Organisms.” Hearing Exh. 10. The second document is a technical standard put
together by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC).
Hearing Exh. 15. The third is a report prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management
District addressing the potential impacts of radium exposure to aquatic life (Florida study).
Hearing Exh. 14, Attachment D. The Board discusses each of these documents in more detail
below.
8
The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) is a source for locating single chemical toxicity
data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by
the USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's (NHEERL's) Mid-Continent Ecology Division.
9
NCRP Report
The NCRP report provides guidance for establishing a dose rate below which deleterious
effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic life are found. Hearing Exh. 10. The NCRP report
advocates measuring the impact of radiation on species populations rather than on individual
organisms of aquatic life. Hearing Exh. 10 at 36. Mr. Adams maintains that the NCRP report
includes information on the effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic life. The NCRP report
recommends a reference level of 0.4 mGy per hour (approximately 1 rad per day) for protection
of aquatic life from chronic radiation exposure. Hearing Exh. 10 at 38. The Agency stated that
using the NCRP report, a former Agency employee interpreted the threshold level of radium to
be 22,000 pCi/L. Tr.4 at 285-86. This demonstrates, according to the Agency, that aquatic life
is not the most sensitive species.
Department of Energy Technical Standard
The DOE’s Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC) prepared the DOE technical
standard. Hearing Exh. 15. The technical standard is a graded approach to evaluate compliance
with specified limits on radiation dose to populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial plants, and
terrestrial animals due to anthropogenic sources at DOE sites. The DOE standard provides
radiation exposure levels for the protection of biota from the effects of ionizing radiation. WRT
Environmental submitted the DOE technical standard and presented testimony on the relevance
of that standard with respect to radium impacts on aquatic and terrestrial life.
Dr. Anderson believes the DOE technical standard is the appropriate methodology to use
to calculate the threshold level of combined radium 226 and 228 that would be protective of the
environment. Hearing Exh. 13. Dr. Anderson explained that the threshold, as described by the
BDAC, is the level of radiation exposure below which no population level effects on the biota
have been documented. Tr.4 at 54-55. Dr. Anderson explained that the technical standard is a
methodology, not an observational or experimental study. Tr.4 at 59. Dr. Anderson agreed with
the Agency that he found no toxicological studies analyzing the impacts of radium. He opines
this is true because radium is too dangerous to work with.
Id
. Dr. Anderson defined
toxicological studies as analyzing the impacts of a specific dose of radiation on a species.
Dr. Anderson and Dr. Adams stated that the DOE technical standard provides a
methodology for deriving a bioconcentration guide (BCG)
9
for riparian and aquatic animals. The
assumptions used to derive the BCG for radium show the riparian mammal, not the aquatic
animal as the limiting organism. Dr. Anderson explained that the riparian mammal seems to the
most limiting organism because of bioconcentration. Tr.4 at 263-65, 273.
The Agency’s Mr. Mosher agrees that riparian mammals living in or near the water are
probably the group of organisms with the most sensitive use. Tr.4 at 276, 286. Mr. Mosher
9
A BCG is the limiting concentration of a radionuclide in soil, sediment, or water that would not
cause dose limits for protection of populations of aquatic and terrestrial biota to be exceeded.
Hearing Exh. 15.
10
highlights two default assumptions in the DOE technical standard as being particularly
conservative, making the standard impractical to use as a basis for a state water quality standard.
First, Mr. Mosher states the standard assumes that the riparian mammal must live in the middle
of the stream that receives the radium discharge for its entire life. Tr.4 at 295. The assumption
is that the animal is exposed to the stream 24 hours a day and eats only from the stream.
Second, the standard assumes that the concentration of radium in the stream is constant in
a 7Q10 zero stream.
10
Mr. Mosher states that 7Q10 is a concept built into the Board’s
regulations that drives lots of things that the Agency does. It is a worst-case scenario the
Agency uses in establishing permit limits. Tr.4 at 298-99. Mr. Mosher states that the Agency
believes the worst case in a sewage plant discharge will be about ten picocuries per liter of
radium. Mr. Mosher explains that in Northern Illinois, it is only an extremely small portion of
the time that the flow will be a 7Q10 zero flow;
i.e
. when the stream flow will be only the
effluent flow. Therefore, asserts Mr. Mosher, in reality the riparian mammal in Northern Illinois
will receive the full dosage (of 10 pCi/L) for only a small part of the year. Tr.4 at 299. In
contrast, the technical standard assumes a full dosage all of the time.
In post-hearing comments, Dr. Anderson and the environmental groups dispute some of
the Agency’s conclusions regarding underlying assumptions of the technical standard. Dr.
Anderson states that for the category of riparian animals, the standard recognizes “that the
riparian pathways of exposure combine aspects of both the terrestrial and aquatic systems.” PC
26, Anderson comment at 2; citing Hearing Exh. 15, Module 3, pg. 2. Therefore, argues Dr.
Anderson, “the organism doesn’t have to be immersed in the contaminated water or the
contaminated sediments to be exposed.” PC 26, Anderson comment at 2. Dr. Anderson explains
that the default value for the screening criterion is based on the assumption of 100% residence
time for the riparian animal, some mammals in fact fully meet this criterion. For example, small
mammals with limited home ranges such as mice, voles, and shrews.
Id
.
Dr. Anderson and the environmental groups both state that the DOE standard is liberal
because it reflects the dose below which no
population level effects
rather than individual effects
have been observed. Consequently, argues Dr. Anderson, the screening criterion does not meet
the requirements of the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act to protect
individuals
of
listed species. PC 26, Anderson comment at 2; PC 28 at 8.
The environmental groups claim there are additional liberal assumptions. They state that
levels of up to 23 different radionuclides present in the water and sediment determine radiation
exposure, and the DOE technical standard general screen is based only on contribution from
radium 226 and 228. PC 28 at 8. Further, the assumption that radiation exposure from water and
sediment is uniform and continuous (Hearing Exh. 15, module 1, pg. 12, table 2.2) may in fact be
overly lenient because it measures only soluble radium, not highly radioactive particulates that
may be discharged by wastewater treatment plants. PC 28 at 8.
10
A 7Q10 stream flow is the average low stream flow suspected in a seven-day period with a ten-
year recurrence interval. Tr.4 at 297.
11
The environmental groups state that the DOE technical standard demonstrates that any
Illinois general use or Lake Michigan basin water quality standard for radium should be designed
to protect riparian organisms in freshwater aquatic systems. PC 28 at 4. Using the river otter as
the indicator species and applying the DOE Technical Standard, the environmental groups
determined that a combined concentration of 3.7 pCi/L of radium 226 and 228 in the water
column does not exceed the biota dose limits for those two radionuclides. PC 28 at 6-7, Exh. 9.
The environmental groups note that the DOE technical standard, while its principal use is to
demonstrate that DOE activities comply with biota dose limits for protection plant and animal
populations, can be used for Clean Water Act applications such as mixing zone assessments. PC
28 at 7;
citing
DOE Technical Standard, p. M1-17, M1-20.
Joliet contends the DOE Standard submitted by WRT Environmental is not an
appropriate basis for water quality standards because it provides very conservative results. PC
29 at 4.
Southwest Florida Water Management District Study
WRT Environmental also introduced the Florida study. The Florida study found that
levels of radium in some freshwater mussels in lakes recharged with groundwater containing low
levels of radium 226 (< 5 pCi/L) ranged from 9 to 205 pCi per gram. Hearing Exh. 14,
Attachment D. WRT asserted that radium levels were high enough that the mollusks would
qualify as low-level radioactive waste. Hearing Exh. 13 at 2. WRT also noted that the radium
levels in the very range that meet the BDAC biota dose limit may adversely affect mussels,
including mussels such as those listed as endangered or threatened in Illinois. Tr.4 at 28.
The Agency noted that the Florida study merely recorded radium concentrations but
made no conclusions about whether any adverse environmental impacts were observed in the
mussels or riparian mammals inhabiting the area. The Agency concluded that the research was
based on a unique ecosystem that could not be extrapolated to Illinois streams or even Illinois
lakes. PC 33 at 6.
Board Discussion on Evidence of Adverse Impacts of Radium on Aquatic Biota
While the ECOTOX database that the Agency regularly consults in deriving water
quality standards may not contain toxicological studies demonstrating the impacts of radium on
aquatic life, the record clearly shows that evidence exists, such as methodologies for assessing
biota dose limits and literature regarding the effects of radiation on the environment. The DOE
technical standard provides radiation dose limits for the protection of aquatic life and terrestrial
animals. In addition, the Florida study indicates that radium concentrations in lake water of less
than 5 pCi/L resulted in an internal dose for lake mussels of 5.5 rad per day; considerably higher
than the 1 rad per day limit set for aquatic animals by the DOE technical standard.
Although these studies are not the kinds the Agency typically uses to derive water quality
standards, the Board finds that they demonstrate that radium can adversely impact aquatic biota,
in addition to humans. The Board realizes that the DOE technical standard incorporates some
conservative assumptions. However, the Board also finds that because radium is
12
bioconcentrating and bioaccumulating and persists in the environment for so long (radium 226
has a half-life of 1,600 years), conservative assumptions are appropriate to protect human health
and the environment at this time.
Level of Protection of the Illinois Radium Water Quality Standard
At hearing and in public comments, the parties discussed whether the general use water
quality standard for radium should be protective of humans or the environment. The Agency
testified that by setting the radium water quality standard for public and food processing water
supplies at the same level as the drinking water MCL, this rulemaking will allow community
water supplies to come into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act while preventing these
same water supplies from creating non-compliance issues for POTWs. The Agency notes that
the rulemaking would still protect surface water quality. Tr.1 at 13-14.
Agency Proposal
The Agency’s position is that water quality standards are only required where there are
actual environmental conditions in the waters of the State that are somewhat near the threshold
of harmful effects to aquatic life. Tr.4 at 286. Where, like in Illinois, the threshold for radium is
much higher than what exists in the environment, there is no need for a standard.
Id
. Mr.
Mosher stated that a former Agency employee applied the model in Exhibit 10, “Effects of
Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms,” and came up with 22,000 picocuries per liter radium
as the threshold of harmful effects to aquatic life. Tr.4 at 286;
see also
Responses to Pre-Filed
Questions of Sierra Club and Environmental Law & Policy Center to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Hearing Exh. 12.
As mentioned above, Mr. Mosher agrees that riparian mammals, not aquatic life, are the
limiting organisms. But, he argues that the default assumptions in the DOE technical standard
are conservative, making the standard impractical to use as a basis for a state water quality
standard.
Regarding radium water quality standards in other states, Mr. Mosher asserts no other
state agencies he contacted have standards for any other reason than to protect humans via the
consumption of drinking water. In every case, according to Mr. Mosher, the standards were
adopted in the 1970s. Tr.4 at 305.
MWRDGC’s Support for Agency Proposal
Dr. Abdul Khalique, a radiation chemist, testified on behalf of the MWRDGC. At
hearing and in post-hearing comments, the MWRDGC supports the Agency’s proposal stating it
is adequately protective of human health. Dr. Khalique notes that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Illinois maximum contaminant level concentrations for radium 226 and
radium 228 in drinking water are 5 pCi/L. Dr. Khalique testifies that the 5 pCi/L radium 226 and
228 combined standard will result in an equivalent of 4 mrem per year for humans, a limit that is,
13
by applying the DOE Technical Standard dose rate of 1 rad per day, thousands of times more
stringent than necessary to protect aquatic animals and terrestrial plants. PC 11 at 3.
The MWRDGC maintains that radiation protection standards have been expressly
developed for the protection of human health; by protecting humans, radiation standards are
adequately protective of the environment as well. MWRDGC states that two authorities support
this principle: the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Report, National Academy of
Sciences, 1972, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection Report, 1991. PC
11.
Joliet’s Support for Agency Proposal
Overall, Joliet supports the Agency’s proposal and disagrees with maintaining a numeric
water quality standard. According to Joliet, whether the standard is 60 pCi/L or 3.75 pCi/L none
of the proposed standards are supported by adequate scientific basis. Joliet argues that because
the highest reported radium concentration from a deep well in Illinois is less than 40 pCi/L
combined radium 226 and 228, a limit of 60 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228 will not
require any facilities to modify their operations. Joliet asserts that in order to come into
compliance with a lower water quality standard, communities will have to increase the costs of
projects required to come into compliance with the drinking water standard. PC 29 at 6.
WRT Environmental’s Support for Existing Standard
In response, WRT’s Mr. Adams warns that when considering exposure to radium, five
picocuries of radium to a human is not the same as five picocuries to a mussel. He states that
humans drink the water; mussels live in it. Tr.4 at 237. The real measurement in determining
whether a radium standard is protective of human health
and
the environment is measured by
assessing exposure to the animal, not the concentration of radium in the water.
Id
.
According to WRT Environmental in its closing comments, the Agency simply did not
adequately consider the factors set forth in Section 27(a) of the Act. PC 27 at 5. WRT
Environmental asserts that the Agency did not adequately consider the existing physical
conditions or the character of the areas involved, including land uses, zoning classifications, the
nature of the receiving body of water and the technical and economic reasonableness of
measuring or reducing radium.
Id
.
Contrary to the Agency’s testimony, WRT’s Mr. Williams states Illinois is not unique in
having a water quality standard for radium based on the protection of aquatic life, and provides
some examples. Mr. Williams asserts that Florida’s surface water standard of 5 pCi/L includes
Class II waters which are protected for shellfish propagation or harvesting as well as Class III
waters which are protected for the propagation and maintenance of a healthy well-balanced
population of fish and wildlife. Mr. Williams contends that the stated goal of Ohio’s water
quality criterion for radium in the Ohio River, 4 pCi/L, includes the preservation of warmwater
habitat. Hearing Exh. 5.
14
According to Mr. Williams, the current radium standard is very low, perhaps even
unrealistically low. Tr.3 at 77. He states that the Illinois standard is one of the lowest he has
encountered. Tr.3 at 88. However, Mr. Williams also states that allowing unlimited discharge is
“definitely unrealistically high.” Tr.3 at 77.
Environmental Groups for Protecting Riparian Mammals
In their post-hearing briefs, the environmental groups contend that “despite four hearings,
the information available to the Board is not adequate to make a confident scientific judgment as
to the proper general use water quality standard to adopt for radium.” The environmental groups
maintain, however, that the record does establish that a general use water quality standard is
necessary to protect aquatic life and riparian wildlife. The environmental groups state that water
quality standards must protect the most sensitive use of the water body. PC at 1; citing 40 C.F.R.
131.11;
In re
Petition of Illinois Power Co. for Adjusted Standards from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.208(e), AS 92-7 (Oct. 7, 1993). According to the environmental groups, the most sensitive
use of the water body is riparian wildlife, such as river otters, that use water bodies for almost all
of their food and drink.
The environmental groups explain that river otters exist in Illinois, and they are listed on
the State’s endangered and threatened species list. PC 28 at 5. The river otters spend greater
than 80% of their life, which range between 10 to 15 years, in water. The environmental groups
contend that the exposure time is sufficiently long for an otter to be at risk for tumor induction.
Id
. at 6. For these reasons, state the environmental groups, the numeric standard necessary to
protect riparian wildlife must be more stringent than that necessary to protect humans by way of
consuming drinking water. PC 28 at 2.
The environmental groups state that the Board often considers uses other than drinking
water by humans in promulgating water quality standards. The environmental groups state that,
contrary to the Agency’s proposal, the scientific community has expressed concern with the
effects of radium on non-human life forms that live in or near bodies of water. PC 28 at 3. In
support, the environmental groups attached a literature review done by a senior environmental
scientist for the Southwest Florida Water Management District. PC 28, Exh. 1. Further support,
argue the environmental groups, is that in recognizing the threat of radiation to non-humans, the
U.S. Department of Energy has promulgated a radiation dose limit of 1 rad per day (rad/d) for
the protection of aquatic animals and 0.1 rad/d for terrestrial animals (based on mammals’ higher
sensitivity to radiation). PC 28.
IEMA for Protecting Human Health
In a public comment, Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) stated it agrees
with the Agency that the existing general use water quality standard for radium 226 (1 pCi/L) is
too low, given Illinois’ drinking water standard (5 pCi/L) and the existing levels of radium in
natural background. According to IEMA, the general use water quality standard should be set
for the protection of human health. IEMA states that it tests most community drinking waters in
the state and tests indicate that natural background radium concentrations in Northern Illinois
range from less than detectable to about 25 to 30 pCi/L. PC 24.
15
IEMA agrees with the Agency’s proposal to change the public and food processing water
supply standard to 5 pCi/L. However, IEMA does not agree with eliminating the general use
water quality standard because eliminating the standard could allow significant sources of
discharge to go unchecked. PC 24 at 2. IEMA argues that while radiation exposures to aquatic
biota may be legitimate concerns, the protection of aquatic biota was not an original objective of
the general use water quality standard for radium. If the Board wishes to support such a policy
shift, asserts IEMA, the initiative must be supported by specific Illinois environmental data,
which this rulemaking lacks.
Board Discussion on Level of Protection
The Board regularly considers the protection of aquatic life in promulgating water quality
standards. For example, the Board adopted the water quality criteria for sulfate and TDS in
order to sufficiently protect aquatic life and public water supplies.
See
Effluent Criteria, R70-8;
Water Quality Standards, R71-14; Water Quality Standards Revisions for Interstate Waters
(SWB 14), R71-20, slip op. at 7, 8 (Mar. 7, 1972). Federal and state laws and regulations require
the consideration of any harm a standard may cause to aquatic life or the propagation of fish and
wildlife when adopting water quality standards. For example, Section 11 of the Act states:
Pollution of the waters of this State constitutes a menace to public health and
welfare, creates public nuisances, is harmful to wildlife, fish, and aquatic life,
impairs domestic agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other legitimate
beneficial uses of water, depresses property values, and offends the senses . . . .
The Clean Water Act provides guidance to states revising or adopting new water quality
standards:
Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value
for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration
their use and value for navigation. 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(A).
Regulations implementing the Clean Water Act on the issue of establishing water quality
standards provide that “for waters with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the
most sensitive use.” 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). Finally, Section 302.202 of the Board’s general use
water quality standards states:
The General Use standards will protect the State's water for aquatic life . . . ,
wildlife, agricultural use, secondary contact use and most industrial uses and
ensure the aesthetic quality of the State's aquatic environment. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.202.
After discussions regarding what use is the most sensitive use with respect to radium in
the waters of the Illinois, the Board agrees with the conclusions of the environmental groups and
the Agency that the riparian mammal is the most impacted use. Because the riparian mammal
16
forages in the stream and relies on the stream for all or most of its food, its use is more sensitive
than humans’ to the effects of radium. The record shows that the reproduction processes,
gametic formation through embryonic development, are likely to be the most limiting endpoint
in terms of survival of a population. Hearing Exh. 15 M1-5. . Hearing Exh. 10 at 61. Further, it
is clear from the record that riparian mammals such as the river otter exist in Illinois and that the
populations are endangered. Therefore, the Board finds it is appropriate to promulgate a water
quality standard protective of the environment, including riparian mammals, as well as human
health.
Further, the Board agrees with the environmental groups and WRT Environmental that
the DOE technical standard provides the necessary guidance to establish a water quality standard
for radium 226 and 228 for Illinois’ general use waters and the Lake Michigan basin that would
be protective of both human health and the environment.
Although the technical standard was developed by BDAC for use at DOE sites, the Board
finds that the standard’s biota dose limits provides sufficient scientific basis and support for
establishing general use water quality standard for radium. Since Illinois-specific water quality
data and studies concerning radium are not available, the technical standard is a sound interim
approach. As observed by the environmental groups and WRT Environmental, a combined
concentration of 3.75 pCi/L or less would meet the biota dose limit for riparian animals.
Although this combined concentration does not include any potential contribution from radium
in sediments, the Board believes that a general use standard based on BCGs for radium in water
is protective of human health and the environment.
Relief For Publicly Owned Treatment Works
A significant reason why the Agency proposed to amend the radium water quality
standards is to provide relief for POTWs that receive wastewater from public water supplies
(PWS) using high radium groundwater as the potable raw water source. These PWS treat high
radium well water to meet Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs. The residuals from the treatment
system are generally discharged into the sanitary sewer system, treated at the POTW, and
discharged to a receiving stream, with sludge being land applied or landfilled.
The Agency states that existing treatment technologies used by POTWs appear to have an
impact on reducing the radium level in the influent. Statement at 13-14. As an example, the
Agency states that a 1985 study of five Wisconsin communities shows that POTWs utilizing
biological treatment may remove anywhere from 29 to 97% of the influent radium. Where high
radium groundwater is utilized, radium in treated sewage effluent is expected at concentrations
exceeding the existing General Use standard. Statement at 14.
The participants generally agreed that the most problematic situation are the POTWs
discharging to 7Q10 no-flow streams. Tr.at 223. A 7Q10 stream flow is a very rare stream flow
event. Tr.at 297.
The Agency’s Mr. Mosher states it is the POTWs that receive high radium groundwater
and are located on small, zero or low 7Q10 stream flow streams that are more likely to violate
17
the radium standard in their sewage treatment plant discharge if the present regulation is
maintained. Tr.4 at 377-78. The Agency, however, does not know what the concentration of
radium would be in the discharge from POTWs. Tr.4 at 379. Further, while over 100
communities in Illinois do not meet the radium drinking water standard, not all of the POTWs in
those communities are located on zero-flow or low 7Q10 streams. Tr.1 at 39-40; Tr.4 at 229.
Dr. Anderson suggested that the Board keep a general use water quality standard and
apply an effluent standard to POTWs or require POTWs to go through the Board’s site-specific
rulemaking procedure. In post-hearing comments, WRT Environmental suggests that 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.” PC
27 at 19. WRT Environmental suggests new rule language that provides relief only to
municipalities operating a POTW that receives wastewater from communities with groundwater
containing radium over the existing drinking water standard. According to WRT Environmental,
this solution would not reward any other facilities or sources that did not participate in this
proceeding “hoping to catch the benefits of the regulatory roll-back.” PC 27 at 20.
Joliet states that if the Board decides to establish a combined radium 226 and 228
standard at 3.75 pCi/L, many of the affected water supplies and wastewater treatment plants
would be forced to modify their operations. PC 29 at 5. These modifications would increase the
cost of the projects that communities are required to implement to comply with the drinking
water standards. In order to address POTW concerns, Joliet recommends a general use standard
for combined radium 226 and 228 of 30 pCi/L, and a standard of 36 pCi/L for streams receiving
discharges limited to 800 hours per year.
Worker Safety
One issue the parties discussed at length relates to worker safety issues that arise from
handling sludge potentially contaminated by radium. Joliet stated that sludge containing radium
at the Joliet POTW facility is collected and handled as a liquid, and is not open to the air until
truck loading. The truck loading takes place outdoors at the Joliet wastewater treatment plant so
the concentration of radon does not build up. Tr.4 at 393-394.
Mr. Ted Adams, on behalf of WRT Environmental, testified that the treatment of raw
water with high levels of radium creates safety and liability issues at both the water treatment
plant and the POTW. It is the handling and disposal of contaminated sludge that poses a
significant concern, both economic and regulatory, to the POTWs and their workers. Tr.3 at 11.
Mr. Adams concludes that radium-contaminated water treatment sludge or residuals should not
be disposed of in the sanitary sewer, but should instead be disposed of in an environmentally
safe, secure, and isolated permitted landfill or licensed disposal facility. Tr.3 at 24.
The Agency asserts that the safety of workers in plants treating high radium groundwater
is an issue that should be addressed by OSHA, not the Board or the Agency in this rulemaking.
Tr.3 at 7-8.
18
Joliet’s additional public comment included a letter from Mr. Port, a certified health
physicist, to rebut information included in WRT’s post-hearing public comment. In Mr. Port’s
opinion, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency’s Division of Nuclear Safety is among the
most respected Agreement State programs in the country. Mr. Port follows up that comment by
stating the Board should turn to IEMA for input on non-public and worker radiation safety.
IEMA has standards for protection against radiation to the environment (60 pCi/L) and to
sewage (600 pCi/L). Mr. Port believes Mr. Adams exaggerated the skin dose to the public by
more than five orders of magnitude and overstates the risk as well. Joliet Mot., Exh. 1 at 3.
Disposal of Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The parties also discussed various sludge disposal options consisting of either treatment
technologies or land application. Dr. Anderson believes that the land application of waste
treatment sludge that exhibits high concentrations of radium creates the possibility of
bioaccumulation in indigenous vegetation or in planted crops or uptake by birds, snakes, turtles,
or shrews when these animals eat earthworms. Hearing Exh. 13.
WRT Environmental introduced a letter from IEMA indicating that WRT’s customers
must be registered as generators of low-level radioactive waste and licensed under Illinois law.
Hearing Exh. 11. Mr. Williams stated that whether IEMA will regulate water treatment plants
that treat groundwater containing high levels of radium is uncertain. However, Mr. Adams
identified both a federal and state standard that apply to facilities licensed by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) that regulate the dispersion of radioactive materials in sanitary
sewer systems. Hearing Exh. 4, Exh. B. Both 10 C.F.R. 20.2003 and 32 Ill. Adm. Code
340.1030(a)(1) prohibit the disposal by a licensee of non-soluble radioactive material into a
sanitary sewer.
Id
.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Agency and IEMA sets the criteria
for the level of radium in sludge mixed with soil for agricultural use. According to the MOA,
the incremental increase of radium concentration in the soil must not exceed 0.1 pCi/g. The
MWRDGC opines that the MOA standard is extremely conservative. PC 11 at 4. For example,
argues the MWRDGC, a level of 25 mrem per year (established by the NRC to designate a
decommissioned facility suitable for unrestricted use) or 10 mrem per year from all radionuclides
(established by the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards as the threshold
below which no further steps are warranted) are appropriate levels for biosolids. PC 11 at 4.
The MWRDGC also cites to the IDNS’ decontamination guideline of 5 pCi/g dry soil for radium
226.
Id
.; citing 32 Ill. Adm. Code 340.Appendix A. In conclusion, the MWRDGC believes that
a guidance limit of 0.1 pCi/g dry weight of radium 226 in sludge is overly stringent. PC 11 at 5.
According to the Agency, under a memorandum of agreement with the Department of
Nuclear Safety, anything under 5 pCi/g is acceptable by Illinois permitted landfills. Sludge
containing between five and 15 pCi/g is also still acceptable as long as there is ten feet of
uncontaminated overburden. Hearing Exh. 5 attach. 1; Tr.4 at 318. Further, the Agency
contends that this rulemaking is not the appropriate forum to discuss the issues of radium and
sludge. The Agency asserts this topic is not within the scope of the proposal and is better dealt
with in amendments to the Agency’s land application of sludge rules. Tr.3 at 7.
19
Board Discussion on Relief for POTWs
The Board recognizes the existence of a naturally-occurring radium belt in Northern
Illinois. The Board realizes that due to the federally-mandated drinking water standard of 5
pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228, public water supplies in Northern Illinois are often faced
with the duty to remove radium. The removal of radium by public water supplies can result in
the discharge of high radium concentration wastewater into POTWs via sewer systems. Issues
such as POTW worker safety and disposal of sludge containing radium are important to discuss
because the Board must consider the negative impacts, if any, a rulemaking would have on
human health and the environment. However, the Board notes that the Agency and IEMA have
separate rules that address the land application of sludge containing radium (35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 391) and worker safety at facilities licensed to handle radioactive materials (35 Ill. Adm.
Code Part 340). Such rules are not part of this rulemaking docket. Therefore, the Board will not
discuss these issues in further detail.
It is evident from the record that, while POTWs reduce the radium concentration in their
effluent to some degree with existing treatment systems, the POTWs may not be able to meet the
current 1 pCi/L radium 226 water quality standard. The Board agrees with the Agency that
POTWs in communities using high radium groundwater as the raw water source must receive
regulatory relief. As discussed in further detail below, the Board provides this relief within the
framework of a general use radium water quality standard.
Available Water Treatment Technologies for Removing Radium
As discussed in the Board’s first notice opinion and order, the Agency states that
community water supplies that exceed the MCL of 5 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228 have
three basic options to lower radium levels: (1) blending the high radium source water with an
unaffected source of water; (2) acquiring an alternative source for drinking water; or (3)
installing treatment for the source water. Statement at 12. The Agency notes that the USEPA
considers ion exchange, reverse osmosis and lime softening as the best available technologies to
meet public water supply requirements for radium. Small system (facilities servicing less than
10,000 people) compliance technologies also include green sand filtration, hydrous manganese
oxide filtration, and enhanced coagulation/filtration. The Agency states that almost all radium in
drinking water pumped from the ground ends up either in sewage sludge or effluent. Statement
at 14.
Hydrous Manganese Oxide (HMO) is the preferred treatment technology of Joliet. Joliet
states the HMO process removes radium from the drinking water by co-precipitating radium with
pre-formed hydrous manganese oxide. Hearing Exh. 3 at 3. In this process, a solution of HMO
is mixed with the well water and forms a precipitate. The radium attaches to the precipitate.
Next, the filters collect the precipitate and begin to filter water at a slower rate. Joliet continues
that the flow of water is then reversed and the precipitate is washed from the filter and collected.
This wastewater from the water treatment process, containing the radium removed from the
drinking water, is then discharged to the sanitary sewer. According to Joliet, the backwash
combines with discharge from homes and businesses in the sanitary sewer and becomes the
20
influent to the wastewater treatment plants. Since the radium is removed and subsequently
recombined, there is no change in the quantity of radium anticipated to arrive at the wastewater
treatment plants. Hearing Exh. 3 at 3-4.
WRT Environmental describes several treatment technologies that it claims can
effectively reduce or eliminate the disposal of radium removed from drinking water onto the land
and into the streams of Illinois. Hearing Exh. 5 at 9. WRT Environmental discussed the
following processes: (1) reverse osmosis; (2) ion exchange; (3) hydrous manganese oxide; (4)
lime softening; and (5) an absorbent media removal process.
WRT Environmental states the five treatment processes it described remove radium
without creating a residual to be disposed of down the sewer. Hearing Exh. 5 at 12. The
residuals from these processes are instead disposed of in a low level radioactive landfill.
Joliet is concerned with WRT Environmental’s proposed treatment methods. Joliet
contends that a pilot test of the treatment method at its facility resulted in an increase in of radon
in the system. Joliet opined that this indicates an increase in the radon that will be delivered to
customers. Joliet continues that this issue is critical because radon is dangerous to humans by
way of inhalation. PC 29 at 7.
Board Discussion on Available Water Treatment Technologies
The record shows that several radium removal treatment technologies are available to
public water supplies and POTWs depending on the size of the facility and the concentration of
radium in the groundwater or surface water. Circumstances may vary and the Board does not
recommend a particular technology over any other. However, the testimony and comments in
the record regarding treatment technologies may be useful to communities that need to meet the
drinking water standard and/or the general use water quality standard.
Costs of the Proposal
As discussed in the Board’s first notice opinion and order, the Agency believes its
proposal would have a positive economic impact since it both increases the water quality
standard for radium 226 and 228 and limits the waters to which the standard applies. Statement
at 15. Because the proposal sets a radium level of 5 pCi/L for surface waters being used by
public drinking water supplies, the Agency states that the proposed changes require no new
technology. Thus, the Agency contends, its proposal would not negatively impact any existing
sources.
Id
. The Agency justifies the proposal based on the cost of monitoring to the Agency.
At hearing, Joliet testified that “[i]n 1995, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
estimated that the cost to society for radiation exposure was $2,000 per person rem. That would
be for each person exposed to one rem. If I equate that to today’s dollars, that’s about $2,500.”
Tr.4 at 396.
Mr. Williams commented on what he thought were the costs of the Agency’s proposal,
both economic and environmental. Mr. Williams stated that if POTWs dispose of sludge
21
containing radium into the public water systems, the POTWs and the state of Illinois can expect
to have several increased costs: (1) the uncontrolled discharge of radium residuals could be a
liability issue to municipalities and POTWs; (2) POTW workers will require training, personnel
exposure monitoring and medical monitoring as occupational radiation workers; (3) sewer
sludge handling areas will require ongoing testing; (4) the POTW may be required to obtain a
radioactive materials license; (5) application of sewer sludge to farmland will require ongoing
monitoring; and (6) sewer pipes and lines and the POTW itself may require decontamination.
These costs, argues Mr. Williams, are the practical costs of the Agency's proposal. Tr.4 at 35-36.
Dr. Adams also stated there is an environmental cost. In order to flush filtrate materials
down the sewer, the water treatment plants must pump 5 to 25% of the quantity of water being
pumped for human consumption to perform the backflushing operation. According to Dr.
Adams, areas already relying on deep aquifers for potable water supply are in the same areas
where groundwater is a limited resource. Tr.4 at 36.
In contrast, Mr. Williams states that the cost of treatment systems that do not dispose of
radium to the sewer or streams is competitive or lower than systems that do. For example, Mr.
Williams states that the communities of Oswego and Elburn claimed they will save $2 and $2.6
million, respectively, over the life of their treatment technology contract.
See
Hearing Exh. 5 at
18.
According to the public comments, the costs of radium removal are high, and are costs
that will be felt by local communities and residents. The City of Batavia stated it will spend
more than $15 million to meet the drinking water standard. PC 35. The Village of Romeoville
has committed to spend $11,251,000 in capital costs and $40,287,000 in operating and
maintenance costs (for a total of $51,538,000) over the next 20 years to meet the drinking water
standard. PC 13.
Board Discussion on Costs of the Proposal
The cost of radium removal varies greatly depending on the concentration of radium in a
community’s groundwater and the size of a facility. Any costs of removing radium from
groundwater are incurred to come into compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.
Further, the Board finds that the proposed radium 226 and 228 water quality standard will have
minimal, if any cost impact on POTWs since the proposed rule allows a higher concentration of
combined radium, 30 pCi/L, for stream segments receiving discharges from affected POTWs.
Nonetheless, radium is a bioconcentrating and bioaccumulating radioactive metal and known
human carcinogen. Accordingly, the Board finds that the cost to human health and the
environment from discharging concentrations of radium above protective levels in the waters of
our state is even greater.
The Participants’ Recommendations
In post-hearing public comments, the following parties made suggestions regarding the
Agency’s proposal. Each of the parties’ suggestions is summarized below.
22
The Agency
The Agency asks the Board to correct a “mistaken” regulation that has been on the books
for 30 years and not require the wastewater treatment community to comply with a water quality
standard more stringent that the Board’s drinking water standard. The Agency maintains that all
available information suggests that human consumption is the most sensitive use for this
parameter. The Agency urges the Board to send this rulemaking to second notice as originally
proposed.
WRT Environmental
WRT argues that the DOE technical standard is the only approach that properly
determines “safe” levels of exposure for aquatic life and riparian mammals. WRT maintains that
applying the standard assuming a contribution from sediment, the combined radium limit would
be approximately 1.36 pCi/L, which is very close to the existing standard of 1pCi/L radium 226.
Thus, WRT Environmental urges the Board to keep the existing standard for radium 226
and adopt a new subsection (c) to Section 302.207 of the Board’s rules. The new language
would provide relief only to municipalities operating a POTW that receives wastewater from
communities with groundwater containing radium over the existing standard. WRT
Environmental proposes to limit the POTWs’ effluent in these certain communities to 2.72-3.75
pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228. Under WRT Environmental’s proposal, POTWs would
only be allowed to discharge radium removal residuals in compliance with the sewer discharge
limitations contained in 32 Ill. Adm. Code 340.1030(a). PC 27 at 20.
The City of Joliet
At hearing Joliet concluded that if there must be a general use water quality limit for
radium, the number must be between 15 and 30 pCi/L radium 226 and 228 combined. In its
post-hearing comments, Joliet emphasizes its support for the Agency’s proposal. Joliet notes
that the Illinois Division of Nuclear Safety of the Illinois Department of Emergency
Management has standards for the discharge into sanitary sewers (600 pCi/L combined radium
226 and 228) that were based on limits set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The NRC has set a limit for the discharge of effluent to streams at a level of 60 pCi/L: a limit not
adopted by Illinois.
Joliet contends that the water quality standard for food and water processing intakes
should be 5.0 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228, and the standard for all other streams should
be 60 pCi/L. Joliet argues that because the highest reported radium concentration from a deep
well in Illinois is less than 40 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228, a limit of 60 pCi/L combined
radium 226 and 228 will not require any facilities to modify their operations. PC 29 at 6.
Should the Board choose a more conservative standard, Joliet suggests the Board could apply a
safety factor of 2.0, resulting in a water quality standard for all streams other than food and water
processing intakes of 30 pCi/L. Further, Joliet suggests that the water quality standard for
discharges limited to a duration of less than 800 hours per year must be less than 36 pCi/L
combined radium 226 and 228.
23
Environmental Groups
The environmental groups recommend that the Board maintain general use and Lake
Michigan basin water quality standards for radium and set such standards at 3.7 pCi/L combined
radium 226 and 228, to ensure that high levels of radium are not discharged into Illinois
waterways. PC 28 at 3. They explain that 3.7 pCi/L is derived from the general screening model
of the RAD-BCG calculator contained in the DOE technical standard. PC 28 at 6. The
combined concentration of 3.7 pCi/L of radium does not exceed the BCGs listed for the two
radionuclides in the technical standard, assuming there is no radiation contribution from any
other radionuclide source.
Illinois Emergency Management Agency
IEMA agrees with the Agency’s proposal to change the public and food processing water
supply standard to 5 pCi/L. However, IEMA does not agree with eliminating the general use
water quality standard because eliminating the standard could allow significant sources of
discharge to go unchecked. PC 24 at 2. According to IEMA, the Board should adopt an interim
standard for the protection of human health based on the federal NRC standard. 10 C.F.R. part
20, Appendix B, Table 2. IEMA has adopted this standard into Illinois radiation protection
regulations applicable to radioactive materials licensees who discharge into surface waters. The
standard is 60 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228 and relates to the radiation does to humans.
32 Ill. Adm. Code 340. This concentration of radium, if ingested continuously over the course of
a year, would produce a total effective dose equivalent of 50 millirem, half the dose equivalent
limit for members of the general public. PC 24 at 2.
DISCUSSION OF SECOND FIRST-NOTICE PROPOSAL
Below the Board analyzes the participants’ recommendations, and the issues raised at
hearing and in public comments. The Board will also discuss the second first-notice changes and
give reasons for the changes.
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
The Board finds that evidence exists demonstrating that radium negatively impacts
aquatic life and riparian mammals, in addition to humans. Further, based on the record, the
Board also finds that any water quality standard for radium should be protective of both the
environment, including riparian mammals, and human health. Thus, the Board finds that while
the Agency’s proposal is protective of human health, the proposal fails to protect the most
sensitive use of the State’s waters by eliminating the radium 226 standard for general use waters.
The Board believes that a general use water quality standard for radium 226 and 228 must be
retained to afford protection to most sensitive use, the protection of riparian mammals.
The DOE Technical Standard
24
The Board finds that the DOE technical standard provides the necessary guidance to
establish a water quality standard for radium 226 and 228 applicable to general use waters and
the Lake Michigan basin. As noted by the participants, the DOE technical standard provides a
graded approach (including screening methods and methods for detailed analyses) and related
guidance to evaluate compliance with specified limits on radiation dose to populations of aquatic
animals, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial animals due to anthropogenic sources at DOE sites.
The technical standard uses the following biota dose limits within a graded approach to
demonstrate that populations of plants and animals are adequately protected from the effects of
ionizing radiation: 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) for aquatic animals and terrestrial plants; and 0.1 rad/d (1
mGy/d) for terrestrial animals.
The DOE technical standard provides BCGs for various radionuclides, including radium
226 and 228. BCG represents the limiting radionuclide concentration in environmental media
that would not result in an exceedence of the DOE’s established or recommended dose limits.
During the screening level phase of the graded approach, the sum of the ratios of the measured
concentration of each radionuclide to its corresponding BCG for each medium is summed across
media. If the total sum of fractions is less than 1.0, the dose to an aquatic or terrestrial receptor
is below the biota dose limit. Exh. 15 at M1-34. Under the DOE technical standard, an
exceedence of the screening level would entail further investigation including site-specific
evaluation.
The General Use Water Quality Limit
In order to promulgate a water quality standard for radium that is protective of the
environment as well as human health, the Board will retain a general use water quality standard,
but increase the standard to 3.75 pCi/L. As discussed above, this limit is based on the DOE
technical standard that meets the biota dose limit of 0.1 rad/d for riparian animals. Based on the
evidence in the record, the Board finds this general use standard will be protective of human
health and the environment, including aquatic life and riparian mammals, and ensure that high
levels of radium cannot be discharged into Illinois waterways.
Relief for POTWs
The Board considered a number of options for providing relief to POTWs, including a
blanket exemption from general use radium water quality standards, setting effluent limits, and
specifying mixing zones in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102. However, since the
noncompliance issues are mostly associated with POTWs discharging into low flow streams, the
Board finds a Section 302.102 mixing zone would not address POTW concerns. Instead, the
Board finds that specifying a zone of mixing allowing a radium concentration above the
proposed general use standard better addresses the POTWs’ concerns. The Board proposes a
distance of 1 mile downstream from the point of POTW discharge as the zone of mixing within
which the combined radium 226 and 228 concentration must not exceed 30 pCi/L. This limit is
based on IEMA’s recommendation of using the NRC limit and Joliet’s suggestion of applying a
factor of safety of 2. While the Board presently believes that a 1-mile segment of the stream
should provide an adequate mixing zone for POTW discharges to comply with the proposed
25
general use standard of 3.75 pCi/L, the Board invites comments from the participants on this
provision.
The Board agrees with the Agency and WRT Environmental that the public was given
adequate opportunity to participate in this rulemaking and no sources other than POTWs and
public interest groups indicated any support or opposition to the Agency’s proposal. The Board
recognizes that public water supplies may choose treatment technologies that require the disposal
of media in a landfill or may send wastewater effluent containing elevated levels of radium into
the sanitary sewer system causing compliance issues for POTWs. Accordingly, as described
above, the Board creates a separate 1-mile water quality standard downstream of POTWs in
communities using source water containing a high concentration of radium. However, the
radium concentration must meet the general use standard at one mile downstream of the point of
discharge. The Board finds this provision allows such POTWs to continue operations without
incurring significant costs, while at the same time protecting human health and the environment.
The Board considered IEMA’s suggestion of adopting an interim standard until more
data is available to promulgate a permanent radium standard. The Board, however, believes the
record is adequate to support today’s findings without giving the regulation interim status.
Accordingly, the Board proposes the rulemaking language below for second first notice, inviting
the public to comment on the proposed changes.
CONCLUSION
To protect all designated uses of Illinois waters, the Board proposes a new general use
water quality standard of 3.75 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228, for second first-notice
adoption. The Board’s proposal sets a limit of 30 pCi/L combined radium 226 and 228 for any
stream receiving discharge from a POTW that accepts wastewater from communities using high
radium groundwater as raw drinking water. This 30 pCi/L combined radium standard applies for
the first mile downstream of the point of discharge. Beyond one mile, the 3.75 pCi/L combined
radium general use water quality standard applies. The proposal also applies the 3.75 pCi/L
standard to the Lake Michigan basin.
As mentioned above, the Board does not anticipate holding additional hearings in this
proceeding, but any party may request an additional hearing. Second first-notice publication in
the
Illinois Register
will begin a period of at least 45 days for interested persons to file public
comments with the Board.
ORDER
The Board proposes for first notice the following amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302
and directs the Clerk to file the proposed rules with the Secretary of State for publication in the
Illinois Register
. Proposed deletions to the current rules are stricken, and proposed additions are
underlined.
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION
26
CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 302
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A: GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS
Section
302.100 Definitions
302.101 Scope and Applicability
302.102 Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDs
302.103 Stream Flows
302.104 Main River Temperatures
302.105 Antidegradation
SUBPART B: GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
302.201 Scope and Applicability
302.202 Purpose
302.203 Offensive Conditions
302.204 pH
302.205 Phosphorus
302.206 Dissolved Oxygen
302.207 Radioactivity
302.208 Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents
302.209 Fecal Coliform
302.210 Other Toxic Substances
302.211 Temperature
302.212 Total Ammonia Nitrogen
302.213 Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)(Repealed)
SUBPART C: PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS
Section
302.301 Scope and Applicability
302.302 Algicide Permits
302.303 Finished Water Standards
302.304 Chemical Constituents
302.305 Other Contaminants
302.306 Fecal Coliform
SUBPART D: SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE
STANDARDS
Section
27
302.401 Scope and Applicability
302.402 Purpose
302.403 Unnatural Sludge
302.404 pH
302.405 Dissolved Oxygen
302.406 Fecal Coliform (Repealed)
302.407 Chemical Constituents
302.408 Temperature
302.409 Cyanide
302.410 Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life
SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
302.501 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions
302.502 Dissolved Oxygen
302.503 pH
302.504 Chemical Constituents
302.505 Fecal Coliform
302.506 Temperature
302.507 Thermal Standards for Existing Sources on January 1, 1971
302.508 Thermal Standards for Sources Under Construction But Not In Operation on
January 1, 1971
302.509 Other Sources
302.510 Incorporations by Reference
302.515 Offensive Conditions
302.520 Regulation and Designation of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs)
302.521 Supplemental Antidegradation Provisions for Bioaccumulative Chemicals of
Concern (BCCs)
302.525 Radioactivity
302.530 Supplemental Mixing Provisions for Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
(BCCs)
302.535 Ammonia Nitrogen
302.540 Other Toxic Substances
302.545 Data Requirements
302.550 Analytical Testing
302.553 Determining the Lake Michigan Aquatic Toxicity Criteria or Values - General
Procedures
302.555 Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
(LMAATC): Independent of Water Chemistry
302.560 Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity
Criterion (LMAATC): Dependent on Water Chemistry
302.563 Determining the Tier II Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity Value
(LMAATV)
28
302.565 Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Criterion
(LMCATC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Value
(LMCATV)
302.570 Procedures for Deriving Bioaccumulation Factors for the Lake Michigan Basin
302.575 Procedures for Deriving Tier I Water Quality Criteria and Values in the Lake
Michigan Basin to Protect Wildlife
302.580 Procedures for Deriving Water Quality Criteria and Values in the Lake Michigan
Basin to Protect Human Health – General
302.585 Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold
Criterion (LMHHTC) and the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold
Value (LMHHTV)
302.590 Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health
Nonthreshold Criterion (LMHHNC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health
Nonthreshold Value (LMHHNV)
302.595 Listing of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern, Derived Criteria and Values
SUBPART F: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Section
302.601 Scope and Applicability
302.603 Definitions
302.604 Mathematical Abbreviations
302.606 Data Requirements
302.612 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance –
General Procedures
302.615 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Independent of
Water Chemistry
302.618 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Dependent on Water
Chemistry
302.621 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedure for Combinations
of Substances
302.627 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance -
General Procedures
302.630 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedure for
Combinations of Substances
302.633 The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion
302.642 The Human Threshold Criterion
302.645 Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake
302.648 Determining the Human Threshold Criterion
302.651 The Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.654 Determining the Risk Associated Intake
302.657 Determining the Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.658 Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.660 Bioconcentration Factor
302.663 Determination of Bioconcentration Factor
302.666 Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor
29
302.669 Listing of Derived Criteria
APPENDIX A References to Previous Rules
APPENDIX B Sources of Codified Sections
APPENDIX C Maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentrations allowable for certain
combinations of pH and temperature
TABLE A pH-Dependent Values of the AS (Acute Standard)
TABLE B Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CS (Chronic Standard) for
Fish Early Life Stages Absent
TABLE C Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CS (Chronic Standard) for
Fish Early Life Stages Present
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 of the
Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13, 11(b), and 27]
SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44, p. 151,
effective November 2, 1978; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended
at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p. 190, effective June 21, 1979; codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 Ill.
Reg. 11161, effective September 7, 1982; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 13750, effective October 26,
1982; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 1629, effective January 18, 1984; peremptory amendments at 10 Ill.
Reg. 461, effective December 23, 1985; amended at R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9911, effective May
27, 1988; amended at R85-29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12082, effective July 11, 1988; amended in R88-1 at
13 Ill. Reg. 5998, effective April 18, 1989; amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2899, effective
February 13, 1990; amended in R88-21(B) at 14 Ill. Reg. 11974, effective July 9, 1990; amended
in R94-1(A) at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682, effective May 24, 1996; amended in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg.
370, effective December 23, 1996; expedited correction at 21 Ill. Reg. 6273, effective December
23, 1996; amended in R97-25 at 22 Ill. Reg. 1356, effective December 24, 1997; amended in
R99-8 at 23 Ill. Reg. 11249, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R01-13 at 26 Ill. Reg. 3505,
effective February 22, 2002; amended in R02-19 at 26 Ill. Reg. 16931, effective November 8,
2002; amended in R02-11 at 27 Ill. Reg. 166, effective December 20, 2002; amended in R_____
at _____ Ill. Reg. _____, effective ____________________.
SUBPART B: GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 302.207 Radioactivity
a) Gross beta (STORET number 03501) concentration shall not exceed 100
picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
b)
Concentrations of radium 226 (STORET number 09501) and sStrontium 90
(STORET number 13501) concentration must not exceed 1 and 2 picocuries per
liter (pCi/L)respectively.
c)
Radium 226 and 228 (STORET number 11503) combined concentration must not
exceed 3.75 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), except as provided in subsection (d) of
this Section.
30
d)
The concentration of combined radium 226 and 228 must not exceed 30 pCi/L in
waters receiving discharge from a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for
up to one mile downstream of the POTW discharge outfall, if the POTW receives
wastewater from any community that extracts, for drinking water use,
groundwater containing radium 226 and 228 combined at concentration levels
exceeding 3.75 pCi/L.
(Source: Amended at _____ Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 302.525
Radioactivity
Except as provided in Section 302.102, all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin must meet the
following concentrations in any sample:
a)
Gross beta (STORET number 03501) concentrations must not exceed 100
picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
b)
Concentrations of radium 226 (STORET number 09501) and sStrontium 90
(STORET number 13501) concentration shall not exceed 1 and 2 picocuries per
liter (pCi/L)respectively.
c)
Radium 226 and 228 (STORET number 11503) combined concentration must not
exceed 3.75 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) at any time.
(Source: Amended at _____ Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order on April 7, 2005, by a vote of 4-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
