BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

R04-21

Rulemaking

-

Water

RE

~

~V E

C’~E~K’s

OFFICE

APR

ii 6

20C5

STATE OF ILUNOIS

Pollution Control Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

REVISIONS

TO RADIUM WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS:

PROPOSED

NEW

35

ILL.

ADM1N. CODE 302.307

AND AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADMIN.

CODE 302.207 AND

302.525

To:

See Attached Service List

Please take notice that on April

6, 2005, we filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe

Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies ofthe attached

COMMENTS

SUBMITTED BYBRIANANDERSON,

a copy ofwhich is served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Jeffrey C. Fort

Letissa Carver Reid

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

8000 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 876-8000

---

CLERK’S OFFICE

APR

062005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Dr.

Bii~

it~ii

ob~oI

Board

33

taft

Drive

Rochcstcr, IL

62563

April

6, 2005

YJA.

ELECTRONIC

M~ML

Ms.

Amy Antoniolli

Hearing

Officer

illinois Pollution Control Board

100

West

Randolph Street

Suite

11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

Re: .1(04-21 Rulemaking

-

Water

Dear

Madam Heaiing Officer:

I

am

asking

permission

to

submit

this

public

comment

after

the

close

of the

public

comment

period.

I

testified

in

the

hearings

before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(the “Board”)

and

submitted my

own

public comment

during

thepublic comment

process.

Since

the close ofthe public comment

period,

I have come to

learn

offurther information

that

exists

with

respect to the views of the

United

States Environmental

Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”)

that

I

believe

the

Board

should

consider.

Because

I

only

became

aware of

this

information

recently

—

indeed

the U.S. EPA

letter is

dated in

March

2005

—

I

ask

the

Board

to

make

this

comment

part

of

the

public

record

in

this

matter

and

to

consider

this

information

before

proceeding

to

second

notice.

Moreover,

this

infonnation

appears

to

be

significant

to

communities

who

are

considering

treatment

technologies

to

meet

the

radium

water

quality

standard as

it reflects U.S. EPA’s

concerns

with “disposing” ofradionuclides into sewers, where

they will be either mixed

with

sewage sludge

and disposed

ofon crops, or to be

discharged

into

Illinois’ waterways.

During

both

the

final

day

of

hearing

and

in

their

public

comments,

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”)

said

it

would

like

to

have

U.S.

EPA

provide

guidance

on

the issues

raised

in

this

proceeding.

Although

not disclosed

in

this

proceeding,

IEPA did seek U.S. EPA’s

guidance and has

now

received

a response.

In a letter dated September 21, 2004, a month before the last day of

hearing and

over ten

weeks

before

the close of the

public comment

period,

IEPA

asked

U.S.

EPA

for

its

opinion

“supporting

the

continued

use

of

fflinois

disposal

practices”

relating

to

disposal

of

treaLincnt

residuals from water treatment

plants.

---

Ms.

Amy Antoniolli

April

6,

2005

Page -2-

By

letter

dated

March

4,

2005,

U.S.

EPA

responded,

and

refused

to

cndorse illinois’

existing

practices,

or

the

land

application of

water

treatment

residuals.

With

respect

to the

disposal

of radionucides,

IJ.S

EPA

stated

it

had

“consistently

expressed

concern

about the

potential creation of new

contaminated sites that would someday require rcmediation and/or the

use

of

institutional

or

engineering

controls,”

U.S. EPA

also

stated that it did not believe

that

it

was appropriate to

rely

on data

and

reports

pertaining

to sewage

sludge

“when considering the

land

application

of

drinking

water

treatment

residuals

containing

radionuclides,”

U.S.

EPA

clearly

recognized

that water

treatment residuals

are

a differentwaste stream than sewer sludge,

and

rejected

IEPA’s

suggestion

that

no

distinction

needed

to

be

made.

And

U.S.

EPA

maintained

its concern that the

land application of radionuclide treatment residuals could

create

clean-up issues

in

the

future.

Interestingly,

the

IEPA

letter

did

not

present

for

U.S.

EPA

approval

the

practice

of

allowing

(or

even

encouraging)

he

uncontrolled

discharge

into

sewers,

farmland

and

watercourses of highly radioactive particles.

(The

record

here

makes

clear

that such discharges

will

occur if

the

IEPA

proposal

to the

Board

is

adopted.)

Of course,

no

federal

or

illinois

radioactive

material

licensee

is

permitted

to

release

or discharge

radioactive

particles

into

a

sewer system.

Clearly, the issue

of how best to safely dispose

of the

radioactive

treatment

residuals

resulting

from meeting the radionuclide

drinking

water

standard

is

a very

serious issue and

one

that

should

not

be ignored by

the

Board.

Illinois

communities

deserve to be

informed

ofthese

matters

and U.S. EPA’s views.

I believe EPA’s views should

be

shared

with

the Board

and

the

public.

Copies ofthe JEPA request

and

U.S. EPA’sreply are attached hereto.

I appreciate the Board’s consideration ofthese

comments.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brian D, Anderson

---

twwots

ENvIRoNM~:NTALPROTCCTION

Ac

ENCY

..I...II.urrr,-r.~uwn.t.t.~.,:

.luul.IPIrVJ,,~r

1O2.~

N03u1

Gk~n~

‘~YV:St!t~

t~4~t.

P.i~2.L~OX

t

~2Th.

~1I

C~T~LO,

àaNVT$

~27944~Zt2tZ7~,397

L

~

1(X~

Wtirr

st~ft5;~tri~

fl 3~fl

G

~~L:~g*Qi4

U~’fl4’6OY~

Rft’if* ~w’a~

Di~cTr:R

2l7/782~33Et

.

.

SEP

2 12004

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mr.

lkt~auun

H

Oranibles

Actiug

MStwt Administrator

om~

e

Water..

UnUed States

rotectionA8eSv

Wn~hington.

D.C, :244~()

Dear Mr~

Grumbles:

.

The IWU~

..

~

ç~P4~w14ar

Safety.bat~e

been

vn~riJng

with theQUietofRadiation

and

Imloor

Air and Office otGtuund Waler anU

Dnnkbig Water*~g~S:q

dtsposalatdrinking water tr~atment

r4~sithSs

contSn~

rathurn

In

pitfict,

our dlseuaions toáte have dealt withadam pmvismnsofthethuft4ocmuen;4

RqutacorfChwk to she Mnigemeut

~(RaiThaan Ra~t4Siftnmtitkfnfl’Wdr

Tnrwmeni

-~bt

adthtion~

UBIWA,

Lit

eo~mmoownb

otbcrfederahmd stale agenciesofthe

Inttngency

SteoungComrmttce on Radlazion Stwtds~haveproduced anotherdid

documentSt

deals with disposal eCscwagetnmnnent residuals1

lSCQRSaSwswmedqf

&4loacttWtyhzSewage

$lu4te’ ReconunendatIons on WQmZgCSEUI ofRtxdloaduveMøenak In

Sn~ageSMge

~j4~j~

~

?tmuay

Oáw

Thsannent

Wtnt

~

t1~.

d

entA bÔMICt on

thø 1SWC

(thWd ~PP~4:.

?!~I....~!1!*

foçag~wom

WfrWIS4

~*sea,

a pracucu

..

That

Jihndls initiated in

1984 MItt

considenbktv&uatwn by

hoUr statesgei~har,

in Illinois, disposal

ofresiduals genaatedat

a drk&rng nter izeatmentphust

oswage

tteaauentplanneqidrsthat a

permit

for

disposal be obtained torn IllinoisBPS ~betreatment

residuals ~roto be theoke4fôv4umnberofconlamtnants~

rnctu4ingra4twu~

ifibere ~ teaconto

kUew~

ratum

nxay be

present.

Residents aelnlng 5

picoOuiespergram tWu4iwn or’

less

are not

conadered uposn threatotslgtttt

radwtioo~

~ed~1uMs

ecmtaimng

inureThan S $coCndes per gramend up tp

$0

pbioCtmn per

gnuu ofradium are reviewed for

disposal alternatives

by bothiEPA an4IEMA/DwLs&on

ufNtetlear $al*.

Illinois tegulations allow that resjdpals eomalnbrg$Op

Mi~~óÈ

•~

ho buried in an Illinois 2PA approved bmdftfl

provtdedthere

$ at least 10*4 of

rmcontam*n*dsoil cover

For*gronotnie applications,, these

esiduals

maybe

4çlicd

to

copland Provided the incrcsnental

tows

in

radiwn doesnotexceed 0.1

$COC4I~Ia

per~

above naturally occuzijog b~k4pound

levels.

Retaduak contammg inure

than SU plcoCwies per

grant

of

radium are reviewed lndMdually by IBMM)ivtsion

ofNuclear

$afe~y

jbr conformance

with Thmoia Regulations

for

Radiation Protection

For ccrtvm types~o!b~g11et

concentratIon

~x*t(i~O

.‘.4iUt

.‘~c’~t

#‘&flu $~wtt

Rt,cl&nil,

gt~~3t41

..

tftl$)

907.77(.ø

•

~1A44u

~

I W. t4~aisa~s..o~&1~.

It. (iQQl(.

~S4r1

2~4~4W~e)

aA$4

‘~4S&zith

‘,t4n~

V35in,~

441fl arn47~o$

1131

•

fl(jtg,&—

54~

,‘4

Vn*VW~4Y$1 fte,s~f*IL.

S1S14

UØ~6~)

Za$t.4

~

4

~A~8

I~c*s*~ts2en

vt~ttnwa

(

14-(rawøl

~4S~

‘

~M&~U~.$-

$Swthf4~*S?~dt

~

4j4~g,,~fl~

~flLrp~3

St

~

$ttth

rc~

Sp$s~g~ckc.

ft..

~no~

in t~.

£$i4’Qi—

*

Cssw*.wn*

flsftbn~s~t

tdftr~ts’Ut~’

*

*22

$4-.(& ~B~4~clI(*

~

.4~ffl

M$ft

~X

?*9W~

c4ts)

993J~j~

Pwltfl

$1

C\tls~ts

P*cett

---

$

reskluals~

disposal may requfre

iipmenv to an. oisof.siatc A*cility that is ticos

ed to a~copt.

wth

WaStfl.

Mowing use ofmaterial with agrkuftun&1

value

to IMuers is no ditfosei.tthan the

ftindamcxttal

basis for all

federal and

state

reguintionofanyr

dioaedve materialsthat have a

borrelleitti use.

Following

wiemattonal ~w4a’u~

the beneficial use

ofthematerial

in

question

is

weighed

against the Ska hwols~td

auddose

orthncentnrtion

limits sreestab&ticd tbrtho use tithe

material to

limititS

dose

and risk to the genemipublic.

TheseDitto

into

considèntdàn ~:

number

otfators litottiding natural baekgmvnthSthepotentlal

orhuman exposures; In all

a

to

U&~PA

has aulhont~to become

involved hrr*thauon protection, thematenal in

question is already a

waste

or acontaininant.

.

:7:.

.

As tam sure younetware, USEPA has raised an issue

tepnllngtheimpacts

fr~g~~H

of tIns approach on the managementofSuperfund sates.

The

WO Of

9

W9tOV UtAUttWU

containing radioactiveconstituents for be~a~is1

apieullutiO

purposes

is

tflflbs

tSr

cleanup

of

a site with kmnvn c

miatlon

In a

Superftmd casc~

no benefiéial

ui~.e

of

nmtenal

containing radioactivity

ispurpad.

:

EuminadoafSiiaiflhi~.4jSSl~

d~s

Sófl~th1à&~s~

Jo

tàrnsóf

radium concentratIons considered protective

ofhuman health endthe e’lvxnncnt

As it

happens, theincttnental increase inuidiurnconcentration thatwouldtê puuittcd-under

xegulatcdbeneficW usecia water tteatmept

—

residual, as

Is prant~ced

Iafilinois anda

number

ofother

slates,

Isa

snail

fraction

(Dl

pCl/g)

of

the

soil

eleawip level of.5

pCi/g above

btcS.gnund levelsadopteIfor use

at

must radium

sileL

Theuseof

USEPA*sbwn 40

(WR 192

as a human 15th based Aj~plieable~

Relevant

anti RsnrableRequrcenrent(ARAR) twa widely

acceptedpractice

The monmiental

no~ease

Is

also a small ~eetion

of

the

total

radiwn

concentration

of22 pCifg in

Northern lThnozs natural background

Of

giStcáo

:~

iwoniiflM

~

btfltticiaJ

“~‘:.

~aitt~tit

:.i~.:::.::.:.~::..::~~Y..:.t5

~

jj~:

topic

ofdisposal 9t

.aI~cont$ningnd1ouuclides,~Thc

eârclndonsreãhed

In the acwtge.

~4udgc

report indicate that

The

residualsmay be uictmvoratedmtocngtdtwzl land withoutimdue

exposure concernsovertdxxujt the levels contained

in thesewagexesidnais

are at The same

levels being foundin drSdn~watevtreatmein

residuals

The issue isfbrtatconfoimded In the

iniSticta

oft USEFA argtmient that water tmaSmt

plantreildwds abmild be bandied the

saute us for wastematerials involved inaSujcrñindrathafIon

cleinuppn~eitItis not clear

why USEPA is dlflbrcndSug

between sewage treatment pInt and water treatment plant

residuals

thathavec

LJyth:~afWIMldmMflt

.

.:igjj~:

.

:~fl.

fl~P&be

ft~

appro

•

.

.

....

.

Illinois has about

100

community

water auppilesitsat are

in theprocess

of

complying with the

Radiouuultde Regulations

ad

ate relying

on

Ulinols

EPAts

advice and guidance on theproper

residual dis~ practices that can

be employed.

These systems are

in

theprocess

ofmaking

decisionson altentatives lixcompliance that involve the

conunitmern

ofmillions

of

dollars and

obligate the

communhytoanwuber

ofyearsoffinancial burden.

Water plants that employ a

processSt

generates a. solid waste (e.gt untosoft

mug

pactpftadorrafnrdrum)-cuwcntly usc

---

lend application

at

agronornic rates.

Water plants that generate

a liquid swate must use a

controlled disubanje to a

sewage

treatment plnnL

The putposeofthis letter

is torequest

aclear andconsistent position

by

USIWA

on the

issue

of

land applieatknoflb....

~i4rnJs

kr

agronomkaUybew~flcW

uses, end request thewiitten

opinksu.ofUSEPAsupptndsag thecontinued SI~fcwrem.

IWnois dispc’snlpnctes,

As nrned~

Our

illinois watersupplies areconsideringa number

o

alternativelrcatspzucnses4

One

common element ofconcern

is thetostofdiaponlof

thetreatmenti~istós.

Ahexadon ofthe

present disposalpractice could

veiy*dfl

make operation o the treabacat facilitiesuntenable

Ear

most

ofthe ssuptdies

eSS&d

us

small

sysS

~tffjfti~

~

ru.

is

thetIme fix altofustobe&Ivisedsotnniflionrofdolinare not~asted.

on ext

unscce$ble

disposal altemauve

Your

immediate attention na

reply* thismatter will be vezy ninth appreciated.

Please let rue

know if

youwelt likein discS this

issue furtheror needadditiaSti inf~rma&m

Director

---

.#1E~~

~

~

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAIPROTECTION AGENCY

WASI1IN~TON,DC.

20460

.~

pJ~o1~c,

MAR

::~

2005

OFFICE

OF

WA’TER

Ms.

Renee Cipriano~

Director

illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North

Grand

Avenue East, P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

Dear

Ms.

Cipriano;

Thank

you for

your

letter dated

September 21, 2004.

Your

letter seeks

clarification

from

the

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ondiscussions contained

in two draft guidance

documents regarding the use of

land

appitcatiQu

as a disposal option for treatment residuals.

In

this

reply, we hope to provide you

with

an update on the development ofthese documents

and

invite you to continue to

work

with

us~

to better communicate EPA’s position on the potential

use

of

land application for this material,

EPA

appreciates the difficult decisions

that drinking water systems must

make

to comply

with drinking

water

standards for radionuclides.

Affected water systems

will

need to find

alternative sources ofwater or apply

treatment

teolmologies to remove

the

radionuclides

from

their source water, balancing

source availability, treatment

and disposal

costs.

EPA recognizes

that systems will be seelingcost-effective solutions for thesemanagement issues,

but

has

consistently expressed concern about

the

potential creation ofnew contaminated sites that wonid

someday require remediation

and/or the

use ofinstitutional

or engiaeerb~g

controls.

You expressed concerns

that the

language within

the following

two

draft

documents

were

inconsistent:

(1)

A

Regulatoi”s’ Guide to the Management ofRadioactive

Residualsfrom

Drinking Water Treatment Technologies;

and

(2)

ISCORS’ Assessment ofRadioactivity in

Sewage Sludge: Recommendations on Management ofRadioactiveMaterials

in Sewage Stridge

andAsh

at Publicly Owned Treatment

Works.

We are

in the precess of revisingboth documents,

though

the ISCORS

report

is

a mu1ti.~agency

effort,

not solely that ofEPA.

Our goal

is

to insure

that

the

language

contained

withinthese

documents

is

compatible,

recognizing

that

water

treatment residuals

and

sewage sludge

are

different waste streams

and the

extent ofanalysis done

by the Agency has differed in

depth

and

complexity.

~ISCORS

is the Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation

Standards

comprised of

several Federal agencies whose

purpose

is to facilitate consensus on acceptable le~eIs

of

radiation risk to the public

and

workers,

and

promote consistent

risk

approaches in setting

and

implementing

standards

for protection from ionizing radiation.

InIorn~c

Ad~r~ss

(UAL)

•

h~1p://www.ep~i,gov

• ~nted

wlhVeg.t~b~e

O~9as~

inks o~

~e~y~ed

~~Qc

(M~iIrnuni

3~

Po~tconfthi~r)

---

2

F~PA

has

an extensive history ofmulti-year

environntcntal

and

scientific research studies

assessing

land application ofsewage sludge, which resulted in regulatory standards describing

conditions under

which such application

is acceptable (40 CFR part

503).

The multi-agency

ISCORS report focused on sewagc

sludge’s radionuclide content, and

on doso assessments to

workers and

the

public

from

a variety

ofexposure scenarios.

This report which also examined

land ap~licaiionofsewage sludge is the latest study in which

EPA

has

participated.

However,

EPA

has not explicitly evaluated

the land

application

of

drinking water treatment residuals,

regardless ofwhether the waste. contains rad~onuclides. Although

we are aware

of some research

on

this topic, wc do

not have

any

basis

to judge the benefits ofsuch land application.

Further, we

do

flOl believe

that

it would

be appropriate to rely on

the

conclusions ofthe ISCORS report

(which pertains

to sludge) when considering the land application ofdrinking water

treatment

residuals containing

radionuclides.

The.

drinking water guide was

shared

over

the summerwith a diverse set

ot’ stakehojde.rs

and

we

are

in

the

process ofconsidering their comments and making revisions

as appropriate.

The

drinking

water document does not recommend prohibiting the practice of

land

application of

drinking

water

residuals,

but does caution that the regulator should

weigh

the potential risks for

both short and long

term

scenarios.

Illinois also expressed interest in

EPA providing

written support of Illinois disposal

practices.

As you

know,

EPA

has no specificfederal regulations regarding radionuclides in

land-

applied

drinking

water residuals

and

has

not performed

the requisite

analyses.

Therefore,

we

cannot

endorse

any

state’s practices in this

area.

The Agency recognizes

that

Illinois has

put.

considerable time and

effort

into researching

the benefits

and

risks of land-applying drinking

water sludges with radiunuclides, and

we

would be interestvd in

learning more about such

practices in

the. future.

We

will

continue to work

with

Illinois

and

other stakeholders as we tackle these

complicated issues.

if you’have

further

questions,

please

let me

know

or your

staff

may

contact

Steve Heare, Director,

Drinking

Water Protection Division at (202)

564-7992.

Sincerely,.

1~i

~,4ecz~

Benjamin

H..

Grumbles

Assistarn Administrator

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that he/she has served upon the individuals

named

on the attached Notice ofFiling

true and

correct copies of

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY

BRIANANDERSONby

First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on

April 6,

2005.

---

SERVICE

LIST

Dorothy

Gunn

Clerk of the 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

Springfield,

IL 62701

Roy M.

Sasha M. Engle

Gardner Carton & Douglas

191

North Wacker Drive

R04-21

Amy

Antoniolli

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Office ofthe Illinois Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph

20th

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

Lisa Frede

CICI

2250 East Devon Avenue

Suite 239

Des Plaines, IL 60018

William Seith

Total Environmental Solutions

631

East Butterfield Road

Suite 315

Lombard, IL 60148

Albert F. Ettinger

.

Environmental Law

and Policy Center

35

East Wacker Drive

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

John McMahon

Wilkie & McMahon

8 East Main Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Dennis L. Duffield

City ofJoliet

Department ofPublic Works and Utilities

921

East Washington Street

Joliet, IL

60431

Abdul Khalique

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago

6001 West Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60804