S7~

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

~

PRO~0

JUN 1 02005

REPLvToTHEATrENTloNOF:.pC1’f~

RECERVED

Amy Antoniolli

CLERK’S

OFFICE

Illinois Pollution Control Board

JUN 4

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Dear Ms. Antoniolli:

Recently, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Illinois PCB) proposed revised water

quality standards for radium for General Use waters in Illinois. Illinois’ existing radium

standard for General Use waters is 1 pCi/L for radium 226. The proposed revision would

change the General Use standard to 3.75 pCi/L for radium 226 and 228 in all General Use

waters, except for areas within one mile of an outfall from a wastewatér treatment plant,

“receiving wastewater discharge from public drinking water supplies using ground water

with a high radium concentration” where a standard of 30 pCi/L would apply. The

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region

5

(USEPA) has informally

reviewed the Illinois PCB proposal and offers the following comments.

There are no national criteria recommendations for radium to protect aquatic life or

wildlife, and there are insufficient data to support derivation ofwater quality criteria for

either ofthese endpoints using USEPA methods. USEPA is unaware ofany scientific

evidence that would suggest that a standard set at this leyel would compromise protection

of any ofthe applicable designated uses, and does not anticipate disapproval ofthe

proposed General Use standard of3.75 pCi/L.

However, USEPA is concerned that the proposal does not include any demonstration that

30 pCi/L within a one-mile mixing zone provides a level ofprotection consistent with the

3.75 pCi/L value, nor any other independent level ofprotection for the designated use.

There does not appear to be any technical or scientific justification for creating a

categorical exemption from a water quality standard intended to protect aquatic life and

wildlife for a mile downstream ofa wastewater discharge. In addition, it is not clear how

the proposed 30 pCi/L standard would be implemented to protect possible downstream

public water supply intakes.

USEPA also has questions about the duration and frequency ofexceedance associated

with the proposed standard. As proposed, it appears that any exceedance of the standard.

would b’e considered to indicate impairment ofthe use. However, the proposed revised

standard appears to be based on exposure to wildlife from consumption of contaminated

aquatic organisms that might accumulate radium in theirtissues from exposure to radium

in the water. This type ofexposure is long-term and a more appropriate indicator ofthe

RecycIed/RecyoIable~Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 50

Recycled Paper (20 Postconsumer)

---

2

level of risk to wildlife is probably some measure ofaverage concentration over time.

Therefore, it would appear to be appropriate to express the standard as an average value

over some period oftime to reflect the concern over longer-term exposure, rather than a

value that can neverbe exceeded. For example, in the Great Lakes Water Quality

Guidance (40 CFR 132), USEPA recommends that waste load allocations based~on

wildlife standard be calculated using the 90-day, 10-year low flow as the design flaw.

However, if the Illinois PCB chooses to express the General Use standard as a long-term

average value, then the Illinois PCB should also establish a

5

pCi/L Public and Food

Processing Water Supply standard as an instantaneous maximum standard for public

water supply intakes. This would ensure that public water supplies utilizing surface

waterwould meet the Federal drinking water maximum contaminant level for radium.

Finally, we note that USEPA’s regulations define “pollutant” to include radioactive

materials, except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

See

40 CFR122.2;

Train v. Colorado Public InterestResearch Group, Inc.,

426 U.S. 1

(1976). Although it is appropriate for Illinois to adopt water quality standards for radium,

it will be necessary for the State, or USEPA where appropriate, to establish that a

particular radioactive material is a “pollutant” before taking other actions under the Clean

Water Act (CWA), such as establishing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) limitations consistent with water quality standards or listing a waterbody or

establishing or approving a total maximum daily load under Section 303(d) ofthe CWA

for a waterbody that is not achieving these standards. A radioactive material may be a

“pollutant” within the definition of40 CFR 122.2 in some fact-specific contexts, while

not being a “pollutant” within that definition in other fact-specific contexts.

Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312)

886-6758,

or Ed

Hammer ofmy staff at (312) 886-3019.

Verytruly yours,

eu—Linda Hoist, Chief

Water Quality Branch