Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF Till~.STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN TIlE

MATTER

OF:

REVISIONS TO RAIMUM WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED

NEW

35 ILL. ADMJN. CODE

§

302.307

AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADMIN.

CODE

§~

302.207

AND

302.525

)

)

)

)

R04-21

)

Rulemaking

- Water

)

)

NOTJCE OF FILING

To:

Sec Attached Service List

Please take notice that on August 15, 2005 Water Rernediation Technology LLC, by its

undersigned attorneys, electronically filcd with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board of the attached

COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF WA TER

REMEDJA

TION TECHNOLOGY LLC AT THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND FIRST

NOTJGE COMMENT,

a copy of which is served upon you.

Dated: August 15, 2005

By:

Respectfully submitted,

Water Remcdiation

Jeffrey C. Fort

Letissa Carver Reid

Dana On

Sorinenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

8000 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 876-8000

Technology LLC

THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RBCYCLED PAPER

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

BEFORE TIlE POLLLTION! CONTROL BOARD

OF TILE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSEI)

)

R04-21

NEW 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE 302.307

)

Rulemaking

-

Water

AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADMIN.

)

CODE 302.207 AND 302.525

COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF WATER REMEDIATION

TECHNOLOGY LLC AT THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND FIRST NOTICE COMMENT

Water Rcmediation Technology LLC (“WRT”), by its undersigiied attorneys, submits its

comments on the Second First Notice, issued by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (the

“Board”) on April 7, 2005. WRT applauds the Board for attempting to come tip with a

reasonable and reasoned proposal. Clearly, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the

“Agency” or the “IEPA”) had not given the Board a viable proposal. In these comments, WRT

urges the Board to: (1) remove subparagraph (d) from the proposed revision to 35 ILL. ADMIN.

CODE

§

302.207; and (2) take further action to address the improper disposal of radium residuals

by sludge application to eropland. In support hereof, WRT submits the following comments.

I.

THE BOARD’S

PROPOSAL TO

ADOPT A 3.75 pCi/L WATER

QUALITY

STANDARD

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

RECORD, BUT

THE BALANCE OF

THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO TIlE RECORD AS WELL AS TO

FEDERAL AND STATE LAW

A.

The Board’s Proposal

to Adopt a

3.75

pCiIL Water Quality Standard

is Consistent with the

Record. No Further Exception is Needed

In its April 7, 2005 Order (the “Order”), the Board made several findings with which

WRT concurs, and which are supported by the record:

• There is a need to maintain a general water quality standard protective of

both human health and riparian mammals. (P. 1 at

¶

2.)

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

• Compliance also must be reasonable for Northern Illinois Publicly O\\’ned

Treatment Works (“POTWs”) ocatcd in areas where naturally occurring

radium is prevalent in source water. (P. 1 at

¶

2.)

• The studies presented in the record demonstrate that radium can adversely

impact aquatic biota in addition to humans. (P. 12 at

1~

2.)

• Because radium is bioconcentrating and hioaccumulating and persists in

the environment for so long (Radium 226 has a half life of 1600 years),

conservative asswnptions are appropriate lo protect human health and the

environment at this time. (P. 12 at

~l

2.)

• It is appropriate to promulgate a water quality standard protective of the

environment, including riparian mammals, as well as human health. (P.

16 atlJ 4.)

• The Department of Energy Biota Dose Assessment Committee technical

standard provides sufficient scientific hasis and support for establishing a

general water quality standard for radium. (P. 16 at

¶

5.)

• 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 than any costs of compliance. (P. 22 at

¶

2.)

• The record indicates that radium negatively impacts aquatic life and

riparian mammals in addition to humans. (P. 24 at

¶

3.)

• The Agency’s proposal fails to protect the most sensitive use of the State’s

water and, accordingly, the general water quality standard for Radium 226

and 228 must he retained to afford protection to the most sensitive use, the

protection of riparian mammals. (P. 24 at

¶

3.)

• 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 Lake Michigan’s basin. (P. 24 at

¶

4.)

• The Board’s general use standard will be protective of human health and

the environment including aquatic life and riparian mammals, and assure

that high levels of radium cannot be discharged into Illinois waterways.

(P.25

at~1.)

At the time the Board went to its Second First Notice in April, the impression given the

Board by the Agency and by the municipalities was that ~y~y municipality treating its well

2

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

water supply needed regulatory relief from the I pCiTh cxisring water quality standard for

Radium 226. But there really was no data on existing water quality conditions. See Comments

Submitted on Behalf of WRT at pp.

5-6

and n. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “WRT Comment”).

The City of Joliet and other municipal agencies apparently heard this complaint, and have

endeavored to provide information regarding existing water quality conditions. WRT applauds

their efforts and have reviewed their sampling data. Indeed, WRT has incorporated that data into

this public comment as Attachment 1.

However, those data do not support the relaxation that has been requested here by Joliet

and other POTWs, nor that now is proposed by the Board. The highest level detected from six

different points in the Des Plaines River, Hickory Creek, and in the DuPage River was 1.1 pCi/T.

for Radium 226. Ihat was in an “upstream sampling” point in the Des Plaines River at Jefferson

Street. There were several samples below detection limits. But, even if the combined total for

Radium 226 and 228 was at the detection limits, the highest combined Radium level found still is

less than 2 pCi/L. This is hardly a compelling case for any regulatory relief for dischargers into

the waters of the State!

Nevertheless, WRT does support the use, by the Board, of the best information in the

record. Recall, however, that the 3,75 pCi/L is not conservative nor does it consider all potential

impacts. It specifically does not include any sediment component, nor does it include the effect

on endangered species. The record here makes manifest that sediment concentrations can

3

---

Electronic Filing, Received, C’erk’s Office, August 15, 2005

become si~niflcant,and that the buildup in particular species may exceed the DOE recommended

safety level. Therefore, the

3.75

pCi/L value should not be viewed as conservative.’

The Board has expressed concern that many communities would not be able to meet a

water quality standard of

3.75

pCi/L. But the record shows just the opposite. It appears that

most communities can meet the

3.75

pCi/L proposed standard. And that is even before one

applies the averaging factors allowed for grab and composite sampling, or before mixing in the

receiving stream. See

35

ILL. ADMIN. CODE

§

304.104.

Table 1

-

Radium Communit)’ Sample Summary for Northern Illinois

.

Community

Date

WWTP

2/04 to 5/05

.

rreatment

Influent

.

.

Combined Radium

226 and 228

59**

Effluent

.

Combined

,

Radium 226 ,ind

228

~~rc

4.2**

WWTP

2/04 to 5/05

ii~

75**

--

2.8**

4/15/05

1.9 +/-0.9

A

7/00 to 2/al

~1tl~~

6.2

2.9

~Jbotnoteddata

2/03

to 9/03

average

~n~4r$

11.7

6.2

1/04 to 6/04

8.7

5.2

B

4/28/OS

5.9 +/-0.8

5.9

Sanitary Dist.

5/10/05-

5/11/05

~s

13 ±/-1.8

1.7 i-/-O.8

Main

5/11/05

--

1.0 +/-0.5

North

5/11/05

lY~

--

0.6

4/15/05

—

1.2 +7-0.6

All data, except Averages, reproduced as reported by City of Joliet Attachment 1.

Comments Submitted on Behalf of Water Rernediation Technology LLC at 13-14, Dcc. 8, 2004; Comments

Submitted by Theodore Adams, Brian Anderson, and Charles Williams at 2-3, Dec. 8, 2004; Post-Hearing

Comments of the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center at 8, Dec. 8,2004.

4

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

* *

Averagcs for Joliet and ‘Conunnnitv A’’ plants taken tiom

Attachment I, \villiout calculating ‘range” included

for reported data. For the Joliet plants, since the upper range reported is less than rhc average of the data reported,

and because Joliet did not report how many samples “crc taken to produce the 2005 values, it is likely that a tnie

siatistical average may be less than the mean of the 3 reported values presented here for Joliet’s plants. At this level

of analysis, without knowing stream flows, more precise calculations would not change this analysis. WRT has

averaged effluent samples over roughly an annual period of time to suggest the eflèet of a longer term average.

Table 1 is taken from the data provided by the City of Joliet (Attachment 1). Looking at

Table I, one sees that over half of the POTWs appear to have average effluent values within the

proposed 3.75 pCi/L, without applying any mixing zone or considering the downstream data.

Interestingly, each of these communities with effluent below 3.75 pCi/L already has installed

treatment to meet the radium drinking water standard. Further, it appears that the Joliet East Side

Treatment Plant and Community A2 discharge into the Des Plaines River or the Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal, and that data shows no water quality standard exceedance.

Thus, only

Community B has a discharge that might not meet the proposed water quality standard after

mixing.

Community B presents somewhat of an anomaly since the effluent appears to be the same

concentration as the influent (5.9 pCi/L), and there is only one data point. One would expect

some removal of radium across a treatment works (the record previously showed removal of

20

to 80

of radium across a POTW plant, and the other treatment plants in Table 1 also

reflect some removal from influent to effluent). Even removal of less than 50

across this

treatment plant would allow Community B to meet the proposed water quality standard, at the

point of discharge

--

even if it were discharging into a zero-flow stream. Or, if Community B

discharged into a stream with low flow equal to that of the plant, an upstream concentration of

2

Given the intensity of sampling presented by Conimunity A, the only other participant with a record of such

intense sampling is the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago for its Lemont facility. We

believe that plant discharges into the Sanitary and Ship Canal, which is a secondary contact water and not subject to

the existing I pCi/L standard.

5

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

1 pCi/I. (the highest sample

result

in the ,loliet data) would allow fbr compliance after mixing.

Thus, in light of the actual water quality data collected, there is no apparent need for any

relaxation beyond the proposed standard of 3.75 pCi/L.

WRT recognizes that there may be unique site-specific conditions in Community B

(or

even Community A) that might make it difficult to meet a water quality standard

of 3.75

pCi/L.

However, site-specific issues of that sort are not apparent from the record. Moreover, unique

site-specific issues are why the Board provides for adjtisted standards and site-specific rule

changes. It is certainly no basis for setting statewide policy for a carcinogen.

B.

Even if the Data Indicated a Need for 1-ligher Discharge Levels,

Federal and State Law Precludes the “One Mile Exemption”

Approach Suggested by the Board

Proposed Section 302.207(d) eviscerates the water quality protections intended by the

3.75

In thesepCi/Llow-flowstandard,streams,as

wellterrestrialas all of theanimalsvery specificare

evenrulessnoreon likelymixingtozonesbe exposedand

relatedthanissues.in

the3

larger river settings. This proposal is contrary to the Environmental Protection Act, the Clear

Water Act, and other requirements.

WRT agrees with the U.S. EPA’s concern that the 30 pCi/L “one-mile exemption”

provides no level of protection consistent with the designated use:

There does not appear to he any technical or scientific justification

for creating a categorical exemption from a water quality standard

intended to protect aquatic life and wild life for a mile downstream

of the water 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.

See 35 ILL.

ADMIN. CODE

§

302.102 (Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and

ZIDs)

and

§

302.105 (Anti-

degradation). If discharges of a carcinogen such as radium can he excused from rules for mixing based on cost,

what about other chemicals, naturally occuning or not?

6

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

See June 10. 2005 letter to Amy Antorsioli from Linda Holtz, Chief Water Quality Branch.

(Attachment 2.) Based on our review of federal and state law, the U.S. EPA’s point should be

accepted by the Board.

The Board determined that riparian animals living in or near the water are the group of

organisms with the most sensitive usc, and further concluded that a combined concentration limit

of

3.75

pCi/L provides the appropriate level of protection. Qpinion and Order of Ill. Pollution

Control Bd., at 25, Dkt. No. R-041 (Apr. 7, 2005). However, while no evidence or testimony

other than as to the savings of the WRT technology introduced in Exhibit 3 to the Testimony of

Charles Williams was presented regarding the relative costs

for

radium removal, the Board

asserted that “POTWs in communities using high radium groundwater as the raw water source

must receive regulatory relief” Id. at 19. To provide this relief, the Board proposed a separate

limit of 30 pCi/L combined Radium 226 and 228 applicable to stream segments within one mile

of an outfall from POTWs accepting high radium wastexvater. jj This one-mile categorical

exemption is not a “mixing zone” subject to the requirements of 35 ILL. ADMII* CODE

§

302,102,

but rather a separate general use standard.4 Id. at 25. The Board ultimately concluded that the

one-mile exemption to the general use standard of

3.75

pCi/L combined radium is appropriate, as

it allows “POTWs to continue operations without incurring significant costs, while at the same

time protecting human health and the environment.” Id. at 25.

Noticeably absent from the Order, however, is any evidence to support the Board’s

assertion that the separate limit of 30 pCi/L combined radium will protect human health and the

environment. Nor does the Order contain any technological or scientific justification for creating

a different one-mile exception from general use water quality standards designed to protect

See 35 ILL. ADMrN. CODE

§

302.102, whichlimits the portion volume and area in which “mixing” is permitted.

7

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

riparian animals. Moreover, the Order does not discuss how the 30 pCi/L combined radium

standard will be implemented, nor does the Order explain how one mile, as opposed to any other

distance, provides the dilution necessary to allow POTWs to meet the 3.75 pCi/L general use

standard.

In fact, there is no such information in the record. And even if there were,

considerations of cost cannot be used to create a separate general use water quality standard

unless the Board changes the designated use of all those streams one mile below a PO’flV!

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) requires criteria designed to protect designated uses be

“based on sound scientific rationale.” 40 C.F.R.

§

131.Il(a)(1); see also People of Ill. v.

Pollution Control Bd., 103 111. 2d 441,

450-52,

469 N.E.2d 1102, 1107-08 (1984). For water

with multiple-use designations, the criteria must support the most sensitive use. 40 C.F.R.

§

131.11(a); ~

~

Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 16 F.3d

1395, 1405 (4°’Cir. 1993). Economic factors, such as the cost of compliance, are not considered

by the U.S. EPA in determining whether a state’s proposed criterion is protective of designated

uses. See Miss. Comm’n on Natural Resources v. Costle, 625 F.2d 1269, 1277

(5511

Cir. 1980).

Rather, the U.S. EPA’s review is focused on whether the proposed criterion is “scientifically

defensible and protective of the designated uses.” Natural Resources Def. Council, 16 F.3d at

1401.

In People of Ill. v. Pollution Control Bd., the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether

the Board’s decision to repeal water quality standards governing maximum levels of fecal-

coliform in recreational waters and to amend the bacterial effluent standard to apply only to

discharges within 20 miles of public beaches contravened state and federal law. 103 Ill. 2d at

Given the data only now provided by Joliet (that it had sampled its effluent in 2004 and found the levels to be less

than 6.2 pCi/L), we wonder why Joliet sought an effluent level of 60 pCi/L, nearly ten times higher in its prior

Comments!

8

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

443-44, 447-48, 469 N.E.2d at 1104-06. In support of the revised standards, the Board argued

the bacterial criterion did not serve as an appropriate measure of water quality and a 20-mile

effluent limitation adequately protected recreational uses. 103111. 2d at 446, 469 N.E.2d at 1106-

07. In addition, the Board asserted the 20-mile buffer zone was appropriate, based on testimony

from the IEPA that “more thaii 90 of the State’s wastewater treatment plants complied with the

effluent standard, but the in-stream fecal-coliform measurements exceeded the maximum about

50 of the time due to sources such as agricultural nm-off” 103 Ill. 2d at 451, 459 N,E.2d at

1108.

In striking the Board’s revisions, the Court found that the Board acted arbitrarily and

capriciously, as the revisions were not supported by evidence in the record or based on any

scientific rationale. 103 Ill. 2d at 450-52, 469 N.E.2d at 1107-08. Specifically, the record

demonstrated the primary motivation behind the revised water quality standards was to relieve a

regulatory burden by minimizing the expensive discharge chlorination process used to treat

sewage and wastewater. 103 III. 2d at 445-46, 469 N.E.2d at 1105. Moreover, considering the

appropriateness of the 20-mile buffer zone, the Court concluded that persistent violation of the

existing standard was “scarcely a reason to relax a rule which precludes licensed discharges from

further contributing to the problem.” 103 Ill. 2d at 451,469 N,E.2d at 1108.

Similarly, in Costle, the Court affirmed the U.S. EPA’s rejection of Mississippi’s

proposed general use standard for dissolved oxygen, determining that the U.S. EPA’s decision to

require the state to adopt nationally recommended criteria was based on sound scientific

rationale. 625 F.2d at 1277-78.

There, the state commission argued that Mississippi’s

topography and climate “resulted

in naturally low DO concentrations” and the U.S. EPA

“improperly failed to consider economic factors in evaluating the State’sl DO criteria.” Id. at

9

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

1274. Ilic Court explained that, while states may consider economic factors in designating uses,

“those factors are irrelevant to the scientific and technical factors to be considered in setting

criteria to meet those uses.” IcL at 1277.

Here, the Board’s proposed standard of 30 pCi/L combined Radium 226 and 228 for

areas within one mile of an outfall from POTWs receiving wastewater with high radium

concentration is not “based on sound scientific rationale,” as required by the CWA. 40 C.F.R.

§

131.1 l(a)( I). First, like the revised water quality standards governing maximum levels of

bacteria in recreational waters and the proposed 20-mile buffer zone rejected in People of Ill. v.

PollLition Control Bd., the 30 pCi/L combined radium standard was created for the sole purpose

of relieving a regulatory burden and is not supported by the record or based on any scientific

rationale. 103 Ill. 2d at 450-52, 469 N.E.2d at 1107-08. Absent from the Order is any evidence

or explanation that the 30 pCi/L combined radium limit within a one-mile mixing zone provides

the level of protection necessary to protect designated uses, much less the most sensitive usc. In

fact, the only justification offered is a one-line unsupported statement: “the Board presently

believes that a I-mile segment of the stream should provide an adequate mixing zone for POTW

discharges to comply with the proposed general use standard of 3.75 pCi/L.” Opinion and

Order of Ill. Pollution Control Bd., Dkt. No. R-041, p. 25 (Apr. 7,2005). Without g~yadditional

justification, the 30 pCi/L one-mile limit cannot be reconciled with the 3.75 pCi/L value.

Second, the existence of a naturally occurring radium belt in Northern Illinois is not a

relevant consideration in setting criteria to protect designated uses. See Costle,

625

F.2d at 1274.

In Costle, the Court affirmed the U.S. EPA’s disapproval of water quality standards designed to

accommodate low levels of dissolved oxygen naturally occurring in Mississippi waterways. j4~

at 1278. Specifically, the Court held that economic factors, such as compliance issues, are

10

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

“irrelevant to the scientific and technical factors to he considered in setting criteria” to protect

designated uses.

Id. at 1277. Thus, while the Board may have properly considered the

economics of a community in designating water uses, it cannot consider this factor in setting

criteria protective of those uses.

a

Moreover, while states are not required to develop a single criterion protective of humans

and the environment, any criterion established must be protective of the water’s most sensitive

designated

use. 40 C.F.R.

§

131.11(a); see also Natural Resources Del Council, 16 F.3d at

1405. The record contains no evidence that the 30 pCi/L limit provides protection for either

purpose; indeed, the Board found that the 3.75 pCi/L standard was necessary and appropriate.

Finally, the record shows there is no need for this exemption zone at all. There is no

clear evidence demonstrating that ~y communities cannot comply with the 3.75 pCi/L standard

after mixing. Further, there is no evidence that treatment technology to meet the existing, or the

proposed, combined radium water quality standard is not affordable. Nor is there any evidence

demonstrating that applying a one-mile exemption will make a difference and allow compliance.

The Joliet data entitled “Well Sample Results for Wells Pumped to Storm Sewers with

No Dilution in the First Mile Downstream” is unclear as to its relevance. The data shows that

even after a one-mile exemption zone, water quality would not meet the 3.75 pCi/L standard.

But the water sampled is obviously not treated drinking water or a POTW discharge. All potable

water will be treated in the future and any direct pumping will not be at elevated levels.

Therefore, this information appears to indicate that the exemption zone concept will not allow

for compliance for disehargers into zero-flow or low-flow streams.

Accordingly, the Board should delete the proposed standard because it is not supported

by the record, not scientifically defensible, and not protective of the most sensitive designated

11

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

use, i.e. riparian animals. The one—mile exeniptioii zone is contrary to federal and stale law, and

unsupported by the record. WRT urges the Board to delete proposed subparagraph (d) from the

proposed Section 302.207.

II.

THE AGENCY FAILED TO ADDRESS TIlE RESIDUAL SOLIDS OR SLUDGE;

THE iSSUE MUST BE ADDRESSED

IN TIllS

PROCEEDING

In its original comments, WRT urged the Board to proceed carefully and authorize relief

only for those communities who needed it. WRT continues to recommend that policy to the

Board. But, while WRT supports the Board’s choice of the 3.75 pCi/L standard, there remains a

critical issue that \VRT urges the Board to address hy opening an inquiry docket, or present a

warning conunent on the amended rule.

A.

The U.S. EPA’s Policy is to Require Disposal of Radioactive Solid

Residues into Landfills

Since the August 2004 hearing, the Agency has asserted that “the sludge issue” is not a

part of this proceeding. But that issue actually is

~

major issue in this proceeding. It has been

obvious since the October 2004 hearing that how the residual radionuclides are managed is part

and parcel of this proceeding because it affects the decision made for communities to install

technology to meet the drinking water standard.

If the Board has any doubts, consider the following sequence:

On September 21, 2004, then Director Cipriano wrote a letter to the U.S.

EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water. The letter

stated that about 100 community water suppliers in Illinois “are in the

process of complying with the Radionuclides Regulations

. . .

and are

relying on Illinois EPA’s advice and guidance on the proper residual

disposal practice that can be employed. These systems are in the process

of making decisions on alternatives for compliance that involve the

commitment of millions of dollars and obligate the communities to a

number of years of financial burden

12

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

See Atlachment 3 hereto. p. 2. Several months later, the U.S. EPA replied:

U.S. EPA appreciates the difficult decisions that drinking water

systems must make to comply with drinking water standards for

radionuclides

. . .

U.S.

EPA recognizes that systems will he

seeking cost-effective solutions for these management issues, but

has consistently expressed concern about the potential creation of

new contaminated sites that would someday require remediation

and/or the use of institutional or engineeringcontrols.

See Attachment 4 hereto, p. 1 (emphasis added; quotations omitted). The U.S. EPA is advising

Illinois that land applying sludge with solid residuals from radionuclide treatment is a risky

choice, and one not approved by the U.S. EPA.

The same view is contained in the U.S. EPA’s recently released manual, “A Regulators’

Guide to the Management of Radionuelide Residuals from Drinking Water Treatment

~1’echnologies”

(the

“Guide”).

The

Guide

is

available

at

epa.gov/safewater/reads/pdfs/regulators guide final.pdf.

At page 14, in language nearly

identical to the March 4 letter, the U.S. EPA states:

U.S. EPA is aware that sonic states allow land spreading or soil

mixing as an alternative to landfill disposal for water treatment

residuals. One central concern with land spreading is the potential

for build-up or movement of radionuelides to create contaminated

sites that would require remediation and/or use of institutional and

engineering controls.

(Emphasis supplied.) And if there were any doubt that the U.S. EPA disapproves radionuelide

residuals from water treatment being applied to crop land, then consider the Guide’s “Decision

Tree 1: Solids Residuals Disposal.” See Attachment

5

hereto, p. 17 of the Guide. All of the

solids disposal options in Decision Tree 1 are to some sort of a landfill: a Low Level Radioactive

Waste (“LLRW”) landfill, ahazardous waste, RCRA Subtitle C landfill, or an authorized “mixed

waste” landfill.

This issue should not be ignored by the Board. It is a critical issue not only for human

health and the enviroimient, but also of fiscal prudence for Illinois communities in evaluating all

13

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

the eeononue and technological risks in deciding how to comply. While it would have been

better if the U.S. EPA had issued these guidelines sooner, the U.S. EPA clearly is proceeding

toward regulatory action. Water treatment plants built on the assumption that radioactive

residuals may be disposed of in any maimer now allowed may be faced in the firture with an

expensive retrofit

--

or expensive landfill disposal costs.

B.

Recent Information Underscores the Public health Threat of Discrete

Radioactive Particles

The effect of the action of the IEPA and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency

(the “IEMA”) to date is to leave unregulated discrete radioactive particles when handled by

municipal treatment workers. These treatment workers are not being protected currently by the

IEMA, and it appears that the 1EPA is not desirous of becoming involved in these materials. As

the Board knows, WRT did suhmnit its technology to licensing by the IEMA. (Exhibit 17.) No

other technology has done so. And the IEMA is not taking action to regulate municipal sources

even if they produce high-level radioactive materials.

I’wo recent reports underscore the importance of the Board protecting public health and

the environment by addressing what happens to the radioactive materials once they are removed

from the well supply. Attachment 6 is a statement issued by the Health Physics Society and the

Organization of Agreement States, These entities are intimately involved in protecting human

health and the environment with respect to radioactive materials. Consider their assertions:

• Discrete sources of technical enhanced natural occurring radioactive

material (“TENORM”) and accelerated produced radioactive material

should be uniformly regulated throughout the United States. TENORM is

defined as “naturally occurring radioactive material that has been removed

from the natural environment and has concentrated levels greater than

found in the natural environment due to human activities (indoor Radon,

because it is not technologically enhanced, should be specifically exempt

from this provision for discrete sources).”

14

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

•

. . .

the term ‘discrete’

. . .

should include both an activity limit and a

concentration limit on any such source, such as the radiological hazards

are controlled in a manner consistent with other sources of radioactive

material posing the same radiological hazard.

• Disposal

. . .

should be allowed at facilities licensed by the NRC,

. . .

in

such a manner that (a) does not change the definition of low level

radioactive waste and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985; and (h) does not adversely effect the

implementation of congressionally approved Compacts... thus preventing

such sources from becoming “orphan” from disposal.

(See Attachment 6 hereto, p. 2.)

The most recent review of the toxicology associated with radioactive particles confirms

the need for continued vigilance. The National Academy of Sciences just published its updated

review of health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. (Sge Attachment 7.)

This report continues to support the stringency of the U.S. EPA’s rules for exposure, which

require disclosure to affected members of the public (and non-nuclear plant workers) of exposure

to elevated levels of radiation. This disclosure requirement

--

to workers and members of the

public alike

--

is an important safety precaution. It is one of the requirements that comes with

being licensed by the IEMA. It is a requirement that WRT undertakes by being licensed by the

TEMA, but those same risks exist for all those communities that are “treating” well water to meet

the federal drinking water standard for radionuclides.

The U.S. EPA also is warning that treatment plants with elevated radionuclide levels

should take safety precautions so as to not endanger their workers:

• Systems need to determine whether a radiation problem exists and, if it

does take appropriate safety precautions to prevent or limit water system

staff members’ exposure to radiation. For example, if a system tested its

treated water 2 years ago and found levels of 3pCi/L for radium-226 and

228,

a radiation survey of the facility would be prudent.

15

---

Electronic Filing, Received. Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

•

if radionttclidcs or radiation have been found in drinking water or at a

system, having operators who arc trained in treating for radionuclides, and

handling, disposing of, and transporting TENORM waste, is highly

recommended.

• Shower after exposure to potentially radioactive materials and launder

work clothing at the system if possible. If laundering equipment is not

available, workers should deep and wash work clothing separately and

avoid wearing contaminated clothing into the home. Work boots or shoes

should be wiped and cleaned after potential contamination. They should

stay at tile system or riot be worn into the home.

See Guide at pp. 22, 24, 25 (Attachment 2). Since radium cannot be smelled, tasted or

felt, workers will not know that they are being exposed to a carcinogen, unless notified.

The

U.S.

EPA has documented its concerns relating to radionuclide exposure for POTW

workers:

U.S.

EPA is concerned about TENORM for three reasons. First,

TENORM has the potential to cause elevated exposure to

radiation.

Second, people may not be aware of TENORM

materials and need information about them. Third, industries that

generate these materials may need additional guidance to help

manage and dispose of TENORM in ways that protect people and

the environment and are economically sound.

(Attachment 9.) The U.S. EPA has listed some ten categories of activities where TENORM is

known to occur.6

Of

all these listed, filters at water treatment plants have the highest radiation

loading

--

40,000 pCi/g ~ average! See Attachment 10; TENORM Source, Summary Table, at

www.epa. gov/radiationltcnormlsource table.htm.7

6

The other wastes with TENORM of concern to EPA are Geothermal Energy Waste Scales, Petroleum, Aluminum,

Coal and Coal Ash, Copper Waste Rock, Phosphate Ores and Phosphogypsum, Rare Earths, Titanium Ores,

Uranium and Zircon. (See Attachment

10.)

The high levels of Radium 226 and 228 on water treatment sludge is 11,686 pCilg. Such a level is several times

higher than the level of radiation in the Uranium tailings that, after being used as backfill at Reed-Kepiar Park in

West Chicago, had to be removed and disposed of (See Attachments 11 and 12.) These data demonstrate that in

tight of the persistence and extended half-life ofradium residuals, repeated spreading of sludge with elevated radium

residuals on land could lead to a CERCLA cleanup.

16

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

These statements by the U.S. EPA support and are consistent with the exhibits and

testimony provided to the Board by WRT.8 Clearly, the discrete radioactive particles that can be

produced by treating of radium-contaminated well water are capable of producing the same

radioactive activity as those materials now regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(“NRC”) and Agreement States. By repealing the I pCi/L limit for Radium 226, the Board

should not open the door for the disposal into waterways of sludge that was previously illegal

and regulated. WRT urges the Board to insert a warning comment into its rules with

Section 302.207 by calling attention to the Guide. In the alternative, the Board could initiate

inquiry hearings on the adequacy of existing regulation programs for radionuclides.9 The IRPA

promised a year ago to have sludge rules proposed to the Board: the unique issues involving

radionuclide treatment would appear well-suited to a separate consideration. We submit that the

Illinois communities would benefit from such a procedure.

The present regulatory approach, by the IEMA and the IEPA, ignores the issue. It allows

POTW management to decide whether to expose its workers to elevated radium levels

--

without

disclosure to them.’° It allows the POTW management to decide that TENORM particles will be

The EPA recommends against land application of any sludge containing elevated radium levels. (Tr. August 24,

2004 p. 24 lines 7-8; see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab I.) The EPA is investigating the issues associated with elevated

levels of radium in filtrate and backwash from treatment of groundwater for drinking water consumption. (Tr.

August 25, 2004 p. 24 lines 8-10; see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab 1.) ihe guidance from the EPA supports a

prohibition on the discharge of filtrate and backwash with elevated levels of radium from a drinking water treatment

?lant. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 24 lines 11-12; see ~

Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab I.)

Further, pursuant to Section 651 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, discrete sources of Radium 226 and discrete

sources of naturally occurring radioactive material will now be regulated by the NRC, and hence of Agreement

States such as Illinois. The forthcoming rules may have a direct impact on certain treatment systems for potable

water in northeastern Illinois.

~°

An unintended consequence of sewer disposal is that, in the absence of testing, monitoring and notice, sewer

workers are not made aware of their exposure to radiation or trained or equipped to handle it. (Tr. August 25, 2004

p. 22 lines 18-21; see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab F.) Radioactive particles, disposed of in the sanitary sewer, have

created significant economic and operations impacts to the POTWs.

~

Hearing Exhibit

4

Tab 8.; Tr. August 25,

2004 p. 12 lines 6-16; see

Hearing Exhibit 4 Table I p. 7.) ISCORS did not model unique isolated instances in

which higher levels of radium were released into sanitary sewers. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 23 lines 13-20; see also

Hearing Exhibit 4 Tabs D & F.) WRT/ARS demonstrated, via their POTW operations data and dose modeling

17

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office; August 15, 2005

in its sludge that il distributes on farrmmland

——

without notice to the farmers, :

This lack of

disclosure vitiates any informed consent.

These appear to be the unintended consequences of the Board’s effort to be “reasonable”

with regard to the PO’I’Ws. WRT is concerned that the desire to minimize near leim costs will

create longer term liabilities. And, in any event, there is no evidence in the record that removal

of radioactive particles from sewer discharges (and hence from going onto the land or exposure

by the treatment

C.

The

plantBoard’sworkers)Proposalwill cost

Violatesany

more.12

Applicable Illinois

Law Due to Its

Failure to Address the Re-Introduction of Radioactive Residuals into

the Environment Following ‘treatment of Well Water

‘rhe Board acknowledges the deleterious effects of radium as a bioconcentrating,

hioaceumulating, human carcinogen and mutagcn. Radium 226 has a half life of 1600 years; the

partiees do not dilute; therefore, radioactive particles discharged in PO1’Ws will perpetually

remain highly radioactive. The cumulative impacts of radiation exposure place humans and

biota in severejeopardy.

The General Assembly has provided unambiguous instruction to prevent the intentional

release of radioactive particles into sewers and waters of the State of Illinois. The Illinois

Pollution Prevention Act, the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act, the Illinois Low Level

approach similar to ISCORS, that POTW operators’ exposure could be greater than the 100 mRem/yr limit without

the radon contribution, with the radon contribution included, the POTW worker dose would approach and could

exceed that of a nuclear powerplant radiation worker (5,000 mRenilyr). (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 23 lines 13-20; see

also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab J.)

Radium concentration (ISCORS data) in POTW influent and concentrated sludge has been shown to result in

elevated potential POTW worker and public exposures. A POTW sludge loader is estimated to receive 420

mRem/yr dose (from radium/radon) at sludge concentrations of Radium 226 and Radium 228 of 13 and 5.1 pCi/g,

respectively. (ISCORS dose modeling.) This is greater than 4 times the allowable limit to the general population

(100 mkenilyr). (Tr. August 25, 2004 pp. 14-17; see 41~QT. Adams August 11,2004 Pre-filed testimony TableS p.

16.)

2

.

Mr. Williams (WRT) states 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

. . .

will save $2 and $2.6 million, respectively, over the life of their treatment technology

contract.”

~

April 7,2005 Board Opinion and Order at p. 21, ¶ 5; see also Hearing Exhibit

5.)

18

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

Radioactive Waste Management Act, (he Ilinois Endangered Species Act and the Environmental

Protection Act all evidence the legislature’s clear intent. The Board should fulfill that intent and

prohibit the release of radioactive particles, formed by the treatment of groundwater, into

POTWs and the environment of Illinois.

For example, the Illinois Pollution Prevention Act was enacted to reduce the disposal and

release of toxic or hazardous materials.

(415

ILCS

115/5(c)

(2004).) It unambiguously states

that treatment in an environmentally sound manner should be utilized. The disposal and

treatment of toxic or hazardous materials is allowed

only

as a

last resort,

when treatment of such

materials is not possible. (415 ILCS 115/5(b) (2004).) Indeed, one of the Board’s purposes is to

stimulate pollution prevention strategies. Allowing radioactive particulates to be flushed down a

sewer is contrary to that Act.

Moreover, the Illinois Endangered Species Act also precludes adoption of the proposed

rule. This Act prohibits the possession, taking, disposal or transport of specimens or products of

animals or species of plants in danger of extinction and statewide extirpation. (520 ILCS 10/I

(2004).) Here, the record demonstrates that several endangered species are downstream of the

communities that will be treating their radium water supply. (See Hearing Exhibits 1, 2 and 14

Tabs A & E.) All State and local government agencies are directed to enter into a consultation

process with the Department of Natural Resources to evaluate whether actions authorized,

funded or carried out by the agencies are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Illinois-

listed endangered and threatened species or are likely to result in the destruction or adverse

modification of the designated essential habitat of such species. (520 ILCS 10/11(2004).) That

consultation has yet to occur. (See Hearing Exhibit 13.)

19

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

‘rhe Environmental Protection Act provides that in rulemaking under Section 27(a). such

as this one, the Board shall consider various factors in making a decision, including the technical

feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of

pollution.

The Board need not conclude that compliance with the proposed regulation is

“technically feasible and economically reasonable” before it can adopt such a regulation.

Monsanto Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 67 Ill. 2d 276, 292-93, 367 N.E.2d 684, 690-91

(1977). If the Board, in its discretion and based on its technical expertise, detennines that a

proposed regulation is necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act, it may adopt technology-

forcing standards that are beyond the reach of existing technology. 67 III. 2d at 292-93, 367

N.E.2d at 684, 690-91. In the instant matter, the undisputed testimony is that there are a number

of alternative technologies that can achieve the required standard. It is clear to us that the Board

failed to consider all of the available information in the record regarding compliance, as required

by

Section 27(a) of the Act,’3 (S~ n.12 regarding the lower or competitive cost of treatment

systems that do not dispose of radium to the sewer or streams.)

Thus, the General Assembly provides clear instruction to prevent the release of

radioactive materials, and especially radioactive particles, into the sewers and waterways of the

State of Illinois. Illinois courts consistently have struck down rules adopted by the Board where

the Board has acted contrary to directives established by the General Assembly. The clear policy

‘~

The Board did not consider the data submitted by WRT, including but not limited to the comments of charles

Williams on December 7, 2004: “The municipal workers in a full scale plant are exposed to only a small increase

above background and will be trained and advised of that exposure

. .

The three inillirem exposure represents

only 3 percent of the maximum exposure allowed to a member of the general public from a licensed facility.” The

Board did not consider this info in referencing the WRT technology. Opinion and Order of Ill. Pollution Control

Bd~Dkt. No. R-041, p. 20 (Apr. 7, 2005). Joliet’s own consultant found that “none of the processes significantly

changed the radon concentrations in the water.”

20

---

Electronic Filing, Received. Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

of the Slate of Illinois is to prohibit the intentional release of radioactive particles into the public

sewers and waterways.

III.

CONCLUSION

WRT recommends that the Board follow the As Low As Reasonably Achievable

(“ALAR,A”) principle. The ALARA principle is a fundamental objective of all DOE, U.S. EPA,

NRC and State radiation projects. Program procedures and engineering controls are used to

maintain exposures to workers and public ALARA. Allowing the disposal of radium residue

into the sanitary sewer resulting in urmecessary exposures to POTW workers, the public and the

biota rather than requiring treatment (engineering control) and disposal (via permitted RCRA or

licensed NORM or LLRW disposal facility procedure) is inconsistent with the ALARA

philosophy. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 23 line 20; p. 24 line 6; see also Hearing Exhibit 4 Tab I.)

Not only do the absorptive media technologies, such as that of WRT, provide a total removal in a

cost-effective manner, but all of the competing technologies can be re-engineered to provide a

similar total solution. (Tr. August 25, 2004 p. 47 lines 2 1-24 and p.48 line 1.)

Dated: August 15, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

By:__

~pIof

the Attomey( for Water Remediation

echnology LLC

Jeffrey C. Fort

Letissa Carver Reid

Dana Or

Sonnensehein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

8000

Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 876-8000

I

1923832v6

THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

21

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

CE RTL FICATE OF SERVICE

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

on the attached Service List true and correct copies of

COMMEN1S

SUBMITTED ON

BEHALF OF WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY LLC AT THE CLOSE OF

THE

SECOND FIRST NOTICE COMMENT

by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on August 15,

2005.

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

DRAFT OF 8/4/05

Due to

he Filed 8/15/05j

SERVICE 1.1ST

R04-21

Richard Lanyon

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 E. Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

John McMahon

Wilkie & McMahon

I E.

Main Street

#214

Deborah J. Williams

Stefanie N. Diers

IEPA

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield. IL 62794-9276

Roy M. Harsch

Sasha M. Engle

Gardner Carton & Douglas

191 N. Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago, IL

60606-1698

Claire A. Manning

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP

700 First Mercantile Bank Building

205 5. Fifth Street

P.O. Box

2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35 E. Wacker Drive

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

Matthew J. Dunn

RoseMarie Cazeau

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188W. Randolph,

20th

Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Champaign, IL 61820-3615

Dorothy M. Gunn

Amy Antoniolli

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100W.

Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

IL 60601

Dennis L. Duffield

City of Joliet, Department of Public Works

and Utilities

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 6043 1

William Richardson

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

Lisa Frede

CICI

2250 E. Devon Avenue, Suite 239

Des Plaines, IL 60018

William D. Seith

Total Environmental Solutions

631 E.

Butterfield Road

Suite 315

Lombard, IL 60148

Abdul Khalique

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago

6001 W. Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60804

---

A’I’i’A(:lli\’IENT I

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

cE~

1191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700

Wa,~IflQsoknIoc.

Gardner Carton & Douglas

Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698

Albany, NY

143125691000 I

Fax312

569 3000

ROY M. HARSCI-J

www.gcd.com

(312) 569-144

Fax: (312) 569-3441

rhursch@gcd.com

July 29, 2005

Jeffrey C. Fort

Letissa Carver Reid

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal

8000 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, illinois 60606-6404

Re:

14 04-21 Radium Sampling Results

Dear Mr. Fort and Ms. Reid;

As set forth in Joliet’s Motion for additional time, please find the enclosed Summaryof

Radium Samples forVarious Communities in Northern Illinois.

Very truly yours,

Roy M. Harsch

RMH/dnie

Enclosure

cc:

Service List

Gardner rsrton & Oo,JØn

ILP

CHO2I

22399673.1

---

‘7/27/2005

Summary

of Radium Samples for Various communities in Northern Illinois

Page 1 of 4

Date

Radium 226

Radium 228

Combined Radium

Influent Samples

Joliet Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant

Feb-04

3

5.3

8-3

8-Mar.-04

1.9

4.3

6.2

12-May-05

1.1

+1-

0.6

2.2

+1-0.7

3.3

+1-1.3

0

O

Joliet Westaide Wastewater Treatment Plant

1t)

Feb-04

2.9

5.1

8

8-Mar-04

3.9

6.1

10

12-May-05

1.8

+1-

0.6

2.7

+1-OS

4.5

=

CornmunityA

Jul-00

4.3 +/-0.8

1.4

+1-1.0

5.7

+1-1.0

cC

8-Feb-01

21+1-0.1

3.9 +/-0.1

6.6

+1-0.1

-

22-Feb-01

2.6

+1-

0.1

3.6

+1-

0.1

62

+1-

0.2

Dec-02

5.2-8.8

NA

3.7-65

Note 1

Jan-03

0.2-2.2

NA

26-42

Note 1

O

Feb-03

5.5 +/-1.9

6.0

1t6 +/6.0

Mar-03

3.1

+1-1.2

5.6 +1-1.2

8.7

+1-2.4

Apr-03

5.7

+1-1.9

8.5

+1-

3.0

14.2

+1-45

May-03

3.24 +/-1.48

8.22

+1-

4.23

11.46

+1-

5.71

Jun-03

7.38

-.-1-

2.03

8.82 +1-2.54

162

+1-

4.57

-

Jul-03

6.85

+1-

1.9

1.76

+1-1.6

8.61

+1

3.5

-c

Aug-03

2.9

+1-0.9

6.1

+1-1.7

9+1-1.6

Sep-03

7.47

+1-

1.7

6.19

+1-

1.6

13.66

÷1-32

Jan-04

5,75 +1- 1.6

8.12 ÷/-2.1

13.87 +1-3.8

o

Feb-04

5.25

+1-

1.4

3.13 -‘-1-0.96

8.38

-‘-1-

2.36

Apr-04

3.87

+1-1.1

1.86

+1-011

5.73 +1-1.81

-

Jun-04

3,12

+1-

0.9

3.55

-‘-1-

0.88

6.67

+1-

1.78

0)

community

B

28-Apr-05

3

+1-

0.2

2.9

+1-

0.6

5.9

+1-

0.8

U-

o

DeKaib Sanitary District

11-May-05

0.8

+1-

0.5

4.5

+1-

1.3

5.3

+1-

1.8

C

0

S.-

C-)

CD

W

Prepared by

City

of Joliet

Department of Public WorKs and Utilities

---

7/27/2005

Summary of Radium Samples for Various Communities in Northern Illinois

Page 2 of 4

Date

RadIum 226

Radium 228

Combined Radium

Effluent Samples

Joliet Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant

Feb-04

1 .2

3.9

5.1

o

8-Mar-04

2.6

3.5

6.1

12-May-Os

07

1.5 +1-0.7

1.5 +1-1.4

Joliet Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant

(0

Feb-04

2

2.9

4.9

8-Mar-04

0.9

1

1.9

12-May-05

0.6

+1-0.6

1.6

÷1-0.7

1.5 +/-1.3

C

Community

A

O

Jul-00

22+/-0.8

1.5

+1-09

3.7

+1-1.0

8-Feb-01

2.1

“-/-

0i

1.0

3.1 +1- 0.2

o

22-Feb-01

c09

1.0

t9

U)

Dec-02

3.0-5.2

NA

3.3-4.9

Note 1

-~

Jan-03

2.7-5.1

NA

2.7-4.3

Note 1

0)

Feb-03

3.6

+1-

IS

‘3.8

7.4

÷11.4

Mar-03

2.8

÷1-1.2

2.9

+1-

1.2

5.7

+1-

2.4

Apr-03

2.8

÷1-1.9

4.2

~f-

1.8

7.0

÷1-3.0

May-03

2.26

+1-1.48

3.97

÷1-1.66

623

÷1-

2.63

Jun-03

2.33

+1-

0.84

312

÷1-1.76

6.05

+1-S

Jul-03

1.96 ÷/-0.7

3.12+/-1.4

5.08

+1-2.1

Aug-03

3.4

+1-

1.0

3.4

+1-

1.2

6.8

-‘-1-

2.2

Sep-03

2.88 i-/- 0.75

2.47

±1-1.1

5.35

±1-

1.85

-

Jan-04

3.01

+1-

‘Li

122 +/-1.2

6.23 +/-2.3

Feb-04

2.74

1-1-

1.0

1.94

-i-f-

0.75

4.68 +/-1.75

Apr-04

3,43

+1-

1.1

0.54

÷1-0.53

3.97

-i-f-

1.63

ft.

Jun-04

3.21

~1-0.96

2,69

÷1-0.69

5.9

+1-

1.65

0

C

0

0

U)

uJ

Prepared by

City of Joliet

Department of Public Worics and Utilities

)

---

-

7/27/2005

Summary

of Radium Samples for Various Communities In

Northern

Illinois

Page 3 of 4

Date

Radium 226

Radium 228

Combined Radium

community B

28-Apr-05

3

2.9

5.9

Romeoviile

15-Apr-05

0.7

+/-

0.1

0.5

-~-/-

0.5

1.2

-i-i-

0.6

Monmouth North

11-May-05

0.6

6.6

7.2

LCD

o

Monmouth Main

Il-May-CS

1.0

÷1-0.5

6.0

7.0

0

DeKaib Sanitary District

10-May-05

0.3

1.4

±1-D.5

1.7 +/- 0.8

LtD

Channahon

15-Apr-05

1.1

~I- 0.9

079

+1-

0.83

1.9 -‘1- 0.9

~

Upstream

Samples

C

DesPlaines River at Jefferson Street

12-May-05

1.1

0.7

1.1

Hickory Creek Upstream Joliet ESWW1

12-May-05

0.1

0.7

0,8

ti::

0

to

Downstream Samples

Desrlaines River at Brandon Road

12-May-05

0.7

0.7

1.4

C-)

-

DesPlaines River at 1-55

12-May-05

cOl

0.7

0.8

Romeoville, 1 mile downstream

15-Apr-05

0.1

+1-

0.1

0.5

+1-

0.4

0.6

+1-

05

‘1)

C.)

C)

0)

C

LI..

C-)

C

0

C-)

C)

W

Prepared by

City

of Joliet

Department

of Public

Works and Utilities

---

7/27/2005

Summary of Radium Samples for Various Communities in Northern Illinois

Page 4 of 4

Date

Radium 226

Radium

228

Combined Radium

Other sites

DuPage River at Caton

Farm Road

12-May-05

0.I

0.6

0.7

IC)

Well Sample Results for Wells pumped to storm sewers with no dilution in the first mile downstream

0

0

CN

-

Williamson Ave

18-May-05

9.9

+1-

0.3

108

i-I-

1.1

20.7 +/- 1.4

9-D

18-May-OS

5.5

-i-f-

0.2

7.7

+1-

1~O

13.2 +/-1.2

—

10-0

18-May-05

6.4

+1-

0.3

7.7

-i-I-

1.1

14.1 +/-1.4

11-0

18-May-05

5.6

+/-03

5.4 H- 0.9

11.0+/-12

12-0

18-May-05

7.7

÷1-0.3

9.2

÷1-

1.2

16.9

+1-

1.5

=

15-0

18-May-05

2.9 +1-02

4+1-8

6.9 +1-1.4

C

17-0

18-May-05

25+1-0.1

5.1 +/-0.6

8.0 +/-0.7

18-fl

18-May-05

5.6

--/-

0.3

4.5

-i-/-

0.7

10.3

-i-I-

1.4

21

18-May-05

3.2

+1-02

2.9 ÷/-0.5

6.1 +/-0.7

o

Note 1

Due to insufficient sample volume, results are reported as a range. Results are based on

statistical average results for multiple analysis

(I)

U)

C-)

-D

U)

C)

0

C)

0)

C

0

C

0

0

(1)

W

Prepared by

City of Joliet

Department

of Public Wor~sand Utilities

)

---

JUT 0. /uU7

j:

Livu

(SC. 1. ATTACHMENT 2

Electronic ‘Filinq, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

~

5,-,,

UNITED STATES ENVIROP4MH4TM. PROThCTION AGENCY

REGION

5

77

WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

\

/

CHICAGO, IL

60604-3590

-IL ~

JUN 1 0 2005

PEPLYTOTHCMTENTIONQF:

eI

RECEIVED

WQ-161

r

Amy Antoniofli

CLERK’S OFFICE

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

iii

100W. Randolph,

Suite 11-500

~uN

142005

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

PolIut~an

Qontro~Board

Dear

Ms. Antortiolli:

Recently, the fihincia 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 pCL’L for rarlium 22(1. The proposed revision would

change

the Generai

Use standard to

3.75

pCVL 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 ahigh radium

concentration”

where a

standard

of 30

pCiJt

would

apply. The

United States

Environmental Ptotection Agency, Region

5

(USEPA) bat infonnafly

reviewed the

illinois PC~proposal

and

offers the following comments.

There

are no

national criteria reeommenda~ons

for

radium to protect

aquatic life or

wildlife,

and there are

insufficient

data to

support derivation of water quality

criteria

for

either of

these

endpoints using USEPA methods. USEPA is unaware of

any scientific

evidence that would suggest that

a standard

set at

this

leye) wouid compromise protection

of any

of

the applicable

desicnated tines, and does

not

anticipate

disapproval

of

the

proposed General

Use

standard of

3.75

pCiiL.

However, USEPA is concerned that the proposal does not include

any

demonstration

that

30

pCitL

within a one-mile

mixing zone provides a level otproteotion

consistent whit

the

375

pCi,’L

valu;

nor

any

other

independent level

of

protection 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 aquaticbfe

and

wildlife tbr a mile

downstream

of

a wastewater

discharge. In addition, it is

not

ckarhow

the proposed 30 pCiIL standard would be implemented to protect possible downstream

public

water

supply

intakes.

USEPA also has questions

about the duration and fraquencyof exceedanco associated

with the p~uposedstandard, As proposed, it

appears that any

exceedance ofthe

standard.

would b~considered to

indicate

inipainnent ofthe us& However, the proposed revised

standard

appears

to

be based on exposure to wildlife from

corksumption of contaminated

aquatic organisms

that

might

accumulate radium In their

tissues from exposure

to

radium

in the

water.

This type

ofexposure

is long-term

and a more

appropriate indicator

of

the

FkqyqIadIRcflyoI.IC

• P,1r~,dwth VøpoLab~.Q~~ad Iak~on ~3 P~e~dedPaMI ~O Patcnaur,w)

---

uur~, 0. LUU~ i~1JbIV

~UiNNL;N.5Ubt~iN

NO. l915

P. 4

Electronic FiIin~,Received. Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

2

-

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

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

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

value

that

can never be

exceeded.

For example, in the Great Lakes Water

Quality

Guidance

(40

CFR

132),

USEPA

recommends that waste load allocations basedon

wildlife standard

be

calculated using

the

90-day,

10-year low flow

as the

design

116w,

However, if the Illinois PCB chooses to express the

General Use standard a~a long-term

average value, then the Illinois PCB should also establish a

5

pCIJL Public and Food

Processing Water Supply standard as an instantaneous rnaxirnuni standard for public

water supply intakes. This would ensure that public water supplies utilizing ~urface

water would 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. Sce

40 CFRI22.2;

Train -v. Colorado PuWic Interest Research Group,

Inc,

426 U.S. I

(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) of the CWA

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

“pollutant” within the definitionof 40 CER 122-2 in some fact-specific contexts, while

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312) 886-675 S, or Ed

Hammer ofmy staff, at (312) 886-3019.

r

Verytruly yours,

J-tLinda Hoist,

Chief

Water Quality Branch

---

ArT ACIJMENT 3

--

Electronic Filing, Redeived, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

‘

O

1LtINOI~

_____________________________

ENVIRONMENtAW PROTEcTION

2

AGENCY

-~

-. ----

~

N(

‘l4GkaMJAv~t&’~JE,t~I.

Mt Uo~I9~b.

SI~ C~rftO,~3qN(~

~2fl4.fl7,t2u-7n-U97

~

1~

~

31Z~144O~G

-

kEp~6e

Cr~uA~qo.

D’Rt!CIt*

217/182-3397.

SEP212004

-

-

-

Mr. Bcn~1uwiuH. Gmrthies

-

Actin4

Asshwnt Admin!strnvqr

Unfted States ~n’~’.tetwLRrntecüoztAgency

W~Thingt~n,D.C,:20460

-

-

DeurP4*’. (-ktbl*s:

-

-

-

The illinois

EPA ~$

Lllinpjs En~~gcnq

tvhn~ganent

4geney, ~14stonotfluSar &tety ¼we

been~mthg

with tOmc~oft4*chpn

*11 ~jj4jirdoor ,4jrandOffict ofG~o~w~1Water iS

Dsinkinz W

3adiQ~dlspos&d

&thThkJ~gwater tmaWzqn itsiduals

thhthlgtudh*u. In

~

Rqulurar ~uM. to the

A4~ageMern

a*jtlve

kis44zafrftvmA*tk*FVS

~

r~s~i~a

w~d1tMn

WEPA. btcaaperatton with

mbg ted~iSZUtM*&gâSes ofibe

Interagency Steatcug tiomxnteee on Rsd44tzou Siai1z~rds~lv~wpn4~uce4zno~be*daft tuldante

docurpøut

thattds wit-dftpos*1 ~t

aètmAtnent~tnlduáls. JSieswmsilqf

RddXoactMo’kr

Savage

cRs~comm~2iat~oiu

on Mwi~em~nc.

tr4d4ieacavoMgsflals

hi

•

S~wage-ShdgeaWAsh ax

Fubudy

OS~c(flwSwntWorb. the

ti4u 4èc~~w.½rttscantO cion

the Lava oflund

sppVcatio*~

ofthew s~du~J,S ~runom

bem~1cL4

uses, a

pwcdas ~w

LWn~i1s iAidaied Li 19&4

siIc~ópn,idekab1acvehaation by boO!flare

-

In Ilimols.dts~oaa~nt rSdué generaw4 at i

wgw frenuncnplant

otlesqc

-*mit~n~.-

~*~-;gU~si~

il*irea

residuals

Wtzo1e-cbeS~*zmmbctofconIamthani&

np~4tUm~

Luthcçe

is *ta&on to

•

xb~ptnnjc.

.-~e$~s

ccptA4~gS

nt t?wu~or

Its -

rexxstc4lnMdeted

to~pa~athreat

of

nit44**c-~çp~succ.‘~Th*-re~lualaAmtaudng

ummThan4ftcCwles

pprgr~pzsg4upto

SQpkd~lc&pcé~zp untsece~w$

Tht-

d~sa1an~1vesbyboOU~P8~s4WMAJDi

-~ --

-

-

-

TB

lucks tq’idmdvas sUow that r~tduaIsconxslthpg-5O pia~Cudnpergramôadiüm or less may

ba bu4*4~ .8

PA.

prqvid4 thacisflast tOi*et

-:

-

C

wtcoiusrntnaSopland

soil11w

cq~4

nn*41ne’nna~a

EocnroaesI~appU~gfliqns,

rn-don

th~,a

not

t$Id(Sfrisfle

e~q~ed-*~4

4*k~Cqnea*‘pUcdpert~

gram

of

Slum itt reVk$ed 1*14$ty hy

S

M)t*islpoofNW * $tfbxxpauce

with

Tush s$sUqnstfisdsloa

PM$MOR.

For certt~ypeY&~4iwCOIICCfrO*IQU

~

g4ifltQoI. IL4UØ

--

ntiS)

9U7Jr~O

• t),sftaas—SII W,tis~lsm~L

OSP~fl’*. t 5QQ~~~4Y~

$4-4tt4~

•uta(~’•as $o~

W.tV~b~t, 44W

a

i$4fl$4134111

• I’toioa

-

41N N.

U$v~SySt.

Pa~lL

It.

6*411 ~-t$Q~69J4.1~

a~4flv

t~tA’~

-

ls-fl~ON,tk4~~nltv$r,dLItft16I1-(rQr14fl.~4S3

• ~1M~

U$Soiitl~$4S

~e~s,O

IA.61*2J -O*Sj

~

II.

42t04.. (*1

r,

r*wg2-

•

tbzfl.14z-

aot-*un~x.cowoa*

øZJ4.(61b~344~I1O

-

-M.~ttltWjMan~t~4wfluMsoe,ft(,29~-r4I49n.flCO

r’eow

(1*4

srcqtta,

P*ccm

---

Electronic F~ing,-Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

re~i~iJuals,dispo~sal

may

reqnft4thip4nein 10

an put~of-a(awibeility thE is tleths&i to aacept

such

WA~tV5-

Allowiag

use o±’

nmtetW

with agrioultural value’ to tsers~1* no

difVcztt than the

tbndanteittai

basis

lbr all frdeud and stateregu)4Uett ofeayMioaedve mutwials that have a bgncfi4i& ijse

Followitt~httenmtis.at

flS*~z*.tS btaeficbt ~.iscofthe

mnteñzI In queStct~ k-i weighed

againstthe risks ftwoWed

and

dose orcunoenuton If

mfls we

established tbr the us etthc

•

natSal w 1St the Jose and-riskto

thu genemlpubllc. These flails take law coSdSlthl a

•

number-of-factors inohtding nawtal backgrovndand thepou~inWfurhuman exposules;

-Tn all

arees-te-U$EPkhas authority t&i become

Involved. ~nradkdou

ptotc~tioa,the material in

question i~already a

wastu or acontamloant,

-

alit

awe ytn amswnxe, USEPA has raised

wt

issue ttpztg

thetflufimplemeniafton

• -

of

this app~qtcbon theinanagcm~itofSupcrftutd i~ite&‘The we ofa water utathtqin by-pSu~i

•

eomaininj~radioactive consdtuentsfor beneficial agticpltwnl

purposes

Is ‘uy dfttent than the

cleani~p*1 a site withknown contaSnSlon. In a Supcrflmd case, no benefláW use ofmarthl

cotitalning ndlo*ctlvlty Is pwportcd.

£XaatàtLOU etrijiomai~süpitibs*5flU~38

d~~vidc a

usót~il

etthj~arIscnLaterms

of

r~Th~ncon

tóftgtts

co~a*der~4jnottiàive othuSn b~afth andtbc e~&virbnpint

M I

hsjipøzjs, tho

itrentuntal ~creaseinughum S’eentçattonThatwouid j*i4,itted undet

regtd benetlcj4

useofa yQarèrsteam WutplarttrtSlduAI,astftgCtlcedlIfflhztso$

and a

nwnbetofothe~ia*es.

hasznafl

ftactzon(O t pCUg)

ofte

soft cIek4dp

levdt nfl

pCL/g above

u~1~*kdöp*LfprüSii~ibiu~cotUSEPA’sbwn4OCFR

192

asabun ISIWbácd A~UØ~

S-R~Wë-P~4~’é-ARAR)Iii widely--

accepte4

gras Tbà

nctai-ndS&i lisu Isiwdl Saction *tLM total r~dthm

-

concetflratoit of

t2pdfè

InNorthetu Uhno~sn8ttSbaekaro1h14

Of

greatcono4ut to 110no14 gPA~tWcontksuedinoqnslMcnt póihion

on kM*pptwatlouf

-

benetlclal us~eSic4ated in the two dtif~gu~da~reports noted ISo. that &b~mWsthe

si.ü~e

taiMe

Mdhpo*al oftcs(dualscenzslnbv*diomtdlits -The cóncISt*s teichetIn the sewage

slndgç report ittth eUat1~eS~1d1$iMybe fncorpozutqillr*~agifm4twaIland wftbotn unduc

exposure comes eygtthougk the 1ovti$~etwttamedIn the ~tsMpa1s

aint Ow

~-~o~fl~n4

M:thSW*Miixcsmentt~4uó

-

~S

the

-

latn4~iIonott U*EPA

asjmskil liSt t*fta~WwiihIu$jtotfn4

liMed

11*

~

u&wcz~md

wft)~useA-Minui~fl.hsaiaaiaataf*SAt*Id

residuals thatbave enend fl~Sain~kveioSlh

minolsis i*~awUMbe

-

consistent bt Its approa4.

--

-

-~

- -

-

-

--

-

-

lilinS ha

~bçiz~

W9 c~tflmupky

S

suppUntb$ amin thevroceu of

comp$ymg

with the

RMIon*4oW$nfla~lii~flWstS~$dàCeS

Get

residgal

ct~s*ie4.

~e~tir~fli~tteesaotqmklng

doelsIQns on sltesatWsfrfl~m~~*oeei~ffi~limjWothe cátithiá6~’inUhons

otdoøan aS

oblipte

4w

c**fli4olt5t,o

a

*t~lberot0th ~ItIlnani~1o3

bt

-

Watpr $#ntst enip1oy

a

~ineni dtgctiaatS

t~ttdflete

(e4

1kM

~ft~MS

stdlusCcuuentlt

-

use

---

Electronic Filing, Redeived, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

land application ategronontle

mtes. Wat~rpia*itslh~tger~erarea

liquid

waste must u~ea

controlled disch~rgu

to a

sewage tresiment plant.

The putpose of

this letter ~sto

wque~ta cici*r and consistent position

by tJ&3?A on the lssuc~of

land

jp~fl~~fjft~

~

foruswnontlcajiy-beueflcW use, eitd rtquestthe written

opkdort-ofU$EPA

i~uppotting

thosondnued~â~ifctMWnoisdosal-pracmlces.

Asnot~&

our RISIs water m~ppllcsan considering a number-of aWetailvettatn~an-processus,One

common etetflMt ofconcernIs thetestof&spozzlofff*e tratmvntwastes, Alteration otthe

present disposalpractice

could ve,~‘well

mAe opaatlon

of

the treatment facilities untatable

Ibr

moat

of

the watersupplies cLassified us cu4l sytelnsj but Wthis tdteratlóo Ii neaesnry, VOW IS

•

the

thne~fbi aft ofus to be advj~edso-thatmfljions-ofdollars-are not -wasted on an unaecep(Mbhs

dIspa~alaltematiw.

-

•

Your Immediate attention s~ønrptflo thh-matte will beveryutuc!tspprvciated, PkaseJet

me

know

ifyou would

like -in

discS This

Issue Mt nr need widjtkniaj jufonnatiot

circe

Cipriaao

Director

---

ATTACHMENT

4

-

--

-

EIe*S ~i i ng, R~Si

&wió1fkS&e~ênJ14I~$MWcL~a~1~v

WASS-1tNGTON, 0-C. 20460

_y_,~

•~°~t-

~AR::4 2005

OFFICE CF

Ma,

Renee Cipriano,

Director

Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency

1021

North Grand

M’ónue East, PG. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Dcax

Ms

Cipriano;

-

Thank

you

for

your letter dated

September21, 2004.

Your letter

seeks

clarification from

the

US, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on discussions tontained in two draft

guidance

documents regarding

the use of land application as adisposal option for treatment residuals, In

this

reply, we hope to provide

you

‘with an update on the development of these

documents and

Invite you to continue to work with u~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 ndionuclides. Affeeted water

systems will need to find

alternative sources of w9ter or apply treatment technologies to remove

the

radionuclides fruit

their source water, balancing source availability,

trealment and

disposal

costs,

EPA recognizes

that

systems

will be seeking cost-effective solutions

for these management

issues, but has

consistently expressed concern abo’~itthe potential creation of new contaminated sites that v~ou)d

someday

requirc

remediation

nndlor the

use of

insthutional

or engineering controls,

You expressed

concerns that the

language

within the following two draft documents were

inconsistent: (1)

.4 Regulators’ Guide to the Managementv/Radioactive Residualsfrom

trinking 13-’Qter Treatment Technologies;

and

(2)

JSCORS’ Assessment ofRadioactivity in

Sewage

Sludge:

Recommendations on Management a/Radioactive Ma:erlals in Sewage Sludge

andAyf, at Publicly Ownedfl-eatment Works.

We

ore

in the process of revising both dooumcnts,

though the ISCORS

report

is a

inultl.agency effort,

not solely that of EPA. Our goal is to insut-e

that

the

language

contained within these

documents

is compatible, recognizing that water

treatment residuals

and

sewagesludge are different

waste streams and the extent

of

analysis

done

by the Agency has differed in depthand complexity.

ISCORS is the Interagency Steering Committee on RadiatioD Standards comprised of

several Federal

agencies whose purpose is

to

facilitate consensus on acceptable iflels of

radiation

risk

to

the public

and

workers,

and

promote

consistent risk approaches in settlnà

and

impJernenting

standards

for protection ifom ionizing radiation.

Inlarnat

Addrns (UAL,I

•

R~ynsw#n~~~tIt‘Pdn1jdwlh’~gp,~e

01 5,,$dI,~cson

Ricyc*d?~p.,O.khImL.M~O

Pom~o~M~,u,,r)

---

ElectronIc Filing, Redeived, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

2

EPA

has

an extensive history

of multi-year environmental and scientific research studies

as$rssi,i~land application of sewage sludge, which resulted in re~ulatoiystandards describing

conditions under which such application is acceptable (40 CFR

part 503). The

multi-agency

ISCORS

report focused en ~ewagcsLudge’s radionuclide content, and on dose assessments to

workers and the public from a variety ofexposure scenarios. This report which also examined

land

application of sewage sludge is

the latest study in which EPA

has participated. However,

EPA

has no explicitly evaluated

the

land

application ofdrinking ~vntertreatment residuals,

regardless of

whether

the waste-

conta(ns radionucEides. Although we are aware of sonic research

on this topic, we do not have

any basis to judge the benefits of such land application. Further, we

do not believe that it would be appropriate to rely on the conclusions of the ISCORS report

(which pertains to sludge) when considering the land application of drinking water

treatment

residuals containing radionuelides.

ihe drinkingwater guide was

shared

over

the

sommer with a diverse set ofstalcehoiders

and

we

are

in

the

process of considering

their

comments

and making revisions as appropriate.

The drinking water document does not recommend prohibiflag 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 specific federal regulations regarding radionuclides in1and—

applied

drinking

water residuals

and

has not perfonned the requislta

analyses.

Therefore,

we

cannot endorse

any

state’s practices in this area. The Agency recognizes thnt Illinois has put.

considerable

time and effort into researching the benefits and risks of land-applying

drinking

~vatersludges with radiunuclides, and we would be interested in

learning more about such

praetices.in the future.

-

We will

continue to work with Illinois

and other stakeholders as

we tackle

these

complicated issues. if you have

thrther

questions, please let me

know

or your

staff

may contact

Steve I-lease, Director,

Drinldng

Water Protection Division at (202)

564-7992.

Sincerely,

-

Benjamin

t,

H. Grumbles

Assistant Administrator

---

Electronic Filing, Redeived, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

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

BRL4N

ANDERSON

by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on April 6, 2005.

---

Electronic Filing, Redeived, Clerk’s Office, August 15,2005

SF:RVJCE LIST

R04-21

Dorothy

Gunn

Amy Antoniolli

Clerk of the Board

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

100 West Randolph Strcet

Suite 11-500

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Chicago, IL 60601

Deborah J. Williams

Stefanie IN.

Diers

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

1021

North Grand

Avenue

East

RO.

Box 19276

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

Joel J. Stemstein, Assistant Attorney General

Matthew J.

Dunn, Division

Chief

Office of

the

illinois Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph

20th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Stanley Yonkauski

Acting

General Counsel

illinois Department of

Natural Resources

One Natural Resources

Way

-

Springfield, IL

62701

Richard Lanyon

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100

East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Roy M. Harsch

Sasha M.

Engle

.

Gardner Carton & Douglas

191

North

Wacker Drive

Suite 3700.

Chicago,IL60606-l69~.,

.

Claire A.

Manning

Posegate & Denes

111 North

Sixth Street

Springfield, IL

62701

Lisa Frede

CICI

2250

East

Devon Avenue

SuiteZ39

Des Plaines, IL 60018

William Seith

-

Total Environmental Solutions

631

East Butterfield

Road

Suite3l5

Lombard, IL

60148

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental

Law

and

Policy Center

35

EastWacker Drive

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

John McMahon

Wilkie & MeMahon

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

GreaterChicago

6001 West Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60804

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

Decision Tree 1; Solid Residuals Disposal

Identify the quality

and quantity of the

residual

Does the waste

Contain

radionuclides?

Is the waste a solid

according to the Paint

Filter Liquids Test?

Does the waste contain non-

exempt quantities of

uranium or beta/photon

No

No

Yes

~ow thaha~dot;s

te landfill and meet all

RCRA Subtitle C

requirements”

Does the waste contain non

-_____

exempt quantsties of uranium

Yes

or beta/photon emitters?~

No

Dispose in a

landfill licensed to

accept mixed

waste

*

Use intermediate

processing to

sep irate out the

ATTAChMENT 5

liquids

For liquid residuals

disposal, see Liquid

Residuals Decision Tree

2

Dispose in a solid waste,

hazardous waste, or LLRW

landfill, or any landfill

licensed by the state to

accept TENORM waste”

-

Dispose in a LLRW landfill permitted to accept

hazardous waste or a hazardous waste landfill

licensed to accept TENORM waste**

* Check with the state Radiation Program to see if

beta/photon

emitters are considered byproduct material and advise

system to contact the NRC Regional office or relevant

Agreement State agency

to discuss potenmi licensing

requirements.

**

LDR treatment standards

also

apply.

Check with the

state Radiation Program

to

determine the proper disposal

methods for waste containing radionudlides and hazardous waste.

• Sludge

Yea

• Granular Media

• Resin

• AA Media

Dispose in a

solid waste

landfill

• Spent Membranes

I

No

Yes

Jr

Yes

I

Yes

.1,

17

---

Ai”IACI-IMF:NT 6

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

Organization of Agreement States

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS NEEDED TO ENSURE

CERTAIN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

POSITION STATEMENT OF

THE

HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY AND

ORGANIZATION OF

AGREEMENT

STATES

*

The Health Physics Society

(J-IPS) and the Organization of Agreement States (OAS), which

represent radiation safety professionals and rcgulatory agency stakeholders, believe

congressional action is needed to ensure the

uniform

regulation of all discrete sources of

radioactive material to provide appropriate radiation safety standards to protect the public from

these sources, including protection from malevolent uses of such sources by

terrorists.

currently, naturally occurring radioactive materials, especially radium, and radioactive materials

produced by nuclear particle accelerators (accelerator-produced radioactive material) are not

comprehensively regulated in the United States.

These sources are

not defined in the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), which has the effect of excluding these sources from

regulation by the independent federal agency charged with regulation of other radioactive

materials, i.e., the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As a result of their

omission in the. ABA, the regulation ofthese sources rests with various federal agencies

and

each

individual state. Our organizations believe that this fragmented regulatory framework allows for

inconsistent standards for the possession, use,

and

disposal of these sources, which can

potentially have a negative impact on public health and safety

and

on national common defense

and

security.

Therefore, we recommend congressional action to ensure not only the security of such sources,

but also the uniformity of

standards regarding

their possession, use, and disposal.

The

liPS

and OAS jointly recornniend enactment of federal legislation to regulate these sources

according to the following principles:

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

1. Discrete sources of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material

(1’ENORM)’ and accelerator-produced radioactive material should be uniformly regulated

throughout the United States, The most effective way to ensure uniformity in regulation is to

include such sources in the definition of byproduct material in the ABA.

2.

The NRC should be the sole agency authorized to promulgate federal regulations establishing

requirements for controlling the acquisition, possession, transfer, use, anddisposal of such

sources to protect the public health and safety and the national security of the United States,

except for those sources regulated by the United States Department of Energy.

3.

The NRC shall, in consultation with the states and other stakeholders, develop a regulatory

definition ofthe term “discrete,” as applied to sources of TENORM and accelerator-produced

radioactive materials. This definition should include both an activity limit and a

concentration limit on any such source, such that the radiological hazards are controlled in a

manner consistent with other sources ofradioactive material posing the same radiological

hazard.

4.

Disposal of such sources should be allowed at facilities licensed by the NRC, by states that

have entered into agreements with the NRC pursuant to the ABA, or in facilities regulated

pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when such disposal is

appropriate and authorized by the regulatory agency (or agencies) having jurisdiction.

5.

Placing such sources under the NRC’s jurisdiction should be done in such a manner that (a)

does not change the definition of low-level radioactive waste in the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Actof 1985 and (b) does not adversely affect the implementation

of congressionally approved Compacts pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Act of 1980 as amended, thus preventing such sources from becoming “orphaned” from

disposal.

6.

In fulfilling its new responsibilities, the NRC shall consult with state radiation control

agencies that have established regulations for controlling the safe use, security, and disposal

of these sources.

7.

The NRC is encouraged to consult with other federal agencies as it develops regulations for

controlling the safe use, security, and disposal of these sources.

Footnote

‘TENORM is naturally occurring radioactive material that has been removed from the natural

environment and has been concentrated to levels greater than that found in the natural

environment due to human activities. (Indoorradon, because it is not technologically enhanced,

should be specifically exempt from this provision for discrete sources.)

*

The Health Physics Society is a nonprofit scientific professional organization whose mission is to promote the practice

of radiation safety. The Organization ofAgreement States is a nonprofit society of staff members from those states that

have established programs under section 274

of the AEA to assume a portion of

NRC regulatory authority.

---

Office, August 15, 2005

ATTAChMENT 7

BEIR

VII: HEALTh RISKS FROM

Ex~osum~

TO

Low LEVELS OF IOMZING

RADIATION

BEW VII develops the

most up-to-date and

comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other

heatth effects from exposure to tow-level ionizing

radiation. It is among the first reports of its kind to

include detailed estimates for cancer incidencein addition

to cancer mortality. In general, BEtH VI! supports

previously reported risk

estimates for cancer and

leukemia, but the availability of new

and more extensive

data have strengthened

confidence in these estimates. A

comprehensive review of available biological and

biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold”

(LNT)

risk model—that the risk ofcancer proceeds in a linear

fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the

srnattest dose has the potential to cause a small increase

in riskto humans.

This report is the seventh in a series of publications

from

the NationalAcademiesconcerning radiation health

effects called

the Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation

(I3EIR)reports. BEIR VII focuses on the health effects of

low levels oflow linear energytransfer (low-LET) ionizing

radiation such as x-rays

and gamma rays. The most recent

BEIR report to address low level low-LET radiation

was

the BEIR V report published in 1990. Humans areexposed

to ionizing radiation

from both

natural

and man-made

sources

(see Figure 1). Very high doses can produce

damaging effects in tissues

that can

be

evident

within

days after exposure. Late effects such as cancer, which

can occur after more modest doses including the low-

dose exposures that

are the subject of this report, may

take

many years to develop.

Most radiation sources have a mixture ofhigh- and

low-LETradiation. Compared to high-LET radiation, low-

LET radiation deposits less energy

in the

cell along the

radiation

path

and is considered less destructive

per

radiation

track. The BEIR

VII report defines low doses

as

those in the range of near zero up to about 100 mSv (0.1

Sv) of

low-LET

radiation. People in

the United

States

are

exposed to average annual background radiation levels

of

about

3 mSv; exposure from a chest X-ray is about

0.1 mSv and exposure from a whole body computerized

tomography

(CT)

scan is about IC

mSv.

There are many challenges associated with

understanding the health effects of low doses of low-

LET radiation, but current knowledge allows several

conclusions. The HEIR VII report concludes that the

current scientific evidence is consistent with the

hypothesis that, at the low doses of interest in this report,

there is a linear dose-response relationship between

exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of

r&I~,

~

M.dcai,my.

tg h LeT: neutron

component o(co,mic

rad~uon

high-LET:

4’\~

—.-~._,,

n9estion

s

A

oW-tEI:dlnectly tonLzng arxl

photon component ofcotnLc

radiation

Co,w,n,e,

PrO~,Cta

lii.,

A

Nu~Mr U.4~r.I

21

7

low-

LEt. In 9ettion

7

ç~

-.

/

-.

hIgh-LET: tnhai at ion

espoture diii to radon

52

Worldwltb.dcground

eadlallo,.

t4

n5w/ynr

‘Figures

based on data

from

Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, National Council onPaditttnr~

Protection

and Measurements,

No.93, 1987.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIET

Advisers to the Notion on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

---

8ectronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

solid

cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a

threshold below which cancers are not induced, but at

low doses the number of radiation-induced cancers will

be small. Other health effects (such as heart disease and

stroke) occur at higher radiation doses, but additional

data must be gathered before an assessment of any

possiblo dose response can be made between low doses

of radiation and non-cancer health effects. The report

also concludes that with low dose or chronic exposures

to low-LET irradiation, the risk ofadverse heritable health

effects to children conceived after theirparents have been

exposed is very small compared to baseline frequencies

of genetic diseases in the population.

Radiation Exposure and Health Effects

The mechanisms that lead to adverse health effects

after

ionizing radiation exposure are not fully understood.

Ionizing radiation has sufficient energy to change the

structure of molecules, incitiding DNA, within the cells

of

the body. Some of these molecular changes are so

complex that it may be difficult for the body’s repair

mechanisms to mend them correctly. However, the

evidence is that only a small fraction of such changes

would be expected to result in cancer or other health

effects.

The most thoroughly

studied individuals

for the

evaluation of health effects of ionizing radiation are the

survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic

bombings,

a large population that includes all ages and

both sexes. The Radiation Effects Research FQundation

(RERE) in Japan

has conducted follow-up studies on

these survivors for more

than 50 years. An important

finding from these studies is that the occurrence ofsolid

cancers

increases in proportion to radiation dose. More

than 60

of exposed survivors received a dose of

radiation of

less

than 100 msv (the definition of low dose

used

by the HEIR VII report).

Risk Models for Cancer

An

important taskofthe HEIR VII conunitteewas to

develop ‘risk models” for estimating the risk that an

exposed individual

will develop cancer. This task requires

expressing the dependence of

risk on radiation dose and

also on sex

and age at exposure. Data from epidemiologic

studies were used to accomplish this

task. The Japanese

atomic

bomb survivors were the

primary source of data

for

estimating risks of most solid

cancers and leukemia.

For 2 of the 11 specific cancers evaluated, breast and

thyroid cancer, atomic bomb survivor data were combined

with data on medically exposed persons to estimate risks.

Data from additional medical studies and from studies of

nuclear workers were evaluated and found to be

compatible

with

HEIR

VII models.

Since

the publication of HEIR V in 1990, more

comprehensive

data on cancer incidence (including non-

fntal

diseases) in atomic bomb survivors have become

available, mortality follow-up has been extended for 15

years nearly doubling the number of deaths from solid

cancer, and an improved dosimetry system (DSO2) has

been implemented. In addition, new data have become

available from studies of persons exposed to radiation

for medical reasons and from studies ofnuclear workers

exposed at low doses and dose rates. These developments

have strengthened the epidemiologic data that are used

to develop risk estimates. Box 1 lists some of the new

epidemiologic information and approaches that have

become available since HEIR V.

On average, assuming a sex and age distribution

similar to that ofthe entire U.S. population, the HEIR VII

lifetime risk model predicts that approximately one

2

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August

15, 2005

individual in IOU persons would be expected to develop

cancer (solid cancer or leukemia)

from

a dose of 100 mSv

while approximately 42 ofthe 100 individuals would be

expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from ether

causes (see Figure 2). Lower doses would produce

proportionally lower risks. For example, it

is predicted

that approximately one individual in 1090 would develop

cancer

from an exposure to 10 mSv, Table I shows HEIR

VU’s

best estimates ofthe lifetime attributable risk (LAR)

of incidence and mortality for all solid cancers and for

leukemiaper 100,000 persons exposed to 100 mSv. The

report

also provides estimates for cancers of several

specific sites.

Risk Estimates at Very Low Doses

At

doses of 100 mSv or less, statistical limitations

make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans. A

comprehensive review

of available biological and

biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the

risk would continue

in

a linear fashion at lower doses

without

a threshold and that the smallest dose has the

Thispotentialassumptionto

cause

isa

smalltermedincreasethe

“linear-no-threshold”in

risk to humans.3

(LNT) model.

There

are two competing hypotheses to the linear

no-threshold model. One is that low doses of radiation

are more harmful than a linear, no-threshold model of

effects would suggest. HEIR VII finds that the radiation

health effects research, takers as a whole, does not support

this hypothesis. The other hypothesis suggests that risks

arc smaller than predicted by the linear no-threshold

model are nonexistent, or that low doses ofradiation may

even be beneficial. The report concludes that the

preponderance ofinformation indicates that there will be

some risk, even at low doses, although the risk is small.

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

ooooooa•••

..........

..........

~c~qnF

¶.‘~.z~-1?~4p.~-

-

-

.!o1L00J?ogle~viQ~bnuYs~d~rJth~lfigurt2~.

.A.

:d&.t4.~~s4.t

~

-~‘r-

.4.

, ~

.~k

a,~~~~sjw&

ean1~ealTofn~~

-~

ap.e.opleuquld~resLl

..v~eaj’,~

~fr~~i’a

.Vf~Q~

‘ungle!exposurefl

~

~~‘•~-—

0tJ/nSvu~--

tt~

4Q~trawai~!on~rr~rz?41t*1P

Health Effects Other

than Cancer

Radiation exposure has been demonstrated to

increase the risk of diseases other than cancer, particularly

cardiovascular disease, in persons exposed to high

therapeutic doses and also in A-bomb survivors exposed

to more modest doses. However; there is no direct

evidence ofincreased risk ofnon-cancer diseases at low

doses, and data are inadequate to quantify this risk if it

exists. Radiation exposure has also been shown to

increase risks of some benign tumors, but data are

inadequate to quantify this risk.

All solid cancer

Leukemia

Excess cases (including non-fatal

cases)

from exposure to 100 mSv

Males

Females

Males

Females

800 (400—1600)

1300(690—2500)

100(30—300)

70(20—250)

Number ofcases in the

absence

of exposure

45,500

36,900

830

590

—

Excess deaths from exposure

to 100 mSv

410 (200—830)

610 (300—1200)

70(20—220)

50 (10—190)

Number of

deaths

in the

absence

ofexposure

22,100

17,500

710

530

VII

report.

In special

cases,

such as

in utero

exposure, some evidence suggests excess cancers can be detected as low as 10 mSv.

3

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

Estimating Risks

to Children of Parents

Exposed to Ionizing Radiation

Naturally-occurring genetic (i.e., hereditary)

diseases arise as

a result of alterations (mutations)

occurring in the genetic material (DNA) contained in the

germ cells (sperm and eggs) and are heritable (ic., they

can be transmitted to the offspring and subsequent

generations). The concern over whether exposure to

ionizing radiation would cause an increase in the

frequencies of genetic diseases launched extensive

research programs to examine the adverse genetic effects

ofradiation in the children ofA-bomb survivors and other

studies focusing on mammals that could be bred in the

laboratory,

primarily the mouse.

Studies of 30,000 children of exposed A-bomb

survivors show a lack of significant adverse genetic

effects. During the

past

10 years, major advances have

occurred in our understanding of the molecular nature

and mechanisms underlying naturally occurring genetic

diseases and radiation-induced mutations in experimental

organisms including the mouse. The risk estimates

presented in this report have incorporated all these

advances.

They show that, at low or chronic doses of

Iow-LFI’

irradiation, the genetic risks are very small

compared to the baseline frequencies ofgenetic diseases

in the population.

Given HEIR VII estimates, one would not expect to

see an excess in adverse hereditary effects in a sample of

about

30,000

children (the number ofchildren evaluated

in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). One reason that genetic risks

are low is that only those genetic changes compatible

with embryonic development and viability will be

recovered in live births.

Research

Needs

Continued research is needed to further increase our

understand’mg ofthe health risks of low levels of ionizing

radiation. BEIR VII identifies the follcwingtop research

needs:

•

Determination of the level of various molecular

markcrs of DNA damage as a function of low dose

ionizing radiation.

•

Determination of DNA repair fidelity, especially

double and multiple strand breaks at low doses, and

whether

repair capacity is independent of dose.

•

Evaluation ofthe relevance ofadaptation, low-dose

hypersensitivity, bystander effect, hormesis, and

genomic

instability for radiation carcinogenesis.

•

Identification of molecularmechanisrns for

postulated hermetic effects at low doses.

•

Reduction of current uncert.ainties on the specific

role ofradiation in how tumors form.

•

Studies on the genetic factors that influence radiation

response and cancer risk.

•

Studies on the heritable genetic effects of

radiation.

•

Continued medical radiation and occupational

radiation studies.

•

Continued follow-up health studies ofthe Japanese

atomic-bomb survivors, 45 of whom were still alive

in2000,

•

Epidemiologic studies to supplement studies of

atomic-bomb survivors, for example studies of

nuclear industry workers and persons exposed in

countries ofthe former Soviet Union.

Committee toAssess the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels ofIonizing Radiation:

Richard R.

Monson

(Chairman),

Harvard School of Public Health; James E. Cleaver

(Vice Chairman),

University of California, San

Francisco; Herbert L. Abrams, Stanford University; Eula Bingham, University of Cincinnati; Patricia A.

fluffier,

University of California, Berkeley; Elisabeth Cardis, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;

Roger Cox, National Radiological Protection Board, UK; Scott Davis, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson

Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; William C.Dewey, University ofCalifornia, San Francisco; Ethel S. Gilbert,

National Cancer Institute; Albrecht 1St. Kellerer, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Mtlnchen, Germany; Danlel-Krewski;

University ofOttawa, Ontario, Canada; Tomas It Lindahl, Cancer Research UK London Research Institute; Katherine

E.Rowan,George Mason University; IC Sankaranarayanan, Leiden UniversityMedicalCentre, Leiden, Th~Nethea1arids;

Daniel

W. Schafer, Oregon State University (from May 2002); Leonard A. Stefanski, North Carolina State University,

(through May 2002); Robert L. Ullrich, Colorado State University, Rick Jostes (Study Director), National Research

Council.

This briefwas prepared by the NatIonal Research Council based on the commIttee’s report, For more information,

contact the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at 202-334-3066.

HEIR VII.

Health Risksfrom

Exposure to Low Levels

ofIonizing

Radiation

is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001;

800-624-6242; www.nap.edu. This report is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Homeland

Security.

---

A1’~IACIMENT 8

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

hE Worker Exposure and Safety

Because radiation is invisible, tasteless, and odorless, it is commonly overlooked

as a potential Icr r&at-w~.ter-syste1us.

~xposureto elevated levels of radiation at water

treatment

facilities may cause serious health

effects. Systems need to

determine whether a radiation problem exists and, ifit does, take appropriate safety precautions to-prevent

or limit

water system staff members’ exposure to radiation. For example, if a system tested its treated water 2 years ago and

found levels of 3pQ/L for radiurn-226 and 228, a radiation survey of the facility would be prudent.

Water system staff can be exposed to radiation during normal treatment processes for radionucides, through handling

the residual streams generated by treatment, and during media replacement or transportation. Relatively undetectable

levels of radionuclides in source waters can accumulate

in measurable or hazardous quantities inpiping,jaumps,

holding tank scale or sludge, IX and granular filters, backwash, and other residual sludge. Radon gas

can accumulate

in closed or poorly ventilated buildings when thorium, uranium, or radium-bearing materials (including-water) -are

present. Naturally occurring radon gas can enter through openings in the building’s concrete or foundatio-n-w-ails.

Underground connections to manholes, piping conduits, and utility tunnels provide additional pathways for radon

entry. For example, elevated gamma ray levels have been found around LX columns and associated piping at some

facilities. This could result in an exceedance of public dose limits.

I-E.1 Radiation Surveys

A

system should contact a professional radiation protection specialist or a health physicist for assistance in conducting

a radiation survey if: (1) the system has had an analytical result within the past 5 years that has approached or has-

exceeded an MCL for a regulated t-adionucide; or, (2) if calculations derived from

use of the U.S. EPA SPARRC

A

modelradiationindicatessurveypotentialcan

be

concentrationsconducted

by:

of radioactivity in residuals and filters at the system.’7

1.

Using a radiation survey meter to identifr any points at which contamination exists.

2.

Using an integrating radiation measuring device to detemiine whether exposure could occur over rime.

3.

Sampling filter media, wastes, and water through further laboratory analyses. These analyses should focus on

finding the principal NORM/TENORM isotopes found in surface and groundwater supplies: radium,

uranium, thorium, and potassium as well as their radioactive daughter decay products.”

Some states require radiation protection specialists or health physicists who conduct radiation surveys (including radon

surveys) to be certified or licensed. State Radiation Control contact infonnation appears in Appendix D.

As a result of the survey, the system may need to establish a monitoring program, change existing

management

practices,

alter methods for managing radioactively contaminated equipment and wastes, or establish worker radiation

safety and education programs. The survey may also recommend methods for decontaminating buildings or facilities,

if needed.

“A

workiag draft of SPARRC

is

available for estimating the volume and concentration of eadionudides

in waste

producedhywater

systems. The program allows the operator to select the type oftreatment process, as well as input and output parameters such as

water flows, doses of coaguiant and polymer, and filter capacities. To view the spreadsheet, see

http:

/

/www.node,nermits-com/sparac.

“Decay products such as isotopes of radon, lead, polonium, and bismuth may need to be analyxed in order to calculate the

concentrations of the original parent radionudlide such as radium or uranium. Characterizing the types and amount, oIradiocudidcs

present will be beneficial in identi~ingsources in the drinking water, understanding how, where, and why they arc ccW~ni’~ge-~thr.

treatmcnt plant, correcting a contamination problem in the plant through selection of treatment technologies and mans~nnent

techniques, and aiding management in deciding where hazardous waste products should be disposed or whcrc they ndghtbe:arceptcci~

22

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15. 2005

Although designed for post-cleanup surveys of radioactively contaminated sites, U.S. EPA’s

Multi-Agen9 Radiation

Surv9’

asd Site Inve.rlzgation Manual

(MARSSIM)

(EPA

402-R-97-Ol 6 Rev. 1) provides

use6ul information on planning

and conducin-ag a survey of potentially contaminated surface soils and building surfaces, The manual and other

information on radiation surveys can be obtained from U.S. EPA’s Radiation Protection Division Web site at

htrp://www.epa.aov/radiation/marssim.

Seven federal and two state agencies contributed to the development of MARLAP. MARJ~APprovides guidance for

the planning, implementation, and assessment phases

of projects that require laboratory analysis of radionudides. This

guidance is intended for project planners, managers, and laboratory personnel and provides extensive derail on the

radiological sampling and analytical process, including laboratory procedures. A copy of the manual can be found at:

http://www.eoa.gov/radiation/rnarlap/manual.htm.

U.S. EPA

also recommends that the system check for the presence of radon in buildings encasing system equipment.

States should consult with radiation program staff to determine whether radon measurements have been taken in the

county, whether a map or survey of indoor radon measurements has been developed for the county, where the system

is located, and to determine the appropriate means and methods for conducting radon surveys. The state or private

radon proficiency programs may be able to provide a list of licensed or certified radon contractors who could conduct

the

survey. Additional information on how to find qualified professionals can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/iag/radon/oroficiencv.html.

For

U.S. EPA

guidance documents on approaches to risk assessments of soil and water, see the Superfund Radiation

Web sites at htm://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/radiation and

hrrp:/ /www.eija.~ov/suoerfund/resources/radiation/whatsnew.htm.

I-E.2 Radiation Exposure Due to Water Treatment Operations

Thefoliowin,g diccussion applies Sto 0/stems where there is thepotential/or accumulation ofradioactivi

b’•

Water

system workers are most likely to be exposed to elevated levels of radioactive materials when cominginto

contact with residuals, filter backwash, and sludge; during maintenance of contaminated pumps or piping; or while

moving or transporting wastes and filters for disposal. Possible sources of radiation include pumps and piping where

mineral scales accumulate; lagoons, and flocculation and sedimentation tanks where residual sludges accumulate;

filters, pumping stations, and storage tanks where scales and sludges accumulate; and facilities where filter backwash,

brines, or other contaminated water accumulates. Facilities that are enclosed present the potential for enhanced

radiation inhalation exposure, particularly from radon. Exposure to radiation can also occur at residuals processing or

handling areas at the system and off-site locations such as landfills whete residuals are shoveled, transported, or

disposed of.

The table below shows the three primary paths of radiation exposure at a system: inhalation, ingestion, and direct

exposure.

-

Pathway

-

-

-

-

Concern

-.

-

-

Inhalation

Inhalation of alpha- or beta-emitting radioactive materials is a concern because radioactive

material taken into the body results in radiation doses to internal organs and tissues (e.g.,

lining of the lungs). Workers could inhale radioactively coatarninated dust or water droplets

while dealing with residuals or during normal filter operations. Cleaning methods such as air

scour, high pressure water sprays, and backwash operations can increase suspension of

radioactively contaminated water, dusts, and particulates

in

respirable

air,

thus increasing the

potential haaard of inhalation or ingestion. Workers can inhale radon and its progeny in both

wet and dry conditions. Simple dust masks may not provide adequate protection from

exposures via this pathway, and systems may need to implement Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (051-IA) requirements for respirators.

23

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

Pathway

Concern

Ingestion

Ingestion, or the swallowing of alpha, beta, or gamma-emitting radioactive materials, isa

concern for the same reasons as inhalation exposure. Workers can ingest radioactive

materials if they fail to observe good sanitary practices including washing their bands before

eating; failing to cover their noses and mouths by wearing approved respiratory protection

and swallowing contaminated dusts and water droplets; or eating and drinking in areas

(including land disposal sites), where dusts or water droplets could settle on food or drink.

Simple dust masks may not provide adequate protection from exposures via this pathway.

Direct Exposure

Radioactive matenals that emit gamma radiation are of concern because the gamma rays pose

an external radiation exposure hazard. Because gamma rays can pass through common

construction materials and most protective clothing, the distance between the radioactive

material and the person, as well as the time spent in proximity to the material are factors in

the amount of exposure the person receives. As gamma radiation travels through air,

exposure can occur near a source of radiation as well as through direct contact. Workers

most likely to be directly exposed are those who handle or work m the vicinity of resin tanks,

residuals, Biter backwash, and contaminated brines or waters, or participate in the

maintenance of the treatment system or the replacement and transportation of filter media.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCR?) have recommended that facilities strive to make the levels of radiation to which the public and

the environment are exposed as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) (i.e., below regulatory limits) taking into

account social and economic considerations. Steps that facilities can take include limiting die time that workers spend

handling radioactive material, increasing the distance between workers and the material, and providing shielding (morn

the radioactive material.

In addition, 051-IA has developed occupational radiation standards (see 29 CFR 19 10.1096) that might apply

whenever an operator becomes aware of the presence of radiation at the facility. Although these standards may not

apply to municipal water treatment plant workers, these workers may be covered by their state 051-TA program,

requiring that all controls, monitoring, record keeping, and training outlined in the OSHA standards-be met.

Additional 051-IA standards that may be applicable to water systems indude:

~

Requirements that personal protection equipment (or PPF, for the eyes, face, head, and extremities) such as

protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers be provided, used, and maintained

whenever processes or radiological hazards capable of causing injury through absorption, inhalation, or

physical contact necessitate such equipment. There are numerous other requirements related to the

possession and use of PPE, including training for employees who would use the equipment For more

information, see 29

CFR 1910.132-136.

•

Requirements for practices and procedures to protect employees in general industry from the hazards of entry

into permit-required confined spaces. For more information, see 29 CFR 1910.146.

•

Lockout/tagout requirements that require employers to establish a program and follow procedures for

-

affixing appropriate lockout or tagout devices to energy isolating devices and disable machines or equiprnent~

This avoids injury to employees by preventing unexpected energization, start-up, or release of stored energy.

For

more information, see 29 CFR 1910.147.

•

Hazardous communication requirements that ensure the potential haaards of chemicals produced during or

imported for treatment are evaluated and the information from this evaluation is communicated to employees

through

measures such as container labeling, material data safety sheets, and employee training, among others.

These requirements do not apply to RCRA-defined hazardous waste or ionizing or non-ionizing radiation.

For more information, see 29 CFR 1910.1200.

24

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

In

circumstances where a facility may in the future be liconsed by the

NRC

or Agreement State, worker safety

precautions and radiation protection controls would take precedence

(e.g., 10

CFR

20.1900,

which lists radiation

exposure posting requirements).

Irs addition to the OSHA requirements, systems should be encouraged to follow the safety practices listed below.

These

measures can reduce workers’ risk of exposure to radioactivity and radioactive particulates:

Safety Measures

I’

Use an 051-IA-approved respirator to avoid inhalation ofbiological pathogens and chemically toxic materials in

residuals. Simple dust masks may not provide adequate protection.

/

Limit time spent at land disposal sites to reduce inhalation ofcontaminated dust.

1

Ventilate all buildings, especially where waste with high concentrations of radium is stored.

/

Take standard OSHA measures to limit the potential ingestion of heavy metals and biological pathogens present in

filters,residual aludges, and at land disposal sites to help reduce possible ingestion exposure to radioactive materials,

/

Use protective glovea and frequently wash hands (particulady before eating and drinking) to reduce the potential for

ingestion. Similarly, avoid eatingand drinking in the vicinity of facilities or land disposal sites where air suspension of

contaminated particulates or water droplets could occur.

/

Avoid

dircct contact with any solid TENORM waste and use shovels or other remote-handling tools during extraction,

transfer, and packaging.

./‘

Locate treatment units and waste storage areas as far away from common areas (e.g., ofBces) as possible.

/

Shower after exposure to potentially radioactive materials and launder work clothing at the system if possible. If

laundering equipment is not available, workers should keep and wash work clothing separately and avoid wearing

contaminated clothing into the home. Work boots or shoes should be wiped and cleaned after potential contamination.

They should stay at the system or not be worn into the home.

/

Use gamma survey instruments or equivalent monitors at least once annually to monitor the system’s ambient radiation

levels in areas where radionuclides are removed.

/

Monitor levels of radiation to which staff are exposed. Systems should contact, or be referred to, state or other

radiation experts for more information on how to monitor radiation levels.

Treatment plants that are licensed by the NRC or Agreement State should be referred to

CFR

Parts 19 and 20 for

licensee reporting, notification, inspection, and safety requirements. Licensed facilities are required to post the

regulations listed under Parts 19 and 20, along with numerous other documents related to the license and the activities

conducted under the license. Employees likely to receive occupational doses greater than 100 mrern/year must be

kept informed and instructed on various issues related to health protection, relevant regulations, and the facility’s

storage and transport of radioactive materials, among other things. Licensees must also keep individual employees

informed of the annual radiation dose that they receive. Current and former employees can also request reports on

their exposure to radiation or radioactive materiaL

10 CFR Part 20

outlines requirements for licensees to develop radiation protection programs (10 CFR 20.1101), sets

dose limits and occupational limits for exposure to radiation (10 CPR 20.1201 to 1302), instructs licensees on how to

25

---

Electronic F~hng,Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

control access to areas where radiation levels are high or very high (10 CFR 20.1601 and 1602), and sets restrictions on

the use of individual respiratory equipment (10 CFR 20.1703 and 1704), among other things.

Part 20 also sets requirements related to storage and control

of

licensed material, including posting, sigriage, and

labeling requirements

(10 CFR 20

Subparts I andj).

These

regulations stipulate that licensees’ radiation protection

programs he designed around the ALAItA principle and require licensees to limit air emission of radioactive material

(excluding radon-222 and its daughters) so that the highest total effective dose equivalent received by any member of

the

public is no greater than 10 mrem/year. Part 20 also sets notification requirements in the case of an incident at the

licensed facility or for cases in which the facility is required to report exposures, radiation levels, or concentrations of

radioactive materials exceeding constraints or limits (10 CFR 20.2201 to 2203). Consult with your NRC regional

office or relevant state agency to ensure that any licensed facilities in your state are aware of these additional worker

safety requirements.

I-E.3 Additional Safety Considerations

Radon is

a natural decay product of radium and other radionucides, It can vary in concentration by time of day or

seasonally. It is appropriate for systems to consider radon protection measures when handling wastes containing

radium.

U.S. EPA

recommends that action he taken to reduce radon levels in homes and schools where testing shows

average concentrations of 4 pCi/L or greater. Although exposure to radon in homes or schools is evaluated

differently than occupational exposure, many nations and the ICR? recorurnend that intervention levels for exposure

to radon in homes also be used in workplaces.’9 U.S. EPA recommends that die action level used for homes and

schools be used for water systems.

If radionuclides or radiation have been found in drinking water or at a system, having operators who are trained in

treating for radionuclides, and handling, disposing of, and transporting TENORM waste, is highly recommended. In

addition, deterrnirae whether your state requires someone specifically licensed by the state or NRC to handle these

types of residuals. Operators should also be trained in how to measure radioactivity levels. Encourage systems to

check with the relevant state office regarding licensing requirements and training opportunities.

Assistance and advice are availabLe from the appropriate State Radiation Control Program (see Appendix D), the

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors at http://www.crcpd.org. and the

U.S. EPA

Regional Radiation

Programs. For additional references on this and other topics discussed in this guide, see Appendix C.

‘°ICRP,

t993.

26

---

EPA

-

About TENORM (EPA’s Radiation Protection Program: Programs)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerks Office, August 15, 2005

TENORM Home

TENORM

Sources

Summary Table

Laws & Regulations

About TENORM

Working With Other

Organizations

Regional

Radiation

Contacts

Publications

Related Links

Frequent

TENORM

Recent Add Lions.

I

cuolaci Us

Ptinfl&aiaa

Search: J

~

EEA

Home Radiation

Ecagra~

TENORM About TENORM

Radiation I-tome News information Topi~ Programs Visitors’center Site Map

About Tenorm

• Why is EPA concerqpdakquflERORMl

• What

~fAis Doing about IENORM2

• TENOR~f~gducinindustries

• Exi~lin

TENORM Sites

• Information and Guidance

Why is EPA concerned about TENORM?

Much

of what can be labeled “TENORM” has only

trace amounts of radiation and is part of our

everyday

landscape. However, some TENORM has

very high

concentrations of radionuclides that can result in

elevated exposures to radiation.

EPA is concerned about TENORM for three reasons.

First, TENORM has the potential to cause elevated

exposure to radiation. Second, people may not be

aware of TENORM materials and need information

about them. Third, industries that generate these

materials

may need additional guidance to help

manage and dispose of TENORM in ways that

protect people and the environment and are

economically sound.

EPA is working to coordinate all of its TENORM

efforts with other federal agencies, state and tribal

governments, Industry and public interest

organizations. Coordinating our projects in this way

wiil help us see the problem as a whole and will allow

us to work together to develop solutions more

effectively both within the Agency and with

stakeholders outside the Agency.

return to: EtQQJ forevious !OcSionl

What EPA Is Doing about TENORM?

EPA is working to understand the TENORM problem

and to develop effective ways to protect humans and

the environment from harmful exposure to the

radiation in these materials. TENORM is a particularly

challenging problem in the U.S. because it is

produced by many industries in varying amounts and

Pncr?,

I

o~4

,4TT4(Tf-j\,j;Nl 9

Ecagrams Home

Yucca

Mm.

MiXQdW

Federal Guidance

Naturally

Oceurrin~

~otive

Materipis

Radionuclidein

Water

5

S

onWise

Rad NESHAPs

!3e~iPnaIPrograms

MARSSIM

MAR~P

C

leanu

Technn~gg~~

Tha~

fl~-

~oical

~nc

Clean Materials

~~~~,ratodes

,i1~

Programs Home

U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency

Programs

http

://www.

epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/about.htxn

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

About TENORM (EPA’s Radiation Protection Program: Programs)

Page 2 of 4

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

occurs in a wide variety of products. Although EPA

and others working on the problem already have

learned a good deal about TENORM, we still do not

understand fully all of the potential radiation exposure

risks it presents to humans and the environment.

RPD’s strategy is a four-pronged approach to the

problem:

• Study the TENORM-producing industries to determine

what’s in the wastes from the industries and how much risk

they pose.

• Identify and study existing TENORM

sites

to assemble a

nation-wide view of the problem—where the wastes are,

what’s in them, and the risks they present.

• Devetop and gJ~~jdeffiducationand guidance for safely and

economically controlfing exposures to TENORM wastes.

• Work With other orcanizations that are confronting the

problem of TENORM, including states, tribes, other federal

agencies, industry and environmental groups, and

-

international organizations.

return to:

~~pI

preyi.Qu.iiQ~ajjQflj

TENORM-Produclng Industries

EPA has studied TENORM-producing industries in

the United States to learn which aspects of the

problem, including health and environmental risks,

are unique to a given industry and which are common

across all industries. The results of these studies will

appear as a series of reports on individual

industries. Each report will contain the following

information:

• generation of TENORM by the Industry

• content of the TEN ORM

• ways that people could be exposed to the

industry’s TENORM

• potential effects of exposure to TENORM from

the industry

• how the industry handles or disposes of

TENORM wastes.

In addition, EPA and other federal agencies who have

radiation responsibilities have conducted a ioint pilot

~4c

of radlonuclides Including TENORM at sewage

treatment plants.

return to: I toi~Iprevious locatiDni

Existing TENORM SItes

EPA is working cooperatively with several

organizations to identify TENORM sites and

characterize the contamination:

Navajo Nation

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/about.htm

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

About TENORM (EPA’s Radiation Protection Program: Programs)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

EPA, the

Navajo

EPA, and

the Navajo

Abandoned

Mine Lands

Reclamation

Department

are working

together to

assess

hazards of radioactivity and abandoned uranium mines on the

Navajo Reservation. This work includes individual site

assessments, hazards mapping, planning for surveys to locate

houses built with uranium mine wastes and community education

on radiation hazards.

Colorado Plateau Data Coordination Group

EPA is working with the multi-agency colorado Plateau Data

coordination Group Steering committee to develop geographic

information database on uranium mines and mills. The database

will identify and show the location of active and inactive uranium

mines and mills in eleven western states. it also will contain other

information about the sites. This is the first step in developing an

ece1QgIQ~L~tiasabout the colorado Plateau for use by the pubhc

and federal, state, tribal, academic, and industrial organizations.

Page 3 of4

EPA is providing assistance to the

Spokane Indian Tribe and the EPA

Superfund Program to clean up the

radiological hazards in water and soils

from an abandoned uranium mine that

is on tribal lands. EPA is assisting by

evaluating the radiological

contamination at the site and

site clean-up methods that provide

radiation protection to tribal members

and the environment and are also

economical.

return to;

fl~p

Furevious locationi

information and Guidance

Midnite Uranium Mine,

NPL Site, Washington

state

EPA has several activities underway that will help us provide

guidance to those who deal with TENORM problems.

• Our studies of existing TENORM sites wilt give us

information we need to select appropriate methods for

estimating risks from these, sites, the best ways to clean up

the sites, and the most economical ways to dispose of the

TENORM.

• EPA sponsored a National Academy of Sciences evaluation

of existing methods for estimating the risk from TENORM

sites and existing guidelines for cleaning them up. EPA

sponsored the study at the request of Congress. NAS

completed its report, Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures

to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurrj!~g

Radioactive Materials, in January of 1999.

C~W’EPA

Water-filled

open pit

uranium mine, northern

Arizona

http

://www.epa.gov/radiationltenorm/about.htm

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

About

.TEN.QRM (ILPA’s Radiation PrQ;ect~u,Progrq4mProg~ans)

Page 4 of 4

Llectronic i-iflng, i-ecetveci, Ulerks UTlice,

/AuguSt

ID,

2005

• EPA Issued a Report to Congress, Evaluation

of EPA’s

Guidelines

for

TENCRM,

describing

what it would do to implement the NAS’s

recommendations.

• EPA develops and distributes information

about environmental issues in the mining

industry through the National Hardrock Mining

committee. Organizations across EPA that

work on these issues form the committee,

which also coordinates mining-retated

environmental activities across the Agency.

• EPA has Issued guidance to Its regional

personnel which are involved in site visits and

inspections. The guidance, Potential for

Radiation Contamination Associated With

Mineral and Resource Extraction industries

provides a listing of the various types of

mineral and other sites which might have

associaled TENORM radioactivity. Agency

staff conducting work at such sites are advised

to contact EPA’s regional radiation protection

personnel for health and safety protection, as

weD as advice on how to conduct radiation site

surveys, field sampling, cleanup and

monitoring.

return tc:

F~ppj

rorevious iocat~onl

Links to Related information

S

Reiated Links

S

Frenuont Questions

S

.,.flcotacIir.~p~opkandtheerwiromnent

Radiation Home’ ~4~yis ThQj~

.

1nform~iion

‘visitors’ Center

‘~i&.Map

EPA Home

I

Privacy and Secu!tty No~e

I

Contact UA

Last updated on Monday, December

20th, 2004

URL:

httpiIw~w’.epa.gov/radiatian/tenorm/about.htm

http://www.epa.gov/radiationltcriorm/about.htm

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

TENORM Sources: Summaiy Table (EPA’s Radiation Protection Programs:

TF.NflR

Pwe I of 3

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2u05

TENORM Home

TENORM

Sources

Summary Table

Laws & Regulations

AT1~ACHMEN1’10

U.S. Environmental Protection

agency

Recent AddlUons Contact Us

I

Print Versioa

Search:

J

__________

EPA

Home

Radiation PsQarajn~

TENORM TENORM Sources: Summaty Table

Radiation Home News Information Topics Programs Visitors’Center Site Map

I

TENORM Sources: Summary Table

The summary table below provides a range of reported

concentrations, and average concentration measurements of

TENORM in various wastes and materials. This is not a

comprehensive list, as TENORM radiation is known to occur in

many other materials, but should provide a general sense of the

About TENORM

hazards posed by

this

class of radioactive substances.

Working With Other

Organizations

Regional

Radiation

Contacts

Publications

Reiated Links

Unless otherwise noted, the radiation level of each

waste is shown in the units

p~1Lgram.

For

comparison purposes, the average level of radium in

soil ranges from less than 1 to slightly more than 4

pci/gram. NAW indicates data is not available,

Programs

ftrqg~arns

ftqmffi

WJ~PPOyerslcht

Yucca Mtn.

Federai Guidance

Nature ily

Radioactive

Frequent

Questions

Radionucijd~

high

in

Water

SpnW~e

Soiis of the United States

Geothermal Energy Waste Scales

Petroleum (oil and gas)

Produced Water

pci/I

Pipe/Tank Scale

Water Treatment

Treatment Sludge

pci/I

Treatment Plant

Filters

Ore (Bauxite)

Product

0.2

NA

4.2

Pad

NESHAPs

RagiQoeLProgram,a

10

132

254

MAR~1M

Cieanuo:

0.1

NA

9,000

I~tino!ggies&

0.25

200

100,000

RadiologJç~

~rvfirgeocy

Sesponse

1.3

ii

11,686

~eaitMaterlals

NA

40,000

NA

4.4

NA

7.4

0.23

Radiation Level (pCI/gJ

low

TENORM

Programs Home

Note:

Product or Byproduct:

Aluminum

http

://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/sourcestable.htm

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

TENORM Sources: Summary Table (EPA’s Radiation Protection Programs: TENO~..Page 2 of 3

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

Production Wastes

NA

3.9-5.6

NA

Coal and Coal Ash

Bottom Ash

1.6

3.5-4.6

7.7

Fly Ash

2

5.8

9.7

copper Waste Rock

0.7

12

82.6

TENORM In SW Copper Belt cf Arizona

EPA 402-R-99-002tahout odf

format

Fertilizers (Phosphate & Potassium) Phosphate

Ore (Florida)

7

17.3-

6.2-53.5

39.5

7.3

11.7-

36.7

Phosphogypsum

24.5

Phosphate Fertilizer

0.5

5.7

21

Gold and Silver

Rare Earths

(Monazite, Xenotime, Bastnasite)

5.7

NA

3224

Titanium Ores

8.0

24.5

Rutiie

19.7

NA

Ilmenite

NA

5.7

Wastes

3.9

12

45

Uranium

Uranium Mining

low

Overburden

hundreds

Uranium in-Situ

3

30

3000

Leachate Evaporation

Pond

Solids

300

Zircon

66

Wastes

67

1300

return to: ~t~pJprevious

location

http;//www.cpa.gov/radiation/tenorm/sourcestabie.htm

8/1/2005

---

EPA

-

TENORM Sources: Sununary Table (EPA’s Radiation Protection Programs: TENOt Page 3 of 3

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

Links to Reiated Information

• Radiation in TENQE~.ISourcon ~ About TENORM ~ ErepsseritQtjestior~~

..pr0tectin~people

add

the ehvironmeitt

• Programs Vi~tpssCenter

.

EEA.ti~rn~

I

Privacy and Security Notice

I contad Us

Last updated on Monday, December 20th, 2004

URL:

http:/fwwwcpa.gov/radiauon/tenorm(sourcesable.htm

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/sourccs_table.htm

8/1/2005

---

Arc ACIMENT

II

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, u~p~i , 2005

_____

________

____

—

,

Waste Control&Cleanup

SupeTfitnd

Kerr-McGee to Pay $74 Million for Cleanup

OfRadioactive Mate,ial in West Chicago

Area

C

HICAGO—Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC will, pay

$74.

million

to, remOve radioactive material from

• , waterways west ~f Chicago under’the

terms of a

superfund settlement reached

APril20 with thiee

‘fed-

eral

agencies and’lllinois

(United SUites v. Kcrr-McGe~,

ND. Ill., No. 05C-2318, 4/20/0~).

The settlement

terms

were spelled out in a

consent

decree entered in the

U.S.

District Courtfor the North-

ern District

of Illinois.

Under the settlement, Oklahoma City-bäed Kerr-

McGee will be responsible for excavating 77000 cubic

yards of radioactive material from the West Branch of

the DuPage Rive1 an4 Kress Creek

and

disposing of the

waste in a facility licensed to handle such material.

Restoring Natural Habitat. The company also

will

be

required to restorO the natural habitat of the region by

repairing damage to vegetation, banks, and waterways

resulting from the contamination and the cleanup ac-

tivi

ties.

The federal agencies involved in the settlement in-

cluded the Enviromnental Protection Agency, the’ De-

partment of Justice,

and

the Department of the Interior.

Illinois

Attorney General Lisa Madigan

also

partici-

pated in the settlement on behalf of the state Environ-

mental Protection Agency and the state Department of

Natural Resources.

The consent decree

and

the resulting cleanup

effort

mark the final phase of an environmental remediation

effort

involving radioactive waste generated beginning

more

than

70 years ago at the Rare Earths Facility in

West Chicago. Kerr-McGee already

has

spent more

than $550 million over the last decade to address the

problem.

“Today marks a major

victory

for the citizensand en-

vironment of the Chicago area,’ said Kelly A. Johnson,

acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Depart-

ment’s Environment

and Natural Resources Division.

“The last radioactive contamination from the opera-

tions that ceased long agO

will

be cleaned up,

and

the

natural resources in the area

will

be restored’

Cleanup to Take Four

More

Years. John Christta~sen,a

corporate spokesman for Kerr-McGee, said, “Kress

Creek is really the last piece of this project. After

the

en-

tering

of the consent decree, we expect the cleanup ‘to

be completed in four years.”

Rebecca Frey, EPA’s remedial project manager for

the

‘Kress’

CreekiDuPage River site, told BNA the .enti-

ronmental problem began in 1932 when the Rare Earths

Facility was operated by Lindsay Light

and

Chemical

Co.

and

theri various succCs~ororgani’ atlons.

For 50 years, theRare

Earth~Facility produced

non-

radioactive,elements known

as

f’çare earths” and radio-

active elements such

as

thorium radium, and uranium

along with gas lantern

mantles.

The

facility’s processes

resulted in the generation

of radioactive mill

tailings

that contained residual levels

of thonum, radium and

uranium

as well as certain other insoluble metals.

Kerr-McGee purchased the

Rare Earths Facility in

1967’ ‘and maintained operations there until it

was

closedin

1973.

During

the Rare

Earths

Facility

‘s years of operation,

it

and the surrounding area became contaminated when

radioactive

mill tailings were discharged and carried by

storm sewers into nearby Kress ‘Creek

and from there

downstream

to the West Branch of the DuPage

River.

Freysaid’EPA became involted

in the area in 1993

when an initial remedial investigation’ and’ feasibility

study were undertaken. Four separate areas were de-

signed.’as superfund sites. Cleanup’began the’following

year under unilateral administrative

orders from EPA

compelling Kerr-McGee to commence rernediation ac-

tivities.

During the ensuing years, Kerr-McGee funded the

cleanup of’675 resideptial properties, where 110,782 cu-

bicyards of radioactive soil was removed.

The company also, completed the remediation of

Reed-Keppler Park, where mill tailings were dumped

prior to the

area’s

development ,as a

park.

That portion

of the project renio~ed114,652 cubic yards of radioac-

tive material.

In addition, Kerr-McGee oversaw the cleanup of

the

West Chicago sewage treatment plant, which involved

the

removal of 6,281 cubic yards of contaminated soil.

More Than $550 Million Spent- Kerr-McGee’s Chris-

tiansen told ENA the company already has spent $120

million on these ‘three retnediation’ projects. tn addition,

the company has spent $440 million ‘to decommission

the

Rare’

Earths Facility pursuant to its license from the

Illinois .Emeigency Management Agency’s Division of

Nuclear

Security.

With’the April20 consent decree, Frey said the final

chapter has been

written

with respectto one of the larg-

est superfund sites in

Illinois

history.

The decree requires the cleanup of eight miles of wa-

terways in the

vicinity

of West chicago.

She said that while the effort would take, approxi-

mately four

years,

a

substantial

portion of ‘the work

‘wquld be ‘completed before the end of 2905.,

“While the

cleanup costs under the 4ecree are esti-

mated at $74 million, Kerr-McGee’s ‘liability will be

much higher. According to the JUstiëe Department, the

company

will

pay an additional $6

million

into super-

fund

for past costs incurred by EPA. It

will also

reim-

bust the’ agency up to $1675 million in

future

ovel—

sight costs.

The company

will pay $100,000 and

$75,000

r’espec-

lively to ‘the ‘state of

Illinois and

to the Department of

the Interior for costs relating to nati1rai resource resto-

803

.

ENvIRONMENT REPORTER

isSN

0013-9211

SNA

422-05

---

-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

ATTACITMENT12

KERR-MCGEE CHEM/~’a

; ~i;”~~

;iw.’

KERRMCOEE CENTER

•

OKLAHOMA Oily,

cK~AHcuA

za,m

April 21, 1998

LKE-057

~YAtRBQ~liE

TO:

Mr. David P• Seely

The Superfurid Division

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd (SR-6J)

Chicago, illinois 60604-3590

SUBJECT:

Request for Historical Data

—

REF Tailings and Sediments

REFERENCE:

Kerr-McGee Reed-Keppler Park Site (‘RKP Site”)

Dear Mr. Seely:

During our meeting on April 8, 1998, you requested information regarding the types of 11(e)(2)

materials that could have been originally used as backfill at Reed-Keppler Park (RKP)~ We

discussed the information contained in U.S. EPA documentation, the U.S. NRC document,

R~~~logicaiSurvey of the Reed-Kepoler Park Site West Chic~oIllinois, NUREG/CR-3035,

prepared by Radiation Management Corporation (November 1982), the Engineering Report (1986)

and information contained in the records of Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC. This information all

indicates that the only Rare Earths Facility (REF) material used as backfill was tailings.

I am enclosing copies of the pertinent pages from Volume VIII, Appendix E (binder 8 of 20) of the

Engineering Reoort (1966). These three tables provide radiochemical data

and statistical results

for the

two primary solid waste materials produced at the West Chicago Rare Earths Facility

(REF).

Iail~gs

Tailings were produced as a consequence of unreacted or unextracted materials in the ore. That

is, tailings remain as the solid waste following extraction (commonly called “winning”) of the

desired materials from the primary ore. Tailings from monazite ore processing, produced from

1932 through 1964, consisted primarily of —10 unreacted ore constituents (largely branerite

phases), —10 mixed bariurn(radium sulfate and —80 unexlracted rare earth oxides. The bulk

of the tailings typically ranged from 1,500 to 3,000 pci/g, though some batch lots were up to as

high as 30,000 pci/g.

The average concentrations for the parent” rathonuclides are:

• U-238

14 pCi/g

• Th-232 & Ra-228

1,357 pCi/g (in secular equilibrium)

• Ra-226

812 pCi/g

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, AUgust 15, 2005

IKF-”i57. Ap1 3k I yqg

The ratio

of

Ra-228 to

Ra-226 averages 1.7 to 1. The uranium concentration is negligible relative

to the radium-226 and radium-228.

The low ratio of Ra-228 to Ra-226 is the direct result of —10 barium sulfate being added to the

ore, prior to processing, as a “hold-back carrier” for radium. The barium sulfate caused the

radium-226 to remain with the tailings.

Sediments (Sludge)

Pond

1 ‘“sludge only” and Sludge Pile “sludge only’ are

often called sediments. A one-time

dredging of Pond 1 conducted around the mid-to-late 1950s created the Sludge Pile. The sludge

(sediments) consist primarily of unrecovered rare earth fluorides along with some thoriurn’fluoride,

rare earth phosphates, radium fluoride and uranium fluorides. The rare earth, thorium and radium

fluorides and phosphates are extremely insoluble in aqueous solutions. While uranium

tetrafluoride is also very insoluble in aqueous solutions, some urariyl fluorides were present; uranyl

fluorides are highly soluble in water.

The average concentrations of the “parent” radionuclides, corrected for the relative volumes of

Pond 1 sludge to Sludge Pile sludge, are:

• U-238

222 pCi/g

• Th-232 & Ra-228

4,183 pCi/g (in secular equilibrium)

• Ra-226

255 pCi/g

The ratio of Ra-228 to Ra-226 averages 16.4 to 1. The uranium concentration Is negligible relative

to the radium-228; the apparent simflarity between the uranium and radium-226 concentrations is

coincidental. The high ratio of Ra-228 to Ra-226 is the direct result of —10 barium sulfate being

added to the ore, prior to processing, as a hold back carrier” for radium. That is, the radium-226

remained with the tailings.

Fre’ an engineering perspective it is unlikely that sediments (or sludges) would have been-used

for backfill. These materials run nominally 70÷ water, and an area backfihled with sediments

would have experienced significant and continuing subsidence over years of time,

If ycu have any questions please contact me at 405-270-3792 or Garet Van De Steeg at 405-270-

3574.

Very truly yours,

KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL LLC

J. D. White

Offsites Project Manager

Enclosures

2

---

-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

.KFU57.

.Apr,I 31,

cc:

0. PA. Jedlicka

M. S. Krippel

R. A. Meserve

C.

F.

Pilcher

C. E.

Van De Steeg

File RKP 1.4-1

3

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

C—27912

—

VEST CHICAGO

LOCATIO4:

101L.INES

PILE

IMLIHS$

OWU

OH NO

SAPrLI

SIIPI

1J238

U238

718237

TH22

0A23e

RA236

0114 GM

0114

EA~ 101 GAP.

TOT BAN

I

DEPTH

VALUE

ACCU

VALUE

ACCU

VALUE

ACCU

VALUE

ACCU

VALUE

ACCU

265

I

2.0

0.0

0.0 2345.0

34.0

900.0

42.0

0.0

0,0 3056.0

54,0

265

2

3.0

76.0

105.0

L597.0

32.0

614.0

111.0

0,0

0.0

2287.0

160.0

265

2

4.0

6.0

130.0

2297.0

41.0

921.0

146.0

0.0

0,0

3227.0

200.0

I

265263

‘32

5.06.0

48.00.0

121,00.0

2182.02128.0

40.034.0

967,0679.0

143.043.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

$X7.03197.0

19;,055~

265

3

1.0

0,0

0.0

1931.0

29.0

779.0

35.0

0.0

0.0

2116.0

C.0

I

265

265

44

8.09,0

41.00.0

142.00.0

2113.01769.0

32.044.0

1031.0929.0

160.041.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

259E.03051.0

28052.0

265

4

10.0

0.0

0,0

0723.0

29.0

750.0

31.0

0.0

0,0

247:.o

47,~

265

5

11,0

0.0

0.0

1910.0

29.0

164.0

36,0

0.0

0,0

2674.0

46.0

I

265

5

12.0

0.0

0.0

1892.0

34.0

723.0

43,0

0,0

0.0

2615.0

55.0

U

265

13.0

0.0

0.0

1114.0

31.0

829,0

40.0

0.0

0,0

254:.o

5:.0

265

6

14.0

0,0

0.0

1655.0

28.0

792.0

31.0

0.0

0.0

2441.0

~.0

I

265265265

777

17.015.036.0

0.00.00.0

0.00.00.0

2337.01839.089.0

41.070.030,0

22710804.0482.0

106.053.037,0

410.071.00.0

2$.067.00.0

2643.0468:o995.0

72.0

LI.0

265

8

18.0

284,0

236,0 1721.0

53.0 93U.0

284,0

0.0

0,0 IIAOLQ

-~,74.0

I

265

265

8

9

20.0

9,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1414.0

52.0

54,0

37.0

2916.0

62.0

25.018,0

65.051.0

34,012.0

4455.0165.0

101,032.0

265

9

20.0

0.0

0.0 2137.0

35.0 1492.0

46.0

0.0

0.0 3629.0

55.0

I

265265265

IC109

22,023.024.0

0.00.00.0

0.00.00.0 2083.01191.02338.0

27.028.030.0 1340.01314.00470.0

34.038.035.0

0.00.00.0

•0.00.00.0 3457.03758.03238.0

49.044.044.0

‘

265265

12II

25.021.0

13.00.0

85.00.0

2019,02103.0

27.030.0 1495.01234.0

38.091.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

3253.036u.Q

i::.o42.0

266

I

2.0

21.0

10.0

222.0

3.0

21.0

12.0

0.0

1.9

170.0

15.0

246

2

3.0

20.0

71.0 1261.0

23.0

788.0

81.0

0.0

0.0 2069,0

210.0

I

766266266

313

7.05.06.0

0.00.00.0

0.00.00.0

760.0764.0640.0

42.042.040.0

590.0576.0460.0

53.056.055.0

100.093,011.0

27.028,028,0

1446.01427,01220.0

72.075.075.0

266

4

8.0

0.0

0.0

742,0

48.0

507.0

63.0

134.0

33,0

1323.0

I

266

4

7.0

0.0

0.0

165.0

66.0

532.0

88.0

212.0

48.0

1609.0

.s.0

266

5

00.0

0.0

0.0

791.0

60.0

515.0

80.0

115.0

43.0

1493.0

‘49,0

266

5

11.0

0.0

0.0

647.0

42.0

523.9

56.0

106.0

21.0

1216.0

LO

ma

a

12.0

0.0

0.0

700.0

44.0

603.0

59.0

110.0

30.0

1421.0-

‘79.0

U

266

266

1

6

13.014.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

102.0742.0

51.041.0

533.0411.0

47.044.0

126.0139.0

35.0

33.0

1479.0

1474.0

91.0

66.0

26i

1

15.0

0.0

0.0

777.0

53.0

SILO

71.0

149.0

31.0

3520.0

96.0

U

266

98

06.017.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

833.0002.0

50.0

55.0

~8.0

503.0

47.0

73.0

155.0144.0

33.0

35.0

2576.0

1449.0

99.0

90,0

266

9

11.0

0.0

0.0

745.0

50.0

481.0

66.0

147.0

35,0

1401.0

90.0

266

tO

ItO

0.0

0.0

111.0

46.0

814.0

62.0

112.0

31.0

1144.0

83.0

I

266

10

20.0

0.0

0.0

121.0

56.0

635.1

14,0

357.0

38,0

1622.0

100.0

266

10

21.0

0,0

0.0

473.0

50.0

507.0

68.0

150.0

35.0

1350.0

9h0

264

II

22.0

0.0

0.0

752,0

57.0

524.0

77.0

170.0

41.0

0454.0

204,0

I

264

12

23.0

0.0

0.0

1507.0

lEO

644.0

23.0

0.0

0.0

1171.0

30.0

270

-

—

2

4.0

93.0

61.0

1377.0

20.0

0121.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

2605.0

95.0

210

3

5.0

0.0

0.0

1430.0

17.0

931.0

24.0

0.0

0.0

21SI~0

31.0

270

3

6.0

0.0

0.0

829.0

50.0

761.0

61.0

110.0

33,0

1706.0

90.0

1

210

3

7.0

0.0

0.0

953.0

52.0

657.0

66.0

61.0

34.0

1619.0

91.0

23-On—IS

,

PME 1

I

---

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk’s Office, August 15, 2005

0—21172 —

NEST

CHICAEO

LaCArIo~: TAILINGS PILE

—

IAILINGS

DXL~

U

044 c

SA~LE

SKPL

U238

U238

114232

114232

RA236

RA236

0Th OAK

0714 OM

TOT GM

TOT SAfl

N

OEPTH

VALUE

A001J

VALUE

ACCU

VALUE

ECU

VALUE

AcCU

VALUE

ACCU

270

4

8.0

0.0

0,0

1023,0

-

64.0

676.0

83.0

121.0

43.0

1320.0

313.0

270

4

9.0

9.0

79.0 1535,0

26.0

1323.0

91,0

0,0

0,0

2667.0

123.0

270

5

10.0

0.0

8,0

930.0

54.0

614.0

70,0

03,0

36.0 1605.0

95.0

I

270

5

03.0

0.0

0.0

949.0

56.0

671,0

12.0

10.0

31.0 3693.0

96.0

270

5

12.0

0.0

0.0

911.0

11.0

600.0

74.0

81,0

38.0 1608.0

201.0

270

6

13.0

0.0

0.0

943,0

-

53.0

466.0

68.0

88.0

36.0 1517.0

92,2

I

270

6

14.0

0.0

0.0

941.0

56.0

599.0

72,0

52.0

37.0

1622.0

96.0

vo

7

15.0

0.0

0,0

875.0

54.0

533.0

69.0

90.0

36,0 1498,0

95.2

210

7

16.0

0,0

0.0

700,0

44.0

493.0

57.0

67.0

29,0 12e0.C’

75.~

270

9

07.0

0.0

0.0

P28.0

55.0

546.0

72.0

106.0

35.0 0490.0

95.2

P

210

9

19.0

0.0

0.0

174.0

52.0

528.0

68.0

89.0

35.0

229t.O

92.0

270

10

20.0

0.0

0.0

788.0

11.0

505.0

66.0

92.0

34.0

1385.0

90,C’

270

1!

22.0

0.0

0.0

357.0

44.0

535.0

57.0

111.0

30.0 2503.0

72.0

P

270

Ii