BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BVE

CLERK’S

OFFICE

V.

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTIONAGENCY,

Respondent.

PCB

09-025

JAN

02

2009

STATE

OF

ILJJNOIS

olIutjon

Control

Board

TO:

See

Attached

Service

List

NOTICE

OF

FILING

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that

on

January

2,

2009,

we

filed

with

the

Office

of

the

Clerk

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

Joliet’s

Witnesses

Narrative

Testimony,

a

copy

of

which

is

served

upon

you.

Dated:

January

2,

2009

Roy

M.

Harsch,

Esq.

Yesenia

Villasenor-Rodriguez,

Esq.

Drinker

Biddle

&

Reath

LLP

191

North

Wacker

Drive

-

Suite

3700

Chicago,

Illinois

60606

(312)

569-1441

(Direct

Dial)

(312)

569-3441

(Facsimile)

CITY

OF

JOLIET,

Petitioner,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

(Permit

Appeal-Water)

THIS

FILING

IS

BEING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

LERK’S

OFFICE

CITY

OF

JOLIET,

)

JAN

02

Petitioner,

)

ILLINOIS

v.

)

PCB

09-025

)

(Permit Appeal-Water)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

JOLIET’S

WITNESSES

NARRATIVE

TESTIMONY

The

CITY

OF

JOLIET

(hereinafter,

“Joliet”),

by

its

attorneys,

Drinker

Biddle

&

Reath

LLP, pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code Section

10

1.626(d)

and

in

accordance

with

the

Hearing

Officer’s

directive

submits

the

following

pre-hearing

written

testimony

for

the

following

witnesses.

These

witnesses

will

be

present

at

the

hearing

and

will

be

available

for

cross-

examination.

1.

Harold

Harty

of

the

CityofJoliet

(Attachment

A)

2.

Dennis

Duffield

of

Rogina

&

Associates,

Ltd.

(Attachment

B)

3.

Eli

Port

(Attachment

C)

4.

Richard

Toohey

of

Oak

Ridge

Associated

Universities

(Attachment

D)

Dated:

January

2,

2009

Roy

M.

Harsch, Esq.

Yesenia

Villasenor-Rodriguez,

Esq.

Drinker

Biddle

&

Reath

LLP

191

North

Wacker

Drive

-

Suite

3700

Chicago,

Illinois

60606

(312)

569-1441

(Direct

Dial)

(312)

569-3441

(Facsimile)

THIS

FILING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

I, the

undersigned,

certify

that

I

have

served

the

attached

Joliet’s

Witnesses

Narrative

Testimony

by

First

Class

Mail,

postage

pre-paid

on

January

2,

2009.

See

Attached

List.

Yes

n

Villasenor-Rodrigue

THIS

FILING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

Service

List

PCB

09-25

(Permit

Appeal

—

Water)

Gerald

Karr

Senior

Assistant

Attorney

General

69

West

Washington

Suite

—

1800

Chicago,

IL

60602

John

T.

Therriault

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100W.

Randolph

Street—

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

Bradley

P.

Halloran

HearingOfficer

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph

Street

—

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

CHO1/25278359.1

THIS

FILING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

WRITTEN

TESTIMONY

OF

HAROLD

HARTY

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

City

of

Joliet

v.

Illinois

EPA

PCB 09-25

Before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

Bolingbrook,

Illinois

January

13,

2009

My name

is

Harold

Harty.

My business

address

is

1021

McKinley,

Joliet,

Illinois.

I

have

been employed

by

the

City of

Joliet for

the

past 34

years.

In

the

last

28

years,

I have

been

the

Plant

Operations

Superintendent

in

charge

of

three

(3)

wastewater

treatment

plants.

I

hold an

Illinois

Class

1 Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

Operator’s

License

and

an

Illinois

Class

B

Water

Treatment

Plant

Operator’s

License.

In

1982,

the

City

of

Joliet

started

the

Land

Application

Program

for

the

disposal

of

bio

solids

from

the

wastewater

treatment

plants.

We felt

at

that

the

time

that

recycling

bio

solids

to

be

used

as

fertilizer

was the

best

use

for

this

material. Our

bio-solids

program

has

been

in

operation

since

then

and

has

met

or

exceeded

all

requirements

set

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”)

and

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“U.S.

EPA”)

standards.

We started

this

program

to

assure

proper

disposal,

and

have

closely

followed

all

of

the

applicable

environmental

requirements.

As

a

result,

Joliet has

never

received

a

warning

letter

or

any

other

complaint

regarding

its

sludge

disposal

operations.

From

the

start

of

the

program

we

recognized

that

Joliet

would

need

a

knowledgeable

City

representative

to

interact

with

those

whose

land would

be

used.

We

needed

someone

that

had

an

established

relationship

with

landowners/growers.

Joliet

understood

that

we

would

needed

to

gain acceptance

of

the

program.

Joliet

therefore

decided

to

contract

with

a

trained

Agronomist

to

meet

these

needs.

From

the

start,

our

Agronomist

recorded

the

application

rates

and monitored

loadings

for

each

field

that

received

Joliet’s

bio-solids.

During

the

early

years,

the

number

of

allowable

applications

were

limited

by

copper

and

zinc

loads

due

to

their

concentration

in

the

bio—solids.

With

the

continuing

proper

implementation

of

pre-treatment,

bio-solids

applications

are

now

controlled

by

nitrogen

and

phosphorus.

From

the

start of

this

program,

Joliet

used

an

independent

Agronomist

to

do

all

of

the

field-testing

required

by

the

permit

we

received

from

the

IEPA

which

authorized

the

land

application

of

our

bio-solids.

This

contractor

set

the

agronomical

rates

to

accommodate

to

the

field

conditions

and

to

ensure

that

the

proper

amounts

of

bio-solids

are

applied

to

the

fields.

Exhibit

is

a

statement

from

our

current

Agronomist,

Mr.

Daniel

Fiedler

of Land

Treatment

Alternatives,

Inc.,

which

provides

some

additional

information

regarding

our

bio-solids

disposal

program

which

he

oversees.

I

---

Our

bio-solids

are

generated

in

our

treatment

plants

from

the

treatment

of

sanitary

sewage.

Sludge

settles

in

plant

clarifiers

and

is

directed

to

digesters

at

each

plant.

Bacteria

in

the

digesters

reduce

the

amount

of

organic

matter

and

stabilize

the

sludge

for

land

application.

The

bio-solids

are

collected

in

the

anaerobic

digesters

at

our

two

older

plants

and

in

the

aerobic

digester

at

our

newer

Aux

Sable

plant.

The

bio-solids

are

transferred

to

storage

tanks

at

each

plant

site.

Our

bio-solids

program

uses

an

annual

agreement

with

each

landowner/grower

whose

fields

have

been

identified

by

our

Agronomist

as

potential

fields

for

the

contract

period.

The

Agronomist

identifies

the

specific

field

for

application

and

establishes

the

rate

of

application.

All

farmers

are

informed

of

what

is

in

our

bio-solids

and

sign

a

User

Information

Sheet

form

accepting

the

bio-solids.

The

landowner/grower

must

sign

this

form

that

identifies

the

analysis

of

the

sludge

and

the

crop

to

be

grown

and

the

yield

goal.

The

hauling

and

land

application

is

contracted

by

public

bid

to

licensed

applicators

who

are

independent

of

the

Agronomist.

The

Applicator

provides

tank

trucks

to

transport

liquid

sludge

from

plants

to

each

specific

field

in

the

program.

Each

truck

holds

approximately

5500

gallons

per

load.

The

Applicator

provides

fertilizer

applicators

with

chisel

plows

mounted

with

ihjectors

to

apply

the

biosolids

below

the

ground

surface

in

the

top

12

inches

of

soil.

The

application

rates

established

by

the

Agronomist

and

agreed

to

in

writing

by

the

landowner/grower

are

utilized.

The

percentage

of

solids

of

the

sludge

applied

and

the

gallons

applied

are

recorded

to

verify

application

rates.

The

Agronomist

adds

the

current

application

to

the

records

of

the

total

applied

to

a

given

field.

Total

loadings

are

compared

to

U.S.

EPA

and

IEPA

allowed

loadings

to

assure

compliance.

This

program

has

grown

throughout

the

years

to

where

we

are

applying

bio-solids

to

about

1,000

acres/year.

There

has

always

been

more

demand

for

the

bio-solids

then

we

have

ever

produced.

Farmers

know

the

value

of

our

product

to

their

operation

as

an

alternative

to

commercial

fertilizer,

which

has

steadily

increased

over

the

years.

Although

the

growers

recognize

the

fertilizer

value,

they

also

recognize

the

additional

compaction

of

the

soil

in

the

field

which

potentially

reduces

yield.

To

encourage

acceptance

of

sludge

in

the

spring,

growers

are

paid

$50

per

acre

for

the

right

to

apply

the

bio-solids

and

up

to

an

additional

$50

per

acre

is

paid

if

the

crop

yield

is

less

than

the

five

year

average

yield

for

that

field.

Wet

soil

in

the

spring

leads

to

more

compaction

than

a

mid-summer

application

on

a

dry

field.

The

City

of

Joliet’s

Land

Application

Program

has

become

a

model

for

others

to

follow.

This

program

has

merit

in

that

we

are

recycling

this

product

to

the

best

use

of

technology.

The

only

alternative

would

be

to

landfill,

which

has

no

benefit

to

the

environment.

This

program

and

the

City

of

Joliet

have

always

completed

everything

the

IEPA

has

regulated

and

will

continue

to

do

it

in

the

future.

---

The

continuation

of

the

land

application

program

will

allow

an

on-going

recycling

effort

and

keep

this

material

out

of

the

landfill.

In

order

to

landfill

this

sludge,

it

would

have

to

be dried,

requiring

the

construction

of

specific

drying

facilities

and tipping

fees

would

have

to

be

paid.

These

additional

costs

will

be

covered

in

the

narrative

testimony

of

Mr.

Dennis

Duffield.

The

first

time

that

we

received

a

permit

from

IEPA

that

contained

a

limitation

on

Radium

was

in

permit

2006-SC-4784

issued

in

October

2006.

We

were

immediately

concerned

because

it

only allowed

for

a

total

accumulative

increase

of

radium

to

exceed

a

level

of

0.1

pico

curies

per

gram

from

the

application

of

sludge.

We

were

told

by

our

Agronomist

and

consultants

that the

number

of

applications

would

be

limited

to

only

one

application.

With this

severe

limitation,

our Agronomist

felt

that

it

would

be

very

difficult,

if

not

impossible,

to

get

landowners/growers

to

agree

to

be

part

of

our

program.

They

simply

would

not

want

to

be

bothered

with

the

program

and

the

potential

interference

with

their

farming

operations

for such

limited

benefit.

Accordingly,

we

began

a

series

of

discussions

with

the

JEPA

to

attempt

to

reach

agreement

to

raise

the

permitted

level.

(Record

at

R-6

through

R-96).

These efforts

will

be described

in

greater

detail

by

Mr.

Duffield.

In

summary,

while

we

were

able

to

get

JEPA

to

issue

permit

2006-SC-4784-2

which

raised

allowable

the

total

accumulative

increase

limit

to

0.4

pico

curies

per

gram,

we

were

still

concerned

because

this

level

still

would

limit

the

number

of

applications

to

four

from

the

higher

rate

that

is

currently

only

being

limited

by

the

nutrient

loadings

of

the

bio-solids.

This

would

eventually

mean

that

more

and

more

land

would

be

needed

to

be

identified

by

our

Agronomist

and

signed

up

to

be

part

of

the

program.

This

would

also

mean

that

the distances

to

these

fields

from

our

three

plants

would

increase.

This

would

result

in

increased

hauling

costs

and greater

emissions

from

the

trucks.

While

we

were

grateful

that

IEPA

agreed

to

increase

the

Radium

level

to

0.4

pico

curies

per

gram

because

it

allowed

our

Agronomist

to

continue

to

work

with

existing

landowners/growers

to

gain additional

applications,

such

a

value

still

limited

the

total

number

of

applications.

Our

consultants

and

experts

continued

to

say

that

there

was

no

real

need

for

this

low

of

a

limit.

Therefore,

Joliet continued

to

have

discussions

with

IEPA;

and,

we

agreed

to

request

a

formal

modification

to

our

permit

to

change

the

limit

to

1.0

pico

curies

per

gram

and

supply

all

of

the

supporting

information

our

consultants

and

experts

had

developed

to

support

the request.

A

permit

modification

was

filed

which

was

received

by

IEPA

on

July

30,

2008.(Record

at

R-1)

By

letter

dated

September

12,

2008,

the

IEPA

denied

the

permit

modification

request.(Record

at

R-1

through

R-2)

Joliet

filed

the

present

appeal

on

October

17,

2008.

We

are

here

today,

to

challenge

the

IEPA

decision

and

we

will

show

through

the

testimony

of

our consultants

and

experts

that

the

decision

is

without

merit

and

should

be

reversed

by the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board.

CHO1/

25275549.2

---

WRITTEN

TESTIMONY

OF

DENNIS

L.

DIJFFIELD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

City

of

Joliet

v.

Illinois

EPA

PCB

09-25

Before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

Bolingbrook,

Illinois

January

13,

2009

My

name is

Dennis

L.

Duffield.

My

business

address

is

93

Caterpillar

Drive,

Joliet

IL,

60436.

I

was

granted

a

Bachelor’s

of

Science

in

Civil

Engineering

by

Bradley

University

in

Peoria,

IL

in

1972

I

am

currently

employed

as

Project

Manager

for

Rogina

and

Associates,

Ltd.

Prior

to

my

employment

at

Rogina

and

Associates,

I

was

employed

by

the

City

of

Joliet

for

26

years;

For

all

but

the

first

four

months

of

employment

with

the

.City

of

Joliet,

I was

responsible

for

the

planning,

design,

construction

and

operations

of

the

municipal

water

and

wastewater

systems.

I

served

as

the

Director

of

Public

Works

and

Utilities

for

25

years.

During

this

time,

Joliet

was

required

to

address

the

issues

concerning

radium

in

drinking

water,

a

new

radium

water

quality

standard

and

overly

restrictive

limitations

on

the

disposal

of

biosolids

(wastewater

treatment

plant

residuals)

containing

radium.

I

believe

that

it

is

important

that

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

understand

the

history

and background

of

radium

regulations

in

order

to

be

able

to

properly

assess

and

decide

the

issue

presented

in

this

appeal.

Accordingly,

I will

first

present

a

review

of

the

regulatory

process

and

the

impact

it

had

on

Joliet’s

sludge

disposal

program.

I

am

hopeful

that

this

will

allow

the

Board

to

understand

the

impact

that

this

appeal will

have

on

Joliet and

ultimately

the

regulated

community

here

in

Illinois.

Radium

Regulation

The 1976

Safe Drinking

Water

Act

and

the

public

water

supply

regulations

that

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“U.S. EPA”)

adopted

pursuant

thereto

created

a maximum

contaminant

level

for

combined

radium

226

and

radium

228.

This

level was

5.0

pico-curies

per

liter.

Upon

the

implementation

of

this

maximum

contaminant

level,

the Public

Water

Supply

Division

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”)

arranged

for

the

analysis

of

water

from

drinking

water

systems

in

Illinois.

Joliet

was

included

in

this initial

sampling.

However

due

to

numerous

delays

in

the

analysis

of

the

samples,

Joliet

was

not

notified

of

an

exceedence

of

this

standard

until

1985.

1

---

IEPAIIDNS

Memorandum

of

Agreement

Without

providing

any

advance

notice

to

those

entities

that

operate

either

water

supplies

or

wastewater

treatment

plants

and

without

providing

any

ability

to

comment,

the

]EPA

and

the

Illinois

Department

of

Nuclear

Safety

entered

into

a

Memorandum

of

Agreement

(Record

at

R-336

through

R-339)

in

1984

which

set

forth

the

responsibilities

of

both

agencies

with

respect

to

the

disposal

and

use

of

sludge

resulting

from

the

treatment

of

water

or

sewage

containing

naturally

occurring

radium

from

ground

water.

This

agreement

limited

the

land

application

of

bio-solids

containing

radium

to

assure

that

the

increase

in

soil

concentration

be

limited

to

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram.

The

majority

of

my

testimony

addresses

IEPA’s

first

stated

basis

for

the

denial

of

Joliet’s

requested

permit

modification

which

is

this

Memorandum

of

Agreement

Notice

of

Drinking

Water

Violation

Joliet

received

notice

from

the

IEPA

in

1985

that

the

JolietPublic

Water

Supply

must

be

brought

into

compliance

with

the

Safe

Drinking

Water

Act’s

maximum

contaminant

level

for

combined

radium

226

and

radium

228.

Joliet’s

Actions

After

conducting

a

study,

it

was

determined

that

the

best

solution

for

Joliet

was

to

construct

a

new

water

supply

using

the

Kankakee

River

as

a

source.

The

land

acquisition

necessary

for

the

newwater

supply

and

thepreparation

of

plans

and

specifications

were

proceeding

until

1991.

On

July

18,

1991,

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“U.S.

EPA”)

formally

proposed

a

new

maximum

contaminant

level

for

radium.

This

proposal

allowed

a

concentration

of

20

pico-curies

per

liter

of

radium

226

and

20

pico-curies

per

liter

of

radium

228.

If

this

proposal

was

approved

by

U.S.

EPA,

Joliet

would

have

come

into

compliance

without

any

new

construction.

Joliet,

as

did

many

other

communities

in

Northern

Illinois

which

used

the

same

deep

well

aquifers,

stopped

work

on

the

Kankakee

River

Project

pending

a

decision

on

the

new

proposal.

Stakeholder’s

Meeting

For

years

following

the

initial

proposal,

there

was

very

limited

public

activity

by

the

U.S.

EPA

on

the

radium

proposal

until

a

Stakeholder’s

Meeting

was

scheduled

and

held

on

December

11

-

12,

1997

at

the

Hyatt

Regency

Crystal

City

2799

Jefferson

Davis

Highway

Arlington,

VA

22202.

There

is

a

record

of

the

meeting

at

htlp

://www.epa.

gov/safewater/ndwac/sumradn.html.

2

---

I attended the

meeting

on

behalf

of

Joliet.

Also

present

at the

meeting

from

Illinois

were

Gerald

Bevers

of

the

City

of DeKaib

and

Roger

Selburg,

Manager,

Division

of

Public

Water

Supplies,

LEPA.

One

of

the

topics

of

discussion

at

the

meeting

was

the

generation

of

radium

water

treatment

residuals

and

their

disposal.

Sanitary

sewers

were

listed

by

U.S.

EPA

as

an

acceptable alternative

for

disposing

of

water

treatment

plant

residuals.

In discussions

at

that

time

with

Roger

Selburg,

I

was

advised

that

the

radium

residuals

could

be

discharged

to

the

sanitary

sewer

as the

radium

was

already

being

discharged

to

the

sanitary sewer

prior

to

treatment.

Radium

was

pumped

from

the

deep

wells,

into

user’s homes

and

then

discharged

to

the

sanitary

sewer.

With

the

implementation

of

radium

treatment

to

meet

drinking

water

regulations,

radium

would

be

pumped

from

the

deep

wells,

then

treated

to

provide

homeowners

with

water

meeting

standard

and

that

water

discharged

to

the

sanitary sewer.

The

radium

removed

by

the

water

supply

treatment

could

also

be

discharged

to

thc

sanitary

sewer.

The

total

amount

of

radium

pumped from

the

deep

wells

would

reach

the

wastewater

treatment

plant

unchanged

using

either

approach.

Notice

of

Data

Availability,

Proposed

Rule

On

April

21,

2000,

the

U.S.

EPA

published

a

Notice

of

Data

Availability

and

Proposed

Rule

for

Radium

that

took

me,

and

many

in

both

the

regulatory

and

regulated

community,

by

complete surprise.

U.S.

EPA

proposed

that

combined

radium

226

and

228

should

not

exceed

5.0

pico-curies

per

liter.

This

was

almost

identical

to

the

original

1976

rule.

Final

Rulemaking

After

receiving

comments

from

the

public,

U.S.

EPA

issued

a final

rule

on

December

7,

2000.

This

rule

was

scheduled

to

become

effective

on

December

8,

2003.

It was

essentially

the

same rule

that

had

been

proposed

earlier

in

2000.

This

rule

essentially

left

in

place

the

requirement

of

combined

radium

226

and

radium

228

to

be

below

5.0

pico

curies

per

liter.

Joliet’s Response

to

Rulemaking

Joliet

had

grown

greatly

since

1985

and

the

original

intake

and

treatment

plant

was

no

longer properly

sized

to

meet

Joliet’s

growing

demand.

A new

intake

site

on

the

Kankakee

River

was

selected

and

work

began

with

the

Illinois

Department

of

Natural

Resources,

Division

of

Water Resources

to

obtain

a

withdrawal

permit

at

the

new

site.

Soon thereafter

based

on

the

anticipated

difficulty

in

obtaining

a withdrawal

permit

from

the

Kankakee

River,

Joliet

elected

to

perform

an

additional

study

to

determine

what

would

be

the

best

source

and

treatment

for

Joliet.

3

---

A

team

of

three

consulting

engineers

and

Joliet

staff

was

assembled

to

review

the

new

technologies

available

for

radium

removal,

proven

technologies

and

a

Kankakee

River

based

supply.

Contact

was

made

with

the

Illinois

State Water

Survey

to

determine

the

continued

availability

of

water

from

the

deep

sandstone

aquifer.

The

results

of

this

study

were

as

follows:

1.

Water

from

the

deep

aquifer

will

be

available

for

25

to

100

years

according

to

information

provide

by

the

Illinois

State Water

Survey.

Joliet

interpreted

this

information

as

a

reason

to

invest

in

additional

deep

wells

instead

of

the

Kankakee

River

Project.

2.

The

selected

treatment

technique

was

Co-precipitation

of

Radium

with

Hydrous

Manganese

Oxide.

This

report

was

completed

in

August

of

2003.

Joliet

proceeded

immediately

to

select

a

consulting

engineer

and

pilot

testing

of

the

hydrous

manganese

treatment.

IEPA

Actions

Faced

with

a

growing

amount

of

knowledge

concerning

the

discharge

of

waste

water

from

communities

using

deep

well

aquifers

containing

natural

radium,

the

IEPA

filed

a

radium

water

quality

standard

rulemaking

on

January

13,

2004.

This

rulemaking

was

accepted

by

the

Board

and

docketed

as

R2004-02

1.

The

IEPA

proposed

that

the

water

quality standard

for

radium

be

eliminated

in

the

general

use

standards

and

that

a

water

quality standard

of

5.0

pico-curies

per

liter

upstream

of

a food

processing

plant

intake

or

public

water

supply

intake

be

established.

As

a

review

of

the

record

from

this

proceeding

will

show,

I

was

actively

involved

through

out

this

rulemaking

proceeding.

This

rule making

started

on

January

13,

2004

and

was

completed

on

March

15,

2006.

The

rule

that

was

finally

adopted

by

the

Board

in

this

proceeding

varied

greatly

from

the

IEPA

proposed

and

included

the

following

water

quality

standards:

1.

GENERAL

USE

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

The

annual

average

radium

226

and 228

(STORET

number

11503)

combined

concentration

must

not

exceed

3.75

pico-curies

per

liter

(pCi/L).

2.

PUBLIC

AND

FOOD

PROCESSING

WATER

SUPPLY

STANDARDS

Radium

226

and

228

(STORET

number

11503)

combined

concentration

must

not

exceed

5

pico-curies

per

liter

(pCi/L)

at

any

time.

4

---

Information

from

the

Rulemaking

Process

During

the

course

of

the

hearings

concerning

the

proposed

rule,

Joliet

first

became

aware

of

the

1984

Memorandum

of

Agreement

between

the

TEPA

and

the

Illinois

Department

of

Nuclear

Safety

concerning

land

application

of

residuals:

I

immediately

recognized

the

potential

impact

that

this

twenty year

old

document

could

have

and

begun

to

try

to

sort

out

an

approach

that

Joliet

could

follow

and

an

approach that

the

TEPA

could

support.

After

talking

about

the

potential

impact

of

the

Memorandum

of

Agreement

with

various

JEPA

personnel,

I prepared

a

letter

to

Jeff

Hutton

dated

April

9,

2004

providing

an

analysis

of

land

application

of

wastewater

treatment

plant

residuals

containing

radium

(Record

at

R-294

through

R-304).

I sent

the letter

to

Jeff

Hutton

because

he

was

the

focal

point for

sludge

regulation

and

penrlitting

at

the

IEPA.

As

stated

in

the

letter,

I

was

concerned

that

the

impact

of

land application

had

not

been

considered

although

communities

were

committing

to

water

treatment

techniques

to

comply

with

the

combined

radium

226

and

radium

228

to

be

below

5.0

pico-curies

per

liter

drinking

water

standard

that

resulted

in

residuals

being

discharged

to

the

wastewater

treatment

plant

IEMA-DNS

Response

JEPA

forwarded

Jbliet’s

April

2004

letter

to

the

Illinois

Emergency

Management

Agency,

Division

of

Nuclear

Safety

(“IEMA-DNS”)

for

review

and

comment.

Due

to

a

re-organization

of

state government,

the

nuclear

safety

function

had

been

placed

under

the

Illinois

Emergency

Management

Agency.

IEMA-DNS

sent

JEPA

their

review

of

the

Joliet request

in

a

letter

dated

May

10,

2004

to

Al

Keller.

(Record

at

R

292-293)

The

comments

received

from

IEMA-DNS

were

directed

at

Joliet’

request

to

make

five

applications

of

biosolids

to

a

given

field.

IEMA-DNS

viewed

this

as

“unrestricted

land

application

of

radium

contaminated

sewage

sludge”

that

would

create

sites

requiring

land

use

restrictions.

The

other

major item

in

the

IEMA-DNS

comments

was

that

DNS

thought

that

Joliet

may

be

in

violation

of

the

Memorandum

of

Understanding

by

land

applying

sludge

that

increased

the

soil

radium

concentration

by

greater than

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram.

Joliet’s

Response

to

the

IEMA-DNS

comments

First

it

is

not

possible

for

Joliet

to

violate

the

Memorandum

of

Agreement

as

this

document

in

not

an

enforceable

rule

as

it

was

entered

into

without

public

notice

and

opportunity

for

comment.

Second,

while

it

states

on

its

face

the

JEPA

is

to

take

certain

actions,

it

is

uncontroverted

that

JEPA never

included

any

requirements

in

the

Joliet

land

application

permit

that

limited

the

quantity

of

radium

applied

to

farm

fields

until

October

of

2006 some

twenty

two

years

after

it

was

signed.

Joliet

is

not

aware

of

any

other

permit

with

limits

that

predate

its

October

2006

pen-nit.

Since

Joliet

was

not

a

party

to

the

inter-agency

agreement,

it

was

not

possible

to

violate

it

directly.

---

Joliet’s

Subsequent

Action

On

February

28,

2005,

Joliet

again

submitted

a

new

proposal

for

land

application.

This

submittal

is found in

the

Permit

Record

at

R-

104

through

R-29

1.

To prepare

this

submittal,

Joliet

had

gathered

a

team

of

water

supply

engineers,

wastewater

treatment

engineers,

a

consulting

agronomist

and

a health

physicist.

The

proposal

is

found

in

the

Permit

Record

at

R104

through

R-291.

Although

the

proposal

addressed

the

increase

in

radium

concentration

in

the

soil,

the

basis

for

the

proposed

1.0

pico-curie

per

gram

increase

was

the

radiation

dose

received

from

this

increase.

The

proposal

was

based

on

the

Memorandum

of

Agreement,

Paragraph

7 which

provides

for

alternative

disposal

methods

when

it

is economically

infeasible

to comply

with

other

paragraphs

and

the

radon

exhalation

rate

from

the

alternate

disposal

method

is

less

than

5.0

pico-curies

per

square

meter.

Joliet

employed

RSSI,

a

consulting

health

physics

firm

to

perform

dose

modeling

of

the

application

procedure

to

determine

the

dose

to

future

residents

of

the

currently

agricultural

land.

RSSI

used

the

RESRAD

model

to determine

dose.

The

RESRAD

computer

code

was

developed

in 1987

by the

Environmental

Assessment

Division

at

Argonne

Laboratory and

has

undergone

numerous

revisions

since.

The

code

was

used

to

predict

the

dose

of

radiation

resulting

from

Joliet’s

land

application

program.

The

inputs

for

radium

concentration

in

sludge

were

the

concentrations

measured

in

the

sludge

from

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

and

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant.

The

models

provided

for

8 applications

of sludge

over

20

years

and

9

applications

of sludge

over

22 years.

RSSI

used

inputs

provided

by

the

City

of Joliet

to

replace

the

default

inputs.

The

input

information

was

based

on

the

number

of

homes

per

acre,

size

of

home,

type

offoundation

and

the

normal

practice

of

removing

expansive

topsoil

prior

to construction.

All

models

had

results

that

residents

would

receive

less

than

10

milli-rems

per

year.

Results

are

included

in

the

record.

The

second

part

of the

submittal

included

a report

entitled

“Evaluation

of

Radium

Removal

Impacts

to

Sludge

Handling

at

the

Eastside

and

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Facilities”

prepared

by

Clark

Dietz,

In.

The

report

compared

the

costs

of

the

current

program

of

land

application

of

liquid

sludge

to

agricultural

land

with

the

costs

of

drying

the

sludge

and

landfill

disposal.

Page

10

(R288)

provides

Clark

Dietz

Inc.’s

recommendation

to

continue

with

land

application.

This

recommendation

is

supported

by

a

comparison

of

life

cycle

costs

for

land

application

and

landfill

disposal.

6

---

The

present

value

cost for

the

current

land

application

program

was

$9,618,513

based

on

2004

dollars.

For

landfill

disposal,

the

present

value

cost

was

$44,766,028.

Landfill

disposal

increases

the

cost

to

Joliet

by

more

than

4

times.

Annual

operating

costs

increase

more

than

3.5

times.

This

cost

would

directly

impact

the

users

of

the

system

that

would

have

to

generate

an

additional

$1,

700,000

per

year.

Part

three

of

the

submittal

was

a

calculation

of

a cost

to

benefit

ratio

for

the

program.

Since

the

savings

to

Joliet

for

a

land application

in

lieu

of

landfill

disposal

was

$36,147,515,

this

was

treated

as

a

benefit.

It

was

adjusted

for

25

years

and

increased

to

$40,140,326.

The

costs

were

developed

using the

Nuclear

Regulatory

Commission’s

published

costs

for

additional

radiation

exposure

of

$2,000

per

person-rem

for

1995.

This

cost

was

adjusted

for

inflation

to

$2,500 per

person-rem

in

2004

using

the

consumer

price

index.

Based

on

the

additional

884.3

person-rem

of

radiation

exposure,

a

cost

of

$2,210.745

was

developed.

A

benefit

to

cost

ratio

using

$40,140,326

as

the

benefit

and

$2,210,745

as

the

cost

was

developed.

This

ratio was

18.16.

This

indicates

to

me

that

the

benefits

clearly

outweigh

the

costs

for

Joliet.

The

fourth

and

final

part

of

the

submittal

was

the

calculation

of

recommended

increase

in

background

radium

concentration.

Using

10

milli-rems

per

year

as

the

limiting

dose,

and

the

dose

from

a

single

application

of

sludge

from

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plan

as

1.48

milli-rems

per

application,

it

was

determined

that

6.76

applications

could

be

made

to

given

field.

6.76

application

of

sludge

with

a 0.15

pico

curies

per

gram increase

in

background

per

application

results

in

an

increase

in

background

of

1.01

pico-curies

per

gram.

In

real

life,

applications

would

have

to

be

limited

to

6

as

it

is

not

possible

to

make

0.76

of

an

application.

This

would

result

in

an

increase

in

background

of

0.90

pido-curies

per

gram.

IEMA-DNS

Response

(Record

R-98

through

RiOl)

Joliet

did

not

receive

a

direct

response

from

IEMA-DNS.

Their

response

was

directed

to

the

Permit

Section

of

the

Division

of

Water

Pollution

Control.

These

comments

were

provided

to

Joliet

in

a

May

25,

2005

letter

from

Al

Keller.

It

was

requested

that

Joliet

respond

to

the

comments

and

provide

copies

of

the

response

to

both

[EPA

and

JEMA

DNS.

Although

the

record

does

not

include

direct

discussions

with

IEMA-DNS,

Joliet

met

with

IEMA-DNS

to

discuss

the

proper

modeling

approach

to

the

issues

raised.

My

calendar

at

Joliet

has

been

eliminated,

but

I

remember

going

to

Springfield

with

Eli

Port

to

meet

with

Rich

Allen

at

his

office

in

2005.

Many

of

the

issues

raised

by

IEMA-DNS

concerning

permit

limitations

are

normally

handled

by

IEPA

for

other

constituents

in

sludge.

7

---

Sludge Application

Permit

Renewal

with

Radium

Limitation

In

October 2006, IEPA

renewed

Joliet’s

permit

for

Land

Application

of

Sewage

Sludge,

Permit Number

2006-SC-4784.

This

permit

contained

Special

Condition

2;

Sludge

applied

to

land

under

this

permit

shall

not

cause

the

total

accumulative

increase

of

Radium

226

and

Radium

228

in

soil

to

exceed

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram.

limiting

radium

concentration

for

the

first

time.

Joliet determined

that

this

condition

would

have

the

effect

of

limiting

Joliet

Westside

Plant

Sludge

to

one

application

per

field.

The single

application

of

sludge

to

a

field

would

disrupt

the

normal

fertilizer

program

use

by

growers

with

very

slight

reduction

in

costs.

This

would

result

in

the

break

down

of

Joliet’s sludge

application

program.

Because

Joliet

thought

this

was

an

unworkable

situation,

Joliet

contacted

JEPA

to

begin to discuss

a

means

of

revising

this

condition.

In

response

to

a

formal

request

seeking

an

extension

of

the

permit

appeal

time

deadline,

IEPA submitted

a

Request

for

Ninety

Day

Extension

of

Appeal

Period

on

behalf

of JEPA

and

Joliet on

November

16,

2006

which

was

docketed

by

the

Board

as

PCB

07-38.

A

copy

of

this

document

is

found

as

Exhibit

..

As

anticipated

by

this

filing,

Joliet

continued

to

have

discussions

with

1EPA

as

to

how

develop

an

agreeable

means

to

allow

Joliet

to

carry

out

its

Sludge

Disposal

Program

recognizing

the

IEPA’s

need

to

regulate

radium.

Meeting

about

the

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram

limitation

On

January

24,

2007

Joliet

met

with

JEPA

and

IEMA concerning

this

limitation

of

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram. (Record

at

92-94)

During

the

course

of

the

meeting,

Rich

Allen

of

TEMA-DNS

performed

a “sum of

the

fractions”

calculation

and

determined

that

0.4

pico

curies

per

gram

could

be

supported.

The

sum

of

the

fractions

method

is

used

for

a

mixture

of

radionuclides.

The

concentration

of

radium

226

is

divided

by

the

allowable

concentration

and

the

concentration

of

radium

228

is

divided

by

the

allowable

concentration

and

the

sum

of

those

two

fractions

cannot

exceed

1.

At

the

meeting,

it was agreed

that

Joliet

would

receive

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram

on

a

revised

permit

based

on

an

anticipated

revision

to

the

Memorandum

of

Agreement

by

JEPA

and

IEMA-DNS.

Other

communities

would

also

receive

the

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram limitation

on

their permit

renewals.

IEPA

list

of

communities

(Record

at

R95-R96)

The

record

includes

a listing

of

the

anticipated

site

life

for

radium

applied

to

increase

the

background

radium

by

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram

for

various

communities.

It clearly

demonstrates

that

Joliet

is

not

the

only

community

adversely

impacted

by

this

limitation.

Channahon,

Crystal

Lake

#3,

Geneva,

Huntley

East,

Huntley

West,

Kewanee,

Lake

in

the

Hills,

Monmouth

Main,

and

Yates

City

are

other

impacted

communities.

8

---

January 24,

2007 Meeting

with

IEPA,

IEMA and

Joliet

(Record

at

R-92

through

R

94)

The

January

24,

2007

meeting

was

intended

to

determine

the

appropriate

model

for

determining

the

allowable

increase

in

radium

above

background.

IEMA-DNS’s

Rich

Allen

indicated

that

IEMA

had

two

concerns,

the

allowable

dose

and

correct field

application.

An

allowable

dose

of

10

milli-rems

per

year

was

agreed

upon

by

all

present

according

to

the

meeting

record

prepared

by

Jeff

Hutton.

With

this

agreement

in

hand

and

based

on

previous

work

that

had

been

performed

by

Joliet,

I

knew

that

a

program

limiting

the

dose

to

a

future

resident

of

land

that

had

received

sludge

should not

be

a

problem.

Previous

modeling

had

shown

that

10

milli-rems

per

year

was

easily

aéhieved

with

the

assumption

that

no

radium

bearing

soil

remained

directly

under

the

house.

At

this

meeting

IEMA-DNS

was

concerned

that

an

individual

that

violated

the

building

code

would

become

a

risk

for

additional

radiation.

Rogina

and

Associates,

Ltd.

had

performed

a telephone

survey

of

communities

in

Will

and

Kendall

County

to

confirm

that

all

building

codes

in

place

required

removal

of

topsoil

prior

to

construction.

Rich

Allen

of

IEMA-DNS

did

not

think

that

Joliet

was

spending

enough

to

deal

with

its

radium

sludge.

My

recollection

is

that

a discussion

led

to

Joliet

investigating

the

blending

of

Eastside

and

Westside

Sludge

at

an

additional

cost

to

limit

the

increase

in

background.

I

clearly

left

the

meeting

with

the

understanding

that

Joliet

would

prepare

a report

that

addressed

the

allowable

dose,

the

dose

resulting

from

various

application

scenarios

and

confirm

that

building

codes

require

topsoil

removal.

As

an

interim

step

to

allow

Joliet

to

continue

to

be

able

to

manage

its

Sludge

Application

Program,

JEPA

agreed

to

raise

the

limit

in

Special

Condition

2

to

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram.

Joliet

would

appeal

this

limit

and

move

forward

to

develop

the

supporting

information

to allow

the

IEPA

to

consider

a

higher limit.

Sludge Application

Permit

Modification

As

was

agreed

upon

at

the

January

24,

2007

meeting,

Joliet

allowed

the

place

holder

appeal

in

PCB

07-38

to

expire

which

resulted

in Board

dismissal.

On

February

16,

2007

the

TEPA

issued

a modification

to

Joliet’s

Land

Application

of

Sewage

Sludge,

Permit

Number

2006-SC-4784

which

included

a revised

Special

Condition

2

to

read

“Sludge

applied

to

land

under

this

permit

shall

not

cause

the

total

accumulative

increase

of

Radium

226

and

Radium

228

in

soil

to

exceed

0.4

pCi/g.”

Joliet

filed

an

appeal

of

this

permit

on

March

21,

2007

which

was

docketed

as

PCB

07-94

by

the

Board.

A

copy

of

this

appeal is

found

as

Exhibit

Following

this

appeal

the

parties

continued

to work

as

agreed

to in

the

January 24,

2007

meeting

and

JEPA

did

not

proceed

to

file

the

Record

in

that

case.

9

---

Report

“Land

Application

of

Radium

Bearing

Biosolids”(Record

at

R-39 through

R-91)

At

the

direction

of

the

City

of

Joliet,

Rogina

&

Associates,

Ltd.

prepared

a

report

entitled

“Land

Application

of

Radium

Bearing

Biosolids”.

This

report

was

intended

to

address

the

issues raised

at

the

January

24,

2007

meeting.

What

follows

is

a

summary

of

the

report

which

I

believe

may

help

the

Board

in

its

review.

The

objective

of

the

study

as

stated

in

the

report was

to

propose

a

basis

for

criteria

to

be

included

in

a

revised

JEPA-JEMA

DNS

Memorandum

of

Agreement.

The

criteria

must

allow

for

the

continuation

of

land

application

of

radium

bearing

bio-solids

to

provide

crop

nutrients

at

a reasonable

cost

to

the

wastewater

agency

and

protect

the

public

health

of

future

residents

of

the

land.

Current

regulations

for

biosolids

are

intended

to

protect

the

public

health.

The

regulations

address

vector

and

pathogen

control

and

limit

cumulative

loadings

of

specific

pollutants.

The

regulations

are entitled

“The

Standards

for

the

Use

or

Disposal

of

Sewage

Sludge”

(Title

40

of

the

Code

of

Federal

Regulations

Part

503).

Radium

is

not

included

the

federal

regulations,

but

is

addressed

by

IEPA’s

implementation

of

the memorandum

of

agreement

with

IEMA-DNS.

The

current

agreement

provides

for

0.1

pico-curies

per

gram

increase

in

radium.

The

anticipated

impact

of

sludge

application

on

agricultural

land

is

the

future

conversion

of

the

land

to

residential

use. Public

health

protection

would

require

that

the

dose

of

radiation

from

the

application

be

limited

to

protect

the

public

health

of

the

future

residents.

•At

the

meeting

of

January

24,

2007,

TEPA

and

IEMA-DNS

had

discussed

allowable

dose

and agreed

on

10

milli-rems

per

year.

Modeling

is

used

to

estimate

the

radiation

dose.

The

RESRAD

computer

code was

used

for

this

purpose.

IEMA-DNS

used

RESRAD

with

the

assumption

that

the

home

was

built

on

radium

bearing

topsoil

to

detennine

for

radium

226

a

soil

guideline

of

0.23

pico-curies

per

gram

and

for

radium

228

a

soil

guideline

of

0.15

pico-curies

per

gram.

To

account

for

both

raionuclides

being

presenting

sludge,

IEMA-DNS

used

the

sum

of

the

fractions

based

on

equal

parts radium

226

and

radium

228

to

determine

the

combined

soil

guideline

of

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram.

10

---

The

City

of

Joliet

compared

their

program

to

the

IEMA-DNS

modeling

and

determine

that

modeling

specific

to

the

Joliet

program

was

necessary.

Inputs

to

RESRAD

were

adjusted

to

account

for the

Joliet

program.

Key

inputs

adjusted

were

as

follows:

1.

Removal

of

radium

bearing

soil

The

local

regulation for

the

construction

of

homes

is

through

the

local

building

code. Building

codes

typically

require

removal

of

topsoil

prior

to

construction.

Joliet

has

historically

applied

bio-solids

in

four

counties.Rogina

& Associates,

Ltd.

surveyed

communities

to

determine

their

code

requirements

and

none

allowed construction

on

topsoil.

The

summary

of

the

survey

is found

at R-42

2.

Food

Sources

The

inputs

were

based

on

purchased

vegetables,

dairy

products

and

seafood.

Appendix

B includes

a

side

by

side

comparison

of

inputs

used

by

IEMA-DNS

and

Joliet.

Calculation

of

the

dose

was

performed

by

RSSI,

a radiation

safety

and

radiological

health

consulting

firm.

Eli

Port,

principal

health

physicist

is

provided

separate

testimony.

The

direction

given

to RSSI

was

to

estimate

the

radiation

dose,

that

would

result

to

a

future

on-site

resident

from

the

current

Joliet

program

and

alternate

methods

proposed

by

Joliet.

RESRAD

was

used

to

estimate

the

dose

from

each

application

alternative

using

an

application

rate

of

3.5

dry

tons

per

acre

and

the

following

concentrations

in

sludge:

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

Radium

226

7.9

pico-curies

per

gram

Radium

226

17.6

pico-curies

per

gram

Radium

228

9.0 pico-curies

per

gram

Radium

228

26.2

pico-curies

per

gram

The

RESRAD program

was

also

to

be

run

for

an

alternative

using

the

IEMA-DNS

inputs,

and

model

a house

being

built

on

topsoil.

This

was

to

run

only

for

the

alternative

that

demonstrated

the

highest

dose.

Radon

resulting

from

the

decay

of

radium

was

to be

included

in the

dose.

The

results

will

be

discussed

later

in

this

testimony.

The

land

application

of

biosolids

provides

nutrients

for

growing

corn

and

soybeans.

Biosolids are

applied

at rates

that

match

the

agronomic

need

of

the

crop.

Corn

requires

nitrogen

for

development.

Biosolids

are

a source

of nitrogen.

Nitrogen

in

biosolids

is

normally

between

1%

and

6%

on

a dry

weight

basis.

Commercial

fertilizers

provide

between

11%

and

82%

nitrogen.

Biosolids

from

the

Joliet

Eastside Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

have

averaged

2.07%

nitrogen

over

the

three

year

period

ending

in

2006.

11

---

The

biosolids

from

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

have

averaged

3.5%

over

the

same

period.

The low

proportion

of

nitrogen

in

Joliet Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids

has

caused

the

liquid

biosolids

to

be

unable

to

provide

the

required

nitrogen

application

rate

because

the

soil

cannot

absorb

the

large

quantity

of

liquid.

Phosphorus

is

another

crop

need.

Biosolids

generally

contain

between

0.8

and

6.1%

phosphorus

compared

to commercial

fertilizer

with

8-24%

phosphorus.

Joliet’s

land

application

program

is

operated

using

contract

services

under

the

direction

of

the

Plant

Operations

Division.

The

contract

agronomist

is

responsible

for

coordinating

the

availability

of land

with

grower/land

owners,

providing

Joliet

with

a

list

of

available

sites

for

inclusion

in

the

documents

for

bidding

the

application

contract,

performing

the

necessary

soil

tests,

performing

the

necessary

biosolids

analysis,

determining

the

application

rate

acceptable

to

the

landowner/grower,

providing

direction

to

the

land

application

contractor

concerning

application

rates

and

coordination

with

the

grower/landowner.

Land

Treatment

Alternatives

provides

these

services

under

a

professional

services agreement

with

the

City

of

Joliet

that

is renewed

annually.

Contract application

services

are

awarded

through

a

competitive

bidding

process

on

an

annual

basis.

The

contractor

provides

transportation

and

application

a

unit

price

per

gallon.

Land

is

currently made

available

to

either

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

or

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant.

The Aux

Sable

Creek

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

had

its

first

land

application

in

2007.

and

was

not

included

in

the

report.

Sites

used

by

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

are

sites

with

good

access

and

within

a

reasonable

distance

of

the

plant.

In

2006

these

sites

averaged

4.3

miles

from

the

plant.

The

same criteria

applies

to

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

that

had

an

average

distance

of 2.5

miles

in

2006.

Application

rates

vary

from

0.7

dry

tons

per

acre

to

5.8

dry

tons

per

acre.

For

the

three

year

period

ending

2006,

the

normal

application

rate

is

35

dry

tons

per

acre.

Radium

concentrations

in the

biosolids

were

7.9

picô-curies

per

gram

radium

226

and

9.0

pico

curies

per

gram

radium

228

for

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

based

on

the

average

of

four

samples

collected

between

October

22,

2003

and

February

7,

2007.

Based

on

an

application

rate

of

3.5

dry

tons

per

acre,

the

increase

in concentration

in

the

soil

is

0.014

pico-curies

per

gram

radium 226

and

0.016

pico-curies

per

gram

radium

228.

12

---

For

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant,

the

radium

concentration

in

the

biosolids is

17.6

pico-curies

per

gram

for

radium

226

and

26.2

pico-curies

per

gram

for

radium

228.

At

the

3.5

dry

ton

per

acre

application

rate,

the

increase

in

soil

concentration

is 0.03

1

pico-curies

per gram

radium

226

and

0.047

pico-curies

per

gram

radium

228.

To

address

the

issues

raised

by

IEMA-DNS,

alternative

land

application

programs

were

investigated.

The

application

of

biosolids

on

a

particular

pattern

was

proposed

as

one

alternative

and

the

application

of

biosolids

blended

from

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

and

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

was

proposed

as

the

other

alternative.

Pattern

application

provided

for

a

field

to

receive

1

application

of

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids

followed

by

two

applications

of

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids.

Costs

were

developed

for

this

alternative

using

he

information

in the

“Evaluation

of

Radium

Removal

Impacts

on

Sludge

Handling

at

the

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

and

the

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant.

These

costs

were

adjusted

by

the

consumer

price

index

to

2006.

The

additional

mileage

necessary

to

transport

the

biosolids

to

fields

was

based

on

$4.69

per

loaded

mile

taken

from

the

“United

States

Department

of

Agriculture

4th

Quarter

2006

Grain

Truck

Cost

Report”.

No

adjustment

was

necessary

as the

report

was

based

on 2006.

Blended

biosolids

provided

for

the

application

of biosolids

blended

from

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

and

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids.

This

program

would

be operated

as follows:

A

biosolids

mixing!

storage

tank

would

be

constructed

at

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

Biosolids

produced

at

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

would

be

trucked

to

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

and

pumped

into

the

tank

Biosolids

produced

at

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

would

be

added

to

the

tank

at

the

ratio

of

two

parts

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids

to 1

part

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

biosolids.

The

mixing

equipment

would

be

operated

to

create

a

well

mixed

blend

of

biosolids.

Biosolids would

be

trucked

to

the regular

disposal

sites

of

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant.

The

costs

of

transportation

from

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

to

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

were

based

on

the

$4.69

per

loaded

mile.

13

---

Landfill

disposal

was

the

final

alternative.

The

previous

study

by

Clark

Dietz

served

as

the

basis

for

the

study

of

the

alternative.

Costs

were

adjusted

to

2006 using

the

Engineering

News

Record

construction

cost

index

for

new

construction

and

the

consumer

price

index

for

operating

costs.

The

comparison

of

alternatives

required

development

of

the

radium

concentration

in

the

blended

biosolids. The

radium

226

concentration

was

11.08

pico-curies

per

gram

and

the

radium

228

concentration

was

14.69 pico-curies

per

gram.

The

quantities

of

biosolids

applied

from

each plant

were

determined

from

2004,

2005

and

2006

applications.

Transportation

costs

for

the

current

program,

pattern

application

and

blended

alternatives

were

developed.

Implementation

issues

were

reviewed

for

each

alternative.

Pattern

application

could

be

implemented

without

additional

capital

expenses.

Application

rates

would

require

adjustment,

no

other

implementation

issues

were

considered.

Blended

biosolids

required

the

construction

of

a new

mixing/storage

tank

at

the

Joliet

Eastside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant.

The

construction

cost

of

the

tank,

associated

piping,

mixing

pumps

and

nozzles

was

estimated

to

cost

$2,000,000.

The

anticipated

design

and

construction

was

anticipated

to

require

two

years.

Landfill disposal

capital

requirements

were

included

in

the

Clark

Dietz,

Inc.

report.

Design

and

construction

also

requires

two

years.

Costs were

compared

with

the

resulting

present

values

Current

Program

$10,264,662

Pattern Application

$11,310,437

Blended

Application

$13,188,567

Landfill

Disposal

$48,083,408

Radiation

doses with

topsoil removed

were

also

compared

for

all

the

alternatives

except

Landfill Disposal

The

results were

as

follows:

Current Program

Eastside

10

applications

2.3

milli-rems

per

year

Current

Program

Westside

10

applications

5.25

milli-rems

per

year

Pattern

Application

9

applications

3.03

milli-rems

per

year

Blended

Biosolids

10

applications

3.27

milli-rems

per

year

All

of the

programs

provide

less

than

the

10

.milli-rems

per

year

agreed

by

IEPA

and

IEMA-DNS.

All

these

alternatives

provide

the

nutrients

to

the

crops

that

are

expected

from

land

applications.

Site

life

is long

enough

to

allow

grower/landowners

to

maintain

the

fertility of

the

soil.

14

---

One

of

the

other

tasks

that

was

requested

of RSSI

was

to

determine

the

dose

if

the

topsoil

was left

in

place

under

the

house.

RSSI

reported

that

the

dose

from

10

applications

of

biosolids

from

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

is

15.36

milli-rems

per

year.

This

dose

occurs

the

first

year

after

the

10

application

and

declines

over

time.

Dr.

Port

and

Dr.

Toohey will

address

the

public

health,

issues

related

to

15.36

milli-rems

per

year

dose.

The

issue

of

land

application

of

biosolids

with

a

radium

concentration

greater

than

50

pico-curies

per

gram

was

also-addressed

in

the

report.

I recommend

that

any

new

inter

agency

Memorandum

of

Agreement

provide

a

specific

procedure

for

review

and

criteria

for

approval

of

land

application

of

material

with

a concentration

greater

than

50

pico

curies

per

gram.

The

dose

to

a

future

resident

has

been

used

to

determine

the

criteria

for

land

application

for

biosolids

with

a

concentration

less

than

50

pico-curies

per

gram

and

dose

would

be

appropriate

criteria

for

biosolids

with

a

concentration

greater

than

50

pico

curies

per

gram.

The

number

of

applications

would

have

to

be

reduced

to

control

the

dose

to

a

future

resident.

The

report

conclusions

are

as follows:

-

•

10

applications

of

biosolids

form

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

does

not

result

in

exposure

greater

than

10 milli-rems

per

year

to future

residents

•

- For

homes

built

that

do

not

follow

local

building

codes

and

have

topsoil

under

the

home,

the

anticipated

dose

for

10

applications

of

biosolids

from

the

Joliet

Westside

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

is

15.35

milli-rems

per

year.

•

The

cumulative

radium

concentration

in soil

can

exceed

the

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram

limit

proposed

by

IEMA-DNS

•

The

dose

from

a

soil

concentration

increase

of

0.780

pico-curies

per

gram

is

5.25

milli-rems

per

year.

An

additional

increase

in

soil

concentration

is possible

and

the

dose

to

future

resident

would

still

be

less

than

10

milli-rems

per

year.

•

Programs

that

do

not

require

the

removal

of

topsoil

from

beneath

the

housç

should

be

limited

to

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram

increase

in

soil

concentration.

•

Bio-solids

with

a concentration

less

than

100

pico-curies

per

gram

may

be

land

applied without

a

special

review.

On

June

29,

2007,

I sent

a copy

of

the

Rogina

&

Associates,

Ltd.

Report

entitled

“Land

Application

of

Radium

Bearing

Biosolids

to

Jeff

Hutton

and

IEMA-DNS.

(Record

at

R39).

15

---

Jeff

Hutton Analysis

(Record

at

R-35

through

R37)

Jeff

Hutton

of

IEPA

wrote

a

memorandum

summarizing

his

comments

from

Joliet’

s June

2007

submittal.

Mr.

Hutton

provided

10

specific

comments

and

also

made

conclusions.

1.

Comment

number

1

addressed

the

fact

that

Joliet

approaches

the

radium

issue

on

the

number

of

applications

allowed

while

the

JEPA

is only

concerned

with

assuring

that

radium

dose

is

kept

below

a

safe

limit.

Joliet

is

concerned

with

the

number

of

applications

because

grower/l4ndowners

are

concerned

about

the

number

and

timing

of

applications

to

assure

that

Joliet’s

program

is

compatible

with

the

fertilizer

program

than

is

used

by

the

grower.

Too

few

applications

just

disrupt

a

grower’s

fertilizer

program

with

very

limited

reduction

in

cost.

2.

The significant

differences

in

Joliet’s

and

IEMA-DNS’s

allowable

soil

concentrations

are

the

second

comment.

The

0.4

pico-curies

per

gram

is

not

the

result

of

RESRAD

modeling,

but

of

the

“sum

of

the

fractions’

calculation

performed

by

IEMA.

3.

Comment number

3

is

concerned

with

building

construction

practice.

The

discussion

concerns

whether

or

not

the

topsoil

is

removed

prior

to

construction

of

a

home.

Joliet’s

survey

of

communities

and

counties,

common

practice

and

a

telephone

survey

of

builders

performed

by

IEPA

all

indicate

that

topsoil

is

removed

prior

to

construction.

4.

Mr.

Hutton

comments

the

IEMA-DNS’s

inputs

appear to

be

based

on

a

resident

farmer

rather

than

suburban

development.

5.

The

food

sources

for

Joliet

and

IEMA-DNS

are

different.

IEMA-DNS

appears

to

use

a

homeowner

that

drank

milk

produced

on

site,

ate

meat

grown

on

sites

and

consumed

vegetables

grown

on

site.

Suburbanites

don’t

normally

have

a milk

cow

and

grow

meat

and

poultry

on

site.

6.

Mr.

Hutton

commented

that

Joliet