BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

ECVD

CITY

OF

JOLIET,

)

CLERK’S

OFFICE

Petitioner,

JAN

05

Z009

STATE

OF

ILUNOIS

)

PCB

09-025

PoUution

Control

Board

)

(Permit

Appeal-Water)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

NOTICE

OF

FILING

TO:

See

Attached

Service

List

PLEASETAKE

NOTICE

that

on

January

5,

2009,

wefiled

with

the

Office

of

the

Clerk

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

the

attached

MOTION

TO

SUBSTITUTE,

a

copy

of

which

is

served

upon

you.

Respectfully

submitted,

THE

CITY

F

JOE

(

B______

Dated:

January

5,

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

IS

BEING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

OEVE

CITY

OF

JOLIET,

)

ERKS

OFFICE

Petitioner,

))

JANO52UU9

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

v.

)

PCB

09-025

OlIUtgon

Control

Board

)

(Permit

Appeal-Water)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

MOTION

FOR

SUBSTITUTION

The

CITY

OF

JOLIET

(hereinafter,

“Joliet”),

by

its

attorneys,

Drinker

Biddle

&

Reath

LLP,

submits

this

Motion

for

Substitution.

In support,

Joliet

states

the

following:

1.

On

January 2,

2009,

Joliet

submitted

its

witnesses

pre-hearing

narrative

testimony

as required

by

the

Hearing

Officer’s

order.

2.

Due

to

holidays,

certain

witnesses

were

unable

to

make

final

changes

to

their

respective

narrative

submissions

prior

to

the filing

deadline

on

January

2,

2009.

3.

Since

the

above

filing,

Mr.

Dennis

Duffield

of

Rogina

&

Associates,

Ltd.

and

Dr.

Richard

Toohey

of Oak

Ridge

Associated

Universities have

requested

to substitute

their

previously

submitted

testimony

with

the

narrative

testimony

enclosed

herein.

There

are

no

substantive changes

made

to

this

testimony,

only

minor

typographical

corrections.

4.

Additionally,

we

have

found

minor

typographical

errors

in

the

testimony

of

Mr.

Harold

Harty

and

Mr.

Eli

Port.

Again,

there

were

no

substantive

changes

made

only

minor

typographical

corrections.

5.

Mr.

Harold

Harty’s

corrected

narrative

testimony

is

enclosed

herein

as

Attachment

A.

THIS

FILING

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

6.

Mr.

Dennis

Duffield’s

corrected

narrative

testimony

is

enclosed

herein

as

Attachment

B.

7.

Mr.

Eli

Port’s

corrected

narrative

testimony

is

enclosed

herein

as

Attachment

C.

8.

Dr.

Richard

Toohey’s

corrected

narrative

testimony

is

enclosed

herein

as

Attachment

D.

9.

Based

on

the

above,

Respondent

will

not

be

prejudiced

by this

request.

10.

Attorney

for

Respondent

has

been

notified

of

this

request

and

has

no

objections.

WHEREFORE,

for

all

the

foregoing

reasons,

Joliet

respectfully

requests

that

the

Hearing

Officer

grant

this

Motion

to

Substitute

these

four

corrected

nalTative

testimony

statements

for

those

previously

filed

on

January

2,

2009.

Respectfully

submitted,

THE

CITY

OF

JOLIET,

Petitioner,

By:

\

e

of

its

Attorneys

Dated:

January

5,

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

Amended

Witness

List,

by

First

Class

Mail,

postage

pre-paid

on

January

5,

2009.

See

Attached

List.

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

100

W.

Randolph

Street

—

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

Bradley

P.

Halloran

Hearing

Officer

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph

Street—

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

CHOII

252787631

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.

EXHIBIT

-1-

[ZZI

---

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

injectors

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

JEPA

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.

Fanriers

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.

-2-

---

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 [EPA

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

IEPA 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

TEPA

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 ]EPA

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.

CHOI/

25275549.2

-3-

---

WRITTEN

TESTIMONY

OF

RICHARD

E.

TOOHEY,

PH.D.,

CHP

TN

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

Richard

E.

Toohey.

I

hold

a

Ph.D.

degree

in

nuclear

physics

from the

University

of

Cincinnati

(1973)

and

Tam

certified

in

comprehensive

practice

by

the

American

Board

of

Health

Physics

(1992,

recertified

1996,

2000,

2004.)

My

current

position

is

Director

of

Dose

Reconstruction

Programs

for

Oak Ridge

Associated

Universities

in

Oak Ridge,

Tennessee.

These

programs

are

supported

by

the

National

Institute

of

Occupational

Safety

and

Health

(“NIOSH”)

and

by

the

Defense

Threat

Reduction

Agency

(“DTRA”)

to

gather

exposure

data

and

provide

estimates

of

radiation

doses

received

by

workers

in

the

nuclear

weapons

complex

and

military

personnel

present

at

atmospheric

nuclear

weapons

tests.

For

the

year

August,

2008

through

July,

2009,

I

am

the

President

of

the

Health

Physics

Society,

the

U.S.

professional

society

for

specialists

in

radiation

protection,

with

almost

6,000

members.

I

am

also

a

member

of

the

National

Council

on

Radiation

Protection

and Measurements

(“NCRP”),

a

Congressionally

chartered

organization

of

100

members

that

is

charged

with

advising

the

federal

government

on

radiation

protection

standards,

measurement

techniques,

radiation

exposures

and

health

risks.

From

1973

to

1987,

I was

a

staff

scientist

at

the

Center

for

Human

Radiobiology

at

Argonne

National

Laboratory,

participating

in

the

study

of

the

effects

of

radium

on

exposed

humans,

primarily

womenwho

worked

as

luminous

dial

painters

in

the

1920’s.

I

have

previously

testified

before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

on

the

health

effects

and

risks

of

radium

in

drinking

water

on

many

occasions,

involving

variance

petitions

from

communities

in

Northern

Illinois,

including

the

City

of

Joliet.

The

current

issue

before

the

Board

is

a

petition

by the

City

of

Joliet

to

appeal

the

denial

of

its

permit

modification

request

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”)

which

would

have

allowed

the

disposal

of

radium-containing

waste

sludge

from

the

treatment

of

drinking

water

by

application

to

agricultural

land,

resulting

in

a

total

accumulative

increase

of

radium

not

to

exceed

1.0

picocuries

per

gram

(pCilg)

of

soil.

This

level

exceeds

that

in

a

memorandum

of

understanding

between

the

IEPA

and

the

Division

of

Nuclear

Safety

of

the

Illinois

Emergency

Management

Agency

(“IEMA-DNS”)

that

was

originally

set

at

0.1

pCi/g,

but

as

I

understand,

is

now

0.4

pCi/g

in

draft

form.

1

---

The

federal

standards

for

radiation

exposure

to

members

of

the

public

from

environmental

levels

of

radioactive

materials

resulting from

technological

uses,

such

as waste

disposal,

include

a

dose

limit

of

15

mrem

per

year

under

United States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“U.S.

EPA”)

regulations,

25

mrem

per

year

under

United Stated

Nuclear

Regulatory

Commission

(“U.S.

NRC”)

regulations,

and

100

mrem

per

year under

United

Stated

Department

of

Energy

(“U.S. DOE”)

regulations.

The

dose

parameter

used

in

these

regulations

is

the

total

effective

dose

equivalent

(“TEDE”),

more

recently

referred

to

as

effective

dose,

which

includes

external

exposure

to

penetrating

radiation

(gamma

rays)

plus

any

internal

exposure

resulting

from

the

inhalation

or

ingestion

of

radioactive

materials.

In addition,

the

internal

component

ofthe

dose

is

integrated

for

a

period

of

50 years

post

intake,

but

assigned

to the

year

of

intake.

The

important

thing

to

note

is

that

the

limits are

for

dose,

because

potential

risks

to

human

health

from

radiation

exposure

are

assumed

to

be

directly

proportional

to

the

radiation

dose

received.

The

secondary

or

derived

limits

for

such

quantities

as

the

concentration

of

a

radioactive

isotope

in

drinking

water, in

air,

or

in

soil

are

calculated

by

means

of

a

pathway

analysis,

which

determines

the

dose

coefficient,

i.e.,

the

dose

per

unit

concentration

of

a

given

isotope

in a

given

environmental

medium.

The

concentration

limit

is

then

that

concentration

which

results

in

the

dose

limit,

when

all

pathways

are

included;

this

is

equal

to the

dose

limit

divided

by

the

dose

coefficient

for

all

pathways.

In

the

case

of

disposal

of

radium-containing

sludge

on

agricultural

land,

the

pathways

to

be

considered

include

direct

gamma-ray

exposure,

inhalation

of

the

radioactive

material

or

its

radioactive

decay products,

and

ingestion

of

the

radioactive

material

by

direct

ingestian

of soil,

or

ingestion

of

foodstuffs

or

water

which

have

absorbed

the

radioactive

material

from

the

soil.

The

radioactive

isotopes

to be

considered

in this

case

are

Ra-226

and

Ra-228

and

their

decay

products,

which

include

the

gamma-ray

emitting

isotopes

Pb-214,

Bi-214,

and

Pb-210

from

Ra-226,

and

Ac

228,

Pb-212,

Bi-212,

and

Tl-208

from

Ra-228.

Each

radium

isotope

also

produces

a gaseous

decay

product:

Rn-222

from

Ra-226,

and

Rn-220

from

Ra-228.

The

isotope

Rn-220

has

a

very

short

half-

life,

only

55

seconds,

and

so does

not

build

up to

appreciable

levels.

In

contrast,

the

isotope

Rn-222

has

a

3.64-day

half-life,

and

can

move

through

soils into

the

living

space

of a

house

built

on

the

soil;

this

isotope

is

in

fact

the

contributor

of

most

(about

70%)

of

the

effective

dose

from

Ra-226

in

soil.

However,

if

the

topsoil

containing

the

Ra-226

is

removed

before

house

construction,

then

this

pathway no

longer

exists.

In addition,

in

a suburban

environment,

drinking

water

and

the

majority

of

foodstuffs

typically

do

not

come

from

the

homeowner’s

property,

and

so

the

ingestion

pathways

for

food

and

water

are

also

not

applicable.

Based

on

the

pathway

analyses

previously

submitted

by

the

City

of

Joliet,

I

calculate

a

dose

coefficient

of

25

mrem

per

year

per

pCi!g

of

combined

Ra-226

and

Ra-228

in

soil

including all

pathways,

and

a

dose

coefficient

of

7 mrem

per

year

per

pCi/g

combined

radium

if

the

Rn-222

inhalation

and

the

foodstuff

and

water

ingestion

pathways

are

excluded.

Taking

a

conservative

dose

limit

of

10

mrem

per

year,

the

all-pathway

analysis

would

result

in

a

concentration limit

of

0.4

pCi/g,

while

the

restricted

pathway

analysis

would

result

in

a

concentration

limit

of

1.4

pCi/g.

Under

the

restricted

pathways,

a concentration

of 1.0

pCi/g

would

produce

an

annual dose

of 7

mrem.

2

---

To

put

this dose

in

perspective,

the average

U.S. resident

receives

an

annual

dose

of

about

300

mrem

per

year from

naturally

occurring

sources,

of

which

200

mrem

result

from the

average

indoor

level

of

Rn-222,

about

1.0

pCi/liter

of

air. In

addition

the

average

U.S. resident

receives

another

240

mrem

from

man-made

sources,

predominately

medical

uses. Twenty

years

ago,

the

average

annual

radiation

dose

from

medical

procedures

was

about

60

mrem,

but

it

has

since

increased

to

about

240 mrem,

primarily

from

computed

axial

tomography

(“CAT”)

scanning

and

fluoroscopically

guided

interventions,

such

as

coronary

angioplasty;

consequently,

the

annual

average

radiation

dose

in

the

U.S.

is

about

540

mrem,

including

both

natural

background

radiation

and

man-made

(medical)

sources.

The

average

background

concentration

of

Ra-226

in

soil

in

the

U.S. is

about

1

pCi/g,

but this

can

vary

by

a

factor

of

10

or

more

in

either

direction

depending

on

the

underlying

geology

of

the

soil;

the

average

in

Illinois

soils

is

about

equal

to

the

U.S.

average

(1.0

pCi/g.)

In

comparison,

the

concentration

of

Ra-226

in

granite

countertops

can

be

as

high

as

100

pCi/g

or

more.

Interestingly

enough,

most phosphate

fertilizer

comes

from

phosphate

rocks

which

contain

from

50

to

200

pCi Ra-226

per

gram;

although

most

of

the

radium

is

removed

in

the

processing,

a

typical

radium

concentration

in

fertilizer

is

27

pCi

per

gram

phosphate

(P

205

),

so

if

a

fertilizer

is

10% phosphate,

the

Ra-226

concentration

would

be

2.7

pCi/g.

Thus

the

normal

agricultural

application

of

fertilizer

also

increases the

background

concentration

of

Ra-226

in

soil.

In

setting

standards

for

radiation

exposure

of

the

public,

the

effect

of

concern

is

cancer

induction,

and

the

US.

EPA

and

other

agencies

apply

what

is

called

the

linear

no-threshold

(“LNT”)

model.

Briefly,

this

model

assumes

that

there

is

no

threshold,

that

is,

there

is

no

level

of

exposure

below

which

the

effect can

not

occur;

consequently,

any

exposure,

no

matter

how

small,

is

assumed

to

carry

some risk

of

the

effect.

Secondly,

the

model

assumes

that

the

risk

is

linear,

or

directly

proportional

to

the

dose.

As

an

example,

consider

a

group

of

10,000

people,

each

of

whom

receives

a

dose

of

I

rem,

or

1,000

mrem.

Under

these circumstances,

the

cancer

risk

model

used

in

radiation

protection

predicts

that

there

would

be

5

cases

of

radiation-induced

cancer,

in

addition

to

a

background

incidence

of

4,000

cancers

without

any radiation

exposure.

If

the

radiation

dose

were

reduced

to

200

mrem

each,

then

there

would

be

1

radiation-induced

cancer.

If

the

dose

were

reduced

to

the

level

proposed

for

radium-bearing

sludge

disposal,

i.e.,

7

mrem

per

year,

then

we

could

expect

1

radiation-induced

cancer

to

occur

from

about

30

years

of

exposure.

Currently

there

is

no

way

to

predict

which

of

the

10,000

exposed

persons

would

be

the

one to

incur

the

radiation-induced

cancer,

if

indeed

one

were

to

occur.

Regulators

use

this

model

to

extrapolate

from the

observed

risk

at

high

levels

of

exposure,

where

we

actually

have

human

data,

to

a

calculated

risk

at

low

levels

of

exposure,

such

as

might

occur

from

radium-containing

sludge.

According

to

the

International

Commission

on

Radiological

Protection

(“ICRP”),

the

risk

coefficient

used

to

estimate

cancer

risk

is

5%

per

100

rem,

or

0.0005

per

rem,

or

0.0000005

per

mrem,

so

the

assumed

risk

from

10

mrem

per

year is

0.000005,

or

5 chances

in

1

million

per

year.

This risk coefficient

is

based

in

large

part

on

the

follow-up

of

the

Japanese

atomic

bomb

survivors,

with corrections

made

for

differences

in

dose rate

(instantaneous

vs.

prolonged),

radiation

types,

and

background

cancer

rates

in

the

Japanese

and

U.S.

populations.

Other

studies

of

exposed

human

populations

are

also

relevant

to

the

radium-bearing

sludge

issue,

especially

the

follow-up

studies

of

radium

workers

and,

for

Rn-222

exposure,

uranium

miners.

3

---

The data from the observed

incidence

ofbone cancer in

radium dial workers do

not match

the

predictions of

the

LNT

model.

In my previous testimony,

I showed that

the

radium dial

painter

data

fit

a

different

model, known as a quadratic

model,

and that the predictions

of the

LNT

significantly

over-estimate

the risk of

cancer induction

at low levels of

exposure. Later

analyses ofthe data

on the

radium dial

painters by

Dr. Robert Thomas showed

that the

data are in fact best fit

by a cubic model,

even farther

away from the LNT

model. One reason

for this change

is that the

estimated

intakes

of

radium

by

the

dial

painters were previously

underestimated.

Thus, the

same number of

observed

cancers was caused

by higher

radium

intakes; consequently,

regardless

of which

model is

used, the

risk

per

unit intake

necessarily declines.

Dr. Robert

Rowland, formerly

the

director

of

the

Center

for

Human Radiobiology,

has summarized the Argonne

radium

studies in his

book “Radium in

Humans:

A Review

of U.S. Studies” (ANL/ER-3,

1994.)

The bottom line,

however,

is that

the

radium

dial

painter data show

that the LNT

model yields a gross

over-estimate

of the cancer

risk from

radium

intakes.

In addition,

the dose and risk calculations

in the

RESRAD program

include a high

leukemia

risk, based on

the

observed

leukemia incidence

in A-bomb survivors.

However,

there

is

no excess

leukemia

observed

in the human radium

workers,

and so the RESRAD

program

over-estimates

the

true risk from

Ra-226 exposure.

The risk

of lung cancer

from Rn-222 exposure

is based

on long-term

studies

of

uranium

miners

exposed to high

concentrations

of radon in the

mines. Based on

these

data,

the

U.S. EPA

considers

radon exposure to be

the second-leading

cause

of lung cancer, after

tobacco

smoking,

responsible for some

15,000 cases

of lung cancer per

year. However,

what

U.S.

EPA

fails

to

emphasize

is that 90% ofthese

cancers

will

occur in smokers.

The uranium

miner

data clearly

show

that smoking

and radon exposure

act in a multiplicative

fashion;

the incidence

of lung

cancer

in

uranium

miners who

smoked was

about ten times

that in non-smoking

miners.

As smoking

incidence

continues to decrease

in the

U.S.

population,

the

risk of cancer

from radon

exposure

will

also decrease.

Of course,

if radium-containing

soil is

removed

from

agricultural

land prior

to

house

construction,

there is no risk

from radon above background

levels.

There

are three basic

principles

of

radiation

protection:

justification,

limitation

and

optimization. The

principle

of

justification states

that any radiation

exposure

must convey

some

benefit to an

individual

or to society as

a whole

in order

to

compensate

for the

assumed

risk.

The

principle

of limitation states

that

for

a

given

type

of

exposure situation,

there should

be an

upper

limit that is not

exceeded

except

in exceptional circumstances.

The

principle

of

optimization

states

that

actual exposures

should be

held

as far below

the limit as reasonably

achievable,

taking

into

account

economic

and

societal

considerations.

The benefit

of medical radiation

exposure

is usually

obvious

in

terms

of

diagnosis

or

treatment,

but the benefits

of other

exposures

may

be more difficult

to quantify.

In the

case

of

radium-bearing sludge

disposal,

the benefits

could

include lower

cost

of waste

disposal

for the

municipality generating

the sludge, and

improvement

of

soil parameters

for the

farmer.

The

risk

however,

may fall on a future

occupant

of

the site, who

was not a recipient

of any

benefit.

Ironically,

the

risk to this

individual arises

from the risk reduction

to the

users

of Joliet’s

municipal

water

4

---

supply

from removal

of

radium

from

their drinking

water.

If

the occupant

of the site

were

a drinking

water

consumer,

the

risk

from the

soil radium

would

be

much

less than

the risk

from

consuming

the

drinking

water

containing

the

radium.

The

principle

of

limitation

is

reflected

in the

U.S.

EPA

standard

of

15 mrem

per

year from

environmental

releases

of

radioactive

materials,

or

in

the

limit

of

10

mrem

per

year

from radium-bearing

sludge

disposal

proposed

by

the IEPA.

The principle

of

optimization

comes

in

when

considering

the costs

of

sludge

disposal

by

application

to

agricultural

land

vs.

disposal

in

a landfill,

ifthe radium

concentrations

are

acceptable

for

landfill

disposal,

or

in

a

radioactive

waste

repository,

if

the

radium

concentrations

exceed

the

limits

for

a landfill.

Optimization

balances

risk

vs.

the

cost

of avoiding

the risk;

in the case

at

hand, the

risk

from

an

additional

dose

of

7 mrem

per

year

is

minimal;

this

level

of

dose

is well

within the

natural

variation

of

background

radiation

doses

across

the

U.S.

and the

world.

It would

also seem

logical

that

because

the

risk from

Rn-222

can

be eliminated

by

removal

of

top soil

before

housing

construction,

and

that

this

practice

is

already

required

by

municipal

building

codes,

it

would

be within

the

purview

of

IEPA

to

also recognize

this practice

or possibly

require

this

practice

in

areas

where

radium-bearing

sludge

has been

deposited.

It is a

fact that

it costs

money

to

remove

an environmental

risk,

and

the

total amount

of

money

available

to a municipality

from tax

revenues

is

limited.

Buildings

and roads

must

be

maintained,

schools

and police

and

fire

departments

must

be

operated,

and

numerous

other

claims

on

the

taxpayers’

dollars

exist.

It is

up

to

the taxpayers,

through

their

elected

representatives,

to

determine

the

proper

allocation

of

funds.

We

use

risk

analysis

to

estimate

the

risks

of

various

enviromriental

hazards,

so

that informed

decisions

can be

made

as to

whether

or not

they

are large

enough

to

demand

expenditure

of

public

funds

to correct.

The

IEPA

has the

legal

responsibility

to

make

this

determination

and, like

the

U.S.

EPA, uses

the

LNT model

to

estimate

the

magnitude

of

the risks.

This

approach

has

been

endorsed

and supported

by

both

U.S.

and

international

bodies

concerned

with setting

standards

for

radiation

exposure,

including

the

NCRP

and

the ICRP.

In

1976,

when the

U.S.

EPA

issued

its interim

standards

for radioactivity

in drinking

water,

the maximum

permissible

concentration

was

set to

be

5

pCi

per

liter for

combined

Ra-226

and

Ra

228; this

level

is still in

effect.

On

July

18,

1991,

U.S.

EPA

published

in the

Federal

Register

a

notice

ofproposed

rule-making

for

the

final standards

on radioactivity

in

drinking

water

that

would

increase

the

permissible levels

for

radium

to

20

pCi per

liter for

Ra-226

and

Ra-228

separately.

U.S.

EPA

made

this

recommendation

because

of

better

data available

on risk

modeling;

previous

U.S.

EPA

risk

calculations

had

included

a

large risk

of

leukemia

induction,

based

on the

experience

of

the

atomic-

bomb

survivors,

while

the

improved

risk

estimates

lowered

the

leukemia

risk

to

levels

more

consistent

with the

actual

human

data

from

radium

workers.

Unfortunately,

Congress’

renewal

ofthe

Safe

Drinking

Water

Act

prevented

U.S.

EPA

from

increasing

the

permissible

levels

of radium.

Had

U.S.

EPA

been

able

to do so,

the problem

of disposal

of radium-bearing

sludge

would

never

have

developed, because

Joliet

would

not

have

been

required

to

remove

radium

from

its

well

water

supply.

In my

testimony

before

the

PCB

some

15

years

ago,

I advocated

20

pCi

per

liter

of

Ra-226.

as

a reasonable

level,

even

granting

the

LNT

model

used

by

U.S. EPA,

and

warned

that

setting

the

level

at 5 pCi/L

would

result

in umecessary

costs

for

treatment

and waste

disposal,

which

is the

situation

Joliet

faces

today.

5

---

Nevertheless,

the

science

has

not

changed;

it

is

clear

from

the

human

data

that

the

LNT

model

is conservative,

that

is,

it

overestimates

the

actual

risk.

Consequently,

the

calculated

risk

from

disposal

ofradium-bearing

sludge

on agricultural

land

at a

level

that results

in a radiation

dose

of

10

mrem

per

year

or

less is

an extreme

upper

limit

on

the true

risk,

which

may

well

be

zero.

The

disposal

of

radium-bearing sludge

on

agricultural

land

with

a

total

accumulative

increase

ofradium

not

to

exceed

1.0

pCi/g

of

soil

satisfies

all

three

of

the basic

principles

of

radiation

protection:

justification,

limitation,

and

optimization.

Therefore,

the

petition

of the

City

of

Joliet

should

be

granted

and

the

permit

sent

back

to the

IEPA

to reissue

accordingly.

CHO1/

25278334.2

6

---

WRITTEN

TESTIMONY

OF

DENNIS

L.

DUFFIELD

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

Enviromnental

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.

EXHIBIT

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

IEPA

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

TEPA

in

1985

that

the

Joliet

Public

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

new

water

supply

and

the

preparation

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

http://www

.ea.

gov/safewater/ndwac/surn_radn.htrnl.

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,

IEPA.

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 the

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

fiom

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

R2004-021.

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

ANT)

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 JEPA

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

IEPA

could

support.

After

talking

about

the potential impact

of

the

Memorandum

of

Agreement

with

various

IEPA

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

permitting

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

IEPA

forwarded

Joliet’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

IEPA

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

grain.

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 IEPA

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

permit.

Since

Joliet

was

not

a party

to

the

inter-agency

agreement,

it was

not

possible

to

violate

it

directly.

5

---

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

of

foundation

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,

Inc.

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

$2,2l0.745

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

detennined

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

pico-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

IEPA

and

IEMA

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,

JEPA

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

IEPA

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

IEPA

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

IEPA

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

IEPA

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

IEMA-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

IEPA

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

conect

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

achieved

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,

IEPA

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