BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
RECEVED
CLERKtS
OFFICE
JAN
15 2009
IN
THE MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
TIERED
APPROACH
TO CORRECTIVE
ACTION
OBJECTIVES
(35 Iii.
Adm. Code 742)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
R09-9
(Rulemaking-Land)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
PoNution
Control
Board
NOTICE
Dorothy Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
James
R. Thompson
Center
100
W. Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(Via
First Class
Mail)
Matt Dunn
Environmental
Bureau Chief
Office of
the Attorney General
James
R.
Thompson Center
100 W.
Randolph,
12
th
Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(Via First
Class Mail)
Participants
on the Service
List
(Via
First
Class
Mail)
Bill Richardson
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Dept. ofNatural
Resources
One
Natural Resources
Way
Springfield,
Illinois
62702-127
1
(Via
First Class Mail)
Richard
McGill
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
100
W.
Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that
I
have
today
filed with the
Office of
the Clerk
of
the.
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency’s
(“Illinois
EPA”)
Responses
to
Pre-filed
Questions
and
Errata Sheet
Number
2
a copy of each
of which
is
herewith
served
upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
By:
.7
mberly A.
qeving
Assistant
CouAsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
DATE:
January
13, 2009
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
(217)
782-5544
CEV
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
CLERK’S
OFFICE
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
15
2009
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
)
R09-9
Pollution
Control
Board
TIERED
APPROACH
TO
CORRECTiVE
)
(Rulemaking-Land)
ACTION
OBJECTiVES
)
(35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
742)
)
)
ILLINOIS
EPA’S
RESPONSES
TO
PRE-FILED
QUESTIONS
NOW
COMES
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”),
by
and
through
one
of
its
attorneys,
Kimberly
A.
Geving,
and
submits
the
following
Pre
Filed
Answers
in Response
to the
Pre-Filed
Questions
of
Kara
Magyar,
Gail
Artrip,
P.E.,
and
the
Illinois
Environmental
Regulatory
Group
(“IERG”).
Question
of Kara
Magvar
Question
1)
Ms.
Magyar
requested
that
the
Illinois
EPA
provide
its
rationale
for
assuming
the
value
of
Q
50
i
being
zero
at
a
distance
greater
than
five
feet.
Answer:
In
Tiers
1 and
2,
the
default
value
for
the
volumetric
rate
of
soil
gas
into
a
building
(Q
01
i)
is
zero,
meaning
that
advection
is not
factored
into
the
calculation
of
remediation
objectives.
This
is
because
other
parameter
values
are
suitably
conservative.
In
Tier
3,
however, remediation
objectives
for the
indoor
inhalation
exposure
route
must
take
into
account
the possible
migration
of
chemicals
caused
by
both
diffusion
and
advection.
If
contamination
is within
five
feet
of an
existing
or
potential
building
or
man-made pathway,
then
a
Qii
value
of
83.33
cm
3
/sec
must
be
used
in calculating
the
attenuation
factor
(equation
J&E8a),
unless
additional
site-specific
information
indicates
a
different remediation
objective
is reasonable
and
appropriate.
A
Q
soil
assessment
under
Tier
3
is
a
balancing
factor
to
make
sure
alternative
evaluations
remain
health-protective.
1
The
five
foot
setback
and
83.33cm
3
/sec
values
are from
USEPA’s
Users
Guide
for
Evaluating
Subsuiface
Vapor
Intrusion
Into
Buildings
(EPA!68/W-02/33,
February
2004).
Questions
of
Gail
Artrip,
P.E
(Carison
Environmental)
Question
1) If
I have
soil and
ground
water
issues
on
my
site, in
addition
to
evaluating
indoor
inhalation
on
my
site as
per
the proposed
TACO
rules,
would
I
also
have
to evaluate
potential
off-site
lateral
migration
of measured
impacts
via
Equation
R
26 to
assess
the
potential
for
(ground
water
component
of)
indoor
inhalation
exceedances
on my
neighbor’s
property
as
well?
As an alternative,
could
I install
monitoring
wells
along
our
shared
property
boundary
to measure
actual
ground
water
concentrations?
If
either
approach
results
in
potential
off-site
exceedances
of
the
ground
water component
of
indoor
inhalation,
what
will I be
required
to do
(neighbor
notification,
ELUC
requiring
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of a
building
control
technology,
etc.)? If
an
ELUC
is
required
on my
neighbor’s
property
and he
is reluctant
to
comply,
can
I
still
get
my
NFR?
Is
it reasonable
to
assume
that only
ground
water
(not
soil) transport
onto
adjoiners’
properties
will
require
evaluation?
Answer:
To
determine
if off-site
properties
are at
risk
from
indoor
inhalation
route
exposures,
site
evaluators
have
the
option
of
running
TACO
equation
R26,
collecting
groundwater
samples,
or collecting
soil
gas
samples
at
the
down
gradient
property
boundary.
With
respect
to
the
indoor
inhalation
route,
soil
gas data
trumps
groundwater
sample
data and
R26
modeling
results.
Groundwater
sample
data
trumps
R26
modeling
results
when
addressing
the
indoor
inhalation
route.
2
If R26
predicts
groundwater
impacts
will
migrate
off-site
at
concentrations
above
the
groundwater
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
but
soil
gas
concentrations
at
the source
or
down
gradient
property
boundary
of the
remediation
site
are
below
the
soil
gas
remediation
objectives,
no further
analysis
of
off-site
properties
is
necessary
in
regards
to
the
indoor
inhalation
route.
If R26
predicts
groundwater
impacts
will migrate
off-site
at
concentrations
above
the
groundwater
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
but
groundwater
samples
at
the
down
gradient
property
boundary
are
below
the indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
no
further
analysis
is necessary
in
regards
to
the
indoor
inhalation
route.
Using
both
the J&E
and
the
R26
models
to
predict
down
gradient
risks
associated
with
the
indoor
inhalation
route
is an
extremely
conservative,
but
allowable,
option.
Off-site
properties
impacted
above
the indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives
will require
an ELUC.
Illinois
EPA
will
not issue
a
No Further
Remediation
letter
without
an
ELUC
in place
when
off-site
properties
are affected.
It is
reasonable
to assume
that
only
contaminants
in groundwater,
not soil,
will
migrate
off-site,
but exceptions
to this
scenario
may
occur.
Question
2)
P.
9
of Gary
King’s
Nov.
14,
2008
pre-filed
testimony
says,
“Building-specific
default
values
for the
following
parameters..
.The
same
default
values
must
be
used
for the
same
parameters
when
performing
Tier
2
calculations.
The actual
values
of
these
parameters
do
not have
a great
impact
on
the remediation
objectives;
however,
the
default
values
are based
on
a
conservative
representation
of
the
type of
buildings
that
are or
may
be present
at
the site
in
the
future.
Without
these
conservative
values,
restrictions
would
be required
on the
minimum
size
of
a
building
that
can
be
3
constructed
over
the contaminated
area.”
I
understand
the
Illinois
EPA’s
institutional
control-related
challenge,
but
take
issue with
the
defaults
not
having
a
great impact
on the
remediation
objectives.
In
our
preliminary
analysis,
we are
finding
that
the
building
dimensions
can
significantly
alter the
Tier
2
remediation
objectives.
Our clients
are
industrial
users,
and
instead
of
65
feet x
65
feet x
10 feet
tall
(the
default
assumptions),
tend
to have
buildings
that are
500 ft
x 500
ft x 25
ft tall, and
this
does have
a dramatic
effect
on
the
Tier
2
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives.
In putting
together
our
SRP
reports,
we
will run
the
Tier 2
calculations
using
the
building
dimension
defaults.
If
there
are
no exceedances,
the outcome
is straightforward.
However,
if
the
Tier
2 remediation
objectives
using
the
default
building
dimensions
predict
an
exceedance,
our
inclination
is
to
also run
the
Tier
2 calculations
using
the
existing
building-specific
dimensions,
and
present
both
outcomes.
If
no
exceedances
are
predicted
using
the
building-specific
dimensions,
is there
a proposed
institutional
control
option
that
would
allow
us to
avoid
putting
in
a
(unnecessary)
building
control
technology
until
the
existing
building
is
demolished
and a
future
building
is constructed?
For
example,
perhaps
our NFR
has a
condition
that
requires
a building
control
technology
or max.
size
for future
construction
(when
the
existing
building
is
torn down).
Somehow
the
Illinois
EPA’s
approval
letter/NFR
will
acknowledge
that
the
current
building
conditions
are acceptable.
Surely
no one
thinks
it’s a good
idea
to
install
an
unnecessary
mitigation
system
(based
on
modeling)
in
an existing
building
just to
get
an
NFR. Obviously
if
our
Tier
2 calculation
with
building-specific
inputs indicates
a problem,
we
would
have
to install
a building
control
technology.
We recognize
that Tier
3
does
allow
for use
of building-specific
dimensions,
however,
are finding
that
inclusion
of
the advection
component
in the
4
modeling
has a
profound
effect
on the
Tier
3 remediation
objectives.
In some
instances,
it overwhelms
the
benefits
of
the
larger
building.
In
general,
it
is not intuitive
that
a
larger
building
is
more
prone
to cause
or promote
the
advection
phenomenon.
Answer:
Illinois
EPA
has
not
put forward
any institutional
control
option
to
allow the
use
of
site-specific
dimensions
of
existing
buildings
under Tier
2.
As
proposed,
building
size parameters
may
only
be adjusted
under
Tier
3.
The
assessment
under
Tier
3 is a
balancing
factor
to make
sure
alternative
evaluations
remain
health-protective.
Question
3) P.
15
of Gary
King’s
pre-filed
testimony
notes
that when
comparing
the
calculated
soil gas
remediation
objective
to
soil gas
samples
from
the
site,
Section
742.717(k)
instructs
site
evaluators
to use
soil gas
data
collected
at a
depth
at
least
3 feet
below
the
ground
surface...”
Does
this contradict
742.717(k)
where
it
discusses
the
need
for
soil
gas
samples
to
have
been
obtained
from
a depth
of
5
feet?
Answer:
As filed,
Section
742.717(k)
states:
The calculated
soil gas
remediation
objective
shall be
compared
to
concentrations
of soil
gas
collected
at
a depth
at least
3 feet
below
ground
surface
and
above
the saturated
zone.
If a valid
sample
cannot
be
collected,
a soil
gas
sampling
plan shall
be
approved
by
the
Agency
under
Tier
3.
This
is consistent
with
Gary King’s
pre-filed
testimony.
Ms. Artrip
is referencing
an
earlier
draft
version
of
the
proposed
amendments.
Question
4)
P. 18
of
Gary
King’s
pre-filed
testimony
says, “It
is
possible
to
calculate
a
Tier 2
soil remediation
objective
more stringent
than
the
Tier
1 soil
remediation
objective
for the
indoor
inhalation
pathway;
in such
cases,
the
Tier 1
remediation
objective
applies.”
This
seems
to
contradict
742.717(1).
5
Answer:
Section
742.717(1)
does
not
exist.
Ms. Artrip
is
referencing
an
earlier
draft
version
of
the proposed
amendments.
Questions
of the
IERG
Question
1)
The
outdoor
inhalation
pathway
can
be excluded
in
several
ways.
Can
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
be
excluded
in the
same
manners?
Is
it
correct
that
the
primary
difference
impacting
the
manner
in
which
the
pathways
can
be
excluded
is
that
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
must
consider
the
impact
a building
(i.e.,
chimney
effect)
has
on
the
migration
route?
Answer:
No and
no.
To exclude
the
indoor
inhalation
pathway,
site
evaluators
must
follow
the
requirements
of
Section
742.3
12.
Question
2) Can
the
Agency
provide
draft
language
that will
be
included
in
No
Further
Remediation
(“NFR”)
Letters
for
the
following
circumstances:
a.
Where
a
site
with a
building
location
achieves
the
remediation
objectives
for
all
pathways,
including
vapor
intrusion;
b.
Where
there
is
no
building
on
the
site;
and
c.
Where
there
is
no building
on
the
site
when
the
NFR
Letter
is
issued,
but
there
is
a
likelihood
of
construction
of
a building
with
a known
location
in
the future?
An
unknown
location?
Answer:
As
part
of
this
rulemaking,
Illinois
EPA
has not
provided
language
to
be
used
in
future
No
Further
Remediation
letters.
This
is consistent
with
past
practice.
However,
in
response
to
the
specific
scenarios
presented
as
part
of this
question,
Illinois
EPA
makes
the
following
observations:
a.
The
NFR
letter
will
be
worded
as before
(pre-indoor
inhalation).
6
b. and
c. are
the
same
for
purposes
of the
NFR
letter.
Illinois
EPA
intends
for the
entire
site
to be
safe
for
current
and
future
building
occupants,
regardless
of
where
those
buildings
are
located.
Question
3)
Is
it the
Agency’s
intention
to
require
in
an
NFR
letter
issued
for
scenario
2(c)
above:
(1)
the
use
of a Building
Control technology
for
future
construction,
or (ii)
that
the
site
be
re-enrolled
and
re-evaluated
pursuant
to the
applicable
program
requirements?
Answer:
At
a site
with
no existing
buildings,
the
NFR
letter
may
require
installation
of
a Building
Control
Technology
(“BCT”)
for
a future
building.
If
a
site
owner
prefers
not
to
install
the
BCT,
they
have
the option
of re-enrolling
the
site
and
cleaning
up
the
remaining
contamination
so
that an
institutional
control
is no
longer
necessary.
Due
to this
question
and
the preceding
two
questions,
Illinois
EPA
would
like
to
clarify
that
the
location
of
an
existing
building
does
not
control
evaluation
of
the
indoor
inhalation
exposure
route.
Illinois
EPA’s
approach
to management
of
the indoor
inhalation
pathway
is
site-wide
and
based
on
the
location
of
the contaminant
source.
Illinois
EPA
intends
for
the
entire
site
to
be
safe
for current
and
future
building
occupants,
regardless
of
where
those
buildings
are
located.
Question
4)
Tn
terms
of
the vapor
intrusion
pathway,
will
there
be
a
difference
between
the
requirements
in an
NFR
Letter
and
those
stated
in an
ELUC?
Can
the
Agency
provide
an
explanation
of the
impact
the
proposed
vapor
intrusion
pathway
will
have
on
the
effectiveness
of
ELUCs?
7
Answer:
For
every
exposure
route,
the
NFR
letter
addresses
on-site
contamination
and
the
ELUC
addresses
off-site contamination.
ELUCs
for
the
indoor
inhalation
route
will
be
the
same
as ELUCs
for
any
other
exposure
route.
Question
5)
If
a
responsible
party
is
required
to evaluate
off-site
impacts
and
identifies
some
impact,
is an
ELUC
necessary?
How
will
off-site
vapor
intrusion
from
groundwater
pathway
be
institutionally
excluded
on
adjacent
properties?
Are
ELUCs
an
institutional
control
option?
Answer:
ELUCs
are
required
anytime
off-site
contamination
above
the
remediation
objectives
is left
in place.
Refer
to Section
742.3
12 for
pathway
exclusion
options
for
the
indoor
inhalation
route.
Question
6) Does
the
Agency
intend
to
amend
the
model
ELUC
language
to
address
the
impacts
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway?
Answer:
Yes,
as
necessary.
Question
7)
Will
the Agency
require
actual
data
or allow
modeling
of
groundwater
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
to
an off-site
building?
Answer:
To
determine
if
off-site
properties are
at
risk
from
indoor
inhalation
route
exposures,
site
evaluators
have
the
option
of
running
TACO
equation
R26,
collecting groundwater
samples,
or
collecting
soil
gas
samples
at the
down
gradient
property
boundary.
With
respect
to
the
indoor
inhalation
route,
soil gas
data
trumps
groundwater sample
data
and
R26
modeling
results. Groundwater
sample
data
trumps
R26
modeling
results
when
addressing
the indoor
inhalation
route.
If
R26
predicts
groundwater
impacts
will
migrate
off-site
at
concentrations
above
the
groundwater
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
but soil
gas
concentrations
at
8
the source
or down
gradient
property
boundary
of
the
remediation
site
are
below
the
soil
gas
remediation
objectives,
no
further
analysis
of
off-site
properties
is
necessary
in
regards
to
the
indoor
inhalation
route.
If R26
predicts
groundwater
impacts
will migrate
off-site
at
concentrations
above
the groundwater
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
but
groundwater
samples
at
the
down
gradient
property
boundary
are
below
the
indoor
inhalation
remediation
objectives,
no
further
analysis
is
necessary
in
regards
to the
indoor
inhalation
route.
Using
both
the J&E
and
the
R26
models
to
predict
down
gradient
risks
associated
with
the
indoor
inhalation
route
is
an
extremely
conservative,
but
allowable,
option.
Question
8)
If
there
is
a
well
at
the property
boundary
and
it
exceeds
the
remediation
objectives
(“ROs”)
for
the vapor
intrusion
groundwater
pathway,
will
the
site
still
qualify
for
an
NFR
letter?
For
example,
the
remediation
site
might
not
have
any
buildings
and
the
indoor
inhalation
ROs
might
not
apply,
but
presumably
the
groundwater (and
exceedance)
might
go off-site.
Answer:
Yes,
if
the
site meets
the soil
gas
remediation
objectives
at
the
property
boundary.
If
soil
gas concentrations
exceed
remediation
objectives,
the
site
evaluator
must
investigate
off-site.
If
contamination
is
identified
off-site,
the
site
evaluator
must
either
clean
up the
contamination
or
negotiate
an
ELUC.
The
absence
of any
buildings—
on-site
or
off-site-—does
not
matter
when
performing
the
site
investigation.
Question
9)
What,
if
any, obligations
under
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
does
a
responsible
party
have
in terms
of
the
vapor
intrusion
groundwater
pathway
for
off-site
properties?
9
Answer:
The
same
obligations
exist
as
with
any
other exposure
pathway
when
off-site
properties
are contaminated.
Question
10)
The
default
f
0
used
for
calculating
Csat
for
the outdoor
inhalation
pathway
(0.6%)
is the default
f
0
for soils
in the
0-3
foot depth
interval.
Is
that correct?
a.
Hypothetically speaking,
when
calculating
a
site-specific
Csat
for
this
pathway,
could
a remedial
applicant
use
a site-specific
f
0
for this
same
depth
interval?
b.
Would
the
answer
to 10(a)
change,
if the
sample
being
screened
came
from,
for
example,
the
8-10 foot
depth
interval?
Answer:
Yes,
the
default
f
0
used
for
calculating
Csat
for
the
outdoor
inhalation
pathway
is
the
default
f
0
for
soils
in the
0-3
foot
depth
interval.
a.
Yes.
b.
Yes. For
the outdoor
inhalation
pathway,
the
surface
f
0
value--
either
default
or
site-specific—must
be
used.
Question
11)
The Agency’s
website
(http://www.epa.state.il.us/landltaco/vapor
intrusion-rulemaking.html,
visited
December
11,
2008)
contains
some
“answers
to
common
questions
about
the
proposed
rule”:
Q.
Will
Illinois
EPA
re-open
sites
that have
already
earned
a No
Further
Remediation
letter
and
require
them to
evaluate
the
indoor
inhalation
pathway?
A. No.
Illinois
EPA
would
take
action
only if
new site-specific
information
indicates
a
vapor
intrusion
problem.
In such
an
event,
the
action
would begin
with
voidance
of
the
NFR
letter.
10
Q.
I
have
an
approved
remedial
action plan
under
the
existing
TACO
regulations.
What
happens
if
the
rule
takes
effect
before
I
receive
the
NFR
letter?
A.
You
will
be
required
to
evaluate
the
indoor
inhalation
exposure
route.
Also,
the
remedial
action
plan
would
need
to be
revised
to
ensure
the
site
meets
the
updated
remediation
objectives
for
the
other
pathways.
It
would
seem,
by
these
above-quoted
questions
and
answers,
that
if a
responsible
party
is
operating
in
accordance
with
an
approved
remedial
action
plan,
upon
the
adoption
of
these
proposed
amendments
that
approved
plan
will
no
longer
be
valid.
Is
this
correct?
a.
Are
the
answers
to the
above-quoted
questions
somehow
derived
from
a
portion
of
the
proposed
amendments?
i.
If
so,
where?
ii.
If
not,
what
is
the
basis
upon
which
the
above
quoted
answers
are
derived?
b.
How
many
active
projects
does
the
Agency
believe
will
be
impacted
by
this
policy?
What
does
the
Agency expect
the
additional
costs
to
be
for
such
active
projects?
c.
Is
the
Agency
prepared
to
expeditiously
review
and
approve
changes
to
remedial action
plans?
If so,
what
actions
are
being
taken
in
preparation?
11
d.
Does
the Agency
expect
responsible
parties
to be
performing
the
evaluations
required
by
these
proposed
amendments
prior
to the
evaluations
being
adopted
as a
final rule?
e.
How
does
the Agency
intend
to handle
the situation
of a party
who
has
submitted
a
Remedial
or
Corrective
Action Completion
Report
prior
to
the
adoption
of the amendments,
but has
not yet
received
an NFR
Letter?
f.
Does
the
policy
reflected
on the Agency’s
website
apply
only
to
modifications
to plans
necessitated
by
the new
vapor intrusion
pathway,
or
does it also
apply to the
other changes
introduced
by
this
proposal?
If
the policy
does apply
to other
changes,
can you please
explain
why
the Agency
has
chosen
to
deviate
from
past practice,
where an
approved
plan
would
not have
been required
to be
re-drafted?
In addition,
when
will
the
updates
to the Part
742 tables
become
effective?
g.
Does
the owner
of a former
remediation
site with
a
“pre-indoor
inhalation”
NFR Letter
have the
option
to use the
standard “building
control technology”
requirement
for the
construction
of a new
building
without
re-enrolling
the site?
Answer:
The answer
to
the opening
paragraph
is yes.
a. Yes.
There
is no
citation
to a
specific
rule
section,
but based
on previous
experience,
Board
rules have
effective
dates
that govern
Agency
implementation.
When
the Board
adopts
the
rules,
that is
when
they
become
12
effective,
unless
the
Board
expressly
states
otherwise
in
its
final opinion
and
order.
b.
Unimown.
Cost
increases
are
expected
to
vary
widely
depending
on site
and
contaminant
characteristics
and
the willingness
of
affected
property
owners
to
accept
building
control
technologies
and
institutional
controls.
c.
Yes.
Staff
training
began
last
fall
and
will
continue.
d.
No.
However,
in keeping
with
current
practice,
responsible
parties
are
encouraged
to
evaluate
the
indoor
inhalation
pathway
on
a site-specific
basis
if impacts
are
suspected
or ifperforming
a full
risk
assessment
under
Tier
3.
The
methodology
may
differ
from the
proposed
rules,
but is
subject
to
illinois
EPA
approval.
e.
Illinois
EPA
has
proposed
that
the
rules
take
effect
immediately
upon
adoption.
It
will
be
up to
the
Board
to
decide
the implementation
schedule.
If
the
rules
are
adopted
prior
to
issuance
of
an NFR
determination,
then
a party
will
be
required
to
evaluate
the
indoor
inhalation
pathway.
f.
See answer
to
e) above.
When
the
rules
become
effective,
any
site that
has
not closed
will
be
subject
to
ij,
of
the
amendments,
including
the
updated
remediation
objectives
for
other
exposure
routes.
Illinois
EPA
is
not
deviating
from
past
practice.
This
is
consistent
with
past
practice.
g.
Yes,
but
no
new
NFR
letter
will
be
issued
unless
the
owner
re-enrolls
the
property
in
the Site
Remediation
Program.
Question
12)
Can
a responsible
party
use
past
soil
gas
data
for
compliance
with
the
vapor
intrusion
ROs
that
were
obtained
using
different
sampling
methods
than
13
described
in
the
proposed
amendments?
If no,
is
there
an
opportunity
on a
case-by-case
basis
to use
the
past
sampling
data?
Answer:
The
validity
of
past
sampling
data
will
be
determined
by
Illinois
EPA
on a case-by-case
basis.
Question
13)
The
proposed
Section
742.227,
Demonstration
of
Compliance
with
Soil
Gas
Remediation
Objectives
for the
Indoor
Inhalation
Exposure
Route,
sets
forth
the
requirements
for
collection
of soil
gas
data.
It is unclear
how
these
requirements
apply
to
exclusion
of
the
indoor
inhalation
exposure
route
under
Tier
3.
Section
742.93
5(a)(3)(B)
seems
to
require
that
samples
conform
with
the
above
described
requirements
of
Section
742.227,
yet subsection
(b)
seems
to
envision
sampling
procedures
other
than
those
described
in
Section
742.227.
Which
interpretation
is intended?
a.
Subsection
(d)
of
Section
742.227
specifies
that
soil gas
samples
be
collected
at a depth
of at
least
3
feet.
Is it
the Agency’s
intent
to
require,
in all
circumstances,
that
subsiab
samples
of
soil
gas
be collected
at a depth
of
3 feet
or
greater
under
Tier
3?
Answer:
Both
interpretations
are
intended.
Section
742.935(a)(3)(B)
is
available
for
sites
choosing
to
use
sub-slab
soil
gas
data.
Site
evaluators
under
Tier
3 who
opt
to
collect
exterior
soil
gas
samples
are
directed
to follow
Section
742.227.
Sub-slab
samples
are
generally
collected
immediately
under
the
slab;
depths
will
vary
depending
on building construction.
Section
742.227(d)
is specific
to
soil
gas samples
taken
beneath
the
ground
surface,
not
beneath
the
slab
of
a
building.
That
concludes
the
Illinois
EPA’s
responses
to pre-filed
questions.
Illinois
EPA
witnesses
will
be available
at
hearing
to
provide
further
testimony
regarding
these
questions
or
any other
questions
that may
arise.
14
Respectfully
submitted,
ILLTNOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
7
Kimberly/A.
Geving
Assistant
Counsel
Dated:
January
13,
2009
1021
North
Grand
Ave.
East
P0
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
(217)
782-5544
15
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOA1t
C
E
CLEj<’
5
OFFgcr
iAN
152009
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
OllUtj
STATE
OF
Control
ILUNOIS
Board
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
)
R09-9
TIERED
APPROACH
TO
CORRECTIVE
)
(Rulemaking-Land)
ACTION
OBJECTIVES
)
(35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
742)
)
ERRATA
SHEET
NUMBER
2
NOW
COMES
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
through
one
of
its
attorneys,
Kimberly
Geving,
and
submits
this
ERRATA
SHEET
NUMBER
2
to
the
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”)
and
the
participants
listed
on
the
Service
List.
Tracey
Hurley
and
Gary
King
will
provide
oral
testimony
in
support
of
these
changes
at
the
hearing
on January
27,
2009.
Section
742.1O5
A no
further
remediation
determination
issued
by
the
Agency
under
this
Part
addresses
the
potential
of
contaminants
present
in soil, soil
gas,
and
groundwater
to
reach
human
receptors.
It
does
not
evaluate
the
safety
or protectiveness
of
buildings
on
or
off-site.
742.227
At
the
end
of
the
opening
paragraph
to
this
Section
please
add
the
following
sentence:
Proposals
to
use
sub-slab
soil
gas
data
shall
follow
Section
742.935(b).
Appendix
A,
Table
L
For
the
chemical
m-Xylene
change
1 .50E+00
to
1
.50E+02.
Appendix
B,
Table
A
For
the
chemical
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
(p
Dichlorobenzene)
change
the
Ingestion
value
from
1
120e
to
5,500”
and
change
the
Outdoor
Inhalation
value
from
3•3e
to
12000
b
[NOTE:
this
is a
change
to
an
Errata
Sheet
1 change.
We are
adding
to our
original
change.]
Appendix
C,
Table
M
For the
symbol
Q
0
i
in
the
column
entitled
“Source”
delete
the
references
to
“Part
742.505(a)(2)(D)
and
Part
742.505(b)(5).”
Respectfully
submitted,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
,/kimberly
4/Geving
(
Assistant
Counsel
Division
of
Legal
Counsel
DATE:
January
13,
2009
1021
North
Grand
Ave.
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
(217)
782-5544
2
STATE
OF
ILLiNOIS
)
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)
)
PROOF
OF
SERVICE
I,
the undersigned,
on oath
state
that
I have
served
the
attached
Responses
to Pre
Filed
Questions
and
Errata
Sheet
Number
2 upon
the
persons
to
whom
they
are
directed,
by
placing
a copy
of
each
in
an
envelope
addressed
to:
Dorothy
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
100
W.
Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Matt
Dunn
Environmental
Bureau
Chief
Office
of
the Attorney
General
James
R.
Thompson
Center
100
W.
Randolph,
12
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Participants on the
Service
List
Bill
Richardson
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources
One
Natural
Resources
Way
Springfield,
Illinois
62702-1271
Richard
McGill
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R. Thompson
Center
100
W.
Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
and
mailing
them
(First
Class
Mail)
from
Springfield,
Illinois
on
January
13,
2009,
with
sufficient postage
affixed
as indicated
above.
SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN
TO
BEFORE
ME
This
13
th
day
of_January,
2009.
Notary
Public
OFFICIAL
SE,L
RNDA
QTRy
I;QMMj55
PUBLIC
STATE
OF
ILUNOIS
EXPIRES
11-3-2Q
rniiuiig
ervice tAsL...
rage
i or
i
Party Name
Role
City
& State
Phone/Fax
1021 North
Grand Avenue
Springfield
217/782-
Interested
Illinois
Environmental
Party
Protection
Agency
P.O.
East
Box
19276
9276
IL 62794-
217/782-
5544
9807
Kimberly
A.
Geving,
Assistant
Counsel
Annet Godiksen, Legal
Counsel
1021
North
Grand Avenue
Springfield
217/782-
IEPA
Petitioner
East
P.O.
Box 19276
9276
IL
62794-
217/782-
5544
9807
Kimberly A.Geving,
Assistant
Counsel
2 17/523-
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland
Avenue
Springfield
4900
Complainant
Post
Office Box
5776
IL 62705-
217/523-
5776
4948
Katherine D. Hodge
Monica T. Rios
EPI
South Holland
16650
South Canal
Interested Party
IL
60473
Bob Mankowski
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
1400
East
Touhy Avenue
DesPlaines
Interested
Party
Suite 100
IL
60019-
3338
Lisa Frede
312/853 -
Bellande
& Sargis
Law
Group, LLP
19 South
LaSalle
Street
Chicago
8701
Interested
Party
Suite 1203
IL
60603
312/853-
8702
Mark Robert Sargis
217/788 -
Hanson Engineers,
Inc.
Springfield
Interested
Party
1525
South Sixth
Street
2886
IL
62703-
217/788-
2450
2503
Tracy
Lundein
773/380-
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
8615 West Bryn
Mawr
Avenue
Chicago
9933
Interested Party
IL
60631
773/380-
6421
Douglas
G.
Soutter
312/814-
Office
of
the Attorney
General
Environmental
Bureau
Chicago
0660
Interested Party
69
W.
Washington, 18th
Floor IL 60602
312/814-
2347
Matthew J.
Dunn, Division Chief
Navy Facilities and Engineering
Command
847/688-
201
Decatur
Avenue
Great
Lakes
2600
IL
60088-
Building
1A
Interested Party
2801
847/688-
2319
Mark Schultz,
Regional
Environmental
Coordinator
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100
W.
Randolph
St.
Chicago
312/814-
Interested Party
Suite 11-500
IL
60601
3620
312/814-
http ://www.ipcb.state.iLus/cool!external/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=
13
524¬ifytype=Se...
1/13/2009
mi
1AL...
i-’age
z
01
J
3669
Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk of
the
Board
Richard McGill, Hearing
Officer
Commonwealth
Edison
10
South
Dearborn
Street
Chicago
Interested
Party
35FNW
IL
60603
Diane H.
Richardson
Clayton
Group Services
Downers
Interested
Party
3140 Finley
Road
Grove
IL
60515
Monte Nienkerk
Weaver Boos
& Gordon
2021
Timberbrook
Lane
Springfield
Interested Party
IL
62702
Elizabeth
Steinhour
Andrews
Interested
Environmental
Party
Engineering
3300 Ginger
Creek Drive
IL
Springfield
62711
Kenneth W. Liss
Graef Anhalt Schloemer
& Associates,
Inc.
8501 West
Higgins
Road
Chicago
Interested
Party
Suite
280
IL
2801
60631-
Dr. Douglas
C. Hambley, P.E.,
P.G.
Missman Stanley
&
Associates
Rockford
Interested
Party
333 East State
Street
IL
61110-
0827
John
W. Hochwarter
Jeffrey Larson
Trivedi Associates,
Inc.
2055
Steeplebrook
Court
Naperville
Interested
Party
IL
60565
Chetan Trivedi
217/782 -
Illinois Department of Natural
Resources
Springfield
Interested
Party
One
Natural
Resources
Way
IL
62702-
1809
1271
217/524-
9640
Stan
Yonkauski
William
Richardson, Chief Legal
Counsel
Suburban
Interested
Laboratories,
Party
Inc.
4140 Litt
Drive
IL
Hillside
60162
708-544-
3260
Jarrett Thomas, V.P.
Illinois
Department
of Transportation
2300
S. Dirksen
Parkway
Springfield
Interested Party
Room
302
IL
62764
Steven Gobelman
McGuire
Woods
LLP
77 W.
Wacker
Chicago
312/849-
Interested Party
Suite
4100
IL
60601
8100
David Rieser
Reott Law Offices, LLC
35 East Wacker
Drive
Chicago
3
12/332-
Interested Party
Suite
650
IL 60601
7544
Raymond T. Reott
Jorge
T.
Mihalopoulos
Environmental Management
&
Technologies,
Inc.
2012
W. College
Avenue
Normal
309/454-
Interested Party
Suite
208
IL 61761
717
Craig Gocker, President
http://www.ipcb.state.iLus/cool!extemal/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=
13
524¬ifytype=Se...
1/13/2009
1-’rinting Service
List....
Page
3
of
3
217/522-
IL Environmental
Reoulatory
Group
215 East Adams
Street
Springfield
5512
Interested
Party
IL
62701
217/522-
5518
Alec M. Davis
312/742-
Chicago
Department
of Law
30
N. LaSalle
Street
Chicago
3990
Interested
Party
Suite
900
IL 60602
312/744-
6798
Charles
A.
King,
Assistant Corporation
Counsel
SRAC
Decatur
2510 Brooks Drive
Interested
Party
IL
62521
Harry
Walton
Burns & McDonnell
Engineering
Company,,
210
South
Clark
Street, Suite
Chicago
Inc.
Interested
Party
The
2235
Clark
Adams
Building
IL
60603
6306751625
Lawrence L.
Fieber,
Principal
Total
number of
participants:
34
http
://www.ipcb.state.i1.us/coo1Jexterna1/casenotifrNew.asp?caseid=
13
524¬ifytype=Se...
1/13/2009