R97012H.PDF

1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

5 IN THE MATTER OF:

7 TIERED APPROACH TO CORRECTIVE No. R97-12(B)

8 ACTION OBJECTIVES: AMENDMENTS R97-12(C)

9 TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 742 (Rulemaking - Land)

14 Proceedings held on January 12, 1998, at 1:30

15 p.m., at 600 South Second Street, Third Floor

16 Conference Room, Springfield, Illinois, before the

17 Honorable Amy

Muran Felton, Hearing Officer.

21 Reported by: Darlene M.

Niemeyer, CSR, RPR

CSR License No.: 084-003677

24 KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

11 North 44th Street

25 Belleville, IL 62226

(618) 277-0190

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 A P

P E A R A N C E S

3 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BY: Kimberly A.

Robinson, Esq.

4 Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Land

Division of Legal Counsel

5 2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

6 On behalf of the Illinois EPA.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP

8 BY: Whitney

Wagner Rosen, Esq.

215 East Adams

9 Springfield, Illinois 62701

On behalf of IERG.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 I N D E X

2 WITNESS PAGE NUMBER

3 Tracey E. Virgin

Hurley, M.P.H. 9

5 Thomas C.

Hornshaw, Ph.D. 13

7 Harry R. Walton 20

9 Marc E. Marszalek 21

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 P R O C E

E D I N G S

2 (January 12, 1998; 1:30 p.m.)

3 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Good afternoon. My name

4 is Amy

Muran Felton, and I am the hearing officer in

5 this proceeding. I would like to welcome you to this

6 hearing entitled In The Matter of: Tiered Approach to

7 Corrective Action Objectives, Amendments to 35

8 Illinois Administrative Code 742, docketed by the

9 Board as R97-12(C).

10 Present today on behalf of the Pollution Control

11 Board and seated to my right is Board Member Joseph

12 Yi. Seated to the right of Board Member

Yi is John

13 Knittle, Attorney Assistant to Board Member

Yi.

14 Seated to my left is

Anand Rao of the Board's

15 technical unit.

16 In the back I have placed notice list and service

17 list sign up sheets. Please note that if your name is

18 on the notice list, you will receive copies of the

19 Board's opinions and orders. If your name is on the

20 service list you will receive copies of all documents

21 filed by all parties to the service list in this

22 proceeding.

23 Keep in mind that if your name is on the service

24 list you are also required to provide copies of all

25 documents you file with the Board to all parties on

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 the service list. You are not precluded from

2 presenting testimony or questions if your name is not

3 on either of those lists. If you have any additional

4 questions about that please contact me after this

5 proceeding.

6 The hearing will be governed by the Board's

7 procedural rules for regulatory proceedings. All

8 information which is relevant and not repetitious or

9 privileged will be admitted pursuant to 35 Illinois

10 Administrative Code 102.282. All witnesses will be

11 sworn and subject to cross-questioning.

12 The proposed amendments to Part 742 were adopted

13 by the Board on December 4, 1997. They are intended

14 to fulfill the mandates of Title 17 of the

15 Environmental Protection Act. Title 17 was added to

16 the Act by Public Act 89431 which was signed and

17 became effective on December 15, 1995.

18 The original TACO rules were adopted in Docket A

19 on June 5, 1997, and became effective on July 1,

20 1997. Docket B was opened on May 1, 1997, and adopted

21 on December 4, 1997. Docket B addressed a single

22 issue relating to mixtures of similar acting

23 carcinogens and

noncarcinogens in soil and groundwater

24 at Tiers 1, 2 and 3.

25 The Board subsequently opened Docket C on December

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 4, 1997, to amend certain sections of Part 742. On

2 December 3, 1997, in Docket R97-12(B) the Site

3 Remediation Advisory Committee and the Environmental

4 Protection Agency filed a joint motion to correct

5 Appendix A, Table H, entitled Chemicals Whose Tier 1

6 Class Groundwater Remediation Objective Exceeds the 1

7 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentration.

8 In the joint motion the SRAC and the Agency

9 request that the Board make a correction to Table H at

10 final notice under Docket B of that rulemaking. In

11 the joint motion the SRAC and the Agency state that

12 upon reviewing the numeric contaminant levels set

13 forth under the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk

14 concentration included within Table H, they have

15 concluded that the numeric contaminant levels are

16 based on a 70-year exposure duration. The SRAC and

17 the Agency maintain that use of a 70-year exposure

18 duration rather than a 30-year exposure duration as a

19 basis for those Table H levels was not intended. It

20 is technically inconsistent with other aspects of Part

21 742 which are based on a 30-year exposure duration.

22 At that point, however, in the Docket B rulemaking

23 process the Board could not correct Table H consistent

24 with the Illinois Administrative Procedural Act.

25 Accordingly, the Board adopted Docket B as final on

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 December 4 and opened a new Docket C on December 4.

2 The purpose of this Docket C is to consider the merits

3 of the joint motion and any evidence in support

4 thereof.

5 The SRAC and the Agency also identified three

6 other tables besides Appendix A, Table H, that

7 required correction as a result of the correction to

8 Table H. Those tables are Appendix B, Table C;

9 Appendix B, Table D, and Appendix C, Table I. The

10 Board at that time on December 4, 1997, also opened

11 additional sections in 742 in order to make some

12 nonsubstantive, grammatical, typographical, mechanical

13 changes. Those sections are identified as Section

14 742.210, 742.310, and 742.900.

15 At first notice in Docket C the Board also opened

16 Section 742.415, 742.510, 742.810, and 742.1015 to

17 make what it had determined were

nonsubstantive,

18 grammatical, typographical, and mechanical changes.

19 Upon speaking with the Joint Committee on

20 Administrative Rules, however, it was determined that

21 those changes had already been reflected in

JCAR's

22 version of the rules. Consequently, it was

23 unnecessary to amend those sections already open.

24 Therefore, these sections will not be considered by

25 the Board in Docket C.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 The purpose of today's hearing is to allow the

2 Agency to present testimony in support of this

3 proposal and to allow questioning of the Agency. We

4 will then allow for any additional testimony regarding

5 these proposed amendments as well as any further

6 questioning of any witnesses. We have received one

7 prefiled testimony from

Tracey Virgin of the Agency.

8 Prefiled testimony was due on January 5, 1998.

9 However, the Agency filed its testimony on January 6,

10 1998, with a motion for leave to file its late

11 prefiled testimony. The Board grants the Agency's

12 motion.

13 Afterwards we will allow for the Agency to present

14 any supplemental testimony they may have regarding the

15 proposal. Subsequently, we will allow for questioning

16 of the Agency. I prefer that during the questioning

17 period you please raise your hand and identify

18 yourself and the organization that you represent, if

19 any.

20 Other than that, if there is no other questions we

21 will proceed with the Agency's testimony at this

22 time. Seeing that there is none, I will turn it over

23 to the Agency if you would like to proceed.

24 MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon. My name is

25 Kimberly

Robinson. I am an attorney for the Illinois

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 Environmental Protection Agency. With me today to my

2 immediate left I have Gary King, and to my right,

3 Tracey Virgin and Tom

Hornshaw.

4 At this time I would like to turn it over to

5 Tracey Virgin Hurley, her married name, for her

6 summary of testimony.

7 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary

8 Public.)

9 T R A C E Y E. V I R G I N H U R L E Y,

10 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public,

11 saith as follows:

12 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: Good afternoon. My name is

13 Tracey Virgin. I am an Environmental Toxicologist

14 with the Office of Chemical Safety of the Illinois

15 Environmental Protection Agency. I have been with the

16 Agency for nine years. I have a Master of Public

17 Health Degree with a specialization in Environmental

18 Health and a Bachelor of Science Degree with a major

19 in Biology.

20 I am going to summarize the Agency's proposed

21 corrections to 742. Today the Agency is proposing

22 some housekeeping changes to the 742 rules in the form

23 of updating some information, correcting some numbers,

24 and clarifying some language. The Agency has two

25 corrections to make to Appendix A, Table H. First,

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 when the Agency originally calculated the 1 in

2 1,000,000 cancer risk concentrations in Table H, an

3 incorrect exposure duration of 70 years was used.

4 The values listed in today's amendments are based

5 on the correct exposure duration of 30 years, which is

6 the value specified in Appendix C, Table D, for

7 equation R25. Both ASTM guidance and the U.S. EPA's

8 SSL guidance specify a residential exposure duration

9 of 30 years, and the Agency had intended to use an

10 exposure duration of 30 years.

11 Second, when we changed these values, we noticed

12 that there were three chemicals listed in Table H that

13 no longer had Tier 1, Class 1 groundwater remediation

14 objectives exceeding the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk

15 concentrations. The Agency proposes deleting those

16 chemicals from Appendix A, Table H. The proposed

17 amendments to 742.805 (C) and (D) are the direct

18 result of a conversation that I had with

Marc

19 Marszalek of Andrews Engineering.

20 I was trying to walk

Marc through 742.805 to

21 clarify how to assess mixtures of similarly acting

22 chemicals and how to use the values in Appendix A,

23 Table H, when we realized that 742.805, as currently

24 written, was not clear on this issue and should be

25 re-written. So the intent of the proposed amendments

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 is to make it clear that the equation given in 742.805

2 (C) should be used for

noncarcinogenic contaminants of

3 concern. The proposed amendments to 742.805 (D)

4 specify that the equation that is given in (C) with

5 some modifications and Appendix A, Table H, should be

6 used for carcinogenic contaminants of concern.

7 The Agency would like to take this opportunity to

8 update a reference, also. The SW846 reference in

9 742.210 has been updated by the formal adoption of

10 update three, dated December 1996 in the Federal

11 Register on June 13, 1997, Volume 62, page 32452.

12 SW846 is a dynamic document that changes when new data

13 and advances in analytical techniques are incorporated

14 into the manual in the form of new or revised

15 methods. In SW846, the update process consists of

16 insertion of new methods, replacement of updated

17 methods, and occasionally deletions of methods. An

18 entirely new document is not printed, just the

19 revisions.

20 By publishing the announcement in the Federal

21 Register, the U.S. EPA has made update three

22 officially part of SW846. Update three method should

23 be used in place of earlier versions of SW846.

24 Therefore, the reference in 742.210 should be changed

25 to test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 chemical methods, SW846, third edition, final update

2 three, December 1996.

3 That concludes my statement.

4 MS. ROBINSON: Ms. Hearing Officer, I have a copy

5 of that document, the front page of it, if you need

6 that for reference purposes.

7 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Okay. Thank you very

8 much. At this time are there any questions of the

9 Agency?

10 MR. MARSZALEK: I have a question.

11 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Please proceed. State

12 your name.

13 MR. MARSZALEK: My name is

Marc Marszalek, with

14 Andrews Environmental Engineering. I represent the

15 National Solid Waste Association on the SRAC

16 Committee.

17 Ms. Virgin, to clarify a typographical error on

18 Table H, Appendix A, Table H, it is my understanding

19 that benzopyrene should be .000012 instead of the way

20 it was recorded in the

Subdocket B. In other words,

21 they forgot to slash out basically one zero in the

22 requirement. As it is currently listed there are five

23 zeros and a one 12, instead of four zeros and a 12.

24 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: It appears that you are

25 correct. The Board's copy does have five zeros in it.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 MR. MARSZALEK: I think it is just a typographical

2 error.

3 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Any further questions,

4 Mr. Marszalek?

5 MR. MARSZALEK: That's all I have.

6 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Are there any other

7 questions right now?

8 I had a couple of questions of Ms. Virgin related

9 to Appendix B, Table C. It is our understanding that

10 the Agency requests a value be changed for

11 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol. Could you explain why that

12 change is necessary?

13 MS. ROBINSON: Excuse me. Would it be okay to

14 answer in panel format? I think that Dr.

Hornshaw

15 might be --

16 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: As long as Dr.

Hornshaw

17 is sworn in, that would be fine.

18 MS. ROBINSON: Okay. Would you swear Dr.

Hornshaw

19 in, please.

20 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary

21 Public.)

22 DR. HORNSHAW: I believe that is just a correction

23 of a typo that was in the earlier version.

24 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Okay. Yes. State your

25 name, please.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 MS. ROSEN: I am Whitney

Rosen with the Illinois

2 Environmental Regulatory Group. I just wanted to

3 clarify, for the record, that you are talking about

4 the 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol and then the change from .26

5 to the .29?

6 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Correct.

7 MS. ROSEN: Okay. I wasn't sure if it was clear

8 for the record.

9 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you.

10 MS. ROSEN: We were just trying to -- is that

11 correct?

12 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Yes. Thank you.

13 Appendix B, Table C. Are there any further questions

14 regarding Appendix B, Table C?

15 I have another question relating to Appendix B,

16 Table D and, again, for the chemical

17 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol. There are six calculations

18 that are proposed to be changed beginning under the

19 first column for pH 4.5 to 4.74. That change is

20 requested to be made as 1.9, of 1.9 value.

21 The next column is pH 4.75 to 5.24, and the

22 requested change is that the value be changed to 1.8.

23 The next column is pH 5.25 to 5.74, and the requested

24 change is that the change of the value be made so it

25 reflects a 1.7 value. Then the fourth change is in

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 column pH 5.75 to 6.24, and that requested change is

2 that the value read 1.4. The next column is pH 6.25

3 to 6.64, and the requested change is that the value

4 read 1.0. The final change is pH 6.65 to 6.89, and

5 the requested change is that the value read .77.

6 Can you explain why these changes are necessary?

7 DR. HORNSHAW: These changes were necessary to

8 account for how the Agency in the past has derived the

9 equivalent of a health advisory for Class 2

10 groundwater. For the most part we have been making

11 the decision on the equivalent of a health advisory

12 for Class 2 groundwater based on how mobile the

13 chemical is in the soil. We have been basing this

14 decision on whether a chemical is mobile or not mobile

15 with the comparison against a benchmark chemical,

16 ethyl benzene and comparing the organic carbon

17 partition coefficient of the chemical of concern

18 against that of ethyl benzene.

19 In the case of ionizing compounds like

20 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol where the organic carbon

21 partition coefficient changes with pH, the decision on

22 whether to multiply the Class 1 health advisory by

23 five times or one time depending on whether it is not

24 mobile in soil or mobile in soil, there is a break

25 point between pH 6.65 and 6.9 that crosses over that

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 threshold of where we compare against the organic

2 carbon partition coefficient for ethyl benzene.

3 That change was pointed out to us by Mr.

Marszalek

4 and we agreed with him that the pH or the organic

5 carbon partition coefficient changed from lower than

6 that of ethyl benzene to higher than that of ethyl

7 benzene at this point, so we multiply the previous

8 value by five at that point. That's why this change

9 was made.

10 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you. Turning now

11 to Appendix C, Table I, there are four requested

12 changes for

Dinoseb, starting with pH 4.5. The

13 changes that this reads 3.00 e plus 04. The next

14 change for

Dinoseb, pH 4.6 reads 2.71 e plus 04. The

15 next change is for pH 4.7 for

Dinoseb that it read

16 2.41 e plus 04. The last change requested is for pH

17 4.8 for

Dinoseb that it read 2.12 e plus 04.

18 Again, can you explain why these changes are

19 necessary?

20 DR. HORNSHAW: These were typos that we didn't

21 catch the first time through.

22 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you. With regard

23 to the requested change at 742.210 regarding the SW846

24 reference, can you explain whether or not this

25 reference will be continually updated and if so how

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 often, if you can speculate?

2 DR. HORNSHAW: It is updated as necessary. The

3 U.S. EPA puts out updates on this at irregular

4 intervals depending on advances in analytical

5 chemistry. At the current time there are no proposed

6 updates.

7 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you. I just need

8 to take one minute, please.

9 (Discussion off the record.)

10 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: All right. Back on the

11 record.

12 I have one other question now regarding the

13 proposed changes at Section 742.805 C and 805 D. As

14 you currently know, those sections are not open right

15 now in this docket and the Board will have to assess

16 whether or not this is possible to do. But just to

17 kind of make this record complete, I wondered if you

18 could explain to us what is the effect for the

19 practitioner if these changes are not made and the

20 rule continues to read as it does at this section?

21 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: The effect would be that --

22 well, the language as it stands now is just a little

23 vague. The effect would be that there would be some

24 confusion as to how to assess mixtures and how to use

25 Appendix A, Table H.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 MS. ROBINSON: May I ask a question?

2 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Sure.

3 MS. ROBINSON: How many calls would you say that

4 the Office of Chemical Safety has received on this

5 issue for clarification?

6 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: Maybe half a dozen.

7 MS. ROBINSON: Do you anticipate a lot more calls

8 if the change is not made?

9 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: Yes.

10 MR. RAO: I just had a question on 805 Subsection

11 D, where the proposed language says that they could

12 use the equation in 805, Subsection C, to demonstrate

13 the cumulative risk does not exceed 1 in 10,000. Was

14 this discussed in the TACO Docket A, that it is

15 acceptable to use the equation?

16 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: We believe that it is in

17 Docket B.

18 MR. RAO: Okay. Docket B. So if JCAR has some

19 questions we can at least point to them that it was

20 discussed before, for the record. Thanks.

21 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: I just had one other

22 clarification at Section 742.310 (b) (1) (a). As I

23 mentioned, the Board, on its own motion, opened

24 additional sections in Docket C to make some

25 clarification and

nonsubstantive changes. I just

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 wanted to ask whether or not Dr.

Hornshaw or Ms.

2 Virgin had any objection to adding the proposed

3 "within ten feet of," that phrase, in Subsection (a)

4 (1) (a) in the two places within this section where it

5 is reflected?

6 MS. VIRGIN-HURLEY: No, we have no objections. It

7 was the Agency's intent.

8 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: For clarification, that

9 was actually Subsection (b) (1) (a). Excuse me.

10 Thank you.

11 Okay. Are there any other questions at this time

12 for either of the Agency's witnesses? Seeing that

13 there are no further questions or if there are we will

14 entertain them at this time, otherwise we will proceed

15 to adjourn this meeting. Are there any other

16 questions?

17 MS. ROSEN: Yes.

18 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Yes, Ms.

Rosen.

19 MS. ROSEN: Whitney

Rosen, from the Illinois

20 Environmental Regulatory Group. We don't have

21 questions, per se, but with me today are Harry Walton

22 and Marc Marszalek that are members of the Site

23 Remediation Advisory Committee, and we were wondering

24 if it would be possible for them to make some brief

25 statements.

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: That would be fine.

2 MS. ROSEN: Okay.

3 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: If either one of them

4 would like to proceed once they are sworn, that is

5 fine.

6 (Whereupon the witnesses were sworn by the Notary

7 Public.)

8 MS. ROSEN: I think Harry will begin.

9 H A R

R Y W A L T O N,

10 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public,

11 saith as follows:

12 MR. WALTON: My name is Harry Walton. I am the

13 Chairman of the Site Remediation Advisory Committee on

14 behalf of the Illinois State Chamber, and I am on

15 retainer to the Illinois Environmental Regulatory

16 Group. My statement would basically -- I am aware of

17 a number of different discussions, dialogue going on

18 between one of the SRAC members,

Marc Marszalek, and

19 the Agency about the correctness of some of the

20 formulas and some other issues and the potential

21 typos.

22 I only request that we take the appropriate amount

23 of time to get these reconciled before we proceed to

24 second notice and finalize this docket so that we

25 don't have to revisit this again, Docket D, E, F, so

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 hopefully we can take the appropriate amount of time

2 to resolve this. With that, I will hand off to Mr.

3 Marszalek.

4 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you.

5 MS. ROBINSON: I have one question.

6 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Please proceed.

7 MS. ROBINSON: Mr. Walton, are you talking about

8 the amendments that are proposed here or potential

9 additional amendments?

10 MR. WALTON: I would have to defer to Mr.

11 Marszalek.

12 MS. ROBINSON: Okay.

13 M A R C M A R S Z A L E K,

14 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public,

15 saith as follows:

16 MR. MARSZALEK: I am

Marc Marszalek with Andrews

17 Environmental Engineering. I represent the National

18 Solid Waste Association on the SRAC committee.

19 During my calculations -- and I will introduce

20 Rhon Hasenyager in the back. We got into the Table H

21 and started to look at the -- we have, basically, a

22 computer program that takes a look at how the

23 functioning of these numbers are produced via the

24 table. In that we found out the duration factor from

25 70 to 30 years was the Table H correction, and that

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 was basically made in this

subdocket.

2 And then since that even the mere typo of

3 benzopyrene drew some concerns from us on how many

4 other typos or a slip of a decimal point or something

5 else in some of the tables had occurred. So we

6 started to back calculate all the items off of Table H

7 and looking at all of the things that were brought up

8 under subdocket D and C as far as the add mixture rule

9 and how that would affect, because a lot of these

10 chemicals are in the add mixture rule.

11 As an example, I will use 2-Chlorophenol in

12 Appendix B, Table A, 2-Chlorophenol. That is a

13 cumulative effect in the reproductive system. So when

14 we looked at that, if you look at that table, the

15 Class 2 clean-up objective, 2-Chlorophenol is listed

16 as 4 and it should really be a 20, is what the correct

17 answer is. Again, I believe it was just a typo and a

18 carry over, because if you go to the other Appendix B,

19 Table B, which is the same item, 2-Chlorophenol, it

20 does have a 20 in the Class 2 groundwater standard.

21 So it is just a mere -- you know, there is

22 thousands and literally hundreds of thousands of

23 numbers here that are plugged in via someone typing

24 into these charts that there are going to be

25 mistakes. And so in that light, really the

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 2-Chlorophenol, the Class 2 groundwater standards, or

2 the Class 2 soil component standard in Appendix B,

3 Table A should be 20.

4 Another example of that would be Heptachlor which

5 is also on Table H. We went back and realized to get

6 to these numbers you use a series of formulas, 26

7 formulas, 28 formulas. All these formulas are inner

8 linked and all the numbers are inner linked into the

9 formulas. So just to change one item on Table H,

10 there is greater ramifications in how you got to that

11 number.

12 We got into Heptachlor in Appendix B, Table B, and

13 the industrial commercial ingestion number for

14 Heptachlor is 1, and it should really be 1.3. The

15 inhalation number under the industrial commercial

16 column is 11, and it should really be .22. The

17 construction worker inhalation number for Heptachlor

18 is listed as 16, and it should really be .3. And,

19 again, these are all just calculations that are just

20 typos in the charts. And those are the ones that we

21 have found currently and would just like to portray to

22 you that those should be changed so that they

23 represent the correct clean-up objectives in the

24 tables.

25 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Are there any questions

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 for either Mr. Walton or Mr.

Marszalek?

2 I actually had one question, Mr.

Marszalek. Have

3 you, other than these -- just to clarify, are there

4 any other changes that you have noticed? Is there

5 anything else that you would like to put forth today?

6 MR. MARSZALEK: Not at this time. I mean, there

7 is a couple of other concerns we have. Again, it is

8 just clarification items.

Pentachlorophenol in the

9 table has a sub item known as E and J.

10 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: What table are you

11 referring to?

12 MR. MARSZALEK: As an example, it would be

13 Appendix B, Table B, page 138,

Pentachlorophenol, you

14 notice that the inhalation ingestion numbers have an E

15 and a J designated behind it which says that basically

16 your calculation is cut in half upon generation of

17 your answer. However, when you go to a Tier 2

18 calculation in the written text and how you are

19 supposed to calculate a Tier 2 equation, there is no

20 discussion about cutting the answer in half at the

21 conclusion of the calculation.

22 In Tier 1 you are picking a number off the table,

23 and it tells you how they arrived at that number. But

24 at Tier 2 the question should we or should we not cut

25 the number in half once you calculate it through the

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 formulas of Tier 2, and I believe that it would

2 probably have the same designator, E or J, and I

3 believe it is the J designator but, again, in actual

4 Tier 2 written

wordage of how to do the calculations,

5 it does not tell you to do that. Again, just a

6 typographical, minor oversight.

7 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: When you are referring to

8 the changes at Appendix B, Table --

9 MR. MARSZALEK: At Appendix A, Table A -- excuse

10 me -- Appendix B, Table A, or Appendix B, Table B,

11 either one, both have

Pentachlorophenol on it, which

12 would both have the same designator.

13 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: When you are looking at

14 those, you are looking at changes from Docket A,

15 right?

16 MR. MARSZALEK: Well, A, B or C. It is on

17 basically all of them. It is the same -- well, it is

18 not really a change. It is in the tables.

19 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Mr.

Marszalek, are you --

20 are you and Andrews, are you actually proceeding

21 through with some sort of an organized study to

22 confirm these numeric values throughout the whole TACO

23 regulations, or are you just sort of --

24 MR. MARSZALEK: We are trying, but it is extremely

25 time consuming. I will be honest with you, we

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 wouldn't have found this if it wasn't for having a

2 system to actually do it. It is literally that

3 complicated. I have got to admit, all the work that

4 has gone into this, from the Agency and SRAC and

5 everybody else, when you look at the complexity of

6 this regulation, the amount of formulas and the

7 calculations in here, these are extremely minor

8 changes.

9 Again, they are changes that should be done to

10 make the answers to the point of accuracy even better,

11 but there is literally hundreds of thousands of

12 combinations here, and when we added the add mixture

13 rule to the Tier 1 or basically calculated Tier 2, it

14 really complicated how you are going to have to come

15 up with those numbers.

16 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Okay.

17 MR. MARSZALEK: We are working on it. I don't

18 know where we sit.

19 How far are we along,

Rhon?

20 MR. HASENYAGER: Just through Table H.

21 MR. MARSZALEK: Probably 1 percent of 100,000

22 equations that are run or something. I mean, there is

23 literally that many. We probably would never get them

24 all, but as we are running them we are finding a few

25 here and there like I have shown today. Again, they

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 are minor, but they should be corrected.

2 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Sir, in the back, I am

3 sorry, you answered that question. Your name is?

4 MR. HASENYAGER: My name is

Rhon Hasenyager. I am

5 with Andrews Environmental Engineering.

6 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Thank you.

7 MR. RAO: So this goes back to what Mr. Walton

8 said about the Board waiting until we get all these

9 typos and corrections in before we move on this? It

10 seems like this is kind of an indefinite process.

11 MR. WALTON: I said I think we should take the

12 sufficient time to allow this to be discussed. In my

13 experience, at most of the sites that are being --

14 that TACO is being utilized at, these issues are not

15 relevant. These are exceptions rather than the rules

16 for 99.9 percent of the sites. They will not even go

17 to this part of the regulation.

18 So most of the regulation, in my opinion, is

19 intact, it is workable, it is operating very

20 functional. But there are some aspects that we may

21 not be technically correct on select constituents.

22 The mixture rule, as we discussed in

subdocket B,

23 confused many issues. This is the extension of that.

24 This is one of the reasons that we were -- that SRAC

25 was against the adoption of the mixture rule, because

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 of these issues. But the rule itself is intact and it

2 is functioning.

3 MR. RAO: So it would make more sense to have a

4 correction docket that is open for like a period of a

5 year or something like that which you can have all

6 these typos and minor corrections in and then the

7 Board can deal with it in one shot rather than doing

8 this over and over with different A, B, C, D dockets.

9 MS. ROBINSON: From the Agency's standpoint, I

10 already have a running list, a file that I am keeping

11 for possible amendments, not only to the appendices

12 but also to different parts of the text throughout the

13 rule that don't make it nonfunctional to keep

14 continuing with the rule as it has been adopted, but

15 are things that we were anticipating amending later

16 anyway. This, to me, sounds like we could continue to

17 work with the outside group and keep this file going

18 until such time as we come to a conclusion that we

19 have something of substance to give you.

20 MR. RAO: Yes, because right now we have only a

21 few sections open in this proceeding.

22 MS. ROBINSON: I think that the testimony you have

23 heard today are necessary changes to occur at this

24 time, but I think that if we come in through an

25 amendment rulemaking later with the rest of these that

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 would be a really good idea. Does anybody have --

2 MR. MARSZALEK: The only thing I can say is when

3 you are doing this, whenever you catch an item off of

4 Table H and you get into the add mixture rule, when

5 you come up with those clean-up objectives and if you

6 are not bouncing them against correct numbers in the

7 remediation objectives table, you may end up doing

8 more or less remediation depending on how your answers

9 fall out.

10 So to make the changes as quickly as possible is

11 important because it will impact when you are -- an

12 example, Heptachlor, when you go from 11 to .3, that

13 is a tremendous change. That's a tremendous change.

14 Again, I don't think Heptachlor -- I agree with Mr.

15 Walton, it is not running clean-up objectives or sites

16 here in the state, but other items such as what I

17 point out,

benzopyrene is a very common constituent

18 and some of these others do. So it is important

19 trying to do it as quickly as possible, but leaving

20 the docket open maybe is the only answer. It is

21 easier just to change the add mix rule.

22 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Are there any other

23 further questions for Mr. Walton or for Mr.

24 Marszalek? Are there any further questions now either

25 for any of the witnesses who have testified today?

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 I just wanted to clarify one thing, that as the

2 Board has accepted Ms. Virgin's

prefiled testimony as

3 read, we would like that to be entered into the record

4 as if read if that is okay.

5 MS. ROBINSON: That's acceptable. Thank you.

6 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: I just have one follow-up

7 comment. If Mr.

Marszalek or anyone present today has

8 any additional changes such as the ones Mr.

Marszalek

9 identified, subsequent to the Agency's testimony, if

10 he or anyone else would like to provide written

11 comments identifying those changes with a little, you

12 know, information in support of those requested

13 changes I think the Board would appreciate that and

14 possibly consider it as a second notice in this

15 matter.

16 Yes, Ms.

Rosen?

17 MS. ROSEN: Yes. Are you intending to schedule a

18 second hearing in this matter, and what is the time

19 frame for that?

20 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: At this time we haven't

21 considered that. Initially we intended that there

22 would be only one hearing although the Board has not

23 addressed that question again, in light of some of

24 this information. Since the first notice publication

25 occurred in Docket C on December 26, 1997, the first

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 notice period should end on February 9th. So what I

2 wanted to identify to all of you is that we would

3 request that any other public comments be sent to us

4 to the Board by that date. The mailbox rule will

5 apply to those filings. The Board will consider all

6 this information and proceed thereafter.

7 Prior to that, though, if another hearing is -- I

8 don't know -- requested or the Board deems necessary

9 they will do that, but that would need to be done

10 during the first notice period which, like I

11 identified, would end on February 9th.

12 MS. ROBINSON: You said the mailbox rule does

13 apply?

14 HEARING OFFICER FELTON: Yes. Are there any other

15 matters that need to be discussed at this time?

16 Seeing that there are no further matters, I would like

17 to thank everyone for their attendance and

18 participation. This hearing is hereby adjourned.

19 Thank you.

20 (The

prefiled testimony of

Tracey E. Virgin

21 Hurley, M.P.H., is attached to this transcript.)

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS

2 COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY)

4 C E R T I F I C A T E

6 I, DARLENE M. NIEMEYER, a Notary Public in and for

7 the County of Montgomery, State of Illinois, DO HEREBY

8 CERTIFY that the foregoing 31 pages comprise a true,

9 complete and correct transcript of the proceedings

10 held on the 12th of January

A.D., 1998, at 600 South

11 Second Street, Springfield, Illinois, In the Matter

12 of: Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives:

13 Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 742, in

14 proceedings held before the Honorable Amy

Muran

15 Felton, Hearing Officer, and recorded in machine

16 shorthand by me.

17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and

18 affixed my

Notarial Seal this 19th day of January

19 A.D., 1998.

Notary Public and

22 Certified Shorthand Reporter and

Registered Professional Reporter

CSR License No. 084-003677

24 My Commission Expires: 03-02-99

KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

Belleville, Illinois