ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 16, 1998
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIERED APPROACH TO
CORRECTIVE ACTION
OBJECTIVES: AMENDMENTS
TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 742
)
)
)
)
)
)
R97-12(C)
(Rulemaking - Land)
Proposed Rule. Second Notice.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn, J. Yi):
The Board today proposes for second notice amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742:
Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives, also known as TACO. Specifically, the
amendments include several technical revisions to Appendix A.Table H, Appendix B.Table C,
Appendix B.Table D, and Appendix C.Table I
1
as well as some nonsubstantive clarifications to
Sections 742.210, 742.310, and 742.900.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 3, 1997, in Docket B of this rulemaking, the Site Remediation Advisory
Committee (SRAC) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), filed a “Joint
Motion to Correct” (joint motion) Appendix A.Table H entitled “Chemicals Whose Tier 1
Class I Groundwater Remediation Objective Exceeds the 1 in 1,000,000 Cancer Risk
Concentration” (Table H). In their joint motion, the SRAC and the Agency assert that, upon
reviewing the numeric contaminant levels set forth under the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk
concentration included within Table H, they determined that those numeric contaminant levels
are based upon a 70 year exposure duration. The SRAC and the Agency maintain that the use
of a 70 year exposure duration as a basis for the Table H levels, rather than a 30 year exposure
duration, was not intended. Finally, the SRAC and the Agency contend that the use of the 70
year exposure duration as a basis for the Table H levels is technically inconsistent with other
aspects of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742, which are based on a 30 year exposure duration.
At that point in the this rulemaking process, the Board could not correct Table H. See
4 ILCS 5/-40(c),(d) (1994). Accordingly, on December 4, 1997, the Board adopted Docket B
1
At first notice, the Board also opened Appendix B.Table F and Sections 742.415, 742.510,
742.810, and 742.1015 to make what it perceived were nonsubstantive typographical changes.
However, upon further review of this matter, the Board determined that no such typographical
amendments were necessary. As no other changes were suggested, the Board has not
considered any amendments to the aforementioned appendix and sections. Accordingly, they
are not included within the attached order.
2
as final and ordered the rules filed with the Secretary of State. See In the Matter of: Tiered
Approach to Corrective Action Objectives: Amendments to Part 742 (December 4, 1997),
R97-12(B). Also, on December 4, 1997, the Board adopted a first notice proposal in this
docket C to consider the merits of the joint motion and also to make some non-substantive
grammatical, typographical, and mechanical changes that were identified after the adoption of
Docket A in this rulemaking. 21 Ill. Reg. 16982 (December 26, 1997). The joint motion
filed in Docket B has been incorporated as public comment 1.
One hearing was held in this matter on January 12, 1998, in Springfield. No additional
public comments were filed with the Board. Dr. Thomas Hornshaw and Tracey Virgin
Hurley, Environmental Toxicologists with the Office of Chemical Safety, testified on behalf of
the Agency. Mark Marszalek testified on behalf of Andrews Environmental Engineering.
Harry Walton, Chairman of the Site Remediation Advisory Committee (SRAC), testified on
behalf of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and on retainer to the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group (IERG). Whitney Wagner Rosen was present on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental Regulatory Group. The first notice public comment period in this matter ended
on February 9, 1998.
Pursuant to Public Act 90-489, effective January 1, 1998, the Board requested that the
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) conduct an economic impact study
for this proposed rulemaking. DCCA has 30 to 45-days after such request to produce a study
of the economic impact of the proposed rules. On January 26, 1998, DCCA issued a letter
notifying the Board that it would not conduct an economic impact study on this proposed rule
because it lacked the technical and financial resources to conduct any economic studies on
rules pending before the Board during the remainder of fiscal year 1998. On March 17, 1998,
the Board conducted a public hearing in Springfield to entertain any comments regarding the
economic impact of this proposed rulemaking. No public comments were received. The
Board will proceed to second notice in this proposed rulemaking.
ANALYSIS
Section 742.210
Section 742.210 lists the documents incorporated by reference into the Board’s
regulations. At first notice, the Board proposed to make one nonsubstantive typographical
correction in Section 742.210(a) to the SW-846 reference. At hearing, however, Ms. Hurley
testified that in addition to the typographical correction, another revision was necessary to the
SW-846 reference. Ms. Hurley testified that on June 13, 1997, Update III to the SW-846
reference was formally adopted (62 Fed. Reg. 32452 (June 13, 1997). Tr. at 11. Ms. Hurley
noted that the SW-846 reference is a dynamic document that changes when new data and
advances in analytical techniques are incorporated into the manual in the form of new or
revised methods. Tr. at 11. By publishing the announcement in the Federal Register, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has made Update III officially part
of the SW-846 reference. Accordingly, the SW-846 incorporation by reference should read as
follows:
3
“Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,”,
USEPA Publication number SW-846 (Third Edition, November 1986Final
Update III, December 1996), as amended by Updates I,and IIA, and III
(Document No. 955-011-00000-1)(contact USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, for
Update IIAIII).
The Board agrees that the aforementioned changes should be made to the SW-846 reference
listed at Section 742.210, and therefore makes the necessary revisions in this Section.
Section 742.310
At first notice, the Board on its own motion amended Section 742.310(b)(1)(A) to add
the phrase “within ten feet of” after “[t]he concentration of any contaminant of concern” and
after “the land surface or.” At hearing, the Board questioned the Agency and public whether
it had any opposition to this amendment. Tr. at 18-19. Mr. Hurley responded that the
Agency had no such objection and that it was its intent to include that phrase in this Section for
clarification purposes. Tr. at 19. Accordingly, the Board adopts these amendments for second
notice at Section 742.310(b)(1)(A).
Section 742.805
Since first notice, the Agency has proposed that the Board amend provisions of Section
742.805 to further clarify how similar-acting contaminants are to be evaluated under this rule.
Unfortunately, because Section 742.805 was not opened at first notice on December 4, 1997,
the changes offered by the Agency cannot be adopted under this docket. According to the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Board is restricted to addressing only those sections that
were opened at first notice. 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b), (c) (1994). Because we find the Agency’s
explanation correct, we include the following discussion to assist those using this provision of
Part 742.
First, the Agency proposes that Section 742.805(c) be amended to clarify that the
equation set forth in Section 742.805(c)(1) should be used for evaluating mixtures of similar-
acting noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern. Tr. at 11. Second, the Agency proposes a
similar amendment to Section 742.805(d) to clarify that the provisions of subsection (d) should
be used for evaluating mixtures of similar-acting carcinogenic contaminants of concern.
Third, the Agency proposes another amendment to subsection (d) that specifies how to
assess mixtures of similar-acting carcinogenic contaminants of concern. This amendment
would allow the use of the weighted average procedure set forth in Section 742.805(c)(1) with
some modification to demonstrate that the cumulative risk posed by mixtures of similar-acting
carcinogenic contaminants of concern does not exceed 1 in 10,000. Essentially, the
modification to the weighted average equation under Section 742.805(c)(1) would require the
term CUOxa in the equation to be either Tier 1 or Tier 2 objectives, or for those contaminants
listed in Appendix A.Table H, the 1 in 1,000,000 risk level concentrations.
4
In response to a Board question regarding the practical effect if these suggested changes
are not made, Ms. Hurley testified that the language as it currently exists in Section 742.810 is
“just a little vague.” Tr. at 17. She noted that, based on several outside requests for
clarification of this Section, absent the proposed clarifications, those using Part 742 may
continue to be confused about how to assess mixtures of similar-acting substances and how to
use Appendix A.Table H. Tr. at 17-18.
Again, the Board shares the Agency’s desire to further clarify the TACO scheme.
However, the Board must decline to make these suggested changes in Section 742.805 due to
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Board suggests that the
Agency propose this change in a future rulemaking.
Section 742.900
At first notice, the Board on its own motion, proposed that Section 742.900(c) be
amended to make one nonsubstantive, typographical correction. As no one expressed an
objection to this suggested change, the Board finds that this change is warranted.
Appendix A.Table H
Appendix A.Table H (Table H) lists chemicals whose Tier 1 Class I groundwater
remediation objective exceeds the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentration. The Agency
suggests two corrections be made to Appendix A.Table H.
First, the Agency proposes that the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentrations be based
upon an exposure duration period of 30 years. Currently, the values listed there are based
upon a 70 year exposure duration. The Agency explained in its prefiled testimony and at
hearing that when it originally calculated the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentrations in
Table H, using Equation R25 as set forth in Section 742.Appendix C.Table C, it used an
incorrect exposure duration of 70 years instead of an exposure duration of 30 years, as
specified in Section 742.Appendix C.Table D. Tr. at 10 and Prefiled Testimony at 3. The
values in Table H should be based on an exposure duration of 30 years, which is the value
specified in Appendix C.Table D for Equation R25. Tr. at 10. Both the American Society of
Testing Material (ASTM) Guidance and the USEPA’s SSL Guidance specify a residential
exposure duration of 30 years. Finally, the Ms. Hurley testified that the Agency had always
intended to calculate these levels based on a 30 year exposure duration. Tr. at 10.
Second, the Agency proposes that three chemicals, namely, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, and 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol be deleted from Appendix A.Table H.
Tr. at 10. The Agency explained at hearing that after revising the values listed in Table H to
reflect a 30 year exposure period, the Tier 1 Class I groundwater remediation objectives for
the aforementioned chemicals no longer exceed the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentrations.
Tr. at 10. Consequently, the Agency proposes deleting those chemicals from Table H. Tr. at
10.
5
Finally, Mark Marszalek testified at hearing that a typographical error should be
corrected in Table H for the constituent: benzopyrene. Tr. at 12. Mr. Marszalek explained
that the value for benzopyrene should be 0.000012 rather than 0.0000012. Tr. at 12. The
Agency agreed with Mr. Marszalek’s suggested change.
The Board agrees with the Agency and Mr. Marszalek that a 30 year residential
exposure duration is consistent with the Agency’s intent, as well as ASTM and USEPA
guidance. Accordingly, the cancer risk concentration values listed are corrected in Table H.
The Board also agrees that that the three aforementioned chemicals should be deleted from
Appendix A.Table H as their Tier 1 Class I groundwater remediation objectives no longer
exceed the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk concentration. Finally, the Board agrees with Mr.
Marszalek’s testimony that the value for benzopyrene should be 0.000012 and therefore
corrects the value for this chemical. The attached Board order reflects the foregoing revisions.
Appendix B.Table C
Appendix B.Table C lists pH specific soil remediation objectives for inorganics and
ionizing organics for the soil component of the groundwater ingestion route (Class I
groundwater). The Agency requests that a value for the organic, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, be
amended to correct a typographical error. Tr. at 13. No objection has been received
concerning this proposed correction. The Board finds this nonsubstantive change proper and
will correct the typographical error.
Appendix B.Table D
Appendix B.Table D lists pH specific soil remediation objectives for inorganics and
ionizing organics for the soil component of the groundwater ingestion route (Class II
groundwater). The Agency requests that the soil remediation objectives for 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol be changed for the six pH ranges ranging from: 4.5-4.74 to 6.65-6.89. Tr. at
14. Dr. Hornshaw testified that, upon conferring with Mr. Marszalek, he learned that these
changes are necessary to account for how the Agency in the past has derived the equivalent of
a health advisory for Class II groundwater. Tr. at 15. For those chemicals that do not have a
Class II groundwater standard under Part 620, the Class II health advisory is used as a
substitute for the Part 620 standard in determining soil remediation objectives. Exh. 5 at 22.
The Agency has explained how a Class II health advisory for a chemical is determined
more clearly in its testimony under Docket A rules. In determining the Class II health
advisory, the Agency relied on the rationale behind the Part 620 Class II standards,
i.e.,
the
potential for removal of a chemical from groundwater by common drinking water treatment
techniques. Exh. 5 at 22. The Agency noted that the potential for removal of a chemical from
groundwater is determined by comparing the organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) of that
chemical with that of a benchmark chemical, ethylbenzene. Exh. at 23. If the Koc of a
chemical of interest is greater than that of ethylbenzene, then the chemical is considered to be
removable from groundwater. Further, the Agency noted that if a chemical is removable from
groundwater then the Class II health advisory is five times the Class I health advisory. If the
6
chemical is not readily removable from groundwater, then the Class II health advisory is the
same as the Class I advisory.
In case of ionizing compounds like 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, the organic carbon partition
coefficient changes with pH. Tr. at 15. In terms of deciding whether to multiply the Class I
health advisory by five times or by one time depending whether it is or is not mobile in soil,
the Agency stated that there is a break point between pH 6.65 and pH 6.9 that crosses over
that threshold comparison against the organic carbon partition coefficient for ethylbenzene.
Tr. at 15-16. The Agency agreed with Mr. Marszalek that the organic carbon partition
coefficient of 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol changes from lower than that of ethylbenzene to higher
than that of ethylbenzene. Tr. at 16. Therefore, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is removable from
groundwater below the breakpoint value, and the correct soil remediation objective is the Class
II health advisory, which is five times the Class I health advisory. The original values on
Table D did not reflect this; they were the Class I health advisory numbers. Consequently, the
Agency recommends correcting the soil remediation objectives for 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol by
multiplying each value at pH ranges lower than the breakpoint value, i.e, 6.9, by five.
The Board agrees that the pH based soil remediation objectives for 2,4,6-
Trichlorohphenol must be corrected to account for the manner in which the Agency has
derived the Class II health advisory. The Board notes that in Appendix C, Table I, the Koc for
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol changes from higher than that of ethylbenzene at pH of 6.8 to lower
than that of ethylbenzene at pH of 6.9
2
. Therefore, at pH ranges below 6.9, 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol is considered to be removable from groundwater and its Class II health
advisory is five times the Class I advisory. In light of this, the Board finds that the soil
remediation objectives in Appendix B.Table D for 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol must be corrected at
pH ranges lower than 6.9 by multiplying them by five.
Appendix C.Table I
Appendix C.Table I lists Koc values for ionizing organics as a function of pH. The
Agency requests that four calculations starting with pH 4.5 to pH 4.8 be amended for the
organic, dinoseb. Tr. at 16. Dr. Hornshaw testified at hearing that these suggested
amendments are typographical changes necessary for purposes of clarification. Tr. at 16. The
Board agrees with the Agency and accordingly makes the necessary amendments.
CONCLUSION
The Board today adopts for second notice amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742. The
amendments include several technical revisions to Appendix A.Table H, Appendix B.Table C,
Appendix B.Table D, and Appendix C.Table I as well as some nonsubstantive clarifications to
Sections 742.210, 742.310, and 742.900.
2
Koc of 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is 381 L/kg at pH 6.8 and 338 L/kg at pH 6.9. Koc of
ethylbenzene is 363 L/kg.
7
The Board notes that Mr. Marszalek and others have identified various minor
typographical and technical discrepancies in Part 742. The Board appreciates these efforts to
thoroughly review and identify additional errors within the TACO framework. Unfortunately,
as previously noted, the Board is constrained from making any amendments in sections not
opened at first notice. The Board, therefore, cannot make any of the additional changes
suggested by Mr. Marszalek at hearing. To the extent that the changes Mr. Marszalek and
others suggest are necessary, the Board encourages Mr. Marszalek, other members of the
regulated community, and the Agency to take the time to compile all additional amendments
and submit a new proposal for rulemaking to the Board at the appropriate time.
ORDER
The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to cause the submission of the following
proposal to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules:
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE G: WASTE DISPOSAL
CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER f: RISK BASED CLEANUP OBJECTIVES
PART 742
TIERED APPROACH TO CORRECTIVE ACTION OBJECTIVES
SUBPART A: INTRODUCTION
Section
742.100
Intent and Purpose
742.105
Applicability
742.110
Overview of Tiered Approach
742.115
Key Elements
742.120
Site Characterization
SUBPART B: GENERAL
Section
742.200
Definitions
742.205
Severability
742.210
Incorporations by Reference
742.215
Determination of Soil Attenuation Capacity
742.220
Determination of Soil Saturation Limit
742.225
Demonstration of Compliance with Remediation Objectives
742.230
Agency Review and Approval
SUBPART C: EXPOSURE ROUTE EVALUATIONS
8
Section
742.300
Exclusion of Exposure Route
742.305
Contaminant Source and Free Product Determination
742.310
Inhalation Exposure Route
742.315
Soil Ingestion Exposure Route
742.320
Groundwater Ingestion Exposure Route
SUBPART D: DETERMINING AREA BACKGROUND
Section
742.400
Area Background
742.405
Determination of Area Background for Soil
742.410
Determination of Area Background for Groundwater
742.415
Use of Area Background Concentrations
SUBPART E: TIER 1 EVALUATION
Section
742.500
Tier 1 Evaluation Overview
742.505
Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Objectives
742.510
Tier 1 Remediation Objectives
SUBPART F: TIER 2 GENERAL EVALUATION
Section
742.600
Tier 2 Evaluation Overview
742.605
Land Use
742.610
Chemical and Site Properties
SUBPART G: TIER 2 SOIL EVALUATION
Section
742.700
Tier 2 Soil Evaluation Overview
742.705
Parameters for Soil Remediation Objective Equations
742.710
SSL Soil Equations
742.715
RBCA Soil Equations
742.720
Chemicals with Cumulative Noncarcinogenic Effects
SUBPART H: TIER 2 GROUNDWATER EVALUATION
Section
742.800
Tier 2 Groundwater Evaluation Overview
742.805
Tier 2 Groundwater Remediation Objectives
742.810
Calculations to Predict Impacts from Remaining Groundwater Contamination
9
SUBPART I: TIER 3 EVALUATION
Section
742.900
Tier 3 Evaluation Overview
742.905
Modifications of Parameters
742.910
Alternative Models
742.915
Formal Risk Assessments
742.920
Impractical Remediation
742.925
Exposure Routes
742.930
Derivation of Toxicological Data
SUBPART J: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Section
742.1000
Institutional Controls
742.1005
No Further Remediation Letters
742.1010
Restrictive Covenants, Deed Restrictions and Negative Easements
742.1015
Ordinances
742.1020
Highway Authority Agreements
SUBPART K: ENGINEERED BARRIERS
Section
742.1100
Engineered Barriers
742.1105
Engineered Barrier Requirements
APPENDIX A
General
ILLUSTRATION A Developing Soil Remediation Objectives Under the Tiered
Approach
ILLUSTRATION B Developing Groundwater Remediation Objectives Under the
Tiered Approach
Table A
Soil Saturation Limits (Csat) for Chemicals Whose Melting Point is Less
Than 30
0
C
Table B
Tolerance Factor (K)
Table C
Coefficients {AN-I+1} for W Test of Normality, for N=2(1)50
Table D
Percentage Points of the W Test for N=3(1)50
Table E
Similar-Acting Noncarcinogenic Chemicals
Table F
Similar-Acting Carcinogenic Chemicals
Table G
Concentrations of Inorganic Chemicals in Background Soils
Table H
Chemicals Whose Tier 1 Class I Groundwater Remediation Objective
Exceeds the 1 in 1,000,000 Cancer Risk Concentration
APPENDIX B
Tier 1 Tables and Illustrations
ILLUSTRATION A Tier 1 Evaluation
Table A
Tier 1 Soil Remediation Objectives for Residential Properties
10
Table B
Tier 1 Soil Remediation Objectives for Industrial/Commercial Properties
Table C
pH Specific Soil Remediation Objectives for Inorganics and Ionizing
Organics for the Soil Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route
(Class I Groundwater)
Table D
pH Specific Soil Remediation Objectives for Inorganics and Ionizing
Organics for the Soil Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route
(Class II Groundwater)
Table E
Tier 1 Groundwater Remediation Objectives for the Groundwater
Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route
Table F
Values Used to Calculate the Tier 1 Soil Remediation Objectives for the
Soil Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route
APPENDIX C
Tier 2 Tables and Illustrations
ILLUSTRATION A Tier 2 Evaluation for Soil
ILLUSTRATION B Tier 2 Evaluation for Groundwater
ILLUSTRATION C US Department of Agriculture Soil Texture Classification
Table A
SSL Equations
Table B
SSL Parameters
Table C
RBCA Equations
Table D
RBCA Parameters
Table E
Default Physical and Chemical Parameters
Table F
Methods for Determining Physical Soil Parameters
Table G
Error Function (erf)
Table H
Q/C Values by Source Area
Table I
K[oc] Values for Ionizing Organics as a Function of pH (cm(3)/g or L/kg)
Table J
Values to be Substituted for ks When Evaluating Inorganics as a Function
of pH (cm(3)[water]/g[soil])
Table K
Parameter Estimates for Calculating Water-Filled Soil Porosity (θw)
AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 22.4, 22.12, Title XVI, and Title XVII and authorized
by Sections 27, 57.14, and 58.5 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/22.4,
22.12, 27, 57.14 and 58.5 and Title XVI and Title XVII].
SOURCE: Adopted in R97-12(A) at 21 Ill. Reg. 7942, effective July 1, 1997, amended in
R97-12(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 16391, effective December 8, 1997; amended in R97-12(C) at 22
Ill. Reg. ________________, effective ________________________.
NOTE: Capitalization indicates statutory language.
SUBPART B: GENERAL
Section 742.210
Incorporations by Reference
a)
The Board incorporates the following material by reference:
11
ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 299-5400
ASTM D 2974-87, Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash and
Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils, approved May 29,
1987 (reapproved 1995).
ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Description and Identification
of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), approved September 15, 1993.
ASTM D 1556-90, Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight
of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method, approved June 29, 1990.
ASTM D 2167-94, Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight
of Soil in Place by the Rubber Balloon Method, approved March 15,
1994.
ASTM D 2922-91, Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-
Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth), approved
December 23, 1991.
ASTM D 2937-94, Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by
the Drive-Cylinder Method, approved June 15, 1994.
ASTM D 854-92, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils,
approved November 15, 1992.
ASTM D 2216-92, Standard Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock, approved June 15, 1992.
ASTM D 4959-89, Standard Test Method for Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil by Direct Heating Method, approved June
30, 1989 (reapproved 1994).
ASTM D 4643-93, Standard Test Method for Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil by the Microwave Oven Method, approved
July 15, 1993.
ASTM D 5084-90, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic
Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall
Permeameter, approved June 29, 1990.
ASTM D 422-63, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of
Soils, approved November 21, 1963 (reapproved 1990).
12
ASTM D 1140-92, Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in
Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75
μm)
Sieve, approved November 15,
1992.
ASTM D 3017-88, Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and
Rock in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth), approved May 27,
1988.
ASTM D 4525-90, Standard Test Method for Permeability of Rocks by
Flowing Air, approved May 25, 1990.
ASTM D 2487-93, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes, approved September 15, 1993.
ASTM E 1527-93, Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, approved
March 15, 1993. Vol. 11.04.
ASTM E 1739-95, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action
Applied at Petroleum Release Sites, approved September 10, 1995.
Barnes, Donald G. and Dourson, Michael. (1988). Reference Dose (RfD):
Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology. 8, 471-486.
GPO. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20401, (202) 783-3238.
USEPA Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, 51 Fed. Reg.
33992-34003 (September 24, 1986).
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods
,"
, USEPA Publication number SW-846 (Third Edition,
November 1986Final Update III, December 1996), as amended by
Updates I, and IIA, and III (Document No. 955-001-00000-1)(contact
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, for Update IIAIII).
"Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water", EPA Publication No. EPA/600/4-88/039 (December 1988
(Revised July 1991)).
"Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water, Supplement II", EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-92/129
(August 1992).
13
"Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water, Supplement III", EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-95/131
(August 1995).
IRIS. Integrated Risk Information System, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, MS-190, Cincinnati, OH 45268. (513) 569-7254.
"Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk
Assessments", Background Document 1A (March 15, 1993).
"EPA Approach for Assessing the Risks Associated with Chronic
Exposures to Carcinogens", Background Document 2 (January 17,
1992).
Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and
organic matter. In: A.L. Page (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2.
Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition, pp. 539-579, American
Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI.
NTIS. National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4600.
"Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications", EPA
Publication No. EPA/600/8-91/011B (January 1992).
"Exposure Factors Handbook", EPA Publication No. EPA/600/8-89/043
(July 1989).
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I; Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure
Factors", OSWER Directive 9285.6-03 (March 1991).
“Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface
Contamination Sites,” EPA Publication No. EPA/600/8-85/002
(February 1985), PB 85-192219.
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I; Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A)", Interim Final, EPA Publication No.
EPA/540/1-89/002 (December 1989).
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I; Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Dermal Risk Assessment
Interim Guidance", Draft (August 18, 1992).
14
"Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document", EPA
Publication No. EPA/540/R-95/128, PB96-963502 (May 1996).
"Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide", EPA Publication No.
EPA/540/R-96/018, PB96-963505 (April 1996).
"Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual", EPA Publication No.
EPA/540/1-88/001 (April 1988).
RCRA Facility Investigation Guidance, Interim Final, developed by USEPA
(EPA 530/SW-89-031), 4 volumes (May 1989).
b)
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). Available from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (202)
783-3238:
40 CFR 761.120 (1993).
c)
This Section incorporates no later editions or amendments.
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ______________, effective, _______________________.
SUBPART C: EXPOSURE ROUTE EVALUATIONS
Section 742.310
Inhalation Exposure Route
The inhalation exposure route may be excluded from consideration if:
a)
The requirements of Sections 742.300 and 742.305 are met; and
b)
An institutional control, in accordance with Subpart J, is in place that meets the
following requirements:
1)
Either:
A)
The concentration of any contaminant of concern within ten feet
of the land surface or within ten feet of any man-made pathway
shall not exceed the Tier 1 remediation objective under Subpart E
for the inhalation exposure route; or
B)
An engineered barrier, as set forth in Subpart K and approved by
the Agency, is in place; and
2)
Requires safety precautions for the construction worker if the Tier 1
construction worker remediation objectives are exceeded.
15
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ______________, effective, _______________________.
SUBPART I: TIER 3 EVALULATION
Section 742.900
Tier 3 Evaluation Overview
a)
Tier 3 sets forth a flexible framework to develop remediation objectives outside
of the requirements of Tiers 1 and 2. Although Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations
are not prerequisites to conduct Tier 3 evaluations, data from Tier 1 and Tier 2
can assist in developing remediation objectives under a Tier 3 evaluation.
b)
The levels of detail required to adequately characterize a site depends on the
particular use of Tier 3. Tier 3 can require additional investigative efforts
beyond those described in Tier 2 to characterize the physical setting of the site.
However, in situations where remedial efforts have simply reached a physical
obstruction additional investigation may not be necessary for a Tier 3 submittal.
c)
Situations that can be considered for a Tier 3 evaluation include, but are not
limited to:
1)
Modification of parameters not allowed under Tier 2;
2)
Use of models different from those used in Tier 2;
3)
Use of additional site data to improve or confirm predictions of exposed
receptors to contaminants of concern;
4)
Analysis of site-specific risks using formal risk assessment, probabilistic
data analysis, and sophisticated fate and transport models (e.g.,
requesting a target hazard quotient greater than 1 or a target cancer risk
greater than 1 in 1,000,000);
5)
Requests for site-specific remediation objectives because an assessment
indicates further remediation is not practical;
6)
Incomplete human exposure pathway(s) not excluded under Subpart C;
7)
Use of toxicological-specific information not available from the sources
listed in Tier 2:
8)
Land uses which are substantially different from the assumed residential
or industrial/commercial property uses of a site (e.g., as
site will be used
for recreation in the future and cannot be evaluated in Tiers 1 or 2); and
16
9)
Requests for site-specific remediation objectives which exceed Tier 1
groundwater remediation objectives so long as the following is
demonstrated:
A)
TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL, THE EXCEEDENCE OF
THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARD HAS BEEN
MINIMIZED AND BENEFICIAL USE APPROPRIATE TO
THE GROUNDWATER THAT WAS IMPACTED HAS BEEN
RETURNED; AND
B)
ANY THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN MINIMIZED. (Section
58.5(D)(4)(A) of the Act)
d)
For requests of a target cancer risk ranging between 1 in 1,000,000 and 1 in
10,000 at the point of human exposure or a target hazard quotient greater than 1
at the point of human exposure, the requirements of Section 742.915 shall be
followed. Requests for a target cancer risk exceeding 1 in 10,000 at the point
of human exposure are not allowed.
e)
Requests for approval of a Tier 3 evaluation must be submitted to the Agency
for review under the specific program under which remediation is performed.
When reviewing a submittal under Tier 3, the Agency shall consider
WHETHER THE INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED
ARE SUPPORTED BY THE INFORMATION GATHERED. (Section
58.7(e)(1) of the Act). The Agency shall approve a Tier 3 evaluation if the
person submits the information required under this Part and establishes through
such information that public health is protected and that specified risks to human
health and the environment have been minimized.
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ______________, effective, _______________________.
17
Section
Section 742.APPENDIX
742.APPENDIX A:
A: GeneralGeneral
TABLE
TABLE H:H: Chemicals
Chemicals Whose
Whose Tier
Tier 1 1 Class
Class I I Groundwater
Groundwater Remediation
Remediation ObjectiveObjective
Exceeds
Exceeds the
the 1 1 in
in 1,000,000
1,000,000 Cancer
Cancer Risk
Risk ConcentrationConcentration..
Class I Groundwater
1 in 1,000,000 Cancer
Remediation Objective
Risk Concentration
ADL
Chemical
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
Aldrin
0.00004
0.0000025
0.00004
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0002
0.0000512
0.00023
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
0.01
0.0000377
0.01
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.006
0.00361
0.0027
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.005
0.000366
0.00003
Chlordane
0.002
0.0000366
0.00014
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
0.0003
0.00000512
0.0003
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
0.0002
0.0000361
0.0002
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.00005
0.000000410
0.00005
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
0.02
0.0000819
0.02
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.005
0.000494
0.00003
Dieldrin
0.00002
0.00000253
0.00002
Heptachlor
0.0004
0.00000819
0.00003
Heptachlor epoxide
0.0002
0.00000494
0.00032
Hexachlorobenzene
0.00006
0.0000253
0.00006
alpha-HCH
0.00003
0.00000614
0.00003
Tetrachloroethylene
0.005
0.000716
0.00001
Toxaphene
0.003
0.0000377
0.00086
Vinyl chloride
0.002
0.00001545
0.00006
Ionizable Organics
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
0.01
0.00717
0.01
N
-
Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
0.01
0.00000512
0.01
Pentachlorophenol
0.001
0.000371
0.001
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.0064
0.00377
0.0064
Inorganics
Arsenic
0.05
0.0000257
0.001
Beryllium
0.004
0.00000832
0.004
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ____________, effective _______________________.
Section 742.APPENDIX B:
Tier 1 Tables and Illustrations
Section 742.Table C:
pH Specific Soil Remediation Objectives for Inorganics and Ionizing Organics for the Soil
Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route (Class I Groundwater)
Chemical (totals)
(mg/kg)
pH 4.5 to
4.74
pH 4.75
to 5.24
pH 5.25
to 5.74
pH 5.75
to 6.24
pH 6.25
to 6.64
pH 6.65
to 6.89
pH 6.9
to 7.24
pH 7.25
to 7.74
pH 7.75
to 8.0
Inorganics
Antimony
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Arsenic
25
26
27
28
29
29
29
30
31
Barium
260
490
850
1,200
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
2,100
Beryllium
1.1
2.1
3.4
6.6
22
63
140
1,000
8,000
Cadmium
1.0
1.7
2.7
3.7
5.2
7.5
11
59
430
Chromium (+6)
70
62
54
46
40
38
36
32
28
Copper
330
580
2,100
11,000
59,000
130,000
200,000
330,000
330,000
Cyanide
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Mercury
0.01
0.01`
0.03
0.15
0.89
2.1
3.3
6.4
8.0
Nickel
20
36
56
76
100
130
180
700
3,800
Selenium
24
17
12
8.8
6.3
5.2
4.5
3.3
2.4
Silver
0.24
0.33
0.62
1.5
4.4
8.5
13
39
110
Chemical (totals)
(mg/kg)
pH 4.5 to
4.74
pH 4.75
to 5.24
pH 5.25
to 5.74
pH 5.75
to 6.24
pH 6.25
to 6.64
pH 6.65
to 6.89
pH 6.9
to 7.24
pH 7.25
to 7.74
pH 7.75
to 8.0
Thallium
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.8
Vanadium
980
980
980
980
980
980
980
980
980
Zinc
1,000
1,800
2,600
3,600
5,100
6,200
7,500
16,000
53,000
Organics
Benzoic Acid
440
420
410
400
400
400
400
400
400
2-Chlorophenol
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.1
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.86
0.69
Dinoseb
8.4
4.5
1.9
0.82
0.43
0.34
0.31
0.27
0.25
Pentachlorophenol
0.54
0.32
0.15
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
26
16
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
400
390
390
370
320
270
230
130
64
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.269
0.20
0.15
0.13
0.09
0.07
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ________, effective _____________________.
Section 742.APPENDIX B
Tier I Tables and Illustrations
Section 742.Table D:
pH Specific Soil Remediation Objectives for Inorganics and Ionizing Organics for the Soil
Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Route (Class II Groundwater)
Chemical (totals)
(mg/kg)
pH 4.5 to
4.74
pH 4.75
to 5.24
pH 5.25
to 5.74
pH 5.75
to 6.24
pH 6.25
to 6.64
pH 6.65
to 6.89
pH 6.9
to 7.24
pH 7.25
to 7.74
pH 7.75
to 8.0
Inorganics
Antimony
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Arsenic
100
100
100
110
110
120
120
120
120
Barium
260
490
850
1,200
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
2,100
Beryllium
140
260
420
820
2,800
7,900
17,000
130,000
1,000,000
Cadmium
10
17
27
37
52
75
110
590
4,300
Chromium (+6)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Copper
330
580
2,100
11,000
59,000
130,000
200,000
330,000
330,000
Cyanide
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Mercury
0.05
0.06
0.14
0.75
4.4
10
16
32
40
Nickel
400
730
1,100
1,500
2,000
2,600
3,500
14,000
76,000
Selenium
24
17
12
8.8
6.3
5.2
4.5
3.3
2.4
Thallium
16
18
20
24
26
28
30
34
38
Zinc
2,000
3,600
5,200
7,200
10,000
12,000
15,000
32,000
110,000
Chemical (totals)
(mg/kg)
pH 4.5 to
4.74
pH 4.75
to 5.24
pH 5.25
to 5.74
pH 5.75
to 6.24
pH 6.25
to 6.64
pH 6.65
to 6.89
pH 6.9
to 7.24
pH 7.25
to 7.74
pH 7.75
to 8.0
Organics
Benzoic Acid
440
420
410
400
400
400
400
400
400
2-Chlorophenol
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
3.6
3.1
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.86
0.69
Dinoseb
84
45
19
8.2
4.3
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.5
Pentachlorophenol
2.7
1.6
0.75
0.33
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.10
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
130
79
62
57
55
55
55
55
55
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,000
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
640
64
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.37
1.9
0.36
1.8
0.34
1.7
0.26
1.4
0.20
1.0
0.15
0.77
0.13
0.09
0.07
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ___________, effective, _________________________.
Section 742.APPENDIX C:
Tier 2 Tables and Illustrations
Section 742.TABLE I:
K
oc
Values for Ionizing Organics as a Function of pH (cm
3
/g or L/kg)
pH
Benzoic Acid
2-Chloro-
phenol
2,4-
Dichloro-
phenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
2,4,5-
Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,6-
Trichloro-
phenol
Dinoseb
2,3,5-TP
(Silvex)
4.5
1.07E+01
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
1.34E+04
2.37E+03
1.06E+03
3.00E+034
1.28E+04
4.6
9.16E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
1.24E+04
2.37E+03
1.05E+03
2.71E+034
1.13E+04
4.7
7.79E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
1.13E+04
2.37E+03
1.05E+03
2.41E+034
1.01E+04
4.8
6.58E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
1.02E+04
2.37E+03
1.05E+03
2.12E+034
9.16E+03
4.9
5.54E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
9.05E+03
2.37E+03
1.04E+03
1.85E+04
8.40E+03
5.0
4.64E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
7.96E+03
2.36E+03
1.03E+03
1.59E+04
7.76E+03
5.1
3.88E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
6.93E+03
2.36E+03
1.02E+03
1.36E+04
7.30E+03
5.2
3.25E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
5.97E+03
2.35E+03
1.01E+03
1.15E+04
6.91E+03
5.3
2.72E+00
3.98E+02
1.59E+02
5.10E+03
2.34E+03
9.99E+02
9.66E+03
6.60E+03
5.4
2.29E+00
3.98E+02
1.58E+02
4.32E+03
2.33E+03
9.82E+02
8.10E+03
6.36E+03
5.5
1.94E+00
3.97E+02
1.58E+02
3.65E+03
2.32E+03
9.62E+02
6.77E+03
6.16E+03
5.6
1.65E+00
3.97E+02
1.58E+02
3.07E+03
2.31E+03
9.38E+02
5.65E+03
6.00E+03
5.7
1.42E+00
3.97E+02
1.58E+02
2.58E+03
2.29E+03
9.10E+02
4.73E+03
5.88E+03
5.8
1.24E+00
3.97E+02
1.58E+02
2.18E+03
2.27E+03
8.77E+02
3.97E+03
5.78E+03
5.9
1.09E+00
3.97E+02
1.57E+02
1.84E+03
2.24E+03
8.39E+02
3.35E+03
5.70E+03
pH
Benzoic Acid
2-Chloro-
phenol
2,4-
Dichloro-
phenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
2,4,5-
Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,6-
Trichloro-
phenol
Dinoseb
2,3,5-TP
(Silvex)
6.0
9.69E-01
3.96E+02
1.57E+02
1.56E+03
2.21E+03
7.96E+02
2.84E+03
5.64E+03
6.1
8.75E-01
3.96E+02
1.57E+02
1.33E+03
2.17E+03
7.48E+02
2.43E+03
5.59E+03
6.2
7.99E-01
3.96E+02
1.56E+02
1.15E+03
2.12E+03
6.97E+02
2.10E+03
5.55E+03
6.3
7.36E-01
3.95E+02
1.55E+02
9.98E+02
2.06E+03
6.44E+02
1.83E+03
5.52E+03
6.4
6.89E-01
3.94E+02
1.54E+02
8.77E+02
1.99E+03
5.89E+02
1.62E+03
5.50E+03
6.5
6.51E-01
3.93E+02
1.53E+02
7.81E+02
1.91E+03
5.33E+02
1.45E+03
5.48E+03
6.6
6.20E-01
3.92E+02
1.52E+02
7.03E+02
1.82E+03
4.80E+02
1.32E+03
5.46E+03
6.7
5.95E-01
3.90E+02
1.50E+02
6.40E+02
1.71E+03
4.29E+02
1.21E+03
5.45E+03
6.8
5.76E-01
3.88E+02
1.47E+02
5.92E+02
1.60E+03
3.81E+02
1.12E+03
5.44E+03
6.9
5.60E-01
3.86E+02
1.45E+02
5.52E+02
1.47E+03
3.38E+02
1.05E+03
5.43E+03
7.0
5.47E-01
3.83E+02
1.41E+02
5.21E+02
1.34E+03
3.00E+02
9.96E+02
5.43E+03
7.1
5.38E-01
3.79E+02
1.38E+02
4.96E+02
1.21E+03
2.67E+02
9.52E+02
5.42E+03
7.2
5.32E-01
3.75E+02
1.33E+02
4.76E+02
1.07E+03
2.39E+02
9.18E+02
5.42E+03
7.3
5.25E-01
3.69E+02
1.28E+02
4.61E+02
9.43E+02
2.15E+02
8.90E+02
5.42E+03
7.4
5.19E-01
3.62E+02
1.21E+02
4.47E+02
8.19E+02
1.95E+02
8.68E+02
5.41E+03
7.5
5.16E-01
3.54E+02
1.14E+02
4.37E+02
7.03E+02
1.78E+02
8.50E+02
5.41E+03
7.6
5.13E-01
3.44E+02
1.07E+02
4.29E+02
5.99E+02
1.64E+02
8.36E+02
5.41E+03
pH
Benzoic Acid
2-Chloro-
phenol
2,4-
Dichloro-
phenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
2,4,5-
Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,6-
Trichloro-
phenol
Dinoseb
2,3,5-TP
(Silvex)
7.7
5.09E-01
3.33E+02
9.84E+01
4.23E+02
5.07E+02
1.53E+02
8.25E+02
5.41E+03
7.8
5.06E-01
3.19E+02
8.97E+01
4.18E+02
4.26E+02
1.44E+02
8.17E+02
5.41E+03
7.9
5.06E-01
3.04E+02
8.07E+01
4.14E+02
3.57E+02
1.37E+02
8.10E+02
5.41E+03
8.0
5.06E-01
2.86E+02
7.17E+01
4.10E+02
2.98E+02
1.31E+02
8.04E+02
5.41E+03
SOURCE: Amended at 22 Ill. Reg. ___________, effective ___________________________.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the above opinion and order was adopted on the 16th day of April 1998, by a vote of 7-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board