Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: ) R06-10
TIERED APPROACH TO CORRECTIVE ) (Rulemaking – Land)
ACTION OBJECTIVES )
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 742) )
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk Richard R. McGill, Jr.
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601 Chicago, IL 60601
(VIA ELECTRONIC FILING) (VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(SERVICE LIST VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
TESTIMONY OF JARRETT THOMAS
ON BEHALF OF SUBURBAN LABORATORIES, INC.
, a copy of which is
served upon you.
Respectfully Submitted,
SUBURBAN LABORATORIES,
INC.,
By: /s/ Jarrett Thomas
Vice President
Dated: February 22, 2006
Jarrett Thomas
Suburban Laboratories, Inc.
4140 Litt Drive
Hillside, Illinois 60162
(708) 544-3260
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jarrett Thomas, the undersigned, herby certify that I have served the attached
TESTIMONY OF JARRETT THOMAS ON BEHALF OF SUBURBAN
LABORATORIES, INC.
upon:
IEPA
Kimberly A. Geving, Assistant Counsel
Annet Godiksen, Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276 Springfield
IL 62794-9276
Christine G. Zeman
Karen L. Bernoteit
Katherine D. Hodge
Thomas G. Safley
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
William G. Dickett
2909 Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Bob Mankowski
EPI
16650 South Canal
South Holland, IL 60473
Katherine D. Hodge, Executive Director
Thomas G. Safley
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
Lisa Frede
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
2250 E. Devon Avenue
Suite 239
DesPlaines, IL 60018-4509
Mark Robert Sargis
Bellande & Sargis Law Group, LLP
19 South LaSalle Street
Suite 1203 Chicago, IL 60603
Musette H. Vogel
The Stolar Partnership
The Lammert Building, , 7th Floor
911 Washington Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63101-1290
Tracy Lundein
Hanson Engineers, Inc.
1525 South Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62703-2886
Douglas G. Soutter
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
8615 West Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chicago, IL 60631
Matthew J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Georgia Vlahos
7726 Naval Training Center
2601A Paul Jones Street
Great Lakes, IL 60088-2845
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Board
Richard McGill, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St.
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Diane H. Richardson
Commonwealth Edison
10 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Monte Nienkerk
Clayton Group Services
3140 Finley Road
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Elizabeth Steinhour
Weaver Boos & Gordon
2021 Timberbrook Lane
Springfield, IL 62702
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
2
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
Mark Marszalek
Andrews Environmental Engineering
3535 Mayflower Boulevard
Springfield, IL 62711
Dr. Douglas C. Hambley, P.E., P.G.
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Associates, Inc.
8501 West Higgins Road
Suite 280
Chicago, IL 60631-2801
Erin Curley, Environmental Dept. Manager
Midwest Engineering Services
4243 West 166th Street
Oak Forest. IL 60452
John W. Hochwarter
Jeffrey Larson
Missman Stanley & Associates
333 East State Street
Rockford, IL 61110-0827
Chetan Trivedi
Trivedi Associates, Inc.
2055 Steeplebrook Court
Naperville, IL 60565
Stan Yonkauski
William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702-1271
Jarrett Thomas, V.P.
Suburban Laboratories, Inc.
4140 Litt Drive
Hillside, IL 60162
Steven Gobelman
Thomas Benson
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 S. Dirksen Parkway
Room 330
Springfield, IL 62764
David Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77 W. Wacker
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Raymond T. Reott
Jorge T. Mihalopoulos
Reott Law Offices, LLC
35 East Wacker Drive
Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Charles A. King, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Chicago Department of Law
30 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 900
Chicago IL 60602
Harry Walton
SRAC
2510 Brooks Drive
Decatur, IL 62521
Total number of participants: 38
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: ) R06-10
TIERED APPROACH TO CORRECTIVE ) (Rulemaking – Land)
ACTION OBJECTIVES )
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 742) )
TESTIMONY OF JARRETT THOMAS ON BEHALF OF SUBURBAN
LABORATORIES, INC.
My name is Jarrett Thomas and I am the Vice President and co-owner of
Suburban Laboratories, Inc., an IEPA accredited environmental testing laboratory located
in Hillside, Illinois. Suburban Laboratories was established in 1936 and has performed
drinking water, wastewater and soil analysis in support of environmental and public
health programs for over 35 years. I am a current board member of the American
Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) Environmental Sciences Section and
President and co-founder of the Illinois Association of Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
(IAETL).
This testimony was prepared with assistance for Greg Pronger, Technical Director
of Suburban Laboratories. Mr. Pronger has more than 20 years experience in the
environmental testing industry. Prior to joining Suburban Laboratories, in 2002 Mr.
Pronger served as the Technical Director of Test America-Bartlett.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
2
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
1) Background
The analytical requirements and objectives in TACO are ambiguous. The IEPA
has acknowledged that there are compounds for which the routinely used methods cannot
meet their respective remediation objectives established in TACO, yet the Agency does
not intend to fix this problem. We seek to make the analytical requirements of TACO
technically sound and achievable. This type of clarity in the regulation will greatly assist
in the efficient cleanup of contaminated sites while reducing potential liability that may
exist from not analytically verifying the presence or absence of pollutants at the
remediation objectives.
2) Analytical Limitations Associated with ADLs, MDLs, and PQLs
In his testimony on January 31, 2006, Mr. Hornshaw of the IEPA said when the
TACO rule was first created, the IEPA “looked through all the different SW-846 and
drinking water methodologies to determine the lowest detection limit from any of the
methodologies that pertain to a particular analyte and if the calculated risk based
remediation objective was less than the lowest of the detection limits then we used the
lowest detection limit, the ADL, as the remediation objective.”
At the heart of the problem is the IEPA’s inappropriate use of the terms Practical
Quantitation Limit (PQL), Method Detection Limit (MDL) and ADL interchangeably.
USEPA SW-846 replaced the term PQL with Estimated Quantitation Limit (EQL)
several years ago, presumably because regulatory officials were assigning too much
weight to a value that by name is only an estimate. USEPA SW-846 defines EQL as:
The lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within
specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
3
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
laboratory operating conditions. The EQL is generally 5 to 10
times the MDL. However, it may be nominally chosen within these
guidelines to simplify data reporting. For many analytes the EQL
analyte concentration is selected as the lowest non-zero standard
in the calibration curve. Sample EQLs are highly matrix
dependent. The EQLs in SW-846 are provided for guidance and
may not always be achievable.
The quantitation limit, however named, is meant to be a reliable analytical
reporting limit. The MDL procedure is found in 40 CFR, Part 136, Appendix B, and is
defined in SW-846 as,
The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured
and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration
is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in
a given matrix type containing the analyte.
The MDL is a statistical, rather than chemical, concept. It involves analyzing
multiple replicates of low level spikes in the matrix of interest. Most published MDLs
were generated using ultra-clean reagent grade water. Applying these MDLs to
potentially contaminated groundwater and soil is ill-advised. The Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources’ Analytical Detection Limit Guidance (PUBL-TS-056-96) expertly
discusses the limitations of the MDL:
Statistically, the 99% confidence interval means that any substance
detected at a concentration equal to the MDL is 99% likely to be
present at a concentration greater than zero. It also means that
there is a 1% chance that a substance detected at the MDL will be
considered (falsely) "present" when in reality the true analyte
concentration is zero. And the MDL tells us nothing about the
numerical uncertainty of analytical results. It is assumed that
because a substance was detected at a concentration equal to or
greater than the MDL, that substance is 99% likely to be present
and the quantitated value is the "best available estimate" of the
true value.
Calculating the MDL at the 99% confidence interval allows for the
probability that 1% of the samples analyzed which have a true
concentration at the MDL level will be false positives (type I
error). Additionally, reporting data down to the MDL does nothing
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
4
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
to control the possibility for false negatives (type II error). Since
replicate analyses of environmental samples tend to follow a
Gaussian distribution around a mean, it is logical to assume that
for a sample spiked at the MDL concentration, 50% of the values
would fall above the MDL (detected) and 50% would fall below
(not detected). False negatives are much less of an issue for the
regulated community because in general "not detected" does not
result in future site remediation or permit limits. The slim
possibility of false positives and the high probability of false
negatives are inherent drawbacks of using a method detection
limit.
The EPA's MDL procedure has been widely criticized in the literature and by
regulated facilities for a variety of reasons. In fact, USEPA is currently under court order
to change its MDL procedure (68 FR 11770 March 12, 2003). A Federal Advisory
Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches was formed in 2005 to address the
MDL issue.
IEPA defines their Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) in Section 742.200 as:
“PQL” means practical quantitation limit or estimated
quantitation limit, which is the lowest concentration that can be
reliably measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy
for a specific laboratory analytical method during routine
laboratory operating conditions in accordance with “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical Chemical Methods”, EPA
Publication No. SW-846, incorporated by reference in Section
742.210.
When applied to filtered water samples, PQL includes
the method detection limit or estimated detection limit in
accordance with the applicable method revision in: “Methods for
the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water”,
Supplement II”, EPA Publication No. EPA/600/4-88/039;
“Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in
Drinking Water, Supplement III”, EPA Publication No.
EPA/600/R-95/131, all of which are incorporated by reference in
Section 742.210.
There are two problems with the bolded portion of IEPA’s definition. First, water
samples submitted under TACO are not filtered. Second, for reasons stated earlier, the
PQL/EQL should not be equated to MDL. The USEPA has acknowledged that MDLs
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
5
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
and EQLs are highly matrix dependent and are not always achievable, however IEPA has
not addressed this limitation in TACO. The Section 742.200 definition of PQL be
changed to:
“PQL” means practical quantitation limit or estimated
quantitation limit, and is the lowest concentration that can be
reliably measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy
for a specific laboratory analytical method during routine
laboratory operating conditions. Published PQLs found in USEPA
method are highly matrix dependent and not always achievable.
Finally, for soil samples, the TACO risk based remediation objectives and ADLs
as well as all the USEPA method MDLs, PQLs/EQLs are on a wet weight basis. Section
742.225 (f) requires samples be reported on a dry weight basis. Converting a sample to a
dry weight basis can raise its reporting limit. IEPA must consider this when establishing
ADLs and determining compliance with remediation objectives. We recommend that a
statement similar to the following be added to address this:
The remediation objectives and ADLs listed are on a wet weight
basis. Actual laboratory results are required to be reported on a
dry weight basis. Non-detect analytes that have an elevated
reporting limit above the remediation objective or ADL due to the
dry weight multiplier shall be considered to meet the remediation
objective.
3) Methods of Analysis
Drinking water method manuals are incorporated by reference in TACO and other
IEPA programs like SRP and LUST, although there is no citation back to these manuals
in the substantive portion of the regulations. SW-846 is also referenced and in the case of
the SRP, the specific method numbers are listed for each analyte. For example, Section
740 Appendix A Table B lists the method for N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine as 8270C,
however 8270C is incapable of achieving the soil and groundwater remediation
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
6
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
objectives for this analyte. The Agency should evaluate the compounds in TACO to
determine the quantitation limits and cite the specific methods of analysis used to
generate the ADLs.
The Agency should be taking a Performance Based Measurements Systems
(PBMS) approach to the analytical requirements of TACO. USEPA defines PBMS as
“A set of processes wherein the data needs, mandates, or
limitations of a program or project are specified, and serve as
criteria for selecting appropriate methods to meet those needs in a
cost-effective manner. The criteria may be published in
regulations, technical guidance documents, permits, work plans, or
enforcement orders. Under a performance-based approach, EPA
would specify:
•
Questions to be answered by monitoring.
•
Decisions to be supported by the data.
•
Level of uncertainty acceptable for making decisions.
•
Documentation to be generated to support this approach in
the RCRA monitoring program.
For more information, read the Federal Register Notice - October
6, 1997.
The referenced method of analysis is an important consideration especially since
LUST and SRP require that all analyses be completed by an IEPA accredited laboratory
and analyses not utilizing an accredited lab are deemed invalid. For many of the drinking
water methods and non-standard SW-846 methods there are no IEPA accredited
laboratories in the State of Illinois. To facilitate a PBMS approach, TACO should
include language that allows flexibility of method selection:
Laboratories may use any USEPA method or Performance Based
method in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 186. If the analyte
cannot be determined or the remediation objective or ADL cannot
be achieved using a method included in the Illinois EPA’s 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 186 scope of accreditation, the laboratory may utilize
any non-standard method so long as the method is validated in
accordance with the requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 186.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
7
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
4. Specific Problem Compounds
For purposes of identifying problem compounds, we have limited this review to
the SRP and LUST Target Compounds. TACO contains dozens of compounds not
included in SRP and LUST Target Compound Lists and we encourage IEPA to
reevaluate all TACO compounds to determine the analytical limitations. The following is
a list of compounds with ADLs or remediation objectives that are difficult to achieve
using common methods of analysis like those specified in SRP Section 740 Appendix A
Table A through C.
Section 742 APPENDIX B Table A and Table B Soil Remediation Objectives
Analyte Minimum TACO Objective or ADL
(mg/kg)
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.0018*
Pentachlorophenol 0.03
*The soil ADL for N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine listed in TACO appears to be an
error as it is the same value as for groundwater.
Section 742 APPENDIX B Table E Class I Groundwater Remediation Objectives
Analyte Class I
(mg/L)
Bromodichloromethane 0.0002
Bromoform 0.001
Chloroform 0.0002
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.001
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.001
Vinyl chloride 0.002
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.00002
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.00031
Hexachlorobenzene 0.00006
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.0032
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.0018
Pentachlorophenol 0.001
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
8
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
Analyte Class I
(mg/L)
Toxaphene 0.003
PCBs 0.0005
The Class I groundwater remediation objectives are also listed in Section 742
APPENDIX B Table H Chemicals Whose Tier 1 Class I Groundwater Remediation
Objective Exceeds the 1 in 1,000,000 Cancer Risk Concentration, however, Table H
includes ADLs that are lower than the groundwater remediation objectives for some
compounds.
5) Fraction Organic Carbon (FOC)
The IEPA has proposed changes that have helped clarify the FOC requirement.
The addition of the specific temperature method and the factor required to calculate FOC
should be added to provide consistent reporting.
Section 742 Table F: Methods for Determining Physical Soil Parameters; Foc
ASTM D2974-00 87
(Method C @ 440°C)
Reapproved 1995
Moisture, Ash and Organic Matter
b
appropriately adjusted to
estimate the fraction of organic carbon
using a factor of 0.5-0.58
as stated in Nelson and Sommers (1982)
6) TCLP Inorganic Non-Metals
The procedure for preparing soil samples for analysis of inorganic non-metals
such as chloride, nitrate and sulfate is specified in footnotes “m” and “q” of Section 742
Appendix B Table A and B. The referenced TCLP/SPLP procedures were not designed
for these analytes and utilizing these procedures can lead to invalid results. The footnotes
“m” and “q” should be consolidated and changed to the following:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
9
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
Extraction must be performed using either 1) USEPA Method 1312
SPLP extraction fluid 3/reagent water or ASTM method D3987-85
Standard Test Method for Shake Extraction of Solid Waste with
Water.
The Class I and Class II Soil Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Exposure
Route Values for metals were deleted from Section 742 Appendix B Table B. This
appears to be in error as the values still exist in Table A.
7) Summary of Recommendations and Conclusion
a) The analytical limitations and methods of analysis associated with
determining the risk based remediation objectives should be evaluated by
IEPA. The evaluation should take into account matrix specific methods and
applicable quantitation limits.
b) TACO should identify the methods used to create the ADLs and develop a
procedure specifying the analytical requirements when the ADL is
unachievable.
c) ADLs should be added where necessary and the ADLs should not be lower
than the Class I Groundwater Remediation Objectives.
d) If IEPA requires reporting down to the MDL, the reporting procedure should
be well-defined.
e) The effect of dry weight conversion should be addressed.
f) IEPA should adopt the PBMS approach.
g) The requirement to use an accredited lab when a non-standard method is
referenced should be addressed.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
10
Printed on Recycled Paper in Accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 and 101. 302(g)
h) Correct the N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine soil ADL error.
i) Better define the FOC temperature requirement and factor.
j) Change the inorganic non-metal leacheate procedure footnotes.
k) Identify/correct problem with deleted metals from Section 742 Appendix B
Table B.
TACO identifies several key requirements for laboratory analysis and reporting,
however these requirements are ambiguous and in some cases, inconsistent with other
IEPA programs. The Agency has allowed hundreds of sites to be closed based on
theoretical data in lieu of analytical testing to verify a site is clean. There could be
significant liability associated with that type of policy. The Agency should either remove
the analytical requirements from TACO and move them to the appropriate program or
reevaluate the requirements to make them technically sound and achievable. Analytical
requirements that prove a site is clean is the best and most efficient way to ensure the
Agency is complying with their mission to “safeguard environmental quality”.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 22, 2006