1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
4
5 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO )
6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
) R08-18
7 STANDARDS
) (Rulemaking-Public Water
8 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 620) ) Supplies.)
9
10
11
12
13
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had before the ILLINOIS
14 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD held on June 18, 2008, at 9:30
15 o'clock a.m. at the 160 North LaSalle Street, Chicago,
16 Illinois.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD:
3 MR. RICHARD MCGILL, Hearing Officer
4 MR. ANAD RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist
5 MR. THOMAS JOHNSON, Member
6 MR. NICOLAS MELAS, Member
7
8 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9 Assistant Counsel
10 Division of Legal Counsel
11 BY: MS. KIMBERLY A. GEVING
12 MR. RICHARD COBB
13 DR. THOMAS C. HORNSHAW
14 1021 North Grand Avenue East
15 P.O. Box 19276
16 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
17 (217) 782-5544
18
19 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
20 GENERAL COUNSEL
21 BY: MR. ALEC M. DAVIS
22 215 East Adams Street
23 Springfield, Illinois 62701
24 (217) 522-5512
3
1
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: We'll go on the
2
record. I'd like to say good morning to
3
everyone, and welcome to you this Illinois
4
Pollution Control Board hearing. Today we're
5
in Chicago. It's the first hearing for this
6
rulemaking. The second one is scheduled for
7
July 16th, and that will be in Springfield.
8
My name is Richard McGill. I'm the hearing
9
officer in this rulemaking which is docketed
10
as RO8-18 and is captioned "In The Matter of
11
Proposed Amendments To Groundwater Quality
12
Standard 35IL.Adm.620. The Board's Part 620
13
Groundwater Quality Standard implement
14
provisions of both the Environmental
15
Protection Act and the Illinois Groundwater
16
Protection Act. On February 19, 2008 the
17
board received a rulemaking proposal from the
18
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to
19
amend these standards. The Agency states
20
that the proposed amendments are intended to
21
keep the regulations current with science,
22
effect and technical advances. On March 20
23
the Board accepted the Agency's proposal for
24
hearing. On April 11, the Agency filed
4
1
errata sheet number one reflecting amendments
2
to its proposal. And on May 29, the Agency
3
filed errata sheet number 2, and the
4
pre-filed testimony of Richard Cobb and
5
Dr. Thomas Hornshaw.
6
Also present today on behalf of the
7
Board are members Thomas Johnson, the lead
8
Board member for this rulemaking, Board
9
member Nicolas Melas and from the Board's
10
technical unit Anand Rao, and we're also
11
joined by the Board's legal intern Katie
12
Hindell.
13
Today's proceedings are governed by
14
the Board's procedural rules. All
15
information that is relevant and not
16
repetition or privileged will be admitted
17
into the record.
18
We will begin with the Agency's
19
testimony followed by questions that the
20
Board or members of the public may have for
21
the Agency's witnesses. After that anyone
22
else who did not pre-file testimony may
23
testify as time permits. Those who testify
24
will be sworn in and may be asked questions
5
1
about their testimony. For those who wish to
2
testify but who did not pre-file, we have a
3
witness sign-up sheet located at the back of
4
the room. Toward the conclusion of today's
5
hearing we will take up the Board's request
6
that the Department of Commerce and Economic
7
Opportunity perform an economic impact study
8
or ECIS on the rulemaking proposal.
9
For our court reporter, I would ask
10
that everyone please speak up, not speak too
11
quickly or talk over one another so we insure
12
a clear transcript for the Board to consider.
13
Are there any questions about our procedures
14
for today?
15
Seeing none, I would ask the court
16
reporter to please swear in the Agency's
17
witnesses collectively.
18
(ALL WITNESSES SWORN)
19
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I would ask the
20
Agency's attorney Kimberly Geving to begin
21
the Agency's presentation.
22
MS. GEVING: Good morning. I have two
23
witnesses with me today that were just sworn
24
in, Rick Cobb and Tom Hornshaw, and they are
6
1
going to be providing summary testimony as
2
pre-filed accepted into the record as if
3
read. If that's okay with the hearing
4
officer.
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: And you have copies
6
for me?
7
MS. GEVING: I do.
8
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I've been handed the
9
pre-filed testimony of Richard Cobb and the
10
pre-filed testimony of Dr. Hornshaw. And I
11
can mark those as Exhibits 1 and 2.
12
MS. GEVING: Please.
13
(Documents marked as Hearing
14
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 for
15
identification.)
16
HE COURT: Is Mr. Cobb testifying
17
first?
18
MS. GEVING: He is.
19
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Okay. For the
20
record, is there any objection to accepting
21
as a hearing exhibit and entering it into the
22
record as if read, the pre-filed testimony of
23
Richard Cobb? Seeing none, that motion is
24
granted. And I have marked as Hearing
7
1
Exhibit 2 the pre-filed testimony of
2
Dr. Hornshaw. Is there any objection
3
entering this as a hearing exhibit and
4
entering pre-filed testimony into the record
5
as if read? Seeing none, that motion is also
6
granted. So those will be Hearing Exhibits 1
7
and 2. You want to take up the errata sheet
8
No. 2?
9
MS. GEVING: Sure. I was going to show
10
them copies of the exhibits to make sure they
11
were the true and accurate copies.
12
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Sure.
13
MS. GEVING: Mr. Cobb, I'm going to
14
show you a document that's been marked as
15
Exhibit No. 1 for the record and if you could
16
identify that, please.
17
MR. COBB: Yes, this appears to be my
18
testimony pre-filed in this matter.
19
MS. GEVING: Is it a true and accurate
20
copy of what we filed before?
21
MR. COBB: Yes.
22
MS. GEVING: Dr. Hornshaw, Exhibit
23
No. 2 for the record, would you please
24
identify that?
8
1
DR. HORNSHAW: This is a copy of my
2
pre-filed testimony.
3
MS. GEVING: Is it a true and accurate
4
copy of what we filed with the Board?
5
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes.
6
MS. GEVING: Thank you very much. I've
7
done a motion to accept that into the record.
8
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'll just jump the
9
gun perhaps. I'll just repeat, is there any
10
objection to either of these pieces of
11
pre-filed testimony being admitted into the
12
record as if read and entered as hearing
13
exhibits? Seeing no objection, those motions
14
are granted.
15
MS. GEVING: And seeing as we have also
16
filed with the testimony errata sheet No. 2,
17
I would like to show that to my witnesses,
18
please.
19
If the both of you would please
20
identify Exhibit No. 3 for the record.
21
MR. COBB: Exhibit 3 is an errata sheet
22
that shows changes and some of the numerical
23
values for some of the proposed Class 1 and
24
Class 2 Groundwater Quality Standards. These
9
1
numbers were also reflected in my pre-filed
2
testimony.
3
MS. GEVING: Is that a true and
4
accurate copy of what we filed in court?
5
MR. COBB: Yes.
6
MS. GEVING: Dr. Hornshaw, do you
7
agree?
8
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes.
9
MS. GEVING: At this time I'll ask that
10
the Board accepts Exhibit No. 3 into the
11
record.
12
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Is there any
13
objection to that? Seeing none, that will be
14
admitted as Hearing Exhibit No. 3.
15
(Document marked as Hearing Exhibit
16
No. 3 for the record.)
17
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Would you like to
18
proceed with the testimony?
19
MS. GEVING: Please.
20
Mr. Cobb, if you would provide a
21
summary of the testimony you filed?
22
MR. COBB: I'd be happy to do that.
23
I'm glad to be here today. This is the, I
24
think counting the original proposal, this is
10
1
the fifth time that we've touched on the
2
Groundwater Quality Standards, of course
3
that's not including the original Groundwater
4
Standard adopted by the Board in 1971, but in
5
the adoption of the docket, Groundwater
6
Quality Standards, 35 Illinois Administrative
7
Code, Part 620, in the Docket R89-14B, the
8
Illinois Pollution Control Board noted that
9
it expected regular Agency updates of the
10
Groundwater Quality Standards. And in
11
particular where we've had public water
12
supply standards that have been upgraded
13
subject to arsenic.
14
In addition, in proposing these
15
standards there are a series of thresholds or
16
tests that had to be met out of the Illinois
17
Groundwater Protection Act, and one of the
18
key threshold tests is have contaminants been
19
detected and quantified in Illinois
20
groundwater. And for this particular
21
proposal we worked with our colleagues in the
22
Bureau of Land and specifically in the
23
landfill monitoring, RECRA monitoring and
24
federal clean up programs and discovered
11
1
there was a substantial database of
2
contaminants that are being found in Illinois
3
groundwater and confirmed and quantified in
4
Illinois groundwater that did not have
5
groundwater quality standards. So that was
6
the main impetus for us coming with this
7
proposal to update these standards. Of
8
course along the way it became, you know,
9
well, we're going to go through this process.
10
We thought it prudent to update the
11
incorporation by reference since quite a bit
12
of time had passed since 1991 and a lot of
13
those changes hadn't been updated. We also
14
felt that it was important to, because of how
15
progressed the Well Head Protection Programs
16
are in Illinois since 1991 that we should
17
incorporate that hydrogeologic data as part
18
of the Board's compliance, Board's regulation
19
standard compliance point concepts and the
20
compliance determination section of the
21
regulations. And also there were a number of
22
new things in the 80's and 90's. The
23
practical quantification limit was sort of
24
the default limit that was used for many
12
1
things were, standards were derived according
2
to the adopted health advisory procedure in
3
subpart F of 35 Illinois Administrative Code,
4
Part 620. Subsequently over the years it's
5
been common practice to accept the ten to the
6
minus six risk levels. So we tried to
7
incorporate that. And in addition we've also
8
incorporated the concept of water solubility
9
simply because we rely on contaminant
10
transport models to set a lot of the clean-up
11
objectives these days, and the governing
12
equations for those clean-up models do not
13
really handle two phased contaminants. And
14
so that's where the solubility comes in to be
15
a very important factor, and so we can
16
elaborate on that more or Dr. Hornshaw can
17
elaborate on that a little more.
18
So with that, that background, that
19
was our impetus for coming here. We felt it
20
was also important to re-emphasize that the
21
Board's standards are not just numerical
22
standards that you can pollute up to, but
23
section 12(A) of the act and the
24
nondegredation provision, for any
13
1
contaminant, that there is a prohibition for
2
polluting up to those standards, and it seems
3
that a lot of people at times have forgotten
4
that history, that there's always been a
5
two-tiered system. You can't pollute up to
6
the standard. So we wanted to emphasize that
7
in the testimony. I'm open to any questions
8
you might have at this time.
9
MS. GEVING: Thank you, Mr. Cobb.
10
I think we'll let Dr. Tom Hornshaw
11
do his summary of testimony and then we'll
12
open it up to questions.
13
DR. HORNSHAW: Good morning. My
14
qualifications are that I have, as Rick Cobb
15
has, participated in all of these hearings
16
and updates over the years. I too
17
participated in the original 620 standard
18
development and I think most of the update.
19
I don't know if it was all of them, but I've
20
been around doing the groundwater standards
21
and objectives for quite a while.
22
In December of 2002, USEPA issued a
23
memo to all of the Superfund Project managers
24
a new hierarchy for selecting toxicity
14
1
criteria to use in all the risk assessments
2
that EPA's project managers were supposed to
3
do. Prior to this, the December 2002 memo,
4
the superfund public health evaluation manual
5
specified only two sources for toxicity
6
criteria, EPA's Innovated Risk Information
7
System, or IRIS, and Health Effects
8
Assessment Summary tables or HEAST as the
9
only places to get --
10
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'm sorry, just to
11
make sure the court reporter gets the
12
acronym, could you repeat that?
13
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes. The two acronyms I
14
used were IRIS, Innovated Risk Information
15
System and HEAST, Health Effects Assessment
16
Summary Tables. And they were the only two
17
sources that the EPA's project managers were
18
to use in conducting their risk assessments.
19
After this memo was issued, there
20
are now a different set of hierarchy for
21
developing all these different risk
22
assessment numbers. IRIS is still the first
23
choice. HEAST is now the last choice or
24
among the last choices. There's now, right
15
1
after IRIS, a data source from, again, from
2
the USEPA called Peer Review Provisional
3
Toxicity Values or PPRTV's, which are issued
4
from the EPA's office. I'm going to skip it
5
because I can't remember the name --
6
MEMBER RAO: It is actually Provisional
7
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values.
8
DR. HORNSHAW: Thank you. PPRTV.
9
That's the second choice for toxicity
10
information.
11
The third choice is actually a
12
group of three sources which HEAST is one of
13
the three, and probably the least recommended
14
because HEAST stop being updated in 1997. So
15
the information in the HEAST tables is now
16
somewhat out of date or in some cases way out
17
of date. The other two sources of
18
information in the third tier are the
19
toxicity data that's provided by the
20
California EPA, which is an on-line data set
21
or data source, and the Agency For Toxic
22
Substances Disease Registry's minimum risk
23
levels.
24
Because of these changes, my unit,
16
1
the toxicity assessment unit, has been
2
updating all of the toxicity information that
3
we have to use for developing clean-up
4
objectives and toxicity values for air, soil,
5
water and bioda (SIC) exposures so that we
6
can maintain or try to keep up to date as
7
well as be in compliance with this memo from
8
the EPA.
9
I went through this kind of long
10
discussion to explain why we had to -- why
11
there's so many changes that we're proposing
12
to make in the 620 standards. We used this
13
new hierarchy to update the TACO, Tier
14
Approach to Corrective Action Objectives rule
15
for 25 chemicals. We've updated the clean-up
16
objectives based on the new hierarchy, and we
17
also developed the standard for 15 newly
18
detected chemicals that Mr. Cobb described
19
that came from the Bureau of Land programs so
20
that we could have updated values to propose
21
to the Board for new standards or updated
22
standards. Also as Mr. Cobb discussed, we
23
have decided that solubility needs to be an
24
upper limit on the clean or on the
17
1
groundwater standards and clean up objectives
2
for the chemicals both in TACO and in 620 to
3
prevent against two phased systems in
4
groundwater. We also, among the toxins we
5
have discussed --
6
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'm sorry, which
7
unit?
8
DR. HORNSHAW: The toxicity assessment
9
unit, my unit. We have discussed how to deal
10
with carcinogens. The original version of
11
620 for chemicals that don't already have a
12
existing maximum contaminant level and are
13
carcinogens, that the lowest detection limit
14
among USEPA analytical methods was to be the
15
standard for the clean-up objective. Since
16
that time the EPA has, USEPA, has given us
17
some guidance on using or the kinds of risk
18
in their self-screening guidance rule, their
19
screening value, is the One in a million
20
Cancer Risk Level, that has been incorporated
21
into TACO and now we're proposing to
22
incorporate it into the 620 standards. So
23
that for carcinogens that don't have MCLs, we
24
are now proposing that the risk levels, ten
18
1
to the minus six risk level, will be the
2
standard unless that level is lower than the
3
detection limit in which case the detection
4
limit be will be the standard or the clean-up
5
objective.
6
In finishing up my testimony, I
7
provide reasons why Errata Sheet 2 is sent to
8
the Board to correct the initial filing long
9
ago apparently that didn't consider new
10
toxicity data, solubility, the One In A
11
Million Risk Level or our internal decision
12
to limit all future rule makings to two
13
significant figures. And that concludes the
14
summary of my presentation.
15
MS. GEVING: Mr. Hearing Officer, may I
16
ask one clarifying question of Dr. Hornshaw?
17
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Yes.
18
MS. GEVING: Dr. Hornshaw, you
19
referenced updated values that we made to the
20
TACO rules. Is that something that has
21
already been proposed to the Board and
22
amended in final form?
23
DR. HORNSHAW: No, this would be the
24
one we are working on now.
19
1
MS. GEVING: So it has not yet been
2
proposed to the Pollution Control Board?
3
DR. HORNSHAW: That's correct. What I
4
discussed does not pertain to current TACO.
5
It's what we will be proposing soon to
6
address vapor intrusion as well as updating
7
all the toxicity values.
8
MS. GEVING: Thank you, Dr. Hornshaw.
9
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you. I know we
10
have -- is there any further testimony from
11
the EPA?
12
MS. GEVING: We have concluded.
13
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I know we have
14
questions from one or more members of the
15
public, so before the Board proceeds with its
16
questions, we are going to open it up to the
17
audience. I would just ask if you do have a
18
question, you signal me and state your name,
19
your title and the organization you are
20
representing. Go ahead.
21
MR. DAVIS: My name is Alex Davis. I
22
am here as the general counsel of the
23
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, and
24
I have some questions I'd like to ask just of
20
1
the witnesses and then whoever feels that
2
they are best suited to address my questions,
3
feel free to do so.
4
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you, go ahead.
5
MR. DAVIS: My first question, Section
6
8 of the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act,
7
in addition to setting forth the substantive
8
requirements for regulations promulgated,
9
also requires that the Department of Natural
10
Resources concurrently conduct the study of
11
the economic impact of the regulations. To
12
your knowledge is the DNR conducting such a
13
study concurrently with this rulemaking? And
14
if so, when can we expect it to be filed with
15
the Board?
16
MS. GEVING: I'm not testifying -- this
17
is Kim Geving -- but I believe that it is the
18
Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity
19
that now conducts the economic impact
20
statements; is that correct? I'm not
21
familiar.
22
MR. COBB: I'll try to answer.
23
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Go ahead.
24
MR. COBB: At the beginning of the
21
1
hearing, Hearing Officer McGill made a
2
statement about, I don't know if it's part of
3
the Board's procedural rules or exactly why,
4
but now the economic study is directed
5
towards the Department of Commerce and
6
Economic Opportunity, DCEO. And I believe
7
that was made in your opening statement.
8
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Yes, I am referring
9
to Section 27 of the Environmental Protection
10
Act and we will talk about that toward the
11
end of today. Again, I'm not testifying, but
12
I'm not sure exactly how Section 8 of the
13
Groundwater Protection Act reads.
14
Do you have a follow-up question or
15
does that answer your question?
16
MR. DAVIS: My follow-up question was
17
going to be on what basis is the economic
18
impact going to be analyzed. I think that
19
probably leads to that.
20
MR. COBB: It's also, if you,
21
Mr. Davis, if you go to page three and four
22
of the Agency's Statement of Reasons we also
23
provided the economic analysis that has been
24
used and adopted in previous Board opinions
22
1
in many of the other dockets, and I think
2
that the reason for the change is that when
3
the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act
4
provisions predated the amendments to
5
Section 27 of the act, that when there used
6
to be a Department of Commerce and Community
7
Affairs, and then it was changed to the
8
Department of Commerce and Economic
9
Opportunity, and so I believe it's now the
10
current requirement of Section 27. I mean
11
it's almost a legal-type question. That
12
would be my nonlegal response.
13
MEMBER JOHNSON: I guess I'm confused.
14
Are you referring to the economic impact
15
study that the act directs us to conduct or
16
are you looking at the --
17
MR. DAVIS: The Groundwater Protection
18
Act.
19
MEMBER JOHNSON: -- economic reasonable
20
test that the Board has to consider before?
21
MR. DAVIS: I think they both factor in
22
obviously.
23
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Let me just -- if you
24
are going to testify, I need to have you
23
1
sworn in, and you are welcome do testify.
2
MR. DAVIS: I really rather not.
3
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: If you'd rather not,
4
I guess we can take your statement as public
5
comment. It wouldn't have the weight of
6
sworn testimony, but I'd like to have -- I
7
don't want to discourage the exchange, but
8
you're here as an attorney, not as a witness
9
so it would simply be considered as a public
10
comment. Feel free to answer it, but I just
11
want you to know it will be considered
12
comment and not testimony.
13
MR. DAVIS: Well, my understanding of
14
Section 8 was that it would require an
15
economic impact study, and it specifically
16
exempts the 27-B requirement from the
17
Environmental Protection Act in Section 8 for
18
the groundwater Section 8. So my reading was
19
that that study was to be considered in place
20
of the standard DCEO study right or wrong.
21
MR. COBB: I have another response on
22
that. The original ECIS requirement in the
23
groundwater Protection Act was for the
24
full-blown regulation, including the
24
1
classification system, the nondegradation
2
provisions, every section in the entire
3
regulation. DNR did the original ECIS on the
4
full-blown development of the regulation, and
5
there were conclusions on that. So now we're
6
just simply adding some additional
7
contaminants, which is, you know, maybe one
8
one-hundredth of the overall scope of what
9
was considered in the original ECIS, and so
10
the scope of the economic impact is, you
11
know, nowhere similar to what was originally
12
mandated there. And so that I think it is
13
why it -- we've always looked at it the way
14
it is, is that with the original full scope
15
adopted those standards to discuss the impact
16
and adding additional contaminants certainly
17
doesn't really change the overall impact.
18
These are not by default clean-up standards.
19
They are simply groundwater quality
20
standards. So for all the reasons stated in
21
the original Board opinion of R89149(b) and
22
all of the subsequent opinions since that
23
time, I think is the basis for why a
24
full-blown ECIS would certainly not be
25
1
necessary.
2
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Yes, you know, the
3
Board did submit a letter to the Department
4
of Commerce & Economic Opportunity for this
5
rulemaking. Whether that was done in an
6
abundance of caution or just sort of a
7
routine, I'm not sure. We would need to
8
review -- I know there are instances where
9
Section 27(b) where rule makings are exempt
10
from the 27(b) ECIS requirement. We would
11
need to look at, you know, whether the
12
provision in the groundwater Protection Act
13
applies and whether this is being promulgated
14
pursuant to that provision. We have a second
15
hearing in Springfield, so if we think we are
16
subject to the 27(b) ECIS we can take it up
17
at that point in time. And we are going to
18
have an opportunity to pre-file testimony for
19
the second hearing, and that would certainly
20
be an opportunity for IERG and the Agency to
21
state what the Agency's position is on what
22
sounds like really a legal issue.
23
MR. JOHNSON: Whether it be in an
24
abundance of caution as you say, we're going
26
1
to go ahead and do the DCEO Economic Impact
2
hearing today.
3
MR. MCGILL: We can do it, and if
4
that's unnecessary, then we've lost 30
5
seconds of our lives. It's no big deal. But
6
if it does apply, then we will have met our
7
requirement or we can do it in Springfield.
8
But I'm ready to go today.
9
MR. DAVIS: Okay.
10
My second question is, is it the
11
Agency's intention to regulate all
12
groundwater in the state? As if it is to be
13
used for drinking water?
14
MR. COBB: No.
15
MR. DAVIS: Would you care to elaborate
16
just a little more?
17
MR. COBB: Sure. The groundwater
18
classification system in the Board's
19
groundwater quality standard regulations
20
dictate how groundwater is regulated, and we
21
didn't propose any changes to the
22
classification system. So the answer is no.
23
MR. DAVIS: My third question is, what
24
is the effect of incorporating 40 CFR,
27
1
144.66, the maximum contaminant levels for
2
radionuclides that's incorporated in
3
620.125(c) of the proposed amendment and
4
where is it applicable?
5
MR. COBB: It's just an update of the
6
previous incorporation by reference that was
7
used simply for testing procedures, and where
8
it's applicable is 35IlAd.620.410(e) the
9
photon, the radioactivity and -- let me state
10
this correctly for the record here -- beta
11
particle and photon radio activity standard
12
which already exists, and this is simply the
13
testing procedure that has been updated since
14
1991. And that's where it applies.
15
MR. DAVIS: My fourth question. The
16
inorganic chemicals to be added or amended in
17
the Class 1 standard that would be under
18
section 620.410(a), arsenic, molybdenum,
19
perchlorate and vanadium.
20
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Could you just repeat
21
those chemicals for the court reporter.
22
MR. DAVIS: The first was Arsenic,
23
A-R-S-E-N-I-C, molybdenum,
24
M-O-L-Y-B-D-E-N-U-M, the third perchlorate,
28
1
P-E-R-C-H-L-O-R-A-T-E and the last vanadium,
2
V-A-N-A-D-I-U-M.
3
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you.
4
MR. DAVIS: -- which are metals, and
5
why are they classified as such?
6
MR. COBB: Arsenic, molybdenum and
7
vanadium are metals. Perchlorate is an
8
inorganic compound. In terms of why things
9
are metals versus why things are inorganic
10
compounds, it's primarily because of the
11
physical properties, you know; the metals are
12
shiny, strong, solid, good heat conductors,
13
good electrical conductors, dense and
14
mailable. Chemists segregated the metals
15
into the left-hand corner of the periodic
16
table of the elements. Inorganic compounds
17
are ions usually proposed and then composed
18
of. And the compounds already put the cation
19
and the anion the positively charged and the
20
negatively charged, for example, sodium
21
chloride and those. Chemists classified
22
metals and inorganic substances in that way.
23
Also inorganic substances or compounds are
24
really natural in origin from minerals in the
29
1
earth's crust, as well as the metals. That's
2
all I have.
3
MEMBER JOHNSON: That's enough for the
4
Art majors.
5
MR. DAVIS: Going on. Page 14 of
6
Mr. Cobb's pre-filed testimony contains a
7
table describing the basis for the Class II
8
Inorganic Standard. Could you please explain
9
what is meant by Class I Standard, Irrigation
10
Criterion 10 for Molybdenum and describe how
11
the Class II standard was determined for this
12
constituent.
13
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Are you referring to
14
the basis for Class II?
15
MR. DAVIS: That's right. There is a
16
table describing the basis for the Class II
17
inorganic standard in the pre-filed
18
testimony. The page numbering, I think, was
19
directly -- yes, page 14.
20
MEMBER RAO: Mr. Cobb, I'd like to add
21
in Mr. Davis' process that we also had a
22
question relating to the same standard, and
23
just state our question so you can answer it
24
together.
30
1
On page 14, the groundwater
2
standard table lists the basis for the
3
proposed --
4
MR. COBB: Can you repeat the question?
5
I was still thinking about that question.
6
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: They are related
7
questions.
8
MEMBER RAO: On page 14 the groundwater
9
standard table lists the basis for the
10
proposed Class II standards for molybdenum
11
and the same level as the Class I standard,
12
but it is also noted that the irrigation
13
standard is added in the table without any
14
units. Can you explain the rational for
15
proposing the Class II standard for
16
molybdenum at the same level as the Class I
17
standard instead of the irrigation criteria?
18
MS. GEVING: If we can pause for one
19
moment?
20
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Off the record.
21
(Discussion off the record, after
22
which the following proceedings
23
were had:)
24
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Let's go back on the
31
1
record.
2
MR. COBB: We'd like to get back to you
3
on that one. It may be that we did something
4
incorrect there. I thought I had the answer,
5
but let us go back.
6
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: For both of the
7
questions and the related question?
8
MR. COBB: It is the same I think.
9
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Dave, in
10
the same table next to perchlorate, the basis
11
is described as 0X and it's done again for a
12
number of constituents on pages 16 and 17 on
13
those tables.
14
MR. COBB: Yes.
15
MR. DAVIS: Could you explain what is
16
intended to be meant by 0X?
17
MR. COBB: What is meant there -- and
18
maybe more correctly what I should have said
19
is 1X, but what that is referring to is the
20
treatability factor. And the Board's water
21
quality standards for many of the
22
contaminants that are listed for Class II are
23
derived based on the best available treatment
24
technology that's available for that
32
1
contaminant, and we generally try to use an
2
80 percent value just because many of them
3
are actually 99, so you are even more
4
economically reasonable if you use the
5
instigation 80 percent. The reason that
6
perchlorate is 1X is because there is no best
7
available treatment technology, so we didn't
8
factor up the numbers for perchlorate.
9
And then the other chemicals,
10
although when you get into the organics, it's
11
similar, but there's a couple of other
12
procedures that we used that are actually
13
highlighted on page 16 of my testimony. It's
14
a similar concept, but we use a few
15
additional scientific criteria. Perchlorate,
16
since it's organic, we look for any best
17
treatment technologies, and there are not.
18
So there is no treatability factor so it
19
doesn't get the multiple that some of the
20
other contaminants get.
21
MS. GEVING: So, Mr. Cobb, is it your
22
desire to change all of your references in
23
your written testimony to 1X or is it correct
24
to leave it at 0X?
33
1
MR. COBB: I think to be absolutely
2
technically correct, although I think
3
everybody knows what 0X means, if we really
4
wanted from a mathematical standpoint to be
5
correct, maybe it should be 1.
6
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: 1X.
7
MR. COBB: Yes. Or I think commonly
8
everybody knows we're not multiplying the
9
number.
10
MR. DAVIS: Next I'd like to ask you
11
about the table on page 12, where on the top
12
of page 12 arsenic is noted as a carcinogen
13
with an asterisk, and there are a number of
14
places where arsenic is listed both in the
15
proposal and in the table on page 14 where it
16
is not, so I was hoping that could clear it
17
up.
18
MR. COBB: That's just an oversight.
19
It is a carcinogenic. So there should be an
20
asterisk added.
21
MR. DAVIS: So page 14 on that table
22
should be an asterisk?
23
MR. COBB: Yes.
24
MR. DAVIS: And then in the rulemaking
34
1
proposal as well?
2
MR. COBB: Yes.
3
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: So you are referring
4
to there should be an asterisk next to
5
arsenic?
6
MR. COBB: It is a carcinogenic.
7
MEMBER RAO: While we are on the same
8
subject, I have one more. On page 11,
9
Mr. Cobb, of your pre-filed testimony you
10
noted that the carcinogens are noted in the
11
standards by an asterisk. Could you identify
12
whether dibenzo(a,h)anthracene whether it
13
should be listed under section 624.10(b) with
14
an asterisk to indicate that it's a
15
carcinogenic?
16
MR. COBB: In the testimony it's
17
marked. It should also be similarly marked
18
in the proposal.
19
MR. RAO: That's what I wanted to
20
clarify.
21
MR. COBB: Right.
22
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Mr. Davis, did you
23
have any more questions?
24
MR. DAVIS: Yes, just a couple more.
35
1
We already talked about figures 1 and 2. For
2
the record, the attached paper entitled
3
"Arsenic and Illinois groundwater" refers to
4
figures 1 and 2 which are not included in the
5
pre-filed testimony. And my question is
6
could you provide the two figures?
7
MR. COBB: Yes.
8
MS. GEVING: We'll provide those at the
9
second hearing.
10
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: And these are the
11
attachments you are referring to, the arsenic
12
study attached to Mr. Cobb's pre-filed
13
testimony?
14
MR. DAVIS: That's right.
15
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you.
16
MR. DAVIS: My next question is
17
multiple parts relating to page 9 of
18
Dr. Hornshaw's pre-filed testimony in which
19
he described the proposed 620.605(c) which
20
calls for setting the guidance level of a
21
chemical and the water solubility of that
22
chemical if the water solubility is less than
23
the calculated guidance level. And I would
24
like you to give me an example where this was
36
1
utilized in setting the standards, what
2
numbers were used in reaching that, and why
3
it was that you determined it was appropriate
4
to use that, although I think you did get
5
into that somewhat in your summary.
6
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes, I think I covered
7
that fairly well in my summary. And as an
8
example, if you look at Section 620.410(a)
9
and (b) the chemical anthracene, we are
10
proposing a standard of .043 milligrams per
11
liter based on water solubility. If you use
12
the IRIS toxicity values as the basis for
13
calculating a health base value, the
14
concentration in groundwater would be 2.1
15
milligrams per liter for Class I groundwater,
16
and 10.5 milligrams per liter for Class II
17
groundwater. Both values way exceed the
18
solubility, so we're proposing to have
19
solubility be the basis for the standard for
20
that chemical. And there are several others
21
in the rule that are similar to that.
22
MR. DAVIS: So the standard is proposed
23
043?
24
DR. HORNSHAW: That's correct.
37
1
MR. DAVIS: And the other numbers were
2
based on the health based result.
3
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'm sorry, could
4
you -- you trailed off there at the end.
5
MR. DAVIS: I said the other numbers,
6
the 2.1 and the 10.5 were the result of the
7
health based calculations.
8
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Dr. Hornshaw, that's
9
correct.
10
DR. HORNSHAW: That's correct.
11
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: All right. Thank
12
you.
13
MR. DAVIS: And then a follow-up on
14
that, could you please explain the difference
15
between effective solubility and listed or
16
laboratory solubility and which is used in
17
their rulemaking.
18
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes. I'm a little
19
confused about why you are asking about
20
effective solubility because it's not
21
included in the testimony. It's not used in
22
the rule making, but I'll give a definition
23
that Mr. Cobb pulled off of the Mississippi
24
Department of Environmental Qualities
38
1
Regulations, their definition for Effective
2
Solubility "Means the solubility of a
3
compound that will dissolve from a chemical
4
mixture, for example gasoline." The
5
effective solubility of a compound of a
6
chemical mixture is less than its aqueous
7
solubility.
8
MR. DAVIS: Okay. And then so the
9
aqueous solubility would be the listed or
10
laboratory solubility?
11
DR. HORNSHAW: That's correct.
12
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you. I'm
13
sorry, you had a follow-up?
14
MR. DAVIS: No, that was it for that
15
question.
16
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I had a related
17
question. Did you still have --
18
MR. DAVIS: I had one more, but go
19
ahead.
20
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Yes, thanks. This is
21
for either of you. The Agency lists water
22
solubility for the basis of several Class 1
23
and Class II standards, please provide
24
citations of the publications from which the
39
1
Agency derived the water solubility standard
2
to develop the standard that. Is that
3
something you could provide?
4
DR. HORNSHAW: I would have to do that
5
at the next hearing or maybe in a written
6
summary.
7
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: A number of our
8
questions we don't expect an on-the-spot
9
answer.
10
DR. HORNSHAW: I can explain a little
11
bit though.
12
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Sure, go ahead.
13
DR. HORNSHAW: USEPA also has a
14
hierarchy for physical chemical contents and
15
physical data sources. The preferred source
16
is the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix System,
17
which is an on-line database that anybody can
18
get to to pull down all kinds of physical
19
chemical contents, including solubility. My
20
guess is most of the values that we are
21
proposing come from this EPA database, but
22
there are some others and I would have to
23
check each individual chemical to make sure
24
which database the solubility value came
40
1
from. And those have also been recently
2
updated, as well as the toxicity contents.
3
So we're changing a lot of things in both
4
this rule and 620 because of the changes in
5
the physical chemical constants and the
6
toxicity constants.
7
MS. GEVING: Dr. Hornshaw, you said
8
both this rule and 620. Did you mean both
9
this rule and the TACO rule?
10
THE WITNESS: And the TACO rules.
11
MS. GEVING: Which have not yet been
12
proposed to the rule?
13
MEMBER RAO: I think it will be helpful
14
for the Board to have the names of those
15
publications or sources since what we have in
16
our library had different values for
17
solubility. So I think we'd like to get that
18
into the record as to what the Agency used as
19
solubility for various chemicals.
20
MS. GEVING: Dr. Rao -- Mr. Rao, would
21
it satisfy you if we did a table that listed
22
the chemical and its source?
23
MR. RAO: Yes. And like Mr. McGill
24
said, as we go through our questions, you'll
41
1
see that a lot of information can be put in a
2
table form.
3
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Mr. Davis?
4
MR. DAVIS: My last question refers to
5
pages five and six of Dr. Hornshaw's
6
pre-filed testimony in which he describes the
7
addition of the groundwater objectives from
8
TACO. And I was hoping that you could just
9
elaborate these in further detail as to why
10
you thought it was necessary to include these
11
chemicals in the groundwater value.
12
MR. COBB: Mr. Davis, is it okay if I
13
address that?
14
MR. DAVIS: Yes, whoever wants to
15
address it.
16
MR. COBB: Essentially the Illinois
17
groundwater Protection Act mandates to us to
18
develop Groundwater Quality Standards for
19
contaminants that have been detected and
20
confirmed in Illinois groundwater. Further,
21
as in my summary testimony, summary of my
22
testimony provided earlier, the Board has
23
requested us in R8914(b) opinion to continue
24
to provide regular updates of the Groundwater
42
1
Quality Standards. So for consistency
2
purposes and meeting the statutory
3
requirements, is one of the primary basis.
4
The additional secondary reason is the fact
5
that the Bureau of Land Permit Programs, and
6
the Federal Clean-Up Programs don't really
7
necessarily always use TACO or LUST. They
8
have their own. They use the Board's
9
groundwater quality standards. Leaking
10
underground storage tanks is what I meant by
11
the acronym LUST clean up programs. So we
12
were requested to develop these additional
13
standards for those contaminants that have
14
been detected to confirm by the Illinois
15
groundwater for those programs.
16
MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much.
17
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you. Are there
18
any other questions that any member of the
19
audience has for either Agency witness?
20
MR. DAVIS: Not at this time.
21
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: We'll move on with
22
some questions the Board has for the Agency.
23
Why don't we go off the record for a moment.
24
(Discussion off the record.)
43
1
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: We'll go back on the
2
record and add to the Board's questions.
3
MR. RAO: Our questions initially are
4
directed to Mr. Cobb, but any one of you can
5
answer this.
6
At page 11 of your pre-filed
7
testimony you state that the proposed
8
standards are based on either USEPA MCL or
9
Board MCL, a reference dose, also known as
10
RfD, in USEPA's Integrated Risk Information
11
System (IRIS) USEPA Health Effects Assessment
12
Summary Table (HEAST), RfD, Provisional Peer
13
Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV), RfD, and
14
IRIS Slope Factor, (Sfo).
15
First question, "Please clarify
16
whether USEPA MCLs are the same as the Board
17
MCLs. If not, please explain any differences
18
between the two."
19
MR. COBB: Yes. For arsenic we have
20
the pass-through requirement into
21
35Il.Ad.611, and for arsenic, you've already
22
established -- the Board has already
23
established a drinking water standard for
24
arsenic, so yes.
44
1
MR. RAO: "The proposed standards for
2
several inorganic and organic chemical
3
constituents are based on RfDs and Sfos
4
obtained from the various USEPA databases.
5
Please explain how the Agency used RfDs and
6
Sfos to derive the proposed standards for
7
various chemical constituents. Would the
8
Agency be able to update the tables on pages
9
12 and 13 of your testimony to include the
10
appropriate RfD values used to determine the
11
proposed standards? And also, would the
12
Agency be able to submit pertinent
13
documentation from the USEPA databases
14
concerning the RfDs and Sfos used to derive
15
the propose standards?"
16
It's a two-part question.
17
Basically what we are asking for is the
18
documentation and calculations that you did.
19
DR. HORNSHAW: All of the IRIS
20
reference dose information?
21
MR. RAO: Just the relevant, what was
22
the RfD used.
23
DR. HORNSHAW: Yes, we could do that.
24
MR. RAO: Because you have provided a
45
1
table. I think it's in Mr. Cobb's testimony.
2
If you could add a couple more columns to it
3
and add information to the specific
4
information to each of those chemicals, that
5
would be helpful for the record.
6
DR. HORNSHAW: So I'm clear, do you
7
want the individual chemicals that are
8
changed here; you want the basis for the
9
change?
10
MR. RAO: Yes. You have the basis in
11
the table saying it's IRIS, RfD or TACO
12
groundwater objective, and what we want to
13
know is what is the number you used.
14
DR. HORNSHAW: Oh, the actual value?
15
MR. RAO: Yes. The basis is already
16
there.
17
DR. HORNSHAW: That's what was
18
confusing me because everything was IRIS,
19
it's carcinogenic.
20
MEMBER RAO: Yes, but we want the
21
supporting documentation.
22
DR. HORNSHAW: You want the actual
23
number?
24
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'm sorry to
46
1
interrupt, but you are starting to talk over
2
each other and finishing each other's
3
sentences.
4
Dr. Hornshaw, you are clear on what
5
Mr. Rao is asking for?
6
DR. HORNSHAW: You want just the
7
reference dose number itself, correct?
8
MEMBER RAO: Yes.
9
DR. HORNSHAW: You don't want the
10
entire citation from the IRIS database?
11
MEMBER RAO: Yes, I know, but I think
12
the relevant information from the IRIS
13
database.
14
DR. HORNSHAW: That's easy. Yes, we
15
can do that.
16
MEMBER RAO: Please clarify whether any
17
of the proposed Class I standards are based
18
on the RfDs from USEPA's HEAST database?
19
DR. HORNSHAW: Again, to be clear, are
20
you talking about the new and updated
21
chemicals or the entire list of the
22
chemicals?
23
MEMBER RAO: I'm looking at Mr. Cobb's
24
testimony on pages 12 and 13 on the table.
47
1
On page 11, Mr. Cobb states that you relied
2
on HEAST's RfDs in coming up with some of
3
these standards. And when I look at the
4
table I didn't see HEAST mentioned anywhere
5
on those tables. So I just want to know
6
whether, first of all, you used information
7
from the HEAST database?
8
DR. HORNSHAW: The answer to that is
9
no.
10
MEMBER RAO: Okay.
11
DR. HORNSHAW: At this point HEAST is
12
just about the last choice for getting
13
toxicity constants. If none of the other
14
preferred sources have a constant, then we
15
will use HEAST because it's last updated in
16
1997. For this update we only -- internally
17
we decided we were only going to propose
18
standard that had a reference dose or cancer
19
slope factor in IRIS or the PPRTV table.
20
MEMBER RAO: Okay.
21
DR. HORNSHAW: We decided that even
22
before we started looking for tox constants.
23
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I'm sorry, for?
24
DR. HORNSHAW: Toxicity constants.
48
1
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Toxicity constants?
2
DR. HORNSHAW: The toxicity criteria
3
that we based calculations on. Before we
4
even started developing the new values
5
internally, we decided we were only going to
6
use the first two tiers of IEPA's tiered
7
system.
8
MEMBER RAO: Okay.
9
DR. HORNSHAW: And as it turned out,
10
all of the chemicals that we were proposing
11
for update had reference doses from IRIS so
12
you don't even see PPRTV as a source.
13
MEMBER RAO: So it's all right for us
14
to ignore the statement where it's said that
15
IEPA relied on the HEAST database?
16
MS. GEVING: Yes. If we could strike
17
that from the testimony officially from the
18
record.
19
DR. HORNSHAW: I apologize that's
20
probably something I should have elaborated
21
on in my testimony.
22
MEMBER RAO: Because when I was going
23
through that information I didn't find any
24
numbers from HEAST.
49
1
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: On page 11 of
2
Mr. Cobb's pre-filed testimony there is a
3
statement that some of the proposed standards
4
are based on MDLs used to derive Part 620,
5
Subpart F, Appendix A: Human Threshold
6
Toxicant Advisory Concentration for TACO
7
groundwater objectives under Part 742. Would
8
you please clarify whether all of the
9
proposed standards based on TACO groundwater
10
objectives are based on MDLs?
11
DR. HORNSHAW: Just for the record,
12
MDLs are method detection limits.
13
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Would you like me to
14
repeat the question?
15
MR. COBB: Yes, could you do that?
16
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: On page 11 of
17
Mr. Cobb's pre-filed testimony there is a
18
statement that some of the proposed standards
19
are based on MDLs used to derive the Part
20
620, Subpart F, Appendix A: Human Threshold
21
Toxicity Advisory Concentration for TACO
22
groundwater objectives. Please clarify
23
whether all of the proposed standards based
24
on TACO groundwater objectives are based on
50
1
MDLs?
2
MS. GEVING: We'd prefer to answer at
3
the second hearing if that's okay. We have
4
to do a little research.
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: The other question or
6
request is to explain how MDLs were used to
7
derive the proposed standards for which TACO
8
groundwater objectives are listed as the
9
basis for the standards; an explanation of
10
how MDLs were used to derive the proposed
11
standards for which you've indicated TACO
12
groundwater objectives are the basis.
13
MS. GEVING: We'll address that at the
14
second hearing too if that's okay.
15
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: The next request is
16
that, we noted that the proposal lists the
17
acronyms for several chemical constituents in
18
section 620.410. That's 620.410. Please
19
provide the chemical names for alpha-BHC,
20
MCPP, HMX, and lastly RDX.
21
MR. COBB: We can do that.
22
MS. GEVING: Do you need to do that at
23
the second hearing?
24
MR. COBB: Yes.
51
1
DR. HORNSHAW: HMX stands for high
2
mount explosive, but its technical name --
3
I'm not even go to try it. It's about this
4
long (indicating).
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: I could answer, but
6
I'm not testifying.
7
Next question. On page 14 of
8
Mr. Cobb's pre-filed testimony there is a
9
statement that "The proposed Class II
10
standard for inorganic constituents are based
11
on irrigation and livestock watering from a
12
1972 report published by the National Academy
13
of Sciences entitled 'Water Quality
14
Criteria.'" Would the Agency be able to
15
submit a copy of the NAS report or at least
16
the relevant pages of the report?
17
MR. COBB: We can do that. I'm not
18
sure -- because that was an attachment as
19
part of our original testimony for R914(b) as
20
well, so I don't know if that's in the
21
Board's record, but we can certainly do that.
22
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: It's probably in our
23
clerk's office or microfiche, but it would be
24
helpful to have it in R078-18.
52
1
MR. COBB: Just to make sure you know
2
that was part of, that was the same pattern
3
used in the original set of standards and the
4
updates.
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you.
6
MR. GEVING: Mr. Hearing Officer, could
7
you provide me at the end of the hearing a
8
list of chemicals for which you want their
9
actual name?
10
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Sure. I can repeat
11
it now or we can do it at the end of the day.
12
MS. GEVING: At the end of the day is
13
fine.
14
MEMBER RAO: For the benefit of the
15
court reporter, now we are on question 7.
16
On page 16 of your pre-filed
17
testimony you state that a five-fold
18
treatment factor was used to derive a Class
19
II standard for organic compounds with a Koc
20
value greater than that of ethylbenzene or
21
Henry's law constant greater than that of
22
methylene chloride. Please comment on
23
whether the same factors were considered in
24
deriving the TACO Class II groundwater
53
1
objectives, which are also being proposed as
2
the Class II standards in the instant
3
proposal.
4
MR. COBB: I'll have to defer to Tom on
5
that.
6
DR. HORNSHAW: I'm pretty sure the
7
answer is, yes, other than when it would
8
result in a value that's higher than
9
solubility.
10
MEMBER RAO: Okay. And we are on
11
question 9 now.
12
All of the proposed Class II
13
standards, which are based on water
14
solubility, are set at the same level as the
15
Class I standards except for benzo(a)pyrene,
16
benzo(k)fluoranthene, and methoxychlor.
17
Please explain the Agency's intent for
18
setting these at levels different than Class
19
I standards.
20
DR. HORNSHAW: Could you repeat the
21
question or the chemicals generated?
22
MEMBER JOHNSON: The name of the
23
chemicals?
24
DR. HORNSHAW: You said benzo(a)pyrene,
54
1
benzo(k)fluoranthene --
2
MEMBER RAO: Benzo(a)pyrene and
3
methoxychlor, the levels are not the same as
4
Class I. I want to know how the water
5
solubilities address separating these
6
standards.
7
DR. HORNSHAW: For benzo(a)pyrene, the
8
Class II value is limited at solubility.
9
MEMBER RAO: Then should we limit the
10
Class I also at water solubility?
11
DR. HORNSHAW: I believe the Class I
12
standard doesn't exceed the solubility or
13
equals the solubility. I can't remember for
14
sure -- I'm sorry, I take that back, the
15
Class I standard is a federal MCL, which we
16
don't change.
17
MEMBER RAO: I thought under the
18
hierarchy you were going to limit everything
19
to water solubility.
20
MR. COBB: With the exception of the
21
MCL.
22
MEMBER RAO: Is that right?
23
DR. HORNSHAW: Apparently. I may have
24
to look at that one. I know that's the case
55
1
for methoxychlor because once you get point
2
.045 you are at the water solubility. If you
3
multiply the Class I standard by 5 you would
4
be at 0.2 which far exceeds the solubility.
5
And I believe that's the exact same thing for
6
benzo(k)fluoranthene. If you multiply Class
7
I by five it comes out to .00085, which
8
exceeds the solubility by a small margin. I
9
think I'm going to have come to back to you
10
on benzo(a)pyrene.
11
MEMBER RAO: Okay.
12
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: The next question:
13
According to the table on page 16 of Mr.
14
Cobb's pre-filed testimony and Errata Sheet
15
No. 2, the proposed Class II standards for
16
benzo(a)pyrene is 0.001 milligrams per liter.
17
On page 17 of that pre-filed testimony there
18
is a statement that the existing Class II
19
standard should be amended to 0.00002
20
milligrams per liter based on its water
21
solubility. Please clarify which value
22
represents the limit based on water
23
solubility of benzo(a)pyrene, 0.0016
24
milligrams per liter or 0.0002 milligrams per
56
1
liter.
2
DR. HORNSHAW: That's essentially the
3
same question that was asked, and we are
4
going to come back and check the solubility
5
to be sure.
6
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Okay. Thank you.
7
MEMBER RAO: Now, moving on to question
8
11.
9
The proposed Class II standards for
10
explosive compounds at 620.420(c) are set at
11
the same levels proposed for Class I
12
groundwater. Please clarify whether Koc
13
values or the Henry's law constants for these
14
compounds are below threshold values
15
considered by the Agency for setting
16
standards based on treatability.
17
MR. COBB: This is similar to
18
perchlorate where we didn't -- for most of
19
the organic contaminants we looked at the Koc
20
and those factors, but in these factors we
21
just looked to see if there was a best
22
available treatment technology, which there
23
is none and that was the basis. So it's the
24
same as for the perchlorate.
57
1
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: On page 18 of Mr.
2
Cobb's pre-filed testimony, this is regarding
3
the proposed changes to Class IV groundwater
4
quality standards pertaining to explosive
5
contaminants, there is a statement that the
6
designation of a previously mined area is
7
being proposed because it moves the
8
compliance point from the pit of the mine to
9
the boundary of the permitted area in order
10
to establish off-site contamination. Could
11
you clarify whether the proposed changes are
12
intended to apply only to "previously mined
13
area" which is a defined term in Section
14
620.110, and that definition limits the area
15
to land disturbed or effected by coal mining
16
operations prior to February 1, 1983.
17
MR. COBB: Yes.
18
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you. Page two
19
of Dr. Hornshaw's pre-filed testimony there
20
is a reference to a USEPA memorandum dated
21
December 5, 2003 concerning Human Health
22
Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk
23
Assessments. Would the Agency be able to
24
submit a copy of the memo?
58
1
DR. HORNSHAW: Oh, yes. I think that's
2
supposed to be 2002, but I'll check. It may
3
be a typo in there. But, yes, we can submit
4
a copy of that memo.
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you.
6
On page 3 of that pre-filed
7
testimony there is a note, one of the issues
8
concerning the new hierarchy of toxicity
9
values pertains to the retirement of
10
Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value by
11
USEPA. The first question is, can you
12
clarify whether retirement of a PPRTV for a
13
chemical means that USEPA has established a
14
permanent reference dose for the chemical or
15
just dropped the value from its database?
16
DR. HORNSHAW: They've dropped the
17
value from it's database. THE PPRTV people
18
send quarterly updates to everybody who
19
prescribes. The values that are retired,
20
their retirement is probably because they
21
have not progressed in the pipeline. The
22
PPRTV database is basically all the chemicals
23
that the EPA is looking for in addition to
24
the IRIS database and provided ahead of time.
59
1
If the chemical is not going to move on to
2
the higher standards, they have to retire
3
those chemicals. The most recent update
4
didn't have any chemicals listed as retired,
5
so I'm not sure where they are going with
6
this at this point.
7
MEMBER RAO: Moving on to the next
8
question, 15. On page four of your pre-filed
9
testimony regarding -- this is for
10
Dr. Hornshaw again -- regarding subchronic
11
exposures, you state that the Agency used the
12
IRIS values with the Uncertainty Factor
13
removed for some of the chemical constituents
14
as the first tier when available. Could you
15
please identify the chemical constituents for
16
which this procedure was used to develop the
17
proposed standards.
18
DR. HORNSHAW: I only included this as
19
an example of some of the problems we were
20
having. This actually pertains to TACO
21
because we don't use subchronic values in the
22
620 rules. We only use the values.
23
MEMBER RAO: So this doesn't apply --
24
DR. HORNSHAW: It doesn't apply. I
60
1
just included that as one of the examples
2
where we were having some internal
3
discussions on where to proceed.
4
MEMBER RAO: So all of the RfD values
5
that you used from IRIS are without any
6
modification?
7
DR. HORNSHAW: That's correct.
8
MEMBER RAO: On page 4 you state that
9
changes needed in TACO because of the new
10
hierarchy will be addressed when the next
11
revision to TACO rules are proposed to the
12
Board. Please clarify whether the TACO
13
groundwater objective for 1, 1-Dichloroethane
14
of 0.7 milligrams per liter, which is lower
15
than the proposed Class I standards of 1.4
16
milligrams per liter is one of the needed
17
revisions that we dealt with in the TACO
18
rulemaking?
19
DR. HORNSHAW: Could you tell me the
20
two concentrations again?
21
MEMBER RAO: Yes, the TACO groundwater
22
objective concentration for 1,
23
1-Dichloroethane 1.4 milligrams. So my
24
question is whether the TACO groundwater
61
1
objective will be revised at a later date?
2
DR. HORNSHAW: I think it will, but I'm
3
going to have to come back to you on that
4
just to be sure.
5
MEMBER RAO: I'm moving on to the next
6
question. On page five you state that the
7
Toxicity Assessment Unit decided to include
8
in the proposed rulemaking any chemical from
9
the Bureau of Land's master list that had a
10
toxicity value in the IRIS database. Please
11
explain the rationale for limiting the
12
chemicals to only those with IRIS toxicity
13
values instead of considering the USEPA's
14
three-tier hierarchy.
15
DR. HORNSHAW: I've kind of answered
16
this already. We were going to use IRIS and
17
PPRTV because those are EPA supported
18
toxicity values. It turns out none of the
19
chemicals that we were proposing values from
20
the PPRTV database, all of them were IRIS
21
data that were used in calculating the
22
values. We decided internally not to use the
23
third-tier because these are all more or less
24
provisional values that are probably subject
62
1
to change and modification so we limit it to
2
the two tiers. So we had solid toxicity data
3
for this rulemaking.
4
MEMBER RAO: Since you said that you
5
didn't use any of the PPRTV, RfD, would you
6
please clarify Mr. Cobb's testimony on page
7
12, where he has the table listing, the basis
8
for all the proposed Class I standards for
9
1-Dichloroethane that the basis is listed as
10
PPRTV.
11
DR. HORNSHAW: I may have to take back
12
all I just said.
13
MEMBER RAO: You may want to take a
14
look at this. It may be based on the RfD
15
too. I mean the groundwater objectives for
16
TACO.
17
DR. HORNSHAW: I'll check the entire
18
database that we have for 1-dichloroethane
19
and come back to you in written form or at
20
the next hearing.
21
MEMBER MELAS: Next hearing.
22
MEMBER RAO: On page 7 of your
23
testimony you state that additional
24
corrections are necessary for several
63
1
reasons, including the revision of the
2
selection criteria for groundwater standards
3
for carcinogenic chemicals. You note that
4
the revised criteria require a comparison of
5
each carcinogenic constituent's health based
6
concentration (1 in million risk level) with
7
its corresponding analytical method detection
8
limit, the greater of which is compared with
9
the constituent's reported water solubility.
10
Could you please clarify whether analytical
11
detection limit represents the carcinogenic
12
statutes MDR or method detection limit or its
13
practical quantification limit.
14
DR. HORNSHAW: I misspoke in my
15
testimony. It should be lowest practical
16
quantitation limit, PQls, which I think is
17
already testified.
18
MEMBER RAO: That takes care of my next
19
question because I wanted to know if we
20
wanted to change the 620 to MDL?
21
DR. HORNSHAW: No.
22
MEMBER RAO: Okay, thank you very much.
23
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Thank you. For the
24
record, does anyone else have any further
64
1
questions for either Agency witness? Seeing
2
none, why don't we go off the record for a
3
moment.
4
(Discussion off record.)
5
CHAIRMAN MCGILL: Back on the record.
6
Just for the record, is there anyone else who
7
wishes to testify or pose a question today?
8
Seeing no response, I'll move on to a few
9
procedural items before we adjourn? Just
10
hang on for one moment. I want to make sure
11
nobody signed this sign-up sheet and wandered
12
off.
13
I'm going to run through the Section
14
27(b) economic impact study matter on the
15
record, and if it's applicable it will be
16
covered. If it turns out that it is not,
17
then no harm. The Board as I mentioned did
18
request an economic impact study. Section
19
27(b) of the Environmental Protection Act
20
requires the Board to request that the
21
Department of Commerce and Economic
22
Opportunity conduct an economic impact study
23
or ECIS on proposed rules before the Board
24
adopts the rules. DCEO may within 30 to 45
65
1
days request to produce a study on the
2
economic impact of the proposed rules. The
3
Board must make the economic impact study or
4
DECEO's explanation for not conducting one
5
available to the public at least 20 days
6
before public hearing. On March 26, 2008,
7
the Board accepts DCEO's request to conduct
8
an ECIS on the Agency's rulemaking proposal.
9
DCEO has not responded to the Board's
10
request. Is there anyone who would like to
11
testify regarding this matter?
12
Seeing none, I'll mention that we
13
have a second hearing in this rulemaking
14
scheduled for July 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.
15
That hearing will be held at the Agency's
16
building 1000 East Converse in Springfield,
17
enter through the north entrance of the
18
building, and it will be in the TQM room.
19
Pre-filed testimony for the second hearing
20
must be filed with the clerk of the Board by
21
July 11th. The mailbox rule does not apply
22
to this filing. So the clerk must receive
23
the pre-filed testimony by July 11th. Of
24
course you can file electronically through
66
1
our clerk's office on-line or pool. I will
2
issue a hearing officer order this week which
3
will mention the pre-filed testimony deadline
4
for our second hearing and also set forth the
5
questions proposed by the Board today to
6
assist the Agency in its preparation of
7
responses for the second hearing. Copies of
8
the transcript of today's hearing should be
9
available on the Board's website by June
10
30th. If anyone has any questions about the
11
procedural aspects of this rulemaking, you
12
can contact me, my phone number is
13
(312) 814-6983. My e-mail is
14
mcgillr@ipcb.state.il.us.
15
Are there any other matters that
16
need to be addressed at this time? Seeing
17
none, I would like to thank everyone for
18
participating today, and this hearing is
19
adjourned.
20
(Whereupon the hearing was
21
adjourned.)
22 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
23
) SS.
24 COUNTY OF C O O K )
67
1
2
DENISE ANDRAS, being first duly sworn, on oath
3 says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter doing
4 business in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and
5 State of Illinois.
6
That she reported in shorthand the proceedings
7 had at the foregoing hearing of the above-entitled
8 cause.
9
And that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of her shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid
11 and contains all the proceedings had at the hearing.
12
13
14
___________________________
15
DENISE ANDRAS, CSR
CSR NO. 084-003437
16
17 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
18 Before me this ____ day
19 Of _______, A.D., 2008.
20
_______________________
21
Notary Public
22
23
24