BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

RECEVED

CLERKtS

OFFICE

JAN

15 2009

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

TIERED

APPROACH

TO CORRECTIVE

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

(35 Iii.

Adm. Code 742)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R09-9

(Rulemaking-Land)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

PoNution

Control

Board

NOTICE

Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

James

R. Thompson

Center

100

W. Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(Via

First Class

Mail)

Matt Dunn

Environmental

Bureau Chief

Office of

the Attorney General

James

R.

Thompson Center

100 W.

Randolph,

12

th

Floor

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

(Via First

Class Mail)

Participants

on the Service

List

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Bill Richardson

Chief

Legal

Counsel

Illinois

Dept. ofNatural

Resources

One

Natural Resources

Way

Springfield,

Illinois

62702-127

1

(Via

First Class Mail)

Richard

McGill

Hearing

Officer

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE that

I

have

today

filed with the

Office of

the Clerk

of

the.

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency’s

(“Illinois

EPA”)

Responses

to

Pre-filed

Questions

and

Errata Sheet

Number

2

a copy of each

of which

is

herewith

served

upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:

.7

mberly A.

qeving

Assistant

CouAsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

---

DATE:

January

13, 2009

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

---

CEV

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

CLERK’S

OFFICE

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

15

2009

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

)

R09-9

Pollution

Control

Board

TIERED

APPROACH

TO

CORRECTiVE

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

ACTION

OBJECTiVES

)

(35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

)

ILLINOIS

EPA’S

RESPONSES

TO

PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS

NOW

COMES

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”),

by

and

through

one

of

its

attorneys,

Kimberly

A.

Geving,

and

submits

the

following

Pre

Filed

Answers

in Response

to the

Pre-Filed

Questions

of

Kara

Magyar,

Gail

Artrip,

P.E.,

and

the

Illinois

Environmental

Regulatory

Group

(“IERG”).

Question

of Kara

Magvar

Question

1)

Ms.

Magyar

requested

that

the

Illinois

EPA

provide

its

rationale

for

assuming

the

value

of

Q

50

i

being

zero

at

a

distance

greater

than

five

feet.

Answer:

In

Tiers

1 and

2,

the

default

value

for

the

volumetric

rate

of

soil

gas

into

a

building

(Q

01

i)

is

zero,

meaning

that

advection

is not

factored

into

the

calculation

of

remediation

objectives.

This

is

because

other

parameter

values

are

suitably

conservative.

In

Tier

3,

however, remediation

objectives

for the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route

must

take

into

account

the possible

migration

of

chemicals

caused

by

both

diffusion

and

advection.

If

contamination

is within

five

feet

of an

existing

or

potential

building

or

man-made pathway,

then

a

Qii

value

of

83.33

cm

3

/sec

must

be

used

in calculating

the

attenuation

factor

(equation

J&E8a),

unless

additional

site-specific

information

indicates

a

different remediation

objective

is reasonable

and

appropriate.

A

Q

soil

assessment

under

Tier

3

is

a

balancing

factor

to

make

sure

alternative

evaluations

remain

health-protective.

1

---

The

five

foot

setback

and

83.33cm

3

/sec

values

are from

USEPA’s

Users

Guide

for

Evaluating

Subsuiface

Vapor

Intrusion

Into

Buildings

(EPA!68/W-02/33,

February

2004).

Questions

of

Gail

Artrip,

P.E

(Carison

Environmental)

Question

1) If

I have

soil and

ground

water

issues

on

my

site, in

addition

to

evaluating

indoor

inhalation

on

my

site as

per

the proposed

TACO

rules,

would

I

also

have

to evaluate

potential

off-site

lateral

migration

of measured

impacts

via

Equation

R

26 to

assess

the

potential

for

(ground

water

component

of)

indoor

inhalation

exceedances

on my

neighbor’s

property

as

well?

As an alternative,

could

I install

monitoring

wells

along

our

shared

property

boundary

to measure

actual

ground

water

concentrations?

If

either

approach

results

in

potential

off-site

exceedances

of

the

ground

water component

of

indoor

inhalation,

what

will I be

required

to do

(neighbor

notification,

ELUC

requiring

installation,

operation,

and

maintenance

of a

building

control

technology,

etc.)? If

an

ELUC

is

required

on my

neighbor’s

property

and he

is reluctant

to

comply,

can

I

still

get

my

NFR?

Is

it reasonable

to

assume

that only

ground

water

(not

soil) transport

onto

adjoiners’

properties

will

require

evaluation?

Answer:

To

determine

if off-site

properties

are at

risk

from

indoor

inhalation

route

exposures,

site

evaluators

have

the

option

of

running

TACO

equation

R26,

collecting

groundwater

samples,

or collecting

soil

gas

samples

at

the

down

gradient

property

boundary.

With

respect

to

the

indoor

inhalation

route,

soil

gas data

trumps

groundwater

sample

data and

R26

modeling

results.

Groundwater

sample

data

trumps

R26

modeling

results

when

addressing

the

indoor

inhalation

route.

2

---

If R26

predicts

groundwater

impacts

will

migrate

off-site

at

concentrations

above

the

groundwater

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

but

soil

gas

concentrations

at

the source

or

down

gradient

property

boundary

of the

remediation

site

are

below

the

soil

gas

remediation

objectives,

no further

analysis

of

off-site

properties

is

necessary

in

regards

to

the

indoor

inhalation

route.

If R26

predicts

groundwater

impacts

will migrate

off-site

at

concentrations

above

the

groundwater

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

but

groundwater

samples

at

the

down

gradient

property

boundary

are

below

the indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

no

further

analysis

is necessary

in

regards

to

the

indoor

inhalation

route.

Using

both

the J&E

and

the

R26

models

to

predict

down

gradient

risks

associated

with

the

indoor

inhalation

route

is an

extremely

conservative,

but

allowable,

option.

Off-site

properties

impacted

above

the indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives

will require

an ELUC.

Illinois

EPA

will

not issue

a

No Further

Remediation

letter

without

an

ELUC

in place

when

off-site

properties

are affected.

It is

reasonable

to assume

that

only

contaminants

in groundwater,

not soil,

will

migrate

off-site,

but exceptions

to this

scenario

may

occur.

Question

2)

P.

9

of Gary

King’s

Nov.

14,

2008

pre-filed

testimony

says,

“Building-specific

default

values

for the

following

parameters..

.The

same

default

values

must

be

used

for the

same

parameters

when

performing

Tier

2

calculations.

The actual

values

of

these

parameters

do

not have

a great

impact

on

the remediation

objectives;

however,

the

default

values

are based

on

a

conservative

representation

of

the

type of

buildings

that

are or

may

be present

at

the site

in

the

future.

Without

these

conservative

values,

restrictions

would

be required

on the

minimum

size

of

a

building

that

can

be

3

---

constructed

over

the contaminated

area.”

I

understand

the

Illinois

EPA’s

institutional

control-related

challenge,

but

take

issue with

the

defaults

not

having

a

great impact

on the

remediation

objectives.

In

our

preliminary

analysis,

we are

finding

that

the

building

dimensions

can

significantly

alter the

Tier

2

remediation

objectives.

Our clients

are

industrial

users,

and

instead

of

65

feet x

65

feet x

10 feet

tall

(the

default

assumptions),

tend

to have

buildings

that are

500 ft

x 500

ft x 25

ft tall, and

this

does have

a dramatic

effect

on

the

Tier

2

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives.

In putting

together

our

SRP

reports,

we

will run

the

Tier 2

calculations

using

the

building

dimension

defaults.

If

there

are

no exceedances,

the outcome

is straightforward.

However,

if

the

Tier

2 remediation

objectives

using

the

default

building

dimensions

predict

an

exceedance,

our

inclination

is

to

also run

the

Tier

2 calculations

using

the

existing

building-specific

dimensions,

and

present

both

outcomes.

If

no

exceedances

are

predicted

using

the

building-specific

dimensions,

is there

a proposed

institutional

control

option

that

would

allow

us to

avoid

putting

in

a

(unnecessary)

building

control

technology

until

the

existing

building

is

demolished

and a

future

building

is constructed?

For

example,

perhaps

our NFR

has a

condition

that

requires

a building

control

technology

or max.

size

for future

construction

(when

the

existing

building

is

torn down).

Somehow

the

Illinois

EPA’s

approval

letter/NFR

will

acknowledge

that

the

current

building

conditions

are acceptable.

Surely

no one

thinks

it’s a good

idea

to

install

an

unnecessary

mitigation

system

(based

on

modeling)

in

an existing

building

just to

get

an

NFR. Obviously

if

our

Tier

2 calculation

with

building-specific

inputs indicates

a problem,

we

would

have

to install

a building

control

technology.

We recognize

that Tier

3

does

allow

for use

of building-specific

dimensions,

however,

are finding

that

inclusion

of

the advection

component

in the

4

---

modeling

has a

profound

effect

on the

Tier

3 remediation

objectives.

In some

instances,

it overwhelms

the

benefits

of

the

larger

building.

In

general,

it

is not intuitive

that

a

larger

building

is

more

prone

to cause

or promote

the

advection

phenomenon.

Answer:

Illinois

EPA

has

not

put forward

any institutional

control

option

to

allow the

use

of

site-specific

dimensions

of

existing

buildings

under Tier

2.

As

proposed,

building

size parameters

may

only

be adjusted

under

Tier

3.

The

assessment

under

Tier

3 is a

balancing

factor

to make

sure

alternative

evaluations

remain

health-protective.

Question

3) P.

15

of Gary

King’s

pre-filed

testimony

notes

that when

comparing

the

calculated

soil gas

remediation

objective

to

soil gas

samples

from

the

site,

Section

742.717(k)

instructs

site

evaluators

to use

soil gas

data

collected

at a

depth

at

least

3 feet

below

the

ground

surface...”

Does

this contradict

742.717(k)

where

it

discusses

the

need

for

soil

gas

samples

to

have

been

obtained

from

a depth

of

5

feet?

Answer:

As filed,

Section

742.717(k)

states:

The calculated

soil gas

remediation

objective

shall be

compared

to

concentrations

of soil

gas

collected

at

a depth

at least

3 feet

below

ground

surface

and

above

the saturated

zone.

If a valid

sample

cannot

be

collected,

a soil

gas

sampling

plan shall

be

approved

by

the

Agency

under

Tier

3.

This

is consistent

with

Gary King’s

pre-filed

testimony.

Ms. Artrip

is referencing

an

earlier

draft

version

of

the

proposed

amendments.

Question

4)

P. 18

of

Gary

King’s

pre-filed

testimony

says, “It

is

possible

to

calculate

a

Tier 2

soil remediation

objective

more stringent

than

the

Tier

1 soil

remediation

objective

for the

indoor

inhalation

pathway;

in such

cases,

the

Tier 1

remediation

objective

applies.”

This

seems

to

contradict

742.717(1).

5

---

Answer:

Section

742.717(1)

does

not

exist.

Ms. Artrip

is

referencing

an

earlier

draft

version

of

the proposed

amendments.

Questions

of the

IERG

Question

1)

The

outdoor

inhalation

pathway

can

be excluded

in

several

ways.

Can

the

vapor

intrusion

pathway

be

excluded

in the

same

manners?

Is

it

correct

that

the

primary

difference

impacting

the

manner

in

which

the

pathways

can

be

excluded

is

that

the

vapor

intrusion

pathway

must

consider

the

impact

a building

(i.e.,

chimney

effect)

has

on

the

migration

route?

Answer:

No and

no.

To exclude

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway,

site

evaluators

must

follow

the

requirements

of

Section

742.3

12.

Question

2) Can

the

Agency

provide

draft

language

that will

be

included

in

No

Further

Remediation

(“NFR”)

Letters

for

the

following

circumstances:

a.

Where

a

site

with a

building

location

achieves

the

remediation

objectives

for

all

pathways,

including

vapor

intrusion;

b.

Where

there

is

no

building

on

the

site;

and

c.

Where

there

is

no building

on

the

site

when

the

NFR

Letter

is

issued,

but

there

is

a

likelihood

of

construction

of

a building

with

a known

location

in

the future?

An

unknown

location?

Answer:

As

part

of

this

rulemaking,

Illinois

EPA

has not

provided

language

to

be

used

in

future

No

Further

Remediation

letters.

This

is consistent

with

past

practice.

However,

in

response

to

the

specific

scenarios

presented

as

part

of this

question,

Illinois

EPA

makes

the

following

observations:

a.

The

NFR

letter

will

be

worded

as before

(pre-indoor

inhalation).

6

---

b. and

c. are

the

same

for

purposes

of the

NFR

letter.

Illinois

EPA

intends

for the

entire

site

to be

safe

for

current

and

future

building

occupants,

regardless

of

where

those

buildings

are

located.

Question

3)

Is

it the

Agency’s

intention

to

require

in

an

NFR

letter

issued

for

scenario

2(c)

above:

(1)

the

use

of a Building

Control technology

for

future

construction,

or (ii)

that

the

site

be

re-enrolled

and

re-evaluated

pursuant

to the

applicable

program

requirements?

Answer:

At

a site

with

no existing

buildings,

the

NFR

letter

may

require

installation

of

a Building

Control

Technology

(“BCT”)

for

a future

building.

If

a

site

owner

prefers

not

to

install

the

BCT,

they

have

the option

of re-enrolling

the

site

and

cleaning

up

the

remaining

contamination

so

that an

institutional

control

is no

longer

necessary.

Due

to this

question

and

the preceding

two

questions,

Illinois

EPA

would

like

to

clarify

that

the

location

of

an

existing

building

does

not

control

evaluation

of

the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route.

Illinois

EPA’s

approach

to management

of

the indoor

inhalation

pathway

is

site-wide

and

based

on

the

location

of

the contaminant

source.

Illinois

EPA

intends

for

the

entire

site

to

be

safe

for current

and

future

building

occupants,

regardless

of

where

those

buildings

are

located.

Question

4)

Tn

terms

of

the vapor

intrusion

pathway,

will

there

be

a

difference

between

the

requirements

in an

NFR

Letter

and

those

stated

in an

ELUC?

Can

the

Agency

provide

an

explanation

of the

impact

the

proposed

vapor

intrusion

pathway

will

have

on

the

effectiveness

of

ELUCs?

7

---

Answer:

For

every

exposure

route,

the

NFR

letter

addresses

on-site

contamination

and

the

ELUC

addresses

off-site contamination.

ELUCs

for

the

indoor

inhalation

route

will

be

the

same

as ELUCs

for

any

other

exposure

route.

Question

5)

If

a

responsible

party

is

required

to evaluate

off-site

impacts

and

identifies

some

impact,

is an

ELUC

necessary?

How

will

off-site

vapor

intrusion

from

groundwater

pathway

be

institutionally

excluded

on

adjacent

properties?

Are

ELUCs

an

institutional

control

option?

Answer:

ELUCs

are

required

anytime

off-site

contamination

above

the

remediation

objectives

is left

in place.

Refer

to Section

742.3

12 for

pathway

exclusion

options

for

the

indoor

inhalation

route.

Question

6) Does

the

Agency

intend

to

amend

the

model

ELUC

language

to

address

the

impacts

of

the

vapor

intrusion

pathway?

Answer:

Yes,

as

necessary.

Question

7)

Will

the Agency

require

actual

data

or allow

modeling

of

groundwater

to

evaluate

the

vapor

intrusion

pathway

to

an off-site

building?

Answer:

To

determine

if

off-site

properties are

at

risk

from

indoor

inhalation

route

exposures,

site

evaluators

have

the

option

of

running

TACO

equation

R26,

collecting groundwater

samples,

or

collecting

soil

gas

samples

at the

down

gradient

property

boundary.

With

respect

to

the

indoor

inhalation

route,

soil gas

data

trumps

groundwater sample

data

and

R26

modeling

results. Groundwater

sample

data

trumps

R26

modeling

results

when

addressing

the indoor

inhalation

route.

If

R26

predicts

groundwater

impacts

will

migrate

off-site

at

concentrations

above

the

groundwater

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

but soil

gas

concentrations

at

8

---

the source

or down

gradient

property

boundary

of

the

remediation

site

are

below

the

soil

gas

remediation

objectives,

no

further

analysis

of

off-site

properties

is

necessary

in

regards

to

the

indoor

inhalation

route.

If R26

predicts

groundwater

impacts

will migrate

off-site

at

concentrations

above

the groundwater

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

but

groundwater

samples

at

the

down

gradient

property

boundary

are

below

the

indoor

inhalation

remediation

objectives,

no

further

analysis

is

necessary

in

regards

to the

indoor

inhalation

route.

Using

both

the J&E

and

the

R26

models

to

predict

down

gradient

risks

associated

with

the

indoor

inhalation

route

is

an

extremely

conservative,

but

allowable,

option.

Question

8)

If

there

is

a

well

at

the property

boundary

and

it

exceeds

the

remediation

objectives

(“ROs”)

for

the vapor

intrusion

groundwater

pathway,

will

the

site

still

qualify

for

an

NFR

letter?

For

example,

the

remediation

site

might

not

have

any

buildings

and

the

indoor

inhalation

ROs

might

not

apply,

but

presumably

the

groundwater (and

exceedance)

might

go off-site.

Answer:

Yes,

if

the

site meets

the soil

gas

remediation

objectives

at

the

property

boundary.

If

soil

gas concentrations

exceed

remediation

objectives,

the

site

evaluator

must

investigate

off-site.

If

contamination

is

identified

off-site,

the

site

evaluator

must

either

clean

up the

contamination

or

negotiate

an

ELUC.

The

absence

of any

buildings—

on-site

or

off-site-—does

not

matter

when

performing

the

site

investigation.

Question

9)

What,

if

any, obligations

under

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

does

a

responsible

party

have

in terms

of

the

vapor

intrusion

groundwater

pathway

for

off-site

properties?

9

---

Answer:

The

same

obligations

exist

as

with

any

other exposure

pathway

when

off-site

properties

are contaminated.

Question

10)

The

default

f

0

used

for

calculating

Csat

for

the outdoor

inhalation

pathway

(0.6%)

is the default

f

0

for soils

in the

0-3

foot depth

interval.

Is

that correct?

a.

Hypothetically speaking,

when

calculating

a

site-specific

Csat

for

this

pathway,

could

a remedial

applicant

use

a site-specific

f

0

for this

same

depth

interval?

b.

Would

the

answer

to 10(a)

change,

if the

sample

being

screened

came

from,

for

example,

the

8-10 foot

depth

interval?

Answer:

Yes,

the

default

f

0

used

for

calculating

Csat

for

the

outdoor

inhalation

pathway

is

the

default

f

0

for

soils

in the

0-3

foot

depth

interval.

a.

Yes.

b.

Yes. For

the outdoor

inhalation

pathway,

the

surface

f

0

value--

either

default

or

site-specific—must

be

used.

Question

11)

The Agency’s

website

(http://www.epa.state.il.us/landltaco/vapor

intrusion-rulemaking.html,

visited

December

11,

2008)

contains

some

“answers

to

common

questions

about

the

proposed

rule”:

Q.

Will

Illinois

EPA

re-open

sites

that have

already

earned

a No

Further

Remediation

letter

and

require

them to

evaluate

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway?

A. No.

Illinois

EPA

would

take

action

only if

new site-specific

information

indicates

a

vapor

intrusion

problem.

In such

an

event,

the

action

would begin

with

voidance

of

the

NFR

letter.

10

---

Q.

I

have

an

approved

remedial

action plan

under

the

existing

TACO

regulations.

What

happens

if

the

rule

takes

effect

before

I

receive

the

NFR

letter?

A.

You

will

be

required

to

evaluate

the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route.

Also,

the

remedial

action

plan

would

need

to be

revised

to

ensure

the

site

meets

the

updated

remediation

objectives

for

the

other

pathways.

It

would

seem,

by

these

above-quoted

questions

and

answers,

that

if a

responsible

party

is

operating

in

accordance

with

an

approved

remedial

action

plan,

upon

the

adoption

of

these

proposed

amendments

that

approved

plan

will

no

longer

be

valid.

Is

this

correct?

a.

Are

the

answers

to the

above-quoted

questions

somehow

derived

from

a

portion

of

the

proposed

amendments?

i.

If

so,

where?

ii.

If

not,

what

is

the

basis

upon

which

the

above

quoted

answers

are

derived?

b.

How

many

active

projects

does

the

Agency

believe

will

be

impacted

by

this

policy?

What

does

the

Agency expect

the

additional

costs

to

be

for

such

active

projects?

c.

Is

the

Agency

prepared

to

expeditiously

review

and

approve

changes

to

remedial action

plans?

If so,

what

actions

are

being

taken

in

preparation?

11

---

d.

Does

the Agency

expect

responsible

parties

to be

performing

the

evaluations

required

by

these

proposed

amendments

prior

to the

evaluations

being

adopted

as a

final rule?

e.

How

does

the Agency

intend

to handle

the situation

of a party

who

has

submitted

a

Remedial

or

Corrective

Action Completion

Report

prior

to

the

adoption

of the amendments,

but has

not yet

received

an NFR

Letter?

f.

Does

the

policy

reflected

on the Agency’s

website

apply

only

to

modifications

to plans

necessitated

by

the new

vapor intrusion

pathway,

or

does it also

apply to the

other changes

introduced

by

this

proposal?

If

the policy

does apply

to other

changes,

can you please

explain

why

the Agency

has

chosen

to

deviate

from

past practice,

where an

approved

plan

would

not have

been required

to be

re-drafted?

In addition,

when

will

the

updates

to the Part

742 tables

become

effective?

g.

Does

the owner

of a former

remediation

site with

a

“pre-indoor

inhalation”

NFR Letter

have the

option

to use the

standard “building

control technology”

requirement

for the

construction

of a new

building

without

re-enrolling

the site?

Answer:

The answer

to

the opening

paragraph

is yes.

a. Yes.

There

is no

citation

to a

specific

rule

section,

but based

on previous

experience,

Board

rules have

effective

dates

that govern

Agency

implementation.

When

the Board

adopts

the

rules,

that is

when

they

become

12

---

effective,

unless

the

Board

expressly

states

otherwise

in

its

final opinion

and

order.

b.

Unimown.

Cost

increases

are

expected

to

vary

widely

depending

on site

and

contaminant

characteristics

and

the willingness

of

affected

property

owners

to

accept

building

control

technologies

and

institutional

controls.

c.

Yes.

Staff

training

began

last

fall

and

will

continue.

d.

No.

However,

in keeping

with

current

practice,

responsible

parties

are

encouraged

to

evaluate

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway

on

a site-specific

basis

if impacts

are

suspected

or ifperforming

a full

risk

assessment

under

Tier

3.

The

methodology

may

differ

from the

proposed

rules,

but is

subject

to

illinois

EPA

approval.

e.

Illinois

EPA

has

proposed

that

the

rules

take

effect

immediately

upon

adoption.

It

will

be

up to

the

Board

to

decide

the implementation

schedule.

If

the

rules

are

adopted

prior

to

issuance

of

an NFR

determination,

then

a party

will

be

required

to

evaluate

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway.

f.

See answer

to

e) above.

When

the

rules

become

effective,

any

site that

has

not closed

will

be

subject

to

ij,

of

the

amendments,

including

the

updated

remediation

objectives

for

other

exposure

routes.

Illinois

EPA

is

not

deviating

from

past

practice.

This

is

consistent

with

past

practice.

g.

Yes,

but

no

new

NFR

letter

will

be

issued

unless

the

owner

re-enrolls

the

property

in

the Site

Remediation

Program.

Question

12)

Can

a responsible

party

use

past

soil

gas

data

for

compliance

with

the

vapor

intrusion

ROs

that

were

obtained

using

different

sampling

methods

than

13

---

described

in

the

proposed

amendments?

If no,

is

there

an

opportunity

on a

case-by-case

basis

to use

the

past

sampling

data?

Answer:

The

validity

of

past

sampling

data

will

be

determined

by

Illinois

EPA

on a case-by-case

basis.

Question

13)

The

proposed

Section

742.227,

Demonstration

of

Compliance

with

Soil

Gas

Remediation

Objectives

for the

Indoor

Inhalation

Exposure

Route,

sets

forth

the

requirements

for

collection

of soil

gas

data.

It is unclear

how

these

requirements

apply

to

exclusion

of

the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route

under

Tier

3.

Section

742.93

5(a)(3)(B)

seems

to

require

that

samples

conform

with

the

above

described

requirements

of

Section

742.227,

yet subsection

(b)

seems

to

envision

sampling

procedures

other

than

those

described

in

Section

742.227.

Which

interpretation

is intended?

a.

Subsection

(d)

of

Section

742.227

specifies

that

soil gas

samples

be

collected

at a depth

of at

least

3

feet.

Is it

the Agency’s

intent

to

require,

in all

circumstances,

that

subsiab

samples

of

soil

gas

be collected

at a depth

of

3 feet

or

greater

under

Tier

3?

Answer:

Both

interpretations

are

intended.

Section

742.935(a)(3)(B)

is

available

for

sites

choosing

to

use

sub-slab

soil

gas

data.

Site

evaluators

under

Tier

3 who

opt

to

collect

exterior

soil

gas

samples

are

directed

to follow

Section

742.227.

Sub-slab

samples

are

generally

collected

immediately

under

the

slab;

depths

will

vary

depending

on building construction.

Section

742.227(d)

is specific

to

soil

gas samples

taken

beneath

the

ground

surface,

not

beneath

the

slab

of

a

building.

That

concludes

the

Illinois

EPA’s

responses

to pre-filed

questions.

Illinois

EPA

witnesses

will

be available

at

hearing

to

provide

further

testimony

regarding

these

questions

or

any other

questions

that may

arise.

14

---

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLTNOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

7

Kimberly/A.

Geving

Assistant

Counsel

Dated:

January

13,

2009

1021

North

Grand

Ave.

East

P0

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

15

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOA1t

C

E

CLEj<’

5

OFFgcr

iAN

152009

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

OllUtj

STATE

OF

Control

ILUNOIS

Board

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

)

R09-9

TIERED

APPROACH

TO

CORRECTIVE

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

ERRATA

SHEET

NUMBER

2

NOW

COMES

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”)

through

one

of

its

attorneys,

Kimberly

Geving,

and

submits

this

ERRATA

SHEET

NUMBER

2

to

the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

and

the

participants

listed

on

the

Service

List.

Tracey

Hurley

and

Gary

King

will

provide

oral

testimony

in

support

of

these

changes

at

the

hearing

on January

27,

2009.

Section

742.1O5

A no

further

remediation

determination

issued

by

the

Agency

under

this

Part

addresses

the

potential

of

contaminants

present

in soil, soil

gas,

and

groundwater

to

reach

human

receptors.

It

does

not

evaluate

the

safety

or protectiveness

of

buildings

on

or

off-site.

742.227

At

the

end

of

the

opening

paragraph

to

this

Section

please

add

the

following

sentence:

Proposals

to

use

sub-slab

soil

gas

data

shall

follow

Section

742.935(b).

Appendix

A,

Table

L

For

the

chemical

m-Xylene

change

1 .50E+00

to

1

.50E+02.

Appendix

B,

Table

A

For

the

chemical

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

(p

Dichlorobenzene)

change

the

Ingestion

value

from

1

---

120e

to

5,500”

and

change

the

Outdoor

Inhalation

value

from

3•3e

to

12000

b

[NOTE:

this

is a

change

to

an

Errata

Sheet

1 change.

We are

adding

to our

original

change.]

Appendix

C,

Table

M

For the

symbol

Q

0

i

in

the

column

entitled

“Source”

delete

the

references

to

“Part

742.505(a)(2)(D)

and

Part

742.505(b)(5).”

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

,/kimberly

4/Geving

(

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

DATE:

January

13,

2009

1021

North

Grand

Ave.

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

2

---

STATE

OF

ILLiNOIS

)

COUNTY OF

SANGAMON

)

)

PROOF

OF

SERVICE

I,

the undersigned,

on oath

state

that

I have

served

the

attached

Responses

to Pre

Filed

Questions

and

Errata

Sheet

Number

2 upon

the

persons

to

whom

they

are

directed,

by

placing

a copy

of

each

in

an

envelope

addressed

to:

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

Matt

Dunn

Environmental

Bureau

Chief

Office

of

the Attorney

General

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph,

12

th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Participants on the

Service

List

Bill

Richardson

Chief

Legal

Counsel

Illinois

Dept.

of

Natural

Resources

One

Natural

Resources

Way

Springfield,

Illinois

62702-1271

Richard

McGill

Hearing

Officer

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R. Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

and

mailing

them

(First

Class

Mail)

from

Springfield,

Illinois

on

January

13,

2009,

with

sufficient postage

affixed

as indicated

above.

SUBSCRIBED AND

SWORN

TO

BEFORE

ME

This

13

th

day

of_January,

2009.

Notary

Public

OFFICIAL

SE,L

RNDA

QTRy

I;QMMj55

PUBLIC

STATE

OF

ILUNOIS

EXPIRES

11-3-2Q

---

rniiuiig

ervice tAsL...

rage

i or

i

Party Name

Role

City

& State

Phone/Fax

1021 North

Grand Avenue

Springfield

217/782-

Interested

Illinois

Environmental

Party

Protection

Agency

P.O.

East

Box

19276

9276

IL 62794-

217/782-

5544

9807

Kimberly

A.

Geving,

Assistant

Counsel

Annet Godiksen, Legal

Counsel

1021

North

Grand Avenue

Springfield

217/782-

IEPA

Petitioner

East

P.O.

Box 19276

9276

IL

62794-

217/782-

5544

9807

Kimberly A.Geving,

Assistant

Counsel

2 17/523-

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland

Avenue

Springfield

4900

Complainant

Post

Office Box

5776

IL 62705-

217/523-

5776

4948

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

EPI

South Holland

16650

South Canal

Interested Party

IL

60473

Bob Mankowski

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

1400

East

Touhy Avenue

DesPlaines

Interested

Party

Suite 100

IL

60019-

3338

Lisa Frede

312/853 -

Bellande

& Sargis

Law

Group, LLP

19 South

LaSalle

Street

Chicago

8701

Interested

Party

Suite 1203

IL

60603

312/853-

8702

Mark Robert Sargis

217/788 -

Hanson Engineers,

Inc.

Springfield

Interested

Party

1525

South Sixth

Street

2886

IL

62703-

217/788-

2450

2503

Tracy

Lundein

773/380-

Conestoga-Rovers

& Associates

8615 West Bryn

Mawr

Avenue

Chicago

9933

Interested Party

IL

60631

773/380-

6421

Douglas

G.

Soutter

312/814-

Office

of

the Attorney

General

Environmental

Bureau

Chicago

0660

Interested Party

69

W.

Washington, 18th

Floor IL 60602

312/814-

2347

Matthew J.

Dunn, Division Chief

Navy Facilities and Engineering

Command

847/688-

201

Decatur

Avenue

Great

Lakes

2600

IL

60088-

Building

1A

Interested Party

2801

847/688-

2319

Mark Schultz,

Regional

Environmental

Coordinator

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

100

W.

Randolph

St.

Chicago

312/814-

Interested Party

Suite 11-500

IL

60601

3620

312/814-

http ://www.ipcb.state.iLus/cool!external/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=

13

524&notifytype=Se...

1/13/2009

---

mi

1AL...

i-’age

z

01

J

3669

Dorothy

M. Gunn, Clerk of

the

Board

Richard McGill, Hearing

Officer

Commonwealth

Edison

10

South

Dearborn

Street

Chicago

Interested

Party

35FNW

IL

60603

Diane H.

Richardson

Clayton

Group Services

Downers

Interested

Party

3140 Finley

Road

Grove

IL

60515

Monte Nienkerk

Weaver Boos

& Gordon

2021

Timberbrook

Lane

Springfield

Interested Party

IL

62702

Elizabeth

Steinhour

Andrews

Interested

Environmental

Party

Engineering

3300 Ginger

Creek Drive

IL

Springfield

62711

Kenneth W. Liss

Graef Anhalt Schloemer

& Associates,

Inc.

8501 West

Higgins

Road

Chicago

Interested

Party

Suite

280

IL

2801

60631-

Dr. Douglas

C. Hambley, P.E.,

P.G.

Missman Stanley

&

Associates

Rockford

Interested

Party

333 East State

Street

IL

61110-

0827

John

W. Hochwarter

Jeffrey Larson

Trivedi Associates,

Inc.

2055

Steeplebrook

Court

Naperville

Interested

Party

IL

60565

Chetan Trivedi

217/782 -

Illinois Department of Natural

Resources

Springfield

Interested

Party

One

Natural

Resources

Way

IL

62702-

1809

1271

217/524-

9640

Stan

Yonkauski

William

Richardson, Chief Legal

Counsel

Suburban

Interested

Laboratories,

Party

Inc.

4140 Litt

Drive

IL

Hillside

60162

708-544-

3260

Jarrett Thomas, V.P.

Illinois

Department

of Transportation

2300

S. Dirksen

Parkway

Springfield

Interested Party

Room

302

IL

62764

Steven Gobelman

McGuire

Woods

LLP

77 W.

Wacker

Chicago

312/849-

Interested Party

Suite

4100

IL

60601

8100

David Rieser

Reott Law Offices, LLC

35 East Wacker

Drive

Chicago

3

12/332-

Interested Party

Suite

650

IL 60601

7544

Raymond T. Reott

Jorge

T.

Mihalopoulos

Environmental Management

&

Technologies,

Inc.

2012

W. College

Avenue

Normal

309/454-

Interested Party

Suite

208

IL 61761

717

Craig Gocker, President

http://www.ipcb.state.iLus/cool!extemal/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=

13

524&notifytype=Se...

1/13/2009

---

1-’rinting Service

List....

Page

3

of

3

217/522-

IL Environmental

Reoulatory

Group

215 East Adams

Street

Springfield

5512

Interested

Party

IL

62701

217/522-

5518

Alec M. Davis

312/742-

Chicago

Department

of Law

30

N. LaSalle

Street

Chicago

3990

Interested

Party

Suite

900

IL 60602

312/744-

6798

Charles

A.

King,

Assistant Corporation

Counsel

SRAC

Decatur

2510 Brooks Drive

Interested

Party

IL

62521

Harry

Walton

Burns & McDonnell

Engineering

Company,,

210

South

Clark

Street, Suite

Chicago

Inc.

Interested

Party

The

2235

Clark

Adams

Building

IL

60603

6306751625

Lawrence L.

Fieber,

Principal

Total

number of

participants:

34

http

://www.ipcb.state.i1.us/coo1Jexterna1/casenotifrNew.asp?caseid=

13

524&notifytype=Se...

1/13/2009

---