BEFORE

THE

ILLiNOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

iN

THE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

TIERED

APPROACH

TO

CORRECTIVE

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

(35

111.

Adm.

Code

742)

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100W.

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)

NOTICE

POllution

STATE

°FILLJNO,

Control

8oacJ

Bill

Richardson

Chief

Legal

Counsel

Illinois

Dept.

of

Natural

Resources

One Natural

Resources

Way

Springfield,

Illinois

62702-1271

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Richard

McGill

Hearing

Officer

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R. Thompson

Center

100W.

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

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”)

Motion

for

Leave

from

the

Filing

and

Service

Requirements,

Supplemental

Studies

and

Reports

List, Errata

Sheet

Number

3,

and the

Pre-filed

Testimony

of

Heather

Nifong,

Thomas

C.

Hornshaw,

and

Tracey

Hurley

a copy

of

each

of

which

is herewith

served

upon

you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

jtKimberly

fGeving

Assistant

ct6unsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

)

)

R09-9

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

CLERK’S

OlFlCE

FEB23)

009

---

DATE: February 20, 2009

1021 North

Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

---

FEB

232009

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

.

tiancoLINOjS

iN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO

)

R09-9

TIERED

APPROACH TO

CORRECTiVE

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35

Ill. Adm.

Code

742)

)

)

MOTION

FOR

LEAVE

FROM

FILING

AND

SERVICE

REQUIREMENTS

NOW

COMES

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”)

and,

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.500,

moves

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”) to waive

the

filing

requirement

pursuant

to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.306(a)

and

waive

the

service

requirement

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.304(b)

for one

of the

Illinois

EPA’s

Incorporations

by

Reference.

In support

of

its

motion,

the

Illinois

EPA

asserts

that

it believes

the

document

was

included

in

its

initial

filing

of

the proposed

amendments

in

this matter.

Additionally,

the

Illinois

EPA

was

required

to

pay another

copyright

fee

to

ASTM

International

for

this

extra

copy,

which

is today

filed

with

the

Board.

Furthermore,

each

additional

copy

would

require

a

separate

copyright

fee,

resulting

in great

expense

to the

Illinois

EPA.

WHEREFORE,

the

Illinois

EPA

seeks

relief

from

the

filing

and

service

requirements

for

the

following

title:

(1)

ASTM

D

1946-90,

Standard

Practice

for

Analysis

of

Reformed

Gas

by

Gas Chromatography,

Reapproved

2006.

1

---

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By(

I

Kimbey’fy/A.

Assistaf CounselGeving

U

Division

of Legal Counsel

DATED:

February 20, 2009

1021 North

Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

2

---

Supplemental

Studies

and

Reports

List

?Oj(uti

ILLINOIS

Agency

for Toxic

Substances

and

Disease

Registry.

(November

2007).

Minimal

Risk

Levels

(MRLs).

Agency

for

Toxic

Substances

and

Disease

Registry.

(December

2006).

Minimal

Risk

Levels (MRLs).

California

EPA.

Office

of Environmental

Health

Hazard

Assessment.

Toxicity

Criteria

Database.

http

://www.

oehha.

ca.gov/risk!ChemicalDB/index.asp

Heath,

Ralph

C.

(1983).

Basic

Ground-Water

Hydrology.

United

States

Geological

Survey

Water-Supply

Paper

2220.

http :1/pubs.

er.usgs.

gov/di

vuIWSP/wsp_2220

.pdf

Howard,

Philip

H.,

W.F.

Jarvis,

W.M.

Meylan,

and

E.M.

Michalenko.

(1991).

Handbook

of

Environmental

Degradation

Rates.

Lewis

Publishers,

In.

Chelsea,

Michigan.

Available

at

the

Illinois

EPA

Library, Call

Number:

363.7384

HOWA2

National

Institute

for Occupational

Safety

and

Health

(NIOSH).

(2005).

NIOSH

Pocket

Guide

to

Chemical

Hazards.

http

://www.

cdc

. gov/nioshlnpg/default.html

Syracuse

Research

Corporation

(SRC).

CHEMFATE

Database.

SRC.

Syracuse, NY.

http

://www.

srcinc.com/what-we

do/databaseforms.aspx?id=3

81

Syracuse

Research

Corporation

(SRC).

PHYSPROP

Database.

SRC.

Syracuse,

NY.

http

://www.

srcinc.com!what-we

do/databaseforms

. aspx?id=3

86

United

States

Geological

Survey.

Water

Basics

Glossary

of Terms.

http

://capp.water.usgs.

gov/GIP/h2o_gloss/

Last

modified

January

13,

2009.

U.S.

EPA.

(July

1997).

Health

Effects

Assessment

Summary

Tables.

FY

1997

Update. EPA

Publication

No.

EPA

540/R-97-036.

Available

at

http

://nepis.

epa.

gov

1

---

U.S.

EPA.

Integrated

Risk Information

System.

http

://cfpub.epa.

gov/ncealiris/index.

cfm

U.S.

EPA.

Provisional

Peer Reviewed

Toxicity

Values.

Superfund

Health

Risk Technical

Support

Center.

National

Center

for

Environmental

Assessment,

Office

of Research

and

Development.

Cincinnati,

OH

45268,

(513)

569-7300.

U.S.

EPA.

(January

2004).

Superfund

Chemical

Data

Matrix.

http ://www.

epa.

gov/superfundlsites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

U.S.

EPA.

(July

2004).

Water9,

Version

2.0.

http

://www.

epa.

gov/ttnlchief/software/water/

2

---

Jtc

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

r

2009

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENI)MENTS

TO

)

R09-9

TIERED

APPROACH

TO

CORRECTIVE

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

ERRATA

SHEET

NUMBER 3

NOW

COMES

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”)

through

one

of its

attorneys,

Kimberly

Geving,

and

submits

this

ERRATA

SHEET

NUMBER

3 to the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

and

the participants

listed

on

the

Service

List.

Tracey

Hurley,

Tom

Hornshaw,

and

Heather

Nifong

will

provide

oral

testimony

in

support

of

these

changes

at

the

hearing

on

March

17,

2009.

Section

742.200

“Capillary

Fringe”

means

the

zone

above

the

water

table

in which

water

is held

by surface

tension.

Water

in

the

capillary

fringe

is

under

a

pressure

less

than

atmospheric.

“Carcinogen”

means

a

contaminant

that

is

classified

as

a

category

A] or

A2

carcinogen

by

the

American

Conference

of

Governmental

Industrial

Hygienists,

a

category]

or 2A/2B

carcinogen

by

the

World

Health

Organization

‘s International

Agency

for

Research

on

Cancer;

a “human

carcinogen”

or

“anticipated

human

carcinogen”

by

the

United

States

Department

of

Health

and

Human

Service

National

Toxicological

Program;

or

a

category

A

or B1/B2

carcinogen

or as

“carcinogenic

to

humans”

or “likely

to

be

carcinogenic

to

humans”

by the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

in the

integrated

risk

information

system

or

a final

rule

issued

in

afederal

Register

notice

by

the

USEPA.

[415

ILCS

5/58.2]

1

---

“Residential

Property”

means

any

real

property

that

is

used

for

habitation

by

individuals,

or

where

children

have

the

opportunity

for

exposure

to

contaminants

through

soil

ingestion

or inhalation

(indoor

or

outdoor)

at

educational

facilities,

health

care

facilities,

child

care

facilities

or

outdoor

recreational

areas.

[415

ILCS

5/58.2]

“Saturated

Zone”

means

a

subsurface

zone

in

which

all

the interstices

or

voids

are

filled

with

water

under

pressure

greater

than

that

of

the

atmosphere.

“Unconfined

Aquifer”

means

an

aquifer

whose

upper

surface

is a

water

table

free

to

fluctuate

under

atmospheric

pressure.

“Water

Table”

means

the

top

water

surface

of

an

unconfined

aquifer

at atmospheric

pressure.

742.2

10

Add

a new

Incorporation

by

Reference:

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(2005).

“Guidelines

for

Carcinogen

Risk

Assessment

(2005)”.

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

Washington,

DC,

EPA

Publication

No.

EPA!630/P-

03/OO1F,

2005.

(Available

online

at

http

://cfpub.epa.

gov/ncealrafl’recordisplay.cfm?deid

=116283).

742.225(b)(5)

Delete

this

new

subsection

in its

entirety.

742.225(d)

If

a

person

chooses

to

composite soil

samples

or

average

soil

sample

results

to demonstrate

compliance relative

to

the

outdoor

and

indoor

inhalation

exposure

routes

route

or

ingestion

routes,

the following requirements

apply:

742.510(b)

Groundwater remediation

objectives

for

the

groundwater

component

of

the

groundwater

ingestion

exposure

route

are

listed

in Appendix

B,

Table

E.

However,

Appendix

B, Table

E must

be

corrected

for

cumulative

effect

of

mixtures

of

similar-acting

noncarcinogenic

chemicals

as

set

forth

in

Sections

Section

742.505(b)(3)

and

(b)(4).

2

---

Appendix

A, Table

A

For

the

chemical

2-Chiorophenol

(ionizable

organic)

change

the

footnote

from

b

to

Remove

the

chemical

Methoxychior

from

the

table.

Appendix

A,

Table

E

Under

the

Circulatory

System

column

add

(ingestion

only)

after

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene.

Under

the

Kidney

column

remove

Nitrobenzene.

Under

the

Liver

column

remove

Nitrobenzene.

Under

the

Respiratory

System

Column

add

Nitrobenzene

(inhalation only)

after

the

chemical

Nickel.

Appendix

A, Table

F

Under

the

Kidney

column

add

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

after

the chemical

1 ,2-Dibromo-3

-

chloropropane

(ingestion

only).

Under

the

Liver

column

add

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

after

the

chemical

Methylene

Chloride.

Appendix A,

Table

I

For

the

chemical

Arsenic

change

the Class

I

Groundwater

Remediation

Objective

from

0.10

to

0.01.

Appendix

A,

Table

L

For

the

chemical

2-Butanone(MEK)

move

the

entire

row

to

come

after

the chemical

Butanol.

For

the

chemical

2-Chiorophenol

(ionizable

organic)

add

a new

footnote

“a”

after

the

chemical.

In footnote

b

add

the

word

“was”

before

“calculated”.

Add

a new

footnote

for

pH

of

6.8.

If soil

pH

is

other

than

6.8,

a site-specific

Cshould

be

calculated

using

equations

Si

9

and

J&E6a

and

the

pH-specific

Koc

values

in

Appendix

C

Table

I.

Appendix

B,

Table

A

The

entire

row

for

the

chemical

2-Chlorophenol

should

be

moved

and

entered

alphabetically

under

the

Ionizable

Organics.

For

the

chemical

Di-n-octyl

phthalate

change

the

Class

I and

Class

II values

from

5d

to

5.2’.

For

the

chemical

Isopropylbenzene

(Cumene)

change

the

Class

II

value

from

460T

to

3

---

For

the chemical

Methoxychlor

change

the

Outdoor

Inhalation

value

from

14

d

to

change

the

Class

J

value

from

4

•

5d

to

8O,

and

change

the

Class

II

value

from

4

•

5d

to

400’.

[Note:

this

is

a

change

to

an

amendment

we

made

in

Errata

Sheet

1]

For

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

under

the

Ingestion

column

make

the

following

change:

iQ

39

b

Under

the

Outdoor

Inhalation

column

change

the

value

from

77

b,x

to

2

.

2

g.

Under

the

Class

I column

change

the

value

from

O.02r

to

o.078T.

Under

the

Class

II

column

change

the

value

from

O.02’to

0.078”.

Under

the

ADL

column

make

the

following

change:

O26.

For the

chemical

2,4,5-TP

(Silvex)

remove

the

footnote

“i”

in

the Class

I

and Class

II

columns.

For

the chemical Vanadium

change

the

footnote

“b”

to an

“r”.

For

the

chemical

2,4-Dinitrophenol

add

a

footnote

“i” after

the

value

in

the

Class

I

and Class

II

columns.

For

the chemical

MCPP

(mecoprop)

correct

the

spelling

of “mecoprop”

and

add

a footnote

“i”

after

the

value

in

the

Class

I

and

Class

II

columns.

For

the chemical

Arsenic

make

the

following

change

in the

Class

I column:

001

m,r

45

mf

Appendix

B,

Table

B

For the

chemical

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

change

the

Class

II value

from

200’

to

For

the chemical

Butyl

benzyl

phthalate

change

the

Class

I and

Class

II

values

from

1

,

000

d

to

340’.

The

entire

row

for

the chemical

2-Chlorophenol

should

be moved

and entered

alphabetically

under

the

Ionizable

Organics.

For

the

chemical

Di-n-octyl

phthalate

change

the

Class

I

and Class

II values

from

51

to

5.2’’.

4

---

For

the

chemical

Isopropylbenzene

(Cumene)

change

the

Class

II

value

from

460

d

to

For

the

chemical

Methoxychior

change

both

of

the

Outdoor

Inhalation

values

(Industrial/Commercial

and

Construction

Worker)

from

14

d

to

change

the

Class

I value

from

4.5”

to

80T,

and

change

the

Class

II value

from

4.5’

to

400r.

[Note:

this

is

a

change

to

an

amendment

we

did

in

Errata

Sheet

1]

For

the chemical

2-Methyiphenol

(o-Cresol)

we

made

an

error

in

Errata

Sheet

Number

1.

We

added

a footnote

“a”

to

the value

in

the

Construction

Worker

Outdoor

lithalation

column.

This

footnote

should

have

been

a

For

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

under

the

Industrial/Commercial

Ingestion

column

make

the

following

change:

4100

b

1000

b

Under

the

IndustriallCommercial

Outdoor

Inhalation

column

change

the

value

from

120

b

to

4•3e

Under

the

Construction

Worker

Ingestion

column

make

the

following

change:

l,2OO’

1,000”.

Under

the

Construction

Worker

Outdoor

Inhalation

column

change

the

value

from

79

b

to

3.6”.

Under

the

Class

I

column

change

the

value

from

O.02r

to

0.078r.

Under

the

Class

II column

change

the

value

from

o.02r

to

0.078r.

For

the

chemical

2,4,5-TP

(Silvex)

remove

the

footnote

“i”

in

the

Class

I

and

Class

II columns.

For

the

chemical

Trichioroethylene

change

the

Construction

Worker

Outdoor

Inhalation

value

from

8.8e

to

2.9”.

For

the

chemical

2,4-Dinitrophenol

add

a footnote

“i”

after

the

value

in

the

Class

I and

Class

II

columns.

For

the chemical

MCPP

(mecoprop)

add

a footnote

“i”

after

the

value

in

the

Class

I and

Class

II

columns.

For

the

chemical

Arsenic

make

the

following

change

in

the

Class

I

column:

001

m,1

Ooffhf.

5

---

Appendix

B, Table E

For the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

make

the

following

change

in the

Class

I column:

0.014c

ppp35e

Under

the

Class

II

column make

the following

change:

O.014c

ppp35e

Appendix

B,

Table

F

For

the chemical

Nitrobenzene

change

the

Class

I

value from

0.0035c

to

O.014c.

Change

the Class

II

value

from

0.OO35’

to

0.014c.

Appendix

B,

Table

G

The

chemical

Isopropylbenzene

is not

in

alphabetical

order

and should

be moved

one row

up

(above

Mercury).

For

the

chemical

Nitrobenzene

change the

Soil

Residential

value

from

140

b

to

4.0”.

Change

the

Soil

Industrial/Commercial

value from

380’

to 30’’.

Change

the Groundwater

Residential

value

from

770

b

to

23

d•

Change

the

Groundwater

Industrial/Commercial

value from

2

,

100

h

to

160’’.

Change

the

Soil

Gas

Residential

value

from

310

b

to

90&

Change the

Soil

Gas

Industrial/Commercial

value

from

1

,

700

g

to

66’.

Appendix

C,

Table

B

In

the Source

column

for the Symbols

RfC,

RiD

0

,

SF

0,

and

URF

add the

following

link after

“Illinois

EPA”:

http ://www.epa.state.il.us/land!taco/toxicity

values.xls.

Strike

footnote

a:

USEPA, Office

of Solid

Waste

and

Emergency

Response.

EP’SQO

95/03

6.

Updated

Quarterly.

Appendix

C,

Table D

In

the

Source

column

for the

Symbols RID

1

,

Rfl)

0

,

SF

1,

and SF

0 add

the

following

link after

“Illinois

EPA”:

http

://www.epa.

state.il.us/land/taco/toxicity

values.xls.

Strike

footnote

a: USEPA

Office of Solid

Waste

and

Emergency

Response.

EP’SQO,

95/036.

Updated Quarterly.

Appendix

C,

Table

E

Add

a

footnote

“e”

after

the

table’s

heading:

Section

742.Table

E: Default

Physical

and

Chemical

Parameters.

At the end

of the table

the

new footnote

will

read as

follows:

e

The

values

in

6

---

this

table

were

taken

from

the following

sources

(in

order

of

preference):

SCDMS

online

database

(http

://www.

epa.

gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tool

s/scdm.htm);

CHEMFATE

online

database

(http://www.

srcinc.comlwhat-we

do/databaseforms.aspx?id=3

81);

PhysProp

online

database

(http

://www.

srcinc.

corn/what-we

do/databaseforms.aspx?id3

86);

Water9

(http

://www.

epa.

gov/ttnlchieflsoftware/water/)

for

diffusivity

values;

and

Handbook

of

Environmental

Degradation

Rates

by

P.H.

Howard

(1991)

for

first

order

degradation

constant

values.

Appendix

C,

Table

L

Replace

equation

J&E

1 with

the

following

equation:

TRxAI.

x365—

indoor—air

—

EDxEFxURFx1OOO

g

Replace

equation

J&E2

with

the

following

equation:

THQx

A

1

x

365

days

x

RfC

RU

yr

indoor-air

ED

x

EF

Add

a note

under

the

equation

J&E3

as

follows:

Note:

24.45

equals

the

molar

volume

of

air

in

liters

at

normal

temperature

(25°C)

and

pressure

(760

mm

Replace

equation

J&E5

with

the

following

equation:

—

x(o,

+ç

xp

-1-H;%

x6j

—

Hxpx

I

lO

cm

3

3

x

kg

m

lOg

7

---

Replace

equation

J&E7

with

the

following

equation:

Replace

equation

J&E13

with

the

following

equation:

Appendix

C,

Table

M

For

the symbol

Csat

in the

column

entitled

“Parameter”

change

“Soil

vapor

concentration”

to

“Soil

vapor

saturation

concentration.”

Delete

the

notes

at the

end

of the

table:

SSL

“Technical

Background

Document

for

Draft

Soil

Screening

Level

Framework,

Review

Draft”,

July

1994

SSG

“Soil

Screening

Guidance: User’s

Guide”

EPA/5401R-96/018,

April

1996.

US EPA,

2004a.

User’s

Guide

for

Evaluating

Subsurface

Vapor

Intrusion

into

Buildings. February

2004.

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

RO

=

ROsoiigas

H

xi000—-

360O

hr

Division

of Legal

Counsel

8

---

DATE:

February 20, 2009

1021

North Grand Ave.

East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

9

---

FEB

23

2Oüg

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

ST,-E

?oiutj

...iF

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

)

roj

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

)

R09-9

TIERED

APPROACH

TO CORRECTIVE

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

PRE-FILED

TESTIMONY

OF

HEATHER

NIFONG

At

the request

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

during

the

January

27,

2009

hearing

on amendments

to 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

Part

742,

Illinois

EPA

has

reviewed

the

existing

definition

of

“residential

property”

and

considered

the

inclusion

of

new

definitions

for

“capillary

fringe,”

“saturated

zone,”

and “water

table.”

Illinois

EPA

agrees

that

the

definition

of

“residential

property”

should

be

revised

to

clarify

the

addition

of

the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route.

The

amended

definition

now

reads

as

follows:

“Residential

property”

means

any

real

property

that

is used

for

habitation

by

individuals,

or

where

children

have

the

opportunity

for

exposure

to

contaminants

through

soil

ingestion

or

inhalation (indoor

or outdoor)

at educational

facilities,

health

care

facilities,

child

care

facilities,

or

outdoor

recreational

areas.

Next,

illinois

EPA

agrees

that

regulatory

definitions

for

“capillary

fringe,”

“saturated

zone,”

and

“water

table”

should

be

included

in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

742.

Additionally,

the

Illinois

EPA

proposes

that

a fourth

term,

“unconfined

aquifer,”

be

included.

The

new

definitions set

forth

below

have

been

taken

from

the

United

States

Geological

Survey,

Water

Basics

Glossary

of Terms.

The

citation

for

this

document

will

be added

to the

Illinois

EPA’s

list

of

studies

referenced

during

the

Agency’s

indoor

inhalation

rulemaking

development.

1

---

“Capillary

Fringe”

means

the

zone above

the

water

table

in which

water

is

held by

surface

tension.

Water

in the

capillary

fringe

is

under

a

pressure

less than

atmospheric.

“Saturated

Zone”

means

a

subsurface

zone

in which

all the

interstices

or voids

are

filled

with

water under

pressure

greater

than that

of

the

atmosphere.

“Water

Table”

means

the

top

water

surface

of an

unconfmned

aquifer

at

atmospheric

pressure.

“Unconfined

Aquifer”

means

an aquifer

whose

upper

surface

is

a water

table

free

to

fluctuate

under

atmospheric

pressure.

To

describe

the

relationship

between

these terms,

Illinois

EPA

directs

the Board

to

page

four

of the

following

document: Basic

Ground-Water

Hydrology,

United

States

Geological

Survey

Water-Supply

Paper

2220

(Exhibit

1

to my

testimony).

This

single

page

contains

both

a

narrative

description

and

a figure

illustrating

the capillary

fringe,

saturated

zone

and

water

table.

The

citation

for

this document

will

be

added

to the

Illinois

EPA’s

list of

studies

referenced

during

the Agency’s

indoor

inhalation

rulemaking

development.

Lastly,

Illinois

EPA

would

like

to

amend

its response

to

pre-filed

question

#7 from

the

Illinois

Environmental

Regulatory

Group.

As

originally

written,

the

answer

could

be interpreted

to conclude

that

the Agency

would

not

take

into

account

the length

of

time

needed

for

contaminants

to

migrate

horizontally.

Such an

interpretation

would

not

be correct.

Compliance

determinations

in

regards

to sample

adequacy

will be

made

by the

program

under

which the

site

is being

remediated;

no

changes

to

Part

742

are necessary.

The

amended

language

is

located

at

final

paragraph

of the

Agency’s

answer

to

Question

7.

Question

7)

Will

the

Agency

require

actual

data

or allow

modeling

of groundwater

to

evaluate

the

vapor

intrusion

pathway

to an

off-site

building?

2

---

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

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.

When

either

soil

gas

or groundwater

data

are used

to demonstrate

compliance,

the

number

of

sampling rounds

required

will

be

determined

by

the

program

under

which

the

site

is

being

remediated.

This

is

because

soil

gas or

groundwater

samples

collected

after

a recentpjjj

or

release

may

not

represent

the

actual

impact

from

contaminants

migrating

in

groundwater.

Repeat samples

may

be

necessary

to

address

this

time

lapse

and

ensure

that

the

migration

of

the

contaminant

plume

is

fully

evaluated.

3

---

This concludes

my testimony.

4

---

ask

GrourdVVae

ydioky

Unfted

States

Geoogca

Survey

WaterSuppy

PaIer

2220

Prepared

in

cooperation

with

the

North

Carolina

Department

of

Natural

Resources

and

Community

Development

---

E(’

‘5

LJ

1

Jii

L

i

[Number

in

parentheses

is

tle

tage

on

which

the

term

is

first

mentioned)

ADUiFEP

(

6

1:

A

water-bearing

layer

of

rock

that

will

yield

water

in

a

usable

quantil:y

to

a

well

or

spring,

ttOCti

2

1:

A

general

term

for

the

consolidated

(solid)

rock

that

underlies

seilt

or

other

uflconsoimt4eo

SLriict

matenal.

4.

c

L

‘a

,t

(

‘

)

hr

i

h

I

k

tf

a

LI

ri

v

I

r

U

i.e

tensi’

n

‘is/

f’

ni

th

,-

II

fringe

is

unde

a

pressure

less

than

atmospheric.

rQj0j

1W

DEP2ESStON

C

30

2

The

depression

of

heads

around

a

pumph

p

well

caused

by

the

withdrawal

ot

water.

4.ONFINtNG

tIED

(

6

):

layer

of

iock

having

very

low

hvclraulis

conductivity

ti-at

hampers

the

movement

of

water

into

and

out

of

an

aquifer.

DATUM

PLANta

(

10

)

:

/-,rs

arbitosry

surface

(or

plane)

used

in

thy

neasumsrmnenr

01

3i

ound-weter

heads,

The

datum

moe

corn

rnoniy

used

is

the

National

Geodetic

Vertical

Datum

of

1929,

which

closely

approxrnates

sea

level.

[NSEEftSiON

(

19

1:

The

extent

to

wInch

a

liquid

substanc’

introduced

into

a

giound-waler

system

siareads

as

it

moves

Wrougis

the

system.

/;Wi’5JOtiM

(34

2

The

reduction

in

head

at

a

point

caused

0-v

the

withdrawal

of

wate

from

an

aquifer.

EOU)F’OTENTiAi.

UNiE

C

21):

A

line

on

a

map

or

cross

section

along

which

total

heads

are

the

same.

tLoW

tiNE

C

21):

The

idealized

path

followed

by

particles

of

water.

FLOW

NET

(

2.1

):

The

grid

pattern

formed

by

a

network

of

flow

lines

and

ettuipotenlial

lines.

GiiOtJis6)

WATECt

C

4

):

Water

in

the

saturated

zone

that

is

under

a

pressure

equal

to

or

greater

than

atmospheric

pessure.

HEAD

See

TOTAL

HEAD.

HYDRAD

ICC

CON[UCT[sJCTY

(12

):

ihe

capacity

of

a

rock

to

transmit

water.

It

is

expressed

as

the

volume

of

water

at

the

existing

kinematic

viscosity

that

will

move

in

unit

time

under

t

unit

hydraulic

gradient

through

a

unit

area

measured

at

right

angles

to

the

direction

of

flow.

t-4.t’DRAUUC

GttzDCENT

(10

):

Change

in

head

per

unit

of

distance

measured

in

the

drection

of

the

steepest

change.

eOOClOSfl’V

(

7

):

The

voids

or

openings

in

a

rock.

Porosity

may

be

exiaressed

etuantitatively

as

the

ratio

of

the

volume

of

openings

in

a

rock

to

the

total

volume

of

the

rock.

PVTEN1COIt4ETRCC

SURFACE

(

6

):

A

surface

that

represents

the

total

head

in

an

aquifer;

ihat

is,

it

represents

the

height

above

a

datum

plane

at

which

the

water

level

stands

in

tightly

cased

wells

that

penetrate

the

aquifer.

ROOt

1

2

1:

Any

naturally

formed,

consolidated

or

unconsolidated

material

(but

not

soil)

consistinig

of

two

or

more

m

i

nera

Is.

SATURATED

ZONE

(

4

):

The

subsurface

zone

in

which

all

openings

are

full

of

water.

SOL

(

4

):

The

layer

of

material

at

the

land

surface

that

supports

plant

growth.

SPEOHC

(APAC(

(

53

):

The

yield

of

a

well

per

unit

of

drawdown.

SPEGFtC

iETENTK)N

(

8

):

The

ratio

of

the

volume

of

water

retained

in

a

rock

after

gravity

drainage

to

the

volume

of

the

rock.

SPECWI1C

YELD

C

8

):

The

ratio

of

the

volume

of

water

that

will

drain

under

tiie

influence

of

gravity

to

the

volume

of

satu

rated

rock.

SOttAGE

COIEFflOENI

C

28

):

The

volume

of

water

released

from

storage

in

a

unit

prism

of

an

aquifer

when

the

head

is

lowered

a

unit

distance.

STRAflHCATCON

(18

):

The

layered

structure

of

sedimentary

roclcs.

TOTAL

HEAD

(10

):

The

height

above

a

datum

plane

of

a

column

of

water.

in

a

ground-water

system,

it

is

composed

of

elevation

head

and

pressure

head.

TRANSMtSECVCTI’

(

26

):

the

rate

at

which

water

of

the

prevailing

Icinernatic

viscosity

is

transmitted

througi’i

a

unit

width

of

an

aquifer

under

a

unit

hydraulic

gradient.

It

equals

the

hydraulic

conductivity

multiplied

by

the

aqi.iiter

thickness.

—

UNSATURATED

ZONE

(

4

)

The

subsurface

zone,

usually

starting

at

the

land

sLiriace,

that

contains

both

water

and

air.

WATER

TARLE

(

4

):

The

level

in

the

saturated

zone

at

which

the

pressure

is

equal

to

the

atmospheric

pressure.

---

UNDERGROUND

WATER

Al!

water

beneath

the

land

surface

is

referred

to

as

under

ground

water

(or

subsurface

water).

The

equivalent

term

for

water

on

the

land

surface

is

surface

water.

Underground

water

occurs

in

two

different

zones.

One

zone,

which

occurs

im

mediately

below

the

land

surface

in

most

areas,

contains

both

water

and

air

and

is

referred

to

as

the

unsaturated

zone.

The

unsaturated

zone

is

almost

invariably

underlain

by

a

zone

in

which

all

interconnected

openings

are

fuN

of

water.

This

zone

is

referred

to

as

the

saturated

zone.

Water

in

the

saturated

zone

is

the

only

underground

water

that

is

available

to

supply

wells

and

springs

and

is

the

only

water

to

which

the

name

ground

water

is

correctly

applied.

Recharge

of

the

saturated

zone

occurs

by

percolation

of

water

from

the

land

surface

through

the

unsaturated

zone.

The

unsaturated

zone

is,

therefore,

of

great

importance

to

grouid-water

hydrology.

This

zone

may

be

divided

usefully

into

three

parts:

the

soil

zone,

the

intermediate

zone,

and

the

upper

part

of

the

capillary

fringe.

The

soil

zone

extends

from

the

land

surface

to

a

maximum

depth

of

a

meter

or

two

and

is

the

zone

that

supports

plant

growth.

It

is

crisscrossed

by

living

roots,

by

voids

left

by

decayed

roots

of

earlier

vegetation,

and

by

animal

and

worm

burrows.

The

porosity

and

permeability

of

this

zone

tend

to

be

higher

than

those

of

the

underlying

material.The

soil

zone

is

underlain

by

the

intermediate

zone,

which

differs

in

thickness

from

place

to

place

depending

on

the

thickness

of

the

soil

zone

and

the

depth

to

the

capillary

fringe.

The

lowest

part

of

the

unsaturated

zone

is

occupied

by

the

capillary

fringe,

the

subzone

between

the

unsaturated

and

saturated

zones.

The

capillary

fringe

results

from

the

attrac

tion

between

water

and

rocks.

As

a

result

of

this

attraction,

water

clings

as

a

film

on

the

surface

of

rock

particles

and

rises

in

small-diameter

pores

against

the

pull

of

gravity.

Water

in

the

capillary

fringe

and

in

the

overlying

part

of

the

unsatu

rated

zone

is

under

a

negative

hydraulic

pressure—that

is,

it

is

under

a

pressure

less

than

the

atmospheric

(barometric)

pressure.

The

water

table

is

the

level

in

the

saturated

zone

at

which

the

hydraulic

pressure

is

equal

to

atmospheric

pressure

and

is

represented

by

the

water

level

in

unused

wells.

Below

the

water

table,

the

hydraulic

pressure

increases

with

increas

ing

depth.

4

Basic

Ground-Water

Hydrology

---

9r

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOA.p

‘3

2o0

9

iN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

iIUt.ij

7ILjjNO

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO:

)

TIERED

APPROACH

TO

CORRECTIVE

)

R09-9

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

(35 Iii.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

SUPPLEMENTAL

TESTIMONY

OF

THOMAS

HORNSHAW

This

testimony

is

intended

to describe

proposed

amendments

to

the Tier

1

table

entries

for

two chemicals

that have

very

recently

had

their

toxicity

criteria

updated;

to address

issues

that

have

arisen

regarding

averaging

data

to

demonstrate

compliance

with

remediation

objectives

for

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway;

and

to continue

the process

of

correcting

the

text

and

tables

of

Part

742.

Toxicity

criteria

updates

— Since

the

beginning

of

the year

there

have

been

changes

in

the toxicity

criteria

used

by

the Agency

to derive

the

Tier

1 remediation

objectives

for

Nitrobenzene

and

Trichioroethylene

(TCE).

USEPA

has

updated

the

entry

for

Nitrobenzene

in

its Integrated

Risk

Information

System

(IRIS),

and

has

issued

a memo

to

its

Regional

Administrators

describing

interim

toxicity

values

recommended

for use

for

TCE.

A

discussion

of these

updates

and

the

corresponding

changes

to

the Tier

1 tables

follows.

Nitrobenzene

— USEPA

completely

revised

the IRIS

entry

for

Nitrobenzene

on

February

6, 2009.

In this

revision,

the

chronic

Reference

Dose

(RfD)

was

changed

from

0.0005

mg/kg/d

to 0.002

mg/kg/d,

a chronic

Reference

Concentration

(RfC)

was

added

for

the

first

time at

0.009

mg/m3,

the

previous

weight-of-evidence

cancer

classification

of Group

D,

“not

classifiable

as to

human

carcinogenicity,”

was

changed

to

“likely

to

be

carcinogenic

to

1

---

humans”

under

the

2005

revised

Guidelines

for

Carcinogen

Risk

Assessment

(equivalent

to

Group

B in

the old

classification

system),

and

an

inhalation

cancer

Unit

Risk

Factor

of

4E-05

per uglm3

was

added

(there are

insufficient

data to

derive

an

oral

Slope

Factor

at this

time).

Following

our

hierarchy

for developing

subchronic

RfDs

and

RfCs,

the

Toxicity

Assessment

Unit

also

updated

the

previous

subchronic

RfD

of

0.005

mg/kg/d

(from

the

1997

Health

Effects

Assessment

Summary

Tables,

HEAST)

to

0.006

mg/kg/d

(derived

from

the

chronic

RfD),

and updated

the

previous

subchronic

RfC of

0.02 mg/m3

(also

from

HEAST)

to

0.009

mg/m3

(same

as the

new chronic

RfC).

Using

these

updated

toxicity

criteria,

we

calculated

the

revised

remediation

objectives

listed

for

Nitrobenzene

for

Appendix

B,

Tables

A,

B,

E, F,

and

G

in

Errata

Sheet

Number

3.

We

also updated

Nitrobenzene’s

entry

in

Appendix

A,

Table

E

(for

similar-acting

noncarcinogens)

and

added

Nitrobenzene

to Appendix

A,

Table

F

(for

similar-acting

carcinogens)

as

presented

in

Errata

Sheet

Number

3.

Since

the 2005

revised

Guidelines,

cited

above,

have

not

previously

been

included

in

TACO,

we

are

also now

including

the

revised

definition

for “Carcin

ogen”

and adding

the

2005

Guidelines

to

the

Incorporations

by

Reference

as shown

in

Errata

Sheet

Number

3.

Finally,

it should

be

noted

that the

revised

RID

will

require

a

change

in the

proposed

updates

to the Part

620

Groundwater

Standards,

in

which

the

proposed

new

standards

of

0.0035

mg/l for

both

Class

I

and

II groundwater

should

be changed

to 0.014

mg!l

for

both

classes.

Trichloroethylene

— USEPA

issued

a memo

from

Assistant

Administrator

Susan

Parker

Bodine

to

its

Regional

Administrators

on

January

15, 2009,

entitled

“Interim

Recommended

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Toxicity

Values

to

Assess

Human

Health

Risk

and

Recommendations

2

---

for the

Vapor

Intrusion

Pathway

Analysis.”

(See

Exhibit

1 to

my

this

testimony)

In

the

interest

of promoting

consistency

with

its earlier

Toxicity

Hierarchy

memo

from

the

Office

of

Solid Waste

and

Emergency

Response

(OSWER;

discussed

in

my

previous

testimony

in

the

Part 620

Groundwater

Quality

Standards

hearing

on pages

2-4),

EPA in

this

January

15,

2009

memo

recommends

that

the California

EPA’

s cancer

oral Slope

Factor

of 0.013

per

mg/kg/d

and

Inhalation

Unit

Risk

of 2.OE-06

per

ug/m3

be used

to assess

cancer

risks--

values

that

the

Toxicity

Assessment

Unit

has been

using

since the

Toxicity

Hierarchy

memo

was

issued.

However,

the

January

15,

2009 memo

now contains

two

recommendations

for

assessing

noncancer

inhalation

risks (the

previously

recommended

California

EPA

Reference

Exposure

Level (REL)

of 600

ug/m3

and the

New

York

State

Dept.

of

Health’s

air

criterion

of

10

ug/m3).

These

two

values

presented

the

Toxicity

Assessment

Unit with

a dilemma,

since

they

are over

an

order-of-magnitude

different.

Therefore,

we reviewed

the

derivation

of

both

values

and

decided

that

the

New York

air criterion

was

a more

appropriate

value

for

three

reasons:

(1)

the

California

value evaluated

studies

published

prior

to

2000

whereas

the

New

York

value includes

studies

published

prior to

2007; (2)

the California

value

is

based

on

a

study

that includes

data from

19 workers

whereas

the

New York

value is

based

on data

from

99

workers;

and (3)

the California

value

is based

on

self-reported

neurological

effects,

whereas

the

New York

value

is

based on

objective

clinical neurological

measurements.

Since

we

have

been using

the

California

cancer

values

already,

all but one

of

the many

TCE

remediation

objectives

in the Tier

1 tables

do not require

updating

because

the

values

based

on

cancer

risk

are

lower

than

the

corresponding

value

for

noncancer

effects.

This

was

also true

for

the

soil

3

---

objective

for

outdoor

inhalation

for

the

construction

worker

at the

time

we initially

proposed

these

TACO

amendments,

since

the objective

for

this

pathway

based

on

noncancer

effects

were

calculated

from

the California

value.

However,

the

noncancer

objective

calculated

from

the

smaller

New

York

value

now

is lower

than

the objective

based

on

cancer.

Therefore,

we

are

proposing

to change

the

construction

worker

inhalation

objective

from

8.8

mg/kg

to 2.9

mg/kg.

Averaging

for

the

indoor

inhalation

pathway

—

One

issue

left

unresolved

after

the

first

hearing

for this

TACO

update

was

whether

to

allow

averaging

of sample

results

to

demonstrate

compliance

with

remediation

objectives

for

the indoor

inhalation

pathway.

Members

of

the Site

Remediation

Advisory

Committee

(SRAC)

had

asserted

in

meetings

prior

to the

hearing

that

averaging

results

for

this pathway

made sense

and

that

there

should

be no

differences

between

this

pathway

and

the

other

pathways

for

which

averaging

is

already

allowed.

On the

other

hand,

the

Agency

had

expressed

concern

about

the

well-demonstrated

variability

in

results

for

soil vapors,

and to

a

lesser

extent

in groundwater

samples,

that

made

this

pathway

different

from

the

other

pathways,

and

also

noted concerns

about

the

possibility

of

missing

“hot spot

s”

when

calculating

averages.

This

issue

remained

unresolved

prior

to the hearing,

and was

only

briefly

touched

upon

at

the hearing.

It

was then

decided

that

the

SRAC

would

try to develop

proposed

language

to

further

address

this issue.

However,

the

SRAC

was

not able

to

develop

a

proposal

for

including

averaging

in the update

by the

time that

testimony

and

comments

were

due

to

the

Board

for

the

second

hearing,

although

they

did

state

that

they

were

amenable

to

limiting

averaging

to

only soil

samples,

and

not

for soil

vapors

or

groundwater

samples.

After

4

---

receiving

this

information,

the

Agency

had

further

internal

discussions

about

allowing

averaging

only

for

soil

samples

and

decided

that

this

could

be

an

appropriate

way

to

demonstrate

compliance

for the

indoor

inhalation

pathway.

Further,

the existing

language

at

Section

742.225(d)

would

allow

for

this

if

the

proposed

new

language

creating

Section

742.225(b)(5),

which

prohibits

averaging

for

indoor

inhalation

for

all

pathways

except

through

a

plan approved

in

Tier

3,

were

to

be

removed

from

the

proposed

amendments.

At

a meeting

with

the

SRAC

on

February

18,

2009

the Agency

proposed

to

do

this,

and

it

was

accepted

by

the

SRAC.

Thus,

we

now

propose

to

delete

the

proposed

Section

742.225(b)(5),

and

change

the

existing

Section 742.225(d)

to

read

(changes

underlined):

“If

a person

chooses

to

composite

soil

samples

or average

soil

sample

results

to

demonstrate

compliance

relative

to

the

indoor

and

outdoor

inhalation

exposure

routes

route

or

ingestion

exposure

route,

the following

requirements

apply:”

Correcting

text

and

tables

—

As

the

Agency

and others

continue

to

view

and

review

the

text

and

tables

of this

update,

the need

for

additional

corrections

continues.

The

latest

batch

of

corrections

follows,

with

any

needed

explanations

in

parentheses.

• Section 742.510(b),

last

sentence

should

read,

“...as

set

forth

in

Sections

Section

742.505

(b)(3)

and

(b)(4).”

(both

742.505(b)(3)

and

(b)(4)

pertain

to

noncarcinogens

mixtures).

•

Appendix

A,

Table

A:

The

2-Chiorophenol

superscript

should

be

“c”.

•

Appendix

A, Table

I: The

Class

I groundwater

remediation

objective

for

Arsenic

should

be

0.01

mgIL.

Appendix

A,

Table

L:

5

---

•

A

new

footnote

“c”

needs

to

be added,

“Csat

for

pH of

6.8.

If soil

pH

is

other

than

6.8,

a site-specific

Csat

should

be calculated

using equations

S19

and

J&E

6a

and

the

p11-specific

Koc

values

in Appendix

C

Table

I.”

•

This footnote

“c”

should

be

applied

to 2-Chiorophenol

(because

it

is an

ionizable

organic).

•

In

footnote

“b”

the

word

“was”

should

be

added

before

“calculated.”

Appendix

B,

Table

A:

•

The

compound

2-Chiorophenol

should

be moved

to

the “Ionizable

Organics”

section.

•

The

Class

I and

II

migration

to groundwater

remediation

objectives

for

Di-n-octyl

phthalate

should

be

“5.2”

(for consistency

in using

two

significant

figures).

•

The

Class

II

migration

to

groundwater

objective

for

Isopropylbenzene

should

be

corrected

from

“46O

to

“400’,,

(the

risk-based

value

exceeds

the

subsurface

Csat

value

listed

in

Appendix

A, Table

A).

•

The

proposed

update

for

Methoxychlor

of

14

mg/kg

with

a “d”

footnote

for

the

Outdoor

Inhalation

pathway

should

be

removed

and the

existing

entry

of

‘-

should

be

retained

(the

proposed

entry

is based

on

Csat

but

Methoxychlor

is a solid

at

30

C

with

a melting

point

of

87

C,

SO

Csat

should

not

be

considered

as

a

remediation

objective);

also,

the proposed

updates

of 14

mg/kg

for

migration

to

Class

I

and

II

groundwater

should

be

replaced

with updated

risk-based

values

of

80 mg/kg

for

Class

I and

400

mg/kg

for Class

II,

with

an

“r”

footnote

(for

the

same

reason

discussed

above).

•

Remove

the

“i” superscripts

from

the

migration

to groundwater

objectives

for

2,4,5-

TP

(updated

physical/chemical

data

changes

this

chemical

to non-ionizing).

•

Change

the superscript

“b”

to superscript

“r”

for

Vanadium

for

the

Class

I

migration

to

groundwater

objective

(a

new

Groundwater

Standard

is

proposed

for

this

chemical).

•

Add

the

superscript

“i”

to the

migration

to

groundwater

remedial

objectives

for

2,4-

Dinitrophenol.

•

Add

the

superscript

“i”

to

the

migration

to

groundwater

remedial

objectives

for

MCPP.

•

Correct

the Arsenic

Class

I migration

to

groundwater

remediation

objective

to

0.01

mg/L.

Appendix

B,

Table

B:

6

---

•

Correct

the

Class

II

migration

to

groundwater

objective

for

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate

from

200

d,,

to

(the

Outdoor

Inhalation

Csat

was

mistakenly

listed).

•

Correct

the

Class

I and

Class

II migration

to groundwater

objectives

for

Butyl

benzyl

phthalate

from

1

,

000

d,,

to

340

d,,

(the Outdoor

Inhalation

Csat

was

mistakenly

listed).

•

The

compound

2-Chiorophenol

should

be moved

to the

“Ionizable

Organics”

section.

o

The

Class

I and II

migration

to

groundwater

remediation

objectives

for

Di-n-octyl

phthalate

should

be

“5.2” (for

consistency

in using

two

significant

figures).

•

The

remediation

objective

for

Isopropylbenzene

for migration

to Class

II

groundwater

should

be

corrected

from

“46O’

to

400

d,,

(same

reason

as

above

for Table

A).

•

The

same

changes

specified

above

for Methoxychlor’s

entries

in Appendix

B,

Table

A

should

also

be made

in

Table

B.

•

Errata

Sheet

#1 instructs

that a

superscript

“a” be

added

to the

construction

worker

inhalation

remediation

objective

for

2-Methyiphenol,

but

this

notation

is

inappropriate

for

this

situation;

footnote

“b” should

be

used.

•

The

superscript

“i”

should

be

removed

from

the

migration

to

groundwater

remediation

objectives

for

2,4,5-TP

(same

reason

as

above

for

Table

A).

• Add

the

superscript

“i”

to the

migration

to

groundwater

remediation

objectives

for

2,4-Dinitrophenol.

•

Add

the superscript

“i” to

the migration

to

groundwater

remediation

objectives

for

MCPP.

•

Correct

the

Arsenic

Class

I migration

to

groundwater

RO

to 0.01

mg!L.

Appendix

B, Table

G:

The

entry

for

Isopropylbenzene

should

be

placed

in

alphabetical

order.

Appendix

C,

Tables

B

& D:

Endnote

“a” is

no

longer

needed.

This

concludes

my

supplemental

testimony.

7

---

EXHIBIT

1

AfI

‘Z

c1iduiQ

jisrs

CU

:OETh

ROTECiUr

sct4C

0

IL’

Li

MEM(iR.NDtjM

SUIIJECT:

Interim

Recommended

iidehloroelhv]tme

(TCE)

Toxicity

Vamcs lu

Assess

Human Health

Risk

and

Recommendations

thr

the

Vapor

k:rusIon

Pathway

Analysis

FROM:

Xtsatrl.:erc

Assislont

Administrator

TO:

l{ionai

Administrators

‘flit:

p;iwpose

of

this

memorandum

is

iwotold

First.

Consistent

witfl

OSW

EICs

LhJItka[

towtu

giiuartc

W

[CLOt

ilOc.

d

ntetur

USt

ct

exVng

tO\W1

3

vahics

deccioped

by

other

regulatory

agencies

tltr

trichloroethy[cnc

tiCh)

for

ea[uatjng

putenital

site-speeltie risks

from

inhaatior

or

oral

ç’cppsures

to

protect

tbr

buth

cancer

and

non-

cancer

effects. Second,

we

recommend sri

approach

tot

assessing

human health

risk

for

the

vapor

intrusion

iVI)

padm

ay

tOr

sites

addressed

owlet

the Comprehensive

En

iiuranental

Response,

Compensation

and

Liability

Act

(CERCLA)

or

the

Resource

Conservation

and

Recovery

Act

LRCRAi.

This

guidance

is

[mended to

facilitate

better

dccision’

by

Regions

in

Superliumd.

RURA.

and

Federal

Facilhv asscssmeros

addressing

risks

due

to

expos

are

to ‘ICE

from

vapor

intrusion,

and

other

pathways are addressed

in

the

EPA

Rcizions

The

{Ufiee

of

Solid

Waste

arid

.hnicrtrcncy

Response

(OSWFR}

recommends

trsing

its

2.003

‘l’uxicity

Hierarchy’

in

the

deve4opmemil of

a

preliminary

remnediation

goal

(PRU)

for

TCE

We

teneratly

recommend

the use

of

the

California

hnvironmentai

Protection

Agency’s

tOd

FPA’s)

inhalation

unit

risk

value”

(1UR3

cf

:0b06

ug’n?i

1

En,mi,

,r!jth

Tax:

titges

in

SapciUroI

5ri:

YL3krr:!s

ii

KWL[t

t)utcticc

928f7f],

Dc.nut’ct

5

31X}

r

c5xsca

re in

this

b.cux:tcrit as :ht

21X)3

fko

jçi’:

i!k’r:uch3

t

inxmila

s5i

s

dcei

tot

roxir;hy

valact

As

di:

ioe’J

Ea

11w

2rO

gcafat,

Ear

I

rafanc

1105.

Tier?

scirn;

n

EPA’s

Pnerisionsf

Past’

eTvscedi

Tcnjchv

VjftwN

sosi

‘[icr

3

Jets

so other

srtinx.

itp/Lsi

Vra4:

essniLi

Cttt1

We sate

thelt

this

hie’mtony

js

eneraIIy

comeisteni

vith

the

apvlicarion

of

the criteria

dtvelopad

ty

isv’

Lrmrs’rirntti

¼

5.

I

,t

ii.

Stat

l

C

P

“its

fyi

Isv

It ii

tiinE

1

L

Ift’

a

4

.hn

Ii 40

,rneSvtco:1

,{Yt nOLv

itjhs,.

‘Occtt

y5

t.?Iic

‘Li

,

iuzvhr

5k

assay

esilsosa:

m

icr

:1

k,,a

,

v

fff

loh,,

1 his ivvc

p:rec

wn

decirrcd

by

slick,

force

coninrcJ

otSare

acid

ROE)

Pbs

pro.

iCed

tcctntkd

&s

cffrt

urSa

rt

caacpices ofar.

EL,OS;’flt

rci

aiivrct

OIl

elTIetir.y.

ausavitents

I’:

*

(‘pliftutiij

re

its

snersol

I’rritzeiioso

\5O55s

C;t[

ItPAj

sir

iasus

fl,tj

fsqx’

Pr

cr420

SOt

n’

UaiatIosc

Sir.

ii ftc.

;:wlsvrr’

4

riritrr

I

rUmg

iiai&thiv

‘Lice’

ILaicic

Fachw’t,

Office

of

tin

irunt

sal

I.ieahh

Nktzsni

Asscsslnsnf..

[)cccrnba

Uti2

1

r:’.

t4ic

.ci-

0!

,J:4:;

‘:21

i

‘

;.t’k*ø,cj

orc’

:-“

*

ztlt’,:

::c:*

c

...._.a*2lt

0

---

urn)

oral

cancer

stage

factoi

of

0013

(mg/kg-davY’

for

evaluating.

the

carcinogenic

effeets

of

TCE

in

site—sped

tie

risk

assessments

at

sites

addressed

under

CF

ROLA

and

RCRA,

Acceptable

air

esposu.ic

levels

ase

eenerallv

eencentra0o,i

kweis

thai

represent

an

upoer

hound

hIe-timc

cancer

risk

to

an

iridividttal

berweer,

lO

(1

.2

na/ni’)

and

I

0

120

nalni)’,

Consistent

with

the

National

Contiirneirey

Plan (NC?),

OSWER

recommends

using.

1.2

ueJni’ as

the

point

of

departure

for

detcrmi

ping

preiiminan

runleLjiatEon

goals

(see

40

C/FR 300

Section 430ft)i

D)(i)(A)(2):c

this

generally

is

the

air

LI

iftratIOn

lqrLLnLu

d

cancer

n

uflt

the

C

at

hO

\

oih

iltion

unit

risk,

For

assessing

non carcinogenic

eftOcts

of’

EEC/iL OSWER

has

identified

two

s

alucs

t

iar

can

he

txtnsidcied

tn

ci

ahuung

s’

stna

to’cJut

a

rtt

the

10

op/n?

ur

%.rJLerIon

develoned

In

the

New

York

State Department

of

Rea1th

and

the

300

ugim

Chronic.

Reference

Exposure

Level

developed

by

Cal

F???,

SWFR

believes

that

hoth

of

these

values

mny

be

appropriate

tierS

toxicity

vetoes

under the

OSWFR

Toxicity

Hieratehy.

As

diseassed

in

the

OSWEiR

[oxicity

Hierarchy

guidance,

draft

toxicity

assessments

generally

are

not

appropriate

for

use

null

they

have

been through

peer

review.

thc

peer

review

eoniniems

hale

been addressed

in

a.

revised

drall.

and

the

revised

draft

is

mthiel

available.

The

toxicity

values

in

this

guidance

may

he

appropriate

for

Regions

to

use

ta

assess

risks

at

least until

toxicity

values

fOr

TOt

are

available

hi

the

Fuvironniental

Protection

Aizenev/c

ØEE’A’s)

Integrated

Risk Information

System.

(JR

iS)

database,

or

until

.titrthersdeatific

analysis

indicates

a

more

appropriate

value

is

availahle,

When

a

new IRIS

toxicity

assessment

is

available.

OSWER

may

review sites

to

ensure

that

sites

addressed

under

thIs

interim

approaci remain

protective

given

revised

lox

tcity

values,

If

new scientilie

intbrmation

representing

the

best

available

science

becomes

availabk

before

a

new

IRIS

toxicity

assessment

is

available.

C)SWER

may

revisit

the

toxcity

values

provided

in

ibis

guidance.

This

guidance

supersedes

previous

guidance

on

TCE

toxicity

values found

in

OSYETCs

i)raft

Guidance

fOr

Evaluating

the

Vapor

Intrusion

to

indoor

Air

Pathway

from

Groundwater

and

Soils”

(EPA

5•30$tM2-004,

November

2002).

lius

guidance

is

consistent

with

our

2003

guidance

on

using

a

hierarchy

of

existing

chemical

toxicity

soureese

it

does

not

represent

a

new,

independent

review

of

TCI/

toxicity,

which

EPA

has

currently

underway

as

part

of

the

IRIS

program.

This

guidance

recommends

an

oral

cancer

sLope

factor

for

use

in

risk assessments

and is

designed

to

help

provide

an

estimate

of

the

cumulative

risk

at

sites and

make

other

‘

CaSfeathi

Etiviwnrwatat

tkcttection

Ayvi&a

(Cat

IWfu

.Pihfr

.H&rJth

thotfrr

Th

aSrL’ernyIow,

Ortiw

rnvm’cmentat

Itoahh

Hazard

Asaessraont,

(‘at

iPA.

Fdernwy

Ui99.

I:LflLwati/ac+srtiflt2thcNEL/iccLLP4!

These

acceptebk’

air

leveis

(concenvlIion

were

derived

hased

on

a

residential

ccen-io

efeotirimnaes

xaitc

D4

iSo

0

‘.

in

550

cr

fat

fl

rs

neri

ad

rncr

a

fl

r

htenmc

(_qI.ntwri

ertt:d

Firsrc

2

efappetidix).

Site

specific

exposure

assumpi

loPs

may

be

different

and

then

couid

lead

to

different

.aecepiahle

air

exposaze

levels,

NYSDOfI

2006.

C/ester

for

Environmental

Ftezihh,

Bureau

of

loxfrj

Stibstances

Assessment,

latereethene

Air

Criteria

Document,

October

Li

1rzil’1tLR,Et\

jJ

fJ

‘Chronic

toxci1y

Summary:

Trichlorucihytene.

flomirnensatiuin

far

a

chronic

iteienmnce

Eipesurv

Ltw&

br

Tiichloroethyhrw.

California

EPA

Office

of

Enviroaniestal

Hca[th

Hazard

Assessment.

April

2001k

:W

“Or.

‘ir

k

---

cleanup (le :SioflSZ

thiS guidance

does nor

aliect or ropiace

statutory

o

regulatory

requirements (for exaulpie, rtjeedtur

applkable

or relevant

and appropnaw requirumetus

(ARARski

under

CERCLA or

RCRA.

For

example.

the

maximum

contaminant

level

(ls4CL’ [hr TOE,

5

uwL

(or

a lower

concentration

if

required

by

a

state

ARAR)

generally

should

continue

to hr considered

as

an AltAR for the

cleanup

unticu

CERCI

A

ot’ ground

vaster

that may he.

used as drinking

water,

OSWfJ

iecotumends

the same

approach

be

taken

under RCRA.

Ilowevor.

when other ground

water exposure

pathways

may

he

complete (such

as

vapor

intrusion

into

indoor airf or multiple

eonlarnmants are

present.

slteaspecifle conditions

should

he enhiated

to ensure that

use of

the MCL

would

he

suftiejenri

v ;imtective

of human health

and

the

eovirorirnerLt.

aiatftmf

Toxicity

H5jjfrvfnTCF

4

Backoround

As discussed

in

the

2003 Toxicity

Hicrarchy OSWER reeommends

using

a

hierarchy of

sources

oftoxicoingienl information that Regional

risk

assessors

and

managers

should

consider

for sitesspreiftc

risk

assessments. Generally.

Regions

should

first look

the

toxicity

informatlon

m the integrated

Risk

bifbrmation System

(IRISi

developed by

EPA’s

Office

he’ Research and

Development

as

discussed in

the

2003

guldanee, these are considered

Tier I

values in

the bierarehy

if

quantitative

infbrmat

ion

is not

available there.

generally

Regions should

next look

to Provislonal

Peer

Reviewed

Toxicity Values

(PPWFVs)

developed

by

hPAs National

Center

for

Environmental

Assessment/Superftmd

Technical

Health

Risk

Support Center

{STSCft

as discussed

in the

2003 guidance,

these

are considered

Tier

2

values

in

the

hierarchy.

if toxicity

values

tar

nor available from either Tier I

or

2, generally

Regions

shouki

look

to other

high quality

SOL4tCCS

of

toxIcity intbnnarion

developed

by

other

regulatory

or health

agencies

that

can

he used fUr risk

assessment:

as discussed

in the

2003 guidance.

these

are

considered

Tier

I values in this hierarehy

It

should

be

noted that the

2003

Toxicity

Hierarchy

states;

In general, draft

toxicity

assessments

are

nor appropriate

for

use

until

they

have:

been through.

peer reviews.

the peer

re;iew comments

have

been

addressed

itt a

revised draft.

and the

revised draft

is publicly

availahle

Thus, the

cancer and

nmcaneer

toxicity

values

presented

in

EPA’s 2001

draft

risk assessment for TCE are

not recommended as appropriate Tier

3

va[ues

nor are

they

discussed

in.

this document

based on their dmft

staurs,’ consistent

with the

2003

Toxicity

Hierare’hy.

A

coitsensus

issue paper

from the

Department

of Defensefr

EPA

and the

Environmental

Council of

States

(ECOS supported

OSWiIR’s hierarchy

and

recommended

a set

of

preferences

for evaluating

potential toxIcity

values

that largely

mirrOr

UP A’s 1 riese

preferences

include

transparent

assessments

that

have

received

internal

and

esterna!

peer review

that

are

derived using

an

established

methodology,

that

incorporate current best

scirnuttc

practice,

and that

consider

the

quality of

the studies.

includIng

statistical

power,

as

well

as

considering

assessments that

eonnhorate data

amongst

pertinent

studies,

in addition both

the values and supporting documentation

should he publicly available

and

a

preference

should be

given

to

toxicity values that

are

Sen

fooleure

---

eonsisen1

wiLl,

the

duration

of exposure

being

assessed.

Selection

of

a

toxicity

value

4hould

include

an ur&derstandipg

of

the

available

sources

of toxichy

data

and

the

soxmwhs

and

weaknesses

oteach

source

in order

;o

select

the

most

appropriate

toxicity

value

far

use

in

a risk

etsscssmeliL Because

there

is

no

toxicity

value

far

TCE

either

in

IRIS

(Tier

1) or

as

a

PPRTV

(Tier 21.

EPA evaluated

other

high

quality

sources

oftoxichy

uIonnatiOn

(Tier

3)

developed

by

other regulatory

or

health

agencies.

Consisiem

svfth

CERCLi\

and

the

NCP.

prntection

of

human

health

.a3zd.

the

envtroiunent

is

a

threshold

requirement

for

selected

remedies

(see

40

CFR

§300.4300(1

Mhl(Ah

In

the

Qi1RCIA

remedy

selection

process.

oreliminary

renjeibatton

anals

(PROs)

tvt•ieailv

are

oeveloped

as

a

site—specili.c

tool when

sating

cleanup

levels.

At

(‘ERCI

A

site& PROs

typically

are

stateinents

of the

desired

eiwnoiot

t.

I

Le ittitlO

r

or

mk

ç;

Ret

e.

5

d

Rtg

STE

‘vJlrLb

ti%Jt

.zm”ul

the tire

conservative.

dethuit

endpoint

concentrations

used.

in

screening

and

initial

development

of remedial

alternatives

before

considecat

on

of

more.

detailed

inihrrnation

ironi the

sitespeeifie

risk

assessmem.

The

NQP

states

Remediation

goals

shall

establish

acceptable

exposure

levels

that

are

proteerive

of

human health

and

the

environment and

shall

be

developed

by

copsideri

the

ibliowing:

(A

1

Applicable

or relevant

and appropriate

requirements

under

federal

environmenral

or

state

envimnmennd

or facility

siting laws,

ifavailable.

and

the

following

faders:

(I)

For systemic

toxicants.

acceptable

exposure

levels shall

represetu

concentration

levels

to which

the

human

population,

including

sensitive

subgroups,

may

he

exposed

without

adverse

effect

during

a

lifetime

or

part

of

a lifetime,

incorporating

an

adequate

margin

of

safety;

(2)

For known

or

suspected

carcinogens,

acceptable

exposure

levels

are

generally’

concentration

levels’ that

represent

an

excess

upper

bound

lifetime

cancer risk

to mi

individual

of between

H)

° and

If)

using

inthrmanon

on

the

relationship

betwetu

dose

and

response.

The

10

‘‘ risk

level

shall

be

used

as

the

point

of departure

for

detennining

remediation

goals

for

alternatives

when

ARARs

are

not available

or

are

not

scst’tieiently

protective

because

of

the

presence

of

multiple

contaminants

at

a

site or

multiple

pathways

of

exposure;

t3:

Factors

related

to technical

limitations

such

as

deaetiorequandlication

limits

lbr

contaminants;

(4)

Factors

related

to

uncertainty:.

and

(SI

Other pertinent

lnlbrmatiun”

49QFR430(1430(e)f

Ni

)(A}.

(“once?

Toxicth’

I

‘Thes

fyr

ICE

After

analyzing

potentLal

Tier ‘

oun’an health

toxic try

values

using

the

nrcfeicnecs

ckscrineu

n

toe

(

‘)S

a’cr

(iS

ViER

bcl

L

C

tO

I

iC

C

zP

‘

---

%0E06

LuyJm’1

1

presented

in

the Air

fodes Hot

Spats Program

iCal

hPA.

2tHC)

and

an

oral cancer

siope limbs

of

0.013

(rntfl-dayi

presented

in the tublie

Health

Goal

lbs

Drinkiia

Water” (Cal EPA

.99)

generally

are

appropriwe

lbs

use in site

soecific

risk

assessments

at

ieas mini

a

revised [[US

value is available

or until

further

seietaitic

analysis:

identities

a more apnropriate walue.

lhase

values

were

devcioped

spceilicallv

for use in

nsa assessments

and

are consistent

with the

2003

Thdcitv

1

tienarchy

the

Cal EPA IUR

is

derived

from

the

geometric mean of

the unit

risks from fbnr

johisation studies on mice

and includes

liver

cancvrs

lung

cancer,

and

tymphoma

endpoints

(see appendix

Ow

a more detailed

diseussionf

The Cal

EPA

oral cancer

slope

teeser

was based on

the geometric

mean of

thur values

basest

on the occurrence

of

hcput.oeellular

carcinomas

and

adenocarcinomas

in mice

in

to studies,

in

both. sexes.

by

inhalation

and oral routes okutmanstrattoas and a linear dose

response approach.

OS WOk

he[ieves

the ICR and

oral cancer

slope

ftwtor

developed

by

Cal EPA

are

reasonably

coasisient

with

values

developed

by other researchers

and

regulators,

also

discussed in

more detail in

the

appendix. OSWER

halieves the

Cal EPA

IUR. and

oral

cancer slope

factor

provide an

appropriate

interim

approach

based

on

information

currendy avalab1e.

These recommended

toxicity values cart he used

to evaluate

lifetime

excess

cancer risk from

TCE

exposure at

least until toxicity

values

lbs TCIi

are

available

in

hPAs IRIS

database

or until

Further

scientific analysis

indicates

a more

appropriate

value Es available,

Consistent

with the National

Contingency Plan

(N

UP)

(40 CER

§30C430(el{2)tihAif2)j.

OSWIiR recommends

using a

concentration of L2

ug/nil.

correspondent to

the

l0 cancer

risk

levet

using the Cal

EPA IUR,

as

the

point

of

departtn’e

Fur

determining remedialion

goals.

OSWiiR

also

recommends

using

I

mUm

3

to

120 ugin? as

the

generally

acceptable

concentration

levels

corresponding to i0’ to

[(i

cancer risk [Sec

Ibotnote

5).

cne??ççngncfos:cm’

lilac

107’ TCt

After analyzing

existing potential Tier

3

human health toxicity values,

OSWER

has

idenlii

rid

two values as

anpropriate

for

consideration:

Cal EPAis

reference

exposure

icrel fRISL) and

NYSf)QlUs

nomcancer

air criterion,

The

National

Research

Council

tN

RU,

2006). in its comments

en

the

non

cancer

studies

analyzed

in EPA’s

2001

draft

risk assessment

noted that several

neuroloxicOy

studies

reported

common

efihets

in

humans and rats at similar

concentrations. The studies included reports

in humans

of

changes

in trigemit al nerve Funeton

and

motor

incoordination

(Ruijten

ci el,

1991:

Rasmussen

et

al

i

993)

and

symptoms

including

nausea, drowsiness and

fatigue

(Okawa

and Bodncr

1973;

Vandervort

and

Polàkoff 1973).

Studies in

rats

showed changes

at

similar

levels (a4jnsted fur human

eunivaleneet

in heart

rate and

wakefulness

(Arito

et

aL

I

994k,

Furtherntore,

the NRC also

noted

that

new

information

on

neurological effects of

TCE published since

$00t

Cs limited

and

thus may

olihr

lithe

in the way

of

amendment’

to die

current

und.rrstnnding

of

non

cancer

effects.

These

comments