BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
FEB
2
)
R09-9
I
Q9
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
)
(Rulemaking
— Land)
pf
F
ILLINOIS
TIERED
APPROACH
TO
CORRECTIVE
)
OfltroJ
8
Oar
ACTION
OBJECTIVES
)
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
742)
)
)
NOTICE
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
on Februaiy
24,
2009,
I
filed
the
Testimony
of
Raymond
T.
Reott
on
recycled
paper
with
the
Office
of
the
Clerk
of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
and
a
copy
of
which
was
mailed
to
the
participants
on
the
Service
List.
Respectflh1y-sumitted,
By:
RaymondT
Reott
Raymond
T.
Reott
Becky
J.
Schanz
Reott Law
Offices,
LLC
(#43415)
35
East
Wacker
Drive,
Suite
650
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(3
12)
332-7544
Date:
February
24,
2009
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN
THE
MATTER:
)
)
R09-9
OF
lLLNj
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
)
(Rulemaking-Land)
0h1
COnfr
0
TIERED
APPROACH
TO
CORRECTIVE
)
Board
ACTION
OBJECTIVES
)
(35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
742)
)
)
TESTIMONY
OF
RAYMOND
T. REOTT
I,
Raymond
T.
Reott,
being
first
duly
sworn,
submit
the
following
testimony
in
the
above
rulemaking.
Background
I
have
been
an environmental
lawyer
in
Illinois
for
close
to
30
years.
I
graduated
from
the
University
of
Chicago
Law
School
cum
laude
in
1980
where
I also
served
on
the
law
review.
I thereafter
clerked
for
Judge
Richard
Cudahy
of
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the Seventh
Circuit.
I then
joined
Jenner
&
Block
where
I was
made
a
partner
in 1987.
I
was
a partner
at Jenner
&
Block
until
2002
when
I
left
to found
my
own
firm.
My
practice
is
national
in
scope
and
includes
advising
clients
about
cleanup
related
issues
across
the
country.
As
a
result,
I am
familiar
with
the
programs
in
place
in
several
other
states
as
well
as
the
Illinois
programs
that
use
the
Tiered
Approach
to
Corrective
Action
Objectives
(“TACO”)
regulations
that
are the
subject
of
this
rulemaking.
With
regard
to
those
rules,
I
was
an active
participant
in the
original
TACO
rulemaking.
I
was
one
of
two
witnesses
to
testif’
in
opposition
to
the
Illinois
EPA’s
original 1994
TACO
proposal
which
the
Board
rejected.
I also
testified
two
additional times
in
the
TACO
rulemaking
before
the
Board
ultimately
adopted
the
TACO
rules
with
the
improvements
added
by
the
Illinois
EPA
in
its
second
and
third
proposals.
At
the
time
of their
adoption,
the
Illinois
TACO
regulations
represented
the
most
advanced
thinking
on this
topic
being
employed
in any
of
the
50
states.
Since
that
time,
Illinois
has
reaped
the
benefit
of having
a
cleanup
system
focused
on
the
real
risk
to
people
present
on
a
property
as opposed
to
more
theoretical
concerns.
The
TACO
rules
have
worked
well
because
they
are
a
model
of
predictability,
flexibility,
and
can
be
applied
in
a
timely
fashion
to
get
a rational
evaluation
of
the actual
risk
posed
by
contamination
found
on
a
given
piece
of
property.
This
success
obviously
did
not
occur
by
accident.
The
General
Assembly
had
directed
the
Illinois
EPA
and
the
Board
to develop
a risk-based
cleanup
objective
system
based
upon
the
risks
posed
by
contaminated
sites
to
human
health.
(415
ILCS
5/58
(1))
(See
also
Procedural
History,
p.1,
April
17,
1997
Opinion
&
Order
of the
Board,
IPCB
Rulemaking
R97-12(A);
August 6,
2008
Statement
of
Reasons,
p.1,
TPCB
Rulemaking
R09-9).
The
present
TACO
system
has
a
fairly
conservative
set
of
Tier 1
values for
contaminants
of concern.
The
system
also
allows
for
various
adjustments
to
those
conservative
values
by
excluding
pathways
where
engineered
barriers
and
institutional
controls
render
a
particular
pathway
unlikely
to
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
or
by
recalculation
of
the
cleanup
standards
using
more
site
specific
data.
In
addition,
although
costly,
responsible
parties
can
use
more
site
specific
data
to
develop
alternative
Tier
2
or
Tier
3
remedial
objectives.
As
in
1994,
however,
in
this
rulemaking,
the
Illinois
EPA
has
proposed
changes
to
the
Tier 1
values that
are
so conservative
that
the
changes
will
greatly
increase
the
costs
experienced
by
property
owners,
municipalities>
and
others
across Illinois.
Overly
conservative
Tier
1 values
have
an
impact
far
beyond
the
number
of sites
processed
by
the
Illinois
EPA
that
used
those
values.
For
every
site
that
participates
in
an
agency
supervised
cleanup
process,
there
are
literally
tens
if
not
hundreds
of
sites
that
are
evaluated
and
remediated
based
upon
those
Tier
1 numbers
without
any
agency
involvement.
The
TACO
system
works
well
in
particular
because it
is
so
predictable
that
private
parties
can
apply
it in
a
transactional
context
without
requiring
agency
oversight.
Thus,
while
Illinois has
issued
over
2,600
NFR
letters
since
1996
based
upon
the
TACO
values>
far
more
sites
have
been
remediated
and
evaluated
based
upon
those
numbers
without
any
agency
involvement.
For
this
reason, overly
conservative
Tier
1
values
that
do
not
reflect
actual
risk
to
people
(as
directed
by
the
General
Assembly)
create
costs
which
cannot
be
addressed
simply
by
having parties
resort
to
Tier
2
or
Tier
3
analysis.
There
are
additional
costs
simply
to
do
the
Tier
2
or
Tier
3
analysis.
More
importantly,
however,
the
ambiguities
in
the
agency’s
proposal
for
how
to
do
that
analysis
in
a
soil
gas/indoor
inhalation
context
will
make it
unfortunately
necessary
that
more
and
more
sites
enroll
in
state
programs
to
develop
a
reliable
analysis
of
the
actual
risk
posed
by
contamination
at
the
site.
Impact
of
the
Proposed
Tier
1
Standards
I have prepared
a
series
of charts
that
are
attached
that
help
illustrate
the
significant
impact
of
the
proposed
indoor
inhalation
standards.
Although
the
Illinois
proposal
focuses
on
59
volatile
chemicals,
those
chemicals
include
the
most
commonly
encountered
chemicals
which
pose
significant
cleanup
issues at
sites
in
Illinois.
These
are
the
chemicals
present
in
leaking
from
underground
storage
tanks
at
gas
stations
(benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene,
xylene
and
MTBE),
and
the
types
of
chlorinated
solvents found
at
many
industrial
sites,
as
well
as
typical
dry
cleaner
remediation
sites.
Finally,
the
agency’s
proposal
would
change
the
standards
for
mercury
and
naphthalene
which
are
found
at
a
variety
of
different
types
of
sites.
2
In
the
present
TACO
regulations,
if
all
of
the
pathways
are
appropriately
invoked
for
the
site,
the
soil
cleanup
standards
for
most
of
the
common
contaminants
are
usually
determined
by
the
soil
migration
to
groundwater
component.
Generally,
these
values
are
the
lowest
of
the
various
pathways
and
will
drive
soil
cleanup
decisions
for
the
site.
For
most
of
the
flhinois
population,
however,
and
all
of
its
large
urban
areas,
the
relevant
communities
have
long
ago
adopted
ordinances
approved
by
Illinois
EPA
that
prohibit
the
use
of
groundwater
for
drinking
water
purposes.
Thus,
in
Cook
County,
Springfield,
Peoria,
Rockford,
Champaign,
Urbana,
Naperville,
Aurora,
and
other
urban
areas
across
the
state,
the
migration
to
groundwater
pathway
does
not
need
to
be
considered
because
of
the
use
of
an
approved
local
municipal
ordinance
as
an
institutional
control.
In
these
circumstances,
the
appropriate
cleanup
standard
for
most
sites
for
soils
are
substantially
different.
While
it
is
difficult
to
generalize,
the
soil
cleanup
standards
are
controlled
by
the
lowest
of
either
the
ingestion or
outdoor
inhalation
pathway
that
would
be
appropriate
for
the
site
given
the
location
of
the
contamination.
In
these
large
urban
settings,
where
many
contamination
problems
are
found,
the
Illinois
EPA’s
proposal
will
create
a
roughly
ten
fold
increase
in
the
severity
of
the
residential
cleanup
standards.
As
you
can
see
from
the
attached
exhibits,
the
soil
cleanup
standards
for
benzene
currently
are
12mg/kg
for
ingestion
and
0.8
mg/kg
for
outdoor
inhalation.
Under
the
proposal,
the
new
residential
soil
standard
for
benzene
for
indoor
inhalation
is
0.069
mg/kg,
a
12
fold
increase
in
severity.
In
addition,
industrial
or
commercial
soil
standards
also
increase
although
generally
by
lower
amounts.
For
example,
the
current
standards
for
toluene
are
160,000
mg/kg
for
ingestion
and
580
mg/kg
for
outdoor
inhalation.
The
proposed
standards
require
240
mg/kg
as
the
soil
objective.
Because
the
Illinois
EPA’s
proposal
relates
to
the
class
of
compounds
that
are
volatile
in nature,
the
impact
will
be
felt
by
leaking
underground
storage
tanks
sites,
dry
cleaners,
industrial
solvent
users,
and
any
sites
with
naphthalene
or
mercury
as
problem
contaminants.
For
these
communities
with
groundwater
ordinances,
there
are
an
even
more
significant
difference
in
the
groundwater
standards.
At
these
sites,
the
current
groundwater
standards
(for
problems
contained
on
the
site)
have
little
practical
effect.
Under
the
proposed
regulations,
all
of
these
sites
will
have
to
meet
new
groundwater
standards
even
if
a
local
ordinance
prohibits
use
of
the
groundwater.
For
communities
which
do
not
have
a groundwater
ordinance,
there
are
some
contaminants
where
the
proposed
change
in
standards
will
still
be
significant.
For
example,
the
soil
value
for
xylene
will
go
from
200
mg/kg
to
63
mg/kg.
The
value
for
carbon
tetrachloride
will
go
from
.071
mg/kg
to
.021
mg/kg.
While
less
significant
than
the
changes
in
values
for
communities
with
an
existing
groundwater
ordinance,
even
in
the
remainder
of
flhinois,
the
proposed
soil
standards
will
require
additional
investigation
at
additional
sites.
Of
course,
if
there
was
a
real
risk
to
be
addressed,
it
would
be
appropriate
for
the
Board
to
tighten
the cleanup
standards
by
whatever
degree
was
necessary.
The
Board
should
be
mindful,
however,
that
its
direction
in
this
area from
the
General
Assembly
is
to
set
up
a
cleanup
standard
system
that
reflects
actual
risk
to
human
health,
not
theoretical
risk.
(415
ILCS
5/58
(1)).
Lack
of
Model
Calibration
The
agency’s
proposal
lacks
any
attempt
to
correlate
the
proposed
model
with
the
actual
conditions
found
at
Illinois
sites.
I
have
not
reviewed
everything
that
the
agency
has
cited
in
its
testimony
but
I
have
not
found
any example
yet
of
any
attempt
to
correlate
the
predicted
values
using
the
proposed
model
to
actual
site
conditions
in
actual
buildings
in
Illinois.
To
the
contrary,
I
believe
that
there
is
substantial
critical
analysis
available,
including
from
USEPA,
demonstrating
that
the
proposed
model
should
not
be
used in
many
of
the
contexts
for
which
the
agency
is
submitting
its
use
to
the
Board.
The
proposed
model
is
several
orders
of
magnitude
more
conservative
than
the
actual
field
data at
numerous
site
studies
around
the
country
because
of
synergistic
effects
in
the
model
assumptions.
(USEPA,
Sept. 2005,
J.
Weaver
and
F.
Tillman,
Uncertainty
and
the
Johnson-Ettinger
Model
for
Vapor
Intrusion
Calculations,
p.31; USEPA,
Sept.
2005,
F.
Tillman
and
J.
Weaver,
Review
of
Recent Research
on
Vapor
Intrusion,
pp.
17-23
(Comparing
actual
field
data
compared
to
model
predictions
at
several
sites)).
Further,
the
USEPA
states
that
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
model
only
should
be
used
where
“site
conditions
match
the
model
assumptions
using
reasonable,
site-specific,
or
regulator-approved
input.”
(USEPA,
March
2008,
“Brownfield’s
Technology
Primer:
Vapor
Intrusion
Consideration
for
Redevelopment”)
(In
Illinois
EPA’s
previously
submitted
reports).
The
USEPA
specifically
has
stated
that
the
model
proposed
here
should
not
be
used
for
underground
storage
tank
sites. (Uncertainty
at
p.1;
User
Guide
for
Evaluating
Subsurface
Vapor
Intrusion
into
Buildings
(USEPA
2004)
at
p.
67
(“EPA
is
not
recommending
that
the
J
&
E
model
be
used
for
sites
contaminated
with
petroleum
products
if
the
products
were
derived
from
Underground
Storage
Tanks.”)).
Consequently,
I
urge
the
Board
to
proceed
cautiously
with
the
Illinois
EPA’s
proposal.
The
proposal
requires
far
more
support
in
the
record
before
the
Board
and
consideration
before
it
or
anything
similar
is
adopted.
The
Board
is
faced
with
a
significant
change
to
the
Illinois
cleanup
program
without
an
adequate
assessment
of
the likely
cost,
of
that
adjustment,
its
potential
impact,
or
the
actual
ability
of
the
proposed
model
to
predict
real
world conditions
in
Illinois.
How
to
Improve
the
Proposed
Model
The Johnson
and Ettinger
model
could
be
improved
by
making
it
more
representative
of
expected
conditions
in
Illinois.
The
Illinois
EPA
already
has
adjusted
the
model
by
altering
the
temperature
value
in
the
model
to
reflect
Illinois.
The
agency
should
at
least
provide
the
Board
with
an
alternative
version
of
the
resulting
Tier
1 table
that
reflects
more
representative
Illinois
conditions.
In
the
testimony
submitted
so
far,
the
agency
acknowledges
that
it
has
chosen
sand
as
a
default
geologic
strata
between
the
source
of
4
contamination
and
the
building.
(Nov.
14,
2008
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
Gary
King,
p.9,
IPCB
Rulemaking
R09-9).
Sand
is
not
a
typical
Illinois
soil
type.
According
to
the
soil
bulletin,
it represents
less
than
10%
of fihinois soils.
(Soils
of
Illinois,
University
of Illinois,
Bulletin
778
(1984)).
We
have
a state
soil,
the
drummer
soil,
the
most
extensive
soil
in
Illinois,
that
is
highly
organic
and
far
less
permeable
than
sand.
The
agency’s
witnesses
already
have
acknowledged
that
the
carbon
content
of the
soil
is
a variable
on
which
the
model
is
highly
sensitive.
(Nov.
14,
2008
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
Gary
King,
p.14,
IPCB
Rulemaking
R09-9). Even
a
modest
adjustment
to
reflect
more
typical
soil
types
in
Illinois
would
significantly
change
the
proposed
Tier
1 cleanup
standards.
At
a
minimum, the
Illinois
EPA
should
attempt
to
educate
the
Board
further
about
what
the
Tier
1
table
would
look
like
in
the
event
that
the
Board
made
such
a
change.
Perhaps
the
state
geologist
or
state
soil
scientist
should
be called
to testify
to
help
provide
the
Board
with
a
basis
for
picking
a
representative
soil
type
for
the
purposes
of
the
Tier
I
TACO
calculations.
The
model
makes
similarly
conservative
assumptions
about
soil
porosity
and
soil
water
content.
The
values
chosen
are
not
reflective
of
typical
Illinois
soils
and
would
appear
at
first
glance
to
significantly
drive
the
model
towards
overly
conservative
conclusions
for
Tier
1
values.
In
related
rulemakings,
the
Board
already
has
recognized
the
appropriateness
of
using
Illinois
specific geologic
information
to
guide
cleanup
decisions. In
the
old
Part
732
rules
related
to UST
cleanups,
the
Board
specifically
endorsed
a system
where
the
appropriate
cleanup process
was
driven
in
large
part
by
the
classification
of the
soils
in
the
now
famous
Berg
map
for
Illinois.
The
Berg
map
illustrated
the
likelihood
of aquifer
contamination
at
various
sites
across
Illinois
based
upon
local
soil
types.
Some
portions
of
the
state
were
in categories
requiring
less
significant
cleanup
simply
because
the
soil
at
the
sites
had
typical
Illinois
high
carbon
content.
For
other
parts
of
the
state
with
sandy
soils
or
fracture
geology,
the
risks
were
perceived
to
be greater
and
the
Board
adopted
rules
requiring the
parties
to
address
the
contaminants.
A
similar
approach
could
be
taken
here
which
coordinates
the
risk
of
indoor
inhalation
issues
with
the
actual
underlying geology
of
that
portion
of
Illinois.
The
agency’s
model,
as proposed,
does
not
include
any
adjustment
for
the
depth
between
the
building
and
the
source
of
contamination.
This
counter-intuitive
decision
overlooks
the
position
that
this
Board
already
has
taken
in
the
TACO
rules.
In
the
outdoor
inhalation
context,
the
Board
already
has
adopted
regulations
which
provide
that
contamination
more
than
ten
feet
below
the
surface
essentially
need
not
be
considered
if
the surficial soils
meet
the
TACO
standards.
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
742
§
1
105(c)(3)(C)(iii).
As
long
as
the
property
owner
maintains the
clean
surficial
soils
above
the
source
of
contamination,
the
property
owner
may
exclude
the
outdoor
inhalation
pathway
from
consideration.
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
742
§1
105(c)(3)(C)(iii).
Why
then
should
the
Board
adopt
a
model
in
which
the
distance
between
the
source
of
contamination
and
the
surface
)
is irrelevant
for
an indoor
inhalation
pathway
when
it
already
has
taken
a
different
position
in
the
TACO
rules
for the
outdoor
inhalation
pathway?
The
Illinois
EPA’
s
proposal
also
is
significantly
influenced
by
the
agency’s
assumptions
about
the
size
of the
typical
residential
and
industrial
buildings
that
might
be
affected
by
any
indoor
inhalation pathway
issues.
The
agency
has
offered
no
basis
for
its
assessment
of
the typical
size of
a residential
structure
in
Illinois
or
a
typical
commercial
structure.
The
sizes
chosen,
about
1089
square
feet
(33
ft.
x
33
ft. x
8
ft)
for
residential
structure
and
about
4356
square
feet
(66
ft.
x
66
ft.
x 10
ft.)
for
industrial
structures,
do not
seem
to
be
representative
sizes.
For
example,
the US
Census
Bureau
found
the
median
square
footage
for
housing
units
in
the
Chicago
Metropolitan
area
to be
2017
square
feet.
(American
Housing
Survey
for
the
Chicago
Metropolitan
Area
in
2003,
Table
1-3,
www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/h170.-
03-22.pdf).
Further,
this
did
not
include
cooperatives
or condominiums,
which
would
inevitably
increase
this
number.
One
of the
pre-filed
questions
states
that
industrial
users
tend
to
have
buildings
that
are
250,000
square
feet
(500ft
x
500ft
x
25ft).
(Illinois
EPA’s
Responses
to Pre-Filed
Questions, p.3-4,
January
13, 2009,
IPCB
Rulemaking
R09-9).
Based
on
this testimony, the
current
typical
building
size
for industrial
buildings
is
drastically
too
small.
How
to Establish
Compliance
The
Illinois
EPA
has
offered
a
variety
of
reasons
for
why
the
testing
for
indoor
quality
is
problematic.
There
are
numerous
reasons
why
indoor
testing
may
detect
contaminants
which
have
indoor
sources
unrelated to the
subsurface
contamination.
The
agency
has
acknowledged,
however,
that
indoor
testing
under
representative
conditions
which
finds
an
absence
of
the
contaminants
at
levels
of concern
should
be
relied
upon.
(Transcript
of
Proceedings held
on January 27,
2009,
pp.
96-96,
IPCB
Rulemaking
R09-9).
Indeed,
given
the
overly
conservative
nature
of
the
model,
many
property
owners
will
need
quickly
to
test
indoor
air
quality
to avoid
a variety
of
tort
type
claims
once
they
exceed
the
Tier
1
standards.
Negative
indoor
air
tests
under
representative
conditions
should
be
a
presently conservative
absolute
defense
to the
indoor
inhalation
pathway
as
it
provides
actual
data
showing
the
absence
of any
risk
which
ought
always
to
trump
a theoretical
concern
driven
by
a
model
unproven
in Illinois.
Adverse
Effect
on
Building
Cost
and
Energy
Efficiency
Overly
conservative
Tier
1
values
also
could
cause
environmental
harm.
Many
of
the
proposed
Building
Control
Technologies
(Illinois
EPA’s
Proposed
Amendments,
35
Ill.
Adm.Code
742.
1200,
742.1205,
742.1210)
will undermine
efforts
to
reduce
energy
usage.
Every
building
that
adds
a
Building
Control
Technology
will
cost
more
and
be
less
energy
efficient,
a result
that
should
be
avoided
unless
the
Building
Control
Technology
addresses
a
real
risk,
not
just
a
projected
but overly
conservative
assessment
of
risk.
6
Existing
NFR
Letters
Finally,
there
is
the whole
question
of
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
on the
sites
which
already
have
obtained
NFR
letters
from
Illinois.
The
TACO
program
is
a
mature
program
operating
in
largely
the same
manner
for more
than
a
decade.
At
present,
Illinois
EPA
has
issued
over
2,600
NFR
letters,
many
of
which
are
in
the
City
of Chicago
where
the
proposed
change
in standards will
have
the
greatest
effect.
While
the
agency
maintains
that
it
will
not
be
its
practice
to
reopen
those
letters
in
the
absence of new
information,
its
response
does
not
explain
whether
new
soil
gas
data
or
the
evaluation
of
old
data
in
light
of
the
new
standards
will
itself
trigger
the
reopening
of
old
NFR
letters.
More
importantly,
however,
even
if
the
agency
does
not
reopen
the
NFR
letters
on
its
own,
the
parties
in
commercial
transactions
will
often
do
so.
Especially
in
the
current
lending
climate,
lenders
likely
will
insist
that
property
buyers
supply
new
NFR
letters
addressing the
indoor
inhalation
pathway
if
there
is
any
chance
that
the
pathway
poses
an
additional risk
to
the
lender’s
collateral.
In
this
way,
as
properties
change
hands,
they
will
all
be
reevaluated
and
all
of
the NFR
letters
involved
for
those
sites
will
essentially
be reopened through
new
testing,
new
analysis,
and
new
submissions
to
Illinois
EPA
seeking
additional NFR
letters.
All
of
this
will
come
at
a
significant
and
likely
unnecessary
cost,
driven
in
the first
instance
by
the
overly
conservative
Tier
1 values.
Realistic
values
would
limit
the
number
of
sites
that
would
need
to be
reopened
and
allow
the
public
and
the
Illinois EPA
to
focus
their
attention
on
the
sites
that
truly
matter.
Conclusion
Indoor
inhalation
of
contaminants
from
underlining
soil
and
groundwater
contamination
can
be a
serious
problem.
We
are
all
familiar
with
the
travails
of
the
residents
of
Hartford,
Illinois
who
have
lived
for
years
with
the
effects
of
gasoline
vapors
in
their
homes.
This
serious
problem
is
atypical,
however,
and
can
be
readily
dealt
with
by
the
existing
regulatory mechanisms.
It
does
not
take
a
new
set
of
overly
rigorous
indoor
inhalation
standards
to enable
the
agency
to drive
those
types
of
sites
towards
appropriate
risk-based
remediation.
Here,
the
Board
should
adopt
only
regulations
shown
to
be
based
on
actual
risk
to
human
health,
consistent
with
the
General
Assembly’s
mandate.
Raymond
VReott
SUBSCRIBED
AND
SWORN
TO
me
this
24th
day
of
2009
7
Comparison
of
Existing
and
Proposed TACO
Standards
(02/19/09)
For
Industrial/Commercial
Property
in
Communities
With
an
Approved
Groundwater
Use
Institutional
Control
Ordinance
illinois
EPA
Proposed
Existing
Existing
TACO
Objectives*
Objectives
in
R9-09
for
Indoor
TACO
Inhalation
*
* *
*
Objectives
*
Outdoor
Ingestion
Inhalation
Class
I
GW
Chemical
(Soil)
Soil
GW
(mg/kg)
(Soil)
(mg/kg)
(mg/i)
(mg/I)
(mg/kg)
***
**
Benzene
100
1.5
0.51
2.4
0.005
Ethylbenzene
200,000
350
130
170
0.7
MTBE
20,000
8,400
6,300
51,000
0.07
Toluene
160,000
580
240
530
1.0
Xylenes
(Total)
410,000
280
100
110
10.0
Carbon
Tetrachioride
44
0.68
0.15
0.27
0.005
Chloroform
180
0.58
0.2
1
0.07
Trans-
1,2-
dichloroethylene
41,000
230
63
280
0.1
Methylene
Chloride
760
25
10
80
0.005
Tetrachloroethylene
11
3.8
1.7
1.4
0.005
1,1
DCA
410,000
1,700
670
3,800
1.4
1,1
DCE
100,000
450
77
260
0.007
1,1,1
TCA
1,000,000
1,300
560
1,300
0.2
TCE
440
6.3
1.9
6
0.005
Vinyl
Chloride
8
1.1
0.15
0.64
0.002
Naphthalene
41,000
140
34
31
0.14
Mercury
610
3.1
0.45
0.06
0.002
Footnotes
*
The
existing
objectives
assume
the
adoption
of the
changes
proposed in
R9-09
based
on
updated
toxicity
data
and
similar
adjustments.
**
The
existing
soil
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table B
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
***
The
existing groundwater
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
E
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
The
Illinois
EPA’s
proposed
Indoor
Inhalation
standards
are
from
Section 742.
Appendix
B,
Table
G.
Comparison
of
Existing
and
Proposed
TACO
Standards
(02/19109)
For
Industrial/Commercial
Property
in
Communities
without
an
Approved
Groundwater
Use
Institutional
Control
Ordinance
Illinois EPA
Proposed
Existing
Existing
TACO
Objec.tives*
Objectives
in
R9-09
for
TACO
Indoor
Inhalation****
Objectives*
Ingestion
Outdoor
Migration
to
Inhalation
Class
I
GW
Class
I
GW
Chemical
(Soil)
Soil
GW
(mg/kg)
(Soil)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/I)
(mg/I)
(mg/kg)
(Soil)
*,
“-
**
Benzene
100
1.5
0.032
0.51
2.4
0005
Ethylbenzene
200,000
350
12
130
170
0.7
MTBE
20,000
8,400
0.31
6,300
51,000
0.07
Toluene
160,000
580
ii
240
530
1.0
Xylenes
(Total)
410,000
280
200
100
110
10.0
Carbon
Tetrachioride
44
0.68
0.071
0.15
0.27
0.005
Chloroform
180
0.58
0.44
0.2
1
0.07
trans-
1,2-
dichloroethylene
41,000
230
0.67
63
280
0.1
Methylene
Chloride
760
25
0.023
10
80
0.005
Tetrachioroethylene
11
3.8
0.15
1.7
1.4
0.005
1,1
DCA
410,000
1,700
8
670
3,800
1.4
1,1
DCE
100,000
450
0.055
77
260
0.007
1,1,1
TCA
1,000,000
1,300
I
2
560
1,300
0.2
TCE
440
6.3
0.044
1.9
6
0.005
Vinyl
Chloride
8
1.1
0.013
0.15
0.64
0.002
Naphthalene
41,000
140
3.4
34
31
0.14
Mercury
610
3.1
0.002
0.45
0.06
0.002
Footnotes
*
The
existing
objectives
assume
the
adoption
of
the
changes
proposed
in
R9-09
based
on
updated
toxicity
data
and
similar
adjustments.
**
The existing
soil
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
B
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
The existing
groundwater
standards
are
from
Section 742.
Appendix
B,
Table
E
as
modified
by
the
Illinois EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
The
Illinois
EPA’s
proposed
Indoor
Inhalation
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
G.
Comparison
of
Existing
and
Proposed
TACO
Standards
(02/19/09)
For
Residential
Property
in
Communities
With
an
Approved
Groundwater
Use
Institutional
Control
Ordinance
Illinois EPA
Proposed
Existing
Existing
TACO
Objectives*
Objectives
in
R9-09
for
TACO
Indoor
Inhalation****
Objectives_.-.
Ingestion
Outdoor
Inhalation
Class
I
GW
Chemical
(Soil)
Soil
GW
(mg/ko
(Soil)
(mg/kg)
(mg/I)
(mg/I)
*,.*
‘
(mg/kg)
Benzene
12
0.8
0.069
0.36
0.005
Ethylbenzene
7,800
350
130
170
0.7
MTBE
780
8,400
2,900
24,000
0.07
Toluene
6,300
580
240
530
1.0
Xylenes
(Total)
16,000
280
63
80
10.0
Carbon
Tetrachloride
4.9
0.36
0.021
0.041
0.005
Chloroform
21
0.31
0.028
0.15
0.07
trans-i
,2-
dichloroethylene
1600
140
10
50
0.1
Methylene
Chloride
85
13
1.4
11
0.005
Tetrachioroethylene
1.2
2
0.24
0.21
0.005
l,1DCA
16,000
1,300
110
660
1.4
1,1DCE
3,900
280
13
49
0.007
1,1,1
TCA
160,000
1,300
560
1,300
0.2
TCE
49
--
...
0.26
0.89
0.005
Vinyl
Chloride
0.43
0.28
0.011
0.05
0.002
Naphthalene
1,600
89
34
31
0.14
Mercury
24
3.1
0.45
0.06
0.002
Footnotes
*
The
existing objectives
assume
the
adoption
of
the
changes
proposed
in
R9-09
based
on
updated
toxicity
data
and
similar
adjustments.
**
The
existing
soil
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
A
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
***
The
existing
groundwater
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
E
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA R9-09
Proposal.
****
The
Illinois
EPA’s
proposed
Indoor
Inhalation
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
G.
Comparison
of
Existing
and
Proposed
TACO
Standards
(02/03/09)
For
Residential
Property
in
Communities
without
an
Approved
Groundwater
Use
Institutional
Control
Ordinance
illinois
EPA
Proposed
Existing
Existing
TACO
Objectives*
Objectives
in
R9-09
for
TACO
Indoor
Inhalation
*
*
*
Objectives
Outdoor
Ingestion
Migration
to
Inhalation
Class
I
GW
Class
I
GW
Chemical
(Soil)
Soil
GW
(mg/kg)
(Soil)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/I)
(mg/I)
**
(mg/kg)
(Soil)
***
**
**
Benzene
12
0.8
0.032
0.069
0.36
0.005
Ethylbenzene
7,800
350
12
130
170
0.7
MTBE
780
8,400
0.31
2,900
24,000
0.07
Toluene
6,300
580
ii
240
530
1.0
Xylenes
(Total)
16,000
280
200
63
80
10.0
Carbon
Tetrachioride
4.9
0.36
0.071
0.021
0.041
0.005
Chloroform
21
0.31
0.44
0.028
0.15
0.07
irans-
1,2-
dichioroethylene
1600
140
067
10
50
0.1
Methylene
Chloride
85
13
0.023
1.4
11
0.005
Tetrachioroethylene
1.2
2
0.15
0.24
0.21
0.005
1,1
DCA
16,000
1,300
8
110
660
1.4
1,1
DCE
3,900
280
0.055
13
49
0.007
1,1,1
TCA
160,000
1,300
2
560
1,300
0.2
TCE
49
3.3
0.044
0.26
0.89
0.005
VinyiChioride
0.43
0.28
0.013
0.011
0.05
0.002
Naphthalene
1,600
89
3.4
34
31
0.14
Mercury
24
3.1
0.002
0.45
0.06
0.002
Footnotes
*
The
existing
objectives
assume
the
adoption
of
the
changes
proposed
in
R9-09
based on
updated
toxicity
data
and
similar
adjustments.
**
The
existing
soil
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
A
as
modified
by
the
Illinois
EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
The
existing
groundwater
standards
are
from
Section 742.
Appendix
B,
Table
B
as
modified
by
the
Illinois EPA
R9-09
Proposal.
****
The Illinois
EPA’s
proposed
Indoor
Inhalation
standards
are
from
Section
742.
Appendix
B,
Table
G.
Certificate
of
Service
I,
Raymond
T. Reott,
certify
that
I
served
the
participants
on
the attached
service
list
with
a
copy
of
the Testimony
of Raymond
T.
Reott
by
US
mail
on February
24,
2009:
Raymond T.
Reott
11L
rage
i
01
.)
217/782-
irsErvronmental
Protection
Agency
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
5544
Interested
Party
P.O.
Box
19276
9276
217/782-
9807
Kimberly
A.
Geving,
Assistant
Counsel
Annet
God
iksen,
Legal
Counsel
217/782-
crrirrifIr1
IEPA
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
‘“‘
5544
Petitioner
P.O.
Box
19276
9276
217/782-
-
9807
Kimberly
A.Geving,
Assistant
Counsel
21
7I7’-
Hodge
Dwyer
Zemap
3150
Roland
Avenue
4900
Complainant
Post
Office
Box
5776
5776
217/523-
4948
Katherine
D.
Hodge
Mcri,’
T
rc
EPI
South
Holland
16650
SouLh
Canal
Interested
Party
IL
60473
o-k
&AI-..,.I,;
DUL)
9H
H%UVV.j
DesPlaines
nemcindusry
ouncn
or
ros
1490
East
Touhy
Avenue
IL
60019-
Interested
Party
Suite
100
3338
Lisa
Frede
312/853-
BeHande
&Sargis
Law
Group,
LLP
19
South
LaSalle
Street
Chicago
8701
Interested
Party
Suite
1203
IL
60603
312/853-
8702
Mark
Robert
Sargis
217/788-
p
_I_H
H
I
‘_.H
1525
South
Sixth
Street
IL
62703-
2450
Interested
Party
217/788-
2503
Tracy
Lundein
773/380-
Conestoga-Rovers
&
Associates
Chicago
-
--
9933
-
8615
West
Bryn
Mawr
Avenue
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,
13th
Floor
IL
60602
312/814-
2347
Matthew
J.
Dunn,
Division
Chief
847/688-
Navy
FacWties
and
EngineeringCoromand
201
Decatur
Avenue
Great
Lakes
2600
Interested
Party
Building
1A
2801
847/688-
2319
Mark
Schultz,
Regional
Environmental
Coordinator
312/814-
iiHnois
Polluuon
Controi
Board
100
W.
Randolph
St.
Chicago
3620
Interested
Party
Suite
11-500
IL
60601
312/814-
3669
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Board
http
://www.ipcb.
state.il.us/cool/external/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=13
524¬ifytype=Service
2/24/2009
f’age
2
01
3
PirhrH
McIiiI
Hprinn
flffircr
Commonweaitn
Edison
10
South
Dearborn
Street
Chicago
Interested
Party
35FNW
IL
60603
rr
I-J
II.
LWIf(LItZtJII
r’hdccr
-
Downers
Interested Party
3140
Finley
Road
Grove
IL
60515
Monte
Nienkerk
Weaver
Eoos
&
Gordon
-
Springfield
Interested
Party
2021
Tirnberbrook
Lane
IL
62702
Elizabeth
Steinhour
Andrews
Environmental
Engineerino
Springfield
interested
Party
3300
Ginger
Creek
Drive
1L
62711
Kenneth
W. Liss
8501
West
Higgins
Road
Interested Party
Suite
280
2801
Dr.
Douglas
C.
Hambley,
P.E,
P.G.
r
-1,Fr
r1
P
Inierested
Party
333
East State
Street
IL
61110-
0827
John
W.
Hochwarter
Jeffrey
Larson
Trivedi
Interested
Assodates
Party
Inc.
Steeplebrook
Court
IL
Naperville
60565
Chetan
Trivedi
217/782-
iiiinoisDenartmentofNatura
iRecircs
One
Natural
Resources
Way
72
g
702
217/524-
9640
Stan
Yonkauski
William
Richardson,
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Sucuroan
Laboratones.
Inc.
Hillside
708-544-
Interested Party
4140
Litt
Drive
IL
60162
3260
Jarrett
Thomas,
V.P.
IHinos
Department
of
Transportation
2300
S. Dirksen
Parkway
Springfield
Interested
Party
Room
302
IL 62764
Steven
Gobeirnan
iirec
77 W.
Wacker
Chicago
3
12/849-
Interested
Party
Suite
4100
IL 60601
8100
David
Rieser
Reott
Law
Offices,
LLC
35 East
Wacker
Drive
Chicago
312/332-
Interested
Party
Suite
650
IL
60601
/
Raymond T.
Reott
,—.———..
—r
A:LL.__...I__
iurye
I.
I”IHIdJOIJUUIUS
Environmental
Manaqement
-Technoiogies
1
2012
W.
College
Avenue
Normal
309/454-
Interested
Party
Suite
208
IL
61761
1717
Craig
Gocker,
President
iFjonmetiReguiatoryGrmjp
215 East
Adams
Street
Springfield
217/522-
Interested
Party
IL 62701
5512
2
17/522-
http://www.ipcb
.state.il.us/cool/external/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=
13
524¬ifytype=Service
2/24/2009
L
I
III
Li
LLI
V
I
L..L3
I....
r
J
5518
Alec
M.
Davis
312/742—
Chicago
DepartpfLaw
30
N.
LaSalle
Street
Chicago
3990
Interested
Party
Suite
900
IL
60602
312/744-
6798
Charles
A.
King,
Assistant
Corporation
Counsel
SRAC
Decatur
Interested
Party
2510
BrooKs
Dnve
IL
62521
Harry
Walton
210
South
Clark
Street,
Suite
Inc.
2235
Chicago
6306751625
Interested
Party
The
Clark
Adams
Building
IL
60603
Lawrence
L.
Fieber,
Principal
Total
number
of
participants:
34
http:!/www.ipcb.
state.iLus/cool/external/casenotifyNew.
asp?caseidi
3
524¬ifytypeService
2/24/2009