1
    100 West 22
    nd
    Street, Suite 151
    Lombard, Illinois 60168
    630/268-8555
    February 24, 2009
    Mr. Richard R. McGill, Jr.
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    James R. Thompson Center
    100 W. Randolph
    Suite 11-500
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    RE:
    Prefiled Questions
    Rulemaking R09-9
    In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Tiered Approach to Corrective Action
    Objectives (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742)
    Dear Mr. McGill:
    The intent of this letter is to present issues regarding proposed Vapor Intrusion Pathway
    amendments to Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives (TACO). We offer the
    following comments regarding proposed vapor intrusion regulations:
    •
    Creation of Tier 1 vapor intrusion risk-based health objectives for indoor air volatile
    organic compounds (VOCs). This would allow the user/remedial applicant to use
    empirical indoor air quality survey results on a site with an existing building to determine
    if a problem exists. The present rulemaking only allows for a Tier 3 evaluation to use
    this avenue of rebuttal. Without a set of published guidelines, a property owner with an
    existing NFR closure document would have no way of proving a problem is NOT present
    without obtaining additional subsurface data and applying a predictive model to
    determine if the need for additional remediation is required. Other states with indoor air
    VOC objectives include Minnesota and California.
    We advocate this addition to the proposed rules to allow exclusion of the vapor intrusion
    pathway by using indoor air quality (IAQ) data without additional subsurface testing.
    Submission of IAQ data as a Tier 3 package (not listed as an option within 35 IAC 742.935)
    would result in risk-based site-specific objectives for each site, and place undue burden on the
    consultant and regulator to determine if the intent of the regulation has been properly addressed.
    It is intuitive that IAQ data indicating no significant impact is inherently superior evidence than
    any data obtained outside the building envelope.
    A major driving force for application of TACO (typically applied in a voluntary fashion to
    promote on-site health and well-being) is future marketability of the subject property. As a part
    of property transaction due diligence, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conforming to
    ASTM standard 1527-05 is typically performed (Note: ASTM E 1527-00 is incorporated into the
    proposed regulation by reference. This document has been replaced by ASTM E 1527-05).
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 24, 2009
    2
    If a potential vapor intrusion issue is identified, the user is directed to ASTM E 2600-08
    Standard Practice for Assessment for Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in
    Real Estate Transactions
    (incorporated into proposed regulations by reference).
    ASTM 2600-08 advocates the user to perform indoor air sampling prior to mitigation to
    determine if a potential IAQ problem actually is present within the building. We all recognize
    that many false positives can obtained through use of this method. In support, the IEPA
    consultant (Dr. Salhotra, page 82, January 27, 2009) stated:
    ”
    you can divide all the methods
    (other states and ASTM
    ) into two categories, so the first one is where you evaluate the pathway
    by collecting indoor air samples, so you go inside the building, whether it is commercial,
    industrial or a residential, and you measure the indoor air concentration and then you see if it
    meets the indoor air standard
    .
    ”
    Dr. Salhotra then states within his slides the IAQ testing should
    only be used as a last resort, and Dr. King also discourages IAQ testing, except as a last resort.
    We respectfully disagree. Conducting soil gas, soil, or groundwater testing on a property is at
    least equally as intrusive as indoor air testing.
    Without IAQ testing and a recognized standard to compare results, we question the validity of
    the basic paradigm for this regulation.
    Previously promulgated soil and groundwater
    remediation objectives were based on ingestion or inhalation at the point of contact, and are
    defensible as such. IAQ values (point of contact) should be Tier 1. We believe the vapor
    intrusion regulation should be tied into a definable IAQ standard or else it is simply begging the
    question
    .
    A property owner needs an IAQ standard to be presented in a format that allows for a
    simple and affordable pathway exclusion.
    Sincerely.
    Harvey D. Pokorny, PG
    Senior Project Manager
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 24, 2009

    Back to top