BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    IN THE MATTER:
    )
    )
    R09-9
    PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
    )
    (Rulemaking-Land)
    TIERED APPROACH TO CORRECTIVE )
    ACTION OBJECTIVES
    )
    (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742)
    )
    )
    Pre-filed Questions for March 2009 Hearing
    Raymond T. Reott hereby submits the following additional pre-filed questions to
    be addressed in the course of the scheduled March 2009 hearing.
    Questions for Illinois EPA Witnesses
    1.
    Which studies or data, if any, submitted to the Board correlate the proposed
    predicted indoor concentrations in the Johnson & Ettinger model to actual
    indoor air sampling? Of those studies, which correlate the proposed model to
    actual indoor sampling at sites in Illinois?
    2.
    Why should depth to contamination matter for the outdoor inhalation pathway
    where the outdoor inhalation pathway for contamination deeper than 10 feet is
    excluded based upon 10 feet of any overlying clean soil, even sand, 35 Ill.
    Admin. Code 742 §1105(c)(3)(C)(iii), but not matter in Tier 1 for the
    proposed indoor inhalation pathway?
    3.
    What are the assumptions used in the Johnson & Ettinger model?
    4.
    Which of the assumptions in the Johnson & Ettinger model have the highest
    sensitivity in terms of the values proposed by the agency in its Tier 1 Table
    G?
    5.
    What is the basis for believing that the chosen assumptions reflect
    representative Illinois conditions for the various parameters?
    6.
    Is the default porosity value chosen for the model for Tier 1 representative of
    typical Illinois soil conditions? Is the FOC value selected as a default
    condition in the proposed model for Tier 1 representative of typical Illinois
    soil conditions? (Illinois EPA’s Proposed Amendments, 35 Ill. Admin. Code
    §742, Appendix C, Table M)
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 4, 2009
    7.
    Did the agency review any of the articles critical of the cumulative
    conservative assumptions of the Johnson & Ettinger model such as those
    published by USEPA? (See USEPA, Sept. 2005, J. Weaver and F. Tillman,
    Uncertainty and the Johnson-Ettinger Model for Vapor Intrusion Calculations;
    USEPA, Sept. 2005, F. Tillman and J. Weaver, Review of Recent Research on
    Vapor Intrusion
    ). If so, why are those criticisms not appropriate to consider
    as the Board evaluates whether to adopt regulatory standards based on the
    Johnson & Ettinger model?
    8.
    Why is Illinois EPA proposing to apply the Johnson & Ettinger model to
    Illinois LUST sites when USEPA recommends against its use for LUST sites?
    9.
    Why is Illinois proposing to use the Johnson & Ettinger model in other
    contexts where USEPA does not recommend its use such as sites with buried
    pipelines where significant lateral flow of vapors occurs and sites with very
    shallow groundwater where the groundwater wets the building foundation?
    (USEPA’s User Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into
    Buildings, Feb. 22, 2004, p. 69-70).
    10.
    What is the effect on the Tier 1 values in Table G of assuming that the default
    building has a basement rather than slab on grade construction?
    11.
    Did Illinois EPA review any studies of typical building size in Illinois before
    choosing the assumed dimensions in the proposed rule?
    Pre-Filed Questions for Geokinetics
    12.
    What is the relative cost of using a 60 mil vapor barrier at typical sites
    compared to the 6 and 10 mil barriers referenced in the proposed rule and your
    testimony?
    13.
    What is Geokinetics experience with testing indoor air quality for
    contaminants for vapors from subslab soil and/or groundwater contamination?
    Would a system of interior air quality standards (as suggested by Versar in its
    February 24, 2009 comment letter) be workable in Illinois?
    14.
    Has Geokinetics ever compared its indoor air monitoring quality data to the
    predicted values from the Johnson and Ettinger Model?
    15.
    Does Geokinetics have any experience with the costs of the various Building
    Control Technologies referenced in the proposed rule?
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 4, 2009
    Respectively submitted,
    Reott Law Offices, LLC
    __/s/ Raymond T. Reott ____
    By:
    Raymond T. Reott
    __________
    Raymond T. Reott
    Reott Law Offices, LLC
    35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    312-332-7544
    Date: March 4, 2009
    I, Raymond T. Reott, certify that I electronically filed a copy of the
    Certificate of Service
    Pre-filed
    Questions for March 2009 Hearing
    with the Illinois Pollution Control Board on March 4,
    2009 and served it on the electronic service list:
    __/s/ Raymond T. Reott ______
    Raymond T. Reott
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 4, 2009

    Back to top