NOTICE

FECEVE

CLERK’S

OFFICE

MAY

92009

STATE

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control

Board

Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James R.

Thompson

Center

100

Randolph,

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Matt

Dunn

Environmental

Bureau

Chief

Office of

the

Attorney

General

James

Thompson

Center

100

Randolph,

Floor

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Participants

the

Service

List

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Bill

Richardson

Chief

Legal

Counsel

Illinois

Dept.

Natural

Resources

One

Natural

Resources

Way

Springfield,

Illinois

62702-1271

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

Richard

McGill

Hearing

Officer

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

Thompson

Center

100

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

(Via

First

Class

Mail)

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that

I have

today

filed

with

the

Office

the

Clerk

tfr

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency’s

(“Illinois

A”)

Pre-First

Notice

Comments

copy

each of which

is herewith

served

upon

you.

ILLiNOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:

(t<imberly

A.,ft3eving

Assistant C6unsel

Division

of Legal

Counsel

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

R09-9

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

TIERED

APPROACH

CORRECT

)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

DATE:

May 27, 2009

1021

North Grand Avenue

East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

CLERK’S

OFFIC

MAY29

2009

STATE

IWNOIS

)

Pollution

Control

Board

iN THE

MATTER

OF:

)

R09-9

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

TIERED

APPROACH TO

CORRECTIVE

)

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

)

(35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

742)

)

ILLINOIS

EPA’S

PRE-FIRST

NOTICE

COMMENTS

NOW COMES the

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”),

by one

its

attorneys,

Kimberly A.

Geving,

and

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 102.108,

respectfully

submits

these PRE-FIRST

NOTICE COMMENTS

the

above-captioned

matter

to the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board

(“Board”).

It is the

Illinois

EPA’s

contention that the

proposed amendments

filed

this matter

with

the

Board on

September 2,

2008, and the corresponding

Errata

Sheets 1 through

4 filed

subsequent

the initial

proposal,

constitute

technically

feasible,

economically

reasonable,

and

well-supported

amendments

to Part 742. The Illinois

EPA believes

that

the Board

should

adopt

the proposed

amendments

in their entirety as submitted

by the

Illinois

EPA,

including changes

proposed

Errata

Sheets

1 through 4.

Background

September 2, 2008,

the Illinois

EPA filed its

proposed amendments

in the above

captioned matter

to incorporate

changes to the rules

that

are designed

to improve

and update

particular

aspects of the Tiered

Approach to

Corrective

Action

Objectives (“TACO”)

methodology,

including

adding

new pathway to address

indoor inhalation

concerns.

Since

the

last

amendments

in 2005

(adopted

in February

2007), changes

in scientific information

at the

national level

have made it necessary

to update

various

provisions

of Part 742.

Over the last

few

years, the Illinois EPA

has

been compiling

changes to remediation

objectives

that

stemmed

from

changes

at the national

level

as well

as developing a

methodology to

address the indoor

inhalation

exposure route.

is typically

the case when

the Illinois EPA proposes

amendments

to its rules, we

had

several

outreach meetings with

the

regulated

community during

the development

of the

proposed

amendments. Overall,

the Illinois

EPA believes that

the vast majority

of the

regulated

community’s

comments

and concerns

were

incorporated

into the proposed amendments

that

the

Board

received

last September

and

were

further refined

through the four Errata

Sheets filed

with

the Board

during the

regulatory process.

The Illinois EPA

realizes that its proposal

cannot

satisfy

100% of the members

of the regulated

community,

but we believe that

the

proposed

amendments

are scientifically

sound and serve

the

public

by protecting human

health

and

the

environment.

B. Issues

of Concern at Hearing

The Illinois

EPA believes

that there

were

a number of issues

raised

hearing

that merit

discussion

in these comments,

including fixing

few

errors in the

errata

sheets.

1. The

Illinois

EPA noticed

an error in Errata Sheet

Number

1 regarding Section

742.410(b).

We inadvertently

did not strike

enough text in

that subsection.

Subsection

742.4

10(b)(2) should also

have

been

stricken.

2. In

Errata Sheet Number

the bottom

of page 1, the

chemical to be updated

should

have been 1 ,2-Dichloroethane

(Ethylene dichloride),

not 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene.

The

ingestion

column changes from

•

3. Also

in Errata Sheet Number

4, there is

an error in Appendix

B, Table

A for the value

1,1-Dichioroethane.

The

Class

I value

should have had

a footnote “r”

in the Errata

Sheet

rather

than a footnote

“e”.

4. Tn Errata Sheet

Number

Appendix B, Table

C, we should have

changed a footnote

for

the Lead

pH range of

8.75 to 9.0. The footnote

should

have been a “c” rather

than

“b”.

(Note: the Hearing

Officer requested

that the Illinois

EPA

provide,

along with its Pre

First Notice

Comments to the Board,

a copy of

the rules on disk that

incorporates

all four

Errata

Sheet

changes into the rules.

These corrections

have

been incorporated

into

that

disk).

5. The proposed

Class II Groundwater

Standard

for MCPP

(Mecoprop) in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 620

was revised in Errata

Sheet Number

4 of docket

R08-18. Inadvertently,

that

change was

not made in Docket

R09-9; therefore,

the proposed

amendments need

reflect the

correct Class II Groundwater

Standard.

The

revisions

are as follows:

appendix

B, Tables A and B, change

the

Values

for the Soil

Component of the

Groundwater

Ingestion Exposure

Route

for

Class II to O.O33

mg/kg. This is the

same

the Class

I value. For Appendix

Table D,

the entire row for

MCPP

should be

changed

to read as

follows:

Chemical

(totals)

4.5

4.75

5.25

5.75

6.25

6.65

6.9

7.25

7.75

8.25

8.75

4.74

(mg/kg)

5.24

5.74

6.24

6.64

6.89

9.0

7.24

7.74

8.24

8.74

MCPP

0.046

0.037

0.034

0.033

(Mecoprop)

Finally, in

Appendix B,

Tables E and F,

change the Class

II value to

O.007c

(which would

the same as the Class

I value).

NOTE

to the Board:

these changes are

NOT

reflected

in the copy

of the rules or

on the CD submitted

to the Board

with these

comments

since

we did not

formally make these

changes

in an Errata Sheet

to this

rulemaking. If

the

Board chooses

to accept these

changes, they

will need to

be added to

the rules.

6. At the

second hearing,

on pages 23-24 of

the transcript

from the morning

(I will

reference

the

morning

transcript as TR1

and

the afternoon

transcript

as TR2)(TR1

at 24),

Mr. Davis asked Ms.

Hurley a few questions

regarding

the source that the

Illinois

EPA

uses to update the

toxicity data. At the time

of hearing,

Ms. Hurley was not

certain

if the

source

was actually

listed

on the Illinois

EPA’s website or not.

The

Hearing

Officer

asked

us if we could clarify

that in our public

comment.

The

answer is

yes;

the source

listed

on the

toxicity tables

on the Illinois EPA’s

website.

7. At the

second hearing on page

34 of the transcript

(TR1 at 34),

the Board asked the

Illinois

EPA whether it thought

there would be a

significant cost

impact if a party

chooses

to go

to Tier

3. Attached

as Exhibit 1 to

these Comments

we have included

document

prepared by our

expert witness, Atul Salhotra,

which

outlines costs that

were

incurred

at four different sites.

The purpose of

these case studies

is to attempt

to give the

Board

an illustration of

what types of costs

may be encountered

as a result

of adding

the

indoor

inhalation

exposure

route. The Illinois

EPA

contends

that the public

policy

argument for adding

this

exposure

route far outweighs

any

additional

costs that may

incurred as

a result of its

addition to the regulations.

8. At the

second hearing on

pages 35-36 of

the transcript (TR1 at

35-36), Mr.

Rao

asked

Mr. King

questions about

the J&E parameters

in Appendix

Table M for

the

width,

height, and length

of the building.

Mr. King stated that

we would look

at that and

make

any

necessary

change. In order

to address

the

site-specific question,

we should

have

added the

following

language

under the “Tier

or Calculated

Value” colunm

for these

parameters:

Under both

Slab on Grade and

Basement add

“ in Tier 3” after “Site-Specific”.

add “ in Tier

3” after

“Site-Specific”.

Qbldg

Under

both

Slab

on Grade and

Basement

add “ in Tier

3” after “Site-Specific”.

add

“ in Tier

3” after

“Site-Specific”.

Please

note

that

have

addressed

this issue and included

it in the revised

version

the rules

that are being

submitted on

CD to the Board along

with these

Comments.

At the second

hearing on pages

46-49

(TR1 at

46-49), Mr. Elliott

asked a series

questions

regarding

why one

cannot alter the size

of the

building

under a Tier 2

evaluation and

why

that must

be addressed in Tier

The

Illinois

EPA feels that

this

issue

was

adequately

addressed

at hearing. However,

we would

like to reiterate

that we

believe

that

one

is going

to look at building size,

that

is a very

site-specific issue

that

should

be addressed under

a Tier 3 evaluation

where all factors

that are highly

site-

specific

get addressed. If

one were to

alter

the

building size,

which

changes

the

assumptions of the

J&E model, the NFR

Letter

would

need to restrict current

and future

building sizes.

This

diminishes

the usefulness of

the liability release

and makes it

inappropriate

for widespread

use under Tier

10. At the

second hearing

on page 69 (TR1

at 69), Mr.

Reott made the statement

that:

“Most

of Illinois has

a groundwater ordinance

at this point.”

His statement

was apparently

made to support his

argument that

the Agency’s

changes are too conservative

and

would

“drive people into

cleaning up groundwater

in much of Illinois, and

would force

them to

address

issues

because of the tenfold

change

in clean-up standards

that would be

otherwise

not

dealt with

in the current

scenarios that are out

there.” (TR1 at

70). The

Illinois

EPA wishes

to rebut Mr. Reott’

s argument that most

of the State

has a

groundwater

ordinance.

In fact, as

April 2009,

according to the Secretary

of State’s

website, there

are 1,209 incorporated

areas in the

State of Illinois.

Of those,

approximately

139

towns and

cities in Illinois have

an approved

citywide

ordinance

for

purposes of an

acceptable

institutional

control under

TACO.

An additional 61 towns

cities

have only

approved

limited area ordinance

under

TACO.

Of those 61 towns

and

cities with approved

limited area ordinances,

have only 1 area

of the town covered;

have

areas covered;

5 have 3 areas

covered; 1 has

4 areas covered;

have

5 areas

covered;

have

7 areas covered; and

1 has

9 areas

covered. This in no

way comes

“most of Illinois”

being

covered by

a groundwater ordinance.

Therefore,

the Illinois

EPA

contends that its

proposal to address

this medium for

purposes

the indoor

inhalation

exposure route

is a critical

element of the proposal.

11. At

the second hearing,

Mr. Reott

raised

a concern about the

application

of the Johnson

Ettinger

model

in the Underground

Storage Tank (“UST”)

program (TR1

at 73-74)

because USEPA

does not apply the

model

to UST

sites. USEPA states

in its User’s

Guide

for Evaluating

Subsurface

Vapor Intrusion

into Buildings

that

the model is not

recommended

for use at UST

sites.

USEPA

further explains that

the model

does not

account for contaminant

attenuation (which

includes

biodegradation). However,

in the

Draft Guidance

for

Evaluating

the

Vapor Intrusion to

Indoor Air

Pathway

from

Groundwater

and Soils,

USEPA has developed

screening

levels for

benzene,

ethyl

benzene,

toluene,

and

xylene (“BETX”).

These contaminants

are commonly

found

UST

sites as well as

at other sites. USEPA

seems

to be contradicting

itself because

there

no information

to suggest that

these contaminants

will behave

differently

at UST

sites

than at other

sites. Therefore,

Illinois

EPA

does not

see the logic in treating

these

contaminants

differently

because they originated

at UST

sites.

TACO

currently has

remediation

objectives

for

ingestion,

outdoor inhalation,

and migration

to groundwater

for the BETX contaminants

and

does

not

differentiate

between

the origins of the

contamination. Illinois

EPA recognizes

that

petroleum contaminants

will degrade

over

time. However,

at this time, there

no generally

acceptable

quantitative attenuation

factor available.

If an attenuation

factor

does

become available,

it can be

incorporated

into TACO. Until

then, attenuation

of petroleum

contaminants

can be considered

under

Tier

3. Additionally,

if after several

years, it

is found that the

contaminants have

attenuated and

are

longer an

issue, then

the

context of the

NFR letter can be

revised

(Gary King testimony,

TR1 at 28-29).

12.

At the second hearing,

Mr. Reott

(TR1

at 79)

and Mr. Pokorny

(TR2 at 5-9) raised

the

issue of indoor

air sampling. From

their testimony,

appears

that both Mr. Reott

and

Mr. Pokomy

believe that

TACO should allow

for the use

of indoor

air

samples as

measure of

compliance

in Tier 1. Illinois

EPA believes that

indoor air

sampling

should

a Tier 3 issue because

indoor

air

sampling

is problematic

for

several reasons.

(The

equations for calculating

indoor

air remediation

objectives are

provided as

J&E1

and

J&E2

in Appendix

Table

L, if someone

chooses to

perform

indoor air quality

assessment.)

Indoor air sampling

data should not be used alone. It should be used in

conjunction with soil gas,

soil, and groundwater sampling data. As Mr. Pokorny

states in

his pre-filed testimony,

Minnesota and California do have indoor air remediation

objectives. But Minnesota

and California recommend that the subsurface be

characterized first. Indoor air sampling, if necessary,

is the last step.

Indoor air sample results

that are greater than the calculated remediation objectives

not necessarily indicate a subsurface source. Indoor air results

can be influenced by

several factors including occupant smoking, use of aerosol

consumer products, attached

garages, ambient air, and the building materials themselves.

There is a potential for

false

positives where the indoor air sample results are greater than

the calculated remediation

objectives but the soil, soil gas, and groundwater sample results are all less than

the

remediation

objectives.

Indoor air sampling is neither simple nor

non-intrusive. Because of the potential

for indoor sources of contamination, many guidelines recommend

that an indoor survey

to identify potential sources be performed prior to indoor air sampling

that

any

identified indoor sources can be removed, ifpossible, before indoor air sampling

is done.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has developed

a thorough

Indoor Air Quality Building Survey and Instructions for Residents

of Homes Being

Sampled. The

survey and instructions

are attached as Exhibit 2 to these Comments

and

the link

to the website that contains the survey and instructions

is:

http ://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/02-430.pdf. (Minnesota also

uses

surveys).

Indoor

air samples are

typically collected with all the windows and vents

closed.

This

may not be practical in industrial/commercial buildings

or homes in hot summer

months. Indoor air

sampling may also require

at least three visits

to the building.

The

first is

to conduct the pre-sampling survey;

the second is for

installing the sampling

equipment; and the third

is for the equipment retrieval.

Usually two

separate sampling

events

are recommended: one

in late summer/early

fall and one in late winter/early

spring.

Illinois

EPA intends for the entire

site to be safe for

current and future building

occupants. If soil gas

or soil and groundwater sample

results are greater than

the

remediation

objectives and indoor air sample

results are less than

the calculated

remediation

objectives, the potential exists

that contaminants

may enter the building.

There is no guarantee that the building

will not develop

cracks and leaks in the future.

TACO does not evaluate the

safety or protectiveness

of buildings on or

off-site.

In other words, TACO does not take into

account health risks

posed by indoor

exposure

to asbestos, lead-based paint or deteriorating

structures. It

will also not take into

account

health risks posed by the indoor inhalation

of contaminants

originating

from within

the

building (for example, from consumer products

used

in the

building or from building

materials).

13. At the second hearing, Hearing Officer

McGill requested

that the Illinois EPA

include

its

comments information

regarding what some

of the other

states are doing (TR1 at

85-

86).

Additionally, Mr. Rao asked

us to provide information

regarding how

other

states

deal with indoor air screening levels (TR1

at 88-89). In response

to these two requests

for

information,

the Illinois EPA has had

its expert, Atul

Salhotra, compile a

comparative

evaluation that

discusses what

several other

states do. That

evaluation is attached

Exhibit 3 to these Comments.

14. Finally,

as part of the

Board’s

request for

the information,

Hearing Officer

McGill

also

asked

the Illinois EPA

to discuss why we

think

our proposal

is better than

what

occurring

in other

states.

In response,

the

Illinois EPA

contends that our proposal

better

suits Illinois for

the following reasons:

a. Our proposal

is designed

to work within

the context of TACO

and

the regulatory

cleanup

programs that

rely on TACO.

The proposal uses

many of the same

assumptions and controls

that

are

already in place and

functioning well.

By fully

integrating the indoor

inhalation

pathway into TACO,

we’re benefitting

from

economies of

scale as well as retaining

the flexibility

and input

from

site owners

that

has made Part 742

such a successful

regulation.

The proposal allows

soil

and groundwater

data, collected

as part of routine

site

assessment work, to

be used

determine

compliance

with the indoor inhalation

exposure

route.

allows exterior soil gas

data

determine

compliance in

all

Tiers,

and

sub-slab

soil gas

data under Tier 3. This

ability to use multiple

lines of

evidence-

-specifically

exterior

soil gas to complement

existing soil and

groundwater

data—

increases

site evaluation options

and can

lead to more precise

remedial

work.

The proposal

discourages

the use of indoor

air data (allowed in

Tier

3) for reasons

stated

earlier

in these

Comments.

The proposal uses a

modified J&E model

that

calculates

a chemical-specific

and

geotechnical-specific

attenuation

factor

rather than relying

on a default

value applied

uniformly

to every

site.

a pathway exclusion

option, the

proposal

provides for building

control

technologies

and

gives specific design

and implementation

requirements.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion,

the

Illinois EPA

believes

that

its position on matters

raised

in this

proceeding

is well established

the testimony

of its witnesses.

Additionally,

the

Illinois

EPA

has attempted in

these

Pre-First

Notice

Comments

to further clarify

and support

its

position on those

issues raised

at hearing.

WHEREFORE,

the

Illinois EPA

submits its Pre-First

Notice

Comments,

including

the three exhibits,

for the Board’s

consideration

and respectfully

requests

that

the Board

the

proposal

in its entirety

for First

Notice.

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

B.____

/Kimberlyfri.

Geving

Assistant/Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated:

May 27, 2009

1021

Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

EXHBT

Costs Associated

with Soil Vapor

Investigations

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

The

costs of performing

soil vapor

investigations at

site

can

vary considerably

depending

on the

situation. Several cases

are

possible:

1. Soil

and

groundwater

investigations

have

already been

performed.

Soil vapor

investigations

are

subsequently performed

to evaluate

the indoor

inhalation

pathway

because

soil

and

groundwater

concentrations

exceeded

ROs

response to other issues,

e.g. third

party litigation.

2. Soil, groundwater,

geotechnical,

and soil vapor

investigations

are

being

performed

concurrently.

3. Permanent soil

vapor wells

vs. one-time

sampling event without

installing

soil

vapor wells.

4. Resampling

of existing soil

vapor monitoring

wells.

5. The specific

regulatory program,

drivers (litigation,

property

development,

real

estate

transaction, citizen odor

complaint),

etc may also affect

costs.

Specifically,

for soil vapor sampling,

the

following

can vary significantly

from site

site

and based on client

requirements:

1. Planning,

develop site specific health

and safety

plan,

utilities

clearance, etc.,

Daily

onsite

safety meetings

during field

activities,

3. Hand auguring

or air knifing to

identify

buried

utilities,

4. Drilling,

5. Soil vapor

well installations,

Soil vapor sampling,

7. Building surveys,

and

Data compilation,

evaluation,

and reporting results

(the number

of reports

can be

numerous

some cases).

The

following are

some example case studies:

Site 1

This

investigation

involved

a one-time soil vapor

sampling

event

to evaluate

the

vapor intrusion

risks at three

residential

properties

due

to migration of

impacted

groundwater

with volatile chemicals

from

an adjacent

source. The driver

for this

site

was

potential litigation

and high-profile

publicity.

The field

work

required

one day to

complete.

The

scope of

work

included the use

a Geoprobe

550B

track-mounted

rig

using

post-run

tubing (PRT)

to obtain soil

vapor

samples

and

one

duplicate

from depths up

to 6 ft below

ground surface

(bgs). The

borings

were

located

in the lawn

along the perimeter

of each

home. Additionally,

one

ambient

air sample outside

one

of the three

homes was

collected.

Difluoroethane

was

May2009

Page lof 4

RAMGroup(050024)

used as the leak detection compound

for the soil

vapor

sampling. A basement survey

was

performed

in two of the three homes.

The soil vapor and ambient air samples were analyzed in

the laboratory for volatile

chemicals.

soil

vapor monitoring wells were installed and no soil, groundwater,

or geotechnical samples were

obtained.

The evaluation consisted of compilation

all data, comparison to IEPA TACO

Tier

soil

gas ROs, estimation of vapor

intrusion risks

to residents and day-care employees and children

(at one residence),

and review

by an Illinois PB.

The report distribution requirements included

bound

copies and one electronic

copy on disk consisting of 181 pages per report (text, tables, figures,

and

appendicies). Also, individual

summary letter reports for each home were prepared

and distributed to the home owners, regulatory agencies, and other

parties. The costs

associated with this investigation

are summarized on Table 1.

Site 2

This investigation involved the long-term

(seasonal) evaluation of vapor intrusion

risks at three homes

due to migration of impacted groundwater with volatile

chemicals from an upgradient adjacent source. The driver for this

site was alleged

orders.

Five sampling events were performed over a 1-year period.

The investigation

included two soil vapor monitoring

well locations

per home (total of 6 locations)

depths of 10

ft bgs; two of the well locations were completed at two depths

of 5 ft

and 10 ft bgs (total of 8 well sampling points); and each well

was sampled quarterly

over a one year period. During

few

quarters, soil gas samples could not be collected

due to well screens occluded with water. Helium was used as the leak

detector for the

soil gas sampling.

The following differences in scope by quarter affected the

costs:

Qtr — installation of wells and sampling

Qtr

— sampling

Qtr — sampling

Qtr - sampling

Qtr — sampling and

abandonment of wells

The soil vapor evaluation consisted of compilation

of all data, estimation of indoor

air

concentrations

from soil vapor concentrations using conservative

attenuation

factors.

Comparison of estimated indoor air concentrations

to (i)

Tier

1 risk based target

levels, (ii)

indoor air

background concentrations, and (iii) ambient air

concentrations.

The final summary report consisted of 94

pages

including

text, 15 tables, 4 figures,

and 3

appendices. Also, individual

summary letter reports were prepared

for each of

May 2009

Page 2 of 4

RAM Group (050024)

the

residences

for

distribution

the homeowner,

regulatory

agencies,

and client

after

each

the

five

quarterly

sampling

events. The

costs associated

with

this

investigation

are

presented

in Table

Site 3

This

investigation

involved

the

installation

of permanent

soil

vapor

monitoring

wells

up to

6 ft bgs

primarily

in concrete,

asphalt,

and

gravel

pavement

(one

in grass)

along

the

perimeter

a commercial

building

in a mixed

commercial

and residential

area.

The

objective

was to

evaluate

the

vapor

intrusion

risks

employees

and

visitors/customers

due

to migration

impacted

groundwater

with

volatile

chemicals

from a former

onsite

and

adjacent

source.

The driver

for this

site was

proactive

voluntary

action

by the

responsible

party.

The field

work

required

four

days to

complete.

Geoprobe

5400 rig mounted

on a

Ford F450

4-wheel drive

truck

was used for

boring

advancement

and soil

sampling.

The

soil

vapor

monitoring

wells

consisted

of 6-inch

stainless

steel mesh

implants,

Teflon

tubing,

glass

beads pack,

and flush-mounted

manways.

The

scope of work

included

the

sampling

for

laboratory

analysis

of soil

for geotechnical

parameters

and

soil vapor

including

one duplicate

and

ambient

air

for

volatile

chemicals.

Difluoroethane

was

used as

the

leak

detection

compound

for

soil

vapor

sampling.

building

survey

was performed.

Soil

analytical

data

obtained by

others

was

also

included in

the evaluation

and

documentation.

The evaluation

consisted

compilation

all

data;

comparison

IEPA

TACO

Tier

soil

gas

ROs;

and

estimation

of vapor

intrusion

risks

employees

and

visitors/customers.

The report

distribution

included

bound copies

and

one

electronic

copy

on disk

consisting

190

pages

per

report

including

text,

6 tables,

3 figures,

and

appendices.

The costs associated

with

this investigation

are

summarized

Table

Site

This

investigation

involved

the installation

permanent

soil

vapor monitoring

wells

to 7

ft bgs

in concrete

and asphalt

pavement

along

the

perimeter

a commercial

building

in a

commercial

area.

The objective

was

to evaluate

the vapor

intrusion

risks

employees

and

visitors/customers

due to

migration

vapors

from

impacted

soil and

groundwater

with

volatile

chemicals

from

a former

onsite

source.

The

driver

for

this site

was

proactive

voluntary

action.

The

field

work

required

three

days to

complete.

Geoprobe

550B track-mounted

rig

was

used

for

boring advancement

and

soil

sampling.

The soil

vapor monitoring

wells

consisted

6-inch

stainless steel

mesh implants,

Teflon tubing,

glass

beads pack,

and

flush-mounted

manways.

The

scope

of work included

the

sampling

for laboratory

analysis

of soil

for

geotechnical

parameters

and soil and

soil

vapors

for

volatile

May 2009

Page 3 of

RAM

Group

(050024)

chemicals including

two duplicate

samples.

Difluoroethane

was

used as

the

leak

detection compound

for the

soil vapor sampling.

building survey

was performed.

Groundwater

sample data

collected

others

(cost not included)

was also used in

the

evaluation.

The evaluation

consisted of compilation

all

data; comparison to

IEPA

TACO Tier

1 soil gas ROs;

estimation

of soil vapor concentrations

from

soil and

groundwater

data;

comparison

of calculated

and measured

soil vapor samples;

and

estimation

of vapor intrusion

risks to employees

and

visitors/customers.

The report distribution

included

10 bound copies and

one

electronic

copy on disk

consisting

of 274

pages per report

including

text, 13 tables, 4

figures, and

appendices. The costs

associated

with this investigation

are summarized

on Table 4.

Attachments:

Tables

May

2009

Page

RAIvI Group

(050024)

Table

for

Site

Task

Cost

Comments

Planning,

project

management,

and

report

preparation

$15,584

labor,

copying,

review,

drafting,

FedEx,submittal

draft

and

final

reports

Field

labor

$2,977

professional

for

day

Field

supplies/equip

$303

equipment

rental,

supplies

Drilling,

sampling,

and

well

installation

$2,111

driller,

sampled

soil

vapor

from

borings

using

Geoprobe

PRT

methods

Laboratory

analysis

samples

$2,066

soil

vapor

and

ambient

air

formodified

TO-I

plus

naphthalene

anddifluoroethane

Local

travel

exp

meals,

car

rental

gasoline,

lodging

Total

$23,609

Notes:

does

not

include

transportation

disposal

investigation

derived

wastes

(IDW)

May

2009

RAM

Group

(050024)

Cl,

Ca,

C’)

C-)

1’4

I—

>‘

C’,

CC)

C’,

>‘

CC)

cii

-g

• •5’*C

a.a,a

C_aa,

—a,

—

a, a.a,._a,

a,a,

I- E2a,

. )a.

O) a,

C2.GC a,

n. S

ii. a

C’ -J

cc a a

ClVI

C’,

C’iC’i

C’

Jft

6a,

a,,

. 0

ja,• .

a,a,a.OCOa,a,Q

SSU’La,_JIH

I—

C.,

C’,

(a,

)

—

. .‘ -C

a,.aa,

I—

C a,—

Tablefor

Site

Task

Cost

Comments

Planning,

project

management,

and

report

preparation

—

$10,395

labor,

copying,

PEreview,

drafting,

submiffal

draft

and

final

reports

Field

labor

$5,377

professional

for4

days

Field

supplies/equip

$904

equipment

rental,

supplies,

FedEx

lab

samples

Drilling,

sampling,

and

well

installation

$3,598

driller,

borings,

soil

vapor

wells,

soil

samples

for

geotechnical

Laboratory

analysis

soil

vapor

and

oneambient

air

for

modified

TO-IS

including

BTEX,

styrene,

naphthalene,

and

difluoroethane,

samples

$3,101

geotechnical

for

grain

size,

foc,

spec.

gravity,

moisture,

bulk

density,

and

total

porosity

Local

travel

exp

ZQJ

meals,

car

rental

gasoline,

lodging

Total

$24,076

Notes:

does

not

include

transportation

disposal

investigation

derived

wastes

(IDW)

May

2009

RAM

Group(050024)

Tablefor

Site

Task

Cost

Comments

Planning,

project

management,

and

report

preparation

$20,895

labor,

copying,

review,

drafting,

FedEx,

submittal

draft

and

final

reports

Field

labor

$3,239

professional

Field

supplies/equip

$1,534

equipment

rental,

supplies,

FedEx

lab

samples

Drilling,

sampling,

and

well

installation

$3,526

driller,

borings,

soil

vapor

wells,

soil

samples

for

analytical,

soil

samples

for

geotechnical

Laboratory

analysis

soil

vapor

for

modified

TO-I

plus

naphthalene

and

difluoroethane,

soil

for

VOCs

8260,

geotechnical

for

grain

size,

foc,

samples

$3,216

spec.

gravity,

moisture,

bulk

density,

and

total

porosity

Local

travel

exp

meals,

car

rental

gasoline,

lodging

Total

$33,144

Notes:

does

not

include

transportation

disposal

investigation

derived

wastes

(IDW)

May

2009

RAM

Group(050024)

APPENDIX

(a) Indoor

Air

Quality

Building

Survey

and

(b)

Instructions

for

Residents

Homes

to Be

Sampled

Appendix

IN])OOR

AIR

QUALITY

BUILDING

SURVEY

Date:

ID#:

Address:

Residential

Contact:

Phone:

home:

(

)

work:

(

List

of Current

Occupants/Occupation:

AGE (IF

SEX

OCCUPATION

UNDER

18)

(MJF)

Building Construction

Characteristics:

What

type of

building

you have? (Circle

appropriate

response)

Single

Family

Multiple

Family

School

Commercial

Ranch

2-Family

Raised

Ranch

Duplex

Cape

Apartment

House

Colonial

# of units

Split Level

Condominium

Colonial

of units

Mobile

Home

Other (specify)

Other

(specify)

General

Description

of Building

Construction

Materials:

How many

occupied

stories does

the building

have?

Has

the building

been

weatherized

with any of

the

following?

(Circle

all that apply)

Insulation

Storm

Windows

Energy-Efficient

Windows

Other

(specify)

What type

basement

does the building

have?

(Circle

all

that

apply)

Full

basement

Crawispace

Slab-on-Grade

Other

(specify)

What

are the

characteristics

of the basement?

(Circle

all that apply)

Finished

Basement

Floor:

Foundation

Walls:

Moisture:

Unfmished

Concrete

Poured Concrete

Wet

Dirt

Block

Damp

Other

(specify)

Layed

Stone

Dry

2-1

Is a basement

sump

present?

(YIN)

Does

the

basement

have any of the following

characteristics

(i.e.,

preferential

pathways into the building)

that

might

permit soil vapor entry?

(Circle all that apply)

Cracks

Pipes/Utility

Conduits

Other

(specify)

Foundation/slab

drainage

Sump pumps

Heating

and Ventilation

System(s)

Present:

What type

of heating system(s)

are used in this building?

(Circle

all that

apply)

Hot Air Circulation

Heat Pump

Steam Radiation

Wood

Stove

Hot Air

Radiation

Unvented Kerosene heater

Electric

Baseboard

Other (specify):

What

type (s) of fuel(s) are

used in this building?

(Circle

all that apply)

Natural

Gas

Electric

Coal

Other (specify):

Fuel

Oil

Wood

Solar

What

type of mechanical ventilation

systems are present

and/or currently

operating in the building?

(Circle all

that

apply)

Central

Air Conditioning

Mechanical

Fans

Bathroom Ventilation

Fan

Individual Air Conditioning

Units

Kitchen Range Hood

Air-to-Air

Heat Exchanger

Open windows

Other

(specify):

Sources of Chemical Contaminants:

Which

of these items are present

in the building?

(Check

all that apply)

Potential

VOC Source

Location

Source

Removed

hours

prior to sampling

(Yes/No/NA)

Paints

or paint thinners

Gas-powered equipment

Gasoline

storage cans

Cleaning solvents

Air fresheners

Oven cleaners

Carpet/upholstery

cleaners

Hairspray

Nail polishlpolish remover

Bathroom cleaner

Appliance cleaner

Furniture/floor

polish

Mothballs

Fuel tank

Wood stove

Fireplace

Perfume/colognes

Hobby supplies (e.g.,

solvents, paints, lacquers,

glues, photographic

darkroom

chemicals)

Scented

trees, wreaths,

potpourri,

etc.

Other

2-2

Do one or more smokers occupy this building on

a regular basis?

Has anybody smoked in the

building

in the last 48 hours?

Does the

building have an attached garage?

If so, is a

car usually parked in the garage?

Do the occupants

of the building frequently have

their clothes dry-cleaned?

Was there any recent remodeling or painting done in the

building?

Are

there any pressed wood products in the building

(e.g., hardwood plywood wall paneling, particleboard,

fiberboard)?

Are there any new upholstery, drapes or other textiles in the building?

Has the building been treated with any insecticides/pesticides? If

so, what chemicals are used and how often

are

they applied?

any

of the occupants apply pesticides/herbicides in the yard or garden?

If so, what chemicals are used and

how

often are they applied?

Outdoor Sources of

Contamination:

Is there

any stationary emission source in the vicinity of the building?

Are there any mobile

emission sources (e.g., highway;

bus

stop; high-traffic area) in

the

vicinity

of the building?

Weather Conditions During

Samplinc:

Outside Temperature (°F):

Prevailing wind direction:

Describe the general weather conditions (e.g., sunny, cloudy, rain):

Was there any

significant precipitation (0.1 inches) within

12 hours preceding the sampling

event?

Type

of ground cover (e.g., grass,

pavement, etc.)

outside the building:

General

Comments

Is there any

other information about the structural features of this

building, the habits of its occupants or

potential

sources of chemical

contaminants to the indoor air that

may be of importance in facilitating

the evaluation of the

indoor air quality of the building?

(NHDES, 1998;

NYDOH, 1997; VDOH, 1993)

2-3

Instructions

for

Residents

(to

followed

starting

least

hours

prior

and

during

the

sampling

event)

•

not

open

windows,

fireplace

openings

vents.

•

not

keep

doors

open.

•

not

operate

ventilation

fans

airconditioning.

•

not

use

air

fresheners

odor

eliminators.

•

not

smoke

the

house.

•

not

use

wood

stoves,

fireplace

auxiliary

heating

equipment

(e.g.,

kerosene

heater).

•

not

use

paints

varnishes.

•

not

use

cleaning

products

(e.g.,

bathroom

cleaners,

furniture

polish,

appliance

cleaners,

all-purpose

cleaners,

floor

cleaners).

•

not

use

cosmetics,

including

hair

spray,

nail

polish,

nail

polish

remover,

perfume,

etc.

•

not

partake

indoorhobbies

that

use

solvents.

•

not

apply

pesticides.

•

not

store

containers

gasoline,

oil

petroleum—based

othersolvents

within

the

house

attached

garage

(except

for

fuel

oil

tanks).

•

not

operate

store

automobiles

attached

garage.

(NHDES,

1998)

2-4

EXHBT

COMPARATIVE

EVALUATION

VAPOR INTRUSION

PATHWAY

REGULATIONS

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

This document

presents a comparative

evaluation

of the process

used by several

states

evaluate

the

Vapor Intrusion

Pathway

(VIP).

1.0

INTRODUCTION

AND

METHODS

AVAILABLE

Since the publication

of ASTM’s

RBCA

standard

1995

and the publication

USEPA’s Draft

Vapor Intrusion

Guidance

Document in

1992, several states

and

regulatory

programs require

that this pathway

evaluated

as a part of

the overall

management

of contaminated

sites. Several

states

have incorporated

the

details of this

pathway

in their existing

risk assessment

guidance

documents

while others

have

developed

stand alone documents

and regulations

to address

this

pathway.

Review

of these documents

indicates

that

states use one of the

following

three

methods

evaluate

this

pathway:

Method

1: Measure

Indoor Air Concentrations

—

In this method,

representative

indoor

air concentrations

are measured.

The measured concentrations

are compared

with

risk based target

levels for indoor air

that are often

different

for a child, adult

resident

or adult worker.

These target

levels are developed

based

three factors

(i)

receptor-specific

exposure

factors, (ii) an acceptable

risk

level, and (iii)

chemical-specific

toxicity

values.

This

method is very simple.

However, it

is difficult to implement

because:

• it is very

intrusive

and often

causes unnecessary

concern

and results

in time

consuming

and expensive litigation

even in the

absence of any

problem,

• the measured

concentrations

are only

representative

of the period during

which

(typically

24 hours) the

measurements

were

made

and do not account

for the

variability

in the indoor

air

concentrations,

and

• the indoor

air concentration

are

affected

by indoor sources of

chemicals

which

are

often the same

as the chemicals

for which the

site is being cleaned.

Note if the

question

is simply

“Is it safe to breathe

indoor air?”,

then this

is the best

method,

provided

multiple

measurements

account for

variability, can

be made.

However,

the question is

“Are

contaminants

in soil and

groundwater

beneath

the

building

causing

an unacceptable

indoor

air quality?”, then this

is not the

best method

for

reasons

mentioned above.

Method 2: Measured

Soil Vapor

Concentrations

— In this method,

representative

soil

vapor concentrations

below

adjacent

homes are measured.

This includes

the

concept

collecting

sub-slab

samples. These

measured soil

vapor

concentrations

are

used to calculate

indoor air

concentrations

using attenuation

factors.

The

calculated

May

2009

Page

1 of

RAM Group

(050024)

indoor air

concentrations are

then compared

with

the

indoor air acceptable

risk

based

concentrations.

The

difference

between Method

2 and Method

1 is that

in Method

indoor air

concentrations are measured,

whereas

Method

2 they are

calculated.

The attenuation

factor

includes all the factors

that affect

the migration

of soil vapors

indoor air.

These include

but are not

limited

(i) soil

characteristics,

(ii)

building

foundation

characteristics,

(iii)

building characteristics,

and (iv)

chemical

specific

properties.

There

are two ways

to obtain attenuation

factors (i)

the

application

of a

fate

and

transport

model

that accounts

for the

various

factors

that

affect the

attenuation

factor

mentioned

above,

or (ii)

an empirical

attenuation

factor

based on literature.

The

most

commonly

used

model to

estimate the attenuation

factor is

the

J&E model

(Johnson,

et.

a!., 1991)

which

also described

USEPA

(2004).

The

use of literature

based

generic

attenuation

factors,

although

simpler

than

the application

of the model

to estimate

the

attenuation

factor, does not

account for the

various

factors

that

affect

the

attenuation

factor,

and it,

therefore,

does

not represent

good

use

of science. This

approach

suffers

from

the

commonly voiced

criticism of many

regulations

“one size

fits

all”.

Method

Measured

Soil or Groundwater

Concentrations

— In this

method,

representative

soil

and

groundwater

concentrations

are

measured. These

concentrations

are

used to

estimate the equivalent

soil vapor

concentrations

using

model referred

the equilibrium

theory

model.

This

model

requires

three

types

of input

(i)

the soil

type,

(ii)

concentration,

and (ii) chemical-specific

properties.

Thus the

only

difference

between

Methods

2 and

are

that in Method 2

the soil gas concentrations

are

measured

whereas in

Method

3 they

are

calculated

from

soil and

groundwater

concentrations.

As discussed

above,

none

the methods

are perfect and

each method has

its

own

specific

advantages

and disadvantages;

therefore,

several

states

allow the

use of

different

methods

evaluate

this pathway.

In the

attached

table,

remediation

objectives for a few

commonly

encountered

chemicals

are presented

and

compared

with the

IEPA’s

Tier

1 values.

Note that direct

comparison

may

not

very

meaningful

because the application

of these

values

and

the

overall

process

between the states

different.

The

following

section

describes the

approach

used

by a few

states.

MINNESOTA

POLLUTION

CONTROL

AGENCY

(MPCA)

The

MPCA’s

program

described in the Risk-Based

Guidance

for the

Vapor

Intrusion

Pathway

(2008)

applicable

to the Superfund

program,

RCRA

program,

and

the

Voluntary

Cleanup program.

The

three

tier program

includes the

following

screening

levels:

Initial

Screening

Values (ISVs): these

are levels

considered

protective

indoor

air and

are based

a hazard quotient

(HQ) of 1.0

for non-carcinogenic

chemicals

May 2009

Page 2 of

RAM

Group

(050024)

and

an individual excess lifetime

cancer

risk

of 1

i05 for carcinogenic

chemicals.

Soil

vapor screening levels

developed

by multiplying the ISVs by a factor

of 10 or

100.

•

Groundwater

screening

levels developed

by multiplying the groundwater

levels

equivalent to the ISVs with a factor

of 1,000.

MPCA’s program does

not

include any soil

screening levels. The program

does not

make a

distinction between residential

or commercial/industrial

scenarios. The

MPCA’s

program consists of the following three

tiers:

Tier 1: The

objective of Tier

1 is to determine

whether the VIP is complete,

and, if so,

whether it is

of sufficient concern as

to require further evaluation.

For example, absence

of volatile contaminants at a site is sufficient

reason not to proceed any

further. A clear

definition of

volatile chemical is

not included. A site

has to be further evaluated

at the

Tier 2 or Tier 3 level for VIP if the following

are true:

•

If receptors (current or potential

future buildings) are located

within

100 lateral

of groundwater concentrations that

exceed or equal groundwater

screening levels;

•

receptors are located within

100 lateral ft of soil

gas concentrations equal

to or

higher

than 10 times ISV’s.

Tier

This

involves

the collection

of subsurface soil gas

samples overlying the vapor

sources in the direction of the nearest receptors. Data

must be collected

to define the

extent and

magnitude of the soil gas impacts.

Depth of measurement

should be at least

ft above the water table

and

3 ft below the ground

surface. Samples should

be collected

adjacent to

the building and just below the

level of basement slab.

Soil gas data

is evaluated as follows:

•

Representative soil vapor

concentrations less than

10 times the ISVs

are

considered to not cause unacceptable

risk.

•

Representative soil vapor concentrations

between 10 and 100 times

the ISVs may

require additional investigation

to determine if the IVP

risk is unacceptable.

Other

lines of evidence may be used

to determine whether the site

presents a risk

or not.

•

Soil gas

concentration

greater than 100 times

the

ISVs require a Tier

3 evaluation.

Tier

3: The

goal of Tier 3 is to collect relevant

building specific

vapor sampling data

determine whether there is a complete pathway

or the need for a response

action. Tier

involves an interior building survey to identify

potential vapor

entry

locations, potential

indoor air sources, sub-slab soil gas samples to

determine the magnitude

and extent

soil gas

contamination directly beneath

the building

and indoor air concentration

measurements.

May 2009

Page 3 of 8

RAM Group

(050024)

Sub-slab concentrations

less than 10

ISVs

requires

further

action.

•

Sub-slab

concentrations

between 10

and

100

ISVs.

In a residential

building

the necessary

action

would

be indoor air

sampling.

•

Sub-slab concentration

greater

than

100

ISVs

require indoor

air sampling

and

remedial measures

to eliminate

potential entry

of vapors.

Key

Issues

MPCA’s

program

does not include several

very

significant

factors that

affect IVP:

•

Does

not distinguish between

residential

or commercial land

use

in a quantitative

manner.

•

Does not account

for building

characteristics

quantitative

manner.

•

Does

not

account for

the

soil type between

the

building

and water table. One

can

argue

that reliance on sub-slab

samples

makes

this a mute

point.

•

Does

not consider

the depth

to groundwater.

One can argue that

reliance

sub-slab samples makes

this a mute

point.

•

Representative

soil gas

concentration is not defined.

•

Subslab

and indoor

air measurements

are very intrusive.

INDIANA

DEPARTMENT

OF ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT

(IDEM)

IDEM’s Draft Vapor

Intrusion

Pilot Program Guidance

(2006) presents

an approach that

can be voluntarily

applied or the responsible

party

may present an alternative

approach

evaluate the VIP.

It is IDEM’s intent

to use the data

and

experience obtained

during

the

implementation

of the pilot program

to develop IDEM’s

VIP evaluation

guidance

and

policy.

The

pilot program

consists

of two parts

each of which address

the two major