D

Page

1 of 1

JUN

0

g

2009

Richard McGill

- Follow up

to

call

regarding proceduraPqc

ontrd9-

From:

“Geving,

Kim” <rnm.Geving@Il1inois.gov>

P

To:

“Richard McGill”

<MCGILLR@ipcb.state.il.us>

Date:

6/9/2009 11:02AM

Subject:

Follow

up to call regarding

procedural

question

Richard,

After

our discussion

with you the end

of last

week, our technical

staff had

a

lengthy

call

with our consultant,

Atul,

regarding

the best way to

go about

addressing

the

issues that arose as

a

result of ERM’s public

comment.

At

the conclusion of that

conference

call,

the

Agency changed its position

regarding

how

to

approach this

matter. We

have decided that the

best

course

of

action would

be to leave the existing

proposal as it is. We

fear

that attempting

to

open

up other

issues at this point

in the regulatory

process would

substantially

delay

the

adoption of the vapor

intrusion

provisions

and

would not be in the

best interests of

protecting

human

health.

The

Agency

believes that our existing

proposal

should

stay on course for four

reasons:

1.

Our use of the SSL

guidance is

more protective

of human health

in that it uses an

exposure

time for

the

construction worker of

24

hours

versus RAGS’s

use of an 8 hour exposure

duration.

RAGS

uses

the

theory that even though

you are breathing

harder,

you are not bringing

in

any

more

contamination

than you

would

at a

normal rate

of respiration. We believe

that theory

is

counterintuitive.

SSL

addresses this issue in

its

supplemental guidance

(published in

December 2002). You

may wish

to look

at

4-21 (Chapter

4.0

deals with Developing

SSLs for Non-Residential

Exposure

Scenarios.)

This

issue

is

also

addressed

at

5-19.

(Chapter

5.0 discusses Calculation

of SSLs

for Construction Worker

Scenario.)

2. This

new information from

RAGS did not come

out

until January

2009, well after we submitted

our

proposal.

3.

Under the

existing proposal, a

party

may propose to use

the 8 hour exposure

time

(as

raised in ERM’s

public comment)

under

a Tier

3

scenario.

4.

Our proposal

is more

conservative

overall,

and

thus more protective.

We appreciate

your guidance

on

the procedural issues

we discussed over

the phone last week.

I

understand

that

there is more substance

in this

follow up

email

and that

the Board may be inclined

to

post

this

email

as a

public comment

from

the

Agency.

Regards,

Kim

Geving, Assistant

Counsel

file

://C

:\Documents

and Settings\McGi11R\Local

Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4A2E4

1

6OPC...

6/9/2009