RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
AUG
162005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINQJ5
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
PETITION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
AS 05-07
ILLINOIS,
INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard
Land)
STANDARD FROM
SUBPART
D
OF
)
35
ILL ADM. CODE 721
AND FOR RCRA
)
WASTE DELISTING UNDER
35
ILL. ADM.
)
CODE 720.122 FOR TREATMENT RESIDUAL
)
OF CD RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL
)
FACILITY BIOLOGICAL LIQUID
)
TREATMENT CENTER
)
NOTICE
OF FILING
TO:
USEPA
John J. Kim
Office of Solid Waste and
Assistant Counsel
Emergency Response
Division ofLegal Counsel
1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
20460
i
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
USEPA, Region
5
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
77
West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
on August
16,
2005,
we filed with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, an
original and nine copies ofthe attached Response to Recommendation to
Petition for Adjusted Standard
by Waste Management of Illinois, hic.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By:
~
One ofIts Attorney
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN
& HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
418127.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Char Phoulavan, a non-attorney, on oath states
that she served the foregoing Response to
Recommendationto Petition for Adjusted Standard byplacing true and correct copies in properly
sealed and addressed envelopes to the following parties as listed below and by depositing same in
the U.S. mail located at 161
N, ClarkSt., Chicago, Illinois 60601, on orbefore 5:00 p.m. on this
16th
day of August, 2005:
USEPA
Office ofSolid Waste and EmergencyResponse
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
USEPA, Region
5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
John J. Kim
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
Char Phoulavan
418127.1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
PETITION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
ILLINOIS,
INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
STANDARD FROM
SUBPART D OF
)
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE 721
AND FOR RCRA
)
WASTE DELISTING UNDER 35
ILL. ADM.
)
CODE 720.122 FOR TREATMENT RESIDUAL
)
OF CII) RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL
)
FACILITY BIOLOGICAL LIQUID
)
TREATMENT CENTER
)
Waste Management of Illinois,
Inc.
(“WMII’5, by
its
attorneys Pedersen
&
Houpt, P.C.,
and
pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.416(d), submits
this response to
the Reconmiendation
to
Petition
for Adjusted
Standard
filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“IEPA”).
In support ofits response, WIvHI states as follows:
1.
On June 9,
2005,
WMII filed a RCRA Delisting
Adjusted Standard Petition with
the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board (“Board”),
seeking
an
adjusted standard delisting
the
lime-
conditioned
filter
cake that results
from
treatment
at the CD
Recycling
and
Disposal
Facility’s
Biological
Liquid Treatment Center (“BLTC”).
The Petition was prepared after discussions with
the
IEPA
over
a
two-year period which
led
to
agreement
on
the method
and
purpose
for
the
request.
The Petition was filed only after verbal approval was received from the IEPA.
2.
Notwithstanding
these
discussions
and
verbal
approval,
on
July
29,
2005,
the
IEPA filed its Recommendation to Petition
for Adjusted
Standard (“RecommendatiDif) ju which
it requested that
the Board
deny the Petition.
The IEPA claims
that the third criterion
in
35
Ill.
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
CONTROL BOARD
AUG
162005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
AS 05- 07
(Adjusted
Standard
—
Land)
RESPONSE
TO RECOMMENDATION TO
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
417888v1
Adm.
Code
720.122
has not
been
met,
namely,
that
the petitioned
waste
not
exhibit
any other
factors that could cause the waste to be
a hazardous waste.
Recommendation at
3.
3.
Specifically,
the
IEPA
takes
issue
with
the
methodology
used
by
WMII
in
performing the
risk
assessment.
First,
the IEPA
disagrees with the exclusion ofcertain metals,
particularly arsenic,
in the calculation of the non-carcinogenic
Hazard
Index
(“HI”).
According
to
the
IEPA,
the
level
of arsenic
detected
in
the
petitioned
waste
(80
mg/kg)
was
above
background levels,
and
should
have been included
in
the HI
calculation.
Moreover,
the
IEPA
contends that it “is not sound practice from a risk-assessment standpoint” to
exclude a constituent
simply
because
it
falls
below
“background”,
because
regardless
of
the
concentration,
the
constituent contributes
to
“the
overall
risk
of the waste.”
Recommendation
at
5.
Second,
the
IEPA disagrees that the acceptable range for cancer risk
is
10-4 to
10-6.
The IEPA asserts that it
and
the
USEPA
“have
traditionally
considered
a
cancer
risk
of
10-6
to
be
the
maximum
acceptable
risk.”
Recommendation at
5.
As
the
aggregate carcinogenic
risk predicted by
the
model was greater than
10-6, the IEPA concluded that the third criterion has not been met.
4.
As the IEPA points out,
arsenic is of particular concern as its Hazard Quotient
(“HQ”) (Table 11) is 2.26.
However, Table
11
does not
include the results of the Pollute v6
model, and thus, does not take into account the presence of a liner system,
as required by the
regulations,
for Subtitle D landfills.
In accordance with
the regulations,
the delisted waste must
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
Table
14 ofthe WMII Delisting Request includes the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (“DRAS”) results with the Pollute v6 input data for the non-
carcinogenic risk HQ
and HI calculations.
Based upon these results, the HQ
for arsenic is 7.94
x
10-17.
If the metals constituents previously omitted
from the HI calculation were included, the
417888v1
2
HI value would be 0.435, which is still less than the
1.0 level that the IEPA and the USEPA have
traditionally accepted for delisting.
5.
WMII has discussed the above information with the IEPA.
The IEPA has
provided a verbal, general concurrence with this methodology to justify a HI of less than one for
delisting ofthe petitioned
waste.
6.
With respect
to the acceptable range for cancer risk,
Attachment
5
of the Region6
Specific Delisting, which is included in the EPA Delisting Program:
Guidance Manual for the
Petitioner (“Guidance”), provides that “The cumulative risk analysis is performed for decisions
involving one time (single batch) delistings and delisting decisions are made according to
a
target risk range of lxlO-4 to
lxlO-6 and
a hazard index (HI) of 1.” (emphasis added).
hi
addition, while the aggregate risk may be somewhat greater than
10-6, only two constituents,
Nitrosodiethylamine (1.05 x
10-5) and Nitrosodimethylamine (7.58 x
10-6), had a carcinogenic
risk greater than
10-6.
As such, these two constituents were the drivers
in the aggregate
risk
calculations.
As presented on page 49 of the Delisting Request, the risk
factor associated with
the Nitrosodiethylamine is based upon the analytical reporting limit, as the laboratory data were
below the reporting limit.
Thus, the only analytically detected constituent
above the 10-6
carcinogenic
risk is the Nitrosodimethylamine.
7.
In order to ensure that the aggregate carcinogenic risk
for the petitioned waste
remains below the 10-6 level being mandated by the IEPA, WMII has back calculated the
maximum allowable concentrations for the two risk drivers to ensure
that a 10-6 risk
is not being
exceeded.
The USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (“IRIS”) was also reviewed for
these two constituents to
determine the carcinogenic risk for a lifetime
exposure under the
groundwater pathway.
The maximum allowable concentrations, based upon the IRIS database
417888v1
3
and the back calculations, are not analytically achievable (Environmental Monitoring and
Technologies, Inc.,
2005
method detection limit evaluation).
8.
WMII has provided information to the IEPA regarding the analytical inability to
reach the necessary detection limits, to
achieve a 10-6 carcinogenic risk for the Nitrosodiethyl-
amine and Nitrosodimethylamine.
While
these two constituents act as the risk drivers in
the
carcinogenic risk calculations, the Nitrosodiethylamine risk
is based upon the aimlytieal
reporting limit and was not detected in
the petitioned waste.
The Nitrosodimethylamine is,
therefore, the only significant risk driver and falls within the target risk range of 10-4 to
10-6 as
presented in the Guidance.
With the conservative nature of DRAS, the true risk
associated with
these two parameters is likely less than calculated.
WHEREFORE,
WMII
requests
that
the
Board
consider
the
above
information
in
reviewing the Recommendation,
find that WMII has met the third criterion of 36 Ill.
Adm.
Code
720.122, and
grant the adjusted standard.
Respectfully
submitted,
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Donald J. Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161
North Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
312.641.6888
312.641.6895
(facsimile)
Its
417888v1
4
