BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
)
RCRA DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
PETITION OF PEORIA DISPOSAL
COMPANY)
)
AS 08-10
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
(RCRA Delisting)
AFFIDAVIT OF ELECTRONIC FILING and
SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL, FIRST CLASS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
on
June 26, 2008, I electronically filed with the Clerk of
the Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois the instrument(s) entitled RESPONSE OF
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY TO ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RCRA DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD PETITION, and
this Affidavit. I further certify that on this date I served these instruments, by placing one copy
of each document in the U.S. Mail, First Class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Bharat Mathur
Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago,
IL
60604
William
D. Ingersoll
Manager, Enforcement Programs
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
(also served via emaiT)
Respectfully submitted,
Claire A. Manning, Esq.
BROWN, HAY
&
STEPHENS,
LLP
205 S. Fifth Street
Suite 700
Springfield, Illinois 62701
908-0505
Brian J. Meginnes, Esq.
Janaki Nair, Esq.
ELIAS, MEGINNES, RIFFLE
&
SEGHETTI, P.C.
416 Main Street, Suite 1400
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
)
RCRA DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
PETITION OF PEORIA DISPOSAL
COMPANY)
)
AS 08-10
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
(RCRA Delisting)
RESPONSE OF PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY TO ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RCRA
DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD PETITION
NOW COMES Peoria Disposal Company ("PDC"), by its attorneys, Elias, Meginnes,
Riffle
&
Seghetti, P.C. and Brown, Hay
&
Stephens, LLP, and as and for its Response to the
Response
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") to the RCRA Delisting
Adjusted Standard Petition (the "Petition"), submitted pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
§104.416(d), states
as follows:
On June 12, 2008, the IEPA filed its Response to the Petition, requesting clarification on
several aspects of the Technical Support Document attached to the Petition as Exhibit 2.
Attached herewith as Exhibit A is a document responding to the IEPA's Response, prepared by
RMT, Inc., the consultant that prepared the Technical Support Document. Exhibit A is
incorporated herein as and for the Response of PDC to the IEPA's Response, submitted
pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code §I04.416(d)
Dated: June 26, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
Petitioner
'. /1 .
BY:---r4-':::'::-~~/--
'----
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
Claire A. Manning, Esq.
BROWN, HAY
&
STEPHENS, LLP
205
S. Fifth Street
Suite 700
Springfield, Illinois 62701
Telephone: (217) 544-8491
Facsimile: (217) 544-9609
Email: cmanning@bhslaw.com
908-0503
Brian J. Meginnes, Esq.
Janaki Nair, Esq.
ELIAS, MEGINNES, RIFFLE
&
SEGHETTI, P.C.
416 Main Street, Suite 1400
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Telephone: (309) 637-6000
Facsimile: (309) 637-8514
Emails:bmeginnes@emrslaw.com
jnair@emrslaw.com
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
EXHIBIT A
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
)
RCRA DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
PETITION OF PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
)
)
AS 08-10
(Adjusted
Standard - Land)
(RCRA Delisting)
SUPPLEMENT
TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR THE RCRA DELISTING
ADJUSTED
STANDARD PETITION FOR PDC EAF DUST STABILIZED RESIDUE,
RESPONDING
TO THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
RESPONSE
TO RCRA DELISTING ADJUSTED STANDARD PETITION
H. Section 104.406(h) - Justification
of the proposed adjusted standard
IEPA Comment:
The
Illinois EPA agrees that the treated K061 residue does not exhibit the characteristic
oftoxicity with respect to hexavalent chromium, cadmium, and lead. However, there are two concerns related to
the Site Specific Model Assumptions used in the analysis ofdioxins andJurans, which
is
found in Appendix
H.4 ofVolume
1
ofthe Technical Support Document.
These
concerns will be addressed in turn below.
PDC Response:
The risk model for dioxins and furans is based on the assumption that waste
materials are eroded from the landfill surface
and carried as sediment to the nearest stream which
supports a fishery. Notwithstanding the site-specific modifications to exposure assumptions to
account for the nature of fish consumption from Indian Creek (discussed below),
it is important to
note that, in reality, the waste will always be covered with daily, intermediate or final cover and,
therefore, will
not be subject to erosion. Furthermore, even if waste materials would be eroded from
the landfill surface, these sediments would be captured
by the landfill'ssediment control system, as
required by illinois landfill regulations at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code Part 811.103(a)(1). Specifically, all storm
water runoff from the Indian Creek Landfill will be routed to one of
two sediment basins. These
sediment basins are designed to provide sufficient detention to allow sediment to drop
out of the
water and, thus be retained within the basin. Only clear water is discharged from the sediment basins
to surface water. Therefore, there is essentially no route of exposure for dioxins
and furans (and other
constituents) to fish in Indian Creek.
Even disregarding the sediment controls discussed above, the modeled tissue dioxin toxicity
equivalent
(TEQ) concentration for fish in Indian Creek, which serves as the input to the risk estimate,
is 0.87 ng/kg. This modeled concentration is likely
an overestimate, given the compounding of
conservative assumptions
in the migration and transport aspect of the model. As presented
in
the
table below, the modeled concentration is consistent
with national background TEQ concentrations in
fish tissues.
G:\PM'S\KCS-OO\908-0504_SIG.DOC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
Background Dioxin Concentrations in Fish Tissue
NASQAN (background)
(I)
Background(l)
Agricultural(l)
North American Background(2)
DRAS Modeled fish tissue concentrations in
Indian Creek
(3)
7.18
3.02
4.44
0.87
1.12
0.59
1.02
1.16
(1)
Excerpted from the National Survey of Chemical Residues in Fish (USEPA, September 1992)
(2)
Reported in USEP
A'5
Dioxin Reassessment (USEP
A, 1994)
(3) Modified DRAS 3.0 spreadsheet model (original provided by Todd Ramaly, USEPA Region 5) of PDC waste materials.
Copies of any
of these USEPA documents can be made available to the IPCB or IEPA
Dioxin/furans have been found throughout the world in practically all media including air, soil,
water, sediment, fish
and shellfish, and other food products such as meat and dairy products. The
highest levels of these compounds are
found in soils, sediments, and biota; very low levels are found
in water and air. The widespread occurrence is not unexpected considering the numerous natural and
anthropogenic sources that emit these compounds into the atmosphere, and the overall resistance of
these compounds to biotic
and abiotic transformation.
Modeled dioxin TEQ concentrations in fish tissue for Indian Creek are consistent with national
and
North American backgrounds and therefore are not expected to pose an unacceptable risk over and
above background.
IEPA Comment:
With regard to the Dioxin/Furan DRAS modeling, (Summary at Appendix H.4, p. 2),
the fraction offish intake
is
reduced from the generic input of 1.0 to asite-specific input of0.5. The rationale
given in the table
is
that it
is
assumed 50% ofall freshwater fish consumption for an individual
is
taken from
Indian Creek. Although Illinois EPA has no information to contradict the usage of the lower number, neither
is
any reference source given to justify this adjustment. Additional information should be submitted by PDC to
support this point.
PDC Response:
The "fraction ingested" variable is intended to account in the model for the
portion of
an individual'sfreshwater fish diet, over a 3D-year period, anticipated to be harvested from
Indian Creek. Indian Creek is a small stream which, in its entirety, drains only about 16.5 square
miles. Indian Creek is
not listed on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
compendium of "Places To
Fish" provided in the IDNR'spublication 2008 Illinois Fishing
Information. While that
compendium is not complete, technical documents prepared by the Illinois
State Water Survey
(ISWS) and other factors demonstrate that Indian Creek cannot consistently
support a significant fishery. A discussion of these factors is provided in the following paragraphs.
G:\PM'S\KCS.oO\908-0504_SIG.DOC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
ISWS Bulletin 57, "The 7-Day lO-Year Low Flows of lllinois Streams" (Singh and Stall, 1973) reports
stream-flow data for 247 gaging stations within streams
and rivers in lllinois. These data were used
to develop the 7-Day, 10-Year Flow at each station. Streams where the 7-Day, 10-Year Flow was equal
to zero were defined as "intermittent-flow streams". Although there were
no gaging stations at
Indian Creek, it is helpful to review the 7-Day, 10-Year Flows at stations located
in the Mackinaw
River watershed which exhibit similar drainage areas
as Indian Creek. Data for six gaging stations
with drainage areas less
than 100 square miles were reported. Of these, four gaging stations
measured flow from watersheds larger than
25 square miles, Le. significantly larger than the entire
Indian Creek watershed. All of these watersheds are reported to be intermittent-flow streams, i.e.
their 7-Day, lO-Year Low Flow was reported as
0.0 cubic feet per second (efs). These data indicate
that Indian Creek has frequent periods with insufficient flow to support fish of edible size.
ISWS Contract Report 246, entitled "Groundwater Discharge to Illinois Streams" (O'Hearnand Gibb,
1980) reports base flows for various hydrographic regions throughout Illinois. The base streamflows
with
50 and 90 percent probability of exceedance for the hydrographic region in which Indian Creek
is located were reported as 0.14
and 0.02 efs per square mile of drainage area, respectively. This
indicates that the
median Indian Creek streamflow at its discharge point is about 2.3 efs, whereas this
drops to about
0.3 efs roughly 10 percent of the time. These low flow volumes will not support
significant populations of fish of edible size.
Given the above,
it is clearly demonstrated that Indian Creek cannot serve as a significant source of
any individual'sfreshwater fish diet over an extended period. In reality,
it is unlikely that Indian
Creek could consistently support meal-sized fish.
The
50 percent value was based on professional judgment reflecting the conservative, yet highly
unlikely, assumption
that one-half of an individual'sfreshwater fish diet over a 30-year period would
be sourced from Indian Creek.
IEPA Comment;
In the same Appendix H.4, Site Specific Model Assumptions table, the fish consumption
rate
is
increased from the default input of0.02 kg/day
to
the site-specific input of0.06 kg/day. PDC indicates
that this modification
is
intended
to
reflect the difference between recommended default model input for total fish
consumption (marine and freshwater) and solely freshwater fish consumption. Illinois EPA has no objection
to
the use of the site-specificfigure in this situation, because the freshwater fish number
is
more appropriate to any
location within the State ofIllinois. Additionally, as a higher number, it would result in a modeling output that
would be more conservative with respect to human health. However, the apparent modeling input used, as
indicated on the last page ofAppendix H.4, was only 0.006 kg/day. This may be a typographical error, in which
case,
it
should simply be corrected. However, the actual use ofthis incorrect value could result in lower VRAS
Model recommendations for delisting ofdioxins and jurans,
so
PVC should be required to show the model as
run with the correct 0.06 kg/day input.
PDC Response:
There is a typographical error in Appendix H.4. However, the modeled input
reflects the correct freshwater consumption value of 0.006 kg/day. The typographical error is the 0.06
kg/day present in the Site Specific Model Assumptions table.
G: \ PM '5\
KCS-oO\9OS-DSOLSIG.DOC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
Table 111'-81. Recommendations - General PoplJlaoon
I--tntake
ili~~y}
95th Percellble- of Long-term
Intake Di;stribution {gfday}
Sh,uiy (R-eterence)
63 {Value
cf42 from Javitz 'uBsadjusted
TRl (Javitz.1goo; Rufffe €t aI., 1£ilM)
up-ward
by 25
percent
io
account for
recentincrease in fish consumptio:n)
120.1 {Total Fish}
U.S. EPA Analysfts of CSFll, 198,9-91
1:14.1 {Marine Fish}
e.i
(Fre51v~aterlEs'h.JaTjne
Fishl
The fish consumption value relied upon in support of the PDC delisting petition was 0.006 kg/day
(or 6 g/day). This value represents the freshwater portion of the recommended
mean fish
consumption value. As presented
in the Section 10.10.1 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (1997), the
generic fish consumption value of 0.02 kg/day reflects consumption of all fish including finfish
(freshwater
and marine) and shellfish (marine). The recommended values for mean intake by
habitat/fish type are shown in Table 10-81 of the same reference, as excerpted below. The
recommended values are 6.0
g/day for freshwater/ estuarine fish, 14.1 g/day for marine fish, and
20.1 g/day for all fish types.
Although the relied
upon value is not more conservative than the generic model value, given that
Indian Creek is a freshwater habitat,
we concur with the IEPA that the "freshwater fish number is
more appropriate,"
and the conducted modeling assumes all of the mean consumption value for
freshwater fish is from Indian Creek, a very conservative assumption. Since the proposed language in
the RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition for the PDC Electric Arc Furnace
Dust Stabilized
Residue (EAFDSR) limits disposal to only Subtitle D landfill facilities
in Illinois, per 35 IL 720.122(r),
these fish consumption
and intake modeling assumptions would apply in any Subtitle D landfill
disposal scenario
in Illinois, because no marine fish sources are present.
Below is a corrected Site Specific Model Assumptions table for Appendix H.4:
Site Specific Model Assumptions
USLE Assumptions
Waste Volume
(cy/year)
Period of Waste
Exposure (day)
Rainfall Erosion
Potential, R (1/year)
Support Practice
Factor, P
G: \
PM'S
\
KCS.OO\908-QSOLSIG.DOC
80,000
30
300
1.0
95,000
10
175
0.5
Increased to 95,000 to match DRAS model
run
The disposal area is covered on a daily basis.
Value assumes deviation from standard
practice 10 days/year.
Modified to reflect areas-specific value - taken
from Figure
B-1 of DRAS guidance document.
Surface
is contour terraced - original
assumption assumes no management practice
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
Site Specific Model Assumptions
Value modified to reflect site-specific
conditions - 1,100
ft to Indian Creek
Dietary Exposure/Risk Model Assumptions
Fraction of fish
intake from this
source (F)
Fish consumption
rate (CR)
1.0
0.02 kg/day
0.5
Assumes 50%
of all freshwater fish
consumption for
an individual is taken from
Indian Creek
0.006 kg/day
Fish consumption value reflects recommended
freshwater fish consumption/day (EFH, 1997)
Modified from 0.02 kg/day which
is a
recommended total (marine/freshwater) fish
consumption rate
Dated; June 25, 2008
G:\PM'S\KCS.{)O\90S-DSDLSIG.DOC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 26, 2008
