Leachate Sampling-90.92

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF

BFI

WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

DELISTING

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

Clerk ofthe Board

lllinois Pollution Control Board

James

Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street -Suite 11-500

Chicago,

6060I

(Electronic Filing)

AS 08-05

(Adjusted Staudard - Land)

(Waste Delisting)

Bradley

P. Halloran, Hearing Officer

lllinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago,

6060I

(Email)

Mary

A. Gade, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago,

60604

(First Class

U. S. Mail)

Paul Jagiello, Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency

9511 West Harrison Street

Des Plaines,

60016

(Email)

Mr. William Ingersoll, Manager

Enforcement Programs

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield,

62794-9276

(Email)

Please take notice that

on June 30, 2008 the undersigned caused to be filed with the Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief, Petitioner's Proposed

Second Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard and Motion to Amend Petition fir

Adjusted Standard Waste Delisting, copies

of which are herewith served upon you.

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLP

77 West Wacker, Suite 4100

Chicago,

IL 60601

Telephone: 312/849-8100

\6378349.1

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Patricia F. Sharkey, hereby certify that I served a copy of the above-listed document

upon those listed on the attached Notice

of Filing on June 30, 2008 via email and First Class

United States Mail, postage prepaid.

McGuireWoods LLP

77 West Wacker, Suite 4100

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Telephone: 312/849-8100

\6378349.1

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

DELISTING

AS 08-05

(Adjusted Staudard

- Laud)(Waste

Delistiug)

PETITIONER'S POST HEARING BRIEF

OVERVIEW

OF THE PETITION

The Petition for Adjusted Standard Waste Delisting ("Petition") filed by

BFI Waste Systems

of Norton America, Inc. ("BFI") will allow leachate

generated at BFI's long-closed Davis Junction Landfill Phase I Unit

to be treated

as non-hazardous waste under certain very limited circumstances which are

specified in the Adjusted Standard.

See Petition, pp.

14-16. Also see BFI's

revised Adjusted Standard language in the

Proposed Second Amendment to

Petition

for Adjusted Standard,

which his being filed with this brieftoday. This is

considered a "conditional delisting" under USEPA guidance.

See USEPA

"National Policy

for Hazardous Waste Delistings,

July

1, 1998.

Attachment 1.

The Adjusted Standard will allow BFI to transport this leachate over a shorter

distance to a closer wastewater treatment facility ("WWTF") which will provide

equal or better treatment than this leachate is currently receiving as a listed

hazardous waste.

Tr. pp. 83.

All the while, from cradle to grave, this leachate will be covered by a

regulatory program - either the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program prior

to being loaded into the tanker truck, the Illinois Special Waste Manifest program

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

while being transported, or the Clean Water Act pretreatment and NPDES

discharge requirements for treatment prior to discharge from the WWTF.

If a spill

occurs or the leachate is not disposed

of in a permitted and approved pretreatment

WWTF, the delisting does not apply and the leachate will be subject to RCRA

Subtitle C regulation just

as it is now. Thus, unlike unconditional delistings, the

conditions in BFI's proposed Adjusted Standard will not allow this leachate to

exit governmental oversight --- the concern expressed by USEPA in justifying

conservative generic delisting assumptions (e.g. DRAS modeling assuming land

disposal in an unlined landfill or surface impoundment). See discussion in

Transcript at

Tr.

pp.

75-78, and

Attachment 1,

at p. 1.

This leachate is currently required to be treated as a listed hazardous

waste (F039) solely because the Phase I unit in which it was generated accepted 2

hazardous waste.

does contain some of the constituents for which F039 was

listed

as a hazardous waste. But, the analysis provided in the Petition

demonstrates that the Phase I Unit leachate does not contain concentrations

those constituents which meet the criterion for listing (and delisting) F039 as a

toxic waste in

35 Ill. Adm. Code nl.lll(a)(3), i.e. "that the waste is capable of

posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the

enviromnent when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or

otherwise managed." Thus, this leachate qualifies for delisting under

35 Ill. Adm.

Code

nO.122.

The nature

of the leachate

this case is well known. As the Phase I Unit

was a RCRA regulated landfill, BFI maintained documentation

of every load of

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

hazardous waste accepted by the Phase I Unit since the RCRA Subtitle C

regulations became effective. The volumes and types

of waste are provided in

Appendix A

to the Petition. The Phase I Unit ceased accepting waste in 1983 and

was closed in 1984.

1999, the original compacted soil cover was replaced with

an improved composite soil!geomembrane cover. Thus, this Petition involves a

waste stream that will continue to be generated in the future, but which should not

vary significantly in constituents or concentrations. To support this conclusion,

BFI has provided nine years

of leachate data demonstrating the stable character of

this waste stream. See

Appendices

and D,

respectively, to the Petition.

response to a question from the Board'sTechnical Personnel, BFI also performed

a statistical analysis which confirms the lack

of significant variability in this waste

stream. With respect to the amount

of sampling data and analysis provided, BFI

believes this may

be the most well documented delisting petition the Board has

ever received.

This Petition may also present the most conservative delisting analysis

that the Board has ever reviewed. This leachate will not

be land disposed and will

only

be deemed delisted if it is transported for treatment to a permitted

wastewater treatment facility ("WWTF") which has a USEPA approved

pretreatment program. Thereafter, the WWTF wastewater is discharged

to the

Rock River Reclamation District, a publicly owned treatment works ("POTW"),

which monitors its discharge for compliance with both federal pretreatment and

NPDES permit requirements. Nonetheless, BFI has modeled the risk

of a worst

case spill on route to the WWTF using: the highest level

of the constituents

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

detected over nine years of data collection, USEPA'srecommended DRAS Model

for disposal in an unlined surface impoundment, and Illinois'

10-

risk level. The

selection

of and support for the use of these inputs was discussed extensively in

the Pre-Filed Testimony (pp.4-8) and at the hearing (Tr. pp. 69-78). Since the

leachate will not be considered delisted should such a spill occur and RCRA

Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations will apply to the leachate immediately

upon such an occurrence, this modeling and the levels proposed should be

considered very conservative.

The DRAS modeled limits are proposed as conservative delisting limits

and are stated in the Adjusted Standard, with the exception

of two constituents for

which the highest data point exceeded the calculated DRAS limits. For those two

constituents,

BFI

has proposed limits specified in other relevant regulatory

programs, consistent with

Ill.

Adm. Code 721.111(a)(3)(J). Specifically,

USEPA's characteristic toxicity limit is proposed as the delisting level for vinyl

cWoride Illinois' site specific remediation objective for lA-dioxane is proposed as

the delisting level for 1A-dioxane. See the Illinois EPA Toxicity Assessment

Unit's Groundwater Remediation Objectives for Chemicals Not Listed in TACO"

http://www.epa.state.il.usllandltaco!chemicals-not-in-taco-l-tables.html.

The

selection

of and support for these limits was discussed at length in BFI's

Technical Support Document accompanying its Petition, at pp. 32-36, BFI's Pre-

Filed Testimony

(pp.l6-l8), and at the hearing (Tr. pp. 40-43, 119-123).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

ILLINOIS EPA RECOMMENDATION

Although Illinois EPA originally reconunended denial of this petition

(March 25,2008, Illinois EPA Response to Petition for Adjusted Standard Waste

Delisting), it later reversed its position based on revisions to the Adjusted

Standard language making it clear that the leachate will only be considered

delisted when it

is being transported to and received by a WWTF with a USEPA

approved pretreatment program. See IEPA revised recommendation dated April

21,2008 and testimony of Mark Crites at

Tr.

pp.

87-91. The amendments in the

proposed Second Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard, which is being

filed today with this brief, maintain that concept.

TESTIMONY AT HEARING

At the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") hearing held in this

matter on May

15, 2008, BFI presented testimony on the background, rationale

and technical merits

of its petition by Ms. Elizabeth Steinhour and Mr. Michael

Maxwell, both

of Weaver Boos Consultants, Inc..

Tr.

pp.

14-21, 34-43. BFI's

attorney, Ms. Patricia Sharkey

of McGuireWoods, LLP, also presented a

discussion

of the applicability of state and federal delisting regulations, state and

federal delisting precedent, and various EPA guidance documents to this Adjusted

Standard delisting petition and the Board's decision in this case.

Tr.

pp.

44-54.

As this is not a contested matter and the testimony provided at hearing was quite

complete, rather than repeat that testimony, BFI would simply direct the Board to

the testimony in the record on these points.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

RESPONSE TO BOARD'SPRE-HEARING QUESTIONS

On April

4, 2008, the Hearing Officer issued an order which directed BFI

to submit responses to eight questions posed by the Board'stechnical personnel in

Attachment A

to that order. On May 5, 2008, BFI filed

Petitioner's Pre-Filed

Testimony Responding

to Questions from Board's Technical Personnel

("Pre-

Filed Testimony") which includes detailed answers to those questions and several

attachments. BFI believes those questions and answers are very pertinent to the

Board's review

of this Petition and would direct the Board's attention to its Pre-

Filed Testimony as well as the BFI witnesses' additional responses to those

questions at the hearing.

RESPONSE

TO ADDITIONAL QUESTONS POSED AT THE HEARING

At the hearing, a number

of additional questions were raised. Although

each

of these points was addressed at the hearing, BPI offers the following

additional responses:

light of the fact that the

treatment facility in Calumet

City, Illinois

had notified BFI that it no longer has the capacity to accept the

Phase I Unit leachate, the

Board requested that BFI update its costs for

disposing

of the leachate as a listed waste based on the longer hauling

distance to the next closest liquid hazardous waste

treatment facility (in

Ohio). See

Tr. p. 29.

Since the date of the hearing, the

crn

hazardous waste water treatment

facility in Calumet City, lllinois - approximately 100 miles from the Davis

Junction Landfill

-- has informed BFI that it can once again accept its leachate

for treatment. However, BFI has no assurance as to how long

crn

will continue to

accept it. As discussed at the hearing, the next closest facility which is permitted

to accept liquid hazardous waste is located in Vickery, Ohio, approximately 268

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

miles from the Davis Junction Landfill. See attached MapQuest Driving Direction

providing a map and mileage.

Attachment

2. The cost BFI incurred for

transporting the Phase I Unit leachate

to the Vickery, Ohio facility (after

crn

notified BFI that it could no longer accept its waste due to capacity restrictions)

was approximately $2,250 / 5,000 gallon tanker truck.

The Board asked that BFI comment on the consistency of its

Petition with USEPA delisting decisions

in other cases, including the Shell

case. See

Tr. p. 51-52.

In support of its Petition, BFI reviewed a number of USEPA delisting

approvals. Copies

of Federal Register publications of USEPA's proposed and

final delisting for each

of eight federal delistings are included in

Attachment 3

hereto. In an effort to identify relevant cases, BFI focused on relatively recent

delistings involving listed liquid hazardous waste, especially leachate.

Of the nine

delistings identified as relevant in our research, we found two delistings involving

the disposal

of F039 (Shell Oil Company, 70 Fed. Reg. 49187 (Aug. 23, 2005)

and Department

of Energy (Hanford), 70 Fed. Reg. 44496 (Aug. 3, 2005). BFI

also reviewed the Board's actions in two recent Adjusted Standard delisting

proceedings in which the Board rejected the petitions (Waste Management, Inc.,

IPCB No. 05-07 (Dec. 15,2005) and BP Amoco, Inc., IPCB No. 07-(01) Feb. 15,

2007).

From BFI's review

of the Federal de1isting cases, some general

observations and comparisons can be made:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Nature of Waste Generating Activity

Types of Processes and Listed Wastes

The types

of listed wastes involved in these cases were: metal treating

sludges and filter cake (F019); Refinery landfill leachate missed with other

refinery wastewater (F039); Leachate, condensate and other wastewater generated

in the course

of a clean-up of a hazardous waste landfill that accepted F-, U- and

P - listed wastes (F039); Sludge from electroplating operations (F006);

Dewatered sludge from a plastics and chemical manufacturer's wastewater

treatment plant

(F-, U- and K-listed wastes); Leachate from landfilling of electric

arc furnace dust and wastewater (K061); Residues from the treatment

of multiple

metal-bearing waste streams

(F- and K- listed wastes).

While the two F039 listed waste streams are

of obvious relevance,

leachates and sludges associated with metals manufacturing should also be

considered relevant because 96%

of the 2% hazardous waste accepted in the BFI

Phase I Unit was heavy metal sludges. See Technical Support Document to the

Petition,

p. 6 and Appendix A thereto for a description and listing of the wastes

received

at the Phase I Unit.

ii.

Multi-Year Delisting vs. One-Time Delisting

With the exception

of the one-time Tenneco and USG delistings, all of

these delistings are multi-year delistings. Yet, as is discussed further in response

to Question No.2 below, none of these delistings required testing of every waste

load.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

iii.

Active Source vs. Inactive Source

The one-time Tenneco and USG delistings each involved a fixed quantity

of a known waste stored in contairnnent cells. The DOE (Hanford) waste stream,

like the BFI waste stream in this Petition, is F039 wastewater which is derived

from a closed landfill, but which will be generated over a period

of years. The

DOE F039 waste stream has a greater potential for variability than does the BFI

leachate because it includes not only leachate but also a variety

of wastewater

generated from waste management and cleanup activities at the Hanford mixed

waste site.

The other five delistings involve waste streams generated by on-going

industrial activities, and thus should be presumed to have the potential for greater

variability than does the leachate generated at the long-closed Phase I Unit

at the

BFI Davis Junction Landfill.

Scope of Sampling and Analysis

As discussed in the Pre-Filed Testimony at pp. 1-4. BFI believes

the large amount

of data and the lengthy period over which it was obtained

provides a high level

of assurance regarding the nature of the Phase I Unit

leachate. The following table provides a quick comparison

of the historical data

supporting BFI's Petition compared to that supporting those other eight USEPA

approval petitions.

Number of Sampling Events

Period of Time

Delisting

Number of

Period Over

Constituents

Company

Sampling Events

Which Samples

Analyzed

Collected

BFI-Davis

14 samples

9 vears

App. IX and F039

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Junction Landfill

constituent list

Phase/Unit

(with some

exceptions)

Auto Alliance

One composite

Samples for

FO19 constituents

International

sample from each

composite to be

(including

("AAI")

of six roll-off

collected over 6

volatiles, semi-

boxes

week period

volatiles and

metals, cyanide,

Sulfide, Fluoride,

formaldehyde,

pH)

Shell Oil

4 samples

Collected over a 5

App. IX (with

Company

primary leachate;

month period

some additions)

4 samples

secondary

leachate

Dept.

ofEnergy

Historic data from Three years of

To be proposed in

(Hanford)

operation

prior effluent data

a sampling plan

treatment unit;

from prior

Sampling for this

delisting;

waste stream to

be Sampling for this

proposed in a

waste stream to be

sampling plan

proposed in a

sampling plan

Nissan

Onetime

OneTime

App. IX ( with

composite and

some additions)

grab samples from

different process

waste sources

Tenneco

One

One Time

App.

IX (with

some exceptions)

Eastman

One

OneTime

App. IX (with

some exceptions)

Chaparral

Unspecified

Not stated

App. IX (with

historic data and

some

bench tests

addtions,including

treated leachate

reactive sulfide,

reactive cyanide)

usa

Not stated

Not stated-

(included historic

presume FOl9

groundwater

constituents

monitoring)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Modeling Assumptions

Volume of Leachate Modeled

All

of these USEPA delistings either require or allow post-delisting

management

of the waste in a land-based disposal unit. Therefore, its not

surprising that USEPA's conservative assumption that 100%

ofthe delisted waste

could potentially be disposed

of on the land at one location is triggered in these

cases.

In contrast, BFI's petition does not allow land disposal. Therefore,

USEPA's conservative land-based mismanagement scenario should not apply in

this case. USEPA's 1998

National Policy for Hazardous

Waste Delistings

expressly authorizes non-traditional, "conditional" delistings, such as this, as long

as the delisting is based on modeling that reflects the potential exposure from the

post-delisting management scenario and contains appropriate conditions. See

Attachment

1. USEPA's RCRA Delisting Program - - Guidance Manual for the

Petitioner also focuses on appropriate modeling:

"In our technical evaluation, we often use appropriate fate

and transport models that rely on waste-specific

information (e.g., waste volume, constituent concentration

data) to predict the potential enviromnental impact

of the

petitioned waste.

selecting appropriate models, we

choose a reasonable worst-case management scenario and

consider plausible exposure routes for the hazardous

constituents found to be present." (pp. 12-13).

The actual regulatory factor that the Board must consider is whether the

model has included the risk associated with all "plausible types

of improper

management to which the waste could be subjected."

35 Ill. Adm. Code

721.111(a)(3)(G).

this case, even though land disposal is expressly

disallowed

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

under the BPI Adjusted Standard and the delisting would not apply ifthe leachate

were spilled on route to the pre-treatment facility,

BFI has used DRAS to model a

worst case land disposal scenario, focusing on the maximum mismanagement

land disposal volume reasonably possible under this delisting, i.e. a full tanker

truck spill.

ii.

Nnmber of Years of Disposal Assnmed

Although it

is not expressly stated, we presume that each of these

delistings used the DRAS default periods

of one year or twenty years. As stated

above, these lengthy periods are not relevant to the conditional delisting in this

case. Nonetheless, BPI conservatively used the DRAS default period

of one year

in its modeling.

iii.

Target Carcinogenic Risk Modeled

Many

of the USEPA delistings used a cancer rate of IxlO-

in their DRAS

modeling.

comparison, BFI used the more conservative Illinois standard of

lxlO-

iv.

Modeling of Non-Detected Constitnents

The question

of how to model non-detectable constituents was not

discussed

in six of the eight USEPA approved delistings reviewed by BPI, and

there is no evidence that the data relied upon in those delistings included

modeling

of non-detected constituents.

two of the USEPA delistings, USEPA

expressly stated that it was inappropriate to model using detection limits. See

discussion in Question No.

12 below.

one case

(Nissan),

EPA discussed the

fact that Nissan modeled one constituent (arsenic) using a concentration

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

the detection limit. However, from EPA's discussion, it appears that Nissan

didn't model hexavalent chromium using the detection level, even though it was

also measured at non-detect. See

Attachment 3-4.

Limits in Delisting: Land Disposal Allowed vs. No Land

Disposal

Each

of the eight USEPA delistings either specified or allowed land

disposal

of the delisted waste. The Chaparral delisting allowed onsite and off-site

land disposal

as well as the management of the waste water in on-site cooling

ponds. (See

Attachment

3-7, 65 Fed. Reg. 8874, 8875 (Feb. 23,2000).) The Shell

delisting allows management

of the delisted waste in an on-site biotreatment unit

including treatment in sludge aeration basins. (See Shell Petitioner's description

of the North Effluent Theater,

Attachment

4 at pp. 14-15 and in Figure 4-1. The

DOE (Hanford) delisting specifies disposal in a State Authorized Land Disposal

Unit which is described as an "effluent infiltration gallery" and as being

functionally equivalent to an unlined surface impoundment. (See

Attachment 3-3,

60 Fed. Reg. 6061 and 70 Fed. Reg. 44499.) The remainder of the eight USEPA

delistings all specify disposal in a Subtitle D solid waste landfill.

In contrast, the BFI Petition does not allow land disposal, and only applies

to the transportation to and disposal at a permitted and USEPA approved

pretreatment facility.

The Board asked whether BFI is aware of any other delistings

where USEPA has allowed a similar monitoring frequency as

is proposed in

this Petition for

an F039 leachate from a landfill that had accepted many

different types

of hazardous waste over a period of time for which the waste

types, including

raw materials, are not fully documented.

See Tr.

62.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Yes. The chart below shows that USEPA has taken different approaches

to testing frequency based upon the types

of operations and waste streams

involved and the anticipated or historic variability

of the waste stream. In the case

of BFI's Phase I Unit leachate, there is a static source and there has been minimal

historic variability in the leachate constituents or concentrations. The initial,

quarterly and semi-annual frequency

of testing originally proposed by BPI, and as

proposed

to be modified in the Second Amendment to the Proposed Adjusted

Standard, should be deemed consistent with and even more stringent than

USEPA's approved sampling regimes.

Delisting

Generating

Initial Testing

Long-Term

Source

Testing

BFI Davis Junction

Multi-Year/

One test of

Quarterly for first

Landfill -Phase I

Closed

leachate storage

year; Annual

Unit

Landfill

tank

thereafter

Auto Alliance

Multi-Year/

None

Quarterly'

International

On-going

("AAI")

Process

Shell Oil Company

Multi-year/

One test within 60

Quarterly for the

Ongoing

days

of delisting

first year; Annual

Process

effective date and

thereafter

two quarters

thereafter

Dept.

of Energy

Multi-Year /

One test of effluent Every lS

tank"

(Hanford)

Closed landfill discharge tank

leachate but

also on-oing

remediation

waste water

Nissan

Multi-Year /

One test

Annual

On-going

, In

comments, AAI requested annual testing, but USEPA replied that since the waste had shown

significant variation

on a quarterly basis, annual sampling would not detect such variations. This is

not the case with the BFI Phase I Unit leachate, which has not shown seasonal variation.

2 The DOE (Hanford) waste consisted ofboth leachate and other remediation wastewaters and

therefore could be expected to

be far more variable than the BFI Phase I Unit leachate.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Process

Tenneco

OneTime

None

-Qne time

None

Delisting

notification

Eastman

Multi-Year /

Quarter!y for 1

Annual

On-going

year

Process

Chaparral

Multi-Year /

8 batches

Annual

Ongoing

wastewater

Process

USG

OneTime

One time sampling

None

Delisting

at six locations

sludge pond

The Board asked whether BFI has performed a statistical

analysis

of the nine years of monitoring data presented to see demonstrate

the lack of statistical variability in the data. See

Tr.

pp.

67-68.

In response to the Board's question, Weaver Boos performed a statistical

analysis to assess variability in the historical leachate data.

Attachment 5.

Specifically, the variance and standard deviation were calculated for each

parameter analyzed in the historical record. The variance was calculated as:

n-I

)

Where:

is the sample concentration

xis

the mean

is the number of sample concentrations

The standard deviation

is simply the square root of the variance.

A summary

of the mean, variance, and standard deviation for the

parameters analyzed over the period from 1999 - 2007 is presented on the

attached Table

1. Only 9 out of over 250 constituents exhibited a variance greater

than 1.0 mg/L. The average variance encompassing all

of the parameters slightly

exceeded I mg/L. However, this average variance was heavily influenced by two

parameters with a variance well above 1.0 mg/L. The variance for 1,4 dioxane

was

111 mgIL and the variance for isobutyl alcohol was 46

mgIL.

If the single

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

highest vanance is removed from the average calculation, then the average

variance is almost half

of variance using all the data (0.60 mgIL). If the two

highest variances are removed, the average variance is reduced

to less than half

the value using all the data (0.43 mgIL). The average standard deviation for all

parameters is even lower (0.346 mg/L).

Variability with respect to the two above constituents should not be a

significant issue because both

of these constituents are proposed to be analyzed on

a regular basis

as part of the proposed adjusted standard language. If the

variability becomes an issue

to the point where concentrations exceed the

proposed delisting levels, this condition will be identified

by future monitoring

and the leachate will not meet the delisting requirements, and will be considered a

hazardous waste.

Note that for purposes

of the calculation of the mean, variance, and

standard deviation, Weaver Boos used the reporting limits for parameters for

which the analytical results were "non-detect." The minor variability in the

historical data as evidenced by the above statistical analysis suggests that it is

reasonable

to conclude that the non-detected constituents are unlikely to present a

significant concern.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

The Board also asked whether a statistical analysis supports

BFl's conclusion that certain high constituent readings were "outliers."

Tr.

p.67.

The conclusion

that

various historical data points were outliers was

previously based more on a visual scan

of the data, rather than a quantitative

analysis.

response to this question, Weaver Boos performed a quantitative

evaluation

of the analytical results for methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and

vinyl chloride to assess whether select historical data points are appropriately

considered outliers.

As shown in

Attachment

5, the attached Table I, in the case of

each of these three constituents one historical analytical result does not fit the

pattern established by the rest

of the data:

the case of methylene chloride, the mean of the data is 0.095

mg/L. However, one data point from April 2003 was reported as

0.58 mglL, which is over six times higher than the mean;

2. For trichloroethylene, the mean of the data is 0.089 mg/L.

However, one data point from March 2006 was reported as 0.53

mglL, which is nearly six times higher than the mean; and

the case of vinyl chloride, the mean of the data is 0.118 mglL.

One data point from March 2006 was reported as 0.44 mglL,

which

is nearly four times higher than the mean.

Because each

of the individual concentrations referenced above represent a

significant departure from the mean, each

of these points are appropriately

considered

as outliers, not representative of the pattern established by the many

other data points in the data set. We note that the amount

of data BFI has

compiled on these constituents exceeds the amount provided by most

if not all

other delisting applicants. Therefore, it is possible to determine a pattern and

outliers in this case. Furthermore,

as the Adjusted Standard is written, if these

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

constituents are found to exceed the delisting levels, BFI will be forced to handle

the leachate as hazardous. Thus, the conclusion that these instances

of high

concentrations are "outliers" and the proposal

of lower delisting levels is a

conclusion made at BFI'sown risk.

The Board asked BFI to verify the volume of leachate that Shell Oil

used in its DRAS modeling to

support its federal delistiug and to discuss its

relevance to

BFI's petition. See

Tr. p. 79.

From the petition filed in the Shell Oil delisting proceeding, it appears that

Shell used an annual volume

of 3.36 million gals/yr (14,000 tons/yr or 16,619

cy/yr)

in its DRAS modeling. See pp. 7-8, 59 of the Shell Petition,

Attachment 4.

While there are many similarities between the Shell Oil delisting and the delisting

proposed in this case, one significant difference is that Shell's delisting is based

on routing its F039 leachate through its North Effluent Biotreatment System,

which includes treatment in on-site land units (including activated sludge basins)

prior to discharge via Shell'sNPDES permitted outfall. See the Shell Oil delisting

Final Rule 70 Fed. Reg. 49187, at 49188,

Attachment

3-2. Also see Shell Petition,

pp.

9, 16- 17, and Figure 4-1 "NET Biotreatment System,"

Attachment 4.

As previously stated, where land-based disposal is allowed under a

delisting it is appropriate to use the DRAS model worst case assumption that

100%

of the delisted waste will be disposed of in an unlined landfill or surface

impoundment. Although the Shell delisting anticipated ultimate disposal

of the

leachate under Shell's own NPDES permit, it also involved on-site land-based

treatment prior to disposal via the NPDES permit. Therefore, the conservative

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

assumption that the leachate might percolate into the ground through the land-

based treatment units is appropriate. Notably, neither the petition, the delisting

documents, nor the language

of the delisting itself in the Shell case describe the

point at which the F039 leachate is considered delisted. This, plus the fact that

Shell was waiting to obtain the delisting before construction

of the piping to route

the leachate

to the North Effluent Treater, indicate that the leachate would be

considered delisted as it leaves the landfill. Given the fact that no regulatory

program would govern the handling and treating

of the leachate on-site, EPA's

worst case assumptions regarding 100% land disposal were justified.

contrast, the proposed BFI delisting does not authorize any contact of

the leachate with land. The leachate will be transported in 5,000 gallon tanker

trucks and will not be considered delisted until it

is loaded into the truck.

extremely unlikely that there would be a spill of two tanker trucks at the exact

same location.

fact, there has never been a spill during the transport of leachate

from the Davis Junction landfill, even hauling the leachate over 100 miles for

treatment.

Tr. pp.

66-67. Rather than this delisting resulting in a loss of

governmental control of the fate of the leachate, the BFI delisting provides cradle-

to-grave control.

Furthermore, the BFI delisting can be distinguished as ensuring a much

broader level

of control than USEPA required for Shell's leachate in that two

independent Clean Water Act permitted WWTF's will receive and confirm the

treatability

of the leachate to CWA standards before it is ultimately released to the

environment.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

The Board asked BFI to verify the maximum volume of waste

and number of years of waste generation covered by the Shell Oil delisting

and to discuss its relevance to BFl's petition. See

Tr.

80.

From the petition filed in the Shell Oil delisting proceeding, it appears that

Shell used the DRAS default

of twenty years as the time period in the DRAS

model. See

Attachment

The Board asked whether there is any need for USEPA's

approval of this delisting? See

Tr.

92.

BFI

is not aware of any reason that USEPA approval would be required

for this delisting. BFI is not requesting a change to any federally approved water

quality standard nor will this delisting affect any discharge

to a water of the State

or a water

of the United States. As stated, upon delisting, this leachate must be

sent to a WWTF with a federally approved pretreatment program and the

wastewater from that WWTF will be discharged

to a POTW that also must

comply with federal pretreatment and NPDES standards. USEPA and lllinois

authorize WWTF's and POTW's to accept wastewater for treatment under their

approved pretreatment programs and NPDES permits without requiring pre-

approval

of individual wastewater streams by USEP

Furthermore, the State of lllinois and the lllinois Pollution Control Board

have been delegated the authority to delist a hazardous waste stream

as long as the

waste will be disposed

of within lllinois. lllinois EPA confirmed this point at the

hearing.

Tr.

pp.

92- 93. BFI also confirmed this point with USEPA prior to filing

its Petition before the Board.

Tr.

pp.

94.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

In its pre-hearing qnestions, the Board asked why BFI had not

provided analytical data for eleven constituents that are included

in the F039

list.

BFI

responded in its pre-filed testimony and

the hearing, saying that

BFI

had not realized that its laboratory had not included these constituents in the

analyses. Upon further inquiry

of BFI's normal lab and two other labs, BFI was

told that these constituents are deemed unusual and are not normally analyzed for

when a customer requests analysis for F039 constituents. Furthermore, BFI found

that,

of the three labs it contacted, no single lab had the capability to analyze for

all

of these constituents. BFI raised concern about getting data from different labs

and asked the Board for guidance on how to respond.

At the hearing, Ms. Liu indicated that the parameter

of particular

relevance was pthalic anhydrite, because pthalic anhydrite waste was specifically

mentioned as being included in the 2%

of hazardous waste accepted at the Phase I

Unit.

Tr.

pp.

100-102.

Since the hearing, BFI has obtained an analysis of a

leachate sample for pthalic anhydrite (from the same laboratory that it normally

uses). The results indicate that this constituent was below the detection level. See

Attachment

6. BFI has inquired, but has not yet received an answer, as to whether

it is possible to obtain an analysis of any more of these unusual constituents from

this same lab at this time.

If this is possible, BFI will provide this analysis before

the end

of the briefing period.

BFI also continues to believe that, with the exception

of pthalic anhydrite

(for which there is a specific reason to test this leachate), it is unnecessary to test

for these unusual constituents.

fact, in the USEPA has not required testing for

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

unusual constituents which are unlikely to be present in a particular leachate.

Most notably in the Shell Oil delisting USEPA did not require Shell to test for

these unusual F039 constituents.

fact, USEPA only required testing for the

constituents listed in 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX . See

Attachment

4. Thus,

even without testing for these other unusual constituents, the scope

of BFI's

sampling data and analysis exceeds that which USEPA has required for delisting

an F039 waste.

10.

The Board asked BFI to address any additional parameters or

information that is referenced in USEPA npdates to the DRAS software.

See

Tr.

pp.

105 -111.

Pursuant to communications with Mr. Todd Ramaly of the USEPA on

May

6, 2008, the backward calculation of the delisting levels for the fish ingestion

and air volatiles pathway were evaluated. (See DRAS Version 2.0 User Alert,

Item 3.) The results

of this evaluation are summarized in a table in

Attachment

Each parameter was evaluated with respect to the fish ingestion and air

volatiles pathway, under both a carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic scenario.

If one of these pathways contributed to the aggregate risk, then the attached

spreadsheet was used to calculate a delisting level based upon the equation

contained in the User Alert. Note that the fish ingestion pathway was not part

the overall risk or hazard quotient for any of the constituents included on the final

list, while the air volatiles pathway was part

of the overall risk and/or hazard

quotient for certain organic constituents and mercury.

The delisting level for the air volatiles pathway calculated usmg the

equation in the User Alert was then compared to the delisting level proposed in

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

BFI's Delisting Petition. In each case except for cis- 1,3-dichloropropene and

heptachlor, the delisting level calculated using this method was higher than the

delisting level proposed within BFI's Delisting Petition. Therefore, the proposed

delisting levels for the majority

of the constituents are unaffected by these

calculations. However, in the case

of these two parameters, the delisting level

calculated using this method was lower than the delisting level proposed in BFI's

Delisting Petition.

the case of these two parameters, BFI is proposing that the delisting

level be revised. The proposed new delisting level for cis- 1,3-dichloropropene is

1,206 mg/L, which corresponds to the manually calculated value for the air

volatiles pathway.

the case of heptachlor, the manually calculated delisting

level for the air volatiles pathway is greater than the toxicity level under 40 CFR

261.24. Therefore, the proposed delisting level for heptachlor will default

to the

toxicity level

of 0.008 mg/L. These results are generally consistent with the

technical literature on the DRAS software and the expectation

of Mr. Ramaly, as

he indicated that in most cases, the groundwater pathway would be the most

sensitive pathway controlling the delisting levels.

11.

The Board asked whether the DRAS modeled delisting level

for lead should default

to the toxicity characteristic concentration, since the

DRAS number

is higher than the toxicity characteristic concentration?

Tr. p.

124.

BFI agrees that more stringent characteristic toxicity limits trump the

DRAS calculated limits and has substituted the toxicity characteristic limits for

the calculated limits not only for lead, but also for barium, chromium, mercury,

methylethyl ketone, and silvex in the revised Adjusted Standard language

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

contained in BFI's "Proposed Second Amendment to Petition for Adjusted

Standard which is being filed with this brieftoday.

12.

The Board noted that EPA's DRAS modeling guidance "states

that all risk assessments are conducted twice, once including those chemicals

specified with concentrations

that are detection limits and once omitting

them." The Board requested

BFI's justification for not running the DRAS

model a second time using the detection limits for the non-detected

constitutents.

Tr.

125-128.

As discussed at the hearing, the modeling

of every undetected constituent at its

detection level would be an enormous task

in this case because of the number of

constituents which were initially test for, i.e. all of the Appendix IX and additional F039

constituents.

Tr .p.125-128.

The data presented with this Petition contains greater than

10,000 individual data points. The vast majority

of the many constituents tested for were

found to

be non-detect over nine years of sampling and analysis using USEPA-approved

analytical methods. Therefore, there is very strong evidence that a non-detect reading in

this case is an accurate reading. Furthermore, where a constituent has not been detected in

multiple sampling events over many years, there is a strong indication that the constituent

is not present in the leachate or is not present at a level that would present a "substantial

present or potential hazard to human health or the environment," the criterion for

delisting under

Ill.

Adm. Code 721.111(a)(3).

USEPA itself does not require that all non-detected constituents

modeled.

its approval of the delisting for Chaparral, USEPA stated:

"The EPA believes that it is inappropriate to evaluate

nondetectable concentrations

of a constituent of concern in its

delisting modeling efforts

if the nondetectable value was obtained

using the appropriate analytical method.

If a constituent carmot be

detected (when using the appropriate analystical method with an

adequate detection limit), EPA, for delisting purposes, assumes

that thte constituent is not present and therefore does not present a

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

threat to human health of the environment.

the delisting

program, EPA believes that it is inappropriate to evaluate

constituents undetected in the waste samples." 64 Fed. Reg. 46,

166, 171.

(Attachment 3-7.)

Also see USEPA'sstatement in the USG delisting:

"We believe it is inappropriate to evaluate a constituent in our modeling

efforts

if the constituent was not detected using an appropriate analytical

method."

65 Fed. Reg. 58015, 58018.

(Attachment 3-8.)

The reference to modeling non-detected constituents in USEPA DRAS Modeling

Guidance is an example

of a statement made in a USEPA guidance document that should

not

be interpreted by the Board as a federal rule or as a regulatory mandate. The USEPA

DRAS Guidance Manual was intended to

be guidance. USEPA does not interpret every

word in that Guidance Manual as binding for delisting decisions. In fact, in BFI's review

of eight USEPA delistings, we never found a reference to the DRAS Guidance Manual.

The Board should interpret the USEPA guidance the way USEPA interprets it

- as a

document that is relevant, but not binding in every case.

this case, modeling of non-

detected constituents has been expressly repudiated as not being USEPA policy in several

delisting cases. Furthermore,

BFI's Petition includes enough data over a long enough

period

of time to provide confidence in the results obtained.

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADJUSED STANDARD LANGUAGE

The Board asked BFI to clarify the Adjusted Standard

language to clearly reflect the intent that the point at which the leachate will

be deemed

delisted

is the point at which it is transferred from RCRA

regulated on-site storage into a tanker truck for transport to a permitted

WWTF with a USEPA approved pretreatment program. See

Tr. p. 31.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

BFI is submitting herewith a

Proposed Second Amendment to Petition for

Adjusted Standard

which is designed

to clarify the point at which the leachate is

designated as delisted pursuant to this Adjusted Standard.

The Board noted that in the Shell

Oil

delisting, EPA allowed

Shell

"to manage and dispose of multi-landfill leachate as nonhazardous

waste only

after the initial verification and testing was completed to

demonstrate compliance with

the delisting levels." The Board asked BFI to

state its rationale for allowing disposal

nnder this delisting prior to

completion

of the initial testing.

Tr. pp.

129 -132.

BFI does not object to a pre-disposal sampling event. BFI did not initially

propose that the leachate be tested prior

to disposal because I) it believed it had

already provided extensive data documenting the constituents and concentrations

in the Phase I Unit leachate, and 2) it had reached an agreement with Illinois EPA

to sample the first three tanker truck loads. As explained at the hearing and in the

Pre-Filed Testimony, it is impractical

to fill a tanker truck, sample the leachate,

and then hold the truck on-site until such time as a laboratory analysis for the

relevant constituents is completed.

Pursuant to the discussion which took place at the hearing

(Trpp 129-

132), BFI is submitting herewith a

Proposed Second Amendment to Petition for

Adjusted Standard

which provides, in a new subsection (g), that BFI will submit

to lllinois EPA the results

of a test of a representative sample of the leachate

demonstrating compliance with the requirements

of the Adjusted Standard at least

thirty days prior to transporting the first load

of delisted leachate. BFI will obtain

this sample from the

ReRA

regulated leachate storage tank in lieu of sampling

individual tanker trucks.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

The Board asked BFI to comment on whether the Adjusted

Standard should require BFI to notify IEPA "of the initial sampling and

verification to comply with the delisting levels or any other subsequent

exceedances

in the delisting levels are exceeded."

Tr. p 114.

As stated above, BFI agrees with this suggestion and has proposed a new

subsection (g) which requires such a submittal to Illinois EPA at least 30 days

prior to initial transportation and disposal pursuant

to this delisting.

The Board asked whether the Adjusted Standard language

should

require that the testing demonstrate that the leachate does not exhibit

any hazardous waste characteristics before testing is allowed on only a semi-

annual basis?

Tr. p. 135.

BFI agrees that testing and/or an analysis based upon operator knowledge,

as is allowed under RCRA for certain characteristics, should demonstrate that no

RCRA hazardous characteristic is present in the leachate during each prescribed

test. We note that for constituents for which the toxicity characteristic is more

stringent than the DRAS calculated limit, the more stringent toxicity characteristic

has now been incorporated into the delisting levels. BFI also agrees that quarterly

sampling should continue until compliance has been demonstrated by four

quarters

of compliant tests. BFI has proposed to amend the Adjusted Standard

language to reflect these points.

The Board noted that the Adjusted Standard requires that the

leachate be handled as a hazardous waste

if it exceeds the stated delisting

levels

or characteristic levels until the verification sampling procedure

demonstrates

it to be below those standards. The Board asked whether that

prohibition was intended to apply to both the initial testing and the ongoing

semi-annual testing.

Tr. pp.135-136.

BFI intends the prohibition to apply following a failed Verification Test

and to continue until Confirmatory Testing performed pursuant to paragraph (d)

demonstrates compliance. BFI intends the prohibition to apply to all

of the initial,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

quarterly, and on-going semi-annual testing. BFI has proposed to amend the

Adjusted Standard language to make this clear.

The Board asked whether Subsection E of the Adjusted

Standard should refer to Table A constituents rather than all F039

constituents.

Tr.

pp.

136-137.

BFI intended this language to refer to the constituents listed in Table A in

the Adjusted Standard. To make this clear, BFI has proposed

to delete the

reference to F039 constituents. We have also proposed to amend the language

throughout the Adjusted Standard to consistently refer to the requirements

paragraph (c), which references both the Table A constituents and hazardous

characteristics.

CONCLUSION

closing, BFI believes it has presented a very conservative delisting

petition. This Petition does not fit neatly within USEP

A's standard land-based

delisting assumptions, but it doesn't have to because BFI is not proposing and

would not

be allowed under this delisting to land-dispose of this waste stream.

USEPA itself does not treat the DRAS Users' Manual or the Manual for the

Petitioner as binding and the Board should not extend the use

of a federal

guidance document beyond the scope to which it is applied

by the USEPA itself.

The Board's decision in this case should be bounded by the factors stated

Ill.

Adm. Code 721.111(a)(3), and the practical consideration that pursuant

to this delisting the Phase I Unit leachate will

be transported a shorter distance

and receive the same or better treatment at a WWTF than it is currently receiving

as a listed waste under the RCRA Subtitle C program. The Board should also take

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

comfort in the knowledge that the many years of data supporting this Petition

indicate that this is a stable waste stream that

is highly unlikely to change over the

remainder

ofthe post-closure period for the Phase I Unit.

Ultimately, the Board's decision in this case should rest upon the

conditions in the Adjusted Standard, which have been tightened and improved

based on the Illinois EPA's and Board's input and discussion at the hearing.

While BFI believes the language in the "Proposed Second Amendment to Petition

for Adjusted Standard" (which is being filed with this brief today) is clear and

complete, BFI is willing to consider any reasonable additional conditions that the

Board may deem necessary to finalize and approve this delisting.

BFI would like to express its gratitude to the Board for its consideration

this Petition. We would also like to thank the Illinois EPA personnel and the

Board's Technical Personnel who have closely reviewed this Petition and

provided helpful questions and comments.

Respectfully submitted,

p~;S;;;

On Behalf of

BFI Waste Systems ofNorth America, Inc.

Date: June 30, 2008

Patricia

F. Sharkey, Esq.

McGuireWoods, LLP

77 W. Wacker Drive

Suite 4100

Chicago, IL

60601

312/849-8100

\6362956.1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

DELISTING

AS 08-05

(Adjusted Standard

-Land)

(Waste Delisting)

MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

WASTE DELISTING

NOW COMES BFI Waste Systems ofNorth America, Inc. ("BFI"), by its

attorneys McGuireWoods LLP, moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") to

accept the attached Proposed Second Amendment to the Petition for Adjusted Standard

filed

in this matter on November 21,2007 for consideration in this proceeding.

support thereof, BFI states:

On November 21,2007, BFI filed a Petition for Adjusted Standard in this

matter which included proposed language for the Adjusted Standard. That language was

desigued to expressly limit the scope

ofthe hazardous waste delisting which is the subject

of the Petition to leachate which is transported pursuant to an Illinois Special Waste

Manifest to a permitted wastewater treatment plant.

Based upon the recommendation

ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency ("Illinois EPA") and conversations with Illinois

EPA personnel, BFI proposed to

amend the language

of the Adjusted Standard on Apri114, 2008.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Today, based upon additional comments and questions from the Illinois

EPA and the Board'sTechnical Personnel at the May 15,2008 hearing, BFI is proposing

additional amendatory language

to improve and clarify the Adjusted Standard.

explanation of each of the changes proposed in the attached Proposed

Second Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard is provided in the Petitioner's Post-

Hearing Briefwhich is being filed with the Board today.

WHEREFORE, BFI respectfully requests that the Board accept the attached

Proposed Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard for consideration

this

proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

BFI Wa te anagement Sy ems

ofNorth America

By One of Its Attorneys

June 30, 2008

Patricia

F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLC

Suite 4100

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 849-8100

16378309.1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD

WASTE

DELISTING

AS 08-05

(Adjusted Standard -Laud)

(Waste Delisting)

PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO

PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

As discussed in Petitioner'sPost-Hearing Brief, BPI proposes the following

SECOND AMENDMENT

to the Adjusted Standard language which was originally

contained in the Petition on pp. 14-

16 and subsequently proposed to be amended on

April 14, 2008.

Proposed Adjusted Standard Language

Leachate generated at the closed Phase I Unit at the BPI Waste Systems ofNorth

America, Inc. ("BPI") Davis Junction Landfill in Davis Junction, Ogle County,

Illinois shall not be deemed a hazardous waste pursuant to

35 Ill. Adm. Code 721

under the following circumstances:

The Phase I Unit is subject to an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

RCRA Post -Closure Permit which prohibits the disposal

of any new solid or

liquid waste in the Phase I Unit, requires maintenance

of the landfill cap and liner,

and requires operation of a leachate collection system;

The leachate is hard-piped directly from the landfill

to an on-site storage

tank which is regulated under the RCRA Post-Closure Permit and is not stored or

managed in a surface impoundment, conveyed

by ditches or otherwise managed

prior to transportation for off-site disposal;

The leachate does not exhibit any characteristic of hazardous waste as

defined in

Ill.

Adm. Code 721.121, 721.122, 721123 and 721.124 and also

does not exceed the delisting level concentrations in Table A below. Other than

for the toxicity characteristics which are reflected

in the delisting level

concentrations in Table A below, compliance with a hazardous characteristic may

be demonstrated based upon BPI'sknowledge of the leachate characteristics.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Prior to commencing initial transportation and disposal ofthe leachate

pursuant to this Adjusted Standard, and quarterly thereafter for the first 12 months

following the effective date

of this Adjusted Standard, BFI shall test a

representative sample

of the leachate and submit test results demonstrating

compliance with the requirements

ofparagraph (c) above to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency. Quarterly sampling shall continue until such

time

as BFI has demonstrated compliance (including, ifnecessary, a compliance

demonstrated

by a verification test) in four consecutive quarters. Thereafter, such

testing

shaH continue on a semi-annual basis. For any such initial, quarterly, or

annual testing,

if an original sample fails to meet the requirements ofparagraph

(c), then a verification sample will be coHected within 7 days and Verification

Testing

shaH be performed for the constituent(s) which failed to meet the

requirements

ofparagraph (c). A verified failure to meet the requirements in

paragraph (c) will

be deemed present ifboth the original and verification sample

fail to meet such requirements.

If a failure to meet the requirements in paragraph (c) is verified pursuant

to the verification procedures in paragraph (d), BFI shaH notify the Illinois EPA

and the leachate shaH not

be transported or disposed of except as a hazardous

waste until such time as

it is demonstrated by the Confirmatory Testing

procedures below to meet the requirements

ofparagraph (c). Prior to re-initiating

transportation and disposal pursuant to this Adjusted Standard, BFI must perform

Confirmatory Testing, including testing

of a minimum of four representative

samples taken over not less than a 14 day period, each

of which confirms that the

leachate meets the requirements

ofparagraph (c), and BFI shall submit such

results to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency with a notification it

intends to re-initiate transportation and disposal pursuant to the Adjusted

Standard.

The leachate is transported in compliance with the requirements applicable

to an Illinois Special Waste (35

Ill.

Adm. Code Part 809) to and received by a

permitted waste water treatment facility located in Illinois which has a

Pretreatment Program which has been approved

by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

At least 30 days prior to transporting the first load of delisted leachate,

BFI shall provide the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency with the results

a test of a representative sample of the leachate demonstrating compliance with

the requirements

ofparagraph (c) and a one-time written notification stating that it

intends to commence transportation of delisted leachate pursuant to this delisting

and the name

of the waste water treatment facility to which the leachate will be

transported.

If BFI changes disposal facilities, it shaH provide to Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency a one-time written notification

of such change;

and

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

BFI shall not transport the leachate pursuant to this Adjusted Standard

outside ofthe State of Illinois.

This adjusted standard waste delisting shall apply once the leachate is

loaded for transport at the BFI Davis Junction Landfill in Davis Junction, Ogle

County, Illinois and during any subsequent transportation and handling, but shall

not apply to any leachate from the Davis Junction facility which is released from

the tanker truck to the environment (at the Davis Junction facility or at any other

location) prior

to delivery to a permitted waste water treatment facility as

described in paragraph

(f) above.

Any such leachate released to the environment as described in paragraph

(i) above shall

be considered a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

("RCRA) listed hazardous waste and any such released leachate shall be

addressed in accordance with applicable RCRA requirements.

Table A

Arsenic

0.525

Barium

100

Benzene

0.153

Cadmium

0.409

Carbon Disulfide

118

Chromium

5.0

Dichloropropene, cis-I, 3-

1,206

Cobalt

118

Copper

24,700

Diethyl phthalate

1,270

Endrin

32,700

Ethylbenzene

57.2

Isobutyl alcohol

299

Lead

5.0

Mercury

0.2

Methanol

499

Methyl ethyl ketone

200

Methylene chloride

0.198

Methyl isobutyl ketone

79.8

Naphthalene

6.51

Nickel

76.8

Cresol, p-

5.37

Phenol

645

Selenium

1.57

Styrene

6.2

Tetrachloroethylene

0.174

Tin

1180

Toluene

40.2

Trichloroethylene

0.164

Vanadium

57.1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

Vinyl cWoride

0.2

Xvlenes (total)

160

Zinc

760

DicWoroethane, 1-1-

99.8

DicWoroethane, 1,2-

0.0354

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-

0.473

Dioxane, 1,4-

100

HeotacWor

0.008

TCDD,2,3,7,8-

0.00000147

Trichloroohenoxvoripionic acid, 2,4, 5- (Silvex)

1.0

DicWoroohenoxyacetic acid, 2,4- (2,4-D)

1.86

Dimethylphenol, 2,4-

27.6

Acetone

898

Respectfully submitted,

BFI aste Management Sys ems

ofNorth America

By One of lis Attomeys

June 30, 2008

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLC

Suite 4100

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 849-8100

\6371344.1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CAS No.

Units

Mean

Variance

Standard

Deviation

+ 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

+ 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

+ 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

+ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

+ 1,1-Dichloroethylene

+ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 - OCDD

+ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 - OCDF

+ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

+ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF

+ 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

+ HxCDDs (all hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)

+ HxCDFs (all hexachlorodibenzofurans)

+ PeCDDs (all pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)

+ PeCDFs (all pentachlorodibenzofurans)

+ TCDDs (all tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)

+ TCDFs (all tetrachlorodibenzofurans)

+ 1,2,3-Trichloropropane

+ 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene

+ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

+ 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

+ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

+ 1,2-Dichloropropane

+ 1,3-Dichlorobenzene

+ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, TCLP

+ 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol

2,4,5-TP (Silvex), TCLP

+ 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

+ 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

+ 2-Acetylaminofluorene

+ 2-Chloronaphthalene

+ 2-Methylnaphthalene

+ 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb)

+ 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

+ 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine

3-Chloropropene (allyl chloride)

+ 3-Methylchloranthrene

+ 4-6-Dinitro-o-cresol

4/4/2001

5/3/2005

1/29/2007

2/16/2005

4/14/2005

4/20/2005

1/12/2006

3/22/2006

Phase I (Hazardous) Leachate

11/4/1999

Parameter

3/13/2001

2/18/2004

6/23/2005

Table I

Davis Junction Landfill

Summary Historical Data from Phase I Landfill Leachate and Variability Assessment

AS 08-5,063008

Att 5.xls

Page 1 of 5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CAS No.

Units

Mean

Variance

Standard

Deviation

4/4/2001

2/27/2002

5/3/2005

5/25/2005

1/29/2007

4/3/2003

2/16/2005

4/14/2005

4/20/2005

1/12/2006

3/22/2006

Phase I (Hazardous) Leachate

11/4/1999

Parameter

3/13/2001

2/18/2004

6/23/2005

Table I

Davis Junction Landfill

Summary Historical Data from Phase I Landfill Leachate and Variability Assessment

+ 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether

+ 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol

+ 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

+ 4-Nitrophenol (p-nitrophenol)

+ 4-Nitroquinoline-N-oxide

+ 5-Nitro-o-toluidine

+ 7,12-Dimethylbenzo(a)anthracene

+ Benzo(b)fluoranthene

+ Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

+ Benzo(k)fluoranthene

+ bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether

+ bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

+ bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether

+ bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

+ Bromodichloromethane

+ Bromomethane (methyl bromide)

+ Butyl Benzyl Phthalate

+ Carbon tetrachloride

+ Chlorodibromomethane

4-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene

(p-(dimethylamino) azobenzene)

AS 08-5,063008

Att 5.xls

Page 2 of 5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CAS No.

Units

Mean

Variance

Standard

Deviation

4/4/2001

2/27/2002

5/3/2005

5/25/2005

1/29/2007

4/3/2003

2/16/2005

4/14/2005

4/20/2005

1/12/2006

3/22/2006

Phase I (Hazardous) Leachate

11/4/1999

Parameter

3/13/2001

2/18/2004

6/23/2005

Table I

Davis Junction Landfill

Summary Historical Data from Phase I Landfill Leachate and Variability Assessment

+ cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene

+ Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

+ Dibromomethane (methylene bromide)

+ Dichlorodifluoromethane

+ Di-n-butyl phthalate

+ Di-n-octyl phthalate

Di-N-Propylnitrosamine

+ Ethyl methanesulfonate

+ gamma-BHC (Lindane)

gamma-BHC (Lindane), TCLP

Heptachlor epoxide, TCLP

+ Hexachlorobutadiene

+ Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

+ Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

< 0.0002 < 0.00005 < 0.0002

Dimethyl benzeneethanamine

(alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine)

AS 08-5,063008

Att 5.xls

Page 3 of 5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CAS No.

Units

Mean

Variance

Standard

Deviation

4/4/2001

2/27/2002

5/3/2005

5/25/2005

1/29/2007

4/3/2003

2/16/2005

4/14/2005

4/20/2005

1/12/2006

3/22/2006

Phase I (Hazardous) Leachate

11/4/1999

Parameter

3/13/2001

2/18/2004

6/23/2005

Table I

Davis Junction Landfill

Summary Historical Data from Phase I Landfill Leachate and Variability Assessment

+ Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

+ Methyl ethyl ketone

+ Methyl methacrylate

+ Methyl methanesulfonate

+ Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)

+ N-Nitrosodiethylamine

+ N-Nitrosodimethylamine

+ N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

+ N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

+ N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

+ N-Nitrosomethylethylamine

+ N-Nitrosomorpholine

+ N-Nitrosopiperidine

+ N-Nitrosopyrolidine

+ o,o,o-Triethyl phosphorothioate

+ o-Nitroaniline (2-Nitroaniline)

+ m-Nitroaniline (3-Nitroaniline)

+ p-Nitroaniline (4-Nitroaniline)

+ p-Chloroaniline (4-chloroaniline)

+ Pentachloronitrobenzene

+ sym-Trinitrobenzene

+ Tetrachloroethylene

+ Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate

Methyl-iso-butyl ketone

(4-Methyl-2-pentanone)

AS 08-5,063008

Att 5.xls

Page 4 of 5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008

CAS No.

Units

Mean

Variance

Standard

Deviation

4/4/2001

2/27/2002

5/3/2005

5/25/2005

1/29/2007

4/3/2003

2/16/2005

4/14/2005

4/20/2005

1/12/2006

3/22/2006

Phase I (Hazardous) Leachate

11/4/1999

Parameter

3/13/2001

2/18/2004

6/23/2005

Table I

Davis Junction Landfill

Summary Historical Data from Phase I Landfill Leachate and Variability Assessment

+ trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

+ trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene

+ trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene

+ Trichlorofluoromethane

Average Variance and Standard Deviation:

1.015

0.346

+ Constituents listed in 35 IAC 724 Appendix I

Average Var/Stdev (w/ out two highest):

0.429

0.283

For landfill leachate (< 0.5% solids), total result (in mg/L) is equivalent to TCLP result in accordance with TCLP analytical method.

For non-detect results, the detection limit was used for purposes of calculating the mean, variance, and standard deviation.

AS 08-5,063008

Att 5.xls

Page 5 of 5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2008