By: 0 e if t e Attorneys or Petitioner

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

04e

(RCRA Delisting)

408

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

NOTICE OF FILING

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Lynn Buhl, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604

Paul Jagiello, Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

9511 West Harrison Street

Des Plaines, IL 60016

Mr. William Ingersoll, Manager

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, IL

Please take notice that on July 24, 2008

the undersigned caused to be filed with the Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA'S

REPLY BRIEF, MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

DELISTING, PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO PETITION FOR ADJUSTED

STANDARD, NOTICE OF CORPORATE CONVERSION AND NAME CHANGE, and

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPT, copies of which are herewith served

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuire Woods LLP

77 West Wacker, Suite 4100

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: 312/849-8100

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

eys for Peti oner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

those listed on the attached Notice of Filing on July

via First Class United States Mail,

postage prepaid.

McGuire Woods LLP

77 West Wacker, Suite

Chicago, Illinois 60601

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

(Adjusted Standard –Land)

(Waste Delisting)

MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

WASTE DELISTING

NOW COMES BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC ("BFI"), by its

attorneys McGuire Woods LLP, and moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board")

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

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

In 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

designed to expressly limit the scope of the hazardous waste delisting which is the subject

of the Petition. See

Petition, pp. 14 to 16.

Based upon the recommendation of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency ("Illinois EPA") and conversations with Illinois EPA personnel, BFI proposed to

amend the language of the Adjusted Standard on April 14, 2008. See

Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard.

Based upon additional comments and questions from the Illinois EPA and

the Board's Technical Personnel at the May 15, 2008 hearing, BFI again proposed to

amend the Adjusted Standard language on June 30, 2008. See

Proposed Second

Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard.

Today, BFI is proposing a third set of clarifying amendments to the

language proposed in the Petition. See attached

Proposed Third Amendment to Petition

for Adjusted Standard (Attachment A hereto)

which shows the amendments proposed

today (in strike through and underscoring format) compared against the language

proposed in the

Proposed Second Amendment

The amendments proposed today are necessary to accomplish the

REVISED DELISTING LEVELS FOR COBALT AND TIN

Today's amendments incorporate revised delisting levels for Cobalt and Tin in

Table A in the Adjusted Standard. As discussed in

Petitioner 's Reply Brief (pp.5 - 8),

filed today, USEPA has recently specified what it believes to be the appropriate

minimum base surface impoundment dilution attenuation factors ("DAF") for

carcinogens and non-carcinogens. USEPA recommends these new DAF numbers be used

in the DRAS model for all constituents which would otherwise have a zero DAF under

the DRAS model default.

Because the USEPA recommended minimum DAF for Cobalt and Tin was less

than that used in BFI's original DRAS modeling, BFI re-ran the DRAS model for these

constituents and is now proposing that the lower delisting levels for Cobalt and Tin be

incorporated in the Adjusted Standard. The historic data over nine years of sampling

demonstrates that the Cobalt and Tin measured in the Davis Junction Phase I Unit

leachate is well below these revised delisting levels.

PETITIONER'S CORPORATE CONVERSION AND NAME CHANGE

Since the original filing of this Petition, "BFI Waste Systems of North America,

Inc.," a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in Illinois, has been converted

into a Delaware limited liability company and changed its name to "BFI Waste Systems

of North America, LLC." BFI is herewith filing a

Notice of Corporate Conversion and

As stated in that Notice, this conversion and name change became

effective on December 30,

BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC applied for

and was granted approval to transact business in Illinois on January 15,

The undersigned counsel for BFI has discussed this conversion and name change

with counsel for Illinois EPA, who agreed that these changes do not affect the Petition in

this case. As a matter of law, BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC succeeds to all

of the rights and obligations of BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. It also

maintains the same FEIN number. All representations made in the Petition, including all

information provided to meet the requirements of 35

Adm. Code 104.406(a)-(e),

remain unchanged.

Amendments to the Adjusted Standard language proposed today are designed to

reflect this change in the corporate form and name of BFI and to clarify that the Adjusted

Standard applies to the leachate generated at Phase I Unit of the Davis Junction Landfill

and the permitted post-closure operator of the closed Phase I Unit at the Davis Junction

Landfill, regardless of this or any future change in corporate ownership, form or name.

WHEREFORE, BFI respectfully requests that the Board accept the attached

Proposed Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard for consideration in this

Respectfully submitted,

BFI Waste Management Systems of North America, LLC

By One of Its Attorneys

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLC

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

(Adjusted Standard –Land)

(Waste Delisting)

PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO

PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

As discussed in the Motion to Amend Adjusted Standard Language, attached

hereto, the Petitioner proposes the following THIRD AMENDMENT to the Adjusted

Standard language which was originally contained in the Petition on pp.14- 16, was

subsequently proposed to be amended on April 14, 2008, and was again proposed to be

amended on June 30, 2008. This THIRD AMENDMENT amends the language as shown

in the SECOND AMENDMENT by the addition of the underscored language below:

Proposed Adjusted Standard Language

Leachate generated at the closed Phase I Unit at the BFI Waste Systems of North

America, Inc. Davis Junction Landfill in Davis Junction, Ogle County, Illinois,

RCRA ID No. ILD980700751, shall not be deemed a hazardous waste pursuant to

35 III. 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 35 III. 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 BFI the operator's knowledge of the leachate

characteristics.

Prior to commencing initial transportation and disposal of the leachate

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

following the effective date of this Adjusted Standard, BFI the operator shall test

a representative sample of the leachate and submit test results demonstrating

compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) above to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency. Quarterly sampling shall continue until such

time as RFT the operator has demonstrated compliance (including, if necessary, a

compliance demonstrated by a verification test) in four consecutive quarters.

Thereafter, such testing shall continue on a semi-annual basis. For any such

initial, quarterly, or annual testing, if an original sample fails to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c), then a verification sample will be collected within

7 days and Verification Testing shall be performed for the constituent(s) which

failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (c). A verified failure to meet the

requirements in paragraph (c) will be deemed present if both 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 the operator shall notify the

Illinois EPA and the leachate shall 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 of paragraph (c). Prior to re-initiating

transportation and disposal pursuant to this Adjusted Standard, BFI the operator

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 of paragraph (c), and BFI the

operator 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 the operator shall provide the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency with

of a test of a representative sample of the leachate demonstrating

compliance with the requirements of paragraph (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 w ste water treatment facility to

which the leachate will be transported. If BFI the operator changes disposal

facilities, it shall provide to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a one-time

written notification of such change; and

BFI The operator shall not transport the leachate pursuant to this Adjusted

Standard outside of the State of Illinois.

This adjusted standard waste delisting shall apply once the leachate is

loaded for transport at the 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.

Carbon Disulfide

Dichloropropene, cis-1, 3-

Diethyl phthalate

Isobutyl alcohol

Methyl ethyl ketone

Methylene chloride

Methyl isobutyl ketone

Tetrachloroethylene

Trichloroethy len e

Xylenes (total)

Dichloroethane, 1-1-

Dichloroethane, 1,2-

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-

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

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

Dimethylphenol, 2,4-

Respectfully submitted,

agerrJent Systems cjf North America, LLC

By One of I Attorneys

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuire Woods LLC

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

ust s08-On5dard

NOTICE OF CORPORATE CONVERSION AND NAME CHANGE

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the Petitioner in this matter, BFI Waste Systems of

North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in Illinois, has

been converted into a Delaware limited liability company and changed its name to "BFI

Waste Systems of North America, LLC." This conversion and name change became

effective on December 30, 2008. BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC applied for

and was granted approval to transact business in Illinois on January 15, 2008. See

Attachment A hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

BFI Waste anatement Syste s of North America, LLC

By One of Its Attorneys

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLC

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

2263847 8100V

corp.delaware.gov/euthver.shtml

may verify this

&ven' doifro-a 6-.4 Ala"

The First State

SECRETARY OF STATE

HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY

OF. THE STATE OF

DELAWARE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND

OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION OF

CORPORATION UNDER THE NAME OF

WASTE SYSTEMS

AMERICA, INC." TO A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, CHANGING

ITS NAME FROM

"BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC."

WASTE SYSTEMS OF

NORTH AMERICA, LLC", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON

THE TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY

DECEMBER, A.D. 2007, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF

THE AFORESAID

CERTIFICATE

CONVERSION IS THE THIRTIETH DAY

DECEMBER, A.D. 2007.

NSO-A.."-4-e2

;A-1,94.1.WoL44w

HemASmittiftlamtarydSthte

AUTHENTICATION: 6275171

DATE: 12-31-07

STATE OF DELAWARE

CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION

FROM A DOMESTIC CORPORATION TO A

DOMESTIC LIMITED UABIUTY COMPANY PURSUANT TO

SECTION 18-214 OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT

The Corporation was first incorporated in Delaware on May 23, 1991,

and Its jurisdiction immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate was

of the Corporation Immediately prior to the filing of

Certificate was BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. ?

The name of the Limited Liability Company as set forth in Its Cer,te

of Formation is BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC.

This Certificate of Conversion shall be effective on December 30,

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of

Conversion of BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC this 28

December, 2007.

Authorized Person

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

JESSE WHITE

• Secretary of State

JANUARY 15, 2008

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

208 SO LASALLE ST, SUITE 814

CHICAGO, IL 60604-1101

RE BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

DEAR SIR OR MADAM:

IT IS OUR PLEASURE TO APPROVE YOUR REQUEST TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS. ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND AN APPROVED APPLICATION OF

THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT PRIOR TO THE

FIRST DAY OF ITS ANNIVERSARY MONTH (MONTH OF QUALIFICATION) NEXT YEAR.

PRE-PRINTED ANNUAL REPORT FORM WILL BE SENT TO THE REGISTERED AGENT AT

THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS

PRIOR TO ITS ANNIVERSARY MONTH.

MANY SERVICES ARE NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT WWW.CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS.COM.

AMONG OTHER SERVICES AT THIS SITE, YOU MAY CHECK THE STATUS OF THIS

COMPANY, PURCHASE A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING, OR EVEN FILE THE

ANNUAL REPORT REFERRED TO IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH.

SINCERELY YOURS,

SECRETARY OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DIVISION

TELEPHONE (217)524-8008

Springfield, Illinois 62756

Secretary of State Jesse White

Department of Business Services

Limited Liability Division

501 S. Second St, Rm. 351

Springfield, IL 62756

www.cyberdrIvelliinols.com

Payment must be made by certified

check, cashiers check, Illinois attorneys

check, Illinois C.P.A.'s check or money

order payable to Secretary of State.

Limited Liability Company Act

Application for Admission

to Transact Business

SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE

Must be typewritten.

This space for use by Secretary of State.

Filing Fee: $500

for use by Secretary of State.

JAN 1 5 2008

JESSE WHITE

SECRETARY OF'STATE

Limited Liability Company Name:

BPI Waste Systems of North America, LLC

Must comply with Section 1-10 of ILLCA or Item 2 below also applies.

y electing this Assumed Name, the Limited Liability

ompany hereby agrees not to use its Company Name In the

transaction of business In Illinois, Form LLC-120 le attached.

3. Jurisdiction of Organization:

Date of Organization: 5-23'91

Period of Duration: Perpetual

Address, including County,

of the Office required to be maintained in the Jurisdiction of Its

organization or, If not required,

of the Principal Place of Business: (P.O. Box alone or do is unacceptable.)

North Allied Way

7. Registered Agent: ?

C T Corporation System

Registered Office:?

South LaSalle Street

(P.O. Box alone or?

do is unacceptable.)

If applicable, Date on which Company first conducted business in Illinois: ?

(continued on back)

Printed by authority of the State of elhois. August 2007 — 500 —LLC-17.9

T Syslem OnlIna

with Section 5-45 of ILWA)

Assistant. Secretary of*

Purpose(s) for which the Company is Organized and Proposes to Conduct Business in Illinois: (Include Business

Code # from IRS Form 1065.)

non-hazardous solid waste management

10. The Limited

Liability Company: (check one)

is managed by a manager or managers (List names and business addresses.)

el has management vested in the member or members (List names and addresses.)

Browning-Ferris

Industries, LLC

18500 North Allied Way

Phoenix, AZ 85054

The Illinois Secretary

of State is hereby appointed the agent of the Limited Liability

Company for service of process

under the circumstances set forth in subsection (b) of Section 1-50 of the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act.

This application is accompanied by a Certificate of Good Standing or Existence, as well as a copy of the

Articles of Organization, as amended, duly authenticated within the last 60 days, by the officer of the state

or country wherein

If the period of duration is a date certain and Is not stated in the Articles of Organization from the domestic

state, a copy of that page from the Operating Agreement stating the date also must be submitted.

The undersigned affirms, under penalties of perjury, having authority to sign

hereto, that this application

admission to transact business Is to the best of my

knowledge and belief, true, correct and complete.

(type or print)

If applicant is a Company or other Entity, state Name of Company and indicate

whether It Is a member or manager of the LLC. Please refer to

Sections 178.20(d) of the Administrative Rules.

*Allied Waste North America, Inc., Sole Member of

Browning-Ferris Industries, LLC,Sole

of BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC

Printed by authority of the State of Illinois. August 2007 —500 — LLC-17.9

11.061 10f/1f/007C T Syism Onlin

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

JESSE WHITE • Secretary of State

JANUARY 15, 2008?

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704

RE BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

DEAR SIR OR MADAM:

ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND THE WITHDRAWAL FOR THE ABOVE NAMED

THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE

COUNTY IN WHICH THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION IN THIS STATE

WAS LOCATED, AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 1.10 OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATION

ACT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

THE REQUIRED FILING FEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF

THE CORPORATION.

SECRETARY OF STATE

TELEPHONE (217) 782-6961

Springfield, Illinois 62756

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

(Adjusted Standard –Land)

(Waste Delisting)

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPT

NOW COMES Petitioner, BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC ("BFI"), by its

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

to correct the May 15,

Transcript of Proceedings as attached.

WHEREFORE, BFI respectfully requests that the Board accept the attached transcript

Respectfully submitted,

BFI Waste Management Systems of North

By One of Its Attorneys

Patricia F. Sharkey

McGuireWoods LLC

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

IN THE MATTER OF:

OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.. FOR

WASTE DELISTING.

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

TRANSCRIFr OF PROCEEDINGS had in the

above-entitled cause, taken before MARGARET R.

BRODARD, a Notary Public within and for the County of

Kane, state of Illinois, and a certified Shorthand

Reporter of said state, at Room 101, 106 South 5th

Street, Oregon, Illinois. on the 15th day of May.

A.D. 2008, at 9:00 a.m.

HEARING OFFICER: BRADLEY P. HALILMAN.

JUN 0 3 ZOE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Polluhon Control Board

MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP,

(77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100,

Chicago, Illinois 60601),

MS. PATRICIA F. SHARKEY and

MR. BRADLEY R. DANIELS.

appeared on behalf of the Petitioner;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

(1021 North Grand Avenue East.

Post Office Box 19276,

Springfield, Illinois 627941,

( MR. WILLIAM D. INGERSOLL,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

(9511 West Harrison Street,

Des Plaines, Illinois 60016),

BY: MR. PAUL R. JAGIELI33,

appeared on behalf of the Agency.

REPORTED BY MARGARET R. BEDDARD, CSR.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

We're on the record now.

3 OPENING PROCEEDINGS

3 Bradley Halloran.

?I'm the hearing officer with the

Pollution Control Board,

I , m also assigned

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF

to this matter entitled In

the Matter of Petition of

OF THE PETITIONER

6 BFI Waste Systems of North America.

?Inc.,?for Waste

Delisting as documented as AS 08-5, ?

approximately 9:10 a.m.

I do want to note that -- at the top,

ELIZABETH A. STEINHOIIR

there are no members of the public here.?If there

By Ms. Sharkey? 14

were, they would be allowed to state their peace

We're going to run this hearing pursuant to

Section 104. Subpart D, and Section 101,

of the Board's procedural rules_

I also want to note,

for the record,

By Mr. Ingersoll

this hearing was properly noticed up.

intended to develop a record for the Illinois

Pollution Control Board.

I will not be making the

ultimate decision in the case.?

That's left up to the

four esteemed mend:mere of the Board. ?

I'm only here to

rule on evidentiary matters to make sure the hearing

NO EXHIBITS MARKED.

goes without a hitch.

A brief note.?On April?15.?2008,?I

24 forwarded, via an hearing officer Order, questions

technical units to the respective parties.

The Petitioner filed prefiled testimony addressing

those issues on May 6, 2008. To that end, we have

Alisa Liu from our technical unit as well as Anand

Rao that may or may not be asking questions.

With that said. Ms. Sharkey, would you like

to introduce yourself, please.

mS. SHARKEY: My name is Patricia Sharkey. I'm

with the law firm of McGuire Woods. I'm representing

BFI -- I'm representing BPI Waste Systems of North

America, Inc., today. Thank you. And we're going to

be having -- With me 7 have two other witnesses who

will be testifying on behalf of BEG. Mike Maxwell of

Weaver Boos Consultants and Beth Steinhour --

Elizabeth Steinhour of Weaver Boos Consultants.

We do have an opening statement that we'd

like to make, but perhaps you'd like to go through

introductions first.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Ingersoll?

MR. INGERSOLL. I'm Bill Ingersoll from the

Illinois EPA, Division of Legal Counsel, representing

the Agency. Accompanying me today ie Paul Jagiello

also from our Division of Legal Counsel and Nark

Crites. Mark is the permit engineer who has reviewed

the petition and lnteratteo with techn

i cal staff for

BFI -- the technical representatives of BFI. And

mark will be available if needed or

i f questions need

to be directed -- technical questions need to be

directed to the Agency.

REARING OFFICER HALLORAN. Thank you.

Ms. Sharkey. opening.

MS. SHARKEY: Yes. Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF

BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

MS. SHARKEY. What we wanted to do is put into

perspective what this petition is about, and I think

we'd like to start by thanking the Board for the

opportunity to have this hearing and particularly for

having two metthers of its technical staff here today.

And we really do appreciate both the opportunity to

explain our petition and the opportunity to address

any questions that the technical staff and the Board

may have. And we look forward to this hearing as

something of a dialogue to allow us to understand the

Board's concerns and to he able to provide answers to

any questions that may come up.

There is a lot of minutia involved in a

that landfill. One of them accepted hazardous waste

for a period of, I believe, seven years. And the

other landfills otherwise took the same material that

this landfill took. This landfill had 2 percent

hazardous waste. lad, as a result, it is

character -- the leachate is characterized

hazardous leachate. The other two units at the came

landfill did not take any hazardous material. And,

result, the leachate from

characterized as hazardous.

The leachate from the hazardous unit is --

this point be trucked 350 miles into Ohio in

order for it to be handled at a facility that is

permitted and authorized to accept hazardous liquid

waste. Previously It was being hauled to the CID

chemical waste management treatment facility in

calumet City over 100 miles from Davis Junction.

recently BFI's been informed that CID cannot

handle that materiel at this point. As a result,

it's now going to Ohio, quite a distance. In

contrast, the leachate from the nonhazardous units at

the Davis Junction Landfill

going to a facility

IPC that is in the Rockford area. I believe it's

approximately seven miles from the Davis Junction

petition of this sort, and we are talking about

delisting F035, which is a leachate from multiple

a result, the list of constituents

quite long, and the petition here is

actually quite extensive because we have provided the

Board with probably the fullest demonstration of the

character of a leachate or of a waste stream that it

may have seen in any delisting petitions before.

That's because we have a full nine years of sampling

data from this landfill, which has been closed for 25

years. The reason fort years rather than 25

years is we, frankly, felt it was just enough, but

also it is a period of time that represents the Lime

since the landfill had a new cap put

impermeable cover, and we believe that it's the best

representation of how that landfill is functioning at

But apart from all of the data that's

here -- and there's an extensive amount of data --

what we want to make sure everybody understands le

picture here IS that this

simple del isting, in fact. What we have is a

leachate that is being generated in one unit at the

Davie Junction Landfill. There are three units at

ped e go ontetnias v

Tql 'Untie 'arsi

og] 1n0qe 6upi0el act 11Tm am pup

T le Atocil cia alelldoadde sae anaTtaq

am len spiv:Wel. ;0

00410 01 loaCqns aav len?

ITI5U00 MOJ e 01

trop 1T pamoneu pus --

T41 ae pary005 en,am len OTAeuaos anTawasucoo

?Alan e uo iuTebe 'Puy -- nen lo 144 e

l ST41 05 '05041

1 41e4 e uaimea aneg am as041. JO

Amp 1e41 Biqueow

?'SVIg 30 aPIsano uoTasanb Aue buTluosamd se 100 TIe;

Tnipueq p Afuo •

paa/910p 0001 AITen77.

?ane4 len ascii] go Tie sena noun pamAlene &meg

45 'pennbo, Fey WS

len Tepow 041 brio,' S444

ocia @APT' am aso47 30 Aavw -snianaIlsuao Jo

A .om len sauonaT1suoa

30 Tnipue4 r s T 07 umop awes 910tt7 Dm leyry • pa10a7ap

0004 bon 0251!!!!)%m

Aem en Aq Tie; sausnaTasuoa

aeon go A7120Cetu' efiaeT Alan 5 sT sluonITletwo

6 rcpuadche 141 10 Ito /a; bulatal

41 Jo 19ed e se

4TapuTq ebaeT oml peauesald andam

5077 Ur U0T1e50010I

Jo 20T asT noA uantn an d em?

'pale-inane aae Suiaaucoo asen lo

bupsTiap 047 up suoT3Tpu00 dip -- 6017510

e161 047 ;a amain Aq azatign

7TICI 'ficiTleTt tlad0

gen 500105 zed 041 'Paw lou

Molts ATTeTwassa 'en obl

'eTojaq 'nape painva pue agnaq 0004

7e47 bUT43aIllos ATIPTI1DP Bp 0754 0

anaTTaq em pup • 611 -17STIvp uo A

o7ST4 70 10T v 111v

p uepTnb buwa 01641 30 01555 -pram DT am

• suotasanb p igpads

BUTIamsup JO 50161 uT atingle ATea

90147 1 '0454 dm 1

eseo ri tla uT uadini4 ,aneu

TITm 1e41 Pug waqsAs LioleTnbaT e GuTlixe AlTeciae

.0t wealls 01055 e 010409 ex

U100001 asafigici an

pile -- ST ilsTI lea66Tel?

spun' mil anciqe peATea pue a

m0,4 le A00 1 am 6e

ilt.. JO Bu l A edi

le aUTod Ou 5,01041 -weans aquem amyl 9

TsluawU2aA05 20; inaTaeniTs one16 oa elpe

]nogg BUTAiel ai

d am amanaci am 3724m 05

d quawlesil-add elT

ed sT amp duo eq 01 parinbal

mam 'flepuele paasnlpe ano oq luene9nd •AliTTos2

-sluawarinbal ao4

im 1T aaatim haTTioe;

• 7959TUHUI 03e50 TpT0ad5 sTouTTI tr

TITI ue aapun Alin

; an anew( Trim UT pue

UT se Nona, TaAuel uoT1e6-000

mou sT al se paleaia eq Trim 11 'TigiP111,1

me0 eqa le paTpueti si alegiavaT an 4541

os -MITT-to/2j an seneaT TeTanew 84a

U s lubod an el 611 11

n Jo AlTItgeorldde

ISOU UOT3Tlad 541 VT Ind pup paPodoid

plepuns pa7snlpe 0141 up aSenbuvi 041 Act

EuTisTiep Jo ed

Alan e 203 601,[05

bUTlePlaP P1574-

UP 709 buTAsu 100 ale am nuns-gap uado-alinn

e aoj 64gAse aou a:imam

aidwls AgaaTd ATTenloe

uoraenaTe 041 0e41 anoviaq am os -mem

211a0lad L 16191 905; ato 70 0101019

?ortopflami -- p

snow/envy S Se PaST9a10ene40?

• T 1T 1541 1

Telitalew s in a lPTTP4?

011 ao; luamTpadail ATuo 045

03 paplpwpad azv saueTd luawleen

pup -aueTd aummlean aascrio e 1.1?

id auawleaga Quo

6111951 AT d5? a...A

nald bna an oS?

-Apeesapeu 0547 a0ue7elp 4015016 -- apunspp leap5 e ?

T4 aano Tionaa Tammea e uT

15140155 0infoTT e

14.7, '1541 PlloAan una

Jo den pue vuoTselwa ITe?

boob sT AluTellao at 1e41 P

au hsT leTlaTo reToT J euml?

AT Teatiouguonntia ue ATTen3ae ST STY7 Asp dtpl Jc pus

7 e 040 ' 1 9,1

saltw 059 luDPJ7e317 104

?bilaci Lien 1014151

sw a sw ,a ao3 Pa3ns4

11 lapun luowaven To; 161054

aq 01 6u106 sT alegneaT aq/?

uadde4 el 64105 s,amni olaewerp go mou AueinailTed

but at the end of the day comes

down to a few issues

Steinhour swo t in.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN.

?if you'd just raise

appreciate the questions we received

your right hand,?

the court reporter will swear you

from the Board 'stechnical staff.?What we

do is put on two witnesses.

We're going to have

the witness was duly

Ms. Steinnour to begin with give

overview of the

tself and what we've gone through in

putting together the petition.

Mr. Maxwell then is

ELIZABETH A. STEINHOM,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly

going to talk a bit about the modeling and the data.

examined and testified as follows:

And then what we would like to do is actually turn to

DIRECT EXAMINATION

the questions that the Board -- the Board's technical

MS. STB/NHOUR:?

Thank you for the Opportunit

staff presented us with and provide our prettied

present the petition to the --

testimony -. our testimony on that,?a short

?Before you begin,?

discussion of each one of those, and then provide an

14 could ask Ms.?Steinhour to state,

for the record,

is opportunity for additional questions on those

educational and professional background,

questions, if that is an acceptable way to proceed,

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: ?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

That sounds fine.

MS. STEINHOUR:?

My name is Elizabeth,

Ingersoll, before

19 13-1-1.-z-a-b-e-t-h,?Stelnhour,?S-t-e-i-n-h-o-u-r.

20 Ms. Steinhour. do you

have a bachelor's In legal studies from the

al University of Illinois.?

I've worked for the Illinois

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: ?Thank you.

Environmental Regulatory Group for approximately

eight years in development of the major environmental

MS. sHARREY?I'd like to begin by having

laws and regulations.?And since then I've been in

I the consulting field to?

Our clients with

municipal waste,

11 percent was special

and the remaining 2 percent

compliance issues and maintaining compliance with the

3 environmental laws and regulations.

And I would just like to say that

The reason we looked back nine years,

5 me.?Steinhour's resume is in the petition itself

also wanted to clarify,

because in 1996,?'99 the

under Appendix I,

new liner on -- over the phase one

MS.?sTEINHOUR:?And all of the land, air,?

unit, and they?

put a dual leachate gas extraction

system within the landfill.?So we?felt that the past

matters that I was Involved with stemming back to the

nine years has been representative of the conditions

9 actual?landfill regulations

o as they stand today and wilt stand until final

I am a senior project manager for

closure of these final post-closure activities.

weaver Boos Consultants along with Mike Maxwell.

I also wanted to clarify that the reason

12 I've been responsible for managing and assisting our

CID is not accepting the waste from Davis Junction

clients in complying with the post-closure care

activities ?L c Davis Junction Landfill,?

-- the wastewater is because they are

overwhelmed with their own internal leachate that

IS Involved with that since 2001,

they're creating,?so they do not have the capacity to

Ms. Sharkey. as she stated, Davis Junction

handle leachate accepted from outside sources.

Landfill,?it's a closed landfill that has three

doesn't have anything to do with the characteristics

units, one of the units, which is the subject of

of the leachate or anything like that_

19 today's phase one.?I wanted to just add to what

detailed records within the petition that detail what

Ms. Sharkey had stated by saying the 26,000 cubic

type of hazardous waste was received, where it came

yards of hazardous waste that was handled at Darla

The landfill kept very good records as far as

-- was 26,000 out of 1.9 million cubic

22 yards of waste that was disposed of within that unit

waste receipts.

The process -- What 1 Wanted to focus on

24 Of the 1.9 million cubic yards, ?

87 percent of it was

today was to make the Board aware of the process that

we've undertaken to prepare the de:19ring package

It began a long time ago, and it's Interest i ng. It

was in May of 2003 that we actually had a meeting

with the Agency to discuss the potential for

delisting this hazardous waste leachate. During that

meeting, Weaver Bees outlined our suggested approach

for preparing a delisting package for the Board.

also discussion at that time concerning the

potential for discharging to this -- to the sanitary

sewer system, which would, thus, exempt the leachate

from coverage under the RCRA program. What we did

was we went back. And Weaver Boos and BPI, we both

worked on evaluating the potential for a sanitary

sewer system. Given the rural location of this

landfill and the coat, it was not a feasible --

economically feasible option.

In 2003 we submitted a draft delisting

petition to the Illinois EPA, which also included a

draft sampling analysis plan. And the sampling and

analysis plan was prepared after we had evaluated

five years of leachate data and we'd also bed

discussions with USEPA and we'd reviewed their RCRA

delisting guidance manual. We suggested further

monitoring at that rime for certain selected

constituents, and we said we would conduct that

monitoring In addition to the annual leachate

sampling that we conduct at the site.

In May of 2004 we provided the

a draft delisting petition. During the summer of

2004, we, again, met with the Illinois EPA, and the

Illinois EPA asked us to do a comparison of the

hazardous versus the nonhazardous leachate. That

comparison is provided in Appendix D to the petition.

And our analysis resulted in showing no statistical

significance between the non-haz and the Wiz leachate

In January of 2005 we received verbal

comments from the IEPA regarding our draft petition

?and our sampling analysis plan. From Pebruaro

June 5 -- June 2005, we implemented our SAP. We did

six sampling events. We tried to sample so we had a

representative idea of what was happening from

different months other than our annual sampling

event, which is in January and February.

In October of 2006 we, once again, met with

the Agency. And in February 2008 we met with them to

discuss the final draft to present it to the Illinois

EPA. We provided nine years of leachate data, IS

sampling events. There's over 10,000 data points

that have been evaluated for approximately 300

constituents. The majority of the constituents have

been non-detect for years. There has been little

statistical significant variability in the

concentration of the constituents that are present.

As Ms. Sharkey stated, the disposal options are

limited for this facility. And right now BFI's

transporting the waste to Ohio, which is over 350

we are requesting the adjusted standard and

belief that it provides cradle to grave governmental

control over this delisted waste. It will only allow

BFI to transport the leachate to a regulated -- a

wastewater treatment facility with a regulated

treatment program, such as Interstate Pollution

Control, which is seven miles -- not even seven miles

so, in essence, they will be able to

transport the leachate -- the hazardous leachate in

the same manner

that they're transporting the

nonhazardous leachate from that site.

I think we've provided protections in how

we are going to handle the leachate by providing

i cation to the Illinois EPA 60 days before we

start transporting it under an approved delisting

program. We've talked to the Agency and agreed that

we'll sample the first initial trucks -- consecutive

trucks going out of the facility, and we'll continue

co do quarterly sampling on the first year and then

semiannual sampling. So we will do --

sampling than we're currently doing under their

post-closure permit.

We're going to transport it by a licensed

hauler. we're go

ng to transport it under a special

waste manifest. And r think it's important to note

that we're not going to be applying -- this

wastewater is not going to be going into

surface impoundment. It's not going to be going into

a lined pond. It's actually going to go to this

wastewater treatment, be pretreated, and have to

permit requirements before its

ultimate disposal.

We are not asking for any changes to the

landfill's ground water monitoring program. We will

continue to monitor that program in accordance with

cur scan post-closure permit. And, es Ms. Sharkey

stated, if we have a spell, it's going to be covered

program because we're not handling it

?In -- It wouldn't be handled in accordance with the

sions of a delisting

So if you have any questions_

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Sharkey. do you

6?have any direct. so to speak?

MS. SHARKEY: No, I don't. Thank you.

8?NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Before we go,

Mr. Ingersoll, any queries?

?MR. INGERSOLL- Yes, please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

?BY MR. INGER OLL-

Ms. Steinhour, exactly when in the

?process __ It's

co be -- The leachate is going

to be in a tanker truck, and it's going to go to the

16?receiving facility?

Exactly at what point does the proposed

19?delisting attach to that leaChate?

we would like the proposed delisting to

21?attach at the Lime

?It will be handled as a -- It

will be manifested as a special waste, and so from

the point at which it leaves [he facility. At the

24?point at which

it arrives at IPC`a door, the manifest

that 's attached to it, It's very important that it's

special waste manifest and not a RCRA hazardous

waste manifest because then they would be precluded

from accepting the wastewater.

it's going down the road -- even

though it's a lot shorter than it's traveling now --

7?it would be a special waste and not a hazardous

Right. But if there were

spill, it's our

position that it wouldn't be -- it's not being

handled in accordance with the delisting petition, so

it would be a spill that's been manifested as a

special waste from Davis Junction. And if it

spill, we Would have to clean it up under the RCRA

11?permitting program?

Because one Of the conditions would have

the RCRA clean -

supersede the delisting petition if we had a spill

21?and a release to the environment because the

petition says you manifest it.

32?transport it, and you have to

dispose of it at IpC.

If we dispose of it in any other manner -- we

put it in a landfill because it's a RCRA -- it would

be a RCRA waste. We can't spread it on the ground or

land apply it. It would be considered a RCRA

ow, as just a factual matter, when

it gets to IPC, it's In a truck -- your truck

truck. Then what's going to happen to it? I

don't know what IPC's facility looks like. It's just

9?factual background. not

regulatory question.

IPC has a chemical process that they use to

11?treat their wastewater --

Before that. Just physically what happens

14?A.?Typically, it's my understanding that they

holding tank. And they test it

there, decide how they're going to treat it, and then

17?they feed it into their system. So they don't

just -- That's how typically the wastewater treatment

facilities handle all leachate, whether it's

hazardous or nonhazardous, because they want -- they

have it coming from different facilities.

That was just for we nontechnical folks

So what they'll do is they'll put it in

?this holding tank. They'll test it. They have

certain parameters that you have to meet. And then

?they'll treat it and dispose -- You know, it's

discharged along with the other wastewater that

?they're handling at the facility.

6?MR. INGERSOLL, Okay. Thank you. I have

nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN, Chard{ you,

MR. RAO: I have a follow-up.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, Mr. Rao.

12?MR. RAO: You just mentioned how once the

to the wastewater treatment plant

they're going to hold it in some kind of a storage

?MS. STEINNOUR: What they'll do la they'll

from the tank into a storage -- one of

their holding tanks that they use for treating the

?MR RAO: Okay. Earlier, in your testimony, you

also mentioned about how this leachate would be

pretreated in accordance letElf4)11/C:ft --

STEINHOUR. No, It will be subject to IPC 'a

24?wastewater treatment facility, their pretreatment

regulatory programs and the toxicity characteristic

?procedure .. c/the toxicity characteristic

? eC-ISEPA to develop the

4?current toxicity characteristic,?

5?one very tawleslrher

regulatory program that we

chink is applicable here. Based upon that,

7?proposed that the toxicity characteristic level for

vinyl chloride, 0.2 milligrams per liter, be the

s?proposed deflating level for vinyl Chloride.

The last constituent that exceeded -- that

identified concentrations over the generic DRAB

denoting numbers was 1, 4 dioxane. And, again, using

13?that same criteria that .

s laid out in the regulation

referenced earlier, we looked at developing a

site-specific model relative to the scenario where

1, 4 dioxane does happen to spill from the tanker

17?truck. And the two primary parameters associated

with the transport of that specific constituent its

19?it's spilled to the environment are the infiltration

and also the environmental

21?degradation rate after it enters the environment.

22?And we presented in the petition a model that

?documents that -- Actually, based upon those inn:it

24?parameters, the -- the 1, 4 dioxane concentration

should It be released Into the environment

2?catastrophic tanker sp i ll actually decreased the

concentrations very quickly based upon the geology of

the area and the degradation rate of that particular

parameter. And that result showed that a

concentration of 1. 4 dioxane that's very high could

legitimately be a delisting level. We defaulted that

?to a number of 100

per liter as the

deflating level for 1. a dioxane based upon this

the summary of the model that

12?I had intended to cover.

?MS. SHARKEY: I have one direct.

la?BY MS. SHARKEY:

15?O.?Could you elaborate a little bit more on

?the 1, 4 dioxane and what numbers you actually came

7.7?to when you did the model and explain a little bit

more about what modeling for the 1, 4 dioxane was.

looked at was we looked

21?at -- The degradation rate is the rate that it

?degrades, and we looked at the half life, meaning

25?similar to radioactivity In the sense that it will

degrade -- half of it will degrade.

It will take a

MR. RAO: We will wait until you get to the

NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thanks, Nr. Maxwell.

You may stay seated. I games.

5?MS. SHARKEY: Mr. Halloran, what I'd like to do

at this point is if I could provide the legal -- our

?view of what the legal framework for the denNting

petition in this instance is and some of the relevant

legal questions. Then we go to the -- After I finish

that, of course, if you had any questions about how

?we interpret the regulation, we'd be happy to take

any questions on that as well. And then we would go

to the pre f iled testimony in

response to the Agency's

la?questions -- or the Board's questions.

HALLORAN: Did you represent

earlier you wanted to be put under oath?

MS. SHARKEY: I'd he happy to do that if you'd

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's entirely up to

Mr Ingersoll, do you have a problem with

INUSHHOLL: No preference.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Please raise your

certain time for half of it to degrade. Based upon

the half life, the degradation will take place over

time. As a result of the very low permeability of

the local soils, the amount of time that the leachate

to percolate down to the uppermost aquifer

is relatively large. In chat tine so many half lives

go by -- so many half lives proceed. In fact, It

takes hundreds of years for the leachate to get to

the groundwater that by the time it reaches the

groundwater there is very little risk.

And there was an equation that was

presented in our petition that indicated that -- In

fact, the number that was supported by the equation

actually exceeded the one million part per million

number, which, of course, is physically possible.

And 100 was a round number, and we were racheting it

back to 100. We think there's very little risk in

the unlikely event that there's the catastrophic

tanker spill during the transit.

MS. SHARKEY: That's all I have.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank

MR. INGERSOLL: No questions. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Liu? Mr. Rao?

WHEREUPON. the witness was duly

MS. SHARKEY: What we wanted to do is give a

5?framework for the legal requirements here. We begin,

6?I believe, with the Illinois Administrative Code

720.122(a), and that actually directs us to the

parameters that the Board needs to look at in order

to make its decision. Of course, the first is that

?the -- If you'll give me one moment. I apologize. I

11?should have pulled out the regulations.

the waste delisting provision in

13?the Board's regulations. It. as I said, provides the

?conditions under which the Board can grant the

15?petition. The first is under (a) (1), that the

petition must demonstrate that the waste produced

17?does not meet any of the criteria under which the

waste was listed as a hazardous or acute waste. The

?second is that the Board must determine that there is

a reasonable basis to believe that factors, including

?additional constituents other than those for which

the waste was listed, could cause the waste to be a

?hazardous waste and that such factors do not warrant

retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

1?at that time said. "Well, we look at this, and we

treat it as something that we're required to look

at.. So the Board went ahead and adopted this as a

part cf its regulations.

? But I point out that it is an unusual

situation in that it ought to cause us to look

carefully at this because some of what we're going to

?be talking about, I think, as we get into the

discussion of the technical staff's questions is that

EPA itself does not treat the -- its guidance manual

?as something rigid that they

live within. In

fact, they consider it -- They probably, in large

part, act consistently with it, and there certainly

are parts of it that they hold

being the Bible.

But there are many parts of it that. indeed, they

take different positions on. So / want co point out

that the language here is that the Board must be in

reliance upon and in a manner consistent with the EPA

manual. And that does not necessarily mean word for

word what the manual says.

Going beyond that, I think it's interesting

that when you have a toxic waste you go to

720.172(d). And for

toxic waste we have a specifi c

type of demonstration that must be made in the

W lieu DE the guidance manual,

what we do with the toxic wastes is we go to 721.11

Notably, that particular decision is --

There is then a reference to the EPA RCRA deflating

program guidance manual, and it says that a Board

determination of that other factors question is to be

looked at under the --

manner consistent with the EPA guidance manual .

The interesting thing about

s?1 just want to point out that the guidance manual

is -- has been apparently adopted by the Board as --

and incorporated into this regulation. Although,

EPA guidance document.

research and homework on this, and I'm quite sure

Mr. Rao is nodding his head because

the history on this as well. What's interesting is

that -- I'm not aware of very many instances in which

the Board has ever adopted a guidance manual as an

actual part of its regulation and decisionmaking in

EPA guidance manual. Nonetheless, the

Board appears to have done It here,

was a matter of something that was done back in 1993.

And then when the Board -- When that manual

updated, the Board realized there was a problem

when it asked this question and

record of that iv/making indicates that the Agency

petition. Petitioner must demonstrate, once again,

that the waste does not contain the constituent or

constituents that caused USEPA to list it as a waste.

Secondly, that although containing it -- If you have

the constituent in there. it's not a non-detect. You

found you have that constituent. You then have to

demonstrate that it -- that that constituent does not

cause the waste to -- Excuse Me. Let me reword that.

Although containing one or more of the hazardous

constituents that caused EPA to list the waste. the

waste does not meet the criterion in 35 Ill, Adm.

code 721.11(a)(3) when considering the factors that

are listed there, which are A through K under that

so what's very interesting here 1e if you

look at this there's no reference here to the

guidance manual anymore. The guidance manual

referred to for characteristic waste. It is not

referred to for toxic waste. And I just want to

point out that I

think that there appears to be some

intention here because the guidance manual is

referenced In some places and not others.

For example in Shell oil, In that case,

ave provided an our - We've provided the

ule and final rule

the Shell Oil de listing

n our prefiled testimony. In that case, USEPA

reuired eight samples to be taken within the first

60 t011owing the delisting. After that Shell was to

?sample quarterly and thereafter annually.

In another case -- Excuse me for just a

moment. In another case on a deflating case on

behalf of Auto Alliance International, EPA provided

simply for quarterly sampling and then went to an

annual verification sampling.

In another case, this one involved the

?Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington, the applicant to

the deflating was the Department of Energy. They

?provided that DOE was to submit a plan. And they, in

that instance, were sampling every 15th tank from the

site. So it, again -- By the way, that was a land

disposal scenario, I believe.

case that the Board had

21?referenced -- had questions referenced, involved

one -- I believe it involved one initial test within

60 days and annual testing thereafter.

? Tenneco is another one. T-e-n-n-e-c-o.

Just a one-time notification. I don't believe they

had any Verification sampling.

? Eastman Case, debating quarterly for one

year. Subsequent

another one we looked at,

eight full-scale treated batches and then annual.

So all of these deliatinga, I should say,

except for Tenneco, were waste streams that were

being generated by an ongoing process. And I think

it's significant because an ongoing process or an

ongoing activity, of course. could change. So

consistency of that waste stream would be a real

question. Of course, we argue that's not the case

here, that we, in fact, have a very consistent waste

stream and that we know what it is.

? I guess I also wanted to say that in the

Petite Management case, the petition before the Boa

in that case they had proposed to delist a filter

?cake. But it wee a filter cake that was being

generated on an ongoing basis. It

situation such as we're suggesting here. And in that

22?one the Board noted particularly that it was the fact

23?that the future waste could be variable that was of

concern and why there was a discussion of actually

whether -- the question of whether this is a batch

operation and looking at some of the particular

language that USEPA In its manual has about mAliiple

batch operations. And our answer to this

not a batch operation at all. This

that is generating

leachate. It's the landfill. And it's not in any

way -- The fact that we are taking it out in

5,000-gallon batches does not convert this to being a

To close on this, we think that monitoring

every batch would be extraordinarily

would be extraordinarily onerous. It woulrffect

probably would put us at a question markiefeabout

whether or not it's worth doing this kind of thing if

you're talking about having to sample every single

load of thin waste as it goes out. We think that it

hasn't been required elsewhere, that it goes beyond

even what the manual itself requires because the

manual looks at that from multi.hatch scenarios. All

of the above delietings that I mentioned, with the

I believe were multi-year,

ongoing source scenarios. So all of those, and

sampling. So we

testing every load and every batch. So we contrast

the BFI waste as very unchanging. The landfill's

been closed for 20 years. As you've heard, it has a

low permeability cap. we have nine years of

monitoring data showing very little variability in

Another distinguishing factor is NF1's

large amount of analytical data and the lengthy

period over which it was obtained. I think that

gives, again, the specific chemicals that are there

over this period of time_ The range of

concentrations are not -- we believe we have enough

data here -- And Mr. Maxwell can testify to this in

more depth. We have more data than others have, and

we think it's enough to demonstrate the stability and

the lack of significant variability of this waste.

In contrast, BP Amoco. when they presented

the Board with a petition, came in with just three

sampling events that were taken over a six-month

period. In Shell Oil, which is another example

before USEPA., they had four monitoring events

performed over a period of approximately three

I think the Board also asked about

situation that we know what those waste streams are.

Again, we think .. we think we've got

greater data -- volume of data and greater controls

in this situation. And, of course, because It's

being destined for pretreatment, all of those things

go into giving greater comfort than the ones that

you've -- that USEPA has looked at where they're

ongoing operations. they're talking about land

disposal, and they don't have the kinds of very

limited -- They're not going to be pretreated.

And I guess this is the moment where 1 can

get this po i nt as well. I want to make it clear that

this material's not only going to be pretreated at a

?pretreatment plant at IPO,

where it will be treated again. So it's going to get

double treatment as opposed to those or hers that are

18?MS. STEINHOUR?

I think it's important to note,

?if you look at all the deflating petitions. we

20?couldn't find a deflating petition that had as much

?data covering as many years with the seasonal

variations. That data was actually collected, and we

have collected it over this nine-year period. In

74 these other instances, the source of that

1?hauler that they use.

? MR. RAO: 1 have a question relating to what you

were Just talking about. variability in leachate

quality. You have testified that BFI has subedited

extensive leachate monitoring data to the Board, nine

?years worth of data. Also, earlier Mr. Maxwell

7?testified about, I chink, four chemical constituents

which you found were about at delisting levels, which

?I think some of them you indicated were outliers.

So did you do statistical analysis of this

monitoring data to see what kind of variability's

there were with the leachate quality and how that may

affect compliance with the delisting levels?

?MR_ MAXWELL- We have not.

MR. RAO; How did you determine those values for

outliers? Was it based on a statistical analysis, or

?was it more about observing the data?

18?MR. MAXWELL: Primarily observing the data

relative to the other data points that were out there

and the fact that they both -- the higher

21?concentrations

both occurred during the same sampling

events was the trigger for us thinking that there

something atypical or unusual about that particular

?sampling event.

nonhazardous - that hazardous waste source was going

CO remain present by placing

impoundment. 'nth us, the source is actually being

treated, doubly treated, and then they're going to

discharge it under [he Clean Water Act program. So

isn't an instance

where we're delisting it,

placing it in a lined pond or a lined landfill. and

leaving it there with the potential hazard for some

SHARKS?, I think part of that is to say, if

?there were some slight variability to occur, the

comfort you get here is that it's going to he

treated, you know. In the other scenarios, it's not.

just going to be there.

the ground. So if they have that variability

problem, it has Serious consequences. Here the only

scenario would be some

variability that would be --

affects somehow the analysis done on that worst-case

mismanagement scenario

of the catastrophic spill.

going to a treatment

?And, by the way, we're going to provide you with

32?evidence, for the record, on the fact that the

catastrophic spill -- there's no experience of having

24?that kind of spill by BPI in this region and by the

MR. RAD. would it be possible to?

MR. MAXWELL: It's

MS. SHARKEY. We can give you a fuller answer to

that in our written remarks because we'd need to go

back -- I think Mike would need to go back and look.

6?But what I'm believing is. at the time that we looked

at it, there were other constituents that were

8?also -- while they didn't exceed anything, that were

in that event, which led us to believe

that there's something going on with that event, not

two constituents.

MR. RAO: Yeah. Any additional information

relating to the variability of data would be helpful.

were hoping that if you had any statistical

analysis that would also support your monitoring

frequency,, that, you know,

significant for any concern in

terms of going over the delisting levels.

19?MR. MAXWELL:

the focus that you would have

20?would be -- or the focus that you would suggest would

21?be that We focus

On the phase I -- the statistical

analysis of the phase I data to try to represent

variability within that

24?MR. RAO: Yes_

pelsabfins aGey awo9

'4588h 501; 104S0e UV 116 01 Squuow X e t

'110A 4114 160004 eq ox?

AT4eqoad 1/ -- Sn 9001 1I?

-4Sanba1 104 uoIlew/osu/

so tuopeass e

sem yr Ass 401 asett I

*SW *47 G1,1,241 1041 pus

Uos1S1ad 041 186 p'S/1 AT/enlov am p04

EiropeUeoe 7tUoa6eueuisTa

043 -- vrilvnetdull

41 106 AI/anise 01 67 14n1114711

S.77 anirp[aq

-peadopa uoaq 0494 IthullelTap

'1E9 IvIIII'OZG uo/laas 'OpOo ormalesuswpy

a, 51elsT 6aa I MPad 0

1/104 7a6 01 Asre

s1OuTT1T 041 411m

?uflavuaas rMama6euemeTw

'eturnruad Evp(

0690-151o. arqvuosvea 041 aq

o; 9anP151100 00

-ea:409100A 5;41

Palapou. ST 0.104 auop 04,04 lotai

sTyl no' /Taw 7-Aliarrelas I

?aU741 I?'PmaPuT?P7P saT01 ET

01.122,6 0250000j 20 -- amp; laq an

'buTrapow 94E0 11041

T aletpea/ 30 xraA auo pa/apow am.Aay]

5504;?"VuTI01,00 u541 xaglel CS12)154116?SW

04e4 Ao41 awaTlaq am _

04,Aa4u sT auop yUeo atwAati1

Swint

tre maul; paSnyossp pup pasode/p

154m?,1a1sT6a4 Telapad

alam am noA vias15 an./ untsewrojus ata -- am leum lne

lumugeolload a ol

sos-ro 05541 jo

ipea us Spew 6.1541 U0T1aulmaap

6uu06 1, 00104 Amu

?-weans e ,r; AtloeaTp 60;6;

P11 am -ceoTlrio ATTeaa

Sawn Auto uotrenrtr 1 Tags

'Ajlea.1 a1/2 panToAuT

'010u 01 1.12110501 517 T

0 200 I?ArloHNISIS

'parpuTT 1e440iro6

es 00091 tiO envy noA you lettuoutrc Jo 1Unowe 541

.15152609 pnapa. 041 LISTIS 'Arm a41 Aq

ei 07 .54 PTIos

rem puno; em auo 2041004 pus

041 uo pea -ie.:16p A/loarrp sq 07 mune' 30 sumo*.

070em plOs TexilenpUT lvdTaTUnw a 10 Seecds/p 'Due/

10u op axa4 etiolloT110.1 041

0115.00 UV r04110 01 IMEed*VS

/no 4114 Adou V

'ITTIPaei tl airrlqnS * .1

'11101wI30P 8661 ATnp a sT

I O aT111q11S a 04 6uso6

031040 041 j0 ioloarcp 60110w sem awn

U0112E1710 TesodErrp Putt 011710

t ,q-1-2-0-m-s-l-o-o

e Cu 611706 sem AMUS Jo luawaradap 041

Aq panel seen 40SS/4

?shuns T Tau 01s669 snot/111*H

roj AosTox Tvuolram s,Aoua6y U011301025 IMawuoxlmua

000 1541 OW?A5N0?

1/amar] alls-uo 01 BuToa Sam

p01100 041 US patm;ap se buSjsrcap lutioTrEpuoa

wal9Ae luatmell orca-uo taseq-PusI . 01

eaaos Vol gnarl

6071s7 Top 6,745

1 71a1 oa al na

01 Jamrue .47 aseq 01 6

anarroq am 7941

. pol/ad MEnsoIo po7ercu/lur ;Em

Ur 01 6upa6 paalomu; &sea 11045 041 1.41 0401104

?4rea4-uanas pus avaA

SM -- S em /TOYS

41?II1/Pu5I Oau

lad suoilea 000'00S

p 01 60706 rem ivy] aye' rally o6pnis e Jo 6upecrap

buten s anal 601 1ST

. IVUOTleuxalUI

OATlep o1 40*0-Iddr

7I nw 1 V7 Su 7 1I

arvernv leuor]euralu;

asrlowoinV 041.

0reuorve1 5.194

Sol SF 954 10126706

pa woo; 041 5s TvsodelM P

41?-s6u / leTrap 1 e 0A-T]low

own - 00o 6urpaebau 00

oq butrnb /o Fen Aq sT 5021?'fly, 4Snox41 Siam IS12.

/aqwnu 01 Snow p/nom am 'leso up saonsarib x047r.1

M1 op yuem I puy

/*sods/a pup/ are pamrrema 04.04

uaEp ono. p.am?

1e41 s60/15/Tap e,yds

0 Arcuolow ay7 Mefluoo ;Iv

?,Teby 10Ao pus /an°

Xplepoid sou pure as.am se

olluow 041 Uo amea am tie w.Gryx

]uawpunodw. a )04 111 e

a, alisoddo a41 'I

e 19 oa70921 aq veva uou 746To

T aa1 9° 011 ' 990P

TeToade sell aPeq 1,u0p letia 801ea5

11 anode sai90 Apoqou pus SnOpaepaquou padapIeUeo

?8,71 -- Apoq0d onagpAs 041 jo 100 10,71 owealls

1003 Ca soC VaSSO

0021u07 $asoT Aouafill 041 'sOUT1STIPP

TvuouT17.0°.11 041 Palvid '07

”ebtrUSITaP IenlOTITP,100

uo apuppen6 Apii0d apalau uT '062000 10 '00 sTql Pup

e no euoTajpuoo

; Toads Gueppre

°T;flade aa is Taoism:3o

pleou ay, aq pinom aT

9001682 ssassr 090 550o00 Bu

T uarlap 7110005 ano

9v5 .01131 ad 10 IsPlonU

items AraaTieTei e 10; 7941

'prep aA.Aayl a

aym 0maw AoTiod

Trump Wela atia 01045 pus 'Wow teen auto, 9004 pap

9790 01 aUawEpne i

uoTssajoad su aSn 097 SeuTaPTINJ

P 410 m P960 00 1 v i 1 011 T.

4 Tee aeua pod sppeoPages alajdo2d upo seuilSTI

13111 lvou suIrTd3ca

0097-10105 alp 'weaboad saanseawaa7unoo

TTds a 5,17 Putt '10V uoUnii0d

ooTaniiod 110 041

3 500KKIFIL6 'SW

P I -- sn0-02aa

1800 041 glen do butwoa os4740adde sou yddrn 1027 Atm

4115 16207848000 10.1T

100m 1 puy -0149904 asao_ladoq

00,85 1(0047 am or

puno25 ayl 07u0 lauempun026 aoa 0730

p0noo Atienlse I

01201189s 'Erse:deep

e 0101 buTo5 01vIa4a aenvaaq

01 aveq Aa41 asneoaq pdavaauab T911a7e. 041 To lie

OuTiapOW znocre 7/47 A041 PUP lesodsip pup/ le 11001?

Aa41 4a4m au bulT000 vA9

0, 7a6 oa op ou 3aop4 0:

n0A aetim 8.1841 pup

awes 947 iv 910;21008 0Tildousele1 -- 7uapaDui

se ul papiopui ;94 pITICUn 01(31111

JaTUPa 05043 Jo fie

a3a40 orrevaps P

pat02 0p9 7 4c100 aseavo 621 p

a. PY3u1 a. PIn'am

41 70,1147 am asnapaq adoepTn6 Apreod

q:ps non papincud am pup 07 paTocq am pup

amnion lean-auo 1847

asn 07 aleracloaddeu0

9,1T '970102011 '40019Pa-es quamlwail pUP

?luaudeanadd a 8 ATiviats'Ijarn

8009 em 0545 9T

e181 10e 1947 ippow pus WeaIls

alUM 2noA jo quom 5.0982 aIcqm v uT 1nd

'8Aes Ai/020006 'mom' non -- 894 Tapotu wed au; 100

arjuSooaa am luTod 9141 le

asipaDaq W‘od

£41 I Pule , 13MeVH5 SW

Tornoab ay, ]Erne Linn 10410 eaTe 90191 e ssone Iltds

1941 6UT71071SUe21

os -se alp JO 30165 0 01621 6280 PUP Tl lds

won yOnal 201(9151

e allege pauTapueo azam

0983-15105 5141

padoTanap /Jaya eagle

1011 0700 01 aueliodud 9.11 Pup

33101OHNI:1135 'SW

-14 vooT 01 awn0od 1007100 0141 si 47,11

Awja 05 L suoTavinhae LeUluavvid

510 Tvaapad 041 spun

sew 01nseauaalUn00

'L1011404011 TT

104 sownioo BuTupPed 067040840 ase

D _ T oaoq buTuiwaaaau

p0/1T1ua 301 1941 01041 Upuadde ue 0794 A011 ?

POT2ad aspAdvanes

Ian) PagplvdeTP

5709511 2010197 941 TO TIP 1541 AUTTOTeSo

?5210 8,22247 '10402704 -0Tqesnaid0e Allaad Aueyr

8.1947 10441 vom

panoma Po1T96-000'S 941

SOT4C1109 awe Inoue

1 02.04 -- 0.01941 73341

SM. • 110115101

aurae atja le luepios4

uT padioduT cog p-mom

auo upqg adote 7941

ip0170ead ou sT 02041

141 P u P4a°1 asuas

'non PaAcf. an, am 7947

uawnpop 041 upon

?8.11 NuT41 am 05 -- pus 'We

SCyl ST 01/5u006 ATUO 041

'1.10T1e0T/dde 91127 aq vino

p 01547 401145 In 01 190005

ATuo au° 106 mou 00,05 'sTqa Buiarwil 10 0018

so palioli 94 qou apam sop/9000e flop) 06041 Jo

asow 1041 100 luto

jonom am 'paapul 'mg

uT ai paaTnbaa 901 11 P°

41 ass 01 01( 11

041 aeqa PavaTlaq

aamsue alga pup

1 audwaeardeld e 03 Buion

?true where you have a conditional delisting. And,

I won't go over i t aga i n and again_

The conservative assumptions that EPA has

made in its DRAS model and including -- assuming that

all of the waste generated will be disposed of in one

6?unlined landfill don't need to be made. You don't

need to have 100 percent assurance in this situation

?from that because you are getting assurance from the

9?conditional delisting itself. And we've put more on

?this in the record in our prefiled testimony.

But I would like to take you back to the

own response to Waste Management in an

05-07 where the Board found that waste

Management had proposed to use a model that was for a

lined landfill instead of for an unlined landfill.

The Board said, you know, 'That's Inconsistent with

?USEPA policy, You really can't do thi

What you can do is come back to us and tell us

why you can do this' -- °or why it is consistent,'

20?And I'm going to quote here. I'll take the quote.

?"While having no bearing on risk and hazard analysis, •

waste Management. Inc., may also propose adjusted

standard language that would condition the delisting

24?on the disposal of the petitioned waste. For

example, only In a lined landfill-"

2? to here wag an instance -- We point this

because this is an instance of the Board itself

4?saying - recog n i z i ng th at ev

en if - oven If Your

k?modeling is different. If you're going to model for a

different scenario, you need to

standard to that scenario.

that's what we've

8?done. We think that it's very consistent with what

the Board said in Waste Management.

I don't want to De repetitive. I guess I

would just close by saying that

instance in which the use of the total volume of the

material here does not comport with the -- with any

14?reality involved with this situation. There's no

15?common sense scenario that would result in the total

?volume being released to the environment. Apart from

17?that, the EPA has allowed this kind of thing.

There's latitude under the EPA policy documents for

fashioning rconditioned, adjusted standard here

that would address the concerns.

21? 1 think I will leave it at that ?be

?happy to answer any questions.

23?HEARING OFFICER

MR. INGERSOLL: No.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Rao? Ma. Liu?

MS, LIU: Can I have a moment to confer?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure.

(WHEREUPON, there was a short

MR. RAO: I Just had a follow-up. This is more

related to what you testified earlier about getting

?information from Shell Oil.

i ewing the Shell

you had attached to the profiled answers, it seemed

like they used one year's worth of /eachate that they

generated_ It seems like they used that -- At least

they say they used the maximum volume. So in the

14?information you got from them -- Because it's hard to

?tell from the Federal Register that they used. So I

just wanted to know did you get that information from

?them as to what volumes or how they modeled?

?MS. SHARKEY: I'm smiling because last night I

asked my colleague at my law firm to look into that

very question because we were asking ourselves -- We

know what the volume was they talked about, but we

don't know what they used in their model. we know

what their annual production was. we're not sure

what they used in their model. I don't think -- We'd

1?be happy to provide you with the portion of that

of the application from Shell that talks about that,

if chat would be helpful. But we believe -- I'm

getting the nod that we believe that the amount used

?was their annual volume

OM. RAO. Okay. In going through the additional

?information you got from Shell, were you able to

discern why they did maximum volume over -- I don't

know how many years they modeled. When I was looking

at it. it seemed like their situation was similar Co

BFI's except they were hardpiping then- leachate to

the on-site treatment plant instead of shipping it

out. Buz the modeling for -- If you can answer that.

If have you any comments to make on that. it would be

helpful to distinguish their situation from BFI's.

If not now, in comments that's fine, too.

MS. SHARKEY: I would like to make a note of

that and get back to you in writing with an answer on

?that question.

MR. RAO: That would be helpful.

21?MS. SHARKEY: Thank you.

22?MR. RAO: That is just a clarification question

I had based on your response,

On page 5 of your prefiled answers and

locking at footnote 2, th

s footnote snakes that --

as follows. "Like Buck treatment regulations, the

Clean Water Act provides regulatory assurance that

the leachate in this

will be treated Co

nonhazardous levels ac the wastewater treatment

e to env ironment.

there is no risk associated with the disposal of the

entire multi-year volume of leachate.•

could you please explain what the phrase

treated to nonhazardous level' means in the context

of this proposed standard?

MS. SHARKEY: we're talking at the treatment

MS. SHARKEY: Well, we believe that the

treatment process at IPC and then the subsequent

treatment process at the POTW will assure compliance

with the Clean Water Act standards. Therefore,

they're going to be treated to a level of treatment

that is equivalent -- that would be at a nonhazardous

MR. MD:?When you say that it would be

treated -- the leachate would be treated to

nOnna2ardoua levels at the treatment plant, will they

hasn't shown any concerns with the type of discharge

they're getting from their treatment process;

MR. MAXWELL:?That's correct, yes.

I just want to make it clear,?and

I think your question was going there.

The kind of treatment that they'll be

getting there will be -- There will be some testing

to ensure chat this material can be handled.?And we

have obtained --

through a Freedom of

Information Act request to Illinois EPA have obtained

files on IPC and what their treatment process is.

wanted to see the entire thing.

?And we have looked

at what the treatment process is.?

It does involve

pretesting of the materials that come in, and it does

involve then several levels of chemical treatment

that I believe our technical people -- and I probably

ought to ask Beth and Mike Co answer this.

-- it's as good as or better than

actually the treatment that the same material -- that

the hazardous material right now is receiving was

receiving at 020 at its facility.

?I would agree with that.

?And these facilities -- This

5?Mi. SHARKEY: I

think it's certainly the latter.

They're going to be treating this waste stream, as

they do every waste stream, for the constituents that

s?are -- I want to say that are trigger constituents,

that are constituents that are deemed to allow them

to -- If they treat for this particular constituent,

ii?they are assumed to be treating for others. I

believe that that's the way they work. I probably

13?should defer to Mr. Maxwell to answer this question.

MR. MAXWELL: Indicator parameters. They would

is?be indicators of an overall issue.

IS?MR. RAO: okay.

?MS. LID: You mentioned earlier, I think, that

the leachate from the other two phases goes to IPC

MS. SHARKEY: Correct.

MS. LOA -- and that there was no statistical

difference really that you found between the

constituents and their concentrations and the

leachate ln the other two phases, and so far IPC

isn't the only wastewater that they treat. Like you

say, they're accepting wastewater from the

nonhazardous units_ They're accepting wastewater

from other industrial facilities, as well as what

they're receiving from the local communities. So,

you know, what we found is whenever we're asking

wastewater treatment facilities to accept

nonhazardous waste leachate they look at the

leachate. They look at their pretreatment program

because this is data that they have to provide to the

Illinois EPA in order to have an approved

pretreatment program. So they're very cognizant of

what they can accept, what they can treat, and how

that impacts their destruction of it.

In this case, you not only have one entity

that's going In be looking at the

leachate, you're going to have the second entity,

which is the Rock River Reclamation District. So

through the line, unlike Shell who has one

pretreatment and then the discharge, ours is going to

an independent entity that's going to be looking at

it and then to a second independent entity that will

be looking at what they're receiving.

MS. SHARKS?: Mr. Halloran, I wonder f it would

be specifically focusing on all the constituents that

are listed in Table A of the proposed language or

whatever the applicable water quality standards are

specified in their wrDE permit?

be appropriate at this point -- I know this will. to

2?some extent, interfere with our -- the way we're

proceeding. But. as you

know, SFI met with Illunols

EPA to discuss the adjusted standard over many years.

In addition, we met with them after they filed their

original recommendation, which was for denial of this

adjusted standard. After that meeting and further

discussion, the Agency changed its position and filed

a recommendation with no objection to this adjusted

10?standard. you • 11

notice that some of what went in

there in the change -- And we f i led with our response

to that document an amended petition/hat inected

the language that it shall have

approved pretreatment program at the facility that

16? My question here is whether or not it would

be useful to have Illinois EPA's perspective on the

pretreatment program at this point in the record or

if we just want to save that for later? I don't want

to speak for the Agency, but I believe the

Agency's -- part of the Agency's change in their

position was, indeed, based on the fact that they are

satisfied that the pretreatment program would address

any constituents in that waste

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr Ingersoll. do you

have any preference on whether you want co call

Mr. Cruces now Or later?

MR. INGERSOLL, I have no preference. If we are

going to put him on. I want to have a short break

before we do so. Ana I would like to ask one

BFI gone through a waste acceptance

with IPC yet on this waste stream?

?MS. SHARKEY, I don't think that we have gone

through -- that we have gone though them formally

with this particular waste stream, no.

14?0(R. INGERSOLL: You have looked at what their

acceptance protocols are?

?MS. SHARKEY: They have seen the data. I'm

being told by the BFI principals here that they

shared their data from this particular unit, which is

called the phase 1 unit, with the IPC personnel, And

they, Of course,

other units that are?heir leachate there on

a regular basis, which is very similar. But the

21?entailer I think. Mr. Ingersoll, in yes.

?MR. INGERSOLL: Okay. Thank you.

?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN Let's go off the

record for a second.

tBniEREUPON, discussion was had

4? off the record.)

?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back on the

record. we're going to take a ten-minute break.

We'll be back on the record then_ Thank you.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

9?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Ingersoll, you

wanted to call Mr. Crites?

?MR. INGERSOLL: Yea. Mr. Crites, could you take

the witness stand.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Raise your right hand

and the court reporter will swear you in. please.

(WHEREUPON, the witness was duly

MARK L. CRITES,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly

sworn. was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. INGERSOLL:

Please state your name and sp

?A.?My name is Mark Crites. The last name is

?Q.?could you give us a description

educational background and your experience?

I have a bachelor of science in mechanical

engineering from southern Illinois University at

Carbondale. I've been working for Illinois EPA since

hazardous waste permit reviewer. I've done

reviews on various hazardous waste-related issues,

including other hazardous waste del istings.

regulatory development. If it's related to hazardous

waste, l • ye pretty

Much worked on It.

Could you describe your involvement in this

matter that led to the initial Agency recommendation?

We were contacted several years ago by BFI

representatives saying that they were interested in

potentially delisting the leachafe coning from the

phase I landfill at the Davis :unction facility.

And, you know, we

with them and, you know,

WS a decision made by the Illinois

pollution Control Board, but that Illinois EPA does .

provide comments to the Board. It would be a good

idea for them to work out things with us in advance

to try Co minimize the disagreements.

We met with them a few times over that

that USEPA will not allow such a change."

MS, SHARKEY: I can understand that.

MR. INGERSOLL. Maybe the waters of the state

are also waters of the United States in that

situation. All of this activity is occurring within

?MR. RAO: This ie just something that we wanted

MR. INGERSOLL, Okay. Like I say, I will check

further both with the water people who go through

this experience that you're talking about and try to

explain a little better why --

?MA. RAO: No. The only reason I bring it up is,

if the board grants an adjusted standard, you know,

consistent. with the federal actions, is there one

Sby the facts, or what --

?MS. SHARKEY: It sounds very dieting-aishable

from what we've got here, but we'd be happy to

address that in our follow-up remarks as well.

20?MR. INGERSOLL: As will we.

21?KR. RAO: Thanks.

22?HEARING OFFICER

down. Thank you.

SHARKEY: Thank you for taking that out of

MR. INGERSOLL: The State is authorized

water delisting standards that the Board grants we

have heard from [he Agency saying chat if -. you

know, the Board's -- if the board grants a deflating

standard for -- In a certain way that USEPA will not

approve it. And I think they made us change the

language in some of the deflating standards. I just

wanted to get a clarification.

MR. INGERSOLL. I can comment better after

checking with all of the liaisons — the record

liaisons. In my experience, at least in the RCRA

program, we have that same kind of problem.

?MS. STEINHOUR: Can I add something to that?

15? When we were -- at first initially met with

Illinois EPA, we were actually working with USEPA on

a delisting petition in the state of Indiana. So the !

person that -- I wasn't the person directly that had

contacted USEPA. It was Ann Fritz from our office

who had talked to USEPA about this deflating petition

in Illinois that we were going to talk to Illinois

EPA about. They said, "Well, you need to make a

decision. Are you deflating this on the national

level? If you are, to allow this to be a delisted

waste that's transported to Indiana or to Missouri or

wherever. you need to come to us and get the

delisting petition. If

you're delisting it within

the state of Illinois, don

c talk to me. You need to

talk to Mark Crites.•

MR. RAO: Okay. That helps

MS. STEINHOUR: So we met with the Illinois EPA

MR. INGERSOLL: And we had this definitely

within the authorized parts of our program.

?MR. RAO: And that's one of the conditions, that

the delisted waste will be disposed of in Illinois?

STEINHOUR: Right.

MS. SHAMMY: Can I just ask,?

be possible -- You've got, you said, some water

matters, adjusted standards, where this question was

MR. RAO: I don't know how well I can recall.

But the issue wee the Board granting adjusted

standard from complying with the water quality

coming back and telling us, 'No.

You have Co change the water quality standard. You

cannot just say this particular facility will not

meet the water quality standard and the reason is

order. I appreciate it because I believe that dt.

provides context to put together the discussion of

the adequacy of the pretreatment at the point that

it's being discussed in the record.

If the Board doesn't have any other

questions -- I believe we were -- it was the Board's

question that led to having the Agency's witness

sworn in. / don't know if the Board has any other

questions or if

should go on to our next question.

NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN, Go on to the next. I

think you're on 3.

MS, SHARKEY: Mr. Maxwell is going to address

MR. MAXWELL: The third topic that was raised by

the Board had to do with the constituents of concern.

We were asked to elaborate on the Lest result. for

the F019 constituents that were listed in the Board's

Attachment A that do not seem to appear to be in

Appendix D of our petition, and Appendix D of Our

petition was our analytical results.

we realized after reviewing this comment

that the statement in the petition indicating that

all F019 constituents were analyzed went above and

beyond the data that we actually had. The

carcinogenic/noncarcinogenic effects. That was

pointed out in the user alert that -- for certain

parameters that have both

The proper means

for evaluating them is to enter them twice into the

0RAS model. We have listed a number of constituents

in our prefiled testimony for which that was teli—t-he

case. They have both carcinogenic and

noncarcinogenic effects. We did enter chose twice in

the model. We reran the model submitted with the

prefiled testimony. It turns out that the deliating

levels that were produced under the carcinogenic and

noncarcinogerlic factor approach were the same. So we

have updated our model, but It doesn't significantly

change our conclusions.

And then the final issue was -- that was

raised in the user alert is this idea of the fish

Ingestion and the air volatiles pathway. Now, this

one I have looked at subsequent to the filing that

was made filed -- or the profiled testimony. The

fish ingestion -- The issue is that the

calculation of -- the deliating levels that are

produced by CPAS for the fish ingestion and the air

volatiles pathway in some cases may be inaccurate.

I've looked closer at that and found that

the fish Ingestion pathway isn't a relevant pathway

2?that's part of our flak for any parameter. However,

the air volatiles pathway is a part of the risk for

several different parameters. The user alert

5?provides an equation to hand calculate the deliating

6?level for that specific pathway, which I've done for

all the parameters that we modeled for which the air

O volatile pathway was part of the risk. And we found

that in the case of every parameter, except for two,

the delisting level that was produced using the air

11?volatiles pathway was actually higher than the

delisting level that we used. So that has no

influence at all on our deflating

14?want to propose the most stringent delisting level.

parameters that

?identified where the deliating level for the air

volatiles pathway was less than the delisting level

?that we proposed. Consequently, I think it's

19?appropriate to submit as a follow-up to this hearing

a revised explanation indicating what's been

21?performed since

spoke with USEPA,

MS. SHARKEY: And those constituents were

?produced. Tell us whet the constituents were.

MR. MAXWELL: They were cis-1,7 dichloropropene

implies, land disposal restrictions, they are

intended for disposal scenarios that involve land.

They are, indeed, technology based. The record on

the adoption of those -- the UTS standards is very

clear on this point that the distinction between --

It's very clear on

point, and there

is a lengthy discussion in the preamble to the

adoption of the land disposal restrictions,

9?particularly the third third.

? There were three sets of land disposal

restriction regulatory dockets, and in/ third

they discuss the issue of the relationship between

land disposal restrictions and the universal

treatment standards concentratiors that were

developed for those and risk-based health and

environmental hazard-based limits. And they make

very clear that USEPA was unable at the time that

they adopted the UTS to actually promulgate

risk-health and environmental risk-based standards

As a result, what they did was they went

standard for treatahility. And that standard

best demonstrated technology, 11171X It

based on best demonstrated technology for specific

and heptachlor.

2?MS. SHARKEY°

the maximum detected leachate

concentrations were below the air exposure pathway?

MR. MAXWELL„ Yes.

I guess what we're proposing is

6?that we will submit a revised?/ don't

it a petition. Sue we're going — We'll submit a

revision with our comments -- a suggested revision

9?that would incorporate those new levels into the list

to?of deflating levels that we will be sarnpling for.

If there are no other questions, the next

is number -- I believe it was number 5, which is a

question that I was going to answer. This pertains

to land disposal restrictions. The question is.

°Please explain whether USEPA delisting guidance or

policy allows delisting levels for constituents of

concern to be higher than the land disposal

restriction universal treatment standards,* which,

for the court reporter's benefit, we refer to

Our response to this question is that VI's

22?are technology-based standards. They must be met

before a waste -- a hazardous waste can be applied to

the land -- can be

This is the -- a call center response. And I

apologize. I don't have the date of it here in front

of me, but I will get chat to you. They said, 'The

generator must comply with the LAIR requirements

before disposing of the delisted waste because LDR

attaches at the point of generation, A deflating

only absolves the generator from his obligation of

handling the waste as hazardous. If a particular

hazardous waste is eligible for a del fisting and is

granted. the delisting prior to generation, then the

Lois requirements would not apply. Conversely, if a

waste is generated and subsequently delisted, the

generator would need to comply with the applicable

pert 260 requirements before disposal.'

My view is -- in looking at this, is that

what USEPA is doing is distinguishing LDR

determinations from del 1st/rig determinations. What

you hear is that there are two distinct elements to

it. There's a deflating, and then there's a question

of whether Lox applies. It's a two-step process.

Notably, Order this definition, the waste .. the

leachate that BFI is generating would not be subject

to 1,DIR's even if it was going to a land disposal unit

if it was generated after the point that this

?categories of waste that the

were stablished

So they really serve a totally different function

They were technology based to begin with. and they

are designed for ensuring that- wastes that go into

landfills are treated co the maximum extent possible

under this best demonstrated technology.

In contrast, what the deflating -- what

listing and delisting involves are those -- again,

those — that criterion char 1 mentioned in 421.111,

which is the -- You know, again, T

and make sure that it's in the record. The criterion

is chat after considering those multiple factors

listed in the regulation there must be a conclusion

that the waste is capable of posing a substantial

present or potential hazard to human health or the

environment. So that's the criterion for listing.

and it's also the criterion for deflating. And you

look at that long list of items that I've mentioned

before, the nature of the toxicity, the

concentration, persistence, bioaccumulation, all of

that kind of thing. All of those are appropriate.

would point out that trea tabi lity --

ability to treat is not on that list at all. So it's

criteria for which you list or delist a waste.

And I think that USEPA -- This question was actually

brought up in a lawsuit that was filed in -- on the

basis of the first two Los IRS rutemakings. In the

first third and the second third, they had not used a

health-based criteria. In some instances, the

health-based criteria was higher than the

treatability standard. Frankly, industry people

brought that lawsuit and said,

wart a minute. You

should have to consider the health-based Standards..

And the Agency -- the Court found, no, they were not

required to do it. In fact, the Resource

Conservation Recovery Act requirement for LDR's

was -- EPA was authorized to do it on

SPA explains then in the preamble to the

third third that -- you know, lc goes back and

explains again its action and explains that lawsuit

and the opinion and better explains why they adopted

these as technology-based standards. so I think that

the record and history of these regulations make it

clear that it's not a delisting criteria.

Treatability should not be a deflating criteria.

I'd also just like to say that they also

distinguish, by the way, in the Federal Register.

And this is fromiPed. Reg. 6640, February 26, 1990.

EPA distinguishes the generally applicable treatment

standards from -- and this is a quote .- 'Standards

that are applied in particular

i zed circumstances,

such as RCRA clean closures, no migration

determinations, and delistinge." So I think they

clearly were saying that these are not the kinds of

standards that you would apply in

situation where, indeed, you do the case-by-case

look, as we're doing

ere at th e?whether or

that criterion -- that health-based end environmental '

criterion is met.

We did look for any other EPA guidance on

this question of how Los's are actually used. And I

wanted to -- I'll go back to the point chat they are

land based. Therefore, land disposal. So they, in

particular, would not seem to have a relevance in

this case. We did not find any reference to LDR's in

the USEPA guidance manual. I've tried to search

using various terms and did not find any reference to

What we did find was

RCRA call center

response, and this is the extent to which I found

anything on this. And

will read it for the record

established t, determined whether a hazardous waste

could be land disposed?Then

the final rule EPA

I think that API ac the Davis Junction

decided not to set deflating levels based on LOA UTs.

has a large tank that

is holding tors

for Nissan,?Again,?you know,?one could wish they

material. After that material that had already been

would be more express and talk about this better.

generated were gone, were hauled off co Ohio

unfortunately, the rest of that leachate. I presume

under this definition. would not be covered under

bDR's even if it was go

i ng to a /and unit.

I also wanted to point out a precedent for

how EPA has dealt with this since because I think --

don't have to get to that question because

irrelevant because it's not going CO a land unit.

But another -- A case in which it was going to a land

unit is the Nissan case that the Board had

referenced, the

delisting by USEPA. There you

can see EPA's approach to land disposal restriction

and how they used those in that deflating.

chat EPA asked -- In the

proposed rule asked for comments on the use of UDR

UTS's for evaluating Nissan's delisting petition.

Nissan got back in its comments and said that (ITS are

inappropriate for setting deflating levels because

they are not designed for such use. Rather

But f think this is an example of where they asked

the question, they got an answer. and they ended up

not using Lora as delisting levels.

Finally, j ust to say, I think that it

actually could be counterproductive to use LDR levels

as delisting levels because the incentives that were

designed for the UDR program are to get waste streams

out of land, keep them out of land as much as

possible, and have them pretreated before, So that

what we're doing here

actually very consistent

with that. None of this is going to go to land. It

will all be pretreated.

I hope that answers your questions, but

we'll be happy to answer any

othe r q uesti ons on

LIU: Thank you actu

lengthy analysis kind of exploring perhaps what USEPA

have a chance or didn't vocalize. Thank you.

NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Pir, Ingersoll?

MR. INGERSOLL. Nothing,

at, However, when you come down to one constituent

this or two because we'll be -- look at.erfse

warwdioxane as well, chat actually -- that exceed

appropriate at chat point to go

back -- as I said earlier, go back and look at what

are the real risks bete. what's

I nvolved here? Do

these two constituents solely on their own out of

lists of hundreds -- the fact [hat these are slightly

over -- And I'd say it's an order of magnitude

difference to the criteria We're proposing for vinyl

chloride. Is that difference enough to say this

entire leachate must be treated as a hazardous

leachate? Our argument

t's appropriate to

and look carefully at the criteria in 721.11101 Ill

and to walk through -- look at that criterion and

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN You may proceed,

Okay. The next question involves

the delisting levels and toxicity characteristic

levels, So just -- Previously we were talking about

the relationship between delisting levels and

t reatabi 1 ty levels. Now, we're talking about the

relationship between delisting levels and the

toxicity characteristic levels. And, in particular,

the Board's question was, "Please explain BFI's

rationale for not proposing the lower DIVAS value as

the delisting value for vinyl chloride.•

Our response to this Ls that, indeed, the

?DRAS model calculated what we consider to be an

overly conservative number for vinyl chloride. The

number that it calculated was 028 milligrams per

We believe that number overstates the risk

for vinyl chloride in this situation.?

the land-based assumption that you have to put into

the DRAS model results in a -- an overly conservative

BFI has used the DRAB. model and is very

walk through the factors that need to be

In doing that.?

I think we've — we've gone through

and taken a look at that.

Among those that need to

be considered is the criteria -- factor J. which is

"Action taken by other governmental agencies or

regulatory programs based on the health or

environmental hazards posed by the waste or waste

willing to accept the output of the ERAS model for

the vast majority of the constituents that it looked

4841 buy/sr-pap?

?041 7041 pUal0.100a/ 610980803 100 ui '01666 'pile peaqe

06 ITTm am '14612

4 .1 0.9. sT Pi.. TI.m-wI4

1604W -410101 mou

;131/44H5 '$1.1

3 0110Taal0eavy0 Aa1

7.01 091 01 6011Inegap

?ma 19618124 are sem 1041 sdeglud

. 11340[114 1114?

11 uegg au1ea16 Gem Pea

Ia.aI 61.11.1SIIaP

L asuodsal ano4 ug lensue uv ale 1,0PTP

am pup 'peal uo 800 sem aJayl

'Aapio 1441 330 6011029 9g1 4500,01

?noA 01 polliwqns sem Ivy/ uolasen.b

14014 anoqi aou 009 /sera/ a pey ay .065

41101071114 610023.40 DNINVEH

-no4 10.41 '6ulnloy :7900639141 '114

i111101'TVH 43501140 ONDP/SH

Alan 1641 uo apTioTyn

n Jo; flat( Tana/ P

SVAC 641 p9a1xa

220061001 ,woe U1 ITTIP

uoT/aunr eTnea e47 ae ssson

aseyd pue Z 2464d

#40 le 61643691 441 '1063 u

es-te 6u14141ane pue

1t/aw16221 01 atlas

- palvaiu 6uTaq Wig pesodsip pool Bulaq eae Allunou

0111 2740 IT. 821094 'AlaeaTo 'puV 'IaaaT 1 6

'Arreelp 'lanai Z' 441 le ap120140?

?/APT/ Aq pasod MeTa pa6e4-4/Iea4 441 -- paRod psi/?

241 30 maTnaa pTien Alan e sT 011e01213e1e41 1641 1

PIP 632 1641 01641606 ay7 aey/ anaT

5640 0141 1691 iecrtunu ag1 04441 1ay6

IQ aspic ire leowIe

4 /ad sweienglua z- 0 sem maim do awes

41 lasauss .4/ PJV • T alporn 1441 Pas./

itatts Os?san-tes 4601-151000 ou se apew swap/64,0C

56912(.616d gge Jog 690Ten jo uoTanqI1/.1P

Jo abireJ TIng e sapnI/uT 411446 '0107163 uoT1enUagle

4071710de 01363 400014

t leupas luatuafeuetus

aga se luompunoduT BO

.3?'I140633 se 04400

1 aPo.1 1300 6081 1 Ps.

aan i nsqns. ay /

6010011 paclo/anap sex Ten/ 101321

n llp e paiidde Aay,

Aaallpue ..'1314 641

00010611 6 01 auensand padOlanap 01e44 pare sAempavd

tionsaEPT 10nemparn016 ssaapPe

01 041/121110 411664 671411002006

1641 6014a6 nopoa awl UT

1314 aya peen 6,68 • aPT10Taia

14014 10; 9661 ayl sem Se '219VI1e4e

771014 6uT1u1ip eiagm -- sem aaaem

a ga U0ilea1U99

pa6eq-ti11ea4 P211iluapT

ITI ha41 JeTiwls

pip Aaya aegm pus.

0110-41770e1e40 47111100 ay/ aog pa

aBenLuet 16010.441

le MOO/ mow/ am

pup -spuoa/ad yvyy 2y

s i sAgeue pa6eq-44118844

e 00 pas.' snoplezey a/u sluan/i/suoa 0[6]]]0 74911214

trc suessux us s

laucco 400110110

4401,4 Jog 'I apvel

0 1 any 'buoon suaraeinbea

641311 .t 511,61)0816

110106484] 01607 0

9041 uT sp/epue/s

1 paseo-Abotougual 9141 alilln

ue 1ensue oa Addey aq p,1 '004 10741 puif

ul luanallemo 1641 po 1441 awes 1641

41111000 041 2440

anem mop gum 1027Ereutaa Alan IrT 1641 040

pue smolTe ITT'Ut se paegq 141Tea4 01 1693 00191121

M001 pue lopOP 8Y82 841 app1100 dupe

01 1146no 708817e1772d gEnoitiu pOtpu.4 so 01 60106

wears aleem 0191 1641 1061 241 PUP

'paaapTsucio aq pploys

peau pTnom leap s

Paz 41611.alIvd

10141 004 os Awn sego

peildde Eulaq aou 6,11

pus '66409116 alsem aSayl 10 ITV 01 PaTidde ay pInoys

mnom am -- 01341

717 pue 441[eaq

1041 fisittlawoc Aneaa elan

11 IT -- 600P10sea

A t teas aaam 11

pup 's/Tiapuel elsem snopaezeq u

1 alsem 1e3T01006 uT arrano

alsem so aacryant 0 J o

Ana e ST ap110 -441 pitsts 1001 snout

anuaTaacixa seInoTa.ted seal I36

Tle alegneaT weaale

-Ienag .4;40131601

well, chi, is just - in reviewing

Shell, we saw this difference, and we wanted to bring

it up. I don't know whether t can -

MS. slEINBOUR, Is the difference though that

Shell was actually taking -- it appears from -- And

we're going to look into this

little more deep/y.

It appeared that what Shell was doing though was

taking their wastewater -- They were somehow doing

some pretreatment to pull off the filter cake and

doing this within some kind of surface impoundment on

site before hard piping it to a discharge --

KR RAO. I'm not very sure as to how they were

handling it. But the delisting decision that USEPA

handed down very clearly said, you know, they had to

do this testing before they can take advantage of the

deflating. That was their initial sampling and

verification. You had similar sampling and

verification, but this

was while the waste was being

handled as a delisted Waste.

Also, earlier one of the questions we

talked about wee the variability of the /eachate,

which Mr. Maxwell said he is going to take a look at

to see if this particular analysis could be given to

show that the leachate does not have significant

Ms. LW We have a few more questions, and they

the sr ructure of the proposed

Again, mentioning Shell Oil because of the

similarity. OSEPA had included several provisions

addressing recordkeeping and notification

requirements. The citation was 69 Fed. Reg. 77699.

Except for requiring a one-time notification to

Illinois EPA whenever there's a change in the

disposal facility, the proposed adjusted standard

Language doesn't require that the Petitioner notify

the Agency of the initial sampling and verification

to comply with the deflating levels or any other

subsequent eageedenty

if the deflating levels are

Could you please cormrAnt on whether or not

such provisions should be included in the proposed

adjusted standard language?

MS. SHARKEY: I believe it should be included.

I think we would be

to include that.

MS. LIU: Thank you.

HR. RAD: The next question goes to Subsection D

of your proposed adjusted standard language.

Subsection D requires, 'Monitoring samples to be

analyzed for constituents listed in Table A and

hazardous characteristics as defined in part 721..

Further, Subsection 0 sets forward that, 'Testing may

be continued on a semiannual basis if the deflating

levels have not exceeded..

could you please clarify whether testing

should also show that the Leachate does not exhibit

any hazardous waste characteristics before being

a semiannual basis, or is your intent lust

to limit it to the delisting levels?

MS. SHARKEY. I think we would intend the

characteristics as well, yes.

Sm. RAO: So the language needs to be clarified.

MS. sliARXEy. Thank you.

KR. RAO: Ws are sharing our questions here,

MS. STEINHOUR. We appreciate the fact that you

took a hard look at this.

MS. LIU: The proposed adjusted standard

language at Section?

"If concentrations of constituenfeted in Table A

are Confirmed to exceed the deflating

the verification procedures of Subsection D or if the

leachate is confirmed to exhibit a hazardous

characteristic, then the leachate shall be managed a

a hazardous waste until the petitioner demonstrates

that the leachate is below the adjusted standard

provisions of Subsectl

y C ay to both initial

testing and the ongoin s

emiannual testing?

MS, SHARKEY, Our intention is that the

characteristics would be considered as well. Yes, I

I think it was an oversight, but I

think It was because we were basing what we were

doing on some other petitions and delistings chat

didn't appear to have that. We believe that is

appropriate, and we'd be happy to recommend amending

the language to include that. Thank you.

MR. RAO: And the last issue is -- it relates to

Subsection E of the proposed language. Subsection

states that, "Prior to reinitiating management and

disposal pursuant to this adjusted standard,

additional testing should be done to confine that

concentrations of P039 constituents are below the

delisting levels,.

Could you please clarify whether F039

constituents referred to the Table A constituents

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS

OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE

(Adjusted Standard –Land)

(Waste Delisting)

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF

Petitioner, BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC ("BFI"), appreciates the

opportunity to provide this Reply Brief to further clarify points made by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois") in its brief and to provide certain additional

information which has become available since the hearing and which responds to

questions raised by the Board Technical Personnel.

The Board Technical Personnel asked whether there is

any need for USEPA's approval of this delisting. See

Tr.

Both BFI and Illinois EPA have stated that USEPA approval is not required for

this delisting.

Tr. pp. 92 to 94; BFI Post-hearing Brief p.20; Illinois EPA Response Brief

The State of Illinois and the Illinois Pollution Control Board have been delegated the

authority to delist a hazardous waste stream as long as the waste will be disposed of

within Illinois. This point was recently confirmed by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency ("USEPA") in an undated letter from Dale Meyer, Chief of the RCRA

Programs Section, addressed to Alisa Liu, Environmental Scientist, Illinois Pollution

Control Board. Mr. Meyer stated: "[T]he State of Illinois has been authorized to conduct

delistings for wastes disposed of within Illinois..." See

Attachment A, p. I.

Does USEPA Require Use of the DRAS Model?

BFI has offered its legal opinion that no regulation or statute requires the use of

the DRAS Model and its generic assumptions to justify a delisting. See

BFI's Prefiled

Testimony, pp. 4-8; Tr. pp.44-54.

The letter provided by Mr. Meyers confirms BFI's

opinion and further explains that DRAS is simply one "tool" that may be used to

demonstrate that the delisting criteria have been met:

"Let me begin by pointing out that the DRAS is a tool we use in order to

evaluate the potential risk posed by delisted wastes when disposed of in a

subtitle D landfill or surface impoundment. DRAS is designed to conduct

this evaluation based on the criteria for listing a hazardous waste (40

C.F.R. 261.11(a)(3)). Although this evaluation is a requirement of the

regulations governing delistings (40 C.F.R. 260.22), the specific use of

DRAS and its methodologies are not. As such, there is no regulatory

requirement to use DRAS (or any specific version of DRAS.) ...[T]he

State of Illinois...is free to evaluate the waste and the criterion in 40

C.F.R. 261.11(a)(3) using DRAS or any other appropriate assessment

See Attachment A, p. 1.

As USEPA itself does not treat the DRAS Model as the sole tool for analyzing a

delisting petition, there is no reason the Board should do so. In this case, BFI has used

both the DRAS model, with appropriate assumptions for this conditional delisting, and

other health-based government standards to evaluate the risk posed by this delisting under

the regulatory criteria.

In its pre-hearing questions, the Board Technical Personnel asked

why BFI had not provided analytical data for eleven of the 206

constituents that are included in the F039 list.

to this question in its Pre-Filed Testimony

(Tr. pp. 96 -103),

and in its Post-Hearing Brief

To recap, these constituents

are deemed unusual by analytical laboratories. BFI found that, of the three labs it

contacted, no single lab had the technology capability to analyze for all of these

constituents. BFI raised concern about getting data from different labs and asked the

Board for guidance.

In response, the Board's Technical Personnel indicated at the hearing 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.

BFI agrees that pthalic anhydrite is a relevant

constituent in this case, and, with its Post-Hearing Brief, BFI provided an analysis of a

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

The results indicated that pthalic anhydrite was below the detection level.

Since the filing of its Post-Hearing Brief, BFI made another special request to the

lab that had performed the prior analysis included in the Delisting Petition and was able

to obtain data for a few additional semi-volatile constituents:

1,4-dinitrobenzene; and

1,2-diphenylhydrazine.

The attached laboratory report

(Attachment B)

indicates that these constituents

were reported at concentrations below the detection limit. The report also indicates that

the laboratory was unable to quantify results based on a known calibration standard for

the following three semi-volatile compounds:

Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene;

• 4,4'-methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline); and

Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate.

When it is not feasible to report a compound based on comparison to a known

standard, the laboratory has other options for reporting a compound. The results reported

using the other options are typically not as definitive as comparison to a known standard

and consequently, the laboratory must appropriately flag data reported using alternative

The alternative methodology involves the analysis of the output from the

instrumentation used to analyze the sample. The output is typically a chromatogram (i.e.,

graph) that plots the response of the machine on the vertical axis vs. time on the

horizontal axis. The graph would typically be a relatively flat line for a sample with no

compounds of interest. The presence of various compounds in a sample is indicated by

peaks that appear in the data at various times during the analysis of the sample. The

timing and shape of the peaks is used to identify the compound and the area of the peaks

is used to quantify the concentration of the various compounds.

Under standard laboratory operating conditions, standards of known

concentrations are prepared and analyzed, so that the precise timing and shape of the

peaks equating to certain concentrations is known and the chromatogram for the

unknowns is compared to the known data. However, certain atypical compounds do not

behave well using the comparison to a known standard. For example, the compound may

break down during analysis, making accurate measurement of the concentration difficult.

As an alternative, the laboratory in this case searched for the three compounds on

the chromatogram within a known spectrum range. The known spectrum range is based

on a library search of a database on many hundreds of compounds. In this case, no peaks

were identified within the known spectrum for the compounds of interest. Therefore, the

laboratory reported that the compound was "searched for but not detected."

Although BFI has made several good faith efforts to obtain an analysis of the

F039 listed constituents, it has proven to be very difficult to obtain comparable valid

information for a handful of unusual constituents. As previously stated, USEPA has not

required testing for unusual constituents which are unlikely to be present in a particular

leachate. In fact, although USEPA referenced the F039 list in the Federal Register

adopting the delisting, it is apparent that USEPA did not require Shell Oil to address

F039 constituents that were not also included in Appendix IX in its sampling and analysis

Post-Hearing Brief pp. 20-22, and Attachment 4 to that Brief

Board's adoption of this delisting, although missing analytical data on these few unusual

F039 constituents, is consistent with USEPA precedent.

The Board Technical Personnel asked BFI to address any additional

parameters or information that is referenced in USEPA updates to the

DRAS software.

pp. 105 -111.

In its Pre-Filed Testimony

(Tr. pp. 105-111)

Post-Hearing Brief

BFI addressed several USEPA updates to the DRAS

software. However, at the time of filing BFI's Post-Hearing Brief, Mr. Ramaly at USEPA

was unable to advise BR or the Board on how to address zero Dilution Attenuation

Factor ("DAF") values in DRAS when modeling for a surface impoundment. Since then,

in the above referenced letter from Dale Meyer, Chief of the RCRA Programs Section, to

Alisa Liu, USEPA provided the following response:

"We are also responding to a separate inquiry made regarding potential

corrections to the DRAS version 2 surface impoundment groundwater

pathway for a proposal currently before the board. Mike Maxwell of

Weaver Booz, Inc. noted corrections to landfill dilution attenuation factors

(DAFs) in previous DRAS user-alerts, explaining that there should not be

any DAFs equal to zero. He asked if the same applies to surface

impoundment DAFs, as several indeed have a value of zero. The effect of

the zero DAF is to cancel the pathway for evaluation.

"Upon consulting with the original modeler for DRAS version 2 DAFs,

we realized that the minimum base (before volume adjustment) surface

impoundment DAFs for carcinogens should be 5.3 and for noncarcinogens

3.92. All the surface impoundment DAFs with zero values or values less

than those quoted above should be modified in Steps 4 and 5 for the

DRAS. Parameters, such as the DAFs, can be changed by scrolling across

the database, typing the new value, then_saving the updates. The change

to the default value is site-specific and must be done each time DRAS is

used for a new evaluation. Documentation of the change can be obtained

by selecting to print the DRAS report

List of COCs with Altered Chemical

Consistent with this new guidance, BFI has re-evaluated the DRAS Model with

respect to the dilution attenuation factors (DAFs) for four constituents of concern (COCs)

referenced in Item (1) of the User Alert for DRAS Version 2. The four COCs are:

1,1-Dichloroethane (a VOC);

1,2-Dichloroethane (a VOC);

• Cobalt (a metal); and

• Tin (a metal).

The default DAF for these four constituents was zero. However, as discussed in

BFI's Pre-Filed Testimony and at the Hearing and also explained in the above letter from

USEPA, a zero DAF value would cancel the pathway for evaluation for these

constituents. Therefore, as part of BFI's original DRAS model, a non-zero number was

manually entered for the above four constituents. BFI's original version of the DRAS

model utilized the lowest DAF selected from the specific COCs modeled in DRAS for

the general constituent category of volatile organic compounds (3.9) and metals (7.7).

This was deemed conservative because the lower the DAF, the less dilution is included in

the model and hence the lower the delisting levels. Conversely, a higher DAF results in

more modeled dilution of the source concentrations and higher delisting levels.

According to USEPA's letter, the minimum base (before volume adjustment)

surface impoundment DAFs for carcinogens should be 5.3 and for noncarcinogens 3.92.

The following provides a summary of the DAFs utilized in BFI's original DRAS model,

compared to the DAFs referenced in the above USEPA letter.

Constituent

USEPA Minimum

DAF

Since the DAF in the original model was greater than the above USEPA

minimum DAF for Cobalt and Tin, BFI re-ran the DRAS model for these constituents

with the DAFs referenced by USEPA. The DAF is the only input parameter that was

modified. DRAS output from the re-analysis is attached as

Attachment C.

the revised delisting levels for Cobalt and Tin is provided in

Attachment D.

proposed revised delisting level for cobalt is 60.2 mg/L and the revised delisting level for

tin is 602 mg/L. The maximum concentration of both cobalt and tin detected at any time

in the Davis Junction Phase I Unit leachate is well below both of these concentrations.

These delisting levels are reflected in the

Proposed Third Amendment to Adjusted

Standard Language

which is being filed with the Board today.

RELIEF REQUESTED

BFI appreciates the Board's careful review of this Petition. BFI requests that the

Board now grant the relief requested. Specifically, BFI requests that the Board adopt the

Adjusted Standard language as proposed in BFI's

Proposed Third Amendment to Petition

for Adjusted Standard,

which is being filed today with this Reply Brief, or such other

language which the Board believes is consistent with the goals of this delisting, the

record created in this proceeding, and the regulatory requirements for delisting.

Respectfully submitted,

BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC

Patricia F. Sharkey, Esq.

McGuireWoods, LLP

77 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Alisa Liu, P.E.

Environmental Scientist

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS)

and its use in evaluating delisting petitions. Please note that this response is confined to the

questions posed to Todd Ramaly of my staff and does not constitute an opinion on the delisting.

You indicated that Region 6 has elected to base proposed rules to grant delistings on the results

version of DRAS version 3, which is not in general release to the public at this time.

DRAS version 3 includes several updates to the modeling methodology, but requires a number of

workaround adjustments in order to obtain reproducible results. DRAS version 3 is intended to

replace DRAS version 2. You wanted to know which version should be used.

Let me begin by pointing out that the DRAS is a tool we use in order to evaluate the

potential risk posed by delisted wastes when disposed of in a subtitle D landfill or surface

impoundment. DRAS is designed to conduct this evaluation based on the criteria for listing a

hazardous waste (40 C.F.R. § 261.11(a)(3)). Although this evaluation is a requirement of the

regulations governing delistings (40 C.F.R. § 260.22), the specific use of DRAS and its

methodologies are not. As such, there is no regulatory requirement to use DRAS (or any specific

version of DRAS).

Furthermore, the authority to evaluate and conduct delistings is delegated to each U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Region. Thus, the approach to delisting may differ from

Region to Region. In your case, the State of Illinois has been authorized to conduct delistings for

wastes disposed of within Illinois and is free to evaluate the waste and the criterion in

40 C.F.R. § 261.11(a)(3) using DRAS or any other appropriate assessment approach.

At this time, EPA Region 5 is using DRAS version 2 with modifications for projects

which have already been proposed by EPA for approval. DRAS version 3 is under active repair

and a version suitable for

release to the general public should be available this summer. EPA

Region 5 intends to use this repaired version of DRAS 3 for new delisting determinations

immediately upon its release.

We are also responding to a separate inquiry made regarding potential corrections to the

DRAS version 2 surface impoundment groundwater pathway for a proposal currently before the

board. Mike Maxwell of Weaver Booz, Inc. noted corrections to landfill dilution attenuation

factors (DAFs) in previous DRAS user-alerts, explaining that there should not be any DAFs

equal to zero. He asked if the same applies to surface impoundment DAFs, as several indeed

have a value of zero. The effect of the zero DAF is to cancel the pathway for evaluation.

Upon consulting with the original modeler for DRAS version 2 DAFs, we realized that

the minimum base (before volume adjustment) surface impoundment DAFs for carcinogens

should be 5.3 and for noncarcinogens 3.92. All the surface impoundment DAFs with zero values

or values less than those quoted above should be modified in Steps

and 5 for the DRAS.

Parameters, such as the DAFs, can be changed by scrolling across the database, typing the new

value, then saving the updates. The change to the default value is site-specific and must be done

each time DRAS is used for a new evaluation. Documentation of the change can be obtained by

selecting to print the DRAS report

List of COCs with Altered Chemical Properties.

Please feel free to contact Todd Ramaly of my staff at (312) 353-7913 or at the address

above with questions or comments.

RCRA Programs Section

M. Crites, IEPA

M. Maxwell, Weaver Booz, Inc.

27-MAY-08 13:00

Service Location

HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC

COMMERCIAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS

7901 W. MORRIS ST.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46231

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

WEAVER BOOS AND GORDON

BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA INC.

70 WEST MADISON

26 WEST 580 SCHICK ROAD

HANOVER PARK, IL 60133

CHICAGO, IL 60602

Sample Description

CLIENT ID: PHASE I

MATRIX TYPE: NON-SPECIFIC WATER

SUBMITTER CODE: 9016

SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (BASWNELITRAL/ ?

Analyst C. WILLHITE

: 04-JUN-08 22:00?

Instrument: GC/MS SVOA?

PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE

1,4-DINITROBENZENE

1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE

DIBENZO(A, E)PYRENE

4,4'-METHYLENE-BIS(2-CHLOROANILINE)

TRIS(2,3-DIBROMOPROPYL) PHOSPHATE

SURROGATE RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5

2-FLUOROBIPHENYL

2,4,6-TRIBROMOPHENOL

Unable to analyze sample at lower dilution due to high concentration

non-target analytes.

HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC

Sample ID: A811980 PHASE I

Note: * Compound searched for but not detected. Standard was unavailable to

determine retention time and detection limit.

GC/MS SEPARATORY FUNNEL LIOUID•LIQUIO EXTRACTION

Analyst J. BREWER?

Date: 02-JUN-08

INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME

AMENDED REPORT - CBB - 30-JUN-08 : SVL TICS added.

See Note for Parameter

Below Detection Limit

Sample was received on ice at temperature 2.2 C.

Sample chain of custody number 61659.

This Certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full,

without the written approval of the lab.

The sample results relate only to the analytes of interest tested

or to the sample as received by the lab.

Heritage Environmental Services, LLC certifies that the test results

indicated as NELAC (National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference) accredited (Yes for NELAC) meet all requirements of NELAC and

Illinois EPA Part 186 unless otherwise explained or justified as to the

the exact nature of the deviations.

Heritage Environmental Services, LLC is accredited under Illinois NELAC

accreditation number 100401.

Indiana SDWA Lab Accred. No. C-49-01

Approved by: CHRISTOPHER BOYLE 01-JUL-08

HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC.

COMMERCIAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS

7901 West Morris Street Indianapolis IN 46231

827-4374 Fax: (317) 486-5095

Customer name/number

Analyses Requested

Send Report To:

'CiA0/44-n0Y4

(Note special detection hinds or methods )

(Given to you by your contact)

PO No. or Project/Activity ID:

STIP DA..1"

PRINT HERITAGE TSR NAME:

If no previous credit has been established with Heritage,

(check,VISA,etc) is required at

time of sample submittal to the laboratory.

Sample Turn Around Time

Mo?

(AcoMersiod TAT subject la PaManel

matackapplid and

Pfa9.00 Dv LK 1

rif

Sample ID and/or Location

where your sample was taken

All

Custody seas presentAntact?

Broken containers?

agree with sample labels?

plaited by.

containers for tesUng?

issues acceptade?

Holding time(s) acceptabe?

1i/(4,“tvt t

Site and WMU Information

Delisting Petition Number:

Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Petitioner's Name:

BFI. Waste Systems of North America, Inc.

26 West 580 Schick Rd.

Analysis Performed by:

Date of Analysis:

Waste Description:

Waste Volume (yd'):

Active Life (years):

Phase I Landfill Leachate

Surface Impoundment

List of COCs with Altered Chemical Properties

Parameter Modified

Parameter Units

:-01,reeriane, 1.1-

Surface IrrI6n:, 6-- s''

pichloroethane, 1,2-

Surface impoundment Dilution ,

Attenuation Factor

Chat Reference Dose

Maximum Concentration Level

Om! Hefts s.re 3' -

tigne‹,,,..lay

Xyienes (total)

Inhalation Reference Dose

c or Nnrnarns ?

Carcinogen Nononrcinoc,en

Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic

Inhalation Reference Dose

Toth icr` 01De?

Carcinogen No - ..t

Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic.

Carcinogen Noncarcinogen

Surface Impoundment Dilution

Attenliatien Factor

(72,12.6,6,:en2?N Nn

Methylene chloride

Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic

Carcinogen Noncarcinogen

Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic

Carcinogen Noncarcinogen

Inhalation Reference Dose

Inhalation Reference Dose

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Detection Limit Analysis - Toxicity of Petitioned Waste cannot be confirmed if Detection Limits

fall belaWmaximuni a towable concentration

Maximum Allowable TCLP

. Allowable Total

Maximum Allowable Total

Dishicioehane, 1,1-

•Utuitiiiiwater Ingestion

Air Volatile Inhalation

Dichloroethane, 1,2-

Groundwater Ingestion:

Air Volatile Inhalation

Ac Volatile inhaiation

Trichloro0e064/propionic acid, 2A,5-

Dichiorophenoxyacetic acid, 2A- (2.4

Dimethylplienol, 2A-?

Groundwater Ingestion

Cunt:newsier Ingestion

Air Volatile Inhalation

cscaier Ingristion

Groundwater Ingestion'

Air Volatile Inhalation

OrOkilld‘?ter Ingestion

Xylenes (total)

Groundwater Inhalation

Air Volatile Inhalation

Dichorcbenzene, 1,4-

Air Voiairle Inhalation

for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Limiting Pathways

Detection Limit Analysis - Toxicity of Petitioned Waste cannot be confirmed if Detection Limits

fall below maximum allowable concentration

Maximum Allowable TCLP

Allowable Total

Maximum Allowable Total

GroundwaterAduli Dermal

Air Volatile. Inhalation

ft \riene chloride

Ai:'in aill e Inha aticn

Methyl isobutklii ketone

Groundwater Ingestion

entrlweter IntFa-Munn

An Volatile Inhalation

Groundwater Ingestion '

Not Applicable?

1,Z: , titred..)

Etedzene-iiirii

OlatileirnbStion

• etracrilbroethylene

Air Volatile Inhaation

Bn@

Groundwater Ingestion

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Limiting Pathways

Detection Limit Analysis - Toxicity of Petitioned Waste cannot be confirmed if Detection Limits

fall below maximum allowable concentration

Maximum Allowable TCLP

Allowable Total

Maximum Allowable Total

-‘4: itgesboo

Groundwater Ingestion

Volatile Inhalation

Air Volatile Inhalatio

Groundwater Adult

Airtkoiatile Inhalation

Groundwater Ingestion

AirVolatile Inhalation

Groundwater Ingestion

Air Volatile Inhalation

C-3,ox^:,xtator Ing.secor:

Results for Analysis: Davis

Junction LE Only Detects

Limiting Pathways

9n^ent[etroa ".

Groundwater estion

Air Volatile Inhalation

Air Volatile Inhalation

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Maximum Allowable TCLP

Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Risk Factor = 1.00E-06

Factor --.: VODE+00

* = Detection Limit

lanstidtiPathway

Cohcintration.

' Concentration

Groundwater Dermal

Absorption Pathway

Groundwater Dermal

Absorption Pathway

thelsorcoropene, us-1.3-

Dimethy phenol, 2,4-

Dichloroseazene, 1,4-

VOL-enzene, 1.4-

Dchloroethane, 1,2-

M ethyl /sobuty1 Ketone

Totrachloroettwicre

Xylenes - total)

for Analysis: Davis

Junction LF Only Detects

Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects?

Maximum Allowable TCLP

Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

'Risk Factor = 1.00E-06

HQ Factor 7- 1.00E+00

Detection Limit

Ingestion Pathway

Groundwater Dermal

Absorption Pathway

Groundwater Dermal,

Absorption Pathway

,./In‘•; c:orid

Methylene adride

Methylene c,hieriCe

Carbon disulfide

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

ltat-Affeenatili

Cán:CeitiSön.

Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Opiptcartiplige",

Risk FaMOr=„1":013E-06

-, WistÄsheeni,'

Based-'on AdditI

,Deirreentradon

Groundwater Dermal

1 = Detection Llinit

Absorption Pathway

Tnchihroethylene

Diethyl phthalate

NibilibSeireii?

Thchieloplienoxypropcnic

,.."-:Citypyl

DichlorophertiOXyac-e6c acid,

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects

Summary of Delisting Levels

Davis Junction Landfill - Phase I

Delisting Petition

on GW ingestion'

LimitingPathway°

Concen. Based on Mutt

Groundwater Dermal'

Child Groundwater

Debating Level°

Maximum Detected

Conan. In Leachate

Groundwater Ingestion

Groundwater Ingestion

- No delisting level provided by DRAS.

' From Maximum Allowable

TCLP Concentrabons - Groundwater Exposure Pathways Output from DRAS.

°From Limiting Pathways DRAS Output.

In accordance with Sec. 4.2.5.7 of RCRA Debating Technical Support Document, when DRAS indicates that groundwater ingestion Ls the limiting

pathway, the user has the option of considering either of the groundwater ingestion pathway delisting levels:

risk-based maximum acceptable TCLP concentration or the MCL-based maximum allowable TCLP concentration. If the groundwater ingestion pathway is the limiting pathway, then the greater of the risk-based maximum acceptable TCLP concentration and the MCL-

based concert/rat/On is listed in this column.

° Pursuant to SectIon 4.23 of the Deeming Technical Support Document, Deflating Level is lower of Applicable Groundwater Ingestion Pathway Limit and the maximum allowable concentrations based on groundwater inhalation, adult groundwater dermal. and child

groundwater darn (value shown in bold).

C :Documents end Satensanasuketocal SoningtrompOrary Internal RiesOLKI3eDin6tinj Levels

Sion Ji.108.)Is