1. Page 1
    2. Page 2
    3. Page 3
    4. Page 4
    5. Page 5
    6. Page 6
    7. Page 7
    8. Page 8
    9. Page 9
    10. Page 10
    11. Page 11
    12. Page 12
    13. Page 13
    14. Page 14
    15. Page 15
    16. Page 16
    17. Page 17
    18. Page 18
    19. Page 19
    20. Page 20
    21. Page 21
    22. Page 22
    23. Page 23
    24. Page 24
    25. Page 25
    26. Page 26
    27. Page 27
    28. Page 28
    29. Page 29
    30. Page 30
    31. Page 31
    32. Page 32
    33. Page 33
    34. Page 34
    35. Page 35
    36. Page 36
    37. Page 37
    38. Page 38
    39. Page 39
    40. Page 40
    41. Page 41
    42. Page 42
    43. Page 43
    44. Page 44
    45. Page 45
    46. Page 46
    47. Page 47
    48. Page 48
    49. Page 49
    50. Page 50
    51. Page 51
    52. Page 52
    53. Page 53
    54. Page 54
    55. Page 55
    56. Page 56
    57. Page 57
    58. Page 58
    59. Page 59
    60. Page 60
    61. Page 61
    62. Page 62
    63. Page 63
    64. Page 64
    65. Page 65

 
By: 0 e if t e Attorneys or Petitioner
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
tjeu
tteilF:troli
I
AS 08-05?
_
1
0
0
/
a:
04e
(RCRA Delisting)
?
t-
2
%N
STAre
on
1::?F'
ILL
408
Nn
rd
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN
ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE
DELISTING
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100
West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Lynn Buhl, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
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
Enforcement
Programs
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, IL
62794-9276
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
upon you.
Patricia F. Sharkey
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 
One of t
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
24, 2008
via First Class United States Mail,
postage prepaid.
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite
4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\6432975.1
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
DELISTING
e,
rAici
F
4-
2
.4
2
AS
08-05
?
%ft
8
r
i?
-
Op
n
(Adjusted Standard –Land)
?
O
n
CoptrifiVas
.
(Waste Delisting)
?
Board
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:
1.
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.
2.
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
Proposed
Amendment to Petition for Adjusted Standard.
3.
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.
4.
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
5.
The amendments proposed today are necessary to accomplish the
following:
a.
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.

 
b.
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
Name Change.
As stated in that Notice, 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.
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
Ill.
Adm. Code 104.406(a)-(e),
120.22,
and
121.111,
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
proceeding.

 
Respectfully submitted,
BFI Waste Management Systems of North America, LLC
By One of Its Attorneys
July 24, 2008
Patricia F. Sharkey
McGuireWoods LLC
Suite
4100
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 849-8100

 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN
ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE
DELISTING
AS
08-05
(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:
a)
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;
b)
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;
c)
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.
d)
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.
e)
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.
g)
At least 30 days prior to transporting the first load of delisted leachate,
BFI the operator shall provide the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency with
the
results
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
2

 
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
h)
BFI The operator shall not transport the leachate pursuant to this Adjusted
Standard outside of the State of Illinois.
i)
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.
j)
Any such leachate released to the environment as described in paragraph
(i) above shall be considered a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA) listed hazardous waste and any such released leachate shall be
addressed in accordance with applicable RCRA requirements.
Table A
Arsenic
0.525
Barium
100
Benzene
0.153
Cadmium
0.409
Carbon Disulfide
118
Chromium
5.0
Dichloropropene, cis-1, 3-
1,206
Cobalt
60.2
Copper
24,700
Diethyl phthalate
1,270
Endrin
32,700
Ethylbenzene
57.2
Isobutyl alcohol
299
Lead
5.0
Mercury
0.2
Methanol
499
Methyl ethyl ketone
200
Methylene chloride
0.198
Methyl isobutyl ketone
79.8
Naphthalene
6.51
Nickel
76.8
Cresol, p-
5.37
Phenol
645
Selenium
1.57
3

 
Styrene
6.2
Tetrachloroethylene
0.174
Tin
602
Toluene
40.2
Trichloroethy len e
0.164
Vanadium
57.1
Vinyl chloride
0.2
Xylenes (total)
160
Zinc
760
Dichloroethane, 1-1-
99.8
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
0.0354
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
0.473
Dioxane, 1,4-
100
Heptachlor
0.008
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
0.00000147
Trichlorophenoxypripionic acid, 2,4, 5- (Silvex)
1.0
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4- (2,4-D)
1.86
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
27.6
Acetone
898
Respectfully submitted,
BFI Waste?
agerrJent Systems cjf North America, LLC
By One of I Attorneys
July 24, 2008
Patricia F. Sharkey
McGuire Woods LLC
Suite 4100
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 849-8100
4

 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
-10
tbstcfpleet)
424
Pie.
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN
ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE
DELISTING
ust s08-On5dard
ffic,
LaWityon
S
(Adjusted?
A
ed
S
Standar
its.
2008
Delisting)
eq sbuer;
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
July 24, 2008
Patricia F. Sharkey
McGuireWoods LLC
Suite 4100
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 849-8100

 
2263847 8100V
071369181
et
You
corp.delaware.gov/euthver.shtml
may verify this
certificate
online
56057 a
4-
SeAsa
?I
v
d
eb
'Qz et
&ven' doifro-a 6-.4 Ala"
dia.-
v.
f
As
01-0S-
The First State
JAN 15 2008
JESSE WHITE
SECRETARY OF STATE
I,
HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY
OF STATE
OF. THE STATE OF
A/).
DELAWARE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY
OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION OF
A
(.31g1ARE
CORPORATION UNDER THE NAME OF
"BFI
WASTE SYSTEMS
OF NOR H
AMERICA, INC." TO A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, CHANGING
ITS NAME FROM
"BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC."
TO "BFI
WASTE SYSTEMS OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON
THE TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY
OF
DECEMBER, A.D. 2007, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK
AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE AFORESAID
CERTIFICATE
OF
CONVERSION IS THE THIRTIETH DAY
OF
DECEMBER, A.D. 2007.
8ew
Deraw
E I
)t
)5 00
NSO-A.."-4-e2
.?
;A-1,94.1.WoL44w
HemASmittiftlamtarydSthte
AUTHENTICATION: 6275171
DATE: 12-31-07
n
COPY

 
Division
Secre
State
t
fi
of
ro
Delaware
C
fJ
P:ti
Delivered
SRV
FILED
071369181
08:30
08:19
AM
-
AM
2263847
12/28/2007
12/28/2007
FILE
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
1.
The Corporation was first incorporated in Delaware on May 23, 1991,
and Its jurisdiction immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate was
Delaware.
2. The name
of the Corporation Immediately prior to the filing of
this
Certificate was BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. ?
-57p57Co 30 it
3.
The name of the Limited Liability Company as set forth in Its Cer,te
of Formation is BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC.
4.
This Certificate of Conversion shall be effective on December 30,
2007.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Conversion of BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC this 28
th
day of
December, 2007.
Jo Lynn White
antte
Authorized Person

 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
JESSE WHITE
• Secretary of State
JANUARY 15, 2008
?
0243720-1
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
ADMISSION.
THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT PRIOR TO THE
FIRST DAY OF ITS ANNIVERSARY MONTH (MONTH OF QUALIFICATION) NEXT YEAR.
A
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,
JESSE WHITE
SECRETARY OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DIVISION
TELEPHONE (217)524-8008
JW:LLC
Springfield, Illinois 62756

 
Form LLC45.5
Apra 2007
Secretary of State Jesse White
Department of Business Services
Limited Liability Division
501 S. Second St, Rm. 351
Springfield, IL 62756
217-524-8008
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.
Illinois
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
Penalty:?
$
Approved:
FILE#
This space
FILED
for use by Secretary of State.
JAN 1 5 2008
JESSE WHITE
SECRETARY OF'STATE
1.
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.
2.
Assumed Name:
k
?
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:
Delaware
4.
Date of Organization: 5-23'91
5.
Period of Duration: Perpetual
6.
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.)
18500?
North Allied Way
Number?
Street
?
Suite #
Phoenix, AZ
?
85054
Maricopa
City/Stale
?
ZIP
Code
?
County
7. Registered Agent: ?
C T Corporation System
First Name
?
Middle Name?
Last Name
Registered Office:?
208?
South LaSalle Street
?
814
(P.O. Box alone or?
Number?
Street
?
Suite 0
do is unacceptable.)
Chicago?
Old
?
Illinois
?
60604
City?
County
?
ZIP Code
8.
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
iW6i •
10I3
mow C
T Syslem OnlIna

 
Dated
2008
nth 8 Day?
Year
niftre il-
(Must comply
with Section 5-45 of ILWA)
Jo Lyon White,
Assistant. Secretary of*
LLC-45.5
9.
?
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
(business code
#
562000)
10. The Limited
Liability Company: (check one)
O
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
11.
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.
12.
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
the
LLC Is formed.
13.
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.
14.
The undersigned affirms, under penalties of perjury, having authority to sign
hereto, that this application
for
admission to transact business Is to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, correct and complete.
Name end Tide
(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
Member
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?
5657-630-4
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
600 S 2ND ST
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
CORPORATION.
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.
SINCERELY,
JESSE
eaf
WHITE
g
at-
linta
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
DELISTING
AS
08-05
(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,
2008
Transcript of Proceedings as attached.
WHEREFORE, BFI respectfully requests that the Board accept the attached transcript
corrections.
Respectfully submitted,
BFI Waste Management Systems of North
America, LLC
By One of Its Attorneys
July 24, 2008
Patricia F. Sharkey
McGuireWoods LLC
Suite 4100
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 849-8100
\6432928.1

 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.. FOR
WASTE DELISTING.
?
PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
AS
°"12gtxFP
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.
Page 1
JUN 0 3 ZOE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ORIGINAL
Polluhon Control Board
ma
w%
Page 2
PRESENT:
MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP,
(77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100,
3
?
Chicago, Illinois 60601),
BY:
MS. PATRICIA F. SHARKEY and
MR. BRADLEY R. DANIELS.
appeared on behalf of the Petitioner;
6
?
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
(1021 North Grand Avenue East.
Post Office Box 19276,
Springfield, Illinois 627941,
8
?
BY
( MR. WILLIAM D. INGERSOLL,
9
?
- and -
10
?
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
(9511 West Harrison Street,
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016),
BY: MR. PAUL R. JAGIELI33,
12
appeared on behalf of the Agency.
13
14
15
?
REPORTED BY MARGARET R. BEDDARD, CSR.
16
17
la
19
27
21
22
23
24
3
INDEX
1
Page
Page
4
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
?Good morning.
2 everyone.
?
We're on the record now.
?My name Ss
3 OPENING PROCEEDINGS
PAGE NO.
3 Bradley Halloran.
?I'm the hearing officer with the
4
Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
?
I , m also assigned
5
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF
5
to this matter entitled In
the Matter of Petition of
6
OF THE PETITIONER
6 BFI Waste Systems of North America.
?Inc.,?for Waste
7
a
Delisting as documented as AS 08-5, ?
Today
is
May 15,
2008,?
approximately 9:10 a.m.
9
WITNESSES?
DX CX?
RD% RC%
I do want to note that -- at the top,
?that
10
ELIZABETH A. STEINHOIIR
10
there are no members of the public here.?If there
11
By Ms. Sharkey? 14
11
were, they would be allowed to state their peace
12
By Mr.?
Ingersoll
21
30
12
We're going to run this hearing pursuant to
13 MICHAEL B.
MAXWELL
Section 104. Subpart D, and Section 101,
?
Subpart F.
14
By
ms.
Sharkey
?
33
14
of the Board's procedural rules_
15 MARK L.
CRITES
15
I also want to note,
?
for the record,
?that
16
By Mr. Ingersoll
?97
16
this hearing was properly noticed up.
?This hearing
17
By
Ms.
Sharkey
91
17
is
intended to develop a record for the Illinois
18
14
Pollution Control Board.
?
I will not be making the
19
19
ultimate decision in the case.?
That's left up to the
30
EXHIBITS
20
four esteemed mend:mere of the Board. ?
I'm only here to
21 NUMBER
MARRED FOR ID
21
rule on evidentiary matters to make sure the hearing
22
NO EXHIBITS MARKED.
12
goes without a hitch.
23
23
A brief note.?On April?15.?2008,?I
24
24 forwarded, via an hearing officer Order, questions

 
Page 5
from our?
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
Page 6
1
?
the petition and lnteratteo with techn
i cal staff for
2?
BFI -- the technical representatives of BFI. And
7
?
mark will be available if needed or
i f questions need
to be directed -- technical questions need to be
5
?
directed to the Agency.
REARING OFFICER HALLORAN. Thank you.
c?
Mr. Ingersoll.
Ms. Sharkey. opening.
MS. SHARKEY: Yes. Thank you.
10?
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
11
?
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.
12
?
MS. SHARKEY. What we wanted to do is put into
13?
perspective what this petition is about, and I think
14
?
we'd like to start by thanking the Board for the
IS?
opportunity to have this hearing and particularly for
16
?
having two metthers of its technical staff here today.
1??
And we really do appreciate both the opportunity to
10
?
explain our petition and the opportunity to address
19?
any questions that the technical staff and the Board
20
?
may have. And we look forward to this hearing as
21
?
something of a dialogue to allow us to understand the
22
?
Board's concerns and to he able to provide answers to
23?
any questions that may come up.
24
?
There is a lot of minutia involved in a
Page
1?
that landfill. One of them accepted hazardous waste
2?
for a period of, I believe, seven years. And the
3?
other landfills otherwise took the same material that
4?
this landfill took. This landfill had 2 percent
5
?
hazardous waste. lad, as a result, it is
6?
character -- the leachate is characterized
as a
I?
hazardous leachate. The other two units at the came
S
?
landfill did not take any hazardous material. And,
9?
as a
result, the leachate from
those
units is not
10?
characterized as hazardous.
Ii
?
The leachate from the hazardous unit is --
12?
must
at
this point be trucked 350 miles into Ohio in
13?
order for it to be handled at a facility that is
14?
permitted and authorized to accept hazardous liquid
15?
waste. Previously It was being hauled to the CID
16?
chemical waste management treatment facility in
17?
calumet City over 100 miles from Davis Junction.
19?
However,
recently BFI's been informed that CID cannot
19
?
handle that materiel at this point. As a result,
20?
it's now going to Ohio, quite a distance. In
21?
contrast, the leachate from the nonhazardous units at
22
?
the Davis Junction Landfill
1s
going to a facility
23?
IPC that is in the Rockford area. I believe it's
24?
approximately seven miles from the Davis Junction
Page 7
petition of this sort, and we are talking about
delisting F035, which is a leachate from multiple
sources.
AS
a result, the list of constituents
involved is
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
in
place, an
impermeable cover, and we believe that it's the best
representation of how that landfill is functioning at
this point.
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
that
the big
picture here IS that this
is
very
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

 
a e
n abe
i
ped e go ontetnias v
s T s
Tql 'Untie 'arsi
?
SP
?41dap aapeeib
UT ag
og] 1n0qe 6upi0el act 11Tm am pup
?
CZ
oosslmix s
T41 U
T le Atocil cia alelldoadde sae anaTtaq
?
et
am len spiv:Wel. ;0
sadAl
00410 01 loaCqns aav len?
IL
sluan
-
ITI5U00 MOJ e 01
trop 1T pamoneu pus --
yap
S
T41 ae pary005 en,am len OTAeuaos anTawasucoo
?
61
?Alan e uo iuTebe 'Puy -- nen lo 144 e
a3Inb W023 Ob?
8/
aM alaqm
OOTUVUUTS
e ATI
val s
l ST41 05 '05041
JO
8u0
?
LI
. il
pea 1e
400
1 41e4 e uaimea aneg am as041. JO
?91
SVPIPT
To Pa eon
e
Amp 1e41 Biqueow
?
SI
?'SVIg 30 aPIsano uoTasanb Aue buTluosamd se 100 TIe;
?
ST
Tnipueq p Afuo •
06007 201 -
paa/910p 0001 AITen77.
?ane4 len ascii] go Tie sena noun pamAlene &meg
?
m/
Mae ley,
0
0041
J.
nion
. a
PaPI a T
A
se4 laPow?
11
8440 0
45 'pennbo, Fey WS
len Tepow 041 brio,' S444
?
OP
atu
?
ocia @APT' am aso47 30 Aavw -snianaIlsuao Jo
?
6
T eu
i; 041
se
PaTJTauapT e
A .om len sauonaT1suoa
30 Tnipue4 r s T 07 umop awes 910tt7 Dm leyry • pa10a7ap
?
L
0004 bon 0251!!!!)%m
Aem en Aq Tie; sausnaTasuoa
aeon go A7120Cetu' efiaeT Alan 5 sT sluonITletwo
6 rcpuadche 141 10 Ito /a; bulatal
Jo mean
au
T
u nape
1541
30
ono aub
noA laym 1.19
?,l
clad
6
41 Jo 19ed e se
4TapuTq ebaeT oml peauesald andam
7E711
-
1.1)U7q
6TAI Alan
?
5077 Ur U0T1e50010I
ahed
Jo 20T asT noA uantn an d em?
lie
'pale-inane aae Suiaaucoo asen lo
.woe
lsql
bupsTiap 047 up suoT3Tpu00 dip -- 6017510
uoTaTpuos
len
pre pa,sanbaz
Bujaq s d
eq7
buTleTisp Jo
e161 047 ;a amain Aq azatign
7TICI 'ficiTleTt tlad0
us
10;
pannbaa
eq pv
t
oa,
31
gen 500105 zed 041 'Paw lou
Amu
quan lI1
Suoa
Lip
pe
?
leaw qou Amu
1547
elan e
Molts ATTeTwassa 'en obl
ilSit
a
P iinnoliTpuo
a sT 1541
Poe
'eTojaq 'nape painva pue agnaq 0004
804 Pae0R
7e47 bUT43aIllos ATIPTI1DP Bp 0754 0
4
54 am USVM
anaTTaq em pup • 611 -17STIvp uo A
p
o7ST4 70 10T v 111v
.1044 ino a
p uepTnb buwa 01641 30 01555 -pram DT am
• suotasanb p igpads
BUTIamsup JO 50161 uT atingle ATea
01 10T e
90147 1 '0454 dm 1
5
41
00
19 lied,/
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?
'auasetasTIaP
1541
¢4510
?
spun' mil anciqe peATea pue a
?
en aT 5141
14
00
e 146°04 1 60
4 VdS
m0,4 le A00 1 am 6e
45 gui
n I PUS
walaAs
Aboaeinnaa
V
Gu
ilt.. JO Bu l A edi
s dl l 4014,1
le aUTod Ou 5,01041 -weans aquem amyl 9
0 1011000
TsluawU2aA05 20; inaTaeniTs one16 oa elpe
to e silt
ag
n s i
06e060e
I hs
TaS i T a
p 1541 iur do
.141 7.s ap,am
TT abed
CC
IL
Pe
et
61
St
Lt
9i
St
VI
(I
eI
Tt
O
1
6
9
?1
,41 Mem
041 P
ut?
brilsTTaP T
eno T1Tii00
0 an lalaun?Ve
]nogg BUTAiel ai
d am amanaci am 3724m 05
?
Pe
'wei
fia
l
d quawlesil-add elT
11P111
?
CC
Puy
vemSn
A
q Palliat
ed sT amp duo eq 01 parinbal
eq ;
i
mam 'flepuele paasnlpe ano oq luene9nd •AliTTos2
?
at
0141
-sluawarinbal ao4
IneM ...10
01
'De igns aq?
61
I
r
im 1T aaatim haTTioe;
3U0W7e021
ay,
le amTaav saga
?
ST
TT
T. 1/
• 7959TUHUI 03e50 TpT0ad5 sTouTTI tr
y -- eastern
?
LL
S
T OU
TITI ue aapun Alin
es
; an anew( Trim UT pue
?
91
mou
el
UT se Nona, TaAuel uoT1e6-000
. 5 e?
sm
aiwiuma e 01
no
PePeObtiTT.
?
0105A
5nopieze4
?
9T
?515114a se
.
mou sT al se paleaia eq Trim 11 'TigiP111,1
?
CI
00110un
0
s T
me0 eqa le paTpueti si alegiavaT an 4541
?
IT
a
TT4m
en
Tie
os -MITT-to/2j an seneaT TeTanew 84a
4 014m
U s lubod an el 611 11
ei leP a
n Jo AlTItgeorldde
?
01
s
lTw
il oete 11
PUS 'AlTIPAIT7
luatuaea,,
?
6
07 peS0c11ip
ato
SlnuT I
abenbeei
iumeos an
1
001 3 UT s
I
ISOU UOT3Tlad 541 VT Ind pup paPodoid
OA, CA 1041
plepuns pa7snlpe 0141 up aSenbuvi 041 Act
pau
T ui
TT
Alan?
asqa Pug?
EuTisTiep Jo ed
it] 001iw11
Alan e 203 601,[05
?
bUTlePlaP P1574-
.47- spappe
UP 709 buTAsu 100 ale am nuns-gap uado-alinn
e aoj 64gAse aou a:imam
?
aidwls AgaaTd ATTenloe
Ut
abed
89 alatt
uoraenaTe 041 0e41 anoviaq am os -mem
?
et
snap
/
vim'
elm
ITI;PU
e
l leiga ui pa
Tpue4
0155M 541 4o
?
Pe
211a0lad L 16191 905; ato 70 0101019
VEloa
20409 016509?
CE
?ortopflami -- p
ithy/
snow/envy S Se PaST9a10ene40?
in
• T 1T 1541 1
31 ;
041 9T
Telitalew s in a lPTTP4?
Oe
01 e
ige no ia
q
011 ao; luamTpadail ATuo 045
?
sl
-l
a
T te
a
ew
?
ST
g o
adA1
5941
0140e4
03 paplpwpad azv saueTd luawleen
?
C;
4104
pup -aueTd aummlean aascrio e 1.1?
Puy d itan
oUe?
91
;0 pvelcuT aum
id auawleaga Quo
01
teitelem
a
lga?
ST
6111951 AT d5? a...A
s T sin uo a
g
nald bna an oS?
ol
-Apeesapeu 0547 a0ue7elp 4015016 -- apunspp leap5 e ?
P1
10
4
sA
em
4
6
T4 aano Tionaa Tammea e uT
15140155 0infoTT e
?
pp
6ulT11.1 7
0
9111 141
691tz,93un.
14.7, '1541 PlloAan una
.10 4
Ahaauw
Jo den pue vuoTselwa ITe?
n
?
of
boob sT AluTellao at 1e41 P
au hsT leTlaTo reToT J euml?
6
AT Teatiouguonntia ue ATTen3ae ST STY7 Asp dtpl Jc pus
771
7
7 e 040 ' 1 9,1
001?
saltw 059 luDPJ7e317 104
P
a
1ne4?
L
?bilaci Lien 1014151
ear. somas au
sw a sw ,a ao3 Pa3ns4
eq
?
9
pr
i
ou 1I
?
buils1Talo 00
11 lapun luowaven To; 161054
?
S
aq 01 6u106 sT alegneaT aq/?
aletpeal sTql
q]lA1?m
uadde4 el 64105 s,amni olaewerp go mou AueinailTed
EugiquAum aou
?
7,770re PT
004a -i
ntim 01
1113491
S
T
?
I
6 0551

 
Page 13
Page 14
1 nand
look vet ),
big,
?
but at the end of the day comes
down to a few issues
1
Ms.
?
Steinhour swo t in.
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN.
?if you'd just raise
we
appreciate the questions we received
3
your right hand,?
the court reporter will swear you
4
from the Board 'stechnical staff.?What we
.
cliike to
4
in
5
do is put on two witnesses.
?
We're going to have
(M1EREUPON,?
the witness was duly
6
Ms. Steinnour to begin with give
an
overview of the
sworn
?
a
petition I
tself and what we've gone through in
putting together the petition.
?
Mr. Maxwell then is
8
ELIZABETH A. STEINHOM,
called as a witness herein, having been first duly
9
going to talk a bit about the modeling and the data.
9
sworn,
was
examined and testified as follows:
lo
And then what we would like to do is actually turn to
10
DIRECT EXAMINATION
II
the questions that the Board -- the Board's technical
MS. STB/NHOUR:?
Thank you for the Opportunit
y to
12
staff presented us with and provide our prettied
12
present the petition to the --
1.3
testimony -. our testimony on that,?a short
13
MS, SHARKEY-?
Excuse me.
?Before you begin,?
if
14
discussion of each one of those, and then provide an
14 could ask Ms.?Steinhour to state,
?
for the record,
?
her
is opportunity for additional questions on those
15
educational and professional background,
16
questions, if that is an acceptable way to proceed,
16
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: ?
And
spell your
name,
17
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
?
That sounds fine.
17
please.
15 Thank?
S.
?
key.
18
MS. STEINHOUR:?
My name is Elizabeth,
19
Ingersoll, before
Ms.
Sharkey calls
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
any opening?
20
have a bachelor's In legal studies from the
21
mR. INGERSOLL'
?Nothing.
?
Thank
you.
al University of Illinois.?
I've worked for the Illinois
22
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: ?Thank you.
22
Environmental Regulatory Group for approximately
23
Ms. Sharkey?
23
eight years in development of the major environmental
34
MS. sHARREY?I'd like to begin by having
24
laws and regulations.?And since then I've been in
Page 16
&frit?
Page 15
I the consulting field to?
Our clients with
general
municipal waste,
?
11 percent was special
waste,
?
and the remaining 2 percent
was
hazardous
2
compliance issues and maintaining compliance with the
3 environmental laws and regulations.
waste_
4
MS. SHARKEY.?
And I would just like to say that
The reason we looked back nine years,
?I
5 me.?Steinhour's resume is in the petition itself
also wanted to clarify,
?
was
because in 1996,?'99 the
6
under Appendix I,
landfill had?
put
a
new liner on -- over the phase one
7
MS.?sTEINHOUR:?And all of the land, air,?
water
7
unit, and they?
put a dual leachate gas extraction
8
system within the landfill.?So we?felt that the past
El
matters that I was Involved with stemming back to the
9
nine years has been representative of the conditions
9 actual?landfill regulations
o as they stand today and wilt stand until final
10
I am a senior project manager for
closure of these final post-closure activities.
11
weaver Boos Consultants along with Mike Maxwell.
2
I also wanted to clarify that the reason
12 I've been responsible for managing and assisting our
3
CID is not accepting the waste from Davis Junction
rJ
clients in complying with the post-closure care
14
activities ?L c Davis Junction Landfill,?
I've been
4 Landfill?
-- the wastewater is because they are
5
overwhelmed with their own internal leachate that
IS Involved with that since 2001,
6
they're creating,?so they do not have the capacity to
16
Ms. Sharkey. as she stated, Davis Junction
7
handle leachate accepted from outside sources.
?It
17
Landfill,?it's a closed landfill that has three
8
doesn't have anything to do with the characteristics
18
units, one of the units, which is the subject of
9
of the leachate or anything like that_
?There are
19 today's phase one.?I wanted to just add to what
0
detailed records within the petition that detail what
20
Ms. Sharkey had stated by saying the 26,000 cubic
1
type of hazardous waste was received, where it came
21
yards of hazardous waste that was handled at Darla
from_
?
The landfill kept very good records as far as
22
Junction is
?
-- 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

 
Page 17
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.
There
was
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
Page 18
1?
monitoring at that rime for certain selected
2?
constituents, and we said we would conduct that
3
?
monitoring In addition to the annual leachate
a
?
sampling that we conduct at the site.
In May of 2004 we provided the
Agency
with
6
?
a draft delisting petition. During the summer of
7?
2004, we, again, met with the Illinois EPA, and the
Illinois EPA asked us to do a comparison of the
9
?
hazardous versus the nonhazardous leachate. That
10?
comparison is provided in Appendix D to the petition.
11?
And our analysis resulted in showing no statistical
12?
significance between the non-haz and the Wiz leachate
II?
at the site.
la
?
In January of 2005 we received verbal
15?
comments from the IEPA regarding our draft petition
16
?and our sampling analysis plan. From Pebruaro
37?
June 5 -- June 2005, we implemented our SAP. We did
Is
?
six sampling events. We tried to sample so we had a
19?
representative idea of what was happening from
20
?
different months other than our annual sampling
21?
event, which is in January and February.
22?
In October of 2006 we, once again, met with
23?
the Agency. And in February 2008 we met with them to
24?
discuss the final draft to present it to the Illinois
Page 19
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
miles away.
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
away.
And
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
Page 20
notif
i cation to the Illinois EPA 60 days before we
2?
start transporting it under an approved delisting
3?
program. We've talked to the Agency and agreed that
a
?
we'll sample the first initial trucks -- consecutive
5?
trucks going out of the facility, and we'll continue
6
?
co do quarterly sampling on the first year and then
7?
semiannual sampling. So we will do --
be doing more
2?
sampling than we're currently doing under their
9?
post-closure permit.
lo?
We're going to transport it by a licensed
11?
hauler. we're go
i
ng to transport it under a special
12?
waste manifest. And r think it's important to note
/3?
that we're not going to be applying -- this
la
?
wastewater is not going to be going into
any land
i5?
surface impoundment. It's not going to be going into
16?
a lined pond. It's actually going to go to this
M?
wastewater treatment, be pretreated, and have to
18
?
comply with
me?
permit requirements before its
19?
ultimate disposal.
20?
We are not asking for any changes to the
71?
landfill's ground water monitoring program. We will
22?
continue to monitor that program in accordance with
23?
cur scan post-closure permit. And, es Ms. Sharkey
24
?
stated, if we have a spell, it's going to be covered

 
Page -21
under the RCRA
program because we're not handling it
2
?In -- It wouldn't be handled in accordance with the
prov
i
sions of a delisting
re
gul
ation site
specific.
So if you have any questions_
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Sharkey. do you
6?have any direct. so to speak?
7?
MS. SHARKEY: No, I don't. Thank you.
8?NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Before we go,
9?
Mr. Ingersoll, any queries?
10
?MR. INGERSOLL- Yes, please.
11?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
12
?BY MR. INGER OLL-
11?
0-?
Ms. Steinhour, exactly when in the
24
?process __ It's
going
co be -- The leachate is going
15
?
to be in a tanker truck, and it's going to go to the
16?receiving facility?
17
?
Right.
10?
Exactly at what point does the proposed
19?delisting attach to that leaChate?
20?
we would like the proposed delisting to
21?attach at the Lime
?It will be handled as a -- It
22?
will be manifested as a special waste, and so from
23?
the point at which it leaves [he facility. At the
24?point at which
it arrives at IPC`a door, the manifest
Page 22
1?
that 's attached to it, It's very important that it's
2?
a
special waste manifest and not a RCRA hazardous
3
?
waste manifest because then they would be precluded
4
?
from accepting the wastewater.
5?0?So
as
it's going down the road -- even
6?
though it's a lot shorter than it's traveling now --
7?it would be a special waste and not a hazardous
a?
waste?
9?A.?
Right. But if there were
a
spill, it's our
to?
position that it wouldn't be -- it's not being
11?
handled in accordance with the delisting petition, so
12
?
it would be a spill that's been manifested as a
?13
?
special waste from Davis Junction. And if it
does
?14
?
spill, we Would have to clean it up under the RCRA
11?permitting program?
clean
-
up program.
?16
?
Q.?
Because one Of the conditions would have
17?failed?
15
?
A.
?Right.
19
?
So
the RCRA clean -
up Prog
ram
would
20?
supersede the delisting petition if we had a spill
21?and a release to the environment because the
22?
deflating
petition says you manifest it.
you
32?transport it, and you have to
dispose of it at IpC.
?24
?
If we dispose of it in any other manner -- we
can't
Page 23
1?
put it in a landfill because it's a RCRA -- it would
2?
be a RCRA waste. We can't spread it on the ground or
3
?
land apply it. It would be considered a RCRA
wastewater.
5
?
Q.?Okay.?
ow, as just a factual matter, when
6?
it gets to IPC, it's In a truck -- your truck
One
truck. Then what's going to happen to it? I
8?
don't know what IPC's facility looks like. It's just
9?factual background. not
a
regulatory question.
lc?
A.?
IPC has a chemical process that they use to
11?treat their wastewater --
12
?
O.?
Before that. Just physically what happens
13?
to the scuff?
14?A.?Typically, it's my understanding that they
15?put it in
a separate
holding tank. And they test it
16?
there, decide how they're going to treat it, and then
17?they feed it into their system. So they don't
le?
just -- That's how typically the wastewater treatment
19?
facilities handle all leachate, whether it's
20?
hazardous or nonhazardous, because they want -- they
21?
have it coming from different facilities.
22
?
Q.?
That was just for we nontechnical folks
23?
here.
24?
So what they'll do is they'll put it in
Page 24
1
?this holding tank. They'll test it. They have
2?
certain parameters that you have to meet. And then
3
?they'll treat it and dispose -- You know, it's
4?
discharged along with the other wastewater that
5
?they're handling at the facility.
6?MR. INGERSOLL, Okay. Thank you. I have
7?
nothing further.
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN, Chard{ you,
9?
Mr. Ingersoll.
10?
MR. RAO: I have a follow-up.
11?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, Mr. Rao.
12?MR. RAO: You just mentioned how once the
13?
leachate
gets
to the wastewater treatment plant
14
?
they're going to hold it in some kind of a storage
15
?
tank?
16
?MS. STEINNOUR: What they'll do la they'll
17?
transfer
it
from the tank into a storage -- one of
10?
their holding tanks that they use for treating the
19?
wastewater.
20
?MR RAO: Okay. Earlier, in your testimony, you
21?
also mentioned about how this leachate would be
22?
pretreated in accordance letElf4)11/C:ft --
22?
MS.
STEINHOUR. No, It will be subject to IPC 'a
24?wastewater treatment facility, their pretreatment

 
Page 41
1
?
regulatory programs and the toxicity characteristic
2
?procedure .. c/the toxicity characteristic
1
?evaluation t?
s
? eC-ISEPA to develop the
4?current toxicity characteristic,?
was
5?one very tawleslrher
levadtr
regulatory program that we
6?
chink is applicable here. Based upon that,
we
have
7?proposed that the toxicity characteristic level for
8?
vinyl chloride, 0.2 milligrams per liter, be the
s?proposed deflating level for vinyl Chloride.
10
?
The last constituent that exceeded -- that
11
?
identified concentrations over the generic DRAB
12
?
denoting numbers was 1, 4 dioxane. And, again, using
13?that same criteria that .
s laid out in the regulation
14?
referenced earlier, we looked at developing a
is
?
site-specific model relative to the scenario where
16?
1, 4 dioxane does happen to spill from the tanker
17?truck. And the two primary parameters associated
la?
with the transport of that specific constituent its
19?it's spilled to the environment are the infiltration
20?
rate into the
soil
and also the environmental
21?degradation rate after it enters the environment.
22?And we presented in the petition a model that
23
?documents that -- Actually, based upon those inn:it
24?parameters, the -- the 1, 4 dioxane concentration
re="1:12r
Page 42
2
?
should It be released Into the environment
I n a
2?catastrophic tanker sp i ll actually decreased the
3
?
concentrations very quickly based upon the geology of
4?
the area and the degradation rate of that particular
5?
parameter. And that result showed that a
6?
concentration of 1. 4 dioxane that's very high could
7?
legitimately be a delisting level. We defaulted that
a
?to a number of 100
milligrams
per liter as the
9
?
deflating level for 1. a dioxane based upon this
10
?model.
And that
was
the summary of the model that
12?I had intended to cover.
13
?MS. SHARKEY: I have one direct.
la?BY MS. SHARKEY:
15?O.?Could you elaborate a little bit more on
16
?the 1, 4 dioxane and what numbers you actually came
7.7?to when you did the model and explain a little bit
15?
more about what modeling for the 1, 4 dioxane was.
19?
what you look
at
specifically?
20
?
A.?
Yeah.
mat
we
looked at was we looked
21?at -- The degradation rate is the rate that it
22
?degrades, and we looked at the half life, meaning
25?similar to radioactivity In the sense that it will
24?
degrade -- half of it will degrade.
It will take a
Page 44
MR. RAO: We will wait until you get to the
2
NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thanks, Nr. Maxwell.
4?
You may stay seated. I games.
5?MS. SHARKEY: Mr. Halloran, what I'd like to do
6?
at this point is if I could provide the legal -- our
7
?view of what the legal framework for the denNting
petition in this instance is and some of the relevant
9?
legal questions. Then we go to the -- After I finish
10?
that, of course, if you had any questions about how
I
?we interpret the regulation, we'd be happy to take
12?
any questions on that as well. And then we would go
13
?
to the pre f iled testimony in
response to the Agency's
la?questions -- or the Board's questions.
15?HEARING
OFFICER
HALLORAN: Did you represent
16
?
earlier you wanted to be put under oath?
17?
MS. SHARKEY: I'd he happy to do that if you'd
18?
like me to.
19?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's entirely up to
20
21
?
Mr Ingersoll, do you have a problem with
22?
that?
23?
MR.
INUSHHOLL: No preference.
24
?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Please raise your
Page 43
certain time for half of it to degrade. Based upon
2
?
the half life, the degradation will take place over
3
?
time. As a result of the very low permeability of
the local soils, the amount of time that the leachate
5
?
will
take
to percolate down to the uppermost aquifer
6
?
is relatively large. In chat tine so many half lives
go by -- so many half lives proceed. In fact, It
0
?
takes hundreds of years for the leachate to get to
9
?
the groundwater that by the time it reaches the
10
?
groundwater there is very little risk.
11
?
And there was an equation that was
12
?
presented in our petition that indicated that -- In
13
?
fact, the number that was supported by the equation
14
?
actually exceeded the one million part per million
15
?
number, which, of course, is physically possible.
16
?
And 100 was a round number, and we were racheting it
17
?
back to 100. We think there's very little risk in
18
?
the unlikely event that there's the catastrophic
19
?
tanker spill during the transit.
20
?
MS. SHARKEY: That's all I have.
21
?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank
you.
22
?
Mr.
Ingersoll?
23
?
MR. INGERSOLL: No questions. Thank you.
24
?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Liu? Mr. Rao?

 
Page 44
right hand.
2?
WHEREUPON. the witness was duly
sworn.)
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
8?
parameters that the Board needs to look at in order
9?
to make its decision. Of course, the first is that
10
?the -- If you'll give me one moment. I apologize. I
11?should have pulled out the regulations.
12
?
721.122
Is
the waste delisting provision in
13?the Board's regulations. It. as I said, provides the
14
?conditions under which the Board can grant the
15?petition. The first is under (a) (1), that the
16?
petition must demonstrate that the waste produced
17?does not meet any of the criteria under which the
18?
waste was listed as a hazardous or acute waste. The
19
?second is that the Board must determine that there is
20?
a reasonable basis to believe that factors, including
21
?additional constituents other than those for which
22?
the waste was listed, could cause the waste to be a
23
?hazardous waste and that such factors do not warrant
24?
retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
Page 47
1?at that time said. "Well, we look at this, and we
2?
treat it as something that we're required to look
3
?
at.. So the Board went ahead and adopted this as a
4?
part cf its regulations.
5
? But I point out that it is an unusual
6?
situation in that it ought to cause us to look
7?
carefully at this because some of what we're going to
6
?be talking about, I think, as we get into the
9
?
discussion of the technical staff's questions is that
10?
EPA itself does not treat the -- its guidance manual
11
?as something rigid that they
must
live within. In
12?
fact, they consider it -- They probably, in large
13
?
part, act consistently with it, and there certainly
14
?
are parts of it that they hold
as
being the Bible.
15?
But there are many parts of it that. indeed, they
16
?
take different positions on. So / want co point out
that the language here is that the Board must be in
18?
reliance upon and in a manner consistent with the EPA
19
?
manual. And that does not necessarily mean word for
20
?
word what the manual says.
21
?
Going beyond that, I think it's interesting
22?
that when you have a toxic waste you go to
23
?
720.172(d). And for
a
toxic waste we have a specifi c
24
?
type of demonstration that must be made in the
17
W lieu DE the guidance manual,
i
n fact,
24?
what we do with the toxic wastes is we go to 721.11
Page 46
Notably, that particular decision is --
There is then a reference to the EPA RCRA deflating
program guidance manual, and it says that a Board
1))
determination of that other factors question is to be
(8
looked at under the --
in reliance
upon and in a
manner consistent with the EPA guidance manual .
-a
The interesting thing about
that
is
that
--
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,
it's just
an
EPA guidance document.
I
did a little
research and homework on this, and I'm quite sure
Mr. Rao is nodding his head because
he
probably knows
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
any way by
an
EPA guidance manual. Nonetheless, the
Board appears to have done It here,
And
I think it
was a matter of something that was done back in 1993.
And then when the Board -- When that manual
was
updated, the Board realized there was a problem
when it asked this question and
was
told -- the
record of that iv/making indicates that the Agency
Page 48
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
provision.
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
SS
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.

 
Page 57
For example in Shell oil, In that case,
which?
ave provided an our - We've provided the
ule and final rule
for
the Shell Oil de listing
n our prefiled testimony. In that case, USEPA
reuired eight samples to be taken within the first
6?
60 t011owing the delisting. After that Shell was to
A
7
?sample quarterly and thereafter annually.
In another case -- Excuse me for just a
9?
moment. In another case on a deflating case on
O
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
14
?Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington, the applicant to
the deflating was the Department of Energy. They
Is
?provided that DOE was to submit a plan. And they, in
17
?
that instance, were sampling every 15th tank from the
10
?
site. So it, again -- By the way, that was a land
9?
disposal scenario, I believe.
20?
Nissan,
a
case that the Board had
21?referenced -- had questions referenced, involved
22
?
one -- I believe it involved one initial test within
60 days and annual testing thereafter.
26
? Tenneco is another one. T-e-n-n-e-c-o.
Page 58
1?
Just a one-time notification. I don't believe they
2
?
had any Verification sampling.
3
? Eastman Case, debating quarterly for one
4
year. Subsequent
a
?
aina
And?
et,
another one we looked at,
6?
eight full-scale treated batches and then annual.
So all of these deliatinga, I should say,
8?
except for Tenneco, were waste streams that were
9?
being generated by an ongoing process. And I think
10?
it's significant because an ongoing process or an
11?
ongoing activity, of course. could change. So
12
?
consistency of that waste stream would be a real
13?
question. Of course, we argue that's not the case
le?
here, that we, in fact, have a very consistent waste
15?
stream and that we know what it is.
16
? I guess I also wanted to say that in the
17?
Petite Management case, the petition before the Boa
r
18?
in that case they had proposed to delist a filter
19
?cake. But it wee a filter cake that was being
20?
generated on an ongoing basis. It
was
not a closed
21
?
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
24?
concern and why there was a discussion of actually
1
2
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 60
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
is
t le is
not a batch operation at all. This
is
a single
source, a
CLIC
e 5 '?
-
te
s
ti/UV
i
source,
S
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
batch source
To close on this, we think that monitoring
every batch would be extraordinarily
eX
P
eus i
ve '
it
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
exception of
Tenneco.
I believe were multi-year,
ongoing source scenarios. So all of those, and
still
DEEM has
that level of
not,
sampling. So we
Page 59
1
?
testing every load and every batch. So we contrast
2
?
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
5
?
monitoring data showing very little variability in
6
Another distinguishing factor is NF1's
large amount of analytical data and the lengthy
9
?
period over which it was obtained. I think that
10
?
gives, again, the specific chemicals that are there
11
?
over this period of time_ The range of
12
?
concentrations are not -- we believe we have enough
13
?
data here -- And Mr. Maxwell can testify to this in
14
?
more depth. We have more data than others have, and
15
?
we think it's enough to demonstrate the stability and
16
?
the lack of significant variability of this waste.
17
?
In contrast, BP Amoco. when they presented
10
?
the Board with a petition, came in with just three
19
?
sampling events that were taken over a six-month
20
?
period. In Shell Oil, which is another example
21
?
before USEPA., they had four monitoring events
22
?
performed over a period of approximately three
23
?
months.
24
?
I think the Board also asked about

 
Page 65
situation that we know what those waste streams are.
Again, we think .. we think we've got
3
?
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
6
?
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
9?
disposal, and they don't have the kinds of very
10?
limited -- They're not going to be pretreated.
11?
And I guess this is the moment where 1 can
12?
get this po i nt as well. I want to make it clear that
12?
this material's not only going to be pretreated at a
14
?pretreatment plant at IPO,
it Wi / I
then go
CO Pelle
15?
where it will be treated again. So it's going to get
16?
double treatment as opposed to those or hers that are
17?
land disposal.
18?MS. STEINHOUR?
I think it's important to note,
19
?if you look at all the deflating petitions. we
20?couldn't find a deflating petition that had as much
31
?data covering as many years with the seasonal
22?
variations. That data was actually collected, and we
23?
have collected it over this nine-year period. In
74 these other instances, the source of that
Page 67
1?hauler that they use.
2
? MR. RAO: 1 have a question relating to what you
were Just talking about. variability in leachate
z
?
quality. You have testified that BFI has subedited
5?
extensive leachate monitoring data to the Board, nine
6
?years worth of data. Also, earlier Mr. Maxwell
7?testified about, I chink, four chemical constituents
e
which you found were about at delisting levels, which
9
?I think some of them you indicated were outliers.
lo
?
So did you do statistical analysis of this
11?
monitoring data to see what kind of variability's
12
?
there were with the leachate quality and how that may
17?
affect compliance with the delisting levels?
14
?MR_ MAXWELL- We have not.
is
?
MR. RAO; How did you determine those values for
16?
outliers? Was it based on a statistical analysis, or
17
?was it more about observing the data?
18?MR. MAXWELL: Primarily observing the data
19?
relative to the other data points that were out there
20?
and the fact that they both -- the higher
21?concentrations
both occurred during the same sampling
22?
events was the trigger for us thinking that there
was
2/?
something atypical or unusual about that particular
24
?sampling event.
Page 66
2?
nonhazardous - that hazardous waste source was going
2?
CO remain present by placing
it ia a
land
1?
impoundment. 'nth us, the source is actually being
a?
treated, doubly treated, and then they're going to
5
?
discharge it under [he Clean Water Act program. So
6?this
isn't an instance
where we're delisting it,
7?
placing it in a lined pond or a lined landfill. and
e?
leaving it there with the potential hazard for some
?9
?
future event.
10
?
MS.
SHARKS?, I think part of that is to say, if
?11
?there were some slight variability to occur, the
12
?
comfort you get here is that it's going to he
?1]
?
treated, you know. In the other scenarios, it's not.
14
?
It's
just going to be there.
It's going co
go into
15?
the ground. So if they have that variability
16?
problem, it has Serious consequences. Here the only
17?
scenario would be some
variability that would be --
le?
affects somehow the analysis done on that worst-case
19
?
mismanagement scenario
of the catastrophic spill.
20
?
Bet
other
than
that, it's
going to a treatment
21
?And, by the way, we're going to provide you with
32?evidence, for the record, on the fact that the
23?
catastrophic spill -- there's no experience of having
24?that kind of spill by BPI in this region and by the
Page
Se
MR. RAD. would it be possible to?
MR. MAXWELL: It's
possible.
MS. SHARKEY. We can give you a fuller answer to
4?
that in our written remarks because we'd need to go
S
back -- I think Mike would need to go back and look.
6?But what I'm believing is. at the time that we looked
7?
at it, there were other constituents that were
8?also -- while they didn't exceed anything, that were
9?
also higher
in that event, which led us to believe
10?
that there's something going on with that event, not
/I?just these
two constituents.
12
?
MR. RAO: Yeah. Any additional information
11?
relating to the variability of data would be helpful.
14?We
were hoping that if you had any statistical
15
?
analysis that would also support your monitoring
16?
frequency,, that, you know,
the analysis
shows
that
17
?the l
iarigliag
not
significant for any concern in
18
?
terms of going over the delisting levels.
19?MR. MAXWELL:
So
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
22?
analysis of the phase I data to try to represent
23
?
variability within that
data?
24?MR. RAO: Yes_

 
aA vy AN
,
?
,
en oi
pelsabfins aGey awo9
?
0004
an,am
Fr
1T
put
'4588h 501; 104S0e UV 116 01 Squuow X e t
cc,
rE
7
9
41 /10141 I
?
'110A 4114 160004 eq ox?
'amT7Ru/aeu00
CZ
AT4eqoad 1/ -- Sn 9001 1I?
-4Sanba1 104 uoIlew/osu/
cE
0
241 *11147 arl
?
ae2noo Jo?
area eTtp ul
LE
so tuopeass e
sem yr Ass 401 asett I
?
-area I1 .43
.41
iz
6uTA
00 T al . a0A
*SW *47 G1,1,241 1041 pus
1E
puTtiaq
Uos1S1ad 041 186 p'S/1 AT/enlov am p04
?'wayl
Tr
EiropeUeoe 7tUoa6eueuisTa
0 T4Temi l
d
043 -- vrilvnetdull
OE
P014a4 11
0/111 ad 0
41 106 AI/anise 01 67 14n1114711
0105
OL
041
]none Y;(leu
1.41 auo 041
?
([)
S.77 anirp[aq
61
6,15464
?
-peadopa uoaq 0494 IthullelTap
00541
43144
61
I?
'1E9 IvIIII'OZG uo/laas 'OpOo ormalesuswpy
SI
a, 51elsT 6aa I MPad 0
41 ale '70
1/104 7a6 01 Asre
os
s1OuTT1T 041 411m
d
pSee 04.04 ee
?
tiljm
LT
't1031Y0
-
roluT a T
urs
liame
Al/V0//crnd
6,711414 --
?
106
ueo
LT
lUelsTeU00 6
4
1.41 9
0
141 am
?uflavuaas rMama6euemeTw
91
nmA 1e414
?
'eturnruad Evp(
T
asprin
equ
lab
o;
ljnoMTP
0690-151o. arqvuosvea 041 aq
o; 9anP151100 00
SI
t
uom?
une?
-ea:409100A 5;41
OP Cu P51
1
1 004,1°A
51
1 04m
Palapou. ST 0.104 auop 04,04 lotai
?1Tun 1.1000TP
FT
400
41
1. a0P I?
sTyl no' /Taw 7-Aliarrelas I
ri(111.{.
latrel v 01
60206 ;au a; !
SE
asnroaq
71
auop 10054,04
ti
1/
no T117P Ara.
CI
Pu Y
'ley;
auop 70u
Sir
ara450op an.am
laqm
?
unsas
15
LL
s.1/?5.11?
-
?aU741 I?'PmaPuT?P7P saT01 ET
01.122,6 0250000j 20 -- amp; laq an
?
'buTrapow 94E0 11041
u
T aletpea/ 30 xraA auo pa/apow am.Aay]
?
palapow
11
Oi
5504;?"VuTI01,00 u541 xaglel CS12)154116?SW
4.
1144.42
,c
1
T1
01
04e4 Ao41 awaTlaq am _
?
04,Aa4u sT auop yUeo atwAati1
6
Swint
.
tre maul; paSnyossp pup pasode/p
9, IT
oio;04
6
154m?,1a1sT6a4 Telapad
0
41 .013 aAT1a
P
o; a
/4.
alam am noA vias15 an./ untsewrojus ata -- am leum lne
a
'11
?
lear;airl or
6u lob 6,794;
A
lsI
iDs 3
?
704700$ 07
uoql
?. A .IT
-E sor;
?
lumugeolload a ol
?
'anal/ am a
l
l
/?ou
$
sos-ro 05541 jo
ipea us Spew 6.1541 U0T1aulmaap
9
6uu06 1, 00104 Amu
?-weans e ,r; AtloeaTp 60;6;
54 05, P
9
3
0
P
a
TN 041 0
7?'Nu
P11 am -ceoTlrio ATTeaa
Sawn Auto uotrenrtr 1 Tags
ow.
ut
1e41 . 007
S
'Ajlea.1 a1/2 panToAuT
873R3 alp
UnOuX noA stl
a
'010u 01 1.12110501 517 T
59
0 200 I?ArloHNISIS
?
5W
'parpuTT 1e440iro6
E
66u
Tu
s Il eP vaasa
00041 lie uo
es 00091 tiO envy noA you lettuoutrc Jo 1Unowe 541
z
.15152609 pnapa. 041 LISTIS 'Arm a41 Aq
?
'no.5 apTA0.1d
rinse;
e SV
?
;u
?
305 an
aouo abed Aa*
e
6uissiw
se.
LITm
5
M
?• ITT2Pu
ei 07 .54 PTIos
O
.22 2 10 (2
S ° .1 6046
Zt
abed
0555
aseo
osn a
rem puno; em auo 2041004 pus
?
"ITT;Plar
r
FE
041 uo pea -ie.:16p A/loarrp sq 07 mune' 30 sumo*.
az
070em plOs TexilenpUT lvdTaTUnw a 10 Seecds/p 'Due/
ft
Aue 107
wOTI
e
10u op axa4 etiolloT110.1 041
CZ
0115.00 UV r04110 01 IMEed*VS
?
'/I111
1ua t
a 6(1Tv406
zi
'AuoaTleag
palMad
/no 4114 Adou V
L
i
V 01 utwuseg?
'ITTIPaei tl airrlqnS * .1
apeuaa
S
It
PaPP
;Oad
?
'11101wI30P 8661 ATnp a sT
1741
?
MUM
tE
"TrF/P
U.
I O aT111q11S a 04 6uso6
foam
uestrui?-00120
or
p110
5
/0
031040 041 j0 ioloarcp 60110w sem awn
or
1110 1UVH 0
41 4p1441?
U0112E1710 TesodErrp Putt 011710
at
e41 15 catto
t ,q-1-2-0-m-s-l-o-o
?
• quic.slop
?'V
41a4VZH3
61
e Cu 611706 sem AMUS Jo luawaradap 041
81
Aq panel seen 40SS/4
?shuns T Tau 01s669 snot/111*H
WI
-ET1J1111.
I a 10U rem
GI
roj AosTox Tvuolram s,Aoua6y U011301025 IMawuoxlmua
GS
000 1541 OW?A5N0?
1/amar] alls-uo 01 BuToa Sam
91
507075
p01100 041 US patm;ap se buSjsrcap lutioTrEpuoa
yr
1I?
wal9Ae luatmell orca-uo taseq-PusI . 01
6,1706
SI
eaaos Vol gnarl
6071s7 Top 6,745
ST
sem 11 J
7
?-- 5
01
1 71a1 oa al na
T13TP 5.31
?-A1TEMJ
VI
auo
5141
01 Jamrue .47 aseq 01 6
070 6
r/
paseq-pun v
sew
anarroq am 7941
A
l14M1 a lT s
-
u.
CT
W.1 puy?
. pol/ad MEnsoIo po7ercu/lur ;Em
i
l-mamas
El
Ur 01 6upa6 paalomu; &sea 11045 041 1.41 0401104
Lt
r
.
?4rea4-uanas pus avaA
/
ad suoll
e b 000"5,
Z1
SM -- S em /TOYS
0
41?II1/Pu5I Oau
lT 0 aIlrlq^S
IT
-.
?
ow aanoxa
?,9461e4
seaA
lad suoilea 000'00S
II
p 01 60706 rem ivy] aye' rally o6pnis e Jo 6upecrap
oT
Jo gaTIT/2A
awaA. /rum aal
buten s anal 601 1ST
Tep 5141
OI
v sem auo 1e41
?
. IVUOTleuxalUI
aouv/ITV
0AtrawOln*
6
OATlep o1 40*0-Iddr
1aaA - 1
7I nw 1 V7 Su 7 1I
I T
In
sou .zo;
6
arvernv leuor]euralu;
asrlowoinV 041.
0reuorve1 5.194
110525X9..
?
snot
Sol SF 954 10126706
8
05041 3
0
Il
e
150
.11
5
pa woo; 041 5s TvsodelM P
uri
E
1 .
41?-s6u / leTrap 1 e 0A-T]low
Snssan
56uTsTIor.
1 .
41 100 livrod
0
1 lnq ,
uosisanb anoA
01 aomeuv eq;
9
own - 00o 6urpaebau 00
110anb e
ses
40140 '00%;
s
oq butrnb /o Fen Aq sT 5021?'fly, 4Snox41 Siam IS12.
S
/aqwnu 01 Snow p/nom am 'leso up saonsarib x047r.1
5
M1 op yuem I puy
?
/*sods/a pup/ are pamrrema 04.04
V
mu ar
e
aj
au,
17
?
uaEp ono. p.am?
A39;PGIG6?SW
1e41 s60/15/Tap e,yds
3
0 Arcuolow ay7 Mefluoo ;Iv
E
A.uonna];
t
'yns
?,Teby 10Ao pus /an°
E
Xplepoid sou pure as.am se
E
60?
olluow 041 Uo amea am tie w.Gryx
?045
]uawpunodw. a )04 111 e
ao
-6/,;prre/ e
3a411a 11
7 Pus;
A.S0
?
113M11-21,1
?
SW
OG ofied
69 abed

 
a, alisoddo a41 'I
l
e 19 oa70921 aq veva uou 746To
?
Le
I
9
T aa1 9° 011 ' 990P
91
0.111, 9
1(
1
I
6uT19ajtuem
07seAN
?
00
TeToade sell aPeq 1,u0p letia 801ea5
Auew
u/ 'apowAue
?
CS
11 anode sai90 Apoqou pus SnOpaepaquou padapIeUeo
?
IC
?8,71 -- Apoq0d onagpAs 041 jo 100 10,71 owealls
?
St
also, 041 10
10
1
1003 Ca soC VaSSO
—00
2
11100 50801
?
61
palaos sea
0021u07 $asoT Aouafill 041 'sOUT1STIPP
?
01
TvuouT17.0°.11 041 Palvid '07
869
40d
?
LT
”ebtrUSITaP IenlOTITP,100
?
91
uo apuppen6 Apii0d apalau uT '062000 10 '00 sTql Pup
?
SI
•away/
4444_A4-
?
e no euoTajpuoo
?
; Toads Gueppre
?
PI
aapisu07 -I0
vavOy l
vm°
32I1
°T;flade aa is Taoism:3o
?
Ct
01 atone Apw,
?
pleou ay, aq pinom aT
9co 9 T41 UT
?
el
e
9001682 ssassr 090 550o00 Bu
T uarlap 7110005 ano
?
IT
oi2a0036 a
27pun P
aeauPo 90 1
00 ilim 10
70u axe 1941
?
01
s0 1
9v5 .01131 ad 10 IsPlonU
items AraaTieTei e 10; 7941
?
6
80m802 AoliaOP
1
41.
?
alonb sT?
-- .sa7T140.0
?
9
A ouaBV aUlY
'prep aA.Aayl a
p
aym 0maw AoTiod
0661 041 01 06
am
'uTePY
'pup
'dI as 1 1a1d
IT; 1.0188054
Trump Wela atia 01045 pus 'Wow teen auto, 9004 pap
?
S
9790 01 aUawEpne i
p
uoTssajoad su aSn 097 SeuTaPTINJ
990 41 6,11 0
P 410 m P960 00 1 v i 1 011 T.
140O 041 ajUi
'Aqua5
4 Tee aeua pod sppeoPages alajdo2d upo seuilSTI
I4110 31TP
uo7
1941
07949
nem ST
54
3
13111 lvou suIrTd3ca
9k afvol
ASTYVHS 'SW
oreaeuaoa
?
CZ
95204.9 iP
0097-10105 alp 'weaboad saanseawaa7unoo
?
CV
10116200
uo
T
wavaad
I
TTds a 5,17 Putt '10V uoUnii0d
?
TE
ITO
OWL?
ooTaniiod 110 041
3 500KKIFIL6 'SW
?
Ot
10-110.3
?
61
u0T1n iio
d ITO *oil
M09
WO TaiapaT 041
P I -- sn0-02aa
?
ei
1800 041 glen do butwoa os4740adde sou yddrn 1027 Atm
?
LT
9
47 41Io 11i9 1
9 1
0000 ST 9I41?
4115 16207848000 10.1T
?
91
1941 'n
u auTod 01
100m 1 puy -0149904 asao_ladoq
?
si
007 auop
?
00,85 1(0047 am or
1441
ne netrroteen
d nn
?
Ct
sT 02041 010H
?
puno25 ayl 07u0 lauempun026 aoa 0730
1
?
3
I
umop woe
/
p0noo Atienlse I
ella
le°
PENT 1° Il
e 02045
?
11
01201189s 'Erse:deep
POST
e 0101 buTo5 01vIa4a aenvaaq
?
o1
01 aveq Aa41 asneoaq pdavaauab T911a7e. 041 To lie
?
6
OuTiapOW znocre 7/47 A041 PUP lesodsip pup/ le 11001?
9
Aa41 4a4m au bulT000 vA9
v i
d
evd ovia 90 0-
1...°9
041
0, 7a6 oa op ou 3aop4 0:
13
n0A aetim 8.1841 pup
-uoTawacq
?
9
awes 947 iv 910;21008 0Tildousele1 -- 7uapaDui
se ul papiopui ;94 pITICUn 01(31111
JaTUPa 05043 Jo fie
a3a40 orrevaps P
ac
,
U
nvve 0 2;47
1941 s
C
PO47101194
0.303, 04a 0
10 3
?
son
8300
40 p0
11
1?
duos
w?
pat02 0p9 7 4c100 aseavo 621 p
a. PY3u1 a. PIn'am
so
wOOS
fl
?°T
1
0
41 70,1147 am asnapaq adoepTn6 Apreod
26 61 1943
?
Li
q:ps non papincud am pup 07 paTocq am pup
?
FL
'11 UT
amnion lean-auo 1847
asn 07 aleracloaddeu0
?
00
9,1T '970102011 '40019Pa-es quamlwail pUP
?
IL
?luaudeanadd a 8 ATiviats'Ijarn
Alen uoTlenus
?
at
3U
1 I
USSOP
nI
L
T001 000
ST
5850 241 01
7apq
?
61
8009 em 0545 9T
8
e181 10e 1947 ippow pus WeaIls
?
81
alUM 2noA jo quom 5.0982 aIcqm v uT 1nd
voup non
?
tt
'8Aes Ai/020006 'mom' non -- 894 Tapotu wed au; 100
?
91
arjuSooaa am luTod 9141 le
asipaDaq W‘od
7447310dpi1
?
Pi
Alan a
s i 9 1011 11
0
£41 I Pule , 13MeVH5 SW
?
el
Tornoab ay, ]Erne Linn 10410 eaTe 90191 e ssone Iltds
?
El
1941 6UT71071SUe21
10;
Tail
uo
ao
d atuos 54
innom
01041
?
3
I
os -se alp JO 30165 0 01621 6280 PUP Tl lds
01
6010E
Auen179
sum
won yOnal 201(9151
e allege pauTapueo azam
?
oi
2047 2620036ip
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
181(0e7
aPo /flee 'MeV
Awja 05 L suoTavinhae LeUluavvid
001101101
510 Tvaapad 041 spun
sew 01nseauaalUn00
?pup 751007
'L1011404011 TT
t
d
S 10
9.9.4Ind
?
V
104 sownioo BuTupPed 067040840 ase
D _ T oaoq buTuiwaaaau
?
t
p0/1T1ua 301 1941 01041 Upuadde ue 0794 A011 ?
Z
SL
abed
POT2ad aspAdvanes
Pa1ed4012012
up
Ian) PagplvdeTP
?
ee
5709511 2010197 941 TO TIP 1541 AUTTOTeSo
T
Op
?
CZ
?5210 8,22247 '10402704 -0Tqesnaid0e Allaad Aueyr
?
LL
8.1947 10441 vom
?
panoma Po1T96-000'S 941
?
It
?10
SOT4C1109 awe Inoue
611 011
9
1 02.04 -- 0.01941 73341
?
02
1(
0
741
SM. • 110115101
aurae atja le luepios4
3cyd0-11Seleo
?
61
uT padioduT cog p-mom
0
7014
3e0
1 10
don-la 2aduel
?
el
auo upqg adote 7941
AliiIqessod
ip0170ead ou sT 02041
?
Li
'1005410e
aq Innate --
ST
5
141 P u P4a°1 asuas
?
91
041
7541?
non?
T
en[ 49.71
7UTY1 0518
am aye
?
si
'non PaAcf. an, am 7947
l
uawnpop 041 upon
PAT190,aSP00
?
01
?8.11 NuT41 am 05 -- pus 'We
ds
uoilo6-000'S
?
(I
°,4do
p
meele0
SCyl ST 01/5u006 ATUO 041
?
el
,Decd auo
u i 081
Talow 1441 10
Ile
?
IT
Sulllnd
431m
le 6UP1001 aq
pTnom non
1e1(5 ST 4154s
?
01
'1.10T1e0T/dde 91127 aq vino
p 01547 401145 In 01 190005
ATuo au° 106 mou 00,05 'sTqa Buiarwil 10 0018
_
n Ae
so palioli 94 qou apam sop/9000e flop) 06041 Jo
asow 1041 100 luto
d
jonom am 'paapul 'mg
eoTieuapP
aaylo
uT ai paaTnbaa 901 11 P°
. '
665
iaP0o J O
.°1-47
91
41 ass 01 01( 11
moon.
pleoe
041 aeqa PavaTlaq
asnyoaq
ST S141 01
aamsue alga pup
.ciie
is
6u1I°P°w
n
aA ale Aga
0Auli
i7e
1 audwaeardeld e 03 Buion
9,a0 P
T ?.
Al thar a
!Ppn?
AqM vie;
saga auoS noA
EL abed

 
Page 77
1
?true where you have a conditional delisting. And,
2
?
again
?
I won't go over i t aga i n and again_
The conservative assumptions that EPA has
4?
made in its DRAS model and including -- assuming that
5?
all of the waste generated will be disposed of in one
6?unlined landfill don't need to be made. You don't
7?
need to have 100 percent assurance in this situation
8
?from that because you are getting assurance from the
9?conditional delisting itself. And we've put more on
10
?this in the record in our prefiled testimony.
But I would like to take you back to the
12?
Board's
own response to Waste Management in an
13
?
opinion to
AS
05-07 where the Board found that waste
14?
Management had proposed to use a model that was for a
15
?
lined landfill instead of for an unlined landfill.
16?
The Board said, you know, 'That's Inconsistent with
17
?USEPA policy, You really can't do thi
g
h* But they
18?
said,
What you can do is come back to us and tell us
19
why you can do this' -- °or why it is consistent,'
20?And I'm going to quote here. I'll take the quote.
21
?"While having no bearing on risk and hazard analysis, •
22?
waste Management. Inc., may also propose adjusted
23
?
standard language that would condition the delisting
24?on the disposal of the petitioned waste. For
Page 78
I?
example, only In a lined landfill-"
2? to here wag an instance -- We point this
I
?out
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
6?
different scenario, you need to
1 tadr
your adjusted
7?
standard to that scenario.
And so
that's what we've
8?done. We think that it's very consistent with what
9
the Board said in Waste Management.
10
?
I don't want to De repetitive. I guess I
11
?
would just close by saying that
we
think this is
an
12
?
instance in which the use of the total volume of the
13?
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
16
?volume being released to the environment. Apart from
17?that, the EPA has allowed this kind of thing.
15?
There's latitude under the EPA policy documents for
is?
fashioning rconditioned, adjusted standard here
20?
that would address the concerns.
21? 1 think I will leave it at that ?be
22
?happy to answer any questions.
23?HEARING OFFICER
HALWRAN:
Mr. Ingersoll?
24
?
MR. INGERSOLL: No.
Page 79
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
interruption.,
MR. RAO: I Just had a follow-up. This is more
7?
related to what you testified earlier about getting
a
?information from Shell Oil.
9?
Just rev
i ewing the Shell
oil
decision that
10
?
you had attached to the profiled answers, it seemed
11?
like they used one year's worth of /eachate that they
12?
generated_ It seems like they used that -- At least
13
?
they say they used the maximum volume. So in the
14?information you got from them -- Because it's hard to
15
?tell from the Federal Register that they used. So I
16?
just wanted to know did you get that information from
17
?them as to what volumes or how they modeled?
IS
?MS. SHARKEY: I'm smiling because last night I
19
asked my colleague at my law firm to look into that
20?
very question because we were asking ourselves -- We
21?
know what the volume was they talked about, but we
22?
don't know what they used in their model. we know
23?
what their annual production was. we're not sure
24?
what they used in their model. I don't think -- We'd
Page 80
1?be happy to provide you with the portion of that
2?
of the application from Shell that talks about that,
3
?
if chat would be helpful. But we believe -- I'm
4?
getting the nod that we believe that the amount used
5
?was their annual volume
6?
OM. RAO. Okay. In going through the additional
7
?information you got from Shell, were you able to
8
?
discern why they did maximum volume over -- I don't
9?
know how many years they modeled. When I was looking
10?
at it. it seemed like their situation was similar Co
11
?
BFI's except they were hardpiping then- leachate to
12?
the on-site treatment plant instead of shipping it
13?
out. Buz the modeling for -- If you can answer that.
14
?
If have you any comments to make on that. it would be
15?
helpful to distinguish their situation from BFI's.
16
?
If not now, in comments that's fine, too.
17?
MS. SHARKEY: I would like to make a note of
18?
that and get back to you in writing with an answer on
19
?that question.
20?
MR. RAO: That would be helpful.
21?MS. SHARKEY: Thank you.
22?MR. RAO: That is just a clarification question
22
?
I had based on your response,
24?
On page 5 of your prefiled answers and

 
Page 81
locking at footnote 2, th
i
s footnote snakes that --
as follows. "Like Buck treatment regulations, the
Clean Water Act provides regulatory assurance that
the leachate in this
case
will be treated Co
nonhazardous levels ac the wastewater treatment
fac i lit y
b
efore
d
ischa rg
e to env ironment.
Therefore,
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
13
?
plant?
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
19
that is equivalent -- that would be at a nonhazardous
20
level.
21
MR. MD:?When you say that it would be
22
treated -- the leachate would be treated to
23
nOnna2ardoua levels at the treatment plant, will they
24
Page 83
hasn't shown any concerns with the type of discharge
1
they're getting from their treatment process;
?is that
2
correct?
3
MR. MAXWELL:?That's correct, yes.
MS. SHARKEY:
?
I just want to make it clear,?and
5
I think your question was going there.
6
The kind of treatment that they'll be
7
getting there will be -- There will be some testing
to ensure chat this material can be handled.?And we
9
actually
have obtained --
through a Freedom of
lo
Information Act request to Illinois EPA have obtained
11
files on IPC and what their treatment process is.
?We
12
wanted to see the entire thing.
?And we have looked
at what the treatment process is.?
It does involve
17
14
pretesting of the materials that come in, and it does
15
involve then several levels of chemical treatment
16
that I believe our technical people -- and I probably
17
ought to ask Beth and Mike Co answer this.
?But we
55
believe ma?
-- it's as good as or better than
19
actually the treatment that the same material -- that
20
the hazardous material right now is receiving was
21
receiving at 020 at its facility.
22
MR. MAXWELL.
?I would agree with that.
23
24
MS. STEINHOUR:
?And these facilities -- This
5?Mi. SHARKEY: I
think it's certainly the latter.
6?
They're going to be treating this waste stream, as
7?
they do every waste stream, for the constituents that
s?are -- I want to say that are trigger constituents,
9
?
that are constituents that are deemed to allow them
10
?
to -- If they treat for this particular constituent,
ii?they are assumed to be treating for others. I
12
?
believe that that's the way they work. I probably
13?should defer to Mr. Maxwell to answer this question.
la
?
MR. MAXWELL: Indicator parameters. They would
is?be indicators of an overall issue.
IS?MR. RAO: okay.
t7
?MS. LID: You mentioned earlier, I think, that
la?
the leachate from the other two phases goes to IPC
already --
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
Page s4
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
besides
BFI
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
Page 82
I
?
be specifically focusing on all the constituents that
2
?
are listed in Table A of the proposed language or
3
?
whatever the applicable water quality standards are
specified in their wrDE permit?

 
Page 85
1
?
be appropriate at this point -- I know this will. to
2?some extent, interfere with our -- the way we're
1?
proceeding. But. as you
know, SFI met with Illunols
4?
EPA to discuss the adjusted standard over many years.
5?
In addition, we met with them after they filed their
6?
original recommendation, which was for denial of this
adjusted standard. After that meeting and further
8?
discussion, the Agency changed its position and filed
9?
a recommendation with no objection to this adjusted
10?standard. you • 11
notice that some of what went in
11
?
there in the change -- And we f i led with our response
12?
to that document an amended petition/hat inected
0.
?
the language that it shall have
an;
"'P.?
USEPA
14?
approved pretreatment program at the facility that
15
?
it's going to.
16? My question here is whether or not it would
17?
be useful to have Illinois EPA's perspective on the
Is
?
pretreatment program at this point in the record or
19?
if we just want to save that for later? I don't want
20?
to speak for the Agency, but I believe the
21?
Agency's -- part of the Agency's change in their
22?
position was, indeed, based on the fact that they are
23?
satisfied that the pretreatment program would address
24
?
any issue tha
t
_
z
any constituents in that waste
Page
86
1
?
shream
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr Ingersoll. do you
3
?
have any preference on whether you want co call
4?
Mr. Cruces now Or later?
MR. INGERSOLL, I have no preference. If we are
6?
going to put him on. I want to have a short break
7?
before we do so. Ana I would like to ask one
8?
question.
9?
Hes
BFI gone through a waste acceptance
ID?
process
with IPC yet on this waste stream?
11
?MS. SHARKEY, I don't think that we have gone
12?
through -- that we have gone though them formally
II?
with this particular waste stream, no.
14?0(R. INGERSOLL: You have looked at what their
Is?
acceptance protocols are?
L6
?MS. SHARKEY: They have seen the data. I'm
17
?
being told by the BFI principals here that they
have
?18
?
shared their data from this particular unit, which is
19?
called the phase 1 unit, with the IPC personnel, And
20
?
they, Of course,
knoC
43,4
:1;c
data from the
21?
other units that are?heir leachate there on
22?
a regular basis, which is very similar. But the
21?entailer I think. Mr. Ingersoll, in yes.
24
?MR. INGERSOLL: Okay. Thank you.
Page 87
1
?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN Let's go off the
2?
record for a second.
I?
tBniEREUPON, discussion was had
4? off the record.)
5
?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back on the
6?
record. we're going to take a ten-minute break.
7
?
We'll be back on the record then_ Thank you.
a?
(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
9?HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Ingersoll, you
10?
wanted to call Mr. Crites?
11
?MR. INGERSOLL: Yea. Mr. Crites, could you take
12?
the witness stand.
13?
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Raise your right hand
14?
and the court reporter will swear you in. please.
15?
(WHEREUPON, the witness was duly
16?
sworn.)
17?
MARK L. CRITES,
10?
called as a witness herein, having been first duly
19?
sworn. was examined and testified as follows:
20?
DIRECT EXAMINATION
21?
BY MR. INGERSOLL:
22?
Q.?
Please state your name and sp
ell your last
21?
name, please.
24
?A.?My name is Mark Crites. The last name is
Page Be
/
2
?Q.?could you give us a description
of your
3?
educational background and your experience?
4
?A.?
I have a bachelor of science in mechanical
5?
engineering from southern Illinois University at
6?
Carbondale. I've been working for Illinois EPA since
7?
1990 as a
hazardous waste permit reviewer. I've done
a?
reviews on various hazardous waste-related issues,
9?
including other hazardous waste del istings.
10?
regulatory development. If it's related to hazardous
11?
waste, l • ye pretty
Much worked on It.
12?Q.?
Could you describe your involvement in this
11
?
matter that led to the initial Agency recommendation?
14
?A?
We were contacted several years ago by BFI
15?
representatives saying that they were interested in
16?
potentially delisting the leachafe coning from the
17?
phase I landfill at the Davis :unction facility.
Is?
And, you know, we
met
with them and, you know,
made
19?
it' clear that
WS a decision made by the Illinois
20?
pollution Control Board, but that Illinois EPA does .
21?
provide comments to the Board. It would be a good
22?
idea for them to work out things with us in advance
23?
to try Co minimize the disagreements.
24?
We met with them a few times over that

 
Page 95
1?
that USEPA will not allow such a change."
MS, SHARKEY: I can understand that.
3?
MR. INGERSOLL. Maybe the waters of the state
4?
are also waters of the United States in that
5?
situation. All of this activity is occurring within
7
?MR. RAO: This ie just something that we wanted
0
MR. INGERSOLL, Okay. Like I say, I will check
10?
further both with the water people who go through
11
?
this experience that you're talking about and try to
12?
explain a little better why --
II
?MA. RAO: No. The only reason I bring it up is,
14?
if the board grants an adjusted standard, you know,
15?
consistent. with the federal actions, is there one
16 more IF
Sby the facts, or what --
17
?MS. SHARKEY: It sounds very dieting-aishable
18?
from what we've got here, but we'd be happy to
19?
address that in our follow-up remarks as well.
20?MR. INGERSOLL: As will we.
21?KR. RAO: Thanks.
22?HEARING OFFICER
HALLORAN:
?you may step
23?
down. Thank you.
39?MS.
SHARKEY: Thank you for taking that out of
Page 93
MR. INGERSOLL: The State is authorized
3
?
water delisting standards that the Board grants we
4?
have heard from [he Agency saying chat if -. you
5?
know, the Board's -- if the board grants a deflating
6?
standard for -- In a certain way that USEPA will not
7?
approve it. And I think they made us change the
language in some of the deflating standards. I just
9?
wanted to get a clarification.
10?
MR. INGERSOLL. I can comment better after
11?
checking with all of the liaisons — the record
12?
liaisons. In my experience, at least in the RCRA
13
?
program, we have that same kind of problem.
14
?MS. STEINHOUR: Can I add something to that?
15? When we were -- at first initially met with
16?
Illinois EPA, we were actually working with USEPA on
17
?
a delisting petition in the state of Indiana. So the !
IS?
person that -- I wasn't the person directly that had
19?
contacted USEPA. It was Ann Fritz from our office
?
c
30?
who had talked to USEPA about this deflating petition
21?
in Illinois that we were going to talk to Illinois
?
.
22?
EPA about. They said, "Well, you need to make a
2A?
decision. Are you deflating this on the national
24?
level? If you are, to allow this to be a delisted
Page 94
1
?
waste that's transported to Indiana or to Missouri or
2
?
wherever. you need to come to us and get the
3
?
delisting petition. If
you're delisting it within
the state of Illinois, don
,
c talk to me. You need to
5?
talk to Mark Crites.•
MR. RAO: Okay. That helps
MS. STEINHOUR: So we met with the Illinois EPA
8?
Chen.
MR. INGERSOLL: And we had this definitely
10?
within the authorized parts of our program.
11
?MR. RAO: And that's one of the conditions, that
12?
the delisted waste will be disposed of in Illinois?
13?
Hs.
STEINHOUR: Right.
15
?
MS. SHAMMY: Can I just ask,?
Rao? would it
15?
be possible -- You've got, you said, some water
16
?
matters, adjusted standards, where this question was
1??
raised?
18?
MR. RAO: I don't know how well I can recall.
19
?
But the issue wee the Board granting adjusted
20?
standard from complying with the water quality
21?
standard and
Iowa
coming back and telling us, 'No.
23?
You have Co change the water quality standard. You
23?
cannot just say this particular facility will not
24?
meet the water quality standard and the reason is
Page 96
1?
order. I appreciate it because I believe that dt.
2
?
provides context to put together the discussion of
3?
the adequacy of the pretreatment at the point that
4?
it's being discussed in the record.
5?
If the Board doesn't have any other
6
?
questions -- I believe we were -- it was the Board's
7?
question that led to having the Agency's witness
8
?
sworn in. / don't know if the Board has any other
9?
questions or if
we
should go on to our next question.
la?
NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN, Go on to the next. I
11?
think you're on 3.
12
?
MS, SHARKEY: Mr. Maxwell is going to address
13?
this one.
14?
MR. MAXWELL: The third topic that was raised by
15?
the Board had to do with the constituents of concern.
16?
We were asked to elaborate on the Lest result. for
17?
the F019 constituents that were listed in the Board's
19
?
Attachment A that do not seem to appear to be in
19?
Appendix D of our petition, and Appendix D of Our
20?
petition was our analytical results.
21?
we realized after reviewing this comment
22?
that the statement in the petition indicating that
23?
all F019 constituents were analyzed went above and
24?
beyond the data that we actually had. The

 
Page 109
carcinogenic/noncarcinogenic effects. That was
pointed out in the user alert that -- for certain
3
?
parameters that have both
effects.
The proper means
for evaluating them is to enter them twice into the
5
?
0RAS model. We have listed a number of constituents
6
?
in our prefiled testimony for which that was teli—t-he
7
?
case. They have both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects. We did enter chose twice in
9
?
the model. We reran the model submitted with the
15
?
prefiled testimony. It turns out that the deliating
11
?
levels that were produced under the carcinogenic and
12
?
noncarcinogerlic factor approach were the same. So we
19
?
have updated our model, but It doesn't significantly
14
?
change our conclusions.
15
?
And then the final issue was -- that was
16
?
raised in the user alert is this idea of the fish
17
?
Ingestion and the air volatiles pathway. Now, this
LS
?
one I have looked at subsequent to the filing that
19
?
was made filed -- or the profiled testimony. The
20
?
fish ingestion -- The issue is that the
2/
?
calculation of -- the deliating levels that are
22
?
produced by CPAS for the fish ingestion and the air
27
?
volatiles pathway in some cases may be inaccurate.
24?
I've looked closer at that and found that
Page 110
1?
the fish Ingestion pathway isn't a relevant pathway
2?that's part of our flak for any parameter. However,
3?
the air volatiles pathway is a part of the risk for
4?
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
9?
that in the case of every parameter, except for two,
10?
the delisting level that was produced using the air
11?volatiles pathway was actually higher than the
12?
delisting level that we used. So that has no
13?
influence at all on our deflating
leve ls
because you
14?want to propose the most stringent delisting level.
15
?
There were
two
parameters that
as
?16
?identified where the deliating level for the air
17?
volatiles pathway was less than the delisting level
10
?that we proposed. Consequently, I think it's
19?appropriate to submit as a follow-up to this hearing
20?
a revised explanation indicating what's been
21?performed since
we
spoke with USEPA,
22?
MS. SHARKEY: And those constituents were
21
?produced. Tell us whet the constituents were.
24?
MR. MAXWELL: They were cis-1,7 dichloropropene
Page 112
implies, land disposal restrictions, they are
2
?
intended for disposal scenarios that involve land.
3
?
They are, indeed, technology based. The record on
the adoption of those -- the UTS standards is very
5
?
clear on this point that the distinction between --
6
?
Excuse
me.
It's very clear on
this
point, and there
7
?
is a lengthy discussion in the preamble to the
adoption of the land disposal restrictions,
9?particularly the third third.
10
? There were three sets of land disposal
11?
restriction regulatory dockets, and in/ third
12?
they discuss the issue of the relationship between
11?
land disposal restrictions and the universal
14?
treatment standards concentratiors that were
15?
developed for those and risk-based health and
16
?
environmental hazard-based limits. And they make
L7?
very clear that USEPA was unable at the time that
la?
they adopted the UTS to actually promulgate
19?
risk-health and environmental risk-based standards
20?for the
019.
21?
As a result, what they did was they went
22?with
a
standard for treatahility. And that standard
23
?
is known as
best demonstrated technology, 11171X It
24
?
based on best demonstrated technology for specific
Page L11
1?
and heptachlor.
2?MS. SHARKEY°
And
the maximum detected leachate
3
?
concentrations were below the air exposure pathway?
MR. MAXWELL„ Yes.
MS.
gutiurgy:
I guess what we're proposing is
6?that we will submit a revised?/ don't
want to call
7?
it a petition. Sue we're going — We'll submit a
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.
11?
If there are no other questions, the next
12?
is number -- I believe it was number 5, which is a
II?
question that I was going to answer. This pertains
14
?
to land disposal restrictions. The question is.
15?
°Please explain whether USEPA delisting guidance or
16
?
policy allows delisting levels for constituents of
17?
concern to be higher than the land disposal
le?
restriction universal treatment standards,* which,
19
?
for the court reporter's benefit, we refer to
as
LOP
10?and UTS
21?
Our response to this question is that VI's
22?are technology-based standards. They must be met
23?
before a waste -- a hazardous waste can be applied to
24?
the land -- can be
land
disposed.
As
the name

 
Page 116
1?
This is the -- a call center response. And I
2
?
apologize. I don't have the date of it here in front
3?
of me, but I will get chat to you. They said, 'The
4?
generator must comply with the LAIR requirements
5?
before disposing of the delisted waste because LDR
6?
attaches at the point of generation, A deflating
7?
only absolves the generator from his obligation of
B
?
handling the waste as hazardous. If a particular
9?
hazardous waste is eligible for a del fisting and is
10?
granted. the delisting prior to generation, then the
11?
Lois requirements would not apply. Conversely, if a
12?
waste is generated and subsequently delisted, the
11
?
generator would need to comply with the applicable
II?
pert 260 requirements before disposal.'
15
?
My view is -- in looking at this, is that
le?
what USEPA is doing is distinguishing LDR
17?
determinations from del 1st/rig determinations. What
le
?
you hear is that there are two distinct elements to
19?
it. There's a deflating, and then there's a question
20?
of whether Lox applies. It's a two-step process.
21
?
Notably, Order this definition, the waste .. the
22
?
leachate that BFI is generating would not be subject
23?
to 1,DIR's even if it was going to a land disposal unit
29
?
if it was generated after the point that this
Page 111
1
?categories of waste that the
um
were stablished
2?
So they really serve a totally different function
3?
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
want
to go back
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.
But
I
would point out that trea tabi lity --
ability to treat is not on that list at all. So it's
not
a
criteria for which you list or delist a waste.
Page 114
And I think that USEPA -- This question was actually
2
?
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..
10
?
And the Agency -- the Court found, no, they were not
11
?
required to do it. In fact, the Resource
12
?
Conservation Recovery Act requirement for LDR's
was -- EPA was authorized to do it on
a
treatment
14
L5
?
SPA explains then in the preamble to the
/6
?
third third that -- you know, lc goes back and
17
?
explains again its action and explains that lawsuit
le
?
and the opinion and better explains why they adopted
13.
?
these as technology-based standards. so I think that
20
?
the record and history of these regulations make it
21
?
clear that it's not a delisting criteria.
22
?
Treatability should not be a deflating criteria.
23
?
I'd also just like to say that they also
24
?
distinguish, by the way, in the Federal Register.
Page 115
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
a
particularized
situation where, indeed, you do the case-by-case
look, as we're doing
h
ere at th e?whether or
not
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
it at all.
What we did find was
a
RCRA call center
response, and this is the extent to which I found
anything on this. And
I
will read it for the record

 
Page
117
Page 118
delisting
is
issued
?
And so at
that?
point_
?
Let's
established t, determined whether a hazardous waste
could be land disposed?Then
in
the final rule EPA
I think that API ac the Davis Junction
decided not to set deflating levels based on LOA UTs.
Landfill
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 --
we
don't have to get to that question because
it's
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
Nissan
delisting by USEPA. There you
can see EPA's approach to land disposal restriction
ITS
and how they used those in that deflating.
What happened
in
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
UIS
were
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
is
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
this
MS.
LIU: Thank you actu
all
y for
your very
lengthy analysis kind of exploring perhaps what USEPA
didn't
have a chance or didn't vocalize. Thank you.
NEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Pir, Ingersoll?
MR. INGERSOLL. Nothing,
Page 120
at, However, when you come down to one constituent
such
as
this or two because we'll be -- look at.erfse
warwdioxane as well, chat actually -- that exceed
that, we think
it's
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
i s no.
With these two
i
t's appropriate to
go
back
and look carefully at the criteria in 721.11101 Ill
and to walk through -- look at that criterion and
Page 119
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN You may proceed,
Ms. Sharkey.
MS,
SHARKEY:
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
la
?DRAS model calculated what we consider to be an
overly conservative number for vinyl chloride. The
number that it calculated was 028 milligrams per
20
liter.?
We believe that number overstates the risk
for vinyl chloride in this situation.?
We think that
the land-based assumption that you have to put into
the DRAS model results in a -- an overly conservative
number here.
BFI has used the DRAB. model and is very
,
walk through the factors that need to be
considered.
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
constituents.'
willing to accept the output of the ERAS model for
the vast majority of the constituents that it looked

 
' h.
10 -
COI
',IN
?
91
'P
ea
l
101
4841 buy/sr-pap?
4;
aP 94
1
Se 1441 3416
-11
610eae40
997
aJasuT 02608
?
CZ
?041 7041 pUal0.100a/ 610980803 100 ui '01666 'pile peaqe
?
tz
06 ITTm am '14612
/ 1 a
4 .1 0.9. sT Pi.. TI.m-wI4
1604W -410101 mou
1?
Anos
?
;131/44H5 '$1.1
?
61
t uae
I
6011sTiap 291
?
e,
.. P
ea l 1
0
3 0110Taal0eavy0 Aa1
1
7.01 091 01 6011Inegap
?
t/
4110 an
se
T ua
6.91441 leg]
1.l41
7,00p 1
. /J ed ano
91
?ma 19618124 are sem 1041 sdeglud
. 11340[114 1114?
ST
0641 'PA
?
gi
11
4
11 uegg au1ea16 Gem Pea
l
103
Ia.aI 61.11.1SIIaP
?
ZI
pasodo/d
ay7
leya sem an
?
,11444454614
4611
.664
?
Ll
L asuodsal ano4 ug lensue uv ale 1,0PTP
?
01
am pup 'peal uo 800 sem aJayl
Mu141
1 -uoilsanb
?
6
1160-0
9(
1
e sem 11
'Aapio 1441 330 6011029 9g1 4500,01
?noA 01 polliwqns sem Ivy/ uolasen.b
9141
any -41010100
?
4
14014 anoqi aou 009 /sera/ a pey ay .065
40641 •164
-14
,
044196u/
'IN
.nof
10.41
?
41101071114 610023.40 DNINVEH
-no4 10.41 '6ulnloy :7900639141 '114
41106]4601
-,W
?
i111101'TVH 43501140 ONDP/SH
VZ1 a6v,i
Alan 1641 uo apTioTyn
T
Au
i
n Jo; flat( Tana/ P
a le-law/5?
14
SVAC 641 p9a1xa
pin046
220061001 ,woe U1 ITTIP
uel?
CZ
uoT/aunr eTnea e47 ae ssson
Z
aseyd pue Z 2464d
?
CC
#40 le 61643691 441 '1063 u
T
'pu
p
-10421
lega?
Li
es-te 6u14141ane pue
0211111001
1t/aw16221 01 atlas
?
OZ
- palvaiu 6uTaq Wig pesodsip pool Bulaq eae Allunou
?
61
0111 2740 IT. 821094 'AlaeaTo 'puV 'IaaaT 1 6
41?
6i
poldepoe soy
640
'Arreelp 'lanai Z' 441 le ap120140?
Li
?/APT/ Aq pasod MeTa pa6e4-4/Iea4 441 -- paRod psi/?
si
241 30 maTnaa pTien Alan e sT 011e01213e1e41 1641 1
0 7?
ST
PIP 632 1641 01641606 ay7 aey/ anaT
1
44 aq?
01
say
ileIaP01.4?
41
T aPow
5640 0141 1691 iecrtunu ag1 04441 1ay6
1
y 900
1104w
?
51
IQ aspic ire leowIe
sT 144600 1
.4a 'PT..
16>3
?
av41?
11
pup • 44
14
4 /ad sweienglua z- 0 sem maim do awes
Aso,?
01
?1
6
41 lasauss .4/ PJV • T alporn 1441 Pas./
Aa41 -- Pas.?
6
itatts Os?san-tes 4601-151000 ou se apew swap/64,0C
?
6
0E111 191161
56912(.616d gge Jog 690Ten jo uoTanqI1/.1P
Jo abireJ TIng e sapnI/uT 411446 '0107163 uoT1enUagle
?
9
uoiln
l
ip
aya
loi
4071710de 01363 400014
6
P..n
hag a
u a
ga pup
?
t leupas luatuafeuetus
?
aseu-lsiom
aga se luompunoduT BO
.
PIRS 10
11'1P
00 1 puuipm ue
palwoctiouur
.3?'I140633 se 04400
1
1 aPo.1 1300 6081 1 Ps.
37 ,23
aan i nsqns. ay /
6010011 paclo/anap sex Ten/ 101321
zsr abed
F-
a
/11 .1..
11r
U0
11
n llp e paiidde Aay,
?
oluT 6241
and 41041
Aaallpue ..'1314 641
,toco Lams os
'paaenTena
O
1
UOTWW.OPIT
411694 II
. 41 1464 . 1
460I01104262
00010611 6 01 auensand padOlanap 01e44 pare sAempavd
tionsaEPT 10nemparn016 ssaapPe
As
q1
pe003aq fan
01 041/121110 411664 671411002006
ssotu
641 Pie
0.7004
1641 6014a6 nopoa awl UT
1314 aya peen 6,68 • aPT10Taia
14014 10; 9661 ayl sem Se '219VI1e4e
a1214
0.10W
771014 6uT1u1ip eiagm -- sem aaaem
6
UTIP
T 1P aisalm
sPiogse
a ga U0ilea1U99
011
pa6eq-ti11ea4 P211iluapT
a s
ITI ha41 JeTiwls
4200 VVM
pip Aaya aegm pus.
4
0110-41770e1e40 47111100 ay/ aog pa
y
pueas ePTa0I/P
„tops °
pp
44
,
45 yuTym
?
aBenLuet 16010.441
le MOO/ mow/ am
an7
pup -spuoa/ad yvyy 2y
7 se sisAleue
1.116103
4
11an e 6,1
,
aw 01 --
Ann
0,10
s i sAgeue pa6eq-44118844
e 00 pas.' snoplezey a/u sluan/i/suoa 0[6]]]0 74911214
Aay / ipTym le
814A.4
O
TI
rp.d. 1
:11.
/1
VCIS 4314m
trc suessux us s
less pup -z
5141
laucco 400110110
14
0
44 1 03 P
avP
u.l.
a41
-2
0010014
0
4401,4 Jog 'I apvel
'05'195
6 . 1
1 una
1 .
0 1 any 'buoon suaraeinbea
101136
As 195 07
flu con
6. 1
--
641311 .t 511,61)0816
OTIS -
110106484] 01607 0
41
?
9041 uT sp/epue/s
41314 407091
1 paseo-Abotougual 9141 alilln
121
2663
suosnanb
A
ue 1ensue oa Addey aq p,1 '004 10741 puif
ul luanallemo 1641 po 1441 awes 1641
41111000 041 2440
116
POIPUOW
&Iraq
ale swea276
anem mop gum 1027Ereutaa Alan IrT 1641 040
1
26
11 11
6
pue smolTe ITT'Ut se paegq 141Tea4 01 1693 00191121
e le
M001 pue lopOP 8Y82 841 app1100 dupe
?
an moil.
01 1146no 708817e1772d gEnoitiu pOtpu.4 so 01 60106
wears aleem 0191 1641 1061 241 PUP
'paaapTsucio aq pploys
?
aq
01
peau pTnom leap s
q
uo eau quay
6101061
Paz 41611.alIvd
ay/
10141 004 os Awn sego
peildde Eulaq aou 6,11
pus '66409116 alsem aSayl 10 ITV 01 PaTidde ay pInoys
Tone{
lamol
1641
'paapuT '1647
AVs
mnom am -- 01341
ea. am .
186=011480
717 pue 441[eaq
01
enapaeley
91a.
1041 fisittlawoc Aneaa elan
11 IT -- 600P10sea
A t teas aaam 11
3, '
0
104 P210
178 06
bui
aCt
0.
1
64
1 moons
241
pup 's/Tiapuel elsem snopaezeq u
i 60101]40
Se 11.m 6a
s II I 3P
ue
1 alsem 1e3T01006 uT arrano
1 891
stuttassts
alsem so aacryant 0 J o
a1nPold
uollepea bap
I e.
T dA
l
Ana e ST ap110 -441 pitsts 1001 snout
'0191 1st
anuaTaacixa seInoTa.ted seal I36
?
fanunoo
641
Ian.
Tle alegneaT weaale
616em
-Ienag .4;40131601
EZI abed

 
Page 133
MR. FAO?
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
a
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
Page 134
variability.
Ms. LW We have a few more questions, and they
all pertain r0
the sr ructure of the proposed
adjusted
standard
language.
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
t
if the deflating levels are
exceeded.?
eXatilailefe:
5
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
happy
to include that.
MS. LIU: Thank you.
HR. RAD: The next question goes to Subsection D
of your proposed adjusted standard language.
Page 11.5
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
tested on
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?
Subsecti?
n forth that,
"If concentrations of constituenfeted in Table A
are Confirmed to exceed the deflating
le
vels using
the verification procedures of Subsection D or if the
leachate is confirmed to exhibit a hazardous
Page 136
characteristic, then the leachate shall be managed a
a hazardous waste until the petitioner demonstrates
that the leachate is below the adjusted standard
criteria.'
Would you p
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
think this
Is --
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
13
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
ale-

 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AN
ADJUSTED STANDARD WASTE
DELISTING
AS
08-05
(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.
1.
The Board Technical Personnel asked whether there is
any need for USEPA's approval of this delisting. See
Tr.
p. 92.
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
p. 2.
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.
2.
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
approach."
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.
3.
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.
BFI
responded
to this question in its Pre-Filed Testimony
(pp. 8-9),
at the hearing
(Tr. pp. 96 -103),
and in its Post-Hearing Brief
(pp. 21-22).
To recap, these constituents
2

 
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.
3

 
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
methods.
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
4

 
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
plan. See
Post-Hearing Brief pp. 20-22, and Attachment 4 to that Brief
Therefore, the
Board's adoption of this delisting, although missing analytical data on these few unusual
F039 constituents, is consistent with USEPA precedent.
4.
The Board Technical Personnel asked BFI to address any additional
parameters or information that is referenced in USEPA updates to the
DRAS software.
See Tr.
pp. 105 -111.
In its Pre-Filed Testimony
(pp.19-22),
at the hearing
(Tr. pp. 105-111)
and in its
Post-Hearing Brief
(pp. 22-23),
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
5

 
(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
Properties."
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
6

 
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
Type
DAF in
Original
Model
USEPA Minimum
DAF
1,1-
Dichloroethane
Non-
Carcinogen
3.9
3.92
1,2-
Dichloroethane
Carcinogen
3.9
5.3
Cobalt
Non-
Carcinogen
7.7
3.92
Tin
Non-
Carcinogen
7.7
3.92
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.
A summary of
the revised delisting levels for Cobalt and Tin is provided in
Attachment D.
The
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.
7

 
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,
Patrici
On Behalf of
BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC
Date: July
24, 2008
Patricia F. Sharkey, Esq.
McGuireWoods, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite
4100
Chicago, IL 60601
312/849-8100
8

 
dike
/
find
A-
861
/OM 414
01-05–
LR-8J
Alisa Liu, P.E.
Environmental Scientist
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Ms. Liu:
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
of the
beta
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
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 Properties.
Please feel free to contact Todd Ramaly of my staff at (312) 353-7913 or at the address
above with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Dale Meyer
Chief
RCRA Programs Section
cc:
M. Crites, IEPA
M. Maxwell, Weaver Booz, Inc.
2

 
Project
Lab ID
A811980
PO Number
DAVIS JUNCTION
Sampled
27-MAY-08 13:00
Received
28-MAY-08
Completed
30-JUN-08
Printed
01-JUL-08
Service Location
HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC
COMMERCIAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS
7901 W. MORRIS ST.
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46231
(317)243-8304
tHERIZEI
r+Th
40.00000r
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Ahkehmatt
5
err
/64
env
A
s
o1-or
Report To
?
Bill To
MIKE MAXWELL
?
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
WEAVER BOOS AND GORDON
?
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA INC.
70 WEST MADISON
?
26 WEST 580 SCHICK ROAD
SUITE 4250
?
HANOVER PARK, IL 60133
CHICAGO, IL 60602
Sample Description
CLIENT ID: PHASE I
MATRIX TYPE: NON-SPECIFIC WATER
SUBMITTER CODE: 9016
DESCRIPTION
.?
.
?
,
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (BASWNELITRAL/ ?
270C
?
NELAC:Y
Analyst C. WILLHITE
?
: 04-JUN-08 22:00?
Instrument: GC/MS SVOA?
Test: 0505.3.0
Parameter
Result
Det. Limit
Units
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
BDL
50 ug/L
1,4-DINITROBENZENE
BDL
50
ug/L
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
BDL
50 ug/L
ALSO REQUESTED
-------------
DIBENZO(A, E)PYRENE
*
4,4'-METHYLENE-BIS(2-CHLOROANILINE)
TRIS(2,3-DIBROMOPROPYL) PHOSPHATE
...
SURROGATE RECOVERY
? -----
2-FLUOROPHENOL
37
% Rec
PHENOL-D5
28
% Rec
NITROBENZENE-D5
70
% Rec
2-FLUOROBIPHENYL
59
% Rec
2,4,6-TRIBROMOPHENOL
56
% Rec
TERPHENYL-D14
42
% Rec
1:5 Dilution
Unable to analyze sample at lower dilution due to high concentration
of
non-target analytes.
Page?1 of 2

 
tERIEIG
-.N
E
+me,
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
SW846-3510C
Analyst J. BREWER?
Analysis
Date: 02-JUN-08
Instrument
PREP
?
Test P233.4 0
Parameter
Result
Det. Limit
Units
INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME
1000
mL
FINAL VOLUME
1.0
mL
Sample
Comments
AMENDED REPORT - CBB - 30-JUN-08 : SVL TICS added.
*?
See Note for Parameter
BDL?
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
Page
?
2 of 2

 
IMMO
01020873
HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC.
COMMERCIAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS
7901 West Morris Street Indianapolis IN 46231
(800)
827-4374 Fax: (317) 486-5095
1-61659
Customer name/number
%
)
.1eAmect
%air,
!Sub/flitter
#
Analyses Requested
Send Report To:
Project Name:
bf
b
ru■S?
'CiA0/44-n0Y4
(Note special detection hinds or methods )
Co:
Z
Quote No: 2 15
1
T0S
(Given to you by your contact)
el
g
s
0
.
I 1
i
g
0.
3o
1
t
c
g
c
o
'6
.)
-
z
g
10
IA
A
.
ZI
,
tO
N
Add:
PO No. or Project/Activity ID:
0
Go -
cie..-
30
STIP DA..1"
PRINT HERITAGE TSR NAME:
ckkg
-IS Ro
-I
LEA;
0
Al
km4
1J
Attn:
Phone: (
)
CUSTOMER
STATUS: New
kraal
the
FEOC?
(
?
)
If no previous credit has been established with Heritage,
prepayment
(check,VISA,etc) is required at
time of sample submittal to the laboratory.
E-mail:
Sample Turn Around Time
Standard:?
Rush Date?
I?
I
Sampled By
P
oison. S'‘
e
el■-SNSI /
a
Mo?
Day?
Yr
(AcoMersiod TAT subject la PaManel
Charge
( Psis
matackapplid and
Pfa9.00 Dv LK 1
D
Date
Sampled
sa
rif
mpled
fle
1
0
Sample ID and/or Location
where your sample was taken
Remarks:
Lith ..
only
Sample No.
sikl lob
13.10 i
X?
l
ikkt r
o
ta- K
AR)
iir
All
NA
Z4A
PMPM
PM
AM
PM
AM
O ,
5
Received
13P Moran)
angneb
Custody seas presentAntact?
Broken containers?
COC
agree with sample labels?
Y
e No
Comments:
selOnebed
*
?
/
plaited by.
(Pflug)
.„....
.....
answeisied
er. (SOAP*
I?
DS/Pm
i
Received
by
Miran)
Cared
Neadspace
containers for tesUng?
issues acceptade?
Holding time(s) acceptabe?
PPOSSIV8I,
pkrs
acceptable?
.....
...-
Received
ix la!
Of?
Mein)
"rig Oj
140,
-Th.?
°C
,-
r^..
9
ti
cs
ROt
?
42a)/
No
.../
,..
04
pH
WI
unadjusted?
noir.. 1

 
1i/(4,“tvt t
erg At
thy
/9-s 0-05-
Site and WMU Information
Delisting Petition Number:
DL-08-05
File Name:
Davis Junction LF Only Detects
Petitioner's Name:
BFI. Waste Systems of North America, Inc.
Address 1:
26 West 580 Schick Rd.
Address 2:
City, State:
Zip Code:
Analysis Performed by:
Date of Analysis:
Waste Description:
Waste Code:
WMU Type:
Waste Volume (yd'):
Active Life (years):
Risk Factor:
HQ Factor:
Hanover Park,
60103
MBM
Jul-16-2008
Phase I Landfill Leachate
F039
Surface Impoundment
24.75
1
1.00E-06
1.00E+00

 
List of COCs with Altered Chemical Properties
,Chemical Name
CAS Number
Parameter Modified
Parameter
Symbol
Parameter Units
Original
Value
Modified
Value
1
:-01,reeriane, 1.1-
3
Surface IrrI6n:, 6-- s''
D:i;;Von
4t04
1■1C7S111d7
.61er
DAFSI
0
pichloroethane, 1,2-
107-0S-2
Surface impoundment Dilution ,
Attenuation Factor
3.9
A:0kt s,
67
-
6 .,. I
Chat Reference Dose
sy
6,9
'Arsenic
7440-38-2
Maximum Concentration Level
MCL
0.01
Xy1ones it:fah
133120-7
Om! Hefts s.re 3' -
a
'RFD°
tigne‹,,,..lay
2
0.2
.
Xyienes (total)
1330-20-7
Inhalation Reference Dose
RFC
01
H r;.:' '
-601hylerie
,
6
-
21
.
1
.1
;.,
c or Nnrnarns ?
c
Carcinogen Nononrcinoc,en
Vinyl
chloride
75-01-4
Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic
CARCNON
Carcinogen
Noncarcinogen
l'n,
n2ene
74-43-2
Om Pefors6cs,?
e
Rh- Do
0.00'
0.00'4
'Benzene
71-43-2
Inhalation Reference Dose
RFC
t-0.009
Oza
Toth icr` 01De?
'I?
e
'I
127.3.4
Carcolerjenic
:
-.I Nagrs
l?
;,00.,ssi..:
nthiON
Carcinogen No - ..t
,
?..n
t
'Arsenic
7440-38-2
Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic.
CARCNON
Carcinogen Noncarcinogen
t1e -2_, 6
,nonenc
2
, n?
.11
Fin
7440-31-5 1
?
Surface Impoundment Dilution
Attenliatien Factor
DAFSI
U
g
3S2
744 ( ?
43-C,
(72,12.6,6,:en2?N Nn
, nn r
c,6-n)er r.,
CARCNON
,n)
Carenov-6,
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic
CARCNON
Carcinogen Noncarcinogen
l
ip '7' .)1?
.,:.
?
;.'..-?■10
?
1,4-
I et -
4
.
,.?
.
_?
.
Ic.240-\:
146
-26,(61-1:;.11
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Carcinogenic or Noncarcinogenic
CARCNON
Carcinogen Noncarcinogen
..-3-
.1 38
Toluene
108-88-3
Inhalation Reference Dose
RFC
mg/m3
0
5
DArs1
Methyl
ethyl
ketone?
78-93-3
Inhalation Reference Dose
RFC
mg/m'
1
5
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
1

 
Limitin
g
Pathways
Detection Limit Analysis - Toxicity of Petitioned Waste cannot be confirmed if Detection Limits
fall belaWmaximuni a towable concentration
Chemical Name
CAS
Number
Maximum
Allowable TCLP
Concentration
loin./
Maximum Allowable TCLP
Pathway?
- ' .
Meximum
. Allowable Total
.
Concentration
(mg/Kg)
Maximum Allowable Total
Pathway
Dishicioehane, 1,1-
75-
34-3
9 Uiiii tu
i
•Utuitiiiiwater Ingestion
1.65E+07
Air Volatile Inhalation
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
107-06
-2
2.13E-02
Groundwater Ingestion:
2.34E+03
Air Volatile Inhalation
()insane. 1.4-
124-
91
- 1
2..^'
?'21
1.dwa
ii, ?
sr Ingestion
1.08E+05
Ac Volatile inhaiation
Trichloro0e064/propionic acid, 2A,5-
Silvei) '
93-72-1
1A3E+00
MCL :.
Not Applicable
Dichiorophenoxyacetic acid, 2A- (2.4
-
D1
94 -76
- 7
.?
;ii:?
I:
do
: Applicable
Dimethylplienol, 2A-?
'
.405-67-9
2.76E+01
Groundwater Ingestion
Not Applicable
Acetone
Cunt:newsier Ingestion
Not Applicable
Tricbtlöwe?
One
79-01-6
1.64E-01
MCL
1.70E+04
Air Volatile Inhalation
Vanadium
744N
-
62
-
cscaier Ingristion
Nei.Applicable
Vinyl chloride
75
-01
-
4
1.30E-03
Groundwater Ingestion'
.6.35E+03
Air Volatile Inhalation
Any:er2i:
744(;.:3-2
OrOkilld‘?ter Ingestion
Not Applicable
Xylenes (total)
1330-20-7
1.60E+02
Groundwater Inhalation
.3,79E+06
Air Volatile Inhalation
Zinc
7440
- 66
-
6
7.60;+02
Gr' tin?
te
?
ng?
tion
Not Applicable
Barium.-.
.tte+og
?
:
Not Applicable
Dichorcbenzene, 1,4-
106-46-7
2.91E-01
Groundwater
ingestion
I?
E+04
Air Voiairle Inhalation
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
Chemical Name
CAS
Number
Maximum
Allowable TCLP
Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum Allowable TCLP
Pathway
Maximum
Allowable Total
Concentration
(mg/Kg)
Maximum Allowable Total
Pathway
Heptachlor
76-44-8
4.45E+05
GroundwaterAduli Dermal
'8.01E+02
Air Volatile. Inhalation
e,,?
ft \riene chloride
7r :in .
-?
an:
?
.1.-
MCL
1 17
?
ut
Ai:'in aill e Inha aticn
Methyl isobutklii ketone
108-10-1
7.98E+01
Groundwater Ingestion
Mot Applicable
Naohthalede
91
-
2n--1
Gn-
entrlweter IntFa-Munn
1 13E - 05
An Volatile Inhalation
: Nickel
7440-02-0
7.68E+01
Groundwater Ingestion '
.-
Not Applicable?
i
._?
.1
Son
77;32-49-2
1,Z: , titred..)
MC",
tmet AptaiCeMn
Fnchkuoet8
•.9 04,
Nci
A
tiipe
p
t
li
iha
ca
lb:aetirin
Vinyl cdloride
75-01-4
Mill
Air \iiijo
Etedzene-iiirii
4:
-..i ?
OlatileirnbStion
• etracrilbroethylene
127-18-4
1,
74E-0`:
MCL
Not Applicable
Benzene
Ciiiisibit
71-43-2
4.02E0'
MCL
3.02E+05
Air Volatile Inhaation
'5147+?
LOW'.
No: Applicable
at a_
Phenol
Bn@
i-i
inn
?
.-1
108-95-2
845E+02
Groundwater Ingestion
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
2

 
Limiting Pathways
Detection Limit Analysis - Toxicity of Petitioned Waste cannot be confirmed if Detection Limits
fall below maximum allowable concentration
'Chemical Name
CAS
Number
Maximum
Allowable TCLP
Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum Allowable TCLP
Pathway
Maximum
Allowable Total
Concentration
090(9)
Maximum Allowable Total
Pathway
Tetra:rm..?
tyiere
121-
'3
-4
= e9E
-C2
.7,vcr
-‘4: itgesboo
1.2e
?
05
A x V?
z
t
?
r
Tin
7440-31-5
6.02E+02
Groundwater Ingestion
Not Applicable
-440
-
45 e
4 ,SE G
MO
\ m
?
'' i7,x
-Ae
(Methylene:
75-09-2
1.98E-01
MCL
i?
,2.53E+07
Air
Volatile Inhalation
DiGntorchstiS
106
-48
-
7
7 16D '31
MCL
2,96E407
Air Volatile Inhalatio
n
HeptachlorV
X X XX -
76-44-8
1.36E+08
MCL
ApPticable
'
3.3
4
,.).XX-C"
MCL
ti94E+08
Air %battle
.
Inhaabon
TCDD, 2,3
1746-01-6
1.47E-06
Groundwater Adult
938EFfl3
Airtkoiatile Inhalation
2.E/rim:urn
7441a
-43-9
4C9E- tr
y1CL
Not Applicable
Carbon dis
m
75-15-0
1.18E+02
Groundwater Ingestion
30E+07
AirVolatile Inhalation
'II- :g
m',
XI4E•,.x3
Het A
Dichloropr?
13-
10061-01-5
5 12E-F05
Groundwater Ingestion
1.21E+08 i
Air Volatile Inhalation
460
-
43
-
4
4' • XXL4'
Nm Ar Riicaote
Copper
7440-50-8
2A7E+04
MCL
Not Applicable
D. izt , , ,
?
We
C-3,ox^:,xtator Ing.secor:
Results for Analysis: Davis
Junction LE Only Detects
?
3

 
MCL
78-9 3
Limiting Pathways
mita
etiatillreaf:
ct
9n^ent[etroa ".
Lead
7439-924
2.04E+02
Not Apolkale
1
4.99E+02
rt Apolicable
ethyl et
5.72E+01
oduSatee
Groundwater estion
10041-4
1.15E+07
Air Volatile Inhalation
5.99E+02
?
Gain
?
dAskos.
?
Air Volatile Inhalation
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
4

 
Maximum Allowable TCLP
Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways
'Chemical
Name
Risk Factor = 1.00E-06
110'
Factor --.: VODE+00
* = Detection Limit
Waste Stream
I
TCLP
Concentration
(mg/L.).
Dilution
Attenuation
Factor (DAF)
Waste
Volume
Adjusted
OAF
Maximum.
Allowable.
Concentration
(
(MEOW..::
c
Max:A*140,8W
Concentratio
Basedgin"
, BnannBetata
:
r
,
?.:
lanstidtiPathway
-ffiakik
,if
Cohcintration.
Based-on
?
,
Groundwater
Inhalation
Max. Allowable
' Concentration
Based on Adult
Groundwater Dermal
Absorption Pathway
Max Allowable
Concentration
Based on Child
Groundwater Dermal
Absorption Pathway
Etny■cenzene
250E-O
/
I 2CF+ 51
5 185+ /1
1
5.72E+01
3 07E+02
4 33E -02
4.87E+02
224E+02
_
Styrene
?
.
8.70E-02
9.10E+00
6.20E+01
6.20E+0&-;
4.66E+02
1,12E+03
1.01E+03
4.65E+02
thelsorcoropene, us-1.3-
1 OCE-32
1.3:;11+08
1 23E-^9
5.12E+05
6 63E+06
1 b3L-05
Dimethy phenol, 2,4-
1.40E-01
5.40E+00
3.68E+01
2.76E+01
176E+01
-
1.79E+02
8.20E+01
Cr e ,
01 p-
1.60E+54.,
4
2.)E
Ko:
5.37E+00
5.37E+00
-
6 15E, 1
2 82E -
(,'
Dichloroseazene, 1,4-
1.30E-02
1.40E+01
9.54E+01
2.91E-0i.?
:
.2;91E-01
4.73E-01
5.00E-01
1.15E+00
Did,
VOL-enzene, 1.4-
1 30E
-02
1 42F +i0l
5 ',4E- -,;"
2.91E-01
2.
91E-
01
1 t0E
-21 1
5.30E
-C1
1
'0E -00
Dchloroethane, 1,2-
2.30E-02
3.90E+00
2 66E+ 01
2.13E-02?
-
.2:1-02
3.54E-02
6.45E-01
1.48E+00
M ethyl /sobuty1 Ketone
1
80E+00
3 90E
1- 00
" o.15?
5
7.98E+01
7 98E+01
-
2 92E+V3
i
34E
-
03
Toluene "
4.70E-01
5 90E+00
4.02E+01
4.02E+0t
1.21E+02
3.66E+03
3.29E+02
1.51E+02
Phenol
910E
-
01
4 ..110.40/0
5
5,;5+„,
6.45E+02
8.45E+02
-
1 42E04
6.5.1E+@3
Dioxane, IA- -
3-30Et01
5.30E+00
3.61E+01
2.40E-01
-,1,
.
-40E-01
1.47E+01
1.40E1-02
3.22E+02
Totrachloroettwicre
598E-03
5 10E+11c
5 45E
4
51
4.89E-02
4.59E 02
2 04E
-a1
3.19E 31
7.32E- 01
Tetrachl
5.90E-03
5.10E+00
3.48E+01
4.89E-02
..4.89E-02-
2.04E+00
3.19E-01
7.32E-01
Xylenes - total)
1 10E+0C
1 3.2:-:/
ul
1.60E+02
6.85E+02
1 50?
4
1 C
1
E+051
4 65E/ )4
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
4.40E-09
1.90E+04
1.29E+05
1.47E-06
6.31E-05
1.39E-03
1.47E-06
3.38E-06
Mel/ st/ /n
1.40E+351
0 ,E
-
0,
_?
1
4.99E+02
4 99E+02
-
2 b4E .05
1.14E+55
Acetone
2.00E+01
3.90E-00
2.66E+01
8.98E+02
8.98E+02
-
2.55E+05
1,17E+05
Benzene
270E-J2
: --E.- .
1
1.
1
1.01E-01
1
01E-01
1
53E-01
8.79E=01
2 02E '0,1
Benzene
2.70E-02
5.90E+00
4.02E+01
1.01E-01,
1.?
E-01
1.53E-01
8.79E-01
2.02E+00
Endrn
1 50E - 33
4.,E1011
, 6.1 E 4 07
317E+04
1
84E+05
-
6.95E+04
2?
0+
Lead
.?
1.80E-01
2.00E+03
1.36E+04
2.64E+02
?
".
-
Results
for Analysis: Davis
Junction LF Only Detects
?
1

 
Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways
Max. Allowable
Concentration
Based on MCL
5.72E+01
6,20E-00
7-1
sE;oet
7.16
E +0/
1 33E411
4.02E1BI
8 80E+02
4.02E-01
327E+04
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects?
1

 
Maximum Allowable TCLP
Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways
Chemical Name
'Risk Factor = 1.00E-06
HQ Factor 7- 1.00E+00
*a.
Detection Limit
Waste Stream
?
Dilution
TCLP?
Attenuation
Concentration?
Factor (DAF)
(mg/L)
Waste
Volume
Adjusted
DAF
Maximum
Allowable
Concentration
(mg/L)
DL
Max. Allowable
Concentration
Based on
Groundwater
Ingestion Pathway
Max. Allowable
Concentration
Based on
Groundwater
Inhalation
Max. Allowable
Concentration
Based on Adult
Groundwater Dermal
Absorption Pathway
Max. Allowable
?
I
Concentration
Based on Child
Groundwater Dermal,
Absorption Pathway
y
0DE- 92
2.20E-01
7
57E-G l
--
-
Nickel
9.50E-01
1.50E+01
1.02E+02
7.
.68E+01
7.66E+01
-
-
---
291.. -9'
I 9.01. 20
2 :?
'-?
-9
6.02E+02
9 Ez+t)2
-
--
..
l Arsenic
5.40E-02
7.70E+00
125E+01
2.56E-03
2.56E-03
-
-
A ,
tte
t C
5
4)E-32
7 ?t
.-,5
.
2 fi-
<1
2.56E-03
2
511-E-03
-
-
---
'Barium
.?
?
...1
- , -
1.30E+00
1.11E+01
7.56E+01
1.51E+02
1.99E+02?
-
--
-
--
-OecIrea.i
. -9
1 BCF-02
1 29E 01
9 15350
4:,
4.09E-01
1 54E+00
-
--
--
'Cadmium
[?
,
1.80E-02
120E+01
8.18E+01
4.09E-01
1.54E+00
-
-
-
Cr 0.-ninin
2CF ,i
• 5:Fry:
-?
Cir. --Cr-
1.04E+03
.5 5.1-714.35.
-
-
--
ICObalt
100E+00
3.92E+00
2.67E+01
6.02E+01
6.02E+01
--
-
;:
ceror
: 50F 3:
: ."‘E- 0,
9:K,
C'4
2.47E+04
235E+04
-
-
--
Vanadium
160E-G2
19E+01
a 7E+02
171E+01
5.71E+01
-
--
• L':.,.
: gt E...X.,
r?
,
:?
;55 - ,'
7.60E+02
7.60E+02
-
-
-
f Vinyl chlot
4.40E-01
3.90E+00
2.66E+01
10E-03
1.30E-03
8.72E-02
285E-02
155E-02
'
,./In‘•; c:orid
g.1.9E-01
5 .90E 3-. 3
2 96E -01
1.30E-03
1 5CE-03
:1.72 7-0 3
2.85E02
6 :35E-02
Methylene adride
5.80E-01
5.80E+00
195E+01
1.98E-01
A.se*teti?
,
5,54E+02
286E+03
1 22E+03
Methylene c,hieriCe
5.90E-0 1
5 b0E- - ON
-:: 9
. ,E- Ci
1.98E-01
8 90E+01
r le4E-P 02
2.666,-03
Carbon disulfide
810E-02
4.60E+00
3.13E+01
1.18E+02
1.18E+02
334E+02
1.00E+03
4.60E+02
Dich...?
ntiaos, 1.1-
9 7CE-4
.2
n 5- 'L?
,'
239F -,1.1
9.98E+01
3 99E+0
1
2 22E+02
: 31-
9- 4
0.3
3 3rFe22
}Heptachlor
5.30E-04
5.00E+10
141E+11
445E+05
153E+06
322E+08
4.45E+05
102E+06
I?
I` .. ,
E4.1114i r
4.12E4:4
5 #41.4:
414:
:4"E-?
"
4.45E+05
5 53E+06
3 229
4
-09
4 45E4-5
1Selenium
1
120E-02
4.60E+00
13E+O1
1.57E+00
5.88E+00
-
--
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
2

 
ltat-Affeenatili
Cán:CeitiSön.
BasetoillIeL
4.03E
-01
5.25E-01
4.09E-01
1.04E+03
2 L7E+04
5.
32E-02
I.ssat
1.98E-01
1..36E+08
1.36E+08
1.57E+00
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
ffittracto7-15
.
1:00E*013-
-, WistÄsheeni,'
Concentration
PkilLi
'atAhab r."'
factor (DM)
-?
't?
"?
'
"/- •
Waste
Adjusted
'DAV
?
" .
'
Coheeifitratio
Cm94-1 ""--' c
iii1
.,
o able
Based-'on AdditI
Vrarme
Max. Allowable
,Deirreentradon
Based on Child
Groundwater Dermal
'
1 = Detection Llinit
"
-
-'
?
' "?
-?
c
"?
-
A
Pathway
Absorption Pathway
8 65E+03
Me/hYl
ettPaincilte
-.
?
1=20E
1
/07-
3.90Et130
-'2.66Ei/01 /
`‘‘
?
.
?
'?
•2
- .", ,
e
tt
..ini
14
ai...
3.69E+04
Tnchihroethylene
5.30E-01
4.80E+00
3.27E+01
1.64E411
7 37E+00
1.07E+01
4 31E+00
4chloroethiSM
ENE-Oi
4.80E+W
327E+01
1:w.
.
1:07E+01
4.81E+00
"
?
'-
?
'
?
I,
-
-?
' '?
Diethyl phthalate
540E-01
6 20E+00
4,23E1-31
1,27E+03
1 27E+03
1.30E+04
5 96E-C;3
NibilibSeireii?
'.
3,60E-02
1.40E+01
9.54E+01
6.51E+04
?
'
Ag
:
'
7:44+01
6.51E+00
9.26E+01
425E+01
Thchieloplienoxypropcnic
srirl?9 a
,.."-:Citypyl
830E-0
1 20E "00
:' 3■E ,3'
1.43E+00
8.60E+0C
2 36E401
1 31E+01
DichlorophertiOXyac-e6c acid,
3.90E-01
3.90E+00
2.66E+01
1.86E+00
9:98E+00
7.19E+01
3.30E+01
9,1/9 4C
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
3

 
Max. Mowable
Concentration
Based on MCI-
1.64E-01
1.43E
+00
1.86E+00
Maximum Allowable TCLP Concentrations - Groundwater Exposure Pathways
Results for Analysis: Davis Junction LF Only Detects
?
3

 
Table ill
Summary of Delisting Levels
Davis Junction Landfill - Phase I
Delisting Petition
Max. Allowable
Max. Allowable
Applicable
Max. Allowable
Max. Allowable
Max. Allowable
Concen. Based
Constituent
CAS No.
Concert Based
on GW ingestion'
1 11/9/L
)
Conan. Based
on MCI.'
im9f14
LimitingPathway°
Groundwater
Ingestion
Pathway unit,
Btha
il4
Conan. Based
on GW
inhalation.
030.44
Concen. Based on Mutt
Groundwater Dermal'
(mak)
on
Child Groundwater
[termer
(mfeL)
Debating Level°
0110a)
Maximum Detected
Conan. In Leachate
(m£1,L)
Cobalt
2440-484
60.2
--
Groundwater Ingestion
60.2
-
60.2
3.0
Tin
7440-31-5
602
-
Groundwater Ingestion
602
-
602
0.12
- 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
groundwater
pathway, the user has the option of considering either of the groundwater ingestion pathway delisting levels:
the
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
?
Page 1 M1

Back to top