Sep
25
08
05:OSp
CHEJ
7032378388
p.2
Center
for
Health,
Environment
&
Justice
P0.
Box
6806
FaI’s
Church,VA
22040
Phone:
703.237.2249
Fax:
703.237.8389
wwchej.org
September
25,
2008
D
9tRK’s
OFFICE
Members
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
SEP
25
2008
do
Clerk
of
the
Board
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
POIItIon
Control
Board
100
W.
Randolph
Street,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL
60601
Re:
In
the
Matter
of
the
RCRA
Delisting
Adjusted
Standard
Petition
of
the
Peoria
Disposal
Company;
Case
No.
AS
08-10
Dear
Members
of
the
Board:
The
Center
for
Health,
Environment
and
Justice
(CHEJ)
is
a
national
organization
that
works
with
hundreds
of
community-based
organizations
nationwide
who
are
concerned
about
the
proper
disposal
of
hazardous
and
non-hazardous
waste.
CHEJ
was
founded
over
25
years
ago
by
Lois
Gibbs,
the
woman
who
organized
the
community
efforts
at
Love
Canal
in
Niagara
FaIls,
NY.
Ms
Gibbs,
the
Executive
Director
of
CHEJ,
visited
the
Peoria
community
in
2005
at
the
request
of
the
River
Rescue,
a
local
community-based
group.
CHEJ
has
been
providing
support
to
River
Rescue
and
other
members
of
Peoria
for
over
four
years
to
help
address
their
concerns
about
the
health
and
environmental
impacts
of
the
continued
operation
of
the
Peoria
Disposal
Company’s
(PDC)
hazardous
waste
landfill
located
in
Peoria
County,
IL.
River
Rescue
asked
that
CHEJ
review
the
petition
and
accompanying
technical
documents
filed
by
PDC
and
submit
comments
to
the
Board.
CHEJ
is
providing
these
comments
in
response
to
this
request.
We
are,
however,
also
concerned
about
the
national
implications
of
delisting
a
waste
using
a
proprietary
process
that
is
publicly
undisclosed.
Making
such
a
decision
would
set
a
dangerous
precedent
that
could
potentially
affect
many
communities
across
this
country.
PDC
has
petitioned
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(IPCB)
to
delist
electric
arc
furnace
dust
(K061
type
waste)
that
it
treats
on-site
at
its
hazardous
waste
disposal
facility
in
Peoria.
PDC
claims
that
they
have
developed
a
new
waste
treatment
process
that
allows
it
to
treat
this
waste
and
make
it
non-hazardous
which
will
allow
them
to
dispose
of
this
waste
in
any
non-hazardous
waste
landfill.
Electric
arc
furnace
(EAF)
dust
or
K061
waste
typically
includes
a
broad
range
of
heavy
metals
including
antimony,
arsenic,
barium,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium,
silver,
thallium,
and
zinc.
Electric
arc
furnace
dust
is
defined
Sep
25
08
05:O5p
CHEJ
7032378388
p.
3
Members
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Page2
September
25,
2008
that
electric
arc
furnace
dust
poses
a
serious
public
health
and
environmental
hazard
that
must
be
properly
disposed
of
in
a
licensed
hazardous
waste
disposal
facility.
The
EPA
guidance
manual
(2000)
for
delisting
a
defined
hazardous
waste
states
that
a
complete
petition
will
include
the
following
information:
•
A
detailed
description
of
the
manufacturing
and
treatment
processes
generating
the
petitioned
waste
and
the
volume
of
waste
generated.
•
A
discussion
of
why
the
waste
is
listed
as
hazardous
and
a
description
of
how
the
waste
is
managed.
•
A
discussion
of
why
samples
collected
in
support
of
the
demonstration
are
thought
to
represent
the
full
range
of
variability
of
the
petitioned
wastes.
•
Results
from
analyses
of
a
minimum
of
four
representative
samples
of
the
petitioned
waste
for:
(1)
applicable
hazardous
waste
characteristics
(ignitability,
corrosivity,
or
reactivity);
(2)
total
and
Teachable
concentrations
of
all
hazardous
constituents
likely
to
be
present
in
the
petitioned
waste;
and
(3)
total
oil
and
grease.
•
Chain-of-custody
records
and
quality
control
(QC)
data
for
all
analytical
data.
•
In
some
cases,
groundwater
monitoring
information,
if
the
petitioned
waste
has
been
disposed
of
in
a
land-based
hazardous
waste
management
unit.
•
A
statement
signed
by
an
authorized
representative
of
the
facility
certifying
that
all
information
is
accurate
and
complete.
After
having
reviewed
the
PDC’s
petitioned
documents
and
attachments,
it
is
clear
that
PDC
fails
to
show
that
their
new
hazardous
waste
treatment
process
meets
all
of
these
criteria.
As
a
result,
CHEJ
feels
that
the
IPCB
has
no
choice
but
to
reject
PDC’s
petition
to
delist
EAF
dust
waste.
The
primary
basis
for
this
decision
is
that
the
petition
fails
to
provide
“a
detailed
description
of
the
manufacturing
and
treatment
processes
generating
the
petitioned
waste”
as
described
above.
The
information
necessary
to
independently
evaluate
whether
PDC’s
new
proprietary
process
can
in
fact
eliminate
the
characteristics
of
EAF
dust
waste
that
presents
a
hazard
to
either
human
health
or
the
environment
is
not
included
in
the
petition
nor
in
the
technical
documents
that
are
attached.
More
specifics
are
provided
below.
PCD’s
technical
document
prepared
by
RMT,
Inc.
includes
a
section
called
“Process
and
Waste
Management
information”
that
does
contain
a
general
description
of
the
treatment
process.
Unfortunately,
no
details
on
the
proprietary
process
are
included.
In
fact,
the
reader
is
referred
to
Appendix
F
for
information
on
the
“composition
of
PCD’s
proprietary
metals
treatment
reagents,
including
a
description
of
the
chemical
reagents”
(p.
3-16).
But
when
you
go
to
Appendix
F,
this
information
is
“redacted”
or
excluded
from
the
appendix.
It
seems
disingenuous
to
refer
readers
to
information
that
is
intentionally
excluded
from
the
documents.
Sep
25
08
05:OSp
CHEJ
7032378389
p.4
Members
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Page3
September
25,
2008
Furthermore,
there
is
no
stated
track
record
for
this
new
hazardous
waste
treatment
process.
long
PDC
it
is
will
introducing
last.
PDC
a
new
provides
process
no
(seedata
page
to
indicate
3-16)
evenhow
long
though
this
theytreatment
apparently
process
have
will
no
solidify
idea
how.
and
encapsulate
the
electric
arc
furnace
dust.
Without
such
data,
it
is
entirely
possible
that
this
waste
treatment
process
will
fail
within
a
few
years,
or
perhaps,
even
sooner.
PDC
acknowledges
the
lack
of
certainty
in
the
effectiveness
of
this
new
process
by
including
a
“proposed
provision
for
additional
treatment
through
curing
time
(see
pages
3-18
to
3-20).
PDC
specifically
points
to
“weather
conditions,
particularly
ambient
air
temperatures
during
the
curing
process,”
as
a
significant
factor
influencing
the
effectiveness
of
the
treatment
process
(p.
3-18).
Another
example
of
PDC’s
lack
of
experience
with
this
new
treatment
process
is
provided
by
the
discussion
of
the
procedures
used
to
collect
samples
of
the
electric
arc
furnace
dust
for
analysis.
PDC
discusses
the
need
to
mix
smaller
quantities
of
the
electric
arc
furnace
(EAF)
dust
with
reagents
of
the new
treatment
approach
because
of
the
“physical
characteristics
of
the
new
chemical
treatment
regimen”
(p.
5-2).
According
to
PDC,
these
reagents
became
“very
stiff
and
somewhat
hydrophobic
(relative
to
PDC’s
typical
treatment
reagents)
when
water
was
added.
To
adapt
to
this,
PDC
personnel
quickly
learned
it
was
best
to
treat
smaller
than
normal
loads,
and
to
first
blend
the
waste
and
all
the
chemical
reagents
prior
to
adding
the
water”
(p.
5-2).
It
is
clear
that
PDC is
still learning
about
this
treatment
process.
The
public
has
the
right
to
know
what
constituents
make
up
the
chemical
reagents
used
in
this
proprietary
process
in
order
to
independently
evaluate
its
effectiveness.
To
delist
this
process
without
requiring
PDC
to
publicly
disclose
the
specifics
of
this
process
violates
the
USEPA
guidance
delisting
criteria
and
may result
in
the
eventual
leaching
of
substantial
quantities
of
toxic
heavy
metals
from
unprotected
subtitle
D
landfills.
This
would
be
a
grave
error
that
will
jeopardize
the
quality
and
safety
of
the
groundwater
surrounding
the
unprotected
landfills
where
this
waste
would
be
disposed
of.
Another
concern
that
CHEJ
has
about
the
PDC
petition
is
whether
PDC
even
qualifies
as
a
generator
of
the
waste
that
it
is
applying
to
delist.
PDC
states
in
its
technical
document
that
they
are
a
generator
of
“residues
from
the
treatment
of
waste
materials
at
the
WSF
(waste
stabilization
facility)
(p.
3-2).
It
has
been
established
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(IEPA)
that
PCis
not
a
generator
of
waste.
In
a
letter
dated
August
30, 2007,
the
IEPA
states
that
“the
treatment
residues
from
PDC’s
treatment
operations
do
not
constitute
‘waste
generated
by
such
persons
own
activities.’
The
treatment
residues
are
derived
from
waste
that were
initially
generated
by
off-site generators
and,
for
purposes
of
the
exclusion,
are
not generated
and
managed
exclusively
at
facilities
owned,
controlled
or
operated
by
PDC.”
Sep
25
08
05:OBp
CHEJ
7032378388
p.5
Members
of
th
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Page4
September
25,
2008
According
to
the
USEPA
guidance
manual
for
delisting
waste,
the
purpose
of
the
petition
process
is
to
allow
“those
who
are
interested
in
submitting
a
petition
to
exclude
or
“delist”
a
listed
hazardous
waste
produced
at
a
particular
facility
from
the
lists
of
hazardous
waste
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
D”
(emphasis
added).
Since
the
IEPA
has
determinèd.that
PDC
is
NOT
a
facility
that
generates
its
own
waste,
but
rather
a
disposal
facility
that
generates
a
residue
from
the
treatment
of
waste
generated
by
others,
it
seems
that
PDC
has
no
basis
for
submitting
a
petition
to
delist
waste
that
it
does
not
generate.
In
this
case,
PDC
is
simply
seeking
to
extend
the
life
of
its
landfill
capacity
by
treating
this
waste
on-site
and
shipping
it
off-site
to
a
non-
hazardous
landfill
disposal
facility.
Lastly,
I
could
not
find
a
number
of
appendices
to
the
Technical
Document
which
appends
the
PDC
petition.
This
includes
Appendices
A,
C,
D,
E,
G,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
and
N.
These
appendices
where
not
in
the
files
identified
on
the
IPCB
website
as
part
of
the
initial
filing.
If
these
documents
are
located
elsewhere,
please
let
me
know
where
they
are.
If
they
are
not
part
of
the
public
record,
they
must
be
made
publicly
available
so
that
the
information
included
can
be
reviewed
by
the
public.
Appendix
J
of
the
Technical
Document,
for
example,
includes
chain-of-
custody
information
required
by
the
USEPA
for
delisting
a
waste
stream.
Without
this
information,
it
is
not
clear
if
this
criterion
has
been
met.
In
summary,
CHEJ
asks
that
the
Board
deny
PCD
its
petition
to
delist
the
treated
EAF
dust
residue
first
on
the
basis
that
it
fails
to
meet
the
criteria
for
delisting
because
they
provide
insufficient
information
to
evaluate
the
process
used
to
treat
the
residue
and
second
on
the
basis
that
they
are
not
a
generator
of
the
EAF
dust
but
rather
a
generator
of
a
residue
from
the
treatment
of
EAF
dust
with
undisclosed
chemicals
that
is
not
subject
to
the
delisting
process.
Please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me
at
the
phone
number
listed
above
if
you
have
any
questions.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Sincer
ly,
Stephen
Lester
Science
Director
7032378389
P.
1
Sep
25
08
05:05p
CHEJ
Center
for
Health,
Environment
&
Justice
0.
Box
6806
•
Fafls
Church,VA
22040
•
Phone;
703.237.2249
•
Fax;
703.237.8389
•
www.chej.org
Page(s)
Follow
V
V
Date:
To:
V
Fax:
V
3
Ai-.
sdJ
V
Ve
;
€za
From:
(703)
237-2249
-
Ext
FAX
(703)
237-8389
Subject:
V
4S
jo
Pe
p
ç
e
h.
O/4-n
c->