O/2/200

16:11

FAX

3096852093

RECEIVED

11001/0O1

CLERK’S

OFFICE

I

SEP

29

2008

.:

Jon

Therriault,

IPC’13

brom:

loin

Lcl\\

ards

9P

S/0

here’

s

a

more

legible

copy

of

my

Sept.

25

ic-tier

ui

\.dSTTQ,

F

lie

IjI

2

j’

clifiLlences

horn

thc 011gm

ii

i

pL(I

N \\

hLI

L

I

h

id

‘

oI

ii

‘1

c )iRCk.

I

i

c:

uple

of

misspellings

(as

analogous)

. 1

also

mailed

this

to

you

Sept.

26,

but

mail

sometimes

takes

fore

,er.

II

flois

Pollution

Contiol

Bo

tid

C

is

No

‘\

(IS

II)

Torn

Fdwuds

IHI

W.Ranctoiph

St.,

Suite

1

l500

902W.

Moss

\ve.

C’h

.ago.

IL

60601

Sept.

25,

2005

Peoria,

IL

6l6fl6

Additional

Considerations

ibr

Case

AS

08—

10

J

cl

giouiid

As

stated

in

my

August

18

md

28

2008

letteis

10

the

IPCB

the

petition

( I

Pc

.)ria

Disposal

Co.

(Case AS

08—

10)

to

allow

delisting

anti

transfer

of

KO6

1 electric

arc

aace

(EAF)

dust

from

PDC’s

toxic

waste

landfill

at

Peoria

to

a

retular

puhi.

c landfill

:irt

:r

“treatment’’

is

clearly

far

off

base

and

needs

to

he

clisniissed,

because

the

treatment

Paicess

is

“secret.’’ Therefore,

the

public

has

ito

way

of evaluating

it.

PDC

notecl

at

the

Aug.

1$

1PCB

public

hearing

on

the

transfer

permit

that

its

purpose

is

a

leave

some

room

in

its

Peoria

landfill,

near

the

end

of

its

capacity,

to

avoid

the

lli;aois

EPA

being

able.

to lorce

its

closure

for

another

10

or

20

years.

Reason: PDC

may

well

have

financial

tears

over

possible

multi—million

costs

of

EPA’s

.e

dly

mandated

30

years

of

J)ost—clOsUie

care

ot

its

massive

Peoria

landfill.

i—I:

wever.

the

Peoria

area

public

has

a

more

overriding

concern

——

the

future

health

and

Ii V :biiity

of

the

Peoria area,

and

impact

of

PDC’

s landfill

on

that

——

just

being

realized.

sible

Alternatives:

The

IPCB could

summarily

dismiss

the

PDC

petition

as

untenable

and

unprovabic

at

time.

The

idea

of

using

the

Peoria

PDC

landfill

as

a

“transfer

Site’’

ft)r

“treated’’

EAF

dust

wa;,

in

effect,

decided

in

August,

2007,

by

the

IIZPA

\vhen

it

summarily

reecte :1

Pl)C’s

icc

.iest

to

be listed

as

the

“generator”

of

the

waste

being

brought

in rather

than

the

“:ceeiver”

because

PDC

may

add

other

materials

to

it

(essentially

to

keel)

the

li;Lht

EAF

dm’..;t

from

blowing

away).

Changes

(mainly diluting)

the

toxic

waste after

it

co:ne.s

in tc:

ni:ke

its

toxic

percentage

less

does

not

change

its initial

status,

the

EPA

ruled.

P.DC’

s

latest

PrOPOSctl

simply

again

attempts to

classify

itself

as

the

“genera

tor’

icr

than

the

receiver and

disposer

of

the

waste.

**

S.{.

to

be

explored

is

why

the

secret

technology

P1)C

Says

it

now

has

to

deal

with

the

tc.

csolids

in

the

EAF

dust,

can’t

be

applied

j.ght

at

the

steel

plants

where

it is

made.

‘fit

.n

if

it

is

truly

safe.

rather

than

being

trucked

several

hundred miles

into

Pc

:wia

for

PiZ

to

deal

with, the

steel

manufacturers

could

do

that

right

at

their

own

plant

.

then

iii ply

take

it to

the

closest local

landfill

in

their

own

community.

That

would

cut

down,

too,

on

motor exhaust

pollution and

traffic hazards.

The

claim

for

this

secret

process

for

removing

toxics

essentially

just

address

es

the

14

wavy

metals likely

to

be

in

the

steel

manufacturing

waste

But

there

is

also

.r

iii

. ltitude

of

“volatile,

gaseous

toxic

chemicals

in

the

waste that

vaporize

into

the

air,

iic

.uding

poisonous

doxins

and

lurans.

I\4etalsas

mercury

and

compounds

of

Icad

and

c*hi amium will

also

evaporate

into

the

air.

But

all the

discussion

regards

controlling

the

toxic

metals

in

the

steel

mill

w

iste

——

ol

coffli

ollmg

the

myi

iacl

of

olafllt.

chcmiL

us

in

such

v

astc

I

h

v

ill

bt

I maim’

oil

into

the

air

during transport,

handling

——

and

“treatment’’

to

remove

toxic

i aetals.

This

whole

scenario

of

a new

“secret’’

means

of

dealing

with

the

toxics

in

st

ci

mill

wa;tes

is

based

on

tests

clone,

presumably,

on

samples

from

the

10

steel

mills

that

would.

so

far,

be

involved

from

six

different,

states —— with

64.3%

coming

from

outside

Illinois

lied

an

IEPA official

and

asked

who

submitted the

waste

samples

to

EPA

to

he

tested.

Hi:;

on

the

spot,

immediate

response

was

“PDC supplied

the

samples.”

Isn

‘.

that

malogois

lie

jroverhiai

tar

guard

jng

the

henhouse?

(I apprecIate

his

honesty,)

Tom

Edwards/River

Fescue

/

_