Tracy

Meints

Fox

15215

N. Ivy Lake

Road

Chillicothe,

IL 61523

September

24,

2008

Office

of

the

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

100W.

R.

Randolph

Thompson

Street,

Center

Suite

11-500

,.—.,

..3

S

OFFICE

Chicago,

lL60601

SEP

302

Re: Case

#

AS 08-10

Pout.

1

tori

r

OF

Controi

ILLINOIs

8

°ard

Dear

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

J—

I

1

‘‘

I am writing

to express

my

opposition

to the

Peoria

Disposal

Company

(PDC)

request

-‘

for delisting

d1fs

of

f

electric

arc furnace

dust.

I

have

reviewed

PDC’s

delisting

proposal,

the

technical

report

by RMT,

the IEPA

assessment

and

PDC’s

responses

to the

IPCB’s

questions.

I

am extremely

concerned

about

the

limited

nature and

inconclusive

results

of

the testing

on

which this

delisting

request is

based.

I failed

to find

any

evidence

at

all

that

conclusively

demonstrates

the

safety

of

what is being

proposed.

1. PDC

never developed

an

unbiased representative

sample of

the incoming

waste

stream.

Although

PDC tested

multiple

samples

representing

various

composites

from ten

different

steel mills,

the

delisting

proposal

contains

no descriptions

of how

the

sampling

protocol

was established.

EAF

furnace

dust is highly

variable.

S. Ramachandra

Rao, in

Resource

Recoveiy

and

Recycling

from

Metallurgical

Waste, 2006

explains,

‘The

composition

of

EAF dust

varies

widely depending

on

the

scrap

used, the

type

of steel

being made,

the

operating

conditions

and

procedures...

since the

ratio of

galvanized

scrap

used

has

been

increasing,

the

composition

of zinc

and lead

in the dusts

has

also

been

increasing.”

As

U.S.

and world

steel demand

continues

to increase

and the

percentage

of

recycled

steel

content

in EAF

steel

processes

continues

to

grow,

the

scrap

steel industry

is

scrambling

to keep

pace

with supply.

PDC has

not provided

any indication

that

their sampling

protocol

actually

represents

the

current and

future variability

of

EAF

waste.

Second

the samples

and

testing

were

conducted

over

a very

short time

frame — twelve

days in

December

2007 and

a

single

day

in February

2008

with

subsequent

resampling

and retesting

over the

next

ten

days

(RMT

technical

documentation

page

5-1) PDC

has not

demonstrated

that these

abbreviated

sampling

periods

are, in fact

representative

of the

year-round

characteristics

of

the waste

they

will

be

processing.

One

obvious

limitation

of

this

abbreviated

sampling

is that

curing

only

took

place

at

low temperatures.

PDC has provided

no

evidence that

the

process

remains

safe,

without

volatilization,

during

the

higher

temperatures

of

summer.

Third

because PDC

or

its paid

agents constructed

all the samples,

the

issue

of bias

must be

raised

Details on

the

sampling

are not open

to

public

scrutiny.

The PDC request

for nondisclosure

explains,

“The Appendix

B

confidential

information

contains

laboratory

analytical

reports

of untreated

EAF

dust,

identified

by steel

mill.”

With

only four

parties (PDC

labs, the

consultant/technology

owner,

PDC

facility

director,

and

RMT employees)

privy to the

information,

I question

how

the

Illinois

EPA could

sign

off

on

the

delisting.

Since

the IEPA

was

not

involved

in designing

or carrying

out

the sampling,

there

is

no

way the

IPCB

can determine

whether

sampling

bias

has skewed

the results.

2. PDC

included

no data

whatsoever

demonstrating

the

safety of

the undisclosed

waste

stabilization

process

reagents.

The

details

on

the waste

stabilization

process

itself

are

in the redacted

portion

of the record.

Per

the

PDC

request

for nondisclosure,

“The Appendix

F confidential

information

describes

the

manufacturing

and industrial

processes

whereby

PDC

treats electric

arc furnace

dust

in

its waste

stabilization

facility,

in particular,

the

specific chemicals

used

and

the

amounts

of same.”

With only

four parties

(the

consultant/technology owner,

PDC facility

director,

PDC

Vice President

of

Engineering,

and

RMT

employees)

privy to

the

information,

I question

how the

petition

could include

the information

required

---

by

Illinois

code

720.122

(i)(5)

“A

description

of

the

manufacturing

processes

or

other

operations

and

feed

materials

producing

the

waste

and

an

assessment

of

whether

such

processes,

operations,

or

feed

materials

can

or

might

produce

a

waste

that

is

not

covered

by

the

demonstration.”

I

also

question

how

it

could

be

effectively

assessed

by

the

IEPA.

The

RMT

technical

document

(page

3-1)

does

disclose

that

the

process

uses

pozzolanic

reagents.

Wikipedia

lists

common

sources

of

materials

with

pozzolanic

properties

as

fly

ash

from

coal-fired

power

plants

(an

airborne

pollutant

captured

by

scrubbers),

silica

fume

(another

coal-combustion

byproduct

and

airborne

pollutant),

rice

husk

ash

and

metakaolin

from

oil

sand

operations.

With

no

process

information

at

all

open

to

public

scrutiny,

I

fail

to

see

how

the

potential

for

air,

land

or

water

discharges

can

be

accurately

determined.

I

fail

to

understand

how

PDC’s

current

operating

permit

issued

by

the

IEPA

can

effectively

regulate

a

process

where

the

details

are

redacted

from

the

public

record

and

unavailable

even

to

the

IEPA

3.

PDC

conducted

no

assessment

whatsoever

to

determine

whether

curing

waste

atop

older

parts

of

the

PDC

#1

facility

could

potentially

damage

the

liner/leachate

collection

systems

safeguarding

the

San

Koty

aquifer.

This

causes

me

great

concern.

These

containers

are

large

and

heavy,

moved

around

with

construction

machinery,

and

could

stay

in

place

for

as

long

as

60

days.

This

would

be

taking

place

on

top

of

a

hazardous

waste

landfill,

portions

of

which

are

already

in

post-closure.

POC

has

supplied

no

analysis

of

the

impact

these

movements

and

weights

have

on

the

underlying

ground

stability,

linter

integrity

etc.

I

believe

this

use

of

the

closed

portions

of

the

landfill

is

a

direct

circumvention

of

the

IPCB’s

earlier

rulings

against

expansion

of

the

PDC

hazardous

waste

landfill.

4

PDC

developed

a

list

of

constituents

of

concern

based

on

convenience

rather

than

concern

for

human

health

and

safety—.-specifically

it

failed

to

ensure

that

its

process

effectively

stabilizes

hexavalent

chromium.

In

its

review

of

Section

104.406(h),

Justification

of

the

Proposed

Adjusted

Standard,

IEPA

agrees

that

treated

K061

residue

does

not

exhibit

the

characteristic

of

toxicity

with

respect

to

hexavalent

chromium

among

other

constituents

of

concern.

I

do

not

find

that

PDC’s

petition

demonstrated

anything

at

all

with

respect

to

hexavalent

chromium.

The

only

constituent

of

concern

listed

was

chromium,

which

at

various

points

is

shown

as

total

chromium.

In

other

recent

permitting

activity,

specifically

the

NPDES

Permit

No.

lL000l

589

for

Citgo

Petroleum,

IEPA

establishes

separate

discharge

limits

for

total

chromium

and

hexavalent

chromium.

While

the

permit

allows

for

discharge

with

concentrations

of

up

to

1.0

mg/liter

of

chromium

per

day,

it

specifically

limits

hexavalent

chromium

to

just

0.3

mg/liter

per

day.

I

am

unclear

why

this

would

not

be

the

case

for

this

delisting

The

DRAS

model

includes

both

chromium

and

hexavalent

chromium

so

it

is

unclear

why

hexavalent

chromium,

a

known

component

of

EAF

dust,

was

not

even

considered

as

a

constituent

of

concern.

There

is

voluminous

literature

on

the

specific

risks

of

hexavalent

chromium.

NlST

in

cooperation

with

the

New

Jersey

Department

of

Environmental

Protection,

and

the

USEPA,

is

developing

standard

reference

material

to

provide

traceability

for

measurements

of

hexavalent

chromium

in

soil

and

contaminated

waste

The

paper

explains

“The

environmental

community,

including

those

responsible

for

promulgating

analytical

methods,

developing

policy,

enforcing

regulations,

and

interpreting

laboratory

data,

has

long

known

that

transition

metal

chemistry

in

nonaqueous

media

involves

the

actual

species

present,

and

not

just

the

total

elemental

composition.

The

risk

to

humans

is

often

dependent

upon

the

form

of

the

metal

in

the

soil

or

sediment.

Chromium

(Cr)

in

the

environment

exists

in

two

principal

oxidation

states

—

Cr-Ill

(trivalent)

a

micronutrient,

and

Cr-VI

(hexavalent),

a

known

carcinogen.

In

the

presence

of

inorganic

and/or

organic

matrix

components

such

as

sulfide,

iron,

manganese,

and

organic

carbon,

the

two

species

can

interconvert

from

one

form

to

the

other.

The

use

of

some

analytical

methods

is

also

known

to

alter

the

species

distribution,

thereby

compromising

test

data

designed

to

evaluate

risk

assessment.”

It

goes

on

to

state

that

“Hexavalent

chromium

litigation

and

waste-site

remediation

activities

are

now

common.”

I

believe

it

would

be

irresponsible

of

the

IPCB

to

approve

this

delisting

without

hexavalent-specific

risk

analysis

and

a

conclusive

demonstration

of

the

ability

to

control

interconversions

I

am

also

concerned

about

the

omission

of

several

other

constituents

of

concern

brought

to

light

by

the

IPCB

questions

to

PDC.

---

Issue

8a

addresses

the omission

of

dioxins and

furans from the final list

of constituents of concern

and

USEPA

Todd

Ramaly’s

comment that

“we’re not sure of this

conclusion and did

not

yet

agree

that

dioxins

and furans are

no

longer

an

issue.”

When asked to describe

the

resolution

with

the

USEPA,

PDC points

out that it analyzed

each of the originally

planned samples.

Note that they did

not

do any

dioxin/furan

analysis for

sample 9, not

the original sample, the

resample

or

the

re-treatment

sample—

effectively

ignoring the only

sample which is

at all representative

of their process. PDC

then

goes

on to

assert that Mr. Ramaly’s

comment

was “merely an informal

comment and

concurrence by all

parties

was neither

an objective

of the agenda nor

an outcome of

the

conference

call.”

To construe IEPA’s

approval

as tacit

USEPA approval

is contradicted

by Mr. Ramaly’s

statement.

This issue

is in no

way

resolved

and

the

IPCB should

dismiss the petition accordingly

Regarding

issue 9, the omission

of all

constituents of concern

except for

the

14 metals

and Mr

Ramaly’s

request that the

summary of the PDC,

RMT, IEPA

and

USEPA conference

call be

amended

to remove the

statement

‘With

comparison

to

TACO screening

values

and DRAS v2 values

the results

from

the SAP implementation

provided

supports analytical

results to exclude additional

constituents

of

concern other than

the

14 metals

listed in the

SAP/QAPP.”

When

asked

to

describe

the

resolution

with the USEPA PDC

again claims

not to have requested

‘USEPA-5 concurrence

that certain

constituents

should be eliminated

as constituents

of concern’

Again PDC concludes

‘Concurrence

by all parties

was neither an objective

of the agenda

nor an

outcome

of the conference

call’ As with the

previous

issue

this issue is in no

way

resolved

and

the

IPCB

should

dismiss the petition

accordingly

5.

PDC

provided no

rationale for its decisions

to rely on

DRAS results

to

establish

some TCLP

values

and

to

cherry

pick other statutes

for other

TCLP

values.

Page 4-6 of the RMT

technical

document

waives away the

fact that “benzo(b)flouranthesne

and

benzo(a)pyrene

were above

the DRAS-generated

TCLP

screening level”

and

instead

compares

the

results

to the Illinois Tiered Approach

for

Corrective

Action (TACO)

soil remediation

standards.

PDC

provides

no

evidence

as to why the TACO

standards

represent

a

better benchmark for monitoring

semivolatile

organic compounds

Page 4-7

dismisses

the dioxin risk

“slightly greater

than the

conservative

1

x 10-4 target

risk”

and

suggests

the observed dioxin

TEQ

concentrations

(at twice

the target

risk) are consistent with

nationwide

background fish tissue

concentrations.

PDC

provides no evidence

as to

why,

after

dismissing

the DRAS

model it also finds

the USEPA

supplied spreadsheet

unusable

Page 4-8 similarly

dismisses

the potential for reactivity

based

on sulfide levels

Despite the fact

that

“total sulfide

was reported at 700 mg/kg

on a qualified

sample,”

RMT uses what

seem to be

limitations

in

the

testing

methodologies

— cumulative

data on poor spike

recoveries

— to extrapolate

that

the

amount

of total

sulfide is below

a level that

would

exhibit

reactivity

The details on

this, and

the

PDC

testing

procedure

to determine reagent

reactivity are

not disclosed

The lack

of a clear methodology

for

establishing

TCLP values,

coupled with

the fact

that

the

process

itself

is

closed

to public scrutiny, should

be

warning

flags

to the

IPCB. There is

clearly no way

to assure

that such a process adequately

protects

public health

and safety.

6.

PDC failed

to

demonstrate

that

DRAS is

an

appropriate model

for predicting the

behavior of

stabilized

wastes

in the presence

of MGPs PCBs

and industrial

waste

streams

Page

3-15 of the RMT document

describes

the

Indian

Creek landfill

as

accepting

only

‘municipal

solid

waste and non-hazardous

industrial

waste’ including

MGP

waste, PCBs,

other delisted

wastes,

asbestos,

foundry

wastes,

other industrial

waste and remediation

wastes

There

is no

evidence

that

DRAS accounts

for

anything beyond

traditional

municipal

wastes. The underlying

model is

described

by the USEPA as

a

“worst-case’

scenario,

but nothing

in

the DRAS

software

manual

or

associated

model documentation

suggests

that it factors

in industrial

waste streams such

as those

accepted

by

Indian Creek.

The only inputs required

in the

DRAS software

related

to the

waste disposal

site

are the

volume of waste to be

deposited

and

the

active life of

the delisting

petition. PDC and

RMT have

not

provided

any

details

to suggest

that MGP

wastes, PCBs

or asbestos

are

factored into the

DRAS

calculations. Because

of the special wastes,

not typical

of a municipal

landfill,

already

present

at Indian

Creek I

am

unconvinced that

the levels of

protection derived

from a generic

model

are

sufficient

PDC

---

included

no

assessment

of

these

complex

synergistic

interactions

or

risks

to

the

underlying

Mahomet

aquifer

for

Indian

Creek

or

the

other

landfills

targeted

for

disposal.

Without

a

clear

consensus

that

DRAS

is

an

effective

model

for

predicting

stabilized

waste

behavior

in

the

presence

of

MGPs

and

PCBs,

the

IPCB

should

take

the

conservative

position

and

deny

the

delisting.

7. With

no

evidence

justifying

a

deviation

from

earlier

safeguards,

PDC

is

proposing

TCLP

levels

significantly

less

protective

than

previous

delistings.

In

reviewing

PDC’s

proposal,

I

found

it

curious

that

the

Super

Detox

delisting

contained

TCLP

levels

considerably

different

than

those

PDC

is

requesting

—

significantly

lower

for

12

of

the

14

constituents

of

concern.

The

Super

Detox

concentrations

expressed

as

PPM,

which

for

aqueous

solutions,

are

equivalent

to

the

milligrams

per

liter

POC

uses

in

its

petition

To

me

this

inconsistency,

coupled

with

the

inconsistency

between

the

delisting

levels

in

PDC’s

F006

delisting

where

four

of

five

levels

are

considerably

more

protective

than

what

PDC

proposes

today,

suggests

the

IPCB

should

deny

this

petition.

Similarly,

I

am

curious

why

PDC

included

the

Nucor

Steel

delisting

as

support

for

its

efforts

when

that

delisting

limits

total

mercury

to

1

mg/kg.

PDC,

in

response

to

IPCB

issue

1

5b,

the

request

to

comment

on

the

appropriateness

of

induding

a

delisting

level

for

total

mercury,

admits

its

total

mercury

concentrations

to

be

1

5

mg/kg

It

outlines

the

relationship

of

total

mercury

to

the

provisional

DRAS

v

3

results

and

the

TCLP

limit,

but

does

not

examine

why

a

six-year

old

delisting

would

have

a

much

more

stringent

total

mercury

standard.

If

PDC

cannot

provide

specific

justification

as

to

why

it

cannot

meet

the

protective

levels

established

in

earlier

petitions,

IPCB

should

just

deny

the

delisting

altogether.

8.

PDC

failed

to

demonstrate

even

the

most

rudimentary

control

of

the

waste

stabilization

process.

PDC’s

own

analysis

showed

a

first-pass

failure

rate

of

63.5%.

Page

4-2

of

the

RMT

technical

document

outlines

the

problems

encountered,

“Some

initial

sample

results

showed

exceedences

of

the

anticipated

dehsting

levels

“

Also

“the

initial

sampling

program

did

not

fully

demonstrate

PDC’s

procedure

to

verify

that

the

anticipated

delisting

levels

would

be

achieved

through

additional

curing

time

and/or

retreatment

prior

to

disposal.”

Later

in

the

document

(page

5-3),

RMT

discloses

that

“a

few

of

the

samples

collected

during

the

first

eight

sampling

events

exhibited

TCLP

cadmium

and

zinc

concentrations

above

their

anticipated

delisting

levels.”

Still

later

(page

6-2),

it

is

disclosed

that,

using

an

acidic

extraction

fluid,

TCLP

concentrations

of

cadmium

greater

than

screening

levels

were

found

in

four

of

the

first

eight

samples

and

TCLP

concentrations

of

zinc

greater

than

screening

levels

were

found

in

four

samples

as

well.

In all,

five

of

the

eight

samples

(62.5%)

leached

cadmium

or

zinc

in

an

acid

environment.

An

additional

sample

was

taken

in

early

February

and

exhibited

TCLP

concentrations

above

the

screening

level

for

both

cadmium

and

mercury.

Thedocument

notes

that

the

sample

was

also

analyzed

for

three

additional

parameters

(silver,

cyanide

and

sulfide)

“since

the

data

validation

process

indicated

these

tests

had

failed

quality

control

standards

during

the

initial

phase

of

analyses”

(page

4-

4).To

demonstrate

that

retreatment

could

fix

the

problem

of

leaching

cadmium

and

mercury

in

an

acid

environment,

over

a

sixteen-day

period

(including

time

for

lab

results

to

come

back

per

page

4-4)

the

stabilized

material

was

resampled

and

retreated

before

passing

its

test.

RMT

explains

that

the

“IEPA

agreed

these

additional

data

could

replace

previous

data

for

cadmium

and

zinc

exceeding

the

LDR

treatment

levels

in

the

risk

analysis.”

The

only

proof

of

concept

offered

in

this

document

(page

6-2)

to

offset

all

the

variability

in

the

test

results

is

the

statement

“The

efficacy

of

additional

curing

time

and

re

treatment

when

necessary

is

demonstrated

by

PDC

s

expenence

and

knowledge

of

the

waste-reagent

chemical

reactions

and

verified

by

additional

trials

designed

to

demonstrate

this

additional

treatment”

With

a

62.5%

failure

rate

in

the

original

eight

samples,

I

would

expect

more

than

a

single

test

of

retreatment.

I

fail

to

see

how

this

how

this

wildly

out-of-control

proof

of

process

demonstrates

anything

even

close

to

production-ready.

I

urge

the

IPCB

to

deny

this

petition

on

the

basis

of

these

test

results

alone.

Page

5-2

of

the

RMT

technical

document

provides

additional

insight

into

PDC’s

process

control,

“PDC

contacted

the

consultant

who

developed

the

new

treatment

regimen,

who

assured

PDC

that

no

particular

addition

sequence

or

quantity

of

water

was

needed

for

the

treatment

to

be

effective.”

I

am

uncomfortable

with

such

laxity

in

what

has

repeated

been

characterized

as

a

tightly

controlled

process

There

appear

to

be

no

standardized

procedures

and

no

records

of

what

reagents

are

added

to

what

---

volume or water and

in what order. This

is

especially

troubling

in light of the fact

that the process

specifics

remain secret and the

main

proof

offered

for the efficacy

of additional curing

time

and

retreatment is “PDC’s

experience and

knowledge of

the waste-reagent chemical

reactions.”

Section

8, the conclusion

of the RMT

technical

document, summarizes

the earlier results,

ignoring

PDC’s inability

to

treat the majority

of samples

to

acceptable delisting

levels on the first pass.

Instead,

based on a single sample’s

short-term

(16

day) results, it

proposes a “conditional”

exclusion

allowing

additional

treatment in

the

form

of

increased

reaction time and,

if

required,

re-treatment.

They boldly

state that the conditional

exclusion

creates a fail-safe

system. Based on a

single sample

result, PDC’s

characterization

of the overall effort as

fail-safe is overreaching.

PDC has

failed

to

present

data

meeting even

the minimum

requirements of four

samples specified

by

the USEPA.

I urge the IPCB

to

dismiss this

petition altogether.

9. PDC conducted

no field testing

whatsoever.

Not

a

single

ounce

of

stabilized waste

was tested on-site

at Indian

Creek

or

any other municipal

waste landfill.

I am concerned

that the entire modeling

and laboratory

analysis methodology

are insufficient

tools for

determining

long-term

safety.

PDC presented

no evidence demonstrating

that

their

analysis

produced

results

reproducible

under even the

most abbreviated

field testing situations.

I believe the IPCB

should

deny

the

petition on

this omission alone.

10. PDC

conducted

no real-time testing

whatsoever.

The tests were conducted

beginning

in December

2007 and ending

in February

2008—nothing even remotely

approximating

permanent

disposal.

I

am

also troubled that there

appears

to

be nothing more than

laboratory analysis

to ensure that

the

waste meets

delisting limits. I don’t

expect

PDC

to study the process for

50

years,

but

I do think it

is

reasonable

to

expect

that they would

provide at least

a

full

year’s test

results. I believe the IPCB

should

deny the

petition on this omission

alone.

In proposing

this delisting,

the burden is

on PDC to demonstrate

the

long-term

safety, both of

the

stabilization

process itself and

of the stabilized

waste it

produces.

After

a careful

read of the petition

and

supporting documents,

I believe PDC

has

done neither.

I also find the IEPA

remiss in

approving

a proposal

with

so many deficiencies

in the testing

methodology. Please

keep EAF

dust

listed

as a

hazardous waste

and in

a

hazardous

waste

landfill

where it belongs.

Sincerely,

Tracy

Meints Fox

---

Rick Fox

15215

N. Ivy Lake

Road

Chillicothe,

IL

61523

September

24,

2008

Office

of the Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

I

KS

OFF1cE

100 W. Randolph

Street,

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

-9

C_

.—‘

U

Poff

STATE

OF

INOic

Re: Case #

AS 08-10

‘On

Co0j

BO8d

Dear

Board

Members

I am writing

to ask that you deny

Peoria

Disposal’s

request to delist electric

arc furnace dust. I

have two

major

concerns

with

what

is proposed.

First, there is no

economic justification

for

taking

this

action.

Second, Peoria

Disposal

asks for far too

much authority to operate

without oversight

from

the IEPA

or

any

other

agency.

Economic Justification

Illinois code

104.406

requires that PDC’s

petition

include

“A description of

the efforts that would

be

necessary

if the petitioner

was to comply with

the

regulation

of general applicability.

All compliance

alternatives,

withihe corresponding

costs for each

alternative,

must be discussed.

The

discussion of

costs

must include

the overall capital costs

as well

as

the

annualized capital

and operating costs.”

PDC, based on current

waste disposal volumes,

will run

out of landfill

capacity

some time

in

2009.

Basically,

PDC

wants

to

repurpose

its waste

stabilization facility,

built 19 years

ago, to process

delisted

waste because

it has been unable

to

gain

Peoria

County

Board

siting

approval to expand

its

hazardous

waste

facility. In an

attempt to

provide

a

discussion of

costs of

compliance

alternatives, it

compares

the

costs

of transporting and

disposing of

stabilized EAF dust in

the Roachdale

Indiana hazardous

waste

landfill

to the costs of transporting

and disposing

the dust in

the Hopewell Illinois municipal

landfill.

This comparison

greatly oversimplifies

the

situation.

In the motion to expedite

the IPCB ruling,

PDC

claims

the

Roachdale

landfill

is 220

miles

away. Mapquest

shows

it

to be 187

miles.

PDC

assumes

the

municipal

landfill target is Hopedale,

29 miles away,

rather

than

Clinton

which is 67 miles

away

or Baylis

which

is

117

miles away.

PDC compares the

cost of disposal

in a competitor’s

hazardous

waste

landfill

(Roachdale)

to

disposal

in

a

landfill

that is part

of its operations, raising

the question

of whether the

$20

per

ton for

disposal

at

Indian Creek

is really

on a

comparative

basis with the

$98

per

ton claimed for

Roachdale.

Also,

the

PDC

figures

assume

the waste is only stabilized

once. Based

on the

test

results, it is clear the

majority

of waste will

have be stabilized

at

least two

or more

times.

Additionally,

the lost annual revenues

of

$12.5

million

are just

that

... revenues. There

is

no indication

what

portion of these gross

receipts would

be needed

to

cover

the costs of

stabilization

reagents

and

treatment

materials, licensing

fees

for the treatment technology,

operation

of the

stabilization facility, testing

and

reporting, the multiple

treatments

that seem to

be

required

to meet

delisting levels,

and other

administrative

costs.

Certainly

it is

not

reasonable

to

believe that the entire

treatment process,

would

add

zero

cost to the process.

Furthermore,

there

is

no

reason to believe

that the transportation

and

disposal

costs in

and of

themselves

put

PDC at

a

competitive disadvantage

in operating

its waste

stabilization plant for

its entire

customer

base.

Routings from

Sterling, Illinois,

Muscatine, Iowa

and Wilton, Iowa

with a stop

at PDC for

stabilization

would

add less than

five miles

to

the overall

distance traveled

as dust

from all three

locations would

travel

to

Indiana

along 1-74. In these

instances,

and

perhaps others,

there is no reason

why PDC

could

not

effectively

compete

with

Roachdale

as

a

stabilization

alternative.

PDC

claims

no

capital costs

and fails

to

provide

operational

costs. Instead

it

attempts to

pass off lost

revenues

as operating costs

and boldly

asserts the loss, 17%

of

its overall

annual revenues

based

on

its

---

Waste Age

ranking, would

be

“an unbearable

hardship for PDC.”

It further asserts

the costs

would

be

an

“unbearable

cost burden

for its K061

-generating customers

in the Midwest,

many of which

have no

feasible

or

economically

viable alternative.

No data

whatsoever was presented

on

geographic locations

of

these

customers,

distances

to

other

landfills,

reasons these

mills could not sell their

EAF

dust

to

Horsehead

Industries

in

Calumet

for

recycling,

or reasons these mills

could not

pursue

implementation of

an

on-site SuperDetox treatment

program

to treat

their

own

wastes.

The

IPCB should

not

accept

this weak

analysis. It

is PDC’s responsibility

to

provide

economic

justification and

it has not done

so.

In the RMT technical

document, PDC claims

“The reduced

transportation

and

associated

costs

will allow

PDC to continue to offer

its cost-effective services

to its

steel manufacturing customers.

These

steel

manufacturers

are vital to the

economy

and

strategic

in the security

of Illinois and the United

States.

The

domestic steel

industry is subject

to

intense

international

competition

from

companies

that

do not

necessarily have

the same cost burdens

resulting

from

the strict

environmental

and labor regulations

present

in

the

Untied

States. Competition

from

these

foreign producers makes

it imperative that

U.S. steel

companies

constantly improve

productivity and

efficiency while

reducing

costs

in all

aspects

of

their

operations,

including

waste

management.

Granting

the

requested

delisting

Adjusted

Standard

exclusion

will

help in

this effort.”

This

is an outdated

assertion.

illinois Business

Journal in

August 2008 characterizes

the

steel

industry

as

“booming.”

Mike Fitch

CEO

of

Alton Steel explains

that demand

is outstripping

supply, foreign

imports

have

dwindled to

a

trickle

and dumping is

a thing of the

past.

He further

points to rapidly growing

demand

in

China,

India, Brazil and

Eastern Europe,

the steel

demands

of

all facets of

the highly profitable oil

industry

and

the weak U.S. dollar.

“The value

of

the dollar

has deteriorated

on the global market

relative

to other

currencies

to the point that

products

manufactured

in the United

States are

a

real

deal,”

said Fitch.

“The

steel industry

has not

enjoyed

this

type of economy

since 1946.”

On June 1, 2008 the

San Diego

Union-

Tribune reported

“Buoyed by sharply

reduced

employee

costs,

soaring

global

demand,

dramatic

consolidation that has

tamped down cutthroat

competition

and

a

weakened dollar

that has made

imports

less attractive,

steel prices have

tripled

in the

past five years.” If

there ever was

a time for the

steel industry

to step

up and

make

an investment

in

greener

manufacturing practices,

that time

is

now.

By

granting

this

delisting,

I believe

the IPCB would

actually be jeopardizing

the long-term

viability of the

U.S. steel

sector.

Lack

of Oversight

In its proposal PDC

asks for

the

ability

to

extend

the scope of the

delisting whenever

it pleases

following

bench-scale tests.

It argues “It is important

to

PDC’s

viability

as

an

ongoing business enterprise

to have

flexibility

to add additional

generators

as market conditions

change and future

opportunities

arise

without

re-petitioning

the board.”

This is absurd. PDC

failed

to

demonstrate

that

the

delisting itself is critical

to

its

financial

survival,

let

alone

its ongoing viability.

No information whatsoever

on future

market conditions

or

customer

requirements

was

provided.

The IPCB should

deny this request.

PDC also askèfor

the ability

to

extend the

scope

of

the delisting

whenever

it decides

to change

the

underlying chemistry

of its

treatment process.

“It is PDC’s

experience

that

the

availability

of

specific

chemicals

from specific sources

is

subject

to

change

over time. Further, even

like

chemicals

from

different

sources can

vary markedly in their

specific chemical

make-up.

As technologies

evolve and

improve,

and

the

availability

of

chemicals

and sources

inevitably

change

re-petitioning

the Board

would

not be

required

under the proposed

adjusted standard

language,

provided PDC follows

the qualifying

procedure

set

forth

therein.”

This

too

is

absurd. PDC contends

its process is

proprietary and

cannot

be

disclosed.

It asks

us

to trust

that

its

test

results will

guarantee our

health

and

safety even though

the

very

MSDS

sheets on

the

reagent

chemicals

cannot be revealed.

Now

it

is asking for

free

license

to

vary

its secret process

with no

justification

whatsoever

just

the bland

assertion

that

things

change

over

time.

The IPCB

should

deny

this

request.

In the IPCB’s questions

to PDC, IPCB

proposes

several notifications

including

one

that

PDC notify

the

IEPA when

it transports

an initial

load of

treated waste

to a

particular

disposal

facility:

PDC agrees

to give

15

days calendar

notice,

but specifically

indicates such reporting

is “not

for

review

and

pre-approval.”

I

find this greatly overstepping

as the permit

barely mentions either

the Clinton

or

Pike

---

County

landfills and no details on controls in place

at

either facility are part of the record. I urge the IPCB

to

accept

only considerably more stringent language

here.

IPCB

also proposes that PDC notify the IEPA

when

it significantly changes its process and include the

bench-scale treatability test results. Again PDC specifically indicates such reporting is

“not for review

and

pre-approval

of

the demonstration.” It further believes it would be acceptable

to

conduct no tests at all—to

simply rely

on

MSDS, product spec sheets, supplier process knowledge and lab

results provided

by the

supplier as the

sole

means

of identifying

potential constituents of concern. It goes on to

reserve

the right to

redact confidential information from its 15-day notice

to

the IEPA.

PDC’s attempt to equate

requirements

for evaluating the safety of off-spec, unused

or discarded

chemicals

with the chemicals

it mixes in unknown

quantity and sequence, subject to change as PDC sees fit, should

be dismissed.

Using

an MSDS to make

a

determination about a chemical isolated in its own container;

not

handled

by

workers or having ongoing potential to impact

waste

stabilization facility emissions

is

not an

equivalent situation at all.

PDC’s belief that this constitutes a fail-safe process is truly frightening. I

urge

the

IPCB to accept only

considerably more

stringent

language here or; more reasonably, deny the petition altogether.

Finally, I am dismayed to realize that PDC’s

petition does not

include

any reopener language.

I

hope this is

boilerplate text included in all IPCB delistings.

With all the confusion over which constituents of concern

to

monitor, dioxins and furans and

mercury

TCLPs versus

total

mercury,

I feel it

is

absolutely

necessary.

Conclusion

There

are

numerous reasons for denying PDC’s delisting request. I urge

the

IPCB in making its

decision

to

weigh carefully the weak nature of PDC’s economic

against the risks to public

health

and safety. PDC’s

unwillingness

to accept

even minimal

oversight on how it can apply the delisting once granted

speaks

volumes

about

that

risk. I urge the IPCB

to avoid the risk altogether

and

deny the delisting petition.

Thanks for

your

time,

Rick Fox