c0VE
ERK
S
OFFICE
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Case
No.
AS
08-10
SL
262008
Comments
on
STATE
The
Proposed
RCRA
Delisting
of
0htttOn
Control
Board
PDC
EAF
Dust
Stabilized
Residue
‘J
By
Environmental
Stewardship
Concepts
On
Behalf
of
Heart
of Illinois
Group
Sierra
Club
and
Peoria
Families
Against
Toxic
Waste
September
24,
2008
A major
problem
with
Peoria
Disposal
Company’s
(PDC)
petition
to delist
treated
Electric
Arc
Furnace
(EAF)
waste
is
the
lack
of
information
about
the
processes
utilized
to
treat
the
material.
The
designation
of
this information
as
proprietary
prevents
us
and
the
public
from
making
informed
decisions
about
the
risks
and
effectiveness
of the
process,
a
necessary
component
of
the
public
participation
process.
Without
this
information
we
cannot
properly
evaluate
PDC’s
claims
that
the
final
treated
product
will
remain
stable
indefinitely
or
that
the
process
itself
does
not
generate
unacceptable
environmental releases.
The
technical
information
that
has
been
provided
is not
sufficient
to
be
considered
a
pilot
study,
and
does
not
provide
enough
evidence
that
the
process
or
its products
are
safe
for non-hazardous
waste
landfills.
The
safety
of
the
treatment
process
itself
is
also
unknown.
The
treatment
reagents,
wastes
created,
and
the
risks
of catastrophic
failure
of this
process
are
all unknown.
Without
this
information,
it
is
unclear
if PDC
could
even
obtain
an
NPDES
permit
to
create
and
discharge
the
wastes
associated
with
this
process.
It
is quite
likely
that
during
the
curing
process
a
significant
amount
of off-gassing!
volatilization
of
compounds
with low
vapor
pressures
occurs
(see
below).
What
is
the
composition
of
these
vapors
and
how
does
PDC
intend
on capturing
them?
Before
the
treated
EAF
waste
can
be
delisted,
a
full
accounting
of the
entire
treatment
process
and
its
consequences
must
be
evaluated
and
PDC
must
demonstrate
that
their
process
is
viable
in all
ways,
not
just
in binding
the
contamination.
However,
PDC’s
own
data
do
not
support
the
assertion
that
this
is a
viable
option
to treat
EAF
waste
to Subtitle
D
Standards,
and
the risk
based
concentrations
(RBC5)
calculated
by
PDC
cannot
be
considered accurate.
One
tremendous
data
gap
in
PDC’s
petition
is the
long-term
stability
of
the
completed
product.
The
only
data
with
which
we
are
provided
are
the results
of the
Toxicity
1
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(TLCP)
and
Multiple
Extraction
Procedure
(MEP)
analyses.
Neither
of these
approaches
provide
any
data
about
the
long-term
integrity
of
the
treated
waste.
TCLP
likely
underestimates
the
leaching
of metals
in
field
conditions
(Ghosh
et al.
2004),
and
MEP
does
not,
as one
of
PDC’s
consultants
claimed,
“simulate
the
leaching
potential
over
1,000
years”
(Testimony
of
Laura
Curtis,
August
25,
2008).
A
mere
ten
extractions,
no
matter
how
rigorous,
cannot possibly
simulate
1,000
years
of
exposure
to
municipal
waste
leachate
or
physical
stress
on
the material.
MEP
also
does
not
evaluate
exposure
to
various
types
of
acid,
only
using
nitric
acid
to
create
low
pH
conditions.
Acetic
acid
is
much
more
corrosive
to
materials
similar
to the
treated
waste,
and
has
been
demonstrated
to
corrode
as
much
as
5mm
of
cement
made
with
furnace
slag
in 60
days
(Shi
and
Stegemann
2000).
Stabilized
material,
sUch
as the
PDC
treated
waste,
is well
documented
to
leach
over
time
(Shi
and
Stegemann
2000,
Baur
et
al.
2001),
and conditions
within
landfill
leachate
can
be highly
variable
and
contain
a
tremendous
array
of
compounds
including
different
species
of the
same
metals
that
would
not
normally
coexist
under
normal
conditions
(Ponthieu
et
al. 2007,
Jiménezet al.
2002).
The
complex
chemical
nature
of
this leachate
can
make
metals
in
these
materials
even
more
mobile
than
acetic
acid
alone
(Halim
et
al. 2004).
PDC
has
not
been
able
to provide
evidence
that
the
long-term
stability
of
its
treated
waste
can
be
maintained
under
these
conditions,
and their
own data
suggest
that
it
cannot.
Since
the
treatment
does
not
physically
remove
metal
or contamination,
degradation of
the
final
product
would
have
roughly
the
same
result
as
placing
untreated
waste
into
the landfill.
Without
any
evidence
that
the product
is
stable
in
the
long-term,
the
public
and
regulators
have
to assume
that
the original
contents
of
the
EAF
waste
will
enter
any
municipal
landfill
the
treated
waste
is placed
in.
Experimental
evidence
reported
by
Fuessle
and
Taylor
(2004)
demonstrates
that
stabilized waste
from
electric
arc
furnaces
does
leach
toxic
metals
and
that leaching
increases after
50
days.
Fuessle
and
Taylor
measured
cadmium
and
lead
from
stabilized
arc
furnace
ash
and
found
that
cadmium
increases
continuously
after
about
100
days
of
cure,
and
that
some
stabilized
lead
waste
also
continues
to
leach
for
as
long
as
measured.
The
authors
concluded
that
insufficient
information
is available
now
to
adequately determine
the long
term
effectiveness
of stabilized
wastes in
binding
contaminants,
especially
toxic
metals.
The
procedures
used
by
PDC
to
evaluate
risks
from
the
treated
waste
are not
appropriate. With
the
exception
of
the Round
9 sampling,
PDC
chose
the
material
to be
treated
and
tested,
rather
than
having
them
selected
randomly.
This
method
can
lead
to
significant amounts
of
bias,
and
the public
and
regulatory
authorities
have
no
way
of
knowing
if these
materials
were
more
or less
treatable
using
PDC’s
treatment
method.
Sampling
for
Round
9
was
performed
on
smaller
batches
of
waste
which
could
have
2
impacted results,
and
Rounds
9-11
evaluated
a different
treatment
method
than
Rounds
1-8
(by
increasing
curing
time
and
allowing
for retreatment).
PCD
attributes
this
difference
to
the
inadequacy
of the
initial
Sampling
and Analysis
Plan
(SAP)
to evaluate
retreatment
and
longer
curing
times,
but
the
failure
of
the
initial
SAP
to
address
these
aspects
of the
treatment indicates
that
the
process
continues
to be
under
development.
The
sampling
was
also
plagued
by
QAIQC issues
when
testing
for silver,
cyanide,
and
total
sulfide.
These
problems
indicate
that
the process
cannot
be considered
reliable
enough
to be
implemented
on
a full
production
scale.
There
are obvious
issues
with
the Delisting
Risk
Assessment
Software (DRAS)
used
to
calculate
the RBCs
used
by
PDC.
RBCs
for
tin
and
phenol
are
greater
than
physically
possible
to
encounter
in
reality.
Both
of
these
compounds
are
known
to
be
toxic.
Tin
forms
endocrine
disrupting
organotin
compounds,
while
the
toxicity
of
phenols
is well
known
and
high
enough
to
warrant
a
Reference
Dose
listed
in EPA’s
IRIS
database.
Combined
with
the
fact
that
DRAS
v.3
was
used
for some
compounds
because
of
known
errors
in
DRAS
v.2,
these
problems
provide
strong
evidence
that
the
RBCs
calculated
by
PDC
are
not
scientifically
sound.
The
DRAS
does
not use
current
RfDs
or
cancer
slope
factors
that
can
be
found
in
the
EPA
IRIS
database.
DRAS
v.2
uses
outdated toxicological
data,
and
is one
of
the
main
drivers
behind
the development
of
Version
3,
which
is
not
available
to
the
public
at
this
time.
One
example
of
toxicological
problems
is the
failure
of DRAS
v.2
to
adequately
address
risks
from
lead.
EPA’s
IEUBK
software
would
most
certainly
be more
accurate
than
DRAS
for
evaluating
risks
from
lead.
The
current
screening value
for
blood
lead
is
10
ug/dI,
but
research
has
shown
that
there
is no
threshold
for
adverse
effects
for
lead
and
significant impacts
to
the
health
and
development
of
children
at
blood
level
concentrations
less
than
5 ug/dI.
An EPA
Science
Advisory
Board
(SAB)
for the
Clean
Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committee
(CASAC)
has
acknowledged
these
findings
in
a
recent
review
of air
quality
standards,
and
recommended
that
National
Ambient
Air
Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
for
lead
be based
on
limiting
impacts
to less
than
5%
of
the
nation’s
children
assuming
a loss
of
3
IQ
points
per
1 ug/dL
under
7.5
ug/DI
(CASAC
2007).
Similar
arguments
could
be
made
that
the
risk-based
standards
for
arsenic
and
dioxin
are as
outdated
as
those
for
lead.
Given
the
controversies
surrounding
many
risk-based standards,
the
most
important
test
of the
suitability
of the
treated
material
for
landfilling is the
standards
for
Subtitle
D
landfills
leachate.
The
Subtitle
D
Standards
are
not
suggestions
and
supersede any
site
specific
values
calculated
by
the
DRAS
software. Initial
treatments
using
the
proposed
method
still
exceeded
Subtitle
D
Standards
for
both
cadmium
and
mercury.
The
results
of PDC’s
resampling several
days
later
or
after
re-treatment
should
not
be
accepted
as
they
constitute
a
change
in the
treatment
process.
The
low
vapor
pressure
of
mercury
makes
3
it likely
that the
lower
concentrations
that
were
sampled
later
were
the
result
of
evaporation/volatilization.
If
this process
were
implemented
on a
full production
scale,
fugitive
mercury
emissions
could
pose
a
risk to
both the
surrounding
communities
and
workers
within
the
PDC facility.
Regardless
of
these
emissions,
the material
still had
to
be
retreated
before
it met
Subtitle
D
Standards.
PDC
has
obviously
tried
to
put
this
result
in
the
best
light
by noting
that
their
process
was
able
to
identify
and address
a
sample
that
exceeded
limits.
However,
it
is
unclear
how
often
waste
would
have
to
be
retreated
on
a
full production
scale.
These
results
indicate
that the
process
still has
a
number
of
problems
and
is not ready
for full-scale
use.
It is unclear
if
these
issues
can
be
resolved
at
all,
given
what
little data
have been
provided
on the
process
itself.
Under
these
circumstances
the only
sound
option
is to deny
PDC’s
application
to
have
the
treated
EAF
waste
delisted.
The
potential
consequences
of
delisting
PDC’s
hazardous
waste
are
too
great to
ignore
from
many
perspectives,
including
the
disposal
sites.
PDC
proposes
to
dispose
of
the
treated
waste
in two
Illinois
landfills.
Indian
Creek
Municipal
Waste
Landfill,
Tazewell
County,
and the
Clinton
Municipal
Waste
Landfill,
DeWitt
County,
are both
known
to
overlie
the Mahomet
Aquifer,
a
major
water
resource
for
thousands
of
Illinois
residents.
Should
PDC’s
treated
waste
leach as
anticipated
based
on
lab and
experimental
results,
to the
same
degree
that
the TLCP
tests
indicate,
then
leachate
from
this
landfill
would
be
particularly
dangerous.
It
contains
toxic
metals
such
as lead
and
mercury
as
well
as
persistent
organic
compounds
such
as
dioxins.
Even a
small
leak,
much
less
a
failure
of the
landfill
liner
would
result
in the
contamination
of
a
major
aquifer
with
difficult
to treat
compounds.
Summary
PDC’s
treatment
technology
clearly
does
not meet
Federal
requirements
for placement
in
a Subtitle
D
landfill.
Treatment
of
the
final
product
with
acid produces
unacceptable
concentrations of
cadmium,
mercury,
and
zinc
in
leachate.
It
is quite
possible
given
the
sampling
issues
identified
above
and
the
likelihood
that the
tests
performed
underestimate the leaching
potential
of
the material;
other
metals
could
also
be a
problem
once
it
has
been
disposed
in
a
landfill.
Both
of the
two
landfills
where
PDC
has
proposed
to
dispose
of
this
waste
are over
the
Mahomet
Aquifer,
a major
water
resource
for thousands
of Illinois
residents.
This
aquifer
serves
significant
populations
and
it’s contamination
would
be
a major
environmental
catastrophe.
These
problems
should
leave
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
with
no option
other
than
to deny
PDC’s
petition
to delist
its
treated
EAFDSR.
Biographical Sketch
for
Peter
L.
deFur
4
Dr. Peter
L. deFur
is president
of Environmental
Stewardship
Concepts,
an independent
private
consulting
firm,
and is
an Affiliate
Associate
Professor
in the Center
for
Environmental
Studies
at Virginia
Commonwealth
University
where
he
conducts
research
on
environmental
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment.
Dr.
deFur has
served on
numerous
state
and
federal
advisory
committees.
Dr. deFur
presently
serves as
technical
advisor
to citizen
organizations
concerning
the
cleanup
of contaminated
sites
at FUDS,
CERCLA
and
RCRA sites
around
the
country.
His projects
include
the Housatonic
River, MA;
the Delaware
River;
Lower
Duwamish
River, WA;
Rayon
ier
site
in Port
Angeles,
WA;
and
the
Spring Valley
site
in
Washington,
DC.
Many
of these
sites and
others
on which
he has worked
are
contaminated
with
PCB’s,
dioxins and
toxic
metals.
Dr. deFur
received
B.S. and M.A.
degrees
in Biology
from
the College
of William
and
Mary,
in Virginia,
and
a Ph.D. in
Biology (1980)
from the
University
of Calgary,
Alberta.
He was a
postdoctoral
fellow
in
neurophysiology
in the Department
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of Calgary,
and an
environmental
fellow
at
AAAS
in 1989.
Dr. deFur
held
faculty
positions
at
George Mason
University
and Southeastern
Louisiana
University
before joining
the
staff
of
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(EDF) in
Washington,
DC.
In
1996,
deFur
formed
ESC and
accepted
a part-time
position
atVCU.
Dr. deFur
has extensive
experience
in
risk
assessment
and
ecological
risk
assessment
regulations,
guidance
and policy.
He
served on
the NAS/NRC
Risk
Characterization
Committee
that prepared
Understanding
Risk.
Dr. deFur
served
on
a number
of
scientific
reviews
of
EPA ecological
and human
health
risk assessments,
including
the
Framework
for Cumulative
Risk Assessment,
the
assessment
for
the
WTI incinerator
in
Ohio and
EPA’s Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Guidelines.
deFur served
on
three federal
advisory
committees
for
EPA’s
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing Program.
References
Baur,
I., C. Ludwig,
and
C.A.
Johnson.
2001.
The Leaching
Behavior
of Cement
Stabilized
Air Pollution
Control
Residues:
A Comparison
of Field
and
Laboratory
Investigations.
Environmental
Science and
Technology.
35:
2817-2822.
CASAC. 2007.
Clean Air
Scientific
Advisory
Committees
Review
of
the
2 Draft
Lead
Human
Exposure
and
Health Risk
Assessment
Document.
EPA
Office
of the
Administrator,
Science
Advisory
Board.
Washington,
D.C.
EPA-CASAC-07-007.
Fuessle, R.
W. and
M. A.
Taylor.
2004.
Long-Term
Solidification/Stabilization
and
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
for an Electric
Arc
Furnace
Dust.
Journal
of
Environmental
Engineering.
130:
492-498.
Ghosh, A.,
M.
Mukiibi, and
W. Ela.
2004.
TLCP
Underestimates
Leaching
of Arsenic
from
Solid
Residuals
under
Landfill
Conditions.
Environmental
Science
and
Technology.
38:
4677-4682.
5
Halim, C.E.,
J.A.
Scott,
H. Natawardaya,
R.
Amal,
D.
Beydoun,
and G. Low.
2004.
Comparison
between
Acetic Acid
and
LandfiH
Leachates
for
the
Leaching
of Pb(lI),
CD(Il), As(V),
and
Cr(IV) from
Cementitious
Wastes.
Environmental
Science
and
Technology.
38:
3977-3983.
IPCB.
2008. Transcript
of
April 25 Hearing
In
the Matter
of RCRA
Delisting
Adjusted
Standard
Petition
of Peoria
Disposal
Company.
Jiménez,
L., R.
Alzaga,
and
J.M.
Bayona. 2002.
Determination
of Organic
Contaminants
in Landfill
Leachates:
A Review.
International
Journal
of
Analytical
Chemistry.
82(7):
415-430.
Ponthieu,
M.,
P.
Pinel-Raffaitin,
I.
Le Hecho,
L. Mazaes,
D. Amouroux,
O.F.X.
Donard,
and M.
Potin-Gautier.
2007.
Speciation
analysis
of
arsenic in
landfill
leachate.
Water
Research.
41:
3177-3185.
Shi,
C.
and
J.A. Stegemann.
2000.
Acid
corrosion
resistance
of
different
cementing
materials.
Cement
and
Concrete
Research.
30:
803-808.
6