----------
----------_._------ ----- -- --
•
.
'-
-
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of P
7
0ria Disposal Company
-
On, April 25, 2008. Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) filed an adjusted standard petition to
delist treated electric arc furnace
(EAF)
dust, classified as hazardous waste
K061.
The
delisting would apply to treated residues following waste stabilization activities at their waste
stabilization facility
on Southport Road in Peoria County.
The Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
"EPA uses a formal assessment process to determine whether certain industrial wastes
should be placed on a list of "hazardous wastes." These determinations include wastes from
specific industrial processes
or particular chemical formulations. Any waste that meets the
listing description (regardless of its specific chemical composition) is a
/isted
hazardous waste.
and
is regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. Those regulations include requirements for specific
waste handling procedures. from generation through storage. treatment, and disposal.
Congress and
EPA recognized, however, that listing wastes incurs the possibility of regulating
wastes which
do not truly pose a threat to human health or the environment. A facility may
have a process or raw material that produces a waste with different attributes than others in
the listed group.
The RCRA statute and regulations, therefore, also provides
for a process to remove, or
"de/ist",
a waste generated at a facility from the list of hazardous wastes. This delisting
process
is initiated by the person generating the waste, who prepares a petition for delisting
the waste. The petition prOVides information
about the waste, including its chemical
composition,
to demonstrate the rationale for dellsting the waste. The petition is reViewed
by the appropriate regulatory agency (either EPA or a state hazardous waste regulatory
agency which has been authorized
to grant delisting petitions) to determine whether the
waste should continue to be listed as hazardous. This determination is subject to notice and
comment before a final decision is made." (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, "RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting: The First
20
Years", June,
2002,
p 5.)
Administrative Process
The process for this type of request is deflned in Section
104.406
of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board's (IPCB) procedural regulations.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board is the
proper agency as the U.S. EPA has authorized some states. Illinois included, to administer a
delisting program
in place of the federal program to make state delisting decisions. As part
of the process. Illinois EPA does prOVide input on delisting petitions. Staff at Illinois EPA
reviewed the petition and submitted their report into the record.
The IPCB will consider many aspects in making a determination. Important factors are
environmental impacts; the assurance
that delisted wastes do not pose any significant threat
to human health or the environment. In addition, the Environmental Protection Act states
the Board shall
take into account the eXisting physical conditions. the character of the area
involved, including
the character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of
EXHIBIT
J
A
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
..--
--._------------_
..
_---
•
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
the existing air quality. or receiving body of water and the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a)
On August lB. 200B, the IPCB will hold a public hearing where Interested parties can
participate in
the process; whether it's listening to testimony. asking questions, or inserting
public
comment.
Background: What is
poe
trying to do?
The following are excerpts
from
Peoria Disposal
Company's
Petition in the
motter of
"ReM Delisting
Adjusted Standard Petition ofPDC" submitted
to
the Illinois Pollution Control Board on April 25,
2008.
In 1989. PDC'swaste stabilization facility (the "WSF') was approved for operations under
PDC's RCRA Part B Permit, issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the
"IEPA'). The principal treatment activity currently conducted in the WSF is chemical
microencapsulation
of RCRA hazardous wastes utilizing reagents designed to reduce the
leachability of inorganic hazardous constituents In accordance with the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology Standards prescribed by the USEPA and the IEPA.
The largest volume of listed hazardous waste currently being treated at the WSF is K061
electric arc furnace ("EAF') dust generated by steel mills that pro'duce steel using electric arc
furnaces. At this time. PDC disposes the K061 EAF dust after treatment In its hazardous
waste landfill (the "PDC No. I Landfill') In Peoria County. Illinois, which has been operating
for over twenty years pursuant to a RCRA Part B permit Issued on November 4, 1987. At
the present level of operation. the PDC No.-I Landfill will reach capacity in 2009. When the
.pDC No. I Landfill is full, the WSF will continue operating, but stabilized residue generated
by PDC from the treatment of listed hazardous waste, primarily K061 EAF dust, will have to
be transported by PDC to another Subtitle C landfill for disposal.
The K061 EAF dust is a listed hazardous waste designated as hazardous waste code K061,
specified by 35
III. Adm. Code 721.132 for "emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces." The K061 EAF dust must be stabilized to meet
applicable land disposal restrictions ("LDR') treatment standards specified for K061 listed
hazardous
wastes by Subpart D of 35 III. Adm. Code Part 728 prior to land disposal. The
residue that POC currently generates from the treatment of K061 EAF dust remains
classified as a
K061 hazardous waste by virtue of the "derived-from" rule (3S III. Adm. Code
721.103(e» because it is generated from the treatment of a listed hazardous waste.
Therefore. at present, the residue from the treatment of K061 EAF dust must be disposed of
in a Subtitle C landfill. Excepting the PDC No. I Landfill, the nearest operating Subtitle C .
landfill
to the WSF Is located In Roachdale, Indiana. nearly 220 miles from the WSF.
During
the past year, PDC has developed a new proprietary stabilization technology to treat
the K061 EAF dust. PDC has utilized the new proprietary stabilization technology in fullscale
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
--- ----------- ------------- --------------
•
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
production at the WSF to conduct nine in-plant trials designed to demonstrate that all
applicable criteria for the granting of an adjusted standard to delist K061 EAF dust stabilized
residues can be satisfied
by the POC treatment process. Herein, POC is petitioning the
Board for
an upfront and conditiomil delisting for the stabilized residue generated by poe
from the treatment of K061 EAF dust utilizing this new proprietary stabilization technology
at the WSF ("EAFOSR').
Potential Subtitle
0 landfills to which delisted EAFOSR may be shipped include, but are not
limited to, the following POC-affiliated landfills:
Tazewell County Landfill. Inc. d/b/a Indian Creek landfill No.2. Hopedale, Il
Clinton landfill, Inc., Clinton, Il
Pike County landfill, Inc.• Baylis. Il
Indian Creek Landfill No.2 is the most likely facility that will be used to dispose of the
EAFOSR.
pOe's proprietary stabilization technology effectively stabilizes K061 metal constituents and
removes the hazard of toxicity. for which
the K061 EAF dust received its listing.
Representative verification and analytical testing, conducted as part
of the full-scale
stabilization process trials, demonstrates
that the process renders extractable metals below
their
land Disposal Restriction standards (lORs) and proposed delisting levels. Although the
EAFOSR contains certain hazardous constituents (i.e., metals listed in Appendix G of 35 III.
Adm. Code Part 72
I).
these constituents are essentially rendered immobile. such that the
concentrations of these hazardous constituents are below: I) the LORs applicable to K061
EAF dust, 2) the Characteristic of Toxicity levels established at 35 III. Adm. Code 721.124,
and
3) risk-based levels established by the USEPA's Oelisting Risk Assessment Software
("ORAS") model or other method approved by the USEPA and IEPA to demonstrate that the
constituents of concern are
at concentrations that are non-threatening to human health and
the environment.
The duration of
the proposed delisting will be multi-year and will continue for as long as
PDC maintains a
valid RCRA Part B Permit for the WSF. The proposed Adjusted Standard
will require testing
of
each daily batch of EAFDSR for the metal constituents of concern
("COCs'),
to assure compliance with delisting concentrations. In the event the verification
analysis results exceed
the delisting level concentrations. the treated residues will either be:
I) allowed
to continue to cure which will prOVide additional treatment as the chemical
reagents complete their reactions with the waste, followed by
another round of
verification sampling and analysis.
2) reprocessed through the WSF for additional treatment, followed
by another round of
verification sampling and analysis.
or
3) managed as a K061 hazardous waste at a properly permitted RCRA Subtitle C facility.
Under the proposed Adjusted Standard, the EAFDSR will be excluded from the list of
hazardous wastes contained
in Subpart D of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721 and PDC will be able to
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
•
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
Estimated Cost per Year
$983,460
$2,220,000
$3,203,460
transport
~nd
dispose ofthe EAFDSR at a Subtitle D landfill permitted by the IEPA. The
K061 EAF dust waste stream will be received from the mills at an approximate average rate
of 74,000 tons per year f'tpy") as part of normal WSF operations, with a maximum of 95,000
tpy. The EAFDSR generated by the treatment process will be a maximum of 142,500tpy.
The cost of compliance with
the proposed Adjusted Standard is estimated to be $110 per
ton of untreated waste, compared to the current cost of$90 per ton of untreated waste.
That increase
will result principally due to the higher relative cost of the new chemical
treatment regimen.
The WSF currently employs fourteen workers whose duties include operations management,
waste treatment, plant cleaning and maintenance, and administrative compliance. The WSF
also requires
the efforts of eleven additional employees who are at least partially dedicated
to the WSF performing waste receiving inspections, equipment maintenance, and permit
compliance and auditing duties.
The WSF operates as
an area air emissions source under an IEPA lifetime permit which limits
emissions from
the WSF to a maximum 003.8 tons per year of particulate matter and 3.9
tons
per year of volatile organic materials.
Many variable expenses would remain the same, such as labor, laboratory analysis, utilities,
etc. The variable operating costs that would change are
the post-treatment transportation to
and disposal at an off-site Subtitle
C
landfill. Presented below are the affected variable costs
to ship to the nearest Subtitle
C
landfill for disposal. PDC, through its Brokerage Services
Group, has business relationships with Subtitle C
landfills
to
manage those wastes that the
PDC No.
I
Landfill
is
not eqUipped to manage or is simply too busy to accommodate.
Therefore,
the following cost comparison is based on current market price quotations.
Transportation
to
and Disposal at
nearest
Subtitle
C
landfill:
Expense Item
Cost per Ton
Estimated Cost per Year
Transportation for Disposal
$44.00
$4,884,000
Disposal
$97.76
$.1 0,851,360
Total
$141.76
$15,735,360
Alternatively, the next table presents the same line-item expenses
if PDC were granted the
petitioned Adjusted Standard
by the Board and could ship delisted residues to a Subtitle D
landfill located in Illinois. These costs are accurate because they are based on experience
from the ongoing shipment
by PDe of delisted FOO6 wastes and decharacterized wastes to
an affiliated Subtitle D landfill located in Tazewell County, Illinois.
Transportation and Disposal for
Subtitle
D Landfill:
Expense Item
Cost per Ton
Transportation for Disposal
$8.86
Disposal
$20.00
Total
$28.86
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
-
-------_~_---------
------- --- --
-
- -- -- ---
•
County of Peoria Report regari:ling
RCM Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
The costs presented for both alternatives are based on an average of twenty-two tons per
shipment as would be hauled by semi-truck and aluminum dump trailer combinations. with an
average of I I , .000 tons per year sh ipped.
Other Examples of Delisting
K061
POe's petition to delist K06' is not the first of its kind. The document "RCRA Hazardous
Waste Delisting: The First 20 Years" authored by the USEPA states that six waste streams of
K061 were delisted between 1980 and 1999. Conversion Systems Inc. in Horsham.
Pennsylvania received delisting of K061 from USEPA in 1995. The Illinois Department of
Environmental Regulation granted site specific delisting for the Sterling. Illinois plant owned
by Conversion Systems Inc.
.
In 2000. EPA proposed to grant another company. Heritage Environmental Service.llC. to
delist treated electric arc furnace dust produced at Nucor Steel in Indiana.
According
to USEPA Region 9's "Fact Sheet: Delisting Petitions arid the Petition Review
Process"
the majority
of
excluded wastes are metal-bearing wastes (such as F006 and FO 19
wastewater treatment sludges and treated K061 electric arc furnace dusts). Any treatment
residual that meets current BOAT (best demonstrated available technology) levels usually
will be a good delisting candidate", Oune 1998).
Technical Issues
Having pro"ided engineering services for PDe's siting application review in 2005. the County
hired Patrick Engineering to perform a technical review of POe's petition. Staff at Patrick
Engineering is preparing a report that will be distributed at Health
&
Environmental Issues
Committee on August 6. 2008. A draft memorandum is attached at the end of this
document.
Policy Questions
• Is waste delisting and subsequent disposal in a Subtitle D landfill hazardous to human
health and safety?
Who makes the appropriate determination of this hazard?
• Are there other methods of metal recovery prior to disposal of EAF dust? Will delisting
EAF dust result in placing recoverable materials in landfills? Are the other methods
economical within our region?
•
How should the County take into consideration the economic impact of PDC closing its
operations on a company like Keystone. and the financial stake Peoria CountY has in
Keystone's continued operations?
• What role does the County have in a technical, regulatory delisting process?
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
--------- --------- ----
•
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
.
Conclusions
According to the USEPA. "Oelisting is a rulemaking procedure by which facilities, if
successful, are relieved of the obligation to manage specific wastes as hazardous in
accordance with the ReSource Conservation and Recovery Act...
A
specific facility may
generate a waste that does
not exhibit any hazardous characteristics for which the waste was
listed and does not
present a hazard to either human health or the environment for any
other reason. Therefore, to avoid placing any unnecessary regulatory burden on such
facilities, RCRA regulations provide a petition for case-by-case exclusions
or 'delistings'of
specific wastes from
the hazardous waste lists." (USEPA Reglon9, Fact Sheet Oelisting
Petitions and
the Petition Review Process)
Furthermore,
the USEPA finds "little reason to believe that these [delisted] streams are
causing environmental problems".
Under
RCRA, states authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the federal
program also
may exclude wastes from hazardous waste regulations and facilities in those
states. Facilities that manage their wastes
in states with _delisting authorization should
petition the
state for an exclusion rather than EPA. A facility treats its waste as non-
hazardous only after
EPA or an authorized state grants a final exclusion. (USEPA Region 9,
Fact Sheet: Oelisting Petitions and the Petition Review Process)
Illinois is a state that has been delegated the authority to grant delistings through the Illinois
Pollution Control Board. Thus, the responSibility for determining'whether a waste stream
poses a threat
to human health and the environment rests with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.
In thiS matter, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency also reviewed the
proposed delisting procedures and stated that "POC's request for a RCRA waste delisting of
treated
K061 electric arc furnace dust will likely meet the required level of justification with
some additional information" concerning dioxin and
fish consumption. (IEPA's Response To
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition, June 12, 2008, p.l)
The
Illinois Pollution Control Board presented POC with 19 questions to answer by August
I
I, including but not limited to:
•
Treatment operating guidelines based on weather
•
Should
the treated waste be considered "special waste"!
•
Include definition
of
"significant change" as part of conditions
•
Address sampling/analysis of hexachlorophene
• Why specific c"nstituents not listed
in constituents of concern (CaC)
•
Result of using a higher TEQ value in dioxin model
•
Resolution with
EPA regarding altering the delisting criteria for arsenic
•
Delisting
level for total mercury
•
Site-specific modeling for
all potential landfills or use generic values for non site-
specific analysis
• Additional information on "another round of verification sampling and analysis"
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
•
County of Peoria Report regarding
RCM
Defisting
Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
The outcome of this petition not only affects the petitioner's future be indirectly impacts
other businesses in the community. Keystone is one of PDC's largest customers and Peoria
County has a
financial interest in seeing the company retain its viability. .
In conclusion, the IPCB will have to make a determination based upon the review of the
technology presented by the petitioner. regulatory agencies, and interested parties.
Recycling
The Sierra Club states "Delisting enables out-dated and wasteful technologies
to continue
because
of inadequate landfill rate costs and not full RCRA landfilling requirements, rather
than maintaining strict standards for toxic wastes
that could be hoped to push old industries
to more responsible and sustainable practices such as recycling." (letter, May 15. 2008. p. 2)
While land disposal may be the current avenue for handling this waste, the opportunities for
recovering metals
is a growing industry.
In their filing requesting a hearing on the delisting petition, the Sierra Club identifies the Steel
Dust Recycling
Center in Millport, Alabama as an example of an emerging business that is
removing zinc and lead from electric arc furnace dust. According to the Tuscaloosa News,
the plant was built on 66 acres
at a cost of $35 million and is in the proximity of roughly 25
electric arc furnaces across the South. ("New Plant and Town Seem To Be A Good Fit".
Tuscaloosa News, June 23, 2008) In comparison. POC has identified 10 mills where K061
electric arc furnace dust is generated and shipped to Peoria. The use of recycling is
dependant iJpon the market price for metals, transportation costs, and the composition of
the waste itself.
The arguments both for and against this petition occur
at the crossroads between the
environment and economics. While the County supports recycling, without a minimum
multi-million investment
like the Steel Dust Recycling Center. recycling in central Illinois is
not feasible. The nearest recycler of electric arc furnace dust is in the Chicago suburbs.
Furthermore. the proposed delisting
by POC could be construed as an innovation in
technology that lowers the waste stream's composition of hazardous constituents to levels
below their land Disposal Restriction standards and proposed delisting levels.
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
•
-----_.-----
County of Peoria Report regarding
ReRA DelistingAdjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mr. Patrick Urich, County Administrator, Peoria County
Mr. Richard M. Frendt, P.E., Patrick Engineering
Review ofPDC Oelisting Petition
August 6,
2008
At the request ofrepresentatives ofPeoria County, Patrick has reviewed all ofthe filings made
available
by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (!PCB)
in
the matter of the RCRA Oelisting
Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company (pDC). These filings included the
original petition dated April 15, 2008, subsequent public comments, the June 12, 2008
response
from
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), and subsequent
Hearing Officer orders and correspondence. The purpose
of this review was to allow Patrick
to render an opinion on the technical validity
of the petition, and to determine to the best of
Patrick's ability on the basis of the available documents whether .the delisting requested by
POC
is reasonable, appropriate, and meets all of the technical requirements for such a
delisting contained in both state and federal law
and regulation.
PDC
is petitioning the IPCB for an adjusted standard to delist the stabilized residue generated
by PDC from the treatment of K061 electric arc furnace (EAF) dust at PDC's waste
stabilization facility in Peoria County, Illinois. This waste is a very common waste product
generated
by steel mills that produce steel using electric arc furnaces. POC is already treating
this
K06 I EAF dust in its permitted waste stabilization facility (WSF), after which it is
landfilled in PDC'shazardous waste landfill (the "POC No. I Landfill").
If the petition is granted, POC would continue to treat the K061 waste, using a modified
stabilization process, in order to reach the treatment standards proposed in the petition
(In
every case, the proposed treatment standards are at least as stringent as those that POC is
already achieving
by their current treatmentprocess). The treated waste would then no longer
be considered a hazardous waste, and would
be eligible for disposal in a permitted Subtitle D
landfill.
K06 I
EAF dust is one of the most commonly delisted wastes in the United States. The
method
by which this waste is almost always delisted is via treatment by chemical
stabilization, the same process being proposed (and already employed)
by POC. The waste
stream
was originally listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous due to
the .toxicity of cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and lead. Each of these compounds is still
present within
the final treated residue. However, the stabilization process fixes these
compounds within a rigid chemical
and physical matrix, drastically reducing their mobility
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
-~~--~~_._-----
•
'"
<.
County of Peoria Report regarCling
RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition
of Peoria Disposal Company
(DRAFT MEMORANDUM, cont.)
and leachability. Thus, testing of the residue after stabilization demonstrates that the residue
is no longer characteristically toxic.
.
As required by state regulation, PDC has performed a series of demonstration tests of their
specifically-proposed stabilization process, and the resulting testing
of the treated residue has
confirmed that this process is capable
of achieving the proposed treatment standards. Based
upon Patrick'sreview
ofthe available docwnents, it is Patrick's opinion that PDC has met all
of the technical and legal criteria needed to successfully delist the K061 waste. The proposed
treatment standards have been developed with well-established risk assessment techniques
(reviewed
by Patrick), and with the acquiescence of the Illinois EPA, which has also reviewed
this risk assessment modeling in detail.
PDC has requested an upfront delisting
of the K061 waste, contingent upon confirmation
sampling that the treatment process is successfully achieving the treatment standards on an
ongoing basis. This ongoing sampling is proposed to occur daily, a reasonable sampling
frequency in Patrick'sopinion.
Overall, Patrick believes that this delisting petition meets all
of the applicable criteria for
making such a case, and has been supported with a sufficient technical demonstration.
Delisting,
if granted, will be contingent upon the ongoing confirmation of the successful
treatment
of the waste on an ongoing basis. Patrick believes that this delisting is therefore .
reasonable, appropriate, technically defensible, and equally protective
ofhuman health and the
environment as the currently employed treatment and disposal strategy for this K061 waste.
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
---"--"
PDC RCRA Delisting
Petition
County of Peoria Report
Karen Raithel; RRC Director
Patrick Urich, County Administrator
August 6, 2008
What is RCRA Hazardous Waste
Delisting?
• USEPA hazardous waste management programs
provide for a process to "delist" a waste from
the list of hazardous wastes" - facility specific
• Petitions
USEPA or delegated state agency
(IPCB) with information
about the waste,
including its chemical composition,
to
demonstrate the rationale for delisting the waste
•
The appropriate regulatory agency makes the
determination
1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
_._---_.- --
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• Waste Stabilization Facility permitted in 1989
• Performs microencapsulation
of RCRA
hazardous waste
in accordance with.
USEPA/IEPA standards
• Largest volume
of hazardous waste is K061
electric arc furnace
dust (EAF) generated by
steel mills
• Currently landfilled in
PDC No.1, until 2009,
when
the hazardous waste landfill will close
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• K061 EAF dust is a listed hazardous waste by Illinois
environmental regulations
•
K061EAF dust must be stabilized to meet the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LOR) tteatrilent standards
of the
Illinois environmental regulations
• When
PDC No.1 is full, the WSF
will
continue to
operate, but the stabilized waste
will
have to be
deposited in another Subtitle C landfill
• Nearest Subtitle C landfill is 187 miles from Peoria in
Roachdale,
IN
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
.-
.'
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• PDC has developed a new proprietary stabilization
technology to treat the K061 EAF
• PDC performed nine in-plant trials that demonstrate
that
all applicable criteria for delisting can be satisfied
with the new technology
• PDC seeking a upfront and conditional delisting of the
stabilized residue to be landfilled in existing Subtide D
landfills
PDC owns and operates:
• Indian Creek Landfill, Hopedale IL
• Clinton Landfill, Clinton IL
• Pike County Landfill, Baylis IL
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• The duration of the delisting would be multi-year and
continue for as long
as PDC maintained a RCRA Part
B permit for the WSF
• Each daily batch of treated EAF dust would require
testing to assure compliance with delisting
concentrations
• If
the waste exceeds the appropriate level, it will be:
• Allowed to continue to cure, followed by more testing
• Reprocessed for additional treatment, and testing
• Managed as a hazardous waste and sent to a hazardous waste
landfill
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
.-
"
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• How much waste would continue to be
processed through the WSF?
• Average rate of 74,000 tons per year
• Maximum
of 95,000 tons per year
• The treated EAF dust would generate
approximately 142,500 tons
per year
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• Cost of the new treatment standards would increase
from $90
to $110 per ton of untreated waste
•
PDC employs 14
full
time workers and 11 partially
responsible for certain aspects
of the WSF operations
• WSF limited to 33.8 tons
per year of particulate matter
and 3.9 tons
per year of volatile organic materials.
Actual reported emissions for 2007 were 7.7
tons and
0.9 tons respectively
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
---~
~---"
---"--~
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• Transportation and Disposal Costs to the nearest
Subtitle C landfill would be $141.76
per fon or
$15,735,360 annually
• Transportation and Disposal costs
to a PDC owned
and operated landfill
in
Tazewell County would.be
$28.86
per ton or $3,203,460 annually
• According
to PDC, the cost difference of $12.5 million
per year would result in a loss of business to PDC and a
cost-burden for its K061-generating customers in the
Midwest
What is PDC Trying to Do?
• PDC's regulatory burden is to show that the waste
produced:
• Does not meet any "of the criteria for under which the waste
was listed as .. hazardous waste
•
There is a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including
additional constituents)
other than those for which the waste
was listed could cause the waste
to be a hazardous waste
•
That awaste so excluded is not a hazardous waste by virtue
of exhibiting one of the characteristics specified in the Illinois
environmental regulations
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
.-
What Did IEPA Say?
• TEPA met with PDC in pre-filing review, upon
submission of their petition, TEPA stated that
"PDes request for a RCRA waste delisting of
treated 1<061 electric arc furnace dust
will
likely
meet the required level of justification with
some additional information"
.
•
The additional information included
assumptions regarding the migration
of dioxan
through fish consumption
What Did IPCB Ask?
The Illinois Pollution Control Board presented
PDe
with 19 questions to answer
by August II, including but not limited 10:
• Treatment operating guidelines based on weather
• Should the treated waste
be
considered "special waste..?
• Include definition
of "significant
change" as part of conditions
• Address sampling/analysis of hexachlorophene
• Why specific constituents not listed in constituents of concern (COC)
• Result of using a higher TEQ value
in
dioxin model
• Resolution with EPA re: altering the deJisting criteria {or arsenic
• Delisting level for total mercwy
•
Site-specific modeling for aD potential landfills or use generic values for non
site-specific analysis
•
Additional informacion on "anor:her round of verification sampling and
analysis"
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
-~-_
...
_
..
_---
Policy Questions
• Is waste delisling and subsequent disposal in a Subtide D landfill
hazardous to
hwnan health and safety? Who makes the
appropriate determination
of this hazard?
• Are there other methods
ofmetal recovery ptior to disposal of
EAF dust? Will delisling EAF dust result in placing recoverable
materials
in landfills? Are rqe other methods economical within
our region?
•
How should the County take into consideration the economic
impact
of PDC closing its operations on a company like
Keystone, and the financial.stake Peoria County has in
Keystone's conlinued operations?
• What role does the County have in a technical, regulatory
delisling process?
Regulatory Findings
• USEPA fmds "little reason to believe that these
[delisted] streams are causing environmental
problems.
.
•
IEPA states PDC's petition
"will
likely meet the
required level
of justification with some
additional information"
•
IPCB currently perfonning its due diligence
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
.
Patrick Engineering Findings
• Patrick Engineering reviewed the petition from a technical
perspective
and concluded:
• Based upon Patrick's review of the available documents. PDC has met all
of the technical and legal criteria needed to successfully delist the K061
waste
• The ongoing confirmation sampling is proposed to occur daily. a
reasonable sampling frequency in Patrick's opinion
• Patrick believes that this delisring petition meets
all
of the applicable
criteria for making such a case, and has been supported
with
a sufficient
technical demonstration
•
Patrick believes that this delisting istherefoce reasonable, appropriate.
technically defensible, and equally protective of human health and the
environment as the currently employed treatment and disposal strategy
for this K06 J waste
.
Recycling Considerations
• USEPA found that delisting might inhibit recycling in
some cases, and promote it in others, but unable to
identify clear trends in either direction
• Sierra
Oub identified a EAF dust recycler in Alabama
but high capital costs ($35 million) may be a barrier to
entry in the local marketplace
• County and State should encourage commercialization
of a EAF dust recycler locally, if the waste stream is
strong enough to sustain and transportation costs
do
not continue to escalate
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
.
Conclusions
• Keystone is one of PDC's largest customers and
Peoria County has a f1fiancial interest
in seeing
the company retain
it viability
• Retaining the
WSF operations retains local
employment and does
not jeopardize steel-
. making jobs in the area
• This technological innovation
will
actually lower
the cost oflandfilling while adhering to the
appropriate regulations
Back to top
Conclusions
• Ultimately this decision is one that will be made by the
IPCB:
• The regulatory scheme is well-tested
•
IEPA states that the petition
"will
likely meet the required
level
of justification with some additional information"
• Patrick believes that this delisting petition meets all of the
applicable criteria for making such a case, and has been
supported with a sufficient technical demonstration.
•
Jobs and the local manufacturing base are tied to this decision
• Staff recommends not taking a fonnal position and
letting the regulatory process run its course
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
There will be a Meeting ofthe County Board, County of Peoria, Illinois on
Thursday, August 14, 2008, at six o'clock p.rn. the Courthouse, Room 403.
R. Steve Sonnemaker
County Clerk
AGENDA
CALL TO
ORDER
MOMENT OF SILENCE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL BY THE COUNTY CLERK
Approval of July10, 2008, County Board Meeting Minutes
Approval of June 10,2008, County Board Meeting Executive Session Minutes
PROCLAMATIONS
&
PRESENTATIONS
• A proclamation from your Chairman congratulating the graduates of
Peoria County's Summer 2008 Civic Leadership Class.
CONSENT
AGENDA
Cl.
A communication from the Illinois Department of Transportation dated July
2, 2008, regarding Motor Fuel Tax allotment and transactions for the County
the month of June 2008.
C2.
A
revenue and expenditure report from the County Auditor and County
Treasurer for the month ending July 31,2008, to receive and file.
C3.
Appointments
C4.
A resolution (items 1-3) and (items 1-2) from your Tax/EDC Committee
recommending that the Chairman of the Peoria County Board be authorized
and directed to execute deeds of conveyance of the County's interest to the
highest bidder, and be authorized to cancel the appropriate Certificates of
Purchase. This resolution shall be effective ninety days from August 14,
2008,
and any transaction between the parties involved not occurring within
this period shall be null and void.
EXHIBIT
I
B
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
CITIZENS'REMARKS
(To address the County Board, flll out a card and submit it to the Chairman
before the Board Meeting.)
ZONING ORDINANCES
&
RESOLUTIONS
1. Case #037-08-U (James R. Roepenack)
The petitioner is requesting a Special Use in the "A-2" Agricultural District to
divide 5 acres, with a house, from a 19.95-acre parcel, in order to construct a
home on the remaining 14.95 acres. The property is located in Timber
Township.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial. The Land Use Committee
concurs.
2. Case #W04-08 (James
&
Linda McIntyre)
A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a
waiver of compliance from Section 20-4-2.C.2.b. of the Subdivision Ordinance
,
which requires a minimum of 30 feet of road frontage for parcels of less than 10
acres in size and a minimum of 60 feet of road frontage for parcels of 10 acres
or greater. The property is located in Rosefield Township.
o 3.
~
A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a
contract with TESKA Associates, Inc., in the amount of $45,000.00 to provide a
Market Study of Peoria County (Market Study Bid #18-01-08), with the option
for edits to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
4. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of an
Elected Officials Referenda pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Illinois
Constitution for the November 4, 2008, ballot concerning the manner of
whether the Auditor shall be elected or appointed.
(Approved on Voice Vote)
A resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of a grant
between the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and the
Tenth Judicial Circuit for the Visitation Program in State FY2009 pursuant to
Intergovernmental Agreement #2009-55-024-Klc.
A resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of the bid
of Bradford Systems, East Peoria, IL, in the amount of $22,766.00 for the
provision of file folders for the offices of the Circuit Clerk and the State's
Attorney for 2009.
A
resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
the bid ofR.A. Cullinan
&
Son, Tremont, IL, in the amount of $2,325.759.43 for
intersection improvements to Illinois Route 29 and Engine
Drivel
Wrench Road
at Caterpillar Mossville Plant.
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
~&
8.
A
re~olution ~om
your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
JUbII~e
Patrrots 4-H Club participating in the Adopt-A-Highway Program by
adoptmg County HIghway R23 (Brimfield Road) from Shissler Road to
Cahill.
A
resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
an additional appropriation of $218,500.00 for Rural Peoria County Council on
Aging FY2008 transportation needs.
1O.A resolution from your Facilities Committee authorizing the County
Administrator to retain a Commercial Real Estate Broker for the purpose of
potentially purchasing real estate.
ll.A resolution from your FinancelLegislative Study Committee recommending
approval of the use of GovDeals.com and Public Surplus for Online Auction
Services.
A
12.A
resolution from your FinancelLegislative Study Committee recommending
approval of an additional appropriation for the Shared Savings Program.
X 13.Ajoint resolution from your FinancelLegislative Study and Management
~
Services Committees recommending approval of the establishment of a
Purchasing Card Program with Illinois National Bank of Springfield, IL.
14.A
resolution from your Health and Environmental Issues Committee
recommending that the Peoria County Board does not take a formal position
regarding PDC's petition for the delisting ofEAF dust and that the matter goes
through the established regulatory process for the Illinois Pollution Control
Board to decide the issue.
OX:
15.A
joint resolution from your Management Services and Health and
~~
Environmental Issues Committees recommending approval of increasing a
part-time WIC-Breastfeeding Peer Counselor Position to full time.
o
16.A
resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending
~
approval to purchase a new Jury Management System comprised of software,
conversion,
implementation services, and training from Courthouse
Technologies, Ltd., New Westminister, B.C, Canada at an amount not to
exceed $126,668.00 contingent on funding and legal approval.
o
x:
17. A joint resolution from your Management Services and Judicial Committees
~
.:JIll
recommending approval of a full-time Deputy position and an Agreement with
Dunlap School District 323 for the provision of Police Services at the school
beginning August 15, 2008 through and including August 31, 2008 for an
amount of $3,014.58, and September 1, 2008 through and including May 31,
2009 for
an amount of $6,029.17.
18.
Executive Session - Personnel Matter
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
19.A resolution from your Management Services Committee authorizing the
Administrator to withdraw the pending lien on Worker's Compensation Case
#010015-004157-WC.Ol
in returns for $32,320.05.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MISCELLANEOUS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
A regular meeting of the County Board, County of Peoria, Illinois was
held on Thursday, August 14, 2008, at six o'clock p.m., in the Courthouse,
Room 403.
CALL TO
ORDER
MOMENT OF SILENCE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL BY
THE COUNTY CLERK
Attendance was taken with the Roll Call-Pro voting system, and the following
members ofthe Board were present: Baietto, Dillon, Elsasser, Hester, Hidden,
Mayer, O'Neill,
Phelan, Polhemus, Prather, Riggenbach, Salzer, Sous, Thomas,
Trumpe, Watkins and Widmer, with Pearson absent.
Approval ofJuly 10, 2008, County Board Meeting Minutes
Approval of June 10, 2008, County Board Meeting Executive Session Minutes
Baietto moved for approval of the July 10, 2008 County Board Meeting Minutes
and the July 10, 2008, County Board Meeting Executive Session Minutes and
Thomas seconded. The minutes were approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 17
ayes.
PROCLAMATIONS
&
PRESENTATIONS
o A proclamation from your Chairman congratulating the graduates of
Peoria County's Summer 2008 Civic Leadership Class.
Pearson entered the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Cl.
A communication from the Illinois Department of Transportation dated
July 2, 2008, regarding Motor Fuel Tax allotment and transactions for the
County the month of June 2008.
C2.
A
revenue and expenditure report from the County Auditor and County
Treasurer for the month ending July 31, 2008, to receive and file.
C3.
Appointments
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
C4.
A resolution (items 1-3) and (items 1-2) from your Tax/EDC Committee
recommending that the Chairman of the Peoria County Board be
authorized and directed to execute deeds of conveyance of the County's
mterest to the highest bIdder, and be authorized to cancel the appropriate
CertIficates of Purchase. This resolution shall be effective ninety days from
August 14, 2008, and any transaction between the parties involved not
occurring
within this period shall be null and void.
Polhemus moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Pearson seconded. The
Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
CITIZENS' REMARKS
Wilson C.
Washkuhn, Attorney, Suite 400,416 Main Street, addressed the Board
with regard to Zoning Case #037-08-U. He asked the Board to consider the
County's Zoning Ordinance and guard against the exception becoming the rule.
Bryan J. Vaughn, 3604 S. Geber Road, addressed the Board with regard to Case
#037-08-U
and stated that he just wanted to split the land so he could build a
house.
Joyce
Blumenshine, 2419 East Reservoir, addressed the Board with regard to
Peoria Disposal Company's petition to de-list treated electric arc furnace dust.
PDC wishes to have one of its largest waste streams de-listed so it can be put into
municipal waste landfills. The issue is the long term safety and welfare ofthe
public. The dioxins never biodegrade; testing on the process was very limited. She
asked the Board to consider PDC's petition as another effort to circumvent the
Board's decision on the landfill's expansion.
Tom
Edwards, 902 W. Moss Avenue, addressed the Board with regard to PDC's
petition. Five
years ago a campaign was started to prevent disposal of toxic waste
over our water aquifer. He stated that we have one window to close the landfill,
let's close it.
Bob Jorgensen, 212 Sunnybrook Dr., Heart of Illinois Sierra Club, addressed the
Board with regard to PDC'spetition. He stated that the Board took the correct
stance two years ago. Now PDC has put the Board back into the same position;
they've
had two years to make a strategy to keep their landfill open. They're
saying that mixing the waste with concrete and a secret ingredient will make it a
non-pollutant. They're also trying to reframe this as a union jobs issue rather than
a dangerous chemical pollutant issue. Problems with a dangerous toxic pollutant
and the health problems it may cause will not go away because PDC hires
teamsters. He urged the Board to vote against the petition.
Brian Meginnes, Attorney, 2602 W. Chartwell, addressed the Board with regard to
PDC's
petition. He explained that the PDC No.1 Landfill has three activities: the
landfill, a waste water treatment plant and a waste stabilization facility. The
landfill will
be full sometime in 2009. The landfill will not be closed because space
will be
maintained primarily to serve the treatment plant. The waste stabilization
2
-------_._-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
facility is a huge multi-million dollar facility that treats hazardous waste. Waste
IS treated to certain levels required by law, then the waste is deposited in the
landfill. Once the landfill is full in 2009, the waste will not be deposited in the
Pottstown landfill. Therefore, PDC filed the current petition to de-list K061 dust
which is their largest waste stream. This is nothing new for PDC; right now they
treat characterIstIc hazardous waste and dispose ofthe treated waste in the
Indian Creek landfill. They do the same with F006 waste which was de-listed in
the early 90's. The Pollution Control Board will determine whether the treatment
process works. As far as the secret ingredient mentioned by Ms. Blumenshine, all
of that information has been provided to the Pollution Control Board. The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency has no objections to the petition. Normally with
a de-listing, waste is tested quarterly or semi-annually to make sure it's meeting
the treatment level. PDC has proposed in its petition to test every batch of waste
everyday to make sure it meets the de-listing standards. PDC would like the
County Board to support their petition.
Ron
Edwards, 4700 N. Sterling Avenue, Peoria Disposal Company, addressed the
Board with regard to the treatment process. The purpose of the petition is
specifically for treatment ofthe waste residue that is left after the electric arc
furnace
dust, such as Keystone brings
to
the landfill, is treated. PDC has been
treating hazardous waste for 20 years to limit the leachability of the
contaminants. It's not the concentration of the contaminants in the waste that
determines whether a waste is hazardous. It's how many of those contaminants
can get into the environment. That's the entire basis of the regulations. Once PDC
treats the waste, it's rendered such that it has much lower levels of contaminants
that could potentially get into the environment than even non-hazardous waste.
Riggenbach
and Phelan left the meeting and returned.
Thomas asked how many other facilities have de-listed K061. Mr. Edwards replied
somewhere between 15-18. Thomas then asked if there is any information with
regard to leachate problems. Mr. Edwards replied that there have been many
studies on landfill leachate although you can't say of that leachate how much of it
is attributable to electric arc furnace dust. In general, as the landfill continues to
age you see an improvement in the quality ofleachate.
Baietto asked whether other companies which have received de-listings have a
secret formula in their process. Mr. Edwards replied that the majority are either
proprietary or patented to protect their specific recipe.
Bernie Lee,
Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local 627, addressed the Board with
regard to PDC's petition. Mr. Lee stated that he represents approximately 70
members who work at PDC. He urged the Board to support the Committee's and
staff's recommendation and let the Pollution Control Board do its job. Do not let
the passion of the siting from a few years ago spill over into this decision.
Jim Rasins, President of the Illinois Association of County Auditors and DuPage
County Auditor, addressed the Board with regard to the Auditor Referendum. A
Gallup
study shows that two out of three people prefer to vote for local officials
rather than have them appointed. Three out of four people stated that elected
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
officials do a better job ofmanaging local tax dollars than appointed officials. And
four out of five people
s~ated
that elected officials are more responsive to the needs
of
th~
publIc
t~an
appomted officials. In Illinois, given the choice of having an
~ppomted
audItor rat.her than elected, the public has consistently demonstrated
Its
p~fer?nce
fo: havmg an
e~ected
auditor. To his knowledge, only one county
appomts Its audItor and that IS Cook County. By putting this issue on the ballot
the Board will indicate that it can select a better auditor than the voters.
'
ZONING ORDINANCES
&
RESOLUTIONS
I.
Case #037-08-U (James
R.
Roepenack)
The petitioner is requesting a Special Use in the
"A-2"
Agricultural District to
divide 5 acres,
with a house, from a 19.95-acre parcel, in order to construct a
home
on the remaining 14.95 acres. The property is located in Timber
Township.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial. The Land Use Committee
concurs.
Trumpe moved to approve the ordinance to deny the special use and Hester
seconded. Trumpe explained that the request involves
A-2
ground which
allows
one dwelling per 25 acres. Mr. Roepenack wants to sell 14.95 acres to
Bryan Vaughn who wants to build a home on the ground. The opponents who
live
in the area object because they want to preserve hunting in the area and
the large tract character ofthe neighborhood. Mayer asked whether the
motion is to deny. Mr. Atkins confirmed that a yes vote is a vote to deny the
request. Phelan asked for the basis of the denial. Trumpe replied that the
neighbors are opposed on the basis that the Board should not approve parcels
of less than 25 acres in this neighborhood because it is not in keeping with
the character of the area.
Polhemus asked whether the current property owner is related to Mr.
Vaughn; Trumpe replied no. Elsasser stated that there is a lot of hunting on
the adjacent property and there was a great deal of discussion about the
distance the gun would shoot.
The ordinance to deny the special use passed by a roll call vote of 15 ayes and
3 nays, with Hidden, O'Neill and Polhemus voting nay.
2.
Case #W04-08 (James
&
Linda McIntyre)
A
resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a
waiver of compliance from Section 20-4-2.C.2.b. of the Subdivision Ordinance,
which
requires a minimum of 30 feet of road frontage for parcels of less than
10 acres in size and a minimum of 60 feet of road frontage for parcels of 10
acres or greater. The property is located in Rosefield Township.
Trumpe moved to approve the resolution and Hester seconded. Trumpe
explained that Eden Road ends at this property, so there is only 33 feet.
The property owners will share the entrance. Thomas asked if the owners
share the access and the property is sold whether a right-of-way will go with
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
the property
sol~.
Mr. Wahl explained that the 33 foot section will be split
mto 16 foot sectIOns. Phelan asked why the ordinance requires a minimum
amount ofpubhc frontage. Mr. Wahl explained the minimum is based on
average lot width and safety concerns. It's also to discourage flagpole lots.
Th~
resolutIOn passed by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and one nay, with Phelan
votmg nay.
3. A
resoluti~n
from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a
contract wIth TESKA Associates, Inc., in the amount of $45,000.00 to provide
a
Market Study of Peoria County (Market Study Bid #18-01-08) with the
option for edits to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
'
Trumpe moved to approve the resolution and Elsasser seconded. Trumpe
noted that there was only one bid for this project, which is complex. Mr. Wahl
explained that the service area study is designed to allow for an economic
review
of projects which will enable the county to determine whether a
project will
carry its own weight from a tax vs. service expenditure
perspective. It's a smart growth tool. The market study looks more at retail
and industrial issues and identifies gaps in the market. This information is
useful from a planning perspective. Hidden asked if there are other
organizations doing this type of project that the County could work with, and
Mr. Wahl replied that this will be the only project of its kind in the Midwest.
The resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
4. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of an
Elected Officials Referendum pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Illinois
Constitution for the November 4, 2008, ballot concerning the manner of
whether the Auditor shall be appointed rather than elected.
Thomas moved to approve the resolution and Pearson seconded.
O'Neill
asked for a clarification on the effect of a yes vote. Mr. Atkins replied
that a yes vote is a vote to put this referendum on the ballot. Widmer asked
if
this goes on the ballot whether the county is taking a position that the
auditor should be appointed rather than elected. Mr. Atkins replied that as a
legal
matter a vote to put this on the ballot is simply that. Widmer asked how
many counties in Illinois have finance officers. Mr. Urich replied that several
counties do have them. There is no predominate form of government
structure in Illinois. Baietto asked for confirmation that 85 counties in
Illinois do not have an auditor. Mr. Urich replied that although the law does
not mandate those counties have an auditor, he does not know whether there
is someone performing that function in those counties.
Thomas stated that the last time the Board studied its goals and objectives
this issue was discussed; the subject has been brought for years. He
disagreed that a vote to put this on the ballot indicates the Board'sposition
either for or against election or appointment. This is not a matter of
personalities. The Board has not had the length of discussion on the offices of
the coroner and the recorder that it has had on the auditor. Widmer stated
that the Board is not voting on whether to abolish the office of auditor. The
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
vot~
is whether the office is elected or appointed by the administrator. Mr.
Atkins clarIfied that the appointment would be made by the Board.
Thomas left the meeting and returned.
Mayer clarified that the external auditors look at financial statements to
determine there are no material misstatements. They do not perform the
same function as the internal auditor who checks internal controls and
matters of compliance. As Mr. Thomas pointed out, there is no savings to the
taxpayers. Someone still has to perform the functions. He urged a no vote on
the resolution. Elsasser noted that he would never support taking this
position away from someone who had held the office for a long time and had
given up other career opportunities to serve the public. So when Mr.
Sonnemaker was elected County Clerk two years ago, Elsasser said this is
the time to look at this issue. The citizens of Peoria County are interested
and educated, and they deserve the right to make this decision at the ballot
box
in November.
Riggenbach
noted that a year ago when changes were made to the finance
structure, the issue came up that the auditor needs to audit. Changes were
made to empower the auditor to audit in accordance with state mandates.
There hasn't been time to see whether the changes the Board made are
working. The County has made huge strides in its finance department and
given the auditor specific mandates which were lacking in the past, and he
urged a no vote. Trumpe noted she does not want to start down the path of
removing elected offices and replacing them with appointments. Salzer noted
that he was opposed to putting any ofthe offices on the ballot. The voters can
petition to put this on the ballot which has not happened. With early voting
beginning on October 13th, there will be little time to educate the voters, and
he urged a no vote.
The resolution failed to pass by a roll call vote of 5 ayes and 13 nays with
Baietto, Elsasser, Pearson, Thomas and Widmer voting aye.
O'Neill left
the meeting.
5. A
resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of a
grant between the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
and the Tenth Judicial Circuit for the Visitation Program in State FY2009
pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement #2009-55-024-Klc.
Baietto moved approve the resolution and Elsasser seconded. The resolution
passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes.
6. A
resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of the bid
of Bradford Systems, East Peoria, IL, in the amount of $22,766.00 for the
provision of file folders for the offices of the Circuit Clerk and the State's
Attorney for 2009.
Baietto moved to approve the resolution and Pearson seconded. The
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes.
7. A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
the bid ofR.A. Cullinan
&
Son, Tremont, IL, in the amount of $2,325.759.43
for
intersection improvements to Illinois Route 29 and Engine Drive/ Rench
Road
at Caterpillar Mossville Plant.
Elsasser moved to approve the resolution and Watkins seconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes.
O'Neill
returned to the meeting.
8. A
resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
Jubilee Patriots 4-H Club participating in the Adopt-A-Highway Program by
adopting County Highway R23 (Brimfield Road) from Shissler Road to
Cahill.
Elsasser moved to approve the resolution and O'Neillseconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
9. A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of
an additional appropriation of $218,500.00 for Rural Peoria County Council
on Aging FY2008 transportation needs.
Polhemus moved to approve the resolution and O'Neillseconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
1O.A resolution from your Facilities Committee authorizing the County
Administrator to retain a Commercial Real Estate Broker for the purpose of
potentially purchasing real estate.
Salzer moved to approve the resolution and Watkins seconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
Il.A resolution from your Finance/Legislative Study Committee recommending
approval
ofthe use of GovDeals.com and Public Surplus for Online Auction
Services.
Riggenbach moved
to approve the resolution and Mayer seconded.
Riggenbach
noted that this is a one year program during which time the
County can evaluate which service it wants to use for a longer term. Vehicles
and some of the larger ticket items will still be auctioned live, but this
system will allow the County to get rid of other items on a more timely basis.
The resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
Dillon left
the meeting.
12.A
resolution from your FinancelLegislative Study Committee recommending
approval of an additional appropriation for the Shared Savings Program.
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Riggen~ach
moved to approve the resolution and Mayer seconded. The
resolutIOn
passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes.
13.A
joi~t
resolution from your FinancelLegislative Study and Management
SerVIces CommIttees recommending approval of the establishment of a
Purchasing Card Program with Illinois National Bank of Springfield, IL.
Dillon
returned to the meeting.
Riggenbach moved to approve the resolution and Mayer seconded.
Riggenbach
noted that this will be a six month pilot program. Phelan stated
that he appreciated the added controls, but he was not going to support this
because of things that have happened with cards in other counties. He is also
opposed
because this was not opened up to other banks. Mayer noted that
this program will increase the County's control so that the problems
experienced
in other counties are less likely to happen. The resolution passed
by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and one nay, with Phelan voting nay.
14. A resolution from your Health and Environmental Issues Committee
recommending that the Peoria County Board does not take a formal position
regarding PDC's petition for the delisting ofEAF dust and that the matter
goes through the established regulatory process for the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board to decide the issue.
Pearson moved to approve the resolution and Trumpe seconded. Mayer stated
that all the financial data submitted makes it clear that there is a real
opportunity for a recycling facility to handle some of this, and he hopes that
will be considered. He clarified that the Board's siting decision was not a
matter of saying that they didn't want the facility in Peoria County but was a
matter of evaluating the application against established statutory criteria
which the facility did not meet. He congratulated PDC on their support of the
Teamsters Union and hoped they would remain neutral when the Teamsters
try to organize in other locations.
Phelan asked Mr. Urich
if
he felt this petition has anything to do with the
siting appeals process or any future application for expansion. Mr. Urich
replied that this issue falls within the crossroads between the environment
and economics. Keystone came to the Health Committee and spoke about the
impact of this decision on their operations. The County has a financial stake
in Keystone's success because they still owe the County $8,000,000.00. But
looking at everything, staff decided that it would be best not to weigh in on
this issue. Phelan noted these economic and environmental issues were
present during the siting process, and staff made a recommendation then.
Mr. Urich noted that in this instance staff did not have the same vantage
point as last time; they did not have the non-disclosed information. Phelan
stated that the Board looks to staff for recommendations especially in
technical areas.
Baietto stated that this is a regulatory issue which the Board should not be
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
discussing. At this time he could not take a position because he needs more
information.
Without more information, leave it to the Pollution Control
Board.
Thomas stated that no matter what the Board does, the decision will
be
made by the Pollution Control Board. He does not see a problem with the
Board .weighing in on the broader policy issues and on what the community
needs
III
the long run. Riggenbach stated it's important not to lose sight of
the fact that PDC is making an effort to find ways to reduce the hazardous
waste going into landfills. Widmer agreed with Riggenbach and stated that
he is going to support this resolution. Elsasser agreed with Baietto on the
need for more information to make the right decision. He moved to table the
motion. No second was received, and the Chairman announced that the
motion to table failed for lack of a second. Mayer stated that he hopes if PDC
receives
the de-listing it will drop its siting appeal.
Salzer stated that he doesn't know why this matter has been brought before
this Board. He thinks it should be left to the experts to decide. Dillon stated
that if this was a normal business, this resolution would not be in front of the
Board. The Board needs to separate the siting from this motion.
The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 13 ayes and 5 nays, with Elsasser,
Mayer,
Pearson, Phelan and Thomas voting nay.
Mr.
Atkins advised the Board that even after this vote, the Board members
can give their own opinions on this matter.
15.A joint resolution from your Management Services and Health and
Environmental Issues Committees recommending approval of increasing a
part-time WIC-Breastfeeding Peer Counselor Position to full time.
Thomas moved to approve the resolution and Pearson seconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
16.A
resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending
approval to purchase a new Jury Management System comprised of software,
conversion,
implementation services, and training from Courthouse
Technologies, Ltd., New Westminister, B.C, Canada at an amount not to
exceed $126,668.00 contingent
on funding and legal approval.
Thomas moved to approve the resolution and Pearson seconded. The
resolution was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
17.A
joint resolution from your Management Services and Judicial Committees
recommending approval of a full-time Deputy position and an Agreement
with Dunlap School District 323 for the provision of Police Services at the
school beginning August 15, 2008 through and including August 31, 2008 for
an amount of $3,014.58, and September 1, 2008 through and including May
31,2009 for an amount of $6,029. 17.
Sous moved to approve the resolutions and Watkins seconded. The
resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Pearson asked if the Board could go into Unfinished Business and the rest before
executive session.
MISCELLANEOUS
Riggenbach noted that he would have a written report on the workshops he
attended at the NACO conference in Kansas City. They were very good, and it was
a great opportunity to network on issues common to counties around the country.
He
then commended Dillon and Sheriff McCoy and for another successful St. Jude
run.
Salzer noted that it is Watkins' 65th birthday whereupon the Board serenaded
Watkins with a moving chorus of "Happy Birthday."
Pearson stated that she met someone from Franklin County yesterday who
commented favorably on
the County'swebsite. Franklin County is thinking of
starting their own, and Peoria County'swebsite really left an impression on them.
Polhemus
stated that he has talked to the neighbors of the Hanna City Work
Camp,
and he will be giving the Board a summary of their thoughts on what
should be done with this property.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Trumpe announced the Indo-American Society of Peoria benefit for the homeless
shelter program of the South Side Mission, and asked the Board members to take
the flyers she had.
Baietto noted that the Board will be getting a survey from the Administrator and
the Rules Committee needs their input.
18. Executive Session - Personnel Matter and Potential Acquisition ofProperty
Thomas moved to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation and
Baietto seconded. Mr. Atkins stated there is a need to go into executive
session only to discuss pending litigation.
Dillon, Hidden, Mayer and Trumpe left the meeting.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 14 ayes.
Riggenbach left the meeting.
Polhemus left the meeting after executive session.
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
19. A resolution from your Management Services Committee authorizing the
Administrator to withdraw the pending lien on Worker's Compensation Case
#010015-004157-WC.01
in return for $32,320.05.
Thomas moved to approve the resolution and Pearson seconded. The
resolution
passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 16 ayes.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayer moved to adjourn and Dillon seconded. The motion passed by a
unanimous voice vote.
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
..
JLI'I-1-2007 10:23fl FR01: TflZ£I.ELL ClUfTY
~
3094772273
TO:
913096880881
COMMITTEE REPORT
--------------.-------------_._._-
._
..-
..
----
...
----------....--
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Tazewell COWlty Board:
Your Special Waste Review Committee has considered the following RESOLUTION and
~
e..,
....
C".~
~~~
...
-
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Tazewell County Landfill, Inc. (TCL) has requested to dispose ofnon-hazardous
special waste generated
by PDC - Peoria Waste Stabilization Facility PDC III Landfill
ofPeoria; and
WHEREAS, in order
for TCL to dispose of
this
De-Listed, De-Characterized Stabilized Residues
as a non-hazardous waste at Indian Creek Landfill. it must first receive approval from the Special
Waste Review Committee as outlined
under
Article 32 ofthe
Host
Community Agreement dated
October 1. 2003 between Tazewell County and Tazewell County Landfill,
Inc.
(TCL); and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the Special Waste Review Commlrtee met with TeL to discuss
aod review the internal approval procedures for the non-hazardous waste generated by
PDC - Peoria Waste Slllbilization Facility PDC III Landfill; and
WHEREAS. the Special Waste Review Committee voted to recommend to the County Board to
approve the disposal of the non-hazardous special waste at Indian Creek Landfill.
lHEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board apPlove this recommendation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Clerk notifies the County Board Office, the
Health Department Administrator
Amy
Tippey, the Director ofthe Solid Waste Management
Program Ray Corey and the Auditor ofthis action.
PASSED TInS
30TH DAY OF MAY. 2007.
ATTEST:
(!JlAl4;b'" 0
( , J
LOb
County Clerk
EXHIBIT
I
c
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
HOPEDALE TOWNSHIP RESOLUTION
. WHEREAS, Tazewell County Landfill, Inc. ("TCl") is the owner and operator
P0-
of
Indian Creek Landfill located in Hopedale Township, Tazewell County, Illinois;
WHEREAS, on October 1,2003,
TCl and the County of Tazewell entered into a
Host Community Agreement
which
was amended by a First Amendment to Host
Community Agreement effective September 27,2006 ("Host Community Agreement");
WHEREAS, on September
12, 2006, TCl and Hopedale Township entered into a
Host Township Agreement ("Host Township Agreement");
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2007, the County
of Tazewell granted local siting
approval for
an approximate 10,000,000 ton expansion of Indian Creek landfill;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Section 32 of the Host
Community Agreement, on
May 30, 2007, the County of Tazewell authorized TCl to
accept for disposal at Indian Creek
landfill De-Listed and De-Characterized Stabilized
Residues from the Waste Stabilization Facility owned and operated by Peoria Disposal
Company ("PDC"),
an affiliate of TCl, located in Peoria County, Illinois;
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2008,
POC filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
("Board") a RCRA Oelisting Adjusted Standard Petition petitioning
for an upfront and
conditional delisting for the stabilized residues generated by
poe from the treatment of
K061 electric arc furnace dust generated by steel mills that produce steel using electric
arc furnaces ("Treated K061 ReSidues");
WHEREAS,
POC would like to dispose of the Treated K061 Residues in Indian
Creek Landfill;
WHEREAS, other than the County of Tazewell, Hopedale Township
is the only
local
governmental
entity having jurisdiction over Indian Creek landfill;
RESOLVED, that Hopedale Township supports the RCRA Oelisting Adjusted
Standard Petilion filed by PDC with the Board petitioning for an upfront and conditional
delisting for the Treated
K061 Residues;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that Hopedale Township supports the disposal of the
Treated
K061 Residues by TCl at Indian Creek landfill.
HOPEDALE TOWNSHIP
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
SECOND AMENDMENT TO HOST COUNTY AGREEMENT
THIS SEC';>ND AMENDMENT TO HOST COUNTY AGREEMENT ("Agreement")
is
made
a~d
effective October _,_,
2008,
between Clinton Landfill, Inc" an Illinois
corporation ("CLI"), and the County
of DeWitt, Illinois (the "County"),
WHEREAS, CLI and the County entered into a certain Host County Agreement
effective April 20,
2001,
as amended by a First Amendment to Host County Agreement
effective August 24, 2007 (the "Host County Agreement");
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2008, Peoria Disposal Company,
of which CLI is an
affiliate, filed
an RCRA Delisting Adjusted Standard Petition with the State of Illinois
Pollution Control Board, file number
AS
08-10,
requesting that the Illinois Pollution Control
Board grant
an adjusted standard to delist the stabilized residue generated by Peoria
Disposal Company from the treatment
of K061 electric arc furnace dust (a hazardous
waste) at Peoria Disposal Company's waste stabilization facility
in Peoria County, Illinois;
WHEREAS, the County has considered requesting a second public hearing on said
petition
be convened in DeWitt County, Illinois;
WHEREAS, Peoria Disposal Company is desirous
of having only one public hearing
on said petition
in order to expedite matters for both them and their customers who have a
vested interest
in the granting of said petition;
WHEREAS, CLI continues to be desirous
of earning the goodwill of the citizens of
the County by demonstrating that its landfill operations are, have been and will continue to
be conducted in
an environmentally sound manner;
WHEREAS the County continues to be desirous
of protecting the health, safety and
welfare
of its citizens;
.
WHEREAS, CLI and the County desire to amend the Host County Agreement to
effectuate certain changes and revisions thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and
in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual
agreements contained
in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, CLI and the County hereby amend the Host
County Agreement as follows:
1.
Paragraph 36 is added to the Host County Agreement as follows:
36.
STABILIZED RESIDUE
That CLI hereby agrees not to accept stabilized residue from
the treatment
of K061 electric arc furnace dust, whether or not it has
E
1 • cI
~SSv-SE:S-l.l~
el0:S0 80 80 ',PO
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
been delisted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board as a hazardous
waste, for disposal at any
of CLI's present or future disposal sites
located
in DeWitt County, Illinois, without first receiving approval for
the same from the County. The County may require a public hearing
on any future request by CLI for permission to accept disposal
of
stabilized residue from the treatment of K061 electric arc furnace dust
at any
of CLI's present or future disposal sites located in DeWitt
County, Illinois. The County and
CLI hereby agree that the County
may deny any said request to accept disposal
of stabilized residue
from the treatment
of K061 electric arc furnace dust for any reason.
2.
That Paragraph
33
of the Host County Agreement is deleted in its entirety
and the following is substituted
in lieu thereof:
33.
CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
The County supports
Cli in its endeavors to provide safe and
secure landfill disposal services at its Clinton Landfill No. 3 facility.
Furthermore, the County recognizes that evaluating the
protectiveness
of the Chemical Waste Landfill permit application
prepared by CLI involves highly technical, multi-disciplinary analysis,
. and such analysis is best performed by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. As a result, the County neither supports nor opposes the
permitting, development, construction, and operation
of the Chemical
Waste Landfill proposed by CLI at Clinton Landfill
No.3.
3.
Except as hereinabove set forth, the Host County Agreement effective April
20, 2001; together with the First Amendment to Host County Agreement effective August
24, 2007, shall remain unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers or representatives
on the date first
above written.
COUNTY OF DEWITT
By:
~1J&-
Steve Lobb, Chairman
Z6Sj,-SE:6-1.1Z
2
CLINT
I
~O,l.rJ-L.t:U:~
elO:60 80 80
~~O
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Attest:
""$frO"
Wit County Clerk
w~
108-2096
3
Attest:
~
,I
By:
Ron L. Edwards,
secretrry
2657-51::6-£.12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
-t:
Q)
o
'E
co
o
m
e
~
-
C
C")
N
o
I
O
.....
.s::
0
c Co
co
00
.....
,"",'CoCO
..:lCo...J
-COlO
a...
00:::'
......
.....
Ol0
•
.!!l
S:
Q)
~
._
go:'.::
0 :J
.-
.s::
= ..... cno
September 4, 2008
PFATW
PEORIA FAMILIES
AGAINST TOXIC WASTE
Dear Friend,
Peoria Disposal Company (PDC)
is continuing its
quest to expand its hazardous waste operations
in
Central Illinois. This time, PDC is asking the Illinois
Pollution Control Board
(I PCB) to delist electric arc
furnace dust, one
of the main waste streams into its
Pottstown facility. When a waste stream
is delisted,
it
is no longer subject to hazardous waste disposal
regulations and can
be deposited in a municipal
landfill. PDC is hoping to use its waste stabilization
facility
in Pottstown to treat this toxic-laden dust and
then truck it to its municipal landfills
in Tazewell,
Dewitt, and Pike counties.
Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste (PFATW)
opposes this delisting for a variety of reasons, First,
the delisting effectively circumvents earlier rulings denying PDC's request to expand the iandfill, Waste will
still
be trucked across Central Illinois and all the air poilution impacts of treating it will continue for another
ten years, Ongoing operation of the waste stabilization facility, and included provisions allowing some use
of the eXisting hazardous waste landfill to dispose of waste deemed "untreatable," means that the Pottstown
hazardous waste landfill will not
be closed for another ten years, The waste stabilization process itself will
involve dragging large bins
of treated waste on and off of the existing hazardous waste disposal areas as the
treated waste "cures," No analysis
of these impacts was included with PDC's proposal.
Second, PFATW is concerned about the process itself, PDC
is proposing to treat waste via a proprietary
process,
In a request to the IPCB, PDC asked that no technical details be disclosed to keep the process a
trade secret. Limited testing
of the process occurred over a short three-month period and was conducted
by a consulting group hired by PDC, PFATW does not believe the IPCB should allow the delisting based
on
secret processes, closed to scrutiny by outside experts, and results that cannot be independently verified,
Finally, PFATW believes there
is no iong-term assurance that the "treated" wastes will be stable enough to
withstand the unregUlated mix of substances in a municipal landfill. The disposal site at Indian Creek near
Hopewell
in Tazewell County is situated over the Mahomet aqUifer, as is the site in Dewitt county. No on-
site testing whatsoever has been performed at either site, One
of the major concerns about the Pottstown
facility was its location atop the San Koty aquifer, Peoria County's main source of drinking water, Now PDC
proposes replacing that risk with an equivalent
one-storing waste over another community water supply,
Please
help us send a strong message to the IPCB using the attached pre-addressed postcard. To
send an even stronger message, write your own letter and send it to the address on the postcard, To review
PDC's complete proposal, visit www.ipcb.state.il.us/CooIIExternalicases_full.asp and type "AS 2008-010"
in
the search field. Comments are due by September 11,2008, Thanks for your continuing support.
Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste
EXHIBIT
F
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
1S1-
~\
~\
"\-"'"
$\
\~
\.
~o-
~
..
~
~
•
l>
Q."
~m
20
"':Jl
-tj;
~"Tl
'-
~~
»
~~l>(fl
(fl
-t
m
...
-a
~
r
Dear Illinois Pollution Control Board,
I am writing asking you to deny Peoria Disposal Company's request to
delist electric arc furnace dust (AS 2008-010). The delisting is a back
door expansion
of the landfill, an expansion both Peoria County and
the IPCB have already denied. The safety
of what PDC is proposing
cannot
be assured-PDC conducted no assessment of the impact on
its existing landfill, the process details are not available for review, the
testing was very limited, no independent labs verified the results, and
no
on-site testing was conducted at the landfills where the material will be
disposed. PDC's proposal simply shifts the risks to safe drinking water
to
communities over the Mahomet aquifer instead of the San Koty. Please
work with the citizens
of Central Illinois to begin the process of truly
closing this unwanled legacy and eliminating further risks to the health
and safely of our community.
(Nan",)
(Addr"';~J
mwc....
a.~0
(1)m~
!!~:::J
(1):;0
;S"
~ ~
-;0
III
r
0
1J
mill III
~
a.
'<
01
:J
'"
(1)
'T'
CO
~
o
VII
~£::fcn
Q)
.....
=
_. rJl.'
W 0
;:;:~
m
~
Q) .....
-~:
::J::::T"'U::T
a. CD OJ
0.:;;0
0
00"
OJ
_.~
-owcn::::r
o
CD ::J CD
C/)
0
CD
CD:T~
a~ ~
0
;::;:OJo9:
(I) a.
'U
(Jl
00°"0
3 c
~.£
CD
(I)_~
CD
:;; Ill' _ 0
::::T:::J:::T-
~a.~ffi
(1)
in :;; N
~:::CD~
._
~
CD
"3
c
Vl
'
g-
c:
3
.0
- '"
<::
""
"OJ
'" -i
Ol
o
'"
~
'"
(1)
'"
",'
Ol _.
~
<::
'<
-'"
-
:J 0
'" :J
,<J
~'"
CD ;:;:
Ol
0
~?"
1J
o
o
~
:J
2
o
So
Q,
g=o-o
'" 0 0
al
CD
0
,
~<O
3 (1) 0
;:;:m=:
cam
~
Q)
£:-8
N"m
:J
Q.:::J9t
'" '
oS'
0<0
:J"O
o
(1)
'"
,
3
CIl ;:::;:
3
0"
<:: (1)
_:J
!g,~
0'"
:;;0.
(1)'
0.
'" <0
1J
~.
~
0
:J
0.",0
,
_
o
OJ :::].
. 5 CD
1J,o.
Om 6'
()~<C
00' 3
~
m
"'C
;:::j:
"'C
"0
::::t'
-
'"
CD
CD 0:;;
!!!.3Q.
5" .., Q)
<0"''''
.....
co 5!?
ffi£.~
n
-aa.
cr
Q)
0,
'" :J '"
Cir - Q)
_.1J :;;
g () m
•
CD
'"
lii
1ll=1J
co
=: Ctl
,
:J 0
[
~.
iii'
, 1J 0
1Joo
OE=§
0"".:<
_.0
'" :J '"
III 0 !!!.
"0
0
0.
"O:J:J
m :::r
0
=£0
~
OJ
CD
_0)(
JOl"O
OJ a. Q)
-
:J
a.-::::::'UJ
'" 1J_.
Q.
!:Q.
()
OJ
.
g
o~-i
:J
J
.
'"
(1)
)( 0
O»~
'"
11 3
'<
:J"00~
en Q)
C
..J
_. :J "0
,,,
0,< ...
~
;J_o,.....
1J0' _
Dill
(J)
~'<
02:
(j)"cg
C
3 '"
'T"'I
",II>
Ol '" ......
ce"
5'
~."
III 1J
00
:J '"
-::::!.
~Ill
~o
Q) iii"
0::"0
3
'"
II>
0
"E.~
-
Ol
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
12
Illinois Cancer Data
Illinois Cancer Incidence Rates
by
County.
1999-2003
Rates are per 100.000 and age-
adjustflt to the 2000 U.5. standard
population.
Source: Illinois Department of Public
Health, Winois State Cancer Registry,
public data as of November 2005.
Illinois Average: 486.4
•
Below or Equal to State Average
•
Greater Than State Average
EXHIBIT
G
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Illinois Cancer Mortality Rates
by County. 1999-2003
Illinois Average: 22.6%
•
Below or Equal to State Average
•
Greater
Than
State Average
Illinois Cancer Data
15
Chicago:
23.3
IlIotes are
pet 100,000
and age-
aodJusted to the 2000 U.S. standard
population.
Source: Survei Ilarn:e. Epidemiology
and End Rewlts (SEER) Program
(w_.seer.cancer.gov)
SEER-Stat
O"tabase: Mortaiity--AII COO,
Public-Use With State. Total U.S
(1969-2003). Nat'onal Cancer
Institute, Deeps, Surveillance
Research Program, Cancer Statistics
Branch, releued April 2006.
Underlying mortalityd.lUl provided
by NCHS (www.cdc.gov./nchs).
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
•
•
Revised: October 2007
ILD000805812
PagellI-1
Section III CONTAINMENT BUILDING
A.
SUMMARY
A Waste Stabilization Facility is authorized for storage and treatment ofhazardous and
non-hazardous wastes that contain free liquids or require treatment. Four storage bays for
incoming waste contain a maximum
of eighty-eight (88) cubic yards. After treatment in a
mixer (description in Section
II
ofthis permit), the waste is moved to the curing area, which
can contain a maximum
of 658 cubic yards of treated waste. The containment building is
constructed with a liner system, leachate collection sumps, and a leak detection system.
In
addition, treatment using macro encapsulation in containers is allowed inside the containment
building.
B.
WASTE IDENTIFICATION
I.
The Permittee may store the hazardous waste identified in Attachment C to this
permit. The Permittee may store non-hazardous waste
in these units ifthe wastes are
managed in accordance with the conditions
ofthis permit that apply to hazardous
waste placed in the same unit.
2.
The Pennittee may store and treat the following wastes in the containment building,
subject to the terms of this permit:
Description
ofUnits
Receiving Bays
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
Curing Area
Mix
CeliA
Mix Cell
B
Capacity
(cubic yards)
22
22
22
22
658
168
56
•
3.
The Permittee is prohibited from storing or treating waste in the pennitted units not
identified in Condition
B.
2. of this Section.
4.
The treatment (microencapsulation) unites) shall not accept wastes containing over 2%
(by weight)ofmercury.
EXHIBIT
H
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page I of 15
You are here: EPAHQITW
federal Be.Q.ister
ER~rs
ER Months
fR D.a'iS.
FRQoc;!Jffi.en.!;:;;
Hazardous Waste
Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register:
EPA
Federal Register Environmental Documents
http://www .• pa.gov/EPA-WASTE/199S/Juno/Day_13/p..247.ntml
Last updated On Wolln•• lI.y. Janua", 2nd, 2008
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listin: Federal Register: EPA
[Federal Register: June 13, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 113) J
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31107-31115J
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5219-5J
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
granting a petition submitted by Conversion Systems, Inc. ("CSI' ') to
exclude from hazardous waste control (or "delist'') certain solid
wastes. The wastes being delisted consist of electric arc furnace dust
(' 'EAFD' ') that has been treated by a specific chemical stabilization
process. This action responds to CSI's petition to delist these treated
wastes on a "generator-specific" basis from the hazardous waste
lists. After careful analysis, the Agency has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills. This exclusion applies to chemically stabilized EAFD
generated at CSI's Sterling, Illinois facility as well as to similar
wastes that CSI may generate at future facilities. Accordingly, this
final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills, but
~mposes
testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated waste
remains qualified for delisting.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTEI1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
EXHIBIT
I
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page 2 of 15
EFFECTIVE DATE:
June
13, 1995.
[[Page 31108]] ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is
located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
sw,
Washington, DC 20460, and is available for viewing [Room M2616] from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(202) 260-9327 for appointments. The reference number for this docket
is . 'F-95-CSEF-FFFFF.', The public may copy material from any
regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of
$0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Chichang Chen,
Office of solid Waste (Mail Code 5304), u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7392.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the Agency
to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sees. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a "generator-specific" basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow the Agency to determine that the waste to
be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was
listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must
determine, where he has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that
such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of This Rulemaking
Conversion Systems, Inc., (CSI), Horsham, pennsylvania, petitioned
the Agency to exclude from hazardous waste control its stabilized waste
generated at electric arc furnace dust (EAFD) treatment facilities
across the nation. After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on
November 2, 1993 to exclude CSI's waste from the lists of hazardous
wastes under Sees. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 58 FR 58521). Subsequently,
in response to a commenter's request, the Agency published a notice
extending the comment period until January 3, 1994 (see 58 FR 67389,
December 21, 1993).
This ru1emaking addresses public comments received on the proposal
and finalizes the proposed decision to grant CSI's petition.
II. Disposition of Petition
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP
AI ...
Page 3 of 15
Conversion Systems, Inc., Horsham, Pennsylvania
A.
Proposed Exclusion
CSI petitioned the Agency for a multiple-site exclusion for
chemically stabilized electric arc furnace dust (CSEAFDj resulting from
the Super Detox™
treatment process as modified by CS1.
(The
original Super Detox™
treatment process was developed by
Bethlehem Steel Corporation and used at its Johnstown and Steelton,
Pennsylvania facilities.) Specifically, CS1 requested that the Agency
grant a mUltiple-site
exclusion
for CSEAFD generated by CS1 using its
modified
Super Detox™
process at the existing Sterling, Illinois
facility at Northwestern Steel and future facilities to be constructed
(CS1 initially is planning to construct 12 other facilities
nationwide). The resulting CSEAFD is classified as a K061 hazardous
waste by virtue of the "derived from" rule (Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i)),
because it is generated from the treatment of a hazardous waste
(electric arc furnace dust) which is currently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste NO. K061--"Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces." The listed constituents of
concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. K061 are cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, and lead. CSI petitioned to exclude Super Detox™
treatment residues because it does not believe that the CSEAFD meets
the criteria for which K06l was listed. CS1 also believes that the
Super Detox™
process, as modified by CSI, generates a nonhazardous
waste because the constituents of concern, although present
in the waste, are in an essentially immobile form. CSI further believes
that the waste is not hazardous for any other reason (i.e., there are
no additional constituents or factors that could cause the waste to be
hazardous). Lastly, CSI believes that a multiple-site delisting will
save both EPA and CS1 the cost and administrative burden of multiple
petitions each providing essentially the same, duplicative information
of a process already well known and accepted by the Agency as effective
1n treating EAFD wastes (see final exclusions for Bethlehem Steel
Corporation's Johnstown and Steelton, Pennsylvania facilities in 54 FR
21941, May 22, 1989). Review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d) (2)-
(4) •
In support of its petition, CS1 submitted:
(1)
Detailed
descriptions and schematics of the Super Detox™
treatment process
for both wet and dry electric arc furnace dust 1; (2) total
constituent analyses results for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
metals listed in Sec. 261.24 and six other metals from representative
samples of the untreated (non-stabilized) EAFD; (3) Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) results
for the eight TC metals from a representative sample of untreated EAFD;
(4) TCLP results for the eight TC metals and six other metals from
representative samples of the uncured CSEAFD; (5) Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP, SW-846 Method 1320) results for the TC metals and six
other metals from representative samples of the uncured CSEAFD; (61
total oil and grease (TOG), total cyanide, and total sulfide results
from representative samples of the untreated EAFD; (7) information and
test results regarding the hazardous waste characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity for the CSEAFD; and (8)
ground-water monitoring data from the landfill containing the CSEAFD
generated from CSI's Sterling, Illinois Super Detox™
facility.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.htrnI
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page 4 of IS
\1\ CSI has claimed some treatment process descriptions
inclUding inforrn<:ltion on how they impJ:oved the original
supe~
Detox™
treatment p.ocess. as confidential business information
(CBI). This inform"Uon, therefore, is not aV<lilable in the ReRA
public docket for today's notice.
B. Request for Public Uearing
During the comment period, Horsehead Resource Development Company,
Inc. ("HRD") and one Congressman requested a formal public hearing to
allow interested parties a SUfficient opportunity to comment on the
November 2, 1993 proposed rulemaking. HRD also indicated its desire to
cross-examine
EPA
and CSI witnesses. Following review of the issues
raised by the commenters, the Agency found no compelling need for a
public hearing and, therefore, notified the commenters of its decision
not to {[Page 31109]) hold a hearing. See the docket for proposed
notice for the related correspondences. In its comments On the proposed
rule, HRD claimed that EPA'S denial of its hearing request violates the
Administrative Procedure Act.
The Agency notes that the applicable regulations (40 CFR
Sec. 260.20{dJ and Sec. 25.51 specify only that EPA hold an informal
hearing at its discretion. The Agency believes that given the highly
technical nature of the proposal, written documentation is a more
appropriate medium for the issues raised. In addition, even if a
hearing were held, such process
would
not encompass the formal
testimony of EPA staff and expert witnesses HRD was seeking; the Agency
would merely use this procedure to gather oral comments for the record.
The Agency believes a hearing was unnecessary, and that the Agency's
procedures were consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. In
any event, the Agency has met with HRD, the primary commenter opposing
this delisting, a number of times since the time of the proposal to
hear its views in person.
C. Summary of Responses to Public Comments
The Agency received public comments On the November 2, 1993
proposal from 18 interested parties. Eight of these commenters,
consisting chiefly of steelmaking concerns, clearly supported the
Agency's proposed decision to grant CSI's petition. One commenter had
questions about the RCRA permit requirements for CSI's future
facilities, and about the effective date of the proposed delisting in a
State not authorized to administer the Federal delisting program. Of
the nine remaining commenters, one commenter (HRD) strongly opposed the
Agency's proposed decision, and presented discussions on a variety of
lssues. The remaining eight out of these nine commenters consisted of
Congressmen and Senators reiterating concerns about the proposed
delisting. Detailed Agency responses to all significant comments are
provided in a
.Response to Comments"
document, which is in the public
docket for today's rule. The following discussion is a summary of both
the most significant issues raised by HRD and EPA's responses.
Impact of This Delisting Upon Recycling of K061
Comment; A number of commenters, including HRD, claimed that the
proposed deli sting would inappropriately and illegally allow for the
landfilling of chemically stabilized K061 that is currently being
recycled by high-temperature metalS recove,y I..HTMR") facilities. The
commenters' assertions on this issue can be summarized as follows; 111
Both RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 express a general
preference for resource recovery and reclamation over conventional
waste treatment and disposal. Accordingly, EPA is required by law to
promulgate !egulations that encourage recycling OVer treatment and
disposal whenever possible. The CSI delisting violates these statutory
requirements because it encourages the landfiiling of otherwise
recoverable materials. (2) EPA's delisting regUlations require
compliance with these RCRA and PPA mandates. Specifically, the
regulations require EPA to consider factors in addition to those for
Which the waste was originally listed as a hazardous waste if such
faclo!s cou1.d ca"se the waste to be listed as a hazardous waste 140 CFR
260.22(a) (2) and 261.1.1.la) 131Ixi)). EPA must consider, as one of these
factors, the impact of the CSI delisting on the overarching mandates of
RCRA and the PPA, and must conclude that the CSI delisting is
lnconsistent with these statutes. (3) The delisting would violate EPA's
own regulatory strategy and prior policies and rulemaking precedents
favoring resource conservation and recovery OVer stabilization. These
policies and precedents appear in the Agency's RCRA implementation
strategy, land disposal regulations and waste minimization guidance.
141 The CSI delisting would also violate the Administration's stated
policy to encourage recycling technologies and a ..green" economy.
On the other ha.nd, one commenter supporting the proposed delisting
stated that the delisting must be granted as a matter of law because
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
10/112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page 5 of 15
EPA
h~s
determined that the chemically stabilized EAFD residues do not
. pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment" and
t~erefore
are
no~
- - hazardous wastes"
subject to ReRA regulation,
c1tlng RCRA sectlon
100~{5J
and
~O
CFR 260.22 (al, (h) and 261.11(al.
This commenter claimed that the delisting is consistent with the waste
management objectives of ReRA and the PPA. Which encourage EPA to
promote vilrious alternatives to the untreated land disposal of
hazardous waste.
Response: After careful evaluation of the characteristics and
nature of the K061 residues produced by CSI's stabilization process.
EPA is today finalizing a determination that these residues do not
constitute RCM ha«ardous waste. Specifically, EPA has found that these
chemically stabiU«ed K061 wastes do not meet any of the criteria for
Which K061 wastes were listed as ha«ardous and that there is no reason
to believe that any factors other than those for which K061 wastes were
listed (including additional constituents) could cause these csr wastes
to be hazardous. See 40 CFR 260.22(a) and RCRA section 3001(f).
In light of EPA's determination that CSI's treated K061 waste is
not hazardous, the Agency has no authority to retain this waste as
listed hazardous waste simply because doing so would effectively
promote HTMR recycling and reclamation of K061 wastes OVer the
treatment and disposal of csr's chemically stabilized, non-ha«ardous
waste. RCM's general statements of Congressional findings, objectives
and national policy addressing the subject of minimi«ing ha«ardous
waste generation and disposal do not supersede the specific hazardous
waste listing and delisting scheme established under ReFtA. Here, under
that scheme, EPA has determined that CSI's treated waste does not meet
the criteria for being considered hazardous waste. Nothing in the
general objectives and policy provisions of RCIlA generally favoring
resource recovery OVer conventional waste treatment and disposal
requires, or indeed authorizes, EPA to forego or reverse this
determination. See Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 861 F.2d
270, 276-77 (D.C. Cir. 19881.
Similarly, EPA cannot agree with the commenter'S conclusion that
this delisting conflicts with the mandates of the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 (.'PPA"). Section 6602(b) of the PPA (42 U.S.C. 13101(b))
deClares it to be the national policy that pollution control should
follow a hierarchy which prefers pollution prevention at the source
over recycling and prefers recycling over treatment and disposal in an
environmentally safe manner. EPA fully supports this hierarchy and
believes it sets forth a desirable general order of preferences for
pollution control. Again, however, this policy is not a statutory or
regulatory mandate. Nothing in the PPA requires or even contemplates
that EPA must retain on the list of hazardous wastes materials that the
Agency finds to be non-hazardous simply because there exists an ability
to perform resourCe recovery on these materials.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's claim that the delisting
regulations require this delisting to be denied. 40 CFR 260.22(a) (2)
focuses on factors that . could cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste". The factor cited by the commenter does not fit this
description. In i'lddition, EPA findS that llPage 31110JJ today's
delisting decision is fully consistent with the Agency's and the
Administration's own regulatory strategy and policies, as explained
the Response to conunents document.
In any event, EPA believes that today's delisting decision does
harmonize with the overall intent and purposes of RCIlA and the PPA.
While these two statutes generally encourage resource recovery where
appropriate, they do not require it in every conceivable case,
regardless of the nature of the waste. Indeed, the commenter's
interpretation would have the effect of contravening Congressional
intent to allow for delistings where appropriate.
EPA also notes that the effect of this delisting on K061 recycling
practices is speculative in any event. As explained in the Response to
Comments document, the extent to which steelmakers may stop using
recycling technologies upon today's delisting in favor of managing EAFD
through CSI's Super Detox TM process, is unclear.
EPA'S response on these issues is further explained in the Response
to Comments document for this rulemaking.
Multiple Site Nature of the Delisting
Comment, One commenter (HRD) stated that the multiple-site nature
of the delisting for CSI is precedent-setting but the Agency has
offered no legal justification for it. The commenter believed thi'lt 40
CFR 260.22 and RellA section 3001 (fl limit the scope of delisting
petitions to wasLes generated at a single facility. This conunenter also
claimed ':hi'lt this delisting violates the notice and conunent
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act because there will be
no opportunity for comment on i'lny of the CSEAFD delistings at future
CSI sites.
Another conunenter, however, believed that the multiple-site nature
of the delisting would avoid duplicative delisting petitions and Si'lVe
the steel industry the unnecessary costs and administrative burdens of
multiple petitions.
Response: The statute and regulations do not limit the availability
of delisting decisions to wastes generated at a single facility. The
commenter has misinterpreted the language of section 3001
(f)
of RCRA
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/JunelDay-13/pr-247.html
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI
...
Page 6 of IS
and 40 CFR 260.22, which both provide that parties may seek delistings
for wastes generated at a . 'particular facility." The term
. 'particular facility" refers to a specific qualifying facility and
there is no bar to a delisting covering more than one particular, and
qualifying, facility. The language limits delistings to an identified
and qualifying facility Or facilities; it does not limit them to a
single" facility. The intent of this language is to indicate that,
because delistings are gr"nted only to specific qualifying facilities,
a facility may not manage its waste as non-hazardous based solely on a
deli stIng granted to another facility for the same listed waste.
Today's mUltiple-site delisting is fUlly consistent with the
purposes of ReRA's listing and delisting scheme. If CSI has more than
one facility treating the same wastes with the Same process, and EPA is
assured (through verification testing) that these wastes meet the
requirements for being nonhazardous, the statute, its legislative
history and the regulations support their removal from the list of
hazardous wastes. No part of the statute or regulations purports to
limit the number of facilities that a delisting may cover.
As
to the
"up-front" nature of this delisting, the Agency in fact has a longstanding
policy and practice of granting delistings to facilities not
yet constructed, provided that their waste, once produced, meets
specified criteria.
In any event, today's delisting decision appears to be consistent
even with the commenter's incorrect interpretation of the statute and
regulations. Today's action does not automatically grant a delisting to
a multiple number of CSI's facilities. Instead, although EPA has
reviewed the Super DetoxTM treatment
proc~ss
itself on a generic
basis, EPA is requiring verJ.fJ.cation testJ.ng at each specific facility
before the Agency grants a delisting. Thus, the Agency is, in fact,
considering each CSEAFD facility separately. The focus of the
commenter's criticism would seem to be that EPA is not requiring the
company to submit a separate delisting petition for each new facility.
It would make no sense to require a company to submit multiple
individual petitions for similar wastes generated from similar process
and feed materials when the only difference between petitions is the
name and location of the specific facility; to do so would be an
unnecessary administrative burden and waste of reSources for both EPA
and the petitioner.
The commenter also alleged an inconsistency with EPA's 1993
pUblication, "'Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance
Manual"
{second edition). The Manual states that "separate petitions
must be submitted for wastes generated at different facility locations,
even if the contributing processes and raw materials are similar. This
requirement is necessary because an amendment to 40 CFR part 261 for an
exclusion only applies to a waste produced at a particular facility."
This provision was originally included in the draft of the Manual at a
point before EPA contemplated the type of mUltiple-site delisting
requested by CSI, and it has been inadvertently carried over in later
revisions of the guidance document. EPA has accepted CSI's petition for
a multiple-site delisting because of the efficiencies created and :in
light of the protections afforded by future verification testing. To
the extent this provision in the guidance document is viewed as
inconsistent with today's delisting, the guidance document should be
considered superseded by the notice of proposed rulemaking and this
final rulernaking for the CSI delisting to permit appropriate multiplesite
petitions here and in the future. In any event, EPA's practice has
evolved beyond the provision originally included in this non-binding
guidance document and today's action is fully consistent with that
practice.
EPA also disagrees with the cOlMlenter's claim that today's
delisting violates the notice and COlMlent requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") since there will be no
opportunity for COlMlent on additional CSI facilities producing CSEAFD
that may be added to the scope of this deli sting in the future. There
has been sufficient opportunity for meaningful cOlMlent on the current
and potential future delistings of CSI facilities producing CSEAFD
since all issues the Agency will possibly consider in granting the
future delistings have already been aired for cOlMlent.
EPA's response on these issues is further explained in the Response
to Comments document for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12866
Comment: One COlMlenter (HRD) alleged that EPA did not conduct the
complete regulatory review required by Executive Order 12866 for
significant regulatory actions having an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more. By HRD's account, the economic impact of this
delisting would exceed $100 million/year because electric arc furnace
( "EAF") steelmakers will choose to abandon the el'isting high
temperature metals recovery (HTMR) operations and give all K061 waste
treatment business to CSI. The commenter also alleged that EPA failed
to consider the other principles of regulatory development stipUlated
the Executive Order.
Response: The Agency determined that the effect of the proposed
rule, ([Page 31111]] unlike regulations imposing tighter control
requirements, would be to reduce the overall costs and economic impact
of the RcRA regulations. Therefore, this rule is unlikely to have an
adverse annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The
extent to which EAF steelmakers may change from one waste management
alternative such as recycling to other methods after today's delisting
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-
W
ASTE/1995IJune/Day-13/pr-247.html
-------''-----
101112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page 7 of 15
ls speculative in any event.
In addition, the Agency did not fail to consider the other
principles of regulatory development stipUlated in the E:xecutive Order.
See the Response to Comments document for a further discussion of these
lssues.
Waste Management
Comment: One commenter (HRD) noted thot CSI may develop products
from CSEAFD, that the delisted waste may be delivered to a facility
that beneficially uses or reuses the material and that the waste may be
disposed of in any acceptable manner under Federal or State law. As
such, this commenter believed that the assumption of disposal in 11
Subtitle D landfill is not the reasonable worst-case disposal scenario
for CSI's petitioned waste. In support of its argument, the commenter
submitted an excerpt of a paper presented by a CSI employee at a trade
meeting held in February 1995. This excerpt reflects two alternative
concepts that are being developed" for recycling EAFD, including use
of stabilized EAFD as ingredients in the production of Portland cement.
Response: CSI indicated in its petition that the CSEAFD will be
disposed of at non-hazardous waste landfills. EPA does not have any
specific information that CSI has developed its CSEAFD into any viable
product that would allow for use or reuse of this material instead of
disposal. Therefore, it is unclear if, when, or how potential CSEAFDderived
products may be used in the future. EPA's assumption that CSI's
petitioned waste, if delisted, will be disposed of in a Subtitile D
landfill is conservative and represents a reasonable worst-case
management scenario for this delisting for the decision that CSI's
CSEAFD may safely be disposed of as a non-hazardous' 'waste".
Nevertheless, as the commenter pointed out and as the petition also
indicates, CSI is working on different ways to reUSe the CSEAFD as a
feedstock or product (see Page 17 of CSI's petition). It is unclear if
the effectiveness of CSI's stabilization process could be somewhat
compromised as a result of certain product-use applications; or if the
levels of total constituents in the CSEAFD could become a concern
due
to certain exposure scenarios not considered in the delisting
evaluation. Because EPA was not provided with any detailed information
and data from CS1 On how its waste might be used in products, EPA
believes it is appropriate to limit the scope of today's final rule to
exclude CS1's CSEAFD only where it is disposed of in Subtitle D
landfillS. EPA does not reach a decision today on whether CSI's CsEAFD
that is not disposed of in Subtitile D landfills qualifies for
exclUSion from the list of hazardous wastes. In the future, if CSI has
successfully developed uses for CSEAFD and seeks an exclusion for such
uses, it must submit pertinent information in a petition to EPA and
await further decision by the Agency on that matter.
Potential Deterioration of CSI's stabilized K061
Comment: One commenter (HRD) stated that the petition relied on the
TCLP and MEP chemical testing procedures to determine the efficacy of
CSI's stabilization process, but largely failed to address the longterrn
physical durability lor structural integrity) of the stabilized
EAFD. The commenter believed that the stabilized EAFD will deteriorate
over time once disposed of in landfills or elsewhere, Which could
result in airborne or waterborne exposure which was not evaluated. The
commenter presented a list of applicable physical test methods, and
suggested that at a minimum, freeze-thaw and wet-dry durability tests
be performed, and that EPA should apply' 'deterioration models."
Response: This rulemaking adequately addresses the potential
deterioration of C51's CSEAoD and the resulting leachability of the
material. The MEP was developed to predict the long-term leachability
of stabilized wastes, consisting of ten sequential extractions that
simulate approximately 1,000 years of acid rainfall. This method
requires that the sample of stabilized material be first crushed and
ground so that the sample material can pass through a 9.5-mm sieve {as
part of the TCLP extraction incorporated in the MEP). The use of
particles less than 9.5 mm is comparable to a worst-case assumption of
degradation of the stabilized material. EPA also conservatively assumed
that the total constituents in the waste would be readily available for
release into air (ignoring that they are contained in the solidified
waste matrix). Therefore, this evaluation also addressed the potential
deterioration and airborne transmission of the waste.
Use of EPA's Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML)
Comment: One commenter (HRD) claimed that the EPACML model was not
adequate fot evaluating CSI's petitioned waste for several reasons.
First, more accurate models, such as MINTEQ, must be used to quantify
the migration and mobility of metals from land disposal units. Second,
the Monte Carlo simulation mode implemented in the model is
inappropriate for multiple site delistings because it does not account
for site-specific variability. The comrnenter felt that only numerical
models can account for such variability. Third, the model does not
check for unrealistic combinations of input parameters, thereby
resulting in inaccurate dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs). The
comrnenter felt that the combination of input parameters should have
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
---
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI '" Page 8 of 15
been made public to allow for review and comment. Lastly, the commenter
stated that the Agency did not clearly identify and justify the
specific options used in the EPACML model for the delisting evaluation.
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's contention that
the EPACML model is inadequate for evaluating CSI's petitioned waste.
First, the EPACML fate and transport model consists of an unsaturated
ZOne module and a saturated zone module, both of which were reviewed
and endorsed by EPA's Science Advisory Board for use for regulatory
purposes. See S6 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991) and the EPACML Background
Document 2 for a complete discussion of the EPACML mOdel,
assumptions and input parameters, and their use in delisting decisionrnaking.
EPA believes that the EPACML reasonably estimates the
subsurface fate and transport of metals from land disposal units.
\2\ ""Background Document for EPA's Composite Model for
LandfillS (EPACML)", available in the RCRA public docket for the
November 2, 1993 proposed rule.
For prior cases, the MINTEQ model has not been found appropriate
for USe for delisting evaluations. To use it would require a large
amount of additional information regarding the speciation of the metals
present in the waste and the disposal site. EPA has discussed its
finding that the EPACML model is adequate and conservative for
delistings. Indeed, incorporation of results of MINTEQ in the EPACML
mOdel would only be less conservative if anything--i.e., it would
likely serve only to increase the output DAFs [[Page 31112)) because
speciation reactions between metallic ions in the leachate and the soil
particles may cause further attenuation of metal concentrations in the
subsurface. These higher DAFs would result in even higher allowable
leachable levels of metals in CSI's waste.
In addition, the Agency disagrees with the commenter's claim that
the Monte Carlo simulation mode implemented in the EPACML is
inappropriate for mUltiple site delistings and disagrees with the
commenter's remaining contentions regarding the use of the EPACML
model. See the Response to Comment document for a further discussion of
all
of these issues.
Verification Testing Conditions
Comment; One commenter (HRD) stated that the proposed initial and
subsequent testing conditions are insufficient. The commenter believed
that these testing conditions will result in over-compositing of the
samples collected from each batch, as they require only a minimum of
four composite samples during the 20-day initial verification testing
period and thereafter a minimum of one monthly composite sample.
Response; Although the concentrations of metals in the CSEAFD are
expected to be somewhat variable over time (e.g., as the source and
type of scrap charged to the EAF changes over time), EPA does not
expect these variations to be significant on a day-to-day basis (i.e.
most steel mills procure large volumes of scrap and their EAF
operations do not vary widely on a daily basis). Also, at any given
facility, the daily variations in EAFD metals concent.rations are
dampened where the EAFD is mixed together within the pneumatic EAFD
transport system, baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, and/or storage
silos. The Agency, therefore, believes that the proposed initial
verification testing requirement is sufficient.
In addltlon, the data demonstrate that CSI's Super Detox™
process can effectlvely lmmoblllze the constltuents of concern, and
justify the Agency's proposal to require less frequent, but long-term,
verification testing (monthly or more frequently at CSI's discretionl
subsequent to the initial verification testing.
Delisting Levels
In the proposed rule EPA SOlicited comments on the proposed maximum
allowable leachable concentrations for a specific set of inorganic
constituents (the
delisting levels'.1 that CSI would need to meet
during verification testing. In this respect, the Agency also requested
comments on the option of applying the generic exclusion levels for
K06l HTMR nonwastewater residues set under Sec. 261.3(c) (2) (ii) (C) to
CSI's CSEAFD for the sake of national consistency. No comments were
received on which of these two approaches should be chosen. The Agency
has now concluded that the delisting levels applying to CSI's CSEAFD
should be at least as stringent as the K061 HTMR generic exclusion
levels. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the delisting levels by
using the lesser of the proposed levels for CSI's CSEAfD and the
respective generic exclusion levels for HTMR residues, as shown below
(in ppm): Antimony--O.06; arsenic--O.SO; barium--7.6; beryllium--O.OlO;
cadmi um--O. OS 0; chromi um-- O. 33; lead--O. IS; mercury-- O. 00
~;
nicke 1-- 1;
selenium--O.16; silver--0.30; thallium--0.020; vanadium--2; and zinc--
'0.
Economics and Related Issues
Comment: A number of commenters raised issues concerning the
economic and related implications of this delisting. First, the Steel
Manufacturers Association (. .SMA' 'I claimed that this delisting is
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EPAI ... Page 9 of 15
necessary in order to increase the number of cost-effective
alternatives for managing KG61 waste. Because of the high cost of HTMR,
SMA stated, steelrnakers ultimately may be forced to substitute greater
tonnages of direct reduced iron as feedstock instead of using scrap
metal. Direct reduced iron contains only pure iron, so any EAFD
generated from it would not contain hazardous metals {obviating the
need to use HTMR processes!. By granting the deli sting, EPA will be
promoting the continued reSOUrce recovery of iron and other valuable
metals from scrap metal {of which, SMA claimed, about 40 million tons
per year are currently used as EAF steelmaking feedstock).
Another commenter (HRD) diSagreed with the above claims. It pointed
out that the cost of managing EAFD by either HTMR or chemical
stabilization and disposal is less than One percent of the steel
production cost, and that the savings from switching to chemical
stabilization would amount to only cents per ton of production. HRD
claimed that direct reduced iron is mUch mOre expensive than scrap
metal, affecting the cost of steelmaking 10 times as much as the cost
of EAF dust management. Hence, HRD disputed the claim that steel makers
might discontinue the use of scrap feedstock if this delisting is not
granted. HRD also stated that the steel industry in fact has a number
of EAFD management options, including HTMR processing by HRD and other
firms, treatment and disposal as a hazardous waste, Use as a fertilizer
ingredient, and export for processlng.
Response; The focus of today's deli sting decision is on whether or
not CSI's stabilized EAFD should continue to be listed as hazardous
waste in light of the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria. As
explained above, EPA has found that CSI's chemically stabilized KOGI
wastes do not meet any of the criteria for which KOGI wastes were
listed as hazardous and there is no reason to believe that any factors
other than those for which K061 wastes were listed (including
additional constituents) could cause these wastes to be hazardous.
Therefore, today's rule finalizes EPA's determination to exclude these
residues from the RCRA Subtitle C regulatory regime. See 40 CFR
Sec. 260.22(01) and RCRA Section 3001(f).
EPA explained above that the effect of today's delisting decision
On K061 recycling
(i.
e., whether gr-anting this delisting effectively
promotes treatment and disposal of K061 wastes over HTMR recycling of
these wastesl is irrelevant to the delisting determination. Similarly,
the economic and related issues that have been raised by the commenters
are not relevant to today's delisting deCision because they bear no
nexus to the issue of whether the stabilized K061 wastes remain
hazardous. See the Response to Comments document for a further
discussion of these issues.
D. Final Agency Decision
For the reasons stated in both the pr-oposal and this notice, the
Agency believes that CSI's chemically stabilized electric arc furnace
dust, upon meeting certain verification testing requirements, should be
excluded from hazardous waste control. The Agency, therefore, is
granting a final conditional exclusion to Conversion Systems, Inc.,
Horsham, Pennsylvania, for its treatment residue (CSEAFD) generated at
its Ster-ling, Illinois facility and other facilities yet to be
constructed nationwide, described in its petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K061.
This exclusion applies initially to only CSI's Super Detox™,
.
treatment facility located at Northwestern Steel in Sterllng, Illlnols.
As stated in Condition (5), CSI must notify EPA at least One month
prior to operation of a new Super Deto,:,TM treatment facility in
or-der to provide EPA with sufflclent tlme to initiate the process to
amend CSI's exclusion. CSEAFD generated from a new Super Detox™
treatment facility will not be excluded until the Agency
[[Page 3111311 publishes a notice amending cst's exclusion as specified
in Condition
(1)
(B). CSI will require a new exclusion if the treatment
process specified for any Super Detox™
treatment facility, is
significantly altered beyond the changes In operatlng COndltlOnS
described in Condition (4). Accordingly, the facility would need to
file a new petition for a changed process. The facility must manage
wastes gener-ated from a changed process as hazardous until a new
exclusion is granted.
Although the CSEAFD wastes covered by this petition are excluded
from regulation as listed hazardous wastes under- Subtitle C upon
today's final exclusion, this exclusion applies only where these wastes
are disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
Ill. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(ReRA) delisting program. States, however. are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regUlatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
r-equirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
e~clusion
from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner'S waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCM) and
State (non-RCRA) programs I , petitioners are urged to contact State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under State law.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTEI1995/JuneiDay-13/pr-247.htrnl
10/112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
Furthermore, some States Ie. g., Georgia, Illinois) ere authorized
to administer a delisting progr"m in lieu of the Federal program, i.e.
to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore. this exclusion does
not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned CSEAFD will be
transported to and managed in any State with delisting authorization,
CSI must obtain delisting authorization from that State before the
CSEAFD may be managed as non-hazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective on June 13, 1995. The HazaICctous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light
of the unnecessary hardship and expense that would be imposed on this
petitioner by an effective date of six months after publication and the
fact that a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose
of Section 3010, EPA believes that this rule should be effective
immediately upon publication. These reasons also provide a basis for
making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an "assessment of
the potential costs and benefits" for all "significant" regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regUlations. The
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thereby enabling a facility to treat its waste as nonhazardous.
As discussed in the Agency response to pUblic comments, this
rule is unlikely to have an adverse annual effect on the economy of
$100 million Or mOre. Therefore, this rUle does not represent a
significant regulatory action under the Executive Order, and no
assessment of costs and benefits is necessary. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB
review under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,S U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory fleKibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This regulation will not have an adverse impact on any small
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does not require
a regulatory fleKibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget 10MB) undeJ: the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 30.01 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMS Control NumbeJ: 200.0-000.3.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1990.
'UMRA"
I, Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1990.,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 milli.on
Or more In anyone year. When such a statement
is
required for EPA
rules, under section 200. of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, inclUding the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA
must select that alternative. unless the Administrator explains in the
final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
---
Page 10 of 15
10/112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them On compliance
with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, Or
tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds that today's
delisting decision is deregUlatory in nature and does not impose any
enforceable duty on any State, local, Or tribal governments or the
private sector. In addition, today's delisting decision does not
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
((Page 31114)J Dated; May 30, 1995.
Michael H. Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows;
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
folloWS:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX, Part 261 add the following
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows;
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Sees. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From specific Sources
Page 11 of 15
Facility
Address
Waste do2scription
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/I995/June/Day-I3/pr-247.html
1O/l/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
Page
12 of 15
Conversion Systems,
Inc.
Horsham, Pennsylvania Chemically Stabilized Electric Arc Furnace Dust (CSEAFD) that is
generated by Conversion System:l, Inc. (CSI) (using the Super
DetoxTM treatment process as modified by CSI to treat EAFD (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K061}) at 1:he following sites and that is
disposed of in Subtitle D landfills:
Northwestern Steel, Sterling, IJ.linois after June 13, 1995.
CSI must implement a testing program for each site that meets the
following conditions for the e):clusion to be valid:
(I) Verification Testing Requin,ments: Sample collection and
analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed
according to
8\11-846
methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification Testing: During the first 20 operating
days of full-scale operation of a newly constructed Super Detox™
treatment facility, CSI must analyze a minimum of four (4)
composite samples of CSEAFD reFresentative of the full 20-day
period. Composites must be comprised of representative samples
collected from every batch generated. The CSEAFD samples must be
analyzed for the constituents listed in Condition (3). CSI must
report the operational and analytical test data, including
quality control information, obtained during this initial period
no later than 60 days after the generation of the first batch of
CSEAFD.
(8) Addition of New Super DetoxTH Treatment Facilities to
Exclusion: If the Agency's review of the data obtained during
initial verification testing indicates that the CSEAFD generated
by a specific Super DetoxTM treatment facility consistently meets
the delisting levels specified in Condition (3), the Agency will
publish a notice adding to this exclusion the location of the new
Super Detox™
treatment facility and the name of the steel mill
contracting CSI's services. If the Agency's review of the data
obtained during initial verification testing indicates that the
CSEAFD generated by a specific Super Detox™
treatment facility
fails to consistently meet the
~onditions
of the exclusion, the
Agency will not publish the notice adding the new facility.
(Cj Subsequent Verification Testing: For the Sterling, Illinois
facility and any new facility
sl~bsequently
added to C51's
conditional multiple-site
exclu:~ion,
C5r must collect and analyze
at least one composite sample of CSEAFD each month. The composite
samples must be composed of representative samples collected fr-om
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-13/pr-247.html
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
Page I3
of 15
all batches treated in each month. These monthly representative
samples must be analyzed, prior to the disposal of the CSEAFD,
for the constituents listed in Condition (3). CSI may, at its
discretion, analyze composite samples gathered more frequently to
demonstrate that smaller batches of waste are nonhazardous.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: CSI must store as hazardous all
CSEAFD generated until verification testing as specified in
Conditions {l} (A) and (I) (C), as appropriate, is completed and
valid analyses demonstrate that Condition (3) is satisfied. If
the levels of constituents measured in the samples of CSEAFD do
not exceed the levels set forth in Condition (3), then the CSEAFD
is non-hazardous and may be disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting
levels set in Condition (3), the CSEAFD generated during the time
period corresponding to this sample must be retreated until it
meets these levels, or managed .3nd disposed of in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA. CSEAFD generated by a new CSI treatment
facility must be managed as a hazardous waste prior to the
addition of the name and location of the facility to the
exclusion. After addition of th<e new facility to the exclusion,
CSEAFD generated during the verification testing in Condition
(1) (A) is also non-hazardous, if the delisting levels in
Condition (3) are satisfied.
(3) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those
metals must not exceed the following levels (ppm): Antimony--
0.06; arsenic--O. 50; barium--7. 6; beryllium--O.OlO; cadmium--
0.050; chromium--O. 33; lead--O .15; mercury--O. 009; nickel--l;
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/June/Day-I3/pr-Z47.html
10/I/Z008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
Page 14
of 15
selenium--O.16; silver--O.30; thallium--O.020; vanadium--2; and
zinc--70. Metal concentrations must be measured in the waste
leachate by the method specified in 40 erR 261.24.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: After initiating subsequent
testing as described in Condition (1) (C), if CSI significantly
changes the stabilization prOCE'SS established under Condition (1)
(e.g., use of new stabilizatior reagents), CSI must notify the
Agency in writing. After written approval by EPA, CSI may handle
CSEAFD wastes generated from the new process as non-hazardous, if
the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Condition (3).
[[Page 31115]J
(5) Data Submittals: At least one month prior to operation of a
new Super DetoK™
treatment facility, CSI must notify, in
writing, the Chief of the Waste Identification Branch {see
address below) when the Super Detox™
treatment facility is
scheduled to be on-line. The data obtained through Condition
(1) {A) must be submitted to the Branch Chief of the Waste
Identification Branch, OSW {Mail Code 5304), u.s. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 within the time period
specified. Records of operating conditions and analytical data
from Condition (1) must be
con~iled,
summarized, and maintained
on site for a minimum of five years. These records and data must
be furnished upon request by
E~~,
or the State in which the CSI
facility is located, and made available for inspection. Failure
to submit the required data within the specified time period or
maintain the r-equir-ed r-ecords on site for the specified time will
be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to
revoke the exclusion to the ext,;mt directed by EPA. All data must
be accompanied by a signed copy of the following certification
statement to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law £or- the making or
submission of false or
fraudule:~t
statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 Clnd 42 U.S.C.
6928), I certify that the information contained in or
accompanying this document is t:rue, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified
sec~ion{s)
of this document for which
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/JunelDay-13/pr-247.html
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listin: Federal Register: EP...
I cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy,
Page 15 of 15
certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility
for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made
the verification that this information is true, accurate and
complete.
In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in
its Sale discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyanCe of this fact tc the company, I
recogn~ze
and
agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never
had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company
will be liable for any actions taken In contravention of the
company's RCRA and CERCLA Obligations premised upon the company's
reliance on the void exclusion.
[FR Doc. 95-14338 ];"i1ed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Notie.. zooa
Z007
zoo.
Z005
Z004
Z003
ZOOZ
ZOOI
ZOOO
1999
199.
1997
19~
19'5
1!I'4
~,
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1995/JuneiDay-13/pr-247.html
10/112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 1 of 13
You are here:
~
FJd@!]l1 Real'iter
~ ~
.EB.J2a'i,i
~
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Ustlng
of Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
Federal Register Environmental Documents
http;/Jeoa,Qov/EPA-WASTE/2002IJan,larv/DaY-1S/f953.htm
Last updated on 'Tuesday, January 8th, 2008,
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
[rederal Register: January 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number lOll
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1888-1896]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jaOZ-5]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7125-1]
Hazardous Waste Management system; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, . 'the Agency"
or "we"
in this preamble) is
granting a delisting to Heritage Environmental Services, LLC (Heritage)
to exclude treated Electric Arc Furnace Dust (EAFD) produced at Nucor
Steel, Division of Nucor Corporation (Nucor) located in Crawfordsville,
Indiana from the lists of hazardous wastes.
After careful analysis, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned
waste is not a hazardous waste when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill. Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste
from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) only if the waste is
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage industrial solid waste.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on January 15, 2002.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule is located at
the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is
available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. Call Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317
for appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory
docket at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this document, contact Todd Ramaly at the address above or at (312)
353-9317.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste to Be Delisted?
II. Heritage's Delisting Petition
A. What Waste Did Heritage Petition EPA to Delist?
B. What Information Must the Petitioner Supply?
C. What Information Did Heritage Submit to Support This
Petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. comments and Responses from EPA
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. congressional Review Act
VII. Executive Order 12875
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from to exclude waste from the
http://epa.govIEPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-15/f953.htm
EXHIBIT
J
101112008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 2 of 13
list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a delisting
petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a particular
facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA listed the
waste as set forth in 40 CFR 261.11 and the background document for the
waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present
sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste.
A petitioner remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that the waste
remains nonhazardous based On the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has "delisted" the waste.
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a person may petition the EPA to
remove
[[Page 1889]]
waste at a particular generating facility from hazardous waste control
by excluding the waste from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in
Sees. 261.31 and 261.32. SpeCifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to
petition the EPA to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 260.22 provides a person the opportunity to petition the EPA to
exclude a waste on a "generator specific" basis from the hazardous
waste lists.
II. Heritage's Delisting Petition
A. What Waste Did Heritage Petition EPA to Delist?
On August 3, 1999, Heritage petitioned EPA to exclude an annual
volume of 30,000 cubic yards of K061 EAFD generated at Nucor Steel
Corporation located in Crawfordsville, Indiana from the list of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.32. K061 is defined as
. 'emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in
electric arc furnaces."
B. What Information Must the Petitionor Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to
determine that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which it
was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, where there is a
reasonable basis to believe that factors other than those for which the
waste was listed (including additional constituents) could cause the
waste to be hazardous, the EPA must determine that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as hazardous.
C. What Information Did Heritage Submit To Support This Petition?
To support its petition, Heritage submitted descriptions and
schematic diagrams of the EAFD treatment system; and detailed chemical
and physical analyses of the treated EAFD.
III. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
Today the EPA
is
finalizing an exclusion to Heritage for a 30,000
cubic yards annual volume of K061 EAFD generated at the Nucor Steel
facility in Crawfordsville, Indiana and treated by Heritage from the
list of hazardous wastes.
Heritage petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the treated EAFD
because Heritage believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
RCRA criteria for which it was listed and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Review of this petition inclUded consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42
United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), and40CFR260.22 (d)(2)-(4).
On December 5, 2000, EPA proposed to exclude or delist Heritage's
treated EAFD from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 eFR 261.32 and
accepted public comment on the proposed rule (65 FR 75897). EPA
considered all comments received, and for reasons stated in both the
proposal and this document, we believe that the treated waste generated
at the Nucor facility should be excluded from hazardous waste control.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
Heritage must dispose of the treated EAFD in a Subtitle D landfill
which has groundwater monitoring and which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a state to manage industrial waste. This exclusion is
valid for a maximum annual rate of 30,000 cubic yards per year. Any
amount exceeding this volume is not delisted under this exclusion. This
exclusion is effective only if all conditions contained in today's rule
http://epa.govIEPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 3 of 13
are satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule
is
effective January 15, 2002. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553{d}.
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in
states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and
their own requirements, or in states which have received our
authorization to make their own de1isting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA
programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to
contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of their
wastes under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a de1isting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
de1isting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If Heritage transports the petitioned waste to or
manages the waste in any state with de1isting authorization, Heritage
must obtain a de1isting from that state before it can manage the waste
as nonhazardous
in
the state.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Comments and Responses From EPA
Comment: The DRAS is a more realistic model than any of its
predecessors.
Response: EPA agrees with the comment.
Comment: EPA has stated that
it
believes the CML model is
appropriate when evaluating whether to
de1ist
a waste, and has used the
CML model as recently as the proposed deli sting of August 8, 2000 and
the final de1isting of May 16, 2000.
Response: Region 5 believes that the delisting risk assessment
software (DRAS) is a more sophisticated and more appropriate model and
is now applying this model to all petitions currently under review.
Comment: The September 27, 2000 and December 5, 2000 Federal
Registers
did
not indicate that the DRAS has been adopted by all EPA
Regions, nor that it would be used
in
the future.
Response: At this time all Regions are using the DRAS model.
Comment: The model should be peer reviewed and the public should
have the opportunity to provide adequate and meaningful comment.
Response: The model has been peer reviewed. The public has the
opportunity to submit comments on the DRAB model during the comment
period each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS
model.
Comment: EPA is continuing to use the model before completing its
own review of comments received. The DRAS may not be appropriate since
it is currently being commented upon & revised.
Response: The Agency is continually striving to improve the tools
available
[[Page 1890J J
for assessing risk. The Agency believes that at this time the DRAS
model is the best available tool for estimating
risk.
Revisions and
improvements to the model are always possible in the future.
Comment: The DRAS model assumes that the landfill is unlined and
that leaching occurs from the beginning, which is counter to the use of
liners, covers & slurry walls. The assumption of no liner is not
consistent with CMTP which assumes a liner. The DRAS model should allow
for the option of including a liner and should use Subtitle D landfill
characteristics.
Response: There are existing solid waste landfills which have no
liner. Over time, liners may fail and de1istings currently have no
expiration date. Therefore it is reasonable to consider scenarios for
liner failure or to assume that no liner exists.
Comment: The DRAS model assumption of minimal cover increases
estimates of
volatilization
and particulate emissions, which may not be
reasonable.
Response: We must
consider
the worst case scenario of minimal
requirements for daily cover. Regulations requiring daily cover on
municipal landfills do not necessarily apply to industrial
solid
waste
landfills.
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 4 of 13
Comment: The DRAB model is inflexible because site specific factors
like hydrogeology, climate, ecology, and population density cannot be
incorporated. The model should be
modified
to allow for the input of
site and contaminant specific
criteria.
State or regional modeling
criteria may be more stringent than the CMTP and have been ignored.
Response: At this time the Agency
is
not able to consider such site
specific factors. The DRAS model is based on national averages of these
factors and is intended to model a reasonable worst case. A State may
always impose more stringent requirements based on site-specific
factors.
Comment: DRAB is complex and EPA must explain the models and risk
processes used in establishing regulatory limits including the
assumptions, methodologies, pathways and variables used in the DRAS
model.
Response: The DRAS Technical Support Document (DTSD) explains the
risk algorithms used in the model including the methodologies,
variables, pathways and assumptions. The DTSD is available on line at
http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/rcra c/pd-o/dtsd.htm.
Comment: Several assumptions used in the DRAS model are unlikely
and unreasonable: (1) A receptor lives and works at a single location
100 m downgradient and is exposed 350 days/yr; (2) individuals are
exposed to the 90th percentile level for all paths; (3) all media flow
toward the receptor; (4) the landfill volume and conditions from 1987
are still valid; (5) the waste is placed uniformly at great depth over
the whole landfill; (6) only the most sensitive pathway for each
constituent is selected which is an unlikely scenario; (7) first order
decay applies although processes of oxidation, hydrolysis and
biodegredation are not considered separately; (8) transformation rate
may not be reasonable for biological processes; (9) fate and leaching
estimates should include parameter estimates including Kow, pKa,
Henry's Law and potential for biological transformation; (10) all
streams are fishable and representative; and (11) nickel has a fish BCF
of 307 which is unsupported by peer review publications and EPA's own
documents.
Response: (1,2) The DRAS employs standard risk assessment default
parameters that are accepted throughout the Agency in risk analyses
(i.e., residential exposure 350 days/yr, and selection of the 90th
percentile). The Agency has no way of knowing that this situation will
not occur and therefore deems it prudent to protect for this condition
by adding risks. (3) The Agency has no way of knowing the direction of
media flow and must assume that all media flow may move toward the
receptor. (4) The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill
volume data and other data from the 1987 landfill survey report are not
valid. When updated data are available, they will be incorporated into
the analyses. (5) To maximize the impact of the waste, the model
assumes uniform placement of the waste. (6) The DRAS does employ a
conservative approach to exposure assessment by assuming the receptor
may be exposed to both the most sensitive groundwater pathway and the
most sensitive surface exposure pathway and selects the most sensitive
pathway for each constituent. (7,B) The groundwater fate and transport
model used by the Agency to determine first order decay is EPA's
Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
(CMTP). The information used to develop the first order decay rate for
different chemicals
in
CMTP is based on studies
in
which the separate
processes of oxidation, biodegradation and hydrolysis could not be
further isolated. The transformation rates cannot be easily adjusted
because they are based on these empirical studies rather than on
theoretical modeling in which variables can be altered at will. This
model has been peer reviewed and received an excellent review from the
Science Advisory Board (SAB). The Agency will continue to support the
use of EPACMTP until a better assessment tool becomes available. (9)
The
Kow and pKa (octonal water partition coefficient and ionization
constant) are not used in the development of leaching estimates because
the DRAS relies on test data from leach testing to estimate the
leaching potential of the waste. The Henry's law constant, although
used in other aspects of the DRAS, is not used in the estimate of
leaching and fate in groundwater. At this time, the CMTP does not
account for volatilization of constituents from the groundwater as it
moves through the subsurface.
(10) EPA assumed that all streams of sufficient size are fishable.
This assumption is conservative, but not unreasonable as the final
landfill location is not known. (11) The bioconcentration factor (BCF)
for nickel has been revised from 307 to 78. The revised nickel BCF will
be incorporated into the upcoming DRAS version 2.0.
Comment: Current science suggests that the skin and respiratory
tract are targets for soluble nickel salts, yet the model literature
states that the critical effects are decreased organ and/or body
weights.
Response: The oral Reference Dose (RfD) is based on the assumption
that thresholds exist for certain
toxic
effects such as cellular
necrosis.
It
is expressed in units of mg/kg/day. Ambrose et a1. (1976)
reported the results of a 2-year feeding study using rats given 0, 100,
1000 or 2500 ppm
nickel
(estimated as 0, 5, 50 and 125 mg Ni/kg/day) in
the diet. Clinical signs of toxicity, such as lethargy, ataxia,
irregular breathing, cool body temperature, salivation and discolored
extremities, were seen primarily in the 100 mg/kg/day group; these
signs were less severe in the 35 mg/kg/day group. Based on the results
obtained
in
this study, the 5 mg/kg/day nickel dose was a no observable
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 5 of 13
adverse effects level (NQAEL), whereas 35 mg/kg/day was a lowest
observable adverse effects level (LOAELj for decreased body and organ
weights. For further information, please refer to the Agency's IRIS
database.
Comment: The bioconcentration factor (BeF) of 307 for nickel in
fish is unsupported in EPA's own documents. Literature values are much
less. BCF should not be used for predicting chronic toxicity. Some
organs can regulate internal concentrations. Nickel has a low order of
toxicity. Nickel does not bioaccumulate due to incomplete adsorption
and rapid excretion. It is
[[Page 1891)
J
Ni+2 , not the parent, that is persistent and bioavailable
and determines toxicity.
Response: The BCF for nickel has been revised to 78 and will be
incorporated into DRAS version 2.0. This value
is
based on the
geometric mean of 3 laboratory values (100, 100, 47). The studies used
to derive the BCF for nickel are based on soluble nickel, which is
present as the
Ni+2
ion. The nickel concentration in the
waste was assumed to be present as the
Ni+2.
The assumption
is conservative, but not unreasonable since the nickel from the waste
could be present as the
Ni+2
ion at the point of exposure.
Comment: In aquatic environs, much of the nickel is present as both
ionic
and stable organic complexes. Hence much of the nickel is
insoluble with minimal bioavailability. Also, soil which contains high
organic matter will adsorb nickel and limit its mobility.
Response: The Agency agrees that some nickel may be insoluble, and
have minimal bioavailability,
since
its mobility is dependent on the
organic content of the soil. However, in delisting analyses, site
specific Characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and
volume) are not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given
for many parameters used in risk analyses including the organic content
of fishable waters. The Agency has no way of knowing what streams may
be impacted and, therefore, has established a conservative estimate of
pertinent variables.
Comment: MINTEQA2 has been reported to contain outdated and
inaccurate thermodynamic estimates (e.g., for complexation of metals
like cadmium that are dependent on disolved oxygen content (DOC and
pH). Hence the model may not reasonably estimate speciation and
mobility. EPA should confirm stoichiometry, speciation charge, formula
weight, equilibrium and enthalpy estimates with regard to metal and
organic ligands as risks from metal ion concentrations may be
overestimated.
Response: The Agency continues to review chemical-specific
parameter data. Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into
the DRAS analyses.
Comment: The model may estimate fate and transport concentrations
that exceed water solubility.
Response: If waste concentration exceeds soil saturation, free form
conditions may occur and the assumptions of the EPACMTP may be
compromised. Therefore, soil saturation values have been incorporated
into DRAS and the program will notify the user if waste concentrations
exceed soil saturation concentrations. Ambient water concentrations may
be
influenced by more than chemical solubility {e.g., organic content}.
Comment: The use of the NOAEL in Rfd calculations has been
challenged by the SAB. The dose response relationship and the
consistency in response level are not identified. Use of the NOAEL for
regulatory limits is based more on experimental exposure design than on
biological relevance.
Response: The EPA still uses the NOAEL
in
Rfd. The SAB did not
review the entire DRAB. The EPA risk assessors who peer reviewed the
DRAS
did
not question the use of the NOAEL in Rfd. Until such time that
the Agency redefines RfD methodology, the delisting program will
continue to determine hazards based on RiDs recommended by EPA's IRIS
database. The Agency continues to use RfDs in delisting determinations
~n
a manner consistent with EPA risk assessment methodology. The EPA
risk assessors and EPA ORD scientists who have peer reviewed the DRAS
have not questioned the method in which RiDs are employed in the DRAS
analyses.
Comment: Terms should be more clearly defined. Does the term Cw for
waste contamination account for the total mass of contamination in the
waste or only that portion that may enter the aqueous phase and be
transported into the unsaturated zone and/or the leachable portion?
Response: No occurrences of Cw could be found in the DTSD or in the
proposed exclusion. The term Cwaste
is
used twice in Chapter 4 of the
DTSD to refer both to the total constituent concentration in a solid
matrix in a landfill and to the total constituent concentration in a
liquid
in
a surface impoundment.
Comment: USEPA
cited
various regulatory and statutory sections such
as Sees. 261.11(a) (3) (i) thru
(xi)
describing factors to consider in
listing/delisting waste, but there was very little analysis of those
factors. This prompts the conclusion that the USEPA is arbitrarily
proposing to grant the HES petition.
Response: All criteria in 40 CFR 26l.11(a) (3) were considered in
accordance with Sec. 260.22(d). The DRAS program was developed in
consideration of all of the factors presented in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3).
Consitituent specific toxicology, chemical, and physical data are in
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953 .htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 6 of 13
the database used in the DRAS software as are appropriate models for
evaluating migration and exposure. The DRAS is not currently capable of
evaluating degradation products as described in 40 eFR
261.11
(a)
(3) (iii) through (vi) and the risk posed
by
degradation
products would typically be evaluated independently. The petitioned
waste, however, did not contain any chemicals which have known
degradation products and therefore this additional analysis was not
necessary. EPA considered plausible types of improper management
in
accordance with Sec. 261.11 (a) (3) (vii) when
it
assumed that
contaminants will migrate from the landfill to a receptor well,
uncontrolled erosion of exposed wastes will migrate into a stream, and
long-term absence of daily cover will expose the waste to the
atmosphere. Operating a facility in this manner is considered improper
management as it violates the proper management standards and
requirements promulgated for licensed Subtitle D landfills set forth in
40 CFR parts 257 and 258.
Comment: DRAS does not evaluate important ecological receptors
which may significantly impact the back calculated maximum permissible
waste concentrations derived from DRAS.
Response: The DRAS model does include consideration of ecological
impacts. A complete description of the screening for ecological impact
is in Chapter 4 of the DTSD available on the internet at
~
www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/ rcra--c/pd-o/dtsd.htm.> The maximum observed
lead and zinc in the petitioned waste exceeded the surface water
screening values, indicating the need to examine the possible
ecological impact more closely. The DRAS model does not account for the
fact that some of the constituents in the eroded waste will not be
dissolved. Since water quality criteria used for lead and zinc are
based on dissolved concentrations, the total water concentration
predicted by DRAS was conservative. Using conservative values published
by EPA's Office of Water to convert total water concentrations to
dissolved concentrations (30% for zinc and 20 % for lead), the surface
water quality criteria were not exceeded.
Comment: How does the model distinguish metals that are important
for some animals?
Response: If the commenter is referring to metals as
micronutrients, delisting levels for metals far exceed any
micronutrient levels.
Comment: What criteria determine whether the allowable leachate
concentration is set by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL), DRAS calculation, treatment technology or
toxicity characteristic level?
Response: The allowable level is the most conservative of the DRAS
[[Page 1892])
calculations, a calculation based on the SDWA MCL or the toxicity
characteristic level. The exception to this is the level for arsenic
which is frequently calculated based on the concentration allowed by
the MCL.
Comment: Does EPA policy require that MCL or surface water criteria
be met? Does this policy apply at all downgradient distances or just
those corresponding to the OAF?
Response: Groundwater must meet MCL criteria but not surface water
criteria. The OAF is used to calculate the concentration in the
groundwater at a well a set distance downgradient. This distance was
based on the results of a survey which identified the distance to the
closest drinking water wells located near solid waste landfills
throughout the country.
Comment: Are maximum permissible levels set below background?
Background levels for nickel are approximately 3.3 ppb freshwater; 2.1
ppb groundwater; 4 to 30 mg/kg soil.
Response: The Agency does not usually consider background levels
when establishing delisting levels. The maximum allowable levels of
nickel in the waste and in the TCLP leachate are not less than the
values mentioned in the comment.
Comment: The pH of landfill leachate is generally higher than the
pH of the extraction fluid used in the TCLP which affects the
leachability of the metals.
Response: The leachability of this waste was measured using three
different extraction fluids with pH values of 2.88, 6.5, and 12.0 to
evaluate whether the waste leachability will be affected by the pH of
various environments.
Comment: The duration of leaching 18 minutes or 18 hours may over
or underestimate the leachability of some constituents. TCLP does not
account for variations in time to equilibrium for different species.
The TCLP under predicts the maximum concentation of some anions and
does not account for a variety of processes that can affect leachate
quality, quantity and migration.
Response: It is impossible to determine the optimum time or other
factors necessary to maximize the leaching of each constituent in every
matrix in any environmental condition. A considerable amount of time
and effort went into the development of the TCLP and the Agency
believes that it is a reasonable laboratory test and that the TCLP
results generally correlate well with environmental measurements.
Comment: Does the TCLP account for DOC? DOC in the leachate affects
the mobility of metals in the aquifer.
Response: The TCLP does not account for DOC. However, in performing
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi. .. Page 7 of 13
the TeLP procedure using alternative extraction fluids, Heritage took
steps to remove dissolved oxygen from the neutral and basic extraction
fluids. See proposed rule, 65 FR 75900, December 5, 2000.
Comment: It may be appropriate for the Agency to consider data from
the SPLP.
Response: The Agency would consider any additional data that the
petitioner chooses to submit. At this time the Agency requires leach
testing for stabilized waste using the TeLP procedure at three
different pHs. The Agency also evaluates data from the multiple
extraction procedure. During the development of the sampling and
analysis plan for a delisting petition, the Agency and petitioner
discuss which analytical methods are appropriate for characterizing the
waste.
Comment: For chemicals not previously modeled with the EPACMTP,
what is the effect of assuming a OAF of l8?
Response: The Dilution Attenuation Factor (OAF) of 18 is a
conservative value determined by the EPACMTP fate and transport model
for the landfill waste management scenario. The OAF of 18 represents
the class of organic chemicals with non-degrading, non-sorbing,
characteristics. When creating a chemical to add to the DRAS chemical
library for use in DRAB analyses, we recommend using a conservative
value.
Comment: What is the effect of using one half detection level or
zero for non detects?
Response: The use of one half the detection level is a compromise
between the use of zero and the use of the detection limit. Using one
half of the detection level protects against inappropriately high
detection levels.
Comment: The model does not account for the uncertainty or
sensitivity estimate. Without a sensitivity analysis it is impossible
to determine if a single pathway or a small number of pathways dominate
the risk estimate. If data for most sensitive parameter is uncertain or
limited, confidence in the result will be poor.
Response: The DRAS provides the forward-calculated risk level and
back-calculated allowable waste concentration for each exposure
pathway. The user is thereby able to determine which pathway or
pathways dominate the estimate of risk for each chemical. These
analyses are currently provided on the Chemical-Specific Results
screen.
Comment: The model determines that ground concentrations and a
theoretical drinking water well that is 90th percentile of all
predicted concentrations from Monte Carlo analysis. What is the
sensitivity of using the 50th percentile on release and risk estimates?
Response: The DRAS assessment always defaults to high-end values
from the 90th percentile. The model was not run using the 50th
percentile, so it is not possible to determine the sensitivity at the
50th percentile.
Comment: Does a hazard index (HI) of greater than one mean that the
waste cannot be delisted, or does it indicate that the model is overly
conservative?
Response: An HI of one does not mean that the waste cannot be
delisted, but a more thorough evaluation of the waste will be
necessary. In cases where the HI of the waste exceeds one, the Agency
will evaluate the target organ for the critical effect of those
chemicals contributing to the total HI. In some cases, the hazards
associated with various chemicals in the waste result from effects to
the same target organ, and are indeed additive. In other cases, the
hazards of different chemicals impact different target organs, and are
not additive, in which case the HI is lowered accordingly. The DRAS
automatically assumes the conservative approach, summing all hazards to
calculate the HI.
Comment: EPA has rationalized the exceedance of its own delisting
program target risk level of 1
x 10-6 by reference to the
cancer risk range of 1
x 10-4 to 1
x 10-6
acceptable in other programs. Although this risk range may be
appropriate in the context of corrective action, it may not be
warranted in the delisting program where the waste is yet to be
generated and placed into the environment.
Response: This risk is within the target risk range in the
delisting program of 1
x
10-4
to 1
x 10-6.
The commentor is referred to chapter 4 of the DRAS DTSD which states
that the target risk range is 1
x 10-4 to 1
x
10-6. Attachment A of the RCRA Delisting Program Guidance
Manual for the Petitioner also states that the target risk range is 1
x 10-4 to 1
x 10-6.
Comment: Definition of the criteria used to determine de minimis
risk levels and risk estimates should be provided. De minimis risk is
usually considered to be a risk of less than 10-6 or 1 in a
million.
Response: The term de minimis risk is used to refer to a risk that
is SUfficiently low that it need not be considered. The commentor is
correct that a de minimis risk is usually considered by regulatory
agencies to be a risk at or below 10-6 over a 70 year life
time.
[[Page 1893]]
Comment: Long term variation, waste characterization procedures
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-I5/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi... Page 8 of 13
used by Heritage, and specific information used in the fate & transport
model are lacking.
Response: Temporal variability and waste characterization
procedures used by Heritage were evaluated. The fate and transport data
used by the delisting risk assessment model is based on national
averages for a reasonable worst case scenario, not on site specific
information.
Comment: It may be more appropriate to set standards using
statistical procedures from empirical data from TCLP analyses rather
than generic
risk
assessment and fate and transport.
Response: Empirical data
is
not a reliable predictor of future
risk. We believe that the DRAB model is a more appropriate tool than
empirical data for determining acceptable levels based on risk.
Comment: Is 30,000 cubic yards the untreated or the treated K06l?
Will any amount over 30,000 cubic yards be regulated as K06l? What
information was provided to determine annual volume?
Response: The proposed delisting is for 30,000 cubic yards of
treated waste. Any treated K06l in excess of 30,000 yds is not
delisted. The Agency accepts the facility's assessment and
certification of data submitted.
Comment: What is a mixing device?
Response: A mixing device is a unit in which mixing occurs.
Comment: Much of the relevant information was confidential business
information, such as what treatment reagents were used or
specifications of a mixing device.
Response: Heritage has claimed information which it submitted on
equipment, reagents, and process as confidential. Heritage believes
that such information in the public domain could be injurious.
Comment: No details were given on and what dust characteristics
were evaluated.
Response: Information on dust characteristics of the treated dust
is
provided in section 3.0 of the petition.
Comment: Are the larger particles that are removed
in
the dropout
chamber ever reintroduced into the EAFD for treatment? Would these
larger particles meet the definition of K06l? Are the silos in which
EAFD
is
accumulated considered accumulation tanks since the exclusion
is only for EAFD that has been treated.
Response: The material in the dropout box is not K061 and is not
reintroduced into the EAFD for treatment. The silos are part of the
production unit and not RCRA regulated tanks. Baghouse s110s that are
directly connected via piping to the baghouse are an integral part of
the EAFD emission control system. Furthermore, the waste is accumulated
in the silos for less than 90 days, and the silos are part of the
treatment equipment. The point of generation does not occur until the
treatment is complete and the waste exits the unit. Therefore, the
silos are not accumulation tanks and are not subject to RCRA.
Comment: US EPA should re-evaluate the waste treatment process and
QA criteria to assure variations in the treated EAFD are minimized.
Response: If future verification samples indicate excessive
variations, the waste will be re-evaluated.
Comment: There are no details on the fingerprinting procedures or
the quality control measures used to assure proper and consistent
treatment of the waste.
Response: The sampling strategy addressed the waste exiting the
unit. Fingerprinting would not be appropriate since the waste does not
undergo further treatment after it exits. The quality control measures
are set forth in the sampling and analysis plan. The required
verification sampling is intended to assure that the treated waste
remains within acceptable limits. Verification samples which exceed the
delisting levels set forth in this rule may invalidate this delisting.
Comment: The composite sampling procedure in the initial month may
not be sufficient to describe the variation of metals from different
mixes of scrap steel. No comparison of the variability of the metals is
given. EPA should adopt statistical sampling and analytical procedures
from process and quality control engineering methodology. The limited
amount of sampling does not provide for waste variability.
Response: A statistical approach based on extensive data would be
welcomed in future petitions. Since the K061 dust
is
generated at a
single facility, the Agency believes that the samples taken represent a
reasonable range of both spacial and temporal varibility. Some
confidential data was submitted demonstrating waste variability at this
site.
Comment: The presence of VOCs, SVOCs and PCBs is considered
unlikely. However, one sample is insufficient to determine the presence
or absence of these compounds. Verification should require that a
limited number of samples be analyzed for these constituents.
Response: Based on an understanding of the process, the Agency
believes that these constituents are not likely to be present in the
waste. Generator knowledge also supports the absence of these
constituents in the waste. In this case, a single sample is considered
sufficient to verify the absence of these compounds.
Comment: The commenter recommends that split samples should be
taken by EPA.
Response: EPA does not sample wastes
in
support of delisting
petitions. The signed certification is accepted as proof that all
analyses were done properly and the results are reported correctly.
Comment: Listed waste needs to meet technology based LDRs prior to
disposal. The deli sting level for lead has been set at 2.4 mg/L TCLP
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Fi. .. Page 9 of 13
which
is
above the LOR standard of .75 rng/L TCLP. Why weren't LDRs
considered in setting the delisting standard?
Response: The proposed exclusion for this waste would be effective
at the point of generation. Since tDRs attach at the point of
generation this waste would not be considered hazardous and therefore
is not subject to tDRs.
Comment: There are no criteria listed for what constitutes a
significant change to the treatment process or a change in the
chemicals used.
Response: A change either to the treatment process or in the
chemicals used is significant
if
it results in a change in the
composition of the waste.
Comment: In most cases where samples are required to support
decision-making under RCRA, grab samples are required. Samples taken in
support of this petition were composite samples. EPA should explain why
results based on composite sampling were allowed and accepted and why
these samples do not render the decision to grant the HES petition
inappropriate due to inconsistent information.
Response: In the delisting program, composite samples are
preferred, except in the case of volatile constituents. Multiple
composite samples provide a better profile of the waste.
Comment: There should be recognition that a single grab sample
taken by a regulating authority would be sufficient for a determination
of legitimacy of the exclusion. The proposed delisting seems to
indicate that only the monthly sampling done by Heritage could cause
the exclusion to be suspended.
Response: The Agency always has the right to take samples to verify
compliance. Such samples taken by the Agency could provide a basis for
revoking a delisting.
Comment: A more rigorous initial sample was used to characterize
the
[[Page l894)J
variability for EAFD at USX Steel Corporation in Gary Indiana. Is it
appropriate to have two different standards for USX and Heritage?
Response: All delisting decisions, including the initial sampling
for de1isting proposals are site specific. There will be variations.
Comment: In the ANPRM, 65 FR 37932, June 19, 2000, EPA has
reservations about the effectiveness of using stabilization to
immobilize metal wastes. Stabilization has not been scientifically
proven to be reliable over the long term for disposal of such wastes.
Allowing this waste to be placed in general purpose landfills which
have fewer engineered features to prevent leaching and migration of
heavy metals into groundwater ignores sound science. EPA needs to
explain why disposing of a hazardous waste in this less protective
manner should be allowed, absent any evidence confirming that it will
work.
Response: At this time, stabilization is considered to be the best
available treatment for metal bearing wastes. We have no evidence that
constituents of concern have ever leached from this stabilized waste.
To assure that the waste continues to meet the levels established here,
we are requiring periodic testing of the waste and placement of the
waste in a solid waste landfill which has ground water monitoring.
Comment: A similar process used in Ohio has caused concern because
of possible leaching of substances which were supposedly stabilized.
EPA cited Envirosafe Services in Ohio as having high leachate levels of
various metals.
Response: Envirosafe Services in Ohio was not cited by US EPA for
high levels of metals in the leachate. The facility was cited by Ohio
EPA for excessive volume of leachate, although this citation may be
attributed to be an error in measurement. Although the commentor did
not define what constitutes high levels of metals in the leachate, the
leachate must be treated as necessary to meet regulated standards
before disposal. In addition, the concentrations of metals in the
groundwater are monitored and regulated. While EPA may consider the
experiences at other locations, petitioned wastes are evaluated on a
site specific basis. The petitioned waste meets the criteria for
delisting when the levels set forth in the notice are met.
Comment: EPA has concluded that over the long term, the actual
leachate concentrations suggest that significant groundwater
contamination may result after the eventual failure of liner and other
contaminant controls.
Response: The DRAS model calculates risk assuming a worst case
scenario of no liner at all. Under this scenario, the waste can be
delisted.
Comment: An independent engineering expert has warned that the
massive weight of stabilized K06l on the liner could produce hundreds
of high pressure points which will burst and result in leakage of the
liner and seepage of groundwater into and through the cell. The problem
of groundwater leaching out the heavy metals in a Class C landfill
cannot be ignored, but EPA did not analyze it.
Response: Currently a liner is the best available technology for
landfills, regardless of whether it is a hazardous waste landfill
(Subtitle C) or a solid waste landfill (Subtitle OJ. However, the model
used to assess the risk of a delisted waste assumes that no liner is
present.
Comment: It is scientifically established that lead can actively
http://epa.govIEPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
affect hydration of the concrete ingredients of the stabilization
process. Lead tends to locate near the surface of cement-like materials
and is easily leached into water. This is a concern
in
a less-secure
Class C landfill which is not built to withstand the immense weight of
stabilized K061.
Response: There is no evidence that lead has leached from this
waste
in
the past and therefore we cannot assume that it will do so in
the future. Since the model assumes no liner, the weight of the
stabilized K061 and its possible effect on a liner
is
not relevant. It
is assumed that the comment or is concerned about disposal in a Subtitle
o landfill, since a Subtitle C landfill which the commentor referred to
is more secure, not less secure as stated in the comment.
Comment: Arsenic and cadmium have been most frequently found in
hazardous concentrations on both a total and dissolved constituent
basis.
Response: Only very low concentrations of these constituents leach
from the petitioned waste in a TCLP analysis. EPA believes that at
these low concentrations, these constituents do not pose a risk.
Comment: EPA has expressed concern over migration of metals from
stabilized waste to groundwater, yet EPA proposed to grant the Heritage
petition without reviewing any groundwater monitoring information. In
fact, Heritage submitted no groundwater monitoring information.
Response: HES has submitted groundwater monitoring data for their
Subtitle C landfill where the waste is currently being disposed. The
data does not indicate the presence of any constituent above health
based levels.
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order
12866,
EPA must conduct an "assessment of
the potential costs and benefits" for all "significant" regulatory
actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from today's final rule, this
proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/benefit
assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under
section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
19~6,
generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations
of non agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). This rule is not a "major
rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become effective
on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
VII. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of
[[Page 189511
their concerns, copies of written communications from the governments,
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
state, local, and tribal governments . 'to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
unfunded mandates.
I I
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state,
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section l(a)
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-15/f953.htm
Page 10
of 13
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(£).
Dated: December 12, 2001.
Gerald Phillips,
Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Taxies Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of appendix IX of part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 26l--Wastes Excluded Under Sees. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
Page 11 of 13
Facility
Address
Waste description
Heritage Environmental Services,
Crawfordsville, Indiana
.
LLC., at the Nucor Steel facility.
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953.htm
Electric arc furnace dust (EAFD) that
has been generated by Nucor Steel at
its Crawfordsville, Indiana facility
and treated on site by Heritage
Environmental Services, LLC (Heritage)
at a maximum annual rate of 30,000
cubic yards per year and disposed of in
a Subtitle D landfill which has
groundwater monitoring, after January
15, 2002.
(1) Delisting Levels:
{A} The constituent concentrations
measured in either of the extracts
specified in Paragraph (2) may not
exceed the following levels (mg/L):
Antimony--0.206; Arsenic--O.0936;
Barium--55.7; Beryllium--O.416;
Cadmium--0.15; Chromium (total)--1.55;
Lead--S.O; Mercury--0.149; Nicke1--
28.30; Selenium--0.58; Silver--3.84;
Thallium--0.088; Vanadium--21.1; Zinc--
280.0.
{B} Total mercury may not exceed 1
mgl
kg.
(2) Verification Testing: On a monthly
basis, Heritage or Nucor must analyze
two samples of the waste using the TCLP
method, the TCLP procedure with an
extraction fluid of pH 12
±
0.05 standard units and SW-846 Method
7470 for mercury. The constituent
concentrations measured must be less
than the de1isting levels established
in Paragraph (1).
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Nucor significantly changes the
manufacturing process or chemicals used
in the manufacturing process or
Heritage significantly changes the
treatment process or the chemicals used
in the treatment process, Heritage or
Nucor must notify the EPA of the
changes in writing. Heritage and Nucor
must handle wastes generated after the
process change as hazardous until
Heritage or Nucor has demonstrated that
the wastes continue to meet the
delisting levels set forth in Paragraph
(1) and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
Part 261 have been introduced and
Heritage and Nucor have received
written approval from EPA.
(4) Data Submittals: Heritage must
submit the data obtained through
monthly verification testing or as
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste ... Page 12 of 13
required
by
other conditions of this
rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, Waste
Management Branch (DW-8J), 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, It 60604 by
February 1 of each calendar year for
the prior calendar year. Heritage or
Nucor must compile, summarize, and
maintain on site for a minimum of five
years records of operating conditions
and analytical data. Heritage or Nucor
must make these records available for
inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement
in
40 CFR
260.22{i) (12).
(S) Reopener Language--(Al If, anytime
after disposal of the delisted waste,
Heritage or Nucor possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any data
(including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data)
relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent
identified in Paragraph (1) is at a
level in the leachate higher than the
delisting level established in
Paragraph (I), or is at a level in the
groundwater higher than the maximum
allowable point of exposure
concentration predicted by the CMTP
model, then Heritage or Nucor must
report such data, in writing, to the
Regional Administrator within 10 days
of first possessing or being made aware
of that data.
(B) Based on the information described
in paragraph
(5)
(A) and any other
information received from any source,
the Regional Administrator will make a
preliminary determination as to whether
the reported information requires
Agency action to protect human health
or the environment. rurther action may
include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate
response necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
(C) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the reported
information does require Agency
action,
the Regional Administrator will notify
Heritage and Nucor in writing of the
actions the Regional Administrator
believes are necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The notice
shall
include
a statement of the
proposed action and a statement
providing Heritage and Nucor with an
opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed Agency action
is
not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. Heritage and Nucor
shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's
notice
to
present the information.
[[Page 1896]]
(D) If after 30 days Heritage or Nucor
presents no further information, the
Regional Administrator will issue a
final written determination describing
the Agency actions that are necessary
to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action
described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless
the Regional Administrator provides
otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[FR
Doc. 02-953
Filed
1-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING
CODE 6560-50-P
http://epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2002/January/Day-15/f953 .htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste ... Page 13 of 13
Notices" 2008200'7; ,'2006,
:
200,$'
:2004,
;"2'''-03',:"i002'
L~Q(jii
'-2000:
['i99!f
;'19'11.'
!-~gg'7'
'1996'
'1995
"1994
Fo,
http://epa.govIEPA-WASTE/2002/JanuarylDay-15/f953.htm
10/1/2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
K
E:XHIBIT B
PEORIA
DISPOSAL COMPANY
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REGARotNG PM10 EMISS1.QNS
Pellliiil Families.Agatni;t TQxic
Was~e(t'FATW)<lndSierrEi
PIUb Heart of Illinois GrQup
submitted
on. March 27, Z006 as Exhibit A
lin
Evlde/ltiarySlJrnmary. Contained
in
that
Eld1iplton Pal:ie 13
of
51 are state/T1ents
reg~rd!JlgPM-:tD
emissionsff'elm poe.
Incl~lietLlil
support of this
IS Pf=A.lWE:xhibil a'dated 312$12000.
PFATVV asserts that
POC "exooe<wd !he annual allowable emis.sionseslablished hyperm!tforthe waste
pro~)"9
f~lity
t>y. the .1Ilinq
i
li
EWA". This lli .false.,. Tblsis antlther exalTtple. of
PFATW misrepresenting the facts regarding POC'sfacility. First,the air emissions for
POC!sWasle
fr~atmentfapillt~aren()t
a
part.of
Po~s
landfill applicati0llalldqo not
apply to ttiec.e,jq3ansion lalldfiU.l1owev.ar, in
POe'sjntenes~
to
provldelhe County Board
all informatjQn relative toPPC's fatility,
PDCh~ d.iscus~
Ihorollghly!heair
OO1i;sipns.rrqmthe
~eatmel'lt
facilities, PFl'AW
a~that
PDC
is
violatIng
itS~ir
permit regarding
PM.10,
This lsin direct conll1cl with PFATW's ownsubmitlalin jts
EXhlPltB
cfour
~irpellTlitin~f;le~1l
WhichsupPo1'/S that poe II> in full compliance. The
PFATW6viclentiarySummj3ry(flES) is (<lctus!!y
inco~
regarding PM 10 emissions
from POC#1. The reported emissions appearing on the
.p~S.
are accurate as they were
rep~l1ed
In the
res~ctlveannu~1
repQrt:SI0theIEPA.
I~
1$ ioaccuf'ate, hQwever, tor the
PES 10 slate thalthe reportedemisslQn rates exceedtf1\)se establiShed in our pBllTllt
sin(l6ourfaclllty pe.('!T1it,wltb which V,I$"re
infulllIDmJ,lU~u,ceas verlfi~
by the IEPA
thro\.Jg!l Its
2004
inspection, does not regulata PM10emissionli.
The
allClWable emissions cited .ill the PES are. nol Pf1lrmit llrntls, butrather meaningless
dala
that
are generated by tha IEPA computer program andappeafellch year on our
reporting
formS,
notwithstanding the fact Ihat they have
no .
basIs in reality, or
IlPplicability tofaclllty emissions,.. Wrp. have discussed tnjj;:with the Agancy several times
overthe.yearsand have been instructed to disregard
thOSe
numbersandlhey are. not
data we
~re
obligated
to
correct. John
~teffenof
IEPA )l.ir RMsion.agaln VOOfied Ina
phone.corlVersation t;m March
28,2008
with Ron Welk, PQC Director of OPerations, th(il
this l.\nderstaru'iing isstilllrue. He said
if
there
is
no number (in the permltsysllilm), "the
computargrllpli
a<nJ,JITtPer." He also
said
thaUhalr dat!ll?ase program hasn't changed
since 1992, and liKely will not beupgradeda.nyUme soon due to bUdget issues.
Themets are that PM-to is dust. PDChas
pelfol1'T1ljKj$tac~
testing of Its
P~!I11tiol1
conlrol system in
200e.
As a result ofthls tasting, and
iftne2006.aettialstae~
testdata
'MIS
u$ed 10. dlilvlillop Ihe .2004
report,
PDC's
repo~~
amil:isions from the waste
treatment baghousa wr2004 WQl.Ildhaveo.een 8.08tQn$.. Of these 8.08 tons,. it is
estimate.d that 6.4 tons wquld be
PM~1
O. It Is also notable thaI the 8 metals analyzed
were only 1.02% of the. total as wastestifiaQ. to at thes!ting hellting. The remainder
WCl./ld
represent
reagentstlsed
infhe process stich
as
Porlland
cemfiltlt.
In. summary, POOha/? authorlzationto emit 33.8 tqllS Clf total particulate
m~tter-
.As
there !spo pellTlit limit on PM-10, PM-10 maybe
em~ted
up to
the total
particulate
ma!terlevel Qf33;13.PDC hl5{iI bElen reportingwalip"low that total and is In M
compllanoo~
EXHIBIT
I
-----
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
...,
:c
EXHIBIT F
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT PDe I-AN0E1LL IS LEAKING
Th.& PlilQri:a F<lI1llliesJ\9afnsITox!Q
W~I~
(PFATWJEvictentialY.SUrnmiJlY dl;lteQ March
7.7,
2006 eon!ainsa statement Orl Page 14 of 51 Whicli.reads as follows: "Experts on
both. side.s agre.ethat low.levels of contaminan
Is .
from PDC No. 1 lTa\l&lllready
penetrated rnto. the
1lCl1.1lfer sys!em below il'.
This~liIt$lfi(;lntis·
fa/s.eafld compleWly
contrary
IQ the. application, testimonyafldthe record. Th& support for this .purported
eVidence'isl;lPeOriaJoumaI91~lrarticledated2l2~129P9,However,
.the eVidence
ProviclEld underdireCt testimQllYl:lndsubjecHoetO$$:exammatioo act!;laJly sbQWltb@tllQ
imPllc{on groundwater hasot;curred
asa resultofeilherthecJosedor active .portloos of
PDQ's landfill.
Kenl1£jtllUl:;s ofAru:lrews .Environmentall;ngirreeting pro:.'ided
Wri1ten andQfaI evidelnce
regardingthegroUlldwater quality
at
PDCslandlil1. Thlfwrilten ang oral te$timony
ba~e~ona
verylrH:lepth .andCQfl1plete review ofalilhe sllespe<:lflo groundwater data
avanablato Mr,
I-I~
led.him 10 c\?J'l:clude.thl.lt
thl'lrE1ha~~!:l!'I
np
Impl:1c\ pn grounQwater
from either the closed
or
activ~.landli1lunlts
d¢l.'mgladlel1t of'PO.C's/andfllt Furthl'lr, Dr.
Larry
BarrQViS
of
AndteWs Environmental
En9ine~ring
.. support$d this
vie~
in his
testilTlOny. Therefore, no expert wItness.
forll1eapplicalJ:t~er
stated inlhe application,
testimony.
ortha racardlha! PpC\1>landfJlI Is ImpaclinggrOllndW<@r,
FUTtherrnore!lneopponent'sonly expert witness,
Mr. ChU2k
N9ms,
dldriolstate!;lnder
oatIY tnatPOC'slandPtllslmpaGtlna qroyndwater, Page
210 of
the Friday, February 24,
2006t!\l$timony provides tes!lmonyunder oath
and
un~[ero$S
$(aml.natlonaSIO; Mr,
Norris' t&$timony regarding impact on. groundwater from.PDC's ar.:tivilies. Mr. Mueller
811kea In
cross
Ell@rriinqtlonof. Mr. NQllls, "Did..1 also
n$a[
you correctly to $a}' that
you're.
not saying that any disposal unil,oPEmed, c10119do[ otherwise at Ihlsslte, is
leaking; rather you're saying there are man-'made c!:temlcalsln the aquifer and
wadon't
know whera they came .from? •Mr. Norris' resp9nded. "We do not know with c&rtalnty
where.lhey came from.
We do know they are mere'. Mr; Muellerasketi. "SOY01J're not
saying
lhallhey're coming
from.
POG?" Mr. Norris .responded. "No I'm l'Iot. The
commerits I'm making are independent
of thl:lsol.!roo, Independent .of the relative
concentrations."
Therefore,
the faets and the evidence show that expeftsfgr the
applit~.nta\l
al:Jreet:! that
gro~ndwater
has l1(jt
beenlmpa~e~
by PDC's landfill units and the one expert for the
oppanentshatl no.opinipn qllthe so1Jrce of any man-made. chemlCl:i!s In the
groundwater.SpeciliC<illly, hestateo
he.!S not testifying as to
the.~n!9mlnantscomlng
from.the POC landfilL e.ltherc1osed or acll'le,
..., -
,._~~!!!!~~
EXHIBIT
L
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
The
confU$19n~ardmgthi!)
i~~~app~rs
to beth;'!rtw"rted detection of very lpw
level$ofeart;:tin vo.latilaPfganiccompounds in wells. thatlllll'l hydraulICally upgraclient of
the
PDC facility. Thecompoundl>'are belowlhe
Ptacti~l~uantllation
Umll (POl) With
tile
~C('jptkm
oLone
inst~m~,
The PqLis tile
l~~t le~l th~tcan
berolJtlnely
quantifladal'ld reported
by a laboratory, Tllisls why
IEP~
e:stabllshed pal as the level
at whiCh poe must determine
lZom~liance.
The PDCpBlll'Iitsestabllshed 2 times pal
as
lln
event which myslbe lrIves!ig;;lted, or2paramElters \:)eYoncl 1 times rqL.
Thltrefore. these detections below
pal
do nol necessanl)1 show
with
cert;;llnlythat the
cotrlpQuntjSare .even .present
Mo~
imp0ri$ntly, howevt'/t, theliecompoumls were d.etectedin. moniloring.
well$
upg~dientto
the facility, notdoy.,m gradient the
fae:~lty.~s~te~
in Mr..
uss'
testimony,
!he
moslo\).vlotls potential source of these!s from
an
pk:lunregulated landfllJlocatecl
dye north of the pOC property. This landfill
waslOP~et;lln
directcorlfle<:lion withtlle
unsaturated sand unlland flowslaWartl PDQ'snortheml)aundary. p[)C
"DeS
not and
has notownedtllis property, It II> believed tlla! oPPOnents are confused tllat tlle
disll~S$!on
regatdlrtg this. off S\ite landfill l1otowned. byPDC
W<lS
rnil>un(jersll;lod t() be
PDO's closed landfill units;
Insumrnaf)i, noevldel'lCe Is intlle allPUCl;ltion, testimQl1}(or record tnat concllJdeS that
PDQ's landfill units have
impacted
groundwater_
106-866
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 8, 2008
* * * * * AS 2008-010, Exhibits * * * * *
