![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fact Sheet
General Overview of Summary of Comments and Responses
EPA HSWA Part II Permit Ash Grove Cement Company Chanute, Kansas Permit ID Number KSD031203318 August 1996
INTRODUCTION
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have made a final decision to issue a Hazardous Waste Permit to the Ash Grove Cement Company, Chanute, Kansas. Part I of this permit is being issued by KDHE, while Part II of this permit is being issued by EPA, pursuant to Section 227 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
Public participation activities associated with the draft and final permits have been conducted in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 124. The draft permit was issued on September 14, 1995, which began a 45-day public comment period. Two informal public meetings were held in Chanute, Kansas, during the comment period to allow the public to obtain information and to direct specific questions to EPA and KDHE about this permit. A formal public hearing was held in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 on October 24, 1995, and at the request of several individuals, the public comment period for the draft permit was extended another 30 days to November 29, 1995.
This summary of comments is prepared according to the requirements of 40 CFR 124.17, and addresses comments specific to Part II of the permit. KDHE has prepared a separate summary of comments regarding Part I of the permit, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this response to comments. During the comment period, EPA received many comments expressing general opinions on the draft permit, as well as a number of detailed, itemized comments about many of the specific terms of the draft permit. In order to best present these comments, we have, in some cases, attempted to provide representative excerpts from comments, while in other cases we have included almost the entire text from comments directed toward specific sections of the permit.
Certain provisions of the draft permit have been changed in the final permit, after evaluation of the comments EPA received on the draft permit and supporting documents. These changes include: revised waste feed rate limitations; revised cement kiln operating limitations; revised reporting requirements; expanded environmental monitoring requirements; and a number of clarifications and corrections. The changes made to the draft permit are described in more detail in the Summary of the Comments and Responses. In order to facilitate public review of this document, EPA prepared this general overview of that document. The full Summary of Comments and Responses, which is in excess of 150 pages, may be obtained by calling (800) 223-0425.
SUMMARY
EPA received a large number of comments on a wide variety of issues during the comment period for the draft Ash Grove hazardous waste permit. In summarizing and responding to these comments, we have grouped the comments into fifteen categories. The following is a general overview of the summary of comments and responses.
1. GENERAL COMMENTS
This section of the document includes comments and responses to issues related to EPA regulation of cement kilns that burn hazardous wastes.
EPA published the final regulations for cement kilns burning hazardous waste in 1991. These regulations are known as the Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) regulations. The BIF regulations apply to all boilers and industrial furnaces which burn hazardous waste derived fuel as an alternative energy source in the production of some product, for example, cement.
The BIF regulations are the same for cement plants located in smaller towns like Chanute, as for those cement plants located in large cities. Prior to 1991, under the passed by Congress, cement kilns burning hazardous waste in cities with populations greater than 500,000 people had to comply with regulations for hazardous waste incinerators.
A number of comments concerned regulation of cement kiln dust versus incinerator ash. Cement kiln dust, which is a waste from the cement manufacturing process, and hazardous waste incinerator ash are treated differently under federal regulations. Ash from hazardous waste incinerators must be sent to licensed hazardous waste landfills, while cement kiln dust does not generally have to be managed as a hazardous waste; however, cement kilns do have to periodically test the cement kiln dust to ensure that it is not hazardous. This disparity in treatment of incinerator ash and cement kiln dust is due, in part, to the laws governing hazardous waste management and the fact that cement kiln dust and hazardous waste incinerator ash are completely different materials, with different physical and chemical characteristics. EPA is currently developing a set of management standards for cement kiln dust to ensure better protection of groundwater, while at the same time, EPA is developing regulations that would allow certain types of incinerator ash -- nontoxic ash -- to be exempt from hazardous waste regulation.
A number of comments centered around a comparison of the BIF regulations to regulations for commercial hazardous waste incinerators. EPA's responses draw many comparisons between the two, showing that federal standards for air emissions from cement kilns burning hazardous waste are more comprehensive than the corresponding federal regulations for hazardous waste incinerators. The responses in this section also note that on April 19, 1996, EPA published draft revised regulations for both cement kilns that burn hazardous waste and hazardous waste incinerators. These revised standards, when they become final, will provide a more consistent set of standards for cement kilns and incinerators.
2. AIR EMISSIONS
This section of the document contains comments and responses concerning issues related to air emissions from the Ash Grove facility, such as dust or particulate matter.
Many commenters were concerned about dust emissions at the Ash Grove plant. EPA's response discusses the number of potential sources of dust emissions at cement plants that are not directly related to hazardous waste burning. These include: quarrying operations; plant roads; cement storage and handling; and cement kiln dust handling and disposal. Sources of dust from Ash Grove are regulated primarily by a KDHE air permit, except for stack emissions which are regulated both under the KDHE air permit and the hazardous waste permit. Recently, after inspecting Ash Grove, KDHE has required Ash Grove to improve its cement kiln dust fugitive emissions controls, which should help reduce the amount of dust blown onto surrounding properties.
Commenters had many questions about emission rate limits. Ash Grove is currently in compliance with all emission rate limitations specified in the BIF regulations. These emission rate limitations include standards for toxic metals and organic compounds, set by EPA based on a general evaluation of health risks from the substances. The hazardous waste permit requires that Ash Grove operate the cement plant so that it maintains compliance with these standards at all times while burning hazardous waste. The permit requires Ash Grove to continuously monitor cement kiln operating parameters and stack emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons to ensure that this is the case.
Commenters were concerned that the permit would shield Ash Grove from having to comply with the new emissions standards for hazardous waste combustors. EPA's responses explain that Ash Grove will have to comply with new standards. At the time the draft Ash Grove permit was proposed, EPA had not yet proposed even draft revised emissions standards. Revised emissions standards for hazardous waste combustors were proposed April 19, 1996. EPA anticipates that final standards will not be issued until sometime in 1997. All hazardous waste combustors, including Ash Grove, will have three years after the new standards become final to demonstrate full compliance with all applicable requirements.
In order to further clarify this issue, EPA has modified Section E.1. of the final permit to require that this permit will be revised at the time Ash Grove demonstrates compliance with the revised standards for hazardous waste combustors. This change to the permit will have the added benefit of ensuring that the public receives notification of these changes.
Ash Grove may find it necessary to modify its cement kiln systems to meet the new hazardous waste combustor standards. Any modification to the cement kiln systems requires a modification to this permit. EPA has revised the final permit to specify that any modifications to these systems, including air pollution control devices, necessary to comply with new hazardous waste combustor standards shall be subject to a Class 1 permit modification which requires public notification and agency approval. This procedure should allow for earlier emission reductions, yet also allow for necessary EPA oversight of Ash Grove's modifications.
3. HEALTH RISKS FROM ASH GROVE OPERATIONS
This section of the document contains comments and responses to concerns expressed by commenters about health problems among Chanute residents that they believe may be attributable to hazardous waste burning by Ash Grove. In this section, EPA responds to those concerns by explaining how the BIF regulations were developed to be protective of human health and the environment, and how the permitting process has worked to achieve even greater protection of health and the environment.
The air emission standards (part of the BIF regulations) governing the burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns were designed to be protective of human health. These standards were based upon ensuring that a person subjected to inhaling emissions from a hazardous waste burning cement kiln, at the point of maximum ground level concentrations for 70 years, would not experience any adverse health effects. Limits on Ash Grove's emissions prior to issuance of this permit were set on this basis.
For purposes of evaluating emission rate limits in this permit, EPA conducted another, more comprehensive and site-specific, analysis of the potential impacts of air emissions from Ash Grove on the health of people in the community. This analysis is known as a multi-pathway risk assessment. A multi-pathway risk assessment evaluates potential exposures to pollutants through the food chain, as well as inhalation. This evaluation is strictly theoretical, based on computer modeling, and does not rely on actual sampling of soils or water in the Chanute area.
Based on the results of the multi-pathway risk assessment conducted on the Ash Grove facility, which evaluated maximum emission rates of toxic metals, EPA concluded that more restrictive limitations on metals emissions were necessary to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, the final permit contains more restrictive limitations on the amount of metals that can be in the hazardous wastes burned by Ash Grove.
The EPA then reevaluated the potential risks to human health and the environment using the more restrictive metals emission limits. This reevaluation showed the only theoretical exposure that exceeded acceptable risk criteria was the recreational fisher's exposure to mercury.
In response, EPA compared predicted mercury levels with actual measurements from Santa Fe Lake in Chanute. This comparison indicated that the actual levels in the lake were lower than the predicted concentrations. Nonetheless, in order to better evaluate the facility's emissions impacts on the environment, the permit requires Ash Grove to conduct environmental monitoring to further evaluate existing mercury levels and to ensure that elevated mercury levels do not develop in the future. The Environmental Monitoring portion of the permit is discussed in Section 7 of this document.
4. COMBINED RISKS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNERS IN SOUTHEAST KANSAS
This section of the document contains responses to questions and comments related to the potential cumulative effect of having three cement plants and a commercial hazardous waste incinerator burning hazardous wastes in Southeast Kansas. Commenters also expressed concern about reports of high incidences of health problems in Midlothian, Texas, a town where there are three cement plants, one currently burning hazardous wastes, and a steel mill; the commenters likened this situation to Southeast Kansas.
In response, EPA has placed a copy of a report, prepared by the State of Texas, that evaluates the results of extensive soil, air, and water sampling in the Midlothian, Texas area in the Chanute Public Library. In the summary of that report, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission states the following:
Evaluation of the results of over a thousand samples collected indicate that exposure to the monitored levels are not likely to result in adverse health effects (emphasis added). Further, where relevant comparison data were available, air and soil concentrations measured in Midlothian were found to be similar to those measured in other Texas communities and in local and national background samples."
In Kansas, the KDHE has completed an investigation of childhood cancers for the years 1985-1994, in a ten-county area of Southeast Kansas. The area of the study included the following counties: Allen, Bourbon, Cherokee, Coffey, Crawford, Labette, Montgomery, Neosho, Wilson, and Woodson. In a letter describing his findings, the principal investigator Stephen Pickard, MD stated:
"The incidence of pediatric cancer in SE Kansas is remarkably consistent with the number of cancers which would be expected to occur among a similar number of children anywhere else in the United States." He went on to say, "Based upon these results I find no evidence of an increase in the risk of cancer among children in these ten counties at this time (emphasis added). These results do not explain why an increased number of children living in Labette County developed leukemia. However, in view of the fact than no other counties appeared to be affected, one cannot postulate a specific cause. Carcinogenic compounds which are borne by air or water would be expected to affect populations in neighboring counties. Non-environmental causes of the observed increase in leukemia in Labette County should be considered (e.g., random chance or local genetic variation in the population), but these causes are not verifiable."
In addition, EPA requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conduct a health assessment for the residents of the same ten county area in Southeast Kansas. ATSDR responded that they did not have the resources available to conduct such a study. At this time, EPA is pursuing other options for conducting a health assessment. EPA will work with those interested community members to keep them informed of, and involved in, the progress of this study.
Finally, in response to the interest shown by the citizens of the Chanute area and other parts of Southeast Kansas in the potential impacts of hazardous waste burning in this part of the state, EPA, in collaboration with KDHE, will initiate a study to assemble and evaluate information related to the current state of the environment in Southeast Kansas. The first phase of this study will include compilation and evaluation of existing environmental data on air and water quality. This data will be evaluated against environmental standards and other benchmarks of environmental quality. In addition, EPA will be conducting a soil sampling program designed to evaluate impacts of the commercial hazardous waste burners on soil contaminant concentrations. The results of these evaluations will determine the next steps of the effort. EPA pledges to keep those members of the Southeast Kansas community, who are interested, informed of and involved in the progress of this study.
5. RISK ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
This section of the document contains a number of comments, and EPA responses, providing detailed technical reviews of the multi-pathway risk assessment prepared by EPA of air emissions from the Ash Grove facility.
Many commenters stated that EPA had underestimated the potential health risks from hazardous waste burning by omitting relevant information from the analysis or not following EPA guidance in performing the analysis. Some commenters stated that the risk assessment could not be used as a basis for establishing the permit conditions placed in the Ash Grove permit that are more stringent than required by existing regulations.
In response to these comments, EPA performed additional risk calculations and formally documented its analysis of potential health risks from fugitive emissions associated with hazardous waste storage tanks. In addition, EPA supplemented the administrative record for the final permit by including a recently completed risk assessment of potential hazardous waste transportation accidents, which is relevant to the Ash Grove operation. In summary, the Agency continues to believe that the risk assessment is a valid assessment of the potential health risks posed by Ash Grove burning hazardous waste. The risk assessment can be used as the basis for issuing the final permit, including the permit conditions that are more stringent than existing regulations.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
This section of the document contains comments and EPA's responses to those comments related to Ash Grove's track record in complying with environmental regulations and EPA's ability to monitor Ash Grove's operations.
The EPA's second inspection of Ash Grove for compliance with hazardous waste burning regulations, which was done in 1993, formed the basis for EPA to file an administrative action against Ash Grove, alleging violations of these regulations. At the time of the inspection, EPA documented that many of the alleged violations had already been corrected. On October 23, 1995, EPA and Ash Grove entered into a Consent Agreement and Consent Order settling all counts contained in the complaint, with Ash Grove agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $140,000.
Nothing changes with respect to EPA's or KDHE's oversight of Ash Grove's hazardous waste management, even after the permit is issued. Ash Grove will continue to be required to maintain extensive records to document their compliance with hazardous waste regulations. Ash Grove will continue to be subject to unannounced inspections by EPA and KDHE. One advantage of issuing a final permit to Ash Grove is that Ash Grove's regulatory requirements are more clearly defined in a site-specific manner, which should help insure that Ash Grove remains in compliance with hazardous waste standards.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
This section of the document contains comments and EPA responses to issues related to the environmental monitoring requirements of the draft permit. The environmental monitoring sections of the draft permit required an extensive assessment of mercury bioaccumulation in Santa Fe Lake. Many commenters stated that there was also a need for sampling and analysis of environmental media such as soil, water and air, as well as locally grown produce. Commenters stated that additional lakes should be tested, while others stated that Allen Lake should be evaluated rather than Santa Fe Lake. Ash Grove commented that the proposed environmental monitoring program for Santa Fe Lake is not required by the regulations, and suggested that a less extensive study be done.
The final permit has been modified to include a requirement that Ash Grove conduct periodic surface soil sampling for mercury and thallium. This requirement is based on EPA's further review of potential health impacts from mercury and thallium accumulating in soils, as a result of Ash Grove's emissions.
The final permit also requires Ash Grove to conduct its environmental monitoring at both Santa Fe Lake and Allen Lake (with the Ash Grove reservoir as an alternate location in case Ash Grove is not able to obtain access to Allen Lake). The scope of the environmental monitoring has been revised to focus on fully characterizing mercury levels in fish tissue, which is the information EPA believes is most important at this time.
8. CEMENT KILN DUST
This section of the document contains comments and EPA responses related to the management of cement kiln dust (CKD), the waste produced during cement manufacturing. Commenters were concerned that Ash Grove's CKD management practices would cause air, stormwater and groundwater pollution.
Disposal of CKD by Ash Grove is currently regulated by a permit issued by the KDHE Bureau of Waste Management. This Industrial Solid Waste Landfill permit requires, among other things, control of fugitive air emissions, containment of storm water coming in contact with CKD, and control of any leachate (water seeping through the landfill) from CKD disposal.
On December 15, 1995, Ash Grove was cited by a KDHE inspector for nuisance fugitive dust emissions, confirming the statements by many commenters that dust emissions from CKD disposal at Ash Grove were not being properly controlled. As a result of the citation by KDHE, Ash Grove was required to prepare and implement a more thorough fugitive dust control plan at its CKD disposal area. In addition, KDHE has required Ash Grove to improve its CKD leachate control measures.
Under current federal law and regulation, CKD is exempt from federal hazardous waste regulation, unless the cement plant burns hazardous waste. Hazardous waste burning cement plants must test CKD they generate to determine whether it has the characteristics of a hazardous waste. If it does, the waste may not be disposed of on-site and instead must be sent to a hazardous waste disposal facility.
EPA has completed a national study of CKD and prepared the following report: The Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust Waste, released in December 1993. This report contains a detailed study of cement kiln dust including a health risk assessment. Based on this study, EPA made a regulatory determination for cement kiln dust concluding that additional control is warranted in order to protect the public from potential human health risks from current disposal practices of this waste. The primary environmental concerns to be addressed through additional controls are preventing damages to ground water and potable water supplies and preventing human health risks from inhalation of airborne CKD and ingestion via food chain pathways.
Based on the conclusions of EPA's study and its regulatory determination on CKD, KDHE's efforts to reduce fugitive dust air emissions and control CKD leachate at Ash Grove are warranted and necessary.
9. IMPACTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNING ON CEMENT
This section of the document contains comments and EPA responses to issues related to the impact of hazardous waste burning on the cement produced by Ash Grove, specifically concerning whether cement from hazardous waste burning cement kilns should be required to contain such labeling on the package.
EPA's response notes that, on April 19, 1995, the EPA Headquarters office in Washington, D.C. received a petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2620, signed by 24 environmental groups located in 10 Western and Midwestern States. The petition asserted that cement-producing plants that burn hazardous waste-derived fuel in their kilns have higher concentrations of toxic metals in their cement end-products, and that these products therefore pose risks to end-users. The petition requested that EPA promulgate a rule under section 6 of TSCA requiring those producers who burn hazardous waste-derived fuel to label their cement with a notice advising consumers of that fact, and cautioning them to avoid emitting or breathing the cement dust and to avoid direct contact.
The petition was denied by EPA on July 24, 1995, on two grounds: (a) the petitioners had not substantiated the assertion that burning hazardous waste increases risks posed to end-users of cement; and (b) for risk protection purposes, the label requested essentially duplicates labeling already required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
A typical cement bag label reads as follows:
"CAUTION EYE AND SKIN IRRITANT
Contains Portland Cement (CAS No. 65997-15-1). Do not allow contact with eyes or skin. Contains concrete aggregates Sand/Gravel (CAS No. 14808-60-7). Avoid breathing dust-respirable particles. Silica may cause serious lung problems. Use gloves, goggles, dust masks, and waterproof protective clothing. If material gets into eyes, rinse immediately with clean water and seek prompt medical attention. If material gets onto skin or saturates clothing, rinse immediately and thoroughly with clean water. CONTACT WITH WET PORTLAND CEMENT MAY CAUSE SERIOUS SKIN BURNS."
EPA believes that the hazard communication label required by OSHA provides sufficient warning to users of cement to allow them to take appropriate steps to protect themselves from exposure to cement products.
10. HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
This section of the document contains comments and responses related to the transport of hazardous waste to Ash Grove and the transport of hazardous waste through the area in general. Commenters were concerned about the safety of tank cars containing hazardous wastes waiting to be burned, and expressed concern about potential derailments of tank cars containing hazardous wastes and overloading transportation routes with vehicles carrying hazardous waste.
Safety standards for transportation of hazardous wastes are developed and enforced by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT). EPA regulations on the transportation of hazardous wastes are limited to shipping paper requirements by use of a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest" and response requirements for discharges of hazardous wastes. In the event of a discharge of hazardous waste during transportation, the transporter, in coordination with local emergency response authorities, must take immediate appropriate action to protect human health and the environment (e.g., notify local authorities, dike the discharge area, etc.). In addition, the transporter is also responsible for the cleanup of a hazardous waste discharge.
Ash Grove has primarily received bulk hazardous waste liquid shipments in rail tank cars, while hazardous waste containers are received primarily in box truck trailers. Higher accident rates are expected for highway transport than rail transport.
In evaluating transportation issues, EPA reviewed a U.S.DOT database entitled Hazardous Materials Information System regarding accidents during the transport of both hazardous wastes and hazardous materials (e.g., propane, process chemicals, etc.) over the road. These statistics reflect the fact that, in the U.S., much larger volumes of hazardous materials are shipped over the road than the amount of hazardous wastes. A review of data from 1984 and 1993 indicates that during that 10-year period there were 1,959 transportation incidents involving hazardous waste on highways in the U.S., resulting in 143 reported injuries and one reported fatality. By comparison, during the same ten-year period, there were 63,577 highway transportation incidents involving hazardous materials, resulting in 2,781 reported injuries and 115 reported fatalities.
11. PERMIT CONDITIONS/OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
This section contains many detailed comments and EPA's responses concerning permit conditions and operating requirements that were contained in the draft permit. Commenters raised issues related to the general and standard terms of the permit, which are included in all hazardous waste permits; limitations on hazardous waste burned in the cement kilns; cement kiln operating limitations; and comments on various sections of the Ash Grove permit application.
In response to these comments, changes to the final permit have been made in the following areas: the allowed feed rate of the metal thallium contained in hazardous wastes has been increased; record keeping requirements related to annual average hazardous waste feed limitations have been reduced; and minor clarifications and corrections have been made to the language of the permit.
In response to data collected by Ash Grove while conducting additional emissions testing on Kiln 2 earlier this year, the minimum power that must be applied to the air pollution control system for Kiln 2 has been increased, as has the maximum allowed air flow through Kiln 2. The report of this emission test has been added to the Administrative Record for this permit.
The changes to the cement kiln operating conditions found in the final permit are summarized in the table below:
| Permit Condition | Draft Permit | Final Permit |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Average Thallium in Hazardous Waste Feed Rate Limit | 0.25 lbs./hr. | 0.98 lbs./Hr. |
| Min. Electrostatic Precipitator Power | 54.1 kVA | 71.0 kVA |
| Maximum Stack Flow | 0.85 Relative Flow | 0.98 Relative Flow |
12. CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
This section of the document contains the comments and responses concerning the corrective action provisions of the Ash Grove permit. Some of the comments sought to clarify the permit language and requirements. EPA generally concurred with these comments and revised the permit language as requested. Other comments sought to change the corrective action requirements in the permit or to repeat permit language in other portions of the permit. EPA generally did not concur with these comments. A section in the draft permit dealing with waste minimization was removed from Part II of the permit (EPA portion) and placed in Part I of the permit (KDHE portion) as KDHE was recently "authorized" to regulate RCRA waste minimization standards.
13. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
This section of the document contains a summary of comments made by several commenters expressing their opinions on how hazardous wastes should be managed in the United States. Because these comments were not directed at specific sections of the Ash Grove hazardous waste permit or Ash Grove's operations, EPA included a summary of the comments only.
14. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY ISSUES
This section of the document contains comments and responses to issues related to environmental regulatory issues not specifically related to the Ash Grove hazardous waste permit.
15. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
This section of the document contains miscellaneous comments related to Ash Grove's operations or other issues relevant to the Chanute, Kansas area.
