[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7366-7377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2832]
[[Page 7365]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 261
Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7366]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA 530-Z95-003; FRL-5149-6]
RIN 2050-AD99
Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Regulatory determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action presents the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) regulatory determination on cement kiln dust (CKD) waste. This
action is required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). EPA has concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted
in order to protect the public from human health risks and to prevent
environmental damage resulting from current disposal of this waste. The
primary environmental concerns to be addressed through additional
controls are documented damages to ground water and potable water
supplies, and potential human health risks from inhalation of airborne
CKD and ingestion via food chain pathways. The Agency has decided to
take a common sense approach in imposing such controls. In order to
avoid duplication among regulatory programs, the Agency will use, as
appropriate, its various authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, and RCRA to address the relevant pathways of potential
contaminant releases from CKD.
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, the Agency will develop a tailored set of
standards for CKD that controls releases to ground water. The tailored
standards will protect human health and the environment, while imposing
a minimal burden on the regulated community. Until the tailored
regulations are published by the Agency, CKD will retain the Bevill
exemption and the status of CKD under RCRA Subtitle C will remain
unchanged. Those cement manufacturing facilities that burn RCRA
hazardous waste in their kilns will still be required to test their CKD
to see that it remains unaffected by the combustion of hazardous waste.
EPA has not included an evaluation of clinker or other products or
by-products of cement production in this regulatory determination. In
the absence of the CKD regulatory exemption, under certain regulatory
scenarios clinker produced from re-introduced CKD could be considered a
hazardous waste. However, as part of the regulations that EPA will
promulgate as a result of today's determination, EPA intends to exclude
clinker from regulation as a derived-from hazardous waste when CKD is
re-introduced. At this time, EPA has no indication that such clinker
poses an unacceptable threat to human health or the environment.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this regulatory determination and the supporting
record docket are available for public inspection and copying at the
RCRA docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, Room M2616, 2nd floor,
Waterside Mall. The docket number for this action is F-94-RCKD-FFFFF.
The docket is open from 9 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. In order to access the docket, please call (202) 260-
9327 to make an appointment. Copies are free up to 100 pages and
thereafter cost $0.15/page.
This document and the Response to Public Comments document are also
available on the EPA's Clean-up Information Bulletin Board (CLU-IN). To
access CLU-IN with a modem of up to 28,800 baud, dial (301) 589-8366.
First-time users will be asked to input some initial registration
information. Next, select ``D'' (download) from the main menu. Input
the file name ``CKD6.ZIP'' to download this notice. Input the file
names ``CKD7.ZIP'' and ``CKD8.ZIP'' to download the two files that
contain the two response to public comments documents. Follow the on-
line instructions to complete the download. More information about the
download procedure is located in Bulletin 104; to read this bulletin
type ``B 104'' from the main menu. For additional help with these
instructions, telephone the CLU-IN help line at (301) 589-8368.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810; for
technical information contact Bill Schoenborn, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (5302W), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, at
(703) 308-8483.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Public Comment Process
C. Stakeholder Comments
II. Major Findings of the RTC and NODA
A. Sources and Volumes of Waste
B. Current and Alternative CKD Management Practices
C. Existing Regulatory Controls
D. Waste Characteristics
E. Documented Evidence of Damage
F. Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment
G. Environmental Justice
H. Potential Costs and Impacts of Subtitle C Regulation
I. Regulatory Options
III. Applying the Decision Rationale in Making the Regulatory
Determination
A. Step 1: Does Management of CKD Pose Human Health and
Environmental Problems? Might Current Practices Cause Problems in
the Future?
B. Step 2: Is More Stringent Regulation Necessary and Desirable?
C. Step 3: What Would be the Operational and Economic
Consequences of a Decision to Regulate Under Subtitle C?
IV. Regulatory Determination for Cement Kiln Dust
V. Next Steps
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VII. Executive Order 12866
VIII. Regulatory Determination Docket
I. Background
A. Statutory Authority
EPA is issuing today's notice under the authority of section
3001(b)(3)(C) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended. This section requires that, after completing the Report to
Congress (RTC) mandated by section 8002(o) of RCRA, the EPA
Administrator must determine whether Subtitle C regulation of CKD waste
is warranted. The RTC documents EPA's study of CKD. It was signed by
the Administrator on December 30, 1993.
B. Public Comment Process
After submitting the RTC to Congress, EPA provided the public with
an opportunity to comment on the report and the appropriateness of
regulating CKD under RCRA Subtitle C (59 FR 709, 1/6/94). The public
comment period lasted until February 22, 1994 (59 FR 709, 1/6/94). Due
to numerous requests to lengthen the comment period, EPA extended the
comment period to March 8, 1994 (59 FR 6640, 2/11/94). To ensure that
all interested parties had an opportunity to present their views, EPA
not only held a public hearing in Washington, DC, but also held a
series of public meetings with representatives of the cement industry,
the hazardous waste treatment industry, regional and state
environmental authorities, and citizen groups.
EPA received approximately 1,100 written comments, 18 videotapes,
and a number of photographs prior to the close of the RTC comment
period. All individual comments and a transcript from the public
hearing are available for public inspection in the RTC docket (Docket
No. F-94-RCKA-FFFFF). The docket also contains a summary of all the
comments presented at the public [[Page 7367]] meetings and public
hearing, as well as those submitted in writing.
To supplement the information included in the CKD RTC, the Agency
analyzed the public comments and undertook several additional data
collection and analysis efforts. The new data generated by EPA were
placed into the RCRA docket for public inspection and comment and a
Notice of Data Availability (NODA) was published in the September 14,
1994, Federal Register (59 FR 47133). The Agency provided a 30-day
comment period for review of the new data and analyses. The principal
new documents placed in the docket addressed the following issues:
Additional CKD damage cases; environmental justice; analysis of CKD
generation and characteristics data; costs of CKD management
alternatives; and human health and environmental risks posed by CKD
management.
Subsequent to issuing the NODA, EPA identified certain errors and,
in a supplemental errata document, corrected certain portions of the
new data pertinent to additional assessments of potential risk from CKD
waste. EPA published a correction Notice on October 11, 1994 (59 FR
51440) that identified the corrections and provided a public comment
period on the corrected materials until November 10, 1994.
In preparing both of these Notices, the Agency made a special
effort to make the data accessible to the public. In addition to
placing this information in the RCRA docket, the Agency posted data
files in electronic format on EPA's Superfund electronic bulletin board
(CLU-IN) and made these data available on disk upon request.
Today's decision is based on the RTC and the data and analyses that
underlie the report, as well as on public comments received during the
public hearing and public meetings, or in written form submitted during
the comment periods, and EPA analyses of these comments.
C. Stakeholder Comments
The Agency received over 1,100 public comments on the RTC on Cement
Kiln Dust and subsequent Technical Background Documents from individual
companies and trade organizations representing the cement industry and
their affiliated consultants, suppliers, and waste fuel blenders;
individual companies and trade groups representing the hazardous waste
incineration industry, and their associated consultants; other
companies that handle CKD; public interest groups; and private
citizens.
Comments were received on a wide variety of topics discussed in the
RTC and NODA including cement production and CKD generation and
characteristics; current and alternative CKD management practices;
documented damage and potential danger to human health and the
environment; existing regulatory controls on CKD management; and cost
and economic impacts of alternatives to current CKD disposal practices.
The following is a brief summary of the major positions presented in
the public comments. (A detailed response to all of the comments is
included in two background documents that are identified below.)
Companies and groups representing the cement manufacturing industry
generally stated that CKD exhibits low inherent toxicity and poses
minimal risk to human health and the environment. They argued for
continued management of CKD using existing Federal and State
authorities, and urged the Agency to work with the cement industry to
develop voluntary standards for the management of all CKD.
Commenters from companies that handle CKD stated that CKD has
numerous beneficial uses (e.g., as a liming agent or sewage sludge
stabilizer) which would be detrimentally affected by regulation of CKD
as a hazardous waste.
Companies and groups representing the hazardous waste treatment
industry generally argued for an aggressive regulatory determination
for CKD. These commenters generally favored removing the exemption and
immediately imposing hazardous waste regulations for the management of
CKD, especially dust from kilns that burn hazardous waste.
Public interest groups generally stated that current industry
management of CKD from kilns that burn hazardous waste causes chronic
human health problems and extensive environmental damages, including
degraded water and air quality, affecting local residents around cement
manufacturing facilities. These commenters generally argued for
immediate adoption of hazardous waste regulations for CKD generated
from hazardous waste-burning kilns.
Most of the comments from public citizens were from residents
living around cement manufacturing facilities, and the commenters were
divided in their position on CKD. Some commenters expressed concern
over potential loss of jobs at plants in their communities if CKD is
regulated as a hazardous waste. Others commenters, generally residents
who live around cement plants that burn hazardous waste, stated that
releases of CKD from plants in their communities are a visual nuisance,
degrade the air and vegetation, and cause health problems for
themselves and their neighbors.
EPA has carefully reviewed all comments in arriving at today's
final determination. The Agency has prepared a detailed summary of
comments received, along with responses, in two background documents
that are available for viewing in the RCRA docket. The first document,
titled Summary of and Responses to Comments on the Report to Congress,
presents the public comments and the Agency's response to these
comments on the Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust; the second
document, titled Summary of and Responses to Comments on the Notice of
Data Availability, presents the public comments and the Agency's
response to the material announced in the NODA.
II. Major Findings of the RTC and NODA
In this section, EPA briefly restates some of the basic technical
findings presented in the RTC, as well as new insights presented in the
technical background documents announced in the NODA. These findings
are generally presented in categories that correspond to the study
factors listed in RCRA section 8002(o).
A. Sources and Volumes of Waste
Information received by the Agency since publication of the RTC (in
comments and from additional research) suggests that, as of 1992, the
domestic cement industry consisted of 111 plants operated by 46
companies. The five largest cement clinker producing states are
California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Michigan. The cement
industry burns large amounts of high Btu fuels, primarily coal and
other fossil fuels, during the manufacturing process. In 1990 and in
1992, 23 facilities also burned hazardous waste as fuels.
Based on an analysis of existing data, including data collected by
the Portland Cement Association and separately by EPA under RCRA
section 3007 authority from operators of cement manufacturing
facilities, the Agency has determined that, nationally, cement plants
generate large quantities of CKD. In particular, EPA has estimated that
in 1990, the generation of gross CKD (i.e., CKD that is collected by
air-pollution control devices) was 12.7 million metric tons. There are,
however, wide variations among kilns and plants in the amount of gross
CKD generated per ton of clinker.
In addition, there are also wide variations among kilns and plants
in the amount of net CKD (i.e., CKD that is either disposed or used
beneficially off-site) that is generated. For example, 25 percent of
the facilities produce essentially no net CKD, while 10 plants (about
10 percent of the population) generate 40 percent of all net CKD.
Finally, the Agency also found that the burning of hazardous waste
is correlated with the volume of dust that is actually disposed. Kilns
that burn hazardous waste remove from the kiln system an average of 75
to 104 percent more dust per ton of clinker than kilns that do not burn
hazardous waste. Regression modeling conducted by EPA for the NODA
analyses showed a consistent, statistically significant association
between hazardous waste fuel burning in cement kilns and increased CKD
generation on a gross, net, and disposed basis. EPA's work does not
establish the cause of this statistical relationship between hazardous
waste fuel burning and CKD generation. The Agency, however, believes
that increased CKD generation is maybe due either to the burning of
hazardous waste, or to some other plant-specific operating factors such
as the composition of the raw material feed.
B. Current and Alternative CKD Management Practices
Most of the gross CKD--8.2 million metric tons, or 64 percent--was
recycled directly back into the kiln or raw feed system in 1990. For
that portion of CKD that is disposed, standard industry practice is to
place it in piles, quarries, or landfills, most of which are unlined
and uncovered. Some active piles are also managed underwater or
adjacent to surface water and/or agricultural lands. Although most CKD
removed from the kiln system is disposed on-site, some is sold for off-
site beneficial use. For example, in 1990, about 7 percent of CKD
generated (897,000 metric tons) was sold for off-site use, most of it
as a waste stabilizer, liming agent, or materials additive.
Cost-effective opportunities may exist, however, to further reduce
the amount of CKD that is disposed by recycling it back into the kiln.
The Agency has identified a number of pollution prevention
opportunities, including flue gas desulfurization, fluid-bed dust
recovery, and leaching with water, that may, in some instances,
represent low-cost and potentially profitable alternatives to CKD
disposal. In addition, the Agency has received some evidence, in
comments from cement companies, that raw material substitution may be a
highly effective means of increasing CKD recycling rates. This may be
done by controlling the input of contaminants (in raw materials and
fuels) to the kiln system, thereby reducing or eliminating the need to
purge the kiln system of contaminants by removing larger volumes of CKD
from the system.
C. Existing Regulatory Controls
Federal statutes that potentially affect CKD management include the
Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Regulations developed under
authority of the CAA and CWA impose controls on releases of CKD to the
air (via stack or fugitive dust emissions, 40 CFR Part 50) and water
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 40 CFR Part
122, point source effluent discharges, and 40 CFR Part 411, effluent
guidelines for cement manufacturing facilities), respectively. Under
both RCRA and CERCLA, the Federal government can respond where the
release of CKD or its constituents may present an imminent and
substantial danger to human health or the environment. CKD that is not
directly recycled is also subject to regulation under Subtitle D of
RCRA as a solid waste. In addition, CKD generating facilities that burn
RCRA hazardous waste in kilns are subject to the RCRA Boiler and
Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule (40 CFR part 266) and other RCRA
requirements if the CKD from that combustion is ``significantly
affected'' by the hazardous waste fuel. See 40 CFR 266.112.
For states with the highest cement production capacity (California,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas), the Agency has found that CKD waste
is subject to some regulation under State and local laws, but the
requirements vary significantly from State to State. For example,
California regulates CKD as a non-RCRA hazardous waste, but has
suspended enforcement of the management requirements for CKD that fails
the State's hazardous waste corrosivity test, pending the results of
further study of CKD and other cementitious materials. Pennsylvania
regulates CKD as a residual waste, requiring facilities to comply with
site-specific disposal requirements and waste reduction strategies,
which are both periodically updated by the State. In contrast, Michigan
and Texas both consider CKD an industrial non-hazardous waste. Michigan
requires permits, ground water monitoring, and regular reports of
ground water sampling results, whereas Texas issues non-enforceable
guidance.\1\ [[Page 7368]]
\1\Texas is in the process of developing on-site management
standards for cement kiln dust and expects to propose them in 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Waste Characteristics
While CKD itself does not exhibit the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste characteristic of corrosivity (40 CFR 261.22)\2\, EPA's data show
that mixtures of CKD and water often exhibit the characteristic of
corrosivity. In particular, runoff from precipitation that contacts CKD
storage and waste piles generates considerable volumes of wastewater.
EPA data show that the pH level in such precipitation runoff typically
exceeds 12.5 standard units, the standard for the corrosivity
characteristic for hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.22).
\2\EPA hazardous waste identification rules do not include a
characteristic or definition for solid corrosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA's analyses of CKD show that CKD does contain
certain metals listed in Appendix 8 (``Hazardous Constituents'') part
261 of RCRA. Table 1 presents the range of total concentration levels
for a number of other toxic metals EPA has observed in CKD.
Table 1.--Measured Metals Levels in CKD\1\
[Mg/kg (parts per million), total basis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Metal samples Min. Mean Max.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................................. 52 0.09 11.5 102
Arsenic.................................................. 60 0.26 14.1 80.7
Barium................................................... 59 0.43 181 900
Beryllium................................................ 53 0.1 1.03 6.2
[[Page 7369]]
Cadmium.................................................. 61 0.065 9.7 44.9
Chromium................................................. 61 3.9 31.2 105
Lead\2\.................................................. 63 3.1 287 2,620
Mercury.................................................. 57 0.003 0.33 2.9
Nickel................................................... 45 3 19.9 55
Selenium................................................. 52 0.1 12.2 103
Silver................................................... 56 0.25 5.9 40.7
Thallium................................................. 57 0.44 33.6 450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Metals data sources include 1992 APCA survey, EPA sampling data, and public comments on the RTC.
\2\The median value for lead is 113 mg/kg.
For many of the toxic metals, the concentrations detected in kiln
dust were not significantly different whether the dust is generated
from kilns that burn or do not burn hazardous waste. However, for lead,
cadmium, and chromium, the mean concentration found in CKD generated by
kilns that burn hazardous waste is measurably higher than in CKD from
those kilns that do not burn hazardous waste; conversely, thallium and
barium concentrations are measurably higher in CKD from kilns that do
not burn hazardous waste.\3\\4\
\3\The differences cited are those discernible at a 95 percent
confidence level.
\4\While lead, cadmium, and chromium were observed to be higher
in CKD from facilities that burn hazardous waste, generally the
difference in mean constituent concentrations by themselves are not
enough (i.e., do not differ by more than a factor of about 2) to
result in discernible risk estimates between facilities that do and
do not burn hazardous waste, after considering other site-specific
factors affecting exposure (e.g., proximity of exposure points,
topography). The concentrations of barium, chromium, and nickel in
CKD are within the typical range found in U.S. soils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to organics, volatile and semi-volatile compounds were
generally not found in CKD. However, levels of 2,3,7,8-substituted
dioxin, and 2,3,7,8-substituted dibenzofuran were detected, although
the concentrations were generally low--ranging from 0.5 to 20 ppt for
dioxin and non-detected to 470 ppt for furan. The calculated 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ values for the facilities sampled by EPA ranged from non-
detected to 9 ppt.
Note: EPA sampling data for one cement plant reported a total
dioxins concentration in CKD as high as 16 ppb, with a TEQ value for
the managed CKD of 195 ppt. The total dioxins level measured for
this plant were at least 2\1/2\ times higher than those found at any
of the other plants sampled by EPA.
In terms of potential constituent solubility and release, leach
test results show that no significant distinction can be made between
CKD generated from kilns that burn hazardous waste and those that do
not burn hazardous waste. (This finding was corroborated for metals in
CKD by leachate test results submitted to the Agency by the cement
industry.) For example, laboratory analysis of CKD using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) shows that trace metal
concentrations rarely exceed RCRA toxicity limits, whether or not the
CKD is generated at kilns that burn hazardous waste.\5\
\5\A separate issue raised by commenters is whether the TCLP
adequately depicts the potential for metals to leach from CKD. See
the background document to this Notice entitled Summary of and
Response to Comments on the Report to Congress in the RCRA docket
for a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Documented Evidence of Damage
Migration of potentially hazardous constituents, including metals,
has occurred from CKD waste sites. In the RTC and subsequent NODA, EPA
identified 14 cases of damage (10 documented and 4 potential) to
surface water and ground water and 36 cases of documented damage to air
from CKD waste.\6\ By damage, the Agency means that metal constituents
have contaminated ground water and/or surface water, and/or air above a
federal or state standard (e.g., a maximum concentration limit).
Constituents of concern that have been released to ground and surface
waters include arsenic, chromium, and lead, among others. When ground
water and surface water exceedances do occur, the magnitude of the
exceedance is variable, going as high as two orders of magnitude above
the standard. Environmental damage generally affects the area in the
immediate vicinity of the waste disposal site. However, in some cases,
nearby wetlands and streams that are off-site were also affected. For
example, excessive discharges from two facilities in Mason City, Iowa
caused severe degradation of the aquatic habitat in nearby Calmus
Creek. Observed releases are commonly chronic at sites at which
exceedances have been documented. However, most of the documented
surface water damage cases occurred prior to 1991, which was before
implementation of NPDES general stormwater permits.
\6\EPA received many comments on the specific damage cases
described in both the RTC and subsequent NODA. Based on review of
the damage cases, except for only one reassessment, the Agency
believes the information received does not contradict the Agency's
basic conclusions regarding any of the damage cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on environmental quality, on which this evidence is
based, is limited by available data from each of the 127 sites
evaluated. For those sites for which data were available, files
contained information on releases, but little human exposure data.
Significantly, releases to ground water were observed at all sites for
which EPA has received ground water monitoring data; if there had been
additional ground water monitoring data from other sites, further
evidence of leaching and contamination would likely have been found.
While the Agency has no documented data on contaminant transport off-
site, or documented data on human exposure and risk at the point of
drinking water use, this is because the drinking water wells at these
sites are currently located far enough away, and/or tap aquifers are
isolated enough, to be unlikely to intersect contaminated ground water.
To the extent that wells would be drilled closer to the sites or the
contamination spreads, there is potential that the wells would tap CKD-
contaminated ground water. Waste disposal practices at sites where
water damages have been documented include management in waste piles,
abandoned quarries, or landfills, all of which were unlined. Air
damages are cited as primarily due to mechanical failure of dust
handling equipment. [[Page 7370]]
F. Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment
Based on an extensive data base compiled from industry sources,
Agency field visits, RCRA section 3007 information requests,
information submitted in comments, literature reviews, and other public
sources, the Agency conducted a series of risk screening and site-
specific risk modeling studies to evaluate potential risks from on-site
management and off-site uses of CKD. Methodologies and results of these
studies were documented in Chapter 6 of the RTC and its related
technical background document and in two subsequent EPA technical
background documents titled Human Health and Environmental Risk
Assessment in Support of the Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln
Dust (August 31, 1994) and Supplemental Errata Document for the
Technical Background Document for the Notice of Data Availability on
Cement Kiln Dust (September 30, 1994). Principal findings from these
studies include the following:
Among a sample of 83 plants for which EPA had sufficient
data to conduct a site-specific risk screening evaluation for metals in
CKD, the Agency predicted only low or negligible risk potential from
on-site management of CKD via conventional direct pathways of
constituent transport and exposure (drinking water, incidental direct
ingestion, chemical inhalation) via ground water contamination, surface
water runoff to streams or lakes, or windblown dust. However, there are
three principal and important qualifications to these direct pathway
findings:
As noted above, EPA has found empirical evidence of ground
water contamination near the management unit at each cement
manufacturing facility where ground water quality data exist; these
sites are located in both areas of karst and non-karst terrain.
According to U.S. Geological Survey maps and other
sources, about half of all cement plant sites are underlain by
limestone formations in areas of karst landscape. These limestone
formations may have fissures caused by rock dissolution along joints or
bedding planes with hydraulic characteristics that allow leachate to
directly enter ground water aquifers without substantial dilution or
attenuation. Available ground water pathway modeling techniques are not
applicable under these conditions. This does not necessarily mean that
ground water contamination will occur at these cement plants (although
that would be consistent with some of the damage cases); however, it
should be regarded as a significant qualification to the general
findings of low or negligible risk from the ground water pathway risk
modeling results.
In its follow-up work leading to the NODA, EPA did find
evidence of possible risk to human health due to the fine particulate
nature of inhaled dust. Although the Agency's direct inhalation
exposure modeling studies described in the RTC did not indicate
significant risk from inhaled chemical constituents in CKD, subsequent
screening-level modeling on a small number of plants did indicate that
windblown dust from uncontrolled CKD waste management units could
exceed EPA's health-based fine particulate (10 micron or less) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at plant boundaries, and
potentially at nearby residences. Results from a more recent extension
of this work to a larger sample of 52 cement plants suggest that 28 of
the plants could exceed NAAQS standards at plant boundaries, if the
plants do not have effective dust control mechanisms.\7\ Although
quantitative risks presently can not be estimated, these initial
modeling results relating to fine particulates suggest cause for
concern and argue for further attention to this source of fugitive
dust.
\7\ Documentation and detailed results of five case study
facilities are documented in the technical background document for
the NODA on human health and environmental risk assessment (see 59
FR 47133). The documentation and detailed results of the more recent
work are presented in the Technical Background Document on Potential
Risks from Cement Kiln Dust in support of the Cement Kiln Dust
Regulatory Determination, January, 1995. This document is located in
the RCRA docket No. F-95-RCKD-FFFFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also modeled health risks via indirect food-
chain pathways (i.e., risks from ingestion of crop or livestock
products or fish containing CKD-derived chemical contaminants). These
contaminants reach the food chain as part of storm water run-off and/or
wind erosion from uncontrolled CKD storage or disposal areas to nearby
water bodies and farm fields. The Agency's indirect pathway methodology
is relatively new, complex, and still under refinement and peer review.
Therefore, the reported results must be regarded as preliminary and
subject to substantial uncertainties. However, the methodology
represents the best available approach for evaluating these potential
risk pathways of interest.
EPA's indirect food chain risk modeling estimated that potential
individual cancer risks in the 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000) to
1 x 10-3 (1 in 1,000) range to highly exposed subsistence farmers
and subsistence fishers from CKD metals (principally arsenic) could
occur at about 12 percent of the 83 cement plants studied. Similar risk
levels due to dioxins are also possible at some additional sites,
although the Agency's data base on dioxin concentrations in CKD was not
extensive enough to conduct a similar large sample study. In addition,
about 18 percent of the plants (mostly the same plants with the higher
estimates for cancer risks) were estimated to have potential non-cancer
hazard ratios greater than 0.1 for highly exposed potential farmer/
fisher individuals. That is, they would contribute enough of a toxic
metal such as cadmium, chromium, or thallium through a possible food
source (fish, vegetable, or beef and milk source) to equal one-tenth of
a subsistence individual's allowable health-based-standard intake from
all sources. In a few instances, a toxic metal food chain exposure was
estimated to exceed a non-cancer health based standard by more than a
factor of 100. Preliminary analysis presented in the September 1994
technical background document also suggested possibilities for
elevation of blood lead levels in children living near uncontrolled CKD
piles, due to food chain exposures.
These indirect pathway risk estimates are based on current standard
Agency methods to account for toxic metals and dioxins to be bio-
concentrated in plant and animal components of foods for human
consumption. The Agency did not have direct data on local food
consumption patterns for backyard gardeners, subsistence farmers, or
recreational or subsistence fishermen in areas of potential exposure.
In this instance, standard Agency assumptions (as documented in the RTC
and background document) regarding consumption rates of home-grown
beef, dairy products, vegetables and family-caught fish were used to
estimate exposures to these potentially affected consumers.
The particular sites selected for indirect pathway analysis from
among the 83 plants in EPA's study were carefully screened with respect
to the potential for CKD releases from currently active piles and
exposures via land, air, and surface water pathways. Proximity to
nearby streams or lakes (for possible risk via fish ingestion) and
distance to actual farm fields and rural dwellings likely to have
gardens (for potential exposures from home grown vegetables and/or beef
and milk) were determined from a variety of sources, including company-
provided maps, U.S. Geological Survey maps, and aerial photographs.
[[Page 7371]]
EPA's risk assessment work did not explicitly consider the
potential for changes in population around CKD management units, which
would alter future direct and indirect exposure potentials. Proximity
to the source is one of the more important determinants of risk, and
many cement plants are experiencing encroachment by human populations.
The Agency also studied several off-site beneficial uses
of waste dust. Most current off-site uses, such as for waste
stabilization or general construction, are either currently regulated
(under RCRA for hazardous waste stabilization, or under the Clean Water
Act in the case of municipal sewage sludge) or appear to present low
risk due to low exposure potential. However, one current use--as a
lime/fertilizer substitute on agricultural fields--was found to present
some potential for indirect food chain risk under plausible exposure
modeling assumptions for highly exposed farmers.
As reported in the RTC and the December 1993 technical background
document, median industry-wide CKD constituent concentration values for
metals and dioxins did not yield cancer or non-cancer human health
risks of concern when modeled using current Agency indirect food chain
modeling procedures and a normal land application rate of two tons of
CKD per acre every three to five years. However, cancer risks for
subsistence farming in excess of 1 x 10-4 (1 in 10,000) were
estimated when high-end (upper 95th percentile) reported constituent
concentration levels for metals and dioxins were used.
Again, these indirect exposure results should be reviewed with
caution due to the substantial uncertainties involved in this risk
modeling methodology, which is still under refinement and peer review.
The Agency believes, the results do suggest the need for further study
regarding possible human health implications from this current off-site
use of CKD.
G. Environmental Justice
As part of its analysis of risks to human health posed by CKD, the
Agency investigated whether there are environmental justice issues
associated with the management of CKD. Executive Order 12989, dated
February 11, 1994, and titled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' directs federal agencies to consider environmental
justice issues. The Agency's risk modeling results indicate that
subsistence farmers and subsistence fish consumers would be most
susceptible to the risks posed by the management of CKD.8 In the
RTC, EPA solicited comment on the prevalence of these activities around
existing cement manufacturing facilities. The Agency also requested
comment on environmental justice issues (i.e., the fair treatment of
people of all cultures, incomes, and educational levels with respect to
protection from environmental hazards) associated with the management
of CKD.
\8\For purposes of this report, subsistence farmers and
subsistence fish consumers are those whose diets are very heavily
dependent on home-grown foods or locally caught fish. Particularly
high exposures to contaminants can result from bioaccumulation of
toxic constituents in the locally-grown farm products or fish,
compounded by a high proportion of these foods in the diet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the NODA, EPA announced the availability of a report
titled Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of Populations Living Near
Cement Kilns in the United States. The report includes numerous
analyses and summaries of the demographics data, and is available in
the RCRA docket. One analysis indicated that, of the facilities
studied, approximately three-fourths of the sites have a minority
population at or below the national average of 24 percent living within
one mile of the facility while the remaining sites had minority
populations higher than the national average living within a mile of
the site. With regard to poverty level, approximately 54 percent of the
facilities had less than 13 percent of the population (national
average) living below the poverty level within one mile of the facility
while 46 percent of the facilities had more than 13 percent of the
population living below the poverty level within one mile of the
facility.
H. Potential Costs and Impacts of Subtitle C Regulation
The analysis presented in the RTC indicates that if CKD were
managed as a RCRA hazardous waste under the full Subtitle C regulatory
scheme, including minimum technology (RCRA section 3004(o)) and land
disposal restriction requirements (RCRA section 3004(d-g)), there would
most likely be significant compliance costs for a substantial number of
cement plants. Costs would, however, vary considerably, depending on
individual plant efficiencies in converting raw materials into finished
cement. For the 25 percent or so of U.S. cement plants that presently
generate little or no wasted dust for on-site disposal, compliance
costs for CKD would be negligible. For the remaining 75 percent, the
Agency estimates the annualized incremental compliance costs at between
$2 million and $14 million per year per plant (not including corrective
action), depending on an individual plant's current CKD quantity and
local landfill construction conditions. This range for typical annual
plant costs translates into $3 to $28 per ton of cement, or 6 to 56
percent of a plant's annual gross value of sales (at a nominal selling
price of $50 per ton of cement).
Such high costs are a result of the relatively high waste-to-
product ratios among plants in this industry and the high unit
compliance costs for the full Subtitle C technology. Costs at
individual plants might be reduced if facility operators could decrease
net waste generation rates by improving basic plant efficiencies,
substituting lower alkali raw materials, or implementing dust
reclamation and recycling technologies, as discussed in Chapters 8 and
9 of the RTC. The extent to which these pollution prevention options
can be implemented economically, however, is uncertain.
For those facilities with high CKD generation rates that cannot
reduce their waste-to-product ratios economically, costs for the full
Subtitle C scenario would be prohibitively high, and a substantial
portion of the industry could become noncompetitive. Projected impacts
under this regulatory scenario suggest a substantial curtailment of
domestic cement capacity and production, a shift in market share
towards the more efficient domestic producers, higher prices for cement
in most regions of the country, and substantially increased imports.
Important secondary impacts on regional construction industries and on
small communities affected by cement industry employment losses also
would be projected.
The costs of managing CKD as a hazardous waste would be reduced if
certain Subtitle C requirements (e.g., land disposal restrictions,
minimum technology requirements for managing CKD) were modified. In the
RTC, the Agency speculated that plant-level costs under this scenario
might amount to one-third to one-half the cost of full Subtitle C for
typical plants with median to high CKD generation rates. Alternative,
more tailored standards were estimated to require even lower compliance
costs, particularly for favorably located plants or plants already
employing available containment measures. Depending upon specific
requirements, the costs for these types of controls generally were less
than one percent of the industry cement sales value, although they
could be higher for some facilities located in areas of karst terrain,
which might [[Page 7372]] require more extensive ground water
protection measures.
In addition to these two lower-cost versions of a possible Subtitle
C land management option, the cement industry suggested, in public
comment, a ``voluntary contingent management practice'' proposal, that
was estimated by industry representatives to cost between $5 and $14
per ton of CKD at various plants and to average about $10 per ton.
Although EPA has not been able to confirm these estimates, this land
disposal technology would, using the industry's cost figures, require
an average industry-wide compliance cost of about one percent of gross
cement sales.
Though by no means negligible, costs averaging one per cent of
sales would not imply the dire consequences for the industry that would
be suggested by the full Subtitle C regulatory scenario.
In addition, cost effective dust reduction and reclamation options
remain a possibility under any of the regulatory scenarios discussed.
Industry representatives in public comment have challenged the efficacy
and cost effectiveness of these waste reduction and recovery options.
Nevertheless, operational prototypes do exist and technologies such as
the Passamaquoddy flue-gas scrubber and alkali leaching (both described
in Chapter 8 of the RTC) do show benefits in stack gas pollution
control and/or by-product sales to help offset capital and operating
costs, as well as reducing basic raw material requirements. Further
examination of the economics of the Passamaquoddy recovery scrubber, as
reported in the September NODA document, indicated that prospective
unit costs for plants with lower CKD quantities would be higher than
originally estimated in the RTC. However, otherwise, the Agency
continues to believe that this and other alternatives can potentially
serve as technically and economically viable options to land disposal
of CKD, at least for some plants.
I. Regulatory Options
Based on the findings of the RTC, the Agency considered a number of
options for the management of CKD. These options represent a range of
requirements for management of CKD waste. From these, the Agency chose
to highlight five specific options, including three in which CKD would
be managed under RCRA Subtitle C. (For more detail on the options, see
59 FR 709, 1/6/94.) The specific options are:
Option 1: Retain the CKD exemption.
Option 2: Retain the CKD exemption, but the Agency would enter into
voluntary agreements with the industry whereby they would implement
dust recycling technologies, reduce waste, and monitor and control CKD
management and use.
Option 3: Remove the CKD exemption, but delay implementation for
some period of time (e.g., two years) that would allow industry time to
employ pollution prevention measures.
Option 4: Remove the CKD exemption, and implement the compliance
measures within six months.
Option 5: Promulgate tailored regulatory standards for the
management of CKD waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.
In presenting this list of options, the Agency noted that control
of CKD under Subtitle C may not be warranted or appropriate if other
statutes administered by EPA (such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act) are better suited to address the
concerns identified in the RTC. The Agency indicated that these
statutes were also being considered in the Agency's decision to either
retain or remove the CKD exemption.
III. Applying the Decision Rationale in Making the Regulatory
Determination
In its decision making process, the Agency's approach was the same
as for previous special waste determinations9. As explained in the
RTC, the study factors were evaluated in a step-wise sequence to arrive
at a decision. This approach allows EPA to make a systematic evaluation
of the information presented in the RTC, the notices, and in all public
comments. The Agency has carefully evaluated all comments received in
making its decision. (All of the comments received on the RTC, the
NODA, and the correction notice are addressed in the background
documents titled Analysis of and Responses to Comments on the Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust and Analysis of and Consolidated Responses
to Comments on the Notice of Data Availability, which are available in
the RCRA docket.)
\9\For a discussion of EPA's approach in combining the RCRA
study factors, see the discussion of the Agency's approach in the
Final Regulatory Determination and Final Rule for Special Wastes
From Mineral Processing (56 FR 27300, June 13, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency considers its step-wise methodology to be consistent
with Congressional intent that EPA consider all the study factors
listed in RCRA section 8002(o). In addition, EPA received no
substantive comments on the RTC that disagreed with any aspect of its
decision methodology. Therefore, no changes have been made in the
approach.
The step-wise process that the Agency applied to the available
information is presented below.
A. Step 1: Does Management of CKD Pose Human Health and Environmental
Problems? Might Current Practices Cause Problems in the Future?
The initial component of the Agency's decision making process is to
determine whether CKD either has or may adversely impact human health
or the environment. To resolve these issues, EPA has posed the
following key questions:
Substep 1. Has CKD as Currently Managed, Caused Documented Human Health
Impacts or Environmental Damage?
The Agency has determined that CKD has caused documented impacts
(and may continue to cause impacts) at levels of concern. As explained
in the RTC, danger to human health and the environment is defined to
include various effects associated with the management of CKD,
including acute and chronic human health effects, significant
impairment of natural resources (e.g., contamination of a source of
drinking water), degradation of natural ecosystems and habitats, and
detrimental impacts to terrestrial or aquatic fauna. A case is
considered proven if damages are documented as part of a scientific
investigation, administrative ruling, or court decision. In its
examination of cases of damage to human health and the environment, the
Agency identified fourteen cases of ground water and/or surface water
contamination (10 documented and 4 potential), including two sites that
are listed on the CERCLA (Superfund) National Priorities List (NPL). In
each case, there is information available to indicate that on-site
surface water and/or ground water has been affected by CKD management
units. Typical impacts include elevated pH, total dissolved solids, and
sulfate above secondary federal or state concentration limits as well
as elevated levels of certain potentially toxic metals such as arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and lead that are above primary drinking water MCLs.
One of the NPL sites with ground water damage is in an area of
karst terrain. The RTC described a release at this site of contaminants
to ground and surface water through a ``blowout'' (i.e., sudden
discharge) into a nearby creek that resulted in increased turbidity and
an abrupt decline in stream biota [[Page 7373]] downstream of the
release. An investigation by the facility showed waste kiln dust to be
the original source of contamination. Since the site is in an area of
karst terrain, it is both logical and reasonable to believe that the
waste dust rapidly migrated through discrete channels in the bedrock,
with minimal attenuation, to the point of the blowout. The fact that
this occurred at the site suggests EPA's MMSOILS ground water model is
not suitable for karst type terrain, since the model assumes ground
water migration through bedrock that is uniformly porous, and lacks
discrete channels.
Of particular concern to the Agency is the extent of documented
contamination of ground water. Even though limited information exists
on ground water contamination due to a lack of monitoring programs at
most sites, each case with available information on ground water shows
contamination at levels of concern. Only 17% of all cement
manufacturing facilities have ground water monitoring systems around
their dust management units. These plants are considered to be
representative of the industry. Thus, the Agency considers it likely
that more damages exist, even though it did not conduct a detailed
investigation of ground water beneath all CKD waste management units.
Environmental damages can also be attributed to particulate
emissions of CKD from quarries, haul roads, and CKD handling equipment
(screws, conveyors, and trucks), and are traceable to kilns that do and
do not burn hazardous waste. Several commenters on the RTC indicated
that air dispersion of CKD was a significant source of pollution to
local residents living around cement manufacturing facilities. In
addition, the RTC identified numerous citizen complaints of excessive
particulate matter from cement plant operations collecting on cars,
lawns, gardens, chairs, and other personal property of area residents.
While developing the RTC, the Agency reviewed numerous letters in state
files from residents living near cement kilns who complained of
fugitive dust emissions (which may be due to release of CKD from plant
operations and/or dust disposal piles). Although the Agency recognizes
that dust from mining and quarry operations could contribute to the
particulate emissions from a cement plant, other evidence (i.e., damage
cases) indicates that fugitive CKD emissions are a substantial
contributor to environmental damages in the form of air quality
degradation.
Substep 2. Does EPA's Analysis Indicate That CKD Could Pose Significant
Risk to Human Health or the Environment At Any of the Sites that
Generate It (or In Off-Site Use), Under Either Current Management
Practices or Plausible Management Scenarios?
The Agency's analysis indicates that there are potential risks
warranting concern, from both current on-site management practices and
certain off-site beneficial uses. In the RTC and NODA documents, the
Agency reported on plant-specific risk screening and quantitative risk
modeling conducted to evaluate potential risks from current and
plausible future management of CKD. As summarized in the findings
above, current on-site land management practices appear generally to
pose relatively low risks to human health via direct pathways of
contaminant transport and exposure.
However, with respect to possible ground water contamination, a
large percentage of cement plants (and CKD management units at those
cement plants) are located in areas of karst terrain, many of which may
be underlain by bedrock with hydrological characteristics conducive to
relatively direct leachate transport to off-site locations. In karst
aquifers, contaminants can potentially migrate long distances through
open conduits with little of the filtration, adsorption, and dispersion
that are typical of contaminant dispersal in porous bedrock.
In addition, modeling of windblown dust from CKD management areas
suggests that dust piles, when uncontrolled (i.e., uncovered and dry),
may typically release sufficient quantities of fine particulates to
exceed health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at
plant boundaries, and sometimes as far away as nearby residences.
The Agency's quantitative modeling of ``indirect'' food chain
pathways, both aquatic and agricultural, indicates potential human
health effects, both cancer and non-cancer. A wide range of chemical
constituents, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, thallium,
lead, and dioxins, were indicated as constituents of concern at various
plants. Because some CKD disposal units are located near, and in some
instances immediately adjacent to, farm fields, rural residences with
gardens, or surface waters containing fish, there is potential for
indirect risk from the consumption of CKD-contaminated beef, vegetables
and fish, as well as ingestion of CKD-contaminated water during
recreational swimming.
Although limited by available data and assessment methodology, the
Agency's risk assessment studies also indicated potentials for adverse
aquatic ecological effects due to possible chemical releases to streams
and lakes adjacent to some cement plants. Aquatic ecological damages
due to siltation and sedimentation were not specifically studied in the
risk assessment, but were observed in field visits and reported as a
problem in damage case documents and in public comments.
The Agency's risk assessment for off-site beneficial uses of CKD
indicated that, except for direct application as a lime/fertilizer
substitute, most off-site uses do not pose significant risks. Direct
cropland application, however, occurs at a number of locations in the
country and is essentially unregulated at the state and federal levels.
Analysis suggests that, at plausible application rates, CKD that
contain sufficiently high concentrations of arsenic or other metals or
dioxins (as documented in the Agency's CKD constituent data base),
could cause food chain risks of concern that may warrant some type of
regulation for these off-site uses.
Substep 3. Does CKD Exhibit Any of the Characteristics of Hazardous
Waste?
Although all of the toxicity characteristic (TC) metals (arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) were
detected in CKD, CKD exhibits the toxicity characteristic infrequently,
and only for certain metals. This is based analysis of the CKD
analytical data available to the Agency. Although CKD itself is not
corrosive under EPA's rules because it is a solid, water-CKD mixtures
are highly alkaline. Data presented in the RTC indicate that the pH of
CKD leachates (using standard EPA leach test procedures) are typically
between 11 and 13 standard units. In addition, the elevated pH of a
CKD-water mixture is a prominent factor in 10 out of 14 cases of damage
(documented and potential) to surface water and/or ground water. In six
of these cases, including the ground water damages described for the
two plants listed on the NPL, CKD-water mixtures are reported to have a
pH exceeding the EPA standard of 12.5 for corrosive hazardous waste (40
CFR 261.22).
The results of Step 1 of the decision process indicate that CKD has
posed and may continue to pose risks to human health and the
environment under plausible management scenarios. Releases have
occurred and may continue to occur as a result of current
[[Page 7374]] management practices (e.g., management of CKD in unlined,
uncovered piles near shallow ground water and surface water bodies),
posing risk to human health and the environment.
B. Step 2: Is More Stringent Regulation Necessary and Desirable?
EPA evaluated State and Federal regulations pertaining to CKD
waste. The Agency has determined that the answer to this question is
yes, more stringent regulation of CKD is necessary and desirable.
Substep 1. Are Current Practices Adequate to Limit Contaminant Release
and Associated Risk?
The Agency has determined that current practices are inadequate to
limit contaminant releases and associated risks. CKD is now managed
primarily on-site in non-engineered landfills, piles, and ponds. Many
piles and landfills lack liners, leachate controls, or run-on/run-off
collection systems. In addition, while dust suppression measures exist
at many facilities, it appears that they are generally ineffective at
controlling airborne releases of CKD.
Substep 2. Are Current Federal and State Regulatory Controls Adequate
to Address the Management of CKD?
The Agency has determined that Federal and State regulatory
controls need to be improved for the proper management of CKD. Some
existing regulations do apply to CKD piles, but are rarely tailored to
the cement industry. In addition, problems with repeated releases of
CKD to the environment suggest that implementation of existing
regulations is uneven.
The Agency has analyzed the application of regulations and
standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for cement manufacturing
facilities. Implementation of the CAA requirements varies from State to
State. In addition to the baseline Federal requirements,10 each of
the four States studied in the RTC selectively implements more
stringent standards on a case-by-case basis. For example, California
regulates two more pollutants than required under the NAAQS.
Pennsylvania has fugitive dust controls as a permit condition and
discourages the open storage of CKD.
\10\The Clean Air Act is implemented through the State
implementation plan (SIP). As explained in the RTC, the Clean Air
Act as amended (see section 110(a)(2)) requires an acceptable SIP to
contain detailed provisions to address: Emission limitations and
control measures; monitoring requirements, review of new and
modified sources for compliance with new source performance
standards, prevention of significant deterioration, and non-
attainment review; adequate legal authority; and a permit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes that there are adequate existing authorities in
the Clean Air Act to address risks via the air pathway posed by the
management of CKD. However, there appears to be a need for increased
regulation and implementation under the Clean Air Act. The Agency has
information that indicates releases of particulate emissions at cement
plants are common, persistent, and continuing. The RTC documents 21
incidents of CKD releases at 13 facilities. With the exception of one
case that involved fugitive dust emissions from a CKD pile, all cases
involved visible emissions violations (opacity) related to equipment
malfunctions associated with CKD handling equipment (kilns, baghouses,
screw conveyors)11. In addition, persistent releases of CKD are
documented in the Agency's NODA for one facility in Pennsylvania. This
facility was cited for 16 air emissions violations between March 1983
and June 1989. Also, significant releases of airborne particulates at
other facilities were frequently observed first-hand by Agency staff
during the course of this study12.
\11\One plant has submitted a video to the Agency that indicates
that its CKD management practices have changed.
\12\A general description of these emissions can be found in the
EPA CKD sampling trip reports which are located in the support
section of the RCRA docket on the Report to Congress, Docket No. F-
94-RCKA-FFFFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numeric standards for point source discharges of wastewater from
cement facilities have been established under the Clean Water Act, and
are administered through the NPDES permit program (40 CFR part 122)
along with industry-tailored effluent limitations for runoff from
materials storage piles (40 CFR part 411). Indirect discharges via
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are subject to general
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR part 403. Wastewater discharges
from individual facilities may also be subject to state water quality
standards and state or local effluent discharge standards.
In addition, EPA proposed a multi-sector stormwater general permit
under the NPDES program on November 19, 1993 (58 FR 61146). The
proposed permit contains limits to control effluent discharges specific
to the cement industry (among other industries) and requires each plant
to develop facility-specific pollution prevention plans and demonstrate
best management practices (BMP) to minimize the contact between
stormwater runoff and CKD or other pollutant sources, or else remove
CKD (or other constituents) before the stormwater is discharged. This
permit will be in addition to previously issued and effective storm
water baseline general permits that were issued in 1992 by EPA and
between 1991 and 1993 by the 40 states with authorized NPDES programs.
The final multi-sector storm water general permit is expected to be
issued by EPA in early 1995.
With respect to ground water, there are no Federal standards that
are adequate to address the risks posed by CKD via the ground water
pathway. The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300 f-j) protects
drinking water by setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for toxic
contaminants, including metals. However, drinking water standards are
only protective at the point of consumption. Public water supply wells
are protected through the wellhead protection program under the SDWA
(41 U.S.C. 300h-7(e)).
Of the states studied in the RTC, three (California, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania) have primacy for implementing the NPDES program. The
program in Texas is administered by EPA but incorporates more stringent
Texas water quality requirements. These four states have ground water
protection programs that set non-degradation of ground water quality as
a goal. In addition, Texas implements an EPA-approved wellhead
protection program.
Water quality regulations vary from state to state. California's
water quality program includes long range resource planning, annual
inspection of all facilities, and compliance with stringent surface
water and ground water quality standards. The California program also
grants broad enforcement authority to its State Water Resources Control
Boards. Pennsylvania and Michigan inspect major industrial dischargers
(including some cement plants) annually, and enforce permit
requirements. In addition, Michigan requires compliance with ground
water quality standards. Pennsylvania approaches ground water
protection through permit requirements for wastewater and stormwater
discharges, but has no separate ground water quality standards. In
Texas, cement plants are considered ``minor'' facilities and are not
inspected annually like all facilities that have major discharges,
unless the facility burns hazardous waste, has a past record of
environmental violations, or has a complaint filed against it. However,
Texas is considering requiring [[Page 7375]] subsurface investigations
at all facilities that dispose of CKD as part of an effort to establish
minimum technical standards for the on-site management of CKD.
The Clean Water Act, through existing effluent guideline
regulations, NPDES permits, water quality standards, and existing and
forthcoming storm water permits, provide considerable authority to
control risks associated with contamination of surface waters by the
management of CKD.\13\ However, EPA has identified releases of CKD to
surface waters, and to ground water as well. In its investigation of
CKD waste, the Agency uncovered 14 cases of water damage, of which
seven involved ground water. Both ground water and surface water
damages were major factors cited for including two CKD disposal units
on the CERCLA NPL. Furthermore, only 17% of all CKD management units
nationwide have ground water monitoring systems, while 25 of 91 cement
manufacturing facilities (27 percent) were reported in a 1991 industry
survey to be located within one mile of a public drinking water well.
\13\In fact, the Agency believes that once the storm water
permits are fully implemented, no further water permits or
regulations will be needed to address releases to surface water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above analysis, the Agency believes the following
factors warrant additional environmental controls for CKD: (1) The
general lack of current regulations applicable to contaminant
discharges to ground water for protection of human health and the
environment; (2) the general lack of ground water monitoring systems at
CKD disposal units; and (3) the existence of damages to ground water
and air that are persistent and continuing, and for which no
requirements exist to address the risks posed via these pathways.
At the federal level, authorities exist to address site-specific
problems posing imminent and substantial danger to human health or the
environment under RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA sections 104 and 106.
However, the Agency believes that cost-effective controls that prevent
contamination are preferable to cleaning up after contamination and
damages occur.
C. Step 3: What Would Be the Operational and Economic Consequences of A
Decision To Regulate Under Subtitle C?
The Agency has determined that industry-wide regulation of CKD
under full Subtitle C, including land disposal restrictions, would
impose extremely high costs on a substantial portion of the U.S. cement
industry. While the Agency believes that CKD waste minimization and
reclamation/recycling options exist that could limit the cost exposure
for many plants, there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement at
this time regarding their general technical availability and ability to
serve as low cost substitutes for land management of CKD.
Thus, it is likely that full Subtitle C regulation could impose
compliance costs in excess of 20 percent of sales value for a
significant part of the industry and a resulting inability to compete.
Expected economic consequences include a combination of reduced
domestic cement capacity and production, sharply higher prices for
cement (particularly in interior regions of the country), and
substantially increased imports. Substantial adverse secondary effects
on regional construction industries and on communities experiencing
losses in cement industry-related employment could also be expected.
Thus, based on the factors in RCRA section 3001(b)(3) and section
8002(o), full RCRA Subtitle C regulation is unwarranted. However, the
Agency also believes that special Subtitle C regulations tailored to
local cement plant conditions could be developed using the broad
regulatory flexibility provided by RCRA, including section 2002,
section 3001(b)(3)(C), and section 3004(x). These regulations could be
based on either technology or performance standards or a combination of
both. These regulations could be implemented at far lower cost at most
plant locations requiring controls to prevent contamination of ground
water. In addition, regulations for CKD to prevent releases to the air
can be improved or implemented under CAA authority, and releases to
surface water are regulated under CWA authority. These authorities
provide the Agency with additional flexibility to prevent releases of
CKD to the environment, while at the same time minimizing the burden on
the regulated community.
The cement industry's voluntary CKD management proposal, submitted
as a comment on the RTC, tends to support this conclusion. This
tailored program for constructing and operating CKD monofills would
include the following site-specific features: a hydrogeological
assessment, water inflow modeling, ground water monitoring, surface
water management in accord with NPDES and storm water discharge
permits, run-on/run-off controls, fugitive dust emissions control
measures, personnel training, a written closure plan, financial
assurance, and post-closure care, including security and maintenance
and repair of the cap and vegetation as suggested by periodic
inspections. Thus, special tailored standards under Subtitle C of RCRA
as well as under other Agency authorities can be expected to pose far
less dire consequences for the U.S. cement industry and the economy as
a whole than would regulation under full Subtitle C.
IV. Regulatory Determination for Cement Kiln Dust
Pursuant to RCRA sections 3001(b)(3)(C) and 8002(o), EPA has
determined that additional control of CKD is warranted. The Agency's
concerns about the harm to human health and the environment posed by
CKD suggest the need for regulation under RCRA Subtitle C authority.
However, the Agency recognizes that certain of these areas of concern
(those related to releases to air and surface waters) are more
appropriately controlled under other EPA-administered statutes. In
order to avoid unnecessary duplication among regulatory programs, EPA
would rather use the other existing regulatory programs to control
risks where appropriate, and develop a more creative, affordable, and
common sense approach that would control the adverse effects of CKD.
The Agency will develop, promulgate, and implement regulations for
CKD as necessary to protect human health and the environment by using a
variety of statutes. This regulatory program will apply to CKD from all
cement manufacturing facilities, regardless of the type(s) of fuels
used in the manufacturing process, or other factors. In particular, the
Agency will develop and implement additional controls/activities to
limit releases to the air using its Clean Air Act authority. For
surface waters, the Agency believes that existing regulations and the
planned general permit under the NPDES permitting program will provide
an adequate mechanism for controlling point source discharges and for
managing storm water that contains CKD. Thus, no additional water
controls, beyond these already planned, are considered necessary.
The Agency will evaluate the need for additional controls for a
limited number of off-site uses of CKD (such as use as a lime
fertilizer on agricultural fields) in its regulatory proposal. However,
for most off-site uses (e.g., in waste stabilization or certain
construction uses) EPA's current record indicates there are no
significant risks. The Agency will restrict its focus to those
[[Page 7376]] off-site uses for which there are significant risks.
With respect to ground water, the Agency will use its authority
under Subtitle C of RCRA to address these concerns. The Agency will use
its broad authority provided by RCRA section 2002(a), section
3001(b)(3)(C), and section 3004(x) to develop a program tailored to
local cement plant conditions to control the specific risks identified
while minimizing compliance costs. Until the Subtitle C tailored rules
take effect, the Agency will retain the Bevill exemption. The Bevill
exemption will be removed when final regulations under RCRA authority
take effect.
The Agency believes that subjecting CKD waste to the full RCRA
Subtitle C program would be prohibitively burdensome on the cement
industry, and is not a feasible regulatory option under the factors
cited in RCRA section 8002(o). Although EPA at this time is not
proposing the specifics of a RCRA regulatory program for CKD, EPA
intends to apply only those components of Subtitle C that are
necessary, based on our current knowledge of the cement industry and
the human health and environmental concerns associated with CKD, to
achieve a common sense result with respect to the hazards posed by CKD
on a site-specific basis. The Agency anticipates that any such
standards would be designed to be protective, yet minimally burdensome,
and may not necessarily apply to all facilities or may not apply to all
facilities in the same manner or to the same extent.
The specific RCRA Subtitle C components that EPA believes may
deserve particular scrutiny in developing a minimal, tailored approach,
including site-specific considerations, include the following:
facility-wide corrective action under section 3004(u); land disposal
restriction requirements (LDRs) under sections 3004 (c), (d), (e), (f)
and (g); minimum technology standards under section 3004(o); and permit
requirements under section 3005. EPA believes that most of the concerns
addressed by the land disposal restrictions program, permit
requirements, and the minimum technology standards might be best
addressed through management standards developed specifically for CKD,
and the Agency will carefully study those possibilities as an
alternative to some or all LDRs and minimum technology standards.
Moreover, because the costs for including all solid waste management
units under facility-wide corrective action at all cement plants may be
prohibitively burdensome on the cement industry, EPA intends to explore
less burdensome, site-specific, tailored approaches to identifying and
correcting problems that may occur from existing CKD piles and
preventing problems arising from future CKD management. This may
include ground water monitoring, a reliance on existing response
authorities under RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA (or state response
authorities), or may focus on site-specific factors, such as geography
and hydrology, in determining the need for corrective action
requirements. Because most of the Agency's ground water concerns are
associated with potential contamination in areas of limestone with
karst features, EPA will focus on tailored standards for CKD disposal
in karst terrain. The Agency believes that concerns about contamination
in non-karst areas can be addressed through the adoption by industry of
good CKD waste management practices.
In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to consider other RCRA
Subtitle C requirements to see if, and to what extent, they are
necessary to address the human health and environmental concerns
discussed in this regulatory determination. In doing so, EPA will also
consider the costs associated with those Subtitle C requirements. EPA
intends to develop a regulatory program for CKD waste only after full
participation by the various stakeholders. Consistent with the spirit
of that commitment, EPA at this time is neither definitively limiting
the scope of, nor determining that any particular elements necessarily
will be included in any proposed CKD regulatory program.
Finally, as discussed in the RTC, CKD is often re-introduced into
the kiln as a substitute for raw material in clinker production. In the
absence of the CKD regulatory exemption, under certain regulatory
scenarios clinker produced from re-introduced CKD could be considered a
hazardous waste under the derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). As
part of the regulations that EPA will promulgate as a result of today's
determination, EPA intends to propose exclusion of clinker from
regulation as a derived-from hazardous waste when CKD is reintroduced.
When reintroduced, CKD does not contribute any constituents to clinker
production that are not already present in the production process.
Furthermore, at this time, EPA has no indication that such clinker
poses unacceptable threats to human health or the environment.
V. Next Steps
This section provides an overview of the Agency's plans for
developing and issuing tailored regulations for CKD. The Agency
recognizes that the selection of a regulatory approach for CKD waste
may involve difficult choices and policy decisions with wide-ranging
economic and environmental implications. EPA believes that the
development of regulations under multiple statutes (without duplication
among regulatory programs) that adequately address the risks identified
in the RTC, yet are economically affordable to the industry, should
involve participation by all interested parties. To this end, EPA is
announcing a regulation development process designed to encourage
involvement by all stakeholders. The regulation development process
will be conducted in similar fashion to the Agency's Common Sense
Initiative, notably with early-on participation by all stakeholders.
This process will be directed towards development of environmentally
protective regulations that provide for highly flexible methods to
administer and implement them. The Agency's concern for minimizing the
burden on State and local regulatory authorities and minimizing
compliance costs and resource burdens on the regulated community will
be an important principle in the regulation development process.
EPA will begin this process by conducting a series of meetings with
interested parties, including industry, government, and public interest
groups. The initial meetings with the parties will be used to solicit
technical information and approaches that will facilitate the Agency's
analysis of regulatory options (e.g., CKD management technologies, cost
information, and economic information). The Agency plans to conduct the
initial meetings during the spring and summer of 1995. Before these
meetings are held, the Agency will identify specific questions and
issues on which the Agency would like to receive information.
During the regulation development process, the Agency will use the
information in the cumulative record of the RTC and regulatory
determination, along with any new information received, to formulate
its approach to developing tailored regulations for CKD. Before the
rule is proposed, the Agency may publish an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) to present and solicit comment on various approaches
to developing the regulations. [[Page 7377]]
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354),
which amends the Administrative Procedure Act, requires Federal
regulatory agencies to consider ``small entities'' throughout the
regulatory development process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an
initial screening analysis to be performed to determine whether a
substantial number of small entities will be significantly affected by
a regulation. Under current internal EPA guidance, however, any
economic impact is considered a significant impact, and any number of
small entities is a substantial number.14
\14\ USEPA, 1992. EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation,
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In keeping with this policy, EPA has performed an initial
evaluation of the domestic cement industry to determine whether or not
there are small entities operating U.S. cement plants. The results of
this analysis show that 23 of the 115 operating domestic cement plants
are owned and operated by companies that are defined as small
entities.15 These 23 plants are owned/operated by 16 of the 40
companies comprising the domestic cement industry.
\15\ The definition of small entity is established by the
Federal Small Business Administration, which has promulgated
regulations found at 13 CFR 121.601. The criterion for determining
small business status in the hydraulic cement industry (SIC Code
3241) is company-wide employment of less than 750 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in today's regulatory determination EPA does not establish
new regulatory controls, the Agency has not conducted a full Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in support of today's action. EPA will, however,
consider the potential impacts of the new regulations that will be
developed as a result of this action on these small entities. In the
process, the Agency will examine potential impacts of regulatory
alternatives on these entities, and identify and evaluate alternative
approaches that could mitigate such impacts, as required by the RFA.
VII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 10/4/93), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order. This action was submitted to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.
VIII. Regulatory Determination Docket
Documents related to this regulatory determination, including EPA's
response to the public comments, are available for inspection in the
docket. The relevant docket numbers are: F-95-RCKD-FFFFF for the
regulatory determination, F-94-RCKA-FFFFF for the RTC and F-94-RC2A-
FFFFF for the NODA. The EPA RCRA docket is located at the following
address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA RCRA
Docket, Room M2616, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket
is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. The public must make an appointment to review docket
materials. Call the docket clerk at (202) 260-9327. Copies are free up
to 100 pages and thereafter cost $0.15 per page.
In addition to the data and information that was included in the
docket to support the RTC on CKD and the Technical Background
Documents, the docket also includes the following documents:
Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments on the Report
To Congress; and
Analysis of and Response to Comments on the Notice of Data
Availability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Bevill exemption, Cement kiln dust,
Incineration, Special wastes.
Dated: January 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-2832 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
