=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #243
—July 24, 1991—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
CITIZENS DEVELOP NEW TACTICS TO DRIVE TOXICS OUT OF CEMENT KILNS.
The fastest-growing sector of the hazardous waste “management”
industry is cement kilns that “recycle” hazardous waste by
blending it with fuel and burning it for heat to make cement. The
trade magazine Waste Age reported results of a survey conducted
by the Portland Cement Association [Skokie, IL; (312) 966-6200]
in February, 1990 (pg. 146), showing that 24 out of 116 U.S.
cement plants were burning hazardous waste. A survey published
four months later in June, 1990, in EI DIGEST (pgs. 14-23)
revealed that the number had jumped 25% to 30 kilns burning
waste. It seems very likely that the number is considerably
higher today, a year later. Today somewhere between 1.0 and 1.8
million tons of hazardous waste is entering cement kilns each
year.
Citizens are naturally concerned about this trend. Air emissions
from cement kilns burning hazardous waste are substantially
larger than those of cement kilns not burning hazardous waste.
Toxic residues from a hazardous waste incinerator must legally be
sent to a hazardous waste landfill where someone must watch them
into the foreseeable future. On the other hand, toxic residues
from hazardous wastes burned in a cement kiln can legally be
mixed into the cement and thus distributed into the environment,
liability-free. A 1989 Greenpeace report estimated that cement
kilns that year released 14 million pounds of unburned hazardous
waste and two million pounds of toxic heavy metals into the
environment via the smoke stack. The same report estimated that
hazardous residues from hazardous waste combustion in cement
kilns in 1989 totaled 6.7 billion pounds of ash, containing as
much as 18.6 million pounds of toxic heavy metals.[1] These
toxins went into the cement.
According to government insiders, the Combustion Section of the
Office of Solid Waste within U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection
Agency] has gone out of its way to assist the cement industry as
it developed a new sideline: helping make the nation’s its
hazardous waste problem “go away.”
An EPA employee, Hugh B. Kaufman, wrote a letter Dec. 7, 1990, to
EPA Administrator William Reilly pointing out that “The Agency
[EPA] appears to be engaged in a pattern and practice of
accommodating the regulated cement kiln hazardous waste
incineration industry with nonexistent, or at best loose,
regulation…. As a direct result of the lack of RCRA [Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act] regulations, many sectors of the
cement kiln industry have been transformed into major commercial
hazardous waste disposal companies. The public and the
environment have not been protected from the adverse consequences
of these incineration activities during this time,” Kaufman
charged.[2]
What Can Citizens Do?
Consultant Edward W. Kleppinger, Ph.D., has suggested several
things citizens could do if they became concerned about a local
cement kiln.[3]
1) If your local kiln is not presently burning hazardous waste,
ask them to sign a pledge not to do it.
2) Contact your local Congressperson. Express your concerns and
ask for public hearings on the matter.
3) Check whether your local kiln is violating its Clean Air Act
permit.
4) Check whether your local kiln has a wastewater discharge
(NPDES) permit and whether the kiln is in compliance or not.
5) Ask whether the kiln’s hazardous waste operations are
reflected in your fire department’s fire and catastrophe plans?
Adequately reflected? Has the fire department inspected the kiln?
6) If hazardous wastes are being trucked or shipped by rail to
the kiln, the community could create transport controls, such as:
no travel past schools during school hours, or on narrow roads
without a police escort.
7) Is the kiln’s landfill properly permitted? Is it (yet)
impacting local groundwater?
8) Is the kiln complying with any mining permits it holds?
New Tactics Developing
The newest tactic for opposing cement kiln incineration of
hazardous waste has developed among a community of people who are
asking, “What is this doing to the quality of the cement?”
The City Council of Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 1991, passed a
resolution opposing a plan by a major cement company (Holnam,
Inc.) to burn hazardous waste in its Boettcher Plant. [Holnam was
already burning hazardous waste in its cement kilns at Santee,
SC, and Clarksville, MO.] The Council went on record opposing
Holnam’s proposal and directed the city staff to develop a plan
for opposing Holnam. Most importantly, the Council formally
outlawed the use of cement from cement kilns burning hazardous
waste on any cityfunded projects in Fort Collins.
Two days later in Dayton, OH, Price Brothers, one of the nation’s
largest suppliers of cement water mains, announced it was
suspending use of cement made at kilns burning hazardous waste
until such cement was certified safe by the National Sanitary
Foundation.
Clearly, this issue of “cement quality” could become the Achilles
heel of cement kilns burning hazardous waste: if the public turns
against their cement, they’ll think twice about adulterating it
with hazardous waste.
An interesting sidelight on the “cement quality” issue: Edward
Kleppinger, an engineer, petitioned the American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) November 19, 1990, to consider whether
adulteration of cement with hazardous waste is a violation of
ASTM regulation C-150, which states, “The cement covered by
[regulation C-150] shall contain no addition except…” followed
by a short list of materials that can be added to cement, such as
water and calcium sulfate; the list does not include toxic metals
or other hazardous waste constituents. Dr. Kleppinger asked the
ASTM whether a new standard needs to be developed for waste-free
cement vs. waste-containing cement. ASTM has charged a
subcommittee of Committee C-1 with developing a response to Dr.
Kleppinger.
The ASTM subcommittee is headed by Ron Gebhardt of the New Jersey
firm, Cemtech L.P. [limited partnership]. Cemtech L.P. was formed
in April, 1991, by a partnership between Holnam cement and
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., the hazardous waste subsidiary
of Waste Management, Inc., which is the nation’s largest and
most-often-fined hazardous waste management firm. Cemtech, which
became Cemtech L.P. in April, 1991, has its own colorful history;
as recently as April, its CEO was Herb Case who was convicted in
federal court in 1983 for illegally dumping millions of gallons
of toxic chemical wastes into the Lone Pine landfill in Freehold,
NJ, and into the Newark, NJ, sewer system, according to United
Press International.[4] Mr. Case has recently severed all
connections with Cemtech L.P. Mr. Gebhardt has been with Cemtech
two years. In an interview, Mr. Gebhardt said Dr. Kleppinger was
“raising specious issues.” A draft response to Dr. Kleppinger has
gone out to subcommittee members for approval or disapproval. The
subcommittee has 44 members.
In an interview, ASTM staff member Scott Orthey [1916 Race St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 2995400] said ASTM would welcome
participation of “anyone interested in cement quality issues” in
the ASTM’s deliberations over hazardous waste residues in cement.
He said ASTM’s goal was a consensus of “everyone interested, not
just producers and users of cement.” He said ordinary citizens
concerned about these issues would be welcome in the ASTM’s
deliberations.
Citizens are now looking for large projects (sports arenas,
hospitals, schools) that local politicians can be persuaded to
give assurances will only use toxics-free cement. Through
publicity, these citizens aim to create two classes of cement in
the minds of the public: toxics-free cement and the other kind,
made by kilns burning hazardous waste.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: incineration; cement kilns; waste age;
surveys; portland cement association; hazardous waste; toxic
substances; regulation; epa; kaufman; reilly; kleppinger; npdes;
compliacne; fort collins; co; boettcher; santee; sc; clarksville;
mo; dayton; oh; astm; gebhardt; cemtech lp; chemical waste
management, inc; wmi; case; freehold; nj; lone pine; newark; upi;
orthey; pa;