[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39169-39173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18871]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPPTS-211042A; FRL-4968-9]


TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to Citizens' Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Response to citizens' petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 19, 1995, EPA received a petition under section 21 of 
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2620, signed by 24 
environmental groups located in 10 western and mid-western States. The 
petition asserts that cement-producing plants that burn hazardous 
waste-derived fuel (WDF) in their kilns have higher concentrations of 
toxic metals in their cement end-products, and that these products 
therefore pose risks to end-users. The petition requests that EPA 
promulgate a rule under section 6 of TSCA requiring those producers who 
burn WDF to label their cement with a notice advising consumers of that 
fact, and cautioning them to avoid emitting or breathing the cement 
dust and to avoid direct contact.
    The petition is denied on two grounds: (a) petitioners have not 
substantiated the assertion that burning WDF increases risks posed to 
end-users of cement; and (b) for risk protection purposes, the label 
requested essentially duplicates labeling already required by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director, 
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543, 401 
M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202-260-1024), Internet: TSCA-
H[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Requirements

    Section 21 of TSCA provides that any person may petition EPA to 
initiate proceedings for issuance of rules under sections 4, 6, and 8 
of TSCA, or to issue orders under sections 5(e) or 6(b)(2) of TSCA. A 
section 21 petition must set forth facts which petitioners believe 
establish the need for the rules requested. EPA is required to grant or 
deny the petition within 90 days. If EPA grants the petition, the 
Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 
the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons in the Federal 
Register.
    Within 60 days of denial, or if EPA fails to respond in 90 days, 
the petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to 
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking. For a petition for a new 
rule, the court must provide opportunity for the petition to be 
considered de novo. After hearing the evidence, the court can order EPA 
to initiate the requested action.

II. Approach to Reviewing Petition

    Immediately following receipt of the petition, on April 19th, a 
Workgroup was established with representatives from EPA's Offices of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 
and General Counsel. After receiving an unsolicited comment on the 
petition, on May 15th, the Agency decided to publish a Notice of 
Receipt (60 FR 30538, June 9, 1995), in order to afford all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment. In keeping with the 90 day deadline 
for reaching closure, the Workgroup briefed the Director of the Office 
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics on May 17th, and the Office Director 
subsequently presented the case to the Assistant Administrator for 
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances for a decision.

[[Page 39170]]

    In response to the FR Notice of Receipt, comments were received 
from 8 individuals and 10 organizations. Several samples of current 
cement packaging and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) were also 
received. All comments were reviewed and considered by the Agency 
before reaching its final determination to deny the petition.

III. Background

    On April 19, 1995, EPA received a petition under section 21 of the 
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2620, signed by 24 
environmental groups located in 10 western and mid-western States. The 
petition asserts that cement-producing plants that burn hazardous 
waste-derived fuel (WDF) in their kilns have higher concentrations of 
toxic metals in their cement end-products, and that these products 
therefore pose risks to end-users. The petition requests that EPA 
promulgate a rule under section 6 of the TSCA requiring those producers 
who burn WDF to label their products, in both English and Spanish, with 
the following label.

    WARNING: THIS PRODUCT WAS MADE WHILE BURNING HAZARDOUS WASTE AND 
CONTAINS RESIDUALS OF THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE, INCLUDING INCREASED 
AMOUNTS OF TOXIC AND CARCINOGENIC METALS. AVOID EMITTING AND 
BREATHING DUST FROM THIS PRODUCT AND AVOID DIRECT CONTACT WITH THIS 
PRODUCT.

    Cement is made by heating limestone, clay and other substances to 
very high temperatures in rotary kilns to form a granular material 
called ``clinker'', which is then cooled and ground up with gypsum to 
make cement powder. Cement kiln dust (CKD) waste is generated during 
the production of clinker. Releases to air, water and land from cement 
kilns are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act 
(CWA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1992, 23 
of the 111 domestic cement-producing plants burned WDF to supplement 
traditional fossil fuels (FF) (Ref. 3, p.7367). Air emissions and 
disposal of residues from kilns burning WDF are regulated under the 
Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations issued under RCRA.
    While not central to the petition, CKD is tangentially related to 
petitioners's concerns. CKD is particulate matter, including toxic 
metals, that has been removed from kiln stack gases by air pollution 
control equipment. Once removed, CKD may be: (a) reintroduced into the 
kiln as feedstock; (b) used for such beneficial purposes as general 
construction, waste stabilization, or as a substitute for lime and 
fertilizer in agriculture; or (c) simply disposed. Pursuant to RCRA 
section 8002(o), EPA published a Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust 
in 1993 in which the Agency concluded that although risks associated 
with CKD management are generally low, CKD could, under some 
circumstances, pose a danger to human health and the environment (Ref. 
2). No decision was made at that time regarding the need to treat CKD 
as hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C.
    In February of this year, pursuant to RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C), 
the Agency published a Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust (60 
FR 7366, February 7,1995) in which it concluded that additional control 
of CKD is warranted, and that it would use RCRA Subtitle C and other 
authorities to control risks where appropriate (Ref. 3). Pending 
development of those regulations, CKD retains its exemption from 
regulation under Subtitle C pursuant to the Bevill Amendment contained 
in section 3001(b)(3)(A). The Regulatory Determination also stated that 
the Agency would propose exclusion of clinker as ``derived-from'' 
hazardous waste when CKD is reintroduced into the kiln as feedstock. 
Although the Bevill Amendment conditionally exempted CKD from 
regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C, the BIF regulations 
require kilns burning WDF to test their CKD to ensure that it is not 
significantly affected by the practice (40 CFR 260.112).
    The activities described above address CKD waste disposal issues 
(the focus of both the Report to Congress and the Regulatory 
Determination). The petition, on the other hand, is primarily concerned 
about potential hazards to users posed by toxic metals introduced into 
cement via combustion of WDF. There are, however, four sources of toxic 
metals in cement: (1) the original feedstock; (2) CKD recycled as 
feedstock; (3) the fuel, both FF and WDF, used to heat the kiln; and 
(4) equipment and processes used, particularly refractory kiln bricks 
and the steel balls used to grind clinker (Ref. 1, p.50). The relative 
contribution of each of the four potential sources varies by an unknown 
extent from facility to facility and from time to time. The 
concentrations of metals in cement from any given plant are a function 
of complex interactions among all of these variables. A plant burning 
FF, using feedstock with a high metal content, and recycling CKD 
extensively, for example, might produce cement with high concentrations 
of metals, while one burning WDF using the same feedstock, but 
discarding most of its CKD, might produce cement with lower 
concentrations.

IV. Adverse Effects Associated with Cement

    Based on information provided by petitioners, adverse effects 
associated with cement cited in the petition include: (a) cement eczema 
or cement dermatitis; (b) lung cancer; (c) asthma; and (d) a variety of 
other effects including nosebleeds, ulcers, respiratory distress and 
pneumoconiosis. Of these, cement dermatitis is the most common effect 
associated with cement, because the relationship between exposure to 
cement and dermatitis is well-established, and because the effect can 
occur at relatively low levels of exposure. Frank cement dermatitis is 
generally preceded by a number of years of skin irritation, abrasions, 
and cracks. Once established, cement dermatitis is chronic, even if 
there is no further exposure to cement. The dermatitis sensitization 
threshold is reported to be in the range of 10 to 15 parts per million 
(ppm) hexavalent chromium in cement.

V. Analysis of Petition

    As general background, petitioners argue that CAA, CWA and RCRA 
regulations are tightening restrictions on kiln-generated discharges of 
toxic metals to air, water and land, without restricting transfer of 
these metals into the cement itself. They contend that this incentive 
structure has increased the toxic metals content of cement. However, 
petitioners offer no evidence that concentrations of metals in cement 
have in fact increased. With respect to the objective of the petition, 
EPA notes that if restricting toxic metals from all compartments except 
the end-product is a problem, it would be a problem for all kilns, not 
simply those burning WDF. The essence of the petition is the more 
specific assertion that burning WDF increases the amount of toxic 
metals in cement.
    The petition's assertion is based entirely upon evidence 
petitioners adduce from a 1992 study, published by the Portland Cement 
Association (PCA), that presented data on heavy metal concentrations 
found in both CKD and cement produced in facilities using FF only, and 
in facilities using WDF (Ref. 1). The study determined both ``total'' 
(acid soluble) and ``leachable'' (water soluble) concentrations of 12 
metals (arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, 
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and thallium) in both CKD and cement 
drawn from 97 

[[Page 39171]]
North American kilns. The results were tabulated, among other ways, 
according to whether the originating kilns burned FF or WDF. Relevant 
findings of the study were that (a) the mean ``total metal'' 
concentration of only one metal, chromium, was statistically 
significantly higher in cement from kilns burning WDF than from kilns 
burning FF; (b) for the remaining 11, some of the ``total metal'' 
concentrations were higher and some lower , but none by statistically 
significant amounts; and (c) none of the ``leachable metal'' 
concentrations differed significantly in cement for any of the 12 
metals. Evidence brought forth by petitioners therefore suggests only 
that burning WDF may increase concentrations of chromium in cement; no 
empirical case is made for metals in general.
    Petitioners, however, have not established that burning WDF 
increases even chromium concentrations in cement. There are two flaws 
in the reasoning and evidence presented. The first has to do with the 
inability of the cited PCA study to identify the source of metal 
concentrations found in the cement samples. Although the study 
documented statistically significant higher mean levels of total 
chromium (113 vs. 61.7 ppm) in cement from the kilns burning WDF, the 
authors of that study explicitly cautioned against attributing the 
difference to type of fuel burned:

    Identification of the specific sources of the twelve chemical 
elements in the samples is beyond the scope of this study. Sources 
include fuel, raw materials, refractories, and processing equipment 
that comes into contact with the materials. For any particular kiln 
system, the concentration of these elements in cement and kiln dust 
is a function of the manufacturing process and the total metals 
input from all sources.
    Because of widespread interest in the burning of alternate fuels 
in cement kilns, comparisons are presented in this data summary 
between kiln systems using waste fuels and coal, coke or natural 
gas. However, the reader should not infer that observed differences 
are necessarily attributable to the waste fuels, as that is only one 
of many sources of metals in this multivariate system. (Ref. 1; p.1 
of Data Summary appended to reference)
    Construction Technology Laboratories (CTL), the firm PCA used to 
conduct the study, reiterated this concern in an April 24, 1995 letter 
addressed to the Executive Director of the Cement Kiln Recycling 
Coalition (CKRC), a trade association of cement producers that burn 
WDF. That letter, forwarded by CKRC to EPA on May 15, 1995, states in 
part, that ``It was not the purpose of the study to determine the 
specific sources of trace elements in cements. The work on which this 
report is based did not include a complete material balance for each 
plant that submitted samples. Therefore, increases or decreases in 
trace metals concentrations cannot necessarily be attributed to fuel 
type.''
    The second point has to do with the substance selected by 
petitioners for discussion. They highlighted the statistically 
significant higher concentration of ``total chromium'' found by the PCA 
study in cement from kilns that burned WDF. The following table 
(derived from Ref. 1) also shows the concentrations of ``leachable 
chromium'' found in the same study. The mean difference in leachable 
chromium between kilns burning WDF and FF is not statistically 
significant. The evidence from the study cited by petitioners for 
increased chromium in kilns burning WDF is therefore mixed.

Total and Leachable Chromium Levels Found in Cement Produced Burning WDF
                              and FF (ppm)                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Chromium          Leachable Chromium   
       Levels        ---------------------------------------------------
                       WDF Cement   FF Cement    WDF Cement   FF Cement 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.............         33.3         24.6            3         <1.2
Mean................          113         61.7           12           10
Maximum.............          422          214           24           31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table also sheds light on any practical impact WDF might add 
to risks posed by chromium in cement. The mean concentrations of 
leachable chromium in cement produced with either WDF or FF are in the 
10 to 15 ppm range -- levels at which cement dermatitis could be 
expected if precautionary steps were not taken to avoid dermal contact. 
The maximum levels of leachable chromium detected in both types of 
cement are well above the upper end of that range. For total chromium, 
all values are well above the threshold levels. The risks are therefore 
potentially present in cement regardless of the type of fuel used. If 
these risks are considered sufficiently serious to warrant labeling, 
therefore, the precautionary warning sought by petitioners should 
arguably be affixed to all cement packaging, not simply to cement 
produced in kilns burning WDF.
    The only study petitioners cite as demonstrating that burning WDF 
increases levels of chromium (or any other metal) in cement more than 
burning FF, therefore, cannot confirm that assertion. It further 
suggests that even if the assertion were demonstrated, the magnitude of 
the increase in the amount of chromium, relative to the amount 
typically found in all cement, would not materially alter the pre-
existing level of potential risk. In summary, the only evidence 
petitioners cite as evidence that burning WDF adds toxic metals to 
cement is a study which:
     Found that concentrations of ``total chromium'', not 
metals in general, were statistically significantly higher in cement 
produced in kilns burning WDF--but did not, and was not intended to, 
attribute that difference to WDF;
     Found no statistically significant difference in the 
concentration of leachable chromium in cement produced with and without 
burning WDF; and
     Found that burning both FF and WDF generates 
concentrations of chromium in cement at and above reported threshold 
levels for cement dermatitis.
    EPA's analysis of (a) the material presented by petitioners, and 
(b) the PCA study1, has concluded that petitioners have not 
provided convincing evidence for their basic contention, or for the 
need for regulation under TSCA.

    1 The petition did not include the PCA study. The findings 
reported in the petition regarding the PCA study were drawn from 
data about that study cited in a secondary article supplied by 
petitioners. The caveats on use of the study's findings, contained 
in the original, did not appear in the secondary work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Other Evidence

    Other data are available that bear on the question of whether use 
of WDF adds metals to cement. EPA's Regulatory Determination on Cement 
Kiln Dust, although not concerned with cement, did compare metal 

[[Page 39172]]
concentrations found in CKD produced in plants burning FF and WDF. That 
determination noted that:

    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 concentrations 
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 
(Ref. 3, p.7369).

    Again, the evidence is inconsistent; concentrations of some metals 
in WDF-generated CKD are higher, but others are lower. The continuing 
difficulty, however, is in establishing causality. As previously noted, 
the concentration of metals found in any given plant's cement results 
from complex interactions among several site-specific variables; in the 
absence of a study controlling for these variables, one cannot 
confidently attribute variations in metal concentrations among plants 
to any one source. There is one industry study, A Comparison of Metal 
and Organic Concentrations in Cement and Clinker Made With Fossil Fuels 
to Cement and Clinker Made with Waste Derived Fuels (Ref. 4), that 
determined the concentrations of metals in cement produced at a single 
facility that initially used WDF, and then switched temporarily to FF. 
Other operating conditions were held constant in both time periods, and 
20 cement samples were taken in each. That study found detectable 
amounts of four metals. In one phase (pH=5 extract waters), the mean 
concentration of antimony was statistically significantly higher in the 
cement generated burning WDF, but there were no significant differences 
for either cadmium or chromium. In the second phase (pH=10 extract 
waters), the mean concentration of chromium in cement produced while 
burning WDF was statistically significantly lower than in cement 
produced burning FF--exactly opposite to the PCA findings. The 
differences for nickel were insignificant.
    The totality of evidence, then, does not confirm that burning WDF 
in kilns materially increases concentrations of metals in cement. It 
also shows that decreased concentrations of metals can occur, and the 
net human health potential, if any, is simply unknown. In any event, 
based on the available information, the type of fuel burned in kilns 
appears to be a minor determinant of the concentration of metals in 
cement relative to (a) the extent to which CKD is recycled as 
feedstock, and (b) the metals content of the original feedstock. 
Finally, the evidence indicates that all domestic2 cement poses a 
potential problem to long-term users who fail to take precautionary 
steps to avoid exposures. Any labeling intended to warn users of this 
hazard should therefore be applied to all cement, not simply to cement 
produced with WDF.

    2There is some evidence that the hexavalent chromium content of 
cement can be reduced by adding ferrous sulfate. Petitioners cite 
references indicating that Denmark has made it illegal to sell 
cement with more than 2 ppm CR (VI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. OSHA's Labeling Requirement

    The current regulatory situation recognizes the need for 
comprehensive labeling of cement. Although petitioners state that the 
problems they discuss cannot be adequately addressed under other 
statutes, OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) does, 
in fact, require cement manufacturers to label virtually all containers 
of their products with essentially all of the information petitioners 
want to convey, other than the fact that the cement was produced 
through burning of WDF. This requirement extends to all cement, not 
just that produced with WDF. Pertinent provisions of the Hazard 
Communication Standard require chemical manufacturers (cement 
producers, for this purpose, are considered chemical manufacturers) of 
products for which there is evidence of health hazard to label all 
containers of the product providing: (a) the identity of the chemical; 
(b) appropriate hazard warnings; and (c) the name and address of the 
manufacturer (29 CFR 1910.1200(f)). Manufacturers must also ensure that 
distributors and employers using the product are furnished with 
appropriate MSDS, and downstream wholesalers and retailers are required 
to ensure that these warnings are carried with the product through the 
distribution chain to the ultimate end-user. A typical cement bag label 
reads as follows:

    CAUTION EYE AND SKIN IRRITANT

    Contains Portland Cement (CAS No. 65997-15-1). Do not allow 
contact with eyes or skin. Contains concrete aggregates Sand/Gravel 
(CAS No. 14808-60-7). Avoid breathing dust--respirable Silica may 
cause serious lung problems.
    Use gloves, goggles, dust masks, and waterproof protective 
clothing. If material gets into eyes, rinse immediately with clean 
water and seek prompt medical attention. If material gets onto skin 
or saturates clothing, rinse immediately and thoroughly with clean 
water. CONTACT WITH WET PORTLAND CEMENT MAY CAUSE SERIOUS SKIN 
BURNS.''

    EPA believes that the hazard communication label required by OSHA 
provides sufficient warning to users of cement to allow them to take 
appropriate steps to protect themselves from exposure to cement 
products.

VIII. Comments Received

    EPA published a Notice of Receipt of the Petition in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 30538; June 9, 1995), in order to provide opportunity 
to comment to all interested parties. Comments were received from 8 
individuals, all of whom supported the petition, and 10 organizations. 
Several samples of current cement packaging and MSDSs were also 
received. All comments were reviewed and considered by the Agency 
before reaching its final determination to deny the petition.
    Six of the 10 organizations wrote in support of the petition. Of 
these, 3 were among the 24 signers of the petition itself; 1 is another 
environmental group; 1 is a general contractor; and 1, Rollins 
Environmental Services, operates hazardous waste incinerators. The 
Rollins submission included two studies bearing on the question of the 
contribution of WDF to metals in cement. The first study was a mass 
balance analysis conducted at Rutgers University with the support of 
the Association for Responsible Thermal Treatment (ARTT), an 
organization of some hazardous waste incinerator companies. That study 
models the operation of cement kilns, and concludes, among other 
things, that burning WDF could increase the metals content of cement. 
The second study is a risk assessment undertaken by ENVIRON 
Corporation, using the data generated by the Rutgers model, and a 
portion of the PCA data. These studies were reviewed by EPA, insofar as 
time permitted, but did not alter the Agency's decision on the petition 
because: (a) there is no apparent justification for substituting 
modeling data for the extensive empirical monitoring data available; 
(b) the model itself appears flawed in that a light weight aggregate 
kiln, rather than a cement kiln, was used in its development; (c) the 
model has only recently been developed, and has not yet been peer 
reviewed; and (d) the ENVIRON study is largely based upon the 
unpersuasive modeling results (Refs. 5 and 6).
    The four organizations that wrote in opposition to the petition 
included the CKRC; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron 
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers Helpers; LaFarge Corporation, a 
cement producer that 

[[Page 39173]]
burns WDF; and Union Carbide Corporation, a company that uses cement 
kilns to handle wastes produced manufacturing petrochemicals. These 
commenters generally noted advantages that acrue from recovering energy 
from waste by burning it as fuel in kilns, asserted that petitioners 
had not provided sufficient evidence of increased risk, and cited the 
current regulatory requirement for labeling.

IX. Disposition of Petition

    Based upon (a) the lack of convincing evidence that WDF contributes 
materially to the hazards posed by cement; and (b) the fact that 
current OSHA regulations already require virtually everything 
petitioners request, other than a reference to WDF, the petition is 
denied.

X. References

    The following references were used in reviewing this petition:
    1. Portland Cement Association. An Analysis of Selected Trace 
Metals in Cement and Kiln Dust, 1992.
    2. USEPA. Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust. Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA 530-S-94-001, December 1993.
    3. USEPA. Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust: Final Rule. 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA 60 FR 7366, 
February 7, 1995.
    4. NSF. A Comparison of Metal and Organic Concentrations in Cement 
and Clinker made with Fossil Fuels to Cement and Clinkers Made with 
Waste Derived Fuels: Final Report. NSF International. November 13, 
1995.
    5. Review of Comments submitted by Rollins Environmental Services; 
memorandum from Oscar Hernandez to Edward Brooks, July 13, 1995.
    6. Review of Rutgers' Model as Discussed in Submission by Rollins 
Environmental Services: June 26, 1995; memorandum from William A. 
Schoenborn to Edward Brooks, July 18, 1995.

XI. Public Record

    EPA has established a public record of those documents the Agency 
considered in reviewing this petition. The record consists of documents 
in the file designated by Docket Number OPPT-211042, located in the 
TSCA Public Docket Office. This Docket is available for inspection from 
12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, in the 
TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NEB-607, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The public record consists of all documents in 
the OPPT file and all documents cited in the documents in that file.

List of Subjects

    Environmental Protection, hazardous waste.

    Dated: July 24, 1995.

Susan H. Wayland,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-18871 Filed 7-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F