Proposal To Invoke The National Environmental Policy Act: Justification Includes Special Attention To Environmental Justice, Human Health And Ecological Concerns Proposed Action: Construction And Operation Of Huntsman Chemical Corporation Facilities, Neal, Wayne County, WV


US EPA REGION 4 LIBRARY
AFC-TOWER 9th FLOOR
61 FORSYTH ST. SW
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Proposal to Invoke the
National Environmental Policy Act
Justification Includes Special Attention to
Environmental Justice, Human Health and Ecological
Concerns
Proposed Action: Construction and Operation of
Huntsman Chemical Corporation Facilities,
Neal, Wayne County, Wv
Revision 2.0
Written for:
Peter Kostmayer, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region III
Prepared by: Brian Holtzclaw
Coordinator, Tri-State Geographic Initiative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Voice: (800-928-2150)
FAX: (502-564-4245)
Date: November 15, 1994

-------
Disclaimer:
This report will be undergoing one more final review. This report is being
released in almost final form, because of the urgency of information contained
therein.
It is very important to realize that the CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical
and TRI (Toxic Releases Inventory) chemical databases provide information
about releases to the environment and not actual human exposures to these
chemicals. Many things can happen to a chemical once it is released into the
environment, and these processes make it difficult and extremely complicated
to calculate the extent to which people are being exposed to chemicals as a
results of any particular release. The air release data can best serve as an
index to potential problems, rather than as a definitive indicator of public
exposure to chemicals.
For further information on some of the limitations of the release databases and
the health effects databases, please refer to Appendix A.

-------

Proposal to Invoke the
National Environmental Policy Act
Justification Includes Special Attention to
Environmental Justice, Human Health and Ecological Concerns
Proposed Action: Construction and Operation of
Huntsman Chemical Corporation Facilities,
Neal, Wayne County, WV
Revision 2.0: This revision is being circulated within the Tri-State Technical Steering
Committee and the Citizens Review Committee for comments. Comment period deadline is
COB, November 29, 1994.
Date: November 15, 1994
3

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures
Preface
Executive Summary
Section 1. Introduction
Section 2. Description of Proposed Action and Need for Action By Applicant
Section 3. Procedural Federal Triggers
Section 4. Affected Environment - Significant Impacts
A.
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Socioeconomic Setting
Air Quality - General
Meteorology of Region
Air Quality - Releases of CAP (Criteria Air Pollutants)
Chemicals
Air Quality - Releases of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory)
Chemicals
Population Sub-Groups Potentially at Risk
Potential Existing Health Outcomes from
Exposure to Air Pollution
1.	Overview
2.	Evaluation of Wayne County Health Statistics
3.	Health Studies and Toxicological Reports
Environmental Justice
Endangered, Threatened and Species of Concern
Other
Number
4
6
8
11
15
16
18
26
26
27
30
33
38
43
45
45
45
50
52
56
56
4

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Number
Section 5. Environmental Consequences - Significant Impacts	57
A.	Research	57
B.	Air Quality - Releases of CAP (Criteria Air Pollutants)	58
Chemicals
C.	Air Quality - Releases of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory)	59
Chemicals
D.	Toxic Chemical Activity and Use - A Case Study of	63
Huntsman Chemical Corp (HCC), Bayport (TX) plant
E.	Worst Case Scenarios and Credible Case Scenarios -	65
Accidental Releases
F.	Accidental Releases to Air - A Case Study of	66
Huntsman Chemical Corp (HCC), Bayport (TX) plant
G.	Compliance Record - A Case Study of	70
Huntsman Chemical Corp (HCC), Bayport (TX) plant
H.	Other	72
Section 6. Controversy and Degree of Public Involvement	73
A.	Controversy	73
B.	Public Involvement	75
Section 7. Appendix A. Qualifications	77
Appendix B. Tri-State (KY/OH/WV) Industrial Clusters and	82
Resident Companies
5

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page Number
Table 4.1 Demographics of Residents in Kenova Area Industrial	26
Cluster and the Nation
Table 4.2 Risk Screening Project; TGI Industrial Clusters and	29
Overall Relative Risk Ranking
Table 4.3 CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemicals Released into the	33
Air (lbs/yr) in the Kenova Cluster
Table 4.4 Number of Current Monitors for CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) 35
chemicals - Within 11 Miles of Kenova Cluster
(as of October, 1994)
Table 4.5 Potential Health Effects of Concern from CAP (Criteria Air	37
Pollutant) Chemical Releases in the Kenova Cluster
Table 4.6 Summary of Total TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals 38
Reported Released into the Air (lbs/yr) in the Kenova Cluster
Table 4.7 List of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals Reported	40
Released into the Air (lbs/yr) in the Kenova Cluster
Table 4.8 Potential Health Effects of Concern from TRI (Toxic Release 42
Inventory) Chemical Releases into the Air (lbs/yr) in
Kenova Cluster
Table 4.9 Environmental Justice - Air Pollutants per Capita by	53
Industrial Cluster
Table 4.10 Environmental Justice - Air Pollutants per Square Mile by	54
Industrial Cluster
Table 5.1 CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemical Releases in 1992 -	58
A Case Study of Huntsman Chemical Corporation (HCC),
Bayport (TX) plant and Rexene Corp, Odessa (TX) plant
Table 5.2 TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemical Releases in 1992 -	60
A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant and Rexene Corp,
Odessa (TX) plant
Table 5.3 Maximum Hazardous Chemicals On-Site At Any Time -	64
A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
6

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page Number
Table 5.4 Accidental Release Reporting Record for Chemical Accidents - 66
A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
Table 5.5 Regulatory Matrix of Predicted CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant)	70
and TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemical Releases into the Air
Table 5.6 Compliance Record - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant 71
Table
Appendix 1.0 Tri-State (KY/OH/WV) Industrial Clusters and	83
Resident Companies
LIST OF FIGURES
Kenova Area Industrial Cluster and Site of Proposed Action	17
Tri-State Risk Screening Project Area	28
Annual Wind Rose for Tri-State (Huntington) Airport	32
Figure 2.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
7

-------
PREFACE
The purpose of the report is to request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region HI and other Federal agencies invoke the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) -
and on behalf of the proposed action, formally begin the process of performing an:
•	Environmental Assessment (EA) and an
•	Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The proposed action of the applicant is the construction and operation of:
1.)	an ethylbenzene plant; and
2.)	a styrene monomer plant
on the Big Sandy River, across from Ashland Oil, Inc. [Refer to Figure 2.1, page 17]. The site
is in Neal, Wayne County, West Virginia. The project is being proposed by Huntsman
Chemical Corporation (HCC).
Wayne county is one of six counties within a U.S. EPA geographic (environmental) initiative.1
The author is presently the Coordinator of the initiative targeting the Tri-State (KY/OH/WV)
region. The initiative, which embraces new approaches to environmental management is
sponsored by 10 local, state and federal agencies. Its progress is determined by the level of
cooperation and funding from each agency. This region was selected because of the following
high priority indicators:
•	Pollutants released into the environment;
•	Potential adverse human health effects;
•	Known/suspected environmental conditions;
•	Region's unique meteorological conditions;
•	Level of public concern expressed to local/state/federal agencies; and
•	Environmental justice concerns.
Since this Tri-State region is already a high environmental impact area, any new additional
impacts should be fully examined. This report briefly reviews the potential environmental
impacts and risks associated with this proposed action. The report's sections address on-site
environmental impacts and the off-site impacts, such as potential air pollution affects on the
neighboring human and environmental health.
.. Tnstiattve Fact Sheet, July 1994. This environmental improvement
i The Tri-State Ge0^^r? ^encies as partners, involving U.S. EPA Regions 3, 4 and 5.
initiative has 10 local/state and federag	for Environmental Protection. Special projects
At this time, the. lead agency is theJCento Ky^. Air Toxics project; Pollution Prevention Project; Risk
for the Trf-State (6-county) repom M ^	Kentucky geographic initiative near an industrial
Screening Project; Surface Water «ojeci-	include; Cancer Cluster Investigation; Air Toxics
complexf called	sampling Project; and Groundwater Project.
Project; Vegetation Stress Anaiy^*,

-------
This report was written under the sole initiative of Brian Holtzclaw, pursuant to his job
description. It was not commissioned by the U.S. EPA Region III, or any particular supervisor,
but it was directed by the obligation to fulfill his position duties. As clearly stated in the
Technical Steering Committee's Fact sheet:
The Tri-State Geographic Initiative is a collective effort to enhance the region's environment and
quality of life for its citizens. The objectives are to define, remediate and prevent environmental
threats and problems in the air, water and soil. Appropriate attention will be given to public health
concerns by focusing on the reduction of health risks, such as environmentally-related disease and
injury, (emphasis added)1
The report represents the findings of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV and the Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection. Mr. Holtzclaw is a U.S. EPA environmental engineer assigned to
Kentucky under the auspices of an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment. He is
believed to be the closest U.S. EPA personnel stationed near the proposed action.
The intended audience of this report are decision-makers within the U.S. EPA Region ID, the
Council on Environmental Quality, and other federal agencies, who can evaluate the need for
conducting or coordinating an EA and an EIS - for the proposed HCC development. According
to Mr. Rick Monty, Director of Corporate Environment, Health and Safety, HCC, the decision
to locate the ethylbenzene plant is firm and therefore the permits will be applied for. However,
Mr. Monty stated that HCC's business venture team is still evaluating the prospect of the styrene
monomer plant. Whether or not the HCC decides to locate the second chemical facility in Tri-
State (versus Linden, NJ) - it is strongly recommended that a thorough EA and FIS he
commenced immediately. This would ensure the compliance of an U.S. EPA regulation on
implementation of NEPA procedures which says:
...responsible officials must ensure early involvement of private applicants or other non-Federal
entities in the environmental review process related to EPA grant and permit actions... The
responsible official shall (a) prepare where practicable, generic guidelines describing the scope and
level of environmental information required from applicants as a basis for evaluating proposed (NEPA)
actions.. .(c) upon receipt of an application for agency approval, or notification that an application will
be filed, consult as required with other appropriate parties to initiate and coordinate the necessary
environmental analyses.... (emphasis added)2
The objectives of an EA and EIS would be to properly identify all environmental consequences
and the respective alternatives.
Another goal of this special report is to promote and ensure the effective application of these
laws: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Clean Air Act
(CAA); Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA); Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA); Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); and the Siiperfund laws in this Tri-State region.
2 U.S. EPA. "Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on Implementation of NEPA
Procedures." Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 6, Subpart A, Section 6.104.
9

-------
The Tri-State Geographic Coordinator welcomes any constructive comment frnfl feedback.
Suggestions for a Revision 3.0, should be directed to:
Brian L. Holtzclaw
Coordinator, Tri-State Geographic Initiative
Kentucky DEP
Commissioner's Office
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
VOICE (1-800-928-2150)
FAX (502-564-4245)
This report will be undergoing one more final review from Holtzelaw's office. This report is
released in almost final form, due to the urgency of information contained therein. The sense
of urgency is defined by two factors. One is the increasing public controversy. The second is
the impending HCC business venture team's announcement of their final decision on the
construction of a second plant in Neal (WV). This impending pubUc announcement was said
to be planned for sometime during November, 1994.
For lack of time - economic impacts were not evaluated in this report. An EA and EIS can
ensure this important aspect of the proposed action is evaluated. The author strongly suggests
that short-term and long-term economic impacts be evaluated by an appropriate authority.
Economic aspects may include, but may not be limited to: jobs; property tax; property value
devaluation- charitable contributions; impact on tourism; increased state ambient air quality
monitoring 'equipment and associated costs; increased health costs (borne by federal and private
sources) posed by increased pollution; potential toxic tort suits; increased pollution liability
insurance; lost resource values; and diminished quality of life.
10

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The language of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the language of stewardship.
The statute speaks eloquently of the need to "fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding generations." In this same spirit, this report
demonstrates that there is probable cause and justification to launch an EA and EIS, as defined
under NEPA.
After researching health and environmental risks associated with the proposed action (a chemical
plant development), the author has determined that the application of NEPA is in the best
interests of the citizens of the Tri-State (KY/OH/WV) region. As such, "Federal Procedural
Triggers," Section 3, page 18, identifies the triggers to be:
1.	Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and 404
2.	Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10
3.	National Historic Preservation Act
4.	Clean Air Act
5.	Executive Order #12898 on Environmental Justice
6.	Future federal funding of air quality surveillance
In order to help U.S. EPA Region HI and other Federal agencies assess the situation, existing
and potential impacts were researched and presented in this report. If an EA or EA is approved,
an official "scoping process," with public involvement, will ensure the complete identification
and examination of these environmental issues. The short-term, long-term, cumulative,
synergistic, and individual effects of impacts will need to be evaluated in more detail.
"Affected Environment," Section 4, page 26, addresses several existing environmental and health
risks in the vicinity (on-site and off-site) of the proposed action. These risks are summarized
in the following table:
11

-------
Table: Summary of "Affected Environment" Research
Impact
Report
Section
NEPA
Classification
of Impact
Description
Relative Risk
Ranking
4(B)
page 27
Context
Kenova area was recently ranked #1 in degree of air
risks/hazards in all of Tri-State (WV/KY/OH).
Meteorology
4(C)
page 30
Context and
Intensity *
Predominant wind direction from proposed action
provides exposure pathway to towns of Kenova and
Ceredo; noteworthy air stability in air basin increases
air toxics concentrations.
CAP (Criteria
Air Pollutant)
Chemicals
4(D)
page 33
*
Current levels of CAP chemical air releases are at 45
million pounds per year in locality. CAP monitor
placement needs to be re-evaluated. Synergistic
(interactive) effects possible.
TRI (Toxic
Release
Inventory)
Chemicals
4(E)
page 38
*
Current levels of TRI chemical air releases are at 0.8
million pounds per year in locality. Wide variety of
potential health consequences. Synergistic (interactive)
effects possible. Air Toxics Project's monitoring slated
for 1995.
Population
Sub-Groups
4(F)
page 43
*
Large prevalence of sensitive populations downwind of
proposed action.
Potential
Existing
Health
Outcomes
4(G)
page 45
*
Review of health statistics show health event clustering
of: higher levels of COPD, higher levels of infant post
neonatal deaths, and lower fertility rates than national
average - may be linked to toxic exposure. Review of
one health study supports possible higher
environmentally-related morbidity (illness) in area.
Review of one toxicology report supports existing toxic
exposure to citizens downwind.
Environmental
Justice
4(H)
page 52
Context
Locality classifies as environmental justice area. Low-
income rates are about three times national average.
Disproportionate environmental air risks are supported
by two indicators; pollutants per capita and pollutants
per square mile.
Endangered,
Threatened
and Species of
Concern
4(D
page 56
Context
Several species in Wayne and Boyd counties were
identified - not known if they would be affected by
proposed action.
Legend: ~ Context and Intensity (impacts which are adverse, affect public health, effects on the environment
are uncertain, pose unique or unknown risks, cumulative, and off-site)
"Environmental Consequences," Section 5, page 57, discusses how the proposed action -u
potentially generate additional impacts and risks (on-site and off-si^ nf th» rTmTn-rri Wl11
The following table summarizes the report's results: 1 11
12

-------
Table: Summary of "Environmental Consequences" Research
Impact
Report
Section
NEPA
Classification
of Impact
Description
Meteorology
4(B)
page 30
Context
Proposed action's distance from higher population
densities is only 1-3 miles. Predominant wind direction
from proposed action provides exposure pathway to
Kenova/Ceredo; noteworthy air stability in air basin
increases air toxics concentrations.
CAP (Criteria
Air Pollutant)
Chemicals
5(B)
page 58
Context and
Intensity *
Case study plants exhibit CAP air emission levels of 1.7
and 1.9 million pounds released per year. May disturb
ozone improvements. Potential health consequences.
Synergistic (interactive) effects possible.
TRI (Toxic
Release
Inventory)
Chemicals
5(C)
page 59
*
Case study plants exhibit TRI air emission levels of
56,000 and 187,000 pounds per year. Wide variety of
potential health consequences. Environmental fate
properties rated as medium. Synergistic (interactive)
effects possible.
Toxic
Chemical
Activity and
Use
5(D)
page 63
*
Case study plant shows 15 different chemicals classified as
hazardous on-site. The maximum amount of these
chemicals on-site (at any one time) is between 3.6 and
34.8 million pounds. It is foreseeable and possible that
significant accidental releases could happen and that these
large mass/volumes present inherent risks to populace.
An EIS will ensure ultimate safety designs and a very high
level of primary and secondary prevention investments.
Worst Case
Scenarios and
Credible Case
Scenarios
(Accident)
5(E)
page 65
*
At this time, detailed accidental risk scenarios of large
releases from the proposed action to the host community
were not performed. Vulnerability zones should be
estimated and released to the public. Again, an EIS could
ensure alternatives are chosen for ultimate safety designs
and a very high level of primary and secondary prevention
investments.
Accidental
Releases
5(F)
page 66
~
Case study plant owned by applicant company showed 8
accidental releases. Illustrates increasing rate - 6 accidents
in 1994. HCC's U.S. operations had 62 chemical
accidents reported to the National Response Center in the
last 4 years. Evidence shows that the Kenova area
residents have already been subject to a "first-class"
frequency of accidental releases from one neighboring
industry. These pose a serious health threat to
communities downwind.
Compliance
Record
5(G)
page 70
~
Case study plant owned by applicant company showed 10
violations and an outstanding $6,000 agreed order. The
Kenova area residents have already been subject to a
history of high frequencies of environmental violations
from one neighboring industry. These environmental
violations present additional serious health risks to the
communities downwind.
Legend: * Context and Intensity (impacts which are adverse, affect public health, effects on the environment
are uncertain, pose unique or unknown risks, cumulative, and off-site)
13

-------
The report also addresses local controversy and the degree of public involvement [See Section
6 page 73]. The escalating level of controversy is evidenced by several news articles, radio
coverage, one law suit, letter writing, and a press conference by the local environmental group.
As for public involvement, no voluntary discussion or mandatory meetings have been held by
either the applicant company or the local/state government authorities - for this proposed action.
The report clearly speaks to a need to seriously consider invoking the NEPA, in order to protect
human health and the environment in the area of the proposed action. Because of the specific
location that the applicant has chosen for the site, the potential risks (particularly adverse,
uncertain, unique, unknown, cumulative, interactive and off-site impacts) should be fully
assessed before the proposed action goes forward. It is recommended that U.S. EPA review the
significance nf these environmental impacts and immediately commence an EA and EIS. The
benefit of applying NEPA is that these local residents can then better make an educated decision
if the nrice of th^se 100 iobs are too high - in terms of health/environmental risks,
In closing, the author of this report would like to present two observations. If the
applicant/owner chose to site the proposed action well outside of the Kenova area industrial
cluster and farther away from population densities, this would greatly reduce the need to prepare
an EA or EIS. Secondly, if the corporation chose to become a co-signatory to the "Valdez
Principles" this would likely do a great deal in allaying citizen and environmental activist
concerns. The Valdez Principles are a set of ten established principles to publicly affirm a
commitment to safeguard the environment as a matter of corporate policy. As of 1992, 33 U.S.
companies have agreed to these principles created by the Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economics (CERES). Earlier this year, the Sunoco Corporation became a signatory
to these high standards.
14

-------
SECTION 1. Introduction
To assist U.S. EPA Region III and other Federal agencies, the report is organized in a
specialized user-friendly format, commonly used to justify EIS's 3. Based upon National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations, the following are the factors:
•	Procedural Federal Triggers - Lists potential applicable Federal statutes and potential
Federal funding that would trigger the initiation of a discretionary or mandated EIS.
•	Significant Impacts - An itemization of impacts in regards to their intensity (severity) and
context (e.g. short-term/long-term, local/regional).
•	Controversy - A brief description of all recognized controversies regarding the proposed
action. Public, professional (scientific) and agencies.
•	Degree of Public Involvement - The level of involvement the public has been granted by
the applicant company and government agencies in the process. Is the behavior of
local/state/federal agencies responsive to the public concern and is the outreach conducive
to greater public awareness/education of the issues?
The reason for this report is to present a proposal/justification for Federal agencies to consider
the performance of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the proposed action. The proposed action for both plants is to be officially finalized
by HCC within the next 2-6 weeks.
To produce this report, the primary methods employed were: presenting information developed
during a Risk Screening Project (Tri-State Geographic Initiative); researching the significant
impacts already present in the affected environment (Section 4); researching the potential
consequences of the proposed action (Section 5); and surveying the level of controversy and
involvement. The primary emphasis throughout this report is on human health risks, although
some discussion is offered on ecological risks.
3 Steven Daniels and Christine M. Kelly. "Deciding Between an EA and EIS May Be a
Question of Mitigation." Journal of Applied Western Forestry. Mardi 1991. Page 34.
15

-------
SECTION 2. Description of Proposed Action and Need for Action by Applicant
A. Proposed Action
Based upon available information 4 5 s, the proposed action is the construction and operation
of:
Plant 1. One ethylbenzene chemical plant (Capacity, unknown; Cost, $50 million) and
Plant 2. One styrene monomer chemical plant (Capacity, 800 million pounds/year; Cost,
$100 million)
The owner will be the Huntsman Chemical Corporation (HCC), a firm based in Salt Lake City,
Utah. The proposed plants will be in the locality of Neal, West Virginia, across the Big Sandy
river from Ashland Oil's Catlettsburg refinery. This proposed action would be located within
what is known as the Kenova industrial cluster - one of 6 industrial clusters in the 6-county Tri-
State region (See Figure 2.1 on next oaeel.
B. Need For Action By Applicant
Research indicates that the proposed action is primarily predicated by economic incentives. Mr.
Rick Monty Director of HCC's Corporate Environmental Health and Safety, stated that HCC's
primary business is making plastics and polymers. He remarked that the need for building an
ethylbenzene and styrene monomer plant comes from their desire to feed their styremcs and
plastics businesses.
Regarding financial incentives, a sales representative from Ashland Chemical Corporation
reported that the wholesale price of styrene monomer was $0.50/lb. The University of Kentucky
rcfcLed a literature search that presented a 1992 U.S. price figure of $0.34/lb
(Chemical Market Reporter statistic, citing U.S. Probe Economics). A rudimentary projection
of gross annual sales of styrene monomer from the proposed action, if built, would be between
$251 2DqJand $4G0,0pQ?year. Other chemicals (e.g. ethylbenzene, etc.) produced on-site would
alio contribute to the annual sales projections for the proposed action.
4 Huntington Herald Dispatch. "Wayne County Getting Plant." TimMassey. Sept. 20, 1994
Page 1.
5 Huntington Herald Dispatch. "Chemical Plant Plan Draws Fire - Activists Tell Company to
Pick Another Location." TimMassey. October 26, 1994. Page 1.
6 Conversation with Mr. Rick Monty, Director of Corporate Environmental, Health and Safety
HCC, Chesapeake (VA), held on October 21, 1994. Conversation with Mr. Mike Mullins, SHEA
Manager at HCC Bayport (TX) facility, held on October 21, 1994.
16

-------
TRI-STATE
GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE (TGI)
Kenova Area
Risk Screening Project;
X = Site of Proposed Action

-------
SECTION 3. Procedural Federal Triggers
A. Overview
Generally speaking, the trigger mechanism to invoke a mandatory or discretionary EA or EIS
is to requiTthe use of federal permits, federal approvals and/or federal monies (e.g.
expenditures, loans, loan guarantees, insurance or other).
As shared by more than one U.S. EPA expert in NEPA, it is sometimes difficult for federal
aeencies to initiate an EIS unless it "fits neatly into a proforma box. Take for example, a
classic federal agency construction action - a large housing project on a military base - this
commonly triggers an EA. In the case of private party development actions, apparently it takes
more evidencefor an EA or EIS be done, even though there are legal requirements. One wnter
speaks of the need for the application of NEPA on behalf of private proposed actions:
In the context of private developments, NEPA is a wild card. Some say it is not alwajK clear when
L where it comes into play, except that it is usually late in the process, after sites have been
selected financing has been secured, local permits have been obtained, and the point of no return has
already been reached. Small wonder the introduction of the basic NEPA qu^ign'Why is this
necessary'*'' blood pressures SOftrinp in fls busing community. It can take montta of
analysis meetings, hearings, appeals, and lawsuits to answer that and other related NEPA
Stioii There are cases where a rigorous and timely NEPA review could bring about a different
ud from'a broader social perspective, arguably better result than what the private sector would
produce if left to its own devices...Opinion polls tell us the public wants both a healthy economy and
a healthy environment, (emphasis added) 7
History shows that proposed actions by private firms - who may fit into a gray area - may still
have HS'S oerformed. Take for instance, the recent EIS entitled, "Chip M01 Terminals on the
Tennessee River February, 1993." In this case, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was
SSoperatW ag«4 together with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USFW) andI tiie U.S. Army
Corns of	(USACE). In the beginning, it was not so clear that ail EIS was required
for this private party development. Ms. Cielo Myczack, of River Keepers (an environmental
croup) reconstructed the story of how a multi-private party chip mill development progressed
from no EA, to an EA, to an EIS. According to Ms. Myczack:
in iqsu 9 TVA Forest Group (Norris) put out a marketing study that called for developing new
rL^Tfnr low Bade, under-utilized, overabundant hardwood trees. After that time, the TVA
n „ nennxville* realized that when 17-24 sites were being reviewed for forestry-related
permits, mere g * ^ was notified. Consequently, the River Keepers organization
SitS'Hraindswell of public interest and attention. Representatives flew out to Washington State
TtocumS and take back pictures of clear-cutting - their concern was the deforestation of the
TemesseeRiver region. By January 1991, the River Keepers group was pcsed to take action. Soon
7 Patrick A. Parenteau. "NEPA at Twenty: Great Disappointment or Whopping Success."
18

-------
thereafter, the Donghae Pulp Company of Alabama placed a permit request (chip mill barge terminal)
in to TVA. On the heels of two very active (voluntary) public hearings an EA was born. Two other
applications for barge terminals were also were presented to TVA. 8
The Final EIS report told how the EA's developed into an EIS:
TVA's and USACE's initial approach to NEPA compliance was to prepare individual EA's for
each of the three barge terminal applicants. The initial assessments focused on the direct and indirect
effects of the proposed action, and also provided information about potential sourcing area (off-site)
impacts....TVA subsequendy received 196 letters and two petitions, totaling 79 signatures...letters
were received from the USFW and the U.S. EPA requesting that TVA and USACE prepare and EIS
for the (now) four proposed chip mills, because of potential watershed and wildlife impacts of timber
harvest. As a result of these comments, TVA decided that preparation of an EIS would promote a
better understanding of die potential impacts of the proposals, (emphasis added) 9
In the final EIS,9 it was documented that due to "the likelihood of substantial, cumulative
localized impacts and the risk of significant harvesting-related (off-site) impacts. TVA's
preferred alternative is the denial of all proposed actions." In the end, the chip mill terminals
were not constructed.
EA's and EIS's have been performed across the country when proposed actions meet the criteria.
The NEPA process is intended to help public officials and citizens make decisions that are based
on understanding environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore and enhance
the environment. More than one NEPA expert shared that, in addition to the normal NEPA
criteria and triggers, public pressure and politics can persuade a Federal agency to initiate an
EA or EIS.
B. Federal Permits and Approvals
From my discussions with several NEPA experts, Mr. John Geiba (U.S. EPA Headquarters),
Mr. Roy Denmark (U.S. EPA Region HI), Mr. Heinz Mueller (U.S. EPA Region IV), and Mr.
John Hamilton (U.S. EPA Region IV), requests for several permits and/or approvals would
trigger a formal EA or EIS. The more permits that are applicable, the more likely an
environmental statement can be initiated by federal authorities. The exception would be if one
significant impact is found, such as a crucial, historical find (e.g. archeological site) which
would fall under the National Historic Preservation Act. Just by itself, such a unique impact
may launch an EA or EIS.
* Conversation with Ms. Cielo Myczack of River Keepers. October 23, 1994.
9 Tennessee Valley Authority. "Final Environmental Impact Statement: Chip Mill Terminals
on the Tennessee River." Volume 1. February 1993. Cooperating agencies were cited as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Cover Sheet and Section 2.1.
19

-------
The following is a partial listing of areas of jurisdiction by law and statutorily mandated
consultations for implementing NEPA. Due to time limitations, simple descriptions are provided
for a few of the environmental quality issues.
1. Water and Related Land Resources
• Clean Water Act, Section 404
The news media has already confirmed the proposed action's need for water permits. A
Section 404 permit application will likely be forthcoming. The section 404 program that
requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material was originally enacted as part
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. The section authorized the
Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to issue permits specifying
disposal sites in accordance with the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The
Clean Water Act of 1977 was subsequently enacted and, among other things, increased
the emphasis on the Guidelines. The purpose of section 404 is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States, (including
wetlands defined in 33 CFR 328) by controlling discharges of dredged or fill material.
Section 404 jurisdiction extends to public and privately owned lands.
• Clean Water Act, Section 401
Discussion not available at this time on the subject of NPDES water permits.
• Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10
Mr. Rick Monty (HCC) remarked that ethylbenzene would be transported on the Ohio
River system. As such, it is likely that a dock would be built on the Big Sandy River.
If this holds true, a federal permit would need to be issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the alteration or
obstruction of any navigable waters of the United States unless authorized by the Secretary
of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. This act is in order to minimize
environmental damage from the placement of pipe discharges and headwalls. The Big
Sandy is considered a navigable river by the Army Corp of Engineers - several times a
year parts of it are dredged for navigation improvements.
• Executive Order # 1988, Flood Plain Management
According to Mr. Gerba, at this time, there is no official lead agency. He stated that the
Flood Plain Executive Order is "out there" for all federal agencies to follow. NEPA
literature states that it is EPA's role to determine whether an action will be located in or
will affect a floodplain. If so, the responsible official shall prepare a floodplain/wetlands
assessment. At this time, no information is available about the likelihood of the proposed
action affecting a flood plain.
20

-------
2. Cultural Resources
• National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] of 1966 (§106) (16 U.S.C. §470f £t seq.)
• Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. §470aa et seq.)
• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §469a-l)
• Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment)
May 13, 1971)
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. §1996)
At this time, information has been confirmed that there is a likelihood of special cultural
resources (e.g. indian artifacts) being at the location of the proposed action. In another
proposed action (Apple Grove Paper and Pulp mill), about 20 miles upstream on the Ohio
River, conditions were met (e.g. an indian find) to conduct an phase I and phase n
archeological assessment. Since the proposed action is near the confluence of the Ohio
River and Big Sandy Rivers, it was originally suspected that such a historical site would
be present.
In fact, Mr. Bob Maslowski, staff archeologist [Army Corp of Engineers, Huntington
(WV) District] reported that there are "numerous archaeologic sites recorded on the Big
Sandy" and "there might be some in that area (site of proposed action)." During a
discussion he reported his opinion was based on an "archeological reconnaissance survey"
performed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in which they checked crop fields
sporadically all along the Big Sandy. He stated that, "if there's going to be a permit or
federal involvement, they are probably obligated to do an archeological survey of that area
(site of proposed action)."
According to Mr. John Gerba, in the case of a NPDES water permit being proposed, the
regional U.S. EPA office would be bound to provide federal consultation on the
investigation and evaluation of any archeological sites. This is a requirement of U.S. EPA
even if the NPDES water permits are delegated to the state of WV. Put another way, it
is the U.S. EPA's responsibility to do the consultation with the state historic preservation
officer [in this case, the WV Department of Culture and History in Charleston, WV]. If
conditions are met, the U.S. EPA or the state historic preservation officer may choose to
call in the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to be a partner in the
negotiations. This council is a federal, independent group with the lead responsibility for
the NHPA. In fact, if an agreement is made between the state and the U.S. EPA, it must
be approved by this advisory council. The overall purpose is to insure that the least
amount of damage is done, or at least, mitigation for the historic site.
It is Mr. Gerba's understanding that if a NPDES permit triggers U.S. EPA involvement
(with respect to the NHPA), an opportunity to consult must be granted. The U.S. EPA
may impose conditions upon the water permit to ensure that the historical find and the
NHPA is protected. The U.S. EPA and not the state is "on the hook" for incorporating
NHPA concerns into an NPDES permit. For a further explanation, it is suggested that
one obtain a copy of the interim U.S. EPA policy concerning the NHPA, recently signed
by the U.S. EPA Administrator earlier this year.
21

-------
3. Wildlife
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (§7) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 el seq.1
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 gj seq.t
• Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 668)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661, 662)
Preliminary research indicates that several endangered, threatened and species of concern
reside within both Wayne County (WV) and Boyd County (KY) [See Section 4(1)]. These
two counties encompass the areas of on-site and off-site impacts (e.g. water and air
pollution). At this time, it is not known whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would
designate an "effect" or "no effect" finding to the resident and migratory species.
4. Air Quality
• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 gt seq. and as amended)
An air quality permit would have to be approved at the state and federal levels. One
interim guidance by the Council on Environmental Quality states:
Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the EPA is directed to review
and comment publicly on the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions, including
actions for which EISs are prepared under NEPA. If at die conclusion of this review the
Administrator determines that the proposed action is "unsatisfactory from the standpnin^ nf
public health or welfare or environmental Quality." he/she is directed by Section 309 to refer
the matter to the Council on Environmental Quality, (emphasis added) 10
The body of the report speaks very much to the public health risks posed by air pollution
in the vicinity of the proposed action. Recent efforts by environmental agencies in West
Virginia has been to redesignate the area near the proposed action to "ozone attainment."
As two case studies show [See Section 5(B) and 5(C), pages 58, 59], significant air
emissions are expected from the proposed action. Potentially 0.6 to 1.5 million pounds
of nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds (NOX and VOC) - which contribute to
ozone - may be released by the proposed facilities. This may have a significant effect on
the levels of ozone and air toxics in the ambient air.
The proposed action, will likely have a cumulative significant impact on the air quality.
This will demand an evaluation by experts in the chemical mixtures field (e.g. U.S. EPA
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office). The host of likely released chemicals
[See Section 5(B) and 5(C)] is in itself a unique mix, the effect of which is highly
uncertain. This mix (by itself) may have synergistic effects - meaning the response to a
mixture of toxic chemicals that is greater than that suggested by the individual component
toxicities. Secondly, the result of adding this mixture of likely released chemicals to the
10 Council on Environmental Quality. "Interim Guidance to Federal Agencies on Referrals to
the Council of Proposed Federal Actions Found to be Environmentally Unsatisfactory." August 11,
1977.

-------
preexisting air toxic mixture in the region will be uncertain. Again this mixture may have
synergistic effects. In both cases, potentiation may occur - whereby one substance that
does not have a toxic effect (on a certain organ or system) - until it is added to another
chemical, whereby it makes the latter much more toxic. This subject is acknowledged in
a recent U.S. EPA document and OSHA publication. 11 12
5. Environmental Justice (£J)
• Executive Order #12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (Signed Feb. 11, 1994; 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16,
1994)
After decades of inattention, this ground-breaking Order states:
each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high and adverse human health and
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations.... (emphasis added) Section 1-101 a
The head of each Federal agency shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this order.
Each Federal agency shall conduct internal reviews and take such other steps as mav be
necessary to monitor compliance with this order, (emphasis added) (Section 6-6) 13
Senator Paul Wellstone (MN) spoke to the subject of EJ upon introducing the "Public
Health Equity Act of 1994":
When the well-off majority says "Not In My Backyard," polluters seek the path of least
resistance and dump the pollution on poor and minority communities. When the poor cry
"NIMBY," no one listens.. .We can't ignore environmental justice any longer. It's been twenty
years since the first study documented the fact that die poor and minorities have to swallow a
larger slice of the pollution pie. The environmental justice movement deserves our attention
NOW. (no emphasis added) 14
u U.S. EPA. "Technical Support Document on Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures."
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office
of Research and Development. EPA/600/8-90/064. November 1988.
12 B.K. Nelson. "Combined Chemical, Physical Hazards Make Exposures Harder to
Calculate." Occupational Health
-------
This report provides evidence that EJ is already an issue in the area of the proposed action
[See Section 4(G), page 51]. Since the Executive Order is relatively new, it is not known
to what degree EJ has been incorporated into EA's and EIS's. However, in this Executive
Order, it was the President's intention that a broad application (instead of strict
interpretation) be used to protect minority populations and low-income populations. Based
upon existing information, the proposed action will contribute to and/or exasperate a case
of environmental injustice. The report presents a detailed analysis of how the area of the
proposed action already fits the President's EJ definition - an area that has disproportionate
pollution and environmental/health risks on people with low-income.
6. Misc.
It is important to ensure that all the following laws are considered during the NEPA
consultation.
• Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §4201, 4231, 4233)
• Executive Orders 12372 and 12416 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
• Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and
as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 st seq.)
• Resources and Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 3251 et seq.1
• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. § 4601 §£ seq.)
• Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4901 fit seq.1
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 fij seq.")
• Others as necessary
C. Federal Monies and Expenditures
At this time, it is not known to what degree the proposed action will trigger federal monies
to be spent. The following is a list of possible opportunities for federal monies:
• Highway (primary or secondary), bridge improvements or developments. Should
these activities be undertaken, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration would need
to be consulted.
• Amount of federally-funded medicare or medicaid expenses. It is not known
whether the increased pollution from the proposed action will have an effect on the
preexisting federal health care funding for the area. There is a possibility that this
funding is already being spent for patients (low-income) that have been potentially
afflicted with environmentally-related disease and injury.
24
-------
• Environmental protection. It is very probable that federal monies will be expended
to account for additional surveillance of air quality (air toxics and ambient air
monitoring) on behalf of the proposed action. Up to this time, this has been evidenced
by several U.S. EPA grants supporting the Tri-State Geographic Initiative (TGI).
When the state environmental agencies make direct and indirect expenditure on behalf
of the TGI, much of these monies actually originate from the Federal government. For
instance, in 1993, the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection had
considerable Federal monies supporting their programs. Federal grants made up 25
percent (or $1.6 million) of the state budget for clean air programs; 28 percent (or
$3.8 million) of the state budget for clean water programs and 31 percent ($3.7
million) of the state budget for hazardous waste programs. 15
15 1994-1996 Budget Request, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet,
Volume n. Figures from Actual 1992-93 expenditures for Division for Air Quality, Division for Water,
and Division of Waste management.
25
-------
SECTION 4. Affected Environment - Significant Impacts
This section will address several existing environmental and health risks in the vicinity (on-site
and off-site) of the proposed action. An official EIS "scoping process," with public involvement
would ensure the complete identification and examination of environmental issues.
A. Socioeconomic Setting
During a recent Risk Screening Project the socioeconomics of the area (including the proposed
action) were analyzed [See Section 4(B), Air Quality, page 27]. The area is identified as the
Kenova area industrial cluster [See Figure 2.1, page 17]. The evaluation employed
computerized 1990 U.S. Census Bureau databases. For comparison purposes, the
socioeconomics for the Kenova Cluster and the nation are shown below:
Table 4.1 Demographics of Residents in the Kenova Area Industrial Cluster and the Nation
Demographic Indicator
Statistic for persons
living within the Kenova
Area Industrial Cluster
[See Appendix B]
National Statistic
Population
8,385 persons
248,709,873 persons
Education
(No high school degree)
32.9%
20.8%
Low-Income *
37.2%
13.1%
Minority **
0.1%
19.7%
Sensitive
Sub-populations for Air
Pollution
(based on age only)
a. Age < 6 years
b. Age 6-13 years
c. Age > 60 years
7% (587 persons)
11.6% (961 persons)
18.9% (1,584 persons)
Not available |
Source: Kentucky NREP Cabinet - GISS, by using ARC/INFO software with 1990 U.S. Census Bureau
computer data of industrial clusters, using census tracts; Kentucky State Data Center
Legend: * Based upon the standard U.S. Census Bureau method of identifying the percentage of
households (with average 2.6 members) under the national poverty level of $14764
** Based upon the U.S. Census Bureau definition of minorities as citizens who are Black
American Indian, Eskimo, Asian or Pacific Islander and other.
26
-------
The people living within the Kenova area industrial cluster are almost 3 times above the national
percentage for low-income status. In addition, they are 1.5 times less "formally" educated than
the national average. The majority of the local populace in the proximity of the proposed action
are not defined as a minority by the U.S. Census Bureau. The geographic area is classified as
Appalachian.
B. Air Quality - General
The Tri-State Geographic Initiative (TGI) 1 is in the process of finalizing a Risk Screening
Project for the 6-county region. On behalf of identifying "environmental high impact areas" and
"pollutants of concern" for the TGI, our Risk Screening Project employed traditional principles
and some of the latest advances. 16
By applying computerized Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, we identified six
distinct "industrial clusters" (See Figure 4.2. next papel. The clusters were generated by using
a two mile radii around each manufacturing industry. [See Appendix B, page 82, for List of
Companies, by Industrial Cluster]
The proposed action is defined as falling within the Kenova industrial cluster. This cluster is
already comprised of 4 manufacturing plants, known as Company A, B, C, and D. [See
Appendix B for legend, refer to Figure 2.1, page 17, for locations].
In the Risk Screening Project, relative risk (hazard) factors were assessed to help target
resources in the large 6-county region (2,300 square miles). These factors included the
following:
• CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical air releases;
• TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) chemical air releases;
• Toxicological databases;
• Frequency of accidental releases; and
• Population considerations.
16 For the Risk Screening Project, traditional principles were the three elements of toxicological
potency assessment, exposure evaluation and risk characterization. Fundamental approaches were taken
from the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide (Version 1.0), U.S. EPA Office of
Toxic Substances, EPA 560/2-89-002, Dr. David Klauder, July 1989. The latest advances in risk
screening/targeting were incorporated thanks to a partnership between the Geographic Information System
Section (GISS) and the TGI Coordinator. The applications included, but were not limited to: ARC/INFO
software to use as the GIS foundation; TIGER file databases which are based upon U.S. Census Bureau
information (e.g. population density, percentage minority, income, education); TRI (Toxic Release
Inventory) chemical release databases; CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical release databases; GDT
Dyna-MAP 2000 software to perform addressing; standard GIS database sets of topographical features
to locate natural features; databases for point data sets based on sensitive sub-populations; and DEC
station 3000-400 hardware.
27
-------
Pi
•"fl
H'
cro
c
3
k>
H
P.
i
C/3
G
f?
a
u
pr
CO
o
§
o
B.
3
(TO
¦-a
>1
3.
o
o
f*
>
3
p
A
A
SCIOTO
TRI-STATE GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE (TGI)
Risk Screening Project;
Display of Industrial Clusters
Targeted for
RELATIVE RISK (HAZARD) RANKING
kCluster 1
rtouth —
SCALE 1 : 704152
11.11 5.555 0
11.11 ml®
-------
After a rigorous risk screening evaluation, the Kenova area industrial cluster was ranked # 1 in
degree of air risk/hazard, in comparison with the other industrial clusters. 17 18 The results
are displayed below:
Table 4.2 Risk Screening Project; TGI Industrial Clusters and Overall Relative Risk
Ranking [For identification, refer to Appendix B, Table Appendix 1.0, page 82]
Industrial Cluster
Number
of
Industries
Overall Relative Risk
From Air Pollution
(Ranking)
Cluster #5:
Kenova Area *
4
1 *
Cluster #2:
Greenup Area
5
2
Cluster #3:
Ironton Area
5
3
Cluster #4:
South Point Area
2
4
Cluster #6:
Huntington Area
11
5
Cluster #1:
Portsmouth Area
6
6
Source: Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, GISS and TGI
Technical Steering Committee
Legend: * Host locality of proposed action
As a result, the TGI Technical Committee is focusing its risk identification/reduction efforts in
the Kenova cluster first, then the Greenup cluster (which ranked second). The key projects now
include:
• Air Toxics Project. Air modeling, and extensive monitoring of air toxics will require the
use of stationary, mobile and portable means. The analytical classes of chemicals to be
monitored are: acids and basics (including reactive aerosols), volatile organic compounds,
semi-volatile organics and metals. Thanks to financial support by the Kentucky DEP, and
many other local/state/federal agencies, the project has achieved a $500,000 funding.
Deployment of specialized monitors is forecast for January 1995. Air toxics levels will
be determined first in the Kenova cluster, then the Greenup cluster.
• Pollution Prevention Project. A voluntary reduction project will target the top
pollutants within each industrial cluster and the region.
17 Brian Holtzclaw. "Memorandum to Tri-State Geographic Initiative Steering Committee and
Representatives; Subject: Preliminary Results of Risk Screening Project." September 7, 1994.
18 Ashland Daily Independent. "Report gauges air risk; Kenova highest." Sam Adams.
October 15, 1994. Page 1.
29
-------
These projects are designed to ensure the protection of the TGI ecosystem by identifying and
preventing human health and environmental threats. This approach is also outlined by Carol
Browner, U.S. EPA Administrator when earlier this year, she stated:
The Agency should focus on the protection and restoration of ecosystems by reducing the sources nf
stress while at the same time addressing socioeconomic needs on a sustainable basis. Although not
traditionally considered a "component" of an ecosystem, humans are integrally linked to the processes
that operate within their environment. Human health cannot be divorced from the "health" nf tho
environment. The condition of the ecosystem, therefore, can either enhance or degrade the well-hmnp
of the humans occupying the ecosystem....Achieving healthy, functioning ecosystems should be one
of the central organizing principles for policy and decision-making, recognizing that this is a
prerequisite to sustained economic capacity within geographic areas, (emphasis added)19
C. Meteorology of Region
Understanding the topography is critical in considering the significance of air pollution from the
nearby facilities and the proposed action. The proposed action is in the Big Sandy River Valley,
which is oriented north/south - this meets the Ohio River about 2.3 miles north, which is
oriented southeast to northwest at the confluence. The Ohio River valley averages one to two
miles in width, with surrounding ridges on both sides rising 250 to 300 feet above the valley
floor. As for the Big Sandy River valley, it averages about 0.25 miles in width, with
surrounding ridges rising 100 to 300 feet above the valley floor. The populated communities
of Kenova and Ceredo are between 1 to 3 miles downwind of the proposed action. Some local
residents live within sight of the proposed action and Company D [Refer to Figure 2.1 page
17].
Regarding meteorology, a U.S. EPA Region IV Air Pollution Report 20 for the Tri-State
(WV/OH/KY) region cited the following four relationships and conclusions:
Atmospheric Stability - increases concentrations. Potential for air pollution epistvl^ based
solely on meteorological patterns is higher than anywhere else in the eastern United
Mixing heights, in general, are lowest on summer mornings before the inversion begins to
lift. On winter days the afternoon mixing height does not rise significantly above the low
morning level. The potential for air pollution is greatest at these times if winds are calm.
Wind Direction - determines the direction of impacts. Wind Speed Fluctuations -
increases dispersion. Wind direction in the area is generally synoptic. While there may be
some channeling in certain areas, wind rose data indicate only minor differences between
hilltop and valley locations. The EPA-EMSL study also concluded that prevailing wind flow
19 Carol Browner, U.S. EPA Administrator. "EPA's Role in Ecosystem Protection." ECOS
(Environmental Communique of the States). January/February 1994. Page 1.
20 Alliance Technologies Corp. "Air Pollution Study of Ashland (KY) - Huntington (WV) -
Ironton (OH) - Tri-State Area; Final Report Volume 1." Prepared for U.S. EPA Region IV. November
1990. Executive Summary and Section n.
30
-------
patterns exert the largest influence on wind flow in the study region. The EPA-EMSL study
reported wind at the Tri-State (Huntington, WV) airport to generally come from the south and
west, and flow towards the north and east.
Wind Speed - higher winds reduces concentrations. Wind speeds in the valley are much
less than at hilltop locations.
One of the most important factors mentioned above is wind direction. The prevailing wind flow
is clearly in the northeast direction 21 fSee Figure 4.3. next pagey This meteorological data,
obtained from the nearby airport (approximately 2 miles east of the proposed action), shows the
air pollution plume from the proposed action site would have a likely tendency to blow
downwind towards the populated communities of Kenova and Ceredo (WV) (between 1-3 miles
away). Recently Z2, the team of U.S. EPA and state officials performing an air modeling
project of the Kenova Cluster have decided on using the same meteorological point of reference
for wind directions - the Tri-State (Huntington) airport.
The second most important factor is stability in this air basin. The local atmospheric stability
lends itself to high occurrences of "air inversions." The intersection of the two valley corridors
(Big Sandy and Ohio Rivers) makes it a more likely candidate for lower mixing heights, lower
winds. The proposed action would be within this very susceptible area - and approximately 2.3
miles south of the confluence of the two rivers.
A National Climatic Data Center (Asheville, NC) report speaks to this subject of stability:
With increasing concern about air pollution, a need developed for a broadly applicable method of
determining stability (as related to diffusion) in the lower part of the atmosphere. ... a computer
program called "STAR" (STability ARray) (was created)... the meteorological variables are wind and
cloudiness. In terms of annual averages for more than 300 locations... stable categories occur for one-
third of the time... 23
The National Climatic Data Center report23 shows that only 9 of 27 meteorological locations in
the U.S. EPA Region Hi's states experienced annual averages (of stability classes) greater than
36% of the time. This report displayed that the Tri-State (Huntington) airport was one of these
few and it registered stability in the range of 36-46%.
21 Alliance Technologies Corp. "Annual Wind Rose for Tri-State Airport; 43,835
Observations, 1/83 - 12/87." Incorporated into the Air Pollution Study of Ashland (KY) - Huntington
(WV) - Ironton (OH) - Tri-State Area. Final Report Volume 1. November 1990. Page II-4.
22 Tri-State Geographic Initiative; Pre-modeling Discussion Group. "Meeting Minutes."
September 26, 1994.
23 Stephen R. Doty, Brian L. Wallace, George Holzworth. "A Climatological Analysis of
Pasquill Stability Categories Based on 'Star' Summaries." National Climatic Data Center. April 1976.
Pages 1-9, 19-36.
31
-------
N
WNW
W —
WSW
NNW
NNE
Mind toaad
categories (a/8)
WIND ROSE
43853 observations
HUNTINGTON AIRPORT NWS STATION
1/83 - 12/87 I ALL SEASONS
Figure 4.3 Annual Wind Rose for the Tri-State (Huntington) Airport
-------
AAnother document 24 supports the evidence that the proposed action is in a region of high
stability - thus a higher propensity for collecting concentrations of air toxics. One study (1970-
1974) for the Huntington airport data reviewed the occurrences of the recognized stability classes
(slightly stable, stable and extremely stable). An analysis of the STAR data24 clearly showed that
this air basin exhibited high frequencies of stability:
Season Relative Frequency
of Stability Occurrence
(% of the time)
Winter 62.5%
Spring 55.7%
Summer 50.0%
Fall 62.1%
Annual 57.5%
The frequency of air stability for the area is far greater than the national average (30%) cited in
the previous report. 23
D. Air Quality - Releases of CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemicals
For the Kenova Area Cluster, the CAP air pollution is reported to be 45,405,400 lbs per year23.
The CAP chemicals include: total suspended particulates (TSP); nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur
dioxide (S02); carbon monoxide (CO); and volatile organic compounds (VOC's).
The following table shows the amount of CAP chemicals already being released in the close
vicinity of the proposed action:
Table 4 J CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemicals Released into the Air (Ibs/yr) in the Kenova
Cluster
Resident Facilities of
Kenova Area Industrial
Cluster
TSP
NOX
S02
CO
voc
Total CAP
Releases
Company A
86,000
168,000
556,000
90,000
344,000
1,244,000
Company B
396,600
1,475,400
274,800
203,000
170,600
2,520,400
Company C
2,500
177,000
2,280
3,900,000
248,000
4,329,800
Company D
738,800
15,852,000
7,610,800
7,006,800
6,102,800
37,311,200
Total
1,223,900
17,672,400
8,443,880
11,199,800
6,865,400
45,405,400
24 National Climatic Data Center. "Huntington (WV) Station # 03860; Seasonal & Annual
(Day/Night) Wind Distribution of Pasquill Stability Classes Star Program." Period 1/70 to 12/74. Job
15675. January 15, 1976.
25 1992 CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical databases from Kentucky and West Virginia
environmental agencies.
33
-------
(Continued)
Source: 1992 CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical databases from Kentucky and West Virginia
Legend: TSP (Total Suspended Particulate); NOX (Nitrous Oxides); S02 (Sulfur Dioxide); CO
(Carbon Monoxide); and VOC (Volatile Organic Compound). Company A-D can be found
in Appendix B, page 83
This particular industrial cluster outranks every other cluster in CAP releases in the entire Tri-
State (WV/OH/KY) region. The Kenova Cluster's 45.4 million lbs/yr represents 40 % of the
CAP chemical releases in the 6-county area in 1992.
The ambient air network for surveillance of the CAP chemicals in the greater Tri-State
(WV/OH/KY) region is maintained by the state of Kentucky, West Virginia and Company D.
It is "common knowledge" in state and industry circles that for CAP, there is "no real problem"
in Tri-State. In order to begin to evaluate this statement, the following were investigated:
• CAP monitoring results;
• the attainment status; and
• the positioning of the CAP monitors.
Regarding CAP monitoring data, a full-scale summary of recent results was not available at the
time of this writing. These results will be forthcoming.
The issue of ozone attainment for West Virginia has been recently discussed with air officials
and has been in the news. The West Virginia Division for Environmental Protection (WV DEP)
reported26 that Wayne County (WV) - home of the proposed action - may be redesignated from
"moderate" non-attainment to ozone attainment in November 1994. Per Chuck Spann (WV
DEP), this state effort is based on the lack of ozone "hits" at the station in Huntington (13 miles
east of the proposed action). During this same call, WV DEP officials said that the results from
an ozone station in Wayne County (WV) [run by Company D in the Kenova cluster with
oversight provided by Kentucky DEP] will not be acknowledged and taken into account for this
redesignation. This author placed a call to the U.S. EPA Region III for an air official to look
further into this matter.
As for ozone attainment in Kentucky (across the Big Sandy River border), a recent news article
said that the U.S. EPA Region IV has "tentatively agreed to upgrade the ozone attainment
status" for Kentucky's Tri-State counties (Boyd and Greenup).27 This is based upon a history
of two days with exceedances in the past three years. It is worth noting that one day had five-
one hour exceedances - one exceedance was even registered at double the ozone limit (0.162).
Regarding an assessment of CAP monitors, an enumeration was made of existing monitors for
the CAP chemicals (and affiliates) for a 122 square mile area centered around the Kenova
Industrial Cluster and is reflected in the following chart:
26 -In a recent Tri-State Geographic Initiative teleconference call (October 24, 1994).
27 Conversation with Mr. Dan Kash, Superintendent, Kentucky DEP, Division for Air Quality,
Ashland Field Office. November 15, 1994.
34
-------
Table 4.4 Number of Current Monitors for CAP chemicals - Within 11 Miles of Kenova Cluster
(as of October, 1994)
CAP Chemical and/or
CAP Species of Concern
Measurement
Number of
Field
Monitors
Particulates (TSP, PM-10)
PM-10
Particulate
4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOj)
NOj
1
Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ
so2
7
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO
2
Ozone (formed by NO2 +
VOC + Sunlight)
Ozone
1
Hydrogen Sulfide (HjS)
HzS
2
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
None *
0
Nitrous Acid Aerosols
(HONO, HNOj)
None *
0
Sulfuric Acid Aerosols
(H2SOJ
None *
0
Synergistic Combination
with other CAP chemical,
TRI chemical, or other
None, except
for secondary
pollutant ozone
0
Source: Adapted from information and maps provided from air monitoring officials in Kentucky
DEP, West Virginia DEP
Legend: * Projected to be measured in 1995, during Air Toxics Project
Although the general quantity of CAP monitors is noteworthy, they have been recently criticized
by local environmental groups and other sources. The four arguments are as follows:
1. Most of the monitors are being run by company D. It was verified that 9 of the 17
monitors are maintained by Company D. Historically, there apparently has been trust and
credibility problems between the citizen activists and this company.
2. The one and only ozone monitor in Wayne County is operated by Company D. The next
closest ozone monitor is in east Huntington (WV).
3. A third complaint is that "not enough" CAP monitors are situated in the prevailing wind
direction from the Kenova Industrial complex. Members of public interest groups are
concerned that more monitors should be placed between the large point sources and the
populations of Kenova and Ceredo. This complaint was evaluated, by drawing a
North/South, East/West grid, centered around Company D (largest source). The results
are that 9 of the 17 CAP monitors were positioned in the northeast quadrant. This
quadrant is the one that includes the towns of Kenova and Ceiedo.
35
-------
4. One U.S. EPA modeling expert warned of the broad conclusions made from CAP
monitors. He stated that, "If you look at the gradients of air concentrations - especially
in this area where you have large point sources - the gradients are extremely high. The
concentration distributions across the long plumes are pretty dramatic (the exception is
measuring for ozone and acid deposition)." This source said that, the likelihood that you
have your CAP or air toxics monitors in "just the right spot to capture the high values is
a very low probability." He related the monitors to a one-tailed statistical test: when you
see a problem (with monitors), you know there is a problem. However, by looking at a
monitor that does not have high readings, you do not have any definitive information
which says there are no problems out there, because you could be missing a high gradient.
He spoke his opinion that one can't hope to have a stand-alone monitoring program, which
tells you whether or not you are 100% complying with the ambient air standards. He
explained that's why modeling should also be an integral part of determining whether an
area is in compliance.
In light of this new information, it may be well worth re-evaluating the issue of protecting the
public from CAP chemicals. Agencies are suggested to audit the strategic positions of all
existing CAP stations - to ensure that they are optimally positioned to capture pollutants that may
contribute to chronic and other health effects in the host community.
Potential adverse effects may occur if sufficient exposure to CAP chemicals are present. The
American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 28 recognizes these
effects to be mostly chronic (effects from doses repeatedly entering the body over a long period
of time) and acute (effects from doses which produce an effect within a short period of time).
A brief summary of known effects are listed:
28 American Thoracic Society (ATS). "Health Effects of Air Pollution; Statement prepared for
the Scientific Assembly on Environmental and Occupational Health." February 1, 1978. (Circulated by
the American Lung Association). Pages 22-27, 45, 47.
36
-------
Table 4.5 Potential Health Effects of Concern from CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemical
Releases in the Kenova Cluster
CAP Chemical
and/or
Combination
Potential Health
Effect(s) of Concern
Description
S02
CT and AT
Aggravation of chronic obstructive lung
disease (COPD). Increased risk of chronic
and acute respiratory illness.
S02 and PM-10
(PM-10 is about
99% of TSP)
CT and AT
Human annoyance and/or visibility effects.
Respiratory symptoms and ventilatory
function changes. Worsening of patients'
pulmonary disease. Excess hospital
admissions and mortality.
Acid aerosols
CT and AT
Bronchoconstriction, increase in pulmonary
resistance.
TSP
CT
Altered lung function in children.
NOX and VOC
CT
NOX and VOC's may react, contributing to
low level ozone problems.
Carbon
Monoxide
CT, DT
Decreased exercise capacity. Decreased
maximal oxygen consumption.
Cardiovascular effects (e.g. aggravation of
angina). Certain data suggest perinatal
effects.
PM-10
C
Preliminary research has shown that
inhalable, biochemically inert, insoluble
particulate matter (e.g. PM-10) may lead to
particle-induced tumors.
Combination of
CAP Chemicals
and TRI
chemicals
Unknown
Research on synergistic effects and
cumulative effects have been extremely
limited - in very early stages. The more
chemical combinations present, the more
potential for adverse interactions.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Health and Environmental Health Assessment, Research Needs for Risk
Assessment of Inhaled Particulate Matter, Executive Summary (2/93); U.S. EPA Air Quality
Criteria Documents and 77.
Legend: TSP (Total Suspended Particulate); NOX (Nitrous Oxides); S02 (Sulfur Dioxide); CO (Carbon
Monoxide); VOC (Volatile Organic Compound); PM-10 (Particulate Matter under 10 microns);
CT = Chronic Toxicity; AT = Acute Toxicity; C = Carcinogenic
It is worth noting that due to limited research, much uncertainty remains for the synergistic
effects of these CAP chemicals released to the air (45 million lbs/vr) - both with themselves and
other air toxics. Synergism is defined as a response to a mixture of toxic chemicals that is
greater than that suggested by the individual component toxicities. In addition, potentiation may
be present. This is a special case of synergism in which one substance does not have a toxic
effect on a certain organ or system, but when added to another chemical it makes the latter much
more toxic.1112 Finally, the residents near the proposed action may also be potentially exposed
to air pollutants from other nearby clusters and sources.
37
-------
E. Air Quality - Releases of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals
For the Kenova Area Cluster, the TRI air pollution is reported to be 845,939 lbs per year (1992
TRI database). The breakdown is as follows:
Table 4.6 Summary of Total TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals Reported Released into
the Air (Ibs/yr) in the Kenova Cluster
Resident Facilities of
Kenova Area
Industrial Cluster
Total Reported TRI
Chemicals Reported
Released Obs/yr)
Company A
261,925
Company B
3,097
Company C
13,312
Company D
567,605
Total
845,939
Source: 1992 TRI databases from Kentucky DEP and West Virginia DEP
To begin understanding the array of TRI chemicals reported as air releases in the Kenova
Cluster, refer to Table 4.7, page 40. The fourth column (Toxicity Profile) illustrates the
possible human health effects associated with each TRI chemical. The basis is a toxicity data
matrix, developed by the U.S. EPA's Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics (OPPTS),
previously known as the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) of the U.S. EPA. As reported in
a recent U.S. EPA Region IV publication:
This toxicity matrix is a summary presentation of information publicly available through a number of
accessible databases: HSDB (1); RTECS (2) GENETOX (3); AQUIRE (4); ENVIROFATE (5); LOG
P (7); and CHEMTRACK (8). Chemical agents for which publicly available data suggested sufficient
evidence that exposure to the chemical agent potentially results in one or more human health or
ecological effects were tabulated in the appropriate fields on the matrix. There are seven adverse
human health and three ecological effects of concern. 29
The author, Dr. John R. Stockwell, a U.S. EPA Regional Human Health Effects Officer at the
time, defined the human health effects as follows:
Carcinogenicity (C) - chemical is defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) as carcinogenic, i.e. may cause cancer in humans and/or laboratory animals, e.g. benzene
which can cause leukemia.
29 U.S. EPA Region IV's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know. "Categories
of Released Chemicals Reported to the Toxic Release Inventory - 1990 Data." January 1993.
38
-------
Heritable Genetic and romosomal Mutation (GC) - may cause mutations in genes and
chromosomes which wil: assed to the next generation, e.g. hydrogen fluoride.
Developmental Toxicity ) - may cause birth defects or miscarriage, e.g. 1,3 butadiene.
Reproductive Toxicity - may damage the ability of men or women to reproduce, e.g. lead.
Acute Toxicity (AT) - r cause death from even short-term exposures, either through the lungs,
the mouth, or the skin, e. phosgene or mustard gas.
Chronic Toxicity (CT) - y cause long-term damage other than cancer, such as liver, kidney, or
lung damage, e.g. carbon : achloride.
Neurotoxicity (N) - may Y m the central nervous system by affecting the brain, spinal cord, or
nerves, e.g. mercury.
It is very important to resize that the TRI database provides information about releases to
the environment and nor ' :ual human exposures to these chemicals. Many things can happen
to a chemical once it is i eased into the environment, and these processes make it difficult
and extremely complicated to calculate the extent to which people are being exposed to
chemicals as a results o - :\y particular release. The TRI data can best serve as an index to
potential problems, rath than as a definitive indicator of public exposure to chemicals. 27
39
-------
Table 4.7 List of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals Reported Released into the Air (Ibs/yr) in the
Kenova Cluster
TRI Chemical
Facility
Source
Air Releases
(lbs/yr)
Toxicity Profile
* see legend
Reference
Concentration
(RfC in
mg/m3)
Toxic
Potency for
Non-Cancer
Effects
(Based on
RfC)
Ethylene
A
79
CT
*
*
Sulfuric Acid
A
157
RT, AT, N
0.03
Medium
Propylene
A
261,689
N, ET
*
*
Hydrochloric Acid
B
3,097
AT, CT
0.03
Medium
Acrylic Acid
C
1,745
AT, CT, ET
0.001
High
Maleic Anhydride
C
5,911
AT, CT, ET
0.04
Medium
Xylene
C
5,656
DT, RT, CT, ET
8.7
Low
1,1,1
Trichloroethane
D
4,450
DT, RT, CT, ET, P
0.49
Medium
1,2,4 Trimethyl
benzene
D
12,562
ET
4.1
Low
1,3 Butadiene
D
525
C, DT, RT, CT, N,
ET
73.0
Low
Benzene
D
154,565
C, DT, RT, CT,
ET, P
0.0055
High
Biphenyl
D
348
DT, CT, ET
0.31
Medium
Carbon Tetrachloride
D
2,281
C, DT, AT, CT, N,
ET, P
0.0044
High
Chlorine
D
250
AT, CT, ET
0.1
Medium
Cumene
D
46.606
CT, N, ET
0.2
Medium
Cyclohexane
D
9,898
ET
34.0
Low
Dichloromethane
D
14,955
C, CT, P
0.21
Medium
Ethyl Benzene
D
8,019
DT, RT, CT, ET, P
1.0
Medium
Ethylene
D
5,264
CT
*
*
Hydrogen Fluoride
D
5
GC, DT, RT, AT,
CT,
0.08
Medium
Methanol
D
5,476
N
0.65
Medium
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
D
14,045
DT, RT, CT, N, P
1.0
Medium
Methyl Tert-butyl
Ether
D
46,113
AT, N, P
3.0
Low
Naphthalene
D
13,387
DT, CT, ET, B
0.21
Medium
Propylene
D
52.204
N. ET
*
*
Styrene
D
1,203
C, GC, DT, CT,
ET
1.0
Medium
Toluene
D
101,757
DT, RT, ET
0.4
Medium
Xylene (Mixed
Isomers)
D
73,692
DT, RT, CT, ET
8.7
Low
40
-------
(Continued)
Sources: U.S. EPA 1992 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database; IRIS (Integrated Risk Information
System), HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables) databases; Toxic Potency
from U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide; Assistance from KDEP
Risk Assessment Branch and U.S. EPA Region IV Air Division
Legend: Toxicity Profile: C (Carcinogenic); GC (Heritable Genetic and Chromosomal Mutation);
DT (Developmental Toxicity); RT (Reproductive Toxicity); AT (Acute Toxicity); CT
(Chronic Toxicity); N (Neurotoxicity); ET (Environmental Toxicity - Ecological); B
(Bioaccumulation - Ecological); P (Persistence - Ecological). As identified from the U.S.
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPTS) toxicity data matrix. Contact
Holtzclaw for definitions.
Point Source: For names of companies A-D, Refer to Appendix B, page 83.
* = Not available in scientific literature
This TRI inventory may underestimate the number of different air toxics being released (See
Appendix A, page 77). For instance, Company D is required to report 21 air toxics under the
U.S. EPA's TRI system - however the American Petroleum Institute recognizes at least 89
hazardous agents common in the petroleum industry. 30 In addition, this underestimation is
evident when one looks at the reporting of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - some of which
are air toxics (See Table 4.3, page 33). The difference between the VOC quantities and the TRI
quantities may be quite large, thus indicating many air toxics may not be individually captured
under the TRI reporting system, (e.g. Company C; 248,000 lbs/yr VOCs and 13,312 lbs/yr TRI
chemicals or Company D; 6,102,800 lbs/yr VOCs and 567,605 lbs/yr TRI chemicals).
To further understand the toxic profiles of these TRI chemicals released into the air, an
aggregation was done for the individual chemicals by potential adverse health effects.
30 The American Petroleum Institute (API) Industrial Hygiene Committee (1985) developed a
list of 89 substances potentially present in refining and allied petrochemical operations. Hanley and
Belfus. "The Petroleum Industry; State of the Arts Reviews." Philadelphia. 1988. For a copy, contact
the API.
41
-------
Table 4.8 Potential Health Effects of Concern from TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemical
Releases into the Air (lbs/yr) from the Kenova Cluster
Potential Health Effect of Concern
Amount of TRI Chemicals
Released with Characteristic of
Potential Adverse Health Effect
(lbs/yr)
Chronic Toxicity (CT)
356,083
Acute Toxicity (AT)
59,559
Developmental Toxicity (DT)
379,933
Reproductive Toxicity (RT)
362,871
Neurotoxicity (N)
387,096
Cancer (C)
173,529
Heritable Genetic and Chromosomal Mutation
(GQ
1,208
Source: Potential health effects as identified from die U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPTS) toxicity data matrix; U.S. EPA 1992 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database.
Note: Synergism and potentiation effects are not accounted for.
It is worth noting that due to limited research, much uncertainty remains for the synergistic
effects of these TRI chemicals released to the air (846.000 lbs/vr). Synergism is defined as a
response to a mixture of toxic chemicals that is greater than that suggested by the individual
component toxicities. In addition, potentiation may be present. This is a special case of
synergism in which one substance does not have a toxic effect on a certain organ or system, but
when added to another chemical it makes the latter much more toxic.1112 Finally, the residents
near the proposed action may also be potentially exposed to air pollutants from other nearby
clusters and sources.
The TRI data presented above may be criticized by those who think it is not appropriate to
review such release and potential exposure relationships. However, this analysis, in fact, does
meet the original intent of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) pollution database, as stated by
Senator Robert T. Stafford (R-VT) who introduced the "Community Right-to-Know" provisions.
This amendment required companies to file annual reports of their releases of toxic substances
into the environment. In Congress, Senator Stafford stated one of its purposes:
The inventories reveal geographic and industrial patterns of environmental release, which health
officials can correlate with records of disease incidence to seek out possible relationships. 31
31 A Legislative History of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99-499), Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, October, 1990, Volume 2,
page 1084.
42
-------
The U.S. EPA Region IV calls this subject "Toxicological Patheogeography," in a recent user
manual 32 which helps identify the possible geographical distribution of diseases caused by
environmental poisons. The computer-aided system supports the need to locate SHE (Sentinel
Health Events) which are defined as an unnecessary disease, disability or untimely death which
can be environmentally related. The geographic analyses of the TRI data are promoted to:
...provide the impetus for epidemiological (health) studies; or serve as a warning signal that
environmental control (increased regulatory focus) may be required. 30
To ultimately have improved surveillance between pollution, exposure, and health effects - this
area of research and work between environmental and health agencies is critical. Often it is the
least developed, yet is absolutely essential. If a multi-agency, coordinated surveillance efforts
prevented just one death, disease, injury, or one year of life lost from exposure, it would be well
justified.
F. Population Sub-Groups Potentially at Risk
The U.S. EPA and the American Lung Association (ALA) have recognized that significant
number of people are particularly at-risk of being affected by air pollution and can least afford
exposure to airborne pollutants. They define populations-at-risk as:
a segment of the defined population exhibiting characteristics associated with significantly higher
probability of developing a condition, illness, or other abnormal status. This high risk may result
from either greater inherent susceptibility or from exposure to situations peculiar to that group. What
is meant by inherent susceptibility is a host characteristic or status that predisposes the host to a
greater risk of heightened response to an external stimulus or agent. 33
32 This landmark document discusses a comprehensive system for the determination and
surveillance of environmental disease and injury. The author of this work was re-assigned shortly after
the development of BETA testing, and the ground-breaking work appears to have stopped. John R.
Stockwell, M.D., M.P.H. "Sentinel Environmental Disease and Injury Management Information System
(SEDIMIS)." U.S. EPA Region IV. March, 1993. Pages i-iii, 1-3.
33 This informative publication describes the estimates of sensitive sub-populations for selected
counties in the Tri-State region, as well as counties across the nation. American Lung Association.
"Breath in Danger II; Estimation of Populations-at-Risk of Adverse Health Consequences in Areas Not
in Attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the Clean Air Act." To order, call (212-
315-8700). 1993. Pages 1-7, 16.
43
-------
The ALA documented these higher at-risk populations for air pollution to be:
• Pre-adolescent children (13 years old and younger)
• Elderly (65 years old and older)
• Pediatric Asthma (less than 18 years old)
• Adult asthma (greater than 18 years old)
• COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, which includes chronic bronchitis and
emphysema)
• Coronary and Cerebrovascular Disease
• Pregnant Women
Their report33 shows that Wayne County (WV) (host county downwind of the Kenova cluster)
has a population of 41,636 and has these estimates of sensitive populations: age-specific pre-
adolescent children (7,986 persons); age-specific elderly (5,718); pediatric asthma (616); adult
asthma (1,126); and COPD patients (2,420).
As for the other sensitive subpopulations mentioned by the ALA, the number of coronary and
cerebrovascular patients is not known for Wayne County. This sub-group is particularly at risk
to exposure to carbon monoxide, and perhaps other toxics. As for pregnant women, the
estimated numbers are not known. This sub-group is at-risk to exposures to carbon monoxide,
lead, and other air toxics (e.g. those chemicals with reproductive and developmental toxicities).
A third group, although not mentioned in ALA's report, concerns immunocompromised
individuals. According to a U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria document for Nitrogen dioxide
(NO^:
Another potential susceptible subpopulation group is immunocompromised individuals, who would
have an increased susceptibility for infectious pulmonary disease as well as other health effects. Such
people would hypothetically be more susceptible to chemical agents, that further compromise host
defenses. Immunocompromised groups could include those people with abnormalities in poly-
morphonuclear leukocyte number or function and those with humoral and/or cell mediated immunity
dysftinctions. This would include people with reduced immune function related to kidney transplants,
acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and chemotherapy. 34
The Tri-State Initiative's computer analysis that "zeroed in" on the Kenova cluster concurs with
these relative numbers of the sensitive, age-specific populations. There were approximately
1,548 pre-adolescent children and 1,584 elderly. [See Section 4(A), Table 4.1, page 26] These
3,132 residents represent 37 percent of the population (8,385) - a sizable number.
The reasons for paying special attention to these subpopulations is that:
1.) They may be more affected by levels of air pollution (CAP chemicals and TRI
chemicals) than other subpopulations or
2.) The impact of an effect of a given magnitude may be greater.
34 U.S. EPA. "Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen." U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-9l/049aF. August 1993. Pages 1-23 to 1-25.
44
-------
One may ask whether these potentially at-risk susceptible populations are already being affected
by an unacceptable threshold of exposure to air toxics near the proposed action. Since air toxics
monitoring data has not begun [See Section 4(B), Air Quality - General, page 27] and no
Kenova-area health studies focused on these special at-risk groups have been done - a high level
of uncertainty exists.
G. Potential Existing Health Outcomes from Exposure to Air Pollution
1. Overview
It is important to attempt a discussion on the subject of the health of the 8,385 residents near
the proposed action. This discourse will focus only on health outcomes that are in the
category of environmentally-related disease and injury. To preface this challenging subject,
it is worth noting that the majority of the Kenova Cluster population is located in Wayne
County (WV). When one considers the predominant wind direction, the majority of the air
pollution would likely to be blown into Wayne county. [See Section 4(C), Meteorology, page
30]. The towns of Kenova and Ceredo are located between 1 and 3 miles downwind.
In scientific and medical journals, the evidence linking chemicals to ill health has continued
to accumulate. Writing in the American Journal of Public Health in 1992, Philip J.
Landrigan, chairman of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said:
Disease caused by toxic chemicals in the environment is a substantial...cause of morbidity [illness]
and mortality [death] in the United States and around the world....Public Health workers and the
makers of public policy must recognize that toxic chemicals in the environment are important,
widespread, proven causes of human disease. Each year preventable exposures to chemical toxins
sicken and kill thousands of persons of all ages in the United States and around the world. These
hazards must be confronted. They cannot be wished away. Reduction of exposures to chemical
toxins will prevent thousands of deaths and will improve the quality of hundreds of lives." 35
2. Evaluation of Wayne County Health Statistics
A. Overview
Keeping this connection between toxic releases and potential exposure in mind, an analysis
was performed of the mortality (death) entries for Wayne County in the publication
entitled "West Virginia County Health Profiles." 36 This is a fairly new publication,
released in November 1992. But more importantly, unlike Kentucky's Vital Statistics, it
reveals health data over long period of time, namely 1981-1990. The introduction reads:
35 Philip J. Landrigan. "Commentary: Environmental Disease - A Preventable Epidemic."
American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 82. July 1992. Pages 941-943.
36 Health Statistics Center (Office of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, Bureau of Public
Health, Department of Health and Human Resources). "West Virginia County Health Profiles."
November 1992. Pages 1, 307 - 312.
45
-------
This information is provided to allow counties to more accurately identify specific problems
among their residents....a knowledge of a county's worst health problems is necessary in
determining the priority of community interventions, (emphasis added) 36
After a cursory review, Wavne county showed an excess of disease and injury in the three
categories - COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), infant mortality and fertility
rate. These need to be evaluated for statistical significance. From discussions with health
professionals, there is no cause for alarm, but there mav be a cause for concern. In light
of this, it is strongly suggested that a more thorough investigation be performed as to the
possibility of "health event clustering." Authorities may consider focusing on the unique
zip code areas (Kenova, 25530; Ceredo, 25507) and/or census tracts to account for the
portion of the county downwind of the nearby Kenova industrial cluster.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)defines a "cluster" as an unusual aggregation,
real or perceived, of health events that are grouped together in time and space and that are
reported to a health agency. Should a cluster investigation be performed by appropriate
authorities, CDC suggests a four stage process: initial response; assessment; major
feasibility study; and etiologic investigation.
A discussion on this subject was held with Dr. Wendy Kaye, Chief of Epidemiology and
Surveillance Branch, Agency for Toxics Disease Registry (ATSDR) in Atlanta. Dr. Kaye
stated that the high mortality rates may be explained by a lack of adequate medical care
for COPD and a lack of prenatal care which could lead to occurrence of premature deaths.
Dr. Kaye offered ATSDR's assistance to review any scope of work, should authorities
decide to investigate this possible disease cluster.
Experts in environmental health with a knowledge of chemical exposure are essential to
the execution of any disease cluster investigation. Maior confounding factors (e.g.
smoking, nutrition, socioeconomic status, occupational exposure) undoubtedly will have
to be taken into account.
Exploring this cause-effect relationship to assess excess air risk has it's uncertainties. As
a recent article 38 circulated by the American Lung Association explained:
37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control. "Guidelines for Investigating Clusters of Health Events - Morbidity and Mortality Report." July
27, 1990.
38 American Review of Respiratory Disease. "Guidelines as to What Constitutes an Adverse
Respiratory Health Effect, with Special Reference to Epidemiologic Studies of Air Pollution." Vol. 131,
No. 4, April 1985, pages 666-668.
46
-------
Statistical methods cannot establish proof of a causal relationship hut can define an association
with a certain probability. The causal significance of an association is a matter of judgement
that goes beyond any statement of statistical probability. To judge or evaluate the causal
significance of the association between an air pollutant and respiratory symptoms, a number
of criteria must be used, no one of which by itself is pathognomonic (indicates a particular
disease). These include the ...consistency...strength... specificity...temporal relationship...and
the coherence of the association, (emphasis added) M
If a health event investigation is indeed warranted, authorities may want to refer to one
recent, nearby (about 35 miles to the east) health study 39 that focused on respiratory
health in the Kanawha Valley (WV). The study focused only on morbidity (illness) of
children living near industrial facilities. The researchers, lead by the Harvard School of
Health, found that the children living near industrial areas had higher rates of certain acute
and chronic health symptoms.
The next sections address the issue of health event, or disease clustering, by reviewing the
highlighted mortality statistics from the West Virginia document.
B. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Deaths
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Deaths - 27.6% above national
average.
- Statistic for Wayne County. Per WV Bureau of Public Health Vital Statistics
(1981-1990) *
According to TRI air releases and the U.S. EPA OPPTS Toxicity Data Matrix, the amount
of TRI chemicals having potential CT (Chronic Toxicity) effects is 356,083 lbs/yr from
the Kenova industrial complex. The amount of CAP chemical air releases having potential
CT characteristics is at 45.4 million lbs/yr [See Table 4.3, page 33].
The author initiated a discussion with Dr. Michael W. Easley, DDS, MPH, (Director, KY
Division of Environmental Health and Community Safety). Paraphrased, he responded
by saying, "This COPD rate may very well be generated by air pollution, occupational
exposure or lifestyle habits. This is definitely worth taking a look at more closely. If it
is attributed to air pollution, present exposure could be causing ailments, besides
premature mortality suggested by COPD rates. If I were living there I would definitely
want someone looking into this on my behalf." Dr. Easley suggested contacting the WV
Department of Health and Ohio Department of Health.
39 Spengler, Ozkaynak, Ware et al (School of Public Health, University of New Mexico,
Marshall University, National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety). "Air Pollution and
Respiratory Health in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia: Summary of Phase HI Findings and an
Update of the Phase n Results." Prepared for the National Institute for Chemical Studies and the U.S.
EPA. April 1992.
47
-------
Some may argue the COPD rates as inconsequential, as the smoking rate was documented
as 31% above national average. However, a recent American Lung Association
publication 40 states that, "Cigarette smoking accounts for 82 percent of COPD deaths;
a smoker is ten times more likely than a non-smoker to die of COPD." Given this, not
all COPD deaths may be attributed to smoking. Non-smoker cases of COPD should be
investigated.
In turn, it has been found that if COPD is a preexisting disease in individuals, air pollution
may aggravate it's development - and possibly mean years of potential life lost. A U.S.
EPA Air Criteria document states:
Other potentially susceptible groups include patients with COPD, such as emphysema and
chronic bronchitis. Some of these patients have airway hyper-responsiveness to physical and
chemical stimuli. A major concern with COPD patients is the absence of an adequate
ventilatory reserve... In addition, the poor distribution of respiratory tract ventilation in COPD
may lead to a greater delivery of N02 to the segment of the lung that is well ventilated, thus
resulting in a greater regional tissue dose. Also N0Z exposure may alter already impaired
defense mechanisms, making this population potentially susceptible to respiratory infection.
It is estimated that 14 million persons in the U.S. (6%) suffer from COPD. 34
The Wayne County COPD statistic is of additional concern since the two main COPD
diseases (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) take a heavy annual toll on our national
economy: $7,692 million in health care and indirect costs.40 For Wayne county, medicare
and medicaid statistics may be evaluated to determine how much federal monies are being
spent for COPD patients.
C. Infant Mortality and Fertility Rate
Infant Postneonatal Deaths - 41.7% above national average
Specific Fertility Rates - 20.4% lower than national average
- Statistic for Wayne County. Per WV Bureau of Public Health Vital Statistics
(1981-1990). 36
According to TRI air releases and the U.S. EPA OPPTS Toxicity Data Matrix, the amount
of chemicals having potential DT (Developmental Toxicity) effects is 379,933 lbs/yr from
the Kenova industrial complex. The amount of air released TRI chemicals having potential
RT (Reproductive Toxicity) characteristics is at 362,871 lbs/yr [See Section 4(E), page
38].
In addition, carbon monoxide (CO) has been studied for its DT (developmental toxicity)
and RT (reproductive toxicity) effects. From the Kenova cluster, CO releases totaled 11
40 American Lung Association (ALA). "Lung Disease Data 1994." Adapted from information
published by the Division of Epidemiology, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Pages 6-7.
48
-------
million lbs/yr. A recent U.S. EPA publication 41 announced that:
Studies in laboratory animals of several species provide strong evidence that maternal CO
exposures of 150 to 200 ppm, leading to approximately 15 to 25% COHb, produce reductions
in birth weight, cardiomegalv. delays in behavioral development, and disruption in cognitive
function....Isolated experiments suggest that some of these effects may be present at
concentrations as low as 60 to 65 ppm (approximately 6 to 11 % COHb) maintained throughout
gestation. The current data from human children suggesting a link between environmental CO
exposures and sudden infant death syndrome are weak, but further study should be encouraged,
(emphasis added)41
In addition, the TGI Coordinator has received unconfirmed reports from several area
residents that the rate of endometriosis disease is high in the Kenova community. The
disease, in which tissue from the uterus mysteriously migrates to the abdomen, ovaries,
bowels or bladder, often causes infertility, internal bleeding, and other problems. Recent
research, by the University of Wisconsin suggests a link to environmental toxins. The
publication Science42, reported on a scientific article from the journal, Fundamental and
Applied Toxicology:
The study (with primates) has a lot of researchers who study human endometriosis looking
suspiciously at dioxin. "This is the first big piece of evidence that environmental toxins may
be involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis," says David Olive, chief of reproductive
endocrinology and infertility at the Yale University of Medicine. 42
For assistance on these reproductive and developmental toxicity issues, it may be
appropriate to contact such national organizations (e.g. March of Dimes), medical
universities and some organizations within U.S. EPA.
D. Cancer
Due to time limitations, other vital statistics are not discussed. It is recommended that the
issue of cancer in Wayne county be explored. At least one local article43 speaks to this
community concern for cancer prevalences. The National Cancer Advisory Board
(NCAB), an official body of the National Cancer Institute, last month, published a report,
Cancer at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress for the Nation. According to a recent
article44 on this landmark document, it reported:
41 U.S. EPA. "Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide." U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-90/045F. December 1991. Pages 1-14.
42 Ann Gibbons. "Dioxin Tied to Endometriosis.1' Science. Volume 262. November 26,
1993. Page 1373.
43 Charleston Gazette. "Cancer Mystery; Kenova-area residents wonder why so many are
dying." Alyssa Lenhoff. May 8, 1988.
49
-------
The NCAB... last month issued a stinging indictment of the nation's cancer programs.
Furthermore, for the first time in memory the Board said industrial chemicals, environmental
chemicals that mimic hormones, and pesticides need to he investigated as causes of
cancer...Until now, the National Cancer Institute has taken the official position that chemicals
cause such a small percentage of cancers that they are not worth investigating. In a turnabout,
the NCAB now says, "The elimination or reduction of exposure to carcinogenic agents is a
priority in the prevention of cancer. We are iust beginning to understand the full range of
health effects resulting from the exposure to occupational and environmental agents and
factors." (emphasis added) 44
3. Health Studies and Toxicological Reports
Regarding a search for past health-related studies in the area of the proposed action, difficulty
was encountered. The three that the author has identified are the following: George Waddle,
Jr. Epidemiological Study, Marshall University School of Medicine Epidemiological Study;
and the Stanford University's Health Study. At the present time, only one was available for
discussion.
The Stanford University (CA) Medical School supported one such health study 45 in 1988.
An investigation was performed of symptoms, diseases and cancer rates in Kenova with a
comparison community named Milton (WV) [20 miles east along interstate 64]. Milton was
considered for its similar size, and other factors such as sex, age and non-prevalence of
substantial industry. Interviews were modeled after the National Health Interview Study. In
all, 494 interviews were held with Kenova households and 377 households in Milton. The
University presented in the findings in terms of prevalence rates and relative risk (which
refers to the result when one divides the percentage of people with a particular problem in
Kenova by the percentage of people with the same problem in Milton). Stanford University
reported:
Several symptoms (for Kenova), however, retained significant differences both in ahsolnte
magnitude and in statistical probability, even within the NERS (no-emission-related-symptoms)
sample. These health symptoms are dry or itching skin, frequent headaches, frequent indigestion,
excessive tiredness, shortness of breath, trouble breathing, eye irritation, trouble sleeping, tinnitus,
chest pain, and tachycardia. Most of these are medically plausible reactions to irritants of the skin,
respiratory tract, eyes, or central nervous system. The increased rate of skin and colon cancer is
also worth noting, (emphasis added) 45
It was mentioned that the study was limited in five capacities (i.e. different degrees of
exposure within the Kenova area was not assessed). However, it was stated that:
44 Environmental Research Foundation. "A Turnabout For Cancer Policy?" Rachel's
Environment and Health Weekly. #412. October 20, 1994. Page 1.
45 Jonathan Mermin. "Health Study of Kenova, West Virginia." Stanford University Medical
School. 1988.
50
-------
Nevertheless, there are several indications that the results may be indicative of actual differences
between the two community samples. The initial prevalence rates and relative risks for the
majority of conditions examined are larger and more statistically significant than results from many
other studies of the same type. Many of these conditions remained at a relative risk level of 2.0
or higher within the NERS sample, (emphasis added) 45
It is recommended that all past medical studies of this region be gathered at this time - for
a full-scale review by appropriate medical authorities and environmental officials.
As for toxicological reports, several are in the public domain, due to some litigation with
Company D. In one report44 these documents are listed as written by:
• Thomas J. Overcamp, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
• Ian H. Von Lindern, Ph.D., P.E.
• Paul Fahrenthold, Ph.D., P.E.
• Medical Toxicology Partnership (Goldstein & Teitelbaum)
• William L. Marcus, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Due to time constraints, access was limited to the toxicological report by Dr. Marcus. In his
report 46, the board certified consulting toxicologist (and a U.S. EPA employee) remarked
about the health records of 11 adults and 14 children. Dr. Marcus provided a discussion of
the high frequency of rare and common clinical manifestations, to which he firmly believed
are related to toxic exposure from local air pollution. The adverse effects on children were
listed as: headaches (37%); fluctuating weights (37%); discolored nail beds (36%); accident
prone (43%); respiratory problems (60%); fatigue (21%); dizzy (21%); and several instances
of possible central nervous system (CNS) problems. As for the adverse effects on adults,
these were: respiratory effects (91%); gynecological complaints (86% of women); clinical
history of shortness of breath (90%); blurry vision and gastrointestinal symptoms (73%);
ridged discolored nails (60%); polyneuritis and joint pain (50%); cancers, rashes and
cardiovascular adverse health effects (+45%); ringing in ears, high blood pressure and
dizziness (37%) and instances of potential CNS problems.
In the report, Dr. Marcus wrote:
Based on the work of Von Lindern as well as the medical examinations and questionnaires
and my preliminary review on the toxic effects of the chemicals listed, the probability that these
health effects were not caused by exposure to chemicals from Company D is vanishingly small.
Company D, at least, acted in careless disregard of, the people who were inevitably exposed to
its emissions and discharges and at worst, failed to consider the long-term consequences. A great
amount of the toxicology was known... it is my opinion that there is a reasonable scientific
probability that the chemicals and compounds emitted by Company D caused significant and
permanent health damage to each of the twenty-five people named in this report. Additionally
there is reasonable probability that these individuals are at increased risk for medical problems in
the future. 46
Based upon the information, it is recommended that all toxicological studies of this region be
gathered at this time - for a full-scale review by appropriate medical authorities and
environmental officials.
46 This report is filed in the Circuit Court of Cabell County (WV). William L. Marcus, Ph.D.,
D.A.B.T. "Toxicological Report; Adkins v. Ashland Oil, Inc." July 11, 1994.
-------
H. Environmental Justice (EJ)
The subject of EJ is great national concern. Ms. Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. EPA,
made EJ one of her top priorities. The U.S. EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health (NEIH) recently sponsored a landmark conference entitled the "Symposium on Health
Research & Needs to Ensure EJ" in February, 1994. In a recent Congressional testimony, Ms.
Browner stated:
We now believe that people of color and low income are disproportionately affected by some
environmental risks - the risk of living near landfills, municipal waste combustors, or hazardous waste
sites... I have made environmental justice one of the key policy themes of my administration.
Environmental justice must be woven into all aspects of EPA operations: rulemaking, permitting
enforcement, education, hiring and outreach. Our program offices are expanding their data collection
efforts in communities located near large sources of pollution in order to help us assess health impacts,
(emphasis added) 47
The federal government formally recognized the need to identify and address EJ for the first
time in a February, 1994 Executive Order signed by President Clinton. According to the
President's Executive Order, the formula for the qualifying areas subject for EJ attention
includes these components: low-income and/or minority populations; and disproportionate
pollution and environmental risks.
As for the existing Kenova cluster, the socioeconomics [See Table 4.1, page 26] were:
Kenova Cluster National Average
Low-Income* 37.2% 13.1%
Without High 32.9% 20.8%
School Diploma
* Based upon the standard U.S. Census Bureau method of identifying percentage of households (with average
2.6 members) under the national poverty level of $14,764.
These statistics qualified the residents for meeting the low-income criteria (they were 3 times
the national average). The next step was to determine whether the Kenova Cluster residents
were "disproportionately affected" by pollution. Two tables were constructed 48 to evaluate
this question.
For each industrial cluster, the "Air Pollution Per Capita" was evaluated - this was generated
by dividing the total reported air releases by the number of persons living near the industries that
made up the cluster. These were the results:
47 Carol Browner. "Statement of Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, before the Government Operations Committee, United States House of
Representatives." May 6, 1993. Pages 3-4.
48 Population and area statistics were from the Risk Screening Project. Ken Bates.
"Memorandum to Brian Holtzclaw, Project Manager; Subject: Demographic Statistics (Tri-State)."
Kentucky Division of Administrative Services, Geographic Information System Section. October 18,
1994.
52
-------
Table 4.9 Environmental Justice - Air Pollutants per Capita by Industrial Cluster
Industrial Cluster
in Tri-State
CAP
Chemicals
Released
to Air
(Ibs/yr)
TRI
Chemicals
Released to
Air (lbs/yr)
Total Air
Pollutants
(lbs/yr)
Population
within
Cluster
(persons)
Total Air
Pollutants
per Capita
(lbs/yr)
Rank
1. Portsmouth
Area
6,648,000
393,616
7,041,616
28,336
248
4
2. Greenup Area
10,178,486
2,060,910
12,239,396
6,157
1,988
2
3. Ironton Area
12,403,600
289,925
12,693,525
30,339
418
5
4. South Point
Area
32,911,200
69,600
32,980,800
20,752
1,589
3
5. Kenova Area *
45,405,400
845,939
46,251,339
8,385
5,516 *
1 *
6. Huntington
Area
5,991,800
279,988
6,271,788
62,129
101
6
Source: 1992 TRI chemical databases, 1993 CAP chemical databases, Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet, Office of GIS and TGI Technical Steering Committee, computer
analysis of 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data and GIS technology
Legend: * Area of Proposed Action
The Kenova area residents ranked first in "total air pollutants per capita" - one measure of
disparate pollution.
To further evaluate disproportionate pollution in the large 6-county region, another analysis was
performed. For each industrial cluster, the "Air Pollution Per Square Mile" was evaluated - this
was generated by dividing the total reported air releases by the square miles the cluster covered.
Recall that the clusters were generated by 2-mile buffer zones. [See Section 4(B), page 27]
These were the results:
53
-------
Table 4.10 Environmental Justice - Air Pollutants per Square Mile by Industrial Cluster
Industrial Cluster
in Tri-State
CAP
Chemicals
Released
to Air
(lbs/yr)
TRI
Chemicals
Released to
Air (lbs/yr)
Total Air
Pollutants
(lbs/yr)
Size of
Defined
Cluster
Inclusive of
Nearby
Populations
(Square
miles)
Total Air
Pollutants
for Area
(lbs/square
mile/yr)
Rank
1. Portsmouth
Area
6,648,000
393,616
7,041,616
36.85
191,089
5
2. Greenup Area
10,178,486
2,060,910
12,239,396
26.61
459,955
4
3. Ironton Area
12,403,600
289,925
12,693,525
22.76
557,711
3
4. South Point
Area
32,911,200
69,600
32,980,800
20.09
1,641,652
2
5. Kenova Area +
45,405,400
845,939
46,251,339
23.59
1,960,633
*
1 *
6. Huntington
Area
5,991,800
279,988
6,271,788
37.22 | 168,506
6
Source: 1992 TRI chemical databases, 1993 CAP chemical databases, Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet, Office of GIS and TGI Technical Steering Committee, computer
analysis of 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data and GIS technology
Legend: * Area of Proposed Action
Again, the Kenova area residents ranked first in "total air pollutants per square mile" - another
measure of disparate pollution.
The above tables unequivocally communicate that the residents of the Kenova area cluster are
disproportionately affected by environmental risks - in comparison with the rest of the 6-county
Tri-State area. Stated more simply, the situation is this:
The Kenova community (a.k.a. residents living within the "Kenova industrial cluster") is the
strongest candidate for EJ in the Tri-State region. As for being low income, 37% of the
households were below the poverty line (the national level is 13%). As far as being
disproportionately subject to environmental risks, these people were living next to 40% of the
air pollution (46 million lbs/year) from industry in the entire 6-county region (117 million
lbs/yr). As far as being a disproportionately small group of residents, these 8,385 persons
made up only 2.2% of the 6-county wide population. As far as being disproportionately a
small area, the size of this local area near this particular industrial cluster (24 square miles)
only made up 1 % of the surface area of the 6-counties (2,300 square miles).
The residents living near the proposed action can make an excellent argument for receiving
increased EJ attention from the federal and state governments. The host community has already
taken up a disparate burden of pollutants from the neighboring industrial Kenova cluster. This
issue of "injustice and burden" is explained by one leader in the environmental justice
movement:'
54
-------
In its broadest context, environmental injustice may be defined as follows: An environmental injustice
occurs whenever a person or persons must carry an environmental burden for the alleged "good" of
society - a burden that the rest of society does not bear...An environmental injustice may impact a
person of any race, class, or income level. As a general rule however, people of color and/or people
of modest incomes suffer environmental injustices most frequently.. .What matters most is that some
people in this society are forced to bear the very expensive environmental costs of our technological
society. 49
The nearby companies benefit from their manufacturing operations. The chairman and CEO of
one neighboring facility made a statement about the large economic benefits to Congress:
Company D is the nation's largest independent refiner and a leading marketer of
petroleum products to other independent marketers. We have been in business for 64 years. In the
past 20 years, Ashland has diversified into a variety of businesses related to our primary energy and
chemical operations. However, refining and marketing petroleum products remains our core business,
from which, in a normal year, we derive substantial sales and profits.30
The rest of society, outside the Tri-State region, clearly benefits from the local production
operations. Company D's local refinery refines about 4 million gallons of gasoline a day -
enough to fill 1/4 million gasoline tanks for America's drivers. The refinery also creates
distillates (diesel, kerosene and some heating oils) at the amount of 2.5 million gallons each day.51
Local pollution and the inherent risks are the by-products from the production of these needed
goods. A question people may ask is, is it "fair" that the Kenova host community take on any
more environmental/health risks - such as this proposed action next-door? It is not only a
regulatory question, but an ethical question we must all answer.
In regards to non-health issues, according to two residents, 52 there apparently have been
disparate economic impacts to pay as neighbors. It was said that some local attorneys have
advised them that as a pre-requisite of attempting to sell their homes in the area, all sellers must
notify potential buyers of the liability (e.g. health/environmental impacts) of purchasing a home
near the neighboring industries, particularly Company D. This was said to have severely
discouraged home buying in the vicinity of the Kenova industrial cluster.
49 Florence Robinson. "1994 Louisiana Legislative Briefing Book; Chapter 3/ Environmental
Racism, Environmental Injustice and Environmental Equity." Page 21. Ms. Robinson is with the North
Baton Rouge Environmental Association.
50 John Hall. "Statement of John R. Hall Chairman and CEO, Ashland Oil, Inc. Before the
U.S. Senate Environmental Protection Subcommittee." Hearing of the Oil Spill on the Monongahela and
Ohio Rivers. The Subcommittee on Environmental Protection of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, U.S. Senate. One Hundredth Congress, Second Session. February 4, 1988.
51 Conversation with Ms. Angelia Graves. Refinery Environmental Manager. Ashland
Petroleum Company, Division of Ashland Oil, Inc, Catlettsburg, Kentucky. October 25, 1994.
52 Conversation with Ms. Louis Prince and Ms. Diana Bowen, residents of Kenova, WV.
October 21, 1994.
55
-------
I. Endangered, Threatened and Species of Concern
To research the ecological welfare of these species, the National Heritage Foundations in two
states were contacted.
As for Wayne County (WV). home of the proposed action, two species are under the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) protection status have been identified. The bachman's sparrow
(aimophila aestivalis) is associated with these habitat categories: forest edges, roadsides and
fence rows (HA7); early successional woodlands (HA8) and agricultural fields (HA 12). The
eastern big-eared bat (plecotus rafinesquii) is associated with caves, sinkholes and other karst
features. Both are known as category C2 candidate species (information is not yet sufficient to
make a listing decision). Research indicated that West Virginia did not have a State Endangered
Species Act and subsequently no species are protected at the State level.
Across the river from the proposed site is Boyd County (KYI - close enough for air borne
pollutants and water discharges to be affected. Two aquatic species are under U.S. DOI
protection, the fanshell bivalve (cyprogenia stegaria) and the salamander mussel (simpsonaias
ambigua). In Boyd County, there are other species of concern as identified by the Kentucky
State Nature Preserves Commission - Natural Heritage Program. They are the following:
vascular plants (southern maidenhair fern, golden star, Canada bumet, and viginia mallow);
bivalves (little spectaclecase and the two mentioned above); and fishes (american brook lamprey,
and trout perch).
J. Other
Due to time constraints and professional judgement, at this time, detailed research was not
performed for the following existing impacts near the proposed action:
1.
Geology, soils and hydrology
2.
Water quality
3.
Upland vegetation and wildlife
4.
Wetlands and wetland wildlife
5.
Aesthetics
6.
Ecologically significant areas
7.
Recreation
8.
Cultural resources
9.
Transportation
10.
Economics
It is suggested that authorities or members of the local community consider researching these
subjects.
56
-------
SECTION 5. Environmental Consequences - Significant Impacts
This section will discuss how the proposed action will potentially generate additional impacts and
risks (on-site and off-site) of the proposed action. An official EIS "scoping process," with
public involvement, would ensure the complete identification and examination of environmental
issues.
A. Research
On account of accurate release data not being available from the applicant (HCC) for 1-3 months
6, the author used case studies.
The first case study candidate for predicting the environmental consequences (of the proposed
action) was the Huntsman Chemical Corp (HCC) plant in Bayport (TX). It was chosen because
it was the same corporation as the applicant and it was relatively close to the capacity of the
proposed plant. In addition, when the author asked a corporate official if the proposed action's
environmental impacts/risks would be close to that of the HCC Bavport fDP facility, the answer
was yes.6 The following list is a part of existing publicly available information on this facility:
Huntsman Chemical Corporation
12222 Port Road, Bayport, Texas 77507
Ethylbenzene and styrene monomer
Styrene monomer (Principal product)
1.25 billion pounds per year; this is about 30% larger than the plant projected
for Neal, West Virginia.
Start-up reported to be 1988, former Hoechst Celanese Corporation plant
Unknown
None, per LEPC chairman for Harris County (TX), Mr. Mike Potts
Mr. Mike Mullin, EHS manager, Bayport. (713-474-1000)
FAX (713-291-1889)
Mr. Rick Monty, Director of Corp. EHS, HCC (804-494-2582)
Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
HG3307M represents the HCC - Bayport (TX) plant
TNRCC Air Division Field Office # 12, located in Bayport (TX)
Ms. Carolyn Guillory, TNRCC Engineer Investigator
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, now at Austin TNRCC office (512-239-1160)
U.S. EPA Region 6 Office
Mr. Bobbie Hickland of U.S. EPA, Region 6, (214-665-7583)
Ms. Marilyn Querejazu (512-239-2517)
TNRCC, Office of Pollution Prevention, Conservation and Recycling
(512-239-3146)
Jana Hellins, TNRCC (512-239-1359)
Ms. Marion Hall and Mr. Sarwar (TNRCC) verbally transmitted
information that was on diskette of Notice of Violations
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Office (202-260-2342)
57
Company:
Address:
Process Units:
Final Product:
Production rate:
Age:
No. Employees:
Union:
Envir. Mgr:
Corp.
State Regulators:
State Account #:
State Field Office:
Current Engineer:
Former Engineer:
Federal Authority:
Federal TRI:
State Emergency
Response:
State TRI Contact:
CAP Contact:
State Compliance:
Accidents:
-------
The second case study chosen was the Rexene Corp plant in Odessa (TX). This was arbitrarily
selected, from the fact a local company (Ashland Chemical Corporation) was said to sell and
distribute styrene monomer from this firm. In Odessa (TX), Rexene Corp has a 350 million
lb/yr ethylbenzene and styrene monomer process plant. Mr. Steve Melton, Environmental
Specialist, was very cooperative and reported that although the facility has a multiple chemical
operation, it was possible to provide reasonable estimates of air pollution from the two processes
in question.
Mr. Melton reported similarities between Rexene's plant and the proposed action in that both
would be using spent ethylene from a nearby refinery. To paraphrase, he did state an important
point, "the respective emissions for stvrene and ethvlbenzene (SEB1 processes aren't that much
different with plant size". He continued by saying, "many emissions are proportional with
production, but fugitive emissions (valves, pump seals, other non-point releases) aren't. You
should have the same amount of these fugitive causing equipment, and the fact of the matter is,
fugitives make up the majority of routine emissions." Mr. Melton forwarded air emissions
inventory information for the case study.
B. Air Quality - Releases of CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemicals
For the proposed action, the predicted CAP (Criterion Air Pollutant) chemical releases were
generated by using the two case studies:
Table 5.1 CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) Chemical Releases in 1992 - A Case Study of HCC,
Bayport (TX) plant and Rexene Corp, Odessa (TX) plant [Styrene Monomer]
CAP Chemical
HCC, Bayport (TX)
Total Air Releases
(lbs/yr)
Rexene, Odessa (TX)
Total Air Releases
(lbs/yr)
TSP (Total
suspended solids)
65,840
19,120
PM-10 (Suspended
solids less than 10
microns)
0
0
VOC (Volatile
Organic
Compounds)
99,860
221,400
S02 (Sulfur
Dioxide)
5,120
12,800
NOX (Nitrous
Oxides)
1,451,340
395,600
CO (Carbon
Monoxide)
105,800
1,230,000
Totals
1,727,960
1,878,920
Source: Jana Hellins, TNRCC and Mr. Steve Melton of Rexene Corp.
58
-------
As earlier discussed [see Section 4(D), page 33], the West Virginia DEP and the U.S. EPA
Region III is close to gaining "ozone attainment status" for Wayne County, home of the
proposed action. The large additional increase in NOX and VOC's (posed by the proposed
action) may potentially upset the attainment picture.
In regards to potential adverse health effects posed by proposed action, the table also showed
a substantial release of NOX. NOX alone, if sufficient exposure is present, has potential
adverse health consequences. NOX, in certain conditions, can be transformed into acid aerosols
(HONO, HN03) to present other potential adverse effects. NOX has been found to aggravate
COPD patients. [See Sections 4(D) and 4(G), page 45].
Regarding the issue of exposure to these CAP chemicals listed above, it is important to
remember that the residents of Kenova and Ceredo are within the most plausible exposure
pathway due to the prevailing wind patterns in the area. [See Section 4 (C), page 27] Secondly,
the distance from the proposed action source and the receptor high density populations is about
1-3 miles.
As for combinations or mixtures of CAP pollutants, it is worth noting that due to limited
research, much uncertainty remains for the synergistic effects of these CAP chemicals released
to the air (1.7 to 1.9 million lbs/vr noted above1). Synergism is defined as a response to a
mixture of toxic chemicals that is greater than that suggested by the individual component
toxicities. In addition, potentiation may be present. This is a special case of synergism in
which one substance does not have a toxic effect on a certain organ or system, but when added
to another chemical it makes the latter much more toxic. 1112 Finally, the proposed action may
present uncertainty with the mixture of new CAP releases with the Kenova cluster emissions,
but also uncertainties with mixing those new air pollutants from other nearby clusters and
sources.
The performance of an EIS will afford an opportunity to review the uncertainties of the
combinatory and individual effects of CAP chemicals.
C. Air Quality - Releases of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemicals
For evaluating the proposed action, the following chart documents the TRI chemical releases for
the case study plants:
59
-------
Table 5.2 TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) Chemical Releases in 1992 - A Case Study of HCC,
Bayport (TX) plant and Rexene Corp, Odessa (TX) plant
TRI Chemical
HCC,
Bayport (TX)
Total Air
Releases
(lbs/yr)
Rexene
Corp,
Odessa
(TX)
Total Air
Releases
Obs/yr)
Toxicity
Profile
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3)
[Non-Cancer
Effect
Indicator]
Toxic
Potency for
Non-Cancer
Effects
Benzene
10,200
55,800
C, DT,
RT, CT,
ET, P
0.0055
High
Ethylbenzene
17,200
70,600
DT, RT,
CT, ET,
P
1.0
Medium
Ethylene
750
10,860
CT
Not available
Not available
Styrene
23,400
41,000
C, GC,
DT, CT,
ET
1.0
Medium
Toluene
4,400
8,600
DT, RT,
ET
0.4
Medium
Totals
55,950
186,860

Sources: 1992 TRI database for HCC, Bayport (TX) plant; Account # HG3307M; U.S. EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPTS) toxicity data matrix; IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) and HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables) databases; Toxic
Potency from U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide, Chart from Steve
Melton of Rexene Corp.
Legend: Toxicity Profile: C (Carcinogenic); GC (Heritable Genetic and Chromosomal Mutation); DT
(Developmental Toxicity); RT (Reproductive Toxicity); AT (Acute Toxicity); CT (Chronic
Toxicity); N (Neurotoxicity); ET (Environmental Toxicity - Ecological); B (Bioaccumulation -
Ecological); P (Persistence - Ecological).
These TRI reported chemicals do not fully "paint the picture" of all potentially released air
toxics - as the TRI list may not include all chemicals on-site. This class of air toxics may very
well be under-reported, due to the inherent shortcomings of the U.S. EPA's TRI reporting
requirements. One may see from a comparison that the VOCs (volatile organic compounds) are
almost double the TRI chemicals that are reported released from HCC, Bayport (TX) facility.
Some of these unidentified VOCs may indeed be air toxics. Another case in point for the HCC
facility is that it lists 15 hazardous chemicals on-site for emergency purposes [See Table 5.3,
page 64], yet the TRI list of chemicals is much less than that number. In fact, this case study
facility had an accidental air release of polyethylbenzene [See Table 5.4, page 66], a chemical
that is not listed in the TRI figures above.
60
-------
Regarding the toxicity profile, interested individuals may further consult several noteworthy
publications 53 54 55 56 57 58 to further examine the detailed adverse health effects posed
by potential exposure to these individual chemicals above.
A case of uncertainty clearly exists for the toxicology of chemical ethvlbenzene. According to
the Styrene and Ethylbenzene Association (SEBA), a long awaited study on the dose-response
relationship of ethylbenzene is still outstanding. According to Mr. Tucker Helms (SEBA), the
National Toxicology Program (NTP) [said to be an umbrella group of government agencies
(U.S. EPA, ATSDR, NIOSH)] has a study focusing on the inhalation exposure route. His
conversation and statements concur with ATSDR's report, "Toxicological Profile for
Ethylbenzene", which explains in the section called, "Relevance to Public Health":
Evidence from the reviewed literature has shown that ethvlbenzene is toxic to both humans
and laboratory animals. Clinical observations in humans and observations in animals indicate that the
primary symptoms resulting from acute exposure in animals are manifested as neurological and
respiratory depression and eye and throat irritation. Several studies suggest that target organs of
ethylbenzene toxicity, identified in animals but not in humans, may be the liver, kidney, and
hematopoietic system. These results, however, are inconclusive (particularly regarding the dose-
response data') given the weaknesses present in many of these studies, (emphasis added) 39
Later on in ATSDR's report59, it asserts that:
Populations living or working near petroleum refineries or chemical manufacturing plants
may receive higher inhalation exposures than those experienced by the general population...the
following categories of possible data needs have been identified... they are defined as substance-
specific informational needs that, if met would reduce or eliminate the uncertainties of human health
assessment, (emphasis added) 53
53 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. "Toxicological Profile for Styrene." TP-91/25.
54 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. "Toxicological Profile for Benzene." Draft. February 18, 1992.
55 New Jersey Department of Health Right-to-Know Program. "Hazardous Substance Fact
Sheets." Distributed by the U.S. EPA Office of Toxic Substances. Chemicals such as benzene,
ethylbenzene, ethylene, styrene monomer, chlorine, and toluene.
56 U.S. EPA. "SARA 313 Ecological Fact Sheets." U.S. EPA Office of Toxic Substances.
Chemicals such as benzene, ethylbenzene, ethylene, styrene monomer, chlorine, and toluene.
57 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). "NIOSH Pocket Guide to
Chemical Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Centers
for Disease Control. June 1990.
58 N. Irving Sax and Richard J. Lewis. Hawley's Chemical Dictionary. Eleventh Edition.
59 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. "Toxicological Profile for Ethylbenzene." TP-90-15. December 1990. Pages 41-46 and 75-79.
61
-------
Regarding potential cancer effects, benzene is a known human carcinogen, most evident in the
well-known IRIS (Integrated Risk Information Management System) toxicological database. As
for styrene, it is not listed in IRIS, however the IARC (International Agency for Research on
Cancer) classifies styrene as a "possible" human carcinogen - because of positive but limited
animal data. A Fact Sheet 60 recently said, "when the Agency (U.S. EPA) adopts a
carcinogenicity characterization for styrene, the information will be entered into IRIS." As for
potential non-cancer effects, by observing the column entitled toxicity profile, it is evident that
these potential effects are numerous for these five TRI chemicals.
It is worth noting that due to limited government research, much uncertainty remains for the
synergistic effects of these TRI chemicals (and others not knownt released to the air fbetween
56.000 and 187.000 lbs/yr noted above). Synergism is defined as a response to a mixture of
toxic chemicals that is greater than that suggested by the individual component toxicities. In
addition, potentiation may be present. This is a special case of synergism in which one
substance does not have a toxic effect on a certain organ or system, but when added to another
chemical it makes the latter much more toxic. 1112 Finally, the proposed action may present
uncertainty with the mixture of new TRI releases with the Kenova cluster emissions, but also
uncertainties with mixing those new air pollutants from other nearby clusters and sources.
The performance of an EIS should afford an opportunity to review these uncertainties of the
combinatory and individual effects of TRI chemicals.
Regarding the issue of exposure to these TRI chemicals listed above, it is important to remember
that the residents of Kenova and Ceredo are within the most plausible exposure pathway due to
the prevailing wind patterns in the area. (See Section 4(C), page 30]. Secondly, the distance
from the proposed action source and the receptor high density populations is 1-3 miles.
Thirdly, the environmental fate (mobility) properties of these TRI chemicals indicate how it may
raise or lower concern of exposure in the medium of release (air). Using U.S. EPA literature,
both transport processes and transformation processes were taken into consideration:61
TRI Chemical Transport Transformation
(Persistence)
Benzene Medium Medium
Ethylbenzene Low Medium
Ethylene Low Medium
Styrene Medium Low
Toluene Medium Medium
60 U.S. EPA. "Statement on Styrene (CASRN 100-42-5)." U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati, Ohio. July 1992.
61 U.S. EPA. "Toxic Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide (Version 1.0)." U.S. EPA,
Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA/560/2-89-002. July 1989. Pages D-l to
D-3.
62
-------
As one can see, the list of five TRI chemicals, falls mostly in the "medium category" in
comparison to the universe of TRI chemicals. Thus, the respective tendency to retain a chemical
in the air (effecting the chance for exposure) is "medium." The transport process is defined as
how well it can be volatized (low = extremely volatile). The transformation process is defined
as how well it is persistent (low = half-life of less than 0.5 days).
An unsuccessful attempt was made to assess current air toxics monitoring in the vicinity of the
two case study plants. Information about this subject is rather unknown and is summarized as
follows:
* The state of Texas air toxics monitoring program was investigated. Research indicated that in both
the homes of these two case studies, the TNRCC formed a Community Air Toxics Monitoring
Program in 1992. ® The project currently is a network of IS monitoring sites in 10 counties
across Texas with plans to increase the number of compounds monitored and expand the number
of monitoring sites to 50 by 1995. The program is designed to detect pollutants that can result in
long-term health effects. Since Harris County [home of the HCC - Bayport (TX) plant], was
shown to emit about 1.5 million pounds of benzene/yr and other toxics - the TNRCC established
an air toxics network of 4 sites in this county. Based upon maps provided of the sites, they are
not in the proximity of the HCC Bayport (TX) plant. Therefore no air toxics results from the
TNRCC could be analyzed at this time.
• The Houston Regional Monitoring Network (HRM) complements the TNRCC network. This was
formed and funded by local industry to ensure air toxics compliance. This private HRM network
currently operates 6 independent sites in the Harris County area. Since the author does not have
a map of the HRM network and the HCC, Bayport (TX) plant site, at this time, it was not possible
to determine if a HRM monitoring station was located near the HCC, Bayport plant. Thus, a table
of sampling air toxics results could not be evaluated at this time.
Although there are hundreds of contaminants in air, only six have national standards by the U.S.
EPA (the six CAP chemicals). The U.S. EPA is increasingly establishing standards for ambient
concentrations of air toxics and VOC's at this time.
D. Toxic Chemical Activity and Use - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
Each year, pursuant to Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Section 311
& 312), companies have to file a Tier II report. Secondly, firms must update/file all material
safety data sheets for chemicals on-site. In the Tier n report, the chemical descriptions,
chemical inventory, chemical hazards, storage codes/locations and emergency contacts are
included. A unique feature is the storage codes which list where, how much and the conditions
of the toxic chemical. For 1993, the HCC - Bayport (TX) plant reported the following:
62 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. "Air Quality Assessment Program;
Community Air Toxics Monitoring Program Report; October 1992 - September 1993." May 1994.
63
-------
Table 5.3 Maximum Hazardous Chemicals On-Site At Any Time - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport
(TX) plant
Chemical On-Site
CAS
Number
Hazards
Maximum Daily Amount
(lbs)
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
Ethanol, Water
07732-18-5
A
10,000 - 99,999
4,6 Dinitro-Ortho-Cresol
00534-52-
1/100-42-5
F, A
100,000 - 999,999
Aluminum Oxide
01344-28-1
A
10,000 - 99,999
Benzene
00071043-2
F, A, C
1,000,000 - 9,999,999
Chlorine
07782-50-5
P, R, A
10,000 - 99,999
Celite 580
Several
A
10,000 - 99,999
Ethyl Benzene
00100-41-4
F, A
| 1,000,000 - 9,999,999
Iron Oxide, Metal Oxides,
Metal Carbonates
01309
A, C
100,000 - 999,999
Polyethylbenzene
68608-82-2
F, A, C
100,000 - 999,999
Sodium Hydroxide
01310-73-2
R.A
| 10,000 - 99,999
Styrene
00100-42-5
F, A, C
1 1,000,000 - 9,999,999
Styrene Tar Bottoms
68512-63-0
F, A, C
I 100,000 - 999,999
Sulfuric Acid
07664-93-9
R, A
10,000 - 99,999
Toluene
00108-88-3
F, A
100,000 - 99,999
Ethylene Glycol
00107-21-1
F, A
10,000 - 99,999
Source: 1993 Texas Tier II Chemical Description Sheets submitted by HCC, Bayport (TX) [DCN#
13-93-07016530-7-TX, TRIFID # 77507-HNTSM-12222]
Legend: F (Fire); P (Pressure); R (Reactivity); A (Acute); C (Chronic)
The above information indicates that extraordinary large volumes of chemicals are present on-
site at the Bayport (TX) facility. The HCC's submitted reports show that:
• The maximum Ha7ardnns chemicals on-site at any time was between 3.6 million and
34.8 million pounds.
In regards to the potential hazards, 15 out of 15 chemicals have acute toxicity, 5 of 15 have
chronic toxicity, 8 of 15 are rated in the fire category, 3 of the 15 are rated as reactive, and 1
of 15 are rated as pressurized.
64
-------
Although generally considered a 'low risk' by industry, these chemicals do have the potential
to be released via accidents - either during production or in storage. To evaluate the
environmental risks from such large chemical storage capacities on-site, an accidental release
scenario may be generated [See Section 5(E), page 65].
E. Worst Case Scenarios and Credible Case Scenarios - Accidental Releases
In order to understand the accidental risk potential of large air releases to the Kenova area, a
computer model may be applied to the proposed action. Due to time limitations and data
forthcoming from HCC, the author did not include the results of a chemical accident model,
called CAMEO™ n. This particular model is often employed by the U.S. EPA, the State
Emergency Response Center (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).
The CAMEO™ n system can be applied to any potential release scenario.
To generate a "worst case scenario" (e.g. an everything goes - type accident) or "credible case
scenario" (e.g. a conservative accident), input data is gathered (e.g. hazardous chemical, levels
of concern, largest storage vessel, amount released in accident, etc.), entered and a plume model
is displayed via the modeling capabilities of CAMEO1* n. Another option would be to apply
a computer program that exhibits the explosion potential. The movement and dispersion of
chemical pollutants through the air can be estimated. One of the key outputs will be the
"vulnerability zone". The proximity to residents can be evaluated and design alternatives may
be emphasized for the proposed action. An EIS could be the vehicle to identify and recommend
higher safety alternatives.
If such a vulnerability zone overlaps population with unacceptable levels of concern - causing
adverse health effects (e.g. chronic, acute, etc.) - primary prevention designs can be advocated.
Nicholas Ashford at MIT speaks to this fundamental solution. Primary prevention means
designing chemical processes to eliminate the possibility of an accident; secondary prevention
reduces the probability of an accident.63
Ashford, states in his U.S. EPA-funded report, that the present emphasis by industry is on
secondary prevention (add-on safety systems, such as sprinklers, leak detectors and double
walled tanks). He encourages the primary prevention concept which means designing plants so
that they potentially rely less on toxic, volatile, flammable, or reactive chemicals and so they
operate at reduced temperature and pressures. 64
83 Environmental Research Foundation. "Chemical Accidents." Rachel's Environment &
Health Weekly. # 408. September 22, 1994.
64 Nicholas A. Ashford and others. "The Encouragement of Technological Change for
Preventing Chemical Accidents: Moving Firms from Secondary Prevention and Mitigation to Primary
Prevention." Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1993.
65
-------
F. Accidental Releases to the Air - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
To assess the historical record of accidental releases by HCC, a spill report was run by both the
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) national center and the Texas Emergency
Response for Air and Land releases, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The
HCC, Bayport (TX) plant is required by law to report accidental releases as necessitated by the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
When a release is above reportable quantities (RQs), a company is obligated to report the
incident to the State, the SERC, and the LEPC.
The following table summarizes the reported incidents:
Table 5.4 Accidental Release Reporting Record for Chemical Accidents - A Case Study of HCC,
Bayport (TX) plant
Date of Incident
Federal ID#
Chemical
Spill
Release
Quantity (lbs)
08/19/1993
F93-3879
Benzene
Process Waste Water
Land
Land
40
547
11/15/1993
F94-0566
Benzene
Air
120
01/01/1994
F94-1143
Ethylene Glycol
Land
2,667
03/03/1994
F94-1986
Ethylene Benzene
Air
1,440
03/04/1994
F94-1995
Benzene
Air
181
08/02/1994
F94-4306
Polyethylbenzene
Air
100
09/09/1994
259768
Benzene
Air
180
08/29/1994
F94-4760
Benzene
Air
490
Source: Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Standard Report, Incident Notification for Huntsman
Chemical Corp, 12222 Port Rd., Bayport, TX. ERNS Information Line at (202-260-2342).
The investigation shows that the HCC, Bayport (TX) plant reported eight accidental releases in
about 4 years of operation. The record shows that the rate of accidents is increasing for this
HCC owned facility. Six of the eight are air releases, which have the potential of traveling off-
site into the host community.
HCC's accident release record for their U.S. based facilities was obtained from the National
Response Center (NRC). From the NRC, the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
standard reports were obtained for HCC's other nine chemical plants (Belpre (OH), Peru (IL),
Rome (GA), Chesapeake (VA), Port Neches (TX), Port Arthur (TX), Woodberry (NJ), Conroe
(TX), Austin (TX)). Since June 1990, according to the NRC, these plants have had 62
emergency incidents. About half (29) were chemicals released to the air, the other half being
released to land and water. Some of the reported causes were reported to be: equipment
failures, operator failure, unknown, transportation accident, valve malfunction, and other.
66
-------
Since accidental air releases may move off-site towards the Kenova and Ceredo communities,
some of HCC's largest chemical accidents released to the air were analyzed. The following list
from ERNS shows that several substantial air release have occurred from HCC facilities:
Date
Chemical
Air Release

Quantity (lbs)
08/03/90
Styrene
3,600
05/04/92
Styrene
1,490
10/25/94
Methyl Alcohol
1,500

Formaldehyde
100
03/03/94
Ethylbenzene
1,440
07/31/92
Styrene
1,000
09/13/93
Styrene
750
08/12/94
Ammonia
522
08/29/94
Benzene
490
This focus on air accidents, is not to discount the potential for accidental releases into water, as
the Big Sandy river feeds into the Ohio river. Downstream, there are three municipal drinking
water intakes nearby. Despite Shell Chemical Company's superior safety performance, on May
27, 1994 one accident (Belpre, OH) claimed three lives 6S. Three tanks exploded, containing
up to four million gallons of styrene and half-million gallons of diesel fuel. On June 7, 1994,
a 60-mile plume of ethylene dibromide (EDB) was verified in the Ohio River. Because of the
EDB contamination, the town of Ironton (OH), within our Tri-State Initiative, shut off its
drinking water intake between June 3 and June 7. Besides the risks to water quality, this same
accident posed threats to air quality. A Ohio EPA news release discussed the results of air
sampling after the fire:
Twenty-six chemicals were detected; of these, the highest concentrations were for styrene,
cyclohexane, EDB, 1,3-butadiene, and ethylbenzene. All were well below levels that would pose a
health threat to most people, although infants, children and the elderly may be more sensitive to
exposure to toxic chemicals. ®
A case may be suggested that the host community of the Kenova industrial cluster is already
disproportionately subject to the highest rate of emergency incidents in all of Tri-State. A May,
1993 Report66 employed state environmental response databases to survey the frequency of
incidents. By law, these were air release accidents (at or near reportable quantities) that were
called in to the state emergency response centers. The results showed that for incidents, the
majority (59. or 58%) were from companies within the Kenova industrial cluster. A criticism
65 Two recent articles speak to the Shell (Belpre, OH) incident, that happened in the same city
as HCC's Belpre plant. Thompson Publishing Group. "Officials Feared Shrapnel in Shell Blast, Some
Citizens Sue Over Warning." Community and Worker Right-to-Know. Volume 8, Number 16.
Thompson Publishing Group. "Shell: Worker Action Led to Blast; May have Misidentified Chemical."
Community and Worker Right-to-Know. Volume 9, Number 3.
66 Tri-State Geographic Initiative. "Report on Excess Air Emissions caused by Reported
Malfunctions, Shutdowns-Unplanned and Incidents of Tri-State Area Industries (1989-1993)." Air Quality
Team. May 17, 1993.
67
-------
of this report (1989-1993) is that not all of the three states have identical reporting requirements
and enforcement.
A second study recently supports the view that residents near the companies in the Kenova
cluster are subject to a very high rate of incidents. An internal report, using documentation
from Kentucky's Environmental Response Section (ERS) showed that Company D was the
highest ranked comoanv in all of Kentucky for incidents. 67 Using four of the major incident
categories, Company D contributed to at least 117 incidents being reported to the Kentucky ERS.
The breakdown was:
Air Release Incidents 46
Fires/Explosions 4
Facility Spills 59
Transportation Accidents 8
Other state-ranked companies had lesser frequencies of incidents: second place (76); third place
(48); fourth place (43); fifth place (38). As a result, Company D was the primary factor for
Boyd county (KY) ranking #3 in the state of Kentucky, for incident reports (between 7/13/92
and 9/9/94). 67
A third study also supports that residents are subject to many incidents whose occurrences may
be presenting additional risks. The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC) examined
malfunctions, unplanned shutdowns and incident reports of Company D. A recent document,68
noted the frequency these reports were filed: forty-seven (47) filed in 1990; eighty (80) in 1991;
and fifty-five (55) in 1992.
Regarding the safety and welfare of the host community, it has been documented that chemical
accidents which are not classified as "major" can still pose increased environmental risks. In
a recent publication reporting chemical accidents, the editor stated:
However, it is not major accidents that affect the largest number of people. It is the smaller, more
routine accidents that expose workers, emergency response personnel, the general public, wildlife, soil
and water to toxic chemicals. 63
67 Brian Holtzclaw. "Memorandum to Russ Barnett, Deputy Commissioner; Subject: Report
on Kentucky's Environmental Incidents: Frequencies By County and By Industry." Kentucky DEP
Commissioner's Office. November 8, 1994.
68 Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. "Review of Reported Problems at the Ashland
Petroleum Refinery from January 1990 to December 1992." June 1993.
68
-------
Evidence of the accidental releases in the Tri-State region is also supported by 790 citizen
complaints being registered on the average each year - most of them attributed to air. 69 In
addition, during the late 80's to the present, several toxic tort (pollution injury) suits have been
brought against Company D for property and health damages. Much of this litigation has been
blamed on accidental releases and malfunctions in the Kenova area. A recent article placed the
number of plaintiffs at about 2,000 people and the requested damages in the billions of dollars.
According to a U.S. EPA Accidental Release Information Program (ARIP) report 70, the
common causes for chemical accidents [i.e. the HCC - Bayport (TX) and Company D rate] were
likely equipment failure and operator error. A recently conducted U.S. EPA Region IV
Chemical Safety Audit at Company D may help improve the situation.
There is no doubt in this author's mind that accidental releases to the air pose a significant level
of uncertain and unknown risks and threats to the host community. In order to protect public
health, an absolute high priority should be the prevention and subsequent reduction of these
accidents from the existing facilities and the proposed action.
G. Compliance Record - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
The TRI chemicals and CAP chemicals released into the air are subject to a number of laws.
The following regulatory matrix shows how these chemicals are covered:
69 The complaints were registered with state environmental agencies between 1989 and 1993.
Brian Holtzclaw. "Tri-State Geographic Initiative Presentation to FIVCO Economic Development District
Board Meeting." October 18, 1993.
70 U.S. EPA. "Why Accidents Occur: Insights From the Accidental Release Information
Program." Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER-89-008.1. Series 8, No. 1. Pages 4-8 and
15.
69
-------
Table 5.5 Regulatory Matrix of Predicted CAP and TRI Chemical Releases into the Air
TRI and
CAP
Chemicals
CAA
110
EPCRA
302
CAA
112
CERCLA
FIFRA
NPDWR
PPL
RCRA
Benzene

X
X

X
X
X
Ethylbenzene

X
X

Ethylene

Styrene

X
X

Toluene

X
X

X
X
X
TSP
X

PM-10
X

VOC
X

S02
X

NOX
X

CO
X

Source: 1992 U.S. EPA TRI Public Data Release Publication (Appendix E - Regulatory Matrix)
Legend: TRI chemicals - Toxic Release Inventory reportable chemicals (first five above).
CAP chemicals - Criterion Air Pollutant reportable chemicals (last six above).
CAA 110 - Clean Air Act section 110, provides for implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of the CAP chemicals.
EPCRA 302 - Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, section 302 mandates
facilities with these listed extremely hazardous substances (EHS's) to do special reporting.
CAA 112 - Clean Air Act section 112, lists the Hazardous Air Pollutants and includes emissions
standards and monitoring requirements for plants with listed chemicals.
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund). Releases of substances at or above their Reportable Quantities (RQs) must be
reported to the National Response Center. RQs are based on aquatic toxicity, acute mammalian
toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, chronic toxicity, and carcinogenicity, with possible adjustment
on the basis of biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis.
FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), through a regulation
process, regulates the development, sale, distribution and use of pesticides.
NPDWR - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations under Safe Drinking Water Act list
Maximum Concentration Levels for certain chemicals.
PPL - (Priority Pollutant List) The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of
pollutants into waterways by industrial sources. These are subject to effluent limitations.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous wastes are to be managed
"cradle to grave." Benzene and toluene are listed as toxic wastes.
An inquiry to the Texas regulatory officials (TNRCC) yielded the following table of violations
at the HCC, Bayport (TX) facility:
70
-------
Table 5.6 Compliance Record - A Case Study of HCC, Bayport (TX) plant
Air Violation
Number
Subject
Violation Description
la.
Boiler
Emissions
Violated NSPS Subpart DB, Federal Boiler
Standard. Did not do any initial testing to
determine compliance with nitrogen oxide (NOX)
standard.
lb.
Boiler
Emissions
Violated standard that required monitoring NOX
from the boiler continuously via a CEMS or other
parametric monitoring system. For about 15-16
months, the company did not operate a CEMS on
this affected unit, on behalf of controlling this
boiler emission.
lc.
Boiler
Emissions
Violated submitted boiler excess emissions report.
Required to submit it quarterly or semiannually,
depending on the amount of excess emissions
experienced. Missed the report 5 times.
2a.
Distillation
Tower
Emissions
NSPS Subpart NNN, deals with emission
standards. Violated requirement to install a flow
indicator to measure the flow-rate between the
distillation tower and control device.
2b.
Distillation
Tower
Emissions
Failure to perform compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with emission limits at distillation
tower.
2c.
Distillation
Tower
Emissions
Failed to submit a one-time initial notification to
the state that distillation tower was subject to
NSPS standards.
2d.
Distillation
Tower
Emissions
Failed to submit semiannual reports of excess
emissions from distillation tower. Missed about 4
times.
3.
Benzene
Affected
Facility Units
Failed NESHAP rule, subpart FF that required all
facilities submit initial notification and other
information about benzene quantities to the state.
4.
Boiler
Emissions
Failed TNRCC Regulation 6 Riile 116.4.
Exceeded steam production rate for the boiler.
The conclusion is if they exceeded the production
rate, they automatically exceeded the emission
limit of the boiler (based upon the design
capacity). For the natural gas fed boiler, the
NOX standards were exceeded.
5.
Boiler
Emissions
Failed TNRCC Regulation 5, Rule 116.5.
Exceeded NOX emission limit from same boiler
in a different manner. They were not meeting
emission limit even at design capacity.
Source: Mr. Mohammed Sarwar and Ms. Marion Hall, TNRCC
71
-------
Mr. Sarwar stated that for the ten violations, the HCC - Bayport (TX) plant, management
generally resolved the problems in a timely manner. Nevertheless, it was said that the company
has an outstanding $6,000 agreed order in regards to violation #4 and #5 above. He stated that
the company will likely settle with TNRCC lawyers, but not the Attorney General.
Despite the presence of regulations - history has shown that this does not guarantee 100%
compliance. Particularly when regulations are violated, air pollution may be potentially causing
adverse human health consequences. When recognized by state or Federal officials, often
citations and Notice of Violations (NOVs) are issued to industry to correct the violation(s).
It is worth noting that the preexisting compliance record of companies in the Kenova Cluster has
much room for improvement. Company D is one case in point. According to one veteran
Kentucky DEP official and other sources, Company D in the Kenova Industrial Cluster has been
"cited hundreds of times for violations in the last few years." Based upon this, Company D may
very well have the highest NOV frequency and consequently have broken the most
environmental laws for any facility in the state of Kentucky (a verification is being conducted).
If so, NEPA authorities may consider the proposed action in the context of history. The Kenova
area population has endured enhanced health/environmental risks for years because a neighboring
facility has been out of compliance in such a great degree. In addition to routine emissions,
facilities that are not within regulatory limits or controls, can pose additional significant health
threats.
H. Other
Due to time constraints and professional judgement, at this time, detailed research was not
performed for the following existing impacts near the proposed action:
1. Geology, soils and hydrology
2. Water quality
3. Upland vegetation and wildlife
4. Wetlands and wetland wildlife
5. Aesthetics
6. Ecologically significant areas
7. Recreation
8. Cultural resources
9. Transportation
10. Economics
It is suggested that authorities or members of the local community consider researching these
subjects.
72
-------
SECTION 6. Controversy and Degree of Public Involvement
A. Controversy
The equivalent of a notice to construct one, and possibly two chemicals plants was first
announced on September 20, 1994 in the Huntington Herald Dispatch headlines. 4 In this
article, it was reported that the CEO stated that, "the technology, engineering and construction
services are all in the final phases of negotiation." A later conversation with a Corporate
environmental manager revealed that the business venture team was on the "fast track" to decide
on either Linden (NJ) or Neal (WV) for the second plant. It was implied that the HCC
environmental team was not involved in the siting decision. 6
At the time this newspaper article was printed, the author received numerous calls from residents
in Kenova (WV). The general sentiment could be described as "distress (e.g. fear, worrying)
at the very thought of a new facility that would perhaps mean even more polluted air." During
the past two weeks, the author received two copies of letters, and has heard of at least one letter
writing campaign opposed to the proposed action. One letter, signed by four area resident
families, was addressed to the CEO of Huntsman Chemical Corporation. The letter stated:
• Our community has become very vocal and is organizing more each day to stand up and fight
against companies who wish to contaminate us with their emissions, malfunctions, odors or other
undetectable pollutants which have sickened our neighbors and families...
• No company is absolutely pollution free and, from our experiences with Ashland Oil, we now
know not to believe ANY CHEMICAL INDUSTRY... Your plant, if erected here, will be included
in our watch area.
• My neighbors and I am can no longer allow a friendly atmosphere for chemical industries to
relocate here. Our families are dying from cancer. Our children are having numerous medical
problems, our elderly are being faced with illnesses that could have been prevented, our animals
are becoming sick and to add insult to injury, our trees...are beginning to die.
• Letters from many citizens are being sent to various officials stating that WE DO NOT WANT
NOR NEED YOUR COMPANY TO BUILD HERE IN KENOVA (WV). These letters also state
that if we are ignored and your plant builds here in Kenova (WV), we intend to bring lawsuits
against our Governor, EPA, State APCC, and your company for any and all infractions that we
have to endure as well as any incidents that worsens the health problems that we already possess....
• Sir, I cannot make it any plainer. The whole truth of the matter is that our community is literally
sick and tired of being the brunt of any industries profits. I cannot stress enough that we, the
citizens who will be affected by your plant, DOES NOT WANT YOU OR ANY OTHER
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY HERE IN KENOVA (WV)....the choice of having Kenova (WV) as one
of your future sites is now up to you." 71
71 Smith, Bailey, and Ramey. "Letter to Mr. Jon Huntsman, CEO, Huntsman Chemical Corp.,
Salt Lake City." October 12, 1994.
73
-------
One large radio network, Metro News Network (Charleston, WV) by mid-October reported:
• This letter is to confirm our interest, and the public's interest in both the environmental, and the
economic impact of the proposed Huntsman Chemical Corporation facilities, to be constructed in
Wayne County (WV). We were first alerted to their intent to construct two chemical plants in that
area by a report that moved on the ABC/Reuter International News Wire.
• Since that time, we have followed the issue regularly, airing at least four stories on the topic on
our 61-station news network. I have been contacted by affiliates licensed to both Kentucky and
West Virginia regarding the issue, and I can only assume their inquiry was in response to listener's
interest. 72
A second news article (October 26, 1994), called "Chemical plant plan draws fire; Activists tell
company to pick other location" recently highlighted the controversy:
McDonald (Chairman, Huntington Area Development Council) said the company should be allowed
to explain its plan and to go through state regulatory agencies before being condemned as polluters.
Laura Forman, an Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition staff organizer, strongly disagreed with
McDonald. "Huntsman has already decided to come here," Forman said. "This (decision) is on the
fast track. One of the advantages of this area is that it isn't strict about enforcing air-pollution
violations. Mr. McDonald needs to be looking into bringing in companies that don't pollute. Industry
is one thing, but chemical industry is another. We don't want them (Huntsman) here." s
Six weeks after the announcement, one resident filed a legal complaint73 against the proposed
action in Wayne County Circuit Court. According to a conversation with Ms. Ramey (litigant),
the petition covered three issues: 1) a permanent injunction to revoke the HCC ethylbenzene
plant; 2) a request to revoke any HCC or other chemical plants moving into Wayne County
(communities of Neal, Kenova and Ceredo); and 3) a complaint of abuse of authority and denial
of constitutional rights in regards to the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.
The EJ community at-large is interested in the situation of the proposed action. The author
received the following statement from a regional group:
It appears that the area (Tri-State) is already inundated with a disproportionate amount of air pollution.
Out of those six areas, Kenova residents has a worse amount. In my opinion, it can least afford
another problem.
For justice, race and income are the criteria we look at. This area fits our criteria of being poor, with
a poverty rate of almost 3 times the national average. But it's beyond just income, the Appalachian
people have been targeted very much in a parallel way to communities of color, when it comes to
siting chemical plants and other economic and social factors. In essence, they have a different status
than other low-income whites, that is, their group oppression is based on income but also on their
Appalachian social and cultural status.
72 Wayne V.H. Lorentz. "Letter regarding Huntsman Chemical Corp." MetroNews Radio
Network. Charleston, WV. October 13, 1994.
73- Huntington Herald Dispatch. "Activist sues chemical plant." David E. Malloy. November
3, 1992.
-------
The Kenova local area is a prime example of pollution from multiple sources - those people already
get hit from 4 major companies and if the wind blows another way they get hit from another industrial
cluster. The resultant effect is what we and scientists call cumulative and synergistic impacts. The
disturbing part about it is that the U.S. EPA knows very little about the effects of chemical exposure
over time and the interaction of these various chemicals. It is common sense that you if put air
pollutants together that they are going to make a situation worse.
The proposed action, as you define it will add only insult to injury. It clearly looks like those people
are the recipients of huge amount of pounds of air pollutants already, and without question
disproportionate. They already bear society's burden and paid the price of the pollution from their
local refinery that produces, perhaps millions of gallons of gasoline in the past 50 years. Yet those
far away have enjoyed, but not suffered the consequences of its manufacturing.
In summary, the proposed chemical plant by Huntsman Chemical Corporation clearly speaks to a loud
and clear environmental justice issue. 74
Based upon past experience with the local community, I would expect the controversy level to
magnify greatly. The U.S. EPA Region in is strongly encouraged to bepin participating so that
the controversy about this proposed action may be minimized.
B. Degree of Public Involvement
From newspaper accounts, it appears that HCC officials have apparently met only with economic
development interests and Company D. The proposed action includes a business partnership
with Company D. The main issue communicated by the supporters was the economic benefits
(10-100 jobs) projected for the local economy as a result of the proposed facilities.
At this time, no voluntary meetings with the public have been held. Therefore, no primary
issues of concern from the community have been taken. From my conversations with members
of the host community, it is evident that the people who are in opposition are principally
concerned with potential environmental impacts, particularly cumulative air pollution - said in
their opinion, to be at high levels already.
If the EA and EIS is approved, a scoping process will increase public involvement. During the
course of an EIS, per NEPA guidance, the scoping process should identify the following:
74 Statement of Ms. Connie Tucker. October 31, 1994. Ms. Tucker is Executive Director of
the Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, a south-wide network of grassroots
organizations fighting for racial, economic and environmental justice (404-755-2855). The main office
is in Atlanta, other offices are in Birmingham and Louisville.
-------
the public and agency concerns; clearly define the environmental issues and alternatives to be
examined in the EIS, including the elimination of nonsignificant issues; identify related issues which
originate from separate legislation, regulation, or Executive Order; and identify state and local agency
requirements which must be addressed. 75
The U.S. EPA Region III is strongly encouraged to begin participating so that the public
involvement about this proposed action may be increased. The NEPA scoping process would
be a fine vehicle for accomplishing this enhanced dialogue.
75 U.S. Department of the Interior. "Handbook on Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act." Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement. April 18, 1989.
76
-------
APPENDIX A
77
-------
QUALIFICATIONS
A. Background
Due to time constraints, this document has not undergone full editorial review. The
estimation of past and future air releases are believed to be accurate.
An effort was made to focus the research on the proposed action of the Huntsman Chemical
Corp development. As such, existing companies in the area of concern were key coded (e.g.
Company A, B, C, D, etc.). If desired, the reader may refer to Appendix B, page ... for a
translation to names of companies.
Due to time constraints, environmental data for the proposed action was obtained through
researching two similar ethylbenzene and styrene monomer chemical plants. One case study
was the Huntsman Chemical Corporation's (HCC) plant in Bayport (TX) and the other was
owned by Rexene, Odessa (TX). Environmental information on these plants were gained
from these sources: the Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission (TNRCC);
the U.S. EPA regional office in Dallas (TX); the HCC plant in Pasadena; and the Rexene
Corporation plant in Odessa (TX).
The case study examples were chosen from a discussion with an Ashland Chemical Corp.
(ACC) employee in Louisville, Kentucky. It was reported that ACC regionally distributes
and sells styrene monomer from both two corporations. It is recommended that as soon as
possible, the applicant directly provide estimates of environmental releases to the appropriate
Federal agency.
B. Limitations of Release Inventory Data
It is useful to state some limitations of the environmental release databases applied within this
report. Two primary sources are used: the TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) chemical database
and the CAP (Criteria Air Pollutant) chemical databases. Most of the discussion centers
around TRI, however it still applies to CAP chemicals.
Release inventory amounts are expressed in lbs/year and are from industrial stationary (point
source) sources only. Earlier research showed that point sources account for 80% (117
million lbs/yr) of the air pollution, mobile sources accounted for 20%, (30 million lbs/yr).
Due to a policy decision and resource limitations, at this time, the TGI Technical Steering
Committee has targeted only industrial sources for identifying, preventing and remediating
environmental threats and problems.
Regarding legislation, in 1986, The U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) as Title III of the Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). It mandated annual reporting of a limited number of toxic
chemicals by industry to the U.S. EPA and state authorities. The universe of toxic chemicals
was called TRI chemicals.
78
-------
Keep in mind that toxic chemical pollutants are generally released from many different
sources, including manufacturing and non-manufacturing industrial processes, use and
disposal of consumer products, use of agricultural chemicals, area sources such as lawn
mowers, and mobile sources such as automobiles. TRI reporting requires only
manufacturing facilities, or point sources, to report toxic releases. The contents of this
report focuses on the air pollutant emissions to air. These reported air releases are not
necessarily an indication of regulatory violations because facilities must report even if their
releases comply with all environmental laws and permits. Air releases may be Jugitive or
stack. Fugitive emissions include leaks from valves and pump seals, evaporative losses from
surface impoundments, and any other non-point source emissions. Stack emissions are all
releases to the air that occur through stacks, vents, ducts, pipes, or other confined air
streams. 76
Facilities using or releasing the designated 320 chemicals/compounds below the threshold
amounts are not required to report. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
estimates that TRI reporting represents just Ave percent of the total toxic releases to the
environment in the U.S. More toxics may very well be released, however, because of the
limitations of reporting requirements, environmental officials do not know the approximate
universe of what toxics are being released.
Environmental decision-maters are often faced with information that is qualitative and
quantitative - even though data has its imperfections. Despite the limitations of the release
data, this has not stopped several states from using the databases (applied herein) to forward
environmental improvement.
Regarding the well-known TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) database, the Texas Water
Commission states in one annual report:
the TRI data can be utilized to strengthen regulatory programs: to identify potential problems in
permitting programs, to prioritize objectives, to target inspection and compliance activities, and
to perform multimedia risk screening to identify areas of concern. The TRI data will also enable
regulatory agencies to work with industry to better develop waste management programs; to
identify pollution prevention opportunities; to improve emergency response planning; and to
promote community awareness of potential hazards in the environment. 77
76 Louisiana Toxics Release Inventory 1991. Fourth Annual Edition. Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality. December 1992. Page 38.
77 Toxic Release Inventory Program. 1989 State Report. The Texas Water Commission.
August 1992. LP 92-17. Page 3.
79
-------
The State of New Jersey reported benefits of using TRI:
land use planning decisions, encouraging dialogue between citizens and facility managers to increase
understanding of hazardous substance uses in businesses; provide direction for the development of
monitoring and surveillance studies regarding hazardous substances...71
The U.S. EPA created a Risk Screening Guide 61, using TRI which, "helps individuals who
are involved in interpreting and explaining environmental pollution, exposures, and health risks
to the general public, especially at the local or sub-State level."
Nationally, TRI databases are being applied to environmental justice (EJ) issues - seven states
now use the databases. They include, but are not limited to Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas. According to Ms. Eileen Fesco (U.S. EPA
Headquarters, P2 and Toxics) a recent survey79 circulated by the National Conference of State
Legislatures - 1993 Winter Session Survey revealed that TRI is a useful tool for EJ issues.
When TRI data is "pollinated" with U.S. Census Bureau data, it can show patterns of
disproportionate pollution against populations with low-income or minorities.
C. Limitations of Health Effect Data
This report contains information largely on air releases of chemicals to the environment. This
information alone does not provide a complete picture of the risks these chemicals may pose to
human health or to the environment. Born TRI (Toxics Release Inventory) chemicals and CAP
(Criteria Air Pollutant) chemicals vary in toxicity and consequently, total releases tell us only
part of the story. Small releases of highly toxic chemicals may pose greater risks than very
large releases of less toxic materials.
It is not the writer's intent to use the information in this report to predict health effects relative
to the release of chemicals into the environment. As a chemical moves through the air or water,
the original amount of that chemical is spread (diffused/diluted) through a larger and larger
amount of air or water, so that the reported emissions are not directly correlated with exposures.
We also know very little about cumulative effects of low level chemical exposures.
Ordinarily, direct physical contact with a chemical results in an adverse health effect if the
chemical is very irritating, as to the skin or eyes, or if the person is very chemically sensitive
or allergic to that particular chemical. Young and old people are often considered sensitive sub-
populations.
78 The Community Right-to-Know Annual Report For Survey Year 1990. New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Bureau of Hazardous Substances Information.
November 1992. Page 3.
79 Conversation with Eileen Fesco (U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics) who recited the results of the National Conference of State Legislatures - 1993 Winter Session
Survey. Also The Right-To-Know Planning Guide, Bureau of National Affairs, "Environmental Justice,
TRI Used in Studies", March 24, 1994.
80
-------
Exposure to a chemical means that the chemical comes in contact with the organism, across
biological barriers, and into the body. A chemical can enter the body in several ways: through
the skin, by breathing, by eating, or drinking. The amount of a chemical that enters the body
is called the dose, and the response that it causes is called the health effect. Doses taken into
the body at levels which produce an effect within a short period of time are termed acute
exposures; and doses which enter the body repeatedly over a long period of time and produce
an effect are termed chronic exposures. Generally, as the dose increases so does the body's
response to that dose.
A determination of risk depends on the individual conditions of the release, type and frequency
of the release, extent of exposure and environmental conditions. In all cases, more information
is needed to assess potential concerns than what is provided by TRI or CAP databases alone.
The TRI and CAP chemical release data can, however serve as an indicator of situations and
conditions that may warrant additional examination.
Many of the potential adverse effects are cited as footnotes, or their source is indicated at
the bottom of a table. A predominant source is the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution and Prevention
and Toxics (OPPTS) toxicity data matrix. This is reproduced from a publication29 by the U.S.
EPA report prepared by the U.S. EPA Region IV. It is understood that this data matrix was
originally prepared by U.S. EPA contractor, Clement Associates in a report entitled, "Support
Documentation for the SARA Title III, Sections 313/322 Toxicity Matrix." This toxicity matrix
provides a quick reference to the toxicity profile for the chemicals covered by the TRI
requirements, Section 313.
81
-------
APPENDIX B
82
-------
Table Appendix 1.0. Tri-State (KY/OH/WV) Industrial Clusters and Resident Companies
Industrial
Cluster
Company
Code in
Report
Company Name, County, State
Cluster #1:
Portsmouth Area

Osco Industries (Scioto County, OH)
New Boston Coke (Scioto County, OH)
Dayton Walther (Scioto County, OH)
Mitchellace (Scioto County, OH)
North American Refractories (Greenup County, KY)
Premier Refractories (Greenup County, KY)
Cluster #2:
Greenup Area

Aristech Chemical (Scioto County, OH)
Dow Chemical (Lawrence County, OH)
Ametek Microfoam (Greenup County, KY)
Dupont (Greenup County, KY)
PCI (Greenup County, KY)
Cluster #3:
Ironton Area

Ironton Iron (Lawrence County, OH)
AK Steel - West Works (Greenup County, KY)
Air Products and Chemicals (Boyd County, KY)
Allied Signal (Lawrence County, OH)
Heckett (Greenup County, KY)
Cluster #4:
South Point Area

South Point Ethanol (Lawrence County, OH)
AK Steel - Coke Plant (Boyd County, KY)
Cluster #5:
Kenova Area
A
B
C
D
Aristech Chemical (Wayne County, WV)
Calgon Carbon (Boyd County, KY)
Ashland Chemical {Wayne County, WV)
Ashland Petroleum (Boyd County, KY)
Cluster #6:
Huntington Area

ACF Industries (Cabell County, WV)
BASF (Cabell County, WV)
Columbia Paint (Cabell County, WV)
Inco Alloys (Cabell County, WV)
J.H. Fletcher (Cabell County, WV)
Owens Brockway Glass (Cabell County, WV)
Raybo Chemical (Cabell County, WV)
Steel of West Virginia (Cabell County, WV)
Xcel Premet (Cabell County, WV)
Century Lubricants (Cabell County, WV)
Transfab (Cabell County, WV)
Source:
Technical Steering Committee
83
-------