Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 21, 1992 TAG: 9203240131
SECTION: NATL/INTL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK MORRISON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: HOLLY HILL, S.C. LENGTH: Long
Today, there are two cement plants here burning waste, and a third could follow. Yet still nobody seems to mind. Ask anybody about hazardous waste, and they will tell you:
"You've got to do something with it."
Nearby residents, community leaders, local government officials and environmentalists give mostly that answer when asked if hazardous waste-burning worries them. People here don't rock the boat.
The attitude is in stark contrast to the heated opposition to Tarmac/Roanoke Cement Co.'s request to burn hazardous waste in Botetourt County. And it is a contrast likely to strike the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors when they visit this working-class community about 60 miles northwest of Charleston.
The supervisors have been planning to take a look at how a community coexists with a cement plant that burns hazardous waste, and Holly Hill has been at the top of their list.
But how useful would a trip here be?
How well could five outsiders gauge the feelings of entire community in just a day or two? And what bearing would, or should, these impressions have on their own decisions either to support or fight Tarmac back home?
If anything, a trip to South Carolina - or another community, should the supervisors choose to go elsewhere - could leave them more confused than when they left. It likely would leave them wondering still:
Is burning hazardous waste in cement-making safe?
And is it something they want in Botetourt County?
`We could do worse'
"We could do a whole lot worse," said Norman Brunswig, manager of the Francis Beidler Forest, a few miles downwind from Holly Hill and the two cement plants burning hazardous waste.
If anybody would object to the burning, it would be Brunswig, who is employed by the National Audubon Society. Opponents of hazardous waste-burning contend that not enough is known about its long-term fallout on public health and the environment.
But like many others here, Brunswig is convinced that the cement kilns are the best way to solve a complex problem. "Turning it into a fuel source, it really makes an asset out of a liability," he said.
The cement companies, Holnam Cement and Giant Cement, both take flammable hazardous wastes, mix them with coal or other fuels, and burn them at temperatures reaching nearly 3,000 degrees.
Their plants are about two miles apart, separated by the Four Holes Swamp, which is home to the Francis Beidler Forest and the largest virgin stand of protected bald cypress trees in the East.
Tarmac is within a few miles of Carvins Cove Reservoir, which supplies the drinking water to Roanoke and parts of Roanoke and Botetourt counties, and from the Jefferson National Forest.
Brunswig said at first he was skeptical about the burning, but after some research, his doubt eased. "At some point in time, you have to have faith in someone and something."
Plus, Brunswig and his assistant manager, Mike Dawson, have more urgent environmental concerns. The wetland is bordered by three landfills, one of which is trying to expand.
Other environmentalists in South Carolina also said they have more pressing concerns than the cement plants. The state is host to several hazardous-waste incinerators and a nuclear waste dump that draw much more attention.
Still, Brunswig and Dawson do not sign off on the waste burning completely. They worry that a truck or rail car will someday overturn in transit to the cement plants and pollute the swamp.
"We give cautious approval, but I wouldn't want you to think it's a full-fledged endorsement," Dawson said.
Dawson also said he worries about regulation of the burning operations. He did not know how often the plants are inspected, and he is suspicious of any self-monitoring by the companies.
`We are the good guys'
Company officials at both Giant and Holnam, however, will assure you that the burning is watched closely and honestly by the state and by their own staff people.
Bill Patterson, plant manager at Holnam Cement, uses an argument echoed by many cement companies, including Tarmac. He lives in the community within a few miles of the plant, as do plant workers, and none of them wants to do anything that would harm themselves or their families.
Patterson and Giant's chief executive officer, Terry Kinder, also downplay the danger of what they burn. They say the only reason many of the waste products they burn are considered hazardous is because they are flammable. Tarmac has argued the same point.
"We're not talking toxics here," Kinder said.
Rather, they burn mostly solvents, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids and other flammable liquids. They don't accept dioxin, PCBs, radioactive waste or pesticides, he said.
And also like Tarmac, Kinder and Patterson argue that the cement-making process itself ensures that there will be no ill effects of the hazardous waste-burning because of the high temperatures inside their kilns.
"The organics are completely destroyed," Kinder said.
They also contend that any leftover ash is chemically bonded to the cement and is not released into the atmosphere. "It's hard to get across to the doomsdayers that we are really the good guys here," Kinder said.
`It's on the up-and-up'
People in the community seem to agree with the companies.
"They don't think nothing about it," said Norman Brown, who lives within earshot of the two plants. He said there were no protests when the cement plants first announced their plans, and he has heard no complaints from his neighbors since the waste burning began four years ago.
Holly Hill Mayor Will Utsey also reported that there have never been any local complaints.
"I'm not just pushing it for them. I've been through both places, and to me, it's on the up-and-up," said Utsey, who has lived in Holly Hill for 40 years.
But both towns are small, about the size of Buchanan in Botetourt County, and they are dominated by the cement companies. Most of their residents are employed either at Giant or Holnam. A third cement plant, Blue Circle Cement, also is nearby, but it has yet to make a request to burn hazardous waste.
"They make good money down there, and I guess nobody wants to complain," said Mary High, who works in the Holly Hill Christian Bookstore.
Each plant employs about 200 workers, and together they pay more than $1 million annually in local taxes. "If they were to shut down, we'd be in a bad fix," said Kenny Waggoner, one of the area's county councilman, and a supporter of the waste burning.
Ripples of concern
Yet, beyond Holly Hill and Harleyville, there are ripples of concern.
"There's always a potential for a spill in transit or contamination from emissions or leakage from the storage tanks to ground water," said Wayne Fanning at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, which regulates the cement plants at the state level.
He said there have been minor compliance problems with the hazardous-waste burning at both Giant and Holnam, but none resulted in any adverse public health threats.
On one occasion, a 100,000-gallon storage tank containing flammable hazardous waste residue ignited at the Holnam plant as two welders were working on the tank, Fanning said. The explosion severely burned both workers, and Holnam was fined $4,000.
At the same time, Fanning does not oppose the waste burning. "There's a need for this if it's done right," he said.
It helps that in South Carolina a fee is imposed on hazardous-waste producers that dispose of their wastes in the state, Fanning added. That money is used to pay for additional state inspectors in regulating the kilns and commercial incinerators where the materials are burned.
Virginia has no such fee.
"It's really a drastic increase in the amount of control," Fanning said. "If the state had not decided to levy that fee, it would be impossible to properly monitor those plants. Instead of every day, we'd be there only once a quarter. Lots can happen in three months."
Potential for accidents
Still, the potential for accidents worries some environmentalists across the state. Officials at the South Carolina Coastal Conservancy League, the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all expressed concern about the waste burning but admitted they knew few details about the Holly Hill sites.
"It's one of those things that has always sounded a little fishy to me," said Tom Kohlfaat with Wildlife and Marine Resources.
Others in the state disagree, however.
Larry Bunn, a permit engineer for the Department of Health and Environmental Control, supports the waste burning. "Basically, I'm an environmentalist. I think incinerating for the sheer fact of incinerating is a sin and hazardous-waste landfills are even worse," he said.
"It seems like this is one of the best things going right now."
Bunn, who lives in Columbia, grew up near the cement plants and still has family living close by. So, he said the waste-burning issue hits home. "It's not that I'm distant from it," he said.
by CNB