Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
December
23,
2005
Mr.
James
Berlow
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
USEPA
Headquarters
Ariel
Rios
Building
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.
Mail
Code:
5302W
Washington,
DC
20460
Berlow.
Jim@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Submitted
Via
email
Dear
Mr.
Berlow:

The
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
is
a
Washington,
D.
C.­
based
trade
association
representing
all
the
cement
companies
with
facilities
in
the
United
States
that
recovery
energy
from
hazardous
waste
by
using
them
as
fuels
in
the
cement
manufacturing
process.
In
addition,
we
represent
companies
that
collect,
transfer
and
blend
these
fuels
for
this
use.
As
part
of
our
comment
package
on
the
original
1996
HWC
MACT
proposed
rule,
CKRC
submitted
comments
(
August
19,
1996)
regarding
EPA's
then
proposed
"
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion."

Our
1996
comments
expressed
concern
about
the
inconsistency
of
EPA
deregulating
certain
waste
fuels
in
some
combustion
applications
involving
energy
recovery
while
simultaneously
pursuing
a
rulemaking
to
subject
other
forms
of
energy
recovery
to
the
full
panoply
of
RCRA
regulations
when
burning
the
same
waste
fuels.
We
reminded
EPA
of
the
unique
and
critical
role
that
RCRA
regulations
play
in
providing
a
level
of
oversight
that
ensures
these
waste
fuels
are
used
in
a
manner
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
CKRC
attended
last
week's
stakeholder
meeting
where
EPA
gave
a
presentation
outlining
additional
options
it
is
considering
to
enhance
and
expand
the
current
comparable
fuels
exclusion.
The
concerns
discussed
in
our
1996
comments,
which
the
Agency
largely
ignored,
are
only
heightened
by
the
potential
to
broaden
the
current
exclusion.
We
think
it
is
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
consider
expanding
the
exclusion
without
thorough
consideration
of
the
risks
involved
and
the
true
impact
it
will
have
on
all
energy
recovery
technologies.
Finally,
despite
EPA's
claim
that
expanding
the
exclusion
would
help
fulfill
certain
energy
recovery
goals
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
(
RCC),
we
believe
the
main
effect
will
be
counterproductive­­­
shifting
hazardous
waste
from
fully
regulated
energy
recovery
units
toward
significantly
less
regulated
devices.
EPA's
Proposed
Options
to
Expand
the
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
Do
Not
Meet
the
Goals
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
EPA
has
claimed
that
the
impetus
for
expanding
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion
is
that
it
advances
the
energy
recovery
goals
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge.
While
we
agree
that
actually
increasing
the
amount
of
waste
that
is
burned
for
energy
recovery
would
meet
RCC
goals,
CKRC
disagrees
that
expanding
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion
would
produce
that
result.
Currently,
many
of
the
wastes
being
considered
for
exclusion
are
being
burned
for
energy
recovery
in
cement
kilns
and
other
units.
In
fact,
due
to
their
necessary
role
in
fuel
blending,
these
types
of
relatively
high­
BTU/
low
inorganic
content
wastes
specifically
enable
energy
recovery
from
the
much
broader
range
of
hazardous
wastes
that
would
never
meet
the
exclusion
requirements.
Shifting
waste
fuels
from
one
energy
recovery
unit
to
another
via
deregulation
does
not
advance
energy
recovery.
When
these
wastes
are
shifted
towards
less
regulated
combustors,
the
resulting
energy
recovery
and
associated
transportation
and
storage
will
have
less
oversight
and
pose
greater
risk.
EPA's
claim
that
the
expanded
exclusion
will
result
in
reduced
transportation
does
not
ring
true.
The
use
of
comparable
fuels
is
not
currently
restricted
to
on­
site
combustors;
generators
are
allowed
to
and
do
transport
them
between
facilities.
CKRC
strongly
encourages
the
Agency
to
study
the
actual
impact
of
this
rule
on
transportation
since
there
currently
is
not
sufficient
data
to
assume
that
transportation
will
decrease.
Regardless
of
the
impact
on
transportation,
if
expanding
the
exclusion
will
not
actually
increase
energy
recovery
as
CKRC
has
pointed
out,
then
it
clearly
will
do
nothing
to
further
the
energy
recovery
goals
of
the
RCC.

EPA
has
not
Properly
Considered
the
Potential
Risks
Associated
with
Deregulating
these
Waste
Fuels
A
preliminary
review
of
the
survey
data
supporting
EPA's
plan
to
expand
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion
reveals
several
disturbing
examples
of
waste
streams
with
toxic
and/
or
reactive
constituents
that
have
no
counterpart
in
"
benchmark"
fuels
that
generators
appear
to
consider
as
viable
candidates
for
exclusion.
For
example,
allyl
alcohol
is
listed
as
a
potential
component
of
an
excluded
waste.
Allyl
alcohol
has
an
OSHA
PEL
of
2
ppm.
CKRC
member
companies
report
that
allyl
alcohol
does
surface
in
the
market
and
when
it
does
it
is
at
fairly
significant
levels.
Wastes
containing
allyl
alcohol
are
dangerous
and
are
clear
examples
of
wastes
that
should
not
be
removed
from
RCRA
oversight.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
EPA
can
support
the
position
that
allyl
alcohol
is
an
expected
component
of
"
benchmark
fuels."

Another
example
of
an
incongruous
constituent
of
benchmark
fuels
is
methyl
methacrylate,
which
is
reactive
and
is
a
powerful
lachrymator.
Methyl
methacrylate
frequently
occurs
at
significant
concentrations
in
wastes
destined
for
eventual
use
as
fuel
at
fully
regulated
combustion
units.
CKRC
is
concerned
that
allowing
such
materials
to
be
effectively
unregulated
as
excluded
"
comparable"
fuels
would
be
an
accident
waiting
to
happen.
We
believe
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
thoroughly
and
specifically
evaluate
each
of
the
potential
components
of
wastes
that
generators
are
seeking
to
exclude
because
they
supposedly
are
"
comparable"
to
benchmark
fuels
and
carefully
assess
the
risks
of
allowing
them
to
bypass
RCRA
regulation.
Spill
prevention
procedures,
waste
analysis,
compatibility
in
tank
systems,
contingency
plans,
and
training
are
some
examples
of
how
RCRA
attempts
to
minimize
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
these
types
of
wastes.
Specifically,
CKRC
urges
EPA
to
focus
on
the
potential
for
worker
exposure
to
these
"
excluded"
waste
chemicals.
Because
they
will
be
considered
"
fuel
like",
workers
may
not
necessarily
be
made
aware
of
the
potential
risks
involved
and
inappropriately
assume
that
because
they
are
"
fuel
like,"
they
pose
no
greater
risks.
EPA
must
explain
in
any
proposed
rule
how
all
these
important
protective
measures
would
be
satisfied
for
"
comparable"
fuels
once
they
are
excluded
from
regulation.

EPA's
Efforts
to
Expand
the
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
Disregards
the
Significant
Agency
Action
and
Industry
Investments
in
the
Recently
Promulgated
HWC
MACT
Rule
CKRC
finds
it
ironic
that,
immediately
on
the
heels
of
promulgating
the
nation's
most
stringent
waste
combustion
standards
in
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
MACT
rule,
EPA
is
contemplating
action
that
will
weaken
the
viability
of
regulated
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Expanding
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion
offers
no
environmental
benefits.
On
the
contrary,
it
would
increase
the
risk
of
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment
for
the
apparent
sole
purpose
of
granting
modest
economic
relief
to
certain
waste
generators.
The
new
HWC
MACT
standards
will
require
significant
investment
and
increases
in
operating
and
compliance
costs
for
regulated
hazardous
waste
combustors,
including
energy
recovery
units
such
as
cement
kilns.
Yet,
just
weeks
after
promulgating
those
standards,
EPA
has
announced
plans
to
develop
a
rule
that
clearly
would
undermine
the
economic
viability
of
HWC
operators,
thereby
adversely
impacting
their
ability
to
make
the
necessary
investments
to
upgrade
their
facilities
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
HWC
rule.
The
Agency
should
understand
that
regulations
that
would
have
the
effect
of
pulling
the
highest
Btu
wastes
from
the
thermal
treatment
market
would
imperil
the
ability
of
fuel
blenders,
cement
kilns,
and
others
in
the
market
to
treat
hazardous
waste
with
more
limited
fuel
properties.
In
the
current
thermal
treatment
market,
the
type
of
hazardous
waste
fuels
that
EPA
is
proposing
to
more
broadly
exclude
are
at
times
sold
by
waste
generators.
In
other
words,
in
many
cases
those
waste
streams
already
provide
positive
economic
value
to
their
generators.
Agency
action
that
would
cause
these
higher
BTU
wastes
to
be
redirected
away
from
the
thermal
treatment
market,
would
cause
an
unacceptable
decline
in
the
average
energy
value
of
hazardous
waste
fuels,
which
would
force
regulated
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
supplement
their
blended
fuels
from
other
sources.
Expanding
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion
would
have
no
effect
on
the
net
amount
of
waste
utilized
for
energy
recovery.
It
would,
however,
increase
the
costs
for
treating
non­
excluded
wastes
in
cement
kilns.
Conclusion
In
any
proposal
to
expand
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion,
EPA
should,
at
a
minimum,
provide
a
thorough
analysis
of:

1)
The
actual
change
in
overall
energy
recovery
attributable
to
the
expanded
exclusion,
with
specific
consideration
of
the
effects
upon
existing
energy
recovery
activity
in
the
commercial
thermal
treatment
market.

2)
The
actual
extent
to
which
transportation
of
potentially
excluded
wastes
would
be
affected
and
the
economic
impact
of
those
effects
balanced
against
the
economic
impact
of
shifting
those
wastes
away
from
fully
regulated
combustion
units.

3)
The
risks
associated
with
handling,
transporting,
and
storing
the
specific
types
of
potentially
excluded
wastes
by
unregulated
entities,
with
particular
attention
to
properties
such
as
reactivity
that
are
not
"
comparable"
to
other
fuels
such
as
oil
or
gasoline.

In
a
recent
Inside
EPA
article
on
the
Comparable
Fuels
effort,
EPA
is
quoted
as
asking
"
If
it
is
no
more
risky
than
conventional
fuels,
why
not
de­
regulate
it
and
let
the
market
decide?"
(
December
21,
2005
"
EPA
May
Analyze
Energy
Savings
from
"
Waste­
as­
Fuel
Rule
After
Criticism").
CKRC
strongly
believes
that
EPA
first
has
to
address
the
"
IF"
by
proving
(
not
claiming)
that
the
potentially
excluded
materials
are
not
"
more
risky."
Then,
EPA
has
to
prove
that
de­
regulating
these
materials
will
in
fact
produce
the
desired
outcomes
 
ostensibly,
more
energy
recovery
and
less
transportation
with
no
increase
in
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Finally,
EPA
must
examine
the
current
market
disposition
of
potentially
excluded
"
comparable"
fuels
and
ensure
that
introducing
significant
change
into
the
market
will
actually
create
a
net
increase
in
the
amount
of
energy
recovery
and
not
cause
negative
effects
and
unintended
consequences.
(
Such
as
increasing
the
cost
of
thermal
treatment
and
threatening
the
viability
of
existing
necessary
treatment
units
­­
including
those
that
already
recover
energy
from
these
wastes
­­
while
not
really
advancing
the
goals
of
the
RCC.)

Thank
you
for
including
us
in
the
stakeholder
meeting.
CKRC
looks
forward
to
participating
in
the
rulemaking
development
process
and
hopes
you
find
these
initial
comments
useful.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
contact
me
or
Michelle
Lusk.

Sincerely,

Mike
Benoit
Executive
Director
cc:
Robert
Holloway,
Environmental
Engineer,
OSW
Holloway.
bob@
epamail.
epa.
gov
