January
4,
2006
NOTE
SUBJECT:
Meeting
Notes­­
Comparable
Fuel
Stakeholder
Meeting
on
Dec.
15,
2005
FROM:
Bob
Holloway,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
USEPA
TO:
Docket
#
RCRA­
2005­
0017
On
December
15,
2005,
EPA
convened
an
informal
public
meeting
of
stakeholders
to
discuss
potential
revisions
to
the
comparable
fuel
exclusion
under
40
CFR
261.38.

The
list
of
participants
is
attached 
Attachment
A.
In
addition,
the
presentation
we
used
to
facilitate
discussion
is
attached 
Attachment
B.

Comments
included
the
following.
We
provided
some
responses
during
the
meeting
and
developed
others
while
drafting
these
notes.

1.
Why
does
EPA
consider
this
effort
to
be
part
of
the
energy
conservation
component
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
given
that
the
ACC
survey
indicates
that
the
vast
majority
of
potential
candidate
fuels
are
already
being
burned
for
energy
recovery?
Of
380
million
lb/
yr
of
candidate
fuels,
only
88
million
lb/
yr
are
incinerated
and
some
of
the
incinerated
wastes
may
be
used
in
lieu
of
fossil
fuel
to
treat
low
heating
value
wastes.

Response:
A
substantial
portion
of
the
energy
released
by
the
88
million
lb/
yr
of
waste
fuel
that
is
incinerated
may
not
be
used
to
displace
fossil
fuel.
Moreover,
expanding
the
exclusion
would
encourage
on­
site
burning
of
additional
waste
fuels
(
that
are
currently
burned
off­
site
for
energy
recovery)
given
that
the
wastes
would
no
longer
be
subject
to
regulation
as
hazardous
waste
and
the
associated
management
costs.
This
would
reduce
costs
to
the
manufacturing
sector
and
avoid
the
potential
hazards
associated
with
off­
site
transportation
and
storage
of
waste
fuels.

2.
EPA
began
discussions
with
ACC
in
2002.
Is
there
a
record
of
EPA's
discussions
with
ACC?

Response:
We
have
not
kept
records
of
discussions
with
ACC
prior
to
October
2005.
All
information
used
to
support
any
amendments
to
the
rule
will
be
provided
in
the
administrative
record
for
the
rulemaking.

3.
How
useful
are
the
results
of
the
ACC
survey
given
that
ACC
members
volunteered
the
information?
EPA
should
consider
obtaining
more
comprehensive
information
under
section
3007
of
RCRA.
2
Response:
Given
that
the
ACC
survey
is
not
a
census
of
ACC
members
(
i.
e.,
not
all
members
returned
completed
surveys),
the
waste
quantities
reported
in
the
survey
are
minimum
quantities
of
waste
fuels
that
ACC
members
believe
should
be
considered
as
candidate
comparable
fuels.
It
would
be
helpful
as
we
pursue
regulatory
options,
however,
to
better
understand
the
quantities
of
waste
fuels
that
could
potentially
qualify
for
the
exclusion
under
the
options
being
considered.

4.
Why
does
EPA
consider
gasoline
to
be
a
benchmark
fuel
given
that
it
is
not
burned
in
boilers
or
industrial
furnaces?

Response:
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
(
63
FR
at
33785
(
June
19,
1998)),
we
believe
that
gasoline
provides
a
reasonable
upper
boundary
for
volatile
organics
that
are
fuel­
worthy
constituents
and
that
readily
combust
in
a
boiler
or
industrial
furnace.

5.
Comparable
fuels
should
not
be
burned
in
gas
turbines
because
the
turbines
may
be
widely
distributed
proximate
to
population
centers.

Response:
We
added
gas
turbines
to
the
list
of
approved
comparable/
syngas
fuel
burners
in
response
to
comments
on
the
final
rule
that
gas
turbines
are
capable
of
managing
and
burning
syngas
fuels.
See
65
FR
at
42294
(
July
10,
2000).
We
are
not
aware
of
comparable
fuel
(
or
syngas
derived
from
hazardous
waste
for
that
matter)
being
burned
in
a
gas
turbine
and
would
be
interested
in
any
information
on
that
practice.

6.
EPA
should
consider
the
toxicity
of
particular
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates
before
raising
the
specification
levels
to
base
them
on
quantitation
limits
in
gasoline
samples.
For
example,
acrolein
is
particularly
toxic.

Response:
Under
Option
A
where
the
specifications
for
nondetect
volatile
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates
would
be
raised
by
basing
them
on
gasoline
quantitation
limits
rather
than
fuel
oil
quantitation
limits,
these
compounds
would
be
allowed
in
excluded
comparable
fuel
at
levels
no
higher
than
they
may
be
found
in
gasoline.
In
addition,
the
approved
burners
of
comparable
fuel 
industrial
furnaces,
industrial
boilers,
and
hazardous
waste
incinerators 
could
be
expected
to
destroy
these
compounds
at
levels
higher
than
achieved
by
internal
combustion
engines.
Therefore,
it
would
seem
unnecessary
to
impose
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
for
an
activity
that
creates
no
more
risk
than
burning
an
equivalent
amount
of
gasoline
in
a
conventional
internal
combustion
engine.
More
conventional
Clean
Air
Act
oversight
of
industrial
combustion
facilities
should
provide
for
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

7.
Given
that
there
is
no
statutory
mandate
to
revise
the
comparable
fuel
exclusion,
why
is
EPA
using
resources
for
this
effort
while
it
is
unable
to
meet
statutory
deadlines
for
Clean
Air
Act
regulations?
3
Response:
The
Agency
is
pursuing
its
mandate
under
RCRA
to
conserve
resources
while
assuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
appreciate
the
commenter's
feedback
on
the
allocation
of
resources
to
the
various
mandates
that
the
Agency
is
addressing
and
will
relay
the
comment
to
our
senior
management
for
consideration
in
our
future
budget
decisions.

8.
Several
stakeholders
expressed
concern
that,
under
Option
B 
Comparable
Emissions,
continuous
monitoring
(
i.
e.,
with
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS))
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons
should
be
required
rather
than
periodic
monitoring.

Response:
We
understand
these
stakeholders'
concerns.

Finally,
we
requested
that
stakeholders
provide
any
written
comments
by
Dec.
23
so
that
we
may
consider
them
as
we
further
develop
options
for
Agency
senior
management
decision­
making.
We
received
comments
from
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition 
see
Attachment
C.
4
ATTACHMENT
A
Participants­­
Comparable
Fuels
Stakeholder
Meeting
on
Dec.
15,
2005
Jim
Berlow
USEPA,
OSW
202­
703­
8414
berlow.
jim@
epa.
gov
Bob
Holloway
USEPA,
OSW
202­
703­
8641
holloway.
bob@
epa.
gov
Hugh
Davis
USEPA,
OSW
703­
308­
0206
davis.
hugh@
epa.
gov
Lyn
Luben
USEPA,
OSW
703­
308­
0508
luben.
lyn@
epa.
gov
Glenn
Farber
USEPA,
OPEI
202­
566­
0343
farber.
glenn@
epa.
gov
Vishnu
Katari
USEPA,
OECA
703­
564­
4004
katari.
vishnu@
epa.
gov
Jace
S.
Cujé
US
EPA,
ORD
202­
564­
1795
cuje.
jace@
epa.
gov
Gary
Gross
USEPA,
Region
3
215­
814­
3412
gross.
gary@
epa.
gov
John
Brogard
USEPA,
Region
2
212­
637­
4162
brogard.
john@
epa.
gov
Jim
McNamara
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division
Jim_
McNamara@
dnr.
state.
ga.
us
David
Yardumian
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division
Lornette
Harvey
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division
Jim
Sliwinski
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division
Robert
Morrison
MO
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Don
Murphy
MO
Department
of
Natural
Resources
573­
522­
9532
don.
murphy@
dnr.
mo.
gov
Rick
Volpel
OR
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
503­
229­
6753
VOLPEL.
Rick@
deq.
state.
or.
us
Susan
Goldhaber
NC
Dept
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
susan.
goldhaber@
ncmail.
net
Jim
Pew
Earthjustice
202­
667­
4500
jpew@
earthjustice
Marti
Sinclair
Sierra
Club
513­
674­
1983
mjsinclair@
fuse.
net
Bob
Elam
American
Chemistry
Council
703­
741­
5242
RobertElam@
americanchemistry.
com
Dot
Kelly
Ciba
203­
462­
3488
dot@
dkelly.
org
David
Case
Environmental
Technology
Council
202­
783­
0870
x201
dcase@
etc.
org
Bill
Ziegler
ENSCO
Mike
Benoit
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
202­
466­
7699
mbenoit@
ckrc.
org
Michelle
Lusk
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
202­
466­
7698
mlusk@
ckrc.
org
Mel
Keener
Coalition
for
Responsible
Incineration
202­
452­
1241
mel@
crwi.
org
Tom
Moore
Systech
937­
643­
1240
x3112
5
Erika
Guerra
Holcim
734­
529­
4120
Ted
Steichen
American
Petroleum
Institute
202­
682­
8568
steichent@
api.
org
Dr.
R.
Mark
Conger
BASF
Corporation
225­
339­
7941
congerr@
basf.
com
Tom
P.
Yarnick
ExxonMobil
281­
870­
6068
tom.
p.
yarnick@
exxonmobil.
com
John
K.
Perrin
BASF
573­
769­
8682
perrinj@
basf­
corp.
com
Gary
Elliott
Lafarge
918­
388­
1155
Gary.
Elliott@
lafarge­
na.
com
Bill
Morris
Norlite
Corporation
BMorris@
unitedindustrialservices.
com
Representatives
from
Cadence
Chemical
and
ESSROC
also
participated.
6
ATTACHMENT
B
Comparable
Fuels
Exclusion
Revisions
under
Consideration
(
v3)
Stakeholder
Meeting
12­
15­
05
Overview
°
Background
°
Schedule
°
Overview
of
the
Current
Exclusion
°
ACC
Survey
Results
°
Options
under
Consideration
°
Additional
Discussion
Background
°
Effort
is
part
of
the
energy
conservation
component
of
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
 
Examine
the
effectiveness
of
the
current
comparable
fuel
program
and
consider
whether
other
industrial
wastes
could
be
appropriately
excluded
as
comparable
fuel
°
Contacted
ACC
in
Fall
2002
to
determine
if
there
were
additional
opportunities
°
Provided
comments
on
ACC's
draft
survey
of
members
°
ACC
distributed
the
survey
in
Spring
2003
and
provided
the
results
to
EPA
in
late
2003.
°
Periodic
discussions
in
the
interim
when
time
permitted
°
Resources
now
available
to
pursue
rulemaking,
if
warranted
Thompson
Report
Schedule:
Major
Milestones
for
a
Proposed
Rule
°
Stakeholder
Meeting:
12­
15­
05
°
Agency
Options
Selection:
February
06
°
Senior
Management
Review:
June
06
°
OMB
Review:
October
06
°
Administrator's
Signature:
November
06
7
Overview
of
Comparable
Fuel
Exclusion:
40
CFR
261.38
°
HW
fuels
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
HW
if
they
have
levels
of
toxic
constituents
and
physical
properties
similar
to
commercial
(
benchmark)
fuels:
gasoline
and
fuel
oils
°
Constituent
groups
 
Metals
 
Hydrocarbons
(
13)
 
Oxygenates
(
24)
 
Sulfonated
organics
(
9)
 
Nitrogenated
organics
(
61)
 
Halogenated
organics
(
80)
°
Only
3
organics
were
detected:
3
hydrocarbons 
benzene,
naphthalene,
and
toluene
°
For
nondetects,
specification
is
nondetect
at
a
minimum
detection
limit 
the
quantitation
limit
for
the
benchmark
fuels
analyses,
except:
 
For
hydrocarbons
and
oxygenates,
specification
is
the
quantitation
limit
because
these
compounds
could
be
expected
to
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels
Overview
of
261.38
(
Cont'd)
°
Implementation
 
Generator
°
One­
time
notice
to
RCRA
and
CAA
permit
authority
 
Generator
ID,
HW
codes,
Burner
ID
°
Obtain
certification
from
burner
 
Industrial
furnace,
industrial
or
utility
boiler,
HW
INC
°
Waste
analysis
plan
°
Recordkeeping
°
Dilution
prohibition
 
Burner
°
Public
notice
in
local
newspaper:
ID
generator,
ID
burner,
estimates
of
quantities
to
be
burned
ACC
Survey
Results
°
52
surveys
returned
from
14
companies
 
Identified
waste
streams
w/
a
heating
value
>
5,000
Btu/
lb
 
Many
exceed
the
specification
for
only
1
or
2
constituents
 
Most
problematic
compounds:
isobutyl
alcohol,
methyl
ethyl
ketone,
toluene,
acrolein
°
96
waste
streams
totaling
380
million
lb/
yr
do
not
qualify
for
the
exclusion
 
These
wastes
have
a
weighted
average
heating
value
of
11,000
Btu/
lb
(
14,000
Btu/
lb
unweighted)
 
88
million
lb/
yr
are
incinerated
°
Weighted
heating
value
of
>
11,000
Btu/
lb
°
Currently,
46
million
lb/
yr
of
waste
fuels
qualify
for
the
exclusion,
and
26
million
lb/
yr
are
actually
excluded
 
Administrative
burden
and
costs
of
complying
with
the
exclusion
outweigh
the
savings
°
An
expanded
exclusion
could
provide
substantial
cost
savings
associated
with
fossil
fuel
savings,
transportation
and
disposal
savings,
and
permitting
and
administrative
savings.
8
ACC
Survey
Results
(
Cont'd)
°
ACC
and
EPA
have
winnowed
respondents'
suggestions
down
to
3
potential
revisions:
 
A.
Nondetect­
Based
Specs
for
Volatile
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates:
Correct
the
Specifications
to
Base
Them
on
Gasoline
Quantitation
Limits
rather
than
Fuel
Oil
Quantitation
Limits
 
B.
Comparable
Emissions:
Conditional
Exclusion
of
Fuels
that
Are
Off­
Spec
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
where
the
Conditions
Ensure
Emissions
Are
Comparable
to
Benchmark
Fuels
 
C.
Blending
to
Meet
the
Specifications
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Oxygenates
Option
A:
ND­
Based
Specs
for
Volatile
HC
and
Oxygenates
°
Issue:
Due
to
matrix
interferences,
ND­
based
specs
for
volatiles
are
unachievable
in
a
large
number
of
candidate
fuels
°
Background:
Although
volatile
HC
and
oxygenates
could
be
expected
to
be
found
in
gasoline,
only
3
were
detected
 
Quantitation
limit
was
relatively
high
because
of
matrix
effects
°
Multiple
volatile
organics
cause
interferences
which
requires
iterative
sample
dilutions,
which
raises
the
quantitation
limit
 
Specs
for
ND
HC
and
oxygenates
currently
based
on
quantitation
limit
for
volatiles
in
fuel
oil
°
Quantitation
limits
for
volatiles
much
higher
in
gasoline
than
fuel
oil
(
e.
g.,
3300
mg/
kg
vs.
40
mg/
kg)
due
to
matrix
effects
°
Note:
Spec
for
25
ND
semivolatile
HC
and
oxygenates
is
2400
mg/
kg
based
on
quantitation
limits
in
fuel
oil.
°
Because
many
candidate
fuels
have
the
same
matrix
problems
as
gasoline,
it
could
be
argued
that
the
specs
for
ND
HC
and
oxygenates
should
have
been
based
on
gasoline
quantitation
limits
Option
A
(
Cont'd)
°
Revision
under
Consideration
 
Correct
specs
for
ND
volatile
HC
and
oxygenates
to
base
them
on
quantitation
limits
in
gasoline
rather
than
fuel
oil
 
Do
not
revise
specs
for
other
ND
volatiles
(
e.
g.,
halogenated)
because
they
are
not
expected
to
be
found
in
gasoline
9
Option
B:
Comparable
Emissions
°
Conditional
Exclusion
of
Fuels
that
Are
Off­
Spec
for
HC
and
Oxygenates
to
Ensure
Emissions
Are
Comparable
to
Benchmark
Fuels
 
Emissions
would
be
comparable
to
comp
fuel
that
meets
the
spec
if
the
burner
operates
under
good
combustion
practices
(
GCP)
as
evidenced
by
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
<
100
ppmv
or
hydrocarbons
(
HC)
<
10
°
GCP
is
the
primary
control
for
organic
compounds
under
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
MACT
rule
 
Limited
to
HC
and
oxygenates
because
other
organics
(
e.
g.,
halogenated)
not
expected
to
be
in
benchmark
fuels
and
emissions
of
acid
gases,
SOx,
and
NOx
would
be
higher
than
from
benchmark
fuels
Option
B:
Comparable
Emissions
(
Cont'd)
Conditions
to
Ensure
GCP
and
Facilitate
Regulatory
Oversight
 
CO
or
HC
Monitoring
o
The
burner
must
monitor
CO
or
HC
w/
a
CEMS
o
Candidate
fuel
may
not
be
burned
if
CO
>
100
or
HC
>
10
o
CO
or
HC
limits
must
be
interlocked
with
an
automatic
feed
cutoff
system
for
the
candidate
fuel.
o
Issue:
Should
periodic
monitoring
of
CO
or
HC
be
allowed
in
lieu
of
a
CEMS,
and
should
monitoring
of
other
process
parameters
(
e.
g.,
excess
oxygen)
be
allowed?

Option
B:
Comparable
Emissions­­
Conditions
(
Cont'd)
2.
Minimum
Heating
Value
o
Candidate
fuel
must
have
an
as­
fired
heating
value
of
8,000
Btu/
lb
or
greater.

3.
Maximum
Firing
Rate
o
Candidate
fuel
that
is
off­
spec
for
a
HC
or
oxygenate
that
is
present
at
a
concentration
greater
than
1%
must
be
fired
at
a
firing
rate
not
to
exceed
30%
(
as­
fired
heat
input
basis).
10
Option
B:
Comparable
Emissions­­
Conditions
(
Cont'd)
4.
On­
site
or
limited
off­
site
burning
o
Off­
site
burner
must
be
at
an
affiliated
facility
o
261.38(
c)
already
requires
the
generator
to
provide
in
a
notification
to
the
permitting
authority
the
name
and
address
of
the
burner,
and
to
certify
that
the
burner
is
an
industrial
furnace,
industrial
or
utility
boiler,
or
hazardous
waste
incinerator
o
Issue:
Should
burning
in
an
off­
site
nonaffiliated
facility
be
allowed
under
the
condition
that
the
generator
and
burner
provide
annual
reports
to
the
permitting
authority
of
the
comparable
fuel
quantity
shipped
or
received
and
combusted?

Option
C:
Blending
°
Blending
to
Meet
the
Spec
for
HC
and
Oxygenates
o
Blending
of
candidate
fuel
w/
comp
fuel
or
fuel
oil
to
meet
the
specs
for
HC
and
oxygenates
would
not
constitute
dilution
to
avoid
treatment
o
The
organics
would
be
treated
by
combustion
o
Special
conditions
to
ensure
GCP
not
needed
because
these
organics
would
be
present
at
the
same
levels
as
in
benchmark
fuels
and
would
be
destroyed
comparably
o
Blending
to
meet
the
spec
for
other
organics
(
e.
g.,
halogenated)
not
appropriate
because
they
are
not
expected
to
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels
Option
C:
Blending­­
Conditions
°
On­
site
blending
o
The
original
generator
would
be
required
to
perform
the
blending
and
claim
the
exclusion
to
facilitate
regulatory
oversight
o
App
VII
Compounds
without
a
Spec
o
The
comp
fuel
could
not
be
listed
for
an
App.
VII
compound
that
is
not
a
HC
or
oxygenate
for
which
we
do
not
have
a
spec
because
there
is
no
analytical
method.
o
The
compound
would
not
likely
be
found
in
benchmark
fuels
o
The
generator
would
be
allowed
to
use
testing
or
knowledge
to
document
that
the
subject
Appendix
VII
constituent
is
not
expected
to
be
present.
o
This
would
be
consistent
w/
the
current
provisions
of
§
261.38(
c)(
8)
which
waive
testing
for
spec
compounds
if
the
generator
uses
testing
or
knowledge
to
determine
that
the
compound
would
not
be
present
11
ATTACHMENT
C
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.
12
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
13
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.
14
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
