500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

202.408.9494 Fax 202.408.0877

www.cement.org

January 19, 2010

Michael Galbraith

Office of Solid Waste (5302P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460-0002

Dear Mr. Galbraith:

Thank you once again for attending the October 2009 PCA Environment and Energy 

Committee meeting to give our members an overview of EPA’s intention for announcing a 

proposed rule on identification of non-hazardous solid waste by April 2010.

 

We are concerned that this potential regulatory action by EPA could impose unnecessary 

barriers to the cement industry’s long standing and environmentally sound use of whole scrap 

tires as tire derived fuel (TDF) during the manufacture of cement. While PCA applauds 

EPA’s desire to seek comment on solid waste practices for the purpose of refining standards under 

CAA sections 112 and 129, we further encourage the Agency to maintain an open view toward the 

scope of criteria used for determining legitimate handling of supplemental fuel alternatives – such as 

whole scrap tires – and take into account the long-established environmental benefits associated with 

these practices. 

Portland cement is the powder which acts as the glue or bonding agent that, when mixed with 

water, sand, gravel and other materials, forms concrete. Cement is produced from various 

naturally abundant raw materials, including limestone, shale, clay, and silica sand. Portland 

cement is an essential construction material and a basic component of our nation’s 

infrastructure. It is utilized in numerous markets, including the construction of highways, 

streets, bridges, airports, mass transit systems, commercial and residential buildings, dams, 

and water resource systems and facilities. The low cost and universal availability of portland 

cement ensure that concrete remains one of the world’s most essential and widely used 

construction materials.

This correspondence is our response to your questions, following the October 2009 meeting, 

seeking clarification on topics addressed during the October discussion. Our responses to the 

three questions you asked are provided below. 
2

Question #1: Succinctly explain the type processing whole tires undergo prior to being 

burned as fuel in a cement kiln. If this is already explained in comments, you can simply 

point me to where this was already explained. If not, your best argument for whether whole 

tires are "processed" would be useful.

Response: Regarding whole scrap tires used as alternative fuel, industry’s interpretation of 

“processing” entails a broad definition not relegated to a prescribed approach that only 

recognizes physical practices such as shredding or chipping. While our industry 

acknowledges that a handful of cement plants utilize chipped or shredded tire scraps as a fuel, 

the overwhelming majority use whole tires. Regarding “processing,” the industry believe 

that this term encompasses sorting, segregation, cleaning, culling, racking, transportation, or 

other systematic procedures directed toward an established way of making scrap tires (in 

whole form) ready for use as a tire-derived fuel in a cement kiln. We view such “nonmechanical processing” as an effective reclamation protocol, so long as the outcome results in 

sufficient rehabilitation of the whole scrap tires as a cement kiln fuel. 

Page 6, Section 4 of our comments to the docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0352.1) state 

“while we agree that legitimate fuel products that have been extracted, processed, or 

reclaimed from previously discarded non-hazardous secondary materials would not generally 

be considered solid waste,” it is also our view that “it should not be imperative that such fuel 

products undergo prescribed processing prior to utilization as legitimate fuels.” Our 

comments also indicate that facilities (such as cement manufacturing operations) processing 

“solid waste into a fuel will generally have some form of state-specific solid waste permit.” 

This is an important point, because it underscores the role that states play in ensuring safe 

handling, storage, documentation and registration typically imposed from the waste tire hauler 

to the end user (e.g. cement manufacturer).

We understand that tires will also not fall under the definition of solid waste if the fuel stream 

is considered to be “not previously discarded.” There are multiple state programs throughout 

the U.S. that regulate waste tires under a tire management program in which tires are handled 

as valuable products, and therefore, are understood not to have been abandoned, disposed of, 

or thrown away. In some states, there is a ban on tire disposal in landfills, and tires are 

required to be managed. Under these programs, the tires are obtained directly from tire 

dealerships and are transferred to brokers through standard commercial transactions, implying 

that they are considered to be “not previously discarded.” Either the brokers, or the facilities 

that purchase the tires from the brokers, perform the processing steps described above 

(sorting, segregation, cleaning, culling, racking, and other procedures). Therefore, tires 

subject to state tire management programs structured as described above should not fall under 

the definition of solid waste and the combustion of which should not be regulated under 

Section 129.
3

Question #2: It was noted during the [October 6, 2009] meeting that a big difference 

between 112 and 129 is the additional pollutants that are regulated under 129. I have heard 

this before, but couldn't remember if the problematic pollutant was NOx or SOx. Could you 

clarify this, and maybe explain the types of additional controls that you think you could be 

required to install as a result of being subject to CAA 129 requirements?

Response

In general, the differences between Sections 112 and 129 of the CAA are summarized as 

follows:

: CAA §129 contains requirements that are different from CAA §112. Section 129 

covers “area sources” (i.e., non-major sources) in addition to “major sources” (while CAA 

§112 covers area sources only under certain circumstances). Expanding the scope of §129 to 

include many more facilities would likely create a scenario in which cement manufacturing 

facilities, including those that fall into the “non-major source” category (i.e., those with air 

toxic emissions less than 10 tons per year for any one HAP and less than 25 tpy for HAP in 

the aggregate), would avoid burning tire-derived fuel (TDF) or similar wastes due to the 

burden (and stigma) of being regulated under §129. Compliance requirements associated with 

controlling §129 pollutants would also trigger the need for cement manufacturers to install 

more expensive pollution control technologies, in addition to creating substantial disincentive 

to continuing the use of whole TDF. 

• Plant Modification – Section 129 applicability can be triggered by a modification as 

defined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A. This means that all modifications to existing kiln 

systems, including modifications that would not have triggered Section 112 requirements 

for new sources, will trigger Section 129 requirements for new sources, involving stringent 

and expensive emission controls. Such modifications could include changes to increase 

efficiency, changes to use biomass fuels, and other changes to reduce GHG emissions, as 

well as many other modifications that are made as a normal part of doing business. (Note 

that changes involving throughput increases would trigger Section 112 requirements for 

new sources and hence do not have different consequences under Section 112 and 129). 

Thus, plant modifications designed to reduce energy consumption or the facilities 

environmental footprint would be much less likely under 129 vs. 112.Section 112 standards 

are not triggered by plant modifications.

• Double Regulation of Pollutants – Many of the Section 129 pollutants are already 

addressed by other Clean Air Act programs. Furthermore, Section 129 requires that 

emission standards minimally be set for nine (9) pollutants: cadmium, carbon monoxide,

dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (total 

and fine), opacity, and sulfur dioxide. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate 

matter (total and fine), opacity, and sulfur dioxide are not regulated under Section 112. 
4

Section 112 Standards generally regulate a specific HAP of concern or regulate surrogate 

pollutants representing a category of HAPs (e.g., VOCs as a surrogate for volatile HAPs);

• Burdensome Impact on Area Sources – Section 129 MACT standards apply to all 

sources within the defined category (as noted above), regardless of their status as a major 

or minor source. Section 112 requires that MACT standards be established for major 

sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and certain area sources of HAPs;

• Other Inappropriate Requirements – Section 129 includes requirements for operator 

training, pre-construction site assessments, and monitoring that are not included in CAA 

Section 112. Many standards developed under Section 112 do not include such 

requirements. These were crafted to specifically address concerns associated with waste 

combustion facilities, not conventional manufacturing.

Question #3: We consistently hear that the "stigma of being called a waste combustor" is a 

real issue and will result in many combustion sources to simply stop burning the solid waste 

materials (economic issues aside). A better explanation of why this stigma of being waste 

burner is a real issue would be helpful.

Response: The most poignant observation from the cement industry’s standpoint is that 

CAA §129 is intended for regulation of “incinerators.” Obviously, cement kilns – which burn 

both fossil fuels and alternative supplemental fuels during the manufacture of cement – are 

not incinerator units. Cement kilns are production vessels that produce clinker, which forms 

the basis for cement product. Incinerators are not production vessels. Therefore, it would be 

misguided and damaging to the cement sector and other manufacturing industries if EPA were 

to group [cement] kilns and similar fuel-burning systems under regulatory requirements (such 

as §129) designed for the incineration of waste material. The dubious distinction of having 

cement kilns regulated as incinerators under §129 would limit the cement industry’s access to 

legitimate alternative fuel products (which are typically provided through brokers – many of 

whom do not service §129 regulated participants). Also, cement manufacturers subject to 

§129 Title V permitting requirements would face unnecessary scrutiny during public hearings 

when seeking to expand their operations into new locations particularly where communities 

are not keen to having designated “incinerator burning” systems located in or near their 

regions. The take-home message in all of this is that the cement sector – a major U.S. 

manufacturing industry – would be stigmatized as a waste-incinerating industry if EPA were 

to regulate cement kilns under §129.

******************************************************

Please feel free to reach me at 202-408-9494, or by email (aohare@cement.org) if you have 

further questions or need clarification on our responses provided in this letter. Thank you for 

allowing us the opportunity to address these issues.
5

Sincerely,

Andrew T. O’Hare

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs