500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7 th Floor Washington, DC 20001
202.408.9494 Fax 202.408.0877

**www.cement.org** January 1 9 , 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 200 9 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 practic es for the purpose of refining standards under
CAA sections 112 and 129 , we further encourage the Agency to maintain an open view toward the

sc ope 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 concr ete. 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 tha t 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 defini tion 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 “non

mechanical 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.

Pag e 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 generall y 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 o perations) process ing

“ 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 registra tion 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 mul tiple 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, ther e 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 con sidered 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, ti res 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] m eeting 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 require ment s that are different from CAA §112. Section 129 covers “area sources” ( i.e. , non

- major s ources) 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 th ose 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

bur den (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 su bstantial disincentive to continuing the use of whole TDF.

• Plant Modification

– Section 129 applicability can be triggered by a modificatio n as defined in 40 C FR 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

a nd 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 faci lities 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 pr ograms. 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 sulf ur 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 repres enting 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 sourc e. 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 c onventional 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 bet ter 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 ki lns

– 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 p roduction 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 inc ineration 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

- incinerati ng 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