EPA Rule Puts Damper on Mixed C&D Recycling

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done it again, adding a layer of un-needed federal bureaucracy that will only hurt C&D recycling. And those in the so-called environmental movement think it didn’t go far enough.

The agency’s recently released “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste” identifies which non-hazardous secondary materials, when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units, are “solid wastes” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). What it comes down to is whether C&D biomass products are considered a solid waste and subject to stricter regulation and potentially a virtual federal permit under a “petition process,” or can they continue to be used as they currently are under a multitude of regulations, especially state permitting.

The crux lies in whether a fuel, be it sludge or C&D wood, meet a variety of standards to be considered a peer of traditional fuels, such as coal, natural gas, etc. Without going into great detail (for that detail, see page 26), C&D wood meets all of the criteria except what is called the legitimacy criteria. Under this, the fuel must not have more contaminants than the traditional fuel it is replacing. For example, the C&D biomass must not have more contaminants than the coal it is replacing at a cement kiln or boiler. And for most of the contaminants C&D wood shines compared to coal, having much lower levels of those toxins, except on a very few, especially lead. But over the level on even one material, no matter how low overall compared to the coal being replaced, means that the fuel does not pass muster and the boiler must have the material undergo a process whereby the boiler petitions the U.S. EPA to use the biomass. It is easy to imagine the angst this will bring the C&D recyclers’ boiler customers, to undergo this process which one could consider akin to a permit modification. They may not want to do it, and who can blame them?

Even under this simplified explanation one can imagine the cost of consultants and lawyers to go through such a process, which in our talks with the EPA it seems it wants most every material to go through this petition. But even more amazing, the agency admits it does not have any clue what form this petition process will take, how it will be performed, how long it will take, and who specifically will do the evaluations. Headquarters in Washington said the boilers will go through the petition process at their local EPA region, but the regions do not know what to do. And in this day and age of budget and personnel cutbacks, how are these petitions going to get done?

This ruling by the agency, which is a done deal and there is no more commenting or negotiating, only complying, will put a damper on the use of C&D biomass as fuel product, despite the Obama administration’s claims for increased use of renewable fuels. According to organizations such as the Sierra Club and Earth Justice, which want to stop all incineration of post-consumer-derived fuels, the agency did not go far enough and plan to sue the EPA to get the rule even stricter. Meanwhile, we have heard rumblings of wood industry trade groups planning their own counter lawsuit to try to get the EPA to recognize some sanity. To all that, EPA personnel just sigh and say they expected it. Whatever. C&D recyclers need to realize that despite the intentions of certain members of the EPA, both the agency and those self-proclaimed environmental groups are not supporting recycling, which I always thought was an environmental pursuit.

| More...