THE TEXT YOU ARE VIEWING IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED OR RETYPED
VERSION OF A PAPER PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL. ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLE
EFFORT HAS BEEN EXPENDED TO QUALITY ASSURE THE CONVERSION, IT MAY
CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. TO OBTAIN A LEGAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE READER SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE
THAT ORIGINATED THE CORRESPONDENCE OR PROVIDED THE RESPONSE.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
18 JUL 1988
Mr. Joseph M. Pavelich
Chairman, Minnesota Waste
Management Board
1350 Energy Lane
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Dear Mr. Pavelich:
This is in response to your June 22, 1988 memorandum to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Administrator, Lee Thomas, in which
you presented certain reasons why waste tires should be given an
exemption from EPA's requirements for prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD).
On June 7, 1988, my staff responded to an inquiry from EPA's Region
V office concerning this same issue. In that response, we stated
our position that the use of tire-derived fuel (TDF) as an alternative
fuel does not qualify for a PSD exemption under subparagraph (b)(2)(iii)(d)
of 40 CFR 52.21. Since you may not already be aware of that determination,
I have enclosed a copy of the June 7, 1988 memorandum as well as
the incoming memorandum from the Regional Office.
I support the position stated in EPA's enclosed response and believe
that we would be establishing an inappropriate precedent if we were
to open the PSD exemption for alternate fuel utilization to specialized
fuels, such as TDF, which are merely a single, potential component
of the municipal solid waste bulk. To allow the use of the alternative
fuel exemption under PSD for TDF would open the door to many other
similar requests without the benefit of an environmental analysis
and installation of appropriate controls where needed.
I appreciate your concern and hope that you can understand our
position on this issue. In the event that you desire to meet with
EPA representatives to pursue any further concerns that you might
have, I would invite you to notify me at your convenience in writing
or by calling (919) 541-5615.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Emison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
2 Enclosures
cc: Steve Rothblatt, EPA Region V
John Calcagni, OAQPS/AQMD
Jack Farmer, OAQPS/ESD
Truette DeGeare, OSW
Edward Lillis, OAQPS/AQMD
Dan deRoeck, OAQPS/AQMD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUN 7 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Request for Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Applicability Determination
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5AR-26)
I have reviewed your memorandum of May 2, 1988 concerning the
issue of whether use of tire-derived fuel (TDF) at existing steam
generating facilities should be classified as an alternative fuel
generated from municipal solid waste. My conclusion supports your
preliminary determination that TDF does not, by itself, constitute
municipal solid waste in accordance with the definition contained
in paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 60.51. I also do not consider TDF to
be "generated from" municipal solid waste within the context of
the PSD exemption for major modifications. Consequently, the use
of TDF as an alternative fuel would not qualify for a PSD exemption
under subparagraph (b)(2)(iii)(d) of 40 CFR 52.21.
My staff has reviewed the brief yet pertinent language contained
in two Federal Register preambles which leads us to conclude that
the intent in establishing the subject exemption was to address
fuel consisting of either the total collected mixture of municipal
type waste, i.e., municipal solid waste, or the bulk of such mixture
excluding the noncombustible waste fraction, i.e., refuse derived
fuel. The PSD exemption is explained briefly in the preamble to
the 1980 PSD amendments as applying to "fuel derived in whole or
in part from municipal solid waste" [45 FR 52698, August 7, 1980).
The concept of "derived in whole" appears to refer to a fuel prepared
from the complete content of municipal solid waste. However, the
meaning of "derived . . . in part" is not as apparent.
We have also relied on the preamble discussion of the same exemption
contained in the 1979 Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. In
that preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refers
to the use of 11 municipal solid waste (including refuse derived
fuel . . .)" [44 FR 3278, January 6, 1979]. Taken together, these
brief explanations strongly suggest
that EPA's concern is for the alternative use of municipal solid
waste which has already been collected, and not any particular individual
component which might be utilized as a fuel by itself. Since nearly
everything can be found in municipal waste from used oil to plastics
to pesticides, the argument that any combustible material found
in municipal waste should qualify for this exemption when recovered
and burned alone is somewhat unrealistic.
Therefore, the use of a particular material as an alternate fuel,
even if it is found in municipal solid waste, does not qualify for
the PSD exemption and should be reviewed to determine whether an
increase in actual emissions would result. In the event that such
alternative fuel would result in a significant net emissions increase,
then its use should be reviewed as a major modification.
Should you have any further questions or comments concerning this
determination, please contact Dan deRoeck at FTS 629-5593.
cc: E. Lillis
New Source Review Contacts
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE: 02 MAY 1988
SUBJECT: Request for PSD Applicability Determination
FROM: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5AR-26)
TO: John Calcagni, Director
Division of Air Quality Management
We have received an inquiry regarding the applicability of Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations to steam generating
facilities burning tire-derived fuel (TDF) as an alternative fuel.
More specifically, the question is whether or not the provision
of 40 CFR Part 52.21 which exempts the "use of an alternative fuel
at a steam generating unit to the extent that the fuel is generated
from municipal solid waste" would apply to the firing of TDF.
The attached incoming letter expands on this basic question, in
addition to presenting arguments in favor of applying the exemption
to TDF firing. Our preliminary determination is that TDF is not
"solid waste" as that term is defined in Subpart E of 40 CFR Part
60. However we are uncertain as to how to interpret the words "generated
from" in the PSD exemption.
We would appreciate your review of the attached letter and your
guidance on the questions presented.
Attachment
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV.3-76)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
1350 ENERGY LANE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55108
METRO AREA (612) 649-5750
MN TOLL FREE 1-800-652-9747
June 22, 1988
Lee Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
410 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas,
It is our understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is considering a request to define waste tires as a "municipal
solid waste" under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
for proposed air quality permit modifications. The following is
a comment in support of a request made to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 5 that waste tires be defined as a "municipal
solid waste" under PSD requirements (see attached request). The
attached request dated March 29,1988 was forwarded to the EPA headquarters
in Washington, DC. The request made by Waste Recovery, Inc. was
the direct result of a waste tire test burn conducted at the Champion
International facility located in Sartell, Minnesota. The State
of Minnesota funded the test burn in an effort to develop a Minnesota
market for the tire-derived fuel (TDF) product produced by Waste
Recovery or other similar waste tire processing facilities. It is
the State of Minnesota's understanding that an exemption for PSD
permit requirements would be given to waste tires, if waste tires
were defined as a "municipal solid waste".
The attached letter outlines the reasons why waste tires should
be given a exemption from EPA requirements for PSD. The letter states
that "municipal solid waste" as defined under the PSD section of
40 CRF does not clearly identify waste tires as being part of the
municipal solid waste stream. However, a commonly used definition
of municipal solid waste is found in 40 CRF 60.41b, which does include
waste tires as a municipal solid waste. Waste Recovery, Inc. further
requests that EPA define waste tires as a "municipal solid waste",
thereby giving waste tires an exemption from the additional permit
modification requirements under PSD.
The waste tire problem is one of the nations growing solid waste
problems. The State of Minnesota has aggressively addressed this
problem. The potential TDF markets at the Champion facility and
other similar Minnesota facilities are an important steps towards
the development of adequate markets for Minnesota. Markets which
are needed to alleviate the problems associated with unprocessed
waste tires. Therefore, the State of Minnesota strongly encourages
the inclusion of waste tires in the definition for "municipal solid
waste", thereby exempting waste tires from the PSD requirements.
WASTE RECOVERY, INC.
MAKING WASTE A RESOURCE
501 N. Bonnwick
Portland, Oregon 97217
503/283-2261
March 29, 1988
RECEIVED
APR 4 1988
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Mr. Steve Rothblatt
Chief, Air & Radiation Branch
EPA - Region 5
Mail 5AR-26
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Rothblatt,
At Mr. Bill McDowell's suggestion, I am writing to request a response
for three questions. These questions relate to the use of tire derived
fuel (TDF) as an alternative fuel at existing steam generating facilities
where TDF will either replace a percentage of traditional fuels
(i.e. coal, oil, gas and/or wood fuel) or be an addition to existing
fuel requirements as is the case when adding TDF to existing and
dedicated refuse derived fuel (RDF) steam generating facilities.
Whereas, CFR40 Part 52.21 excludes "use of an alternative fuel at
a steam generating unit to the extent that the fuel is generated
from municipal solid waste" from being considered a physical change
or change in the method of operation thus relieving regulation under
this part. We maintain that TDF is generated from municipal solid
waste and thus should fall under this exemption. EPA is apparently
unclear so we request clarification on this issue.
Background
"Each year about 200,000,000 passenger tires and 40,000,000 truck
tires are scrapped. While a limited number of these scrap tires
are used as raw- product for the rubber reclaim industries or in
other ways, the vast majority go to landfills or dumps." (Source:
200,000,000 tires per year: Options for Resource Recovery and Disposal,
9/7/79, prepared for US EPA# 69- 03-2725, by Urban Systems Research
Engineering, Inc.)
Mr. Steve Rothblatt
The growing segregation of scrap tires from the municipal waste
stream by landfill operators, tire dealers, and consumers ultimately
bodes well for Waste Recovery's approach to recycling the scrap
tires and reducing a solid waste disposal problem. Waste Recovery
processes the scrap tire into a 2" minus rubber chip, removes the
bead and most of the radial wire to produce a tire derived fuel
(TDF). Our TDF is then sold to existing steam generating facilities
as an alternative fuel to replace some percentage of their existing
solid fuel requirement. Blend replacements range from 5% - 20% by
weight. Blend ranges ultimately are limited by the facility's permit
conditions and pollution control efficiencies. For our customers
to burn TDF, no changes are made in the steam generating facilities,
i.e. steaming design capacity, stokers, grates, air controls, fuel
handling systems, pollution control devices, etc. TDF is fed into
the boilers via existing handling systems.
Recently, we have developed two TDF test trials, one at Champion
International Corp., Sartell, Minnesota and the other at Northern
State Power, Mankato and Red Wing, Minnesota where the PSD criteria
either have been or could be exceeded, but not the permit conditions,
thus requiring PSD review if the facilities were to further consider
using TDF as an alternative fuel. I believe the areas are in attainment
for criteria pollutants under ambient air quality standards. The
Champion facility is a wood and coal cofired steam generating unit.
The Northern States Power facilities are existing coal fired steam
generating units retrofitted to burn 100% RDF. The Northern States
Power facilities currently operate under an exemption from PSD apparently
granted via the CFR 40 Part 52.21 clause I've identified in the
first paragraph of this letter. At both facilities, Champion and
Northern States Power, we are proposing to add TDF within their
state air permit limits, somewhere in a range of 3 - 8% by weight.
The State of Minnesota is willing to exclude TDF from PSD criteria
based on exclusions so identified in CFR 40 Part 52.21 if EPA agrees
with such an interpretation. Apparently Minnesota has adopted EPA's
PSD rules "verbatim" in their SIP.
Mr. Steve Rothblatt
Your response in a timely manner will be appreciated since we
have several TDF trials in Minnesota hanging in the balance. However,
I recognize the implications for a national policy on this issue
and I understand that some time may be required for thorough analysis.
I am available to meet with either you, your staff or EPA's headquarters
for further discussion and clarification on this issue.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Hope
Marketing & Governmental Affairs Manager
MWH/asd
s:roth
cc:
Rich Brown - Congressional District Office
Bill McDowell - EPA - V
Ron Van Mersbergen - EPA - V
Mark Hooper - EPA - X
Ahto Niemioja - MPCA
Dave Bonistal - Champion
Dave Heberling - NSP
Anderson Carothers - WRI
Andrew Ronchak - MWMB
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of the Administrator
Science Advisory Board
Washington, D.C. 20460
SAB-EETFC-88-25
April, 1988
Final Report
Report of the Environmental
Effects, Transport and Fate
Committee
|