NORA Provides Testimony to EPA on Proposed Solid Waste Rule 

Hello [firstname],

On June 15, 2010, NORA's Executive Director Scott D. Parker provided testimony on behalf of the liquid recycling industry to the US EPA regarding the Proposed Rule Concerning Burning Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials. A copy of NORA's testimony may be found at the bottom of this email.

The proposed rule was issued in the Federal Register on June 4, 2010. It has wide ranging implications for all aspects of the used oil recycling industry.

To download a copy of the rule, click here. There are two approaches that are being offered related to used oil. The proposed approach for used oil can be found on pages 22 and 23. The alternative approach for used oil can be found on pages 43 and 44.

NORA has created a working group that is gathering input from all members as the association is working on developing a policy position on the issue. NORA will have comments prepared before the EPA comment deadline on August 3. 

The deadline for EPA to complete this rule is December 16, 2010. It is expected that the final rule will be implemented over a three year period. This will be a major topic of discussion at the 2010 NORA Mid-Year Meeting.

Statement of NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers

Concerning EPA’s Proposed Rule

Concerning Burning Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials

Good morning.  My name is Scott Parker.  I am the Executive Director of NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers (formerly the National Oil Recyclers Association).  Today NORA offers a general statement concerning the rule recently proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to promulgate regulations governing solid waste-derived fuels.  NORA will submit much more detailed comments on or before the August 3, 2010 deadline.  To provide you with some background on the oil recycling industry, NORA’s more than 240 members provide collection and recycling services in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.  Our members collect and recycle used oil, antifreeze, waste water, oil filters and absorbents, and parts cleaning chemicals and comply with stringent regulatory safeguards for used oil recycling pursuant to 40 CFR Part 279 and many other sets of environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act.  The basic components of Part 279 were adopted by EPA in 1985 and strengthened in 1992 -- pursuant to a clear Congressional mandate to encourage legitimate methods of used oil recycling.

The legislative history of used oil regulation should not be ignored in the present rule-making effort.  In 1980, 1984 and 1986 Congress directed EPA to develop regulations that protect human health and the environment while encouraging legitimate used oil recycling.  In other words, Congress recognized that if over-regulation kills a recycling market, the adverse environmental consequences may be severe.

  A set of balanced regulatory controls emerged that, for all practical purposes, accomplished Congress’ goals.  NORA members collect and manage vast quantities of used oil as a valuable product – in compliance with EPA’s regulations.  If, instead of a balanced regulatory approach, used oil had been declared a hazardous waste, as had been seriously considered, far less used oil would be recycled and the system for handling used oil would be extremely expensive – without any environmental protection benefits.  The history of used oil regulation in the United States provides a valuable lesson and blueprint for policy makers who genuinely care about environmental protection.   

NORA’s basic perspective on the proposed rule is very straightforward.  NORA agrees with EPA’s conclusion that on-specification used oil fuel does not constitute a solid waste because it is not abandoned or otherwise discarded.  It constitutes a legitimate and traditional fuel.  NORA contends that -- for precisely the same reasons -- off-specification used oil fuel does not constitute a solid waste. The facts demonstrate that off-spec used oil is a legitimate and traditional fuel.  It should be emphasized that the distinction between on-spec and off-spec used oil fuel has nothing to do with its heating quality.  Both categories of used oil fuel will generally have the same Btu content (approximately 140,000 British Thermal Units per gallon)  -- the equivalent of virgin petroleum oil if the water content is the same. 

The distinction between the two categories of used oil fuel is a somewhat arbitrary one, created by EPA in 1985.  If any parameter of four metals exceeds a specified concentration, the used oil is classified as off-specification.  If total halogens are greater than 4000 parts per million, the used oil is off-specification.  Also, if the flashpoint of the used oil is lower than 100 degrees F., the used oil is classified as off-specification.  NORA’s collective experience in the nearly 25 years since this rule was adopted by EPA is that the metals rarely exceed the specified concentrations.[1]  Rather, used oil fuel is off-spec because of total halogens or flashpoint.  However, neither of these factors adversely affects the quality of this type of used oil as a fuel.  The market for off-spec used oil – under the current regulations – is strong and reliable. 

There are, according to EPA’s Materials Characterization Paper on used oil for this rule-making, approximately 750 industrial furnaces and boilers that burn off-spec used oil fuel.  These are primarily cement kilns, boilers for utilities, furnaces at steel mills and other major industrial burners.  All of these burners are stringently regulated by the Clean Air Act and each utilizes and maintains expensive pollution control equipment.  There is absolutely nothing in the preamble to any of the proposed rules that suggests that when burning used oil fuel these industrial furnaces and boilers emits halogens in quantities greater than would be the case if the off-spec used oil fuel were burned in facilities with Section 129 permits.  This point needs to be carefully considered by EPA because there would be no justification of this proposed rule (as it would apply to off-specification used oil fuel) if no environmental benefits are to be achieved. 

It is also worth pointing out that Exhibit 6 of the Material Characterization Paper shows that “the principal benefits of combustion of used oil are associated with upstream production offsets and include substantial reductions of NOx, CO, and CO2 emissions. In terms of combustion-specific emissions, use of used oil results in notably lower NOx emissions, in particular when compared to residual fuel oil.” (see page 9).  The term “upstream production offsets” is a shorthand way of recognizing some of the benefits of used oil recycling.  It means that when a quantity of fuel is produced from used oil that is collected and recycled, the adverse environmental impacts that would have beeen created by producing the same quantity of virgin fuel have been eliminated.  Unfortunately, these benefits are threatened by the proposed rule that, perhaps unintentionally, could effectively destroy the market for off-spec used oil fuel. 

  Currently, there is a steady and reliable market for off-spec used oil fuel.  Off-spec used oil is collected and marketed in much the same way as on-spec used oil.  The difference is in the number of end users (approximately 750 industrial furnaces and boilers) versus a more limited number of section 129 solid waste incinerators.  Fewer outlets will result in dramatically increased transportation costs from the geographically diverse generator locations to these limited facilities.

What are the consequences of severely diminishing the market for off-spec used oil fuel?  There could be several including the potential mismanagement of this product due to the increased management costs.  NORA strongly recommends that when EPA evaluates the effect of the proposed rule, it should consider the real-world impact of the rule on the environment.  NORA contends that there are numerous environmental benefits to the existing used oil recycling market which includes the recycling of off spec used oil. Consequently, we need to very carefully identify the outlets and impact on the management of off-spec used oil before we eliminate existing management programs – programs that currently collect and recycle used oil very effectively.   

Finally, I would like to address an issue relating to the “Alternative Approach.”  On page 31885 in Section VII.E, which is titled "Alternative Approach," EPA states:

"Under this alternative (referring to the alternative proposal), traditional fuels that we have identified earlier, which includes clean biomass, and that have been burned historically as fuels and managed as valuable products (as discussed in section VII.C.5.) would not be solid wastes."

 

The traditional fuels definition for the "alternative approach" is apparently changed from the "traditional fuels we have identified earlier" to specifically exclude on-spec used oil, and this change should have been addressed in the above statement. On-spec used oil has been identified multiple times as a traditional fuel in the proposed rule, one that fully qualified under Section VII.C.5.

 

Likewise, in the FAQ sheet put out by EPA (specifically, the last question that discusses the alternative approach) is also misleading, because it too identifies "traditional fuels" as not being solid wastes under the Alternative Approach --   without discussing the exclusion of on-spec used oil from the "traditional fuels" that was previously discussed in the rule.  EPA needs to specifically address this contradiction and formally explain its position.  This clarification needs to be provided in the near future so that commenters can comprehend EPA’s intent and reasoning.

Thank you.  NORA appreciates the opportunity to present this statement.