[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15456-15551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4492]
[[Page 15455]]
Vol. 76
Monday,
No. 54
March 21, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 241
Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid
Waste; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15456]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 241
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329; FRL-9273-1]
RIN 2050-AG44
Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Solid Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
publishing a final rule that 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). This RCRA solid waste definition will determine whether a
combustion unit is required to meet the emissions standards for solid
waste incineration units issued under section 129 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) or the emissions standards for commercial, industrial, and
institutional boilers issued under section 112 of the CAA. In this
action, EPA is also finalizing a definition of traditional fuels.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Faison, Program Implementation
and Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; telephone number:
703-305-7652; fax number: 703-308-0509; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generators Users
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major boiler type and
Major generator category NAICS* primary industry category NAICS*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
............... Industrial Boilers:
-------------------------------------------------------
Crop Production........................ 111 Food Manufacturing........ 311, 312,
Cattle Ranching and Farming............ 1121 Pulp and Paper Mills...... 3221
Hog and Pig Farming.................... 1122 Petroleum Refining........ 32411
Poultry and Egg Production............. 1123 Chemical Manufacturing.... 325
Sheep and Goat Farming................. 1124 Primary Metal 331
Manufacturing.
Horses and Other Equine Production..... 112920 Fabricated Metal 332
Manufacturing.
Logging................................ 113310 Other Manufacturing....... 313, 339, 321, 333, 336,
511, 326, 316, 327
Support Activities for Crop Production. 11511
-------------------------------------------------------
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface 212111 Commercial Boilers:
Mining.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bituminous Coal Underground Mining..... 212112 Retail.................... 442-454
Anthracite Mining...................... 212113 Warehouse................. 493
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.. 221112 Education................. 611
Sewage Treatment Facilities............ 221320 Health Care Facilities.... 621
Construction of Buildings.............. 236 Social Assistance......... 624
Site Preparation Contractors........... 238910 Lodging, Restaurant....... 721, 722
Beverage and Tobacco Product 312 Office.................... 813, 541, 921
Manufacturing.
Sawmills and Wood Preservation......... 32111 Other..................... 922140, others
Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood 32121
Product Manufacturing.
-------------------------------------------------------
Engineered Wood Member Manufacturing... 321213 Common Non-Manufacturing Boilers:
-------------------------------------------------------
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills...... 3221 Agriculture (crop & 111, 112, 115
livestock production).
Solvents Made in Petroleum Refineries.. 324110 All Mining................ 212
Solvent Dyes Manufacturing............. 325132 Construction.............. 236
Plastic Manufacturers.................. 325211
-------------------------------------------------------
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 325998 Other Boilers:
Product and Preparation Manufacturing.
-------------------------------------------------------
Packaging.............................. 32611 Electric Utility Boilers.. 2211
Other Rubber Product Manufacturing..... 32629 Non-Hazardous Waste 327310
Burning Cement Kilns.
[[Page 15457]]
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing.. 3272 .......................... ..........................
Cement Manufacturing................... 327310 .......................... ..........................
Iron and Steel Mills................... 331111 .......................... ..........................
Electrometallurgical Ferroalloy Product 331112 .......................... ..........................
Manufacturing.
Metal-Casting Industry................. 331522 .......................... ..........................
Recyclable Material Wholesalers........ 423930 .......................... ..........................
Landscaping Services................... 561730 .......................... ..........................
Solid Waste Collection and Solid Waste 562111, 562212 .......................... ..........................
Landfill.
Automotive Repair and Replacement Shops 811111 .......................... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers, including lists of examples of the types of entities
likely to be impacted by this action. Other types of entities not
listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility,
company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this action, you
should examine the applicability criteria in this rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section: FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. Why is EPA taking this action?
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 129 states that the term ``solid
waste'' shall have the meaning ``established by the Administrator
pursuant to [RCRA].'' The purpose of this final rule is to provide a
definition of ``solid waste'' in order to develop emission standards
under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. In particular, this rule
codifies requirements and procedures that identify whether the
definition of ``solid waste'' applies to non-hazardous secondary
materials burned as fuels or used as ingredients in combustion units.
In related actions in this Federal Register, EPA is concurrently
finalizing air emission requirements under section 112 of the CAA for
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters,
as well as air emission requirements under section 129 of the CAA for
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.
Preamble Outline
I. Statutory Authority
II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
III. Introduction--Summary of Regulations Being Finalized
A. Identifying Which Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Are or
Are Not Solid Wastes When Used in a Combustion Unit
1. Within the Control of the Generator: Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Legitimately Used as Fuels Within the Control of
the Generator Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
2. Scrap Tires: Scrap Tires That Are Legitimately Used as a Fuel
That Are Removed From Vehicles and Managed Under the Oversight of
Established Tire Collection Programs Are Not Solid Waste When Used
in Combustion Units
3. Resinated Wood: Resinated Wood That Is Legitimately Used as a
Fuel Is Not a Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
4. Ingredients: Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Legitimately Used as Ingredients Are Not Solid Waste When Used in
Combustion Units
5. Discards: Discarded Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That
Have Undergone Processing To Produce Legitimate Fuel or Ingredient
Products Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
6. Non-Waste Determination: Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
Used as a Fuel for Which a Non-Waste Determination Has Been Granted
Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
B. Codification of the Legitimacy Criteria
IV. Background
A. What is the history of CISWI, CISWI definitions, and boiler
rulemakings?
B. Why is the Court's decision affecting the CAA rules relevant
to RCRA?
C. What is the history of the definition of solid waste?
1. Statutory Definition of Solid Waste
2. Solid Waste Program, RCRA Subtitle D
3. Hazardous Waste Program, RCRA Subtitle C
4. Case Law on the Definition of Solid Waste Under RCRA Subtitle
C
5. Concept of Legitimacy
D. Summary of the ANPRM
E. Summary of the Proposed Rule
F. Use of Secondary Materials
1. Introduction
2. Secondary Materials Use and Benefits
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Approach
1. Definition of the Term Discard
2. Processing Requirements
B. Comments on Specific Materials Used as Fuel
1. Traditional Fuels
2. Manure
3. Other Biomass
4. Pulp and Paper Sludge
5. Scrap Tires
6. Resinated Wood Residuals
7. Used Oil
8. Coal Refuse
9. Coal Combustion Residuals
10. Sewage Sludge
11. Processed Fats
C. Comments on Specific Materials Used as Ingredients
1. Cement Kiln Dust
2. Coal Combustion Residuals
3. Foundry Sand
4. Blast Furnace Slag/Steel Slag
D. Comments on Legitimacy Criteria for Fuels
1. Managed as a Valuable Commodity
2. Meaningful Heating Value and Use as a Fuel
3. Have Contaminants at Comparable Levels or Lower Than
Traditional Fuels
E. Comments on Legitimacy Criteria for Ingredients
1. Managed as Valuable Commodities
2. Useful Contribution
3. Quantifying an Ingredient's Contribution to Production/
Manufacturing Activity
4. Contaminants in Ingredients
5. Comparing Contaminant Levels in Products
F. Comments on Non-Waste Determination Petitions
G. Comments on the Other Approaches for Defining Solid Wastes
VI. Summary of Major Differences Between the Proposed Rule and Final
Rule
VII. Detailed Discussion and Rationale for Today's Final Rule
A. Traditional Fuels
B. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Fuels That Remain
Within the Control of the Generator
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Restrictions and Requirements
C. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have Not Been
Discarded: Scrap Tires Collected Under Established Tire Collection
Programs
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Restrictions and Requirements
[[Page 15458]]
D. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have Not Been
Discarded: Resinated Wood Residuals
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Restrictions and Requirements
E. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Ingredients
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Restrictions and Requirements
F. Discarded Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have
Undergone Processing To Produce Legitimate Fuel or Ingredient
Products
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Restrictions and Requirements
G. Non-Waste Determination Petitions
1. Description of the Petition Criteria for the Non-Waste
Determination
2. Non-Waste Determination Petition Process
3. Petition Decisions Utilizing State Environmental Agency
Program's Input
H. Legitimacy Criteria
1. Legitimacy Criteria for Fuels
2. Legitimacy Criteria for Ingredients
I. Determining That Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Meet the
Legitimacy Criteria
VIII. Effect of Today's Final Rule on Other Programs
A. Clean Air Act
B. Renewable Energy
C. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program
IX. State Authority
A. Applicability of State Solid Waste Definitions and Beneficial
Use Determinations
B. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
C. Clarifications on the Relationship to State Programs
X. Cost and Benefits of the Final Rule
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Usage
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Statutory Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
promulgating these regulations under the authority of sections
2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(27). Section
129(a)(1)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to establish
standards for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators
(CISWI), which burn solid waste (section 129(g)(6) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7429). Section 129(g)(6) provides that the term ``solid waste''
is to be established by EPA under RCRA. Section 2002(a)(1) of RCRA
authorizes the Agency to promulgate regulations as are necessary to
carry out its functions under the Act. The statutory definition of
``solid waste'' is provided in RCRA section 1004(27).
II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
C&D Construction and Demolition
CBO Carbon Burn-Out Unit
CCA Chromated Copper Arsenate
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator
CKD Cement Kiln Dust
CWA Clean Water Act
DSE Domestic Sewage Exemption
DSW Definition of Solid Waste Rule (2008)
EG Emission Guidelines
EGU Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GACT Generally Available Control Technology
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
IWI Institutional Waste Incinerator
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHSM Non-Hazardous Secondary Material
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OCC Old Corrugated Cardboard
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incinerator
PC Portland Cement
PIC Product of Incomplete Combustion
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standards
SSI Sewage Sludge Incinerator
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDF Tire-Derived Fuel
U.S.C. United States Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VSMWC Very Small Municipal Waste Combustor
III. Introduction--Summary of Regulations Being Finalized
In today's rule, EPA is finalizing standards and procedures to be
used to identify whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid
wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units.
``Secondary material'' is defined for the purposes of this rulemaking
as any material that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or
commercial process, and can include post-consumer material, off-
specification commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates, post-industrial material, and scrap (codified in Sec.
241.2).\1\ ``Non-hazardous secondary material'' is a secondary material
that, when discarded, would not be identified as a hazardous waste
under 40 CFR part 261 (codified in Sec. 241.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of this definition, all commercial products
from a manufacturing process would be considered ``primary
products.'' Processes that are designed for the production of
multiple products could have more than one primary product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency first solicited comments on how the RCRA definition of
solid waste should apply to non-hazardous secondary materials used as
fuels or ingredients in combustion units are solid wastes under RCRA in
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which was published
in the Federal Register on January 2, 2009 (74 FR 41). We then
published a proposed rule on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31844).
Today's preamble is organized as follows: This section of the
preamble (Section III) describes the principal regulatory provisions
that are finalized in this rule; Section IV describes the background of
this final rule, including a brief history of this rulemaking in
conjunction with the relevant rules being finalized under sections 112
and 129 of the CAA; Section V contains a discussion of the major public
comments received on the June 4, 2010 proposal, along with the Agency's
response to these comments; Section VI explains the ways in which the
June 2010 proposal differs from today's final rule; Section VII
provides a detailed explanation of and rationale for the regulations
being promulgated today; Section VIII describes the effect of today's
final rule on other programs; Section IX discusses how today's rule
affects the states' authority over solid waste pursuant to subtitle D
of RCRA; Section X describes the costs and benefits associated with
today's rule; and Section XI describes this rule's
[[Page 15459]]
compliance with the appropriate statutory and executive orders reviews.
Below is a summary of the principal elements of the regulations
being promulgated today.
A. Identifying Which Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Are or Are Not
Solid Wastes When Used in a Combustion Unit
In our determination, most non-hazardous secondary materials burned
in combustion units are defined as solid wastes under RCRA. However,
this rule provides exceptions to that determination. The following non-
hazardous secondary materials are not solid waste when used
legitimately as a fuel or an ingredient in a combustion unit:
(1) Those that remain within the control of the generator and used
as fuel (discussed further below--codified in Sec. 241.3(b)(1));
(2) Scrap tires managed by established tire collection programs and
used as fuel (discussed further below--codified in Sec.
241.3(b)(2)(i));
(3) Resinated wood used as fuel (discussed further below--codified
in Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(ii));
(4) Those that are used as ingredients (discussed further below--
codified in Sec. 241.3(b)(3));
(5) Discards that have undergone processing to produce fuel or
ingredient products (discussed further below--codified in Sec.
241.3(b)(4)); or
(6) Those that are used as fuels for which a non-waste
determination has been granted (discussed further below--codified in
Sec. 241.3(c)).
Materials are considered legitimate fuels or ingredients if they
conform to the criteria codified in Sec. 241.3(d), which this action
refers to as ``legitimacy criteria.'' These criteria are designed to
ensure that the fuel or ingredient is not being ``sham'' recycled for
the sole purpose of avoiding being considered a waste. The legitimacy
criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels and
ingredients in combustion units are discussed below in the
``Codification of the Legitimacy Criteria'' section.
Materials designated as ``traditional'' fuels are not wastes when
used in combustion units. We are finalizing a definition of traditional
fuels (codified in Sec. 241.2) that applies to this subpart.
Traditional fuels means materials that are produced as fuels and are
unused products that have not been discarded and therefore, are not
solid wastes, including: (1) Fuels that have been historically managed
as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials,
including fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil and natural gas), their
derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil,
refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace
gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas) and cellulosic
biomass (virgin wood); and (2) alternative fuels developed from virgin
materials that can now be used as fuel products, including used oil
which meets the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 279.11, currently
mined coal refuse that previously had not been usable as coal, and
clean cellulosic biomass. These fuels are not secondary materials or
solid wastes unless discarded before they are used.
1. Within the Control of the Generator: Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Legitimately Used as Fuels Within the Control of the
Generator Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
Except as otherwise provided, under this provision--40 CFR
241.3(b)(1)--EPA would consider non-hazardous secondary materials used
as fuels in combustion units which remain within the control of the
generator and that meet the specified legitimacy criteria (as codified
in Sec. 241.3(d)(1)) as not being a solid waste. The legitimacy
criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels in
combustion units are discussed below in the ``Codification of the
Legitimacy Criteria'' section. Non-hazardous secondary materials would
be considered ``within the control of the generator'' under the
following circumstances:
(1) They are generated and burned in combustion units at the
generating facility (as codified in Sec. 241.2); or
(2) They are generated and burned in combustion units at different
facilities, if the facility combusting the non-hazardous secondary
material is controlled (as codified in Sec. 241.2) by the generator;
or
(3) Both the generating facility and the facility combusting the
material are under control of the same person (as codified in Sec.
241.2).
2. Scrap Tires: Scrap Tires That Are Legitimately Used as a Fuel That
Are Removed From Vehicles and Managed Under the Oversight of
Established Tire Collection Programs Are Not Solid Waste When Used in
Combustion Units
Under this provision--40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i)--EPA would consider
scrap tires used as a fuel in a combustion unit that are removed from
vehicles and collected and managed under the oversight of established
tire collection programs as not being a solid waste, provided these
materials satisfy the specified legitimacy criteria (as codified in
Sec. 241.3(d)(1)). This provision would not differentiate between
scrap tires that are used as a fuel within the control of the generator
from those that are not. For the purposes of this rule, the term
``vehicle'' is defined as any mechanical means of conveyance that
employs the use of tires. ``Established tire collection program'' (as
codified in Sec. 241.2) means a comprehensive collection system that
ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable
commodities in accordance with Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(i) from the point of
removal from the vehicle through arrival at the combustion facility.
The legitimacy criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials used as
fuels in combustion units are discussed below in the ``Codification of
the Legitimacy Criteria'' section.
3. Resinated Wood: Resinated Wood That Is Legitimately Used as a Fuel
Is Not a Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
Under this provision--40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(ii)--EPA would consider
resinated wood used as a fuel in a combustion unit as not being a solid
waste, provided these materials satisfy the specified legitimacy
criteria (as codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1)). This provision would not
differentiate between resinated wood that is used as a fuel within the
control of the generator from those that are not. Resinated wood (as
codified in Sec. 241.2) means wood products (containing resin
adhesives) derived from primary and secondary wood products
manufacturing and comprised of such items as board trim, sander dust,
and panel trim. The legitimacy criteria for non-hazardous secondary
materials used as fuels in combustion units is discussed below in the
``Codification of the Legitimacy Criteria'' section.
4. Ingredients: Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Legitimately
Used as Ingredients Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
Under this provision--40 CFR 241.3(b)(3)--EPA would consider non-
hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients in combustion units
and that meet the specified legitimacy criteria as not being solid
waste. This provision does not differentiate between ingredients that
are used within the control of the generator from those that are not.
Ingredient (as codified in Sec. 241.2) means a non-hazardous secondary
material that is a component in a compound, process or product. A
discussion of the legitimacy criteria (as
[[Page 15460]]
codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(2)) for non-hazardous secondary materials
used as ingredients in combustion units is included below in the
``Codification of the Legitimacy Criteria'' section.
5. Discards: Discarded Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have
Undergone Processing To Produce Legitimate Fuel or Ingredient Products
Are Not Solid Waste When Used in Combustion Units
Under this provision--40 CFR 241.3(b)(4)--EPA would consider
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that have been sufficiently
processed into fuel or ingredient products and used in a combustion
unit as not being a solid waste, provided these materials satisfy the
specified legitimacy criteria (as codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1) for
fuels and (d)(2) for ingredients). Processing (as codified in Sec.
241.2) means any operations that transform the discarded non-hazardous
secondary material into a legitimate fuel or ingredient product, and
includes, but is not limited to, operations that remove or destroy
contaminants; operations that significantly improve the fuel
characteristics of the material, e.g., sizing or drying the material in
combination with other operations; operations that chemically improve
the as-fired energy content; and operations that improve the ingredient
characteristics. Minimal operations that result only in modifying the
size of the material by shredding do not constitute processing for the
purposes of this definition. Prior to any processing, the discarded
non-hazardous secondary material would be considered a solid waste and
would be subject to the appropriate federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
6. Non-Waste Determination: Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as a
Fuel for Which a Non-Waste Determination Has Been Granted Are Not Solid
Waste When Used in Combustion Units
Under this provision--40 CFR 241.3(c)--EPA would consider non-
hazardous secondary materials used as fuels that have been transferred
to a third party, but have been granted a non-waste determination from
EPA, to not be a solid waste when used in combustion units.\2\ This
provision establishes a non-waste determination case-by-case process
that provides persons with an administrative process for receiving a
formal determination from EPA that their non-hazardous secondary
material fuel that has not been managed within the control of the
generator (as codified in Sec. 241.2), has not been discarded, and is
indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product, is not a
solid waste when used as a fuel in combustion units. Any petition that
is submitted to EPA requesting a non-waste determination must
demonstrate that the non-hazardous secondary material has not been
discarded in the first instance, satisfies the specified legitimacy
criteria for fuels (as codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1)), and satisfies
the following five criteria: (1) Whether market participants treat the
non-hazardous secondary material as a fuel rather than a solid waste;
(2) whether the chemical and physical identity of the non-hazardous
secondary material is comparable to commercial fuels; (3) whether the
non-hazardous secondary material will be used in a reasonable time
frame given the state of the market; (4) whether the constituents in
the non-hazardous secondary material are released to the air, water or
land from the point of generation to the point just prior to combustion
of the non-hazardous secondary material at levels comparable to what
would otherwise be released from traditional fuels; and (5) other
relevant factors. These criteria are codified in Sec. 241.3(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted previously, scrap tires and resinated wood would
not be considered a solid waste even if transferred to a third party
provided these secondary materials meet the legitimacy criteria.
Also, as indicated in Section V.A.1, the Agency will in the future
solicit comment on other non-hazardous secondary materials in
addition to scrap tires and resinated wood that can be used as a
non-waste fuel both by the generator and outside the control of the
generator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process for receiving a non-waste determination is codified in
Sec. 241.3(c)(2). In order to obtain a non-waste determination, a
facility that is interested in using non-hazardous secondary materials
as fuel in combustion units that would otherwise be regulated as a
solid waste must apply to the Regional Administrator per the procedures
described in Sec. 241.3(c). The application must address the relevant
criteria discussed above. The Regional Administrator will evaluate the
application and issue a draft notice tentatively granting or denying
the application. Notification of this tentative decision will also be
provided by newspaper advertisement or radio broadcast in the locality
where the combustion unit is located. The Regional Administrator will
accept comments on the tentative decision for at least 30 days, and may
also hold a public hearing upon request or at his discretion. The
Regional Administrator will issue a final decision after receipt of
comments and after the hearing (if any).
B. Codification of the Legitimacy Criteria
This provision--40 CFR 241.3(d)--codifies the legitimacy criteria
for fuels and ingredients. In order to be considered a non-waste fuel,
non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel in combustion units
must meet the legitimacy criteria codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1). To
meet the fuel legitimacy criteria, the non-hazardous secondary material
must be managed as a valuable commodity, have a meaningful heating
value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy,
and contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than those in
traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn.
In order to be considered a non-waste ingredient, non-hazardous
secondary materials used as an ingredient in combustion units must meet
the legitimacy criteria codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(2). To meet the
ingredient legitimacy criteria, the non-hazardous secondary material
must be managed as a valuable commodity, provide a useful contribution
to the production or manufacturing process, be used to produce a
valuable product or intermediate, and must result in products that
contain contaminants at levels that are comparable to or lower than
those found in traditional products that are manufactured without the
non-hazardous secondary material.
Non-hazardous secondary materials that are discarded in the first
instance (abandoned, disposed of, or thrown away) would still be a
solid waste even if they satisfy the legitimacy criteria, unless they
were processed into legitimate non-waste fuel or ingredient products
or, in the case of fuels, have received a non-waste determination from
EPA.
IV. Background
The discussion below is a summary of what was included in the ANPRM
and in the preamble to the proposed rule. However, because it continues
to be relevant to several of the key concepts being finalized today, it
is provided here as background for the benefit of the reader. (For a
more detailed discussion of what was included in the ANPRM and the
proposed rule, we refer the reader to the ANPRM (74 FR 41, January 2,
2009) and the proposed rule (75 FR 31843, June 4, 2010).) The records
and documents comprising the ANPRM and proposed rule are included in
the administrative record for this rulemaking. To the extent there are
any
[[Page 15461]]
inconsistencies or differences between the ANPRM, the proposed rule,
and this final rule, the statements in this final rule govern.
A. What is the history of CISWI, CISWI definitions, and boiler
rulemakings?
CAA section 112 requires EPA to promulgate regulations to control
emissions of 187 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from sources in source
categories listed by EPA under section 112(c), while CAA section 129
CISWI standards include numeric emission limitations for the nine
pollutants, plus opacity (as appropriate), that are specified in CAA
section 129(a)(4).\3\ Pursuant to CAA section 129, EPA promulgated a
final rule setting forth performance emissions standards for Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (referred to as the
``CISWI Rule''). 65 FR 75338 (December 1, 2000). Under CAA section 129,
the term ``solid waste incineration unit'' is defined, in pertinent
part, to mean ``a distinct operating unit of any facility which
combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial
establishments * * *'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7429(g)(1). The CAA also
specifically excludes the following types of units from the definition
of ``solid waste incineration unit'': (1) Incinerators or other units
required to have a permit under section 3005 of RCRA; (2) material
recovery facilities (including primary and secondary smelters) which
combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals; (3)
qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act, or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act,
which burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used
oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of
electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities
which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy or
steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for
industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (4) air curtain
incinerators, provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes,
yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators
comply with the opacity limitations to be established by the
Administrator by rule. Id. CAA section 129 further states that the term
``solid waste'' shall have the meaning ``established by the
Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.'' Id at
7429(g)(6).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 129(a)(4) requires that specific numeric
emission limitations must be established for the following nine
pollutants, plus opacity (as appropriate): cadmium, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, NOx, particulate
matter (total and fine), and SO2. Of these nine
pollutants, cadmium, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, and
mercury are also regulated HAP pursuant to CAA section 112.
\4\ The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, is commonly
referred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CISWI Rule established emission limitations for new and
existing CISWI units for the following pollutants: cadmium, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and opacity. In addition, the rule established
certain monitoring and operator training and certification
requirements.
The CISWI Rule was challenged in Sierra Club v. EPA (No. 01-1048)
(DC Cir.). However, after promulgation of the CISWI Rule, the DC
Circuit issued its decision in a challenge to EPA's MACT standards for
the cement kiln industry. See Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA,
255 F. 3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) (``Cement Kiln''). As a result, EPA
requested, and was granted, a voluntary remand without vacatur, of the
CISWI rule, in order to address the concerns related to the issues that
were raised by the court in Cement Kiln. Because the CISWI rule was not
vacated, its requirements remain in effect. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 374
F. Supp. 2d 30, 32-33 (D.DC 2005).
On September 22, 2005, EPA issued revised definitions of ``solid
waste,'' ``commercial or industrial solid waste incineration unit,''
and ``commercial or industrial waste'' (the ``CISWI Definitions
Rule''). See 70 FR 55568. In the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA defined
``commercial and industrial solid waste'' to exclude solid waste that
is combusted at a facility in a combustion unit whose design provides
for energy recovery or which operates with energy recovery. Therefore,
a unit combusting solid waste with energy recovery was not considered a
CISWI unit.
The CISWI Definitions Rule was vacated by the DC Circuit in NRDC v.
EPA (489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007)) (``NRDC''). The court stated that
the statute unambiguously requires any unit that combusts ``any solid
waste material at all''--regardless of whether the material is being
burned for energy recovery--to be regulated as a ``solid waste
incineration unit.'' Id. at 1260. In the same decision, the court also
vacated and remanded EPA's 2005 emissions standards for commercial,
industrial, and institutional major source boilers and process heaters
(the Boiler MACT Rule), concluding that ``the universe of boilers
subject to its [section 112] standards will be far smaller and more
homogenous after all CISWI units, as the statute unambiguously defines
them, are removed from its coverage.'' 489 F.3d at 1260.
In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA proposed revised
emissions standards for boilers, process heaters, and CISWI units.
Specifically, on June 4, 2010, the Agency proposed new National
Emissions Standards for Area Source Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers (75 FR 31896), National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006), and Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units (75 FR 31938). These proposed emissions standards were
established based on the criteria proposed in the Identification of
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule that are Solid Waste proposed
rule (75 FR 31844).
B. Why is the Court's decision affecting the CAA rules relevant to
RCRA?
In responding to the court's vacatur and remand of the CISWI
Definitions Rule and the Boiler MACT Rule, EPA is establishing, under
RCRA, which non-hazardous secondary materials \5\ are ``solid waste.''
This is necessary because, under the court's decision, any unit
combusting any ``solid waste'' at all must be regulated as a ``solid
waste incineration unit,'' regardless of the function of the combustion
device. If a non-hazardous secondary material (also referred to as a
``secondary material'' in this rulemaking) is not a ``solid waste''
under RCRA, then a unit combusting that material must be regulated
pursuant to CAA section 112 if it is a source of HAP. Alternatively, if
such secondary material is classified as a ``solid waste'' under RCRA,
then a unit combusting that material must be regulated under
[[Page 15462]]
CAA section 129, unless it is within the scope of one of the exclusions
from the definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' in section
129(g)(1) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A secondary material is any material that is not the primary
product of a manufacturing or commercial process, and can include
post-consumer material, post-industrial material, and scrap. Many
types of secondary materials have Btu or material value, and can be
reclaimed or reused in industrial processes. For purposes of this
notice, the term secondary materials include only non-hazardous
secondary materials. See also American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824
F.2d 1177 (DC Cir. 1987) in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit discussed secondary materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this final rule, EPA is concurrently finalizing air
emission requirements under CAA section 112 for industrial, commercial,
and institutional boilers and process heaters, as well as air emission
requirements under CAA section 129 for CISWI units. For a discussion of
what requirements are being promulgated today pursuant to the relevant
CAA rules, please see the respective final actions included in today's
Federal Register. These include: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790); National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0058); and Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and
Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119).
C. What is the history of the definition of solid waste?
1. Statutory Definition of Solid Waste
RCRA defines ``solid waste'' as ``* * * any garbage, refuse, sludge
from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility and other discarded material * * * resulting
from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities * * *'' (RCRA section 1004 (27) (emphasis
added)). The key concept is that of ``discard'' and, in fact, this
definition turns on the meaning of the phrase, ``other discarded
material,'' since this term encompasses all other examples provided in
the definition.
2. Solid Waste Program, RCRA Subtitle D
The regulations that pertain to non-hazardous solid waste (RCRA
subtitle D) contain five definitions of the term ``solid waste.'' (See
40 CFR 240.101(y); 40 CFR 243.101(y); 40 CFR 246.101(bb); 40 CFR 257.2;
and 40 CFR 258.2.) These regulatory definitions largely mirror the
statutory definition of solid waste with some clarifications applicable
to the specific regulatory section. The RCRA statutory definition of
solid waste has also been repeated in the CAA emission guidelines for
other solid waste incineration units (e.g., see 40 CFR 60.2977 and
60.3078).
Under RCRA subtitle D, EPA has promulgated criteria for municipal
solid waste landfills and approves state solid waste landfill
permitting programs; however, it is the states that fully implement
these programs. EPA does not have the same role in these programs as it
does in the hazardous waste programs established under RCRA subtitle C.
As a result, EPA has not promulgated detailed regulations defining
``solid waste'' for purposes of the subtitle D (non-hazardous)
programs. States have promulgated their own laws and regulations for
what constitutes solid waste and have interpreted those laws and
regulations to determine what types of non-hazardous secondary
materials management activities constitute discard (and therefore
involve the management of a solid waste).
The Agency is now determining at the national level the
requirements and procedures for identifying non-hazardous secondary
materials that are solid waste under RCRA subtitle D so that we can
establish appropriate emissions standards under CAA sections 112 and
129. We emphasize that we are articulating a narrow definition in this
final rule and are not making solid waste determinations that cover
other possible secondary material end uses.
3. Hazardous Waste Program, RCRA Subtitle C
Under RCRA subtitle C, EPA is responsible for designing and
implementing a cradle to grave disposal system for hazardous wastes.
The RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste federal program has a long
regulatory history in defining ``solid waste'' for purposes of the
hazardous waste regulations.\6\ However, the 40 CFR 261.2 regulatory
definition of solid waste explicitly applies only to wastes that also
are hazardous for purposes of the subtitle C regulations (see 40 CFR
261.1(b)(1)). EPA emphasizes that it is not reopening any of its
subtitle C regulations in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, see 45 FR 33066 (May 19, 1980; solid waste
defined; interim final); 48 FR 14472 (April 4, 1983; Amendments to
the Definition of Solid Waste; proposed rule); 50 FR 614 (January 4,
1985; Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste; final rule); 53
FR 519 (January 8, 1988; Amendments to the Definition of Solid
Waste, excludes in-process recycled secondary materials from
petroleum industry; proposed rule); 59 FR 38536 (July 28, 1994;
Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste, excludes in-process
recycled secondary materials from petroleum industry; final rule);
67 FR 11251 (March 13, 2002; Response to court Vacaturs; final
rule); 68 FR 61557 (October 28, 2003; Revisions to the Definition of
Solid Waste; proposed rule); 72 FR 14172 (March 26, 2007; Revisions
to the Definition of Solid Waste; supplemental proposed rule); 73 FR
64668 (October 30, 2008; Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste;
final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under subtitle C of RCRA, EPA promulgated a final rule on October
30, 2008, which revised the requirements regulating hazardous secondary
materials when they are recycled via reclamation (The 2008 Definition
of Solid Waste (DSW) Final Rule).\7\ On January 29, 2009, the Sierra
Club filed a lawsuit challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), Docket No. 09-1041.
In addition, Sierra Club submitted to the Administrator of EPA an
administrative petition under RCRA section 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6974(a).
The administrative petition requested that the Agency repeal the
October 2008 revisions to the 2008 DSW Final Rule and stay the
implementation of the rule.\8\ EPA reviewed the administrative
petition, held a public meeting \9\ and requested written comments on
the petition. As a result of settlement in the litigation, Sierra Club
has withdrawn its administrative petition, but EPA has agreed to issue
a proposal to consider the issues raised in the petition. As a result,
EPA plans to develop a proposed rule asking for comment on potential
revisions to the October 2008 DSW Final Rule. Under the settlement
agreement with the Sierra Club in the DC Circuit litigation, EPA has
committed to a proposed rule on or before June 30, 2011 and to take
final action on the proposed rulemaking on or before December 31,
2012.\10\ The DC Circuit approved the settlement agreement by order
dated January 11, 2011. This subsequent proposed rule will apply to the
regulation of reclamation of hazardous secondary materials under
subtitle C of RCRA and is not affecting today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste,'' Final
Rule, October 30, 2008, at 73 FR 64667.
\8\ A copy of Sierra Club's Petition to the U.S. EPA to
Reconsider and Repeal the Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule (DSW
Rule) can be found in the docket for the 2008 DSW Final Rule. See
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315; Document ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-
0315-0002.
\9\ The public meeting was announced in a May 27, 2009 Federal
Register notice, which also described possible actions and optional
paths forward. See 74 FR 25200. The transcript of the public hearing
can also be found in the docket for the DSW Final Rule. See Docket
ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315-
0024.
\10\ A copy of the settlement agreement, entitled ``EPA's and
Sierra Club's Lodging of Settlement and Motion to Sever and Hold
Case in Abeyance,'' can be found at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/sierraclubdsw.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Case Law on the Definition of Solid Waste Under RCRA Subtitle C
Partly because the interpretation of what constitutes a solid waste
is the
[[Page 15463]]
foundation of the hazardous waste regulatory program (i.e., secondary
material must qualify as ``solid waste'' before it can be classified as
``hazardous waste''), there have been a number of court opinions
discussing the meaning of ``solid waste'' in litigation challenges to
rules issued under RCRA subtitle C. From these cases, a few key
principles emerge which guide our thinking on the definition of solid
waste in today's final rule.
First, the ordinary plain-English meaning of the term, ``discard,''
controls. See American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (DC Cir.
1987) (``AMC I''). The ordinary plain-English meaning of the term
discarded means ``disposed of,'' ``thrown away,'' or ``abandoned.'' The
court specifically rejected a more expansive meaning for discard that
would encompass any materials ``no longer useful in their original
capacity'' even if they were not destined for disposal. 824 F.2d at
1185-87. The Court further held that the term ``discarded materials''
could not include materials ``* * * destined for beneficial reuse or
recycling in a continuous process by the generating industry itself''
(824 F.2d at 1190).
Subsequent to AMC I, the court discussed the meaning of discard in
particular cases. In American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 906 F.2d 729
(DC Cir. 1990) (``API I''), the court rejected EPA's decision not to
regulate recycled air pollution control equipment slag based on an
Agency determination that waste ``ceases to be a `solid waste' when it
arrives at a metals reclamation facility because at that point it is no
longer `discarded material.' '' 906 F.2d at 740. Instead, the court
stated that these materials are part of a mandatory waste treatment
plan for hazardous wastes prescribed by EPA and continued to be wastes
even if recycled. 906 F.2d at 741. Further, ``once material qualifies
as `solid waste,' [footnote omitted] something derived from it retains
that designation even if it might be reclaimed and reused at some
future time.'' Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, (``ABR'') 208
F.3d 1047, 1056 (DC Cir. 2000) (referring to API I and the later
decided case, American Mining Congress v. EPA, (``AMC II'') 907 F.2d
1179 (DC Cir. 1990)).
One of the more important holdings of a number of court decisions
is that simply because a hazardous waste has, or may have, value does
not mean the material loses its status as a solid waste. See API I, 906
F.2d at 741 n.16; United States v. ILCO Inc., 996 F.2d 1126, 1131-32
(11th Cir. 1993) (``ILCO''); Owen Steel v. Browner, 37 F.3d 146, 150
(4th Cir. 1994) (``Owen Steel''). ILCO and Owen Steel, however, seem to
recognize that legitimate products made from wastes are, themselves,
products and not wastes.
The ABR case reiterated the concepts discussed in the previous
cases of AMC I and II and API I. The Court held that it had already
resolved the issue presented in ABR in its opinion in AMC I, where it
found that ``* * * Congress unambiguously expressed its intent that
`solid waste' (and therefore EPA's regulatory authority) be limited to
materials that are `discarded' by virtue of being disposed of,
abandoned, or thrown away'' (208 F.2d at 1051). It repeated that
materials that are reused within an ongoing industrial process are
neither disposed of nor abandoned (208 F.3d at 1051-52). It explained
that the intervening API I and AMC II decisions had not narrowed the
holding in AMC I (208 F.3d at 1054-1056).
Notably, the Court did not hold that storage before reclamation
automatically makes materials ``discarded.'' Rather, it held that ``* *
* at least some of the secondary material EPA seeks to regulate as
solid waste (in the mineral processing rule) is destined for reuse as
part of a continuous industrial process and thus is not abandoned or
thrown away'' (208 F.3d at 1056). In this regard, the court criticized
all parties in the case--industry, as well as EPA--because they
``presented this aspect of the case in broad abstraction, providing
little detail about the many processes throughout the industry that
generate residual material of the sort EPA is attempting to regulate. *
* *'' (Ibid).
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 55 (DC Cir. 2000)
(``API II''), decided shortly after ABR and considered by the court at
the same time, provides further guidance for defining solid waste, but
in the context of two specific waste streams in the petroleum refining
industry. The court overturned EPA's determination that certain
recycled oil-bearing wastewaters are wastes (216 F.3d at 55-58) and
upheld conditions imposed by the Agency in excluding petrochemical
recovered oil from the definition of solid waste (216 F.3d at 58-59).
In the case of oil-bearing wastewaters, EPA had determined that the
first phase of treatment, primary treatment, results in a waste being
created. 216 F.3d at 55. The court overturned this decision and
remanded it to EPA for a better explanation, neither accepting EPA's
view nor the contrary industry view. The court noted that the ultimate
determination that had to be made was whether primary treatment ``is
simply a step in the act of discarding [* * *][o]r is it the last step
in a production process before discard?'' 216 F.3d at 57. In
particular, the court rejected EPA's argument that primary treatment
was required by regulation, and instead stated that EPA needed to ``set
forth why it has concluded that the compliance motivation predominates
over the reclamation motivation'' and ``why that conclusion, even if
validly reached, compels the further conclusion that the wastewater has
been discarded.'' 216 F.3d at 58.
The court also considered whether material is discarded in Safe
Food and Fertilizer v. EPA, 350 F.3d 1263 (DC Cir. 2003) (``Safe
Food''). In that case, among other things, the court rejected the
argument that, as a matter of plain meaning, recycled material destined
for immediate reuse within an ongoing industrial process is never
considered ``discarded,'' whereas material that is transferred to
another firm or industry for subsequent recycling must always be solid
wastes. 350 F.3d at 1268. Instead, the court evaluated ``whether the
agency's interpretation of * * * `discarded' * * * is, reasonable and
consistent with the statutory purpose. * * *'' Id. Thus, EPA has the
discretion to determine if material is not a solid waste, even if it is
transferred between industries.
We also note that the Ninth Circuit has specifically found that
non-hazardous secondary materials may, under certain circumstances, be
burned and not constitute a solid waste under RCRA. See Safe Air For
Everyone v. Waynemeyer (``Safe Air''), 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir., 2004).
In this case, the Court found that Kentucky bluegrass stubble may be
burned to return nutrients to the soil and not be a solid waste.
5. Concept of Legitimacy
Under RCRA subtitle C, some hazardous secondary materials that
would otherwise be subject to regulation under RCRA's ``cradle to
grave'' hazardous waste system are not considered solid wastes if they
are ``legitimately recycled'' or legitimately reused as an ingredient
or substitute for a commercial product. The principal reasoning behind
this construct is that use/reuse or recycling of such secondary
materials often closely resembles normal industrial production, rather
than waste management. Although today's final rule does not address the
Agency's hazardous waste regulations, EPA finds the concept of
legitimacy to be an important one in determining when a secondary
material (whether hazardous or non-hazardous) is genuinely recycled and
not discarded under the guise of recycling.
[[Page 15464]]
However, since there can be considerable economic incentive to
manage recyclable materials outside of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulatory system, there is a clear potential for, and historical
evidence of, some handlers claiming they are recycling, when in fact
they are conducting waste treatment and/or disposal in the guise of
recycling. EPA considers such ``sham'' recycling to be, in fact,
discard and these secondary materials being sham recycled are solid
wastes (or hazardous waste if the material is listed as, or exhibits a
characteristic of, hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR part 261).
To guard against hazardous secondary materials being discarded in
the guise of recycling, EPA has long articulated the need to
distinguish between ``legitimate'' (i.e., true) recycling or other use
and ``sham'' (i.e., fake) recycling; see the preamble to the 1985
hazardous waste regulations that established the definition of solid
waste under RCRA subtitle C (50 FR 638; January 4, 1985). A similar
discussion that addressed legitimacy as it pertains to burning
hazardous secondary materials for energy recovery (considered a form of
recycling under RCRA subtitle C) was presented in the January 9, 1988
proposed amendments to the definition of solid waste (53 FR 522).
Then on April 26, 1989, the Office of Solid Waste \11\ issued a
memorandum that consolidated the various preamble and other statements
concerning legitimate recycling into a list of questions to be
considered in evaluating the legitimacy of hazardous secondary
materials recycling (OSWER directive 9441.1989(19)). This memorandum
(known to many as the ``Lowrance Memo,'' a copy of which is included in
the Docket to today's rule) has been a primary source of information
for the regulated community and for overseeing agencies in
distinguishing between legitimate and sham recycling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ On January 9, 2009, the Office of Solid Waste was renamed
the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 30, 2008 DSW Final Rule, EPA finalized several
exclusions from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary
materials being reclaimed and a non-waste determination process for
persons to receive a formal determination that their hazardous
secondary materials are not solid wastes when legitimately reclaimed.
In that action, EPA codified in 40 CFR 260.43 the requirement that
materials be legitimately recycled as a condition for the exclusion for
hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the
control of the generator (40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(ii) and 40 CFR
261.4(a)(23)) and as a condition of the exclusion for hazardous
secondary materials that are transferred for the purpose of legitimate
reclamation (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25)). As part of
that final rule, EPA also codified the legitimate recycling provision
specifically as a requirement for the non-waste determination process
(40 CFR 260.34).
As discussed above, the Agency has agreed to prepare a notice of
proposed rulemaking, which will solicit comment regarding potential
revisions to the 2008 DSW Final Rule. The definition of ``legitimacy''
is one of the issues that will be reconsidered in this subsequent
proposed rule. This subsequent DSW proposed rule is, by necessity, in a
different proceeding from the rule we are promulgating today. EPA
cannot presuppose the results of the DSW rule, but still needs to issue
a final rule dealing with legitimacy criteria in today's separate rule
affecting non-hazardous secondary materials. The same concept--
legitimacy--applies to both rules, but, at this point, EPA cannot
reconcile the differences between the legitimacy criteria in each rule,
if there are indeed any substantive differences. As a result, each rule
will have its own definition of legitimate recycling. Although the
Agency is revisiting the definition of legitimacy in the context of
regulations promulgated pursuant to RCRA subtitle C, EPA continues to
find the principle of ``legitimacy'' to be an important element in the
recycling of both hazardous and non-hazardous secondary materials. That
is, the concept of legitimate recycling is crucial to determining
whether a hazardous or non-hazardous secondary material being recycled
is truly being recycled or is, in fact, being discarded through sham
recycling and thus, is a solid waste.
D. Summary of the ANPRM
In the ANPRM, the Agency considered various guiding principles,
including the concept of discard, and if discarded, whether the
secondary material has been processed to produce a non-waste fuel or
ingredient product, and the concept of legitimacy,\12\ in determining
if secondary materials used in combustion units are solid wastes. Based
on these guiding principles, the Agency identified a number of
scenarios in evaluating the usage of secondary materials (e.g., as
fuels or ingredients) and whether these secondary materials should be
considered solid wastes under RCRA when used in combustion devices,
such that units burning these secondary materials would be subject to
regulation under CAA section 129, rather than subject to CAA section
112. The ANPRM identified several cases where such secondary materials
are not solid wastes when combusted, and thus, subject to CAA section
112. These scenarios were: (1) Traditional fuels, (2) non-hazardous
secondary materials used as legitimate ``alternative'' fuels that have
not been previously discarded, (3) non-hazardous secondary materials
used as legitimate ``alternative fuels'' resulting from the processing
of discarded secondary materials, (4) non-hazardous secondary materials
used as legitimate ingredients, and (5) hazardous secondary materials
that may be excluded from the definition of solid waste under RCRA
subtitle C because they are more like commodities than wastes. All
other cases where non-hazardous secondary materials are combusted would
be considered ``solid wastes'' and subject to CAA section 129.
Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Agency discussed various criteria regarding the concept
of legitimacy. Specifically, with respect to secondary materials
used as a fuel, they should be handled as a valuable commodity, have
a meaningful heating value, and contain contaminants that are not
significantly higher in concentration than traditional fuel
products. For those secondary materials used as an ingredient, they
should be handled as a valuable commodity, the secondary material
provides a useful contribution, the recycling results in a valuable
product, and the product does not contain contaminants that are
significantly higher in concentration than traditional products. If
these criteria are not met, then sham recycling may be indicated and
the secondary material may be a solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Fuels: EPA identified in the ANPRM fossil
fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) and their derivatives (e.g.,
petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic
fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered gaseous
butane, and coke oven gas), as well as cellulosic biomass (e.g., wood)
as traditional fuels. Such traditional fuels have been used
historically as fuels and have been managed as valuable products, such
that they are considered unused products that have not been discarded
and therefore, are not solid wastes. In addition, EPA also identified
as traditional fuels wood collected from forest fire clearance
activities and tree and uncontaminated wood found in hurricane debris
if not discarded, if managed properly, and if burned as a legitimate
fuel.
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Legitimate
``Alternative Fuels'' That Have Not Been Previously Discarded: The
ANPRM indicated that, in addition to traditional fuels, there may be a
category of non-
[[Page 15465]]
hazardous secondary materials that are legitimate alternative non-waste
fuels, even though they may not have been traditionally used as fuels,
because of changes in technology and in the energy market. Biomass was
discussed as one large category of these alternatives fuels. EPA also
discussed that scrap tires used as tire-derived fuel (TDF), which
includes whole or shredded tires, that have not been previously
discarded, could also be considered legitimate fuels that meet the
legitimacy criteria (see Materials Characterization Paper on Scrap
Tires in the docket for today's rule for a complete discussion on
contaminants in TDF [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329]). We noted that in many
cases, scrap tires are collected pursuant to state tire oversight
programs (e.g., used tires from tire dealerships that are sent to used
tire processing facilities) are handled as valuable commodities, and,
therefore, have not been abandoned, disposed of, or thrown away. We
noted that because states typically regulate these programs under their
state solid waste authorities, it was not the Agency's intent to
undercut the state's authority in this area. We, therefore, requested
comment on whether scrap tires collected pursuant to state tire
oversight programs should be considered a non-waste fuel when
combusted, and whether an EPA designation specifying that scrap tires,
for example, managed pursuant to state collection programs would
adversely impact a state's ability to manage such a program. Other non-
traditional alternative fuels that EPA identified in the ANPRM included
construction and demolition materials, scrap plastics, non-hazardous
solvents and lubricants, and wastewater treatment sludge. The Agency
solicited comment on this category.
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Legitimate
``Alternative Fuels'' Resulting from the Processing of Discarded
Secondary Materials: The Agency also discussed the concept of
processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary materials, such that
legitimate fuel products may be extracted, processed, or reclaimed from
a non-hazardous secondary material that has been discarded in the first
instance and that such products would generally not be considered solid
wastes. The principle behind this idea of processing a solid waste to
produce a product is common to industrial processes. We noted in the
ANPRM that until a legitimate product has been extracted, processed, or
reclaimed, the non-hazardous secondary material has been discarded and
is a solid waste. The ANPRM identified a number of non-hazardous
materials that can be processed into a legitimate fuel, including
biomass, coal fines, used oil, tires and landfill ash. Of course, the
degree of processing necessarily will vary depending on the specific
material, but the objective is the same--that is, the product from
processing must be a legitimate fuel (i.e., a material with a
meaningful heating value, with contaminants that are not present at
significantly higher concentrations than those of traditional fuel
products, and managed as a valuable commodity).
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Ingredients: In
addition to legitimate fuel products, the ANPRM also recognized that
non-hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded can be
used as legitimate ingredients, and identified cement kiln dust (CKD),
bottom ash, boiler slag, blast furnace slag, foundry sand, and
secondary glass material as secondary materials that could be
considered as legitimate ingredient products. If, on the other hand,
such non-hazardous secondary materials have been discarded, the ANPRM
identified such secondary materials as solid wastes, unless they are
sufficiently processed into a legitimate product, as would be the case
for discarded materials that could become products after being
processed.
Hazardous Secondary Materials That May Be Excluded From
the Definition of Solid Waste Under RCRA Subtitle C Because They Are
More Like Commodities Than Wastes: The final category identified in the
ANPRM are hazardous secondary materials that are recycled and are
specifically identified in the subtitle C hazardous waste rules as
secondary materials that may be burned under certain conditions, but
are not considered solid wastes, at least for purposes of the hazardous
waste regulations. The ANPRM indicated that EPA was interested in
extending this determination so that these materials also are not
considered solid wastes under RCRA subtitle D. The Agency indicated
that it believed that it had sufficient information in the rulemaking
records for the various hazardous secondary materials--that is, black
liquor and spent sulfuric acid,\13\ and comparable fuels \14\ to
conclude that these subtitle C exclusions are broadly applicable to the
definition of solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA when these secondary
materials are used as a fuel or ingredient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A determination was made that black liquor reclaimed in a
pulping liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the pulping
process and spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid
were not solid wastes because these hazardous secondary materials
were determined to be an integral part of the manufacturing process.
\14\ A determination was made with respect to comparable fuels
that certain hazardous secondary materials meet specific
requirements to ensure that the materials toxic constituents and
physical properties are similar to commercial (benchmark) fuels, and
therefore, are products and not solid wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANPRM indicated that in all other cases where secondary
materials were combusted, they would be considered ``solid wastes''
under RCRA subtitle D and thus, subject to CAA section 129. However,
the Agency solicited comment on many aspects of these scenarios. In
addition, the ANPRM also solicited comment on the following four
issues: (1) Whether there are circumstances where discarded secondary
materials--once recovered from the environment--that can be directly
used as a legitimate fuel or ingredient product without processing
should not be considered a solid waste; (2) whether there are other
approaches for determining that non-hazardous secondary materials when
used as a legitimate fuel is not a solid waste, and specifically took
comment on an approach presented to EPA by industry representatives;
\15\ (3) whether to consider non-hazardous secondary materials that
receive a state beneficial use determination for use as a fuel or
ingredient in a combustion unit as not being a solid waste; and (4) how
to address biofuels and byproducts from the production of biofuels--
that is, whether such secondary materials should be considered a waste
or not when combusted. (For a more detailed discussion of the ANPRM,
see 74 FR 41, January 2, 2009.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Industry representatives suggested that non-hazardous
secondary materials should be evaluated, on a case-by-case basis, to
identify which criteria have been satisfied and determine whether
the material is legitimately handled as a fuel. Criteria identified
by industry stakeholders include: Handling and storage of materials
to minimize loss, use of materials within a reasonable period of
time, material value (e.g., whether there is a market for the
material as a fuel, internal or external to the company), material
managed and treated as a commodity, and processing of material to
enhance fuel value. See 74 FR 60 for the ANPRM's description of this
approach. A copy of this industry-recommended approach entitled,
``Outline of Regulatory Approach to Determine Materials Considered
Fuels--not Solid Wastes--under RCRA,'' is also included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The proposal maintained many of the concepts and provisions
discussed in the ANPRM, including the concept of discard and the
legitimacy criteria. However, the basic framework differed from the
ANPRM based partly on the
[[Page 15466]]
approach taken in the Definition of Solid Waste final rule promulgated
on October 30, 2008 (see 73 FR 64668), based partly on the comments
received on the ANPRM, as well as EPA's interpretation of whether these
secondary materials were discarded. For example, comments received on
the ANPRM from some states suggested that non-hazardous secondary
material fuels that are transferred to a third party have entered what
is traditionally considered to be the ``waste stream'' (and have been
regulated by the states as wastes) and therefore should appropriately
be considered wastes (e.g., scrap tires, regardless of whether they
were collected and managed pursuant to state programs or recovered from
legacy waste piles).
As a result of comments like these and the Agency's re-examining
our interpretation of the application of the discard concept to various
non-hazardous secondary materials, the Agency altered its position in
the proposed rule. Whereas the ANPRM had indicated that there may be a
number of non-hazardous secondary materials that would not be
considered discarded even if the original generator sent them to
another entity outside of its control, the proposed rule assumed that
non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels and are
managed outside the control of the generator are solid wastes, unless
they were processed into non-waste fuel products or the Agency grants a
non-waste determination (through a case-by-case petition process) that
such non-hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes because
they have not been discarded and are indistinguishable in all relevant
aspects from a fuel product.
In the proposal, EPA stated that when non-hazardous secondary
material fuels are transferred to another party, the Agency generally
believed that the material is discarded, since the generator has
relinquished control of the secondary material and the entity receiving
such materials may not have the same incentives to manage them as a
useful product, which results in the materials being discarded. The
Agency noted that this lack of incentive to manage as a useful product
has been well-documented in the context of hazardous secondary material
recycling as evidenced by the results of the environmental problems
study performed in support of the 2008 DSW Final Rule and believed that
this finding also held true for non-hazardous secondary materials that
are used as fuel.
The proposed rule considered non-hazardous secondary materials used
as ingredients that are used in combustion units to not be solid waste
if they were not discarded in the first instance and if they met the
legitimacy criteria, irrespective of whether they have been transferred
to a third party. The Agency stated that it was not proposing to
differentiate ingredients that are used within the control of the
generator from those that are not since we believed the use of non-
hazardous secondary materials as ingredients is considered to be more
integral or akin to use in a commercial manufacturing process and thus,
these non-hazardous secondary materials would not be considered
discarded provided they satisfy the legitimacy criteria.
The proposed rule also included a petition process for receiving
non-waste determinations, which was an additional area for comment in
the ANPRM, but not included as an approach or scenario that was
specifically presented. One of the differences between the ANPRM and
the proposed rule was the classification of ``clean'' biomass and on-
specification used oil as traditional fuels. In addition, the proposed
rule did not address hazardous secondary materials excluded from the
definition of solid waste under subtitle C of RCRA, concluding that it
does not need to address this exclusion in this rulemaking since these
secondary materials have already been excluded from the definition of
solid waste as hazardous secondary materials and therefore, should not
be addressed in the proposed rule, which deals with the definition of
solid waste for non-hazardous secondary materials used in combustion
units.
Finally, the proposed rule also revised the contaminant legitimacy
criterion, stating that non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels
in combustion units must contain contaminants at levels ``comparable to
or less than'' those in traditional fuels which the combustion unit is
designed to burn, whereas the ANPRM had stated that non-hazardous
secondary materials used as fuel could not contain contaminants that
were ``significantly higher'' than traditional fuel products. In the
proposed rule, EPA explained its rationale for making this change,
stating that the requirement that non-hazardous secondary materials
have contaminants at levels comparable to or less than traditional
fuels would ensure that the burning of any secondary materials in
combustion units will not result in discard of materials or their
contaminants and thus, will not result in increased releases to the
environment that could adversely impact the health and environment of
the local community. A similar change was made to the contaminant
legitimacy criterion for ingredients, with the comparison being made
between products manufactured with and without non-hazardous secondary
materials.
Thus, in the proposed rule, the Agency considered all non-hazardous
secondary materials burned in combustion units as solid wastes except
for the following circumstances: (1) Non-hazardous secondary materials
used as a fuel that remains within the control of the generator
(whether at the site of generation or another site within the
generator's control) that meets the legitimacy criteria; (2) non-
hazardous secondary materials used as an ingredient in a manufacturing
process (whether by the generator or a third party) that meets the
legitimacy criteria; (3) legitimate fuel or ingredient products that
are produced from the processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary
materials; \16\ and (4) non-hazardous secondary materials handled
outside the control of the generator, but has been determined through a
case-by-case non-waste determination petition process to not have been
discarded and to be indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a
fuel product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As we state throughout the preamble, prior to the
production of the legitimate fuel or ingredient product, the non-
hazardous secondary material is considered a solid waste and would
be subject to the appropriate federal, state, and local
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Use of Secondary Materials
1. Introduction
The U.S. is pursuing an approach to sustainable materials
management that employs the concepts of life cycle assessment \17\ and
full cost accounting.\18\ Within the context of RCRA,\19\ this final
rule aims to facilitate materials management to the extent allowed by
the statute, through the establishment of a regulatory framework that
guides the beneficial use of various secondary materials, while
ensuring that such use is protective of human health and the
[[Page 15467]]
environment. EPA, in conjunction with the states, seeks to further
facilitate this objective through research, analysis, incentives, and
communication. The Agency recognizes that secondary materials are
widely used today as fuels and/or ingredients in industrial processes.
We expect these uses will continue and expand in future years as
effective materials management becomes more critical to a sustainable
society. The use of secondary materials from a variety of non-
traditional sources, including the use of energy-containing secondary
materials, is expected to play an important role in future resource
conservation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The terms ``life cycle analysis'' and ``life cycle
assessment'' are commonly used interchangeably. Life cycle
assessment is a system-wide analytical technique for assessing the
environmental (and sometimes economic) effects of a product,
process, or activity across all life stages.
\18\ Full cost accounting is an accounting system that
incorporates economic, environmental, health, and social costs of a
product, action, or decision.
\19\ RCRA section 6901(c)--Materials: The Congress finds with
respect to materials, that--(1) millions of tons of recoverable
material which could be used are needlessly buried each year; (2)
methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste;
and (3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce
the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce
the deficit in its balance of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of secondary materials as alternative fuels and/or
ingredients in manufacturing processes using combustion not only
recovers valuable resources, it is known to contribute to emission
reductions. For example, both greenhouse gas (GHG) and particulate
matter (PM) emissions have been reduced as a co-benefit of the use of
secondary materials.\20\ The use of secondary materials, such as use as
a fuel in industrial processes may also result in other benefits,
including reduced fuel imports, reduced negative environmental impacts
caused by previous dumping (e.g., tires), and reduced methane gas
generation from landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For example, the GHG emissions rate associated with the
combustion of scrap tires is approximately 0.081metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2E) per million metric
British thermal units (MMBtu) of scrap tires combusted, while the
GHG emissions rate for coal is approximately 0.094 MTCO2E
per MMBtu. Combined with the avoided extraction and processing
emissions 0.006 MTCO2E/MMBtu for coal, the total avoided
GHG is 0.019 MTCO2E per MMBtu. Substituting tire-derived
fuel for coal would also avoid an estimated 0.246 Lbs/MMBtu of PM
associated with the extraction and processing of the coal. Please
see the Materials Characterization Papers in the docket for further
details on these estimates, and other estimates of avoided emissions
associated with burning tires and other secondary materials as fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary materials may, in some cases, be more appropriately
defined as ``by-products,'' \21\ reflecting their inherent resource
recovery value in the generation and production of heat, energy, and/or
marketable products or intermediates. Secondary materials can provide
microeconomic (firm level) and macroeconomic benefits when legitimately
used as effective substitutes for, or supplement to virgin materials.
Economic efficiencies can be improved with the use of secondary
materials, when substituted for increasingly scarce virgin materials,
because the use of such secondary materials often results in an
equivalent level of outputs at lower overall resource use, or in turn,
greater outputs could be generated using the same amount of resource
inputs. When this occurs, monetary savings resulting from reduced
resources and expenditures would, theoretically, be applied to a higher
and better use in the economy. This helps advance economic growth as a
result of improved industrial efficiency,\22\ which, in turn, helps
move the country toward material sustainability and energy self
sufficiency, while protecting human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ For purposes of this action, we define by-product as a
secondary or incidental material derived from the primary use or
production process that retains value in the marketplace or to an
end user.
\22\ Opportunities for improved economic efficiency are
recognized through the Action Statement of the U.S. Business Council
For Sustainable Development: ``Promoting Sustainable Development by
Creating Value Through Action Establishing Networks and
Partnerships, and Providing a Voice for Industry.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Secondary Materials Use and Benefits
A wide and diverse range of secondary materials are currently used
as fuels and/or ingredients in manufacturing or service processes.
Based on our research conducted in support of the January 2, 2009
ANPRM, we identified eight non-hazardous secondary material fuels or
fuel groups and six non-hazardous ingredients, or ingredient groups.
The eight fuel source materials were: The biomass group (pulp and paper
residuals, forest derived biomass, agricultural residues, food scraps,
animal manure, and gaseous fuels); construction and demolition
materials (building related, disaster debris, and land clearing
debris); scrap tires; scrap plastics; spent solvents; coal refuse;
waste water treatment sludge, and used oil. The six secondary material
ingredients were: blast furnace slag; CKD; the coal combustion
residuals (fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag); foundry sand; silica
fume; and secondary glass material. The ANPRM discussed and described
these key secondary materials. In addition, we developed Materials
Characterization Papers for each of these fuel and ingredient
materials. These papers were included in the docket for the ANPRM, as
well as the docket for the proposed rule.
In preparing the proposed rule, we developed three additional
Materials Characterization Papers for auto shredder residue,
purification process byproducts, and resinated wood products. For
today's final rule, we have updated and revised all of the existing
Materials Characterization Papers for which we received additional data
and information. We have included these updated Materials
Characterization Papers in the docket for this final rule. We have
determined that the non-hazardous secondary fuels and ingredients
discussed in this series of Materials Characterization Papers account
for the vast majority of all non-hazardous secondary materials used in
combustion processes in the U.S.
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule
Under the approach outlined in the proposed rule, non-hazardous
secondary materials were defined as a solid waste unless: (1) The non-
hazardous secondary material is used as a fuel and remains within the
control of the generator that meets the legitimacy criteria; (2) the
non-hazardous secondary material is used as an ingredient that meets
the legitimacy criteria; (3) the discarded non-hazardous secondary
material has been sufficiently processed to produce a non-waste fuel or
ingredient product that meets the legitimacy criteria; or (4) through a
case-by-case non-waste determination petition process, EPA has
determined that the non-hazardous secondary material has not been
discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel
product.
The Agency also took comment on two other approaches regarding the
combustion of non-hazardous secondary materials. Under the first
approach, identified in the proposal as the ``Alternative Approach,''
all non-hazardous secondary materials and ingredients that were used in
combustion facilities that were not within the control of the generator
were considered a solid waste. Thus, only those non-hazardous secondary
materials or ingredients that were used in combustion facilities within
control of the generator that meet the legitimacy criteria would be
considered a non-waste. However, like the proposed rule, traditional
fuels also would not be considered a solid waste, regardless of the
generator.
The second alternative that EPA took comment on was a broader
definition of solid waste, in which only traditional fuels are not
solid wastes and all non-hazardous secondary materials burned for
energy recovery or used as an ingredient are considered discarded, and
therefore, solid wastes.\23\ This
[[Page 15468]]
section discusses the comments that EPA received, as well as our
response to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ On August 18, 2009, EPA received a letter signed by nearly
one hundred community groups and citizens that urged for an
expansive definition of solid waste for the purposes of combustion
and argued against the general approach of the ANPRM. A copy of this
letter has been placed in the docket to today's final rule. The
letter highlights stakeholder concerns regarding the differences
between CAA sections 112 and 129 and argues against an overly narrow
definition of solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Proposed Approach
1. Definition of the Term Discard
Under the proposed rule, non-hazardous secondary materials that are
discarded are considered to be a solid waste. On the other hand,
secondary materials that have not been discarded, for example,
secondary materials that are managed within the control of the
generator and meet the specified legitimacy criteria would not be
considered a solid waste. Many of the comments discussed the definition
of the term ``discard'' and instances in which the term should or
should not apply.
As discussed below, environmental groups argue, generally, that any
secondary material burned for energy recovery is a solid waste. These
commenters object to allowing control by the generator to be relevant
to rendering material a non-waste, even if burned under the legitimacy
criteria, claiming that these materials are wastes.
Industry commenters, on the other hand, assert that the secondary
materials used in their operations exhibit value as evidenced by their
purchase price, their use as inputs and products, their role in ongoing
recycling programs, their use as fuels, and/or their use in ``routine
transactions'' or processing operations. Based on these
characteristics, industry commenters maintain that such secondary
materials should not be considered discarded. Industry commenters also
assert that EPA cannot define something as ``discarded'' when
transferred to a third party and express concern that the concept of
discard is ambiguous or incorrectly interpreted by EPA in the proposed
rule.
In addition, while industry commenters favor allowing the generator
to burn secondary materials as non-wastes, they also argue that
materials are not wastes so long as they are combusted legitimately
even if the material has been discarded in the first instance. They
argue that the proposed rule effectively makes the act of moving
materials from one party to another the equivalent of ``discard,''
regardless of intent. These commenters claim that EPA's definition of
solid waste is overly restrictive and yields little environmental gain.
Certain comments maintain that as long as a non-hazardous secondary
material meets the legitimacy criteria for use as a fuel, and it is
combusted as a fuel, it is not a waste. These comments state that
secondary materials cannot be assumed to be part of the solid waste
disposal problem merely because the original generator of the materials
transfers them to another entity. In fact, depending on the nature of
the transaction, this transfer may indicate that the company values the
material.
a. Comments From Environmental Groups
Comment: Case law prevents EPA from finding that secondary
materials burned for energy recovery are not solid wastes. The DC
Circuit holding in AMC I that material ``recycled and reused in an
ongoing manufacturing or industrial process'' is not ``discarded'' does
not apply to secondary materials burned for energy recovery even if
legitimately recycled and reused. AMC I only addresses reclamation of
secondary materials. Moreover, EPA incorrectly relies on case law to
give it discretion to define ``discard.'' According to the comment, EPA
is wrongly implying that, under case law, the meaning of ``discard'' is
ambiguous and that the Agency has discretion to define burning for
energy recovery as either discard or not.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. To reply to this
commenter, EPA is relying on its explanations in the ANPRM and the
proposal, as well as the discussion reiterated in this preamble. See
especially discussions of the law in the proposed rule at 75 FR 31850-
52 (section titled, ``Case Law on Definition of Solid Waste''); 31858-
59 (Comment/Response section titled ``Meaning of Discard''); and 31885-
87 (section titled ``Alternative Approach''). That is, EPA sees nothing
in the comment that would change the legal basis for this rule.
However, the Agency would like to clarify the more obvious inaccuracies
in the comment.
First, EPA freely admits, as stated in the proposal, that the
secondary materials at issue in AMC I were not burned for energy
recovery. See, for example, 75 FR 31887. However, the plain logic of
the court's opinion and the plain meaning of the statute are
unmistakable. EPA does not have the discretion to cover as solid waste
secondary materials recycled in a continuous industrial process, even
if they are used in a combustion unit. Indeed, if EPA were to assert
jurisdiction for secondary materials recycled in a continuous process
for energy recovery, it appears highly likely that the Agency's rule
would be invalidated in a litigation challenge.
In addition, EPA has not at any time since the ANPRM in this
proceeding stated that the term ``discard'' is ambiguous. It is clear
that EPA's jurisdiction under RCRA applies unambiguously to materials
that are discarded and the definition is unambiguous in that it means
thrown away, disposed of or abandoned. It is the application of the
definition to particular instances that gives rise to ambiguity. The
ABR court plainly stated that the term may be ambiguous as applied to
some situations, but not as applied to others. 208 F.3d at 1056, See
also 75 FR 31887. The comment simply begs the question when it claims
EPA is relying on an ambiguous meaning to claim discretion. EPA has no
discretion in certain cases. For example, the Agency may not regulate
under RCRA secondary materials recycled in a continuous industrial
process. On the other hand, EPA may have to exercise discretion to
determine whether particular materials are recycled in a continuous
process and whether such materials recycled in other ways are solid
wastes. Agency discretion applies to the application of the discard
definition.
Comment: EPA's proposal acknowledges that burning a secondary
material for energy recovery is not ``traditional'' recycling. Thus,
EPA may not consider burning for energy recovery as recycling because
the term, ``recycling,'' is not given its ordinary meaning. See 75 FR
at 31872.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with the conclusion of the comment,
but needs to correct the record. EPA received a comment in response to
the ANPRM that requested the Agency to apply the legitimacy criteria to
situations where the recycling does not include burning for energy
recovery. The commenter referred to these other situations as
``traditional'' recycling. EPA's response noted that this regulation
specifically applies to whether non-hazardous secondary materials in a
combustion unit are legitimately recycled or not. This is the general
policy in this regulation, since states may regulate non-hazardous
secondary materials recycled in ways not involving combustion units,
but EPA is required to determine which non-hazardous secondary
materials are solid waste when combusted for purposes of CAA sections
112 and 129.
In its response to the comment wrongly referring to ``traditional''
recycling, the Agency used the same term as the commenter. This was a
mistake, since the Agency makes clear virtually everywhere else in the
rulemaking record that recycling
[[Page 15469]]
includes legitimate burning for energy recovery and this is very
clearly understood by almost all of the commenters. The Agency views
the comment's distinction as a semantic matter, not as a practical
application of the term ``traditional.'' This mistake is hereby
corrected for purposes of the final rule. ``Traditional'' recycling may
include burning for energy recovery of secondary materials.
Comment: EPA effectively concedes that the ``ordinary everyday''
meaning of ``discarded material'' includes ``secondary materials'' when
they are burned--no matter who burns them and regardless of whether
energy is recovered from the combustion process. The comment cites the
preamble to the proposed rule in several places where EPA notes that
combustion of secondary materials is ``commonly'' associated with
disposal. See 75 FR at 31859, 31877.
The comment states, further, EPA's sense of what constitutes
discard is not the ordinary sense of the term by citing the Agency's
discussion of the benefits of burning secondary materials. 75 FR at
31849. In addition, according to the comment, EPA is unlawfully seeking
to exclude from the definition of solid waste by its discussion of the
benefits of burning the following materials: Pulp and paper residuals,
agricultural residues, food scraps, animal manure, construction and
demolition waste, disaster debris, land clearing debris, scrap
plastics, spent solvents, coal refuse, waste water treatment sludge and
used oil. 75 FR at 31850.
EPA's Response: Other responses deal with the legal arguments made
by this particular comment on how the statute and case law deal with
the definition of solid waste. However, the Agency believes it
necessary to address some of the comment's specific inaccuracies
separately.
First, EPA in no way ``concedes'' that all materials burned for
energy recovery are discarded in the ordinary sense of the term. To the
extent that the Agency notes certain public perceptions, it plainly
states (on the same pages cited in the comment) that these are
misconceptions because they do not take into account that a secondary
material may often be used to produce a safe fuel product that is a
valuable commodity or that a secondary material that is burned in a
combustion unit does not necessarily have high levels of contaminants.
75 FR 31859.
In addition, EPA refers to the same misconceptions when it
discusses whether product fuels may be processed or extracted from
materials once discarded. EPA notes that fuel processed or extracted
from discarded non-hazardous secondary materials should not necessarily
be considered solid waste, just as recycled newspapers, recycled
aluminum, re-refined oil, to name but a few, are not considered solid
waste. Moreover, the misperception that contaminant levels are high in
combusted secondary materials affects the perception that there needs
to be a very high threshold with respect to the level of processing
that must take place to render a discarded material into a non-waste
product. 75 FR 31877.
Finally, EPA does not understand the comment's citation to 75 FR
31849-50 as containing statements regarding the Agency's ``sense'' of
discard or the fact that the Agency is seeking to exclude various
materials from the definition of solid waste. These pages only discuss
the benefits of secondary material combustion without opining on
whether the combusted materials would or would not be a waste. EPA
cannot understand the comment's motivation in making these statements.
Comment: RCRA's statutory language shows that Congress did not
intend EPA to exclude secondary materials that are burned for energy
recovery from the definition of solid waste. In particular, section
3004(q) directs EPA to issue regulations both for facilities that
produce fuels from hazardous waste and for facilities that burn ``for
purposes of energy recovery'' any fuel that is produced from hazardous
waste or any fuel that contains any hazardous waste. Thus, EPA may not
declare that hazardous wastes and hazardous waste derived fuels are not
discarded when burned for energy recovery. The comment concedes that
section 3004(q) addresses hazardous waste, but maintains that the
provision is strongly indicative of Congress' intent that burning a
material for energy recovery does not transform that material into a
non-waste.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 3004(q)
only applies to specific provisions of the statute and in no way can it
be considered to present a sweeping bar to the Agency's ability to
interpret the statute. In fact, since Congress only addressed these
provisions in the hazardous waste subtitle of RCRA, the more logical
interpretation is that such provisions would not be applicable to other
parts of the statute. Section 3004(q) very clearly provides that a
material must be a hazardous waste, first, before its provisions apply.
EPA needs to make the determination that material is a hazardous waste
before even dealing with the restrictions under 3004(q). Thus, it does
not apply to the present rule where EPA must first determine whether
the material is a solid waste and there is no question that the
materials subject to this rule are not hazardous wastes. EPA accepts
the comment's concession that 3004(q) only applies to hazardous waste.
Comment: One comment states that ``exemptions'' in EPA's rule from
the definition of solid waste violate the CAA. EPA interprets this
comment to mean that the commenter sees violations of the CAA for any
non-hazardous secondary material the Agency has decided is not a solid
waste. The comment states the following: ``Congress was not concerned
either about the ownership of a waste material that was being burned or
about whether energy was recovered from the combustion process; it
simply wanted to ensure that all waste combustion units were subject to
the protective control, monitoring, siting, training, and reporting
requirements that it found necessary and appropriate for these units.''
The comment makes four points to support its contention:
1. The proposed rule is a transparent attempt to exempt facilities
that recover energy from the section 129 standards and would shrink the
population of facilities covered to 175, a number far less than
Congress intended.
2. Section 129(g)(1) makes clear that Congress viewed refuse-
derived fuel as waste and EPA includes ``refuse-derived'' fuel as a
non-waste.
3. Section 129(h)(5) shows that Congress viewed the universe of
``fuel'' to consist of ``waste'' on the one hand and ``fossil fuel'' on
the other. Congress's definition of ``municipal waste'' expresses the
intent that facilities that burn non-fossil fuels and are not covered
by the express exclusions in section 129(g)(1) must meet the section
129 incinerator standards.
4. Because EPA would allow energy recovery facilities controlled by
the generator to burn non-hazardous secondary materials under section
112, EPA's regulations would improperly allow hospital-owned medical
waste incinerators to burn medical and infectious wastes and would not
be incinerators subject to the section 129 incinerator standards.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees that these provisions of the CAA are
relevant to this regulation. EPA is not creating exemptions to section
129 for facilities that recover energy. Rather, EPA is establishing a
definition of non-hazardous solid waste, which, as specified by CAA
section 129(g)(6), governs the meaning of ``solid waste'' under section
129. Because Congress
[[Page 15470]]
specifically directed that ``solid waste'' have the meaning established
by the Administrator under RCRA, instead of defining the term under
RCRA, the CAA definition of ``municipal waste'' is not relevant to this
action.
If any or all of the commenter's contentions are correct, section
129 would not provide that the term ``solid waste'' shall have the
meaning promulgated by EPA under RCRA. There would simply be no reason
for EPA to consider the RCRA definition, since section 129 would take
care of the issue. Section 129(g)(6) would be meaningless.
The commenter further argues that EPA should consider the CAA when
defining solid waste under RCRA. The CAA does not direct the Agency to
consider the language of section 129 when establishing a RCRA
definition. So long as EPA's rule is consistent with the RCRA
definition of ``solid waste,'' it must stand. That is, as long as the
definition of solid waste is consistent with RCRA, and the Agency
issues emissions standards for all units that burn commercial and
industrial solid waste in the CISWI rule, the standards under section
129 are valid. Therefore, we believe the commenter's general argument
is without merit.
With respect to each of the supporting points:
1. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA is not ``exempting''
energy recovery facilities from the section 129 standards. The Agency
is simply interpreting the term ``solid waste'' under RCRA. The number
of facilities that are combusting solid waste is not relevant to this
interpretation. Moreover, there is no indication in the CAA of the
number of facilities Congress intended to be covered under section 129
of the Act.
2. The comment is incorrect that section 129, by excluding
``refuse-derived fuel'' from the exclusion in 129(g)(1)(B) was somehow
defining the term as being included in the term, ``solid waste,'' under
RCRA. Again, if that were the case, section 129(g)(6) would be
superfluous. Nevertheless, today's rule identifying which non-hazardous
secondary materials that are solid wastes when combusted does not
include fuel derived from municipal waste refuse under 129(g)(5). Some
fuels may be processed from solid waste, but that determination by the
Agency stands or falls based on the RCRA statute and case law, not the
CAA. EPA is not defining ``refuse derived fuel'' in this RCRA rule. The
validity of EPA's interpretation on whether commodity fuels may be
processed, or extracted, from a waste must stand or fall based on the
RCRA definition, not provisions of the CAA.
3. EPA disagrees with the statement that the CAA considers ``the
universe of `fuel' to consist of `waste' on the one hand and `fossil
fuel' on the other.'' Again, the CAA is not defining solid waste. Solid
waste is defined under RCRA as material that is ``discarded.'' There is
no distinction anywhere in RCRA that would indicate that anything other
than a fossil fuel must be a waste.
4. This rule does not address whether or not medical waste is a
solid waste under RCRA. EPA issued regulations under section 129 of the
CAA establishing emission standards for hospital and medical waste, and
today's action does not affect those regulations. [74 FR 51367].
Comment: EPA's distinction between materials burned for energy
recovery and those burned for destruction has already been rejected as
irrelevant in NRDC. 489 F.3d at 1257-1258.
EPA's Response: EPA agrees that the DC Circuit has rejected for
purposes of combusting materials under CAA section 129 a distinction
between materials burned for energy recovery and solid wastes. However,
EPA is not making that distinction in this rule. EPA agrees that units
combusting solid waste are generally subject to the emission standards
issued under section 129 of the CAA whether those wastes are fuels or
not. Moreover, nothing in the NRDC case addresses EPA's discretion to
interpret the term ``solid waste'' under the RCRA rulemaking. This
issue was not before the Court in NRDC, and thus the Court did not
speak to it. Therefore, we disagree with that portion of the comment.
It is clear that wastes may have fuel value. EPA, in this rule, is
making a distinction between materials that are discarded and those
that are not. One of the considerations is whether a secondary material
is really being burned for destruction and is, therefore, a waste. If
it is not being burned for destruction, other factors need to be
considered to determine whether the non-hazardous secondary material is
a waste.
Another way of describing our evaluation process to determine if a
secondary material is a waste, is that EPA evaluates, first, whether
such material is discarded in the first instance. If not, the Agency
needs to consider whether that material is legitimately burned for
energy recovery.
There are different ways of explaining the legitimacy criteria and
the factors are not necessarily considered in any particular order and
one or more of the factors may render the material a waste. For
example, one of the legitimacy criteria is the consideration of whether
the non-hazardous secondary material has meaningful fuel value or is
simply being burned for destruction--that is, incinerated. If there is
no meaningful fuel value, the non-hazardous secondary material is
simply being destroyed.
If there is meaningful fuel value, other factors must be
considered, including whether the non-hazardous secondary material is
managed as a commodity and whether contaminants indicate that
incineration (destruction) is the real reason for burning. A decision
as to whether a non-hazardous secondary material is a waste, thus,
depends on a number of factors, all of which need to be considered by
the Agency before it decides whether such secondary material is a waste
or not.
Comment: It is irrelevant whether non-hazardous secondary materials
are burned at a facility controlled by the generator. Even EPA does not
believe its argument because it admits that a secondary material could
still be a waste even if it is recycled on-site or within the control
of the generator and cites the court's holding in API II. Instead of
defending its condition as relevant to whether a non-hazardous
secondary material is or is not discarded, the Agency merely says that
the secondary material must both be within the control of the generator
and must pass the legitimacy criteria. By punting to its legitimacy
criteria, EPA effectively concedes that its ```on-site' problem''
renders irrelevant the condition that non-hazardous secondary materials
be burned at a facility within control of the generator.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. If the non-
hazardous secondary material remains within the control of the
generator, it is more likely to be a material that is saved and not
thrown away or abandoned. The Agency has explained that case law would
not allow it to determine that secondary materials are wastes if they
are recycled as fuels within a continuous industrial process. EPA
cannot evaluate every non-hazardous secondary material, but believes
this standard would cover all secondary materials that are recycled as
a fuel within a continuous process. EPA, however, acknowledges that
this may capture non-hazardous secondary materials which may be a
waste, but this is unlikely. There may also be non-hazardous secondary
materials transferred to another party that may not be a waste and EPA
is attempting to deal with those categories of non-hazardous secondary
materials on a case-by-case basis. However, EPA believes that it is a
reasonable interpretation of the
[[Page 15471]]
statutory definition of discard and the case law to consider that a
non-hazardous secondary material within the control of its generator
that is legitimately burned as a fuel is not a solid waste.
EPA is careful to note that ``legitimacy'' is shorthand for
referring to non-hazardous secondary materials that are not thrown
away, are saved and are reused by being burned for their value as a
fuel. The legitimacy criteria are the factors needed to be examined to
make this determination. Thus, for example, it is relevant how the non-
hazardous secondary materials is managed and the extent to which
contaminants in the secondary material may indicate that the real
reason for burning the secondary material is simply its destruction--
referred to as ``sham'' recycling. The Agency is not simply ``punting''
to its legitimacy criteria, but believes they provide a valid basis for
showing that a non-hazardous secondary material is more commodity-like
than waste-like.
b. Comments From Industry Groups
Comment: A number of industry comments object to EPA's explanation
for determining the extent to which transfer of secondary materials
between companies for use as a fuel renders the non-hazardous secondary
materials discarded. According to the comments, EPA not only makes the
transfer of secondary materials an indication of discard, but transfer
becomes the primary and controlling condition for determining whether
secondary materials will be classified as fuel commodities or solid
waste. One commenter in this general category claims that EPA is
forbidding economic reuse of such materials by anyone other than the
generator without prior government permission.
Moreover, the commenters claim that EPA cannot make a sweeping and
arbitrary assumption in categorizing these transferred materials as
``discarded'' and then place the burden on the regulated community to
challenge the assumption through submission of a petition to declare
the material a non-waste. According to the commenters, it is incumbent
upon EPA to explain why a material is discarded before the Agency can
put the burden on companies to submit non-waste petitions if the
companies want to claim the secondary material is not a waste.
The Safe Food case states that firm-to-firm transfers ``are hardly
good indicia'' of discard. If a fuel can meet all of the legitimacy
criteria (managed as a valuable commodity, have meaningful heating
value, not contain elevated levels of contaminants), it cannot
reasonably be said to be discarded just because it is sold or otherwise
transferred to an entity separate from the generator. Assuming all
relevant legitimacy criteria are met, the transfer of secondary
materials between companies is simply not relevant for determining
whether such materials have been discarded. In fact, depending on the
nature of the transaction, this transfer may be a good indicator that a
company values the material.
EPA cannot support its position by referring to over-accumulation
of scrap tires resulting in massive piles of discarded tires. Those
materials did not meet the legitimacy criteria and should be treated as
discarded. Such a reference does not rehabilitate EPA's presumption
that mere transfer of a non-hazardous secondary material could cause
the mismanagement that resulted in the tire piles.
Nor can EPA support its position that state agencies consider
materials wastes when transferred to third parties for use as fuels.
States can make mistakes, as they did regarding used oil, which they
classified as a waste, but changed direction after EPA promulgated its
used oil regulations at 40 CFR part 279.
One comment states, on the basis of case law on abandonment, that
to be abandoned there must be a clear and unequivocal intent to abandon
on the part of the owner and that the burden is on whoever alleges
abandonment to establish that intent. Of particular significance is the
principle in the common law that abandonment does not occur where a
direct transfer of ownership to another party occurs. Where a generator
conveys title to a secondary material to a third-party, no abandonment
occurs, whether there is payment for the material or not. Nor, if the
material is actually recycled (i.e., used, reused, or reclaimed), would
such material ordinarily be deemed to be ``disposed of'' or ``thrown
away.'' Materials legitimately burned for energy recovery or used as
ingredients in combustion units are neither disposed of nor abandoned
and do not meet the `plain-English meaning' of * * * `discard.'
Merely because one party has relinquished control of a secondary
material does not make it a waste nor does the fact that a receiving
party may not have the same incentives to manage them as a useful
product. EPA cannot indict all parties that in fact do manage these
secondary materials as a useful product. Indeed, a generator's use of a
secondary material does not guarantee its proper use, yet EPA allows
the legitimacy criteria to suffice in situations in which the generator
retains control of the non-hazardous secondary material and
legitimately recycles it.
Further, EPA seems to contradict itself because it does not presume
discard of ingredients transferred to other companies and gives no
reason as to why fuels should be treated differently. EPA only states,
without giving a reason, that it believes that the use of non-hazardous
secondary materials as ingredients is considered to be more integral or
akin to use in a commercial manufacturing process and thus, these non-
hazardous secondary materials should not be considered discarded
provided they meet the legitimacy criteria. After all, commercial
manufacturing processes require both ingredients and energy (e.g.,
fuels).
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with these comments to the extent
they argue that the Agency has arbitrarily determined that secondary
materials transferred between companies are wastes. Instead, EPA has
evaluated whether certain categories of materials are discarded or not.
The Agency has not adopted the extremes of saying that all burning of
secondary material, regardless of ultimate use, is waste treatment or
that any secondary material that is recycled for legitimate fuel value
is a commodity and not a waste. Wastes may have value, but are still
wastes.
Between these broad parameters, EPA has examined a number of
specific materials, recycled within the control of the generator and
transferred to a third party for recycling, and determined whether they
would be appropriately placed within the waste or non-waste categories.
EPA would consider transferred materials not to be wastes if it could
make the appropriate findings for those categories. In fact, the Agency
does so with respect to scrap tires removed from vehicles and managed
under the oversight of established tire collection programs and
resinated wood residuals.
Consideration of over-accumulation of scrap tires resulting in
massive piles of discarded tires is not being cited as support for the
proposition that all transfers of secondary materials result in waste
treatment, but only for the proposition that the Agency needs to be
careful in examining whether secondary materials may be transferred as
commodity fuels or as wastes. Further, EPA is not relying on state
determinations regarding whether secondary materials are wastes,
specifically tires, but is instead allowing state tire programs that
meet certain parameters to affect an EPA determination that transferred
scrap tires are not wastes.
[[Page 15472]]
Any of EPA's decisions regarding specific materials, if challenged,
must stand or fall based on its individual merit. For example,
resinated wood residuals are routinely transferred between either
intra- or inter-company facilities and used as either ``furnish''
(i.e., raw materials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. The material
being transferred off-site is used and handled in the same manner that
resinated wood residuals are used when generated on-site (such that it
is impossible to distinguish between materials that are being used as a
raw material and those that are being used as a fuel). Accordingly,
these materials are not solid wastes whether used within the same
company or transferred to another company. See below, at sections V.B.6
for discussion of EPA's response to comments and the Agency rationale
for how resinated wood should be treated for purposes of this rule.
Other materials would be wastes based on the Agency's analysis of
the industry in general or, based on a lack of data or knowledge, an
effective presumption that recycling materials for a fuel is primarily
conducted within the control of the generator. For example, use of old
corrugated cardboard (OCC) rejects (clay, starches, other filler and
coating materials, as well as fiber) are not discarded when used within
the control of the generator, since these secondary materials are part
of the industrial process. OCC rejects can include, and are usually
burned in conjunction with, other fuels (such as bark) at pulp and
paper mills that recycle fibers. These materials are not generally
transferred outside the control of the generator.
Still other non-hazardous secondary materials may be processed or
extracted from wastes to produce fuel commodities. Examples include
tire-derived fuel processed from scrap tires retrieved from waste tire
piles, and coal refuse retrieved from legacy piles that have been
processed through the use of grizzlies, screens, and blending to
improve the quality, remove metal objects, and reduce the
concentrations of various constituents. To the extent that EPA has
indicated that particular categories of non-hazardous secondary
materials are wastes when transferred off-site to a third party, the
Agency provides companies with the opportunity to petition EPA for a
non-waste determination; we believe a petition process is essential
because many non-hazardous secondary materials are recycled and managed
in many different ways, and the Agency may lack the specific details in
certain cases to know whether or not such non-hazardous secondary
materials are or are not solid wastes.
Thus, EPA is not making a sweeping arbitrary assumption in
categorizing transferred secondary materials as discarded. In addition,
EPA is not, in any sense, forbidding economic reuse of such materials
by anyone other than the generator without prior government permission
(through the petition process). The effect of this regulation would
simply be to require the non-hazardous secondary materials designated
as wastes to be combusted only in facilities regulated under section
129 of the CAA, while non-waste fuels could be combusted under section
112 of the CAA.
EPA also disagrees with the comment's narrow citation to the Safe
Food case. Safe Food does not stand for the narrow proposition that
transferring material to another industry is not relevant for
determining whether material is discarded. The court in that case noted
that ``the term `discarded' cannot encompass materials that `are
destined for beneficial reuse or recycling in a continuous process by
the generating industry itself.' '' 35 F.3d at 1268. Further,
``materials destined for future recycling by another industry may be
considered `discarded.' '' Id. With respect to transferring material,
the court only said ``we have never said that RCRA compels the
conclusion that material destined for recycling in another industry is
necessarily `discarded.' '' Id. Rather, the key to understanding the
importance of Safe Food is the question `` `whether the agency's
interpretation of * * * `discarded' [is] permissible, that is,
reasonable and consistent with the statutory purpose.' '' 35 F.3d at
1269 (citations omitted).
The point of Safe Food is that the courts are to examine EPA's
interpretation based on whether it is reasonable. No one factor will be
determinative.
Thus, the comment is wrong to try to argue that a quotation in Safe
Food regarding ``vertical integration'' somehow means that the transfer
of a secondary material to another party is irrelevant for determining
whether a secondary material is a waste. Aside from the fact that EPA
finds no evidence of the relevance of ``vertical integration'' to this
regulation and no commenter has indicated its relevance, it is plain
from any reasonable analysis that transfer to another party, where a
generator of a secondary material relinquishes all control of the
material is certainly relevant to any determination whether a material
is a waste.
EPA is in no way claiming that such transfer is the definitive
criterion for discard. Instead, EPA has examined the issue of company-
to-company transfers in the context of specific secondary materials and
to the extent the Agency has found either discard or no legitimate
recycling, it is requiring companies to file a non-waste petition in
order to allow the Agency to review the specifics of their cases.
Further, the Agency will in the future solicit comment on additional
non-hazardous secondary materials that can be used as a non-waste fuel
both by the generator and outside the control of the generator. Under
today's rule, only scrap tires managed under established tire
collection programs and resinated wood are non-wastes when used both
within and outside generator control (see Sec. 241.3(b)(2). In
addition, citations to case law on abandonment issues between private
parties are not relevant to this case of government regulation. The
cases do not consider the factors that are relevant to EPA's
determination under this rule. In this rule, EPA needs to decide
whether secondary material is discarded in the first instance, and
whether the transfer represents a legitimate non-waste activity. To
represent a legitimate non-waste activity, if the material has not been
discarded in the first instance, it must be handled as a valuable
commodity, must have meaningful heating value, and must not have
contaminant levels that show the material is transferred to destroy
unwanted constituents instead of for its fuel value. A waste owner may
not be ``abandoning'' a waste when it sends it to another company, but
the non-hazardous secondary material is still a solid waste if the
receiver is not burning the secondary material legitimately as a fuel
(construction debris highly contaminated with lead paint).
EPA also disagrees with the comment that the Agency is inconsistent
by allowing the legitimacy criteria to suffice for generators, but not
for the transferred material. The issue is not whether legitimacy
suffices for materials under the control of the generator as opposed to
material transferred to another party. Rather, EPA is using the
legitimacy standard for generators in order to comply with the holdings
in the case law that secondary material recycled within a continuous
industrial process is not a waste. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule, secondary materials recycled or reused legitimately
under the control of the generator will cover all, or almost all,
secondary materials recycled or reused
[[Page 15473]]
in a continuous industrial process. See 75 FR 31886-87. EPA thus,
rejects the environmental groups' argument that any combustion of
secondary material is a waste. EPA has only decided that there is
greater likelihood that material will not be a waste if it is under the
control of the generator. If the generator keeps the material it would
indicate presumptive non-discard. However, the legitimacy criteria
serve as a check to make sure discard would not occur. For material
transferred to another party, as noted above, EPA has greater concern
since different incentives come into play for the generator as well as
the recipient, as evidenced by past careless treatment of secondary
materials.
Comment: EPA has no authority under section 129 of the CAA to
regulate the use of non-hazardous secondary materials as ingredients.
EPA's section 129 authority is limited to ``solid waste incineration
units,'' which the statute defines as units that ``combust'' solid
waste. This statutory definition does not say EPA can regulate units
that ``treat'' solid waste (as provided in RCRA subtitle C). Nor does
it say that EPA can regulate units that ``use'' solid waste. For
example, the feedstock for clinker that is placed into a Portland
Cement kiln is not ``combusted''--rather, it is incorporated into the
clinker product. Similarly, non-hazardous secondary materials that may
be used as substitutes for mined or virgin feedstock become
incorporated into the clinker product and are not ``combusted.''
EPA's Response: This comment is not relevant to this regulation,
which determines whether a secondary material is a solid waste, or not
a solid waste as defined by RCRA. Clearly, EPA has the authority to
interpret RCRA to decide whether non-hazardous secondary materials are
solid wastes or not. Whether EPA may cover ingredients used in
combustors under section 129 of the CAA is a matter for regulations
under that statute.
Comment: EPA asserts in its preamble that any material that is
discarded must be considered forever discarded (and therefore remain a
solid waste) no matter what value or use it may have to another person
who may retrieve the material. This logical leap defies common sense,
and is not in any manner compelled by the statutory language or
judicial precedent.
It is illogical and nonsensical to hold that a material must be
considered forever ``discarded'' if Party B comes upon the material,
removes it from its ``discarded'' venue, and takes it with him or her
for a bona fide use. Suppose a woman walks by a town dump and spies a
chest-of-drawers that has been thrown away (i.e., abandoned,
discarded). The piece of furniture is old, but it is perfectly usable
for a room in her house. She takes the chest of drawers and places it
in a guest bedroom and it now sits there full of clothes. To say the
chest sitting in that room is now a ``discarded'' material simply
defies the plain meaning of the word.
According to the comment, the RCRA subtitle C case API I, which
deals with hazardous waste under RCRA, in no way impairs EPA's ability
to craft a subtitle D rule that could allow for materials once deemed
to have been discarded to cease to be a solid waste when reused. The
comment acknowledges that in API I, the court disapproved of the
concept that a material that may have once been thrown away could
nevertheless ``cease to be a solid waste'' if it were being
beneficially reused, as it would no longer at that point be considered
a ``discarded material.'' The comment goes on to say, however, that the
court only stated that it believed it would be ``unlikely'' that EPA
could successfully maintain the position that a discarded material
could cease to be a solid waste when recycled. The court reasoned that
for EPA to reach such a conclusion, the Agency would have to reconcile
this position with RCRA's acknowledged objective to establish a cradle-
to-grave regulatory structure for the safe handling of hazardous
wastes.
The comment argues that this language of the opinion is a
``critical'' element of the decision and only applies to hazardous
wastes. Therefore, it does not apply to non-hazardous waste. The
comment goes on to say that EPA cites no case law, and they are aware
of none, in which a court has ruled that a discarded non-hazardous
secondary material must forever be deemed discarded no matter what
beneficial use it may subsequently be put to.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In the first
place, the Agency is not saying that wastes are ``forever'' discarded.
Wastes may be processed into materials that are not wastes. The
important point, here, is that a waste does not automatically lose its
waste designation solely because some person has found value in the
material. Something has to happen to that waste to make it a non-waste.
Judicial interpretations of the statutory definition of discard
very plainly hold that a material that has become a waste--because it
is discarded--may not lose its waste status ``just because a reclaimer
has purchased or finds value'' in the waste. ILCO at 1131; OWEN STEEL
at 150. Furthermore, in ABR, the court stated, ``The point of AMC II,
and for that matter API, is that once material qualifies as `solid
waste,'' something derived from it retains that designation even if it
might be reclaimed and reused at some future time.'' ABR at 1056.
EPA notes in a response to a comment elsewhere in this preamble
that these cases do not prevent the Agency from considering that wastes
may be processed in some way into non-waste products. Nevertheless, the
cases unmistakably hold that secondary materials do not lose their
waste status simply because they have value.
The commenter's reference to the API I case's mention of the
purposes behind the hazardous waste regulation's ``cradle to grave''
regime is not ``critical'' to the court's holding. The court only was
opining on a hypothetical situation should EPA return to the court in a
future case. It certainly was not necessary to the holding in the case
and must only be considered dicta. EPA believes it has crafted a valid
interpretation of the statute based on other relevant case law on the
subject.
EPA also acknowledges that persons may find value in materials that
have been thrown away, such as the chest of drawers to which the
comment refers. However, this regulation deals with fuels and
ingredients that are used in combustors, and EPA is not evaluating
other materials when beneficially used. In fact, EPA has specifically
indicated that the Agency is not making a determination that non-
hazardous secondary materials are, or are not, solid wastes for other
possible beneficial end uses. Such beneficial use determinations are
generally made by the states for these other end uses, and EPA will
continue to look to the states in making such determinations. Thus, EPA
does not need to resolve the hypothetical situation as to when the
chest of drawers becomes a non-waste.
Comment: In the proposed rule, the Agency indicated that the 2008
DSW Final Rule included a third part in the definition of ``under the
control of the generator.'' Specifically, the 2008 DSW Final Rule also
applies to hazardous secondary materials that are generated pursuant to
a written contract between a tolling contractor and a toll manufacturer
and legitimately reclaimed by the tolling contractor. For purposes of
that exclusion, a tolling contractor is a person who arranges for the
production of a product or intermediate made from specified raw or
virgin materials through a written contract with a toll manufacturer.
The
[[Page 15474]]
Agency requested comment on whether to include this option in the final
rule.
Few comments were received on tolling contractors. One commenter
stated that to the extent that such arrangements facilitate the
recycling or use of non-hazardous secondary materials and benefit the
environment by reusing such secondary materials that might otherwise be
disposed of, it should be included. A state commented, however, only
that tolling contracts should not be considered under the control of
the generator.
EPA's Response: We did not include tolling arrangements as being
``within the control of the generator'' as we viewed this as a specific
type of arrangement used in the production of secondary materials that
are not being used as fuels, and were unaware of these types of
contractual arrangements where both products and secondary material
fuels are sent to what we are calling tolling contractors, nor has any
comment informed the Agency of such arrangements for fuels.
Comment: In implementing RCRA, EPA must balance the statute's two
primary goals of (1) protecting human health and the environment and
(2) encouraging reuse and recycling. The second goal is particularly
critical in the RCRA subtitle D context. EPA's proposal, along with the
CISWI proposal, draws many lines that would impose major impediments on
recycle/reuse. Yet EPA never attempts to justify these choices dealing
with non-hazardous secondary materials on the grounds of protecting
human health and the environment.
EPA's failure to take both of these factors into account produces
results that impede reuse and recycling of non-hazardous secondary
materials with no benefit to health and the environment. The commenters
claim this is arbitrary and capricious and a failure of reasoned
decision making.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees that these policy goals provide the
legal basis for the Agency's determination whether secondary materials
are solid wastes--discarded within the ordinary meaning of the term.
Broad policy goals stated in the statute do not substitute for the
substantive statutory requirements which the Agency must follow. In the
NRDC case, the DC Circuit admitted that EPA may have legitimate policy
reasons for its decision. However, the Agency must still follow the
statute.
Yes, the Agency should encourage recycling, but it may not
encourage that use by allowing discarded materials to be considered
non-wastes. The overall congressional policies are limited by the
substantive statutory requirements. Yes, the Agency must protect human
health the environment, but its ability to do that is limited to its
ability to regulate material that is discarded--material that is a
solid waste. The Agency is establishing standards for determining if a
secondary material is a solid waste, in order to clearly identify which
combustion units are subject to CAA section 129 standards. We do note
that as part of the Agency's legitimacy criteria, we consider whether
there are excessive contaminants in the secondary material that is
combusted. This analysis delves into matters regarding whether the
secondary material is actually a waste.
Comment: In a similar vein, another industry comment argues that
the statutory definition of solid waste sets the outer limits of EPA's
regulatory authority under RCRA. However, EPA is neither required nor
authorized to go to the limits of that definition in each of its
regulatory programs. Each such program, according to this comment, is
aimed at specific dangers that the wastes it addresses may pose, and
each such program must take account other statutory purposes, such as
encouraging the beneficial reuse of secondary materials. EPA,
therefore, should exercise its authority to establish a definition of
waste that is tailored to address the problems at issue, and that does
not impermissibly infringe on other statutory goals.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, general
congressional policies that refer to encouraging recycling have no
place in EPA's determination as to whether a secondary material is a
waste or not. For purposes of this rule, EPA is evaluating which non-
hazardous secondary materials are discarded under the statute. CAA
section 129 requires that units burning solid waste, as defined by the
Administrator, are subject to emissions standards under that section.
In deciding which non-hazardous secondary materials are in fact
wastes, the Agency evaluated a number of circumstances and exercised
discretion to decide on how the definition of solid waste applies in
various circumstances. However, EPA cannot decide to develop a narrower
interpretation of what constitutes a waste simply because it does not
want to have the non-hazardous secondary materials burned under CAA
section129 instead of CAA section 112. EPA may not say material is not
discarded if, in fact, it is.
In this case, EPA is determining which non-hazardous secondary
materials are solid wastes. EPA has no authority to grant waivers
simply because it wishes to encourage recycling by making the
combustion of secondary materials less expensive.
With respect to RCRA subtitle C regulations, as has been noted
throughout this proceeding, EPA is not reopening any decisions. Any
commenter's subjective evaluation of whether a particular hazardous
waste regulation is more stringent than this regulation has no
relevance to whether a non-hazardous secondary material is discarded
for purposes of this regulation.
EPA has stated that secondary materials excluded from the
definition of solid waste under the subtitle C regulations will remain
non-wastes under this rule. We are not reopening the RCRA subtitle C
rules. EPA also notes that some comments have argued that the
legitimacy criteria do not apply to the subtitle C rules and,
therefore, should not apply to this rule. EPA disagrees with that
concept. In fact, the legitimacy criteria in some form apply to all
recycling, regardless of how it is formulated, even if there is a
specific exclusion under RCRA subtitle C.
2. Processing Requirements
Under the proposal, fuels or ingredients that are produced from the
processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary materials are not a
solid waste provided they meet the specified legitimacy criteria.
Comments from environmental groups rejected in its entirety any
processing requirement at all. According to these comments, a discarded
material remains a waste and cannot be rehabilitated to become a
commodity fuel. Any fuel derived from a waste must be combusted under
section 129 of the CAA.
On the other hand, industry commenters in general found the
proposed definitions of ``processing'' and ``sufficient processing''
unclear and the processing requirements generally too restrictive.
Several comments requested that EPA offer further explanation as to why
processing is necessary in the first instance. In particular, they
claimed that the degree of processing required by the proposed rule is
inappropriate and illogical, arguing that there is no reason to impose
an artificial and arbitrary requirement that materials first be
``transformed'' into something different.
Other commenters argued that secondary materials suitable for use
as a fuel or ingredient without processing are not solid wastes when
combusted, even if they have been previously discarded. In other words,
if previously discarded, non-hazardous secondary materials can be used
as is, as fuels or as ingredients, then such non-hazardous
[[Page 15475]]
secondary materials are not solid waste. As long as the fuel or
ingredient meets the legitimacy criteria, affected parties should not
have to process the material, as doing so would be burdensome and
unnecessary. Other commenters asserted that minimal processing should
be sufficient for a fuel not to be considered a solid waste.
a. Comments From Environmental Groups
Comment: EPA is incorrect in defining discarded materials to be
considered non-waste product fuels if they have been ``sufficiently
processed.'' In the view of this commenter, the DC Circuit has held
plainly and repeatedly that the term solid waste unambiguously includes
fuels made from processed secondary materials. The comment refers to
dicta in the DC Circuit opinions of AMC I and ABR, in which the court
states that EPA may regulate used oil recyclers that collect discarded
used oils, distill them, and sell the resulting material for use as
fuel in boilers. In addition, the comment cites cases in other
circuits--ILCO and Owen Steel--to the effect that wastes may be
recycled and that their recycling is irrelevant to the determination as
to whether they are wastes. In particular, the comment cites the facts
in ILCO where the court found used batteries to be discarded within the
everyday use of the term and that their secondary character as
recyclable material is irrelevant to that determination. In addition,
the comment cites the Owen Steel facts where steel slag recycling
activities were considered waste treatment even though the recycled
slag was used commercially. According to the comment, a material is
discarded and the fact of discard is not changed just because a
reclaimer has purchased or finds value in the components of such
secondary materials.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with the comment, and finds that the
commenter reads too much into these cases. EPA has repeatedly stated in
this rulemaking that it agrees that wastes may be recycled and that the
fact of discard does not change solely because the waste may have
value. As stated earlier, EPA has specifically indicated that the
Agency is not making a determination that non-hazardous secondary
materials are, or are not, solid wastes for other possible beneficial
end uses. These cases do not, however, stand for the proposition that
any product resulting from the recycling must be a waste. Such a view
would make almost every aluminum can from which we drink our sodas or
newspapers on which we read the news ``solid wastes.''
With respect to AMC I and ABR, the reference to regulating used oil
processing into fuels that are sold is, first, not necessary to the
decisions. Those cases overturned rules where EPA was overly broad in
its regulation. The cases were not deciding which situations constitute
proper regulation by EPA. Nevertheless, the DC Circuit, by the terms of
its dicta, was only referring to regulating the processing activity for
the used oil. The court was not referring to regulation of the
resulting material that was sold to boilers as a fuel. In fact, the
court acknowledges that the fuel is sold to boilers and in no way
opines on whether the resulting fuel is a waste. In this rule, also,
EPA is not saying that the processing of discarded material is excluded
from regulation as a waste activity, but only that the resulting fuel
is not a waste if it has been sufficiently processed and meets the
criteria of fuels that are not wastes--referred to as meeting the
legitimacy criteria.
As for the other recycling cases, EPA has admitted that the mere
fact of recycling does not change the nature of a secondary material
that has been discarded. Again, AMC I and ABR cases are not directly on
point for deciding whether non-waste products can be extracted from
discarded material because the courts were not called upon to decide
that issue. In both cases, however, the courts refer to resulting
products that were sold commercially.
In the ILCO case, the issue was whether reclaimed lead plates from
discarded batteries were recycled wastes or raw materials used to
produce steel ingots. The court found that the lead plates were wastes,
but only noted that the lead ingots made from the wastes were sold
commercially and did not opine as to whether the ingots were wastes.
EPA argues that the ingots were not wastes, since they were processed
into valuable commodities.
In Owen Steel, the court found that slag from steel production was
a waste and the area where the slag was processed was a waste treatment
facility. The cured slag was sold for various commercial processes,
including roadbed construction. The court was not asked to opine, nor
did it, on whether the roadbed material was a waste. Again, EPA argues
that the cured slag could be a product produced from the waste, even
though the processing activity involved waste treatment.
EPA does admit that the cases are not directly on point regarding
the Agency's determination that discarded materials may be processed
into legitimate product fuels. The cases do seem to recognize, however,
that products made from wastes may be products and not wastes.
More importantly, the cases do not refute EPA's essential logic
that fuel or ingredients processed or extracted from discarded
secondary material is analogous to many products that are processed or
extracted from non-hazardous wastes, such as aluminum cans or recycled
paper made from recycled secondary materials. The cases indicate that
the same logic could apply to fuel processed from used oil, lead ingots
made from battery lead plates, or roadbed construction material made
from steel slag. This applies even though the processing or extraction
activities involve waste treatment. EPA believes that, at a minimum,
there are circumstances in which the resulting materials are not
wastes.
EPA's task in the current rule is to decide when such processing
results in a product or a waste. To resolve the issue, EPA has
identified conditions on the extent of processing that has been
conducted. That is, the processed discarded material may become a non-
waste fuel or ingredient if certain conditions are met--that is
sufficient processing has occurred. If so, and if the material meets
the legitimacy criteria, the fuel or ingredient product would be
considered a non-waste material.
b. Comments From Industry Groups
Comment: A number of industry commenters object to the processing
requirement for discarded non-hazardous secondary materials to become
non-waste fuels or ingredients. These comments contrast with the
argument of environmental groups that no processing would transform
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials into non-waste fuels or
ingredients, a contention to which the Agency responds to earlier in
this preamble.
Industry commenters argue that the legitimacy criteria are
sufficient and that there should be no processing requirement for non-
hazardous secondary materials that were discarded and could now be used
as fuels or ingredients. The general argument is that the very act of
retrieving a previously discarded material for use as a fuel or an
ingredient proves that the material is once again wanted by the
consumer, regardless of the type or extent of processing which the
secondary material must undergo. According to these comments, the mere
act of removing the previously discarded material from the environment
for use ``conclusively'' demonstrates that the non-hazardous
[[Page 15476]]
secondary material has value as a product or intermediate--otherwise,
no one would invest the significant costs associated with the recovery
of these materials.
Various activities were specifically mentioned--recovery of coal
combustion byproducts from landfills, extraction of coal refuse from
mine sites and used whole tires retrieved from tire piles. With respect
to these non-hazardous secondary materials, commenters argue that the
excessive threshold level of processing makes no sense and that EPA
should allow only a minimal amount of processing to convert a waste
into a product fuel or ingredient.
In particular, the comments argue that normal processing of coal
refuse (mining rejects) should be sufficient to constitute processing
needed to convert previously discarded materials to legitimate fuels/
ingredients. The same material mined to be used in today's combustion
technology is processed in that way and there is no difference between
the mined materials.\24\ Also, whole tires retrieved from waste tire
piles may need only minimal processing for use in cement kilns, such as
removal of excess water and dirt, mud, and debris. Whole tires from
newer stacks or piles often need no physical processing whatsoever. In
contrast, EPA argues that scrap tires cannot be considered sufficiently
``processed'' unless they are physically shredded and undergo metals
removal processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ As discussed later in this preamble, the Agency has changed
its view regarding coal refuse that was previously abandoned, such
that if the discarded coal refuse is processed in the same way as
coal is today, the Agency would not consider the processed coal
refuse a solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of a threshold level of processing that must take
place before a discarded non-hazardous material is considered a
legitimate fuel or ingredient would also have the perverse effect of
applying different standards to identical materials. For example, there
is no difference in the coal refuse or coal combustion byproducts that
are recovered from landfills for use in a fluidized bed combustion unit
or in the cement manufacturing process.
Some comments claim that under EPA's hazardous waste regulations,
only minimal processing, such as baling or sorting, is required for
scrap metal to be excluded from the definition of solid waste. The
scrap metal, which would otherwise be a hazardous waste, may be sent
into high-temperature environments, such as electric arc furnaces at
steel mills and aluminum smelters. EPA had stated that this is a good
example of where the level of processing necessary to convert a waste
material to a non-waste material is dependent on the material itself.
The comments claim that this is inconsistent with requiring used tires
that have been discarded to not to be considered sufficiently
``processed,'' unless they are physically shredded and undergo metals
removal processing.
EPA's Response: As discussed in the case law elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA is constrained by the statutory definition of solid waste
under RCRA and the fact that case law holds that a discarded material
does not lose its status as a waste solely because it has value or may
be beneficially reused. Allowing certain non-hazardous secondary
materials to be combusted as a fuel under the section 112 standards of
the CAA may have beneficial policy objectives. However, EPA may not
base its decision on the policy, but must evaluate whether a secondary
material is a solid waste under RCRA. Specifically, the DC Circuit in
NRDC would not allow EPA to establish a policy basis for determining
whether section 112 or 129 applies. Thus, non-hazardous secondary
materials that are wastes and are used as a fuel/ingredient in a
combustion unit must be used in section 129 units, whereas non-
hazardous secondary materials that are not wastes and are used as a
fuel/ingredient in a combustion unit may be used in section 112 units.
The court stated that ``the distinction EPA draws may well be
reasonable'' referring to EPA's distinguishing between section 112
combustors designed to recover energy and section 129 incinerators
meant to destroy materials. NRDC at 1260. The court, however, was very
clear that this is not the line drawn by Congress, which intends that
any waste material, even if burned for energy recovery, must be burned
in section 129 combustion units.
The Agency, however, believes that the case law would not prohibit
the processing or extracting of products from non-hazardous secondary
materials that were once wastes. This latter view is controversial as
evidenced by the comments from environmental groups, which claim that
no amount of processing can convert a waste into a legitimate fuel or
ingredient product. EPA, however, does not believe it may interpret the
statute or the case law to allow a clearly discarded secondary material
to become a non-waste solely because it has value.
EPA sympathizes with the commenters' concern that the processing
requirement could have the effect of applying different standards to
identical materials, such as scrap tires. The Agency, however, is
constrained by the statute and case law. If the non-hazardous secondary
material is not discarded in the first instance and is legitimately
recycled--that is, meets the legitimacy criteria, it is not discarded.
Once the material has been discarded--thrown into waste piles or on
stacks--there is no choice. Something other than mere recycling must
happen to the material before it may lose its waste designation. The
mere fact that secondary materials may have value after being discarded
is not sufficient to rehabilitate it.
Accordingly, EPA is not making any changes to the processing
requirements for discarded scrap tires, although the Agency is
providing that tires harvested from vehicles do not need to be
processed if they are harvested off of the vehicles and are managed
under the oversight of an established tire collection program and are
legitimately used as a fuel in a combustion unit (refer to Section
V.B.5 Scrap Tires) to be considered a non-waste fuel.
For coal refuse, however, EPA has decided that for the final rule,
to make some modifications to its determinations regarding sufficient
processing. In the proposal, EPA was still considering that the coal
refuse that was abandoned would require additional processing, even
though they were the same material as coal refuse currently generated
and used in fluidized bed combustors as traditional mined coal. EPA has
modified its view to provide that the discarded coal refuse that is
processed in the same way as coal is today would not be considered a
waste when combusted. For more information on the rationale for this
decision, see Section V.B.8 for a discussion of the comments received
on coal refuse and our response to those comments.
Finally, in response to the point that minimal processing is
permitted to exclude scrap metal from the definition of solid waste in
EPA's hazardous waste regulation, the Agency first states that it is
not reopening the hazardous waste regulations, including the reasoning
in those regulations. Besides, the reference to scrap metal in the
hazardous waste regulation was only used in the preamble to note the
fact that the extent of processing in general depends on the nature of
the material, as we have noted elsewhere in the preamble to today's
rule. Any comparison, other than the very general one that processing
depends on the material, is not being considered by EPA. Whatever the
reasoning provided in those regulations, EPA did not cite the scrap
metal regulation as support for the processing
[[Page 15477]]
definition. The Agency also points out that the scrap metal is not
combusted.
B. Comments on Specific Materials Used as Fuel
1. Traditional Fuels \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Traditional fuels are not considered secondary materials
and therefore, are not considered a solid waste unless they
themselves have been discarded. However, because the Agency received
comments regarding ``traditional fuels,'' including whether certain
materials should be considered a traditional fuel, the Agency is
addressing those comments in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion describes how EPA has analyzed what is a
traditional fuel in the ANPRM and the proposal. Next, the Agency shows
how it considered various comments on the concept of traditional fuels.
Section VII.A, based on these analyses and all information in the
rulemaking record, explains the Agency's decision on what constitutes a
traditional fuel.
EPA does wish to clarify, however, that it is using the term,
``traditional,'' more in the sense that we have a product that is
created for its use as a fuel. Some traditional fuels have been used
for a long time, while others are ``traditional'' only in the sense
that they are created in the ``traditional'' way that a product is
created (or mined), even though they may be newly developed fuels. For
example, coal refuse that was formerly not able to be used as a fuel
may now be used in fluidized bed systems. Perhaps, more obvious is the
fact that petroleum, itself, would not have been considered a
traditional fuel in the early 1800s, nor would uranium.
The ANPRM categorized as traditional fuels cellulosic biomass
(e.g., wood) and fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas), as well
as fossil fuel derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal
tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast
furnace gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas). Traditional
fuels are those that have been burned historically as fuels and have
been managed as valuable products. They are unused products that have
not been discarded. The ANPRM also stated that unadulterated or clean
wood collected from forest fire clearance activities and trees and such
wood found in disaster debris, likewise, constitute traditional fuels.
This basic concept of traditional fuels was discussed at 74 FR 53.
The ANPRM also discussed other legitimate ``alternative'' fuels
that have not been previously discarded generally noting that what
constitutes a new ``fuel'' reflects the availability of the fuel
materials generally, the demand for the fuel, and technology
developments. Thus, there is a category of materials that are
legitimate alternative fuels that may not have been historically used
as fuels, but that are nonetheless legitimate fuels today because of
changes in technology and in the energy market. In cases where these
legitimate alternative fuels have not been discarded, EPA said that it
would not consider them to be solid wastes. This is explained in the
ANPRM at 74 FR 56.
The ANPRM stated that much of the biomass currently used as
alternative fuels are not solid waste since they have not been
discarded in the first instance and are legitimate fuel products. It
noted that biomass can include a wide range of alternative fuels, and
can be broken down into two different categories--cellulosic biomass
and non-cellulosic biomass. Cellulosic biomass was described to include
forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, clean and
unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, and tree harvesting residuals from
logging and sawmill materials), food scraps, pulp and paper mill wood
residuals (e.g., hog fuel, such as clean and unadulterated bark,
sawdust, trim screenings; and residuals from tree harvesting),\26\ and
agricultural residues (e.g., straw, corn husks, peanut shells, and
bagasse). Non-cellulosic biomass was described to include manures and
gaseous fuels (e.g., from landfills and manures) (74 FR 56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The ANPRM description of cellulosic biomass inadvertently
repeated the same material--``tree harvesting residuals from
logging'' and ``residuals from tree harvesting.'' Descriptions of
cellulosic biomass in the proposed rule and this final rule deleted
the second reference to residuals from tree harvesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANPRM stated that biomass, especially cellulosic biomass, has a
comparable composition to traditional fuel products due to the nature
of the plants and animals (i.e., they would not be considered to have
additional ``contaminants''). Thus, if they are managed as valuable
commodities and have meaningful heating value, they would not be
considered solid wastes.
The ANPRM distinguished the traditional fuels from non-traditional
alternative fuels to decide whether they are discarded, or whether they
are legitimate alternative fuels. These fuels are those in use today
that the Agency was evaluating, and continues to evaluate, to determine
whether they have been discarded and whether they are legitimate
alternative fuels (e.g., construction and demolition materials, scrap
plastics, non-hazardous non-halogenated solvents and lubricants, and
wastewater treatment sludge) (74 FR 56).
The ANPRM also described secondary materials EPA considered to be
questionable as to whether they are legitimate fuels because they lack
adequate heating value (wet biomass), or because they may contain
contaminants that are significantly higher in concentration than those
in traditional fuel products to the degree that sham recycling is
indicated. The secondary materials that were described in the ANPRM
that could fall into this category include polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
halogenated plastics, chromated copper arsenate (CCA) lumber, creosote
lumber, copper-based treated lumber, lead-based treated lumber, and
secondary mill residues, such as board, trim and breakage from the
manufacture of reconstituted wood/panel products.
The proposed rule continued to recognize that traditional fuels, as
noted above, are not solid wastes, but added to that group clean
cellulosic biomass and on-specification used oil (75 FR 31856).
Specifically, in the proposal, ``clean'' biomass material was defined
as a non-hazardous secondary material that has not been altered (either
chemically or through some type of production process), such that it
contains contaminants at concentrations normally associated with virgin
biomass materials (the description of ``clean'' is being modified
slightly for today's rule, see discussion below). Clean cellulosic
biomass was described to include forest-derived biomass (e.g., green
wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim,
and tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials), corn
stover and other biomass crops used specifically for energy production
(e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses), bagasse and other crop
residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected from forest fire
clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris,
and clean biomass from land clearing operations (75 FR 31856).
Essentially, ``clean'' biomass was that biomass material that was
simply picked up from its environment and burned for fuel. EPA
requested comment on whether other types of cellulosic biomass should
be designated as clean biomass, and thus a traditional fuel (75 FR
31856).
EPA also proposed to add on-specification used oil to the list of
``traditional'' fuels based on the argument that it meets the Agency's
view of fuels that have been managed as valuable fuel products rather
than being managed as waste materials. 75 FR 31864. The Agency stated
that under 40 CFR part 279, once used oil is determined to be on-spec,
it is no longer regulated under the used oil management standards. This
means that once the marketer complies with the
[[Page 15478]]
requirements for analysis and record retention, notification, and
record tracking shipment to on-specification burners, the oil is no
longer subject to other management standards. Moreover, the on-
specification used oil contains contaminants at levels below the
maximum concentration limits established in the standards, such that
they are either at the same concentration or a lower concentration than
virgin refined fuel oil.
EPA acknowledged in the proposal that changes in technology and in
the energy market over time may result in additional materials being
economically viable to be used as alternative ``traditional'' fuels. It
also may not always be clear whether a fuel material is a traditional
fuel. We agreed with commenters to the ANPRM that this rulemaking
should be flexible to account for increasing use and changes in
commodities, technologies, markets, and fuel prices. We, therefore,
requested comment on whether other fuels in use today should be
classified as traditional fuels, as well as whether to provide a
petition process that would allow a facility or person to request that
EPA determine whether the fuel that they burn qualifies as a
traditional fuel.
As also discussed in Section VII, the definition of traditional
fuels has been modified in today's rule. The new definition encompasses
two categories of fuels: (1) ``Historically managed'' fuels, as
identified in the proposed rule, and (2) ``alternative'' fuels, as
discussed in the ANPRM. Through this revised definition, EPA is
recognizing that changes in technology and in the energy market over
time have resulted in additional materials being economically viable to
be used as alternative ``traditional'' fuels. The definitions of
traditional fuels and clean cellulosic biomass are codified in today's
rule (Sec. 241.2). ``Traditional fuels'' is defined in today's final
rule as materials that are produced as fuels and are unused products
that have not been discarded and therefore, are not solid waste
including: (1) Fuels that have been historically managed as valuable
fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, including
fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil and natural gas), their derivatives
(e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas,
synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered
gaseous butane, and coke oven gas) and cellulosic biomass (virgin
wood); and (2) alternative fuels developed from virgin materials that
can now be used as fuel products, including used oil which meets the
specifications outlined in 40 CFR 279.11, currently mined coal refuse
that previously had not been usable as coal, and clean cellulosic
biomass. Clean cellulosic biomass is also codified in today's rule
(Sec. 241.2) and includes those residuals that are akin to traditional
cellulosic biomass, such as forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood,
forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark), sawdust, trim, and
tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials), corn
stover and other biomass crops used specifically for energy production
(e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses), bagasse and other crop
residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected from forest fire
clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris,
clean biomass from land clearing operations, and clean construction and
demolition wood. ``Clean'' cellulosic biomass is cellulosic biomass
that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally
associated with virgin biomass materials. As indicated above, this
description of clean is modified slightly in today's rule. The previous
description included non-hazardous secondary material that has not been
altered (either chemically or through some type of production process),
such that it contains contaminants at concentrations normally
associated with virgin biomass materials.
Traditional fuels as described above are not secondary materials or
solid wastes.
Comment: Several industry commenters suggested that EPA include
off-spec used oil, scrap tires, resinated wood products, treated wood,
pulp and paper mill residues, and recycling process residuals in its
definition of traditional fuels. They claim that these materials have
histories of use as valuable fuel products. Another commenter suggested
that secondary materials from new processes to meet Renewable Fuel
Standards (RFS) should be defined as traditional fuels. According to
the commenter, not defining those materials as traditional fuels could
lead to reduced beneficial use, could negatively impact the economics
of these newly developing processes, and could increase the use of
conventional fossil fuels. This could significantly harm the prospects
of reaching RFS goals.
EPA's Response: For a discussion of comments and EPA responses
related to each of the individual materials listed above and their use
as traditional fuels, see their respective subsections within Section
V.B. Regarding the RFS program, the Agency disagrees with the commenter
that materials from processes to meet the RFS standard should be
defined as traditional fuels. Under the RFS program, EPA is responsible
for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that
transportation fuel sold in the U.S. contains a minimum volume of
renewable fuel. Today's rule addresses only the use of non-hazardous
secondary materials as a fuel or ingredient in stationary source
combustion units (regulated under CAA section 112 and 129), and does
not impact other end uses of these materials, including their use as a
transportation fuel.
Comment: There are many other materials that might be considered as
secondary materials, but because of their energy content, have been
identified as viable fuels, particularly as the cost of fossil fuels
have increased over time. Citing phrases from the proposed rule, one
commenter stated that ``Changes in * * * the energy market,'' as well
as systems designed and installed by cement plants in order to manage
these materials (``changes in technology''), would suggest that
materials, such as plastics, paper and paper residues, and tires should
qualify under this definition of ``traditional fuels.''
EPA's Response: As indicated in the discussion above, EPA agrees
that there is a category of materials that are legitimate alternative
fuels that have not been discarded and may not have been traditionally
used as fuels (i.e., a product that is created for its use as a fuel),
but that are nonetheless legitimate fuels today because of changes in
technology and in the energy market. Such alternative fuels would
include clean cellulosic biomass, currently mined coal refuse, and on-
specification used oil. See the respective subsections within Section
V.B for a further discussion of each of these materials. As discussed
in the proposed rule, the Agency believes materials, such as plastics,
paper and paper residues and tires that have not been removed from
vehicles and managed under an established tire collection program
typically have been discarded, and thus would not be considered
traditional fuels or legitimate alternative fuels.
Comment: Another commenter stated that EPA does not say why it
regards certain fuels as ``traditional'' and, indeed, stresses that the
term ``traditional'' ``should be flexible to account for increasing use
and changes in commodities, technologies, markets, and fuel prices.''
Thus, EPA makes clear that the term ``traditional fuels'' will
accommodate fuels that are anything, but ``traditional.'' EPA provides
no basis at all for assuming that none of the fuels
[[Page 15479]]
it labels ``traditional'' are not actually waste.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. As described in
the ANPRM and proposed rule, traditional fuels, such as fossil fuels
have been burned historically as fuels and have been managed as
valuable products. They are considered unused products and are not
secondary materials and are not solid wastes unless discarded. We added
``alternative fuels'' to the definition of traditional fuel in today's
rule to recognize that changes in technology and in the energy market
have resulted in additional materials being economically viable to be
used as alternative ``traditional'' fuels. The definition is codified
in Sec. 241.2 in response to comments received on the proposal and to
provide clarity in the application and the meaning of traditional fuel.
Comment: Other commenters suggested that, in order to further
clarify the definition of traditional fuel, if a fuel was on record as
being used before a specific year, e.g., 1980, that it be categorized
as a traditional fuel. Still other commenters suggested that additional
rule text is needed to clarify that non-hazardous secondary materials
used traditionally as fuels are not solid wastes. Finally, to address
any ambiguity about which materials are traditional fuels, another
commenter stated that EPA should include a petition process in the rule
that would allow sources to seek a determination on whether a material
may be considered a traditional fuel.
EPA's Response: As described in the ANPRM and proposed rule,
traditional fuels, such as fossil fuels have been burned historically
as fuels and have been managed as valuable products. They are
considered unused products and are not secondary materials unless
discarded. We do not agree that a specific year should be identified to
define historically managed traditional fuels. First, it is not clear
what year should be selected and why and what the basis for picking a
particular year would be. In addition, as we noted in the proposal, the
wide variability of historic use and management of this category of
fuels does not lend itself to identification of a specific year. As
discussed above, EPA does wish to clarify that it is using the term,
``traditional,'' more in the sense that we have a product that is
created for its use as a fuel. Some traditional fuels have been used
for a long time, while others are ``traditional'' only in the sense
that they are created in the ``traditional'' way that a product is
created (or mined), even though they may be newly developed fuels.
The Agency received only a few comments that supported a petition
process for traditional fuels. In light of the time and resource
intensive nature of such a process for the petitioner, the Agency
believes that the revised codified definition in today's rule together
with the preamble discussion should provide the basic guidance needed
for the regulated facility to determine whether the material qualifies
as a traditional fuel. Therefore, today's rule does not include a
petition process for an Agency determination that a material is, or is
not, a traditional fuel. However, any person can petition EPA under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), section 7004 of RCRA, and general
principles of administrative law for modifications to its regulations.
Thus, if a person believes that additional materials should be included
as a traditional fuel or alternative fuel, they may petition EPA to
request such a change through rulemaking. In addition to the specific
changes requested, the petition would also need to include a
justification and rationale for the change.
Comments: ``Hogged fuel'' should be added to the list of ``clean''
biomass materials. Hogged fuel is bark and other wood removed from the
tree that cannot be chipped and used in making pulp, paper, and wood
products.
EPA's Response: We believe that the materials described by the
commenter as ``hogged fuel'' are currently covered by the terms ``clean
and unadulterated bark'' and ``tree harvesting residuals from logging
and sawmill materials'' within the definition of traditional fuel.
However, we are aware that there are varying definitions of ``hogged
fuel'' and point the readers to the sections describing traditional
fuel and secondary materials to determine if their hogged fuel would be
considered a type of traditional fuel or a non-hazardous secondary
material.
2. Manure
The proposed rule explained that the Agency lacked sufficient data
to evaluate whether manure burned for energy recovery is a waste. As a
result, we did not take a position one way or the other, but rather
requested comment, information and data on the legitimacy criteria,
which are designed to determine whether a non-hazardous secondary
material when combusted is a waste. Specifically, these criteria deal
with the levels of the various contaminants in manure, the energy
content of the manure, and on how manure is handled from its point of
generation to the point it is used as a fuel.
The proposal also stated, however, that if manure is processed into
biofuels (for example, by anaerobic digesters), such biofuels would be
considered a legitimate non-waste fuel that has been processed from a
non-hazardous secondary material provided ``the biofuel'' meets the
legitimacy criteria--that is, provided it is managed as a valuable
commodity, has a meaningful heating value and contains contaminants at
levels that are comparable to or lower than those in traditional fuels.
The proposal again acknowledged, however, that we had limited data on
biofuels that are produced from animal manures, and requested that
commenters provide additional data on the extent to which manures are
currently processed into biofuels, as well as data to support whether
biofuels produced from manure meet our legitimacy criteria. See 75 FR
at 31863.
Comment: The Agency received comments both supporting and opposing
the designation of manure as a waste. Specifically, two commenters
asserted that poultry litter that is burned as a fuel poses health
hazards (e.g., from arsenic that is added to poultry feed), but
provided no data to support this position. Another comment submitted in
response to the ANPRM stated that, due to the nature of manure, there
is the possibility of widespread environmental harm due to the release
of pathogens from animal manure, and that concentrated animal feeding
operation (CAFO) wastes are known to contain heavy metals, halogens,
dioxins, and other hazardous compounds. They assert chicken litter has
elevated arsenic levels and that swine waste has high amounts of
ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Still another commenter suggested
that poultry litter that is burned in power plants emit more pollutants
per million Btus when compared to coal fired power plants. Another
commenter referenced a 2008 report that described the risks associated
with CAFOs.\27\ This report stated that CAFOs are sited in rural
communities that bear the brunt of the harm caused by CAFOs, including
the frequent presence of foul odors and water contaminated by nitrogen
and pathogens, and that the use of antibiotics in CAFOs, especially for
non-therapeutic purposes, such as growth promotion, contributes to the
[[Page 15480]]
development of anti-biotic resistant pathogens that are more difficult
to treat. Finally, one Midwest state commented that when manure supply
significantly exceeds demand for manure as a fertilizer, the excess is
treated as a waste and should be regulated as a waste under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Gurian-Sherman, Doug, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of
Confined Animal Feeding Operations, Union of Concerned Scientists
(April 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, a commenter argued that EPA should not classify
poultry litter as a solid waste and provided some contaminant data on
poultry litter generated in the United Kingdom.\28\ Another commenter
described how their company collects poultry litter from growers for
use as a fuel in dedicated (off-site) biomass power plants. The
commenter asserts that the poultry litter satisfies all the legitimacy
criteria. Specifically, this commenter describes operations (and
argues) that the poultry litter is managed as a valuable product by the
poultry litter generators and transporters, as well as by the power
plants. The commenter describes poultry litter generators as collecting
the litter on a continual basis and storing it in enclosed poultry
barns. The poultry litter is then transported in completely covered
trucks to the power plant where it is unloaded in a fully enclosed fuel
hall and is tested for fuel quality to ensure contractual obligations
are being met by the growers. After sampling, the trucks dump the
litter into a concrete reception pit within the fuel hall. Then, before
being combusted, the commenter indicates that the biomass fuel is
processed (e.g., processed in a ``de-lumper'' followed by a disc
screen) to breakdown the clumps of material and remove incidental non-
combustible tramp materials. The commenter also asserts that poultry
litter satisfies the contaminant legitimacy criterion, but only
provided data on sulfur and chlorine levels, noting the reported
chlorine levels averaged 0.7 percent (on a dry basis). They also
provided data on the heating values of poultry litter that ranged from
3-4,000 Btu/lb, explaining that this material is a self-sustaining fuel
(requiring no supplemental fuel), although they also note in their
comments that the poultry litter is mixed with other biomass before
being used as a fuel. The developer of this plant has indicated that
they have proposals to build similar type plants in North Carolina,
Virginia, and Georgia, but has not received approval from local
authorities. Another firm has a proposal for a plant in Connecticut,
designed to run on litter from an egg farm, but funding for this plant
dried up as a result of the U.S. financial crisis. Additionally, two
power plants (one in Texas and one in California), each currently
mothballed, but scheduled to reopen in 2011, would use cattle manure as
feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This commenter reported poultry litter as having sulfur,
chlorine, and nitrogen levels of 0.35%, 0.16%, and 3.3%,
respectively, and a net heating value of 4,900 Btu/lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, two states commented that manure is excluded from the
definition of solid waste under their laws and regulations. One of
these states excludes manure from being defined as a solid waste when
it is returned to the soil as fertilizer or as a soil conditioner,
while the other exempts it from its statutory definition of solid
waste.
Regarding our request for comment on the extent to which manures
are currently processed into biofuels, as well as data to support
whether biofuels meet the legitimacy criteria, one state referenced a
June 2009 Report to Congress \29\ that reviewed the current commercial
use of manure to energy systems, and found that few exist, and that it
is unlikely in the near term future for more to be developed due to
technological and economic barriers. Another state commented that they
were aware of one gasification system that has been built on a pilot
scale that uses chicken and poultry litter as a feedstock. Another
commenter stated that about 120 dairy farms and 30 hog farms use manure
as a feedstock for anaerobic digesters which are designed to capture
the methane gas in manure. Most farms then burn the gas as a feedstock
for on-farm electrical generation, which can be used to off-set the
farm's purchases and to sell electricity to the power grid. This
commenter also noted that one very large farm in the Phoenix area
further cleans the methane and sells it to a natural gas company whose
pipeline runs next to the farm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ USDA, June 2009. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy
Report to Congress. Economic Research Service. June 2009, pp. 32-39.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap/ap037/ap037.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tribe requested that EPA finalize legitimacy criteria that does
not discourage the development of biogas technology since it is a clean
carbon-neutral fuel needed to help address climate change. This Tribe
explained that its renewable energy plans focus, in part, on production
of biogas from animal, cheese, and other organic material, and
requested that EPA either exempt biogas from the contaminant legitimacy
criterion or require that, overall, contaminants in gaseous fuels not
be ``significantly higher'' in concentration than contaminants found in
traditional fuel products that the combustion unit is designed to burn.
The Tribe is concerned that a direct numerical comparison of
contaminant levels of biogas to natural gas that requires all
contaminants in biogas to be equivalent or below the concentrations
found in natural gas would discourage the development of biogas
technology.
EPA's Response: First, based on the information provided to us, we
could not make a blanket determination that all manure is a traditional
fuel or that it is a solid waste. However, upon reviewing the few
comments and data received, we conclude that animal manure that is used
as a fuel ``as generated'' does not satisfy the legitimacy criteria,
and thus, if combusted ``as generated,'' is a solid waste. However, as
we discuss in other parts of today's preamble, there are circumstances
where manure would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a
fuel for energy recovery. We discuss these circumstances below. In
addition, we recognize that manure can have other beneficial uses and
emphasize that we are not making a solid waste determination on those
other uses through this rulemaking.
Specifically, we find that the levels of certain pollutants, such
as nitrogen and chlorine, in certain types of manure, as generated, may
not be comparable to those levels found in traditional fuels that
otherwise would be burned. This is based on limited data found in a
North Carolina State University \30\ study that indicate some types of
manure have higher levels of nitrogen and chlorine when compared to
traditional fuels that otherwise would be burned in the energy recovery
device.\31\ Regarding the commenter's reference to pathogens, pathogens
are not included as a contaminant in today's rule, since that
definition focuses on those constituents identified in the CAA that EPA
will be evaluating to determine whether to establish emission standards
(see also the discussion in V.D.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Animal and Poultry Manure Production & Characterization.
North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service.
Raleigh, NC. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/awm/program/barker/a&pmp&c/.
\31\ Some manures were listed as having the following mean
levels for chlorine and nitrogen: Cl--1% by weight and N--3.5% by
weight reported as total Kjeldahl nitrogen as N. By comparison, coal
contains chlorine levels ranging from as low as 0.01% to as high as
0.74 percent and nitrogen levels ranging from 0.6% to 1.9%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also find that manure, as generated, that is used as a fuel does
not satisfy our meaningful heating value criteria, since the limited
data we received shows that manure, as generated, has heating values
lower than 5,000 Btus/lb, as-fired. In fact, one commenter noted that
for manure to be
[[Page 15481]]
considered to have fuel value, that it typically should have a moisture
content of less than 25 percent, and manure, as generated, typically
has a higher moisture content. We also note that to satisfy the
legitimacy criteria, today's final rule requires that facilities that
burn non-hazardous secondary materials with a heating value of less
than 5,000 Btus/lb would need to demonstrate that such non-hazardous
secondary materials have meaningful heating values by describing
whether the energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover
meaningful energy from the manure (see Section V.D.2).\32\ While one
commenter provided data to show that a power plant that is dedicated to
burning poultry litter would meet the meaningful heating value
criteria, even though the Btu content of the poultry litter is less
than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fired, we believe that these limited data can't
be used to suggest that all or most manure that has a heating value of
less than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fired, could meet this demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ As we note elsewhere in today's preamble, this
demonstration would be self-implementing and would not require a
petition to EPA, but the person would be required to keep
appropriate records as to the basis for this demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge, however, that farms or other facilities may manage
manure as a valuable fuel commodity and that this manure could also
satisfy EPA's contaminant and heating value legitimacy criteria. Our
limited data suggests that manure that is combusted has typically been
collected, stored, and processed. Thus, today's final rule also says
that manure would not be considered a solid waste when burned in a
combustion unit as a fuel for energy recovery under the following
circumstances:
Within the Control of the Generator: Manure that is burned
in a combustion unit as a fuel for energy recovery would not be a solid
waste if the manure is burned in a combustion unit that is within the
control of the generator and the manure meets the legitimacy criteria.
Processing of Manure: Manure that is ``sufficiently
processed'' \33\ would not be considered a solid waste (after
processing) when burned in a combustion unit as a fuel for energy
recovery provided the processed manure meets the legitimacy criteria.
This is a self-implementing provision, such that a petition would not
need to be submitted to EPA and is not limited to ``within the control
of the generator.'' Thus, for example, a farm or third party could
process the manure to remove or destroy contaminants that are not at
levels comparable to those contained in traditional fuels or improve
the materials heating value, and after processing, to the extent the
processed manure meets the legitimacy criteria, the processed manure
would not be a solid waste when burned as a fuel for energy
recovery.\34\ Also, as we discussed in the proposed rule, we expect
that manure can be processed into a non-waste gaseous fuel (e.g., via
anaerobic digestion or gasification processes), as suggested by
commenters. This gaseous fuel would also have to satisfy the legitimacy
criteria, and while we did not receive data on contaminant levels of
gaseous fuels that are, or could be, produced, we generally expect that
a system could be designed to produce a clean gaseous fuel that would
satisfy all of our legitimacy criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Processing (as it relates to fuels) means any operations
that transform the discarded non-hazardous secondary material into a
legitimate fuel product, and includes, but is not limited to,
operations that remove or destroy contaminants, operations that
significantly improve the fuel characteristics of the material,
e.g., sizing or drying the material in combination with other
operations, and operations that chemically improve the as-fired
energy content of the material. Minimal operations that result only
in modifying the size of the material do not constitute processing
for the purposes of this definition.
\34\ As noted previously, one commenter described their
operation and noted that ``the mixed biomass fuel is lightly
processed (e.g., processed in a ``de-lumper'' followed by a disc
screen) to break down clumps of material and remove incidental non-
combustible tramp materials.'' This comment does not contain enough
information to determine whether or not this would meet the
regulatory definition of processing in today's rule. That is,
processing is designed to produce or extract a product from a
waste--not just to chop the waste up. However, to the extent that
this level of processing is considered sufficient, the processed
manure would not be a solid waste when burned in a combustion unit
as a fuel for energy recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Waste Determination Petition Process: Manure, as
generated, that has been transferred to a third party for combustion as
a fuel for energy recovery, but has been granted a non-waste
determination from EPA would not be considered a solid waste. This
provision establishes a case-by-case process that provides persons an
administrative process for receiving a formal determination from EPA
that, in this case, manure, as generated, that has not been discarded
in the first instance and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects
from a fuel product, is not a solid waste. Any petition submitted to
EPA requesting a non-waste determination would need to demonstrate that
the manure has not been discarded in the first instance, satisfies the
legitimacy criteria for fuels, and satisfies the following criteria:
(1) Whether market participants treat the manure as a fuel rather than
a solid waste; (2) whether the chemical and physical identity of the
manure is comparable to commercial fuels; (3) whether the manure will
be used in a reasonable time frame given the state of the market; (4)
whether the constituents in the manure are released to the air, water
or land from the point of generation to the point just prior to
combustion of the manure are released at levels that are comparable to
what would otherwise be released from traditional fuels; and (5) other
relevant factors.
We partially agree with the commenter that was concerned about the
legitimacy criterion that would require contaminants in biofuels to
either be equivalent to, or lower than, levels found in natural gas.
While we believe it is beneficial to promote the use of clean burning
fuels, such as biofuels, non-waste fuels produced from secondary
materials should have comparable or lower levels of contaminants
relative to traditional fuels used today, since gaseous fuels that are
produced from secondary materials have the potential to have elevated
levels of contaminants (such as sulfur). As a result, we believe it is
appropriate to require, as proposed, that contaminants be comparable,
or lower than, those levels found in traditional fuels. However, as
discussed in Section V.D.3, we are not defining comparable to mean
``equivalent to or lower than'' or ``no higher than'' the level of the
contaminant in the traditional fuel. Rather, EPA is generally defining
``comparable to or lower than'' to mean contaminants can be present in
non-hazardous secondary materials within a small acceptable range, or
at lower levels, relative to the contaminants found in the traditional
fuels. Thus, biofuels that are produced from non-hazardous secondary
materials can have contaminants that are somewhat higher than the
traditional fuel that otherwise would be burned and still qualify as
being comparable, and would not be considered a solid waste.
Comment: Manure used as a fuel that would otherwise be applied to
the land covered under a nutrient management plan\35\ is in no way
discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ A nutrient management plan is defined in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Standard (590) as, ``Managing the amount, source, placement,
form and timing of the application of nutrients and soil
amendments.'' The NRCS nutrient management standard (590) is the
guidance provided to NRCS field staff and other planners when
providing technical assistance to producers participating in
voluntary programs. The purpose of the 590 standard is to meet the
nutrient needs of the crop to be grown, while minimizing the loss of
nutrients to surface and ground water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15482]]
EPA's Response: We recognize that manure may also be beneficially
used in other end uses, such as a fertilizer. As we have noted
elsewhere in the preamble to today's rule, EPA is not making any
determination whether non-hazardous secondary materials are or are not
solid wastes for other possible beneficial end uses. Such beneficial
use determinations are generally made by the states for these other
beneficial uses, and EPA will continue to look to the states to make
such determinations.
Comment: Combustion of manure is simply one of the ways of
realizing the carbon value of manure (for energy production/recovery
rather than as a soil amendment) and should not be considered in any
way as a means of ``discard,'' since the inherent value of manure as a
fertilizer is essentially preserved in the resultant ash. Further,
since the ash from manure combustion is still suitable as a fertilizer,
the commenter also believes that manure does not contain contaminants
that are significantly higher in concentration than traditional fuels.
EPA's Response: Both wastes and non-wastes can be utilized as fuels
and in this rule EPA is determining what is and is not a solid waste
when combusted. As we have stated, there are circumstances when manure
would not be considered a solid waste when combusted. In the
commenter's case, it does not appear that manure being burned solely to
improve soil would meet the legitimacy criteria.
Further, whether the resultant ash is suitable as a fertilizer is
not directly relevant to EPA's solid waste determination for non-
hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel since contaminants that
are present in the manure ``as generated'' can also be destroyed
(discarded) in the combustion process or be directly emitted to the
environment, either prior to combustion (during storage and
transportation) or if they are not sufficiently combusted and/or
controlled by the combustion unit's air pollution control system.
Contaminants in manure that may be used as a fuel must be present at
comparable or lower levels relative to traditional fuels for the manure
to satisfy the contaminant legitimacy criterion. As previously
discussed, EPA concludes that manure, as generated, may not satisfy
this criterion for nitrogen and chlorine.
Comment: Given the biological basis of agricultural products and
by-products and the unique nature of the transfer of agricultural
commodities among entities, the commenter requests that EPA
presumptively grant a non-waste determination for manure that is used
as a combustion fuel outside the control of the generator that would
otherwise meet the legitimacy criteria. The commenter states that crops
grown from a cropping operation may be sold/provided to an animal
production operation as a feed input, with the manure from the animal
production operation being sold/provided to a community based or
regional energy production system as one of many fuel sources from that
area, with the resultant ash from the energy production system sent
back to the cropping operation as a fertilizer source. The commenter
then explains that the cropping and animal production operator may be
the same entity, and asserts that the transfer among entities in this
instance is to facilitate energy recovery, not disposal.
EPA's Response: Unlike scrap tires and resinated wood residuals,
information and data were not provided that would allow the Agency to
presumptively grant a non-waste determination for all manure that is
used as a fuel outside the control of the generator. As a result, we
conclude that the final rule cannot presumptively grant a non-waste
determination for manure that is used as a fuel outside the control of
the generator. We note, however, that sources may petition the Agency
for a non-waste determination for materials managed outside the control
of the generator (see Section VII.G), or, as previously discussed,
process (as codified in Sec. 241.2) the manure into a non-waste fuel
that meets the legitimacy criteria.
Comment: Modern manure management systems that are designed and
operated in accordance with applicable Federal, Tribal, State, and/or
local regulations and requirements for air and water quality should be
considered to meet the ``adequate containment'' requirements.
EPA's Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the
statement ``manure management systems that are designed and operated in
accordance with applicable Federal, Tribal, State, and/or local
regulations and requirements for air and water quality should be
considered to meet the `adequate containment' requirements'' in itself,
is sufficient for EPA to conclude that these systems satisfy the
containment requirements because these systems may not have been
designed for the use of manure as a fuel. These Federal, Tribal, State,
and/or local regulations and requirements would have to be examined on
a case-specific basis to determine whether manure that is used as a
fuel is managed as a valuable commodity pursuant to EPA's legitimacy
criteria. EPA does not believe that it can conclude that the ``adequate
management'' criterion is met based on the descriptions of management
practices that have been provided to EPA, such as stockpiling manure in
open lots to facilitate drying.
Comment: Manure satisfies EPA's meaningful heating value legitimacy
criterion since it typically has energy contents ranging from 6,000 to
8,000 Btu/lb on a dry basis.
EPA's Response: The data provided by the commenter summarize
heating values on a ``dry basis,'' rather than on an ``as-fired'' basis
that accounts for the moisture content of the material, and thus, these
data are not relevant to the ``meaningful heating value'' legitimacy
criterion. Except as otherwise noted, to satisfy the meaningful heating
value criterion, the non-hazardous secondary material must have at
least 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired (accounting for moisture), since the as-
fired energy content is the relevant parameter that must be assessed to
determine if it is being discarded rather than used as a fuel for
energy recovery. See Section VII.H.1. As previously discussed, the data
available to EPA on an ``as fired'' basis would suggest that much of
the manure, as generated, would have heating value levels of less than
5,000 Btu/lb. If the non-hazardous secondary material has a
[meaningful] heating value of less than 5,000 Btu/lb, ``as fired,'' the
secondary material may still be considered to have a ``meaningful
heating value,'' but the source must demonstrate that a meaningful
heating value is derived from the manure, and appropriate records kept.
3. Other Biomass
The proposed rule preamble discussed many different forms of
biomass, including cellulosic and non-cellulosic biomass.\36\ How the
final rule views clean biomass was addressed earlier in Section V.B.1,
which addresses traditional fuel. Manure was discussed in the previous
section (Section V.B.2), while pulp and paper sludges and resinated
wood residuals will be discussed in more detail in Sections V.B.4 and
V.B.6, respectively, of this preamble. This section discusses other
biomass materials that may be burned as a fuel, and whether or not they
would be considered a solid waste when combusted as a fuel.
Specifically, the proposed rule identified lead-based painted wood, and
wood treated with pentachlorophenol, copper-based and
[[Page 15483]]
borate-based compound treatments as solid wastes due to elevated
contaminant levels relative to traditional fuels. Moreover, the
proposed rule explained that, to the extent that any treated wood is
identified as a hazardous waste, it would not be eligible to be burned
in a non-hazardous waste combustion unit. We also specifically
requested comment on the levels of contaminants in creosote-treated
lumber due to the uncertainty associated with the level of contaminants
(e.g., levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in
creosote).\37\ We received comments on construction and demolition
(C&D)-derived wood, treated wood, and OCC rejects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 75 FR 31861-31863.
\37\ 75 FR 31863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Since creosote is a derivative of coal, itself a
traditional fuel, the comments argued that creosote-treated wood should
also be considered a traditional fuel. They suggested that this
material is treated as a valuable commodity and has been used as a fuel
for over a decade. One commenter provided data that showed that the
mobility of contaminants indicates that p-cresol leaches at 75 percent
of the hazardous waste toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) levels in new ties, but that this is reduced to less than 10
percent in ties that are over 10 years old. Another commenter provided
the average results from 605 TCLP tests and 605 totals analyses for
metals on creosote-treated wood. These results were below TCLP limits
for all of the contaminants it contains (i.e., cresol, m,p-cresol, o-
cresol leached an average of 1.23 mg/L, 0.90 mg/L, 0.35 mg/L,
respectively), although two compounds, 2,4-dinitrotoluene and
hexachlorobenzene, leached at levels close to the toxicity
characteristic (TC) regulatory level (both leached at 0.09 mg/L with a
standard deviation of 0.03).\38\ Another commenter submitted a
compositional analysis that compared the levels of constituents in
creosote (not creosote-treated wood) to crude coke oven tar, a
traditional fuel. For example, creosote contains between 8.00-17.30% of
naphthalene and 0.50-0.80% quinoline, respectively, while crude coke
oven tar contains between 3.00-11.00% naphthalene and 0.18% quinoline).
Besides naphthalene and quinoline, data was also submitted for other
compounds on the CAA section 112 HAP list, including biphenyl and
dibenzofuran. The data submitted showed that all contaminants were
present in the creosote at levels greater than in crude coke oven
tar.\39\ Other studies compared metal contaminants (As, Cr, Pb, and Cu)
in creosote- and pentachlorophenol-treated wood (<1.97 ppm As, <4.21
ppm Cr, <64.13 ppm Pb, and 7.65 ppm Cu) to that of wood chips, bark,
yard waste, and forest residuals and found that the levels were
comparable (<3.61 ppm As, 0.12-4.77 ppm Cr, <17.5 ppm Pb, and <6.44 ppm
Cu).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0875.1.
\39\ See document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0767.1.
\40\ Holtzman, M.I. and R.S. Atkins, 1995. ``Emissions from
Combustion of Treated Wood Fuel and Tires in Industrial Boilers,''
Presented to the Air and Waste Management Association's Annual
Meeting, June 18-23, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a study was submitted that demonstrated that the co-firing
of creosote- and pentachlorophenol-treated wood (10/90 treated wood/
coal mix) results in a reduction of 79-107 ppm of oxides of sulfur
(SO2), 78-100 ppm of oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
and 0.4-0.5 ppm of total hydrocarbon (expressed as propane) emissions
compared to those from samples of Upper Freeport coal. The same study,
however, found that there was an increase of 17-84 ppm in HCl emissions
when co-firing with treated wood, although the study noted these levels
of HCl emissions could be within the range from coal found in other
areas of the U.S.\41\ HCl is listed on the CAA 112 HAP list. Other data
were submitted that showed that PAH emissions from a combustion unit
are less when burning treated wood (50/50 mixture of creosote- and
pentachlorophenol-treated wood) than when combusting untreated wood.
Data were also provided that indicated that pentachlorophenol and total
chlorophenols were destroyed by combustion at greater than 99.9%
removal efficiency.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Freeman, M.C., W.J. O'Dowd, T.D. Brown, R.A. Hargis, Jr.,
R.A. James, S.I. Plasynski, G.F. Walbert, A.F. Lowe, and J.J.
Battista, Jr. ``Pilot-Scale Air Toxics R&D Assessment of Creosote-
Treated and PCP-Treated Wood Co-firing for Pulverized Coal Utility
Boiler Applications.'' U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy
Technology Laboratory. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/misc/pdfs/haps/2002-710.pdf
\42\ Smith, S.T., 1996. ``Stack Testing Report, Koppers
Industries, Inc., Grenada Plant, Tie Plant, MS,'' Submitted to the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, May 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: We do not agree with commenters that creosote-
treated wood should be considered a traditional fuel (either an
historically managed traditional fuel or an alternative fuel as
codified in Sec. 241.2) solely based on the fact that it is
manufactured using coal tar and wood, which are considered traditional
fuels. Creosote was not derived for the purposes of creating a fuel, or
the wood treated with creosote to produce a fuel, but the creosote was
produced and used as a wood preservative. It is not made from virgin
materials, but is a secondary material. Creosote is derived from coal
tar through a distillation process and, therefore, creosote has
different chemical concentrations than coal tar. While we recognize
that creosote-treated wood has been utilized as a fuel for over ten
years, few markets are available for creosote-treated wood due to
concerns about the contaminants. This strongly suggests that burning
this material is a waste treatment activity.
The TCLP data generally indicates that the material, on average, is
not a hazardous waste. This does not mean, however, that the material
is not a non-hazardous solid waste. Leaching data is not relevant to
determine whether or not the treated wood is being discarded. We do
note that the average values and standard deviations provided for 2,4-
dinitrotoluene and hexachlorobenzene suggest that a few samples
actually failed the TCLP test and would be classified as a hazardous
waste. Creosote-treated wood that is classified as a hazardous waste
must be managed as a hazardous waste, which is outside the scope of
this rulemaking. Even though most creosote-treated wood is non-
hazardous, the presence of hexachlorobenze, a CAA 112 HAP, as well as
the other HAPs, in creosote-treated lumber suggests that creosote-
treated wood include contaminants at levels that are not comparable to
those found in wood or coal, the fuel that creosote-treated wood would
replace.\43\ In fact, the data provided demonstrates that combustion of
these materials results in significant destruction, which is an
indication of incineration, a waste activity. Moreover, we would note
that this concept involving destruction is also consistent with the
legitimacy criterion for contamination, which is based on the input
into the combustion unit--that is, the contaminant concentration in the
secondary material itself and not what may be emitted into the
environment. Accordingly, creosote treated wood, when burned, seems
more like a waste than a commodity and does not meet the legitimacy
criterion for contaminants and, therefore, should be considered a waste
when burned as a fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Preliminary Characterization Study Prepared In Support
of the Proposed Rulemaking--Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Solid Waste: Traditional Fuels and Key
Derivatives, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to wood treated with pentachlorophenol, no additional
[[Page 15484]]
contaminant data was provided that would reverse our position from the
proposal, which determined that pentachlorophenol was a solid waste due
to concerns of elevated levels of contaminants.\44\ While some
commenters pointed to data that indicates that pentachlorophenol-
treated wood (as well as creosote-treated wood) would have similar or
lower air emissions to non-treated woods, the issue to determine
whether a material is burned as a waste or a commodity is based on
input and consequent destruction of contaminants. This is consistent
with the legitimacy criteria, under which to be considered a non-waste
fuel, the non-hazardous secondary material itself must have contaminant
levels that are comparable to (or less than) those in traditional
fuels. Thus, the final rule will retain the proposed approach, which
considered wood treated with pentachlorophenol a solid waste. Of
course, this assumes that the pentachlorophenol treated-wood is not
classified as a hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are not covered under
the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 75 FR 31863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Comments were submitted that argued that wood treated
with borate-based compounds or copper napthenate did not contain any
contaminants, but only contaminant data was supplied for wood treated
with borate-based compounds. That study indicated that the most
prevalent borate treatment, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, contained
1.5 ppm of As, <1 ppm of Cd, <2.5 ppm of Cr, <5 ppm of Co, <0.02 ppm of
Hg, <2.5 ppm of Ni, and 0.67 ppm of Se.\45\ Since these levels
represent the contaminant concentration of the borate treatment, the
comments argued that the resulting wood that is treated with this
compound would contain even lower concentrations of contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: With respect to borate-treated wood, after
reviewing data from the one commenter, which shows that the levels of
contaminants in this material are comparable to those found in
unadulterated wood for the seven contaminants for which data was
presented, we believe that such treated-wood meets the legitimacy
criterion on the level of contaminants and comparability to traditional
fuels. Therefore, borate-treated wood could be classified as a non-
waste fuel, provided they met the other two legitimacy criteria and
provided that the contaminant levels for any other HAP that may be
present in this material are also comparable to or less than those in
traditional fuels. We would also note that such borate-treated wood
would need to be burned as a fuel for energy recovery within the
control of the generator. Finally, we are aware that some borate-
treated wood is subsequently treated with other chemicals, such as
creosote, to provide an insoluble barrier to prevent the borate
compounds from leaching out of the wood. We did not receive data on the
contaminant levels of the resulting material, but data presented on
creosote treated lumber indicates that this non-hazardous secondary
material would likely no longer meet the legitimacy criteria and would
be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel.
We do not have information generally about the transfer of borate-
treated wood to other companies to make a broad determination about its
use as a fuel outside the control of the generator. (See Section V.A.1
for a general discussion of the issue concerning use of non-hazardous
secondary materials within and outside the control of the generator and
the EPA's response.) Thus, under today's rule, borate-treated wood
would need to be burned as a fuel for energy recovery within the
control of the generator. With that said, we encourage the use of the
non-waste determination petition process to address those instances
where transfer of the non-hazardous secondary material to a different
company meets the relevant criteria--that the secondary material has
not been discarded in the first instance and is indistinguishable in
all relevant aspects from a fuel product.
With regard to wood treated with copper napthenate, no additional
contaminant data was provided that would reverse our position in the
proposed rule, which considered wood treated with copper napthenate a
solid waste because of concerns of elevated levels of contaminants.\46\
We acknowledge today, as we did in the proposed rule, that we do not
have sufficient information on the contaminant levels in wood treated
with copper napthenate.\47\ Thus, if a person can demonstrate that
copper napthenate treated-wood is burned in a combustion unit as a fuel
for energy recovery within the control of the generator and meets the
legitimacy criteria or, if discarded, can demonstrate that they have
sufficiently processed the material, that person can handle its copper
napthenate treated-wood as a non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 75 FR 31863.
\47\ 75 FR 31863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters argued that, although C&D-derived wood is
discarded by construction and demolition sites, it is sufficiently
processed into a non-waste fuel. It is received at a mixed C&D
processing facility as part of loads from construction and demolition
sites. Potential contaminants are removed as much as possible before it
enters the plant. Clean C&D wood is then separated out from the rest of
the incoming stream one of two ways; either through mechanical means or
through humans sorting along a specially built picking line. Painted
and treated wood is identified either visually or utilizing x-ray
fluorescence (XRF) analyzers. After separation, the wood is ground to a
specific size and density per the specification of the plant using the
biomass product. The creation of natural wood products follows a
similar processing path, except that C&D wood is more carefully
prepared because of the chemical analysis the C&D product undergoes.
Commenters also stated that C&D-derived wood meets the legitimacy
criterion for having a meaningful heating value. They stated that C&D-
derived wood has a heating value of between 7,000-8,200 Btu/lb, and
thus, should be considered a non-waste fuel. Data from one plant that
combusts C&D-derived wood found that it had a heating value that ranges
from 6,700-9,000 Btu/lb, with an average value of 8,200 Btu/lb.
One company provided chemical constituent data on C&D-derived wood
that is utilized at their plant in order to demonstrate that the
material meets the legitimacy criterion for contaminants. The results
of this analysis found that the chemical constituents were comparable
to or lower to those found in coal (of unknown source or type). See
Table 1 below for the results of this study.
[[Page 15485]]
Table 1--Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Samples of Coal and
C&D-Derived Wood48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal (unknown
Material source or type) C&D-derived wood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Size....................... 16 14-16
Median contaminant concentrations:
Cl:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 46.0 56.0
(ppm)..................... 391-644 459.2
of non-detects.. 0 0
Hg:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.00622 0.0046
(ppm)..................... 0.05287-0.08708 0.03772
of non-detects.. 0 0
Pb:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.374 0.488
(ppm)..................... 3.18-5.24 4.00
of non-detects.. 0 0
Cd:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.00465 0.0218
(ppm)..................... 0.03923-0.06510 0.17876
of non-detects.. 7 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters discussed studies that concluded that the use of
appropriately processed C&D wood is similar in its emission profile to
that of virgin wood, although some older studies indicated an increase
in metals emissions (likely due to the inclusion of treated wood).\49\
Another commenter submitted a life-cycle assessment that described how
the recovery of C&D wood as a fuel decreased greenhouse gas emissions.
This study found that combusting all C&D wood generated in New
Hampshire per year (280,000 tons) will off-set energy from the
northeast power grid and, therefore, result in 70,000-130,000 tons less
of carbon emissions, 600 tons/year less of particulate matter, 430
tons/yr less of NOX, 2,300 tons/yr less of SOX,
890 tons/yr less of CO, and 10 pounds/yr less of lead. Even when
compared simply to the combustion of virgin wood, it was found that the
combustion of C&D-derived wood had lower impacts: 16,700 metric tons of
carbon equivalents were offset, 50 tons/yr less of particulate matter,
200 tons/yr less of NOX, 485 tons/yr less of SOX,
and 69 tons/yr less of CO.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0774; Since the legitimacy
criterion for contaminants compares concentrations per mass of the
material (not per the heating value of the material), all
concentrations reported in pounds per billion Btu (lb/billion Btu)
were converted into parts per million (ppm) with the assumption that
C&D-derived wood has a heating value of 8,200 Btu/lb (as fired) and
that sub-bituminous and bituminous coal (the most common types of
coal to be utilized in combustion units) have a heating value of
8,500-14,000 Btu/lb (per Preliminary Characterization Study Prepared
In Support of the Proposed Rulemaking--Identification of
Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Traditional
Fuels and Key Derivatives, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.21).
\49\ U.S. EPA, ``Wood Products in the Waste Stream:
Characterization and Combustion Emissions, Vol. 1,'' November 1996.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Technical
Bulletin (TB) 906, ``Alternative Fuels Used in the Forest Products
Industry: Their Composition and Impact on Emissions.'' September
2005.
Larsen, F.S., W.H. McClennen, X. Deng, G.D. Silcox-Person, and
K. Allison, 1992. ``Hydrocarbon and Formaldehyde Emissions from the
Combustion of Pulverized Wood Waste.'' Combustion Science and
Technology, 85 (1-6) p. 259-269.
\50\ Jambeck, J., A. Carpenter, K. Gardner, and K. Wietz, 2007.
``University of New Hampshire Life-Cycle Assessment of C&D Derived
Biomass/Wood Waste Management,'' University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH, December 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: The proposed rule included clean construction wood
in the definition of traditional fuels. The final rule retains this
conclusion, although clarifies the definition of traditional fuels to
include alternative fuels. Clean cellulosic biomass is an alternative
fuel as they are clean cellulosic materials that are indistinguishable
in composition from wood that is commonly burned in combustion units
(See the explanation in Section V.A). We note that the final definition
of traditional fuels clarifies that this category includes clean
demolition wood as well.
On the other hand, C&D-derived wood that is not clean would not be
considered a traditional fuel, but a solid waste under today's rule.
However, C&D-derived wood can be classified as a non-waste fuel if it
has been sufficiently processed and meets the legitimacy criteria. C&D-
derived wood is typically sorted to remove contaminants (e.g., lead-
painted wood, treated wood, non-wood materials), and size reduced prior
to burning, producing material that likely meets the processing and
legitimacy criteria for contaminants. (We would also note that the
technology in use today to remove contaminants from C&D-derived wood
has increased considerably.) The data provided by one company
demonstrates that C&D-derived wood can be sufficiently processed to
meet the legitimacy criterion for four contaminants, even when these
contaminants are compared to untreated wood concentrations presented in
the background document, Preliminary Characterization Study Prepared In
Support of the Proposed Rulemaking--Identification of Nonhazardous
Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Traditional Fuels and Key
Derivatives.\51\ A complete determination, however, would also include
the comparison of As and Cr concentrations. We would also note that
based on the data presented, C&D derived wood also meets the meaningful
heating value criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to those comments that argued that C&D derived wood
have an emissions profile similar to that of virgin wood and that it
would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, as we have noted previously,
the criterion or test for determining whether a material is burned as a
waste or a commodity fuel is the level of the contaminant in the
secondary material itself--that is destruction of contaminants
indicates a waste treatment activity rather than a commodity fuel. This
is also consistent with the legitimacy criteria that would require that
the non-hazardous secondary material, itself, must have contaminant
levels that are comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional
[[Page 15486]]
fuels. In any event, because we had no information from the studies on
the extent that these C&D materials were sufficiently processed to
remove the contaminants of concern, we do not know what the emissions
results from the submitted studies represent.
Comment: Some comments argued that there should be a de minimis
exemption for C&D-derived wood that is processed to remove painted and
treated materials, because while most of the contaminants are removed
from the C&D derived wood, there still may be a small or de minimis
amount remaining on it. Additionally, they also argued that while most
non-wood contaminants are removed, there might still remain some small
or de minimis amounts of other materials (e.g., paper, insulation,
etc.).
EPA's Response: C&D-derived wood can contain de minimis amounts of
contaminants and other materials provided it meets the legitimacy
criterion for contaminant levels.
Comment: Comments argued that OCC rejects, also known in the
industry as ``recycling process residuals,'' are never discarded, and
therefore, should be considered a traditional fuel because they do not
leave the plant, but are usually burned on-site as a fuel. In some
cases, however, they do leave the plant to be burned in municipal or
commercial energy facilities or employed as a fuel pellet ingredient.
In addition, while some commenters argued that they did not believe
OCC rejects are ever discarded, they provided information on how OCC
rejects are sufficiently processed to remove contaminants if they are
determined to be discarded. For example, strings, wires, rags, and
heavy objects are removed using manual and centrifugal force, while
plastic and non-recyclable paper fibers are removed through screens.
Commenters also stated that OCC rejects meet the legitimacy
criterion for contaminants as they have lower contaminants than
traditional fuels. One comment provided data from 10 samples of OCC
rejects from one company and 16 samples of coal (of unknown type or
origin) to substantiate that claim (see Table 2).
Table 2--Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Samples of Coal and
OCC Rejects \52\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal (unknown
Material type or origin) OCC rejects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Size....................... 16 10
Median contaminant concentrations:
Cl:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 46.0 23.5
(ppm, estimated).......... 391-644 87.0
of non-detects.. 0 0
Hg:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.00622 0.00324
(ppm, estimated).......... 0.05287-0.08708 0.01199
of non-detects.. 0 0
Pb:...........................
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.374 0.281
(ppm, estimated).......... 3.18-5.24 1.04
of non-detects.. 0 1
Cd:
(lb/billion Btu).......... 0.00465 0.00558
(ppm, estimated).......... 0.03923-0.06510 0.02065
of non-detects.. 7 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0774; Since the legitimacy
criterion for contaminants compares concentrations per mass of the
material (not per the heating value of the material), all
concentrations reported in pounds per billion Btu (lb/billion Btu)
were converted into parts per million (ppm) with the assumption that
OCC rejects have a heating value of 3,700 Btu/lb (as fired) and that
sub-bituminous and bituminous coal (the most common types of coal to
be utilized in combustion units) have a heating value of 8,500-
14,000 Btu/lb (per Preliminary Characterization Study Prepared In
Support of the Proposed Rulemaking--Identification of Nonhazardous
Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Traditional Fuels and Key
Derivatives, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also claimed that OCC rejects meet the legitimacy
criterion for being managed as a valuable commodity, as they are
managed in the same manner as analogous fuels--bark. Prior to burning,
this material is co-mingled with bark on the bark pile.
Furthermore, commenters stated that OCC rejects pass the legitimacy
criterion for having a meaningful heating value. For example, a
commenter submitted data that indicated that, on a dry basis, OCC
rejects have a heating value of 9,100 Btu/lb, while, as fired, they
have a heating value of 3,700 Btu/lb.\53\ Another commenter submitted
ten tests at plants from one company that found that the heating value
of OCC rejects ranged from 8,700-13,600 Btu/lb on a dry basis.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0871.1.
\54\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0774.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter submitted a study by the National Council for Air
and Stream Improvement to demonstrate that air emissions from burning
OCC rejects are comparable to burning wood. In this study, emissions
results were provided from three plants that burned 4.4-30% OCC rejects
with 70%-95.6% wood and compared it to emissions from the same three
plants when they only burned wood. Emissions were tested for total
particulate matter (TPM), SO2, NOX, CO, and HCl.
The results found that burning OCC rejects did not result in increased
emissions of TPM, SO2, NOX, or CO, but
occasionally resulted in a small increase in HCl emissions.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Technical Bulletin (TB) 906, ``Alternative Fuels Used in the Forest
Products Industry: Their Composition and Impact on Emissions.''
September 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: We do not agree with the commenters that OCC
rejects should be considered a traditional fuel or alternative fuel
since this non-hazardous secondary material, consisting of recycled
paper and paper products, has not historically been managed as a fuel--
that is, the recycling of OCC and the subsequent use of OCC
[[Page 15487]]
rejects is a relatively recent activity, nor is it made from virgin
materials. However, we believe that these materials are not discarded
when used within the control of the generator, such as at pulp and
paper mills, since these non-hazardous secondary materials are part of
the industrial process.
The data submitted during the comment period would seem to suggest
that it would or could meet the legitimacy criteria. For example, the
data received indicated that OCC rejects have contaminant
concentrations that are comparable to, if not less than, coal, wood,
and bark, which are all traditional fuels used at pulp and paper mills.
While the meaningful heating value of the OCC rejects is lower than
5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, it can still meet this criterion if it can be
demonstrated that the unit can cost-effectively recover energy from a
non-hazardous secondary material. The information submitted also
demonstrates that OCC rejects are managed as a valuable commodity as
they are managed in the same manner as the analogous fuel--bark.
With respect to the OCC rejects that are shipped off-site for use
by another company, the limited information provided indicates that
this material is burned in municipal or commercial energy facilities
(which appears to be municipal or commercial incinerators) and thus,
would clearly indicate discard, or processed to produce a fuel pellet
ingredient, which may be a non-waste, if and after it is sufficiently
processed. That is, such limited information would appear to suggest
that when OCC rejects are shipped off-site, which may not happen very
often, it is treated more like a waste than a non-waste fuel.
Therefore, the Agency finds that OCC rejects shipped off-site for
burning would be considered a solid waste. However, as already noted,
if the OCC rejects are sufficiently processed to produce a legitimate
fuel product, or if a person submits and is granted a non-waste
determination for such OCC rejects, than such non-hazardous secondary
material when combusted as a fuel for energy recovery would be
considered a non-waste fuel.
4. Pulp and Paper Sludge
In the proposal, EPA determined that pulp and paper sludge \56\ is
not a waste when used as a fuel within the control of the generator.
This was based on limited contaminant data and information that these
sludges are generally used on-site by generators to fuel their boilers
and are treated like valuable commodities. Comments on the ANPRM had
stated that these residuals are primarily composed of biomass and that
emissions from burning these non-hazardous secondary materials are
essentially the same as emissions from burning other biomass fuels,
such as bark or wood. Emissions data contained in one report indicated
that when sludges were burned at levels below about 10 to 15 percent of
total heat input, that such burning would not result in elevated levels
of criteria or criteria-related pollutants, forty-eight organic
compounds, and metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Pulp and paper sludge includes both primary and secondary
wastewater treatment sludges. Primary sludges consist of wood fiber
and inorganic materials, while secondary sludges are primarily
microbial biomass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, given the limited data, EPA requested additional comment
on contaminant levels and the appropriateness of considering these
sludges to be non-wastes. EPA also noted, as an alternative, that it
could consider these sludges to be wastes because of chlorine levels in
the sludge.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 75 FR 31862-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Pulp and paper sludges should be considered a traditional
fuel because it has been utilized as a fuel since the early 1960's. In
2004, 22% of the pulp and paper sludge was used as a fuel.
EPA's Response: We do not agree that pulp and paper sludges should
be considered a traditional fuel. While some portion of the pulp and
paper industry uses these sludges as a fuel, it is not the industry
norm or used as a fuel by a majority of the industry. For example, in
2002, 52% of pulp and paper sludges was landfilled or stored in
lagoons.\58\ Thus, these materials have not been historically managed
as fuels. Pulp and paper sludges also would not be considered an
alternative fuel, since they are not derived from virgin materials.
Pulp and paper mills burn these secondary materials for energy
recovery, but also for waste minimization purposes.\59\ Therefore, the
Agency does not consider pulp and paper sludges a traditional or
alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Thacker, W., 2007. ``Recycling Paper Mill By-products on
Forest Lands: By-product Composition, Potential Applications, and
Industry Case Studies.'' Presentation to EPA Office of Solid Waste
Staff, Washington, DC, January 23, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/imr/irc-meet/03-paper.pdf.
\59\ Someshwar, A.V. and A.K. Jain, 2006. ``Alternative Fuels
Used in the Forest Products Industry: Their Composition and Impact
on Emissions,'' Technical Bulletin No. 906, National Council for Air
and Stream Improvement, Gainesville, Florida.
Vance, E. 2000. ``Recycling Paper Mill By-products on Forest
Lands: By-product Composition, Potential Applications, and Industry
Case Studies'' The Forest Alternative: Principles and Practice of
Residuals Use. University of Washington College of Forest Resources
Publication, Seattle, WA, p. 193-207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The proposed approach that pulp and paper sludges burned
within the control of the generator as a fuel would not be considered a
solid waste needs clarification. Specifically, clarification is needed
to determine if pulp and paper sludges that do not leave the site and
have not been discarded (1) can be used as a fuel and (2) must pass the
legitimacy criteria.
EPA's Response: The final rule retains the proposed approach, which
considered pulp and paper sludges that remain within the control of the
generator--whether burned at the generating facility, or burned in
combustion units that the generator controls--are considered a non-
waste fuel. However, such pulp and paper sludges must pass the
legitimacy criteria to demonstrate that these non-hazardous secondary
materials are ``legitimate fuels'' in order to be considered a non-
waste fuel.
Comment. Commenters argued that pulp and paper sludges are not
discarded if used off-site as they are used as a legitimate fuel at
other locations. One commenter, who identified itself as a power plant,
utilizes pulp and paper sludges generated less than a mile away and
stated that the material is loaded into trucks for the short haul to
the steam boilers, dumped into the wood handling system, conveyed to
covered storage where it is contained and burned in the boiler all
within the span of several hours. They suggest that this is a
legitimate use of pulp and paper sludges off-site and is, therefore,
not a waste.
EPA's Response: We agree that the use of secondary materials off-
site (which we assume the commenter means not within the control of the
generator) is not always indicative of waste activity and would
generally agree that the case of the power plant provides an example of
when secondary materials may be legitimately used as non-waste fuels by
a different company. However, information was not provided in the
comments which would allow EPA to generally determine that the transfer
of pulp and paper sludges to other companies should always be
considered a non-waste fuel, particularly since a large percentage of
these sludges are actually disposed. (See Section V.A.1 for a general
discussion of this issue and the EPA's response.) Thus, we will retain
the proposed approach that pulp and paper sludges that are transferred
to a different company for use as a fuel will be considered a solid
waste. With that said, we encourage the use of the non-waste
determination petition
[[Page 15488]]
process to address those instances where transfer of the non-hazardous
secondary material to a different company meets the relevant criteria--
that the secondary material has not been discarded in the first
instance and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel
product.
Comment: Commenters stated that pulp and paper sludges are
adequately processed, such that when discarded (i.e., sent off-site to
another pulp and paper mill or to a power plant), it is a non-waste
fuel. Processing is primarily performed by dewatering. In fact, 84% of
all pulp and paper sludges are dewatered using belt filter presses or
screw presses.\60\ One state commenter stated that some mills further
process pulp and paper sludges into dried pellet products for use as a
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: We do not agree that dewatering alone meets our
definition of processing.\61\ While dewatering does improve the fuel
characteristics of the material, this action is not sufficient to make
the material sufficiently processed into a non-waste fuel as it is
generally part of normal waste management activities (e.g., prior to
landfilling, or prior to burning the sludge for disposal in an
incinerator). In the case of pelletizing the material for use as a
fuel, we do not have sufficient information to make a general
determination on whether this would be considered sufficient
processing. However, if the pelletizing process is used to process the
sludge into a form that improves its fuel value, we would agree that
this is indicative of fuel activity (similar to pelletizing sewage
sludge, which was used as an example of sufficient processing in
Section VII.D.4 of the proposed rule) \62\ and we would consider those
activities to meet the definition of processing. Of course, to be
considered a non-waste fuel, the processed pulp and paper sludges would
need to meet the legitimacy criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See the discussion on dewatering of sewage sludge in
Section VII.F of the proposed rule, 75 FR 31878.
\62\ 75 FR 31878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: To show that pulp and paper sludges meet the legitimacy
criteria for contaminants, three commenters submitted a total of 24
characterizations of pulp and paper sludge cake from 16 pulp and paper
mills. These characterizations show that contaminants were found at
non-detect levels. For example, As, Cr, Hg, and Pb were at levels of
<0.4 ppm, <21.4 ppm, <0.44 ppm, and <21.6 ppm, respectively.\63\
Elevated levels (6.36-45.8 ppm) of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) were found
in five out of eight samples from one pulp and paper mill, although we
do not know to what extent this data is reflective of pulp and paper
sludges generally since eight other samples (three from the same mill
and five from five other mills) had non-detect levels of MEK at a
detection level of <0.013 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1395; National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Technical Bulletin (TB) 906,
``Alternative Fuels Used in the Forest Products Industry: Their
Composition and Impact on Emissions.'' September 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine levels among an unknown number of pulp and paper sludge
samples were noted by one commenter to have an arithmetic mean of 465
ppm, a median of 318 ppm, a maximum level among mill means of 2,399
ppm, and a maximum among individual analyses of 4,800 ppm (all on a dry
weight basis). This is compared to a USGS database on U.S. coals to
have chlorine levels with an arithmetic mean of 614 ppm and a maximum
among individual analyses of 8,800 ppm (both on an as-is basis, which
has <10% moisture). However, one sample provided in the comments had a
chlorine concentration of 16,550 ppm (as received), while another had a
chlorine concentration of 23 ppm (as fired). Other samples had chlorine
concentrations of between 1,050-4,800 ppm (dry basis). Commenters also
argued that combustion of high chlorine content in some pulp and paper
sludge is not a waste treatment activity. Sources that produce
secondary materials that have heat value can increase their energy
efficiency by re-using these materials as a fuel. Materials are chosen
for their constituents that are beneficial to the combustion or
manufacturing process; more often, the materials are chosen for
extracting their energy value.
In terms of meeting the legitimacy criteria for a meaningful
heating value, comments were submitted that pulp and paper sludges have
a heating value of between 3,300-9,500 Btu/lb, on a dry basis; no
information was submitted on the ``as fired'' heating value of pulp and
paper sludges. Commenters also argued that pulp and paper sludges meet
the legitimacy criterion for being managed as a valuable commodity as
they are dewatered to increase their energy value, collected on a
continual or frequent basis (as produced), further processed and
consolidated, including the removal of biosolids. One state commenter
stated that some mills make a dried pellet product from the sludges for
use as a fuel. One power plant that utilizes pulp and paper sludge
generated less than a mile away stated that the material is loaded onto
trucks for the short haul to the steam boilers, dumped into the wood
handling system, conveyed to covered storage where it is contained and
burned in the boiler all within the span of several hours.
EPA's Response: The final rule will retain the proposed approach--
pulp and paper sludges managed within the control of the generator are
a non-waste fuel as they would seem to meet all of the legitimacy
criteria, as discussed below.
The proposed rule acknowledged a general lack of data regarding
contaminant levels in pulp and paper sludges and specifically requested
data on the issue in order to make a determination of whether pulp and
paper sludges meets the third criterion of comparable contaminant
levels to traditional fuels. The information we received indicates that
these non-hazardous secondary materials meet the contaminant legitimacy
criterion. While commenters compared contaminant levels in pulp and
paper sludges to those in coal and found lower levels, we also found it
appropriate to compare the contaminant concentrations to untreated wood
since wood is also burned in pulp and paper mills. Since levels of
chlorine in untreated wood are as high as 11,890 ppm, even the high end
of the range of chlorine in pulp and paper sludges is comparable to
that in untreated wood. When comparing to the information that we have
compiled on coal, we find that chlorine levels in coal are reported to
be as high as 7,400 ppm, and that average chlorine values for
bituminous and sub-bituminous coal are 1,200 ppm and 140 ppm,
respectively. Thus, the average chlorine levels reported in most pulp
and paper sludge are likely to be comparable with average chlorine
levels found in bituminous coal.\64\ We note that there is one sample
in the submitted data set that has a chlorine concentration of 16,550
ppm. We do not consider this to be comparable to the levels found in
coal and, where it is replacing coal, would consider this material to
be a solid waste. However, since this was the only sample with such a
high concentration of chlorine, we do not think that it is
representative of pulp and paper sludges generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See the Material Characterization Papers for Pulp and Paper
Sludges and for Traditional Fuels that are located in the docket for
today's rule (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The levels of metals were also lower in pulp and paper sludges than
untreated wood and coal. For example, untreated wood has levels of As,
Cr, Hg, and Pb as high as 6.8 ppm, 130 ppm, 2
[[Page 15489]]
ppm, and 340 ppm, respectively, while coal has levels of As, Cr, Hg,
and Pb as high as 80 ppm, 121.3 ppm, 2 ppm, and 80 ppm,
respectively.\65\ These levels are all greater than those submitted in
the comments for pulp and paper sludges. We did receive data on some
elevated levels of MEK in five samples from one mill, but we do not
believe that this data changes are view that these sludges generally
meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, especially since EPA removed
MEK from the CAA 112 HAP list in 2005,\66\ and thus, MEK is no longer
considered a ``contaminant'' in evaluating the contaminant legitimacy
criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Ibid.
\66\ The Agency removed MEK from the list of HAP because it
concluded that the potential exposures to MEK emitted from
industrial processes may not reasonably be anticipated to cause
human health or environmental problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pulp and paper sludges can have a heating value below 5,000
Btu/lb, even on a dry basis, pulp and paper mills do try to improve the
heating value through dewatering. Thus, we believe that pulp and paper
sludges generally meet the meaningful heating value legitimacy
criterion. Also, since pulp and paper sludges are handled promptly
(i.e., not stored for long periods of time and are contained in storage
units along with traditional fuels (such as wood and bark) with minimal
loss (similar to a valuable commodity), we agree that pulp and paper
sludges are managed as a valuable commodity.
Comment: Emission tests from two states were said to have shown no
significant change in emissions associated with the combustion of pulp
and paper mill sludge, although the specific emission test results were
not provided in these comments. One other commenter stated that any
emissions from those materials will be accounted for in the source's
emission limits in its permit. One other commenter submitted a study by
the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (2006), which
summarizes many different studies on the emissions from the combustion
of pulp and paper sludges. Some studies show that keeping the amount of
pulp and paper sludges to no more than 10-15% of the total heat input
will result in no increased emission impacts. However, two studies
stated that dioxin and furan emissions could result from the burning of
pulp and paper sludges and that the levels of these compounds in the
emissions are directly relevant to the amount of chlorine in the
sludges. Thus, chlorine levels should not be greater than those in
found in wood.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Technical Bulletin (TB) 906, ``Alternative Fuels Used in the Forest
Products Industry: Their Composition and Impact on Emissions.''
September 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: First, we would note that emissions testing results
is not the criterion or test for determining legitimacy as combustion
systems vary greatly and this rule aims to determine what is a solid
waste. To be considered a legitimate non-waste fuel, the non-hazardous
secondary material itself must have contaminants at levels that are
comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional fuels. From the data
available, it shows that chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludges, for
example, are typically at levels that are lower than those found in
coal and wood, as noted above. Nevertheless, we also recognize that
high chlorine levels are an indicator that the combustion of such
materials may result in increased emissions of dioxins and furans, such
that if chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludges are excessively high,
it may be an indication that the burning of those sludges is more
reflective of waste management. Thus, chlorine levels in pulp and paper
sludges should particularly be monitored and evaluated as part of a
plants determination that their pulp and paper sludges meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion.
5. Scrap Tires
In the proposal, EPA stated that whole used tires, including those
collected from tire dealerships and automotive shops and overseen by a
state tire collection oversight program, are initially abandoned and
thus meet the plain meaning of discard. As a result, whole used tires
that are not processed into a legitimate fuel or ingredient (e.g.,
shredded/chipped with steel belts removed) were considered a solid
waste. EPA acknowledged that whole tires can be legitimately burned as
a fuel, but because they have been discarded, were considered solid
wastes and subject to the incinerator requirements in section 129 of
the CAA, unless processed into a non-waste fuel product, in which case
it would be subject to the section 112 requirements of the CAA.
However, EPA requested comment in the proposed rule on the discard
interpretation stated in the ANPRM regarding scrap tires that are
managed under the oversight of a state tire collection program, such
that these non-hazardous secondary materials collected and sent for
legitimate use as fuels are not discarded and are not solid wastes. EPA
also solicited comment on the processing requirements for whole tires,
as well as fuel contaminant data on whole tires or tire-derived fuel
(TDF) chips as compared to coal, the replacement fuel.
In order to clarify the context of the proposed rule comments, the
Agency describes the background below in ``a. Background; Scrap Tire
Approach in ANPRM and Proposal.'' The comments and EPA's responses are
listed in ``b. Scrap Tire Comments.''
a. Background; Scrap Tire Approach in ANPRM and Proposal
ANPRM Scrap Tire Approach.\68\ As part of its discussion regarding
non-hazardous secondary materials used as legitimate ``alternative''
fuels that have not been previously discarded, the ANPRM noted that
scrap tires used as tire-derived fuel, which include whole tires or
tires that have been processed and have not been previously discarded,
are legitimate non-waste fuels if they meet the legitimacy criteria
i.e., they are handled as valuable commodities, have a meaningful
heating value, and do not contain contaminants that are significantly
higher in concentration when compared to traditional fuel products (see
Materials Characterization Paper on Scrap Tires in the docket for
today's rule for a complete discussion on contaminants in TDF [EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2008-0329]). We noted that in many cases, scrap tires that are
collected pursuant to state tire oversight programs (e.g., scrap tires
from tire dealerships that are sent to used tire processing facilities)
are handled as valuable commodities, and, therefore, have not been
abandoned, disposed of, or thrown away (not discarded). We also noted
that because State Agencies typically regulate these programs under
their state solid waste authorities, it was not the Agency's intent to
undercut the states' authority in this area. We, therefore, requested
comment on whether scrap tires collected pursuant to state tire
oversight programs have been discarded, and whether an EPA designation
specifying that scrap tires, for example, managed pursuant to state
tire collection programs are not solid wastes, would adversely impact a
state's ability to manage such a program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on January
2, 2009 (74 FR 41). This reference can be found on page 57 of the FR
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule Scrap Tire Approach.\69\ The proposal took a
different approach regarding the use of scrap tires when used as a
fuel, based on comments received on the ANPRM.
[[Page 15490]]
Specifically, some states argued that non-hazardous secondary material
fuels that are transferred to a third party have entered what is
traditionally considered to be the ``waste stream'' (and have been
regulated by the states as wastes) and therefore should appropriately
be considered wastes. Scrap tires, regardless of whether they were
collected and managed pursuant to state programs or recovered from
legacy waste piles, would be an example of such materials. As a result,
the Agency re-examined its position of how the concept of discard
applies to scrap tires. Whereas the ANPRM had indicated that there may
be some number of secondary materials that would not be considered
discarded even if the original generator sent them to another entity
outside of its control, the proposed rule took the position that non-
hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels and are managed
outside the control of the generator are solid wastes unless they were
processed into non-waste fuel products or a case-by-case non-waste
determination petition was granted by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The proposed rule, published on June 4, 2010 in the Federal
Register (75 FR 31844) has numerous references to scrap tires. The
statement described under ``Proposed Rule Scrap Tire Approach'' can
be found on pages 31874 and 31875 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Kept ANPRM Scrap Tire Approach as an Option. In the ANPRM,
we considered scrap tires (except from tire dumps) that were collected
under state tire collection programs as non-waste as described above.
We reconsidered that position in the proposed rule as follows: ``* * *
tires collected under these recycling programs are discarded and are
solid wastes. EPA proposes this formulation for tires, but is asking
for further comment on the ANPRM formulation that secondary material
collected and sent for legitimate use as fuels are not discarded and
are not solid wastes.* * * EPA may issue a final rule containing either
set of provisions depending on information received in the comment
period and other information available to the Agency.''
The Scrap Tire Approach in the Final Rule. Based on the proposed
rule comments and all other relevant information in the rulemaking
record, EPA has modified its approach for scrap tires in this final
rule. Under today's rule, scrap tires are considered a non-waste when
used as a fuel under the following scenarios:
(1) Scrap tires that are removed from vehicles and collected and
managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs (as
codified at Sec. 241.2) are non-waste fuels \70\ when burned as a fuel
in a combustion unit. See details at Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ As described elsewhere, these tires do not need processing
(as described in Sec. 241.3(b)(4)), in order to be considered non-
waste since they were not ``discarded in the first place.'' Since
these tires were ``not discarded in the first place,'' boilers and
cement kilns can use them as non-waste fuel as whole tires,
shredded, or fully processed TDF at their discretion (provided they
meet the legitimacy criteria). Regardless, most types of combustors
require TDF chips, cement kilns are the notable exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Scrap tires that undergo a sufficient level of processing (as
codified at Sec. 241.2 and detailed in the scrap tire response to
comments) are considered a non-waste fuel, when used as fuel in a
combustion unit, independent of whether they have been previously
discarded. See details at Sec. 241.3(b)(4).
All other scrap tires are considered a waste when combusted, unless
a non-waste determination petition is granted per the requirements in
Sec. 241.3(c).
The comments that led to this approach are further described in the
response to comments below and in Section VII.C.
b. Scrap Tire Comments
Comment: Many of the commenters that compared the approach for
whole scrap tires in the ANPRM (described previously in this section)
with the proposed approach, preferred the ANPRM approach and believed
it was an accurate assessment of how scrap tires are managed. Many of
those commenters argued that whole scrap tires that are handled in this
situation have not been discarded when removed from vehicles for use as
a fuel if there is a process or network that ensures their safe
handling prior to use as a fuel. In addition, many commenters listed
the attributes that make it a good fuel, in particular they noted that
the heat value for TDF is higher than typical solid fuels, including
coal.
Commenters disagreed with the assumption that we made in the
proposed rule that off-site/third party use of scrap tires equated to
discard. Other comments on ``transfer to third parties'' apply to other
non-hazardous secondary materials in addition to scrap tires and are
addressed in section V.A.1. In addition, commenters said that the owner
of the car does not abandon, dispose of, nor throw away the tire when a
tire is changed at a tire shop. These tires are destined for a
beneficial use and are managed as a valuable product. Commenters
disagreed with EPA's statement in the proposal that scrap tires are
``discarded'' when removed from the automobile because the generator
has relinquished control and the entity receiving the tires may not
have the same incentives to manage them as a useful product. For
example, one scrap tire commenter summarized the discard issue and
suggests that if transfer to a third party does not equate to discard
for hazardous secondary materials in specific instances, then EPA is
able to make distinctions for non-hazardous secondary materials like
scrap tires. Specifically, the commenter states, with respect to tire
derived fuel:
``EPA's proposed approach stands in stark contrast to EPA's
approach to hazardous secondary materials * * *. In the Subtitle C
regulation, EPA was careful to identify circumstances where discard
would occur based on a record of damages arising from cases of
hazardous material recycling. EPA then shaped its transfer-based
exclusion from the definition of solid waste to regulate only transfers
where discard is taking place. See 73 FR at 64677-78. In contrast, with
respect to non-hazardous secondary materials, EPA has no record
identifying circumstances where discard may occur and yet is proposing
to determine that all transferred material is discarded. Any definition
of solid waste that sweeps so broadly exceeds EPA's authority under
RCRA. EPA's proposed approach also stands in stark contrast to the
approach and guiding principle outlined in the ANPRM. In the ANPRM, EPA
did not assume that all non-hazardous secondary material that is
transferred outside the control of the generator is discarded. Instead,
as in its Subtitle C regulations, EPA was guided by the ``overall
principle * * * that materials treated as a commodity, rather than as a
waste, are not discarded and are not solid wastes so long as they are
legitimately recycled.'' 74 FR 53. If such an approach is appropriate
for hazardous substances, a similar or perhaps less demanding
determination would be still more appropriate for non-hazardous
secondary materials. First, the dangers of sham recycling are far less.
Second, the fact that industrial boilers are similar and are regulated
in similar manner from industry to industry makes distinctions between
industries uniquely hard to justify. EPA offers no persuasive evidence
to overcome these considerations. As noted earlier, EPA says only that
it ``believes'' that such materials have been discarded and that third
parties ``may not'' have the same incentive to manage these materials
properly as the generator. EPA offers a few off point examples but
makes no effort to investigate this issue in any detail. Furthermore,
EPA's approach ignores the fact that there is an established market
infrastructure for the sale and purchase of secondary fuels such as
TDF. As a result, TDF is subject to
[[Page 15491]]
normal business practices, including contractual arrangements that
establish specifications for TDF. Just as a fuel supplier needs to
provide a specific type of fuel oil to meet a customer's demands, so
does the supplier of secondary fuels. The supplier will comply with the
specification demanded by the customer or they will lose the business.
As a matter of company policy, most generators of secondary material
fuels take reasonable precautions to evaluate where their materials are
going as part of risk management.''
Commenters also disagreed with our assumptions that led to the
Agency's discard position in the proposal with regard to third party
use of scrap tires as follows.
They disagreed that third party handlers would lack an
incentive to manage them as a useful material \71\ because, scrap tire
derived materials have an exceptionally high rate of use in various
markets and are sold as valuable products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The comments are in regard to this statement in the
proposal: ``When non-hazardous secondary material fuels are
transferred to another party, we generally believe that the material
is discarded since the generator has relinquished control of the
secondary material and the entity receiving such materials may not
have the same incentives to manage them as a useful product, which
results in the materials being discarded.'' See EPA's statement in
the proposal at 75 FR 31844, page 31875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also disagreed that scrap tires have the same
market incentives for misuse as does hazardous waste, which EPA
referenced in the proposal,\72\ because, in part, hazardous waste are
likely to have a relatively negative monetary value. They said that
those EPA arguments based on hazardous waste are not relevant to scrap
tire markets and usage and is inappropriate to use the rationale based
on hazardous waste cases. Scrap tires do not have the environmental and
economic risks associated with hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The comments are in regard to this statement in the
proposal, as well as other references to hazardous waste: ``This
lack of incentive to manage as a useful product has been well
documented in the context of hazardous secondary material recycling
as evidenced by the results of the environmental problems study
performed in support of the DSW [hazardous waste] final rule. (This
scenario does not apply to transfers taking place under the transfer
based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are generated
and then transferred to another company for the purpose of
reclamation.) However, this finding also holds true for non-
hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuel.'' See EPA's
statement in the proposal at 75 FR 31844, page 31875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, commenters disagreed that there was currently
a pattern of discard at third party scrap tire reclaimers \73\ that can
be processed and generating stockpiles as possible evidence of the lack
of incentive to perform actual recycling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The comments are in regard to this statement in the
proposal: ``As discussed in the DSW final rule, this pattern of
discard at off-site, third party reclaimers appears to be a result
of inherent differences between commercial recycling and normal
manufacturing. As opposed to manufacturing, where the cost of raw
materials or intermediates (or inputs) is greater than zero and
revenue is generated primarily from the sale of the output,
secondary materials recycling, including when used as a fuel, can
involve generating revenue primarily from receipt of the secondary
materials. Recyclers of secondary materials in this situation may
thus respond differently than traditional manufacturers to economic
forces and incentives, accumulating more inputs (secondary
materials) than can be processed and generating stockpiles with
sometimes little incentive to perform actual recycling.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters did acknowledge that there were problems in the
past with tire dumps, but since tires are now effectively managed and
brought to markets, the over-accumulation, disposal, and dumping that
occurred in the past (as mentioned in the proposal) \74\ is less of an
issue now. In justifying this statement, many commenters discussed the
success of eliminating tire dumps. Specifically, they argued that fewer
than one million tires remain in stockpiles, compared to an estimate of
one billion tires in 1990. It is clear the total number of tires
discarded in tire dumps is being reduced annually, not increasing due
to the improper management which the proposal postulated regarding the
current management practices at third party sites. Also, they argued
that of the 300 million scrap tires that are generated each year, scrap
tires are reported to have the second lowest disposal rate at 10.7% in
2007, with lead acid batteries having the lowest disposal rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See EPA's statement in the proposal at 75 FR 31844, page
31875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters, mainly from industry, also disagreed with our
statement in the proposal that scrap tires that are transferred to a
third party have entered what is traditionally considered to be the
``waste stream'' and therefore should appropriately be considered solid
wastes. Refer to Section V.A.1 for the discussion on related comments
(not specific to scrap tires). Some commenters (including some states),
however, agreed that states tend to initially regard tires as waste
until they are beneficially used.
EPA's Response: In the first place, to the extent these comments
refer to EPA's general approach to secondary material transferred to
another party, the Agency refers commenters to Section V.A.1. As
discussed in that section, EPA has evaluated whether certain categories
of materials are discarded or not. The Agency has not adopted the
extremes of saying that all burning of secondary material, regardless
of ultimate use, is waste treatment or that any secondary material that
is recycled for legitimate fuel value is a commodity and not a waste.
Wastes may have value, but are still wastes.
Between these broad parameters, EPA has examined a number of
specific materials, recycled on-site and transferred to third parties
for recycling, and determined whether they would be appropriately
placed within the waste or non-waste categories. EPA would consider
transferred materials not to be wastes if it could make the appropriate
findings for those categories. In fact, the Agency does so with respect
to scrap tires harvested from vehicles and resinated wood residuals.
Any of EPA's decisions regarding specific materials, if challenged,
must stand or fall based on its individual merit.
With respect specifically to how the Agency is dealing with scrap
tires in this rule, the ANPRM noted that scrap tires that are collected
pursuant to tire programs (e.g., scrap tires from tire dealerships that
are sent to used tire processing facilities) are collected and handled
as valuable commodities, and, therefore, have not been abandoned,
disposed of, or thrown away. The ANPRM had indicated that there are
instances where non-hazardous secondary materials would not be
considered discarded even if the original generator sent them to
another entity outside of its control.
The proposed rule took an approach that assumed non-hazardous
secondary materials that are used as fuels and are managed outside the
control of the generator are solid wastes, unless they were processed
into legitimate non-waste fuel products or a non-waste determination
petition was granted by EPA. However, in the proposed rule, the Agency
was open to an alternate interpretation and requested further comment
on the ANPRM formulation that scrap tires collected and sent for
legitimate use as fuels are not discarded and are not solid wastes, and
specifically indicated that the Agency ``may issue a final rule
containing either set of provisions depending on information received
in the comment period and other information available to the Agency.''
After careful consideration of the comments and all the material in
the rulemaking record, including documents cited in the ANPRM and the
preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency agrees that a system where
scrap
[[Page 15492]]
tires are removed from vehicles \75\ and are collected and managed
under the oversight of established tire collection programs are not
``discarded in the first instance.'' Such tires (including both whole
tires and tires that have been shredded--with or without metal
removal)\76\ are non-waste when used as a fuel in combustion units.
These programs ensure that the tires are not discarded en route to the
combustor for use as fuel and are handled as a valuable commodity as
required in the legitimacy criterion in today's rule at Sec.
241.3(d)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ For purposes of today's rule, the term ``vehicle'' is meant
to include any mechanical means of conveyance that employs the use
of tires.
\76\ If scrap tires are not discarded in the first place, they
do not have to be processed per the standards in today's rule, but
they can be converted to rough shreds or processed into TDF chips at
the discretion of the combustor and still be a non-waste fuel. If
the scrap tires were discarded, they have to be processed (with
metal removal) per the standards in today's rule in order to be a
non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with other non-hazardous secondary materials that are
considered to be non-wastes, scrap tires also meet the rest of the
legitimacy criteria for fuel. They meet the requirement for meaningful
heating value, required per Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(ii) in that scrap tires
have a higher heating value (12,000 Btu/lb to 16,000 Btu/lb) as
compared to coal (the replacement fuel).
Scrap tires also meet the requirement specified at Sec.
241.3(d)(1)(iii) for the non-hazardous secondary materials to have
comparable (or lower) levels of contaminants as compared to the
traditional fuel it is replacing. Refer to the specific response to
comments on contaminants.
Established tire collection programs promote the collection of
scrap tires and coordinate with tire dealerships, haulers, processors,
and end users. The existing tire collection programs form an
established collection infrastructure. These established tire
collection programs together with state bans on landfilling in most
states \77\ effectively result in the beneficial reuse of tires (as
fuel or used in other scrap tire markets) as the sole \78\ end use
option for scrap tires in those states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ A few states allow tires cut up in smaller pieces to be
landfilled, while fewer states still allow whole tires in landfills.
\78\ Note, a commenter has indicated that some states are
considering revoking their tire landfill ban if combustors are no
longer choosing to use tires for fuel based on the outcome of this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Agency recognizes that there will be differences between
the various established tire collection programs, at a minimum, the
following components would need to be included as part of any
established tire collection program: (1) A comprehensive system that
prevents tires from being abandoned when the scrap tires are harvested
from vehicles and collected at the various businesses where they are
removed; these tires are not considered ``discarded in the first
instance'' per this rule; and (2) standards for the scrap tires to be
managed as a valuable commodity. These programs should ensure storage
does not exceed reasonable time frames, the scrap tires are managed in
a manner consistent with the analogous fuel (coal), and a system is in
place to prevent scrap tires from being discarded (according to the
plain language definition) en route to the combustor (and during any
processing prior to combustion).
An example of this type of program is a tire dealership that has
prearranged agreements where the combustor pays for the delivery of the
tires harvested from vehicles and can track the delivery and has
contractual obligations for a safe delivery. Another example is the
Texas system where tires are not seen as waste, but have specifications
for tracking and safe delivery to the end use markets.
These programs neither allow an opportunity for tires intended as a
fuel to be discarded in the first place nor discarded while in transit.
The definition of an established tire collection programs is codified
in today's rule at Sec. 241.2. These tires have not been ``disposed
of, abandoned, or thrown away'' through the initial process of removing
them from cars or collecting them under established tire collection
programs.
It is the combustor's responsibility to confirm that the whole
tires are not discarded and were handled appropriately under the
established tire collection program. Notification and recordkeeping
requirements with regard to the use of non-hazardous secondary
materials under CAA 112 and 129 rules, including whole tires managed
under established tire collection programs, are outlined in Section
VII.I.
This approach for scrap tires is supported by comments from auto
maintenance shops, tire retailers, and others in the automotive
business. These commenters discussed the management of tires collected
from tire and auto-related shops under established tire collection
programs. Typically, the state and private programs work together to
encourage the processing, reuse, and/or recycling, which results in a
market demand for scrap tires to be collected, but the use as fuel is
more independently sustainable in the free market.\79\ In the event the
combustor is disposing via combustion (i.e., not utilizing the energy
from combustion), it is a waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The recovery and management of tires that are removed from
tire piles are largely supported or subsidized by State Agencies and
these whole tires are considered discarded and waste when used as a
fuel. This is not the case for the tires we are calling non-waste
that are annually generated and are collected off the vehicles and
sent for use as fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the approach described in today's rule, EPA is recognizing
that some specific types of secondary materials are more like valuable
commodities than solid wastes, and the act of transferring them to a
third party does not automatically involve discard. As commenters
noted, the mere relinquishing of ownership does not make something a
waste.
Furthermore, as EPA notes below, the fact that states may consider
tires as wastes under state programs does not affect EPA's
determination in this rule that certain scrap tires are not wastes for
purposes of tire combustion under CAA sections 112 and 129. States may
regulate tires as wastes while EPA, for purposes of the federal
regulations, may consider them to be commodities.
We also recognize that the basis for the final position on scrap
tires is different from the proposal and is more in line with our
original position in the ANPRM. As we noted many commenters disagreed
with the basis for the position on scrap tires in the proposal, in
addition to stating a preference for the ANPRM position on scrap tires.
The overall rationale for the position in the final rule regarding
scrap tires is included in Section VII, entitled ``Detailed Discussion
and Rationale for Today's Final Rule.''
Comment: A number of commenters stated that the concentration of
contaminants that are found in tire-derived fuel TDF chips (or whole
tires) are comparable (or less than) those found in the traditional
fuels that it would be replacing. In the proposed rule, we requested
data on the TDF contaminants that are HAP, as listed in section 112(b)
of the CAA and the nine pollutants, as listed in section 129(a)(4) of
the CAA. Some commenters provided independent test results that
correlated to those contaminants and the results showed a trend that
the contaminants were generally comparable to or lower than coal, the
replacement fuel, (although individual tests and comparisons vary). In
addition to independent data, some commenters referenced EPA's
Materials Characterization Papers (used to support the proposed rule),
and the TDF
[[Page 15493]]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) \80\ data on chemical
constituents and fuel characteristics. The TDF and coal data were
typically reported as elemental analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) or ASTM
International, is a globally recognized leader in the development
and delivery of international voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, commenters provided the following TDF concentrations
for CAA section 112(b) HAP (some are also CAA 129 pollutants):
81 82
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ This is the available data for the elements or the
compounds (that are among the nine CAA section 129(a)(4) pollutants
or are on the 187 HAP listed in CAA section 112(b)) that were
reported in comments, as well as data from the scrap tire Materials
Characterization Paper referenced by commenters. Since TDF is
usually co-fired with coal, the results can include contaminants
that originated from the coal.
\82\ Refer to the Materials Characterization Papers for
traditional fuels in the docket for today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium--less than 5 up to 6 ppm (also on the CAA 129
pollutant list);
Calcium--3,780 ppm (although listed as ``calcium
cyanamide'' in the HAP list);
Chlorine--non-detect to 1,490 ppm (also listed in the CAA
129 pollutant list as ``hydrogen chloride'');
Chromium--less than 5 up to 97 ppm; \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ If this is present from the steel wire, it is not expected
to be released during typical boiler combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead--51-65 ppm (also on the CAA 129 pollutant list);
Manganese--less than 100 ppm; \84\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ If this is present from the steel wire, it is not expected
to be released during typical boiler combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury--non-detect up to levels in low-mercury coals
(also on the CAA 129 pollutant list).
These contaminant levels, the commenters argue, are at or below
documented levels in coals. Although barium and zinc are not CAA 129
pollutants or HAP, commenters also mentioned that barium was non-
detectable and one commenter mentioned that data available from the
USGS database showed coal can have much higher concentrations of zinc
\85\ than TDF. It was also reported that the steel wire in tires is
98.5% iron (which is not a HAP). As noted previously, many commenters
argue that the small amount of steel wire in typical TDF is not
considered a contaminant that could result in emissions. Rather, it
presents a handling concern when used as boiler fuel; specifically, the
TDF needs to have the exposed wire removed so that it is ``flowable''
like coal. One commenter went on to say that they can recycle metals
from TDF post-combustion. A large number of commenters stated that the
metal from tires is a necessary ingredient in the formation of clinker
in cement kilns and becomes part of the clinker product, and is in no
way considered a ``contaminant'' in cement kilns.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The commenter said the coal sample was 51,000 ppm zinc,
while coal is usually less than 100 ppm. TDF usually has higher
concentrations of zinc than the average in coal.
\86\ See the comment on cement kilns for more information
relative to cement kiln usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the commenters also reiterated that the constituents in TDF
fuel product do not lead to emission problems as evidence by comparable
or lower emissions for the following CAA 129 pollutants according to
their tests: carbon monoxide (some higher some lower, but comparable),
dioxins/dibenzofurans (some commenters stated no significant
difference, while others claimed emission reductions), hydrogen
chloride (specifically mentioned reduction in cement kilns), oxides of
nitrogen (usually combustors witness the greatest reductions in this
pollutant when using TDF \87\), and sulfur dioxide (usually reduced
when using TDF). Many commenters thought that we should also take into
consideration the reduction in greenhouse gases and the emissions
improvements.\88\ On the other hand, a number of commenters voiced
concerns about emissions from scrap tires used as fuel, anticipating
that they increased emissions (including those pollutants listed in
section 129 of the CAA). A commenter cited that emissions increases
were expected for a paper mill that was testing a substitution of TDF
for wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Commenters often said this is the biggest benefit in using
TDF. State regulators are said to suggest the use of TDF if a
combustor has a problem with NOX emissions.
\88\ Refer to the Materials Characterization Papers for a
detailed summary of the contaminant data for TDF, including data
provided by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we requested data on fuel contaminants, some contaminant
data was reported as emission results. Results of a rather large study
were reported by a commenter: ``In 2008, PCA member companies completed
a study on the impact of TDF firing on cement kiln air emissions. The
study's data set included emission tests from thirty-one of the cement
plants presently firing TDF. Dioxin-furan emission test results
indicated that kilns firing TDF had emissions approximately one-third
of those kilns firing conventional fuels--this difference was
statistically significant. Emissions of particulate matter (PM) from
TDF-firing kilns were 35% less than the levels reported for kilns
firing conventional fuels (not statistically significant due to the low
PM emissions reported for essentially all cement plants). Nitrogen
oxides, most metals, and sulfur dioxide emissions from TDF-firing kilns
also exhibited lower levels than those from conventional fuel kilns.
The emission values for carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbons were
slightly higher in TDF versus non-TDF firing kilns. However, none of
the differences in the emission data sets between TDF versus non-TDF
firing kilns for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, total hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and metals were statistically significant. Separate
studies conducted by governmental agencies and engineering consulting
firms have also indicated that TDF firing either reduces or does not
significantly affect emissions of various contaminants from cement
kilns.''
EPA's Response: The Agency assessed the contaminants in TDF using
the data submitted and the proposed rule data (referenced above) and
compared it to the concentrations in coal, the traditional fuel that
scrap tires would be replacing.\89\ While the level of contaminants in
TDF or tires vary slightly \90\ between test results for the scrap
tires and for the type of fuel that was used for comparison purposes
(i.e., coal, the replacement fuel), this data supports the commenters'
position that the level of contaminants in TDF (or whole tires) are
comparable to (if not less than) those found in the traditional fuel
that it would be replacing.\91\ Coal has a number of contaminants that
are not present in TDF. See the Materials Characterization Papers on
Traditional Fuels and on Scrap Tires in the docket for today's rule for
a complete discussion on contaminants in TDF (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The ``contaminants'' are the nine CAA section 129(a)(4)
pollutants and the 187 HAP listed in CAA section 112(b).
\90\ The elemental constituents in coal vary regionally so the
test result comparisons to TDF also vary. For example, the relative
percentage of some elements is sometimes slightly higher in some
tests and lower in others. Overall, we find that TDF and coal have a
comparable level of contaminants.
\91\ While zinc has been reported to have higher levels in TDF
than in coal, zinc is neither a HAP or one of the nine pollutants
identified in section 129(a)(4) of the CAA and thus, would not be a
contaminant for consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The metal wire in tires is 98.5 percent iron, but it is a small
component of the TDF when processed. The Agency has determined that the
concentration of iron in the processed TDF chips is comparable to those
in coal. However, iron is not a HAP, nor are the other components of
the wire expected to be released to the emissions in a typical boiler.
Rather, the wire ends up in the bottom ash such that, according to one
commenter, the metal can be recovered.
[[Page 15494]]
If the scrap tires were discarded (i.e., recovered from a tire dump),
they would need to be processed into TDF chips with some removal of the
metal wire (per the processing specifications described in a response
to comments below) in order to be a non-waste fuel. Based on the
comments, we recognize that this is more important for handling, than
for emissions. We would also note that the steel wire in the whole
tires used in cement kilns is regarded differently since it is needed
to become part of the cement. That is, if the non-combustible
ingredient in feedstocks that are necessary (e.g., iron) for clinker
production are no longer used, those materials must be replaced.
Finally, although we focus on the contaminants in fuel since that
is the relevant criterion as it relates to the legitimacy criteria, and
for deciding whether a material is a waste or a commodity, we do
recognize the value of the greenhouse gas, as well as other criteria
pollutant improvements using scrap tires as stated in the proposal and
also raised by commenters. Specifically, the use of secondary materials
as alternative fuels and/or ingredients in manufacturing processes
using combustion not only recovers valuable resources, it is known to
contribute to emissions reductions. For example, GHG has been reduced
as a co-benefit of the use of secondary materials--the GHG rate
associated with the combustion of scrap tires is approximately 0.09
MTCO2 E \92\ per million Btu of scrap tires combusted, while
the GHG emissions rate for coal is approximately 0.094
MTCO2E per million Btu. Combined with the avoided extraction
and processing emissions 0.006 MTCO2 E/million Btu for coal,
the total avoided greenhouse gas is 0.019 MTCO2 E per
million Btu. Also, substituting TDF for coal would avoid an estimated
0.246 Lbs/million Btu of particulate matter associated with the
extraction and processing of the coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2E)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to criteria pollutants, historical EPA and test program
data demonstrate that, while emission rates vary over different TDF
levels at different facilities, criteria pollutant emissions from
combusting TDF have been found a majority of the time to be reduced or
not significantly different than those from other conventional fossil
fuels, provided combustion occurs in a well-designed, well-operated and
well-maintained combustion device. In fact, results from a dedicated
tires-to-energy (100% TDF) facility indicate that it is possible to
have emissions much lower than those produced by existing solid-fuel-
fired boilers (on a heat input basis) with a specially designed
combustor and add-on controls.\93\ Typically boilers use a mix of TDF
and coal; they have comparable emissions with or without TDF with the
same air pollution control device. We are not aware any small area
sources that are able to use TDF for fuel. (See the Materials
Characterization Papers in the docket for further details on these GHG
estimates, and other estimates of avoided emissions associated with
burning tires and other secondary materials as fuel.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See, for example, Reisman JI (1997) Air Emissions from
Scrap Tire Combustion, Appendix: Emissions Data from Controlled Tire
Burning. Technical Report prepared for USEPA. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC EPA 1997 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/tire_eng.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we would also note that the use of secondary materials,
such as use as a fuel in industrial processes may also result in other
benefits, including reduced fuel imports, reduced mining impacts, and
reduced negative environmental impacts caused by previous dumping
(e.g., tires).
Comment: Some industry commenters claimed that the proposed rule
would increase the costs for facilities that use scrap tires as a fuel
due to the imposed costs for unnecessary processing, and would
negatively affect them and existing tire recycling programs. According
to the many comments by tire retailers, tires are a material handled as
a commodity. Under the third party processing requirements in the
proposed rule, they estimated substantially increased costs to remove
the tires they handle from their shops. This would also have the effect
of causing the tires to be seen as ``waste-like'' since their monetary
value would be reduced.
EPA's Response: As a result of the changes made to the final rule
concerning scrap tires that are collected as part of an established
tire collection program, we anticipate that there will be no or minimal
changes, to the current system that prevents scrap tires from being
discarded. Thus, the costs for the tire retailers are not expected to
increase, as anticipated by the commenters.
Comment: A number of state environmental agencies recommended that
scrap tires not be considered a solid waste when combusted, because of
potential impacts on their state programs. These state environmental
agencies, however, typically preferred EPA to consider scrap tires a
waste at least until it arrives at the combustion unit (or otherwise
reasonably processed into a product according to some State Agency
commenters). Many of these states noted the beneficial aspects of using
whole scrap tires as a fuel and were concerned with the negative
impacts and possible interference to the success of their beneficial
use programs (typically for non-combustion determinations) and
requested clarification on the scope and impact of this rule for all
non-hazardous secondary materials, including scrap tires. For instance,
they asked if the rule would affect or interfere with state solid waste
regulations, laws, and beneficial use programs. They also requested
that EPA clarify the implications to a state program if the scrap tires
are considered non-waste when used as fuel for federal purposes, but
are considered waste according to the state recycling and waste
management programs (until beneficially used or made into a non-waste
product).
EPA's Response: As discussed, the Agency has decided to identify
scrap tires that are removed from vehicles and collected as part of an
established tire collection program as a non-waste fuel when combusted.
Thus, we believe that the concerns or impacts on the effective
collection and use as a tire-derived fuel product should no longer be a
concern. However, this approach would not address the request from
state agencies that we identify scrap tires as a waste until combusted.
As discussed previously, existing RCRA case law on hazardous wastes
would not allow EPA to declare that a discarded material ceases to be a
waste solely by the fact that it is beneficially used. Wastes may be
used beneficially. Accordingly, once a non-hazardous secondary material
(such as scrap tires retrieved from waste tire piles) is identified as
a waste, its arrival at a facility for combustion would not change its
status. EPA has also expressed the belief that case law would not
prevent wastes from being processed into materials that are no longer
wastes. However, that would require changing the material sufficiently
so that a new fuel product is created.
In response to the states question concerning conflicting and
concurrent interpretations of state and federal waste status (when used
as fuel), EPA would like to clarify that non-hazardous secondary
materials may be simultaneously regulated as a non-waste fuel or
ingredient for use in combustion units under the federal program, but
as a solid waste by the state's solid waste programs. That is, non-
hazardous secondary materials that are designated as a non-waste by
today's rule, while
[[Page 15495]]
not subject to the section 129 CAA standards, could be subject to the
state standards that identify the same non-hazardous secondary material
as a solid waste. The federal rule does not affect the state waste
determination in this case. For more information about state agency
concerns with regulating non-hazardous secondary materials, not just
scrap tires, refer to Section IX.A, ``Applicability of State Solid
Waste Definitions and Beneficial Use Determinations.''
Finally, we would note, and as stated elsewhere in this preamble,
this rule only addresses those non-hazardous secondary materials that
are burned in combustion units as a fuel or ingredient. Thus, we are
not making any determination that non-hazardous secondary materials are
or are not solid wastes for other possible beneficial uses. Such
beneficial use determinations are generally made by the states for
these other beneficial uses, and EPA will continue to look to the
states in making such determinations.
Comment: One commenter stated that ``[b]urning in incinerators,
kilns, boilers, etc. is not the highest best use of scrap tires,'' and
that with proper processing, they can be used in many value-added
recycling processes. Many other commenters were opposed to the
combustion of any non-hazardous secondary materials as a fuel,
including scrap tires in CAA section 112 regulated units, and support
the recycling or reuse of scrap tires for other uses instead of
combustion.
EPA's Response: The issue that EPA is addressing in this rule is
whether the burning of non-hazardous secondary materials, including
scrap tires (whether whole or as TDF) is considered waste management.
This is critical since the status of scrap tires--that is, whether they
are a waste or not, determines which CAA emission standards the non-
hazardous secondary material would be subject to. With that said, EPA
supports the broad use of scrap tires in many different markets (e.g.,
recycled rubber products, use in asphalt, and in civil engineering
projects). The Agency also believes that the use of scrap tires as a
fuel is a valuable use and should remain a component in the overall
suite of recycling/management options provided the combustion units are
subject to appropriate standards. In some cases, other recycling
markets may not be available if TDF was not used a fuel. For example,
in the standard process of shredding tires for tire-derived fuel (TDF),
finer pieces are created as a by-product appropriate for recycled
rubber products. In most cases, it would be too expensive to process
the scrap tires solely for the recycling of this rubber (according to
sources in the scrap tire program). Comments on the ANPRM and the
proposal led us to believe that the non-combustion markets for scrap
tires could not handle the surplus and will reverse the trend in
cleaning up tire dumps and will lead to many tires being disposed of in
scrap tire piles.
Specifically, in 2007, 89.3% percent of the scrap tires generated
in the U.S. by weight were collected and consumed in end-use markets.
The total volume of scrap tires consumed in these end use markets
reached approximately 4,105.8 thousand tons of tires out of an
estimated 4,595.7 thousand tons of tires generated in the U.S. By
comparison, in 1990, only eleven percent of the scrap tires were
consumed on a per tire basis.\94\ Of the scrap tires that are collected
annually and used in beneficial use end markets, about half are used
for their fuel value, while the remainder are used in value-added
recycling processes as the commenter preferred. We recognize that
regionally, there are sometimes scrap tire shortages in an area that
could support more non-combustion uses (as compared to the market
demand for scrap tire usages). That is, some states are net importers
and have very healthy markets using scrap tires as commodities, while
other states do not have as much demand for scrap tires. The EPA
supported scrap tire program is described on our Web site (http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/tires/index.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ These tire figures are compiled by RMA and are developed
jointly with state scrap tire programs and listed in ``U.S. Scrap
Tire Markets 2007.'' The report can be found at http://www.rma.org/scrap_tires/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA describes coal and petroleum coke as traditional fuel.
Based on the extensive use developed over the last 20-30 years in the
industry, many of the alternative fuels, such as TDF can also be
considered traditional. A number of commenters cited that scrap tires
have been used as a fuel for a long time (since the late 70's) which
should qualify as ``historical use'' and should be regarded as a
traditional fuel. The cement industry's goals have emphasized use of
alternate fuels and raw materials based on the industry increasing its
reliance on this type of material since the 1980s. The use of TDF is a
long-standing and customary practice now characteristic of cement
manufacturing fuel options. In fact, commenters have argued that the
number of major industrial boilers and cement plants utilizing TDF as a
supplemental fuel has risen dramatically over the last 19 years and
decreased the dependence on virgin fuel sources.
Other commenters mentioned that the components of tires are derived
from hydrocarbons (like fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural
gas) and natural ``biogenic'' sources (the rubber), and therefore, they
should be considered a traditional fuel. Still other commenters
mentioned that TDF should be considered a traditional fuel since it
should qualify for the same reasons as on-spec used oil. Finally other
commenters argued that scrap tires should be considered a traditional
fuel based on the comparable contaminant content and superior Btu value
(at 12,000 Btu/lb to 16,000 Btu/lb), as compared to coal.
EPA's Response: We do not agree with the commenters that scrap
tires should be considered an historically managed traditional fuel or
alternative fuel. In fact, until this rulemaking, we are not aware that
anyone has considered or identified scrap tires as a traditional fuel.
While we recognize that scrap tires may have been used as a fuel since
the 1970's, we would also note that tires are not produced for their
fuel value, even though the components of tires are derived from
hydrocarbons and natural biogenic source. Further, scrap tires are not
derived from virgin material fuels (e.g., as is the case of coal refuse
derived from virgin coal).
Comment: Some commenters regarded the combustion of non-hazardous
secondary materials, including scrap tires, as waste disposal and
therefore the combustion unit that burns these secondary materials
should be regulated as an incinerator. Another commenter was concerned
with a combustor accepting fees to accept non-hazardous secondary
materials and argued that waste-burning boilers can receive a pass-
through portion of tipping fees and can also collect fees ``to dispose
of'' the material through combustion at ``clean energy'' projects. The
commenter went on to say that the fuel at these facilities is in no way
sold in the marketplace the way that traditional fuels are sold for
profit. In fact, the economic model is reversed, so that the combustion
facility is paid to take the secondary material.
EPA's Response: The question of whether or not a non-hazardous
secondary material, including scrap tires is or is not a solid waste,
depends on whether it has been discarded, and whether it could
legitimately be considered a fuel-like material, by meeting the
legitimacy criteria. As we have discussed elsewhere in this preamble,
we have determined that scrap tires, when collected as part of an
[[Page 15496]]
established tire collection program and sent to a combustion unit for
use as a fuel, or when sufficiently processed to produce a tire-derived
fuel, have not been discarded and are not solid wastes. These secondary
materials are more akin to non-waste fuels in these instances. Thus, we
disagree with the commenters who argue that the combustion of non-
hazardous secondary materials, including scrap tires, always
constitutes waste management.
On the other hand, where scrap tires or any other non-hazardous
secondary materials are disposed of (part of the plain meaning of
discard) via combustion, they are a waste. For example, if a combustion
unit's main purpose is to provide heat to dry a product, but they
consistently have a surplus of tires received with a tipping fee and
operate the unit without a product being dried, they are in effect
destroying the scrap tires. In this case, they would be considered
solid wastes, and the combustion unit would be subject to the CAA 129
standards. With respect to the situation where a facility accepts scrap
tires for a tipping fee (as opposed to paying for the fuel), that can
be an indicator that disposal may be occurring, but is not
determinative to indicate that such transactions always constitute
waste management. For example, the tipping fees could encourage over-
accumulation leading to combustion for disposal versus being used as a
valuable replacement fuel. Thus, this factor should be considered, in
light of the other circumstances, in determining whether or not scrap
tires when combusted as a fuel are or are not a solid waste.
Comment: A commenter described the associated environmental justice
impacts that would occur at sites that would receive scrap tires if the
proposed rule went into effect, as compared to the current
environmental justice impacts associated with cement kiln sites. The
commenter provided an analysis that they said showed a decreased chance
of impacting environmental justice communities based on the demographic
analysis at cement kilns versus the alternative sites. The commenter
claimed that the processing described in the proposed rule would
effectively prohibit them from using scrap tires as a fuel and will
result in more scrap tires being disposed of or unnecessarily processed
at sites that are more likely to be in environmental justice
communities, as EPA's environmental justice analysis indicates.
The commenters' analyses indicated that cement kilns tend to be
located in areas with fewer minorities than the national average, as
well as fewer minorities as compared to the larger set of sites that
use non-hazardous secondary materials that may become CISWI facilities,
tire processors, and RCRA subtitle D facilities (as EPA assessed in the
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'' \95\). The commenter stated
that ``EPA's data shows vividly that there are no Environmental Justice
issues at any of the cement plants in its CISWI database.'' The
commenter also argued that land disposal (or processing) sites already
have environmental justice issues and that the proposed rule would make
it worse by having more scrap tires diverted to waste tire piles or
processors. Another commenter indicated that states are considering
removing landfill bans on whole tires if this rule goes into effect,
and argued that the proposed rule would cause an increase in the number
of tires going to landfills or stockpiles and would have a disparate
impact on adjacent communities and mentioned the risks of fires and
mosquito born vectors at tire piles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ EPA's ``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'' that the
commenter referenced, can be found in the docket for today's rule
(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0519). Cement kilns and other combustors that
use non-hazardous secondary materials were included in the CISWI
database used for EPA's demographics (many of the units in the CISWI
database were not regulated as incinerators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: In the evaluation regarding the use of whole scrap
tires (predominantly used as a fuel in cement kilns) and whether or not
they should be considered solid wastes if collected as part of an
established tire collection program, we considered the environmental
justice demographics and impacts that would result at cement kilns.
Based on our review of the demographics at cement kilns, on average,
they are located in areas with fewer minorities and less poverty than
RCRA subtitle D disposal sites, processing sites, and facilities
assessed to become CISWI CAA section 129 incinerators.
Whole scrap tires can be used as a non-waste fuel in cement kilns
under today's rule when they were harvested from vehicles and managed
under the oversight of an established tire collection program prior to
being delivered to the combustion unit. Based on our most recent
demographic data, we agree with the commenter that sending whole tires
to cement kilns as a non-waste fuel is not expected to have a negative
impact on environmental justice communities. In fact, it appears that
it would have benefits since RCRA subtitle D disposal sites, processing
sites, and facilities assessed to become CISWI CAA 129 incinerators
(the sites that would be accepting scrap tires if not burned as a fuel
in cement kilns) are more likely to be located in environmental justice
communities. Thus, while this was not the primary basis on which this
decision was made, the Agency believes it important that its decision
would lessen the impacts on environmental justice communities.
Comment: EPA never explains why it believes that, in the context of
a secondary material that does not need processing or perhaps needs
only minimal processing to serve as a wholly bona fide fuel, that scrap
tires cannot be considered sufficiently ``processed'' unless they are
physically shredded and undergo metals removal processing. We note that
whole tires that have long been buried or stacked in aging piles may
need minimal processing for use in cement kilns, such as removal of
excess water and dirt, mud, and debris. Whole tires from newer stacks
or piles often need no physical processing whatever. EPA never explains
why it thinks this much processing is necessary for tires to escape the
``discard'' rubric and serve as bona fide fuels in portland cement
kilns. The result of this faulty logic is that beneficial reuse of
significant amounts of non-hazardous secondary materials will be
greatly discouraged, and there will be no health or environmental
benefits (only detriments). We believe it is obvious that EPA's
proposal represents a ``classic case of arbitrary and capricious
rulemaking.''
The portland cement industry simply cannot afford to jeopardize its
product by using alternate fuels that affect cement quality. EPA
justifiably had a concern (reflected in the earlier RCRA subtitle C
rulemaking and policy documents it cites) that unscrupulous parties
seeking to avoid the expensive subtitle C cradle-to-grave regime had
incentives to claim that the hazardous waste they were burning was a
bona fide fuel. At that stage in RCRA subtitle C development (mid
1980s), burning of hazardous materials for bona fide energy recovery
purposes was exempt. This concern simply does not apply to the
situation in which non-hazardous secondary materials are being burned
in fully regulated industrial furnaces such as portland cement kilns.
Ironically, EPA has long recognized that products from portland
cement kilns burning hazardous waste fuel are not adversely affected in
any manner. In 1995, after reviewing exhaustive data presented in a
petition filed under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA
rejected the petitioners' request that products produced from cement
[[Page 15497]]
kilns that burn hazardous waste fuel carry warning labels because EPA
found there was no difference in contaminant levels (or risks) in the
product. 60 FR 39169 et seq., August 1, 1995. As recently as 2007,
EPA's Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) stated in a letter to the Center for Maximum Potential Building
Systems that ``there is no difference in the cement from kilns burning
hazardous waste compared to cement produced by kilns not burning
hazardous waste.''
Moreover, NSF International has reviewed data from several portland
cement kilns burning hazardous waste fuel to assess whether the product
from such kilns could be safely used in concrete water pipes and water
storage tanks. These studies have uniformly concluded that there is no
statistical difference in contaminants between clinker or products made
from kilns burning hazardous waste fuel as compared to kilns using only
fossil fuels.
The commenters representing cement kilns also noted that a cement
kiln is not a boiler or an incinerator. One of the commenters went on
to say that ``in enacting CAA section 129, Congress was focused
exclusively on ``incinerators.'' Incinerators burn waste materials
solely for the purposes of destruction. They do not use
``ingredients,'' and they make no product. Moreover, in all the
rulemaking and litigation that prompted this proposed rule--culminating
in the NRDC case * * * EPA, the parties, and the Court were focused
exclusively on incinerators and boilers. Like incinerators, boilers do
not use ``ingredients.'' Unlike incinerators, boilers may burn waste
materials for energy recovery purposes. But the only product they make
is steam, and the steam that they make never comes in contact with the
fuel they burn.
A portland cement kiln is significantly different from an
incinerator or a boiler in key respects. First, it is one type of
``industrial furnace'' which, unlike boilers and incinerators, which
makes a marketable product. All materials that are placed in the kiln--
including fuels--come into mutual contact in the manufacturing process.
The product the kilns produce must meet strict quality standards. EPA's
RCRA regulations have long recognized these key distinctions among
industrial furnaces, boilers, and incinerators. The commenter referred
to 40 CFR 260.10.
Despite the fact that there was absolutely no issue with portland
cement kilns producing ingredients in the development of CAA section
129 or the rulemaking and litigation leading to this rulemaking, the
commenter stated that portland cement kilns have been included in this
proposal in a manner that could have very adverse impacts on a kilns'
ability to use non-hazardous materials beneficially; the commenter went
on to argue that a significant flaw in the proposal is its failure to
recognize the key differences between portland cement kilns as compared
to incinerators and boilers.
EPA's Response: These comments may express legitimate policy
concerns. However, they are essentially irrelevant to the decisions
that EPA is making in this rulemaking. Tires from tire dumps are
clearly wastes because they have been disposed for a long time. The
tires were clearly abandoned if they were left in a tire dump. EPA
understands the commenter's remarks that cement kilns are not
``boilers'' nor were designed to be ``incinerators,'' but cement kilns
are clearly ``combustors'' under the CAA and the Agency needs to decide
whether CAA section 112 or 129 standards would apply.
With respect to the comments regarding ``processing,'' EPA's
intention is to provide a standard for turning clearly discarded
material into a non-waste. EPA acknowledges that there is no direct
case on point in which a court has opined on how a material may lose
its status as a waste.\96\ The comment assumes all fuel is not a waste.
As EPA has repeatedly stated in this preamble, a waste may be used
beneficially and may, indeed, be a bona fide fuel. This is consistent
with the DC Circuit's opinion in NRDC v. EPA. A combustor that burns
solid waste, even for energy recovery, must be regulated under CAA 129.
If the kiln is regulated under CAA 129, no processing is needed for a
waste scrap tire to be burned as a bona fide fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Although we recognize that some states have systems in
place where materials lose the waste status if beneficially used
according to the state's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the statutory provisions and case law, EPA is constrained to
argue that discarded materials are solid wastes and would need to be
burned under CAA section 129 standards. EPA notes that environmental
groups would argue that all units combusting tires must be subject to
emissions standards issued under section 129 of the CAA even if the
tires have been processed into a separate TDF, and the comments include
policy arguments to support this contention. The point of the comment
is that requiring units to meet emissions standards issued under
section 129 of the CAA would discourage burning of tires as an
environmentally beneficial replacement for non-renewable fuels, yet
environmental groups would argue that scrap tires should nevertheless
be subject to such standards. EPA's focus, however, must be on the
definition of solid waste under RCRA and the comment gives the Agency
no basis to determine what kind of activity would make the waste a non-
waste. Whether the material is a bona fide fuel does not provide the
answer to that inquiry.
EPA sees no reason based on these comments to eliminate the
processing requirement for this final rule.
Comment: The commenters that addressed the specific level of
processing for whole scrap tires disagreed with EPA on the amount of
processing required before TDF should be considered a non-waste fuel.
In addition, many of the commenters had different interpretations of
our proposed wire removal requirements and on the term ``relatively
wire free'' (since some incorrectly believed that the proposed standard
was up to 99% or absolutely no wire). Furthermore, many of these same
commenters argued that the proposed processing requirements for units
that use TDF chips were unrealistic and would dramatically increase
processing costs, while a few commenters cited that many processors
could not even achieve the specified level of wire removal. These
changes would significantly deter facilities from using TDF that they
regarded as a product. In fact, a number of commenters, including some
state agencies, questioned the value of requiring unnecessarily costly
processing of whole scrap tires that are to be used as a fuel in units,
such as cement kilns, since the wire in the scrap tires can be
beneficial due to the properties of the iron oxide resulting from the
tire combustion in cement kilns. Other commenters noted that the
presence of steel in the whole scrap tires or TDF should be irrelevant
to their waste status since the wire removed is for improvement in
handling--that is, the TDF needs to have the exposed wire removed so
that it is ``flowable'' like coal within the combustion unit, as well
as any loose wire removed since it can also cause handling issues in
the units, not emissions.
A few commenters claimed that TDF processed to two-inch pieces was
seen as the higher end TDF product and that this should be our
standard. In particular, one commenter that markets TDF as a product,
``request that the EPA use the widely accepted nominal two-inch minus,
90%+ wire free standard that has been standard in the industry
[[Page 15498]]
for years'' since this would accurately define a product. The commenter
said that ``TDF meeting this 90%+ wire free standard typically has a
wire content of between 2% and 8% by weight.'' In addition, some state
agencies have been known to specify two-inch TDF as a product rather
than a waste, while rough shreds used for fuel in some combustors
(bigger than two inches) are seen as a waste material (not a product)
by those states. The size restriction is more prevalent in
specification for TDF than specifying a percentage of metal.
Other commenters argued that a product is created when tires are
processed at any level that makes it ``TDF'' and mentioned that the
ASTM describes a process that creates a ``product'' called TDF. Another
commenter mentioned that a necessary component in the processing of
shredded tires is to remove the protruding wire from the shreds and to
sort the rubber pieces from the wire remnants called ``free wire.'' The
commenter said that this part of processing is typically necessary in
order for it to be sold as a TDF product to boilers. The commenter went
on to say that the completion of this last step can be tested by
spreading out the TDF chips in a single layer and passing a very strong
magnet over them to see if any free wire remains. That commenter
reasoned that TDF chips that pass the magnet test and had the free wire
removed should qualify as a non-waste TDF product.
EPA's Response: In the situation where tires are discarded in the
first place or otherwise do not meet the legitimacy criteria,
processing is needed before it is considered a non-waste fuel (i.e.,
tires that are not collected from vehicles as part of an established
tire collection program per Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(i)). We disagree with
those commenters who addressed the level of processing needed before
TDF is considered a non-waste as these commenters are answering a
different question: How much processing is necessary before whole scrap
tires can be burned properly in any particular combustion unit?
However, the question that EPA needs to answer is how much
processing is sufficient before whole scrap tires are considered a non-
waste fuel where the scrap tires are not collected as part of a scrap
tire collection program? Examples of sufficient processing for other
non-hazardous secondary materials include the processing of used oil to
produce on-specification used oil and the processing of construction
and demolition (C&D) wood into a fuel by sorting to remove contaminants
(e.g., lead-painted wood, treated wood, non-wood materials), and sizing
it. In all these instances, the non-hazardous secondary material is
being sufficiently changed, either chemically or physically to produce
a non-waste product.
Thus, while insufficiently processed discarded tires can be burned
in boilers as a fuel, such TDF would still be considered a waste-
derived product because the Agency does not believe that simply
shredding or quartering whole tires, or removing some dirt, is adequate
to produce a non-waste product for use as fuel according to today's
rule (refer to the processing definition in Sec. 241.2 Definitions).
While the extent of processing that may be required may vary for
different types of non-hazardous secondary materials, the Agency
contends that a sufficient amount of processing must occur to produce a
non-waste product from secondary materials.
One commenter mentioned, boiler operators are able to recycle the
metal from the wire post-combustion (although minimal). This is after
it has been cleaned of the rubber particles via the combustion process,
so this iron can be recovered and recycled (not disposed in emissions).
However, whether or not the metal from the wire (post-combustion) can
be recycled does not go to the question of whether or not the non-
hazardous secondary material has been ``sufficiently processed'' to
produce a non-waste product.
With respect to the technical question of how much wire must be
removed before the amount of processing is considered sufficient, the
specific unit types that use TDF chips require different levels of
metal removal for handling concerns as noted by commenters. The ASTM
Standard D 6700 ``Standard Practice for Use of Scrap Tire-Derived
Fuel'' \97\ describes the process for ``dewired'' and has a helpful
guideline on the appropriate amount of wire removal for different unit
types under the topic titled ``Handling Considerations Conveying, Grate
and Ash.'' However, the ASTM standard is concerned with proper dewiring
and not whether the resultant material is a waste or non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ ASTM Standard D6700-01, 2006, ``Standard Practice for Use
of Scrap Tire-Derived Fuel,'' ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/C0033-03, http://www.astm.org. This standard
can be obtained through the following Web site: http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6700.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed rule, EPA referred to the level of processing in
varied terms (``relatively wire free,'' ``processed to the Standard
Practice for Use of Scrap Tire-Derived Fuel ASTM Standard D 6700-01,''
``wire removed,'' ``steel belts removed,'' and ``sufficiently
processed''). While ASTM was not deciding whether this material would
be a waste, or not, EPA in the proposal was suggesting that such
material would be sufficiently processed to render the new material a
commodity fuel. Thus, to be considered sufficiently processed, there
has to be metal removed and, it should be at the level of wire removal
that is specific to the combustion unit as mentioned above. EPA agrees
with the commenter who stated that TDF that has been chipped/shredded,
sorted and dewired (or at least 90%+ wire free) would be considered
sufficiently processed. However, this may not be the only standard, to
the extent that other unit types require different levels of metal
removal.
With respect to the commenter that suggested the removal of free
wire as an indicator of sufficient processing, we would agree that the
removal of free wire (as described by the commenter) is a necessary
component of processing scrap tires into a non-waste product for the
purposes of this rule, but that alone, may not be sufficient to meet
our definition of processing. It could qualify if, according to product
specifications appropriate for the particular combustion unit, it is
processed into TDF chips and enough wire is removed from the TDF and
the loose free wire is removed (to the degree practical) appropriate to
the unit.
However, we would also note, as is the case for all types of solid
fuel, proper characterization of the size and composition of TDF are
important factors that combustion unit operators assess to determine if
the TDF is a suitable fuel for their specific combustion unit
design.\98\ For example, ASTM Standard D 6700, describes standard
practices for using TDF as fuels, and also specifies sampling and
analysis methods and procedures that apply to TDF that cover
composition and fuel characterization analyses. The standards also
address the size of the tire pieces and metal content in order to
optimize combustion. The ASTM Standard D 6700 ``Standard Practice for
Use of Scrap Tire-Derived Fuel'' also describes the process for
``dewired'' TDF and has a helpful guideline on the appropriate amount
of wire removal for different unit types under the topic
[[Page 15499]]
titled ``Handling Considerations Conveying, Grate and Ash.'' In
summary, EPA considers that previously discarded tires that have been
made into TDF (shredded/chipped, sized, sorted, and with a significant
portion of the metal belts or wire removed, at a level appropriate for
the unit), meets the definition of ``sufficient processing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ With regard to the legitimacy criteria discussed in Section
V.D., the heating value of scrap tires (12,000 Btu/lb to 16,000 Btu/
lb) is the highest of all non-hazardous secondary materials, except
used oil (17,800 Btu/lb), and higher than typical coal values.
Contaminants of potential concern have been measured for both
materials: The constituents are comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as discussed above, the final rule also allows for scrap
tires that have been harvested from vehicles (as part of an established
tire collection program) to be used as a non-waste fuel. The question
of processing into TDF or the ``extent of processing'' is only relevant
if they are using scrap tires that have first been discarded.\99\ Scrap
tire processors typically enter into contracts with the end users of
these products that specify that the processed tires meet certain
specifications (i.e., size of chips and possibly other considerations)
to ensure that the product that is produced consistently meets the
needs of that particular end use. Boilers, unlike cement kilns,\100\
benefit from TDF that has been processed into small chips that feed in
the combustion unit like coal and the reduction of metal to improve its
handling and operational qualities in the combustion unit. For
instance, the removal of the exposed wire around the perimeter of the
tire chips makes it ``flowable'' like coal in the combustion unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Since scrap tires that are harvested from vehicles (as part
of an established tire collection program) can be burned as whole
tires and still be considered a non-waste fuel, the Agency does not
believe it appropriate to require such tires to meet the level of
processing (as codified in Sec. 241.2). However, other scrap tires,
e.g., those that are removed from tire piles would need to be
processed (as codified in Sec. 241.2) in order to be burned as a
non-waste fuel.
\100\ We note that most cement kilns use whole tires as fuels,
as opposed to TDF chips, because their process does not require the
TDF to be in the form of small chips to use it as a fuel, and does
not require removal of the metal (since they use the metal as an
ingredient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that merely harvesting tires from vehicles does not
render the material a non-waste. If the tires are used in a combustor
for which they are not suitable, which can be determined through the
analysis of the legitimacy criteria, they would be wastes.
6. Resinated Wood Residuals
The proposed rule described resinated wood products as those
generated during the manufacture of particleboard, medium density
fiberboard, and hardboard and includes materials, such as board trim,
sander dust, and panel trim. The proposal indicated that such resinated
wood products were considered a non-waste fuel when burned in a
combustion unit because this secondary material generally meets the
legitimacy criteria. We acknowledged, however, that we had limited data
on the level of contaminants in resinated wood products, but the data
we had did generally indicate that this non-hazardous secondary
material would meet the legitimacy criterion for contaminants. In order
to gather additional information on which to base our decision, we
requested comment and data on the contaminant levels contained in these
secondary materials, as well as the appropriateness of calling them a
non-waste.
Comment: The American Mining Congress v. EPA case states that
secondary materials beneficially used within the generating industry,
not within the generating plant, is part of a continuous industrial
process and thus, not a solid waste. Therefore, transfer of materials
within the generating industry would have to be considered a non-waste
fuel.
Some commenters contend, however, that any secondary material
burned for energy recovery is a solid waste, regardless of whether it
remains within the control of the generator. These commenters object to
allowing control by the generator to be relevant to rendering secondary
material a non-waste, even if burned under the legitimacy criteria,
claiming that these secondary materials are wastes. The commenter goes
on to note that EPA itself admits that a secondary material could still
be a waste even if it is recycled on-site or within the control of the
generator and cites the court's holding in API II.
EPA's Response: EPA needs to correct some of the industry and
environmental group misrepresentations of the cases on the definition
of solid waste. In AMC I, the court was only noting that secondary
materials reclaimed within a continuous process are not wastes and are
not subject to EPA's jurisdiction as solid wastes. The case is actually
a narrow discussion of one basic principle regarding what is not
discarded. The court does not even state whether any particular
material is discarded. For example, while there is a reference to used
oil that could be discarded, the court in no sense was saying that all
used oil is discarded. In fact, in API II the court specifically noted
that in AMC I they ``did not address the discard status of any of the
particular materials discussed in the briefs.'' 216 F.3d at 56. The
court freely admitted in API II that its ``prior cases have not had to
draw a line for deciding when discard has occurred,'' but only dealt
with the extreme cases of materials that were either wastes or non-
wastes. 216 F.3d at 57.
As the various definition of solid waste cases hold, the ultimate
issue for deciding when most materials are discarded is whether EPA's
determination complies with the arbitrary and capricious standard of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Sweeping formulations involving
whether a process is within an ``industry'' is not helpful, nor is it
consistent with the case law. EPA, and the courts, reject any
formulation that under AMC I the statement that discard cannot be found
in the case of immediate recycling within a continuous industrial
process means ipso facto that any material transferred within an
``industry,'' even between companies located in New York and
California, is not a waste. EPA's decision on whether resinated wood is
a waste (within the control of the generator or if transferred) is
based on the circumstances under which the material is handled and
combusted. Merely keeping material on-site will not render it a non-
waste, nor will mere transfer make the material a waste.
Comment: Trim, sawdust, shavings, sander dust and other residual
materials from producing panels and other engineered wood products
containing resins have been widely used as fuels by wood product plants
since the industry began in the 1950s and should, therefore, be
classified as a traditional fuel. In fact, the wood product plants have
been designed so as to specifically utilize these residuals that the
process creates and would not be able to operate as designed without
this material. The commenters argue that there are no significant
contaminants in resinated wood residuals that are used as fuels. None
of the constituents are among the contaminants controlled under CISWI.
This fact provides sufficient justification to accept resinated fuels
as traditional fuels from the standpoint of contaminants.
EPA's Response: We do not agree with those commenters who argue
that resinated wood residuals should be considered a traditional fuel,
since it can have contaminants at levels greater than traditional fuels
(as discussed below). We recognize, however, that much of the resinated
wood residuals are used as a product fuel, and that the plants have
been designed to catch and then burn these residuals to supply energy
and heat to other parts of the plant. EPA recognizes that some specific
types of non-hazardous secondary materials, such as resinated wood
residuals, are more like valuable
[[Page 15500]]
commodities than solid wastes. Resinated wood is a secondary material
that, upon examination, is not discarded when used on-site or
transferred off-site to a different company. Thus, EPA would consider
resinated wood residuals used as a fuel in a combustion unit as not
being a solid waste, provided these materials satisfy the specified
legitimacy criteria for fuels.
Comment: Commenters argued that resinated wood residuals are often
used off-site in a manner that does not constitute discard and the
secondary materials should not be classified as solid waste when
transferred between facilities or companies. As much as 6% of resinated
wood residuals are sold into the fuel market and are routinely
transferred between either intra- or inter-company facilities and used
as either ``furnish'' (i.e., raw materials) or fuel at the receiving
facilities. Inter-company transfers are typically managed through buy-
sell contracts that likely do not specify how the materials will be
used because the receiving facility likely mixes the purchased material
with self-generated materials. Those combined materials are either used
as furnish or fuel in accordance with the needs of the facility at the
time. Because these resinated materials are bought and sold and used in
a manner--either as furnish or fuel--similar to how self-generated
resinated materials are used, this transaction does not constitute
discard and the materials should not be classified as solid waste
simply due to the transfer between facilities or between companies.
EPA's Response: We agree that transferring secondary materials
between companies or facilities does not necessarily mean that the
material has been discarded. As resinated wood residuals transferred
off-site are utilized in the same manner as self-generated resinated
wood residuals (i.e., contained in the same bins as furnish materials
used in the product, transferred via conveyors or ducts), which the
plants are specifically designed to burn as a fuel, we agree that this
does not constitute discard. Thus, we have determined that resinated
wood residuals are not solid waste when transferred off-site for use as
fuel, provided the material meets the legitimacy criteria and has not
been otherwise deemed to be discarded. We have codified this concept
under 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(ii).
Comment: Processing should not be necessary when utilizing the
material on-site or off-site to be considered a non-waste fuel.
However, resinated wood residuals are generally chipped or hogged to
reduce its size before burning. This should be sufficient to meet the
processing requirement.
EPA's Response: We generally agree with the commenters that
resinated wood residuals do not need to be processed, but if processed,
such as by chipping or hogging, this level of processing would not
affect the status of this material.
Comment: Resinated wood residuals have contaminants that are
comparable to traditional fuels. The list of resins and adhesives
include constituent chemicals that are on the hazardous air pollutant
list. Notably, phenol, formaldehyde, methylene di-isocyanate and
epichlorohydrine are HAP. However, these individual components react
completely within the resin curing process, leaving, in the worst case,
only trace amounts of the HAP. With the exception of formaldehyde,
undetectable or extremely low levels of these HAP remain behind after
the resin/adhesive cure. As noted in the comments referenced in the
proposal, miniscule amounts of formaldehyde remain in some resinated
wood residuals, less than 0.02%, a number that is expected to fall as
the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Composite Wood Airborne Toxic
Control Measure (ATCM) is implemented nationwide, per the new Public
Law 111-199 (which establishes consistent standards for wood products
across the country). Further, since formaldehyde is found in natural
wood, it should not be considered a contaminant in resinated wood.
EPA's Response: The proposed rule acknowledged a general lack of
data regarding the levels of formaldehyde in these non-hazardous
secondary materials and specifically requested data on this issue.
While we received only limited contaminant information during the
comment period, the data we do have suggests that the levels of
formaldehyde in these resinated wood residuals is at non-detect levels.
The existing data we have is that resinated wood residuals contain
``free'' formaldehyde at levels less than 0.02 percent (or 200 ppm). In
addition, new rules, as mandated by the CARB Composite Wood ATCM, per
new Public Law 111-199, will reduce the formaldehyde levels even
further to levels that are comparable to unadulterated wood. We also
have limited data on the formaldehyde levels in traditional fuels.
Specifically, we have limited data that natural wood has between 0.6
and 8.5 ppm of formaldehyde,\101\ but we have no data on formaldehyde
levels in other traditional fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.
We do know, however, that organic materials produce formaldehyde. For
example, studies have shown that formaldehyde is generated from coal
piles.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Weigl, M., R. Wimmer, E. Sykacek, and M. Steinwender,
2009. ``Wood-borne formaldehyde varying with species, wood grade,
and cambial age,'' Forest Products Journal 59(1/2) 88-92.
Meyer, B. and C. Boehme, 1997. ``Formaldehyde Emission from
Solid Wood,'' Forest Products Journal 47(5) 45-48.
Killiam, B. ``Background Formaldehyde Emissions for Solid
Wood,'' Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation, Diboll, TX.
\102\ Cohen, H. and U. Green, 2009. ``Oxidative decomposition of
formaldehyde catalyzed by bituminous coal,'' Energy Fuels 23(6)
3078-3082. Nehemia, V., S. Davidi, and H. Cohen, 1999. ``Emission of
hydrogen gas from weathered steam coal piles via formaldehyde as a
precursor: I. Oxidative decomposition of formaldehyde catalyzed by
coal--batch reactor studies,'' Fuel, 78(7) 775-780.
Nehemia, V., 1997. ``Oxidative decomposition of formaldehyde
catalyzed by coal,'' Fuel and Energy Abstracts 38(6) p. 386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, considering the fact that new rules will reduce the amount of
formaldehyde to levels comparable to unadulterated wood, we have
concluded that resinated wood residuals when burned as a fuel by the
generator or outside the control of the generator and not discarded
should be considered a non-waste fuel. However, as we have noted
elsewhere, the generator of these secondary materials would still need
to demonstrate that such residuals meet the legitimacy criteria. Thus,
they would need to show that the levels of formaldehyde, as well as
other possible contaminants, in the resinated wood residuals are at
levels comparable to those found in traditional fuels, which in this
case would be natural wood. We would note that we would not consider
levels of formaldehyde of 200 ppm or slightly less to be comparable
since the levels in unadulterated wood are at least two orders of
magnitude lower. The levels would need to be lower to be considered
comparable to those found in natural wood.
Comment: The comments indicated that resinated wood residuals have
about 5 percent moisture content, with heating values typically between
8,500-9,000 Btu/lb (as fired). This fuel value is equal to or better
than unadulterated wood, which has higher moisture content.
The comments also argue that resinated wood residuals are managed
as a commodity as they are typically pneumatically transferred through
ducts, stored temporarily in a fuel silo, and then utilized in boilers
to provide heat to hot presses and dryers. In fact, wood product plants
have been designed so as to specifically utilize
[[Page 15501]]
these residuals that the process creates and would not be able to
operate as designed without this material.
EPA's Response: The heating value range presented (8,500-9,000 Btu/
lb) indicates that resinated wood residuals meet the meaningful heating
value criterion as it is greater than the heating value of
unadulterated wood. We also agree with the commenters that resinated
wood residuals meet the legitimacy criterion for being managed as a
valuable commodity since these residuals are managed as a primary fuel
for wood products manufacturers. We acknowledge that wood products
manufacturing plants were specifically designed to burn these resinated
wood residuals to power the facility. In addition, wood product
manufacturers have designed their plants to use their residuals
(including placing the material in silos and transferring the material
via conveyor belts and ducts) that supply the process both as a raw
material and as a fuel, indicating that the resinated wood residuals
are managed as a valuable commodity.
Comment: Commenters referred to studies that show that the
combustion of resinated wood residuals does not produce adverse air
emissions. Specifically, EPA's ``Wood Products in the Waste Stream--
Characterization and Combustion Emissions'' (1996) describes studies
that were conducted to determine if various types of wood produce more
non-criteria air pollutants than typical wood sources. Air emissions
and fuel materials were sampled at six different processors and
boilers. Fuel materials that were used at the boilers were a mixture of
wood produced at construction and demolition sites at the time:
Unadulterated lumber, treated wood (including CCA-treated wood),
resinated wood residuals, and painted wood (including lead-based
paint). The study concludes that organic compounds that are emitted
include aldehydes, benzene, phenol, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). These compounds are formed as products of
incomplete combustion and did not appear to be a function of the woods
composition or source. Instead, they appear to be an indicator of
combustion inefficiency. ``Good'' combustion conditions appear to
minimize organic emissions. Metals usually found in wood combustor
particulate include As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn, Al, Ti, Fe, and Mg. Metals were
found to be higher in samples taken, although this could be a result of
the inclusion of treated wood in the samples combusted. Metals control
efficiency appears to be roughly equivalent to total particulate
control efficiency. Chlorinated organic compounds, such as dioxins,
furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated phenols, and chlor-
benzenes were measured at extremely low concentrations or were reported
to be less than minimum detection limits.
One commenter argued that, since resins contain only carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, the wood and its adhesives will convert
to carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen oxides (which would be produced
even if nitrogen is not present in the fuel, since nitrogen represents
approximately 80% of air) under normal conditions that normally occur
in industrial wood combustion units. Thus, the products of combustion
from wood are the same from the adhesives. Adhesives are expected to be
more combustible than wood, due to their simpler structure and lower
molecular weights. Conditions which assure the complete combustion of
wood are adequate to assure the complete combustion of these adhesives.
Although it is possible that different types of compounds could be
produced from the adhesives than from wood and that more of certain
types of compounds might be produced from one fuel or another, there
does not appear to be any scientific basis for a presumption that
emissions from incompletely combusted adhesives are more harmful than
emissions from incompletely combusted wood. In fact, the results of
toxicity studies commissioned by National Forest Products Association
in response to New York State law which requires manufacturers to
provide data on the toxicity of smoke from their products indicate that
smoke from glued wood products is no more toxic than wood smoke. There
are a few halogen-containing synthetic polymers, such as
polytetrafluorethylene, which can produce more hazardous fumes, but
they are not normally used in wood products.
The commenter also submitted data on HCl and NOX
emissions from burning sander dust that was not yet published.
Emissions from five combustion systems that burned a combination of
sander dust and hog fuel were sampled. One test was run only using hog
fuel (which consisted primarily of bark). Results are presented in
Table 3. The commenter argued that these results prove that HCl and
NOX emissions from the combustion of resinated wood
residuals are comparable to the combustion of hog fuel alone. In fact,
the three samples that contained the lowest percentages of sander dust
(0%, 15%, and 25%) produced the greatest percentages of chloride in the
fuel emitted as HCl and nitrogen in the fuel that was subsequently
emitted as NOX.
Table 3--Emissions Data From Six Combustors That Burned Hog Fuel or a Combination of Hog Fuel and Sander Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample number 1 2 3 4 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel mixture, %Hog fuel/Sander dust........... 100/0 75/25 85/15 60/40 60/40 60/40
Hog Fuel content (%, dry basis):
Chloride.................................. 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
Nitrogen.................................. 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.58 0.56
Sulfur.................................... 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03
Sander dust content (%, dry basis):
Chloride.................................. ......... 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.15
Nitrogen.................................. ......... 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.8
Sulfur.................................... ......... 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03
Total Fuel Content (lb/hr):
Chloride.................................. 1.7 3.3 2.1 6.0 6.4 5.6
Nitrogen................................. 49 84 60 136 151 143
HCl....................................... 0.17 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.16
NOX....................................... 26 53 31 45 48 53
Emissions (lb/MMBtu):
HCl....................................... 0.0024 0.0038 0.0017 0.0012 0.0015 0.0023
NOX....................................... 0.38 1.08 0.69 0.62 0.64 0.75
% of Cl in Fuel Emitted as HCl................ 9.6 5.5 3.5 1.4 1.7 2.8
% of N in Fuel Emitted as NOX................. 16.1 19.3 15.7 10.1 9.7 11.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15502]]
EPA's Response: We recognize that the studies have shown that there
are decreased HAP emissions from burning resinated wood residuals. As
we have stated previously, however, the criterion or test in
determining the legitimacy criterion is based on the level of
contaminants in the secondary material itself, and not by comparing the
differences in emissions. We believe that in order for a non-hazardous
secondary material to be considered a non-waste fuel, it must be
similar in composition, whereas comparing the emissions profiles
between combustion units that burn traditional fuels and non-hazardous
secondary materials only tells one how well the combustion unit is
operating, not what the material is that is being burned. Thus, while
the Agency recognizes that such emissions data can be useful in
determining whether or not burning such material presents a risk to
human health or the environment, we believe it says nothing in terms of
whether or not the non-hazardous secondary material is a legitimate
non-waste fuel (see also Section V.D.3 discussion on legitimacy
criteria).
In response to some of the specific comments made, we would note
that none of the studies or data provided information on formaldehyde
emissions, the HAP that we identified that we were most concerned with
in the proposal.\103\ While the EPA study did state that organics were
not detected above typical wood fuel, it is not possible to ascertain
what percentage of the material that was burned was represented by
resinated wood residuals. Thus, we do not know how much resinated wood
materials were in the samples that were tested and how it correlates to
the emissions data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 75 FR 31862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also acknowledge that resins are made from H, N, C, and O.
However, our concern rests with the amount of formaldehyde (which is a
HAP and also is made of H, C, and O) that is generated in the stack.
While formaldehyde may be generated as a product of incomplete
combustion, it may also be emitted from the stack if it is present in
the fuel material and is not combusted at all. In other words, if some
of the formaldehyde escapes combustion while in the fuel chamber and is
emitted in the stack, more formaldehyde is likely to escape. A unit
combusting 10 tons of formaldehyde is likely to result in more
formaldehyde emissions than a unit combusting one ton of formaldehyde
simply due to the fact that there is more formaldehyde in the fuel.
Therefore, none of the information provided addresses our concern
regarding formaldehyde emissions. However, given that Public Law 111-
199 will decrease formaldehyde levels in the resinated wood residuals,
the combustion of resinated wood residuals should not increase the
amount of formaldehyde that is emitted.
7. Used Oil
In the ANPRM, EPA had stated that off-specification (or ``off-
spec'') used oil that is collected from repair shops is generally
thought to be originally discarded, but that on-specification (or ``on-
spec'') used oil was considered to be a product fuel, not a waste,
because it meets the fuel specification requirements of 40 CFR
279.11.\104\ However, between the ANPRM and the proposal, EPA modified
its view of on-spec used oil and identified it as a traditional fuel
because the Agency had decided that the on-spec used oil is similar in
composition to virgin fuel oil and has been historically managed as a
valuable fuel product rather than as a waste.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See 74 FR at 58.
\105\ See 75 FR 31855, 31861, 31864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EPA considers on-spec used oil to be an alternative fuel and
thus, within our definition of traditional fuel (see Section VII.A),
the Agency finds that the rationale in the ANPRM also provides a valid
reason for considering on-spec used oil to be a legitimate product fuel
and not a solid waste. The proposal also referred to the provisions of
40 CFR Part 279 that allows off-specification used oil to be processed
into on-specification used oil.\106\ Used oil may be rendered on-
specification, therefore, either by being generated that way or by
being processed under existing EPA regulations. These circumstances are
not changed by EPA's issuing today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 75 FR 31865, 31877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, based on the information received and the record
established for this rulemaking, we still consider off-spec used oil to
be a solid waste, as off-spec used oil contains contaminants at levels
that are not comparable to those in traditional fuels. Under the
existing used oil regulations promulgated under RCRA, off-spec used oil
can only be used in limited devices, as identified in 40 CFR 279.61,
including small oil-fired space heaters provided the burner meets the
provisions of 40 CFR 279.23.
EPA reiterates that the determination as to the waste status of
used oil does not reopen the regulations in Part 279. Those regulations
remain in place. This rule considers the waste status for purposes of
CAA sections 112 and 129 based on the existing regulations. Further,
EPA is specifically clarifying in this final rule that used oil
combusted in an oil-fired space heater that meets the provisions of 40
CFR 279.23 need not be tested to establish whether or not such oil is
on or off-spec. This includes used oil generated by small facilities
such as auto repair shops and machine shops that have such units, and
used oil-generated by homeowners who change their own oil (referred to
as ``do-it-yourself'' or ``DIY'' oil) that are burned in such units.
This is because the CISWI regulations promulgated elsewhere in the
Federal Register today do not establish emissions limits for such
units, and therefore the concerns of the commenters that such units
would have to comply with CAA Section 129 standards have been addressed
for this population of combustion units.
Comment: Many argued that all used oil is a traditional fuel and
should not be considered a solid waste regardless of its chemical
composition, as it is treated as a valuable product no different than
virgin fuel oil. Thus, some commenters agreed with EPA that on-spec
used oil is a traditional fuel, but disagreed with the Agency's
determination that off-spec used oil is a solid waste.
Other commenters believe that that used oil, both on- and off-spec,
falls within the ``ordinary everyday sense'' of discarded materials
whether they are burned or not and that all used oil should be
classified as a solid waste. Indeed, EPA does not identify any
situation in which these secondary materials are not wastes, except
when they are burned for energy recovery. Thus, EPA is essentially
claiming that non-hazardous secondary materials, including used oil,
which would otherwise indisputably be wastes become non-wastes solely
because they can be burned with energy recovery. Neither RCRA nor any
of the case law interpreting RCRA lends the slightest support to that
notion.
EPA's Response: We disagree that off-spec used oil should be
considered a traditional fuel, or even a non-waste fuel, since as we
have discussed elsewhere in the preamble, such used oil contains
contaminants at levels that are not comparable to (or lower than) in
traditional virgin refined fuel oil. In fact, off-spec used oil may
contain contaminants at levels that are significantly higher than those
in traditional virgin refined fuel oil. On the other hand, used oil
that has been determined to be on-spec contains contaminants at levels
below the maximum concentration limits established in the standards,
levels that
[[Page 15503]]
EPA considers to be comparable to (or less than) those in traditional
virgin refined fuel oil.\107\ In accordance with 40 CFR part 279, once
used oil is determined to be on-spec, it is no longer regulated under
the used oil management standards.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See Used Oil Final Rule, 50 FR 49181 (November 29, 1985).
\108\ Once used oil is claimed to be on-spec and the marketer
complies with the requirements for analysis and record retention,
notification, and record tracking shipment to on-specification
burners, it is no longer subject to other management standards. We
note that today's rule does not change any of the regulations in
place that regulate on-spec used oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also disagree that we are defining the use of used oil as fuel
oil as the only situation where used oil is not a solid waste. RCRA is
silent on the issue of whether or not used oil is or is not a solid
waste. This rulemaking effort is the first to determine in which
situations used oil would be considered a solid waste. Additionally, 40
CFR part 279 puts no restrictions on the use of on-spec used oil once
it has been determined to be on-spec, which indicates that the Agency
has historically viewed this material as a commodity and not a waste.
We are also simply not opining on other situations where used oil is
used beyond its use as fuel as it does not matter for federal law.
States may make their own decisions on whether other uses are solid
wastes.
Comment: Industry commenters argue that off-specification used oil
should not be considered a solid waste for a number of reasons relating
to the statute and EPA regulations, as well as policy preferences. (We
elaborate and respond to each of the comments separately, below. The
comments also refer to on-specification used oil in much of the
argument, but we have dealt with on-specification used oil above. Thus,
the comments and responses below only deal with off-specification used
oil issues.)
Comment: Section 3014 of RCRA did not classify used oil as a waste
and instead established a separate regulatory program for used oil.
This section provides EPA with authority to regulate used oil that is
recycled, independent of any determination whether or not used oil is a
waste. Moreover, RCRA section 1004(37) defines used oil to include
``recycled oil'' that is ``burned.'' Consistent with this provision,
the used oil regulations in 40 CFR part 279 state ``EPA presumes that
used oil is to be recycled unless a used oil handler disposes of used
oil, or sends used oil for disposal.'' 40 CFR 279.10(a). The commenters
claim that these provisions mean that ``disposal'' is separate from
``burning'' because ``disposal'' must be separate from ``recycling.''
Thus, ``recycling'' is separate from ``solid waste'' because the two
terms are mutually exclusive.
In addition, the 40 CFR part 279 regulations already define what is
legitimate used oil recycling under section 3014 of RCRA, which
includes recycling of off-specification used oil with appropriate
environmental safeguards. EPA cannot now reverse this determination
without a reasoned analysis.
Another provision of EPA's hazardous waste regulations, 40 CFR
section 261.33, supports this position with respect to whether off-
specification used oil is a solid waste. Under this provision,
commercial chemical products and intermediates and off-specification
variants listed as hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, as well as some
other materials not relevant here, are solid wastes when burned for
energy recovery unless the commercial chemicals are themselves fuels.
Commercial chemicals that are themselves fuels are not wastes when
burned for energy recovery. According to the comments, even off-
specification variants of the commercial chemical products may be
burned as fuels and not be considered solid waste. See 40 CFR 261.33(a)
and (b); 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2)(B)(ii). The argument is that off-
specification used oil should also be treated as a non-waste when
burned for energy recovery. That is, used oil, even if off-
specification, should be considered a product and not a waste under the
rationale that used oil is a commercial chemical product. Further, EPA
should not treat off-specification potentially hazardous wastes
different from off-specification non-hazardous wastes.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees that this analysis of the statute and
regulations shows that off-specification used oil is not a solid waste.
The Agency agrees that section 3014 of RCRA does not classify used oil
as either a waste or a commodity. However, section 1004(37), also, does
not define ``recycled oil'' as either a waste or a commodity. As EPA
has explained elsewhere in this preamble, the recycling of secondary
materials, per se, does not mean that such materials are either wastes
or not. Wastes may have value and may be recycled, but they are still
wastes. Used oil may be recycled by being ``burned,'' as provided under
1004(37), or may be recycled in any number of other ways. The mere fact
that the secondary material is recycled is not dispositive for
determining whether it is a waste. Thus, under the statute, contrary to
the commenter's view, ``recycling'' and ``solid waste'' are not
mutually exclusive. This means that EPA must decide whether the
secondary material is a waste based on the definition of solid waste in
RCRA 1004(27) by deciding whether material is ``discarded'' in the
plain meaning of the word.
Similarly, part 279 does not provide that the terms, ``recycling''
and ``solid waste,'' are mutually exclusive. Section 279.10(a) does
distinguish between materials that are clearly ``disposed of'' by, for
example, being thrown into a landfill, but makes no determination as to
whether recycled secondary material is ``discarded'' in any other
sense. Both ILCO and Owen Steel, for example, provide examples of
recycling of wastes. As EPA continues to emphasize, wastes may be
recycled even by being burned for energy recovery, but they are still
wastes.
As mentioned above, based on the information received and the
record established for this rulemaking, we have concluded that off-spec
used oil does not meet the legitimacy criteria. EPA has determined that
off-specification used oil is a solid waste when burned for energy
recovery because it has greater contaminant levels than fuel oils and
its markets are limited due to this contamination. In particular, 40
CFR part 279 restricts the burning of off-specification used oil to
industrial furnaces, industrial boilers, utility boilers, certain used
oil-fired space heaters, and hazardous waste incinerators and
specifically excludes non-industrial boilers, such as those located in
apartment and office buildings, schools, and hospitals. For a more
detailed discussion of off-spec used oil, see 75 FR 31865. On-
specification used oil, on the other hand, is not a waste because it
has contaminant concentrations similar to fuel oils. Due to this, 40
CFR part 279 does not restrict where on-specification used oil can be
burned. The definitions cited by the commenters in the statute and
regulations do not affect these determinations.
Section 261.33, also, does not affect EPA's interpretation of the
waste status of used oil. That provision deals with hazardous wastes
and EPA has repeatedly stated that it is not reopening its RCRA
subtitle C regulations for comment. In any event, however, section
261.33 provides that chemicals manufactured as a fuel may be burned for
energy recovery. It does not apply to secondary materials that may
later be used as fuels when their original use was different.
[[Page 15504]]
Furthermore, EPA is not making any changes to 40 CFR part 279 by
virtue of this rule. The Agency is not reversing itself on any part of
40 CFR part 279. Also, 40 CFR part 279 makes no determination regarding
the nature of the CAA regulations for any facilities that burn used oil
and EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 279 to state whether any used oil
is a waste or not. Based on the current provisions of 40 CFR part 279,
it is entirely reasonable for the Agency to find that on-specification
used oil is not a waste, while off-specification used oil is a waste.
Also, we would note that off-spec used oil may still be burned in the
same types of facilities provided in 40 CFR part 279, but the CAA must
determine how they are to be controlled based on the fact that the off-
spec used oil is a waste.
Comment: If EPA classifies burning off-specification used oil as a
waste, it will no longer be covered by the Part 279 Used Oil Management
Standards. As EPA noted when it promulgated the Part 279 Used Oil
Management Standards, section 3014 only authorizes the regulation of
oil that is destined for recycling, not oil that is ``discarded.''
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As noted above,
EPA is not changing the used oil regulations and off-spec used oil
burned as a waste would still be subject to 40 CFR part 279. The
commenter is conflating the clear disposal of used oil--throwing it in
a landfill, for example--with the concept of ``discard.'' ``Discard''
is not used in 40 CFR part 279 and ``disposal'' is not a congruent term
to ``discard.'' That is, the regulations at 40 CFR part 279 do not
discuss or address whether used oil has been discarded; rather the
requirements ensure that used oil that is recycled is done so in a
manner that protects human health and the environment.
Also, as noted repeatedly in the rulemaking record, wastes may be
recycled as a fuel, but they would still be wastes and would be
discarded. The determination in this rule that off-spec used oil is a
waste only means that the facilities that burn it are burning it as a
waste and they will be subject to the appropriate CAA authorities. EPA
has not previously opined as to the consequences under the CAA of the
various facilities that burn used oil.
Comment: If EPA fails to classify off-specification used oil as a
product, it will be in violation of the Congressional mandate to
promulgate regulations that ``do not discourage the recovery or
recycling of used oil, consistent with the protection of human health
and the environment.'' 42 U.S.C. 6935(a).
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency is
constrained by the provisions of RCRA that define solid waste as
material that is discarded. Furthermore, we feel the definitions
established in this rulemaking in fact do not discourage the recovery
or recycling of used oil. For example, EPA is specifically clarifying
in this final rule that used oil combusted in an oil-fired space heater
that meets the provisions of 40 CFR 279.23 need not be tested to
establish whether or not such oil is on or off-spec. This includes used
oil generated by small facilities such as auto repair shops and machine
shops that have such units, and used oil-generated by homeowners who
change their own oil (referred to as ``do-it-yourself'' or ``DIY'' oil)
that are burned in such units. This is because the CISWI regulations
promulgated elsewhere in the Federal Register today do not establish
emissions limits for such units, and therefore the concerns of the
commenters that such units would have to comply with CAA Section 129
standards have been addressed for this population of combustion units.
Comment: Commenters argued that contaminant concentrations found in
``off-spec used oil'' is comparable to traditional fuels. While
commenters submitted studies that looked at both on-spec and off-spec
used oil to support this assertion, Table 4 only summarizes data
presented in the comments on the contaminant levels in off-spec used
oil as compared to fuel oil and coal. In U.S. Study 1, 55 samples were
collected ``throughout the USA'' from facilities that combust used oil
in space heaters and/or small boilers. Two of the 55 samples were off-
spec; one was off-spec for total halogens and the other was off-spec
for cadmium. The researchers identified the off-spec used oil for total
halogens was an industrial oil that contains non-hazardous chlorinated
paraffin and the other was from a military operation. Table 4 presents
the data on the two samples that were off-spec. In the U.S. Study 2,
researchers looked at a database of used oil samples maintained by a
national commercial laboratory. The database contained over 3,500 used
oil samples from the U.S. and other countries on which over 17,000
analyses were performed from 2008 to present. Between 24 and 53 samples
in this dataset exceed the specification for one of the contaminants--
specifically for total halogens and chromium. The researchers
speculated that the high levels of halogens were due to non-hazardous
chlorinated paraffin which is used (added to the oil by lubricant
manufacturers) in industrial oils designed to encounter high pressure.
The researchers did not speculate on the reasons for the high levels of
chromium. Table 4 presents the data on the off-spec samples, only. In
the Canadian study, 230 samples of used oil were collected from various
businesses in Ontario, Canada between 2003 and 2010. Of those samples,
four were off-spec for arsenic, but not by significant amounts. The
commenters did not speculate on the reasons for the high levels of
arsenic. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of the four off-
spec samples.
Table 4--Contaminant Concentrations in Off-Spec Used Oil and Traditional Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. U.S. Canadian Fuel oil
Material study 1 study 2 study No. 1,2,4,6 Coal \113\
\109\ \110\ \111\ \112\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samples................................. 2 24-53 4 Unknown Unknown.
Year.............................................. 2010 2010 2003-2010 Unknown Unknown.
Containment Concentrations:
Total Halogens (ppm):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum................................... 2,700 NR 42.2 <500 13,140
Maximum................................... 6,170 NR 151.0
Median.................................... 4,435 6,642 80.5
Average................................... 4,435 9,409 88.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As (ppm):
Minimum................................... <1.0 NR 5.1 <2.3 1.0--120
[[Page 15505]]
Maximum................................... <1.0 NR 6.7
Median.................................... <1.0 <1.0 6.1
Average................................... <1.0 1.95 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd (ppm):
Minimum................................... 0.30 NR <0.92 <1.2 0.2--5.0
Maximum................................... 2.60 NR <1
Median.................................... 1.45 0.13 0.97
Average................................... 1.45 0.69 0.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CR (ppm):
Minimum................................... <4.0 NR <1.2 <2.3 1.0--90
Maximum................................... <4.0 NR 2.2
Median.................................... <4.0 16.0 2.0
Average................................... <4.0 20.9 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pb (ppm):
Minimum................................... 14 NR <4.6 7-57 0.5-0.9
Maximum................................... 15 NR 17.0
Median.................................... 15 11.0 5.6
Average................................... 15 35.2 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NR = Not Reported.
EPA's Response: While data was submitted regarding higher levels of
contaminants in coal than in off-spec used oil, coal is not an
appropriate comparison for used oil since some combustion units that
burn used oil can alternatively only burn fuel oil and not coal (such
as space heaters). Thus, used oil should be compared to fuel oil. The
specifications promulgated under 40 CFR 279.11 were developed by
looking at contaminants in fuel oil and the risks posed by those
contaminants. The data submitted states that the average total halogen
content of off-spec used oil from one study is 9,409 ppm (with the on-
spec concentration of 4,000 ppm maximum). Also, off-spec used oil
contains as much as 21 ppm of Cr, on average, (with the on-spec
concentration of 10 ppm maximum). Thus, off-spec used oil does not meet
the legitimacy criterion for contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0799.2
\110\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1273.1 Attachment B
\111\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0799.4
\112\ Source: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0799.2, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-
0329-1273.1, Attachment B
\113\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When EPA created the specification levels set in 40 CFR 279.11, it
identified those levels as being comparable to fuel oils. EPA maintains
that these levels are appropriate standards to measure what should and
should not be burned in CAA section 112 and 129 units. Thus, off-spec
used oil (those oils that do not meet the specification levels set in
40 CFR 279.11) is deemed to have more contaminants than fuel oils
produced for burning and, therefore, are a solid waste.
Comment: EPA is ignoring the fact that the level of contaminants in
a secondary material is not dispositive of whether or not a secondary
material is a waste. It is merely an indicator of whether or not EPA
should look more closely at the recycling activity when making the
waste determination. Levels of contaminants only insignificantly higher
than those found in traditional fuels hardly imply a purpose of
disposal, assuming the secondary material being combusted is otherwise
a valuable fuel. Only when a material contains contaminants at
significantly elevated levels does it begin to become reasonable to
presume that there may be an intention to discard.
EPA's Response: We agree that contaminant levels are an indicator
of waste activity and we have investigated the case of off-spec used
oil to fully assess if its use in a combustion unit is truly a waste
activity. As a result of our investigation, it is clear from the data
in Table 4 that off-spec used oil does not contain comparable levels of
contaminants to fuel oils.
Comment: In the context of determining whether a hazardous
secondary material is a solid waste, EPA recognizes that legitimate
recycling can occur even if the material has higher levels of toxics
than virgin materials. To show this, the comment cites a discussion by
the Agency in an earlier rule in which foundry sands are reused for
mold making in a facility's sand loop. The comment argues that it is
relevant that the sands used to make the molds may have significantly
higher concentrations of hazardous constituents than virgin sand.
However, because the sand is part of an industrial process where there
is little chance of the hazardous constituents being released into the
environment or causing damage to human health and the environment,
these levels would not affect the legitimacy of the recycling process.
EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In the first
place, the Agency is not reopening its hazardous waste regulation.
EPA's identification of the legitimacy criteria is based on the record
for today's action, and does not address hazardous waste. In any event,
the discussion of foundry sand contamination, even though it would be a
hazardous waste without application of the legitimacy criteria for that
rule, presents what appears to be a vastly different recycling
situation. In this rule, combustion will result in releases to the air.
This is why the rule calls for restrictions on burning. The foundry
sand example is a closed loop system and is not implicated by
contamination problems that releases lead to the atmosphere. We would
also note that in a March 28, 2001 letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth,
then Director of the Office of Solid Waste and Eric Schaeffer, then
Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement to Amy Blankenbiller
of the American Foundry Society, we also discussed the use of foundry
sand as part of the sand loop for mold-making being part of a
continuous industrial
[[Page 15506]]
process.\114\ However, the letter also made clear that the letter did
not address the thermal processing of sand, which would be a combustion
unit, and would be more equivalent to a scenario that is addressed in
today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ A copy of this letter can be found in the docket to
today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters argued that processing of off-spec used oil is
contrary to the goals of energy efficiency and wise resource
utilization. They argued that the rule should continue to allow/follow
the rules set forth in 40 CFR 279.11 as it pertains to used oil as a
viable and not discarded fuel. That is, if off-spec used oil is blended
with virgin oil or on-spec used oil to meet the 40 CFR part 279 used
oil specs, the resulting oil should be considered a legitimate fuel
product.
Other commenters argued, however, that when these materials are
distilled into fuel, they are still wastes, regardless if they have
been blended or processed to obtain an on-spec material. Wastes are
always wastes and their status cannot be changed through simple
processing.
EPA's Response: Whether or not processing of used oil is contrary
to the goals of energy efficiency, off-spec used oil contains more
contaminants than traditional fuels, and thus, is not a traditional
fuel. In addition, as we have stated previously, the regulations at 40
CFR part 279 do not discuss or address whether used oil has been
discarded, as commenters have claimed, but rather ensure that used oil
that is recycled is conducted in a manner that protects human health
and the environment. To that end, we encourage, and the RCRA used oil
regulations currently allow, the processing of off-spec oil to create
on-spec used oil as per 40 CFR 279.50, which states that processing
``includes, but is not limited to: blending used oil with virgin
petroleum products, blending used oils to meet the fuel specification,
filtration, simple distillation, chemical or physical separation and
re-refining.'' There is nothing in today's rule that would change this
requirement.
We also disagree with commenters that processing of off-spec used
oil into on-spec used oil still renders it a waste. EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR 279.11 state that, once oil is determined to be on-
specification in accordance with the regulations in Part 279, the used
oil regulations do not apply to the material. On-specification used oil
is for all intents and purposes the same as oil refined as a product
fuel in the first instance and the Agency is not reopening its 40 CFR
part 279 regulations.
Comment: Commenters argued that used oil, particularly from
automobiles, is on-specification and facilities that burn automobile
oil should be allowed to burn them under CAA section 112, along with
other on-spec used oil. Comments base this determination on the
elimination of leaded gasoline. Commenters also supplied studies to
support this assertion.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See documents EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0799; EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2008-0329-1273.1; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: The data provided in the comments indicates that a
very small portion of used oil is off-spec. Assuming the data is
representative of used oil, most used oil will be an alternative fuel
(within the definition of a traditional fuel). This does not allow us
to make a broad classification that, because only a small portion of
used oil is off-spec, used oil can be generally classified as on-spec.
On the other hand, the data in the studies submitted by commenters
indicate that used oil obtained from small, private automobiles
serviced by DIYers and auto repair shops will be on-spec, which would
not be a solid waste. In addition, as we describe elsewhere in today's
preamble, persons can submit a non-waste determination petition if they
believe that their used oil is not a waste.
Comment: Many commenters stated that there are numerous auto repair
shops that use used oil to fuel their space heaters, which do not (or
would not likely) meet the air pollution controls required by the CAA
section 129 standards. The commenters argue that such auto repair shops
will no longer be able to use off-spec used oil in their space heaters
if off-spec used oil is determined to be a solid waste.
Moreover, commenters assert that auto repair shops will likely not
want to take on the additional burden of testing the used oil to
determine if it is on-spec in order to use some portion of the material
in their space heaters without having to comply with the CAA section
129 standards. They further assert that these shops may illegally
dispose of used oil if they cannot burn it in their space heaters and
they are not located near a processor. Commenters expressed concerns
that they may also stop collecting used oil from individuals who remove
their own used oil (do-it-yourselfers, or DIYers) as they have no
incentive to take the DIYers oil, which may lead to DIYers illegally
disposing of their used oil.
EPA's Response: In this rule, EPA determined whether off-
specification used oil is a solid waste. However, EPA's regulations
promulgated today under CAA 129 do not apply to space heaters. Thus,
today's rule would not in any way change the current regulatory scheme
or operations for burning of used oil in space heaters since the Agency
is not promulgating emission standards for such units.
In particular, EPA is specifically clarifying in this final rule
that used oil combusted in an oil-fired space heater that meets the
provisions of 40 CFR 279.23 need not be tested to establish whether or
not such oil is on or off-spec. This includes used oil generated by
small facilities such as auto repair shops and machine shops that have
such units, and used oil-generated by homeowners who change their own
oil (referred to as ``do-it-yourself'' or ``DIY'' oil) that are burned
in such units. This is because the CISWI regulations promulgated
elsewhere in the Federal Register today do not establish emissions
limits for such units, and therefore the concerns of the commenters
that such units would have to comply with CAA Section 129 standards
have been addressed for this population of combustion units.
EPA also points out that anyone wishing to show that the material
is on-spec does not have to test the used oil, but can use other
information besides analyses. Specifically, the existing regulation
under 40 CFR 279.72 states that used oil fuel can be determined to be
on-spec by ``performing analyses or obtaining copies of analyses or
other information documenting that the used oil fuel meets
specifications.''
8. Coal Refuse \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The proposed rule differentiated between coal refuse and
mined landfill ash. For a discussion regarding the use of mined
landfilled ash as a fuel, see the coal combustion residuals section
for fuels (Section V.B.9); for a discussion regarding the use of
these non-hazardous secondary materials as ingredients, see the coal
combustion residuals section for ingredients (Section V.C.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal refuse refers to any by-product of coal mining or coal
cleaning operations. Coal refuse is generally defined by a minimum ash
content combined with a maximum heating value, measured on a dry basis.
Coal refuse consists primarily of non-combustible rock with attached
coal that could not be effectively separated in the era in which it was
mined. Due to advances in coal preparation technology over the past
century, the processing of coal has evolved such that materials that
are now generated in the coal mining process, which would have been
considered coal mining rejects in the past and discarded in waste
piles, are now handled and
[[Page 15507]]
processed as coal. In the early twentieth century, coal preparation
involved simple size segregation into lump coal for domestic use and
intermediate-sized coal for industrial use. Coal fines were considered
unfit for use and were disposed of as mine rejects in discarded coal
refuse piles. Today, however, coal preparation plants are much more
capable of separating coal from mineral matter through processes, such
as density separation and froth flotation.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See National Research Council of the National Academies
(NRC), ``Coal Research and Development,'' 2007, accessed on May 14,
2008 at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11977. See
generally ``Materials Characterization Paper on Coal Refuse,'' a
copy of which is included in the docket for today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the proposed rule differentiated between coal refuse that is
currently generated and coal refuse that was generated in the past and
placed into ``legacy'' piles. The proposed rule considered coal refuse
that is currently generated and used as a fuel as not being abandoned
or disposed of and, therefore, is not considered a solid waste. On the
other hand, the proposed rule stated that coal refuse placed in legacy
piles has clearly been discarded, thus meeting the definition of a
solid waste material. With regard to coal refuse from legacy piles, the
proposed rule described the processing of this non-hazardous secondary
material as involving separation through the use of screens or
grizzlies, blending, crushing, or drying. Although we understand that
virgin coal is similarly processed, the proposal stated that the Agency
believes that such operations would constitute ``minimal processing''
and would not meet the processing definition, as proposed. Thus, under
the proposed rule, coal refuse abandoned in legacy piles would be
considered solid waste, as would the coal refuse that has been
processed and used as a fuel in what was considered to be a minimal set
of sizing activities.
The proposal also noted one commenter who contended that coal
refuse contained elevated levels of mercury, chromium, and lead when
compared to other coals. Because the proposal already determined coal
refuse in legacy piles to be a solid waste (discarded and
insufficiently processed), we did not believe it was necessary to
determine whether coal refuse from legacy piles would satisfy the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. However, the proposed rule noted that
although coal refuse can contain metals concentrations that are higher
than found in virgin coal, data also show that emissions levels from
some facilities burning coal refuse (namely those equipped with
circulating fluidized beds (CFBs)) are lower than most existing
pulverized coal utility boilers. For the proposed rule's
characterization of coal refuse, see 75 FR 31865-6.
Accordingly, the Agency seems to have faced a dilemma in deciding
how to treat the ``legacy'' piles. This dilemma was reflected in the
comments, described below, which shows an inherent illogic in treating
coal refuse generated from mining operations today and used as fuel
differently from coal refuse mined from the ``legacy'' piles, which
seem to be no different.
Comment: Responding to EPA's request for comment regarding whether
other fuels in use today should also be classified as traditional
fuels, several commenters argued that coal refuse should be considered
a traditional fuel, regardless of when generated, as it has been used
as a fuel for approximately 30 years. Citing the preamble to the
proposed rule, commenters stated that EPA recognized that ``changes in
technology and in the energy market over time may result in additional
secondary materials being economically viable to be used as
`traditional' fuels,'' and that the advancement of technology,
specifically the advent of circulating fluidized beds (CFBs), has
allowed coal refuse to be used as fuels for decades.\118\ Thus, these
commenters reason, it is most appropriate to consider coal refuse to be
a traditional fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Referenced citation can be found at 75 FR 31856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: We begin by recognizing that we have several
difficulties in dealing with coal refuse. We are faced with a statute
that places limits on the Agency's ability to cover ``discarded''
material. Case law indicates that a material may not lose its waste
status merely because it has value. As technology advances, material
that has been a waste may be no different from material that may today
be used as a product. EPA, in fact, has no jurisdiction to consider as
wastes currently mined coal that was formerly ``refuse.''
Coal refuse is unique, however, from other non-hazardous secondary
materials addressed in this rulemaking, as it is generated in the
process of producing fuels (i.e., the mining of coal for use as fuel)
and its subsequent use and value as a secondary material is also as a
fuel. Since the primary product of a coal mining operation is itself
fuel, we consider coal refuse to be more akin to a raw material that is
subsequently processed and utilized to produce a fuel. In other words,
coal refuse is different from other non-hazardous secondary materials,
such as used tires or resinated wood residuals, in that it is generated
in the production of fuel and can be used itself as a fuel (and in fact
has never been used for anything else).
The two materials that are used in major quantities today as
valuable fuels, but have formerly been discarded are coal refuse and
tires. A major difference between these two materials that EPA finds
relevant is that the coal refuse in the legacy piles has never been
used for anything else and is mined as fuel in the first place. Tires,
on the other hand, are originally produced for a use that is
fundamentally different from its current use as a fuel. Cement kiln
users do not ask tire manufacturers to produce tires for burning in the
kilns. Coal, however, was never used for any other activity. It was
mined years ago to produce a fuel, but may now be used itself as fuel.
Therefore, coal refuse is fundamentally different from tires, as well
as the other non-hazardous secondary materials that are discussed in
the preamble to this final rule.
Responding to commenters that also noted that coal refuse has been
used as a fuel for thirty years due to advances in technology, we find
this information useful, but not determinative in our analysis of
whether or not coal refuse meets our definition of a traditional fuel.
However, the fact that coal refuse has been used and managed as a fuel
for thirty years when coupled with the fact that coal refuse is unique
from other non-hazardous secondary materials in that it is a byproduct
of fuel production processes and is itself a raw material that can be
used as a fuel leads us to determine that coal refuse that is currently
generated and used as a fuel should be considered a traditional
``alternative fuel.'' However, coal refuse that has been abandoned long
ago in legacy coal refuse piles would not be considered a traditional
fuel that is not subject to coverage and assessment in this rule, since
it is clearly a material that has been discarded in the first instance.
We note that other non-hazardous secondary materials have also been
used as fuels for similar lengths of time or even longer, but would not
be considered traditional fuels. We again emphasize that our decision
to classify coal refuse as an alternative fuel is based both on the
fact that it has been used and managed as a fuel for thirty years
combined with the fact that we find coal refuse to be distinctive among
the other non-hazardous secondary materials at issue in today's rule;
i.e., coal refuse is in fact raw material coal that is generated as a
result of coal
[[Page 15508]]
mining operations whose primary product is fuel.
We also note that our characterization of coal refuse that is
currently generated as an alternative fuel is not inconsistent with the
proposed rule's characterization of this material. The proposed rule
stated that currently generated coal refuse would not be abandoned or
disposed of and, therefore, not a solid waste. The proposed rule did
not, however, specifically state that coal refuse that is currently
generated is a traditional fuel. For clarity, it is appropriate to do
so today, and will amend our definition of traditional fuels to also
include alternative fuels that reflect this determination.
As previously discussed, coal refuse that has been placed in legacy
piles would not meet the definition of traditional fuels, as they
clearly have not been historically used and managed as a fuel. It is
clear that coal refuse abandoned in legacy piles has been discarded and
managed as a waste. Our rationale for this distinction between coal
refuse that is currently generated and coal refuse that was placed in
legacy piles is further discussed in the comment response below. Thus,
coal refuse that has been placed in legacy piles would be considered
solid waste unless it is processed into a legitimate fuel product. We
respond to comments received regarding the processing of coal refuse
later in this section.
Comment: Many commenters stated that all coal refuse should be
considered a ``fuel,'' regardless of when the coal refuse is generated
and urged EPA to eliminate the ``false distinction'' based on when the
coal was mined (i.e., coal refuse that is mined from legacy piles
shares the same characteristics as coal refuse that is generated
today).
At least one commenter cited 40 CFR 60.41 as defining ``fossil
fuel'' as ``natural gas, petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such materials for the purpose of
creating useful heat.'' The commenter went on to cite 40 CFR 60.41b,
which states that ``Coal means * * * coal refuse * * *'' \119\ and
argues that this definition in the regulation has nothing to do with
when the coal refuse was generated and should always be considered a
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ ``Coal means all solid fuels classified as anthracite,
bituminous, sub-bituminous, or lignite by the American Society of
Testing and Materials in ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17), coal refuse, and petroleum coke * * *'' See 40 CFR
60.41b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: We disagree with the comments contending that coal
refuse placed in legacy piles should be characterized and regulated the
same as coal refuse that is generated currently, as this fails to
acknowledge that such coal refuse has been discarded. As has been
discussed, the statutory definition of solid waste turns on whether or
not a material has been discarded in the first instance. Courts have
consistently held that the term ``discard,'' is to have the ordinary,
plain-English meaning (i.e., ``disposed of,'' ``thrown away,'' or
``abandoned''). As coal refuse placed in legacy piles have clearly been
abandoned, we cannot ignore the fact that these materials have been
discarded in the first instance and, therefore, do not agree with the
contention that this construct represents a ``false distinction.'' The
resulting distinction may lead to results that some may find illogical,
but we are faced with the definition of ``discard'' and the fact that
the mere fact that discarded material may have value does not allow the
material to lose its waste status.
Although we recognize that all coal refuse is (and was) generated
during the fuel production process and are more akin to raw materials,
coal refuse that has been abandoned in legacy piles have not been
historically used and managed as a fuel and therefore cannot be
considered a traditional fuel. Because the technology did not exist
that could effectively make use of the fuel value of these materials at
the time of their generation, they were managed as wastes and abandoned
in legacy piles. While we find that currently generated coal refuse
should now be considered alternative fuels for the reasons stated
above, we cannot ignore that coal refuse that has been placed in legacy
piles have clearly been discarded and, thus, unless these materials are
``sufficiently processed'' and satisfy all legitimacy criteria for
fuels, these secondary materials would be considered solid wastes when
burned as fuels in combustion units.
Regarding the comments that argue that EPA has previously defined
coal to include coal refuse, we note that this information was helpful,
but disagree the cited regulatory definitions control in this
rulemaking. The cited definitions, which are included in the standards
of performance for new stationary source regulations, were developed
pursuant to the CAA and do not address the issue of discard. Today's
rulemaking is being promulgated under RCRA, which, as mentioned above,
hinges on the whether or not the non-hazardous secondary material at
issue has been discarded. EPA also reemphasizes that the distinction is
not between ``fuel'' and ``waste,'' but between fuel that is a
commodity (not a waste because it has not been discarded) and waste
fuel that has value, but is still a waste.
In the same CFR sections cited by commenters which define coal as
including coal refuse, we note that coal refuse is defined as meaning
``waste-products of coal mining, cleaning, and coal preparation
operations (e.g., culm, gob, etc.) containing coal, matrix material,
clay, and other organic and inorganic material'' \120\ and ``any
byproduct of coal mining or coal mining operations with an ash content
greater than 50 percent, by weight, and a heating value less than
13,900 kJ/kg (6,000 Btu/lb) on a dry basis.'' \121\ These definitions
highlight the uniqueness of coal refuse and in fact support the
distinction we are making between coal refuse that is currently
generated and coal refuse that has been placed in legacy piles. That
is, it may be appropriate to consider coal refuse to be within the
definition of coal because it may now be used as coal, while at the
same time, it may also be appropriate to consider coal refuse to be a
``waste-product'' or ``byproduct'' of coal mining operations. EPA's
evaluation that coal refuse that is currently generated and used as a
fuel has never been discarded and should be considered an alternative
fuel, while discarded coal refuse should be considered a solid waste,
is consistent with these regulatory definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See 40 CFR 60.41.
\121\ See 40 CFR 60.41b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Most commenters addressing the issue of processing coal
refuse stated that coal refuse from legacy piles is processed the same
way as is virgin coal; that is, the processing of these materials
includes the use of grizzlies, screens, and blending to improve the
quality, remove metal objects, reduce the ash content, reduce the
sulfur content, and reduce concentrations of various constituents.
These comments maintained that this level of processing should satisfy
EPA's definition of ``processing'' because the processing that occurs
is designed specifically to improve the fuel quality and remove
contaminants in the process (for example, metals that are removed with
ash that is screened out).
One commenter stated that it is illogical and problematic for EPA
to propose a minimal level of processing that requires additional
activities than are used to prepare virgin materials for use. This
commenter provides the example of a company that recovers coal refuse
from previously discarded piles, screen the refuse to remove large
pieces of slate and rock, conducts a chemical
[[Page 15509]]
analysis to identify Btu, ash, and sulfur characteristics, hauls the
coal refuse to its preparation plant where it is cleaned just like
mined coal, and then sold as is or blended with mined coal to meet
contractual orders. This commenter argues that EPA did not provide
adequate justification in the proposed rule for why this process would
be insufficient to turn a once discarded non-hazardous secondary
material into a non-waste fuel product.
Additionally, commenters noted that in the case of facilities
burning coal refuse, regardless of whether it is generated currently or
was placed in legacy piles, the engineering design of a CFB is based on
the quality of the coal refuse available to be burned in the boiler. In
other words, considerations for use of the coal refuse as a fuel
precede facility construction and directly impact boiler design and
application. Therefore, coal refuse from legacy piles that is processed
in this manner (i.e., in the same manner as currently generated coal
refuse) should not be considered a solid waste.
EPA's Response: As finalized in Sec. 241.2, the term
``processing'' is defined as meaning ``any operations that transform
discarded non-hazardous secondary material into a non-waste fuel or
non-waste ingredient product. Processing includes, but is not limited
to, operations necessary to: remove or destroy contaminants;
significantly improve the fuel characteristics of the material, e.g.,
sizing or drying the material in combination with other operations;
chemically improve the as-fired energy content; or improve the
ingredient characteristics. Minimal operations that result only in
modifying the size of the material by shredding, do not constitute
processing for purposes of this definition.'' We have determined that
this definition encompasses an appropriate level of processing
necessary to render a discarded material into a non-waste product.
As several commenters noted, the processes that are employed to
recover coal refuse that has been placed in legacy piles in order to be
used as fuels are the same as the processes that virgin coal is subject
to. As discussed above, coal refuse is unique from other non-hazardous
secondary materials in that it is a byproduct of fuel production
processes and is itself a raw material that can be used as a fuel.
Because coal refuse is essentially raw material coal, which is
generated in the production of fuel and can be used itself as fuel, we
agree with the commenter who stated that it would be illogical to
require a different level of processing for discarded coal refuse than
is used for virgin coal. Therefore, coal refuse that is recovered from
legacy piles and used as fuel that is subjected to the types of
operations that are used to process virgin coal, which serve to both
increase energy values as well as reduce contaminants, would meet our
definition of processing and would not be considered solid waste,
provided these materials satisfy our legitimacy criteria, which they do
since currently mined coal is certainly a legitimate fuel and is the
same as those from the legacy piles.
Comment: EPA received comments providing new contaminant data for
coal refuse. However, some commenters acknowledged that coal refuse can
have higher levels of some metals, but agreed with EPA that coal refuse
is typically used as a fuel in newer boilers equipped with CFBs, which
have emissions levels lower than most existing coal utility
boilers.\122\ One commenter stated that notwithstanding the higher
metals content of coal refuse, CFBs typically capture between 90-99
percent of mercury and other metals. While most commenters noted that
emissions levels associated with burning coal refuse are similar to
those found when burning virgin coal, one commenter did provide a
comparison in concentration levels of various contaminants between coal
refuse and regional coal samples. A selection of the specific data
provided by the commenter is replicated in Table 5 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ CFBs ability to achieve lower emissions levels is due to
several factors: (1) CFB boilers are often newer than many existing
pulverized coal utility boilers and may be equipped with better
particulate matter (PM) controls; (2) CFBs utilize lower operating
temperatures, which result in lower metal and NOX
emissions; and (3) CFB boilers often add limestone to their feed to
control SO2 emissions, which results in greater fixation
to the ash.
\123\ Coal sample data found in the U.S. Geological Survey--
National Coal Resources Data System. For more information, see
http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coalqual.htm).
Table 5--Comparison of Trace Metal Contents (ppm) of Regional Coal Samples and Coal Refuse From Legacy Piles, as Provided in Comments on the NHSM Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample description Sample ID Sb As Be Cd Cr Co Pb Mn Hg Ni P Se
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal samples from USGS database--Cambria, No. Samples....................... 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244
Indiana, and Somerset Counties, PA \123\.
Minimum........................... 0.11 0 0.6 0.01 2 1.5 0.8 2 0.00 3.4 22 0.68
Maximum........................... 7.80 200 9.5 1.00 65 34.0 44.0 390 2.90 86.0 3400 20.00
Samples of coal refuse from legacy piles located
in Cambria, Indiana, and Somerset Counties, PA.
Sample 1.......................... 1.5 50.7 2.1 0.3 80.2 22.7 33.1 134 0.644 44.7 718 7.8
Sample 2.......................... 1.7 53.4 2.1 0.3 84.5 23.8 35.2 139 0.748 50.5 719 8.6
Sample 3.......................... 1.5 47.3 2.1 0.3 84.7 22.8 33.1 144 0.613 47.1 745 8.6
Average........................... 1.6 50.5 2.1 0.3 83.1 23.1 33.8 139 0.668 47.4 727 8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This data indicates that the concentration of the various
contaminants in the coal refuse samples were lower for almost all
constituents (including mercury and lead) when compared to regional
coal samples. According to this data set, only chromium was
consistently higher in the coal refuse samples than the regional virgin
coal, which also indicates that the difference in concentration may be
much closer than previously indicated in the preamble to the
proposal.\124\ Therefore, provided
[[Page 15510]]
that coal refuse from legacy piles are sufficiently processed, this
commenter asserts that coal refuse would pass the contaminant
legitimacy criterion and should therefore not be classified as a solid
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Data provided by the commenter indicated that the average
chromium levels of coal refuse was 83.1 ppm, whereas the range of
chromium levels for the regional virgin coal samples was between 2-
65 ppm. The proposed rule noted that chromium levels of coal refuse
can be up to four times higher than virgin coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: Regarding the contaminant levels in coal refuse in
legacy piles, we agree with those commenters who acknowledged that coal
refuse can have higher concentrations of some metals than is found in
virgin coal. As noted in the proposed rule, at least one commenter on
the ANPRM contended that coal refuse could have up to four times more
mercury and chromium, and three times more lead than virgin coal.\125\
We note that this commenter did not provide primary sources for this
data, a point which was raised by at least one commenter. We generally
recognize, however, that available data show that coal refuse placed in
legacy piles often has higher metals concentrations than non-refuse
coal concentrations, but we would presume that the levels of
contaminants are the same as in currently mined coal that would have
been placed into these piles in the past. We also recognize that
contaminant levels will vary significantly depending upon the region
and type of coal at issue.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See 75 FR 31865.
\126\ See our Materials Characterization Paper on Coal Refuse,
located in the docket for today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, we now determine that coal refuse that is
currently generated should be considered an alternative fuel. On the
other hand, coal refuse that is recovered and processed from the
discard environment would need to pass the legitimacy criteria in order
to be considered a non-waste fuel. As coal refuse is recovered from
legacy piles are subject to the same processes as currently-generated
coal refuse in order to meet the same fuel specifications, they would
contain any potential contaminants at levels that are comparable to or
lower than coal refuse that is currently generated.
We would further note that the contaminant data provided by the one
commenter demonstrates that there are also examples of coal refuse
taken from legacy piles satisfying the contaminant legitimacy criterion
when directly compared to contaminant levels in coal. Given the
regional variations in coal compositions, the analysis is on point
given the fact that the commenter compared similar regional coal refuse
and virgin coal samples. Therefore, we agree with the commenter that
there are instances when coal refuse would also satisfy the contaminant
legitimacy criterion when compared to virgin coal as well.
Finally, we would note that although emissions comparisons are not
a direct indicator of whether these materials satisfy the contaminant
legitimacy criterion, the emissions from CFBs that use coal refuse as
fuel typically have lower levels of emissions than typical pulverized
coal burners.
Comment: Several commenters contended that the management of coal
refuse at mining sites is already regulated under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1997 (SMCRA) and that defining coal
refuse as a solid waste would be inconsistent with SMCRA. Specifically,
some commenters point out that although the term ``solid waste'' under
RCRA includes mining waste in the definition, EPA determined, in
accordance with section 1006(c) of RCRA that provides for the
integration of RCRA with SMCRA, that materials and products associated
with coal mining activities should not be regulated as hazardous
wastes.
EPA's Response: RCRA section 1006(c) pertains to hazardous wastes
under RCRA subtitle C. As such, it is inapplicable for today's
rulemaking, which is solely concerned with non-hazardous secondary
materials. Thus, we disagree with those commenters who cited section
1006(c) of RCRA and argued that regulation of coal refuse found in
legacy piles should be deferred to SMCRA. In addition, SMCRA is
concerned with the management and removal of coal refuse piles at
mining sites. It does not address the issue of ``discard,'' which is
critical to the definition of solid waste under RCRA, and as such,
which emission standards coal refuse that is in legacy piles and burned
in a combustion unit is subject to under the CAA.
9. Coal Combustion Residuals 127 128
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ In a separate rulemaking effort, EPA has proposed
regulations that will provide for the safe disposal and management
of coal combustion residuals from utility coal-fired power plants
(the ``Coal Combustion Residuals Proposed Rule''). The proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2010. See 75 FR
35127. Today's final rule does not affect that rulemaking effort, as
our rule considers the use of coal combustion residuals in
combustion units as fuels or ingredients, while the coal combustion
residual proposed rule is concerned with the safe disposal and
management of these residuals in landfills and surface impoundments.
For more information on the coal combustion residual proposed rule,
see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
\128\ For a discussion of CCRs used as ingredients, see Section
V.C.2 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal combustion residuals (CCRs) are formed during coal-burning
processes in power plants and industrial boilers, and are produced in
various forms that are categorized by the process in which they are
generated. The proposed rule differentiated between CCRs (which include
such secondary materials as fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag), that
are currently generated from those CCRs that have been previously
disposed of (such as, mined landfill ash) and are used as fuels in
combustion units. Under the proposed rule, currently generated CCRs
that have not been discarded in the first instance and satisfy the
legitimacy criteria would not be considered a solid waste when used as
a fuel in combustion units provided the CCRs were burned in units
within the control of the generator. For example, the proposal
described a situation where currently generated, high-carbon fly and
bottom ash that is taken directly from existing boilers is burned
within the control of the generator at power generating stations. On
the other hand, CCRs recovered from landfills or other disposal units
would clearly have been discarded in the first instance and would
therefore have to be sufficiently processed into a non-waste fuel
product and meet the legitimacy criteria in order not to be considered
a solid waste when used as a fuel.
The proposed rule also noted comments received on the ANPRM
describing patented processes that separate the carbon from the fly ash
in order to produce a new fuel product. Although this level of
processing appeared likely to meet the proposed definition of
processing, the proposed rule solicited comment on how CCRs are
processed. The proposed rule also requested comment regarding the
extent to which CCRs are recovered from the discard environment (e.g.,
landfills) and used as fuels. For the proposed rule's discussion of
CCRs used as fuels, see 75 FR 31865-6.
Comment: Most commenters argued that CCRs, when used in combustion
units, should be classified as ingredients rather than as fuels. The
commenters often contended that classifying all CCRs as ingredients
would simplify waste determinations for these secondary materials by
clearly establishing the appropriate legitimacy criteria that apply
(i.e., facilities would not need to determine whether the fuel or
ingredient legitimacy criteria apply based on the primary purpose of
the secondary materials). Some commenters acknowledged, however, that
CCRs can be combusted (e.g., by electric utilities) for energy recovery
of its carbon content
[[Page 15511]]
or combustion in carbon burn-out (CBO) units for processing marketable
fly ash products.
One commenter described CBO units, which they explained burn
``unwanted carbon'' from fly ash to produce a low-carbon fly ash that
is more suitable for use as an ingredient in Portland cement, as being
typically integrated with power plants. The CBO unit combusts fly ash
from the power plant in a fluidized bed, extracts the residual energy
content of the fly ash to fuel the CBO, and returns useful heat to the
power plant. The commenter stated that the major equipment that
comprises the CBO unit includes a fluidized bed combustor and heat
exchanger to recover heat from the fly ash combustion. This same
commenter described the heat generated from the combustion of the
carbon in the fly ash as ``valuable'' and is typically recovered from
the CBO and used to heat the host plant's condensate stream, which
reduces the amount of extraction steam required. In reasoning that this
high-carbon fly ash should be considered an ingredient, however, the
commenter notes that energy generated from burning the secondary
material is of secondary importance to the production of the valuable
low-carbon fly ash to be sold to cement kilns.
EPA's Response: We do not agree with commenters that all CCRs, when
used in combustion units, should categorically be defined as
ingredients. As some commenters acknowledged, some CCRs are indeed used
for their fuel value as opposed to their ingredient value, especially
when re-burned, as in the case of their use in combustion units by
electric utilities. Therefore, we cannot categorically classify CCRs as
ingredients when it is clear that, in some cases, these secondary
materials are being burned for their fuel value and/or to produce a new
secondary material (i.e., low-carbon fly ash). In cases where the
primary purpose of using CCRs is for their fuel value and not for the
ingredient value (e.g., by electric utilities in utility boilers), the
secondary materials must meet the requirements for fuels, including the
legitimacy criteria, in order to not be considered a solid waste. In
other words, to the extent that CCRs are used as fuels, these secondary
materials must remain within the control of the generator and meet the
legitimacy criteria for fuels or be sufficiently processed into a new
fuel product in order not to be considered a solid waste. We note,
however, that sources may petition the Agency for a non-waste
determination for secondary materials managed outside the control of
the generator, including CCRs. See Section VII.G.
Regarding CBO units that burn high-carbon fly ash, creating both
energy, as well as a new marketable ingredient (i.e., low carbon fly
ash), this activity would not constitute use of these secondary
materials as ingredients. When the fly ash goes into a CBO unit, it is
clearly not being used as an ingredient, but is used to produce an
ingredient. It is less clear, however, whether this activity represents
a legitimate use of these secondary materials as fuels or should be
considered a type of waste management. The commenter states that
burning of this fly ash in CBO units provides ``valuable heat'' and
indicates that the energy is used in turn to power the CBO or returned
to the power plant, which indicates that the burning of the fly ash
could constitute a legitimate use as a fuel. On the other hand, the
same commenter also noted that the fuel value is ``secondary'' to its
value as an ingredient and the CBO process as removing ``unwanted
carbon'' from the fly ash, which may suggest that the fly ash is being
burned as a waste activity (i.e., the destruction of the unwanted
carbon in order to generate a marketable product).
Unfortunately, from the comments received, we are not able to make
a categorical determination whether or not the burning of fly ash in
these units would constitute ``discard,'' as it is unclear whether the
carbon is being destroyed or whether it is actually used for its fuel
value. In other words, the CBO unit is either ``destroying'' the
carbon, which would make these materials a solid waste, or the carbon
is being recovered and used as a fuel, in which case these materials
would not be considered a solid waste provided they meet the legitimacy
criteria.
While the CBO units are burning the ash to create a marketable
product, in so doing they may also be utilizing the separated carbon
for its fuel value. The commenter indicates that use of high carbon-fly
ash in these CBOs may have more than marginal energy value and can even
be a source of additional power to an adjoining power plant. While we
do not have sufficient information to make a categorical determination
regarding the use of fly ash as a fuel in these CBO units, it is
appropriate for these units to consider the legitimacy criteria in
order to determine whether or not the fly ash is being burned for
discard or burned legitimately for its fuel value.
As discussed in Section VII.H, legitimacy criteria are critical to
ensuring that non-hazardous secondary materials are being legitimately
used. To the extent that a CBO unit can determine that it meets the
legitimacy criteria for fuels (including whether the fly ash has
meaningful heating value and is used as a fuel in a combustion unit
that recovers energy), we would consider such a use to be legitimate.
We emphasize, however, that mere destruction of the unwanted carbon
would clearly represent discard and would by definition fail the
meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion. We also note that it is
not clear from the comments how the CBO unit recovers energy and
whether it would meet our definition of a legitimate energy recovery
device. For a discussion of legitimate energy recovery devices, see the
Response to Comments on Sewage Sludge (Section V.B.10). If these units
do not legitimately recover energy, they would not meet the meaningful
heating value criterion. See also Section VII.I, which discusses the
types of notification and recordkeeping requirements, including
documentation as to how the non-hazardous secondary material meets the
legitimacy criteria, that a facility using these secondary materials as
fuels that remain within the control of the generator are subject to.
Finally, we note that the resulting low-carbon fly ash would be
considered a new secondary material, which would be considered an
ingredient if it is later used in the production of cement.
Comment: One commenter, a utility, stated that the proposed rule's
setting of minimum energy content values for a secondary material to be
used as a fuel and not be considered a solid waste (i.e., the
meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion) is inappropriate for the
re-burning of fly ash when producing concrete quality fly ash, as the
coal ash used for re-burn is selected based on its mineral content,
combined with the mineralogy of the coal currently being used as a
fuel. The fuel value of the fly ash is only one technical consideration
when introducing coal ash in combustion systems for creating concrete
quality fly ash and requiring a minimum heating value may restrict the
use of high quality fly ash for use in concrete and other applications.
EPA's Response: We appreciate that the fuel value is only one of
several considerations made when selecting fly ash for re-burn;
however, in order for fly ash that is re-burned to not be a solid waste
under today's final rule, it would need to either remain within the
control of the generator and meet the legitimacy criteria for fuels,
including the meaningful heating value criterion, or, if discarded, be
processed into a new, legitimate fuel product. Some
[[Page 15512]]
commenters stated that the energy content of fly ash when burned is
returned as useful heat. Based on the comments received, however, it is
unclear whether the fly ash in that instance would meet the meaningful
heating value criterion, as these comments do not include enough
information about how much energy is being recovered from the use of
these secondary materials as fuels. In order to not be considered a
solid waste, the facility must determine whether the fly ash meets the
legitimacy criteria, including whether the fly ash has meaningful
heating value and is used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers
energy.
We also note that we are not establishing a bright line test for
satisfying the meaningful heating value test. Rather, for purposes of
meeting the legitimacy criteria for fuels, we would consider non-
hazardous secondary materials with an energy value greater than 5,000
Btu/lb, as-fired, to have a meaningful heating value, and satisfy this
legitimacy criterion. However, for facilities with energy recovery
units that use non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels with an
energy content lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, we believe it is also
appropriate to allow a person to demonstrate that a meaningful heating
value is derived from the non-hazardous secondary material if the
energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover meaningful energy
from the non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels. See Section
VII.H.1 for a discussion of how non-hazardous secondary materials can
satisfy the meaningful heating value criterion for fuels.
Comment: Some commenters argued generally that EPA should not
restrict the source of coal ash that is re-burned and should allow coal
ash that is used as a fuel to be transferred between facilities and
retrieved from landfills because it is being beneficially used. One of
these commenters described how one of its power plants re-burns coal
ash that it receives from two other power plants that it also owns.
This same commenter also noted that it re-burns coal ash in one of its
power plants that it has retrieved from an off-site landfill.
EPA's Response: As discussed in Section V.A.1, EPA is not making a
sweeping arbitrary assumption in categorizing transferred secondary
materials as discarded. Instead, EPA has evaluated whether certain
categories of materials are discarded or not. The Agency has not
adopted the extremes of saying that all burning of secondary material,
regardless of ultimate use, is waste treatment or that any secondary
material that is recycled for legitimate fuel value is a commodity and
not a waste. Wastes may have value, but are still wastes.
Between these broad parameters, EPA has examined a number of
specific materials, recycled on-site and transferred for recycling, and
determined whether they would be appropriately placed within the waste
or non-waste categories. EPA would consider transferred non-hazardous
secondary materials not to be wastes if it could make the appropriate
findings for those categories. In fact, the Agency does so with respect
to scrap tires harvested from vehicles and resinated wood residuals.
Commenters discussing scrap tires and resinated wood residuals,
however, provided specific information regarding how these secondary
materials were managed when they no longer remained within the control
of the generator and the frequency with which these materials were
collected and transferred off-site. For example, resinated wood
residuals are routinely transferred between either intra- or inter-
company facilities and used as either ``furnish'' (i.e., raw materials)
or fuel at the receiving facilities. The material being transferred
off-site is used and handled in the same manner that resinated wood
residuals are used when generated on-site (such that it is impossible
to distinguish between materials that are being used as a raw material
and those that are being used as a fuel).
On the other hand, commenters discussing the use of CCRs as fuels
outside the control of the generator did so only in general terms.
Commenters provided legal arguments that case law holds that transfer
of such materials between companies were irrelevant for determining
whether a recycled material was properly viewed as a solid waste. See
Section V.A.1 for our response to these legal arguments on the issue of
``transfer'' as it relates to the concept of discard. However, these
commenters did not specify how the proposed rule's presumption that
non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels and are
managed outside the control of the generator are solid wastes was
inappropriate for CCRs. In general, the DC Circuit has not accepted
such presentations in ``broad abstraction.'' See ABR at 1056.
Because commenters did not provide sufficient information detailing
how CCRs are managed when transferred outside the control of the
generator, we are unable to determine whether such movement of CCRs
outside the control of the generator is or is not indicative of
discard. Thus, such a determination is best left to the non-waste
petition process, as finalized in today's rule. As we've discussed, we
believe this petition process is essential because many non-hazardous
secondary materials are recycled and managed in many different ways,
and the Agency may lack the specific details in certain cases to know
whether such non-hazardous secondary materials are or are not solid
wastes. For a discussion of non-waste determination petitions, see
Section VII.G of today's rule.
Regarding the commenter who described how one of its power plants
re-burns coal ash that it receives from two other power plants it also
owns, we would expect that such a situation would fall within the
definition of ``within the control of the generator,'' as codified in
Sec. 241.2. For the purposes of today's final rule, ``within the
control of the generator'' means that the non-hazardous secondary
material is generated and burned in combustion units at the generating
facility; or that such material is generated and burned in combustion
units at different facilities, provided the facility combusting the
non-hazardous secondary material is controlled by the generator; or
both the generating facility and the facility combusting the non-
hazardous secondary material are under the control of the same person.
We have also codified the definition of ``control'' as meaning the
power to direct the policies of the facility, whether by the ownership
of stock, voting rights, or otherwise, except that contractors who
operate facilities on behalf of a different person as defined in this
section shall not be deemed to ``control'' such facilities. See Sec.
241.2. As the commenter states that it owns the other two plants, such
intra-company movement would ensure that the materials would remain
within the control of the generator and, therefore, such CCRs would not
be considered a solid waste when used as a fuel provided they meet the
legitimacy criteria. In the instance where a facility is re-burning
coal ash that is recovered from landfills, such coal ash is a solid
waste, as this material has clearly been discarded. Coal ash that is
recovered from landfills must be sufficiently processed in order to no
longer be considered a solid waste.
Comment: We received a few comments regarding the extent to which
CCRs are mined from landfills (i.e., recovered from the discard
environment). One commenter asserted that it was unaware of any
recovery of CCR from disposal sites, while one another commenter
acknowledged that while it could utilize recovered landfill fly ash, it
was not currently doing so.
[[Page 15513]]
Still another commenter stated it removes CCRs from landfills and that
such removal for either energy recovery or beneficial reuse was
facilitated by a regulatory innovation program sponsored by the state
and endorsed by EPA. Consequently, this commenter commonly re-burns
coal ash that is recovered from landfills. This commenter notes that it
has developed and uses patented processes to use this fly ash, but does
not provide specific details regarding how these secondary materials
are processed.
EPA's Response: It does not appear that it is a widespread practice
for CCRs to be recovered from the discard environment (e.g., landfills)
and beneficially used. However, from comments received both on the
ANPRM and the proposed rule, it appears that at least some CCRs are
being recovered from the discard environment or could be recovered from
the discard environment--for example by the one commenter citing its
participation in a state regulatory innovation program. Although we
recognize the benefits associated with recovering CCRs from landfills,
these non-hazardous secondary materials have clearly been discarded in
the first instance and would have to be sufficiently processed into a
new fuel product (or ingredient product) to not be considered a solid
waste when used in combustion units. As we've stated elsewhere in the
preamble, today's final rule is limited to CCRs used as fuels or
ingredients in combustion units. In other words, today's rulemaking
should not impact other potential beneficial uses of CCRs, such as
using these secondary materials as a base material to replace stone or
gravel under roads, parking lots and buildings.
Comment: EPA received comments on the ANPRM stating that there are
at least four patented processes for removing unwanted carbon from fly
and bottom ash that allow the processed ash to produce both technically
compliant ash for use in concrete and a separate carbon stream that can
be re-introduced into the boiler for its fuel value. One electric
utility, commenting on the proposed rule, also mentioned patented
processes for using CCRs recovered from landfills. However, neither of
these commenters provided specific details regarding how the CCRs are
actually processed.
EPA's Response: Unfortunately, EPA did not receive sufficient
information during the comment period describing the types of processes
that CCRs undergo to be able to make a categorical determination
whether the patented processes referenced in the proposed rule would
meet the definition of processing being promulgated in today's final
rule. Although we did receive some information regarding how CCRs are
processed, we have determined, as we stated in the proposed rule, that
certain operations are currently being utilized to recover CCRs from
the discard environment that would likely meet our definition of
``processing.'' For example, we are aware of at least one electric
utility that recovers ash from ponds or landfills and then separates
this secondary material into its fundamental components: carbon,
silicates, and high-density, iron-rich materials. A coarse carbon-fuel
product is then recovered by density separation using concentrating
spirals. A fine carbon-fuel product is also recovered with flotation
cells.\129\ We believe that this type of processing operation is likely
to meet our definition of processing, as it appears that these
operations in fact remove contaminants and improve the fuel
characteristics of recovered CCRs. Thus, a determination would need to
be made as to whether such processes meet the definition of processing,
as codified in Sec. 241.2.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See ``Materials Characterization Paper on Coal Combustion
Residuals-Coal Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Boiler Slag.'' A copy of
this document has been placed in the docket for today's rule.
\130\ We note, however, that burning any secondary material,
including CCRs, in a combustion unit would not constitute
``processing,'' as determining whether or not a material is a solid
waste must occur prior to its placement in the combustion unit. To
consider the burning of such materials as ``processing'' would be
circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sewage Sludge
The proposed rule classified sewage sludge (or wastewater treatment
sludge) generated from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) as solid
waste when burned as fuels in combustion units. However, the proposed
rule also specifically solicited comment on whether it is within the
Agency's discretion to provide a regulatory solid waste exclusion for
sewage sludge when burned in incinerators in order to preserve the
current framework for regulating sewage sludge managed under section
405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and to avoid redundancy. When making
the determination that sewage sludge is a solid waste when burned as a
fuel in a combustion unit, the proposed rule stated that the Domestic
Sewage Exclusion (DSE) under RCRA (see 261.4(a)) does not apply to the
sludge generated from the treatment process and thus, sewage sludge is
a solid waste if discarded. The proposed rule also noted that burning
sewage sludge without energy recovery (i.e., burned for destruction)
would constitute discard. Responding to commenters describing POTWs
that recover heat in the form of usable heat via waste heat boilers,
the proposed rule stated that the Agency does not consider waste heat
boilers to be legitimate energy recovery devices, but rather these
combustion units are burning the sewage sludge primarily for disposal
purposes. Finally, the proposed rule stated that sewage sludge would
likely not satisfy the contaminant legitimacy criterion, as data
indicates that sewage sludge often contains metals at levels that are
significantly higher in concentration when compared to traditional
fuels. For the proposed rule's discussion of sewage sludge, see 75 FR
31866-7.
Comment: Several commenters argued that EPA has the discretion to
exclude or exempt sewage sludge from this rulemaking and should
exercise that discretion in order to preserve the current framework for
regulating the burning of sewage sludge pursuant to 40 CFR 503 (Part
503), which codifies regulations developed under the authority of
section 405 of the CWA. These commenters also note that EPA has a non-
discretionary duty to consider all environmental laws to prevent
duplication when promulgating regulations under section 1006(b) of RCRA
and that deeming sewage sludge a solid waste to be regulated under
section 129 of the CAA violates EPA's non-discretionary duty to
harmonize environmental laws because emissions from sewage sludge
incinerators (SSIs) are already comprehensively regulated under other
statutes.
EPA's Response: We agree with the commenters that section 1006(b)
requires EPA to integrate the RCRA requirements with the requirements
of the CWA and the CAA, as well as other laws. Section 1006(b) also
states that such integration shall be effected only to the extent that
it can be done in a manner consistent with the goals and policies
expressed in RCRA and in the other acts referred to in section 1006(b).
Thus, while we recognize that emissions from SSIs have been regulated
under other statutes, the purpose of today's final rule is not to
regulate emissions from SSIs, but rather to determine whether sewage
sludge is or is not a solid waste to allow the Agency to decide whether
the material must be combusted under emissions standards developed
under section 112 or 129 of the CAA. Sewage sludge is one of many non-
hazardous secondary materials that are discussed and analyzed in this
final rule.
We also note that section 405(d)(5) of the CWA states that nothing
in section
[[Page 15514]]
405 is intended to waive more stringent requirements established by the
CWA or by any other law. This provision clearly states that section 405
of the CWA does not preempt other regulation. Therefore, we believe
today's final rule is consistent with the goals and policies of RCRA,
the CWA, and the CAA and thus, satisfies the requirements of section
1006(b).
Comment: Commenters asserted that Congress wrote section 112 of the
CAA to regulate sewage sludge emissions, stating that section 112(e)(5)
\131\ of the CAA directs EPA to issue emissions standards under section
112(d) for POTWs, including SSIs. These commenters also argued that
sewage sludge quality and incineration is strictly regulated under the
CWA and that the current regulatory structure under both the CWA and
section 112 of the CAA is effective and should not be altered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ CAA section 112(e)(5) states, ``The Administrator shall
promulgate standards pursuant to subsection (d) of this section
applicable to publicly owned treatments works (as defined in Title
II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C.A. Sec.
1281 et seq.] not later than 5 years after November 15, 1990.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: Today's final action is defining solid waste under
RCRA and as such we are not addressing the definition of POTW under the
CWA or the requirements of the CAA.
Comment: Several commenters reiterated the position that the DSE
applies to sewage sludge generated by POTWs and, therefore, stated that
sewage sludge is exempted from the definition of solid waste under
RCRA. Citing the preamble to the 1980 RCRA subtitle C regulations, at
least one commenter stated that the Agency indicated that once the to-
be-developed regulation under section 405 of the CWA is promulgated,
sewage sludge would be exempt from coverage under other sets of
regulations.\132\ The same commenter also cites the 1990 Petroleum
Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge
Listings Rule (1990 Listings Rule), which states ``It should be noted
that if wastewaters generated at petroleum refineries are discharged to
a POTW and such wastewaters are mixed with domestic sewage from
nonindustrial sources, the sludges generated in the POTW are covered
under the domestic sewage exclusion and are not included in today's
listings.'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See 45 FR 33102 (May 19, 1980).
\133\ See 55 FR 46364 (November 2, 1990) (Footnote 14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: For the same reasons stated in the proposed rule,
we do not agree with the comments suggesting that the DSE applies to
the sludge generated from the treatment process. EPA has long viewed
sewage sludge generated from POTWs as a solid waste, beginning with the
1980 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste rulemaking. In that
final rule, EPA stated that the DSE is ``only applicable to non-
domestic wastes that mix with sanitary waste in a sewer system leading
to a POTW.'' \134\ In that same rule, EPA further said it decided not
to exclude sewage sludge from regulation under RCRA, since the
statutory expressions regarding the definitions of ``solid waste'' and
``sludge'' was clear.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Id at 45 FR 33097.
\135\ Id at 45 FR 33101. ``Under Section 1004(27) of RCRA, the
definition of ``solid waste'' specifically includes ``sludge from a
waste treatment plant.'' In defining ``sludge,'' Section 1004(26A)
includes wastes from a ``municipal wastewater treatment plan.''
Because of these very clear statutory expressions, EPA must regulate
sewage sludge under RCRA. * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree that the 1980 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste rulemaking referenced by the commenter states that once the
regulations are promulgated under section 405(d) of the CWA, sewage
sludge will be exempted from coverage from ``other sets of
regulations.'' The preamble continues, however, to state: ``In
particular sewage sludge that qualifies as a hazardous waste will be
exempted from this Part [261] and Parts 262 through 265'' once this
program is promulgated under CWA section 405. However, this exclusion
is specifically limited to RCRA subtitle C (i.e., hazardous
waste),\136\ and does not apply to the subtitle D program under RCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ We would note that even though the CWA section 405(d)
regulations have been promulgated, EPA never exempted sewage sludge
from the subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, and thus, sewage
sludge that exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
must be managed as a hazardous waste. See 45 FR 33102, May 19, 1980
where it states, ``The Agency's strategy for the development of a
comprehensive sewage sludge management regulation will eventually
result in the establishment of a separate regulation. Once such a
regulation is in place, sewage sludge will be exempted from coverage
under other sets of regulations. * * * Pending promulgation of this
comprehensive sewage sludge regulation, sewage sludge will not be
specifically excluded from Subtitle C.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the citation from the 1990 Listings Rule, this footnote
is in error and is inconsistent with our historic interpretation of the
scope of the DSE, as discussed both in the proposed rule and today's
final rule. Thus, the DSE does not apply to the sludge generated from
the treatment process.
Comment: Several commenters stated that sewage sludge has
meaningful heating value and that EPA should re-evaluate its
description of this criterion. Commenters argued that EPA's
determination that waste heat boilers do not qualify as combustion
units that recover energy is arbitrary and does not recognize the
significant value of waste heat boilers and their role in energy
generation. One commenter, a regional sewer district that estimated
roughly 93 percent of its sewage sludge was ``incinerated,'' stated
that four of its boilers had produced a total of 2.5 billion pounds of
high pressure steam over a twenty-five year span by converting the heat
generated from burning sewage sludge in multiple hearth incinerators to
high pressure steam.
EPA Response: We find that most sewage sludge is burned not for
energy recovery, but for destruction. Sewage sludge burned in an
incinerator for the purposes of destruction would clearly meet the
meaning of discard, and thus be a solid waste. While we recognize that
waste heat boilers are useful devices for providing energy in the form
of steam for secondary processes, the presence of a waste heat boiler
does not, by itself, change the fact that the unit combusting the non-
hazardous secondary material is primarily an incineration unit burning
waste for disposal purposes.
Further, the Agency does not regard waste heat boilers as
legitimate energy recovery devices because they receive their energy
input from the combustion of off-gases via a separate combustion
chamber. Under the RCRA program, a legitimate energy recovery device is
one that meets the definition of a boiler or an industrial
furnace.\137\ Among other criteria, a boiler's combustion chamber and
primary energy recovery section(s) must be of integral design, unless
it falls under the process heater or fluidized bed combustion
exemption. Thus, a combustion chamber that is connected by a duct to a
waste heat boiler (or recuperator/heat exchanger) does not qualify as a
legitimate energy recovery device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See February 28, 1984 Memorandum from John H. Skinner,
Director, Office of Solid Waste, to Thomas W. Devine, Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, entitled, ``Guidance
on Determining When a Hazardous Waste Is a Legitimate Fuel That May
Be Burned for Energy Recovery in Boiler or Industrial Furnace.'' A
copy of this memorandum is included in the docket for today's rule.
For definitions of ``boiler'' and ``industrial furnace'' under RCRA,
see 40 CFR 260.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike boilers, which are specifically designed to recover the
maximum amount of heat from a material's combustion, waste heat
recovery units are designed to cool the exhaust gas stream, and/or to
recover, indirectly, the useful heat remaining in the exhaust gas
[[Page 15515]]
from a combustion unit that has some other primary purpose (such as an
institutional waste incinerator). Thus, we continue to consider that
sewage sludge is primarily burned for destruction and the presence of a
waste heat recovery unit would not, by itself, satisfy the meaningful
heating value legitimacy criterion.
Comment: Regarding the contaminant levels in sewage sludge, a
number of commenters noted that the pretreatment standards have reduced
contaminants (particularly metals) in sewage sludge, with a few
commenters providing more recent contaminant data for sewage sludge
than was available in the proposed rule and stated that this new data
demonstrates that currently generated sewage sludge would meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion.\138\ The National Association of
Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) amended the data set included in the
proposed rule by providing data from a 2006-2007 Targeted National
Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS). See column four of Table 6 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The proposed rule included a table comparing sewage sludge
data taken from a 1982 40-city study and a 1988 National Sewage
Sludge Survey, cited in the National Biosolids Partnership's 2005
``National Manual of Good Practices for Biosolids,'' and coal data
taken from a 1998 U.S. EPA report entitled, ``Development of
Comparable Fuels Specifications.'' May 1998.
Table 6--Comparison of Toxics of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludges to Traditional Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted
National national
Element 40 City study sewage sludge sewage sludge Coal
(1982) survey (1988) survey
(TNSSS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mg/dry kg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic......................................... 9.9 6.7 6.9 10
Cadmium......................................... 69 6.9 2.6 0.5
Chromium........................................ 429 119 80 20
Lead............................................ 369 134.4 76 40
Mercury......................................... 2.8 5.2 1.2 0.1
Nickel.......................................... 135.1 42.7 48 20
Selenium........................................ 7.3 5.2 7 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters, however, agreeing that sewage sludge should be
considered a solid waste, noted that sewage sludge tended to have
higher contaminant levels than traditional fuels and should be
regulated as solid waste when used as a fuel. Although not a part of
the proposed definition of ``contaminants,'' some commenters noted the
presence of pathogens in sewage sludge.
EPA's Response: The Agency appreciates the more recent and site-
specific data provided by several commenters. We agree that in most
cases, the specific data provided by commenters indicates that
contaminant levels for most contaminants is not as high as previously
reported in the earlier studies. However, we note that the TNSSS data
provided by commenters still indicates higher levels, and those that
EPA would not consider to be ``comparable'' for most of the
contaminants found in sewage sludge when compared to coal. Thus, under
today's final rule, sewage sludge would not satisfy the contaminant
legitimacy criterion because of the presence of non-comparable levels
of metals when compared to traditional fuels. Regarding the commenter's
reference to pathogens, pathogens are not included as a contaminant in
today's rule since that definition focuses on those constituents
identified in the CAA that EPA will be evaluating to determine whether
to establish emission standards (see also discussion in V.D.3).
Comment: Finally, several commenters urged EPA to explicitly limit
the scope of the final rule, making it clear that this rulemaking would
have no regulatory effects or impacts for sewage sludge that is not
incinerated (e.g., land application). On the other hand, one commenter
requested that the Agency designate sewage sludge as a solid waste
regardless of the manner that it is managed for disposal (land
application, surface disposal, co-disposal in a municipal solid waste
landfill, or incineration).
EPA's Response: We disagree with the one commenter who requested
that this rulemaking define sewage sludge as a solid waste regardless
of its end use (i.e., land application, surface disposal, etc.). In
this final rule, EPA is articulating a framework for determining
whether a non-hazardous secondary material is or is not a solid waste
when burned as a fuel or ingredient in a combustion unit; we are not
making solid waste determinations that cover other possible end uses
(e.g., land application of sewage sludge). It is the Agency's view that
these regulations should not dictate to state programs how to
characterize and/or regulate this material (as well as any other non-
hazardous secondary material), particularly since EPA does not have
authority to regulate the beneficial use of non-hazardous secondary
materials under subtitle D of RCRA. Therefore, EPA agrees with those
commenters who suggested the limited scope of this final rule and
explicitly recognize the narrow focus of this rulemaking.
11. Processed Fats
Processed fats, including both animal fats and vegetable oils, can
be turned into biofuels for use in industrial boilers. The proposal did
not discuss the use of this non-hazardous secondary material or discuss
its status as a fuel or waste under this rule. We did receive comments
pertaining to its status, however.
Comment: Commenters have argued that processed fats are a
traditional fuel as they are not discarded and are legitimate fuel
products. Specifically, they argue that the use of processed fats as
fuel has been used in industrial boilers for more than a decade, as
evidenced by approval of the use of such fats as fuels in air permits
for industrial boilers. The commenters also note that processed fats
are a primary product of the rendering process and not secondary
materials or by-products, are derived from inedible animal products,
which are the primary products of value and sale of the meat industry
and not a secondary material or by-products, and are therefore not a
solid waste since it or its primary feedstock have never been a waste
or discarded.
[[Page 15516]]
Processed fats also are managed as valuable commodities and have
meaningful heating value. They are managed similar to traditional oils,
utilizing the same tanks, hoses, nozzles, and tanker trucks, and have a
heating value of around 17,000 Btu/lb.\139\ Processed fats, the
commenters argue, also have a comparable composition to traditional
fuel products. In fact, processed fats contain considerably less
contaminants (e.g., <0.010% sulfur by weight, 0.022% ash by weight) and
burn cleaner than many traditional fuels and derivatives (e.g., coal,
oil, coal tar oil, asphalts, etc). The limited contaminant data that
was submitted showed that processed fats had less than 1 ppm of
vanadium. Commenters also stated that processed fats have fewer
contaminants than No. 6 residual oil (2% sulfur content), which will
result in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Furthermore, they stated that
processed fats also have lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter and carbon monoxide, as compared to No. 2 distillate oil (0.5%
sulfur content). However, no data was submitted to validate these
statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0706.1. Adams, T.T., J.
Walsh, M. Brown, J. Goodrum, J. Sellers, and K. Das, 2002. ``A
Demonstration of Fat and Grease as an Industrial Boiler Fuel,''
University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also note that the federal government has encouraged
the development and use of materials, such as processed fats as a
clean, renewable fuel that reduces dependency on petroleum oils. Since
2006, the use of processed fats as fuel has been encouraged through the
Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit (26 U.S.C. 6426(e)). Although the
proposed rule is intended to facilitate the use of certain materials
that would otherwise be treated as waste by allowing them to be
designated as non-hazardous secondary materials and burned as fuels,
the net effect, with respect to processed fats, is the opposite. Rather
than facilitate the use of processed fats as fuel, the rule will
effectively end the development of this market. This is because the end
result under the rule as it currently is proposed is a requirement that
each potential customer must petition and obtain EPA approval for each
facility in which they wish to burn processed fats. The burden and
delay of submitting to such a process will have a chilling effect on
the development of new customers and markets for processed fats as
fuel. As a practical matter, this outcome is contrary to longstanding
federal policy encouraging the development and use of clean, renewable
fuels in place of petroleum and other fossil fuels.
EPA's Response: We disagree that process fats are a traditional
fuel. Process fats are secondary materials as they are produced from
inedible parts of animals that were primarily butchered for meat, not
for use as a fuel. We recognize, however, that these non-hazardous
secondary materials contain lower concentrations of contaminants than
traditional fuels \140\ and, as such, are being encouraged for use
instead of fossil fuels.\141\ In addition, since the fats are managed
the same way that traditional oil is, it is evident that the material
is handled as a valuable commodity, meeting that legitimacy criterion.
Additionally, the material meets the legitimacy criterion for a
meaningful heating value. Since these materials are sometimes not
managed within the control of the generator (i.e., the butcher, the
restaurant, etc.), questions could be raised as to whether they are
discarded if not burned in a combustion unit within the control of the
generator. However, we would note that the rendering process
``sufficiently processes'' the material into a non-waste fuel that
meets the legitimacy criteria, as we note above. Thus, the commenters
concern that non-waste determination petitions would need to be
submitted on a case-by-case basis, and would have a chilling effect on
the development of new customers and markets for processed fats, is not
the case. Thus, the final rule establishes these non-hazardous
secondary materials, after being processed, as a non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See the Preliminary Characterization Study Prepared In
Support of the Proposed Rulemaking--Identification of Nonhazardous
Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Traditional Fuels and Key
Derivatives, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.21.
\141\ See Adams, T.T., J. Walsh, M, Brown, J. Goodrum, J.
Sellers, and K. Das, 2002. ``A demonstration of Fat and Grease as an
Industrial Boiler Fuel,'' University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Comments on Specific Materials Used as Ingredients
The ANPRM identified a number of non-hazardous secondary materials
that the Agency believes are currently being used as legitimate non-
waste ingredients in combustion processes. The proposed rule then
identified the four material groups for which we received the majority
of the comments on the ANPRM. The four material groups are CKD, CCRs,
foundry sand, and blast furnace slag/steel slag. The proposed rule did
not assume that ingredients used in combustion units that are not
managed within the control of the generator are discarded materials (as
is the case for most non-hazardous secondary material fuels), since we
believe that non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients are
more akin to commodities managed within continuous commerce and are
used as an integral part of the manufacturing process. That is, non-
hazardous secondary materials that are directly used (or in the case of
previously used materials, reused), function as effective substitutes
(i.e., as raw materials) in normal manufacturing operations or as
products in normal commercial applications, and thus, EPA has
interpreted the definition of solid waste as excluding non-hazardous
secondary materials recycled in ways that most closely resemble normal
production processes, provided they meet the legitimacy criteria.
Besides the comments on specific non-hazardous secondary materials
used as ingredients described below, we again note the overarching
comment that was raised by some commenters that the Agency has no
authority under section 129 of the CAA to regulate the use of secondary
materials as ingredients, as EPA's section 129 authority is limited to
``solid waste incineration units,'' which the statute defines as units
that ``combust'' solid waste. As discussed in Section V.A of today's
final rule, we believe that this comment is not relevant to this
regulation, which determines whether non-hazardous secondary material
is a solid waste, or not under RCRA. EPA has clear authority to
interpret RCRA to decide whether non-hazardous secondary materials are
solid wastes or not.
1. Cement Kiln Dust
CKD is a fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from
the cement kiln exhaust gas by scrubbers. Much of the material
comprising CKD is incompletely reacted raw material, including a raw
mix at various stages of burning, and particles of clinker. Generation
of CKD is directly connected to the production of cement clinker. The
proposed rule indicated that CKD used in a cement kiln would not be
considered a solid waste when used as an ingredient in a combustion
unit, so long as it was not discarded in the first instance and
satisfies the legitimacy criteria for ingredients. Whether CKD remains
within the control of the generator or is transferred to another person
is not in and of itself indicative of discard, as discussed above. If
CKD has been discarded, however, its use as an ingredient in cement
kilns would be considered combustion of a solid waste, unless it has
been processed to produce a non-waste ingredient.
[[Page 15517]]
Comment: We received limited comments on CKD. One commenter urged
EPA to state that CKD that is removed from on-site storage piles or
monofills should be considered a legitimate non-hazardous secondary
material and should not be considered a solid waste. The commenter
explains that while CKD may have been previously placed in storage
piles or even permitted solid waste management units (SWMUs), the
technology did not exist previously to reuse the material. However,
newer kiln systems can now use the CKD that has previously been
disposed of, and thus, these non-hazardous secondary materials (which
are ingredients in the manufacture of cement) should not be subject to
the CAA section 129 standards.
EPA's Response: The commenter acknowledges that even though the CKD
has remained on-site, the intent or purpose of placing CKD in storage
piles or SWMUs was to dispose of them (i.e., discard). Additionally,
CKD that has been placed in storage piles in this manner would likely
not meet the legitimacy criterion of ``managed as a valuable
commodity.'' Thus, it would appear in this instance that CKD that has
been placed in storage piles for the purpose of disposal, even if on-
site, has been discarded and would be considered a solid waste if
burned in a combustion unit, unless the discarded CKD is processed into
a non-waste ingredient product. (See discussion elsewhere in today's
preamble regarding the reason why non-hazardous secondary materials
that have been discarded in the first instance are solid waste if
burned in a combustion unit, unless the non-hazardous secondary
material is processed into a non-waste ingredient product.) CKD that
has not been discarded in the first instance, however, and satisfies
the legitimacy criteria would not be considered a solid waste when used
as an ingredient.
2. Coal Combustion Residuals \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ In a separate rulemaking effort, EPA has proposed
regulations that will provide for the safe disposal and management
of coal combustion residuals from utility coal-fired power plants
(the ``Coal Combustion Residuals Proposed Rule''). The proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2010. See 75 FR
35127. Today's final rule does not affect that rulemaking effort, as
our rule considers the use of coal combustion residuals in
combustion units as fuels or ingredients, while the coal combustion
residual proposed rule is concerned with the safe disposal and
management of these residuals in landfills and surface impoundments.
For more information on the coal combustion residual proposed rule,
see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCRs are formed during the coal-burning processes in power plants
and industrial boilers, and are produced in various forms (i.e., fly
ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag) that are categorized by the process
in which they are generated. The proposed rule indicated that CCRs used
as ingredients in combustion units would not be considered solid
wastes, provided they were not discarded in the first instance and
satisfy the legitimacy criteria.\143\ We also noted that CCRs can be
used both as an ingredient and as a fuel supplement and proposed that
the decision to treat them as a fuel or ingredient should be based on
the primary purpose of their use in a combustion unit. We took comment
on this approach, especially our characterization that the primary use
of CCRs in cement kilns is generally for their ingredient value, as
opposed to their fuel value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ For a discussion of CCRs used as fuels in combustion
units, see Section V.B.9 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also indicated that when CCRs are used for their
ingredient value, the transferring of these materials to another person
would not in and of itself be indicative of discard. However, to the
extent that CCRs have been discarded in the first instance, they would
have to be processed into a non-waste ingredient product and satisfy
the legitimacy criteria in order not to be considered a solid waste. We
also noted that comments were submitted on the ANPRM, which described
patented processes that remove unwanted carbon from coal fly ash in
order for these non-hazardous secondary materials to be used as an
ingredient. While these processes--that is, those that separate carbon
from fly ash to produce technically compliant fly ash for use in
concrete appear to satisfy our processing requirement, we requested
that commenters provide additional information explaining how this
processing is conducted, and whether this type of fly ash is used as an
ingredient in the clinker production process. The proposed rule also
requested comment on the extent to which CCRs are recovered from the
discard environment (e.g., landfills) and used as ingredients in cement
kilns, as well as more information on the extent to which these CCRs
are processed.
In addressing the commenter who submitted comments on the ANPRM and
argued that CCRs are solid wastes due to their high concentration of
contaminants, the proposal noted that the chemical properties of CCRs
are influenced to a great extent by the coal burned, the type of
combustion unit, and the air pollution controls applied.\144\
Acknowledging that fly ash may contain various levels of metals, such
as vanadium, zinc, copper, chromium, nickel, lead, arsenic, and
mercury,\145\ the proposed rule noted that in a 2008 Report to Congress
addressing the use of these secondary materials as ingredients in
cement and concrete applications, the overall conclusion reached with
respect to the perceived safety health risk barriers was a positive
one, in that the risk analyses did not identify significant risks to
human health and the environment associated with these uses.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ For more information on the different types, or ranks, of
coal, please refer to the Materials Characterization Paper on
Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives, which is located in the
docket of today's final rule.
\145\ See ``Technical Background Document for the Report to
Congress on Removing Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste
Characterization.'' U.S. EPA. March 15, 1999.
\146\ ``Study on Increasing the Usage of Recovered Mineral
Components in Federally Funded Projects Involving Procurement of
Cement or Concrete to Address the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Report to
Congress.'' June, 3, 2008. EPA530-R-08-007. When analyzing perceived
safety and health risk barriers associated with the beneficial use
of recovered mineral components (including CCRs et al.), this study
concluded that ``Findings from [several cited] analyses did not
identify significant risks to human health and the environment
associated with the beneficial uses of concern. In addition, [EPA]
identified no documents providing evidence of damage to human health
and the environment from these beneficial uses. Our overall
conclusions from these efforts, therefore, are that encapsulated
applications, including cement and concrete uses, appear to present
minimal risk.'' Id. at 4-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule also noted that the Agency is studying the
possible effects of new air emission control technologies and
configurations on the composition of CCRs and requested comment on
whether advanced emission control technologies, such as carbon control
technologies for mercury and NOX, are resulting or will
result in increased levels of contaminants in coal ash to the extent
that coal ash would not satisfy our legitimacy criteria.
Comment: Almost all commenters agreed that the primary purpose when
using CCRs in cement kilns was to utilize these secondary materials as
ingredients. Most commenters further asserted that all CCRs, when used
in combustion units, should always be classified as ingredients rather
than as fuels. (See Section V.B.9 for a further discussion on this
comment and the Agency's response.) These commenters claimed that any
energy value that is recovered is secondary to its value as an
ingredient, and argued that classifying CCRs always as ingredients
would simplify the waste determinations for these non-hazardous
secondary
[[Page 15518]]
materials by clearly establishing the appropriate legitimacy criteria
that apply (i.e., facilities would not need to determine whether the
fuel or ingredient legitimacy criteria apply based on the primary
purpose of the secondary materials).
Some commenters were also concerned that if cement kilns burned
high-carbon content fly ash (which has more pronounced fuel content),
the provisions of this rule applying to fuels would be triggered, even
though these secondary materials have nearly identical characteristics,
is managed in an identical manner, and is combusted in the same unit as
the material used primarily as an ingredient (i.e., low-carbon content
fly ash).
EPA's Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that the primary
purpose when using CCRs in cement kilns is to utilize it as an
ingredient. However, we disagree with those commenters that argued that
all CCRs, when used in combustion units, should be categorically
defined as ingredients. As some commenters acknowledged (and as we also
discussed in Section V.B.9 above), some CCRs are indeed used for their
fuel value as opposed to their ingredient value, especially when re-
burned, as in the case of their use in combustion units by electric
utilities. Therefore, we cannot categorically classify CCRs as
ingredients when it is clear that, in some cases, these non-hazardous
secondary materials are being burned for their fuel value and/or to
produce a new secondary material (i.e., low-carbon fly ash). In cases
where the primary purpose of using CCRs is for their fuel value and not
for their ingredient value (e.g., by electric utilities), the secondary
materials must meet the requirements for fuels, including the
legitimacy criteria, in order not to be considered a solid waste.
With respect to the issue of high-carbon fly ash burned in cement
kilns, it is not clear the extent to which cement kilns burn high-
carbon fly ash or rather if commenters were providing a hypothetical
situation in order to highlight potential issues that could arise for
secondary materials that could have value as both a fuel and
ingredient. It is also unclear whether low-carbon fly ash is required
as a substitute ingredient in Portland cement or if cement kilns can
also use high-carbon fly ash for its ingredient value. To the extent
that these kilns are burning these secondary materials for their fuel
value as opposed to their value as an ingredient, these secondary
materials would be subject to the requirements for non-hazardous
secondary materials used as fuels promulgated in today's final rule.
We note other commenters who describe processes for removing
unwanted carbon from fly ash in order to produce concrete quality fly
ash (lower carbon content), which could suggest that cement kilns that
burn high-carbon fly ash may be using these secondary materials for
their fuel value, as well as their ingredient value. These commenters,
however, discussed instances where fly ash was used as a fuel only in
regards to its use in utility boilers and CBO units--where there is
clearly not an ingredient value, as is the case with burning fly ash in
cement kilns.
Comment: EPA received comments on the ANPRM stating that there are
at least four patented processes for removing unwanted carbon from fly
and bottom ash that allow the processed ash to produce both technically
compliant ash for use in concrete and a separate carbon stream that can
be re-introduced into the boiler for its fuel value. One electric
utility, commenting on the proposed rule, also mentioned patented
processes for using CCRs recovered from landfills. However, neither of
these commenters provided specific details regarding how CCRs that are
recovered from the discard environment are actually ``processed.'' One
other commenter discussed a two-stage process to maintain low carbon
content, but was not aware whether the material was used for concrete
or clinker production. Another commenter argued that the same processes
used for currently generated fly ash to separate high-carbon ash from
mineral ash could be applied to reclaimed fly ash and produce similar
secondary ingredients. This commenter argued that the processes produce
two materials that are chemically distinct from the reclaimed fly ash
and should therefore satisfy our proposed processing requirement.
EPA's Response: Unfortunately, EPA did not receive information
during the comment period describing the types of processing that
discarded CCRs undergo prior to being used as an ingredient in a
combustion unit and are, thus, unable to make a categorical
determination whether the patented processes referenced in the proposed
rule would meet the definition of processing being promulgated in
today's final rule. Although we did not receive new information
regarding how CCRs are processed, as we stated in the proposed rule,
certain processes are currently being utilized to recover CCRs from the
discard environment that would likely meet our definition of
``processing.'' For example, we are aware of at least one electric
utility that recovers ash from ponds or landfills and then separates
this secondary material into its fundamental components: Carbon,
silicates, and high-density, iron-rich materials. A coarse carbon-fuel
product is then recovered by density separation using concentrating
spirals. A fine carbon-fuel product is also recovered with flotation
cells.\147\ We believe that this type of processing is likely to meet
our definition of processing, as it appears that these processes in
fact remove contaminants and improve the ingredient characteristics of
these recovered CCRs. Thus, a determination would need to be made as to
whether such processes meet the definition of processing, as codified
in Sec. 241.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ See ``Materials Characterization Paper on Coal Combustion
Residuals--Coal Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Boiler Slag.'' A copy of
this document has been placed in the docket for today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: As noted above, we solicited comments in the proposed rule
regarding the extent to which CCRs are recovered from the discard
environment and used as ingredients in cement kilns. We received a few
comments regarding the extent to which CCRs are mined from landfills
(i.e., recovered from the discard environment). Most of these comments
did not specify, however, whether these recovered CCRs were
subsequently used for their fuel or ingredient value.
EPA's Response: Based on the comments, it does not appear that it
is a common practice for CCRs to be recovered from the discard
environment (e.g., landfills) and beneficially used. We respond to
these comments in Section V.B.9 (Comments on Specific Materials Used as
Fuel-Coal Combustion Residuals).
Comment: Regarding the question of whether advanced emission
control technologies are resulting or will result in increased levels
of contaminants in CCRs, one commenter stated that there was no
credible way to know or anticipate this information. Another commenter
agreed, stating that there is no data and no way to predict the result
of new or future technology on the character of fly ash because of the
use of advanced pollution control technology. This commenter also notes
that there is no current information available that has proven that
advanced emission control technologies directly result in increased
contaminant levels.
One state commenter, however, stated that it expects the mercury
content of coal fly ash to increase significantly in upcoming years.
Consequently, this state commenter described its current efforts to
remove a generic, pre-determined beneficial use determination for coal
fly ash as an ingredient in
[[Page 15519]]
cement manufacturing. Additionally, another commenter stated that when
using the CBO process to combust fly ash, essentially 100 percent of
the mercury entering the CBO unit as feed ash leaves with the product
ash.
EPA's Response: EPA recognizes that it is difficult to anticipate
what contaminant levels in coal fly ash will result from implementation
of future technologies. We also believe, however, that it is important
to be studying and anticipating the possible effects of new air
pollution control (APC) technologies and configurations on the
composition of CCRs to the greatest extent possible. As noted in the
proposed rulemaking, EPA has begun publishing a series of reports to
analyze this issue further.\148\ Based on these reports, EPA believes
that changes to APCs at coal-fired power plants (e.g., addition of
flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems, selective catalytic reduction,
and activated carbon injection to capture mercury and other pollutants)
are shifting mercury and other pollutants (e.g., metals) from the flue
gas to fly ash, FGD gypsum, and other APC residues. The Agency will
continue to research the possible effects of APCs on contaminant levels
in fly ash. We note that under today's final rule, fly ash used as an
ingredient would need to pass the contaminant legitimacy criterion for
ingredients in order to not be considered a solid waste.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ A series of reports have been and are being developed by
U.S. EPA's Office of Research Development. To date, three documents
have been finalized, including: (1) ``Characterization of Mercury-
Enriched Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Using
Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control.'' EPA-600/R-06/008. Feb.
2006; (2) ``Characterization of Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant
Control.'' EPA-600/R-08/077. July 2008; and (3) ``Characterization
of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Using Multi-
Pollutant Control Technology--Leaching and Characterization Data.''
EPA-600/R-09/151. December 2009. Ongoing work to complete this
research includes: (1) Probabilistic assessment of the leaching
source term for plausible CCR management scenarios, (2) Leach-XS
Lite which is free software providing electronic access to data from
this research, and (3) test methods for the Leaching Environmental
Assessment Framework (LEAF).
\149\ We also note that CCRs used as fuels must also meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion in order not to be considered a
solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Foundry Sand
Foundry sand is an industrial material generated by the metal-
casting industry, which uses the sand to form a physical mold used in
the production of metal products. After multiple uses in castings, the
sand becomes unsuitable for castings and is either disposed of in
landfills or beneficially used in other applications, including use as
an ingredient in the manufacture of Portland cement. The proposed rule
classified foundry sand as not being a solid waste when used as an
ingredient in a combustion unit, so long as it was not discarded in the
first instance and satisfies the legitimacy criteria for ingredients.
Whether foundry sand remains within the control of the generator or is
transferred to another person is not in and of itself indicative of
discard, as discussed previously. If foundry sand has been discarded,
however, it would be considered a solid waste, unless it has been
processed to produce a non-waste ingredient.
Comment: We received a few comments regarding the characterization
of foundry sand in the proposed rule. One commenter discussed how
foundry sand is reused in the metal casting process as part of its
argument that foundry sand should not be considered a solid waste,
citing a 2001 letter from EPA which indicated that foundry sand reused
on-site within the sand loop for mold making is part of a continuous
industrial process and, therefore, not a solid waste.\150\ The same
commenter also discussed how this sand can also be processed on-site in
a thermal reclamation unit so that the sand can be returned to the
mold- and core-making process. Commenters also discussed a variety of
other beneficial uses for foundry sand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ March 28, 2001 letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director,
EPA's Office of Solid Waste to Ms. Amy J. Blankenbiller, American
Foundry Society. A copy of this letter can be found in the docket to
today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Response: The foundry sand uses evaluated as part of this
rulemaking only include their use as an ingredient in combustion, such
as cement kilns. We do not consider the reuse of foundry sand in the
metal casting operations to constitute the use of a non-hazardous
secondary material either as a fuel or ingredient in a combustion
system, but rather as a type of beneficial use that is routinely
employed by foundries in the production of metal products. As we stated
in the referenced 2001 letter, foundry sands that are re-used on-site
in the primary production process on a continuous basis in the sand
loop are not solid wastes.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ For more information on the reuse of foundry sands as
molds, see ``Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste'' Final Rule
at 73 FR 64705. October 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that the 2001 letter cited by one commenter
explicitly states that the Agency is not addressing the status of any
thermal processing of sand in the letter. It appears that the purpose
of ``processing'' foundry sand in a thermal reclamation unit is to
destroy or dispose of the contaminants so that the foundry sand can be
re-used. As such, the burning of foundry sand in a thermal reclamation
unit is burning for discard and, thus, would be considered a solid
waste if combusted in such a unit, which would be subject to the
section 129 CAA standards. Regarding comments that discussed other
beneficial uses of foundry sand, we again note that this rule is
limited to situations where the non-hazardous secondary material is
used as a fuel or ingredient in a combustion unit and, as such, other
examples of using foundry sand in other applications is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
4. Blast Furnace Slag/Steel Slag
Blast furnace slag and steel furnace slag (steel slag) are by-
products of iron and steel manufacturing in both iron and steel mills.
Slags are used as ingredients in cement clinker manufacturing,
bituminous concrete, road building and construction, among other
beneficial uses. The proposed rule indicated that blast furnace and
steel slag used as ingredients in combustion units that are not
discarded in the first instance would not be considered a solid waste
provided they satisfy the legitimacy criteria for ingredients. Whether
blast furnace and steel slag remains within the control of the
generator or is transferred to another person is not in and of itself
indicative of discard, as previously discussed. However, if blast
furnace and steel slag are in fact discarded in the first instance,
then they would have to be sufficiently processed into a non-waste
ingredient that satisfies the legitimacy criteria in order to be
classified as a non-waste ingredient. However, we solicited comments on
the level of processing that these materials undergo before determining
whether such operations would meet our definition of processing.
Comment: We received few comments specifically on blast furnace and
steel slag. One commenter discussed the use of blast furnace slag as a
raw material substitute in the glass manufacturing process. Another
commenter discussed how blast furnace and steel slag are typically
returned to the iron and steel making processes and are not discarded
in the first instance. The same commenter also discussed slag piles
that were previously discarded and the processing that these non-
hazardous secondary materials go through. Specifically, such processing
includes extraction, passing the slag through grizzlies, removal of
iron bearing scrap using magnets, and then screening to
[[Page 15520]]
size the aggregate. Some commenters also asserted that because these
slags are reused as part of a continuous process, the application of
the legitimacy criteria are inappropriate.
EPA's Response: We agree with the commenters that blast furnace and
steel slag that are reused as an ingredient, either in the iron and
steel making processes or in the manufacturing of glass, are not solid
wastes provided they have not been discarded in the first instance and
meet the legitimacy criteria. However, we disagree with the commenters,
who argued that because they are reusing these slags in a ``continuous
process,'' the application of the legitimacy criteria do not apply. EPA
has a long-standing policy that the recycling of secondary materials,
both hazardous and non-hazardous, including as part of a continuous
industrial process, must be legitimate. The legitimacy provisions in
today's rule are designed to distinguish between real recycling
activities and ``sham'' recycling, an activity undertaken by an entity
to avoid certain requirements, which in this case would be to avoid
triggering the section 129 CAA requirements for solid waste
incinerators. Because of the economic advantages in managing the non-
hazardous secondary material as a non-waste ingredient as opposed to a
solid waste ingredient, there is an incentive for some handlers to
claim they are recycling, when, in fact, they are conducting waste
disposal. Therefore, blast furnace and steel slag used as an ingredient
in a combustion unit, including as part of a continuous industrial
process, must satisfy all of the legitimacy criteria in order to not be
considered a solid waste.
Regarding the description provided by the commenter on the extent
of processing conducted on slags that have been previously discarded,
it appears that this level of processing would meet our definition of
processing, as the processing includes not only rigorous operations to
extract the slag from the discard environment, but also the concerted
removal of constituents through magnetic separation. Assuming the
processed slag meets the legitimacy criteria for ingredients, the slag
resulting from the processing operation would constitute a non-waste
ingredient and would not be considered a solid waste.
D. Comments on Legitimacy Criteria for Fuels
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels in combustion units
must meet the legitimacy criteria specified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1) in
order to be considered a non-waste fuel. To meet the fuel legitimacy
criteria, the non-hazardous secondary material must be managed as a
valuable commodity, have a meaningful heating value and be used as a
fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy, and contain
contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than those in traditional
fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn. Details on each
criterion as outlined in the proposed rule and the comments received
are discussed below.
1. Managed as a Valuable Commodity
Under the proposed rule, non-hazardous secondary materials used as
fuels must be managed as valuable commodities, including being stored
for a reasonable time frame. Where there is an analogous fuel, the non-
hazardous secondary material used as a fuel must be managed in a manner
consistent with the management of the analogous fuel or otherwise be
adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment.
Where there is no analogous fuel, the non-hazardous secondary material
must be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the
environment. An ``analogous fuel'' is a traditional fuel for which the
non-hazardous secondary material substitutes, and which serves the same
function and has similar physical and chemical properties as the non-
hazardous secondary material. In addition to requesting comment on this
criterion, the Agency solicited comment on whether it should define a
specific ``reasonable'' time frame or range of time frames for storage
as part of this criterion and on the time period or range of time
periods that traditional fuels are typically held before they are used
as a fuel. Comment was also solicited as to whether the ``contained''
standard, which is a general performance standard, provides sufficient
direction to the regulated community or whether the Agency should
include specific technical standards or limit the types of units in
which such non-hazardous secondary materials may be managed, in order
for them to be considered to be ``managed as a valuable commodity.''
Comment: Recommendations on a reasonable time frame to determine if
a non-hazardous secondary material is managed as a valuable commodity
brought a range of responses. Many commented that a one-rule-fits-all
policy for the reasonable time frame of storage of non-hazardous
secondary materials is impractical and arbitrary, since the definition
of what is ``reasonable'' will vary by secondary material, industry,
and facility. Instead, they argued that facilities should be allowed to
determine what constitutes the most reasonable time frame, based on
what is most economical. The most appropriate time frame will vary
depending upon the non-hazardous secondary material and the industry
and may reflect the rate at which the non-hazardous secondary material
at issue is generated. If a non-hazardous secondary material is
generated continuously, then use and storage is predictable and can be
kept consistent. However, some non-hazardous secondary materials are
stored for long periods and may be removed only once or twice per year.
While many commenters rejected the idea of a specific storage time
limit, a limited number were supportive of such an approach. For
example, one commenter recommended that no more than 180 days of
inventory using the design process rate be stored at any given time and
no more than 49 percent of the inventory be in storage for more than 2
years. These time frames allow the energy/material recovery facility a
reasonable amount of time to make arrangements to establish, buy, and
sell the non-hazardous secondary material. Other commenters recommended
a time frame of one year, consistent with the hazardous waste
requirements for speculative accumulation.
EPA's Response: After further evaluation, EPA agrees with the
majority of commenters that ``reasonable time frame'' should not be
specifically defined as such time frames vary according to the non-
hazardous secondary material and industry involved. The ``reasonable
time frame'' is an appropriate standard considering the large number of
non-hazardous materials that may be subject to this rule, and is
flexible enough to allow accumulation of these materials to be cost-
effective. In addition, persons will need to document in their records
the ``reasonable time frame'' selected and the basis for such time
frames. (See Section VII.I for further discussion on documentation of
legitimacy decisions.) The Agency did not receive information that such
flexibility would lead to non-hazardous secondary materials being over-
accumulated.
Comment: The Agency solicited comment on this aspect of this
criterion, including whether a ``contained'' standard, which is a
general performance standard, provides sufficient direction to the
regulated community. Other approaches that EPA considered were: (1)
Providing a more specific definition of ``contained'' in the rules, or
(2) including specific technical standards or (3) limiting the types of
units in which such non-hazardous secondary materials may be managed,
in
[[Page 15521]]
order for them to be considered to be ``managed as a valuable
commodity.''
Several commenters recommended that the definition of ``contained''
be clarified and to include the concept of maintaining the
recyclability of the non-hazardous secondary material. In contrast,
other commenters stated that the proposed ``contained'' standard
provides sufficient direction to the regulated community and that the
definition of ``contained'' in the proposed rule adequately describes
how and when a non-hazardous secondary material will be considered
``contained.'' They asserted that industry will use this definition as
a general guideline for the safe handling and storage of non-hazardous
secondary materials and that further ``specific'' definitions or other
approaches would not be beneficial since the current guidance provides
clear and sensible direction.
Others commented that the ``contained'' standard is inadequate to
determine whether a material is ``valuable'' or discarded. They argue
that the standard does not explain what adequately contained means nor
does it account for differences in the necessary level of containment
for different materials.
EPA's Response: The Agency recognizes that the ``contained''
concept can be somewhat difficult to grasp, but also notes that the
``contained'' standard is to be used only in those situations where
there is not an analogous fuel product. That is, if there is an
analogous fuel product to the non-hazardous secondary material, then
the non-hazardous secondary material must be stored in a similar manner
and, since it is indeed a valuable material, EPA could reasonably
expect it to be contained so as not to be lost to the environment. In
EPA's view, a recycler will value non-hazardous secondary materials
that are contributing fuel value to its process or product and,
therefore, will manage those non-hazardous secondary materials in a
manner consistent with how it manages a valuable fuel. If, on the other
hand, the recycler does not manage the non-hazardous secondary
materials as it would a valuable fuel, that behavior may indicate that
the non-hazardous secondary materials may not be burned as fuel, but
rather released into the environment and discarded. This criterion's
primary focus is on storage in a manner consistent with the analogous
valuable raw material.
However, EPA realizes that in some processes, there is not a raw
material that can be called ``analogous'' and, in order to allow
facilities with those processes to evaluate the legitimacy of their
recycling, EPA added the requirement that the materials be
``contained'' if there is no analogous product to achieve the same
relative standard of secondary materials being managed as valuable
commodities. Furthermore, EPA has explained what it means to be
contained in today's preamble and includes that definition in the
regulatory text. Specifically, a non-hazardous secondary material is
``adequately contained'' if it is stored in a manner that adequately
prevents releases or other hazards to human health and the environment,
considering the nature and toxicity of the secondary material. Thus, we
are finalizing the contained standard, as proposed.
Nevertheless, the Agency recognizes that providing greater clarity
to this definition may be useful to the regulated community and the
public. To this end, EPA has agreed to issue a proposed rule by June
2011 on the definition of solid waste under the hazardous waste
provisions of RCRA (see Section VIII.C for additional details). One of
the issues that EPA will be evaluating as part of that proposal is the
``contained'' standard, as promulgated in that rule.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ In a Federal Register notice where EPA announced a public
meeting on the Definition of Solid Waste under the hazardous waste
provisions of RCRA, we specifically identified the definition of
``contained'' as one of the provisions that EPA was further
evaluating. (74 FR 25202, May 27, 2009.) Among other things, the
Agency noted that it could ``address this issue by setting specific
performance or storage standards as a condition of the transfer-
based exclusion. Finally, EPA could address this concern by
developing more detailed guidance on what might constitute
``contained,'' for different types of units or management
practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters expressed uncertainty about the meaning
of ``valuable commodity,'' noting that the definition of valuable
commodity should be clarified, or requested that EPA specify clear
criteria for determining whether a non-hazardous secondary material is
managed as a valuable commodity.
EPA's Response: Given the nature of this legitimacy criterion and
the need to apply it to a variety of non-hazardous secondary materials
that are managed in various ways, we have determined that it is not
appropriate or practicable for EPA to develop specific technical
standards. The Agency is using this criterion: Materials must be
managed as analogous raw materials or, if there are no analogous raw
materials, the materials must be adequately contained; contained is
defined to mean ``the non-hazardous secondary material is stored in a
manner that adequately prevents releases or other hazards to human
health and the environment considering the nature and toxicity of the
non-hazardous secondary material.'' This definition provides ample
direction and guidance, as a number of commenters argued, while at the
same time provides the flexibility needed since this criterion will
apply to a large number of non-hazardous secondary materials and
industries. As an example, resinated wood residuals are adequately
contained since they are pneumatically transferred through enclosed
ducts, stored temporarily in a fuel silo, and then utilized in boilers
to provide heat to hot presses and dryers (see Section V.B.6).
Regarding the term ``valuable commodity,'' EPA's intent with this
criterion is that non-hazardous secondary materials are managed in the
same manner as materials that have been purchased or obtained at some
cost, just as fuels or raw materials are. We expect non-hazardous
secondary materials that are used as fuels or ingredients to be managed
effectively and efficiently in order that their full value to the
combustion process is realized. The standard for management of the non-
hazardous secondary materials is reasonable for helping assess whether
disposal in the guise of normal manufacturing is occurring. As an
example, scrap tires collected under the oversight of established tire
collection programs (see Section VII.C) would generally be considered
managed as a valuable commodity. These programs promote the beneficial
use of scrap tires and form established collection infrastructures
through coordination with tire dealerships, haulers, processors and end
users. On the other hand, scrap tires that are managed in waste tire
piles would not be considered to be managed as a valuable commodity
because they are stored for long periods of time without any
safeguards.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the tests to determine if a
material is managed as a valuable commodity (determining if it is
managed consistent with the management of an analogous ingredient and
used within a reasonable time frame) are irrelevant because solid
wastes are managed in ways similar to commodities (i.e., solid wastes
and solid commodities are stored in piles on the ground, liquid wastes
and commodities are stored in tanks and barrels). Another commenter
asked that EPA provide clarity on managing a non-hazardous secondary
material as a valuable commodity and the kinds of practices a facility
must implement to demonstrate that it is managing the non-hazardous
secondary material as a valuable commodity.
[[Page 15522]]
EPA's Response: We disagree with the commenter that this criterion
is irrelevant because we cannot determine (nor does our experience
suggest) that solid wastes and commodities are always managed in a
similar manner. Commodities, on the one hand, are handled specifically
to prevent the loss of material because of its value. Solid wastes, on
the other hand, when they are not highly regarded for a beneficial
reuse, are often not managed in a way that minimizes the release of the
material itself, but more in a way that protects the surrounding
environment from the material. However, we also know that solid wastes,
if not properly managed, have created damages to the environment. For
example, the over-accumulation of scrap tires is well known and has
resulted in massive piles of discarded tires that have contributed to
the overall solid waste management problem due to the threat of fires,
such as the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump,\153\ and because they provide an
ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes and rodents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See 51 FR 21054, June 10, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, given the nature of this legitimacy
criterion and the need to apply it to a variety of non-hazardous
secondary materials that are managed in various ways, we are not
identifying specific standards or practices for managing a material as
a valuable commodity beyond those examples for resinated wood and scrap
tires outlined above. If any material, whether a non-hazardous
secondary material or a raw material commodity, is mis-managed in a
manner that releases significant material to the environment, a waste
problem may result. Although the raw material commodity is not subject
to the RCRA definition of solid waste, the released material may be. In
this rule, where the Agency is dealing with secondary materials that
could either be wastes or commodities, if non-hazardous secondary
material is being released to the environment, it would not be
considered a commodity material. All site-specific practices designed
to meet the legitimacy criteria must be documented as outlined in
Section VII.I.
Thus, the final rule will retain the proposed approach that non-
hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel must be managed in a
manner consistent with the management of an analogous fuel (where there
is an analogous fuel), or otherwise be adequately contained so as to
prevent releases to the environment.
2. Meaningful Heating Value and Use as a Fuel
Under the proposed rule, the non-hazardous secondary material must
have a meaningful heating value and be used as a fuel in a combustion
unit that recovers energy. In addition to requesting comment on this
criterion, the Agency also requested comment on whether it should
promulgate a bright-line test for determining what is considered a
meaningful heating value in an effort to provide greater certainty to
both the regulated community and regulatory officials. For example, the
Agency could establish 5,000 Btu/lb or some other value as the bright-
line test. In addition, EPA requested comment on whether we should
identify a Btu/lb cutoff below which the Agency would declare that the
non-hazardous secondary material is being burned for destruction as
opposed to energy recovery. Under this approach, non-hazardous
secondary materials between this lower level and 5,000 Btu/lb (assuming
there is a difference) could pass this criterion provided the facility
demonstrates the energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover
meaningful energy from the non-hazardous secondary materials used as
fuels; below this lower level, all non-hazardous secondary materials
that are burned in a combustion unit would be considered to be burned
for destruction and thus a solid waste if combusted.
Comment: Many comments related to the establishment of a Btu
threshold claimed that any heating value is ``meaningful.'' Other
commenters expressed opposition to the imposition of a bright-line
test, with one commenter arguing that inflexible Btu/lb cutoffs, as
well as ``benchmark'' values could prevent utilities and other
industries from using alternative fuels to recover energy. Another
commenter echoed opposition to a bright-line test since the use of a
non-hazardous secondary material with any heating value reduces the use
of fossil fuels, indicating that any value for the bright line test
would be arbitrary and would result in costly impacts to current
production systems and would stifle technological advancements in
combustion unit designs.
Other commenters stated that a minimum heating value, below which
the non-hazardous secondary material would not be considered to have a
meaningful heating value will restrict the marketplace, hamper advances
and innovation in energy recovery, and add costs where they are not
justified from an environmental standpoint. If EPA insists on a minimum
heating value, they recommend including a cost effectiveness provision
in the rule that would enable facilities to demonstrate the value of
using a material below this threshold.
Commenters from state agencies differed somewhat in their positions
regarding the 5,000 Btu/lb threshold. Two state agencies requested that
EPA lower the minimum Btu threshold from 5,000 Btu/lb to 4,000 Btu/lb,
but another State agency supports the 5,000 Btu/lb threshold. Still
another state commenter recommends that if EPA establishes a lower
threshold, below which the non-hazardous secondary material would not
be considered to have a meaningful heating value, that this value be
based on innovation in energy recovery technologies from secondary
materials with lower heating values. Due to the continuing evolution of
energy recovery technologies, this commenter argues that EPA should
include a ``safe harbor'' cut-off level in the rule with a provision
for case-by-case approvals based on the most current proven technology.
Another commenter recommends that if such a lower threshold is
established, that it be based on the high moisture content of wood
products that prevent these materials from reaching the minimum 5,000
Btu/lb threshold.
EPA's Response: After further evaluation, the Agency agrees with
commenters that imposition of a strict bright-line test for minimum
heating value could hamper advances and innovation in energy recovery,
and add costs where they are not justified. The Agency also did not
receive persuasive information that a lower than 5,000 Btu/lb
threshold, or entirely eliminating the threshold, would be an
appropriate measure in establishing this legitimacy criterion.
As discussed in the proposed rule, the concept of a 5,000 Btu/lb
benchmark was addressed in the ``comparable fuels'' rule (63 FR 33781)
for hazardous secondary materials. EPA had previously stated that
industrial furnaces (i.e., cement kilns and industrial boilers) burning
hazardous wastes with an energy value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb may
generally be said to be burning for energy recovery; however, hazardous
wastes with a lower Btu content could conceivably be burned for energy
recovery due to the devices' general efficiency of combustion. At the
same time, EPA is trying to avoid sham situations where non-hazardous
secondary materials with low Btu value are burned for destruction in
lieu of proper disposal.
Thus, the 5,000 Btu/lb limit is a general guideline, which is being
adopted in this final rule, but allows
[[Page 15523]]
some flexibility. To allow such flexibility for facilities with energy
recovery units that use non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels with
an energy content lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, a person may
demonstrate (see Section VII.I Determining That Non-Hazardous Secondary
Material Meets the Legitimacy Criteria) that a meaningful heating value
is derived from the non-hazardous secondary material if the energy
recovery unit can cost-effectively recover meaningful energy from the
non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels. Factors that may be
appropriate in determining whether an energy recovery unit can cost-
effectively recover energy from the non-hazardous secondary material
include, but are not limited to, whether the facility encounters a cost
savings due to not having to purchase significant amounts of
traditional fuels they otherwise would need, whether they are
purchasing the non-hazardous secondary material to use as a fuel,
whether the non-hazardous secondary material they are burning can self-
sustain combustion, and whether their operation produces energy that is
sold for a profit (e.g., a utility boiler that is dedicated to burning
a specific type of non-hazardous secondary material that is below 5,000
Btu/lb could show that their operation produces electricity that is
sold for a profit).
3. Have Contaminants at Comparable Levels or Lower Than Traditional
Fuels
Under the proposed rule, non-hazardous secondary materials must
contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than those in
traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn. Such
comparison is to be based on a direct comparison of the contaminant
levels in the non-hazardous secondary material to the traditional fuel
itself. Contaminants were defined under the proposal as any constituent
in non-hazardous secondary materials that will result in emissions of
the air pollutants identified in CAA section 112(b), and the nine
pollutants listed under CAA section 129(a)(4) when such secondary
materials are burned as a fuel or used as an ingredient, including
those constituents that could generate products of incomplete
combustion.
The Agency specifically solicited comments on how EPA should
interpret the ``comparable to or lower than'' standard. For example,
should comparable mean the same as or lower, taking into consideration
natural variations in sampling events? Also, instead of requiring that
contaminant levels in non-hazardous secondary materials be comparable
to traditional fuels, the Agency also requested comment as to whether
to adopt a ``not significantly higher'' standard--that is, contaminants
in non-hazardous secondary material used as a fuel in combustion units
could not be significantly higher in concentration than contaminants in
traditional fuel products.
The Agency also solicited comment on whether the comparison should
be based upon the total level of contaminants, or on the level of
contaminants per Btu of heat value, whether the list of contaminants
should be narrower or broader, or whether the Agency should look at
other possible lists. For example, since the Agency is determining
which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste
under RCRA, the Agency could consider the list of hazardous
constituents promulgated in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261, which is
a list of hazardous constituents that have been shown in scientific
studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects
on humans and other life forms. Finally, comment was solicited as to
whether the comparison should be based on an established ``bright
line'' level of contaminants to those contained in traditional fuels.
Comment: Several commenters addressed the ``comparable'' standard
and the ``not significantly higher'' standard. Many of these comments
stated that ``comparable'' should be understood to mean ``similar,
higher or lower,'' not ``equal'' or the ``same.'' Commenters also
requested that EPA clarify the definition of ``comparable'' and
specifically requested that EPA explain the concept in greater detail.
Of the comments that expressed a preference for either the
``comparable'' or ``not significantly higher'' standard, most preferred
the latter, stating that it is more consistent with the approach used
by EPA for hazardous waste in the 2008 DSW Final Rule and would not
discourage beneficial use as much as the ``comparable'' standard. Two
other commenters argued that instead of using a ``not significantly
higher'' standard, the total environmental impact of using a non-
hazardous material should be considered. For example, a non-hazardous
secondary material may be lower in all contaminants, except one that
may be considered higher than ``comparable,'' but the overall impact is
beneficial in terms of less total contaminants and improved emissions.
Other commenters offered suggestions on how to interpret
``comparable,'' but also on how to implement the ``comparable''
standard. For example, ``comparable'' should refer to the traditional
fuel that would be used if the non-hazardous secondary material was not
being burned or allowed to be burned. Another commenter believed that
the ``comparable'' standard should only be used as an initial step to
determine if the material is a legitimate fuel. For example, where a
material has high levels of a low-impact contaminant or a contaminant
is controlled by the emission control device in the incineration unit,
there should be a process to see whether the material can still be
considered a fuel. Similarly, another commenter also recommended using
the ``comparable'' standard as an initial determination step, with the
``not significantly higher'' standard being used as a secondary
determination step in some situations. These situations would primarily
be when there is a low-impact contaminant without environmental,
health, or product quality impacts present in concentrations above
those found in traditional raw materials.
EPA's Response: EPA has retained the legitimacy criterion that non-
hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel must contain contaminants
at levels that are comparable to or lower than the concentrations found
in traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn. The
``comparable to or lower than'' standard means any contaminants present
in non-hazardous secondary materials that are within a small acceptable
range, or lower than, the contaminant in the traditional fuel. We have
decided to select this standard since we have determined it more
closely reflects EPA's intent with respect to this legitimacy criterion
than the phrase ``not significantly higher,'' which suggests that
contaminants can be present in non-hazardous secondary materials at
levels that could reflect discard, especially since we are addressing
non-hazardous secondary materials that are being combusted.
EPA recognizes that combustion is an inherently destructive
process, even when energy is recovered. If a non-hazardous secondary
material contains contaminants that are not comparable to those found
in traditional fuels, and those contaminants are related to pollutants
that are of concern at solid waste combustion units, then it follows
that discard is occurring. The contaminants in these cases could not be
considered a normal part of a legitimate fuel and are being discarded,
either through destruction in the combustion unit or through releases
into the air. Units that burn such materials are therefore most
appropriately
[[Page 15524]]
regulated under the CAA section 129 standards for solid waste
incinerators.
In response to those commenters requesting further guidance on how
to interpret the ``comparable to or lower than'' standard, the
following examples are provided.
A non-hazardous secondary material contains 500 parts per
million (ppm) of lead, while the traditional fuel that would or could
be burned in the combustion unit contains 475 ppm of lead. These levels
would be considered comparable (since it falls within a small
acceptable range) and thus, would meet this factor. If, on the other
hand, the level of lead in the non-hazardous secondary material was
1,000 ppm, these levels would not be comparable and it may indicate
that the non-hazardous secondary material was being burned to dispose
of the material and that the activity is sham recycling.
A traditional fuel contains no detectable amounts of
barium, while the non-hazardous secondary material contains a minimal
amount of barium (e.g., 1 ppm). In this situation, the levels would be
considered comparable since it falls within a small acceptable range.
If, however, the barium were at much higher levels in the non-hazardous
secondary material (such as 50 ppm), the levels would not be comparable
and it may indicate discard of the barium and sham recycling.
EPA does not agree with those commenters who suggest that in
evaluating the constituent concentrations in non-hazardous secondary
materials, that the total environmental impact should be considered,
rather than comparing each constituent to levels found in traditional
fuels. Under such an approach, a non-hazardous secondary material may
be judged not to present an environmental problem when assessing all
contaminants together, although significantly higher levels for one or
more contaminants may be present such that they are destroyed or
discarded by means of combustion. This, we have determined, is
inconsistent with the concept of discard under the statute, since it
would allow a solid waste to be subject to the CAA section 112
standards, even though the non-hazardous secondary material has been
discarded.
We also disagree with commenters who believe that the comparable
standard should only be used as an initial step to determine if the
material is a legitimate fuel, particularly in those situations
involving low-impact contaminants. Today's rule does not differentiate
low-impact contaminants from other contaminants, since such an
assessment would require a risk analysis of each chemical. We believe
that ``comparable'' is protective because it ensures that no more
contaminants than those found in traditional fuels are released into
the environment. EPA has already determined that these contaminants
pose a threat to human health and the environment. Therefore, the
Agency will finalize the proposed approach of evaluating all of the
contaminants to ensure that they are present in the non-hazardous
secondary material at levels that are comparable to (or lower than) the
concentrations found in traditional fuels that the combustion unit is
designed to burn.
Comments: Many comments discussed whether contaminants, and their
concentrations in the non-hazardous secondary material, should have any
bearing on the legitimacy determination for a given non-hazardous
secondary material. Many of these commenters expressed opposition to
using contaminants, and their concentrations in the non-hazardous
secondary material, as a basis for legitimacy decisions. Some of these
commenters argued that comparing contaminant levels would impose an
unnecessary burden on emissions sources that are already stringently
controlled under the CAA regulations. Other comments indicated that it
would be more appropriate to compare emissions profiles from the
combustion units rather than contaminant levels in the non-hazardous
secondary materials themselves using the CAA section 129 pollutant list
and the 112 HAP list. Referring to existing stack testing data and the
risk assessment performed by the cement industry, the commenter states
that ``it is accepted that organics in fuels do not survive intact to
exit a cement kiln or cause harm to human health and the environment.
In addition, stack testing comparing different fuels (tires, waste-
derived fuel, coal, coke, etc.) on a single kiln system under normal
operating conditions supports the same conclusion.''
States offered a range of comments on this issue. One state
contends that using the list of contaminants in CAA section 129(a)(4)
is inadequate because it does not address all heavy metals or organic
hazardous air pollutants. Another commenter argued that while section
112 of the CAA and Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 would be
impractical if parameter testing was required, the Appendix VIII list
of constituents in 40 CFR part 261 would serve as a useful starting
point for evaluating different issues related to those contaminants.
Other commenters suggested that EPA narrow the list of contaminants
considered in the legitimacy criteria. One commenter recommends that
those constituents that contribute to the secondary material's value as
a fuel be excluded from the contaminant list. Another commenter states
that the list of contaminants should be limited to only the subset of
HAP and pollutants listed in CAA section 129 that have the potential of
being present in the emissions from burning the non-hazardous secondary
materials. Broadening the list and requiring the evaluation and
analysis of more constituents would be unnecessary and a waste of
resources. The commenter, therefore, recommends that the list of
contaminants be limited to only those pollutants found in section 112
of the CAA. Furthermore, this commenter argued that organic HAP do not
need to be included in the legitimacy criteria because the rule is
intended to define which non-hazardous secondary materials are non-
wastes, as opposed to which HAP emission standards should be developed.
The commenter further notes that the Boiler and Process Heater MACT
will ensure that the organic HAP are properly controlled. Finally,
although not specifically commenting on the legitimacy criterion for
contaminants in the contaminant definition, the Agency received several
comments that pathogens are present in both manure and sewage sludge,
and received specific monitoring data confirming the presence of
pathogens in certain varieties of chicken litter.
EPA's Response: EPA is defining the term ``contaminant,'' as
constituents that will result in emissions of the air pollutants
identified in CAA section 112(b) and the nine pollutants listed under
CAA section 129(a)(4) when such non-hazardous secondary materials are
burned as a fuel or used as ingredients, including those constituents
that could generate products of incomplete combustion. EPA has decided
that these constituents are appropriate for the comparisons required by
this criterion because these are the contaminants identified in the CAA
that are to be considered by EPA in evaluating which contaminants to
establish emission standards. Thus, we disagree with those commenters
who believe that the list should be narrowed, including the commenter
who argued that those contaminants that contribute to the material's
value as a fuel be excluded from the list of contaminants, as well as
all organic HAP since they will be burned during the combustion
process. Because EPA is to consider these contaminants as part of the
CAA regulations, they should also be
[[Page 15525]]
considered in determining whether non-hazardous secondary materials
that contain these contaminants are being discarded, and thus, subject
to the section 129 CAA standards.
We also disagree with the commenters who argue that the list is not
broad enough because it does not address all heavy metals, organic
hazardous pollutants or pathogens for the same reasons described
above--that is, we should be focusing, in general, on those
contaminants identified in the CAA that EPA will be evaluating to
determine whether to establish emission standards. The Agency also
disagrees that Appendix VIII to 40 CFR part 261 is an appropriate list
for determining which contaminants to consider for the purposes of
defining non-hazardous solid waste, since the purpose of Appendix VIII
is to be used by the Agency to make hazardous waste listing
determinations (see 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)) and the chemicals in Appendix
VIII would not apply to non-hazardous wastes.
Finally, we disagree with those commenters who argue that we should
not be considering the contaminants in the non-hazardous secondary
materials themselves as part of the legitimacy criteria, but, if
considered necessary, compare the emissions profiles from the
combustion units. In order for a non-hazardous secondary material to be
considered a non-waste fuel, it must be similar in composition, whereas
comparing the emissions profiles between combustion units that burn
traditional fuels and non-hazardous secondary materials only tells one
how well the combustion unit is operating, not what the secondary
material is that is being burned. Thus, while the Agency recognizes
that such data can be useful in determining whether or not burning such
secondary materials present a risk to human health or the environment,
such a concept says nothing in terms of whether or not the non-
hazardous secondary material is a legitimate non-waste commodity fuel.
Moreover, when contaminants have no fuel value, and are being
destroyed, they do not have an energy recovery intention. Burning is an
inherently destructive process, even if there is a beneficial use.
Therefore, the Agency needs to be cautious in evaluating whether
burning a non-hazardous material for energy recovery, also has a waste
destroying intention.
Comment: Some commenters believe the approach of measuring
contaminants per Btu was more scientifically sound, while one commenter
argued that comparisons of contaminants should focus on the loading of
contaminants to the process rather than concentrations, which they
believe is similar to measuring contaminants per Btu in ingredients.
For example, the commenter indicates that coal fly ash is utilized in
place of bauxite in cement manufacturing. Because coal fly ash may
contain only 20 percent of the alumina found in bauxite, the process
requires five times more coal fly ash than alumina for a given quantity
of cement product. Under this scenario, even if coal fly ash contains a
mercury concentration comparable to bauxite, the loading of mercury to
the combustion unit would be five times higher than that if traditional
feedstock was used. The commenter maintains that the rule should be
changed to require a comparison of loading rates rather than
concentrations.
Another commenter argues that any comparison between contaminant
levels in the non-hazardous secondary material and contaminant levels
in traditional fuels should consider the entire characteristics of the
material. Some non-hazardous secondary materials may have high
concentrations of some constituents and low concentrations of others,
relative to traditional fuels. Thus, decisions regarding legitimacy
will not always be clear cut and the overall characteristics need to be
considered qualitatively. In addition, given the variability of
constituent concentrations in traditional fuels and non-hazardous
secondary materials, solid waste determinations which requires a
comparison, should allow for such variability in a reasonable manner.
The commenter supports the method that looks at constituent
concentrations (e.g., percent by weight or ppm by weight) as a
reasonable approach that limits the impact of variability, whereas
using lb/MMBtu compounds the impacts of variability. Since either the
Boiler/Process Heater MACT or CISWI rule will adequately limit
emissions from combustion of non-hazardous secondary materials, there
is no justification for evaluating contaminant comparisons on a heating
value basis.
EPA's Response: The Agency agrees with commenters that a lb/MMBtu
approach can serve to normalize contaminant concentration comparisons
across a range of material loading scenarios. At this time, however,
the Agency lacks sufficient lb/MMBtu information for all non-hazardous
secondary materials under consideration. Accordingly, this approach is
not being adopted for today's final rule. As guidance is developed for
implementation, a lb/MMBtu approach may be further considered. Thus, in
today's final rule, the assessment of whether the non-hazardous
secondary material has contaminants comparable to traditional fuel
products is to be made by directly comparing the numerical contaminant
levels in the non-hazardous secondary material to the contaminant
levels in traditional fuels based on the total level of contaminants,
and not on contaminants per Btu of heat value. This approach is most
appropriate because contaminant information is readily available to the
respondent.
The Agency recognizes that variability in constituent levels exist
in non-hazardous secondary materials and traditional fuels, generally
based on the source and geographic region that the material came from.
Thus, we agree that such considerations can be taken into account in a
reasonable manner when comparing constituent levels in the non-
hazardous secondary material and the traditional fuel.
We disagree with the commenters that comparison between contaminant
levels in the non-hazardous secondary material and contaminant levels
in traditional fuels should consider the entire characteristics of the
material. Such an approach would suggest that contaminants can be
present in the non-hazardous secondary material at levels that are not
comparable in concentration to those contained in traditional fuel
products, which could result in contaminants being combusted as a means
of discarding them.
Comment: Commenters disagreed about whether to implement a bright-
line test for contaminants. One commenter supports the delineation of
bright-line contaminant levels that would apply regardless of the type
of traditional fuel burned, while another commenter maintains that it
would not be appropriate to compare contaminant concentrations between
non-hazardous secondary materials and traditional fuels based on a
bright line approach. Another commenter states that the need to
classify non-hazardous secondary materials as waste or non-waste may
dictate the need for a bright line test rather than emissions testing
from combustion units, given that emissions controls and limits are
established in permits. Other commenters also disagreed with the
establishment of a bright-line level comparison, with one commenter
objecting to the establishment of any other contaminant level
comparison, arguing that such a comparison would provide no benefit to
the regulated community and arbitrarily assigns levels of contaminants
without
[[Page 15526]]
accounting for differences in materials and/or facilities.
EPA's Response: EPA recognizes that the ``bright line'' approach
may provide greater clarity and predictability to the regulated
community, but that in both cases, the Agency would have to establish a
line for what is acceptable and the line may either be somewhat
arbitrary or it may exclude materials that, if carefully considered,
should be considered legitimate. Based on the comments received on
those approaches, we are convinced that they would not be workable. On
the other hand, case-by-case comparisons by each person evaluating this
legitimacy criterion can take into account the wide variety of non-
hazardous secondary materials, as well as the appropriate traditional
fuel to which it is being compared. Because this factor must apply to
various different recycling activities and industries, the case-by-case
approach is most appropriate.
E. Comments on Legitimacy Criteria for Ingredients
In the proposed rule, non-hazardous secondary materials used as an
ingredient in combustion units must meet the legitimacy criteria
specified in 241.3(d)(2) in order to be considered a non-waste
ingredient. To meet the ingredient legitimacy criteria, the non-
hazardous secondary material must be handled as a valuable commodity,
must provide a useful contribution to the production or manufacturing
process, must be used to produce a valuable product or intermediate,
and must result in products that contain contaminants at levels that
are comparable in concentration to or lower than those found in
traditional products that are manufactured without non-hazardous
secondary materials.
1. Managed as Valuable Commodities
Because the criterion ``managing as a valuable commodity'' for non-
hazardous secondary materials used as an ingredient (storage not
exceeding reasonable time frames, manage it consistent with an
analogous ingredient or adequately contain to prevent release) are the
same as those for non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel, EPA
indicated that if changes are made to the criteria with respect to
those non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels, we
would likewise make the same changes with respect to those non-
hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients. We did solicit
comments, however, on whether using these criteria for managing as
valuable commodities (similar to the type of criteria for fuels) are
appropriate for ingredients.
Comment: As discussed in the section on legitimacy criteria for
fuels, one commenter suggested that the criterion that a non-hazardous
secondary material be managed as a valuable commodity (determining if
it is managed consistent with the management of an analogous ingredient
and used within a reasonable time frame) is irrelevant because solid
wastes are managed in ways similar to commodities (i.e., solid wastes
and solid commodities are stored in piles on the ground, liquid wastes
and commodities are stored in tanks and barrels). Another commenter
requested that EPA provide clarity on managing a non-hazardous
secondary material as a valuable commodity and the kinds of practices a
facility must implement to demonstrate that it is managing the material
as a valuable commodity.
EPA's Response: The final rule will retain the proposed approach
that this legitimacy criterion for non-hazardous secondary material
used as ingredients (i.e., that they must be managed as valuable
commodities) will be consistent with that of fuels. As we noted
previously, we disagree with the commenter that solid wastes and
commodities are always managed in a similar manner. That is,
commodities, on the one hand, are handled specifically to prevent the
loss of the material because of its value. Solid wastes, on the other
hand, when they are not highly regarded for a beneficial reuse, are
often not managed in a way that minimizes the release of the material
itself, but more in a way that protects the surrounding environment
from the material. However, we also know that solid wastes, if not
properly managed have created damages to the environment. Thus, non-
hazardous secondary materials used as an ingredient must be managed in
a manner consistent with the management of an analogous ingredient
(where there is an analogous ingredient), or otherwise be adequately
contained so as to prevent releases to the environment. For example,
non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as ingredients in
cement kilns must be managed in a manner consistent with the analogous
ingredients that these secondary materials are replacing. An
``analogous ingredient'' is defined as a manufacturing process
ingredient for which the secondary material substitutes and which
serves the same function and has similar physical and chemical
properties as the non-hazardous secondary material. Where there is no
analogous ingredient, the non-hazardous secondary material must be
adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment.
However, the Agency may provide further guidance on what we consider to
be managed as a valuable commodity.
2. Useful Contribution
EPA received comments on the five ways the proposed rule states
that a non-hazardous secondary material can add value and usefully
contribute to a recycling process (based on criteria initially
developed for hazardous secondary materials): (i) The non-hazardous
secondary material contributes valuable ingredients to a product or
intermediate; or (ii) replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling
process; or (iii) is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in
the recycling process; or (iv) is recovered or regenerated by the
recycling process; or (v) is used as an effective substitute for a
commercial product. The proposed rule stated that we believe that only
items (i) and (v) are specifically relevant to our assessment of
whether these non-hazardous secondary materials provide a useful
contribution in combustion scenarios. We requested comment, however, on
whether the non-hazardous secondary materials we are assessing as
ingredients can provide useful contributions in other ways.
Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA remain flexible and
acknowledge that there may be other ways to demonstrate a secondary
materials' useful contribution.
EPA's Response: The Agency was unable to identify, and commenters
did not identify any other way a non-hazardous secondary material could
contribute to the recycling process, so the language in the final rule
was not changed. The two ways to determine if the material provides a
useful contribution are sufficiently flexible and will provide for
accurate assessments. Thus, the final rule will continue to maintain
that non-hazardous secondary materials contribute valuable ingredients
to a product or intermediate and that non-hazardous secondary materials
are used as an effective substitute for a commercial product will be
used to determine if a material provides a useful contribution as an
ingredient.
3. Quantifying an Ingredient's Contribution to Production/Manufacturing
Activity
Not all of the constituents or components of the non-hazardous
secondary material have to make a contribution to the production/
manufacturing activity. EPA solicited comments on whether the Agency
[[Page 15527]]
should quantitatively define how much of the non-hazardous secondary
material must provide a useful contribution, or alternatively, the
quantity of constituents or components in a non-hazardous secondary
material there would need to be before the non-hazardous secondary
material would not be considered to provide a useful contribution.
Comment: Generally, commenters disagreed with the establishment of
a quantitative definition as to how much of a material must provide a
useful contribution. One state agency is opposed to a quantitative
definition because the numbers will vary by non-hazardous secondary
material. Similarly, another state commenter also opposed a nationwide
definition or percentage stipulating what constitutes a ``useful
contribution'' because of the different possible reuse processes that
may vary in terms of the amount of material that is deemed useful. One
other commenter also objected to the establishment of any limits, but
specifically commented on the establishment of a quantitative
definition. They explain that a given non-hazardous secondary material
can have several useful components, but the ability to use those
components is dependent on the available manufacturing process or
technology type. This variation would make it difficult and inefficient
to apply a general quantitative rule of useful contribution.
EPA's Response: We agree with the commenters that quantifying the
amount that all non-hazardous secondary materials must contribute to a
production/manufacturing activity would be a challenge, if at all
possible, given the breadth and depth of ways that non-hazardous
secondary materials may be used as ingredients in combustion processes.
As the non-hazardous secondary materials vary significantly in their
character, composition and uses, trying to define useful contribution
quantitatively would not, in our view, be practical. The complexities
of defining ``useful contribution'' so that it can be determined
through a bright-line test, and remain appropriate across industries,
different recycling processes, and a variety of recycled non-hazardous
secondary materials are too great for the Agency to design in a simple
and straightforward manner so as to be used in making such
determinations. In addition, legitimacy determinations are best made on
a case-by-case basis, with the facts of a specific situation in hand.
Thus, we have not defined a quantitative amount that non-hazardous
secondary materials must contribute.
In general, the regulated community should look to typical industry
recovery rates in similar manufacturing processes to determine if the
recycling recovery rates are reasonably efficient in terms of the
ingredient making a useful contribution to the recycling process or
product. In addition, it should be noted that EPA would generally look
at the quantity required, the duration, and the extent of processing,
and/or the rate of recovery of the overall process, not the recovery
rate of a single step in the process, when analyzing this criterion for
legitimacy. For example, if one step in the process recovers a small
percentage of the constituent, but the overall process recovers a much
larger percentage, the Agency would consider the overall efficiency of
the recycling process in determining whether the non-hazardous
secondary materials are providing a useful contribution. This assumes
that there is enough of the target constituent or component present in
the non-hazardous secondary materials to contribute meaningfully as an
ingredient to the recycling process.
In addition, the Agency is reiterating its longstanding position
that not every constituent or component in a non-hazardous secondary
material would have to contribute to a recycled product or intermediate
or to the recycling process in order for there to be an overall
contribution. Thus, we agree with commenters who raised questions about
this and have restated our position in this preamble to the final rule.
4. Contaminants in Ingredients
The Agency requested comments on whether we should have a different
definition of contaminants that applies specifically to ingredients.
That is, since contaminant comparisons for the contaminant legitimacy
criterion apply to a comparison of products rather than to the non-
hazardous secondary material, we requested comment on whether a
different list of contaminants should apply or whether we should
generically define contaminants to be constituents that may be a
concern with respect to the product that is produced.
Comment: Commenters suggested that when comparing the products
derived from non-hazardous secondary materials and traditional raw
materials, the Agency be mindful of the fact that the concentrations of
contaminants can vary geographically. In terms of cement production, a
few commenters said that the current stringent product standards
effectively keep cement kilns from using contaminated ingredients. One
state supports the use of the same contaminant list for non-hazardous
secondary material fuels and ingredients, but notes that EPA should
recognize that constituent concentrations for a given virgin fuel or
feedstock can vary dependent on the geographic region of where it is
produced. Another commenter said that since all processes differ, the
states should be allowed to establish a petition process for
ingredients where industry can demonstrate that the higher
contamination in a given non-hazardous secondary material will not
result in harm to human health or the environment (i.e., through either
risk assessment or handling restrictions). Another commenter argued
that using the list of contaminants in CAA section 129(a)(4) is
inadequate because it does not address all heavy metals or organic
hazardous air pollutants. Still, another commenter suggested that
although the CAA section 112 HAP list and the list of constituents in
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 would be impractical if parameter
testing was required, Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 would be a good
starting point for evaluating different issues related to those
contaminants. Finally, one state agency recommends the Agency develop a
list of currently acceptable non-hazardous secondary materials used as
ingredients for quick reference and develop guidance to assess
materials not on the list.
EPA's Response: EPA is defining the term ``contaminant'' to include
constituents that may result in emissions of air pollutants identified
in CAA section 112(b) and the nine pollutants listed under CAA section
129(a)(4)) when such non-hazardous secondary materials are burned as a
fuel or used as an ingredient, including those constituents that could
generate products of incomplete combustion. These constituents are
appropriate for the comparisons required by this criterion because
these are the contaminants identified in the CAA that are to be
considered by EPA in evaluating which contaminants to establish
emission standards. That is, the contaminants to be considered in the
legitimacy criteria should generally be the same that EPA is to
consider in establishing emission standards. Thus, we disagree with the
commenter who argues that this list is not broad enough because it does
not address all heavy metals or organic hazardous pollutants. Appendix
VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 is also not an appropriate list for determining
which contaminants to consider for the purposes of defining non-
hazardous
[[Page 15528]]
solid waste, since the purpose of Appendix VIII is to be used by the
Agency to make hazardous waste listing determinations (see 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3)) and the chemicals in Appendix VIII would not apply to
non-hazardous wastes. Please see the related response on usage of the
Appendix VIII list with regard to fuels (Section V.D.3).
With that said, the Agency recognizes and agrees with the
commenters that variability in constituents exist between non-hazardous
secondary materials based on the source and geographic region that it
may come from. Thus, such considerations can be taken into account in
determining which contaminants to evaluate. Regarding the comments
dealing with state program involvement, EPA's response to these
comments is described in Section IX. ``State Authority.'' Finally, with
respect to the commenter who requested that EPA develop a list of
acceptable non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as
ingredients for quick reference and develop guidance to assess non-
hazardous secondary materials on this list, we have made some general
conclusions throughout the preamble on which non-hazardous secondary
materials when used as an ingredient in a combustion process would
generally meet the legitimacy criteria. Persons may also refer to the
various Materials Characterization Papers that are in the docket to
today's rule. However, each person will need to confirm that such non-
hazardous secondary material ingredients meet the legitimacy criteria
and provide documentation, as required in the CAA rules.
5. Comparing Contaminant Levels in Products
EPA requested comment on whether, instead of requiring that
contaminant levels in products manufactured from non-hazardous
secondary material ingredients be comparable in concentration than
those found in traditional products, that the Agency adopt a criterion
under which contaminants in the product could not be significantly
higher than found in the traditional products that are manufactured
without the non-hazardous secondary material.
Comment: A number of commenters disagree with the contaminant
comparison criteria for non-hazardous secondary material ingredients to
the final product. One commenter asserts that EPA should not use the
term ``contaminant'' in connection with the legitimacy criteria for
ingredients. Instead, the Agency should refer to constituents that may
actually be a concern with respect to the product that is produced. The
same commenter also recommends that the ``toxics along for the ride''
criterion only should be considered and not required, and that the
Agency should adopt a ``not significantly higher'' standard. Also,
while the Agency should retain the focus of the ``toxics along for the
ride'' criterion upon products, that criterion should refer to
constituents that may actually be a concern with respect to the
products that are produced and should not use the defined term
``contaminant.''
Other commenters oppose any limits on contaminants in ingredients.
It was argued that portland cement is manufactured to meet strict
chemical and performance specifications under such organizations as
ASTM and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). These specifications dictate, to a large degree,
the ingredients that can be used in cement manufacturing. There are a
wide range of raw materials and fuels that can be used to meet cement
manufacturing quality objectives. The levels of contaminants in these
traditional raw materials and fuels can vary significantly. These
variations occur within materials taken from the same source (e.g.,
single quarry) and also between different sources. For the purpose of
comparing levels of contaminants found in non-hazardous secondary
materials with levels found in traditional products, the non-hazardous
secondary material contaminant should be allowed to be compared to
multiple sources of the traditional raw materials that are available
across the market to the facility. Such a comparison should be allowed
regardless of whether or not the traditional material is being used by
the facility at the time of the comparison. Doing so would allow for
the variability of constituent levels to be properly accounted for when
going through the comparison process. Variability needs to be
considered because multiple sources of a single traditional material
are typically available to a facility
EPA's Response: In today's action, EPA is finalizing this criterion
as a part of the legitimacy requirement because it is essential in
determining whether a non-hazardous secondary material that is
combusted is in fact being legitimately used or is essentially being
discarded--that is destroyed, in the name of legitimate recycling. EPA
is also retaining the requirement that the recycling process must
result in products that contain contaminants at levels that are
comparable to (or lower than) concentrations found in traditional
products that are manufactured without the non-hazardous secondary
material. Establishing ``comparable to or lower than'' contaminant
levels more closely reflects its intent that non-hazardous secondary
materials that are legitimately used must have levels of contaminants
within a small acceptable range of those found in traditional products
than the phrase ``not significantly higher.'' (See Section V.D.3 for
further discussion of this issue and EPA's response.) With that said,
we agree with those commenters who argue that there are a wide range of
raw materials and fuels that can be used and that the level of
contaminants in these secondary materials can also vary. Thus, for
purposes of comparing levels of contaminants found in non-hazardous
secondary materials to traditional products, a person can make that
comparison with traditional raw materials and fuels that come from
multiple sources, provided such sources can be used in the combustion
unit. Such a comparison, as the commenters argue, would account for the
natural variability that needs to be considered in making such a
comparison.
With respect to the comment requesting that EPA change the word
``contaminant'' to ``constituent'' when referring to the legitimacy
criteria, EPA is retaining the use of the word ``contaminant'' in this
criterion as it has been defined in this rule and accurately describes
which individual constituents EPA is seeking to control in this
criterion. The selection of that term was originally discussed in the
ANPRM and was chosen since it refers to the constituents in secondary
materials that may be of a concern when burned as a fuel or used as an
ingredient.
Finally, EPA notes that industry specifications can be very useful
in making a legitimacy determination and, in particular, in evaluating
compliance with this criterion. However, EPA cannot rely solely on
product specifications to cover all possible situations and is
including the contaminant comparison between products as a critical
part of the legitimacy requirement.
F. Comments on Non-Waste Determination Petitions
The proposed rule established a non-waste determination process
that would provide persons with an administrative process for receiving
a formal determination from the EPA Regional Administrator that non-
hazardous secondary materials that are burned as a fuel in a combustion
unit and have not been managed within the control of the generator,
have not been discarded in the first instance, and are
[[Page 15529]]
indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product are not
solid wastes. This assumes all the criteria for the non-waste
determination at Sec. 241.3(c) are met.
Industry and state agencies both submitted a number of comments on
the non-waste determination process included in the proposed rule.
While many of these comments supported the idea of a non-waste
determination process in order to include appropriate fuels, many
commenters suggested that the process would be difficult to implement
since the requirements are vague, and too resource intensive. Many
commenters did not want the process at all for opposing reasons; some
said it was too lenient in that the process could allow the
inappropriate use of non-hazardous secondary materials, while others
said it was unnecessary in that CAA section 112 third-party combustors
should be able to use appropriate comparable fuels without the
inconvenience of a petition process. The specific comments are detailed
below. The overview of the petition process is described in Section
VII.G. The petition requirements in today's rule are found at Sec.
241.3(c).
Comment: A large number of commenters (including many from state
agencies) argued that state agencies should be provided the authority
to make non-waste determinations as part of the petition process. Some
commenters suggested that States be allowed to grant such petitions
under their existing beneficial use programs and encouraged EPA to
allow the States' existing regulatory structures to remain in place.
Many commenters expressed a preference for the approach currently used
by States to determine the acceptability of used materials for
beneficial use whereby specific classes of non-hazardous secondary
materials considered wastes (in that State) are assessed and, if
determined acceptable, are considered non-waste or exempt from the
State waste licensing, permitting and other requirements. State
procedures for beneficial use determinations vary, some requiring more
extensive characterization of materials and uses than others, and some
requiring a degree of processing and others not. Some beneficial use
designations are more stringent than others since they are material-
specific.
Many commenters, including state agencies were still concerned that
this rule could jeopardize or interfere with the State beneficial use
designations and procedures and requested that EPA clearly indicate
that today's rule applies only for purposes of determining CAA 129
applicability to non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned for
energy recovery. They do not want today's rule to set a precedent or
interfere with their ongoing programs to allow and encourage the
beneficial use of secondary materials which otherwise would be waste.
EPA's Response: CAA section 129 states that the term ``solid
waste'' shall have the meaning ``established by the Administrator
pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act'' Id. at 7429(g)(6).
Accordingly, the Administrator (or Regional Administrator) must
establish the meaning and make the determinations, and the states'
definition of solid waste would not be applicable for purposes of the
definition of solid waste under RCRA for establishing emissions
standards under the CAA. No federal approval procedures for state
adoption of today's rule are included in this rule under RCRA subtitle
D. Although EPA does promulgate criteria for solid waste landfills and
approves state municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs, RCRA
does not provide EPA with authority to approve state programs beyond
municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs.
With that said, EPA would like to utilize the expertise and
interest residing in the state beneficial use programs to bolster
Agency decisions on non-waste determination petitions. The Agency may
request the assistance of states or may utilize the information and
contaminant data from state beneficial use determinations if it is
applicable to the non-hazardous secondary material when used as a fuel
or an ingredient in combustion units. These state beneficial use
programs have been developed to encourage recycling and reuse, provided
that the uses maintain the specified state's acceptable level of risk,
protect human health and the environment, and are managed in accordance
with the conditions of the determination.
Generally, when a state beneficial use determination has been
granted (thus no longer a solid waste within that state), it may have
chemical and physical properties that are comparable to the raw
material it is replacing or, when incorporated into a product, its use
is beneficial to the final product. Assuming the data to support the
beneficial use determination remains available, it could help support
EPA's investigation of the contaminant concentrations for the purpose
of making the legitimacy criteria determination.
State beneficial use determinations and procedures will continue
intact for purposes of State laws, regulations, and programs. Thus, we
do not expect that this rule will set a precedent or interfere with the
States' solid waste programs and the States will continue to employ
their procedures to assess and regulate the management and use of non-
hazardous secondary materials for purposes of State laws and
regulations. In addition, as we have stated elsewhere in today's
preamble, this rule is limited for purposes of determining CAA 129
applicability for non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned for
energy recovery or as an ingredient in a combustion unit. Thus, EPA
will not be making any determination that non-hazardous secondary
materials are or are not solid wastes for other possible beneficial
uses. Such beneficial use determinations are generally made by the
state for these other beneficial uses and EPA will continue to look to
the states to make such determinations (e.g., land application, reuse
as non-waste, etc.).
Comment: Commenters indicated that the petition process does not
consider potential scheduling issues regarding compliance with the
section 112 Boiler MACT or the 129 CISWI standards. Therefore, the non-
waste determination petition process should include deadlines for both
petition submissions and rulings from regulators so that the applicant
would know which emission standards requirements they would be subject
to--that is, the CAA section 112 standards or the CAA section 129
standards. Some commenters (including many state agencies) also
expressed concern that EPA would not have the resources necessary to
address such non-waste determination petitions within a schedule
consistent with State deadlines for their air permits (e.g., 90 days).
In addition, a few commenters questioned the environmental benefits of
shifting the burden of determination to EPA instead of the generators
in question.
EPA's Response: EPA is not imposing deadlines for the petition
decisions, either for the submission of such petitions or on EPA making
decisions on petitions that are submitted, since the Agency believes
that before a final decision is made, that the necessary information be
submitted, and the public afforded an opportunity to comment on such
draft decisions. Setting a time limit may make it difficult to make
such informed decisions. Nevertheless, EPA commits to work with the
State (where the combustor is located) in an effort to not hold up, to
the extent practicable, the State air permitting process. We recognize
that the non-waste determination decision should be finalized prior to
any related State air
[[Page 15530]]
permit. We would also note that EPA's responsibility for the petition
decisions in the final rule should maintain national consistency, while
recognizing the state's interest and expertise in this area.
Comment: If EPA maintains authority for non-waste determinations,
commenters request that EPA Regional offices notify States when
requests and determinations are made. In addition, several
environmental groups requested that the public notification be required
for any petitions for non-waste classification.
EPA's Response: Today's rule outlines the petition process for the
Regional Administrator to follow. As part of that process, the draft
decision will be published in local media and will be available on
EPA's Web site, and thus, all draft decisions will be available to the
public for comment. In addition, although not in the regulations, EPA
will inform the State Agency of a petition request in their states, and
work with them, to the extent practicable.
Comment: State Agencies recommended that EPA maintain a state or
publicly available database of non-waste determination decisions if the
Agency maintains decision-making authority under the petition process.
EPA's Response: EPA agrees that it would be appropriate for EPA to
maintain a database that is a compilation of decisions made on non-
hazardous secondary material non-waste determinations. This would allow
decisions made in one EPA Region, including the basis for the decision,
to be available to other EPA Regions pertaining to the same or similar
non-hazardous secondary materials and would support national
consistency and minimize redundant efforts. Thus, the Agency expects to
put together such a database and will make it available not only to its
Regions, but will also make such a database publicly available.
Comment: Some commenters said States (or non-State Agencies) should
be able to submit a non-waste determination on behalf of the
petitioner.
EPA's Response: As stated in the proposal and in the final rule,
states, or private entities, can submit non-waste determination
petitions to the EPA Regional Administrator on behalf of petitioners.
They can petition for a single combustor or a class of combustors
(e.g., a specific usage of a non-hazardous secondary material in a
particular state).
Comment: Many commenters did not want the petition process included
in the rule. Some commenters said it was too lenient in that the
process could allow the inappropriate use of non-hazardous secondary
materials.
EPA's Response: We disagree with the commenters since the petition
process provides a vehicle to accommodate those instances where it is
not apparent that the non-hazardous secondary material is not discarded
and that it complies with the legitimacy criteria and thus, is not a
solid waste under RCRA. Those requirements would be documented in
addition to the other petition requirements. This would provide the
needed assurance that it is an appropriate non-waste fuel. In addition,
all draft decisions will be made available to the public (local
newspaper advertisement or radio broadcast and on EPA's Web site) and
the Regional Administrator may hold public hearings, such that the
public will be informed and has the opportunity to comment and be
involved in the process.
Comment: Commenters mentioned that the process will be difficult to
implement since the requirements in proposed Sec. 241.3(c) are too
vague. A few commenters mentioned that they preferred the clarity in
state determinations where they have criteria specific to each
secondary material they regulate or make specific beneficial use
determinations, as opposed to this petition process where all non-
hazardous secondary materials have to comply with the same guidelines.
Commenters requested that we create clear guidance on the petition
process and on related implementation.
EPA's Response: We disagree with the commenters who argue that the
petition process is vague and will be difficult to implement. All
petitions that are submitted must clearly explain how the non-hazardous
secondary material has not been discarded and meets the other relevant
criteria, including the legitimacy criteria. All draft decisions will
also be subject to notice and comment, so any particular issues or
concerns can be raised for the Agency's consideration. With that said,
the Agency expects to develop additional guidance to assist petitioners
in the implementation of the petition process.
G. Comments on the Other Approaches for Defining Solid Wastes
In addition to the proposed approach, EPA also identified and
solicited comment on two other approaches for defining which non-
hazardous secondary materials are solid wastes when combusted. One
approach, which was called the ``alternative approach,'' was intended
to be broader than the proposed approach, but still consistent, in the
Agency's judgment, with RCRA and relevant case law. Under the
alternative approach, non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned
in a combustion unit would be considered solid wastes, unless such non-
hazardous secondary materials would remain within the control of the
generator and meet the legitimacy criteria; in this limited instance,
the non-hazardous secondary materials would not be considered solid
wastes. Thus, under the alternative approach, fuels and ingredients
that are generated from the processing of discarded non-hazardous
secondary materials would be considered a solid waste, as well as non-
hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients that are combusted at
facilities that are not within the control of the generator. In
addition, the alternative approach did not provide for a non-waste
determination petition process, as described elsewhere in this
preamble. The proposed rule noted that this approach could be adopted
in a final rule if warranted by information presented during the public
comment period and solicited comment on all aspects of the alternative
approach.
The other approach on which we requested comment was to identify
all non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned in combustion
units for energy recovery or as an ingredient as solid wastes and thus,
all non-hazardous secondary materials would be subject to the section
129 CAA requirements. The proposal noted that while the Agency believes
there are legal constraints to taking such a broad approach in defining
solid waste under RCRA, we solicited comment on this approach and
specifically requested that commenters provide the basis for their
position, in light of the existing case law on the issue of
``discard.''
Comment: All commenters addressing the alternative approach were
opposed to the Agency adopting such an approach in the final rule.
Several commenters argued generally against any approach that would
allow any non-hazardous secondary material to ever be burned as non-
waste fuels or ingredients, regardless of whether or not the secondary
materials remained within the control of the generator. These
commenters strongly urged the Agency to adopt a final rule that
considers all non-hazardous secondary materials burned in a combustion
unit for energy recovery or used as an ingredient to be included within
the definition of solid waste and therefore, subject to the CAA section
129 requirements. These commenters argue that non-hazardous secondary
materials that are burned in combustion units fall within the
unambiguous meaning of the
[[Page 15531]]
term ``discarded material,'' and therefore, both EPA's proposed and
alternative approach are unlawful, as well as arbitrary and capricious.
On the other hand, industry commenters generally contended that the
alternative approach was unacceptable as a matter of law and policy,
but for different reasons. These commenters, who also disagreed with
the proposed approach's classification that non-hazardous secondary
materials used as fuels which did not remain within the control of the
generator are solid waste unless granted a non-waste determination,
strongly opposed the alternative approach for many of the same reasons.
Of particular concern of the commenters was their disagreement with EPA
that one may not look to a material's transfer between entities to
determine whether the non-hazardous secondary material has been
discarded and constitutes a solid waste under RCRA, a concept which
would apply equally to non-hazardous secondary materials being used as
ingredients, as well as to non-hazardous secondary materials used as
fuels. In addition, these same commenters also strongly disagreed with
the other approach on which the Agency solicited comment--that is, the
approach that would characterize all non-hazardous secondary materials
as solid waste when burned in a combustion unit for energy recovery or
as an ingredient. These commenters argued that this would exceed the
Agency's authority to regulate secondary materials that have not been
discarded.
EPA's Response: Although some commenters supported a broader
definition of solid waste than described in the alternative approach,
the Agency did not receive any support for the alternative approach,
and has therefore decided not to adopt it in this final rule. Regarding
comments that advocated for all non-hazardous secondary materials
burned in a combustion unit for energy recovery or as an ingredient to
be discarded and, thus, solid waste, EPA has replied to this comment
above in Section V.A. The Agency presumes that these commenters would
like neither our proposed approach nor any alternative that allows any
non-hazardous secondary material to be burned as other than a waste.
Regarding industry comments which opposed the alternative approach
because its characterization that all non-hazardous secondary materials
that do not remain within the control of the generator are solid waste,
we respond to the issue of transferring non-hazardous secondary
materials off-site in Section V.A.
EPA continues to believe that today's final rule is a reasonable
interpretation of the statutory definition of discard to consider that
non-hazardous secondary materials under the control of its generator
that are legitimately burned as fuels are not solid waste, that certain
non-hazardous secondary materials (i.e., scrap tires under the
oversight of established tire collection programs and resinated wood)
that are not discarded and are legitimately used as fuels or
ingredients are not solid waste, that non-hazardous secondary materials
that are legitimately burned as ingredients are not solid wastes, and
that fuels and ingredients that are produced from the processing of
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes.
VI. Summary of Major Differences Between the Proposed Rule and Final
Rule
The basic framework outlined in the proposed rule is being adopted
in today's final rule. However, as indicated in the discussions in
Section VII, the Agency has made several significant changes to the
proposal regarding: (1) The status of scrap tires when they are
combusted and used as a fuel; (2) the status of resinated wood
residuals when they are combusted and used as a fuel; (3) the status of
coal refuse that has been previously discarded, but has been processed
in the same way as coal is today; and (4) the definition of traditional
fuel and several other terms to clarify their meaning in the final
rule. Specifically,
Under the proposed rule, scrap tires were considered to be
solid waste when combusted and used as a fuel unless they were
sufficiently processed into a non-waste fuel product. Today's rule
continues to include this concept of processing of scrap tires that
have been discarded, particularly for tires in waste tire piles.
However, after reviewing the comments, as well as reviewing the
approach that was discussed in the ANPRM for scrap tires, the Agency
has concluded that scrap tires used as fuel in a combustion unit that
are removed from vehicles and managed and collected under the oversight
of an established tire collection program would not be considered a
solid waste In this situation, the scrap tires have not been discarded
and therefore, should not be considered a solid waste. See Section
VII.C for a full discussion of the rationale and changes to the
approach for scrap tires.
Under the proposed rule, resinated wood residuals that
were burned in a combustion unit within the control of the generator
and which met the legitimacy criteria was considered a non-waste fuel.
However, if such resinated wood residuals were transferred off-site to
a different company, there were considered a solid waste when burned in
a combustion unit, unless they were ``sufficiently processed to produce
a non-waste fuel. However, after reviewing the comments, the Agency has
concluded that resinated wood residuals when burned in a combustion
unit (whether within the control of the generator or outside the
control of the generator) would not be a solid waste, provided the
resinated wood residuals met the legitimacy criteria. In this
situation, the Agency finds that the resinated wood residuals have not
been discarded and therefore, should not be considered a solid waste.
See Section VII.D for a full discussion of the rational and changes to
the approach for resinated wood residuals.
Under the proposed rule, coal refuse that has been
previously abandoned and was processed, even if such processing was the
same as coal is processed today, was considered a solid waste and, if
combusted, would be subject to the CAA section 129 emission standards.
However, after reviewing the comments and after further evaluation, we
have decided that coal refuse that is processed the same as coal is
today, which serves to both increase its energy value, as well as
reduce the level of contaminants in coal refuse, should not be
considered a solid waste. (Of course, prior to such processing, the
coal refuse that has been abandoned is a solid waste and would be
subject to appropriate federal, state and local laws and regulations.)
This change is based on the fact that coal refuse is distinctive from
other non-hazardous secondary materials at issue in today's rule in
that it is in fact raw material coal (even if it has been previously
abandoned) that is generated as a result of coal mining operations
whose primary product is a fuel.
In response to comments received on the proposal, under
today's rule, we have added an ``alternative fuels'' category to the
definition of traditional fuels, so the definition now includes
``alternative traditional fuels'' and ``historically managed''
traditional fuels. EPA is recognizing that changes in technology and in
the energy market over time have resulted in additional materials being
economically viable to be used as alternative ``traditional'' fuels. In
addition, to provide clarity in the application and the meaning of
traditional fuel and clean cellulosic biomass, we have codified these
definitions in Sec. 241.2. The new definition of traditional fuel also
[[Page 15532]]
clarifies that traditional fuels are not secondary materials and are
not solid wastes unless discarded.
VII. Detailed Discussion and Rationale for Today's Final Rule
As indicated previously, today's final rule identifies those non-
hazardous secondary materials that, when burned in a combustion unit,
are solid wastes. In general, EPA defines non-hazardous secondary
materials that are used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units as
solid waste unless: \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Traditional fuels are not secondary materials or solid
waste, unless discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-hazardous secondary material is used as a fuel and
remains within the control of the generator (whether at the site of
generation or another site the generator has control over) and it meets
the legitimacy criteria;
They are the following materials that meet the legitimacy
criteria when used as a fuel (by the generator or outside the control
of the generator):
[cir] Scrap tires removed from vehicles under the oversight of
established tire collection programs;
[cir] Resinated wood;
The non-hazardous secondary material is used as an
ingredient (whether by the generator or outside the control of the
generator) and it meets the legitimacy criteria;
The discarded non-hazardous secondary material is
sufficiently processed to produce legitimate fuel or ingredient
products and it meets the legitimacy criteria;
The non-hazardous secondary material is used as a fuel and
is handled outside the control of the generator where it is determined
through a case-by-case non-waste determination petition process that
the material has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all
relevant aspects from a fuel product.
The following sections discuss in detail the rationale and regulations
being promulgated today in 40 CFR part 241 for the identification of
non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste when used in
combustion units. We use this rationale to support the final rule based
on information the Agency has received and public comments. To the
extent we have decided not to alter our supporting reasoning or have
rejected comments received on the proposed rule, we also discuss these
matters in Section V. Reasoning, information and arguments provided in
the ANPRM and proposed rule that support these decisions are also
incorporated into the reasoning for the final decisions.
A. Traditional Fuels \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ While the Agency believes that traditional fuels are not
secondary materials, we believe it appropriate to provide a general
definition and description of what is considered a traditional fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section V, the definition of traditional fuels has
been modified in today's final rule. The new definition encompasses two
categories of fuels: (1) ``Historically managed'' fuels, as identified
in the proposed rule, and (2) ``alternative'' fuels, as described in
the ANPRM. Through this revised definition, EPA is recognizing that
changes in technology and in the energy market over time have resulted
in additional materials being economically viable, or for policy
reasons, to be used as alternative ``traditional'' fuels. Thus,
``traditional fuels'' is defined in today's final rule as materials
that are produced as fuels and are unused products that have not been
discarded and therefore, are not solid waste including: (1) Fuels that
have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than
being managed as waste materials, including fossil fuels (e.g., coal,
oil and natural gas), their derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke,
bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy
recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered gaseous butane, and
coke oven gas) and cellulosic biomass (virgin wood); and (2)
alternative fuels developed from virgin materials that can now be used
as valuable fuel products rather than waste materials. Alternative
fuels include used oil which meets the specifications outlined in 40
CFR 279.11; currently mined coal refuse that previously had not been
usable coal; and clean cellulosic biomass. Clean cellulosic biomass is
defined as those residuals that are akin to traditional cellulosic
biomass, such as forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest
thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, and tree
harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials), corn stover
and other biomass crops used specifically for energy production (e.g.,
energy cane, other fast growing grasses), bagasse and other crop
residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected from forest fire
clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris,
clean biomass from land clearing operations, and clean construction and
demolition wood. Clean biomass is defined as biomass that does not
contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with
virgin biomass materials. Such historically managed traditional fuels
and alternative fuels are not secondary materials or solid wastes
unless discarded. The revised definition also clarifies that clean wood
includes, similar to clean disaster debris, clean construction and
demolition material.
Both clean cellulosic biomass and on-specification used oil were
identified in the proposed rule definition as historically managed
traditional fuels. However, as the viability of these materials as
fuels reflects relatively recent changes in market conditions and
technology, they are more appropriately characterized as alternative
traditional fuels.
The new definition also adds currently generated coal refuse as an
alternative traditional fuel. As discussed in Section V.B.8., this
material is distinctive among the other non-hazardous secondary
materials. Coal refuse is in fact raw material coal that is generated
as a result of coal mining operations whose primary product is fuel. We
consider currently generated coal refuse to be more akin to a raw
material that, due to technological developments, can now be processed
and utilized to produce a marketable fuel. Coal refuse is different
from other non-hazardous secondary materials, such as scrap tires or
resinated wood residuals, in that it is generated in the production of
a traditional fuel and can be used, itself, as fuel.
The definition goes on to clarify that traditional fuels are not
secondary materials and are not solid wastes unless discarded. In
response to comments received on the proposal and to provide clarity in
the application and the meaning of traditional fuel, both the new
definition of traditional fuels and the definition of clean cellulosic
biomass are codified in Sec. 241.2
Recommendations from commenters to the proposed rule on specific
materials that should be considered traditional fuels are discussed in
Section V.B. That section also includes responses to the Agency's
request for comment regarding a possible petition process to make
determinations on traditional fuels.
B. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Fuel That Remain Within
the Control of the Generator
1. Scope and Applicability
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel in combustion
units that remain within the control of the generator and that meet the
legitimacy criteria specified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1) would not be solid
waste. Such non-hazardous secondary materials are referred to as
legitimate (non-waste) fuel products.
As discussed previously in Section V.A, if the non-hazardous
secondary material remains within the control of
[[Page 15533]]
the generator, it is more likely to be material that is saved and not
thrown away. The Agency has explained that case law would not allow it
to determine that secondary material is a waste if it is recycled as a
fuel within a continuous industrial process. EPA cannot evaluate every
non-hazardous secondary material, but considers that this standard
would cover all such non-hazardous secondary materials that are
recycled as a fuel within a continuous process. EPA, however,
acknowledges that this may capture certain non-hazardous secondary
materials which may be a waste, but is unlikely. Thus, this is a
reasonable interpretation of the statutory definition of discard to
consider non-hazardous secondary materials that are managed within the
control of its generator and legitimately burned as fuels to not be
solid waste.
The Agency also recognizes that there may also be non-hazardous
secondary materials transferred to another party that are not discarded
in the first instance, and thus may not be a solid waste. EPA is
dealing with those categories of non-hazardous secondary materials on a
case-by-case basis by specifically identifying such non-hazardous
secondary materials in the regulations (see discussions in Section
VII.C on scrap tires managed under an established tire collection
program and Section VII.D for resinated wood or through the non-waste
determination process (Section VII.G).
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels remain within the
control of the generator under two scenarios (See Sec. 241.2). As
such, the regulation consists of two parts in determining whether these
non-hazardous secondary materials qualify for being ``within the
control of the generator.'' The first part applies to non-hazardous
secondary materials generated and used as fuels at the generating
facility. For purposes of this criteria, ``generating facility'' means
all contiguous property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
secondary material generator; ``secondary material generator'' means
any person whose act or process produces non-hazardous secondary
materials at the generating facility.
If a generator hires or contracts with a different company to use
the non-hazardous secondary materials at the generator's facility as
fuel, either temporarily or permanently, these materials remain within
the control of the generator. However, generators sometimes contract
with a second company to collect non-hazardous secondary materials at
the generating facility and such materials are subsequently used as
fuels in a combustion unit at another facility. In that situation, if
the facility that burns the non-hazardous secondary material is not
``within the control of the generator'' as defined below in the second
part of the definition, then the non-hazardous secondary material fuel
would be considered a solid waste unless a non-waste determination has
been granted pursuant to the petition process.
The second part of the definition applies to non-hazardous
secondary materials generated and used as fuels at a different facility
that is controlled by the generator (or if a person as codified in
Sec. 241.2 controls both the generator and the facility using the fuel
in a combustion unit). For purposes of this criterion, ``control''
means the power to direct the policies of the facility, whether by
ownership of stock, voting rights, or otherwise, except that
contractors who operate facilities on behalf of a different person as
codified in Sec. 241.2 shall not be deemed to ``control'' such
facilities. Thus, when a contractor operates two facilities, each of
which is owned by a different company, the non-hazardous secondary
materials generated at the first facility and used as a fuel at the
second facility is not considered ``within the control of the
generator.''
In the proposed rule, the Agency also indicated that the 2008 DSW
Final Rule included a third part in the definition of ``within the
control of the generator;'' specifically, hazardous secondary materials
that are generated pursuant to a written contract between a tolling
contractor and a toll manufacturer and legitimately reclaimed by the
tolling contractor. For purposes of that exclusion, a tolling
contractor is a person who arranges for the production of a product or
intermediate made from specified raw or virgin materials through a
written contract with a toll manufacturer. We did not propose to
include this arrangement as being ``within the control of the
generator'' as we viewed this as a specific type of arrangement used in
the production of materials, and were unaware of these types of
contractual arrangements where both products and secondary material
fuel are sent to what we are calling tolling contractors. Nevertheless,
the Agency requested comment on whether to include this option in the
final rule. We have decided not to include this option in the final
rule. See Section V.A.1.
2. Restrictions and Requirements
a. Legitimate Use
Under this rule, non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels in
combustion units that remain within the control of the generator must
meet the legitimacy criteria in Sec. 241.3(d)(1) to be considered a
non-waste fuel. To satisfy the legitimacy criteria, the non-hazardous
secondary material (non-waste) fuel must be handled as a valuable
commodity, have a meaningful heating value and be used as a fuel in a
combustion unit that recovers energy, and contain contaminants at
levels comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional fuels which
the combustion unit is designed to burn as discussed in Section VII.H.
b. Notification
We are not requiring facilities that use non-hazardous secondary
material fuels within the control of the generator and that meet the
legitimacy criteria to notify EPA under this rule. This notice would be
duplicative of the notification and recordkeeping requirements being
promulgated for boilers and process heaters at major sources of air
toxics. That is, the CAA section 112 rule requires notifications and
recordkeeping, including documentation as to how the non-hazardous
secondary material meets the legitimacy criteria, and satisfies the
definition of processing and/or the requirements for the petition
process. (40 CFR 63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping
requirements for area source boilers combusting non-hazardous secondary
materials are also found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) under the CAA
section 112 rule for area source boilers.
Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v) promulgated for
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators under CAA section
129 requires basic recordkeeping to establish whether materials
combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the standards and
procedures for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that
are not solid wastes. Owners or operators of commercial or industrial
facilities that combust non-hazardous secondary materials that are not
traditional fuels are directed to the CAA section 112 regulations for
boilers, and the CAA section 129 regulations for commercial and
industrial incinerators, to determine the recordkeeping provisions
related to the definition of solid waste that may apply to them. These
records and notifications under the CAA regulations provide assurance
that facilities will apply the legitimacy criteria, and that requiring
notification under this rule is not necessary.
[[Page 15534]]
C. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have Not Been Discarded:
Scrap Tires Collected Under Established Tire Collection Programs
1. Scope and Applicability
EPA has determined that scrap tires removed from vehicles and
managed under the oversight of state and other established tire
collection programs are not ``discarded in the first instance.'' Such
tires (including both whole tires and tires that have been shredded--
with or without metal removal \156\) are non-waste when legitimately
used as a fuel in combustion units. These collection programs (codified
in Sec. 241.2) ensure that the scrap tires are not discarded en route
to the combustor for use as a fuel and are handled as a valuable
commodity (Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ If scrap tires are not discarded in the first place, they
do not have to be processed per the standards in today's rule, but
can be converted to rough shreds or processed into TDF chips at the
discretion of the combustor and still be non-waste fuel. If the
scrap tires were discarded, they have to be processed (with metal
removal, see Section V.B.5) per the standards in today's rule in
order to be a non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State programs and other established tire collection programs
promote the collection of scrap tires in coordination with tire
dealerships, haulers, processors, and end users, forming an established
collection infrastructure. These established tire collection programs
together with state bans on landfilling in most states \157\
effectively result in the beneficial reuse of tires (as fuel or used in
other scrap tire markets) as the sole \158\ end use option for scrap
tires in those states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ A few states allow tires cut up in smaller pieces to be
landfilled, while fewer still allow whole tires in landfills.
\158\ Note, a commenter has indicated that some states are
considering revoking their tire landfill ban if combustors are no
longer choosing to use tires for fuel based on the outcome of this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Agency recognizes that there will be differences between
the various established tire collection programs, at a minimum, the
following components would need to be included as part of any
established tire collection program: (1) A comprehensive system that
prevents tires from being abandoned when the scrap tires are harvested
from vehicles and collected at the various businesses where they are
removed; these tires are not considered ``discarded in the first
instance'' per this rule; and (2) standards for the scrap tires to be
managed as a valuable commodity. These programs would ensure storage
does not exceed reasonable time frames, the scrap tires are managed in
a manner consistent with the analogous fuel (coal), and a system is in
place to prevent scrap tires from being discarded (according to the
plain language definition) en route to the combustor (and during any
processing prior to combustion).
An example of this type of program is a tire dealership that has
pre-arranged agreements where the combustor pays for the delivery of
the tires harvested from automobiles and can track the delivery and has
contractual obligations for a safe delivery. Another example is the
Texas system where tires are not seen as waste, but have specifications
for tracking and safe delivery to the end use markets.
In essence, these programs are ones that neither allow for an
opportunity for scrap tires intended as a fuel to be discarded in the
first place nor discarded in transit. A definition of established tire
collection programs is codified in today's rule at Sec. 241.2.
According to the plain English meaning of discard, these tires would
not have been ``disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away'' through the
initial process of removing them from cars or collecting them under
established tire collection programs.
In reaching this position, the Agency considered several factors:
a. Some Specific Types of Secondary Materials Are More Like Valuable
Commodities Than Solid Wastes
As noted above, when non-hazardous secondary material fuels are
transferred to another party, the secondary material is generally
discarded since the generator has relinquished control of the secondary
material and the entity receiving such materials may not have the same
incentives to manage them as a useful product, which results in the
materials being discarded. At the same time, EPA acknowledges that some
specific types of secondary materials are more like valuable
commodities than solid wastes, and the mere act of transferring them to
a third-party does not automatically involve discard.
After reviewing the comments on the proposal and all other
information in the rulemaking record, EPA has determined that, unlike
the historic management of scrap tires that resulted in many waste tire
piles, the annually generated scrap tires that are removed from
vehicles under established tire collection programs shows that they are
not being discarded, as evidenced by the dramatic decrease in the
number of tires in waste tire dumps. Fewer than one million tires
remain in tire piles, as compared to an estimate of one billion tires
in 1990. In addition, scrap tires have nearly the highest percentage of
reuse, recycling, or otherwise being beneficially used in the markets.
That is, of the 300 million scrap tires being generated every year,
nearly 90% of those tires go to beneficial use markets. The change in
market conditions since the historic management of scrap tires in piles
have helped ensure that scrap tires collected as part of established
tire collection programs are not discarded.
Under the scrap tire program, oversight starts at the point the
tires are removed from the vehicle and continues until they are used as
a fuel at combustion units (or used in other scrap tire markets),
ensuring that discard does not occur. Although we mentioned in the
proposed rule that there was a pattern of discard at third party-off
site reclaimers, based on the information in the record, we understand
that it is no longer the case for scrap tires, while acknowledging that
there was a problem in the past.
In regard to the proposed rule statement that state environmental
agencies often consider tires to have entered the ``waste stream'' and
were concerned about conflicting interpretations, we recognize that
states \159\ typically call tires a waste until beneficially used. As
described above, discard is not occurring (according to the plain
language definition since they have not been abandoned, disposed of, or
thrown away) for tires collected from vehicles under established tire
collection programs (as defined). Secondly, this rule is specifically
for use of non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels and ingredients
(including scrap tires) in combustion units and this rule has different
criteria than State Agency definitions for general use of scrap tires.
These issues are discussed further in Sections IX (State Authority) and
in Section V.B.5 (Response to Comments on Scrap Tires).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ There are many variations on how scrap tires are regarded
in State Environmental Agencies, of note, Texas considers that tires
are non-waste, but that the shipments have to be documented. For
details, please refer to comments by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), commenter ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-
1306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically, the state and private programs work together to
encourage processing, reuse, and/or recycling, that would result in a
market demand for scrap tires to be collected; however, the market for
fuel use is more independently sustainable in the free market, while
other markets for scrap tire reuse and recycling often need to function
with state subsidies to support them.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ The recovery and management of scrap tires that are
recovered from tire piles are largely supported or subsidized by
State Agencies and these whole tires are considered discarded and
waste when used as fuel, unless they are sufficiently processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15535]]
b. Beneficial Use of Whole Scrap Tires
Since most combustion units will continue to use tires that have
been processed into TDF chips, the biggest change in the final rule
(with regard to the use of scrap tires) is that cement kilns will be
able to use whole tires as non-waste fuels if those tires are removed
from vehicles under established tire collection programs. In
particular, cement kilns operate at much higher temperatures and need,
not only the fuel from the tires, but also the non-combustible portions
in order to produce cement clinker, creating a strong market for this
type of beneficial use. Whole tires removed from vehicles under
established tire collection programs still meet the legitimacy criteria
and using whole tires for their fuel value would lead to an overall
decrease in the emissions of HAP or the section 129 pollutants in the
CAA when replacing traditional fuel sources (e.g., coal) in cement
kilns due to the contaminant levels and combustion properties. Many
state environmental agencies and cement kilns supplied data and support
for use of whole tires in cement kilns.
Since cement kilns' use of whole tires as a non-waste would be a
change from the proposal, EPA considered potential environmental
justice impacts. The assessment of the demographic analysis at the
cement kilns using scrap tires showed a decreased chance of impacting
environmental justice communities based on the demographic analysis at
cement kilns versus the alternative sites. The demographics at cement
kilns showed that they were sited in areas that were lower in minority
and had less poverty that the alternative CISWI combustors, tire
processors, or disposal sites. In addition, scrap tires are prevented
from being disposed of in states that ban whole tires from landfills
\161\ and that have an established collection infrastructure. Not all
states have programs that prevent landfilling and tires recovered from
tire dumps are not always suitable for market use. However, as we have
noted previously, scrap tires have nearly the highest percentage of
reuse, recycling, or are otherwise being beneficially used in the
markets to ensure that scrap tires collected as part of established
tire collection programs are not discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ A few states allow tires cut up in smaller pieces to be
landfilled, while fewer states still allow whole tires in landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Restrictions and Requirements
a. Legitimate Use
Consistent with other non-hazardous secondary materials used as a
non-waste fuel, scrap tires collected pursuant to established tire
collection programs must meet the legitimacy criteria in Sec.
241.3(d)(1) to be considered a non-waste fuel under this rule.
Specifically:
Scrap tires are considered to be handled as a valuable
commodity when they are collected from vehicles under established scrap
tire collection programs. If at any point these tires or tires that
otherwise qualify to be non-waste (processed or petitioned) are not
managed as a valuable commodity, they would become a solid waste. See
Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(i).
Scrap tires (whole or TDF chips) have an exceptionally
high heating value; they are considered to meet the legitimacy criteria
for meaningful heating value established in today's rule at Sec.
241.3(d)(1)(ii). In fact, the heating value of scrap tires (12,000 Btu/
lb to 16,000 Btu/lb) is higher than typical coal values and other solid
fuels.
EPA's analysis of the contaminant concentrations in scrap
tires shows that it is comparable to the traditional fuel it replaces
(i.e., coal); therefore, it is considered to meet the legitimacy
criteria for comparable contaminants established in today's rule at
Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(iii). The comparison to the contaminant
concentrations is given in the scrap tire response to comments. See
Section V.B.5.
b. Notification
We are not requiring facilities that use scrap tires collected
under established tire collection programs and that meet the legitimacy
criteria to notify EPA under this rule. This notice would be
duplicative of the notifications and recordkeeping requirements being
promulgated for boilers and process heaters at major sources of air
toxics. That is, the CAA section 112 rule requires notifications and
recordkeeping, including documentation as to how the non-hazardous
secondary material meets the legitimacy criteria, and satisfies the
definition of processing and/or the requirements for the petition
process. (40 CFR 63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping
requirements for area source boilers combusting non-hazardous secondary
materials are also found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) under the CAA
section 112 rule for area source boilers.
Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v) promulgated for
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators under CAA section
129 requires basic recordkeeping to establish whether materials
combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the standards and
procedures for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that
are not solid wastes. Under the provisions of Sec. 60.2175(w), for
combustors burning scrap tires, a certification must be maintained
stating that the scrap tires combusted under Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(i) were
obtained through an established tire collection program.
Owners or operators of commercial or industrial facilities that
combust materials that are not traditional fuels are directed to the
CAA section 112 regulations for boilers, and the CAA section 129
regulations for commercial and industrial incinerators, to determine
the recordkeeping provisions related to the definition of solid waste
that may apply to them. These records and notifications under the CAA
regulations provide assurance that facilities will apply the legitimacy
criteria, and that requiring notification under this rule is not
necessary.
D. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have Not Been Discarded:
Resinated Wood Residuals
1. Scope and Applicability
Resinated wood (also referred to as resinated wood residuals) is
another secondary material that, upon examination, is not discarded
when used on-site or transferred off-site. EPA would consider resinated
wood used as a fuel in a combustion unit as not being a solid waste,
provided these materials satisfy the specified legitimacy criteria for
fuels (Sec. 241.3(d)(1)).
The definition of ``resinated wood'' has been codified in Sec.
241.2 and means wood products (containing resin adhesives) derived from
primary and secondary wood products manufacturing and comprised of such
items as board trim, sander dust, and panel trim. Wood products
manufacturers in many cases have constructed their facilities to
utilize resinated wood residuals as fuels. Specialized burners
specifically to fire sander dust and replace oil and natural gas were
developed and were integral to the growth of the industry. This
secondary material is routinely transferred between either intra- or
inter-company facilities and used as either ``furnish'' (i.e., raw
materials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. This material when
transferred off-site is used and handled in the same manner that
resinated wood residuals are used when generated on-site, such that it
is impossible to distinguish between
[[Page 15536]]
materials that are being used as a raw material and those that are
being used as a fuel.
Consistent with the approach taken for scrap tires, EPA recognizes
that some specific types of non-hazardous secondary materials, such as
resinated wood residuals, are more like valuable commodities than solid
wastes, and per the holding of the Safe Food case, the act of
transferring them to a third-party does not automatically involve
discard. Consistent with Safe Food, EPA's determination that resinated
wood is not a solid waste, even if it is transferred between industries
or ownership of the material is relinquished, ``is reasonable and
consistent with the statutory purpose.'' 35 F.3d at 1269.
2. Restrictions and Requirements
a. Legitimate Use
As we have noted above, the combustor of these secondary materials
would still need to demonstrate that such residuals meet the legitimacy
criteria. Thus, they would need to show the material is handled as a
valuable commodity, has meaningful heating value and is used as a fuel
in a combustion unit that recovers energy, and contains contaminants at
levels comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional fuels for
which the combustion unit is designed to burn.
b. Notification
We are not requiring facilities that use resinated wood residuals
and that meet the legitimacy criteria to notify EPA under this rule.
This notice would be duplicative of the notifications and recordkeeping
requirements being promulgated for boilers and process heaters at major
sources of air toxics. That is, the CAA section 112 rule requires
notifications and recordkeeping, including documentation as to how the
non-hazardous secondary material meets the legitimacy criteria, and
satisfies the definition of processing and/or the requirements for the
petition process. (40 CFR 63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping
requirements for area source boilers combusting non-hazardous secondary
materials are also found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) under the CAA
section 112 rule for area source boilers.
Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v) promulgated for
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators under CAA section
129 requires basic recordkeeping to establish whether materials
combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the standards and
procedures for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that
are not solid wastes. Owners or operators of commercial or industrial
facilities that combust materials that are not traditional fuels are
directed to the CAA section 112 regulations for boilers, and the CAA
section 129 regulations for commercial and industrial incinerators, to
determine the recordkeeping provisions related to the definition of
solid waste that may apply to them. These records and notifications
under the CAA regulations provide assurance that facilities will apply
the legitimacy criteria, and that requiring notification under this
rule is not necessary.
E. Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Ingredients
1. Scope and Applicability
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients in combustion
units would not be solid wastes provided they satisfy the legitimacy
criteria discussed in Sec. 241.3(d)(2). We are not differentiating
between ingredients that are used within the control of the generator
from those that are not since the use of non-hazardous secondary
materials as ingredients is more integral or akin to use in a
commercial manufacturing process and thus, these non-hazardous
secondary materials should not be considered discarded provided they
satisfy the legitimacy criteria. However, non-hazardous secondary
materials that are used as ingredients, but have been discarded in the
first instance (e.g., landfilled) would be considered a solid waste
unless processed into a new ingredient product.
The Agency received comments on the proposed rule that ingredients
should not be included in this rule since ingredients are not
``combusted,'' but rather, are incorporated into the product. As
explained in the response to comments in Section V.A, this issue is not
relevant to this regulation, which determines whether non-hazardous
secondary materials are a solid waste, or not under RCRA. EPA has clear
authority to interpret RCRA to decide whether non-hazardous secondary
materials are solid wastes or not. Whether EPA may cover ingredients
used in combustors under section 129 of the CAA is a matter for
regulations under that statute.
The proposal identified a number of non-hazardous secondary
materials that are currently being used as ingredients in combustion
processes that would not be considered solid waste, provided they meet
the legitimacy criteria for ingredients and were not discarded in the
first instance (e.g., blast furnace slag; CKD; the coal combustion
residual group (fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag); and foundry
sand). For example, coal fly ash can be added to the raw material feed
in clinker manufacturing to contribute specific required elements, such
as silica, alumina, and calcium, in the final composition of cement,
with such levels of key metals needing to be carefully calibrated with
other ingredients to ensure that the final cement product has the
correct mineral and metal content. There is every incentive for the
company to ensure that the metals content are within specifications to
ensure that the clinker product meets specifications. In clinker
manufacture, coal fly ash partially offsets the need for raw materials,
such as silica, iron, and alumina sources. This reduction of raw
feedstock materials can result in reduced emissions of certain
pollutants.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ For more detailed information on the benefits of using
coal fly ash and other recovered mineral components in manufacturing
processes, please see: ``Study on Increasing the Usage of Recovered
Mineral Components in Federally Funded Projects Involving
Procurement of Cement or Concrete to Address the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.''
June 23, 2008. (EPA530-R-08-007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another non-hazardous secondary material used as an ingredient,
CKD, can be directly reused in a closed-loop process back into the
cement kiln for clinker manufacture. In fact, the cement industry is
estimated to recycle more than 75 percent of its CKD each year.
Significant increases in U.S. clinker capacity are expected over the
2008 to 2012 period resulting in an anticipated increase in CKD
production and usage. In clinker manufacture, CKD partially offsets the
need for raw material feed, such as limestone and natural constituents
(rock), thus avoiding the energy usage and emissions related to their
extraction and processing.
2. Restrictions and Requirements
a. Legitimate Use
Under this rule, non-hazardous secondary materials used as
ingredients in combustion units cannot be discarded in the first
instance and must meet the legitimacy criteria in Sec. 241.3(d)(2) to
be considered a non-waste ingredient. To satisfy the legitimacy
criteria, the non-hazardous secondary material (non-waste) ingredient
must: be managed as a valuable commodity, provide a useful contribution
to the production or manufacturing process, used to produce a valuable
product, and result in products that contain contaminants at
concentrations comparable to or lower than those found in traditional
products
[[Page 15537]]
manufactured without the non-hazardous secondary material.
b. Notification
We are not requiring facilities that use non-hazardous secondary
materials as ingredients to notify EPA under this rule. This notice
would be duplicative of the notification and recordkeeping requirements
being promulgated for boilers and process heaters at major sources of
air toxics. That is, the CAA section 112 rule requires notifications
and recordkeeping, including documentation as to how the non-hazardous
secondary material meets the legitimacy criteria, and satisfies the
definition of processing and/or the requirements for the petition
process. (40 CFR 63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping
requirements for area source boilers using non-hazardous secondary
materials as ingredients are also found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii)
under the CAA section 112 rule for area source boilers.
Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v) promulgated for
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators under CAA section
129 requires basic recordkeeping to establish whether materials
combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the standards and
procedures for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that
are not solid wastes. Owners or operators of commercial or industrial
facilities that combust non-hazardous secondary materials that are not
traditional fuels are directed to the CAA section 112 regulations for
boilers, and the CAA section 129 regulations for commercial and
industrial incinerators, to determine the recordkeeping provisions
related to the definition of solid waste that may apply to them. These
records and notifications under the CAA regulations provide assurance
that facilities will apply the legitimacy criteria, and that requiring
notification under this rule is not necessary.
F. Discarded Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Have Undergone
Processing To Produce Legitimate Fuel or Ingredient Products
1. Scope and Applicability
Fuel or ingredient products that result from the processing of
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials and that meet the
legitimacy criteria as discussed below are not solid wastes. Because
the resulting fuel/ingredient products are, in effect, reclaimed or
extracted products from a recycling process, EPA considers such
materials to be ``new'' products that have not been discarded and
therefore are not solid wastes. Until the non-hazardous secondary
materials have been processed into a non-waste fuel or ingredient
product meeting the legitimacy criteria, the discarded non-hazardous
secondary material are generally assumed to be solid wastes.
As discussed in the proposed rule, the basic principle that must be
satisfied is that the discarded non-hazardous secondary material must
undergo a sufficient level of processing that produces either a new
fuel or ingredient product (the definition of processing is codified in
Sec. 241.2). Specifically, processing includes, but is not limited to,
operations that: remove or destroy contaminants; significantly improves
the fuel characteristics of the material, e.g., sizing or drying the
material in combination with other operations, chemically improve the
as-fired energy content, or improve the ingredient characteristics. On
the other hand, processing operations that are minimal, such as
operations that result only in modifying the size of the non-hazardous
secondary material, would not constitute processing for purposes of
today's rule. In addition, the new product must have properties that
provide the end user the assurance that the fuel or ingredient product
consistently satisfies the legitimacy criteria based on the type of
combustion unit the non-hazardous secondary material is used in (e.g.,
as a fuel in a boiler or as an ingredient in a cement kiln).
The principle that products can be produced from a waste
is common to industrial processes and commercial recycling markets.
Newspaper and aluminum cans discarded by consumers are then collected,
sorted and processed into new recycled paper and aluminum products that
are not considered solid waste. Collected plastic is generally sent to
a reclaimer, who will sort, grind, and clean the plastic. The cleaned
and sorted plastic is sent to a manufacturer who will use it as
feedstock. These are clear examples where discarded materials are
processed into legitimate non-waste products.
Recycled fuel products are no different from recycled paper and
aluminum cans with respect to discard. If non-hazardous secondary
materials that are discarded by being abandoned, disposed of or thrown
away, but are later collected, segregated, and processed into a
homogenous fuel product that is marketed and sold as a valuable
commodity and is no different from traditional fuels used today, then
they should no longer be considered solid waste, just as recycled paper
is not a solid waste.
There are other examples beyond consumer recycled materials where
discarded secondary materials are processed into new products. These
examples include specific exclusions from the hazardous waste
regulations, which provide insight into how secondary materials can be
processed into valuable products. For instance, discarded spent
solvents are commonly recycled via distillation into legitimate, newly
usable solvents. These regenerated solvents are clearly considered to
be products, not wastes. See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985.
Another example is scrap tires retrieved from waste tire piles that
have been shredded/chipped into TDF with the wire removed. In this
instance, the scrap tires have been sufficiently processed and thus,
the TDF would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel. On
the other hand, scrap tires from waste tire piles that have been
shredded/chipped without the metal wire removed, would not be
considered to have been sufficiently processed, and any TDF that is
generated in such a fashion would be considered a waste-derived fuel.
For a full discussion of processing of scrap tires, see Section V.B.5,
which discusses the comments received on this issue, as well as EPA's
responses.
Coal refuse generated from legacy piles is another example of a
discarded material that has been processed into a fuel product,
although, as discussed in Section V.B.8, the nature of the material
results in a somewhat different processing scenario. Specifically, coal
refuse that has been discarded in waste piles is unique since it was a
material generated during the fuel production process and then thrown
away (discarded). Over time, combustion technology changes allowed this
raw material to be ``re-mined'' as raw material coal. The level of
processing that occurs for this ''re-mined'' coal refuse is no
different than the level of processing that occurs for raw material
coal today. In fact, this same material is generated in current-day
coal mining operations and processed into a fuel product today.
In that sense, we do not consider coal refuse to fit within what we
would normally consider to be a ``secondary material'' (i.e., material
that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or commercial
process), since the primary product of coal mining operations is in
fact fuel As a result, raw materials that are generated in the fuel
production process that have been discarded, but that are then
subsequently processed no differently from raw materials processed into
fuels today, would be considered to
[[Page 15538]]
undergo an adequate level of processing to render it a non-waste. This
would not apply to other discarded materials, such as scrap tires,
since they are truly secondary materials whose ultimate use as a fuel
is in fact ``secondary in nature.'' Off-spec used oil is another
example of a secondary material which we believe is discarded, but can
be processed into a non-waste product (see Section V.B.7). Once the
used oil is determined to be on-spec, we do not view it to be a solid
waste since it is no longer regulated under the used oil management
standards of 40 CFR part 279 and can be managed as an alternative fuel.
Synthesis gas (or syngas as it is commonly referred) produced from
the gasification of solid waste is another material that can also meet
the requirements of a fuel product produced from the processing of
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials, provided the syngas has
been adequately processed to remove contaminants. Gasification is a
chemical production process that converts carbonaceous material into a
synthesis gas that can be used for energy production (or as a building
block for other chemical manufacturing processes). In general,
gasification systems are designed to react carbon-containing materials
and steam at high temperatures to produce a synthesis gas composed
mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Gasification systems include two basic components. The first is the
reactor or gasifier and the second is a gas cleanup or polishing system
used to remove various contaminants from the raw (un-polished)
synthesis gas. At a minimum, syngas cleanup generally includes removal
of sulfur and metals. These two components work together producing a
synthesis gas that can be used as a fuel in a combustion turbine.
Coal fines, biomass, and other materials can be mixed and processed
into pellets (or other forms) that have the consistency and handling
characteristics of coal. For example, the K-Fuel process employs heat
and pressure to transform coal into a cleaner, more efficient fuel by
removing water and polluting impurities, thus increasing combustion
efficiency. When applied to different lower-rank sub-bituminous and
lignite coals, the K-Fuel process removes, on average, almost 70
percent of the coal's elemental mercury.\163\ As discussed in Section
V.B.2, manure that has been sufficiently processed (for example, by
anaerobic digesters) would also be considered a legitimate non-waste
fuel that has been processed from a non-hazardous secondary material
provided processed material meets the legitimacy criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Evergreen Energy Company Web site. http://www.evgenergy.com/k_fuel.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Restrictions and Requirements
a. Legitimate Use
Discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that are sufficiently
processed to produce legitimate fuel or ingredient products must still
pass the applicable legitimacy criteria to be considered a non-waste
fuel or ingredient product. To be considered a legitimate fuel, the
fuel product must meet the criteria identified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1),
while to be considered a legitimate ingredient, the ingredient product
must meet the criteria in Sec. 241.3(d)(2).
b. Notification
We are not requiring facilities that use discarded non-hazardous
secondary materials that are sufficiently processed to produce
legitimate fuel or ingredient products to notify EPA under this rule.
This notice would be duplicative of the notifications and recordkeeping
requirements being promulgated for boilers and process heaters at major
sources of air toxics. That is, the CAA section 112 rule requires
notifications and recordkeeping, including documentation as to how the
non-hazardous secondary material meets the legitimacy criteria, and
satisfies the definition of processing and/or the requirements for the
petition process. (40 CFR 63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping
requirements for area source boilers using non-hazardous secondary
materials as ingredients are also found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii)
under the CAA section 112 rule for area source boilers.
Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v) promulgated for
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators under CAA section
129 require basic recordkeeping to establish whether materials
combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the standards and
procedures for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that
are not solid wastes. Owners or operators of commercial or industrial
facilities that combust materials that are not traditional fuels are
directed to the CAA section 112 regulations for boilers, and the CAA
section 129 regulations for commercial and industrial incinerators, to
determine the recordkeeping provisions related to the definition of
solid waste that may apply to them. The Agency believes that these
records and notifications under the CAA regulations provide assurance
that facilities will apply the legitimacy criteria, and that requiring
notification under this rule is not necessary.
G. Non-Waste Determination Petitions
1. Description of the Petition Criteria for the Non-Waste Determination
The final rule establishes a non-waste determination petition
process that provides persons with an administrative process for
receiving a formal determination from the EPA Regional Administrator
that non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned as a fuel and
have not been managed within the control of the generator, have not
been discarded, and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a
fuel product is not a solid waste when used as a legitimate fuel in a
combustion unit. For example, a facility combusting non-hazardous
secondary materials that is not affiliated or within the control of the
generator of the non-hazardous secondary material (and thus is
``outside the control of the generator'') can petition EPA that such
non-hazardous secondary materials they burn as fuel is not a solid
waste pursuant to the various criteria.
This petition process is voluntary. That is, facilities may choose
to petition EPA to receive a case-specific non-waste determination.
However, any petition that is submitted to EPA that requests a non-
waste determination must demonstrate that the non-hazardous secondary
material has not been previously discarded and that it satisfies the
five criteria outlined in today's rule at Sec. 241.3(c). In addition,
the petitioner must also demonstrate that the non-hazardous secondary
material meets the legitimacy criteria in 241.3(d)(1).
To demonstrate that the non-hazardous secondary material that is to
be burned as a fuel has not been discarded in the first instance, the
petitioner would need to demonstrate that it was not initially
abandoned or thrown away by the generator of the non-hazardous
secondary material. After demonstrating that the non-hazardous
secondary material has not been discarded in the first instance, the
petitioner must then demonstrate that the material is indistinguishable
in all relevant aspects from a fuel product by showing that it
satisfies all of the following five criteria: (1) Whether market
participants handle the non-hazardous secondary material as a fuel
rather than a waste; (2) whether the chemical and physical identify of
the non-hazardous secondary material is comparable to a commercial
fuel; (3) whether the capacity of the market would use the non-
hazardous secondary
[[Page 15539]]
material in a reasonable time frame; (4) whether the constituents in
the non-hazardous secondary material are released to the air, water or
land from the point of generation to the point just prior to combustion
of the non-hazardous secondary material at levels comparable to what
would otherwise be released from traditional fuels; and (5) other
relevant factors. These five criteria are listed in today's rule at
Sec. 241.3(c)(1).
Specifically, the first criterion for a non-waste determination is
whether market participants treat the non-hazardous secondary material
as a fuel rather than a solid waste. This would include consideration
of likely markets for the non-hazardous secondary material (e.g., based
on the current positive value of the secondary material, stability of
demand, and any contractual arrangements). This evaluation of market
participation is a key element for determining whether companies view
these non-hazardous secondary materials like fuels rather than as
negatively-valued wastes.
The second criterion for a non-waste determination is the chemical
and physical identity of the non-hazardous secondary material and
whether it is comparable to commercial fuels. This ``identity
principle'' is a key factor that the Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit cited in Safe Food in determining whether a non-hazardous
secondary material is indistinguishable from a product. It is important
to note that the identity of a material can be comparable to a fuel
product without being identical. However, to qualify for a non-waste
determination, any differences between the non-hazardous secondary
material in question and the commercial fuel contaminants should be
within a small acceptable range. In addition, the comparison must be of
the secondary material itself to the commercial fuels and not of the
emissions from the combustion unit. The Agency also recognizes,
however, that emissions data may be used to augment data from the
material in cases where such emissions data is useful in making
legitimacy determinations and demonstrating that constituents in the
material are being used in energy recovery and not disposed of through
sham recycling.
The third criterion for making a non-waste determination is the
capacity of the market to use the non-hazardous secondary material as a
fuel in combustion units in a reasonable time frame and ensure that it
will not be abandoned. For the non-waste determination, a person must
provide sufficient information about the non-hazardous secondary
material and the market demand for it to demonstrate that such non-
hazardous secondary materials will in fact be used as a fuel in
combustion units in a reasonable time frame. EPA is not explicitly
defining ``reasonable time frame'' because such time frames could vary
according to the non-hazardous secondary material and the industry
involved, and therefore determining this time frame should be made on a
case-specific basis.
The fourth criterion for a non-waste determination is whether the
constituents in the non-hazardous secondary material fuels that could
be considered contaminants are at concentrations comparable to what
would otherwise be released from traditional fuels from the point of
generation of the non-hazardous secondary material, its management and
storage prior to combustion. The Agency believes that the release to
the environment of contaminants contained in the non-hazardous
secondary material is a possible indicator of risk and discard. The
Agency recognizes that combustion using traditional fuels also result
in a certain level of release and, in evaluating this criterion, would
not deny a non-waste determination if such release is comparable to
those traditional fuel releases. However, when relatively high levels
of the contaminants are released to the environment from the point of
generation to the point just prior to combustion then that may be an
indication that the non-hazardous secondary material is not being
handled as a commercial fuel.
The fifth and final criterion for a non-waste determination
includes any other relevant factors that demonstrate that the non-
hazardous secondary material is not discarded and thus is not a solid
waste. This catch-all criterion is intended to allow the petitioner to
provide any case-specific information considered important and relevant
in making the case that its non-hazardous secondary material used as a
fuel in a combustion unit is not a solid waste.
Any non-hazardous secondary material used as a fuel must also
satisfy the legitimacy criteria (Sec. 241.3(d)(1)) in order to be
considered a non-waste fuel. We note that there may be some overlap
between the legitimacy criteria and the five petition criteria
discussed above. Thus, the same rationale used to demonstrate that the
non-hazardous secondary material contains contaminants at levels
comparable to (or lower than) traditional fuels in combination with the
argument that such non-hazardous secondary material contains meaningful
heating value can be used to satisfy the petition criterion number two
above.
2. Non-Waste Determination Petition Process
In order to obtain a non-waste determination, a facility must apply
to the Regional Administrator for the EPA Region where the facility
combusting the non-hazardous secondary material is located per the
procedures described in today's rule at Sec. 241.3(c). The application
must address the relevant criteria discussed above. The Regional
Administrator will evaluate the application and issue a draft notice
tentatively granting or denying the application. Notification of this
tentative decision will be provided by newspaper advertisement or radio
broadcast in the locality where the combustion unit is located. The
Regional Administrator will accept public comment on the tentative
decision for at least 30 days, and may also hold a public hearing upon
request or at his discretion. The Regional Administrator will issue a
final decision after consideration of comments and after the hearing
(if any). The Regional Administrator may draw upon the states expertise
as discussed below.
After a formal non-waste determination has been granted, if a
change occurs that affects how the non-hazardous secondary material
meets the relevant criteria contained in today's rule at Sec.
241.3(c)(1), or affects its meeting the legitimacy criteria in Sec.
241.3(d)(1), persons must re-apply to the Regional Administrator for
another formal determination that the non-hazardous secondary material
continues to meet the relevant criteria and is not discarded and
therefore, not a solid waste. The same criteria and procedures
described above would be used for any re-application of the non-
hazardous secondary material.
As petition decisions are made by the Agency, they will be made
available on an Agency Web site so the petition can be referenced when
similar requests are submitted. This will support national consistency
and minimize redundant efforts.
3. Petition Decisions Utilizing State Environmental Agency Program's
Input
When analyzing a non-waste determination petition request, the EPA
Regional Administrator may request or rely on information generated
through a state's beneficial use program that certain non-hazardous
secondary materials are or are not solid waste. The state beneficial
use programs have been developed to encourage a variety of uses for
many non-hazardous secondary
[[Page 15540]]
materials. The process ensures that non-hazardous secondary materials
do not endanger human health and the environment, and that they are
managed in accordance with the conditions of the determination.
Generally, when a beneficial use determination has been granted (thus,
no longer considered a solid waste under a state's laws or
regulations), it would document that the chemical and physical
properties are similar to the raw material it is replacing or, when
incorporated into another product, would be beneficial to the final
product.
State Agencies may also submit a non-waste determination request on
behalf of the regulated applicant for EPA to evaluate under the non-
waste determination criteria in today's rule at Sec. 241.3(c)(1).
States may petition for a whole category of non-hazardous secondary
materials in their state for a particular type of combustor, or for
specific individual combustors.
H. Legitimacy Criteria
1. Legitimacy Criteria for Fuels
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as non-waste fuels in
combustion units must meet the legitimacy criteria specified in Sec.
241.3(d)(1). To meet the legitimacy criteria, the non-hazardous
secondary material must be managed as a valuable commodity, have a
meaningful heating value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit
that recovers energy, and contain contaminants at concentrations
comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional fuels which the
combustion unit is designed to burn.
In applying the legitimacy criteria, we would note that there are
two overall questions that the Agency needs to answer: (1) Whether or
not the non-hazardous secondary material is a fuel product or
ingredient product, or whether the material has been discarded and is
therefore a solid waste, which includes waste-derived fuels or
ingredients; and (2) whether the non-hazardous secondary material is
being legitimately and beneficially used or recycled.
With respect to the legitimacy question, EPA believes it important
and crucial to apply a set of legitimacy criteria to make sure that the
fuel product is being legitimately and beneficially used and not simply
being discarded via sham recycling. The definition of legitimate
recycling developed for the subtitle C hazardous secondary materials
carefully considered the history surrounding the uses of these
secondary materials, as well as the applicable case law with respect to
the meaning of discard. Likewise, those same principles are pertinent
to how a non-hazardous secondary material is determined not to be a
solid waste. Therefore, we are codifying general legitimacy criteria
that use the same basic framework that has been established for the
subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, but that are also tailored
specifically for application to non-hazardous secondary materials that
are used as fuels in combustion units. See 40 CFR 241.3(d) for the
proposed regulatory text of the legitimacy criteria and, for
comparison, see 40 CFR 260.43 in final regulations for the DSW
hazardous waste legitimacy provisions.
Specific legitimacy criteria for fuels are discussed below:
a. Manage as a Valuable Commodity
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels must be managed as
valuable commodities, including being stored for a reasonable time
frame. See Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(i). Where there is an analogous fuel, the
non-hazardous secondary material must be managed in a manner consistent
with the management of the analogous fuel or otherwise be adequately
contained so as to prevent releases to the environment. Where there is
no analogous fuel, the non-hazardous secondary material must be
adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment. An
``analogous fuel'' is a traditional fuel for which the non-hazardous
secondary material substitutes and which serves the same function and
has similar physical and chemical properties as the non-hazardous
secondary material.
With respect to how long a non-hazardous secondary material can be
stored before the material is not considered to be ``managed as a
valuable commodity,'' we are requiring that the non-hazardous secondary
material be stored for a reasonable time frame. While EPA took comment
on whether it should provide a specific time-frame (e.g., one-year) as
opposed to the general standard of ``reasonable time frame,'' based on
comments submitted, the Agency has decided not to specifically define
``reasonable time frame,'' primarily because such time frames could and
will vary according to the non-hazardous secondary material and
industry involved. (See Section V. D.1 for a discussion of the comments
received and EPA's response.)
This legitimacy factor applies to the non-hazardous secondary
materials burned under the generator-controlled exclusion, to
legitimate fuel products that have been produced from discarded non-
hazardous secondary materials that have been sufficiently processed to
produce a non-waste fuel, and to the non-hazardous secondary materials
used as fuel that have not been discarded when used outside control of
the generator (i.e., scrap tires under tire collection programs and
resinated wood residuals). For the generator-controlled provision and
for those non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as a fuel
that have not been discarded when used outside the control of the
generator (i.e., scrap tires under tire collection programs and
resinated wood residuals), the non-hazardous secondary material must be
managed as a valuable commodity upon generation through its end use as
a fuel--that is, from the initial point of generation of the non-
hazardous secondary material to the time it is actually burned as a
fuel. For discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that are
processed to produce a non-waste fuel, the fuel must be managed as a
valuable product from the point that it is first produced as a non-
waste fuel through the time that it is actually burned. As noted
previously, before the non-waste fuel product is produced from
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials, the non-hazardous
secondary material is a solid waste, and must comply with any federal,
state, or local requirements.
This criterion requires that the non-hazardous secondary material
be managed appropriately before its end use as a fuel. In EPA's view, a
company will value non-hazardous secondary materials used as non-waste
fuels that provide an important contribution and, therefore, will
manage those secondary materials in a manner consistent with how it
manages traditional fuels. If, on the other hand, a company does not
manage the non-hazardous secondary material as it would a traditional
fuel, that behavior may indicate that the non-hazardous secondary
material is being discarded.
This factor addresses the management of non-hazardous secondary
materials used as fuels in two distinct situations. The first situation
is when the non-hazardous secondary material is analogous to a
traditional fuel that otherwise could be burned. In this case, the non-
hazardous secondary material must be managed prior to use as a fuel in
a similar manner to how traditional fuels are managed or otherwise must
be ``contained'' so as to prevent releases to the environment. For
example, for liquid non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as
a non-waste fuel that are similar to liquid fossil fuels, the Agency
would expect that such non-hazardous secondary materials would be
managed in tanks or similar type devices that are structurally
[[Page 15541]]
sound to control the release of the non-hazardous secondary materials.
The Agency would also expect that the types of controls that would
typically be part of a tank or similar type device for liquid fossil
fuels would also be part of any tank system that is used to manage the
non-hazardous secondary material. For example, if liquid fossil fuels
are stored in tanks with covers or they provide for secondary
containment, the Agency would expect that the non-hazardous secondary
material would also be stored in tanks with covers, with secondary
containment so as to prevent releases to the environment.
The second situation addresses the case where there is no analogous
traditional fuel that otherwise could be burned. This could be either
because the process is designed around a particular non-hazardous
secondary material fuel, such as resinated wood residuals, or because
physical or chemical differences between the non-hazardous secondary
material and the traditional fuel are too significant for them to be
considered ``analogous.'' Non-hazardous secondary materials that have
significantly different physical or chemical properties when compared
to traditional fuels would not be considered analogous even if they
serve the same function because it may not be appropriate to manage
them in the same way. In this situation, the non-hazardous secondary
material would have to be ``contained'' so as to prevent releases to
the environment for this criterion to be met. A non-hazardous secondary
material is ``contained'' if it is stored in a manner that both
adequately prevents releases or other hazards to human health and the
environment, considering the nature and toxicity of the non-hazardous
secondary material.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Examples of materials that are adequately contained would
include liquid fuels stored in a tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Meaningful Heating Value and Use as a Fuel
Non-hazardous secondary materials must have a meaningful heating
value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy.
See Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(ii). That is, since this legitimacy criterion is
intended to apply only to non-hazardous secondary materials that have a
specific end use (in this case, use as a fuel in an energy recovery
device), we believe it appropriate to highlight that point by adding
that restriction directly to the legitimacy criterion. Thus, non-
hazardous secondary materials having a meaningful heating value must
also be burned in a combustion device specifically to recover energy;
otherwise the unit that combusts such secondary materials are
considered incinerators and thus, are solid wastes.\165\ We recognize
that incinerators and similar type units may accept non-hazardous
secondary materials with a meaningful heating value and use that fuel
value to limit the other types of fuels it needs to burn. However, the
intent of an incinerator, and similar type units, is to destroy wastes,
and thus, non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned in such
units are considered discarded, and thus, solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ We note that incinerators that burn waste for purposes of
destruction that have a waste heat recovery boiler would not be
considered a combustion unit that satisfies this legitimacy
criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the requirement that the non-hazardous secondary
material have a meaningful heating value, in the context of the RCRA
subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, EPA addressed this concept--
that is, whether a hazardous secondary material has a meaningful
heating value, in the ``comparable fuels'' rule (63 FR 33781) by
defining it with a benchmark Btu content of 5,000 Btu/lb. EPA has also
previously stated that industrial furnaces (e.g., cement kilns and
industrial boilers) burning hazardous wastes with an energy value
greater than 5,000 Btu/lb may generally be considered to be burning for
energy recovery; however, we have also indicated that hazardous wastes
with a lower Btu content could conceivably be burned for energy
recovery due to the devices' general efficiency of combustion. ``Thus,
the 5,000 Btu level is not an absolute bright line measure of burning
for energy recovery * * *'' (see 62 FR 24251, May 2, 1997).
These same concepts are also appropriate in determining whether a
non-hazardous secondary material has a meaningful heating value since
traditional fuels in general have a range of heating values from 4,000
to 23,000 Btu/lb. However, we also recognize that new technologies may
be developed in the future that can cost-effectively produce energy
from such non-hazardous secondary materials with lower energy content.
As a result, for purposes of meeting this legitimacy criterion, we
would consider non-hazardous secondary materials with an energy value
greater than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fired, to have a meaningful heating
value. In addition, for facilities with energy recovery units that use
a non-hazardous secondary material as a fuel with an energy content
lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fired, a person may demonstrate \166\ that
a meaningful heating value is derived from the non-hazardous secondary
material if the energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover
meaningful energy from the non-hazardous secondary material used as a
fuel. Factors that are important in determining whether an energy
recovery unit can cost-effectively recover energy from the non-
hazardous secondary material include, but are not limited to, whether
the facility encounters a cost savings due to not having to purchase
significant amounts of traditional fuels they otherwise would need,
whether they are purchasing the non-hazardous secondary material to use
as a fuel, whether the non-hazardous secondary material they are
burning can self-sustain combustion, and whether their operation
produces energy that is sold for a profit (e.g., a utility boiler that
is dedicated to burning a specific type of non-hazardous secondary
material that is below 5,000 Btu/lb, but can show that their operation
produces electricity that is sold for a profit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Such demonstration would be included in the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for boiler units combusting materials
considered to be non-wastes in accordance with 40 CFR 241.3 as
specified in 40 CFR 63.7530(a) and 63.7555. See Section VII.I in
today's rule for a further discussion of these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not specifically included in Sec. 241.3(d)(1), EPA views
this legitimacy criterion to encompass the concept of the ``useful
contribution and valuable product'' legitimacy factors used to evaluate
hazardous secondary materials in the 2008 DSW final rule. In that rule,
with respect to useful contribution, EPA said that legitimate recycling
must involve a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful
contribution to the recycling process or to a product of the recycling
process. See Sec. 260.43(b)(1). In today's final rule, this criterion
expresses the principle that non-hazardous secondary materials should
contribute value to the manufacturing process--legitimate use is not
occurring if the secondary materials being used do not add anything to
the process. This criterion is intended to prevent the practice of
using non-hazardous secondary materials in a manufacturing operation
simply as a means of disposing or discarding them.
With respect to the legitimacy criterion of producing a valuable
product or intermediate, the product or intermediate is valuable if it
is (i) sold to a third party or (ii) used by the recycler or the
generator as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an
ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process. See Sec.
260.43(b)(2). In today's final rule, this criterion
[[Page 15542]]
expresses the principle that the non-hazardous secondary material
should be a material of value, as demonstrated by someone purchasing
the material, or using it as an effective substitute for a commercial
product that it would otherwise have to buy or obtain for its
industrial process. We believe non-hazardous secondary materials that
have meaningful heating value that are used as non-waste fuels in
combustion units provide a useful contribution and are valuable
products since they are replacing traditional fuels that otherwise
would have to be burned.
c. Contaminant Levels
Today's rule includes a legitimacy criterion under which non-
hazardous secondary materials used as non-waste fuels in combustion
units must contain contaminants at levels that are comparable to (or
lower than) those in traditional fuel products which the combustion
unit is designed to burn (e.g., cellulosic biomass, fossil fuels and
their derivatives, as identified elsewhere in this preamble). See Sec.
241.3(d)(1)(iii). This criterion is important to ensure that a non-
hazardous secondary material being used as a fuel is not being
combusted or otherwise released to the environment wholly or in part
for the purpose of disposing of or discarding of unwanted materials.
The combustion of non-hazardous secondary materials with elevated
levels of contaminants results in the contaminants being discarded
either through incineration, or by being released to the environment.
We also believe that requiring that the non-hazardous secondary
material have contaminants at concentrations that are comparable to or
lower than traditional fuels would ensure that the burning of any non-
hazardous secondary material in combustion units will not result in
increased releases to the environment that could impact the health and
environment of the local community. Thus, ensuring that the level of
contaminants in the non-hazardous secondary material is comparable to
(or lower than) those in traditional fuels which the combustion unit is
designed to burn would be at least as protective of human health and
the environment as burning traditional fuels.
The Agency took comment on a criterion where such contaminants
could not be significantly higher in concentration than contaminants in
traditional fuels, as this is the standard that is in the 2008 DSW
Final Rule regarding the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials.
However, we have decided not to adopt that standard in this rule
because we are concerned that contaminants that are ``not significantly
higher'' in non-hazardous secondary materials could be seen as
``discarding'' such contaminants, even if the non-hazardous secondary
material, when combusted, did not present a risk to human health and
the environment. (See Section V.D.3 for a discussion of the comments
received and EPA's response regarding the level at which contaminants
should be present in such non-hazardous secondary materials.)
The term ``contaminants,'' as proposed, was defined to mean the HAP
listed under section 112(b) of the CAA, as well as the nine pollutants
required to be regulated under section 129(a)(4) of the CAA. We believe
that this was reasonable because this legitimacy criterion is intended
to ensure that such non-hazardous secondary materials are not being
combusted as a means of disposing of them, so the health and
environmental impacts of concern will be those resulting from the air
emissions of concern identified in the CAA, including the listed HAP,
as well as the section 129 pollutants. (See Section V.D.3 for a
discussion of the comments received and EPA's response regarding the
meaning of ``contaminants.'')
In determining which traditional fuel(s) the owner or operator of
the boiler unit would make a comparison to with respect to contaminant
levels, the Agency will allow any traditional fuel(s) that can be or is
burned in the particular type of boiler. For example, if the boiler
burns fuel oil, the level of contaminants to be compared would be the
level of contaminants in fuel oil or other liquid traditional fuels
that is or can be burned in such unit. For gas-fired boilers, the level
of contaminants in the non-hazardous secondary material fuels would be
compared to natural gas or other gaseous traditional fuels. The Agency
believes that this approach is most appropriate since the non-hazardous
secondary material would be replacing the use of a particular type(s)
of fuel. In addition, as discussed in the preamble to the boiler MACT,
boilers designed to combust different types of fuels (e.g., coal vs.
oil) cannot easily be modified to burn another fuel. Therefore we have
determined that any comparison of the contaminants in a non-hazardous
secondary material should be to the type(s) of fuel that are (or can
be) used in the boiler.
EPA is not establishing specific numerical maximum contaminant
levels that a non-hazardous secondary material would have to meet, but
rather the rule allows the owner or operator to make the comparison
based on information he has or can acquire regarding the level of
contaminants found in the traditional fuels he burns or could burn. The
assessment of whether the non-hazardous secondary material has
contaminants comparable to (or lower than) traditional fuel products is
to be made by directly comparing the numerical contaminant levels in
the non-hazardous secondary material to the contaminant levels in
traditional fuels.
The legitimacy criterion is tailored specifically to the use of
these non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels in combustion units.
As a result, we believe that contaminant levels in non-hazardous
secondary materials must be comparable in concentration to (or lower
than) those levels in traditional fuels to be legitimately used as a
non-waste fuel product. While the Agency did solicit comment on whether
or not it should establish a bright line level or establish a set of
levels in the final rule in defining comparable, the Agency has
concluded that establishing such levels would be difficult since the
level of any contaminant in a particular type of fossil fuel or other
traditional fuels can vary quite a bit. Thus, the Agency is defining
``comparable to or lower than'' to mean any contaminants present in the
non-hazardous secondary materials that are within a small acceptable
range of the concentrations found in traditional fuels. See Section
V.D.3 for a discussion of the comments received and EPA's response
regarding establishing specific levels in defining a comparable fuel.
2. Legitimacy Criteria for Ingredients
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients in combustion
units must meet the legitimacy criteria specified in 40 CFR
241.3(d)(2). As discussed for the legitimate fuels criteria, EPA
believes it important and crucial to apply a set of legitimacy criteria
to make sure that the ingredient products are being legitimately and
beneficially used and not simply being discarded via sham recycling.
Specifically, a non-hazardous secondary material used as an ingredient
in a combustion unit must be managed as a valuable commodity, provide a
useful contribution, be used to produce a valuable product or
intermediate, and must result in products that contain contaminants at
levels that are comparable in concentration to (or lower than) those
found in traditional products that are manufactured without the non-
hazardous secondary material. Our reasoning for establishing the
particular criteria is discussed below.
a. Managed as Valuable Commodities
Non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients must be
managed as
[[Page 15543]]
valuable commodities, including being stored for a reasonable time
frame. See Sec. 241.3(d)(2)(i). Where there is an analogous
ingredient, the non-hazardous secondary material must be managed in a
manner consistent with the management of the analogous ingredient or
otherwise be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the
environment. Where there is no analogous ingredient, the non-hazardous
secondary material must be adequately contained so as to prevent
releases to the environment. An ``analogous ingredient'' is an
ingredient for which the non-hazardous secondary material substitutes
and which serves the same function and has similar physical and
chemical properties as the non-hazardous secondary material.
With respect to how long a non-hazardous secondary material can be
stored before the material is not considered to be ``managed as a
valuable commodity,'' we are requiring that the non-hazardous secondary
material be stored for a reasonable time frame. While EPA took comment
on whether it should provide a specific time frame (e.g., one-year) as
opposed to the general standard of ``reasonable time frame,'' based on
comments submitted, the Agency has decided not to specifically define
``reasonable time frame,'' primarily because such time frames could and
will vary according to the non-hazardous secondary material and
industry involved. (See Section V.D.1 for a discussion of the comments
received and EPA's response.)
For discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that are processed
to produce a non-waste ingredient, the ingredient product must be
managed as a valuable product from the point that it is first produced
as a non-waste through its use in the combustion unit. As noted
previously, before the non-waste product is produced, the non-hazardous
secondary material is a solid waste, and must comply with any federal,
state, or local requirements.
This criterion requires that the non-hazardous secondary material
be managed appropriately before its end use as an ingredient. In EPA's
view, a company will value non-hazardous secondary materials used as
ingredients that provide an important contribution and, therefore, will
manage those non-hazardous secondary materials in a manner consistent
with how it manages traditional ingredients. If, on the other hand, a
company does not manage the non-hazardous secondary material as it
would traditional ingredients, that behavior may indicate that the non-
hazardous secondary material is being discarded.
This factor addresses the management of non-hazardous secondary
materials used as ingredients in two distinct situations. The first
situation is when the non-hazardous secondary material is analogous to
a traditional ingredient that otherwise could be burned. In this case,
the non-hazardous secondary material must be managed prior to use as an
ingredient in a similar manner to how traditional ingredients are
managed or otherwise must be ``contained'' so as to prevent releases to
the environment. For example, for liquid non-hazardous secondary
materials that are used as a non-waste ingredient that are similar to
traditional ingredients, the Agency would expect that such non-
hazardous secondary materials would be managed in tanks or similar type
devices that are structurally sound to control the release of the non-
hazardous secondary materials. The Agency would also expect that the
types of controls that would typically be part of a tank or similar
type device for traditional ingredients would also be part of any tank
system that is used to manage the non-hazardous secondary material. For
example, if traditional ingredients are stored in tanks with covers or
they provide for secondary containment, the Agency would expect that
the non-hazardous secondary material would also be stored in tanks with
covers, with secondary containment so as to prevent releases to the
environment.
The second situation addresses the case where there is no analogous
traditional ingredient that otherwise could be burned. This could be
either because the process is designed around a particular non-
hazardous secondary material ingredient, or because physical or
chemical differences between the non-hazardous secondary material and
the traditional ingredient are too significant for them to be
considered ``analogous.'' Non-hazardous secondary materials that have
significantly different physical or chemical properties when compared
to traditional ingredients would not be considered analogous even if
they serve the same function because it may not be appropriate to
manage them in the same way. In this situation, the non-hazardous
secondary material would have to be ``contained'' so as to prevent
releases to the environment for this criterion to be met. A non-
hazardous secondary material is ``contained'' if it is stored in a
manner that both adequately prevents releases or other hazards to human
health and the environment, considering the nature and toxicity of the
non-hazardous secondary material.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Examples of materials that are adequately contained would
include liquids stored in a tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Useful Contribution
We are requiring that non-hazardous secondary materials used as
ingredients in combustion units provide a useful contribution to the
production/manufacturing process. See Sec. 241.3(d)(2)(ii). A non-
hazardous secondary material used as an ingredient in combustion
systems provides a useful contribution if it contributes valuable
ingredients to the production/manufacturing process or to the product
or intermediate of the production/manufacturing process. This criterion
is an essential component in the determination of legitimacy because
legitimate use is not occurring if the non-hazardous secondary material
doesn't add anything to the process, such that the non-hazardous
secondary material is basically being disposed of or discarded. This
criterion is intended to prevent the practice of ``sham'' recycling by
adding non-hazardous secondary materials to a manufacturing operation
simply as a means of disposing of them.
For purposes of satisfying this criterion, not every constituent or
component of the non-hazardous secondary material has to make a
contribution to the production/manufacturing activity. For example,
non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients may contain some
constituents that are needed in the manufacturing process, such as, for
example, zinc in non-hazardous secondary materials that are used to
produce zinc-containing micronutrient fertilizers, while other
constituents in the non-hazardous secondary material, such as lead, do
not provide a useful contribution. Provided the zinc is at levels that
provides a useful contribution, we believe the non-hazardous secondary
material would satisfy this criterion, although we would note that the
constituents not directly contributing to the manufacturing process
could still result in the non-hazardous secondary material not meeting
the contaminant part of the legitimacy criteria. The Agency is not
quantitatively defining how much of the non-hazardous secondary
material needs to provide a useful contribution for this criterion to
be met, since we believe that defining such a level would be difficult
and is likely to be different, depending on the non-hazardous secondary
material. The Agency recognizes that this could be an issue if
[[Page 15544]]
persons argue that a non-hazardous secondary material is being
legitimately used as an ingredient, but in fact, only a small amount or
percentage of the non-hazardous secondary material is used. Because of
the differences in the emissions standards that the non-hazardous
secondary material would be subject to--between CAA sections 112 and
129, persons may argue that such non-hazardous secondary materials are
not wastes, when in fact, the operation is really discard, and
therefore, sham recycling. Thus, as part of the recordkeeping
requirements under the CAA, persons need to provide the basis or
rationale on why the particular non-hazardous secondary material meets
the legitimacy criteria, including how the secondary material provides
a useful contribution.
c. Valuable Product
We are requiring that non-hazardous secondary materials used as
ingredients in combustion units must be used to produce a valuable
product or intermediate. See Sec. 241.3(d)(2)(iii). The product or
intermediate is valuable if it is (i) sold to a third party or (ii)
used as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an
ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process.
This criterion expresses the principle that the product or
intermediate of the manufacturing/production process should be a
material of value, either to a third party who buys it from the
manufacturer, or to the same manufacturer that subsequently uses it as
a substitute for another material that it would otherwise have to buy
or obtain for its industrial process. This criterion is an essential
component of the concept of legitimacy because legitimate use cannot be
occurring if the product or intermediate is not of use to anyone and,
therefore, has no real value. This criterion is intended to prevent the
practice of introducing a non-hazardous secondary material through an
industrial process to make something just for the purpose of avoiding
the costs of disposal. Such a practice would be sham recycling.
One way that the use of the non-hazardous secondary material as an
ingredient in the production/manufacturing process can be shown to
produce a valuable product would be to have documentation on the sale
of the product to a third party. Such documentation could be in the
form of receipts or contracts and agreements that establish the terms
of the sale or transaction. This transaction could include money
changing hands or, in other circumstances, may involve trade or barter.
A manufacturer that has not yet arranged for the sale of its product to
a third party could also establish value by demonstrating that it can
replace another product or intermediate that is available in the
marketplace.
Production/manufacturing processes that use non-hazardous secondary
materials as ingredients may produce outputs that are not sold to
another party, but are instead used by the same manufacturer. These
products or intermediates may be used as a feedstock in a manufacturing
process, but have no established monetary value in the marketplace.
Such products or intermediates would be considered to have intrinsic
value, though demonstrating intrinsic value may be less straightforward
than demonstrating value for products that are sold in the marketplace.
Demonstrations of intrinsic value could involve showing that the
product or intermediate of the production/manufacturing process
replaces another material that would otherwise have to be purchased or
could involve a showing that the non-hazardous secondary material meets
specific product specifications or specific industry standards. Another
approach could be to compare the non-hazardous secondary material's
physical and chemical properties or efficacy for certain uses with
those of comparable products or intermediates made from raw materials.
Some production/manufacturing processes that use non-hazardous
secondary materials as ingredients may consist of multiple steps that
may occur at separate facilities. In some cases, each processing step
will yield a valuable product or intermediate. When each step in the
process yields a valuable product or intermediate that is salable or
usable in that form, the activity would conform to this criterion.
d. Contaminant Levels
We are requiring that non-hazardous secondary materials used as an
ingredient must result in products that contain contaminants at levels
that are comparable in concentration to (or lower than) those found in
traditional products that are manufactured without the non-hazardous
secondary material. See Sec. 241.3(d)(2)(iv). The term
``contaminants'' refers to constituents in non-hazardous secondary
materials that will result in emissions of the air pollutants
identified as HAP listed under CAA section 112(b), the nine pollutants
listed under CAA section 129(a)(4).
The assessment of whether the products produced from the use of
non-hazardous secondary materials that have contaminants that are
comparable to (or lower) in concentration can be made by a comparison
of contaminant levels in the ingredients themselves to the traditional
ingredients they are replacing, or by comparing the contaminant levels
in the product itself with and without the use of the non-hazardous
secondary material. In determining which traditional ingredient(s) the
owner or operator of the unit would make a comparison to with respect
to contaminant levels, the Agency believes that any traditional
ingredient that can be or is used in the particular type of unit is
appropriate. For example, for cement kilns, if the ingredient is CKD,
the level of contaminants to be compared would be the level of
contaminants in limestone or other ingredients that can be used in such
unit. Alternatively, a product comparison can be made. See Section V.E
for a further discussion of the comments received regarding the
legitimacy criteria for ingredients, as well as our responses to those
comments.
I. Determining That Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Meet the
Legitimacy Criteria
Owners and operators of affected facilities combusting non-
hazardous secondary materials that are not considered solid wastes must
ensure that the non-hazardous secondary materials meet the legitimacy
criteria in Sec. 241.3(d) (and continue to meet those criteria) when
combusted. Non-hazardous secondary materials that no longer meet these
legitimacy criteria would be considered solid wastes and the units
combusting those non-hazardous secondary materials would be considered
a commercial or industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit (see
40 CFR 60.2875).
The CAA section 112 rule requires notifications and recordkeeping,
including documentation as to how the non-hazardous secondary material
meets the legitimacy criteria, and satisfies the definition of
processing and/or the requirements for the petition process. (40 CFR
63.7530 and 63.7555). Specific recordkeeping requirements for area
source boilers combusting non-hazardous secondary materials are found
at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) under the CAA section 112 rule for area
source boilers. Additionally, regulations at 40 CFR 60.2175(v)
promulgated for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators
under CAA section 129 require basic recordkeeping to establish whether
materials combusted in a commercial or industrial unit meet the
standards and procedures for identification of non-hazardous
[[Page 15545]]
secondary materials that are not solid wastes. Owners or operators of
commercial or industrial facilities that combust materials that are not
traditional fuels are directed to the CAA section 112 regulations for
boilers and process heaters, and the CAA section 129 regulations for
commercial and industrial incinerators, to determine the recordkeeping
provisions related to the definition of solid waste that may apply to
them. The Agency believes that these records and notifications under
the CAA regulations provide assurance that facilities will apply the
legitimacy criteria.
VIII. Effect of Today's Final Rule on Other Programs
The construct of this rule is to determine which non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid wastes when combusted either as a fuel or
ingredient in order to determine CAA section 129 applicability. Thus,
this rules applicability is to the universe of combustion facilities
using non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels or ingredients.
A. Clean Air Act
The definition of solid waste incineration unit in CAA section
129(g)(6) states that the term ``solid waste'' will have the meaning
established by the Administrator of EPA under RCRA. Today's rule would
establish under RCRA which non-hazardous secondary materials constitute
``solid waste'' when used as a fuel or an ingredient. This definition
of ``solid waste'' is being used by EPA to establish CAA emissions
standards for CISWI units (under CAA section 129) and boilers and
process heaters (under CAA section 112). Any unit combusting ``solid
waste'' is subject to the emission standards for ``solid waste
incineration units'' under CAA section 129. The waste determinations in
this rule do not subject combustion units to the CAA section 129
standards if the units are exempt under CAA section 129(g)(1).\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ CAA 129 (g)(1).
``(1) * * * The term ``solid waste incineration unit'' does not
include
(A) materials recovery facilities (including primary or
secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of
recovering metals,
(B) qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in
section 796 (17)(C) of title 16, or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 796 (18)(B) of title 16, which
burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil,
but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of
electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities
which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used
for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or
(C) air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators
only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such
air curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be
established by the Administrator by rule. * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Renewable Energy
This rule may impact how some non-hazardous secondary materials
could be used to help supply renewable energy to the U.S. and through
state programs. Congress has passed several laws, such as the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140), that supports
the development and use of renewable sources of energy, both for power
generation and for the production of transportation fuels. Qualified
sources would include wind, solar, and geothermal power, but could also
include power generated by the combustion of biogenic materials, which
may include some non-hazardous secondary materials burned for energy
recovery. Biogenic materials are materials that result from the
activity of living organisms. A number of non-hazardous secondary
materials are partially or completely biogenic. For example, woody
biomass contains recoverable energy and would be considered biogenic in
origin. Energy from biogenic sources is generally preferable to fossil
fuels.
In addition to these federal programs that may be impacted,
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) currently provide states with a
mechanism to increase renewable energy generation using renewable
energy sources (including biofuels) and a cost-effective, market-based
approach. An RPS requires electric utilities and other retail electric
providers to supply a specified minimum amount of customer load with
electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. The goal of an RPS
is to stimulate market and technology development so that, ultimately,
renewable energy will be economically competitive with conventional
forms of electric power. States create RPS programs because of the
energy, environmental, and economic benefits of renewable energy and
sometimes other clean energy approaches, such as energy efficiency and
combined heat and power.
If these renewable energy sources or biogenic fuels qualify as
clean cellulosic biomass, they are an alternative fuel (see the full
definition in today's rule at Sec. 241.2) and are not subject to the
section 129 CAA standards, but rather, would be subject to the section
112 CAA standards.
C. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program
The result of this rule will have no effect on the RCRA subtitle C
hazardous waste program because it does not address hazardous waste.
The RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste federal program has a long
regulatory history in defining ``solid waste'' for purposes of the
hazardous waste regulations. However, the 40 CFR 261.2 definition of
solid waste explicitly applies only to wastes that also are hazardous
for purposes of the subtitle C regulations (see 40 CFR 261.1(b)(1)).
CAA section 129 also specifically excludes subtitle C combustion units
from coverage under that section.
RCRA section 7003 gives EPA the authority to compel actions to
abate conditions that may present an ``imminent and substantial
endangerment'' involving both solid and hazardous wastes. EPA uses this
authority on a case-by-case basis. The Agency can determine in a
specific factual context whether a non-hazardous secondary material
which causes an endangerment is discarded. RCRA sections 3007 and 3008
establish EPA's inspection and Federal enforcement authority to address
violations of the subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. Nothing in
this rule shall impact EPA's ability to act pursuant to RCRA sections
3007, 3008 and 7003. The rule also does not limit or otherwise affect
EPA's ability to pursue potentially responsible persons under section
107 of CERCLA for releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances.
Finally, we would note that on October 30, 2008, EPA issued a final
rule excluding certain hazardous secondary materials from the
definition of solid waste issued under the hazardous waste provisions
found in RCRA subtitle C (73 FR 64688). EPA is currently re-examining
these exclusions, and as part of a settlement agreement with Sierra
Club, EPA will issue a proposed rule by June 2011. This proposal will
address, at minimum, issues raised in an administrative petition filed
by the Sierra Club, including the four issues discussed in a public
meeting, which was announced in a Federal Register notice (74 FR 25200,
May 27, 2009). The four issues are (1) the definition of ``contained,''
(2) notification before operating under the exclusion (3) the
definition of ``legitimacy'' and (4) the transfer-based exclusion. Many
of the issues to be addressed in the upcoming subtitle C definition of
solid waste proposal are similar to the issues addressed in today's
final rule. However, there are
[[Page 15546]]
significant differences between today's final rule and the scope of the
planned June 2011 subtitle C definition of solid waste proposal. The
planned proposal will only address the regulation of hazardous
secondary materials (not non-hazardous secondary materials) going to
reclamation (not burning for energy recovery) under RCRA subtitle C
(not subtitle D). In developing the planned subtitle C proposal, EPA
will carefully consider the difference in scope between the two
rulemakings and address it as appropriate.
IX. State Authority
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a framework for state, federal, and
local government cooperation in controlling the management of non-
hazardous solid waste. The federal role in this arrangement is to
establish the overall regulatory direction, by providing minimum
nationwide standards for protecting human health and the environment,
and to provide technical assistance to states for planning and
developing their own solid waste management practices. The actual
planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs under RCRA
subtitle D, however, remains largely a state and local function, and
states have authority to devise programs to deal with state specific
conditions and needs.
EPA has not promulgated detailed regulations of what is included in
the definition of solid waste for the RCRA subtitle D (non-hazardous
waste) programs. State environmental agencies have promulgated their
own laws and regulations as to what constitutes a solid waste and have
interpreted those laws and regulations to determine what types of non-
hazardous secondary material activities involve the management of a
solid waste for the purposes of their authorities. Many states have a
process or promulgated regulations to determine when these materials
are wastes, and when they can be used beneficially and safely in
products in commerce.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is articulating a definition of which
non-hazardous secondary materials are or are not solid waste when used
as a fuel for energy recovery in combustion units or as an ingredient
in combustion units. We are not imposing solid waste requirements for
determining other possible secondary material end uses nor does this
rulemaking apply to general materials management in state programs.
A. Applicability of State Solid Waste Definitions and Beneficial Use
Determinations
CAA section 129 states that the term ``solid waste'' shall have the
meaning ``established by the Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act'' Id. at 7429(g)(6). Accordingly, the states' definition
of solid waste would not be applicable in determining whether the CAA
section 129 standards apply. Specifically, state determinations
regarding a material's beneficial use that may exempt a non-hazardous
secondary material from the state solid waste standards would not
necessarily impact the status of such non-hazardous secondary materials
under EPA's solid waste definition as it relates to which combustion
units are subject to the CAA section 129 standards. Likewise,
combustion units that use non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels or
ingredients that are not solid waste under today's rule would not be
subject to the solid waste incineration standards under CAA section
129, even though the state standards may define the same material as
solid wastes for their recycling and waste management programs.
If a non-waste determination is sought by petition at a combustion
unit, the Agency (EPA Regional Administrator or delegate) will make the
decision to grant or deny the petition. The Agency can, however,
utilize the information and contaminant data from state beneficial use
determinations if it is applicable to the non-hazardous secondary
material when used as a fuel or as an ingredient. These state
beneficial use programs have been developed to encourage recycling and
reuse, provided that such use maintains the specified state's
acceptable level of risk and are managed in accordance with the
conditions of the determination. Generally, when a beneficial use
determination has been granted, it would have chemical and physical
properties that are comparable to the raw material it is replacing or,
when incorporated into another product, its use would be beneficial to
the final product. If the data to support the beneficial use
determination was available, it could help support the research on
contaminant concentrations for the legitimacy criteria in order to make
the petition decision.
A discussion on state program involvement in the petition process
and on states submitting petitions in lieu of a regulated applicant is
described in Section V.F. Implementation and enforcement issues related
to state programs are covered in Section VII.I.
B. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
No federal approval procedures for state adoption of today's rule
are included in this rule under RCRA subtitle D. Although EPA does
promulgate criteria for solid waste landfills and approves state
municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs, RCRA does not
provide EPA with authority to approve state programs beyond municipal
solid waste landfill permitting programs. While states are not required
to adopt today's rule, some states incorporate federal regulations by
reference or have specific state statutory requirements that their
state program can be no more stringent than the federal regulations. In
those cases, EPA anticipates that, if required by state law, the
changes in today's rule will be incorporated (or possibly adopted by
authorized state air programs) consistent with the state's laws and
administrative procedures.
C. Clarifications on the Relationship to State Programs
State Agencies that responded to the proposal requested further
clarification in the final rule. Specifically, the Federal rule applies
only to the RCRA subtitle D definition of solid waste for determining
use as a fuel or ingredient in combustion units (as regulated by the
CAA). Today's rule does not preempt a State's statutory or regulatory
definition of solid waste, and only applies for purposes of determining
which facilities must comply with the CAA section 129 standards.
Non-hazardous secondary materials may be simultaneously regulated
as a non-waste fuel or ingredient for use in combustion units under
Sec. 241.3, but as a solid waste by the State's solid waste programs
for management purposes. Also, see the discussion in the beginning of
this Section (IX. State Authority). Combustors using non-hazardous
secondary materials that are designated as a non-waste when used as a
fuel or ingredient, would not be subject to the CAA section 129
standards, even though the state standards may define the non-hazardous
secondary material as a solid waste.
Finally, owners and operators of affected facilities combusting
non-hazardous secondary materials considered to be non-wastes based on
the non-waste determination petition process, and the application of
the criteria outlined in Sec. 241.3(c) must ensure that the non-
hazardous secondary materials continue to meet those provisions when
combusted. Non-hazardous secondary materials that no longer meet those
criteria, even though
[[Page 15547]]
they may be in compliance with state recycling and management
requirements, would require the combustor to re-apply for the non-waste
determination (per Sec. 241.3(c)(2)(iv)) through the EPA Regional
Administrator (otherwise they would be considered solid wastes and the
units combusting those non-hazardous secondary materials would be
subject to the commercial or industrial solid waste incineration
(CISWI) regulations (see 40 CFR 60.2875)).
X. Cost and Benefits of the Final Rule
The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the
net change in social welfare that it generates. This final rule alone
does not directly invoke any costs \169\ or benefits. This rule is
published as part of a four-rule package that includes the Boiler MACT
and CISWI rules.\170\ Costs to the regulated community and
corresponding benefits to human health and the environment are captured
under those rules. As such, the Agency has not prepared a separate
economic assessment in support of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Excluding minor administrative burden/cost (e.g., rule
familiarization) and costs related to submitting a voluntary
petition.
\170\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs and benefits indirectly associated with this action are
the corresponding impacts assessed in the regulatory impact analyses
prepared in support of the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules. These
independent regulatory impact analyses measure, among other factors,
the estimated net change in social welfare associated with these
actions. In the development of these analyses, EPA worked to ensure
that the methodologies and data applied in these assessments captured
appropriate RCRA related costs (e.g., secondary material diversions).
These assessments were designed to adhere to EPA and Office of
Management and Budget guidelines and procedures. These documents are
available in the docket established for this action.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Improving Regulatory Planning and
Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is a
``significant regulatory action.'' Pursuant to the terms of the Orders,
the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action
because it contains novel policy issues, as defined under part 3(f)(4)
of EO 12866. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
This rule establishes a voluntary non-waste determination petition
process for non-hazardous secondary materials identified as solid
wastes. Facilities claiming this solid waste exclusion are required to
seek approval from the Agency through the submission of a petition
prior to operating under this exclusion. Sufficient information about
the non-hazardous secondary material and the market demand for this
material will be necessary to demonstrate that the non-hazardous
secondary material in fact has not been discarded and is a legitimate
non-waste fuel or ingredient in the combustion process. Specifically,
the petition will need to contain information to assess the following
criteria: (1) Whether market participants handle the non-hazardous
secondary material as a fuel rather than a waste; (2) whether the
chemical and physical identities of the non-hazardous secondary
material is comparable to a commercial fuel; (3) whether the capacity
of the market would use the non-hazardous secondary material in a
reasonable time frame; (4) whether the constituents in the non-
hazardous secondary material are not discarded to the air, water or
land from the point of generation to the point just prior to combustion
of the non-hazardous secondary material at levels comparable to what
would otherwise be released from traditional fuels; and (5) other
relevant factors.
The facility-level burden associated with this voluntary petition
option is estimated to have an average total burden of each non-waste
determination petition of approximately 149 hours per facility, with a
total cost per facility of approximately $10,100. The total number of
facilities likely to take advantage of this option is undetermined, but
we would expect that only a limited number of facilities may submit
such a petition. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. EPA is amending the table in
40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control numbers for various
regulations to list the regulatory citations for the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated, and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small
entities are directly regulated by this final rule (see discussion
above under costs and benefits). Any potential impacts to small
entities in these or any other potentially affected sectors are
addressed in the regulatory flexibility analyses prepared in support of
the CAA rules that are linked to this action.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a
[[Page 15548]]
substantial number of small entities, EPA, nonetheless, has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities through the careful
and targeted identification of which non-hazardous secondary materials
are solid wastes. In addition, we have established a voluntary petition
process that allows for material-specific non-waste determinations.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Because this action is linked to the CAA rules, this rule alone will
not result in significant economic impacts on States, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As described above,
this action alone does not result in unique effects, or significant
economic impacts.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule, independent of the
CAA rules, will not result in substantial direct effects on the states.
Furthermore, this rule will not preempt state laws related to the
affected non-hazardous secondary materials. States will remain free to
manage these non-hazardous secondary materials, as appropriate under
their existing regulatory programs, including their solid waste
programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal
governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary
impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. The rule may have minor
indirect tribal implications to the extent that entities generating or
burning solid wastes on tribal lands could be affected in response to
the corresponding CAA rules.\172\ EPA consulted with tribal officials
early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to
have meaningful and timely input into its development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in support documents prepared for the CAA
section 129 CISWI and section 112 Boiler MACT rules.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Usage
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action, independent of the CAA
rules,\173\ is not expected to directly affect energy use or use
patterns. The purpose of this rule is to determine which non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid waste when combusted. On its own, this
rule will not lead to direct changes in the ability of facilities to
use non-hazardous secondary materials as a source of energy. However,
the Agency acknowledges that interactions between this rule and the
section 112 and section 129 CAA emission standards rules being
promulgated today may affect the use of non-hazardous secondary
materials as a source of energy. We refer persons to the dockets for
those rules for information on these energy impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
[[Page 15549]]
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. The four-rule package
that consists of this rule plus the three CAA rules \174\ will
generally result in an improved level of environmental protection. No
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population is expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters;
and, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and
Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the four rules are fully interdependent, isolating the
environmental justice impacts of each of the four rules individually
may result in a distorted assessment. For example, the emissions
standards established in the three air rules depend on which non-
hazardous secondary materials are considered solid wastes. As a result,
any changes in the way that combustion units manage non hazardous
secondary materials (i.e. switching to an alternative fuel) will depend
upon the costs of implementing the various emissions standards.
Furthermore, the demographic characteristics of areas experiencing
changes in environmental effects will determine whether the rules
result in adverse and disproportionate impacts to low-income and
minority populations.
We have developed a broad environmental justice assessment, looking
at the four rules together, that accounts for the combined impacts on
minority and low income communities. Any environmental justice impacts
that may result from these four interdependent rules are likely to
include one or more of the following: (1) Changes in emissions from
regulated combustion units, (2) changes in emissions from the potential
diversion of non hazardous secondary materials away from combustion
units to alternative recycling or landfills, and, (3) other impacts
related to material diversion (e.g., noise, aesthetics, water
pollution, etc.). Based on our assessment of the emissions changes and
other environmental impacts of the rules, and the demographics of
populations near affected combustion units and waste management
facilities, our main conclusions with respect to the environmental
justice impacts of the four rules indicate the following:
1. Emissions changes from affected combustion units are unlikely to
lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority
populations. Following implementation of the CISWI, Boiler MACT, and
Area Source rules, emissions from affected facilities are likely to
decline. As a result, populations near these facilities, overall, are
likely to experience positive impacts (e.g., reduced incidence of
adverse health effects). The demographic data for the Census blocks
near the Boiler MACT and CISWI facilities \175\ suggest that the
percentages of low-income and minority populations are generally higher
than the national average in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ The CISWI facility list contains combustors projected to
combust waste after the rules are finalized (some were not regulated
as CISWIs prior to these rules). The demographic assessment does not
include area source facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Low-income and minority populations located near non combustion
waste management facilities (e.g., recyclers, landfills) are higher,
proportionally, than the national average. Our analysis of the
demographic characteristics of populations living within three miles of
these facilities suggests that they are located in areas with high low-
income and minority populations. Therefore, to the extent that non
hazardous secondary materials diverted to alternative recycling or
landfills may lead to adverse environmental impacts, low-income and
minority populations could be adversely affected. However, we believe
that any such increases would be negligible relative to the reductions
achieved due to the Boiler MACT and CISWI controls. Furthermore,
considering the low quantity of materials potentially diverted,\176\
the extent of any negative impacts is expected to be minimal, and will
likely vary significantly by material and facility type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Review of Costs, Benefits, Economic Impacts, Environmental
Justice, and Other Impacts for the Following Interrelated Proposed
Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and
Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units; RIN 2060-AO12, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; RIN 2060-AM44, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources:
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters; RIN 2060-AG69, Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Solid Waste RIN 2050-AG44. April 29, 2010. (See
Exhibit 14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive discussion of these findings is presented in the
document: ``Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts for the Non-
Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) Rule, the 2010 Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards, the 2010 Major
Source Boiler NESHAP, and the 2010 Area Source Boiler NESHAP.'' This
document is available in the Docket established for today's action.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on May 20, 2011.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 241
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Waste treatment
and disposal.
Dated: February 21, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended by adding part 241 to read as
follows:
PART 241--SOLID WASTES USED AS FUELS OR INGREDIENTS IN COMBUSTION
UNITS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
241.1 Purpose.
241.2 Definitions.
Subpart B--Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or Ingredients In Combustion Units
Sec.
241.3 Standards and procedures for identification of non-hazardous
secondary materials that are solid wastes when used as fuels or
ingredients in combustion units.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 241.1 Purpose.
This part identifies the requirements and procedures for the
identification of
[[Page 15550]]
solid wastes used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units under
section 1004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and section
129 of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 241.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart:
Clean cellulosic biomass means those residuals that are akin to
traditional cellulosic biomass such as forest-derived biomass (e.g.,
green wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust,
trim, and tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill
materials), corn stover and other biomass crops used specifically for
energy production (e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses),
bagasse and other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected
from forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in
disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing operations, and clean
construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not secondary
materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean biomass is biomass
that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally
associated with virgin biomass materials.
Contaminants means any constituent in non-hazardous secondary
materials that will result in emissions of the air pollutants
identified in Clean Air Act section 112(b) or the nine pollutants
listed under Clean Air Act section 129(a)(4)) when such non-hazardous
secondary materials are burned as a fuel or used as an ingredient,
including those constituents that could generate products of incomplete
combustion.
Contained means the non-hazardous secondary material is stored in a
manner that adequately prevents releases or other hazards to human
health and the environment considering the nature and toxicity of the
non-hazardous secondary material.
Control means the power to direct the policies of the facility,
whether by the ownership of stock, voting rights, or otherwise, except
that contractors who operate facilities on behalf of a different person
as defined in this section shall not be deemed to ``control'' such
facilities.
Established tire collection program means a comprehensive
collection system that ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are
handled as valuable commodities in accordance with section
241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal from the vehicle through
arrival at the combustion facility.
Generating facility means all contiguous property owned, leased, or
otherwise controlled by the non-hazardous secondary material generator.
Ingredient means a non-hazardous secondary material that is a
component in a compound, process or product.
Non-hazardous secondary material means a secondary material that,
when discarded, would not be identified as a hazardous waste under Part
261 of this chapter.
Person is defined as an individual, trust, firm, joint stock
company, Federal agency, corporation (including government
corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality,
commission, political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body.
Processing means any operations that transform discarded non-
hazardous secondary material into a non-waste fuel or non-waste
ingredient product. Processing includes, but is not limited to,
operations necessary to: Remove or destroy contaminants; significantly
improve the fuel characteristics of the material, e.g., sizing or
drying the material in combination with other operations; chemically
improve the as-fired energy content; or improve the ingredient
characteristics. Minimal operations that result only in modifying the
size of the material by shredding do not constitute processing for
purposes of this definition.
Resinated wood means wood products (containing resin adhesives)
derived from primary and secondary wood products manufacturing and
comprised of such items as board trim, sander dust, and panel trim.
Secondary material means any material that is not the primary
product of a manufacturing or commercial process, and can include post-
consumer material, off-specification commercial chemical products or
manufacturing chemical intermediates, post-industrial material, and
scrap.
Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2.
Traditional fuels means materials that are produced as fuels and
are unused products that have not been discarded and therefore, are not
solid wastes, including: (1) Fuels that have been historically managed
as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials,
including fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil and natural gas), their
derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil,
refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace
gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas) and cellulosic
biomass (virgin wood); and (2) alternative fuels developed from virgin
materials that can now be used as fuel products, including used oil
which meets the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 279.11, currently
mined coal refuse that previously had not been usable as coal, and
clean cellulosic biomass. These fuels are not secondary materials or
solid wastes unless discarded.
Within control of the generator means that the non-hazardous
secondary material is generated and burned in combustion units at the
generating facility; or that such material is generated and burned in
combustion units at different facilities, provided the facility
combusting the non-hazardous secondary material is controlled by the
generator; or both the generating facility and the facility combusting
the non-hazardous secondary material are under the control of the same
person as defined in this section.
Subpart B--Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That
Are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion
Units
Sec. 241.3 Standards and procedures for identification of non-
hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes when used as fuels
or ingredients in combustion units.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, non-
hazardous secondary materials that are combusted are solid wastes,
unless a petition is submitted to, and a determination granted by, the
Regional Administrator pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. The
criteria to be addressed in the petition, as well as the process for
making the non-waste determination, are specified in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) The following non-hazardous secondary materials are not solid
wastes when combusted:
(1) Non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel in a
combustion unit that remain within the control of the generator and
that meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.
(2) The following non-hazardous secondary materials that have not
been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section when used in a combustion unit (by the generator
or outside the control of the generator):
(i) Scrap tires used in a combustion unit that are removed from
vehicles and managed under the oversight of established tire collection
programs.
(ii) Resinated wood used in a combustion unit.
(3) Non-hazardous secondary materials used as an ingredient in a
combustion unit that meet the legitimacy criteria specified in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(4) Fuel or ingredient products that are used in a combustion unit,
and are produced from the processing of
[[Page 15551]]
discarded non-hazardous secondary materials and that meet the
legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, with
respect to fuels, and paragraph (d)(2) of this section, with respect to
ingredients. The legitimacy criteria apply after the non-hazardous
secondary material is processed to produce a fuel or ingredient
product. Until the discarded non-hazardous secondary material is
processed to produce a non-waste fuel or ingredient, the discarded non-
hazardous secondary material is considered a solid waste and would be
subject to all appropriate federal, state, and local requirements.
(c) The Regional Administrator may grant a non-waste determination
that a non-hazardous secondary material that is used as a fuel, which
is not managed within the control of the generator, is not discarded
and is not a solid waste when combusted. The criteria and process for
making such non-waste determinations includes the following:
(1) Submittal of an application to the Regional Administrator for
the EPA Region where the facility combusting the non-hazardous
secondary material is located for a determination that the non-
hazardous secondary material, even though it has been transferred to a
third party, has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all
relevant aspects from a product fuel. The determination will be based
on whether the non-hazardous secondary material that has been
discarded, is a legitimate fuel as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section and on the following criteria:
(i) Whether market participants treat the non-hazardous secondary
material as a product rather than as a solid waste;
(ii) Whether the chemical and physical identity of the non-
hazardous secondary material is comparable to commercial fuels;
(iii) Whether the non-hazardous secondary material will be used in
a reasonable time frame given the state of the market;
(iv) Whether the constituents in the non-hazardous secondary
material are released to the air, water or land from the point of
generation to the point just prior to combustion of the secondary
material at levels comparable to what would otherwise be released from
traditional fuels; and
(v) Other relevant factors.
(2) The Regional Administrator will evaluate the application
pursuant to the following procedures:
(i) The applicant must submit an application for the non-waste
determination addressing the legitimacy criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section and the relevant criteria in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through
(v) of this section. In addition, the applicant must also show that the
non-hazardous secondary material has not been discarded in the first
instance.
(ii) The Regional Administrator will evaluate the application and
issue a draft notice tentatively granting or denying the application.
Notification of this tentative decision will be published in a
newspaper advertisement or radio broadcast in the locality where the
facility combusting the non-hazardous secondary material is located,
and be made available on EPA's Web site.
(iii) The Regional Administrator will accept public comments on the
tentative decision for at least 30 days, and may also hold a public
hearing upon request or at his discretion. The Regional Administrator
will issue a final decision after receipt of comments and after the
hearing (if any).
(iv) If a change occurs that affects how a non-hazardous secondary
material meets the relevant criteria contained in this paragraph after
a formal non-waste determination has been granted, the applicant must
re-apply to the Regional Administrator for a formal determination that
the non-hazardous secondary material continues to meet the relevant
criteria and, thus is not a solid waste.
(d) Legitimacy criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials.
(1) Legitimacy criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials used
as a fuel in combustion units include the following:
(i) The non-hazardous secondary material must be managed as a
valuable commodity based on the following factors:
(A) The storage of the non-hazardous secondary material prior to
use must not exceed reasonable time frames;
(B) Where there is an analogous fuel, the non-hazardous secondary
material must be managed in a manner consistent with the analogous fuel
or otherwise be adequately contained to prevent releases to the
environment;
(C) If there is no analogous fuel, the non-hazardous secondary
material must be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the
environment;
(ii) The non-hazardous secondary material must have a meaningful
heating value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers
energy.
(iii) The non-hazardous secondary material must contain
contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower than
those in traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to
burn. Such comparison is to be based on a direct comparison of the
contaminant levels in the non-hazardous secondary material to the
traditional fuel itself.
(2) Legitimacy criteria for non-hazardous secondary materials used
as an ingredient in combustion units include the following:
(i) The non-hazardous secondary material must be managed as a
valuable commodity based on the following factors:
(A) The storage of the non-hazardous secondary material prior to
use must not exceed reasonable time frames;
(B) Where there is an analogous ingredient, the non-hazardous
secondary material must be managed in a manner consistent with the
analogous ingredient or otherwise be adequately contained to prevent
releases to the environment;
(C) If there is no analogous ingredient, the non-hazardous
secondary material must be adequately contained to prevent releases to
the environment;
(ii) The non-hazardous secondary material must provide a useful
contribution to the production or manufacturing process. The non-
hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution if it
contributes a valuable ingredient to the product or intermediate or is
an effective substitute for a commercial product.
(iii) The non-hazardous secondary material must be used to produce
a valuable product or intermediate. The product or intermediate is
valuable if:
(A) The non-hazardous secondary material is sold to a third party,
or
(B) The non-hazardous secondary material is used as an effective
substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate
in an industrial process.
(iv) The non-hazardous secondary material must result in products
that contain contaminants at levels that are comparable in
concentration to or lower than those found in traditional products that
are manufactured without the non-hazardous secondary material.
[FR Doc. 2011-4492 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P