conducting training, and providing a written certification. These
conditions are designed to ensure that the resulting C&D wood is a non-
waste product fuel.
    Comment: The EPA's March 21, 2011 document ``Identification of non-
hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste'' states that when
C&D is sorted, painted wood is removed. This is misleading and is not
the case. Painted and contaminated wood is routinely burned as
evidenced by an interview at a processing facility where the plant
manager stated that the ``positive pick'' process did not remove
painted wood from the line and by a photograph of the same facility's
processed C&D wood containing painted wood. In addition, another
processing facility whose product fuel is reported to consist of forest
industry waste, shredded construction wood waste, and demolition debris
also contains significant amounts of paper, plastic, and foreign
debris.
    Response: The commenter misconstrues the Agency's discussion of
processed C&D wood in the final rule at 76 FR 15485, March 21, 2011.
When describing how contaminated C&D wood can become a non-waste
product fuel, the Agency stated that ``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.'' Nothing in this statement specifically says that
painted wood is removed through the sorting process. Furthermore, the
Agency notes that not all painted wood is lead-based and thus, does not
present the same contaminant concerns.
    The Agency is concerned however, that lead painted wood and fines
containing lead can contribute to elevated levels of lead in processed
C&D wood. Thus, the Agency proposed and has finalized in this rule
certain best management practices designed to eliminate sources of lead
in processed C&D wood. C&D processors have options for excluding
(positive sorting) or removing (negative sorting) sources of lead:
Excluding or removing all painted wood from the incoming material,
using X-ray Fluorescence to detect and exclude or remove lead-painted
wood from the product fuel, or requiring documentation that a building
has been tested for and does not include lead-based paint before
accepting the demolition debris. In addition, negative sorting
facilities must also remove fines during processing.
    The Agency also agrees that other types of treated wood are often
present in C&D debris. To address potentially elevated levels of other
contaminants in treated wood, the Agency had proposed and has finalized
in this rule best management practices to designed to eliminate
specific types of treated wood from processed C&D wood. The best
management practices require exclusion or removal of wood treated with
creosote, pentachlorophenol, chromated copper arsenate, or other
copper, chromium, or arsenical preservatives. In addition, the best
management practices require exclusion or removal of non-wood materials
such as plastics, drywall, concrete, aggregates, dirt and asbestos. See
40 CFR 241.4(a)(5). For a detailed discussion of the final best
management practices, please refer to section V.A.3. of this preamble.
    Comment: The EPA must require testing for contamination. C&D as a
waste fuel is extremely variable. ``Slugs'' of contaminated wood move
through sorting facilities at various times.
    Response: The Agency agrees that C&D debris is extremely variable
as a waste. Certain factors such as where the C&D debris originates
from and the amount of sorting prior to arrival at the processing
facility can influence the extent and type of contaminated material
arriving at the processing facility. Also, whether positive or negative
sorting is used and the scale of the processing facility (i.e., the
degree of sorting and screening devices) further contributes to
variability within the industry. To address this variability, the
Agency has finalized best management practices (see 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5))
for this categorical non-waste listing that require specific materials
to be excluded or removed during processing. Also, as part of the best
management practice requirements, C&D processors must certify that
their processed C&D wood has been sorted by trained operators.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ For a complete discussion of the certification and training
requirements, see section V.A.3. of this preamble. These
requirements are codified at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The best management practices ensure that the contaminants in the
fuel that is burned will be predictable, regardless of the type or
number of processing techniques used or the source of the C&D debris.
Thus, the Agency does not agree that it is necessary to require
contaminant testing for this categorical non-waste listing. However, if
a person chooses not to take advantage of this categorical non-waste
listing, then a case-by-case determination would need to be made that
the C&D wood has been sufficiently processed according to 40 CFR 241.2
and meets the legitimacy criteria according to 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1).
    Comment: Copper should be deleted from the best management practice
list of materials that are to be excluded or removed from the final
product fuel. While the list includes materials that may not qualify as
non-hazardous and materials that are addressed separately in the
proposal, it overreaches by including copper, which is neither
hazardous nor a listed Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP). The proposed
rule's preamble provides no basis for requiring exclusion or removal of
wood that contains copper, and it is not necessary to include this
restriction in order to avoid concerns about CCA or other arsenic or
chromium-based preservatives, since they are covered by provisions in
the proposed rule.
    Response: The Agency disagrees that copper should be deleted from
the list of materials to be excluded or removed. The Agency had
previously found, based on information in the June 2010 proposed rule
and the March 21, 2011 final rule that wood treated with copper
napthenate is considered a solid waste because of concerns of elevated
contaminants. At the time of these rules, the Agency indicated that it
did not have sufficient information on contaminant levels in wood
treated with copper naphthenate.52 53 As a result, we have
determined that copper should remain on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 75 FR 31863 and 76 FR 15484.
    \53\ Since publication of these rules and the April 2014
proposal (79 FR 21005), the Agency has received a petition for a
categorical non-waste listing for other treated wood types (included
in the docket for this rule), one of which is wood treated with
copper naphthenate. The petition included contaminant data for wood
treated with copper naphthenate and is under evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In the third sentence of the proposed regulatory language
for the best management practices, specific materials are required to
be excluded or removed. This is much too restrictive because it can be
interpreted as meaning all listed materials must be completely removed
from the C&D debris. The requirement as proposed would render the
requirement unworkable and impossible to meet. It would be more
appropriate to require that the BMPs ``substantially exclude or
substantially remove'' unwanted materials in order to recognize that
some small amount of unwanted materials, although insignificant, may
pass through the C&D stream even when using BMPs. Similarly, the
proposed regulatory paragraph at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(ii)

contains the terms ``remove'' and ``must remove.'' Again, these terms
are believed to be overly prescriptive, and should be modified to
recognize that small, insignificant amounts of undesirable materials
may be present in the final fuel product.
    Another comment suggested that the words ``to the extent
practical'' be added to the current language for clarification that 100
percent exclusion or removal is not required. The EPA should revise the
description of best management practices to remove the implication that
100 percent of the listed materials are to be removed or excluded.
    Response: The Agency did not intend that the terms ``excludes'' and
``removes'' to mean that 100 percent of the listed materials be
excluded or removed, or that the listed materials must be completely
removed from the C&D debris during processing. While it is essential to
exclude or remove the listed materials, the Agency also recognizes that
a material would still be a non-waste even if there are some negligible
or de minimis amounts of contaminants in the final combusted material.
This is supported by the rulemaking record, specifically the discussion
in the March 21, 2011 final rule where commenters argued that there
should be a de minimis exemption for processed C&D wood to address
small or de minimis amounts of material remaining on the wood. In
response, the EPA acknowledged that ``C&D-derived wood can contain de
minimis amounts of contaminants and other materials provided it meets
the legitimacy criterion for contaminant levels'' and thus, did not
find it necessary to finalize a de minimis exemption.\54\ That
discussion supports the application of a de minimis principle for this
rule for exclusion and removal of contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 76 FR 15486 (March 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The concept of de minimis amounts of material in processed C&D wood
is also supported throughout the proposed rule. The Agency noted that
C&D wood processing facilities can use a variety of techniques to
exclude or remove debris unsuitable for a product fuel and that the
processing techniques used may be based on several factors such as: the
nature of incoming C&D debris, the extent of material segregation prior
to arrival at the processing facility, whether positive or negative
sorting is employed, and the scale of the processing facility.\55\ In
addition, C&D processors who provide extensive training for their
workers to recognize treated wood tend to be more successful than those
processors who do not provide extensive training in excluding or
removing treated wood, as evidenced by the Florida study.\56\ When
considering the data submitted for C&D wood, it demonstrates that there
is variability regarding levels of contaminants present in processed
C&D wood, but that the contaminant levels are well within the range of
clean wood and biomass materials for most every contaminant.\57\ Thus,
all of these factors taken together recognize that there invariably
will be some amount of unwanted materials that contribute to
contaminant concentrations even when using best management practices
and trained operators, but that a legitimate product fuel is still
produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 71 FR 21011 (April 14, 2014).
    \56\ See Blassino, Monika, et al. ``Methods to Control Fuel
Quality at Wood Burning Facilities,'' EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0033.
    \57\ Please see the discussion at 71 FR 21014-015 for a detailed
explanation of how the Agency initially addressed the specific
contaminants: fluorine, lead, pentachlorophenol, and formaldehyde.
See also section V.A.4 of this preamble for final Agency
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To include language as the comments suggested, such as to
``substantially exclude or substantially remove'' or ``to the extent
practical,'' gives the perception that the best management practice
standard is not a stringent requirement, but akin to a ``best efforts''
standard. This would not be an acceptable standard to ensure that
processed C&D wood is a legitimate product fuel. Thus, the Agency has
determined that it is not necessary or accurate to modify or add terms
to the regulatory language to state that 100 percent exclusion or
removal is not required.
    Comment: Management practices for positive sorting are intended to
address lead. Data provided to the EPA demonstrates that industry
practices appropriately manage lead to ensure that specifications are
met and that combustors will meet the limits in their Clean Air Act
permits. Nonetheless, the management practices that address lead
proposed by the EPA are not opposed when specific clarifications are
made to address concerns as requested. The following concerns also
apply to the management practices for negative sorting:
    First, 100 percent removal of unwanted material is not technically
feasible, practicable, nor necessary to produce a legitimate fuel
product.
    Second, one option for removal of lead painted wood is the use of
XRF ``to ensure that painted wood included in the final product fuel
does not contain lead-based paint.'' The EPA cites the University of
Florida pilot study of a conveyor system that was funded by the
manufacturer of XFR equipment. This is a pilot study that has not been
demonstrated for an industrial setting. In fact, it has a throughput of
only 20 tons per hour while most C&D processing facilities are
permitted to manage 500 tons a day or more and operate on only one
shift a day. It is neither feasible nor practicable to ``ensure'' all
wood painted with lead-based paint is removed using XRF technology. The
C&D processors that currently use XRF use a hand held gun to test a
sample of an incoming load. None use the conveyor system described in
the University of Florida study.
    The lead paint testing option raises similar concerns. It is
assumed that the EPA is not suggesting that every square foot of
painted wood be tested.
    It is requested that the EPA modify the description of these
management practices to remove the implication that 100 percent removal
is technically feasible and practicable and allow C&D processors to
screen samples, not every piece of painted wood. To clarify these
issues, the EPA could modify the regulatory language for both positive
and negative sorting such that the second option would read, ``use X-
ray Fluorescence to test a sample of painted wood from each source or
supplier of demolition debris received by the C&D wood processor to
identify and reject wood with lead-based paint.'' For the third option,
it would read ``require documentation that a sample of painted wood
from a building has been tested for and does not include . . .''
    Response: First, the Agency disagrees that it is valid to say that
industry practices appropriately manage lead. The data submitted to the
Agency demonstrate otherwise. As noted in the proposal, there were
instances in which isolated samples from Massachusetts (at 407 and 437
ppm) and Wisconsin (at 482 ppm) exceeded the lead levels found in clean
wood and biomass (ND-340 ppm). While most of the 224 samples detected
lead within the range found in clean wood and biomass, it is important
to recognize that each high sample could represent a large amount of
processed C&D wood produced by an outlier facility. Accordingly, an
overly broad categorical non-waste listing could include processed C&D
wood from facilities where the final product consistently contains high
lead levels. Facilities that had lower levels of lead either did not
accept painted wood or required documentation of XRF testing before
accepting demolition debris. (See 79 FR 21014, April 14, 2014.)
Accordingly, the Agency includes in the regulation the requirement that
at least one practice must be used for positive

sorting facilities and negative sorting facilities; however negative
sorting facilities must also remove fines.
    Moreover, it is important to understand that the limits imposed in
a Clean Air Act permit have no bearing on what is determined to be a
waste or non-waste under RCRA when the material goes to a combustion
facility. The point is that Clean Air Act permits must apply to the
input material--whether they are wastes or not, and control of the
associated emissions. The input material determines which Clean Air Act
standards (i.e., CAA section 112 or CAA section 129) are applicable.
    Second, the Agency does not agree with the suggested language that
would specify testing for a representative sample or ``sample of
painted wood from each source or supplier'' be performed for purposes
of meeting the XRF lead elimination option. The term ``sample'' can
vary in interpretation from one processor to another, with some
analyzing more samples than others which could result in significant
amounts of lead. This would indicate disposal rather than use as a
product fuel. The proposed language at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i)(B) and
(ii)(B) which states, ``[u]se X-ray Fluorescence to ensure that painted
wood included in the final product does not contain lead-based paint .
. .'' is intended to be a stringent standard, which the Agency adopts
for the final rule. The expectation is that if a processor accepts
painted wood, then it must determine if the paint is lead-based. If it
is positive for lead, then that piece of wood must be excluded or
removed. The same applies to the language at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i)(C)
and (ii)(C) that requires documentation that a building has been tested
for and does not include lead-based paint prior to accepting demolition
debris from that building. The Agency is not including regulatory
language in regard to sampling. Rather, the frequency of sampling
should be determined by the processor such that the processor can
ensure that the accepted painted wood is not lead-based.
    The Agency is convinced by the data that when XRF technology is
used, the lead levels in processed C&D wood are comparable to or below
the lead levels found in clean wood and biomass. Specifically, a
facility located in Washington State receives co-mingled C&D debris.
Prior to materials being accepted for processing, a rigorous inspection
process is carried out, including documentation showing that the
building was inspected for asbestos containing materials if it was from
a demolition or renovation project, and visual inspections and lead-
based paint testing through XRF. As a result, the ten samples analyzed
show an average lead concentration of 10.6 ppm, with a maximum of 26
ppm.\58\ This shows that the lead elimination options as proposed are
in fact achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See revised Appendix A (Revision Submission: April 25,
2013) to letter from Susan Bodine to Suzanne Rudzinski in Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a processor chooses to accept and include painted wood for
processing, then the painted wood either must be analyzed via XRF or
documentation must be provided from a demolition or renovation project
indicating that painted wood has been analyzed and does not contain
lead. As noted above, the frequency of sampling should be determined by
the processor such that the processor can ensure that the accepted
painted wood is not lead-based. The Agency finds that the lead
elimination options for both XRF and documentation that a building has
been tested for and does not include lead-based paint prior to
accepting demolition debris from that building, are appropriate and
finalized as proposed.
    To respond to the comment about the Agency's citation of the XRF
conveyor system in the University of Florida pilot-study, we understand
that processors would be hesitant to make a significant investment in a
XRF conveyor system that has not yet been proven in a large industrial
setting. The aspect of the study that the Agency found relevant was the
discussion of the benefit of providing extensive training to operators
for visual recognition of treated wood. The Agency does not promote one
XRF technology over another. The Agency recognizes that not all
processors use XRF technology (i.e., handheld gun), thus it is an
option for both positive and negative sorters--so that processors can
choose to invest in XRF or comply with one of the other lead
elimination options. Nevertheless, a determination to finalize the
option to use XRF is appropriate regardless of the volume of the input.
The point is that, even with high volume input, the lead must be
removed.
    Finally, similar to other comments that identified terms in
regulatory language that appear too restrictive (see preceding comment
and response), the Agency does recognize that a material can still be a
non-waste even if there are some negligible or de minimis amounts of
contaminants in the final combusted material. The Agency acknowledges
that C&D-derived wood can contain de minimis amounts of contaminants
and other materials provided it meets the legitimacy criterion for
contaminant levels. Again, to include terms such as ``sample'' or even
``representative sample'' in regulatory language gives the perception
that the best management practice standard for eliminating lead is not
a stringent requirement, but akin to a ``best efforts'' standard. This
would not be an acceptable standard to ensure that processed C&D wood
is a legitimate product fuel.
    Comment: A commenter stated that facilities [called ``chipping and
grinding'' facilities] which process only clean segregated wood, but
that may have to remove de minimis amounts of unwanted material, should
not be required to remove fines because the C&D debris fines which may
contain contaminants are left behind as a result of the segregation.
These chip and grind facilities are permitted to receive and grind
``Green Material'', which under California regulations includes
acceptable C&D-derived wood as well as other clean cellulosic biomass
materials.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ``Green Material'' under California law means any plant
material that is separate at the point of generation, contain no
greater than 1.0 percent of physical contaminant by weight, and
meets the requirements of Title 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 3.1,
Article 7, section 17868.5. Green material includes, but is not
limited to yard trimmings, untreated wood wastes, natural fiber
products, and C&D wood waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The acceptable C&D wood is sourced from contractors, homeowners,
community collections, and other typically small generators who
segregate and/or collect clean wood from C&D sites. Chip and grind
facilities do not process comingled C&D, but they may need to remove de
minimis amounts of visible residual physical contaminants such as
metal, plastics, and pieces of non-compliant wood that may be present
in the green material, typically by hand, in order to meet customers'
fuel quality specifications. This quality control measure should not be
deemed processing by negative sorting which triggers the requirement to
remove fines. Fines removal would be an expensive step at chipping and
grinding facilities and is unnecessary because the C&D wood received
has already been seperated from the mixed C&D materials and
contaminants, including fines, are not present in meaningful amounts.
An attachment for five different California chipping and grinding
facilities that receive and grind green material, but do not remove
fines, show that each facility's fuel meets the NHSM rule's contaminant
criterion.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Attachment 1 of comment submitted by Covanta Energy
Corporation in Docket: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0084.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter states that they use fuel from a ``chip and
grind'' operation that receives and then resizes clean cellulosic
biomass, and material from contractors, small operators, and generators
of source-separated wood. These materials are sorted prior to receipt
at the chip and grind processor, and therefore there are no fines that
require screening or further separation. The EPA should not require
fines removal at chip and grind facilities that receive and process
only source separated C&D wood, since the fines have been left behind
with the non-wood C&D debris during the positive pick process.
    Response: Chip and grind facilities would not be considered
negative sorters for purposes of the best management practices for lead
under this rule if in fact their sorting operations only involve
removal of small or de minimus amounts of unwanted material (as
described above) they have received from a source that has segregated/
pre-sorted the C&D material through positive sorting. This would be
different from the situation in which C&D processors accept and process
co-mingled C&D material in a large centralized facility which we
discussed in the proposal.
    According to the data submitted by one commenter for five chip and
grind facilities that do not remove fines, lead concentrations for its
biomass fuel loads were all significantly lower (with the highest
concentration at 104 ppm, followed by 77 ppm, 48 ppm, 29 ppm, and 32
ppm) than the upper end for wood and biomass (340 ppm). Based on the
sampling data and the fact that the C&D wood has been pre-sorted via
positive sorting before reaching the chip and grind processing
facility, we agree with the commenters that chip and grind processors
should not be considered negative sorting facilities when they conduct
further sorting to remove small amounts of unwanted materials.
Therefore, we have revised the best management practice description
with respect to lead elimination requirement for positive sorters to
include facilities ``. . . that receive and process positive sorted C&D
wood''. See revised 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i).
d. Specific Requests for Comments
i. Pentachlorophenol
    Comment: The proposed requirements for operators to exclude or
remove utility poles treated with pentachlorophenol are consistent with
industry practices and combustor specifications and thus, no additional
requirements are necessary beyond training. Pentachlorophenol treated
wood is easily recognizable with visual inspection based on its dark
brown color.
    Response: The Agency agrees that the requirement for processors to
train operators to identify pentachlorophenol treated lumber (as well
as any other treated lumber) as part of the best management practices
is sufficient to ensure that these products are excluded or removed
from incoming C&D debris. Because sources of pentachlorophenol can be
readily identified by color and by shape of the treated wood, no
additional conditions other than those specified by the best management
practices are necessary.
    Comment: The EPA should allow testing of older, weathered poles for
the presence of pentachlorophenol above some preset level, since poles
exposed to deterioration from ultraviolet light and precipitation
frequently have lower levels of pentachlorophenol and can be burned
safely with controls. Levels must be low enough to prevent the
formation of dioxin/furans in combustors. The summary for the EPA study
``Products of Incomplete Combustion from Direct Burning of
Pentachlorophenol-treated Wood Wastes,'' (EPA/600/SR-98/013) states
that ``[t]he tests showed that combustion is an effective method of
destroying the pentachlorophenol in the treated wood, with destruction
efficiencies higher than 99.99 percent.'' Additional processing to meet
boiler specifications should be included.
    Response: The Agency disagrees that it should allow testing of
older, weathered poles for the presence of pentachlorophenol. The very
argument that appropriate controls should be used to allow burning of
pentachlorophenol supports the point that the pentachlorophenol is,
indeed, a waste and should be burned under CAA section 129 standards.
Thus, the comments that pentachlorophenol can be effectively and safely
destroyed [emphasis added] (i.e., 99.99 percent destruction and removal
efficiency) and dioxin formation can be prevented [emphasis added] when
levels are low enough are concessions that pentachlorophenol in the
poles is a waste. Combustion for the purpose of destruction is a
function of waste combustion units (e.g., boilers burning hazardous
waste and incinerators burning hazardous, municipal, or medical
wastes), where pentachlorophenol would not be burned as a fuel, but
primarily for destruction.
    Development of a preset level of contaminant concentrations is an
activity to determine appropriate standards under the CAA. Under the
NHSM framework, the material's contaminant concentration must be
comparable to, or less than, the traditional fuel it is replacing which
is one part of the process for determining whether the material has
been discarded before or during its combustion. In this case, clean
wood and biomass are the traditional fuels that are being replaced by
processed C&D wood. Clean wood and biomass do not contain
pentachlorophenol (non-detect levels) and, therefore, processed C&D
wood may not contain measureable levels of pentachlorophenol.
Otherwise, any processed C&D wood containing pentachlorophenol would be
considered to be burned for destruction, which is indicative of
discard. For further discussion on the Agency's approach to contaminant
comparisons, see the response to comment in section V.6.b.
ii. Formaldehyde Levels
    Comment: We strongly support the EPA's decision to balance
formaldehyde levels with the fuel value of the resinated wood component
of C&D wood to allow formaldehyde levels in C&D wood fuel that are
somewhat higher than found in coal or biomass. First, when formaldehyde
is grouped with other VOCs and SVOCs and compared to the levels of this
contaminant grouping in C&D wood, the levels are comparable to
coal.\61\ Second, the only source that we are aware of formaldehyde in
C&D wood is resinated wood. The EPA has already recognized that
resinated wood is a valuable fuel commodity and has identified it as a
non-waste fuel. 40 CFR 241.4(a)(2). The basis for this determination
includes the recognition that resinated wood is a valuable fuel source
due to its high fuel value relative to other wood. 76 FR 80483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See revised Appendix A p. 2. (Revision Submission: April
25, 2013) to letter from Susan Bodine to Suzanne Rudzinski available
in Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also recognized that including resinated wood in a fuel mix
actually decreases hazardous air pollutant emissions. 76 FR 15502.
While not relevant to a determination of whether the contaminant
legitimacy criterion is met, this impact on emissions is a relevant
factor to be balanced when making a non-waste determination under 40
CFR 241.4. 78 FR 9112, 9157 (February 7, 2013).
    As a component of a processed fuel, resinated wood is not being
combusted to discard it. On the contrary, as

discussed above, it is a component of a product that is a commodity
fuel.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Comments can be found in the rulemaking docket: EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0110-0076.1; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0088; and EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2013-0110-0083.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The Agency agrees with the overall argument that
resinated wood can be burned as a product fuel along with other
processed C&D wood. The Agency described two relevant factors in the
proposal believed to be appropriate for balancing the higher
formaldehyde levels found in processed C&D wood as a result of the
inclusion of resinated wood components. First, although formaldehyde
levels in processed C&D wood may reach 176.8 ppm, national rules
developed by the CARB Composite Wood ATCM, per Public Law 111-199, will
ensure that newly produced resinated wood will contain even less
formaldehyde in the future by setting limits on how much formaldehyde
may be released. Second and more importantly, for many combustors,
processed C&D wood scraps that include resinated wood components,
actually have added value and are either selected for (in the case of
positive sorting) or specifically not removed (in the case of negative
sorting) because the wood has been kiln-dried prior to use in
construction. Kiln-dried wood has a greater heating value than virgin
wood, almost double in some cases. Kiln-dried wood also has more
consistent moisture content; an equally important benefit to combustors
because a consistent fuel improves combustion efficiency and leads to
reduced emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other
organic hazardous air pollutants.
    The Agency has determined that the additional factors discussed in
the proposal are appropriate and has adopted that rationale for the
final rule. Thus, resinated wood may remain in C&D wood prior to
processing for this categorical non-waste listing. This determination
is based in part on the fact that future rules will limit levels of
formaldehyde in wood products, and will in effect, also reduce the
levels of formaldehyde in processed C&D wood. Also and more
importantly, information submitted to the Agency states that some
processors choose to include resinated wood in processed C&D based on
combustor specifications for a higher Btu value fuel. This demonstrates
that resinated wood is a valuable fuel and is not burned for
destruction. Thus, the final rule allows flexibility for processors to
choose whether they will exclude or remove any resinated wood prior to
processing the C&D debris.
    Regarding the citations provided in support of commenters'
rationale for not requiring exclusion or removal of formaldehyde,
clarification is needed. The citation at 76 FR 80483, December 23,
2011, discussed the Agency's proposed rationale for listing resinated
wood as a categorical non-waste. However, the fact that the Agency
finalized a listing for resinated wood as a categorical non-waste at 40
CFR 241.4(a)(2) (see also final rule at 78 FR 9155, February 7, 2013),
has no relevance to a determination of whether it is appropriate to
allow elevated levels of formaldehyde from resinated wood in an
entirely different industrial process. In the proposal at 79 FR 21015,
April 14, 2014. the Agency reviewed the rationale behind the
categorical non-waste listing for resinated wood, which discussed that,
although the situation appears similar to the categorical non-waste
listing for resinated wood in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(2), details surrounding
use of the two NHSMs as fuel are not the same. In the case of resinated
wood, as defined in 40 CFR 241.2, the Agency determined that energy
recovered from the combustion of manufacturing process residues and
off-specification resinated wood is integrally tied to the industrial
production process in the furniture manufacturing industry. The Agency
is not aware of an industrial process that is reliant upon C&D wood for
its energy needs.
    The Agency also disagrees with the suggested grouping approach
included as reasoning for allowing resinated wood to be present in C&D
wood. The commenter suggested that when formaldehyde is grouped with
other VOCs and SVOCs and then compared to levels of this contaminant
grouping in C&D wood, the levels are comparable to coal.\63\ The
commenter also argued that this is an acceptable approach because the
Agency had previously determined that it is technically correct to
group VOCs and SVOCs because they behave similarly in combustion units.
The rationale behind this grouping approach, however, was to establish
emission standards where carbon monoxide serves as a surrogate for
measuring total VOC and SVOC emissions.\64\ Under NHSM, the Agency has
previously permitted grouping of total VOCs as well as grouping of
total SVOCs, but not for both groups combined for purposes of
comparison to a traditional fuel. More relevant however, is that the
Agency does not have any information or data indicating that units
combusting processed C&D wood also are designed to burn coal or do burn
coal. Thus, coal is not an appropriate traditional fuel for comparison
under this categorical non-waste listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Because there are no data available on formaldehyde levels
in coal, the commenters' approach grouped the PAH levels (which are
SVOCs) and VOC levels in coal and then compared them to the levels
of the same contaminant groupings in C&D wood. See revised Appendix
A, p. 2. (Revision Submission: April 25, 2013) to letter from Susan
Bodine to Suzanne Rudzinski available in Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2013-0110-0022.
    \64\ See 76 FR 80477 (December 23, 2011) for a broader
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, while it is true that the Agency has recognized that
including resinated wood in a fuel mix actually decreases some
hazardous air pollutant emissions, the purpose of the discussion at 76
FR 15502, March 21, 2011, was to reiterate that the legitimacy
criterion is based on the level of contaminants in the secondary
material itself, and not based on comparing the differences in
emissions. That said, the Agency agrees with the comment that, although
not relevant to a determination of whether the contaminant legitimacy
criterion is met, the impact on emissions is a relevant factor to be
balanced when making a non-waste determination under 40 CFR 241.4. The
Agency maintains that the benefits of burning kiln-dried wood not only
provides higher heating value, but also more consistent moisture
content which lends to more efficient combustion and thus reduced
emissions of certain contaminants.
iii. CCA-Treated Wood
    Comment: The requirement to train operators to exclude or remove
treated wood is adequate, since visual identification via the color,
grain, and shape (such as decking or fencing) of pieces works well to
remove CCA-treated wood as demonstrated by the data in the record
showing that arsenic and chromium levels in C&D wood are comparable to
virgin wood.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ April 26, 2013 letter from Susan Bodine to Suzanne
Rudzinski, available at Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The Agency agrees that the requirement to train operators
to exclude or remove CCA-treated wood is the most appropriate option
and has finalized this as part of the best management practices and as
a separate training requirement at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii). The Agency
also agrees that current data shows that arsenic and chromium levels in
processed C&D wood are comparable to levels in clean wood and biomass
(see Table 1. Comparison of Contaminants in Clean Wood/Biomass and
Processed C&D Wood to section V.A.4 of this preamble), which results
from those processors

who choose to exclude or remove CCA-treated wood prior to processing.
Thus, CCA wood can, and must, be removed efficiently to allow for a
determination that the resultant wood is more like a product than like
a waste.
    Because CCA-treated wood can represent up to 30 percent of the C&D
waste stream and, unlike formaldehyde levels which are expected to
decrease over time due to future rules to limit formaldehyde levels in
resinated wood, levels of arsenic and chromium are expected to increase
with continued use of CCA-treated lumber or other copper, chromium, or
arsenical preservatives. As a result, the Agency has determined that
CCA-treated wood must be excluded or removed from C&D debris to ensure
that levels of arsenic and chromium in processed C&D wood remain
comparable to or lower than levels in clean wood and biomass.
    Comment: The use of additional technology to identify CCA-treated
wood, such as XRF guns or PAN indicator stains, would add unnecessary
cost and time to the processing of C&D wood. Further, C&D processors
that have tried PAN indicator stains have determined that the stains
produce false positives and do not truly identify or measure arsenic.
    Response: The decision to require that operators be trained to
exclude or remove treated wood (with the exception of resinated wood)
as included in the best management practices, is based in part on the
results from the Florida study for evaluating sorting technologies
which showed a high rate of success when extensive training was
provided for visual identification of treated wood; and in part because
both XRF technology and PAN indicator stains are limited in application
when processing large amounts of C&D debris.
    The Florida evidence demonstrates that processors who train their
employees to visually recognize treated wood are successful in
excluding or removing CCA-treated wood.\66\ Therefore, by requiring
processors to train their operators as a condition of this categorical
non-waste listing, it will ensure that levels of arsenic and chromium
in processed C&D wood remain comparable to or lower than levels in
clean wood and biomass as more CCA-treated wood is introduced into C&D
debris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Blassino, Monika, et al. ``Methods to Control Fuel Quality
at Wood Burning Facilities.'' Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposition that XRF technology and PAN indicator stains would
increase the cost and time associated with processing C&D wood is not
relevant in the Agency's determination to not require their use,
although processors may use such tools. The main point is that these
technologies are not necessary to remove excessive contaminants from
the processed material when visual identification is sufficient.
iv. Trained Operators
    Comment: The only elements of training that are appropriate for
regulation are identification of the best management practices, not the
details of how or by whom the training is provided. Processors should
be free to design training programs that work for the individual
processors.
    Response: The Agency agrees that the elements of a training program
for processors should not be prescribed by the Agency for the C&D
processing industry. The Agency's decision to not prescribe specific
elements of a training program is based on information in the record
that discusses the variability within the C&D processing industry and
the ability of trained operators to remove the waste materials from the
incoming C&D debris (79 FR 21013, April 14, 2014). Variability refers
to the origin of the material, the amount of material segregation prior
to arrival at a processing facility, whether positive or negative
sorting is used, and the scale of the processing facility.
    Rather than prescribing training requirements that may not be
applicable to all C&D processing facilities (i.e., a ``one size fits
all'' approach), the better option is to provide flexibility for
processors to choose how to train their operators. The Agency has
determined that the regulatory language finalized at 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(iii) provides the flexibility needed, but also ensures that
C&D processing facilities have trained their operators in accordance
with the best management practice requirements such that the resultant
material is not discarded when combusted and is, therefore, not a
waste.
    Comment: The EPA should specify minimum training requirements and
develop requirements similar to those found in the waste combustor
rules (New Source Performance Standards for small municipal waste
combustion units at 40 CFR 60.1155). These provisions address who is to
be trained, when the training must occur by, and what information must
be included in the facility-specific training material. It would be
difficult for C&D processing facilities to implement a training program
without at least minimum requirements set forth in the rule. Further,
combustors and state air agencies must have some way to determine if
the ``trained operator'' requirement has been met.
    Response: The Agency does not agree that prescriptive requirements
should be developed for C&D processors that are similar to the training
standards for small municipal waste combustors. The standards
identified in Part 60 for small municipal waste combustors are specific
to the operation of a combustion unit, which is a very technical
operation with regard to combustion engineering, equipment, and
environmental compliance (e.g., air pollution control requirements)
obligations, and thus are appropriate for that industry. Such
specificity and degree of training is not necessary for the C&D
processing industry because its operations are not technologically
comparable. Thus, processors can develop a training program that meets
their specific needs, but that also ensures, through required training
(and best management practices), that the processed C&D wood material
is not discarded when combusted and is, therefore, not a waste.
    The mechanism for determining if C&D processors have trained their
operators as required is when the processor certifies, in the written
certification statement that it has used trained operators in its
sorting operations, as well as through the processor's records of
training. For example, should the processed C&D wood be found to
contain contaminants that are not comparable to clean wood and biomass,
then it may be an indication that the processor has not trained its
operators as confirmed by the certification statement. See regulatory
language located at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii), which states that
``[p]rocessors must train operators to exclude or remove the materials
as listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section from the final product
fuel. Records of training must include dates of training held and must
be maintained for a period of three years.''
    Comment: In response to solicitation for comment on whether
processors would be required to keep records as a condition of the
categorical listing to demonstrate that such operators have been
formally trained, one comment requested that C&D processors be required
to maintain records of the training they have received, similar to the
requirements found in waste combustor rules (New Source Performance
Standards for small municipal waste combustion units at 40 CFR
60.1355). These provisions require records showing dates of completion
of the training course, documentation

showing completion of the training course, and records of review of the
training materials.
    Response: The Agency agrees that a condition is necessary to
document that operators have been formally trained so that processors
are accountable to their customers when certifying that they have used
trained operators. Thus, separate requirements for processors to
conduct training and maintain records of the training are finalized at
40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii). This requires that processors train their
operators to exclude or remove the materials as listed in paragraph
(a)(5) from the final product fuel. Although not as prescriptive as the
waste combustor rules for similar reasons as discussed above, the
Agency has determined that the following is adequate for demonstrating
compliance with the trained operator requirement: records of training
must include date of training held and must be maintained on-site for a
period of three years.
    Comment: Training requirements should only apply to the final
processing facility, which is responsible for the quality of the final
product fuel and with whom the combustor has a contract or purchasing
relationship. C&D wood may be partially sorted at various C&D sites,
then sent to centralized site for final processing and thus, the
upstream facilities should not be subject to training requirements.
    Response: The Agency agrees that only those processors who conduct
the final processing steps and are responsible for the quality of the
final product fuel, should be required to train their operators. Any
processor who pre-sorts in preparation for further processing at
another facility would not need to implement a training program for its
operators. It is the final processor who must ensure and certify that
processing has transformed the processed C&D wood into a non-waste
product fuel according to best management practices.
v. Written Certification
    Comment: Purchase agreements between the provider of the C&D wood
product and combustor provide sufficient records related to the quality
of the product fuels being combusted at a facility. There is no need to
increase the burden on regulated sources by requiring additional
paperwork in the form of a written certification and personnel
resources for a duplicative task. In addition, the EPA does not need to
prescribe the form of the written certification because purchase
agreements and contracts are common and provide sufficient
documentation.
    Response: The Agency agrees that purchase agreements (or contracts)
can provide records related to quality of the fuels being combusted at
a facility. These documents indicate the commitments of the processor
to meet the specifications and to provide quality processed C&D wood.
The proposed rule suggested that such agreements can serve as the
written certification document, but requested comment on whether a
written certification statement, in addition to the contract/purchase
agreement, would be clearer and more effective (79 FR 21016, April 14,
2014).
    Although contracts and purchase agreements indicate a commitment to
quality, specifications can vary according to the needs of one
combustor versus another with respect to the extent and type of
contaminant removal required. More importantly, the contracts and
purchase agreements that the Agency has seen do not show that C&D wood
has been processed according to any particular best management
practices and, consequently, cannot ensure that the resulting material
is not a waste when combusted. As one commenter had noted, a mechanism
must be in place which provides assurance that C&D wood is processed
consistently and according to best management practices such that the
final product meets the legitimacy criteria. The Agency concurs with
that comment and is requiring combustors to obtain a written
certification statement from the final processor as part of every new
or modified contract, purchase agreement, or other legally binding
document. This written certification statement must state that the
processed C&D wood has been sorted by trained operators in accordance
with best management practices. See new requirement at 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(iv).
    The Agency disagrees that a requirement for a combustor to maintain
a contract or purchase agreement in its records poses any additional
burden on the regulated combustion source, since these documents are
typically retained for other business purposes. The combustor would
need only to ensure that the contract or purchase agreement contains
the written certification statement as required by the regulations at
40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iv) and maintain in its records according to its
existing regulatory obligations under 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.
    Comment: The EPA should prescribe what suffices for the ``written
certification.'' At a minimum, it is recommended that the written
certification include the specific management practices that the
processor has undertaken. The written certification requirement should
also specify how often the combustor must obtain the certification,
whether it is once per load, one certification for each supplier, or in
some other manner or frequency. Specific criteria for the certification
should also include a requirement for an independent third party to
routinely sample the processed C&D wood as part of an ongoing sampling
program, and made it a requisite for the written certification.
    Response: The Agency disagrees that the processor should be
required to include the specific best management practices undertaken
in its certification, since the best management practices in 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5) are applicable to all processors. The only distinction is
between the lead exclusion/removal options for positive and negative
sorters, which provide equivalent assurance that lead levels in
processed C&D wood are comparable to or less than clean wood and
biomass.
    The Agency does agree, however, with the suggestion to specify how
often and who must submit the certification. This allows the combustor
and regulatory personnel to determine where a shipment of inadequately
processed C&D wood came from. For instance, upon sampling the processed
C&D wood, results indicate that it contains high levels of one or more
contaminants which can be traced back to a specific processor for
investigation of compliance with best management practices. Thus, every
new or modified contract, purchase agreement, or other legally binding
document must include a statement by the final processor that the
processed C&D wood has been sorted by trained operators in accordance
with best management practices. See new regulatory language at 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(iv).
    Although a third party sampling program could provide further
assurance that contaminated material has been removed from the fuel
stream, the Agency cannot promote such a requirement for combustors
given the data which supports this categorical non-waste listing for
processed C&D wood.\67\ The data demonstrate that processors using best
management practices are meeting the legitimacy criteria absent a
regulatory requirement. The extent to which some processors may not be
meeting the legitimacy criteria is remedied by imposing the conditions
for certification and training

to identify contaminated materials in the rule. The Agency has
determined that application of the best management practices at 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5), the written certification, and training record provides
sufficient assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ A state may choose, however, to require a third party
sampling program as an additional condition of this categorical non-
waste listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A number of state air permits already prohibit the use of
C&D debris as a fuel type. Under the proposed amendments, these permits
would need to be reopened, public noticed, and be made practically
enforceable.
    Response: The Agency agrees that if a combustion facility would
choose to burn C&D wood as a product fuel under this categorical non-
waste listing, the facility's permit would need to be reopened to
include the processed C&D wood as a fuel type. The combustor would be
responsible for documenting the C&D wood's non-waste status according
to 40 CFR 60.2740(u) (Emissions Guidelines) and 40 CFR 60.2175(w) (New
Source Performance Standards) for CISWI units and 40 CFR
63.11225(c)(2)(ii) for area source boilers and 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2) for
major source boilers.
    Comment: The presumption is that air permits will need practically
enforceable requirements addressing the proposed written certification
provisions. The EPA should consider how the written certification would
be enforceable for a small combustion unit that does not qualify for an
air permit.
    Response: We are adopting in this final action the approach
discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 21016, under which the written
certification must be included as part of the contract, purchase
agreement, or other legally binding document between the processor and
the combustor. This documentation will also be considered a ``record''
which satisfies the record keeping requirements of section 60.2740(u)
(Emissions Guidelines) and section 60.2175(w) (New Source Performance
Standards) for CISWI units and section 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) for area
source boilers and section 63.7555(d)(2) for major source boilers. Each
of these provisions contains a reference specific to categorical non-
waste determinations under section 241.4 which read: ``[f]or operating
units that combust non-hazardous secondary materials as fuel per
section 241.4 of this chapter, you must keep records documenting that
the material is listed as a non-waste under section 241.4(a) of this
chapter.'' The requirement to document and keep a record exists within
the Federal air regulations and in this case, the record is the written
certification included within the contract, purchase agreement, or
other legally binding document. The air regulations referenced in this
paragraph are enforceable either through air permits when incorporated
or are separately enforceable under the CAA. Thus, an air permit is not
necessary to make a requirement enforceable.
    This is consistent with how any major source or area source
combustion unit would document that the NHSM they are burning satisfies
the 40 CFR part 241 requirements for non-wastes. For example, if a
combustor chooses not to comply with the conditions of the categorical
non-waste listing for C&D wood under section 241.4(a)(5), then it could
burn C&D wood on a case-by-case basis provided the combustor documents
in its records that the processed C&D wood has been sufficiently
processed per section 241.2 and that the legitimacy criteria have been
met according to section 241.3(d). The combustor would still be
required to maintain such documentation according to its applicable
Federal recordkeeping requirements (i.e., sections: 60.2740(u),
60.2175(w), 63.11225(c)(2)(ii), or 63.7555(d)(2)).
    Comment: Combustors who process C&D wood for their own combustion
should be allowed to self-certify that they have complied with the best
management practices.
    Response: The Agency agrees that the ability to self-certify when
the combustor is also the processor is appropriate. However, in the
absence of a contract or purchase agreement, the combustor still must
certify that the processed C&D wood has been sorted by trained
operators in accordance with best management practices. A combustor who
is also the processor is still subject to the requirements and
conditions of this categorical non-waste listing. As the processor, the
requirement to certify that the processed C&D wood has been sorted by
trained operators in accordance with best management practices is
applicable per 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iv). The training requirement is
applicable per 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii). As the combustor, the
requirement to maintain the written certification statement as part of
its records is applicable regardless of whether or not there is a
contract or purchase agreement. If an inspection by a regulatory
authority reveals that these requirements have not been met, then the
combustor could face enforcement action.
    Comment: The EPA should consider that those who pre-sort C&D wood
should not be required to provide certifications, as long as they are
providing wood to C&D processors that meet the requirements of 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5). Similarly, in cases where C&D wood is processed by more
than one processing facility, the certification requirements should
only apply to the final processing facility.
    Response: The Agency agrees that the written certification
requirement should only apply to the final processor, as is the case
for only the final processors to use trained operators. The processors
conducting the final processing steps are responsible for the quality
of the final product fuel and for ensuring that processing has
transformed the processed C&D wood into a non-waste product fuel
according to best management practices under 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5). Thus,
any processor who pre-sorts in preparation for further processing at
another facility would not need to provide a written certification to
the combustor. However, the materials at the intermediate processor
facilities would still be solid wastes.
e. Cement Kilns Using Processed C&D Wood
    A trade organization, Portland Cement Association (PCA), submitted
comments and information related to how cement kilns use C&D wood.
Their comments are unique in that they base their responses to the
proposal on the operation and capabilities of cement kilns instead of
the criteria that must be met for listing an NHSM as a categorical non-
waste. For example, instead of presenting information on whether the
conditions of the categorical listing are appropriate, PCA comments
that cement kilns have continually shown through decades of testing
that the inherent manufacturing process design is conducive to fully
utilizing the energy value in the alternative fuel, as the process is
based on the high-efficiency combustion in the kiln. Alternative fuels
that are useable in the cement industry may also contain other raw
material constituents, which increase the effectiveness of being able
to use a wider range of heating values that may not be useable in other
combustion processes. Specific comments from the trade organization are
discussed below followed by Agency responses.
    Comment: Cement kilns, in particular, are capable of handling a
wide variety of fuels without the need for the extensive processing
that some other types of combustion facilities require. Processing of
C&D wood need only be to the extent necessary to meet the requirements
of the receiving combustion unit. PCA accepts that removing certain
material is necessary to render the non-waste fuel ``legitimate,'' but
for cement kilns several of the listed items, such as

plastics and paper, are beneficially used in the process. Therefore, it
is not necessary to remove all listed materials due to the unique and
inherent characteristics of the cement production process. Defining
which materials must be removed and the extent to which they need to be
removed should be a function of the unit receiving and combusting the
processed fuels.
    Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. Although cement
kilns can burn a wide variety of materials as fuel regardless of Btu
value and contaminants present, it also lends support for regulating
such cement kilns under the CAA section 129 standards so that they can
appropriately control emissions from these waste-like fuels. This is
not an argument for rendering the materials to be product fuels.
Rather, when evaluating whether an NHSM can be a legitimate product
fuel, discard (i.e., if the material has been discarded in the first
instance, then it must be sufficiently processed) and the legitimacy
criteria are the determinants, not the capabilities of the unit burning
the NHSM.
    This final rule applies to cement kilns, as well as all other
facilities that wish to burn processed C&D wood for reasons discussed
in the rule. Thus, cement kilns that wish to take advantage of the
categorical non-waste listing for C&D wood under 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5),
must meet all of the conditions in the rule regardless of the unit's
capabilities. Cement kilns may also proceed on a case-by-case basis,
but would need to determine whether the processed C&D wood has been
sufficiently processed per 40 CFR 241.2 and whether the legitimacy
criteria have been met per 40 CFR 241.3(d).
    Comment: With respect specifically to lead in C&D wastes, PCA
encourages the EPA to establish processing criteria (in-lieu of the
case-by-case legitimacy test) that allow lead to be present at levels
that are comparable to the traditional fuels for the receiving
combustion unit. There is variation in the capabilities and other
environmental restrictions of facilities using C&D categorical non-
waste fuel, and cement kilns in particular have the ability to use a
wider variety of fuels. Also, when metals contaminants are grouped, the
lead levels indicated in the variety of C&D in the proposed rule are
not significantly higher than traditional fuel groupings. See
(attached) Table 1 of EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0081.\68\ As a
demonstration of the balancing factors specific to cement kilns, there
is a significant body of data and knowledge on the fate of metals in a
cement kiln system that documents the fate of semi-volatile metals
(SVM) and low volatile metals (LVM) that enter the kiln system through
minor concentrations in the raw feed and fuels. The LVMs and other
pollutants with similar properties are directly incorporated into the
clinker being produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Table 1 attached to PCA's comments on the proposed
rule, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Again, when evaluating whether an NHSM can be a
legitimate product fuel, it is discard and the legitimacy criteria that
are the determinants, not the capabilities of the unit burning the
NHSM. In this categorical listing, the pertinent criterion is whether
the lead concentration, or any other contaminant concentration, in
processed C&D wood is comparable to or lower than the contaminant
concentrations in clean wood and biomass. The fact that cement kilns
can burn contaminated, low value fuel does not automatically qualify
them for this categorical non-waste listing.
    PCA did provide contaminant data for solid traditional fuels that
are used by cement kilns, by grouping coke, coal, clean wood, and
biomass together and then compared contaminant concentrations to
processed C&D wood. The grouped data show that even when metals are
grouped based upon their behavior in a cement kiln, the SVM group,
which includes lead, still has a higher concentration in processed C&D
wood than in the solid traditional fuel SVM group. The same is also
true for the volatile organic compound group. Although the
concentrations presented may be considered to be within a small
acceptable range,\69\ it is evidence that contaminants are not
comparable even when grouped, and therefore processing according to
best management practices must occur to exclude or remove specific
contaminants (i.e., lead) so that the concentrations in processed C&D
wood would be comparable to solid traditional fuels, assuming that this
was the appropriate traditional fuel comparison for this listing. All
C&D processors must, however, conduct processing according to the best
management practices to ensure a legitimate product fuel is
consistently produced, regardless of the type of combustion unit that
will burn the processed C&D wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ For a discussion of ``small acceptable range'' with regard
to contaminant comparisons, see 76 FR 15523-24, (March 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Removal of utility poles from the C&D fuel stream is not
necessary for cement kilns when considering balancing factors, and
especially an organic constituent grouping comparison. Cement kilns are
designed and operated to effectively use a variety of fuel streams
under well-controlled conditions and the APCD temperature control used
in kiln operations ensures that dioxin (the contaminant of concern
which can be generated during combustion of pentachlorophenol)
emissions are controlled.
    Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment for the reasons
discussed in previous responses. It is a basis for saying that the
cement kilns burning this material or other contaminated materials as
fuel(s) should have permits under section 129 of the CAA so that they
can appropriately control emissions under the CISWI standards. This is
not an argument for rendering the materials to be product fuels. Again,
the information provided to illustrate that cement kilns are highly-
efficient combustors and that the resulting contaminants are either
completely combusted, chemically incorporated into the clinker being
produced, or captured in the kiln system air pollution control device
are not relevant considerations for this categorical non-waste listing.
In order to comply with this categorical listing, all C&D processors
must conduct processing according to the best management practices to
ensure a legitimate product fuel is consistently produced, regardless
of the type of combustion unit that will burn the processed C&D wood.

B. Paper Recycling Residuals Used as Fuel at Paper Recycling Mills

    The April 14, 2014 proposed rule described paper recycling
residuals (PRRs) in detail (79 FR 21010-17), explained the status of
PRRs under current rules, discussed comments received during previous
proceedings, as well as the scope of the proposed non-waste listing (79
FR 21017-18). The proposed rationale for the listing is found in the
proposal at 79 FR 21018-20 and is summarized and incorporated into this
final rule, along with all sources referenced in that discussion and
cited therein. The final decision in this rule is based on the
information in the proposal and supporting materials in the rulemaking
record. Any changes made to the final rule are based on the rationale,
as described below.
1. Detailed Description of Paper Recycling Residuals
    PRRs are recovered from the paper recycling manufacturing process
at paper recycling mills. The feedstock used in paper recycling
manufacturing process is post-consumer paper, such as

magazines, newspaper, office paper, and old corrugated containers
obtained through various commercial and residential recycling programs
or purchased from retail establishments.\70\ Some paper recycling
mills' feedstock is limited solely to old corrugated containers. The
primary purpose of the paper recycling manufacturing process is to
generate recovered fibers used to make new paper and paperboard
products. The process also generates PRRs that are secondary materials
not suitable for making new paper products, but are landfilled, sent
for metals recycling, or used as a fuel.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Attachment 4, page 1, footnote 2 of AF&PA's Comments to
Docket: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0871.
    \71\ Because the incoming feedstock may contain a number of
other materials, including metals, metals may also be recovered and
sent for recycling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule addresses only the PRR material that may be used as
a non-waste fuel and be burned under CAA section 112. These PRRs
consist of wet strength short fibers that are not suitable to be
recycled into paper products but are essentially the same as the bark,
biomass and/or coal that are burned, or may be burned, by paper
recycling mills. The short fiber material is combusted as a product
because it is not discarded by the paper recycling mills and meets the
legitimacy criteria, i.e., the material is handled as a valuable
commodity (whether used on-site or shipped off-site to other paper
recycling mills); the material has meaningful heating value; and the
material contains contaminants that are comparable to or lower than the
traditional fuels the units were designed to burn.
    In addition to the wet strength short fibers that are recovered
from the paper recycling process and used as fuel, fine screens remove
other non-fiber packaging material that cannot be used for making paper
products, including polystyrene foam, polyethylene film, other
plastics, waxes and adhesives, dyes and ink, clays, starches, and other
filler and coating additives (generally associated with corrugated
paper products). Small amounts of these non-fiber materials may remain
in the product fuel even though the fuel still contains contaminants
comparable to the fuel burned by the recycling plants.
    To ensure that excess contaminants are removed and that the
material meets the legitimacy criteria when combusted, the EPA is
issuing a final rule that provides that the material covered by the
categorical listing consists primarily of wet strength short fibers
that contain only small amounts of non-fiber materials including
polystyrene foam, polyethylene film, other plastics, waxes, dyes and
inks, clays, starches, and other filler and coating additives. PRRs
that are not composed primarily of unsuitable wood fibers and contain
more than small amounts of these non-fiber materials would be
considered waste fuels and would not be eligible for this categorical
listing. Thus, not all residuals may be properly burned as a product
fuel.
    Paper recycling mills generate between 450,000 and 600,000 tons of
PRRs per year. Approximately 30 percent of the PRRs (135,000 to 180,000
tons) generated are burned for their fuel value at 15 to 20 different
paper recycling mills.\72\ Although there are over 100 paper recycling
mills across the U.S., the majority of mills' boilers use natural gas
and cannot burn solid fuels. As a result, PRRs generated in their
processes generally are landfilled. At any particular paper recycling
mill capable of burning PRRs (i.e., their boilers burn solid fuel),
between 55 to 100 percent of the PRRs generated on-site are burned and
may represent between 20 to 25 percent of the total solid fuel burned
in their solid fuel boilers. Of the 30 percent of PRRs burned as fuel,
no more than 5 percent is burned off-site.\73\ For the PRRs burned off-
site, the proposal stated that in two cases they have been used to
supplement other fuels burned at a commercial cogeneration plant \74\
and a commercial biomass gasification plant.\75\ However, the
information regarding off-site use is based on only these two cases and
the Agency lacks sufficient detail to determine that PRRs, when sent
off-site for energy recovery, other than to those paper recycling mills
within the industry that burn solid fuels (as discussed below),
continue to meet the legitimacy criteria and are not discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Generation, Management, and Processing of Paper Processing
Residuals. Industrial Economics Corporation, October 26, 2012. This
is posted within the docket for the final rulemaking (Docket: EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2013-0110).
    \73\ Generation, Management, and Processing of Paper Processing
Residuals. Industrial Economics Corporation, October 26, 2012. This
is posted within the docket for the final rulemaking (Docket: EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2013-0110).
    \74\ A cogeneration plant is one that generates electricity and
useful heat (instead of releasing it into the environment via
cooling towers, for example) for heating purposes either on-site or
for use nearby.
    \75\ National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Technical Bulletin (TB) No. 806, ``Beneficial Use of Secondary Fiber
Rejects,'' pp. 10-11. See attachment to AF&PA Comments to Docket,
August 3, 2010 (docket document ID number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-
0871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency previously understood PRRs to be a term industry
commonly used to refer to Old Corrugated Container (OCC) rejects.\76\
Since publication of the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule and the
December 23, 2011 proposal, however, the Agency has received comments
more appropriately identifying OCC rejects as a subset of the PRR
universe. Specifically, the term ``OCC rejects'' refers to only one
grade of recovered fiber, whereas PRRs used as fuel encompass residuals
from all types of fiber grades. Therefore, in the proposal as well as
in the final rule, the Agency is including OCC rejects within the
broader PRR universe in a categorical non-waste determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Another term industry often uses when referring to OCC
rejects is ``recycling process residuals'' which was identified in
the March 21, 2011 final rule (76 FR 15486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final regulation, the EPA has determined that not all types
of PRRs may be burned as a non-waste (product) fuel, as further
explained below. The PRRs that are eligible to be burned as product
fuels are limited to the wet strength short wood fibers that are
essentially the same as the wood and biomass products burned by the
paper recycling industry and contain only small amounts of certain non-
wood fibers. Thus, based on the rulemaking record, this final rule
represents a further refinement of PRRs that may be burned as a product
fuel.
2. PRRs Under Previous NHSM Rules
a. March 21, 2011 NHSM Final Rule
    In the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA stated that OCC
rejects are not discarded when used within the control of the
generator, such as at pulp and paper mills, since these NHSMs are part
of the industrial process. In addition, we stated that the data
submitted during the comment period would seem to suggest that these
materials would or could meet the legitimacy criteria. For example, the
data stated that the contaminant levels in these materials are
comparable to, if not less than, those in traditional fuels used at
pulp and paper mills. With respect to the meaningful heating value
criterion, we noted that, although the Btu value of OCC rejects, as
fired, is lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, it can still meet this criterion if
it can be demonstrated that the combustion unit can cost-effectively
recover energy from these materials. Last, the information submitted
also demonstrated that OCC rejects are managed as a valuable commodity
as they are managed in the same manner as the analogous fuel--bark (76
FR 15456-7, March 21, 2011). Therefore, the Agency generally concluded
that OCC rejects burned as a fuel within the control of the generator

are not discarded and not solid wastes. The EPA has determined for this
final rule, as discussed further below, that these legitimacy criteria
are indeed met for OCC rejects and are also met for certain other types
of PRRs and, under the conditions of the final rule, these PRRs
(including OCC rejects) can be burned under Clean Air Act section 112.
b. February 2013 NHSM Final Rule
    Under the February 2013 final rule, we stated that PRRs (which
include OCC rejects) are not discarded when burned under the control of
the generator. Also, after publication of the March 21, 2011 final rule
and during finalization of the February 7, 2013 final rule, we received
additional information regarding the cost effectiveness of PRRs used as
a fuel, including the amount of PRRs replacing traditional fuels at
paper recycling mills and percentages of residuals generated that are
combusted as a fuel.\77\ Based upon the information received at that
time, we stated that the information supported the categorical listing
of PRRs as a non-waste fuel burned on-site. For PRRs transferred off-
site for use as a fuel, we requested information regarding how and
where they are burned and whether they are managed as a valuable
commodity. We also stated that if the information submitted supports
off-site use as a fuel, the Agency may include those PRRs in a
subsequent rulemaking.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Generation, Management, and Processing of Paper Processing
Residuals. Industrial Economics Corporation, October 26, 2012.
    \78\ 78 FR 9111, February 7, 2013 (page 9173).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final Categorical Non-Waste Listing
for Certain PRRs
    In the April 14, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 21005), the Agency
proposed to categorically list PRRs, including OCC rejects, as a non-
waste fuel for those paper recycling mills whose on-site boilers are
designed to burn solid fuels. As stated in the proposal, PRRs generated
during the paper recycling manufacturing process vary in composition.
However PRRs used as fuel are composed primarily of the wet strength
and short wood fibers that cannot be used to make new paper and
paperboard products. Although PRRs are generated at more than 100 paper
recycling mills, only between 15 and 20 mills can burn those materials
as fuel because their boilers are designed to burn solid fuel. The
majority of paper recycling mills cannot burn solid fuels because their
boilers are designed to burn natural gas, and thus, usually send their
PRRs to landfills. Data and information submitted to the Agency by
industry demonstrated that PRRs are not discarded when used as a fuel
on-site within the control of the generator. Further, the data and
information indicated that all three legitimacy criteria are met.
    This final rule adopts the listing of PRRs, including OCC rejects
as categorical non-wastes, but makes several changes to the definition
under 40 CFR 241.2 and the listing of PRRs under 40 CFR 241.4 to
clarify that not all residuals are to be burned as a product fuel.
Based on the rulemaking record, the final rule represents a further
refinement of PRRs that may be burned as a non-waste product fuel and
not are not discarded.
    Specifically, the proposed rule definition had stated ``Paper
recycling residuals means the co-product material generated from the
paper recycling process and is composed primarily of wet strength and
short wood fibers that cannot be used to make new paper and paperboard
products. The term paper processing residuals also includes fibers from
old corrugated container rejects.''
    The definition of PRRs is revised in the final rule to limit the
listing to those PRRs composed of wet strength, short wood fibers, with
only small amounts of non-fiber materials remaining. The definition
also clarifies that PRRs are more appropriately defined as secondary
materials \79\ rather than co-products, generated from the recycling of
paper, paperboard and corrugated containers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Secondary materials are materials that are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of the term co-products could infer that PRRs constitute a
product fuel that has undergone processing through the paper recycling
manufacturing process. Rather, the paper recycling manufacturing
process generates wood fibers that are used to make new paper and
paperboard products. PRRs are a secondary material or ``byproduct'' of
that manufacturing process and are not discarded when used as a fuel
within control of the generator or sent off-site to other paper
recycling mills within the industry. Essentially, the PRRs are wood
fibers used to make paper but, due to their inferior quality (fiber
size), cannot be used in the paper making process. However, they may be
combusted as a fuel.
    The final categorical definition thus states: ``Paper recycling
residuals means the secondary material generated from the recycling of
paper, paperboard and corrugated containers, composed primarily of wet
strength and short wood fibers that cannot be used to make new paper
and paperboard products. Paper recycling residuals that contain more
than small amounts of non-fiber materials including polystyrene foam,
polyethylene film, other plastics, waxes and adhesives, dyes and inks,
clays, starches and other coating and filler material are not paper
recycling residuals for purposes of this definition.''
    Revisions are also made to the language for the categorical listing
of PRRs under 40 CFR 241.4: Non-waste Determinations for Specific Non-
Hazardous Secondary Materials When Used as a Fuel. The proposed 40 CFR
241.4(a)(6) had stated ``Paper recycling residuals, including old
corrugated cardboard rejects, generated from the recycling of recovered
paper and paperboard products and burned on-site by paper recycling
mills whose boilers are designed to burn solid fuel.'' As discussed in
the detail in section V.B.4 of this preamble, PRRs with lower heating
values would not be considered discarded since recycling mills' boilers
can cost effectively recover energy from fuels because of the boiler
design itself. The term, ``on-site,'' is deleted to clarify that PRRs
can be combusted at any paper recycling mill with boilers designed to
burn solid fuel, whether on-site at the generating mill, or transferred
to another off-site paper recycling mill. Finally, the language `` . .
. including old corrugated cardboard rejects generated from the
recycling of recovered paper, and paperboard products'' is revised to
parallel the definition of PRRs discussed above.
    Thus, the final categorical rule listing states: Paper recycling
residuals generated from the recycling of recovered paper, paperboard
and corrugated containers and combusted by paper recycling mills whose
boilers are designed to burn solid fuel.
    The rationale for this final rule is discussed in sections V.B 4
and 5 of this preamble.
4. Rationale for Final Rule
    This section discusses the reasoning provided in the proposed rule
and the reasons for the EPA's final determinations for the categorical
listing of PRRs. EPA adopts the reasoning in the proposed rule and
further explains it in this preamble. Further explanations for the
Agency's decision are provided in the Response to Comments below. The
proposal, this section, and the Response to Comments all constitute the
Agency's final determination supporting this rule.

a. Discard
    When deciding whether an NHSM should be listed as a categorical
non-waste fuel in accordance with 40 CFR 241.4(b)(5), the EPA first
evaluates whether or not the NHSM has been discarded in the first
instance and, if not so discarded, whether or not the material could be
considered discarded because it is not legitimately used as a product
fuel in a combustion unit.
    Based on the rulemaking record, as discussed below, the Agency has
determined that PRRs used as a fuel are secondary materials recovered
from the paper recycling manufacturing process and are not discarded
when burned within control of the generator or sent off-site to other
paper recycling mills within the industry.
i. Generation of PRRs in the Paper Recycling Manufacturing Process
    The paper recycling process is grouped generally into three steps
for purposes of identifying where residuals are generated. In the first
step, bales of the incoming post-consumer paper enter a pulper where
the paper and fiber are wetted and dispersed. A ``debris rope'' or
``ragger'' continuously withdraws strings, wires, and rags that could
otherwise damage the processing equipment. Recovered metals may be sold
to metals recovery facilities, but other materials removed by the
ragger are landfilled because they produce a heterogeneous mixture.
    In the second step, materials that remain in the pulper can either
pass to a junk tower for removal of heavy materials and continue to a
drum screen for removal of lighter materials; or go directly to coarse
screens. For those materials that go to the coarse screens, the
resulting rejects may pass through an air separator and/or a high
efficiency cyclone, which further removes materials based on size,
shape and density, such as plastic and unsuitable paper fibers (i.e.,
wet strength and short wood fibers), which make-up the largest portion
of PRRs that would eventually be used as a fuel. These PRRs may be
consolidated with those generated from the junk tower and drum screen,
and sent across a dewatering screen or a screw or ram press to improve
both ease of handling and heating value.
    In the final step, a series of fine screens remove any remaining
material that cannot be used to make paper or paperboard products.
These rejected materials include unusable paper fiber fines, clays,
starches, waxes and adhesives, other plastics, filler and coating
additives, and dyes and inks. During this step, reject materials may
either pass along to the wastewater treatment system or become part of
the PRR stream and be used as a fuel. For example, for some grades of
reject materials that are dispersed and small, such as dyes and inks,
waxes, and coating adhesives generated from recovered magazines and
other papers, these materials will not be removed by fine screens and
therefore, enter the wastewater treatment system. In contrast, for
other grades, these light reject materials are captured in fine screens
and can be used as a fuel.\80\ These PRRs would then be consolidated
with the PRRs generated in the preceding step before being conveyed to
the combustion source where they are blended with traditional fuels and
fed to the combustor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ AF&PA Technical Bulletin, Attachment 4, Recycling Process
Residuals, p 2. September 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, PRRs are generated at various steps of the paper recycling
process, with the second step producing the bulk of PRRs (i.e.,
unsuitable fibers) destined for use as a fuel. Other non-fiber reject
material (i.e., clays, starches, waxes and adhesives, other plastics,
filler and coating additives, and dyes and inks) contained in the PRRs
would be considered to have a lower heating value than the unsuitable
fibers (see meaningful heating value discussion section V.B.4.b. of
this preamble). All that is generally required for use of PRRs as a
fuel after screening of non-fiber material that cannot be used to make
paper or paperboard products is removal of moisture to increase the Btu
value. Removal of moisture can range from simply allowing PRRs to drain
freely (e.g., for coarse and heavy PRRs) to sending them through a
press (e.g., for smaller and compressible PRRs).
    In determining whether PRRs used as a fuel are more product-like
than waste-like, we considered the following attributes:
     PRRs are generated as a secondary material from the paper
recycling process that makes new paper and paperboard products and
consist primarily of unsuitable wood fibers that are never discarded
within that paper making process.
     When these PRRs are combusted in mill boilers that burn
solid fuel, they recover meaningful heating value;
     Paper recycling mills that can combust PRRs burn a
significant amount of what they generate on-site: 55 percent-100
percent.
     PRRs are used to replace traditional fuels by as much as
25 percent. Accordingly, the wet strength short fiber PRRs, when
generated at the recycling facility, are more product-like than waste-
like.
ii. Off-Site Combustion of PRRs as Fuel
    As discussed in section V.B.5. of this preamble below, the Agency
lacked sufficient information to determine that, after the recycling
process described above, PRRs sent off-site for energy recovery to
facilities outside the paper recycling industry are not discarded. The
Agency stated in the proposal that it was requesting additional
information for PRRs that are burned off-site which demonstrates how
they: (1) Are managed as a valuable commodity (from point of generation
at the paper recycling mill to insertion at the off-site combustor, to
show that discard is not occurring); (2) have a meaningful heating
value; (3) contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than
those in traditional fuel(s) which the combustor is designed to burn;
and (4) the types of facilities that combust these PRRs. The agency
received general statements that PRRs are an important part of paper
mills' fuel mix and that third party sellers and purchasers classify
PRRs as fuel. These general statements did not provide the detailed
information the EPA needed to make a reasoned determination that PRRs
sent off-site to entities outside of the paper recycling industry for
combustion constituted discard or product fuel use.
    Combustion of PRRs off-site and within the paper recycling
industry, however, is different. For these facilities the Agency
examined the data in the record from previous rulemakings as well as
comments received on the proposal. The Agency has determined that the
listing includes PRRs generated by paper recycling mills that transfer
that material off-site for combustion at the estimated 15-20 paper
recycling mills that have the solid fuel boilers capability of burning
PRRs for energy recovery.
    Regarding off-site use, the EPA has discussed in previous NHSM
rulemakings that transferring secondary materials between companies or
facilities does not necessarily mean that the material has been
discarded (see 76 FR 15500, March 21, 2011). The PRRs transferred off-
site to other paper recycling facilities with the capability to combust
these fuels are utilized in the same manner as self-generated paper
recycling residuals, such that they are legitimately burned in solid
fuel boilers that are designed to burn wet fuels (see V.B.4.b. of this
preamble for a discussion of legitimacy criteria for off-site
combustion), with mills optimizing their operation around boiler
design.

Thus, we have determined that such off-site use does not constitute
discard.
b. Legitimacy Criteria
    In determining whether to list PRRs as a categorical non-waste fuel
in 40 CFR 241.4(a), the Agency evaluated the legitimacy criteria in 40
CFR 241.3(d)(1)--that is, whether it is managed as a valuable
commodity, whether it has a meaningful heating value and is used as a
fuel in a combustion unit to recover energy, and whether contaminants
or groups of contaminants are at levels comparable to or less than
those in the traditional fuel the unit is designed to burn. Materials
not meeting these criteria are considered discarded and thus a solid
waste.
i. Managed as a Valuable Commodity
    Regarding the first legitimacy criterion, PRRs that are utilized as
a fuel are managed similarly to traditional fuels that are burned at
paper recycling mills such as hogged wood, other clean biomass, or
coal. PRRs are also managed as a valuable commodity when they are
utilized off-site as a fuel within the paper recycling industry. Some
paper recycling mills store PRRs in containers (i.e., from the
container, PRRs can be fed directly to the boiler) or convey them to a
storage pile of traditional solid fuels where they are comingled prior
to burning. Other paper recycling mills convey PRRs directly to the
fuel feed systems. This demonstrates that PRRs are handled promptly and
are managed as a valuable commodity, such that, after generation on-
site, they are fed directly to the boiler, or, when not used
immediately, they are managed in containers and storage piles along
with traditional fuels used on site.
    For PRRs utilized as a fuel at off-site paper mills, PRRs are
managed similarly to those generated on-site.\81\ These mills store
PRRs in containers until sufficient quantities are accumulated for
transfer (generally not more than several weeks). Upon arrival at the
combustion mill, the material is managed as described above for on-site
generated PRRs. Because storage does not exceed reasonable time frames,
and management is similar to that of traditional fuels, the Agency has
determined that PRRs burned on-site, as well as at off-site paper
mills, meet this legitimacy criterion. To the extent PRRs do not meet
these general standards for being handled as a valuable commodity, for
example by being allowed to accumulate at the combustor or the
applicable site for unreasonable lengths of time not normally done
within the industry, the categorical listing would not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ American Forest and Paper Association phone communication
to EPA, November 11, 2014 included in the docket to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Meaningful Heating Value and Used as Fuel to Recover Energy
    With respect to the second legitimacy criterion, PRRs, as fired and
generated, average 3,700 Btu/lb (or on a dry basis, average 9,100 Btu/
lb).\82\ Although this is lower than the general guideline of 5,000
Btu/lb as fired, the Agency has previously stated that a person may
demonstrate meaningful heating value below 5,000 Btu/lb if the energy
recovery unit can cost effectively recover meaningful energy from the
NHSM (76 FR 15522, March 21, 2011). For PRRs, industry has stated that
paper recycling mills' boilers can cost effectively recover energy at
such heating values because of the boiler design. Specifically, the
mills' solid fuel boilers are designed to burn wet fuels, with each
mill optimizing its operation around boiler design. Typical boilers
used include stoker fired and fluidized bed combustion, which often
have over-fire and/or under-grate air that assists in the efficient
burning of wetter fuels. This allows paper recycling mills to burn
clean cellulosic biomass fuels, such as hog fuel and bark, which is the
primary fuel, as well as PRRs that have varying degrees of moisture
content. If the material being fed to the boiler is too dry, the
combustion temperature can become too hot, requiring operational
adjustments. Consistently wet materials are handled well in these
boilers, leading to fewer temperature swings and minimized boiler
tuning adjustments. Industry also stated that PRRs are analogous to the
primary fuels--hog fuel and bark--used in solid fuel boilers at paper
recycling mills in that they both have high moisture content, usually
>40 percent, and can have Btu values below 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired.
However, PRRs can also have Btu values higher than 5,000 Btu/lb,
depending upon the amount of moisture that has been removed (i.e.,
whether simply draining freely versus pressed), amount of solids, fiber
content, presence of non-fiber packing materials, and combustion
conditions necessary for the effective operation of the boilers.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See AF&PA Comments, p 62, to Docket document ID: EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2008-0329-0871.
    \83\ See ``AF&PA-AWC Responses to EPA's Questions on PRR and
Railroad Ties (May 2013).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the data in the record and the description of
the combustion process of the particular combustors used in the paper
recycling industry confirm that paper mill boilers cost-effectively
recover energy from PRRs used as fuel. These solid fuel boilers are
designed to burn wet fuels, and have over-fire and/or under-grate air
that assists in the efficient burning of wetter fuels. These design
characteristics allow the boilers to burn PRRs (as well as cellulosic
biomass fuels) that have high moisture content.
    The meaningful heating values for PRRs generated at off-site paper
recycling mills are consistent with PRRs generated on-site.\84\
Therefore, based on all of the available information, including the
fact that PRRs are primarily wood fibers, the Agency has determined
that PRRs with heating values averaging 3,700 Btu/lb (or on a dry
basis, averaging 9,100 Btu/lb), whether generated on-site or combusted
at off-site paper recycling mills that burn solid fuel, meet the
meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion and are burned as a
product fuel. PRRs that average less than 3,700 Btu/lb (9,100 Btu/lb
dry basis) would not have meaningful heating value for purposes of this
categorical listing, thus the listing would not apply to those
materials.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ December 2011 boiler database--Boiler Reconsideration
Proposal Databases: Emissions Database for Boilers and Process
Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM, & Fuel Analysis Data Reported
under ICR No. 2286.01 & ICR No. 2286.03 (version 7); http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html. Data presented is for paper
manufacturing facilities with NAICS code #322 and where fuel type
indicates it refers to the repulped paper fibers that are used as
fuels and include: ``dewatered combustible residues,'' ``hydro
pulper refuse,'' ``OCC rejects,'' ``recycle fiber lightweight
rejects,'' and ``recycled fiber.''
    \85\ In determining compliance with this legitimacy criterion
(i.e., average value of 3,700 Btu/lb) the Agency anticipates, for
PRRs generated on-site, that boiler operators will use generator
knowledge in combination with testing on an as needed basis, to
determine Btu value of the PRRs to be burned. For PRRs sent off-site
to another paper recycling mill boiler, the receiving boiler also
may rely on generator knowledge and testing, but may need to test
more frequently based on the consistency of the PRRs composition
from each of the generating mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See also section V.B.6.a.i. for a discussion of data on facilities
combusting PRRs greater than 3, 700 Btu/lb, and options for facilities
combusting PRRs that are less than that Btu/lb level.
iii. Contaminants Comparable to or Lower Than Traditional Fuels
    For the third legitimacy criterion, a contaminant comparison was
conducted to capture data that is representative of all PRR fuel types
within the EPA's Boiler MACT Database. The contaminant data include
PRRs

combusted both on-site and offsite.\86\ See Table 2 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ In response to the ANPRM, commenters submitted data for OCC
rejects, which show that OCC rejects meet the contaminant criterion.

          TABLE 2--Comparison of Contaminants in Paper Recycling Residuals (PRRs) and Traditional Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Contaminants \a\            Clean wood/biomass            Coal \b\ range               PRRs \c\ \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.....................  ND-298....................  ND-174....................  0-17.7
Chromium....................  ND-340....................  ND-168....................  <0.17-26.9
Lead........................  ND-340....................  ND-148....................  <0.10-21.1
Mercury \e\.................  ND-1.1....................  ND-3.1....................  ND-0.0724
Chlorine....................  ND-5400...................  ND-9,080..................  <9.8-7310
Sulfur......................  ND-8700...................  740-61,300................  237-2500
Antimony....................  ND-26.....................  ND-10.....................  0.07-0.9
Beryllium...................  ND-10.....................  ND-206....................  0.005-0.329
Cadmium.....................  ND-17.....................  ND-19.....................  0.03-7.1
Cobalt......................  ND-213....................  ND-30.....................  1.05-1.99
Manganese...................  ND-15,800.................  ND-512....................  <0.10-21.1
Nickel......................  ND-540....................  ND-730....................  <0.27-25
Selenium \f\................  ND-9......................  ND-74.3...................  ND-3.29
Fluorine \g\................  ND-300....................  ND-178....................  <17-<26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All units expressed in parts per million (ppm) on a dry weight basis.
\b\ Coal and Biomass data taken from the EPA document Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables
  for Comparison, November 29, 2011, available at www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm. Refer to
  document for footnotes and sources of the data.
\c\ December 2011 boiler database--Boiler Reconsideration Proposal Databases: Emissions Database for Boilers and
  Process Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM, & Fuel Analysis Data Reported under ICR No. 2286.01 & ICR No.
  2286.03 (version 7); http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html. Data presented is for paper manufacturing
  facilities with NAICS code #322 and where fuel type indicates it refers to the repulped paper fibers that are
  used as fuels and include: ``dewatered combustible residues,'' ``hydro pulper refuse,'' ``OCC rejects,''
  ``recycle fiber lightweight rejects,'' and ``recycled fiber.''
\d\ CAA 112 Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) compounds (e.g., benzene, PAHs) data was not collected in this data
  set. HAP compounds may be present.
\e\ Other PRR sample results indicate mercury was non-detect at 0.1 ppm; therefore, some samples could have been
  between the highest recorded value of 0.0724 ppm and the non-detect limit of 0.1 ppm.
\f\ Other PRR sample results indicate that selenium was non-detect at 7 ppm; therefore, some samples could have
  been between the highest recorded value of 3.29 ppm and the non-detect limit of 7 ppm.
\g\ Fluorine was not detected in any samples; the highest non-detect level is listed.

    As discussed in the proposed rule (79 FR 21019, April 14, 2014),
and adopted for the final rule, contaminant concentrations of those
constituents found in Table 2 of this preamble in PRRs were compared to
the levels found in coal and biomass, since both of these traditional
fuels can be burned in boilers at paper recycling mills (see discussion
below regarding combustion of coal). Data show that PRRs, whether
combusted at on-site or off-site paper recycling mills, meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. The only reported instance of PRRs
containing a contaminant at levels approaching the highest levels in
coal and biomass is a chlorine concentration at a mill burning OCC
rejects. However, the highest reported value for chlorine in PRRs was
7,310 ppm, which is still below the highest reported value for chlorine
in coal (9,080 ppm). Therefore, the contaminant concentrations for
these contaminants are comparable to the traditional fuels that the
boilers are designed to burn.
    With regard to organic HAP present in PRRs, although no specific
data is available on the concentration of these contaminants in PRRs,
limited data has been published on TCLP extracts of OCC rejects that
include several organic HAPs. With the exception of toluene, which was
found at trace levels ranging from <0.001 to 0.004 mg/L, no other HAPs
were detected in the TCLP extracts for OCC rejects.\87\ For purposes of
comparability, a total constituent analysis for toluene would yield a
concentration of up to 0.08 mg/L (or 0.08 ppm), assuming worst case
conditions, which is well below the concentration found in coal at
8.6--56 ppm.88 89 Likewise, the EPA has no reason to find
that results would be any different from the broader universe of PRRs,
since the steps that generate PRRs, which must process multiple grades
of recovered fibers, are equivalent to or more rigorous than those that
generate only OCC rejects (i.e., where the feedstock is limited to
OCCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Technical Bulletin (TB) No. 806, ``Beneficial Use of Secondary Fiber
Rejects,'' Appendix B, Table B1. TCLP Analysis of OCC Rejects. See
attachment to AF&PA Comments to Docket, August 3, 2010 (document ID
number; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0871).
    \88\ Section 1.2 of Method 1311 (Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure) allows for a total constituent analysis in lieu
of a TCLP analysis. That is, the Agency allows calculating a solid
phase's maximum theoretical concentration expected in a TCLP extract
by dividing a sample's total constituent concentration by 20,
representing 20:1 liquid-to-solid ratio (by weight) employed in the
TCLP procedure. See http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/faq/faq_tclp.htm. While leaching extract concentrations do not reflect
total constituent concentrations, multiplying the extract
concentration (0.004 ppm) by 20 provides the minimum total
concentration in the waste. However, because toluene is somewhat
soluble in water (515 mg/L at 20[deg] C), the leaching extract
concentration multiplied by 20, is for this constituent, a
reasonable approximation of the total toluene concentration. Water
solubility data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_toluen.txt.
    \89\ Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison,
November 29, 2011, available at www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm and in the docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contaminant data submitted also compared PRRs to coal as the
traditional fuel for comparison. As stated in section V.B.1. of this
preamble, PRRs may represent between 20 to 25 percent of the total
solid fuel burned in their solid fuel boilers, thus, units combusting
PRRs may also be designed to burn other solid fuels such as coal. As
shown in Table 2 of this preamble, PRR concentrations were comparable
to those in coal as well as clean wood/biomass. Under the final rule,
therefore, units that are designed to burn clean wood/biomass and are
combusting PRRs in boilers that recover meaningful heating value from
those residuals, may

in addition burn coal if the unit is designed to burn that solid fuel.
5. Summary of Comments Requested
    The proposed rule identified several issues pertaining to the
listing of PRRs as categorical non-wastes and requested comment on
those issues which are summarized below.
    Meaningful heating value. Although the heating value is less than
the general benchmark of 5,000 Btu/lb, the Agency determined that PRRs
meet the meaningful heating value criterion since paper recycling mills
have demonstrated that they can cost effectively recover energy from
those materials. The Agency requested information regarding the
percentages of non-fiber materials that typically make-up PRRs; such
information would be useful in understanding the variability of the
PRR's heating value since PRRs that contain a larger portion of wood
fibers could be expected to have a higher heating value. Those non-
fiber materials consist of light reject material captured in fine
screens remaining after the processing steps described in section
V.B.1. of this preamble and consist of polystyrene foam, polyethylene
film, other plastics, waxes and adhesives, dyes and ink, clays,
starches, and other filler and coating additives.
    No information was received from industry regarding the percentage
of these non-fiber materials. Lacking such information, the Agency
finds that PRRs with higher amounts of non-fiber materials would have a
lower heating value. Combustion of more than small amounts of these
materials with these low heating values are discard of those materials
and burning of a waste fuel. The Agency is thus revising the definition
of PRRs to clarify that the categorical non-waste listing applies only
to PRRs composed primarily of wet strength and short wood fibers that
do not contain more than small amounts of polystyrene foam,
polyethylene film, other plastics, waxes and adhesives, dyes and ink,
clays, starches, and other filler and coating additives.
    Other discarded materials. Although the data provided in the boiler
database regarding the level of contaminants in the PRRs indicate that
they meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, evaluations conducted
for the development of the boiler database suggested that, in a few
cases, OCC rejects used as feedstock at paper recycling mills contain
other discarded materials. For example, some paper recycling mills may
accept cardboard containers from off-site that have not been completely
emptied of their contents or otherwise are contaminated with foreign
materials. The Agency was interested in receiving information regarding
how common this practice is, the composition of the contents/materials,
any precautions taken to ensure that the contents/materials do not
contribute to unacceptable contaminant concentrations, and whether any
additional conditions should be imposed to ensure that such cardboard
containers have been emptied. In other words, any remaining contents/
materials should only be incidental.
    Based on information received, and examination of the few cases in
the boiler database of foreign materials present in OCC rejects
undergoing recycling,\90\ the Agency concluded that such situations are
incidental, and no specific conditions to ensure the containers are
empty are warranted, other than to describe the incidental
contamination as part of the categorical listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ December 2011 boiler database--Boiler Reconsideration
Proposal Databases: Emissions Database for Boilers and Process
Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM, & Fuel Analysis Data Reported
under ICR No. 2286.01 & ICR No. 2286.03 (version 7); http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRRs burned off-site. The Agency considered whether to expand the
categorical listing to include PRRs that are burned as a fuel product
off-site. According to earlier comments submitted on previous NHSM
rulemakings, OCC rejects have been used as a supplemental fuel in two
plants: a commercial biomass gasification plant and a commercial
cogeneration plant (where OCC rejects provide 3 to 4 percent of the
total fuel input at the latter plant).\91\ An intermediary company
takes the OCC rejects from three mills and processes them by removing
large pieces of plastic, shredding, and drying the remaining residuals
and delivers the OCC reject fuel to the plants.\92\ Thus, contrary to
what the Agency previously concluded based on the information it had at
the time of the March 21, 2011 final rule,\93\ in these two instances,
the OCC rejects burned off-site in commercial power plants can be
managed more like a non-waste fuel than a waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ In the December 23, 2011 final NHSM rule (76 FR 15487), the
agency previously believed these facilities to be municipal or
commercial incinerators. Subsequent comments have identified these
facilities to be commercial biomass and cogeneration plants.
    \92\ National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Technical Bulletin (TB) No. 806, ``Beneficial Use of Secondary Fiber
Rejects,'' pp. 10-11. See attachment to AF&PA Comments to Docket,
August 3, 2010 (document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0871).
    \93\ The Agency had stated that limited information indicated
that OCC rejects are ``burned in municipal or commercial energy
facilities (which appear to be municipal or commercial incinerators)
and thus, would clearly indicate discard . . .'' 76 FR 15487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the information generally indicates that these PRRs are
managed much the same way as those burned on-site, it is based on only
two cases and lacks sufficient detail to determine that PRRs when sent
off-site for energy recovery continue to meet the legitimacy criteria
and are not discarded. Therefore, we requested additional information
for PRRs that are burned off-site which demonstrates how they: (1) Are
managed as a valuable commodity (from point of generation at the paper
recycling mill to insertion at the off-site combustor, to clearly show
that discard is not occurring); (2) have a meaningful heating value;
(3) contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than those in
traditional fuel(s) which the combustor is designed to burn; and (4)
the types of facilities that combust these PRRs.
    Commenters did not provide data regarding how that material meets
other legitimacy criteria including management of the fuel as a
valuable commodity and meaningful heating value. In particular, the
Agency did not receive information that facilities outside the paper
recycling industry combusted PRRs in the solid fuel boilers designed to
burn wet fuels characteristic of paper recyclers. The Agency has
determined that the listing be revised from the proposal to include
PRRs generated by paper recycling mills that do not have the capability
to combust the materials on-site, but are transferred off-site for
combustion at the estimated 15-20 paper recycling mills that do have
the solid fuel boilers capable of burning PRRs for energy recovery. The
PRRs transferred off-site to other paper recycling facilities with the
capability to combust these fuels are utilized in the same manner as
self-generated paper recycling residuals i.e., they are legitimately
burned for fuel in solid fuel boilers that are designed to burn wet
fuels, with mills optimizing their operation around boiler design.
Thus, we have determined that such use does not constitute discard.
6. Responses to Comments
a. Specific Request for Comments
i. Meaningful Heating Value
    Comment: The EPA appropriately determined that PRRs have meaningful
heat value and are burned as a fuel to specifically recover energy in
solid fuel boilers at paper recycling facilities. Mill boilers are
specifically designed to produce heat by combusting materials

such as PRRs and use wet fuels to regulate temperature. Since virgin
biomass, as fired, can contain up to 60 percent moisture and have BTU
values as low at 3,500 MMBtu/lb, there should be no Btu threshold for
PRRs.
    Response: The EPA finds that the data in the record and the
description of the combustion process of the particular boilers used in
the paper recycling industry confirms that paper mill boilers cost-
effectively recover energy from PRRs used as fuel, thus meeting the
meaningful heating value criterion.
    The mills' solid fuel boilers are designed to burn wet fuels, with
each mill optimizing its operation around boiler design. Typical
boilers used include stoker fired and fluidized bed combustors, which
often have over-fire and/or under-grate air that assists in the
efficient burning of wetter fuels. If the material being fed to the
boiler is too dry, the combustion temperature can become too hot,
requiring operational adjustments. Consistently wet materials are
handled well in these boilers, leading to fewer temperature swings and
minimized boiler tuning adjustments.
    PRRs are also analogous to the primary fuels--hog fuel and bark--
used in solid fuel boilers at paper recycling mills in that they both
have high moisture content, usually >40 percent, and can have Btu
values below 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired. However, PRRs can also have Btu
values higher than 5,000 Btu/lb, depending upon the amount of moisture
that has been removed (i.e., whether simply draining freely versus
pressed), amount of solids, fiber content, presence of non-fiber
packing materials, and combustion conditions necessary for the
effective operation of the boilers.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See ``AF&PA-AWC Responses to EPA's Questions on PRR and
Railroad Ties (May 2013).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further understand the variability of the PRR's heating value,
the Agency requested information regarding the percentages of non-fiber
materials (e.g., polystyrene foam, polyethylene film, other plastics,
waxes and adhesives, dyes and inks, clays, starches, and other filler
and coating additives, etc.). As discussed in section V.B.4. of this
preamble, while unsuitable paper fibers (i.e., wet strength and short
wood fibers), make up the largest portion of PRRs destined for fuel
use, PRRs also contain these non-fiber materials that cannot be used to
make paper or paperboard products. PRRs that contain a larger portion
of wood fibers could be expected to have a higher heating value.
    However, no information was received from industry regarding the
percentage of these non-fiber materials as the Agency requested.
Lacking such information, the Agency finds that PRRs with higher
amounts of non-fiber materials would have a lower heating value (i.e.,
consist predominantly of clays, pigments and inorganic fillers, which
have little or no heat content). Combustion of more than small amounts
of these materials which have low heating values constitute discard and
thus burning of a waste fuel. The Agency has revised the definition of
PRRs to clarify that the categorical non-waste listing applies only to
PRRs composed primarily of wet strength and short wood fibers that do
not contain more than small amounts of polystyrene foam, polyethylene
film, other plastics, waxes and adhesives, dyes and ink, clays,
starches, and other filler and coating additives. (See also comment
response regarding PRR definition below.)
    The Agency disagrees that heating value is irrelevant. As discussed
in section V.B.4., based on all of the available information, including
the fact that PRRs are primarily wood fibers, the Agency has determined
that PRRs with heating values averaging 3,700 Btu/lb (or on a dry
basis, averaging 9,100 Btu/lb), whether generated on-site or combusted
at off-site paper recycling mills that burn solid fuel, meet the
meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion and are burned as a
product fuel. PRRs that average less than 3,700 Btu/lb (9,100 Btu/lb
dry basis) would not have meaningful heating value for purposes of this
categorical listing, thus, the listing would not apply to those
materials.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ In determining compliance with this legitimacy criterion
(i.e., average value of 3,700 Btu/lb) the Agency anticipates, for
PRRs generated on-site, that boiler operators will use generator
knowledge in combination with testing on an as needed basis, to
determine Btu value of the PRRs to be burned. For PRRs sent off-site
to another paper recycling mill boiler, the receiving boiler also
may rely on generator knowledge and testing, but may need to test
more frequently based on the consistency of the PRRs composition
from each of the generating mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA realizes that some facilities may be combusting PRRs that
average less than 3,700 Btu/lb. However, data in the record indicates
that a majority of facilities combust PRRs with heating values greater
than 3,700 Btu/lb. Technical data on PRRs cited by industry \96\ shows
that five of the eight facilities (that included moisture content and
heating value data) have as-received heating values greater than 3,700
Btu/lb with an average per facility of 3915 Btu/lb. Review of
facilities combusting PRRs in the Boiler MACT Database indicates six of
eleven facilities have PRR as-received heating values equal to or
greater than 3700 Btu/lb with an average per facility of 4777 Btu/lb
(in other terms, 30 of 55 unique data points are above 3,700 Btu/lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ NCASI Technical Bulletin 806 included in docket number EPA-
HQ_RCRA-0329-0871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Facilities combusting PRRs that do not meet the average 3,700 Btu/
lb meaningful heating value criterion for the categorical PRR non-waste
listing have several options to continue to burn those PRRs. Combustors
may take additional measures to meet the average 3,700 Btu/lb level by
further drying the PRRs or removing low heat content non-fiber
material. Combustors burning lower BTU value PRRs may also make self-
determinations under 40 CFR 241.3(b) that the material is a non-waste
fuel and meets legitimacy criteria including meaningful heating value.
Finally, combustors can continue to burn those lower BTU PRRs under the
section 129 standards of the CAA.
ii. Other Discarded Materials
    Comment: A commenter noted that the proposal stated that
evaluations conducted for the development of the boiler database
suggested that, in a few cases, OCC rejects being recycled contain
other discarded materials. For example, some paper recycling mills may
accept cardboard containers from off-site that have not been completely
emptied of their contents or otherwise are contaminated with foreign
materials. The Agency was interested in receiving information regarding
how common this practice is, the composition of the contents/materials,
any precautions taken to ensure that the contents/materials do not
contribute to unacceptable contaminant concentrations, and whether any
additional conditions should be imposed to ensure that such cardboard
containers have been emptied.
    The commenter went on to say, however, that the EPA does not need
to be concerned about other materials contained in PRRs, and any
unacceptable contaminant concentrations related to such materials. For
sales transactions that are direct with suppliers, the mills and
suppliers rely on the Scrap Specification Circular \97\ to assure the
quality of the bales of recovered fiber received. There are practices
in place to reduce the likelihood of contamination in the incoming
bales. In isolated instances where bales contain unwanted materials,
the bale may be rejected; the bale may be accepted but rejected after

further inspection; or the bale may be used and the contaminants
removed during processing. Given the amount of water and fiber that are