Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels, 6687-6743 [2016-01866]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Monday,
No. 25
February 8, 2016
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40 CFR Part 241
Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6688
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
are removed) in order to use natural gas
instead of fuel oil, as part of normal
operations and not solely as part of
40 CFR Part 241
start-up or shut-down operations.
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110; FRL–9929–56– DATES: This rule is effective March 9,
OLEM]
2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Additions to List of Categorical NonWaste Fuels
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is issuing
amendments to the Non-Hazardous
Secondary Materials rule, initially
promulgated on March 21, 2011, and
amended on February 7, 2013, under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. The Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials rule generally established
standards and procedures for
identifying whether non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid wastes
when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units. In the February 2013
amendments, the EPA listed particular
non-hazardous secondary materials as
‘‘categorical non-waste fuels’’ provided
certain conditions are met. Persons
burning these non-hazardous secondary
materials do not need to evaluate them
under the general case-by-case
standards and procedures that would
otherwise apply to non-hazardous
secondary materials used in combustion
units. This action adds three materials
to the list of categorical non-waste fuels:
Construction and demolition wood
processed from construction and
demolition debris according to best
management practices; 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; and creosote
treated railroad ties that are processed
and then combusted in the following
types of units: Units designed to burn
both biomass and fuel oil as part of
normal operations and not solely as part
of start-up or shut-down operations, and
units at major source pulp and paper
mills or power producers subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD that
combust CTRT and had been designed
to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are
modified (e.g. oil delivery mechanisms
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the RCRA Docket is (202)
566–0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Faison, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Materials
Recovery and Waste Management
Division, MC 5304P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (703) 305–7652;
email: faison.george@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
ADDRESSES:
RIN–2050–AG74
Jkt 238001
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Why is the EPA taking this action?
II. Statutory Authority
III. Introduction-Summary of Regulations
Being Finalized
IV. Background
A. History of the NHSM Rulemakings
B. Background to Final Rule
C. How does the EPA make categorical
non-waste determinations?
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and
Rationale for Final Decisions
A. Construction and Demolition Debris
Processed According to Best
Management Practices
1. Detailed Description of C&D Wood
2. C&D Wood Under Current NHSM Rules
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final
Categorical Non-Waste Listing for C&D
Wood
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Response to Comments
B. Paper Recycling Residuals Used as Fuel
at Paper Recycling Mills
1. Detailed Description of Paper Recycling
Residuals
2. PRRs Under Previous NHSM Rules
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final
Categorical Non-Waste Listing for
Certain PRRs
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Responses to Comments
C. Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties (CTRTs)
1. Detailed Description of CTRTs
2. CTRTs Under Previous NHSM Rules
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final
Categorical Non-Waste Listing for CTRT
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Responses to Comments
VI. Technical Corrections
A. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)
B. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(c)(1)
C. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(iii)
VII. Effect of This Rule on Other Programs
VIII. State Authority
A. Relationship to State Programs
B. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
IX. Cost and Benefits
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
affected by this action, either directly or
indirectly, include, but may not be
limited to the following:
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
6689
GENERATORS AND POTENTIAL USERS a OF THE NEW MATERIALS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF CATEGORICAL NONWASTE FUELS
NAICS b
Primary industry category or sub category
Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................................................
Construction of Buildings .....................................................................................................................................................................
Site Preparation Contractors ...............................................................................................................................................................
Manufacturing ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wood Product Manufacturing ..............................................................................................................................................................
Sawmills ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Wood Preservation (includes crosstie creosote treating) ....................................................................................................................
Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products ........................................................................................................................................................
Cement manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................................................
Railroads (includes line haul and short line) .......................................................................................................................................
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land (Includes: Railroad, scenic and sightseeing) .............................................................
Port and Harbor Operations (Used railroad ties) ................................................................................................................................
Landscaping Services ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Solid Waste Collection .........................................................................................................................................................................
Solid Waste Landfill .............................................................................................................................................................................
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators ..........................................................................................................................................
Marinas ................................................................................................................................................................................................
a Includes:
221
236
238910
31, 32, 33
321
321113
321114
322
32731
482
487110
488310
561730
562111
562212
562213
713930
Major Source Boilers, Area Source Boilers, and Solid Waste Incinerators.
American Industrial Classification System.
b NAICS—North
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities potentially
impacted by this action. This table lists
examples of the types of entities of
which the EPA is aware that could
potentially be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed could
also be affected. To determine whether
your facility, company, business,
organization, etc., is affected by this
action, you should examine the
applicability criteria in this rule. If you
have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Why is the EPA taking this action?
The Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials (NHSM) regulations at 40 CFR
part 241 generally establish standards
and procedures for identifying whether
NHSMs are solid wastes when used as
fuels or ingredients in combustion units.
In the February 2013 amendments, the
EPA listed particular NHSMs as
‘‘categorical non-waste fuels’’ provided
certain conditions are met. Persons
burning these NHSMs do not need to
evaluate them under the general caseby-case standards and procedures that
would otherwise apply to NHSMs used
in combustion units. This action adds
three materials to the list of categorical
non-waste fuels: (1) Construction and
demolition (C&D) wood processed from
C&D debris according to best
management practices, (2) paper
recycling residuals generated from the
recycling of recovered paper,
paperboard and corrugated containers
and combusted by paper recycling mills
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
whose boilers are designed to burn solid
fuels; and (3) creosote treated railroad
ties that are processed and then
combusted in the types of units
described herein.
Abbreviations and Acronyms. The
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this document.
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BMP Best management practice
Btu British thermal unit
C&D Construction and demolition
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential business information
CCA Chromated copper arsenate
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incinerator
CTRT Cresosote-treated railroad tie
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
ICR Information collection request
MACT Maximum achievable control
technology
NAICS North American Industrial
Classification System
ND Non-detect
NESHAP National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NHSM Non-hazardous secondary material
OCC Old Corrugated Cardboard
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
ppm Parts per million
PRR Paper recycling residual
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper prediction limit
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
U.S.C. United States Code
VOC Volatile organic compound
XRF X-ray fluorescence
II. Statutory Authority
The EPA is issuing final amendments
to list certain NHSMs as categorical
non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a)
under the authority of sections
2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and
6903(27). Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to
establish standards for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators
(CISWI), which burn solid waste.
Section 129(g)(6) of the CAA provides
that the term ‘‘solid waste’’ is to be
established by the EPA under RCRA (42
U.S.C. 7429). Section 2002(a)(1) of
RCRA authorizes the Agency to
promulgate regulations as are necessary
to carry out its functions under the Act.
The statutory definition of ‘‘solid waste’’
is stated in RCRA section 1004(27).
III. Introduction-Summary of
Regulations Being Finalized
Regulations concerning NHSMs used
as fuels or ingredients in combustion
units are codified in 40 CFR part 241.1
This action amends the part 241
regulations by adding three NHSMs to
the list of categorical non-waste fuels
codified in § 241.4(a). These new
categorical listings are for:
• Construction and demolition (C&D)
wood processed from C&D debris
according to best management practices.
1 40 CFR 241.2 defines non-hazardous secondary
material as a secondary material that, when
discarded, would not be identified as a hazardous
waste under 40 CFR part 261.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6690
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
• 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.
• Creosote treated railroad ties that
are processed and then combusted in
the following types of units: Units
designed to burn both biomass and fuel
oil as part of normal operations and not
solely as part of start-up or shut-down
operations, and units at major source
pulp and paper mills or power
producers 2 subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDD that combust CTRT and
had been designed to burn biomass and
fuel oil, but are modified (e.g. oil
delivery mechanisms were removed) in
order to use natural gas instead of fuel
oil, as part of normal operations and not
solely as part of start-up or shut-down
operations.
(Refer to section V of this preamble or
the regulatory text for a full description
of the categorical listings).
Determining whether a material is a
solid waste is of particular importance
as it relates to CAA section 129. That
section states the term ‘‘solid waste’’
shall have the meaning ‘‘established by
the Administrator pursuant to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.’’ Id at 7429(g)(6).
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, is commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act or RCRA. If a material is
a solid waste under RCRA, a
combustion unit burning that material is
required to meet the CAA section 129
emission standards for solid waste
incineration units. If the material is not
a solid waste, combustion units are
required to meet the CAA section 112
emission standards for commercial,
industrial, and institutional boilers or, if
the combustion unit is a cement kiln,
the CAA section 112 emissions
standards for Portland cement kilns.
Under CAA section 129, the term ‘‘solid
waste incineration unit’’ is defined, in
pertinent part, to mean ‘‘a distinct
operating unit of any facility which
combusts any solid waste material from
commercial or industrial establishments
. . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 7429(g)(1). The courts
have determined that the CAA
unambiguously requires any unit that
combusts ‘‘any solid waste material at
all’’—regardless of whether the material
is being burned for energy recovery—to
be regulated as a solid waste
2 40 CFR 241.2 defines power producer as a boiler
unit producing electricity for sale to the grid. The
term does not include units meeting the definition
of electricity generating unit under 40 CFR
63.10042 of the Utility Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
incineration unit. See NRDC v. EPA
(489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
RCRA defines ‘‘solid waste’’ as ‘‘. . .
any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility
and other discarded material . . .
resulting from industrial, commercial,
mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities . . .’’ (RCRA
section 1004 (27) (emphasis added)).
The key concept is that of ‘‘discard’’
and, in fact, this definition turns on the
meaning of the phrase, ‘‘other discarded
material,’’ since this term encompasses
all other examples provided in the
definition. In determining the meaning
of discard, the courts have determined
that the ordinary, plain English
definition controls, i.e., discard means
‘‘disposed of,’’ ‘‘thrown away’’ or
‘‘abandoned.’’ See American Mining
Congress v. EPA 824 F. 2d 1177 (D.C.
Dir. 1987); see 76 FR 15460 for a
detailed discussion on the RCRA
definition of solid waste and CAA
section 129.
IV. Background
A. History of the NHSM Rulemakings
The Agency first solicited comments
on how the RCRA definition of solid
waste should apply to NHSMs when
used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units in an advanced notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM),
which was published in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2009 (74 FR 41).
We then published an NHSM proposed
rule on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31844),
which the EPA made final on March 21,
2011 (76 FR 15456).
In the March 21, 2011 rule, the EPA
finalized standards and procedures to be
used to identify whether NHSMs are
solid wastes when used as fuels or
ingredients in combustion units.
‘‘Secondary material’’ was defined for
the purposes of that rulemaking as any
material that is not the primary product
of a manufacturing or commercial
process, and can include post-consumer
material, off-specification commercial
chemical products or manufacturing
chemical intermediates, post-industrial
material, and scrap (codified in 40 CFR
241.2). ‘‘Non-hazardous secondary
material’’ is a secondary material that,
when discarded, would not be
identified as a hazardous waste under
40 CFR part 261 (codified in 40 CFR
241.2). Traditional fuels, including
historically managed traditional fuels
(e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) and
‘‘alternative’’ traditional fuels (e.g.,
clean cellulosic biomass) are not
secondary materials and thus, are not
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
solid wastes under the rule unless
discarded.
A key concept under the March 21,
2011 rule is that NHSMs used as nonwaste fuels in combustion units must
meet the legitimacy criteria specified in
40 CFR 241.3(d)(1). Application of the
legitimacy criteria helps ensure that the
fuel product is being legitimately and
beneficially used and not simply being
discarded through combustion (i.e., via
sham recycling). To meet the legitimacy
criteria, the NHSM must be managed as
a valuable commodity, have a
meaningful heating value and be used as
a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers
energy, and contain contaminants or
groups of contaminants at
concentrations comparable to (or lower
than) those in traditional fuels which
the combustion unit is designed to burn.
Based on these criteria, the March 21,
2011 rule identified the following
NHSMs as not being solid wastes:
• The NHSM is used as a fuel and
remains under the control of the
generator (whether at the site of
generation or another site the generator
has control over) that meets the
legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(1));
• The NHSM is used as an ingredient
in a manufacturing process (whether by
the generator or outside the control of
the generator) that meets the legitimacy
criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(3));
• Discarded NHSM has been
sufficiently processed to produce a fuel
or ingredient that meets the legitimacy
criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(4)); or
• Through a case-by-case petition
process, it has been determined that the
NHSM handled outside the control of
the generator has not been discarded
and is indistinguishable in all relevant
aspects from a fuel product, and meets
the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(c)).
In October 2011, the Agency
announced it would be initiating a new
rulemaking proceeding to revise certain
aspects of the NHSM rule.3 On February
7, 2013, the EPA published a final rule,
which addressed specific targeted
amendments and clarifications to the 40
CFR part 241 regulations (78 FR 9112).
These revisions and clarifications were
limited to certain issues on which the
Agency had received new information,
as well as targeted revisions that the
Agency believed were appropriate in
order to allow implementation of the
rule as the EPA originally intended. The
amendments modified 40 CFR 241.2
3 See October 14, 2011, Letter from Administrator
Lisa P. Jackson to Senator Olympia Snowe. A copy
of this letter has been placed in the docket for this
final rule (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–1873).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
and 241.3, added 40 CFR 241.4, and
included the following: 4
• Revised Definitions: The EPA
revised three definitions discussed in
the proposed rule: (1) ‘‘clean cellulosic
biomass,’’ (2) ‘‘contaminants,’’ and (3)
‘‘established tire collection programs.’’
In addition, based on comments
received on the proposed rule, the
Agency revised the definition of
‘‘resinated wood.’’
• Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion
for NHSMs Used as Fuels: The EPA
issued revised contaminant legitimacy
criterion for NHSMs used as fuels to
provide additional details on how
contaminant-specific comparisons
between NHSMs and traditional fuels
may be made. The revisions include: (1)
The ability to compare groups of
contaminants where technically
reasonable; (2) clarification that
‘‘designed to burn’’ means can burn or
does burn, and not necessarily
permitted to burn; (3) the ability to use
traditional fuel data from national
surveys and other sources beyond a
facility’s current fuel supplier; and (4)
the ability to use ranges of traditional
fuel contaminant levels when making
contaminant comparisons, provided the
variability of the NHSM contaminant
levels is also considered.
• Categorical Non-Waste
Determinations for Specific NHSMs
Used as Fuels. The EPA codified
determinations that certain NHSMs are
non-wastes when used as fuels. If a
material is categorically listed as a nonwaste fuel, persons that generate or burn
these NHSMs will not need to make
individual determinations, as required
under the existing rules, that these
NHSMs meet the legitimacy criteria.
Except where otherwise noted,
combustors of these materials will not
be required to provide further
information demonstrating their nonwaste status. Based on all available
information, the EPA determined the
following NHSMs are not solid wastes
when burned as a fuel in combustion
units and has categorically listed them
in 40 CFR 241.4(a).5
4 See 78 FR 9112 (February 7, 2013) for a
discussion of the rule and the Agency’s basis for its
decisions.
5 In the March 21, 2011 NHSM rule (76 FR
15456), EPA identified two NHSMs as not being
solid wastes, although persons would still need to
make individual determinations that these NHSMs
meet the legitimacy criteria: (1) Scrap tires used in
a combustion unit that are removed from vehicles
and managed under the oversight of established tire
collection programs and (2) resinated wood used in
a combustion unit. However, in the February 2013
NHSM rule, the Agency amended the regulations
and categorically listed these NHSMs as not being
solid wastes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
— Scrap tires that are not discarded and
are managed under the oversight of
established tire collection programs,
including tires removed from vehicles
and off-specification tires;
— Resinated wood;
— Coal refuse that has been recovered
from legacy piles and processed in the
same manner as currently-generated
coal that would have been refuse if
mined in the past;
— Dewatered pulp and paper sludges
that are not discarded and are
generated and burned on-site by pulp
and paper mills that burn a significant
portion of such materials where such
dewatered residuals are managed in a
manner that preserves the meaningful
heating value of the materials.
• Rulemaking Petition Process for
Other Categorical Non-Waste
Determinations: EPA made final a
process in 40 CFR 241.4(b) that provides
persons an opportunity to submit a
rulemaking petition to the
Administrator, seeking a determination
for additional NHSMs to be
categorically listed in 40 CFR 241.4(a) as
non-waste fuels, if they can demonstrate
that the NHSM meets the legitimacy
criteria or, after balancing the legitimacy
criteria with other relevant factors, EPA
determines that the NHSM is not a solid
waste when used as a fuel. Based on
these non-waste categorical
determinations, as discussed above,
facilities burning NHSMs that meet the
categorical listing description will not
need to make individual determinations
that the NHSM meets the legitimacy
criteria or provide further information
demonstrating their non-waste status on
a site-by-site basis, provided they meet
the conditions of the categorical listing.
Please refer to section IV.C of this
preamble for details on the petition
process.
B. Background to Final Rule
As discussed in the February 2013
final rule,6 the Agency had received
comments that additional NHSMs
should be categorically listed as nonwaste fuels for which the Agency had
not requested information as a part of
that proposal. We did not respond to
such comments and issues since they
were beyond the scope of that
rulemaking and indicated that, because
the Agency did not specifically solicit
comments or propose that those NHSMs
be categorically listed in 40 CFR
241.4(a), the Agency must go through
notice and comment rulemaking before
making a final decision. The February
2013 rule noted, however, that two
NHSMs—paper recycling residuals
6 78
PO 00000
(including old corrugated cardboard
(OCC) rejects) and construction and
demolition debris processed pursuant to
best practices—would be good
candidates for a future proposal based
on information provided to the Agency
and that EPA expected to propose those
listings in a subsequent rulemaking.
To supplement the comments
identified in the February 2013 rule, the
Agency received additional information
on these two NHSMs from stakeholders
(see section V of this preamble). As
discussed in the following sections, the
EPA has determined the information
received to date, when taken together,
supports a categorical determination of
these materials as non-waste fuels and
is today listing them as categorical nonwaste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a).
In addition to paper recycling
residuals and construction and
demolition debris, the Agency identified
creosote-treated railroad ties in the
February 2013 final rule as a potential
candidate for a categorical non-waste
listing based on comments from
stakeholders. However, the Agency
indicated that additional information
would need to be submitted before this
NHSM could be addressed. If such
information supported the
representations made by industry—that
is, the American Forest & Paper
Association (AF&PA) and the American
Wood Council—EPA stated that it
expected to propose a categorical listing
for this material as well. Finally, we
noted in the February 2013 final rule
that the Agency received a letter from
the Treated Wood Council asking that
non-hazardous treated wood be
categorically listed—a broad category
that would include creosote-treated
railroad ties. The Agency noted it was
in the process of reviewing the
information in the letter and would
consider whether to propose a
categorical listing for this broader set of
treated wood material.
The Agency has reviewed the
information submitted from
stakeholders regarding creosote-treated
railroad ties. As discussed in the
following sections, the EPA has
determined that the information
received to date, when taken together,
supports a categorical determination for
creosote-treated railroad ties when
combusted in the types of units
described herein and is listing them as
categorical non-wastes fuels in 40 CFR
241.4(a).7 (refer to section V of this
7 As noted above, the Agency also received a
petition from the Treated Wood Council asking that
non-hazardous treated wood be categorically
listed—a broad category that would include
creosote-treated railroad ties. Other treated wood
FR 9160.
Frm 00005
6691
Continued
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6692
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
preamble or the regulatory text for a full
description of this categorical listing).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. How does the EPA make categorical
non-waste determinations?
The February 7, 2013 revisions to the
NHSM rule discuss the process and
decision criteria whereby the Agency
would make additional categorical nonwaste determinations. (See 78 FR 9158.)
While the categorical non-waste
determinations in this action are not
based on rulemaking petitions, the
criteria the EPA used to assess these
NHSMs as categorical non-wastes match
the criteria to be used by the
Administrator to determine whether to
grant or deny the categorical non-waste
petitions.8 9 These determinations
follow the criteria set out in 40 CFR
241.4(b)(5) to assess additional
categorical non-waste petitions and
follow the statutory standards as
interpreted by the EPA in the NHSM
rule for deciding whether secondary
materials are wastes. Those criteria
include: (1) Whether each NHSM has
not been discarded in the first instance
(i.e., was not initially abandoned or
thrown away) and is legitimately used
as a fuel in a combustion unit or, if
discarded, has been sufficiently
processed into a material that is
legitimately used as a fuel; and, (2) if the
NHSM does not meet the legitimacy
criteria described in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1),
whether the NHSM is integrally tied to
the industrial production process, the
NHSM is functionally the same as the
comparable traditional fuel, or other
relevant factors as appropriate.
Based on the information in the
rulemaking record, including
stakeholder comments, the Agency is
addressed in the petition included waterborne
borate-based preservatives, waterborne organicbased preservatives, waterborne copper-based wood
preservatives (ammoniacal/alkaline copper quat,
copper azole, copper HDO, alkaline copper betaine,
or copper naphthenate); creosote; oilborne copper
naphthenate; pentachlorophenol; or dual-treated
with any of the above. The Agency is in the process
of reviewing that petition and supplementary
information submitted subsequent to the petition.
Accordingly, while cresosote treated wood railroad
ties is included in the current rule, other treated
wood materials identified in the Treated Wood
Council’s petition are not addressed in this action.
If upon completion of the Agency’s review, the
information supports a categorical listing of one or
more of these other treated wood materials, the
Agency would propose those materials in a future
rulemaking. See also discussion under Comments
and Information Received on Other Types of
Treated Wood in section V.A.6.c..
8 For a full discussion regarding the petition
process for receiving a categorical non-waste
determination, see 78 FR 9111, February 7, 2013
(page 9158–9159).
9 Supplementary information received from by
M.A. Energy Resources (February 2013) in support
of the crosstie derived fuel was submitted as a
categorical petition in accordance 40 CFR 241.4(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
amending 40 CFR 241.4(a) by listing
three additional NHSMs as categorical
non-wastes. Specific determinations
regarding C&D wood, paper recycling
residuals, and creosote-treated railroad
ties as categorical non-wastes and how
the information was assessed by EPA
according to the criteria in 40 CFR
241.4(b)(5) are discussed in detail in
section V of this preamble.
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and
Rationale for Final Decisions
In this section, the EPA provides the
rationale for its determination that the
three additional NHSMs are appropriate
for listing as categorical non-wastes,
under certain conditions. It also
addresses major comments the Agency
received regarding the three NHSMs
proposed in the April 14, 2014 rule (79
FR 21005).
A. Construction and Demolition Debris
Processed According to Best
Management Practices
The April 14, 2014 proposed rule
described C&D wood in detail (79 FR
21010–11), explained the status of C&D
wood under current rules, discussed
comments received during previous
proceedings, as well as the scope of the
proposed non-waste listing (79 FR
21011–12). The proposed rationale for
the listing is found in the proposal at 79
FR 21012–16 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 C&D Wood
As described in the proposed rule (79
FR 21010–11) and reiterated here, C&D
wood is generated from the processing
of debris from construction and
demolition activities for the purposes of
recovering wood. At construction
activities, this debris results from
cutting wood down to size during
installation or from purchasing more
wood than a project ultimately requires,
while at demolition activities, this
debris results from dismantling
buildings and other structures or
removing materials during renovation.10
Information previously compiled by the
Agency indicates C&D activities
generate an estimated 33 to 49 million
tons of scrap wood each year,
10 Two revisions have been made to the definition
of C&D wood. Please refer to section V.A.3. of this
preamble for a discussion of the revisions to the
definition of C&D wood for the final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approximately half of which is of
acceptable size, quality, and condition
to be considered available for recovery.
However, information on the amount of
processed C&D wood that is burned for
energy recovery is unavailable, although
sources surveyed by EPA for the 2010
proposed CISWI rule and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area and Major Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers
(Boilers) rule indicate that between 4.7
to 11.2 million tons per year of
processed C&D wood may be burned for
energy recovery.11
Also, because clean C&D wood is
considered ‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’
and is already excluded from being a
solid waste,12 the Agency expected the
proposed rule would address C&D wood
generated predominantly from
demolition activities. However, the
proposal acknowledged clean C&D
wood generated from construction
activities that is mixed with
contaminated C&D debris would be
subject to the same practices and
requirements described in the proposed
rulemaking, because it is comingled
with contaminated materials that would
not constitute ‘‘clean cellulosic
biomass.’’ The Agency finds, similarly,
the practices and requirements adopted
in this final rule, which are modified
slightly from the proposal, also apply to
the commingled materials generated
from construction activities. No
information was presented in this
rulemaking to cause the Agency to find
otherwise.
With respect to how C&D debris is
handled, we noted in the proposal and
find in this final rule that, although
contractors may segregate C&D debris at
building sites, the common practice—at
demolition sites in particular—is to
send co-mingled debris to independent
C&D recycling or processing facilities.
At these facilities, operators recover
wood scraps from a mixture of building
materials that often includes metals,
concrete, plastics, and other items that
are unsuitable for energy recovery in
combustion units. Some operators use
‘‘positive sorting’’ techniques, meaning
11 Materials Characterization Paper: Construction
and Demolition Materials. February 3, 2011. EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2008–0329–1811.
12 Clean C&D wood is included in the definition
of ‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’ and thus, may be
combusted as a traditional fuel if it does not contain
contaminants at concentrations not normally
associated with virgin wood. Conversely, C&D
wood that is not ‘‘clean’’ is that which must be
processed to remove contaminants such as leadpainted wood, treated wood containing
contaminants, such as arsenic and chromium,
metals and other non-wood materials. (See 76 FR
15485, March 21, 2011; 78 FR 9138–39, February
7, 2013; and 40 CFR 241.2).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
they specifically remove wood scraps
from the co-mingled debris, picking out
only desirable wood and leaving all
other C&D debris behind for disposal or
other recycling processes. Other
operators use ‘‘negative sorting’’
techniques, meaning they achieve a
similarly clean final product by
removing or excluding contaminated or
otherwise undesirable material from the
C&D debris. Regardless of whether they
use positive or negative sorting,
processing facilities then grind the
recovered wood to a specified size and
deliver it to energy recovery facilities.
C&D wood processing facilities can
use a variety of techniques to remove or
exclude debris unsuitable for a product
fuel. Typically, processors use some
combination of source control,
inspection, sorting, and screening to
meet the specifications identified by
their customers (i.e., combustion
facilities). The nature of the 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 (e.g., the
degree of sorting and number of
screening devices) help determine
which combination of practices will be
most effective. Individual states also
have different requirements related to
the processing and combustion of C&D
wood.13 Despite the variety of options,
the Agency finds certain practices are
essential to ensure processing of the
C&D debris produces a legitimate
product fuel. These practices, described
in the proposal as best management
practices, have been adopted in this
final rule with minor changes and are
discussed later in section V.A.3. of this
preamble. In addition to excluding or
removing a set list of C&D materials
known to contain contaminants (e.g.,
certain types of treated wood),
processors must take steps to eliminate
less obvious contaminant sources (e.g.,
lead-based paint). Consequently, the
standards proposed and finalized in this
document, ensure that the contaminants
in the fuel that is burned will not be
unpredictable, even though the sources
of the wood may vary.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. C&D Wood Under Current NHSM
Rules
a. March 21, 2011 and February 2013
Final Rules
In both the March 21, 2011 and
February 7, 2013 NHSM final rules, EPA
discussed two scenarios under which
13 This final rulemaking does not change or
replace existing state requirements regarding C&D
wood. See section VIII. State Authority A.
Relationship to State Programs of this preamble.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Agency would consider C&D wood
to be a non-waste fuel.14 First, ‘‘clean’’
C&D wood can be burned as a
traditional fuel without any requirement
for testing or recordkeeping—because it
is a ‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’ material
indistinguishable in composition from
virgin wood.15 Second, wood recovered
from C&D debris (i.e., contaminated
wood) can be sufficiently processed to
meet the legitimacy criteria and, thus,
would be a non-waste fuel, although
combustion facilities burning the
material would need to keep records
documenting the material’s non-waste
status. Records would need to document
not only how the processing operations
meet the definition of processing in 40
CFR 241.2, but also how the product
fuel meets the NHSM legitimacy criteria
in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1).16 17
b. December 2011 Proposed Rule
Although the December 2011 NHSM
proposed rule did not discuss or solicit
comments on processed C&D wood, a
number of commenters submitted
comments arguing processed C&D wood
(i.e., recovered from demolition
activities) should be categorically listed
as a non-waste fuel under 40 CFR
241.4(a), or otherwise a non-waste.18
The commenters’ rationale for listing
processed C&D wood as a non-waste is
as follows.
• It is utilized in combination with
other biomass materials to optimize and
manage combustion in boilers due to its
low moisture/high heat characteristics.
• It is sufficiently processed to
remove impurities.
• From a practical materials
management standpoint, C&D materials
are not discarded; collection of most of
these materials is planned for, with C&D
recycle sorting and processing yards
14 76 FR 15485, March 21, 2011 and 78 FR 9138,
February 7, 2013.
15 In the February 7, 2013 final rule (78 FR 9139),
the Agency emphasized that, ‘‘determinations that
the cellulosic biomass used as a fuel or ingredient
is clean, do not presuppose any testing of
contaminant levels. Persons can use expert or
process knowledge of the material to justify
decisions regarding presence of contaminants.’’
16 Recordkeeping requirements for area source
boilers are found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii), while
recordkeeping requirements for major source boilers
are found at 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2).
17 While the combustor would be responsible for
maintaining the records that such NHSM met the
legitimacy criteria, the combustor could request that
the person that generated the C&D wood provide
documentation that the processing operations meet
the definition of processing, as well as the
legitimacy criteria, especially the contaminant
legitimacy criterion.
18 Comments submitted on the December 23, 2011
proposed rule are included in docket: EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2008–0329. Specifically, see the document
ID#’s ending in –1902, –1910, –1950, –1930, –1928,
–1946, –1957, –1927, –1893, and –1905.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6693
receiving the materials as a destination
and the point of generation of the fuel
product.
• Commenters detail the processing
and test data available for C&D
materials, which demonstrates their
value as a fuel.
• Commenters noted the EPA has
already included clean C&D materials in
their proposed clean cellulosic biomass
definition for traditional fuels, but EPA
elsewhere identifies C&D materials that
are not clean as subject to the legitimacy
criteria.
The commenters argued, therefore,
the EPA should remove doubt and list
these materials in the newly proposed
40 CFR 241.4(a) as a non-waste fuel
given both their demonstrated fuel value
and the industry that has been
established for recycling these NHSMs
into useful product fuel.
Expanding further on these
comments, several trade organizations
submitted information in support of a
categorical non-waste determination
that would list processed C&D wood as
a product fuel when burned in
combustion units. The information
suggested that a non-waste listing
include all C&D wood processed in
accordance with industry practices
proven to produce a wood product
meeting the NHSM legitimacy criteria.
The commenters identified ‘‘proven
practices’’ as the sorting (both
mechanical and manual) of C&D
material to separate the following
contaminants: Non-wood material,
wood treated with pentachlorophenol,
chromated copper arsenic (CCA) treated
wood, or other copper, chromium or
arsenical preservatives, and lead
(through the separation of either leadpainted wood or fines or through other
means as specified in applicable state
law). Commenters also compiled a
dataset of contaminant concentrations
in processed C&D wood from nine
combustion facilities in seven states to
demonstrate the efficacy of the
identified practices.
Case-by-case analysis is not necessary,
the trade organizations contended, to
ensure sufficient processing occurs and
that C&D wood products—produced by
different processors using different
sorting techniques—are consistently
managed as a valuable commodity, have
meaningful heating values, and contain
contaminants at levels comparable to or
lower than traditional fuels. Instead,
they argued persons burning C&D wood
for energy recovery only need to certify
the processed C&D wood came from a
facility using the aforementioned sorting
practices.
Other commenters on the December
2011 NHSM proposed rule asserted that
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6694
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
C&D wood should be regulated as a
solid waste because they view it as
having been discarded similar to scrap
tires. Another commenter requested the
EPA require testing for contamination
based on what they described as highly
unpredictable contaminant levels. The
commenter referenced specific
combustion facilities that accepted C&D
wood, including lead-painted wood and
CCA-treated wood, as well as plastics
and foreign debris to support a
requirement for testing. In addition, the
same commenter argued that C&D wood
should only be compared to clean
untreated wood when conducting a
contaminant comparison, not
necessarily what the unit is designed to
burn.19 The Agency’s decision on this
final rule considers the issues raised in
these comments on the December 2011
proposed rule. Responses to the issues
raised in these comments are included
in section V.A.6. of this preamble.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final
Categorical Non-Waste Listing for C&D
Wood
Based on information in the record,
including comments submitted before
proposal, the Agency proposed the
categorical non-waste listing for wood
recovered from C&D debris which has
been processed according to best
management practices to remove certain
contaminants, as a categorical nonwaste in 40 CFR 241.4(a). Under the
proposed rule, combustors of C&D wood
must obtain a written certification from
C&D processing facilities that the C&D
wood has been processed by trained
operators in accordance with best
management practices.20 Such practices
include sorting by trained operators that
excludes or removes non-wood
materials (e.g., polyvinyl chloride and
other plastics, drywall, concrete,
aggregates, dirt, and asbestos), and wood
treated with creosote,21
19 Comments submitted on the December 23, 2011
proposed rule (76 FR 80452) are included in docket:
EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0329. Specifically, see the
document ID numbers ending in –1959 and –1974.
20 If the processed C&D wood does not meet the
categorical listing, the wood may still be considered
a non-waste fuel (on a case-by-case basis), although
any combustor that burns such processed C&D
wood would need to keep records documenting the
materials non-waste status pursuant to 40 CFR
63.11225(c)(2)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2).
21 Although industry trade groups did not list
creosote treated wood as wood that is excluded or
removed, they provided information indicating that
C&D debris can include creosote treated wood.
Based upon the contaminants present in creosote
treated wood and the types of boilers that burn C&D
wood (i.e., those that are designed to burn clean
wood and biomass), operators must exclude or
remove creosote treated wood. With respect to
creosote and as discussed later in section V.C of this
preamble, the Agency evaluated data provided for
creosote-treated railway ties and determined that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
pentachlorophenol, chromated copper
arsenate, or other copper, chromium, or
arsenical preservatives. In addition,
C&D processing facilities that use
positive sorting (where operators pick
out desirable wood from co-mingled
debris) must either exclude all painted
wood from the final product fuel, use Xray Fluorescence to ensure that painted
wood included in the final product fuel
does not contain lead-based paint, or
require documentation that a building
has been tested for and does not include
lead-based paint before accepting
demolition debris from that building.
C&D processing facilities that use
negative sorting (where operators
remove contaminated or otherwise
undesirable materials from co-mingled
debris) must remove fines, i.e., smallsized particles that may contain
relatively high concentrations of lead
and other contaminants, and either
remove painted wood, use X-ray
Fluorescence to detect and remove leadpainted wood, or require documentation
that a building has been tested for and
does not include lead-based paint before
accepting demolition debris from that
building.
This rule finalizes the criteria and
requirements discussed in the proposal
for reasons explained in the proposal,
with three changes to the regulatory
language for lead elimination
requirements for both positive and
negative sorting facilities, two changes
to the definition of C&D wood, and the
addition of new language for the
processor’s written certification and
training requirements. The changes and
additions were made in response to
comments received and based on other
supporting information in the record
and to provide clarity to the best
management practice requirements, as
well as the definition of C&D wood. The
rationale for the changes and additions
that have been made in the final rule are
explained below in this section. The
general rationale for the final listing is
provided in the next section V.A.4. of
this preamble.
Lead Elimination Requirements. One
of the changes between the proposed
rule and final rule concerns the lead
elimination requirements for positive
sorting processors. The lead exclusion
language for positive sorting processors
proposed at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i) did
not specifically provide that facilities
receiving pre-sorted wood from positive
sorting entities who may need to remove
small amounts of unwanted material
prior to chipping and grinding the wood
are also considered positive sorting
boiler design was an integral factor in satisfying the
contaminant legitimacy criterion.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
facilities. Because these facilities
remove some materials, they could be
considered negative sorters.
The proposed regulatory language
resulted from a presumed scenario in
which C&D debris was sent to a single,
centralized processing facility.
However, there are other processors
who receive segregated or pre-sorted
C&D wood from small generators.22
These small generators (e.g., contractors,
community collections, citizen drop-off
locations, and transfer stations)
segregate and collect clean C&D wood
using positive sorting and provide the
recovered C&D wood to ‘‘chip and
grind’’ processors. The chip and grind
processors then conduct additional
sorting, using negative sorting
techniques, to remove small amounts of
unwanted materials from the shipment
prior to processing. These processors
should not be considered negative
sorters.
Recall that negative sorters are
required to remove fines to ensure lead
concentrations in the product fuel are
comparable to or lower than wood or
biomass. Positive sorters, however, are
not required to remove fines because
only the desirable wood is picked from
the C&D debris. Thus, to require a ‘‘chip
and grind’’ processing operation that
has received positive sorted C&D wood
to remove fines when there are none
present is unnecessary. Therefore, the
language for positive sorting has been
revised to include processors that
receive pre-sorted wood from positive
sorting entities. This revision clarifies
that these processors are not negative
sorters for purposes of identifying
which lead requirements are applicable.
Specifically, the final language at 40
CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i) includes new text (see
italic print) to capture these facilities:
‘‘C&D processing facilities that use
positive sorting—where operators pick
out desirable wood from co-mingled
debris—or that receive and process
positive sorted C&D wood must either
. . .’’
Another change was made to the lead
elimination requirements, but for
negative sorters. The term ‘‘all’’ was
added to the options for removing
painted wood under 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(ii)(A). This requirement is
now consistent with the corresponding
requirement for positive sorting
facilities and emphasizes that if
processors choose this particular lead
elimination option, then any painted
22 See comments and data submitted by Covanta
(EPA –HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0084), comments
from American Reclamation Inc. (EPA–HQ–RCRA–
2013–0110–0073), and comments from Genesee
Power Station (GPS) (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–
0091).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
wood received must be removed (or
excluded in the case of positive sorting
facilities). The purpose of this change is
to ensure all painted wood, regardless of
sorting practices, is eliminated from the
final product if the processor chooses
this lead elimination strategy. While it
is expected that processors will make
every effort to remove or exclude all
painted wood under this option, de
minimis amounts could be present and
still render the resultant material a
product fuel. The final regulatory
language adds new text to 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(ii)(A), and now states
‘‘[r]emove all painted wood.’’
The third change that has been made
applies to both positive and negative
sorters. As stated in the previous
paragraph, the term ‘‘all’’ has been
added to the negative sorting
requirements for consistency and to
reaffirm that this particular option is
intended to be a stringent standard.
However, to provide additional clarity
regarding the Agency’s position on de
minimis amounts, we have added the
following language as a parenthetical to
both 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i)(A) and (ii)(A):
‘‘(to the extent that only de minimis
quantities inherent to processing
limitations may remain)’’.
Definition of C&D wood. Two
revisions to the definition of C&D wood
(40 CFR 241.2) have been made. One
revision is to include disaster debris and
the second revision is to broaden what
the Agency considers to be wood
recovered from construction activities.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
noted clean wood in disaster debris had
been included in the definition for
‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’ in a prior
rulemaking, but had not addressed clean
wood from disaster debris mixed with
contaminated materials (e.g., lead-based
painted wood, CCA treated wood,
asbestos containing materials, utility
poles, etc.) and sent for processing
without any prior sorting. Also noted in
the proposal, and of particular concern
to the Agency, was that management of
disaster debris is more expedited and
less controlled and thus, prone to
include contaminants that might
otherwise be sorted out prior to
processing.23 Therefore, the Agency
solicited comment on whether disaster
debris should be included in the
definition of C&D wood despite some
concerns related to processing large
volumes of material expeditiously.
23 Management of disaster debris can involve
significantly greater volumes. For example, prior to
the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, one
local company processed 150 tons of C&D debris
per day. After the earthquake, the city picked up as
much as 10,000 tons of C&D debris per day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Agency finds that these concerns
regarding the management of large
volumes of material in an expeditious
nature would only be relevant if the best
management practices as finalized in
this rule are not used to process wood
from natural disaster debris. The
Agency finds that the best management
practices set forth in this rule are
sufficient to ensure natural disaster
debris is handled and processed in the
same manner as other C&D debris,
regardless of the source or quantity of
material to be processed. In other words,
processors that comply with the best
management practices for this listing
would not be altering the way in which
they process the debris. Should a
processor choose to hire and train
additional sorters or extend operational
hours to process higher volumes, the
limiting factors in this rule that will
continue to ensure the quality of the
processed material are the best
management practices and the training
and certification requirements.
Furthermore, the information provided
to the Agency discusses that when the
incoming material exceeds processing
capacity, the excess material is stored or
sent to a landfill.24 Given the best
management practices and information
indicating the typical handling of excess
material, the Agency has determined it
is appropriate to include disaster debris
in the definition of C&D wood. Thus,
clean wood from natural disaster debris
mixed with other materials and
delivered to a processing facility has
been added to the definition of C&D
wood. However, the natural disaster
debris must be processed in the same
manner as C&D wood recovered from
C&D activities to qualify for this
categorical non-waste listing. The last
sentence of the definition for C&D wood
at 40 CFR 241.2 has been revised to add
text for natural disasters and now reads:
‘‘C&D wood from demolition activities
results from dismantling buildings and
other structures, removing materials
during renovation, or from natural
disasters.’’
The second revision made to the
definition of C&D wood is to broaden
the description of C&D wood generated
from construction activities. As
proposed, commenters interpreted it to
be limited in scope because it did not
capture the many sources of wood
generated from construction activities,
particularly for installation activities.
The wording in the second sentence of
the proposed definition for C&D wood at
24 See comments from American Forest & Paper
Association (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0076)
and Waste Management (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0110–0094.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6695
40 CFR 241.2 read: ‘‘C&D wood from
construction activities results from
cutting wood down to size during
installation or from purchasing more
wood than a project ultimately
requires.’’ A commenter suggested
listing additional types of installation
activities associated with construction
such as incorrectly cut wood, wood
forms, support braces, stakes, etc. Rather
than trying to provide an exhaustive list,
which may not include every possible
type of installation activity, the Agency
has decided to revise the language to
capture any type of installation activity
that can generate construction wood
debris. The second sentence of the
definition now reads ‘‘C&D wood from
construction activities results from
wood generated during any installation
activity or from purchasing more wood
than a project ultimately requires.’’ The
change acknowledges there are several
ways installation activities can generate
wood without limiting those activities.
Training and certification. Two
regulatory additions have been made
based on concepts that had been
discussed in the proposed rule
preamble. One addition is a requirement
for C&D processors to train their
operators. The approach taken in the
proposal was to not include a specific
training requirement for processors, but
to rely on a written certification as a
means for processors to show they had
used ‘‘trained’’ operators (79 FR 21026).
However, the Agency finds this
approach does not provide any
assurance that the processor is
conducting the necessary training in
order to ensure that the resultant
material is not discarded when
combusted and is, therefore, not waste.
Although the written certification
statement, as proposed (and finalized in
this rule), must state the processed C&D
wood has been sorted by ‘‘trained’’
operators in accordance with best
management practices, it did not require
any evidence that training has taken
place, nor did it hold the processor
accountable to their customers. Thus, a
mechanism is necessary to document
when the training has been conducted
so that processors are accountable when
certifying they have used trained
operators. This mechanism is
implemented via new regulatory
language at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii)
which states ‘‘[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.’’ The training
requirement serves as an additional
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6696
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
condition of this categorical non-waste
listing. For further discussion, see
section V.A.5 of this preamble.
The second regulatory addition is to
specify the written certification
requirements. As discussed in the
proposal, to ensure the C&D wood is
processed according to best
management practices, it is important
for the processor to certify they are
meeting such best management
practices using trained operators (79 FR
21013). The Agency has determined a
written certification from the processor
is a necessary mechanism for ensuring
best management practices have been
used and for indicating that the
processor has used trained operators.
The Agency recognizes contracts and
purchase agreements can indicate a
commitment to quality, but also
specifications can vary according to the
needs of one combustor versus another.
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. Therefore, the written
certification is finalized at 40 CFR
241.4(a)(5)(iv) and states ‘‘[a] written
certification must be obtained by the
combustor for every new or modified
contract, purchase agreement, or other
legally binding document, from each
final processor of C&D wood and must
include the statement: the processed
C&D wood has been sorted by trained
operators in accordance with best
management practices.’’ This
certification will assist the combustor’s
determination that the C&D wood has
been sufficiently processed to meet the
conditions of this categorical non-waste
listing. Refer to the section V.A.5 of this
preamble for additional background.
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 C&D wood. 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 nonwaste fuel in accordance with 40 CFR
241.4(b)(5), the Agency first evaluates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 C&D wood is not discarded
when: It is processed in accordance
with best management practices
described herein; it is legitimately used
as a product fuel in a combustion unit;
and when combustors of C&D wood
have obtained a written certification
from C&D processing facilities that the
C&D wood has been processed by
trained operators.
i. Processing of C&D Wood
In the April 14, 2014 proposed rule
(79 FR 21012), the Agency reiterated the
determination in the existing rules that
the wood present in C&D debris is
considered to be a solid waste prior to
processing and that persons must
transform the debris into a legitimate
product fuel in order to burn the
material as a non-waste fuel.25 In
accordance with 40 CFR 241.2,
processing must include operations that
transform discarded NHSM into a nonwaste fuel or non-waste ingredient,
including operations necessary to:
Remove or destroy contaminants;
significantly improve the fuel
characteristics (e.g., sizing or drying of
the material, in combination with other
operations); chemically improve the asfired energy content; or improve the
ingredient characteristics. Minimal
operations that result only in modifying
the size of the material by shredding do
not constitute processing for the
purposes of the definition.
Compared to mixed C&D debris,
processed C&D wood will have
significantly fewer contaminants and
improved fuel characteristics.
Specifically, the removal or exclusion of
specified materials, such as creosotetreated wood (PAHs, dibenzofuran),
pentachlorophenol-treated wood
(pentachlorophenol, dioxins), CCAtreated wood (chromium, arsenic), other
copper, chromium, and arsenical treated
wood, plastics (chlorine), drywall
(sulfur), lead-based paint (lead), as well
as insulation and other materials
containing asbestos,26 will result in
25 This rulemaking does not change the waste
status of C&D wood prior to processing, up to which
point the material would likely be a solid waste
subject to appropriate federal, state, and local
requirements unless it meets the definition of
‘‘clean cellulosic biomass.’’
26 CAA regulations provide additional safeguards
to ensure asbestos is removed from buildings prior
to demolition. Part 61, subpart M (40 CFR 61.145)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
significant contaminant removal. In
addition, the removal of concrete,
aggregates, dirt, and other noncombustible material will significantly
increase the material’s energy value.
Finally, grinding all remaining wood to
a specified size will allow combustors to
transport, store, and use processed C&D
wood in the same manner as virgin
wood and biomass materials.
For incoming C&D debris, processing
facilities can use a variety of techniques
to exclude or remove debris unsuitable
for a product fuel. Typically, processors
use some combination of source control,
inspection, sorting, screening, and
grinding to meet the specifications
identified by their customers (i.e.,
combustion facilities). The nature of the
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 (e.g., the
degree of sorting and number of
screening devices) help determine
which combination of practices will be
most effective. The Agency has
determined that the best management
practices, when performed by trained
operators, addresses the variability
within the industry such that C&D
processing facilities will produce a nonwaste product with contaminants that
are no greater than clean wood and
biomass, regardless of the characteristics
that can influence the level of
contaminants in the C&D wood. Thus,
the Agency finds such processing meets
the definition of processing in 40 CFR
241.2.
ii. Certification
Further, to ensure the C&D wood is
processed according to best
management practices, the Agency had
proposed to require processors to certify
they are meeting such best management
practices using trained operators. This
requirement has been finalized in this
rule for the reasons discussed earlier in
section V.A.3. of this preamble.
Combustors must obtain a written
certification for every new or modified
contract, purchase agreement, or other
legally binding document, from each
requires that owners or operators of a demolition or
renovation activity to inspect the affected building
for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition or
renovation and notify the Administrator. EPA notes,
however, that the 40 CFR 61.141 definition of
‘‘facility’’ explicitly excludes ‘‘residential buildings
having four or fewer dwelling units’’ thus, small
residential buildings that are demolished or
renovated are not covered by the Federal asbestos
NESHAP regardless of whether the demolition or
renovation is performed by agents of the owner of
the property or whether the demolition or
renovation is performed by agents of the
municipality. See also the ‘‘Asbestos NESHAP
Clarification of Intent’’ (60 FR 38725; July 28, 1995).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6697
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
final processor of C&D wood. The
written certification must include the
statement: The processed C&D wood has
been sorted by trained operators in
accordance with best management
practices. Combustors have the ultimate
responsibility to determine the C&D
wood has been sufficiently processed.
The Agency has determined that,
when C&D wood is processed according
to the best management practices, it will
have significantly fewer contaminants
and improved fuel characteristics. The
best management practices ensure the
contaminants in the fuel that is burned
will not be unpredictable, regardless of
the type or number of processing
techniques used. Thus, this rule
finalizes the best management practices,
with some minor changes from the
proposed regulatory language as
discussed previously in section V.A.3.
of this preamble.
b. Legitimacy Criteria
In determining whether to list
processed C&D wood 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. To the
extent that processed C&D wood does
not meet one or more of the legitimacy
criteria, the Agency has considered
other relevant factors in determining to
list C&D wood as a categorical nonwaste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(b)(5)(ii) (see
discussion on formaldehyde below).
i. Managed as a Valuable Commodity
Regarding the first legitimacy
criterion, the information in the record
in support of the proposal and this final
rule demonstrates that both processors
and combustors manage processed C&D
wood as a valuable commodity.
Specifically, after processing, including
grinding to size, processors ship the
material to energy recovery facilities in
covered chip vans or semi-trailers. The
material is then stored on-site at the
combustion facilities in wood fuel
storage yards and generally used within
90 days of delivery.27 Because storage
does not exceed reasonable time frames,
and management is similar to that of
virgin wood and biomass, the Agency
has determined that processed C&D
wood meets this legitimacy criterion.
ii. Meaningful Heating Value and Used
as a Fuel To Recover Energy
With respect to the second legitimacy
criterion, the record shows that
processed C&D wood has a meaningful
heating value and is used as a fuel to
recover energy. Specifically,
information in the rulemaking record
demonstrates that processed C&D wood
has an average as-fired energy content of
6,640 Btu/lb,28 which is greater than
5,000 Btu/lb, which the Agency
considers to have a meaningful heating
value (see 76 FR 15541, March 21,
2011). This also compares favorably to
information compiled by the Agency in
2011, in which 95 samples of
unadulterated timber burned by major
source boilers29 across the country
exhibited an average as-fired energy
content of 5,150 Btu/lb.30 According to
C&D trade organizations, energy
recovery facilities purchase processed
C&D wood and burn the material as fuel
to generate electricity. Thus, the Agency
has determined that processed C&D
wood meets this legitimacy criterion.
iii. Contaminants Comparable to or
Lower Than Traditional Fuels
For the third legitimacy criterion,
C&D trade organizations provided the
Agency with contaminant analyses of
more than 220 samples of processed
C&D wood from nine combustion
facilities in California, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
the state of Washington, and Wisconsin
in support of the proposed categorical
listing for processed C&D wood. The
Agency compared the contaminant
levels found in the processed C&D wood
to the contaminant levels found in clean
wood and biomass materials since any
unit burning processed C&D wood can
clearly burn clean wood and biomass
materials as well.31
As first presented in the April 14,
2014 proposed rule (79 FR 21013–14),
summary results for the contaminant
comparisons are provided in Table 1 of
this preamble, with the contaminants
most likely to be present in unprocessed
C&D debris listed first. The Agency
finds that they support the final
determination that processed C&D wood
meets the contaminant legitimacy
criterion, with the appropriate
qualifications as noted below.
Specifically, arsenic and chromium
are present due to CCA-treated wood;
lead due to lead-based paint chips;
mercury due to light bulbs, ballasts,
thermostats and other mercurycontaining devices present in buildings;
chlorine due to PVC and other plastics;
sulfur due to plaster or drywall
containing gypsum, a sulfate mineral;
formaldehyde due to resinated wood;
and pentachlorophenol due to utility
poles and other treated wood products
currently accepted by some combustion
facilities. Although sources of fluorine
in C&D debris are less clear, the
contaminant’s presence may be due to
its use in flame retardants incorporated
into carpet, furniture, and other
building materials.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF CONTAMINANTS IN CLEAN WOOD/BIOMASS AND PROCESSED C&D WOOD 32 33 34
Clean Wood/
Biomass
Contaminant
Range
Processed C&D Wood
# samples
Average
90% UPL
Maximum
Contaminants Most Likely To Be Present in C&D Debris
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Arsenic .........................................................................
27 See December 7, 2012 letter from Susan Bodine
to Suzanne Rudzinski, page 3. EPA–HQ–RCRA–
2008–0329–2009.
28 Appendix A of April 25, 2013, submittal from
Susan Bodine on behalf of BPA and CMRA,
available in the Docket at EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0110.
29 Major sources are
30 USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions Database for Boilers and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
ND—298 ........
n = 221 ..........
Process Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM & Fuel
Analysis Data Reported Under ICR No. 2286.01 and
ICR No. 2286.03 (Version 6). EPA Docket/Document
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058–3255. February
2011.
31 In response to the proposal, EPA did receive
data showing a contaminant comparison to coke
and coal. However, the data was specific to cement
kilns and cannot be considered to be representative
for all unit types that combust processed C&D wood
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
35.9
91.8
261
(i.e., some boilers cannot burn coal depending upon
feed systems or boiler design type) and therefore,
was not analyzed for this final rule. A case-by-case
comparison, however, can be made using
traditional fuels such as coke and coal if the
combustion unit is designed to burn these materials
and if the concentrations of contaminants are found
to be comparable to or less than those present in
C&D wood, then the contaminant criterion would
be met.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6698
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF CONTAMINANTS IN CLEAN WOOD/BIOMASS AND PROCESSED C&D WOOD 32 33 34—Continued
Clean Wood/
Biomass
Contaminant
Processed C&D Wood
# samples
Range
Chromium ....................................................................
Lead .............................................................................
Mercury ........................................................................
Chlorine .......................................................................
Fluorine ........................................................................
Sulfur ...........................................................................
Formaldehyde ..............................................................
Pentachlorophenol .......................................................
ND—340 ........
ND—340 ........
ND—1.1 .........
ND—5400 ......
ND—300 ........
ND—8700 ......
1.6—27 ..........
ND ..................
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Average
212 ..........
224 ..........
180 ..........
173 ..........
86 ............
183 ..........
45 ............
21 ............
90% UPL
45.0
53.9
0.1
809
45.9
1,300
47.6
19.7
Maximum
116
136
0.16
1,567
139
2,200
104.2
N/A
283
482
0.7
3,521
313
7,300
176.8
126
7.1
0.23
0.53
2.1
115
8.6
1.0
8,000
16.6
0.3
1.3
3.5
180
27.4
1.3
12,600
Contaminants Less Likely To Be Present in C&D Debris
Antimony ......................................................................
Beryllium ......................................................................
Cadmium .....................................................................
Cobalt ..........................................................................
Manganese ..................................................................
Nickel ...........................................................................
Selenium ......................................................................
Nitrogen .......................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
With the exception of four
contaminants—fluorine, lead,
formaldehyde and pentachlorophenol,
every sample of processed C&D wood’s
contaminant levels was well within the
range of clean wood and biomass
materials. With respect to these four
contaminants:
• Fluorine: This contaminant was
first discussed in the proposal at 79 FR
21014. While only one sample out of 45
samples of processed C&D wood exceed
the range for fluorine in clean wood and
biomass, the Agency still considers
fluorine to be at levels comparable to
those found in clean wood and biomass
since this lone sample is present within
a small acceptable range (i.e., 313 ppm
is comparable to 300 ppm).35 36 Thus,
32 Sources: Clean Wood/Biomass ranges taken
from a combination of EPA data and literature
sources, as presented in EPA document
Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels:
Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011,
available at www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/
index.htm. Processed C&D Wood data from April
26, 2013, submittal by Susan Bodine on behalf of
BPA and CMRA, available in the Docket at EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2013–0110.
33 All units expressed in parts per million (ppm)
on a dry weight basis.
34 Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) calculations were
made by commenters using EPA’s ProUCL software,
using either a lognormal distribution or
nonparametric statistics, as appropriate.
35 76 FR 15523–24, March 21, 2011.
36 In addition to determining that the one sample
of fluorine is within a small acceptable range, one
can consider that the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL)
for fluorine in processed C&D wood, when
calculated at a 90 percent confidence level based on
all 45 samples (139 ppm), is well within the range
of clean wood and biomass materials. The UPL
taken at a 90 percent confidence level yields a
number (i.e., 139 ppm), and in the context of
analyzing contaminant samples, persons can be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
ND—26 ..........
ND—10 ..........
ND—17 ..........
ND—213 ........
ND—15800 ....
ND—540 ........
ND—9 ............
200—39500 ...
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
50 ............
50 ............
107 ..........
50 ............
50 ............
50 ............
43 ............
75 ............
the final rule does not include controls
specific to fluorine.
• Lead: As first discussed in the
proposal at 79 FR 21014–15, April 14,
2014, despite efforts by C&D processing
facilities to remove lead, the data
demonstrate that some processing
facilities do a better job than others,
with isolated samples from
Massachusetts reaching 407 and 437
ppm lead, and one of seven samples
from Wisconsin reaching 482 ppm lead.
While most of the 224 samples detected
lead within the range found in clean
wood and biomass materials (ND–340
ppm), 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, amounts that
would not be considered a normal part
of clean wood or biomass. In this
instance, one facility in Massachusetts
provided a composite sample for each of
seven days, and two out the seven
samples exceeded the range of lead
values found in clean wood and
biomass. That could mean more than 28
percent of the processed C&D wood
produced by that facility exceeds lead
levels found in clean wood and
biomass.
C&D processing facilities have options
for eliminating lead in the processed
C&D wood they produce, and
information submitted with the
confident that the next sample taken will be at or
below that number 90 percent of the time.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2.6
0.1
0.3
1.1
78.8
4.0
0.4
3,900
contaminant dataset shows that the two
facilities (one in Massachusetts, the
other in Wisconsin) exhibiting the
highest lead levels shared similar lead
elimination strategies. Although both
facilities accept painted wood, neither
uses X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers
to detect and remove lead-based painted
wood. Nor do they require
documentation of a building inspection
that includes testing for lead-based
paint. By comparison, the Washington
facility included in the dataset requires
documentation of XRF testing before
accepting demolition debris from a
particular building, and as evidenced by
a maximum lead concentration of 26
ppm, lead concentrations in the
processed C&D wood it burns tested
lower than for any other facility in the
dataset. The Minnesota facility included
in the dataset does not accept painted
wood, and as evidenced by a maximum
lead concentration of 110 ppm, lead
concentrations in the processed C&D
wood it burns are also well within the
range of clean wood and biomass
materials.
Both the Massachusetts facility and
the Wisconsin facility relied solely on
removing ‘‘fines’’ to control lead levels.
Fines are small-sized particles that may
contain relatively high concentrations of
contaminants, and facilities can remove
them before and after shredding via
screens or flotation. The Agency does
not dispute that the removal of fine
particles can reduce the levels of lead
and other contaminants, particularly for
C&D processing facilities using negative
sorting. Without additional measures,
however, this strategy does not remove
sufficient lead to transform the C&D
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
debris into a product fuel in all cases
that would warrant processed C&D
wood being categorically listed as a nonwaste fuel. Thus, the Agency had
proposed conditions related to lead
elimination as part of the categorical
non-waste listing for processed C&D
wood. The proposed conditions were:
—Facilities using positive sorting must
either: (1) Exclude painted wood via
the sorting process by selecting only
unpainted wood from incoming C&D
debris for further processing, (2) use
XRF to ensure that painted wood
included in the final product fuel
does not contain lead-based paint, or
(3) require documentation that a
building has been tested for and does
not include lead-based paint before
accepting demolition debris from that
building.
—Facilities using negative sorting must
remove fine particles, which may
include asbestos fibers and other
contaminants in addition to lead, and
they must also either: (1) Remove
painted wood via the sorting process,
(2) use XRF to detect and remove
lead-painted wood, or (3) require
documentation that a building has
been tested for and does not include
lead-based paint before accepting
demolition debris from that building.
No additional data were received in
response to the proposed measures to
eliminate lead that warrant removal of
the conditions or their options for the
final listing. However, as discussed
earlier in section V.A.3. of this
preamble, three changes have been
made to the proposed regulatory
language: (1) Positive sorting has been
revised to include processors that
receive pre-sorted wood from positive
sorting entities to clarify that these
processors are not negative sorters for
purposes of identifying which lead
elimination requirements are applicable;
(2) the word ‘‘all’’ has been added to
clarify that both positive and negative
sorters must exclude or remove all
painted wood from incoming debris;
and (3) the parenthetical language: ‘‘to
the extent that only de minimis
quantities inherent to processing
limitations may remain’’ has been added
to both 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i)(A) and
(ii)(A) to reflect the Agency’s position
on de minimis amounts.
Based on all information regarding the
presence of lead in processed C&D
wood, the Agency has determined that
the proposed conditions are necessary
to ensure that lead levels in processed
C&D wood are comparable to or lower
than lead levels present in clean wood
and biomass. Consistent with the
proposal, the Agency has finalized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
conditions designed to eliminate lead,
with the minor changes as noted above.
See the final regulatory language at 40
CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i) and (ii).
• Pentachlorophenol: The following
was first discussed in the proposal at 79
FR 21015. The presence of
pentachlorophenol in some processed
C&D wood results from processors
either choosing to include industrial
wood products treated with
pentachlorophenol in their product fuel
(in the case of positive sorting) or from
processors not removing those same
industrial wood products from C&D
debris (in the case of negative sorting)
prior to the final grinding step. The EPA
restricted the use and sale of
pentachlorophenol in 1987, with no
registered residential uses allowed for
the past 26 years. As stated in the
proposal, the Agency believed that the
pentachlorophenol concentrations in
processed C&D wood were a direct
result of easily identified wood
products, predominantly utility poles,
that processing facilities can choose to
exclude or remove prior to grinding
recovered C&D wood.37 Therefore,
under the proposed regulatory
conditions, processing facilities must
exclude or remove these known sources
of pentachlorophenol from their final
product fuel to qualify for the
categorical non-waste listing.
Information submitted in response to
the proposed rule affirm that the
pentachlorophenol concentrations in
processed C&D wood are a direct result
of easily identified wood products,
predominantly utility poles, that
processing facilities can choose to
exclude or remove prior to grinding
recovered C&D wood.38 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.
Thus, to ensure that pentachlorophenol
levels in processed C&D wood are
comparable to or lower than clean wood
and biomass, the Agency is requiring
that pentachlorophenol treated wood be
excluded or removed from incoming
C&D debris. See 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5). The
Agency sees no reason to change the
determination expressed in the
37 Based on discussions with plant staff during an
EPA tour of Industrial Disposal Services, Inc. Broad
Run Recycling facility in Manassas, Virginia on
May 23, 2013. The facility processes discarded C&D
wood into a product fuel.
38 See comments from AF&PA (0076.1), DTE
Energy Services (0083.1), and NTH Consultants
LTD for CMS Enterprises (0100) in docket ID: EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2013–0110.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6699
proposed rule and adopts it for the final
rule.
• Formaldehyde: The proposal first
discussed this contaminant at 79 FR
21015, April 14, 2014. For C&D debris
processed pursuant to best management
practices, inclusive of the regulatory
conditions presented in the proposal,
formaldehyde (present in concentrations
as high as 176.8 ppm versus 27 ppm in
clean wood/biomass) is the only
remaining contaminant that raised
questions as to whether it meets the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. Again,
the Agency emphasizes 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. The equivalent for
C&D wood would be sawmills reliant on
recovering energy from sawdust and offspecification lumber to power the
construction lumber production
process. Sawmills may do this, but that
is not the scenario commenters have
described in response to the December
23, 2011 (76 FR 80451) proposed rule
and for which the Agency has
evaluated.
While EPA disagreed with petitioners’
claims that resinated wood components
in C&D debris are categorical nonwastes and the corollary that
formaldehyde concentrations are
therefore irrelevant, the Agency agreed
in the proposal that additional factors
were worth considering in determining
whether to list processed C&D wood
categorically as a non-waste fuel. First,
formaldehyde concentrations in
processed C&D wood may reach 176.8
ppm, but are lower than in pure
resinated wood, which may reach 200
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.39
39 On May 29, 2013, EPA proposed two rules to
protect the public from the risks associated with
exposure to formaldehyde. 78 FR 34796, 78 FR
34820. The proposals would implement the
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood
Products Act (Title VI of the Toxic Substances
Control Act): One will implement the Act’s
emission standards and the other will ensure
products meet the TSCA formaldehyde emission
standards. See https://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/
formaldehyde/.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6700
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 for
determining whether the resinated
wood in certain limited circumstances
is actually a product fuel. As a result, in
the final rule the Agency allows
resinated wood to remain in C&D wood
prior to processing for this categorical
non-waste listing. This determination is
based partially 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. Principally, the
Agency’s determination is based on
information submitted to the Agency
showing that some processors choose to
include resinated wood in processed
C&D wood based on combustor
specifications for a higher Btu value
fuel, which demonstrates that resinated
wood is a valuable product fuel and is
not burned for destruction. 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. The final rule, therefore,
allows processors to choose whether
they will exclude or remove any
resinated wood and still be permitted to
be within the categorical non-waste
listing for C&D debris.
This does not mean, however, that all
resinated wood is considered a nonwaste fuel. The Agency has found that
resinated wood is a non-waste fuel in
the furniture industry because of
particular circumstances in that
industry, and in this case for C&D wood
due to the extraction of fuel value as a
result of the kiln-dried properties of that
wood. In other circumstances, a case-bycase determination would need to be
made.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
5. Summary of Comments Requested
The proposed rule identified several
issues pertaining to the listing of C&D
wood as categorical non-wastes and
requested comment on those issues as
follows.
Processing Techniques for lead and
pentachlorophenol. The Agency
requested comment on the efficacy of
specific processing techniques related to
lead, as well as the feasibility of
reducing pentachlorophenol
concentrations in processed C&D wood
by excluding or removing utility poles
and other industrial wood products
known to be treated with the chemical.
See 79 FR 21015, April 14, 2014. Please
refer to section V.A.4.b.iii of this
preamble for the Agency’s final
determination and supporting rationale.
Formaldehyde levels. The Agency
sought comment on the decision to
balance elevated formaldehyde levels
with the greater heating value and more
consistent moisture content that
resinated wood components lend to
processed C&D wood, rather than
specifically requiring that resinated
wood be excluded or removed from C&D
debris as part of the best management
practices. See 79 FR 21015–16. Please
refer to section V.A.4.b.iii of this
preamble for the Agency’s final
determination and supporting rationale.
CCA-treated wood. As proposed at 79
FR 21016, CCA-treated wood was to be
excluded or removed from C&D debris.
Although the data submitted to the
Agency indicated that arsenic and
chromium concentrations in processed
C&D wood are comparable to levels
found in traditional fuels, there was
concern that because a majority of CCAtreated wood is still in use, an increase
in the amount of CCA-treated wood in
C&D debris can be expected in the
future. Currently, CCA-treated wood can
represent up to 30 percent of the C&D
wood waste stream.40 The concern was
further compounded by the reality that
visual identification of CCA-treated
wood is at times very difficult,
especially when the wood is weathered,
dirty, painted, or if the wood is
characterized by low retention levels.41
One pilot study conducted in the state
of Florida showed that visual sorting of
CCA-treated wood at three different
facilities produced differing results of
success. The two facilities with the
greatest success, which correctly
40 Fattah,
Hassan Abdel, et al. ‘‘Online Sorting of
Recovered Wood Waste Using Automated X-Ray
Technology’’ Final Report; November 30, 2009. See
p. 2. Available in EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110.
41 Blassino, Monika, et al. ‘‘Methods to control
Fuel Quality at Wood Burning Facilities.’’ Available
in EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0033.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identified 89 percent and 90 percent of
the pre-sorted wood as untreated wood,
had provided extensive training to its
employees. The third facility correctly
identified 60 percent as untreated wood,
as evidenced by little or no training.
Given the variability in visually
identifying untreated versus treated
wood, augmenting technologies have
been developed to detect the presence of
arsenic, copper, and chromium, as well
as other contaminants. Studies have
concluded that the use of stains (e.g.,
PAN Indicator Stain 42) and X-ray
Florescence (XRF) technology are the
most promising technologies, with
chemical stains being suitable for
sorting small quantities of wood and
XRF technology being better suited for
sorting large quantities of wood.
Again, the Agency’s concern was
based on anticipated increases of CCAtreated wood in C&D debris, as well as
the accuracy of visual sorting among
C&D processors. Therefore, the Agency
had requested comment on the viability
of either requiring, as best management
practices, C&D processors to implement
formal training programs that emphasize
sorting treated wood from untreated
wood or the use of XRF technology or
PAN indicator stains to provide greater
certainty that CCA-treated wood is
removed from the processed C&D wood.
After considering the information in
the record, including comments
received, the Agency has determined
that CCA-treated wood must be
excluded or removed from C&D debris,
by trained operators, 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. Unlike
formaldehyde levels which are expected
to decrease over time, levels of arsenic
and chromium are expected to increase
with continued use of CCA-treated
lumber or other copper, chromium, or
arsenical preservatives.
The Agency’s decision to require that
operators be trained to exclude or
remove treated wood (with the
exception of resinated wood) as part of
the best management practices, is based
in part on the results from the Florida
pilot study 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
42 PAN stands for the chemical name of 1-(2pyridylazo)-2-naphthol, an orange-red solid with a
molecular formula C15H11N3O. It is used to
determine the presence of almost all metals
excluding alkali metals. The stain is not specific to
arsenic within CCA. It reacts with the copper, so
that wood treated with any copper-based
preservative will also test positive using this stain.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
stains are limited in application when
processing large amounts of C&D debris.
The evidence demonstrates that
processors who train their employees to
visually recognize treated wood are
successful in excluding or removing
CCA-treated wood.43 Therefore, by
requiring processors to train their
operators as part of this categorical nonwaste listing, it will further 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 CCAtreated wood is introduced into C&D
debris.
Disaster Debris. The definition for
C&D wood as proposed did not include
disaster debris. The Agency had defined
‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’ to include
clean wood found in disaster debris.44
However, disaster debris wood that is
mixed with contaminated materials
(e.g., lead-based painted wood, asbestos
containing materials, etc.) had not been
specifically addressed. The Agency
noted in the proposal that management
of disaster debris is more expedited and
less controlled and thus, prone to
include contaminants that might
otherwise be sorted out prior to
processing.45 In light of these concerns,
the Agency requested comment on the
appropriateness of including wood that
is recovered from disaster debris, but
that is mixed with other contaminated
materials prior to arrival at the
processing facility, as processed C&D
wood. Thus, the Agency requested that
commenters provide any data or
information to demonstrate that mixed
disaster debris wood, once processed,
produces wood that contains
contaminants comparable to or lower
than biomass and virgin wood. Further,
the EPA also requested comment on
whether other conditions imposed by
contingency plans, for example, can
facilitate the removal of contaminated
material found in disaster debris.
The Agency finds that the concerns as
expressed in the proposal would only be
relevant if the best management
practices, as finalized in this rule, are
not followed. As discussed previously
in the section on processing (See section
V.A.4.a.i. of this preamble), the best
management practices ensure that the
contaminants in the fuel that is burned
43 Blassino, Monika, et al. ‘‘Methods to Control
Fuel Quality at Wood Burning Facilities.’’ EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0033.
44 76 FR 15478 (March 21, 2011); codified at 40
CFR 241.2.
45 Management of disaster debris can involve
significantly greater volumes. For example, prior to
the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, one
local company processed 150 tons of C&D debris
per day. After the earthquake, the city picked up as
much as 10,000 tons of C&D debris per day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
will not be unpredictable regardless of
the source of the wood, or even the
quantity of wood to be processed. In
other words, processors that comply
with the best management practices for
this listing would not be altering the
way in which they process the debris.
Should a processor choose to hire and
train additional sorters or extend
operational hours to process higher
volumes, the limiting factors that will
continue to ensure the quality of the
processed material are the best
management practices and training and
certification requirements. (For
additional discussion on handling
practices, refer to section V.A.3. of this
preamble.) Thus, clean wood from
natural disaster debris that is mixed
with other materials and is delivered to
a processing facility has been added to
the definition of C&D wood. However,
the disaster debris must be processed in
the same manner as C&D wood
recovered from demolition activities to
qualify for the categorical non-waste
listing.
Trained operators. As presented in
the proposal at 79 FR 21016, best
management practices require sorting by
‘‘trained operators’’ to remove or
exclude all non-wood debris, certain
treated wood, and lead-based painted
wood from the final product fuel. The
Agency noted that operators who are
trained to sort C&D debris, especially to
recognize treated wood, play an
important role in reducing contaminant
levels in the final product fuel.
Therefore, comment was requested on
whether the Agency should require C&D
processors to have formal training
programs in place as part of the best
management practices, as well as
whether processors should be required
to keep records as a condition of the
categorical listing to demonstrate that
such operators have been formally
trained.
In the proposal, the Agency did not
prescribe what a training program could
include due to several factors that
contribute to variability within the C&D
processing industry. 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) are variable within the
industry. Thus, the Agency sought
comment on whether to require
processors to have formal training
programs, and if so, requirements that
would be flexible enough to address the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6701
variability of the incoming C&D debris,
but also provide additional assurance
that C&D processing facilities would
produce a non-waste product fuel with
contaminants that are comparable to or
lower than clean wood/biomass.
For this final listing, the Agency is not
prescribing the elements of a training
program and maintains that flexibility is
necessary to address the variability
within the industry. However, the
Agency is finalizing a requirement for
processors to train their operators in
accordance with the best management
practices. The Agency did not include a
specific training requirement for
processors because it had intended to
rely on a written certification as a means
for processors to show that they had
used ‘‘trained’’ operators. After further
consideration, the Agency finds that this
approach does not provide any
assurance that the processor is
conducting the necessary training in
order to ensure that the resultant
material is not discarded when
combusted and is, therefore, not a
waste. Although the written
certification, as proposed and finalized
in this rule, is intended to confirm that
the processed C&D wood has been
sorted by ‘‘trained’’ operators in
accordance with best management
practices, it does not require any
evidence that training has taken place,
nor does it hold the processor
accountable. Thus, a mechanism is
necessary to document when the
training has been conducted so that
processors are accountable to their
customers when certifying that they
have used trained operators. This
mechanism is implemented via new
regulatory language 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.’’ The training
requirement serves as an additional
condition of this categorical non-waste
listing. This condition is applicable only
to the final processor, because it is
ensuring that processing has
transformed the processed C&D wood
into a non-waste product fuel according
to best management practices before
providing it to the combustor, and the
final processor is responsible for
meeting individual combustor
specifications. However, it is important
to note that the C&D materials at the
intermediate processor facilities would
still be solid wastes.
Written Certification. As proposed at
79 FR 21016, the combustor would need
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6702
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to obtain a written certification from the
C&D processor that the C&D wood has
been processed by trained operators in
accordance with best management
practices. The Agency proposed that the
written certification could take the form
of a contract, purchase agreement, or
other document that requires the
supplier to process the C&D wood
according to combustor specifications
and best management practices. It was
the Agency’s understanding that
purchase agreements and contracts are
common between a processor/supplier
and combustor. Thus, comment was
requested on whether such agreements
and contracts are sufficient
documentation (i.e., can serve as the
written certification) or if a written
certification statement developed
specifically to address the requirements
in the proposal would be clearer and
more effective. The Agency noted that
the existing record keeping
requirements for combustors that
combust NHSMs as fuels listed under 40
CFR 241.4,46 would be appropriate for
maintaining the certification. The
purchase agreement, contract, or other
document, would be considered a
‘‘record’’ which satisfies the record
keeping requirements of 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.47
The Agency has determined that a
written certification statement
developed specifically to address
requirements of the categorical nonwaste listing will provide independent
assurance that processors are providing
a legitimate product fuel to their
customers. 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. The contracts and
purchase agreements that the EPA 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. The written
certification statement is required only
for the final processor, since it is
46 40 CFR 241.4 lists the categorical or ‘‘Nonwaste determinations for specific non-hazardous
secondary materials when used as a fuel.’’
47 These sections state that ‘‘for operating units
that combust non-hazardous secondary materials as
fuel per 40 CFR 241.4, you must keep records
documenting that the material is listed as a nonwaste under 40 CFR 241.4(a).’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
responsible for ensuring that the final
product fuel has been processed
according to best management practices.
Note that the materials at intermediate
processor facilities would still be solid
wastes. Therefore, this final rule
requires combustors to obtain a written
certification from the final processor for
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 the new requirements at
40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iv).
6. Response to Comments
a. Definition of Construction and
Demolition (C&D) Wood
Comment: Commenters supported the
inclusion of disaster debris in the
definition of C&D wood, generally
arguing that the definition already
includes disaster debris because it does
not distinguish between the demolition
and dismantling of buildings by nature
or man. Man-made demolition debris
will not necessarily be distinguishable
from debris created by nature. Managing
wood from natural disasters requires the
same processes used for [man-made]
C&D debris. Although a natural disaster
may increase the quantity of C&D wood
available for processing, processors will
follow the same practices in terms of
material acceptance and processing.
Where incoming material exceeds
processing capacity and cannot be
stored, the material will typically be
landfilled. In addition, purchasers of
processed C&D wood will continue to
require material that meets or exceeds
their specifications, so processors must
continue to exert tight controls to avoid
risking rejected materials. The
[proposed] regulatory requirements for
training and processing would still
prevail. Accordingly, the EPA should
amend the last sentence of the
definition that addresses C&D wood
from demolition activities to include
‘‘natural disasters.’’
Response: We agree that the definition
of C&D wood should include the term
‘‘natural disaster’’ to represent activities
resulting from natural disaster events.
Accordingly, the Agency has revised the
definition from the proposal so that the
last sentence now reads ‘‘C&D wood
from demolition activities results from
dismantling buildings and other
structures, removing materials during
renovation, or from natural disasters.’’
Clean wood in disaster debris had
been included in the definition for
‘‘clean cellulosic biomass’’ in a prior
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking. When clean wood is
picked/sorted (i.e., via positive sorting)
from the disaster debris site and sent to
a processor for chipping and grinding, it
is considered clean cellulosic biomass,
which is a traditional fuel. However, the
Agency had not addressed clean wood
from disaster debris that is mixed with
contaminated materials which could
include other types of treated wood,
drywall, plastics, concrete and so forth,
that is delivered to a processing facility.
When clean wood from disaster debris
is not picked/sorted prior to arrival at a
processing facility, it is no different than
C&D debris and thus, must be processed
in the same manner to qualify for this
categorical non-waste listing.
The proposal expressed concern
regarding the management of disaster
debris prior to processing, such that due
to the circumstances, large quantities of
debris would need to be managed
expeditiously, and consequently may
contain more contaminated materials
that would have been typically sorted
out prior to arrival at a processing
facility. However, after considering the
comments and evidence in the record,
the Agency finds that these concerns
regarding the management of large
volumes of material in an expeditious
nature, would only be relevant if the
best management practices as finalized
in this rule, are not used to process
wood from natural disaster debris. The
best management practices set forth in
this rule are sufficient to ensure that
natural disaster debris is handled and
processed in the same manner as other
C&D debris, regardless of the source or
quantity of material to be processed. In
other words, processors that comply
with the best management practices for
this listing would not be altering the
way in which they process the debris.
Should a processor choose to hire and
train additional sorters or extend
operational hours to process higher
volumes, the limiting factors in this rule
that will continue to ensure the quality
of the processed material are the best
management practices and training and
certification requirements. Further, the
information provided to the Agency
shows that when the incoming material
exceeds processing capacity, the excess
material is stored or sent to a landfill.
Given the best management practices
and information indicating the typical
handling of excess material, the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to
include disaster debris in the definition
of C&D wood. Thus, clean wood from
natural disaster debris that is mixed
with other materials and is delivered to
a processing facility has been added to
the definition of C&D wood. However,
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the natural disaster debris must be
processed in the same manner as C&D
wood recovered from C&D activities to
qualify for this categorical non-waste
listing.
Comment: The definition of C&D
wood should be expanded with respect
to the sources of wood generated from
construction activities. As proposed, the
second sentence of the definition states
‘‘C&D wood from construction activities
results from cutting wood down to size
during installation or from purchasing
more wood than a project ultimately
requires.’’ This sentence may be too
prescriptive, since wood can also be
generated from incorrectly cut wood,
wood used for concrete forms, wood
used for support braces, and other uses
which render the wood unsuitable for
installation.
Response: The definition of C&D
wood as applied to construction
activities was not intended to be limited
to a specific installation activity (i.e.,
cutting wood down to size). The
Agency, however, understands that it
may be read to be prescriptive. To
address any ambiguity, the Agency has
revised the second sentence for
construction and demolition (C&D)
wood at 40 CFR 241.2 with the
following, ‘‘C&D wood from
construction activities results from
wood generated during any installation
activities or from purchasing more wood
than a project ultimately requires.’’
Thus the definition is not limited to
‘‘cutting wood down to size’’ but allows
any waste wood generated at any time
during installation to be considered
construction debris. Although the
revision does not specifically list the
specific installation activities as
suggested, it now acknowledges that
there are a number of different ways that
construction activities can generate
wood without limiting applicable
activities by specifically listing them in
the definition.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. Contaminant Comparison Criterion
Comment: Changes should be made to
the method for comparing contaminant
levels in processed C&D wood. Rather
than comparing the constituents of
concern to virgin wood or biomass, the
Agency should consider establishing a
standard based on analytical surveys of
well-sorted C&D debris and use the test
results as the standard. Also, specific
contaminant levels need to be
developed by the Agency to clearly
define what a legitimate fuel product is
that can be burned as a non-waste.
Without a clearly defined set of
contaminant levels, the rule will be very
difficult to enforce.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: We disagree that any
modifications to the contaminant
comparison legitimacy criterion should
be made, particularly with respect to
establishing what the Agency considers
a ‘‘bright line’’ or even a numerical
approach to setting levels for C&D
wood. The issue is not that analytical
surveys of well-sorted C&D debris
establish a standard. Rather, the levels
in the processed C&D wood must
compare favorably to the traditional
fuels that it replaces. The rationale for
comparison of a NHSM’s contaminant
concentrations to the traditional fuels
which the combustion unit is designed
to burn is explained in several related
rulemakings.48
The Agency disagrees with the
suggestion to develop specific
contaminant levels. We previously said
that if we were to consider such an
approach, the Agency would have to
establish a line for what is acceptable
and the line may either be somewhat
arbitrary or it may exclude materials
that, if carefully considered, should be
considered legitimate. On the other
hand, case-by-case comparisons by each
person evaluating this legitimacy
criterion can take into account the wide
variety of NHSMs, as well as the
appropriate traditional fuel to which it
is being compared. Because this factor
must apply to various different
recycling activities and industries, the
case-by-case approach is most
appropriate.49 Thus, an NHSM must
contain contaminants at levels that are
comparable to or lower than the range
provided for the traditional fuel on a
case-by case basis to qualify as a
product fuel.
In the case of a categorical non-waste
listing, the Agency may list a specific
NHSM when it has determined that the
NHSM has not been previously
discarded, or if discarded, has been
sufficiently processed, and is
legitimately used as a product fuel.
When an NHSM is listed as a categorical
non-waste, persons that generate or burn
processed C&D wood will not need to
make individual (i.e., case-by-case)
determinations that it meets the
legitimacy criteria (see 79 FR 21009).
Specifically for C&D wood, the Agency
has evaluated all data and information
and has determined that C&D wood
processed according to best
management practices is transformed
into a legitimate product fuel and is
appropriately listed as a categorical nonwaste. Thus, a case-by-case comparison
of contaminant levels in processed C&D
48 74 FR 54 (January 2, 2009), 75 FR 31883 (June
4, 2010), and 76 FR 15526 (March 21, 2011).
49 76 FR 15525–26.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6703
wood to clean wood/biomass is not
required for C&D wood processed
according to best management practices.
However, if the processing of C&D wood
is found to be in non-compliance with
conditions of this listing, the combustor
may face enforcement action.
c. Construction and Demolition (C&D)
Wood Processed From C&D Debris
According to Best Management
Practices
Comment: C&D wood should be
regulated as a solid waste because it is
discarded similar to scrap tires.
Response: The Agency agrees that a
discarded NHSM is a solid waste first.
However, the commenters make an
incorrect comparison between C&D
wood and scrap tires. In the March 21,
2011 final rule, the Agency stated that
‘‘. . . a system where scrap tires are
removed from vehicles and are collected
and managed under the oversight of
established tire collection programs are
not discarded in the first instance . . .
[t]hese programs ensure that the tires are
not discarded en route to the combustor
for use as a fuel and are handled as a
valuable commodity . . .’’ 50 In this
case, the commenters did not
acknowledge the Agency’s previous
determination that not all scrap tires are
discarded. Moreover, the Agency later
finalized a categorical non-waste listing
for scrap tires that are not discarded.
See the final rule in the Federal Register
at 78 FR 9154, February 7, 2013, and 40
CFR 241.4.
Contrary to scrap tires, mixed C&D
debris (i.e., it is not composed of only
clean cellulosic biomass) is discarded in
all instances and must be processed
sufficiently to transform the resulting
C&D wood into a legitimate non-waste
fuel. This is unlike scrap tires, where
only the scrap tires that have been
discarded must be processed to become
a non-waste fuel.
The Agency has discussed its position
on processing of discarded secondary
materials at length in the March 21,
2011 final rule. For discarded secondary
materials, when sufficient processing
has been performed and if the resulting
material meets the legitimacy criteria,
the fuel or ingredient product would be
considered a non-waste material (76 FR
15475–76, March 21, 2011). The Agency
has determined previously that C&D
debris can be processed to transform the
C&D wood into a product fuel that
meets the legitimacy criteria (76 FR
15485, March 21, 2011 and 78 FR 9138,
February 7, 2013). Further, the Agency
has determined that processed C&D
wood is appropriately listed as a
50 See
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
76 FR 15491–92.
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6704
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
categorical non-waste when specific
conditions are met which are:
conducting processing according to best
management practices, 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 nonhazardous 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&Dderived 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 leadbased paint before accepting the
demolition debris. In addition, negative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 nonwood 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
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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
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)
52 75
FR 31863 and 76 FR 15484.
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.
53 Since
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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
54 See
55 See
76 FR 15486 (March 21, 2011).
71 FR 21011 (April 14, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6705
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 leadbased 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
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6706
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 nonwaste 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 leadbased. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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 leadbased. The Agency finds that the lead
elimination options for both XRF and
documentation that a building has been
tested for and does not include leadbased 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
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.
60 See Attachment 1 of comment submitted by
Covanta Energy Corporation in Docket: EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2013–0110–0084.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 nonwood 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6707
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6708
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
discussed above, it is a component of a
product that is a commodity fuel.62
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 nonwaste listing for resinated wood, which
discussed that, although the situation
appears similar to the categorical nonwaste 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 nonwaste listing.
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 CCAtreated 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
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
65 April 26, 2013 letter from Susan Bodine to
Suzanne Rudzinski, available at Docket ID: EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0025.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
who choose to exclude or remove CCAtreated 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.
The proposition that XRF technology
and PAN indicator stains would
increase the cost and time associated
66 Blassino, Monika, et al. ‘‘Methods to Control
Fuel Quality at Wood Burning Facilities.’’ Docket ID
EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0033.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6709
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
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6710
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 presorts 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
67 A state may choose, however, to require a third
party sampling program as an additional condition
of this categorical non-waste listing.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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 nonhazardous 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6711
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
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6712
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 (inlieu 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 nonwaste 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 semivolatile 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.
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.
Comment: Removal of utility poles
from the C&D fuel stream is not
necessary for cement kilns when
considering balancing factors, and
68 See Table 1 attached to PCA’s comments on the
proposed rule, Docket ID: EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0110–0081.
69 For a discussion of ‘‘small acceptable range’’
with regard to contaminant comparisons, see 76 FR
15523–24, (March 21, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
especially an organic constituent
grouping comparison. Cement kilns are
designed and operated to effectively use
a variety of fuel streams under wellcontrolled 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 nonwaste 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
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
This final rule addresses only the PRR
material that may be used as a nonwaste 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 nonfiber 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,
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 nonfiber 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 onsite 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.
The Agency previously understood
PRRs to be a term industry commonly
used to refer to Old Corrugated
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6713
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.
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 costeffectively 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
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).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6714
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 offsite 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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
77 Generation, Management, and Processing of
Paper Processing Residuals. Industrial Economics
Corporation, October 26, 2012.
78 78 FR 9111, February 7, 2013 (page 9173).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 coproducts, generated from the recycling
of paper, paperboard and corrugated
containers.
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
79 Secondary materials are materials that are not
the primary product of a manufacturing or
commercial process, and can include postconsumer material, off-specification commercial
chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates, post-industrial material and scrap.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 NonHazardous 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 onsite 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.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
a. Discard
When deciding whether an NHSM
should be listed as a categorical nonwaste 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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 nonfiber 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 wastelike, 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
80 AF&PA Technical Bulletin, Attachment 4,
Recycling Process Residuals, p 2. September 10,
2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6715
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 offsite combustion), with mills optimizing
their operation around boiler design.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6716
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, we have determined that such offsite 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
81 American
Forest and Paper Association phone
communication to EPA, November 11, 2014
included in the docket to the final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
applicable site for unreasonable lengths
of time not normally done within the
industry, the categorical listing would
not apply.
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 overfire 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
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
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).’’
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
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); https://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.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6717
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
combusted both on-site and offsite.86
See Table 2 of this preamble.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF CONTAMINANTS IN PAPER RECYCLING RESIDUALS (PRRS) AND TRADITIONAL FUELS
Contaminants a
Clean wood/biomass
Coal b range
Arsenic .....................................................................................................
Chromium ................................................................................................
Lead .........................................................................................................
Mercury e ..................................................................................................
Chlorine ....................................................................................................
Sulfur ........................................................................................................
Antimony ..................................................................................................
Beryllium ..................................................................................................
Cadmium ..................................................................................................
Cobalt .......................................................................................................
Manganese ..............................................................................................
Nickel .......................................................................................................
Selenium f .................................................................................................
Fluorine g ..................................................................................................
ND–298 .....................
ND–340 .....................
ND–340 .....................
ND–1.1 ......................
ND–5400 ...................
ND–8700 ...................
ND–26 .......................
ND–10 .......................
ND–17 .......................
ND–213 .....................
ND–15,800 ................
ND–540 .....................
ND–9 .........................
ND–300 .....................
ND–174 .....................
ND–168 .....................
ND–148 .....................
ND–3.1 ......................
ND–9,080 ..................
740–61,300 ...............
ND–10 .......................
ND–206 .....................
ND–19 .......................
ND–30 .......................
ND–512 .....................
ND–730 .....................
ND–74.3 ....................
ND–178 .....................
PRRs c d
0–17.7
<0.17–26.9
<0.10–21.1
ND–0.0724
<9.8–7310
237–2500
0.07–0.9
0.005–0.329
0.03–7.1
1.05–1.99
<0.10–21.1
<0.27–25
ND–3.29
<17–<26
a All
units expressed in parts per million (ppm) on a dry weight basis.
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); https://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.
b Coal
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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).
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
86 In response to the ANPRM, commenters
submitted data for OCC rejects, which show that
OCC rejects meet the contaminant criterion.
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 https://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° 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: https://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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6718
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 makeup 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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
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); https://epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
OCC rejects burned off-site in
commercial power plants can be
managed more like a non-waste fuel
than a waste fuel.
While the information generally
indicates that these PRRs are managed
much the same way as those burned onsite, 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
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
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
94 See
‘‘AF&PA–AWC Responses to EPA’s
Questions on PRR and Railroad Ties (May 2013).’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 nonwaste 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
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 asreceived 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
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.
96 NCASI Technical Bulletin 806 included in
docket number EPA–HQ_RCRA–0329–0871.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6719
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).
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 nonfiber 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
97 Standard specifications for buying and selling
of materials issued by the Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries Inc.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6720
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
further inspection; or the bale may be
used and the contaminants removed
during processing. Given the amount of
water and fiber that are processed
together, it is unlikely that the
contaminants would be at a level of
concern. Rejected bales and boxes are
sent to a landfill and are not used as
fuel. Additional testing requirements are
in place to assure that packaging is of
suitable purity for mills producing
recycled paper that will be used for
food-contact packaging.
Response: The Agency disagrees that
the presence of foreign materials in OCC
rejects undergoing recycling should not
be of concern. Combustion of such
materials remaining in the PRRs after
recycling constitute burning of a solid
waste; and as such, units burning those
materials would be subject to CAA
section 129 standards. Information
received from commenters states that
the inspection practices described above
prevent the introduction of other
discarded materials and are standard
practice. Based on that information, and
examination of the few cases in the
boiler database of foreign materials
present in OCC rejects undergoing
recycling,98 the Agency has 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. The Agency reiterates, however,
that the combustion of discarded
materials in PRRs would result in the
application of the CAA section 129
standards.
iii. Combustion Off-Site
Comment: Under D.C. Circuit
precedent, the use of PRRs by the paper
industry should not be treated any
differently from the use of the PRRs by
the generator. AMC I, at 1186, 1192–93
(materials recycled in an ongoing
industrial process are not discarded and
materials that are destined for beneficial
use by the generating industry itself are
not waste because such materials are not
part of the waste disposal problem).
Mills that do not combust solid fuel can
and do send PRRs to mills that have that
capability.
Response: For combustion at PRRs
within the paper recycling industry, the
Agency examined the data in the record
from previous rulemakings as well as
comments received on the proposal. The
Agency has determined that it is
98 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); https://epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
appropriate to revise the proposed to
include PRRs generated by paper
recycling mills that are transferred offsite to other paper recycling mills for
energy recovery. This determination
addresses those generators that do not
have the capability to combust the
materials on-site, but who wish to
transfer their PRRs 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 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.
While the EPA agrees that, under
certain circumstances, PRRs may be
transferred as a product fuel within the
paper recycling industry (and are not
discarded), the Agency disagrees with
the comment’s characterization of the
AMC I case. AMC I does not directly
apply in this instance. The AMC I
holding stated that material reclaimed
in a continuous industrial process could
not be a waste. It did not specifically
cover materials transferred between
facilities, even in the same industry,
particularly a material reclaimed from
recycled paper but then used for another
purpose—burning as a fuel.
Comment: PRRs are an important part
of the fuel mix for facilities other than
paper recycling mills, and third party
sellers and purchasers classify PRR as
fuel. Limiting the ability to utilize PRRs
as fuel to those paper mills that have onsite boilers that are designed to burn
solid fuel is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Many facilities routinely purchase and
transport non-hazardous secondary
materials generated at a third party
location to their sites for legitimate use
as fuel. These materials are sourced and
purchased as fuels from others and
thereby satisfy the first two legitimacy
criteria: (1) Be handled as a commodity
with an established market; and (2) have
sufficient Btu content to support their
use as fuel. The third legitimacy
criterion (contain contaminants that are
not significantly higher in concentration
than traditional fuel products), is
addressed in the user’s air permit rather
than in a duplicative non-waste
determination process.
Several mills have also partnered with
local utilities that can use the PRRs as
fuel. Further, requiring an off-site
facility to petition the EPA before it
could acquire and burn PRRs will add
significant administrative costs. Small
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paper mills typically do not have solidfuel boilers and therefore look to off-site
partners to find appropriate uses for
their PRRs.
Response: The Agency disagrees that
the categorical non-waste determination
should include PRRs combusted at
facilities that are not paper recycling
mills, and lacks sufficient information
to determine that combustors outside
the paper recycling industry continue to
meet the legitimacy criteria and are,
therefore, not discarded.
The Agency clearly stated its need for
additional information regarding
residuals that are burned as fuel at
facilities not under the control of the
generator. The EPA requested detailed
information about how PRRs are
managed as a valuable commodity (from
point of generation at the paper
recycling mill to insertion at the off-site
combustor); have a meaningful heating
value; and contain contaminants at
levels comparable to or lower than those
in traditional fuel(s) which the
combustor is designed to burn.
General statements that PRRs are an
important part of the fuel mix outside
the paper recycling industry, and that
third party sellers and purchasers
classify PRRs as fuel, is not the relevant
consideration for deciding whether
material, even a fuel, is burned as a
waste.
Moreover, merely saying that a
material is considered a fuel does not
address the issue of whether that fuel is
a waste. Wastes may be burned as fuels,
but they still are wastes. The
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. While the EPA may
accept the low Btu value of PRRs as a
legitimate product fuel for paper
recycling facilities, the same kind of low
Btu value fuel could be a waste at other
facilities. At those facilities, any low Btu
value material could simply be thrown
in as a waste.
In addition, the EPA rejects arguments
that the Agency should rely on air
permit emissions limitations in
determining whether material is a
waste. Prior to establishing emission
limits, the EPA first needs to determine
whether the material is discarded in
order to decide whether boiler emission
standards (under CAA section 112
regulations) or CAA section 129
standards would apply.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
PRRs sent off-site for combustion to
facilities outside the paper recycling
industry will require submittal and
approval of a non-waste petition under
40 CFR 241.3(c) to be burned at CAA
section 112 facilities.
Comment: The EPA should include
cement kilns as an appropriate off-site
end-user for utilization of PRR
categorical non-waste fuels. Cement
kilns are capable of handling a wide
variety of fuels without the need for
extensive processing that some other
combustion facilities require in order for
the materials to be legitimate. A table
comparing the contaminant levels in
PRRs to those found in the solid
traditional fuels used at cement kilns,
including coal and coke was provided.99
The table shows that contaminant
concentrations in the PRR categorical
non-wastes are less than the range
maximum for coal and coke, which are
the solid traditional fuels used in
cement kilns. Meaningful heating values
of 3,700 Btu/lb are also well within the
design and operating range of cement
kilns. Some kilns inject water for NOX
control and the same effect could be
achieved using a high moisture fuel
material. There is variation in the
capabilities and other environmental
restrictions of facilities capable of using
PRR categorical non-waste fuels, and
cement kilns in particular generally
have the ability to use a wider variety
of fuels. These materials have great
value to the energy intensive cement
industry, which manages alternative
fuels as valuable commodities.
Response: The Agency disagrees that
the categorical non-waste determination
should include PRRs transported offsite
and combusted at cement kilns. The
information presented on cement kilns
lacks sufficient detail overall to
determine that such PRRs continue to
meet the legitimacy criteria and are not
discarded. The information that was
received included the referenced table
showing that contaminant
concentrations in the PRRs combusted
in cement kiln are less than the range
for solid fuels, as well as cement kilns
overall capability to use a wide range of
materials with lower heating values that
may not be practical in other
combustion processes. However, no
information was provided, as requested,
as to how PRRs are managed as a
valuable commodity from the point of
generation at the paper recycling mill to
insertion at the off-site combustor (i.e.,
cement kiln) to clearly show that
discard is not occurring.
The arguments that cement kilns are
capable of handling a wide variety of
99 Included
in the docket for the final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
fuels without the need for extensive
processing that some other facilities
require and that processing needs to be
flexible and appropriate to the receiving
combustion unit could demonstrate that
cement kilns can burn waste fuels as
well as non-waste fuels. The commenter
also misunderstands the ‘‘processing’’
requirements under 40 CFR part 241
standards. Under 40 CFR 241.3(b)(4),
when discarded, NHSMs must be
processed i.e., ‘‘transformed’’ into a
non-waste fuel, in accordance with the
processing definition at 40 CFR 241.2,
and meet legitimacy criteria prior to
combustion. The capabilities of the
combustion unit are not a factor in
determining whether the material has
been sufficiently processed.
To reiterate, these comments
generally confirm that cement kilns are
capable of burning wastes as fuels. If
they do, they should be regulated under
section 129 of the Clean Air Act.
b. Definition of PRRs
Comment: The EPA proposes to
define PRRs as follows: ‘‘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.’’
Proposed 40 CFR 241.2.
It is our understanding that the EPA
does not intend to distinguish between
residuals from recycling paper and
residuals from recycling old corrugated
containers and that the EPA recognizes
that these residuals are composed
primarily of fibers but that there could
include other materials from the paper
and corrugated cardboard bales. As the
EPA has noted: ‘‘For example, use of old
corrugated cardboard (OCC) rejects
(clay, starches, other filler and coating
materials, as well as fiber) are not
discarded when used within the control
of the generator, since these secondary
materials are part of the industrial
process. OCC rejects can include, and
are usually burned in conjunction with,
other fuels (such as bark) at pulp and
paper mills that recycle fibers. 76 FR at
15472.
To apply this understanding to both
paper and paperboard, we suggest the
following revision to the definition:
Paper recycling residuals means the coproduct material generated from the
recycling of paper, paperboard, and
corrugated containers and is composed
primarily of wet strength and short
wood fibers that cannot be used to make
new paper and paperboard products.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6721
Response: The EPA disagrees that the
definition of PRR should not distinguish
between wet strength and short wood
fibers and the non-fiber material
contained in OCC rejects (clays,
starches, and other filler and coating
additives) as well as other non-fiber
material (polystyrene foam,
polyethylene film, other plastics, waxes
and adhesives, dyes and ink). As
discussed in section V.B.4. of this
preamble, the Agency finds that PRRs
that are not composed primarily of
wood fibers unsuitable for making paper
and contain more than small amounts of
certain non-fiber materials would be
considered waste fuels and would not
be eligible for this categorical listing.
As discussed in the comment above
regarding meaningful heating value, no
specific information was received from
industry regarding the percentage of
these non-fiber materials as the Agency
requested. Lacking information to the
contrary, the Agency finds that PRRs
with higher amounts of non-fiber
materials would have a lower heating
value. Combustion of materials with low
heating values would be considered
discard of those materials and burning
of a waste fuel. The Agency is thus
revising the proposed definition of PRRs
and clarifying the previous statements at
76 FR 15472, March 21, 2011, regarding
non-fiber material contained in OCC
rejects to make clear 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.
The definition also clarifies that PRRs
are more appropriately defined as
secondary materials 100 rather than coproducts, generated from the recycling
of paper, paperboard and corrugated
containers. Use of the term co-products
could infer that PRRs are a product fuel
that has undergone processing through
the paper recycling manufacturing
process. Rather, the paper recycling
manufacturing process primarily makes
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 and legitimately
100 Secondary materials are materials that are not
the primary product of a manufacturing or
commercial process, and can include postconsumer material, off-specification commercial
chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates, post-industrial material and scrap.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6722
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
burned in solid fuel boilers that are
designed to burn wet fuels.
The revised definition of Paper
recycling residuals at 40 CFR 241.2
appears in the regulatory language at the
end of this document.
C. Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties
(CTRTs)
The April 14, 2014 proposed rule
described CTRTs in detail, explained
the status of CTRTs under current rules,
discussed comments received during
previous proceedings, and discussed the
scope of the proposed non-waste listing
(79 FR 21021–23). The proposed
rationale for the listing is found in the
proposal at 79 FR 210 23–28 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Detailed Description of CTRTs
Railroad ties are typically comprised
of North American hardwoods that have
been treated with creosote. Creosote was
introduced as a wood preservative in
the late 1800’s to prolong the life of
railroad ties. Creosote-treated wood ties
remain the material of choice by
railroads due to their long life,
durability, cost effectiveness, and
sustainability. As creosote is a byproduct of coal tar distillation, and coal
tar is a by-product of making coke from
coal, creosote is considered a derivative
of coal. The creosote component of
CTRTs is governed by the standards
established by the American Wood
Protection Association (AWPA). AWPA
has established two blends of creosote,
P1/13 and P2.101 Railroad ties are
typically manufactured using the P2
blend that is more viscous than other
blends.
CTRTs are railroad crossties removed
from service and processed prior to
being used as a fuel. Approximately 17
million crossties are removed from
service each year. About one third of the
removed CTRTs are used for
landscaping, with the majority of the
101 AWPA Standard P1/P13 and P2 provide
specifications for coal-tar creosote used for
preservative treatment of piles, poles and timber for
marine, land and freshwater use. The character of
the tar used, the method of distillation, and the
temperature range in which the creosote fraction is
collected all influence the composition of the
creosote, and the composition may vary with the
requirement of standard specifications. April 2010.
Forest Products Laboratory. 2010 Wood Handbook.
General Technical Report FPL_GTR–190. Madison,
WI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
remaining two thirds used for energy
recovery. Because of its high energy
content, CTRTs can be used for heat and
energy recovery in combustion units as
a nonhazardous biomass alternative to
fossil fuel.102
Most of the energy recovery with
crossties is conducted through three
parties: The generator of the crossties
(railroad or utility); the reclamation
company that sorts the crossties, and in
some cases processes the material
received from the generator; 103 and the
combustor as third party energy
producers. Typically, ownership of the
crossties is transferred directly from the
generator to the reclamation company
that sorts materials for highest value
secondary uses, and then sells the
products to end-users, including those
combusting the material as fuel. Some
reclamation companies sell CTRTs to
processors who remove metal
contaminants and grind the ties into
chipped wood. Other reclamation
companies have their own grinders, do
their own contaminant removal, and can
sell directly to the combusting facilities.
Information submitted to the Agency
states there are approximately 15 CTRT
recovery companies in North America
with industry wide revenues of $65–75
million. Members of AF&PA report that
the value of CTRTs is underscored by
the approximately $20–$30 per ton paid
for CTRTs which can sometimes be a
premium price compared to certain hog
fuels (untreated clean wood residues
from sawmills).104
After crossties are removed from
service, they are transferred for sorting/
processing, but in some cases, they may
be temporarily stored in the railroad
rights-of-way or at another location
selected by the reclamation company.
One information source stated that
when the crossties are temporarily
stored, they are stored until their value
as an alternative fuel can be realized,
generally through a contract completed
for transferal of ownership to the
reclamation contractor or combustor.105
This means that not all CTRTs originate
from crossties removed from service in
the same year; some CTRTs are
processed from crossties removed from
service in prior years and stored by
railroads or removal/reclamation
companies until their value as a
102 American Forest & Paper Association,
American Wood Council—Letter to EPA
Administrator, December 6, 2012.
103 In some cases, the reclamation company sells
the crossties to a separate company for processing.
104 American Forest & Paper Association,
American Wood Council—Letter to EPA
Administrator, December 6, 2012.
105 M.A. Energy Resources LLC, Petition
submitted to Administrator, EPA. February 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
landscaping element or fuel could be
realized.
CTRTs are transferred to reclamation
companies, typically by rail. The
processing of the crossties into fuel by
the reclamation/processing companies
involves several steps. Metals (spikes,
nails, plates, etc.) are removed using a
magnet, occurring one or several times
during the process. The crossties are
then ground or shredded to a specified
size depending on the particular needs
of the end-use combustor, with chip size
typically between 1–2 inches. This step
occurs in several phases, including
primary and secondary grinding, or in a
single phase. Once the crossties are
ground to a specific size, additional
metal is removed if present and there is
further screening based on the particular
needs of the end-use combustor.
Depending on the configuration of the
facility and equipment, screening occurs
concurrently with grinding or at a
subsequent stage. Throughout the
process, a non-toxic surfactant is
applied to the crossties being processed
to minimize dust.
Once the processing of CTRTs is
complete, the CTRTs are sold directly to
the end-use combustor for energy
recovery. Processed CTRTs are
delivered to the buyers by railcar or
truck. The CTRTs are then stockpiled
prior to combustion, with storage
timeframes ranging from a day to a
week. When the CTRTs are to be burned
for energy recovery, the material is then
transferred from the storage location
using a conveyor belt or front-end
loader. The CTRTs are combined with
other biomass fuels, including hog fuel
and bark. CTRTs are used to provide
high Btu fuel to supplement low (and
sometimes wet) Btu biomass to ensure
proper combustion, often in lieu of coal
or other fossil fuels.106 The combined
fuel may be further hammered and
screened prior to combustion. Contracts
for the purchase and combustion of
CTRTs may include fuel specifications
limiting contaminants, such as metal,
and precluding the receipt of wood
treated with preservatives other than
creosote.
2. CTRTs Under Previous NHSM Rules
a. March 21, 2011 NHSM Final Rule
The March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule
stated that most creosote-treated wood
is non-hazardous. However, the
presence of hexachlorobenzene, a CAA
section 112 HAP, as well as other HAP
suggested that creosote-treated wood,
including CTRTs, contained
106 American Forest & Paper Association,
American Wood Council—Letter to EPA
Administrator, December 6, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
contaminants at levels that are not
comparable to or lower than those found
in wood or coal, the fuel that creosotetreated wood would replace. In making
the assessment, the Agency did not
consider fuel oil 107 as a traditional fuel
that CTRTs would replace, and
concluded at the time that combustion
of creosote-treated wood may result in
destruction of contaminants contained
in those materials. Such destruction is
an indication of incineration, a waste
activity. Accordingly, creosote-treated
wood, including CTRTs when burned,
seemed more like a waste than a
commodity, and did not meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. This
material, therefore, was considered a
solid waste when burned and units
combusting it would be subject to the
CAA section 129 emission standards.
The conclusions from the March 21,
2011 rule regarding creosote-treated
wood are discussed further in section
V.C.4. of this preamble.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. February 2013 NHSM Final Rule
In the February 7, 2013 NHSM final
rule, the EPA noted that AF&PA and the
American Wood Council submitted a
letter with supporting information on
December 6, 2012, seeking a categorical
listing for CTRT combusted in any unit.
The letter included information
regarding the amounts of railroad ties
combusted each year and the value of
the ties as fuel. The letter also discussed
how CTRTs satisfy the legitimacy
criteria, including its high Btu value.
While this information was useful, it
was not sufficient for the EPA to
propose that CTRTs be listed
categorically as a non-waste fuel. As
explained in the proposed rule, the EPA
had requested that additional
information be provided to further
inform the Agency as to whether to list
CTRTs categorically as a non-waste fuel,
and stated that if this additional
information supported and
supplemented the representations made
in the December 2012 letter, the EPA
would expect to propose a categorical
listing for CTRTs.
The requested information and
responses provided are outlined below.
• A list of industry sectors, in
addition to forest product mills, that
burn railroad ties for energy recovery:
One respondent claimed that a number
of end-use combustors utilize CTRTs as
an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel at
all times. Such facilities use as much as
100–500 tons of CTRTs daily. The
107 For the purposes of this final rule, fuel oil
means oils 1–6, including distillate, residual,
kerosene, diesel, and other petroleum based oils. It
does not include gasoline or unrefined crude oil.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
6723
respondent also claimed to know of
additional end-use combustors that
utilize CTRTs occasionally based on
availability and cost. Furthermore, the
respondent was aware of other end-use
combustors that are operationally able
to utilize CTRTs as an alternative fuel to
offset fossil fuel, but have chosen not to
use CTRTs as a result of the current
solid-waste implications associated with
CTRTs. The end-use combustors that
currently utilize CTRTs, both full-time
and part-time, represent a variety of
industry sectors, including pulp and
paper manufacturing, cogeneration
plants, utilities, and chemical
manufacturing facilities. For the utility
sector, at least 14 utilities could burn
(i.e., are permitted to burn) or are
burning CTRTs.108 Another respondent
claimed that data 109 show that a
number of forest product mills are
currently using railroad ties as a fuel
and that other mills are permitted to
burn these materials as fuels, but have
stopped using them as a fuel due to
their uncertain regulatory status, as well
as other economic factors (e.g., lower
cost of other fuels).
• The types of boilers (e.g., kilns,
stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed,
etc.) that burn railroad ties for energy
recovery. Respondents stated that the
types of units operated by those end-use
combustors that utilize CTRTs as an
alternative fuel include fluidized bed,
traveling grate, and spreader stoker.
Forest product industry boilers that
burn railroad ties are generally one of
three types: stoker, bubbling bed or
fluidized bed boilers.110
• The traditional fuels and relative
amounts (e.g., startup, 30 percent, 100
percent) of these traditional fuels that
could otherwise generally be burned in
these types of units. Respondents also
claimed that units operated by end-use
combustors that utilize CTRTs as an
alternative fuel typically burn a variety
of ‘‘traditional fuels,’’ such as coal,
biomass (i.e., hog fuel, bark fuel, and
other biomass fuel materials), and fuel
oil, as well as other materials and
wastes, such as tire derived fuel, waste
derived liquid fuel, and waste derived
solid fuel.111 112 In general, they claimed
that all of the units that burn CTRTs
also burn significant quantities of
biomass given the similarity of the fuels’
characteristics. In addition, they
claimed that most of these units are
permitted to burn fuel oil either during
start-up or during normal operations.
The respondents claimed that many
factors determine how much fuel oil is
burned. For example, because natural
gas prices are low, natural gas is often
the fuel of choice, if available. In
addition, they claimed that some states
are looking to reduce SO2 emissions
from sources and thus, encourage
greater use of biomass or natural gas
rather than fuel oil.113
Respondents claimed that the most
comparable traditional fuel to railroad
ties is fuel oil. However, they believe
the question of whether a combustion
unit is designed to burn a specific fuel
is not relevant when the EPA makes a
determination under 40 CFR 241.4(a).
Specifically, the respondents claimed
that the EPA has interpreted the phrase
‘‘designed to burn’’ to mean that a
combustor that burns NHSMs as a nonwaste fuel has to be able to burn the
NHSM in the combustion unit, which in
the case of CTRTs, would require the
installation of a nozzle for the delivery
of liquid fuel into the boiler, to meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. The
EPA explained that this standard is to
avoid the possibility that discard could
be occurring in some situations.114
However, in the context of a specific
non-waste determination under 40 CFR
241.4(a), the respondents argued that
the EPA has the opportunity to evaluate
all the factors relating to the use of
CTRTs as a fuel, including the fact that
CTRTs is a commodity that is purchased
by the combustor. Furthermore,
respondents argued that the EPA has the
108 Information received subsequent to the request
for data in the February 13, 2013 rule discussed
above claims that 14 entities in the utility sector
could burn (i.e., are permitted to burn) or are
burning cross-tie derived fuel (i.e., CTRTs). Of the
14 entities, 9 companies are currently firing or have
fired CTRTs within the past two years. Information
on pulp and paper and utility sources currently
utilizing CTRTs demonstrates that several of these
sources use between 5,000 and 70,000 tons of
CTRTs per year. Information compiled by M.A.
Energy LLC. (MAER) contained in letters and emails
from All4 Inc. to EPA dated January 29, and
February 28, 2014.
109 American Forest and Paper Association and
American Wood Council’s letter to George Faison,
EPA. March 7, 2013.
110 Information was received that the forest
products industry boilers combusting CTRTs also
includes hybrid suspension grate boilers. See
docket EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0076.
111 To the extent that any of these boilers burn
fuel derived from waste, or any other solid waste,
they would be subject to the CAA section 129
CISWI standards, and the Agency’s rule in this
document would not impact their regulatory status.
112 American Forest and Paper Association and
American Wood Council’s letter to George Faison,
EPA. March 7, 2013.
113 Examples of combustors utilizing a variety of
traditional and other fuels, including facilities
combusting both CTRTs and fuel oil, is found in
documentation provided by the American
Associations of Railroads (AAR). The document
listed 11 non- pulp and paper facilities including
power generators. All of the facilities listed combust
CTRTs, three facilities combust CTRT and fuel oil,
three facilities combust CTRT and natural gas.
Other fuels combusted include tire-derived fuel,
and landfill gas. February 2013.
114 See 78 FR 9149
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6724
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
discretion to recognize that when a
combustor purchases CTRTs and then
burns it in a boiler, that combustion is
for the purpose of generating energy
rather than discarding the railroad ties.
According to the respondents, any other
conclusion would lead to the absurd
result that one boiler can burn CTRTs as
a legitimate fuel and another boiler—
with essentially the same design except
for a nozzle feed for fuel oil—would
have to consider the CTRTs as a solid
waste. (See section V.B.6 of this
preamble for the EPA’s consideration of
the information and views presented by
these respondents.)
• The extent to which non-industrial
boilers (e.g., commercial or residential
boilers) burn CTRTs for energy recover.
The respondent understood that the
residential use of CTRTs for purposes of
energy recovery is unlikely. However,
they explained that several local
utilities in the northern Midwest utilize
CTRTs for purposes of power generation
but they have not identified the specific
facilities.
• Laboratory analyses for
contaminants known or reasonably
suspected to be present in creosotetreated railroad ties, and contaminants
known to be significant components of
creosote, specifically polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16),
dibenzofuran, cresols,
hexachlorobenzene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene,
biphenyl, quinoline, and dioxins.115
Respondents submitted contaminant
data for crushed CTRTs, which are
discussed in section V.C.4. of this
preamble. With the exception of
dioxins, which respondents explain will
not be present in CTRTs, analyses were
submitted for all requested constituents
and other contaminants.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final
Categorical Non-Waste Listing for CTRT
Under the proposed rule, CTRT was
proposed to be listed as a categorical
non-waste when combusted in units
that burn both fuel oil and biomass.
This limitation was based on the fact
that contaminant levels for semi-volatile
organics (SVOCs) are significantly
higher in CTRT than levels in biomass
and coal, but CTRT levels for those
115 The Agency requested these analyses based on
the limited information previously available
concerning the chemical makeup of CTRTs. That
limited information included one well-studied
sample from 1990 (showing the presence of both
PAHs and dibenzofuran), past TCLP results (which
showing the presence of cresols, hexachlorobenzene
and 2,4-dinitrotoluene), Material Safety Data Sheets
for coal tar creosote (which showing the potential
presence of biphenyl and quinoline), and the
absence of dioxin analyses prior to combustion
despite extensive dioxin analyses of postcombustion emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
contaminants are lower than levels in
fuel oil. In contrast, fluorine and
nitrogen contaminant levels are
significantly higher in CTRT than in
fuel oil, but levels for those
contaminants are lower than levels in
biomass and coal (79 FR 21023.) Thus,
only units burning both biomass and
fuel oil would pass the contaminant
legitimacy criteria when comparing
contaminants in the NHSM to the
traditional fuel.
Based on information received after
the February 7, 2013 final rule stating
that units were switching from fuel oil
to natural gas due to lower compliance
costs during operation, we also stated in
the proposal that the Agency was
considering another approach for CTRTs
combusted in existing units at major
source pulp and paper mills that had
been designed to burn fuel oil and
biomass, but are being modified in order
to use clean fuel such as natural gas
instead of fuel oil (79 FR 21028). If the
EPA were to include this additional
approach in the categorical listing, the
CTRT could continue to be combusted
only if certain conditions were met,
which are all intended to ensure that the
CTRTs are not being discarded.
Conditions included in the proposal are:
• CTRTs must be burned in an
existing stoker, bubbling bed or
fluidized bed boiler;
• the CTRTs can comprise no more
than 40 percent of the fuel that is used
on a monthly basis; 116
• the boiler that burned the CTRTs
must have been designed to burn both
fuel oil and biomass; and
• boiler is modifying its design to also
burn natural gas.
The Agency stated in the proposed
rule that we did not believe that
combustion of CTRT in boiler units that
are currently designed to burn both
biomass and fuel oil but are being
modified (i.e., removing oil delivery
equipment) in order to burn natural gas
should be considered discard of the
CTRTs. EPA considered that these
facilities have demonstrated the ability
to burn fuel oil along with biomass and
should not be penalized for switching to
the cleaner natural gas fuel. Information
submitted at the time indicating that
CTRTs are an important part of the fuel
mix due to the consistently lower
moisture content and higher Btu value,
as well as the benefits of drier, more
consistent fuel to combustion units with
significant swings in steam demand,
further suggested that discard is not
occurring.
116 Statements at meeting between American
Forest and Paper Association and Mathy Stanislaus
on December 19, 2013 indicate that, CTRTs
generally comprise 40% of total fuel load.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The additional approach was meant to
address only the circumstance where
contaminants in CTRTs are comparable
to or less than the traditional fuels the
unit was originally designed to burn
(both fuel oil and biomass) but that
design was modified in order to
combust natural gas. The approach was
not a general means to circumvent the
contaminant legitimacy criterion by
allowing combustion of any NHSM with
elevated contaminant levels, i.e. levels
not comparable to the traditional fuel
the unit is currently designed to burn.
The particular facilities in this case had
used CTRTs and would clearly be in
compliance with the legitimacy criteria
if they did not switch to the cleaner
natural gas fuel. EPA believed it
appropriate to balance other relevant
factors in this categorical non-waste
determination and that it is appropriate
for the Agency to decide that the
switching to the cleaner natural gas
would not render the CTRTs a waste
fuel in view of the historical usage as a
product fuel in the stoker, bubbling bed
and fluidized bed boilers.
For this final rule, based on comments
received and information in the
rulemaking record, the EPA has
sufficient information to list CTRTs as a
categorical non-waste fuel in
combustion units that are designed to
burn both biomass and fuel oil. The
Agency finds that units will meet this
condition if the unit combusts fuel oil
as part of normal operations and not
solely as part of start-up or shut-down
operations.
The Agency is also adopting the
additional approach outlined in the
proposed rule with some revisions.
Specifically, based on comments
received and information in the
rulemaking record, the Agency has
sufficient information to list as
categorical non-wastes CTRTs that are
combusted in units at major source pulp
and paper mills or power producers
subject to 40 CFR part 63 Subpart
DDDDD (Boiler MACT) that had been
designed to burn biomass and fuel oil,
but are modified (e.g. oil delivery
mechanisms are removed) in order to
use natural gas instead of fuel oil as part
of normal operations and not solely as
part of start-up or shut-down operations.
The CTRT may continue to be
combusted as a product fuel under this
section only if certain conditions are
met, which are intended to ensure that
the CTRTs are not being discarded:
• The CTRTs must be combusted in
existing (i.e. commenced construction
prior to April 14, 2014) stoker, bubbling
bed, fluidized bed or hybrid suspension
grate boilers; and
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
• CTRTs can comprise no more than
40 percent of the fuel that is used on an
annual heat input basis.
The standard is applicable to existing
units burning CTRTs that had been
designed to burn fuel oil and biomass
and have been modified to burn natural
gas. The standard will also apply if an
existing unit burning CTRTs and
designed to burn fuel oil and biomass is
modified at some point in the future.
Based on comments received on the
proposed rule, several revisions were
made in the additional approach as
adopted for the final rule under section
241.(a)(7): (1) CTRTs combusted in units
at power producers subject to 40 CFR
part 63 Subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT)
have been added to the categorical
listing; (2) the 40% fuel load limit has
been changed to an annual heat input
basis; (3) regulatory language was added
stating that units combusting fuel oil
and natural gas, as well as units that had
switched from fuel oil to natural gas,
must combust these materials as part of
normal operations and not solely as part
of start-up or shut-down operations; and
(4) hybrid suspension grate boilers are
added to the list of acceptable boilers
and to provide further clarity regarding
CTRTs combusted in ‘‘existing’’ stoker,
bubbling bed, fluidized bed or hybrid
suspension grate boilers, existing is
defined as April 14, 2014, the date of
issuance of the proposed rule.
See section V.C.6. Response to
Comments for a further discussion of
these changes.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 CTRTs. 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 nonwaste 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 CTRTs are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
discarded when processed and
combusted in the types of units
described herein.
i. Storage of CTRT
As discussed in section V.C.1. of this
preamble, crossties removed from
service are sometimes temporarily
stored in the railroad right-of-way or at
another location selected by the
reclamation company. This means that
not all CTRTs originate from crossties
removed from service in the same year;
some CTRTs are processed from
crossties removed from service in prior
years and stored by railroads or
removal/reclamation companies until a
contract for reclamation is in place.
The December 6, 2012, letter from
AF&PA states that in those cases where
the railroad or reclamation company
wait for more than a year to realize the
value of the CTRTs as a fuel (or in
landscaping) does not mean that the
CTRTs have been discarded and cite 76
FR 15456, 15520 of the March 21, 2011
rule. That section of the rule addresses
the management of the NHSM as a
valuable commodity and states that
storage of the NHSM must be within a
reasonable timeframe.117 The letter
further states that there is a robust
market for companies engaged in
railroad tie reclamation, and the cost of
this material indicates that the material
is a valuable commodity and has not
been discarded.
While the Agency recognizes that the
reasonable timeframe for storage may
vary by industry, the Agency disagrees
that any explanation (other than a repeat
of what the rules say) has been provided
of why storage that may be longer than
a year is not discard, especially when
they argue that CTRTs are a valuable
material. Therefore, without further
explanation or information from the
public, the Agency concludes that
CTRTs removed from service that may
be stored in a railroad right of way or
other location for long periods of time—
that is, a year or longer, without a
determination regarding their final end
use (e.g., landscaping, as a fuel or land
filled) shows that the material has been
discarded and is a solid waste (see the
preamble discussion of discard 76 FR
15463 in the March 21, 2011 rule). The
assertion that the CTRTs are a valuable
commodity in a robust market does not
change the fact that the CTRTs have
been discarded at some point. NHSMs
may have value in the marketplace and
still be wastes.
117 As discussed in the NHSM final rule (76 FR
15520), ‘‘reasonable time frame’’ is not specifically
defined as such time frames vary among the large
number of non-hazardous secondary materials and
industries involved.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6725
ii. Processing of CTRTs
The railroad ties removed from
service are considered discarded
because they can be stored for long
periods of time without a final
determination regarding their final end
use. In order for them to be considered
a non-waste fuel, they must be
processed, thus transforming the
railroad ties into a product fuel that
meets the legitimacy criteria, or if not
meeting the legitimacy criteria, would
still be considered a non-waste fuel if
the EPA decides so after balancing the
legitimacy criteria with other relevant
factors. The Agency concludes that the
processing of CTRTs described above in
section V.C.1. of this preamble meets
the definition of processing in 40 CFR
241.2. Processing includes operations
that transform discarded NHSM into a
non-waste fuel or non-waste ingredient,
including operations necessary to:
Remove or destroy contaminants;
significantly improve the fuel
characteristics (e.g., sizing or drying of
the material, in combination with other
operations); chemically improve the asfired energy content; or improve the
ingredient characteristics. Minimal
operations that result only in modifying
the size of the material by shredding do
not constitute processing for the
purposes of the definition. Specifically,
the Agency concludes that CTRTs meet
the definition of processing in 40 CFR
241.3 because:
• Contaminants (spikes, nails, plates,
etc.) are removed using a magnet. This
magnetic removal of metals may occur
several times during processing.
• The fuel characteristics of the
material are improved when the
crossties are ground or shredded to a
specified size depending on the
particular needs of the end-use
combustor. The grinding may occur in
one or more phases. Once the CTRTs are
ground, there may be additional
screening to bring the material to a
specified size.
b. Legitimacy Criteria
In determining whether to list CTRTs
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. To the
extent that CTRTs do not meet one or
more of the legitimacy criteria, and are
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6726
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
thus discarded, the Agency may
consider other relevant factors in
determining whether to list CTRT as a
categorical non-waste fuel (40 CFR
241.4(b)(5)(ii)). The Agency adopts for
the final rule the reasoning explained
below.
i. Managed as a Valuable Commodity
As discussed in the proposed rule and
adopted for the final rule, the processing
of CTRTs is correlated to the particular
needs of the end-use combustor.
Additional screening may take place
after the grinding and shredding of the
CTRTs if deemed necessary. Once the
CTRTs meet the end use specification,
they are then sold directly to the enduse combustor for energy recovery.
CTRTs are delivered to the end-use
combustors via railcar and/or truck
similar to delivery of traditional
biomass fuels. While awaiting
combustion at the end-user, which
usually takes place within a week of
arrival, the CTRTs are transferred and/
or handled from storage in a manner
consistent with the transfer and
handling of biomass fuels. Such
procedures include screening by the
end-use combustor, combining with
biomass fuels, and transferring to the
combustor via conveyor belt or frontend loader. Since processed CTRT
storage does not exceed reasonable time
frames and are handled/treated similar
to analogous biomass fuels by end-use
combustors, CTRTs meets the criterion
for being managed as a valuable
commodity.118
ii. Meaningful Heating Value and Used
as Fuel To Recover Energy
As discussed in the proposal and
adopted as the reasoning to support the
final rule, the heating value of processed
CTRTs ranges from 6,000–8,000 Btu/lb
as fired, and combustion units recover
energy by burning the material as fuel.
In the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule,
the Agency stated that NHSMs with an
energy value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb,
as fired, are considered to have a
meaningful heating value.119
Information compiled by the EPA in
2011 also specifies that CTRTs could
replace clean wood that has an average
as-fired heating value of 5,150 Btu/lb,
with a low as-fired heating value of
3,440 Btu/lb.120 Thus, CTRTs have
greater heating value than the
traditional fuel it replaces, and meet the
criterion for meaningful heating value
and used as a fuel to recover energy, and
are not discarded for purposes of this
criterion.
iii. Contaminants Comparable to or
Lower Than Traditional Fuels
For CTRTs, the EPA compared the
additional data submitted on
contaminant levels by industry to
analogous data for two traditional fuels:
Biomass (including untreated clean
wood) and fuel oil. The data the EPA
received on CTRTs comes from the
following three sources: M.A. Energy
Resources (MAER), URS Corporation on
behalf of the Association of American
Railroads, and AF&PA. The information
submitted by MAER included a
comprehensive analysis of one CTRT
sample. The sample came from a CTRT
pile located at an end-use combustor.
The URS Corporation report included
three samples of processed CTRTs from
the National Salvage facility in Selma,
Alabama, and from a Stella Jones facility
in Duluth, Minnesota. AF&PA also
submitted documents comparing
contaminant concentrations in CTRTs
with traditional fuels, compiling data
from various sources in these
documents. The EPA considers data
from these eight facilities to be
representative of the CTRT universe
because the composition of the creosote
component of the CTRTs is the same—
that is, the P2 blend of creosote, as well
as the fact that multiple samples have
been taken in different parts of the
country at different points in the CTRT
management chain.
The section below discusses
determinations on contaminant
comparisons in CTRTs to fuel oil and
biomass. The contaminant data received
on CTRTs includes information that
units combusting CTRTs and fuel oil
may also combust coal; determinations
regarding contaminant comparisons to
that traditional fuel follows the
discussion on fuel oil and biomass.
Contaminant Comparisons in CTRTs
to Fuel Oil and Biomass. Table 3 of this
preamble lists the aggregated CTRT data
received as it compares to contaminants
found in two traditional fuels that
industry claim are used, in varying
amounts, at facilities burning processed
CTRTs for energy recovery.
TABLE 3—CONTAMINANT RANGES IN TRADITIONAL FUELS & CTRT
[In parts per million]
Biomass a
Contaminant
Fuel oil a
CTRT b
Metal Elements
ND–26 .......................
ND–298 .....................
ND–15.7 ....................
ND–13 .......................
Beryllium (Be) ..........................................................................................
Cadmium (Cd) ..........................................................................................
Chromium (Cr) .........................................................................................
Cobalt (Co) ...............................................................................................
Lead (Pb) .................................................................................................
Manganese (Mn) ......................................................................................
Mercury (Hg) ............................................................................................
Nickel (Ni) ................................................................................................
Selenium (Se) ..........................................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Antimony (Sb) ..........................................................................................
Arsenic (As) .............................................................................................
ND–10 .......................
ND–17 .......................
ND–340 .....................
ND–213 .....................
ND–340 .....................
ND–15,800 ................
ND–1.1 ......................
ND–540 .....................
ND–9 .........................
ND–19 .......................
ND–1.4 ......................
ND–37 .......................
ND–8.5 ......................
ND–56.8 ....................
ND–3,200 ..................
ND–0.2 ......................
ND–270 .....................
ND–4 .........................
ND
ND–3.2
ND
ND–0.3
ND–0.3
ND–15.3
ND
ND–9.6
63–185
0.02–0.05
ND–38
ND–1
ND–1,260 ..................
ND–14 .......................
42–8,950 ...................
22–400
100
1,600–14,400
Non-Metal Elements
Chlorine (Cl) .............................................................................................
Fluorine (F) ..............................................................................................
Nitrogen (N) .............................................................................................
118 Prior to the CTRTs being processed as a
product fuel, the CTRTs are considered solid wastes
and would be subject to appropriate federal, state,
and local requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
ND–5,400 ..................
ND–300 .....................
200—39,500 ..............
119 See
76 FR 15541.
analysis data for unadulterated wood.
USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions Data for Boilers and Process
120 Fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM & Fuel
Analysis Data Reported Under ICR No. 2286.03
(Version 6) EPA Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2002–0058–3255. February 2011.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6727
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—CONTAMINANT RANGES IN TRADITIONAL FUELS & CTRT—Continued
[In parts per million]
Contaminant
Biomass a
Fuel oil a
Sulfur (S) ..................................................................................................
ND–8,700 ..................
ND–57,000 ................
CTRT b
681–3,277
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Hazardous Air Pollutants
Benzene ...................................................................................................
Phenol ......................................................................................................
Styrene .....................................................................................................
Toluene ....................................................................................................
Xylenes ....................................................................................................
Cumene ...................................................................................................
Ethyl benzene ..........................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................................................................
Hexane .....................................................................................................
15 Additional VOC ...................................................................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
1.6–27 .......................
....................................
....................................
ND–75 .......................
ND–7,700 ..................
ND–320 .....................
ND–380 .....................
ND–3,100 ..................
6,000–8,600 ..............
22–1270 ....................
....................................
50–10,000 .................
....................................
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.325
ND
0.058
ND
ND
ND
Total VOC c .......................................................................................
1.6–27 .......................
6,072–19,810 ............
0.383
Semivolatile Hazardous Pollutants
Biphenyl ...................................................................................................
16-PAH d ..................................................................................................
Dibenzofuran ............................................................................................
Quinoline ..................................................................................................
Cresols .....................................................................................................
Hexachlorobenzene .................................................................................
2,4-dinitrotoluene .....................................................................................
Lindane ....................................................................................................
11 Additional SVOC .................................................................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
1,000–1,200 ..............
3,900–54,700 ............
....................................
....................................
....................................
ND .............................
ND .............................
....................................
....................................
137–330
6641–21,053
570–1,500
40.2
1.51
ND
ND
0.238
ND
Total SVOC c .....................................................................................
....................................
4,900–54,700 ............
7,618–22,883
a ‘‘Contaminant
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison’’ document available at https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf. Contaminant data drawn from various literature sources and from data submitted to USEPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
b (1) MA Energy Resources, LLC. February 2013 Crosstie Derived Fuel Petition; (2) URS, Evaluation of Used Railroad Ties Treated with Creosote. Prepared for Association of American Railroads. January 28, 2013; (3) AF&PA, Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Crosstie Derived Fuel with Traditional Fuels. February 28, 2013.
c Total VOC and SVOC ranges do not represent a simple sum of the minimum and maximum values for each contaminant. This is because
minimum and maximum concentrations for individual VOCs and SVOCs do not always come from the same sample.
d 16-PAH includes: Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene. 16-PAH is designated as Total PAH in the Table for Comparison cited in note ‘‘a’’ above.
As shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
all contaminant concentration levels for
metals are within the ranges identified
for fuel oil and biomass. We note that
when comparing the non-metal
elemental contaminants, however,
fluorine and nitrogen levels in CTRTs
are not comparable to fuel oil, and semivolatile organic compound (SVOC)
levels are not comparable to biomass.
Given that CTRTs are a type of treated
wood biomass, and any unit burning
CTRTs typically burns untreated wood,
the EPA considered two scenarios that
industry described.
In the first scenario, where a
combustion unit is designed to only
burn biomass, the EPA compared
contaminant levels in CTRTs to
contaminant levels in biomass. In this
scenario, the total SVOC levels can
reach 22,883 ppm, driven by high levels
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and, to a lesser extent, the levels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
of dibenzofuran and biphenyl.121 These
compounds are largely nonexistent in
clean wood and biomass, and the
contaminants are therefore not
comparable in this instance. In fact, they
are present at orders of magnitude
higher than found in clean wood and
biomass.
In the second scenario, a combustion
unit is designed to burn biomass and
fuel oil. As previously mentioned,
fluorine, and nitrogen levels in CTRTs
are present at elevated levels when
compared to fuel oil. However, the
highest levels of fluorine (100 ppm) and
nitrogen (14,400 ppm) are comparable
to, or well within the levels of these
contaminants in biomass. Likewise,
121 We note that for several SVOCs—cresols,
hexachlorobenzene, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene, which
were expected to be in creosote, and for which
information was specifically requested in the
February 7, 2013 NHSM final rule (78 FR 9111), the
data demonstrate that they were not detectable, or
were present at levels so low to be considered
comparable.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
SVOCs are present in CTRTs (up to
22,883 ppm) at levels well within the
range observed in fuel oil (up to 54,700
ppm). Accordingly, contaminant
concentration levels for fluorine,
nitrogen, and SVOCs are within the
ranges identified for either biomass or
fuel oil. Therefore, CTRTs have
comparable contaminant levels to other
fuels combusted in units designed to
burn both biomass and fuel oil, and as
such, meet this criterion if used in
facilities that are designed to burn both
biomass and fuel oil.122
122 As discussed previously, the March 21, 2011
NHSM final rule (76 FR 15456), noting the presence
of hexachlorobenzene and dinitrotoluene, suggested
that creosote-treated lumber include contaminants
at levels that are not comparable to those found in
wood or coal, the fuel that creosote-treated wood
would replace, and would thus be considered solid
wastes. This final rule differs in several respects
from the conclusions in the March 2011 rule. This
final rule concludes that CTRTs are a categorical
non-waste when combusted in units designed to
burn both fuel oil and biomass. The March 2011
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
Continued
08FER2
6728
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
As stated in the preamble to the
February 7, 2013, NHSM final rule,
combustors may burn NHSMs as a
product fuel if they compare
appropriately to any traditional fuel the
unit can or does burn. (78 FR 9149)
Combustion units are often designed to
burn multiple traditional fuels, and
some units can and do rely on different
fuel types at different times based on
availability of fuel supplies, market
conditions, power demands, and other
factors. Under these circumstances, it is
arbitrary to restrict the combustion for
energy recovery of NHSMs based on
contaminant comparison to only one
traditional fuel if the unit could burn a
second traditional fuel chosen due to
such changes in fuel supplies, market
conditions, power demands or other
factors. If a unit can burn both a solid
and liquid fuel, then comparison to
either fuel would be appropriate.
In order to make comparisons to
multiple traditional fuels, units must be
designed to burn those fuels. If a facility
compares contaminants in an NHSM to
a traditional fuel a unit is not designed
to burn, and that material is highly
contaminated, a facility would then be
able to burn excessive levels of waste
components in the NHSM as a means of
discard. Such NHSMs would be
considered wastes regardless of any fuel
value. (78 FR 9149) 123 Accordingly, the
ability to burn a fuel in a combustion
unit does have a basic set of
requirements, the most basic of which is
the ability to feed the material into the
combustion unit. The unit should also
be able to ensure the material is wellmixed and maintain temperatures
within unit specifications.
Available information regarding use
of fuel oil. As discussed in section
V.C.2. of this preamble, industry stated
rule, using 1990 data on railroad cross ties, was
based on contaminant comparisons to coal and
biomass and not fuel oil. As discussed above, when
compared to fuel oil, total SVOC contaminant
concentrations (which would include
dinitrotoluene and hexachlorobenzene) in CTRTs
would be less that those found in fuel oil, and in
fact, the 2012 data referenced in this final rule
showed non-detects for those two contaminants.
123 78 FR 9149 states ‘‘If a NHSM does not contain
contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than
those found in any [emphasis added] traditional
fuel that a combustion unit could burn, then it
follows that discard could be occurring if the
NHSM were combusted. Whether contaminants in
these cases would be destroyed or discarded
through releases to the air, they could not be
considered a normal part of a legitimate fuel and
the NHSM would be considered a solid waste when
used as a fuel in that combustion unit.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
during the comment period that there
are combustion units designed to burn
biomass and fuel oil, but did not
identify specific units. A March 2013
letter from AF&PA 124 stated that the
overwhelming majority of CTRTs
burned at paper mills are burned in
boilers that are fully capable and
permitted to burn at maximum capacity
rating. Most of these boilers (80 percent)
can or do burn oil during operating
conditions outside of startup and
shutdown periods.125 Industry also
stated that units operated by end-use
combustors that utilize CTRTs as an
alternative fuel typically burn a variety
of ‘‘traditional fuels,’’ such as coal,
biomass (i.e., hog fuel, bark fuel, and
other biomass fuel materials), and fuel
oil, as well as other materials. They
stated that all of the units that burn
CTRTs also burn significant quantities
of biomass given the similarity of the
fuels’ characteristics. In addition, most
of these units are permitted to burn fuel
oil either during start-up or during
normal operations. The EPA finds,
based on this information, units do
combust multiple fuel including fuel oil
and CTRTs.126
124 American Forest and Paper Association and
American Wood Council’s letter to George Faison,
EPA. March 7, 2013. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–
003.
125 American Forest and Paper Association and
American Wood Council’s letter to George Faison,
EPA. March 7, 2013. EPA–HQ_RCRA–2013–0110–
003.
126 The Agency notes that in 2008, information
was collected from owners and operators of
combustion units across a wide variety of
industries, including use of fuel oil, in its
development of emissions standards for boilers and
process heaters under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. In that context, based on the information
submitted by industry at the time (including
petitioners and others), EPA concluded that units
that combust solid fuels generally used fuel oil or
natural gas only as a startup fuel and that changing
the fuel type in such units would generally require
extensive changes to the fuel handling and feeding
system, as well as modification to the burners and
combustion chambers. 75 FR 32006, 32017. The
information submitted for the ICR, however, also
stated that some biomass units may combust fuel
oil at other times, for example, for transient flame
stability purposes if they are combusting biomass
with a high moisture content. The ICR did not state
the amount of fuel oil being combusted, or whether
fuel oil was combusted alone or in conjunction with
solid fuel, such as biomass. Although recent
information outlined above shows that units do
combust multiple fuels including CTRTs and fuel
oil, at the time of the development of the boiler
MACT, EPA did not have information, including
information submitted in response to the ICR,
indicating there are units designed to burn solid
fuel which commonly switch between combusting
biomass and fuel oil or otherwise combusted fuel
oil as part of normal operation.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Contaminant Comparisons to Coal.
Data received from industry’ included
information that boilers combusting
CTRTs may also combust coal, which is
a traditional fuel. For purposes of
contaminant comparison to that
traditional fuel, the EPA considered two
scenarios.
In the first scenario, where CTRTs
were combusted in units designed to
burn only coal and biomass,
contaminant levels in CTRTs were
compared to those two traditional
fuels.127 In this scenario, as shown in
Table 4 of this preamble, maximum
levels of SVOCs in CTRTs (22,883 ppm)
exceeded those in coal (2,343 ppm) and
biomass (SVOC levels largely nonexistent). Thus, units that are designed
to burn only coal and biomass would
not meet the legitimacy criterion for
contaminant comparison to CTRTs, an
indication that discard may be
occurring.
In the second scenario, a combustion
unit is designed to burn coal, biomass
and fuel oil. As shown in Table 4 of this
preamble, SVOCs are present in CTRTs
(up to 22,883 ppm) at levels well
exceeding those in coal and biomass but
within the range observed in fuel oil (up
to 54,700 ppm). Fluorine, and nitrogen
levels in CTRTs are present at elevated
levels when compared to fuel oil.
However, the highest levels of fluorine
(100 ppm) and nitrogen (14,400 ppm)
are comparable to, or well within the
levels of these contaminants in biomass.
All other contaminants in CTRTs are
comparable to those in coal.
Thus, CTRTs can be combusted in
units burning coal (or other traditional
fuels), but only if the unit is also
designed to burn fuel oil and biomass.
CTRTs have comparable contaminant
levels in units designed to burn biomass
fuel oil and coal, and as such, meet this
criterion if used in facilities that are
designed to burn those traditional fuels.
(see also section V.C.6. Response to
Comments regarding combustion of coal
in units that switched from fuel oil to
natural gas).
127 Contaminant levels in coal presented in
‘‘Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels:
Tables for Comparison’’ document available at
https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/pdfs/
nhsm_cont_tf.pdf. Contaminant data drawn from
various literature sources and from data submitted
to USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6729
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CONTAMINANT RANGES IN BIOMASS, FUEL OIL, COAL & CTRT
[In parts per million]
Biomass a
Contaminant
Fuel oil a
CTRT b
Coal
Metal Elements
Antimony (Sb) ..................................................
Arsenic (As) .....................................................
Beryllium (Be) ..................................................
Cadmium (Cd) ..................................................
Chromium (Cr) .................................................
Cobalt (Co) .......................................................
Lead (Pb) .........................................................
Manganese (Mn) ..............................................
Mercury (Hg) ....................................................
Nickel (Ni) ........................................................
Selenium (Se) ..................................................
ND–26 .......................
ND–298 .....................
ND–10 .......................
ND–17 .......................
ND–340 .....................
ND–213 .....................
ND–340 .....................
ND–15,800 ................
ND–1.1 ......................
ND–540 .....................
ND–9 .........................
ND–15.7 ....................
ND–13 .......................
ND–19 .......................
ND–1.4 ......................
ND–37 .......................
ND–8.5 ......................
ND–56.8 ....................
ND–3,200 ..................
ND–0.2 ......................
ND–270 .....................
ND–4 .........................
ND .............................
ND–3.2 ND ................
ND–0.3 ......................
ND–0.3 ......................
ND–15.3 ....................
ND .............................
ND–9.6 ......................
63—185 .....................
0.02–0.05 ..................
ND–38 .......................
ND–1 .........................
0.5—10
0.5–174
0.1–206
0.1–19
0.5–168
0.5–30
2–148
5–512
0.02–31
0.5–730
0.2–743
22–400 ......................
100 ............................
1,600–14,400 ............
681–3,277 .................
ND–9,080
ND–178
13,600–54,000
740–61,300
Non-Metal Elements
Chlorine (Cl) .....................................................
Fluorine (F) ......................................................
Nitrogen (N) .....................................................
Sulfur (S) ..........................................................
ND–5,400 ..................
ND–300 .....................
200–39,500 ...............
ND–8,700 ..................
ND–1,260 ..................
ND–14 .......................
42–8,950 ...................
ND–57,000 ................
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Hazardous Air Pollutants
Benzene ...........................................................
Phenol ..............................................................
Styrene .............................................................
Toluene ............................................................
Xylenes ............................................................
Cumene ............................................................
Ethyl benzene ..................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................
Hexane .............................................................
15 Additional VOC ...........................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
1.6–27 .......................
....................................
....................................
ND–75 .......................
ND–7,700 ..................
ND–320 .....................
ND–380 .....................
ND–3,100 ..................
6,000–8,600 ..............
22–1,270 ...................
....................................
50–10,000 .................
....................................
ND .............................
ND
ND .............................
ND .............................
0.325 .........................
ND
0.058 .........................
ND
ND
ND
Total VOC c ...............................................
1.6–27 .......................
6,072–19,810 ............
0.383 .........................
ND–38
1.0–26
8.6–56
4.0–28
0.7–5.4
14.3–125.4
Semivolatile Organic Compound (VOC) Hazardous Air Pollutants
Biphenyl ...........................................................
16-PAH d ..........................................................
Dibenzofuran ....................................................
Quinoline ..........................................................
Cresols .............................................................
Hexachlorobenzene .........................................
2,4-dinitrotoluene .............................................
Lindane ............................................................
11 Additional SVOC .........................................
PAH (52 extractable) .......................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
1,000–1,200 ..............
3,900–54,700 ............
....................................
....................................
....................................
ND .............................
ND .............................
....................................
....................................
....................................
137–330
6641–21,053 .............
570–1,500
40.2
1.51
ND
ND
0.238
ND
....................................
14–2,090
Total SVOC c .............................................
....................................
4,900–54,700 ............
7,618–22,883 ............
20–2,343
6–253
a ‘‘Contaminant
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison’’ document available at https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf. Contaminant data drawn from various literature sources and from data submitted to USEPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
b (1) MA Energy Resources, LLC. February 2013 Crosstie Derived Fuel Petition; (2) URS, Evaluation of Used Railroad Ties Treated with Creosote. Prepared for Association of American Railroads. January 28, 2013; (3) AF&PA, Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Crosstie Derived Fuel with Traditional Fuels. February 28, 2013.
c Total VOC and SVOC ranges do not represent a simple sum of the minimum and maximum values for each contaminant. This is because
minimum and maximum concentrations for individual VOCs and SVOCs do not always come from the same sample.
d 16-PAH includes: Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene. 16-PAH is designated as Total PAH in the Table for Comparison cited in note ‘‘a’’ above.
Contaminant Information related to
dibenzofurans and dioxins. As
discussed above, the Agency requested
data on dibenzofuran and dioxins, in
large part because dibenzofuran is
known to be present in CTRTs and
listed as a HAP under CAA section 112
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
and dioxins are a pollutant under CAA
sections 112 and 129.
Industry submitted an explanatory
document in response to the Agency’s
PO 00000
request.128 The document provided
additional information regarding (a) the
presence of dibenzofuran in creosote
and creosote-treated wood, and (b)
128 American Forest and Paper Association and
American Wood Council—Letter to George Faison,
EPA March 7, 2013. EPA–HQ–RCRA–0110–003.
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6730
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
whether the presence of dibenzofuran is
associated with the concurrent presence
of the polychlorinated versions of these
compounds, viz., polychlorinated
dibenzo p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDD/F—often collectively termed
dioxins).
The industry’ data confirms the
presence of dibenzofurans. Industry
acknowledged that coal tar creosote
used in preparing railroad ties may have
levels of dibenzofuran up to 4.5 percent
or 45,000 ppm, and dibenzofuran
concentrations measured in seven
samples of railroad ties previously
treated with creosote ranged from 570 to
1,500 ppm. However, as stated by the
industry, this compound should not be
confused with dioxins or furans, which
refers to a larger group of
polychlorinated dibenzofurans and
dibenzodioxins.
The Agency agrees with the
petitioner’s explanation that
dibenzofuran present in the CTRTs will
not result in the formation of dioxins,
but as a HAP itself, dibenzofuran is still
appropriate to include in the list of
SVOCs for comparison to traditional
fuels.129 Regarding dioxins, the
document shows that dioxins will not
be present in the material. The Agency
agrees that the level of chlorine during
creosote production is not sufficient to
form dioxins in coal tar creosote and
therefore dioxin will not be present in
CTRTs prior to combustion.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
c. Other Relevant Factors in a
Categorical Non-Waste Determination
for CTRTs
In their request for a categorical
listing of CTRTs and in background
information submitted subsequent to
that request, industry argued that, in the
context of a specific non-waste
determination under 40 CFR 241.4(a),
the Agency can balance the legitimacy
criteria against other relevant factors in
any decision to list an NHSM
categorically. See 40 CFR 241.4(b)(5).
Specifically, industry argued that the
phrase ‘‘designed to burn’’ can be
another relevant factor that the Agency
can consider in making a decision on
129 When making contaminant comparisons for
purposes of meeting the legitimacy criterion, it
would be appropriate in this circumstance to find
that grouping of contaminants would not result in
discard. For example, under the grouping concept,
individual SVOC levels may be elevated above that
of the traditional fuel, but the contaminant
legitimacy criterion will be met as long as total
SVOCs is comparable to or less than that of the
traditional fuel. Such an approach is standard
practice employed by the Agency in developing
regulations and is consistent with monitoring
standards under CAA sections 112 and 129. See 78
FR 9146, February 7, 2013, for further findings that
relate to the issue of grouping contaminants for
purposes of determining discard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
listing CTRTs categorically as a nonwaste fuel. They argued that by
conducting such balancing, the Agency
could allow CTRTs to be burned as a
non-waste fuel in any combustion unit
that can combust biomass, whether or
not the combustion unit is designed to
burn fuel oil. Thus, industry requested
that the Agency re-define or ignore the
‘‘design to burn’’ concept, as currently
interpreted for the purposes of this
categorical listing.
In arguing that the Agency can redefine or ignore the ‘‘design to burn’’
concept, industry identified additional
relevant factors to be considered in a
categorical listing for CTRTs.
Specifically:
• CTRTs are functionally the same as
other comparable traditional fuels, such
as fossil fuels used in a fuel mix to
maintain an appropriate Btu level for
the biomass boilers, combusted in the
same units and subject to the same air
pollution controls.130 131
• CTRTs are integral to the
production process similar to any other
fuel used and consistently have lower
moisture content and higher Btu value
than other biomass fuel.
• CTRTs are commodity fuels—users
pay $20–$30 per ton thus industry
believe that the material is not being
discarded.
• High levels of PAHs in CTRTs and
removal of oil delivery mechanisms
from units designed to combust fuel oil
and CTRTs is not an indication that the
material is being ‘‘discarded’’ and is
thus a solid waste.132 As discussed
previously, units will be switching from
fuel oil to natural gas. Such units
designed to combust both fuel oil and
CTRTs include stoker, bubbling bed and
fluidized bed boilers. Boilers that have
burned fuel oil currently or in the past
130 Petitioner arguments regarding functional
equivalence and use of CTRTs as a commodity are
also outlined in Legal Analysis Supporting Listing
Railroad Tie Fuel as a Nonwaste under 40 CFR
241.4(a)(January 15, 2014.) American Forest and
Paper Association. Docket number EPA–HQ–
RCRA–201–0110–0008.
131 To further support a finding of functional
equivalency, petitioners submitted data claiming
that stack emissions of PAHs (PAHs are higher in
railroad ties than in coal or biomass), are controlled
in the same way as all organic constituents present
in the other fuels used by the boilers that combust
railroad tie fuel. The Air Emissions Impact of
Burning Railroad Tie-Derived Fuel. NCASI, January
2014.
132 Petitioners also argued in their December 19,
2013 background material that high PAH levels in
fuels are not related to PAH emission levels. They
state that Boiler MACT carbon monoxide (CO)
limits ensure good combustion practices by
minimizing PAHs and other products of incomplete
combustion (under the Boiler MACT standards, CO
is a surrogate for organic HAPs such as PAHs). Dry
fuels such as CTRTs increase heat value of the fuel
mix improving combustion temperature and
conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
will discontinue using fuel oil, however,
industry argues that they have clearly
demonstrated the ability to burn that
material as a product fuel.
In general, industry argues that any
combustor that purchases CTRTs for use
as a fuel is purchasing the material
because of its fuel value and that any
burning is clearly for generating energy,
as opposed to discarding CTRTs.
Otherwise, they argue it would lead to
the absurd result that for a boiler that
can burn fuel oil and CTRTs, the CTRTs
would be considered a non-waste fuel,
whereas another boiler that cannot burn
fuel oil, but also burns CTRTs, the
CTRTs would be considered a solid
waste. Some recyclers and combustors,
according to industry, have been
managing CTRTs as non-waste fuel,
irrespective of the type of boiler or
combustion unit.
While we agree with industry that the
agency may list an NHSM categorically
by balancing the legitimacy criteria
against other relevant factors (40 CFR
241.4(b)(5)(ii)), we do not agree that the
Agency can simply ignore any of the
legitimacy criteria, particularly the
contaminant legitimacy criterion. In
particular, industry argues that any
biomass material regardless of the
contaminant or how contaminated it is,
should be considered a non-waste fuel.
Purchase of the material as a
commodity for its fuel value is a factor,
but not determinative when considering
whether discard has occurred. Further,
elevated levels of contaminants
remaining in the material can indicate
that the material is being discarded.
While the Agency recognizes that other
relevant factors may be considered
when one of the legitimacy criteria are
not met, there is a limit to the levels of
contamination allowed in balancing
other relevant factors with the
legitimacy criteria to determine whether
discard occurs.
We do not agree with petitioner’s
claim that CTRTs are functionally the
same as other comparable traditional
fuels, such as fossil fuels that are used
in a fuel mix to maintain an appropriate
Btu level for the biomass boilers and are
combusted in the same units and subject
to the same air pollution controls. CTRT
contains contaminants at levels that are
not comparable to the contaminant
levels in biomass, the traditional fuel
the units’ combusting CTRT are
designed to burn. As discussed, there is
a limit to the levels of such
contamination allowed in balancing
other relevant factors, and elevated
levels of contaminants remaining in the
material can show that the material is
being discarded. Further, all CTRTs are
not functionally the same as comparable
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
traditional fuels since it must be
processed by reclamation companies to
remove metals (spikes, nails etc.) and
shredded into chips to make it suitable
as a fuel source.
We also do not agree that CTRTs are
integral to the production process. In a
previous categorical determination for
resinated wood, the Agency did
conclude that the material was
integrated into the production process
and was thus a categorical non-waste
(78 FR 9155, February 7, 2013). The
Agency based that conclusion on
information indicating that resinated
wood production facilities were
specifically designed to utilize that
material for their fuel value, and the
plants could not operate as designed
without the use of resinated wood.
Similar information was not received for
CTRTs.
We do agree with industry to a certain
extent that removal of oil delivery
mechanisms from units designed to
combust fuel oil and CTRTs does not
support a conclusive decision that the
CTRTs are now being ‘‘discarded.’’
While contamination levels may be
higher when compared to natural gas,
these particular facilities have
demonstrated the ability to combust fuel
oil along with CTRTs and should not be
penalized for switching to a cleaner
fuel. As discussed in section V.C.3. of
this preamble, the information from
industry stated that while stoker,
bubbling bed or fluidized bed boilers at
major source 133 paper mills are
currently designed to combust both fuel
oil and CTRTs, few, if any, of these
units may be combusting both fuel oil
and biomass in the future since those
units will be switching from fuel oil to
natural gas for start-up periods and
operations. The industry stated that
continued use of fuel oil during
operation would result in higher
compliance costs and higher costs per
Btu. Industry stated that the switch to
natural gas for operation requires
replacement of start-up fuel systems,
and that the most efficient and least
emitting start-up systems use
specialized burners for gas.
The proposed rule, as noted above,
outlined the additional approach the
Agency considered that would include
as a categorical non-waste, CTRTs that
are combusted in existing units at major
source pulp and paper mills that have
133 Section 112(a)(1) of the CAA defines the term
‘‘major source’’ to mean any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area that emit or have the potential to
emit in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of
any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or
more of any combination of hazardous air
pollutants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
been modified in order to use clean fuel
such as natural gas, instead of fuel oil.
The additional approach required that
such CTRTs only be combusted if
certain conditions were met (in addition
to the requirement that the CTRTs had
been processed) that were intended to
ensure that the CTRTs are not being
discarded. Those conditions included in
the proposal are: The CTRTs must be
combusted in an existing stoker,
bubbling bed or fluidized bed boiler; the
CTRTs can comprise no more than 40
percent of the fuel used on a monthly
basis; the boiler that burned the CTRTs
must have been designed to burn both
fuel oil and biomass; and the boiler is
modifying its design to burn natural gas.
The Agency stated that the approach
was meant to address only the
circumstance where fuel oil and
biomass facilities were modified in
order to combust natural gas as a fuel for
normal operations. The facilities in this
case would have been met the
legitimacy criteria if they did not switch
to the cleaner natural gas fuel. The EPA
now adopts as a final determination the
reasoning in the proposal that it is
appropriate for the Agency to decide
that the switching to the cleaner natural
gas 134 would not render the CTRT a
waste fuel. The facilities have
demonstrated the ability to burn fuel oil
and biomass and should not be
penalized for switching to a cleaner
fuel. The CTRTs do not become wastes
solely because of the switch to natural
gas. Information indicating that CTRTs
are an important part of the fuel mix for
these units due to the consistently lower
moisture content and higher Btu value
as well as the benefits of drier more
consistent fuel to combustion units with
significant swings in steam demand
further show that discard is not
occurring.
As noted above, the Agency is
adopting the additional approach with
some revisions. Specifically, based on
comments received and information in
the rulemaking record, the Agency has
sufficient information to list as
categorical non-wastes CTRTs that are
processed and combusted in units at
major pulp and paper mills or units at
power production facilities subject to 40
134 The Agency recognizes natural gas as a source
of clean energy. The burning of natural gas
produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but
in lower quantities than burning coal or oil.
Methane, a primary component of natural gas and
a greenhouse gas, can also be emitted into the air
when natural gas is not burned completely.
Similarly, methane can be emitted as the result of
leaks and losses during transportation. Emissions of
sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from
burning natural gas are negligible. (See https://www.
epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/naturalgas.html.)
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6731
CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT)
that combust CTRT and had been
designed to burn biomass and fuel oil,
but are modified (e.g., oil delivery
mechanisms are removed) in order to
use natural gas instead of fuel oil as part
of normal operations and not solely as
part of start-up or shut-down operations.
The CTRT may continue to be
combusted as a product fuel only if
certain conditions are met, which are
intended to ensure that the CTRTs are
not being discarded:
• CTRTs must be combusted in
existing (i.e., commenced construction
prior to April 14, 2014) stoker, bubbling
bed, fluidized bed or hybrid suspension
grate boilers; and
• CTRTs can comprise no more than
40 percent of the fuel that is used on an
annual heat input basis.
The standard is applicable to existing
CTRT units burning CTRTs that had
been designed to burn fuel oil and
biomass and have been modified to burn
natural gas. The standard will also
apply if an existing CTRT unit designed
to burn fuel oil and biomass is modified
at some point in the future.
The additional approach adopted for
the final rule addresses only the
circumstance where contaminants in
CTRTs are comparable to or less than
the traditional fuels the unit was
originally designed to burn (both fuel oil
and biomass) but that design was
modified in order to combust natural
gas. The approach is not a general
means to circumvent the contaminant
legitimacy criterion by allowing
combustion of any NHSM with elevated
contaminant levels, i.e., levels not
comparable to the traditional fuel the
unit is currently designed to burn. The
particular facilities in this case had used
CTRTs and would clearly be in
compliance with the legitimacy criteria
if they did not switch to the cleaner
natural gas fuel. EPA determined that it
is appropriate to balance other relevant
factors in this categorical non-waste
determination and that it is appropriate
for the Agency to decide that the
switching to the cleaner natural gas
would not render the CTRTs a waste
fuel in view of historical usage as a
product fuel in stoker, bubbling bed,
fluidized bed and hybrid suspension
grate boilers.
Based on comments received on the
proposed rule, several revisions were
made in the additional approach for the
final rule under section 241.7(a): (1)
CTRTs combusted in units at power
producers subject to 40 CFR part 63
Subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT) were
added to the categorical listing; (2) the
40% fuel load limit was changed to an
annual heat input basis; regulatory
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6732
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
language was added stating that units
combusting fuel oil and natural gas as
well as units that had switched from
fuel oil to natural gas must combust
these materials as part of normal
operations and not solely for start-up or
shut-down operations; and (4) hybrid
suspension grate boilers are added to
the list of acceptable boilers and to
provide further clarity regarding CTRTs
combusted in ‘‘existing’’ stoker,
bubbling bed fluidized bed or hybrid
suspension grate boilers, existing is
defined as April 14, 2014, the date of
issuance of the proposed rule.
See section V.C.6. Response to
Comments for a further discussion of
the changes identified above. The
Agency has also determined that
recordkeeping requirements under the
Boiler MACT 40 CFR part 63 at section
63.7555(d)(2) are sufficient to document
compliance with these standards. See
section V.C.6. for a further discussion of
recordkeeping requirements.
5. Summary of Comments Requested
The proposed rule identified several
issues pertaining to the listing of CTRTs
as categorical non-wastes and requested
comment on those issues which are
summarized below (see also section
V.C.6 of this preamble):
Use of Multiple Fuels. The Agency
requested comments specifically on the
use of multiple fuels for contaminant
comparison in evaluating whether to
categorically list CTRTs, including
whether fuel oil itself should be one of
the traditional fuels used for
comparison given, and any additional
data that should be considered in
making the comparability
determination.
Additional Approach. Regarding the
additional approach under
consideration, the Agency requested
comment on the approach and the
following conditions: whether the
approach should be applied to sources
at other industries in addition to pulp
and paper mills (e.g., utilities and cogeneration plants); the appropriateness
of the 40 percent limit as a percentage
of fuel used including the monthly or
yearly basis for the limit; if the
additional approach is applied to other
industries, such as utilities, what
percentage (if any) would be appropriate
for that industry(s); and whether the
approach should be subject to
recordkeeping requirements.
6. Responses to Comments
a. Specific Requests for Comment
i. Use of Multiple Fuels
Comment: Regarding the use of
multiple fuels for contaminant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
comparison in evaluating whether to
categorically list CTRTs, combustion
units are often designed to burn
multiple traditional fuels, some relying
on different fuel types at different times
based on availability of fuel supplies,
market conditions, power demands, and
other factors. It would be arbitrary to
restrict NHSM combustion for energy
recovery, based on contaminant
comparison to only one traditional fuel,
if that unit could burn a second
traditional fuel.
Response: As stated in the preamble
to the February 7, 2013, NHSM final
rule, combustors may burn NHSMs as a
product fuel if they compare
appropriately to any traditional fuel the
unit can or does burn. (78 FR 9149)
Combustion units are often designed to
burn multiple traditional fuels, and
some units can and do rely on different
fuel types at different times based on
availability of fuel supplies, market
conditions, power demands, and other
factors. Under these circumstances, it
would be arbitrary to restrict the
combustion for energy recovery of
NHSMs based on contaminant
comparison to only one traditional fuel
if the unit could burn a second
traditional fuel chosen due to such
changes in fuel supplies, market
conditions, power demands or other
factors. The Agency agrees with the
commenter and is retaining the
regulatory standard that CTRTs are
categorical non-wastes when combusted
in units designed to burn both fuel oil
and biomass.
ii. Additional Approach
Comment: As the EPA stated
regarding the additional approach under
consideration, fuel switching from oil to
natural gas is not evidence of any
motivation to discard CTRTs and should
not affect the classification of CTRTs as
non-solid waste for combustion
purposes. The modification has nothing
to do with the properties of CTRTs or
the burning of CTRTs for energy
recovery, but is due to unrelated market
conditions for fuel oil and natural gas.
The listing should not be limited to only
units ‘‘that are currently designed to
burn both biomass and fuel oil but are
changing (i.e., removing oil delivery
equipment) in order to burn natural
gas.’’ There is no rational basis for this
limitation on unit type and it is unclear
why the EPA limits this proposed
‘‘expansion.’’
The EPA should also include units
that have already switched from fuel oil
to natural gas or are currently being
modified to switch from fuel oil to
natural gas, in addition to those that
will switch from fuel oil to natural gas
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the future. Many pulp and paper
mills formerly combusted fuel oil, but
have already moved or are moving away
from fuel oil to natural gas. The EPA’s
rationale applies equally in each case.
Moreover, if the EPA retains the
limitation on the types of boilers at pulp
and paper mills that can combust
CTRTs under the expanded listing,
hybrid suspension grate boilers should
be added to that list because they are
similar to the listed boilers and combust
CTRTs, as well as other biomass fuels.
Response: The Agency has
determined that the additional approach
must be limited to units that are
currently designed to burn both biomass
and fuel oil but are modified (e.g.,
removed oil delivery mechanisms) in
order to burn natural gas as part of
normal operations and not solely as part
of start-up or shut-down operations. As
discussed above, the particular facilities
in this case have used CTRTs and would
clearly be in compliance with the
legitimacy criteria if they did not switch
to the cleaner natural gas fuel. It is
appropriate to balance other relevant
factors in this categorical non-waste
determination and it is appropriate for
the Agency to decide that the switching
to the cleaner natural gas would not
render the CTRTs a waste fuel in view
of the historical usage as a product fuel
in the stoker, bubbling bed, and
fluidized bed boilers. The nature of the
CTRTs as a product fuel does not make
it a waste on switching to the cleaner
natural gas for the boiler.
Thus, combustion of CTRTs in boiler
units in the sectors identified above that
are designed to burn both biomass and
fuel oil but have been modified to burn
biomass and natural gas should not be
considered discard. The additional
approach is meant to address only the
circumstance where contaminants in
CTRTs are comparable to or less than
the traditional fuels the unit was
designed to burn (both fuel oil and
biomass) but that design has been
modified in order to combust natural
gas. The approach is not a general
means to circumvent the contaminant
legitimacy criterion by allowing
combustion of any NHSM with elevated
contaminant levels, i.e., levels not
comparable to the traditional fuel the
unit is currently designed to burn.
Based on information from industry
that in addition to stoker, bubbling bed
and fluidized bed boilers, hybrid
suspension grate (HSG) boilers also
combust CTRT,135 the Agency is
extending the additional approach to
CTRT combusted in HSG boilers. The
135 See EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0110–0076 in the
docket for this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Agency notes, however, that use of that
boiler type for combustion of CTRT as
the primary fuel may be limited. Review
of HSG boilers in the Boiler MACT
Database (ICR No. 2286.01) (Version 4),
indicates that all of the boilers in the
HSG subcategory fire bagasse fuels as
the primary fuel, and none report
routine firing of other types of biomass
fuels or CTRTs. When the EPA finalized
the HSG subcategory (76 FR 15634,
March 21, 2011) the rationale for adding
the subcategory was that for
combustion-related pollutants (used as a
surrogate for organic HAP emissions),
the design differences for such hybrid
suspension grate boilers are significant,
and combustion conditions in these
types of units are not similar to those in
dutch ovens or true suspension burners
that combust fine, dry fuels. The
rationale was provided solely in the
context of hybrid suspension/grate
boilers designed to combust very wet
biomass fuels such as bagasse. Bagasse
fuels have a moisture content ranging
between 40 and over 60 percent
moisture content. By contrast, CTRTs
have a moisture content of 20 percent
on average.136
On November 5th, 2015, EPA signed
a final reconsideration for the Boiler
MACT. In that action, the definition of
the HSG subcategory was modified to
require demonstration of the 40 percent
moisture level (as-fired basis) using
monthly fuel analysis, instead of a 40
percent moisture level on an annual
average heat input basis. The addition of
the monthly requirement will require
consistently high moisture contents of
the fuels fired in HSG boilers thus
limiting the use of the drier CTRT.
Comment: The EPA’s proposed
approach should not include conditions
specifying a CTRT fuel use limit of 40
percent on a monthly basis for the clean
fuel modified unit listing (i.e., CTRTs
combusted in units at major source pulp
and paper mills that are being modified
in order to use clean fuel such as natural
gas, instead of fuel oil). There is no
rational basis for this limitation, since a
percentage cap has nothing to do with
whether or not a material is discarded,
and the EPA did not demonstrate that
this limit would provide any greater
environmental protection. In addition,
the EPA should not limit the clean fuel
modified unit category to units located
only at major source pulp and paper
mills. There is no reason why this
should be an industry-specific
provision. A number of biomass boilers
in both the forest products and biomass
136 https://www.rta.org/assets/docs/RTASponsored
Research/Environmental/creosote%20tie%20
evaluation%20article%20_4_.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
power industries rely on CTRT fuel, and
the EPA has information in the record
showing that a variety of other industry
sectors currently combust railroad ties,
including utilities and chemical
manufacturing facilities.
Response: The Agency is adopting the
conditions under the additional
approach intended to ensure that the
CTRTs are not being discarded,
including the condition that CTRTs can
comprise no more than 40 percent of the
fuel used on an annual heat input basis.
While this commenter disagreed on the
proposed 40 percent limit on use of
CTRTs in units that were once designed
to burn fuel oil but do not any longer,
we note that other commenters
expressed support for this approach.137
As discussed in footnote 114, statements
from the pulp and paper industry
indicate that CTRTs generally comprise
40% of the total fuel load. EPA also
reviewed information from the Boiler
MACT database as well as similar
information obtained for CISWI units,
and noted that the reported annual heat
input rates for CTRTs for units that
reported firing this material did not
exceed 13 percent. Considering that
CTRTs have elevated contaminants
compared to biomass and natural gas,
allowing a fuel usage percentage greater
than industry has typically used
previously could be indicative of
discard. Therefore, the Agency is
maintaining the 40 percent usage
limitation as a reasonable condition for
the categorical non-waste determination
for CTRTs in units that have been
modified to burn biomass and natural
gas instead of biomass and fuel oil.
We have also determined that the
annual heat input basis is the
appropriate measure for facilities to use
instead of the proposed monthly basis.
Several commenters stated that facilities
already measure and keep records on an
annual basis, and we have noted that
the subcategory applicability records
required by the major source boiler
NESHAP are on an annual heat input
basis as well. Thus this approach
maintains consistency with other
recordkeeping requirements required
under other rules and practices already
in place.
This non-waste determination
approach is also extended to CTRTs
combusted in units at power production
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63
Subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT) in
addition to major source pulp and paper
mills. The information sources cited
above indicate that these types of units
may combust both CTRTs and fuel oil.
137 See docket comment EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0110–0082.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6733
The sources did not show that chemical
manufacturing facilities combust both
types of fuels, thus these facilities were
not included in the categorical nonwaste determination for units that have
been modified to burn biomass and
natural gas instead of biomass and fuel
oil.138
Comment: With regard to whether
combustors should be required to keep
records that the conditions for burning
of CTRTs described above have been
met, and the additional recordkeeping
requirements to show that the
conditions in the additional approach
are met, are unnecessary. Any potential
issues should already be adequately
addressed by the recordkeeping
provisions already in place in
applicable Boiler MACT and NSPS
requirements, state and local regulatory
requirements, and facility permits.
Further, the existence of a record does
not demonstrate whether or not discard
is occurring under RCRA. The EPA
should continue to rely on the recordkeeping requirements under the Clean
Air Act rules.
Other commenters supported such
recordkeeping requirements, explaining
that the EPA and/or delegated state or
local air agencies will have no way to
ensure compliance with the conditions
without requiring recordkeeping. If
required, recordkeeping should be
streamlined with air quality
requirements, in other words, one
system may support the NHSM
determination and air pollution control
requirements.
Response: The Agency has concluded
that additional specific recordkeeping
requirements are not required to
determine compliance with the
additional approach. Current
recordkeeping requirements for boilers
under 40 CFR 63.7555 require
documentation that the material is listed
as a categorical non-waste under
§ 241.4(a) of this chapter, which would
include records demonstrating
adherence to any conditions applied to
the categorical non-waste
determination, such as the 40 percent
annual heat input limitation.
b. Additional Comments
Comment: The EPA should expand
this additional approach to allow the
combustion of CTRTs in biomass
boilers, and specifically, biomass boilers
that have already or in the future will
convert from coal to biomass. The
138 40 CFR 241.2 defines power producer as a
boiler unit producing electricity for sale to the grid.
The term does not include units meeting the
definition of electricity generating unit under 40
CFR 63.10042 of the Utility Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards rule.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6734
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
conversion of a unit from coal to
biomass reduces the steam generation
capacity compared to the original
design. A portion of a higher Btu fuel
(such as CTRTs) is incorporated into the
mix to make the conversion successful.
It is environmentally preferable to
avoid the use of coal or fuel oil for that
higher Btu fuel, and the EPA shouldn’t
discourage facilities from switching to
biomass by not allowing the co-firing of
CTRTs. The EPA can balance other
factors against the contaminant
legitimacy criterion, and the
environmental benefits of coal-tobiomass conversion are a relevant factor
to be considered.
Many biomass boilers in the forest
products industry rely on CTRT fuel but
are not current or former users of either
oil or coal. CTRT is a significant fuel for
a number of biomass plants and will
become increasingly important as
facilities are forced to secure feedstocks
from non-forest product sources.
The biomass power industry operates
with mostly grid-connected standalone
power plants which use organic
materials in the production of energy.
These commenters reported that 20–35
percent of the organic materials used in
these facilities are CTRTs, stressing that
CTRTs enhance boiler performance and
efficiency, and are therefore valuable to
these facilities because of their high
BTU value, low moisture content, and
low ash.
Biomass power facilities may also be
subject to Renewable Portfolio
Standards which provide states with a
mechanism to increase renewable
energy generation. Such programs
require energy utilities to supply a
minimum amount of customer load
from eligible renewable energy sources,
such as biomass rather than fossil fuel
sources such as fuel oil.
Response: The Agency recognizes the
importance of CTRTs as a fuel to the
biomass power industry and to boilers
designed specifically for the use of
biomass as a fuel. Indeed, there may be
environmental benefits to allowing
CTRT use. The statutory requirement
under RCRA, however, is to determine
whether the material is a waste when
burned as a fuel. The environmental and
efficiency benefits, moreover, would
accrue if the facilities were burning
under CAA 112 or 129. Thus, most of
the policy arguments propounded by
the comment may be valid but not
necessarily relevant to whether material
is discarded.
The key for the facilities discussed in
the comment is the use of both fuel oil
and biomass as fuels that the facilities
are designed to burn. Since the
comment discusses facilities that do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
use fuel oil in their fuel mix now or in
the past, they do not meet legitimacy
criteria for contaminant comparison and
will not be eligible for the categorical
listing regarding CTRTs. Under these
conditions, the CTRTs have been
discarded when they are burned as a
fuel.
Comment: The EPA’s proposal
included the combustion of CTRTs as a
non-waste fuel, and stressed that these
materials are a valuable commodity and
a legitimate alternative fuel. However,
combustion of CTRTs should not be
limited to only units ‘‘designed to burn
biomass and fuel oil.’’ Such limitations
may be necessary when evaluating caseby-case NHSMs against the legitimacy
criteria, but, they are not appropriate for
the categorical listing of a non-waste
fuel. For example, in listing TDF (tirederived fuel) as a categorical non-waste
fuel, the EPA compared the
contaminants in scrap tires to the
contaminants in coal, which was
considered the traditional fuel that TDF
typically replaces, to satisfy the third
legitimacy criterion. However, it is
important to note that no ‘‘designed to
burn’’ conditions are included in the
categorical non-waste listing for TDF.
TDF are NHSMs that are categorically
not solid waste when used as fuel in a
combustion unit. Therefore, the
specification of ‘‘designed to burn’’
conditions associated with the proposed
non-waste fuel listing for CTRTs is
inconsistent with previous rulemakings
and non-waste fuel determinations.
The ‘‘designed to burn’’ condition was
intended to determine which traditional
fuels should be the basis of comparison
for the contaminant levels in the
material under evaluation as a
non-waste fuel, not to put limitations on
the use of the NHSM as non-waste fuel.
As the EPA stated ‘‘the reason we
analyze what a unit is designed to burn
is to decide the traditional fuel(s) to
which contaminants should be
compared. This comparison is then used
as an aid to decide whether the NHSM
is being legitimately used as a fuel or
whether excess contaminants show that
the burning is waste treatment’’ (78 FR
9149).
Response: The Agency disagrees that
designed to burn conditions or
limitations are inappropriate for
categorical non-waste determinations.
Further, the commenter’s argument as to
why the ‘‘designed to burn’’ condition
should not put limitations on the use of
the NHSM as non-waste fuel is unclear.
The purpose of the designed to burn
condition is to ensure a facility is not
combusting CTRTs as a means of
discard. Discard would be occurring if
the unit is not designed to burn CTRTs
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with elevated levels of PAHs. As
discussed in section V.C.4. of this
preamble, to meet legitimacy criteria
and ensure discard is not occurring, any
categorical non-waste (as well as
materials determined to be non-waste
on a case-by-case basis) must contain
contaminants or groups of contaminants
at levels comparable in concentration to
or lower than those in the traditional
fuel(s) which the combustion unit is
designed to burn (40 CFR
241.3(d)(1)(iii), 40 CFR 241.4(b)). If a
facility compared contaminants to a
traditional fuel that the unit is not
designed to burn, and the fuel is highly
contaminated, combustion of that fuel
would be considered discard.
As further discussed in section V.C.4.
of this preamble, for CTRTs, the Agency
considered traditional fuel contaminant
comparison information for biomass,
fuel oil and coal. To meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion, the
Agency determined that CTRTs must be
combusted in units designed to burn
biomass and fuel oil due to elevated
levels of SVOCs, or as described, above
in specific industry facilities that have
switched from burning fuel oil and
biomass to natural gas and fuel oil.
Units designed to burn both biomass
and fuel oil may, in addition, burn coal
or other traditional fuels if the unit is
also designed to burn that material.
With respect to the comment’s view of
the TDF categorical listing, the EPA first
notes that that listing has not been
reopened for any comment. Regardless,
the EPA disagrees with the comment
that there is no designed to burn
provision in the categorical listing. Any
categorical listing imposes a
requirement that legitimacy criteria
must be met, as is the case for any
material burned as a fuel in order to be
burned as a product fuel. Facilities that
are not designed to burn coal may not
burn TDF because they will be burning
a ‘‘dirtier’’ fuel than would normally be
burned by the facility. While a separate
case-by-case determination regarding
contaminants does not have to be made,
TDF may not be burned in an oil or gasfired facility under CAA section 112. In
such a case there would be substantial
burning of waste contaminants, which
would result in the application of CAA
section 129 standards.
The categorical listing for tires was
based on the determination made in the
March 21, 2011 rule (76 FR 15456) that
TDF had contaminants at levels
comparable to or less than coal, the
traditional fuel which TDF would
replace.139 140 The Agency did not
139 See
140 See
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
78 FR 9154.
76 FR 15494.
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
receive information on contaminant
comparisons to other traditional fuels
besides coal. It is not necessary for the
EPA to repeat the importance of the
legitimacy criteria in every provision in
its regulations.
Comment: Seven boilers at a facility
are built and designed as biomass
boilers, and use fossil fuels for startup
and flame stabilization. However, only
three of the boilers are permitted and
equipped to burn fuel oil, and the
remaining units are permitted and
equipped to use natural gas. The
categorical listing of CTRTs as a nonwaste fuel in units designed to burn fuel
oil would only allow listing CTRTs as
a fuel for one of its facilities (three
boilers), while being a waste in the
others, despite each of the units being
designed to burn primarily solid fuels
such as CTRT.
CTRTs should be allowed to be used
as a fuel in units designed, built and
operated to burn biomass, provided that
the units are operated in compliance
with their air permit regardless of their
capacity to burn fuel oil. These units are
designed to burn solid fuels, and CTRTs
are a solid fuel. Requiring boilers to be
equipped with fuel oil delivery systems
would result in unnecessary permitting
and burden with no environmental
benefit. The commenter further notes
that the EPA’s concerns on combustion
by-products and PAH are best addressed
through air permitting.
Response: The Agency does not agree
that CTRTs should be allowed to be
used as a fuel in units designed to burn
only biomass. In order to legitimately
combust CTRTs, the unit must be
designed to burn both biomass and fuel
oil. As stated in section V.C.4.b.iii., of
this preamble, where a combustion unit
is designed to only burn biomass, the
EPA compared contaminant levels in
CTRTs to contaminant levels in
biomass. In this scenario, the total
SVOC levels can reach 22,883 ppm,
driven by high levels of PAHs and, to
a lesser extent, the levels of
dibenzofuran and biphenyl.141 These
compounds are largely nonexistent in
clean wood and biomass, and the
contaminants are therefore not
comparable in this instance. In fact, they
are present at orders of magnitude
higher than found in clean wood and
biomass. Thus, if a unit combusts
CTRTs and the unit is designed to burn
141 We note that for several SVOCs—cresols,
hexachlorobenzene, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene, which
were expected to be in creosote, and for which
information was specifically requested in the
February 7, 2013 NHSM final rule (78 FR 9111), the
data demonstrate that they were not detectable, or
were present at levels so low to be considered
comparable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
only biomass, the unit would be able to
burn excessive levels of contaminants,
which would be waste components.
This would constitute discard.
The Agency also disagrees that
because the units are operated in
compliance with the air permits, the
units should be allowed to burn CTRTs
regardless of the capacity to burn fuel
oil. The determination whether CTRTs
are a waste or a non-waste and, thus,
whether CTRTs can be combusted in a
particular unit is made prior to
combustion of the material. Emission
standards, either CAA section 112 or
CAA section 129, are applied through
the permit based on the waste-nonwaste determination. The concept of the
NHSM rule is to determine whether
particular materials should be burned as
waste fuels or product fuels, while the
air permit emission standards help
ensure protection of human health and
the environment for burning of the
NHSM in the unit.
Comment: The EPA has stated that
‘‘information indicating that CTRTs are
an important part of the fuel mix due to
the consistently lower moisture content
and higher Btu value, as well as the
benefits of drier more consistent fuel to
combustion units with significant
swings in steam demand, further suggest
that discard is not occurring’’ (79 FR
21028). This statement supports the
determination that CTRTs are
functionally equivalent to traditional
fuels they replace.
When balanced against the
contaminant legitimacy criterion it
should outweigh any implication the
EPA is inferring from the PAH levels
that discard is occurring. CTRTs may
have higher concentrations of such
semi-volatile organic compounds in
comparison to biomass, but the EPA
should give more weight to other factors
demonstrating that CTRTs are fuel
rather than waste (such as the
long-standing practice of purchasing
CTRTs as a viable fuel source for
boilers).
EPA also stated in the December 2011
preamble (76 FR 80471) that ‘‘certain
NHSMs may not meet the legitimacy
criteria, especially the ‘contaminant
legitimacy criterion,’ in all instances,
but the material would still generally be
considered a non-waste fuel.’’ It is
appropriate to balance the legitimacy
criteria and other relevant factors in
determining that a NHSM is not a solid
waste when used as a fuel in a
combustion unit. The motivation of the
combustor is a significant factor that
should be considered in a non-waste
determination. CTRTs are generally
purchased under contracts to provide a
reliable, cost-effective fuel source, rather
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6735
than burned to destroy a group of
contaminants. Use of CTRTs are
important in reducing carbon dioxide
emissions, maintaining capacity for
managing agricultural biomass and
urban wood, and the continued
economic viability of many facilities as
relevant factors for the EPA to balance
with the contaminant legitimacy
criterion.
Response: In the first instance, the
EPA must correct the comment’s
statement that materials are either fuels
or wastes. The very basis of the EPA’s
NHSM rule is that we need to determine
whether materials burned as fuels are
wastes or products. The fact that the
Agency agrees that material is a good
fuel does not mean it is a product fuel.
All legitimacy criteria must be met.
Further, the EPA disagrees that
elevated PAH levels should not compel
the conclusion that CTRTs can only be
combusted as product fuels in units
designed to burn fuel oil or in existing
units that had combusted fuel oil in the
past and switched to a cleaner natural
gas fuel. As discussed in the February
7, 2013 final rule and the proposed rule
(79 FR 21027), the Agency can list an
NHSM categorically by balancing the
legitimacy criteria against other relevant
factors (40 CFR 241.4(b)(5)(ii)) as is
done for CTRTs combusted in existing
units that had switched to natural gas.
However, balancing does not mean the
Agency can simply ignore any of the
legitimacy criteria no matter the type of
levels or contaminants because the
material is a source of fuel with higher
Btu value and low moisture. In the case
of CTRTs, to the extent that a
combustion unit was never designed to
burn fuel oil and biomass, the
traditional fuels that are most
comparable to CTRTs, the Agency
would be allowing toxic contaminants
that are present in the CTRTs several
orders of magnitude higher than what is
found in the traditional fuel. While the
Agency recognizes that other relevant
factors, including purchase of the
material as a commodity for its fuel
value, may be considered when one of
the legitimacy criteria are not met, we
do not agree that consideration of such
factors would allow the EPA to
undermine the legitimacy criterion if it
is inconsistent with the concept of
discard.
By adopting the approach suggested
by the commenters, the Agency would
be allowing any biomass-based material
that is significantly contaminated to be
burned in any combustion unit,
including residential and commercial
boilers. We also do not agree with
petitioner’s claim that CTRTs are
functionally the same as other
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6736
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
comparable traditional fuels. Unlike
traditional fuels, CTRTs must be
processed by reclamation companies to
remove metals (spikes, nails etc.) and
shredded into chips to make it suitable
as a new fuel product.
Comment: Cement kilns can utilize a
wide variety of fuels and should be
included as an acceptable fuel end-user
for CTRT non-waste fuels. If the EPA
retains the ‘‘designed-to-burn’’
condition, the EPA should state that a
source that burns coal and fuel oil, such
as cement kilns, also qualifies for the
use of CTRTs as a categorically exempt
non-waste NHSM. Currently, a source
with a combustion unit that
predominantly burns coal and fuel oil
has to infer that the categorical nonwaste NHSM exemption for CTRTs
applies based on Footnote 96 (79 FR
21025, April 14, 2014). More clarity
would be present if the exemption
specifically referenced coal, coke,
biomass, and fuel oil fired combustion
units.
Response: The Agency notes first that
the comment is in error by
characterizing the listing of CTRTs as a
categorically ‘‘exempt’’ non-waste. Such
determinations are not exempting those
materials from the solid waste definition
under the RCRA. The part 241 standards
overall determine whether materials are
solid wastes under the RCRA and must
be combusted in units meeting CAA 129
standards, or not solid wastes under the
RCRA, and can be combusted in units
meeting CAA 112 standards. This rule
determines whether or not materials are
categorical non-wastes. At no point is
the EPA ‘‘exempting’’ or ‘‘excluding’’
material from the solid waste definition.
The Agency agrees that more clarity is
needed regarding combustion of CTRTs
in units designed to burn coal in
addition to biomass and fuel oil
(information was not received by the
Agency regarding coke). Footnote 96 in
the proposal, cited by the commenter,
stated that units designed to burn both
biomass and fuel oil may, in addition,
burn coal if the unit is also designed to
burn that material and still be eligible
for the categorical non-waste
determination. Cement kilns are an
example of a combustor that may have
the ability to combust all fuels (see also
discussion on cement kilns in C&D
wood in section V.A.5. of this
preamble).
To provide additional clarity
regarding units designed to burn coal,
fuel oil and CTRTs, the footnote was
deleted, and an expanded explanation
was provided in section V.C.4. of this
preamble stating that the EPA
considered two scenarios for units that
combust CTRTs, fuel oil and coal. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
purposes of contaminant comparison to
that traditional fuel, the EPA considered
two scenarios.
In the first scenario, where CTRTs
were combusted in units designed to
burn only coal and biomass,
contaminant levels in CTRTs were
compared to those two traditional
fuels.142 In this scenario, maximum
levels of SVOCs in CTRTs (22,883 ppm)
exceeded those in coal (2,343 ppm) and
biomass (SVOC levels largely nonexistent). Thus, units that are designed
to burn only coal and biomass would
not meet the legitimacy criterion for
contaminant comparison to CTRTs. This
shows that discard is occurring.
In the second scenario, a combustion
unit is designed to burn coal, biomass
and fuel oil. SVOCs are present in
CTRTs (up to 22,883 ppm) at levels well
exceeding those in coal and biomass but
within the range observed in fuel oil (up
to 54,700 ppm). As previously
mentioned, fluorine, and nitrogen levels
in CTRTs are present at elevated levels
when compared to fuel oil. However,
the highest levels of fluorine (100 ppm)
and nitrogen (14,400 ppm) are
comparable to, or well within, the levels
of these contaminants in biomass. All
other contaminants in CTRTs are
comparable to those in coal. Thus,
CTRTs can be combusted in units
burning coal, but only if the unit is also
designed to burn fuel oil and biomass.
CTRTs have comparable contaminant
levels in units designed to burn
biomass, fuel oil and coal, and as such,
meet this legitimacy criterion if used in
facilities that are designed to burn those
traditional fuels.143
In addition to units combusting
biomass, fuel oil and coal, consistent
142 Contaminant levels in coal presented in
‘‘Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels:
Tables for Comparison’’ document available at
https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/pdfs/
nhsm_cont_tf.pdf. Contaminant data drawn from
various literature sources and from data submitted
to USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS).
143 As discussed previously, the March 21, 2011
NHSM final rule (76 FR 15456), noting the presence
of hexachlorobenzene and dinitrotoluene, suggested
that creosote-treated lumber include contaminants
at levels that are not comparable to those found in
wood or coal, the fuel that creosote-treated wood
would replace, and would thus be considered solid
wastes. This final rule differs in several respects
from the conclusions in the March 21, 2011 rule.
This final rule concludes that CTRTs are a
categorical non-waste when combusted in units
designed to burn both fuel oil and biomass. The
March 21, 2011 rule, using 1990 data on railroad
cross ties, was based on contaminant comparisons
to coal and biomass and not fuel oil. As discussed
above, when compared to fuel oil, total SVOC
contaminant concentrations (which would include
dinitrotoluene and hexachlorobenzene) in CTRTs
would be less that those found in fuel oil, and in
fact, the 2012 data referenced in this final rule
showed non-detects for those two contaminants.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the discussion above, CTRTs also
can be combusted in units at major pulp
and paper mills and in units at power
production facilities subject to the
Boiler MACT that had been designed to
burn biomass, fuel oil and coal but were
modified (e.g., oil delivery equipment
removed) in order to use natural gas
instead of fuel oil. The CTRT may
continue to be combusted as a product
fuel only if certain conditions were met,
described above, which are all intended
to ensure that the CTRTs are not being
discarded.
Comment: Start-up and shut down
operating scenarios are sufficient to
demonstrate a source’s ability to meet a
designed to burn criteria for fuel oil. Not
including those scenarios is not
supported by previous U.S. EPA policy
nor by the language in 40 CFR
241.3(d)(1)(iii), which includes the
phrase ‘‘. . . may choose a traditional
fuel that can be or is burned in the
particular type of combustion unit . . .’’
The EPA’s use of ‘‘can be’’ is
inconsistent with the language in the
preamble: ‘‘We would like to make clear
that the Agency would consider units to
meet this requirement if the unit
combusts fuel oil as part of the normal
operations and not solely as part of
start-up or shut down operations.’’ The
EPA should restate this sentence as ‘‘We
would like to make clear that the
Agency would consider units to meet
this requirement if the unit can combust
fuel oil as part of the normal operations
which includes periods of start-up or
shut down operations.’’
Response: The Agency disagrees that
start-up and shut-down of sources is
considered normal operations for the
purposes of determining whether a unit
is designed to burn a traditional fuel
used for contaminant comparison. With
regard to meeting the design to burn
criteria, the Agency considers normal
operations to be a unit that contains
burners capable of firing fuel oil as the
primary fuel during periods of steady
state operations or periods where the
fired oil is used as a supplemental fuel
to maintain consistent heat input during
steady state operations. Specific
regulatory language is added in this
final rule to clarify that the listing
applies only to units designed to burn
both biomass and fuel oil as part of
normal operations and not just start-up
and shut-down operations, as well as
units at major source pulp and paper
mills or power producers that were
modified (e.g., oil delivery mechanisms
were removed) in order to use natural
gas as part of normal operations and not
just start-up and shut down operations
(see section 241.4(a)(7)).
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: The EPA should expand
the definition of CTRTs to include ties
dual treated with creosote and borate.
As proposed, the definition is limited to
railway support ties treated with a wood
preservative containing creosols and
phenols and made from coal tar oil.
CTRTs may also be treated with a
combination of borate and creosote. Use
of borate-based compounds has recently
become prevalent for the protection of
railroad crossties. Use of borate allows
for treatment of the inner layers of wood
(or heartwood), while creosote typically
only treats sapwood. Encapsulating the
borate-treated crosstie with creosote
adds a hydrophobic outer layer of
protection and a barrier that repels
white-rot fungi. Borate treatment also
reduces the amount of creosote that
needs to be used in crossties.
The EPA has already reviewed data
that demonstrates that the levels of
contaminants in borate-treated wood are
comparable to those found in
unadulterated wood. The December,
2013, data submitted to the EPA by the
Treated Wood Council,144 demonstrate
that wood dual treated with both borate
and creosote has lower PAH levels (and
lower metals levels) than wood that is
treated with creosote alone.
Furthermore, the combination of
creosote and borate is not expected to
yield unwanted synergistic chemical
reactions, based on one example of a
patented process that treats wood
simultaneously using a blended solution
of creosote and borate.
Because the EPA has already
established that CTRTs meet the other
two legitimacy criteria (managed as a
valuable commodity and having
meaningful heat value), all three
legitimacy criteria are met for boratetreated wood. As such, ties treated with
a combination of creosote and borate
also meet the criteria and should be
included in this rulemaking.
Various consequences may arise if the
EPA fails to include dual-treated ties in
the non-waste listing. First, the utility of
the CTRT non-waste listing would be
short-lived, as most newer ties are
treated with borate as well as creosote.
Secondly, because borate is typically
applied first and then covered with
creosote treatment, suppliers will
struggle to distinguish between the two
types of ties. Although these newer ties
are likely to be in service currently,
when they need to be replaced they
would likely be processed with
creosote-only-treated ties, this would
create uncertainty regarding the waste
status of all railroad ties, and the CTRT
144 Included
VerDate Sep<11>2014
in the docket for this final rule.
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
processing industry would be adversely
affected.
Some CTRT business partners are
evaluating investments in new CTRT
processing facilities that are located
closer to the facilities that combust
them, in order to address transportation
costs, but these partners would have
stranded assets when dual-treated ties
begin to be removed from service, and
the uncertainty would prevent
investments from being made.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the
definition of CTRTs should be expanded
to include dual treated creosote and
borate ties (dual-treated ties) based on
the data received. Unlike CTRTs, the
December 2013 data for dual-treated ties
cited above was limited to a single data
point.145 A single data point does not
provide enough information that the
data analyzed are truly representative of
the category of material under
consideration, and the legitimacy
criterion for contaminants comparable
to or less than the traditional fuel the
unit is designed to burn has been met.
Thus, no determination can be made
whether or not the material has been
discarded, and is a waste or non-waste.
As the record indicates in previous
categorical determinations, including
CTRTs, multiple unique analytical data
points were considered in making
categorical determinations.
Several consequences of not including
dual-treated ties in this categorical
determination are identified. The first
suggested consequence stated that most
newer ties are treated with borate and
the utility of a creosote only categorical
listing would be short-lived. As
indicated, this final rule determination
on dual-treated ties is based on a single
data point, however, the EPA could
revisit that determination in the future
should additional data be made
available. Further, not including dualtreated ties in this rule’s CTRT
categorical determination does not
necessarily preclude suppliers from
determining that dual-treated ties are
non-wastes. Instead of relying on this
rule’s categorical non-waste
determination, the suppliers can instead
follow the procedures outlined in 40
CFR 241.3 to make a non-waste
determination specific to their product.
The commenter also suggests that
suppliers and CTRT processing facilities
may have difficulty in distinguishing
between CTRTs and dual-treated ties.
These statements, however, are
inconsistent with information received
by the Agency on management of
145 See also discussion under Comments and
Information Received on Other Types of Treated
Wood section V.A.6.c.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6737
CTRTs. As stated in section V.C.1. of
this preamble, contracts for the
purchase and combustion of CTRTs may
include fuel specifications limiting
contaminants, such as metal, and
precluding the receipt of wood treated
with preservatives other than creosote.
Comment: The EPA does not indicate
in the proposal how CTRTs are to be
processed to qualify as a non-waste fuel.
The EPA has also not included in the
proposal any requirements that
processing of CTRTs must be conducted
using best management practices. The
EPA should include in the final rule
requirements for processing of CTRTs
that include specific criteria for best
management practices.
Response: The Agency agrees the rule
should include language identifying
how CTRTs are to be processed to
qualify as a non-waste fuel. The
language in the proposed rule stated the
following was a categorical non-waste
under 40 CFR 241.4 ‘‘Creosote-treated
railroad ties that are processed
(emphasis added) and combusted in
units designed to burn both biomass and
fuel oil.’’
Ties that are not processed into a new
product fuel that meets legitimacy
criteria would be considered discarded,
but the rule did not specifically identify
how the ties should be processed. As
discussed in section V.C.4. of this
preamble, certain practices are standard
within the industry for the processing of
cross-ties into fuel by reclamation/
processing companies. Specifically,
metals (spikes, nails, plates, etc.) are
removed using a magnet which may
occur several times during the process.
The cross-ties are then ground or
shredded to a specified size depending
on the particular needs of the end-use
combustor.
To provide specificity as to how
CTRTs must be processed to meet the
requirements of the categorical nonwaste standard, the language pertaining
to CTRTs as a categorical non-waste fuel
under 40 CFR 241.4 is amended as
follows: ‘‘Creosote-treated railroad ties
that are processed and then combusted
in units designed to burn both biomass
and fuel oil as part of normal operations
and not solely as part of start-up or shutdown operations. Processing must
include, at a minimum, metal removal
and shredding or grinding.
Comment: The EPA bases its
treatment of CTRTs as fuel on an
incorrect, arbitrary conclusion, reflected
in this preamble statement: ‘‘CTRTs
removed from service and stored in a
railroad right of way or other location
for long periods of time—that is, a year
or longer, without a determination
regarding their final end use (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6738
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
landscaping, as a fuel or land filled)
indicates that the material has been
discarded and is a solid waste.’’ This
statement reflects a complete
misunderstanding of how CTRTs are
processed and treated in the
marketplace. Often times, CTRTs are
transported a significant distance to the
end user of the ties and therefore, those
ties may need to be stored long enough
to provide a shipment at a cost-effective
freight rate. The availability of CTRTs
may not always match the demand for
CTRTs. Significant deconstruction of a
railway could occur at a time when the
marketplace for CTRTs as a fuel is
flooded. Thus, storage of CTRTs is
reasonable and by no means indicates
that CTRTs are discarded.
Response: The EPA disagrees that lack
of cost-effective freight rates and
variability in demand would result in a
determination that CTRTs are not
discarded. Such factors show that the
value of ties as a commodity in the
marketplace is predicated in part on
these variables. The material would, in
such cases, be speculatively
accumulated with no clear market
value. The fact that they may at some
point in the future have value as a
commodity does not render them nonwastes. Thus, the Agency sees no reason
to reconsider its conclusion that CTRTs
removed from service that may be stored
in a railroad right of way or other
location for long periods of time—that
is, a year or longer, without a
determination regarding their final end
use shows that the material has been
discarded and is a solid waste.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
c. Comments and Information Received
on Other Types of Treated Railroad Ties
The Agency received a petition from
the Treated Wood Council in April 2013
requesting that nonhazardous treated
wood (including borate and copper
naphtenate) be categorically listed as
non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a).
Under the April 2013 petition,
nonhazardous treated wood would
include waterborne borate based
preservatives, waterborne organic based
preservatives, waterborne copper based
wood preservatives (ammoniacal/
alkaline copper quat, copper azole,
copper HDO, alkaline copper betaine, or
copper naphthenate); creosote; oilborne
copper naphthenate;
pentachlorophenol; or dual-treated with
any of the above. In the course of EPA’s
review of the petition, additional data
was requested and received, and
meetings were held between TWC and
EPA representatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
In an August 21, 2015 letter from
TWC to Barnes Johnson,146 TWC
requested that the Agency move forward
quickly on a subset of materials that
were identified in the original April
2013 petition which are creosote borate,
copper naphtenate, and copper
naphtenate-borate treated railroad ties.
In the letter, TWC indicated that these
types of ties are increasingly being used
as alternatives to creosote treated ties,
and that the ability to reuse the ties is
an important consideration in rail tie
purchasing decisions. The letter stated
that TWC will discuss the remaining
treated wood materials with EPA as a
separate matter.
The Agency has reviewed TWC
information on the three treated railroad
ties, creosote borate, copper naphtenate,
and copper naphtenate-borate,
submitted on September 11, 2015 and
has requested additional contaminant
data which was submitted on October 5,
2015 and October 19, 2015. Based on
information provided to the Agency to
date, we believe these three treated
railroad ties are candidates for
categorical non-waste listings and
expect to begin development of a
proposed rule under 40 CFR 241.4(a)
regarding those listings in the near
future.
The Agency understands the
importance of the January 31, 2016
compliance deadline for existing boiler
units and the need to make decisions on
fuel use by that deadline. Agency action
on the three treated railroad ties,
however, must follow required action
development processes including public
notice and comment required under the
Administrative Procedures Act. Due to
such processes, the categorical nonwaste listing could not be completed
prior to the January deadline. The
Agency emphasizes, however, that
facilities may also make selfdeterminations of their material under
40 CFR 241.3(b). In order to be regulated
under CAA section 112 rather than CAA
section 129, a combustion source can
make a non-waste determination for the
NHSM used as fuel when managed
within their control (241.3(b)(1)); or for
fuel or products produced from
processed discarded NHSM
(241.3(b)(4)). Prior to the effective date
of this rule, such self-determinations
may apply to materials categorically
listed as non-wastes by this rule.
In an October 5, 2015 meeting with
the Office of Management and Budget
under EO 12866, industry
representatives indicated that although
the three types of RR ties are just
coming into use, a few may have to be
146 Included
PO 00000
in the docket for the final rule.
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
replaced, collected and mixed in with
cresosote treated railroad ties by
processor prior to being sent to the
combustor. Industry representatives
were concerned that the presence of
these small amounts of creosote borate,
copper naphtenate, and copper
naphtenate-borate, since they are not
included in the categorical
determination, would render all of the
creosote treated processed ties into solid
wastes. The Agency has determined that
small (de minimis) amounts of such
materials would not result in
determinations that the creosote ties
being combusted are solid wastes. This
is supported by the rulemaking record,
specifically the discussion in the March
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.147 That
discussion supports the application of a
de minimis principle.
VI. Technical Corrections
A. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)
NHSMs that are not solid wastes
when combusted are identified under 40
CFR 241.3(b). Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of
40 CFR 241.3(b)(2) were reserved in
response to the 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1)
categorical non-waste standards in the
February 7, 2013 rulemaking. Those
standards had eliminated the need for
previous standards under 40 CFR
241.3(b)(2)(i) and (ii) related to scrap
tires managed under established tire
collection programs and resinated wood
(see section IV.A. History of NHSM
Rulemakings). However, reserving only
40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) and (ii), and not
the introductory sentence, led to some
confusion with the categorical nonwaste standards. For clarity, and to
ensure consistent numbering with the
following sections, we proposed to
amend 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2) by reserving
paragraph (b)(2) in its entirety.
B. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(c)(1)
The description of the petition
process identified in 40 CFR 241.3(c)(1)
contains a typographical error.
Specifically, the last sentence of the 40
CFR 241.3(c)(1) regulatory text from the
February 2013 final rule is stated as
147 See
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
76 FR 15486.
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
follows: ‘‘The determination will be
based on whether the non-hazardous
secondary material that has been
discarded is a legitimate fuel as
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section and on the following criteria:’’
However, the intent of this sentence is
to say that the determination is based on
‘‘whether it has or has not been
discarded’’ in addition to other factors.
Therefore, we proposed to amend the
regulatory text to add a ‘‘not’’ before
‘‘been discarded’’ and remove ‘‘that’’
after ‘‘non-hazardous secondary
material.’’ The proposed regulatory text,
therefore, was ‘‘. . . The determination
will be based on whether the nonhazardous secondary material has not
been discarded is a legitimate fuel as
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section and on the following criteria:’’
A comment was received on the
proposed amendments stating the word
‘‘that’’ appears to have been omitted in
the last sentence, and should be add to
the sentence as shown in italics below:
‘‘The determination will be based on
whether the non-hazardous secondary
material that has not been discarded is
a legitimate fuel as specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and on
the following criteria . . .’’
The Agency agrees with the
commenter. The word ‘‘that’’ clarifies
the sentence’s meaning and should not
have been omitted. Thus, the sentence
in the final rule reads: ‘‘The
determination will be based on whether
the non-hazardous secondary material
that has not been discarded is a
legitimate fuel as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section and on the
following criteria . . .’’
C. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(iii)
The Agency also proposed to make a
technical correction to 40 CFR
241.3(d)(1)(iii) to clarify that the
provision applies to cement kilns, as
well as boilers. Specifically, that section
of the rule identifies the legitimacy
criteria for NHSMs relating to
contaminant comparisons between the
traditional fuel(s) a unit is designed to
burn and the NHSM. It states that a
person may choose a traditional fuel
that can be burned in any type of boiler
(emphasis added), whereas the rest of
the sentence refers to the combustion
unit. Like a boiler, a cement kiln that
combusts any non-hazardous solid
waste is subject to regulation as a CISWI
unit pursuant to section 129(g)(1) of the
CAA. In order for a cement kiln not to
be classified as a CISWI unit, it must use
a fuel that is/has been determined to be
a non-waste fuel under 40 CFR part 241
when combusted. Consistent with the
section as a whole, the word boiler is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
replaced with combustion unit to clarify
that a person may choose a traditional
fuel that can be or is burned in a
combustion unit, which can be a cement
kiln, as well as a boiler. Thus, the
proposed regulatory text was ‘‘. . . In
determining which traditional fuel(s) a
unit is designed to burn, persons may
choose a traditional fuel that can be or
is burned in the particular type of
combustion unit, whether or not the
combustion unit is permitted to burn
that traditional fuel . . . .’’ The EPA
received no comments on this technical
change and is issuing the rule in final,
as proposed.
VII. Effect of This Rule on Other
Programs
Beyond expanding the list of NHSMs
that categorically qualify as non-waste
fuels, this rule does not change the
effect of the NHSM regulations on other
programs as described in the March 21,
2011 NHSM final rule, as amended on
February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9138). Refer to
section VIII of the preamble to the
March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule 148 for
the discussion on the effect of the
NHSM rule on other programs.
VIII. State Authority
A. Relationship to State Programs
This final rule does not change the
relationship to state programs as
described in the March 21, 2011 NHSM
final rule. Refer to section IX of the
preamble to the March 21, 2011 NHSM
final rule 149 for the discussion on state
authority including, ‘‘Applicability of
State Solid Waste Definitions and
Beneficial Use Determinations’’ and
‘‘Clarifications on the Relationship to
State Programs.’’ The Agency, however,
would like to reiterate that this rule (like
the March 21, 2011 and the February 7,
2013 final rules) is not intended to
interfere with a state’s program
authority over the general management
of solid waste.
B. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
No federal approval procedures for
state adoption of this final rule are
included in this rulemaking action
under RCRA subtitle D. Although the
EPA does promulgate criteria for solid
waste landfills and approves state
municipal solid waste landfill
permitting programs, RCRA does not
provide the EPA with authority to
approve state programs beyond those
landfill permitting programs. While
states are not required to adopt
regulations promulgated under RCRA
subtitle D, some states incorporate
148 76
149 76
PO 00000
FR 15456, March 21, 2011 (page 15545).
FR 15456, March 21, 2011 (page 15546).
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6739
federal regulations by reference or have
specific state statutory requirements that
their state program can be no more
stringent than the federal regulations. In
those cases, the EPA anticipates that, if
required by state law, the changes being
proposed in this document, if finalized,
will be incorporated (or possibly
adopted by authorized state air
programs) consistent with the state’s
laws and administrative procedures.
IX. Cost and Benefits
The value of any regulatory action is
traditionally measured by the net
change in social welfare that it
generates. This rulemaking establishes a
categorical non-waste listing for selected
NHSMs under RCRA. This categorical
non-waste determination allows these
materials to be combusted as a product
fuel in units, subject to the section 112
CAA emission standards, without being
subject to a detailed case-by-case
analysis of the material(s) by individual
combustion facilities, provided they
meet the conditions of the categorical
listing. The rule establishes no direct
standards or requirements relative to
how these materials are managed or
combusted. As a result, this action alone
does not directly invoke any costs 150 or
benefits. Rather, this RCRA proposal is
being developed to simplify the rules for
identifying which NHSMs are not solid
wastes and to provide additional clarity
and direction for owners or operators of
combustion facilities. In this regard, this
proposal provides a procedural benefit
to the regulated community, as well as
the states through the establishment of
regulatory clarity and enhanced
materials management certainty.
Because this RCRA action is
definitional only, any costs or benefits
indirectly associated with this action
would not occur without the
corresponding implementation of the
relevant CAA rules. However, in an
effort to ensure rulemaking
transparency, the EPA prepared an
assessment in support of this action that
examines the scope and direction of
these indirect impacts, for both costs
and benefits.151 A document discussing
the effects of the proposed rule was
available in the docket for review. No
comments were received on the
assessment and the document reflecting
150 Excluding minor administrative burden/cost
(e.g., rule familiarization).
151 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, ‘‘Assessment of the Potential Costs,
Benefits, and Other Impacts for the Final Rule:
Categorical Non-Waste Determination for Selected
Non Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSMs):
Construction and Demolition Wood, Recycling
Process Residuals, and Creosote-Treated Railroad
Ties’’ May 22, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
6740
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the final rule has been placed in the
rulemaking docket.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, because it may raise novel legal
or policy issues [3(f)(4)] arising out of
legal mandates, although it is not
economically significant. Any changes
made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA
prepared an economic analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated
with this action. This analysis,
‘‘Assessment of the Potential Costs,
Benefits, and Other Impacts for the
Final Rule—Categorical Non-Waste
Determination for Selected NonHazardous Secondary Materials
(NHSMs): Construction and Demolition
Wood, Recycling Process Residuals, and
Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties’’, is
available in the docket. Interested
persons are encouraged to read and
comment on this document.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities
in this rule will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 2493.03.
You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
This action will impose a direct RCRA
related burden associated with reading
and understanding the rule. This burden
is estimated at approximately $102 per
entity and would impact facilities that
generate the NHSMs, and those that
combust these materials as a fuel
product. Combustors of C&D wood must
also request a written certification from
C&D processing facilities that the C&D
wood that they intend to burn as a nonwaste fuel has been processed by
trained operators in accordance with
best management practices, as defined
in the rule. The preparation of the
certification statement and the need to
maintain certification status is the
responsibility of the processor. The
combustors also would be required to
maintain the certification statement on
file; however, there is already an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
existing requirement for combustors to
maintain records that show how they
are in compliance with the 40 CFR
241.3 and 241.4 requirements (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). Because there
are already existing recordkeeping
requirements for combustors to
maintain records that show how they
are in compliance with the 40 CFR
241.3 and 241.4 requirements, the
requirement to maintain the
certification statement provided by the
processor would simply be in place of
records that would need to be
maintained for processed C&D wood,
absent a categorical non-waste fuel
determination. OMB has previously
approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing
NHSM regulation at 40 CFR part 241
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number
2050–0205.
Respondents/affected entities:
Processors and combustors of C&D
wood.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory per 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii)
and (iv).
Estimated number of respondents:
605.
Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 2,252 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $230,111 (per
year), includes $0 annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The addition
of the three NHSMs to the list of
categorical non-waste fuels will
indirectly reduce materials management
costs. In addition, this action will
reduce regulatory uncertainty associated
with these materials and help increase
management efficiency. We have
therefore concluded that this final rule
will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities. We continue to
be interested in the potential impacts of
the final rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts outside the scope of this
rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action has tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law. Potential aspects
associated with the categorical nonwaste fuel determinations under this
final rule may invoke minor indirect
implications to the extent that entities
generating or consolidating these
NHSMs on tribal lands could be
affected. However, any impacts are
expected to be negligible.
The proposed rule solicited comment
from tribal officials on actions contained
in the rule. As no comments were
received, the above determination is
adopted for this final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Based on the discussion
below, the Agency finds that the
populations of children near potentially
affected boilers are either not
significantly greater than national
averages, or in the case of landfills, may
potentially result in reduced discharges
near such populations.152
The final rule may indirectly
stimulate the increased fuel use of one
or more of the three NHSMs by
providing enhanced regulatory clarity
and certainty. This increased fuel use
may result in the diversion of a certain
quantity of these NHSMs away from
current baseline management practices.
Any corresponding disproportionate
impacts among children would depend
upon: (1) Any potential change in
emissions from combustion units
subject to the CAA section 112
standards, relative to baseline
management patterns, and (2) whether
children make up a disproportionate
share of the population near the affected
combustion units. Therefore, to assess
the potential for the final rule to result
in an indirect disproportionate effect on
children, we conducted a demographic
analysis for this population group
surrounding CAA section 112 major
source boilers, municipal solid waste
landfills, and C&D landfills, and cement
kilns.153 We assessed the share of the
population under the age of 18 living
within a three-mile (approximately five
kilometers) radius of these facilities.
For major source boilers, our findings
indicate that the percentage of the
population in these areas under age 18
years of age is generally the same as the
national average.154 In addition, while
the fuel source and corresponding
emission mix for some of these boilers
may change as an indirect response to
this rule, emissions from these sources
remain subject to the CAA section 112
standards.
For municipal solid waste and C&D
landfills, we do not have demographic
152 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery. Summary of Environmental Justice
Impacts for the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material
(NHSM) Rule, the 2010 Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards, the
2010 Major Source Boiler NESHAP and the 2010
Area Source Boiler NESHAP. February 2011.
153 The absence of site-specific coordinates for
area sources prevents assessments of the
demographics of populations located near these
sources.
154 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery. Summary of Environmental Justice
Impacts for the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material
(NHSM) Rule, the 2010 Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards, the
2010 Major Source Boiler NESHAP and the 2010
Area Source Boiler NESHAP. February 2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
results specific to children. However,
using the population below the poverty
level as a rough surrogate for children,
we found that within three miles of
facilities that may experience diversions
of one or more of these NHSMs, lowincome populations, as a percent of the
total population, are disproportionately
high relative to the national average.
Thus, to the extent that these NHSMs
are diverted away from municipal solid
waste or C&D landfills, any landfillrelated emissions, discharges, or other
negative activity potentially impacting
low-income (children) populations
living near these units are likely to be
reduced. Finally, transportation
emissions associated with the diversion
of some of this material away from
landfills to boilers are likely to be
generally unchanged, while these
emissions are likely to be reduced for
on-site generators of paper recycling
residuals that would reduce off-site
shipments.
The public was invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to the specific
NHSMs addressed in the proposal. The
Agency did not receive comments or
studies in these subject areas, and is
therefore adopting the determinations
described above for this final rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not ‘‘significant energy
action’’ because it is not likely to have
a significance adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.
The selected NHSMs affected by this
final action are not generated in
quantities sufficient to significantly
(adversely or positively) impact the
supply, distribution, or use of energy at
the national level.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This final rulemaking does not
involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. This is because the overall
level of emissions, or the emissions mix
from boilers, will not change
significantly as the three categorically
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6741
listed non-waste fuels are comparable to
the types of fuels that the combustors
would otherwise burn.
Potential indirect impacts on minority
and/or low-income citizens have been
assessed by looking at the following: (1)
Any change in emissions or the
emissions mix from combustion units
subject to the CAA section 112
standards that may accept increased
quantities of one or more of the three
NHSMs addressed in this final rule, (2)
any change in emissions resulting from
the diversion of these NHSMs from their
current baseline management methods,
and (3) any other impacts related to
material diversion (e.g., noise,
aesthetics, water pollution, etc.). These
factors were considered in conjunction
with our assessment of the demographic
characteristics surrounding the affected
areas.
Our environmental justice
assessment 155 for the March 21, 2011
final rule, based on the most recent
census data, reviewed the distributions
of minority and low-income groups that
might be impacted by the sources
indirectly affected by this rule. We
focused on census blocks within three
miles (approximately five kilometers) of
the indirectly affected sources. We then
determined the demographic
composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of
these census blocks and compared them
to the corresponding national
compositions. Our findings show that
populations living within three miles of
major source boilers represent areas
with minority and low-income
populations that are higher than the
national averages. In these areas, the
minority share 156 of the population was
found to be 33 percent, compared to the
national average of 25 percent. For these
same areas, the percent of the
population below the poverty line (16
percent) is also higher than the national
average (13 percent).
We also considered the potential for
non-combustion environmental justice
concerns related to the potential
incremental increase in NHSMs
diversions from current baseline
management practices. These include
the following:
155 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery. Summary of Environmental Justice
Impacts for the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material
(NHSM) Rule, the 2010 Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards, the
2010 Major Source Boiler NESHAP and the 2010
Area Source Boiler NESHAP. February 2011. The
findings of that study, based on the most recent
census data, are not expected to change as a result
of this action.
156 This figure is for overall population minus
white population and does not include the Census
group defined as ‘‘White Hispanic.’’
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6742
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
• Reduced upstream emissions
resulting from the reduced production
of virgin fuel: Any reduced upstream
emissions that may indirectly occur in
response to reduced virgin fuel mining
or extraction may result in a human
health and/or environmental benefit to
minority and low-income populations
living near these projects.
• Alternative materials transport
patterns: Transportation emissions
associated with NHSMs diverted from
landfills to boilers are likely to be
similar, except for on-site paper
recycling residuals, where the potential
for less off-site transport to landfills may
result in reduced truck traffic and
emissions where such transport patterns
may pass through minority or lowincome communities.
• Change in emissions from baseline
management units: The diversion of
some of these NHSMs away from
disposal in landfills may result in a
marginal decrease in activity at these
facilities. This may include non-adverse
impacts, such as marginally reduced
emissions, odors, groundwater and
surface water impacts, noise pollution,
and reduced maintenance cost to local
infrastructure. Because municipal solid
waste and C&D landfills were found to
be located in areas where minority and
low-income populations are
disproportionately high relative to the
national average, any reduction in
activity and emissions around these
facilities is likely to benefit the citizens
living near these facilities.
Finally, this rule, in conjunction with
the corresponding CAA rules, may help
accelerate the abatement of any existing
stockpiles of the targeted NHSMs. To
the extent that these stockpiles may
represent negative human health or
environmental implications, minority
and/or low-income populations that live
near such stockpiles may experience
marginal health or environmental
improvements. Aesthetics may also be
improved in such areas.
As previously discussed, this RCRA
action alone does not directly require
any change in the management of these
materials. Thus, any potential materials
management changes stimulated by this
action, and corresponding impacts to
minority and low-income communities,
are considered to be indirect impacts,
and would only occur in conjunction
with the corresponding CAA rules.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 241
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: January 21, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 241—SOLID WASTES USED AS
FUELS OR INGREDIENTS IN
COMBUSTION UNITS
1. The authority citation for part 241
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429.
Subpart A—General
2. Section 241.2 is amended by adding
in alphabetical order the definitions
‘‘Construction and demolition (C&D)
wood’’, ‘‘Creosote treated railroad ties’’,
‘‘Paper recycling residuals’’ and ‘‘Power
producer’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 241.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Construction and demolition (C&D)
wood means wood that is generated
from the processing of debris from
construction and demolition activities
for the purposes of recovering wood.
C&D wood from construction activities
results from wood generated during any
installation activity or from purchasing
more wood than a project ultimately
requires. C&D wood from demolition
activities results from dismantling
buildings and other structures,
removing materials during renovation,
or from natural disasters.
*
*
*
*
*
Creosote treated railroad ties means
railway support ties treated with a wood
preservative containing creosols and
phenols and made from coal tar oil.
*
*
*
*
*
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.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Power producer means a boiler unit
producing electricity for sale to the grid.
The term does not include units meeting
the definition of electricity generating
unit under 40 CFR 63.10042.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials That
Are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels
or Ingredients in Combustion Units
3. Section 241.3 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory
text and (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
■
§ 241.3 Standards and procedures for
identification of non-hazardous secondary
materials that are solid wastes when used
as fuels or ingredients in combustion units.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Submittal of an application to the
Regional Administrator for the EPA
Region where the facility or facilities are
located or the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Land and Emergency
Management for a determination that
the non-hazardous secondary material,
even though it has been transferred to a
third party, has not been discarded and
is indistinguishable in all relevant
aspects from a fuel product. The
determination will be based on whether
the non-hazardous secondary material
that has not been discarded is a
legitimate fuel as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section and on the
following criteria:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The non-hazardous secondary
material must contain contaminants or
groups of contaminants at levels
comparable in concentration to or lower
than those in traditional fuel(s) that the
combustion unit is designed to burn. In
determining which traditional fuel(s) a
unit is designed to burn, persons may
choose a traditional fuel that can be or
is burned in the particular type of
combustion unit, whether or not the
unit is permitted to burn that traditional
fuel. In comparing contaminants
between traditional fuel(s) and a nonhazardous secondary material, persons
can use data for traditional fuel
contaminant levels compiled from
national surveys, as well as contaminant
level data from the specific traditional
fuel being replaced. To account for
natural variability in contaminant
levels, persons can use the full range of
traditional fuel contaminant levels,
provided such comparisons also
consider variability in non-hazardous
secondary material contaminant levels.
Such comparisons are to be based on a
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
direct comparison of the contaminant
levels in both the non-hazardous
secondary material and traditional
fuel(s) prior to combustion.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 241.4 is amended by adding
paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) to read as
follows:
§ 241.4 Non-waste Determinations for
Specific Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials When Used as a Fuel.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(a) * * *
(5) Construction and demolition
(C&D) wood processed from C&D debris
according to best management practices.
Combustors of C&D wood must obtain a
written certification from C&D
processing facilities that the C&D wood
has been processed by trained operators
in accordance with best management
practices. Best management practices for
purposes of this categorical listing must
include sorting by trained operators that
excludes or removes the following
materials from the final product fuel:
non-wood materials (e.g., polyvinyl
chloride and other plastics, drywall,
concrete, aggregates, dirt, and asbestos),
and wood treated with creosote,
pentachlorophenol, chromated copper
arsenate, or other copper, chromium, or
arsenical preservatives. In addition:
(i) Positive sorting. C&D processing
facilities that use positive sorting—
where operators pick out desirable
wood from co-mingled debris—or that
receive and process positive sorted C&D
wood must either:
(A) Exclude all painted wood (to the
extent that only de minimis quantities
inherent to processing limitations may
remain) from the final product fuel,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Feb 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
(B) Use X-ray Fluorescence to ensure
that painted wood included in the final
product fuel does not contain leadbased paint, or
(C) Require documentation that a
building has been tested for and does
not include lead-based paint before
accepting demolition debris from that
building.
(ii) Negative sorting. C&D processing
facilities that use negative sorting—
where operators remove contaminated
or otherwise undesirable materials from
co-mingled debris—must remove fines
(i.e., small-sized particles that may
contain relatively high concentrations of
lead and other contaminants) and either:
(A) Remove all painted wood (to the
extent that only de minimis quantities
inherent to processing limitations may
remain),
(B) Use X-ray Fluorescence to detect
and remove lead-painted wood, or
(C) Require documentation that a
building has been tested for and does
not include lead-based paint before
accepting demolition debris from that
building.
(iii) Training. Processors 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 date of
training held and must be maintained
on-site for a period of three years.
(iv) Written certification. A written
certification must be obtained by the
combustor for every new or modified
contract, purchase agreement, or other
legally binding document, from each
final processor of C&D wood and must
include the statement: the processed
C&D wood has been sorted by trained
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
6743
operators in accordance with best
management practices.
(6) 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.
(7) Creosote-treated railroad ties that
are processed and then combusted in
the following types of units. Processing
must include, at a minimum, metal
removal and shredding or grinding.
(i) Units designed to burn both
biomass and fuel oil as part of normal
operations and not solely as part of
start-up or shut-down operations, and
(ii) Units at major source pulp and
paper mills or power producers subject
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, that
combust CTRTs and had been designed
to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are
modified (e.g. oil delivery mechanisms
are removed) in order to use natural gas
instead of fuel oil, as part of normal
operations and not solely as part of
start-up or shut-down operations. The
CTRTs may continue to be combusted as
product fuel under this subparagraph
only if the following conditions are met,
which are intended to ensure that the
CTRTs are not being discarded:
(A) CTRTs must be burned in existing
(i.e. commenced construction prior to
April 14, 2014) stoker, bubbling bed,
fluidized bed, or hybrid suspension
grate boilers; and
(B) CTRTs can comprise no more than
40 percent of the fuel that is used on an
annual heat input basis.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–01866 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\08FER2.SGM
08FER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6687-6743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01866]
[[Page 6687]]
Vol. 81
Monday,
No. 25
February 8, 2016
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 241
Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 6688]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 241
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110; FRL-9929-56-OLEM]
RIN-2050-AG74
Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
issuing amendments to the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rule,
initially promulgated on March 21, 2011, and amended on February 7,
2013, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Non-
Hazardous Secondary Materials rule generally established standards and
procedures for identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials
are solid wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units.
In the February 2013 amendments, the EPA listed particular non-
hazardous secondary materials as ``categorical non-waste fuels''
provided certain conditions are met. Persons burning these non-
hazardous secondary materials do not need to evaluate them under the
general case-by-case standards and procedures that would otherwise
apply to non-hazardous secondary materials used in combustion units.
This action adds three materials to the list of categorical non-waste
fuels: Construction and demolition wood processed from construction and
demolition debris according to best management practices; 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; and creosote
treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in the
following types of units: Units designed to burn both biomass and fuel
oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or
shut-down operations, and units at major source pulp and paper mills or
power producers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD that combust
CTRT and had been designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are
modified (e.g. oil delivery mechanisms are removed) in order to use
natural gas instead of fuel oil, as part of normal operations and not
solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations.
DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Faison, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-7652;
email: faison.george@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Why is the EPA taking this action?
II. Statutory Authority
III. Introduction-Summary of Regulations Being Finalized
IV. Background
A. History of the NHSM Rulemakings
B. Background to Final Rule
C. How does the EPA make categorical non-waste determinations?
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and Rationale for Final Decisions
A. Construction and Demolition Debris Processed According to
Best Management Practices
1. Detailed Description of C&D Wood
2. C&D Wood Under Current NHSM Rules
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final Categorical Non-Waste
Listing for C&D Wood
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Response to Comments
B. Paper Recycling Residuals Used as Fuel at Paper Recycling
Mills
1. Detailed Description of Paper Recycling Residuals
2. PRRs Under Previous NHSM Rules
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final Categorical Non-Waste
Listing for Certain PRRs
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Responses to Comments
C. Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties (CTRTs)
1. Detailed Description of CTRTs
2. CTRTs Under Previous NHSM Rules
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final Categorical Non-Waste
Listing for CTRT
4. Rationale for Final Rule
5. Summary of Comments Requested
6. Responses to Comments
VI. Technical Corrections
A. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)
B. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(c)(1)
C. Change to 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(iii)
VII. Effect of This Rule on Other Programs
VIII. State Authority
A. Relationship to State Programs
B. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
IX. Cost and Benefits
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action, either
directly or indirectly, include, but may not be limited to the
following:
[[Page 6689]]
Generators and Potential Users \a\ of the New Materials To Be Added to
the List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary industry category or sub category NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities............................................... 221
Construction of Buildings............................... 236
Site Preparation Contractors............................ 238910
Manufacturing........................................... 31, 32, 33
Wood Product Manufacturing.............................. 321
Sawmills................................................ 321113
Wood Preservation (includes crosstie creosote treating). 321114
Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products......................... 322
Cement manufacturing.................................... 32731
Railroads (includes line haul and short line)........... 482
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land (Includes: 487110
Railroad, scenic and sightseeing)......................
Port and Harbor Operations (Used railroad ties)......... 488310
Landscaping Services.................................... 561730
Solid Waste Collection.................................. 562111
Solid Waste Landfill.................................... 562212
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators................. 562213
Marinas................................................. 713930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes: Major Source Boilers, Area Source Boilers, and Solid Waste
Incinerators.
\b\ NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities potentially impacted by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities of which the
EPA is aware that could potentially be affected by this action. Other
types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine
whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is
affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in this rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Why is the EPA taking this action?
The Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) regulations at 40 CFR
part 241 generally establish standards and procedures for identifying
whether NHSMs are solid wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units. In the February 2013 amendments, the EPA listed
particular NHSMs as ``categorical non-waste fuels'' provided certain
conditions are met. Persons burning these NHSMs do not need to evaluate
them under the general case-by-case standards and procedures that would
otherwise apply to NHSMs used in combustion units. This action adds
three materials to the list of categorical non-waste fuels: (1)
Construction and demolition (C&D) wood processed from C&D debris
according to best management practices, (2) 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 fuels; and (3) creosote treated
railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in the types of
units described herein.
Abbreviations and Acronyms. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BMP Best management practice
Btu British thermal unit
C&D Construction and demolition
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential business information
CCA Chromated copper arsenate
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator
CTRT Cresosote-treated railroad tie
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
ICR Information collection request
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
ND Non-detect
NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHSM Non-hazardous secondary material
OCC Old Corrugated Cardboard
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
ppm Parts per million
PRR Paper recycling residual
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper prediction limit
U.S.C. United States Code
VOC Volatile organic compound
XRF X-ray fluorescence
II. Statutory Authority
The EPA is issuing final amendments to list certain NHSMs as
categorical non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a) under the authority of
sections 2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(27).
Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to
establish standards for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incinerators (CISWI), which burn solid waste. Section 129(g)(6) of the
CAA provides that the term ``solid waste'' is to be established by the
EPA under RCRA (42 U.S.C. 7429). Section 2002(a)(1) of RCRA authorizes
the Agency to promulgate regulations as are necessary to carry out its
functions under the Act. The statutory definition of ``solid waste'' is
stated in RCRA section 1004(27).
III. Introduction-Summary of Regulations Being Finalized
Regulations concerning NHSMs used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units are codified in 40 CFR part 241.\1\ This action amends
the part 241 regulations by adding three NHSMs to the list of
categorical non-waste fuels codified in Sec. 241.4(a). These new
categorical listings are for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR 241.2 defines non-hazardous secondary material as a
secondary material that, when discarded, would not be identified as
a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction and demolition (C&D) wood processed from C&D
debris according to best management practices.
[[Page 6690]]
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.
Creosote treated railroad ties that are processed and then
combusted in the following types of units: Units designed to burn both
biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as
part of start-up or shut-down operations, and units at major source
pulp and paper mills or power producers \2\ subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDD that combust CTRT and had been designed to burn biomass
and fuel oil, but are modified (e.g. oil delivery mechanisms were
removed) in order to use natural gas instead of fuel oil, as part of
normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 40 CFR 241.2 defines power producer as a boiler unit
producing electricity for sale to the grid. The term does not
include units meeting the definition of electricity generating unit
under 40 CFR 63.10042 of the Utility Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Refer to section V of this preamble or the regulatory text for a
full description of the categorical listings).
Determining whether a material is a solid waste is of particular
importance as it relates to CAA section 129. That section states the
term ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning ``established by the
Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.'' Id at
7429(g)(6). The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, is commonly
referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA. If a
material is a solid waste under RCRA, a combustion unit burning that
material is required to meet the CAA section 129 emission standards for
solid waste incineration units. If the material is not a solid waste,
combustion units are required to meet the CAA section 112 emission
standards for commercial, industrial, and institutional boilers or, if
the combustion unit is a cement kiln, the CAA section 112 emissions
standards for Portland cement kilns. Under CAA section 129, the term
``solid waste incineration unit'' is defined, in pertinent part, to
mean ``a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any
solid waste material from commercial or industrial establishments . .
.'' 42 U.S.C. 7429(g)(1). The courts have determined that the CAA
unambiguously requires any unit that combusts ``any solid waste
material at all''--regardless of whether the material is being burned
for energy recovery--to be regulated as a solid waste incineration
unit. See NRDC v. EPA (489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
RCRA defines ``solid waste'' as ``. . . any garbage, refuse, sludge
from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility and other discarded material . . . resulting
from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities . . .'' (RCRA section 1004 (27) (emphasis
added)). The key concept is that of ``discard'' and, in fact, this
definition turns on the meaning of the phrase, ``other discarded
material,'' since this term encompasses all other examples provided in
the definition. In determining the meaning of discard, the courts have
determined that the ordinary, plain English definition controls, i.e.,
discard means ``disposed of,'' ``thrown away'' or ``abandoned.'' See
American Mining Congress v. EPA 824 F. 2d 1177 (D.C. Dir. 1987); see 76
FR 15460 for a detailed discussion on the RCRA definition of solid
waste and CAA section 129.
IV. Background
A. History of the NHSM Rulemakings
The Agency first solicited comments on how the RCRA definition of
solid waste should apply to NHSMs when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM),
which was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2009 (74 FR
41). We then published an NHSM proposed rule on June 4, 2010 (75 FR
31844), which the EPA made final on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456).
In the March 21, 2011 rule, the EPA finalized standards and
procedures to be used to identify whether NHSMs are solid wastes when
used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. ``Secondary
material'' was defined for the purposes of that rulemaking as any
material that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or
commercial process, and can include post-consumer material, off-
specification commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates, post-industrial material, and scrap (codified in 40 CFR
241.2). ``Non-hazardous secondary material'' is a secondary material
that, when discarded, would not be identified as a hazardous waste
under 40 CFR part 261 (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). Traditional fuels,
including historically managed traditional fuels (e.g., coal, oil,
natural gas) and ``alternative'' traditional fuels (e.g., clean
cellulosic biomass) are not secondary materials and thus, are not solid
wastes under the rule unless discarded.
A key concept under the March 21, 2011 rule is that NHSMs used as
non-waste fuels in combustion units must meet the legitimacy criteria
specified in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1). Application of the legitimacy criteria
helps ensure that the fuel product is being legitimately and
beneficially used and not simply being discarded through combustion
(i.e., via sham recycling). To meet the legitimacy criteria, the NHSM
must be managed as a valuable commodity, have a meaningful heating
value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy,
and contain contaminants or groups of contaminants at concentrations
comparable to (or lower than) those in traditional fuels which the
combustion unit is designed to burn.
Based on these criteria, the March 21, 2011 rule identified the
following NHSMs as not being solid wastes:
The NHSM is used as a fuel and remains under the control
of the generator (whether at the site of generation or another site the
generator has control over) that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR
241.3(b)(1));
The NHSM is used as an ingredient in a manufacturing
process (whether by the generator or outside the control of the
generator) that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(3));
Discarded NHSM has been sufficiently processed to produce
a fuel or ingredient that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR
241.3(b)(4)); or
Through a case-by-case petition process, it has been
determined that the NHSM handled outside the control of the generator
has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects
from a fuel product, and meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR
241.3(c)).
In October 2011, the Agency announced it would be initiating a new
rulemaking proceeding to revise certain aspects of the NHSM rule.\3\ On
February 7, 2013, the EPA published a final rule, which addressed
specific targeted amendments and clarifications to the 40 CFR part 241
regulations (78 FR 9112). These revisions and clarifications were
limited to certain issues on which the Agency had received new
information, as well as targeted revisions that the Agency believed
were appropriate in order to allow implementation of the rule as the
EPA originally intended. The amendments modified 40 CFR 241.2
[[Page 6691]]
and 241.3, added 40 CFR 241.4, and included the following: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See October 14, 2011, Letter from Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson to Senator Olympia Snowe. A copy of this letter has been
placed in the docket for this final rule (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-1873).
\4\ See 78 FR 9112 (February 7, 2013) for a discussion of the
rule and the Agency's basis for its decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Definitions: The EPA revised three definitions
discussed in the proposed rule: (1) ``clean cellulosic biomass,'' (2)
``contaminants,'' and (3) ``established tire collection programs.'' In
addition, based on comments received on the proposed rule, the Agency
revised the definition of ``resinated wood.''
Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSMs Used as Fuels:
The EPA issued revised contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used
as fuels to provide additional details on how contaminant-specific
comparisons between NHSMs and traditional fuels may be made. The
revisions include: (1) The ability to compare groups of contaminants
where technically reasonable; (2) clarification that ``designed to
burn'' means can burn or does burn, and not necessarily permitted to
burn; (3) the ability to use traditional fuel data from national
surveys and other sources beyond a facility's current fuel supplier;
and (4) the ability to use ranges of traditional fuel contaminant
levels when making contaminant comparisons, provided the variability of
the NHSM contaminant levels is also considered.
Categorical Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NHSMs
Used as Fuels. The EPA codified determinations that certain NHSMs are
non-wastes when used as fuels. If a material is categorically listed as
a non-waste fuel, persons that generate or burn these NHSMs will not
need to make individual determinations, as required under the existing
rules, that these NHSMs meet the legitimacy criteria. Except where
otherwise noted, combustors of these materials will not be required to
provide further information demonstrating their non-waste status. Based
on all available information, the EPA determined the following NHSMs
are not solid wastes when burned as a fuel in combustion units and has
categorically listed them in 40 CFR 241.4(a).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the March 21, 2011 NHSM rule (76 FR 15456), EPA
identified two NHSMs as not being solid wastes, although persons
would still need to make individual determinations that these NHSMs
meet the legitimacy criteria: (1) Scrap tires used in a combustion
unit that are removed from vehicles and managed under the oversight
of established tire collection programs and (2) resinated wood used
in a combustion unit. However, in the February 2013 NHSM rule, the
Agency amended the regulations and categorically listed these NHSMs
as not being solid wastes.
-- Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the
oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires
removed from vehicles and off-specification tires;
-- Resinated wood;
-- Coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and processed
in the same manner as currently-generated coal that would have been
refuse if mined in the past;
-- Dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not discarded and are
generated and burned on-site by pulp and paper mills that burn a
significant portion of such materials where such dewatered residuals
are managed in a manner that preserves the meaningful heating value of
the materials.
Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Categorical Non-
Waste Determinations: EPA made final a process in 40 CFR 241.4(b) that
provides persons an opportunity to submit a rulemaking petition to the
Administrator, seeking a determination for additional NHSMs to be
categorically listed in 40 CFR 241.4(a) as non-waste fuels, if they can
demonstrate that the NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria or, after
balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, EPA
determines that the NHSM is not a solid waste when used as a fuel.
Based on these non-waste categorical determinations, as discussed
above, facilities burning NHSMs that meet the categorical listing
description will not need to make individual determinations that the
NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria or provide further information
demonstrating their non-waste status on a site-by-site basis, provided
they meet the conditions of the categorical listing. Please refer to
section IV.C of this preamble for details on the petition process.
B. Background to Final Rule
As discussed in the February 2013 final rule,\6\ the Agency had
received comments that additional NHSMs should be categorically listed
as non-waste fuels for which the Agency had not requested information
as a part of that proposal. We did not respond to such comments and
issues since they were beyond the scope of that rulemaking and
indicated that, because the Agency did not specifically solicit
comments or propose that those NHSMs be categorically listed in 40 CFR
241.4(a), the Agency must go through notice and comment rulemaking
before making a final decision. The February 2013 rule noted, however,
that two NHSMs--paper recycling residuals (including old corrugated
cardboard (OCC) rejects) and construction and demolition debris
processed pursuant to best practices--would be good candidates for a
future proposal based on information provided to the Agency and that
EPA expected to propose those listings in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 78 FR 9160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To supplement the comments identified in the February 2013 rule,
the Agency received additional information on these two NHSMs from
stakeholders (see section V of this preamble). As discussed in the
following sections, the EPA has determined the information received to
date, when taken together, supports a categorical determination of
these materials as non-waste fuels and is today listing them as
categorical non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a).
In addition to paper recycling residuals and construction and
demolition debris, the Agency identified creosote-treated railroad ties
in the February 2013 final rule as a potential candidate for a
categorical non-waste listing based on comments from stakeholders.
However, the Agency indicated that additional information would need to
be submitted before this NHSM could be addressed. If such information
supported the representations made by industry--that is, the American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council--EPA
stated that it expected to propose a categorical listing for this
material as well. Finally, we noted in the February 2013 final rule
that the Agency received a letter from the Treated Wood Council asking
that non-hazardous treated wood be categorically listed--a broad
category that would include creosote-treated railroad ties. The Agency
noted it was in the process of reviewing the information in the letter
and would consider whether to propose a categorical listing for this
broader set of treated wood material.
The Agency has reviewed the information submitted from stakeholders
regarding creosote-treated railroad ties. As discussed in the following
sections, the EPA has determined that the information received to date,
when taken together, supports a categorical determination for creosote-
treated railroad ties when combusted in the types of units described
herein and is listing them as categorical non-wastes fuels in 40 CFR
241.4(a).\7\ (refer to section V of this
[[Page 6692]]
preamble or the regulatory text for a full description of this
categorical listing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As noted above, the Agency also received a petition from the
Treated Wood Council asking that non-hazardous treated wood be
categorically listed--a broad category that would include creosote-
treated railroad ties. Other treated wood addressed in the petition
included waterborne borate-based preservatives, waterborne organic-
based preservatives, waterborne copper-based wood preservatives
(ammoniacal/alkaline copper quat, copper azole, copper HDO, alkaline
copper betaine, or copper naphthenate); creosote; oilborne copper
naphthenate; pentachlorophenol; or dual-treated with any of the
above. The Agency is in the process of reviewing that petition and
supplementary information submitted subsequent to the petition.
Accordingly, while cresosote treated wood railroad ties is included
in the current rule, other treated wood materials identified in the
Treated Wood Council's petition are not addressed in this action. If
upon completion of the Agency's review, the information supports a
categorical listing of one or more of these other treated wood
materials, the Agency would propose those materials in a future
rulemaking. See also discussion under Comments and Information
Received on Other Types of Treated Wood in section V.A.6.c..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. How does the EPA make categorical non-waste determinations?
The February 7, 2013 revisions to the NHSM rule discuss the process
and decision criteria whereby the Agency would make additional
categorical non-waste determinations. (See 78 FR 9158.) While the
categorical non-waste determinations in this action are not based on
rulemaking petitions, the criteria the EPA used to assess these NHSMs
as categorical non-wastes match the criteria to be used by the
Administrator to determine whether to grant or deny the categorical
non-waste petitions.\8\ \9\ These determinations follow the criteria
set out in 40 CFR 241.4(b)(5) to assess additional categorical non-
waste petitions and follow the statutory standards as interpreted by
the EPA in the NHSM rule for deciding whether secondary materials are
wastes. Those criteria include: (1) Whether each NHSM has not been
discarded in the first instance (i.e., was not initially abandoned or
thrown away) and is legitimately used as a fuel in a combustion unit
or, if discarded, has been sufficiently processed into a material that
is legitimately used as a fuel; and, (2) if the NHSM does not meet the
legitimacy criteria described in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1), whether the NHSM
is integrally tied to the industrial production process, the NHSM is
functionally the same as the comparable traditional fuel, or other
relevant factors as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a full discussion regarding the petition process for
receiving a categorical non-waste determination, see 78 FR 9111,
February 7, 2013 (page 9158-9159).
\9\ Supplementary information received from by M.A. Energy
Resources (February 2013) in support of the crosstie derived fuel
was submitted as a categorical petition in accordance 40 CFR
241.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information in the rulemaking record, including
stakeholder comments, the Agency is amending 40 CFR 241.4(a) by listing
three additional NHSMs as categorical non-wastes. Specific
determinations regarding C&D wood, paper recycling residuals, and
creosote-treated railroad ties as categorical non-wastes and how the
information was assessed by EPA according to the criteria in 40 CFR
241.4(b)(5) are discussed in detail in section V of this preamble.
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and Rationale for Final Decisions
In this section, the EPA provides the rationale for its
determination that the three additional NHSMs are appropriate for
listing as categorical non-wastes, under certain conditions. It also
addresses major comments the Agency received regarding the three NHSMs
proposed in the April 14, 2014 rule (79 FR 21005).
A. Construction and Demolition Debris Processed According to Best
Management Practices
The April 14, 2014 proposed rule described C&D wood in detail (79
FR 21010-11), explained the status of C&D wood under current rules,
discussed comments received during previous proceedings, as well as the
scope of the proposed non-waste listing (79 FR 21011-12). The proposed
rationale for the listing is found in the proposal at 79 FR 21012-16
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 C&D Wood
As described in the proposed rule (79 FR 21010-11) and reiterated
here, C&D wood is generated from the processing of debris from
construction and demolition activities for the purposes of recovering
wood. At construction activities, this debris results from cutting wood
down to size during installation or from purchasing more wood than a
project ultimately requires, while at demolition activities, this
debris results from dismantling buildings and other structures or
removing materials during renovation.\10\ Information previously
compiled by the Agency indicates C&D activities generate an estimated
33 to 49 million tons of scrap wood each year, approximately half of
which is of acceptable size, quality, and condition to be considered
available for recovery. However, information on the amount of processed
C&D wood that is burned for energy recovery is unavailable, although
sources surveyed by EPA for the 2010 proposed CISWI rule and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area and
Major Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (Boilers) rule
indicate that between 4.7 to 11.2 million tons per year of processed
C&D wood may be burned for energy recovery.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Two revisions have been made to the definition of C&D wood.
Please refer to section V.A.3. of this preamble for a discussion of
the revisions to the definition of C&D wood for the final rule.
\11\ Materials Characterization Paper: Construction and
Demolition Materials. February 3, 2011. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, because clean C&D wood is considered ``clean cellulosic
biomass'' and is already excluded from being a solid waste,\12\ the
Agency expected the proposed rule would address C&D wood generated
predominantly from demolition activities. However, the proposal
acknowledged clean C&D wood generated from construction activities that
is mixed with contaminated C&D debris would be subject to the same
practices and requirements described in the proposed rulemaking,
because it is comingled with contaminated materials that would not
constitute ``clean cellulosic biomass.'' The Agency finds, similarly,
the practices and requirements adopted in this final rule, which are
modified slightly from the proposal, also apply to the commingled
materials generated from construction activities. No information was
presented in this rulemaking to cause the Agency to find otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Clean C&D wood is included in the definition of ``clean
cellulosic biomass'' and thus, may be combusted as a traditional
fuel if it does not contain contaminants at concentrations not
normally associated with virgin wood. Conversely, C&D wood that is
not ``clean'' is that which must be processed to remove contaminants
such as lead-painted wood, treated wood containing contaminants,
such as arsenic and chromium, metals and other non-wood materials.
(See 76 FR 15485, March 21, 2011; 78 FR 9138-39, February 7, 2013;
and 40 CFR 241.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to how C&D debris is handled, we noted in the proposal
and find in this final rule that, although contractors may segregate
C&D debris at building sites, the common practice--at demolition sites
in particular--is to send co-mingled debris to independent C&D
recycling or processing facilities. At these facilities, operators
recover wood scraps from a mixture of building materials that often
includes metals, concrete, plastics, and other items that are
unsuitable for energy recovery in combustion units. Some operators use
``positive sorting'' techniques, meaning
[[Page 6693]]
they specifically remove wood scraps from the co-mingled debris,
picking out only desirable wood and leaving all other C&D debris behind
for disposal or other recycling processes. Other operators use
``negative sorting'' techniques, meaning they achieve a similarly clean
final product by removing or excluding contaminated or otherwise
undesirable material from the C&D debris. Regardless of whether they
use positive or negative sorting, processing facilities then grind the
recovered wood to a specified size and deliver it to energy recovery
facilities.
C&D wood processing facilities can use a variety of techniques to
remove or exclude debris unsuitable for a product fuel. Typically,
processors use some combination of source control, inspection, sorting,
and screening to meet the specifications identified by their customers
(i.e., combustion facilities). The nature of the 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 (e.g., the degree of sorting and
number of screening devices) help determine which combination of
practices will be most effective. Individual states also have different
requirements related to the processing and combustion of C&D wood.\13\
Despite the variety of options, the Agency finds certain practices are
essential to ensure processing of the C&D debris produces a legitimate
product fuel. These practices, described in the proposal as best
management practices, have been adopted in this final rule with minor
changes and are discussed later in section V.A.3. of this preamble. In
addition to excluding or removing a set list of C&D materials known to
contain contaminants (e.g., certain types of treated wood), processors
must take steps to eliminate less obvious contaminant sources (e.g.,
lead-based paint). Consequently, the standards proposed and finalized
in this document, ensure that the contaminants in the fuel that is
burned will not be unpredictable, even though the sources of the wood
may vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This final rulemaking does not change or replace existing
state requirements regarding C&D wood. See section VIII. State
Authority A. Relationship to State Programs of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. C&D Wood Under Current NHSM Rules
a. March 21, 2011 and February 2013 Final Rules
In both the March 21, 2011 and February 7, 2013 NHSM final rules,
EPA discussed two scenarios under which the Agency would consider C&D
wood to be a non-waste fuel.\14\ First, ``clean'' C&D wood can be
burned as a traditional fuel without any requirement for testing or
recordkeeping--because it is a ``clean cellulosic biomass'' material
indistinguishable in composition from virgin wood.\15\ Second, wood
recovered from C&D debris (i.e., contaminated wood) can be sufficiently
processed to meet the legitimacy criteria and, thus, would be a non-
waste fuel, although combustion facilities burning the material would
need to keep records documenting the material's non-waste status.
Records would need to document not only how the processing operations
meet the definition of processing in 40 CFR 241.2, but also how the
product fuel meets the NHSM legitimacy criteria in 40 CFR
241.3(d)(1).16 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 76 FR 15485, March 21, 2011 and 78 FR 9138, February 7,
2013.
\15\ In the February 7, 2013 final rule (78 FR 9139), the Agency
emphasized that, ``determinations that the cellulosic biomass used
as a fuel or ingredient is clean, do not presuppose any testing of
contaminant levels. Persons can use expert or process knowledge of
the material to justify decisions regarding presence of
contaminants.''
\16\ Recordkeeping requirements for area source boilers are
found at 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii), while recordkeeping requirements
for major source boilers are found at 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2).
\17\ While the combustor would be responsible for maintaining
the records that such NHSM met the legitimacy criteria, the
combustor could request that the person that generated the C&D wood
provide documentation that the processing operations meet the
definition of processing, as well as the legitimacy criteria,
especially the contaminant legitimacy criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. December 2011 Proposed Rule
Although the December 2011 NHSM proposed rule did not discuss or
solicit comments on processed C&D wood, a number of commenters
submitted comments arguing processed C&D wood (i.e., recovered from
demolition activities) should be categorically listed as a non-waste
fuel under 40 CFR 241.4(a), or otherwise a non-waste.\18\ The
commenters' rationale for listing processed C&D wood as a non-waste is
as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Comments submitted on the December 23, 2011 proposed rule
are included in docket: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. Specifically, see the
document ID#'s ending in -1902, -1910, -1950, -1930, -1928, -1946, -
1957, -1927, -1893, and -1905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is utilized in combination with other biomass materials
to optimize and manage combustion in boilers due to its low moisture/
high heat characteristics.
It is sufficiently processed to remove impurities.
From a practical materials management standpoint, C&D
materials are not discarded; collection of most of these materials is
planned for, with C&D recycle sorting and processing yards receiving
the materials as a destination and the point of generation of the fuel
product.
Commenters detail the processing and test data available
for C&D materials, which demonstrates their value as a fuel.
Commenters noted the EPA has already included clean C&D
materials in their proposed clean cellulosic biomass definition for
traditional fuels, but EPA elsewhere identifies C&D materials that are
not clean as subject to the legitimacy criteria.
The commenters argued, therefore, the EPA should remove doubt and
list these materials in the newly proposed 40 CFR 241.4(a) as a non-
waste fuel given both their demonstrated fuel value and the industry
that has been established for recycling these NHSMs into useful product
fuel.
Expanding further on these comments, several trade organizations
submitted information in support of a categorical non-waste
determination that would list processed C&D wood as a product fuel when
burned in combustion units. The information suggested that a non-waste
listing include all C&D wood processed in accordance with industry
practices proven to produce a wood product meeting the NHSM legitimacy
criteria. The commenters identified ``proven practices'' as the sorting
(both mechanical and manual) of C&D material to separate the following
contaminants: Non-wood material, wood treated with pentachlorophenol,
chromated copper arsenic (CCA) treated wood, or other copper, chromium
or arsenical preservatives, and lead (through the separation of either
lead-painted wood or fines or through other means as specified in
applicable state law). Commenters also compiled a dataset of
contaminant concentrations in processed C&D wood from nine combustion
facilities in seven states to demonstrate the efficacy of the
identified practices.
Case-by-case analysis is not necessary, the trade organizations
contended, to ensure sufficient processing occurs and that C&D wood
products--produced by different processors using different sorting
techniques--are consistently managed as a valuable commodity, have
meaningful heating values, and contain contaminants at levels
comparable to or lower than traditional fuels. Instead, they argued
persons burning C&D wood for energy recovery only need to certify the
processed C&D wood came from a facility using the aforementioned
sorting practices.
Other commenters on the December 2011 NHSM proposed rule asserted
that
[[Page 6694]]
C&D wood should be regulated as a solid waste because they view it as
having been discarded similar to scrap tires. Another commenter
requested the EPA require testing for contamination based on what they
described as highly unpredictable contaminant levels. The commenter
referenced specific combustion facilities that accepted C&D wood,
including lead-painted wood and CCA-treated wood, as well as plastics
and foreign debris to support a requirement for testing. In addition,
the same commenter argued that C&D wood should only be compared to
clean untreated wood when conducting a contaminant comparison, not
necessarily what the unit is designed to burn.\19\ The Agency's
decision on this final rule considers the issues raised in these
comments on the December 2011 proposed rule. Responses to the issues
raised in these comments are included in section V.A.6. of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Comments submitted on the December 23, 2011 proposed rule
(76 FR 80452) are included in docket: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
Specifically, see the document ID numbers ending in -1959 and -1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Scope of the Proposed Rule and Final Categorical Non-Waste Listing
for C&D Wood
Based on information in the record, including comments submitted
before proposal, the Agency proposed the categorical non-waste listing
for wood recovered from C&D debris which has been processed according
to best management practices to remove certain contaminants, as a
categorical non-waste in 40 CFR 241.4(a). Under the proposed rule,
combustors of C&D wood must obtain a written certification from C&D
processing facilities that the C&D wood has been processed by trained
operators in accordance with best management practices.\20\ Such
practices include sorting by trained operators that excludes or removes
non-wood materials (e.g., polyvinyl chloride and other plastics,
drywall, concrete, aggregates, dirt, and asbestos), and wood treated
with creosote,\21\ pentachlorophenol, chromated copper arsenate, or
other copper, chromium, or arsenical preservatives. In addition, C&D
processing facilities that use positive sorting (where operators pick
out desirable wood from co-mingled debris) must either exclude all
painted wood from the final product fuel, use X-ray Fluorescence to
ensure that painted wood included in the final product fuel does not
contain lead-based paint, or require documentation that a building has
been tested for and does not include lead-based paint before accepting
demolition debris from that building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ If the processed C&D wood does not meet the categorical
listing, the wood may still be considered a non-waste fuel (on a
case-by-case basis), although any combustor that burns such
processed C&D wood would need to keep records documenting the
materials non-waste status pursuant to 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) and
40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2).
\21\ Although industry trade groups did not list creosote
treated wood as wood that is excluded or removed, they provided
information indicating that C&D debris can include creosote treated
wood. Based upon the contaminants present in creosote treated wood
and the types of boilers that burn C&D wood (i.e., those that are
designed to burn clean wood and biomass), operators must exclude or
remove creosote treated wood. With respect to creosote and as
discussed later in section V.C of this preamble, the Agency
evaluated data provided for creosote-treated railway ties and
determined that boiler design was an integral factor in satisfying
the contaminant legitimacy criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C&D processing facilities that use negative sorting (where
operators remove contaminated or otherwise undesirable materials from
co-mingled debris) must remove fines, i.e., small-sized particles that
may contain relatively high concentrations of lead and other
contaminants, and either remove painted wood, use X-ray Fluorescence to
detect and remove lead-painted wood, or require documentation that a
building has been tested for and does not include lead-based paint
before accepting demolition debris from that building.
This rule finalizes the criteria and requirements discussed in the
proposal for reasons explained in the proposal, with three changes to
the regulatory language for lead elimination requirements for both
positive and negative sorting facilities, two changes to the definition
of C&D wood, and the addition of new language for the processor's
written certification and training requirements. The changes and
additions were made in response to comments received and based on other
supporting information in the record and to provide clarity to the best
management practice requirements, as well as the definition of C&D
wood. The rationale for the changes and additions that have been made
in the final rule are explained below in this section. The general
rationale for the final listing is provided in the next section V.A.4.
of this preamble.
Lead Elimination Requirements. One of the changes between the
proposed rule and final rule concerns the lead elimination requirements
for positive sorting processors. The lead exclusion language for
positive sorting processors proposed at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i) did not
specifically provide that facilities receiving pre-sorted wood from
positive sorting entities who may need to remove small amounts of
unwanted material prior to chipping and grinding the wood are also
considered positive sorting facilities. Because these facilities remove
some materials, they could be considered negative sorters.
The proposed regulatory language resulted from a presumed scenario
in which C&D debris was sent to a single, centralized processing
facility. However, there are other processors who receive segregated or
pre-sorted C&D wood from small generators.\22\ These small generators
(e.g., contractors, community collections, citizen drop-off locations,
and transfer stations) segregate and collect clean C&D wood using
positive sorting and provide the recovered C&D wood to ``chip and
grind'' processors. The chip and grind processors then conduct
additional sorting, using negative sorting techniques, to remove small
amounts of unwanted materials from the shipment prior to processing.
These processors should not be considered negative sorters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See comments and data submitted by Covanta (EPA -HQ-RCRA-
2013-0110-0084), comments from American Reclamation Inc. (EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0110-0073), and comments from Genesee Power Station (GPS)
(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that negative sorters are required to remove fines to ensure
lead concentrations in the product fuel are comparable to or lower than
wood or biomass. Positive sorters, however, are not required to remove
fines because only the desirable wood is picked from the C&D debris.
Thus, to require a ``chip and grind'' processing operation that has
received positive sorted C&D wood to remove fines when there are none
present is unnecessary. Therefore, the language for positive sorting
has been revised to include processors that receive pre-sorted wood
from positive sorting entities. This revision clarifies that these
processors are not negative sorters for purposes of identifying which
lead requirements are applicable. Specifically, the final language at
40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i) includes new text (see italic print) to capture
these facilities: ``C&D processing facilities that use positive
sorting--where operators pick out desirable wood from co-mingled
debris--or that receive and process positive sorted C&D wood must
either . . .''
Another change was made to the lead elimination requirements, but
for negative sorters. The term ``all'' was added to the options for
removing painted wood under 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(ii)(A). This requirement
is now consistent with the corresponding requirement for positive
sorting facilities and emphasizes that if processors choose this
particular lead elimination option, then any painted
[[Page 6695]]
wood received must be removed (or excluded in the case of positive
sorting facilities). The purpose of this change is to ensure all
painted wood, regardless of sorting practices, is eliminated from the
final product if the processor chooses this lead elimination strategy.
While it is expected that processors will make every effort to remove
or exclude all painted wood under this option, de minimis amounts could
be present and still render the resultant material a product fuel. The
final regulatory language adds new text to 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(ii)(A),
and now states ``[r]emove all painted wood.''
The third change that has been made applies to both positive and
negative sorters. As stated in the previous paragraph, the term ``all''
has been added to the negative sorting requirements for consistency and
to reaffirm that this particular option is intended to be a stringent
standard. However, to provide additional clarity regarding the Agency's
position on de minimis amounts, we have added the following language as
a parenthetical to both 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(i)(A) and (ii)(A): ``(to the
extent that only de minimis quantities inherent to processing
limitations may remain)''.
Definition of C&D wood. Two revisions to the definition of C&D wood
(40 CFR 241.2) have been made. One revision is to include disaster
debris and the second revision is to broaden what the Agency considers
to be wood recovered from construction activities.
In the proposed rule, the Agency noted clean wood in disaster
debris had been included in the definition for ``clean cellulosic
biomass'' in a prior rulemaking, but had not addressed clean wood from
disaster debris mixed with contaminated materials (e.g., lead-based
painted wood, CCA treated wood, asbestos containing materials, utility
poles, etc.) and sent for processing without any prior sorting. Also
noted in the proposal, and of particular concern to the Agency, was
that management of disaster debris is more expedited and less
controlled and thus, prone to include contaminants that might otherwise
be sorted out prior to processing.\23\ Therefore, the Agency solicited
comment on whether disaster debris should be included in the definition
of C&D wood despite some concerns related to processing large volumes
of material expeditiously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Management of disaster debris can involve significantly
greater volumes. For example, prior to the 1994 Northridge
earthquake in Los Angeles, one local company processed 150 tons of
C&D debris per day. After the earthquake, the city picked up as much
as 10,000 tons of C&D debris per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency finds that these concerns regarding the management of
large volumes of material in an expeditious nature would only be
relevant if the best management practices as finalized in this rule are
not used to process wood from natural disaster debris. The Agency finds
that the best management practices set forth in this rule are
sufficient to ensure natural disaster debris is handled and processed
in the same manner as other C&D debris, regardless of the source or
quantity of material to be processed. In other words, processors that
comply with the best management practices for this listing would not be
altering the way in which they process the debris. Should a processor
choose to hire and train additional sorters or extend operational hours
to process higher volumes, the limiting factors in this rule that will
continue to ensure the quality of the processed material are the best
management practices and the training and certification requirements.
Furthermore, the information provided to the Agency discusses that when
the incoming material exceeds processing capacity, the excess material
is stored or sent to a landfill.\24\ Given the best management
practices and information indicating the typical handling of excess
material, the Agency has determined it is appropriate to include
disaster debris in the definition of C&D wood. Thus, clean wood from
natural disaster debris mixed with other materials and delivered to a
processing facility has been added to the definition of C&D wood.
However, the natural disaster debris must be processed in the same
manner as C&D wood recovered from C&D activities to qualify for this
categorical non-waste listing. The last sentence of the definition for
C&D wood at 40 CFR 241.2 has been revised to add text for natural
disasters and now reads: ``C&D wood from demolition activities results
from dismantling buildings and other structures, removing materials
during renovation, or from natural disasters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See comments from American Forest & Paper Association (EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-0076) and Waste Management (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110-
0094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second revision made to the definition of C&D wood is to
broaden the description of C&D wood generated from construction
activities. As proposed, commenters interpreted it to be limited in
scope because it did not capture the many sources of wood generated
from construction activities, particularly for installation activities.
The wording in the second sentence of the proposed definition for C&D
wood at 40 CFR 241.2 read: ``C&D wood from construction activities
results from cutting wood down to size during installation or from
purchasing more wood than a project ultimately requires.'' A commenter
suggested listing additional types of installation activities
associated with construction such as incorrectly cut wood, wood forms,
support braces, stakes, etc. Rather than trying to provide an
exhaustive list, which may not include every possible type of
installation activity, the Agency has decided to revise the language to
capture any type of installation activity that can generate
construction wood debris. The second sentence of the definition now
reads ``C&D wood from construction activities results from wood
generated during any installation activity or from purchasing more wood
than a project ultimately requires.'' The change acknowledges there are
several ways installation activities can generate wood without limiting
those activities.
Training and certification. Two regulatory additions have been made
based on concepts that had been discussed in the proposed rule
preamble. One addition is a requirement for C&D processors to train
their operators. The approach taken in the proposal was to not include
a specific training requirement for processors, but to rely on a
written certification as a means for processors to show they had used
``trained'' operators (79 FR 21026). However, the Agency finds this
approach does not provide any assurance that the processor is
conducting the necessary training in order to ensure that the resultant
material is not discarded when combusted and is, therefore, not waste.
Although the written certification statement, as proposed (and
finalized in this rule), must state the processed C&D wood has been
sorted by ``trained'' operators in accordance with best management
practices, it did not require any evidence that training has taken
place, nor did it hold the processor accountable to their customers.
Thus, a mechanism is necessary to document when the training has been
conducted so that processors are accountable when certifying they have
used trained operators. This mechanism is implemented via new
regulatory language at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iii) which states
``[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.'' The training requirement
serves as an additional
[[Page 6696]]
condition of this categorical non-waste listing. For further
discussion, see section V.A.5 of this preamble.
The second regulatory addition is to specify the written
certification requirements. As discussed in the proposal, to ensure the
C&D wood is processed according to best management practices, it is
important for the processor to certify they are meeting such best
management practices using trained operators (79 FR 21013). The Agency
has determined a written certification from the processor is a
necessary mechanism for ensuring best management practices have been
used and for indicating that the processor has used trained operators.
The Agency recognizes contracts and purchase agreements can indicate a
commitment to quality, but also specifications can vary according to
the needs of one combustor versus another. 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. Therefore, the
written certification is finalized at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(5)(iv) and states
``[a] written certification must be obtained by the combustor for every
new or modified contract, purchase agreement, or other legally binding
document, from each final processor of C&D wood and must include the
statement: the processed C&D wood has been sorted by trained operators
in accordance with best management practices.'' This certification will
assist the combustor's determination that the C&D wood has been
sufficiently processed to meet the conditions of this categorical non-
waste listing. Refer to the section V.A.5 of this preamble for
additional background.
4. Rationale for Final Rule
This section discusses the reasoning provided in the proposed rule
and the reasons for t