U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009)
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
EPA530-R-00-002
September 1999


   BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR THE FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PROCUREMENT
        GUIDELINE (CPG) III AND FINAL RECOVERED MATERIALS 
                    ADVISORY NOTICE (RMAN) III


          FINAL CPG III AND RMAN III BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

                             CONTENTS


I.   INTRODUCTION

     A.   History
     B.   Contents of This Background Document
     C.   Requirements
          1.   RCRA Section 6002
          2.   Executive Order 13101

II.  ITEM DESIGNATIONS

     A.   Criteria for Selecting Items for Designation
          1.   Use of Materials Found in Solid Waste
          2.   Economic and Technological Feasibility and
               Performance
          3.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Availability and Competition
          5.   Other Uses for Recovered Materials
          6.   Other Considerations
     B.   Methodology for Selecting Items for Designation
          1.   Selection of Items for Designation
     C.   Broad Categories Versus Specific Items
     D.   Item Designation Categories

III. RECOVERED MATERIALS CONTENT
     
     A.   Methodology for Recommending Recovered Materials
          Content Levels
     B.   Use of Minimum Recovered Materials Content Standards
     C.   Preconsumer Versus Postconsumer Recovered Materials
     D.   Recommending 100 Percent Recovered Materials Content
          Levels
     E.   Calculation of Product Content for Purposes of
          Certification

IV.  UPDATES OF THE CPG AND RMAN

V.   AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS

VI.  DEFINITIONS

VII. AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

     A.   Request for Comments
     B.   Comments Recommending Additional Items for Designation
     C.   Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
     D.   Recommended Recovered Materials Content Levels
     E.   Other Comments

VIII.     CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS

     A.   Nylon Carpet with Backing Containing Recovered
          Materials 
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
     B.   Carpet Cushion
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     C.   Flowable Fill
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation 
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     D.   Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications

IX.  PARK AND RECREATION PRODUCTS

     A.   Park Benches and Picnic Tables
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     B.   Playground Equipment
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste 
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications

X.   LANDSCAPING PRODUCTS
     A.   Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     B.   Food Waste Compost
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications

XI.  NONPAPER OFFICE PRODUCTS

     A.   Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, Clip  Portfolios, and Presentation Folders
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications

XII. MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS

     A.   Sorbents
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     B.   Industrial Drums
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     C.   Awards and Plaques
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     D.   Mats
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     E.   Signage
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications
     F.   Manual-Grade Strapping
          1.   Background
          2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
          3.   Rationale for Designation
               a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
               b.   Technically Proven Uses
               c.   Impact of Government Procurement
          4.   Designation
          5.   Preference Program
          6.   Background for Recommendations
          7.   Specifications197

XIII.     OTHER ITEMS CONSIDERED FOR CPG III DESIGNATION

     A.   Items Still Under Consideration
     B.   Items Dropped from Further Consideration
          1.   Miscellaneous Products Dropped From Consideration
               a.   Recycled Ink
               b.   Shotgun Shells

XIV. DESIGNATED ITEM AVAILABILITY

XV.  ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

XVI. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION

     A.   Carpet Cushion
     B.   Coal Fly Ash/Foundry Sand/Flowable Fill
     C.   Plastic Lumber
     D.   Playground Equipment
     E.   Compost
     F.   Sorbents
     G.   Signage
     H.   Strapping
     I.   Multimaterial
     
APPENDICES

TABLES

Table 1:  List of Acronyms
Table 2:  Draft Recovered Materials Content Levels for Nylon
          Carpet with Backing Containing Recovered Materials
Table 3:  Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations 
          for Carpet Cushion
Table 4:  Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Bonded Polyurethane, Jute, Synthetic Fiber, and Rubber
          Carpet Cushion
Table 5:  Recovered Materials Content of Carpet Cushion
Table 6:  Typical Proportions for High Fly Ash Content Flowable
          Fills
Table 7:  Typical Proportions for Low Fly Ash Content Flowable
          Fills
Table 8:  Recommended Test Methods for Flowable Fills (Controlled
          Low-Strength Materials)
Table 9:  Recovered Materials Content of Flowable Fill
Table 10: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces
Table 11: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Concrete, Rubber, and Steel Railroad Grade Crossing
          Surfaces
Table 12: Recovered Materials Content of Railroad Grade Crossing
          Surfaces
Table 13: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Park Benches and Picnic Tables
Table 14: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
          Park Benches and Picnic Tables Containing Recovered
          Aluminum, Steel,Concrete, or Plastic
Table 15: Recovered Materials Content of Park Benches and Picnic
          Tables
Table 16: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Playground Equipment
Table 17: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Playground Equipment Containing Recovered Plastic,
          Steel, or Aluminum
Table 18: Recovered Materials Content of Playground Equipment
          (Nonstructural Pieces)
Table 19: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
          Landscaping Timbers and Posts
Table 20: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
          Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts
Table 21: Recovered Materials Content of Landscaping Timbers and
          Posts
Table 22: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, Clip
          Portfolios, and Presentation Folders
Table 23: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, Clip
          Portfolios, and Presentation Folders
Table 24: Recovered Materials Content of Solid Plastic Binders, 
          Clipboards, File Folders, Clip Portfolios, and
          Presentation Folders
Table 25: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Sorbents
Table 26: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Sorbents Used in Oil and Solvents Cleanups and for Use
          as Animal Bedding
Table 27: Recovered Materials Content of Sorbents
Table 28: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Industrial Drums
Table 29: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Steel, Plastic, and Fiber Industrial Drums
Table 30: Recovered Materials Content of Industrial Drums
Table 31: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Awards and Plaques
Table 32: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Awards and Plaques Containing Recovered Materials
Table 33: Recovered Materials Content of Awards and Plaques
Table 34: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Mats
Table 35: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Mats
Table 36: Recovered Materials Content of Mats
Table 37: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Signage
Table 38: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Signs Containing Recovered Plastic or Aluminum and Sign
          Posts/Supports Containing Recovered Plastic or Steel
Table 39: Recovered Materials Content of Signage
Table 40: Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Strapping
Table 41: Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
          Manual-Grade Polyester, Polypropylene, and Steel
          Strapping

Table 42: Recovered Materials Content of Strapping


I.   INTRODUCTION 
     
     A.   History

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
published the first Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) on
May 1, 1995 (60 Federal Register (FR) 21370). It established 8
product categories, designated 19 new items, and consolidated 5
earlier item designations. EPA published the first CPG update
(CPG II) on November 13, 1997 (62 FR 60962), and designated an
additional 12 products.

     On August 26, 1998, EPA published a second proposed update
to the CPG and a companion draft Recovered Materials Advisory
Notice (RMAN). This update, hereafter referred to as the proposed
CPG III, proposed to designate 19 new items that are or can be
made with recovered materials (see 63 FR 45558), as follows:

     *    Construction Products:

          *    Nylon Carpet with Backing Containing Recovered
               Materials
          *    Carpet Cushion
          *    Flowable Fill
          *    Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces 

     *    Park and Recreation Products:

          *    Park Benches and Picnic Tables
          *    Playground Equipment

     *    Landscaping Products:

          *    Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts
          *    Food Waste Compost

     *    Nonpaper Office Products:

          *    Solid Plastic Binders
          *    Plastic Clipboards
          *    Plastic File Folders
          *    Plastic Clip Portfolios
          *    Plastic Presentation  Folders

     *    Miscellaneous Products:

          *    Sorbents
          *    Industrial Drums
          *    Awards and Plaques
          *    Mats
          *    Signage
          *    Manual-Grade Strapping 


     The accompanying draft RMAN III recommended procurement
practices for purchasing the 19 items proposed for designation,
including recovered materials content levels (see 63 FR 45580,
August 26, 1998). Copies of both of these FR notices are located
in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket
F-98-CP3P-FFFFF.

     The final CPG III designates 18 of the 19 items and the
final RMAN III recommends recovered materials content levels for
these newly designated items. The recommendations are organized
into product categories, which correspond with the categories
used in CPG III: construction products, park and recreation
products, landscaping products, non-paper office products, and
miscellaneous products. The 18 items designated in the final CPG
III include:

     *    Construction Products:

          *    Carpet Cushion
          *    Flowable Fill
          *    Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces

     *    Park and Recreation Products:

          *    Park Benches and Picnic Tables
          *    Playground Equipment

     *    Landscaping Products:

          *    Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts
          *    Food Waste Compost

     *    Nonpaper Office Products:

          *    Solid Plastic Binders
          *    Plastic Clipboards
          *    Plastic File Folders
          *    Plastic Clip Portfolios
          *    Plastic Presentation Folders

     *    Miscellaneous Products:

          *    Sorbents
          *    Industrial Drums
          *    Awards and Plaques
          *    Mats
          *    Signage
          *    Manual-Grade Strapping 


     B.   Contents of This Background Document

     This document, hereafter referred to as the Final CPG
III/RMAN III Background Document, provides a comprehensive
summary of all the supporting analyses used by the Agency to
issue the final CPG III and the final RMAN III. This document
explains EPA's overall objectives, the process for designating
procurement items, and the methodology used in recommending
recovered materials content levels for items designated in the
final CPG III. In addition, the Final CPG III/RMAN III Background
Document lists the recommended procurement practices for the
newly designated items, which are also included in the Final RMAN
III, and provides the Agency's detailed response to public
comments received on the proposed CPG III, the draft RMAN III FR
notice, and the Background Document for Proposed CPG III and
Draft RMAN III. To avoid confusion with the previous CPGs, the
final CPG III and the final RMAN III will be referred to as CPG
III and RMAN III, respectively. Appendices I-V are referenced in
this document. For the convenience of the reader, they are
attached as a separate document.

     For the reader's convenience, Table 1 lists acronyms
referenced throughout this document.


*****************************************************************

                            Table 1
                        List of Acronyms
                                
Acronym                       Term

AASHTO    American Association of State Highway and
          Transportation Officials
ACAA      American Coal Ash Association
ACI       American Concrete Institute
ACR       Association of Container Reconditioners
AEP       American Electric Power
AF&PA     American Forest and Paper Association
APP       Affirmative Procurement Program
APWA      American Public Works Association
ARTBA     American Roads and Transportation Builders Association
ASTM      American Society for Testing and Materials
BOF       Basic Oxygen Furnace
C&D       Construction and Demolition
CAAC      Civilian Agency Acquisition Council
CCC       Carpet Cushion Council
CFR       Code of Federal Regulations
CLSM      Controlled Low-Strength Material
COAP      Coalition for Absorbent Producers
CPG       Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
CPSC      U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
DARC      Defense Acquisition Regulations Council
DLA       Defense Logistics Agency
DOD       U.S. Department of Defense
DOE       U.S. Department of Energy
DOT       U.S. Department of Transportation
DRMO      Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
EAF       Electric Arc Furnace
EO        Executive Order
EPA       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAR       Federal Acquisition Regulation
FDA       Food and Drug Administration
FHWA      Federal Highway Administration
FR        Federal Register
FRA       Federal Railroad Administration
GPO       U.S. Government Printing Office
GSA       U.S. General Services Administration
HDPE      High Density Polyethylene
HUD       U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IDOT      Illinois Department of Transportation
ISTEA     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
          1991
IV        Inherent Viscosity
LDPE      Low-Density Polyethylene
LDR       Land Disposal Restrictions
LLDPE     Linear Low-Density Polyethylene
LMITCO    Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company 
MAC       Multiple Awards Contract
MSW       Municipal Solid Waste
NIH       National Institutes of Health
NPS       National Park Service
OFPP      Office of Federal Procurement Policy
OSHA      Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDI       Plastic Drum Institute
PE        Polyethylene
PET       Polyethylene Terephthalate
PLTA      Plastic Lumber Trade Association
PP        Polypropylene
PPA       Promotional Products Association
PS        Polystyrene
psi       Pounds Per Square Inch
PVC       Polyvinyl Chloride
RCRA      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RMAN      Recovered Materials Advisory Notice
SI        Synthetic Industries
SRI       Steel Recycling Institute
SSCI      Steel Shipping Container Institute
TxDOT     Texas Department of Transportation
UN        United Nations
USAF      U.S. Air Force
U.S.C.    United States Code
USDA      U.S. Department of Agriculture
USPS      U.S. Postal Service
UV        Ultraviolet
VOC       Volatile Organic Compound
*****************************************************************


     C.   Requirements

     RCRA Section 6002 and Executive Order 13101 (Executive Order
or E.O.) specify requirements for the procurement of products
containing recovered materials. The requirements of RCRA Section
6002 apply to "procuring agencies," as defined in RCRA Section
1004(17); the Executive Order applies only to federal "Executive
agencies," as defined in Section 202 of the Executive Order. 

     Section 6002(e) of RCRA (or the Act) requires EPA to
designate items that are or can be made with recovered materials
and to recommend practices to assist procuring agencies in
meeting their obligations with respect to the procurement of
designated items under RCRA Section 6002. After EPA designates an
item, RCRA requires that each procuring agency, when purchasing a
designated item, must purchase that item composed of the highest
percentage of recovered materials practicable.

     The Executive Order specifies the procedure for EPA to
follow in implementing RCRA Section 6002(e). Section 502 of the
Executive Order directs EPA to designate items in the CPG and to
recommend procurement practices for purchasing designated items,
including recovered materials content levels, in a related RMAN.
The Executive Order also directs EPA to update the CPG every 2
years and to issue RMANs periodically to reflect changing market
conditions.

     The following sections provide an overview of RCRA Section
6002 and the Executive Order and explain the basis for
designating specific products as procurement items subject to
RCRA Section 6002. Appendix II provides a more detailed
explanation of the provisions and requirements of RCRA Section
6002. Appendix III provides additional details on the Executive
Order, and Appendix IV briefly discusses additional federal
procurement policies and requirements.

     1.   RCRA Section 6002
     
     RCRA Section 6002 requires EPA to designate items that are
or can be made with recovered materials and to recommend
practices to assist procuring agencies in purchasing the
designated items. Once an item is designated by EPA, procuring
agencies that use appropriated federal funds to purchase the item
are required to purchase it containing the highest percentage of
recovered materials practicable (and in the case of paper, the
highest percentage of postconsumer recovered materials), taking
into consideration the limitations set forth in Section
6002(c)(1)(A) through (C) (i.e., competition, price,
availability, and performance). The requirement applies when the
purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or when the total cost
of such items, or of functionally equivalent items, purchased
during the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more.

     RCRA Section 6002(d)(2) requires that, within 1 year after
EPA designates an item, federal agencies revise their
specifications to require the use of recovered materials to the
maximum extent possible without jeopardizing the intended end-use
of the item. Section 6002(d)(1) further requires federal agencies
responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications to review
all of their product specifications to eliminate provisions
prohibiting the use of recovered materials and requirements
specifying the exclusive use of virgin materials. To comply with
Section 6002(d)(2), the revision process for items designated in
CPG III should be completed within 1 year after the CPG III is
published in
the FR.

     Once EPA designates an item, responsibility for complying
with RCRA Section 6002 rests with the procuring agencies. For
each item designated by EPA, RCRA Section 6002(I) requires each
procuring agency to develop an affirmative procurement program
(APP). The APP must ensure that the agency purchases items
composed of recovered materials to the maximum extent practicable
and that these purchases are made consistent with applicable
provisions of federal procurement law. In accordance with RCRA
Section 6002(I), the APP must contain at least four elements:

     1.   A recovered materials preference program.

     2.   An agency promotion program.

     3.   A program for requiring vendors to estimate, certify,
          and reasonably verify the recovered materials content
          of their products.

     4.   A program to monitor and annually review the
          effectiveness of the APP.

     Appendix V provides detailed information on APPs.

     Finally, RCRA Section 6002(g) requires the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) to implement the requirements of RCRA
Section 6002 and to coordinate this policy with other federal
procurement policies in order to maximize the use of recovered
materials. (See Appendix IV for more information.) RCRA further
requires OFPP to report to Congress every 2 years on actions
taken by federal agencies to implement such policy.

     2.   Executive Order 13101
     
     Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, was signed by
President Clinton on September 14, 1998. It replaces Executive
Order 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste
Prevention. Section 502 of the Executive Order establishes a
two-part process for EPA to use when developing and issuing the
procurement guidelines for products containing recovered
materials, as required by RCRA Section 6002(e). The first part of
the process, issuing the CPG, involves designating items that are
or can be made with recovered materials. The CPG is developed
using formal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and is
codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part
247. The Executive Order requires EPA to update the CPG every 2
years.

     The second part of the process is the publication of the
RMAN, which provides recommendations to procuring agencies on
purchasing the items designated in the CPG. The Executive Order
directs EPA to publish the RMAN in the FR for public comment. The
RMAN, however, is not codified in the CFR, because the
recommendations are guidance. RMANs are issued periodically to
reflect changes in market conditions and provide procurement
recommendations for newly designated items. 

     Appendix III provides additional information on the
provisions and requirements of Executive Order 13101, including
requirements for procuring agencies to comply with EPA's
guidelines.


II.  ITEM DESIGNATIONS

     A.   Criteria for Selecting Items for Designation
     
     While not limiting consideration to these criteria, RCRA
Section 6002(e) requires EPA to consider the following when
determining which items it will designate:

     1.   Availability of the item.

     2.   Potential impact on the solid waste stream of item
          procurement.

     3.   Economic and technological feasibility of producing the
          item.

     4.   Other uses for the recovered materials used to produce
          the item.

     EPA also consulted with federal procurement and requirements
officials to identify other criteria to consider when selecting
items for designation. Based on these discussions, the Agency
concluded that the limitations set forth in RCRA Section 6002(c)
should also be factored into its selection decisions. This
provision requires each procuring agency to procure the item
composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials
practicable, while maintaining a satisfactory level of
competition. A procuring agency, however, may decide not to
procure an EPA-designated item containing recovered materials if
it determines: (1) the item is not reasonably available within a
reasonable period of time; (2) the item fails to meet the
performance standards set forth in the agency's specification; or
(3) the item is available only at an unreasonable price. EPA
recognized that these limitations could restrict procuring
agencies from purchasing EPA-designated items with recovered
materials content, and, thereby, could limit the potential impact
of an individual item designation. (The limitations of Section
6002(c) also effectively describe the circumstances in which a
designated item is "available" for purposes of the statute.) For
this reason, EPA also takes into account the limitations cited in
RCRA Section 6002(c) in its selection of items for designation. 

     The Agency developed the following criteria for use in
selecting items for designation: use of materials found in solid
waste, economic and technological feasibility and performance,
impact of government procurement, availability and competition,
and other uses for recovered materials. The items designated in
the CPG III have all been evaluated with respect to the EPA's
criteria. Details of these evaluations are discussed in Sections
VIII through XII of this document.

     1.   Use of Materials Found in Solid Waste
     
     All items designated in the CPG III are manufactured with
materials recovered or diverted from the solid waste stream.
These include both materials recovered or diverted from municipal
solid waste (MSW) and materials recovered or diverted from other
solid waste streams, such as construction and demolition (C&D)
debris and other nonhazardous industrial waste streams. Once
recovered or diverted, these materials are reclaimed and refined,
disassembled and remanufactured, or separated and processed for
use as feedstock to manufacture a new product. Appendix I
provides an overview of the materials in MSW in the United States
and provides a more detailed explanation of the materials used in
the products designated in CPG III.

     The potential impact that procuring agencies may have on the
solid waste stream by procuring EPA-designated items varies
depending on the sophistication of the process used to recover or
refine the materials and on the recovered materials content of
the final product. Additionally, although designating a single
item might not have a significant impact on the amount of solid
waste recovered or diverted from the waste stream, EPA believes
that designating several items made from the same recovered
material can lead to the diversion of substantial quantities of
that material from the waste stream.

     Information on the recovered materials used to produce items
designated by EPA is presented in subsection 3.a., "Use of
Materials in Solid Waste," within the individual item designation
discussions in Sections VIII through XII of this document.

     2.   Economic and Technological Feasibility and Performance
     
     Before selecting an item for designation, EPA determines
that, based on its market research, it is economically and
technologically feasible to use recovered materials to produce
the item. EPA uses several indicators in making this
determination. The availability of the item in the marketplace
and procurement of the item by federal and/or other procuring
agencies are primary indicators that it is economically and
technologically feasible to manufacture the product with
recovered materials content. Other indicators include the ability
of the item to meet performance specifications, the general
acceptance of the item by consumers and purchasers, and the use
of recovered feedstock by manufacturers.

     RCRA directs EPA to "designate items that are or can be
produced with recovered materials and whose procurement by
procuring agencies will carry out the objectives of RCRA Section
6002." This being the case, there may be instances where a
particular item is not currently made with recovered materials
content, but a similar item is. In those cases where the Agency
believes that there are no technical reasons that prevent an item
from being manufactured with recovered materials, and there is a
demonstrated use of recovered materials in a similar item, EPA
also may consider designation of the item that currently does not
contain recovered materials.

     Prior to selecting an item for designation, EPA also
considers the ability of the item to meet the standards,
specifications, or commercial item descriptions set forth by
federal agencies or national standard-setting organizations.

     Information on the economic and technological feasibility of
producing items designated by EPA, including the availability of
the item and the number of manufacturers that produce the item,
the ability of the item to meet federal or national
specifications, the recovered materials content levels used by
manufacturers to produce the item, and other information relevant
to the economic and technical feasibility of producing and using
the item, is discussed in subsection 3.b., "Technically Proven
Uses," in the individual item designation discussions in Sections
VIII through XII of this document.

     3.   Impact of Government Procurement
     
     The impact of government procurement of products containing
recovered materials is a combination of: (1) direct purchases by
federal agencies, (2) purchases made by state and local agencies
using federal monies, and (3) purchases made by contractors to
these government agencies. When considering items for
designation, EPA examines whether government agencies and their
contractors purchase the items.

     Government procurement also has an impact that extends far
beyond the federal, state, and local levels. As noted in RCRA,
the federal government often serves as a model for private and
other public institutions. Because of this secondary effect, EPA
includes items that are not unique to or primarily used by
government agencies. Many of the items that EPA selects for
designation are selected because they have broad application in
both the government and private sectors.

     Information on the potential impact of government
procurement for each new item designated in the CPG III is
presented in subsection 3.c., "Impact of Government Procurement,"
in the individual item designation discussions in Sections VIII
through XII of this document.

     4.   Availability and Competition
     
     The items EPA selects for designation are available from
national, regional, or local sources. The relative availability
of an item influences the ability of a procuring agency to secure
an adequate level of competition when procuring it. In the event
that a satisfactory level of competition is unattainable, a
procuring agency may elect to waive the requirement to purchase
an EPA-designated item based on the limitations listed in RCRA
Section 6002(c).

     Information on the availability of each item EPA has
designated, including the number of manufacturers that produce
the item, is presented in subsection 3.b., "Technically Proven
Uses," in the individual item designation discussions in Sections
VIII through XII of this document.

     5.   Other Uses for Recovered Materials
     
     In selecting items for designation, EPA also considers the
following: (1) the possibility of one recovered material
displacing another recovered material as feedstock, thereby
resulting in no net reduction in materials requiring disposal;
(2) the diversion of recovered materials from one product to
another, possibly creating shortages in feedstocks for one or
both products; and (3) the ability of manufacturers to obtain
recovered materials in sufficient quantity to produce the item
under consideration.

     While other uses for recovered materials are a
consideration, they are not a determining factor when selecting
items for designation because there is a need for additional
markets for all recovered materials used to manufacture the
designated items.

     6.   Other Considerations
     
     EPA also considers price as a factor affecting the
availability of an item. The price of products, whether made from
virgin raw materials or recovered materials, is affected by many
variables, including the availability and costs of material
feedstocks, energy costs, labor costs, rate of return on capital,
transportation charges, and the quantity of the item ordered. In
addition, price may vary depending on whether the product is a
common stock item or whether it requires a special order. Price
also can be affected by the geographical location of the
purchaser, because some products are not uniformly available
throughout the United States. The best sources of current price
information, therefore, are the manufacturers and vendors of the
recycled products.

     Relative prices of recycled products compared to prices of
comparable virgin products also vary. In many cases, recycled
products may be less expensive than their virgin counterparts. In
other cases, virgin products may have lower prices than recycled
products. Other factors also affect the price of virgin products.
For example, temporary fluctuations in the overall economy can
create oversupplies of virgin products, leading to a decrease in
prices for these items. Therefore, while price is a
consideration, in most cases, it is not a determining factor when
selecting items for designation. It becomes a determining factor
only when EPA obtains evidence that the relative price of an item
with recovered materials content is significantly higher than the
relative price of a comparable virgin product. For this reason,
EPA did not address price in the individual item designation
discussions in Sections VIII through XII of this document.

     EPA has also considered the feasibility of designating
experimental or developmental products containing recovered
materials. In the Agency's experience, such designations do not
result in federal procurement of products containing recovered
materials, because the items are not reasonably available, or
only one source exists, leading to an unsatisfactory level of
competition. For this reason, EPA does not intend to designate
experimental or developmental products until it can be shown that
they meet all of EPA's selection criteria, as described above.
(For additional discussion of designating experimental and
developmental products, see EPA's comments on General Accounting
Office Report No. B-251080, Solid Waste: Federal Program to Buy
Products with Recovered Materials Proceeds Slowly <www.gao.gov>.)


     B.   Methodology for Selecting Items for Designation

     As described in Section I.C.2, E.O. 13101 directs EPA to
propose a CPG and related RMAN.  This section explains the
methodology EPA used to select items for designation, including a
description of the process used to obtain information on
prospective items.

     1.   Selection of Items for Designation

     EPA began its efforts to develop the CPG and RMAN by first
creating an interagency working group consisting of technical,
research and development, environmental, and procurement
officials from several of the major federal purchasing agencies. 
This working group, initiated in 1993, continues to perform a
review function for all CPG-related designations.

     In general, the Agency compiles a broad list of potential
products made from recovered materials.  In developing this list,
EPA consults publicly available sources of information including
the "Official Recycled Products Guide," the General Services
Administration's (GSA's) "Recycled Products Guide," and over 50
other information sources, including the Internet.  In addition,
on September 20, 1995, the Agency issued an FR notice describing
a process by which interested parties could suggest items for
designation.  That notice detailed the specific types of
information EPA needed to evaluate potential items for
designation.  (See 60 FR 48714 - 48715.)  EPA has, and continues
to receive, requests for designation of items in response to this
notice.  EPA next distributes its broad list of candidate items
to the working group for review and evaluation.  Working group
representatives, based on their experiences in setting product
specifications and their knowledge of the marketplace and the
procurement practices of their respective agencies, may identify
other items to be added to the candidate list of products. 
Finally, based on a review of publicly available information,
EPA's own product research, and input from the working group, EPA
develops and maintains a candidate list.

     Next, for each item on the candidate list, EPA considers the
following questions that relate to the key criteria described
previously in Section II.A:

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

          *    Is the item made using a material that represents
               a significant portion of the solid waste stream or
               presents a solid waste disposal problem?

     b.   Economic and Technological Feasibility and Performance

          *    Does the item perform as well as necessary to meet
               a procuring agency's needs?

          *    Are there standards or specifications that would
               enable a procuring agency to buy the item
               containing recovered materials?

          *    Is the item available at a reasonable price
               considering normal market fluctuations?

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

          *    Is the item purchased in appreciable quantities by
               the federal government or by State and local
               governments?

     d.   Availability and Competition

          *    Is the item available from an adequate number of
               sources to ensure competition?

          *    Is the item generally available, rather than
               available in a limited market area? 

     For each item meeting one or more of these key criteria, EPA
sought additional information and conducted further analyses to
determine whether the item met all or most of the remaining
criteria.  For some items, EPA was unable to obtain sufficient
information to determine if all or most of the criteria were met. 
These items will undergo further research and may be designated
at a later date.  The items for which EPA completed its review
and which the Agency believes meets all of the evaluation
criteria were proposed for designation in the CPG.  Based on the
research conducted, EPA proposed designating 19 items in CPG III
in the FR on August 26, 1998, (63 FR 45558) and solicited public
comments on the proposed designations.  Based on the public
comments received in response to the proposed CPG III, EPA has
included 18 of those items in the final CPG III.  All comments
received on the proposed designations are summarized and
addressed in the final CPG III FR notice or are presented in
Sections VIII through XII of this document.  Section XIII of this
document describes those items which were evaluated for possible
designation, but which the Agency believes does not meet the
criteria for designation based on the research information
gathered.


     C.   Broad Categories Versus Specific Items

     EPA has adopted two approaches in its designation of items
that are made with recovered materials. For some items, such as
parking stops, the Agency designated broad categories of items
and provided information in the RMAN as to their appropriate
applications or uses. For other items, such as plastic envelopes,
EPA designated specific items, and, in some instances, included
in the designation the specific types of recovered materials or
applications to which the designation applies. The Agency
provided the following explanation for these approaches to
designating items in the preamble to the first CPG (60 FR 21369,
May 1, 1995):

     "EPA sometimes had information on the availability of a
     particular item made with a specific recovered material
     (e.g., plastic), but no information on the availability
     of the item made from a different recovered material or
     any indication that it is possible to make the item
     with a different recovered material. In these
     instances, EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
     include the specific material in the item designation
     in order to provide vital information to procuring
     agencies as they seek to fulfill their obligations to
     purchase designated items composed of the highest
     percentage of recovered materials practicable. This
     information enables the agencies to focus their efforts
     on products that are currently available for purchase,
     reducing their administrative burden. EPA also included
     information in the proposed CPG, as well as in the
     draft RMAN that accompanied the proposed CPG, that
     advised procuring agencies that EPA is not recommending
     the purchase of an item made from one particular
     material over a similar item made from another
     material. For example, EPA included the following
     statement in the preamble discussion for plastic
     desktop accessories (59 FR 18879, April 20, 1994):
     "This designation does not preclude a procuring agency
     from purchasing desktop accessories manufactured from
     another material, such as wood. It simply requires that
     a procuring agency, when purchasing plastic desktop
     accessories, purchase these accessories made with
     recovered materials...."
     
     The Agency understands that some procuring agencies may
believe the designation of a broad category of items in the CPG
requires them to: (1) procure all items included in such category
with recovered materials content and (2) to establish an
affirmative procurement program for the entire category of items,
even where specific items within the category may not meet
current performance standards. This is clearly not required under
RCRA as implemented through the CPG and the RMAN. RCRA Section
6002 does not require a procuring agency to purchase items with
recovered materials content that are not available or that do not
meet a procuring agency's specifications or reasonable
performance standards for the contemplated use. Further, RCRA
Section 6002 does not require a procuring agency to purchase such
items if the item with recovered materials content is only
available at an unreasonable price or the purchase of such item
is inconsistent with maintaining a reasonable level of
competition. However, EPA stresses that, when procuring any
product for which a recovered materials alternative is available
that meets the procuring agency's performance needs, if all other
factors are equal, the procuring agency should seek to purchase
the product made with highest percentage of recovered materials
practicable.
     
     It is important to note that EPA's designation of an item
does not signify that the Agency is recommending the purchase of
an item made from a particular material over a similar item made
from a different material. For example, EPA included the
following statement in the preamble discussion for plastic
desktop accessories (59 FR 18879): "This designation does not
preclude a procuring agency from purchasing desktop accessories
manufactured from another material, such as wood. It simply
requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing plastic desktop
accessories, purchase these accessories made with recovered
materials...."


     D.   Item Designation Categories
     
     Items designated in the CPG are organized in the following
product categories: paper and paper products, vehicular products,
construction products, transportation products, park and
recreation products, landscaping products, non-paper office
products, and miscellaneous products. The categories were
developed to describe the application of each designated item.

     *    Paper and Paper Products: includes printing and writing
          papers, newsprint, tissue products, paperboard
          products, and packaging. This category does not include
          paper and paper products used in construction
          applications. A final RMAN for paper and paper products
          containing recovered materials was issued on May 29,
          1996, at 61 FR 26985, and an updated RMAN (Paper
          Products RMAN II) was issued on June 8, 1998, at 63 FR
          31214. No paper products are included in the final CPG
          III.

     *    Vehicular Products: products used in repairing and
          maintaining automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles.
          Examples include re-refined lubricating oils, retread
          tires, and engine coolants. No additional vehicular
          products are designated in the final CPG III.

     *    Construction Products: products used in constructing
          roads and the interior and exterior components of
          commercial and residential buildings. Examples include
          building materials and paint. In the CPG III, EPA
          designates carpet cushion, flowable fill, and railroad
          grade crossing surfaces in the construction products
          category.

     *    Transportation Products: products used for directing
          traffic, alerting drivers, and containing roadway noise
          and pollution. Examples include parking stops and
          traffic control devices. No additional transportation
          products are designated in the final CPG III.

     *    Park and Recreation Products: products used in
          operating and maintaining parks and recreational areas.
          Examples include playground surfaces and running
          tracks. In the CPG III, EPA designates park benches and
          picnic tables and playground equipment in the park and
          recreation products category.

     *    Landscaping Products: products used to contain,
          maintain, or enhance decorative and protective
          vegetation or areas surrounding buildings and roadways.
          Examples include compost and hydraulic mulch. In the
          CPG III, EPA designates food waste compost and plastic
          lumber landscaping timbers and posts in the landscaping
          products category.

     *    Nonpaper Office Products: equipment and accessories
          used by government agencies and businesses to perform
          daily operational and administrative functions of an
          office. Examples include toner cartridges, desktop
          accessories, and waste receptacles. In the CPG III, EPA
          designates plastic binders, clipboards, file folders,
          clip portfolios, and presentation folders in the
          non-paper office products category.

     *    Miscellaneous Products: includes all other products not
          covered by the categories listed above. In the CPG III
          , EPA designates sorbents, awards and plaques,
          industrial drums, manual-grade strapping, mats, and
          signage in the miscellaneous products category.


III. RECOVERED MATERIALS CONTENT
     
     Under RCRA Section 6002 and Executive Order 13101, EPA is
required to make recommendations to procuring agencies for
purchasing the EPA-designated items containing recovered
materials. EPA's recommendations typically include the ranges of
recovered materials content levels within which the items are
currently available, relevant specifications, and other
information pertinent to purchasing the items containing
recovered materials. The purpose of the recommendations is to
assist procuring agencies in fulfilling their obligations under
RCRA Section 6002 and the Executive Order to purchase designated
items containing the highest percentages of recovered materials
practicable.

     In providing guidance in the RMAN, the Executive Order
directs EPA to present "the range of recovered materials content
levels within which the designated recycled items are currently
available." Based on the information available to the Agency, EPA
recommends ranges that encourage manufacturers to incorporate the
maximum amount of recovered materials into their products without
compromising competition or product performance and availability.
EPA recommends that procuring agencies use these ranges, in
conjunction with their own research, to establish their minimum
content standards. In some instances, EPA recommends that
procuring agencies establish a specific level (e.g., 100 percent
recovered materials), rather than a range, because the item is
universally available at that recommended level.

     While EPA understands that specific minimum recovered
content standards might be easier for procuring agencies to
administer than a content range, which necessitates developing
their own minimum content standards, EPA recommends ranges rather
than minimum standards for several reasons.

     First, the Executive Order directs EPA to develop ranges,
not minimum content standards or specific recovered materials
levels.

     Second, EPA has only limited information on recovered
materials content levels for the new items proposed for
designation. It would not be appropriate to establish minimum
content standards without more detailed information, because the
standards may be treated as maximum targets by manufacturers and
may stifle innovative approaches for increasing recovered
material use. EPA hopes that the use of ranges will encourage
manufacturers producing at the low end of the recovered materials
range to seek ways of increasing their recovered materials usage.
Minimum content standards are less likely to encourage such
innovation.
     
     Third, many items are purchased locally rather than
centrally. As a result, the recovered materials content of the
items are likely to vary from region to region depending on local
cost and availability of recovered materials. Minimum content
standards are unlikely to be effective given the regional
variance in recovered materials content, because minimum content
levels that are appropriate for one region may be excessively
high or low for other regions. A recovered materials content
range gives regional procuring agencies the flexibility to
establish their own recovered content standards and to make them
as high as possible, consistent with the statute, given local
product availability and market conditions.

     EPA, once again, wants to stress that the recommendations in
the RMAN III are just that  recommendations and guidance to
procuring agencies in fulfilling their obligations under RCRA
Section 6002. The designation of an item as one that is or can be
produced with recovered materials and the inclusion of
recommended content levels for an item in the RMAN does not
compel the procurement of an item when the item is not suitable
for its intended purpose. RCRA Section 6002 is explicit in this
regard when it authorizes a procuring agency not to procure a
designated item where the item "fails to meet the performance
standards set forth in the applicable specification or fails to
meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring
agencies." RCRA Section 6002(1)(B), the United States Code
(U.S.C.) 42 U.S.C. 6962(c)(B). 

     Thus, for example, in the final CPG III, EPA has designated
playground equipment as an item that is or can be produced with
recovered materials.  The Agency's research shows that this item
is available in either steel, aluminum, or plastic containing
recovered materials.  However, the mere fact that this item is
available containing recovered materials does not require the
procurement of steel, aluminum, or plastic playground equipment
in every circumstance.  The choice of appropriate materials used
may depend on state or local codes.  The effect of designation
(and RCRA Section 6002) is simply to require the purchase of
items with recovered materials where consistent with the purpose
for which the item is to be used.  Procuring agencies remain free
to procure playground equipment made of materials other than
steel, aluminum, or plastic (e.g., wood) where the design
specifications call for other materials.


     A.   Methodology for Recommending Recovered Materials
          Content Levels

     EPA identified and evaluated information regarding the
percentages of recovered materials available in the items
designated in the CPG III. EPA also gathered and reviewed
publicly available information, information obtained from product
manufacturers, and information provided by other federal
agencies. Based on this information, EPA established recovered
materials content level ranges for each of the designated items.
In establishing the ranges, EPA's objective was to ensure the
availability of the item, while challenging manufacturers to
increase their use of recovered materials. By recommending
ranges, EPA believes that sufficient information will be provided
to enable procuring agencies to set appropriate procurement
specifications when purchasing the newly designated items.

     It is EPA's intention to provide procuring agencies with the
best and most current information available to assist them in
fulfilling their statutory obligations under RCRA Section 6002.
To do this, EPA will monitor the progress made by procuring
agencies in purchasing designated items with the highest
practical recovered materials content level and will adjust the
recommended content ranges accordingly. EPA anticipates that the
recommended ranges will narrow over time as other items become
more available, but for technical reasons, many items may never
be available with 100 percent recovered materials content.


     B.   Use of Minimum Recovered Materials Content Standards

     For most designated items, EPA recommends that procuring
agencies establish minimum recovered materials content standards.
For some items, the use of minimum content standards is
inappropriate because the product is remanufactured,
reconditioned, or rebuilt (e.g., printer ribbons contained in
printer cartridges). In these instances, EPA recommends that
procuring agencies use substantially equivalent alternatives to
the minimum content standards approach as allowed in Section
6002(i)(3) of RCRA. For example, in the case of printer ribbons,
which were designated in CPG II, EPA recommended that procuring
agencies adopt one or both of the following approaches: (1)
procure ribbon reinking or reloading services or (2) procure
reinked or reloaded printer ribbons. Minimum content standards
are inapplicable, because the recovered material is the expended
printer ribbon or the ribbon cartridge, rather than individual
materials used to produce the new printer ribbon.

     Under RCRA Section 6002(i), it is the procuring agency's
responsibility to establish minimum content standards, while EPA
provides recommendations regarding the levels of recovered
materials in the designated items. To make it clear that EPA does
not establish minimum content standards for other agencies, EPA
refers to its recommendations as "recovered materials content
levels," consistent with RCRA Section 6002(e) and the Executive
Order.


     C.   Preconsumer Versus Postconsumer Recovered Materials
     
     Preconsumer recovered materials are often easier to
incorporate into production processes than postconsumer recovered
materials, because they tend to be more uniform and contain less
contamination. For many items, however, EPA recommends that
procuring agencies purchase items containing postconsumer
recovered materials, because one of the RCRA Section 6002(e)
criteria for designating items is the potential impact of the
procurement of an item on the solid waste stream. The Agency
believes that recommending postconsumer recovered materials
content levels for these items will have the most positive impact
on reducing the amount of solid waste requiring disposal.

     For several items, EPA recommends two-part content levels a
postconsumer recovered materials component and a total recovered
materials component. In these instances, EPA found that both
types of materials were being used to manufacture a product.
Recommending only postconsumer content levels would fail to
acknowledge the contribution to solid waste management made by
manufacturers using other manufacturers' byproducts or scraps as
feedstock.


     D.   Recommending 100 Percent Recovered Materials Content
          Levels

     EPA recommends 100 percent recovered materials content for
some items. Because the RCRA definition of recovered materials
excludes internally generated scrap, it might be construed to
suggest that no manufacturer can claim that its product contains
100 percent recovered materials since all manufacturers use some
internally generated scrap as feedstock. EPA does not support
this interpretation.
     
     There are two types of internally generated scrap (also
known as manufacturer's scrap): scrap generated in a
manufacturing process using only virgin materials and scrap
generated in a manufacturing process using recovered materials as
feedstock. EPA believes that scrap generated in a process using
recovered materials as feedstock should be considered differently
from scrap generated in a manufacturing process using only virgin
material feedstocks. The Agency allows scrap to be counted as
recovered materials to the extent that the feedstock contains
materials that would qualify as recovered materials. Otherwise,
there is an illogical and unnecessary obstacle to the manufacture
of products using high levels of recovered materials. A
manufacturer using 100 percent recovered materials should be able
to certify that its product contains 100 percent recovered
materials.


     E.   Calculation of Product Content for Purposes of
          Certification
     
     RCRA Section 6002(i)(2)(C) requires the affirmative
procurement program to include procedures for estimating,
certifying, and, where appropriate, reasonably verifying the
amount of recovered materials content utilized in the performance
of a contract. In addition, RCRA Section 6002 requires
contracting officers to obtain from vendors a certification "that
the percentage of recovered materials to be used in the
performance of the contract will be at least the amount required
by applicable specifications or other contractual requirements."
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (Pub. L. 103-355)
amended RCRA Section 6002(c) to require estimates only for
contracts in amounts greater
than $100,000.
     
     Because each product is different, EPA recommends that
procuring agencies discuss certification with product vendors to
ascertain the appropriate period for certifying recovered
materials content. EPA recommends that consistent with federal
procurement law requirements, whenever feasible, the recovered
materials content of a product be certified on a batch-by-batch
basis or as an average over a calendar quarter or some other
appropriate averaging period as determined by the procuring
agencies. 


IV.  UPDATES OF THE CPG AND RMAN

     Section 502 of the Executive Order directs EPA to update the
CPG every 2 years and issue RMANs periodically to reflect changes
in market conditions. As previously discussed, on September 20,
1995, EPA published a notice in the FR establishing a process for
the public to suggest items for consideration and to provide
information on products made from recovered materials (see 60 FR
48714). That notice also requested information on items that the
Agency should consider for designation. EPA will continue to
accept information from interested parties in response to the
September 1995 request for information and will continue to
conduct its own research to identify prospective items for
designation as discussed in Section II.B of this document.  The
Agency may, at its discretion, propose updates to the CPG at
earlier intervals than every 2 years as required in the Executive
Order.  Updates to the RMAN will be made periodically to reflect
changes in market conditions with respect to the use of recovered
materials in designated items.  Interested parties should, from
time to time, access the CPG Web site at <www.epa.gov/cpg> for
the latest information on the procurement guidelines program.


V.   AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS

     An APP is an agency's strategy for maximizing its purchases
of an EPA-designated item. RCRA Section 6002(I) requires that an
APP consist of a minimum of four elements: (1) a preference
program; (2) a promotion program; (3) procedures for obtaining
estimates and certifications of recovered materials content and,
where appropriate, reasonably verifying those estimates and
certifications; and (4) procedures for monitoring and annually
reviewing the effectiveness of the program.

     The information provided in this section was previously
provided in CPG/RMAN I and CPG/RMAN II. It is included here for
the convenience of the reader. In CPG III, EPA did not revise the
recommendations for APPs.

     Preference programs are discussed in detail in Section B of
Appendix V. This section of the document discusses promotion and
monitoring. Certification is discussed in Section III.E of this
document.

     EPA recommends actions be taken by requesting officials,
contracting officials, contracting officers, architects, and
engineers when purchasing designated items. In order to provide
maximum flexibility to procuring agencies when implementing the
requirements of RCRA Section 6002, EPA recommends the
Environmental Executive within each procuring agency take the
lead in developing the agency's APP and in implementing the
recommendations set forth in the RMAN III. 

     The basic responsibilities of an Agency Environmental
Executive are described in Sections 302 and 402 of the Executive
Order. Section 302 of the Executive Order charges each agency's
Environmental Executive with coordinating all environmental
programs in the areas of acquisition, standard and specification
revision, facilities management, waste prevention, recycling, and
logistics. Section 302 also requires each agency's Environmental
Executive to track and report, to the Federal Environmental
Executive, agency purchases of EPA-designated items. In the
absence of an agency's Environmental Executive, EPA recommends
that the head of the implementing agency appoint an individual
who will be responsible for ensuring the agency's compliance with
RCRA Section 6002 and the Executive Order.

     RCRA Section 6002 and the Executive Order require procuring
agencies to establish APPs for each EPA-designated item. EPA
recommends that each agency develop a single, comprehensive APP
with a structure that allows for the integration of new items as
they are designated. EPA encourages agencies to implement
preference programs for nonguideline items as well, in order to
maximize their purchases of recycled content products and foster
markets for recovered materials.

     RCRA Section 6002(I)(2)(B) requires each procuring agency to
adopt a program to promote its preference to buy EPA-designated
items with recovered materials content. The promotion component
of the APP should educate agency staff and notify an agency's
current and potential vendors, suppliers, and contractors of the
agency's intention to buy recycled content products. Therefore,
EPA believes that an agency's promotion program should consist of
two components: an internal promotion program and an external
promotion program.

     There are several methods that procuring agencies can use to
educate employees about their APPs. These methods include:

     *    Preparing and distributing agency affirmative
          procurement policies through in-house publications and
          electronic mail.

     *    Publishing articles in agency newsletters and on the
          agency's World Wide Web site.

     *    Including APP requirements in agency staff manuals.

     *    Conducting workshops and training sessions to educate
          employees about their responsibilities under agency
          APPs.

     Methods for educating existing contractors and potential
bidders of an agency's preference to purchase products containing
recovered materials include publishing articles in appropriate
trade publications, participating in vendor shows and trade
fairs, placing statements in solicitations, and discussing an
agency's APP at bidders' conferences.

      Procuring agencies should monitor their APPs to ensure that
they are fulfilling their requirements to purchase items composed
of recovered materials to the maximum extent practicable. RCRA
Section 6002(I)(2)(D) requires the APP to include procedures for
annually reviewing and monitoring the effectiveness of agency
APPs. Section 302 of the Executive Order requires the
Environmental Executive of each federal Executive agency to track
and report on agency purchases of EPA-designated items.
Additionally, RCRA Section 6002(g) requires OFPP to submit a
report to Congress every 2 years on actions taken by federal
agencies to implement the affirmative procurement requirements of
the statute. Also, Section 301 of the Executive Order requires
the Federal Environmental Executive to submit a biennial report
to the President on federal compliance with the Executive Order.
In order to fulfill its responsibilities, the Office of the
Federal Environmental Executive requests information from federal
agencies on their affirmative procurement practices. Therefore,
it is important for agencies to maintain adequate records of
procurements that may be affected by Executive Order and RCRA
requirements.

     In order to comply with the Executive Order, federal
agencies will need to track their purchases of products made with
recovered materials content. This will also allow them to
establish benchmarks from which progress can be assessed. To
maintain adequate records on procurement of products containing
recovered materials, procuring agencies may choose to collect
data on the following:

     *    The minimum percentages of recovered materials content
          in the items procured or offered.

     *    Comparative price information on competitive
          procurements.

     *    The quantity of each item procured over a fiscal year.

     *    The availability of each item with recovered materials
          content.

     *    Performance information related to recovered materials
          content of an item.

     EPA recognizes that a procuring agency may be unable to
obtain accurate data for all items designated by EPA. EPA does
not believe that this is a problem. Estimated data is likely to
be sufficient for determining the effectiveness of an agency's
APP.


VI.  DEFINITIONS
     
     In the final CPG III, EPA is adding definitions for the
following new item-specific terms: carpet cushion; flowable fill;
railroad grade crossing surfaces; park benches and picnic tables;
playground equipment; food waste compost; plastic lumber
landscaping timbers and posts; solid plastic binders, clipboards,
file folders, clip portfolios, and presentation folders;
sorbents; awards and plaques; industrial drums; manual-grade
strapping; mats; and signage. These definitions are based on
industry definitions, including American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or other standard specifications, or represented
descriptions of the scope of items being designated.

     This document contains discussions and recommendations on
the recovered materials content levels and postconsumer materials
content levels at which the designated items are generally
available. The terms "postconsumer materials" and "recovered
materials" are defined at 40 CFR 247.3. These definitions are
included here for the convenience of the reader.
     
     Postconsumer materials means a material or finished product
that has served its intended end use and has been diverted or
recovered from waste destined for disposal, having completed its
life as a consumer item. Postconsumer material is part of the
broader category of recovered materials.

     Recovered materials means waste materials and byproducts
which have been recovered or diverted from solid waste, but such
term does not include those materials and byproducts generated
from, and commonly used within the original manufacturing
process.


VII. AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

     EPA requested information and public comment on the proposed
CPG III and the draft RMAN III. In general the agency requested
comments on: (1) the items selected for designation in the CPG
III; (2) the recommended recovered material content levels for
the selected items; (3) the overall accuracy of the information
presented in the proposed item designations; (4) and several
specific issues pertaining to particular products. Requests for
the specific comments and information were included in the
narrative discussions for each of the items proposed for
designation. 

     EPA received 40 comments on the proposed CPG III and draft
RMAN III. Comments addressed issues for items in the
construction, park and recreation, landscaping, non-paper office,
and miscellaneous products categories. These comments covered a
variety of topics including recovered materials content levels,
item designation, terminology, and the accuracy of information
presented. EPA carefully considered all of these comments in
developing the final CPG III and the RMAN III. A summary of the
comments, including those on specific item designations, and the
Agency's responses are provided in the sections that follow. 

     Based on comments received on nylon carpet with backing
containing recovered material, EPA is not designating this item
at this time. EPA will continue to monitor activity in the
industry to determine whether designation is appropriate for a
future update.

     EPA received general comments pertaining to item
designations, recordkeeping, and the recovered materials content
of steel used in the items proposed (and previously designated)
by EPA. These comments and the Agency's response are summarized
in the following subsections.


     A.   Request for Comments

     In the draft RMAN III notice, EPA requested specific
comments on whether any specifications exist or are appropriate
for park benches or picnic tables made from steel or aluminum
containing recovered materials; awards or plaques containing
recovered materials; and mats containing recovered materials. EPA
did not receive any comments in response to this request.

     In the proposed CPG III notice, EPA stated that it had
considered two items (recycled ink and shotgun shells) and
determined that it was inappropriate to designate these items (63
FR 45574). EPA requested additional information demonstrating
whether these items should be reconsidered for possible future
designation. No comments were submitted on these items or on
EPA's decision not to designate these items. EPA has received
letters from one recycled ink manufacturer, separate from the FR
notice request, requesting that ink be reconsidered for
designation. However, no additional information has been
submitted by this company despite repeated requests by the
Agency. 


     B.   Comments Recommending Additional Items for Designation

     Comment: The Association of NJ Recyclers submitted comments
supporting the inclusion of all 19 proposed products. It
believes, however, the $10,000 threshold is too high and should
be reduced. The association also suggested several additional
items for designation including mixed cullet glass for use as
storm drainage aggregate; toner cartridges; highway safety cones,
barriers, barrels, and barricades; running tracks, roadway
application, and playground matting made from recycled tires;
recycled steel highway guardrails; recycled-content roadway sound
barriers; recycled aggregates; landscape mulch made from recycled
roots and stumps; screened top soil made from roots and stumps;
and recapped tires. The commenter provided no additional
information supporting such designations, however. In addition,
the commenter encouraged EPA to use performance-based
specifications rather than item names or descriptions for the
designations, as they allow equal competition amongst virgin- and
recycled-content manufacturers. The commenter further stated that
the use of performance-based standards are the leading reason
that recycled content items have been allowed to be used on
projects. 

     Response: Some of the items suggested for designation by the
Association of NJ Recyclers have already been designated by EPA,
including toner cartridges, channelizers, delineators, traffic
cones, traffic barricades, running tracks, and playground
surfaces. On September 20, 1995, EPA published an FR notice
detailing the procedure for public participation in the
designation process, including the types of information the
Agency evaluates in designating an item. (See 60 FR 48714.) EPA
encourages the association to submit the requisite information
for the other items they believe should be designated. After
receipt of this information, EPA will consider the items in
future revisions to the CPG as time and resources allow.
Notwithstanding this request for additional information, the
Agency will consider evaluating these items for possible
inclusion in future amendments to the CPG.

     With respect to the commenter's suggestion that the Agency
use performance-based standards instead of item names to promote
the use of recycled-content items, the Agency notes that once
items are designated by EPA, procuring agencies are required to
review and revise their specifications and their APPs to ensure
items containing recovered materials are equally considered in
procurements. In addition, use of item names provides the benefit
of informing all procurement personnel (regardless of their
experience and training) of their obligations under the
guidelines.

     With respect to the Association's comments regarding the
$10,000 threshold, the Agency notes that this figure is defined
by statute and cannot be changed by EPA.

     Comment: The Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) and the Steel
Manufacturers Association submitted separate comments in support
of EPA's proposed designation of items containing recovered steel
(i.e., railroad grade crossings surfaces, park and recreational
furniture, playground equipment, industrial drums, signage, and
strapping). SRI also urged EPA to recognize (i.e., designate)
steel in general for its high recyclability and guaranteed
recycled content. The American Iron and Steel Institute and the
American Zinc Association also submitted comments endorsing the
comments provided by SRI.

     SRI provided updated information for use in the "Summary of
Benefits" section of the FR notice, stating that its latest study
shows that for every ton of steel recycled, 1,400 pounds of coal
and 120 pounds of limestone are saved, versus 1,000 pounds of
coal and 40 pounds of limestone stated in EPA's notice (63 FR
45575). 

     SRI also commented on the postconsumer and recovered
materials content levels of steel proposed by EPA. This comment
is addressed in Section D below.

     Response: EPA agrees that steel, like many metals, is both
recyclable and can contain recovered materials. EPA also agrees
that steel, like many metals, is a waste management success story
in terms of its recyclability, high recycling rate, and recovered
materials content. EPA also applauds the steel industry's source
reduction efforts to produce stronger, lighter weight steel, in
response to customer demand. RCRA, however, specifically requires
EPA to designate items that are or can be made with recovered
materials, not the component materials used in those items.
Accordingly, EPA designates items that are manufactured with
steel, not the material itself.

     With respect to the new data provided by SRI for coal and
limestone savings resulting from the use of recovered steel in
manufacturing, EPA has incorporated this information in all
applicable documents supporting the final CPG/RMAN III.
 
     Comment: The Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group, in
addition to supporting EPA's proposed designations of flowable
fill and railroad grade crossings, also submitted comments
recommending EPA consider designating abrasives containing
recovered boiler slag generated from the combustion of coal and
lightweight aggregates containing fly ash in the CPG.

     Response: EPA is currently researching a number of items for
future designation in the CPG and will consider abrasives and
lightweight aggregates containing various materials as time,
resources, and available information allow. 

     Comment: The Tennessee Valley Authority, in addition to
supporting EPA's proposed designations of flowable fill and
railroad grade crossings, also submitted comments recommending
that EPA consider designating other items containing coal
byproducts, such as boiler slag and bottom ash.

     Response: EPA continues to evaluate additional items for
designation in the CPG and will consider items containing coal
byproducts as time, resources, and available information allow. 


     C.   Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

     Comment: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it
supports efforts to conserve resources by procuring products
containing recovered materials. DOE stated that it has
aggressively instituted an APP throughout the Department. DOE
expressed its concern, however, that as the number of designated
items increases, the administrative costs of the program will
become increasingly burdensome. DOE believes that as reporting
requirements and data collection logistics continue to grow with
additional designations, there is a likelihood that the good will
and positive environmental message of E.O. 13101 will be
misplaced. DOE suggested that EPA seek to revise the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to channel federal purchasing toward
products with recycled content. This way, federal agencies could
report progress in implementing the FAR language, as opposed to
attempting to capture every purchase made by the federal
government.

     Response: EPA has stated on many occasions that
implementation of RCRA Section 6002 must be consistent with other
federal procurement law. For example, in Appendix II to the
"Background Document for Proposed Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline (CPG) III and Draft Recovered Materials Advisory Notice
(RMAN) III," April 1998, EPA stated the following:

     The purchase of recycled products under RCRA Section
     6002 must be consistent with other Federal procurement
     law, which requires that contracts be awarded to the
     lowest priced, responsive, responsible bidder....

     On August 22, 1997, the Civilian Agency Acquisition
     Council (CAAC) and the Defense Acquisition Regulations
     Council (DARC) issued a final rule amending the FAR
     parts 1, 10, 11, 13, 15, 23, 36, 42, and 52 to reflect
     the government's preference for the acquisition of
     environmentally sound and energy-efficient products and
     services and to establish an affirmative procurement
     program favoring items containing the maximum
     practicable content of recovered materials. (See 62 FR
     44809, August 22, 1997.) 

     EPA refers procuring agencies to the FAR for guidance
regarding acquisitions issues.

     In addition, the Office of the Federal Environmental
Executive has established a Reporting Workgroup and associated
subcommittees to examine issues associated with recordkeeping and
reporting. Topics of discussion have included the potential for
automated systems and electronic commerce, vendor reporting, as
well as other alternatives. It is the intent of these efforts
that, through the use of interagency workgroups, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements can be effectively and efficiently
implemented. Presumably, if such workgroups determine that
additional FAR changes are warranted, such changes could be
proposed through the process and procedures already established
for amending the FAR.


     D.   Recommended Recovered Materials Content Levels
 
     Comment:  SRI noted that all items proposed for designation
(with the exception of industrial drums) could be manufactured
with steel made by both Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) and Electric
Arc Furnace (EAF) processes. SRI noted that items made by the BOF
process typically contain 25 to 30 percent recovered materials
including more than 15 percent postconsumer steel. When these
items are made out of steel manufactured by the EAF process, they
may contain up to 100 percent recovered materials, including 67
percent postconsumer steel. SRI suggested EPA recommend recycled
content levels of 16 percent postconsumer and 25 percent total
recovered content for all items made from BOF steel and 67
percent postconsumer and 100 percent total recovered content when
items are made from EAF steel.  SRI pointed out that currently,
industrial drums are only being made from BOF steel and,
therefore, contain a total of 25 percent total recovered steel,
including 16 percent postconsumer steel. SRI requested that, for
all items proposed in CPG III containing steel, the final RMAN
III should reflect these recovered materials content levels. 

     Response: EPA has included the recommended recovered
materials content levels for steel in the final RMAN notice to
reflect SRI's comments regarding BOF and EAF manufactured steel
for the items designated in the CPG, with one exception. Rather
than recommend a single total recovered materials content level
of 25 percent for items made from BOF steel, the Agency is
recommending a range of 25 to 30 percent. The use of recovered
materials content range in this instance reflects both the
information provided by SRI and the requirements of E.O. 13101
for such recommendations. Based on this new industry information,
EPA has revised the content level recommendations for the steel
component of traffic barricades and delineators, steel recycling
containers and waste receptacles, and for steel shower and
restroom dividers/partitions to reflect SRI's comments.  These
items were designated in CPG I and CPG II. Revisions for these
items are reflected in Tables C-6, D-1, D-3, and G-1. No other
revisions to the recommendations for items previously designated
in CPG I and CPG II are being made at this time. 


     E.   Other Comments

     Comment: GSA indicated that all references to E.O. 12873
should be changed to E.O. 13101.

     Response: EPA notes that E.O. 13101 was signed on September
14, 1998, which was during the public comment period for the
proposed rule. The provisions in E.O. 13101 do not alter EPA's
basic requirement to issue procurement guidelines. The primary
change brought about by this Order, as it pertains to the
guidelines, is that the Order requires EPA to issue procurement
guidelines every 2 years instead of annually. EPA agrees with the
commenter that reference to the new E.O. should be contained in
the final CPG/RMAN III. The Agency has included reference to E.O.
13101 as appropriate in the final notices and supporting
documents. 


VIII.     CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
     
     A.   Nylon Carpet with Backing Containing Recovered
          Materials

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.12(h), EPA proposed to designate nylon carpet
with backing containing recovered materials. In Section C-8 of
the accompanying draft RMAN, EPA recommended that carpet backing
contain the following levels of recovered materials:


*****************************************************************
                                 
                             Table 2

Draft Recovered Materials Content Levels for Nylon Carpet with
Backing Containing Recovered Materials


Material       Postconsumer content(%)  Total recovered
                                        materials content (%)

Old carpets    35-70                    100

Note: EPA's recommendation does not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing broadloom carpet or carpet tiles made from
another material such as wool.  It simply requires that procuring
agencies, when purchasing nylon broadloom carpet or carpet tiles,
purchase these items made with backing containing recovered
materials when they meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.  Refer to Section C-4 in RMAN I for
EPA's recommendations for purchasing polyester carpet containing
recovered materials.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     EPA received several comments opposing the proposed
designation of nylon carpet with backing containing recovered
materials. As explained in this section, the Agency has concluded
that at this time there is insufficient evidence to support a
designation and that more research is required before designation
can occur. In the final CPG III, therefore, EPA is withdrawing
the proposed carpeting backing designation. 

     Comments: EPA received six comments in opposition to the
proposed designation of nylon carpet with backing containing
recovered materials. These commenters all stated that there is
only one manufacturer currently making nylon carpet backing with
recovered materials content. They indicated that the manufacturer
uses a patented process and, therefore, a designation is
premature and does not meet the statutory requirements for
adequate competition when designating items.

     Response: EPA proposed to designate nylon carpet with
backing containing recovered materials based on the fact that at
the time of the proposal, one manufacturer was producing carpet
tiles with backing containing recovered materials commercially
and, as the Agency stated in the background document, that two
other manufacturers were piloting production runs with recovered
materials content and were expected to enter the marketplace. As
a result of this comment, EPA sought additional information and
found that, since the proposal, significant developments have
occurred in the carpet industry with respect to the use of
recovered materials in nylon carpet backing and the fiber facing.
As an example, one company is currently making what they call
"renewed" carpet tiles.  The company takes old carpet and,
through a series of process steps, which include supercleaning,
retexturing of fibers, and adding colors and patterns, makes
renewed carpet tiles. In addition, many companies have begun or
are expected to begin manufacturing nylon carpet tiles with
recovered materials in the fiber facing.  Based on the fact that
significant developments have occurred with respect to the use of
recovered materials in the nylon carpet industry, the Agency
believes additional research should be conducted before a final
designation for nylon carpet or nylon carpet backing is issued to
ensure these developments are given proper consideration.  The
Agency, therefore, is not at this time designating this item, but
will consider designating nylon carpet products in the next
procurement guideline (CPG IV).

     Although the Agency is not designating this item at this
time, procuring agencies may choose to procure any item
containing recovered materials, regardless of whether the item is
specifically designated by EPA. Procurement of items containing
recovered materials, whether or not they are designated by EPA,
is consistent with RCRA Section 6002 and E.O. 13101.

     Comments: Three commenters suggested EPA consider
designating nylon carpet containing recovered materials in the
carpet fiber facing, not the backing.

     Response: The Agency notes that it researched the possible
designation of nylon carpet containing recovered materials in the
carpet fiber facing a few years ago and determined that, at that
time, it was not commercially available. Since that time,
however, it appears that significant progress has been made in
the industry, which warrants a reevaluation of this item. EPA
will consider designating nylon carpet containing recovered
materials in the carpet fiber facing for possible inclusion in
the next procurement guideline (CPG IV).

     Comment: Collins and Aikman noted a change that occurred
recently in the contract number for their carpeting containing
recovered content backing. The GSA number has changed from
GS-00F-8453-A to GS-27F-8453-A.

     Response: As noted by the commenter, carpeting containing
recovered content backing is currently available through GSA
contracts from one manufacturer. Procuring agencies seeking to
buy this item should note the revised contract number. EPA
believes the purchase of this item complies with the intent of
both RCRA 6002 and E.O. 13101, even though the Agency does not
feel it should be designated at this time. 


     B.   Carpet Cushion

     1.   Background
     
     In Section 247.12(I), EPA proposed to designate carpet
cushion. In Section C-9 of the accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA
recommended that carpet cushion contain the levels of recovered
materials shown in Table 3.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 3

Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Carpet
Cushion

                                             Total
                              Postconsumer   recovered materials
Product   Material            content(%)     content (%)

Bonded    Old carpet cushion  15-50          15-50
poly-
urethane

Jute      Burlap              40             40

Synthetic Carpet fabrication  --             100
fibers    scrap

Rubber    Tire rubber         60-90          60-90

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of carpet cushion. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing bonded
polyurethane, jute, synthetic fiber, or rubber carpet cushions,
purchase these items made with recovered materials when these
items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements. Refer to Section C-4 in RMAN I for EPA's
recommendations for purchasing polyester carpet containing
recovered materials. 
*****************************************************************


     EPA received two comments supporting the designation of
carpet cushion and one comment regarding the postconsumer content
levels in synthetic fiber pads. The commenter that submitted the
comment regarding postconsumer content levels, however, did not
submit additional information. Therefore, in the final CPG III,
EPA is designating carpet cushion. In the final RMAN III, EPA is
retaining the draft recommendations for the content levels for
carpet cushion as indicated below.

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comments: DOE and GSA submitted comments supporting the
designation of carpet cushion. DOE also indicated that one of its
sites recycles polyurethane from shipping containers and sells it
to a local manufacturer that uses it in its carpet cushion. GSA
indicated that "72 I A" should be added after "GSA schedule" on
page 45562, paragraph 2c, line 9 of the proposed CPG notice. In
addition, GSA suggested that EPA address the ash content present
in many urethane and rubber cushions as recycled content, but did
not provide any additional information.

     Response: EPA notes that the carpet is available on GSA
schedule 72 I A. EPA did not consider the ash content in urethane
and rubber cushions in making its recommendations. With respect
to the ash content of urethane and rubber cushions, it is the
Agency's understanding that ash is generally used as filler in
the original manufacturing process for prime, densified prime,
and high-density urethane and not for bonded urethane, which was
the subject of EPA's draft recommendations. Ash content,
therefore, is not applicable in the case of carpet cushion made
from bonded urethane.

     Comments: AlliedSignal submitted comments on EPA's proposed
recovered materials content recommendations suggesting that Table
C-9 in the draft RMAN III be modified to include a minimum
postconsumer recycled content in synthetic fiber pad ranging
between 25 and 100 percent. AlliedSignal indicated that
currently, most of the nylon 6 carpet that is recycled is used to
make engineering resins or synthetic fiber pad. AlliedSignal did
not provide any other information to justify its request.
 
     In a related comment, the Total Recycling Association
contended that the reason there is no postconsumer carpet
fabrication scrap in the market is because the fabricating
companies refuse to buy this material, despite the fact that
almost all the scrap is very recyclable. The commenter claimed
that in California, for example, there is more textile scrap
available for shredding than there are markets for textile pad.
The Association believes that rebond is at least capable of being
processed a second time unlike textile-based padding. The
commenter further stated that carpet pad manufacturers do not
know how to expand the market for their materials and that they
are typically small firms with little or no research and
development budgets.

     Response: EPA based its recovered materials content
recommendations on information obtained from its research and
published as background material for the draft RMAN III. Based on
this research, EPA did not identify any companies manufacturing
products of synthetic fibers containing postconsumer materials;
rather, all companies for which EPA has information use
preconsumer materials (otherwise known as postindustrial scrap)
and not postconsumer materials. The Agency, therefore, believes
it cannot recommend postconsumer content levels at this time
without additional information that demonstrates the prevalence
of postconsumer material use in the industry. EPA is required by
RCRA Section 6002 and E.O. 13101 to revise its RMAN
recommendations periodically. EPA will monitor market conditions
and consider proposing postconsumer content levels for synthetic
fibers in subsequent revisions to the RMAN based on any available
information obtained. 

     Comment: AlliedSignal also stated that the CPG should
suggest that carpet be recycled when being replaced.

     Response: EPA agrees that recommending carpet be recycled
when it is replaced would further promote the recycling of old
carpet and would be consistent with the intent of both RCRA and
the E.O. In accordance with RCRA Section 6002 and E.O. 13101,
however, recommendations in the RMAN are subject to notice and
public comment before any final recommendations can be issued in
the RMAN. Accordingly, EPA will consider issuing this
recommendation in a future draft RMAN.

     3.   Rationale for Designation
     
     EPA believes that carpet cushion satisfies the statutory
criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste
     
     Recovered content carpet cushions are made of postconsumer
urethane, recovered synthetic fiber, and rubber from old tires.
Two manufacturers indicated that their 100 percent
recovered-content synthetic fiber cushions weigh from 18 to 40
ounces per square yard. The majority of this weight consists of
the fibers. Therefore, if federal agencies bought 10,000 square
yards of carpet cushion, they would divert 1,125 to 2,500 pounds
of material from the waste stream. In addition, a manufacturer of
bonded urethane cushions stated that its cushions weigh from 3 to
8 pounds per cubic foot. Federal agencies purchasing 10,000 cubic
feet of bonded urethane cushions would therefore divert 30,000 to
80,000 pounds of urethane scrap from the waste stream. A
manufacturer of postconsumer rubber carpet cushions stated that 3
square yards of cushion can be made from one used tire. Agencies
purchasing 10,000 square yards of rubber cushion would divert
3,333 tires from the waste stream. Appendix I details the
generation and recovery of polyurethane, fiber, and rubber in
MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses
     
     Manufacturers indicated that their recycled materials
content carpet cushions perform as well as virgin cushions in
terms of cushioning and durability and meet standards set by the
Carpet and Rug Institute and the Carpet Cushion Council (CCC).
These standards include requirements for density, thickness,
tensile strength, and elongation. Resistance to flammability is
not a requirement for carpet cushion in national building codes.
Commercial carpet cushion standards differ depending on whether
the cushion is Class 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 cushions are used for
moderate traffic areas such as conference rooms and executive
offices. Class 2 cushions are used for heavy traffic areas such
as clerical areas and corridors. Class 3 cushions are used for
extra heavy traffic areas such as lobbies and cafeterias.
Recovered materials content carpet cushions perform well
regardless of whether the carpet is made of nylon, wool, or
polyester fibers and are available in a variety of thicknesses.
Two manufacturers also stated that their recycled materials
content cushions meet specifications set by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). EPA obtained copies of
the CCC and HUD specifications; neither appears to prohibit the
use of recovered materials in carpet cushions. Both
specifications include the above requirements for bonded
urethane, rubber, and synthetic fiber cushions.

     EPA identified 12 companies that manufacture recycled
materials content carpet cushion. They are located throughout the
country, and their products are available through distributors
nationwide.
     
     c.   Impact of Government Procurement 

     GSA offers four different types of cushion on its carpet
schedule (GSA schedule 72 I A): rubber, urethane, natural fiber
(e.g., hair and jute), and synthetic fiber cushions. During the
5-year period between October 1992 and May 1997, government
agencies spent approximately $1,072,091 on carpet cushion. The
GSA representative stated that many government agencies do not
use cushion or buy carpet with preattached cushion. GSA's current
carpet cushion specifications do not include requirements for
postconsumer content, although GSA's representative stated the
schedule does include bonded urethane cushion, which is made from
fabrication scrap. GSA expressed interest in learning of
manufacturers of recovered materials content rubber carpet
cushion. 

     HUD has installed 100 percent recovered content carpet
cushion in approximately 25 percent of its executive office
suites, although the representative contacted was not aware of
the total quantity of recovered materials content cushion
purchased. The agency has been using recovered content cushion
since 1986. The state of Florida also has installed 100 percent
recovered materials content carpet cushion. The state
specification for carpet cushion does not preclude the use of
recovered materials; in fact, the state has approved one brand of
recovered materials content cushion.

     4.   Designation
     
     EPA is designating carpet cushion made from bonded
polyurethane, jute, synthetic fibers, or rubber containing
recovered materials. This designation does not preclude a
procuring agency from purchasing carpet cushion made from other
types of materials, such as prime polyurethane foam. It simply
requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing bonded
polyurethane, jute, synthetic fiber, or rubber carpet cushion,
purchase this item containing recovered materials when it meets
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft RMAN recommendations in the
final RMAN III. Table 4 shows the final recommendations for
carpet cushions made of bonded polyurethane, jute, synthetic
fiber, and rubber.


*****************************************************************
                                 
                             Table 4

       Final Recovered Materials Content Levels for Bonded 
  Polyurethane, Jute, Synthetic Fiber, and Rubber Carpet Cushion

                                             Total
                              Postconsumer   recovered materials
Product   Material            cntent(%) content (%)

Bonded    Old carpet cushion  15-50          15-50
poly-
urethane

Jute      Burlap              40             40

Synthetic Carpet fabrication  --             100
fibers    scrap

Rubber    Tire rubber         60-90          60-90

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of carpet cushion. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing bonded
polyurethane, jute, synthetic fiber, or rubber carpet cushions,
purchase these items made with recovered materials when these
items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements. Refer to Section C-4 in RMAN I for EPA's
recommendations for purchasing polyester carpet containing
recovered materials. 
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations
     
     Carpet cushion, also known as carpet underlay, is padding
placed beneath carpet. According to the CCC, carpet cushion
improves the acoustical and thermal insulation properties of
carpet, reduces the impact caused by foot traffic or furniture
indentation, enhances comfort, and prolongs appearance. It is
available in a variety of thicknesses -- the most common being
1/4- and  inch -- and is used in both residential and commercial
settings, although it appears to be less common in commercial
settings. Carpet cushion can be sold separately or preattached to
the carpet. Carpet can also be installed without any cushioning.
Carpets with preattached cushions are referred to as "cushion
back" or "foam back" carpets. Approximately 20 percent of
commercial carpet sold has a preattached cushion. The remainder
of this report focuses on separate, nonattached cushion.

     Carpet cushions can be made from three large categories of
materials: polyurethane foam, fiber, and rubber. A variety of
materials within each of these categories can be used to make
carpet cushion.

     Table 5 provides information on the availability of carpet
cushion made of recovered materials.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 5

          Recovered Materials Content of Carpet Cushion


                    Postconsumer        Total Recovered
Material            Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

Synthetic Fiber     Company A: Unknown       85
                    Company B: 100           Unknown
                    Company C: Unknown       100
                    Company D: 10            90

Bonded Polyurethane Company E: Unknown       Unknown
                    Company F:  20           70

Rubber              Company G: 65-80         Unknown
                    Company H: 92            Unknown
                    Company I: 80            Unknown

Jute                Company J: 40            Unknown

Unknown Plastic     Company K:Unknown        80
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications
     
          EPA is not aware of any performance specifications for
carpet cushion.


     C.   Flowable Fill
                         
     1.   Background

     In Section 247.12(j), EPA proposed to designate flowable
fill containing coal fly ash and/or ferrous foundry sand. In
Section C-10 of the accompanying RMAN III, EPA recommended that
procuring agencies refer to the mix proportions shown in Tables 6
and 7 for typical proportions for high and low coal fly ash
content mixtures.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 6

   Typical Proportions for High Fly Ash Content Flowable Fills

Component           Range                         Mix Design
                    kg/m3 (lb/yd3)                kg/m3 (lb/yd3)

Fly ash (95%)       949 to 1542 (1600 to 2600)    1234 (2080)
Cement (5%)         47 to 74 (80 to 125)          62 (104)
Added water         222 to 371 (375 to 625)       247 (416)*
                                        Total:    1543 (2600)

*Equal to 189 liters (50 gallons)
Source: "Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers," FHWA-SA-94-081,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, August 1995.
*****************************************************************


*****************************************************************

                             Table 7

    Typical Proportions for Low Fly Ash Content Flowable Fills

Component           Range                    Mix Design
                    kg/m3 (lb/yd3)           kg/m3 (lb/yd3)

Fly ash(6% to 14%)a 119 to 297 (200 to 500)  178 (300)
Cement              30 to 119 (50 to 200)    59 (100)
Sand                1483 to 1780             1542 (2600)
Added water         198 to 494 (333 to 833)  297 (500)
                                   Total:    2076 (3500)b

a High calcium fly ash is used in lower amounts than low calcium
fly ash.
b Equal to 227 liters (60 gallons)
Source: "Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers," FHWA-SA-94-081,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, August 1995.
*****************************************************************


     EPA recommended that procuring agencies use ACI229R-94 when
developing mix designs for flowable fill containing coal fly ash
and/or foundry sands. In addition, EPA recommended procuring
agencies refer to ASTM C 33-93 "Standard Specification for
Concrete Aggregates" for appropriate gradation requirements for
ferrous foundry sands used in flowable fill, as well as the test
methods shown in Table 8.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 8

           Recommended Test Methods for Flowable Fills 
               (Controlled Low-Strength Materials)

ASTM Specification Number     Title
D 4832-95e1                   Standard Test Method for
                              Preparation and Testing of
                              Controlled Low-Strength Material
                              (CLSM) Test Cylinders
D 5239-92                     Standard Practice for
                              Characterizing Fly Ash for Use in
                              Soil Stabilization
D 5971-96                     Standard Practice for Sampling
                              Freshly Mixed CLSM
D 6103-07                     Standard Test Method for Flow
                              Consistency of CLSM
D 6023-96                     Standard Test Method for Unit
                              Weight, Yield, Cement Content and
                              Air Content (Gravimetric) of CLSM
D 5971-96                     Standard Practice for Sampling
                              Freshly Mixed CLSM
D 6024-96                     Standard Test Method for Ball Drop
                              on CLSM to Determine Suitability
                              for Load Application
*****************************************************************

     
     EPA received 18 sets of comments on its proposal to
designate flowable fill and the RMAN recommendations. Since the
proposed designation included flowable fill containing both coal
fly ash and/or ferrous foundry sands, some of the comments
received pertained only to one or the other recovered material.
All of the comments and the Agency's responses are summarized in
the following subsections. As explained in the Agency's
responses, EPA is designating flowable fill in the final CPG III.
In the final RMAN III, EPA is modifying the draft recommendations
regarding standards and specifications procuring agencies should
refer to, based on a comment submitted by the FIRST (Foundry
Industry Starts Today) Project, an industry consortium.

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

          Flowable Fill Containing Coal Fly Ash 

     Comments: EPA received 15 sets of comments in support of
designating flowable fill containing coal fly ash. In general,
the commenters suggested that the designation of this item could
greatly expand the end-use markets for coal fly ash while
reducing the need for excavating other raw materials and reducing
the amount of coal fly ash requiring disposal in landfills. One
of the commenters also encouraged EPA to consider including other
coal byproduct materials, such as boiler slag and bottom ash, in
its designations and offered to provide additional information on
the use of these materials.

     Response: EPA will continue to evaluate items containing
recovered materials in its efforts to designate additional items
in the CPG and provide recommendations in the RMAN. The Agency
has established a means by which interested parties can suggest
procurement guideline items and published this process in the FR
on September 20, 1995, at 60 FR 48714. That notice clearly
identifies the criteria used and the type of information required
by the Agency in order to evaluate potential items for
designation. The Agency will review and act on any information
provided in response to that notice as time and resources allow.

     Comment: One of the commenters who expressed support for the
designation of flowable fill containing coal fly ash also
suggested that EPA combine this designation with the Agency's
previous designation for cement and concrete containing fly ash
and call the designation "Concrete and Flowable Fill Containing
Fly Ash" to simplify reporting requirements. 

     Response: The Agency will consider consolidating
designations in future amendments to the CPG where it appears
appropriate and as time and resources allow.
     
     Comment: One of the commenters who expressed support for the
designation of flowable fill containing coal fly ash also renewed
a previous request for the Agency to evaluate the designation of
industrial abrasives containing boiler slag and the use of coal
fly ash in lightweight aggregates.

     Response: EPA is researching a number of items for potential
designation in future amendments to the CPG. Both industrial
abrasives and aggregates are among those items under
consideration. 
 
     Flowable Fill Containing Ferrous Foundry Sands 

     EPA received five sets of comments specific to the proposed
designation of flowable fill containing ferrous foundry sands.

     Comment: The FIRST Project supported EPA's designation of
flowable fill containing foundry sand, with a few comments. The
FIRST Project took issue with EPA's statement that nonferrous
foundry sands are typically hazardous waste due to their lead and
cadmium content (63 FR 45563). The FIRST Project maintains that
spent sand from the vast majority of nonferrous foundries is not
hazardous, nor does it contain lead and cadmium. Analytical data
from nonferrous foundry sand samples were provided to support the
commenter's position. According to the FIRST Project, due to
changes in alloy chemistries of many nonferrous foundry
operations over the past decade, spent sands meet EPA and state
definitions of nonhazardous waste. The FIRST Project, therefore,
requested that EPA correct the statement about nonferrous sand
being hazardous waste. The commenter also suggested that the
American Foundrymen's Society be listed as another resource for
obtaining information regarding the use of spent foundry sand in
flowable fill.

     Response: EPA based its statement regarding the
hazardousness of nonferrous foundry sands on industry data
provided to the Agency in 1995 as part of the Phase IV Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) rulemaking (60 FR 43654, August 22,
1995). These data indicated that the sands from 98 percent of
bronze and brass foundries and 40 percent of bronze and brass and
aluminum foundries were characteristically hazardous wastes for
metals.

     The commenter's analytical data did not support their claim
that a majority of nonferrous foundry sands are nonhazardous
because in numerous cases improper test methods were used. 
First, for 8 of 12 aluminum green sand waste samples, the
digestion of the sample uses SW-846 Method 3010A or Method 3020A
(both normally used for water), instead of Methods 3050 and 3051
(both used for solids). (The other 4 aluminum green sand samples
did use Method 3051.) These digestion methods are weaker and
would extract less of whatever metals were present in the waste
matrix.  In addition, virtually all of the commenter's leachate
extraction data on spent sand waste samples were done using
either the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure SW-846
Method 1312, which relies on nitric/sulphuric acid as the
extractant or deionized water, rather than the Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure SW-846 Method 1311, which the
Agency uses to determine toxicity for purposes of assessing
hazardousness under 40 CFR 261.24.  Therefore, the commenter's
leachate extraction data are not appropriate for determining
whether the samples tested are characteristically hazardous.

     The Agency agrees with the commenter, however, that the
statement in the proposed CPG III was too general and may have
implied a conclusive determination as to the regulatory nature of
nonferrous foundry sands.  This clearly was not the intent of the
narrative.  Therefore, the Agency has removed any
characterization of nonferrous foundry sands as hazardous in the
final CPG III and all supporting documents.

     The Agency agrees with the commenter that the American
Foundrymen's Society should be identified as a resource for
obtaining information regarding the use of spent foundry sand in
flowable fill and will ensure this reference is made in all
documents supporting the final CPG/RMAN III where appropriate. 

     Comment: The FIRST Project also suggested that there is an
inconsistency with two of the specifications listed in the RMAN
for flowable fill. ASTM's C33-93 Concrete Aggregate specification
limits the use of some spent sands that have fines content
greater than 3 to 5 percent, while ACI 229R-94 indicates that
foundry sands with up to 20 percent fines were successfully
utilized in flowable fill mix designs. The commenter believes
that recommending ASTM C33-93 effectively limits the use of this
material without taking into account whether the performance
specification is clearly met. The commenter suggests that the mix
design specification should be based on performance, not simply
on the aggregate.

     Response: EPA has learned that ASTM C33-93 was developed to
optimize the strength and compactability of concrete and was not
meant to be used with controlled low-strength material or
flowable fill. The Agency, therefore, recognizes that ASTM C33-93
may not be an appropriate specification for sands used in
flowable fill. Procuring agencies may wish to use this
specification's physical tests as a measure to assure the quality
and uniformity of the sands used in flowable fill; however, the
agency now believes that this specification should not be
referred to for gradation requirements. Based on this
information, the final RMAN III for flowable fill has been
revised to delete any reference to the use of ASTM C33-93 for
gradation purposes. The RMAN recommends that procuring agencies
"refer to ASTM C33-93, "Standard Specification for Concrete," to
assure the quality and uniformity of the ferrous foundry sands in
flowable fill...."

     Comment: The FIRST Project commented that applications for
the use of flowable fill should be broadened to include
structural fill for foundation subbases, subfootings, floor lab
bases, and pipe beddings.

     Response: EPA's designation in the CPG and recommendations
in the RMAN do not preclude procuring agencies from using
flowable fill in the applications suggested by the commenter. If
flowable fill meets the requisite specifications and performance
standards for a particular application, then flowable fill can be
considered for use by a procuring agency. The specifications and
test methods identified in the RMAN are provided for the
convenience of assisting procuring agencies in their procurement
efforts. If, in developing its affirmative procurement program
(APP), a procuring Agency wants to include other applications for
flowable fill, it can exercise its discretion in doing so without
being restricted to the applications recommended by EPA in the
RMAN. EPA is required to revise its RMAN recommendations
periodically and will consider the applications suggested by the
commenter in future revisions. Any recommendations made by EPA,
however, must be subject to notice and public comment. EPA at
this time requests that commenters provide any pertinent
information on the suggested applications, including references
to any industry specifications and test methods germane to the
various applications. We will consider all information received
in our deliberations related to updating our RMAN
recommendations.

     Comment: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) submitted
comments stating its concern that, based on one of its user
guidelines, there might be a problem with foundry sand stockpile
water being contaminated with phenols and, that if this is the
case, there would be a discrepancy between this and the CPG
statement that ferrous foundry sands are not known to be a
hazardous waste. The commenter provided no information or
analytical data to substantiate their statement. The commenter
requested that this issue be addressed, as they could not support
this designation if it placed an undue burden on state
departments of transportation to monitor each site or if it
necessitates mitigation by contractors.

     Response: EPA is aware that phenols may be present in some
ferrous foundry sands. According to a 1989 study sponsored by the
American Foundrymen's Society and conducted by the University of
Wisconsin, phenols were present in some ferrous foundry sands
well below regulatory levels, so the Agency has no reason to
believe there is reason for concern. In addition, the designation
of flowable fill containing ferrous foundry sands in the CPG does
not exempt these sands from regulatory control if phenols, or any
other regulated contaminants, are present at levels of regulatory
concern. EPA's designation does not change the regulatory
management obligations for the recovered material nor does it in
any way suggest that the materials are relieved from waste
management regulations. The determination as to whether the sands
contain contaminants at regulatory levels should be made in
accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations and,
thus, no additional burden would be placed on any entity to
monitor stockpiles as a result of a final designation for this
item in the CPG. All actions relating to determining the
regulatory status of these sands would be performed by generators
or those manufacturing flowable fill, not by those using a
commercial product.

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company (LMITCO)
commented that EPA's guidelines for concrete containing fly ash
and flowable fill containing fly ash are similar and that EPA
should consider combining the two designation as "Concrete and
Flowable Fill Containing Fly Ash" to simplify reporting.

     Response: EPA will consider making this change, and other
consolidations to its designations, in future amendments to the
CPG as time and resources allow.

     Comment: The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
submitted comments expressing opposition to the use of ferrous
foundry sands in flowable fill since, according to IDOT, these
sands are normally contaminated with oil. The commenter did not
provide any information or data to substantiate this claim. IDOT
believes the use of coal fly ash in flowable fill is logical
because it has an acceptable track record. IDOT stated that
little research has been done on ferrous sand and that its use
has been minimal.

     EPA contacted the commenter to ascertain the basis for their
comment and was told that since the comment was submitted, IDOT
has learned that "oil contamination is not always present."  

     Response: As stated previously, EPA's designation does not
change the regulatory management obligations for the treatment or
management of the recovered material nor does it exempt the
materials from existing waste management regulations. The
determination as to whether the ferrous foundry sands contain
contaminants at regulatory levels should be made in accordance
with applicable federal and state regulations before the material
is used to make a commercial product. 
 
     Comment: American Electric Power (AEP) submitted comments
supporting the proposed designation of flowable fill containing
ferrous foundry sand and also stated that EPA should note in the
CPG and RMAN that a variety of flowable fills have been
successfully developed without the use of cement as an
ingredient. AEP referred specifically to flowable fills that
utilize materials such as Class C fly ashes that have a high
calcium content, making them appropriate for use in lieu of
cement. AEP added that these flowable fill mixes, which sometimes
utilize other recycled materials, such as Class F fly ash and
bottom ash, as filler, have been approved for use in several
states. Supporting specifications from some of these states were
attached to AEP's comments.

     Response: Information presented in the CPG and RMAN pertains
to those items that are being designated by EPA. The designation
of items under RCRA Section 6002 and E.O. 13101 requires notice
and comment before final designations are promulgated. Because
EPA did not propose to designate flowable fill containing other
materials such as Class C fly ashes, has not reviewed sufficient
information on these materials, and did not solicit public
comments, no reference or recommendations for these items are
appropriate at this time. Procuring agencies may, however, choose
to procure any item containing recovered materials, regardless of
whether the item is specifically designated by EPA. Procurement
of items containing recovered materials, whether or not they are
designated by EPA, is consistent with RCRA Section 6002 and E.O.
13101. EPA will consider designating additional flowable fills
containing other recovered materials in future amendments to the
CPG.

     3.   Rationale for Designation 
     
     EPA believes flowable fill satisfies the statutory criteria
for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Coal Fly Ash

     In 1995, approximately 54.2 million tons of coal fly ash
were generated. As shown in Appendix I, approximately 13.6
million tons, or 25 percent of the coal fly ash generated, were
recovered and used in concrete or other building materials and
transportation applications. Coal fly ash is also
used in cement and concrete production, roadbase and subbase
construction, structural fills and embankments, filler in asphalt
mixes, grouting, and waste stabilization applications. About
300,000 tons of recovered coal fly ash were diverted from
landfills in 1995. 

     Foundry Sand

     Annual generation of foundry sand has been estimated at
between 6 and 15 million tons. Flowable fill mixtures generally
contain between 50 and 85 percent foundry sand. The actual volume
used, however, depends on the type of fly ash used and the
performance requirements for the flowable fill. According to
contacts from Wisconsin, the amount of foundry sand used in
flowable fill applications is rather small. Generally, only 100
to 300 tons of sand are used per project. Foundry sand is also
being used as a fine aggregate substitute in construction
applications, as kiln feed in the manufacture of portland cement,
as a bulking agent for compost, and as supplemental cover
material at landfill sites. The FHWA estimates that approximately
20 percent of the spent foundry sand generated is recycled.
Appendix I of this document details the amount of coal fly ash
and foundry sand in the solid waste stream.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Coal Fly Ash

     The use of coal fly ash in flowable fill has proven to be
technically feasible, environmentally sound, and cost-effective
in areas of the country where coal fly ash is available. In
addition, it has become so widely accepted in highway
construction projects that the ASTM and more than 20 states have
developed testing methods and specifications for its use. 

     According to FHWA, substantial information has been
accumulated regarding the use of coal fly ash over the past 10
years. Flowable fill has been used both on land and in water with
excellent success. Flowable fill containing coal fly ash
outperforms flowable fill made with only portland cement or sand,
according to most of the manufacturers and engineers EPA
contacted. Coal fly ash gives flowable fill qualities that are
superior for many types of jobs. For example, flowable fill can
be excavated, code-dyed for later excavation, and can act as an
emulsifier, allowing the fill to flow as a distinct unit.

     Flowable fill mixes are usually designed based on the
percentage of coal fly ash by dry weight. High fly ash mixes
generally contain 95 percent fly ash and 5 percent portland
cement. Low fly ash mixes have a broader range of mix proportions
because they usually contain fillers other than fly ash (e.g.,
sand). 

     Strength development, flowability, time of set, and bleeding
and shrinkage must all be taken into account when evaluating the
physical characteristics of flowable fill mixtures. Strength
development depends largely on the cement and water content of
the mixture. In most high fly ash content mixes only 3 to 5
percent portland cement is required to achieve a compressive
strength between 50 and 150 pounds per square inch (psi). Water
content can also affect strength development. For example, at a
given cement content, as water is added, the compressive strength
development declines over time.

     Flowability is a function of the water content. In general,
it is desirable to design the mixture to be as flowable as
possible to take advantage of the self-compacting qualities of
flowable fill. Time of set relates directly to the mixture's
cement content. Generally, high coal fly ash mixes containing 5
percent portland cement achieve sufficient set to support the
average adult male in 3 to 4 hours, depending on the temperature
and humidity. After 24 hours, construction equipment can move
across the surface without damage. In some instances, low fly ash
mixes containing high calcium fly ash have been set within 1 to 2
hours after placement. For both mixes, particularly high fly ash
mixes, increased cement content or decreased water content, or
both, should reduce the setting time. 

     Bleeding and shrinkage is possible in high fly ash mixtures
with relatively high water contents. Evaporation of the bleed
water can result in shrinkage up to 10.42 mm/m (1/8-in/ft) of
depth of the fill. Shrinkage can occur laterally and vertically,
but no shrinkage or long-term settlement of the flowable fill
mixture occurs after the initial set.

     Flowable fill is generally mixed to support 50 to 100 psi.
In specific applications, contractors can limit the strength of
the mix so that later excavation of the hardened flowable fill
will be possible. The strength can be controlled by altering the
amount and portland cement of Class C coal fly ash, which have
cementitious properties.

     Flowable fill hardens more quickly than concrete, shortening
work time and traffic disruption where applicable. Depending on
the amount of portland cement in the flowable fill mixture, it
can gain strength in as quickly as 20 minutes; concrete, by
contrast, takes at least 4 hours to gain strength.

     Foundry Sand

     Flowable fill containing spent foundry sand has been used
successfully in several state demonstration projects and efforts
to develop specifications for its use are under way. 

     Engineering properties that must be considered when using
spent foundry sand in flowable fill mixtures include the
following:

Particle Shape. The grain size distribution of spent foundry sand
is more uniform and somewhat finer than conventional concrete
sand. The fineness of foundry sand contributes to good
suspension, thus limiting segregation of flowable fill. The
spherical shape of spent foundry sand contributes to good flow
characteristics. The fineness of the particles, however, results
in lower strength or bearing capacity of hardened flowable fill.
In addition, foundry sand usually contains a high concentration
of heavy metals, which may limit its usability in flowable fill
applications.

Strength Characteristics. Although some organic binder materials
can interfere with cement hydration, low (rather than high)
strength development is, in most cases, more desirable with
flowable fill to permit excavation at a later date (for utility
repairs and maintenance). It has been reported that the flowable
fill incorporating spent foundry sand aggregates, fly ash, a
small quantity of portland cement, and water readily satisfies
specified limited strength criteria.

Soundness. The performance of spent foundry sands in soundness
tests depends on the amount of clay binder materials present in
the spent foundry sand, the amount of clustering of the fines,
and the coating on the individual particles. The greater amount
of clay binder or clustering, or the thicker the coatings, the
higher the soundness loss. Regardless, spent foundry sands
generally exhibit favorable performance in soundness testing,
with soundness losses of less than 10 percent (indicative of
durable aggregate).

Deleterious Substances. Poorly managed spent foundry sand could
contain objectionable materials such as wood, garbage, metal,
carbon, and dust as well as large chunks of sand. For use in
flowable fill, spent foundry sand must be managed to ensure that
the sand is clean and processed to the proper size. Foundry sand
is often contaminated with up to 12 percent organic material.

Corrosivity. Depending on the binder and type of metal cast, the
pH of spent foundry sand can vary from approximately 4 to 8. It
has been reported that some spent foundry sand can be corrosive
to metals. Others have indicated that flowable fill mixes
containing spent foundry sand, due to the absence of chlorides
and high pH values are noncorrosive in nature, usually between
11.4 and 12.3.

     Economic Feasibility

     The two main factors in determining the economic feasibility
of using recovered materials in flowable fill are transportation
and labor costs. Transportation costs for flowable fill made with
coal fly ash or foundry sand will vary depending on the distance
from those materials to the project site. For example, a contact
from Montana stated that it would not be economically feasible if
the source of the material is more than 150 miles away. Another
contact from Wisconsin claims that, because natural fill
materials are abundant (particularly in the western part of the
state), the source of the recovered material would have to be
within 30 to 40 miles of the project site to make it economically
feasible.

     In general, it is not the cost of the recovered material
used in flowable fill that is prohibitive but rather the cost of
flowable fill compared with natural fill materials. Flowable fill
mixtures can cost anywhere from $30 to $40 per cubic yard,
whereas natural fill materials usually cost between $2 and $10
per cubic yard. Thus, unless contractors have accounted for labor
costs associated with placement of the material and future labor
and maintenance costs, they are likely to use the less expensive
natural fill material. 

     The use of flowable fill can, however, save on future labor
and maintenance costs. Concrete is more labor-intensive than
flowable fill because flowable fill can be poured into any size
trench with machinery and requires no manual labor or compaction.
Concrete, on the other hand, requires manual labor to smooth its
surface and to compact it in trenches, which must be made large
enough to safeguard against cave-ins. Flowable fill does not
require inspection or compaction, and it sets more quickly than
concrete.

     Availability

     Coal Fly Ash

     Ninety percent of the roughly 3,000 ready mix producers in
the United States make some type of flowable fill. An estimated
65 to 75 percent of ready mix producers utilize coal fly ash, and
roughly 55 to 65 percent of ready mix producers use some type of
coal fly ash in flowable fill. An engineer at FHWA estimated that
about 20 states currently use flowable fill and several others
are currently studying the material. Flowable fill made with
foundry sand (and coal fly ash) currently is available in parts
of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. 

     Coal fly ash is available in most parts of the country.
There are approximately 460 coal-fired utility generation
stations in the United States. Sparsely populated states,
however, may not have a local source of coal fly ash to make
flowable fill use practical. EPA identified 17 coal fly ash
marketers.

     Foundry Sand

     Spent foundry sand is available from all foundries. Most
foundries are located in the Midwest, particularly in Illinois,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     State and local transportation departments are one of the
largest markets for flowable fill, and they use federal funds for
road repair and construction. EPA contacted several state and
county transportation departments. Erie County, in Buffalo, New
York, uses flowable fill with coal fly ash and foundry sand in
specific applications. California anticipates that its coal fly
ash usage will be 1,288 tons and flowable fill usage will be
2,644 tons for the years 1997 and 1998. Illinois reported wide
usage of Class C fly ash in flowable fill mixes but was unable to
provide estimated usage figures. Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire reported minimal use of
flowable fill in the last few years, but also reported that coal
fly ash is part of these states' mixes. Georgia recently wrote a
flowable fill specification and has used it in specialized cases.
Flowable fill with coal fly ash recently passed the specification
committee in Indiana. Montana reported very minimal use of
flowable fill and no use of coal fly ash in its current flowable
fill mixes.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating flowable fill containing recovered coal
fly ash and/or ferrous foundry sands. This designation does not
preclude a procuring agency from purchasing other types of fill
materials, such as conventional concrete or compacted soil. It
simply requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing or
contracting for the use of flowable fill, purchase this item
containing recovered materials when it meets applicable
specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     Based on information received during the public comment
period, EPA is changing its recommendation regarding ASTM C33-93.
Procuring agencies can use this specification's physical tests as
a measure to assure the quality and uniformity of the sands used
in flowable fill. The agency now believes, however, that this
specification should not be referred to for gradation
requirements. Based on this information, the final RMAN III has
been revised to recommend that procuring agencies "refer to ASTM
C33-93,  Standard Specification for Concrete,' to assure the
quality and uniformity of the ferrous foundry sands in flowable
fill...."

     6.   Background for Recommendations 

     Flowable fill is a low-strength material that is mixed to a
wet, flowable slurry and is used as an economical fill or
backfill material. Flowable fill is also designed to support
traffic without settling and yet have the ability to be readily
excavated. It is usually a mixture of coal fly ash, water, a
coarse aggregate (such as sand), and portland cement. Flowable
fill flows like a liquid (similar to a watery milkshake), sets
like a solid, is self-leveling, and requires no compaction or
vibration to achieve maximum density. For some mixes, an optional
filler material, such as spent foundry sand, coal bottom ash, or
quarry fines, is added. Flowable fill can take the place of
concrete, compacted soils, or sand commonly used to fill around
pipes or void areas. 

     Other names for flowable fill include: flowable mortar,
controlled low-strength material, lean mix backfill, lean fill,
controlled density fill, unshrinkable fill, flowable fly ash,
hydraulic cement, low- strength slurry backfill, flowable
backfill, and flowable grout. Applications for flowable fill
include:

     *    Backfill:

          *    Sewer trenches 
          *    Utility trenches
          *    Building excavations
          *    Bridge abutments
          *    Conduit trenches
          
     *    Structural Fill: 

          *    Foundation subbases 
          *    Subfooting 
          *    Floor slab bases 
          *    Pipe bedding 

     *    Other Uses:

          *    Filling abandoned wells 
          *    Filling abandoned sewers and manholes
          *    Abandoned underground storage tanks 
          *    Voids under existing pavement 
          *    Retaining wall backfill

     EPA considered the two primary recovered materials used in
flowable fill, coal fly ash and spent foundry sand.

     Coal Fly Ash

     Coal fly ash is a byproduct of burning coal to generate
electricity. Flowable fill can be made with two types of coal fly
ash: Class F or Class C. Class F fly ash has a lime content of
less than 10 percent. Large amounts of Class F fly ash serve
primarily as an aggregate in cementitious construction mixes.
Burning anthracite or bituminous coal, which is found primarily
in the eastern United States, produces Class F fly ash. Ready mix
concrete producers in the eastern United States have access to,
and therefore primarily use, Class F fly ash. Some eastern
utilities, however, have recently changed to burning
subbituminous coal, found in the western United States, to avoid
installing scrubbers, since subbituminous coal has a lower sulfur
content than anthracite or bituminous coals. As a result, more
Class C coal fly ash is now being produced east of the
Mississippi River.

     Class C ash has cementitious properties, and the amount that
can be used in flowable fill is limited by the desired strength.
When Class C fly ash is used, portland cement can be left out of
the mix. Class C fly ash typically has a lime content of 20
percent or more.

     Foundry Sand

      Spent foundry sand is another recovered material that can
be used as an aggregate in flowable fill. Foundry sand is clean,
high-quality silica sand or lake sand bonded to form molds for
ferrous (iron and steel) and nonferrous (copper, aluminum, and
brass) metal castings. After casting, the sand can often contain
a number of contaminants, including residual metals and binder
materials.

     There are basically two types of spent foundry sand, "green"
sand and chemically bonded sand. Green sand, used in ferrous
metal castings, consists of high-quality silica sand,
approximately 10 percent bentonite clay (as the binder), 2 to 5
percent water, and about 5 percent sea mold (e.g., a carbonaceous
mold additive that helps improve the casting finish). Chemically
bonded sand is used in nonferrous metal castings and usually
contains 97 percent foundry sand and a small amount of organic
binders and catalysts. Nearly 95 percent of all spent foundry
sand is green sand. 

     Technically, foundry sand from both ferrous and nonferrous
metal castings can be used in flowable fill mixtures. In the
past, nonferrous foundry sands often exhibited characteristics of
hazardous waste. The nonferrous metal castings industry, however,
has made recent changes to its processes that result in
nonferrous foundry sands that do not always exhibit these
characteristics.

     Over the past 5 years, states began experimenting with spent
foundry sand in flowable fill mixtures. To date, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York have all reported
successes using spent foundry sand, as a replacement for natural
sand, in flowable fill applications. Illinois, however, has
attempted to use spent foundry sand in flowable fill mixtures and
found that it is unsuitable due to poor performance and
economics.

     Table 9 presents information provided by manufacturers of
flowable fill on recovered materials content availability.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 9

           Recovered Materials Content of Flowable Fill

                                             Total
Material       Postconsumer Content (%)      Recovered
                                             Materials
                                             Content (%)

Coal Fly Ash   Company A: 22-88              Unknown
               Company B: 5-95               Unknown

Foundry Sand   Company C: 50-85              Unknown
               Company D: Unknown            Unknown
*****************************************************************
     

     7.   Specifications

     Coal Fly Ash

     Several technical organizations have, or are developing,
specifications for flowable fill containing coal fly ash,
including The American Concrete Institute (ACI), The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), and ASTM. EPA recommends that procuring agencies use
ACI229R-94 and the ASTM standards listed in Table 8 when
purchasing flowable fill or contracting for construction that
involves backfilling or other fill applications.

     EPA has also identified more than 20 states with
specifications for flowable fill containing coal fly ash. These
specifications generally vary from state to state. For example,
some states require the coal fly ash to be tested prior to its
use, while others "maintain lists of approved sources and accept
project suppliers' certifications of fly ash quality," according
to FHWA's Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers. States with
specifications for flowable fill containing coal fly ash include:
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. According
to Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers "virtually any coal fly
ash can be used in flowable fill mixes."

     There are two basic types of flowable fill containing coal
fly ash, high ash content and low ash content. High fly ash
content mixes generally contain coal fly ash, a small amount of
portland cement, and enough water to make the mixture flowable.
Low coal fly ash content mixes contain a higher percentage of
filler material (e.g., sand), small amounts of coal fly ash and
portland cement, and enough water to make it flowable. ACI's CLSM
specifications, mentioned above, are for a low coal fly ash
mixture.

     Foundry Sand

     Currently, no national test methods or specifications exist
for the flowable fill mixtures containing foundry sand. Ohio is
the only state EPA identified that has a specification for
"Flowable Fill Made with Spent Foundry Sand." Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, and Indiana, however, are all working on developing
specifications. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and
Pennsylvania State University are just beginning a 4-year
"materials durability testing and analysis" study to help them
develop specifications. In addition, a group from the University
of Wisconsin's Geotechnical Information Center is working with
Wisconsin's Department of Transportation to collect data to
develop standard mix proportions, specifications, and performance
requirements for spent foundry sand used in flowable fill
applications. This study is completed, and the report is
currently in draft format.

     The FHWA is also in the process of developing guidelines to
promote the use of flowable fill containing foundry sand. The
following information has been gleaned from FHWA's preliminary
draft guidance document but should only be used as a general
overview of some of the technical issues surrounding the use of
spent foundry sand in flowable fill mixtures:

     Foundry sand must be processed prior to its use in flowable
     fill mixtures. Spent foundry sand should be free of foreign
     materials, burnt carbon, binders, and mold additives that
     may inhibit cement hydration. Foundry sand from ferrous
     operations needs to be screened and any oversized material
     removed. Before it can be used in flowable fill, spent
     foundry sand usually needs to be blended with natural or
     other fine aggregate to meet the gradation requirements
     specified by ASTM C33-93, Standard Specification for
     Concrete Aggregates. 


     D.   Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.12(k), EPA proposed to designate railroad
grade crossing surfaces with recovered materials. In Section C-11
of the accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that railroad
grade crossing surfaces contain the levels of recovered materials
displayed in Table 10.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 10

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations 
               for Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces

Surface   Recovered      Postconsumer   Total Recovered
Material  Material       Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Concrete  Coal fly ash   ---            15-20
Rubber    Tire rubber    ---            85-95
Steel     Steel          16-75          20-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of railroad grade crossing, such as
wood or asphalt. They simply require that procuring agencies,
when purchasing concrete, rubber, or steel grade crossing
surfaces, purchase these items made with recovered materials when
these items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements.
*****************************************************************


     EPA received 13 sets of comments in support of the proposed
designation of railroad grade crossings in CPG III and the
recovered materials content ranges recommended in the draft RMAN.
Specifically, these commenters supported EPA's recommendations to
include concrete containing coal fly ash as a recovered material
in the RMAN.

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
submitted comments opposing the designation and recovered
materials content recommendations for railroad grade crossings
because crossing designs are usually job-specific, and IDOT
believes this designation would inhibit innovation. In addition,
IDOT believes it would be very costly to verify the total
recovered materials content.  

     Response: EPA disagrees that designating railroad grade
crossing and providing recommendations on recovered materials
content ranges would inhibit innovation. As stated in Table
C-11A of the RMAN, "EPA's recommendations do not preclude a
procuring agency from purchasing another type of railroad grade
crossing surface.... They simply require that procuring agencies,
when purchasing concrete, rubber, or steel grade crossing
surfaces, purchase these items made with recovered materials when
these items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements." Thus, the job-specific requirements and
specifications should be factored into the procuring agency's
decision whether to use products containing recovered materials.
If railroad grade crossings made with recovered materials do not
meet legitimate job-specific requirements, the procuring agency
is not required to use the designated items with recovered
materials.

     With respect to the commenter's claim that it might be
costly to verify recovered materials content in designated items,
EPA disagrees. RCRA Section 6002(I) requires that an agency's APP
"contain a program for requiring vendors to estimate, certify,
and reasonably verify the recovered materials content of their
products." This provision, however, is not meant to encumber
either of the contracting parties. At the federal level, there
are standard provisions for all contracts in the Federal
Acquisition Regulations that can be utilized to certify that the
products contracted for are delivered. Standard clauses
presumably exist for contracts issued by state agencies as well.
These standard provisions can be used to certify recovered
materials content levels with no extraneous or burdensome costs
to either party. 

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that railroad grade crossing surfaces satisfy
the statutory criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Uses of Materials in Solid Waste

     Railroad grade crossings are manufactured with recovered
rubber, coal fly ash, and steel. As discussed in Appendix I of
this document, these items comprise a significant portion of the
solid waste stream. The information obtained by EPA indicates
that it is not feasible to use reclaimed asphalt in asphalt
railroad grade surface crossings because asphalt recycling
equipment is designed for operation on highways and roads, not on
smaller projects such as railroad crossings. EPA does not believe
that crumb rubber modified asphalt can be used in railroad grade
crossings because of cost and performance constraints. EPA
requests information on the use of either reclaimed asphalt or
crumb rubber modified asphalt in railroad grade crossing
surfaces.

     The majority of coal fly ash is produced in electric
generating plants, where powdered coal is burned to produce steam
to drive the turbines. Coal fly ash typically represents about 75
percent of the ash generated by coal combustion, with coarser,
heavier bottom ash accounting for the remaining 25 percent. The
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) estimates that 54.2 million
tons of coal fly ash were generated in 1995. Approximately 25
percent of this material (13.6 million tons) was recovered and
the remaining 40.6 million tons were stored or disposed of. No
figures are available on the amount of coal fly ash recovered for
use in railroad crossings. A 9- by 9-foot concrete panel,
however, reportedly weighs approximately 7,000 pounds. A common
railroad crossing configuration involves three panels of this
size. Thus, if a company were to use cement with 15 percent coal
fly ash content, each panel would contain 1,050 pounds of the
recovered material, and a crossing consisting of three panels
would divert 3,150 pounds of coal fly ash from the solid waste
stream.

     Rubber railroad grade crossing surfaces contain tire
buffings from tire retreading operations, crumb rubber from scrap
tires, and off-specification virgin rubber. As with coal fly ash,
there are other uses for scrap tires and other applications for
crumb tire rubber. However, additional markets for crumb rubber
are needed.

     All domestic steel contains recovered materials. Depending
on the process used to manufacture the steel, the railroad grade
crossing surface can contain up to 100 percent recovered steel.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Performance

     Traditionally, wood and asphalt crossings have dominated the
marketplace due to their low initial cost. In the past few years,
the railroad industry has changed its orientation from lowest
initial cost toward obtaining the best performance from grade
crossings, which includes reusability. Since fuel costs are a
significant portion of a railroad's operating budget, the
industry relies on routine track maintenance to create a smoother
track surface, which, in turn, increases fuel efficiency. The
marketplace has moved to greater use of concrete and rubber grade
crossings due to their reusability after track maintenance,
unlike asphalt and wood which normally are removed and disposed
of.  

     Rubber 

     According to one manufacturer of rubber railroad grade
crossings, the average lifespan of a rubber crossing is estimated
to be 10 to 15 years. This life expectancy is based on the
original quality of the material; the application; traffic
patterns (notably the presence of trucks); vehicular speeds;
condition (e.g., roughness) of the approach to the crossing; and
the quality and condition of the sub-ballast, the ballast, the
ties, and the rails. Ballast is material placed on a track
roadbed to hold the track in alignment and keep it elevated.
Sub-ballast is the material upon which the ballast is laid,
usually gravel, cinders, or sand. Proper drainage and
well-supported ties will significantly increase the life of the
crossing.

      Although not specific to recovered content rubber railroad
crossings, a FHWA report issued in 1979 stated, "...a crossing
constructed with one of several types of manufactured crossing
surfaces, although much higher in initial cost, will provide
superior riding quality for even high-speed and high- density
vehicular traffic and generally will require minimum maintenance
if the original installation is made on a well-prepared track
structure with good subgrade conditions." The same report also
stated, "...the additional cost of a proprietary crossing (e.g.,
rubber crossings) may well be warranted by the longer life of the
material, lower maintenance costs, superior riding quality, or a
combination of these features." According to a manufacturer, in
general, full-depth rubber crossings, where the height of the
rubber is even with the height of the rail, stay in place better
than other crossings, provide a smoother crossing, are easier to
remove and replace (compared to other surfaces), and will not
deteriorate as rapidly. Full-depth rubber crossings do not
require shims, which are additional thin wooden panels that are
located between the rubber and the crossties. 

     In general, contacts agreed that rubber crossings are
preferable for roads with lighter traffic flow and lighter
vehicles. Municipalities appear to favor full-depth rubber
crossings, as they provide a smoother, quieter ride for passenger
vehicles. One contact representing a major railroad, reported
that, although they do not typically use rubber railroad
crossings on heavily traveled roads or those used by heavy
vehicles, they find them applicable on roads with lower traffic
levels. According to two different railroad company officials,
however, rubber crossings are particularly suitable at crossings
where there is a curve in the track or where two tracks cross
each other, typically called a railroad diamond or interlock. In
these cases, a flexible material is essential and rubber is
usually the best choice, regardless of the level of traffic. 

     EPA's research uncovered mixed opinions about the
performance of rubber railroad crossings. A railroad company
official indicated that virgin rubber is somewhat more flexible
than recovered content rubber and it wears a little better. He
stated, however, that recovered content rubber crossings are
slightly less expensive than virgin rubber crossings, and the
performance differences were not pronounced. Only one
manufacturer of rubber railroad grade crossings, of the four
contacted, explained that they no longer produce crossings made
of tire buffings or crumb rubber, because they were finding it
difficult to meet the performance standards of nonrecovered
content rubber. In particular, he noted difficulty in obtaining
comparable physical properties, such as tensile strength. The
company now manufacturers rubber railroad crossings only from
uncured stock (off-specification) rubber. 

     A few states contacted by EPA expressed reservations
regarding rubber railroad crossings, regardless of the recovered
materials content. An official with the Massachusetts Highway
Department reported that a newly installed recovered materials
content rubber crossing was torn up by a snow plow, and another
that had been in place for 6 months did not hold up well.
However, the source indicated that these problems were most
likely due to improper installation, not the recovered materials
content. A Georgia Department of Transportation official reported
that rubber is sometimes used by shortline railroads and less
traveled roads in the state. He indicated, however, that rubber
crossings can be problematic if not installed correctly. They do
not hold up well under heavy loads or if exposed to natural
elements, such as salt from shoreline areas. The New York State
Department of Transportation has found that virgin rubber can be
more readily produced in uniform quality and density than
recovered rubber. Furthermore, an employee with the railroad
section of the Texas Department of Transportation reported that
the state is no longer purchasing any type of rubber railroad
crossings. In his opinion, using recovered materials content
rubber for products that require strength properties is hindered
by the use of steel belts in tires. He said he has witnessed
situations where bits of steel have ended up in the final
product, resulting in reduced strength properties. An official
with the Florida Department of Transportation indicated that the
state has been using full-depth rubber crossings for the past 10
years on roads with high average daily traffic and they have held
up fairly well with few problems. However, he pointed out that
the rubber crossings they currently purchase are manufactured
from virgin material. They had purchased the recovered materials
content shim-type crossings prior to 10 years ago, but found that
the wood shims rotted and resulted in an unstable crossing, so
they switched to full-depth rubber. Finally, an official with the
Vermont Department of Transportation reported that the state is
no longer purchasing the recovered materials content rubber
crossings they had been procuring several years ago. He said that
the state found them to be slippery and to wear out quickly in 5
to 6 years. As mentioned earlier, although many states have
preferences for certain types of crossings in specific
situations, ASTM specifications are not normally considered by
states. The contact from New York, however, indicated that they
do have requirements to meet the minimum ASTM and other
specifications used by certain manufacturers.

     Several of EPA's contacts have had positive experiences with
rubber railroad grade crossings. The following summarizes the
positive comments conveyed by those contacted by EPA.

     *    City of Prineville, Oregon. The city has seven
          recovered materials content rubber railroad crossings
          in place along a shortline railroad that runs through
          Prineville and two neighboring counties. A city
          official reported that they are very pleased with the
          performance of the crossings, which have been in place
          for 5 to 7 years. He reports that they are durable and
          have shown no signs of wearing or cracking. The
          official said that he prefers rubber over asphalt or
          wood, because it has a higher life expectancy and is
          more durable. The city also uses concrete crossings,
          but these have not been in place long enough to
          evaluate their performance.

     *    Delta Railroad Construction, Ashtabula, Ohio. This
          railroad contractor has installed many rubber
          crossings, especially in the Boston area. An official
          with the company reported that the recovered materials
          content rubber crossings they have installed have
          performed reasonably well and are suitable for most
          applications, except for crossings with heavy,
          industrial-type traffic.

     *    Long Island Railroad, New York. The railroad maintains
          more than 300 recovered materials content rubber
          railroad crossings over 594 miles of mainline track. A
          railroad official stated that the newer full-depth
          rubber crossings have held up fairly well and are quite
          durable. The railroad began using recovered materials
          content rubber crossings comprising a shim and a rubber
          pad about 10 to 15 years ago. This product consisted of
          wooden shims on the railroad ties, a 2-1/2 inch rubber
          pad, and steel spikes driven into the rubber and ties.
          They witnessed problems with these crossings because
          the wood shims would deteriorate over time, making the
          crossings unstable. Several states experienced similar
          problems with this type of crossing. For the past 4
          years, however, the railroad has purchased full-depth
          recovered content rubber crossings and has been
          satisfied. The only problem they have observed has been
          with rubber peeling away from the steel used as
          reinforcement inside rubber crossings. Although this
          problem had the potential to affect performance and
          safety, it was expeditiously corrected. The railroad
          official indicated, however, that the problem may have
          been due to improper installation.

     Concrete

     Concrete crossings can be found throughout North America in
applications ranging from the most basic rural environments to
premium crossing configurations in metropolitan areas. Most are
"panel" designs, where the concrete is separated into modular
panels that rest on top of the railroad ties. The other type of
concrete crossing is known as a "tub-type" or "platform"
crossing, which replaces the entire track structure through the
crossing. 

     EPA contacted four manufacturers of concrete railroad
crossings and spoke with 10 state department of transportation
officials and railroad companies concerning their experiences
with concrete crossings. A manufacturer that uses coal fly ash in
the concrete mixture stated that coal fly ash helps produce a
more workable and durable product that helps preclude the
absorption of moisture into the concrete, which helps prevent
cracking and prolongs the life of the crossing. The use of coal
fly ash also contributes to the product's ability to resist
temperature fluctuations and freeze and thaw cycles. While the
contact found no technical barrier to the use of coal fly ash, he
identified a practical barrier in that coal fly ash is not
readily available in all areas of the country. 

     While state department of transportation officials were
unsure whether the concrete used in the concrete crossings they
purchased contained coal fly ash, generally they have had
positive experiences with concrete crossings. The Louisiana
Department of Transportation has installed modular concrete
railroad crossings over the last 3 to 4 years and has experienced
only one design-related problem, unrelated to the type of
material: the approach put too much stress on the crossing.
Concrete is their primary choice for high- to moderate- volume
areas. The New York State Department of Transportation also has
had success with modular unit concrete crossings. Slow speed
shortlines in the state have found the product more resistant to
damage by snowplows. They also have found the product to be
chemically and mechanically resistant to freeze and thaw cycles
on heavily salted roadways. 

     A Georgia Department of Transportation official added that,
although they use mostly asphalt and timber for crossings, the
trend among the southeastern states is toward concrete. Based on
personal research on the use of concrete crossings, this official
recommends concrete or rubber as the preferred choice for
railroad crossing improvements. In addition, one railroad
contractor stated that there are excellent concrete crossings
available and that they are highly durable, lasting 20 to 30
years on average.

     According to one manufacturer, concrete offers advantages in
price, longevity, and ease of installation. Another manufacturer
of concrete modular systems claims that the product is much more
durable than asphalt.

     A few of the individuals EPA contacted had negative remarks
concerning concrete railroad crossings. One railroad official
stated that concrete is more difficult to repair compared to
rubber, because of the weight of the concrete. Although modular
crossings may be removed and replaced, their weight is somewhat
prohibitive. He added that heavy machinery is required to remove
the cement slabs and that smaller rail lines are unlikely to have
this equipment. One manufacturer stated that special attention
must be given to the design and installation of precast concrete
slab crossings to avoid the tendency of some slab units to rock
after a period of use. With a modular system, the crossing sits
on the ties and is dependent on the ties and fasteners for
support. As the ties and fasteners deteriorate over time, the
concrete may become unstable. Platform concrete systems, which
replace the entire crossing, must be removed and disposed of
during track maintenance. For this reason, this manufacturer only
sells the product to port authorities and slow speed tracks that
will not require maintenance as frequently. 

     Asphalt

     At crossings with heavier traffic, asphalt requires more
attention than concrete or rubber to maintain a smooth riding
surface. Without frequent maintenance, rough surfaces result,
posing safety concerns. Conversely, asphalt crossings work very
well under light traffic conditions and where train use and
weight is low enough not to require frequent resurfacing. As with
other surfaces, the lifespan of asphalt crossings is dependent on
the condition of the subgrade and on traffic conditions. It is
difficult to gauge the lifespan of asphalt crossings because they
may be removed for track maintenance before the life of the
material has expired. If left in place for a period of time,
asphalt tends to degrade faster than rubber or concrete under
similar conditions.

     Metal 

     Steel is the most commonly used material in metal railroad
grade crossings. Steel sections can be removed and replaced to
allow for better aeration, compared to rubber, of the ballast and
roadbed section, but they can be subject to rapid corrosion and
are sometimes difficult to hold in place. Steel is used
relatively infrequently and accounts for less than 0.50 percent
of all railroad crossings. One contact stated that steel is not
commonly used because it offers poor resistance for vehicle tires
during skids.

     Wood

     Wood plank crossing surfaces can be continually maintained
by replacement of deteriorated or worn planks one at a time. The
disadvantage is that the wood plank crossing cannot be removed in
one section for track maintenance and then be replaced. Wood
plank crossings may deteriorate rapidly under medium rail traffic
or truck crossings.

     Prefabricated sectional treated timber crossings permit the
removal and replacement of individual panels for maintenance and
replacement purposes and provide good service at locations with
moderate to heavy highway and railroad traffic. The panels are
generally thick enough not to require shims, thus providing a
smooth, stable crossing surface. In some heavy traffic locations,
excessive wear might occur in the normal vehicle track areas.
Although no longer a concern in most states, wear might be severe
in locations where studded tires are permitted.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     EPA identified five state departments of transportation, two
Class I railroads, two regional and shortline railroads, two
passenger railroads, and two cities and counties that are
currently using railroad crossings with recovered materials
content rubber. A Class I railroad is defined as a freight
railroad that has revenues greater than or equal to $250 million,
although this amount changes depending on fluctuations in the
inflation rate. Although EPA also identified five state
departments of transportation using concrete railroad crossings,
none of the officials knew if the crossings contained coal fly
ash. Based on EPA's research, it is likely that at least some of
the crossings contain coal fly ash.

     Funds for the purchase of railroad grade crossings are
available under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Surface Transportation Program. Funds are
apportioned to states by a legislatively prescribed formula based
on state land area, population, rural road mileage, and total
number of public railroad-highway grade crossings in the state.
At least 10 percent of the Surface Transportation Program funds
authorized by ISTEA must be set aside for carrying out
Rail-Highway Crossings and Hazard Elimination programs. Of this
amount, states must reserve for each of the two programs at least
as much as was apportioned for each program in 1991. If a state's
10 percent set-aside amount exceeds the combined apportionments
for these two programs in fiscal year 1991, the excess amount may
be spent for either program but may not be used for other than
safety purposes and may not be used for routine maintenance. The
Crossing Safety Improvements Program is funded at approximately
$140 to $150 million annually, about 25 percent of which is spent
for new or improved crossing surfaces. The expressed goal of this
program is to eliminate 25 percent of grade crossings by closing
access to crossings and rerouting traffic. This, according to
industry experts, will increase the demand for improvements as
the burden on remaining crossings increases. At the same time,
with fewer crossings, a higher percentage of the available funds
for safety improvements will be available for each of the
remaining crossings, allowing for installation of more durable
crossing surfaces such as rubber and concrete.

     At least half of the 10 percent set-aside funds for crossing
improvements must be used for installing protective devices at
railway crossings. The other half may be spent on any type of
safety improvement. FHWA includes crossing surface improvements
in their definition of protective devices. According to industry
experts, all states will use some of the funds for improving
crossing surfaces.

     The 10 percent set-aside funds for grade crossing safety
improvements are available at a 90 percent federal share, with
the remaining 10 percent paid by state and/or local authorities
and/or the railroad. In general, however, railroad companies
(e.g., Union Pacific, Santa Fe) are not required to pay a share
of the cost of the new or improved grade crossing surfaces since,
per chapter 23 of the CFR, Section 646.310(a)(1), these are
deemed "of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroads." 

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating railroad grade crossing surfaces
containing recovered rubber, concrete, or steel. This designation
does not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing railroad
grade crossings manufactured from another material. It simply
requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing railroad grade
crossings made from rubber, concrete or steel, purchase the item
made with recovered materials when the item meets applicable
specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI regarding the postconsumer
and recovered content, EPA is recommending the draft RMAN
recommendations in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based
on the recovered materials content levels shown in Table 11 and
the corresponding table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies
establish minimum content standards for use in purchasing or
constructing new railroad grade crossing surfaces.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 11

      Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
   Concrete, Rubber, and Steel Railroad Grade Crossing Surfaces

Surface   Recovered      Postconsumer   Total Recovered 
Material  Material       Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Concrete  Coal fly ash   ---            15-20
Rubber    Tire rubber    ---            85-95
Steel     Steel          16             25-30
                         67             100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of railroad grade crossing, such as
wood or asphalt. They simply require that procuring agencies,
when purchasing concrete, rubber, or steel grade crossing
surfaces, purchase these items made with recovered materials when
these items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements.

     The recommended recovered materials content levels for
rubber railroad grade crossing surfaces are based on the weight
of the raw materials, exclusive of any additives such as binders
or other additives.

     Coal fly ash can be used as an ingredient of concrete slabs,
pavements, or controlled density fill product, depending on the
type of concrete crossing system installed.  Higher percentages
of coal fly ash can be used in the concrete mixture; the higher
percentages help to produce a more workable and durable product
but can prolong the curing process.

     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items can be
made from steel manufactured in either a Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) or an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF).  Steel from the BOF
process contains 25-30% total recovered materials, of which 16%
is postconsumer steel.  Steel from the EAF process contains a
total of 100% recovered steel, of which 67% is postconsumer. 
*****************************************************************

     6.   Background for Recommendations


     Railroad grade crossings are surfacing materials placed
between railroad tracks, and between the track and the road at
highway and street railroad crossings, to enhance automobile and
pedestrian safety. Railroad grade crossings are made, typically,
of sectional treated timber, full wood plank, asphalt, concrete
slab, concrete pavement, rubber, or metal (see definitions
below). According to a September, 1996, Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) report, the majority of railroad grade
crossings surfaces in the United States are asphalt. Wood is the
second most prevalent material used, followed by rubber and
concrete. According to an official with FHWA, the trend in
railroad grade crossings is toward concrete, specifically
concrete modular systems that can be disassembled. The number of
concrete railroad crossings has increased in recent years due to
changes in railroad preferences, advances in technology, and
increasingly competitive pricing. 

     EPA contacted several organizations to ascertain their
preference or policy position on railroad crossing materials. A
contact at AASHTO indicated that they follow and endorse the
positions held by FHWA. A representative with the American Public
Works Association (APWA) reported the organization does not have
an official position, and an official with the American Roads and
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) reported the same. 

     Definitions

     FRA provides the following standard definitions for the
different crossing surfaces:

     *    Sectional Treated Timber. Prefabricated units,
          approximately 8 feet in length, of treated timber
          individually installed and removable for maintenance
          and replacement purposes.

     *    Full Wood Plank. Wood surface, other than sectional
          treated timber, covering the entire crossing area above
          the crossties. Crossties are the wooden or concrete
          supports upon which the track rails rest.

     *    Asphalt. Asphalt surface over the entire crossing area,
          or in the area between the planks or other materials
          forming flangeway openings, with or without single
          planks on outside of running rails. Flangeways are
          formed parts of the rail that eliminate contact of the
          running rails with crossing surface materials.

     *    Concrete Slab (also "Panel" or "Modular"). Precast
          concrete slabs that are removable, individually, for
          maintenance and replacement purposes.

     *    Concrete Pavement (also "Tub" or "Platform"). Concrete
          surface that is continuous over the track area and
          removable only by destruction of the surface.

     *    Rubber Slabs. Preformed rubber sections that are
          removable, individually, for maintenance and
          replacement purposes.

     *    Metal Sections. Preformed sections of steel or other
          metal that are removable, individually, for maintenance
          or replacement purposes.

     *    Unconsolidated. Ballast or other unconsolidated
          material (commonly crushed stone) placed above the tops
          of crossties, with or without planks on one or both
          sides of the running rails.

     *    Other. Surfaces other than the above: structural foam,
          plastic, etc.

     EPA identified three manufacturers of rubber railroad
crossings containing recovered materials, all of which offer
their products nationwide. Two companies manufacture crossings
from tire buffings and crumb rubber, utilizing 20 to 25 million
pounds and 10 to 11 million pounds of feedstock annually,
respectively. The third manufacturer uses approximately 3 to 4
million pounds of tire buffings in the manufacture of railroad
crossings.

     EPA identified numerous companies that manufacture or
distribute concrete railroad crossings, with at least two that
use coal fly ash. Many companies that distribute concrete
railroad crossings contract with ready mix manufacturers and are
less aware of the material content of the concrete. However, one
manufacturer of concrete crossings reported that, of the four
concrete suppliers it uses, three use coal fly ash. There are
about 3,000 ready mix producers in the United States. According
to ACAA, an estimated 65 to 75 percent of ready mix operators
utilize coal fly ash in a variety of products.

     Steel used to manufacture railroad grade crossings contains
up to 100 percent recovered materials. Almost all steel produced
in U.S. steel mills currently contains recovered material. 

     Table 12 presents information provided by manufacturers of
railroad crossings on recovered materials content availability. 
     

*****************************************************************

                             Table 12

     Recovered Materials Content of Railroad Grade Crossings

Material       Postconsumer Content (%) Total Recovered
                                        Materials Content (%)

Concrete       Company A: Unknown       Unknown
containing     Company B: Unknown       Unknown
coal fly ash   Company C: 15            15

Rubber         Company D: Unknown       Unknown
               Company E: Unknown       85
               Company F: Unknown       95
               Company G: Unknown       85
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA identified no national specifications or standards that
either require or preclude the use of recovered materials in
railroad crossings. Many states, however, have developed
guidelines or criteria for use in selecting a crossing surface.
Different crossing grade surfaces may be appropriate for
different settings, based on highway traffic and functional
classification, types of vehicles using the crossing, railroad
traffic and truck classification, condition of approach surface,
engineering judgment, costs, and the expected life of the
surface. When state or federal dollars are used to build or
improve crossings, states are required by law to offer
competitive bidding and may specify a particular type of crossing
(e.g., rubber). Several states specify rubber crossings as the
surface of choice for high-volume traffic crossings. In practice,
state departments of transportation and railroad companies have
preferences for certain materials, and states work jointly with
railroad companies in deciding what materials to use in grade
crossings.

     The state of Alabama has a policy to use full-depth rubber
or concrete crossings when the railroad is paying for the
crossing or when the state department of transportation is paying
for it through an agency project. A table showing the traffic
guidelines the state observes can be found in the document
entitled, "Background Document for Proposed CPG III and Draft
RMAN III."

     The following ASTM standards for rubber products may be
specified by customers of rubber railroad crossings. Although
ASTM standards are not widely used in bid documents, many
manufacturers provide them in their product literature. 

     *    D2000-96 Rubber Products in Automotive Applications.
          This classification system tabulates the properties of
          vulcanized rubber materials that are intended for, but
          not limited to, use in rubber products for automotive
          applications.

     *    D2240-97 Rubber Property Durometer Hardness. This test
          method describes the procedure for determining
          indentation hardness of substances classified as
          rubber, cellular materials, elastomeric materials,
          thermoplastic elastomers, and some hard plastics.

     *    D412-97 Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Rubbers and
          Thermoplastic Elastomers Tension. These test methods
          describe procedures used to evaluate the tensile
          (tension) properties of vulcanized rubbers,
          thermoplastic rubbers, and thermoplastic elastomers.

     *    D297-93 Rubber Products Chemical Analysis. These test
          methods cover the qualitative and quantitative analysis
          of the composition of rubber products.

     *    E303-93 Measuring Surface Frictional Properties Using
          the British Pendulum Tester. This test method covers
          the procedure for measuring surface frictional
          properties using the British Pendulum Skid Resistance
          Tester.

     *    D1171-94 Rubber Deterioration Surface Ozone Cracking
          Outdoors or Chamber (Triangular Specimens). This test
          method permits the estimation of the relative ability
          of rubber compounds used for applications requiring
          resistance to outdoor weathering or ozone chamber
          testing.

     *    D573-88 Rubber Deterioration in an Air Oven. This test
          method describes a procedure to determine the influence
          of elevated temperature on the physical properties of
          vulcanized rubber.

     *    D395-89 Rubber Property Compression Set. These test
          methods cover the testing of rubber intended for use in
          applications in which the rubber will be subjected to
          compressive stresses in air or liquid media.

     *    D257-93 DC Resistance or Conductance of Insulating
          Materials. These test methods cover direct-current
          procedures for the determination of direct current
          insulation resistance, volume resistance, volume
          resistivity, surface resistance, and surface
          resistivity of electrical insulating materials, or the
          corresponding conductances and conductivities.

     *    D2137-94 Rubber Property Brittleness Point of Flexible
          Polymers and Coated Fabrics. These test methods cover
          the determination of the lowest temperature at which
          rubber vulcanizes and rubber-coated fabrics will not
          exhibit fractures or coating cracks when subjected to
          specified impact conditions.


IX.  PARK AND RECREATION PRODUCTS

     A.   Park Benches and Picnic Tables

     1.   Background
     
     In Section 247.14(c) of the proposed CPG III, EPA proposed
to designate park benches and picnic tables containing recovered
steel, aluminum, plastic, or concrete. In Section E-3 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that park benches
and picnic tables contain the levels of recovered materials
listed in Table 13.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 13

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations 
                for Park Benches and Picnic Tables

Material  Postconsumer Content (%)      Total Recovered
                                        Materials Content (%)
Plastics       90-100                        100
Plastic 
composites     50-100                        100
Aluminum       25                            25
Concrete       --                            15-40
Steel          16-25                         100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing park benches and picnic tables manufactured from
other materials. They simply require that a procuring agency,
when purchasing steel, aluminum, plastic, or concrete park
benches and picnic tables, purchase these items containing
recovered materials when they meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.

     "Plastics" includes both single and mixed plastic resins.
Picnic tables and park benches made with recovered plastics may
also contain other recovered materials such as sawdust, wood, or
fiberglass. The percentage of these materials contained in the
product would also count toward the recovered materials content
level of the item.
*****************************************************************


     EPA requested any information concerning additional park and
recreational furniture that is made with recovered materials and
that might be purchased in appreciable quantities by procuring
agencies. EPA also requested comments on whether any
specifications exist or are appropriate for steel and aluminum
when used in park benches and picnic tables. No commenters
addressed these issues. Besides SRI's general comment on
postconsumer and recovered content levels for steel, EPA received
only one other comment on park benches and picnic tables, which
was related to reporting requirements. Therefore, based on the
research conducted for the proposed CPG III and draft RMAN III
and SRI's comment on steel, EPA is designating park benches and
picnic tables in the final CPG III and revising the postconsumer
and recovered content levels for park benches and picnic tables
made from steel.
 
     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response
     
     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
indicated that some agencies do not purchase park and recreation
products, and, therefore, EPA should write agencywide exemptions
for those agencies so the item does not have to be tracked.

     Response: EPA disagrees. The APP and recordkeeping and
reporting provisions in RCRA and E.O. 13101 pertain to
EPA-designated guideline items purchased by the agency. If an
agency does not purchase an EPA-designated item, presumably there
would be no recordkeeping and reporting for that 
item. Having EPA write exemptions for agencies that do not
purchase items would have no impact. EPA recommends that if a
procuring agency does not purchase a specific designated item, it
could simply include a statement in its APP to that effect.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that park benches and picnic tables satisfy the
statutory criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste 

     According to one manufacturer, extruding high density
polyethylene (HDPE) into a mold requires approximately 6.3 milk
jugs to make one pound of 100 percent HDPE plastic lumber.
Another manufacturer said that in their continuous extrusion
process it takes seven milk jugs to make a pound of plastic
lumber. A third manufacturer states that their continuous
extrusion process requires approximately nine milk jugs to make a
pound of plastic lumber. Assuming between 6.3 and 9 milk jugs per
pound, an average 300-pound picnic table would use between 1,890
and 2,700 milk jugs. Therefore, if federal agencies were to buy
10,000 such picnic tables, between 18.9 and 27 million milk jugs
would be diverted from the solid waste stream. Similarly, if
federal agencies were to buy 10,000 park benches of an average
weight of 125 pounds, it would divert between 7.9 million and
11.3 million milk jugs from the waste stream. According to one
aluminum manufacturer, it takes 31 aluminum cans to make 1 pound
of recycled aluminum, compared to 4 pounds of mined bauxite per
pound to produce virgin material. According to one manufacturer
of aluminum benches and tables, their 6 foot long table weighs 83
pounds and would, therefore, use approximately 2,573 aluminum
cans. Accordingly, if the federal agencies were to buy 10,000
such picnic tables, almost 26 million aluminum cans would be
diverted from the solid waste stream. The same manufacturer sells
park benches weighing 35 pounds. Consequently, if federal
agencies were to buy 10,000 such park benches, almost 11 million
aluminum cans would be diverted from the solid waste stream.
According to the SRI, when 1 ton of steel is recycled, 2,500
pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal, and 120 pounds of
limestone are conserved. SRI also indicated that it takes eight
household steel soup cans to make a pound of steel, and a steel
park bench could weigh anywhere from 150 to 300 pounds.
Therefore, if federal agencies were to purchase 10,000 such park
benches, between 12,000,000 and 24,000,000 steel cans would be
diverted from the waste stream. Appendix I of this document
discusses the generation and recovery of aluminum, steel, wood,
and plastic in MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     A number of technical and performance issues exist with
respect to the different materials used to make park and
recreational furniture. In particular, wood and plastic lumber
park and recreational furniture differ in terms of longevity and
durability, the effects of temperature, maintenance, strength,
weight, and other issues. Different kinds of plastic lumber also
differ with respect to these issues.

     Longevity and Durability

     Many manufacturers of plastic furniture indicated that
plastic lumber park and recreational furniture will last two to
three times longer than its wooden counterparts. They also noted
that plastic lumber is resistant to rot, termites, and general
deterioration. The state of Georgia stated that, although the 100
percent HDPE plastic lumber picnic tables and park benches it
purchases cost 25 to 30 percent more initially, the state
believes that the increased durability and longevity is worth
this initial cost. Georgia chose to purchase only 100 percent
HDPE plastic lumber products in part because it was concerned
that wood/plastic composite lumber might deteriorate more quickly
than 100 percent plastic. A study conducted at Rutgers University
revealed that plastic lumber exposed to ultraviolet (UV)
radiation disintegrates at a rate of only 2 to 3 thousandths of
an inch per year. A purchaser in the state of Wisconsin, however,
stated that a lifecycle analysis comparing wood and plastic
lumber revealed, surprisingly, that standard wooden tables had
lasted longer than anticipated; some of the state's wooden picnic
tables have been in service since World War II. As a result, the
contact felt the increased cost of other materials may not be
justified. The contact did not provide specific information on
the condition of these tables that had been in service for over
50 years. 

     One manufacturer stated that one of its customers, a
national park in the U.S. Virgin Islands, ordered four of their
plastic lumber picnic tables a few years ago. After a rough
hurricane season, the park's wooden tables were washed away or
sustained heavy damage, whereas the plastic lumber tables were
intact. This national park recently placed an order for 50 new
picnic tables. Similarly, two national parks in Washington, DC,
area have used plastic lumber park and recreational furniture for
more than 2 years and expressed satisfaction with their
performance and durability.

     A manufacturer of concrete tables and benches said that
concrete is more durable than almost any other material. At least
one other park and recreational furniture manufacturer, however,
stated that this statement is highly dependent on environmental
factors, such as temperature, rain, and exposure to other
elements. EPA was unable to confirm this statement or obtain
specific figures on durability of concrete. Steel and aluminum
are generally considered more durable than wood.

     Heat and Cold

     Some plastic lumber has a tendency to expand and contract
with changes in temperature. One manufacturer noted that a 6-foot
recycled plastic lumber board may expand or contract a quarter of
an inch with a 50 Fahrenheit temperature fluctuation. At least
one manufacturer said that extremes of heat and cold can cause
warping or cracking, but two government purchasers indicated that
they had not witnessed problems with plastic lumber due to
temperature changes. One manufacturer's product literature states
that single-resin plastic lumber is better than commingled
plastic because different resins expand and contract at different
rates, causing internal stresses that may cause warping.
According to an independent consultant, wood/plastic composite
lumber expands and contracts much less than does 100 percent
plastic, regardless of resin composition. According to this
consultant, incidents of warping in plastic lumber have declined
as manufacturers have improved quality control. The chair of ASTM
Subcommittee D20.20.01 Plastic Lumber and Shapes commented that
plastic inherently has a larger thermal expansion than wood. This
tendency to expand and contract based on temperature changes can
be controlled by putting in glass or other reinforcements, and
can also be accounted for in the design of park and recreational
furniture.

     A purchaser for the state of Wisconsin mentioned that small
table top grills can damage the appearance of plastic lumber
picnic tables. Hot coals from these grills can melt the plastic
and leave ugly scars. According to one government purchaser, in
areas prone to vandalism, plastic lumber picnic tables are better
than wooden tables because plastic lumber catches fire less
easily. ASTM Subcommittee D20.20.01, has a task group currently
studying combustion and combustibility issues.

     In general, plastic takes a relatively long time to heat up,
but also takes a fairly long time to cool down. Heat is a
performance issue with regard to steel or aluminum park and
recreational furniture. Metal components absorb heat more quickly
than either wood or plastic lumber and retain heat longer. This
can cause some discomfort to users during the summer or where
metal furniture has prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. Wood
is generally considered to be a cooler material than 100 percent
plastic lumber, but wood/plastic composite lumber is comparable
to wood.

     Maintenance Issues

     Many manufacturers of plastic lumber park and recreational
furniture say that one advantage of this material is that it is
virtually maintenance free. Wood equipment needs to be inspected
regularly for splinters and rotting. It also may need to be
painted, stained, or treated on a regular basis. The Plastic
Lumber Trade Association's (PLTA's) 1996 report mentioned that
the commercial parks and recreation industry constitutes 50 to 70
percent of the plastic lumber market in part because of
maintenance issues. According to an industry consultant, aluminum
is virtually maintenance-free. Steel, on the other hand, requires
frequent painting, as oxidization can be an issue. 

      One other difference between plastic lumber park and
recreational furniture and wood is its resistance to graffiti. A
purchaser with the state of Wisconsin mentioned that parks and
other outdoor areas particularly vulnerable to graffiti tend to
favor plastic lumber benches and tables because they are
difficult to carve into and write on and easier to clean up. If
written or painted on, plastic lumber can either be cleaned with
a solvent or sanded. A number of plastic lumber manufacturers
state that the advantage of plastic lumber is that it is the same
color all the way through, so that if it is sanded down, it will
not require painting. 

      A contact in King County, Washington, mentioned that
plastic lumber picnic tables may need to be washed more
frequently than wooden tables, which could add maintenance costs.
According to a purchaser with the state of Wisconsin, the
maintenance required for wooden picnic tables does not add
significant costs to park budgets. In a period of declining
budgets, however, many states have fewer employees available for
routine maintenance, and these employees could be doing other
projects in the parks if they were not maintaining outdoor
furniture.

     Strength and Creep Properties 

     According to an industry consultant, composite lumber has
greater tensile strength than 100 percent plastic lumber. Plastic
lumber may bend or sag under weight. According to this
consultant, composite lumber resists bending and warping better
than 100 percent plastic does.

     Creep is a measure of how much a material deforms under load
weight. To test for creep, a length of lumber is suspended
between two supports and a weight is placed in the middle.
According to one materials engineer, plastic lumber has more
tendency to creep than wood. In the above described situation,
wood may creep less, but it will fracture under a strain of
approximately 0.7 percent. By contrast, plastic lumber made of
100 percent polyethylene requires a strain of 600 to 800 percent
before fracturing. In other words, plastic lumber may bend or sag
under weight more than wood, but under strain, it will bend much
more than wood before it breaks.

     Weight

     Plastic lumber park and recreational furniture can weigh two
to three times more than wooden furniture. In areas where picnic
tables are set in concrete, the additional weight of plastic
lumber can make these fixtures more permanent and durable. When
picnic tables are free standing, however, weight can be an issue,
making it difficult for people to move picnic tables together to
create a group setting. In some areas, picnic tables need to be
moved aside in order for the grass underneath and around them to
be mowed. A plastic lumber picnic table weighs approximately 200
to 300 pounds, which can make it difficult for maintenance
workers to move it. The weight of plastic lumber picnic tables
can be a particular issue in areas with vandalism. If a group of
vandals move a table to a new location such as a lake, it can be
difficult for park staff to move it back. Steel is obviously a
heavier material than wood or plastic lumber, and aluminum is
about half the weight of steel. One independent consultant
indicated, however, that manufacturers can circumvent the weight
issue with steel through design modifications. 

     Safety

     The safety manager of Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC,
stated that the park had recently purchased a number of plastic
lumber picnic tables and benches. He has some reservations about
the tables since the additional weight could cause back injuries
when the furniture is moved to accommodate large gatherings. He
noted, however, that one very important benefit of plastic lumber
picnic tables in terms of safety is that the tables do not
require painting with paints that release hazardous volatile
organic compounds and require disposal as hazardous wastes.

     Steel normally is only used for park and recreational
furniture frames and small parts. Because of its hardness
properties, it is generally uncomfortable to sit on and could be
unsafe if fallen upon. Aluminum is a softer metal that may not
present the same safety concerns.

     Other

     One restaurant chain indicated that it no longer purchases
plastic lumber park and recreational furniture because of
negative experiences with warping, discoloration, and
displacement and because of the lack of industrywide standards.
An independent consultant noted the importance of UV stabilizers
and inhibitors to prevent discoloration. In its product
literature, a manufacturer of park and recreational furniture
from single resin plastic lumber claims that single resin lumber
is better than mixed plastic lumber because chemical additives,
such as pigments and UV stabilizers, are dispersed unevenly
through the various resins. One manufacturer mentioned that one
of the benefits of the wood/plastic composite lumber is that,
unlike 100 percent plastic, it can be painted if desired. Wood is
more sensitive to moisture, and tends to warp or swell when it
gets wet.

     EPA identified and communicated with 19 manufacturers of
park and recreational furniture, 15 of which manufacture products
using recovered materials. EPA also identified, but did not
communicate with, 36 additional manufacturers or distributors.
The majority of these manufacturers and distributors sell their
products nationally. 

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement 

     The GSA contracting representative for Schedule 781-C Park
and Outdoor Recreational Equipment said that in 1996, GSA-tracked
purchases of picnic tables and park benches by government
agencies totaled $3,148,996. This figure includes picnic tables
and park benches made from all types of materials; information is
not kept on a material-specific basis. The actual figure for
federal spending is approximately 20 percent larger, since the
U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) often buy "off schedule."

      The National Park Service (NPS) said many national parks do
buy picnic tables and park benches, but that no aggregate figures
are available since purchasing is now decentralized. NPS
encourages purchasers to buy items with recycled content. Rock
Creek Park recently purchased plastic lumber park and
recreational furniture. The Edwin W. Forestrief National Wildlife
Refuge in New Jersey, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reserve,
purchased plastic lumber picnic tables and park benches and is
satisfied with their performance. The Prince William Forest
National Park in Triangle, Virginia, has repeatedly purchased
plastic lumber picnic tables and is so satisfied that it would
like to replace all of its old wooden tables with recycled
plastic lumber tables. The Navy stated that naval bases purchase
park and recreational furniture and some of them purchase plastic
lumber park and recreational furniture. A manufacturer mentioned
that its main government buyers are military agencies; one of its
main clients is the DoD in the state of Texas.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating park benches and picnic tables containing
recovered steel, aluminum, plastic, plastic composites, and
concrete. This designation does not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing park benches and picnic tables manufactured from
another material, such as wood. It simply requires that a
procuring agency, when purchasing park benches and picnic tables,
purchase these items with recovered materials when these items
meet applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI regarding the postconsumer
and recovered content, EPA is recommending the draft RMAN
recommendations in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based
on the recovered materials content levels shown in Table 14 and
the corresponding table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies
establish minimum content standards for use in purchasing new
park benches and picnic tables. 


*****************************************************************

                             Table 14

      Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
            Park Benches and Picnic Tables Containing 
         Recovered Aluminum, Steel, Concrete, or Plastic

Material       Postconsumer Content (%) Total Recovered
                                        Materials Content (%)

Plastics       90-100                   100
Plastic 
composites     50-100                   100
Aluminum       25                       25
Concrete       --                       15-40
Steel          16                       25-30
               67                       100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing park benches or picnic tables made from other
materials.  They simply require that procuring agencies, when
purchasing park benches or picnic tables made from plastic,
aluminum, concrete, or steel purchase these items made with
recovered materials when these items meet applicable
specifications and performance requirements.

     "Plastics" includes both single and mixed plastic resins. 
Picnic tables and park benches made with recovered plastics may
also contain other recovered materials such as sawdust, wood, or
fiberglass.  The percentage of these materials contained in the
product would also count toward the recovered materials content
level of the item.

     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items can be
made from steel manufactured in either a Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) or an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF).  Steel from the BOF
process contains 25-30% total recovered materials, of which 16%
is postconsumer steel.  Steel from the EAF process contains a
total of 100% recovered steel, of which 67% is postconsumer. 
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Park and recreational furniture is found in parks, outdoor
recreational facilities, and the grounds of office buildings and
other facilities. This furniture consists primarily of park
benches and picnic tables. 

     Park Benches 
     
     Park benches provide opportunities for people to rest and
comfortably enjoy outdoor settings. Park benches are typically
made from concrete, brick, aluminum, steel, wood, or plastic
lumber. Benches are available in a number of different styles and
designs, including pedestal benches with a single supporting leg
and standard benches with two supporting legs. They are also
available with or without seat backs and with or without arms.
Benches commonly range in length from 4 to 8 feet. Some park
benches are movable; others are set in concrete. Benches made
from wood or plastic lumber typically have a frame made from
either steel or aluminum with the slats that make up the seat
and/or back of the bench being commonly attached with bolts. 

     Picnic Tables
     
     Picnic tables provide opportunities for people to gather and
eat in an outdoor environment. Picnic tables are typically made
from wood, concrete, aluminum, or plastic lumber. They are
available in a number of different styles, including standard 6-
by 6-foot rectangular tables, hexagonal tables, and handicapped
accessible tables with 8-foot tops. Picnic tables can be movable
or set into concrete.

     EPA has already designated cement and concrete made with
recovered coal fly ash. According to SRI, all steel contains
between 25 and 100 percent recycled material. Aluminum also
usually contains recovered material. There are some indications
that reclaimed wood is beginning to be used in indoor furniture,
but EPA was unable to obtain any substantial information on its
use for outdoor furniture. For these reasons, this section will
focus on outdoor furniture made from plastic lumber, but also
presents information on the use of other recovered materials,
such as steel, aluminum, and concrete.

     Plastic Lumber

     The ASTM draft definition states that plastic lumber is "a
manufactured product composed of more than 50 weight percent
resin, and in which the product generally is rectangular in
cross-section and typically supplied in board dimensional lumber
sizes, may be filled or unfilled, and may be composed of single
or multiple resin blends." As noted in this definition, plastic
lumber is normally produced in standard dimensional lumber
profiles, such as 2- by 4-foot lengths, but it can also be
produced in sheets. Some plastic lumber is available in a variety
of colors, while other types come in only one or two different
colors. PLTA identifies four main technologies used to produce
recycled plastic lumber. 

     *    Single-polymer systems made from recycled HDPE. EPA's
          research noted that most of the manufacturers of 100
          percent HDPE plastic lumber use 100 percent
          postconsumer HDPE for their products. This HDPE often
          comes from sources such as postconsumer milk jugs,
          water jugs, detergent bottles, and soda bottles. 

     *    Mixes of recycled polyethylene and/or other recycled
          plastics (commingled plastics). EPA's research
          identified several different mixtures of resins that
          fall into this category including a mixture of HDPE and
          low-density polyethylene (LDPE); a mixture of
          polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP); and a mixture
          of HDPE, LDPE, linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE),
          and PP. LDPE often comes from sources such as plastic
          bags and stretch wrap. The PE/PP mix comes from sources
          such as detergent bottles (in which the bottle body and
          spout/cap are made of PE and PP, respectively).  In
          addition, a few manufacturers were identified who make
          lumber from unspecified resins. 

     *    Fiberglass reinforced plastic lumber. EPA's research
          revealed that a few manufacturers reinforce plastic
          lumber with fiberglass rods, while others disperse
          glass fibers into the plastic lumber to increase its
          stiffness. 

     *    Wood/thermoplastic composites. Some manufacturers blend
          plastic resin with wood chips and/or sawdust. A typical
          blend is 50 percent recovered plastic (usually HDPE)
          and 50 percent recovered wood. 

     When recycled plastic is mixed with wood, fiberglass, or
some other material to make lumber, the end product is generally
referred to as "composite lumber." EPA also found references to
composite lumber made by mixing plastic and rubber scrap, and by
mixing recycled plastic and recycled paper.

     Plastic lumber is generally made in one of two ways: by
extrusion into a mold or by continuous extrusion. For 100 percent
HDPE plastic lumber, HDPE is ground up, melted, and mixed with
additives. These additives frequently include UV inhibitors and
color. A blowing agent can also be added to decrease the density
of the material. The material is then either flowed into a mold
(extrusion into a mold) or pulled out of a machine and shaped
using a series of sizing plates, then cooled and cut to the
desired length (continuous extrusion).  

      Table 15 presents information provided by manufacturers on
the recovered materials content of park benches and picnic
tables. 


*****************************************************************

                             Table 15

  Recovered Materials Content of Park Benches and Picnic Tables

                    Postconsumer        Total Recovered
Material            Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

HDPE                Company A: 100                100
                    Company B: 100                100
                    Company C: 100                100
                    Company D: 100                100
                    Company E: 100                100
                    Company F: 100                100
                    Company G: 100                100
                    Company H: 100                100
                    Company I:  90                90
                    Company J:  25                25
                    Company K: 100                100
                    Company L:  96                96
                    Company M: 100                100
                    Company N: 0-100              0-100
                    Company O:  90                90
                    Company P:  25                100
                    Company Q:  90                100

Plastic             Company R:  95                100
(Unspecified)       Company S:  60                100
                    Company T:  Unspecified       100
                    Company U:  70                70
                    Company V:  100               100
                    Company W:  100               100

Plastic             Company X:  70                70
(Unspecified)       Company Y:  50-100            50-100
(cont.)             Company Z:  100               100
                    Company AA: 100               100
                    Company BB: 100               100
                    Company CC: 50-100            50-100
                    (comp. plastic/wood/sawdust)
                    Company DD: 51-75             25-49
                    (comp. plastic/wood/sawdust)
                    Company EE: Unknown           100
                    Company FF: 40-60             100
                    Company GG: 30-70             30-70

Mixed Resins 
(HDPE,PET, PE, 
LDPE)               Company II: 97                97
HDPE, 
Commingled Plastic 
(Unspecified Resins)Company JJ: 75 (HDPE)         100
                    Company KK: 50-100 (HDPE)     100 (0-50
                                                  Recovered
                                                  Plastics

Mixed Resins (HDPE, 
LDPE, PET, PP)      Company LL: 0-97              0-97

Mixed Resins (PET, 
HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, 
PVC, PS, and other) Company MM: 100               100

Mixed Resins (PE, 
PS, PP)             Company NN: 10-60             40-90

Mixed Resins (HDPE, 
LDPE, LLDPE, PP)    Company OO: 90-95             100

PE, Fiberglass      Company PP: Unknown           100

LDPE, Wood, Sawdust Company QQ: 50 (LDPE)/
                                50 (Wood/
                                Sawdust)          100

LDPE, PP            Company RR: Unknown           100

Steel/Plastic       Company SS: 25 (Steel)/
                                75 (Plastic)      100
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA was unable to locate any ASTM specifications
specifically addressing the use of steel or aluminum (either
recycled or virgin) in park benches or picnic tables. One
manufacturer of steel benches and tables verified this finding,
citing as a reason the established history of usage and
well-known performance of the materials in such applications. 

     PLTA has been working with ASTM's Subcommittee D-20.20.01 to
develop several test methods for plastic lumber. One hundred
percent recycled plastic lumber cannot be tested using the same
tests already developed for virgin plastic. Tests on virgin
plastic are performed on small cross-sections of the material.
This is an accurate indicator of how the plastic will perform, as
it is a homogeneous material. Plastic lumber, however, is not
always homogeneous in its construction, so tests on a cross
section of this material do not accurately predict how a length
of lumber will perform in certain circumstances. For this reason,
new test methods have been developed for lengths of lumber. These
test methods apply to all types of plastic lumber or equivalent
materials that are not homogeneous at the cross-section. These
test methods were recently finalized and are scheduled to be
available as of early 1998. These test methods are as follows:

     *    D6108-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive
          Properties of Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6109-97 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties
          of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6111-97 Standard Test Method for Bulk Density and
          Specific Gravity of Plastic Lumber and Shapes by
          Displacement.

     *    D6112-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive and
          Flexural Creep and Creep Rupture of Plastic Lumber and
          Shapes.

     *    D6117-97 Standard Test Method for Mechanical Fasteners
          in Plastic Lumber and Shapes.

     A draft test method is also under review for shear
properties. In addition, a task group of the ASTM Subcommittee is
developing performance specifications for plastic lumber and
shapes. These specifications will be divided based on the modulus
of the material; modulus is a measure of the products' stiffness. 

     An industry consultant recommends that purchasers only buy
from manufacturers who willingly provide the results of physical
and mechanical product testing done by an outside testing lab.
This contact believes that independent testing is essential
because the quality of plastic lumber products currently varies
tremendously.


     B.   Playground Equipment

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.14(d) of the proposed CPG III, EPA proposed
to designate playground equipment with recovered materials. In
Section E-4 of the accompanying RMAN III, EPA recommended that
playground equipment contain the levels of recovered materials
listed in Table 16.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 16

      Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
                       Playground Equipment

Material       Postconsumer Content (%) Total Recovered
                                        Materials Content (%)

Plastic        90-100                   100
Plastic 
composites     50-75                    95-100
Steel          25-100                   25-100
Aluminum       25                       25

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing playground equipment made from other materials.
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
playground equipment made from plastic, aluminum, or steel,
purchase these items made with recovered materials when the item
meet applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     "Plastics" includes both single and mixed plastic resins.
Playground equipment made with recovered plastics may also
contain other recovered materials such as wood or fiberglass. The
percentage of these materials contained in the product would also
count toward the recovered materials content level of the item.
*****************************************************************


     EPA did not receive any comments specific to the proposed
designation of playground equipment. The general comments
submitted by SRI pertaining to the recovered materials content of
all steel products pertain to steel playground equipment, and
therefore, the RMAN for this item will be revised accordingly. 

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     With the exception of the comment submitted by SRI regarding
the postconsumer and recovered materials content of steel, EPA
did not receive specific comments on playground equipment.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that playground equipment satisfies the
statutory criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Playground equipment can be made with recovered wood, steel,
aluminum, HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, PP, and other resins. 

     According to one manufacturer, extruding HDPE into a mold
requires approximately 6.3 milk and water jugs to make one pound
of 100 percent HDPE plastic lumber. Another manufacturer said
that in their continuous extrusion process, it takes seven milk
jugs to make a pound of plastic lumber. A third manufacturer
stated that their continuous extrusion process requires
approximately nine milk jugs to make a pound of plastic lumber.
This manufacturer said that the most common lumber profiles used
in playground equipment are 4- by 6-foot and 6- by 6-foot
lengths. A 4- by 6-foot lumber profile weighs approximately 5
pounds per foot, and a 6 by 6-foot lumber profile weighs
approximately 7 pounds. Assuming 6.3 to 9 milk jugs per pound, 1
foot of a 4 by 6-foot lumber profile would use approximately 31.5
to 45 milk and water jugs (HDPE). Therefore, if a federal agency
were to buy 1,000 linear feet of 4 by 6-foot dimensional lumber
used in playground equipment, it would divert between 31,500 and
45,000 milk jugs from the MSW stream. Similarly, if a federal
agency were to buy 1,000 linear board feet of 6- by 6-foot
dimensional lumber, it would divert between 44,100 to 63,000 milk
and water jugs from the MSW stream. EPA measured a standard set
of playground equipment and found it to contain between 300 and
500 square feet of lumber. Therefore, a standard playground can
contain between 31,500 and 63,000 milk and water jugs.

     There are many different configurations for playground
equipment using varying amounts of plastic lumber. One private
purchaser of 100 percent HDPE plastic lumber playground equipment
notes that the playground set they purchased, which includes
three slides, used 86,000 milk jugs. A standard set of playground
equipment sold by one manufacturer, including four slides,
climbing equipment, and a number of platforms, uses 10,000 pounds
of recycled plastic, 1,500 pounds of aluminum, and 2,000 pounds
of recycled steel. Appendix I of this document discusses the
generation and recovery of aluminum, steel, wood, and plastic in
MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     A number of technical and performance issues exist with
respect to the different materials used to make playground
equipment. In particular, wood and plastic lumber playground
equipment differ in terms of their longevity and durability, the
effects of temperature, maintenance, strength, weight, and other
issues. Different kinds of plastic lumber also differ with
respect to these technical considerations.

     Longevity and Durability

     Several manufacturers say plastic lumber playground
equipment will last two to three times longer than its wooden
counterpart. They also note that plastic lumber is resistant to
rot, termites, and deterioration. 

     Heat and Cold

     Some plastic lumber has a tendency to expand and contract
with changes in temperature. One manufacturer noted that a 6-foot
recycled plastic lumber board may expand or contract 1/4-inch
with a 50F temperature fluctuation. Extremes of heat and cold
can cause warping or cracking. One manufacturer's product
literature states that single-resin plastic lumber is better than
commingled plastic, because different resins expand and contract
at different rates, causing internal stresses that may cause
warping. According to an independent consultant, wood/plastic
composite lumber expands and contracts much less than does 100
percent plastic. The chair of ASTM Subcommittee D20.20.01,
Plastic Lumber and Shapes, commented that plastic inherently has
a larger thermal expansion than wood. This tendency to expand and
contract based on temperature changes can be controlled by
putting in glass or other reinforcements. This tendency can also
be accounted for in the design of playground equipment.

     One manufacturer of 100 percent plastic lumber commented
that their plastic lumber can heat up more quickly than wood, and
that, for customers in hot climates, they recommend light-colored
material. Heat is also a performance issue with regard to steel
or aluminum playground equipment, such as slides. These metal
components can heat up more quickly than either wood or plastic
and retain heat longer.

     Maintenance Issues

     Manufacturers of plastic lumber playground equipment say one
advantage of this material is that it is virtually
maintenance-free. Wood equipment needs to be inspected for
splinters and rotting. It also needs to be painted, stained, or
treated on a regular basis. Plastic lumber playground equipment,
by contrast, is usually the same color all the way through and
does not need to be painted. One private purchaser noted that
wooden playground equipment requires a lot of maintenance,
including treating to prevent rotting and damage from UV rays. By
contrast, with plastic lumber playground equipment, the only
maintenance required is tightening the bolts. 

     One other advantage of plastic lumber playground equipment
over wood is its resistance to graffiti. Plastic lumber is more
difficult to carve into. If written or painted on, it can either
be cleaned with a solvent or sanded down. Plastic lumber
manufacturers say the advantage of plastic lumber is that it is
the same color all the way through, so that if it is sanded down,
it will not require painting. One private purchaser confirmed
that this solid coloring is an advantage, since wooden playground
equipment requires touch-up painting for nicks and scratches.

     Strength and Creep Properties 

     According to an industry consultant, composite plastic
lumber has greater tensile strength than 100 percent plastic
lumber. Plastic lumber may bend or sag under weight. According to
this consultant, composite lumber resists bending and warping
better than 100 percent plastic does. Plastic lumber of both
types has greater tensile strength than virgin wood. In other
words, plastic lumber is much less likely to break under strain.

     Creep is a measure of how much a material deforms under load
weight. To test for creep, a length of lumber is suspended
between two supports and a weight is placed in the middle.
Plastic lumber has more tendency to creep than wood. According to
an industry consultant, 100 percent plastic lumber can be used in
playground equipment but has demonstrated a problem when bolted
or nailed and used in spans of more than 4 feet (for instance,
above a swing). According to a manufacturer, this tendency to
creep can be compensated for by increasing the centers of support
(e.g., from 18 inches apart to 12 inches under decks). Composites
do not experience similar problems due to the presence of wood
fiber. In the above described situation, wood may creep less, but
it will fracture under a strain of approximately 0.7 percent. By
contrast, plastic lumber made of 100 percent polyethylene
requires a strain of 600 to 800 percent before fracturing. In
other words, plastic lumber may bend or sag under weight more
than wood, but under strain, it will bend much more before it
breaks than wood. This tendency to bend rather than break under
weight makes plastic lumber potentially safer than wood in
playground applications. 

     Safety

     Safety is a key issue with playground equipment. In 1990,
the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) estimated
that about 150,000 victims were treated in U.S. hospital
emergency rooms for injuries associated with public playground
equipment. 

     One private purchaser of plastic lumber playground equipment
noted a few reasons why plastic lumber is better from a safety
perspective. It does not rot or splinter, and it does not require
treatment with potentially hazardous chemicals. Wood used in
playground equipment is commonly treated with "inorganic
arsenicals," and special care must be taken to ensure that the
level of dislodgeable arsenic is minimal. In fact, CPSC urges
purchasers to "obtain documentation from the manufacturer that
the preservatives or other treatments applied to the equipment
would not present a hazard to the consumer." CPSC also notes that
wood playground equipment should be inspected regularly for rot
and splinters.

     In addition, CPSC recommends that "to avoid the risk of
contact burn injury in geographical regions where intense
sunlight can be expected, bare or painted metal surfaces on
platforms and slide beds should be avoided unless they can be
located out of the direct rays of the sun."

     In short, plastic lumber playground equipment has potential
safety benefits when compared to playground equipment made with
other materials. It conducts less heat than metal equipment. It
is more resistant to rot, splintering, and breaking than wooden
equipment. And unlike wood, it does not need to be treated with
potentially hazardous chemicals.

     Other

     In its product literature, a manufacturer of single-resin
plastic lumber claims that single-resin lumber is better than
mixed plastics, because chemical additives such as pigments and
UV stabilizers are dispersed unevenly through resins with
different properties. 

     EPA identified and communicated with nine manufacturers of
playground equipment, eight of which use recovered materials in
their products. The majority of these manufacturers sell at the
national level. EPA also identified, but did not communicate
with, nine additional manufacturers.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     The GSA contracting representative for Schedule 781-C, Park
and Outdoor Recreation Equipment, said that, in 1996, GSA-tracked
playground equipment purchasing totaled $4,118,035. This figure
included playground equipment made from all types of materials;
the contact was unable to provide specific information on the
materials used. The contact estimates that the actual figure for
federal spending is approximately 20 percent higher since USPS
and DOD often buy "off schedule."

     EPA contacted HUD, NPS, the U.S. Department of the Interior,
and FHWA. HUD said that purchasing of playground equipment is
done by individual housing projects. NPS said that, in general,
national parks do not purchase playground equipment because of
liability issues. Purchasers of playground equipment include the
U.S. Army and other branches of the Armed Services and the GSA
child care facilities. The U.S. Navy said that no aggregate
figures for purchasing of playground equipment are available as
purchasing is decentralized. The states of Georgia, Wisconsin,
and Washington said they did not have statewide policies for
procurement of playground equipment. One distributor mentioned
recent sales to Langley Air Force Base and Fort Smith Naval Base,
among other U.S. military purchases.

     4.   Designation

     In CPG III, EPA is designating playground equipment
containing recovered plastic, steel, wood, or aluminum. This
designation does not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing
playground equipment manufactured from other materials. It simply
requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing playground
equipment made from plastic, steel, wood, or aluminum, purchase
these items with recovered materials when these items meet
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI regarding the postconsumer
and recovered content, EPA is recommending the draft RMAN
recommendations in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based
on the recovered materials content levels shown in Table 17 and
the corresponding table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies
establish minimum content standards for use in purchasing
playground equipment.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 17

      Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
    Playground Equipment Containing Recovered Plastic, Steel, 
                           or Aluminum

Material  Postconsumer Content (%) Total Recovered
                                   Materials Content (%)

Plastic        90-100              100
Plastic 
composites     50-75               95-100
Steel          25-100              25-100
Aluminum       25                  25

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing playground equipment made from other materials. 
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
playground equipment made from plastic, aluminum, or steel
purchase these items made with recovered materials when the item
meets applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     "Plastics" includes both single and mixed plastic resins. 
Playground equipment made with recovered plastics may also
contain other recovered materials such as wood or fiberglass. 
The percentage of these materials contained in the product would
also count toward the recovered materials content level of the
item.
*****************************************************************


     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items can be
made from steel manufactured in either a Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) or an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF).  Steel from the BOF
process contains 25-30% total recovered materials, of which 16%
is postconsumer steel.  Steel from the EAF process contains a
total of 100% recovered steel, of which 67% is postconsumer. 

     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Playground equipment is found in parks, schools, child care
facilities, institutions, multiple family dwellings, restaurants,
resort and recreational developments, and other public use areas.
Major types of playground equipment include slides, swings,
climbing equipment, merry-go-rounds, seesaws, and spring rocking
equipment. Other playground components include stairways and
ladders, rungs and other handgripping components, handrails,
protective barriers, and platforms. Playground equipment is
usually designed to be age appropriate and is often divided into
equipment for 2- to 5-year-olds and 5- to 12-year-olds.
 
     Playground equipment can be made with a number of different
materials. Many playgrounds have railings and structural support
pieces made out of one material, fittings made out of another,
and decks and platforms made of a third material. Galvanized
steel is often used for railings and structural support, but
these items can also be made with aluminum. Fittings, such as the
bolts that hold chains to swings, are usually made from stainless
steel or aluminum. Decks, platforms, and slides can be made from
steel, aluminum, plastic, wood, and plastic lumber. Much
information is already available about the performance of steel,
aluminum, and wood, so this product description will focus on
playground equipment made with plastic lumber.

     Plastic Lumber

     The ASTM draft definition states that plastic lumber is "a
manufactured product composed of more than 50 weight percent
resin, and in which the product generally is rectangular in
cross-section and typically supplied in board dimensional lumber
sizes, may be filled or unfilled, and may be composed of single
or multiple resin blends." (Note: 50 weight percent resin means
that 50 percent of the product by weight consists of a plastic
resin.) As noted in this definition, plastic lumber is normally
produced in standard dimensional lumber profiles, such as 2- by
4-foot lengths, but it can also be produced in sheets. Some
plastic lumber is available in a variety of colors, while other
types come in only one or two different shades. PLTA identifies
four main technologies used to produce recycled plastic lumber. 

     *    Single-polymer systems made from recycled HDPE. EPA's
          research noted that most of the manufacturers of 100
          percent HDPE plastic lumber use 100 percent
          postconsumer HDPE for their products. This HDPE often
          comes from sources such as used milk jugs, water jugs,
          detergent bottles, and soda bottles. 

     *    Mixes of recycled PE and/or other recycled plastics
          (commingled plastics). EPA's research identified
          several different mixtures of resins that fall into
          this category, including HDPE and LDPE; PE and PP; and
          HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, and PP. In addition, a few
          manufacturers were identified who make lumber from
          unspecified resins. 

     *    Fiberglass reinforced PE. EPA's research revealed that
          a few manufacturers reinforce plastic lumber with
          fiberglass rods, while others disperse fiberglass into
          the plastic lumber to increase its stiffness. 

     *    Wood/thermoplastic composites. Some manufacturers blend
          plastic resin with wood chips and/or sawdust. A typical
          blend is 50 percent recovered plastic (usually HDPE)
          and 50 percent recovered wood. 

     When recycled plastic is mixed with wood, fiberglass, or
some other material to make lumber, the end product is generally
referred to as "composite lumber."

     Plastic lumber is generally made in one of two ways: by
extrusion into a mold, or by continuous extrusion. For 100
percent HDPE plastic lumber, the HDPE is ground up, melted, and
mixed with additives. These additives frequently include UV
inhibitors and color. A blowing agent can also be added to
decrease the density of the material. The material is then either
flowed into a mold (extrusion into a mold) or pulled out of a
machine and shaped using a series of sizing plates, then cooled
and cut to the desired length (continuous extrusion). Table 18
provides information on the availability of playground equipment
manufactured with recovered materials.


*****************************************************************
                                 
                             Table 18

       Recovered Materials Content of Playground Equipment
                      (Nonstructural Pieces)

Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
               Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

HDPE           Company A:  100          100
               Company B:  50           100
               Company C:  0-100        0-100
               Company D:  60           85-90
               Company E:  100          100
               Company F:  20           30-90
               Company G:  100          100
               Company H:  100          100
               Company I:  96           96
               Company J:  98.9         98.9

HDPE, LDPE, 
LLDPE, and PP  Company K: 90-95         100
               Company L: 90-95         100

Plastic        Company M: 95            100
(Unspecified   Company N: Unspecified   Unspecified
Resins)

Composite 
Plastic/
Fiberglass     Company O: 75 (Plastic)  20 Fiberglass)/95 
                                        (Total)

Steel          Company P: 25-100        25-100
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     Playground equipment is subject to CPSC guidelines and ASTM
standard F-1487-95, Safety Performance Specification for
Playground Equipment for Public Use. Both of these standards note
that playground equipment should be "manufactured and constructed
only of materials which have a demonstrated record of durability
in the playground or similar outdoor setting." The CPSC
guidelines do not preclude the use of recovered materials. The
ASTM standards note that "any new materials shall be documented
or tested accordingly for durability by the playground equipment
manufacturer." 

     Both CPSC and ASTM note issues with regard to the metal
fittings and structural pieces used in playground equipment. ASTM
states that "metals subject to structural degradation such as
rust and corrosion shall be painted, galvanized, or otherwise
treated." Similarly, CPSC notes that "ferrous metals should be
painted, galvanized, or otherwise treated to prevent rust."

     One private purchaser mentioned that, in addition to ASTM
and CPSC standards, playground equipment must also meet state and
local codes and standards as well as federal child safety laws. 

     PLTA has been working with ASTM's Subcommittee D-20.20.01 to
develop several test methods for plastic lumber. One hundred
percent recycled plastic lumber cannot be tested using the same
tests already developed for virgin plastic. Tests on virgin
plastic are performed on small cross-sections of the material.
While this is an accurate indicator of how the virgin plastic
will perform, as it is a homogeneous material, some plastic
lumber is not homogeneous in its construction, so tests on a
cross-section of this material do not accurately predict how a
length of lumber will perform in certain circumstances. For this
reason, new test methods have been developed for lengths of
lumber. These test methods apply to all types of plastic lumber
or equivalent materials that are not homogeneous at the
cross-section. These test methods were recently finalized and are
scheduled to be available as of early 1998. These test methods
are as follows:

     *    D6108-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive
          Properties of Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6109-97 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties
          of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6111-97 Standard Test Method for Bulk Density and
          Specific Gravity of Plastic Lumber and Shapes by
          Displacement.

     *    D6112-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive and
          Flexural Creep and Creep Rupture of Plastic Lumber and
          Shapes.

     *    D6117-97 Standard Test Method for Mechanical Fasteners
          in Plastic Lumber and Shapes.

     A draft test method is also under review for shear
properties. In addition, a task group of the ASTM subcommittee,
working with Batelle Laboratory, is developing performance
specifications for plastic lumber and shapes. These
specifications will be divided based on the modulus of the
material, a measure of the product's stiffness. 

     An industry consultant recommends that purchasers only buy
from manufacturers who willingly provide the results of physical
and mechanical product testing done by an outside testing lab.
This contact believes that independent testing is essential
because the quality of plastic lumber products currently varies
tremendously.


X.   LANDSCAPING PRODUCTS

     A.   Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.15(e) of the proposed CPG III, EPA proposed
to designate plastic lumber landscaping timbers and posts
containing recovered materials. In Section F-5 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that plastic lumber
landscaping timbers and posts contain the levels of recovered
materials listed in Table 19.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 19

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
                 for Landscaping Timbers and Posts

Material       Postconsumer   Total Recovered
               Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

HDPE           25-100         75-100
Mixed 
plastics/
sawdust        50             100
HDPE/
Fiberglass     75             95
Other mixed 
resins         50-100         95-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing wooden landscaping timbers and posts.  They
simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing plastic
landscaping timbers and posts purchase these items made with
recovered materials when the items meet applicable specifications
and performance requirements.
*****************************************************************

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     The Agency did not receive any comments on its proposed
designation of landscaping timbers and posts in the CPG or on the
recommendations contained in the draft RMAN.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that plastic lumber landscaping timbers and
posts satisfy the statutory criteria for selecting items for
designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Landscaping timbers and posts can be made with recovered
wood (sawdust and wood chips used in composite lumber), HDPE,
LDPE, PE, PET, PP, PS, PVC, and other plastic resins. Appendix I
of this document discusses the generation and recovery of wood
and plastic in MSW.

     According to one manufacturer, extruding HDPE into a mold
requires approximately 6.3 milk and water jugs to make 1 pound of
100 percent HDPE plastic lumber. Another manufacturer said their
continuous extrusion process requires seven milk jugs to make 1
pound of plastic lumber. A third manufacturer stated that their
continuous extrusion process requires approximately nine milk
jugs to make a pound of plastic lumber. This manufacturer said
the most common lumber profiles used in landscaping applications
are 4- by 6-foot and 6- by 6-foot lengths. A 4- by 6-foot lumber
profile weighs approximately 5 pounds per foot and a 6- by 6-foot
lumber profile weighs approximately 7 pounds. Assuming 6.3 to 9
milk jugs per pound, 1 foot of a 4- by 6-foot lumber profile
would use approximately 31.5 to 45 milk jugs. Therefore, if a
federal agency were to buy 1,000 linear feet of 4- by 6-foot
dimensional lumber, between 31,500 and 45,000 milk jugs would be
diverted from the municipal solid waste stream. Similarly, if a
federal agency were to buy 1,000 linear feet of 6 by 6
dimensional lumber, between 44,100 to 63,000 milk jugs would be
diverted from MSW.

     One manufacturer of wood and plastic composite lumber made
from recovered sawdust and postconsumer LDPE estimates that
between 25 and 100 plastic grocery bags are used to make 1 foot
of lumber, depending on the dimensions of this lumber (i.e., 2-
by 6-feet, 4- by 4-feet, 6- by 6-feet). If the government were to
buy 1,000 linear feet of this lumber, it would divert 25,000 to
100,000 plastic (LDPE) grocery bags from MSW. This manufacturer
also estimates that, in 1996, the company used 50 million pounds
of HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE and 70 million pounds of sawdust to
produce their products. They were unable to provide figures
regarding the percentage of their products used for landscaping
applications.

     A manufacturer of mixed resin plastic lumber said it would
be too difficult to estimate the amount of recovered materials
used in their products, since they use varying amounts of so many
different kinds of materials. Their plastic lumber consists of
100 percent postconsumer plastic including PET, HDPE, LDPE,
LLDPE, PVC, and PS.

     The amount of lumber used in landscaping varies greatly
depending on the specific application. One manufacturer estimates
that a typical commercial landscaping job might use 50 4- by
4-foot boards.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     A number of technical and performance issues exist with
respect to the different materials used to make landscaping
timbers and posts. In particular, wood and plastic lumber
landscaping timbers and posts differ in terms of longevity and
durability, the effects of temperature, maintenance, strength,
weight, and other issues. Different kinds of plastic lumber also
differ with respect to these performance issues.

     Longevity and Durability

     Manufacturers say plastic lumber timbers and posts will last
two to three times longer than their wooden counterparts. They
note that plastic lumber is resistant to rot, termites, and
deterioration. One manufacturer of wood/plastic composite lumber
said that they have performed a special test simulating the
extreme conditions of the Florida Everglades (e.g., high amounts
of rain and UV exposure). Although the manufacturer declined to
provide the results of this test, they guarantee their products
for 10 years. Two manufacturers of 100 percent HDPE plastic
lumber offer 20 and 25 year warrantees respectively. One
government purchaser mentioned that after using plastic lumber
for 7 years in a number of applications, including landscape
retaining walls, he is convinced that claims about the product's
longevity, serviceability, and durability are accurate. 

     Maintenance Issues
 
     Manufacturers of plastic lumber posts and timbers say one
advantage of this material is that it is virtually
maintenance-free. Wood timbers need to be painted, stained, or
treated on a regular basis. One government purchaser of 6- by 6-
foot plastic lumber profiles used in retaining walls confirmed
that the plastic lumber is virtually maintenance-free.
 
     Strength and Creep Properties 

     Terraces and retaining walls built with landscaping timbers
must be able to withstand considerable pressure from wet soil.
According to an industry consultant, wood and plastic composite
lumber has greater tensile strength than 100 percent plastic
lumber. Plastic lumber may bend or sag under weight. According to
this consultant, composite lumber resists bending and warping
better than 100 percent plastic. Plastic lumber of both types has
greater tensile strength than virgin wood. In other words,
plastic lumber is much less likely to break under strain. 

     Creep is a measure of how much a material deforms under load
weight. To test for creep, a length of lumber is suspended
between two supports, and a weight is placed in the middle. 
Plastic lumber has a tendency to creep more than wood. In the
above described situation, wood may creep less, but it will
fracture under a strain of approximately 0.7 percent. By
contrast, plastic lumber made of 100 percent PE requires a strain
of 600 to 800 percent before fracturing. In other words, plastic
lumber may bend or sag under weight more than wood, but under
strain, it will bend much more than wood before it breaks.

     Heat and Cold

     Some plastic lumber has a tendency to expand and contract
with changes in temperature. One manufacturer noted that an
8-foot recycled plastic lumber board may expand or contract 1/4
inch with a 50 temperature fluctuation. Extremes of heat and
cold can cause warping or cracking. One manufacturer's product
literature states that single-resin plastic lumber is better than
commingled plastic, because different resins expand and contract
at different rates, causing internal stresses that may cause
warping. According to an independent consultant, wood and plastic
composite lumber expands and contracts much less than 100 percent
plastic. The chair of ASTM Subcommittee D-20.20.01, Plastic
Lumber and Shapes, commented that plastic inherently has a larger
thermal expansion than wood. This tendency to expand and contract
based on temperature changes can be controlled by adding glass or
other reinforcements. One government purchaser of plastic lumber
used for 7 consecutive years in boat docks noted that the lumber
has been exposed to temperatures ranging from -38 to 112 with
no problems. Another government purchaser of plastic lumber used
in landscape retaining walls for 6 years said the product has
been exposed to temperatures ranging from 27 to 110 without
problems.

     Weight

     Plastic lumber timbers can weigh two to three times more
than wood. Some manufacturers make hollow profile dimensional
lumber as well as solid dimensional lumber to compensate for this
weight difference. The weight of the plastic lumber may provide
an advantage for landscaping timbers and posts used in structural
applications by contributing added strength and stability.

     Leaching

     One environmental organization, reporting on the chemicals
used to preserve pressure-treated or creosote-treated lumber,
noted, "Studies on the movement of wood preservatives from poles
have found that they move from poles into soil and from the soil
into aquatic ecosystems." Some states, such as California, have
banned the use of creosote. Plastic lumber does not need to be
treated with chemicals and so does not have the same potential
for leaching.

     Other

     A plastics consultant noted the importance of UV stabilizers
and inhibitors to prevent discoloration. One manufacturer's
product literature states that single resin plastic lumber is
better than mixed plastics lumber because chemical additives,
such as pigments and UV stabilizers, are dispersed unevenly
through resins with different properties. One manufacturer
mentioned that one of the benefits of wood/plastic composite
lumber is that, unlike 100 percent plastic, it can be painted if
desired.

     EPA contacted 11 companies who manufacture either
specialized landscaping timbers and posts made out of plastic
lumber or plastic lumber profiles that can be used for
landscaping. EPA also identified 50 manufacturers and/or
distributors of plastic lumber. The majority of these companies
sell on a national level.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement
     
     Materials for landscaping are purchased by all levels of
government but the quantity or dollar value is not known. EPA
contacted the U.S. Department of Interior, HUD, NPS, FHWA, and
the Chief of Naval Operations office. Some U.S. Navy bases
purchase landscaping timbers, but the Navy did not have figures
on the recovered materials used in these products. Within NPS, a
number of parks purchase landscaping timbers and posts, and there
are currently 14 proposed landscaping projects that plan to use
plastic lumber. The specifications and standards used in these
proposed projects were unavailable. The states of Georgia,
Washington, and Wisconsin are purchasing landscaping timbers, but
could not provide any aggregate figures, because purchasing is
decentralized. The Recreation and Park District of the City of
Carmichael, California, has purchased dimensional plastic lumber
for landscaping applications. 

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating plastic lumber landscaping timbers and
posts containing recovered materials. This designation does not
preclude a procuring agency from purchasing landscaping timbers
and posts manufactured from another material, such as wood. It
simply requires that a procuring agency, when purchasing
landscaping timbers and posts made from plastic lumber, purchase
them with recovered materials when they meet applicable
specifications and performance standards.

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft RMAN recommendations in the
final RMAN III. EPA recommends that procuring agencies establish
minimum content standards for use in purchasing landscaping
timbers and posts. Based on the research conducted by the EPA,
the Agency recommends that the standards be based on the content
levels shown in Table 20 and the corresponding table in the RMAN
III.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 20

        Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
         for Plastic Lumber Landscaping Timbers and Posts


Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
               Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

HDPE           25-100              75-100

Mixed 
plastics/
sawdust        50                  100

HDPE/
Fiberglass     75                  95

Other mixed 
resins         50-100              95-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing wooden landscaping timbers and posts. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing plastic
landscaping timbers and posts, purchase these items made with
recovered materials when the items meet applicable specifications
and performance requirements.
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Landscaping timbers and posts are used to enhance the
appearance of and control erosion in parks, highways, housing
developments, urban plazas, zoos, and the exteriors of office
buildings, military facilities, schools, and other public use
areas. Timbers and posts are used in a number of landscaping
applications, such as raised beds, retaining walls, and
terracing. Timbers are generally used in horizontal applications,
whereas posts are generally used in vertical applications.

      Permanent raised beds are generally built with a frame of
rocks, bricks, concrete blocks, railroad ties, or landscaping
timbers. This frame also serves to keep lawn grass and weeds from
invading the bed. 

     Retaining walls are used to retain soil and control erosion.
Terraces can turn a steep slope into flat, usable garden space.
Terraces are often made up of a series of retaining walls and
resemble a series of elongated steps. One option for terracing is
to hold landscape ties in place behind posts driven into the
ground. Stone, pressure treated wood, used railroad ties, and
plastic lumber can all be used to make these walls. 

     Landscaping timbers can also be used to frame walkways.
Landscaping posts can form the upright portions of trellises used
for climbing flowers. 

     Landscaping timbers and posts can be used in similar
applications to lawn and garden edging (designated and described
in CPG II). They can provide a border between lawns and flower
beds. Timbers and posts differ from lawn and garden edging,
however, because they are composed of stiff pieces of lumber as
opposed to thin strips or rolls of material. 

     For many landscaping projects, dimensional lumber, such as
4- by 4-foot lengths, is purchased directly from manufacturers or
distributors and is fit together to make the landscaping
structures. Some companies sell kits for landscaping
applications, such as retaining walls and raised beds. 

     Railroad ties are often reused as landscaping timbers and
posts. Construction remnants can also be reused for landscaping
applications, but this is not common. The two other materials
commonly used in these landscaping applications are pressure
treated virgin lumber or plastic lumber. This product description
focuses on plastic lumber landscaping timbers and posts.

     Plastic Lumber

     ASTM's draft definition states that plastic lumber is "a
manufactured product composed of more than 50 weight percent
resin, and in which the product generally is rectangular in
cross-section and typically supplied in board dimensional lumber
sizes, may be filled or unfilled, and may be composed of single
or multiple resin blends." As noted in this definition, plastic
lumber is normally produced in standard dimensional lumber
profiles such as 2- by 4-foot lengths, but it can also be
produced in sheets. Some plastic lumber is available in a variety
of colors, while other types come in only one or two different
shades. PLTA identifies four main technologies used to produce
recycled plastic lumber. 

     *    Single-polymer systems made from recycled HDPE. EPA's
          research noted that most of the manufacturers of 100
          percent HDPE plastic lumber use 100 percent
          postconsumer HDPE for their products. This HDPE often
          comes from sources such as used milk jugs, water jugs,
          detergent bottles, and soda bottles. 

     *    Mixes of recycled PE and/or other recycled plastics
          (commingled plastics). EPA's research identified
          several different mixtures of resins that fall into
          this category including a mixture of HDPE and LDPE; PE
          and PP; and HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, and PP. In addition, a
          few manufacturers were identified who make lumber from
          unspecified resins. 

     *    Fiberglass reinforced PE. EPA's research revealed that
          a few manufacturers reinforce plastic lumber with
          fiberglass rods, while others disperse fiberglass into
          the plastic lumber to increase its stiffness. 

     *    Wood and thermoplastic composites. Some manufacturers
          blend plastic resin with wood chips and/or sawdust. A
          typical blend is 50 percent recovered plastic (usually
          HDPE) and 50 percent recovered wood. 

     When recycled plastic is mixed with wood, fiberglass, or
some other material to make lumber, the end product is generally
referred to as "composite lumber." Composite lumber also can be
made by mixing plastic and rubber scrap.

     Plastic lumber is generally made in one of two ways: by
extrusion into a mold, or by continuous extrusion. For
100-percent HDPE plastic lumber, the HDPE is ground up, melted,
and mixed with additives. These additives frequently include UV
inhibitors and coloring agents. A blowing agent can also be added
to decrease the density of the material. The plastic is then
either flowed into a mold (extrusion into a mold) or pulled out
of a machine, shaped using a series of sizing plates, cooled, and
cut to the desired length (continuous extrusion). 

     The Plastic Lumber Industry

     The PLTA report, The State of the Recycled Plastic Lumber
Industry: 1996, estimates that the 1996 sales volume for plastic
lumber products was between $40 and $60 million. The report also
estimates that the industry has been growing at an annual growth
rate of 30 to 40 percent. PLTA has identified 27 manufacturers of
recycled plastic lumber, including both 100 percent plastic and
composite types. The report lists figures for percentages of
plastic lumber sale for the park and recreation industry (50 to
70 percent), residntial decking (5 percent), marine and
waterfront use (5 to 15 percent), butdoes not specifically
mention lumber used for landscaping applications.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 21

   Recovered Materials Content of Landscaping Timbers and Posts

               Postconsumer        Total Recovered
Material       Content %           Materials Content(%)

HDPE           Company A: 25-90    25-90
               Company B: 0-100    0-100
               Company C: 75-100   75-100
               Company D: 100      100
               Company E: 50       100
               Company F: 0-100    0-100
               Company G: 100      100
               Company H: 100      100
               Company I: 100      100
               Company J: 100      100
               Company K: 100      100
               Company L: 80       80
               Company M: 25       100
               Company N: 95       100
               Company O: 100      100
               Company P: 0-100    0-100
               Company Q: 96       96
               Company R: 80-100   80-100
               Company S: 30-50    100
               Company T: 95       100
               Company U: 85-95    85-95
               Company V: 100      100

LDPE, HDPE,
LLDPE/Sawdust  Company W: 50       100

HDPE, 
Fiberglass     Company X: 75 HDPE  95 (20 recovered fiberglass)

HDPE, LDPE     Company Y: 90       100

HDPE,
Commingled 
Plastic
(unspecified
resins)        Company Z: 50-100   100 (0-50 recovered plastic)

LDPE,PP        CompanyAA: 100      100

Mixed Resins 
(PET,HDPE,LDPE, 
LLDPE,PVC,PS,
Other)         Company BB: 100     100

Mixed Resins
(HDPE,LDPE,
LLDPE, PP)     Company CC: 90-95   95-100

Mixed Resins
(HDPE, LDPE,
PET, PP)       Company DD: 80      100

Mixed Resins
(HDPE,PP, PET) Company EE: 100     100

Mixed Resins
(HDPE, PET,
PE,LDPE)       Company FF: 97      97

Plastic
(Unspecified)/
Wood/Sawdust   Company GG: 100     100

Plastic 
(unspecified)  Company HH: 100     100
               Company II: 50-100  50-100
               Company JJ: 95      100
               Company KK: 100     100
               Company LL: 0-100   0-100
               Company MM: 100     100
               Company NN: 80      100
               Company OO: 95      100
               Company PP: 50      100
               Company QQ: 40-60   100
               Company RR: 80-100  80-100
               Company SS: varies  96
               Company TT: varies  100
               Company UU: 90      100
               Company VV: 30-50   100
               Company WW: 50      100
               Company XX: 100     100

Plastic
(Unspecified)/
Rubber tires   Company AAA: 100    100
               Company BBB:60      100

PE             Company CCC: 97     97
*****************************************************************

     7.   Specifications

     PLTA has been working with ASTM's Subcommittee D-20.20.01 to
develop several test methods for plastic lumber. One hundred
percent recycled plastic lumber cannot be tested using the same
tests already developed for virgin plastic. Tests on virgin
plastic are performed on small cross-sections of the material.
This is an accurate indicator of how the virgin plastic will
perform as it is a homogeneous material. Plastic lumber, however,
is not homogeneous in its construction, so tests on a
cross-section of this material do not accurately predict how a
length of lumber will perform in certain circumstances. For this
reason, new test methods have been developed for lengths of
lumber. These test methods apply to all types of plastic lumber
or equivalent materials that are not homogeneous at the
cross-section. These test methods were recently finalized and are
scheduled to be available as of early 1998. These test methods
are as follows:

     *    D6108-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive
          Properties of Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6109-97 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties
          of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastic Lumber.

     *    D6111-97 Standard Test Method for Bulk Density and
          Specific Gravity of Plastic Lumber and Shapes by
          Displacement.

     *    D6112-97 Standard Test Method for Compressive and
          Flexural Creep and Creep Rupture of Plastic Lumber and
          Shapes.

     *    D6117-97 Standard Test Method for Mechanical Fasteners
          in Plastic Lumber and Shapes.

     A draft test method is also under review for shear
properties. In addition, a task group of the ASTM subcommittee,
working with Batelle Laboratory, is developing performance
specifications for plastic lumber and shapes. These
specifications will be divided based on the modulus of the
material, a measure of the product's stiffness. 

     An industry consultant recommends that purchasers only buy
from manufacturers who willingly provide the results of physical
and mechanical product testing done by an outside testing lab.
This contact believes that independent testing is essential
because the quality of plastic lumber products currently varies
tremendously.


     B.   Food Waste Compost

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.15(f) of the proposed CPG III, EPA proposed
to revise the existing yard trimmings compost designation to
include compost made from food waste or commingled food waste and
yard trimmings. In Section F-2 of the accompanying draft RMAN
III, EPA recommended that procuring agencies purchase or use
compost made from yard trimmings, leaves, grass clippings, and/or
food wastes in applications such as landscaping, seeding of grass
or other plants on roadsides and embankments, as nutritious mulch
under trees and shrubs, and for erosion control and soil
reclamation.

     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: The Department of Interior's Office of Acquisition
and Property Management submitted a comment expressing concern
about vermin control with food waste compost and believes there
should be a statement added "in accordance with acceptable health
and sanitary practices" after the words "food waste" on page
45578 of the CPG and page 45586 of the RMAN.

     Response: EPA agrees that a qualifying statement should be
added as recommended by the commenter and EPA has revised the
final CPG/RMAN III. At the present time, state agencies have
authority for health and safety standards and permitting of
facilities engaged in composting. That being the case, the final
CPG/RMAN III has been revised to state "...in accordance with
applicable state health and safety standards and permitting."

     EPA notes that quality finished food waste compost does not
have the odor, texture, or other characteristics of the food
waste feedstock. It has characteristics more like soil or peat.
That being said, the use or storage of quality finished food
waste compost should not attract vermin. During the actual
composting process, experienced facility operators completely
cover the food waste feedstock in the compost pile with bulking
agents, a practice which helps alleviate vermin.

     The Agency suggests that compost facility operators should
receive the necessary training and certification before operating
such facilities and has made this recommendation in the final
RMAN III. The Composting Council has issued a standard operating
guide for composting facilities that provides technical
assistance to compost facility operators. In addition, the
Composting Council is in the process of developing, for
consumers, a "seal of quality" for compost products to ensure
quality standards are met in the finished compost products. 

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that food waste compost containing recovered
organic materials meets the statutory criteria for selecting
items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Composting serves as a method of managing organics that
would otherwise be landfilled or disposed of in some other
manner. Up to 60 percent of municipal solid waste is potentially
compostable (including food, paper, and yard trimmings). Appendix
I of this document discusses the generation and recovery of food
waste in MSW. Although food wastes represent nearly 7 percent of
MSW, at present, a small percentage (4.1 percent) of food waste
is recovered. Food waste is often composted with yard wastes that
comprise more than 14 percent of MSW. Composting provides a
unique opportunity to manage large quantities of food wastes and
other organic components of MSW and produce a product that has
many beneficial uses. 

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Performance

     Currently, food waste composting is primarily being done by
large corporations because economic and permitting issues
discourage widespread curbside food waste collection programs.
Due to health code regulations regarding food waste's potential
to contain pathogenic bacteria, compost facilities must obtain
permits to accept food waste for composting. Currently, waste
haulers are reluctant to haul food waste, because of the permits
needed, its weight and odor problems, its potential to soil
trucks, and its potential to contain pathogens. During the
composting process, however, these pathogens are terminated so
that the compost product does not pose a threat to public health
or the environment. 

     Many composters have had difficulty obtaining the necessary
equipment to manage the actual composting of food waste, since
food scraps generate leachate and odors and are difficult to
handle due to their high moisture content.

     Benefits

     The nutrient and organic carbon content of compost serves as
a food source for microorganisms in soil, thus increasing the
availability of the soil's organic and nutrient content to plants
and aiding faster recycling of nutrients within the system. In
addition to returning organic materials and nutrients to the
soil, other advantages of amending soil with compost include:

     *    Moderates soil temperature, so that plant roots are
          warmed in winter and, through water retention, cooled
          in dry, hot conditions.

     *    Suppresses some plant diseases, such as wilt and root
          rot, reducing the need for chemical pesticides and
          fungicides. Compost has been shown to be important in
          controlling wilt disease in certain flowers commonly
          grown for indoor use. Specifically, compost prevents
          fusarium wilt disease on cyclamens, a disease that is
          not otherwise treatable.

     *    Replaces part or, in some cases, all of the fumigants
          and fungicides used on food crops or landscape
          projects, according to research conducted at Ohio State
          University and verified by researchers in Florida,
          Pennsylvania, and Alabama. 

     *    Releases nutrients in organic form, such as nitrogen,
          into the soil slowly over time. This property of
          compost allows for a significant reduction in
          fertilizer use and is compatible with the rate of plant
          root uptake.

     *    Reduces nonpoint source runoff by preventing siltation
          and by degrading pollutants in the runoff.

     *    Restores contaminated, eroded, or compacted soil. 

     Compost's fine organic composition increases the soil's
water-holding capacity. Compost also increases water infiltration
into the soil. Compost helps to reduce soil compaction and
increase soil friability, thus decreasing the erodability of
soil. Finally, compost prevents the crusting of soil surfaces,
which can otherwise inhibit seedling growth.

     Economic Feasibility

     Compost industry experts have demonstrated that mature
compost exceeds the performance of peat moss, potting soil, or
topsoil in function, since mature compost provides nutrients and
acts as a fertilizer, mulch, and potting soil. In an economic
comparison, however, experts indicate that peat moss, potting
soil, and topsoil are compost's closest competitors. Compost
prices are usually comparable to or less than those for peat
moss, potting soil, and topsoil. Some specially designed composts
are more expensive, however, than traditional potting soil mixes
alone. In these cases, the compost is able to substitute not only
for potting soil, but also for fertilizers and pesticides, since
compost naturally provides extra nutrients and retards diseases
and pests.

     According to several contacts, curbside food waste
collection projects are not currently cost-effective, though
there are about 15 to 20 such programs in operation in the
country. It is still cheaper to landfill household food waste,
due to transportation issues and permit requirements.

     Companies that operate large food production facilities have
found food waste composting to be economically attractive. While
initially only avoiding disposal costs, one such company expects
to profit from its operation within the next 2 years through
increased revenues from the sale of compost, tipping fee revenues
from yard trimmings brought to the site, and improved efficiency
of the overall operation.

     The same company transports materials, including spent
coffee grounds, tea leaves, pasta, and bread dough, from four of
its food production plants (one in New Jersey, one in New York,
and two in Connecticut) to its compost facility in New Milford,
Connecticut. The company sells the finished product to a
distributor which then sells the compost in bulk. It uses an
aerated windrow system in a closed building for more than 85
percent of the material. The remaining material is processed in
one of three open bay compost agitators utilizing specialized
equipment. Due to recurring maintenance problems with the
equipment, the company plans to eventually process all of its
compost using the windrow system. In fact, the majority of
operating composting facilities utilize the windrow composting
method. The company sells the finished product to a distributor,
which sells the compost in bulk for $2 to $16 per yard, depending
upon market fluctuations. 

     Another large company would not discuss the economics of its
operation in detail, but revealed that it sends liquor from
cleaning operations, liquid drained out of grains, cattle feed,
and bottle cleaning wastes to the city of Merrimack, New
Hampshire. Merrimack mixes this waste with municipal sewage
waste, composts the mix, and sells the compost locally and to a
company that markets the product to more distant markets,
including New York City's Central Park.

     Institutions with large cafeterias, such as universities,
hospitals, and prisons, constitute one of the fastest growing
sectors in the food composting arena. Grocery stores and
restaurants are also sources of food waste compost. One grocery
store's food waste composting program was one of the first in the
country. The Seattle-based chain conducted a pilot project with a
yard waste composter in 1991 and 1992 that showed its food waste
could be efficiently collected, transported, and composted. The
store's composting program and recycling program saved them
$40,000 in 1993. 

     Of the 70 correctional facilities in New York State, 48
compost food waste. In fiscal year 1996, these institutions
diverted approximately 8,300 tons of food waste for a savings of
more than $1 million. These savings included avoided disposal
costs, hauling fees, and equipment maintenance and storage costs.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

      Military installations alone contain about 20 million acres
of land that need to be maintained. The potential compost usage
(at 40 cubic yards per acre) for even a portion of this acreage
would be significant. A Marine Corps base in Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, for example, has been composting food waste for more
than 2 years. The operation mixes food waste from mess halls on
the base with shredded paper, cardboard, and yard and wood waste.
The facility accepts an average of 10 tons of food waste per
week, generating more than 2,400 tons of yard trimmings and food
waste compost per year for use on the base's more than 150,000
acres. Compost is used on landscaping projects and made available
to contractors for use in construction projects. 

     As part of a 1-year demonstration project, the DOD District
Depot in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, partnered with a nearby
state correctional facility to compost its food waste. The depot
mixed the food waste with scrap wood from its pallet reclamation
operation in two aerated static piles. The finished product was
used onsite for landscaping projects and made available to
project partners, including the local townships. In addition,
Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri generated 42 tons of food
waste compost through a pilot program in the fall of 1995. Using
an in-vessel system, the base mixed yard trimmings with the food
waste generated at a recycling conference in Kansas City. They
have used the compost on the base and given at least 40 cubic
yards to the local solid waste district for a local land
improvement program. By the fall of 1998, the base plans to
establish a permanent in-vessel food waste composting operation.

     Other federal markets for compost made with food waste could
be substantial. As of 1997, the U.S. Forest Service and Park
Service maintain 500,000 miles of roadsides and embankments and
millions of acres of land. The U.S. Forest Service manages more
than 190 million acres of land at 156 national forests, while the
U.S. Park Service manages more than 83 million acres and 369
national parks. At John Muir National Historic Site, for example,
fruit residuals from the 8 acres of orchards and vineyards are
composted with wood chips, yard trimmings, and paper waste. The
site composts approximately 6 tons per year in three 20-cubic
yard containers. In addition, universities, hospitals, and
prisons may be using appropriated federal funds for their
composting operations and purchases.

     To assist in the development of federal markets for compost,
President Clinton issued a memorandum entitled, "Environmentally
and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped
Ground" on April 26, 1994. Agencies are encouraged to develop
practical and cost-effective landscaping methods that preserve
and enhance the local environment. This memorandum requires the
use of mulches and compost by federal agencies and in federally
funded projects. 

     4.   Designation 

     EPA is revising the yard trimmings compost designation to
include compost made from food waste or commingled food waste and
yard trimmings. 

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA recommends that procuring agencies purchase or use
compost made from yard trimmings, leaves, grass clippings, and/or
food wastes in such applications as landscaping, seeding of grass
or other plants on roadsides and embankments, as nutritious mulch
under trees and shrubs, and in erosion control and soil
reclamation. 

     EPA further recommends that those procuring agencies that
have an adequate volume of yard trimmings, leaves, grass
clippings, and/or food wastes, as well as sufficient space for
composting, should implement a composting system to produce
compost from these materials to meet their landscaping and other
needs.

     6.   Background for Recommendations

     The Composting Council and most compost facility operators
contacted support the designation of compost that meets state
standards, with no specifications about the specific organic
wastes comprising its content. Although EPA has no separate
standards for compost, many states use Chapter 40 of CFR Part 503
criteria for "sewage sludge used in land applications" for
compost usage. The 40 CFR Part 503 criteria outline maximum
pollutant levels, such as heavy metal and chemical levels, and
provide standards for other chemicals, such as nitrogen. 

     EPA's research suggests that it is difficult to talk about
"food waste compost" as a completely separate item, since most
food waste composting programs add other available organic
materials such as wood chips, sawdust, manure, or yard trimmings
to their mixes. Different types of compost are better suited to
different applications, making information about the composition
of the compost feedstocks important to purchasers. Thus, there is
no consensus among compost experts about how compost made with a
significant amount of food waste should be classified. There is
agreement, however, that all types of mature compost have great
value due to humus and microorganism content as soil amendments
and fertilizer.

     Composting is the controlled biological process of
decomposition of organic matter in the presence of air to form a
humus-rich material which provides organic matter and nutrients
to the soil. Mature compost (in which the composting process is
completed) is composed of small brown particles, resembles soil,
and is free of pathogens and weed seeds. The Composting Council
defines mature compost as follows:

     Compost is the stabilized and sanitized product of
     composting; compost is largely decomposed material and is in
     the process of humification (curing). Compost has little
     resemblance in physical form to the original material from
     which it was made. Compost is a soil amendment, to improve
     soils. Compost is not a complete fertilizer unless amended,
     although composts contain fertilizer properties, e.g.,
     nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, that must be included
     in calculations for fertilizer application.

     Compost added to soil improves the ability of the soil to
support plant growth. The organic matter in compost is
particularly beneficial to soil with poor infrastructure. Adding
compost to clay soil, for example, reduces soil density and
compaction, increases aeration, and increases soil porosity and
drainage. These soil changes make plants less susceptible to root
rot disease. Compost added to sandy soil increases its ability to
retain water and nutrients and increases its resistance to
drought and erosion. 

      Compost can be used in a wide range of applications. It can
be used as a substitute for peat moss, potting soil, topsoil, or
other organic materials in agriculture, horticulture,
silviculture (growing of trees), and in landscaping. In
landscaping, compost is used as a soil conditioner, soil
amendment, lawn top dressing, potting soil mixture, rooting
medium, and mulch for shrubs and trees, and for restoration and
maintenance of golf course turf and other sports turf. Compost
also can be used for bioremediation of contaminated soils,
treatment of contaminated stormwater runoff, volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission reduction, and reclamation of mining
sites.

     7.   Specifications

     The Composting Council is helping to define and develop
industrywide standards for composts made from various
combinations of materials, including food wastes. The Composting
Council publishes these standards in an operating guide for
composting facilities. The guide also provides standards for the
suitability of different types of composts made for different
applications, depending on the compost mix (59 FR 18878). As
stated previously, many states have adopted EPA's 40 CFR Part 503
criteria for "sewage sludge used in land applications" for
compost usage. Also, in the Department of Transportation's
(DOT's) Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and
Bridges on Federal Highway Projects 1996, the agency specifies
mature compost for use in road construction and does not
specifically preclude the use of food waste in its required
composition of compost.


XI.  NONPAPER OFFICE PRODUCTS

     A.   Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, Clip
          Portfolios,
          and Presentation Folders

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.16(d) of the proposed CPG III, EPA proposed
to amend the existing binders designation to include solid
plastic binders. In Section 247.16(h)-(k), EPA proposed to
designate plastic clipboards, plastic file folders, plastic clip
portfolios, and plastic presentation folders containing recovered
materials. In Section G-8 of the accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA
recommended that plastic binders, clipboards, plastic file
folders, plastic clip portfolios, and plastic presentation
folders contain the levels of recovered materials listed in Table
22.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 22

      Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
        Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, 
            Clip Portfolios, and Presentation Folders

Product                  Postconsumer        Total Recovered
(%)            Material  Content(%)          Materials Content 

Solid 
plastic 
binders        HDPE      90                  90
               PE        30-50               30-50
               PET       100                 100
               Misc. 
               Plastics  80                  80

Plastic
clipboards     HDPE      90                  90
               PS        50                  50
               Misc.
               Plastics  15                  15-80

Plastic file
folders        HDPE      90                  90

Plastic clip 
portfolios     HDPE      90                  90

Plastic 
presentation 
folders        HDPE      90                  90

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing binders, clipboards, file folders, clip
portfolios, or presentation folders made from another material,
such as paper. They simply require that procuring agencies, when
purchasing these items made from solid plastic, purchase them
made with recovered plastics when these items meet applicable
specifications and performance requirements. For EPA's
recommendations for purchasing pressboard binders and paper file
folders containing recovered materials, see Table A-1c in the
Paper Products RMAN (61 FR 26986, May 29, 1996). See Table G-3 in
RMAN I for EPA's recommendations for purchasing plastic-covered
binders containing recovered materials.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company believes
these products could easily be incorporated into other categories
of nonpaper office product. In addition, Lockheed Martin Idaho
Technologies Company does not believe that the reported five
manufacturers indicated in the background document constitute
adequate competition. The company believes, therefore, that most
agencies would write an availability or competition exemption for
these products because they would be difficult to obtain.
Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company does not believe
agencies should have to track and report purchases of these items
if there is going to be an exemption.

     Response: EPA's prior designation for "binders" in CPG I
entailed plastic covered binders, meaning the plastic provided a
covering over another material such as paperboard. The proposed
designation in CPG III is for solid plastic binders, hence, the
initial distinction in designations. The commenters point is well
taken and the Agency will consider consolidating these
designations under the broader category of "binders" in a future
amendment to the CPG as time and resources allow.  

     EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that
because only five manufacturers were identified by EPA, adequate
competition does not exist and, by implication, the items should
not be designated. Section 6002 (e)(1) of RCRA stipulates that in
designating items the guidelines shall "designate items that are
or can be made with recovered materials..." and that "... the
availability of such items" shall be considered. While EPA makes
every effort to identify manufacturers and distributors of items
proposed for designation, this research is not exhaustive nor
does it seek to identify all sources of the proposed items. In
this particular instance, the proposed items, from multiple
suppliers, were on GSA's New Item Introductory Schedule and,
therefore, GSA could serve as a national source for these items.
EPA is well aware, however, that procuring agencies often
purchase items off-schedule and might be unable to obtain some
designated items regionally for one or more of the reasons cited
in RCRA Section 6002(c)(1). If this is the case, EPA recommends
that the procuring agency simply include a statement in its APP
that states the item is currently not available and, therefore,
the agency has concluded that it is not required to procure this
item. Once an agency makes the aforementioned determination, no
recordkeeping or tracking of the item would be required. EPA
notes, however, that in accordance with RCRA Section
6002(I)(2)(D), it is the procuring agency's responsibility to
monitor and regularly update its APP. Should an item that was
previously unobtainable become available, then the procuring
agency should modify its APP accordingly.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that plastic binders, clipboards, plastic file
folders, plastic clip portfolios, and plastic presentation
folders satisfy the statutory requirements for selecting items
for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Recovered materials content plastic binders, clipboards,
file folders, clip portfolios, and presentation folders are made
of postconsumer HDPE, PE, PET, PS, and an unspecified plastic
from recovered circuit boards, telephones, and vacuum cleaners.
Appendix I of this document discusses the generation and recovery
of plastics in MSW.

     According to a distributor of recovered materials content
HDPE binders, each binder is made from approximately eight
plastic bottles collected from residential curbside collection
programs. For every 500 binders ordered, therefore, 4,000 HDPE
bottles would be diverted from the waste stream.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     According to a product distributor, recovered materials
content HDPE binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios,
and presentation folders perform as well as their virgin
counterparts. In addition, two government users of these products
indicated that the products performed well.

     A user of recovered materials content PE binders stated that
the binders performed well and were less expensive than binders
made of virgin materials because of the quantity purchased. In
addition, a user of recovered materials content PS clipboards
stated that the clipboards performed well.

     Recovered materials content solid plastic binders,
clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios, and presentation
folders are available from a number of sources nationwide.

     EPA identified one processor of the recovered materials
content HDPE (minimum 90 percent postconsumer content) used in
binders, file folders, clipboards, clip portfolios, and
presentation folders. EPA identified at least five distributors
that use this recovered material in the products they distribute.
The HDPE binders, clipboards, and presentation folders are also
available through an additional distributor as a New Item
Introductory Schedule on GSA's Federal Supply Schedule. (The
specification numbers are 7510 for binders, 7520 for clipboards,
and 7530 for presentation folders.) That distributor's contract
with GSA is effective as of November 1, 1996, and runs through
October 31, 1999.

     EPA also identified five manufacturers and distributors of
recovered materials content plastic binders, clipboards, and file
folders made from other kinds of plastic, including PE, PS, PET,
and unspecified plastics.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     The vendor on GSA's Federal Supply Schedule for the
recovered materials content HDPE binders, clipboards, and
presentation folders has received numerous requests for quotes
from government purchasers. The company is in the process of
responding to these inquires. EPA was unable to identify any
federal agencies that have already purchased the HDPE products.
EPA learned that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in
Ontario, Canada, has purchased recovered materials content HDPE
binders and is pleased with their performance. The contact stated
that the HDPE binders were slightly more expensive than virgin
materials content solid plastic binders. According to another
source, this price differential results from the slightly higher
costs of recycled resin used in manufacturing binders. This same
source stated that higher prices for HDPE binders can also result
from consumers' willingness to pay higher costs for items with
recycled materials. However, this assessment is not shared by the
industry as a whole. Another manufacturer stated that there was
no difference in price between their recovered and virgin content
HDPE binders. EPA also learned that the school board of Broward
County, Florida, has purchased recovered materials content HDPE
binders; the Missouri Department of Conservation has purchased
recovered-content PE binders; and the Recycling and Litter
Prevention Division of Fairfield County, Ohio, has purchased
recovered-content PS clipboards.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is amending the existing designation of binders to
include solid plastic binders containing recovered plastic. EPA
is designating plastic clipboards, plastic file folders, plastic
clip portfolios, and plastic presentation folders containing
recovered plastic. This designation does not preclude a procuring
agency from purchasing these items manufactured from another
material. It simply requires that a procuring agency, when
purchasing plastic binders, clipboards, file folders, clip
portfolios, and presentation folders, purchase these items made
with recovered plastic when these items meet applicable
specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft RMAN recommendations in the
final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based on the recovered
materials content levels shown in Table 23, procuring agencies
establish minimum content standards for use in purchasing plastic
binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios, and
presentation folders.



*****************************************************************

                             Table 23

      Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for
        Solid Plastic Binders, Clipboards, File Folders, 
            Clip Portfolios, and Presentation Folders

Product   Material  Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                    Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Solid 
plastic 
binders   HDPE      90             90
          PE        30-50          30-50
          PET       100            100
          Misc. 
          Plastics  80             80

Plastic
clip-     HDPE      90             90
boards    PS        50             50
          Misc.
          Plastics  15             15-80

Plastic
file 
folders   HDPE      90             90

Plastic
clip
port-
folios    HDPE      90             90

Plastic 
presen-
tation 
folders   HDPE      90             90

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing binders, clipboards, file folders, clip
portfolios, or presentation folders made from another material,
such as paper. They simply require that procuring agencies, when
purchasing these items made from solid plastic, purchase them
made with recovered plastics when these items meet applicable
specifications and performance requirements. For EPA's
recommendations for purchasing pressboard binders and paper file
folders containing recovered materials, see Table A-1c in the
Paper Products RMAN (61 FR 26986, May 29, 1996). See Table
G-3 in RMAN I for EPA's recommendations for purchasing
plastic-covered binders containing recovered materials.
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Plastic binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios,
and presentation folders are commonly used office products made
from a variety of materials, such as paper, plastics, paperboard,
and wood fiber. The EPA has previously designated paper file
folders, pressboard binders, and plastic-covered chipboard or
paperboard binders. The Agency recently learned, however, that
these office products also can be made of solid plastic
containing recovered materials. As shown in Table 23, the types
of recovered plastic used in these products include HDPE, PE,
PET, PS, and an unspecified plastic from recovered circuit
boards, telephones, and vacuum cleaners.

     Table 24 presents information provided by manufacturers of
plastic binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios, and
presentation folders on recovered materials content availability.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 24

      Recovered Materials Content of Solid Plastic Binders, 
           Clipboards, File Folders, Clip Portfolios, 
                     and Presentation Folders

                    Postconsumer        Total Recovered
Material            Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

HDPE                Company A: 100      100
                    Company B: 100      100
                    Company C:  90      Unknown
                    Company D: 100      100

PE                  Company E:  50      Unknown
                    Company F:  30      Unknown

Plastic 
(unspecified)       Company G: Unknown  80
                    Company H: 15       Unknown

PS                  Company F: 50       Unkwown

PET                 Company D: 100      100
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA did not identify any specifications or standards
regarding plastic binders, clipboards, file folders, clip
portfolios, and presentation folders.


XII. MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS

     A.   Sorbents

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(b), EPA proposed to designate sorbents
containing recovered materials. In Section H-2 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that sorbents
contain the levels of recovered materials listed in Table 25.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 25

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
                           for Sorbents


                    Postconsumer   Total Recovered
Material            Content (%)    Materials Content (%) 

Paper               90-100         100

Textiles            95-100         95-100

Plastics            --             25-100

Wood                --             100

Other Organics/
Multimaterials      --             100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing sorbents made from other materials. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing sorbents made
from paper, wood, textiles, plastics, or other organic materials,
purchase them made with recovered materials when these items meet
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     Wood includes materials such as sawdust and lumber mill
trimmings. Examples of other organics include, but are not
limited to, peanut hulls and corn stover. An example of
multi-material sorbents would include, but not be limited to, a
polymer and cellulose fiber combination. 
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: DOE submitted comments supporting the designation
of sorbents containing recovered materials when such materials
meet the agency's needs. DOE acknowledged in its comments 
that while an agency might not be able to find a sorbent
containing recovered materials for every potential spill, this
would not preclude an agency from procuring sorbents containing
recovered materials.

     Comment: Synthetic Industries (SI) produces sorbents made of
PP that are used to clean up solvent and oil spills. SI is
strongly opposed to the designation of sorbents containing
postconsumer recovered PP because, according to SI, such products
are technologically infeasible. In addition, SI believes PP
sorbents should not be designated for performance-related
reasons, citing doubts about the ability of manufacturers to
produce a highly sensitive PP product from postconsumer material.
SI also stated that it is not feasible to make sorbents with
postconsumer PP since it is difficult to obtain a consistent,
noncontaminated source of postconsumer PP material. SI stated
that if the sorbent's chemical content is not known, it could
react with a spilled chemical, create a further hazard, or not
work properly.

     Response: EPA did not propose to designate sorbents with
postconsumer PP, only those with total recovered plastics. EPA's
research identified three companies currently making such
products. The Agency agrees with the commenter that not all
sorbent materials are right for all cleanups. The Agency stated
this position in both its background document and the proposed
CPG III FR notice (63 FR 45569, August 26, 1998). The Agency
wrote, The type of sorbents used for spill applications generally
depends on the type of substance being sorbed, where the spill
occurs, and worker health and safety issues. The Agency provided
a lengthy discussion of the importance of choosing sorbents for
particular applications both in the FR notice and background
document. The Agency notes that these factors should be
considered regardless of whether the sorbent is made from
recovered or virgin materials. In the RMAN, EPA recommends that
procuring agencies use industry standard specifications when
determining the sorbents to be used in particular applications.

     Comment: The Brookhaven National Laboratory commented on the
performance of recovered materials content sorbents. The
commenter believes EPA needs to convey to potential users of
sorbents that sorbent capacity is an important factor in sorbent
selection for oil and solvent spills, and lower sorbent
capacities compromise performance and will result in greater
waste volumes and higher disposal costs.

     Response: EPA believes that both virgin and recovered
material content sorbents can provide similar performance in oil
and solvent spill situations as long as the appropriate type of
sorbent is chosen (based on a variety of factors including
sorbent capacity) for the type of substance being sorbed and for
the location of the spill.  Whenever an inappropriate sorbent is
used, either virgin or recovered content, the possibility exists
for dangerous reactions, environmental damage, and increased
sorbent use and recovery or disposal.  In addition, regarding
waste and disposal issues, the management of used sorbent
material does not necessarily end in disposal.  Under certain
conditions, some sorbent materials can be reused or recycled. 
Synthetic sorbents, for example, release sorbed substances under
pressure, and inorganic sorbents can be recovered and used again
through a laundering process.  Several federal agencies are
successfully using recovered content sorbents to deal with oil
and solvent spills.  The NPS, for example, uses a product made
from recovered polypropylene, for heavy or viscose oils.  The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Dworshak Dam in Idaho, uses a
product made from 100 percent recovered wood waste, for emergency
spill response.

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
submitted comments stating that the background document does not
discuss price and that it is likely that a price exemption will
exist for sorbents. Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
does not believe agencies should have to perform tracking and
reporting for an item that will most likely be exempt based on
price.

     Response: The price paid for any item, regardless of whether
it is made from virgin or recovered materials, is dependent on a
number of factors including quantity of items purchased, shipping
distance, the strength of the overall economy, and the
operational efficiencies of the manufacturing facilities. That
being said, prices can and do vary for items. EPA has addressed
this issue for all procurement guidelines in its April 20, 1994,
notice for CPG I (59 FR 18884). In that notice EPA stated the
following:

     ... relative prices for recycled products compared to prices
     of comparable virgin products vary. In many cases, recycled
     products may be less expensive that their virgin
     counterparts. In other cases, virgin products may have lower
     prices than recycled products. However, other factors can
     also affect the price of virgin products. For example,
     temporary fluctuations in the overall economy can create
     oversupplies of virgin products, leading to a decrease in
     prices for these items. Under RCRA Section 6002(c),
     procuring agencies are not required to purchase a product
     containing recovered materials if it is only available at an
     unreasonable price. However, the decision to pay more or
     less for such a product is left to the procuring agency
     which may not incur additional costs due to the price
     differentials....
     
     That being said, an exemption for an item based on price
would have to be justified by the procuring agency and, if
justified, could be addressed in the agency's APP. EPA notes
that, in accordance with RCRA Section 6002(I)(2)(D), it is the
procuring agency's responsibility to monitor and regularly update
its APP. Should an item become available that was previously
unobtainable or not purchased based on a price differential, then
the procuring agency should modify its APP accordingly.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that sorbents satisfy the statutory criteria
for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     MSW

     Sorbents are currently being made from mixed office paper,
newspaper, paperboard, plastic, rubber, textiles, wood, and yard
trimmings recovered from the MSW stream. EPA was unable to
determine the total amount of recovered materials being diverted
from the MSW stream into the production of sorbent products. One
company estimates that it diverts about 2,400 pounds of
postconsumer newspapers from the MSW stream each year. Appendix I
of this document discusses the generation and recovery of
materials in MSW currently used to manufacture sorbent products.

     Industrial Waste

     Sorbent products also are being manufactured from waste
recovered from industrial processes, including the manufacture of
lumber, paper, and textiles. Although EPA was unable to determine
the total amount of waste generated and recovered from these
industries, the following are examples of how much of these
wastes are being diverted for the manufacture of other products,
including sorbents: 

     *    Lumber Mill Waste. According to one lumber producer,
          and as previously noted, recovered sawdust is commonly
          used for sorbent products, particularly for animal
          bedding. If the recovered sawdust were not used in
          sorbent products, however, it would generally be burned
          or disposed of in landfills. The contact admitted,
          however, that it is rare for wood waste to be disposed
          of in landfills. Another company estimates it diverts
          between 600 and 1,000 tons of wood waste from the
          lumber industry each year. 

     *    Paper Mill Waste. One company stated that it diverts
          approximately 8,000 tons of fines recovered from paper
          mill sludge each year. Another company indicated it
          also diverts an estimated 8,000 pounds of sludge fines
          from the pulp and paper industry each year.

     *    Textile Waste. A representative of the Textile Fibers
          and By-Products Association said the textile industry
          has been diverting textile fines from sludges into the
          production of sorbent products for years. In fact, only
          some textile waste is being disposed of in landfills. 


     C&D Waste 

     Some C&D wastes are used for sorbents. Gypsum (calcium
sulfate) from construction wallboard trimmings is a component of
C&D wastes, although the sorbent manufactured from this waste
currently is available only from one regional company in
Michigan. 

     A comprehensive list of C&D debris recovery programs is not
available but published reports indicate that programs exist in
all parts of the United States and that it is technologically and
economically feasible to recover wood for use in products and as
industrial boiler fuel, landscaping and hydraulic mulch, sludge
bulking media, and animal bedding. According to one article, C&D
wood waste generation was about 33.2 million tons in 1996, of
which 14.1 million tons were potentially available for recovery;
and 19.1 million tons were already recovered, combusted, or were
not usable (McKeever, Wood Residual Quantities in the United
States, BioCycle, January 1998).

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Criteria for Choosing Sorbent Products Used for Spills

     The type of sorbents used for spill applications generally
depends on the type of substance being sorbed, where the spill
occurs, and worker health and safety issues. The type of
material(s) used to manufacture sorbents is very important to
consider when choosing a sorbent product. Sorbents made from
materials that are incompatible with the substance being sorbed
can potentially disintegrate, create a fire hazard, or pose
problems for worker safety. Organic sorbents, for example, are
incompatible with and should not be used to clean up substances
such as inorganic acids, caustics, or hydrazines and hydrazides.
Sorbents made from organic materials can, however, be used to
clean up most oils and fuels (e.g. mineral oil, gasoline, and
hydraulic fluid), coolants (e.g., antifreeze), transformer oils
(including polychlorinated biphenyls), paints (e.g., latex based,
lacquers, and thinner), alcohols, solvents, toxins (e.g.,
cyanides, sulfamides, and battery acid), and insecticides and
herbicides.

     According to one manufacturer, using products made with
recovered materials can pose some potential problems.
Postconsumer wastes are often contaminated with residuals that
are incompatible with aggressive materials (e.g., highly
flammable jet fuels). The contact also indicated that products
used to absorb some types of jet fuel need to have specific
nonstatic characteristics.

     Where the spill occurs will also affect the type of sorbent
that is used. To clean up spills on water, for example, the
sorbent used should be hydrophobic, or water resistant, so it
will float on water. Sorbents that are not hydrophobic (i.e.,
hydrophillic) are generally not used for spills on water, as they
will sink, causing problems when removing the product from the
waterbody. Thus, for spills on water, polypropylene and a small
number of organic sorbent products that are treated to make them
hydrophobic are the most commonly used. According to the World
Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products, particulate and loose
sorbents are also not recommended for use on open water because
they too may absorb water and sink or be lost to recovery because
of winds, waves, and currents.

     End users also must consider how a sorbent product may
affect the environment, particularly when cleaning up spills in
environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., salt marshes and wildlife
refuges). According to an EPA contractor, a spill response team
must choose a product that will not negatively impact wildlife or
the environment. In costal areas where sea turtles are present,
for example, contractors will generally not use sorbents made
from plastics. Sorbents made from plastics can resemble
jellyfish, a sea turtle's main food source. If ingested by sea
turtles, plastics can cause severe digestive problems or even
death. Entanglement is also an issue when choosing a sorbent
product for areas where sea turtles, manatees, or otters may be
present. In these areas, sorbent snares (i.e., sorbents made from
thin strands of polypropylene fibers) should not be used. In such
cases, the contractor suggests that organic particulate sorbents
(i.e., sweeps) could be used to prevent entanglement. The contact
suggested that in cases where wildlife and habitat protection are
an issue, organic sorbents would work best.

     Worker health and safety issues also can play a role in the
selection of sorbent products. A contact from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, for example, suggested that sorbent mats, pads, and
rolls (made from virgin PP) are the products best suited for the
routine spills that occur during machine maintenance operations.
These products are easier to handle because they lie flat and
keep walking surfaces safe for workers. Particulate sorbent
materials, on the other hand, are difficult to clean up and may
cause workers to slip. While sorbent mats also are available with
recovered material content, the contact suggests that, because
they are thicker than mats made from virgin materials, they may
compromise the comfort and safety of workers' walking surfaces.

     According to a representative of the Coalition for Organic
Absorbent Producers (COAP), using clay and diatomaceous earth
products can be detrimental to worker health. These products
produce airborne crystalline silica, which has been linked to
silicosis, a progressive and sometimes fatal lung disease, and
cancer. In fact, in some states, such as California,
manufacturers of clay sorbent products are now required by law to
put warning labels on their products. According to the COAP
representative, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulates worker exposure levels to silica dust and these
regulations are currently being revisited. OSHA has a Permissible
Exposure Limit, which is the maximum amount of airborne
crystalline silica that an employee may be exposed to during a
work shift. OSHA is still revising the ruling on the regulation
of these products.

     Pollution Prevention Considerations

     Under certain conditions, some sorbent materials can be
reused or recycled. Some manufacturers of synthetic sorbents, for
example, market products that can be reused up to 100 times.
Under pressure, synthetic sorbents will release the sorbed
substance, allowing it to be recovered and the sorbent to be
reused. Manufacturers of organic sorbents, on the other hand,
claim their sorbents can be incinerated for energy recovery and
that this process leaves very little ash residue. In addition,
clay sorbents can be put through a laundering process through
which the sorbed substance and clay can both be reclaimed for
reuse. 

     Sorbent Products Made from Recovered Materials

     According to industry representatives, it is technically
difficult and costly to manufacture melt-blown sorbent mats,
pads, and rolls from recovered postconsumer PP because the
material must be first processed into pellets and then fiberized.
In addition, some industry representatives believe that recovered
PP does not produce a fine enough fiber to meet the same
performance standards as those for a sorbent made from virgin PP.
Contamination of recovered materials may also limit their use for
cleaning up acidic or caustic materials, because trace elements
of certain contaminates could potentially pose a fire hazard.
Contaminates can also damage machinery designed to manufacturer
products from virgin materials.

     Sorbents also can be manufactured from other types of
recovered polymers. For example, one company distributes two
types of sorbent mats made from recovered textile waste,
including wool, cotton, and PP fibers. These fibers can be woven,
needle punched, or layered and subjected to heat to produce
sorbent mats. These products can be used effectively for most
spill applications, except when the spilled substance is of an
unknown origin or known to be caustic or acidic. In such cases,
using sorbents made from recovered textile waste could pose a
problem because of their organic content (e.g., wood and cotton).
In addition, mixtures of various textile fibers do not always
provide for consistent performance and generally do not have the
same affinity for oil as virgin PP. According to a representative
of the company, mats made from recovered materials are
recommended for use where small amounts of oil need to be cleaned
up, whereas PP works best on heavy drips and splashes. 

     Manufacturers and distributors of recovered content sorbents
are located throughout the United States, supplying both domestic
and international markets. GSA currently has supply contracts
with several companies that manufacture or distribute recovered
content sorbents. One manufacturer suggested, however, that there
are fewer suppliers of sorbents made from organic (i.e.,
recovered) materials. 
     
     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     Government agencies procure sorbent products through GSA's
stock contracts and the Multiple Award Federal Supply Schedule.
GSA stock contractors must meet GSA's Commercial Item Description
specification for Absorbent Materials, Oil and Water (For Floors
and Decks). Thus, when purchasing sorbent products from GSA,
government agencies are limited to purchasing sorbents made from
silicate minerals. When ordering sorbent products directly from a
multiple award contractor, however, there are no procurement
specifications. Instead, government agencies rely on the
manufacturers specifications, and a full range of sorbent
products (e.g., organic, inorganic, and synthetic) are available
for purchase. 

     A number of federal and state agencies purchase a variety of
sorbent products, as listed below.

     Sorbents Used for Spills

     *    The U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Safety and Environmental
          Protection Division typically uses PP sorbents to clean
          up spills on water, and paper or cellulosic sorbents to
          clean up spills on land (i.e., spills that occur during
          maintenance of vehicles and boats). The contact did not
          know, however, if the absorbents made from paper are
          made from recovered materials. 

     *    NPS purchases a variety of sorbent products used to
          clean up routine and emergency spills on water, and for
          spills that occur during fleet (i.e., vehicles and
          boats) maintenance. Although they do not track the
          purchase of absorbent products, a contact for the NPS
          claims they spend well over $10,000 on sorbent products
          each year. EPA does not purchase sorbent product.
          Emergency spill response tasks are handled by EPA
          contractors, who purchase sorbents for their cleanup
          activities. One such contractor claims that they mainly
          use products made from virgin PP . These products come
          in several different forms, including pads, blankets,
          sweeps, and 5- and 8-inch booms. These products are
          used for light oils only. For heavy or viscose oils
          (e.g., #6,   bunker-c, and crude oils), the contractor
          uses a product called OilSnare which is made from a
          recovered PP ribbon material. According to the
          manufacturer, this product is made from materials
          recovered from a company that manufactures carpet
          backing. After the backing has been cut to size, the
          seconds are sold to companies that manufacture products
          such as OilSnare. The seconds are either first run
          scraps or reground material. This recovered PP ribbon
          material can also come from manufacturing seconds from
          plastic packaging companies.

     *    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Dworshak Dam in
          Idaho are using Sea Sweep, a product made from 100
          percent recovered wood waste from the lumber industry,
          for emergency spill response activities. The supplier
          of wood waste for Sea Sweep however, said that fiber
          would not necessarily be disposed of in landfills
          because the company would simply sell the wood waste as
          animal bedding. 

     Sorbents Used for Animal Bedding

     *    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) purchases more
          than $10,000 of animal bedding a year, including
          products made from recovered paper.

     *    DOE and one of its contractors purchase a sorbent
          product made from recovered paper pulp waste. The
          contractor recently spent more than $100,000 on
          supplies of the sorbent.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating sorbents containing recovered materials
for use in oil and solvent cleanups and as animal bedding. This
designation does not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing
sorbents made from other materials. It simply requires that
procuring agencies, when purchasing sorbents made from paper,
wood, textiles, plastics, or other organic materials, purchase
them made with recovered materials when these items meet
applicable specifications and performance requirements

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft recommendations in the final
RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based on the recovered material
levels shown in Table 26 and the corresponding table in the RMAN
III, procuring agencies establish minimum content standards for
use in purchasing sorbents.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 26

        Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
       for Sorbents Used in Oil and Solvents Cleanups and 
                    for Use as Animal Bedding

                    Postconsumer   Total Recovered
Material            Content (%)    Materials Content(%)

Paper               90-100         100

Textiles            95-100         95-100

Plastics            --             25-100

Wood                --             100

Other Organics/
Multimaterials      --             100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing sorbents made from other materials. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing sorbents made
from paper, wood, textiles, plastics, or other organic materials,
purchase them made with recovered materials when these items meet
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     Wood includes materials such as sawdust and lumber mill
trimmings. Examples of other organics include, but are not
limited to, peanut hulls and corn stover. An example of
multi-material sorbents would include, but not be limited to, a
polymer and cellulose fiber combination. 
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Absorbents and adsorbents are used in a diverse number of
environmental, industrial, agricultural, medical, and scientific
applications to retain liquids and gases. While absorbents and
adsorbents are often used in the same applications, they perform
fundamentally different functions. Absorption is the
incorporation of a substance throughout the body of the absorbing
material, whereas adsorption is the gathering of substances over
the surface of the adsorbing material. Since absorbent and
adsorbent products are used interchangeably in many applications,
and are to almost universally called absorbents, EPA has chosen
to use the term sorbent(s) to describe all materials and products
discussed in this section. 

     Sorbents are most often used to clean up industrial and
environmental oil and solvent spills. They are also used in
wastewater treatment, odor control, food processing, septic
system maintenance, resource recovery, dust and erosion control,
photography, hazardous waste remediation, precious metal
recovery, chemical processing, and leachate control of phosphates
and nitrates from fertilizers. In addition, sorbents are used in
packaging materials, animal bedding, cat litter, protective
clothing, gas masks, and personal hygiene products. After
reviewing the government procurement of sorbent products, EPA
determined that oil and solvent spill cleanup and animal bedding
are some of the most common applications for sorbents. These
products are purchased with appropriated federal funds and are
commercially available with recovered materials content. This
summary, therefore, focuses on these types of sorbents.

     Types of Sorbents

     Sorbent products are manufactured from a variety of organic,
inorganic, and synthetic materials, or combinations thereof : 

     *    Organic sorbents can be manufactured from virgin
          materials, but most commercially available sorbents are
          made from organic materials recovered from municipal
          and industrial solid waste streams.

     *    Inorganic sorbents are generally mined virgin
          materials, such as perlite or vermiculite. Most
          inorganic materials can also be recovered and used
          again through a laundering process.

     *    Synthetic sorbents are made from either virgin
          synthetic materials or synthetics recovered from the
          municipal and industrial solid waste streams.

     Industry Overview Sorbents Used for Oil and Solvent Spills

     According to industry estimates, the size of the sorbent
products market for the types used to clean up oil and solvent
spills is $400 to $500 million per year, with an annual growth
rate of 30 percent. EPA was unable to determine the market share
for each category of sorbent materials. Government agencies and
trade organizations all indicated, however, that products made
from clays and polymers are the most popular. According to EPA's
research, of the three largest sorbent manufacturers, only one
sells products made from recovered materials.

     The sorbent spill cleanup industry can be divided into the
following two categories: 

     *    Environmental spills that generally occur as a result
          of liquid hydrocarbons, such as gas or oil, being
          accidentally released into the natural environment.
          These spills can occur on both land and water.

     *    Industrial spills that occur as a result of industrial
          or maintenance operations, involving the use of
          hydrocarbons, chemicals, and other liquids. 

     One major producer estimates that the market share of
sorbents for environmental spills and industrial spills is 20
percent and 80 percent respectively. The industrial spill market
can be subdivided into two categories: routine spills, and leaks
and emergency spill response, with the former representing about
90 percent of sales.

     Industry Overview Sorbents Used for Animal Bedding

     EPA was unable to determine the size of the animal bedding
industry. For animal bedding used for both large (e.g., cattle
and horses) and small animals (e.g., pets and laboratory
animals), however, one manufacturer estimates that the industry
is extremely large possibly a $10 to $11 billion per year
industry in the New England states alone. According to this same
representative, animal bedding products are always manufactured
from organic materials. Sorbents used for animal bedding
generally come in particulate (e.g., sawdust) or pelletized form.

     Animal bedding consists of primarily byproducts from lumber
production. Lumber production byproducts provide the material
used in many absorbents. Saw mills that contribute their
byproducts range from large central producers to small operators.
More than half of the saw mills in the industry are large
operations, however, due to the fact that most companies need to
operate in greater volume to stay in business.

     Forms of Sorbent Products 

     Sorbents used in spill applications come in many different
forms, which determine how they are used and collected after use.
Sorbent materials may be either continuous, particulate, or loose
fill or bulk form. Continuous materials are those that can be
handled as a unit, such as pads, rolls, mops, and booms.
Particulates are fine materials that must be spread over a spill
area. These materials are often spread over spills on land and
then removed by scraping, raking, or using vacuum units. The
loose fill or bulk form is typified by wood puff balls rather
than granular particulate. These materials are also spread over
the spill and then recovered by some mechanical means.

     Table 27 shows information EPA obtained on the recovered
materials content of sorbents.


*****************************************************************
                             Table 27

             Recovered Materials Content of Sorbents

               Postconsumer             Total Recovered
Material       Content (%)              Materials Content (%)

Paper          Company A: Unknown       Unknown
               Company B:  10           100
               Company C:  100          100
               Company D:  95-100       95-100
               Company E:  30           100
               Company F:  10           100
               Company G:  100          100
               Company H:  90-98        90-98
               Company I:  100          100
               Company J:  95           95
               Company K:  100          100
               Company L:  95           100
               Company M:  100          100
               Company N:  100          100
               Company O:  100          100
               Company P:  98           98
               Company Q:  100          100
               Company R:  100          100
               Company S:  100          100
               Company T:  95-100       95-100
               Company U:  100          100

Textiles       Company V:  ___          95
               Company W:  95-100       95-100
               Company X:  ___          65-100
               Company Y:  100          100
               Company Z:  100          100

PP             Company AA: Unknown      100
               Company BB: Unknown      25
               Company CC: Unknown      100

Gypsum         Company DD: 100          100

Wood           Company EE: ___          100
               Company FF: ___          Unknown
               Company GG through TT:   100
               Company UU: ___          Unspecified

Other Organics Company VV: ___          100 (peanut hulls)
               Company WW: ___          100 (corn stover)

Multimaterial  Company XX: ___          100 (polymer and
                                        cellulose fiber)

PVC            Company YY: 50           50
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA identified two federal specifications containing
language that precludes the use of organic sorbents in
applications where the type of sorbent material is not an issue.
GSA's specification for Absorbent Material, Oil and Water (For
Floors and Decks), for example, states that the absorbent
material shall consist of a uniform mixture of minerals of the
silicate type.

     According to a commodity management specialist with GSA's
Chemicals and Paint Division, GSA's financial analysts rejected a
recommendation that clay sorbents be discontinued from stock and
consolidated with those sorbents on the multiple awards schedule.
The analysts cited the more than $1 million a year in sales as a
sign that GSA should still make the item available as a stock
item. The contact believes, however, that the demand for this
stock item is diminishing due to increased purchases from the
multiple awards schedule and directly from manufacturers. When
sorbents are purchased through the multiple awards schedule or
directly from manufacturers, agencies are not required to use the
GSA purchasing specification for Absorbent Material, Oil and
Water (For Floors and Decks). 

     The NIH specification for Laboratory Animal Bedding,
Softwood, precludes the use of recovered material. The
specification states that sorbents used for contact bedding for
animals...shall be from unused white pine (or related species of
low resin soft pine) lumber.

     ASTM has test methods for both absorbents and adsorbents
used to remove oils and other compatible fluids from water. These
are Standard Methods of Testing Sorbent Performance of Absorbents
(F716-82) and Standard Method of Testing Sorbent Performance of
Adsorbents (F716-81). Neither of them mention any exceptions or
differences for testing of sorbents made from recovered
materials, however. 

     The federal government does not regulate the use of sorbent
materials in spill cleanup activities. According to Title 40 of
CFR Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, Proposed Rule:

     EPA believes the use of sorbents does not create
     deleterious effects to the environment because these
     materials are essentially inert and insoluble in water
     and because the basic components of sorbents are
     nontoxic.
     
     EPA provides some oversight for the use of inorganic
particulate sorbents and sorbents mixed with chemicals to improve
sorption. In such cases, EPA reviews company product tests to
determine that the product is not deleterious to the environment.
If EPA finds that the product may not perform appropriately for a
specific application (e.g., on open water), it will send a letter
the company expressing these concerns.

     While EPA does not regulate sorbent use, the Agency does
regulate the disposal of sorbents when they are determined to be
hazardous waste after they are used. Regulations regarding the
disposal of used sorbent products are listed in the 40 CFR Part
300, Subpart J. Sorbents that are determined to be hazardous
waste must be reused, recycled, incinerated for waste-to-energy,
or disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill.

     B.   Industrial Drums

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(c), EPA proposed to designate industrial
drums containing recovered materials. In Section H-3 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that industrial
drums contain the levels of recovered materials listed in Table
28.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 28

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations 
                       for Industrial Drums

Product        Material  Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                         Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Steel drums    Steel     16             20-30

Plastic drums  HDPE      30-100         30-100

Fiber drums    Paper     100            100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of industrial drum. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing steel, plastic,
or fiber industrial drums, purchase them made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: The Association of Container Reconditioners (ACR)
represents the industrial container reconditioning industry in
North America. ACR submitted comments suggesting that EPA
improperly favors the procurement of new industrial drums
containing recovered materials over reconditioned industrial
drums. ACR indicated that reuse of industrial drums has a reduced
effect on the environment compared to new manufacturing and,
therefore, better meets the requirement in E.O. 13101 for
agencies to acquire and use environmentally preferable products.
In addition, reuse can divert a significant amount of material
from the waste stream and save a large amount of energy. ACR
referenced a study showing that roughly 10 times the amount of
energy is required to manufacture a steel drum than to
recondition the same drum. ACR indicated that reconditioned drums
are effectively comprised of 100 percent recovered materials. In
addition, on the subject of availability, ACR stated that its
members recondition for reuse as many steel drums as are
manufactured in the United States; approximately 5.5 million
plastic drums compared to 10 million manufactured; and several
hundred thousand fiber drums annually. Furthermore, reconditioned
containers meet all DOT requirements for the transport of
dangerous goods. Finally, ACR suggests that if it is infeasible
for an agency to procure reconditioned drums, the agency should
purchase drums that can be subsequently reconditioned and reused
by other entities.

     Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that the
Agency improperly favors the procurement of new industrial drums
containing recovered materials over reconditioned industrial
drums. Section 6002 (e)(1) of RCRA stipulates that in designating
items the guidelines shall ...designate items that are or can be
made with recovered materials... Many reused drums may, in fact,
have been manufactured with no recovered materials and,
therefore, would contain no recovered materials. In the CPG III
notice, therefore, EPA proposed to designate industrial drums
containing recovered materials. In the RMAN III notice, however,
which provides recommendations to be used in concert with the
designation, EPA suggests ...that procuring agencies reuse drums,
purchase or use reconditioned drums, or procure drum
reconditioning services, whenever feasible. (See 63 FR 45588,
August 26, 1998.) EPA has issued similar designations and
recommendations in the past for items that are not only made with
recovered materials, but that also can be remanufactured or, in
cases where services can be obtained, to reuse the item.
Specifically, EPA designated toner cartridges in CPG I (60 FR
21384, May 1, 1995) and recommended in the RMAN that agencies
give priority to remanufacturing expended toner cartridges (60 FR
21394, May 1, 1995). Additionally, EPA designated reclaimed
engine coolants in CPG I (60 FR 21383, May 1, 1995) and
recommended that agencies ...establish a program for engine
coolant reclamation and reuse.... (See 60 FR 21390, May 1, 1995.)
It is EPA's intent that procuring agencies use the designation of
items issued in the CPG collectively with the recommendations
provided in the RMAN when developing their APPs. EPA believes
that an agency would be in compliance with the procurement
requirements of both Section 6002 of RCRA and E.O. 13101 if it
chose to reuse industrial drums, procure reconditioned drums,
and/or obtain reconditioning services pursuant to the
recommendations in the RMAN.

     Comment: The Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI) is a
trade association representing the manufacturers of 2-1/2- to
85-gallon industrial steel containers (pails and drums). SSCI
submitted comments supporting the designation of industrial
drums, but requests that EPA add the words including steel pails
to the designation, because steel pail manufacturers use steel
produced from the same BOF process as the steel used in steel
drums.

     Response: At this time, the Agency is opposed to adding
steel pails to its designation of industrial drums. Although it
is true that steel pails contain recovered materials, other
materials, such as plastic and rubber also are used to make pails
and these too may contain recovered materials. The Agency has not
researched the recovered materials content of pails made from
various materials and, therefore, does not believe it would be
prudent to designate an item and recommend recovered materials
content levels for only one material without providing
recommendations for the other materials from which the item can
be made. If the Agency decides to consider designating pails in
the future, it will gather information on all materials that
might be used to make pails.

     The commenter should note, however, that Section 601(b) of
E.O. 13101 requires procuring agencies to establish goals to,
among other things, increase their procurement of products made
with recovered materials, regardless of whether these items are
designated by EPA. The procurement of such items should be
considered in any reports prepared and submitted on the status of
an agency's compliance with RCRA 6002 or E.O. 13101. 

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company believes
steel industrial drums are a logical choice for designation,
citing the fact that manufacturers currently produce them in
accordance with the CPG. Many issues need to be resolved,
however, before designating plastic and fiber drums. Lockheed
Martin Idaho Technologies Company did not provide any details of
what it considers to be issues of concern.

     Response: EPA disagrees that there are outstanding issues of
concern. In both the background document and in the FR notice for
the CPG III proposal, the Agency noted that industrial drums are
manufactured from different materials, each of which provides
slightly different performance benefits. Clearly, not all drums
are used to contain all materials regardless of what material the
drums are made from. One of the criteria under RCRA Section 6002
for procuring designated items is that the items meet the
procuring agency's performance standards [6002(c)(1)(B)]. Should
a procuring agency find that its performance standards are not
met by the designated item, they are not required to procure that
item. The fact that some procuring agencies might make this
determination for this, or any other designated item, does not
preclude the item from being designated. Based on EPA's research,
and as stated in the proposed CPG III and draft RMAN III,
industrial drums containing various recovered materials can meet
DOT specifications for packaging, including those for hazardous
materials. Based on EPA's research, the Agency will finalize the
proposed designation for industrial drums and revise the
recommended recovered materials content level for steel drums
based on the general comments received from SRI.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that industrial drums satisfy the statutory
criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Industrial drums are made with recovered and postconsumer
steel, HDPE, and paperboard. Appendix I of this document
discusses the generation and recovery of these materials in MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     DOT classifies regulated materials into three packing
groups: Type I, II, and III. The Type I packing group includes
the most hazardous materials, and Type III includes the least
hazardous. DOT specifies drum performance criteria for Type I,
II, and III materials based on drop, stacking, hydrostatic, leak,
and vibration tests. Drums that meet DOT hazardous materials
packing group specifications are identified by an X, Y, or Z.
Drums with an X rating are capable of passing the most stringent
DOT standards and can be used to transport and store materials
from all three packing groups (Type I, II, and III). Drums with a
Y rating can be used for Type II and Type III packing groups,
while drums with a Z rating can be used only for Type III packing
group materials. Drums rated X, Y, or Z can also be used for
nonhazardous materials. A table listing the drum packaging groups
can be found in the document entitled Background Document for
Proposed CPG III and Draft RMAN III.

     According to one manufacturer of both virgin and recovered
materials content drums, drums manufactured from recovered
materials perform as well as drums manufactured from virgin
materials for some, but not all, applications. There are no
performance concerns with drums manufactured with recovered steel
because all steel drums contain at least 25 percent postconsumer
recovered materials. Recovered materials content fiber and
plastic drums, however, have more limited applications than their
virgin counterparts. One manufacturer of virgin and recovered
content fiber drums explained that recovered content fiber drums
perform differently than virgin fiber drums. They are stronger in
compression tests but weaker in impact tests. As a result, the
manufacturer does not recommend using recovered content fiber
drums for liquids or for loads over 60 kg (132.6 lb). He also
explained that virgin and recovered content open-head fiber drums
do not meet DOT performance criteria for Type I, II, or III
liquid hazardous materials and can not be used to store or
transport them.

     The Plastic Drum Institute (PDI) claims that there are no
performance issues associated with recovered materials content
plastic drums. DOT, however, currently requires virgin plastic
for drums that will be used to transport or store hazardous
materials because plastic absorbs small quantities of some
materials. DOT is concerned that if a drum made from recovered
plastic is used for transporting hazardous materials, the
hazardous materials may react with materials previously absorbed
by the plastic.

     At least one manufacturer produces a multilayer plastic drum
with a recovered content middle layer that is surrounded by two
virgin plastic layers. The recovered plastic is obtained from
postconsumer industrial drums. DOT granted the company an
exemption under 49 CFR 107.107 that allows the manufacturer's
drums to be used for transporting Type II or III packing group
materials. The exemption does not allow the drums to be used to
transport the more hazardous Type I materials.

     According to SSCI, there are 26 new steel drum manufacturers
producing 34.6 million drums and 86.5 million pails annually. PDI
reports that there are at least 10 manufacturers of plastic drums
manufacturing 12 to 15 million new drums annually. According to
the Fiber Drum Institute, there are approximately eight fiber
drum manufacturers producing an unknown quantity of drums. In
addition, according to ACR, there are over 100 drum
reconditioners.

     EPA identified two plastic drum manufacturers and one fiber
drum manufacturer producing recovered materials content drums.
The manufacturers declined to identify the number of drums
produced, citing reasons of confidentiality. The recovered
materials content fiber drum manufacturer stated that
approximately half of the drums they manufacture contain
recovered materials. One of the recovered materials content
plastic drum manufacturers stated that they have the capacity to
make as many as 400,000 recovered content drums a year. 

     Every steel drum manufacturer produces recovered materials
content steel drums.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     A 1994 survey of 28 DOE facilities revealed that the
facilities procured 77,731 drums for waste management, 85 percent
of which were steel. The drums were generally procured by
contractors and not directly by DOE.

     Although EPA believes that DOD procures significant
quantities of industrial drums, the Agency was unable to confirm
quantities because there is not a central office that tracks drum
purchases. In fact, EPA's research found that most drums are
purchased in quantities small enough for individual facilities to
purchase them with government credit cards.

     Steel drums are reused routinely within DOD, but EPA was
unable to determine to what extent they are refurbished. Any DOD
drum that has not contained hazardous materials can be triple
rinsed and reused. In addition, the Defense Reutilization
Marketing Office (DRMO), part of the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) tasked with redistributing excess materials among
government facilities for reuse, frequently provides
triple-rinsed steel drums free of charge to defense facilities
that need them. DRMO stockpiles excess drums when consolidating
nonhazardous materials from drums shipped to DRMO for
redistribution. The drums are triple rinsed and made available to
any facility that requests them.

     An SSCI representative suggested that the Government
Printing Office (GPO) and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving
both purchase large quantities of ink in 55-gallon drums. EPA was
unable to contact representatives from these government agencies
to determine if their specifications include the means by which
the inks are delivered.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating industrial drums containing recovered
steel, plastic, and fiber. This designation does not preclude a
procuring agency from purchasing industrial drums made from other
materials. It simply requires that a procuring agency, when
purchasing industrial drums made from steel, plastic, or fiber,
purchase this item with recovered materials when this item meets
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI on postconsumer and
recovered content, EPA is recommending the draft recommendations
in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based on the
recovered material levels shown in Table 29 and the corresponding
table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies establish minimum
content standards for use in purchasing industrial drums.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 29

      Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for 
            Steel, Plastic, and Fiber Industrial Drums

Product        Material  Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                         Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Steel drums    Steel     16             25-30

Plastic drums  HDPE      30-100         30-100

Fiber drums    Paper     100            100

Notes: EPA's recommendation does not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of industrial drum.  It simply
requires that procuring agencies, when purchasing steel, plastic,
or fiber industrial drums, purchase these items made with
recovered materials when these items meet applicable
specifications and performance requirements.

     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items are made
from steel manufactured in a Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF).  Steel
from the BOF process contains 25-30% total recovered materials,
of which 16% is postconsumer steel.  
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     An industrial drum is a cylindrical container used for
shipping and storing liquid or solid materials. They are
typically manufactured in 5-, 15-, 30-, and 55-gallon sizes,
although other sizes are available. Containers under 7 gallons
are known throughout the industry as pails. 

     Industrial drums are manufactured from a variety of
materials, including steel, plastic, and pressed fiberboard. SSCI
estimates that 35 million new steel drums were manufactured in
1995 and, according to PDI, between 12 and 15 million plastic
drums are manufactured annually. The International Fiber Drum
Institute was unable to provide an estimate for the number of
fiber drums manufactured.

     Drums are manufactured from different materials, each of
which provides slightly different performance or cost benefits.
Fiber drums, for example, are the lightest and least expensive,
but are not as durable as steel or plastic drums. Plastic drums
are more durable than fiber drums and lighter and less expensive
than steel drums, but are not traditionally used for certain
materials, such as petroleum products, because of the costs
involved with treating the plastic to prevent adverse reactions.
Steel drums are used more widely than plastic or fiber drums but
are heavier and dent and rust with use.

     While drums can be used to ship a very large variety of
materials, most drums are used to ship chemical and petroleum
products. A 1996 SSCI study determined that 39 percent of drums
are used for chemicals, 15 percent for petroleum products, 11
percent for paints and coatings, 6 percent for food products, and
29 percent for other unspecified uses. The study also estimated
that over 40 percent of drums (in the 30- to 55-gallon range) are
used for transporting and storing hazardous materials. SSCI
estimates that up to 70 percent of the drums purchased for use by
the Federal government may be used for hazardous materials, based
on the nature of the products typically stored and transported by
the federal government.

     Drums can be divided into two categories: closed head and
open head. Closed head drums have a permanently affixed lid with
two sealable openings on top, a 2-inch and a 3/4-inch opening.
They are usually used to hold oils, solvents, and flowable
resins, which can be pumped in or out through the openings in the
top of the drum. Open head drums have a completely removable lid
and are typically used to hold more viscous materials than closed
head drums, such as petrochemicals and adhesives, or to contain
dry goods.

     Drums used to transport or store hazardous materials are
rated by one of three markings (X, Y, or Z), which correspond
with DOT hazardous material packing group classifications. DOT
classifies regulated materials into three packing groups Type I,
II, and III. The Type I packing group includes the most hazardous
materials, and Type III includes the least hazardous.

     Table 30 shows information EPA obtained on the recovered
materials content of industrial drums.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 30

         Recovered Materials Content of Industrial Drums

Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
               Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

Plastic        Company A:  100          100
               Company B:  Unknown      30-35

Steel          Company C:  Unknown      25-100

Fiber          Company D:  100          100
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     In July 1996, the United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods passed a proposal to allow the
use of recovered plastics in plastic drums that will be used to
transport or store hazardous materials. The proposal was also
passed at the full United Nations Committee of Experts meeting in
December 1996 and will be published in the 10th revised edition
of the United Nation's Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods.

     The United Nations recommendations state:

     Recycled plastics material means material recovered
     from used industrial packagings that has been cleaned
     and prepared for processing into new packagings. The
     specific properties of the recycled material used for
     production of new packagings should be assured and
     documented regularly as part of a quality assurance
     programme recognized by the competent authority. The
     quality assurance programme should include a record of
     proper pre-sorting and verification that each batch of
     recycled plastics materials has the proper melt flow
     rate, density, and tensile yield strength, consistent
     with that of the design type manufactured from such
     recycled material. This necessarily includes knowledge
     about the packaging material from which the recycled
     plastics have been derived, as well as awareness of the
     prior contents of those packagings if those prior
     contents might reduce the capability of new packagings
     produced using that material. . .Packagings
     manufactured with such recycled plastics material
     should be marked REC.

     On March 5, 1999, DOT amended its Hazardous Materials
Regulations to maintain alignment with international standards,
including the UN recommendations. DOT passed a final rule
Harmonization with the United Nations Recommendations,
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and International
Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions (43 FR
10741) which added a new approval provision to allow the use of
recycled plastics material for the manufacturing of plastic drums
and jerricans.

     The National Motor Freight Traffic Association also develops
performance specifications for containers that will be used to
transport goods via truck. Their specifications do not specify
materials and do not prohibit the use of recovered materials.
     

     C.   Awards and Plaques

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(d), EPA proposed to designate awards and
plaques containing recovered materials. In Section H-4 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that awards and
plaques contain the levels of recovered materials listed in Table
31.

*****************************************************************

                             Table 31

        Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
                      for Awards and Plaques

Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
               Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

Glass          75-100              100

Wood           ---                 100

Paper          40-100              40-100

Plastic and 
Plastic/Wood 
Composite      50-100              95-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing awards and plaques made from other materials.
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
awards or plaques made from paper, wood, glass, or
plastics/plastics composites, purchase them made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: DOE submitted comments supporting the designation
of awards and plaques containing recovered materials. DOE
indicated that one of its sites has made an effort to reuse
excess, unclassified, nonhazardous, and nonradioactive nuclear
weapons components as awards.

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
submitted comments stating that, due to the fact that only 6 out
of 13,000 manufacturers and distributors use recovered materials,
it believes a competition or availability exemption will exist
for these products in most cases. Lockheed Martin Idaho
Technologies Company does not believe tracking and reporting
should be required when competition is not likely to exist.

     Response: EPA's background discussion of its rationale for
proposing to designate awards and plaques was not meant to imply
that only 6 out of 13,000 manufacturers and distributors of
awards and plaques use recovered materials. It was merely a
statement of fact. EPA identified 13,000 sources of these items
and identified 6 suppliers that offered the items with recovered
materials. 

     EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that
because only six manufacturers were identified by EPA that
adequate competition does not exist and, that by implication, the
items should not be designated. Section 6002 (e)(1) of RCRA
stipulates that, in designating items, the guidelines shall
...designate items that are or can be made with recovered
materials... and that ...the availability of such items... shall
be considered. While EPA makes every effort to identify
manufacturers and distributors of items proposed for designation,
this research is not exhaustive nor does it seek to identify all
sources of the proposed items. EPA acknowledges that some
agencies might be unable to obtain some designated items
regionally for one or more of the reasons cited in RCRA Section
6002(c)(1). If this is the case, EPA recommends that the
procuring agency simply include a statement in its APP that
states the item is currently not available and, therefore, the
agency has concluded that it is not required to procure this
item. Once an agency makes the aforementioned determination, no
recordkeeping or tracking of the item would be required. EPA
notes that, in accordance with RCRA Section 6002(i)(2)(D), it is
the procuring agency's responsibility to monitor and regularly
update its APP. Should an item that was previously unobtainable
become available, then the procuring agency should modify its APP
accordingly.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that awards and plaques satisfy the statutory
criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     According to one manufacturer, a standard 8- by 10-inch
plaque diverts approximately 1 pound of material from the waste
stream. Thus, if the federal government were to purchase
exclusively recovered materials content plaques, about 160 tons
of waste material (e.g., sawdust and newspaper) would be diverted
from the solid waste stream (based on the current federal
purchasing level of $12 million over 3 years at an average cost
of $33.60 per plaque). Appendix I of this document discusses the
generation and recovery of glass, wood, and paper in MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Awards and plaques are sold by manufacturers and
distributors of promotional products. According to a 1995 survey,
there are approximately 13,000 such distributors and
manufacturers in the United States. EPA identified six companies
that manufacture or distribute awards and plaques made from
recovered materials. According to four of the companies
contacted, recovered materials content awards are generally made
from blown glass, while plaques are made from various materials,
including compressed newsprint and sawdust. 

     The promotional products industry has grown from $5 billion
a year in 1990 to more than $8 billion in 1995. A Promotional
Products Association (PPA) survey estimates that awards and
plaques account for almost 8 percent, or approximately $62
million, of promotional product sales. No discrete data are
available on the percentage of awards and plaques manufactured
with recovered materials. Distributors of awards made from
recovered glass indicate these products are manufactured only on
an as-needed basis. Three manufacturers of plaques made from
recovered materials, on the other hand, state that their products
are produced on a regular basis, but not in large volumes.

     There are approximately 13,000 distributors and
manufacturers of promotional products in the United States. EPA
identified six companies that manufacture or distribute awards
and plaques made from recovered materials. According to the four
companies EPA contacted, recovered content awards are generally
made from blown glass, while plaques are made from various
materials, including compressed newsprint and sawdust. Awards and
plaques made from recovered materials are generally identified as
recycled only on the back or bottom of the product.  

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     Government agencies purchase awards and plaques through
GSA's Federal Supply Service Multiple Awards Contract (MAC) for
Trophies, Awards, Plaques, Plaques with Clocks, Pins, Ribbons,
Medals, Pen Sets, and Plates/Bowls Suitable for Engraving. GSA
does not track the number of awards or plaques purchased under
this contract, but does know that government agencies purchased
approximately $10 million worth of products under the subcategory
awards, plaques, trophies, plaques with clocks, pins, ribbon, and
medals between 1990 and 1993. Between 1993 and 1996 $12 million
worth of products were purchased. While unable to provide
specific information on purchasing volume, the GSA contracting
officer for this MAC claims that awards and plaques are the most
popular items within the category.

     Government agencies purchase awards and plaques directly
from the 55 manufacturers and distributors listed in the MAC. Of
the four manufacturers of recovered content awards and plaques
contacted, only one is currently on contract to GSA. According to
a representative of this company, federal agencies are not
currently purchasing large quantities of its products, however.
Indeed, EPA research indicated that individual government agency
annual purchases are generally less than the $10,000 minimum
threshold set by RCRA for CPG applicability. The largest single
purchase of awards identified by EPA was the Energy Star Program,
which spent $7,000 on awards in 1996.

     According to a U.S. Air Force (USAF) contact, however, it is
likely that DOD purchases awards and plaques in amounts well over
$10,000. The decentralized nature of these purchases, however,
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the total
dollar amount of awards and plaques purchased by DOD each year.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating awards and plaques containing recovered
glass, wood, paper, plastic, and plastic/wood composite. This
designation does not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing
awards and plaques made from other materials. It simply requires
that a procuring agency, when purchasing awards and plaques made
from glass, wood, paper, plastic, and plastic/wood composite,
purchase this item with recovered materials when this item meets
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft recommendations in the final
RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based on the recovered material
levels shown in Table 32 and the corresponding table in the RMAN
III, procuring agencies establish minimum content standards for
use in purchasing awards and plaques.


*****************************************************************
                             Table 32

        Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations
      for Awards and Plaques Containing Recovered Materials


Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
               Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

Glass          75-100              100

Wood           --                  100

Paper          40-100              40-100

Plastic and 
Plastic/Wood 
Composite      50-100              95-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing awards and plaques made from other materials.
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
awards or plaques made from paper, wood, glass, or
plastics/plastics composites, purchase them made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations
     
     EPA conducted preliminary research to ascertain the supply
of and government demand for awards and plaques made from
recovered materials. To this end, EPA contacted PPA, four
manufacturers of recovered content products, and four federal
agencies. For the purpose of this report the term awards refers
to free-standing statues, while plaques refers to boardlike
products generally used as wall-hangings. 

     Table 33 presents information provided by manufacturers on
the recovered materials content of awards and plaques.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 33

        Recovered Materials Content of Awards and Plaques

Material       Postconsumer             Total Recovered
               Content (%)              Materials Content (%)

Glass          Company A: 75-100        Unknown
               Company B: Unknown       100

Wood           Company A: Unknown       100
               Company C: Unknown       100

Paper          Company C: 9-100         40-100

Plastic        Company D: 50-95         Unknown

Plastic/Wood   Company D: 50 (plastic)  50 (Wood/Sawdust)/100
                                        (Total)
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA did not identify any specifications or standards
regarding awards and plaques.


     D.   Mats

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(e), EPA proposed to designate mats
containing recovered materials. In Section H-5 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that mats contain
the levels of recovered materials listed in Table 34.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 34

    Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Mats


Material       Postconsumer Content (%) Total Recovered
                                        Materials Content (%)

Rubber         75-100                   85-100
Plastic        10-100                   100
Rubber/Plastic 
Composite      100                      100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing mats made from other materials. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing mats made from
rubber and/or plastic, purchase them made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: DOE submitted comments to support the designation
of mats containing recovered rubber and plastic but recommends
that EPA add a requirement that all mats containing steel or
metal linkages contain recovered materials as well. EPA also
should include mats manufactured from scrap tires in its
designation.

     Response: Although EPA did not include RMAN III
recommendations for aluminum or steel frames and linkages used in
mats, the discussion of mats in the proposed CPG III did state
that EPA's research found that mats made with recovered materials
are limited to rubber and/or plastic mats which can also include
aluminum or steel linkages or frames made from recovered metals
(See 63 FR 45571 - 45572). So that this point is more
discernable, EPA will revise Table H-5 in the final RMAN III to
mention that steel and aluminum linkages used for mats should
also contain recovered materials. With respect to the commenters
request to include mats manufactured from scrap tires, EPA notes
that the RMAN has recommended recovered materials content ranges
for postconsumer rubber in mats, which would include rubber from
scrap tires. In fact, on page 154 of the proposed CPG III/draft
RMAN III background document, EPA provides an example of one
manufacturer who stated that it uses more than 45,000 nonradial
truck tires to produce its rubber mats.

     Comment: GSA indicated that 72 I A should be added after GSA
schedule on page 45572, paragraph 2c, line 20 of the CPG. In
addition, GSA suggested that EPA note that athletic and
recreational mats are available from GSA Schedule 78 I A. 

     Response: EPA will add the GSA schedule numbers in the final
CPG/RMAN III and make mention of the fact that athletic and
recreational mats are available through the GSA schedule as noted
in the comment.
 
     Comment: SI produces a white, nonwoven printable fabric made
from polyester staple fibers. SI believes the designation of mats
is overly broad and does not meet the technically proven uses
statutory criteria. SI believes that colored or clear specialty
mats made from polyester fibers cannot be made from postconsumer
materials. According to SI, the inconsistency of postconsumer
material results in an off-gray color when trying to produce a
pure white mat suitable for printing. SI, therefore, urges EPA to
obtain additional data on the technological and economic
feasibility of making colored polyester mats at the postconsumer
levels proposed in the RMAN. 

     Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's general
assertion that the designation of mats does not meet the
technically proven uses criteria found in the statute. Based on
the research conducted by EPA for the proposed CPG III/RMAN III,
the Agency identified 44 manufacturers, distributors, and
suppliers of mats containing recovered materials. These sources
make or distribute a variety of types of mats including, but not
limited to: antifatigue, golf, hockey, truck beds, boat decks,
boat docks, exercise, floor, livestock, and entrance mats. In
addition, as stated in the proposed CPG III, some manufacturers
believe that between 75 and 95 percent of all mats manufactured
in the United States do contain some percentage of postconsumer
materials (63 FR 45572).

     The Agency also disagrees with the commenter's conclusion
that the RMAN ranges are improper for colored and clear mats
(containing polyester) since, according to the commenter, white
and clear specialty mats cannot be made with postconsumer
content. EPA's research and the recovered materials content
ranges shown in the draft RMAN III represent the ranges at which
products are currently being made with recovered plastics. Some
mats are being made with postconsumer polyester fibers with a 10
percent postconsumer content level that falls within the Agency's
recovered materials content range of 10 percent to 100 percent.
Clearly, there are technical and/or market conditions that allow
different plastic resins to be used at different percentages.
This is precisely why the Agency recommends a range of content
levels. Agencies can choose to purchase mats within the range
recommended by EPA or set different standards for the designated
items based on the items' availability, price, or performance
requirements. Since the commenter showed particular interest in
the postconsumer content level of specialty mats (white for
printing and clear), those agencies procuring such mats could
purchase these items at different recovered materials content
levels (e.g., less than the low end of the recommended ranges in
the RMAN) or justify not procuring these items if the items do
not meet their specifications or performance requirements, which
could include color and/or printability.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that mats satisfy the statutory criteria for
selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Mats are made with recovered and postconsumer rubber, PVC,
HDPE, LDPE, PET, and PP. In addition, many mats contain steel or
aluminum links or frames, which contain recovered metal. Appendix
I of this document discusses the generation and recovery of these
materials in MSW.

     EPA did not identify any trade organizations specifically
representing mat manufacturers, which makes it difficult to
quantify the volume of materials diverted from the waste stream
due to the use of recovered content materials in mats. One
manufacturer, however, uses approximately 1 million pounds of
recovered PVC to produce 50,000 to 60,000 PVC mat tiles a year.
Another manufacturer uses over 45,000 nonradial truck tires to
produce an unspecified quantity of rubber mats.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Manufacturers estimate that between 75 and 95 percent of all
mats manufactured in the United States are made with some
percentage of postconsumer material content. According to all of
the manufacturers contacted by EPA, recovered content mats
perform as effectively as their virgin counterparts, although
virgin materials are sometimes added to provide color or product
consistency. 

     According to one manufacturer using postconsumer material,
PVC, in particular, has inherent limits as to how, and in what
form, it may be recycled. PVC contains plasticizer, which gives
it softness and flexibility. Each time the material is heated to
be reformed, less plasticizer remains. PVC pipe, for instance,
starts out with much less plasticizer, and being less malleable,
it is more difficult to make into a new recycled product. New
products are made from the more rigid PVC recovered products, but
additional plasticizer is typically added during reprocessing.

     EPA identified 44 manufacturers, distributors, or suppliers
of recovered content mats. They are located throughout the United
States and supply both domestic and international markets. EPA
contacted five mat manufacturers who estimated that between 75
and 95 percent of all mats manufactured in the United States are
manufactured with postconsumer recovered material content. 

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     EPA has been unable to determine how many mats are procured
by federal agencies. A contact with USPS explained that, although
each of the 40,000 USPS facilities probably uses antifatigue
mats, USPS does not track their use or procurement because post
offices are not required to obtain headquarters' permission for
expenditures under $10,000 a year.

      The GSA Supply Catalog lists 36 products in 9 mat
categories, including chair, door, deck, dental floor, porch
floor, antifatigue, insulating, ribbed floor, and stair tread
mats. The GSA catalog only identifies 2 of the 36 products as
containing recovered materials, both of which are door mats
containing 100 percent postconsumer recovered rubber. The number
of categories and products suggests that there is a sizable
government market for mats. Most federal buildings, for example,
contain numerous entrance, floor, and chair mats. DOD procures a
variety of mats, including antislip mats for boat and ship decks
and docks, helicopter landing mats, and truck bed mats. Despite
repeated attempts, EPA was unable to obtain information
quantifying federal procurement of mats.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating mats containing recovered rubber,
plastic, and rubber/plastic composite. This designation does not
preclude a procuring agency from purchasing mats made from other
materials. It simply requires that a procuring agency, when
purchasing mats made from rubber, plastic, and rubber/plastic
composite, purchase this item with recovered materials when this
item meets applicable specifications and performance
requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     EPA is recommending the draft recommendations in the final
RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based on the recovered material
levels shown in Table 35 and the corresponding table in the RMAN
III, procuring agencies establish minimum content standards for
use in purchasing mats.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 35

    Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Mats


Material       Postconsumer Content (%)      Total Recovered
                                             Materials Content
                                             (%)

Rubber         75-100                        85-100

Plastic        10-100                        100

Rubber/Plastic 
Composite      100                           100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing mats made from other materials. They simply
require that procuring agencies, when purchasing mats made from
rubber and/or plastic, purchase them made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements. The Agency also recommends that when
purchasing mats with steel or aluminum linkages, that these
linkages should also contain recovered materials.
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Mats are temporary or semipermanent protective floor
coverings used for numerous applications. They are used to
protect carpeting by reducing wear and tear in heavy traffic
areas and by removing moisture, dirt, and grime from people's
shoes. They are used to protect car and truck floor boards from
dirt or accidental spills, and office carpeting from wheel damage
caused by swivel chairs. Mats are used to provide traction on
stairs, ship decks, docks, around pools, or on marble or tile
floors; to reduce worker fatigue in occupational work areas that
require excessive standing; and to reduce the risk of injury
during athletic events. Mats are also used for many specialty
applications, such as protecting truck beds and the teeing areas
of golf driving ranges.

     Mats are manufactured in a wide variety of designs and from
numerous materials. Some of the most common materials used
include aluminum, cocoa fiber, HDPE, LDPE, nylon, PET,
polycarbonate, PP, PVC, rubber, steel, tempered hardboard, and
wood. Multiple materials may be used in a single mat. Vinyl or
rubber links, for example, are often joined together with steel
rods.

     Manufacturers may use the same material in mats designed for
various applications. The only difference, for example, between a
rubber entrance mat and a rubber truck bed mat may be the
dimensions of the mat. Mats can also be easily customized by
modifying the production process for an existing product to
adjust the thickness, size, texture, or color. Other mats are
designed as interlocking tiles that allow the end user to create
mats as large or as small as needed.

     Table 36 displays recovered content information obtained by
EPA from manufacturers of recovered content mats.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 36

               Recovered Materials Content of Mats

               Postconsumer             Total Recovered
Material       Content (%)              Materials Content (%)

Rubber         Company A: 92            92
               Company B: --            60
               Company C: 100           100
               Company D: 30            30
               Company E: 92-98         92-98
               Company F: 90            90
               Company G: 40-92         40-92
               Company H: 100           100
               Company I: 75-95         75-95
               Company J: 75-95         75-95
               Company K: 100           100
               Company L: 100           100
               Company M: 90            90
               Company N: 98            98
               Company O: 98            98
               Company P: 85-100        85-100
               Company Q: 95            95
               Company R: 98            98
               Company S: 90-100        90-100
               Company T: 95            95
               Company U: 100           100
               Company V: 60            60
               Company W: 90            90
               Company X: 100           100
               Company Y: 95            95
               Company Z: 75            75
               Company AA: 100          100
               Company BB: 90           100
               Company CC: 100          100
               Company DD: 66           66
               Company EE: 80           80
               Company FF: 96           96
               Company GG: 90           90
               Company HH: 98           98
               Company II: 100          100
               Company JJ: 85           85
               Company KK: 55-85        55-85
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     With the exception of competition wrestling mats, there are
no industry, government, or independent specifications for mats.
ASTM developed a wrestling mat specification for mats used in
high schools and colleges. The specification addresses the
construction of closed-cell foam cores with PVC, PVC coatings, or
both; foam cores, either open- or closed-cell enclosed in sewn,
loose covers; and molded open-cell PVC foam with a dense skin on
one surface that is an integral part of the mat. The ASTM
specification does not preclude the use of recovered content
materials.


     E.   Signage

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(f), EPA proposed to designate signage
containing recovered materials. In Section H-7 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that signage contain
the levels of recovered materials listed in Table 37.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 37

  Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Signage


Item/Material       Postconsumer        Total Recovered
                    Content (%)         Materials Content (%)

Plastic signs       80-100              80-100
Aluminum signs      25                  25 
Plastic sign 
posts/supports      80-100              80-100
Steel sign 
posts/supports      25-100              25-100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing signs or sign posts made from other materials.
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
signs made from plastic or aluminum or sign posts made from
plastic or steel, purchase these items made with recovered
materials when these items meet applicable specifications and
performance requirements.

     Plastic signs and sign posts are recommended for nonroad
applications only such as, but not limited to, trailway signs in
parks and directional/informational signs in buildings.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     EPA did not receive any comments specific to the proposed
designation for signs. The general comments submitted by SRI
pertaining to the recovered materials content of all steel
products pertain to steel signs and posts/supports. The
recommendations contained in the RMAN will be revised
accordingly.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that signage satisfies the statutory criteria
for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Sign blanks, posts, and supports are manufactured using
recovered aluminum; postconsumer or recovered wood; and recovered
plastic, including HDPE, LDPE, PET, PP, and polycarbonate. The
following information is based on information obtained from a
number of sources and is based on commonly used sign
measurements.

     HDPE: If the federal government purchased 1,000 64-pound
HDPE National Park trailhead signs (4 by 4 inches at 4 pounds per
square foot), up to 64,000 pounds of HDPE could be diverted from
the waste stream.

     PET: If the federal government purchased 1,000 128-pound
Welcome signs (4 by 8 feet at 4 pounds per square foot), up to
128,000 pounds of PET could be diverted from the waste stream.

     *    Polycarbonate: If the federal government purchased
          1,000 127.5-pound map signs (5 by 5 feet at 5.1 pounds
          per square foot), up to 127,500 pounds could be
          diverted from the waste stream.

     *    PP: If the federal government purchased 1,000 24-pound
          men's room signs (2 by 4 feet at 3 pounds per square
          foot), up to 24,000 pounds could be diverted from the
          waste stream.

     *    Aluminum (common alloy sheeting, grade 3015): If the
          federal government purchased 1,000 160-pound expressway
          signs (8 by 10 inches at 2 pounds per square foot), up
          to 64,000 pounds of aluminum could be diverted from the
          waste stream. 

     *    Particleboard/plywood: If the federal government
          purchased 1,000 36.8-pound informational signs (4 by 4
          inches at 2.3 pounds per square foot), up to 36,800
          pounds of wood materials could be diverted from the
          waste stream.

     Appendix I of this document discusses the generation and
recovery of these materials in MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     Plastic Road Signs

     Conventional road signs can be manufactured from 3/8- to
3/4-inch thick HDPE or PET recycled materials content sheeting,
which can be heavy when used in large sheets. Because
conventional road signs rarely reach more than 36 inches wide or
long, however, the thickness of the sheeting does not usually
pose a weight problem.

     Conventional road signs are normally used in applications
where people have easy access to them. As a result, they are
frequently vandalized, according to a plastic sign manufacturer.
According to this manufacturer, plastic signs withstand such
vandalism better than traditional wood or metal signage. A
contact at the Grand Teton National Park confirmed that spray
paint, for example, can be easily removed from HDPE (a wax-based
polymer). This same contact said that bullet holes are nearly
unnoticeable on plastic signs, whereas on wood or aluminum they
may practically destroy the sign. The plastic sign manufacturer
said that while plastic signs with recycled content may cost up
to double the price of a comparably sized aluminum sign, they
have double the life expectancy because of durability. The Grand
Teton National Park contact said that plastic signs have been in
use in his park for more than 7 years without significant signs
of wear. Wood signs typically last about 3 years before
maintenance such as repainting is needed, while aluminum signs
last a bit longer from 5 to 7 years before they are reused or
recycled, although in hot climates the vinyl letters used on
aluminum signs tends to degrade more quickly. Some manufacturers
estimate that plastic signs can last at least twice as long as
aluminum 20 years or more.

     According to a contact at the state of Connecticut, plastic
is not commonly used in road signs because it can soften in heat
and shatter in cold. The contact pointed out that aluminum, on
the other hand, withstands extreme temperature fluctuations. In
addition, a manufacturer of plastic signs in Colorado said that
reflective coatings do not adhere well to recovered materials
content plastic signs because trace amounts of waxes and polymers
begin to emerge from the plastic after a year or two. This source
suggested that aluminum signs hold reflective surfaces much
better. The state of Ohio experienced similar minor performance
problems in testing polycarbonate plastic road signs. In this
case, the tester surmised that the dark plastic material absorbed
heat from the sun, causing the heat-applied coating to bubble. UV
inhibitors, however, can be added to the plastic to minimize
bubbling, brittleness, and fading caused by long-term exposure to
the sun. Polycarbonate is a thermoplastic used in car headlights
and eyeglass lenses, known for its resistance to deformation and
breakage. The plastic is relatively lightweight and can be used
in large signs, whereas less-engineered plastics (such as HDPE
and PET) cannot be used in large sign applications because they
would have to be excessively thick and heavy to be strong enough.
EPA identified one manufacturer that currently manufactures signs
from recovered polycarbonate (International Plastics Company). 

     The Florida and Oklahoma Departments of Transportation also
tested plastic road signs containing recovered materials and
experienced performance problems such as warping, tearing, and
bubbling. A few companies, however, manufacture fiberglass and
plastic-reinforced postconsumer plastic signs to prevent warping,
but these companies do not have any government customers at this
time. One manufacturer offers a cast acrylic, shatterproof sign
blank that is three times as rigid as polycarbonate, but this
durable material does not currently contain recovered materials.
To the best of EPA's knowledge, no states have tested these
reinforced signs. In 1980, the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) tested several types of fiberglass road signs and found
that pure fiberglass was too brittle and did not stand up to
moderate wind gusts. Currently, TxDOT is experimenting with
incorporating rubber recovered from automobile tires into plastic
signs.

     TxDOT, in cooperation with Texas A&M University, is studying
the use of recovered material content in road signs but has not
yet reached any conclusions. (A report on this research will be
available to the public.)

     Aluminum Road Signs

     After an aluminum road sign has served its purpose, or when
it becomes illegible or obsolete, it can be reused by replacing
the old reflective polymer with new reflective polymers. The
departments of transportation in Ohio, Connecticut, Oregon,
Texas, and other states, for example, reuse their aluminum signs
by grinding off the old surfacing and replacing it. This is a
common practice nationwide, although aluminum signs can only be
reused an average of two times using this technique because each
sanding removes a layer of the aluminum with the reflective
coating. When the sign blank becomes too thin to reuse, it is
normally sent to a metal recycler for reprocessing.

     For recovered plastic materials to be used in large road
sign applications, the plastic must be an engineered material,
such as a polycarbonate, in order to meet strength requirements.
Polycarbonate blanks are significantly more expensive than
aluminum blanks, but can last twice as long or longer.

     Smaller roadway and nonroad signs can be made of a
nonengineered plastic, including some recovered resins. The use
of nonengineered plastics in signs, however, would require
manufacturing capabilities that most state road sign shops or
contractors do not currently possess (because they manufacture
mostly aluminum signs). According to a contact at the National
Aluminum Association, providing plastic signs would require
significant expenditures for retooling and manufacturing
equipment on behalf of those shops and contractors that currently
supply only aluminum sign blanks. The association contact said
that retooling costs may vary from between $2,500 to $50,000 per
shop. Depending on the size of the shop, retooling may be
cost-prohibitive. Consequently, using plastics for roadway sign
applications may not be economically feasible for some sign
manufacturers at this time.

     Also, states that refurbish their aluminum signs save
one-third of the cost of new blanks. Refurbishing costs $1 less
per square foot than a new aluminum sign, even after taking into
account the extra labor needed for refurbishment.

     A new high-intensity reflective sheeting (now required in
some states for safety purposes) is difficult to remove, and can
make reuse impractical and cost-prohibitive. The old reflective
sheeting used to be sanded cleanly off the sign substrates in
order to reuse the base sign blank. The new reflective material,
however, gums up the sanding belts. To help ensure its
durability, the new reflective sheeting bonds almost permanently
with the sign substrate. In Texas, for example, the percentage of
aluminum signs able to be reused has dropped from 25 percent to
less than 5 percent as a result of using the new reflective
sheeting. 

     Nonroad Signs

     EPA contacted an official at Grand Teton National Park about
plastic nonroad signs (maps, welcome signs, trail signs, etc.)
containing recovered materials. The signs are HDPE, and have 50
to 80 percent postconsumer recovered materials content. The
colors on the signs have held up well over time (some of the
signs have been in place for nearly 8 years), and the contact
believed that the extra initial expense of purchasing plastic as
opposed to aluminum or wood has been recouped over the years in
avoided maintenance costs, although he could not directly
quantify that assumption. After just a few years, for example,
most wood signs exposed to the elements require repainting, while
a plastic sign can withstand the elements almost indefinitely.
The contact said that the NPS sign manual is being rewritten to
include information on signs containing, or made with recovered
and other alternative materials, such as acrylic and foam board.
The new manual, which will be available in 1998, will encourage
the use of recovered materials in signs by providing pertinent
information (without specifying the types of materials to be
used). This could spur other agencies to explore the use of signs
containing recovered materials. 

     On the other hand, nonroad plastic signs containing
recovered materials do have some minor shortcomings. In extreme
climates, the plastic can contract and expand, causing some very
minor distortion of sign design and wording. In addition, the
plastic signs cannot be painted and cannot hold reflective
material. One contact also had to create special sign supports
for the plastic, which did not hold well with bolts because the
plastic strips easily and the bolts become loose. Instead of
using bolts, the crew designed a slotted channel frame, which has
worked well.

     Signs used for informational purposes can be made with
aluminum or other metals, wood, or plastic. As previously noted,
contacts at NPS have observed that plastic signs are more
resistant to vandalism and environmental damage and, therefore,
incur much lower maintenance and replacement costs. Heavy-weight
HDPE or PET can be used in this application instead of the more
expensive engineered plastics; thus, using recovered plastic in
informational signs appears to be economically feasible. Plastic
signs are, in most cases, cost competitive with routed redwood,
but can be more expensive than the aluminum and plywood signs
most often used in nonroad applications. Both contacts at NPS,
however, have found that in their parks, the initial extra
expenditure for plastic signs is recovered over the long run
through reduced maintenance costs.

     Sign Posts and Supports

     Recovered materials are commonly used in the manufacture of
sign posts and supports. Sometimes sign posts are made by
wrapping a shell of recovered HDPE or LDPE around a steel core.
Plastics used include postconsumer HDPE, LDPE, PP, and commingled
resins. Other recovered materials used include fiberglass, old
(postconsumer) tires, and wood fibers. According to a plastic
lumber manufacturer, plastic posts are more durable than wood,
and are safer than steel in the case of accidental impact. The
steel supports contain at least 25 percent recovered materials.
EPA was not able to obtain information on recovered content in
wood sign posts and supports.

     EPA identified two distributors that market aluminum sign
blanks containing postconsumer recovered materials, although, as
noted earlier, most aluminum products already contain recovered
materials. Plastic road and nonroad signs with recovered content
are manufactured or distributed by at least 15 companies that
sell their products nationally. Recovered materials content
plastic posts are manufactured by several companies.

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     Road Signs

     Most states purchase aluminum sign blanks made from common
alloy sheet aluminum, which usually contains recovered materials.
The number of states purchasing recovered plastic road signs is
currently small, but that number is expected to grow as plastic
sign technology matures. EPA was able to identify only two
agencies (the NPS and the Forest Service) currently purchasing
nonroad plastic signs containing recovered materials. 

     Nonroad Signs

     EPA contacted purchasers of routed plastic informational
signs at NPS who stated that plastic containing recovered
materials is a viable alternative for nonroad signs in all
national parks and national forests. Overall, they were pleased
with the performance of the signs in their parks. Some of the
signs have been in place for up to 8 years. A vendor that sells
primarily recovered materials content HDPE signs indicated an
increase in demand for these signs over the past 3 years.

     The following is a list of 24 federal and state agencies
that have purchased nonroad signs containing recovered materials:

ARIZONA
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 
Grand Canyon National Park

CALIFORNIA
U.S. Forest Service, San Demis Technical Development and Research
Center

COLORADO
Gunnison National Forest 
NPS, CurreCanti Recreation Area

FLORIDA
Naval Air Station, Pensacola
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Milton

GEORGIA
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Gainesville

KENTUCKY
Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester

MICHIGAN
Isle Royale National Park, Houghton
Michigan Department of Transportation, Southfield

MONTANA
U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula

NEVADA
Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park, Incline Village

OHIO
Cleveland Lake Front State Park
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus

OREGON
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Roseburg

SOUTH CAROLINA
Francis Marion National Forest, Columbia

TENNESSEE
Sycamore Shoals State Historic Area, Elizabathton

TEXAS
Unicor Federal Prison Industries, Fort Worth

UTAH
Intermountain U.S. Forest Service Region, Ogden

VERMONT
Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland

VIRGINIA
U.S. Coast Guard, Alexandria

WASHINGTON
U.S. Navy, Whidbey Island

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
U.S. Naval District

     Sign Posts and Supports

     Sign posts and supports are usually procured along with
signs. As a result, EPA was unable to find purchasing information
geared specifically toward these sign components. Government
agencies do purchase them, however, in significant quantities.

     4.   Designation

     EPA is designating signage containing recovered plastic,
aluminum, and steel. This designation does not preclude a
procuring agency from purchasing signage made from other
materials. It simply requires that a procuring agency, when
purchasing signage made from plastic, aluminum, or steel,
purchase this item with recovered materials when this item meets
applicable specifications and performance requirements.

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI regarding the postconsumer
and recovered materials content, EPA is recommending the draft
recommendations in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based
on the recovered material levels shown in Table 37 and the
corresponding table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies establish
minimum content standards for use in purchasing plastic signs for
nonroad applications and aluminum signs for roadway or nonroad
applications containing recovered materials. EPA also recommends
that, based on the recovered materials content levels shown in
Table 38, procuring agencies establish minimum content standards
for use in purchasing sign supports and posts containing
recovered plastic or steel.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 38

   Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Signs
 Containing Recovered Plastic or Aluminum and Sign Posts/Supports
              Containing Recovered Plastic or Steel

Item/Material       Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                    Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Plastic signs       80-100         80-100

Aluminum signs      25             25 

Plastic sign posts  80-100         80-100

Steel sign posts    16             25-30
                    67             100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing signs or sign posts made from other materials. 
They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
signs made from plastic or aluminum or sign posts made from
plastic or steel, purchase them made with recovered materials
when these items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements.

     Plastic signs and sign posts are recommended for nonroad
applications only such as, but not limited to, railway signs in
parks and directional/informational signs in buildings.
          
     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items can be
made from steel manufactured in either a Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) or an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF).  Steel from the BOF
process contains 25-30% total recovered materials, of which 16%
is postconsumer steel.  Steel from the EAF process contains a
total of 100% recovered steel, of which 67% is postconsumer. 
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     Signs made from recovered materials are used for public
roads and highways, and inside and outside office buildings,
museums, parks, and other public places. The federal government
procures four types of signs: (1) conventional road signs, (2)
expressway signs, (3) freeway signs, and (4) miscellaneous
nonroad signs (DOT, 1988). This summary includes information on
sign posts and supports, as well as sign blanks (the area of the
sign that contains the actual information).

     Highway and other road signs are purchased by state and
local governments primarily with funds from the federal
government earmarked for transportation. Nonroad signs are
procured at the federal and state levels on an as needed basis.

     Road Signs

     There are three types of road signs: conventional road
signs, expressway signs, and
freeway signs. 

     Conventional Road Signs

     Conventional road signs are guide signs used to direct
vehicle operators along streets and highways; inform them of
interesting routes; direct them to cities, towns, villages, or
other important destinations; identify nearby rivers and streams,
parks, forests, and historical sites; and provide information to
help them along their way in the most simple, direct manner
possible. These signs are generally relatively small.

     Expressway Signs

     Expressways are divided arterial, urban highways for through
traffic. Most expressways have partial control of access and
grade separation at major intersections. Because of increased
driving speeds, expressways require large, high-impact signs.
Expressway signs provide drivers with directions, furnish advance
notice of the approach to intersections or interchanges, direct
drivers into appropriate lanes for exits or merges, and provide
other useful information. Expressway signs are designed to be
legible to drivers moving at moderate speeds (30 to 50 miles per
hour). This usually means high visibility, large lettering and
symbols, and short legends for quick comprehension. 

     Freeway Signs

     Freeway signs provide information to drivers on high-volume,
high-speed motor vehicle corridors. These signs are primarily for
the benefit and direction of drivers who are not familiar with
the route or area. The signs must quickly furnish drivers with
clear instructions for orderly progress to their destinations. 

     While almost any rigid material can be used for any type of
road sign, most states use aluminum because it has a high
strength-to-weight ratio, costs less than other materials, and
withstands extreme temperatures. Aluminum's strength-to-weight
ratio is an important consideration. Road signs are usually more
than 3 feet wide, so they must be strong but lightweight. States
occasionally use smaller road signs, which could be made of a
weaker material, but they prefer to use the same material for all
signs to achieve economies of scale. States also prefer aluminum
because it resists environmental damage. Plywood is also
occasionally used for road signs, but one contact believed its
use has declined in recent years.

     Road signs are normally constructed of several extruded
aluminum planks, formed into flat-bottomed U-shapes and placed
side by side. Tape is used to smooth the joints, and braces are
extended across the back to stabilize the sign. A reflective
polymer is applied to the front to create lettering and symbols.
Sign blanks are typically comprised of either aluminum sheeting
or an exterior grade plywood.

     Several grades of aluminum are used in road signs. Although
most aluminum products contain recovered materials, products made
from lower grade aluminum usually contain higher percentages of
recovered materials. A contact at the Connecticut Department of
Transportation said that most states use a mid-level grade of
aluminum (Grade 5051) for road signs. The Ohio Department of
Transportation uses a higher grade (Grade 6061) but has recently
approved the use of two lower grades (Grade 5051 and 3038) as
well. According to the National Aluminum Association, common
alloy sheet aluminum, from which sign blanks are made,
consistently contains fairly high levels of recovered content
regardless of grade, although the association could not provide
an average percentage.

     Miscellaneous Nonroad Signs

     These signs are used in federally owned or managed areas
other than roadways, such as national parks, historic sites,
monuments, and other places of public interest. Nonroad signs are
often smaller than standard roadway signs. As a result, they can
be made of materials with lower strength-to-weight ratios, such
as wood and plastics such as HDPE and PP, although they are also
often made with aluminum. There are two types of plastic signs: a
simple, paintable sheet and a triple-ply, two-color sheet that is
meant to be routed (or etched) to expose the interior color.
Plastic is better suited to smaller signs, as large plastic signs
can be extremely heavy.

     Sign Supports and Posts

     Sign posts and supports can be made from a variety of
materials, including steel, fiberglass reinforced plastic,
thin-wall steel tubing, steel U-post or flanged channel, and
standard schedule 40 steel pipe. Other materials being used in
small sign supports include wood and other types of plastic. The
number and type of supports selected for use at a given site
depends on sign blank area and buyer preference. A period of 15
to 20 years is the maximum life expectancy for most sign posts
and supports, regardless of the type of material.

     Table 39 displays recovered content information obtained by
EPA from manufacturers on signage.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 39

              Recovered Materials Content of Signage

Material       Postconsumer             Total Recovered
               Content (%)              Materials Content (%)

HDPE           Company A: 99            99
               Company B: Unknown       40-50
               Company C: Up to 80      Up to 80
               Company D: 100           100

PET            Company E: Up to 100     Up to 100

Polycarbonate  Company F: 85-90         100

Polyethylene,  Company G: 25-100        25-100
polycarbonate, 
polypropylene

Aluminum       Company H: Unspecified   Unspecified
               Company I: Unspecified   Unspecified
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     EPA did not identify any material specifications for signs.
For the most part, states simply test new materials and decide
whether they are appropriate for sign use. Standard
specifications for road sign size, lettering, color, strength,
and other design and performance requirements can be found in the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by FHWA. The
Manual, which is used by all states as the main source of roadway
device specifications, states the following about materials for
road signs:

     A variety of materials can be used effectively. However, it
     is recognized that technological progress may develop new
     and satisfactory or superior materials for highway signs,
     particularly in the fields of illumination and
     reflectorization. Nothing in this Manual should be
     interpreted to exclude any new material that meets the
     standard requirements for color and legibility, both by day
     and by night.

     It should be noted that this passage refers primarily to
reflective coatings, but also pertains to the substrate (sign
blank material).


     F.   Manual-Grade Strapping 

     1.   Background

     In Section 247.17(g), EPA proposed to designate manual-grade
strapping containing recovered materials. In Section H-6 of the
accompanying draft RMAN III, EPA recommended that manual-grade
strapping contain the levels of recovered materials listed in
Table 40.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 40

 Draft Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Strapping


Product        Material  Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                         Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Polyester 
strapping      PET       50-85          50-85

Polypropylene 
strapping      PP        --             10-40

Steel 
strapping      Steel     10-15          25-100

Note: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of strapping, such as nylon. They
simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
polyester, polypropylene, or steel manual-grade strapping,
purchase these items made with recovered materials when these
items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements.
*****************************************************************


     2.   Summary of Comments and Agency's Response

     Comment: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
commented that while they recognize many manufacturers produce
strapping with PET and PP, it does not believe a sufficient
supplier base exists for strapping containing the other proposed
materials.

     Response: Since EPA proposed to designate manual-grade
strapping containing both recovered steel or plastic, the Agency
presumes the comments submitted pertain to manual grade strapping
containing recovered steel. EPA based its proposal on the fact
that manual-grade strapping is currently being made from
recovered steel and there is an ASTM specification for steel
strapping (ASTM D3953). EPA believes, therefore, that
recommending recovered materials content levels for steel
strapping is justified. In addition, based on comments submitted
by SRI pertaining to the recovered materials content in steel
products (see General Comments section), all items included in
the proposed CPG III can be made with steel made from either the
BOF or EAF process, both of which contain recovered materials
content. EPA will revise its final RMAN III recommendations for
manual-grade steel strapping to take into account SRI's general
comment.

     3.   Rationale for Designation

     EPA believes that manual-grade strapping satisfies the
statutory criteria for selecting items for designation.

     a.   Use of Materials in Solid Waste

     Strapping products can be manufactured from recovered and
postconsumer PP, PET, and steel. Stretch wrap can incorporate
postconsumer PET from recovered green soda bottles and
postconsumer polyethylene from recovered stretch wrap. Because
carpet manufacturers (the largest user of recovered PET) shy away
from green PET soda bottles because of color issues, green PET
soda bottles are an ideal feedstock for PET strapping and stretch
wrap. 

     Although EPA was not able to find official statistics on the
manufacturing and recycling of strapping and stretch wrap in the
United States, several contacts indicated that the volume of
recovered materials incorporated into strapping products varies
greatly depending on the type of strapping, the materials being
used (PET can be incorporated at higher volumes than PP, for
example), and the company's ability to incorporate recovered
materials, which, especially in the case of PET, depends in part
on specialized equipment. 

     A 3,600 foot coil of 0.5 inch hand-grade PP strapping
weighs, on average, 15 pounds. Since PP strapping can contain up
to 100 percent recovered materials and 50 percent postconsumer
materials, the weight of recovered materials in an average coil
of recovered materials content PP strapping is between 1 to 15
pounds, with postconsumer materials accounting for as much as 7.5
pounds per coil.

     A 3,600 foot coil of 0.5 inch hand-grade PET strapping
weighs, on average, 22 pounds. Since PET strapping can contain up
to 100 percent recovered materials and 75 percent postconsumer
materials, the weight of recovered materials in an average coil
of recovered materials content PET strapping is between 1 and 22
pounds, with postconsumer materials accounting for as much as
16.5 pounds per coil. A 500 foot coil of flat, 0.5 inch
hand-grade steel strapping, weighs, on average, 90 pounds. Since
steel strapping can contain 25 to 100 percent recovered materials
and 10 to 15 percent postconsumer materials, the weight of
recovered materials in an average coil of steel strapping is
between 23 and 90 pounds, with postconsumer materials accounting
for as much as 13.5 pounds per coil. Appendix I of this document
discusses the generation and recovery of plastic and steel in
MSW.

     b.   Technically Proven Uses

     In terms of manufacturing strapping from recovered
materials, one contact stated that additional equipment is
needed, especially when it comes to incorporating PET into
strapping products. The contact said that it is not a simple
matter of substituting recovered materials for virgin ones.
Recovered PET is usually received in the form of chopped or
shredded bottles, and this material needs to be thoroughly dried
before beginning the manufacturing process because of
condensation and leftover product on the bottles. Consequently,
this company invested nearly $1 million in additional drying
equipment. The contact said that this figure was high because of
the high volume of strapping they produce (20 million pounds in
1996), and that the costs for additional drying capacity could be
lower for a smaller operation. With PP, drying is not normally
necessary when incorporating recovered materials into the
manufacturing process, but some minor adjustments in equipment
may be necessary. With steel, no additional equipment is required
to incorporate recovered materials. In any case, the equipment
necessary for incorporating recovered materials into PET and PP
strapping products is readily available through several companies
in the United States.

     Strapping is normally delivered in rolls of several hundred
to several thousand feet, which can then be applied by hand or
placed on a machine for automated application. All plastic
strapping, including machine grade, can be applied manually and
sealed with buckles or seals. Manual application is ideal for low
and moderate volume users and requires little or no investment in
tooling. In addition, manually applied strapping usually contains
a higher percentage of recovered materials because performance
requirements are less stringent.

     By contrast, when applying strapping with automatic or
semiautomatic machines, machine grade strapping must be used. It
is manufactured under stricter tolerances and must have minimal
camber (arch or curve) as specified by ASTM standards D3950,
Standard Specification for Strapping, Nonmetallic and D3953,
Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals.

     Despite these technical issues, machine grade strapping with
recovered material content does exist and is in use, although it
has only become available in the past few years. Manufacturers
contacted expressed different opinions about the feasibility of
manufacturing strapping with recovered content. One manufacturer
claimed that the use of recovered materials can result in
variations, making it difficult to consistently achieve precise
strength and camber requirements necessary for machine grade
products. Another manufacturer said that some performance
characteristics are best achieved with virgin materials. For
example, machine-applied strapping is usually heat-sealed, and
thus consistent melt-flow indices (the temperature at which a
material melts) and inherent viscosity (IV) are extremely
important when manufacturing machine grade strapping. According
to this manufacturer, recovered materials can alter these
indexes. Because of this variability, many strapping
manufacturers view recovered materials as less reliable, and are
unwilling to incorporate them into their machine grade strapping
products. As a result, machine grade strapping is more often
manufactured without recovered material content.

     Another manufacturer said that except for the most high-end,
critical applications (such as transporting heavy equipment),
polyester strapping can incorporate recovered PET and meet most
specifications. In other words, according to this contact, most
strapping products can, with the right equipment and technical
knowledge, incorporate recovered materials and still meet all
ASTM specifications and other important characteristics, such as
consistent heat flow indices and IV. PET is a flexible polymer
whose molecular structure can be recoupled under special
conditions (high temperatures) without losing strength. Based on
discussions with several manufacturers with extensive knowledge
of the industry, 10 to 15 percent of PET machine grade PET
strapping manufactured nationwide is made with recovered
materials. For hand-grade PET strapping, 15 to 25 percent is made
with recovered materials.

     While steel is the strongest strapping material available,
polyester (which often incorporates postconsumer PET) can be used
in place of steel in many instances because its tensile strength
is only slightly different than steel's. This is an important
factor in some industries, such as the cotton and lumber
industries, in which steel strapping can rust and discolor the
product during shipping. In fact, polyester is preferred over
steel by these industries. One contact claimed that strapping
used in food applications (such as that used to close cartons of
fish or meat) must be approved by the FDA, but EPA was unable to
confirm this assertion.

     One problem with incorporating recovered PET bottles into
the polyester strapping manufacturing process is that PVC bottles
(which, to the average consumer, may resemble PET bottles) can
accidentally get mixed into the recovered PET feedstock. This can
destroy an entire manufacturing run and cause equipment problems.

     PP is a less common recovered feedstock than PET. Some
manufacturers claim that postconsumer PP strapping is not clean
enough for remanufacturing and the cost of reprocessing it is
higher than using virgin PP, but several manufacturers do
incorporate postconsumer PP into their hand-grade strapping
products. One manufacturer pointed out that the molecular
structure of PP is easy to break down, but, unlike PET, it is
extremely difficult to recouple. This means that the more
recovered materials incorporated into PP strapping, the weaker it
will be, which is not necessarily the case with PET.

     The government agencies contacted by EPA did not know if the
strapping products they bought were made with recovered
materials; thus, it was difficult to get much performance
information from the consumer's point of view.

     The economic feasibility of manufacturing strapping from
recovered materials depends on several factors: type of materials
being used, type of strapping being manufactured, and current
market prices for virgin and recovered materials. Costs for
strapping products vary by thickness of the strapping. On
average, PET strapping, regardless of whether or not it
incorporates recovered materials, is twice as expensive as PP
strapping.

     Strapping is sometimes made from recovered PP strapping. One
company has instituted a program whereby it buys back its own
used PP strapping for remanufacturing. Other companies buy
recovered PP and polyester strapping as long as the used
strapping meets their specifications. Although there are some
technical challenges that must be overcome, such as difficulty of
recoupling, PP strapping can be manufactured with recovered
materials cost-effectively, as long as transportation costs for
obtaining recovered feedstocks can be kept to a minimum. 

     Manufacturing from recovered PET is only economically
feasible if the price of recovered PET is comparable to virgin
PET. Most strapping distributors don't advertise their products
as containing recovered materials, even when they do contain them
(despite the fact that customers occasionally request strapping
that contains recovered materials). This situation allows the
manufacturers to choose whatever material (recovered or virgin)
most inexpensively meets their specifications at the time of
manufacturing.

     According to SRI, most steel items can be manufactured with
steel made by both BOF and EAF processes. SRI noted that items
made by the BOF process typically contain 25 to 30 percent
recovered materials, including more than 15 percent postconsumer
steel. When items are made out of steel manufactured by the EAF
process, they may contain up to 100 percent recovered materials,
including 67 percent postconsumer steel. Given the stable market
for steel, manufacturing steel strapping with recovered materials
content should remain economically feasible.

     Strapping products made from recovered materials are
available nationwide from numerous sources. EPA identified eight
strapping manufacturers that in some way incorporate recovered
materials into their products. Seven of these manufacturers make
both manual and machine grade strapping, although recovered
materials are most often incorporated into manual grade
strapping. EPA estimates that 25 to 30 companies are currently
manufacturing strapping products. 

     c.   Impact of Government Procurement

     EPA contacted representatives from DLA, DOD, GSA, and USPS.
All indicated that they purchase manual-grade strapping products,
but none could provide evidence of machine-grade strapping
procurement. A kit that includes hand-applied steel and nylon
strapping products is offered in the GSA Supply Catalog under
Mailing and Packing Supplies. A contact at GSA estimated that the
more versatile manual-grade products account for a far greater
percentage of government purchases than machine grade, but
couldn't provide specific figures. One agency (DLA) indicated
that it is in the process of making strapping products a
regularly stocked item. Several contacts indicated that the
military and GSA do procure strapping directly with appropriated
federal funds for use in palletizing operations. 

     Federal agencies also acquire these items indirectly by
requiring the use of strapping on palletized goods and materials
that it receives. GPO, for example, specifies the use of
strapping in its shipping guidance for paper suppliers: The
packaged and packed items shall be placed on new pallets with
strapping and/or wrap that provides a commercially acceptable
shipping load. A contact at GSA indicated that, while the federal
government requests that either shrink wrap or strapping be used,
strength, camber, and other performance characteristics are left
up to the vendor and distributor. 

     Unfortunately, since strapping is a minor item in the
overall shipping picture (compared to pallets, boxes, packing
materials, etc.), it is not closely tracked and is often
purchased on an as-needed basis. The former Commercial Item
Description numbers for strapping products, AA880 and AA52211 for
steel and nonmetallic strapping respectively, have been canceled.
The new numbers, D3953 and D3950, correspond to the ASTM
standards, as discussed below in section 7, Specifications.

     4.   Designation

      EPA is designating manual-grade strapping containing
recovered steel or plastic. A final designation does not preclude
a procuring agency from purchasing strapping manufactured from
another material such as rayon or nylon. It simply requires that
a procuring agency, when purchasing steel, PP, or polyester
strapping, purchase these items made with recovered materials
when they meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements 

     5.   Preference Program

     With the exception of steel, which has been revised to
reflect the comment submitted by SRI regarding the postconsumer
and recovered materials content, EPA is recommending the draft
recommendations in the final RMAN III. EPA recommends that, based
on the recovered material levels shown in Table 41 and the
corresponding table in the RMAN III, procuring agencies establish
minimum content standards for use in purchasing manual-grade
strapping containing recovered materials.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 41

  Final Recovered Materials Content Recommendations for Manual-
       Grade Polyester, Polypropylene, and Steel Strapping


Product        Material  Postconsumer   Total Recovered
                         Content (%)    Materials Content (%)

Polyester 
strapping      PET       50-85          50-85

Polypropylene 
strapping      PP        --             10-40

Steel
strapping      Steel     16             25-30
                         67             100

Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency
from purchasing another type of strapping, such as nylon.  They
simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing
polyester, polypropylene, or steel manual-grade strapping,
purchase these items made with recovered materials when these
items meet applicable specifications and performance
requirements.

     The recommended recovered materials content levels for steel
in this table reflect the fact that the designated items can be
made from steel manufactured in either a Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) or an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF).  Steel from the BOF
process contains 25-30% total recovered materials, of which 16%
is postconsumer steel.  Steel from the EAF process contains a
total of 100% recovered steel, of which 67% is postconsumer. 
*****************************************************************


     6.   Background for Recommendations

     The term strapping refers to actual straps of material used
with transport packaging to hold products in place on pallets or
in other methods of commercial, bulk shipment. Strapping can also
prevent tampering and pilferage during shipping.

     In response to its September 20, 1995, request for
information, EPA received one comment on the inclusion of
strapping materials in the CPG from a company in Massachusetts.
The company stated that strapping with recovered material content
is available in commercial quantities at competitive prices from
at least one company.

     Five basic types of strapping are available in the
marketplace steel, PP, polyester, nylon, and polyester cord.
Nylon is currently a small, declining percentage of the strapping
market. PP strapping is the most commonly used and least
expensive of all strapping materials. Polyester strapping is one
of the most rigid strapping materials. It is frequently used to
ship heavy duty loads, such as lumber, and can contain
postconsumer recovered PET from recovered soda bottles.
(Strapping containing PET is often referred to as polyester
strapping in the industry.) Cord (nonflat) strapping, available
in both polyester and rayon, is used only in manual applications.
Because it offers excellent resistance to moisture, cord is often
used in outdoor applications, such as agriculture (e.g., the
bracing of fruit trees) and the boating industry. Steel is the
strongest of all strapping materials. Like nylon, the market for
steel strapping is also declining, but there are numerous
applications in which steel will continue to be the preferred
material, such as heavy construction material shipping. Based on
comments from several manufacturers, polyester and PP constitute
the majority of sales in the strapping industry, with steel and
rayon placing a distant third and fourth respectively in terms of
sales volume. 

     Table 42 lists the recovered materials used in the products
of companies that manufacture strapping.


*****************************************************************

                             Table 42

             Recovered Materials Content of Strapping


Material       Postconsumer             Total Recovered
               Content (%)              Materials Content (%)

PET            Company A: 40-50         40-50
               Company B: 75           75
               Company C: 15-35         15-35
               Company D: 60            60
               Company E: 50            50
               Company F: 85            85
               Company G: Unknown       Unknown

PP             Company A: -             5-10 (PP)
               Company B: -             20 (PP)
               Company C: -             15-20 (PP)
               Company E: -             10 (PP)
               Company F: -             20 (PP)
               Company G: -             Unknown

PP, Polyester, 
Hybrid Blend   Company H: -             40

LDPE           Company I: 20            20
*****************************************************************


     7.   Specifications

     A table of specifications and guidance for breaking
strength, elongation, and other characteristics of various types
of strapping and stretch wrap can be found in the document
entitled, Background Document for Proposed CPG III and Draft RMAN
III. These specifications neither recommend nor preclude the use
of recovered materials. 


XIII.     OTHER ITEMS CONSIDERED FOR CPG III DESIGNATION

     EPA categorized the items that are not being proposed for
designation in CPG III into two additional groups: 1) those items
that will be considered for designation in future CPG revisions
and 2) those items that are no longer under consideration. EPA
based these determinations on information provided through public
comments and its own research. (See Section II.C of this document
for a discussion of the methodology used for selecting items for
proposed designation in the CPG.)


     A.   Items Still Under Consideration

     A number of items containing recovered materials are still
under consideration by EPA for future CPG designation. The Agency
either has not completed its review of these items or has
determined that additional research is necessary.

     As part of its effort to designate items in the CPG, EPA
conducted its own research on a number of items. Some items are
being proposed for designation in CPG III, while EPA has
insufficient information to designate other items at this time.
For many of these items, EPA has information pertinent to only
one or two of the item selection criteria. EPA has incomplete
information on the following items, which are arranged
alphabetically by product category. These items are still being
researched and are being considered for possible future CPG
designation. 

     Construction Products

     Carpet runners
     Flooring materials
     Hardboard
     Medium density fiberboard
     Nylon carpet
     Particleboard
     Interior trim and window frames
     Roofing materials
     Rubberized asphalt
     Building blocks
     Decking material
     Marine docks
     Geotextiles
     Plastic pipe
     Cenospheres
     Aggregates
     Concrete containing silica fume


     Transportation Products

     Embankments
     Threshold ramps
     
     
     Nonpaper Office Products
     
     Office dividers
     Lightweight furniture


     Vehicular Products

     Rebuilt motor parts
     

     Miscellaneous Products
     
     Food service trays
     Rolling carts
     Industrial abrasives
     Limited use protective apparel
     Bicycle racks
     Mattresses, mattress pads, and pillows


     B.   Items Dropped From Further Consideration

     EPA considered two additional items for proposed designation
but determined, based on the available information, that it was
inappropriate to designate them. The items discussed below are no
longer being considered for designation. A brief explanation of
the basis for this determination is also provided. EPA is no
longer conducting research relative to these items or considering
them for designation in a future CPG. However, the Agency will
review any information submitted in support of designating these
items in the future to determine whether these items should be
reconsidered.

     1.   Miscellaneous Products Dropped From Consideration

     a.   Recycled Ink

     EPA contacted numerous printers, ink manufacturers, and
printing trade associations and was able to identify only one
potential recycled ink manufacturer. EPA did learn that many of
the larger commercial printers recycle ink internally, as ink
remaining from a press run can be reused or reblended with virgin
ink. However, as there is little, if any, activity to manufacture
recycled content ink as a stand-alone product, EPA cannot
designate this item. As mentioned above, EPA only identified one
manufacturer producing and selling recycled ink.

     b.   Shotgun Shells

     Two technical issues exist with regard to designating
shotgun shells. First, the shotgun shell is manufactured with an
impact extrusion process that is highly sensitive to any
contaminants in the plastic resins, which precludes the use of
recovered plastics. Second, shotgun shells are subject to more
than 15,000 pounds per square inch of pressure when a shotgun is
fired and manufacturers are hesitant to introduce any impurities
that may impair the integrity of the shotgun shell and result in
a potentially fatal injury.


XIV. DESIGNATED ITEM AVAILABILITY

     EPA has identified a number of manufacturers and vendors of
the items proposed for designation. Once the item designations
become final, these lists will be placed in the RCRA docket for
this action and will be posted on EPA's Internet Web page. They
will be updated periodically as new sources are identified and
product information changes. Procuring agencies should contact
the manufacturers and vendors directly to discuss their specific
needs and to obtain detailed information on the availability and
price of recycled products meeting those needs. 

     Other information is available from the GSA, DLA, state and
local recycling offices, private corporations, and trade
associations. Refer to Appendix II of this document for more
detailed information on these sources of information.


XV.  ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

     Details of the economic impact of CPG III are described in
the document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline III, July 14, 1999, which is
included in the RCRA Docket for CPG III.


XVI. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION

     A.   Carpet Cushion

The Supporting Facts About Carpet Cushion, Carpet Cushion
Council, 1994.


     B.   Coal Fly Ash/Foundry Sand/Flowable Fill

Management and Use of Coal Combustion Byproducts, American Coal
Ash Association, 1996.

1995 Coal Combustion Byproduct Production and Use (Short Tons),
American Coal Ash Association, 1996.

State Solid Waste Regulations Governing the Use of Coal
Combustion Byproducts, American Coal Ash Association, 1996. 

Coal Fly Ash, Buy Recycled Business Alliance, 1996.

Beneficial Reuse of Spent Foundry Sand, Clean Washington Center,
1995.

Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal
Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and
Commercial Section (draft), Energy & Environmental Research
Center, 1993.

Federal Highway User Guidelines for Coal Fly Ash, Federal Highway
Administration, 1996.

Federal Highway User Guidelines for Foundry Sand in Flowable
Fill, Federal Highway Administration, 1996.

Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers, Federal Highway
Administration, 1995.

Fine Foundry Aggregate in Your Backyard, Pennsylvania
Foundryman's Association, 1995.

Processing and Potential Applications of Fly Ash Aluminum (Ash
Alloy) Composite, University of Wisconsin, 1995.

Development and Characterization of a Closed Pore Insulation
Material, Grumman Aerospace Corporation, 1976.

What, Why & How? Flowable Fill Materials, National Ready Mix
Concrete Association, 1989. 

Ready Mixed Flowable Fill: A Controlled Density Material,
National Ready Mix Concrete Association, 1993.

Flowable Fill Made with Spent Foundry Sand, Ohio Department of
Transportation, 1995.

Practical Considerations for the Formulation and Usage of
Flowable Fill Materials, L. Zimmerman, 1990. 


     C.   Plastic Lumber

Balloting of Draft Test Methods for Density, Compressive
Properties, Flexural Properties, and Mechanical Fasteners for
Plastic Lumber and Shapes, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1996.

The State of the Plastic Lumber Industry: 1996, Plastic Lumber
Trade Association, 1996.

The Recycled Plastic Lumber Industry: Moving Toward Adulthood,
Resource Recycling Magazine, 1996.


     D.   Playground Equipment

Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground
Equipment for Public Use, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1995.

Handbook for Playground Safety, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 1993.


     E.   Compost

Biocycle Journal of Composting and Recycling, various issues.


     F.   Sorbents

National Wood Recycling Directory, American Forest & Paper
Association, 1996.

Substances Absorbed by Absorbent Products, Absorption
Corporation, 1994.

Market Overview, Coalition of Organic Absorbent Producers, 1996.

World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products, Marine Spill
Response Corporation, 1995.


     G.   Signage

Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1988.

Use of Recycled Materials and Recycled Products in Highway
Construction, University of Massachusetts Transportation Center,
1995.


     H.   Strapping 

Standard Specification for Strapping, Nonmetallic (and Joining
Methods), American Society for Testings and Materials, 1990.

Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1991.

Standard Guide for Selection and Use of Flat Strapping Materials,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994.

Standard Guide for Selection of Stretch Wrap Films, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1995. 


     I.   Multimaterial

Buy Recycled Guidebook, Buy Recycled Business Alliance, National
Recycling Coalition, 1996.

McRecycle USA Database Listing, McDonald's Corporation, 1995.

NRC 1997 Program Book, 16th Annual Congress & Exposition,
National Recycling Coalition, Sept. 22-24, 1997.

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1998 Update, U.S. EPA, EPA530-R-99-021, September 1999.

Buy Recycled Training Manual: A Guidebook for Government Buyers
and Using Agencies, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority,
1995.

The Official Recycled Products Guide, Recycling Data Management
Corporation, 1996.

Opportunities for Government Procurement of New and Innovative
Recycled Content Products, Final Report, prepared for EPA Region
1, by Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, 1995.

Recycled Products Research for the Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline, Draft Final Report, prepared for EPA Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009), by Science Applications International Corporation, n.d.

Potential Items for Future Designation: Comprehensive Guideline
for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Content, Final
Report, prepared for EPA Office of Solid Waste, OSW (renamed Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, ORCR, on January 18, 2009), by Science
Applications International Corporation, 1995.

Research on Potential Items for Designation in the Comprehensive
Procurement Guideline, Report prepared for EPA Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009), by Eastern Research Group, Inc., 1995.

Manufacturing from Recyclables: 24 Case Studies of Successful
Recycling Enterprises, U.S. EPA, EPA530-R-95-001, 1995.

Environmental Products Guide, U.S. General Services
Administration, Office of Acquisition, Acquisition Management
Center, Environmental and Engineering Policy Division, 1995.