6560

- 50

- P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 60 and 241 [EPA – HQ – OAR – 2003 - 0119 and EPA - HQ - RCRA 2008 - 0329; FRL - ] RIN 2060 - A R15 and 2050 - AG44 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non - Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Final Rule
AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.
SUMMARY: This action sets forth the EPA’s final decision on the issues for which it granted reconsideration in December 2011, which pertain to certain aspects of the March 21, 2011, final rule titled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste In cineration Units” (CISWI rule). This action also includes our final decision to deny the requests for reconsideration with respect to all issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the final c ommercial and industrial solid waste incineration rul e for which we did not grant reconsideration. Among other things, this final action establishes effective dates for the standards and makes technical corrections to the final rule to clarify definitions, references, applicability and compliance issues. In addition, the EPA is issuing final amendments to the regulations that werePage 2 of 319

codified by the Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials rule (NHSM rule). Originally promulgated on March 21, 2011, the non

hazardous secondary materials rule provides the standards and
p rocedures for identifying whether non

- hazardous secondary materials are solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify several provisions in order to implement the non

- hazardous secondary materials rule as the agency originally intended. DATES: The stay of effectiveness for 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD is lifted and the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in that rule are effective as of [ INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. The amendments in this rule to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, are effective as of [ INSERT THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ] and to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, are effective as of [ INSERT THE
DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. ADDRESSES: The EPA established a single docket under Docket ID
Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119 for this acti on on the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration rule. The EPA also established a single docket under Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2008

- 0329 for this action on the non

- hazardous secondaryPage 3 of 319

materials rule. All documents in the docket are listed i n the http://www.regulations.gov index . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyri ghted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Av e., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744 and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566

- 1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration reconsideration and final rule, contact Ms. Toni Jones, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143

– 05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541

– 0316; fax number: (919) 541

– 3470; email address: jones.toni@epa.gov, or Ms. Amy Hambrick, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies a nd Programs Division (E143

– 05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;Page 4 of 319

telephone number: (919) 541

– 0964; fax number: (919) 541

– 3470; email address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. For further information regarding the Non

- Haz ardous Secondary Materials final rule, contact Mr. George Faison, Program Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Wash ington, DC 20460

- 0002; telephone number : 703

- 305

- 7652; fax number: 703

- 308

- 0509; email address : faison.george@epa.gov
. I. Organization of this Document The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. Organization of this Document A. Supplementary Information B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document? D. Judicial Review E. Executive Summary II. CISWI Reconsideration and Final Rule A. Background Information 1. What is the history of the CISWI standards? 2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the final CISWI rule? 3. What is the relationship between this rule and other combustion rules? 4. What is the response to the vacatur of effective dates? B. Summary of This Final Rule 1. Subcategories of Affected Units and Emission Standards 2. Fuel Switching Provisions 3. Definitions of Cyclonic Burn Barrels, Burn

- off Ovens, Soil Treatment Units, Laboratory Analysis Units and Space Heaters 4. Affirmative Defense for Malfunction Events 5. Oxygen Correction Requirements and CO Monitoring RequirementsPage 5 of 319

6. Full

- load Stack Test Requirement for CO Coupled With Continuous O 2 Monitoring 7. Non

- detect Methodology Using Three Times the Detection Level 8. Definitions for Foundry Sand Thermal Reclam ation Unit and Chemical Recovery Unit 9. Definition of Contained Gaseous Material 10. Parametric Monitoring Provisions for Additional Control Device Types 11. Particulate Matter Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs and Waste

- burning Kilns 12. Re vised Definition of Waste

- burning Kiln 13. Revised Definition of Solid Waste 14. Compliance Dates C. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 1. Revision of the Subcategories 2. Revisions to the Monitoring Requirements 3. Oxygen Monitoring Requirement s 4. Removal of the Definition of Homogeneous Waste 5. Non

- detect Methodology Using Three Times the Detection Level 6. Parametric Monitoring for Additional Control Device Types 7. Particulate Matter Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs and Waste

- burning Kilns 8. Compliance Dates 9. Definition of Waste

- burning Kiln 10. Exemption for Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) Units D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications E. Major Public Comments and Responses F. What other actions are we taking? G. What are the impacts associated with the amendments? 1. What are the primary air impacts? 2. What are the water and solid waste impacts? 3. What are the energy impacts? 4. What are the secondary air impacts? 5. What are the cost and economic impacts? 6. What are the benefits? III. NHSM Final Revisions A. Statutory Authority B. NHSM Rule History C. Introduction

– Summary of Regulations Being Finalized 1. Revised Definitions a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass b. Contaminants c. Established Tire Collection Programs d. Resinated Wood 2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels 3. Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as FuelsPage 6 of 319

a. Scrap Tires b. Resinate d Wood c. Coal Refuse d. Pulp and Paper Sludge 4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations (40 CFR 241.4(b)) 5. Streamlining of the 40 CFR 241.3(c) Non

- Waste Determination Petition Process 6. Revised Introductory Text for 40 CFR 241.3(a) D. Comments on the Proposed Rule and Rationale for Final Decisions 1. Revised Definitions a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass b. Contaminants c. Established Tire Collection Programs 2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSMs Used as Fuels a. Gen eral Comments on the Revised Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion b. Grouping of Contaminants c. Meaning of Designed to Burn d. Contaminant Comparisons Allowed 3. Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as Fuels a. Scrap Tires b. Resinated Wood 4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations (40 CFR 241.4(b)) 5. Materials for Which Additional Information was Requested a. Pulp and Paper Sludge b. Coal Refuse c. Manure d. Other Materials for Which Additional Information was Not Requested 6. Streamlining of the 40 CFR 241.3(c) Non

- Waste Determination Petition Process 7. Revised Introductory Text for 40 CFR 241.3(a) E. Cost and Benefits of the Final Rule IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Ord er 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal GovernmentsPage 7 of 319

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Ener gy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act

A. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations . The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

ACI activated carbon injection AF&PA American Forest & Paper Association ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ANSI American National Stan dards Institute APA Administrative Procedure Act ARIPPA Anthracite Region Independent Power

Producers Association ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers AST activated sludge treatment ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATCM Air Toxic Control Measure Btu British thermal unit CAA Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CBI Confidential Business Information CCA chromated copper arsenate Cd cadmium C&D construction & demolition CDX Central Data Exchange CFB circulating fluidized bed CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration CO carbon monoxidePage 8 of 319

CO 2 carb on dioxide Catalyst carbon monoxide oxidation catalyst Cl 2 chlorine gas

CPMS continuous parametric monitoring system CWA Clean Water Act D/F dioxin/furan dscm dry standard cubic meter DSW Definition of Solid Waste EG emission guidelines EJ Environmental Justice EOM extractable organic matter EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool ERU energy recovery unit ESP electrostatic precipitator FF f abric filters FR Federal Register HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hy drogen chloride HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HMI hospital, medical and infectious HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration ICR Information Collection Request Lb pound LML lowest measured level Mg milligram Mn manganese MACT maximum achievable control technology MDL method detection level mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW megawatts MWC Municipal Waste Combustor NAAQS National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NCASI National Council on Air and Stream Improvement ND nondetectPage 9 of 319

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter NHSM non - hazardous secondary material(s) NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NO x nitrogen oxides NSPS New Source Performance Standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards O MB Office of Management and Budget OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response O 2 Oxygen PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PCDD polychlorinated dibenzodioxins PCDF polyc hlorinated dibenzofurans PIC product of incomplete combustion PM particulate matter POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume ppmvd parts per million by dry volume PQL practical quantitation limit PRA Paper Reduction Act PS Performance Specification lb/MMBtu pound per million British thermal units RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDL r eported detection level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RIN Regulatory Information N umber RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR residual risk and technology review SBA Small Business Administration SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SISNOSE Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number

of Small EntitiesPage 10 of 319

SMC RA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction SO 2 sulfur dioxide SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction SVOC Semi

- Volatile Organic Compound SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act TBtu tera British thermal unit TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance TEQ Toxic Equivalency The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit TMB Total Mass Basis TOX Total Organic Halogens tpy tons per year TSM Total Selected Metal TTN T echnology Transfer Network UCL upper confidence limit ug/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UL upper limit UPL upper prediction limit U.S.C. United States Code USGS United States Geological Survey VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards VOC volatile organic compound WWW Worldwide Web B. Does this action apply to me? Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are those that operate CISWI units and those that generate potentially affected NHSMs. The NSPS and EG, hereinafter referred to as “standards,” for CISWI affect the following categories of sources:
Category NAICS 1

Code Examples of Potentially Regulated EntitiesPage 11 of 319

Category NAICS 1

Code Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Any industrial or commercial facility using a solid waste incinerator 211, 212,

486 Oil and Gas Extraction, mining

(except oil and gas); Pipeline Transportation 221 Utilities 321, 322, 337 Wood Product Manufacturing, Paper

Manufacturing, Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 325, 326 Chemical Manufacturing, Plastics and

Rubber Products Manufacturing 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product

Manufacturing, 333, 336 Machinery Manufacturing,

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 423, 44, Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods,

Retail Trade

Any facility or entity generating a non hazardous secondary material that may be burned for fuel or destruction 2 111 Crop Production

112 Animal Production 113 Forestry and Logging 115 Support Activities for Agriculture

and Forestry 211 Oil and Gas Extraction 212 Mining (except oil and gas) 221 Utilities 236 Construction of Buildings 311 Food Manufacturing 312 Beverage and Tobacco Product

Manufacturing 313 Textile Mills 316 Leather and Allied Product

Manufacturing 321 Wood Product Manufacturing 322 Paper Manufacturing 324 Petroleum and Coal Products

Manufacturing 325 Chemical Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products

Manufacturing 327 NonMetallic Mineral Product

Manufacturing 331 Primary Metal ManufacturingPage 12 of 319

Category NAICS 1

Code Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities 332 Fabricated Metal Product

Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electronic Product

Manufacturing 336 Transportation Equipment

Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product

Manufacturing 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable

Goods
44

- 45 Retail Trade (all categories,

including non

- store retailers, vending and direct sellers) 486 Pipeline Transportation 493 Warehousing and Storage 511 Publishing Industries (except

internet) 531 Real Estate 541 Professional, Scientific and

Technical Services 611 Educational Services 622 Hospitals 623 Nursing and Residential Care

Facilities 624 Social Assistance 713930 Boating Clubs with Marinas 721 Accommodation 722 Food Services and Drinking Places 813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,

Professional and Similar Organizations 92 Public Administration
1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Note that some of these NAICS may overlap with institutional facility types where incinerators are regulated by the Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWI) emission guidelines and NSPS.Page 13 of 319

This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by the final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC, 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD, and 40 CFR 241. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the final action to a particular entity, contact the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATI ON CONTACT section. C. Where can I get a copy of this document? The docket number for the action regarding the CISWI NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is Docket ID Number EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2003

– 0119. Worldwide Web. In addit ion to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web. Following signature, the EPA posted a copy of the final action on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. D. Judicial Review Under the CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a pet ition for review in The Court [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THEPage 14 of 319

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] . Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for p ublic comment can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, "[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection wi thin [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this rule." Any person s eeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to th e persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Wa shington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.Page 15 of 319

Resource Conservation and Recover y Act sections of the rule would be subject to judicial review under RCRA.
E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: [A1] Purpose of the Regulatory Action [A2] The EPA is promulgating final rules that establish standards for new and existing CISWI units. Section 129 of the CAA, titled “Solid Waste Combustion,” requires the EPA to develop and adopt standards for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA secti ons 111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1 3 )(A) of the CAA requires the EPA to establish performance standards, including emissions limitations, for “solid waste incineration units” generally and, in particular, for “solid waste incineration units combusting commer cial or industrial waste.” CAA section 129(a)(1)(D). Section 129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as “a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial establishments or the ge neral public.” CAA section 129(g)(1). Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” shall have the meaning established by the EPA pursuant to its authority under the RCRA. CAA section 129(g)(6)
. The December 23, 2011, proposed CISWI reconsiderati on rule granted reconsideration on a limited set of issues. 76 FR 80452. This final rule makes certain revisions to the final “Standards of Performance for Existing Sources: Commercial and IndustrialPage 16 of 319

Solid Waste Incineration Units,” 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011), based on those reconsideration issues (76 FR 80452) and in response to public comment on the proposed CISWI reconsideration rule. On May 18, 2011, the EPA issued a notice that delayed the effective dates of the March 21, 2011, CISWI rule (the “Delay Notice”). 76 FR 28662 (May 18, 2011). As the result of that action, the 2000 CISWI rule remained in effect. The Court vacated the Delay Notice in January 2012. However, because the Delay Notice delayed the effectiveness of the CISWI rule from May 2011 through vacature of that notice in January 2012, the revisions to the 2000 CISWI rule that were finalized in the 2011 CISWI rule were never codified in the CFR, but instead appear as notes after the corresponding provisions of the 2000 CISWI rule in the CFR. Although the issues on reconsideration were limited in the December 2011 CISWI reconsideration proposal, we had to include in that propos ed reconsideration rule all of the regulatory changes that had been made since the 2000 rule because the 2011 CISWI rule was not codified in the CFR. Specifically, we included in the December 23, 2011, proposed reconsideration rule all of the regulatory ch anges the EPA had made to the 2000 CISWI rule in the 2011 CISWI rule, as well as the changes to the 2011 CISWI rule that the EPA proposed to make on reconsideration. In response to the Court’s vacature of thePage 17 of 319

Delay Notice in January 2012, this final action lifts the delay of effectiveness so that the CFR can be revised to properly reflect the revisions to the 2000 CISWI rule that were finalized in the 2011 CISWI rule. This final action also contains regulatory text that amends the 2011 CISWI rule to address the reconsideration. Therefore, this final rule’s amendatory language differs from that of the December 2011 reconsideration proposal as it amends the 2011 CISWI rule instead of the 2000 CISWI rule. This change to the amendatory baseline in no way alters our limitation of the issues for comment for which we granted reconsideration. We have provided in the CISWI docket a redline/strikeout file of the 2000 CISWI rule to help implementing agencies and affected sources to identify the sum total of the revision s made to the 2000 CISWI rule through today’s final notice pursuant to the 2011 CISWI rule and this final action. Summary of Major Provisions for the Final Reconsideration Rule In general, the final rule establishes revised numeric emission limits for som e new and existing CISWI units for certain of the nine pollutants listed in section 129(a)(4) of the CAA. 1

1 The nine pollutants for which we must issue emission standards under section 129 are: PM, SO 2 , HCl, NO X , CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, D/F. CAA section 129(a)(4).Page 18 of 319

The EPA established standards for four subcategories of CISWI units in the 2011 CISWI rule: incinerators; small remote incinerators; ERUs; and waste

- burning kilns. The 2011 CISWI rule also included two subcategories of ERUs. In this final rule, we have further subcategorized ERUs and subcategorized waste

burning kilns based on design type differences. Thus, the final rule includes three subcategories of ERUs and separate CO limits for two subcategories of waste

- burning kilns. We have further revised some of the CISWI limits proposed in the reconsideration notice in response to comments on CO span methodology and incorporated additional data, including new data submitted during the comment period. These changes primarily affect the ERU and waste

- burning kiln subcategories but also affect some of the limits in each of the four subcategories. To ensure compliance with the emission limits, this final rule establishes stack testing and continuous monitoring requirements. The rule allows sources to use CEMS if an owner or operator chooses to do so. Continuous parameters and emissions levels (if used) are measured as either a 3

- hour block or a 30

- day rolling a verage basis, depending on the parameter being measured and the subcategory of CISWI. Since sources may choose to cease or start combusting solid waste at any time due to market conditions or for other reasons, the final rule contains provisions that spec ify the stepsPage 19 of 319

necessary for sources to switch applicability between this final rule and other applicable emission standards issued pursuant to CAA section 112. This rule also contains revisions to some of the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting require ments. The effective dates for existing sources depends primarily on state plan approval but may be no later than the date 5 years after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register
. For new sources, the effective date is either [ INSERT THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] or the date of startup of the source, whichever is later. New sources are defined as sources that began construction on or after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modificatio n after [ INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. Costs and Benefits The final rule affects 107 existing sources located at 65 facilities. The EPA projects an additional incinerator and five additional small r emote incinerators to be subject to this rule over the next 5 years. This final rule affects multiple sectors of our economy including small entities. Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits associated with this final rule. Note however, these are the costs and benefits of the final 2011 CISWI rule as amended by today’s final rule and therefore replace the costs and benefits presented in the MarchPage 20 of 319

2011 final rule. For comparison, the 2011 final rule, at 7 percent Discount Rate, had total net benefits [A3] of $30 to $470 million (2008 dollars). The monetized benefits of today’s final rule are approximately 24% higher than those of the final 2011 CISWI rule. [A4] A more detailed discussion of the costs and benefits of this final rule is provided in section II.G of this preamble. Table 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs and Net Benefits for the Final CISWI NSPS and EG In 2015 (Millions of 2008$) 1 3 percent Discount Rate 7 percent Discount Rate Total Monetized Benefits 2 $420 to $1000 $390 to $940 Total Social Costs 3 $270 $270 Net Benefits $150 to $670 $150 to $770

Non

- monetized Benefits Health effects from exposure to HAP 780 tons of HCl, 2.6 tons of lead, 1.8 tons of Cd, 690 pounds of Hg, and 58 grams of dioxins/furans) [A5] Health effects from exposure to criteria pollutants (20,000 tons of CO , 6,300 tons of SO 2 , 5,400 tons of NO 2 , and secondary formation of ozone) Ecosystem effects Visibility impairment 1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures. These results reflect the lowest cost disposal assumption. 2 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precu rsors such as directly emitted particles, SO 2 , and NO x . It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5Page 21 of 319

exposure. Monetized benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, e t al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These estimates include the energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 million (using the 3 percent discount rate), which do not change the rounded totals. CO 2 - related disbenefits were calculated using the “social cost of carbon”, which is discussed further in the RIA. 3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs for both discount rates. II. CISWI Reconsideration and Final Rule A. Background Info rmation 1. What is the history of the CISWI standards? On December 1, 2000, the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. On January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review in t he Court challenging the EPA’s final CISWI rule. On August 17, 2001, the EPA granted a Request for Reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network , related to the definition of “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit” and “commercial or industrial waste” in the 2000 CISWI rule. In granting the petition for reconsideration, the EPA agreed to undertake further notice and comment proce edings related to these definitions. On September 6, 2001, the Court entered anPage 22 of 319

order granting the EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. The EPA requested a voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule to address concerns rela ted to the EPA’s procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units in light of the Court’s decision in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln). Neither the EPA’s granting of the petition for reconsideration,

n or the Court’s order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, vacated or otherwise influenced the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Therefore, the remand order had no effect on the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. On February 17, 2004, the EPA publis hed a proposed rule (CISWI Definitions Rule) soliciting comments on the definitions of “solid waste,” “commercial and industrial waste,” and “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit”. On September 22, 2005, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final rule reflecting our decisions with respect to the CISWI Definitions Rule. The rule was challenged and, on June 8, 2007, the Court vacated and remanded the CISWI Definitions Rule. In vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA section 129 unambiguously includes among the incineration units subject to its standards, any facility that combusts any solid waste material, subject to four statutory exceptions. While the CourtPage 23 of 319

vacated the CISWI Definitions Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remained in ef fect. On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG for CISWI units (76 FR 15704)(2011 CISWI rule). That action constituted a partial response to the voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur and remand of the CISWI Defi nitions Rule. In addition, the EPA addressed the 5

- year technology review that is required under CAA section 129(a)(5). On the same day, the EPA issued a notice that it intended to reconsider certain aspects of the 2011 CISWI rule that warrant further oppo rtunity for public comment (76 FR 15266). Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, the EPA received petitions for reconsideration from the following organizations (“Petitioners”): Alaska Oil and Gas Association/Alaska Miners Association/ConocoPhilli ps (AOGA), American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Foundry Society (AFS), American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI), Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), American
Petro leum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA), Auto Industry Forum (AIF), Citizens Energy Group (CEG), Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO), Earthjustice/Sierra Club, Edison Mission Energy, Hovensa L.L.C.
and Tesoro Hawaii Corp., Industry Coalition (AF&PA et al.),Page 24 of 31 9

JELD

- WEN Inc., Portland Cement Association (PCA), Renovar Energy Corp., and Waste Management Inc. (WM). Copies of these petitions are provided in the docket (see Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2003

- 0119). Petit ioners, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), requested that the EPA reconsider numerous provisions in the 2011 CISWI rule. On May 18, 2011, the EPA issued a notice to postpone the effective dates of the March 21, 2011, final CISWI rule. This notice also requested that the public submit additional data and information to the EPA by July 15, 2011, for review and consideration in the reconsideration proceedings. On December 23, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule soliciting comment on the issues on which the EPA was granting reconsideration. In March 2011, the EPA had publically stated its intent to reconsider some of these issues. 76 FR 15266. The EPA limited comment in the December 23, 2011, proposed rule to the specific issues on which it was granting reconsideration which included the following: Revising the subcategories and emission limits for ERUs and waste

- burning kilns to reflect updated inventories an d additional data. Establishing limitations on fuel switching provisions. Definitions of cyclonic burn barrels, burn

- off ovens, soil treatment units, laboratory analysis units and space heaters from CISWI subcategories. Providing an affirmative defense for malfunction events. Revisions to the CO monitoring requirements.Page 25 of 319

Establishing a full

- load stack test requirement for CO coupled with continuous O 2 (trim) monitoring. Establishing a definition of “homogeneous waste.” Responding to comments on the 2011 CISW I rule regarding the use of fuel variability in emission limit calculations. Responding to comments on the 2011 CISWI rule regarding the review of D/F data and non

- detect methodology using three times the detection level. Responding to comments on the 2011 CISWI rule regarding providing an option for sources to use emissions averaging to demonstrate compliance. Establishing a definition for foundry sand thermal reclamation unit. Reinstating the definition of contained gaseous material. Revising the definiti on of chemical recovery unit. Allowing for the use of feed stream analysis or other supplemental information to demonstrate compliance. Responding to comments on the 2011 CISWI rule regarding providing percent reduction alternative standards. Providing par ametric monitoring provisions for additional control device types. Revisions to the continuous monitoring provisions for large ERUs. Extending effective dates. Technical corrections and clarifications.

2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the final CISWI rule? The RCRA definition of solid waste is integral in defining the CISWI source category. The EPA defines NHSMs that are solid waste under RCRA in the final “Identification of Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste” Rule making. In an action parallel to the March 21, 2011, final CISWI rule, the EPAPage 26 of 319

promulgated a final rule that identifies whether NHSMs are or are not solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. That action, hereinafter referred to as the “2011 NHSM final rule,” is relevant to the final CISWI rule because some ERUs and waste

- burning kilns combust, in their combustion units, secondary materials that are solid waste under the 2011 NHSM final rule. Commercial and industrial units that comb ust solid waste are subject to standards issued pursuant to CAA section 129, rather than to standards issued pursuant to CAA section 112 that would otherwise be applicable to such units (e.g., units that would be boilers, process heaters or cement kilns if they were not combusting solid waste). 3. What is the relationship between this rule and other combustion rules? These amendments address the combustion of solid waste materials (as defined by the Administrator under RCRA in the NHSM Definition rule) in c ombustion units at commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner or operator of a CISWI unit permanently ceases combusting solid waste, the affected unit would no longer be subject to the CISWI rule because the unit would not be a solid waste incinerat ion unit subject to standards under CAA section 129. Standards issued pursuant to section 112 of the CAA may apply to CISWI units that cease combusting solid waste. For example, CAA section 112 standardsPage 27 of 319

applicable to boilers and process heaters at major s ources and boilers at area sources would apply to boilers and process heaters that cease combusting solid waste. Boilers and process heaters that are located at commercial and industrial facilities and that combust solid waste are subject to CISWI as ERUs. The EPA has also finalized the CAA section 112 standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (75 FR 21136, September 9, 2010). Cement kilns combusting solid waste are waste

- burning kilns subject to CISWI, not the otherwise applicable CAA sectio n 112 standards. 4. What is the response to the vacatur of effective dates? On January 9, 2012, the Court vacated the May 18, 2011, Delay Notice, which delayed the effective dates of the 2011 CISWI rule. On February 7, 2012, the EPA issued a no action

ass urance letter regarding certain notification deadlines in the March 2011 CISWI rule. The EPA has conducted outreach to each EPA Regional Office within the agency and [A6] it has not found any new CISWI units that commenced construction since the proposed CISWI rule was published on June 10, 2010. The CAA defines a “new source,” in part, as any source that commences construction after the publication date of proposed CAA se ction 111 and 129 standards 2

2 The date for determining whether a source is a “new” source is the publication date of the proposed stan dards. The final rule andPage 28 of 319

CAA section 129(g)(2). Based on our outreach efforts, we do not believe there are any CISWI units that are in noncompliance with the NSPS contained in the final 2011 CISWI rule. As explained above, today’s final rule amendatory text reflects changes to the 2011 CISWI rule, not the 2000 CISWI rule as in the reconsideration proposal notice. We have provided in the CISWI docket a redline/strikeout file of the 2000 CISWI rule to help implementing agencies and affected sources to ide ntify the sum total of the revisions made to the 2000 CISWI rule pursuant to the 2011 CISWI rule and this final action. B. Summary of This Final Rule As stated above, the December 23, 2011, proposed rule addressed specific issues and provisions the EPA ide ntified for reconsideration. This summary of the final rule reflects the agency’s final action in regards to those provisions identified for reconsideration and on other discrete matters identified in response to comments or data received during the commen t period. Information on other provisions and issues not proposed for reconsideration is contained in the notice and record for the 2011 CISWI rule. 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011). 1. Subcategories of Affected Units and Emission Standards

reconsideration proposal contained a typographical error in 40 CFR 60.2015(a)(1) that did not specify the June 4, 2010, proposal date.Page 29 of 319

This final rule de fines a CISWI unit, in part, as any combustion unit at a commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste (as defined under RCRA)(40 CFR 60.2265 (NSPS) and 60.2875 (EG)). We have established standards in this final rule for the followi ng four subcategories of CISWI units: incinerators (i.e., units designed to burn discarded waste materials for the purpose of disposal); small, remote incinerators; ERUs (i.e., units that would be boilers or process heaters if they did not combust solid wa ste); and waste burning kilns (i.e., units that would be cement kilns if they did not combust solid waste). We further subcategorized ERUs into three subcategories and waste burning kilns into two subcategories for CO emission limits only. Changes to the s ubcategories made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” The final rule emission limits for new and existing sources in the solid

- fuel burning ERU subcategory and the waste

- bur ning kilns subcategories were revised based on changes to the inventories for those subcategories as discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble present the final emissi on limits for all subcategories for existing and new sources, respectively.Page 30 of 319

Table 2. Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Final MACT Floor Limits

Pollutant (units) a Incin erators (2000 CISWI limit) CISWI Subcategories

Incin erators ERUs -

Solids ERUs –

Liquid/Gas Waste burning kilns Small,

remote incin erators HCl (ppmv) 62 29 0.20 (bioma ss units) / 21 (coal units) 14 b 3.0 b 300

CO (ppmv) 157 17 260 (bioma ss units) / 95 (coal units) 35 110 (long kilns) / 790 (preheater / precalcine r) 64

Pb (mg/dscm) 0.04 0.015 0.014 b (bioma ss units) / 0.013 b (coal units) 0.096 0.014 b 2.1

Cd (mg/dscm) 0.004 0.0026 0.0014 b (bioma ss units) / 0.058 (coal units) 0.0 23 0.0014 b 0.95Page 31 of 319

Pollutant (units) a Incin erators (2000 CISWI limit) CISWI Subcategories

Incin erators ERUs -

Solids ERUs –

Liquid/Gas Waste burning kilns Small,

remote incin erators Hg (mg/dscm) 0.47 0.0048 0.0022 (bioma ss units) / 0.0028 (coal units) 0.031 b 0. 011 b 0.0053

PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 70 34 11 (bioma ss units) / 60 (coal units) 110 4.6 270

Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) (no

limit) 4.6 0.52 b (bioma ss units) / 0.51 b (coal units) 2.9 b 1.3 4,400

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.41 0.13 0.12 (bioma ss units) / 0.075 b (coal units) 0.32 b 0.075 b 180

NO x (ppmv) 388 53 290 (bioma ss units) / 340 (coal units) 76 630 190Page 32 of 319

Pollutant (units) a Incin erators (2000 CISWI limit) CISWI Subcategories

Incin erators ERUs -

Solids ERUs –

Liquid/Gas Waste burning kilns Small,

remote incin erators SO 2 (ppmv) 20 11 7.3 (bioma ss units) / 650 (coal units) 720 600 150

a All emission limits are expressed as concentrations corrected to 7 percent O 2 . b See the memorandum "CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for the Reconsideration Final Rule" for details on this calculation.

Table 3. Comparison of New Source M ACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Final MACT Floor Limits

Pollutant (units) a Incin erators (2000 limit) Final CISWI Subcategories

Incin erators ERUs –

Solids ERUs –

Liquid/Gas Waste burning kilns Small,

remote incin erators HCl (ppmv) 62 0.091 0.20 c (biomass units)/ 21 (coal units) 14 b 3.0 b 200

CO (ppmv) 157 17 240 (biomass units)/ 95 (coal units) 35 90 (long kilns) / 190 (preheater / precalciner) 13

Pb (mg/dscm) 0.04 0.015 b 0.014 b (biomass units) / 0.013 b (coal units) 0.096 0.014 b 2.0Page 33 of 319

Pollutant (units) a Incin erators (2000 limit) Final CISWI Subcategories

Incin erators ERUs –

Solids ERUs –

Liquid/Gas Waste burning kilns Small,

remote incin erators Cd (mg/dscm) 0.004 0.0023 0.0014 c (biomass units) / 0.058 (coal units) 0.023 0.0014 b 0.67

Hg (mg/dscm) 0.47 0.00084 b 0.0022 c (biomass units) / 0.0028 (coal units) 0.00091 d 0.0037 b 0.0035

PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 70 18 5.1 (biomass units) / 60 (coal units) 110 2.2 270 c

Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) (no

limit) 0.58 b 0.52 b (biomass units) / 0.51 b (coal units) (no limit) 0.51 b 1,800

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.41 0.13 0.076 b (biomass units) / 0.075 b (coal units) 0.093 d 0.075 b 31

NO x (ppmv) 388 23 290 c (biomass units)/ 340 (coal units) 76 200 b 170

SO 2 (ppmv) 20 11 c 7.3 c (biomass units)/ 650 (coal units) 720 130 1.2Page 34 of 319

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent O 2 . b See the memorandum “CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for the Reconsideration Final Rule” for details on this calculation. c The NSPS limit equals the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. d D/F TEQ and Hg lim its for ERUs

– liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See “CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for the Reconsideration Final Rule" for details.
2. Fuel Switching Provisions The EPA is finalizing the proposed fuel switching provisions that address the situation where CISWI units cease combusting solid waste, and where existing commercial and industrial combustion units begin combusting solid waste (40 CFR 60.2330 for existing units and 40 CFR 60.2710 for new units). Units that cease combusting solid waste remain subject to CISWI for at least 6 months after solid waste is last added to the combustion chamber. After 6 months, sources must either comply with any applicable section 112 stand ard or, if they intend to combust solid waste in the future, opt to remain subject to CISWI and continue to comply with the applicable provisions. Combustion units located at commercial or industrial facilities that begin combusting solid waste are solid w aste incineration units on the date they begin combusting solid waste. Existing units that begin combusting solid waste within 6 months of the effective date of the CISWI EG must comply with the standards on the effective date of those standards. Existing units that begin combusting solid waste after the effective date of the CISWI EGPage 35 of 319

must comply with those standards at the time the unit begins combusting solid waste. 3. Definitions of Cyclonic Burn Barrels, Burn

- off Ovens, Soil Treatment Units, Laboratory Analysis Units and Space Heaters We are finalizing the proposed definitions for cyclonic burn barrels, burn

- off ovens, soil treatment units, and laboratory analysis units. We have revised the proposed definition for space heaters to clarify applicability f or units that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 279. The final definitions describe the types of units and state that these different types of units are not incinerators, small remote incinerators, ERUs, or waste burning kilns. The EPA is including these def initions in the final rule to differentiate these units from the units for which the agency established standards in the 2011 CISWI rule and this final action. 4. Affirmative Defense for Malfunction Events The EPA is finalizing the proposed affirmative defense to civil penalties for malfunction events. The EPA first included an affirmative defense in the 2011 final rules in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to

ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. This final reconsideration attempts to add clarification to thePage 36 of 319

affirma tive defense and provided opportunity for additional public comment and response. Sources are required to comply with the CISWI standards at all times, and the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure may cause an exceedance of the relevant standard. The EPA must establish emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v.
EPA , 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable through injunctive relief. See generally , Luminant Generation Co. v EPA , 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15722 (5 th Cir. 2012) (upholding EPA’s approval of affirmative defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While “continuous” stan dards, on the one hand, are required, there is also case

- law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for upsetsPage 37 of 319

during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the stan dards as a whole and that the record does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, Portland
Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.Cir. 1973)
. Though intervening case

- law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments call into question the relevance of these cases today, they s upport the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense provisions allow sources to avoid civil penalties for exceedances caused by a malfunction event if the source demonstrates by a prepond erance of the evidence that the malfunction event meets the definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events beyond the control of the source. In a Clean Water Act settin g, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil
Co. v. EPA , 564 F.2d 1253, 1272

- 73 (9 th Cir. 1977). See also , Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting industry argument that reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1057

- 58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). ThePage 38 of 319

a ffirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission standards are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. In a ddition, the affirmative defense provisions are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, minimize emissions during the malfunction, and prevent future malfunctions. 5. Oxygen Correction Requirements and CO Monitoring Requirements We are finalizing provisions for calculating the 30

- day CO rolling average that allow uncorrected CEMS reading to be used during the period of operation from a cold start to bring the combustion unit up to minimal normal operating temperature. We are also allowing uncorrected CEMS readings to be used in 30

- day average calculations for the period of operation following the last waste material (or material feed for waste burning kilns) being fed to the combustion unit during shutdown procedures of the unit. For every type of CISWI unit except waste

- burning kilns, the period of time allowed for uncorrected CEMS data during a startup shall be 48 hours or less per startup event and shall be 24 hours or less for each shutdown event. For waste

burning kilns, the p eriod of startup begins when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and continues until continuous feed is introduced into the kiln, at which time the kiln is in normalPage 39 of 319

operating mode. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted.

[A7] Sources must indicate in the CEMS data records which CEMS data are obtained during the startup and shutdown periods. Since the
O 2 correction calculation will affect all corrected CEMS data, we have expanded these provisions in the final rule to allow for uncorrected CEMS data f or any pollutant that sources elect to measure continuously with CEMS and calculate 30

- day rolling averages to demonstrate continuous compliance. Additionally, we have finalized removal of continuous CO monitoring requirements for new and existing ERU unit s. We are instead requiring annual CO stack tests and continuous O 2 monitoring and we are allowing CO monitoring with CEMS as a compliance alternative. We have also removed the continuous CO monitoring requirements for new CISWI units in the other subcateg ories, but sources may demonstrate compliance using CO CEMS if they so choose. The authority to use uncorrected CEMS data during startup and shutdowns discussed above applies to all CISWI sources that elect to demonstrate compliance with any emission limit s with a CEMS instead of performing annual stack tests. Changes to the CO and other optional CEMS monitoring requirements made since proposal are discussed below in Section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.”Page 40 of 319

6. Full

- load Stack Test Requirement for CO Coupled With Continuous O 2 Monitoring We are finalizing the full

- load stack test and continuous
O 2 monitoring provisions in today’s action that afford the ability for existing sources to use their current O 2 anal yzer
and O 2 trim systems to demonstrate continuous compliance. Based on comments received, we have made some clarifying changes to these provisions to be clear that existing O 2 trim systems and

O 2 monitors may be used to demonstrate continuous compliance, as well as clarifications on establishing the operating limits for
O 2 content. Changes to the continuous O 2 monitoring requirements made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” 7. Non

- detect Methodology Using Three Times the Detection Level Since proposal, the EPA continued its review of sampling volumes and detection levels across various emission testing ICR efforts on various combustion sources to encompass additional polluta nts measured using EPA Reference Method 29 (See memorandum “Updated data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits” in the CISWI docket). As a result of this a nalysis, we have determined recommended values for three times the representative detectionPage 41 of 319

level that may be used as a minimum emission limit value that can be accurately measured by most laboratories for Cd and Pb. 3 Furthermore, based on comments on ou r application of this

non - detect methodology approach to CO data measured using instrument methods, we have made some necessary modifications to the span calculation approach used in the proposed rule. Changes to the emission limits for Cd, Pb and the span adjustment calculations for CO made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” 8. Definitions for Foundry Sand Thermal Reclamation Unit and Chemical Recovery Unit We are finalizing the proposed definitions of “foundry sand thermal reclamation unit” and “chemical recovery unit” to clarify that these units are not incinerators, waste

- burning kilns, ERUs or small, remote incinerators under subparts CCCC or
DDDD. 9. Definition of Contai ned Gaseous Material In today’s final rule, we have reintroduced and finalized the definition for “contained gaseous material” as found in the 2000 CISWI rule as proposed. As discussed earlier, the Court’s vacature of the Delay Notice now requires this de finition to be

3 The RDL methodology is consistent with the RDL methodology outlined in the December 2011 reco nsideration proposal. 76 FR 80463.Page 42 of 319

reintroduced since we are now amending the 2011 CISWI rule instead of making amendments to the 2000 CISWI rule as when we published the December 2011 reconsideration proposal. 10. Parametric Monitoring Provisions for Additional Control Device Types In the proposed rule, we requested comment on whether there were additional control device types that we should identify monitoring parameters for in the rule. We received comments on this topic and, in today’s final rule, are including monit oring provisions for sorbent injection rate for dry scrubber control devices (40 CFR 60.2165 and 40 CR 60.2730). We have also clarified that sources that elect to use optional CEMS to monitor continuous compliance for Hg, D/Fs or NO 2 may do so as a
substit ute for parametric monitoring of ACI and SNCR control devices, respectively. Changes to the parametric monitoring provisions made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” 11. Part iculate Matter Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs and Waste

- burning Kilns In today’s rule, we are finalizing some revisions to the monitoring requirements for ERUs with an annual average heat input rate greater than 250 MMBtu/hr and extending the same PM continuous monitoring provisions to waste

- burning kilns. In thePage 43 of 319

final 2011 CISWI rule, these units were required to monitor continuously for PM using a PM CEMS; however, the PM CEMS technology may not be sufficient to certify accurate monitor
p erformance in the PM concentration range of the CISWI biomass ERU and waste

- burning kiln limits. Therefore, we are requiring continuous PM parameter monitoring systems for these units similar to those being required for major industrial boilers and utility boilers. The EPA is further requiring that a site

specific parametric operating limit be established during the performance test, that there be continuous monitoring of that parametric limit using a PM CPMS, that an exceedance of that site

- specific operat ing limit be reported as a deviation and trigger immediate corrective action and a Method 5 performance test within 45 days. To be consistent with the boiler rules, we have revised all operating parameter averaging for ERU units to be on a 30

- day rolling average and allowed the sorbent injection parameter to be adjusted for varying ERUs based on load. Changes to the PM continuous monitoring provisions and operating parameter provisions made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preambl e: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” 12. Revised Definition of Waste

- burning KilnPage 44 of 319

This final rule includes a definition of waste

- burning kiln that has been revised since the March 2011 CISWI Rule. This definition helps clarify the EPA’s in tent regarding which types of Portland cement kilns are considered subject to CISWI standards and which kilns are subject to the Portland cement NESHAP. Since proposal, some additional language was added to this definition to further clarify our proposed d efinition. Changes to the definition of waste burning kiln made since proposal are discussed below in section II.C of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” 13. Revised Definition of Solid Waste In the March 21, 2011, final CISWI r ule, we removed the definition of solid waste that was present in the 2000 CISWI Rule in light of the definition of solid waste in the final NHSM rule. Because applicability of section 129 hinges on sources combusting solid waste, we believe it is appropri ate to include a definition of that term in the CISWI rule. For that reason, the final rule contains a definition of solid waste that refers to the final NHSM rule at 40 CFR 241.2. 14. Compliance Dates In the final rule, we are revising the compliance dat es for new and existing CISWI units to reflect the effective dates of this final rule. The compliance date for existing sources depends primarily on state plan approval but may be no laterPage 45 of 319

than the date 5 years after publication of this final rule in the F ederal Register . The EG are implemented through a state implementation plan or a federal plan. Under the final amendments to the EG, and consistent with the CAA section 129, revised state plans containing the revised existing source emission limits and oth er requirements in the final amendments are due within 1 year after promulgation of the final reconsideration amendments. States must submit revised state plans to the EPA by [ INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL RE GISTER ]. The EPA will revise the existing federal plan to incorporate any changes and other requirements that the EPA has promulgated. The federal plan applies to CISWI units in any state without an approved state plan. Additional discussion of the state p lan implementation schedule can be found at 76 FR 15711. For new sources, the compliance date is either [DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] or the date of startup of the source, whichever is later. New sources are d efined as sources that began construction on or after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modification after [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. C. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 1. Revision of the SubcategoriesPage 46 of 319

Energy Recovery Units In the final 2011 CISWI Rule, we established separate subcategories based on the types of fuels and wastes ERUs were designed to burn. Energy Recovery Units (e.g., units that would be boilers and process heaters b ut for that fact that they combust solid waste) designed to burn gaseous fuels and liquids that are solid waste were included in one primary subcategory and the other primary subcategory was for units designed to burn solid fuels or predominantly non

- coal solid materials. In the final 2011 CISWI rule, the solid fuel ERU subcategory was further divided into separate subcategories for coal and biomass units, with separate limits for CO, NO x and SO 2 to account for significant differences in unit design for the se two types of fuels and the impacts the different unit designs have on emissions of these pollutants. Because the public was not afforded an opportunity to comment on the revision to the ERU subcategory, we identified this as a reconsideration issue in the March 21, 2011, notice of intent to reconsider certain aspects of the 2011 CISWI Rule. Certain petitions for reconsideration supported the further subcategorization of the solid

- fuel ERU subcategory and suggested that all nine emission limits should be dividedPage 47 of 319

between coal and biomass ERUs, instead of only having different limits for CO, NO x and SO 2 . We granted reconsideration of our subcategorization approach for ERUs and proposed to establish different emission limits for PM, Cd, Pb, and D/F between coal and biomass units, in addition to establishing different limits for CO, NO x and

SO 2 . We also solicited comment on whether we should also subcategorize solid

- fuel ERUs for HCl and Hg. Based on comments and information received during the comment perio d, we have determined that it is appropriate to subcategorize solid fuel ERUs for all nine CAA section 129 pollutants. We recognize that there are significant design and operational differences between biomass and coal ERU units that impact the generation of all nine regulated pollutants, and, for this reason, we are establishing separate emission standards for all nine pollutants from coal and biomass ERUs in this final rule. In addition, since issuing the proposed reconsideration CISWI rule, we have recei ved comments and data which allowed us to update our inventory of ERUs. The inventory adjustments we made more accurately reflect the inventory of solid waste combustion units. Based on comments from the operator of the units, we removed three units from t he final rule inventory ofPage 48 of 319

biomass ERUs that were determined to be non

- waste burning units and we re

- analyzed the emission limits for the solid

- biomass ERU subcategory. The commenter explained that, although permitted to burn materials that would be consid ered solid waste, these units had ceased burning the materials in question several years ago and would not recommence burning these in the future. Thus, at the time of testing, these units were not solid waste incineration units. We also received additiona l CO emissions data and re

- analyzed the performance of the best

- performing ERU in the solid

- coal ERU subcategory. The emission limits in this final rule reflect the new inventory and emission data received; however, we have used the same methodology as in the 2011 CISWI rule and December 23, 2011, reconsideration proposal for establishing the emission limits.
Waste

- burning Kilns Prior to the reconsideration proposal, the EPA performed an analysis of the materials being combusted in the entire inventory of Portland cement kilns in light of the final NHSM rule (See memorandum “Revised Floors without Kilns that Would have been CISWI Kilns Had the Solid Waste Definition Applied” in the CISWI docket). As a result of this analysis, we added 11 kilns to our invent ory of waste

- burning kilns. In addition to this, we further reviewed the Portland cement emissions test records and identified some additional test data for kilns thatPage 49 of 319

were added to the CISWI inventory following the March 21, 2011, final rule publication. This newly

- identified data was extracted and compiled into the CISWI database, and then the MACT floor emission limits were re

- calculated in the December 23, 2011, proposed rule to reflect the updated inventory and additional data. Following proposal, we w ere also notified of one additional waste

- burning kiln and that one of the kilns in the inventory was not burning waste materials. We made these adjustments to our inventory, bringing the total waste

- burning kiln inventory to 23 kilns. We recalculated the standards in this final rule to include all 23 waste burning kilns. As with the new ERU standards, we have used the same methodology to establish today’s emission limits as we used for the final 2011 CISWI rule. We have also retained the emissions
concent ration basis for the standards. However, Table 4 of this preamble presents the emission limits for PM, NO x , SO 2 and Hg on a production basis for comparison.

Table 4. Waste

- burning Kiln Emission Limits Expressed in Production Basis Pollutant (units) Existing kilns a New kilns a Hg (lb/MM ton clinker) 58 21 PM (lb/ton clinker) 0.026 0.013 NO x (lb/ton clinker) 6.7 2.1 SO 2 (lb/ton clinker) 8.9 1.9 a. Approximate. Small remote incineratorsPage 50 of 319

After the reconsideration proposal, we received additional information from stakeholders of additional units in operation and planned for operation within the next year or two that would qualify as small remote incinerators. The resulting changes included moving one unit from the small remote incinerator subcategory to the incinerator subcategory due to the unit’s proximity to a landfill in Alaska. An additional 15 small remote incinerators were added to our inventory of existing units, bringing the total of this subcategory to 28 units. 2. Revisions to the Monitoring Requirements After the March 21, 2001, final rule, petitioners identified computational issues for correcting CO concentration measurements to 7 percent O 2 for periods when the O 2 content of the flue gas approaches the ambient air O 2 content during startup and shutdown periods for sources that demonstrate compliance with the CO limit using CEMS. The equation for the 7 percent O 2 correction is X ppm CO*(20.9

– 7)/(20.9

- %O2 of flue gas stream ). As seen by this equation, as the flue gas stream O 2 content gets closer to 20.9, the value of X is multiplied by an ever increasing factor. For example, when the stack gas O 2 content is 4 percent, the factor is 0.82. If the stack gas O 2 content is 20 pe rcent, the factor increases to 15.4. Therefore, a flue gas CO concentration reading of 100 ppm would bePage 51 of 319

corrected to 82 ppm for a stack gas at 4 percent O 2 content, but would become a 1,540 ppm corrected concentration for a stack gas at 20 percent O 2 conte nt. In the extreme, at a 20.8 percent stack gas concentration (i.e., approximating ambient air O 2 content), the same 100 ppm measurement would be corrected to 13,900 ppm. Petitioners noted that O 2 contents relatively close to
ambient air often are maintain ed during combustion unit startup and shutdown in order to safely operate the combustion unit. Therefore, CO readings during these periods would be multiplied by an uncharacteristically high correction factor, and the resulting corrected CO concentrations inflated due to the 7 percent O 2 n correction. Petitioners and commenters presented data that show these corrected data points would have the potential to drive the 30

- day rolling average values beyond the emission limit for the affected units. Petitioners suggested various approaches to remedy this situation, with one being to not require the 7 percent O 2 correction requirement during unit startup and shutdown for sources that demonstrate compliance with the CO limit using CEMS. In other words, the CEMS dat a as reported at stack gas concentration without O 2 correction would be included in the rolling average calculations for periods when the combustionPage 52 of 319

unit is either being started up or shutdown instead of applying the O 2 correction to that data before it is included in the calculation of the 30 day rolling average. During all other operating periods, the CEMS data would be corrected to a 7 percent O 2 concentration prior to calculating the rolling average. Stated otherwise, the data obtained during startup an d shutdown, which will not include the 7 percent O 2 correction,
will be added to the O 2 corrected data collected during all other periods to calculate the 30

- day average that is used to determine continuous compliance with the applicable CO limit for

sourc es that demonstrate compliance using CEMS. Prior to issuing the reconsideration proposal, we received data for one unit in one subcategory (coal ERUs) that indicated startups usually occur over a 4

- hour period and shutdowns occur over a 1 hour period. The refore, we proposed provisions for calculating the 30

- day CO rolling average that would allow the source to use CEMS data that does not include the O 2 correction to be used during the first 4 hours of operation from a cold start and the 1 hour of operation following the last waste material being fed to the combustion unit during shutdown procedures of the unit. Since proposal, however, we received comments on this provision, primarily pointing out that longer periods are required to protect combustion equip ment from rapidPage 53 of 319

temperature swings, which could cause damage to the fireboxes or kiln surfaces. Commenters also contended that the limited information concerning the startup and shutdown periods during which the O 2 correction would not be required did not reflect the needs for all combustor types or control device configurations. We have therefore revised the shutdown and startup period of operation to be more generally applicable to CISWI units. In the case of ERUs, incinerators and small remote incinerato rs, we determined that the startup period should include the times prior to the source reaching the minimal operating temperature, but in no case longer than 48 hours. For shutdown, we determined as at proposal that shutdown begins after the last waste has been fed to the combustor prior to shutdown but we have revised the final rule to indicate that the shutdown period may not exceed 24 hours. We have, therefore, specified in the final rule an UL of 48 hours for startup periods to use uncorrected CEMS data and 24 hours for shutdown periods to use uncorrected CEMS data for ERUs, incinerators and small remote incinerators. For waste

- burning kilns, these periods are triggered off of material feed to the kiln rather than solely waste feed. This addresses the fa ct that kilns, unlike other CISWI units, are producing product rather than solely disposing of waste or recovering energy. Therefore, for
waste

- burning kilns, startup begins when the kiln’s induced fanPage 54 of 319

is turned on and continues until continuous feed is in troduced into the kiln at which time the kiln is in normal operating mode. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted. As at proposal, sources must indicate in the CEMS data records which CEMS data are uncorrected because they were obtained during the startup and shutdown period. The O 2 correction issue described above for CO CEMS data collected during startup and shutdow n applies equally to other pollutants measured with a CEMS that is corrected to 7 percent
O 2 . The final CISWI rule allows sources to demonstrate compliance with any of the standards using CEMS, and, for this reason, we have expanded authorization to use un corrected CEMS data during periods of startup and shutdown to all pollutants for which a source demonstrates compliance with CEMS. In the final rule, the 7 percent O 2 correction is not required during startup and shutdowns for any CISWI sources that elect to demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits with a CEMS instead of stack tests. 3. Oxygen Monitoring Requirements At proposal, we included pr ovisions and definitions in an attempt to ensure that sources would be able to use existing O 2 monitoring systems to meet the continuous O 2 monitoring requirements. However, commenters identified potential issuesPage 55 of 319

with our proposed provisions and definition s. To address these commenters’ concerns, we have revised the provisions in 40 CFR 60.2165 and 40 CFR 60.2730 to clarify the methodology for establishing and monitoring the O 2 level. Furthermore, the definition of “oxygen analyzer system” has been revised to clarify the appropriate locations and nomenclature of possible existing monitoring systems so that their use to meet these requirements is fully enabled. 4. Removal of the Definition of Homogeneous Waste The EPA included in the final 2011 CISWI Rule a d efinition of homogenous waste and a process for evaluating claims that a particular waste stream is homogenous. The definition was added to the 2011 CISWI rule in response to comment. Because the determination of homogeneity of a waste stream is relevant t o applicability of CAA section 129 to qualifying small power producers and qualifying cogeneration facilities, we determined it was reasonable to include a definition of “homogenous waste” and a process by which sources could obtain a determination that

a waste stream is homogenous from the EPA. In the 2011 CISWI Rule, the EPA stated that a determination concerning whether a waste is homogeneous is made on a case

- by

case basis. The EPA added provisions to the CISWI final rule that require source owners or operators seeking the exemption from the definition of solid waste incineration unit containedPage 56 of 319

in CAA section 112(g)(1)(B) to submit a request for a homogeneous waste determination to the EPA. The rule required the request to include information describing the materials to be combusted and why they believe the waste is homogeneous. The 2011 CISWI rule also indicated that the determination of what constitutes a homogeneous waste is not delegable to the state or local agencies. In the December 23, 2011, recon sideration proposal, we proposed the definition of “homogeneous waste” and the provisions for making homogeneous waste determinations that were included in the 2011 CISWI rule. Commenters generally did not agree with the proposed definition, arguing that t he definition introduced ambiguities and stipulations that would prevent classification of many materials (including fossil fuels) as being “homogeneous.” We reevaluated the definition in light of the comments and determined that the definition was unduly restrictive; however, we also determined that commenters proposed alternative definitions were equally problematic. We further recognized that due to the variability of waste and the fact specific nature of these determinations that a definition of homogen ous waste was neither necessary nor preferable. Therefore, the final rule does not include a definition of “homogeneous waste”. We are retaining, however, the requirement that qualifying small power producers and qualifying cogeneration facilities that com bustPage 57 of 319

solid waste obtain a determination from the EPA that such waste is homogenous. (40 CFR 60.2020 and 40 CFR 60.2555). [A8] 5. Non

- detect Methodology Using Three Times the Detection Level Prior to reconsideration proposal, the EPA conducted a review of sa mpling volumes and detection levels across various emission testing ICR efforts on various combustion sources (See memorandum “Updated data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions databases for MACT an d RTR emissions limits” in the CISWI docket). As a result of this analysis, we determined recommended values for three times the RDL (3xRDL) that may be used as a minimum emission limit value that can be accurately measured by most laboratories. These reco mmended values were then compared with calculated emission limits and, if the calculated limit was less than the recommended 3xRDL, the 3xRDL value was selected as the limit. Since the December 23, 2011, reconsideration proposal was published, we have cont inued our review and determined 3xRDL values for additional metals measured using EPA Reference Method 29. These include recommended values for Cd and Pb and we have applied this methodology to those emission limits in addition to the D/F and Hg limits tha t were reevaluated in the reconsideration proposal. As discussed in the reconsideration proposal, the premise for this approach is the same as described in the final 2011 CISWI rule but using a broader data set toPage 58 of 319

establish the 3xRDL value. We have not cha nged the methodology of the emission limit calculation or tabulation of the three times the detection limit value that was used in the final 2011 CISWI rule. Since reconsideration proposal, some commenters have noted that the EPA Method 5 minimum catch val ues were below levels established in similar studies on this reference method. In light of these comments, we have reconsidered the 1 mg minimum catch value used in the reconsideration proposal and are now using a 2 mg minimum catch in establishing the fin al rule emission limits. Our review and determination of the 2 mg minimum catch are discussed in “Revision of Estimated Method 5 Detection Limit” in the CISWI docket. In a similar fashion, the CO span adjustment methodology has been further refined in con sideration of comments on the approach used to adjust CO instrumental test methods readings in reconsideration proposal. The methodology for adjusting CO emission test run data to reflect the limitations from the instrument span used at testing is describe d in the “CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for the Reconsideration Final Rule" memorandum in the CISWI docket. 6. Parametric Monitoring for Additional Control Device Types In the December 23, 2011, reconsideration proposal, we stated that we believed the control devices with monitoringPage 59 of 319

provisions expressly identified in the rules should encompass most types of control devices that we anticipate the various types of CISWI units will use to meet the emission limits. However, reco gnizing that a source might want to employ another type of control that is not addressed, we provided provisions for sources to petition for specific operating limits for alternative control devices to be established during a performance test. These provis ions also allow specific operating limits to be established for CISWI units without any air pollution control devices, such as for units that employ material balance operating limits in conjunction with periodic stack testing to demonstrate continuous comp liance. We also determined that dry sorbent injection (or dry scrubbers) may be one type of additional control device that CISWI units may widely use to control acid gases. Commenters agreed with our statement and encouraged the EPA to identify operating p arameters for dry scrubbing systems in the final rule. We have done so, by both defining “dry scrubber” in the rule, and specifying that the sorbent injection rate must be monitored and maintained at or above the operating rate established during the HCl p erformance test (40 CFR 60.2165 and 40 CFR 60.2730). Furthermore, we have determined that the sorbent injection rate for ERUs can be adjusted to reflect operating loads that are less than those during the performancePage 60 of 319

testing. Commenters have made arguments that requiring a high sorbent injection rate during reduced boiler loads can lead to fouling and plugging issues, especially for acid gas sorbent injection. To address this particular concern, and to provide consistency with other industrial boiler rules, we are also providing this parametric monitoring provision for sorbent injection air pollution control devices. Also regarding monitoring, we determined after proposal that we had not clarified in the rule that sources opting to use
CEMS to measure NO X , Hg or D/F were not required to monitor ACI rates (for Hg and D/F CEMS

- equipped units) or SNCR parameter monitoring (for NO X CEMS

- equipped units). Our intent had been to not require applicable control device parameter monitoring if a CEMS was in use for the pollutant being controlled by the device. Control device parameter monitoring is an acceptable and established method for determining continuous compliance and it is appropriate to require such monitoring when coupled with period stack testing. However, d irect, continuous emission measurements with a CEMS are sufficient for determining compliance for CISWI units without requiring parametric monitoring. In cases where CEMS data are available to directly measure regulated pollutants, operating parameter data would be duplicative.Page 61 of 319

7. Particulate Matter Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs and Waste

- burning Kilns In today’s rule, we are finalizing monitoring requirements for ERUs with an annual average heat input rate greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. As we stated in the proposal, recent EPA experience with the utility boiler source category has led the EPA to allow PM CEMS as an alternative, rather than a requirement. Industry commenters have maintained that there were several problems with implementing the monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance using a PM CEMS and with the requirements to conduct a periodic audit of the PM CEMS in accordance with PS 11 of appendix B and Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. As we discuss in response to these comm ents later in this preamble (See II.E), the PM CEMS technology may not be sufficient to certify accurate monitor performance in the PM concentration range of the CISWI biomass ERU limits. Furthermore, in related ongoing work on the Portland cement source c ategory, we realize that similar concerns regarding PM CEMS are applicable. Therefore, we are also removing PM CEMS (PS

- 11) requirements for
waste

- burning kilns, and instead, requiring PM CEMS equipment (i.e., PM CPMS) [A9] for these units that are used for continuous parametric monitoring rather than for direct measure of compliance with the numerical PM emissions limit, similar to those being required for major industrial boilers and utilityPage 62 of 319

boilers. However, PM CEMS (PS

- 11), are still allowed as an option for coal ERUs, incinerators and small remote incinerators, since the emission limits for these subcategories do not pose the same technical concerns as for biomass ERUs and
waste

- burning kilns. To be consistent with these other rules, we have incorporated 30

- day rolling averages to be measured with PM CPMS. The EPA is further requiring that a site

- specific parametric operating limit be established during the performance test, that there be continuous monitoring of that parametric limit using a PM CPMS, that an exceedance of that site

- specific operating limit be reported as a deviation and trigger immediate corrective action and a Method 5 performance test within 45 days. 8. Compliance Dates At reconsideration proposal, we proposed to extend the compliance d ates for existing units in the incinerator, ERU and
waste

- burning kiln subcategories. We are finalizing the revision of the effective dates for those three subcategories and, based on comments received during the comment period, we are also extending the c ompliance date for units in the small remote incinerator subcategory. The EPA proposed to amend the standards for CO for all subcategories of CISWI; to further subcategorize certain subcategories; to change several other pollutant standards for incinerator , ERU and waste burning kilnsPage 63 of 319

subcategories; to change the compliance regime from CEMS

- based to stack

- test/parametric

- monitoring based for certain pollutants and unit types; and to change the compliance calculation provisions for sources that are required or that elect to use CEMS to demonstrate continuous compliance. These proposed changes may occasion the need for additional time for sources to study the possibility of different control and monitoring strategies than would have been considered if we had n ot amended the 2011 CISWI rule. New compliance strategies require time to implement. New engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers identified, a new bidding/procurement process undertaken and the appropriate construction and operating permits obt ained. Significant plant redesign, in the form of new ductwork and new fan design and changes in the main control equipment may be needed. See US EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant St rategies, October 2002. Depending on the type of control, this normally requires 15

- 27 months. Multiple control systems will take longer. Id. Installation of controls normally occurs at times of unit outages, which will likely end up being at differing tim es of the year for each of the CISWI subcategories. For example, for waste

- burning kilns, this would occur during winter months (to coincide with kiln outages during low production seasons). However, for small remote incinerators,Page 64 of 319

facility retrofits would need to occur while road access to the site is available and climatic conditions allow for construction. Also, small remote incinerators have the additional component of having to increase the footprint of the site to accommodate additional space for contr ol devices and waste segregation facilities. This additional permitting requirement and construction effort is not something other CISWI subcategories have to face but adds an additional consideration to developing a compliance strategy. In general, though , the differing construction constraints for the various subcategories of CISWI likely mean that there will be a wide variety to the rate of progress towards compliance for the differing CISWI sources. Further, commenters have argued that, due to the delay of the final 2011 CISWI rule, uncertainty on selecting a compliance strategy was created, essentially putting internal compliance implementation activities on hold until the reconsideration was complete. As a result of these considerations, we have finali zed extending compliance for all subcategories of CISWI. Comments on extending the compliance date and our responses to these comments are found in the “Summary of Comments and Responses to the CISWI Reconsideration” document in the CISWI docket. The compl iance date for existing CISWI sources subject to standards in this final rule is 5 years after the date ofPage 65 of 319

publication of this final rule or 3 years after the state plan is approved, whichever happens earlier. This date is being finalized in order to provi de facilities sufficient time to install controls or to make other compliance

- related decisions. However, the CAA section 129(f)(2) does require that the promulgated standards be effective “as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a State plan,” s o that states have the flexibility to determine that the standards for existing units within their purview may have a compliance date which is less than the allowable 3 years following approval of the state plan. For new sources, the EPA is finalizing the proposed change of the compliance date to 6 months after the date of publication of the final reconsideration rule or at startup, whichever is later. 9. Definition of Waste

- burning Kiln In the December 23, 2011, reconsideration proposal, we proposed revis ions to the definition of “waste

- burning kiln” to indicate that the term “does not include a kiln that is feeding

non - hazardous secondary ingredients exclusively into the cold end of the kiln.” In proposing this language, the EPA intended to codify princip les set out in a previous action granting and denying reconsideration of the NESHAP for Portland cement kilns. See 76 FR 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011); see also Memorandum “Revised Floors Without Kilns That Would Have Been CISWI KilnsPage 66 of 319

Had the Solid Waste Def inition Applied” (EPA, April 25, 2011) (which memorandum is summarized in the May 17 Federal Register notice). The May 17, 2011 notice and April 25, 2011, memorandum state in essence that combustion does not occur in any region of a cement kiln except the hot end and that cement kiln dust added to the hot end of a cement kiln also is not combusted since it is inorganic and essentially inert. The language used at proposal captured some but not all of these principles, since it referred only to the “cold end” of a cement kiln, as pointed out by a number of commenters. The EPA is revising the definition in the final rule to accurately reflect the May 17 preamble and April 25 memorandum discussion of when combustion occurs in a cement kiln. In addition, we are

a dding the fact that combustion in a cement kiln does also take place in the combustion zone of a precalciner or riser duct burner. One further clarification is appropriate. The May 17, 2011, preamble contains one reference to legitimacy criteria for determining when a secondary material is being recycled. 76 FR at 28322/1

- 2. The threshold issue for determining if a unit is subject to section 129 is whether it “combusts” solid waste material (s ee section 129 (g)(1)). For cement kilns, this determination does not necessarily turn on legitimacy of recycling, but rather on the nature of the cement kiln process.Page 67 of 319

Consequently, if combustion of solid waste is not occurring, a unit is not a CISWI, irre spective of whether or not legitimate recycling is occurring. 10. Exemption for Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) Units Following publication of the December 23, 2011, reconsideration proposal, we realized that the CISWI rule did not contain any lang uage to clarify overlap with another CAA section 129 regulation applicable to OSWI units. The CISWI rule already contains exemptions for MWCs, HMIWIs and SSIs, but omitted similar language for OSWI units. Therefore, in this final rule, we are providing lan guage in 40 CFR 60.2020 and 60.2555 that clarifies that incineration units that are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts EEEE or FFFF are exempt from the CISWI rule. D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications We are also including some technical correctio ns and clarifications in the final rule, as outlined below: Operating parameter limits during performance testing

– While we believe it is intrinsic that established operating parameter limits do not apply during subsequent performance testing since they a re being confirmed or reestablished during the subsequent testing, we provided language in the proposed rule in the NSPS to clarify that they are waived during performance testing (40 CFR 60.2145(c)). However, we inadvertently omitted this clarifying langu age in the emission guidelines so we have added clarifying language in the final emission guidelines at 40 CFR 60.2710(c). Bypass stacks on waste

- burning kilns

– While not included in the final rule text, we are clarifying here that thePage 68 of 319

definition of “bypa ss stack” in today’s final rule does not have the same meaning as an “alkali bypass” used by some waste

- burning kilns that manufacture Portland cement. Clarifying that, consistent with CAA section 129(f)(1), June 4, 2010, is the appropriate new source appl icability date in 40 CFR 60.2015(a)(1). Revising the title of Table 2 to subpart DDDD to clarify that these emission limits apply to incinerators which are currently subject to CISWI emission limits promulgated in the 2000 CISWI rule. Clarifying that petit ions for specific operating limits for control devices not listed in this subpart must be submitted to the Administrator at least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin(40 CFR 60.2115 and 40 CFR 60.2680). Providing definitions of “30

- day rolling average” and “responsible official” to clarify what is meant by these terms. Adding text to the provisions for PM monitoring provisions for ERUs to clarify that the 250 MMBtu/hr threshold is based upon the average annual heat input rate, consisten t with how this threshold is applied in the industrial boiler NESHAP. Revising the affirmative defense text to clarify that these provisions apply to violations of standards and to further clarify the reporting requirements and criteria for sources seekin g to assert an affirmative defense (40 CFR 60.2120 and 40 CFR 60.2685). Revising the recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR 60.2175(v) and 40 CFR 60.2740(u) to reflect the categorical non

- waste determination provisions of 40 CFR 241.4. Revising the electronic reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.2235 and 40 CFR 60.2795 to clarify the timing and mechanism for submitting these reports and to be consistent with the electronic reporting language in more recent rulemakings. Revising the definition of “process change” t o clarify the intended types of changes that would require re

- testing. Making corrections to the D/F calculation methodologies for toxic equivalency basis and adding calculation methodology provisions for D/F TMB.Page 69 of 319

Revising the definition of “space heater” to clarify applicability for units that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 279. E. Major Public Comments and Responses We have included some of the major comment topics and our responses below in the preamble. All other comments and responses are provided in the “Reconsideration Response to Public Comments Document” in the CISWI docket. Solid

- fuel ERU Subcategorization Comment: Several commenters support the proposed separate coal and biomass standards for D/Fs, CO, NO x , SO 2 , PM, Cd and Pb. However, these co mmenters further urge the EPA to establish separate standards for HCl and Hg for coal and biomass. Commenters state that the EPA’s recognition that design and operational differences between combustors designed to combust coal and those designed to combust biomass is evidence to support subcategorizing emission limits for all pollutants. One commenter discussed differences in biomass and coal fuel rank, and the significant boiler design differences in furnace height and volume that exist between units desig ned to combust different fuel ranks of coal

- fired boiler furnaces. As an example, one commenter noted that a low

- rank coal (high slagging lignite) furnace can be 1.65 times the plan area, and 1.45 times the furnace height, of a similar capacity furnace com busting a high rank coal (medium volatile bituminous). The commenterPage 70 of 319

stated that this large difference is even among varying grades of coal, with biomass units being fuels of even lower rank than lignite. Therefore, according to the commenter, furnace area and height (and hence, volume) are significantly different between ERUs designed to combust coal and those designed for biomass combustion. The commenter highlighted an analysis of their existing boilers to see the feasibility of substituting biomass for coal. The commenter’s results indicated that, due to fundamental design attributes of their coal

- fired units, they could only co

- fire up to 20 percent biomass in the units. The commenter explained that this limitation was due to design issues pertaining to the unit being designed for coal, such as superheater tube spacing, number and location of soot blowers, fouling characteristics of biomass ash and the impact the high moisture levels of biomass fuels have on fan capacity. The commenter stated that these findings further support that coal and biomass are not interchangeable within ERUs and therefore supports subcategorizing emission limits between the two types of unit. The commenter also contended that the EPA acknowledged significant design differences a nd their impacts on Hg emissions during development of the Utility MACT Final Rule. The commenter urges the EPA to take a similar approach in CISWI. One commenter agreed with differentiation between coal

- fired and biomass ERUs but supported keeping solid

- f uel ERUs together for purposed ofPage 71 of 319

HCl and Hg emission limits. Another commenter argued that all of the EPA’s subcategories are unlawful and arbitrary, noting that their reasons for this belief were given in their comments on the 2010 proposal. Response: Ba sed on our proposal and follow

- up comments summarized below, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for all nine pollutants for biomass and coal ERUs. We agree with comments concerning differences in moisture content between biomass and coal

- fired units. We reviewed data in the CISWI database and see that the stack gas moisture content of coal

fired ERUs is around 11.6 percent and is about 19.2 percent for the biomass ERUs. We have considered the technical arguments provided by commenters on CISWI ERUs, othe r technical differences we have previously considered in our decision to subcategorize ERUs and how these design differences impact pollutant emission characteristics of the ERU. As a result, we have determined that subcategorizing all nine pollutant emiss ion limits between coal and biomass solid

- fuel ERUs is appropriate for the final CISWI rule. One commenter supported the differentiation between coal and biomass, but in keeping HCl and Hg limits together. However, for the reasons given above, we have dete rmined that all nine pollutants should be subcategorized. We also note that commentsPage 72 of 319

on subcategorization that were submitted on the 2010 proposal have already been responded to. Homogeneous Waste Definition Comment: Several commenters contend that the pr oposed definition of “homogeneous waste” is too strict and inflexible. Commenters argue that traditional fuel, such as coal, would not even meet the definition since traditional fuels typically have some degree of variability of composition. Commenters fu rther argue that the result of the proposed definition of “homogeneous waste” is contrary to Congress’ intent. Commenters assert that “homogeneous” should mean that all the materials are generated from the same type of production process and is material sp ecific. Several commenters also oppose the additional conditions on mixtures of homogeneous wastes as having to be conditioned or processed. Some commenters also believe that multiple different homogenous wastes may be combusted at the same time, meaning a facility can combust railroad ties, traditional coal, treated seed and resonated wood at the same time and still qualify as burning “homogeneous waste.” Response: As stated above, we are removing the proposed definition of homogenous waste and we are not including a revised definition in the final rule for the reasons discussedPage 73 of 319

above in section II.C of this preamble. “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal”. We do not believe the commenters’ suggested definitions are appropriate or workable and could have the unintended result of making almost any waste stream or combination of waste streams homogenous. We also believe commenters have failed to provide suffici ent support for their claims that their proposed definitions are consistent with the statutory intent. We believe that case

- by

- case determinations are the appropriate approach given the inherent variability of waste streams. While we are removing the defi nition of homogenous waste from the final rule, we are retaining the requirement for sources to obtain a homogenous waste determination in order to qualify for the exemption for qualifying small energy producers and qualifying cogeneration facilities. We a re also retaining the recordkeeping provisions to ensure that sources adequately provide and maintain evidence that they qualify for the exemption. Contained Gaseous Material Comment: Commenters support the EPA retaining the 2000 CISWI rule’s definition of “contained gaseous material.” Some commenters believe that the EPA should expressly include the definition of “contained gaseous material” in the amendatory text to confirm that the definition is back in the CISWI rule.Page 74 of 319

Response: We disagree with comment ers that state the definition was not in the proposed rule. The basis of the reconsideration proposal amendatory text was the 2000 CISWI rule

- not the 2011 CISWI rule

- because the 2011 CISWI rule had not been codified in the CFR pursuant to the Delay Not ice. Therefore, by not including the amendatory instruction to delete the definition in the 2000 rule in the proposed reconsideration rule, we proposed to retain the definition as contained in the 2000 CISWI rule. However, as explained above, due to the

va cature of the Delay Notice, the 2011 CISWI rule is in effect and the definition of contained gaseous material does not appear in that rule. For that reason, we are including the definition of “contained gaseous material” found in the 2000 CISWI rule in
tod ay’s final rule. Oxygen Correction During Startup and Shutdown Comment: Commenters generally support allowing the use of uncorrected CEMS data during startup and shutdown. Several
commenters are concerned that the 4 ‐ hour startup and a 1

- hour shutdown pe riod (derived from a single coal fired unit) are not sufficient for all the CISWI unit types and technologies. Other commenters believe there should be no time limitations on shutdown and startups. One commenter, however, believes the proposed time limit i s appropriate. Some commenters recommendPage 75 of 319

using the Boiler MACT rule approach using load to define when the O 2 corrections do not apply. Commenters also urge the EPA to eliminate the O 2 correction
for all CEM

- measured emission limits, not just CO, during startup and shutdown periods. Commenters also support making this allowance available to all types of CISWI unit, not only
ERUs. Response: In today’s final rule, we are retaining the
pr ovision that allows sources to use uncorrected CO CEMS data during periods of startup and shutdown. Based on comments and the technical justifications for allowing the use of uncorrected CEMS data identified during the comment period, we are expanding this provision to any pollutant for which continuous compliance is being determined using CEMS as explained above in “Section II.C: Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” Particulate Matter Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs and Waste

- bur ning Kilns Comment: Several commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to remove requirements for PM CEMS (using PS

- 11) for continuous compliance for large ERUs and waste

- burning kilns, stating that PM CEMS usefulness and application issues of these monitors are uncertain. Commenters asserted that, for biomass ERUs and sources with low PM concentration, PM CEMS were not adequate toPage 76 of 319

accurately monitor low PM concentrations. Commenters further contended that PM CPMS are essentially the same thing as PM CEMS, and that there were no clear instructions on how to “certify” PM CPMS, as was required in the proposed rule. Commenters added that they do not understand how the recording of hourly and 30

- day rolling averages of the output from these monitors will be useful to demonstrate performance or evaluate compliance with a PM limit. One commenter suggested that the EPA remove the PM CPMS requirements altogether for all industrial boilers. Response: We are revising the PM CEMS requirements in the final rule as explained above. In responding to this comment specifically, we believe it is useful to review the procedures and acceptance criteria of
PS

- 11, the protocol mandated by the 2011 final CISWI rule. Performance Specification

- 11
PS

- 11 is structured differently than o ther PSs that apply to validating the performance of gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is primarily because the pollutant, PM, is defined entirely by the test method specified by regulation to measure it. As the industry commenters note, there are no independen t standard reference materials for PM concentrations as there are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., NIST traceable compressed gases for validating SO 2 or NO X instrumental measurements). The onlyPage 77 of 319

reference standard for determining the PM concentration in an air or stack gas sample is the reference test method. In the case of the CISWI final rule, the rule specifies EPA Method 5 for measuring filterable PM concentration (e.g., in mg/dscm). Performance Specification 11 provides procedures and acceptance criteria f or validating the performance of several types of PM CEMS technologies. Although there are multiple instrument and data reporting operational performance checks in
PS

- 11 that are similar in concept to those for gaseous pollutant CEMS, there is a principal PM CEMS performance requirement that is distinctly different. That difference is the development of a site

- specific PM CEMS correlation or mathematical response curve. There are two key procedural elements to developing that correlation. First, PS

- 11 requi res that the source conduct stack test runs using an EPA PM test method (e.g., Method 5) and simultaneously collect corresponding PM CEMS output data. Second, the source must vary the operation of the control device manually in order to produce a range of PM concentrations. Performance Specification 11, section 8.6, requires at least five test runs at each of three different operating conditions (i.e., low, mid and high PM concentrations) for a total of 15 or more test runs that range from 25 to 100 percent of allowable emissions. Then the source must use the test method data and the corresponding PM CEMS output data to develop an equation (i.e.,Page 78 of 319

a calculated linear or nonlinear curve) that will be used to define the relationship between the PM CEMS output a nd the test method measured PM concentrations. Each site

- specific correlation must meet several PS

- 11 acceptance criteria including limits on confidence interval and tolerance interval equating to ±25 percent of the applicable emissions limit. Discussion o f Technical Issues In prior comments submitted to the EPA on the PM CEMS requirements for waste

- burning kilns, one issue raised about conducting the testing to meet the PS

- 11 correlation development requirement is the impracticality of varying the emission s from a FF control device. Many CISWI units subject to the standards use FF control devices. We agree with commenters that there are typically few, if any, physical adjustments one can apply to a FF or to the waste

burning kiln process to change the outl et PM concentration significantly. A FF produces essentially a constant outlet concentration even with changes to the inlet loading or flow (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff

- pulse.pdf). Although PS

- 11 allows some flexibility when control device perturbations are not possible, the resulting correlation would apply for only the narrow range of concentrations measured during the testing. The result would be that the PM CEMS would be correlated only for a relatively small range of conditionsPage 79 of 319

below t he applicable compliance limit. This range would not necessarily include situations where the standard might be exceeded. Without the ability to calculate emissions should the FF performance change from initial test conditions (e.g., bag leaks begin to dev elop), such a limited correlation range would render the PM CEMS less reliable for calculating long term average concentrations or emissions rates and for verifying compliance. Additionally, it is difficult and resource intensive to modify baghouse control efficiency in a way that is representative of normal operations at a waste

- burning kiln. Commenters also cited problems in developing correlations in stack gases with variable PM constituents and physical characteristics when using light scatter or scinti llation detection PM CEMS devices. As noted above and in the EPA’s technology background documents (e.g., http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/r4703

- 02

- 07.pdf), the correlations developed for these types of instruments are inherently dependent on the particle structure, size and other physical characteristics as well as PM mass in the exhaust gases for each site. Put another way, these light

- based PM CEMS produce a signal that can vary when different fuels or raw materials are introduced to the kilns or ERU even when the FF outlet mass concentration remains unchanged.Page 80 of 319

To the extent that physical characteristics of the PM in the stack remain stable, correlations for light

- based PM CEMS meeting PS

- 11 perform ance criteria can represent mass rates to the degree of accuracy required by PS

- 11. For example, there are various design structures used in some light based PM CEMS devices that can mitigate the effects of changes in the physical aspects of particles on m easurement uncertainty. In addition to the type of light effect measured (e.g., Rayleigh or Mie scattering or light scintillation), the detector wavelength and the frequency are design factors that will affect how the PM CEMS responds to small changes in t he physical appearance of the
PM. On this point, we note that if a source owner were concerned about the ability of a light based PM CEMS to meet the requirements of PS

- 11 because of variable physical characteristics of particles in the stack, there is at least one other PM CEMS technology based more directly on mass measurement rather than on light scatter or light scintillation characteristics. The currently available Beta gauge technology does not suffer from this particular technical problem. The Beta attenuation PM CEMS, also called Beta gauge, extracts a sample for the stack gas and collects the PM on a filter tape. The device periodically advances the tape from the sampling mode to an area where the sample is exposed to Beta radiation. ThePage 81 of 319

detector m easures the amount of Beta emitted by the sample and that amount can be directly related to the mass of PM on the filter. The Beta gauge sensitivity or detection limit can be enhanced (i.e., lowered) with greater sample volumes produced from sampling inter vals up to an hour or longer. Another PM mass detector projected for greater use as PM CEMS is the TEOM. Often used in measuring ambient levels of PM, the TEOM operates on a basic principle that can be made traceable to NIST laboratory standards. The TEOM can provide a continuous measure of PM mass in a sample extracted from the stack and routed to the detector. Tapered element oscillating microbalance based PM CEMS are not yet commercially available. Commenters identified another factor contributing to th e difficulty of meeting PS

- 11 correlation requirements for low PM concentrations corresponding to a low applicable emissions limit, as with the promulgated PM standards here for waste

burning kilns and biomass ERUs. We have recently reevaluated the capabil ities of the EPA Method 5 for measuring low concentrations of PM (See the memo “Revision of Estimated Method 5 Detection Limit” in the CISWI docket) and have determined a Method 5 method detection limit of approximately 2 mg/dscm for a
1

- hour test run. The uncertainty of a measurement with Method 5 at this PM concentration would be from 50 to 100 percent (i.e., ±1 to 2 mg/dscm). We can determine a PQL using ~3 x methodPage 82 of 319

detection limit to reduce that Method 5 measurement uncertainty to ±10 to 20 percent. Tha t means that the PQL for a 1

- hour test run with Method 5 would be approximately 6 mg/dscm ±0.6 to 1.2 mg/dscm. The CISWI PM emissions limit for existing waste

- burning kiln sources is 3.6 mg/dscm, and is 11 mg/dscm for biomass ERUs. The new source limits ar e the same for waste

- burning kilns but are 5.1 mg/dscm for biomass ERUs. As noted above, PS

- 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. For a PM CEMS set up to measure compliance with a 3.6 mg/dscm limit, the inherent uncertainty associated with a 1

- hour Method 5 measurement (±0.6 to 1.2 mg/dscm) would constitute more than half of the ±25 percent of the applicable PS

- 11 acceptance threshold (i.e., ±0.9 mg/dscm) of the mid

- level PS

- 11 correlation tes t (i.e., the correlation for the middle of the three PS

- 11 correlation points). Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS response variability and the uncertainty associated with the representative sampling (e.g., PM and flow stratification), we agree with comment ers that trying to satisfy PS

- 11 at such low concentrations using 1

- hour Method 5 test runs would be problematic. This drawback applies regardless of the type of PM CEMS technology used. As commenters to the Portland Cement NESHAP have noted, one can impro ve the method detection capabilities of the Method 5 orPage 83 of 319

other filterable PM test method by increasing sampling volume and run time. For example, a test run time of about 2 hours will improve the Method 5 PQL to about 3 mg/dscm. The measurement uncertainty associated with a 2

- hour test run at 3 mg/dscm would be about ±0.3 to 0.6 mg/dscm. At this level, the uncertainty associated with the PM test method measurements alone would be about half of the correlation limit allowed in PS

- 11. To achieve a PQL of 1 mg/ dscm and a measurement uncertainty of about ±0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm, one would need to conduct a test run of 6 hours or longer. As noted above, the PS

- 11 correlation calculations would also have to account for any PM CEMS analytical and measurement variabilit y. Using data from longer Method 5 test runs will improve the probability of a PM CEMS meeting PS

- 11 correlation requirements but, as commenters note, will also raise practicality concerns without completely resolving the issue. For example, the time to

co mplete 15 1

- hour test runs under three different emissions conditions may be 3 to 6 days of field work, while the time to complete 15 6

- hour test runs under three different emissions conditions will require at least 2 weeks of field work in order to produc e and maintain the operating conditions associated with three different emissions rates. Longer test runs lower the variability of Method 5 PM measurements at near detection limit levels from ± 50 percent to below ± 25 percent; however, thePage 84 of 319

variability of Method 5 results at these low levels represents a significantly larger portion of the ± 25 percent correlation requirement of PS

- 11 than would Method 5 data collected at higher PM concentrations. Method 5 measurement uncertainty becomes increasingly greate r with lowering PM concentration and thus reference measurement variability hinders the PS

- 11 correlation process the most for the best performing sources. Thus, the ultimate result might still lack certainty and would also pose the most difficulty and unc ertainty to those sources with lower PM concentrations (potentially disadvantaging more efficient operators). Although longer Method 5 test runs and longer beta gauge sampling times reduce difficulties with PS

- 11 correlation for a PM CEMS, the EPA believes that this correlation will not be technically achievable for a significant number of waste

- burning kiln and biomass ERU sources, a result in part due to the Method 5 PM emissions measurement variability at the low concentrations necessary to maintain comp liance with the standard. The PM CEMS correlations then become approximations more qualitative than quantitative with high levels of uncertainty at low concentrations (i.e., the correlations do not meet PS

- 11 requirements). This characteristic exists regar dless of the type of PM CEMS technology used by the source since it involves variability not only of the PM CEMS but also the Method 5 testPage 85 of 319

data, variability of raw material and additive feeds to the
waste

- burning kiln, and the changing particle sizes, sha pes, and density with process operations (e.g., mill on versus mill off, type of fuel being used in the ERU). Making PM CEMS work at low concentrations (<10 mg/dscm) at
waste

- burning kiln and biomass ERU sources is not impossible; although, to expect that correlations would be achievable at all low emissions sources would be unrealistic. Additionally, the technical limitations do not mean that PM CEMS cannot be used to monitor for compliance. A PM CEMS that does not meet the EPA correlation requirements can still produce data indicative of trends and changes in emissions control. Particulate Matter CEMS technology can be effective in monitoring control device performance (see, e.g., 77 FR 9371 (February 16, 2012)) where the EPA established PM CPMS parametric operating limits for electric utility steam generating units). A monitoring approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS

- 11 To address technical issues associated with PM CEMS meeting
PS

- 11 correlation requirements at low PM emissions concentrations from waste

- burning kilns and biomass ERUs, the impracticability in perturbing FF emission rates to establish PS 11 correlation curves, and the potentially variable PM emissions characteristics expected from waste

- burning kilns, the EPA is finalizing the change of th e compliance basis for the PMPage 86 of 319

emissions limit from PM CEMS. For monitoring continuous compliance, the rule requires PM CEMS equipment but, as explained below, that equipment would be used for continuous parametric monitoring rather than for direct measure of compliance with the numerical PM emissions limit. Specifically, this final rule recognizes the value of PM monitoring technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions concentrations and use of such a tool to assure continued good operation of PM control equipment. This approach avoids the PM CEMS calibration (i.e., PS

- 11 correlation). Therefore, the EPA is including provisions that a site

- specific parametric operating limit be established during the performance test, that there be continuous monitoring of that parametric limit using a PM CPMS, that an exceedance of that site

- specific operating limit be reported as a deviation and trigger immediate corrective action [A10] and a Method 5 performance test within 45 days. F. What other actions are we taking?
In this final action, we are denying requests for reconsideration on all issues contained in the petitioners’ requests for reconsideration that we did not include in the December 23, 2011, proposed rule. The issues for which we are denying reconsideration fai led to meet the standard for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and we determinedPage 87 of 319

that reconsideration was not otherwise appropriate. Specifically, on these issues, the petitioner has failed to show the following: that it was impracticable to r aise their objections during the comment period; or that the grounds for their objections arose after the close of the comment period; and/or that their concern is of central relevance to the outcome of the rules. We have concluded that no clarifications t o the underlying rules are warranted for the 19 remaining petitioners’ issues for the reasons set forth in the memorandum titled “Denied CISWI Petition Issues” found in the CISWI docket. The following issues are addressed in that memorandum. Work practice standards should be used for startup/shutdowns and malfunctions. Exempt or revise limits for units combusting de minimis amounts of waste. Clarify applicability of CISWI standards to marine vessel units or units located on the outer continental shelf. Clar ify applicability to temporary or portable units. Reduce performance testing requirements to be more consistent with requirements of other rules. Reconsider elimination of provisions that allow missing CEMS data. Do not include emissions data for combinati on boiler units. CISWI does not satisfy CAA 112(c)(6) requirements for POM and PCB. MACT floor statistical approach concerns. MACT floor must reflect the average, the UPL is not the same as the average emission level. MACT floor pollutant

- by

- pollutant approach concerns. Non

- detect methodology is unlawful. Beyond

- the

- floor analysis is unlawful and arbitrary.Page 88 of 319

Compliance cost and wildlife concerns for small remote incinerators. “Refinery gas” definition should be included in the CISWI rule. Clarify that co nstruction and demolition wood is not a solid waste. G. What are the impacts associated with the amendments? 1. What are the primary air impacts? We have estimated the potential emissions reductions from existing sources that may be achieved through implementation of the emission limits. However, we realize that some CISWI owners and operators are likely to determine that alternatives to waste incin eration are viable, such as further waste segregation or sending the waste to a landfill or MWC, if available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, where energy recovery is not a goal, may find it cost effective to discontinue use of their CISWI unit a ltogether. Therefore, we have estimated emissions reductions attributable to existing sources complying with the limits, as well as those reductions that would occur if the facilities with incinerators and small, remote incinerators decide to discontinue t he use of their CISWI unit and use alternative waste disposal options. For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as ERUs and waste

- burning kilns, the decision to combust or not to combust waste will depend on several factors. One factor is t he cost to replace the energy provided by the waste material with aPage 89 of 319

traditional fuel, such as natural gas. Another factor would be whether the owner or operator is purchasing the waste or obtaining it at no cost from other generators, or if they are
genera ting the waste on

- site and will have to dispose of the materials in another fashion, such as landfills. Lastly, these units would have to compare the control requirements needed to meet the CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop burning solid waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned before, we have attempted to align the monitoring requirements for similar non

- waste

- burning sources as closely as possible in an effort to make them consistent and to help sources make the cros s - walk between waste and non

- waste regulatory requirements as simple as possible. The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this final rule using the definition of solid waste under RCRA and the proposed CISWI emission limits are presented in T able 5 of this preamble. Table 5. Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the Emission Limits

Pollutant Reductions

achieved through meeting MACT (ton/yr) Reductions achieved

assuming incinerators and small, remote incinerators use alternative disposal (ton/yr) a HCl 772.2 784.3 CO 20,092 20,057 Pb 2.60 2.61Page 90 of 319

Pollutant Reductions

achieved through meeting MACT (ton/yr) Reductions achieved

assuming incinerators and small, remote incinerators use alternative disposal (ton/yr) a Cd 1.807 1.809 Hg 0.341 0.344 PM (filterable) 2,409 2,412 dioxin, furans 0.000062 0.000064 NO x 5,292 5,399 SO 2 6,211 6,262 Total 34,781 34,919 a The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel. The EPA expects that many existing CISWI owners and operators may find that alternate disposal options ar e preferable to complying with the standards for the incinerator and small, remote incinerator subcategories. Our experience with regulations for MWC, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI, has shown that negative growth in the source category historically occurs upon implementation of CAA section 129 standards. Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for existing sources since 2005, many existing units have closed. At promulgation in 2000, the EPA estimated 122 units in the CISWI population. In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in this rule, which contains any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 27 units. The EPA is not aware of any construction of new units since 2000 [A11] so we do not believe there are any units that are curr ently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The revisedPage 91 of 319

CISWI rule is more stringent so we expect this trend to continue. However, the EPA does recognize that some facilities may opt to replace aging incinerator units with new units where it is cost effective or alternative disposal options are not feasible, as may be the case with some incinerators, or in very remote locations. We estimate that there could be one new incineration unit within the next 5 years following this final rule, and possibly five new small remote incinerators within that time. [A12] In these cases, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions reduction estimates for these subcategories using the current existing unit baseline, based on average emission concentration values and sizes from our c urrent inventory and the new source emission limits. Table 6 of this preamble presents the model plant emissions reductions that are expected for new sources.
Table 6. Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis

Pollutant Emission reduction for CISWI Subc ategory Model Units (tpy unless otherwise noted) Incinerator Small, remote incinerator HCl 3.67 0.0 CO 1.23 0.25 Pb 0.83 0.0039 Cd 0.022 0.0 Hg 0.004 0.000012 PM (filterable) 148 0.5 D/F (total mass) a 0.0018 0.0

NO x 16.3 0.15Page 92 of 319

Pollutant Emission reduction for CISWI Subc ategory Model Units (tpy unless otherwise noted) Incinerator Small, remote incinerator SO 2 7.6 0.15 Total 178 0.90 a D/F estimates are given in lb/yr. We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or waste

burning kiln units will be constructed and will instead use alternative waste disposal methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to the CISWI rule. For example, whole tires obtained f rom approved tire management programs and tire

derived fuel from which the metal has been removed is not considered solid waste under the definition of solid waste. Consequently, new cement kiln owners will assess their regulatory requirements under CISWI for burning whole tires or tire

- derived fuel that does not have metals removed against the costs associated with removing the metal or obtaining tires from an approved source and complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI rule. Our research suggests that metal removal is routinely practiced and that several state waste tire management programs are already in place and would most likely be a viable option for new kiln owners so that they would not be subject to the CISWI regulations. Indeed, w e expect that all existing cement kilns that are classified as being waste

- burning solely due to whole tires will, by the effective date for thePage 93 of 319

CISWI standards, find a way to obtain their tires through an approved tire management plan. Likewise, new sourc es could engineer their process to minimize waste generation in the first place or to separate wastes so that the materials sent to a combustion unit would not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. For waste that is generated, our cost analyses have found that alternative waste disposal is generally available and less expensive. 2. What are the water and solid waste impacts? In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility . We anticipate affected sources will need to apply additional controls to meet the emission limits. These controls may use water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual requirement of 71 billion gallons per year of ad ditional water would be required as a result of operating additional controls or increased sorbent use. Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls already in place will increase the amount of particulate collected that will require d isposal. Furthermore, ACI may be used by some sources, which will result in additional solid waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 26,200 tpy from PM capture and 14,300 tpy from ACI.Page 94 of 319

Perhaps the largest impact on solid waste would come from owners and operators who decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and instead send waste to the landfill or MWC for disposal. Based on tipping fees and availability, we would

ex pect most, if not all, of this diverted waste to be sent to a local landfill. As we discuss above, it may be that a good portion of the incinerators would determine that alternative disposal is a better choice than compliance with the standards. We estimat e that approximately 110,600 tpy of waste would be diverted to a landfill. For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement of 6.8 million gallons per year of additional water would be required as a result of operating additional controls. The

annua l amounts of solid waste that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 152 tpy from PM capture and 12 tpy from ACI. 3. What are the energy impacts? The energy impacts associated with meeting the emission limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity consumption and sorbent injection controls would likewise require electricity to power pumps and motors. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest costPage 95 of 319

alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 230,500 MW

- hours per year would be required for the additi onal and improved control devices. As discussed earlier, there could be instances where owners and operators of ERUs and waste

- burning kilns decide to cease burning waste materials. In these cases, the energy provided by the burning of waste would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel, such as natural gas. Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy input to ERUs and kilns are from waste materials, an estimate of the energy that would be replaced with a traditional fuel if all existing units st opped burning waste materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr. For new CISWI units, we anticipate that 511 MW

- hours per year would be required for additional and improved control devices. Since we do not anticipate any new energy recovery or
waste

- burning ki ln units to be constructed, there would be no additional estimate for energy that would be replaced with a traditional fuel. 4. What are the secondary air impacts? For CISWI units adding controls to meet the emission limits, we anticipate minor secondary a ir impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate additional electricity and to operate RTO controls would yield slight increases inPage 96 of 319

emissions, including NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 are covered by capped emis sions trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this rule from additional electricity demand. We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill or other disposal means. As we discussed in the solid waste impacts above, this could result in approximately 11,600 tpy of waste going to landfills. By using the EPA’ s Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we estimate that, over the 20

- year expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting methane generated by a landfill receiving the waste would be about 96,400 tons. If this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming typica l flare emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg and sulfur concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 20 tons of PM; 8 tons of HCl; 16 tons of SO 2 ; 890 tons of CO; 46 tons of NO x ; and 1.4 lbs of Hg. Similar to existing units, we ant icipate minor secondary air impacts for new CISWI units adding controls as discussed above. 5. What are the cost and economic impacts?Page 97 of 319

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add the necessary controls and monitoring equipment, and to implement the inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with the final CISWI standards. We have also analyzed the costs of alternative disposal for the subcategories that may have alternative options to burning waste, specifically for the incinerators and the small, remote incinerators that may have an alternative to incineration. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. Based on this analysis, we antici pate an overall total capital investment of $816 million with an associated total annual cost of $271 million ($2008). For comparison, the 2011 final rule, estimated an overall total capital investment of $652 million with an associated total annual cost o f $232 million ($2008). The annualized cost of today’s final rule are approximately 17% higher than those of the final 2011 CISWI rule. The changes in cost result from revising the inventories of the ERUs, waste

burning kilns and small remote incinerators as discussed in Section II.C. of this preamble: “Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal.” Under the rule, the EPA’s economic model suggests the average national market

- level variables (prices, production

-Page 98 of 319

levels, consumption, international trade) wil l not change significantly (e.g., are less than 0.001 percent). The EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small entities by comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue tests). The EPA’s analysis found the tests were be low 3 percent for four of the five small entities included in the screening analysis. In addition to estimating this rule’s social costs and benefits, the EPA has estimated the employment impacts of the final rule. We expect that the rule’s direct impact on employment will be small. For the reconsideration final, the estimated employment ch anges range between −400 to +900 employees, with a central estimate of +200. We have not quantified the rule’s indirect or induced impacts. For further explanation and discussion of our analysis, see the introductory memo and Section 3 of the RIA.
For new CISWI units, we have estimated compliance costs for units coming online in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on the assumption that one new incinerator will come online over 5 years and one new small, remote incinerator will come online each year ov er the next 5 years. Additionally, it was assumed that each model unit will add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with NSPS limits. Based on our analysis, we anticipatePage 99 of 319

an overall total capital investment of $9.7 million over 5 years with an associated total annual cost (for 2015) of $2.9 million. 6. What are the benefits? We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory action to be $420 million to $1.0 billion (2008$), 3 perc ent discount rate) in the implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $390 million to $940 million (2008$). Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 and premature mortality supplied by exp erts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 4 Since the reconsideration proposal, we have updated the epidemiology studies used to calculate mortality and morbidity benefit s in the PM NAAQS proposal RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012). 5 If we were to incorporate these updates, the monetized benefits would likely decrease by less than 4 [A13] percent. More information on these updates can be found in the PM NAAQS proposal RIA

. A summary of th e monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 7 of this preamble.

4 Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Availa ble at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf.Page 100 of 319

Table 7. Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates For the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015 (Millions of 2008$) a,b

Pollutant Estimated Emission

Reductions (tpy) Total Monetized Benefits (3% Discount Rate) Total Monetized Benefits (7% Discount Rate) PM 2.5 941 $210 to $520 $190 to $470 PM 2.5 Precursors SO 2 6,262 $180 to $450 $170 to $410 NO x 5,399 $26 to $64 $24 to $58 Total $420 to $1,000 $390 to $940 a All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects but the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM 2.5 . Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM 2.5 in
2015 from co ntrols installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these standards. To estimate human health benefits of this rule, the EPA used benefit

- per - ton factors to quantify the changes in PM 2.5 - related health impacts and monetized benefits based on changes in SO 2 and NO x emissions. These estimates are
calculated as the sum of the monetized value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with reducing a ton of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions. To estimate human health
benefits derived from r educing PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursorPage 101 of 319

emissions, we used the general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). 6 To generate the benefit

- per - ton estimates, we used a model to convert emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM 2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit

- per - ton estimate s. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. Directly emitted PM 2.5 , SO 2 and NO x are the primary precursors affected by this rule. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the loc ation and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. For example, SO 2 has a lower
benefit

- per - ton estimate than direct PM 2.5 because it does not
form as much PM 2.5 , thus, the exposure would be lower and the
monetized health benefits would be lower.

6 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air polluti on.” Air Qual Atmos Health (2009) 2:169

– 176.Page 102 of 319

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 2.5 benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. Experts have advised t he EPA to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between PM 2.5 concentrations and prematur e mortality. For this rule, we cite two key empirical studies, the American Cancer Society cohort study 7 and the extended Six Cities cohort study. 8 In the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions. The EPA strives to use the best available science to support our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After reviewing the scie ntific literature and recent scientific advice, we have determined that the no

- threshold model is the most appropriate model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing PM 2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are replacing the previous threshold

7 Pope, et al., 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long

- term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132

- 1141 8 Laden, et al., 2006. “Reducti on in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
. 173: 667

- 672Page 103 of 319

sensitivity analysis with a new “LML” assessment
. While a LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, the EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quanti fy PM

- related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. Most of the estimated PM

- related benefits in this rule would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of PM 2.5. Using the Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percen t of the population is exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m 3 . Using the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m 3 . It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM 2.5 - related effects do wn to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM

- related mortality among populations exposed to levels of PM 2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority of the impacts occur at higher exposures. Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as
geogr aphic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlyingPage 104 of 319

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected h ealth benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for this rule. The 2006
PM 2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 9 provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions. It should be emphasized that the moneti zed benefits estimates provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been monetized in this

an alysis, including reducing 20,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 780 tons of HCl, 2.6 tons of lead, 1.8 tons of cadmium, 690 pounds of mercury, and 58 grams of total D/F each year. Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide

m onetized estimates for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health effects of these air

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiati on. October. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.htmlPage 105 of 319

pollutants in the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket. For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket. III. NHSM Final Revisions
A. Statutory Authority The EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authority of sections 2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the RCRA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(2 7). Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the CAA ((42 U.S.C. 7429) directs the EPA to establish standards for CISWIs, which burn solid waste. Section 129(g)(6) of the CAA provides that the term “solid waste” is to be established by the EPA under RCRA. Section 2002(a)(1 ) of RCRA authorizes the agency to promulgate regulations as are necessary to carry out its functions under the Act. The statutory definition of “solid waste” is provided in RCRA section 1004(27). B. NHSM Rule History The agency first solicited comments on how the RCRA definition of solid waste should apply to NHSMs used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units in an ANPRM, which was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2009 (74 FR 41). We thenPage 106 of 319

published a NHSM proposed rule on June 4, 2010 (7 5 FR 31844), which the EPA issued in final form on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). The March 2011, NHSM final rule codified the standards and procedures for identifying which non

- hazardous secondary materials are “solid waste” when used as fuels or ingredien ts in combustion units. In October 2011, the agency announced it would be initiating new rulemaking proceedings to revise certain aspects of the NHSM rule. 10 On December 23, 2011, we then published a proposed rule, which addressed specific targeted amendments and clarifications to the part 241 regulations (76 FR 80452). These proposed revisions and clarifications were limited to certain issues on which the age ncy had received new information, as well as targeted revisions that the agency believed were appropriate in order to allow implementation of the rule as the EPA originally intended. 11 As stated throughout the preamble to the proposed rule, the agency was n ot reopening the entire NHSM rule for reconsideration and would not respond to comments directed toward rule provisions that were not specifically identified in

10 See October 14, 2011, Letter from Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to Senator Olympia Snowe. A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for today’s rule (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 200 8

- 1873). 11 For more information regarding the intent of the December 23, 2011, proposed rule, see 76 FR 80469. For more information regarding the scope of the proposed rule, see 76 FR 80470

- 80474.Page 107 of 319

this proposal. 12 Therefore, any comments that were submitted outside the scope of the proposal, or for which the EPA did not solicit comment, are not addressed in this final rule, or in the Response to Comments document that has been prepared for this final rule. C. Introduction

— Summary of Regulations Being Finalized In today’s rule, the EPA is finalizing certain amendments and clarifications to the 40 CFR part 241 regulations on which we have received new information, as well as specific targeted revisions that are appropriate in order to allow implementation of the rule as the EPA originally in tended. The regulations being issued today are summarized below. The intent of this summary is to give a brief overview of the revised part 241 regulations. More detailed discussions, including the agency’s responses to comments received on the proposed ru le and its rationale for decisions being made in this final action, are included in section III.D of this preamble. In addition, in an effort to aid the regulated community, the EPA is including in

12 For example, see 76 FR 80470: “The EPA is soliciting comment only on these targeted changes and is not reopening any other issues in the final NHSM rule. Comments that go beyond the scope of this narrow RCRA rulemaking will not be addressed by the Agency when it finalizes today’s proposed rule.” See also 76 FR 80474 “As noted above, the intent of this proposal is to identify certain specific aspects of the rule which EPA is reconsidering and on which it is soliciting public comment. The Agency is not reop ening the entire rule for reconsideration and will not respond to comments directed toward rule provisions that are not specifically identified in this proposal.” and 76 FR 80482 “The Agency is not considering any change to the self

- implementing, mandatory nature of the §241.3 standards for individual facilities and will not respond to any comments on this topic.”.Page 108 of 319

the docket for today’s rule an informational redline/strik eout version that identifies the specific changes to the regulatory text, as compared to the March 2011, final rule. 13
1. Revised Definitions In today’s rule, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the three definitions discussed in the proposed rule: (1) “c lean cellulosic biomass,” (2) “contaminants,” and (3) “established tire collection programs.” In addition, based on comments received on the proposed rule, the agency is also finalizing a revised definition of “resinated wood.” These revised definitions wi ll be codified in 40 CFR 241.2. a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass In today’s action, the EPA is issuing a revised definition of “clean cellulosic biomass” that: (1) makes clear that the list of biomass materials are examples within the definition and is not int ended to be an exhaustive list; and (2) provides a more comprehensive list of clean cellulosic biomass to guide the regulated community. These revisions do not change the agency’s intent under the March 2011 final rule, but identify additional materials th at are “clean cellulosic biomass,” and, thus, are traditional fuels under these regulations. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the definition of clean cellulosic

13 This document has been titled, “ NHSM 2012 Final Rule Regulation Changes” and is placed in Docket No: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2008

- 0329.Page 109 of 319

biomass, as well as our rationale for making these determinations, can be found in s ection III.D.1.a of this preamble. b. Contaminants In today’s action, the EPA is issuing a final definition of “contaminants” to clarify what constituents will be considered contaminants for the purposes of the contaminant legitimacy criterion. Revisions i nclude: (1) the replacement of a reference to “any constituent that will result in emissions” with a specific list of constituents to be considered as contaminants based on their status as a precursor to air emissions; (2) the removal from the definition o f specific CAA section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants that are not expected to be found in any NHSM or are adequately covered elsewhere in the definition; and (3) the removal of the phrase “including those constituents that could generate products of inco mplete combustion” from the definition. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the contaminants definition, as well as our rationale for making these determinations, can be found in section III.D.1.b of this preamble. c. Established Tire Collection Pr ograms In today’s action, the EPA is finalizing a revised definition of “established tire collection program” in order to account for “off

- specification” (including factory scrap) tiresPage 110 of 319

that are contractually arranged to be collected, managed and transport ed between a tire manufacturer (including retailers or other parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires) and a combustor, which is analogous to how scrap tires removed from vehicles are managed. The off

- specification tires are not removed f rom vehicles 14 and are handled under contractual arrangements which ensure they are not discarded. A description of how the changes to the definition accommodate the management of off

- specification tires can be found in section III.D.1.c of this preamble. I n addition to the proposed changes, we are revising the definition to specifically include tires that were not abandoned and were received from the general public at tire collection program events. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the definition , as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.1.c of this preamble. d. Resinated Wood In today’s action, the EPA is issuing a revised definition of “resinated wood” that includes additional materials in order
to be more representative of the universe of resinated wood residuals that are currently used as fuels throughout the wood product manufacturing process. Revisions include: (1) replacing the phrase “containing resin adhesives” with the phrase,

14 “Removal from vehicles” had been a component of the definition.Page 111 of 319

“containing bi nders and adhesives,” and (2) specifically including “off

- specification resinated wood products that do not meet a manufacturing quality or standard” within this definition. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the resinated wood definition, as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.3.b of this preamble. 2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels In today’s action, the EPA is issuing in final form a revised contaminant legitimacy criterion f or NHSMs used as fuels to provide additional details on how contaminant comparisons between NHSMs and traditional fuels may be made. Revisions include: (1) the ability to compare groups of contaminants where technically reasonable; (2) the clarification th at “designed to burn” means can burn or does burn, and not necessarily permitted to burn; (3) the ability to use traditional fuel data from national surveys and other sources beyond a facility’s current fuel supplier; and (4) the ability to use ranges of t raditional fuel contaminant levels when making contaminant comparisons, provided the variability of NHSM contaminant levels is also considered. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as fuels, as wel l as our rational for making these determinations, can be found in section III.D.2 of this preamble.Page 112 of 319

3. Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as Fuels In today’s final rule, the agency is codifying determinations that certain NHSMs a re non - wastes when used as fuels. Based on all available information, the EPA has determined that the following NHSMs are categorically not a solid waste when burned as a fuel in combustion units: (1) scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed unde r the oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off

- specification tires; (2) resinated wood; (3) coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and processed in the same manner as currently

- generate d coal refuse; and (4) dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not discarded and are generated and burned on

- site by pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion of such materials where such dewatered residuals are managed in a manner that preser ves the meaningful heating value of the materials. a. Scrap Tires In today’s action, the agency is listing scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off

- specification tires (including factory scraps), to the categorical list of non

- waste fuels (see 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1)) as proposed. Based on this categorical non

- wastePage 113 of 319

determination, facilities burning the scrap tires that qualify for the provision w ill not need to demonstrate that this NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis. Further, the addition to the new categorical non

- waste provision at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1) eliminated the need for the previous scrap tire provision at 40 CFR 241 .3(b)(2)(i), 15 which has been removed and reserved in today’s final rule. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the scrap tire provision, as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.3.a of this preamble. b. Re sinated Wood In today’s action, the agency is listing resinated wood as

a non - waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(2), as proposed. The EPA has evaluated resinated wood and, based on all available information, including consideration of the legitimacy criteria, as well as other relevant factors, has determined that resinated wood is not a solid waste when used as a fuel. Based on this categorical non

- waste determination, facilities burning resinated wood residuals as a fuel will not need to demonstrate

15 The scrap tire provision in the 2011 NHSM final rule is now removed and the section reserved in today’s final rule: “(b) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes when combusted: (2) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when used in a combustion unit (by the generator or outside the control of the generator): (i) Scrap tires used in a combustion unit that are removed from vehicles and managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs.”Page 114 of 319

that this NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis. Further, the addition of this categorical non

- waste determination (40 CFR 241.4(a)(2)) eliminated the need for the previous resinated wood provision at 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(ii), 16
which has been rem oved and reserved in today’s final rule. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the categorical non

waste determination for resinated wood, as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.3.b of this preamble.

c. Coal Refuse In today’s action, the agency has determined that coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and processed in the same manner as currently

- generated coal refuse, is a non

waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(3). This determination is based on the fact that: (1)legacy coal refuse processed in the same manner as currently

- generated coal refuse meets the definition of processing (as codified in 40 CFR 241.2); and (2)the EPA’s assessment that such materials meet the legitimacy criteria for

16 The resinated wood provision in the 2011 NHSM final rule is now removed and the section reserv ed in today’s final rule: “(b) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes when combusted: (2) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d )(1) of this section when used in a combustion unit (by the generator or outside the control of the generator): (ii) Resinated wood used in a combustion unit.”Page 115 of 319

fuels (as codified in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)) when compared to currently

- generated coal refuse, which the agency considers to be within the definition of a traditional fuel (as codified in 40 CFR 241.2). Based on this categorical non

- waste determination, facilities burning these materials as a fuel will not need to demonstrate that this NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the categorical non

- waste determination for coal refuse that is recovered from legacy piles and processed, as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.5.b of this preamble. d. Pulp and Paper Sludge In today’s action, the EPA has determined that dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not d iscarded and are generated and burned on

- site by pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion of such materials where such dewatered residuals are managed in a manner that preserves the meaningful heating value of the materials are non

- waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(4). This determination for pulp and paper sludge as a categorical non

- waste represents the agency’s finding, after balancing the regulatory legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, that the burning of this material is an integral part of facility operations, and as described in the categorical listing is for energy recovery and not discard. Based on thisPage 116 of 319

categorical non

- waste determination, facilities meeting the description of this determination and burning these materials as a f uel will not need to demonstrate that this NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the categorical non

- waste determination for pulp and paper sludges, as well as our rationale for making this determination, can be found in section III.D.5.a of this preamble. 4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations (40 CFR 241.4(b)) In today’s final rule, the agency is finalizing a rulemaking petition process that provides p ersons with an opportunity to submit a rulemaking petition to the Administrator, seeking a categorical determination for additional NHSMs to be listed in 40 CFR 241.4(a) as non

- waste fuels. The process for submitting a rulemaking petition to the
agency, as well as the factors a successful application must include, is listed in 40 CFR 241.4(b). A discussion of relevant comments regarding the petition process for the categorical listings, as well as our rationale for the categorical rulemaking petition proces s, can be found in section III.D.4 of this preamble. 5. Streamlining of the 40 CFR 241.3(c) Non

- Waste Determination Petition ProcessPage 117 of 319

In today’s final rule, the agency is streamlining the non

waste determination provisions under 40 CFR 241.3(c). The public participation process was streamlined to accommodate petitions that apply to multiple combustors. In particular, the regulations were adjusted to indicate that the appropriate office in the EPA headquarters may handle petitions that cross multiple regions. Furthermore, if a determination is made that the NHSM is a non

- waste, the decision will be retroactive and apply on the date the petition was submitted. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the streamlining of the 40 CFR 241.3(c) non

- waste determin ation petition process, as well as our rationale for the streamlining changes made to the non

- waste determination process, can be found in section III.D.6 of this preamble. 6. Revised Introductory Text for 40 CFR 241.3(a) In today’s final rule, the agency has decided not to revise the introductory text of 40 CFR 241.3(a). In its December 2011 proposed rule, the EPA considered revising this introductory text to state that NHSMs are “presumed to be” solid wastes, rather than “are” solid wastes. While the pro posed change was not expected to be a substantive change to the rule, but merely a reflection of the record at the time, it did engender some confusion among commenters. Based on the comments received, we have decided not to issue revised introductory text 40 CFRPage 118 of 319

241.3(a) and, thus, this section will continue to read as codified in the March 2011 NHSM final rule. A discussion of relevant comments regarding the introductory text of 40 CFR 241.3(a), as well as our rationale for this decision, can be found in section III.D.7 of this preamble. D. Comments on the Proposed Rule and Rationale for Final Decisions In this section, the EPA addresses major comments the agency received regarding the targeted revisions that were proposed to certain part 241 provisions i n the December 23, 2011, proposal. In discussing the comments received on the proposal, we also provide the rationale for making the revisions that are finalized in today’s action. As previously discussed, the agency specifically stated that it would not a ddress comments that go beyond the scope of this narrow RCRA rulemaking. 1. Revised Definitions a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass The proposed rule suggested revising the March 2011 definition of “clean cellulosic biomass” to list additional examples of biomass materials that are appropriately included within this definition. These fuels are not secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean biomass is “biomass that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normallyPage 119 of 319

associated with virgin biomass materials” (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). This regulatory revision would not change the agency’s intent under the March 2011 final rule, but would identify additional materials that are “clean cellulosic biomass,” and, thus, would be a traditional fue l under these regulations. While the list of clean biomass materials is only illustrative and not exhaustive, it is now more comprehensive than the list that appeared in the definition included in the 2011 NHSM final rule. One of the materials within the definition is clean C&D wood. In light of some confusion in comments regarding C&D wood, the EPA is clarifying the meaning of the term in the definition of “clean cellulosic biomass.” Construction & demolition wood actually may be placed into different categories, depending upon its origin. In accordance with the traditional fuels definition in section 241.2, clean C&D wood could be combusted as a traditional fuel if it does not contain contaminants at concentrations not nor mally associated with virgin wood. However, the final NHSM rule also addressed C&D wood that may contain contaminated material. 17 There is no need to repeat these discussions here, except to clarify what the final rule means. In general, contaminated C&D w ood that has been processed (e.g., sorted) to remove contaminants, such as lead

- painted

17 See 76 FR 15485.Page 120 of 319

wood, treated wood containing contaminants, such as arsenic and chromium, metals and other non

- wood materials, prior to burning, likely meets the processing and legitim acy criteria for contaminants, and thus can be combusted as a non

- waste fuel (see further discussion in response to comments below). Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA's specific inclusion of "untreated wood pallets" implicitly accepts that small a mounts of non

- wood material inherent to the pallets, such as screws or plastic fasteners, do not render those materials solid waste under the rule, and de minimis amounts of non

biomass material would not require these types of materials to be burned in in cinerators under the CISWI rule. Another commenter requested that the EPA reconsider use of the word “untreated” when referring to wood pallets. The commenter argues that the EPA does not define the word “untreated” and its use could create confusion. Ra ther, the commenter recommends that “untreated” be replaced with the word “clean,” which is an adjective used in the definition to distinguish other materials (e.g
. , “ clean construction and demolition wood”). Response: Wood pallets are refurbished or recyc led for other uses by pallet recyclers. When the useful life of the pallet is finished, the recyclers typically remove the small amount of non

- wood material inherent to pallets that wouldPage 121 of 319

inhibit combustion, such as screws or plastic fasteners. The pallets are then ready for use as fuel, and the non

- wood material would not impact whether the material can be burned in combustion units that meet the CAA section 112 emission standards. The agency is not aware of instances where the pallets are used as fuel dir ectly by the original users and non

wood material is left remaining in the pallet. Such pallets would not be considered clean cellulosic biomass under the rule. With respect to the other comment, the EPA does not agree, that the term “untreated” wood pall et be replaced with the term “clean” wood pallet. The term “clean” is defined in the traditional fuels definition as described above, and applies to all the materials listed in the definition of clean cellulosic biomass, which includes untreated wood palle ts. It would be redundant to define “clean” biomass as including “clean” wood pallets. The point is that some wood pallets may contain treated wood, such as CCA treated wood, and inclusion of the term “untreated” with wood pallet would help emphasize that such treated wood would not be considered “clean” under the definition of clean cellulosic biomass.
Comment : Several commenters indicated that the definition of clean cellulosic biomass remains ambiguous because it continues to include the caveat that: “C lean biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at concentrations notPage 122 of 319

normally associated with virgin biomass materials.” Thus, notwithstanding the EPA’s attempt at expanding the definition of clean cellulosic biomass, the commenters believed th at this sentence should be removed because it perpetuates uncertainty. It is not clear what comparisons are permissible and what concentration levels are appropriate. The commenters also indicated that this sentence perpetuates the EPA’s erroneous interpr etation of its authority under RCRA . A material does not become a waste when burned for energy recovery just because it may contain contaminants

-- prior to combustion

-- not normally associated with virgin biomass. It becomes a waste only if it is combust ed for the purpose of disposal, rather than for energy recovery. Response: The agency disagrees with the commenter that defining the term “clean” leads to ambiguity in identifying which materials are clean cellulosic biomass. On the contrary, defining the term “clean” is meant to ensure that contaminated cellulosic material being burned, such as lead

- painted wood or arsenic treated wood, does not introduce contaminants (as defined in 40 CFR 241.2) not normally associated with virgin biomass materials. The agency wishes to emphasize, however, that determinations that the cellulosic biomass used as a fuel or ingredient is clean, do not presuppose any testing ofPage 123 of 319

contaminant levels. Persons can use expert or process knowledge of the material to justify deci sions regarding presence of contaminants. With respect to the comment that burning of contaminated material does not make it a waste, the agency has not reopened this issue for this rule and stands by its responses in the rulemaking record for the March 2 011 final rule. 18

Commen t: One commenter provided the example of whether treated seeds that contain additives are considered contaminants in virgin biomass. These additives may not be found in virgin seeds but are not harmful at the concentrations found in the seeds. The commenter questioned whether any concentration above “natural” (concentration levels found in virgin material), especially when combusted as fuel, would be prohibited and require additional waste regulation. Response: Seeds may be treated w ith pesticides and hormones to aid in germination. Such chemicals do not generally include

18 See, for example, 76 FR 15523

- 4: “If a non

- hazardous secondary material co ntains contaminants that are not comparable to those found in traditional fuels, and those contaminants are related to pollutants that are of concern at solid waste combustion units, then it follows that discard is occurring. The contaminants in these c ases could not be considered a normal part of a legitimate fuel and are being discarded, either through destruction in the combustion unit or through releases into the air. Units that burn such materials are therefore most appropriately regulated under th e CAA section 129 standards for solid waste incinerators.” See also 76 FR 15485, which states: “[A]s we have noted previously, the criterion or test for determining whether a material is burned as a waste or a commodity fuel is the level of the contaminan t in the secondary material itself

– that is destruction of contaminants indicates a waste treatment activity rather than a commodity fuel.”Page 124 of 319

contaminants as defined in section 241.2; therefore, such treated seeds would generally be considered clean cellulosic biomass.
Comment : Several commenters indicate d that, as part of the EPA’s changes in the definition of clean cellulosic biomass, it is proposing to consider treated or painted wood the same as “virgin” wood if it has lower than de minimis levels of contamination. While adoption of numerical values in the rule would require additional provisions for measurements and would require additional notice, the commenter believes that such clarity is important for successful implementation of the rule. Such limits would be applied to “clean” C&D material, for i nstance, among other potential fuel types. The term de minimis is not defined numerically in the proposed rule and the commenters argue that without a specific numerical de minimis limit, sources would not have a clear understanding of whether they fall un der the CISWI or hazardous waste incinerator rules. The commenter recommended that the EPA define and allow for public comment on the levels associated with the term de minimis and base the de minimis levels on contaminant levels found in typical “virgin” wood. Response : Regarding the addition of a definition for de minimis amounts of contaminants remaining in processed wood, the agency does not believe it appropriate to identify specificPage 125 of 319

concentration levels. Rather, the agency interprets de minimis as th at term is commonly understood

-- insignificant or negligible amounts of contamination (e.g., small wood sliver containing lead paint). As indicated above, there also appears to be confusion among commenters regarding two different categories of C&D wood

- - “clean C&D wood” that is a traditional fuel, and C&D wood that has been processed to remove contaminants. Under the 2011 NHSM final rule, C&D wood that has been processed (e.g., sorted) to remove contaminants, such as lead

- painted wood, treated wood

c ontaining contaminants, such as arsenic and chromium, metals and other non

- wood materials, prior to burning, likely meets the processing and legitimacy criteria for contaminants, and thus can be combusted as a non

- waste fuel but would not be considered “cl ean C&D wood.” Such C&D wood may contain de minimis amounts of contaminants and other materials provided it meets the legitimacy criteria for contaminant levels. To meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, concentration levels of contaminants in the proc essed C&D wood must be comparable to or less than the levels in the traditional fuel the unit was designed to burn, whether wood or another traditional fuel (see section III.D.2 for a discussion on contaminant comparisons). In contrast, “clean C&D wood” is a traditional fuel that does not require processing and meets the definition of “clean” (i.e.,Page 126 of 319

C&D wood that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass (wood)). Thus, de minimis amounts of contaminants and other material appropriate for processed C&D wood would not be appropriate for clean wood that is a traditional fuel.
Comment : One commenter argued that states should have discretion about how to determine appropriate fuel quality but it should be no less stringent than limits set by the EPA. There should be a distinction between de minimis levels of contamination in C&D wood and a fuel quality standard. Response : We do not necessarily disagree with the commenter. That is, as discussed in the final rule, p art 241 does not preempt a state’s statutory or regulatory standards and states are free to establish fuel quality standards for C&D wood. However, we would also note that as solid waste is defined by the EPA under RCRA, such state standards would not

nece ssarily impact the status of the material as it relates to which combustion units are subject to CAA section 129 (56 FR 15546). b. Contaminants The December 2011 rule proposed to clarify what constituents will be considered contaminants by making the defi nition of “contaminants” more specific. However, thePage 127 of 319

proposal maintained the fundamental approach

— and was intended to cover the same constituents

— as the March 2011 final rule. The March 2011 final rule and the December 2011 proposed rule identified the sa me three ways a chemical can be labeled a contaminant. First, it may be one of the 187 HAP currently listed in CAA section 112(b); second, it may be one of the nine pollutants listed under CAA section 129(a)(4); and third, it may be one of a handful of che micals whose combustion will result in the formation of listed CAA section 112(b) and section 129(a)(4) pollutants ( e.g. , sulfur that will result in SO 2 ). The definition proposed in December provided clarification by listing the constituents that belong t o the third group. 19 Specifically, the proposed revision replaced a potentially ambiguous reference to “any constituent that will result in emissions” with the four specific elements the agency intended to be considered as contaminants (chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur) based on their status as a precursor to air emissions. In all four cases, the CAA pollutant itself (e.g.,
SO 2 ) is not likely to be present in the NHSM prior to combustion, and the only way to measure constituents prior to combustion “that will result in emissions” of that pollutant is to measure a known precursor (e.g., sulfur) instead. For each of

19 Eleven metal elements directly identified in CAA section 112(b) were also listed in the proposed definition to pr ovide the regulated community with a complete list of elements that are considered “contaminants” under the rule.Page 128 of 319

the four precursor elements listed as contaminants in the proposal, the expected fate for the precursor during combustion is formation of the aforementioned pollutant and the precursor makes no substantive contribution to the material’s value as a fuel. For these reasons, the agency proposed to specifically identify chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur as contaminants in place of HCl, HF , NO x and SO 2 . By limiting the list of precursors considered contaminants to these four elements, the revised definition also made clear that the agency did not intend to include other elements present in contaminants (such as hydrogen and carbon) as conta minants themselves. The December 2011 proposed rule also removed from the definition of contaminants those pollutants in CAA sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4) that we do not expect to find in any NHSM. Specifically: Chlorine gas, HCl, HF, NO x , and SO 2 were re moved from the definition because they are unlikely to be found in NHSMs prior to combustion and had been replaced by the elements chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur as discussed above; Fine mineral fibers were removed because they are releases from t he manufacturing and processing (not combustion) of non - combustible rock, glass or slag into mineral fibers; Particulate matter and coke oven emissions were removed because they are products of combustion unlikely to exist in NHSMs prior to combustion; Cre sol isomers m

- cresol, o

- cresol, and p

- cresol were removed because the listed pollutant cresols/cresylic acid includes these three isomers;Page 129 of 319

Xylene isomers m

- xylene, o

- xylene, and p

- xylene were removed because the listed pollutant xylenes includes these thre e isomers; and Diazomethane, white phosphorus, and titanium tetrachloride were removed because their high reactivity makes their presence in NHSMs very unlikely. In addition, two phrases present in the March 2011 final rule “contaminants” definition were n ot included in the December 2011 proposed rule definition. First, the phrase concerning constituents “that will result in emissions of the air pollutants” was removed since the regulated community had expressed confusion that in determining whether or not a NHSM meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion, emissions from the combustion unit were to be evaluated. The EPA disagreed and directed readers to the language in sections 241.3(d)(1)(iii) and 241.3(d)(2)(iv). These sections state that contaminant
compa risons are based on the presence of contaminants in the NHSM (or products made from NHSMs in the case of ingredients), not the resulting emissions. The proposed revision also inserted the phrase “prior to combustion” into the contaminants definition to fur ther emphasize that the NHSMs, not the emissions that result from NHSMs, are to be evaluated when conducting contaminant comparisons. The rationale for evaluating the NHSM, and not emissions, can be found in the record for thePage 130 of 319

March 2011 final rule. 20 The p roposal merely added language to ensure the rule is consistent with the agency’s intent. The second phrase proposed to be removed from the March 2011 final rule definition was a reference to “those constituents that could generate products of incomplete

co mbustion,” also referred to as PICs. This reference was removed from the definition because it was duplicative and potentially misleading. Specifically, this phrase was not necessary because all PICs that the agency considers air pollutants

— including dioxi ns, dibenzofurans, PCBs and PAHs

— are listed in CAA sections 112(b) or 129(a)(4) and are thus already included in the “contaminants” definition. More importantly, the phrase was potentially misleading because PIC formation depends heavily on combustion cond itions, such as air/fuel ratio and mixing. These conditions are controlled to limit emissions and neither these conditions nor emissions are the subject of this rule. The NSHM itself is the subject of this rule. Thus, the removal of both phrases clarified

— but did not alter

— the constituents subject to the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The EPA believes that comments have not changed the basis for listing specific precursors to air emissions as contaminants, nor have they changed the basis for either exclu ding specific constituents from the definition or removing

20 For example, see 76 FR 15524

- 15525.Page 131 of 319

the references to “that will result in emissions of the air pollutants” and “constituents that could generate products of incomplete combustion” from the definition. Thus, the EPA is adopting the r easoning from the proposal and revising the definition of contaminants to incorporate these concepts. The EPA has decided, however, to make several modifications to the regulatory language of the December 2011 proposed rule based on comments received and information in the rulemaking record. First, in the final definition issued today, precursors will only be considered contaminants for NHSMs used as fuels; precursors will not be considered contaminants for NHSMs used as ingredients. Furthermore, precursor s will not be considered contaminants if they do not form their corresponding pollutants. Also, opacity has been removed from the contaminants definition. Finally, the phrase “prior to combustion” has not been inserted into the contaminants definition, as had been proposed. Contaminants in NHSMs used as fuel in combustion units must still be evaluated prior to combustion, and persons must still evaluate the NHSM itself (not emissions), but the agency has determined that the topic of when to evaluate contami nants is more appropriate to address in the legitimacy criteria than in the contaminants definition.Page 132 of 319

Additional reasoning for keeping the rule provisions as proposed, and for any modifications to the proposed language, are described in the following respo nses to comments. Comment: Several commenters stated that the definition of contaminants should focus on contaminants released as combusted emissions. One commenter argued that contaminants should be compared between emitted contaminants and emission stand ards. A second commenter reiterated previous comments that contaminant levels should be related to the air emissions and not the content of the material. For support, commenters cited that the EPA reversed its position in the proposal by using possible air emissions as the basis for establishing what contaminants need to be compared. Response: The EPA has previously stated that contaminant levels before and after combustion can be important indicators of legitimacy and it maintains the position from the Mar ch 2011 final rule that non

- waste fuels must be similar in composition to traditional fuels prior to combustion. 21 Because combustion and emission control processes can destroy or remove contaminants, a comparison of emissions profiles alone only tells one how well the combustion unit is operating, not whether

21 See 76 FR 15525.Page 133 of 319

the NHSM is being used as a legitimate non

- waste commodity fuel. 22 The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency reversed its position on the consideration of emissions in the proposal by including precursors to air emissions as contaminants. The agency notes that a difference exists between comparing “emissions” and comparing “contaminants that will result in emissions,” the exact language used in the March 2011 final rule. The EPA has clarified what it intended by “contaminants that will result in emissions” in today’s final action. This clarification involves the l isting of specific precursors known to result in emissions of air pollutants when combusted; it also involves the removal of specific pollutants known not to be present in NHSMs. Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of co ntaminants conflicted with the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as ingredients in combustion units. Commenters stated that both the definition of contaminants, as proposed, and the existing contaminant legitimacy criterion for ingredients we re clear when read separately but were contradictory when taken together. The commenters encouraged the EPA to clarify the regulatory text. Specifically, the commenters noted that for ingredients,

22 Id.Page 134 of 319

contaminants could not be evaluated prior to combustion and then used to compare products produced using NHSMs to products produced using traditional materials. Response: The EPA has decided not to include language from the December 2011 proposed rule in the definition of contaminants that emphasized when NHSM co ntaminant levels are to be evaluated ( i.e
. , before or after combustion). While the proposed additional language made clear that NHSMs used as a fuel were to be evaluated for contaminants “prior to combustion,” the agency agrees with the two commenters who argued that the proposed language conflicts with the contaminant legitimacy criterion for ingredients . The contaminant criterion for ingredients requires comparisons to be made between products produced with and without NHSMs, but until the products exist, they cannot be compared. As such, the agency has decided not to adopt the proposed additional language addressing when contaminants are to be evaluated in the definition of contaminants . The agency proposed similar language in the December 2011 rule addr essing this topic in the contaminant legitimacy criterion and the agency is adopting that language in today’s final rule. The agency has determined that the legitimacy criteria themselves (40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(iii) for fuels and 40 CFR 241.3(d)(2)(iv) for in gredients) are more appropriate places to address this topic.Page 135 of 319

The EPA has also decided to add language to the definition of contaminants clarifying that the specification of particular precursors to air emissions ( i.e. , chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sul fur) as contaminants does not apply to the contaminant legitimacy criterion for ingredients. As identified by the commenters, the contaminant criterion for ingredients requires comparisons to be made between products produced with and without NHSMs. Produc ts can only be compared after combustion has occurred, at which point there will be no benefit to measuring levels of precursors. The agency also notes that it does not envision a situation where NHSMs containing chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen or sulfur

wou ld be used as ingredients in such a way that would emit higher levels of HCl, HF, NO x or SO 2 than would be emitted using traditional ingredients without the material being considered a solid waste. In all cases, ingredients must provide a valuable contribu tion to the product being produced, and that product must itself be valuable, in order to not be considered a solid waste. For an ingredient to provide value, the agency expects the ingredient to remain in a product rather than be destroyed or released via emissions. This is a key reason why the contaminant legitimacy criterion for ingredients focuses on products ( i.e. , toxics along for the ride) rather than emissions. Furthermore, the legitimacy criteria for ingredientsPage 136 of 319

cannot be used to avoid the legitima cy criteria for fuels if the material is being used for both purposes. Comment: Several commenters questioned the rationale for including precursors to air emissions as “contaminants” under the proposed revised definition. Some indicated that the concept is far removed from the true meaning of “discard,” with one comment stating that the EPA has no legal, rational or scientific basis for considering the presence of sulfur or nitrogen in NHSMs as evidence of intent to discard SO 2 or NO x during combustion. To support this argument, the commenter first noted that the EPA has no record basis for assuming that the intent of the combustor is to discard the constituent, rather than to generate energy. Second, the commenter noted that whether o r not a boiler has emissions of regulated air pollutants, such as SO 2 or NO x when it combusts a precursor will depend, not on an intent to discard these pollutants, but on boiler operation and design. Two commenters also stated that the preamble discussio n on precursors demonstrates how far removed the EPA’s rational for this rulemaking is from the concept of discard. They noted that the EPA is requiring combustors to document and keep records regarding the fact that CO is not present in NHSMs, and, under CISWI, would identify the NHSM as waste if this documentation isPage 137 of 319

not maintained. The commenters failed to see how this has anything to do with a determination that a material is a waste under RCRA. Response: The EPA disagrees with these comments. Precurso rs to emissions of identified air pollutants are important and appropriate to address as contaminants in NHSMs prior to combustion. It is also necessary to tailor the definition of contaminants to the realities of the combustion process, during which precu rsors present in NHSMs used a fuel

— many of which are solid or liquid

— are transformed into air pollutants. However, the agency agrees with those commenters who argued that the revised definition, as proposed, may be too broad with regard to precursors that may not form air pollutants in all cases. For example, if the combustion of nitrogen does not form
NO x in a particular situation, the agency did not intend in its December 2011 proposed rule to consider nitrogen as a contaminant in that particular situati on . 23 The EPA noted in the proposed rule that chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur will form pollutants of concern in most circumstances, but the agency does acknowledge that specific technologies and practices may prevent these transformations from happ ening in the first

23 See March 16, 2012 Response from James R. Berlow, Director, Program Implemen tation and Information Division, EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery to Fadi K. Mourad, DTE Energy Services, Inc. A copy of this response letter has been placed in the docket for today’s rulemaking and is also available at http://www.epa.gov /epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.Page 138 of 319

instance, particularly with regard to nitrogen (one example being the use of Low NO x burners with Over

- Fire Air). Thus, the contaminants definition issued in today’s final rule does not consider constituents that are normally precursors to CAA section 112(b) or 129(a)(4) pollutants to be contaminants if a specific technology or practice prevents them from forming their corresponding pollutants. The definition codified in 40 CFR 241.2 only includes chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur a s contaminants in cases where “combustion will result in the formation of hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), or sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ).” When compared to the December 2011 proposed rule, the only constituents no longer co nsidered contaminants due to this modification are chlorine that will not form HCl during combustion, fluorine that will not form HF during combustion, nitrogen that will not form NO x during
combustion and sulfur that will not form SO 2 during combustion.

T his is consistent with the March 2011 NHSM final rule, under which these constituents would not be contaminants when they would not “result in emissions” of CAA section 112(b) or section 129(a)(4) pollutants. Although the EPA is not currently aware of any technologies or practices that prevent chlorine, fluorine or sulfur in NHSMsPage 139 of 319

from forming their associated pollutants during combustion (the EPA is aware of such examples with nitrogen), the agency considers it reasonable and appropriate to adopt the same language for all four precursors to allow for future technological advances preventing the transformation of these elements into pollutants during combustion. Comment: One commenter stated that the consideration of precursors to air emissions as contamina nts could be used to make the most fundamental of all elements, hydrogen, a contaminant because it is present in nearly all regulated pollutants. The presence of hydrogen in a NHSM could then be considered evidence of intent to discard pollutants that
cont ained hydrogen. Response: Under the proposed contaminants definition, only the specific precursor elements listed (chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur) are considered contaminants. The EPA determined in the proposal, and adopts as its final decision
to day, that these are the only four precursors necessary to evaluate when comparing contaminants between NHSMs and traditional fuels. The agency specifically decided not to include hydrogen on this list. Whereas combustion of chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur typically leads to the formation of CAA section 112(b) or 129(a)(4) air pollutants, combustion of hydrogen typically leads to the formation of water vapor.Page 140 of 319

Comment: Several commenters opposed the inclusion of precursors as contaminants on the groun d that the formation of related pollutants depends more on boiler operation and design, process chemistry and feedstock characteristics than on the levels of precursors present in the NHSMs. Response: The EPA recognizes that unit design and operating condi tions can impact the transformation of chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur into air pollutants. Rather than viewing this as a reason to ignore the pollutants these elements commonly form, the agency views this as further evidence why precursor levels m ust be considered when determining which set of CAA standards

— which in turn regulate unit operating conditions

— should apply. Comment: Two commenters suggested that the EPA follow a different approach for defining contaminants and use a method similar to wh at the agency used for the used oil specification in 40 CFR 279.11. In each case, the commenter suggested that for NHSMs, the definition of contaminants should be limited to sulfur, nitrogen, chlorine, Cd, Hg and lead because those are the elements Congres s addressed in CAA section 129. This approach, they argued, would be similar to what the EPA did when developing the used oil specifications. The point the commenters wished the agency to draw from the used oil specification approach is that it addressed e lemental species, as opposed toPage 141 of 319

individual compounds. Using sulfur as an example, the commenters reasoned that it is the underlying presence of sulfur

- bearing materials in the NHSMs, as opposed to individual sulfur

containing compounds on the section 112(b ) list, which effects emissions of SO 2 . Response: The EPA disagrees with the approach outlined by the commenters and has issued a final definition of contaminants based on both the CAA section 112(b) and the CAA section 129(a)(4) lists, as was proposed. W e do agree with the commenters, however, that identifying precursors that will form certain CAA pollutants in the definition of contaminants is appropriate. The approach outlined by the commenters appears to be based on two premises that the EPA has previo usly considered and decided not to adopt. First, the commenters do not think the definition of contaminants should reference both the CAA section 112(b) and CAA section 129(a)(4) lists. The agency previously explained its decision to use both lists in the March 2011 final rule and does not believe comments have offered any new information that would change the basis for this decision. The EPA previously discussed that both lists of constituents are appropriate because both lists are to be considered by the EPA when developing emissionPage 142 of 319

standards. 24 Furthermore, the agency has previously explained that CAA section 129 provides that the term “solid waste” shall have the meaning promulgated by the EPA under RCRA and that the EPA has the authority to interpret RC RA to decide whether NHSMs are solids wastes or not. 25 The agency notes that it has carefully considered the CAA section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) lists of pollutants and removed those constituents that would not be appropriate to evaluate in NHSMs. Second, the commenters base their proposed approach to defining contaminants purely on emissions. The agency agrees that emissions may be a means of discard but contaminants that are destroyed by the combustion process or incorporated into products may not have emissi on standards established under CAA section 129. Combustion may still be a means of discard in these instances. Thus, a definition of contaminants based only on the CAA section 129 emissions standards only tells one how well the combustion unit is operating , not whether the NHSM is being used as a legitimate non

- waste commodity. 26 Comment: Several commenters addressed the specific constituents proposed to be removed from the definition of contaminants. In general, comments were supportive of the concept that constituents unlikely to be found in NHSMs prior to

24 See 76 FR 15524

- 15525. See also, 75 FR 31883. 25 See 76 FR 15469

- 15470. See also, 76 FR 15473. 26 See 76 FR 15525.Page 143 of 319

combustion or adequately measured elsewhere in the definition should be removed from the definition. Multiple commenters asked that CO also be removed from the definition because it is unlikely to be fo und in NHSMs. The same commenters asked that opacity be removed from the definition because it can only be measured in emissions and is not directly related to any one specific constituent in NHSMs. Particulate matter and coke oven emissions were removed, noted the commenters, because they are products of combustion unlikely to exist in NHSMs prior to combustion, and the same can be said for CO and opacity. One commenter expressed concern that asbestos had been removed from the list due to the removal of “ fine mineral fibers” as a contaminant. The commenter explained that asbestos is commonly found in construction and demolition debris and asbestos particles in smoke are deadly. Excluding fine mineral fibers from regulation explicitly ignores the possibilit y of such contamination in C&D debris, noted the commenter, and asbestos should be a regulated contaminant. Response: The EPA has issued a final rule containing the language removing constituents from the definition of contaminants as proposed, with one ch ange. The agency has removed “opacity” from the final definition of contaminants as well. Similar to PM and coke oven emissions, there is noPage 144 of 319

practical way to measure opacity in NHSMs prior to combustion or in products made using NHSMs. In fact, the EPA did not intend for opacity to be included in the definition of contaminant under the previous definition. A visual property of an emissions stream, opacity is not even a constituent, let alone a constituent that can be measured in NHSMs prior to combustion or in products made using NHSMs. As such, removing it from the definition will provide clarity without effecting any practical change to the definition. 27 The agency has not removed CO from the definition of contaminants because, contrary to comments that it is unlikely to be found in any NHSM, it is likely to be present in gaseous NHSMs and is not adequately measured elsewhere in the “contaminants” definition. However, as we discuss in the December 2011 proposed rule, CO is unlikely to be found in solid or l iquid NHSMs and EPA expects that persons can use process knowledge to justify not testing for CO in these cases. 28 The agency has removed the fine mineral fibers group from the definition of contaminants, as proposed, because they are not expected to be fou nd in NHSMs. Fine mineral fibers, as regulated under CAA section 112(b) are releases from the manufacturing and processing of non

- combustible rock, glass or

27 Neither Table 7 nor Table 8 in the December 2011 proposed rule included opacity. See 76 FR 80478

- 80480. 28 See 76 FR 80475Page 145 of 319

slag into mineral fibers and are not produced during the combustion process. Asbestos, on the other hand, has been set apart from the fine mineral fibers group in CAA section 112(b), and thus, it is set apart in the NHSM rule. To be clear, asbestos is included in the definition of contaminants in today’s final rule and it would be a contaminant regardle ss of whether the fine mineral fibers group was removed or not. In summary, the following 12 CAA section 112(b) and section 129(a)(4) pollutants have been removed from the definition of contaminants: HCl, Cl 2 , HF, NO x , SO 2 , fine mineral fibers, PM,
coke oven emissions, opacity, diazomethane, white phosphorus and titanium tetrachloride. c. Established Tire Collection Programs The 40 CFR part 241.2 definition for “established tire collection program,” as established by the March 2011 promulgation in the Federal Register , was as follows: “Established tire collection program means a comprehensive collection system that ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities in accordance with section 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of re moval from the vehicle through arrival at the combustion facility.” In the December 2011, NHSM proposed rule, the EPA proposed to revise this definition (and the related criteria for non

waste tires now at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1)) in order to account forPage 146 of 319

off

- sp ecification tires. The term “off

- specification tires” is intended to also include “factory scraps.” The off

- specification tires are not removed from vehicles and are handled under contractual arrangements which ensure they are not discarded. The definition was modified to include “contractual arrangement” to provide that not only “collection systems,” but also contractual arrangements for tire collection would be appropriate. The requirement for the tires to be removed from the vehicle was eliminated 29 since it is not applicable to off

specification tires. The revised definition is sufficient to encompass the agency’s intent in describing these programs and continues to ensure that these scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities th rough arrival at the combustion facility. Further, the addition to the new categorical non

- waste provision at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1) eliminated the need for the previous scrap tire provision at 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i), 30 (which has been removed and reserved in to day’s final rule) therefore, the reference to that provision was

29 The related tire provision at 241.4(a)(1) allows for tires that are off

specification or are removed from vehicles. 30 The scrap tire provision in the 2011 NHSM final rule is now removed and the section reserved in today’s final rule: “(b) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes when combusted: (2) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when used in a combustion unit (by the generator or outside the control of the generator): (i) Scrap tires used in a combustion unit that are removed from vehicles and managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs.”Page 147 of 319

removed in the definition. The agency proposed to revise the definition as follows: “Established tire collection program means a comprehensive collection system or contractual arrangement tha t ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through arrival at the combustion facility.” The definition in today’s final rule includes the revisions to the definition we proposed in December 2011. In addition, the
agenc y is including in the definition “tires that were not abandoned and were received from the general public at collection program events.” This revision is being made based on comments received on the proposed rule as discussed below. Under today’s revised d efinition, established tire collection programs could also include a “contractual arrangement.” If, for example, the state is sponsoring special events where they take tires back from the general public, those tires would also be included. Thus, the defini tion in today’s final rule is “Established tire collection program means a comprehensive collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through arrival at the combustion facil ity. This can include tires that were not abandoned and were received from the general public at collection program events.”Page 148 of 319

While the agency did receive comments on the specific proposed changes described above, a number of commenters rephrased or resta ted previous arguments which conclude that any tires burned for energy recovery are not wastes, even if previously discarded. Conversely, one commenter reiterated its previous arguments which conclude that all used tires are waste, even if burned for energ y recovery. Today’s rule is responding only to the specific proposed revisions to the regulations and the requests for comment in the proposal. For the response to other issues, refer to the record for the 2011 NHSM final rule (76 FR 15456). Many of the co mmenters who provided comments on tires intertwined the “established tire collection program” definition issues with the related topic of the categorical non

waste provision for scrap tires. For a discussion of those comments, refer to the response to comm ents for the categorical

non - waste provision for scrap tires (section III.D.3.a.). The EPA is not reopening its decision that these scrap tires are not wastes. That decision, however, justifies a categorical exclusion where there is not a need to make case

- by

- case determinations regarding discard in the first instance and the legitimacy criteria.
Comment : Several commenters mentioned that, in some cases, the public individually takes tires to state

- run tire collection program events. These are tires that t he general public owns andPage 149 of 319

were typically removed from their vehicle. These are not abandoned tires. These collection events, in some cases, are held by the combustor under the state’s environmental program oversight. In those cases, the combustors enter i nto agreements with local communities to hold these events during which local residents are allowed to bring tires to facilities to be recycled, including used as alternative fuels. The scope of tire collection programs also may allow the public to take us ed tires which they may have stored in their garages, or elsewhere on their property, directly to a combustion facility

– in many cases a cement kiln. Under the EPA’s current definition of tire collection programs, the commenters said it is not clear whe ther these tires would qualify as those collected under an “established tire collection program.” Commenters generally agreed that these tires are not abandoned and should be utilized as non

- waste fuels without processing. Response: The EPA agrees with th e commenters that tires that have not been discarded and are collected directly from the public at tire collection events are intended to qualify for the 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1) requirement to be “managed under the oversight of established tire collection progr ams.” The agency agrees that these tires are not abandoned and when collected under established tire collection program events, they arePage 150 of 319

considered to be non

- waste fuels, just as the other tires handled by established tire collection programs are non

- waste . To make this point clear, the EPA has modified the regulatory language. Please refer to the Response to Comment document for more details on these collection events and the responses. 2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSMs Used as Fuels Under the December 2011 proposed rule, revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as fuel provided details on how contaminant comparisons could be made in practice. The proposal maintained the fundamental approach of the March 2011 final rule, but the proposed criterion better reflected the EPA’s intent to allow certain flexibilities when making contaminant comparisons. First, the proposal replaced “contaminants” with the phrase “contaminants or groups of contaminants” to clarify that, when de ciding how to compare contaminants between NHSMs and traditional fuels, persons do not have to make comparisons on a contaminant

- by

- contaminant basis in all cases. When technically reasonable, comparisons may be made on a group of contaminants

by

- group of contaminants basis. The December 2011 rule also proposed to codify language from the preamble to the March 2011 final rule clarifying that when selecting which traditional fuel(s) a unit is designed to burn, persons are not limited to the traditional fuel the unitPage 151 of 319

is currently permitted to burn. Persons may choose any traditional fuel the unit can burn or does burn, whether or not it is permitted to burn such fuel. In addition, the proposed regulations included text confirming that, when comparing contamin ant levels between NHSMs and traditional fuels, persons are not limited to data from the specific traditional fuel being replaced. National surveys of traditional fuel contaminant levels are one example of another acceptable data source. Neither the March 2011 final rule nor the December 2011 proposed rule required persons to compare contaminants in their NHSM to contaminants in the specific traditional fuel source they burn (or would otherwise burn). As an example, the proposal noted that persons who would otherwise burn coal may use any as

- burned coal available in coal markets in making a comparison between the contaminants in their NHSM and the contaminants in coal

— they are not limited to coal from a specific coal supplier they have used in the past or cu rrently

use. Finally, the proposed regulations included text confirming that, when comparing contaminant levels between NHSMs and traditional fuels, persons are not limited to comparing average concentrations. Traditional fuel contaminant levels can vary considerably and the full range of contaminant values may be used.Page 152 of 319

Two other issues arose prior to the December 2011 proposed rule that, while not leading to specific regulatory changes in the proposal, still merited a discussion in the proposal. The first issue was that contaminant legitimacy criterion determinations do not require testing contaminant levels, in either the NHSM or an appropriate traditional fuel. Persons can use expert or process knowledge to justify decisions to either rule out certain co nstituents or determine that the NHSM meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The second issue was that persons may use data from a group of similar traditional fuels for contaminant comparisons, provided the unit could burn each traditional fuel. The idea grows from the “designed to burn” concept explained in the March 2011 final rule and codified in today’s final rule, and it allows a person with a unit that can or does burn similar traditional fuels ( e.g. , anthracite, lignite, bituminous and sub

- bitu minous coal) to group those traditional fuels when making contaminant comparisons. The EPA believes that comments have not changed the basis for making the decisions to expressly allow grouping of contaminants, to interpret “designed to burn” to mean can burn or does burn regardless of permit status, and to affirm that persons can use ranges and national surveys of traditional fuel data when making contaminant comparisons between NHSMs and traditional fuels. Comments have also not changed the agency’sPage 153 of 319

basi s for making the decisions that testing is not required and that persons can group similar traditional fuels for the purposes of contaminant comparisons. Thus, the EPA is adopting the reasoning from the proposal and revising the contaminant legitimacy crit erion for NHSMs used as a fuel to incorporate these concepts. The EPA has decided, however, to make one modification to the proposed contaminant legitimacy criterion based on comments received and information in the rulemaking record. The final criterion issued today includes additional language clarifying the appropriate use of ranges when making contaminant comparisons between NHSMs and traditional fuels. To use the full range of contaminant values in traditional fuels, persons should also account for th e variability in NHSM contaminant levels. Additional details and rationale for the proposed revisions concerning the grouping of contaminants, the meaning of designed to burn, and the use of ranges and traditional fuel data in making contaminant compariso ns are discussed in section III.D.2.b, section III.D.2.c, and section III.D.2.d below. Additional reasoning for keeping the rule provisions as proposed and for any modifications to the proposed language are described in the responses to comments included i n these sections. a. General Comments on the Revised Contaminant Legitimacy CriterionPage 154 of 319

The EPA is not responding to issues that the agency decided in the March 2011 rule and has not reopened for comment. Specifically, the agency has previously discussed and did not solicit comments in this rule on why the concept of legitimacy is important in determining whether a secondary material is genuinely recycled or is, in fact, discarded. 31 The agency has also previously discussed and did not solicit comments in this rule on why contaminant comparisons to traditional fuels are an appropriate and mandatory factor in determining legitimacy for NHSMs used as fuels in combustion units. 32 The agency has also previously discussed and did not solicit comments in this rule

on why the “comparable to or lower than” standard is more appropriate than the “not significantly higher than” standard. 33 The agency has also previously discussed that the NHSM Rule differs from the DSW Rule in that it is tailored specifically for application to NHSMs used in combustion units. 34 Comment: Industry commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposed revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion, stating that the revisions would help provide regulatory certainty and give the regulated community more confidence in their self

- determinations.

31 See 75 FR 31870. 32 See 75 FR 31871

- 31872. See also, 76 FR 15524

- 15525. 33 See 75 FR 31872. See also, 76 FR 15523. 34 See 75 FR 31870.Page 155 of 319

Environmental groups, on the other hand, expressed concern that the combination of flexibilities present in the proposed revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion will allow facilities to compare conta minant levels in C&D debris and other wood waste to the highest contaminant levels found in coal, even if the facility is not permitted to burn coal. They believed that this should not be permitted and argued that C&D wood should not contain contaminant le vels higher than found on average in virgin biomass. State comments were mixed, with one commenter supporting the proposed revisions and another commenter expressing concern that the revisions would weaken the states’ permitting authorities and create an i ncentive for combustors to burn dirtier traditional fuels. Response: The EPA has decided to retain the concepts proposed to the contaminant legitimacy criterion because these changes more accurately reflect the EPA’s intent under the March 2011 final rule. The agency maintains that these concepts are reasonable and provide a necessary degree of certainty for persons seeking to comply with the rule. This is explained in more detail in sections III.D.2.b (groups of contaminants), III.D.2.c (meaning of designe d to burn), and III.D.2.d (allowable contaminant comparisons) of this preamble.Page 156 of 319

At the same time, comments from both industry and environmental groups have highlighted, in the agency’s opinion, a need for additional clarity in the regulatory text on the appropriate use of ranges when making contaminant comparisons between NHSMs and tr aditional fuels. Accordingly, the EPA has made a minor adjustment to the criterion to ensure that ranges are not used inappropriately in contaminant comparisons (i.e., the highest traditional fuel contaminant values should not be compared to average NHSM c ontaminant values). See section III.D.2.d of this preamble for a more detailed description of this specific change to the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The agency disagrees with state concerns that the NHSM rule will weaken the states’ permitting auth orities. State permitting authorities must still approve permit changes and this final rule does not affect discretion of the permitting authorities in acting on requests for permit modifications. The agency also disagrees with state concerns that the NHSM rule will create an incentive for combustors to burn dirtier traditional fuels. The EPA understands how restricting contaminant comparisons to traditional fuels the unit currently burns could provide an incentive for the facility to burn traditional fuel with high contaminant levels. When facilities do not actually have to burn that traditional fuel to make comparisons, however, that incentive is effectively removed.Page 157 of 319

Comment: One commenter requested that the proposed revisions to the contaminant legitimac y criterion be added to each option for demonstrating that NHSMs are non

- wastes when used in combustion units, whether it is the on

- site documentation, the EPA petition process or the categorical non

waste determination process proposed in 40 CFR 241.4.
R esponse: Revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion codified today in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1) apply to all options for demonstrating that a NHSM is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. The revised legitimacy criterion is embedded i n the self

- implementing options outlined in 40 CFR 241.3(b)(1) for use within the control of the generator and 40 CFR 241.3(b)(4) for NHSMs that are processed and then used in a combustion unit. The revised legitimacy criterion is also embedded in the opti onal EPA petition process outlined in 40 CFR 241.3(c). The revised legitimacy criterion is also referenced as a factor to be considered in the categorical non

- waste determination process outlined in 40 CFR 241.4. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion, although an improvement over the 2011 Final NHSM Rule, may not provide the regulated community with enough information to be confident in the ir compliance status. Two commenters noted that the EPA has overlooked the analytical complexities inherent inPage 158 of 319

the contaminant legitimacy criterion and the many opportunities it creates for disagreement between facility operators and regional and state reg ulators. One of these commenters asked the EPA to both define the term ‘comparable’ and clarify sampling and analytical methodologies to be used when measuring contaminant levels. Other commenters advised the EPA to increase predictability as much as possi ble by developing a disciplined process for making contaminant comparisons and providing real time transparency for such decisions. Similarly, two commenters expressed concern that even after a source makes a fuel determination, the EPA could take a diffe rent view of the NHSMs and conclude that they were solid wastes. The risk sources face is noncompliance with the CAA and these commenters contended that the issue is too critical for the EPA to leave the contaminant legitimacy criterion so vague. Over time , as the EPA develops a record for decisions (particularly comparable contaminant determinations), one of these commenters urged the EPA to establish a database and immediately post determinations for other sources to review. Other commenters supported the proposed revisions to the contaminant legitimacy criterion and indicated that they provided sufficient clarification. One commenter noted that changes to the language of the criterion and the additional clarification provided in the preamble to the Decemb er 2011Page 159 of 319

proposed rule provide key additional detail on making contaminant comparisons and allow additional flexibility where appropriate. The same commenter urged the EPA to maintain that flexibility if the agency develops additional guidance on making

con taminant comparisons in the future. Response: The EPA has retained the approach included in the proposed rule that provides information on how contaminant comparisons can be made and the agency will continue to make its traditional fuel data and legitimac y determinations transparent through the EPA website. 35 The agency recognizes the need for regulatory certainty, a need that has been addressed by revisions to the definition of contaminants and the contaminant legitimacy criterion in today’s final rule. Co ntaminants have been specifically listed, additional clarity on NHSMs/traditional fuel comparisons has been provided and several comparison methodologies have been provided in the preamble as examples that could be used by the regulated community. Comments from the regulated community have been supportive both of these changes and of the agency’s efforts to update traditional fuel data that can be used for

35 The EPA maintains a NHSM webpage with current information on contaminant levels in traditional fuels, examples of legitimacy determinations and other information at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.Page 160 of 319

contaminant comparisons. 36 In addition, a number of interpretative letters have been written that addre ss specific fact situations as presented by a specific facility and these letters have been posted on the EPA’s website. These letters serve as examples of acceptable ways to demonstrate legitimacy. The EPA must balance the need for regulatory certainty,
h owever, with the need for flexibility, which many commenters also believe is important. As the agency has previously discussed, the legitimacy criteria must be flexible enough to account for future changes in commodities, technologies, markets and fuel pri ces. 37 Previous comments have stressed the preference for a qualitative approach, and the agency has agreed, noting that numerical specifications may be impractical due to the multiplicity of fuels and ingredients. 38 The agency has also previously discussed that a numerical definition of ‘comparable’ would be impractical given differences in the typical concentration levels of various contaminants, choosing instead to offer several examples. 39 While the agency will consider future guidance on contaminant compa risons, it has determined that no one approach is appropriate for every legitimacy determination given the variety of traditional fuels, NHSMs and

36 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index. 37 See 75 FR 31870. 38 S ee 75 FR 31871. 39 See 76 FR 15524 and 15542.Page 161 of 319

combustion units that currently exist and will likely increase in the future. Comment: One commenter noted t hat both the March 2011 NHSM final rule and the proposal implicitly place the burden on the combustion facility to determine if a fuel derived from NHSMs meets the legitimacy criteria. In the utility industry, the commenter explained, it is common practice for utilities to rely on fuel marketers to establish and verify fuel quality, and the regulatory burden on utilities combusting such secondary materials as fuels could be reduced if the EPA clarified the circumstances under which a facility would be entit led to rely on the fuel quality representations of its suppliers. The commenter suggested that the EPA clarify that a utility may rely in good faith on the representations of its suppliers that NHSMs meet the codified legitimacy criteria, or, alternatively , that utilities be required only to periodically test the quality of
NHSM

- derived fuels obtained from third parties to rely on their suppliers’ representations. Response: The EPA notes that while fuel suppliers may provide their customers with documentat ion supporting a legitimacy determination, persons who burn NHSMs are ultimately responsible for the materials burned at their units. As stated in the proposed rule, however, the agency adopts as its decision for this final rule that initial assessments wo uld not need toPage 162 of 319

be repeated as long as the facility continues to operate in the same manner and use the same type of NHSM as when the original assessment was made. 40 b. Grouping of Contaminants The December 2011 proposed revision to the contaminant legitim acy criterion for NHSMs used as a fuel began with the following sentence: “The non

- hazardous secondary material must contain contaminants or groups of contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuel(s) which th e combustion unit is designed to burn.” The phrase ‘or groups of contaminants’ was not present in the language from the March 2011 NHSM Final Rule but was included in the December 2011 NHSM Proposed Rule to clarify that groups of contaminants could be eval uated in determining whether a NHSM meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion. In particular, the proposed rule noted that groups of contaminants in NHSMs could be compared to similar groups in traditional fuels where the grouped contaminants shared phys ical and chemical properties that influence their behavior in the combustion unit prior to the point where emissions occur. Volatility, the presence of specific elements and compound structure were three such properties identified in the proposal and one a pproach to grouping contaminants was shown that

40 See 76 FR 80481.Page 163 of 319

included groups for TOX, nitrogenated HAP, VOCs, SVOCs, dioxins and furans, PCBs, PAHs and radionuclides. The agency also noted that persons may consider other groupings that they can show are technically rea sonable. Grouping of contaminants is a standard practice often employed by the agency as it develops regulations. In fact, the monitoring standards included in the CAA sections 112 and 129 regulations also utilize the grouping concept and they apply to the same combustion units impacted by the NHSM rule ( i.e. , industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters and CISWI units). For example, Volatile hydrocarbons and semi

- volatile hydrocarbons can both be expected to result from incomplete combustion; therefore, the emission standards promulgated under the CAA regulations are grouped into one category: CO. 41 Halogenated organics are expected to contribute to emissions of dioxin and acid gases (HCl and HF); therefore, the emission standards pr omulgated under the CAA are grouped into two categories: D/F and HCl. 42 Nitrogenated compounds are expected to contribute to emissions of NO x ; therefore, the emission standards promulgated under the CAA are grouped into one category: NO x . 43 In addition, a nu mber of the seemingly “individual” pollutants listed in sections 112 and 129 of the CAA are actually classes of structurally

- related compounds ( e.g . , PCBs,

41 Area Source Boilers NESHAP, Major Source Boilers NESHAP, and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP. 42 Major Source Boilers NESHAP and Commercial and Industrial Solid Wast e Incinerators NESHAP. 43 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators: NESHAP.Page 164 of 319

POM, D/F, cyanide compounds, cresols, glycol ethers, radionuclides, xylenes, antimony compounds, ars enic compounds, beryllium compounds and cadmium compounds). All comments discussing the agency’s proposal to expressly allow the grouping of contaminants supported the agency’s position. Thus, the EPA is adopting the language from the proposal and revising the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used as a fuel to allow contaminants to be compared on a contaminant

- by

- contaminant basis or, where reasonable, on a group of contaminants

- by

- group of contaminants basis. Any additional reasoning for keeping t he revision as proposed, without modification, is described in the responses to comments below. Comment: In general, comments overwhelmingly supported the ability to group contaminants when making contaminant comparisons in accordance with the legitimacy c riteria. Commenters stated that codification of this concept would provide regulatory certainty and allow for more meaningful comparisons, similar to the manner in which the EPA measures emissions at combustion units. Commenters noted that the ability to g roup contaminants will facilitate compliance because most existing test methods, including the EPA methods, call for the grouping of analytes. Commenters believed that the grouping concept is an appropriate mechanism to recognize the variabilityPage 165 of 319

in contami nant levels inherent in fuels. Commenters also appreciated the examples of appropriate contaminant groups provided in the proposed rule along with the ability to compare other technically reasonable groups (76 FR 80477

- 80480). Two commenters stated that e ach mention of the word “contaminants” should be changed to “contaminants or groups of contaminants” in the regulatory text to further clarify that a comparison to groups of contaminants is intended. Response: The EPA has retained the language specificall y allowing grouping in the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as a fuel. The EPA adopts the reasoning in the December 2011 rule as its final reasoning, as further supported with reasoning discussed in the comment responses below. While the EPA has retained the language allowing the grouping of contaminants, the agency does not consider it necessary to change every instance of “contaminant levels” and “contaminants” to “contaminants or groups of contaminants” in order to make it sufficiently cle ar that contaminant grouping is allowed. The agency also notes that not all contaminants are necessarily intended to be grouped, including individual elemental contaminants, asbestos, CO and phosphine. 44 Comment: The ability to group metal contaminants was suggested by several commenters. One commenter held that all 11

44 See 76 FR 80478, Tables 7 and 8.Page 166 of 319

metals should be specifically included as one group. Another commenter noted that with the exception of Hg, all metals should be grouped. Yet another commenter suggested that metals could be grouped into a volatile metals group and a non

- volatile metals
group. Response: First, we would note that the agency is not limiting groups to the specific approach suggested in the proposed rule

— that is, the tables in the proposed rule suggest, but do no t limit persons to, an approach, including groups for TOX, nitrogenated HAPs, VOCs, SVOCs, dioxins/furans, PCBs, PAHs and radionuclides, with other contaminants left to be evaluated on an individual contaminant

- by

- contaminant basis. Flexibility exists for persons to consider other appropriate groups that they can show are technically reasonable, with additional text in the proposal stating that other groups should share physical and chemical properties that influence behavior in the combustion unit prior to the point where emissions occur. Volatility, the presence of specific elements and compound structure are three such properties. 45 However, we do not consider the grouping of total metals to be appropriate. Specifically, metals vary across all three
param eters

— volatility, the presence of specific elements and compound structure

— that were discussed as appropriate to

45 See 76 FR 80477.Page 167 of 319

consider when constructing contaminant groups. First, many factors influence metal volatility in combustion units, and to the extent that trend s in metal volatility have been recognized, a wide disparity exists between metals. Mercury, as one commenter noted, is highly volatile, more so than any other metals listed in the contaminants definition. Metals can be grouped into volatile, semi

- volatile and low

- volatile categories, but it is important to note that these distinctions can vary based on design differences in combustion units, operating temperatures, the physical form and species of the metal and the presence of chlorine. 46 , 47 Second, each met al clearly contains different elements. Finally, each metal is already a group of any compound containing the particular element, encompassing a wide array of compound structures. In the absence of other suggested grouping criteria or information, the EPA does not consider total metals to be an appropriate
group. Comment: One commenter provided a numerical example of VOC contaminant levels in fuel oils to illustrate the importance of grouping. The commenter cited the traditional fuel tables provided on the EPA website, stating that toluene and xylenes

46 EPA. 2001. “Risk Burn Guidance for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.” EPA530

- R

- 01

- 001. July. 47 Clarke, L.B. an d L.L. Sloss, 1992. “Trace Elements

– Emissions from Coal Combustion and Gasification.” IEACR/49. IEA Coal Research, London. July.Page 168 of 319

are present in fuel oils at concentrations up to 380 ppm and 3,100 ppm, respectively. If a NHSM had the concentrations reversed, explained the commenter (380 ppm xylene and 3,100 ppm toluene), the ability t o group VOCs would then allow the NHSM to meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The commenter reasoned that this is appropriate because both toluene and xylenes are beneficial components of fuel. Response: The EPA disagrees with this interpretation of the grouping concept. Unless concentration data for a group of contaminants (e.g., VOCs) come from the same fuel source, adding together the concentrations of individual constituents (e.g., toluene and xylene) within that group may yield a total
concentra tion beyond what would be considered a normal part of a legitimate fuel. Using the example cited by the commenters, some fuel oils have been found to have up to 380 ppm toluene and other fuel oils have been found to have up to 3,100 ppm xylene. Because the toluene and xylene concentrations were taken from different fuel oils, however, this does not prove that a single fuel oil in existence actually has VOC levels as high as 3,480 ppm (380 + 3,100). The agency notes that VOC levels higher than as 3,480 ppm, have been found in fuel oil

-- concentrations of one VOC alone (hexane)have been found as high as 10,000 ppm

-- and the pointPage 169 of 319

of this discussion is to clarify a methodology rather than a number for acceptable VOC levels in NHSMs. 48 We would also note that while the agency considers VOCs to be an appropriate contaminant group to use when making contaminant comparisons, it does not base that decision on whether or not toluene, xylenes and other VOCs are “beneficial components of fuel.” The decision that toluene, xylene and other VOCs, which the agency notes are pollutants listed in CAA section 112(b), are an appropriate group is based on the fact that they share similar physical and chemical properties that influence their behavior in t he combustion unit prior to the point where emissions occur. c. Meaning of Designed to Burn The December 2011 proposed revision to the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as a fuel included the following statement: “In determining which tradit ional fuel(s) a unit is designed to burn, persons can choose a traditional fuel that can be or is burned in the particular type of boiler, whether or not the combustion unit is permitted to burn that traditional fuel.” The idea that “designed to burn” mean s “can burn or does burn” was included in preamble text to the March

48 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011 can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index. EPA intends to update this document as additional data becomes available, and if persons have data measuring traditional fuels for groups of VOCs, or for other contaminant groups, they are encouraged to prov ide the agency with such data.Page 170 of 319

2011 final rule. The December 2011 rule proposed to include this concept, which is only applied under the NHSM rule to aid in the selection of appropriate traditional fuel(s) for contamin ant comparisons, in regulatory language. The March 2011 final rule explained that in determining which traditional fuel(s) the owner or operator of the boiler unit would make a comparison to with respect to contaminant levels, the agency would allow any tr aditional fuel(s) that can be or is burned in the particular type of boiler. The agency reasoned that this approach was the most appropriate since the NHSM would be replacing the use of particular type(s) of fuel that could otherwise be burned. 49
The Decemb er 2011 proposal further explained that contaminants are compared between NHSMs and traditional fuels to assist in making a determination whether or not the NHSM is being discarded when combusted, not to regulate which traditional fuel a combustor should c hoose to burn. For the purposes of making a discard determination, the proposal reasoned that differentiating between “can burn” and “does burn” was not relevant. The agency did note in the proposed rule, however, that for a unit to be able to burn a tradi tional fuel, it would need an appropriate feed mechanism ( e.g. , a way to load solid fuel of a

49 See 76 FR 15542.Page 171 of 319

particular size into the unit) and the ability to adjust physical parameters to ensure spatial mixing and flame stability per unit specifications.
Because most co mbustion units can burn different

— but related

— traditional fuels, the agency discussed in the proposal that broad groups of similar traditional fuels may be used when comparing contaminants. The most common traditional fuel categories burned at major source boilers are coal, wood, oil and natural gas, as evidenced by data submitted to the EPA’s OAQPS. 50 , 51 To further clarify the impact of the proposed “designed to burn” language on contaminant comparisons, potential categories for coal, wood and oil were furth er described in the proposal. A coal group was proposed that could include data on anthracite, lignite, bituminous and sub

- bituminous coal. A wood or biomass group was proposed that could include data on unadulterated lumber, timber, bark, biomass and hogg ed fuel. An oil group was proposed that could include data on fuel oils 1

- 6, diesel fuel,

50 EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Emissions Database for Boilers and Process Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM & Fuel Analysis Data Reported Under ICR No. 2286.01 and ICR No. 228 6.03 (Version 7). December 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html#TECH. 51 The fuel analysis information in this OAQPS database is one example of a “national survey” of traditional fuel information, as referenced in the final contaminant legi timacy criterion issued today at §241.3(d)(1)(iii).Page 172 of 319

kerosene and other petroleum based oils. 52 In cases where a unit can burn traditional fuels from several categories, such as a boiler that can burn coal or biomass, th e proposal noted that contaminant comparisons could be made using data from either fuel category. The ability to compare contaminants in a NHSM, under the NHSM rule, to contaminants in any traditional fuel that could be burned does not change the fact that once burning occurs, emissions standards are determined under the Boiler MACT or CISWI rule by the particular fuel (or fuel blend) that is burned. Whether each rule focuses on what ‘could be burned’ or on what ‘is burned’ is determined by the rule’s purpo se and the order in which decisions must be made. Together, these factors explain why the NHSM, Boiler MACT, and CISWI rules take different approaches to account for individual combustion units that burn multiple fuels. Specifically, the NHSM rule must fir st determine which NHSMs can be burned in CAA section 112 units ( i.e. , boilers) and which can only be burned in CAA section 129 units ( i.e. , incinerators). When making such a waste or non

- waste determination, the NHSM rule cannot always predict what fuel

w ould otherwise be burned (multiple options may exist).

52 EPA has determined that an oil group should not include unrefined crude oil or gasoline, as neither is typically burned in combustion units subject to the CAA sections 112 or 129 standards.Page 173 of 319

Accordingly, the rule allows contaminant comparisons to be made to any traditional fuel the unit could burn. The Boiler MACT or CISWI rule must then determine how to regulate emissions from the unit, by which point it is clear what fuel is actually being burned. Accordingly, these rules can and do establish subcategories of units, each with different emissions standards, based on both boiler design and the particular fuel/material driving emissions per formance. When units switch from one fuel to another

— from what defines one subcategory to what defines another subcategory

— the emissions standards change. Units burning a blend of fuels would be in one of the subcategories depending on that blend, and ther efore, subject to the standards of that category. The EPA has considered the comments received, as explained below, but has not changed the basis for its interpretation of the “designed to burn” concept. Thus, the EPA is adopting the language from the pro posal and revising the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as a fuel to allow persons making contaminant comparisons to choose a traditional fuel that can be or is burned in the particular type of boiler, whether or not the combustion unit is p ermitted to burn that traditional fuel. Any additional reasoning for keeping the revision as proposed, without modification, is described in the responses to comments below.Page 174 of 319

Comment: Industry commenters generally supported the agency’s proposal to codify t he previously stated meaning of “designed to burn” within the contaminant legitimacy criterion
for NSHMs used as fuels. These commenters welcomed the regulatory certainty provided by the revision and described it as a practical and appropriate recognition that some units can burn multiple traditional fuels. Environmental groups, on the other hand, expressed concern that the proposed definition of designed to burn would allow contaminants in C&D wood to be compared to those in coal instead of virgin wood. One state commenter also expressed concern that allowing comparisons to any fuel the unit could burn, including fuels they are not permitted to burn, would weaken the states’ permitting authorities and create an incentive for combustors to burn dirtier tr aditional fuels so that they could compare NHSMs to fuels with higher contaminant levels. An industry commenter also mentioned that such an approach would reward facilities that burn dirtier fuel and suggested that the agency remove the entire “designed to burn” concept from the rule. Response: Based on a review of the comments, the EPA has retained the proposed revision to the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as fuels clarifying that, for the purpose of determining traditional fuel(s) to wh ich a NHSM mayPage 175 of 319

be compared, the meaning of “designed to burn” may be broadly interpreted to include any traditional fuel that could be burned, regardless of facility permit status. The agency disagrees that this interpretation of “designed to burn” would i ncentivize the burning of dirtier fuels or weaken the states’ permitting authorities. The EPA finds that allowing combustors to compare NHSMs to any traditional fuel a unit can or does burn is both practical and appropriate under the statutory definition of solid waste. Although not all combustion units can burn multiple traditional fuels, some units can and, indeed, do rely on different fuel types at different times based on availability of fuel supplies, market conditions, power demands and other factors . Under these circumstances, it would be arbitrary to restrict the combustion for energy recovery of NHSMs with contaminant levels comparable to or lower than that of one traditional fuel the unit could choose to burn solely because contaminant levels are higher than that of a second traditional fuel the unit could also choose to burn if fuel supplies, market conditions, power demands, or other factors change. Such an approach would be impracticable and not consistent with the agency’s intent. It would also be inconsistent with the concept of discard, since a facility burning a NHSM with the same contaminants as another fuel itPage 176 of 319

could also be burning should not be considered to discard that NHSM based on its contaminant levels. The agency has also determined that restricting comparisons to traditional fuels the unit is permitted to burn is unnecessary. The fact that a facility is not currently permitted to burn a particular traditional fuel does not mean it could not be permitted to burn that traditional fuel in the future. For this reason, we do not believe it is reasonable to limit the comparison to permitted traditional fuels. Furthermore, such a restriction could have the unintended consequence of combustion facilities across the country seeking permit modi fications solely to facilitate contaminant comparisons for this rule. State permitting authorities must still approve permit changes and this final rule does not affect the discretion of the permitting authorities in acting on requests for permit modificat ions. In addition, the EPA has determined that restricting contaminant comparisons to traditional fuels the unit currently burns could provide an incentive for the facility to burn traditional fuel with high contaminant levels. When facilities do not actua lly have to burn that traditional fuel to make comparisons, that incentive is effectively removed. Comment: One commenter asked the agency to specifically acknowledge that certain categories of boilers are designed toPage 177 of 319

burn a variety of fuels, noting that stoker boilers, fluidized bed combustors and boilers with suspension burners, in particular, should be on such a list. Response: The agency has decided not to specifically list which combustion units are designed to burn which fuels for two reasons. First, the owner or operator of a combustion unit has a better understanding than the agency does of what that particular unit is designed to burn. Second, the agency is concerned that creating such a list will limit the flexibility of combustors with other type s of units. Comment: One commenter noted that if the EPA considers it inappropriate to compare liquid fuels to solid fuels, the agency offers no justification for its position. The commenter argued that liquid to solid comparisons should be allowed because most cement kilns and many other industrial furnaces have the capacity to burn either solid or liquid fuels. The commenter described the December 2011 proposed rule as ambiguous with regard to this issue and recommended that if a combustion unit is design ed to burn both a liquid fuel and a solid fuel, then the liquid to solid comparison should be “appropriate.” Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that if a unit can burn both a liquid traditional fuel and a solid traditional fuel, then comparison of a n NHSM to either fuel would be appropriate. The revised contaminant legitimacy criterionPage 178 of 319

clarifies how the “designed to burn” concept may be interpreted for the purposes of determining traditional fuel(s) to which a NHSM may be compared, and the Agency has determined that this revision is sufficient to allow appropriate comparisons to be made between solid NHSMs and liquid traditional fuels, and vice versa. The agency does not expect these circumstances to hold true for all combustion units, however, and re iterates that this would only be appropriate when the unit can in fact burn multiple traditional fuels used to make such comparisons. Comment: Several industry commenters addressed the topic of what it means to be able to burn a traditional fuel in a combu stion unit. The preamble to the recent proposed rule noted that combustion units would need an appropriate feed mechanism, as well as the ability to ensure the fuel is well mixed and keep flame temperatures within unit specifications, to be able to burn a traditional fuel. 53 Two commenters opposed the agency’s interpretation of what it means to be able to burn a traditional fuel in a combustion unit, stating that the agency provides no explanation of why feed mechanisms are relevant to whether or not a unit can burn a particular fuel. Both commenters also noted that when NHSMs are used as a fuel in combustion units, the focus on what a unit is “designed to burn” in the first place is irrelevant to whether discard is occurring. Another

53 See 76 FR 80481.Page 179 of 319

commenter explained that the same exact material could then be a solid waste in one case and a fuel in another case, depending on who is using the material. A third commenter supported the agency’s interpretation of what ‘can burn’ means, stating that the fate and emissions of a contaminant, whether it is contained in a traditional fuel or a material being considered for legitimacy, are as dependent on the design of the combustion unit as they are on the fuel matrix. The commenter explained further that units should be considered able to burn several types of fuels as long as each type is within the design criteria of the feed system, the combustion chamber and any downstream pollution control device. Response: The EPA disagrees with those commenters questioning the relevance of what fuels combustion units are designed to burn in the context of the legitimacy criteria. If a NHSM does not contain contaminants at levels that are comparable to or lower tha n those found in any traditional fuel that a combustion unit could burn, then it follows that discard could be occurring if the NHSM were combusted. Whether contaminants in these cases would be destroyed or discarded through releases to the air, they could not be considered a normal part of aPage 180 of 319

legitimate fuel and the NHSM would be considered a solid waste when used as a fuel in that combustion unit. 54 The reason we analyze what a unit is designed to burn is to decide the traditional fuel(s) to which contaminants should be compared. This comparison is then used as an aid to decide whether the NHSM is being legitimately used as a fuel or whether excess contaminants show that the burning is waste treatment. If a facility compared contaminants to a tradit ional fuel it cannot burn and that fuel is highly contaminated, a facility would then be able to burn excessive levels of waste components in NHSMs as a means of discard. Regardless of any fuel value in the material, it would be a waste. Once this concept is established, certain factors are relevant to how we decide what a facility is designed to burn. The ability to burn a fuel in a combustion unit does have a basic set of requirements, the most basic of which is being able to get the material into the com bustion unit. The agency reaffirms in today’s final rule its interpretation from the proposal that to be able to burn NHSMs, a combustion unit should also be able to ensure the material is well mixed and maintain temperatures within unit specifications. Wi thout these basic limits, there would be no point in distinguishing between fuels a unit is or is not “designed to burn,” and every combustion

54 See 76 FR 15523.Page 181 of 319

unit would be considered “designed to burn” any combustible material. Clearly, that is not the agency’s intent. A s illustrated by one of the commenters, when a unit cannot burn a fuel according to its own design specifications, excess air pollutants form and are likely to be discarded as emissions. Thus, the agency acknowledges that whether or not a NHSM is a
waste m ay depend on the unit burning the material. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification on the issue of unit modifications. If a boiler hypothetically could be modified in any way to combust a different traditional fuel, the commenter noted, then a comp arison to that fuel should be permissible to demonstrate that the NHSM is not a waste. Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. As long as the modification remains hypothetical in nature, it stands to reason that the unit cannot yet burn the addition al traditional fuel and the only reason it is comparing a NHSM to the dirtier fuel is to allow more waste input into the combustion unit. However, if the unit is actually modified to accept additional types of traditional fuels, then the owner or operator of the combustion unit can consider those traditional fuels in evaluating the NHSM for the contaminant legitimacy criterion. In this situation, such behavior shows that the combustor is serious about burning the other fuel and is willing to make thePage 182 of 319

invest ment so that it can be burned properly instead of simply trying to gain comparison to a dirtier material. Comment: In the proposed rule, EPA specifically addressed used oil stating: “Used oil is a special case and does not need to undergo the contaminant comparison. If it meets the specifications in 40 CFR part 279.11, it is a traditional fuel. If it does not meet the specifications (i.e., it is ‘‘off

- spec’’ oil), it is a solid waste under the 2011 NHSM final rule.” 76 FR 80481, fn . 44. Some commenters ar gued that off

- spec used oil fuel, however, could satisfy all of EPA’s legitimacy criteria, including a contaminant comparison with coal, a traditional fuel. Thus, if a combustion unit is “designed to burn” both coal and oil, the facility should be able to use coal as the traditional fuel for the purposes of determining whether the contaminants are comparable

— even when the NHSM at issue is off

spec used oil, as defined in 40 CFR part 279.11. Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter that contaminants in off

- spec used oil burned for energy recovery in facilities that are designed to burn coal may be compared to coal for purposes of determining whether the off

- spec used oil is a waste or non

- waste product fuel. Accordingly, for purposes of waste/non

- wast e determinations, coal or oil, including on

spec used oil can be used as the traditional fuel identified for comparison of contaminants to meet the legitimacy criterion forPage 183 of 319

units designed to burn both fuels. Some combustion units are designed to burn multi ple fuels, such as both coal and oil, including on

- spec used oil. Under these circumstances, the Agency agrees that the rules allow the comparison of contaminant levels to either traditional fuel. That is, to be designated as

a non - waste, the off

- spec used oil contaminant levels must be comparable to or lower than coal when coal is the traditional fuel used for comparison. EPA no longer finds, as stated in Footnote 44 of the proposed rule, that off

- spec used oil is always a waste for facilities that are de signed to burn coal. Off

- spec used oil continues to be a waste, however, for facilities that are not designed to burn coal because off

- spec used oil contains contaminant levels that are not comparable to on

- spec used oil. EPA also notes that in the preamb le to the March 2011 rule (p. 15506), the Agency specifically rejected the comparison of off

specification used oil contaminants to coal. That discussion, however, was in the context of a general contaminant comparison for units that burn only fuel oil. Co al may not be the comparison material for all off

- specification used oil, but only for those facilities that are designed to burn coal as provided in the definition of this rule. Finally, we want to make clear that EPA has not modified the part 279 regulat ions for management of used oil, and thus, burning of off

- spec used oilPage 184 of 319

for energy recovery is still subject to those rules, including the requirement that off

- spec used oil can only be burned in certain units (see 40 CFR 279.61(a)). 55

Comment: Commenters argue that the EPA has not adequately addressed how units designed to burn only NHSMs are to comply with the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The commenters explained that, under the rule structure as proposed, a NHSM may be classified as a waste simply due to a lack of a traditional fuel for comparison purposes. Comments acknowledge that the agency discussed the issue in the preamble to the proposed rule but the commenters disagree that the discussion provided any solution. Finally, commenters specifical ly requested that the EPA acknowledge the fact that a combustor designed for a particular NHSM fuel is dispositive that the NHSM is being legitimately burned for energy recovery. Response: The EPA disagrees with the assertion that the agency has failed to provide a solution for units designed only to burn NHSMs. The EPA also disagrees with the assertion made by commenters that the fact that a combustor has designed a

55 Off

- specification used oil can only be burned in the following types of units: (1) industrial furnaces, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10; (2) the following boilers, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10

— industrial boilers located on the site o f a facility engaged in a manufacturing process where substances are transformed into new products, including the component parts of products, by mechanical or chemical processes, utility boilers used to produce electric power, steam, heated or cooled air, or other gases or fluids for sale, and used oil fired space heaters provided that the burner meets the provisions of 40 CFR 279.23; and (3) hazardous waste incinerators subject to regulation under subpart O of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265.Page 185 of 319

combustion unit for a particular NHSM fuel is dispositive that the NHSM is being legitimat ely burned for energy recovery. The EPA acknowledges and is aware of units built specifically to burn NHSMs. One example is facilities built to burn resinated wood. The EPA notes that units built to burn such NHSMs are likely to be able to burn similar tra ditional fuels. Using the example of units built to burn resinated wood, the EPA considers it reasonable to assume that these units could also burn clean wood and, therefore, could make comparisons to that traditional fuel. The agency also notes that is it not aware of any units

— and commenters have not identified any such units

— that can burn only NHSMs. The EPA has nonetheless provided what it considers to be a reasonable solution. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA advises combustor s faced with such a situation to compare solid NHSMs to solid traditional fuels, such as coal or biomass, liquid NHSMs to liquid traditional fuels, such as oil, and gaseous NHSMs to gaseous traditional fuels, such as natural gas. 56 In light of the explanati on of “designed to burn” codified in the final contaminant legitimacy criterion, as well as industry comments that many combustion units can burn multiple types of fuel, the agency believes that its suggested approach adequately addresses the issue.

56 See 76 FR 80481.Page 186 of 319

Finall y, the EPA acknowledges that combustion units can and have been designed specifically to burn NHSMs and that such units can recover energy. The agency notes, however, that persons can and have also designed incinerators to dispose of certain waste material s and that such units can also recover energy. The agency, therefore, does not consider it dispositive that if combustion units are designed to burn a specific material, that material must be a legitimate non

- waste fuel. d. Contaminant Comparisons Allowed The proposed revision to the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSMs used as a fuel included the following statement: “In comparing contaminants between traditional fuel(s) and a non

- hazardous secondary material, persons can use ranges of traditional f uel contaminant levels compiled from national surveys, as well as contaminant level data from the specific traditional fuel being replaced.” The March 2011 final rule did not discuss the use of ranges when evaluating contaminant data, nor did it discuss th e use of traditional fuel data from national surveys. The December 2011 proposed rule included these concepts to clarify that persons are not required to adhere to a single comparison methodology, nor are they required to compare contaminants in their NHS Ms to contaminants in the specific traditional fuel source they burn (or would otherwise burn). InPage 187 of 319

both instances, the additional language clarifies, but does not change the intent, of the March 2011 final rule. Regardless of the specific methodology chose n, a comparison will have to be made for each contaminant or group of contaminants between the NHSM and a traditional fuel or traditional fuel group. Generators or combustors can use either traditional fuel data collected by the EPA or their own data for
t raditional fuel comparison values. 57 Generators or combustors are responsible, however, for either providing NHSM comparison values in cases where testing is conducted. Examples of acceptable NHSM data could include both laboratory test results from a speci fic generator or combustor and industry

- recognized values provided by a national trade organization. Given data for a particular traditional fuel, the EPA noted in the proposal that many combustors would choose to base the traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of its statistical range and that this approach was reasonable. Anything less could result in “traditional fuel” samples being considered solid waste if burned in the very combustion units designed to burn them

— not the agency’s intent in the March 2011 final rule. 58 Given that selection (i.e., the range for

57 The EPA maintains an NHSM webpage with current information on contaminant levels in traditional fuels, examples of legitimacy determinations, and other information at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index. 58 Traditional fuels, as defined in §24 1.2, are not required to meet the legitimacy criteria, and this scenario is only used to explain the logicPage 188 of 319

traditional fuel contaminant values), the agency noted that acceptable NHSM comparison values would include the upper end of a statistical range, a calculation involving the mean and
sta ndard deviation or perhaps a single data point in situations where data are limited. The proposal reasoned that it would not be appropriate to compare an average NHSM contaminant value to the high end of a traditional fuel range, as the existence of an

ave rage implies multiple data points from which a more suitable statistic (e.g., range or standard deviation) could have been calculated. If each NHSM comparison value is comparable to or lower than its corresponding traditional fuel value, the material would be considered to meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion. An initial assessment would not need to be repeated, explained the proposal, provided the facility continues to operate in the same manner and use the same type of NHSMs as when the original asse ssment was made. Despite presenting several approaches for calculating NHSM comparison values, such as the upper end of a statistical range or a calculation involving the mean and standard deviation, the proposal did not preclude other reasonable methodol ogies. In the context of an inspection or enforcement action, the agency will

behind basing a traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of a statistical range.Page 189 of 319

evaluate the appropriateness of alternative methodologies and data sources on a case

- by

- case basis when determining whether the contaminant legitimacy criterion has been met. The EPA noted in the proposal that contaminant testing is not required and that process knowledge may be sufficient for particular contaminants in particular NHSMs. Even when analytical testing is not necessary, the EPA’s regulations governing recordkeeping f or units subject to emissions standards for boilers and process heaters issued pursuant to CAA section 112 require keeping a record to document the basis of non

- waste determinations under the part 241 criteria (including the contaminant legitimacy criteria ). See 40 CFR 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(ii) for area source boilers and 40 CFR 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2) for major source boilers. The EPA believes that the comments have not changed the basis for its decision to allow the use of ranges and surveys of traditional f uel contaminant levels. Nor have comments changed the agency’s position that similar traditional fuels may be grouped for comparison purposes and that testing is not required in all cases. Thus, the EPA is adopting the reasoning from the proposal and adjus ting the contaminant legitimacy criterion accordingly for NHSM used as a fuel. The EPA has decided, however, to make a modification to the regulatory language of the December 2011 proposed rule based onPage 190 of 319

comments received. The final criterion issued today includes additional language clarifying the appropriate use of ranges when making contaminant comparisons between NHSMs and traditional fuels. Consistent with the rationale provided in the preamble to the proposed rule, additional language now states that in order to use the full range of contaminant values in traditional fuels, persons should also account for the variability in NHSM contaminant levels. Any additional reasoning for finalizing the revision with or without suggested modifications is described in the responses to comments below. Comment: Industry comments supported the proposed changes expressly allowing the use of ranges and national surveys of traditional fuel data, as did one state comment. One commenter stated that these changes provide a m ore practical approach to meeting the contaminant legitimacy criterion that recognizes the inherent variation of contaminants in NHSMs and traditional fuels. Several commenters supported the use of ranges by repeating the EPA’s rationale from the proposal that using anything lower would logically result in a determination that some traditional fuels should not be burned in combustion units designed to burn those fuels. Another commenter stated that these clarifications describe appropriate methods of handli ng data that are naturally variable and will result in fewer non

waste materials being arbitrarily identified as wastes.Page 191 of 319

Environmental groups did not comment on the use of national surveys of traditional fuel data, but they opposed the use of ranges to evaluate contaminants, expressing concern that C&D wood contaminant levels would be compared to the highest contaminant leve ls for coal. These commenters suggested that averages or medians be used instead. Response: Based on our review of the comments received, the EPA is retaining the approach outlined in the proposed rule to expressly allow the use of ranges and traditional fuel data from national surveys. As discussed in the proposed rule, the EPA considers it reasonable to allow combustors to use the range of contaminant levels present in traditional fuels because anything less could result in “traditional fuel” samples bei ng considered solid waste if burned in the very combustion units designed to burn them. For this reason, the agency disagrees with comments stating that combustors should be limited to use of the average or median concentrations. The EPA acknowledges that the revisions adopted as final in today’s rule would allow C&D wood contaminant levels to be compared to the highest contaminant levels for coal. The commenters do not specify, however, what C&D wood contaminant levels (averages or ranges) they are concern ed would be compared to the highest levels in coal. The agency points out that the proposed revisions were not intended to allow average C&D woodPage 192 of 319

contaminant levels to be compared to the highest levels in coal. In light of the concerns expressed by these c ommenters, the EPA has modified the proposed language to provide additional assurance that such average

- to

- maximum comparisons, which the agency has already determined are inappropriate, will not be allowed under today’s final rule. The EPA has decided tha t such comparisons are inappropriate because, following the logic stated in the March 2011 final rule, average

- to

- maximum comparisons do not demonstrate that contaminants in these cases could be considered a normal part of a legitimate fuel and are not bei ng discarded. 59 Today’s final criterion makes clear that the full range of traditional fuel contaminant values can only be used if persons also consider some measure of variability in the NHSM contaminant data. This will help to ensure that average to maximum comparisons will not be used to justify the combustion of NHSMs as non

- waste fuels. Comment: Industry comments supported the concept discussed in the proposed rule that the contaminant legitimacy criterion does not require the testing of contaminan t levels in NHSMs in all cases. The proposal noted that persons can instead use expert or process knowledge to justify decisions to rule out certain constituents. The proposal also noted that initial

59 See 76 FR 15523.Page 193 of 319

assessments would not need to be repeated, provided the facility continues to operate in the same manner and use the same type of NHSMs as when the original assessment was made. One commenter asked the EPA to confirm these statements, explaining that this policy will result in fewer NHSMs being arbitrarily iden tified as wastes. Another commenter stated that the flexibility provided by this policy will help ensure that regulated entities with varying levels of sophistication can better document that their NHSMs are non

- waste fuels. Environmental groups, on the ot her hand, commented that the EPA must require testing for contaminants, citing the extremely variable nature of C&D wood as a problem. Commenters expressed concern that a large amount of material is going to be generated as abandoned and foreclosed housing is torn down, and the potential for liberating vast amounts of lead and other urban toxics, to say nothing of arsenic and chromium from pressure

treated wood, has never been higher. Response: Based on a review of the comments received, the EPA is maintain ing its position that contaminant testing is not required in all situations. Requiring testing in some situations is unnecessary. Where a NHSM generator, processor or combustor knows a contaminant will either not be present or be present at a level below t hat in the appropriate traditional fuel or traditional product, the agency believes it is a reasonable andPage 194 of 319

practical policy to allow persons to rely on either process knowledge or previous testing of the same material. The agency notes that there will be instances where testing is conducted and comparisons will have to account for the variability of contaminant levels in NHSMs, including lead concentrations in C&D wood. The agency also notes that today’s final rule does not change its previously stated pos ition that chromated copper arsenate

- treated wood (CCA wood) would likely have contaminant levels not comparable to traditional fuels. 60 Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify what it means by the upper end of the statistical range. Citin g the EPA’s statement in the proposal that “it makes sense to base the traditional fuel comparison on the upper end of the statistical range,” 61 the commenter asked for confirmation that the maximum values in the traditional fuel data set can be used for

co mparison with a NHSM since all data corresponding to the traditional fuel are valid for comparison, not just values that are below some arbitrarily determined statistical parameter. Response: The word ‘ranges’ in the proposed contaminant legitimacy criter ion has been changed to ‘the full range’ in the final criterion issued today. This term more clearly indicates

60 See 75 FR 31872. 61 See 76 FR 80481.Page 195 of 319

the agency’s intent to include all true values in between the minimum and the maximum. The agency has also separated the concepts of ranges and traditional fuel survey data in the regulatory language in order to make the criterion more transparent. The pertinent regulatory text in today’s final rule reads as follows: “In comparing contaminants between traditional fuel(s) and a non

- hazardous second ary material, persons can use data for traditional fuel contaminant levels compiled from national surveys, as well as contaminant level data from the specific traditional fuel being replaced. To account for natural variability in contaminant levels, person s can use the full range of traditional fuel contaminant levels, provided such comparisons also consider variability in non

- hazardous secondary material contaminant levels.” Comment: Several commenters noted that the agency proposed to allow the use of “na tional” surveys of traditional fuel data in the proposed contaminant legitimacy criterion and included several international data sources in its “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison”
document. 62 Several commenters asked th at the word ‘national’ be removed from the contaminant legitimacy criterion. Other

62 The EPA maintains a NHSM webpage with current information on contaminant levels in traditional fuels, examples of legitimacy determinations, and other information at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.Page 196 of 319

commenters asked that the EPA either remove the word ‘national’ or clarify that international data and surveys from other nations are also acceptable data sources. Response : The EPA has retained the proposed language, including the word “national,” which expressly allows national surveys of traditional fuel data to be used in contaminant comparisons for NHSMs used as a fuel in combustion units. A statement that national surv eys can be used does not preclude the use of appropriate international data. In fact, as the commenters recognize, the EPA included several international sources in its analysis of traditional fuels. These international sources were limited, however, to si tuations where no data or minimal data could be found from national sources or the agency had no reason to believe that data from national sources would be significantly different. At issue is whether the data are representative of traditional fuels that a re purchased and burned at operating boilers in the United States. The agency has decided that it is reasonable to assume that national surveys of traditional fuels contain information about fuels purchased and burned at operating boilers in the United
Sta tes. Comment: One commenter argued that the traditional fuel database compiled by the EPA should include the USGS coal dataPage 197 of 319

from not only the United States but also from around the world because those fuels are currently in use. Response: The EPA has main tained its decision not to reference the USGS COALQUAL database in its traditional fuel contaminant tables. It is the agency’s understanding that the COALQUAL database contains trace metal analyses for coal and associated rocks taken directly from coal bed s throughout the United States and that not all of these coal beds are currently being mined. It is also the agency’s understanding that as

- mined coal typically undergoes a series of processing steps, including crushing, screening, washing and physical sep aration techniques to remove rock and other impurities prior to being blended into clean, graded and uniform coal products suitable for use in commercial boilers. 63 In comparison, the EPA contaminant tables referenced by commenters are based largely on a comprehensive dataset that contains approximately 32,000 records of pre

- combustion contaminant analyses performed on coal, wood, biomass and fuel oil samples that were actually used as fuel at boilers across the country. Thus, the agency has decided that t he EPA dataset is more representative of contaminant levels in coal actually burned at operating boilers than the COALQUAL database. As a

63 Speight, J.G. Synthetic Fuels Handbook : Properties, Process, and Performance. McGraw

- Hill, 2008. pg 141.Page 198 of 319

result, the EPA has decided not to use the COALQUAL database in developing the tables posted on the agency’s website. We would also note that the decision not to use USGS data is consistent with the agency’s position that product fuel oils, as opposed to virgin crude oil, should be measured for purposes of contaminant comparisons. As stated in the proposed rule, neither unrefined crude oil nor gasoline is typically burned in combustion units regulated by CAA sections 112 and 129. Similarly, as

- mined coal is not typically burned in combustion units regulated by CAA sections 112 and 129. Comment: One commenter suggested tha t for each contaminant or group of contaminants, either the UCL of the mean at a 90 percent confidence level or the UPL at a 90 percent confidence level for NHSMs could be compared to the maximum value for the appropriate traditional fuel. Response: First , we would note that in the preamble to the recent proposed rule, the EPA indicated that when compared to the full range of contaminants in traditional fuels, suitable measures of NHSM contaminants would include the upper end of a statistical range, a calc ulation involving the mean and standard deviation or perhaps a single data point in situations wherePage 199 of 319

data are limited. The agency also noted that the discussion in the preamble did not preclude “other reasonable methodologies.” 64 With respect to the specif ic approaches suggested by the commenters, the EPA agrees with the approach of comparing the UPL at a 90 percent confidence level for each contaminant or group of contaminants in NHSMs to the maximum value for each contaminant or group of contaminants in t he appropriate traditional fuel. Specifically, the UPL is an indicator of what a future measurement would be. In the context of NHSM contaminant levels, the UPL taken at a 90 percent confidence level would yield a number, and a combustor could be confident that 90 percent of the time, the next measured contaminant level would be at or below that number. The UPL considers both the variability of the contaminant distribution and the uncertainty surrounding what the true mean is. The comment suggested taking

a maximum value for traditional fuel contaminant levels and comparing it to the UPL at a 90 percent confidence level. Because both metrics account for the variability present in contaminant distributions, the EPA would consider this approach to be a reasona ble methodology. The EPA does not agree, however, with an approach of using the UCL of the mean. That is, the UCL of the mean, regardless of the confidence level, is a measure of the mean and does not

64 See 76 FR 80481.Page 200 of 319

adequately factor in the variability present in both NH SMs and traditional fuel contaminant levels. The metric would be appropriate for a mean to mean comparison, but that is not what the commenter suggested. The comment suggested taking a maximum (which takes full advantage of the variability present in tradi tional fuel contaminant levels) and comparing it to a mean (which ignores the variability present in NHSM contaminant levels). The EPA does not consider this approach to be a reasonable methodology. To be clear, the EPA does not object to the use of confid ence limits, or to the use of the UCL of the mean, on their own grounds. However, the agency believes it is inappropriate to make a comparison of mean contaminant levels in NHSMs to maximum contaminant levels in traditional fuels.
Comment: One commenter su ggested that the EPA allow entities to compare contaminants between NHSMs and traditional fuels on a pound of contaminants per Btu (lb/MMBtu) basis, as the agency said it would consider in the preamble discussion to the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. 65 Response: Th e EPA maintains its position that a direct comparison of contaminant levels, as opposed to the lb/MMBtu approach, is the most appropriate means of comparing contaminant levels. As was noted in the 2011 NHSM Final Rule, however, the

65 See 76 FR 15525.Page 201 of 319

agency may still conside r the lb/MMBtu approach as guidance is developed for implementation. 3. Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as Fuels The new provisions at 40 CFR 241.4 were proposed to allow the EPA to list categorically certain NHSMs as non waste s -- when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. Based on these categorical non

- waste determinations, facilities burning NHSMs that qualify for the provision will not need to demonstrate that the NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis.
Th e EPA has determined that these NHSMs are categorical non

wastes as described and are not discarded when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. Categorical non

- waste determinations only apply, however, to NHSMs that are burned as a fuel in combustion units for the purpose of recovery energy. Burning a NHSM fuel in a combustion unit for energy recovery assumes a set of basic design requirements tha t ensures excess air pollutants are not formed and emission requirements under the CAA are met. As discussed in section III.D.2.c of this preamble, such basic design requirements include abilities to load the material into the unit, ensure the material is well mixed and maintain temperatures within unit specifications. For example, burning a whole tire in a boiler that is only designed to burn tires thatPage 202 of 319

are chipped and/or dewired would not be considered a fuel burned in a combustion unit for the purpose of recovering energy. The agency is not including specific regulatory text regarding this point since we believe it is understood that to be burned for energy recovery, the combustion unit must be able to burn the NHSM as a fuel. a. Scrap Tires In the Decem ber 23, 2011, NHSM proposed rule, the EPA proposed the following regulatory language under 40 CFR 241.4
Non

- Waste Determinations for Specific Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials When Used as a Fuel: “Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under t he oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off

- specification tires.” Further, the addition of this provision (40 CFR 241.4(a)(1)) eliminated the need for the previous scrap tire provision at 40 CFR 241.3 (b)(2)(i), 66 which has been removed and reserved in today’s final rule. Today’s rule finalizes the proposed provision without changes.

66 The scrap tire provision in the 2011 NHSM final rule is now removed and the section reserved in today’s final rule: “(b) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials are not solid wastes when combusted: (2) The following non

- hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when used in a combustion unit (by th e generator or outside the control of the generator): (i) Scrap tires used in a combustion unit that are removed from vehicles and managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs.”Page 203 of 319

Comment: One commenter stated, “In its latest proposal, EPA eliminates the need for scrap tires to meet its legitimacy cri teria and simply declares that scrap tires collected under an established tire collection program are not waste regardless of whether they meet the agency’s legitimacy criteria.” Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. The EPA has not eliminated the legitimacy criteria for scrap tires. The categorical determination for scrap tires (as with all the categorical determinations in this rule) simply applies the agency’s non

- discard determination, made in the March 2011 rule and not reopened in this ame ndment, to the general category so that case

- by

- case determinations as to legitimacy would not need to be made by each facility. For the scrap tire category, scrap tires managed under established tire collection programs and used as a fuel need not make ca se - by

- case legitimacy determinations. Moreover, the commenter has given us no information that the criteria are not met. In fact, the commenter simply repeats the argument made in previous rulemakings that the material is always a waste regardless of legit imacy criteria. Comment: Several commenters suggested that scrap tires should not have more restrictions under 40 CFR 241.4(a) for the categorical non

- waste status than does resinated wood. The non

waste determination for scrap tires, as proposed in 40 CF RPage 204 of 319

241.4(a)(1), read “Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off

specification tires.” In comparison, the resinated wood description, as liste d in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(2), is “Resinated wood.” The commenters reasoned that if all resinated wood can be

non - waste, then all scrap tires should also qualify (regardless of the origin). Response: Please see the EPA’s response in the resinated wood section b elow (section III.D.3.b of this preamble) relating to the 241.4(a) criteria for resinated wood and the comparison to scrap tires. That response goes into detail explaining why the extra criteria are not needed for resinated wood and related discard issues. In addition, as noted previously in the NHSM rulemaking record (see docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2008

- 0329), numerous tire piles have been created in the past whereas this is not the case for resinated wood used as fuel. The existence of these historic tire dumps d emonstrates that some tires have not been treated as a valuable commodity therefore necessitating the additional discard qualification in regulatory text. The specific tires described in the categorical determination are handled as a valuable commodity and do not include discarded tires.Page 205 of 319

Comment: A commenter suggested that the EPA should add “off

- specification tire components” to the regulatory language. This revision would be in addition to the proposed text at 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1) that adds “off

- specificat ion tires.” Response: Off

- specification tire components are covered in the 40 CFR 241.4 categorical non

- waste determinations for scrap tires. The term ‘scrap tire’ is a general term for tires and can include, for example, whole tires, chipped tires, off

s pecification tires or off

- specification tire components (i.e., tread, sidewall or base) that are removed from vehicles or are generated by tire manufacturers, including retailers or other parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires. This for mulation was also stated in the December 2011 NHSM proposal 67 and is adopted for today’s final rule. The EPA sees no difference between tires and their various components. Thus, the EPA does not believe it necessary to modify the rule to include “off

- specif ication tire components” in the codified definition. They are understood to be included in the categorical non

- waste provision. Comment: Many commenters mentioned the difficulty in complying with the regulations since it is very difficult to distinguish b etween tires removed from vehicles (and off

specification tires) versus tires from other origins. In regard

67 See 76 FR 80483.Page 206 of 319

to this issue, one commenter stated, “a combustor cannot know the origin of the tire

- derived fuel it is buying. In its response to requests for reco nsideration of the CIWSI rule, the EPA responded to this issue by recognizing that it is not possible for a combustor to know the source of all NHSM fuel and declined to impose this requirement stating: "Rather, it is sufficient that the ultimate user ver ify that it is obtaining tires from an established tire collection program, which program can provide the user with reasonable assurance that it manages tires carefully from point of collection to point of burning and which does not receive tires which hav e been abandoned in landfills or otherwise. 76 Fed. Reg. 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011)." Therefore, the commenter requests that the EPA codify this statement in the NHSM rule and expressly allow combustors to rely upon certifications of fuel suppliers that the fuel sold is not a solid waste. Another commenter said that for the EPA to require a tire storage facility to maintain separate classifications of tires (i.e., separating discarded tires from tire dumps from other tires) is not reasonable, because ins pectors and operators would not be able to tell the piles apart. The EPA’s current definition of scrap tires would place undue financial hardship on contractors and storage facilities.Page 207 of 319

Response: The EPA has decided that a regulatory statement on this matt er is not necessary since the actual requirement for the combustor to determine where its tires come from when they are coming from an established tire collection program (or a contractual agreement) is provided for under the CAA and interpretations provid ed for that regulation. For example, major source boilers have a recordkeeping requirement for a non

- waste determination at 40 CFR 63.7555 “What records must I keep?” Within those regulations for major source boilers, it requires the combustor to demonstra te that NHSMs are a non

- waste. To the extent that a combustor believes it appropriate, they may request haulers to verify that the tires would qualify as non

waste under 40 CFR 241.4 when combusted. If there is question about the origin of the tires, the EPA inspectors will not assume that tires are from discarded sources. As we note in the Federal Register notice (76 FR 28318, 28322), “It is EPA’s position that ultimate users are not responsible for knowing the source of all tires obtained from an establ ished tire collection program... EPA does not interpret this language as requiring knowledge of each individual tire as this is a practical impossibility... users also should not assume that tires from established programs which participate in occasional clean up days are discarded

– both because there is no information that the tires from the cleanup efforts werePage 208 of 319

discarded (and these programs are designed to prevent discarding) and whether the kiln received tires from the sporadic cleanup days in any case.” The Federal Register notice that the commenter cited (76 FR 28322) and a related letter to the docket (“Memorandum. Combustion in a Cement Kiln and Cement Kilns’ Use of Tires as Fuel.” April 25, 2011, Document ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0051

- 3582) provide suffici ent guidance. The agency believes this issue does not merit additional regulation for the hauler. b. Resinated Wood In the December 23, 2011, proposed rule, the EPA proposed to designate in regulatory text that resinated wood is not a solid waste when used as a fuel. In making this determination, the agency analyzed these materials using the legitimacy criteria, concluding that resinated wood clearly is managed as a valuable commodity and has meaningful heating value and is used as fuel. 68 While stating that these materials may not always meet the regulatory contaminant legitimacy criterion in every situation, we proposed to list categorically resinated wood as a

non - waste fuel because, after balancing the regulatory legitimacy criteria and other relevant fac tors, the EPA determined that resinated wood that is used as fuel represents

68 See 76 FR 80483.Page 209 of 319

an integral component of the wood manufacturing process and, as such, is not being discarded when burned as fuel. Specifically, we noted the extent to which resinated wood is use d as fuels throughout the wood manufacturing industry and that the use of resinated wood as fuel is essential to the wood manufacturing process. We also noted the prevalence of wood product plants that have been designed specifically to utilize these resid uals for their fuel value; in fact many (if not most) wood products plants would not be able to operate as designed without the use of these materials. This determination was previously codified under 40 CFR 241.3 (b)(2)(ii) of the NHSM final rule, provide d the resinated wood met the legitimacy criteria in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1). However, based on the available information, as well as how this material is handled and used in the process, resinated wood is not being discarded when used as a fuel, and thus, shoul d not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel. The EPA proposed to codify this determination by categorically listing resinated wood as a non

- waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a)(2). 69 By specifically listing it as a non

- waste fuel, combustors of this ma terial would not need to demonstrate that they meet the legitimacy criteria on a site

- by

- site basis. The EPA finds that this reasoning is supported by the entire rulemaking record, as explained in the December 2011

69 See 76 FR 80 483

- 80484.Page 210 of 319

proposal, which rationale is adopted for the final rule as further supported by responses to comments below. Thus, the agency has determined to list categorically resinated wood as a

non - waste fuel. In addition, after considering comments received on the proposal, the agency is revising the defin ition of “resinated wood,” as codified in 40 CFR 241.2. Comment: Most comments on this issue were supportive of a categorical determination that resinated wood is a non

- waste fuel. One commenter maintained that the record for this rulemaking clearly estab lishes that resinated wood is highly valued within the wood products industry for its high fuel value, stating that “Many facilities rely on mixing of these low moisture content wood materials with higher moisture content wood materials to manage and optim ize combustion.” This same commenter also stated that “there exists within the wood products industry a developed market for purchase and sale of resinated wood between independent companies.” In fact, many
wood

- fired boilers at wood products plants that d o not generate sander dust have been retrofitted with sander dust injection burners so that sander dust can be properly combusted in those units, taking full advantage of the heat energy of sander dust. Another commenter stated that “resinated fuels have been an integral part of the composite wood product industry’s production process since the industry was established decadesPage 211 of 319

ago. As such, facilities’ combustion and energy systems were designed and constructed to utilize most if not all of their own wood and wood by

- products, including resinated trim and sander dust. Excluding resinated wood fuels from our manufacturing processes would require significant re

- engineering of our facilities and add insurmountable operating costs in order to substitute fossil fuels, as well as to transport and dispose of resinated wood fuels. Any other result would effectively make it nearly impossible for these manufacturing facilities to continue operations.” This same commenter also noted that “many of our facilities rely ex clusively on resinated wood for its fuel and have limited access to substitutes.” Another commenter provided two examples of mills that utilize nearly 100 percent of sander dust, either to create new product as part of the manufacturing process or as fuel . In addition, two state commenters supported the proposed categorical non

- waste determination for resinated wood. Response: Nearly all of the comments received regarding the proposed categorical non

- waste determination were supportive of categorically li sting resinated wood as a non

- waste fuel when burned in combustion units for energy recovery. As noted above, the agency did receive a few additional examples of how the use of resinated wood as a fuel is an integral part of the wood manufacturing industry ’s production process (e.g., thePage 212 of 319

facilities that would have to be significantly re

- engineered if they could not use resinated wood for its fuel value and the mills that use 100 percent of the sander dust it generates, either by recycling it back into the p rocess or burning it for fuel). Although we received one comment critical of the EPA’s proposed listing of resinated wood as a non

- waste fuel (addressed below), we did not receive any comments that argued or suggested that the use of resinated wood as a f uel is not an integral component of the wood manufacturing process. Thus, we agree with commenters who encouraged the EPA to finalize resinated wood as a categorical non

- waste fuel and will finalize this determination in today’s rulemaking. Information i n the record for this rulemaking clearly establishes that resinated wood is managed as a valuable commodity (40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(i)) and has meaningful heating value and is used as a fuel in combustion units that recover energy (40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(ii)). 70 In addition, we generally have determined that most resinated wood meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion as well ((40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(iii)), although we acknowledge that in some instances these materials

70 See, e.g., 76 FR 80483. See also background document developed in support of the December 23, 2011, proposed rulemaking titled, “Resinated Wood, Scrap Tire, and Pulp/Paper Sludge Support Document” (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2008

- 0329

- 1880).Page 213 of 319

may have levels of formaldehyde that are not comp arable to traditional fuels. 71 The EPA confirms the position discussed in the proposal and adopts it as its final rationale that there are instances where it is appropriate for the EPA to balance the regulatory legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors in order to determine whethe r a material is a legitimate fuel or is merely being discarded by being combusted. We have determined that resinated wood is one such example. Although resinated wood may not meet the regulatory contaminant legitimacy criteria in every situation, it is cle ar that resinated wood is still a “legitimate” product fuel after one considers how integrally tied the use of resinated wood as a fuel is within the wood manufacturing process and industry. Nearly all comments received on this point concurred with this as sessment. Thus, in today’s final rule, we are codifying the determination that resinated wood, based on all information and the totality of the circumstances, is a non

- waste when used as a fuel. Comment: One commenter, however, stated that the EPA’s
propo sed categorical determination that resinated wood is a non

waste fuel is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the EPA is now proposing to simply “exempt” resinated wood altogether, regardless of who burns it and whether it meets the

71 Id.Page 214 of 319

legitimacy criteria. According to the comment, the EPA acknowledges that the formaldehyde levels in resinated wood would not always meet its contaminant legitimacy criterion

– i.e., would not be comparable to the levels in any fuel that companies would otherwise bur n. The commenter states that the EPA also acknowledges that burning resinated wood increases the emissions of formaldehyde, but nonetheless finds that, “In general the motivation to use resinated wood as a fuel, even with the slightly higher formaldehyde l evels, predominates over the motivation to dispose of the formaldehyde.” The EPA’s decision to remove the limits on the exemption for resinated wood and to “categorically” declare resinated wood to be a non

waste

– regardless of who burns it, regardless of how contaminated it is, and regardless of the reality that some companies may be burning resinated wood as a cheap means of disposing of their toxic formaldehyde wastes

– underscores this point. The comment continues that the EPA nowhere claims that
comp anies burning resinated wood that they have not generated pay for these materials. Indeed, the EPA does not deny that these companies are paid to take the resinated wood they burn. Thus, the EPA provides no reason to believe that the resinated wood that is burned by a company other than the one that generated it has not been discarded by the company thatPage 215 of 319

generated it. Even under the EPA’s own view of the meaning of discard, resinated wood burned by companies other than the generator of the resinated wood wo uld be waste but for the agency’s declaration that it is not waste. The commenter also states that the EPA admits that some companies may burn resinated wood because they want to dispose of the formaldehyde it contains (i.e., to dispose of the contaminat ed wood rather than to recover energy). Moreover, the levels of formaldehyde contamination in some resinated wood would exceed the EPA’s legitimacy criteria, but for the EPA’s declaration that these criteria do not apply. For these reasons as well, resinat ed wood is discarded even under the EPA’s own view of what that term means. Further, the comment states that sources’ alleged “motivation” for burning a material is to recover energy rather than to destroy the wood and the contaminants it contains

–

assum ing arguendo that a source’s motivation can even be determined

– does not show that material is not a waste. Rather, resinated wood is a waste because it is discarded within the meaning of RCRA. Notably, the EPA does not suggest that there is any use for r esinated wood that has been discarded other than

– assuming it is a “use” at all

– burning it. Moreover, establishing a “motivation”

- based test for whether resinated wood is or is not a waste conflicts with and defeats the CAA.Page 216 of 319

Thus, the agency’s categoric al declaration that resinated wood is not a waste is unlawful. Response: The EPA strongly disagrees with the commenter’s characterization of its categorical determinations. In making categorical determinations, the agency is not “exempting” these material s from regulation as a solid waste (i.e., if not for this “exemption,” these materials would otherwise be regulated as solid waste). Rather, the EPA has determined that the specified NHSMs are not solid waste when used as fuels. Further, in making categori cal determinations, the EPA is not saying that the legitimacy criteria are not relevant. In proposing the categorical non

- waste determination for resinated wood, the agency stated we were “balancing the legitimacy criteria and
other relevant factors based on the fact that resinated wood residuals that are used as fuels represents an integral component to the wood manufacturing process and, as such, resinated wood residuals are not being discarded when burned as fuels.” 72 This remains the agency’s final findi ng in this rule. Regarding the level of contaminants in resinated wood, the agency is not saying that resinated wood is a non

- waste fuel “regardless of how contaminated it is,” as the commenter suggests. Based on all available information, the agency has

c oncluded that resinated wood meets the legitimacy criteria for

72 See 76 F R 80483.Page 217 of 319

all contaminants with the possible exception in some situations of formaldehyde. In focusing specifically on formaldehyde, we also have stated that we have limited information regarding formald ehyde levels

— that is, resins and adhesives containing formaldehyde react within the resin curing process leaving “free formaldehyde at levels less than 0.02 percent (or 200 ppm), but noted that levels will be reduced further due to new national rules being developed by the CARB Composite Wood ATCM, per new Public Law 111

- 199. Thus, we have not said that contaminants do not matter. Rather, we have carefully analyzed contaminant levels in resinated wood and have determined, based both on contaminant levels, a s well as how the use of these materials represents an integral part of the wood product manufacturing process, that resinated wood materials are a legitimate non

waste fuel. Further, we do not concede, as the commenter contends, that some companies burn resinated wood to destroy contaminants

— in fact, we have determined just the opposite. We have determined that companies burning resinated wood do so because such an activity is integrally tied to their production process, not to dispose of the formaldehyde . This determination is based on that extent to which resinated wood is used as fuels throughout the wood manufacturing industry, as well as the fact that the use of resinated wood as fuel is essential to that industry (i.e.,Page 218 of 319

plants have been designed to u se these materials as fuels and would be unable to operate if resinated wood was not available as a fuel source). Regarding the comments that the EPA acknowledges that burning resinated wood increases emissions of formaldehyde, the agency needs to correct this characterization. First, in the 2011 NHSM final rule, we stated that the criterion or test in determining the contaminant legitimacy criterion is based on the level of contaminants in the secondary material itself and not by comparing the differences in emissions. 73 However, responding to comments we received regarding emission levels associated with burning resinated wood as a fuel, the agency determined that the amount of formaldehyde that is emitted from burning resinated wood residuals is in fact li kely to decrease, given that Public Law 111

- 199 will reduce formaldehyde levels in these materials. 74 Regarding the commenter’s statement that companies that burn resinated wood that they have received from offsite do not pay for it, the EPA disagrees with the argument put forth by the commenter as the facts in this instance do not support such a premise.

73 See, e.g., 76 FR 15502. 74 Id.Page 219 of 319

As noted in the March 2011 final rule, inter

- company transfers of resinated wood residuals are typically managed through buy

- sell contracts and 6 percent of resinated wood residuals are sold into the fuel market and are used as either “furnish” (i.e., raw materials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. 75 In addition, the EPA received additional comments on the proposed rule stating, “...there exists within the wood products industry a developed market for purchase and sale of resinated wood between independent companies.” Moreover, while contractual arrangements can be used as evidence that the material is managed as a valuable commodity and that discard is n ot occurring when a material is transferred beyond the control of the generator, the price of an NHSM is not, by itself, dispositive of whether the material is or is not a waste. The main indication that resinated wood residuals are not solid waste is the fact that they are used as fuels in a way that represents an integral component to the wood products industry. As the EPA noted in the March 2011 final rule, “resinated wood residuals transferred off

- site are utilized in the same manner as self

- generated r esinated wood residuals (i.e., contained in the same bins as furnish materials used in the product, transferred via conveyors or ducts), which the

75 See 76 FR 15500.Page 220 of 319

plants are specifically designed to burn as a fuel, [and therefore] we agree that this does not constitute di scard.” 76 The comment that the agency has simply declared that resinated wood is a non

- waste “regardless of who burns it” is a mischaracterization of this categorical non

- waste determination. Based on all information provided to the agency, we have determin ed the use of resinated wood as a fuel is an integral part of the industry’s production processes and that these materials are managed as valuable commodities (i.e., fuels), have meaningful heating value and are used in combustion units that recover energy regardless of whether these materials remain within the control of the generator or are transferred offsite to another facility. On the other hand, we have no information that facilities are burning these materials merely to get rid of them (i.e., discard ). The EPA finds irrelevant the commenter’s statement that the EPA is looking to a source’s motivation for using a material as a fuel conflicts with and defeats the CAA. The issue, rather, is whether motivation is relevant to a waste determination under
R CRA. The D.C. Circuit confirmed the relevance of motivation in determining whether a recycled material is a waste. See, API v. EPA, 216 F.3d at 58 (court criticizes the EPA for not saying why it has concluded whether recycling motivation predominates over

76 Id.Page 221 of 319

a disposal motivation). In this case, it is clear that the motivation for burning the resinated wood is to utilize its inherent value as a fuel and not for disposal. Commenters have provided the agency with information that facilities generating and managi ng resinated wood residuals consider these materials to be an integral part of their production process

— both in the value these materials provide as being a critical source of energy as well as being recycled back into the manufacturing process to create m ore wood products. Thus, we are not convinced that a facility that considers the use of resinated wood as a fuel to be an integral part of its production processes, as has been established in the record, is motivated to discard these materials by burning t o get rid of them. Comment: A few commenters stated that the EPA is not consistent in how discarded materials are designated as solid waste. In particular, the commenter stated that the EPA was proposing to list as a categorical non

- waste fuel in 40 CFR pa rt 241.4 resinated wood regardless of whether it is previously discarded, while the agency would require processing for scrap tires that have been discarded in landfills. Response: The agency disagrees that its treatment of resinated wood is inconsistent w ith its treatment of scrap tires. Nowhere does the agency state that resinated wood would be considered a non

- waste fuel “regardless of whether it isPage 222 of 319

previously discarded.” The EPA, based on all information available, has determined that resinated wood is not being discarded when used as fuel, given the fact that resinated wood residuals that are used as fuels represent an integral component of the wood manufacturing process. If a shipment of resinated wood residuals was disposed of in a landfill, it would be a waste. In addition, if a shipment of resinated wood residuals were disposed of and later recovered to be used as a fuel, as is the case with scrap tires that are extracted from landfills, this would be a different scenario and would not be included wi thin the categorical listing in 241.4(a)(2). As the record clearly shows, resinated wood is routinely handled and managed as a valuable fuel product within the wood products manufacturing industry. As noted in the rulemaking record (see docket EPA

- HQ

- RCR A

- 2008

- 0329), numerous scrap tire piles have been created in the past and it is a common practice to recover abandoned tires from tire piles and use them for fuel. This is not the case for resinated wood. Comment: While supportive of the agency’s proposed listing of resinated wood as a non

- waste fuel in 40 CFR part 241.4, two commenters suggested that the agency revise the definition of “resinated wood” as codified in 241.2. Currently, “resinated wood” is defined as, “wood products (containing resin adhesiv es) derived from primary and secondary wood products manufacturingPage 223 of 319

and comprised of such items as board trim, sander dust, and panel trim.” However, these commenters request the EPA to revise this definition in order to clarify that the “spectrum of resina ted materials currently used as fuels throughout the wood product manufacturing process are included in the definition.” Thus, commenters urge the EPA to revise the definition of resinated wood as follows: “Resinated wood means wood products (containing bi nders and adhesives) produced by primary and secondary wood products manufacturing. Resinated wood includes residues from the manufacture and use of resinated wood, including materials such as board trim, sander dust, panel trim, and off

- specification resi nated wood products.” The suggested revised definition proposes two changes. First, the suggested definition replaces the phrase “containing resin adhesives” with the phrase, “containing binders and adhesives.” The second suggested revision to the definit ion is the specific inclusion of “off

- specification resinated wood products.” Commenters have indicated that these materials include materials that do not meet manufacturing specifications or are otherwise physically marred or damaged and thus, are not sol d in the marketplace. This class of materials would not be expected to be chemically different than the resinated wood products that meet the manufacturing “on

- spec” requirements. For example, off

- specification resinated wood products would not bePage 224 of 319

expected to have higher amount of resins (and therefore contaminants) than their on

- specification counterparts. Commenters have indicated that off

- specification resinated wood products are identical to their on

- specification counterparts chemically and only differ in that they are do not meet a manufacturing quality or standard. Response: The agency recognizes that in order for a categorical non

- waste determination to be meaningful and effective, it must be clear about the universe of materials that such a categorical non

- waste determination encompasses. Thus, we agree with commenters who suggested specific revisions to the definition of “resinated wood” contained in part 241.2. Specifically, the EPA agrees that these revisions create a definition that more accurately captures the scope of resinated wood and is more representative of the resinated materials currently used as fuels throughout the wood product manufacturing process. First, by including the terms “binders” and “adhesives,” the universe of materi als that we consider to be within this definition should be more clear, as these terms are widely used and accepted within the wood products manufacturing industry. With respect to the inclusion of off

- specification resinated wood products, the EPA finds it appropriate to include this class within the definition of resinated wood. We note,Page 225 of 319

however, that to the extent that a facility has reason to expect that the off

- specification wood products are off

- spec for chemical reasons, such that the levels of cont aminants are expected to be greater than their on

- spec counterparts, the EPA would not consider such materials to be within the scope of this definition. The agency will make this point more clear by specifying in the definition that the term “off

- specific ation resinated wood products” are off

- spec due to the fact that they do not meet a manufacturing quality or standard. Thus, in today’s final rule, we are codifying the definition of resinated wood as follows: “Resinated wood means wood products (containin g binders and adhesives) produced by primary and secondary wood products manufacturing. Resinated wood includes residues from the manufacture and use of resinated wood, including materials such as board trim, sander dust, panel trim and off

specification r esinated wood products that do not meet a manufacturing quality or standard ” ( emphasis added). Comment: One commenter noted that there are additional secondary materials produced by the wood manufacturing industry that are similar to resinated wood and, th us, should also be considered a non

- waste fuel. The production of flooring and furniture creates final finishing trim, sander dust and process breakage that are both solid and resinated wood materials. In some cases, these materials are coated with finish materialsPage 226 of 319

used to color and protect the finished product. The commenter (a utility) indicated that their facilities receive these materials from furniture and flooring manufacturers and utilize them to offset the fuel load from fossil fuels due to their hi gh heat capacity. Thus, the commenter requests that the EPA expand its definition of resinated wood materials to include these additional wood manufacturing secondary materials as non

- waste fuels or otherwise describe the circumstances under which these ad ditional materials would be considered a non

- waste fuel. Response: It is possible that these materials (or some of these materials) could be within the definition of “resinated wood,” as codified in 40 CFR part 241.2; however, commenters have not provided the agency with information regarding the factors involved in determining whether these additional types of coated materials are legitimately used as product fuels. That is, commenters have not provided information regarding whether these “finishing mater ials” could have contaminant concerns and whether they are routinely used as fuels. Subsequent to this rulemaking, the agency would welcome information regarding these materials in order to make an informed decision regarding whether these materials fit wi thin the definition of “resinated wood.” Alternatively, the commenter may petition the agency to receive a non

- waste determination per the petition process established in 40 CFR 241.3(c) if the commenter believes thatPage 227 of 319

this material may not be within the de finition of “resinated wood.” 4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Categorical Non

- Waste Determinations (40 CFR 241.4(b)) The EPA recognizes that there may be other NHSMs that can also be considered non

- wastes when used as fuels in combustion units when balancing the legitimacy criteria and other relevant factors. Thus, under today’s rule, we are finalizing the process outlined in the proposed rule whereby persons can submit a rulemaking petition to the Administrator where they can identify and reque st that additional NHSMs be listed in section 241.4. The petition process is similar to 40 CFR 260.20, where any person may petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provisions of the hazardous waste rules and where procedures governing the EPA’s action on those petitions are established. The 40 CFR 260.20 standards reflect normal, informal rulemaking procedures under the APA and thus, serve as an appropriate model for the NHSM rulemaking petitions under this section. In the context of a rulemakin g petition under section 241.4(b), any person can petition the Administrator for a regulatory amendment to identify and request that additional NHSMs be included on the list of materials in section 241.4(a) that are not solid wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To be successful, the petitioner needs to demonstrate toPage 228 of 319

the satisfaction of the Administrator that the proposed regulatory amendment involves a NHSM that has not been previously discarded (i.e., was not initially abandoned or thrown awa y), or if discarded, has been sufficiently processed into a legitimate fuel. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the material is used as a non

- waste fuel in a combustion unit because it either meets the legitimacy criteria, or, after balancing the le gitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, such NHSM(s) is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. If the applicant believes that the NHSM is a legitimate product and not discarded despite not meeting the legitimacy criteria, addit ional information must be submitted to explain or describe why such NHSM should be considered a non

- waste fuel. Possible factors to address include, but are not limited to: The extent that use of the NHSM has been integrally tied to the industrial production process. Information can include combustor design specifications, the extent that use of the material is integrated across the industry and the extent that use of the NHS M is essential to the industrial process, The extent that the NHSM is functionally the same as the comparable traditional fuel, and Other relevant factors. The application is required to include: (1) the petitioner’s name and address; (2) a statement of t he petitioner’s interest in the proposed action; (3) a descriptionPage 229 of 319

of the proposed action, including the specific NHSM, the industry (i.e., NAICS code) and functional use (i.e., industrial functional code listed in 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4)(i)(C)); and (4) a
sta tement of the need and justification for the proposed action, including any supporting tests, studies or other information. Where such NHSM(s) do not meet the legitimacy criteria, the applicant must explain why such NHSM(s) should be considered a

non - waste fuel, balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors. Under this petition process, the Administrator makes a tentative decision to grant or deny a petition and then publish notice of such tentative decision, either in the form of an ANPRM, a proposed rule or a tentative determination to deny the petition, in the Federal Register for written public comment. The Administrator could, at its discretion, hold an informal public hearing to consider oral comments on the tentative decision. After e valuating all public comments, the Administrator makes a final decision by publishing in the Federal Register a regulatory amendment or a denial of the petition. Comment: One commenter does not support use of the legitimacy criteria, as provided in the pro posed section 241.4(b)(3) to make a determination. A material which has not been discarded is, by definition, not a solid waste. However, ifPage 230 of 319

the EPA believes that other factors still should be considered, then the only other factor which should be consider ed is whether the material is being used legitimately as a fuel. The remaining legitimacy criteria are (and should be) irrelevant. Response : As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, “legitimacy” is shorthand for referring to NHSM that are not
abandoned or thrown away, are saved and are reused by being burned for their value as a fuel. 77 The legitimacy criteria are the factors needed to be examined to make this determination. For example, it is relevant how the NHSM is managed and its heating value since bur ning materials that have minimal or limited heating value shows the material is being burned for discard and not energy recovery. In addition, the extent to which contaminants are present in NHSMs may also indicate that the real reason for burning the seco ndary material is simply to destroy or discard them

— referred to as ‘‘sham’’ recycling. Thus, the agency is not simply ‘‘punting’’ to its legitimacy criteria but believes they provide a valid basis for showing that a NHSM is more commodity

- like than waste

- l ike.
Comment : The current petition process is limited to NHSMs when used as fuels. Absent from this petition process are NHSMs used as ingredients and previously discarded materials that meet the fuel legitimacy criteria. We do not understand this

77 See 76 FR 15471.Page 231 of 319

distinct ion and urge the EPA to expand both the current and proposed petition processes to allow for non

- waste determinations for a wider range of NHSMs. Response : In general, the 40 CFR part 241 regulations establishes a self

- implementing approach for NHSM that c an consider site

- specific information, if necessary (i.e., facilities will make a self

- determination of whether the non

hazardous secondary fuel or ingredient in question meets the regulatory criteria). We note it is the EPA’s intention to indicate in thes e rules, as clearly as possible, which non

hazardous materials used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units are or are not considered solid waste based on the criteria laid out in regulatory text. The agency expects this self

- implementing approach will govern the majority of situations, including NHSMs used as ingredients and NHSMs processed from previously discarded materials. We would also note that the regulated community prior to proposing the December 2011 proposed rule and commenters to that
prop osed rule did not provide any instances where ingredients are combusted or are processed from previously discarded material that would be a candidate for listing categorically. Therefore, we do not believe it necessary to modify the proposed rule to addres s this situation. However, to the extent that there are instances where such materials do exist, persons canPage 232 of 319

always petition the EPA to modify the rules, including allowing ingredients that are combusted to be categorically listed to account for such mater ials. Comment: In the NHSM Proposal, the EPA recognizes that a material can have levels of contaminants higher than traditional fuels, but still be combusted for a legitimate, energy

- producing purpose (see 76 FR 80483 discussing resinated wood). The EPA also has proposed that this is true for hazardous secondary materials as well (see 76 FR 44094, 44122; July 22, 2011). Notwithstanding this admission, the EPA is not proposing to amend its legitimacy criterion for contaminants to make it a consideration, rather than a mandatory criterion. Thus, the EPA's NHSM Proposal is internally inconsistent. Under 40 CFR 241.3(d)(iii), any material that has contaminants in concentrations higher than those found in traditional fuels is automatically considered a waste, no matter how integral the use of the material is to the manufacturing process or how legitimate the combustion is to the purpose of energy recovery. In contrast, under proposed 40 CFR 241.4, EPA recognizes that materials can have high levels of contaminan ts and still be non

waste material being legitimately combusted for energy recovery. To justify this inconsistency, the EPA argues that it needs to make a case

- by

- case determination that a material with higherPage 233 of 319

levels of contaminants is a non

- waste to “prev ent sham recycling” (see 76 FR 80482). Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the mandatory nature of the self

- implementing § 241.3 standards (including the contaminant legitimacy criterion) for individual facilities is inconsistent with the no n - waste determinations outlined in § 241.4. In particular, the legitimacy criteria (including the contaminant legitimacy criterion) must be met under the self

implementing standards for individual facilities outlined in § 241.3, but the same criteria may b e balanced by the EPA with other relevant factors under the categorical non

- waste determinations outlined in § 241.4. These differences are necessary and appropriate. Where a particular NHSM may not meet all the legitimacy criteria outlined in §241.3(d)(1 ), but the material is being used as a legitimate fuel, the agency has decided it is necessary to require a formal determination ( i.e. , not a self

- implementing decision) to prevent materials from being burned for discard under the guise of recycling. Furth ermore, the agency has decided that such a determination should be subject to public notice and comment. In cases where the difference between recycling and waste treatment is difficult to distinguish, as is the case when elevated levels of contaminants ar e present, the potential for abuse is likely, and thus, regulatory oversight isPage 234 of 319

appropriate when making a waste/non

- waste determination. This approach is also consistent with what the EPA proposed for the hazardous secondary material rule cited by the comm ent

— that is, the balancing test would be used by the EPA in a petition process, not as a self

- implementing determination.
Comment : One commenter requested that the EPA should specifically recognize in the categorical petition that the existence of a supp ly contract between a generator of NSHMs and

a combustor , with specifications that the NHSM must meet, should be considered dispositive evidence that the NHSM is not a waste and is combusted for energy recovery, not disposal. Response: We disagree with the commenter that the mere existence of a contract between the generator and combustor is dispositive evidence of the material being a non

- waste. However, existence of a contract is a factor to be considered in a categorical non

- waste determination. For exam ple, under 40 CFR 241.4(a)(1), scrap tires managed under established tire collection programs are a categorical non

- waste and the definition of “established tire collection program” (40 CFR 241.2) explicitly recognizes contracts as evidence that the materi al has not been discarded. Specifically, “Established tire collection program” means “a comprehensive collection system or contractual arrangement [emphasis added] that ensures scrapPage 235 of 319

tires are not discarded and are handled as a valuable commodity through arrival at the combustion facility...” Comment: The timeframe for which the EPA must grant or deny the request should be included as well as definin g the length of time of 30 days that these notices will be open to public comment. What is the legal implication of an “informal public hearing?” How does this differ from a public information meeting? If it is “informal,” what is the purpose? What adminis trative procedures apply to comments made during the “informal public hearing?” Response: The agency is not imposing a deadline on its decision to grant or deny a petition, or a specific time period for public comment, due to the potentially wide range of issues involved in considering a categorical non

- waste petition and because of the many factors beyond its control. Informal public hearings, similar to formal public hearings, provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments and oral testimony on proposed agency actions . All testimony received becomes part of the public record. Public meetings, on the other hand, are less formal; anyone can attend, there are no formal time limits on statement, and the agency and/or the facility usually answer que stions. The purpose of the meeting is to share information and discuss issues, not to make decisions.Page 236 of 319

Comment : The final rule should make clear that the denial of a petition would not bar the filer of the denied petition from filing a subsequent petition for the same location and same materials. Response : Where the information submitted to make a categorical non

- waste determination has fundamentally changed, the EPA agrees that a petition to categorically list a NHSM can be resubmitted for review. 5. Mater ials for Which Additional Information was Requested a. Pulp and Paper Sludge In the March 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA concluded that pulp and paper sludges meet the legitimacy criteria and, thus, can be burned as a non

- waste fuel provided such combusti on units are within the control of the generator in accordance with section 241.3(b)(1). 78 The December 2011 proposed rule discussed the information we currently have on pulp and paper sludges, and the additional information that the agency would need in or der to categorically list these materials in 40 CFR 241.4(a) as a

non - waste fuel. 79 If such information were provided to the EPA, the agency would then consider the legitimacy criteria and other

78 Pulp and paper sludges almost entirely remain on

- site and within the control of the generator when burned as fuels. To the extent that pulp and paper sludges do not rema in within the control of the generator and are used as fuels, the petition process established in 40 CFR 241.3(c) could apply to these materials, as appropriate. 79 Additional information needed to categorically list pulp and paper sludges is discussed at 7 6 FR 80485.Page 237 of 319

factors relevant to a determination that these sludges are not solid wastes when combusted. This categorical listing would put pulp and paper sludges in the same general grouping as resinated wood residuals. For resinated wood residuals, the EPA considered that use of that material as a fuel has been integrally tied to the industrial production process and is consistent with that of a fuel product. The proposal discussed similar information that was needed by the agency to support adding pulp and paper sludges to 40 CFR 241.4(a) as a categorical non

- waste. Based on the comments received and information submitted, the EPA is listing as a categorical non

- waste fuel under section 241.4 those dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not discarded and are generated and burned on

- site by pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion of those residuals. Such residual must be dewatered and managed in a manner to preserve the meaningful heating value of those materials. This determination for pulp and paper sludge as a categorical non

- waste represents the agen cy’s finding that, after balancing the regulatory 80 legitimacy criteria with other

80 As the EPA has previously stated (76 FR 15460), the Agency has established regulatory legitimacy criteria which may be used by companies on a case

- by

case basis to show that they are not discarding material when used in a combustor. However, for the categorical determination, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate for the Agency, itself, to make the discard determination for material that does not meet the more strict regulatory criteria. Thus, the EPA has developed the categorical determination.Page 238 of 319

relevant factors, the burning of this material as described in the categorical listing is a commodity fuel for legitimate energy recovery and not discard. That is, the agency has concluded that, for pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion, pulp and paper sludges are integral to the mills’ operations and provide a critical source of energy. Such mills are not burning these dewatered pulp and paper sludges to discar d them but are burning them as a legitimate commodity fuel. These facilities take the steps necessary to dewater the pulp and paper sludges and to manage the dewatered sludge to maintain its meaningful heating value and not to dispose of the sludge. In add ition, the agency finds for facilities burning a significant portion of the dewatered sludge that: (1) The sludges are managed in a manner that preserves meaningful heating value and, therefore, meets the managed as a valuable commodity (241.3(d)(1)(i)). ( 2) Dewatered sludge (i.e., dewatered through appropriate water removal practices, including dewatering presses, rotary driers, etc.) meets the meaningful heating value and used in combustion units that recovery energy criterion (241.3(d)(1)(ii)). (3) The s ludge meets the comparable contaminant criterion (241.3(d)(1)(iii)).Page 239 of 319

The fact that these sludges meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, in the EPA’s view, show that these sludges when burned on

- site are not being discarded. While the agency is not def ining a specific percentage of dewatered pulp and paper sludges that would need to be burned to qualify for the categorical listing in section 241.4, the agency would consider that the 42 mills that responded to an AFPA survey 81 and that use dewatered pulp and paper sludge as fuels at a significant rate (between 70

- 100 percent of these materials that are generated and burned) meet the listing description. We also find that other mills that burn a significant portion of their dewatered pulp and paper sludges on - site as fuel would qualify for the listing description. 82 For the pulp and paper mills that burn a relatively small percentage of their dewatered pulp and paper sludges on

- site as a fuel (e.g., the five mills that responded to the AFPA survey that burn l ess than 20 percent), the agency has determined that those sludges are not viewed the same by the mill operator in that they do not need to rely on them for their

81 See April 2, 2012, letter from Timothy G. Hunt to James Berlow. A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 82 While the Agency is not including a specific requirement for pulp and paper mills to document th e amount of dewatered wastewater treatment residuals they burn on

- site as a fuel, we would recommend that such pulp and paper mills include such documentation in case there are any questions as to whether the pulp and paper mills dewatered wastewater treat ment residuals qualifies for the categorical listing in 241.4. As an alternative, the pulp and paper mill can request the Agency to confirm (via letter) that the facility generates and burns on

- site a significant portion of pulp and paper sludges such that the facilities pulp and paper sludges are included within the categorical listing.Page 240 of 319

energy value and are not included in the non

- waste categorical listing in section 241.4.
Howe ver, there is likely little difference as to how pulp and paper sludge may be defined under NHSM rules, whether a categorical or a facility

- specific non

- waste determination. That is, such dewatered pulp and paper sludges may still be considered non

- waste f uels when burned as a fuel for energy recovery at mills that burn a relatively small percentage of these materials, although the rules require those facilities to document on a facility

- specific basis that such sludges are non

waste fuels. As discussed in the final NHSM rule (76 FR 15488), dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are burned within the control of the generator and meet the legitimacy criteria, likely are non

- waste fuels and thus can be burned in units subject to CAA section 112 requirements.
T he agency has restricted the categorical listing to those dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are burned on

- site because the agency has minimal information on how these NHSMs are managed when shipped offsite. 83 Outlined below are commenters’ responses to the agency information requests regarding pulp and paper sludges and a categorical non

- waste determination.

83 We note that in the situation where pulp and paper sludges are transferred beyond the control of the generator, a facility can petition the Agency to receive a non

- waste determination, as appropriate.Page 241 of 319

Comment : The EPA requested information on how pulp and paper mill sludge is used as a legitimate fuel and not discarded at pulp and paper mills an d how the material is integrated into the industrial production process. In responding to the agency’s request, commenters first provided a summary of energy needs by the pulp and paper industry. The commenters indicated that the industry is somewhat uniq ue in its energy profile and in how individual mills select appropriate fuels to support their energy needs. Most pulp and paper mill boilers are specifically designed to handle a variety of fuels; few boilers are designed to burn just traditional fuel. Ev en mills with boilers specifically permitted as pulp and paper sludge boilers also burn other fuels. Over the years, the industry has recognized the benefits of burning secondary materials, particularly those generated on

- site. These secondary materials ar e derived from and have characteristics similar to traditional fuel, particularly the biomass used to produce pulp and paper products. Mills do not usually burn just one type of fuel at any one time. Some mills rely heavily on coal, others on natural gas o r biomass. According to the commenter, the choice of fuel depends on availability, cost and need. Hogged fuel or coal may be the underlying fuel but it is supplemented by other traditional and

non - traditional fuels. This is done in order to meet the energyPage 242 of 319

needs of the mill but also to address best management practices for the boiler and meet air quality requirements. If the hogged fuel is wet, coal or resinated wood may be added to boost heat value. If the boiler is burning too hot, the addition of pulp

an d paper sludge enables the mill to regulate temperature. Pulp and paper sludge also may be burned because it has the best fuel value for the price. All of these decisions are based on the boiler conditions, fuel availability, energy needs, air quality
requ irements, as well as costs, and all are considered when the energy manager determines the right mix of fuel in any given day. As a result, the quantities of different types of fuels burned over the course of a year differ and the mill may not burn 100 perc ent of the available fuel generated during that year. Not all pulp and paper sludges are burned at a given mill over the course of a year nor are all recycled process residuals (old corrugated cardboard rejects) or all hogged fuel. The commenter emphasized that if only a percentage of a secondary material generated by the industry is used as a fuel, that it does not negate its value as a fuel. Rather, it reflects the realities of running a boiler for which the economic and operating conditions are interconn ected and dynamic. For example in one mill, the commenter indicated that combination boilers are designed to burn a wide variety of fuelsPage 243 of 319

efficiently and cleanly. Two mills’ boilers currently burn tire

derived fuel, 84 while one burns waste paper generated a t the mill. They all are capable of burning one or more fossil fuels: oil (including used oil), coal and gas. The four combination boilers burn large amounts of biomass, either generated on

- site or purchased commercially. A portion of three of the mills’
b iomass consists of sludge generated on

- site from their wastewater treatment processes. One state commenter also indicated that most mills operate boilers that are specifically designed to handle a variety of fuels

-- few boilers are designed to burn just t raditional fuel and mills do not usually burn just one type of fuel at any one time. Bark and biomass fuel may be the primary fuel but it is supplemented by other traditional or alternative fuels. Secondary materials have been an important alternative fue l used safely by the mills in the commenter’s state for many years. Most of that state’s mills' have multi

- fuel boilers. Their fuel handling equipment, mill wastewater treatment systems and other ancillary equipment were designed to combust alternative fue ls, including pulp and paper sludge. Use of these fuels reduces reliance on purchased biomass and/or fossil fuels and provides a vehicle for beneficial reuse of the materials. In

84 Tire

- derived fuel used in the paper industry must be dewired since the wires often clog the feed system. Thus, the industry does not utilize whole tires.Page 244 of 319

light of the greater stringency of the CISWI regulations, the state indicated that the mills are likely to landfill these materials instead of recovering their fuel value if these materials are considered solid waste under the CISWI standards. Another industry commenter stated that four of their five U.S. pulp mills produce wastewa ter treatment residuals that are burned in biomass

- fired combination fuel boilers. At one mill, the residual solids are harvested and sold under a purchase agreement to an Electric Utility Generating plant burning various sources of biomass because that mi ll does not have a biomass boiler designed to burn the residuals. The residuals are primary clarifier solids (mostly wood fibers too short for product use) which are harvested by dewatering through a screw press. The residuals are stockpiled in a specific managed area before being trucked to the power company. At that site, the materials are processed and conveyed with other forms of biomass for fuel in their biomass boiler. Use of the wastewater treatment residuals from the mill as a fuel at the purchasing site is permitted in their air permit. One commenter indicates that the energy manager at a mill will determine the approximate amount of different types of fuels needed to obtain the most energy under the best operating conditions. As pulp and paper slu dge is generated, it is directed toward the hogged fuel pile or towards other non

- fuelPage 245 of 319

uses. This decision is based on whether the mill’s boiler is designed and permitted to burn pulp and paper sludge and the amount is determined by the energy demands on t hat particular day. Another commenter believes that the fact that not all pulp and paper sludge is combusted at pulp and paper mills is evidence that the wood products industry only combusts pulp and paper sludge for legitimate energy recovery and not for disposal. According to the commenter, when the pulp and paper sludge is not needed as a fuel, it is used for non

- fuel purposes or is discarded. When it is combusted, it is combusted for its energy value as a legitimate fuel. One mill described by a commen ter has elected to divert its

own - make bark to beneficial use as mulch, rather than burning it, because it is of poorer quality than commercially available biomass. That same mill has recently invested in a new belt press which provides high quality sludge as fuel for its combination boiler. Since the press was installed in 2011, the percentage of mill sludge burned has increased to 80 percent from under 50 percent. Currently, the mill is burning more of the sludge from its process than the bark it also gen erates. At another plant, the commenter indicates that sludge is a by

- product of the AST process. Their mills employ primary clarifiers to separate out solids from wastewater, of which 50Page 246 of 319

percent is wood fiber, the primary component. 85 These solids are staged in holding or blend tanks prior to drying. In addition to primary clarifiers and aeration basins, AST systems employ secondary clarifiers (large, open, circular concrete tanks) in which biological solids exiting the aeration basin( s) are separated by gravity from wastewater. The process is carefully regulated to accomplish two objectives: making the water as clean and free of solids as possible while retaining activated sludge (active microbes) to re

- inject into the biological
treat ment stage of the process. As part of this continuous loop, some activated sludge must be removed from the system to maintain the optimal population of active microbes for effective
treatment. After excess secondary sludge is removed from the treatment loo p at three of the mills, it is mixed with primary sludge in blend tanks prior to being dried on belt presses to a suitable moisture level for burning or other uses. Sludge is introduced into the mills’ solid fuel feed systems by means of conveyers where it becomes thoroughly mixed with other fuels in the conveyer systems before being introduced into the mills’ combination boilers. At one mill, primary sludge is dried separately by means of screw presses while secondary sludge is

85 Washington State Department of Ecology Industrial Footprint Proj ect Waste Stream Reduction and Re

‐ Use in the Pulp and Paper Sector, June 2008.Page 247 of 319

dried using a belt press. Th e two fuels are fed separately by conveyers onto the mill’s main solid fuel conveyer which transports the bark/sludge mixture to a surge bin. The fuel is passed through a “waste heat dryer,” where it is briefly exposed to boiler flue gas before being fed i nto the combination boiler. The process at all four mills is continuous. Operators monitor and manage the sludge on a 24 hour basis. Sludge drying takes place entirely within buildings where the tanks, pipes, mixers, pumps, polymer feed systems, conveyers, presses, diversion gates and valves, monitoring devices and other equipment necessary to produce suitable sludge are housed. Sludge burned in the boilers is transported to the boilers on feed systems designed to ensure sludge, biomass and other solid fuel s are homogeneous, thoroughly mixed and not exposed to the elements while being conveyed to the boilers. After its removal from wastewater treatment, no sludge touches the ground until it is burned, beneficially used (e.g., recycled feedstock to make newsp rint) or landfilled. The commenters indicate that the moisture content of biomass is highly variable. Operators control fuel use based on the mill’s need for steam and electricity, fuel costs, fuel quality and fuel availability. All factors can change at a moment’s notice since the production process is constantly changing. Pulp and paper production swings or curtailments arePage 248 of 319

common. Energy demand, fuel cost or fuel quality may make it necessary or desirable to reduce biomass and sludge combustion,
even to switch entirely to fossil fuels. Environmental emissions occasionally can be a factor in fuel use, particularly during boiler startup or shutdown, or when the mill is experiencing rapid fluctuations in steam demand. Response : Based on the information subm itted, and as discussed further in our responses below, the EPA is listing as a categorical non

- waste fuel under section 241.4 dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not discarded and are generated and burned on

- site by pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion of such materials where such dewatered residuals are managed in a manner that preserves the meaningful heating value of the materials. This determination for pulp and paper sludge as a categorical non

- waste fuel represents the agency’s finding, after balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, that those mills that burn a significant portion of these pulp and paper sludges are burning them as a commodity fuel for energy recovery and not discard. The discussion above in dicates that these mills have been designed to utilize pulp and paper sludges and use of that material as a fuel is an integral part of facility operations. Decisions regarding use and the right mix of fuel in any given day are based on thePage 249 of 319

boiler conditio ns, fuel availability, energy needs, air quality requirements and cost.
Comment : The EPA requested information on the amount of pulp and paper sludge burned as fuel. In 2010, members of AF&PA burned 772,034 dry tons of pulp and paper sludge, which represents approximately 25 percent of the pulp and paper sludge generated by members of AFPA during the year. 86 However, approximately 90 percent of the AF&PA member facilities that responded to their survey (42 out of 47) that use dewatered pulp and paper sludge as fuels do so at a significant rate (between 70

- 100 percent of these materials that are generated are burned). In fact, one third of the AF&PA facilities that responded to their survey (16) that burn pulp and paper sludges, burn 100 percent of the materials generated. 87 Response : As the commenter indicates, while 25 percent of pulp and paper sludges that are generated are used as fuels on an industry

- wide basis, the vast majority of facilities that responded to the survey that use dewatered pulp a nd paper sludges as fuels do so at a significant rate. In light of the information on use of pulp and paper sludges, the agency finds that for those pulp and paper mills that burn a significant

86 Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119

- 2619. 87 See April 4, 2012, letter from Timothy G. Hunt to James Berlow. A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for today’s rulemaking.Page 250 of 319

portion , that their use as a legitimate fuel is integral to th e operation of the pulp and paper mill. The fact that these sludges meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion also, in the EPA’s view, shows that these sludges when burned on

- site are not being discarded. As discussed above, while the agency is not definin g a specific percentage of dewatered pulp and paper sludges that would need to be burned to qualify for the categorical listing in section 241.4, the agency would consider the 42 mills that responded to the AF&PA survey as meeting the listing description. Where a facility has burned or burns in the future a significant portion of the dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are generated, the facility is clearly dependent upon the use of these materials as fuels in much the same way that wood manufacturing fac ilities are dependent upon the stream of resinated wood residuals to meet their energy demands. Specifically, we note that the percentage of overall use of pulp and paper sludges as a fuel at facilities burning a significant portion of the material (70 per cent in the AF&PA comment above) is similar to the use of resinated wood within the wood products industry

-- approximately 73 percent of resinated wood generated is either used as a fuel or is recycled back into the woodPage 251 of 319

manufacturing process. 88 As noted a bove, mills that burn a significant portion of their dewatered pulp and paper sludges

on - site as fuel in the future would also qualify for the listing description. 89 On the other hand, when a pulp and paper mill burns a relatively small percentage of thei r dewatered pulp and paper sludges on

- site as a fuel (e.g., the five mills that responded to the AF&PA survey that burn less than 20 percent), the agency has determined that such sludges are not viewed the same by the mill operator in that they do not rely on the sludges for their energy value. As noted by one commenter, some mills may not produce pulp and paper sludge with sufficient fiber, such that the sludge is a viable fuel. Therefore, the agency finds that such pulp and paper sludge should not be incl uded in the categorical listing in section 241.4. 90 Those companies would need to make case

- by

- case determinations regarding legitimacy to support use as a fuel.

88 See Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Final Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste

– Resinated Wood Products. Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2008

- 0329

- 1820. 89 While the Agency is not includin g a specific requirement for pulp and paper mills to document the amount of dewatered wastewater treatment residuals they burn on

- site as a fuel, we would recommend that such pulp and paper mills include such documentation in case there are any questions a s to whether the pulp and paper mills’ dewatered wastewater treatment residuals qualifies for the categorical listing in 241.4. 90 The Agency acknowledges that some portion of these pulp and paper sludges are land applied. While the Agency considers such us es as beneficial, such recycling is not integral to pulp and paper operations, and therefore, the Agency would not consider this form of recycling in determining whether a facility is recycling a significant portion of their pulp and paper sludges.Page 252 of 319

Comment : The EPA requested more data on contaminant levels

– particularly chlorine and metals. The NCASI undertook a thorough evaluation of data related to contaminant levels in pulp and paper sludge. 91 NCASI looked at the most robust information about pulp and paper sludge which is found in the EPA’s Boiler MACT database. That database has pulp

an d paper sludge data comprised of nearly 5,280 records of individual data points corresponding to 46 AF&PA member pulp mills. Table 8 of this preamble includes data from the EPA traditional fuels table as well as the EPA Boiler MACT database for pulp and pa per sludge.

91 Dock et EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119

- 2619.Page 253 of 319

Table 8. Comparison of Traditional Fuel Contaminant Concentrations With Pulp Mill Sludge Data From the EPA’s Boiler MACT Database

Lit. Sour ce Rang e 1 Compou

nd Un it s Data from EPA OAQPS Databases Data from Boiler MACT Database, v. 7 2 Industrial Sludge NAICS 322 Coal Biomass Fuel Oils

Mi n Ma x Av g. Mi n Max A

v g

. Mi n Ma x Av g. N o

. N D s Mi n Ma x 90 % UP L 3 K

M 4 Mea n

ND

- 26 Antimo

ny (Sb) pp

m ND 6.

9 1. 7 ND 6 0

. 9 ND 3.

8 3. 5 1 1 6 3 7 ND 3.

14 2. 0 0.4 5
ND

- 80 Arseni c (As) pp

m ND 17

4 8. 2 ND 298 6

. 3 ND 13 1.

3 3 7 6 9 4 ND 10

5. 0 70 .6 7.9 4 0. 1

- 15 Beryll

ium (Be) pp

m ND 20

6 1. 9 ND 10 0

. 3 ND 19 2.

3 3 5 8 1 0 2 ND 2.

6 1. 97 0.3 5
ND

- 3 Cadmiu m (Cd) pp

m ND 19 0.

6 ND 17 0

. 6 ND 1.

4 0. 4 3 8 5 5 3 ND 19

.0 8. 2 1.5 5
ND

- 130 Chromi

um (Cr) pp

m ND 16

8 13 .4 ND 340 5

. 9 ND 37 3.

7 3 8 8 5 ND 17

0. 0 77 .3 17. 14
ND

- 30 Cobalt (Co) pp

m ND 25

.2 6. 9 ND 213 6

. 5 ND 8.

5 1. 1 1 2 7 2 2 ND 14

.4 16 .7 3.7 8
ND

- 340 Lead

(Pb) pp

m ND 14

8 8. 7 ND 229 4

. 5 ND 52 4.

3 3 4 7 1 9 ND 20

1. 0 64 .2 11. 53
5

- 840 Mangan

ese (Mn) pp

m ND 51

2 26 .2 ND 15,

800 3 0 2 ND 32

00 11 8 3 6 9 3 ND 3,

31 0 2, 65 0 559 .8

ND

- 1 Mercur y (Hg) pp

m ND 3.

1 0. 09 ND 1.1 0

. 0 3 ND 0.

2 0. 02 3 9 7 4 0 ND 1.

40 0. 72 0.1 14

ND

- 540 Nickel

(Ni) pp

m ND 73

0 21 .5 ND 175 2

. 8 ND 27

0 24 .1 3 8 1 9 ND 18

0. 0 67 .7 14. 990
ND

- 10 Seleni

um (Se) pp

m ND 74

.3 3. 4 ND 9 1

. 1 ND 4 0.

8 3 1 6 1 9 7 ND 6.

0 4. 5 0.9 0Page 254 of 319

TSM 2,

06 7 92 .6 17,

098 3 3 0

. 9 3,

60 9 15 9. 5 2, 96 4 618 .5

T SM w/o Mn 1, 55 5 66 .4 1,2

98 2 8

. 9 40

9 41 .5 31 4 58. 7

Chlorin e (Cl) pp

m ND 9,

08 0 99 2 ND 5,4

00 25 9 ND 1,

26 0 13 3 3 7 4 11 ND 48

00 2, 06 4 378
Total Ha logen s pp m 9,

25 8 1, 05 6 5,5

28 29 1 1,

27 4 14 2 2, 39 4 445

1 Nitroge n (N) g/

kg 13 .6 54 .0 15 .1 2. 2 4.6 3.

46 2. 0 3. 0 2. 25 2 6 0 0.

8 17 .7 26 .4 7.7

2 Sulfur (S) g/

kg 0. 74 61 .3 13 .6 ND 6.1 0.

70 ND 57

.0 8. 28 1 1 8 0 ND 6.

3 8. 8 3.0 The grey shaded cells indicate an outlier test was performed and the outlier(s) identified was confirmed based on further graphical observation (see further explanation below).

1 Total range determined from literature sources

- coal

- Clarke and Sloss (1992); biomass

- Energy Research Centre for the Netherlands, Phyllis Biomass database. http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis; oil

- U.S. EPA (1999), Appendix B; 2 Boiler MACT Database sludge a nalysis data; 3 Chebyshev UPL for non

- normal data sets; 4 Kaplan

- Meier; Selenium (Se)

- with the Rosner's test (n > 25), for 1% significance level, one potential outlier was 560 ppm, which was rejected after graphical observation of the data. The next hi ghest detect was 6 ppm. Footnotes on Other Literature Data

1 Literature contains a value of 39.5 g/kg for nitrogen in biomass and 8.95 g/kg for nitrogen in fuel oils;

2 Literature contains a value of 8.7 g/kg for sulfur in biomass.Page 255 of 319

The commenter indi cates, as shown in the table, that contaminant levels in pulp and paper sludge are well within the ranges of metals found in traditional fuels. For all 11 HAP metals, except Mn, the 90 percent UPL value for sludges is less than the corresponding maximum fo r coal. For Mn, which is principally derived from biomass, the 90 percent UPL value for sludges is well below the maximum for biomass. This is also reflected in the TSM comparisons with and without Mn between coal, biomass and pulp and paper mill sludges. Chlorine and total halogens (Cl + Fl) in sludge compare favorably with both biomass and coal. Nitrogen and sulfur in sludge also compare favorably with coal, although the commenter also points out that the nitrogen and sulfur contents are generally not ind icative of HAP formation potential for any fuel, and in the case of pulp and paper mill sludges in particular, the sulfur content of these sludges is typically in the inorganic sulfate form that predominantly ends up in the combustion ashes. NCASI found a paucity of data on organics in pulp and paper sludge. Except for Ds/Fs, which had been evaluated extensively in the 1990s, organics are not expected to be found in pulp and paper sludges. Due to the changes in bleaching techniques which demonstrated signif icant reductions in the existence of Ds/Fs in sludge, testing for even dioxins has not been undertakenPage 256 of 319

recently. NCASI notes that of the data that do exist, organics are rarely found and those that are identified are frequently below the detection limit. Overall, the commenter states that contaminant levels in pulp and paper wastewater treatment residuals compare well to those found in traditional fuels. Response: Based on the information provided, the agency finds that pulp and paper sludges, meet the comparable contaminant criterion (241.3(d)(1)(iii)). The data confirms the conclusions in the NHSM final rule regarding chlorine and metals are comparable to the levels found in coal, which is a traditional fuel that may be burned in these facilities.
Comm ent : The EPA requested information on what steps the industry has taken to ensure the quality of pulp and paper mill sludge when used as a fuel at pulp and paper mills is consistent with that of a fuel product. Commenters state that pulp and paper mills t hat generate pulp and paper sludge do so as part of their compliance with the CWA requirements, as well as part of an effort to return as much wood fiber to use as possible, either as an input to the manufacturing process or as a fuel. The strategies that each mill uses to meet those requirements differ depending upon the type of product, the location of the mill and the specific standards established by the EPA and the respective states.Page 257 of 319

However, mills clean wastewaters prior to discharge, thus creating pr imary and a variety of secondary pulp and paper sludges, all of which capture wood fibers. Furthermore, the question of whether the quality of the pulp and paper sludge is appropriate for a particular mill is based on the boiler design. As such, there are some boilers well suited to burn it; others cannot burn the material. At one commenter’s mill, for example, the company has invested over $7 million upgrading sludge drying and management equipment. The object of these large investments was not to

remove a ll of the moisture in the sludge. Rather, it was to make sludge quality consistent with that of the wet biomass burned in its combination boilers. Either too much or too little moisture can have a deleterious effect on the boilers’ combustion. One mill rec ently installed a belt press to improve the reliability of its sludge management system and increase the average solids content of its sludge. Since then, the sludge has occasionally caused combustion problems in the boiler because it was too dry, necessit ating additional quality control to optimize the sludge’s moisture content. Another commenter stated they invested over $3 million to prevent unwanted materials from reaching the treatment process and being discharged in mill effluent or being incorporated into the pulp and paper sludge. Their mills make coated paperPage 258 of 319

products, the coatings consisting largely of clay and other minerals. Improved equipment and operating procedures have significantly lowered sewer losses of these materials, improving the quali ty of wastewater and reducing the ash content of these pulp and paper sludges. To further pollution prevention, their mills set stringent specifications for raw materials, such as sulfuric acid and caustic soda, which minimizes the introduction of trace am ounts of heavy metals into the process. From the standpoint of process control, the commenter stated that sludge management processes are continuous, enclosed and carefully controlled. In contrast, bark and wood chips may be exposed to the elements for ext ended periods before being burned. Depending on the season, hardwood bark can get “stringy” and become very difficult to process as fuel. Frozen bark or chips can jam or disable equipment. Purchased fuel can have excessive rocks or grit. It is difficult to control the quality of biomass burned in the commenter’s boilers. Sludge frequently exhibits less variability in quality than other types of biomass. Response : Based on the information provided , the agency finds that, for facilities burning a significant portion of the dewatered sludge, use of the material is integral to the facility’s operations, particularly in the value these materials provide as a critical source of energy. At such facilities,Page 259 of 319

sludge management processes are carefully controlled and the industry has taken the necessary steps to ensure the quality of pulp and paper mill sludge when used as a fuel at pulp and paper mills. On the other hand, for those pulp and paper mills that do not burn a significant portion of their dewatered wastewater treatment sludges, the agency does not believe that the same steps have been taken to ensure the quality of the pulp and paper mill sludge that is used as a fuel and thus, is not an integral part of the pulp and paper mill operations.
Comment : The EPA requested information on what are the standard practices used to ensure pulp and paper sludge has meaningful heating value. As noted in the October 2011 pulp and paper sludge paper the AF&PA submitt ed prior to the December 2011 proposal, the overwhelming majority of pulp and paper mills remove water from pulp and paper sludge prior to managing it in any way. Belt and screw presses are most commonly used in the industry. Some mills use steam heated fi lter presses. Some pulp and paper sludge is also further dried in steam heated rotary driers. As indicated previously, sludge drying takes place entirely within buildings where equipment necessary to produce suitable sludge is housed. Sludge burned in the boilers is transported to the boilers on feed systems designed to ensure sludge, biomass and other solid fuels are homogeneous, thoroughly mixed and not exposed to thePage 260 of 319

elements while being conveyed to the boilers. In all instances, the goal is to raise the solids content

– and thus, Btu value. Response : Based on these comments and other information in the record, the agency finds that facilities that burn a significant portion of these materials take the steps necessary to dewater the pulp and paper sludge and to manage such dewatered sludge to maintain its meaningful heating value and burn the sludge for energy recovery.
Comment : The EPA requested information on how pulp and paper mill sludge is managed when shipped offsite. There are several mills within the industry that have agreements with other facilities, primarily electric utilities that purchase pulp and paper sludges for use as biomass

- based fuel. For the most part, these arrangements occur when there is a utility close to the pulp and paper mill b ecause the cost of shipping such sludges long distances may be prohibitive. Pulp and paper sludges may be sent offsite when it is being used by other entities to produce another product, (including fuel pellets 92 ), used for other purposes (land application, use as landfill cover), or for final disposal. Pulp and paper sludges are shipped by containers, truck or rail.

92 When pulp and paper sludges are sufficiently processed, and such processed material meets the legitimacy criteria, the processed materials are non

- waste fuels whether burned within or outside the control of the generator.Page 261 of 319

Response: The agency recognizes that, as described above, some pulp and paper sludges are sent offsite for use as a fuel. However, the agency h as restricted the categorical listing to those pulp and paper sludges that are burned on

- site because the agency has minimal information on offsite use of these materials. In fact, the pulp and paper industry indicates that the great majority of these slud ges, when burned as a fuel, are burned on

- site. Also, in the few instances that the pulp and paper industry discussed in their comments that these materials were shipped offsite, they seem to be sent to other industries. The fact that these sludges are sen t to other industries would not necessarily disqualify those dewatered pulp and paper sludges from being considered for listing categorically. However, the agency does not have sufficient information to make any determination. 93

Comment : For reasons stated previously in comments on the June 2010 proposed rule, one commenter argues that pulp and paper sludges are waste when burned regardless of whether it is burned by the company that generated it and regardless of whether it meets the EPA’s legitimacy criter ia. Paper mill sludge is a waste because it is discarded within the meaning of
RCRA.

93 We note that in the situation where pulp and paper sludges are transferred beyond the control of the generator, a facility may also petition the Agency to receive a non

- waste determination, as appropriate.Page 262 of 319

The EPA’s description of pulp and paper sludge shows that it remains a waste even under the agency’s own definition of discard. First, the EPA acknowledges that pulp and p aper mills have no use for pulp and paper sludge; the fibers it contains are “too short to be suitable for papermaking and it contains microorganisms that feed on organic material in the wastewater stream.” 94 Second, the fact that paper mill sludge comes f rom “the wastewater stream,” 95 in itself confirms that it is a waste. Third, the EPA’s discussion of the contaminant levels in paper mill sludge shows substantial variation in chlorine levels. Where the EPA encounters such variability in the course of setti ng floors for CISWI units in the very same Federal Register notice, the agency uses a 99th percent UPL to assure that the level it chooses will not be exceeded. Yet, where the EPA encounters variability in the chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge

– var iability that could lead to significantly higher emissions of chlorinated pollutants, such as HCl and dioxins

– the agency simply dismisses it without further ado. The EPA’s disparate treatment of the variability of emissions for floor setting and of the c hlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge for the purposes of considering a categorical declaration that such sludge is not a waste is unexplained and arbitrary.

94 See 76 FR 80485. 95 Id.Page 263 of 319

If the agency believes that such variability exists, it should be concerned about the possibilit y that some sludges may have far higher chlorine levels than it assumes

– as, indeed, the record shows some sludge does

– and should take steps to ensure that this is not the case before it even considers an exemption. Indeed, the agency’s failure to exami ne this possibility renders the existing rule, which allows generators to burn their own sludge, arbitrary and capricious. Fourth, the EPA admits that sludge contains extremely low heating values, so low in some instances as to flunk the agency’s legitimac y criteria. That sources typically dewater their sludges does not make these sludges any less a waste, even under the agency’s own definition of discard. The EPA does not say what the heating value of the sludges is after dewatering, nor does it make any d ifference what the “dry weight” heating value of sludges might be, as they are not at “dry weight” when burned. The reality is that paper mills find it cheaper to burn their sludges than to dispose of them safely and that because these sludges are largely “wastewater” and contain high levels of chlorine and other contaminants, burning them requires large quantities of other fuel and generates high levels of pollution. Response: The agency disagrees with the commenter that all pulp and paper sludges are wast es fuels when combusted. To the extent comments were submitted in response to the March 2011Page 264 of 319

final rule, the agency need not respond. Below, the EPA responds to the new points raised in the comments. With respect to the particular arguments on the categor ical listing, the agency disagrees that the sludge remains a waste even under the agency’s own definition of discard. The comment is incorrect when it states that the EPA has acknowledged pulp and paper mills have no use for pulp and paper sludge because
t he fibers it contains are “too short to be suitable for papermaking and it contains microorganisms that feed on organic material in the wastewater stream.” 96 In the proposed rule, we stated that fibers that end up being too short can be detrimental to paper quality. Although this would not be suitable for papermaking, these sludges are a valuable resource
as energy - containing secondary materials as discussed in detail in the comments above. As much as 50 percent of the sludge is composed of wood fibers which are similar in content to other types of biomass fuel combusted. Further, the agency disagrees that pulp and paper mill sludges are wastes because they are contained in a “wastewater” stream. The D.C. Circuit in, API v. EPA , 216 F.3d at 58, rejected the proposition that the mere presence in a wastewater stream makes a material a waste. In API, the D.C. Circuit criticized the EPA for not saying why it concluded that the

96 See 76 FR 80485.Page 265 of 319

disposal motivation, compliance with water quality standards, predominated over the rec ycling motivation, recovery of oil from primary wastewater treatment. Plainly, the mere presence of oily material in wastewater did not make the oil a waste. In this case, the EPA has found in its categorical listing that the motivation for burning the pul p and paper sludge is to use its inherent value as a fuel and not for disposal. Comments have provided the agency with information that facilities that burn a significant portion of these sludges consider them to be an integral part of their production pro cess, particularly in the value these materials provide as a critical source of energy. We disagree that the disposal motivation predominates over the true value of these sludges as an important fuel, integral to the production processes. The EPA also dis agrees that the treatment of the variability of emissions for floor setting and of the chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge for the purposes of considering a categorical declaration that such sludge is not a waste, is unexplained and arbitrary. The age ncy notes that, rather than dismissing the variability of chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludges, it has considered all available data

— including data on variability

— and reached the conclusion that contaminant levels in pulp and paper sludges are compara ble to or lower than those in the appropriate traditional fuel(s). The EPA acknowledgesPage 266 of 319

that, based on data submitted to the agency since promulgation of the March 2011 final rule and presented in the December 2011 proposed rule, chlorine levels in paper m ill sludge show substantial variation. This is an important factor to consider when making a categorical non

- waste determination and the agency has considered mean concentrations, the range of concentrations, and variability when analyzing pulp and paper s ludges. As stated in the proposed rule and information in the rulemaking record, data for pulp and paper sludges show mean chlorine concentrations of 361 ppm, well below the mean of 992 ppm observed in coal. Data for pulp and paper sludges also show maxim um chlorine concentrations of 4,800 ppm, well below the maximum of 9,080 ppm observed in coal and below the maximum of 5,400 ppm observed in untreated wood and biomass materials. The variability of chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge is demonstrated b y a standard deviation of the mean of 661 ppm. 97 98 This variation in chlorine levels, although high, does not discount the fact that both average and maximum chlorine concentrations in pulp and paper sludge are lower than those in coal which is defined as a traditional fuel.

97 Se e 76 FR 80485. 98 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.Page 267 of 319

The comment also implied that the EPA should use the 99 percent UPL, as is used to set the CISWI floors, to ensure that these pulp and paper sludges do not contain excessive contaminant levels. The agency disagrees that any one statisti cal tool or comparison methodology will fit every situation given the variety of NHSMs, traditional fuels, contaminants and combustion units that exist. Nevertheless, the agency has calculated the 99 percent UPL for chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge in response to the comment and come to the same conclusion. The 99 percent UPL for the same dataset of 93 samples analyzed in the proposed rule would be 6,970 ppm, a value below chlorine concentrations observed in coal. 99 Finally, we disagree that pulp and paper sludge contains extremely low heating values that would fail the agency’s legitimacy criteria. In terms of meeting the legitimacy criteria for a meaningful heating value, the agency indicated in the NHSM final rule that pulp and paper sludges have a heating value of between 3,300

– 9,500 Btu/lb, on a dry basis

-- no specific information having been submitted on the ‘‘as fired’’ heating value of these materials. The final rule concluded that pulp and paper sludges meet the legitimacy criterion for being managed as a valuable commodity as they are dewatered to increase their

99 The 99 percent Chebyshev UPL for non

- normal datasets was calculated using EPA’s P roUCL 4.0 Software available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/tsc/software.htm.Page 268 of 319

energy value, collected on a continual or frequent basis (as produced), and further processed and consolidated, including the removal of biosolids. Further, as discussed in detail abo ve, where a facility is burning a significant portion of the dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are generated as fuel rather than other purchased biomass or fossil fuels, pulp and paper sludges are integral to the facility’s operations and the facility is clearly dependent upon the heating value of these materials. 100 Thus, we find, as discussed in the final rule, that pulp and paper sludges are not discarded and generally meet the meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion (46 FR 15488). b. Coal Refuse 101 In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA included currently generated coal refuse within the definition of traditional fuel codified in 40 CFR 241.2. In discussing its determination that currently generated coal refuse is a traditional fuel, the agency said, “the fact that coal refuse has been used and managed as a fuel for thirty years when coupled with the fact that coal refuse is unique from other non

- hazardous secondary

100 The final rule notes that meaningful heating value is derived from an NHSM with energy content lower than 5000Btu/lb if the ERU can cost

- effectively recover meaningful energy from the NHSM used as fuel (76 FR 15541). 101 Coal refuse refers to any by

- product of coal mining or coal cleaning operations, consisting primarily of non

- combustible rock with attached coal. Due to advances in technology over the past century, the processi ng of coal has evolved, such that materials that are now generated in the coal mining process, which would have been considered coal mining rejects in the past and discarded in waste piles, are now handled and processed as coal.Page 269 of 319

materials in that it is a byproduct of fuel production processes and is itself a raw m aterial that can be used as a fuel leads us to determine that coal refuse that is currently generated and used as a fuel should be considered a traditional ‘alternative fuel.’” 102
The 2011 NHSM final rule also determined that coal refuse that has been placed in legacy piles would not meet the definition of traditional fuels, as they clearly have been discarded in the first instance. 103 Since coal refuse recovered from legacy piles is subjected to the same operations that are used to process virgin coal, w hich serve to both increase energy values, as well as reduce contaminants, the EPA determined that such processes were sufficient to meet the definition of “processing,” as codified in 40 CFR 241.2, and such recovered coal refuse would not be considered a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit provided those materials satisfy the legitimacy criteria. 104
The 2011 NHSM final rule also stated our belief that coal refuse recovered from legacy piles contains contaminants at levels that are comparabl e to or lower than coal refuse that is currently generated, as the recovered coal refuse is subject to the same processes as currently

- generated coal refuse in order

102 See 76 FR 15507. 103 Id. 104 See 76 FR 15509.Page 270 of 319

to meet the same fuel specifications. Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the agency has further clarified that it believes that coal refuse recovered from legacy piles that is processed and managed in the same manner as currently generated coal refuse satisfies the legitimacy criteria. 105 Having determined that coal refuse recovered from legacy piles that is processed and managed in the same manner as currently generated coal refuse satisfies the legitimacy criteria, the 2011 proposed rule solicited comment on whether to categorically list post

- processed coal refuse from legacy piles

as a non - waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a). However, the EPA made it clear that it was not reopening any other issues regarding coal refuse. Other comments regarding coal refuse are responded to in the record for the final rule. In this part of the preamble, w e are only responding to the issue of whether coal refuse processed from legacy piles should be considered a non

- waste fuel on a categorical basis. Accordingly, the EPA is not responding in this preamble or the Response to Comment document on issues regard ing whether coal in legacy piles are traditional fuels. Comment: One commenter states that not every material that is discarded is treated as solid waste under the rule. For

105 See August 15, 2011, letter to Jeff A. McNelly, ARIPPA (cited in the proposed rule: 76 FR 80486).Page 271 of 319

example, the EPA includes numerous materials within its definition of “traditiona l fuels” and “clean cellulosic biomass” that are commonly understood as used, discarded, and abandoned, listing, for example, corn stover, peanut shells and certain types of demolition materials. The commenter argues that each of these materials is either discarded or has filled its original purpose and may be collected by a different party for a different purpose (i.e., use as a fuel). The commenter continues that although the agency has ample authority to exempt certain articles from classification as sol id wastes, it did not consistently apply the term “discarded” in the context of legacy coal refuse. For example, the EPA recognized that on

- specification used oil and clean C&D materials should be treated as traditional fuels when combusted for energy gene ration. Thus, the commenter urges the agency to revisit its application of the “discard” principle and treat all coal refuse, regardless of when they were generated and regardless of processing to be fuels and not wastes. Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment, which seems to misunderstand the purpose of this rulemaking action. If the agency determines in this rulemaking that a material is a solid waste when combusted, the unit combusting that material would be subject to emissions standards issued u nder CAA section 129 even if burned as a fuel. A material is not discarded simply becausePage 272 of 319

it is no longer used for its original purpose. It may be used as a fuel product by another party, providing the conditions the EPA has explained in the rule apply. In such a case, the reused material is not a waste. Further, the agency is not exempting any materials from the definition of solid waste. The EPA is only describing the kinds of materials that are wastes when burned in combustion units, even if they are bur ned for energy recovery. The EPA consistently applies the concept of “discard.” Materials listed as examples of clean cellulosic biomass cited by the commenter have not been discarded in the first instance, as is clearly the case for coal refuse abandone d in legacy piles. While some materials have filled their original purpose, that fact, in and of itself, does not equate to discard. Clean cellulosic biomass is considered to be a type of “alternative fuel” within the definition of “traditional fuel.” Such alternative fuels are developed from virgin materials that can now be used as fuel products. 106 This applies to the examples mentioned by the commenter, including corn stover, peanut shells and clean construction and demolition wood. Further, coal refuse mi ned today that would have previously been abandoned in piles are also alternative fuels that are now grouped in the traditional fuel category because of new technology. This is

106 See definition of traditional fuels, as codified in 40 CFR 241.2. We note that the December 2011 proposal did not solicit comment on the definition of traditional fuels.Page 273 of 319

separate from coal in legacy piles that have been traditionally
wastes. Further , there is a clear difference between the management of the listed examples of clean cellulosic biomass and coal refuse abandoned in legacy piles. For example, the commenter characterizes corn stover as “typically left in the field to decay” and thus disca rded. The EPA assumes this statement is based on the historic use of leaving corn stover in the field as a cover to reduce erosion and for nutrient content. 107 As noted by the agency previously, over the course of this rulemaking, an emerging market for corn stover and other primary and secondary agricultural residues is for use as a heat and power source for the production of corn and cellulosic ethanol.” 108 When the determination is made to use corn stover for its fuel value, the materials are managed differe ntly than merely “left in the field to decay.” If there were legacy piles of such materials, they too would have to be treated as wastes while in the legacy piles. We would also note that it is not unreasonable to expect that agricultural materials, such a s corn stover, may be left on the field until there are sufficient amounts of those materials

107 See Petrolia, Dr. Daniel R., “Economics of Crop Residues: Corn Stover.” June 2009. A copy of this document has been placed in the docket to today’s rulemaking. 108 See Materials Characterization Paper in Support of the F inal Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste, Biomass

—

Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps.” February 3, 2011. A copy of this document can be found in the docket for today’s rulemaking.Page 274 of 319

to be collected, baled and transported. This is clearly a different scenario from coal refuse left in place in piles with no purpose other than abandonment and cl early managed as a waste for decades. With respect to used oil, the agency has already explained in the final March 2011 rule the difference between on

specification and off

- specification used oil as applied to the definition of solid waste. The on

- specif ication used oil is considered an alternative fuel that has not been abandoned and, by regulation, may be burned with no more restrictions than refined product oil. Off

- specification used oil is specifically described in the EPA’s regulations as a material that may only be burned in certain combustors because it exceeds contaminant levels established under part 279, rendering it off

specification and, accordingly, evaluated under part 241 to determine its waste/non

- waste status. 109

. Comment: One commenter ar gues that off

- specification tires are analogous to legacy coal refuse to the extent they are set aside and not used immediately by the factory. Since the agency proposes to include off

- specification tires within the definition of “established tire collecti on program” and not

109 Note that Section III. D.2.c of today’s preamble discusses circumstances under which off

- specification used oil may use coal data when making contaminant comparisons.Page 275 of 319

consider these materials to be a solid waste when used a fuel, the agency should treat legacy coal refuse similarly. Response: We disagree with the commenter that coal refuse abandoned in legacy piles is analogous to the handling and

ma nagement of off

- specification used tires. Coal refuse that has been placed in legacy piles decades ago has clearly been abandoned, thrown away and thus, discarded and historically managed as a waste. On the other hand, the agency has information that tire manufacturers that have produced off

specification tires (including factory scrap) have contractual agreements in place to ensure these materials are collected, managed and transported to the combustor. In fact, it is the requirement that scrap tires (incl uding off

- specification tires) be managed pursuant to established tire collection programs that ensures these materials are managed as a valuable commodity in order to meet the categorical non

- waste determination codified in 40 CFR part 241.4(a). Further, as we have noted elsewhere in today’s preamble, to the extent that these off

- specification tires are discarded, such as in tire piles, they would be considered solid waste in that they have been discarded, and would not be included within the categorical listing of “scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the oversight of established tirePage 276 of 319

collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off

- specification tires.” Comment: One commenter states that the EPA, consistent with the intent of RCRA, should be encouraging the use of legacy coal refuse, not hampering them. The commenter argues that characterizing coal refuse in legacy piles as a solid waste could subject leg acy coal refuse piles to additional federal and state requirements and potentially result in the piles being classified as open dumps or solid waste management units. Further, combustors of legacy coal refuse and their supplies would also be more likely to be subject to citizen suits under RCRA 40 CFR 7002. This commenter argues that the determination that unprocessed legacy piles are different

— and should be regulated differently

— than coal refuse generated from current mining operations is illogical because the characteristics of the materials are the same. Thus, although the EPA takes the position that subjecting legacy coal to the types of operations that are used to process virgin coal is sufficient to convert the legacy coal refuse from solid waste into a non - waste fuel, the initial designation as solid waste risks regulatory confusion regarding the status of the numerous piles of legacy coal refuse. Response: This comment is clearly beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding. In the first place, leg acy coal pilesPage 277 of 319

are, indeed, wastes. How they may be treated when they are in the piles is clearly beyond the scope of this rule. This rule deals with how the legacy coal is to be treated when it is taken from the piles and burned for fuel. Comment: While s upporting the concept of a categorical listing for legacy coal refuse, a few commenters argued that the agency should not require that legacy coal refuse be “processed” in order to be considered a non

- waste fuel. One commenter noted that the EPA does not r equire traditional fuels or resinated wood to undergo processing to be treated as a fuel, even though many of those materials would be understood to be discarded. Another commenter noted that the term “post

- processing,” which was used in the proposal as a shorthand description of legacy coal refuse that has undergone processing, is too vague and should be eliminated so the use of extracted coal refuse undergoing further processing at the generating facility is not discouraged. If applied too literally, the commenter continued, any “post

- processing” provision being imposed on treating legacy coal piles as fuel would not benefit the CFB community and could hinder the usage of these piles as fuels. The commenter argues that the term “post

- processing” could be i nterpreted as requiring processing at the coal refuse excavation site which would not be determinative of any relevant characterization of the coal refuse or its intended use as fuel.Page 278 of 319

Response: In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA discussed how a NHSM, onc e discarded, can be processed into a non

- waste fuel. 110 The proposed rule did not solicit comment on either the concept of processing a discarded NHSM into a non

- waste fuel or the definition of “processing” itself, as codified in section 241.2. Therefore, th e agency does not address the concept or definition of processing in this final rulemaking. Again, however, the comment suggests a need to clarify the nature of the rulemaking exercise that the EPA is currently engaged in. First, we disagree with the comme nter’s characterization that many of the traditional fuels and resinated wood should be understood to be discarded. Traditional fuels, by definition, are not discarded. 111 If clearly discarded (e.g., a barrel of fuel oil dumped), even a traditional fuel woul d have to be processed per the part 241 regulations in order to be a non

- waste fuel. However, it is precisely because of their fuel value that makes it unlikely that traditional fuels will be discarded. We also disagree that resinated wood is discarded pri or to being or when used as a fuel in a combustion

110 See 76 FR 15474

- 15477. 111 See last sentence of “traditional fuels” definition, as codified in 241.2: “[Traditi onal] fuels are not secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded ” (emphasis added).Page 279 of 319

unit. For a discussion of why we believe resinated wood is a

non - waste fuel, please see section III.E.3.b of this preamble. 112 As noted above, coal refuse abandoned in legacy piles has clearly been disca rded in the first instance because the coal preparation technology did not yet exist that could utilize these materials for their fuel value. Thus, legacy coal refuse would have to be processed into a non

- waste fuel. However, the agency has previously reco gnized the uniqueness of coal refuse in that it is a byproduct of fuel production processes and is itself a raw material that can be used as a fuel. 113 In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the agency determined that coal refuse that is recovered from legacy piles an d used as fuel that is subjected to the types of operations that are used to process virgin coal or currently generated coal refuse would meet our definition of processing as codified in 40 CFR part 241.2. 114

112 See also discussion included in the 2011 NHSM final rule (76 FR 15499

- 15502). 113 See 76 FR 15507, which states, “Coal refuse is unique, however, from other non - ha zardous secondary materials addressed in this rulemaking, as it is generated in the process of producing fuels (i.e., the mining of coal for use as fuel) and its subsequent use and value as a secondary material is also as a fuel. Since the primary product of a coal mining operation is itself a fuel, we consider coal refuse to be more akin to a raw material that is subsequently processed and utilized to produce a fuel. In other words, coal refuse is different from other non

- hazardous secondary materials, suc h as used tires or resinated wood residuals, in that it is generated in the production of fuel and can be used itself as a fuel (and in fact has never been used for anything else).” 114 See 76 FR 15509. In addition, subsequent to the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA has reiterated this determination. See August 15, 2011, letter to Jeff A. McNelly, ARIPPA (cited in the proposed rule: 76 FR 80486).Page 280 of 319

As the processing that is required is no diff erent than what currently

- generated coal refuse is subject to, we do not believe the processing requirement would hinder the usage of coal refuse piles. The agency believes the only additional “processing” step is the actual extraction or recovery of the

c oal refuse from the legacy piles. To the extent that the term “post

- processing” could be misconstrued as requiring an additional processing step at the extraction site or otherwise as compared to currently generated coal refuse, this was not the agency’s i ntent. Rather, we have included the concept of “processing” in the categorical non

- waste determination for legacy coal refuse, as legacy coal refuse was clearly discarded and, prior to processing, is a solid waste. That said, we clarify again today that co al refuse recovered/removed from legacy piles that is processed in the same manner as currently generated coal refuse would meet the definition of processing as codified in section 241.2. No additional processing is required given the uniqueness of coal re fuse. For commenters suggestions regarding the explicit wording of the categorical listing for legacy coal refuse, see additional response to comments below. Comment: In support of the agency’s soliciting comment on whether to add legacy coal refuse to the list of categorical

non - waste fuels proposed in 40 CFR part 241.4, one commenter states that once removed from the physical mining location,Page 281 of 319

legacy coal refuse and currently

- generated coal refuse are indistinguishable. Thus, coal refuse from legacy piles will be managed in the same manner as coal refuse, will have similar heating value as coal refuse and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy and can be expected to have similar contaminant levels as coal refuse because it is ostensibly the same material. Response: We agree that coal refuse recovered/removed from legacy piles and processed in the same manner as currently generated coal refuse would meet both the definition of processing and the legitimacy criteria. Thus, we have determi ned to list “coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and processed in the same manner as currently

- generated coal refuse” to the list of categorical non

- waste fuels codified in part 241.4(a) of today’s rulemaking. The rationale for adding thi s NHSM to the list of non

- waste fuels follows the reasoning finalized in part 241.4(b) in today’s rulemaking. We agree with the reasoning of the comment and have, in fact, arrived at the very same reasoning in support of the categorical listing.
Comment: O ne commenter argued that the EPA should treat legacy coal refuse as fuels, since they are chemically identical, if not superior fuels, to currently generated coal refuse that the agency considers to be a traditional fuel, per the definition codified in 40 CFR 241.2.Page 282 of 319

Response: Again, the EPA must explain a misunderstanding expressed by the commenter. The comment seems to consider that material is either a “fuel” or a “waste” and misses the point that the distinction in this rulemaking is between a “product” and a “waste” fuel. Fuels may be wastes. The point is that the coal that has been abandoned in piles is a waste. However, the EPA has determined that once processed that coal is either identical (or maybe even superior) to currently mined materials that w ould have become refuse in the past. The EPA agrees with, and has adopted, the same reasoning expressed by the commenter that the processed material is a product fuel. The disagreement between the EPA and the comment is the status of the legacy piles and the nomenclature of the coal finally burned. The coal is a processed fuel product, not a traditional fuel. Comment: One commenter stated that there are “other relevant factors” that the EPA should consider when determining whether coal refuse from legacy piles should be categorically listed as a non

- waste fuel. Specifically, the commenter believes that the EPA should consider the “overwhelming resultant environmental improvements” associated with the cleanup of abandoned coal refuse piles, including the reduction of fire hazards and contaminant, siltation, and solids releases into thePage 283 of 319

environment, as an “other r elevant factor” as it considers listing legacy coal refuse as a non

- waste fuel in part 241.4. Response: The EPA’s decision to include processed legacy coal refuse to the list of non

- waste fuels in part 241.4(a) was based on the fact that such materials me et the definition of processing and the legitimacy criteria. We do not need to balance “other relevant factors” in making this determination, as would be appropriate under an analysis conducted under section 241.4(b)(5)(ii). Comment: The EPA received a fe w comments regarding the specific wording of how coal refuse recovered from legacy piles should be identified and described in part 241.4(a) should the agency determine to categorically list this NHSM pursuant to part 241.4(a). One commenter suggested inse rting the following text as a subsection within part 241.4(a): “Coal refuse that does not constitute currently

- generated coal refuse, but that is processed in the same manner as currently

- generated coal refuse.” As previously discussed, another commenter s tated that the term “post

- processed” was vague and could be interpreted to require additional processing that would hinder the usage of legacy coal refuse piles. Still another commenter suggested referencing the SMCRA in a categorical non

- waste determinati on for coal refuse, which would ensure that the coal refuse is aPage 284 of 319

fuel and minimize overlapping regulatory jurisdiction that could evolve. Response: As discussed above, we have determined to list “coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and
p rocessed in the same manner as currently

- generated coal refuse” to the list of categorical non

- waste fuels, as codified in part 241.4(a) of today’s rulemaking. We believe this language accurately captures the scope of materials at issue and what
must occur for the material to be categorically characterized as

a non - waste fuel. That is, this categorical listing only applies to coal refuse that has been discarded in the first instance in legacy piles, subsequently recovered or removed from the discard environ ment and subjected to the same processes and operations as currently generated coal refuse. 115 Further, this language should alleviate any concerns that the term “post

- processed” is vague since that term is not being used within this provision as finalized t oday. We do not agree with the comments that a categorical listing for legacy refuse should specifically reference SMCRA. As we noted in the preamble to the 2011 NHSM final rule, while the EPA recognizes that SMCRA is concerned with the management

115 We note that it would not be appropriate t o include currently generated coal refuse within this categorical non

- waste determination, as we have previously determined and continue to believe that currently generated coal refuse is a traditional fuel.Page 285 of 319

and remo val of coal refuse piles at mining sites, SMCRA does not address the issue of “discard,” which is critical to the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 116 Thus, a specific reference to SMCRA would be inappropriate as well as confusing. Further, we believe th at a specific reference to SMCRA would be in fact more burdensome than the language of the categorical listing being codified today, which simply states that legacy coal refuse must be processed in the same manner as currently

generated coal refuse, regard less of whether such processing is done pursuant to SMCRA.
c. Manure In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA stated that based on the information provided, we could not make a blanket determination that all manure is a traditional fuel or that it is a solid waste. However, upon reviewing the few comments and data received, we concluded that animal manure that is used as a fuel “as generated” does not satisfy the legitimacy criteria, and thus, if combusted “as generated,” would be a solid waste. 117 However, the agency also noted that there were circumstances where manure would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel for energy recovery, specifically: (1) when the manure remained within the control of the generator and met the

116 See 76 FR 15510. 117 See 76 FR 15480.Page 286 of 319

legitimacy criteria; ( 2) when the manure was sufficiently processed (e.g., via anaerobic digestion or gasification processes) and the resulting material met the legitimacy criteria; and (3) when a facility received a determination from the agency pursuant to 241.3(c) stating th at its manure was a

non - waste when used as a fuel. For further discussion regarding our characterization of manure, see the preamble to the 2011 NHSM final rule (76 FR 15479

- 15482). In the December 2011 proposed rule, the agency noted that some parties ha ve identified the potential of manure to not be considered a solid waste. We, therefore, invited parties to present information, including data demonstrating that manure is not discarded either through the existing non

- waste petition process or the propose d categorical determination process. 118 The agency received no information or data that would allow it to consider proposing to list manure categorically as a non

- waste fuel. 119 Therefore, we are not taking any action in the rulemaking with respect to manure. However, the agency did receive several comments from one commenter which we will

118 See 76 FR 80472. 119 In the preamble to the proposed rule, the agency indicated the type of information and data that should be submitted to categorically list manure as a non - waste fuel. Specifically: (1) the extent that use of the NHSM has been integrally tied to the industrial production process

— information can include combustor design specifications, the extent that the use of the material is integrated across the industry and the extent that use of the NHSM is essential to the industrial process and/or (2) the extent that the NHSM is functionally the same as the comparable traditional fuel and (3) other relevant factors.Page 287 of 319

respond to below. Comment: The commenter states that dried animal manure should be included as a non

- waste with the other fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a). The commenter contends tha t there is no evidence that any animal manure is discarded, let alone sent to landfills. Manure is generally used as fertilizer on fields, although an important secondary purpose is for energy recovery/generation. In addition, the commenter states there ar e several known instances of additional plans for animal manure energy projects that are designed specifically to recover energy, including government funded projects. The commenter notes that after drying, animal manure has a meaningful Btu value equal t o or above that of other biomass that the EPA has determined to be a non

- waste fuel (e.g., bagasse). The commenter also notes that there are contracts in place for livestock and poultry producers to supply manure to the combustor
. Regarding contaminants in manure, the commenter states that the amount of contaminants is limited because the vast majority of applicable contaminants are directly related to the contaminants contained in the biomass consumed by the animals. The EPA has no t presented any evidence that facilities are combusting manure in order to discard chlorine or nitrogen, the two contaminants identified by the EPA. These concentratedPage 288 of 319

contaminants are no different than what occurs in the production of “byproducts of ethan ol natural fermentation processes,” which the EPA is now proposing to include in the definition of “clean cellulosic biomass.” Based on a “balancing of the legitimacy criteria and other such relevant factors,” the EPA‘s new standard, animal manure should b e included in the 40 CFR 241.4(a) fuels list, along with resinated woods and scrap tires. Response: We disagree with the commenter on several points and do not believe that the case has been made to include animal manure as a categorical non

- waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a). First, in the 2011 NHSM final rule, we previously determined that animal manure that is used as fuel, “as generated,” would not satisfy the legitimacy criteria. This conclusion was based on the fact that such material likely would not sati sfy the meaningful heating value and contaminant legitimacy criterion. 120 Thus, we believe that the burning of such materials (as generated) would not be legitimate and would be seen as burning for discard. Further, the agency has never stated that a NHSM, i ncluding animal manure, has to be landfilled in order to be discarded, as the commenter implies. Regarding the use of manure as fertilizer, we have been clear that this rulemaking does not address that secondary use. The 2011 NHSM final rule states, “We

re cognize that manure may also be beneficially used in other end

120 See 76 FR 15480

- 15481.Page 289 of 319

uses, such as a fertilizer... EPA is not making any determination whether non

- hazardous secondary materials are or are not solid wastes for other possible beneficial end uses. Such beneficial

use determinations are generally made by the states for these other beneficial uses, and EPA will continue to look to the states to make such determinations.” 121 The commenter notes additional plans for animal manure energy projects; however the fact that ther e are plans for future projects does not support a categorical non

- waste determination today. As the EPA has acknowledged, facilities may be able to demonstrate that they satisfy the legitimacy criteria, either through a self

- determination if the manure

re mains within the control of the generator or through the part 241.3(c) non

- waste determination petition process. Thus, any future energy project using animal manure as fuel could utilize either of these options for determining that the manure is a

non - wast e fuel, as appropriate. Regarding the commenter’s points related to meaningful heating value of dried manure, the fact that dried manure may have a greater Btu value than bagasse is not directly on point. To demonstrate that a NHSM has meaningful heating value when used as a fuel, a facility does not compare relative Btu/lb of the NHSM against other traditional fuels, which themselves have

121 76 FR 15482.Page 290 of 319

a wide range of heating values. Rather, consistent with other EPA rulemakings, we have established 5,000 Btu/lb as a b enchmark for demonstrating that a NHSM has meaningful heating value. Thus, to meet the meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion, the material would need to meet an “as fired” heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb, or if lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, a pe rson would need to demonstrate that the ERU can cost

- effectively recover meaningful energy from the NHSM used as a fuel. 122 We also note that the EPA did not reopen the meaningful heating value for fuels, as codified in 40 CFR part 241.3(d)(1)(ii), in the De cember 23, 2011, proposed rule. Thus, in order to meet this criterion, the dried manure would need to meet an “as fired” heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb, or if lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, the facility would need to demonstrate that the ERU can
cost

- effectively recover meaningful energy from use of manure as a fuel. Regarding the commenter’s statement regarding contracts between livestock and poultry producers and combustors, first we would note that no information has been provided to indicate who has entered s uch contracts or how many such contracts there are to consider this factor. However, as we have stated elsewhere in this preamble, contractual arrangements can be used as evidence that the material is managed as a valuable commodity and that

122 See 76 FR 15541.Page 291 of 319

discard is not occurring when a material is transferred beyond the control of the generator. However, the fact that there is a contractual relationship by itself is not dispositive that a material is not a waste, as there are contracts between parties to remove and disp ose of wastes. We also believe that the commenter’s statements that the concentrated levels of contaminants is no different than what occurs in the production of “byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation processes” is not supported by any information or data. That is, other than the general statement, the commenter has not provided contaminant data, for either animal manure or byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation processes, for the agency to analyze and compare. Thus, we have determined based on the lack of any information or data that animal manure should not be listed as a categorical non

- waste fuel in part 241.4(a). Comment: In the event that the agency does not list animal manure as a categorical non

- waste fuel, the EPA could alternatively de cide that processing of animal manure by drying, constitutes “sufficient processing,” such that previously discarded manure could be considered recovered for energy recovery, just like scrap tires could be processed and burned as

a non - waste. Response: In the December 23, 2011 proposal, the agency didPage 292 of 319

not solicit comment on the definition of “processing,” as codified in 40 CFR part 241.2. Thus, this comment is beyond the scope of the rulemaking and will not be addressed in today’s final action. d. Other Mat erials for Which Additional Information was Not Requested In the December 2011 proposal, the agency solicited comment on a focused list of NHSMs and, in particular, whether these specific NHSMs would be appropriately enumerated in the categorical list of non - waste fuels that the agency was proposing in 40 CFR 241.4(a). Specifically, the agency invited comment and additional information regarding potential categorical non

- waste determinations for resinated wood, scrap tires managed pursuant to established t ire collection programs, pulp and paper sludges, coal refuse recovered from legacy piles, and manure. Although comment was requested only for these specific materials, the agency received comments that many other NHSMs be listed as categorical non

- wastes for which it did not request additional information as a part of this rulemaking. As we have discussed elsewhere in today’s preamble, we will not be responding to such comments and issues that are beyond the scope of today’s narrow rulemaking. We would al so note that since the agency did not specifically solicit comments on these additionalPage 293 of 319

materials and whether they should be categorically listed in 40 CFR 241.4(a), the agency could not make final decisions without first going through notice and comment r ulemaking. However, we would like to note in particular three additional NHSMs that, based on the information provided to the agency on the proposed rule, may be potential candidates for future categorical non

- waste determinations: (1) construction and de molition materials processed pursuant to best management practices and produced and managed under the oversight of a comprehensive collection system or contractual arrangement; (2) paper recycling residuals (including old corrugated cardboard (OCC rejects) ); and (3) creosote

- treated wood. For these three NHSMs, the agency received new information, both in comments and during meetings with concerned stakeholders during the rulemaking process, 123 which the EPA believes would be useful in making determinations regarding the listing of these materials as categorical non

- waste fuels. However, the agency has only preliminarily reviewed this material, as well as in some cases,

123 In addition to comments received during the comment period, additional i nformation was provided to the Agency during the following meetings: (1) April 4, 2012 meeting with Biomass Power Association, California Biomass Energy Alliance, and the Construction Materials Recycling Association to discuss C&D materials processed pursu ant to best management practices; (2) March 22, 2012 meeting with AF&PA member companies to discuss several NHSMs, including OCC rejects; and (3) March 23, 2012 meeting with the Treated Wood Council and member companies to discuss creosote

- treated wood. In formation regarding these materials, as well as documents provided during the meeting, is included in the docket for today’s rule.Page 294 of 319

additional information is expected. 124 Petitioners believing that the agency should make su ch a determination should utilize the rulemaking process being finalized in 40 CFR 241.4(b), which provides a mechanism for the regulated community to list additional NHSMs to the list of categorical non

- waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a). Regardless of whet her a future categorical non

- waste determination is appropriate for these three non

- hazardous secondary materials, we note that there are other pathways available today for a facility (or facilities) to determine whether these or other NHSMs are non

- waste fuels. For example, a facility that wants to burn these materials within the control of the generator need only make a self

- determination and document that these materials meet the legitimacy criteria pursuant to 40 CFR 241.3(b)(1). In addition, if these s ame materials are transferred off

- site to a party that is not within the control of the generator, the generator or the combustor could petition the agency for a non

- waste determination pursuant to 40 CFR 241.3(c). Finally, if a NHSM is recovered from the discard environment, but is processed into a product fuel, the

124 For example, the Association of American Railroads has indicated in previous discussions with EPA that it would be prov iding additional HAP data in an effort to demonstrate that creosote

- treated can meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion and should not be considered a solid waste when used as a fuel. See the November 2, 2011 letter from James R. Berlow to Michael Rush f or background on these discussions. A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for today’s rule.Page 295 of 319

combustor need only make a self

- determination and document that such material is a non

- waste fuel by being sufficiently processed and meeting the legitimacy criteria pursuant to 40 CFR 241.3(b) (4). To the extent that the regulated community has material

- or case - specific questions or issues, the agency will consider issuing clarification letters, if appropriate, as it has historically done in the past. 125 Although we are specifically noting in tod ay’s preamble three NHSMs as possible candidates for future categorical non

waste determinations, we emphasize that the rulemaking petition process codified in 40 CFR 241.4(b) is not limited to these three NHSMs. 6. Streamlining of the 40 CFR 241.3(c) Non

- Waste Determination Petition Process In the proposed rule, the EPA asked for comments on streamlining or other improvements to the existing provision for

non - waste determinations codified at 40 CFR 241.3(c). The agency requested comment on whether t he EPA’s grant of the petition should apply as of the date that the petition was submitted to the agency. 126 The agency also requested additional comment on whether any other changes could be made to the non

-

125 Copies of clarification letters that have been previously issued by the Agency regarding the March 2011 NHSM rule can be found at www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm#gc

. 126 See 76 FR 80473.Page 296 of 319

waste determination petition in order to streamlin e the process, while at the same time provide the EPA with the opportunity to ensure that such NHSMs are not being discarded. For example, the EPA requested comment on whether public comment should be sought on each individual petition. 127

Comment: Concer ning the request for comment regarding when a petition determination would apply, the agency received several comments. Specifically, the agency requested comment on whether the EPA’s grant of the petition should apply as of the date that the petition was submitted to the agency. Commenters agreed that a non

- waste determination under 40 CFR 241.3(c) should be retroactively applied to the date the petition was submitted. Commenters were concerned about the timeliness of the EPA’s decision on these determina tions and on the uncertainty surrounding the usage of the NHSMs while a non

- waste determination petition is pending. The commenters argue that if a NHSM is determined to be non

- waste, the combusted NHSM in question was also non

- waste prior to the determina tion. Response: The agency understands the interests of petitioners awaiting an agency decision on the status of materials, while a 40 CFR 241.3(c) petition is being considered. In order to lessen the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory

127 See 76 FR 80474.Page 297 of 319

status of a pa rticular material, the agency will utilize the date the petition was submitted as the date that the combusted materials will be considered a non

- waste if the agency grants the petition.
Comment : Many commenters indicated concern that the petition process could take excessive time for the agency to reach a decision. They requested self

- imposed timeframes for the EPA’s granting/denying requests and a shorter length of time for the notices to be open for public comment (or omit it altogether). The combustors stated they need quick decisions in order to comply with the CAA regulations and to make efficient business decisions. Response : The agency considered the commenters suggestion, but decided not to impose a deadline on its decision because there are many factors beyond its control, including how long it takes for the petitioner to submit a complete petition to EPA for evaluation. We would note, however, that even though the NHSM rule will become effective on [Insert 60 days after promulgation in the Federal Register] , for all practical purposes, existing facilities that currently burn NHSMs from off

- site sources will have a substantia l amount of time to submit and have the EPA
process a non - waste determination petition before having to comply with the CAA emission standards, as the compliance date for existing CISWI sources subject to CAA 129 standards is 5Page 298 of 319

years after the date of publ ication of the CISWI final rule or 3 years after the state plan is approved, whichever happens earlier and [Insert 3 years after promulgation in the Federal Register] to comply with the Boiler MACT rule. 128 , 129 Thus, we believe that there will be more than ade quate time for persons to determine whether or not a NHSM sent to a combustion unit not under the control of the generator has not been discarded and meets the legitimacy criteria, prepare and submit a non

- waste determination petition to the EPA, have the EPA process the petition, including soliciting comment on the EPA’s proposed determination, and make a final decision. In regard to the comment on reducing the time the petition application is open for public comment, the agency decided that the comment p eriod shall remain at 30 days but the regulatory text is changed from “at least 30 days" to “30 days” in order to promote clarity, while affording an opportunity for public
comment.
Comment : One commenter strongly encouraged the agency to develop and deplo y an on - line form to identify materials for

non - waste determinations. Commenters also noted that the EPA should provide more detailed information about how the

128 We recognize that new sources that are coming online that will have to comply with these rules much sooner tha n do existing sources. As such, the Agency will consider prioritizing the processing of non

- waste petitions it has received from new sources as appropriate. 129 Note that the compliance date for the Area Source Boiler Rule is March 21, 2014.Page 299 of 319

determinations are made (particularly for the comparable contaminant determinations). Response : The agency will consider the development of a form to identify the specific information needed to determine whether a NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria and other provisions. If the agency develops such a form, it would be made available on the NHSM websit e. Please note that traditional fuel data (including tables for traditional contaminants) are available to the public, which they may find useful in assessing the contaminant legitimacy criteria. Refer to those tables in “Contaminant Concentrations in Trad itional Fuels: Tables for Comparison” currently posted on the NHSM web site at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/index.htm. That document will aid in comparing the concentration of contaminants in their NHSMs to concentration of contaminants in traditio nal fuels. In addition, rule clarification letters and petition findings are also posted on the website when finalized. Comment: A commenter suggested that the non

- waste petition process should allow for “balancing” of legitimacy criteria similar to that included for categorical determinations in 40 CFR part 241.4. Response: Under 40 CFR 241.4 of the proposed regulation, the EPA can balance the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors in making categorical non

- waste determinations. As thePage 300 of 319

commente r points out, we have not discussed the applicability for similar balancing under 40 CFR 241.3 non

- waste determination petitions. The EPA distinguished between 40 CFR 241.3 and 40 CFR 241.4 because in the latter, the EPA makes the determination based on it s review and analysis of industry

- wide data and other factors, as opposed to a specific site. However, the EPA recognizes the points the commenter raises and will consider whether such modifications may be appropriate. Comment: Several commenters were int erested in features that streamline and add flexibility to the administrative petition process, particularly in the situation where a petition can apply to multiple combustors. One commenter noted that any interested person

– including forest owners

– sh ould be able to initiate the petition process, not just combustors. The petitions should be allowed for entire classes of a NHSM rather than requiring a case

- by

- case analysis. These clarifications will encourage all members in the biomass supply chain to p romote their products and co

- products as clean, renewable fuels and promote the development of new markets for biomass materials. Other commenters also stressed the need for the EPA to clarify that the petition can apply to more than one combustor so that redundant petitions do not need to be filed in every region.Page 301 of 319

A commenter also stated that the benefits from petitions could be achieved more efficiently if the regulatory language was changed to allow for nation

- wide petitions under 40 CFR 241.3(c) for c lasses of combustion units rather than requiring separate petitions for each EPA region. Response: The agency agrees with the commenters that the process should accommodate for petition applications from third party producers of a NHSM that can be used as a non - waste NHSM fuel at many combustion units instead of just accepting petitions from individual combustors or combustors within the control of one EPA region. This can make for a more streamlined and efficient process. Therefore, the regulatory provisi on at 40 CFR 241.3(c) has been modified to allow for the petition to be sent to the Assistant Administrator for the OSWER instead of each Regional Administrator if the petition covers more than one EPA Region. This is at the option of the petitioner. The
A ssistant Administrator for the OSWER would be responsible for the EPA’s administrative process in order to finalize the petition decision under 40 CFR 241.3(c) and the regulatory language has been modified accordingly. Finally, as noted in the 2011 NHSM final rulemaking, states, or private entities, can submit non

- waste determination petitions to the EPA on behalf of petitioners. They can petition for a single combustor or a class of combustors (e.g., aPage 302 of 319

specific usage of a non - hazardous secondary material in a particular state). Therefore, in regard to the comment on nationwide petitions for classes of combustion units, the petition process accommodates for these classes of combustion units. This assumes that the petition identifies all of the specific NHSMs that the classes of combustion units use as fuel (that are applicable to a 40 CFR 241.3(c) petition) and gives the information necessary to meet the legitimacy criteria and other requirements. Note that if a petition covers multiple facilities in a single region, the petition should be sent to the Regional Administrator for that Region, not to the Assistant Administrator for the OSWER. Comment: Several commenters argued that the 40 CFR 241.3(c) petitions should not re quire public comment for each individual petition. One commenter stated that “the administrative petition process could be further streamlined by not seeking public comment on every individual petition. By filing an administrative petition, a petitioner is not seeking to change the EPA’s regulatory program or create new legal rights or obligations. Instead, the administrative petition process provides an opportunity for a petitioner to obtain in advance [A]gency concurrence, based on sound science, with r espect toPage 303 of 319

the classification of a particular feedstock under existing regulations. In this respect, the administrative petition process differs from the categorical non

- waste determination...where EPA makes changes to the regulatory status of certain non

- haz ardous secondary materials that are reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations. Because the public

– through this rulemaking process

– has an opportunity to provide input on EPA’s regulations, there is no need to provide a second opportunity for public c omment when those regulations are applied by the EPA in specific contexts through the administrative petition process.” In addition, other commenters indicated that public notice and comment is not necessary, since the NHSM rulemaking process has already taken comment on the methodology, in addition to other rationale. In particular, one commenter stated, “Streamlining could be further facilitated by recognizing that solicitation of public comment on each individual application would be redundant and unnec essary given the public’s ample opportunity during this rulemaking to comment on the evaluation criteria that will govern non

- waste determination petitions.” Another commenter stated, “The reason for public participation in the hazardous waste petition pro cess is that the materials subject to the petition are to be removed from the hazardous waste regulatory program. In the NHSM world, the secondaryPage 304 of 319

materials subject to the petition are merely obtaining clarity about regulatory status

– they are not seeking a change in regulatory status. Therefore, the need for the full public participation process is not necessary or warranted.” Response: Although industry commenters argued that public participation is unnecessary, the EPA still believes that public partici pation is an important part of a transparent decision making process and values how it increases transparency. In the final rule, we will retain the public participation requirement in order to promote public awareness. 7. Revised Introductory Text for 40 CFR 241.3(a) As part of its discussion clarifying the non

- waste determination petition processes, the EPA noted that it had examined a number of specific NHSMs and decided which were to be considered solid wastes based on the record available at the time the March 2011 final rule was issued. 130 The rule itself had stated at 40 CFR 241.3(a) that secondary materials were solid wastes except for those described in section 241.3(b). Essentially, section 241.3(b) is the operative section that states what material s are not wastes. The purpose of the non

waste determination petition process in section 241.3(c) and the new proposed petition process in section 241.4 is to allow various parties the opportunity to provide information and data

130 See 76 FR 80 473.Page 305 of 319

so that the EPA could decid e what other NHSMs are not solid wastes. The preamble stated that the agency proposed to amend section 241.3(a) to state that such secondary materials are “presumed to be” solid wastes except for those described in section 241.3(b) in order to better refle ct the rulemaking record.
Comment : No comment supported inclusion of the “presumed to be” language in the rule. Most of the comments on the language argue that it means that the EPA continues to improperly determine that certain NHSMs are presumptively w astes. Comments generally argue that the “presumed to be” language shows that the EPA, in spite of statements to the contrary, is continuing to make an inappropriate determination that NHSMs transferred to other parties are presumptively wastes until a com bustor proves otherwise. According to comments, the use of the “presumed to be” language is a clear statement that the EPA is making the presumption. The addition of these words does not change the fact that, under the EPA’s regulatory framework, NHSMs are wastes until proven otherwise. Several comments, in fact, argued that to address the legal flaws in the proposal, the EPA should reverse the presumption and presume that NHSMs burned for energy recovery or used as anPage 306 of 319

ingredient is not for the purpose of disposal and, therefore, is
not a waste. Response: The EPA is not addressing in this rulemaking the comment that the agency has inappropriately made presumptions about whether materials are wastes. This issue has not been reopened. Instead, the agency has only opened very specific issues on particular wastes. In the December 2011, proposal at 76 FR 80473, the EPA referred to the March 2011 preamble in which the agency stated that it has not “arbitrarily determined that secondary materials
transferred bet ween companies are wastes. Instead, the EPA has evaluated whether certain categories of materials are discarded or not. The Agency has not adopted the extremes of saying that all burning of secondary material, regardless of ultimate use, is waste treatment or that any secondary material that is recycled for legitimate fuel value is a commodity and not a waste. Wastes may have value, but are still wastes.” 76 FR 15471. Further, the agency stated that it “has examined a number of specific materials, recycled within the control of the generator and transferred to a third party for recycling, and determined whether they would be appropriately placed within the
waste or non

- waste categories.” Id. The EPA went on to examine a number of different categories of NHSM s used as fuels and ingredients that was summarized in the Federal Register (76 FRPage 307 of 319

15477

- 15520). The EPA cannot “reverse” a presumption that it never made to declare that materials burned for energy recovery are presumptively non

- wastes. Further, it would be entirely improper for the agency to do so. The EPA has evaluated specific groups of materials as to their waste status, while the comments regarding reversal of a purported presumption have only presented arguments “in broad abstraction, providing littl e detail about the many processes throughout the industry that generate residual material” that could be subject to this rule. Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA , 208 F.3d 1047, 1056. 131 Accordingly, the agency stands on its March 2011 rulemaking record for the issues discussed in these comments. Comment: Comments objected that the change in word choice that materials are “presumed to be” solid wastes from the statement that that materials “are” solid wastes (except as otherwise provided in the regulati on) still puts the burden to prove material is not a waste on persons who use NHSMs in combustion units. One comment, in particular, noted that there would be no practical effect of the new language even though it is viewed by the EPA as an “optically less drastic stance.” That is, there would be no real leeway for a party in an enforcement

131 Note how the April 4, 2012, letter from Timothy G. Hunt to James Berlow (a copy of which is in the docket for today’s rule), provided specific information on pulp and paper sludge where the EPA added a categorical determination based on specific in formation provided by industry.Page 308 of 319

proceeding to counter the EPA’s prosecution based on the fact that the secondary material in question is only “presumed to be” a waste, rather than the material “is” a w aste. Response: The EPA has decided not to retain the “presumed to be” language, since it is unnecessary and does not actually reflect the rulemaking record. No comment argued in favor of it. In addition, there is no need to temper the existing language stating that a material is a solid waste if it does not fall within the section 241.3(b) categories or the non

- waste determination processes. As noted in the previous response to comments regarding the agency’s “presumption” of the waste status of materials, the a gency stands on its March 2011 rulemaking record. E. Cost and Benefits of the Final Rule The RCRA aspects of this rule do not directly invoke any costs (excluding minor administrative burden/cost), or benefits. Any RCRA related costs to the regulated com munity, and corresponding benefits to human health and the environment, have been considered as part of the CISWI action, and the corresponding CISWI and Boiler MACT (area source and major source) final rules. As such, the agency has not prepared a separat e cost

- benefit assessment in support of this part of the final rule. Consequently, any potential costs or benefits, including impacts to small entities, indirectly associated withPage 309 of 319

the RCRA aspects of this rule are addressed in the corresponding impact asse ssment prepared in support of the CISWI part of this action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 1286 6 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21 , 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared an update to the RIA of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. The RIA available in the d ocket describes in detail the empirical basis for the EPA’s assumptions and characterizes the various sources of uncertainties affecting the estimates below and a memo documents the updates since the RIA was prepared. Table 9 of this preamble shows the res ults of the cost and benefits analysis for these final rules. Table 9. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs and Net Benefits for the Final CISWI NSPS and EG In 2015 (Millions of 2008$) 1Page 310 of 319 3 percent Discount

Rate 7 percent Discount Rate Total Monetized Benefits 2 $420 to $1000 $390 to $940 Total Social Costs 3 $270 $270 Net Benefits $150 to $670 $150 to $770

Non

- monetized Benefits Health effects from exposure to HAP 780 tons of HCl, 2.6 tons of lead, 1.8 tons of Cd, 690 pounds of Hg, and 58 grams of dioxins/furans) Health effects from exposure to criteria pollutants (20,000 tons of CO , 6,300 tons of SO 2 , 5,400 tons of NO 2 , and secondary formation of ozone) Ecosystem effects Visibility impairment 1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures. These results reflect the lowest cost disposal assumption. 2 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precursors such as directly emitted particles, SO 2 , and NO x . It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. Monetized benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is n o clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These estimates include the energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 million (using the 3 percent discount rate), which do not change the rounded to tals. CO 2 - related disbenefits were calculated using the “social cost of carbon”, which is discussed further in the RIA. 3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social cost s for both discount rates.
B. Paperwork Reduction ActPage 311 of 319

This action does not require any new information collection burden. This action is believed to result in no additional impact on the aggregate information collection estimate of project cost and hour b urden made and approved by OMB. Due to changes in the CISWI inventory and monitoring requirements of the CISWI rule, the information collection estimate of project cost and hour burden have been revised. Therefore, only the CISWI ICR has been revised. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing CISWI and
NHSM 132 regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, and 40 CFR part 241) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq ., and has been assigned EPA ICR number 2384.04 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60, EPA ICR number 2385.04 for subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60, and EPA ICR number 2 382.04 for 40 CFR part 241. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the age ncy certifies that the rule will not have

132 Identification of Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste, Final Rule. March 11, 2011.Page 312 of 319

a SISNOSE. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1 ) a small business as defined by the SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organiza tion that is any not

- for

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today’s final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a SISNOSE. This f inal rule will not impose any new requirements on any entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements relative to those specified in the March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM rules. The March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM rules were both c ertified as not having a SISNOSE. In this final action, there are three fewer small entities in the CISWI than in the March 2011 final CISWI rule, as discussed in the “Regulatory Impact Results for the Reconsideration Final for
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units” memorandum in the CISWI docket. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform ActPage 313 of 319

This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private sector in any one year. This rule finalizes amendments to the final CISWI rule provisions and technical clarifications to the final NHSM rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. However, the March 2011 final CISWI rule contains a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the a ggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement, which is summarized in the preamble to the final CISWI rule (76 FR 15747). This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule will not impose d irect compliance costsPage 314 of 319

on state or local governments and will not preempt state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is not aware of any CISWI in Indian country or owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. The CISWI aspects of this rule may, however, invoke minor i ndirect tribal implications to the extent that entities generating solid wastes on tribal lands could be affected. However, any indirect NHSM impacts that may occur as a result of the CISWI action are expected to be negligible due to the very limited focus of the CISWI part or this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1 997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance and technical corrections.Page 315 of 319

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 104

- 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the E PA to use VCS in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and bus iness practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not use available and applicable VCS. This action does not involve any revisions to the technical standards or test methods required in the final CISWI rule. Therefore, the EPA did not reconsider the use of any VCS. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provisionPage 316 of 319

directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addr essing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population. The amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the CISWI rule, and, therefore, will not cause emissions in creases from these sources. The March 2011 final CISWI rule will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this source. Furthermore, the targeted revisions finalized in the NHSM section of this rule are designed to improve the management of these materials, thereby helping to further ensure against any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations. K. Congressional Review ActPage 317 of 319

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SBREF of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rul e report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Represent atives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective [ INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER ].Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units Page 318 of 319 List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substa nces. 40 CFR Part 241 Environmental protection, air pollution control, waste treatment and disposal.

Dated:

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.Page 319 of 319