J~~~EO sryr~s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D .C . 20460 

NOV 1 9 2010 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Snowe: 

Thank you for your letter of September 24, 2010, regarding the U. S . Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials that are Solid Waste ." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may 

unnecessarily reduce valuable recycling in your region. I appreciate your interest in these 

important issues, and want to assure you that EPA does not want to reduce legitimate recycling 

in the country . 

This action is being proposed along with three Clean Air Act (CAA) rules. The proposed 

rule clarifies under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which non-hazardous 

secondary materials when burned in a combustion unit are or are not solid wastes . If a nonhazardous secondary material is not a "solid waste" under RCRA, and is burned in a combustion 

unit, then the unit would be subject to the applicable CAA section 112 requirements. On the 

other hand, if the material is considered a "solid waste," then the combustion unit would be 

subject to the CAA section 129 requirements . 

In general, the proposed rule identified non-hazardous secondary materials burned in 

combustion as solid wastes except under the following circumstances: 1) when used as a fuel that 

remains within the control of the generator and it meets the legitimacy criteria ; 2) when used as 

an ingredient in a manufacturing process (whether by the generator or a third party) that meets 

the legitimacy criteria; 3) when the non-hazardous secondary material has been sufficiently 

processed to produce a non-waste fuel or ingredient product that meets the legitimacy criteria ; 

and 4) when, through a case-by-case petition process, it has been determined that non-hazardous 

secondary material handled outside the control of the generator has not been discarded and is 

indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product. The proposal identified several 

factors that the person who generated the non-hazardous secondary material would need to 

consider in determining whether the material would qualify as a legitimate fuel or ingredient. 

Those factors include : (1) whether the material is handled as a valuable commodity; (2) whether 

it has a meaningful heat value (in the case of a fuel) or it is used to produce a valuable product 

(in the case of an ingredient); and (3) whether it contains contaminants at levels comparable to 

the levels found in the virgin products that it is replacing. 

Internet Address (URL) e http //www.epa .gov 

Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
The proposal also requested comment on two other approaches . The "Alternative 

Approach" attempted to define solid waste as broadly as possible, while still being legally 

defensible. Under this alternative, only fuels or ingredients that remain within the control of the 

generator and meet the legitimacy criteria would not be solid wastes . The Agency also took 

comment on the approach that is most supported by environmental groups: that all nonhazardous secondary materials when combusted are solid wastes and would be subject to the 

section 129 CAA requirements . 

The Agency solicited comments and information on many of the issues you mentioned in 

your letter . I appreciate your comments and we will ensure that your letter is entered into the 

rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329) . 

Again, thank you for your letter . If you have further questions, please contact me or your 

staff may call Carolyn Levine in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations at (202) 564-1859. 
J~~~E~ sr,yr~s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

NOV 1 9 2010 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

The Honorable Susan Collins 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C . 20510 

Dear Senator Collins : 

Thank you for your letter of September 24, 2010, regarding the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may 

unnecessarily reduce valuable recycling in your region . I appreciate your interest in these 

important issues, and want to assure you that EPA does not want to reduce legitimate recycling 

in the country. 

This action is being proposed along with three Clean Air Act (CAA) rules. The proposed 

rule clarifies under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which non-hazardous 

secondary materials when burned in a combustion unit are or are not solid wastes . If a nonhazardous secondary material is not a "solid waste" under RCRA, and is burned in a combustion 

unit, then the unit would be subject to the applicable CAA section 112 requirements . On the 

other hand, if the material is considered a "solid waste," then the combustion unit would be 

subject to the CAA section 129 requirements . 

In general, the proposed rule identified non-hazardous secondary materials burned in 

combustion as solid wastes except under the following circumstances: 1) when used as a fuel that 

remains within the control of the generator and it meets the legitimacy criteria ; 2) when used as 

an ingredient in a manufacturing process (whether by the generator or a third party) that meets 

the legitimacy criteria; 3) when the non-hazardous secondary material has been sufficiently 

processed to produce a non-waste fuel or ingredient product that meets the legitimacy criteria ; 

and 4) when, through a case-by-case petition process, it has been determined that non-hazardous 

secondary material handled outside the control of the generator has not been discarded and is 

indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product. The proposal identified several 

factors that the person who generated the non-hazardous secondary material would need to 

consider in determining whether the material would qualify as a legitimate fuel or ingredient. 

Those factors include : (1) whether the material is handled as a valuable commodity; (2) whether 

it has a meaningful heat value (in the case of a fuel) or it is used to produce a valuable product 

(in the case of an ingredient); and (3) whether it contains contaminants at levels comparable to 

the levels found in the virgin products that it is replacing. 

Internet Address (URL) 0 http //www epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
The proposal also requested comment on two other approaches. The "Alternative 

Approach" attempted to define solid waste as broadly as possible, while still being legally 

defensible. Under this alternative, only fuels or ingredients that remain within the control of the 

generator and meet the legitimacy criteria would not be solid wastes . The Agency also took 

comment on the approach that is most supported by environmental groups : that all nonhazardous secondary materials when combusted are solid wastes and would be subject to the 

section 129 CAA requirements. 

The Agency solicited comments and information on many of the issues you mentioned in 

your letter . I appreciate your comments and we will ensure that your letter is entered into the 

rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329). 

Again, thank you for your letter . If you have further questions, please contact me or your 

staff may call Carolyn Levine in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations at (202) 564-1859.