SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OF THE PROPOSED CPG II Prepared for: Terry A. Grist and Dana Arnold U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0057 Work Assignment No. 212 Task 2 Prepared by: Phil Bailey Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400 Arlington, VA 22201 May 2, 1997 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY TOPIC Section 1 General Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Designation of Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Federal Acquisition Regulation . . . . . . . . . 5 Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Construction Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Shower and Restroom Dividers . . . . . . . . . . 7 Latex Paint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Floor Tiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 3 Transportation Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Parking Stops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Flexible Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4 Park and Recreation Products. . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Snow Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5 Landscaping Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Garden and Soaker Hoses. . . . . . . . . . . . .15 6 Nonpaper Office Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Printer Ribbons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Ink Jet Cartridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 7 Miscellaneous Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Plastic Pallets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 INTRODUCTION This document summarizes comments, by topic, on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyþs (EPAþs) Draft Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) II and Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) II, which were published in the Federal Register on November 7, 1996. EPA invited public comment on the draft CPG and RMAN during a 90-day period and received 19 comments. A list of commentors is provided in the Appendix. Public comments and relevant documents are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Ground Floor, Crystal Gateway One, Arlington, VA 22202, in docket number F-96-CP2P-FFFFF. RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. To review the documents, the public must make an appointment by calling 703 603-9230. RIC users may copy 100 pages of materials free of charge. Additional pages cost $0.15 per page. For copies of the draft CPG, RMAN, and supporting analyses, these documents are also accessible through EPA's Public Access Server on the Internet at gopher.epa.gov. For technical information on the draft CPG and RMAN, contact Terry Grist of EPA's Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009) at 703 308-7257. SECTION 1 GENERAL COMMENTS A. Designation of Steel Steel Recycling Institute (CP2P-00003-A). The Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) believes that EPA does not recognize the value of using steel products, as steel is the most recycled material in the United States, and it is infinitely recyclable. SRI suggests that EPA utilize a generic designation for steel, which always contains recycled content. Producing a list of every product that contains steel would be a mammoth task. The government can be sure that every product that contains steel also contains recovered materials. Comments pertinent to CPG designation are as follows: Barriers to Purchasing Steel Products Containing Recovered Materials SRI is concerned that the federal procurement guidelines encourage the purchase of nonsteel products (with some recycled content) that traditionally are made of steel. Steel in Solid Waste While steel only makes up 4.8 percent of the municipal solid waste stream, this is not due to the lack of availability on the market, but rather because steel has a high recycling rate. Economic and Technological Feasibility and Performance of Steel There are no economical, technological feasibility, or performance obstacles to the purchase of steel. All steel products fulfill the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Impact of Government Procurement Most of the products purchased by the government are made from steel. Continuing to buy steel products will ensure that the government can buy low cost, highly recyclable, and high quality products. Availability and Competition Many sources of steel exist, and many sources have been in place for more than a century. Recovered Material Content Levels The North American steel industry has been recycling steel scrap for more than 150 years. Two out of every 3 pounds of new steel are produced from old steel. Many steel products, however, are durable and are not a readily available source of scrap. The mining of virgin ore, therefore, is still required. The basic oxygen furnace process uses 25 to 30 percent old steel to make new steel products (such as steel shower and restroom dividers) with an average of 12.8 percent postconsumer scrap. The electric arc furnace process uses 100 percent old steel to make new products with an average of 76 percent postconsumer content. One should not attempt to select one steel producer over another, because the exact percentage is a function of the steelmaking process itself. B. Federal Acquisition Regulation Office of Acquisition and Property Management (CP2P-00002). The commentor stated that the proposed RMAN does not adequately address the role of nonprocurement personnel in determining specifications and ensuring compliance with purchasing requirements. The commentor believes that the RMAN should delineate the functional responsibilities performed by individuals within the procuring agency; otherwise, it may be perceived to apply only to procurement personnel. As attachments, the commentor included the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) sections defining the role of requiring activities (FAR 11.002(b)) and procurement official responsibilities (FAR 1.602). Office of Acquisition and Property Management (CP2P-00002). The commentor stated that the proposed designation of ink jet cartridges does not mention cartridge refilling services or refilled cartridges provided by the Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), Javits-Wagner-OþDay (JWOD), and participating nonprofit agencies (NIB/NISH). The commentor stated that the proposed RMAN does not include specific guidance on the use of required sources of supply. The effect of ink jet cartridge designation on similar items available from UNICOR, JWOD, and other government supply sources should be examined. C. Reporting U.S. Department of Energy (CP2P-0008). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it supports efforts to conserve resources by procuring products containing recovered materials. In fact, DOE has aggressively instituted an affirmative procurement program throughout the department. DOE expressed its concern, however, that as the number of designated items increases, the administrative costs of the program will become increasingly expensive. DOE believes that the centralized approach required to track purchases of designated items is incompatible with current efforts to decentralize procurement and reduce the administrative burden of procurement. DOE requests that EPA assist in developing methodologies for agencies to use in dealing with the increased administrative burden of tracking the procurement of all designated items, as well as of reporting purchases of the proposed items. D. Plastics Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WIDOT) (CP2P-00018). WIDOT is concerned about the quality control of items made from recycled plastic. ASTM specifications should be developed that address strength, flexibility, and other factors to ensure quality. WIDOT is concerned about the cost of products made from recovered materials. WIDOT's experience has been that products made from recovered content are more expensive than those made from virgin materials. WIDOT believes that recovered materials that are recycled two or more times may result in inferior products in terms of strength and other properties. SECTION 2 þ CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS A. Shower and Restroom Dividers General Services Administration (GSA) (CP2P-00014). GSA would like to include the term "partition" in the definitions. Steel Recycling Institute (CP2P-00003). SRI supports the designation of shower and restroom dividers made from recovered steel. SRI believes that the range of recovered content should be lower, while the range for postconsumer content could be higher. The type of steel used in these products is typically made by the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) process and uses 25 to 30 percent old steel to make the new steel (an average of 28 percent for all American steel). The total recovered materials content for this type of steel product cannot exceed 30 percent because of nationwide industry averaging, technological limitations, and energy implications. Therefore, BOF steel manufactured in the United States cannot meet the proposed recovered materials content of 27 to 100 percent. SRI requests that the total recovered materials content for these items be realistically defined as 20 to 30 percent. SRI's data concludes that BOF steel can contain an average of 16.1 percent postconsumer materials, which exceeds EPA's proposed range of 10 to 15 percent postconsumer content. B. Latex Paint California Polytechnic State University (CP2P-00004). The commentor is a member of the California Paint Recycling Task Force and was the principal investigator for a 3-year project called "Sampling, Testing, and Evaluation of Recyclable and Recycled Latex Paint." The commentor believes that EPA should change the required 50 percent minimum postconsumer content in reprocessed paint to a lower value. This action would make a larger choice of colors of reprocessed paint available and may hasten the acceptance of reprocessed latex paint by consumers. The majority of paint collected at household hazardous waste collection facilities is tinted or colored. Reprocessed paint manufactured from this colored paint must also be colored. Leftover white paint, which is used to make white or light colored reprocessed paint, is received in very small quantities. If the 50 percent postconsumer content level is established, very little reprocessed white or off-white latex paint would be available to consumers. City of San Rafael (CP2P-00006). The city of San Rafael believes that EPA should avoid using the term "recycled paint" and make a distinction between "reprocessed" and "consolidated" paint, for clarification. In the interest of expanding markets for reprocessed paint, it would behoove the Agency to avoid using the term "recycled" paint, as it may taint the image of this high quality product. Establishing a minimum 50 percent postconsumer content level might be prudent for many colors of reprocessed latex paint; it may not be advisable, however, for the manufacture of reprocessed white, off-white, or pastel paints that require a white base. The availability of postconsumer white paint, which is needed to manufacture reprocessed whites, is not as high in volume as other colors. Latex paint available for recycling over a 1-year period in one of the three programs in Marin County produced a monthly average of 2.6 drums of whites, compared to 5.4 drums of mixed colors. In addition, most consumer demand for virgin interior colors is a form of white. This is probably true for reprocessed paint as well. Lowering the minimum requirement for reprocessed "whites" will ensure that this color can easily be made available, when requests for reprocessed whites increase. The city of San Rafael requests that reprocessed latex paint manufactured in white, off-white, and pastel colors requiring a white base contain a minimum postconsumer content level of 20 percent. The commentor believes that manufacturers will likely use the highest percentage of postconsumer content available, as it is in their best economic interest to do so. If postconsumer content for reprocessed paints is supplied through local collection efforts, the cost of managing this item will be reduced for local governments. California communities, including Marin, have been collecting and managing paint collection programs for years, which has been a costly proposition. Contra Costa County (CP2P-00010). Contra Costa County believes that the CPG should not use the term "recycled paint," as it is confusing and does not distinguish between reprocessed paint and consolidated paint. This is an important distinction to make. Generally, consolidated paint has a bad reputation, while reprocessed paint has a good reputation. The minimum postconsumer content for reprocessed latex paint should be reduced from 50 percent to 20 percent for white, off- white, and pastel colors requiring a white base. While consumer demand for white, off-white, and light pastels is high, the amount of these colors collected from residents, which is the paint used to make these colors, is less than the demand. Programs receive about 20 percent to 30 percent whites and off- whites, while the other colors received are mixed or non-white colors unsuitable for producing white, off-white, or pastels. Manufacturers will probably still use the highest percentage of recovered paint possible, as it is less expensive for them to manufacture a product with collected paints than with virgin materials. Reprocessed latex paint is an excellent product that performs as well as latex paint with 100 percent virgin materials. A CPG designation is exactly the kind of help that local collection programs need to create markets for reprocessed paint and decrease the cost of running household hazardous waste collection programs and reprocessing the latex paint. Scott Paint Corporation (CP2P-00012). The Scott Paint Corporation supports the latex paint designation. Due to the complexity of producing pure white recovered content paint, however, the commentor suggests that the recovered paint requirement be limited to light, medium, and dark colors only. General Services Administration (CP2P-00014). GSA made specific recommendations for language changes in the Federal Register notice, such as more detailed descriptions of interior and exterior latex paint uses. In addition, GSA wants to add information about its federal specification for recycled latex paint with postconsumer waste. GSA wants to include information about the national stock numbers and colors that are offered through the GSA Federal Supply Service; GSA offers 13 semi-gloss and 10 flat recycled latex paints. Finally, GSA wants to include GSA's phone and fax numbers for requesting a free recycled paint brochure. National Paint and Coatings Association (CP2P-00017). The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) has a number of concerns about the proposed recycled latex paint designation. Overall, the commentor believes that the reprocessed latex paint designation in the CPG and RMAN should be limited to a narrower range of applications. NPCA believes that the recommendations for content levels in the RMAN are too broad and are unsupported, because they apply to all interior and exterior architectural uses of latex paint by governmental agencies and contractors. This "one size fits all" approach does not take into account the many different latex paint applications in government buildings and their performance requirements. For example, GSA's specification for alkyd resin for coating exterior wood surfaces includes performance attributes for weathering resistance, fungus resistance, heat stability, and specific appearance characteristics, all of which are not addressed by the proposed generic reprocessed paint specification. In addition, GSA's specification for interior wall and ceiling coverings details performance attributes that are also not included in the proposed specification, such as wet adhesion, sag resistance, recoating properties, washability, and compatibility. NPCA believes that EPA must adequately evaluate the performance characteristics of reprocessed paint for different applications. It is premature and inappropriate for EPA to make a generic latex paint designation based on limited and anecdotal information from a handful of recycled paint companies and other sources. NPCA believes that EPA should defer finalizing its proposal until the results of the Army Corps of Engineer's (Corps') study are available. The Corps' Paint Technology Center has undertaken a performance test of recycled latex paint. In addition, the GSA paint specification referenced in the draft RMAN specifies a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) limit of 200 grams per liter for reprocessed latex paint. However, NPCA notes that, in June of 1996, EPA proposed higher VOC limits for þarchitectural coatings.þ This may lead to two sets of requirements for two types of paints, both of which are intended for the same applications. EPA must ensure that appropriate quality control testing is performed on the leftover paint that is used in consolidated or reprocessed paint. Contamination with unknown materials, including bacteria, is a major concern, as it could make a mixture unstable and difficult to reuse. NPCA is doubtful that the amount of reusable leftover latex paint collected will meet the needs of the government market. EPA has not evaluated the likely availability of reprocessed latex paint in relation to the large government market for latex paint. EPA has not indicated whether the identified manufacturers have the capacity to provide for the federal government and others. NPCA believes that there will be availability problems, and this will cause an unnecessary burden on government agencies, who will waste time and money looking for reprocessed paint that is not available. NPCA believes that EPA has not provided adequate information about the costs of using reprocessed paint. NPCA questions EPA's conclusion that the price of recycled latex paint is substantially less than the price of virgin paint. EPA has not evaluated whether more coats of reprocessed paints are required, thus increasing labor costs, and has not evaluated whether frequent repainting will be required. NPCA provided no documentation that more coats of paint and more frequent repainting will be required. NPCA also believes that EPA should revise the RMAN to include preconsumer latex paint, as it meets EPA's definition of recovered materials for purposes of satisfying the RMAN content levels for reprocessed paint. NPCA's interpretation of EPA's statements in this area is that off-specification, preconsumer latex paint that has reached a distributor, retailer, or contractor is considered "recovered" if it is returned to a paint recycler or manufacturer. When a manufacturer has generated off- specification paint that has not been sent to a retailer, distributor, or contractor, and such paint is reblended in the manufacturing process, EPA would not consider this as recovered material. Finally, NPCA is concerned that federal, state, and local agencies and contractors will have a difficult time making informed purchasing decisions about recycled products and believes the federal government should establish an information hotline. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (CP2P-00018). WIDOT does not believe that it is clear whether this requirement would apply to pavement marking paint products. If it does, EPA should include language pertaining to meeting specification and performance requirements. C. Floor Tiles Winston & Strawn (CP2P-00009). The Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) strongly supports the new footnote to the "Floor Tiles (heavy/commercial)" recommendation in the proposed RMAN, which explains that the use of floor tiles manufactured with recovered materials is only appropriate for specialty purpose uses involving limited flooring areas. This footnote is based on EPA's November 12, 1996, clarification of the floor tile RMAN, which recognizes that recycled floor tile currently does not meet ASTM standards. RFCI believes that this footnote should include a specific Federal Register citation to the November 12, 1996, EPA clarification, to assist users of the RMAN. RFCI also believes that the "Note" to footnote 1 of Table C-5 should be revised. To make clear that the third sentence of the Note refers only to the floor tile uses that are subject to the RMAN, RFCI recommends that the sentence should read: "It simply recommends that procuring agencies, when purchasing floor tiles made from recovered rubber or plastic for heavy duty/commercial uses described in footnote 1 or patio blocks made from foam rubber or plastic, purchase these items made from recovered materials when these items meet applicable specifications and performance requirements." Per EPA's request for information about floor tiles made with recovered materials in other applications, such as standard office flooring: RFCI is unaware of any floor tiles containing recovered materials that meet ASTM standards or federal performance specifications for standard office or more general purpose uses. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (CP2P-00013) Armstrong agrees with the clarification to the floor tiles recommendations in Section C-5 of the RMAN. Armstrong is not aware of any floor tiles, containing postconsumer recovered materials, that are designed to comply with ASTM standards that are most widely used in government procurement of floor tile products for standard office or more general purpose uses. Recovered-content floor tiles are only appropriate for specialty purpose uses involving limited flooring areas where grease, tar, snow, ice, and wetness are likely to be present. SECTION 3 þ TRANSPORTATION A. Parking Stops American Coal Ash Association, Inc. (CP2P-00011). The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) recommends that EPA include parking stops made from concrete containing coal fly ash for designation in the CPG. The commentor is a trade association representing producers and marketers of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs) in the United States. Barriers to Purchasing Products Containing Recovered Materials ACAA directs EPA to the Report to Congress, Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization Byproducts by Government and Commercial Sectors, for information. Use of Materials in Solid Waste Coal-burning electric utilities in the United States produce 54 million tons of fly ash annually. In 1995, about 75 percent of this was disposed of. Economic and Technological Feasibility and Performance ACAA refers EPA to the following information sources: (1) Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, August 1995, and (2) Fly Ash in Cement and Concrete, Portland Cement Association, 1987. Impact of Government Procurement Using 30 percent fly ash in a concrete parking stop would reduce the cost of the stop, since concrete is the most expensive ingredient and less of it would be used. Also, reducing the amount of portland cement used would reduce the amount of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) produced in the manufacture of the cement. Availability and Competition CCBs, including fly ash, are available from producers and marketers throughout the country. The commentor provided a partial list of ACAA members as an example. Recovered Materials Content Levels Concrete parking stops can be made of 20 to 40 percent coal fly ash. Piper & Marbury, LLP, Counsel (CP2P-L0001). The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) is an informal consortium of The Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and about 80 electric utility operating companies. USWAG supports EPA's proposal to add parking stops containing coal fly ash to the CPG. This application of coal fly ash in the manufacture of cement and concrete parking stops is technically feasible and fully consistent with existing applications. The fly ash used in parking stops generally would be of high grade and would occupy a lower percentage of the concrete's composition (approximately 20 to 40 percent of the cementitious material) than would be found in concrete used for other applications. Coal combustion byproducts (CCBs), including fly ash, for use in producing cement and concrete are widely available from marketers and producers throughout the United States. Manufacturers of parking stops will have no trouble finding supplies of cement and concrete made with CCBs at competitive prices. Approximately 34 percent of all CCBs used in commercial applications are used to produce cement and concrete. USWAG requests that the Agency inform the regulated community of the status of their suggestions for new item designations, that were provided in response to EPA's September 1995 request for information. USWAG had submitted information on boiler slag, generated from the combustion of coal, for use as industrial abrasives and lightweight aggregates containing fly ash. EPA did not mention this suggestion in the CPG proposal. USWAG requests that EPA provide an indication of when it anticipates announcing its final decisions on the items that were proposed in response to the September information request. B. Flexible Delineators Davidson Plastics Corporation (CP2P-00001). A manufacturer of flexible delineators, Davidson Plastics Corporation, provided information about its newest flexible delineator post, FG 500. According to the company, this flexible delineator has been approved for use by 15 state departments of transportation, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. The company stated that the flexible delineators are made with 5 percent postconsumer plastic. The company also provided information about its buy-back program, which allows customers to return old, damaged flexible delineator posts to Davidson, where they are reground and used to make other delineator products. SECTION 4 þ PARK AND RECREATION PRODUCTS A. Snow Fencing General Services Administration (CP2P-00014). GSA would like to add the phrase "and to delineate construction areas" to the definition of snow fencing. SECTION 5 þ LANDSCAPING PRODUCTS A. Garden and Soaker Hoses Office of Acquisition and Property Management (CP2P-00002). According to the commentor, the recommended recovered materials content levels for garden and soaker hoses (Table F) are higher than those recommended by Green Seal. The commentor stated that federal agencies are encouraged to use third-party certification to facilitate the purchase of environmentally preferable products. In this case, however, garden and soaker hoses conforming to Green Sealþs recommended level may not necessarily comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyþs (EPAþs) recommended levels. The commentor inquired how this inconsistency will be resolved. SECTION 6 þ NONPAPER OFFICE PRODUCTS A. Printer Ribbons General Services Administration (CP2P-00014). GSA would like to add a phrase that explains that GSA offers remanufactured printer ribbons on its New Item Introductory Schedule. GSA would like to delete and add a few phrases to include information about the fact that GSA offers ink jet cartridges on the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). The commentor also states that the proposed change to procure remanufactured ink jet cartridges may impact the MAS by eliminating a majority of the current suppliers. B. Ink Jet Cartridges Hewlett-Packard Company (CP2P-00007). The following is a summary of the redacted version of Hewlett-Packardþs (HPþs) comments, which does not include any confidential business information. HP stated that ink jet cartridges should not be designated in the CPG, because reuse of HPþs ink jet cartridges is not technologically feasible. Numerous components of HPþs ink jet cartridges wear out while the cartridge is used. Recognizing that this degradation occurs, HP designs its ink jet cartridges to provide a consistent level of quality for as long as the originally supplied quantity of ink lasts. HPþs cartridges are subject to exacting uniform specifications and product quality standards, which result in less than a 1-percent failure rate for new ink jet cartridges. If the cartridge is refilled, however, delicate nozzles can clog and insufficient pressure can be applied to the ink jet pen, the device that contains the ink. As a result, the print quality can be reduced, and the printer itself can be damaged. Regarding the ink jet cartridge refilling and remanufacturing industry, HP stated that reusers adopt various and unorthodox techniques for refilling or remanufacturing ink jet cartridges. These methods include using syringe kits and opening the cartridge to insert ink or other parts, which can destroy the pressure balance and cause ink to spill into the printer. Unlike HP, these reusers do not maintain any uniform quality standards or impose any uniform specifications. HP provided examples of ink jet cartridge reusers who voice concerns about the safety and acceptability of their reuse techniques. As a result, HP stated that refillers and remanufacturers cannot provide a quality product to meet the federal governmentþs requirements. In addition, refillers and remanufacturers cannot promise any type of national or rural distribution network, thus their products are not sufficiently available to government purchasers. In addition, HP stated that inclusion of ink jet cartridges on the CPG would violate, or encourage the violation of, federal intellectual property laws. To protect the technologies HP has developed for ink jet cartridges, the company has been granted approximately 300 patents. These patents apply both to the manufacturing process and to the ink itself. Refilling and remanufacturing ink jet cartridges frequently leads to a violation of the original manufacturerþs patent rights, because refillers and remanufacturers attempt to use the same manufacturing process and ink components that HP has patented. HP added that it currently is involved in five lawsuits in the United States to combat infringement of its ink jet patents. Refillers and remanufacturers violate trademark law when they attempt to þpass offþ their products as originals coming directly from the original manufacturer, which can amount to trademark counterfeiting. Refillers and remanufacturers do not adequately mark their products to clarify the source of the remanufactured product, leading to confusion among purchasers. HP also stated that the technology involved in ink jet cartridges far exceeds that of any other product EPA has yet designated on the CPG. Indeed, EPA has chosen not to designate two of the more technologically complicated products (e.g., plastic pipes and geotextiles). Ink jet cartridges are technologically more advanced than the other products proposed for designation in CPG II. Inclusion of ink jet cartridges on the CPG would impose significant costs on the federal government that were not sufficiently addressed in the proposed rule, according to HP. EPA has not evaluated the cost impact of refilled or remanufactured cartridges in terms of warranties not being available. Printer malfunctions caused by refilled or remanufactured cartridges can be costly to repair. In addition, the federal government could incur liability costs for violating patent laws, if it purchased refilled or remanufactured ink jet cartridges. Procurement costs would also increase, because the quality of perhaps hundreds of separate contracts for this product would need to be monitored. HP added that the use of refilled or remanufactured cartridges also imposes costs on HP, both the tangible cost of unanticipated printer repairs and the intangible cost of an unwarranted sullied reputation with customers. HP stated that it agrees with EPA that keeping material out of the waste stream is an important goal. An expended ink jet cartridge is a small part of the waste stream, howeverþit weighs only approximately 1.4 ounces. HP stated that EPA did not attempt to evaluate how much waste refillers or remanufacturers produce, such as packaging, ink bottles, and syringes, nor did EPA attempt to estimate the overall size of the ink jet market. HP requests that EPA evaluate the questionable benefits to the waste stream of refilling or remanufacturing cartridges, in light of the costs described above. HP stated that EPAþs research is too limited to support the designation. Information Technology Industry Council (CP2P-00016). The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) represents the leading U.S. providers of information technology products and services. ITI stated that ink jet cartridges are not an appropriate product for CPG designation and expressed concern that EPA did not consult ink jet manufacturers prior to issuing the proposed rule. ITI stated that ink jet cartridge components, such as nozzles and resistors, wear out during normal use and thus do not lend themselves to being reused, even when new ink is installed. Degradation of cartridge components impairs print quality and can damage the printer itself, thus abrogating any cost savings users would have realized by purchasing refilled ink jet cartridges. In addition, ITI expressed the concern of its member companies about the misuse of brand names and trademarks by cartridge refillers and remanufacturers. Technical problems associated with refilled or remanufactured cartridges are often incorrectly attributed to the original equipment manufacturer, according to ITI. ITI has learned that cartridge refillers and remanufacturers are currently confronting significant patent and trademark issues relating to the services they provide. For example, some cartridge manufacturers have obtained court orders prohibiting refilling and remanufacturing practices. ITI stated that EPA should not take steps that would compromise ITIþs membersþ patent and trademark rights. Regarding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) specification cited by EPA in Section G-6, Printer Ribbons (61 Federal Register 57765), ITI stated that one of its member companies contacted the IRS in South Florida to validate the specification. The company was told that no such specification exists and that perhaps EPA was referring to an informal þarrangementþ the IRSþ South Florida office has with a local refiller. This arrangement, however, does not constitute a contract obligation or a specification. SECTION 7 þ MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS A. Plastic Pallets Cadillac Products, Inc. (CP2P-00015) Cadillac Products believes that 100 percent recycled content standard for pallets is too high for most applications of pallets. It is unreasonable, and it would discourage, rather than encourage, compliance with the overall objective of the regulation. A lower standard, or one that perhaps increases over time, would be more reasonable and more likely to be accepted. The exception that is currently noted in the regulation can be easily avoided by requiring all pallets to meet characteristics of wood pallets or weigh no more than a comparatively sized wood pallet. This company is not aware of any 100 percent postconsumer recycled pallets that have received substantial market acceptance. Products are either too heavy (plastic lumber), too flexible, or deflect too much. This company has experimented with manufacturing 100 percent postconsumer recycled plastic pallets, and they do not perform well enough to sell. Cadillac Products is aware of pallets that use 25 to 50 percent postconsumer recycled content that perform as well or better than comparable wood products. This company manufactures pallets with 30 to 50 percent postconsumer content that outperform wood pallets and are well received in the marketplace. Cadillac Products, Inc. (CP2P-00005) Cadillac Products is concerned that the proposed procurement guidelines will be counterproductive to the intent of the regulations and will encourage noncompliance by purchasing agents. Cadillac Products believes that performance should be the primary consideration in CPG proposals. Cadillac Products states that the proposed guidelines effectively force potential buyers to purchase pallets that either do not perform to their expectations or do not offer true cost savings and environmental benefits. The average weight of a 100 percent recycled content plastic pallet that meets "heavy duty" capacity standards is 30 pounds heavier than a typical thermoformed twin sheet high density polyethylene (HDPE) pallet with 20 to 50 percent recycled content. (Cadillac Products notes that the 100 percent recycled content pallet is an average of 50 pounds, which is about the same weight as the wood pallet it is designed to replace.) This 30 pound difference is significant: a single truckload of product (25 pallet loads) would use 750 pounds more plastic by using the heavier pallet. This means an additional 150,000 pounds of weight carried by one truck for 1 year (based on an average of 200 trips per year). The additional fuel costs to move the extra weight would exceed $4,000 per year and increase emissions of CO2 and NO2. In addition, manufacturing a 100 percent postconsumer recycled plastic pallet requires higher energy costs. Higher temperatures and pressure are required for the manufacture of "plastic wood" products. Also, these products often incur repair costs, which can add substantially to the cost of the pallet. These types of pallets also cannot generally be recycled back into pallets, because the polymers lose strength from the heat and pressure requirements. By contrast, a thermoformed twin sheet HDPE pallet with up to 50 percent postconsumer recycled content can last for more than 450 trips and many years with no repair. In addition, there are no performance-based specifications available for a potential plastic pallet purchaser to refer to. The U.S. Postal Service developed a performance-based specification based on wooden pallet models. It encourages the use of recovered material and will likely include a minimum of 30 percent postconsumer content, but no 100 percent postconsumer pallet meets these performance expectations. APPENDIX þ COMMENTORS Comment No.: CP2P-00001 Comment Source: Peter A. Speer, Vice President, Sales Davidson Plastics Corporation 18726 East Valley Highway Kent, WA 98032-9945 Phone: 206 251-8140 Comment No.: CP2P-00002 Comment Source: Jennings Wong, Procurement Analyst Office of Acquisition and Property Management Phone: 202 208-6704 Comment No.: CP2P-00003 Comment Source: Walter J. "Chip" Foley, General Manager Federal Relations Steel Recycling Institute 1667 K Street, NW., Suite 460 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202 496-9686 Comment No.: CP2P-00003-A Comment Source: Walter J. "Chip" Foley, General Manager Federal Relations Steel Recycling Institute 1667 K Street, NW., Suite 460 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202 496-9686 Comment No.: CP2P-00004 Comment Source: Max T. Wills, PhD., Professor of Chemistry California Polytechnic State University Chemistry and Biochemistry Department San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Phone: 805 756-2693 Comment No.: CP2P-00005 Comment Source: Michael A. Moffitt, Director Government Contracts and Sales Cadillac Products, Inc. 5800 Crooks Road Troy, MI 48098-2830 Phone: 810 879-5000 Comment No.: CP2P-00006 Comment Source: Gina Purin, Education Coordinator City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Phone: 415 485-3104 Comment No.: CP2P-00007 Comment Source: Dana Seccombe, Manager Inkjet Supplies Business Unit Hewlett-Packard Company 4000 Northeast Circle Boulevard Corvallis, OR 97880 Comment No.: CP2P-00008 Comment Source: Raymond Pelletier, Director Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Comment No.: CP2P-00009 Comment Source: William N. Hall Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW. Washington, DC 20005-3502 Phone: 202 371-5700 (Counsel for the Resilient Floor Covering Institute) Comment No.: CP2P-00010 Comment Source: Robin Bedell-Waite, Hazardous Waste Reduction Manager Contra Costa County Health Services Department Environmental Health Division 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 510 646-2286 Comment No.: CP2P-00011 Comment Source: Barry Stewart, PhD., Director of Technical Services American Coal Ash Association, Inc. 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 304 Alexandria, VA 22314-4553 Phone: 703 317-2400 Comment No.: CP2P-00012 Comment Source: Scott K. Wagman, President Scott Paint Corporation 7839 Fruitville Road Sarasota, FL 34240 Comment No.: CP2P-00013 Comment Source: Gail Berry West, Director, Government Relations Armstrong World Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 3001 Lancaster, PA 17604 Phone: 717 397-0611 Comment No.: CP2P-00014 Comment Source: Nicholas M. Economou, CPPO, Director Acquisition Management Center Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20460 Comment No.: CP2P-00015 Comment Source: Robert J. Williams, Jr. Office of the President, CFO Cadillac Products, Inc. 5800 Crooks Road Troy, MI 48098-2830 Phone: 810 879-5000 Comment No.: CP2P-00016 Comment Source: Ken Salaets, Director Information Technology Industry Council 1250 Eye Street, NW., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202 626-5752 Comment No.: CP2P-00017 Comment Source: Kevin S. Sall, Manager, Hazardous Materials and David Lloyd, Director, Government Affairs National Paint and Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202 462-6272 Comment No.: CP2P-00018 Comment Source: John R. Kinar, P.E., Chief of Infrastructure Policy Development Wisconsin Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue P.O. Box 7965 Madison, WI 53707-7965 Phone: 608 266-1202 Comment No.: CP2P-L0001 Comment Source: Piper & Marbury, LLP, Counsel 1200 19th Street, NW. Washington, DC 20036 On behalf of: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group The Edison Electric Institute The American Public Power Association The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association