November 29, 2012

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg

FROM: Ms. Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Re: Summary of Waste Management C&D wood fuel data

WM selected four C&D Wood production facilities to conduct a representative study of

C&D Wood processing activities and the resulting characteristics of the wood fuel produced. The 

selected facilities and a description of the general processing activities used to generate C&D 

Wood fuel (fuel source) are as follows: 

 (W) Wisconsin Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA1) California #1 Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA2) California #2 Facility – Negative Sorting

(MA) Massachusetts Facility – Negative Sorting

Positive sorting refers to sorting material (e.g., C&D) to extract the desired materials. In a 

positive sort facility, machinery and staff sort the incoming feedstock to extract the clean, 

untreated and unpainted wood for processing into a fuel. Negative sorting refers to extracting 

unwanted components of the feedstock material, such as undesirable wood, inert materials and 

metals. The extracted material is either recycled or disposed, while the remaining desirable 

wood is processed into fuel..

WM Study Procedures and Results

WM used a testing protocol to ensure, to the highest degree, that a representative set of 

samples were collected for analysis. The study protocol required that each plant collect 

representative daily composite samples over the course of one work week, as well as maintain a 

detailed description of the incoming material and processing practices at each facility.. The daily 

composite samples were shipped to NELAC-certified laboratories where each sample was 

homogenized to further ensure representative results. This was achieved by freeze drying and 

crushing each individual composite sample in accordance with the laboratory’s detailed standard 

operating procedures. In addition to the quality assurance procedures of the NELAC laboratory, 

one sample from each facility was analyzed in triplicate to evaluate the repeatability of the 

laboratory analysis. The attached tables provide a contaminant comparison of the analytical 
November 29, 2012

Page 2

results to EPA’s dataset of traditional wood and biomass fuels. For each analyzed contaminant, 

WM applied EPA software, ProUCL (version 4.0), to determine the 90 percent upper prediction 

limit and compared this value to the maximum value from the EPA database.

1

Impacts of Processing on Contaminant Comparisons

The table below displays the average concentration of formaldehyde for each of the 

facilities during the testing period. 

Table 1 Average Formaldehyde Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Formaldehyde

[ppm]

58.7 16.9 13.4 56.1

Sorting Positive Positive Negative Negative

These results indicate that variations in formaldehyde are not based on the type of sorting 

conducted at these facilities. 

Likewise, the table below displaying the average concentrations of arsenic at each facility 

during the testing period indicates similar results.

Table 2 Average Arsenic Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Arsenic

(ppm)

2.56 4.45 2.39 116.4

Chromium

(ppm)

4.22 9.39 8.02 137.6

Lead

(ppm)

118.5 71.67 48.20 211.6

Sorting Type Positive Positive Negative Negative

It should be noted that, even though the MA values are significantly higher than the rest 

of the facility’s datasets, MA’s 90% upper prediction limit are comparable to the maximum 

values reported by the EPA of clean wood and biomass, and thus, still comparable.

Impact of Incoming Material Variations on Contaminant Comparisons

As previously discussed, the variation of processing methods at each individual facility 

did not significantly contribute to the differences in contaminant concentrations observed in each 

facility’s finished fuel product. However, the variation in incoming materials at each facility has 

a recognizable effect on the final contaminant concentrations. Some facilities receive a much 

higher percentage of untreated or “clean wood” as a component of their feedstock for processing. 

Higher percentages of untreated wood may come from, for example, woody biomass used to mix 

 

1 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf
November 29, 2012

Page 3

with the C&D wood in the final fuel product, pre-sorted materials delivered from construction 

sites, from landfills with wood separation programs, or from new construction sites, which tend 

to have a smaller percentage of unused treated or painted wood. Revisiting Table 2 above, it is 

clear that the MA Facility had significantly higher average arsenic, chromium, and lead

concentrations. When reviewing the types of materials that were processed during the sampling 

study, it becomes evident that these contaminant levels are largely influenced by incoming

materials to the facility. Table 3 below displays the variation of incoming materials seen by CA2

and MA over the week of sampling and the calculated concentrations (see attached tables for 

details).

Table 3 Incoming Materials Comparison 

Incoming Material

Type

CA2 MA

Mixed C&D Materials 43.7 % 95.5 %

Clean Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 %

Average Arsenic (ppm) 2.39 116.4

Average Chromium (ppm) 8.02 137.6

Average Lead (ppm) 48.20 211.6

C&D Materials includes standard C&D materials, as well as pallets, construction wood, fencing, decking, etc.

As seen, CA2 had a considerably higher percentage of clean wood in its incoming materials and 

a lower mixed C&D portion. C&D materials that have not yet been processed can potentially

have a significant concentration of copper chromium arsenate (CCA) treated wood, painted 

wood, as well as other resinated woods which are the primary sources of arsenic, lead and 

chromium. As a result of these varying proportions of clean and resinated wood, CA2’s 

finalized product had a cleaner feedstock to process into a wood fuel. Although the MA Facility 

had a more mixed C&D feedstock to work with during the sampling week, it was nonetheless 

able to process the material into a resulting wood fuel that had contaminant levels either lower or 

comparable to arsenic, chromium and lead concentrations in clean wood and biomass, as 

reported by EPA. 

Conclusion

The WM facilities evaluated represent C&D wood processing locations across the U.S. 

and represent the various processing practices that are common across the industry. Thus, the 

pollutant comparisons for each individual facility and the comparison for the combined datasets 

were conducted to provide assurance that all C&D processing facilities are anticipated to 

produce similar values. 
November 29, 2012

Page 4

SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT C&D WOOD FUEL STUDY

EPA Data

Wood and 

Biomass1

Waste Management C&D Wood (90% UPL)

2,3

Compound Units

Max W CA1 CA2 MA All facilities

Antimony (Sb) ppm 26 0.46 10 2.1 4.4 8.4

Arsenic (As) ppm 298 4.6 18.1 4.34 225 167

Beryllium (Be) ppm 10 * 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.06 

Cadmium (Cd) ppm 17 0.65 0.2 0.36 1.0 0.58

Chromium (Cr) ppm 340 7.0 18.2 11.9 249 182

Cobalt (Co) ppm 213 0.5 2.45 2.0 2.2 2.0

Lead (Pb) ppm 340 356 173 115 346 295

Manganese (Mn) ppm 15800 58.7 102.4 111 111 109

Mercury (Hg) ppm 1.1 0.26 0.2 0.2 0.55 0.24

Nickel (Ni) ppm 540 2.6 8.8 9.2 21.7 10.3

Selenium (Se) ppm 9.0 * * * * *

Total LVM+

ppm 17227 64.3 137 137 551 424

Bromine ppm -- * * * 3.7 3.0

Chlorine ppm 5400 296 2776 1201 2310 1392

Fluorine ppm 300 53 136 142 38 119 

Total Halogens+

ppm 5700 330 2836 1332 2155 1496

Formaldehyde ppm 27.0 115 44.8 19.6 126 82.7

Nitrogen wt % 3.95 0.66 0.51 0.84 0.91 0.75

Sulfur wt % 0.87 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.12

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 (W) Wisconsin. Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/6/2012, (CA1) California. Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012, 

(CA2) California Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012, (MA) Massachusetts. Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual 

sampling events, and are not totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum 

summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from W2

Compound Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.15 0.42 0.31 0.46 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 0.87 4.67 2.56 4.62 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.008 0.008 0.008 *

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.19 0.72 0.34 0.646 (b)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 1.75 7.55 4.22 6.97 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.15 0.45 0.3 0.5 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 25.4 394.0 118.53 356 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 42.3 58.7 50.71 58.7 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.042 0.313 0.12 0.259 (b)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 0.37 2.6 0.79 2.6 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 49.5 67.5 58.9 64.3 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 163 315 205.43 295.8 (b)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 11 53 17.43 53 (c)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 177 330 225.9 330 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 20.0 130.0 58.7 114.7 (a)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 17.00 24.13 20.33 23.78 (a)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- 0.63 1.04 0.85 1.084 (a)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- 79.63 80.36 80.09 80.51 (a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.33 0.76 0.43 0.66 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.042 0.02 0.043 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 7461 8709 8389 9052 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/6/2012

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA1

2

Compound Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.24 10 4.15 10 (c)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.07 18.1 4.45 18.1 (c)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.047 0.05 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.2 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 3.74 20.7 9.39 18.2 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.49 2.45 1.10 2.45 (c)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 13.9 208 71.67 173.1 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 49.2 114 68.44 102.4 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.017 0.205 0.08 0.2 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.28 10.1 4.83 8.8 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 63.0 149 92.4 137 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 295 2776 768 2776 (c)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 57 119 96.86 136 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 366 2836 868 2836 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 3.4 50.0 16.9 44.8 (b)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 16.85 28.86 21.11 28.86 (c)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- 1.26 5.4 3.89 6.31 (a)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- 75.98 80.31 77.39 79.88 (a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.19 0.49 0.36 0.51 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.03 0.071 0.06 0.08 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 7741 8543 8264 8743 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA2

2

Compound Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.19 2.28 0.86 2.094 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.03 4.18 2.39 4.341 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.049 0.05 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.13 0.38 0.21 0.358 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 4.02 10.2 8.02 11.9 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.80 1.88 1.36 2.0 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 8.9 118 48.20 115.3 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 50.4 108 75.90 111.4 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.023 0.164 0.11 0.2 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.99 9.13 5.74 9.2 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 61.6 132 94.3 137 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 549 1060 890.71 1201 (a)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 38 124 85 142 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 590 1187 979 1332 (a)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 8.8 20.0 13.4 19.6 (a)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 14.70 31.45 21.91 33.29 (a)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- 3.34 11.54 5.85 10.02 (a)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- 70.49 78.41 75.33 79.45 (a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.38 0.78 0.62 0.84 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.05 0.142 0.09 0.13 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 8019 8435 8241 8470 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from MA2

Compound Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.71 3.85 2.64 4.4 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 7.17 178 116.4 224.6 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.13 0.067 0.13 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.27 1.04 0.55 1.0 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 12.3 208 137.6 248.6 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.52 2.8 1.07 2.16 (b)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 142 346 211.6 346 (c)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 47.3 124 74.11 110.5 (b)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.046 0.546 0.15 0.546 (c)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1.24 21.7 4.64 21.7 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 69.3 450 337 551 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 4 3 3.73(a)

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 94 1290 661.71 2310 (b)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 3 38 12.57 38 (c)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 135 1296 667 2155 (b)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 11.0 150.0 56.1 126.4 (a)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 15.16 20.78 18.18 20.9(a)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- 0.81 6.79 3.25 7.061(a)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- 77.47 82.53 79.53 82.58(a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.23 0.87 0.52 0.91(a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.162 0.09 0.17(a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 8157 8622 8397 8638(a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all samples. 

Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from separate 

sampling events.