### November 29, 2012

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg FROM: Ms. Kerry

Kelly, Waste Management Re: Summary o f Waste Management C&D wood fuel data WM selected four C&D Wood production facilit ies to conduct a representative study of C&D Wood processing act ivit ies and the result ing characterist ic s of the wood fuel produced. The selected facilit ies and a descript io n of the general processing activit ies used to generate C&D Wo od f uel (f uel source) are as fo llo ws: (W) Wisconsin

F acili ty

– Posi tive Sorting (CA1) California #1 Facilit y
– Posi tive Sorti ng (CA2) California #2Facilit y
– Negat ive Sorting (MA) Massachusetts Facilit y
– Negat ive Sorting
Posi tive sorti ng refers to sorting material (e.g., C&D) to extract the desired materials. In a posi tive sort facilit y, machinery and staff sort the inco ming 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 i s ei ther 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 requi re d that each plant collect representative dai ly

com posi te samples overthe c our s e of one work week, as well as maintain a detailed descript io n of the inco ming material and processing practices at each facility.. The daily com posi te samples were shipped to NELAC

- cert ified laboratories where each samp le was ho mo genized to further ensure representative results. This was achieved by f reeze drying and crushing each individual co mposite sample in accordance with the laboratory’s detailed standard operating procedure s. In addit io n to the qualit y assuranceprocedures of the NELAC laboratory, one sample fro m each facilit y was analyzed in tri plicate to evaluate the repeatability of the laboratory

analysis. The attached

tablesprovide a contaminant com parison of the analy

tical

### November29, 2012

Page 2 resul ts to EPA’s dataset of tradit io nal wood and biomass fuels. For each analyzed contaminant, WMapplied EPA so ftware, ProUCL (versio n 4.0), to determine the 90 percent upper predict io n limit and co mpared this value to the maximum value fro m the EPA database

. 1 

### Impact sof Processingon Contaminant Comparisons Thetable below displays the average concentration of formaldehyde for each of the facilit ies 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 Posi

tive Posi

tive Negative Negative These resul

ts indicate that variat io ns in fo rmaldehyde are not based on the ty pe of sorting conducted at these facilit ies. Li kewise, the table below displayingthe average concentrations of arsenic ateach facilit y 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 Chro mium (ppm ) 4.22 9.39 8.02 137.6 Lead (ppm ) 118.5 71.67 48.20 211.6 Sorting Ty

pe Posi

tive Posi

tive Negative Negative It should be noted that, even though the MA values are significantly higher than the rest of the facilit y’s datasets, MA ’ s 90% upper prediction limit are com parable tothe maximum value sreported by

the EPA of

clean wood and bio mass, and thus, still co mparable. Impact of Incoming Material Variationson Contaminant Comparisons As previously discussed, the variation o f proce ssing methods ateach individual facility did not significant ly contribute to the differences in contaminant concentrations observed in each facilit y’sf

inished fuel product. Ho wever, the variation in inco ming materials at each facilit y has a recognizableeffect on the final contaminant co ncen trations. Some facilit ies 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 biomas s 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

### November29, 2012

Page 3 wi th the C&D wood in the final fuel product, pre

- so rted materials delivered fro m construction si tes, f rom landfills wit h wood separation programs, or from new construction sites, which tend to have a smaller percentage of unused treated or paint ed wood. Revisit ing Table 2 above, it is clear that the MA

Facili ty had significant ly higher average arsenic , chromium, and lead concentrations. When reviewing the ty pes of materials that were processed during the sampling study, i t becomes evident that these contaminant levels arelargely influence d by inco ming materialsto the facilit y . Table 3 below displays the variation o f inco ming 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 Inco ming Material Ty pe CA2 MA Mixed C&DMaterials 43.7 % 95.5 % C le an Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 % Average A

rsenic (ppm

) 2.39 116.4 Average Chro mium (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, CA2had a considerably higher percentage of clean wood in it s incoming materials and a lower mixed C&D po rtion. 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 source sof arsenic, lead and chro mium. As a result of these varying proportionsof clean and resinated wood, CA2 ’s finalized product had a cleaner feedstock to process into a wood fuel. Although the MA Facilit y 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 levelsei ther lower or com parable to arsenic, chromium and lead concentrations in clean wood and bio mass, as reported by

EPA. Conclusion The WM facilit ies evaluated represent C&D wood processing locations across the U.S. and represent the various processing pract ices that are common across the industry

. Thus, the pollutant comparisons fo r each individual facility and the comparison fo rthe combined datasets were conducted to provide assurance that all C&D processing facilit ies are antici pated to produce similar values.

### November29, 2012

Page 4

SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT C&D WOOD FUEL STUDY EPA Data Wood and Biomass 1 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 Lea d (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 172 2 7 64.3 137 137 551 424 Bromine ppm -- * * * 3.7 3.0 Chlorine ppm 5400 296 2776 1201 2310 1392 Fluorine ppm 300 5 3 136 142 38 119 Total Halogens + p pm 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 0.7 5 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

–Lo w 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 sa mpling events, and are not totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum su mma tion of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from separate sampling events.Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from W 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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) Lea d (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) As h 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. 2Sampling 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

-U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

-U sed 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 sa mples. 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 Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA 1 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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) Lea d (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) As h 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. 2Sampling 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

-U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data app ear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

-U sed 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 sa mples. 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 Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA2 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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) Lea d (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 97 9 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) As h 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. 2Sampling 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

-U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

-U sed 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% UP L are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all sa mples. 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 Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from MA 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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) Lea d (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) As h 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. 2Sampling 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

-U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

-U sed Lognormal Statis tics; (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

–H igh 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 su mmation of values from a single sa mpling event, and are not the su mmation of the values from separate sa mpling events.