# Background Materials for NHSM Supplemental Listing

September 20, 2013

# Table of Contents

Tab 1 – Paper Recycling Residuals (PPR)

 AF&PA Supplemental Information to s upport the listing of PPR as a non-waste fuel, Dec 12, 2012

 AF&PA-AWC Responses to EPA’s question s on PRR and Railroad ties, May 16, 2013

Tab 2 – Railroad Ties

 AF&PA-AWC Rail Tie Petition and Comf ort Letter Request, December 7, 2012

 Rail Tie Fuel Supplemental Inform ation From AF&PA-AWC, February 27, 2013

 Comparison of Contaminant Concentrati ons in Cross Tie-Derived Fuel with Traditional Fuels, revised March 28, 2013

 Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Categoric al Petition for a N on-Waste Fuel, MA Energy Resources (MAER), February 26, 2013

 The Significance of Dibenzofuran in Creosote and Creosote-Treated Ties; NCASI, March 7, 2013

 Evaluation of Used Railr oad Ties Treated with Creosot e, URS, January 28, 2013

 Comments of the Associat ion of American Railroads to EPA, February 21, 2012

 Treated Wood Council Petition to EPA, April 3, 2013

 Treated Wood Council Response for Addi tional Information on NHSM petition, May 20, 2013

Tab 3 – Construction and Demolition (C&D) Wood

 Letter from Susan Bodine on behalf of BPA and CMRA to EPA, April 26, 2013

 Memo from Waste Management to Sus an Bodine concerning Summary of Waste Management C&D wood fuel data, April 25, 2013

 Supplemental Information on C&D Wood as a Non-waste Fuel (Appendix A); BPA-CMRA, April 25, 2013

 Fuel Comparison Charts from CMRA, April 25, 2013

 C&D Rule and Preamble Language Suggestions from BPA-CMRA, June 6, 2013

# TAB 1

### 1 Supplemental information to support the lis ting of Paper Recycling Residuals (PRR) as a non-waste fuel under section 241.4 (December 12, 2012)
The March 2011 final rule preamble lays out several factors that could be considered in conjunction with the BTU value of a material especially one that is below 5000 Btu/hr, as fired. As our February 2012 comments ( and earlier ones) said, we do not believe that EPA should have a bright-li ne Btu/hr criteria in determine whether a material is a waste or fuel because the key question is w hether a material is discarded. We do not believe that Paper Recycling Residuals are ever discarded, are generated on site and handled and managed as fuel s. In fact, some of the P RR burned has Btu/hr values well above 5000 Btu/hr.
PRR combustion has been prevalent for 15-20 y ears in solid fuel boilers that also burn wood residues and coal. PRR can be effe ctively burned in these boilers as they are comprised of wood fiber at moisture c ontents > 40%, levels comparable to that in clean cellulosic biomass fuels such as hog fuel/bark. BTU values of PRR are comparable to, or better than, clean cellu losic biomass fuels and range from 8000 BTU/lb to 12,000 BTU/lb, on a dry basis. Even on a wet basis, some PRR are above 5,000 BTU/lb. NCASI has previously summarized available literature on OCC rejects combustion in mill boilers in Technical Bulletin 806 (May 2000). Seventeen mills that routinely burned OCC rejects in solid fuel boil ers were also identified in this study. The literature review and survey of mills did not identify any operational issues with burning OCC rejects in these boilers. Available data on TPM, SO 2 

### , NOx, and CO emissions from 3 wood residue boilers burning up to 25% OCC rejects were summarized in NCASI Technical Bulletin 906. These Bulletins have been provided to EPA previously. The burning of OCC rejects did not result in increased emissions of these pollutants.
PRR, being similar in characteristics to w ood residues and other solid fuels, can be managed using a variety of approaches. Managem ent practices for burning PRR range from mixing these materials wit h wood residues or coal in the appropriate fuel pile to shredding these materials for subsequent meteri ng onto the solid fuel conveyor or for pneumatic feeding into the boiler.
As provided to EPA’s contractor IEc in October (notes attached from call), when mills burn PRR they burn the majority of it and in many cases all that is generated onsite (55 to 100%). Even though only 30% of t he total amount of P RR that is produced is burned for energy recovery, the mills where it is being sent off site for disposal is where there is not a solid fuel boiler at the mill. Many recycling mills only have gas fired boilers which cannot burn PRR. We woul d note that these m ills would welcome opportunities to transfer PRR to a third par ty who could use the energy value if the NHSM status was clarified – determining that it is a non-waste fuel. PRR are processed to remove metals and dewatered to enhance t heir fuel qualities so are very amenable to off-site use as well.

### 2 Responses to Four factors ident ified in the March 2011 Preamble

1. “Whether the facility encounters a cost savings due to not having to purchase significant amounts of traditional fuels they otherwise would need”

 roughly 15 to 20 mills currently burn PRR.

 based on the responses of eight m ills, over 140,000 tons are burned which suggests the previously reported 175,000 t ons for the whole industry may be on the low end of current use.

 Based on eight company reports, over $8 million would have to be spent to replace the fuel value. This is consistent with previous estimates that total costs could be between $10 and 20 M per year which is a significant cost of doing business that is unnecessary. Furt her costs would be incurred by mills if the costs of continuing to burn PRR fo r energy recovery rises to the point as to prevent its use as a fuel; the burden of meeting the CISWI limit will likely discourage mills from burning materials that could jeopardize a combustors status as a boiler.

 Some of the replacement fuel for PRR would be thou sands of tons of coal.

2. “Whether they are purchasing the non-hazar dous secondary material to use as a fuel”

 There are some processors that get PRR from mills and sell the further processed material to the final energy user which includes utilities that are working to obtain renewable energy credi ts. If PRR clearly become fuels, more third party users are likely.

3. “Whether the non-hazardous secondary mate rial they are burning can selfsustain combustion”

 One company at least has indicated that the PRR their mill burns can sustain combustion on its own.

4. “Whether their operation produces energy that is sold for a profit”

 Many boilers in the pulp and paper indus try produce electricity that is used onsite and sometimes sold offsite to loca l utilities. Some of the boilers burning PRR are producing electricit y but primarily for onsite use which displaces the need to purchase electricity from the loca l utility. We are still trying to confirm that some of the boilers that burn P RR are co-generation units which are paid for their excess electric ity sent to the grid.

### 1 

### AF&PA-AWC Responses to EPA’s questions on PRR and Railroad ties (May 2013)
In response to questions asked by EPA in early May, AF&PA and AWC are providing the responses below. We are deferring to the CMRA and BPA to respond to the questions on processed C&D.
Before we respond to these narrow questions, it is important to remind the Agency we have provided extensive information to EPA over the last three years on these two materials from the ANPRM, through t he June 2010 proposal and on to the December 2011 Reconsideration rulemaking. In addition, we have provided various “white papers” and NCASI technical bulletins which are in the rulemaking record . These materials clearly show that these materials are highly valued fuels and are managed like other traditional biomass fuels and burned in boilers that can accommodate a wide variety of moister biomass materials. We remain opposed to the appl ication of a “designed to burn” test as part of the legitimacy crit eria when EPA has the discretion to consider other factors in making a determination under 241.4.

EPA Question : “Paper Recycling Residuals (PRRs) aver age Btu value is 3,700 Btu/lb as fired. You previously indi cated that some PRRs are ov er 5,000 Btu/lb; however, can you explain why there are much lower values ? For example, do the low values come from samples of PRRs burned in units that can handle high moisture content and thus, there has been very little processing, if any, to remove moisture?

Answer :
Yes, the PRRs with lower Btu va lues are combusted in units that can derive fuel value from materials with high moisture cont ent without processing those materials.
The 3,700 Btu/lb value was derived from NCASI Technical Bulletin 806 with an average dry value of 9100 BTU/lb with solids around 40%; the range of dry BTU is 8K to 12K and solids vary from 40-60% with an aver age of 50%. A survey of about 10 companies finds some reporting higher BTU values than the older 3700 BTU/ lb value and other companies reporting lower BTU values. Lowe r BTU values are due to higher moisture, less solids, types of fibers being processed (such as, satu rated), and/or fewer non-fiber packaging materials. Mills manage the moistu re content of all fuels including PRRs based on combustion efficiency of the boilers which function exceedingly well with high moisture fuels.

EPA Question : What is the split between PRRs with BTU/lb as fired under 5000 and over 5000?”

Answer : The BTU value of PRR is a c ontinuum that is influenced by amount of solids, fiber content, moisture, presence of non-fiber packaging materials, and combustion conditions necessary for the e ffective operation of the boiler, but most of the PRRs are

### 2 

### below 5000 on a wet basis since the average is less than 5000 BTU/lb. However, wetter biomass fuels are also in that same range and can have a lower Btu value than PRR at times. From the boiler’s vant age point, burning wet biomass or PRRs is essentially the same and the two materials are managed similarly as well. The boilers used, like stokers and FBC, often have over-fire and/or under-grate air that assists the efficient burning of wetter fuels. Consistently wet ma terials are handled well in the boiler leading to fewer temperature swings and minimized boiler tuning adjustments. For PRR it would be inappropriate to consider a moisture le vel benchmark when determining if a material is a non-waste fuel because the boilers at pulp and paper mills can cost-effectively recover energy from PRRs. 1



### EPA Questions on Railroad ties or Rail Derived Fuel (RDF):

EPA Question : Of the AF&PA member boilers burni ng creosote-treated railroad ties, how many (or what percentage) burn or can burn fuel oil during normal operations ?

Answer : The overwhelming majority of RDF bur ned at paper mills are burned in boilers that are fully capable and permitted to burn oil at maximum capacity rating. Most of these boilers (80 percent) can or do burn oil during operating conditionsoutside of startup and shutdown periods. Ho wever, we believe start-up and shutdown are part of normal operations since they cannot be elim inated and common to all boiler systems. Therefore, if EPA considers def ining “designed to burn” further or “normal operation” it should include start-up and shutdown periods.
The percentage of oil the boiler is capable of burning varies but can be up to 100 percent of the energy load. The largest cons umer of RDF uses boi lers that are fully capable of, permitted to, and do burn fuel oil at maximum capacity rating. However, at the 20 percent of boilers that do not burn oil during normal oper ations, the use of RDF is no less legitimate. It is used as a fuel. Th us, EPA should not put any restrictions on “normal operations”

EPA Question : Are there differences among boiler ty pes (stoker boiler, traveling grate, circulating fluidized bed etc.) with regard to what it takes to modify the unit so it could burn fuel oil?

Answer : No, these boiler types have relatively tall combustion chambers that make them ideal for burning multiple fuels from solids to liquids to gas. An oil burner system would be added that would require seve ral ports to deliver the fuel.

1 See 76 FR 15487: “While the meaningful heating value of the OCC rejects is lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, it can still meet this criterion if it can be demonstrated that the unit can cost-effectively recover energy from a non-hazardous secondary material.”

### 3 

### EPA Question : Is it always as simple as inst alling a delivery system and a nozzle?

Answer: Burner systems can be inst alled because there is r oom in these tall boilers and the systems. However, engineering the system can be co mplicated and the cost of the delivery system can be significant ($100Ks) depending on the amount of fuel oil to be burned in the boiler.

EPA Question : Do states typically require different air pollution control devices for units burning fuel oil (as hinted at by the reference to SO2 emissions in the AF&PA response)?

Answer : No, controls for solid fuels like ESPs are sufficient; oil is generally easier to burn than solid fuels. There ar e frequently sulfur content lim its for the oil burned that varies by state and sometimes a lower NOx limit when burning multiple fuels.

# TAB 2

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 2

mission includes advancing the interests of it s member companies in regulatory and judicial arenas. AF&PA members currently us e a variety of secondary materials as fuel in combustion units at their facilities. At approximately 12 mills, these secondary materials include railroad ties that are treat ed with creosote. 1 

### A major supplier of railroad ties to the forest products industry estimates that in 2005, approximately 550,000 tons of railroad ties were sold to forest products mills for use as fuel. In 2010, more than 300,000 tons were bur ned at forest product mills and more mills are actively considering its use so they remain an impo rtant source of fuel for AF&PA members. We estimate that it would cost the 12 mill s that combust railroad ties around $50 million a year to replace the fuel value of the railroad ties.

AWC is the voice of North American traditional and engi neered wood products, representing over 60% of the industry. Fr om a renewable resource that absorbs and sequesters carbon, the wood products industr y makes products that are essential to everyday life and employs 360,000 men and wo men in well-paying jobs. AWC's engineers, technologists, scientists, and build ing code experts develop state-of-the-art engineering data, technology, and standards on structural wood products for use by design professionals, building officials, and w ood products manufacturers to assure the safe and efficient design and use of wood stru ctural components. AWC also provides technical, legal, and economic informati on on wood design, green building, and manufacturing environmental regulations advocating for balanced government policies that sustain the wood products industry. Th e types of biomass boilers AWC members operate could burn railroad ties and some com panies are considering their use in the near future.

3. Proposed Action.
Please add the following langu age to 40 C.F.R. 241.4(a):
“(3) Railroad ties treated with creos ote or creosote and borate.”

4. Need and Justificati on for Proposed Action.
The proposed action is needed to correct an erroneous conclusion reached in the March 2011 final NHSM Rule that combustion of railroad ties is combustion of a waste and to allow continued combustion of this fuel by any facility, irrespective of how railroad ties are processed or what feed mechanism is attached to a boiler that combusts railroad ties.

1 Newer railroad ties may also be treated with borate before the creosote is applied. See comment submitted by the Association of American Rail roads, Document ID: EPA- HQ-RCRA-2008- 0329-1920, Feb. 21, 2012, at 2-3 (AAR 2012 comments).

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 3

a. Railroad tie markets
In the preamble to the final NHSM Rule, EPA asserted that:
[F]ew markets are available for creosot e-treated wood due to concerns about the contaminants. This strongly suggests that burning this material is a waste treatment activity. 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15483 (Mar. 21, 2011). Contrary to EPA’s belief, ther e is a robust market for creos ote-treated wood, specifically railroad ties that have been removed from serv ice. As noted above, 12 forest products industry mills purchased approximately 550,000 t ons of railroad ties a year for use as fuel in 2005 and over 300,000 tons as recently as 2010. According to the Association of Americ an Railroads, approximately 17 million railroad ties are removed from service each year. 2 

### Railroads typically co ntract with a railroad tie reclamation company to remove these ties. These contracts transfer ownership of the railroad ties to the reclamation company. 3 

### The reclamation com pany sorts the railroad ties for use in landscaping (about one third) and for use in co-generation facilities (the majority). According to the Association of American Railroads, only approximately 5% of railroad ties that are removed from service are disposed of in landfills. 4 

### Some reclamation companies sell railr oad ties to processors who remove metal contaminants (typically nails and spikes) and grind the ties into chipped wood. 5 

### Other reclamation companies have their own grinders, do thei r own contaminant removal, and can sell directly to the co-generation facilities. According to a 10-K filed by Banyan Rail Services, Inc., there are approximately 15 railroad tie recovery companies in North America with an industry-wide revenue of $65-75 million. AF&PA members report paying approximately $20 to $30 per ton for railroad tie fuel which is sometimes a premium price compared to cert ain hog fuels.

The fact that railroad ties are valuable co mmodities also is demonstrated by the management of these materials. Sale of railroad ties is in tegral to the contracts for railroad tie removal and is integral to the bus iness of railroad tie reclamation companies. These ties are valuable commodities and are treated as such. Combustors, such as AF&PA member companies, also manage these materials as valuable commodities. At

2 Comment submitted by the Association of American Railroads, Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008- 0329-0875, Aug. 3, 2010, at 2 (AAR 2010 comments). 3 This arrangement, which takes into account the value of the removed ties, allows removal of railroad ties to be “close to a break-even proposition fo r the railroad.” AAR 2010 comments at 3. 4 AAR 2012 comments, at 1. This disposal decision is made after the railroad ties are sorted so the ties that are used for energy recovery are never discarded. 5 There may be some combustors that can combust w hole railroad ties, but forest products industry boilers require chipped ties that have been pr ocessed to remove metal contaminants.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 4

a mill, the chipped railroad ties are managed in the same manner as other biomass fuel materials and are fed to the combus tion unit in the same way.
It is clear from the above description that there are robust markets for railroad ties and there are companies that exist entirely to se rve those markets. It also is clear that combustors pay for the railroad ties that they use as fuel. These facts demonstrate that railroad ties are valuable fuel commodities. T hus, there is no basis for EPA’s conclusion that burning railroad ties is a waste treatment activity.
b. Legitimacy criteria as applied to railroad ties.
Railroad ties easily meet all of the legiti macy criteria under 40 C. F.R. 241.3(d), except possibly the contaminant comparison criter ion depending on what traditional fuels are considered in comparison. However, upon eval uating all the relevant factors relating to the use of railroad ties as a commodity fuel , EPA should conclude that railroad ties are non-waste fuels for all boilers, notwithstandi ng a contaminant comparison to wood or coal.
i. Railroad ties are managed as a valuable commodity. 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d)(1)(i).
As described above, railroad ties are removed from service for railroads by companies whose business model is based on the reclamati on value of the railro ad ties. These ties are the commodities that railroad tie reclamat ion companies sell in the marketplace. Thus, these companies manage railroad ties to retain their va lue as commodities. Typically reclamation companies receive railroad ties by rail. They inspect and sort the ties and remove metal of any kind (spikes, if any, nails, tags, etc). The resulting railroad tie fuel (RTF) is then chipped and delivered to combustors, typically by rail or truck. 6 

### At a forest products facility, RTF is stock piled in the wood yard in the same manner as bark fuel obtained from processi ng log feedstock for the pulping process. This generally amounts to a pile adjacent to the bark pile that is recl aimed via a front-end loader. Many hog fuel/RTF systems hammer and screen the combined bark/RTF one more time on route to combustion. Chip size typi cally is on the order of 1 to 2 inches. The contracts for the purchase of RTF include fuel specifications limit ing contaminants such as metal and precluding the receipt of wood treated with preservatives other than creosote. ii. Railroad ties have meaningful heating value and are used as a fuel to generate energy. 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d)(1)(ii).

6 We are aware of one situation where the combustion facility is close to the reclamation facility and RTF is transported on a conveyor.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 5

EPA reports that creosote-tr eated wood has a heating value of about 6000 Btu/lb. 7 

### The Treated Wood Council reports that the Btu value of creosote-treated wood is approximately 8000 Btu/lb. 8 

### Either level demonstrates meani ngful heating value. These fuels are used to generate energy at AF&PA me mber facilities as well as other cogeneration facilities that buy ra ilroad ties from reclamation companies. In fact, when bark is very wet, forest products facilities often increase the use of RTF in proportion to bark because it has higher fuel value and improves combustion.
iii. Railroad ties contain contaminants that are comparable to or lower than those found in tradit ional fuels that boilers are designed to burn. 40 C. F.R. 241.3(d)(1)(iii).
In the NHSM final rule preamble, EPA expr essed the concern t hat creosote-treated wood contains contaminants at levels that ar e not comparable to those found in coal or wood. “Accordingly, creosote treated w ood, when burned, seem s more like a waste than a commodity and does not meet the legitimacy criterion for contaminants and therefore should be consider ed a waste when burned as a f uel.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15483. This analysis is based in part on an assumption that railroad ties are combusted for disposal and are not valuable fuel commoditi es. This assumption is contradicted by the above discussion of the robust markets for RTF. Thus, the only remaining basis for this analysis is the comparison of contaminants in railroad ties to contaminants in coal or fuel.
EPA has data provided by the Association of American Railroads t hat demonstrates that creosote treated railroad ties cont ain contaminant levels that are comparable to fuel oils, which are traditional fuels. 9 

### Under 40 C.F.R. 241.3, creoso te-treated railroad ties would be considered a non-waste fuel if combusted in a unit that also could combust numbers 1-6 fuel oils.

EPA also has data that demonstrate that cont aminants in borate preservatives are at levels that are significantly bel ow levels found in untreated wood. 10 

### Accordingly, EPA

7 Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Final Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste - Construction and Demolition Materials – Building-Related C&D Materials, Feb 3, 2011, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2 008-0329-1811, at 3. 8 Comment submitted by Jeffrey T. Miller, President and Executiv e Director, Treated Wood Council (TWC), EPA-HQ-RCRA-20 08-0329-0772, at 11. 9 EPA’s traditional fuels data show that fuel oils have PAH levels as high as 54,700 ppm. Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, No vember 29, 2011 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008- 0329-1877). The American Association of Railroads data for creosote-treated railroad ties show total PAH levels of 21,237 ppm. 10 See comment submitted by KRK Consul ting. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2 008-0329-1569.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 6

has already concluded that borate treated wood “meets the l egitimacy criterion on the level of contaminants and comparability to tradition al fuels.” 76 Fed. R eg. at 15484.

iv. Other relevant criteria
An overall balancing of the legitimacy criter ia with other relevant factors should lead EPA to the conclusion that the combustion of railroad ties is not a waste management activity and that railroad ties should be consid ered a commodity fuel even if contaminant levels are not comparable to coal or virg in wood. If EPA does not do so, then the same railroad tie from the same recl amation company could be considered a fuel if sold to a combustor that has a liquid fuel delivery syst em for its boiler and a waste if sold to a combustor has only a system for feeding solid fuel to its boiler. Given the overall management of these materials as valuabl e fuel commodities by market-place participants, in this case the fuel de livery system does not provide a meaningful distinction and is not an appropria te method of distinguishing between wastes and fuels.
In balancing the legitimacy criteria, EPA should gi ve great weight to the fact that railroad ties are commodities that are bought and sold in the market-place. This fact alone should be dispositive support for an EPA dete rmination that the combustors who buy this fuel are burning it for legitimate energy recovery and are not burning it with the intent to discard it. As EPA knows, the legi timacy criteria are fact ors used to ascertain the intent of a combustor to det ermine if discard is taking plac e. In the case of railroad ties, the fact that co mbustors buy this fuel is evidenc e that their intent is energy recovery. Combustors do not buy material for the purpose of discarding it.

EPA also should balance the environmental benefits of allowing continued combustion of railroad ties as fuel against the adverse consequences of increased disposal of railroad ties in landfills. As noted in co mments filed by the Am erican Association of Railroads, the use of railroad ties as fuels displaces fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases that, unlike wood, are not currently part of the carbon cycle. Thus, if 9 million ties are disposed of in landfills instead of being used as fuels, 12.9 trillion Btus will have to be replaced with other fuels. If replaced with fossil fuels, “the GHG penalty will be approximately 3.3 billion CO2eq.” 11 

### The disposal of greenhouse gas in landfills also could result in the anaerobic degradation of the ties over long periods of time, producing methane, which is a pot ent greenhouse gas. In balancing environmental benefits, EPA shoul d consider the solid waste management benefits of using railroad ties as fuel, instead of discarding t hem in landfills. According to the Association of American Railroads, t he landfill space that would be required to dispose of the 17 million railroad ties that are used as fuel each year would be the

11 AAR 2010 comments, at 3.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 7

space equivalent to a football fi eld that is 70 stories high. That landfill capacity would be needed each year. 12


### EPA also should consider the fact that, for th e facilities that use railroad ties as fuel, those ties are as integral to the production proc ess as any other fuel used by the facility. Further, railroad ties are functionally superior to other biomass fuels used in the boilers due to lower moisture content and higher BTU value compared with other biomass fuels. Use of railroad tie fuel is particularly important for industry boilers that are load following boilers where significant swings in steam demand require rapid ramping up and down of the boiler, and where the superior f uel characteristics of railroad tie fuel, as noted above, delivers, dry, consistent, hi gh-BTU combustion benefits. Railroad ties improve mixed biomass combustion by provid ing a more even energy source especially during rainy seasons of the year.
Finally, EPA should embrace the combustion of railroad ties as a practice that supports EPA’s sustainability objective s. In June 2009, EPA issued its “2020 Vision Report: Sustainable Materials Management: The R oad Ahead.” The “2020 Vision Report” includes the follo wing statement:
In a system that recognizes the true value of materials, and accounts for all the environmental impacts associated with mate rials use, the concept of waste is significantly changed. Products and material s presently viewed as acceptable to throw away will increasingly be recognized as valuable. Materials that used to “go to waste” will be reused or bec ome feedstocks for new products and processes. 2020 Vision Report, at 13

Consistent with that vision and a consistent history of use, EPA should recognize the value of railroad ties and allow their contin ued use as a fuel. To do otherwise would compel the disposal of this valuable fuel in l andfills. That resu lt undermines EPA’s sustainable materials managem ent objectives, reduces the ability of the U.S. to decrease the use of fossil f uels, and increases the pressure on solid waste landfill capacity. To avoid these adverse environm ental outcomes, EPA should recognize that railroad ties are a valuable fuel and not a wa ste, when combusted for energy recovery.
These considerations provide ample support for a rulemaking to designate all railroad ties as a non-waste fuel in all combustion units.

12 AAR 2010 comments, at 2.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 8

Request for a letter confirming that proce ssed railroad ties combusted in boilers combust or could be modified to combust liquid fuel are non-waste fuels.

Pending a national rulemaking to designate railroad ties as a non-waste fuel, AF&PA is requesting a letter from EPA that confirms that railroad ties that are processed and are combusted in units that combust or could be modified to combust liquid fuel are nonwaste fuels under 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4). 13 

### 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4) provides that the following are not solid wastes when combusted: “Fuel or ingredi ent products that are used in a combustion unit, and are produced from the pr ocessing of discarded nonhazardous secondary materials and that meet the legitimacy criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section with respect to fuels....” While we do not believe that railroad ties used for energy recovery are discarded, absent listing under 40 C.F.R. 241.4, EPA’s regulations consider these materials to be wastes when combusted by third parties, unless the criteria of 40 C.F. R. 241.3(b)(4) are met. Section 241.3(b)(4) requires that a fuel be both processed and meet the legitimacy criteria.
1. Most railroad ties are processed
According to EPA’s regulations:
Processing means any operations t hat transform discarded non-hazardous secondary material into a non-waste fuel or non-waste ingredient product. Processing includes, but is not limited to , operations necessary to: Remove or destroy contaminants; signi ficantly improve the fuel characteristics of the material, e.g., sizing or drying the material in combination with other operations; chemically improve the as -fired energy content; or improve the ingredient characteristics. Minimal operations that re sult only in modifying the size of the material by shredding do not constitute processing for the purposes of this definition.

40 C.F.R. 241.2.
While some combustors may be able to co mbust whole railroad ties, it is a common practice for railroad tire reclamation companie s to process ties for use by combustors. Processing involves sorting by quality for other potential uses (e.g., landscaping) and by preservative type to meet fuel contract spec ifications required by individual combustors. Process also involves both the removal of metal contaminants and shredding RTF to an

13 This request should not be viewed as an alternative to the request for listing under 40 C.F.R. 241.4. Rather, it should be viewed as a stop-gap measure to allow facilities to plan pending such listing.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 9

appropriate size for the combustor. In fac t, contracts for RTF typically specify fuel requirements such as size of material, moisture limits, and dirt and metal contamination limits. Please confirm that railroad ties th at are processed in this manner meet EPA’s processing definition.
2. Railroad ties meet the legitimacy crit eria when combusted in most boilers.
As discussed above, railroad ties meet EPA’s legitimacy criteria relating to management practices, meaningful heating val ue, and use as a fuel, irrespec tive of the type of boiler that is used for combustion. However, und er EPA’s regulations, railroad ties would not meet the contaminant legitima cy criterion (as EPA has laid it out) unless the RTF can be compared to fuel oils. Even under this framework, RTF would meet the legitimacy criteria because boilers c apable of firing RTF also are capable of firing fuel oil. In fact most boilers are designed in a manner t hat fuel oil firing can be accommodated. 14 

### For example, one forest products company has at le ast 12 boilers that burn RTF. All 12 of these boilers either currently combust fuel oil, or could be readied to combust fuel oil. Please confirm that a boiler t hat has sufficient combustion conditions for oil (with or without the addition of additiona l equipment) and that could be modified to add a liquid fuel delivery system, is “des igned to burn” fuel oil, w hether or not such boiler modifications are actually made.
3. Demonstration by combustors that the legitimacy criteria and processing requirements are met.

Both the CISWI and the Boiler MACT rules require a combustor that combusts nonhazardous secondary materials to keep reco rds showing that t he fuel meets the legitimacy criteria of Part 241. See 40 C.F.R. 60.2740 (u) (C ISIWI) and 40 C.F.R. 60.7555(d)(2) (Boiler MACT).

We believe that individual combustors can meet their obligations under the CISWI and Boiler MACT Rules to show that railroad ti es are not solid wastes by keeping the following records:
a. A copy of an EPA letter confirming t hat railroad ties that are processed and combusted in boilers with liquid fuel delivery systems are not wastes. b. A copy of a contract, purchase order, or other document that requires a supplier of railroad ties to process the railroad ties consistent with the practices described in this letter or a certification from the supplier that the practices described in this letter were followed.

14 This is uniformly true of stoker boilers and fluidized bed combustors.

### Administrator Jackson December 6, 2012 Page 10

Allowing combustors to rely on these records to demonstrate that railroad ties are not wastes is consistent with how EPA proposes to implement its non-waste determination for tires from established tire collection programs. Units that combust tires are allowed to rely on certifications that the tires t hat are combusted are fr om established tire collection programs and were not discar ded. 40 C.F.R. 60.2740( v). EPA recognizes that such a certification can be based on a contractual arrangement and is proposing to define established tire collection program to include “a contractual arrangement that ensures that scrap tires are not discar ded and are handled as valuable commodities through arrival at the combustion facilit y.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 80484 and proposed 40 C.F.R. 241.2. Once that certification is made, EPA does not intend to require the combustor to have perfect knowledge of t he source of a secondary fuel and does not require the combustor to test that fuel. “Rather, it is suffi cient that the ultimate user verify that it is obtaining tires from an es tablished 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 wh ich does not receive tires which have been abandoned in landfills or ot herwise.” 76 Fed. Reg. 2831 8, 28322 (May 17, 2011).

Please confirm that the record s identified above are suffici ent to meet any burden of proof a combustor may have to show that a fuel is not a waste and that these records meeting the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.2740 (u) and 40 C.F.R. 60.7555(d)(2).

Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, AF&PA and AWC respectfully request EPA to determine by rule that all railroad ties treated with creosote or creosote and borate are non-waste fuels in all boilers and confirm by letter t hat processed railroad ti es are non-waste fuels when combusted in a boiler t hat that has sufficient combustion conditions for oil combustion (with or without the addi tion of additional equipment). Sincerely,

Paul Noe Robert Glowinski Vice President for Public Policy President American Forest & Paper Association American Wood Council
Enclosure: Banyan Rail Services Inc.
cc: Mathy Stanislaus Suzanne Rudzinski Jim Berlow David Cozzie, OAR

### Railroad Tie Fuel Supplemental Information February 27, 2013

The information provided herein supplements ma terials previously submitted to EPA by the American Forest & Paper Associat ion (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council (AWC) supporting a finding that Railroad Tie Fuel 1 

### should be listed under 40 CFR 241.4(a) as not a solid waste when used as fuel for purposes of the Clean Air Act regulations.
Background Creosote-treated railroad ties have long bee n managed as a valuable commodity, used in a variety of ways including landscaping and combustion for energy, and bought and sold in the marketplace like other recognize d fuels. On December 6, 2012, AF&PA and AWC submitted a draft petition to the EPA requesting that such railroad ties be listed in Section 241.4(a) as a “non-hazardous secondary material t hat is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit.” Furthermore, we requested that pending a national rulemaking to designate railroad ties as a non-waste fuel, EPA provide a letter that confirms that railroad ties that are processed and are combusted in units that combust or could be modified to combus t liquid fuel are non-waste fuels under 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4).

AF&PA and AWC demonstrated in the draft petition that cr eosote (and borate) treated railroad ties meet all of the legitimacy criteria identified in Section 241.3(d)(1). Railroad ties are managed as a valuable commodity – through collection, pr ocessing and storage -- so as to maintain their integrity, they have meaningful heating value (at least 6000 BTUs) and contain contaminants compar able to other trad itional fuels.

Final Rule
In the preamble to the final rule on Non- hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (78 Federal Register 9173), EPA specifically requested additional information about railroad tie fuels to s upplement the draft petition:
1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest products mills, that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stok er boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 3. The traditional fuels and relative am ounts (e.g., startup, 30%, 100%) of these traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of boilers.

1 We refer to railroad ties used as fuels as Railroad Tie Fuels. We understand that the brokers of railroad tie fuel refer to these materials as cross-tied derived fuel s or “CDF.” In either instance, we are referring to the same materials -- fuels generated by the use of creosote and borate-treated rail ties as fuels.

### 4. The extent to which no n-industrial boilers (e.g., co mmercial or residential boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creosotetreated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, specifically polycyclic ar omatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibenzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphen yl, quinoline, crsols, and 2,4- dinitrotoluene.
This document provides the additional information requested by EPA as it relates to forest products industry use of railroad tie fuels. AF&PA and AWC are aware that M.A. Energy Resources has submitted a petition to EPA, including extensive analysis of contaminants in railroad tie fuel compared wit h traditional fuels, to seek a listing of railroad tie fuels under Section 241.4(a); we are supportive of their petition. We understand that the American Association of Railroads al so is providing information to address questions 1 and 5 above.
Responses to EPA Questions
1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to fo rest products mills, that burn railroad ties for energy recovery

AF&PA and AWC will leave it to others to identify non-forest product mills that burn railroad tie fuels. Our data show that at least fifteen boilers at forest product mills are currently using railroad ties as a fuel. We kn ow of four other mills that are permitted to burn these fuels, but have stopped due to the uncertainty of the regulatory status of railroad tie fuels or other economic factors. 2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) that burn railroad ties for energy recovery.
Forest product industry boilers used to burn railroad ties are generally one of three types: stoker, bubbling bed or fluidized bed boilers.

3. The traditional fuels and relative am ounts (e.g., startup, 30%, 100%) of these traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of boilers. In general, all of the boilers that burn railroa d ties also burn significant quantities of biomass given the similarity of the fuels’ c haracteristics. Most of these boilers are permitted to burn fuel oil either during st art-up or during normal operations. Many factors determine how much fuel oil is burned. Currently, natural gas prices are low so that is often the fuel of choi ce if available. In addition, so me states are trying to reduce SO2 emissions from sources and thus encour age greater use of biomass or natural gas rather than fuel oil. 2 

### Finally, we know of at least one boiler that had the capability to

2 It would be ironic if efforts to r educe SO2 emissions hamper the abi lity of mills to use clean burning railroad ties simply because they are moving away from fuel oil for environmental reasons.

### burn fuel oil and is still permitt ed to burn oil, but altered t he boiler’s fuel feed system to accommodate only solid fuels.
It should not matter in determining the acceptabi lity of burning railr oad ties if a mill can burn fuel oil, is permitted to burn fuel oil, or could modify its boiler and fuel delivery system to accommodate fuel oil. It makes no environmental or economic sense to force significant investments (up to $1 million) in nozzle systems t hat will rarely or never be used.
The most comparable traditional fuel to railroad ti es is fuel oil. However, we believe the question of whether a boiler is designed to burn a specific fuel is not relevant when EPA makes a determination under section 241.4(a). With respect to liquid fuels, we recognize that the Agency interprets the phrase “designed to bur n” to mean that a combustor that makes a self-determination that its railroad tie fuel is a processed fuel product may have to meet the c ontaminant legitimacy criterion by installing a nozzle for the delivery of liquid fuel into the boiler. Ac cording to EPA, this condition is to avoid the possibility that discard could be occurring in some situations.
However, in the context of a specific non- waste determination under section 241.4, EPA has the opportunity to evaluate all the factors relating to the use of railroad ties as a fuel, including the fact that railroad tie fuel is a commodity that is purchased by the combustor. EPA, in granting a petition for a non-waste determination, has the discretion to recognize that when a combustor purchases railroad tie fuel and then burns it in a boiler, that combustion is not for the purpose of discarding the railroad ties. Rather, the combustion is for the legitimate purpose of generating energy. Any other conclusion would lead to the absurd result that one boiler can burn railroad tie fuel as a legitimate fuel and the other boiler – with essentially t he same design except for a nozzle feed for fuel oil – would have to consider the ra ilroad tie fuel as a solid waste.

4. The extent to which non- industrial boilers (e.g., commer cial or residential boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery.

AF&PA and AWC do not have informa tion about non-industrial boilers.
5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants know n to be present in creosote-treated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosot e, specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e ., PAH-16), dioxins, dibenzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, quinoline, crsols, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene.
M. A. Energy Resources has developed significant data on concentrations of contaminants in railroad tie fuels. Similarly, the Association of American Railroads developed data from two of thei r rail yards. (Both of t hese sets of data have been submitted to EPA by the respective organizations.) We asked NCASI to review those data as well as other data NCASI had avai lable on railroad tie fuels and compare them

### to contaminants found in traditional fuels (coal , biomass and fuel oil) as provided by EPA in its November 29, 2011 document ent itled “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison.” Th is comparison is found in Attachment A.
Table 1 of Attachment A presents the result s of analysis of various railroad tie samples for the eleven trace metal HAPs and for seve ral major elements incl uding Cl, Fl, N, and S. Table 2 presents the results of analysis of various railroad tie samples for several VOC HAPs, semi-volatile VOC HAPs, tota l PAHs and naphthalene (also a PAH).
Finally, Table 3 compares the maximum va lues in the OAQPS databases for coal, wood/biomass, and fuel oil with the range of values that were summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for railroad tie fuels. The com parison is made between the groups of contaminants that share physical and chemical properties that influence their behavior in a combustion unit. The contaminants ar e grouped as three types of trace metal HAPs (volatile, semi-volatile and low volatile ), total VOC HAPs, total semi-volatile VOC HAPs, and total PAHs, consistent with the approach EPA specified.
The comparison shows that c ontaminants in railroad tie fuel s are well within the range of traditional fuels based on t he groupings EPA has suggested.
EPA asked specifically for information about di oxins and dibenzofurans in rail tie fuels. We understand that this request was based on a Material Safety Data Sheet from a forest products company that identified t he presence of dibenzofurans. However, the chemistry of dioxins and dibenzofurans is di fferent. As explained in Attachment B, dibenzofurans are not chlorinated and thus are not considered “dioxins.” Because there little likelihood that sufficient chlorine would be present in ra il tie fuels to form dioxins, we believe that EPA’s request for di oxin information is not appropriate.

Conclusion
The information provided in this document, together with that pr ovided in our draft petition, show clearly that ra ilroad tie fuel is a legitimate fuel material, sold in the marketplace, and in many ways is superior to fossil fuels it is us ed to replace. AF&PA and AWC respectfully request that EPA make the determination under section 241.4(a) that railroad tie fuels are not solid waste when burned for energy.

### Attachment A February 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013)

ncasi Page 1 

### Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Cross Tie-Derived Fuel with Traditional Fuels

On November 29, 2011, EPA published a document t itled “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison”. This documen t contained ranges and averages for contaminant concentrations in three common traditional fuels namely coal, biomass and fuel oil. EPA indicated that members of the regulated community could use the data when comparing contaminants in their nonhazardous secondary materials (NHSMs) to contaminan ts in the appropriate traditional fuels. EPA presented three tables with contaminant data summa rized from both the scientific literature and EPA databases for coal, wood/biomass, and fuel oil. In this report, limited available contaminant data for samples of cross tie-derived fuel (CDF) are compar ed with those compiled by EPA for the three common traditional fuels coal, biomass and fuel oil. At the curr ent time, CDF is burned in thirty or more industrial boilers.
EPA agrees 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 calculation involving the mean and standard deviation, or perhaps a single data point in situations where data is limited.” 78 Fed. Reg. 9112, 9153 (Feb. 7, 2013). For example, EPA agreed that it is appropriate to compare “the UPL at the 90 percent confidence level for each contaminan t or group of contaminants in NHSMs to the maximum values for each contaminant or group of cont aminants in the appropriate traditional fuel.” Id

. Thus, in the case of CDF samples, since insuffici ent data are available to estimate 90% UPLs, a comparison of the maximums in the available analy tical data with the maximums presented by EPA for the traditional fuels coal, biomass and oil should consti tute a reasonable albeit conservative approach for contaminant comparison.
Table 1 presents the results of analysis of various CDF samples for the eleven trace metal HAPs and for several major elements including Cl, Fl, N, and S. The sources of data included a recent CDF test report prepared by All4 Inc. on behalf of M.A. Energy Resources, LLC and presented to EPA, selective data from EPA references summarized in Table A2 of NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 906 (2005), and recent CDF fuel sampling data extracted from EPA’s Boiler MACT Database. The latter corresponded to five facilities – ALIPPrattville, ALIPRiverdale, AREver greenPackaging, LABoiseNewsprintDeRidder, and NDADMNorthernSun, four of which were pulp mills.
Table 2 presents the results of analysis of various CDF samples for several VOC HAPs, semi-volatile VOC HAPs, total PAHs and naphthalene (also a PAH). The data were obtained from several sources including tests for a range of individual PAHs, VOCs and SVOCs carried out by M.A. Energy Resources, LC, tests for several PAHs carried out by URS Corp. on behalf of the Association of American Railroads (at two U.S. facilities, Duluth, MN and Selma, AL), and some historical PAH, VOC and SVOC data obtained from an EPA source (Wood Waste Energy).
Table 3 compares the maximum values in the OAQPS da tabases for coal, wood/biomass, and fuel oil with the range of values that were summarized in Tables 1 a nd 2 for cross tie-derived fuels. The comparison is made between groups of contaminants that share ph ysical and chemical properties that influence their behavior in a combustion unit. Id . at 9146. The contaminants are grouped as three types of trace metal HAPs (volatile, semi-volatile and low volatile), to tal VOC HAPs, total semi-volatile VOC HAPs, and total PAHs. It is seen that for all the categories of comparison, the grouped contaminants fall well within the range of the same grouped contaminants for one or more of the traditional fuels used for comparison.

### Attachment A February 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013)

ncasi Page 2 

### Conclusion

Based on the available data for cross tie-derived fu els summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and the relevant comparisons made in Table 3 with the OAQPS database for the traditional fuels coal, biomass and oil, the contaminants in CDF fall well within the range of c ontaminants found in one or more of three traditional fuels, coal, biomass and oil, thus supporting a determ ination that cross tie-derived fuel is not a waste when combusted.Attachment AFebruary 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013)ncasiPage 3Table 1.Trace Metals and Major Elements in Various Cross Tie-Derived FuelsUnits,dry basisMAER1NCASI TB 906aBoiler MACT Fuel Analysis Databn2mean min max n3n2mean min maxHeat ValueBtu/lb35 8,970 8,828 7,394Trace Metal HAPsAntimony (Sb) ppm <5Arsenic (As) ppm <10 6 1.75 1.38 2.15 4 25 1.78 1.03 3.16Beryllium (Be) ppm <0.5 4 25 0.12 0.06 0.30Cadmium (Cd) ppm <0.5 1 0.10 4 25 0.26 0.23 0.30Chromium (Cr) ppm <2.5 8 0.67 0.23 1.44 4 25 9.68 3.97 15.28Cobalt (Co) ppm <2.5Lead (Pb) ppm <10.0 1 8.00 4 22 7.55 4.09 9.58Manganese (Mn) ppm 63 4 25 135 104 185Mercury (Hg) ppm 0.02 1 <0.25 5 25 0.04 0.02 0.05Nickel (Ni) ppm <5 1 <5.0 4 35 13.78 3.73 38.24Selenium (Se) ppm <5 4 25 0.57 0.14 1.00Major ElementsChlorine (Cl) ppm 400 5 225 39 345 5 35 81 22 161Fluorine (F) ppm 100Total Halogens (Cl + Fl) ppm 500Nitrogen (N) ppm 1,600 28 6,142 3,574 141Sulfur (S) ppm 800 34 1,700 681 3,277 1 1 1,1001M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing (March 2013);2no. of samples tested;3no. of mills at which CDF was tested with no. of samples ranging from2 to 10aFrom Table A2 of NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 906 – Sources included the following:1. Emissions Database Test Report E710, "Compliance Stack Emissions Report/1996 for the Waste Wood-Fired Boiler", by AirRECON,March 10, 19972. Results of the March 23-26, 1993 Air Emission Tests on the No. 1 Boiler Stack at the NSP Bay Front Steam Plant, Interpoll Labs, April 26, 1993.3. Emissions Database Test Report E721, "Results of the November 12-14, 1991 State Air Emission Compliance Tests on the No. 5& 6 Boilers at theBlandin Paper Company Plant in Grand Rapids, Minnesota", by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., January 17, 19924. Emissions Database Test Report E860, "Results of the October 7-9, 1997 Air Emission Compliance Tests of Unit 1 at the NSP French Island Plant in LaCrosse, Wisconsin", by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., November 5, 19975. "Wood Products in the Waste Stream -- Characterization and Combustion Emissions", by Atkins, Richard S. and Donovan, Christine T. assubcontractors to New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, October 1996bEPA’s Boiler MACT Database - Fuel Sampling Data for Rail Road Ties at 5 Facilities – ALIPPrattville; ALIPRiverdale; AREvergreenPackaging;LABoiseNewsprintDeRidder; NDADMNorthernSun

### Attachment A February 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013)

ncasi Page 4 

### Table 2. VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs and Naphthalene in Various Cross Tie-Derived Fuels

Compound Units MAER 1 

### Duluth, MN 2 

### Selma, AL 2 

### EPA 3



### VOC HAPs 1 

### Benzene ppm <0.050 Cumene ppm <0.050 Ethyl benzene ppm 0.0575 Formaldehyde ppm <1.60 Styrene ppm <0.050 Toluene ppm <0.050 Xylenes ppm 0.325
Semi-Volatile VOC (SVOCs) HAPs Phenol ppm <15 Biphenyl ppm 137 Dibenzofuran ppm 789 Quinoline ppm 40 Total SVOCs 1,4,5 

### 966

Base Neutral SVOCs 6 

### Total PAHs ppm ~ 7,200 18,318 - 23,150 12,601 - 24,533 21,237 Naphthalene ppm 444 1,100 – 1,400 2,600 – 3,200 490

1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing, March 2013 2” Evaluation of Used Railroad Ties Treated With Creosote and POMs Which Includes PAHs”; prepared for the Association of Amercan Railroads by URS Corp., Jan. 28, 2013 3 Data received from EPA - Wood Waste Energy 4 SVOCs m- & p-cresols were also detected in “trace amounts” in a TCLP sample extract (0.076 mg/L) 5 Lindane was also detected in trace amounts 6 Although Naphthalene is a PAH, it is separate d out here consistent with EPA’s approach

### Attachment A February 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013)

ncasi Page 5



### Table 3. Comparison of Typical Cross-Tie Concentrations With OAQPS Max for Coal, Biomass & Oil

Compound Units OAQPS Coal Biomass Fuel Oil CDF Max Max Max n 1 

### Min Max Trace Metal HAPs Volatile Metals (Hg) ppm 3.1 1.1 0.2 37 0.016 0.054

Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se) ppm 241 255 57 27 4 11

Low-Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn & Ni) ppm 1,822 16,842 3,551 32 68 242

Major Elements Chlorine (Cl) ppm 9,080 5,400 1,260 41 22 400 Fluorine (F) ppm 178 128 14 1 100 100 Total Halogens (Cl + Fl) ppm 9,258 5,528 1,274 41 122 500 Nitrogen (N) ppm 54,000 4,600 3,000 29 1,600 14,400 Sulfur (S) ppm 61,300 6,100 57,000 36 681 3,277

Total VOC HAPs 2 

### ppm 153.4 27 13,745 1 0.38

Total SVOCs 3 

### ppm 8,900 1 966

Total PAHs 4 

### ppm 2,090 5 

### 54,700 4 6 

### 7,200 24,533
1 no. of samples tested; 2 includes benzene, cumene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, toluene and xylenes; 3 includes phenol, biphenyl, dibenzofuran and quiniline; 4 includes naphthalene; 5 PAH (52 extractable); 6 no. of sources;

# 4 4 0 0 C C F F R R P P A A R R T T 

# 2 2 4 4 1 1 , , S S U U B B P P A A R R T T 

# B B

– – C C R R O O S S S S T T I I E

E 

# D D E E R R I I V

V E E D D 

# F F U U E E L L 

# ( ( C

C D D F F ) ) C C A A T T E E G G O O R R I I C

C A A L L 

# P P E E T T I I T T I I O

O N N F F O O R R A A 

# N N O O N N


# - - W

W A A S S T T E E 

# D D E E T T E E R R M M I I N

N A A T T I I O

O N N

M M

. . A A

. . E

E N N N E

E E R

R R G

G G Y

Y Y 

# R R E E E S

S S O

O O U

U U R

R R C

C C E

E E S

S S 

# ,

, L

L L

L C

C

Submitted By: M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210 Submitted To:

Lisa Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 1101A Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Prepared By:

S UBMITTED : F EBRUARY 2013 2393 Kimberton Road PO Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442-0299

### TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name ......................................................................................................... Page Num ber



### ii 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 NHSM RULE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 1-3 2. NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WA STE DETERMINATION ...................................... 2-1 2.1 PETITIONER'S NAME AND ADDRESS [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(I)] ......................... 2-1 2.2 A STATEMENT OF THE PETI TIONER'S INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED ACTION [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(II)] ..................................................................................................... . 2-1 2.3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, INCLUDING SUGGESTED REGULATORY LANGUAGE [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(III)] .................................................. 2-2 2.4 A STATEMENT OF THE N EED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................................ .......... 2-2

2.4.1 The Combustion of CDF has a Significant Beneficial Environmental Impact ...... 2-2
2.4.2 CDF Meets the Legitimacy Criteria Specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d) ................... 2-3

3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 3-1 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 4-1

### LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Name



### iii Appendix A – Constituent/Contaminant Comparison Tables Appendix B – Constituent/Contaminant Raw Testing ResultsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-1 

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Ma terials that are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Com bustion Units Rule, the so-ca lled Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule (NHSM Rule), is codified at 40 CFR Part 241. The rule establishes the process or procedures by which non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSMs) are or are not considered
to be solid wastes when burned in combus tion units. The NHSM Rule has far reaching regulatory impacts for those facilities that wi sh to utilize NHSMs as alternative fuels.

1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE

This document is a rulemaking petition the purpose of which is to demonstrate that Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) is a non-waste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 241.4(b)(2), and to hereby request that U.S. EPA issue a categori cal determination specifically identifying CDF as a non-waste, exempt, NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a). CDF is not currently considered to be a tradi tional fuel and is not currently c onsidered to be a non-waste fuel under the NHSM Rule. However, M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER), an alternative fuels company that specializes in managing the logi stics associated with the collection, handling, processing, and distribution of sp ecification CDF, is committed to the process of establishing CDF as a legitimate non-waste alternative fuel. MAER strongly believes that CDF is indeed anon-waste fuel and that U.S. EPA should issue a categorical determination that CDF is a nonwaste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2), a nd specifically list CDF
as a non-waste NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a). MAER is submitting this document in
addition to and consistent with similar s ubmissions made previously by the following stakeholders and members of the regulated community:

 American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)  Creosote Council (CC)

 Treated Wood Council (TWC)  Association of America Railroads (AAR)

 American Wood Council (AWC)M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-2 

### This document has been developed in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b) and requests a specific cate gorical NHSM non-waste determination for CDF.

1.2 NHSM RULE OVERVIEW

An NHSM considered to be a non-waste material can be burned as an a lternative fuel or an ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by ei ther of the following C AA Section 112 rules (or other applicable MACT standard):

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – National Emission Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Ins titutional Boilers and Pr ocess Heaters [i.e., the Major Source Boiler Maximum Achievab le Control Technology (MACT) Standard].

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ – National Emission Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Inst itutional Boilers Area Sources [i.e., the
Area Source Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard].

Conversely, a NHSM considered to be a solid waste material canno t be burned as an alternative fuel or used as an ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by either th e Major or Area Source Boiler MACT rules and must instead be burned in a combustion unit regulated by either of the following CAA Section 129 rules:

 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CCCC – Standards of Performa nce for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incine ration Units for Which Cons truction is Commenced After November 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001

 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDDD – Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Inci neration Units that Commenced Construction on or Before November 30, 1999.

Without a NHSM non-waste determination, a com bustion unit that burns a NHSM fuel will be labeled an incinerator. Given the choice of being permitted as an incinerator or a boiler, the overwhelming majority of facilit ies will choose to stop utilizing alternative fuels that areM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-3 

### considered to be solid-wastes and comply with Boiler MACT. This w ould have an unintended negative environmental impact as generators of presumed “solid wastes” used as fuels would then potentially be forced to landfill materials th at are currently beneficial ly used as alternative fuels, and could also potentially increase emissi ons of regulated pollutant emissions from such facilities as they return to the use of fossil fuels.

On February 7, 2013, the United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated final revisions to the NHSM Rule. U.S. EPA’s promulgation of the final NHSM Rule revisions represents the culmination of a lo ng dialogue with stakeholde rs from a variety of industry sectors stemming back to January 2, 2009 and the original issuance of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Si nce the ANPRM, the NHSM Rule has undergone significant scrutiny and garnered considerable comm ents at each step of the regulatory process, including comments from combustors that utilize Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) as an alternative fuel to offset all or a portion of the fo ssil fuels used in their combustion units.

CDF is a non-hazardous alternativ e biomass fuel derived from railr oad crossties that have been removed from service and processed by reclama tion companies such as MAER. Approximately
17 million crossties are removed from service each year. This volume of material is roughly equivalent to an area the size of a football field with crossties pi led seventy (70) stories tall. CDF crossties are overwhelmingly comprised of North American hardwoods that have been
treated with creosote. As a func tion of its high energy content, CD F is beneficially used for heat and energy recovery in many co mbustion units across a variety of industry sectors as a nonhazardous, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION: Provides a brief overview of the NHSM Rule background and impacts on the regulated comm unity, and states the document’s overall purpose.

 SECTION 2 – NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WASTE DETERMINATION: Provides the components of a rulemaking pe tition specified by 40 CFR §241.4(b)(1) and requests a categorical determination that CDF is a non-waste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2).M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-4 

###  SECTION 3 – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Provides additional information as requested to U.S. EPA responses to co mments including the December 20, 2013 final rule.

 SECTION 4 – CONCLUSION: Provides a concluding summa ry of the information included in the document.

 APPENDIX A – CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT COMPARISON TABLES.

 APPENDIX B – CONSTITUENT/CONT AMINANT RAW TESTING RESULTS.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-1 

## 2. NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WASTE DETERMINATION

As stated above, the NHSM Rule is codified at 40 CFR Part 241 and identifies the requirements and procedures for the identification of non wastes used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. In accordance with 40 CFR §241.4(b), “Any person may submit a rulemaking petition to the Administrator to identify additional non-ha zardous secondary materials to be listed in paragraph 40 CFR §241.4(a).” 40 CFR §241.4(a) includes a list of NHSMs that EPA has
determined are not solid wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. The required components of the NHSM CDF Petition for a Non-wa ste Determination are detailed in 40 CFR §241.4(b)(1)(i) through (iv) and are discussed in more detail below.
2.1 PETITIONER'S NAME AND ADDRESS [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(I)]

Petitioners Name:
M.A. Energy Resources, LLC

Petitioners Address:
9225 Indian Creek Parkway
Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210

2.2 A STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED ACTION [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(II)]

As stated above, MAER is an alternative fu els company that specializes in managing the logistics associated with the collection, handling, pro cessing, and distribu tion of specification CDF. MAER operates as an intermediary between the railroad industry and the end-use combustors that utilize CDF as a non-hazardous, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel.
MAER receives railroad creosote cr ossties from the railroads or the companies contracted by the railroads to remove crossties. MAER proceeds to process the crossties into specification CDF depending on the particular needs of the end-us e combustor. MAER’s primary business is theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-2 

### collection, processing, and sale of specification CDF to their di verse client base of end-use
combustors.

2.3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, INCLUDING SUGGESTED REGULATORY LANGUAGE [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(III)]

MAER proposes that U.S. EPA provide a determ ination that CDF is not a solid-waste and instead is a legitimate alternative fuel. MAER further proposes that U.S. EPA include CDF categorically as “crossties that have been treated with creosote” in the list of NHSMs that are not
solid-wastes when used as fuels codified at 40 CFR §241.4(a). MAER has provided proposed language to be included in 40 CFR §241.4(a) below:

40 CFR §241.4(a)(5) – Cross ties that have been tr eated with creosote.

2.4 A STATEMENT OF THE NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

As stated above, MAER is submitting this docu ment in conjunction and collaboration with stakeholders and members of the regulated community both “up-stream” and “down-stream” from MAER’s position in the CDF reclamati on-to-fuel process. MAER and the other stakeholders potentially affected by the outcome of this NHSM CDF Petition for Non-waste Determination strongly believe that the reclaime d crossties that comprise CDF are not solidwastes for the following reasons:

 The use of CDF as a non-hazardous, bioma ss derived, alternative to fossil fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact.

 CDF meets the legitimacy criteria specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d).

2.4.1 The Combustion of CDF has a Significant Beneficial Environmental Impact

The current combustion of CDF as a non-hazardous alternative biomass fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact. A determination that CDF is not a solid-waste and is instead a legitimate alternative fuel, coupled with the ca tegorical inclusion of CDF in the list of NHSMsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-3 

### that are not solid-wastes when used as fuel s codified at 40 CFR §241.4(a), would keep a significant volume of crossties from being unnecessarily land-filled.

Keeping crossties from being land-filled has a secondary affect on limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well. The utilization of CD F by end-use combustors can displace the use of fossil fuels that emit GHG. The GHG limiting eff ect of combusting CDF is magnified when one
considers that alternative fuel s derived from biomass such as wood are included within the carbon cycle while traditional foss il fuels are not. Should CDF’s st atus as a non-waste continue to be undefined and its use as an alternative fuel cease, the thermal equivalent of the CDF that is currently utilized by end-use combustors will need to be offset by a non-waste fuel considered legitimate by U.S. EPA or more likely a fossil fuel . Offsetting the use of CDF with a legitimate non-waste fuel or a fossil fuel could potentially carry a significant GHG penalty. This GHG penalty will again be magnified as the CDF that has been unnece ssarily land-filled begins to undergo anaerobic decomposition, gene rating emissions of methane (CH 4 

### ), a GHG that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ).
2.4.2 CDF Meets the Legitimacy Crit eria Specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d)

Pursuant to 40 CFR §241.3(b)(4), non-hazardous s econdary materials, including fuels, are not solid wastes when combusted as long as the following criteria are met:

 The fuel is not discarded or is produced from the processing of a discarded NHSM [40 CFR §241.3(b)(4)].

 The fuel meets the legitimacy crite ria specified in 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1).

o The fuel is managed as a valuable commodity [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)].

o The fuel has a meaningful heating value and is used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy [ 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii)].

o The fuel contains contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuel(s) which th e combustion unit is designed to burn [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(iii)].M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-4 

### 2.4.2.1 The Fuel is Not Discarded or is Produced from the Processing of a Discarded NHSM [40 CFR §241.3(b)(4)]

MAER understands that a petition to categorica lly list an NHSM as a legitimate fuel must include a demonstration or justification that the ma terial either is not discarded, or if it is discarded, then the material has been sufficiently processed. MAER asserts that the vast majority of crossties used as CDF by end-use co mbustors are not discarde d as they are instead
obtained via contractual ar rangements. MAER also asserts th at those crossties that could be considered discarded are sufficiently processed into specification CDF prior to utilization by
end-use combustors.

According to the Association of American Railroads, approximately 17 million crossties are removed from railways each year. Railroads cont ract with a crosstie reclamation company to
remove and reclaim the crossties. Such contract s actually transfer owne rship of the reclaimed crossties to the removal/reclamation company for th e time that the ties are in their possession. As such, the reclaimed crossties, while not in th e control of the original generator (i.e., the railroads), are not discarded in the typical common use of the term discarde d. They are instead
transferred to the removal/recl amation company who sorts the ti es according to their condition
for different end uses. Remove d and reclaimed crossties may be temporarily stored in the railroad right-of-way or at a nother location by the crosstie recl amation companies. However, regardless of the length of time the crossties ar e stored, the crossties are not discarded in
accordance with the common use definition of discar ded in that they are not abandoned or no longer considered to be useful. The crossties are simply stored unt il such a time as their value as an alternative fuel (i.e., for use as an alternative fuel or other end-use purposes such as landscaping) can be realized. MAER understands that even long term storage does not diminish
the value of the CDF crossties as an alternative fuel. One third of the reclaimed crossties are used for landscaping. The majority of the other two thirds of the reclaimed crosstie s are used by end-use combustors for energy recovery.

Not all CDF originates from crossties removed fr om service in the same year. Some CDF is processed from crossties that were removed fro m service in prior years and stored by theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-5 

### railroads or removal/reclamation companies until their value as a landscaping element or
alternative fuel could be realized. These crosstie s are not discarded. Ther e is no record of such crossties being abandoned. Waiting un til the value of the material can be realized is relevant to a determination whether the length of time in storage is reasonable. 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15520 (Mar. 21, 2011) (reasonable time frame for storage is flexible enough to allow accumulation of materials to be cost-effective).

However, even if EPA believed that crossties rem oved from service in prio r years have not been stored for a reasonable period of time, MAER maintains that all crossties are sufficiently processed prior to utilization by the end-use combustors. Certain removal and reclamation companies sell the crossties to companies like MAER who process the cr ossties, reclaimed by the removal companies or otherwise originating from stored crossties, using a combination of the following, as appropriate:

 Removal of metal (i.e., spikes, nails, plat es, etc.) via magnetic removal. Note that depending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, magnetic removal could be applied more than once.

 Grinding or shredding of the cr ossties to specified size depending on th e particular needs
of the end-use combustors. Note that de pending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, the grinding stage of the crosstie processing may occur via primary and secondary grinding phas es or a single grinding phase.

 Additional screening of the ground or shredd ed crosstie material to specified size depending on the particular needs of the end- use combustors. Note that depending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, screening may occur concurrently with grinding or as a subsequent stage of the crosstie processing.

 Applying a surfactant to minimize dust during transfer and handling of the material.

The end result of such processing is a specificati on CDF that has been sufficiently processed to improve combustion of the material, remove contam inants, and meet the pa rticular needs of theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-6 

### end-use combustor. The specification CDF is then sold directly to the end-use combustor for
energy recovery.

In conclusion, crossties that have been removed by companies contra cted directly to the railroads
have not been discarded. In a ddition, all crossties in the CDF population whether stored prior to processing are processed sufficiently to meet th e definition of processi ng codified at 40 CFR §241.2.
2.4.2.2 The Fuel is Managed as a Valuab le Commodity [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)]

Several companies in the United States, including MAER, exist using a business model that revolves entirely around the valu e created by the removal, reclamation, processing, and sale of
creosote-treated railroad crossties as CDF. Such companies generate annual industry-wide revenue of $65-$75 million. The removed/reclaimed crossties are the valuable commodity that creates this industry and the associated revenue. Note that the CDF industry is a thriving marketplace where removal/reclam ation companies compete both for railroad contracts and the end-use combustor customer base who buys the CDF.

In demonstrating that an NHSM is managed as a valuable commodity U.S. EPA stipulates pursuant to 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) that storage of the NHSM prior to use as a fuel must not exceed reasonable timeframes, and that the NHSM must be managed and contained in a manner consistent with an analogous fuel to prevent releases to the environment. Processed
CDF is delivered to end-use combustors via railc ar and/or truck similar to how other biomass
fuels would be delivered. End-use combustors may also employ additional magnetic removal of metal. After receipt, the CDF is stock-piled prior to combustion in a similar manner to other analogous fuels like bark fuel, hog fuel, or bioma ss (i.e., in fuel piles or silos). Prior to combustion, which usually takes pla ce within a timeframe from a day to a week of arrival, the
CDF is transferred and/or handl ed from temporary storage in a manner consistent with the transfer and handling of other biomass fuels; pro cedures that typically in clude screening again by the end-use combustor, combining with other bi omass fuels, and transferring to the combustor via conveyor belt or front-end loader. CDF is managed as a valuable commodity since aM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-7 

### competitive marketplace exists for the removal, r eclamation, and sale of CDF crossties, and since such crossties are not stored for unreasonable lengt hs and are handled and treated similar to other analogous biomass fuels by end-use combustors.

2.4.2.3 The Fuel Must Have a Meaningful Heating Value [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii)]

In an effort to compare the constituents/contam inants of CDF to traditional fuels (i.e., coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal ta r oil), MAER has had qualitative laboratory testing performed on a sample of the specification CDF that they proces s and sell. In so doing, a heating value of 6,595 Btu/lb as fired was determined for the sample tested. U.S. EPA has previously reported that
creosoted-treated wood has a heat ing value of 6,000 Btu/lb. Othe r stakeholders and affected industry members like the Trea ted Wood Council (TWC) have pr eviously reported a heating value for creosote-treated wood of upwards of 8,000 Btu/lb. As a result, a heating value range of 6,000-8,000 Btu/lb as fired is reasonable for speci fication CDF. U.S. EPA has consistently referenced 5,000 Btu/lb as threshold for presum ing that an NHSM has a meaningful heating value. Based on the qualitative laboratory te sting that MAER has had performed, CDF has a meaningful heating value pursu ant to 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii).

2.4.2.4 The Fuel Must Contain Contaminants at Levels Comparable to Traditional Fuel(s) [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(iii)]

As stated above, in an effort to make a comparison of the constituents/contaminants present in
CDF to those found in traditional fuels (including coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal tar oil), MAER has had qualitative labora tory testing performed on a sa mple of the specification CDF that they process and sell. MAER contracted Columbia Analytical Services to perform the qualitative testing of CDF.

The CDF sample was obtained from a CDF fuel pi le located at the facility of an end-use combustor. The operation of the CDF fuel p ile, including any associated processing and handling is performed by MAER. Note that th e tested CDF sample was obtained in accordance with the sampling provisions of 40 CFR §6 3.7521(c)(2) and composited by the analyzing laboratory in accordance with the compositi ng provisions of 40 CFR §63.7521(c)(2) and (d)(1)M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-8 

### through (7). In obtaining the composite CDF sample in accordance with the provisions referenced above, MAER understands that the CDF sampling has been conducted in a method that is compliant with the applicable 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD fuel sampling requirements. In so doing, MAER believes that the tested CDF sample has been obtained in a manner consistent with regulated procedures and is therefore, suitable for inclusion in the NHSM
CDF Petition for Non-waste Determination.

In performing the comparison of the constituents/c ontaminants present in CDF to those found in traditional fuels, MAER reviewed a list of cons tituents/contaminants using the CAA Section 112 and 129 regulated pollutants and using engin eering judgment and other internal resources
determined which constituents/con taminants could be reasonably e xpected to be present in the crossties comprising CDF. Specifically, MAER re viewed Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) data and/or industry generate d data (i.e., publicly availabl e databases and/or technical documents) to prepare a list of constituents that c ould reasonably be expected to be present in the
creosote material used to preserve wooden crossties.

Similarly, using available technical databases an d other publically available technical documents [largely obtained from the National Counsel fo r Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) technical documents], a list of cons tituents that could reasonably be expected to be present in
northern and southern North American hardw oods was compiled. This list of “expected” constituents/contaminants was then compared to the list constituents/contaminants known to exist in coal, wood biomass, and fuel oil based on publically av ailable databases and documents
from U.S. EPA’s NHSM website. This li st was also compared to a list of constituents/contaminants obtained from a repr esentative coal tar oil MSDS. Based on U.S. EPA’s response to comments pertaining to contaminant comparisons all constituent/contaminant comparisons were made on a pre-combustion basis (i.e., % weight, ppm, μg or mg/kg, etc. as appropriate).

The qualitative laboratory test data perfor med on the CDF sample represents one (1) constituent/contaminant data point. However, MAER believes that one (1) data point is sufficient to perform a meaningful constituen t/contaminant comparison because the componentsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-9 

### of CDF, wood and creosote, are homogeneous. The wood component of CDF is homogeneous
because the source is North American hard woods. The creosote component of CDF is homogeneous because the producti on of creosote is governed by standards established by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) . AWPA has establis hed two blends of creosote, P1/P13 or P2. These standards identify the source material for creosote as well as the physical-chemical characteristics of the pesticide product. Railroad ties are typically manufactured using the P2 bl end. Given the homogeneity of the components of CDF, the qualitative laboratory test data submitted with this petition is sufficient to provide a meaningful constituent/contaminant comparison. Further, th e processing of CDF adds further homogeneity to the product, by removing contaminants and si zing the material to give it homogeneous fuel
characteristics.

Table A-1 of Appendix A presents the compiled list of constituents/contaminants that could reasonably be expected to be present in CDF and presents the results of the qualitative testing. Table A-2 of Appendix A compares the resu lts of the qualitative testing to the
constituents/contaminants of the solid fuels coal and biomass and the liquid fuels fuel oil and
coal tar oil on a concentration ba sis. Contaminant levels for coal and biomass were chosen for comparison since a combustion unit currently utiliz ing CDF could reasonably be expected to be capable of combusting coal and/or other biomass fu els as an innate feature of its original design characteristics and no separate delivery system is needed to switch from one solid fuel to
another. Fuel oil and coal ta r oil were chosen for comparison since a combustion unit currently utilizing CDF also could reasonably be expected to be capable of combusting either fuel oil or
coal tar oil as an innate feature of its original design ch aracteristics.

With respect to liquid fuels, we recognize that EPA interprets the phrase “designed to burn” to
mean that a combustor that makes a self-determi nation that its CDF is a processed fuel product may have to meet the contaminant legitimacy cr iterion by installing a nozzle for the delivery of liquid fuel into the boiler. According to EPA, this condition is to avoid the possibility that discard could be occurring in some situations. However, in the context of a specific non-waste determination under section 241.4, EPA has the opportuni ty to evaluate all th e factors relating to the use of CDF as a fuel, includi ng the fact that CDF is a comm odity that is purchased by theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-10 

### combustor. EPA, in granting a petition for a non-waste determination, has the discretion to recognize that when a combustor pur chases CDF and then burns it in a boiler, that combustion is not for the purpose of discarding the CDF. Rather, the combustion is for the legitimate purpose of generating energy.

In comparing the constituents/contaminants that could reasonably be expected to be present in CDF to the contaminants in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal tar oil, MAER is providing a meaningful comparison of CDF contaminants to a collective end-use combustor fuel contaminant profile. Such a collective fuel c ontaminant profile provides a genuine comparison of the contaminants potentially present in CDF to the contaminants present in the traditional fuels that an end-use combustor cap able of burning CDF actually burn.

MAER combined the individual co ntaminants into specific groups based on similar physical and chemical properties. Specifi cally, MAER established a Vola tile Organic Compounds (VOC) hydrocarbon group, a group comprising the comm on 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs), and a semi-VOC hydrocarbon group, which included the 16 PAH group and other semiVOCs. MAER did not choose to combine any metal contaminants. The individual contaminants have been combined into their respective groupings as presented on Table A-1.

As presented in Tables A-1 and A-2, the levels of the constituents/contaminants expected to be present in CDF are comparable to the levels known to exist in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and/or coal tar oil. All relevant groups of CDF constituents /contaminants tested were either non-detect or lower than the comparable levels of groups of contaminants present in one or more of the traditional fuels. For contaminants that are VOCs, the analytical data indicate that the sum of all CDF VOC contaminants are approximately 0.89 part per million (ppm) by weight which is much
less than the individual contamin ant level listed for n-hexane in fuel oil (10,000 ppm). The CDF semi-VOC contaminants are present at approxima tely 978 ppm which is considerable less than the individual contaminant level of phenol that is reported for fuel oil (7,700 ppm). The common 16 PAH plus two (2) additional PAHs (1-methylnapthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene) detected in CDF summed to 7,036 ppm while the contaminant level of naphthalene (just one of the 16M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-11 

### PAHs) is 7,330 ppm from fuel oil. Only two (2) metals were presen t in CDF at detectable levels (manganese and mercury) and both of these contaminants are present at levels less than either coal or biomass. Finally the concentration leve ls for the “precursor contaminants” (chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur) detected in CDF ar e less than the correspondi ng levels measured in coal, biomass, and fuel oil. Overall the groups of contaminants detected in CDF are lower than the levels of individual, representative contaminants present in traditional fuels such as coal, biomass, and fuel oil.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

3-1 

## 3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the final revision to the NHSM, U.S. EPA provided responses to a Petition for Non-Waste Determination under 40 CFR §241.4 and Request for Comfort Letter submitted by the AF&PA on December 6, 2012. In their response, U.S. EP A requested that the AF&PA provide additional
information as follows:

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to fo rest product mills, that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc.) that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 3. The traditional fuels and relative amounts of th ese traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of boilers. 4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e .g., commercial or reside ntial boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creoso te-treated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibe nzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, quinoline, cresols, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene.

MAER has provided additional information in response to U.S. EPA’s request below:

1. MAER knows of 10-16 end-use combustors that utilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel use at all times that th eir combustion units are operating. CDF usage from such end-use combustors can be as much as 100-500 tons daily. MAER knows of 10-16 additional end-use combustors that utilize CDF occasionally based on availability and cost drivers. MAER also knows well over 100 more end-use co mbustors that are operationally able to utilize CDF as an alternativ e fuel to offset fossil fuel that choose not to use CDF as a result of the current solid-was te implications associated with CDF. The 20-32 end-use combustors that utilize CDF, both full-time and part-time, represent a variety of industries including pulp and paper manufacturing, cogeneration, utilities, and chemical manufacturing facilities. 2. The types of boilers operated by those end-use combustors that currently utilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel include fluidized bed, traveli ng grate, and spreader stoker. 3. Boilers operated by end-use combustors that ut ilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel also burn a variety of “traditional fuels” including: coal, biomass (i.e., hog fuel, bark fuel, and other biomass fuel materi als), fuel oil, Tired Derived Fuel (TDF), Waste Derived Liquid Fuel (WDLF), a nd Waste Derived Solid Fuel (WDSF).M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

3-2 

### 4. MAER understands that the residential use of CDF for purposes of energy recovery is unlikely. However, MAER does know of severa l local utilities in the northern Midwest that utilize CDF for purpos es of power generation. 5. MAER understands that Tables A-1 and A-2 of Attachment A, and the raw qualitative laboratory test data provided in Attachment B, fulfill U.S. EPA’s fifth request as appropriate. However, note that si nce MAER developed the list of constituents/contaminants beginning with what constituents/con taminants could be expected to be present in CDF not all of the specific constituents/contaminants referenced by U.S. EPA were tested as they do not re present constituents/contaminants that would be expected to be present in CDF (i.e., dioxins).

Also, in the final revisions to the NHSM, U.S. EPA provided added four (4) elements to the definition of contaminants as precursor “contam inants” including chlorine (Cl), fluorine (F), nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S). As a result, MAER has provided data pertaining to the presence of Cl, F, N, and S in the qualitative laboratory test data provided as Attachments A and B.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

4-1 

## 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

CDF is a non-hazardous alternativ e biomass fuel derived from railr oad crossties that have been reclaimed as part of normal railroad maintenan ce activities. As a function of its high energy content, CDF is currently beneficially used for heat and energy recovery in many combustion units across a variety of industr y sectors as a non-hazardous, bi omass derived, alternative to
fossil fuel.

Based on the information contained herein, cross ties that comprise CDF are not solid-wastes.
The use of CDF as a non-hazardou s, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact by reducing emissions of GHG and decreasing the unnecessary land-filling of this valuable fuel resource. Th e CDF meets the legitimacy criteria specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d) in that the crosst ies that comprise CDF are (1) either not discarded or are sufficiently processed; (2) are managed as a valu able commodity; (3) have a meaningful heating value; and (4) have levels of constituents/contam inants comparable to the levels known to exist in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and/or coal tar oil.

For these reasons, the information presented herein, and the overabundance of previously submitted similar information, CDF is indeed a n on-waste fuel and that U.S. EPA should issue a categorical determination that CD F is a non-waste fuel in accordan ce with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2), and specifically list CD F as a non-waste NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a).

## APPENDIX A –

CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT COMPARISON TABLESTable A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes Physical/Fuel Characteristics

1 Moisture 27.98 %wt

- 0.58 %wt (as received) 0.81 %wt (moist. free) 6,595 Btu/lb (as received) 9,157 Btu/lb (moist. free) Non-HAP/Non-Metal Elements

4 Hydrogen 5.79 % wt (Moist Free)

- 5 Nitrogen 0.16 % wt (Moist Free)

- 6 Sulfur 0.080 % wt (Moist Free)

- 7 Fluorine 0.01 % wt (Moist Free)

- 8 Chlorine 0.04 % wt (Moist Free)

- 9 Oxygen (diff) 32.28 % wt (Moist Free)

- 10 Carbon 52.72 % wt (Moist Free)

- Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

11 Benzene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 12 Ethyl benzene 57.5 ug/Kg

- 13 Styrene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 14 Toluene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 15 Xylenes 325 ug/Kg (Total) 16 Cumene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 17 Acrolein 1,000 ug/Kg Non-Detect 18 Bromomethane 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 19 Carbon Tetrachloride 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 20 Carbon-Disulfide 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 21 Chlorobenzene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 22 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 23 Methylene Chloride 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 24 m,p-xylene 178 ug/Kg

- 25 o-xylene 148 ug/Kg

- 26 Tetrachloroethylene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 27 Trichloroethylene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 28 Vinyl Chloride 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 29 n-Hexane 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS

30 1,1-dichloroethylene 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 31 1,2-dichloroethane 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 32 1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 33 Chloroform 0.10 mg/ L N on-Detec t Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID

34 Acetaldehyde 1.00 mg/Kg Non-Detect 35 Methanol 1.00 mg/Kg Non-Detect 36 Propionaldehyde 1.00 mg/K g N on-Detec t Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

37 2,4-dinitrophenol 57,400 ug/Kg Non-Detect 38 2,4-dinitrotoluene 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 39 Acetophenone 29,100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 40 Aniline 14,600 ug/K g N on-Detec t -

Heat Content 3 2 Ash

-Table A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes 41 Biphenyl 137,000 ug/Kg - 42 Dibenzofuran 798,000 ug/Kg

- 43 Hexachlorobenzene 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 44 Pentachlorophenol 57,400 ug/Kg Non-Detect 45 Phenol 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 46 Quinoline 40,200 ug/K g

- TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

47 o-cresol 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 48 m,p-cresol 1.5100 mg/kg

- 49 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 50 Hexachloroethane 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 51 Nitrobenzene 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 52 Pyridine 0.20 mg/L Non-Detect 53 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 54 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.05 mg/ L N on-Detec t Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM

55 1-Methylnaphthalen e 144,000 ug/K g

- 56 2-Methylnaphthalen e 251,000 ug/K g

- 57 Acenaphthene 610,000 ug/K g

- 58 Acenaphthylen e 58,600 ug/K g N on-Detec t 59 Anthracene 447,000 ug/K g

- 60 Benz(a)anthracene 201,000 ug/K g

- 61 Benzo(a)pyrene 81,900 ug/K g

- 62 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 128,000 ug/K g

- 63 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 29,300 ug/K g N on-Detec t 64 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57,900 ug/K g

- 65 Chrysene 182,000 ug/Kg

- 66 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 29,300 ug/Kg Non-Detect 67 Fluoranthene 1,100,000 ug/Kg

- 68 Fluorene 529,000 ug/Kg

- 69 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29,300 ug/Kg Non-Detect 70 Naphthalene 444,000 ug/Kg

- 71 Phenanthrene 1,930,000 ug/Kg

- 72 Pyrene 930,000 ug/K g

- Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

73 Chlordane 708 ug/Kg Non-Detect TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

74 Lindane 0.2380 mg/kg - 75 Heptachlor 0.0002 mg/L Non-Detect 76 Methoxychlor 0.0004 mg/L Non-Detect 77 Toxaphene 0.005 mg/ L N on-Detec tTable A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)

78 Formaldehyde 1,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect Trace Metal HAP:

79 Antimony (Sb) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 80 Arsenic (As) <10 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 81 Beryllium (Be) <0.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 82 Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 83 Chromium (Cr) <2.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 84 Cobalt (Co) <2.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 85 Lead (Pb) <10 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 86 Manganese (Mn) 63 mg/kg (Moisture Free)

- 87 Mercury (Hg) 16.1 ppb (moisture free)

- 88 Nickel (Ni) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 89 Selenium (Se) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect

(a) Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Columbia Analytical Services, Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.Table A-2CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Grouped Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationUnitAnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)Moisture27.98 %wt---------0.58 %wt (as received)---------0.81 %wt (moist. free)---------6,595 Btu/lb (as received)---------9,157 Btu/lb (moist. free)---------Non-HAP/ Non-MetalHydrogen 57,900 - - ------Nitrogen 1,600 - N/A 13,600 – 54,000 200 – 39,500 2,200 – 4,600 42 – 8,950 2,000 – 3,000 - - -Sulfur 800 - N/A 740 – 61,300 Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100 N/A Non-Detect – 57,000 - - -Fluorine 100 - N/A Non-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128 N/A Non-Detect – 14 - - -Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A Non-Detect – 1,260 - - -Oxygen (diff) 322,800 ----------Carbon 527,200 ----------Volatile Organic Compounds0.38 - 8.6 – 56 N/A 1.6 - 27 N/A 50 – 10,000 N/A 2,410 N/A 1,500Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds977 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Detect – 7,700 N/A 1,170 6,000 – 12,000 10,30016-PAHs7,036-N/AN/AN/AN/ANon-Detect – 7,330N/A2,850110,000 – 140,000161,100Trace Metal HapsAntimony (Sb)<5Non-Detect0.5 – 10Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 15.7 Non-Detect – 3.8---Arsenic (As)<10Non-Detect0.5 – 80Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298N/ANon-Detect – 13---Beryllium (Be)<0.5Non-Detect0.1 – 15Non-Detect – 206N/ANon-Detect – 10N/ANon-Detect – 19---Cadmium (Cd)<0.5Non-Detect0.1 – 3Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3Non-Detect – 17N/ANon-Detect – 1.4---Chromium (Cr)<2.5Non-Detect0.5 – 60Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340N/ANon-Detect – 37---Cobalt (Co)<2.5Non-Detect0.5 – 30Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213N/ANon-Detect – 8.5---Lead (Pb)<10Non-Detect2 – 80Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 56.8 Non-Detect – 52---Manganese (Mn)63-5 – 300Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800N/ANon-Detect – 3,200---Mercury (Hg)0.0161-0.02 – 1Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1N/ANon-Detect – 0.2---Nickel (Ni)<5Non-Detect0.5 – 50Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 50.2 Non-Detect – 270---Selenium (Se)<5Non-Detect0.02 – 10Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0NANon-Detect – 4---(a)Represents constituent/contaminant data converted to ppm as appropriate originally obtained from Columbia Analytical Services, Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.(b)Information obtained from U.S. EPA's"Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison"from U.S. EPA was acquired from www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf.(c)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Table A-1 - Refinery Average Stream Hazardous Air Pollutant Compositions—Default Values of theEmission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries Final ICR.(d)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Coopers Creek Chemical Corporate Safety Data Sheet for Coopersote Creosote Oil (AWPA P1/P13).(e)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Material Safety Date Sheet (MSDS) NO. US 614838 for Creosote/Coal Tar Solution and Creosote Oil.Liquid FuelCDF Test Results(a)COAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)Fuel OilCoal Tar OilAshHeat ContentCrosstie SampleSolid FuelTable A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)Physical/Fuel Characteristics1Moisture27.98%wt---------0.58%wt (as received)---------0.81%wt (moist. free)---------6,595Btu/lb (as received)---------9,157Btu/lb (moist. free)---------Non-HAP/Non-Metal Elements4Hydrogen57,900--------5Nitrogen1,600-N/A13,600 – 54,000200 – 39,5002,200 – 4,60042 – 8,9502,000 – 3,000---6Sulfur800-N/A740 – 61,300Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100N/ANon-Detect – 57,000---7Fluorine100-N/ANon-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128N/ANon-Detect – 14---8Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A Non-Detect – 1,260 - - -9Oxygen (diff) 322,800----------10Carbon 527,200----------Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS11Benzene 0.05 Non-Detect Non-Detect – 38 N/A - - Non-Detect – 75 N/A 40 - 1,30012Ethyl benzene 0.0575 - 0.7 – 5.4 N/A - - 22 – 1,270 N/A 530 - 40013Styrene 0.05 Non-Detect 1.0 – 26 N/A - - Non-Detect – 320 N/A - - 60014Toluene 0.05 Non-Detect 8.6 – 56 N/A - - Non-Detect – 380 N/A 810 - 1,50015Xylenes 0.325 (Total) 4.0 – 28 N/A - - Non-Detect – 3,100 N/A 2,410 - -16Cumene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 6,000 – 8,600 N/A 560 - -17Acrolein 1 Non-Detect - - -------18Bromomethane 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------19Carbon Tetrachloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------20Carbon-Disulfide 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------21Chlorobenzene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------22Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------23Methylene Chloride 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------24m,p-xylene 0.178---------1,30025o-xylene 0.148- - - - - - - - - 40026Tetrachloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------27Trichloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------28Vinyl Chloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------29n-Hexane 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 50 – 10,000 - 300 - -TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS301,1-dichloroethylene 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------311,2-dichloroethane 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------321,4-dichlorobenzene 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------33Chloroform 0.07 Non-Detect - - -------Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID-----34Acetaldehyde 1.00 Non-Detect - - -------35Methanol1.00Non-Detect---------36Propionaldehyde1.00Non-Detect---------2Ash3Heat ContentCDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelTable A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)CDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS372,4-dinitrophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - -------382,4-dinitrotoluene 14.6 Non-Detect - - -------39Acetophenone 29.1 Non-Detect - - -------40Aniline 14.6 Non-Detect - - -------41Biphenyl 137-----1,000 – 1,200 N/A 1,170 6,000 – 12,000 10,30042Dibenzofuran 798---------31,30043Hexachlorobenzene 14.6 Non-Detect - - ------44Pentachlorophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - -------45Phenol 14.6 Non-Detect - - - - Non-Detect – 7,700 NA - - 60046Quinolines 40.2---------9,000TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS47o-cresol0.05Non-Detect-------800 – 2,500-48m,p-cresol1.51--------800 – 2,500-49Hexachlorobutadiene0.05Non-Detect---------50Hexachloroethane0.03Non-Detect---------51Nitrobenzene0.04Non-Detect---------52Pyridine0.20Non-Detect---------532,4,5-trichlorophenol0.03Non-Detect---------542,4,6-trichlorophenol0.03Non-Detect---------Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM551-Methylnaphthalene144---------18,000562-Methylnaphthalene251---------48,40057Acenaphthene610--------40,000 – 60,00060,00058Acenaphthylene58.6Non-Detect---------59Anthracene447--------20,000 – 40,00037,60060Benz(a)anthracene201---------14,00061Benzo(a)pyrene81.9--------1,000 – 4,0003,90062Benzo(b)fluoranthene128--------2,000 – 4,0004,20063Benzo(g,h,i)perylene29.3Non-Detect--------1,70064Benzo(k)fluoranthene57.9---------2,80065Chrysene182--------10,000 – 12,00012,20066Dibenz(a,h)anthracene29.3Non-Detect-------200 – 40040067Fluoranthene1,100--------60,000 – 80,00074,10068Fluorene529---------43,90069Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene29.3Non-Detect-------500 – 1,0001,20070Naphthalene444- - - - -Non-Detect – 7,3302,85030,000 – 80,000161,10071Phenanthrene1930--------110,000 – 140,000141,30072Pyrene930--------40,000– 50,00051,400Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography73Chlordane0.708Non-Detect---------TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography74Lindane0.2380----------75Heptachlor0.0001Non-Detect---------76Methoxychlor0.0003Non-Detect---------77Toxaphene0.0030Non-Detect---------Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)78Formaldehyde1.6Non-Detect--1.6 - 27N/A-----Table A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)CDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelTrace Metal HAP:79Antimony (Sb)<5Non-Detect 0.5 – 10 Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 15.7 Non-Detect – 3.8 - - -80Arsenic (As) <10 Non-Detect 0.5 – 80 Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298 N/A Non-Detect – 13 - - -81Beryllium (Be) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 15 Non-Detect – 206 N/A Non-Detect – 10 N/A Non-Detect – 19 - - -82Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 3 Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3 Non-Detect – 17 N/A Non-Detect – 1.4 - - -83Chromium (Cr) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 60 Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340 N/A Non-Detect – 37 - - -84Cobalt (Co) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 30 Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213 N/A Non-Detect – 8.5 - - -85Lead (Pb) <10 Non-Detect 2 – 80 Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 56.8 Non-Detect – 52 - - -86Manganese (Mn) 63 - 5 – 300 Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800 N/A Non-Detect – 3,200 - - -87Mercury (Hg) 0.016100 - 0.02 – 1 Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1 N/A Non-Detect – 0.2 - - -88Nickel (Ni) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 50 Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 50.2 Non-Detect – 270 - - -89Selenium (Se) <5 Non-Detect 0.02 – 10 Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0 NA Non-Detect – 4 - - -(a)Represents constituent/contaminant data converted to ppm as appropriate originally obtained from Columbia Analytical Services, Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.(b)Information obtained from U.S. EPA's"Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison"from U.S. EPA was acquired from www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf.(c)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Table A-1 - Refinery Average Stream Hazardous Air Pollutant Compositions—Default Values of theEmission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries Final ICR.(d)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Coopers Creek Chemical Corporate Safety Data Sheet for Coopersote Creosote Oil (AWPA P1/P13).(e)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Material Safety Date Sheet (MSDS) NO. US 614838 for Creosote/Coal Tar Solution and Creosote Oil.

## APPENDIX B –

CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT RAW TESTING RESULTS

## REPORT



# EVALUATION OF USED RAILROAD TIES TREATED WITH CREOSOTE FOR POLYNUCLEAR ORGANIC MATERIAL (POM) WHICH INCLUDES POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH)

Prepared for Association of American Railroads 425 Third Street S.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20024

January 28, 2013

1000 Corporate Centre Drive Suite 250 Franklin, Tennessee 37067 (615) 771-2480 URS Project No.: 20500394.00001 Attn: Jack Waggener, P.E. Senior Principal & Engineering Manager

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ...... 3

SAMPLING AT NATIONAL SALVAGE.................................................................................. 4

SAMPLING AT THE STELLA JONE S SITE IN DULUTH, MN .......................................... 5

SAMPLE HANDLING AND PREPARATIONS ....................................................................... 5

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS........................................................................................................... 6

PHOTOLOGS

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Laboratory Analytical Repor t Samples from Stella Jones Facility APPENDIX B Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from National Salvage Facility

# Executive Summary

1 S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

### The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commissioned URS Corporation to perform this study of used creosote treated railroad ties. The objective of the study was to determine the levels of Polynuclear Organic Materi al (POM) which includes Polynuc lear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and other organic compounds in the ties to determine how they compare to other fuels for the purpose of the recent Non-Hazardous Solid Mate rials (NHSM) Rule. POMs are in the list of
constituents of the Hazardous Air Pollutan t (HAP) of the EPA air emissions rules.

URS personnel collected three sample s of processed/chipped used ra ilroad ties from each of two facilities: National Salvage located outside of Selma, Alabama, that was processing used ties from Norfolk Southern at the time of sampling, and a Stella Jones facility located in Duluth, Minnesota, processing used ties from BNSF. All six samples of processed railroad tie chips were packaged in airtight jars and shipped ove rnight to the Test America, North Canton, Ohio, Laboratory, which was chosen fo r its past experience in extracting and analyzing difficult solid matrices, including railroad ties. URS made arrangements with th e laboratory to further reduce the size of the processe d ties to a manageable size (<3 mm) for analysis, and then extract the samples using SW846 Method 3540C (Soxhlet extr action). GCMS analysis was conducted using SW846 Method 8270C. The samples were analyzed for the full RCRA Target Compounds List, which includes 17 PAH comp ounds, and also carbazole and dibenzofuran, two additional compounds EPA considers to be in the POM cat egory. The results were reported on an as received basis, with the laboratory al so reporting the moisture content.

A summary of the results of the anal yses are presented in the tables within this report; the full lab reports are included as appendices. The sum of the nineteen POM compounds is also calculated and presented. The sum total of POM compounds for the six samples ranged from a low value of 12,600,000 ug/kg for National Salvage Truck 5, up to a high of 24,500,000 ug/kg for National Salvage Truck 3, with half of the samples (3) being over 20,000,000 ug/kg. For the final NHSM rule, EPA released a document (Docke t ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008- 0329-1877(1)) containing tables of concentrations of various compounds found in traditional fuel. EPA did not report values for other compounds such as carbazole and dibenzof uran, which though polycyclic organic compounds, are not considered aromatic hydrocarbons. This EPA document indicates

# Executive Summary

2 S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### that the PAH concentrations in petroleum fuel oils range from 3,900,000 ug/kg on up to over 54,000,000 ug/kg. This would put used railroad ties squarely within the range of PAH concentrations found in fuel oils. Also, PAH con centrations in coal tar oil are much higher than
used railroad ties.

# INTRODUCTION

S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 3 INTRODUCTION 

### The AAR commissioned URS Corporation to perf orm this project in January 2012. The purpose of this sampling and analysis initiative was to determine whether the Polynuclear Organic Materials (POMs) content of used creosote treated railroad ties is comparable to the
concentrations of these constituents in traditional fuels such as of coal tar, and fuel oils. (The POM classification appears to be an EPA define d chemical group that primarily consists of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), but apparently also may include some other cyclical organic compounds that may contai n non-hydrocarbon functional groups.) In the reissue of the Non-Hazardous Solid Materials NHSM Rule, EPA has stated that the determination
as to whether a material is to be classified as a solid wast e (as opposed to a r ecycled alternative fuel) is that the composition of that material in regards to HAP listed constituents must be comparable to the composition of a traditional fuel. EPA has further stated that the constituents of the material alone are to be considered, even if it can be demonstrated th at emissions from that material when used as a fuel are comparable to emissions from any traditional fuel the material might replace.S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 4 SAMPLING AT NATIONAL SALVAGE 

# SAMPLING AT NATIONAL SALVAGE
National Salvage is a railroad tie recycling oper ation located outside Selma, Alabama. URS Senior Chemist Peter Ciarleglio visited that facility on February 22, 2012, to collect samples and observe the operations. The facili ty personnel indicated that they only process used railroad ties; they do not receive reject stock from railroad ti e manufacturers or other wood materials. The majority of used railroad ties received at the facility come from the Norfolk Southern Railroad,
and URS confirmed that ties from that railroad were being processed during th e time of the visit. The ties arrive in railroad cars; incoming ties are given priority for proce ssing, since the railroad must get their rolling stock ba ck as soon as possible. If the ties cannot be immediately processed, the ties must be stacked in large storag e piles at the back of the facility, and later reloaded onto a few cars remaining at the site fo r processing. Please s ee the Photologs in the back of this report which depict the facility and operations.

The first stage of processing is to segregate tie s that are in good condition for direct resale to commercial fencing operations, landscapers and other users. These ties are graded as to overall condition, with the best ties fetching the highest price. Overall, the facility recycles around 25- 30% of the incoming ties in this manner.

The 70 to 75% remainder of the ties are left in the railroad cars and moved on to one of the two chipper stations. On the day URS was there, on e of the chippers was down for maintenance. Here, the railroad ties are wetted down using recycled water stored in a lined pond on-site, to cut down on fugitive dust from the chipper. A crane then lifts loads of about 6 to 10 railroad ties at a time, and feeds them into the chipper. The sh redded material is carr ied by a conveyor into waiting trucks to be shipped dire ctly to two different nearby International Paper facilities which
combust the material in their boilers for ener gy recovery. Samples were intended to be taken from a minimum of three different trucks by plan t personnel. It was noted that the first two trucks sampled were also receiving significant am ounts of “mulch” from a front end loader, that is chips that had escaped the chipper and mixe d with the mud and wash water from the ground around the chipper. URS was concerned that these fi rst two trucks might not be representative of the actual Railroad Tie Derived Fuel, so an additi onal three trucks (NS-Tr ucks 3, 4, and 5) were sampled. It was later decided that the samples from these last three trucks would be sent to the laboratory for analysis.S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 5 

# Sampling at the Stella Jones Site in Duluth, MN

SAMPLING AT THE STELLA JONES SITE IN DULUTH, MN 

### Stella Jones Company operates a railroad tie recycling operation in Duluth Minnesota. This facility currently receives used railroad ties from Burlington Northern Railroad. Chris LaNasa of the URS Minneapolis office visited the facility on February 22, 2012. At the Stella Jones site, instead of using recycled water as done by National Salvage, dus t was controlled using a vacuum cyclone over the point where the chips were fed in to the RTDF collection trucks. Chris had three trucks sampled by plant personnel: SJ-Trucks 1, 2, a nd 3. It appears that all of the ties go through the chipper and are sent to energy recovery. Plea se see the Photolog in the back of this report which shows the facility and operations.


# Sample Handling and Preparations

SAMPLE HANDLING AND PREPARATIONS 

### Each Truck sample was collected in a clean five gallon plastic paint bucket with an airtight lid. The samples were labeled and seal ed, and first shipped overnight or directly transported to the URS Franklin, TN office. It was determined that an airtight seal was sufficient and that ice preservation would not be necessary, since the tie s had been exposed to the elements for years and the material coming off the chipper was still quite coarse. In the tw o dimensions across the wood grain, the size of the bulk of the materi al was generally around 1 centimeter or slightly smaller in diameter. Along the axis of the wood grain, the bulk of the material ranged from one on up to around 15 centimeters in length. (See pictur es of the typical material from NS-Truck 3 and NS-Truck 4.) After arriving at the URS office, each truck sample was thoroughly mixed, and enough material from each sample was taken to completely fill two quart mason jars. The mason jars were sealed and shipped to the Te st America North Canton Laboratory. The three National Salvage samples were received at the lab on Friday, February 22, 2012, and the three Stella Jones samples were received the followi ng Tuesday, February 28, 2012. After receipt, as per agreement with URS, the laboratory further pr ocessed the entirety of each sample received (two mason jars) by further grinding it into an appropriate size for the Soxhlet extraction (approximately 3-5 mm). An aliquot of the pr ocessed material was then extracted by Method 3540C without any further processing and analyzed for all the semi-volatile organic compounds on the CLP Target Compound List (TCL) by Met hod 8270C. Results were reported on an “as received” basis, and the percent moisture determination results were also reported.S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 6 

# DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 

### The compounds that were detected were poly- nuclear aromatic hydroc arbons (PAH) compounds and two other compounds that EPA has included within their somewhat broader definition of poly-nuclear organic materials (POM)—carbozole and dibenzofuran. The only other detected compound in some samples was 1, 1’-biphenyl, which is not a poly-nuclear compound. (The two phenyl groups are joined by a single bond in this compound and therefore are not polycyclic.) All other compounds on the TCL list we re not detected in any of the samples. This includes the compounds hexachlorobenzene and 2,4-dinitrot oluene, reported by EPA as being potential
constituents of creosote treated wood in the fina l rule. A summary of the results for all the polynuclear organic materials from the Stella Jone s samples can be found in Table 1, and the same summary for the National Salvage samples is contained in Table 2. The complete laboratory report from Test America North Canton is in cluded in this report as an Appendix.

The sum total POM compounds for the six samples ranged from a low value of 12,600,000 ug/kg for National Salvage Truck 5, up to a hi gh of 24,500,000 ug/kg for Na tional Salvage Truck 3, with half of the samples (3) being over 20,000,000 ug/kg. The contribution of the two compounds dibenzofuran and carbozole, which are not PAHs, is less than 10% of the POM sum in every sample, so the inclusion of these compounds by EPA does not affect the overall results to any significant extent. For the final rule, EP A released a document dated 11/29/11 (Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1877(1)) containing tables of concentrations of various compounds
found in traditional fuel.

TABLE 1 Chipped Ties, Stella Jones Facility, Duluth, MN, 2012 Sample SJ-Truck 1 Sample SJ-Truck 2 Sample SJ-Truck 3 Analyte Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) 2-Methylnaphthalene 860000 910000 1100000 Acenaphthene 1500000 1600000 1900000 Acenaphthylene 34000 34000 40000 Anthracene 1100000 1000000 1400000 Benzo[a]anthracene 350000 370000 430000 Benzo[a]pyrene 100000 110000 130000 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 140000 200000 200000 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 79000 81000 90000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 91000 79000 95000 Carbazole 390000 380000 470000 Chrysene 320000 340000 400000S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 7 TABLE 1 Chipped Ties, Stella Jones Facility, Duluth, MN, 2012 Sample SJ-Truck 1 Sample SJ-Truck 2 Sample SJ-Truck 3 Analyte Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND ND ND Dibenzofuran 970000 1000000 1200000 Fluoranthene 2300000 2500000 2900000 Fluorene 1300000 1400000 1700000 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 84000 84000 95000 Naphthalene 2600000 2900000 3200000 Phenanthrene 4700000 5000000 6100000 Pyrene 1400000 1500000 1700000 Total POMs 18,318,000 19,488,000 23,150,000

TABLE 2 Chipped Ties, National Salvage Facility, Selma, AL, 2012 Sample NS-Truck 3 Sample NS-Truck 4 Sample NS-Truck 5 Analyte Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) Result (ug/kg) 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,300,000 1,500,000 490,000 Acenaphthene 2,300,000 2,100,000 840,000 Acenaphthylene 39,000 79,000 49,000 Anthracene 1,600,000 1,200,000 880,000 Benzo[a]anthracene 680,000 580,000 450,000 Benzo[a]pyrene 190,000 230,000 180,000 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 310,000 340,000 310,000 Benzo[g,h,i]peryl ene 57,000 76,000 62,000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 130,000 120,000 87,000 Carbazole 680,000 390,000 300,000 Chrysene 590,000 590,000 450,000 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND ND ND Dibenzofuran 1,500,000 1,400,000 570,000 Fluoranthene 3,500,00 0 3,200,000 1,800,000 Fluorene 2,000,000 1,700,000 770,000 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 57,000 83,000 63,000 Naphthalene 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,100,000 Phenanthrene 5,800,000 5,500,000 2,900,000 Pyrene 2,400,000 2,200,000 1,300,000 Total POM 24,533,000 22,688,000 12,601,000S:\2013\AAR\Final NHSM rule 122012\Final RR-Tie PAH Analysis Rpt\2013-1-9 URS Revised RTDF Report 5-18-12 REF + MJR Comments pg c+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

### 8 From the EPA document of 11/29/11, Table 3 shows that the total PAH content for fuel oils ranges from 3900-54,700 mg/kg. When the analyses of this report are converted to mg/kg, they average roughly 20,000 mg/kg, in the lower half of the range for fuel oils. The PAH content of RTDF is therefore completely comp arable to or even lower than the concentrations found in fuel
oil.

As it turned out, these laboratory results were very similar in PAH content to lab results includedin comments by International Paper to the proposed NHSM rule (Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2008-0329-1158). That document contained some laborat ory data for a single sample asserted to be RTDF that was analyzed in the 1990s. Th e sample was identified only as “Crossett Arkansas”, and it came from a comp any called “Wood Waste Energy”.

Finally, URS was concerned that the use of r ecycled water for dust control at the National Salvage facility might affect the PAH results, either through add itional moisture content or the accumulation of PAHs in the recycled wastewater. This does not appear to have been the case. The percent moisture content of the railroad ties as analyzed by the lab appeared to be about equal from both of the sampled facilities. Also, the PAH results from samples from both facilities were comparable, with the possibl e exception of sample NS-Truck 5, which was somewhat lower than the other samples.

# PHOTOLOG

# APPENDIX A Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from Stella Jones Facility

# APPENDIX B Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from National Salvage Facility

### 1111 19 t h 

### Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 463-2045 Fax: (202) 463-2059

April 3, 2013

BY CERTIFIED MAIL
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe Acting Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 1101 A, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460
Re: Petition for Determination Identifying Non-Hazardous Secondary Treated Wood Biomass as a Non-Waste under 40 C.F.R. §241.4 (a)
Dear Acting Administrator Perciasepe:
The Treated Wood Council (T WC) submits the following petition under 40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (b) for a determination that non-hazardous secondary treated wood biomass (NHSTWB) is, as a category, not a waste. Further, TWC requests that NHSTWB be added to the materials identified in 40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (a) as a material that is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. As demonstrated below, depe nding on the type of NHSTWB, it has either not been discarded in the first instance or is pr ocessed and managed pursuant to proven practices comparable to those EPA has previously approved; in both cases it is legitimately used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To the extent any of the legitimacy criteria specified in 40 C.F.R. § 241.3 (d)(1) are not met, NHSTWB is functionally the same as its comparable traditional fuel, and a balancing of all relevant fact ors, as relied upon in previous EPA non-waste determinations, requires that NHSTWB similarly be determined to be a non-waste. Supporting data for each of the types of NHSTWB covered by this petition are provided below.

1. Petitioner’s Name and Address

Treated Wood Council 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 2

2. Statement of Petitioner’s Inte rest in the Proposed Action

The TWC is an international trade associati on of the wood treating industry, serving more than 490 companies and associations related to the production of treated wood. TWC’s members have for many years generated, used, sold, or bought NHSTWB as a legitimate fuel for energy recovery. TWC submits this petition for a na tional determination th at this longstanding, beneficial, and environmentally sound practice constitutes combustion of a non-waste fuel and can continue without interruption. 3. Description of the Proposed Action
TWC requests that the following language be added to 40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (a): (5) Non-hazardous secondary treated wood biomass that is transferred from the generating site or organi zation to the combustion site under contractual agreements throughout its transfer. Such non-hazardous secondary treated wood biomass may also be combined with other traditional fuels or other materials listed in this section. For purposes of this section, “non-hazard ous secondary treated wood biomass” includes wood treated with: waterborne borate -based preservatives, waterborne organic-based preservatives, waterbor ne copper-based wood preservatives (ammoniacal/alkaline copper quat, copper azole, copper HDO, alkaline copper betaine, or copper naphthena te); creosote; oilborne copper naphthenate; pentachlorophenol; or dual -treated with any of the above.
The relevant industry NAICS codes for this petition are: 321113 and 321114. The functional use code is U33. 4. Need and Justification for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to redress EP A’s generic conclusion that the use of nonhazardous secondary materials – including NHSTW B – for combustion is categorized as the burning of a solid waste unless ot herwise determined af ter consideration of a petition filed under 40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (b). EPA incorporated this ove rall conclusion into 40 C.F.R. § 241.3 (a) with the adoption of its February 2013 final rule on Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste. 1 

### To the contrary, as demonstrated below, NHSTWB is a valuable fuel that either is

1 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineratio n Units: Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste ; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 9112 (Feb. 7, 2013) (February 2013 Final Rule).

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 3

not discarded or is properly processed and managed, and is legitimately used as a fuel in a combustion unit. EPA’s February 2013 final rule requires that petitioners demonstrat e that the secondary material used as a non-waste fuel in a combusti on unit (1) has not previous ly been discarded or, alternatively, has been properly processed and managed, and (2) either meets the legitimacy criteria or, after balancing the legitimacy criteria w ith other relevant factors, is shown not to be a solid waste when used as fuel. 78 Fed. Reg. at 9158-59. The legitimacy cr iteria are: (a) the secondary material is managed as a valuable co mmodity, and storage must not exceed reasonable time frames; (b) where there is an analogous fu el, the secondary material must be managed consistently with the analogous fu el; (c) the secondary material must produce meaningful heating value; and (d) the secondary material must contain contaminants at levels comparable to those in traditional fuels. 2 

### EPA recognized in its February 2013 final rule that TWC had submitted information in support of a determination that NHSTWB be added as a categorical non-waste, and that, as to one type of treated wood, creoso te railroad ties, sufficient evidence had been provided that EPA expects to propose a categori cal listing for these mate rials. 78 Fed. Reg. at 9174. TWC provides the following additional information in s upport of its petition for the addition of NHSTWB to 40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (a).

NHSTWB Used as Combustion Fuel Has Either Not Been Discarded or Has Been Properly Processed and Managed; Also It is Managed as a Valuable Commodity and Consistently with Traditional Fuels

. Treated wood is green, virgin wood – a materi al EPA recognizes as a traditional fuel – that has been treated with preservative solutions that slow its deteriora tion and extend its useful life in applications such as building products, railroad ties, a nd utility poles. After its primary useful life, NHSTWB products are in demand for their energy recovery value. For example, creosote-treated railroad ties, which are impr egnated with a coal tar derivative (made up of traditional fuels) are sought-after as an alternativ e fuel because of their higher heat (measured as British thermal units or BTU) value, affordabilit y, and availability. Commercial arrangements have for many years channeled NHSTWB material s to cement kilns, power plants, and other facilities, where they are handled as a valuable commodity and substitute for wood, coal, or other fossil fuels. They are managed and stored simila rly to traditional fuels. The Class I railroads recycle nearly 60 percent of their used ties fo r energy recovery (and th e remainder are largely

2 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste ; Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15551 (March 21, 2011) (March 2011 Final Rule).

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 4

recycled for other purposes). 3 

### Approximately 20 percent of util ity poles are similarly reused for energy generation (and another 45 percent for other uses). 4


### As EPA’s February 2013 final rule acknowledges, 5 

### TWC has previously submitted evidence to the record of substantial volumes of NHSTWB used as a valuable combustion source at a co-gen facility in central Pennsylvania that was exclusivel y designed to burn these materials. As the table in Attachment 1 demonstrates, over the course of more than twenty years, this facility has burned 2.3 million tons of NHSTWB as part of its intrinsic process to generate electricity, under contracts with 89 commercial entities that fu rnish used, treated wood for energy recovery purposes. A second company, Zwicky Processing & Recy cling, Inc., has provided information describing its facility in eastern Pennsylvania that grinds NHSTWB along with construction and demolition materials, which EPA has preliminarily concluded are not waste. 6 

### (See Attachment 2.) These materials, once combined, are used for combustion by cement plants, paper mills, and power generation facilities. This facility also was built specifica lly for these materials and, to give a sense of its current s cale of operations, handled 140,000 tons of secondary NHSTWB and C&D wood during the first 10 months of 2012. A third company has explained that its f acility combusts 75% NHSTWB and 25% other forms of biomass to power its operations. A sa mple purchase contract entered into by this company for railroad ties used as a boiler biomass energy source was attached to TWC’s February 2012 Comments in this proceeding. 7 

### If EPA fails to categorize these materials as nonwaste, this plant could face a total shut down, without the availability of NHSTWB as a fuel source for this boiler. TWC has also provided samples in the record of numerous executed contracts showing a variety of types of purchase agreements for NHS TWB used for electricity generation and fuel combustion, and of a “Fuel Supply Agreement coveri ng creosote-treated materials (ties, poles,

3 See Comment submitted by J. Gauntt, Railway Tie Association, Wood Crossties 2008 Benchmark Tie Disposal Survey , Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248-0086.

4 Morrell, J. Disposal and Re-use of Utility Poles in the Western United States: A Survey , Proceedings of the American Wood Protection Ass’n., vol. 104, 268-271 (May 2008).

5 78 Fed. Reg. at 9174.

6 78 Fed. Reg. at 9173, citing 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,485.

7 See Attachment 4 to TWC’s Comments of February 20, 2012 in EPA Docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 (TWC February 2012 Comments).

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 5

posts, piling, and timbers) purchased by Vi king Energy of Michigan as boiler fuel. 8 

### An additional statement notes the use of copper na phthenate NHSTWB ties as a valuable fuel, for example at the DTE plant in Wisconsin, which is permitted to burn copper naphthenate, borate, and creosote-treated wood secondary material s for energy generation. (See Attachment 3.) Further, TWC’s February 2012 comments cited a st atement submitted to the record by the State of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resour ces and Environment, noting that in 2009, 16,625 tons of NHSTWB, including wood treated with cr eosote and pentachloro phenol, were burned for energy recovery and were eligib le for renewable energy or ad vanced cleaner energy credits under Michigan’s Clean, Renewabl e, and Efficient Energy Act. Collectively, these submissions provide comp elling evidence that NHSTWB is either not discarded or has been properly processed and mana ged, and that when used as a combustion fuel, it is regarded as a valuable commodity. NHSTWB has a Meaningful Heating Value a nd is Used as Fuel in a Combustion Unit that Recovers Energy. TWC has previously placed in the record da ta showing the higher BTU value of treated wood compared to that of virgin wood. 9 

### In short, NHSTWB has a moisture content of approximately 20 percent, compared to the 50 percent moisture content of untreated wood biomass. Wood preservatives do not reduce, and some add to, the heat value of wood. Treated wood used for fuel is typically drier than milling by-products, such as chips or bark, resulting in a higher heat value at appr oximately 7,000 BTU/pound (300,000 BTU/cf) for waterborne, and up to 8,000 (400,000 BTU/cf) for oilbor ne treated wood products. Each Type of NHSTWB is Either Not Discarded in the First Instance or is Processed and Managed Pursuant to Proven Practices; Each Type Contains Contaminants at Levels that are Comparable to or Low er than the Traditional Fuels that the Combustion Unit is Designed to Burn, or is Functionally the Same as Its Comparable Traditional Fuel, and a Balancing of All Relevant Factors Supports Its Categorization as a Non-Waste.

8 See Attachments 2 and 3 to TWC’s February 2012 Comments.

9 See TWC Comments of August 2, 2010 in EPA Docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, Table 1 (TWC August 2010 Comments).

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 6

The types of NHSTWB covere d by this petition are:
(1) Wood Treated with Waterborne Borate-Based Preservatives
(2) Wood Treated with Waterborne Organic-Based or Copper-Based Preservatives
(3) Wood Treated with Creosote (oilborne) (4) Wood Treated with Oilborne Copper Naphthenate
(5) Wood Treated with O ilborne Pentachlorophenol
(6) Wood Dual-Treated with a ny of the above preservatives
In the discussion below, the different fo rms of NHSTWB are an alyzed individually.

Wood Treated with Waterborne Borate-Based Preservatives Waterborne borate-based pr eservatives add no HAPs to traditional wood and contain contaminants at levels that are comparable to t hose of the traditional fu el that a combustion unit is designed to burn (wood). (See Table I on th e following page.) Wood treated with boratebased preservatives is virtually identical to untreated wood in te rms of HAP content. In fact, EPA has already determined that borate-treated wood “meets the legitimacy criterion on the level of contaminants a nd comparability to traditional fuels.” 10 

### Waterborne borate-based treated woods are eq uivalent to “clean construc tion and demolition wood,” which EPA considers a traditional fuel. 11 

### TWC requests that EPA provide a determination for waterborne borate-ba sed preservatives that is consistent with that for clean construction and demolition wood.

10 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,484.

11 78 Fed. Reg. at 9138.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 7

TABLE I. HAP and Other Components in Traditional Fuels and Wood Treated wi th Borate Waterborne Preservatives (ppm) HAP Component Wood + Borate s Untreated Wood/Biomass i #2 Fuel Oil i Coal i Volatile metals (Hg) 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.1 Semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, Se) 255 255 57 241
Low-volatile metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) 16,842 16,842 3,551 1,822
Total HAP metals 17,098 17,098 3,608 2,066 Chlorine 5,400 5,400 1,260 9,080 Fluorine 128 128 14 178 Nitrogen 4,600 4,600 3,000 54,000 Sulfur 6,100 6,100 57,000 61,300 Total VOC HAP 27 27 13,745 153 Total SVOC ii HAP NA iii NA 8,900 NA Total POM i v 2 v 2 v 54,700 2,090 Total known HAP vi 17,127 17,127 80,953 4,309

i Maximum values cited in EPA, Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Final Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives (Feb. 7, 2011) (EPA 2011a), EPA, Contaminant Concentrations in Trad itional Fuels: Tables for Comparison (Nov. 29, 2011) (EPA 2011b). ii Semi-volatile organic compounds; includes phenol, cresols, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iii NA = Indicates either data not available, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expressed accurately in table. iv Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is an EPA-defined chemical group that primarily consists of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) but includes some other aromatic co mpounds that contain hetero atoms such as N and O.

v Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vi HAPs listed include only thos e with available data.


### Wood Treated with Waterborne Organic- Based Preservatives and Wood Treated with Waterborne Copper-Based Preservatives Waterborne organic-based and copper-based preservatives likewise add no HAPS to traditional wood. The HAP metals listed in Tabl e II are naturally occurring in untreated wood and are not introduced during the treating proces s. The only metal introd uced during treatment with waterborne preservatives is copp er, which is not a listed HAP metal. EPA has also required consideration of chemicals the combustion of which will result in the formation of HAPs. 12 

### As Table II on the following page indicates, nitrogen content in the waterborne organic-based and c opper-based preservatives is belo w the levels found in wood and other traditional fuels.

12 Id ., at 9139.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 8

TWC requests that EPA provide a determin ation for waterborne organic-based and copper-based preservatives that is consistent with that for clean construction and demolition wood.

TABLE II. HAP and Other Components in Traditional Fuels and “End of Life” Wood Treated with Organic & Copper-Based Waterborne Preservatives i (ppm)

HAP Component Copper-Based ii Organic-Based ii Untreated Wood iii #2 Fuel Oil iii Coal iv ACQ CA CuN-W CX-A KDS PTI EL2 Volatile metals (Hg) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, Se) 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255

Low-volatile metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842 16,842

Total HAP metals 17,098 17,098 17,098 17,098 17,098 17,098 17,098 17,098 3,608 2,066 Chlorine 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5, 400 5,400 5,400 5,400 1,260 9,080 Fluorine 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 14 178 Nitrogen 23 i v 235 i v 235 i v 235 i v 235 i v <235 i v <235 i v 4,600 3,000 54,000 Sulfur 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6, 100 6,100 6,100 6,100 57,000 61,300 Total VOC HAP 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 13,745 153

Total SVOC v HAP NA v i NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,900 NA

Total POM v ii 2 viii 2 viii 2 viii 2 viii 2 viii 2 viii 2 viii 2 vii 54,700 2,090 Total known HAP ix 17,127 17,127 17,127 17,127 17,127 17,127 17,127 17,127 80,953 4,309

i Assumes same values as in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b. ii AWPA Standard U1 abbreviations for wa terborne preservative systems: ACQ = alkaline copper quaternary; CA = copper azole; CuN-W = waterborne copper naphthenate; CX-A = coppe r HDO; KDS = alkaline copper betaine; PTI = propiconazole + tebuconazole + imidacloprid; EL2 = DCOI + imidacloprid. iii Maximum values cited in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b. iv Data from Ruddick 2013; average of all samples tested. Total Nitrogen numbers assayed in we athered ACQ-treated spruce used to estimate N content in wood treate d with all Cu-based preservatives containing monoethanolamine (MEA) co-solvents. Wood treated with organic-based preservatives containing no MEA will contain an unknown but lesser amount of Nitrogen. Maximum Nitrogen content in untreated w ood cited by OAQPS databases is 4600 ppm.

v Semi-volatile organic compounds; includes phenol, cresols, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. vi NA = Indicates either data not available, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expr essed accurately in table. vii Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is an EPA-defined chemical group that primar ily consists of pol ynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) but includes some other aromatic com pounds that contain heteroatom s such as N and O. viii Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151 , 012004 (2009). ix HAPs listed include only thos e with available data.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 9

Wood Treated with Creosote (oilborne) Wood treated with creosote is the subject of a previous petition submitted by other parties, supported by data that EPA has alrea dy considered. Based on these submissions, EPA's February 2013 final rule states that “EPA also expects to propose a categorical listing for this material.” 13 

### While the previously submitted data ar e focused on creosote and creosote-boron railroad ties, they also apply to creosote-treated posts, pilings, and utility poles, as demonstrated by Table III below. TWC requests that EPA provi de a categorical determination for creosotetreated ties, posts, pilings, a nd poles that they are non-wast es when combusted for energy recovery.

TABLE III. Estimated Concentration of Selected HA P in “End of Life” Creosote Treated Wood and Traditional Fuels (ppm)

HAP Component Creosote-treated wood i Untreated Wood ii Fuel Oil ii Coal ii

Volatile metals (Hg) 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.1 Semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, Se) 255 255 57 241
Low-volatile metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) 16,842 16,842 3,551 1,822
Total HAP metals 17,098 ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 Chlorine (non-HAP) 5,400 ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 Fluorine (non-HAP) 128 ii 128 14 178 Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600 ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100 ii 6,100 57,000 61,300
Total VOC HAP 0.4 27 13,745 153 Total SVOC iii HAP 966 NA iv 8,900 NA Total POM v 20,130 2 vi 54,700 2,090
Total HAP vii 38,194 17,127 80,953 4,309

i Data from URS 2013. Evaluation of Used Railroad Ties Treated with Creosote for Polynuclear Organic Material (POM) which includes Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). Report dated January 28, 2013, prepared for Association of American Railroads. ii Maximum values cited in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b, except where noted. iii Semi-volatile organic compounds; includes phenol, cresols, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iv Indicates either data not availa ble, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expressed accurately in table.

v Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is an EPA-defined chemical group that primarily consists of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) but includes some other aromatic compounds that contain heteroat oms such as N and O. vi Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151 , 012004(2009). vii HAPs listed include only thos e with available data.

13 78 Fed. Reg. at 9174.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 10

Wood Treated with Oilborne Copper Naphthenate Copper naphthenate treating solution is dilu ted with fuel oil to make a solution of approximately 1 percent copper metal by weight. The naphthenic acid, a by-product of crude oil refining, consists primarily of long-chain hydrocarbons. It combusts in the same way as fuel oil with the same emissions and fuel value as fuel oil “traditional fuel.”

The fuel oil contained in oilborne copper naphthenate NHSTWB may add 10 to 20 percent more heat value than untreated wood biomass. The fuel oil contained in copper naphthenate treated wood contains contaminants comparable to those in fuel oil, a traditional fuel, and, according to EPA's prescribed analysis , wood treated with oilb orne copper naphthenate should be determined to be a non-waste when com busted in units designed to burn wood and fuel oil. (See Table IV below.)

TABLE IV. Estimated Concentration of Selected HAP in “End of Life ” Copper Naphthenate (CuN) Treated Wood and Traditional Fuels (ppm)

HAP Component CuN-treated wood i Untreated Wood ii Fuel Oil ii Coal ii

Volatile metals (Hg) 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.1 Semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, Se) 255 255 57 241 Low-volatile metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) 16,842 16,842 3,551 1,822

Total HAP metals 17,098 ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 Chlorine (non-HAP) 5,400 ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 Fluorine (non-HAP) 128 ii 128 14 178 Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600 ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100 ii 6,100 57,000 61,300 Total VOC HAP 379 27 13,745 153 Total SVOC iii HAP 33 NA iv 8,900 NA Total POM v 414 2 vi 54,700 2,090 Total HAP vii 17,924 17,127 80,953 4,309

i 0.08 pcf Cu & 4 pcf solution retention + 32 pcf wood @ 50% tr eatable volume = 0.94% w/w copp er naphthenate (0.11% Cu) and 4.6% oil in total freshly treated w ood mass. Wood assayed after 12 years expo sure showed 35% average Cu loss (IRG/WP 00-30242); calculations assume 66% organic (diluent oil) loss ba sed on creosote loss during service (URS report to AAR, 2013). ii Maximum values cited in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b. iii Semi-volatile organic compounds; includes phenol, cresols, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iv Indicates either data not availabl e, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expressed accurate ly in table. vi Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is an EPA-defined chemical group that primarily consists of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) but includes some other aromatic com pounds that contain heteroatom s such as N and O. vi Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vii HAPs listed include only thos e with available data.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 11

The total HAP concentration in end-of-life copper naphthena te treated wood is slightly higher (less than 5%) than the total HAP concen tration in untreated w ood, but considerably less than the total HAP concentration in fuel oil. TWC requests that EPA provide a categorical determination for copper naphthenate treated wood NHSTWB that they are non-wastes when combusted for energy recovery in the same t ype boilers approved for creosote treated wood. Wood Treated with Pentachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol (penta) is a pesticide ch emical manufactured by reacting phenol with chlorine. Phenol is a by-product of petroleum manufacturing. Penta is sold to wood preserving plants as either a solid block or a concentrated liquid. Solid penta is diss olved in petroleum oil, typically diesel or fuel oil grades. Liquid or di ssolved-solid penta is diluted to approximately 5 to 10 percent in oil for the trea tment solutions. Technical penta contains 86% pentachlorophenol with the balance other chlorinated phenols. Penta-preserved wood contains a pproximately 4 pcf of fuel oil, used as a carrier for the penta in treatment. The fuel oil contained in penta-treated NHSTWB may add 10 to 20 percent more heat value than untreated wood biomass. Fu el oil is a “traditional fuel.” Penta contains chlorine, but to avoid double-coun ting the chlorine, this has not been listed separately, as penta including the chlorine is al ready listed as a HAP. The HAPS in penta-treated wood are comparable to those in the tr aditional fuels wood, coal, and fuel oil, except for pe ntachlorophenol itself, which is an EPA-listed HAP (see Table V on the following page). The total HAP concentr ation in end-of-life pe ntachlorophenol treated wood is higher (about 16 %) than the tota l HAP concentration in untreated wood, but considerably less that the total HAP concentration in fuel oil. Pentachlorophenol is deliberately added to the wood for its preservative properties. Its presence in no more meaningful to this type of NHSTWB’s use as a legitimate fuel than th e formaldehyde (also a listed HAP) in resinated wood, similarly added to the wood product for its de sirable properties. In fact, the amount of pentachlorophenol in a treated w ood utility pole at the end of its service life (approximately 1800 ppm) is a small fraction of the amount of form aldehyde-containing resin in a comparable unit of resinated wood used as fuel. As noted previously, energy generators have long relied on purchasing this form of biomass as an important fuel, with contracts in the record establishing these established commercial arrangements. Th e State of Michigan has specifically noted the legitimate use of penta NHSTWB as a clean fuel that is eligible for renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy credit under Michig an’s Clean, Renewable, and Energy Efficiency Act. 14

14 Comments of Steven R. Silver, Chief, Solid Wa ste and Land Application Section, Environmental Resource Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources & Environment, at 8 (Aug. 3, 2010), filed in EPA Docket No . EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 12

EPA has determined that, despite the highe r level of formaldehyde in resinated wood compared to the traditional fuel wood, the ba lance of factors favors a determination that resinated wood secondary materials are properly viewed as fuel when combusted for energy recovery. 15 

### Like resinated wood, penta-treated wood is a sought-after fu el, has a long track record of commercial dealings evidencing its established use for energy recovery, has a high BTU value, is clearly considered and managed as a valuable commodity, is used in plants designed specifically to use this material; and like resinated w ood, disrupting this established commercial relationship would cause advers e economic – and also environmental – consequences. Based on a balancing of the relevant factors, using the same type of balancing analysis that EPA has followed in considering resinate d wood, EPA should conclude that penta-treated NHSTWB is a categorical non-waste.

TABLE V. Estimated Concentr ation of Selected HAP in “End of Li fe” Pentachlorophenol Treated Wood and Traditional Fuels (ppm)

HAP Component PentachlorophenolTreated Wood i Untreated Wood ii Fuel Oil ii Coal ii

Volatile metals (Hg) 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.1 Semi-volatile metals (Cd, Pb, Se) 255 255 57 241
Low-volatile metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) 16,842 16,842 3,551 1,822

Total HAP metals 17,098 ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 Chlorine (non-HAP) 6,691 ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 Fluorine (non-HAP) 128 ii 128 14 178 Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600 ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100 ii 6,100 57,000 61,300 Total VOC HAP 379 27 13,745 153 Total SVOC iii HAP 1865 NA iv 8,900 NA Total POM v 414 2 vi 54,700 2,090 Total HAP vii 19,756 17,127 80,953 4,309

i 0.38 pcf pentachlorophenol & 4 pcf solu tion retention + 32 pcf wood @ 50% treata ble volume = 0.55% w/w PCP and 5.0% oil in total treated wood mass. Wood assayed after 8 years e xposure showed 66% penta loss (IRG/WP-00-30242); calculations assume 66% diluent oil loss based on creosote loss during service (URS report to AAR, 2013). ii Maximum values cited in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b. iii Semi-volatile organic compounds; incl udes phenol, cresols, pentachlorophenol, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iv Indicates either data not availa ble, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expressed accurately in table.

v Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is an EPA-defined chemical group that primarily consists of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) but includes some other aromatic com pounds that contain heteroatom s such as N and O. vi Data from J

. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vii HAPs listed include only those with available data.

15 78 Fed. Reg. at 9155-58.

### The Honorable Bob Perciasepe April 3, 2013 Page 13

TWC requests that EPA provide a categori cal determination for pentachlorophenol NHSTWB that they are non-wastes when combusted for energy recovery in the same type boilers approved for creosote treated wood.

Dual-treated Wood Combinations of preservatives may be us ed for some treated wood products. The analysis does not differ from the foregoing di scussion of each of thes e individual treatment chemicals. Like the underlying NHSTWB formulat ions, combined treatments should also be the subject of a categorical non- waste determination. TWC requests that EPA provide a categorical determination for dual waterborne treated wood that is consistent with that for clean construction and demolition wood. TWC requests that EPA provide a categorical determination fo r dual treated NHSTWB using an oilborne preservative that they are non-wastes when co mbusted for energy recovery in the same type boilers approved for creosote treated wood.

Conclusion Unless EPA properly classifies these material s as non-waste, they will be diverted to landfills, resulting in (1 ) the use instead of fossil fuels w ith higher net greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and (2) the likelihood that landfilled treated w ood will eventually br eak down to produce methane, with twenty times the comparable impact on climate ch ange as carbon dioxide. 16


### For all the reasons set forth above, TWC requests that EPA issue a categorical determination that the specified non-hazardous s econdary treated wood biomass materials are not a waste
. Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey T. Miller President & Executive Director Cc: George Faison ( Faison.george@Epa.gov )

16 See, EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

.

# TWC responses to EPA request for additional information on NHSM Petition May 20, 2013

1. List of specific pres ervatives under “organ ic waterbornes” and “copper-based waterbornes”
Organic waterborne preservatives would include:

- PTI (propiconazole tebuconazole imidacloprid)

- EL2 [DCOI (4,5, dichloro-2-N -octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one) imidacloprid/stabilizer]
Copper-based waterborne pres ervatives would include:

- ammoniacal/alkaline copper quaternary (dissolved or suspended) (ACQ)

- copper azole (dissolved or suspended) (CA)

- copper HDO (copper and N- cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxide)

- alkaline copper betaine

- waterborne copper naphthenate

2. List of end uses of the wood treated with each preservative
a.) Waterborne borate-based preservative – interior framing and sill plates; (also see f. below) b.) Waterborne organic-based or copper-based preservatives – interior millwork and exterior residential dimensional lumber 1111 19 th 

### Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 463-2045 Fax: (202) 463-2059

# applications such as decking, fencing, lattice, recreational equipment, structures. c.) Creosote – railroad ties, utility poles, piling, agricultural fencing, bridge timbers. d.) Oilborne Copper Naphthenate – uti lity poles, bridge timbers, railroad ties, pilings, fencing, cross arms e.) Pentachlorophenol – utility poles and crossarms f.) Dual-treated – railroad ties w ith borates and either creosote or oilborne copper naphthenate.

3. Chemistry detail of ea ch preservative
Below are the chemistry details according to AWPA Standards and the NPIRS database. [EPA may be able to obtain additional information by researching th e Confidential Statements of Formulae (CSF), which are part of the registration documents for each preservative on file in the EPA offices.]

AWPA Symbol Common Name Chemical Formula/Name(s) CAS Number(s) EPA PC Code CR, CR-S Creosote Creosote 8001-58-9 25004 PCP Pentachlorophenol C 6 HOCl 5 87-85-4 63001 CuN Copper Naphthenate Copper Naphthenate, oilborne 1338-02-9 23102
ACQ-B Alkaline Copper Quat Type B CuCO 3 Didecyl- and dialkyl (C 8 or C 12 )-dimethylammonium chloride 1184-64-1 148788-55-0 22901 69208

ACQ-C Alkaline Copper Quat Type C CuCO 3 Alkyl (C 12 -C 18)benzyldimethylammonium chloride 1184-64-1 68391-01-5 22901 69175
ACQ-D Alkaline Copper Quat Type D CuCO 3 Didecyl- and dialkyl (C 8 or C 12 )-dimethylammonium chloride 1184-64-1 148788-55-0 22901 69208

CBA-A Copper azole Type A CuCO 3 Boric Acid Tebuconazole 1184-64-1 10043-35-3 107534-96-3 22901 11001 128997 CA-B Copper azole Type B CuCO 3 Tebuconazole 1184-64-1 107534-96-3 22901 128997 CA-C Copper azole Type C CuCO 3 Propiconazole Tebuconazole 1184-64-1 60207-90-1 107534-96-3 22901 122101 128997CuN-W Waterborne Copper Naphthenate Copper Naphthenate, waterborne 1338-02-9 23102
CX-A Copper HDO CuCO 3 Boric AcidBis(N-Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)-Copper 1184-64-1 10043-35-3 312600-89-8 22901 11001 235500
KDS Alkaline Copper Betaine CuCO 3 Boric Acid Boric acid (H 3 BO 3 ), polymer with N-decyl-1-decanamine, oxirane and 1,2- propanediol 1184-64-1 10043-35-3 214710-34-6 22901 11001 103679

PTI Propiconazole Tebuconazole Imidacloprid Propiconazole Tebuconazole 1-((6-Chloro-3- pyridinyl)methyl)-N-nitro-2- imidazolidinimine 60207-90-1 107534-96-3 105827-78-9 122101 128997 129099

EL2 DCOI + Imidacloprid 4,5-Dichloro-2-N-OctylIsothiazolin-3-one 1-((6-Chloro-3- pyridinyl)methyl)-N-nitro-2- imidazolidinimine 64359-81-5

105827-78-9 128101

129099

SBX Inorganic Boron Compounds, including: Boric Acid Sodium Octaborate (DOT) Sodium Tetraborate (5 mol Borax) Sodium Tetraborate (10 mol Borax) 10043-35-3 12280-03-4 12179-04-3 1303-96-4 11001 11103 11110 11102



# 4. AWPA/ICC-ES Treatment Specifi cation for each preservative
Below are the AWPA and ICC-ES treatment specifications for each preservative, in pounds per cubic foot or pcf.

AWPA Symbol ICC-ES ESR No. = Above Grnd/Grnd Contact Sawn Products (Lumber) AWPA UC2/UC3B/UC4A Utility Poles (1) AWPA UC4B Crossties/ Bridge ties AWPA (2) CR, CR-S NL (3) 8/8/10 7.5/9.0 7.0/7.0 PCP NL 0.40/0.40/0.50 0.38/0.45 0.35/0.35 CuN (as Cu) (4) NL 0.04/0. 04/0.06 0.08/0.095 0.055/0.06 ACQ-B 1980 = 0.20/0.40 0.25/ 0.25/0.40 0.60/0.60 NL ACQ-C 1980 = 0.20/0.40 0.25/0.25/0.40 NL NL ACQ-D 1980 = 0.20/0.40 0.25/0.15/0.40 NL NL Micronized ACQ 1980 = 0.15/0.34 NL NL NL CBA-A NL 0.20/0.20/0.41 0.61/NL NL CA-B 1721 = 0.10/0.15 0.10/0.10/0.21 0.31/NL NL CA-C 1721 = 0.06/0.14 0.06/0.06/0.15 0.31/NL NL Micronized CA 1721 = 0.06/0.15 NL NL NL CuN-W (as Cu) NL 0.07/0.07/0.11 NL NLCX-A NL 0.206/0.206/NL NL NL KDS 2500 = 0.188/0.363 0.19/0.19/0.47 NL NL PTI 1477 = 0.013/NL 0.013/0.013/NL NL NL EL2 NL 0.019/0.019/NL NL NL SBX 2667 = 0.28 (5)/NL 0.28(5)/NL/NL NL NL



# 5. Typical pathway for each pres erved wood from end use to combustor – and how they are mana ged (stored for short period prior to combustion in enclosed area etc.; what processing occurs e.g grinding etc.

For railroad ties and u tility poles (creosote, pentachlorophenol, copper naphthenate and dual-tr eated), the pathways are identical. Ties and poles are often combusted together, dependent on state permits. a.) The user organization (railroa d or utility company, or its contractor) removes the ol d pieces from service b.) The organization inspec ts them, sorts out pieces that might be re-used for another applicatio n, and performs an initial separation of non-combustibl e materials, such as spikes, plates, transmission wire and insulator bulbs c.) Pieces are stored in staging areas until shippable quantities are collected d.) Shippable quantities ar e transported via truck or rail to a reprocessing center e.) At the reprocessing center, piece s are again inspected, sorted, and non-combustible material s are removed. Re-usable pieces are separated from combustible pieces. f.) Combustible pieces then underg o size reduction and possible blending with compat ible combustibles g.) Last step is to ship the final bio-material to combustion sites h.) The above material is obtained and sold through purchase orders, contracts, or some other written agreement. In today’s market, typical commod ity prices range from $15 to $20 per ton.

# For all other preservative types and sources (i.e. wood treated with borate, organic and copper-based waterbornes, and other creosote, pentachlorophenol or oilborne copper naphthenate), the pathway would be the same ab ove, except with a different starting organization.
a.) The sourcing organization (i nstallation or demolition company, or refuse service) collects installation scraps and old pieces removed from servic e before entering the waste stream, together with other C& D combustible materials such as non-preserved wood b.) The organization inspec ts them, sorts out pieces that might be re-used for another applicatio n, and performs an initial separation of non-combustibl e materials, such as nails, sheetrock, electrical wire and plastic components c.) Pieces are placed in containers or on flatbed trailers until shippable quantities are collected d.) Shippable quantities ar e transported usuall y via truck to a reprocessing center, usually as part of a contractual agreement e.) At the reprocessing center, piece s are again inspected, sorted, and non-combustible materials are removed f.) Pieces then undergo size re duction and possible blending with compatible combustibles g.) Last step is to ship the final bi o-material to combustion sites. h.) The final material is sold thro ugh purchase orders, contracts, or some other written agreement.

6. % of each HAP in SVOC’s (Sem i-volatile Organic Compounds)
In Tables I through V of the TWC Petition of April 3, 2013, there is a line listing “Total SVOC HAP”. EPA is seeking to determine the percentages of which HAP’s are in the listed amounts of SVOC’s.

# In Tables I and II, there are no SVOC’s added to the treated wood. The only SVOC listed valu e is for Fuel Oil (a traditional fuel), and the 8,900 ppm numbe r is derived from the EPA document “Contaminant Concentra tions in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison”, dated Nov. 29, 2011 (EPA 745-B-00- 004(2000)). Table 3 of the EP A document lists only phenol and biphenyl as SVOC HAPs.

This same SVOC number for Fuel Oil is also included in Tables III, IV and V.
In Table III, the Total SVOC HAP value for creosote treated wood (966 ppm) consists of a mixture of biphenyl and dibenzofuran. The value is de rived from the analytical lab results found in Appendix B of the URS report, already submitted to EPA as part of the petition covering creosotetreated railroad ties.
In Table IV, the Total SVOC HAP value for CuN treated wood (33 ppm) consists of cresols and th e fuel oil diluents used in the treating process.
In Table V, the Total SVOC HAP value of pentachlorophenol treated wood (1865 ppm) consists of pentachlorophenol and the fuel oil diluents used in the treating process.
Our goal is to compar e total SVOC’s in treated wood to total SVOC’s in traditional fuels. In all cases, the SVOC level in each treated wood is either equal to the level in untreated wood or significantly less than the level found in fuel oil, the traditional fuel.

# 7. Logic explanation of losses during use
EPA seeks an explanation of preservative component losses during use:
a.) For borate treated wo od, Table I in the TWC petition shows no losses during use. Since no HAPs are introduced in the treatment process, we did not make an adjustment for losses. b.) For organic and copper-based waterborne treated wood, Table II in the TWC petitio n shows “end of life” concentrations in the wood as determined by the 2013 Ruddick Report (atta ched) on 4-year old ACQ treated wood. This loss factor was applied to concentrations for organic and waterborne treated wood for th e one known HAP (N) that is added as part of the treatment. c.) For creosote, pentachlorophenol and oilborne copper naphthenate treated wood, Tables III, IV and V in the TWC petition show “end of life” co ncentrations in the wood based upon data in a UR S 2013 report for the Association of American Railroads (attached). We calculated the loss from the original starting points for creosote due to the fuel oil carrier, and determined a loss fact or. That factor was applied to these similar types of trea ted wood which utilize fuel oil carriers.

# TAB 3

### April 25, 2013

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

K elly, Waste Management

Re: Revisio ns to Mem o dated November 29, 2012: Summary of Waste Management C&D wood fuel data

Based on review and comment from EPA of the subject memo dated November 29, 2012, WM has revised the memo. The analy ti cal data in the memo are now provided on a dry b asis except for high heat ing value, whic h is on a wet basis.
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 th e genera l 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 ti ve Sorting
(CA1) California #1 Facilit y

– Posi ti ve Sorti ng (CA2) California #2 Facilit y

– Negat ive Sorting
(M A) Massachusetts Facilit y

– Negat ive Sorting

Posi ti ve sorti ng refers to sorting material (e.g., C&D) to extract the desired materials. In a posi ti ve sort facilit y, m achinery an d 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 metal s. The extracted m ateri al i s ei th er recycled or disposed, while the re ma ining desirable wood i s processed into fuel.
WM Study Procedures and Results

### April 25, 2013

Page 2

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 pl ant collect representative daily

com posi te samples over the cours e of one work week, as well as maintain a detailed descript io n of the inco ming material and processing practices at each facilit y

. The daily
com posi te samples were shipped to NE LAC

- cert ified laboratories where each sample 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 wit h the l aboratory’s detailed standard operating procedu re s. In addit io n to the qualit y assurance procedures of the NELAC laboratory , one sample fro m each facilit y was analyzed in tri plicate to evaluate the repeatabilit y of the laboratory

analysis. The attached

tabl es provi de a contaminant com parison of the a nalyt ical resul ts to EPA’s dataset of tradit io nal wood and biomass fuels. For each analyzed contaminant, WM applied EPA so ft ware, 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 th e EPA database

. 1



### Impact s of Processing on Contaminant Comparisons

The tabl e bel ow displays the aver age concentrati on of form aldehyde 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 ] 74.6 22.3 17.6 68.2 Sorting Posi

ti ve Posi

ti ve Negative Negative

These resul

ts indicate that vari at io ns in fo rm aldehyde are not based on the ty pe of sorting conducted at these facilit ies.

Li kewise, t he table below display ing the average concentrati ons of arsenic , chromium and lead at each facilit y during the testing period i ndicates similar results

.
Table 2 Average Concentrations For Each Tested Facility Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA Arsenic ( ppm ) 3.2 6.0 3.1 142
Chro mium ( ppm ) 5.3 12.2 10.3 168
Lead ( ppm ) 149 89.6 58.4 260 Sorting Ty

pe Posi

ti ve Posi

ti ve Negative Negative

1 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison , November 29, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf

### April 25, 2013

Page 3
Impact of Incoming Material Variations on Contaminant Comparisons
As previously discussed, the variation o f processing methods at each individual facilit y di d not noticeably

contribute to the differences in contamin ant concentrati ons observed i n each facilit y’s f

inished fuel product. Ho wever, the variati on in inco ming materials at each facilit y has a recogni zable effect on the final contaminant co n cen trati ons. Som e f

acili ti es receive a much higher percentage of untreated or “clean wood” as a component of their feedstock for processing. Hi gher percentages of untreated wood may come from, for example, woody bi om ass used to mix wi th the C&D wood in the final fuel pro duct, pre

- so rted materials delivered fro m construction si tes, f rom l andfills wit h wood separation programs, or from new construction sites, which tend to have a smaller percentage of unused treated or painted wood. Revisit ing Table 2 above, it is cl ear th at th e MA

Facili ty h ad significant ly higher average arsenic , chromium , and lead concentrations. When reviewing the ty pes of materi als that were processed during the sampling study , i t becom es evident that th ese contaminant levels are l argely influence d by i nco ming materi als to 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 concentration s (see attached tables for details).

Table 3 Incoming Materials Comparison Inco ming Material Ty pe CA2 MA
Mixed C&D Materi als 43.7 % 95.5 % C le an Untreated W ood 56.3 % 4.5 % Average A

rsenic (ppm

) 3.06 142 Average Chro mium (ppm) 10.3 168 Average Lead (ppm) 58.4 260 C&D Materials includes standard C&D materials, as well as pallets, construction wood, fencing, decking, etc.


### As seen, CA2 h ad a considerably higher percentage of cl ean wood in it s incoming materi als and a l ower mixed C&D porti on. C&D materials th at have not yet been processed can potenti ally

h ave a si gnificant concentrati o n of copper chromium arsenate ( CCA ) treated wood, painted wood, as well as other resinated woods , which are th e primary source s of arsenic, lead , chro mium

and other contami nants

. 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.
Analysis of High Lead Values
In the previous submittal, the comparison of lead was based on a wet basis. That has since been updated. In that comparison, the lead content was essent ia lly equal to or l ower than th e tradit io nal wood/bio ma ss fuel listed in the OAQPS database. Revising t he wet basis data to be on a dry

basis, we find that the lead content of two facilit ies, W and MA, had 90% UPL values of lead that exceeded the maximum value listed in the OAQPS database.
Lead sample measurements at the W facilit y were 482, 323, 67.2, 5 4.6, 44.1, 39.5, and 32.0 ppm . Of

the five sampling days fro m th e W facilit y, one day produced a value of 482 ppm which is above the maximum lead value in the OAQPS database (340 ppm). All of the remaining

### April 25, 2013

Page 4
values are lower than the maximum value reported i n the OAQPS database and significant ly below the value of 482 ppm. Presuming a normal distribut io n of sampling data, the statistics of th e 6 sam ples other than 482 ppm, have an upper 99 percent t

- test range of 474 ppm. Assuming a 6

- sam ple t

- test, for a one si ded tail at 99%, the t

- value equals 3.365. With an average lead concentration of 93.39 ppm and a standard deviat ion of 113.12, the upper range yields a value o f 474 ppm (93.39 + 3.365 * (113.12). Thus, the value of 482 ppm is above the 99% t

- test and th erefore, it can be argued that this value is non

- norm al and not representative of the ty pical l ead values from the C&D wood from this facilit y. Analyzing this value a bit further; lead belongs in the semi- vo lat ile met als category al on g wi th cadmium and se lenium. The 90% UPL for both of these metals, cadmium and selenium, are si gnificant ly less in the W dataset than they are in the OAQPS dataset. While the difference between the two datasets still does not create a SVM grouping co mpar ison below the OAQPS da taset because the relat ive concentrations o f cadmium and selenium are less than lead, the grouping lessens the difference between the two groups to just over 20%, as determined fro m th e data in Table 4.

Of the five sampling days fro m th e MA facilit y, two of the days produced a value above th e maximum lead value in the OAQPS database. These two day s had l ead concentrati ons, by dry wei ght, of

407 and 437 ppm . The other three days of testing shows an average lead concentration of 193 ppm. While these high va lues are likely n ot outliers, i

t i s safe to say

that the range of lead concentrations fro m thi s facili ty does span a wi de range, wi th a m aj ori ty of the values being lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database.

When do ing a grouping co mpar ison of semi

- vo lat ile metal s, a similar scenario to the W dataset is shown. The significant ly lo wer cadmium and selenium values create about a 20% difference between the MA facilit y SVM grouping and the OAQPS SVM grouping. Also, as shown in Table 3 of Appe ndix A in the co mp lete submittal, when combined with the other exist ing Massachusetts data, the 90% UPL of the complete dataset shows a value less than the maximum reported for traditional fuels.

Conclusion

T he WM facilit ies evaluated represent C&D woo d processing locations across the U.S. and represent th e various processing p ract ices that are common across the industry

. Thus, the pollutant comparisons fo r each individual facilit y and the comparison fo r the combined datasets

were conducted to provide assurance that all C&D processing facilit ies are antici pated to produce similar values.

### April 25, 2013

Page 5

Table 4 90% UPL Comparison



### 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 0.59 12.0 2.76 5.5 10.1 Arsenic (As) ppm 

### 298 5.74 25.4 5.60 2 73 200 Beryllium (Be) ppm 

### 10 * 0.1 0.07 0.16 0.08 Cadmium (Cd) ppm 

### 17 0.83 0.3 0.42 1.2 0.96 Chromium (Cr) ppm 

### 340 8.77 25.0 15.5 301 224 Cobalt (Co) ppm 

### 213 0.6 2.5 2.5 2.72 2.52 Lea d (Pb) ppm 

### 340 449 212.0 134.8 443 357 Manganese (Mn) ppm 

### 15800 72.3 125.3 129.5 139 116 Mercury (Hg) ppm 

### 1.1 0.34 0.2 0.23 0.68 0.30 Nickel (Ni) ppm 

### 540 3.43 10.7 11.0 2 7.4 13.0 Selenium (Se) ppm 

### 9.0 * * * * * Total S VM + ppm 

### 366 

### 449 213 136 444 357 Total LVM + ppm 

### 17227 83.4 171 160 669 518 Chloride p pm 

### 5400 364.9 3366 1272 2848 1750 Fluoride p pm 

### 300 67 171 172 46 144 Total Halogens + p pm 

### 5700 400 3436 1388 2659 1881 Formaldehyde p pm 

### 27.0 149 61.5 27.8 151 105 Nitrogen wt % 

### 3.95 1.00 0.66 1.10 1.11 0.96 Sulfur wt % 

### 0.87 0.0 5 0.10 0.1 8 0.21 0.15

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) C alifornia. 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. All results reported on Dry Basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. *

- non
- detect. Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting i n "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples a nd not the combination of sample values.

### 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 0.18 0.53 0.39 0.59 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.15 5.72 3.2 5.74 (a) Beryllium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 0.0 10 0.0 11 0.0 10 * Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.24 0.95 0.43 0.83 (b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 2.11 9.52 5.30 8.77 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.19 0.54 0.3 9 0.6 (a) Lea d (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 32.0 482.3 149.0 449 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 55.8 74.18 63.6 72.3 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.053 0.416 0.16 0.34 (b) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 0.47 3.43 1.01 3.43 (c) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.34 0.34 0.34 * Total SVM + 

### ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 

### 32.7 483 150 449 (b) Total LVM + 

### ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 65.2 85.4 73.9 83.4 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 205 386 257.2 364.9 ( a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 14 67 21.9 67 ( a) Total Halogens + 

### ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 219 400 279 400 (c) Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- 25.3 171.3 74.6 1 49.4 (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 0.42 1.00 0.54 1.00 ( c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 ( c) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- 5920 7061 6685 7319 (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 . All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 Sta tistics; (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 *

- non
- detect. Only one distinct observation value in the d ata set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed HHV

– High Heat Value; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 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 0.29 12.0 5.02 12.0 (c) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.30 25.4 6.03 25.4 (c) Beryllium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 0.0 5 0.07 0.06 0.1 ( a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.18 0.32 0.24 0.3 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 4.54 2 9.1 12.23 25.0 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.59 2.95 1.39 2.5 ( a) Lea d (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 16.7 252.2 89.6 212.0 (a) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 59.2 137.1 86.5 125.3 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.0 21 0.25 0.10 0.2 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.76 12.1 6.08 10.7 (a) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.32 0.38 0.34 * Total SVM + 

### ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 

### 17.2 253 90.2 213 (a) Total LVM + 

### ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 76.4 180 117 171 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 402 3366 956 3366 (c) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 69 157 123 171 (a) Total Halogens + 

### ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 495 3436 1079 3436 (c) Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- 4.1 68.2 22.3 61.5 (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 0.23 0.65 0.46 0.66 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.10 (a) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- 5930 7103 6520 7314 (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

. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 Stati stics; (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 *

- non
- detect. Only one distinct observation value in the dat a set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed HHV

– High Heat Value; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL a re selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### Literary Sources 1 

### OAQPS Databases 1 

### Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA 2 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 3.10 1.12 2.76 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.40 5.65 3.06 5.60 (a) Beryllium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 0.05 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.07 ( a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.18 0.45 0.2 7 0.42 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 5.47 13.92 10.3 15.5 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 1.09 2.39 1.72 2.5 (a) Lea d (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 11.3 138.3 58.4 134.8 (a) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 68.6 126.6 95.9 129.5 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.03 0.192 0.1 3 0.23 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 4.07 10.70 7.22 11.0 (a) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.35 0.35 0.35 * Total SVM + 

### ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 

### 11.9 139 59.1 136 (a) Total LVM + 

### ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 83.8 155 119.4 160 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 748 1272 1132 1272 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 52 145 107 172 (a) Total Halogens + 

### ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 799 1388 1240 1388 (c) Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- 10.3 27.2 17.6 27.8 (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 0.48 1.12 0.80 1.10 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.0 7 0.20 0.12 0.1 8 (a) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- 5673 7169 6434 7353 (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 . All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 Sta tistics; (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 *

- non
- detect. Only one distinct observation value in the d ata set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed HHV

– High Heat Value; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 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 0.85 4.72 3.25 5.5 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 8.63 218 142 2 73 (a) Beryllium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 0.0 5 0.16 0.08 0.16 (c) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.32 1.29 0.68 1.2 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 14.8 2 45 168 301 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.61 3.53 1.32 2.72 (b) Lea d (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 1 67 437 260 443 ( b ) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 56.9 157 91.0 139 (b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.0 5 0.68 0.19 0.68 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1.46 27.4 5.79 2 7.4 (c) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.33 0.33 0.33 * Total SVM + 

### ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 

### 168 438 261 444 (a) Total LVM + 

### ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 83.4 551 411 669 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 113 1580 811 2848 (b) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 4 46 15.2 46 (c) Total Halogens + 

### ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 159 1583 826 2659 (b) Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- 1 3.2 176.8 68.2 151 (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 0.28 1.10 0.63 1.11 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.21 (a) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- 6714 7091 6869 7067 (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. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 N ormal 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 *

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

– High Heat Value; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., an d 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### Appendix A [Revision Submission: April 25 , 2013 ]



### I. Contaminant Comparison of C&D Wood to Traditional Fuels

A c om parison of th e contaminants fo und in C&D wood was made wi th two tradi

ti onal fuels

– wood & bio ma ss and coal . Thi s was done by co mparing th e 90% UPL (Upper Predict io n Limit) of t he individual contaminants and groups of contaminants in C&D wood wi th t he maximu m value s r eported in EPA’s t radit io nal fuel d atabase

. 1 

### T his method was chosen fo llo wing th e gui dance o f EPA, as stated in the draft rul e pream ble:

Given data for a particular traditional fuel, it makes intuitive sense to base the traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of i ts statistical range. Anything less could result in ‘‘traditional fuel’’ samples being considered solid waste if burned in the very combustion units designed to burn them...(76 Fed Reg 80481 )

The com parisons are presented in th e tables lo cated in Secti on IV , sorted by th e State th at was th e source of

t he C&D wood or data. Resul ts dem on strate th at C&D wood contains

co ncentrations of

c ontaminants or groups of c ontaminants th at are co mparable to or lo wer th an th e two traditional fuels.

T he 90% UPL value f

or fo rmaldehyde exceed s t he database maximum values. An e xplanati on fo r thi s occurrence and com parison to tradi

ti onal f uels is di scussed in Sect io n II , bel ow. As well , t he 90% UPL value fo r lead data collected at one f acili ty i n Wisconsin exceeds th e maximu m value in th e EPA database. W e believe th at this value is not representative of C &D wood fue l produced at t his fac ilit y. Pl ease ref er to th e related Waste Management memo dated April 2 5 , 2013 fo r a mo re detailed explanat io n and discussio n of this value

.

II. Comparability of Formaldehyde Levels in C&D Wood

The contaminant com

parison set forth below shows form aldehyde l evels in wood and bi om ass at
a ma ximum of 27 ppm, no data on formal dehyde levels in coal , and form aldehyde levels in C&D wood at a ma ximum of

177 ppm. D espi

te th ese difference s , we believe contaminant le vels in C&D wood are comparable to co al and to wood and bio ma ss.

Fi rst, EPA allows groups of c ontaminants in th e relevant tradi ti onal fu els to be com

pared to groups of c ontaminants in NHSM when making a contaminant co mpar ison. G rouping s a re suggested in T able 8 of E PA’s December 2011 proposed rule, but a p art y may use oth er technically reasonable approaches to groupings. 7 6 Fed. Reg. at 80477. W e have chosen to group VOCs and SVOC s t ogether. A ccording to EPA thi s grouping is technically reasonable because EPA groups vo lat ile hydrocarbons and semi

- volat ile hydrocarbons when setti ng standards under the Clean Air Act. Id.

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

. I t sh ould be noted that there is a far greater database of coal contaminant levels that was not included in this comparison due to it not being inc luded in the EPA traditional fuel database.

### 2

We note th at other th an fo rm aldehyde, which, if not an artifact of th e test method, 2 

### i s likely derived from resinated wood products mixed w it h th e C &D wood , th e r emaining h azardous ai r pollutants have been tested and fo und t o be b el ow o r near detection limit s in C&D wood (see Minnesota data). When th e PA H levels in coal a re grouped with oth er VOCs and SVOC and
com pared to th e le vels of

t his contaminant grouping in C&D wood, as dem onst rated in th e attached Minnesota C&D data, the levels are comparable to coal.
Second, based on process knowledge, we are aware of n o sources of fo rm aldehyde in C&D wood other th an th e fo rm aldehyde fo und in clean cellulosic bio mass and resinated wood. 3 

### T o th e extent that formaldehyde i s present on C&D wood from resinated wood products, it i s a VOC fro m non- waste mat eri als because EPA has clearly asserted in th e init ial rule and th e revised final rule that resinated wood that i s combusted is not a waste ( S ee 76 Fed. Reg. at 80483 and 78 Fed. Reg. at 9213)

. In support of the fuel content value o f fo rm aldehyde, EPA has asserted,

Resinated wo od is highly valued within the wo od products industry for its high fuel value relative to other wood fuels generated and burned at these facilities for energy recovery. Many facilities rely on mixing of these low moisture content wood materials with higher moisture materials. Resinated wood residuals are routinely transferred between either intra

- o r inter

- c ompany faci lities and used as either ‘‘furnish’’ (i.e., raw m aterials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. The material being transferred off

- site is used and handled in the same manner that resinated wood residuals are used wh en generated on
- s ite. In general, the motivation to use the resinated wood as a fuel, even wi th the slightly higher formaldehyde levels, predominates over the motivation to dispose of the formaldehyde. See American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 58 (DC Cir. 2000) (in declaring reclai med oily wa stewater to be a wa ste, the EPA failed to explain wh y the discard motivation predominated the recycling motivation). Indeed, discard of the formaldehyde is a very distant second to the fuel product use of the resinated wood.

C&D wood should be consi dered a mixture of wood that EPA has already determined to be a

non- waste, and wood for which that determination is pending. Based on the contaminant analysis herein, EPA can determine that, for that component of C&D wood not already addressed by EPA ’s non- waste determinat io n fo r resinated wood, the contaminant levels are co mparable to tradi ti onal wood and bio ma ss fuel and therefore C&D wood meets the contaminant comparison legit imacy criterion

whether or not it is combusted in a boiler that is design ed to burn coal

.

2 These tests indicating formaldehy de in the range of 9.3 to 130 ppm in C&D wood were measured by EPA Method 8315a. This method applies a dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatizatio n technique. The DNPH solution is acidic and reactive and is suspected to create formaldehyde, especially from bound formaldehyde in cured resins and potentially creates formaldehyde from wood sugars. Word, David, NCASI, personal communication to Karl Seltzer

– Koogler and Associates, Inc., September 2012.

3 E PA agrees that combustors may r ely on pr ocess knowledge wh en making contaminant comparisons. 7 6 Fed. Reg. at 80477.

### 3

Thi rd, f orm aldehyde is an organi c com pound th at is readily vo lat ilized to b ecome a VOC under standard tem

perature and pressure having a bo iling point at -19 degree C. Tradi ti onal bio mass includes numerous fo rms of organi c co mpound s in a so lid/liquid matrix th at which can emit/vo lat ilize minor fract io ns of V OCs including fo rm aldehyde and oth er listed hazardous ai r pollutants under standard tem perature and pressure. By i ncreasing tem

perature and/or th e pressure, but not to th e point of c om bust io n, traditi onal bio mass can further release such VOCs in increasing fr act io ns. Given the highly co mp lex nature of t he organic co mpounds which
com prise tradi

ti onal wood, ident ificat io n of th e seri es of chemical react io ns or lack of r eact io n fo r t his process continues to generate extensive research. Wo od th at is processed to create construction lumber wood, which eventually becom es C&D wood, mu st be dried. There is research indicating th at virgin wood can generate sig nificant am ounts of V OCs th

roug h th e drying process.

EPA has data dem onstrati ng that som e tradi

ti onal v irgin wood does have VOCs wi th in the wood it self, pri or to d

rying, and th at thi s am ount can be as high as 20,000 ppm

. 4 

### I n addi ti on, th ere are am ple data on the emissi ons of VOCs fro m th e process of drying constructi on lumber wood. F or example, according to sci ent ist s fro m Oregon State Universit y, d rying ponderosa pine wood, dry ers emi

t between 1.6 and 3.0 pounds of V OCs per th ousand board fe et (mbf) (3330 lb 5 

### ) or 480 to 900 part per millio n mass basis, depending on th e tem perature of

t he dryer. 6 

### T he corresponding am ount of m easured VOC hazardous ai r poll utants (study

i ncludes methano l, fo rm aldehyde, acetal dehyde, propi onaldehyde, and acrol ein) fro m ponderosa pine wood dry ers ranged fr om

0 .0833 to 0.189 lb/ mbf (25 to 57 ppm mass basis). Si milar measurements show cl ean wood dryers generating 0.96 pounds per oven dri ed ton o f met hano l (i .e., 0.048 percent methano l per ton of

d ri ed wood). 7 

### T hese are VOC HAPs th at are no lo nger available to b e rel eased fro m th e kiln

- dried lumber which is source mat erial fo r construction wood and eventually C&D wood. A ccordingly, EPA coul d conclude th at th e VOC HAP levels in C&D wood are not in concentrati ons “not normally associ ated wi th v irgin bio mass mate ri al ,” making C&D wood clean cellulosic biomass: a tradit io nal fuel. See 40 C.F.R. 241.2.

4 See EPA

- HQ

- RCRA -2008-0329- 1866 (AF&PA data on organic contaminants in traditional fuel showing that Virginia p ine can contain 2% turpentine, which is a VOC). Terpenes such as turpentine have the potential to form formaldehyde in the atmosphere. See Milota, Michael R., Emissions from Wood Drying, The science and the issues, Forest Products Journal, June 1, 2000, a t 19, a vailable at http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/for486/ Readings/Emissions%20from%20Wood%20Drying.pdf

. Thus, these VOCs can be group ed with formaldyde when considering contaminent levels. This approach is consistent with how EPA is proposing to address other potential presursors. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 80480. 5 AP

- 42, Appendix A, 40 lb/ft3

– based on density of pine, (1 mbf = 83.3 ft3 ) 6 Milota and Mosher, Emissions of hazardous air pollutants from lumber drying, Forest Products Journal, July/August 2008, Vol. 58, No. 7/8, at 52. Available at http:/ /www.deq.idaho.gov/media/591021

- milota_mosher_emissions_study.pdf 7 EPA, AP

- 42, 5 th edition, Table 10.6.3

- 3, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch10/final/c10s0603.pdf

### 4

III. State

- by

- State Sample Background

The discussio n on contaminant com par a bilit y to tradit io nal fuels and how it r elates to C&D wood fuel has largely focused on th e processing involved to create the fuel, the ty pe of i nco ming materi als int o th e processing facilit ies and th e requi rements set fo rth by th e co mbustor

. The fo llo wing discussio n will touch base on each provided state

- wide C&D wood fu el database to explai n where the sam

ples came from

and h ow they were processed.

The samples th at com

prise th e Minnesota were all co llected fro m a single supplier over th e course of o ne week. All of

t he materi als th at are processed fo r C&D wood fuel are C&D materi als and, of th e inco ming am ount, ty pically 2 0% beco mes wood fuel , w hich was sampled fo r this study

. The C&D processing includes several s ize separat io ns, which eliminate th e fines to become landfill cover and helps ensure th e most efficient separat io n. The C&D wood fu els materi als are posi

ti vely picked fro m th e processing lines and grinded to an approximate size of 1.5 inches.

The Washington d at aset were also from a single p rocessing facilit y th at co llected samples over nearly two weeks. The facilit y r eceives co
- mingl ed construction and dem ol itio n debris. Pri or to materi als being accepted fo r processing, a ri gorous inspect io n process is carri ed out, including docum entati on showing th at th e building was inspected fo r asbestos co nt aining materials if it

was fro m a dem ol i

ti on or renovation proj ect, visual inspect io ns and a lead based paint testing th rough X- Ray Fl

uorescence (XRF). The materi als processing includes machine sorting, magnet ic separation, manual sorting, shredding, and a final inspect io n.
The Massachusetts da taset was a combinat io n of two separate datasets. The fi rst dataset used in thi s table was fro m a study th at took place at a single processing facilit y. This facilit y accepts a wi de range of

C &D mixed materi als th at includes, but is not limited to ferrous and non- ferrous metal s, aggregate, OCC ( ol d corrugated cardboard) , p la st ics, gypsum, wood, and fines. For th e purposes of

t he proj ect th at com

piled th e report which was used fo r this dataset, all wood was posi ti vely picked fro m th e convey or line during sam

pling. This includes lumber, painted wood, treated wood, plywood, la minated wood, et c. The second facilit y th at contributed to th e Massachusetts dataset accepts a wide range of m ateri als, as well

. However, during th e week of sampling, a majorit y of

i ts inc om ing materi als was co mposed of C &D wood, with a very lo w com posi ti on of untreated wood (< 5%). Thi s fa cilit y ut ilizes fines rem oval , size reduct io n and negat ive sorting techni ques in th eir process. T he C&D wood fuel th at does co me fro m this facilit y is ne gat ively picked

. The New York dataset cam e f rom sampling and analyses of processed C&D wood combusted in

a bio mass
- to

- energy bo iler lo cated at a facilit y in New York State o ver th e peri od 2005 -2012

. The w ood was obtained fro m approximately 25 different su ppliers lo cated in th e Western New York region and Ontari o, Canada. S am ples consisted primarily

o f mixtures of

a s- fired C&D wood taken fro m th e bo iler fe ed hopper conveyor , wi th a m inor number of

s amples t aken fro m storage piles represent ing individual sup pliers. S om e samples may have included insignificant

am ounts of

n on
- C&D wood. Sampling and analyses were perf orm ed in accordance wi th t he facilit y’s Alt ernate Fuels Quali ty A ssurance/Quality

C ontrol P lan (QA/QC Pl an) requi red under th e fu el t est ing provi si ons of

t he facilit y’s Ti

tl e V permit. The QA/QC Pl an also includes

### 5

requi rements on C&D processor procedures, provisio ns fo r mat erial receipt a nd select io n , storage, and inspect io n, training of b oth p rocessor and co mbustion fa cilit y personnel , and recordkee ping.

The Maine dataset w as co mp iled by th e Maine Departm ent of E nvironmental

P rotecti on in a report th at detailed th e substi tuti on of w ood from

c onstructi on and dem oli ti on d ebris fo r convent io nal fuels in a bio mass bo iler. This was init iated due to th e increased demand fo r th ese ty pes of m aterials as a part ia l replacement of c lean wood and bio mass. In total , 12 different facilit ies were evaluated and th e quali ty of the C&D fuels was analyzed. Fro m th ese 12, fo ur of th e fa cilit ies ut ilized a negative pick ing technique, th ree f acili ti es ut ilized a posi

ti ve pick technique and five o f th e fa cilit ies utilized source separation. Source separation entails the sorting o f th e usable elements of C&D at the point of generati on or collecti on. It shoul d be noted th at th e values in the report represent 100% C&D wood f uel, and not the <50% C&D wood f uel blended wit h clean bio mass that is required in the state of Maine.

The California dataset was a co mbinat io n of t wo separate datasets. The fir st fa cilit y ut ilizes

numero us processing techniques th at include posi ti ve picking, mult iple screening steps, size reducti on and fines rem ov al

. Milled whi te wood, painted wood, cardboard and scrap metals are some of t he material classificat io ns th at are ta rgeted in th e posi

tive sorti ng system

. The C&D wood fuel materials are chipped prior to shipment and rarely remain onsi te fo r lo nger th an 2

- 3 days. The second facilit y that com prised the Californi a dataset utilizes a negative pick techni que. This facilit y processes all th e materials th rough tw o separate negat ive pick convey ors where trash, metal s, OCC, etc. are removed. Following th e negat ive pick, th e materi als are screened to
a 3⁄4 inch minus sizing, th us rem oving fines. The mat eri als th at make it t hrough this screening process are cr ushed and th en ready fo r shi pment as C&D wood fuel. Approximately half of t he inco ming materials int o th e facilit y are made up of C&D materials, while th e oth er half is made up of clean, untreated wood.

The Wisconsin dataset came from a s ingle sampling pe ri od at a single processing facilit y. P ri or to a p osi ti ve pi cking line, all of the materi als are screened to rem ove fines (approximately 3 inch minus materi als). This level of f ines rem oval

i s larger th an oth er facilit ies, where fines rem oval consists of

a l ower fines th

resho ld. The remaining mat eri als are th en passed th rough a posi

tive pi ck line to remove th e C&D wood fuel materi als and oth er mat eri als such as cardboard, concrete, et c. The posi

ti vely picked C&D wood fuel materials are th en shred and stored u nt il shipment.

### IV. C&D Wood Contaminant Comparisons with Traditional Fuels

Table 1 – Minnesota Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples f rom Generator Located in Minnes ota. Literary Sourc es 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Minnesota 2 Contaminant Un its
Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 7 0.20 0.67 0.41 0. 67 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 7 2.29 74.7 26.7 70.3 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 7 0.009 0.01 0.01 * Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 7 0.15 0.28 0.18 0.28 ( b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 7 3.54 83.2 31.6 80.5 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 7 0.43 1.76 0.71 1.76 (c) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 7 10.2 110 38.1 98.4 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 7 44.9 180 68.5 180 (c) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 7 0.02 0.06 0.03 0. 06 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 7 1.23 5.83 2.44 4. 90 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 7 0.31 0.3 6 0.32 0. 36 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 7 10.7 111 38.6 98.5 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 7 60 316 130 280 (b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 7 104 150 118 145 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 7 6 29 19.2 29.4 (c) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 7 111 179 138 179 (a) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 7 10.8 127 36.3 87.9 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 7 0.22 0.34 0.27 0. 33 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 7 0.01 0.02 0.02 0. 03 (a ) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 6919 7620 7315 7708 (a) Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 12.05 15.2 13.8 15.47 (a)
1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 Minnesota. Sampl ing Occurred Between 8/13/2012

– 8/17/2012

. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 a t 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
* non
- detect

- Only

one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (page s 2-4) HHV

– High Hea ting Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 7

Table 2 - Washington Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Generator Located in Washington. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Washington 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 10 0.6 16.6 4.47 11.3 (b) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 10 3.6 26.2 10.42 19.9 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 10 0.03 0.17 0.088 0.2 (a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 10 0.18 0.51 0.31 0.4 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 10 5.51 46 16.27 34.6 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 10 0.67 1.63 1.16 1.7 (a) L ead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 10 3.8 26 10.60 20.1 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 10 54.6 127 74.66 104.4 (b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 10 0.019 0.143 0.06 0.1 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 10 1.26 12.2 3.47 7.0 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 3 0.60 0.6 0.60 * Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 10 4.0 26.3 11.1 20.6 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 10 72.1 197 110.5 163.3 (b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 10 179 1960 908.4 1725 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 4 37 47 43.25 ** Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 10 179 2007 925.7 1746 (a) Formaldehyde *** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 10 29.0 130.0 61.1 108.4 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 10 0.27 1.26 0.63 1.0 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 10 0.14 0.731 0.49 0.7 (a) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 Washington. Sampling Occurred Between 3/21/2012

– 4/3/2012

. All values reported as Dry Basis. 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 Stat istics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level

- Used Nonparametric Statistics * non
- detect

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be perf ormed ** - Data set is too small to compute reliable statistics and estimates *** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2

- 4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, S e); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 8

Table 3 - Massachusetts Dataset C&D A nalysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generator s Located in Massachusetts. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1
Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Massachusetts 2 Contaminant Un its

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min

. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 12 0.9 4.7 2.9 4.5 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 67 1.1 261 84 207 (c) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 12 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 (c) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 37 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.6 (c) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 67 0.6 283 93 225 (c) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 12 0.6 3.5 1.2 2.8 ( c) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 67 2.2 437 75 190 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 12 37 157 83 1 28 ( b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 67 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.12 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 12 1.2 27 3.9 20.3 ( c) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1 .1 ND 74.3 3.4 12 0.3 1.3 0.6 1.3 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 67 2.2 438 75.4 191 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 67 1.7 561 193 509 (c) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 27 59 1580 306 1549 ( c) Fluor ide ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 37 4 46 23 39 ( a) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 37 15.0 1583 246 651 (c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 7 13.2 176.8 68.2 151 .1 Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 5 4.0 15.1 37 0.1 1.1 0.23 0.6 (c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 37 0.01 0.2 0.2 0.2 (c) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 5468 7713 6804 7424 (a) Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 67 9.12 31.9 18.2 24.8 (a)
1 EPA Letter "Conta minant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 M assachusetts table contains two separate databases combined . Sampling at the fi rst processing facility o ccurred b etween 4/2007

– 5 /2007

. S ampling at the second proces sing facility occurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 * non
- dete ct

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 9

Tab le 4 – New York Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples Combusted in New York Facility. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1
Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C oal C&D Samples from New York 2 Contaminant Un its

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7

-- -- -- -- -- Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 104 0.29 110.1 12.6 31.6 (b) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9

-- -- -- -- -- Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 32 0.01 0.67 0.16 0. 41 (b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 107 0.20 144.6 26.0 6 8.3 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9

-- -- -- -- -- Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4 .5 ND 148 8.7 107 0.4 261.4 3 2.2 83.3 ( c) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2

-- -- -- -- -- Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 75 0.00 5 0.31 0.08 0. 17 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5

-- -- -- -- -- Seleni um (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4

-- -- -- -- -- Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 107 0.4 261 32 83 (c) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 107 0.4 221 38 79 (c) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 108 310 3521 975 16 31 (b) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 17 4 313 60.4 161 ( b) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 108 Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15 .1

-- -- -- -- -- Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 108 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.1 8 (c) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 108 4464 9649 6498 7590 (a) Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 108 6.93 41.9 22.1 31.7 (a)
1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Co ncentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 New York. Sampling Occurred Between 0 2/ 200 5 – 10 /2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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 Discernabl e Distribution at 5% Significance Level

- Used Nonparametric Statistics
* non
- detect

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 10

Table 5 - Maine Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples Submitted in a Report to Maine Department of Environmental Protection Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Maine 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7

-- -- -- -- -- Arseni c (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 12 14.8 110 52.6 92.5 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9

-- -- -- -- -- Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6

-- -- -- -- -- Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4

-- -- -- -- -- Cobal t (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9

-- -- -- -- -- Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 12 24 314 95.5 200 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2

-- -- -- -- -- Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09

-- -- -- -- -- N ickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5

-- -- -- -- -- Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4

-- -- -- -- -- Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7

-- -- -- -- -- Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80

-- -- -- -- -- Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992

-- -- -- -- -- Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0

-- -- -- -- -- Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056

-- -- -- -- -- Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nitrogen w

t % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1

-- -- -- -- -- Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6

-- -- -- -- -- HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 From Report by Maine Department of Environmental Protection. April 2007. Table 4. Samples taken in 2006. 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 a t 5% Significance Level

- Used Nonparametric Statistics
* non
- detect

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from c lean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + Due to the limited number of constituents tested in the report, a group ing comparison was not capable of being carried out.

### 11

Table 6 - California Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generators Located in California. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Data bases 1
Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from California 2 Contaminant Un its

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 14 0.2 12.0 3.1 11.5 ( c) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 14 1.3 25.4 4.6 16.5 (c) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 14 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 14 4.5 29.1 11.3 19.8 (b) Cobalt (Co ) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 14 0.6 3.0 1.6 2.5 (a) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 14 11 252 74.0 190 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 14 59 137 91.2 124 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 14 0.0 2 0.3 0.1 0.2 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 14 2.8 12.2 6.7 10.9 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 14 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 14 76 180 118 128 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 14 102 329 193 405 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 14 402 3366 1044 1918 (b) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 14 51.7 156.9 115 151 (c) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 14 495 3436 1 159 2021 (b) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 14 4.1 68.2 19.9 40.2 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 14 0.23 1.12 0.63 0.96 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 14 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.15 (a) HHV Btu/l b

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 5673 7169 6477 7229 (a) Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 14.7 31.5 21.5 30.9 ( b)
1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 California table contains tw o separate databases combined . Sampling at the first processing facility o ccurred b etween 7/23/2012

– 8 /1/2012. Sampling at the second processing facility occurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 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

- Use d Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level

- Used Nonparametric Statistics * non
- detect

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical anal ys is can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating

Value ; SVM

–

Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni ) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 12

Table 7 - Wisconsin Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Gen erator Located in Wisconsin. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1
Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Wisconsin 2 Contaminant Un its

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 7 0.18 0.53 0.39 0.59 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 7 1.15 5.72 3.2 5.7 ( a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 7 0.01 0.01 0.01 * Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 7 0.24 0.95 0.4 0.8 ( b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 7 2.1 9.5 5.3 8.8 ( a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 7 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 (a) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 7 32 482 149 449 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 7 56 74.2 64 7 2.3 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 7 0.05 0.42 0.2 0.34 ( b) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 7 0.5 3.4 1.0 3.4 ( c) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 7 0.3 0.3 0.3 * Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 1 2.7 7 32.7 483 150 449 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 7 65.2 85.4 73.9 83.4 ( a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 7 205 386 257 365 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 7 14 67 22 67 ( a) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 7 219 400 279 400 (c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 7 25.3 171.3 74.6 149.4 (a) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 7 0.42 1.0 0.54 1.0 (c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 1 3.6 7 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.5 ( c) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 5920 7061 6685 7319 (a) Moisture wt %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 17.0 24.1 20.3 23.8 (a)
1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 Wisconsin . Sampling Occurred Between 7 /30 /2012 – 8/6 /2012

. All values reported as Dry Basis. 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% Signi ficance 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 * non
- detect

- Only one disti nct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating

Value ; SVM

–

Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 13

Table 8 - Compilation Dataset C&D Analysis. Compilation of Minnesota, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and Maine C&D Datasets. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1
Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C oal Compilation of C&D All Datasets 2 Contaminant Un its

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 50 0.18 16.6 2.6 7.1 ( c) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 221 0.29 261 35.9 9 1.8 (b) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm
-- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 50 0.01 0.3 0.1 0.2 3 (c) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 107 0.01 1.3 0.3 0.5 3 (c) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 212 0.2 283 45 116 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 50 0.2 3.5 1.1 2.1 ( b) Lead (Pb) p pm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 224 0.4 482 53.9 1 36 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 50 37.2 180 78.8 11 5 ( b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 180 0.01 0.7 0.1 0.16 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 50 0.5 27.4 4.0 8.6 ( b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 43 0.3 1.3 0.4 1.0 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 212 0.4 438 52.2 136 ( b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 212 0.4 561 110 310 (b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 173 59 3521 809 1567 (c) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 86 4 313 45.9 139 ( c) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 183 15 3521 786 1558 (c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0

-- -- -- -- -- -- 45 4.1 176.8 47.6 104.2 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 75 0.1 1.26 0.39 0.80 (c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 183 0.01 0.73 0.13 0.22 (c) HHV Btu/lb

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 183 4464 9649 6639 7541 ( c) Moisture w

t %

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 203 6.9 41.9 20.5 29.6 (b)
1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 M innesota. Sampling Occurred Between 8/13/2012

– 8 /17/2012; Washington. Sampling Occurred Be tween 3/21/2012

– 4 /3/2012; Massachusetts t able contains two separate databases combined

. Sampling at the first processing facility o ccurred b etween 4/2007

– 5 /2007

. Sampling at the second processing facility occurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. ; New Yor k. Sampling Occurred Between 0 2 /200 5 – 10 /2012; Maine. Sampling Occurred in 2006

. C alifornia table contains two separate databases combined . S ampling at the first processing facility o ccurred b etween 7/23/2012

– 8 /1/2012. Sampling at the second processing facility o ccurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. Wisconsin . S ampling Occurred Between 7 /30 /2012 – 8/6 /2012

. All values reported as Dry Basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Not es: (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 St atistics * non
- detect

- Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyd e (pages 2 -4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

– Semi

- Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM

– Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) + C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sa mple values.*all results reported as moisture free *all results pooled from all 7 samples

MDL Non-Detect Average Standard Deviation Low High Components as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free

-- 0 13.80 1.09 12.05 15.2 15.47

-- 0.56 0.64 0.56 0.65 0.59 0.7 0.58 0.68 0.6 0.7 0.54 0.63 0.45 0.52 0 0.65 0.06 0.52 0.7 0.741

-- 71.45 81.24 70.08 80.57 68.59 80.89 69.24 81.37 69.96 81.44 69.98 81.24 70.31 81.24 0 81.14 0.31 80.57 81.44 81.61

-- 15.95 18.13 16.34 18.78 15.62 18.42 15.28 17.96 15.34 17.85 15.62 18.13 15.78 18.24 0 18.22 0.31 17.85 18.78 18.69

-- 0 6.00 0.05 5.95 6.12 6.12***

-- 0 50.51 0.16 50.20 50.72 50.75

-- 0 0.23 0.03 0.19 0.29 0.28

-- 0 0.27 0.04 0.22 0.336700337 0.33

-- 0 42.60 0.23 42.36 43.08 43.08***

-- 0 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.021 0.022

-- 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.024447031 0.025

-- 7602 8644 7179 8254 7142 8423 7338 8624 7408 8624 6919 8033 7620 8805 0 7315 255 6919 7620 7708 Metals (mg/kg) 0.08 0 0.36 0.15 0.17 0.59 0.58 0.12 0 23.17 24.87 1.95 65.7 61.44 0.008 0 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.008 n.d. 0.007 0 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.25 0.3 0.02 0 27.40 27.83 3.01 73.2 70.24 0.04 0 0.62 0.41 0.38 1.52 1.52*** 0.13 0 33.10 30.47 8.8 96.8 85.9** 0.009 0 59.14 43.10 38.6 156 156*** 0.003 0 0.03 0.01 0.015 0.049 0.048 0.04 0 2.11 1.41 1.06 5.05 4.27** 0.27 0 0.28 0.02 0.27 0.31 0.31*** Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 146.36 97.7 75.18 295.95 295.9*** Metals (mg/kg) DRY WEIGHT 0 0.41 0.17 0.20 0.670835702 0.67 0 26.68 28.36 2.29 74.70153496 70.32 0 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.01 n.d. 0 0.18 0.05 0.15 0.284252416 0.284** 0 31.58 31.75 3.54 83.22910745 80.45 0 0.71 0.47 0.43 1.756210283 1.756*** 0 38.12 34.53 10.2 110.1 98.35** 0 68.52 49.69 44.9 180.2426343 180.2*** 0 0.03 0.01 0.017 0.056 0.055 0 2.44 1.62 1.23 5.834777585 4.898** 0 0.32 0.02 0.31 0.35992105 0.36*** Total Metals (mg/kg) DRY WEIGHT

-- -- 169.00 111.2 87.52 341.94 341.9*** Total Semi-Volatile Metals (mg/kg) DRY WEIGHT

-- -- 38.62 34.6 10.70 110.68 98.46** Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg) DRY WEIGHT

-- -- 130.35 96.0 60.00 316.01 279.9** Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) 420 0 31328.57 35510.88 9300 110000 76060** Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) DRY WEIGHT 0 36265.91 40983.77 10798 127094.1652 87927** Ions 6 0 6.14 0.38 6 7 7*** 40 0 102.14 15.24 90 130 125.6 6 0 16.57 10.21 5 25 25*** Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- -- 124.86 24.07 101.00 161.00 161.9 Ions DRY WEIGHT 0 7.13 0.49 7 8 8.227*** 0 118.45 17.26 104 150 145.0 0 19.16 11.75 6 29 29.38*** Total Halogens (mg/kg) DRY WEIGHT

-- -- 137.62 27.15 111.46 179.09 179.4 0.22 0.34 0.27

153.5 136.8 112.0 158.7 111.8 111.5 179.1 319.7 122.3 109.0 101.2 87.5 101.4 341.9

6 110 25 6 90 5 0.27 Sulfur (wt%) DRY BASIS 0.020 0.011 0.018 0.011 0.024 0.016 0.021

Chloride (mg/kg) 125 109 106 129 105 104 150 Selenium (HAP) 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.36 0.31

Fluoride (mg/kg) 28 28 6 29 7 7 29 Formaldehyde 17055 39094 21226 18804 19790 10798 127094

Bromide (mg/kg) 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 Mercury (HAP) 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 Nickel (HAP) 2.77 2.69 1.42 1.54 1.57 1.23 5.83 Lead (HAP) 110.06 47.49 14.74 40.66 10.22 18.23 25.42 Manganese (HAP) 47.19 63.59 46.46 51.83 44.94 45.40 180.24 Chromium (HAP) 83.23 4.71 25.00 3.54 16.30 18.81 69.44 Cobalt (HAP) 0.43 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.48 0.72 1.76 Beryllium (HAP) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Cadmium (HAP) 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 Antimony (HAP) 0.67 0.21 0.44 0.20 0.48 0.41 0.50 Arsenic (HAP) 74.70 2.54 19.93 2.29 13.04 16.02 58.23 50.2 0.23

43.08 0.018 50.5 50.56 0.25

42.41

281.2 106.3 92.5 86.1 75.2 Friday 8/17 Thursday 8/16 Wednesday 8/15 (b) Wednesday 8/15 (a) 90% UPL Results*

5.98 5.99 5.95

42.36 42.57 42.6

0.008

295.9 14.1 14.91 13.45 13.87 12.05 13.03 15.2

6.12 6 5.99 6

0.22

0.018 42.58 0.01 50.57 0.2 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.27 42.57

6

25 130 6 90 6 95 24 6 90 6 7 110 25 0.27 0.31

6 87.3 0.41 41.3 55.3 0.04 2.34 34.6 44.1 39.4 0.017 0.032 1.31 0.27 0.46 12.5

1.2 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.38 96.8 41.5 0.049 2.44 0.59 65.7 0.008 0.25 73.2 Tuesday 8/14 Monday 8/13 Range

0.17 1.95 0.008 0.43 50.4 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.014 50.72 50.53 50.48 0.23 0.19 0.29 Wednesday 8/15

0.35 0.18 2.21 0.008 0.015

0.14 14 0.37 16.9

0.13 3.01 0.41

0.18 4.1 11.2

0.14 21.2 0.008

1.52 22 156 0.015 1.35 15.7 39.1 0.02 1.06 5.05 0.41 8.78

0.027 Mercury (HAP) Nickel (HAP) Selenium (HAP)

Bromide (mg/kg) Minnesota C&D SUMMARY

141.0 125.0 101.0 142.0 102.0 102.0 161.0 Chloride (mg/kg) Fluoride (mg/kg) 0.13 16.2 0.62 13.8 0.008 0.14 60.1

38.6 0.51 Heating Value (BTU/lb)

Antimony (HAP) Arsenic (HAP) Beryllium (HAP) Cadmium (HAP) Chromium (HAP) Cobalt (HAP) Lead (HAP) Manganese (HAP) Moisture (wt%) Ash (wt%) Volatile Matter (wt%) Fixed Carbon (wt%) Hydrogen (wt%) Carbon (wt%) Nitrogen (wt%)

Oxygen (wt%) Sulfur (wt%) Nitrogen (wt%) DRY BASIS

Formaldehyde 15000 34000 18000 16000 17000 9300 110000 110.7 48.0 15.2 41.1 10.7 18.7 25.9 209.0 74.2 93.8 60.0 76.8 82.6 316.0*all results reported as moisture free *all results pooled from all 7 samples

MDL NonDetect Average Standard Deviation Low High
Components as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free

-- 0 0.63 0.28 0.27 1.26 1.03

-- 0 0.49 0.17 0.14 0.731 0.738

-- 7600 7620 7310 7140 6820 7170 7920 6460 6770 7900 0 7271.00 493.05 6820 7900 7986 Metals (mg/kg) 0.08 0 4.47 4.64 0.60 16.6 11.28** 0.12 0 10.42 6.54 3.60 26.2 19.91 0.008 0 0.088 0.054 0.030 0.17 0.167 0.007 0 0.31 0.09 0.18 0.51 0.435 0.02 0 16.27 13.26 5.51 46 34.56** 0.04 0 1.16 0.37 0.67 1.63 1.69 0.13 0 10.60 6.20 3.8 26.0 20.05** 0.009 0 74.66 21.49 54.6 127 104.4** 0.003 0 0.06 0.03 0.019 0.143 0.110 0.04 0 3.47 3.18 1.26 12.2 6.971** 0.27 7 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.6 n.d. Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 121.68 39.3 76.11 210.52 178.7 Total Semi Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 11.09 6.1 3.98 26.26 20.58** Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 110.53 37.8 72.09 196.93 163.3** Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) 420 0 61100.00 32908.80 29000 130000 108359** Ions 40 0 908.40 563.16 179 1960 1725.0 6 6 43.25 4.79 37 47 n.d. Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- -- 925.70 565.32 179.00 2007 1746.0 * All 90% UPL Results reported as Normal MRL = Method Reporting Limit ** 90% UPL Result reported as Lognormal MDL = Method Detection Limit = Nondetect; Reported as MDL *** 90% UPL Result Non-Parametric HAP = Hazardous Air Pollutant -- = Non-Detect OH = Organic Halogen n.d. = Only 1 Distinct Value, therefore no variance. N = Nitrogenated Washington C&D SUMMARY

42 639.0 2.74

-- 121.9

62000

597 1.45 7 90.5 0.0733 0.63 0.61

7.4 5.1

516 47 0.731

3.5 26.2 0.17 0.33 34.3 1.58 13.2 127 0.0632 4.18

-- 210.5

44000 35000

179

-- 179.0 0.67 3.8 56.3 0.0367 1.29

-- 0.136

0.6 6.3 0.07 0.18 6.86 2-Apr

0.27 0.42

-- -- 1120.0 797.0 697.0 1340.0 2007.0 1530.0 385.0 563.0 Fluoride (mg/kg)

-- -- 37

-- 47 Chloride (mg/kg) 1120 797 660 1340 1960 1530 385 105.0

Formaldehyde 49000 130000 46000 46000 29000 60000 110000 76.1 121.6 96.1 114.2 97.5 167.7 106.1 2.78 2.49 Selenium (HAP)

-- -- 0.6

-- 0.6 0.6

-- Nickel (HAP) 2.65 1.26 2.93 2.16 12.2 65.5 63.1 Mercury (HAP) 0.143 0.0188 0.0778 0.0284 0.051 0.0468 0.0614 Manganese (HAP) 54.6 62.6 79.3 69.4 78.3 1.18 0.78 Lead (HAP) 26 10.6 5.5 12.2 11.6 7.8 8.3 Cobalt (HAP) 0.83 0.77 1.37 1.34 1.63 0.34 0.26 Chromium (HAP) 12.3 10.2 10.8 5.51 46 14.4 15.1 Cadmium (HAP) 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.33 0.51 13.2 Beryllium (HAP) 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.32 7.2 2.4 1.8 1.7 Arsenic (HAP) 8.2 6.8 8.9 3.6 14.3 11.6 Heating Value (BTU/lb)

Antimony (HAP) 16.6 3.6 4.2 2.9 Sulfur (wt%) 0.455 0.516 0.608 0.625 0.486 0.394 0.355 28-Mar 3-Apr 29-Mar 30-Mar Range 90% UPL Results*

Nitrogen (wt%) 0.77 1.26 0.7 0.76 0.55 0.39 0.55 21-Mar 22-Mar 23-Mar 26-Mar 27-Mar

26.3 10.9 6.4 12.5 12.7 8.7 4.0 13.5 7.3 8.6 95.2 85.3 107.7 85.0 154.9 97.3 72.1 196.9 114.5 96.4*all results reported as moisture free *all results pooled from all 7 samples

MDL NonDetect Average Low High
Components as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free

-- 21.51 14.70 31.45 30.92**

-- 1.04 1.26 4.16 5 4.3 5.17 3.7 4.45 4.1 5.4 2.57 3.61 1.73 2.36 2.71 3.95 3.95 5.38 3.97 4.66 5.13 6.01 9.84 11.54 2.62 3.34 4.28 6.08 4.87 1.26 11.54

-- 66.22 80.31 63.51 76.38 63.18 75.98 63.67 76.57 57.63 75.99 55.58 78.13 57.45 78.37 53.29 77.74 56.3 76.66 64.08 75.12 62.89 73.73 60.13 70.49 61.46 78.41 52.88 75.14 76.36 70.49 80.31

-- 15.21 18.44 15.48 18.62 15.67 18.84 15.78 18.97 14.11 18.6 12.99 18.25 14.13 19.28 12.56 18.32 13.19 17.96 17.24 20.21 17.28 20.26 15.34 17.98 14.3 18.25 13.22 18.78 18.77 17.96 20.26

-- 5.78 5.57 5.93

-- 49.32 47.95 50.79

-- 0.49 0.19 0.78 0.63 0.23 1.12326769 0.96

-- 37.69 33.28 39.93

-- 0.07 0.03 0.142 0.10 0.04 0.20176186 0.15

-- 6383 7741 6990 8407 7103 8543 7051 8480 5995 7905 5930 8335 6185 8436 5673 8275 6195 8435 7169 8404 6969 8170 6840 8019 6471 8256 5720 8127 6477 5673 7169 7229 Metals (mg/kg) 0.08 2.50 0.19 10 0.12 3.42 1.03 18.1 0.008 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.007 0.20 0.13 0.38 0.02 8.71 3.74 20.7 0.04 1.23 0.49 2.45 0.13 59.94 8.88 208 0.009 72.17 49.20 114 0.003 0.09 0.02 0.205 0.04 5.28 2.28 10.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- 93.36 61.56 149.28 Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- 153.86 80.03 271.41 Metals (mg/kg) DRY BASIS 3.07 0.24 12.03 11.53*** 4.55 1.30 25.44 16.52*** 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.18 0.45 0.36 11.28 4.54 29.10 19.82** 1.55 0.59 2.95 2.45 74.04 11.33 252.24 190.4** 91.22 59.17 137.10 123.6 0.12 0.02 0.25 0.21 6.65 2.76 12.15 10.93** 0.35 0.32 0.39 0.389*** Total Semi Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- 74.64 11.87 252.75 Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- 118.38 76.36 179.53 190** Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- 193.13 102.11 329.14 160.2 Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) 420 15150.00 3400 50000 Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) DRY BASIS 19949.38 4123 68204 40244** Ions 3 3.00 3.00 3 15 829.36 295.00 2776 3 90.93 38.00 124 Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- 923.29 366.00 2836.00 Ions DRY BASIS 3.84 3.52 4.38 1044.21 402.40 3366.48 1918** 115.12 51.74 156.91 151.1*** Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- 1159.33 495.16 3435.61 2021** Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

var 3.46 2.13 4.8

var 5.86 3.62 8.13

var 1.95 1.21 2.71

var 1.50 0.93 2.09

var 46.51 28.80 64.6

var 103.56 63.90 144

var 39.01 24.10 54.2

var 5.40 3.34 7.51

var 2.56 1.58 3.55

var 5.11 3.15 7.09

var 3.38 1.30 20.8

var 2.70 1.67 3.76

var 3.46 2.13 4.8

var 4.80 1.18 13.7

var 3.46 2.13 4.8

var 2.11 1.30 2.92

var 9.85 2.10 22.3

var 5.86 3.62 8.13

var 3.90 2.41 5.42

var 212.70 59.70 511

var 54.73 18.30 139

var 7.03 2.97 12.5

var 3.80 1.49 14.2

var 70.10 9.04 161

var 3.75 2.32 5.21

var 28.96 8.40 79.4

var 3.90 2.41 5.42 Total Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

-- 639.39 487.69 930.31 Semi-Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

var 811.07 485.00 945

var 528.00 316.00 615

var 872.57 508.00 1150

var 733.79 439.00 855

var 643.50 385.00 750

var 296.21 177.00 345

var 528.00 316.00 615

var 792.43 454.00 1200

var 1096.36 654.00 1280

var 720.64 431.00 840

var 682.14 408.00 795

var 604.93 362.00 705

var 592.21 354.00 690

var 1032.64 616.00 1200

var 553.64 331.00 645

var 604.93 362.00 705

var 476.43 285.00 555 CALIFORNIA C&D SUMMARY

Range 90% UPL Results* Monday 7/23 Wednesday 7/25 Wednesday 7/25 Wednesday 7/25 Thursday 7/26 Friday 7/27 Wednesday 8/1

5.79 5.87 5.93 Carbon (wt%) 50.79 49.63 48.71 49.72 48.66 49.79 28.86 26.69 Ash (wt%) Volatile Matter (wt%) Fixed Carbon (wt%) Hydrogen (wt%) 5.93 5.75 5.66 5.75 Moisture (wt%) 17.54 16.85 16.85 16.85 24.16

0.51 0.49 Oxygen (wt%) 39.67 33.28 36.98 37.96 38.67 37.23 39.93 Nitrogen (wt%) DRY BASIS 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.37 0.65 49.96 Nitrogen (wt%) 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.49 0.36 0.36

0.42 0.61 0.26 Arsenic (HAP) 1.07 1.56 1.43 1.81 1.59 18.1 Heating Value (BTU/lb)

Antimony (HAP) 0.24 10 8.33 9.17 0.055 0.03 Sulfur (wt%) DRY BASIS 0.074 0.060 0.075 0.085 0.087 0.077 0.041 Sulfur (wt%) 0.061 0.05 0.062 0.071 0.066

0.23 0.18 Chromium (HAP) 3.74 6.17 7.33 11.7 5.37 20.7 10.7 Cadmium (HAP) 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.19 5.57 Beryllium (HAP) 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04

57.1 59.9 Mercury (HAP) 0.017 0.205 0.116 0.085 0.051 0.07 0.026 Manganese (HAP) 55.1 49.2 77.5 114 66.3 0.89 0.88 Lead (HAP) 208 13.9 66.6 62.4 90 41.8 19 Cobalt (HAP) 0.49 0.78 1.33 2.45 0.89

81.0 271.4 85.9 169.1 212.3 169.6 143.6 100.5 63.0 71.3 101.9 149.3 79.1 101.2 3.74 3.68 Selenium (HAP) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Nickel (HAP) 2.28 3.59 5.95 10.1 4.49

0.07 0.05 Cadmium (HAP) 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.32 0.25 Beryllium (HAP) 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.86 0.35 Arsenic (HAP) 1.30 1.88 1.72 2.18 2.10 25.44 7.60 Antimony (HAP) 0.29 12.03 10.02 11.03 0.55

58.76 25.92 Manganese (HAP) 66.82 59.17 93.21 137.10 87.42 80.26 81.71 Lead (HAP) 252.24 16.72 80.10 75.05 118.67 29.10 14.60 Cobalt (HAP) 0.59 0.94 1.60 2.95 1.17 1.25 1.20 Chromium (HAP) 4.54 7.42 8.82 14.07 7.08

0.38 0.37 252.8 17.2 80.6 75.6 119.3 59.5 26.5 Selenium (HAP) 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.10 0.04 Nickel (HAP) 2.76 4.32 7.16 12.15 5.92 5.26 5.02 Mercury (HAP) 0.02 0.25 0.14 0.10 0.07

16000 50000

Formaldehyde 4123 12026 11185 11545 26371 22491 68204 Formaldehyde 3400 10000 9300 9600 20000 110.5 329.1 103.3 203.4 255.3 223.7 201.8 137.1 76.4 85.8 122.6 179.5 104.3 142.2

96 68 2836.0 539.0 593.0 574.0 602.0 565.0 366.0 Fluoride (mg/kg) 57 103 116 119 119 3 3 Chloride (mg/kg) 2776 433 474 452 480 466 295 Bromide (mg/kg) 3 3 3 3 3

135 93 3435.6 644.6 709.6 686.7 789.8 790.0 495.2 Fluoride (mg/kg) 69 124 140 143 157 4 4 Chloride (mg/kg) 3366 521 570 544 633 655 402 Bromide (mg/kg) 4 4 4 4 4

1.33 1.3 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p) (HAP/OH) 1 0.926 0.981 0.981 1 1.03 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 1.3 1.21 1.28 1.28 1.3 2.35 2.31 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (HAP/OH) 3.91 3.62 3.83 3.83 3.91 3.98 3.91 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (HAP/OH) 2.31 2.13 2.26 2.26 2.31

26.6 26 Allyl chloride (HAP/OH) 3.6 3.34 3.53 3.53 3.6 3.68 3.6 Acrylonitrile (HAP/N) 26 24.1 25.5 25.5 26 31.7 31 Acrolein (HAP) 69 63.9 67.7 67.7 69 70.5 69 Acetonitrile (HAP/N) 31 28.8 30.4 30.4 31

1.43 1.41 Chloroform (HAP/OH) 1.8 1.67 1.77 1.77 1.8 1.84 1.8 Chlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 1.41 1.3 1.38 1.38 1.41 1.74 1.71 Bromoform (HAP/OH) 3.41 3.15 3.34 3.34 3.41 3.47 3.41 Benzene (HAP) 1.71 1.58 1.67 1.67 1.71

2.35 2.31 Isopropylbenzene (HAP) 1.41 1.3 1.38 1.38 1.41 1.43 1.41 Hexachlorobutadiene (HAP/OH) 2.31 2.13 2.26 2.26 2.31 2.35 2.31 Ethyl benzene (HAP) 13.7 10.6 11 1.18 11.4 1.23 1.2 Chloroprene (HAP/OH) 2.31 2.13 2.26 2.26 2.31

2.66 2.6 Methylene chloride (HAP/OH) 59.7 511 148 298 95.1 196 128 Methyl tert butyl ether (HAP) 2.6 2.41 2.55 2.55 2.6 13.5 2.1 Methyl methacrylate (HAP) 3.91 3.62 3.83 3.83 3.91 3.98 3.91 m,p-Xylenes (HAP) 22.3 18.1 16.3 11.4 14

1.64 1.6 Styrene (HAP) 80.6 111 115 109 141 161 106 o-Xylenes (HAP) 1.6 1.49 6.47 1.57 5 53.4 49.5 n-Hexane (HAP) 3.5 2.97 3.14 3.14 3.2 3.27 3.2 Naphthalene (HAP) 139 93 77.7 40 101

2.66 2.6 534.9 930.3 570.8 653.0 614.2 651.9 487.7 Vinyl chloride 2.6 2.41 2.55 2.55 2.6 2.56 2.5 Toluene (HAP) 50.4 30.1 32.3 27.8 79.4 54.2 32 Tetrachloroethylene (HAP/OH) 2.5 2.32 2.46 2.46 2.5

639 708 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (HAP/OH) 778 713 855 611 439 552 611 1-Methylnaphthalene 900 1150 990 708 508 610 676 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 560 513 615 440 316 397 440 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 860 788 945 676 485

397 440 2-Methylnaphthalene 805 1200 885 633 454 571 633 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (HAP/N) 560 513 615 440 316 484 536 2,4-Dinitrophenol (HAP/N) 314 288 345 247 177 223 247 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (HAP/OH) 682 625 750 536 385

513 568 Acenaphthylene 641 588 705 504 362 455 504 Acenaphthene 723 663 795 568 408 823 911 4-Nitrophenol (HAP/N) 764 700 840 600 431 542 600 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene (HAP/OH/N) 1160 1070 1280 911 654

417 461 Benzo(a)anthracene 641 588 705 504 362 455 504 Anthracene 587 538 645 461 331 446 493 Aniline 1100 1000 1200 858 616 775 858 Acetophenone 628 575 690 493 354

359 397 Benzo(a)pyrene 505 463 555 397 285 Friday 8/3

31.45 26.56 14.7 14.7 14.7 21.62 29.62 Monday 7/30 Tuesday 7/31 Wednesday 8/1 Wednesday 8/1 Wednesday 8/1 Thursday 8/2

0.55 1.12 0.74 0.72 0.83 0.91 0.48 0.78 0.77 0.54 0.61 0.71 0.78 0.38 5.75 49.00 49.65 48.99 48.87 47.95 49.88 48.86 5.82 5.85 5.69 5.69 5.57 5.89

0.202

0.88 2.28 0.38 1.63 0.28 0.19 0.35 0.139 0.102 0.110 0.117 0.095 0.069 36.96 0.095 0.075 0.094 0.100 0.081 0.054 0.142 39.70 37.32 37.74 36.67 36.98 38.54

0.15 9.41 4.02 10.2 10 7.55 5.19 9.8 0.15 0.13 0.38 0.29 0.24 0.15 1.58 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 3.87 1.03 2.79 4.18 2.12 1.17

68.9 0.023 0.126 0.135 0.164 0.157 0.042 0.094 55.2 50.4 108 94.7 95.5 58.6 1.68 20.7 22.9 118 89 68.5 8.88 9.41 0.88 0.8 1.88 1.59 1.65 1.02

88.5 94.6 85.0 251.2 209.0 183.4 80.0 98.4 73.5 61.6 132.4 119.3 114.3 70.7 6.09 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 3.19 2.99 9.13 7.16 7.12 4.47

0.07 0.22 0.18 0.45 0.34 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 5.65 1.40 3.27 4.90 2.49 1.49 2.24 1.28 3.10 0.45 1.91 0.33 0.24

13.37 80.53 68.63 126.61 111.02 111.96 74.76 97.90 30.20 31.18 138.34 104.34 80.30 11.33 13.92 1.28 1.09 2.20 1.86 1.93 1.30 2.39 13.73 5.47 11.96 11.72 8.85 6.62

0.38 30.8 31.7 139.1 105.0 80.9 11.9 14.0 0.39 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.13 4.65 4.07 10.70 8.39 8.35 5.70 8.65 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.05

16000

23341 27233 10317 12896 14068 12758 22734 16000 20000 8800 11000 12000 10000 125.7 138.0 115.7 294.5 245.1 215.0 102.1 139.8 107.2 83.8 155.3 139.9 134.0 90.2

101 752.0 590.0 1134.0 1181.0 1187.0 1043.0 964.0 60 38 111 118 124 43 3 689 549 1020 1060 1060 997 860 3 3 3 3 3 3

144 1092.6 799.3 1325.9 1381.0 1388.0 1326.9 1365.4 88 52 130 138 145 55 4 1005 748 1196 1243 1243 1272 1222 4 4 4 4 4 4

2.6 2.09 2.09 2 2 1.93 2 2 2.71 2.71 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 4.61 8.13 8.13 7.81 7.81 7.5 7.81 7.81 4.8 4.8 4.61 4.61 4.43 4.61

52 7.51 7.51 7.2 7.2 6.93 7.2 7.2 54.2 54.2 52 52 50 52 62 144 144 138 138 133 138 138 64.6 64.6 62 62 59.7 62

2.81 3.76 3.76 3.6 3.6 3.47 3.6 3.6 2.92 20.8 2.81 2.81 2.7 2.81 3.41 7.09 7.09 6.81 6.81 6.54 6.81 6.81 3.55 3.55 3.41 3.41 3.27 3.41

4.61 2.92 2.92 2.81 2.81 2.7 2.81 2.81 4.8 4.8 4.61 4.61 4.43 4.61 4.61 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.31 2.4 2.4 4.8 4.8 4.61 4.61 4.43 4.61

5.2 238 232 267 230 228 169 178 5.42 5.42 5.2 5.2 5 5.2 6.6 8.13 8.13 7.81 7.81 7.5 7.81 7.81 7.71 5.63 4.2 6.2 4.04 5.8

3.2 28.5 30.6 9.4 10.2 9.04 32.6 37.4 3.75 14.2 3.2 3.2 3.08 3.2 57.6 12.5 6.67 12 11.8 11.2 11.6 10.2 19 18.3 34.2 31.2 32.9 19.4

5.2 665.5 704.2 672.1 634.9 619.3 580.7 631.9 5.42 5.42 5.2 5.2 5 5.2 5 11.5 34.4 11.6 11.8 12.9 8.6 8.4 5.21 5.21 5 5 4.81 5

990 855 778 778 855 778 815 855 990 900 900 990 900 943 945 615 560 560 615 560 586 615 945 860 860 945 860 900

615 885 805 805 885 805 843 885 615 560 560 615 560 586 750 345 314 314 345 314 329 345 750 682 682 750 682 715

795 705 641 641 705 641 672 705 795 723 723 795 723 758 1280 840 764 764 840 764 800 840 1280 1160 1160 1280 1160 1220

645 705 641 641 705 641 672 705 645 587 587 645 587 615 690 1200 1100 1100 1200 1100 1150 1200 690 628 628 690 628 658

555 555 505 505 555 505 529var 334.86 201.00 390

var 669.57 401.00 780

var 759.43 454.00 885

var 464.21 242.00 615

var 5402.79 629.00 29100

var 579.36 347.00 675

var 592.21 354.00 690

var 592.21 354.00 690

var 1039.29 408.00 5568

var 617.93 370.00 720

var 604.93 362.00 705

var 617.93 370.00 720

var 707.93 424.00 825

var 533.93 262.00 1810

var 399.14 239.00 465

var 528.00 316.00 615

var 630.79 377.00 735

var 502.07 301.00 585

var 2177.64 376.00 10300

var 558.93 407.00 630

var 977.29 354.00 1970

var 592.21 354.00 690 Total Semi-Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

-- 30113.07 19741.00 54611.00 * All 90% UPL Results reported as Normal MRL = Method Reporting Limit ** 90% UPL Result reported as Lognormal MDL = Method Detection Limit = Nondetect; Reported as MDL *** 90% UPL Result Non-Parametric HAP = Hazardous Air Pollutant -- = Non-Detect OH = Organic Halogen n.d. = No Data N = Nitrogenated 558 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 805 738 885 633 454 571 633 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 710 650 780 558 401 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 355 325 390 279 201 252 279

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 628 575 690 493 354 446 493 Chrysene 614 563 675 483 347 333 268 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (HAP) 1280 5970 3930 3940 2450 1030 1000 Biphenyl (HAP) 362 425 425 333 242

Fluorene 641 588 705 504 362 455 504 Fluoranthene 655 600 720 515 370 446 493 Dimethyl phthalate (HAP) 723 663 795 568 408 513 5568 Dibenzofurans (D/F) 628 575 690 493 354

Hexachloroethane 423 388 465 333 239 300 333 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HAP/OH) 1810 425 510 365 262 465 515 Hexachlorobutadiene (HAP/OH) 750 688 825 590 424 533 590 Hexachlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 655 600 720 515 370

Pentachlorophenol (HAP/OH) 2340 438 525 376 4140 10300 3620 Nitrobenzene (HAP/N) 532 488 585 418 301 397 440 Naphthalene (HAP) 669 613 735 525 377 475 525 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 560 513 615 440 316

Pyrene 628 575 690 493 354 407 451 Phenol 628 1290 845 1140 354 446 493 Phenanthrene 573 525 630 451 579

446 493 27757 28889 29685 22916 19741 27579 27508 378 418 330 365 465 515 436 483 504 780 885 805 805 885 805 843 885 780 710 710 780 710 743 390 355 355 390 355 372 390

675 690 628 628 690 628 658 690 675 614 614 675 614 643 615 3880 4990 29100 7210 7240 629 2990 615 560 560 615 560 586

720 705 641 641 705 641 672 705 720 655 655 720 655 686 690 795 723 723 795 723 758 795 690 628 628 690 628 658

510 465 423 423 465 423 443 465 510 464 464 510 464 486 720 825 750 750 825 750 786 825 720 655 655 720 655 686

585 1730 1730 1250 1400 478 500 1660 585 532 532 585 532 558 615 735 669 669 735 669 700 735 615 560 560 615 560 586

690 30875 29709 54611 35155 32029 25214 29915 690 628 628 690 628 658 630 690 628 1900 1970 1950 658 690 630 573 573 630 573 600*all results reported as moisture free *all results pooled from all 7 samples

MDL Non-Detect Average Standard Deviation Low High
Components as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free as received Moist. Free

-- 0 20.33 2.24 17.00 24.13 23.78

-- 0.52 0.63 0.6 0.74 0.68 0.84 0.83 1.04 0.68 0.86 0.79 1.04 0.66 0.83 0 0.85 0.15 0.63 1.04 1.084

-- 66.62 80.26 65.27 79.9 63.76 80.36 63.42 79.93 63.18 79.63 60.89 80.26 63.53 80.29 0 80.09 0.27 79.63 80.36 80.51

-- 15.85 19.1 15.82 19.36 14.91 18.79 15.1 19.03 15.5 19.53 14.19 18.7 14.95 18.89 0 19.06 0.30 18.7 19.53 19.52

-- 0 5.92 0.03 5.89 5.98 5.969

-- 0 50.10 0.37 49.64 50.6 50.67

-- 0 0.43 0.15 0.33 0.76 0.66 0 0.54 0.21 0.42 1.00 1.0***

-- 0 39.21 0.96 37.29 40.22 40.68

-- 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.042 0.043 0 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.053 0.0549***

-- 6972 8400 7061 8644 5920 7461 6784 8551 6843 8625 6321 8332 6891 8709 0 6685 412 5920 7061 7319 Metals (mg/kg) 0.08 0 0.31 0.10 0.15 0.42 0.46 0.12 0 2.56 1.34 0.87 4.67 4.62 0.008 0 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.008 n.d. 0.007 0 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.72 0.646** 0.02 0 4.22 1.79 1.75 7.55 6.97 0.04 0 0.31 0.11 0.15 0.45 0.5 0.13 0 118.53 144.19 25.4 394.0 356** 0.009 0 50.71 5.16 42.3 58.7 58.7 0.003 0 0.12 0.09 0.042 0.313 0.259** 0.04 0 0.79 0.80 0.37 2.6 2.6*** 0.27 0 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.27 n.d. Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 58.91 5.5 49.47 67.54 64.34* Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 178.17 143.5 86.12 456.66 456.7*** Metals (mg/kg) DRY BASIS 0 0.39 0.13 0.18 0.52936728 0.59 0 3.20 1.65 1.15 5.71673399 5.74 0 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.01054435 n.d. 0 0.43 0.26 0.24 0.9489917 0.832** 0 5.30 2.25 2.11 9.51600706 8.77 0 0.39 0.13 0.19 0.54216867 0.6 0 148.95 179.64 32.0 482.3 448.7** 0 63.60 5.63 55.8 74.1817263 72.3 0 0.16 0.12 0.053 0.413 0.336** 0 1.01 1.07 0.47 3.42691446 3.43*** 0 0.34 0.01 0.33 0.35587189 0.36*** Total Semi Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 149.72 179.8 32.67 483.23 449.0 Total Low Volatile Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 73.90 6.2 65.20 85.35 83.3 Total Metals (mg/kg)

-- -- 223.77 178.5 108.55 559.02 558.7*** Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) 420 0 58714.29 36367.18 20000 130000 114689 Formaldehyde ( m g/kg) DRY BASIS 0 74580.84 48583.28 25275 171345.723 149358 Ions 3 0 3.00 0.00 3 3 n.d. 15 0 205.43 58.11 163 315 295.8** 3 0 17.43 15.69 11 53 53*** Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- -- 225.86 65.65 177.00 330.00 330*** Ions DRY BASIS 0 3.77 0.11 4 4 3.93 0 257.23 69.22 205 386 364.9 0 21.93 19.87 14 67 67 Total Halogens (mg/kg)

-- -- 279.16 79.36 219.31 400.29 400 Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

var 0 4.6 0.1 4.43 4.8 4.774

var 0 7.7 0.2 7.50 8.13 8.088

var 0 2.6 0.1 2.50 2.71 2.694

var 0 5.0 7.9 1.93 22.9 22.9***

var 0 61.4 1.8 59.7 64.6 64.2

var 0 136.7 4.1 133 144 143

var 0 51.5 1.6 50.0 54.2 53.87

var 0 7.1 0.2 6.9 7.51 7.461

var 0 4.8 2.3 3.270 9.810 9.81***

var 0 6.7 0.2 6.54 7.09 7.053

var 0 2.8 0.1 2.70 2.92 2.907

var 0 3.6 0.1 3.47 3.76 3.732 

### WISCONSIN C&D SUMMARY

Monday 7/30 Tuesday 7/31 Wednesday 8/1 Wednesday 8/1 Wednesday 8/1 Monday 8/6 Friday 8/3 Range 90% UPL Results*

24.13 20.87 Ash (wt%) Volatile Matter (wt%) Fixed Carbon (wt%) Hydrogen (wt%) 5.92 5.94 5.9 5.89 Moisture (wt%) 17.00 18.31 20.66 20.66 20.66

5.92 5.89 5.98 Carbon (wt%) 49.84 50.5 49.83 49.94 50.32 49.64 50.6 Nitrogen (wt%) 0.45 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.76 0.33 1.00 0.42 Oxygen (wt%) 37.29 39.23 39.56 39.61 39.76 38.77 40.22 Nitrogen (wt%) DRY BASIS 0.54 0.43 0.48 0.47 0.43

Heating Value (BTU/lb)

Antimony (HAP) 0.15 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.021 0.014 Sulfur (wt%) DRY BASIS 0.029 0.023 0.053 0.015 0.049 0.028 0.018 Sulfur (wt%) 0.024 0.019 0.042 0.012 0.039

0.42 0.38 0.23 Arsenic (HAP) 1.4 4.67 3.43 1.93 2.15 0.87 3.46 Beryllium (HAP) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.72 0.19 Chromium (HAP) 1.75 4.62 7.55 3.87 4.35 2.93 4.44 Cadmium (HAP) 0.2 0.48 0.25 0.28 0.28

0.38 0.33 Lead (HAP) 55.8 394 25.4 31.3 35 245 43.2 Cobalt (HAP) 0.45 0.38 0.15 0.24 0.23

42.3 58.7 Mercury (HAP) 0.112 0.113 0.085 0.095 0.1 0.313 0.042 Manganese (HAP) 54.7 51.4 48.1 49.4 50.4

2.6 0.37 Selenium (HAP) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Nickel (HAP) 0.4 0.43 0.54 0.57 0.61

67.5 115.2 456.7 86.1 88.3 93.8 295.8 111.2 58.9 61.8 60.1 56.4 58.2 49.5

0.50 0.29 Arsenic (HAP) 1.69 5.72 4.32 2.43 2.71 1.15 4.37 Antimony (HAP) 0.18 0.36 0.43 0.48 0.53

0.01 0.01 Cadmium (HAP) 0.24 0.59 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.95 0.24 Beryllium (HAP) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

3.86 5.61 Cobalt (HAP) 0.54 0.47 0.19 0.30 0.29 0.50 0.42 Chromium (HAP) 2.11 5.66 9.52 4.88 5.48

322.92 54.59 Manganese (HAP) 65.90 62.92 60.63 62.26 63.52 55.75 74.18 Lead (HAP) 67.23 482.31 32.01 39.45 44.11

Selenium (HAP) 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.05 Nickel (HAP) 0.48 0.53 0.68 0.72 0.77 3.43 0.47 Mercury (HAP) 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.13

0.36 0.34 67.8 483.2 32.7 40.1 44.8 324.2 55.2 85.4 138.8 559.0 108.5 111.3 118.2 389.8 140.6 70.9 75.6 75.8 71.1 73.3 65.2

130000 20000

Formaldehyde 56627 30604 84447 78145 75624 171346 25275 Formaldehyde 47000 25000 67000 62000 60000

Fluoride (mg/kg) 12 12 11 11 12 3 3 Chloride (mg/kg) 202 315 169 163 163 173 253 Bromide (mg/kg) 3 3 3 3 3

11 53 217.0 330.0 183.0 177.0 178.0 187.0 309.0

Fluoride (mg/kg) 14 15 14 14 15 4 4 Chloride (mg/kg) 243 386 213 205 205 228 320 Bromide (mg/kg) 4 4 4 4 4

14 67 257.8 400.3 226.9 219.3 220.6 242.5 386.7

4.43 4.43 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (HAP/OH) 8.13 7.81 7.5 7.81 7.81 7.5 7.5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (HAP/OH) 4.8 4.61 4.43 4.61 4.61

2.5 2.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p) (HAP/OH) 2.09 2.00 1.93 2 2 22.9 1.93 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 2.71 2.60 2.5 2.6 2.6

59.7 59.7 Acrolein (HAP) 144 138 133 138 138 133 133 Acetonitrile (HAP/N) 64.6 62.0 59.7 62 62

50 50 Allyl chloride (HAP/OH) 7.51 7.20 6.93 7.2 7.2 6.93 6.93 Acrylonitrile (HAP/N) 54.2 52 50 52 52

3.27 9.81 Bromoform (HAP/OH) 7.09 6.81 6.54 6.81 6.81 6.54 6.54 Benzene (HAP) 5 4.80 3.65 3.41 3.41

2.7 2.7 Chloroform (HAP/OH) 3.76 3.60 3.47 3.6 3.6 3.47 3.47 Chlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 2.92 2.81 2.7 2.81 2.81var 0 4.6 0.1 4.43 4.80 4.774

var 0 3.1 1.5 2.31 6.25 6.25***

var 0 4.6 0.1 4.43 4.8 4.774

var 0 2.8 0.1 2.70 2.92 2.9

var 0 11.9 3.6 7.88 19.4 17.4

var 0 2561.0 3217.4 7.50 7130 7130***

var 0 5.1 0.2 5.00 5.42 5.387

var 0 20.2 5.5 13.8 30.6 28.64

var 0 133.6 61.2 60.20 253 227.7

var 0 6.3 0.2 6.16 6.67 6.628

var 0 6.6 3.1 3.34 13.1 11.38**

var 0 16.1 12.7 5.4 44.2 34.6**

var 0 4.9 0.1 4.8 5.21 5.178

var 0 114.8 67.5 57.8 213.0 230.8**

var 0 5.1 0.2 5.00 5.42 5.387 Total Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

-- -- 3195.12 3139.5 526.23 7680.8 11460*** Semi-Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

var 0 864.9 103.2 727 995 1024

var 0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var 0 907.1 109.6 762 1050 1076

var 0 782.7 93.3 658 900 926.3

var 0 686.6 82.0 577 790 812.8

var 0 316.1 37.6 266 364 374

var 0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var 0 810.0 96.6 681 932 958.7

var 0 1170.3 142.0 981 1350 1389

var 0 769.0 91.5 647 885 909.8

var 0 727.9 86.7 612 837 861.3

var 0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var 0 631.9 75.5 531 727 748

var 0 1102.6 132.8 924 1270 1307

var 0 590.7 70.1 497 679 698.6

var 0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var 0 508.1 60.8 427 585 601.7

var 0 357.1 42.7 300 411 422.9

var 0 714.0 85.4 600 822 845.4

var 0 810.0 96.6 681 932 958.7

var 0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var 0 14580.0 10455.8 660 31500 30673

var 0 618.0 73.5 520 711 731

var 0 631.9 75.5 531 727 748

var 0 795.0 449.4 531 1800 1800***

var 0 727.9 86.7 612 837 861.3

var 0 814.9 297.3 554 1450 1252**

var 0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var 0 659.0 78.6 554 758 779.9

var 0 755.1 90.0 635 869 893.7

var 0 467.0 55.4 393 537 552.3

var 0 425.7 50.7 358 490 503.8

var 0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var 0 672.9 80.0 566 774 796

var 0 535.6 64.0 450 616 634.1

var 0 54645.0 55642.5 525 126000 140288

var 0 1530.7 2065.7 500 6150 6150***

var 0 3418.6 2414.3 1680 8400 7076**

var 0 728.7 212.6 531 1190 1040** Total Semi-Volatile Compounds ( m g/kg)

-- -- 96517 57584 28860 160532 185147*** * All 90% UPL Results reported as Normal MRL = Method Reporting Limit ** 90% UPL Result reported as Lognormal MDL = Method Detection Limit = Nondetect; Reported as MDL *** 90% UPL Result Non-Parametric HAP = Hazardous Air Pollutant -- = Non-Detect OH = Organic Halogen n.d. = Only 1 Distinct Value, therefore no variance. N = Nitrogenated 4.43 4.43 Ethyl benzene (HAP) 6.25 2.40 2.31 3.4 2.4 2.31 2.31 Chloroprene (HAP/OH) 4.8 4.61 4.43 4.61 4.61

4.43 4.43 Isopropylbenzene (HAP) 2.92 2.81 2.7 2.81 2.81 2.7 2.7 Hexachlorobutadiene (HAP/OH) 4.8 4.61 4.43 4.61 4.61

19.4 7.88 Methyl methacrylate (HAP) 8.13 94.2 7130 5610 5070 7.5 7.5 m,p-Xylenes (HAP) 10.8 12.4 11.9 10.6 10

5 5 Methylene chloride (HAP/OH) 22.5 30.6 21.7 16.2 18.8 17.9 13.8 Methyl tert butyl ether (HAP) 5.42 5.20 5 5.2 5.2

161 60.2 n-Hexane (HAP) 6.67 6.40 6.16 6.4 6.4 6.16 6.16 Naphthalene (HAP) 138 253 106 107 110

13.1 5 Styrene (HAP) 44.2 5.40 13.7 11.6 12.6 11.5 13.7 o-Xylenes (HAP) 3.34 6.40 6.35 5.8 6

Vinyl chloride 5.42 5.20 5 5.2 5.2 4.81 4.81 Toluene (HAP) 210 213 74 57.8 62.2 92.1 94.8 Tetrachloroethylene (HAP/OH) 5.21 5.00 4.81 5 5

5 5 785.3 945.5 7680.8 6149.1 5618.7 660.3 526.2

900 945 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 560 586 474 648 474 586 615 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 860 900 727 995 727

943 990 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (HAP/OH) 778 815 658 900 658 815 855 1-Methylnaphthalene 900 943 762 1050 762

715 750 2,4-Dinitrophenol (HAP/N) 314 329 266 364 266 329 345 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (HAP/OH) 682 715 577 790 577

586 615 2-Methylnaphthalene 805 843 681 932 681 843 885 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (HAP/N) 560 586 474 648 474

1220 1280 4-Nitrophenol (HAP/N) 764 800 647 885 647 800 840 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene (HAP/OH/N) 1160 1220 981 1350 981

758 795 Acenaphthylene 641 672 543 743 543 672 705 Acenaphthene 723 758 612 837 612

658 690 Aniline 1100 1150 924 1270 924 1150 1200 Acetophenone 628 658 531 727 531

615 645 Benzo(a)anthracene 641 672 543 743 543 672 705 Anthracene 587 615 497 679 497

529 555 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 355 372 300 411 300 372 390 Benzo(a)pyrene 505 529 427 585 427

743 780 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 805 843 681 932 681 843 885 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 710 743 600 822 600

586 615 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (HAP) 17600 4600 14600 31500 11100 22000 660 Biphenyl (HAP) 560 586 474 648 474

643 675 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 628 658 531 727 531 658 690 Chrysene 614 643 520 711 520

658 690 Dimethyl phthalate (HAP) 723 758 612 837 612 758 795 Dibenzofurans (D/F) 628 1800 531 727 531

686 720 Fluorene 641 672 543 743 543 672 705 Fluoranthene 655 1450 881 758 554

686 720 Hexachlorobutadiene (HAP/OH) 750 786 635 869 635 786 825 Hexachlorobenzene (HAP/OH) 655 686 554 758 554

486 510 Hexachloroethane 423 443 358 490 358 443 465 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HAP/OH) 464 486 393 537 393

586 615 Naphthalene (HAP) 669 700 566 774 566 700 735 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 560 586 474 648 474

558 585 Pentachlorophenol (HAP/OH) 3230 2260 108000 101000 126000 41500 525 Nitrobenzene (HAP/N) 532 558 450 616 450

610 630 Phenol 2080 8400 1940 2130 1680 4600 3100 Phenanthrene 641 6150 1520 664 500

45339 46675 144963 160532 157710 91537 28860 Pyrene 628 1190 677 727 531 658 690

### 1 June 6, 2013 Rule language :
40 C.F.R. 241.4(a)(5)
“(5) Construction and demolition wood that has been obtained from suppliers that employ construction and demolition processing practices th at are proven to result in the production of non-waste fuel, and is combusted by persons that conduct, or demonstrate that a third party conducts, an initial and an annual review to verify such practices are being employed.

Add to definitions:

40 C.F.R. 241.2:
Construction and demolition processing practices th at are proven to result in the production of non-waste fuel are:
(1) separation of contaminants through either positive sorting or negative sorting by removing non-wood material and wood trea ted with pentachlorophenol, chromated copper arsenic, or other copper, chromium or arsenical preservatives (such as copper naphthenate and ammoniacal copper arsenate , and alkaline copper quaternary), and (2) separation of lead through the separation of lead-painted wood or through the removal of fines generated during the process.
Preamble language.
C&D wood fuel is a commercial commodity that is created by C&D wood processors and combusted by combustors that have biomass boilers. The agency is proposing to list construction and demolition wood that has been pr ocessed in accordance with industry practices that have been proven to produce a wood product that is a non-waste fuel.
C&D wood can be obtained directly from a constr uction or demolition site or from a contractor that has collected mixed C&D material. 1 

### It is also obtained from landfill operators or transfer stations that divert, collect a nd segregate C&D wood at their ope rations (diversion is required by law in some states, including California and Mass achusetts). While many C&D wood processors have facilities that are dedicated to that purpose, landfill operators, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, wood yards, and combustion facilities, both municipa l and commercial, also can process C&D wood. Processi ng even can occur at the construction or demolition site. A processing facility may be paid a tipping fee to receive mixed C&D material. However, after receipt the C&D wood processor th en invests significan t time and effort into processing the C&D wood into a valuable fuel commodity.

1 C&D wood that does not require processing because it does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin wood, (e.g., trimmings from framing at a construction site or clean dimensional lumber recovered from carefully deconstructed buildings), is clean cellulosic biomass and could be combusted as traditional fuel. 40 C.F.R. 241.2.

### 2 The industry practices that are proven to produce non-waste fuel ar e the sorting of C&D material to separate the following contaminants : non-wood material, wood treated with pentachlorophenol, chromated copper arsenic, or other copper, chromium or arsenical preservatives (such as copper naphthenate and ammoniacal copper arsenate, and alkaline copper quaternary) and the separation of lead (through the separation of either lead-painted wood or fines generated during the process). The Agency also notes that a number of states regulate C&D wood processing or combustion and these re gulations provide additional safeguards on the quality of C&D wood that is combusted.
Separation by a processor generally takes pla ce either through positive sorting or through negative sorting, with either me thod producing a fuel product that meets the legitimacy criteria. The material that cannot be processed into non-wa ste fuel is either recy cled or disposed in accordance with applicable law, while the remain ing wood that is a non-waste fuel is further processed by sizing it to meet combustion specifications.
Separation also can take place at the construction or demolition site itself. The Agency notes that under the Clean Air Act, the demolition contractor mu st inspect for asbestos containing material prior to the demolition of a building and properly di spose of any such material that is found. As a result of these regulatory re quirements, the Agency does not an ticipate contamination of C&D wood by asbestos.
The determination by the Agency that these prac tices are proven to produce non-waste fuel is supported by information in the record on the co ntaminant concentrations in C&D wood that has been processed in accordance with these practices . These data demonstrate that such wood has contaminant concentrations comparable to clean ce llulosic biomass, other th an concentrations of formaldehyde. The possible sources of formal dehyde in processed C&D wood are naturally occurring formaldehyde in clean cellulosic bi omass, which is a traditional fuel, and formaldehyde found in some resinated wood products, 2 

### which the Agency has already determined to be a non-waste fuel. Thus, the formaldehyde levels in C&D wood are not indicators that C&D wood is combuste d for the purpose of disposal.
The data also include three data points out of 224 for lead concentrations that exceed levels found in virgin wood. However, three data points ar e not evidence that C&D wood is combusted for the purpose of discarding lead. In fact, the record demonstrates that both C&D wood processors and combustors take significant steps, and invest significant re sources, to make sure that C&D wood has been processed to remove l ead and other contaminants. This is evidence that neither the processor nor the combustor has any intent to discard contaminants through the combustion of C&D wood.
Combustion facilities generally en sure the quality of the C&D wood they combust by reviewing the C&D wood supplier both before initially obtaining C&D wood from that supplier and annually thereafter, to ensure th at the supplier is carrying out pr oven C&D processing practices. In some states (such as Maine) a third party conducts these reviews. Combustion facilities also

2 Many manufactured wood products contain resins and adhesives. These wood products are components of the wood obtained from construction and demolition sites.

### 3 employ contract or purchasing agreement specifica tions that, while site specific, ensure the materials received meet the quality required for use as fuel. Quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) procedures at combustion facilities include measures to en sure that those contract or purchasing agreement specifications are met, such as periodic visual in spection of C&D wood as it is received from the supplier. These speci fications and QA/QC measures by the combustor provide further evidence that no discard is taking place when C&D wood is combusted.
The management of C&D wood also is evidence that no discard is taking place. C&D wood is transported typically to an energy re covery facility, in covered chip vans or semi-trailers. At the energy recovery facility, the C&D wood is stored in the plant’s wood fuel storage yard or building. These storage and management practic es are the same as those used for wood and biomass that are traditional fuels. Energy recovery facilities also must comp ly with all applicable federal, state and local permits and other requir ements, including applicable air pollution control requirements.
Thus, the record clearly show s that C&D wood that has been obtained from suppliers that employ proven construction and demolition processing practices and that are subject to an annual review to verify such practices are being employed is a legitimate non-waste fuel.

Individual combustors can demonstrate that C&D wood is a non-waste fuel with the following records:

a. A copy of a contract, purchase order, or othe r document that requi res a supplier of C&D wood to process and manage C&D wood consistent with the practices described herein or a certification from the supplier that the practic es described herein were followed, and b. A record of the initial and annual review of the C&D wood processing facility, or evidence that such a review is conducted by a third party.

Reliance on such records is consistent with how EPA proposes to implement its non-waste determination for tires from established tire co llection programs. Comb ustion facilities that combust tires are allowed to rely on certifications that the tires that are combusted are from established tire colle ction programs and were not disc arded. 40 C.F.R. 60.2740(v). EPA recognizes that such a certification can be based on a contractual arrangement and has defined “established tire collection programs” to include “a contractual arrangement that ensures that scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through arrival at the combustion facility.”40 C.F.R. 241.2. Once that certification is made, EPA does not intend to require the combustor to have perfect knowledge of the source of a secondary fuel and does not require the combustor to test that fuel. “Rather, it is sufficient that the ultimate user verify that it is obtaining tires from an established tire co llection 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 have been abandoned in landfills or otherwise.” 76 Fed. Reg. 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011). The Agency proposes to implement its non-waste determination for C&D wood in a similar manner.