Background Materials 

for NHSM 

Supplemental Listing 

 

September 20, 2013 
Table of Contents 

Tab 1 – Paper Recycling Residuals (PPR) 

 AF&PA Supplemental Information to support the listing of PPR as a non-waste 

fuel, Dec 12, 2012 

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

2013 

Tab 2 – Railroad Ties 

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

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

 Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Cross Tie-Derived Fuel with 

Traditional Fuels, revised March 28, 2013 

 Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Categorical Petition for a Non-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 Railroad Ties Treated with Creosote, URS, January 28, 2013 

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

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

 Treated Wood Council Response for Additional 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 Susan 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 

1 of 133
TAB 1 

2 of 133
1 

Supplemental information to support the listing 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-line Btu/hr criteria in determine whether a material is a 

waste or fuel because the key question is whether a material is discarded. We do not 

believe that Paper Recycling Residuals are ever discarded, are generated on site and 

handled and managed as fuels. In fact, some of the PRR burned has Btu/hr values well 

above 5000 Btu/hr. 

PRR combustion has been prevalent for 15-20 years in solid fuel boilers that also 

burn wood residues and coal. PRR can be effectively burned in these boilers as they 

are comprised of wood fiber at moisture contents > 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 cellulosic 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 boilers 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, SO2, 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 wood residues and other solid fuels, can be 

managed using a variety of approaches. Management practices for burning PRR range 

from mixing these materials with wood residues or coal in the appropriate fuel pile to 

shredding these materials for subsequent metering 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 the total amount of PRR 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 would note that these mills would welcome 

opportunities to transfer PRR to a third party 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 their fuel qualities so are very amenable to 

off-site use as well. 

3 of 133
2 

Responses to Four factors identified 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 mills, over 140,000 tons are burned which 

suggests the previously reported 175,000 tons 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. Further costs would be incurred by mills 

if the costs of continuing to burn PRR for 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 thousands of tons of coal. 

2. “Whether they are purchasing the non-hazardous 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 credits. If PRR clearly become fuels, 

more third party users are likely. 

3. “Whether the non-hazardous secondary material 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 industry produce electricity that is used 

onsite and sometimes sold offsite to local utilities. Some of the boilers burning 

PRR are producing electricity but primarily for onsite use which displaces the 

need to purchase electricity from the local utility. We are still trying to confirm 

that some of the boilers that burn PRR are co-generation units which are paid 

for their excess electricity sent to the grid. 

4 of 133
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 the 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 application of a “designed to 

burn” test as part of the legitimacy criteria when EPA has the discretion to consider 

other factors in making a determination under 241.4. 

EPA Question: “Paper Recycling Residuals (PRRs) average Btu value is 3,700 Btu/lb as 

fired. You previously indicated that some PRRs are over 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 values are combusted in units that can derive fuel value 

from materials with high moisture content 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 average 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. Lower BTU values are due to higher moisture, 

less solids, types of fibers being processed (such as, saturated), and/or fewer non-fiber 

packaging materials. Mills manage the moisture 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 continuum that is influenced by amount of solids, fiber 

content, moisture, presence of non-fiber packaging materials, and combustion 

conditions necessary for the effective operation of the boiler, but most of the PRRs are 

5 of 133
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 vantage 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 materials 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 level 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 burning creosote-treated railroad ties, 

how many (or what percentage) burn or can burn fuel oil during normal operations? 

Answer: The overwhelming majority of RDF burned 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. However, we believe start-up and shutdown are part of 

normal operations since they cannot be eliminated and common to all boiler systems. 

Therefore, if EPA considers defining “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 consumer of RDF uses boilers 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 operations, the use of RDF is 

no less legitimate. It is used as a fuel. Thus, EPA should not put any restrictions on 

“normal operations” 

EPA Question: Are there differences among boiler types (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 several 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.” 

6 of 133
3

EPA Question: Is it always as simple as installing a delivery system and a nozzle? 

Answer: Burner systems can be installed because there is room in these tall boilers 

and the systems. However, engineering the system can be complicated 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 are frequently sulfur content limits for the oil burned that 

varies by state and sometimes a lower NOx limit when burning multiple fuels. 

7 of 133
TAB 2

8 of 133
9 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 2 

mission includes advancing the interests of its member companies in regulatory and 

judicial arenas. AF&PA members currently use 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 treated 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 burned at forest product mills and more mills are actively 

considering its use so they remain an important source of fuel for AF&PA members. 

We estimate that it would cost the 12 mills 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 engineered wood products, 

representing over 60% of the industry. From a renewable resource that absorbs and 

sequesters carbon, the wood products industry makes products that are essential to 

everyday life and employs 360,000 men and women in well-paying jobs. AWC's 

engineers, technologists, scientists, and building code experts develop state-of-the-art 

engineering data, technology, and standards on structural wood products for use by 

design professionals, building officials, and wood products manufacturers to assure the 

safe and efficient design and use of wood structural components. AWC also provides 

technical, legal, and economic information on wood design, green building, and 

manufacturing environmental regulations advocating for balanced government policies 

that sustain the wood products industry. The types of biomass boilers AWC members 

operate could burn railroad ties and some companies are considering their use in the 

near future.

3. Proposed Action. 

Please add the following language to 40 C.F.R. 241.4(a): 

“(3) Railroad ties treated with creosote or creosote and borate.” 

4. Need and Justification 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 Railroads, Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1920, 

Feb. 21, 2012, at 2-3 (AAR 2012 comments). 

10 of 133
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 creosote-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, there is a robust market for creosote-treated wood, specifically 

railroad ties that have been removed from service. As noted above, 12 forest products 

industry mills purchased approximately 550,000 tons 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 American Railroads, approximately 17 million railroad 

ties are removed from service each year.2

 Railroads typically contract 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 company 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 railroad 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 their 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 certain hog fuels. 

The fact that railroad ties are valuable commodities also is demonstrated by the 

management of these materials. Sale of railroad ties is integral to the contracts for 

railroad tie removal and is integral to the business 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 for 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 whole railroad ties, but forest products industry 

boilers require chipped ties that have been processed to remove metal contaminants. 

11 of 133
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 combustion 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 serve 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. Thus, 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 legitimacy criteria under 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d), except 

possibly the contaminant comparison criterion depending on what traditional fuels are 

considered in comparison. However, upon evaluating 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, notwithstanding 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 reclamation value of the railroad ties. These ties 

are the commodities that railroad tie reclamation companies sell in the marketplace. 

Thus, these companies manage railroad ties to retain their value 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 processing log feedstock for the pulping process. This generally 

amounts to a pile adjacent to the bark pile that is reclaimed 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 typically is on the order of 1 to 2 inches. The 

contracts for the purchase of RTF include fuel specifications limiting 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. 

12 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 5 

EPA reports that creosote-treated 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 meaningful heating value. These 

fuels are used to generate energy at AF&PA member facilities as well as other cogeneration facilities that buy railroad 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 traditional fuels that boilers are 

designed to burn. 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d)(1)(iii). 

In the NHSM final rule preamble, EPA expressed the concern that creosote-treated 

wood contains contaminants at levels that are not comparable to those found in coal or 

wood. “Accordingly, creosote treated wood, when burned, seems more like a waste 

than a commodity and does not meet the legitimacy criterion for contaminants and 

therefore should be considered a waste when burned as a fuel.” 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 commodities. 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 that demonstrates that 

creosote treated railroad ties contain contaminant levels that are comparable to fuel oils, 

which are traditional fuels.9

 Under 40 C.F.R. 241.3, creosote-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 contaminants in borate preservatives are at 

levels that are significantly below 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-2008-0329-1811, at 3. 

8 Comment submitted by Jeffrey T. Miller, President and Executive Director, Treated Wood Council 

(TWC), EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0772, 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, November 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 Consulting. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1569. 

13 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 6 

has already concluded that borate treated wood “meets the legitimacy criterion on the 

level of contaminants and comparability to traditional fuels.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15484. 

iv. Other relevant criteria 

An overall balancing of the legitimacy criteria 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 considered a commodity fuel even if contaminant 

levels are not comparable to coal or virgin wood. If EPA does not do so, then the same 

railroad tie from the same reclamation company could be considered a fuel if sold to a 

combustor that has a liquid fuel delivery system 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 valuable fuel commodities by market-place 

participants, in this case the fuel delivery system does not provide a meaningful 

distinction and is not an appropriate method of distinguishing between wastes and fuels. 

In balancing the legitimacy criteria, EPA should give 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 determination 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 legitimacy criteria are factors used to ascertain 

the intent of a combustor to determine if discard is taking place. In the case of railroad 

ties, the fact that combustors buy this fuel is evidence 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 comments filed by the American 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 potent greenhouse gas. 

In balancing environmental benefits, EPA should consider the solid waste management 

benefits of using railroad ties as fuel, instead of discarding them in landfills. According 

to the Association of American Railroads, the 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. 

14 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 7 

space equivalent to a football field that is 70 stories high. That landfill capacity would be 

needed each year.12 

EPA also should consider the fact that, for the facilities that use railroad ties as fuel, 

those ties are as integral to the production process 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 fuel characteristics of railroad tie fuel, as 

noted above, delivers, dry, consistent, high-BTU combustion benefits. Railroad ties 

improve mixed biomass combustion by providing 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 objectives. In June 2009, EPA issued its “2020 Vision Report: 

Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead.” The “2020 Vision Report” 

includes the following statement: 

In a system that recognizes the true value of materials, and accounts for all the 

environmental impacts associated with materials use, the concept of waste is 

significantly changed. Products and materials presently viewed as acceptable to 

throw away will increasingly be recognized as valuable. Materials that used to 

“go to waste” will be reused or become 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 continued use as a fuel. To do otherwise would 

compel the disposal of this valuable fuel in landfills. That result undermines EPA’s 

sustainable materials management objectives, reduces the ability of the U.S. to 

decrease the use of fossil fuels, and increases the pressure on solid waste landfill 

capacity. To avoid these adverse environmental outcomes, EPA should recognize that 

railroad ties are a valuable fuel and not a waste, 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. 

15 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 8 

Request for a letter confirming that processed 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 ingredient products that are 

used in a combustion unit, and are produced from the processing 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 that 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; significantly 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 result 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 combust whole railroad ties, it is a common 

practice for railroad tire reclamation companies 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 specifications 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. 

16 of 133
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 9 

appropriate size for the combustor. In fact, 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 that are processed in this manner meet EPA’s 

processing definition. 

2. Railroad ties meet the legitimacy criteria when combusted in most boilers. 

As discussed above, railroad ties meet EPA’s legitimacy criteria relating to management 

practices, meaningful heating value, and use as a fuel, irrespective of the type of boiler 

that is used for combustion. However, under EPA’s regulations, railroad ties would not 

meet the contaminant legitimacy 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 capable of firing RTF also are capable of firing fuel oil. In fact 

most boilers are designed in a manner that fuel oil firing can be accommodated.14 For 

example, one forest products company has at least 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 that has sufficient combustion conditions for oil (with or 

without the addition of additional equipment) and that could be modified to add a liquid 

fuel delivery system, is “designed to burn” fuel oil, whether 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 records showing that the fuel meets the 

legitimacy criteria of Part 241. See 40 C.F.R. 60.2740 (u) (CISIWI) 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 ties are not solid wastes by keeping the 

following records: 

a. A copy of an EPA letter confirming that 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. 

17 of 133
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 that are combusted are from established tire 

collection programs and were not discarded. 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 discarded and are handled as valuable commodities 

through arrival at the combustion facility.” 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 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 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 which does not receive tires which have been 

abandoned in landfills or otherwise.” 76 Fed. Reg. 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011). 

Please confirm that the records identified above are sufficient 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 that processed railroad ties are non-waste fuels 

when combusted in a boiler that that has sufficient combustion conditions for oil 

combustion (with or without the addition 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 

 

18 of 133
Railroad Tie Fuel 

Supplemental Information 

February 27, 2013 

The information provided herein supplements materials previously submitted to EPA by 

the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council 

(AWC) supporting a finding that Railroad Tie Fuel1 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 been 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 recognized 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 that 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 combust 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 creosote (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, processing and storage 

-- so as to maintain their integrity, they have meaningful heating value (at least 6000 

BTUs) and contain contaminants comparable to other traditional 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 supplement 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, stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) 

that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

3. The traditional fuels and relative amounts (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 fuels 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. 

19 of 133
4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e.g., commercial 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 aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, 

dibenzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, 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 with 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 also is providing information to 

address questions 1 and 5 above. 

Responses to EPA Questions 

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest 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 know 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 amounts (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 railroad ties also burn significant quantities of 

biomass given the similarity of the fuels’ characteristics. Most of these boilers are 

permitted to burn fuel oil either during start-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 choice if available. In addition, some states are trying to reduce 

SO2 emissions from sources and thus encourage 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 reduce SO2 emissions hamper the ability of mills to use clean burning 

railroad ties simply because they are moving away from fuel oil for environmental reasons. 

20 of 133
burn fuel oil and is still permitted to burn oil, but altered the boiler’s fuel feed system to 

accommodate only solid fuels. 

It should not matter in determining the acceptability of burning railroad 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 that will rarely or never be 

used. 

The most comparable traditional fuel to railroad ties 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 burn” 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 contaminant legitimacy criterion 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 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 the same design except for a nozzle feed for 

fuel oil – would have to consider the railroad tie fuel as a solid waste. 

4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e.g., commercial or residential boilers) 

burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

AF&PA and AWC do not have information about non-industrial boilers. 

5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creosote-treated 

railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, 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 their rail yards. (Both of these 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 available on railroad tie fuels and compare them 

21 of 133
to contaminants found in traditional fuels (coal, biomass and fuel oil) as provided by 

EPA in its November 29, 2011 document entitled “Contaminant Concentrations in 

Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison.” This comparison is found in Attachment A. 

Table 1 of Attachment A presents the results of analysis of various railroad tie samples 

for the eleven trace metal HAPs and for several major elements including 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, total PAHs and naphthalene (also a PAH). 

Finally, Table 3 compares the maximum values 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 comparison is made between the groups of 

contaminants that share physical and chemical properties that influence their behavior 

in a combustion unit. The contaminants are 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 contaminants in railroad tie fuels are well within the range 

of traditional fuels based on the groupings EPA has suggested. 

EPA asked specifically for information about dioxins 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 the presence of dibenzofurans. However, the 

chemistry of dioxins and dibenzofurans is different. 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 rail tie fuels to form dioxins, 

we believe that EPA’s request for dioxin information is not appropriate. 

Conclusion

The information provided in this document, together with that provided in our draft 

petition, show clearly that railroad tie fuel is a legitimate fuel material, sold in the 

marketplace, and in many ways is superior to fossil fuels it is used 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. 

22 of 133
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 titled “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional 

Fuels: Tables for Comparison”. This document 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 contaminants in the appropriate traditional fuels. EPA 

presented three tables with contaminant data summarized 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 compared with those compiled by EPA for the three common 

traditional fuels coal, biomass and fuel oil. At the current 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 contaminant or group of contaminants in NHSMs to the 

maximum values for each contaminant or group of contaminants in the appropriate traditional fuel.” Id. 

Thus, in the case of CDF samples, since insufficient data are available to estimate 90% UPLs, a 

comparison of the maximums in the available analytical data with the maximums presented by EPA for 

the traditional fuels coal, biomass and oil should constitute 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, AREvergreenPackaging, 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 databases for coal, wood/biomass, and fuel oil with 

the range of values that were summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for cross tie-derived fuels. The comparison is 

made between groups of contaminants that share physical 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), total 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. 

 

23 of 133
Attachment A 

February 28, 2013 (reissued March 28, 2013) 

ncasi Page 2 

Conclusion 

Based on the available data for cross tie-derived fuels 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 contaminants found in one or more of three traditional 

fuels, coal, biomass and oil, thus supporting a determination that cross tie-derived fuel is not a waste 

when combusted. 

24 of 133
February 28, 2013 (re

ncasi Page 3 

Table 1. Trace Metals and Major Elements in Various Cross Tie-Derived Fuels 

Units, 

dry basis MAER1

NCASI TB 906a Boiler MACT Fuel A

n2 mean min max n3 n2 mean 

Heat Value Btu/lb 35 8,970 8,828 7,394 Trace Metal HAPs Antimony (Sb) ppm <5 Arsenic (As) ppm <10 6 1.75 1.38 2.15 4 25 1.78 Beryllium (Be) ppm <0.5 4 25 0.12 Cadmium (Cd) ppm <0.5 1 0.10 4 25 0.26 Chromium (Cr) ppm <2.5 8 0.67 0.23 1.44 4 25 9.68 Cobalt (Co) ppm <2.5 Lead (Pb) ppm <10.0 1 8.00 4 22 7.55 Manganese (Mn) ppm 63 4 25 135 Mercury (Hg) ppm 0.02 1 <0.25 5 25 0.04 Nickel (Ni) ppm <5 1 <5.0 4 35 13.78 Selenium (Se) ppm <5 4 25 0.57 Major Elements Chlorine (Cl) ppm 400 5 225 39 345 5 35 81 Fluorine (F) ppm 100 Total Halogens (Cl + Fl) ppm 500 Nitrogen (N) ppm 1,600 28 6,142 3,574 141 Sulfur (S) ppm 800 34 1,700 681 3,277 1 1 1,100 

1M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing (March 2013); 2no. of samples tested; 3no. of mills at which CDF was tested with no

2 to 10 

aFrom 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 AirR

2. Results of the March 23-26, 1993 Air Emission Tests on the No. 1 Boiler Stack at the NSP Bay Front Steam Plant, Interpoll La3. Emissions Database Test Report E721, "Results of the November 12-14, 1991 State Air Emission Compliance Tests on the No

Blandin Paper Company Plant in Grand Rapids, Minnesota", by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., January 17, 1992 

4. Emissions Database Test Report E860, "Results of the October 7-9, 1997 Air Emission Compliance Tests of Unit 1 at the NSP 

Crosse, Wisconsin", by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., November 5, 1997 

5. "Wood Products in the Waste Stream -- Characterization and Combustion Emissions", by Atkins, Richard S. and Donovan, Ch

subcontractors to New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, October 1996 

bEPA’s Boiler MACT Database - Fuel Sampling Data for Rail Road Ties at 5 Facilities – ALIPPrattville; ALIPRiverdale; AREve

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 MAER1

 Duluth, MN2 Selma, AL2 EPA3

VOC HAPs1 

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 SVOCs1,4,5 966 

 

Base Neutral SVOCs6

 

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 separated out here consistent with EPA’s approach 

 

26 of 133
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 n1 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 HAPs2 ppm 153.4 27 13,745 1 0.38 

 

Total SVOCs3 ppm 8,900 1 966 

Total PAHs4 ppm 2,0905 54,700 46 7,200 24,533 1

no. of samples tested; 2includes benzene, cumene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, toluene and xylenes; 3

includes phenol, biphenyl, dibenzofuran and quiniline; 4includes naphthalene; 5PAH (52 extractable); 6no. of 

sources; 

27 of 133
4400CCFFRRPPAARRTT 224411,,SSUUBBPPAARRTTBB––CCRROOSSSSTTIIEE

DDEERRIIVVEEDD FFUUEELL ((CCDDFF))CCAATTEEGGOORRIICCAALLPPEETTIITTIIOONN

FFOORR AA NNOONN--WWAASSTTEEDDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONN

MM..AA..EENNNEEERRRGGGYYYRREEESSSOOOUUURRRCCCEEESSS,,LLLLCC

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:

SUBMITTED: FEBRUARY 2013

2393 Kimberton Road 

PO Box 299 

Kimberton, PA 19442-0299 

28 of 133
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Name ......................................................................................................... Page Number 

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-WASTE 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 PETITIONER'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 NEED 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

29 of 133
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix Name 

iii 

Appendix A – Constituent/Contaminant Comparison Tables

Appendix B – Constituent/Contaminant Raw Testing Results

30 of 133
 M.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 Materials that are Solid Wastes When Used as 

Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units Rule, the so-called 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 combustion units. The NHSM Rule has far reaching 

regulatory impacts for those facilities that wish 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 categorical 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 traditional fuel and is not currently considered 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 logistics associated with the collection, handling, 

processing, and distribution of specification CDF, is committed to the process of establishing 

CDF as a legitimate non-waste alternative fuel. MAER strongly believes that CDF is indeed a 

non-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), and 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 submissions 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) 

31 of 133
 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 categorical 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 alternative fuel or an 

ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by either of the following CAA Section 112 rules (or 

other applicable MACT standard): 

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters [i.e., 

the Major Source Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard]. 

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 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 cannot be burned as an alternative 

fuel or used as an ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by either the 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 Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction 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 Incineration Units that Commenced Construction 

on or Before November 30, 1999. 

Without a NHSM non-waste determination, a combustion 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 facilities will choose to stop utilizing alternative fuels that are 

32 of 133
 M.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 would have an unintended 

negative environmental impact as generators of presumed “solid wastes” used as fuels would 

then potentially be forced to landfill materials that are currently beneficially used as alternative 

fuels, and could also potentially increase emissions of regulated pollutant emissions from such 

facilities as they return to the use of fossil fuels. 

On February 7, 2013, the United States Environmental 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 long dialogue with stakeholders from a variety of 

industry sectors stemming back to January 2, 2009 and the original issuance of the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Since the ANPRM, the NHSM Rule has undergone 

significant scrutiny and garnered considerable comments 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 fossil fuels used in their combustion units. 

CDF is a non-hazardous alternative biomass fuel derived from railroad crossties that have been 

removed from service and processed by reclamation 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 piled seventy (70) stories tall. 

CDF crossties are overwhelmingly comprised of North American hardwoods that have been 

treated with creosote. As a function of its high energy content, CDF is beneficially used for heat 

and energy recovery in many combustion 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 community, and states the document’s overall 

purpose. 

 SECTION 2 – NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WASTE DETERMINATION:

Provides the components of a rulemaking petition 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).

33 of 133
 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 comments including the December 20, 2013 final 

rule. 

 SECTION 4 – CONCLUSION: Provides a concluding summary of the information 

included in the document. 

 APPENDIX A – CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT COMPARISON TABLES.

 APPENDIX B – CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT RAW TESTING RESULTS.

34 of 133
 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-hazardous 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-waste 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 fuels company that specializes in managing the 

logistics associated with the collection, handling, processing, and distribution 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 crossties 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-use combustor. MAER’s primary business is the 

35 of 133
 M.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 diverse 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 determination 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) – Crossties that have been treated with creosote. 

2.4 A STATEMENT OF THE NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED 

ACTION 

As stated above, MAER is submitting this document 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 reclamation-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 reclaimed crossties that comprise CDF are not solidwastes for the following reasons: 

 The use of CDF as a non-hazardous, biomass 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 categorical inclusion of CDF in the list of NHSMs 

36 of 133
 M.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 fuels 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 CDF by end-use combustors can displace the use of 

fossil fuels that emit GHG. The GHG limiting effect of combusting CDF is magnified when one 

considers that alternative fuels derived from biomass such as wood are included within the 

carbon cycle while traditional fossil fuels are not. Should CDF’s status 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 unnecessarily land-filled begins to 

undergo anaerobic decomposition, generating emissions of methane (CH4), a GHG that is 21 

times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). 

2.4.2 CDF Meets the Legitimacy Criteria Specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d) 

Pursuant to 40 CFR §241.3(b)(4), non-hazardous secondary 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 criteria 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 the combustion unit is designed to burn [40 

CFR §241.3(d)(1)(iii)]. 

37 of 133
 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 categorically list an NHSM as a legitimate fuel must 

include a demonstration or justification that the material 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 combustors are not discarded as they are instead 

obtained via contractual arrangements. MAER also asserts that 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 contract with a crosstie reclamation company to 

remove and reclaim the crossties. Such contracts actually transfer ownership of the reclaimed 

crossties to the removal/reclamation company for the time that the ties are in their possession. 

As such, the reclaimed crossties, while not in the control of the original generator (i.e., the 

railroads), are not discarded in the typical common use of the term discarded. They are instead 

transferred to the removal/reclamation company who sorts the ties according to their condition 

for different end uses. Removed and reclaimed crossties may be temporarily stored in the 

railroad right-of-way or at another location by the crosstie reclamation companies. However, 

regardless of the length of time the crossties are stored, the crossties are not discarded in 

accordance with the common use definition of discarded in that they are not abandoned or no 

longer considered to be useful. The crossties are simply stored until 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 crossties are used by 

end-use combustors for energy recovery. 

Not all CDF originates from crossties removed from service in the same year. Some CDF is 

processed from crossties that were removed from service in prior years and stored by the 

38 of 133
 M.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 crossties are not discarded. There is no record of such 

crossties being abandoned. Waiting until 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 removed from service in prior 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 crossties, 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, plates, 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 crossties 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, the grinding stage of the crosstie processing may occur via 

primary and secondary grinding phases or a single grinding phase. 

 Additional screening of the ground or shredded 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 specification CDF that has been sufficiently processed to 

improve combustion of the material, remove contaminants, and meet the particular needs of the 

39 of 133
 M.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 contracted directly to the railroads 

have not been discarded. In addition, all crossties in the CDF population whether stored prior to 

processing are processed sufficiently to meet the definition of processing codified at 40 CFR 

§241.2. 

2.4.2.2 The Fuel is Managed as a Valuable 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 value 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/reclamation 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 railcar 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 biomass (i.e., in fuel piles or silos). Prior to 

combustion, which usually takes place within a timeframe from a day to a week of arrival, the 

CDF is transferred and/or handled from temporary storage in a manner consistent with the 

transfer and handling of other biomass fuels; procedures that typically include screening again by 

the end-use combustor, combining with other biomass fuels, and transferring to the combustor 

via conveyor belt or front-end loader. CDF is managed as a valuable commodity since a 

40 of 133
 M.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, reclamation, and sale of CDF crossties, and since 

such crossties are not stored for unreasonable lengths 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/contaminants of CDF to traditional fuels (i.e., coal, 

biomass, fuel oil, and coal tar oil), MAER has had qualitative laboratory testing performed on a 

sample of the specification CDF that they process 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 heating value of 6,000 Btu/lb. Other stakeholders and affected 

industry members like the Treated Wood Council (TWC) have previously 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 specification CDF. U.S. EPA has consistently 

referenced 5,000 Btu/lb as threshold for presuming that an NHSM has a meaningful heating 

value. Based on the qualitative laboratory testing that MAER has had performed, CDF has a 

meaningful heating value pursuant 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 laboratory testing performed on a sample 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 pile located at the facility of an end-use 

combustor. The operation of the CDF fuel pile, including any associated processing and 

handling is performed by MAER. Note that the tested CDF sample was obtained in accordance 

with the sampling provisions of 40 CFR §63.7521(c)(2) and composited by the analyzing 

laboratory in accordance with the compositing provisions of 40 CFR §63.7521(c)(2) and (d)(1) 

41 of 133
 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/contaminants present in CDF to those found in 

traditional fuels, MAER reviewed a list of constituents/contaminants using the CAA Section 112 

and 129 regulated pollutants and using engineering judgment and other internal resources 

determined which constituents/contaminants could be reasonably expected to be present in the 

crossties comprising CDF. Specifically, MAER reviewed Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) 

data and/or industry generated data (i.e., publicly available databases and/or technical 

documents) to prepare a list of constituents that could reasonably be expected to be present in the 

creosote material used to preserve wooden crossties. 

Similarly, using available technical databases and other publically available technical documents 

[largely obtained from the National Counsel for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 

technical documents], a list of constituents that could reasonably be expected to be present in 

northern and southern North American hardwoods 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 available databases and documents 

from U.S. EPA’s NHSM website. This list was also compared to a list of 

constituents/contaminants obtained from a representative 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 performed 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 constituent/contaminant comparison because the components 

42 of 133
 M.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 hardwoods. The creosote component of CDF is 

homogeneous because the production of creosote is governed by standards established by the 

American Wood Protection Association (AWPA). AWPA has established 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 blend. 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, the processing of CDF adds further homogeneity 

to the product, by removing contaminants and sizing 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 results 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 basis. Contaminant levels for coal and biomass were chosen for 

comparison since a combustion unit currently utilizing CDF could reasonably be expected to be 

capable of combusting coal and/or other biomass fuels 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 tar 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 characteristics. 

With respect to liquid fuels, we recognize that EPA interprets the phrase “designed to burn” to 

mean that a combustor that makes a self-determination that its CDF is a processed fuel product 

may have to meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion 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 opportunity to evaluate all the factors relating to 

the use of CDF as a fuel, including the fact that CDF is a commodity that is purchased by the 

43 of 133
 M.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 purchases 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 contaminant 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 capable of burning CDF actually burn. 

MAER combined the individual contaminants into specific groups based on similar physical and 

chemical properties. Specifically, MAER established a Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

hydrocarbon group, a group comprising the common 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 contaminant level listed for n-hexane in fuel oil (10,000 ppm). The CDF 

semi-VOC contaminants are present at approximately 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 16 

44 of 133
 M.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 present 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 levels for the “precursor contaminants” (chlorine, 

fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur) detected in CDF are less than the corresponding 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. 

45 of 133
 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. EPA requested that the AF&PA provide additional 

information as follows: 

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest 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 these 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 residential boilers) burn 

railroad ties for energy recovery. 

5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creosote-treated railroad 

ties or known to be significant components of creosote, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibenzofurans, 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 their 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 combustors that are 

operationally able to utilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel that choose not 

to use CDF as a result of the current solid-waste 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, traveling grate, and spreader 

stoker. 

3. Boilers operated by end-use combustors that utilize 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 materials), fuel oil, Tired Derived Fuel (TDF), 

Waste Derived Liquid Fuel (WDLF), and Waste Derived Solid Fuel (WDSF). 

46 of 133
 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 several local utilities in the northern Midwest 

that utilize CDF for purposes 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 since MAER developed the list of 

constituents/contaminants beginning with what constituents/contaminants 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 represent 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 “contaminants” 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. 

47 of 133
 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 alternative biomass fuel derived from railroad crossties that have been 

reclaimed as part of normal railroad maintenance 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 industry sectors as a non-hazardous, biomass derived, alternative to 

fossil fuel. 

Based on the information contained herein, crossties that comprise CDF are not solid-wastes. 

The use of CDF as a non-hazardous, 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. The CDF meets the legitimacy criteria specified by 40 

CFR §241.3(d) in that the crossties that comprise CDF are (1) either not discarded or are 

sufficiently processed; (2) are managed as a valuable commodity; (3) have a meaningful heating 

value; and (4) have levels of constituents/contaminants 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 non-waste fuel and that U.S. EPA should issue a 

categorical determination that CDF is a non-waste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR §241.4(b)(2), and specifically list CDF as a non-waste NHSM fuel under 40 CFR 

§241.4(a). 

48 of 133
APPENDIX A – 

CONSTITUENT/CONTAMINANT COMPARISON TABLES 

49 of 133
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

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 Non-Detect

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/Kg Non-Detect

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/Kg Non-Detect

-

3 Heat Content

2 Ash 

-

50 of 133
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/Kg -

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 Non-Detect

Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM

55 1-Methylnaphthalene 144,000 ug/Kg -

56 2-Methylnaphthalene 251,000 ug/Kg -

57 Acenaphthene 610,000 ug/Kg -

58 Acenaphthylene 58,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect

59 Anthracene 447,000 ug/Kg -

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

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

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

63 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 29,300 ug/Kg Non-Detect

64 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57,900 ug/Kg -

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/Kg -

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 Non-Detect

51 of 133
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

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.

52 of 133
Table A-2

CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Grou

40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination

Unit

Analytes Laboratory Result (ppm) Laboratory Comment US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) Literature

Sources (pp

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

Hydrogen 57,900 - - - -

Nitrogen 1,600 - N/A 13,600 – 54,000 200 – 39,500 2,200 – 4,600 42 – 8,950 Sulfur 800 - N/A 740 – 61,300 Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100 N/A Fluorine 100 - N/A Non-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128 N/A Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A Oxygen (diff) 322,800 - -----Carbon 527,200 - -----

Volatile Organic Compounds 0.38 - 8.6 – 56 N/A 1.6 - 27 N/A 50 – 10,00Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 977 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Detect – 16-PAHs 7,036 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Detect – 

Trace Metal Haps

Antimony (Sb) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 10 Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 

Arsenic (As) <10 Non-Detect 0.5 – 80 Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298 N/A Beryllium (Be) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 15 Non-Detect – 206 N/A Non-Detect – 10 N/A 

Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 3 Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3 Non-Detect – 17 N/A 

Chromium (Cr) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 60 Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340 N/A 

Cobalt (Co) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 30 Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213 N/A 

Lead (Pb) <10 Non-Detect 2 – 80 Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 

Manganese (Mn) 63 - 5 – 300 Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800 N/A 

Mercury (Hg) 0.0161 - 0.02 – 1 Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1 N/A Nickel (Ni) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 50 Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 

Selenium (Se) <5 Non-Detect 0.02 – 10 Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0 NA 

(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 the Emission 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.

CDF Test Results(a) COAL(b) Wood & Biomass(b) 

Ash Heat Content

Crosstie Sample Solid Fuel
Table A-3

CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Indiv

40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination

No. Analytes Laboratory Result (ppm) Laboratory Comment US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) Literature(b) Sources (ppm) 

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 57,900 - - - -

5 Nitrogen 1,600 - N/A 13,600 – 54,000 200 – 39,500 2,200 – 4,600 42 – 8,950 

6 Sulfur 800 - N/A 740 – 61,300 Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100 N/A 7 Fluorine 100 - N/A Non-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128 N/A 8 Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A 9 Oxygen (diff) 322,800 ------

10 Carbon 527,200 ------

Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

11 Benzene 0.05 Non-Detect Non-Detect – 38 N/A - - Non-Detect – 75 12 Ethyl benzene 0.0575 - 0.7 – 5.4 N/A - - 22 – 1,270 13 Styrene 0.05 Non-Detect 1.0 – 26 N/A - - Non-Detect – 320 14 Toluene 0.05 Non-Detect 8.6 – 56 N/A - - Non-Detect – 380 15 Xylenes 0.325 (Total) 4.0 – 28 N/A - - Non-Detect – 3,100 16 Cumene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 6,000 – 8,600 17 Acrolein 1 Non-Detect - - - --

18 Bromomethane 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --19 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --20 Carbon-Disulfide 0.1 Non-Detect - - - --21 Chlorobenzene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --22 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.1 Non-Detect - - - --23 Methylene Chloride 0.1 Non-Detect - - - --24 m,p-xylene 0.178 ------

25 o-xylene 0.148 - - - - - - 26 Tetrachloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --27 Trichloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --28 Vinyl Chloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --29 n-Hexane 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 50 – 10,000 

TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS

30 1,1-dichloroethylene 0.08 Non-Detect - - - --31 1,2-dichloroethane 0.08 Non-Detect - - - --32 1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.08 Non-Detect - - - --33 Chloroform 0.07 Non-Detect - - - --

Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID ---

34 Acetaldehyde 1.00 Non-Detect - - - --35 Methanol 1.00 Non-Detect - - - --36 Propionaldehyde 1.00 Non-Detect - - - --

2 Ash 3 Heat Content

CDF Test Results(a) 

Crosstie Sample 

COAL(b) Wood & Biomass(b) Unit

Solid Fuel
Table A-3

CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Indiv

40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination

No. Analytes Laboratory Result (ppm) Laboratory Comment US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) Literature(b) Sources (ppm) 

CDF Test Results(a) 

Crosstie Sample 

COAL(b) Wood & Biomass(b) Unit

Solid Fuel

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

37 2,4-dinitrophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - - --

38 2,4-dinitrotoluene 14.6 Non-Detect - - - --39 Acetophenone 29.1 Non-Detect - - - --40 Aniline 14.6 Non-Detect - - - --41 Biphenyl 137 ----- 1,000 – 1,200 42 Dibenzofuran 798 ------

43 Hexachlorobenzene 14.6 Non-Detect - - - --44 Pentachlorophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - - --45 Phenol 14.6 Non-Detect - - - - Non-Detect – 7,700 46 Quinolines 40.2 ------

TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

47 o-cresol 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --

48 m,p-cresol 1.51 ------49 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - --50 Hexachloroethane 0.03 Non-Detect - - - --51 Nitrobenzene 0.04 Non-Detect - - - --52 Pyridine 0.20 Non-Detect - - - --53 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.03 Non-Detect - - - --54 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.03 Non-Detect - - - --

Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM

55 1-Methylnaphthalene 144 ------

56 2-Methylnaphthalene 251 ------

57 Acenaphthene 610 ------58 Acenaphthylene 58.6 Non-Detect - - - --59 Anthracene 447 ------60 Benz(a)anthracene 201 ------

61 Benzo(a)pyrene 81.9 ------62 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 128 ------63 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 29.3 Non-Detect - - - --

64 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57.9 ------

65 Chrysene 182 ------

66 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 29.3 Non-Detect - - - --67 Fluoranthene 1,100 ------68 Fluorene 529 ------

69 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29.3 Non-Detect - - - --

70 Naphthalene 444- - - - - Non-Detect – 7,330 

71 Phenanthrene 1930 ------72 Pyrene 930 ------

Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

73 Chlordane 0.708 Non-Detect - - - --

TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

74 Lindane 0.2380 ------75 Heptachlor 0.0001 Non-Detect - - - --76 Methoxychlor 0.0003 Non-Detect - - - --

77 Toxaphene 0.0030 Non-Detect - - - --

Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)

78 Formaldehyde 1.6 Non-Detect - - 1.6 - 27 N/A -
Table A-3

CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Indiv

40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination

No. Analytes Laboratory Result (ppm) Laboratory Comment US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) US EPA Literature Sources (ppm) US EPA OAQPS Database (ppm) Literature(b) Sources (ppm) 

CDF Test Results(a) 

Crosstie Sample 

COAL(b) Wood & Biomass(b) Unit

Solid Fuel

Trace Metal HAP:

79 Antimony (Sb) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 10 Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 15.7 

80 Arsenic (As) <10 Non-Detect 0.5 – 80 Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298 N/A 81 Beryllium (Be) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 15 Non-Detect – 206 N/A Non-Detect – 10 N/A 82 Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 3 Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3 Non-Detect – 17 N/A 83 Chromium (Cr) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 60 Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340 N/A 84 Cobalt (Co) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 30 Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213 N/A 85 Lead (Pb) <10 Non-Detect 2 – 80 Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 56.8 86 Manganese (Mn) 63 - 5 – 300 Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800 N/A 87 Mercury (Hg) 0.016100 - 0.02 – 1 Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1 N/A 88 Nickel (Ni) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 50 Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 50.2 89 Selenium (Se) <5 Non-Detect 0.02 – 10 Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0 NA 

(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 the Emission 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 

57 of 133
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 

58 of 133
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 pgc+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

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

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

SAMPLING AT THE STELLA JONES SITE IN DULUTH, MN .......................................... 5

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

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

PHOTOLOGS 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from Stella Jones Facility 

APPENDIX B Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from National Salvage Facility 

59 of 133
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 pgc+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 Material (POM) which includes Polynuclear 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 Materials (NHSM) Rule. POMs are in the list of 

constituents of the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) of the EPA air emissions rules. 

URS personnel collected three samples of processed/chipped used railroad 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 overnight to the Test America, North Canton, Ohio, 

Laboratory, which was chosen for its past experience in extracting and analyzing difficult solid 

matrices, including railroad ties. URS made arrangements with the laboratory to further reduce 

the size of the processed ties to a manageable size (<3 mm) for analysis, and then extract the 

samples using SW846 Method 3540C (Soxhlet extraction). GCMS analysis was conducted 

using SW846 Method 8270C. The samples were analyzed for the full RCRA Target Compounds 

List, which includes 17 PAH compounds, and also carbazole and dibenzofuran, two additional 

compounds EPA considers to be in the POM category. The results were reported on an as 

received basis, with the laboratory also reporting the moisture content. 

A summary of the results of the analyses 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 (Docket 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 dibenzofuran, which though polycyclic 

organic compounds, are not considered aromatic hydrocarbons. This EPA document indicates 

60 of 133
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 pgc+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 concentrations in coal tar oil are much higher than 

used railroad ties. 

61 of 133
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 pgc+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

3

INTRODUCTION 

The AAR commissioned URS Corporation to perform 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 defined chemical group that primarily consists of 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), but apparently also may include some other 

cyclical organic compounds that may contain 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 waste (as opposed to a recycled 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 that emissions from that 

material when used as a fuel are comparable to emissions from any traditional fuel the material 

might replace. 

62 of 133
 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 pgc+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

4

SAMPLING AT NATIONAL SALVAGE 

SAMPLING AT NATIONAL SALVAGE 

National Salvage is a railroad tie recycling operation located outside Selma, Alabama. URS 

Senior Chemist Peter Ciarleglio visited that facility on February 22, 2012, to collect samples and 

observe the operations. The facility personnel indicated that they only process used railroad ties; 

they do not receive reject stock from railroad tie 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 the time of the visit. 

The ties arrive in railroad cars; incoming ties are given priority for processing, since the railroad 

must get their rolling stock back as soon as possible. If the ties cannot be immediately 

processed, the ties must be stacked in large storage piles at the back of the facility, and later 

reloaded onto a few cars remaining at the site for processing. Please see the Photologs in the 

back of this report which depict the facility and operations. 

The first stage of processing is to segregate ties 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, one 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 shredded material is carried by a conveyor into 

waiting trucks to be shipped directly to two different nearby International Paper facilities which 

combust the material in their boilers for energy recovery. Samples were intended to be taken 

from a minimum of three different trucks by plant personnel. It was noted that the first two 

trucks sampled were also receiving significant amounts of “mulch” from a front end loader, that 

is chips that had escaped the chipper and mixed with the mud and wash water from the ground 

around the chipper. URS was concerned that these first two trucks might not be representative of 

the actual Railroad Tie Derived Fuel, so an additional three trucks (NS-Trucks 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. 

63 of 133
 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 pgc+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, dust was controlled using a vacuum 

cyclone over the point where the chips were fed into the RTDF collection trucks. Chris had three 

trucks sampled by plant personnel: SJ-Trucks 1, 2, and 3. It appears that all of the ties go through 

the chipper and are sent to energy recovery. Please 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 sealed, 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 ties had been exposed to the elements for years 

and the material coming off the chipper was still quite coarse. In the two dimensions across the 

wood grain, the size of the bulk of the material 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 pictures 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 Test 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 following Tuesday, February 28, 2012. After receipt, as 

per agreement with URS, the laboratory further processed 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 processed 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 Method 8270C. Results were reported on an “as 

received” basis, and the percent moisture determination results were also reported. 

64 of 133
 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 pgc+URS.doc\4-FEB-13 

6

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 

The compounds that were detected were poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (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 were not detected in any of the samples. This includes the 

compounds hexachlorobenzene and 2,4-dinitrotoluene, reported by EPA as being potential 

constituents of creosote treated wood in the final rule. A summary of the results for all the polynuclear organic materials from the Stella Jones 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 included 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 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. 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, EPA 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 400000

65 of 133
 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 pgc+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]perylene 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 3,500,000 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 12,601,000

66 of 133
 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 pgc+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 comparable 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 included 

in comments by International Paper to the proposed NHSM rule (Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2008-0329-1158). That document contained some laboratory data for a single sample asserted to 

be RTDF that was analyzed in the 1990s. The sample was identified only as “Crossett 

Arkansas”, and it came from a company called “Wood Waste Energy”. 

Finally, URS was concerned that the use of recycled water for dust control at the National 

Salvage facility might affect the PAH results, either through additional 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 possible exception of sample NS-Truck 5, which was 

somewhat lower than the other samples. 

67 of 133
PHOTOLOG 

68 of 133
APPENDIX A 

Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from 

Stella Jones Facility 

69 of 133
APPENDIX B 

Laboratory Analytical Report Samples from 

National Salvage Facility 

70 of 133
71 of 133
72 of 133
73 of 133
74 of 133
75 of 133
76 of 133
 

1111 19th 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 (TWC) 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, depending on the type of NHSTWB, it has either not 

been discarded in the first instance or is processed 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 factors, 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 

77 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 2 

2. Statement of Petitioner’s Interest in the Proposed Action 

The TWC is an international trade association 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 national determination that 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 organization 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-hazardous secondary treated wood biomass” includes 

wood treated with: waterborne borate-based preservatives, waterborne 

organic-based preservatives, waterborne copper-based wood preservatives 

(ammoniacal/alkaline copper quat, copper azole, copper HDO, alkaline 

copper betaine, or copper naphthenate); 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 EPA’s generic conclusion that the use of nonhazardous secondary materials – including NHSTWB – for combustion is categorized as the 

burning of a solid waste unless otherwise determined after consideration of a petition filed under 

40 C.F.R. § 241.4 (b). EPA incorporated this overall 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 Incineration 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). 

78 of 133
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 demonstrate that the secondary 

material used as a non-waste fuel in a combustion unit (1) has not previously been discarded or, 

alternatively, has been properly processed and managed, and (2) either meets the legitimacy 

criteria or, after balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, is shown not to be a 

solid waste when used as fuel. 78 Fed. Reg. at 9158-59. The legitimacy criteria are: (a) the 

secondary material is managed as a valuable commodity, and storage must not exceed reasonable 

time frames; (b) where there is an analogous fuel, the secondary material must be managed 

consistently with the analogous fuel; (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, creosote railroad ties, sufficient evidence had been 

provided that EPA expects to propose a categorical listing for these materials. 78 Fed. Reg. at 

9174. TWC provides the following additional information in support 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 material EPA recognizes as a traditional fuel – 

that has been treated with preservative solutions that slow its deterioration and extend its useful 

life in applications such as building products, railroad ties, and 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 impregnated with a coal tar derivative (made up of 

traditional fuels) are sought-after as an alternative fuel because of their higher heat (measured as 

British thermal units or BTU) value, affordability, and availability. Commercial arrangements 

have for many years channeled NHSTWB materials 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 similarly to traditional fuels. The Class I railroads 

recycle nearly 60 percent of their used ties for energy recovery (and the 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). 

79 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 4 

recycled for other purposes).3 Approximately 20 percent of utility 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 exclusively 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 furnish used, treated wood for 

energy recovery purposes. 

A second company, Zwicky Processing & Recycling, 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 specifically for these materials and, to 

give a sense of its current scale 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 facility combusts 75% NHSTWB and 25% other 

forms of biomass to power its operations. A sample 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 NHSTWB used for electricity generation and fuel 

combustion, and of a “Fuel Supply Agreement covering 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). 

80 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 5 

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

additional statement notes the use of copper naphthenate 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 materials for energy generation. (See Attachment 3.) 

Further, TWC’s February 2012 comments cited a statement submitted to the record by the State 

of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources and Environment, noting that in 2009, 16,625 

tons of NHSTWB, including wood treated with creosote and pentachlorophenol, were burned for 

energy recovery and were eligible for renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy credits 

under Michigan’s Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act. 

Collectively, these submissions provide compelling evidence that NHSTWB is either not 

discarded or has been properly processed and managed, and that when used as a combustion fuel, 

it is regarded as a valuable commodity. 

NHSTWB has a Meaningful Heating Value and is Used as Fuel in a Combustion 

Unit that Recovers Energy.

TWC has previously placed in the record data 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 approximately 7,000 BTU/pound (300,000 BTU/cf) for waterborne, and up 

to 8,000 (400,000 BTU/cf) for oilborne 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 Lower 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). 

81 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 6 

The types of NHSTWB covered 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 Oilborne Pentachlorophenol 

(6) Wood Dual-Treated with any of the above preservatives 

In the discussion below, the different forms of NHSTWB are analyzed individually. 

Wood Treated with Waterborne Borate-Based Preservatives

Waterborne borate-based preservatives add no HAPs to traditional wood and contain 

contaminants at levels that are comparable to those of the traditional fuel that a combustion unit 

is designed to burn (wood). (See Table I on the following page.) Wood treated with boratebased preservatives is virtually identical to untreated wood in terms of HAP content. 

In fact, EPA has already determined that borate-treated wood “meets the legitimacy 

criterion on the level of contaminants and comparability to traditional fuels.”10 Waterborne 

borate-based treated woods are equivalent to “clean construction and demolition wood,” which 

EPA considers a traditional fuel.11 TWC requests that EPA provide a determination for 

waterborne borate-based preservatives that is consistent with that for clean construction and 

demolition wood. 

 1076 Fed. Reg. at 15,484. 

1178 Fed. Reg. at 9138. 

82 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 7 

TABLE I. HAP and Other Components in Traditional Fuels and Wood Treated with Borate Waterborne 

Preservatives (ppm) 

HAP Component Wood + Borates Untreated Wood/Biomassi #2 Fuel Oili Coali

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 SVOCii HAP NAiii NA 8,900 NA 

Total POMiv 2v 2v 54,700 2,090 

Total known HAPvi 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 Traditional 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 compounds that contain heteroatoms such as N and O. v

 Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vi HAPs listed include only those 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 Table II are naturally occurring in untreated wood 

and are not introduced during the treating process. The only metal introduced during treatment 

with waterborne preservatives is copper, 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 copper-based preservatives is below the levels found in wood and 

other traditional fuels. 

 12 Id., at 9139. 

83 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 8 

TWC requests that EPA provide a determination 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 Preservativesi

 (ppm) 

HAP 

Component 

Copper-Basedii Organic-Basedii

Untreated 

Woodiii

#2 Fuel 

Oiliii Coaliv

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 23iv 235iv 235iv 235iv 235iv <235iv <235iv 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 SVOCv

HAP 

NAvi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,900 NA 

Total POMvii 2viii 2viii 2viii 2viii 2viii 2viii 2viii 2vii 54,700 2,090 

Total known 

HAPix 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 waterborne preservative systems: ACQ = alkaline copper quaternary; CA = copper 

azole; CuN-W = waterborne copper naphthenate; CX-A = copper HDO; KDS = alkaline copper betaine; PTI = propiconazole + 

tebuconazole + imidacloprid; EL2 = DCOI + imidacloprid. 

iii Maximum values cited in EPA 2011a and EPA 2011b. 

ivData from Ruddick 2013; average of all samples tested. Total Nitrogen numbers assayed in weathered ACQ-treated spruce 

used to estimate N content in wood treated 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 wood 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 expressed accurately in table. vii 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 heteroatoms such as N and O. viii Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). ix HAPs listed include only those with available data. 

84 of 133
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 already 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 are 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 provide a categorical determination for creosotetreated ties, posts, pilings, and poles that they are non-wastes when combusted for energy 

recovery. 

TABLE III. Estimated Concentration of Selected HAP in “End of Life” Creosote Treated Wood and 

Traditional Fuels (ppm) 

HAP Component 

Creosote-treated 

woodi Untreated Woodii Fuel Oilii Coalii

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 17,098ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 

Chlorine (non-HAP) 5,400ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 

Fluorine (non-HAP) 128ii 128 14 178 

Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 

Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100ii 6,100 57,000 61,300 

Total VOC HAP 0.4 27 13,745 153 

Total SVOCiii HAP 966 NAiv 8,900 NA 

Total POMv 20,130 2vi 54,700 2,090 

Total HAPvii 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 available, 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 heteroatoms such as N and O. vi Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004(2009). vii HAPs listed include only those with available data. 

 1378 Fed. Reg. at 9174. 

85 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 10 

Wood Treated with Oilborne Copper Naphthenate

Copper naphthenate treating solution is diluted 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 oilborne copper naphthenate 

should be determined to be a non-waste when combusted 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 woodi

 Untreated Woodii Fuel Oilii Coalii

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 17,098ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 

Chlorine (non-HAP) 5,400ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 

Fluorine (non-HAP) 128ii 128 14 178 

Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 

Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100ii 6,100 57,000 61,300 

Total VOC HAP 379 27 13,745 153 

Total SVOCiii HAP 33 NAiv 8,900 NA 

Total POMv 414 2vi 54,700 2,090 

Total HAPvii 17,924 17,127 80,953 4,309 

i

0.08 pcf Cu & 4 pcf solution retention + 32 pcf wood @ 50% treatable volume = 0.94% w/w copper naphthenate (0.11% Cu) 

and 4.6% oil in total freshly treated wood mass. Wood assayed after 12 years exposure showed 35% average Cu loss (IRG/WP 

00-30242); calculations assume 66% organic (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; includes phenol, cresols, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iv Indicates either data not available, not yet analyzed, or cannot be expressed accurately 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 compounds that contain heteroatoms such as N and O. vi Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vii HAPs listed include only those with available data. 

86 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 11 

The total HAP concentration in end-of-life copper naphthenate treated wood is slightly 

higher (less than 5%) than the total HAP concentration in untreated wood, 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 type boilers approved for creosote treated wood. 

Wood Treated with Pentachlorophenol

Pentachlorophenol (penta) is a pesticide chemical 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 dissolved in petroleum oil, 

typically diesel or fuel oil grades. Liquid or dissolved-solid penta is diluted to approximately 5 

to 10 percent in oil for the treatment solutions. Technical penta contains 86% pentachlorophenol 

with the balance other chlorinated phenols. 

Penta-preserved wood contains approximately 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. Fuel oil is a “traditional fuel.” Penta contains 

chlorine, but to avoid double-counting the chlorine, this has not been listed separately, as penta 

including the chlorine is already listed as a HAP. 

The HAPS in penta-treated wood are comparable to those in the traditional fuels wood, 

coal, and fuel oil, except for pentachlorophenol itself, which is an EPA-listed HAP (see Table V 

on the following page). The total HAP concentration in end-of-life pentachlorophenol treated 

wood is higher (about 16 %) than the total 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 the formaldehyde (also a listed HAP) in resinated 

wood, similarly added to the wood product for its desirable properties. In fact, the amount of 

pentachlorophenol in a treated wood utility pole at the end of its service life (approximately 1800 

ppm) is a small fraction of the amount of formaldehyde-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. The 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 Michigan’s Clean, Renewable, and Energy Efficiency 

Act.14

 14 Comments of Steven R. Silver, Chief, Solid Waste 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. 

87 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 12 

EPA has determined that, despite the higher level of formaldehyde in resinated wood 

compared to the traditional fuel wood, the balance 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 fuel, 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 wood, disrupting this established 

commercial relationship would cause adverse 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 resinated wood, EPA should conclude that penta-treated 

NHSTWB is a categorical non-waste. 

TABLE V. Estimated Concentration of Selected HAP in “End of Life” Pentachlorophenol Treated Wood and 

Traditional Fuels (ppm) 

HAP Component 

PentachlorophenolTreated Woodi Untreated Woodii Fuel Oilii Coalii

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 17,098ii 17,098 3,608 2,066 

Chlorine (non-HAP) 6,691ii 5,400 1,260 9,080 

Fluorine (non-HAP) 128ii 128 14 178 

Nitrogen (non-HAP) 4,600ii 4,600 3,000 54,000 

Sulfur (non-HAP) 6,100ii 6,100 57,000 61,300 

Total VOC HAP 379 27 13,745 153 

Total SVOCiii HAP 1865 NAiv 8,900 NA 

Total POMv 414 2vi 54,700 2,090 

Total HAPvii 19,756 17,127 80,953 4,309 

i

 0.38 pcf pentachlorophenol & 4 pcf solution retention + 32 pcf wood @ 50% treatable volume = 0.55% w/w PCP and 5.0% oil 

in total treated wood mass. Wood assayed after 8 years exposure 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; includes phenol, cresols, pentachlorophenol, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline. iv Indicates either data not available, 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 heteroatoms such as N and O. vi Data from J. Physics: Conference Series 151, 012004 (2009). vii HAPs listed include only those with available data. 

 1578 Fed. Reg. at 9155-58. 

88 of 133
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe 

April 3, 2013 

Page 13 

TWC requests that EPA provide a categorical 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 used for some treated wood products. The 

analysis does not differ from the foregoing discussion of each of these individual treatment 

chemicals. Like the underlying NHSTWB formulations, 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 for dual treated NHSTWB using an oilborne 

preservative that they are non-wastes when combusted for energy recovery in the same type 

boilers approved for creosote treated wood. 

Conclusion

Unless EPA properly classifies these materials as non-waste, they will be diverted to 

landfills, resulting in (1) the use instead of fossil fuels with higher net greenhouse gas emissions 

(GHG), and (2) the likelihood that landfilled treated wood will eventually break down to produce 

methane, with twenty times the comparable impact on climate change as carbon dioxide.16 

For all the reasons set forth above, TWC requests that EPA issue a categorical 

determination that the specified non-hazardous secondary 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. 

89 of 133
 

TWC responses to EPA request for additional 

information on NHSM Petition

May 20, 2013 

1. List of specific preservatives under “organic 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 preservatives 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 19th Street, NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 463-2045 

Fax: (202) 463-2059 

90 of 133
applications such as decking, fencing, lattice, recreational 

equipment, structures. 

c.)Creosote – railroad ties, utility poles, piling, agricultural 

fencing, bridge timbers. 

d.)Oilborne Copper Naphthenate – utility poles, bridge timbers, 

railroad ties, pilings, fencing, cross arms 

e.)Pentachlorophenol – utility poles and crossarms 

f.) Dual-treated – railroad ties with borates and either creosote 

or oilborne copper naphthenate. 

3. Chemistry detail of each preservative 

Below are the chemistry details according to AWPA Standards 

and the NPIRS database. [EPA may be able to obtain additional 

information by researching the 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 C6HOCl5 87-85-4 63001 

CuN Copper 

Naphthenate 

Copper Naphthenate, oilborne 1338-02-9 23102 

ACQ-B Alkaline Copper 

Quat Type B 

CuCO3

Didecyl- and dialkyl (C8 or 

C12)-dimethylammonium 

chloride 

1184-64-1 

148788-55-0 

22901 

69208 

ACQ-C Alkaline Copper 

Quat Type C 

CuCO3

Alkyl (C12-C18)benzyldimethylammonium chloride 

1184-64-1 

68391-01-5 

22901 

69175 

ACQ-D Alkaline Copper 

Quat Type D 

CuCO3

Didecyl- and dialkyl (C8 or 

C12)-dimethylammonium 

chloride 

1184-64-1 

148788-55-0 

22901 

69208 

CBA-A Copper azole Type 

A 

CuCO3

Boric Acid 

Tebuconazole 

1184-64-1 

10043-35-3 

107534-96-3 

22901 

11001 

128997 

CA-B Copper azole Type 

B 

CuCO3

Tebuconazole 

1184-64-1 

107534-96-3 

22901 

128997 

CA-C Copper azole Type 

C 

CuCO3

Propiconazole 

Tebuconazole 

1184-64-1 

60207-90-1 

107534-96-3 

22901 

122101 

128997 

91 of 133
CuN-W Waterborne Copper 

Naphthenate 

Copper Naphthenate, 

waterborne 

1338-02-9 23102 

CX-A Copper HDO CuCO3

Boric Acid 

Bis(N-Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)-Copper 

1184-64-1 

10043-35-3 

312600-89-8 

22901 

11001 

235500 

KDS Alkaline Copper 

Betaine 

CuCO3

Boric Acid 

Boric acid (H3BO3), 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 Specification 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 NL 

92 of 133
CX-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 preserved wood from end use to 

combustor – and how they are managed (stored for short period 

prior to combustion in enclosed area etc.; what processing 

occurs e.g grinding etc. 

For railroad ties and utility poles (creosote, pentachlorophenol, 

copper naphthenate and dual-treated), the pathways are 

identical. Ties and poles are often combusted together, 

dependent on state permits. 

a.)The user organization (railroad or utility company, or its 

contractor) removes the old pieces from service 

b.)The organization inspects them, sorts out pieces that might be 

re-used for another application, and performs an initial 

separation of non-combustible 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 are transported via truck or rail to a 

reprocessing center 

e.)At the reprocessing center, pieces are again inspected, sorted, 

and non-combustible materials are removed. Re-usable 

pieces are separated from combustible pieces. 

f.) Combustible pieces then undergo size reduction and possible 

blending with compatible 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 commodity prices range from $15 to 

$20 per ton. 

93 of 133
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 above, except with a different 

starting organization. 

a.)The sourcing organization (installation or demolition 

company, or refuse service) collects installation scraps and 

old pieces removed from service before entering the waste 

stream, together with other C&D combustible materials such 

as non-preserved wood 

b.)The organization inspects them, sorts out pieces that might be 

re-used for another application, and performs an initial 

separation of non-combustible 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 are transported usually via truck to a 

reprocessing center, usually as part of a contractual 

agreement 

e.)At the reprocessing center, pieces are again inspected, sorted, 

and non-combustible materials are removed 

f.) Pieces then undergo size reduction and possible blending 

with compatible combustibles 

g.)Last step is to ship the final bio-material to combustion sites. 

h.)The final material is sold through purchase orders, contracts, 

or some other written agreement. 

6. % of each HAP in SVOC’s (Semi-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. 

94 of 133
In Tables I and II, there are no SVOC’s added to the treated 

wood. The only SVOC listed value is for Fuel Oil (a traditional 

fuel), and the 8,900 ppm number is derived from the EPA 

document “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: 

Tables for Comparison”, dated Nov. 29, 2011 (EPA 745-B-00-

004(2000)). Table 3 of the EPA 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 derived 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 the 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 compare 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. 

95 of 133
7. Logic explanation of losses during use 

EPA seeks an explanation of preservative component losses 

during use: 

a.)For borate treated wood, 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 petition shows “end of life” 

concentrations in the wood as determined by the 2013 

Ruddick Report (attached) on 4-year old ACQ treated wood. 

This loss factor was applied to concentrations for organic and 

waterborne treated wood for the 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” concentrations in the wood based 

upon data in a URS 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 factor. That factor was applied 

to these similar types of treated wood which utilize fuel oil 

carriers. 

96 of 133
TAB 3 

97 of 133
98 of 133
99 of 133
April 25, 2013

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg

FROM: Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Re: Revisions to Memo 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 analytical data in the memo are now provided on a dry basis 

except for high heating value, which is on a wet basis. 

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

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

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

Wood fuel (fuel source) are as follows: 

 (W) Wisconsin Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA1) California #1 Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA2) California #2 Facility – Negative Sorting

(MA) Massachusetts Facility – Negative Sorting

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

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

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

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

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

wood is processed into fuel.

WM Study Procedures and Results

100 of 133
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 required that each plant collect 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

laboratory analysis. The attached tables provide a contaminant comparison of the analytical 

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

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

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

1

Impacts of Processing on Contaminant Comparisons

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

facilities during the testing period. 

Table 1 Average Formaldehyde Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Formaldehyde

[ppm]

74.6 22.3 17.6 68.2

Sorting Positive Positive Negative Negative

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

conducted at these facilities. 

Likewise, the table below displaying the average concentrations of arsenic, chromium

and lead at each facility during the testing period indicates similar results.

Table 2 Average Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Arsenic

(ppm)

3.2 6.0 3.1 142

Chromium

(ppm)

5.3 12.2 10.3 168

Lead

(ppm)

149 89.6 58.4 260

Sorting Type Positive Positive 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

101 of 133
April 25, 2013

Page 3

Impact of Incoming Material Variations on Contaminant Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

details).

Table 3 Incoming Materials Comparison 

Incoming Material

Type

CA2 MA

Mixed C&D Materials 43.7 % 95.5 %

Clean Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 %

Average Arsenic (ppm) 3.06 142

Average Chromium (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 had a considerably higher percentage of clean wood in its incoming 

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

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

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

chromium and other contaminants. 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 essentially equal to or lower than 

the traditional wood/biomass fuel listed in the OAQPS database. Revising the wet basis data to 

be on a dry basis, we find that the lead content of two facilities, 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 facility were 482, 323, 67.2, 54.6, 44.1, 39.5, and 

32.0 ppm. Of the five sampling days from the W facility, 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 

102 of 133
April 25, 2013

Page 4

values are lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database and significantly 

below the value of 482 ppm. Presuming a normal distribution of sampling data, the statistics of 

the 6 samples other than 482 ppm, have an upper 99 percent t-test range of 474 ppm. Assuming a 

6-sample t-test, for a one sided tail at 99%, the t-value equals 3.365. With an average lead 

concentration of 93.39 ppm and a standard deviation of 113.12, the upper range yields a value of 

474 ppm (93.39 + 3.365 * (113.12). Thus, the value of 482 ppm is above the 99% t-test and 

therefore, it can be argued that this value is non-normal and not representative of the typical lead 

values from the C&D wood from this facility.

Analyzing this value a bit further; lead belongs in the semi-volatile metals category along 

with cadmium and selenium. The 90% UPL for both of these metals, cadmium and selenium, are 

significantly 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 comparison below the OAQPS 

dataset because the relative concentrations of cadmium and selenium are less than lead, the 

grouping lessens the difference between the two groups to just over 20%, as determined from the 

data in Table 4. 

Of the five sampling days from the MA facility, two of the days produced a value above 

the maximum lead value in the OAQPS database. These two days had lead concentrations, by 

dry weight, of 407 and 437 ppm. The other three days of testing shows an average lead 

concentration of 193 ppm. While these high values are likely not outliers, it is safe to say that the 

range of lead concentrations from this facility does span a wide range, with a majority of the 

values being lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database. 

When doing a grouping comparison of semi-volatile metals, a similar scenario to the W 

dataset is shown. The significantly lower cadmium and selenium values create about a 20% 

difference between the MA facility SVM grouping and the OAQPS SVM grouping. Also, as 

shown in Table 3 of Appendix A in the complete submittal, when combined with the other 

existing Massachusetts data, the 90% UPL of the complete dataset shows a value less than the 

maximum reported for traditional fuels. 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

produce similar values. 

103 of 133
April 25, 2013

Page 5

Table 4 90% UPL Comparison

SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT C&D WOOD FUEL STUDY

EPA Data

Wood and 

Biomass1

Waste Management C&D Wood (90% UPL)

2,3

Compound Units

Max W CA1 CA2 MA All facilities

Antimony (Sb) ppm 26 0.59 12.0 2.76 5.5 10.1

Arsenic (As) ppm 298 5.74 25.4 5.60 273 200

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

Lead (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 27.4 13.0

Selenium (Se) ppm 9.0 * * * * *

Total SVM+

ppm 366 449 213 136 444 357

Total LVM+

ppm 17227 83.4 171 160 669 518

Chloride ppm 5400 364.9 3366 1272 2848 1750

Fluoride ppm 300 67 171 172 46 144

Total Halogens+

ppm 5700 400 3436 1388 2659 1881

Formaldehyde ppm 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 0.05 0.10 0.18 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) California. Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012, 

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

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 in "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 and not the combination of sample values.

104 of 133
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.18 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 0.010 0.011 0.010 *

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 0.39 0.6 (a)

Lead (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 74.6 149.4 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.42 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 - 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

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.

105 of 133
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.29 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 0.05 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 29.1 12.23 25.0 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.59 2.95 1.39 2.5 (a)

Lead (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 0.021 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)

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.23 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 - 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

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.

106 of 133
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.24 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 0.07 0.06 0.07 (a)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.18 0.45 0.27 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)

Lead (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 0.13 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)

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.48 1.12 0.80 1.10 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.18 (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 - 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

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.

107 of 133
Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass

C&D Samples from MA2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.85 4.72 3.25 5.5 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 8.63 218 142 273 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.05 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 14.8 245 168 301 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.61 3.53 1.32 2.72 (b)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 167 437 260 443 (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 0.05 0.68 0.19 0.68 (c)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1.46 27.4 5.79 27.4 (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 -- -- -- 13.2 176.8 68.2 151 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.28 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 - 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

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.

108 of 133
Appendix A

[Revision Submission: April 25, 2013]

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

A comparison of the contaminants found in C&D wood was made with two traditional fuels –

wood & biomass and coal. This was done by comparing the 90% UPL (Upper Prediction Limit) 

of the individual contaminants and groups of contaminants in C&D wood with the maximum 

values reported in EPA’s traditional fuel database.

1

 This method was chosen following the 

guidance of EPA, as stated in the draft rule preamble:

Given data for a particular traditional fuel, it makes intuitive sense to base the 

traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of its 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 comparisons are presented in the tables located in Section IV, sorted by the State that was 

the source of the C&D wood or data. Results demonstrate that C&D wood contains 

concentrations of contaminants or groups of contaminants that are comparable to or lower than 

the two traditional fuels.

The 90% UPL value for formaldehyde exceeds the database maximum values. An explanation 

for this occurrence and comparison to traditional fuels is discussed in Section II, below. As well, 

the 90% UPL value for lead data collected at one facility in Wisconsin exceeds the maximum 

value in the EPA database. We believe that this value is not representative of C&D wood fuel 

produced at this facility. Please refer to the related Waste Management memo dated April 25, 

2013 for a more detailed explanation and discussion of this value.

II. Comparability of Formaldehyde Levels in C&D Wood

The contaminant comparison set forth below shows formaldehyde levels in wood and biomass at

a maximum of 27 ppm, no data on formaldehyde levels in coal, and formaldehyde levels in C&D 

wood at a maximum of 177 ppm. Despite these differences, we believe contaminant levels in 

C&D wood are comparable to coal and to wood and biomass. 

First, EPA allows groups of contaminants in the relevant traditional fuels to be compared to 

groups of contaminants in NHSM when making a contaminant comparison. Groupings are 

suggested in Table 8 of EPA’s December 2011 proposed rule, but a party may use other 

technically reasonable approaches to groupings. 76 Fed. Reg. at 80477. We have chosen to 

group VOCs and SVOCs together. According to EPA this grouping is technically reasonable 

because EPA groups volatile hydrocarbons and semi-volatile hydrocarbons when setting 

standards under the Clean Air Act. Id. 

 

1

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

included in the EPA traditional fuel database.

109 of 133
2

We note that other than formaldehyde, which, if not an artifact of the test method,2 is likely

derived from resinated wood products mixed with the C&D wood, the remaining hazardous air 

pollutants have been tested and found to be below or near detection limits in C&D wood (see 

Minnesota data). When the PAH levels in coal are grouped with other VOCs and SVOC and 

compared to the levels of this contaminant grouping in C&D wood, as demonstrated in the 

attached Minnesota C&D data, the levels are comparable to coal. 

Second, based on process knowledge, we are aware of no sources of formaldehyde in C&D 

wood other than the formaldehyde found in clean cellulosic biomass and resinated wood.3 To 

the extent that formaldehyde is present on C&D wood from resinated wood products, it is a VOC 

from non-waste materials because EPA has clearly asserted in the initial rule and the revised 

final rule that resinated wood that is combusted is not a waste (See 76 Fed. Reg. at 80483 and 78 

Fed. Reg. at 9213). 

In support of the fuel content value of formaldehyde, EPA has asserted,

Resinated wood is highly valued within the wood 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- or inter- company facilities and used as either ‘‘furnish’’ (i.e., raw materials) 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 when generated on- site. In 

general, the motivation to use the resinated wood as a fuel, even with 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 

reclaimed oily wastewater to be a waste, the EPA failed to explain why 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 considered 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 determination for resinated wood, the contaminant levels are comparable to 

traditional wood and biomass fuel and therefore C&D wood meets the contaminant comparison 

legitimacy criterion whether or not it is combusted in a boiler that is designed to burn coal. 

 

2

 These tests indicating formaldehyde 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) derivatization 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

 EPA agrees that combustors may rely on process knowledge when making contaminant comparisons. 76 Fed. 

Reg. at 80477.

110 of 133
3

Third, formaldehyde is an organic compound that is readily volatilized to become a VOC under 

standard temperature and pressure having a boiling point at -19 degree C. Traditional biomass 

includes numerous forms of organic compounds in a solid/liquid matrix that which can 

emit/volatilize minor fractions of VOCs including formaldehyde and other listed hazardous air 

pollutants under standard temperature and pressure. By increasing temperature and/or the 

pressure, but not to the point of combustion, traditional biomass can further release such VOCs 

in increasing fractions. Given the highly complex nature of the organic compounds which 

comprise traditional wood, identification of the series of chemical reactions or lack of reaction 

for this process continues to generate extensive research. Wood that is processed to create 

construction lumber wood, which eventually becomes C&D wood, must be dried. There is 

research indicating that virgin wood can generate significant amounts of VOCs through the 

drying process. 

EPA has data demonstrating that some traditional virgin wood does have VOCs within the wood 

itself, prior to drying, and that this amount can be as high as 20,000 ppm.

4

 In addition, there are 

ample data on the emissions of VOCs from the process of drying construction lumber wood. For 

example, according to scientists from Oregon State University, drying ponderosa pine wood, 

dryers emit between 1.6 and 3.0 pounds of VOCs per thousand board feet (mbf) (3330 lb5) or 

480 to 900 part per million mass basis, depending on the temperature of the dryer.6 The 

corresponding amount of measured VOC hazardous air pollutants (study includes methanol,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, and acrolein) from ponderosa pine wood dryers 

ranged from 0.0833 to 0.189 lb/mbf (25 to 57 ppm mass basis). Similar measurements show 

clean wood dryers generating 0.96 pounds per oven dried ton of methanol (i.e., 0.048 percent 

methanol per ton of dried wood).7 These are VOC HAPs that are no longer available to be 

released from the kiln-dried lumber which is source material for construction wood and 

eventually C&D wood. Accordingly, EPA could conclude that the VOC HAP levels in C&D 

wood are not in concentrations “not normally associated with virgin biomass material,” making 

C&D wood clean cellulosic biomass: a traditional 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 pine 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, at 19, available at http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/for486/ 

Readings/Emissions%20from%20Wood%20Drying.pdf. Thus, these VOCs can be grouped 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, 5th edition, Table 10.6.3-3, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch10/final/c10s0603.pdf

111 of 133
4

III. State-by-State Sample Background 

The discussion on contaminant comparability to traditional fuels and how it relates to C&D 

wood fuel has largely focused on the processing involved to create the fuel, the type of incoming 

materials into the processing facilities and the requirements set forth by the combustor. The 

following discussion will touch base on each provided state-wide C&D wood fuel database to 

explain where the samples came from and how they were processed. 

The samples that comprise the Minnesota were all collected from a single supplier over the 

course of one week. All of the materials that are processed for C&D wood fuel are C&D 

materials and, of the incoming amount, typically 20% becomes wood fuel, which was sampled 

for this study. The C&D processing includes several size separations, which eliminate the fines 

to become landfill cover and helps ensure the most efficient separation. The C&D wood fuels 

materials are positively picked from the processing lines and grinded to an approximate size of

1.5 inches.

The Washington dataset were also from a single processing facility that collected samples over 

nearly two weeks. The facility receives co-mingled construction and demolition debris. Prior to 

materials being accepted for processing, a rigorous inspection process is carried out, including 

documentation showing that the building was inspected for asbestos containing materials if it

was from a demolition or renovation project, visual inspections and a lead based paint testing 

through X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF). The materials processing includes machine sorting, 

magnetic separation, manual sorting, shredding, and a final inspection.

The Massachusetts dataset was a combination of two separate datasets. The first dataset used in 

this table was from a study that took place at a single processing facility. This facility accepts a 

wide range of C&D mixed materials that includes, but is not limited to ferrous and non-ferrous 

metals, aggregate, OCC (old corrugated cardboard), plastics, gypsum, wood, and fines. For the 

purposes of the project that compiled the report which was used for this dataset, all wood was 

positively picked from the conveyor line during sampling. This includes lumber, painted wood, 

treated wood, plywood, laminated wood, etc. The second facility that contributed to the 

Massachusetts dataset accepts a wide range of materials, as well. However, during the week of 

sampling, a majority of its incoming materials was composed of C&D wood, with a very low 

composition of untreated wood (< 5%). This facility utilizes fines removal, size reduction and 

negative sorting techniques in their process. The C&D wood fuel that does come from this 

facility is negatively picked.

The New York dataset came from sampling and analyses of processed C&D wood combusted in 

a biomass-to-energy boiler located at a facility in New York State over the period 2005-2012. 

The wood was obtained from approximately 25 different suppliers located in the Western New 

York region and Ontario, Canada. Samples consisted primarily of mixtures of as-fired C&D 

wood taken from the boiler feed hopper conveyor, with a minor number of samples taken from 

storage piles representing individual suppliers. Some samples may have included insignificant 

amounts of non-C&D wood. Sampling and analyses were performed in accordance with the 

facility’s Alternate Fuels Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QA/QC Plan) required under 

the fuel testing provisions of the facility’s Title V permit. The QA/QC Plan also includes 

112 of 133
5

requirements on C&D processor procedures, provisions for material receipt and selection, 

storage, and inspection, training of both processor and combustion facility personnel, and 

recordkeeping. 

The Maine dataset was compiled by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in a 

report that detailed the substitution of wood from construction and demolition debris for 

conventional fuels in a biomass boiler. This was initiated due to the increased demand for these 

types of materials as a partial replacement of clean wood and biomass. In total, 12 different 

facilities were evaluated and the quality of the C&D fuels was analyzed. From these 12, four of

the facilities utilized a negative picking technique, three facilities utilized a positive pick 

technique and five of the facilities utilized source separation. Source separation entails the 

sorting of the usable elements of C&D at the point of generation or collection. It should be noted 

that the values in the report represent 100% C&D wood fuel, and not the <50% C&D wood fuel 

blended with clean biomass that is required in the state of Maine. 

The California dataset was a combination of two separate datasets. The first facility utilizes 

numerous processing techniques that include positive picking, multiple screening steps, size 

reduction and fines removal. Milled white wood, painted wood, cardboard and scrap metals are 

some of the material classifications that are targeted in the positive sorting system. The C&D 

wood fuel materials are chipped prior to shipment and rarely remain onsite for longer than 2-3 

days. The second facility that comprised the California dataset utilizes a negative pick technique. 

This facility processes all the materials through two separate negative pick conveyors where 

trash, metals, OCC, etc. are removed. Following the negative pick, the materials are screened to 

a 3⁄4 inch minus sizing, thus removing fines. The materials that make it through this screening 

process are crushed and then ready for shipment as C&D wood fuel. Approximately half of the 

incoming materials into the facility are made up of C&D materials, while the other half is made 

up of clean, untreated wood.

The Wisconsin dataset came from a single sampling period at a single processing facility. Prior 

to a positive picking line, all of the materials are screened to remove fines (approximately 3 inch 

minus materials). This level of fines removal is larger than other facilities, where fines removal 

consists of a lower fines threshold. The remaining materials are then passed through a positive 

pick line to remove the C&D wood fuel materials and other materials such as cardboard, 

concrete, etc. The positively picked C&D wood fuel materials are then shred and stored until 

shipment.

113 of 133
IV. C&D Wood Contaminant Comparisons with Traditional Fuels

Table 1 – Minnesota Dataset C&D Analysis. 

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Generator Located in Minnesota.

Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Minnesota2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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 0.36 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. Sampling 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 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-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.

114 of 133
7

Table 2 - Washington Dataset C&D Analysis. 

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Generator Located in Washington.

Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Washington2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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)

Lead (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 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

** - 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, 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.

115 of 133
8

Table 3 - Massachusetts Dataset C&D Analysis. 

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generators Located in Massachusetts.

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from Massachusetts2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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 83 128 (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)

Fluoride 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 54.0 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 "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Massachusetts table contains two separate databases combined. Sampling at the first processing facility occurred between 4/2007 – 5/2007. 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 - 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 (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.

116 of 133
9

Table 4 – New York Dataset C&D Analysis. 

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples Combusted in New York Facility.

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from New York2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% 

UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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 68.3 (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 32.2 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 0.005 0.31 0.08 0.17 (c)

Nickel (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 12.7 107 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 1631 (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 0.18 (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 Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 New York. Sampling Occurred Between 02/2005 – 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 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 (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.

117 of 133
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 Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Maine2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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 12 14.8 110 52.6 92.5 (a)

Beryllium (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 -- -- -- -- --

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 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 -- -- -- -- --

Nickel (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 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 -- -- -- -- --

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 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)

+ Due to the limited number of constituents tested in the report, a grouping comparison was not capable of being carried out.

118 of 133
11

Table 6 - California Dataset C&D Analysis.

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generators Located in California.

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from California2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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 0.02 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 1159 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/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 two separate databases combined. Sampling at the first processing facility occurred between 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 - 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 (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.

119 of 133
12

Table 7 - Wisconsin Dataset C&D Analysis.

Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Generator Located in Wisconsin.

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from Wisconsin2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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)

Beryllium (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 72.3 (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 12.7 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 13.6 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% 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 (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.

120 of 133
13

Table 8 - Compilation Dataset C&D Analysis. 

Compilation of Minnesota, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and Maine C&D Datasets.

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

Compilation of C&D All Datasets2

Contaminant Units

Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL3

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 91.8 (b)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 50 0.01 0.3 0.1 0.23 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 107 0.01 1.3 0.3 0.53 (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) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 224 0.4 482 53.9 136 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 50 37.2 180 78.8 115 (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 wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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

 Minnesota. Sampling Occurred Between 8/13/2012 – 8/17/2012; Washington. Sampling Occurred Between 3/21/2012 – 4/3/2012; Massachusetts table contains two separate 

databases combined. Sampling at the first processing facility occurred between 4/2007 – 5/2007. Sampling at the second processing facility occurred between 7/30/2012 –

8/3/2012.; New York. Sampling Occurred Between 02/2005 – 10/2012; Maine. Sampling Occurred in 2006. California table contains two separate databases combined. Sampling 

at the first processing facility occurred between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012. Sampling at the second processing facility occurred between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012. 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% 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 (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.

121 of 133
*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 (mg/kg)

420 0 31328.57 35510.88 9300 110000 76060**

Formaldehyde (mg/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

50.56 50.5

0.25

42.41

281.2 106.3 92.5 86.1 75.2

Wednesday 8/15 (a) Wednesday 8/15 (b) Thursday 8/16 Friday 8/17

90% UPL 

Results*

5.98 5.99 5.95

42.36 42.57 42.6

0.008

295.9

12.05 13.03 15.2 14.91 14.1 13.87 13.45

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

39.4 44.1

0.017 0.032

1.31

0.27

0.46

12.5

1.2

0.29 0.27 0.27

0.38

96.8

41.5

0.049

2.44

0.59

65.7

0.008

0.25

73.2

Monday 8/13 Tuesday 8/14

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

0.18 0.35

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

Mercury (HAP) 0.027

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

122 of 133
*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 (mg/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

35000 44000

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 1530.0 563.0 385.0

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

121.6 96.1 114.2 97.5 167.7 106.1 76.1

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 0.13 0.05

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 29-Mar 30-Mar 3-Apr

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

123 of 133
124 of 133
125 of 133
126 of 133
*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 (mg/kg)

420 15150.00 3400 50000

Formaldehyde (mg/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 (mg/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 (mg/kg) -- 639.39 487.69 930.31

Semi-Volatile Compounds (mg/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 

Monday 7/23 Wednesday 7/25 Wednesday 7/25 Wednesday 7/25 Thursday 7/26 Friday 7/27 Wednesday 8/1 Results*

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

Benzo(a)pyrene 505 463 555 397 285 359 397

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

555 505 505 555 505 529 555

127 of 133
var 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 (mg/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

128 of 133
*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 (mg/kg)

420 0 58714.29 36367.18 20000 130000 114689

Formaldehyde (mg/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 (mg/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 2.81

129 of 133
var

0 4.6 0.1 4.43 4.80 4.774

var0 3.1 1.5 2.31 6.25 6.25***

var0 4.6 0.1 4.43 4.8 4.774

var0 2.8 0.1 2.70 2.92 2.9

var0 11.9 3.6 7.88 19.4 17.4

var0 2561.0 3217.4 7.50 7130 7130***

var0 5.1 0.2 5.00 5.42 5.387

var0 20.2 5.5 13.8 30.6 28.64

var0 133.6 61.2 60.20 253 227.7

var0 6.3 0.2 6.16 6.67 6.628

var0 6.6 3.1 3.34 13.1 11.38**

var0 16.1 12.7 5.4 44.2 34.6**

var0 4.9 0.1 4.8 5.21 5.178

var0 114.8 67.5 57.8 213.0 230.8**

var0 5.1 0.2 5.00 5.42 5.387

Total Volatile Compounds (mg/kg) -- -- 3195.12 3139.5 526.23 7680.8 11460***

Semi-Volatile Compounds (mg/kg)

var0 864.9 103.2 727 995 1024

var0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var0 907.1 109.6 762 1050 1076

var0 782.7 93.3 658 900 926.3

var0 686.6 82.0 577 790 812.8

var0 316.1 37.6 266 364 374

var0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var0 810.0 96.6 681 932 958.7

var0 1170.3 142.0 981 1350 1389

var0 769.0 91.5 647 885 909.8

var0 727.9 86.7 612 837 861.3

var0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var0 631.9 75.5 531 727 748

var0 1102.6 132.8 924 1270 1307

var0 590.7 70.1 497 679 698.6

var0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var0 508.1 60.8 427 585 601.7

var0 357.1 42.7 300 411 422.9

var0 714.0 85.4 600 822 845.4

var0 810.0 96.6 681 932 958.7

var0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var0 14580.0 10455.8 660 31500 30673

var0 618.0 73.5 520 711 731

var0 631.9 75.5 531 727 748

var0 795.0 449.4 531 1800 1800***

var0 727.9 86.7 612 837 861.3

var0 814.9 297.3 554 1450 1252**

var0 645.6 76.9 543 743 763.9

var0 659.0 78.6 554 758 779.9

var0 755.1 90.0 635 869 893.7

var0 467.0 55.4 393 537 552.3

var0 425.7 50.7 358 490 503.8

var0 563.3 66.9 474 648 666.2

var0 672.9 80.0 566 774 796

var0 535.6 64.0 450 616 634.1

var0 54645.0 55642.5 525 126000 140288

var0 1530.7 2065.7 500 6150 6150***

var0 3418.6 2414.3 1680 8400 7076**

var0 728.7 212.6 531 1190 1040**

Total Semi-Volatile Compounds (mg/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

55

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 5.205 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

13.15

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 5.86

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 4.8155

55

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

130 of 133
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 that 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 that 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 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 

(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 processed 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 construction 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 and segregate C&D wood at their operations (diversion is required by 

law in some states, including California and Massachusetts). 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 municipal and commercial, also 

can process C&D wood. Processing 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 then invests significant 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. 

131 of 133
2 

The industry practices that are proven to produce non-waste fuel are 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 regulations provide additional safeguards on the 

quality of C&D wood that is combusted. 

Separation by a processor generally takes place either through positive sorting or through 

negative sorting, with either method producing a fuel product that meets the legitimacy criteria. 

The material that cannot be processed into non-waste fuel is either recycled or disposed in 

accordance with applicable law, while the remaining 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 must inspect for asbestos containing material 

prior to the demolition of a building and properly dispose of any such material that is found. As 

a result of these regulatory requirements, the Agency does not anticipate contamination of C&D 

wood by asbestos. 

The determination by the Agency that these practices are proven to produce non-waste fuel is 

supported by information in the record on the contaminant 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 cellulosic biomass, other than concentrations of 

formaldehyde. The possible sources of formaldehyde in processed C&D wood are naturally 

occurring formaldehyde in clean cellulosic biomass, 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 combusted 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 are 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 resources, to make sure 

that C&D wood has been processed to remove lead 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 ensure 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 that the supplier is carrying out proven 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. 

132 of 133
3 

employ contract or purchasing agreement specifications 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 ensure that those contract or 

purchasing agreement specifications are met, such as periodic visual inspection of C&D wood as 

it is received from the supplier. These specifications 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 recovery 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 practices are the same as those used for wood and 

biomass that are traditional fuels. Energy recovery facilities also must comply with all applicable 

federal, state and local permits and other requirements, including applicable air pollution control 

requirements. 

Thus, the record clearly shows 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 other document that requires 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 practices 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 collection programs. Combustion facilities that 

combust tires are allowed to rely on certifications that the tires that are combusted are from 

established tire collection programs and were not discarded. 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 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 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. 

133 of 133