## Commenters requesting that C&D wood be a categorical non-waste (or otherwise recognized as non-waste).

Please see the full comment in order to determine the commenter’s substantiation.

Commenter Name: Traylor Champion Commenter Affiliation: Georgia-Pacific LLC (GP) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1902-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment:

Two GP facilities cont ract with firms that co llect wood residuals, including construc tion and demolition ma terial, from urban population centers and then, after proper proce ssing of the material, sell the residuals to GP for their fuel value. This activ ity significantly reduces use of landfill space and redirects these va luable materials for use as fuel, displacing fossil fuels. Th is material should be considered as fuel, not nonhazardous solid waste.



## Commenter Name: Holly R. Hart Commenter Affiliation: United Steelworkers (USW) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1910-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment:

In addition USW believes C&D wood that has been processed to re move contaminants should be, as EPA suggests at Page 20470 of the preamble to the rule consid eration, treated as a non-waste fuel.



## Commenter Name: Christian Paul Huebner Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1950-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment:

There are a number of traditional biomass fuels that may not qualify as clean cellulosic biomass under the strict criteria incl uded in the current NHSM rule. 24 Nevertheless, these secondary materials have a long history of use as energy feedstocks and should not be classified as solid waste. Among these traditional fu els are construction and demolition debris. We concur with the analyses submitted by the Am erican Forest & Paper Associ ation in support of a categori cal non-waste dete rmination for construction debris. NAFO supports EPA’s pr oposed Categorical Non-Waste Determination Process as a means to exclude these traditional fuel products from the definition of solid waste and to provide regulated entities with the necessary assurances th at their combustion will not trigger more stringent CISWI emissions limits.

[Footnotes]24 Id.



## Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1930-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment:

C&D residuals are another secondary material we utilize for its fuel value and low moisture/high heat characteristics in combination with other bioma ss materials to optimize and manage combustion in a boiler. C&D materials are processed to remove impurities sufficiently for its combus tion to be regulated as a fuel, not a soli d waste. Use of these fuel materials as a high heat value supplement in solid fuel boilers is increasing as demands on biomass supplies increase and C&D availability increase s due to recycling programs implemented by cities, towns and businesses. From a pract ical material s management standpoint the resource materials are not discar ded; collection of most of these materials are planned for, with recycle sort and processing y ards receiving the materials as a destination and the point of genera tion of the fuel product. We refer EPA to the AF&PA et al. comments which detail the processing and test data available for C&D materials, which demonstrate their value as a fuel.

EPA already has included clean C&D materials in their proposed clean cellulosic bioma ss definition for traditional fuels. But EPA elsewhere identifies C&D materials as s ubject to the legitimacy cr iteria. We believe EPA shoul d remove doubt and list these materials in their newly proposed §241.4(a) as non-waste fuel gi ven their demonstrated fuel va lue and the industry established for recycling these non-hazardous materials into useful fuel.



## Commenter Name: William Turley Commenter Affiliation: Construction Materials R ecycling Association (CMRA) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1928-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment:

National Determinations and Categorical Exemptions

CMRA supports EPA’s proposed petitioning process for categorical exemptions and suggests that EPA continue to issue comfort letters. Based on supporting information that is provided in this letter and attachment s (note Table 1 in Attachment 2 is the s ame as Table 3 in the AFPA letter), [See submittal for Attachme nt 2 provided by commenter] CMRA requests a categorical exemption for processed C&D wood fuel gene rated at facilities under contract for co llection, processing, and distribution of C&D wood and using best manageme nt practices, without regard to individual uni ts in which the wood might be used, as EPA has done with its determinations for tires and resinated wood.

EPA has clearly applied contractual agreements to differentiate between tires identified as waste and tires that are not waste (i.e., tires maintained under some form of contractual agreement prior to disposal) 5 . Further, EPA recognizes that “a contractual arrangement that ensures that scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through arrival at the combustion facility” is evidence that the tires handled under such contracts are not wastes. 76 Fed. Reg. at 80484 and proposed 40 CFR 241.2 (defining “established tire collection program”). Most important, EPA addresses the practical nature of the contractual agreement in which th e combustor does not have to ha ve perfect knowledge of the source of this 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 provi de the user with reasonable a ssurance 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.” 6CMRA’s Best Management Prac tices (BMPs, included as Attachment 1) for recognized industry practice standards are attached. [See submittal for Attachment 1 provided by comme nter] These BMPs are used th roughout the industry and are responsible for the high quality C&D wood fuel that is readily available. The practices set forth in the attached BMPs and rela ted analytical data from facilities implementing such BMPs demonstr ate that the processed fuel is clean and compares favorably to traditional fuels. EPA has generally agreed that processed C&D wood meets the contam inant legitimacy criteria. Processed C&D wood also meets the other legitimacy crit eria of proposed 40 CFR 241.2. Processed C&D wood is managed as a valuable commodity; it is purchased under contracts and is managed li ke the valuable commodity that it is. C&D wood fuel has meaningful heating value, with sample higher heating values ranging averaging 8440 BTU/lb, equi valent to or greater than forest-derived biomass fuel.

The analytical data provide d in Attachment 2 indicates, sim ilar to tires and resinated wood, that C&D wood is comparable to traditional fuels. It should be noted th at a comparison of tires was made only to coal, whereas, Attachment 2 provides a comparison to coal, biomass and oil.

Again, CMRA requests a categorical exem ption for processed C&D wood fuel genera ted at facilities under contract for collection, processing, and distribution of C&D wood and using best management practi ces, without regard to individual units in which the wood might be used, as EPA has done with its determinations for tires and resinated wood.

[Footnotes]

(5) 76 Fed. Reg. 80471, 80476 (6) 76 Fed. Reg.28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011)



## Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association, et al. Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1946-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment:

Members of AF&PA, AWC, and BPA burn biomass generated from construction a nd demolition sites. Members of CMRA generate C&D wood fuel supply. The C&D wood is purchased from suppliers who pro cess the C&D wood in order to remove materials not wanted for energy creation under contracts with specifications to ensure the quality of the material purchased. A s EPA has recognized, these suppliers manage C&D wood to ensure that regular pro cessing of C&D wood ge nerates materials appropriate for use as fuel. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15485 (noting that the technology used in the industry to remove contaminants from C&D wood has greatly improved and that processed C&D wood is likel y to meet the processing and legitimacy criteria); see also 76 Fed. Reg. at 80470 (same). Based on these facts, we urge EPA to recogniz e that C&D wood is a non-waste material when purchased through a contract that sp ecifies the quality of the material or wh en obtained from a supplier that certifies th at it processes the C&D wood to rem ove contaminated materials.

1. C&D Wood Contracts Ensure Material is Fuel.

Many combustors of C&D wood have established contract language or purchasing agreements sett ing quality specifications for the purchase of C&D wood that expressly excludes non-wood mate rials and lead-painted wood an d treated wood (in particular wood treated with pentachlorophenol or chro mated copper arsenic (CCA). We request th at EPA recognize that C&D wood that is purchased under such contractual arrangements is non-waste fuel.

2. Management of C&D Wood by Wood Supp liers Ensures Suffi cient Processing.

Although construction/demolition wood residues have traditionally been used safely and appropr iately as fuel for biomass energy, we recognize that EPA has concerns about C&D wood based on the potential for lead-painted wood and/or pentachlorophenol, and CCA-based compound treated wood to be included in the C&D wood that is sold as a fuel.To address these concerns, EPA could pr omulgate a definition of “processed cons truction and demolition wood” and could use that definition to create another category of non-waste fuel to ad d to the list at 40 C.F.R. 241.4, or to help define what cons titutes clean construction and demolition wood unde r 40 C.F.R. 241.2. Similar to the conc ept of an “established tire collection program,” EPA could use its definition to ensu re that the processed C&D wood that is co mbusted as fuel is not discarded. This definition could encompass C&D w ood obtained from fuel generators or processors that have certified they have processes and procedures in place throughout their supply chain for the visual inspection and sour ce/physical separation of potential leadpainted wood, or wood treated with pentachlorophenol or CCA co mpounds, as well as nonwood materi als. A description of such C&D wood processing provided by the Constr uction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) is attached (see Attachment I).

As noted in the CMRA comments, these be st management practices ar e used throughout the industry and are responsible for the high quality C&D wood fuel th at is readily available. Under this approach, C&D wood fuel produced by a supplier that follows these practices would be a non-waste fuel. Th e combustor could then rely on the supp lier's certification that the C&D wood was processed in accordance with these practi ces. This approach is simila r to the approach endorsed by EPA in its response to requests for reconsideration of the Cement Kiln MACT. In that response, EPA recognize d that acement kiln that obtains tires from established tire collection pr ograms cannot possibly know the sour ce of all tires in such a pr ogram and that such programs participate inoccasional clean -up days that could result in the collection of a tire that had been previously discarded. EPA do es not require the combustor to have perfect knowledge of the source of this secondary fuel and doe s not require the combustor to test that fuel.

“Rather, it is sufficient that the ultimate user verify that it is obtaining tires from an es tablished tire collection program, which program can provide the user with reasonable assurance that it manages tires carefully from point of collection to point of burning and which does not receive tires whic h have been abandoned in landfills or otherwise.” 76 Fed. Reg. 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011). This logical and practi cal approach demonstrat es that the focus of determining tires to meet the non-waste fuel category is heavily based in contractual agreements.

The C&D suppliers periodically sample the wood they process. A number of sets of samples have been evaluated against EPA's traditional fuels contaminant data. Four such sets of data are summa rized in Table 3 below 27 . The first source (Covanta Corporation) data represent 10 years of testing from a total of 142 processed C&D wood samples collected at a New York State biomass-to-energy facil ity. During that time, the facility combusted pr ocessed C&D wood from an estimated 25 different suppliers located in the Western New York region and Ontario, Canada. The second source is a publicly available document “Fuel Sampling and Analysis Report/Proposed Fuel Specification, Palmer Renewabl e Energy. Biomass to Renewable Energy Plant - Springfield, MA. August 1, 2007: Epsilon Associates, Inc.” This source contained analyti cal data for 60 C&D samples. The third and fourth sources involved studies conducted for Th e New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in 1995. The NYSERDA studies provided analytical data for a total of 14 samples, bringing the total number of sample for which data were available to 216.

[See submittal for Table 3 , a ccomparison of traditional fuel contaminant co ncentrations with processed C&D wood data from four different sources]

As with WWTR and recycling process residuals, C&D wood compares very favorably to traditiona l fuels. The NCASI analysis (attached as Appendix B) summarizes the findings as follows: [f]or all 5 HAP metals and TS M, both the 90% UPL and 90% UCL values for the C&D samples are less than the corresponding ma ximum for biomass, and significan tly less than that for coal. Here the TSM comparison is carried out with TSM representing just the five HAP metals for whic h data were available for C&D wood (As, Cd, Cr, Pb and Hg). Although the TSM estimate for C&D wood does not include values for Be, Co, Mn and Se, limited data for these metal HAPs s how as expected thattheir leve ls in C&D wood would be similar to those found in virgin biomass, and thus the comparison with the full TSM set would s till be favorable. Chlorine and total halogens (Cl + Fl) in C&D wood compare favorably with both biomass and coal. S in C&D wood also compares favorably with coal.

Biomass-to-energy plants generally contra ct with multiple suppliers who sort or otherwise process C&D sources of mostly dimensional lumber to provide a product meeting quality specific ations required by the purch aser, who then combusts the material in accordance with pe rmits or other regulatory requirements. As such, we believe that the data described above are representative of the types and ranges of C&D wood characteristic s. As discussed below, while we believe EPA should determine processed C&D wood is a non-waste fuel notwithstanding the contam inant legitimacy criterion, these data support the conclusion that processed C&D wood would generall y meet the legitimacy criteria and should be considered a non-waste fuel.

We also urge EPA to recognize that pro cessors of C&D wood can include municipal so lid waste districts, as well as private entities. When a municipal solid waste district is the proce ssor, construction and demolition debris is often brought to a soli d waste facility. However, the C& D wood is not discarded and placed into a landfi ll cell. Instead, it is separated from waste material and processed into fuel by the m unicipality or its contractor. The fact that the material is brought to a solid waste facilityshould not preclude this C&D wood from being considered a non-w aste fuel as well, because it too is processed and not discarded.

3. EPA Should Recognized the Collection, Processing, and Sale in Commerce of C&D Wood is a Legitimate Recycling Activity.

As noted above, we believe, and EPA has generally agreed, when processed, C&D wood meet s the contaminant legitimacy criteria. Processed C&D wood also meets the other legitimacy criteria of proposed 40 CFR 241.2. Processed C&D wood is managed as a valuable commodity; it is pur chased under contracts and is managed like the valuable commodity that it is. C&D wood has meaningful heating va lue. Data from the aforementioned New York Stake facility shows higher heating values averaging 6830 Btu/lb. as-fired (8440 Btu/lb. dry), comparab le to or greater than forest-derived biomass fuel.

However, EPA's current regulatory framework for C&D wood, unde r which each combustor will ha ve to make a demonstration of legitimacy, is unworkable and will result in the elimination of the use of C&D wood as a fuel, with adverse environmental
consequences.

Given the significant adverse regulatory c onsequences of combusting a waste, combustors of C&D wood must be able to be certain that the NHSM fuel they combust is not a waste. 28 Absent a safe harbor provided by reliance on a supplier certification that processing best management standards are met, a combustor may feel compelled to test the NHSM it receives. 29 However, the cost of such testing is likely to exceed the value of the wood and the time to obtain test results will upset the operation of the facilities that burn biomass. Fo r example, two trailers of C&D wood have a value between $700 and $900. One composite sample from each trailer could cost $2000 to analyze. The turnaround time for the sampling is likely to be seven days. The cost of holding the trailers on-site could be an additional $1000. Thus the costs of ensuring that the regulatory requirements of the NHSM Rule are met could cost a combustor of C&D wood over twice the value of fuel. 30 That is not a successful business model. Thus, applying the legitimacy criteria to C&D wood could destroy the market for C&D wood fuel.

The use of C&D wood as a fuel is highly regul ated at the state level. The product must be capable of being safely burned in the boiler and must not cause emissions that would lead to an air permit violation. C&D wood fuel customers take their permit requirements seriously and will not tolerate shipments that endanger their permits. As a result, most biomass facilities will i nspect a C&D recycling facility before they accept the first load from it. Unannounced inspections of the C&D processing facility by biomass plant personnel are common. Boiler opera tors also place restrictions on the size of the fuel, as well as deleterious materials such as plastics, inorganics, and metals. Boiler operators are purchasing a fuel that will work efficiently and cost effectively in their facility. They will not risk their boiler's performance or their air permit requirements with a subpar fue l. Given these safeguards, as well as the safegua rds resulting from the processing of the C& D wood, we strongly urge EPA to find C&D wood to be a non-waste fuel without applying th e legitimacy criteria on a case-by-case basis.

If EPA fails to identify processed C&D wood as non-waste fuel, th e adverse environmental conseq uences will be significant. EPA's material characterization paper for C&D wood estimates that between 4.7 and 6.5 million tons of C&D wood are combusted for energy recovery each year. 31 Absent a market for this fuel , it would end up in landfills.

4. EPA Should understand the related Impact of C&D wood to the Biomass Industry.

There also are air environmental benefits of maintaining the C&D wood combustion cap acity. Given the factthat biomass-toenergy facilities combust as much as 40% C& D wood, these facilities would not be able to remain in operation without this fuel stream. But, these facilities also combust other biomass materi al. If biomass-to-energy facilitie s were to shut down and elimin ate the market for this other biomass, it is likely that the other biomass would be burned in an uncontrolled way.

As was noted in comments filed in the docke t for this rulemaking by the Energy Rec overy Council, in Calif ornia alone, it is estimated that the use of biomass fuel for electrical generatio n prevents the uncontrolled, highly polluting open-field burning of three million tons of agricultural residues each year. Instead, th ese materials fuel state-of-the-art highly controlled industr ial boilers preventing the release of 131,000 tons of critical air pollutants. That is equivalent to removing 1.6 million automobil es from California ‟ s freeways each year. The existence of biomass-to-energy fac ilities is a critical factor in state and local efforts to curtail open burning in agriculture especially in the San Joaquin Valley Air Unified Pollu tion Control District (“SJVUAPCD”), whose Federal ozone status is severe (and most parts of the San Joaquin Valley also are nonattainment for PM 2.5). On May 27, 2010, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) concurred w ith the SJVAPCD determination to establish additional open burning prohibitions and postpone prohibition of burning only in cases where economically feasib le alternatives were not available, as specified by the Californ ia Health & Safety Code. CARB's Title 17 Guidelines “strongly encourage the use of alternatives to the burning of agricultura l and forest residue” and provide an intera ctive web page designed to help land manag ers identify biomass process facilities, includi ng biomass-to-energy. The limited remain ing open burning is tightly regulated underthe SJVAPCD's Smoke Management System. Regulatory programs su ch as this may be undermined by an EPA definition of nonhazardous solid waste that curtails the availability and financial viability of biomass-to-energy capacity. 32

[Footnotes]

(27) Raw data are provided in the Complete C&D Wood Data Survey found in Attachment C.

(28) If a biomass boiler inadvertently beco mes a CISWI unit, it must remain a CISWI unit for six months before it can be considered a non-waste boiler again. 76 Fe d. Reg. at 80458 and proposed 40 C.F.R. 60.2145. This regulatory requirement will likely result in the shut down of these units for at least six months. For a commercial biomass pow er facility, that may mean t he facility would go out of business.

(29) EPA can say that testing is not requ ired, but, as noted above, given the regula tory consequences of combusting wastes, a combustor may feel it has no choice.

(30) As discussed below, notwithstanding th ese costs associated with the NHSM Rule, EPA failed to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule, instead stating that all the costs are captured by RIA for the Boiler MACT or CISWI Rules. 76 Fed

. Reg. at 15547. This statement is not accurate and EPA ‟ s continued failure to prepare an RIA is a violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

(31) Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Final Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste Construction and De molition Materials – Building-Related C& D Materials (Feb. 3, 2011) (citing 2003 data) (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1811). The California Biomass Energy Alliance states that between 1.2 and 1.7 million tons per year of C&D wood was combusted in Califo rnia alone each year between 1994 and 2002. See “Urban Wood Waste”(referring to C&D wood as urban wood), available at http://www.calbiom ass.org/urban.htm

(32) See comments submitted by the Energy Recovery Council on the NPRM on Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste, August 3, 2011 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1305).



## Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1957-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment:

EPA has recognized in the initia l NHSM Rule and in the NHSM Rule Amendment th at scrap tires are not wastes and are not discarded when managed in tire collection programs. The Agency has also recognized that contractual arrangements can ensure that scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through arri val at the combustion facility. So too should clean construction and demolition (C&D) wood qualify and be listed as a non-waste fuel under §241.4(a). Many local governments as part of their recycling and landfill diversion initiatives operate programs or othe rwise encourage collection an d recycling of clean C&D wood. One such use is conversion to fuel. Purchasers of the clean wood fuel provide fuel specification s as part of their contracts with C&D recycling facilities. WM recommends that EPA list as non-waste fuel, clean C&D wood that has been processed to remove treated and painted wood and processed to meet contractual fuel specifications.

EPA has received and evaluated considerable information describing the processing and typical fuel specific ations required by wood combustors as evidenced by its extensive preamble description and its Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Proposed Rulemaking –Identification of N onhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Sol id Waste: Construction and Demolition Materials – Building-Related C&D Materials contained in the rulemaking docket. EPA ha s also evaluated analytical data on the comparable contaminant levels f ound in clean C&D wood versus the solid fossil fuel s that it would replac e. EPA’s preamble to the proposed NHSM Rule Amendments described the typical cl ean C&D wood processing operations and the likelihood that the fuel product meets the rule requirements to be deemed a non-waste fuel. (at 76 Fed. Reg. 80470)Additionally, construction and demolition wood that has been processed (e.g., sorted) to remove contaminants (such as leadpainted wood, treated wood containing contaminants such as arsenic and chromium, metals and other non-wood materials), and is size-reduced prior to burning likely meets the processing and legitimacy criterion for contaminants, and thus can be combusted as a non-wast e fuel.[emphasis added]

We believe that EPA has demonstrated in its rulemaking record that the Agency has sufficient information to determine the legitimacy of clean C&D wood as a non-wa ste fuel. We respectfully urge the Agency to list clean C&D wood as a non-waste fuel under §241.4(a) when it fina lizes its NHSM Ru le Amendments.



## Commenter Name: Ted Michaels Commenter Affiliation: Energy Recovery Council (ERC) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1927-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment:

On July 12, 2011, in response to EPA’s May 18, 2011 call fo r emission data, the Biomass Po wer Association (BPA) submitted emission data for 15 biomass units. (EPA-HQ-OAR- 2003-0119-2531) The submittal included a description of all materials combusted during each of the tests for which data were provided. Of the 15 units, seven combusted “urban wood” 5 from processors during the emission tests. In it s submittal BPA stated that all units were “CISWIs or possible CISWIs” and explained that the basis for that determination was a conservative reading of the confusing March 21, 2011 final NHSM rule.

In its December 23 proposal and MACT floor cal culations EPA has categorized 12 of thes e biomass units as either Major Boilers or Area Source Boilers. This includes th e seven units combusting processed C&D w ood. These units are noted in the Major Source Boiler MACT database as: CAChineseStation, CACovantaDelano Unit 1, CACovantaDelano Unit 2, CACovantaMendota, CAPacificOroville Boiler 1, CAPacificOroville Boiler 2, and CAThermalEnergyDev. We agree that EPA should recognize processed C&D as the non-wast e fuel it has historically been, but we are puzzled by the conflict between these categorizations and the presumpt ion in the NHSM rule that woul d require combustion plant operat ors to demonstrate that any NHSM was a non-waste fuel. BPA provided no c ontaminant data which would have enable d EPA to make the determination that the processed C&D wood met the contaminant legitimacy criterion on which a non-waste determination could be made according to the NHSM rule.

To achieve the required consistency betw een the proposed NHSM rule and the boiler and CISWI unit inventories EPA should revise the NHSM rule, deleting the waste pres umption and allowing processed C&D to be classified as the fuel it has always been.

[Footnotes]

5 The biomass industry term for processed C&D wood is “urban wood”, noted as unclean demolition material on the biomass list provided with the BPA submittal. The submittal predates EPA’s 12 /23/11 revised definition of “clean cellulosic biomass” which now includes “...urban wood (e.g., tree tr immings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass from urban settings)...” and is a different material from that the industry calls “urban wood”.



## Commenter Name: Paul Gilman Commenter Affiliation: Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1893-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment:Covanta supports comments submitted to the Docket by a coalition of trade associations headed by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). Those comments request, in part, that processed C&D wood be categorically determined to be a non-waste fuel under 40 CFR Part 241. In support of that re quest the comments provide an assessment of data from 142 processed C&D wood samples taken at Covanta's Niagara Falls, New York facility over the last ten years.

We are herewith providing a tabulation of those results. Over th e last ten years the Niagara Falls facility has combusted proce ssed C&D wood from an estimated 25 different s uppliers located in the Western New York region and Ontario, Canada. Sampling and analyses were performed in accordance with the facility' s Alternate Fuels Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QAlQC Plan) required under fuel testing provisions of the facility's Title V permit. The QAlQC Plan also includes requirements on C&D processor procedures, provisions for material receipt, storage, and inspection, trai ning of both processor and combustion facil ity personnel, and recordkeeping. The 142 samples consisted of mixtur es of as-fired processed C&D ma terial taken from the boiler feed conveyor; some samples may have included insignificant amounts of non-C&D w ood. Grab samples were taken once every 12-hour shift during unit campaigns and composited using cone and quarter techniques into weekly samples for analysis. At the laboratory, chlorine and sulfur analyses were run on pulverized sa mples and metals analysis were run on samples that were ashed in a muffle furnace. Reported analytes included arsenic, cadmiu m, chromium, lead, mercury, chlorine, sulfur, fluorine, higher heating value, ash content and moisture content as determined by regulatory re quirements. Covanta compiled results from laboratory reports and provided them to NCASI, AF&PA's consultant for statistical analysis.

The attached tables are the sample result s supplied to NCASI. For each sample, the file shows sampling da te and concentration for all contaminants that were tested, as well as higher heating values, ash content, and moisture content. Data are presented both as-fired, and corrected to dry basis for comparisons with traditional fuel contaminant concentrations.

[See submittal for data table 1A and 1B provided by commenter]



## Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document ID #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1905-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment:

C&D: MB also believes that construction and demolition material that meets a standard level of processing should be added to the list of materials in 212.4. Our experience in several states indicates this material is regulated from an air permitting standpoint, with required processing procedur es and environmental impact assessments (including hazardous air pollutants and other toxic air contaminants) completed in order to receive an air permit that allows this fuel. The extensive environmental reviews and information available support th e categorical declaration of the material as a fuel given standard processing requirements.