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 contract with firms that collect wood residuals, including construction and demolition material, from urban 

population centers and then, after proper processing of the material, sell the residuals to GP for their fuel value. This activity 

significantly reduces use of landfill space and redirects these valuable materials for use as fuel, displacing fossil fuels. This 

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 remove contaminants should be, as EPA suggests at Page 20470 

of the preamble to the rule consideration, 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 included 

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 fuels are construction and demolition debris. We concur with the 

analyses submitted by the American Forest & Paper Association in support of a categorical non-waste determination for 

construction debris. NAFO supports EPA’s proposed 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 that 

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 biomass materials to optimize and manage combustion in a boiler. C&D materials are processed to 

remove impurities sufficiently for its combustion to be regulated as a fuel, not a solid 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 increases 

due to recycling programs implemented by cities, towns and businesses. From a practical materials management standpoint the 

resource materials are not discarded; collection of most of these materials are planned for, with recycle sort and processing yards 

receiving the materials as a destination and the point of generation 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 biomass definition for traditional fuels. But 

EPA elsewhere identifies C&D materials as subject to the legitimacy criteria. We believe EPA should remove doubt and list these

materials in their newly proposed §241.4(a) as non-waste fuel given their demonstrated fuel value and the industry established for 

recycling these non-hazardous materials into useful fuel.

 

Commenter Name: William Turley 

Commenter Affiliation: Construction Materials Recycling 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 attachments (note Table 1 in Attachment 2 is the same 

as Table 3 in the AFPA letter), [See submittal for Attachment 2 provided by commenter] CMRA requests a categorical 

exemption for processed C&D wood fuel generated at facilities under contract for collection, processing, and distribution of 

C&D wood and using best management practices, without regard to individual units 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 the combustor does not have to have 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 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.” 6
CMRA’s Best Management Practices (BMPs, included as Attachment 1) for recognized industry practice standards are 

attached. [See submittal for Attachment 1 provided by commenter] These BMPs are used throughout 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 related 

analytical data from facilities implementing such BMPs demonstrate that the processed fuel is clean and compares favorably to 

traditional fuels. EPA has generally agreed that processed C&D wood meets 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 purchased under contracts and is managed like the valuable commodity that it is. C&D wood fuel has 

meaningful heating value, with sample higher heating values ranging averaging 8440 BTU/lb, equivalent to or greater than 

forest-derived biomass fuel. 

The analytical data provided in Attachment 2 indicates, similar to tires and resinated wood, that C&D wood is comparable to 

traditional fuels. It should be noted that 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 exemption for processed C&D wood fuel generated at facilities under contract for 

collection, processing, and distribution of C&D wood and using best management practices, 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 and demolition sites. Members of CMRA 

generate C&D wood fuel supply. The C&D wood is purchased from suppliers who process 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. As 

EPA has recognized, these suppliers manage C&D wood to ensure that regular processing of C&D wood generates 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 likely to meet the processing and legitimacy criteria); 

see also 76 Fed. Reg. at 80470 (same). Based on these facts, we urge EPA to recognize that C&D wood is a non-waste material 

when purchased through a contract that specifies the quality of the material or when obtained from a supplier that certifies that it 

processes the C&D wood to remove contaminated materials.

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

Many combustors of C&D wood have established contract language or purchasing agreements setting quality specifications for 

the purchase of C&D wood that expressly excludes non-wood materials and lead-painted wood and treated wood (in particular 

wood treated with pentachlorophenol or chromated copper arsenic (CCA). We request that 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 Suppliers Ensures Sufficient Processing.

Although construction/demolition wood residues have traditionally been used safely and appropriately 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 promulgate a definition of “processed construction and demolition wood” and could use 

that definition to create another category of non-waste fuel to add to the list at 40 C.F.R. 241.4, or to help define what constitutes 

clean construction and demolition wood under 40 C.F.R. 241.2. Similar to the concept of an “established tire collection 

program,” EPA could use its definition to ensure that the processed C&D wood that is combusted as fuel is not discarded. This 

definition could encompass C&D wood 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 source/physical separation of potential leadpainted wood, or wood treated with pentachlorophenol or CCA compounds, as well as nonwood materials. A description of such 

C&D wood processing provided by the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) is attached (see Attachment I).

As noted in the CMRA comments, these best management practices are used throughout the industry and are responsible for the 

high quality C&D wood fuel that is readily available. Under this approach, C&D wood fuel produced by a supplier that follows 

these practices would be a non-waste fuel. The combustor could then rely on the supplier's certification that the C&D wood was 

processed in accordance with these practices. This approach is similar to the approach endorsed by EPA in its response to 

requests for reconsideration of the Cement Kiln MACT. In that response, EPA recognized that acement kiln that obtains tires 

from established tire collection programs cannot possibly know the source of all tires in such a program and that such programs

participate inoccasional clean-up days that could result in the collection of a tire that had been previously discarded. EPA does 

not require the combustor to have 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 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). This logical and practical approach demonstrates 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 summarized in Table 3 below27. 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 facility. During that time, the facility combusted processed 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 Renewable Energy. Biomass to Renewable Energy 

Plant - Springfield, MA. August 1, 2007: Epsilon Associates, Inc.” This source contained analytical data for 60 C&D samples. 

The third and fourth sources involved studies conducted for The 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 concentrations with processed C&D wood data from 

four different sources]

As with WWTR and recycling process residuals, C&D wood compares very favorably to traditional fuels. The NCASI analysis 

(attached as Appendix B) summarizes the findings as follows: [f]or all 5 HAP metals and TSM, both the 90% UPL and 90% 

UCL values for the C&D samples are less than the corresponding maximum for biomass, and significantly less than that for coal. 

Here the TSM comparison is carried out with TSM representing just the five HAP metals for which 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 show as expected thattheir levels in C&D wood would be similar to those found in virgin 

biomass, and thus the comparison with the full TSM set would still 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 contract with multiple suppliers who sort or otherwise process C&D sources of mostly 

dimensional lumber to provide a product meeting quality specifications required by the purchaser, who then combusts the 

material in accordance with permits or other regulatory requirements. As such, we believe that the data described above are 

representative of the types and ranges of C&D wood characteristics. As discussed below, while we believe EPA should determine 

processed C&D wood is a non-waste fuel notwithstanding the contaminant legitimacy criterion, these data support the conclusion 

that processed C&D wood would generally meet the legitimacy criteria and should be considered a non-waste fuel.

We also urge EPA to recognize that processors of C&D wood can include municipal solid waste districts, as well as private 

entities. When a municipal solid waste district is the processor, construction and demolition debris is often brought to a solid 

waste facility. However, the C&D wood is not discarded and placed into a landfill cell. Instead, it is separated from waste 

material and processed into fuel by the municipality or its contractor. The fact that the material is brought to a solid waste facility 
should not preclude this C&D wood from being considered a non-waste 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 meets 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 purchased under contracts and is managed like the valuable commodity that it is. C&D 

wood has meaningful heating value. Data from the aforementioned New York Stake facility shows higher heating values 

averaging 6830 Btu/lb. as-fired (8440 Btu/lb. dry), comparable to or greater than forest-derived biomass fuel.

However, EPA's current regulatory framework for C&D wood, under which each combustor will have 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 consequences 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. For 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 regulated 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 inspect 

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 operators 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 fuel. Given 

these safeguards, as well as the safeguards 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 the legitimacy criteria on a case-by-case basis.

If EPA fails to identify processed C&D wood as non-waste fuel, the adverse environmental consequences 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 capacity. Given the fact that 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 material. If biomass-to-energy facilities were to shut down and eliminate 

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 docket for this rulemaking by the Energy Recovery Council, in California alone, it is 

estimated that the use of biomass fuel for electrical generation prevents the uncontrolled, highly polluting open-field burning of 

three million tons of agricultural residues each year. Instead, these materials fuel state-of-the-art highly controlled industrial 

boilers preventing the release of 131,000 tons of critical air pollutants. That is equivalent to removing 1.6 million automobiles 

from California‟s freeways each year. The existence of biomass-to-energy facilities is a critical factor in state and local efforts to 

curtail open burning in agriculture especially in the San Joaquin Valley Air Unified Pollution 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 with the SJVAPCD determination to establish additional open 

burning prohibitions and postpone prohibition of burning only in cases where economically feasible alternatives were not 

available, as specified by the California Health & Safety Code. CARB's Title 17 Guidelines “strongly encourage the use of 

alternatives to the burning of agricultural and forest residue” and provide an interactive web page designed to help land managers 

identify biomass process facilities, including biomass-to-energy. The limited remaining open burning is tightly regulated under
the SJVAPCD's Smoke Management System. Regulatory programs such 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 becomes a CISWI unit, it must remain a CISWI unit for six months before it can be 

considered a non-waste boiler again. 76 Fed. 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 power facility, that may mean the 

facility would go out of business.

(29) EPA can say that testing is not required, but, as noted above, given the regulatory consequences of combusting wastes, a 

combustor may feel it has no choice.

(30) As discussed below, notwithstanding these 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 Demolition 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 California alone each year between 1994 and 2002. See “Urban Wood Waste”(referring 

to C&D wood as urban wood), available at http://www.calbiomass.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 initial NHSM Rule and in the NHSM Rule Amendment that 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 arrival 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 otherwise encourage collection and 

recycling of clean C&D wood. One such use is conversion to fuel. Purchasers of the clean wood fuel provide fuel specifications 

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 specifications required by 

wood combustors as evidenced by its extensive preamble description and its Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the 

Proposed Rulemaking –Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Construction and Demolition 

Materials – Building-Related C&D Materials contained in the rulemaking docket. EPA has also evaluated analytical data on the 

comparable contaminant levels found in clean C&D wood versus the solid fossil fuels that it would replace. EPA’s preamble to 

the proposed NHSM Rule Amendments described the typical clean 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-waste 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-waste fuel. We respectfully urge the Agency to list clean C&D wood as a non-waste 

fuel under §241.4(a) when it finalizes its NHSM Rule 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 for emission data, the Biomass Power 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 its 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 calculations EPA has categorized 12 of these biomass units as either Major Boilers 

or Area Source Boilers. This includes the seven units combusting processed C&D wood. 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-waste fuel it has historically been, but we are puzzled by the conflict between these

categorizations and the presumption in the NHSM rule that would require combustion plant operators to demonstrate that any 

NHSM was a non-waste fuel. BPA provided no contaminant data which would have enabled 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 between the proposed NHSM rule and the boiler and CISWI unit inventories EPA should 

revise the NHSM rule, deleting the waste presumption 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 trimmings, 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 request 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 the last ten years the Niagara Falls facility has combusted processed 

C&D wood from an estimated 25 different suppliers 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, training of both processor and combustion facility 

personnel, and recordkeeping. The 142 samples consisted of mixtures of as-fired processed C&D material taken from the boiler 

feed conveyor; some samples may have included insignificant amounts of non-C&D wood. 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 samples and metals analysis were run on samples that were ashed

in a muffle furnace. Reported analytes included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, chlorine, sulfur, fluorine, higher 

heating value, ash content and moisture content as determined by regulatory requirements. Covanta compiled results from 

laboratory reports and provided them to NCASI, AF&PA's consultant for statistical analysis.

The attached tables are the sample results supplied to NCASI. For each sample, the file shows sampling date 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 procedures 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 the categorical declaration of the material as a fuel given standard processing 

requirements.