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.
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.
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
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 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.