### Appendix A [Revision Submission: April 2 5 , 2013 ] 

### I. Contaminant Comparison of C&D Wood to Traditional Fuels A c om parison of the contaminants fo und in C&D wood was made wi th two tradi

tional fuels

– wood & bio ma ss and coal . This was done by co mparing the 90% UPL (Upper Predict io n Limit) of the individual contaminants and groups of contaminants in C&D wood wi th the maximu m value sr eported in EPA’s tradit io nal fueldatabase . 1 

### T his method was chosen fo llo wing the guidance o f EPA, as stated in the draft rule pream ble: Given data for a particular traditional fuel, it makes intuitive sense to base the traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of i ts statistical range. Anything less could result in ‘‘traditional fuel’’ samples being considered solid wasteif burned in the very combustion units designed to burn them...(76 Fed Reg 80481 ) The com parisons are presented in the tables lo cated in Section I V , sorted by the State that was the source of

the C&D wood or data. Resul ts demonstrate that C&D wood contains co ncentrations of

c ontaminants or groups of c ontaminants that are co mparable to or lo wer than the two traditional fuels. T he 90% UPL valuef

or fo rmaldehyde exceed sthe database maximum values. An e xplanation fo r this occurrence and com parison to tradi

tionalf uels is discussed in Sect io n II , below. As well, the 90% UPL value fo r lead data collected at onef acili ty in Wisconsin exceeds the maximu m value in the EPA database. We believe that this value is not representative of C &D wood fue l produced atthis fac ilit y. Please ref er to the related Waste Management me mo dated April 2 5 , 2013 fo r a mo re detailed explanat io n and discussio n of this value . II. Comparability of FormaldehydeLevels in C&D Wood The contaminant com

parison set forth belowshows formaldehyde l evels 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 . D espi te these difference s , we believe contaminant le vels in C&D wood are comparable to co al and to wood and bio ma ss. Fi rst, EPA allows groups of c ontaminants in the relevant tradi tional fu els to be com

pared to groups of c ontaminants in NHSM when making a contaminant co mpar ison. Grouping sare suggested in T able 8 of E PA’s December 2011 proposed rule, but a p art y may use other technically reasonable approaches to groupings. 7 6 Fed. Reg. at 80477. We have chosen to group VOCs and SVOC stogether. According to EPA this grouping is technically reasonable because EPA groups vo lat ile hydrocarbons and semi - volat ile hydrocarbons when setti ng standards under the Clean Air Act. Id. 1 " Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011 . It sh ould be noted that there is a far greater database of coal contaminant levels that was not included in this comparison due to it not being inc luded in the EPA traditional fuel database.

### 2

We note that other than fo rmaldehyde, which, if not an artifact of the test method, 2

### i s likely derived from resinated wood products mixed w it h theC &D wood, ther emaininghazardous ai r pollutants have been tested and fo und t o beb elowo r near detection limit s in C&D wood (see Minnesota data). When the PAH levels in coal are grouped with other VOCs and SVOC and com pared to the le vels 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 fo rmaldehyde in C&D wood other than the fo rmaldehyde fo und in clean cellulosic bio mass and resinated wood. 3 

### T o the extent that formaldehydei s present on C&D wood from resinated wood products, itis a VOC fro m non- waste mat erials because EPA has clearly asserted in the init ial rule and the revised final rule that resinated wood that is combusted is not a waste(S ee76 Fed. Reg. at 80483 and 78 Fed. Reg. at 9213) . In support of the fuel content value o f fo rmaldehyde, EPA has asserted, Resinated wo od is highly valued within the wo od products industry for its high fuel value relative to other wood fuels generated and burned at these facilities for energy recovery. Many facilities rely on mixing of these low moisture content wood materials with higher moisture materials. Resinated wood residuals are routinely transferred between either intra - o r inter- c ompany faci lities and used as either ‘‘furnish’’ (i.e., raw m aterials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. The material being transferred off -site is used and handled in the same manner that resinated wood residuals are used wh en generated on - s ite. In general, the motivation to use the resinated wood as a fuel, even wi th the slightly higher formaldehyde levels, predominates over the motivation to dispose of the formaldehyde. See American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 58 (DC Cir. 2000) (in declaring reclaimed oily wa stewater to be a wa ste, the EPA failed to explain wh y the discard motivation predominated the recycling motivation). Indeed, discard of the formaldehyde is a very distant second to the fuel product use of the resinated wood. C&D wood should be 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 determinat io n fo r resinated wood, the contaminant levels are co mparable to tradi tional wood and bio ma ss fuel and therefore C&D wood meets the contaminant comparison legit imacy criterion

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

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

– Koogler and Associates, Inc., September 2012. 3 E PA agrees that combustors may r ely on pr ocess knowledge wh en making contaminant comparisons. 7 6 Fed. Reg. at 80477.

### 3

Thi rd, f ormaldehyde is an organic com pound that is readily vo lat ilized to b ecome a VOC under standard tem

perature and pressure having a bo iling point at - 19 degree C. Tradi tional bio mass includes numerous fo rms of organic co mpound s in a so lid/liquid matrix that which can emit/vo lat ilize minor fract io ns of V OCs including fo rmaldehyde and other listed hazardous ai r pollutants under standard tem perature and pressure. By increasing tem

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

tional wood, ident ificat io n of the series of chemical react io ns or lack of r eact io n fo r this process continues to generate extensive research. Wo od that is processed to create construction lumber wood, which eventually becomes C&D wood, mu st be dried. There is research indicating that virgin wood can generate sig nificant amounts of V OCs th

rough the drying process. EPA has data demonstrati ng that some tradi

tional v irgin wood does have VOCs wi thin the wood it self, prior to d

rying, and that this amount can be as high as 20,000 ppm . 4

### In addi tion, there are am ple data on the emissions of VOCs fro m the process of drying construction lumber wood. F or example, according to scient ist s fro m Oregon State Universit y, drying ponderosa pine wood, dryers emi

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

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

the dryer. 6

### T he corresponding amount of measured VOC hazardous ai r poll utants (study

includes methano l, fo rmaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, and acrolein) fro m 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 o f methano l (i .e., 0.048 percent methano l per ton of

dried wood). 7 

### T hese are VOC HAPs that are no lo nger available tob e released fro m the kiln - dried lumber which is source mat erial fo r 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 wi th v irgin bio mass material,” making C&D wood clean cellulosic bio mass: a tradit io nal fuel. See40 C.F.R. 241.2.

4 See EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329 - 1866 (AF&PA data on organic contaminants in traditional fuel showing that Virginia p ine can contain 2% turpentine, which is a VOC). Terpenes such as turpentine have the potential to form formaldehyde in the atmosphere. See Milota, Michael R., Emissions from Wood Drying, The science and the issues, Forest Products Journal, June 1, 2000, at 19, available at http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/for486/ Readings/Emissions%20from%20Wood%20Drying.pdf . Thus, these VOCs can be group ed with formaldyde when considering contaminent levels. This approach is consistent with how EPA is proposing to address other potential presursors. See76 Fed. Reg. at 80480. 5 AP - 42, Appendix A, 40 lb/ft3

– based on density of pine, (1 mbf = 83.3 ft3 ) 6Milota and Mosher, Emissions of hazardous air pollutants from lumber drying, Forest Products Journal, July/August 2008, Vol. 58, No. 7/8, at 52. Available at http:/ /www.deq.idaho.gov/media/591021 - milota_mosher_emissions_study.pdf 7 EPA, AP - 42, 5 thedition, Table 10.6.3 - 3, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch10/final/c10s0603.pdf

### 4

III. State - by- State Sample Background The discussio n on contaminant com parabilit y to tradit io nal fuels and how itr elates to C&D wood fuel has largely focused on the processing involved to create the fuel, the ty pe of inco ming materials int o the processing facilit ies and the requi rements set fo rth by the co mbustor . The fo llo wing discussio n will touch base on each provided state - wide C&D wood fu el database to explain where the sam

ples came from

and how they were processed. The samples that com

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

the materials that are processed fo r C&D wood fuel are C&D materials and, of the inco ming amount, ty pically 2 0% beco mes wood fuel, which was sampled fo r this study. The C&D processing includes several s ize separat io ns, which eliminate the fines to become landfill cover and helps ensure the most efficient separat io n. The C&D wood fuels materials are posi

tively picked fro m the processing lines and grinded to an approximate size of 1.5 inches. The Washington dat aset were also from a single p rocessing facilit y that co llected samples over nearly two weeks. The facilit y r eceives co - mingl ed construction and demolit io n debris. Prior to materials being accepted fo r processing, a rigorous inspect io n process is carried out, including documentation showing that the building was inspected fo r asbestos co nt aining materials if it was fro m a demoli

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

uorescence (XRF). The materials processing includes machine sorting, magnet ic separation, manual sorting, shredding, and a final inspect io n. The Massachusetts dataset was a combinat io n of two separate datasets. The fi rst dataset used in this table was fro m a study that took place at a single processing facilit y. This facilit y 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) , p la st ics, gypsum, wood, and fines. For the purposes of

the proj ect that com

piled the report which was used fo r this dataset, all wood was posi tively picked fro m the convey or line during sam

pling. This includes lumber, painted wood, treated wood, plywood, laminated wood, et c. The second facilit y that contributed to the Massachusetts dataset accepts a wide range of m aterials, as well . However, during the week of sampling, a majorit y of

i ts inc oming materials was co mposed of C &D wood, with a very lo w com posi tion of untreated wood (< 5%). This fa cilit y ut ilizes fines removal, size reduct io n and negat ive sorting techniques in their process. T he C&D wood fuel that does co me fro m this facilit y is ne gat ively picked . The New York dataset camef rom sampling and analyses of processed C&D wood combusted in a bio mass - to - energy bo iler lo cated at a facilit y in New York Stateo ver the period 2005 - 2012 . Thew ood was obtained fro m approximately 25 different su ppliers lo cated in the Western New York region and Ontario, Canada. S am ples consisted primarily

o f mixtures of

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

s amplest aken fro m storage piles represent ing individual suppliers. S ome samples may have included insignificant amounts of

non- C&D wood. Sampling and analyses were perf ormed in accordance wi th the facilit y’s Alt ernate Fuels Quali ty A ssurance/Quality

C ontrol P lan (QA/QC Pl an) requi red under the fu el t est ing provisions of

the facilit y’s Ti

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

### 5

requi rements on C&D processor procedures, provisio ns fo r mat erial receiptand select io n, storage, and inspect io n, training of b oth p rocessor and co mbustion fa cilit y personnel, and recordkeeping. The Maine datasetw as co mp iled by the Maine Department of E nvironmental

P rotection in a report that detailed the substi tution of w ood from

c onstruction and demoli tion debris fo r convent io nal fuels in a bio mass bo iler. This was init iated due to the increased demand fo r these ty pes of materials as a part ia l replacement of c lean wood and bio mass. In total, 12 different facilit ies were evaluated and the quali ty of the C&D fuels was analyzed. Fro m these 12, fo urof the fa cilit ies ut ilized a negative pick ing technique, th reef acili ti es ut ilized a posi

tive pick technique and fiveo f the fa cilit ies utilized source separation. Source separation entails the sorting o f 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 f uel, and not the <50% C&D wood f uel blended wit h clean bio mass that is required in the state of Maine. The California dataset was a co mbinat io n of two separate datasets. The fir st fa cilit y ut ilizes numero us processing techniques that include posi tive picking, mu lt iple screening steps, size reduction and fines removal . Milled whi te wood, painted wood, cardboard and scrap metals are some of the material classificat io ns that are ta rgeted in the posi

tive sorting system . The C&D wood fuel materials are chipped prior to shipment and rarely remain onsi te fo r lo nger than 2 - 3 days. The second facilit y that com prised the California dataset utilizes a negative pick technique. This facilit y processes all the materials th rough two separate negat ive pick convey ors where trash, metals, OCC, etc. are removed. Following the negat ive pick, the materials are screened to a 3⁄4 inch minus sizing, th us removing fines. The mat erials that make itthrough this screening process are crushed and then ready fo r shi pment as C&D wood fuel. Approximately half of the inco ming materials int o the facilit y are made up of C&D materials, while the other half is made up of clean, untreated wood. The Wisconsin dataset came from a s ingle sampling period at a single processing facilit y. P rior to a p osi tive picking line, all of the materials are screened to remove fines (approximately 3 inch minus materials). This level of f ines removal

i s larger than other facilit ies, where fines removal consists of

a lower fines th

resho ld. The remaining mat erials are then passed th rough a posi

tive pick line to remove the C&D wood fuel materials and other mat erials such as cardboard, concrete, et c. The posi

tively picked C&D wood fuel materials are then shred and stored unt il shipment.

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

Table 1 – Minnesota Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples f rom Generator Located in Minnes ot a. Literary Sourc es 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Minnesota 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 7 0.20 0.67 0.41 0. 67 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 7 2.29 74.7 26.7 70.3 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 7 0. 009 0. 01 0. 01 * Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 7 0. 15 0. 28 0. 18 0. 28(b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 7 3. 54 83.2 31.6 80.5 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 7 0. 43 1. 76 0. 71 1.76(c) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 7 10.2 110 38.1 98.4(b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 7 44.9 180 68.5 180 (c) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0. 03 ND 3.1 0.09 7 0. 02 0. 06 0.03 0. 06 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 7 1. 23 5. 83 2. 44 4. 90 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 7 0. 3 1 0.3 6 0. 32 0. 36 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 7 10.7 111 38.6 98.5 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 7 60 316 130 280 (b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 7 104 150 118 145 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 7 6 29 19.2 29.4 (c) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 7 111 179 138 179 (a) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 10.8 127 36.3 87.9(b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 7 0. 22 0. 34 0.27 0. 33 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 7 0.01 0. 02 0.02 0. 03 (a) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 6919 7620 7315 7708 (a) Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 12.05 15.2 13.8 15.47 (a) 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2Minnesota. 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 a t 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - detect -Only

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

– High 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 Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Washington 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 10 0.6 16.6 4.47 11.3 (b) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 10 3.6 26.2 10.42 19.9 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 10 0.03 0.17 0.088 0.2 (a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 10 0.18 0.51 0.31 0.4 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 10 5.51 46 16.27 34.6 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 10 0.67 1.63 1.16 1.7 (a) L ead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 10 3.8 26 10.60 20.1 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 10 54.6 127 74.66 104.4 (b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 10 0.019 0.143 0.06 0.1 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 10 1.26 12.2 3.47 7.0 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 3 0.60 0.6 0.60 * Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 10 4.0 26.3 11.1 20.6 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 10 72.1 197 110.5 163.3 (b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 10 179 1960 908.4 1725 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 4 37 47 43.25 ** Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 10 179 2007 925.7 1746 (a) Formaldehyde *** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 29.0 130.0 61.1 108.4 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 10 0.27 1.26 0.63 1.0 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 10 0.14 0.731 0.49 0.7 (a) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2Washington. Sampling Occurred Between 3/21/2012

– 4/3/2012 . All values reported as Dry Basis. 3 UPL, orUpper 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 perf ormed ** -Data set is too small to compute reliable statistics and estimates *** - See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 - 4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

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

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

### 8

Table 3 - Massachusetts Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generator sLocated in Massachusetts. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Massachusetts 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min . Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 12 0.9 4.7 2.9 4.5 (a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 67 1.1 261 84 207 (c) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 12 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 ( c ) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 37 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.6 (c) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 67 0.6 283 93 2 25 (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 1 90(b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 12 37 157 83 1 28 (b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 67 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.12 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 12 1.2 27 3.9 20.3 ( c ) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1 .1 ND 74.3 3.4 12 0.3 1.3 0.6 1.3 ( c ) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 67 2.2 438 75.4 191 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 67 1.7 561 193 509 (c) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 27 59 1580 306 1549 ( c ) Fluor ide ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 37 4 46 23 39 (a) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 37 15.0 1583 246 651 (c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 13 . 2 176 . 8 68 . 2 151 .1 Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 5 4.0 15.1 37 0.1 1.1 0.23 0.6(c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 37 0.01 0.2 0.2 0.2 ( c ) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 5468 7713 6804 74 24 (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. 2M assachusetts table contains two separate databases combined . Sampling at the fi rst processing facility o ccurred b etween 4/2007

– 5 /2007 . S ampling at the second proces sing facility occurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Notes: (a) Data appear

Normal at 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - dete ct -Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** -See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 - 4) HHV

– High Heating Value ; SVM

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

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

### 9

Tab le 4 – New York Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples Combusted in New York Facility. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C oal C&D Samples from New York 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 -- -- -- -- -- Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 104 0.29 110.1 12.6 31. 6 (b) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 -- -- -- -- -- Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 32 0. 01 0.67 0.16 0. 41 (b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 107 0.20 144.6 26.0 6 8.3 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 -- -- -- -- -- Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4 .5 ND 148 8.7 107 0.4 261.4 3 2.2 83.3 ( c ) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 -- -- -- -- -- Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 75 0.00 5 0. 31 0. 0 8 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 16 31 (b) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 17 4 313 60.4 161 (b) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 108 Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15 .1 -- -- -- -- -- Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 108 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.1 8(c) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 108 4464 9649 6498 75 90(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. 2New York. Sampling Occurred Between 0 2/200 5

– 10/2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernabl e Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - detect -Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** -See above discussion of volatileorganics 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 sel ected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.

### 10

Table 5 -Maine Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples Submitted in a Report to Maine Department of Environmental Protection Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Maine2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 -- -- -- -- -- Arseni c (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 12 14.8 110 52.6 92.5 (a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 -- -- -- -- -- Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 -- -- -- -- -- Cobal t (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 -- -- -- -- -- Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 12 24 314 95.5 200 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 -- -- -- -- -- Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 -- -- -- -- -- 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 w

t % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 -- - - -- -- -- Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 -- -- -- -- -- HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011. 2 From Report by MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection. April 2007. Table 4. Samples taken in 2006. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution a t 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - detect -Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** -See above discussion of volatile organics from 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 group ing comparison was not capable of being carried out.

### 11

Table 6 -California Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Two Generators Located in California. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from California 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 14 0.2 12.0 3.1 11.5 ( c ) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 14 1.3 25.4 4.6 16.5 (c) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 1 (a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 14 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 (a) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 14 4.5 29.1 11.3 19.8 (b) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 14 0.6 3.0 1.6 2.5 (a) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 14 11 252 74.0 190 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 14 59 137 91.2 124 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 14 0.0 2 0.3 0.1 0.2 (a) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 14 2.8 12.2 6.7 10.9 (b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 14 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 (c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 14 76 180 118 128 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 14 102 329 193 405 (a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 14 402 3366 1044 1918 (b) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 14 51.7 156.9 115 151 (c) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 14 495 3436 1 159 2021 (b) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 4.1 68.2 19.9 40.2 (b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 14 0.23 1.12 0.63 0.96 (a) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 14 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.15 (a) HHV Btu/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 o ccurred b etween 7/23/2012

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

– 8/3/2012. All values reported as Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Use d Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - detect -Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analys is can be performed ** -See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 - 4) HHV

– High Heating

Value ; SVM

–

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

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

### 12

Table 7 -Wisconsin Dataset C&D Analysis. Compiled from Analyses of C&D Wood Samples from Gen erator Located in Wisconsin. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Wisconsin 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 7 0.18 0.53 0.39 0.59(a) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 7 1.15 5.72 3.2 5.7( a) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 7 0.01 0.01 0.01 * Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 7 0.24 0.95 0.4 0. 8(b) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 7 2.1 9.5 5.3 8.8( a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 7 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6(a) Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 7 32 482 149 449 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 7 56 74.2 64 7 2.3 (a) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 7 0.05 0.42 0.2 0. 34(b) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 7 0.5 3.4 1.0 3.4( c ) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 7 0.3 0.3 0.3 * Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 1 2.7 7 32.7 483 150 449 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 7 65.2 85.4 73.9 83.4( a) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 7 205 386 257 365 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 7 14 67 22 67 (a) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 7 219 400 279 400(c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 25.3 171.3 74.6 149.4 (a) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 7 0.42 1.0 0.54 1.0(c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 1 3.6 7 0.02 0.05 0.03 0. 5 ( c ) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 5920 7061 6685 7319 (a) Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 17.0 24.1 20.3 23.8(a) 1 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29,2011. 2 Wisconsin . Sampling Occurred Between 7 /30/2012

– 8/ 6/2012 . All values reported as Dry Basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Signi ficance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics * non - detect -Only one disti nct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed ** -See above discussion of volatile organics from clean wood in comparison to C&D wood formaldehyde (pages 2 - 4) HHV

– High Heating

Value ; SVM

–

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

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

### 13

Table 8 -Compilation Dataset C&D Analysis. Compilationof Minnesota, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and Maine C&D Datasets. Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C oal Compilation of C&D All Datasets 2 Contaminant Un its Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. No. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 ND 6.9 1.7 50 0.18 16.6 2.6 7. 1 ( c ) Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 221 0.29 261 35.9 9 1.8(b) Ber yl lium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 50 0.01 0.3 0.1 0.2 3 (c) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 107 0.01 1.3 0.3 0.5 3 (c) Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 212 0.2 283 45 11 6 (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 1 36 (b) Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 50 37.2 180 78.8 11 5 (b) Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 180 0.01 0.7 0.1 0.16 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 50 0.5 27.4 4.0 8.6(b) Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 43 0.3 1.3 0.4 1.0(c) Total SVM + ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 ND 241 12.7 212 0.4 438 52.2 136 (b) Total LVM + ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 325 ND 1822 80 212 0.4 561 110 310(b) Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 173 59 3521 809 1567 (c) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 86 4 313 45.9 139 ( c ) Total Halogens + ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 183 15 3521 786 1558 (c) Formaldehyde ** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 45 4.1 176.8 47.6 104.2(b) Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 75 0.1 1.26 0.39 0. 80(c) Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 183 0.01 0.73 0.13 0. 22(c) HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 183 4464 9649 6639 7541 ( c ) Moisture w

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

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

– 4/3/2012; Massachusetts t able contains two separate databases combined . Sampling at the first processing facility o ccurred b etween 4/2007

– 5 /2007 . Sampling at the second processing facility occurred between 7/30/2012

– 8/3/2012. ; New York. Sampling Occurred Between 02 /200 5

– 10/2012; Maine. Sampling Occurred in 2006 . California table contains two separate databases combined. S ampling at the first processing facility o ccurred b etween 7/23/2012

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

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

– 8/ 6/2012 . All values reported as Dry Basis. 3 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant. Not es: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level -Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level -Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric 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.