December 18, 2012

Information Sent to EPA Regarding C&D wood and Railroad Ties

Although comment was requested only for the specific materials identified in the December 23, 

2011 proposed rule, the agency received information intended to support requests for other 

NHSMs be listed as categorical non-wastes (for which it did not request additional information 

as a part of this rulemaking) and/or to support a non-waste determination through the petition 

process codified in 40 CFR 241.3(c). The agency did not specifically solicit comments on these 

additional materials and, thus, has not responded to these comments in the current rulemaking 

action. Further, the agency cannot make final determinations regarding these materials without 

first going through a separate rulemaking, providing the regulated community the opportunity to 

comment regarding the appropriateness of adding these materials to the list of non-waste fuels 

codified in 40 CFR 241.4(a). However, we have included these materials in the rulemaking 

record, as these materials were provided by the regulated community as comments in support 

of their position that additional NHSMs be listed as categorical non-waste fuels. 

Refer to the discussion in the Section of III.D.5.d of the preamble to the recent final rule for more 

information on these materials. 

The following documents are enclosed: 

1. Construction and Demolition Debris Wood (C&D wood) 

1a. A letter from Susan Parker Bodine of Barnes &Thornburg LLP on behalf of the 

Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) and Biomass Power Association 

(BPA) sent to EPA December 7, 2012. The letter is requesting a national determination 

that C&D wood that is processed and managed as described is a nonwaste fuel. 

1b. Appendix A to Letter 

1c. Summary of Waste Management C&D Wood Fuel Data (dated November 12, 2012) 

2. Railroad Ties 

2a. An e-mail was sent from Paul Noe of American Forest &Paper Association to EPA 

on December 6, 2012. 

2b. The attached draft letter provided information on railroad ties in the form of a draft 

petition for categorical non-waste. 

2c. Additional information sent from the Treated Wood Council December 17 

 








Appendix A

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

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

This was done by comparing the 90% UPL (Upper Prediction Limit) of the contaminants for C&D 

wood with the maximum value reported for the traditional fuel. This method was chosen following 

the guidance of EPA, as stated in the 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 80453)

Largely, it is seen for all contaminants, a comparable nature is shown between C&D and traditional 

fuels. However, from the two states that had readily available information regarding formaldehyde, 

this contaminant proved to be higher than what is reported for wood/biomass by EPA. A formal 

explanation for this occurrence and its subsequent comparison to traditional fuels is discussed 

further, below.

Also, it should be pointed out that the readily available data for a few states reported a 90% UPL 

higher than traditional fuels. This can be seen in New York’s fluoride data and Maine’s chromium 

data. In both cases, a more detailed comparison was followed. Once again, this was done following 

the guidance of EPA and its concept of comparing groups of contaminants. This was stated as 

follows:

While persons may satisfy the contaminant legitimacy criterion on a contaminant-bycontaminant basis, comparing groups of contaminants in the NHSM to similar groups in 

traditional fuels could also be appropriate, provided the grouped contaminants share 

physical and chemical properties that influence behavior in the combustion unit prior to the 

point where emissions occur. Volatility, the presence of specific elements, and compound 

structure are three such properties. (76 Fed Reg 80477)

The 90% UPL for the available New York fluoride data was 584.9 ppm, which is above the 

maximum value set forth by both wood/biomass (300 ppm) and coal (64 ppm). However, when 

combining fluoride with the other potential contaminant halogens, a comparable analysis is shown. 

The 90% UPL for halides in New York equates to 2122 ppm, which is significantly lower than 

maximum values for wood/biomass in both the OAQPS database and its literary sources, as well as 

the OAQPS maximum value for coal. As such, we believe these samples do show a comparable 

nature to traditional fuels. 

In the case of chromium in Maine, the 90% UPL for the readily available data was 352 ppm. This 

value is slightly higher than the maximum value reported for wood/biomass in the OAQPS database 

(340 ppm). On a contaminant-by-contaminant basis, we believe this satisfies the legitimacy criterion 

on its own and is comparable however; we also followed through with a contaminant grouping 

analysis. In this case, a grouping of total metals was analyzed. From the readily available metals data 
2

for the State of Maine, a 90% UPL of total metals yielded 427 ppm. This number is significantly 

lower than the total metals concentration reported by the OAQPS. Though, as seen in the attached 

tables, certain metals of generally high concentration (Manganese) were not included in the Maine 

dataset. As such, a comparison was then followed through analyzing the five metals in the Maine 

dataset with the same five metals in traditional fuels. When adding the maximum values of arsenic, 

chromium, lead, mercury and selenium for wood/biomass, the literary sources reported by EPA had 

a total maximum metals concentration of 479 ppm and the OAQPS dataset had a total maximum 

metals concentration 877.1 ppm. Both of these values are above the 90% UPL for total metals in the 

Maine dataset. We believe this gives further proof that the metals concentrations in Maine are indeed 

comparable to traditional fuels.

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 130 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 SVOC 

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. 

We note that other than formaldehyde, which, if not an artifact of the test method,1 is likely in C&D 

wood from resinated wood, these other hazardous air pollutants have been tested and found below or 

near detection limits (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 processed 

C&D wood other than the formaldehyde found in clean cellulosic biomass and resinated wood.2 To 

the extent that formaldehyde is present in processed 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 

rule that resinated wood that is combusted is not a waste and is proposing to codify that

determination in 40 C.F.R. Part 241. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 80483 and proposed 40 C.F.R. 241.4(a)(2). 

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

 

1

 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. 

2

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

80477.
3

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 intraor 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 nonwaste, 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 nonwaste 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. 

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.3 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 lb4) or 480 to 900 

 

3

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. 

4

 AP-42, Appendix A, 40 lb/ft3 – based on density of pine, (1 mbf = 83.3 ft3)
4

part per million mass basis, depending on the temperature of the dryer.5 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).6 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. 

 

5

 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

6

 EPA, AP-42, 5th edition, Table 10.6.3-3, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch10/final/c10s0603.pdf
III. C&D Wood Data (with coal data) 

Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Minnesota2

Compound 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 0.17 0.59 0.36 0.58 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 7 1.95 65.7 23.17 61.44 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 7 0.008 0.008 0.008 *

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 7 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.3 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 7 3.01 73.2 27.4 70.24 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 7 0.38 1.52 0.62 1.52 (c)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 7 8.8 96.8 33.1 85.9 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 7 38.6 156 59.14 156 (c)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 7 0.015 0.049 0.03 0.05 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 7 1.06 5.05 2.11 4.27 (b)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 7 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.31 (c)

Total Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098.1 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 7 75.18 295.95 146.36 295.9 (c)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 6 7 6.14 7 (c)

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 7 90 130 102.14 125.6 (a)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 7 5 25 16.57 25 (c)

Total Halogens+

ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 7 101 161 124.86 161.9 (a)

Formaldehyde** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 9.3 110 31.3 76.1 (b)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 12.05 15.2 13.8 15.47 (a)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 0.52 0.7 0.65 0.741 (a)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 80.57 81.44 81.14 81.61 (a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 7 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.28 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 7 0.01 0.021 0.02 0.022 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 8033 8805 8487 8898 (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

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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
6

Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Washington2

Compound 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 Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098.1 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 10 76.11 210.52 121.68 178.7 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 10 179 1960 908.4 1725 (a)

Fluorine 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)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 6820 7900 7271 7986 (a)

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

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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
7

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from Massachusetts2

Compound 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 5 2 2 2.00 *

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 60 0.94 220 63.72 187.8 (b)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 5 0.2 0.2 0.2 *

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 30 0.39 0.41 0.4 0.4 (c)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 60 0.49 240 69.38 179 (c)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 5 0.78 0.8 0.79 0.8 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 60 2 280 43.75 129 (c)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 5 31 80 57.8 91 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 60 0.07 0.58 0.1 0.08 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 5 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 5 0.78 1.0 0.87 1.0 (a)

Total Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098.1 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 60 8.01 466.4 182.4 460.3 (b)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 20 47 178 104.32 160.6 (a)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 30 10 38 20.21 31.48 (b)

Total Halogens+

ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 30 13.3 194.6 89.75 175.2 (c)

Formaldehyde** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 9.12 31.9 18.2 25.31 (a)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 0.49 1.5 0.76 1.062 (b)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 30 0.08 0.21 0.11 0.16 (c)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 30 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.18 (c)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 5468 7713 6788.8 7483 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Massachusetts. Sampling Occurred Between 4/2007 – 5/2007

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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
8

Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

C&D Samples from New York2

Compound 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 8.2 137 0.10 110.06 11.94 31.64 (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 78 0.00 1.77 0.23 0.523 (c)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 139 0.20 127.01 23.47 58.44 (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 8.7 139 0.4 261.4 26.23 63.52 (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 61 0.005 0.31 0.09 0.24 (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 Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 139 0.94 328 61.6 145 (b)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 138 145 9940 1097.7 1710 (c)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 8 38 659 283.63 584.9 (a)

Total Halogens+

ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 138 145 9940 1113 1720 (c)

Formaldehyde** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 140 3.90 38.5 19.68 31.26 (b)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 140 1.37 20 6.11 10.84 (b)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

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 13.6 139 0.02 0.288 0.10 0.191 (c)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 140 6662.7 11699 8408.87 9213 (c)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 New York. Sampling Occurred Between 06/2002 – 05/2012. 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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
9

Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal C&D Samples from Maine2

Compound 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 22 1.2 70.0 19.94 53.86 (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 -- -- -- -- --

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 15 2.0 311.0 82.13 352.4 (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 35 2.0 451.0 126.8 312.4 (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 14 0.04 0.27 0.14 0.31 (b)

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 15 0.4 1.3 0.76 1.11 (a)

Total Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098.1 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 35 13.76 597 174.9 426.9 (b)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 -- -- -- -- --

Fluorine 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Maine. Sampling Occurred Between 2001 – 2008. 

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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
10

Literary 

Sources

1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass Coal

Compilation of C&D All Datasets2

Compound 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 22 0.17 16.6 2.6 6.942 (b)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 ND 174 8.2 236 0.10 220 26.12 67.06 (b)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 ND 206 1.9 22 0.008 0.2 0.088 0.2 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 ND 19 0.6 125 0.00 1.773 0.27 0.401 (c)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 ND 168 13.4 231 0.20 311 39.01 99.97 (b)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 ND 25.2 6.9 22 0.38 1.63 0.9 1.527 (b)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 ND 148 8.7 251 0.4 451 44.01 103.1 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 ND 512 26.2 22 31.0 156 65.89 103.6 (b)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 ND 3.1 0.09 152 0.005 0.58 0.09 0.182 (c)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 ND 730 21.5 22 0.98 12.2 2.47 4.789 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 ND 74.3 3.4 30 0.27 1.3 0.65 1.0 (a)

Total Metals+

ppm 7.9 1912 ND 17098.1 330.9 ND 2066.5 92.59 251 0.94 597.0 111.0 278.2 (b)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 6 7 6.14 7 (c)

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 ND 9080 992 175 47 9940 993 1640 (c)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 ND 178 64.0 49 5 659 64.58 212.8 (c)

Total Halogens+

ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 ND 9258 1056 184 13.3 9940 889 1600 (c)

Formaldehyde** ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 9.3 130.0 48.84 107.4

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 177 3.9 38.5 19.2 29.7 (b)

Ash wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 177 0.49 20 4.99 10.22 (c)

Volatile Matter wt % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 80.57 81.44 81.14 81.61 (a)

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 13.6 54.0 15.1 47 0.08 1.26 0.24 0.644 (c)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.74 61.3 13.6 186 0.01 0.731 0.13 0.202 (c)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 187 5468 11699 8091 9167 (c)

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. Sampling Occurred Between 

4/2007 – 5/2007; New York. Sampling Occurred Between 06/2002 – 05/2012; Maine. Sampling Occurred Between 2001 – 2008.

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

* - 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 Heat Value

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not 

totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not 

the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
November 29, 2012

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg

FROM: Ms. Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Re: Summary of Waste Management C&D wood fuel data

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

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

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

Wood fuel (fuel source) are as follows: 

 (W) Wisconsin Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA1) California #1 Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA2) California #2 Facility – Negative Sorting

(MA) Massachusetts Facility – Negative Sorting

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

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

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

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

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

wood is processed into fuel..

WM Study Procedures and Results

WM used a testing protocol to ensure, to the highest degree, that a representative set of 

samples were collected for analysis. The study protocol required that each plant collect 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

laboratory analysis. The attached tables provide a contaminant comparison of the analytical 
November 29, 2012

Page 2

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

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

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

1

Impacts of Processing on Contaminant Comparisons

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

facilities during the testing period. 

Table 1 Average Formaldehyde Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Formaldehyde

[ppm]

58.7 16.9 13.4 56.1

Sorting Positive Positive Negative Negative

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

conducted at these facilities. 

Likewise, the table below displaying the average concentrations of arsenic at each facility 

during the testing period indicates similar results.

Table 2 Average Arsenic Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Arsenic

(ppm)

2.56 4.45 2.39 116.4

Chromium

(ppm)

4.22 9.39 8.02 137.6

Lead

(ppm)

118.5 71.67 48.20 211.6

Sorting Type Positive Positive Negative Negative

It should be noted that, even though the MA values are significantly higher than the rest 

of the facility’s datasets, MA’s 90% upper prediction limit are comparable to the maximum 

values reported by the EPA of clean wood and biomass, and thus, still comparable.

Impact of Incoming Material Variations on Contaminant Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf
November 29, 2012

Page 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

details).

Table 3 Incoming Materials Comparison 

Incoming Material

Type

CA2 MA

Mixed C&D Materials 43.7 % 95.5 %

Clean Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 %

Average Arsenic (ppm) 2.39 116.4

Average Chromium (ppm) 8.02 137.6

Average Lead (ppm) 48.20 211.6

C&D Materials includes standard C&D materials, as well as pallets, construction wood, fencing, decking, etc.

As seen, CA2 had a considerably higher percentage of clean wood in its incoming materials and 

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

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

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

chromium. As a result of these varying proportions of clean and resinated wood, CA2’s 

finalized product had a cleaner feedstock to process into a wood fuel. Although the MA Facility 

had a more mixed C&D feedstock to work with during the sampling week, it was nonetheless 

able to process the material into a resulting wood fuel that had contaminant levels either lower or 

comparable to arsenic, chromium and lead concentrations in clean wood and biomass, as 

reported by EPA. 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

produce similar values. 
November 29, 2012

Page 4

SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT C&D WOOD FUEL STUDY

EPA Data

Wood and 

Biomass1

Waste Management C&D Wood (90% UPL)

2,3

Compound Units

Max W CA1 CA2 MA All facilities

Antimony (Sb) ppm 26 0.46 10 2.1 4.4 8.4

Arsenic (As) ppm 298 4.6 18.1 4.34 225 167

Beryllium (Be) ppm 10 * 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.06 

Cadmium (Cd) ppm 17 0.65 0.2 0.36 1.0 0.58

Chromium (Cr) ppm 340 7.0 18.2 11.9 249 182

Cobalt (Co) ppm 213 0.5 2.45 2.0 2.2 2.0

Lead (Pb) ppm 340 356 173 115 346 295

Manganese (Mn) ppm 15800 58.7 102.4 111 111 109

Mercury (Hg) ppm 1.1 0.26 0.2 0.2 0.55 0.24

Nickel (Ni) ppm 540 2.6 8.8 9.2 21.7 10.3

Selenium (Se) ppm 9.0 * * * * *

Total LVM+

ppm 17227 64.3 137 137 551 424

Bromine ppm -- * * * 3.7 3.0

Chlorine ppm 5400 296 2776 1201 2310 1392

Fluorine ppm 300 53 136 142 38 119 

Total Halogens+

ppm 5700 330 2836 1332 2155 1496

Formaldehyde ppm 27.0 115 44.8 19.6 126 82.7

Nitrogen wt % 3.95 0.66 0.51 0.84 0.91 0.75

Sulfur wt % 0.87 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.12

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 (W) Wisconsin. Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/6/2012, (CA1) California. Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012, 

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

3

 UPL, or Upper Prediction Limit, based on the type of distribution that best fit the data for the contaminant.

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual 

sampling events, and are not totals across all samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum 

summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.15 0.42 0.31 0.46 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 0.87 4.67 2.56 4.62 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.008 0.008 0.008 *

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.19 0.72 0.34 0.646 (b)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 1.75 7.55 4.22 6.97 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.15 0.45 0.3 0.5 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 25.4 394.0 118.53 356 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 42.3 58.7 50.71 58.7 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.042 0.313 0.12 0.259 (b)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 0.37 2.6 0.79 2.6 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 49.5 67.5 58.9 64.3 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 163 315 205.43 295.8 (b)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 11 53 17.43 53 (c)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 177 330 225.9 330 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 20.0 130.0 58.7 114.7 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.33 0.76 0.43 0.66 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.042 0.02 0.043 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 7461 8709 8389 9052 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/6/2012

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

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.24 10 4.15 10 (c)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.07 18.1 4.45 18.1 (c)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.047 0.05 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.2 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 3.74 20.7 9.39 18.2 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.49 2.45 1.10 2.45 (c)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 13.9 208 71.67 173.1 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 49.2 114 68.44 102.4 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.017 0.205 0.08 0.2 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.28 10.1 4.83 8.8 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 63.0 149 92.4 137 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 295 2776 768 2776 (c)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 57 119 96.86 136 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 366 2836 868 2836 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 3.4 50.0 16.9 44.8 (b)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 16.85 28.86 21.11 28.86 (c)

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.19 0.49 0.36 0.51 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.03 0.071 0.06 0.08 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 7741 8543 8264 8743 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012

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

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.19 2.28 0.86 2.094 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.03 4.18 2.39 4.341 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.049 0.05 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.13 0.38 0.21 0.358 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 4.02 10.2 8.02 11.9 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.80 1.88 1.36 2.0 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 8.9 118 48.20 115.3 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 50.4 108 75.90 111.4 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.023 0.164 0.11 0.2 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.99 9.13 5.74 9.2 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 61.6 132 94.3 137 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 *

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 549 1060 890.71 1201 (a)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 38 124 85 142 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 590 1187 979 1332 (a)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 8.8 20.0 13.4 19.6 (a)

Moisture wt % -- -- -- -- -- 14.70 31.45 21.91 33.29 (a)

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.38 0.78 0.62 0.84 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.05 0.142 0.09 0.13 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 8019 8435 8241 8470 (a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012

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

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all 

samples. Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from 

separate sampling events.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from MA2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.71 3.85 2.64 4.4 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 7.17 178 116.4 224.6 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.04 0.13 0.067 0.13 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.27 1.04 0.55 1.0 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 12.3 208 137.6 248.6 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.52 2.8 1.07 2.16 (b)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 142 346 211.6 346 (c)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 47.3 124 74.11 110.5 (b)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.046 0.546 0.15 0.546 (c)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1.24 21.7 4.64 21.7 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 *

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 69.3 450 337 551 (a)

Bromine ppm -- -- -- -- -- 3 4 3 3.73(a)

Chlorine ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 94 1290 661.71 2310 (b)

Fluorine ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 3 38 12.57 38 (c)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 135 1296 667 2155 (b)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 11.0 150.0 56.1 126.4 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.23 0.87 0.52 0.91(a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.162 0.09 0.17(a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 8157 8622 8397 8638(a)

1

 EPA Letter "Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison." November 29, 2011.

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012

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

* - Only one distinct observation value in the data set, resulting in "0" variance. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be performed

HHV – High Heat Value

LVM – Low Volatile Metals

Low Volatile Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and nickel, as defined in 40 CFR 63.1219(e)(4).

+

For C&D samples: Total Min., Total Max, Total Avg., and Total 90% UPL are the total minimum, maximum, average and UPL from individual sampling events, and are not totals across all samples. 

Thus, for example, the total maximum value for total metals will represent the maximum summation of values from a single sampling event, and are not the summation of the values from separate 

sampling events.
From: "Noe, Paul" <Paul_Noe@afandpa.org> 

To: undisclosed-recipients:; 

Cc: Suzanne Rudzinski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/07/2012 10:04 AM 

Subject: Rail Tie Petition and Comfort Letter Request 

Sent by: "Missimer, Katie" <Katie_Missimer@afandpa.org> 

  

                                                               

  

  

  

December 6, 2012

  

  

Mathy,  

  

It was very good to talk with you both Tuesday and Wednesday about the critical issues of listing

additional biomass residuals as non‐waste fuels under section 241.4.  As we promised, here is additional

information on railroad ties (a narrative of sorts) in the form of a draft petition and request for a

comfort letter. We make clear the focus is creosote or creosote‐borate treated rail ties. If you cannot is

sue a proposed rule simultaneously with the final NHSM rule, the comfort letter, along with strong

language in the preamble, could signal the Agency’s sense that this material meets the criteria in the

regulation and would reduce business uncertainty allowing the continued use of this important fuel.

  

We are continuing to pull further information together on Paper Recycling Residuals and are confident

we can address any outstanding questions.  For example, we have already heard from half dozen

members who burn several tens of thousands of tons per year for energy recovery that it would cost

millions of dollars to replace with alternative fuels including coal. In addition, when dewatered, PRR can

sustain combustion on its own although it is always mixed with other fuels before entering the

combustion zone.  Finally, many of our boilers generate electricity for internal and external use.  We

believe you already have extensive information on PRR, their generation and use from comments and

supplemental materials provided.

  

If you or any of your staff have any questions, please follow‐up with me or Tim Hunt on my staff.

  

Sincerely,

 

Paul

  

Paul Noe 

Vice President for Public Policy 
AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION 

1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Paul_Noe@afandpa.org

202-463-2777 (phone) 

202-463-2772 (fax) 

www.afandpa.org

  

image002.jpg Rail Tie Petition and Comfort 

Letter Request.pdf 

Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 2 

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

judicial arenas. AF&PA members currently use a variety of secondary materials as fuel 

in combustion units at their facilities. At approximately 12 mills, these secondary 

materials include railroad ties that are treated with creosote.1 A major supplier of 

railroad ties to the forest products industry estimates that in 2005, approximately 

550,000 tons of railroad ties were sold to forest products mills for use as fuel. In 2010, 

more than 300,000 tons were burned at forest product mills and more mills are actively 

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

We estimate that it would cost the 12 mills that combust railroad ties around $50 million 

a year to replace the fuel value of the railroad ties. 

AWC is the voice of North American traditional and engineered wood products, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manufacturing environmental regulations advocating for balanced government policies 

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

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

near future.

3. Proposed Action. 

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

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

4. Need and Justification for Proposed Action. 

The proposed action is needed to correct an erroneous conclusion reached in the 

March 2011 final NHSM Rule that combustion of railroad ties is combustion of a waste 

and to allow continued combustion of this fuel by any facility, irrespective of how railroad 

ties are processed or what feed mechanism is attached to a boiler that combusts 

railroad ties. 

 

1

 Newer railroad ties may also be treated with borate before the creosote is applied. See comment 

submitted by the Association of American Railroads, Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1920, 

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

December 6, 2012 

Page 3 

a. Railroad tie markets 

In the preamble to the final NHSM Rule, EPA asserted that: 

[F]ew markets are available for creosote-treated wood due to concerns about the 

contaminants. This strongly suggests that burning this material is a waste 

treatment activity. 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15483 (Mar. 21, 2011). 

Contrary to EPA’s belief, there is a robust market for creosote-treated wood, specifically 

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

industry mills purchased approximately 550,000 tons of railroad ties a year for use as 

fuel in 2005 and over 300,000 tons as recently as 2010. 

According to the Association of American Railroads, approximately 17 million railroad 

ties are removed from service each year.2

 Railroads typically contract with a railroad tie 

reclamation company to remove these ties. These contracts transfer ownership of the 

railroad ties to the reclamation company.3 The reclamation company sorts the railroad 

ties for use in landscaping (about one third) and for use in co-generation facilities (the 

majority). According to the Association of American Railroads, only approximately 5% 

of railroad ties that are removed from service are disposed of in landfills.4 Some 

reclamation companies sell railroad ties to processors who remove metal contaminants 

(typically nails and spikes) and grind the ties into chipped wood.5 Other reclamation 

companies have their own grinders, do their own contaminant removal, and can sell 

directly to the co-generation facilities. According to a 10-K filed by Banyan Rail 

Services, Inc., there are approximately 15 railroad tie recovery companies in North 

America with an industry-wide revenue of $65-75 million. AF&PA members report 

paying approximately $20 to $30 per ton for railroad tie fuel which is sometimes a 

premium price compared to certain hog fuels. 

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

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

railroad tie removal and is integral to the business of railroad tie reclamation companies. 

These ties are valuable commodities and are treated as such. Combustors, such as 

AF&PA member companies, also manage these materials as valuable commodities. At 

 

2

 Comment submitted by the Association of American Railroads, Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-

0329-0875, Aug. 3, 2010, at 2 (AAR 2010 comments). 

3

 This arrangement, which takes into account the value of the removed ties, allows removal of railroad ties 

to be “close to a break-even proposition for the railroad.” AAR 2010 comments at 3. 

4

 AAR 2012 comments, at 1. This disposal decision is made after the railroad ties are sorted so the ties 

that are used for energy recovery are never discarded. 

5

 There may be some combustors that can combust whole railroad ties, but forest products industry 

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

December 6, 2012 

Page 4 

a mill, the chipped railroad ties are managed in the same manner as other biomass fuel 

materials and are fed to the combustion unit in the same way. 

 

It is clear from the above description that there are robust markets for railroad ties and 

there are companies that exist entirely to serve those markets. It also is clear that 

combustors pay for the railroad ties that they use as fuel. These facts demonstrate that 

railroad ties are valuable fuel commodities. Thus, there is no basis for EPA’s conclusion 

that burning railroad ties is a waste treatment activity. 

b. Legitimacy criteria as applied to railroad ties. 

Railroad ties easily meet all of the legitimacy criteria under 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d), except 

possibly the contaminant comparison criterion depending on what traditional fuels are 

considered in comparison. However, upon evaluating all the relevant factors relating to 

the use of railroad ties as a commodity fuel, EPA should conclude that railroad ties are 

non-waste fuels for all boilers, notwithstanding a contaminant comparison to wood or 

coal. 

i. Railroad ties are managed as a valuable commodity. 40 C.F.R. 

241.3(d)(1)(i). 

As described above, railroad ties are removed from service for railroads by companies 

whose business model is based on the reclamation value of the railroad ties. These ties 

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

Thus, these companies manage railroad ties to retain their value as commodities. 

Typically reclamation companies receive railroad ties by rail. They inspect and sort the 

ties and remove metal of any kind (spikes, if any, nails, tags, etc). The resulting railroad 

tie fuel (RTF) is then chipped and delivered to combustors, typically by rail or truck.6 At 

a forest products facility, RTF is stock piled in the wood yard in the same manner as 

bark fuel obtained from processing log feedstock for the pulping process. This generally 

amounts to a pile adjacent to the bark pile that is reclaimed via a front-end loader. 

Many hog fuel/RTF systems hammer and screen the combined bark/RTF one more 

time on route to combustion. Chip size typically is on the order of 1 to 2 inches. The 

contracts for the purchase of RTF include fuel specifications limiting contaminants such 

as metal and precluding the receipt of wood treated with preservatives other than 

creosote. 

ii. Railroad ties have meaningful heating value and are used as a 

fuel to generate energy. 40 C.F.R. 241.3(d)(1)(ii). 

 

6

 We are aware of one situation where the combustion facility is close to the reclamation facility and RTF 

is transported on a conveyor. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 5 

EPA reports that creosote-treated wood has a heating value of about 6000 Btu/lb.7 The 

Treated Wood Council reports that the Btu value of creosote-treated wood is 

approximately 8000 Btu/lb.8

 Either level demonstrates meaningful heating value. These 

fuels are used to generate energy at AF&PA member facilities as well as other cogeneration facilities that buy railroad ties from reclamation companies. In fact, when 

bark is very wet, forest products facilities often increase the use of RTF in proportion to 

bark because it has higher fuel value and improves combustion. 

iii. Railroad ties contain contaminants that are comparable to or 

lower than those found in traditional fuels that boilers are 

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

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

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

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

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

therefore should be considered a waste when burned as a fuel.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 

15483. 

This analysis is based in part on an assumption that railroad ties are combusted for 

disposal and are not valuable fuel commodities. This assumption is contradicted by the 

above discussion of the robust markets for RTF. Thus, the only remaining basis for this 

analysis is the comparison of contaminants in railroad ties to contaminants in coal or 

fuel. 

EPA has data provided by the Association of American Railroads that demonstrates that 

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

which are traditional fuels.9

 Under 40 C.F.R. 241.3, creosote-treated railroad ties would 

be considered a non-waste fuel if combusted in a unit that also could combust numbers 

1-6 fuel oils. 

EPA also has data that demonstrate that contaminants in borate preservatives are at 

levels that are significantly below levels found in untreated wood.10 Accordingly, EPA 

 

7 Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Final Rulemaking: Identification of Nonhazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste - Construction and Demolition Materials – Building-Related 

C&D Materials, Feb 3, 2011, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1811, at 3. 

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

(TWC), EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0772, at 11. 

9

 EPA’s traditional fuels data show that fuel oils have PAH levels as high as 54,700 ppm. Contaminant 

Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison, November 29, 2011 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-

0329-1877). The American Association of Railroads data for creosote-treated railroad ties show total 

PAH levels of 21,237 ppm. 

10 See comment submitted by KRK Consulting. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1569. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 6 

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

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

iv. Other relevant criteria 

An overall balancing of the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors should lead 

EPA to the conclusion that the combustion of railroad ties is not a waste management 

activity and that railroad ties should be considered a commodity fuel even if contaminant 

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

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

combustor that has a liquid fuel delivery system for its boiler and a waste if sold to a 

combustor has only a system for feeding solid fuel to its boiler. Given the overall 

management of these materials as valuable fuel commodities by market-place 

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

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

In balancing the legitimacy criteria, EPA should give great weight to the fact that railroad 

ties are commodities that are bought and sold in the market-place. This fact alone 

should be dispositive support for an EPA determination that the combustors who buy 

this fuel are burning it for legitimate energy recovery and are not burning it with the 

intent to discard it. As EPA knows, the legitimacy criteria are factors used to ascertain 

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

ties, the fact that combustors buy this fuel is evidence that their intent is energy 

recovery. Combustors do not buy material for the purpose of discarding it. 

EPA also should balance the environmental benefits of allowing continued combustion 

of railroad ties as fuel against the adverse consequences of increased disposal of 

railroad ties in landfills. As noted in comments filed by the American Association of 

Railroads, the use of railroad ties as fuels displaces fossil fuels that emit greenhouse 

gases that, unlike wood, are not currently part of the carbon cycle. Thus, if 9 million ties 

are disposed of in landfills instead of being used as fuels, 12.9 trillion Btus will have to 

be replaced with other fuels. If replaced with fossil fuels, “the GHG penalty will be 

approximately 3.3 billion CO2eq.”11 The disposal of greenhouse gas in landfills also 

could result in the anaerobic degradation of the ties over long periods of time, producing 

methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. 

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

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

to the Association of American Railroads, the landfill space that would be required to 

dispose of the 17 million railroad ties that are used as fuel each year would be the 

 

11 AAR 2010 comments, at 3. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 7 

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

needed each year.12 

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

those ties are as integral to the production process as any other fuel used by the facility. 

Further, railroad ties are functionally superior to other biomass fuels used in the boilers 

due to lower moisture content and higher BTU value compared with other biomass 

fuels. Use of railroad tie fuel is particularly important for industry boilers that are load 

following boilers where significant swings in steam demand require rapid ramping up 

and down of the boiler, and where the superior fuel characteristics of railroad tie fuel, as 

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

improve mixed biomass combustion by providing a more even energy source especially 

during rainy seasons of the year. 

Finally, EPA should embrace the combustion of railroad ties as a practice that supports 

EPA’s sustainability objectives. In June 2009, EPA issued its “2020 Vision Report: 

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

includes the following statement: 

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

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

significantly changed. Products and materials presently viewed as acceptable to 

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

“go to waste” will be reused or become feedstocks for new products and 

processes. 2020 Vision Report, at 13 

Consistent with that vision and a consistent history of use, EPA should recognize the 

value of railroad ties and allow their continued use as a fuel. To do otherwise would 

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

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

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

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

railroad ties are a valuable fuel and not a waste, when combusted for energy recovery. 

These considerations provide ample support for a rulemaking to designate all railroad 

ties as a non-waste fuel in all combustion units. 

 

12 AAR 2010 comments, at 2. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 8 

Request for a letter confirming that processed railroad ties combusted in boilers 

combust or could be modified to combust liquid fuel are non-waste fuels.

Pending a national rulemaking to designate railroad ties as a non-waste fuel, AF&PA is 

requesting a letter from EPA that confirms that railroad ties that are processed and are 

combusted in units that combust or could be modified to combust liquid fuel are nonwaste fuels under 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4).13 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4) provides that the 

following are not solid wastes when combusted: “Fuel or ingredient products that are 

used in a combustion unit, and are produced from the processing of discarded nonhazardous secondary materials and that meet the legitimacy criteria specified in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section with respect to fuels....” While we do not believe that 

railroad ties used for energy recovery are discarded, absent listing under 40 C.F.R. 

241.4, EPA’s regulations consider these materials to be wastes when combusted by 

third parties, unless the criteria of 40 C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4) are met. Section 241.3(b)(4) 

requires that a fuel be both processed and meet the legitimacy criteria. 

1. Most railroad ties are processed 

According to EPA’s regulations: 

Processing means any operations that transform discarded non-hazardous 

secondary material into a non-waste fuel or non-waste ingredient product. 

Processing includes, but is not limited to, operations necessary to: Remove or 

destroy contaminants; significantly improve the fuel characteristics of the 

material, e.g., sizing or drying the material in combination with other operations; 

chemically improve the as-fired energy content; or improve the ingredient 

characteristics. Minimal operations that result only in modifying the size of the 

material by shredding do not constitute processing for the purposes of this 

definition. 

40 C.F.R. 241.2. 

While some combustors may be able to combust whole railroad ties, it is a common 

practice for railroad tire reclamation companies to process ties for use by combustors. 

Processing involves sorting by quality for other potential uses (e.g., landscaping) and by 

preservative type to meet fuel contract specifications required by individual combustors. 

Process also involves both the removal of metal contaminants and shredding RTF to an 

 13 This request should not be viewed as an alternative to the request for listing under 40 C.F.R. 241.4. 

Rather, it should be viewed as a stop-gap measure to allow facilities to plan pending such listing. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 9 

appropriate size for the combustor. In fact, contracts for RTF typically specify fuel 

requirements such as size of material, moisture limits, and dirt and metal contamination 

limits. Please confirm that railroad ties that are processed in this manner meet EPA’s 

processing definition. 

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

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

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

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

meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion (as EPA has laid it out) unless the RTF can be 

compared to fuel oils. Even under this framework, RTF would meet the legitimacy 

criteria because boilers capable of firing RTF also are capable of firing fuel oil. In fact 

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

example, one forest products company has at least 12 boilers that burn RTF. All 12 of 

these boilers either currently combust fuel oil, or could be readied to combust fuel oil. 

Please confirm that a boiler that has sufficient combustion conditions for oil (with or 

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

fuel delivery system, is “designed to burn” fuel oil, whether or not such boiler 

modifications are actually made. 

3. Demonstration by combustors that the legitimacy criteria and processing 

requirements are met. 

Both the CISWI and the Boiler MACT rules require a combustor that combusts nonhazardous secondary materials to keep records showing that the fuel meets the 

legitimacy criteria of Part 241. See 40 C.F.R. 60.2740 (u) (CISIWI) and 40 C.F.R. 

60.7555(d)(2) (Boiler MACT). 

We believe that individual combustors can meet their obligations under the CISWI and 

Boiler MACT Rules to show that railroad ties are not solid wastes by keeping the 

following records: 

a. A copy of an EPA letter confirming that railroad ties that are processed and 

combusted in boilers with liquid fuel delivery systems are not wastes. 

b. A copy of a contract, purchase order, or other document that requires a supplier 

of railroad ties to process the railroad ties consistent with the practices described 

in this letter or a certification from the supplier that the practices described in this 

letter were followed. 

 

14 This is uniformly true of stoker boilers and fluidized bed combustors. 
Administrator Jackson 

December 6, 2012 

Page 10 

Allowing combustors to rely on these records to demonstrate that railroad ties are not 

wastes is consistent with how EPA proposes to implement its non-waste determination 

for tires from established tire collection programs. Units that combust tires are allowed 

to rely on certifications that the tires that are combusted are from established tire 

collection programs and were not discarded. 40 C.F.R. 60.2740(v). EPA recognizes 

that such a certification can be based on a contractual arrangement and is proposing to 

define established tire collection program to include “a contractual arrangement that 

ensures that scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities 

through arrival at the combustion facility.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 80484 and proposed 40 

C.F.R. 241.2. Once that certification is made, EPA does not intend to require the 

combustor to have perfect knowledge of the source of a secondary fuel and does not 

require the combustor to test that fuel. “Rather, it is sufficient that the ultimate user 

verify that it is obtaining tires from an established tire collection program, which program 

can provide the user with reasonable assurance that it manages tires carefully from 

point of collection to point of burning and which does not receive tires which have been 

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

Please confirm that the records identified above are sufficient to meet any burden of 

proof a combustor may have to show that a fuel is not a waste and that these records 

meeting the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.2740 (u) and 40 C.F.R. 60.7555(d)(2). 

 

Conclusion 

For the forgoing reasons, AF&PA and AWC respectfully request EPA to determine by 

rule that all railroad ties treated with creosote or creosote and borate are non-waste 

fuels in all boilers and confirm by letter that processed railroad ties are non-waste fuels 

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

combustion (with or without the addition of additional equipment). 

Sincerely, 

 

Paul Noe Robert Glowinski 

Vice President for Public Policy President 

American Forest & Paper Association American Wood Council 

Enclosure: Banyan Rail Services Inc. 

cc: Mathy Stanislaus 

Suzanne Rudzinski 

Jim Berlow 

 David Cozzie, OAR 

 





 

 December 17, 2012 

Via e-mail (feldt.lisa@epa.gov) 

Lisa Feldt, Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329; Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste; NSPS and EG: Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments; NonHazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule, RIN 2060-

AR15 

Dear Ms. Feldt: 

 Thank you for meeting with me along with members and representatives of the Treated 

Wood Council (TWC) on December 13, 2012, to discuss our concerns with the above-referenced 

proposed rule. We hope that our explanation and documentation of the long-standing use of nonhazardous secondary treated wood as a valuable fuel adequately demonstrate that it is not a waste 

and that disrupting these established commercial relationships would cause adverse economic 

and environmental consequences. We reiterate our request that EPA include non-hazardous 

secondary treated wood as a categorical non-waste under the proposed rule’s section 241.4. 

We submitted evidence to the record of substantial volumes of secondary non-hazardous 

treated wood used as a valuable combustion source at a co-gen facility in central Pennsylvania 

that was exclusively designed to burn these materials. From 1988 to 2011, more than twenty 

years, this facility has burned 2.3 million tons of non-hazardous treated wood to produce 

electricity, under contracts with 89 commercial entities. At our meeting, a representative of 

another company described its facility in eastern Pennsylvania (referenced in our comments) that 

grinds treated wood and construction and demolition (C&D) materials that are then used for 

combustion by cement plants, paper mills, and power generation facilities; that facility also was 

specifically built and permitted for these materials and, to give a sense of its current scale of 

operations, has handled 140,000 tons of secondary C&D and treated wood during the first 10 

1111 19th Street, NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 463-2045 

Fax: (202) 463-2059 
months of 2012. A third TWC member was unable to attend the December 13 meeting, but at a 

meeting the following day at OMB (which EPA representatives participated in by telephone), 

explained that its facility combusts 75% non-hazardous secondary treated wood and 25% other 

forms of biomass to power its operation. If the final NHSM rule makes it infeasible to continue 

using treated wood as a boiler fuel, this plant will have to shut down, since the cost of trying to 

meet the new CISWI standards would approximate $1.5 million, an unacceptably high cost of 

conversion. We also provided with our February 20, 2011 comments a set of sample executed 

contracts showing a variety of types of purchase agreements for treated wood used for electricity 

generation and fuel combustion, as a companion to the examples of the historic use of these 

materials as a valuable commodity. Further, our comments cited a statement submitted to the 

record by the State of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources and Environment, noting that 

in 2009, 16,625 tons of non-hazardous secondary wood products, including wood treated with 

creosote and pentachlorophenol, were burned for energy recovery and were eligible for 

electricity renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy credits under Michigan’s Clean, 

Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act. 

Our discussion at the December 13 meeting also explained how the use of non-hazardous 

secondary treated wood for combustion is an integral part of the process in which railway ties 

and utility poles are managed. As the examples above show, railway ties and utility poles are 

regularly reclaimed for energy recovery purposes, as part of the overall life cycle of these 

products. If the final NHSM rule classifies these materials as waste, they will be diverted to 

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

(GHG), and (2) the likelihood that eventual breakdown of the landfilled treated wood will 

produce methane, which has approximately twenty times the global-warming impact of carbon 

dioxide. The amount of new material unnecessarily diverted to landfills would be enormous – 

just the 2.3 million tons combusted by one facility mentioned above equates to 1.6 times the 

volume of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Even worse, the disruption this will cause to the existing 

economics of using these products for railway ties and utility poles could likely result in the 

substitution of reinforced concrete, galvanized steel, and other materials for these applications. 

These products produce far higher GHG emissions and other environmental impacts throughout 

their life cycle, further adding to the net negative environmental and GHG consequences of this 

outcome. 

 For all these reasons, we strongly urge you to review the evidence we have submitted to 

the record. As our comments demonstrated, and our meeting emphasized, non-hazardous 

secondary treated wood is analytically similar to resinated wood, which EPA has concluded 

should be classified as a categorical non-waste under new section 241.4. Like resinated wood, 

non-hazardous secondary treated wood is a sought-after fuel, has a long track record of 

commercial dealings evidencing its established use for energy recovery, has a high BTU value, is 

clearly considered and managed as a valuable commodity, is used in plants designed specifically 

to use this material that would not be able to operate as designed without it; and like resinated 

wood, disrupting this established commercial relationship would cause adverse economic – and 

also environmental – consequences. 

 Like the formaldehyde in resinated wood, two forms of treated wood have constituents 

that contain HAPs. As other commenters have documented, creosote treated wood contains 

contaminants at levels comparable to those in the traditional fuels, coal and fuel oil. 
Pentachlorophenol treated wood contains that chemical, which is deliberately added to provide 

longevity to traditional wood and does not naturally occur in it. However, the concentrations of 

pentachlorophenol in treated wood are present at far lower percentages than the formaldehyde 

found in resinated wood that EPA has determined are acceptable, using the balancing approach 

laid out in section 241.4. Waterborne and copper naphthenate preservatives contain no HAPs 

and present no issue under the legitimacy criteria. Non-hazardous secondary treated wood has a 

higher BTU value than virgin wood both because it has a lower “as is” moisture content and in 

many cases (including copper naphthenate-, creosote- and pentachlorophenol-treated wood) the 

preserving solution contributes to the heating value of the wood. 

 Even though this parallel set of facts should be enough for EPA to determine that nonhazardous secondary treated wood qualifies as a categorical non-waste, in an effort to provide 

additional assurance that these materials are not discarded, TWC has made clear in the record its 

willingness to accept a limitation to only those materials that are covered by contractual 

arrangements governing their use as a valuable fuel commodity. Based on our discussions at the 

December 13 meeting, TWC has refined its proposed language, which EPA could use in its 

categorical non-waste determination: 

If the non-hazardous, secondary treated wood biomass material is 

transferred from the generating site or organization to the 

combustion site under contractual agreements throughout its 

transfer, the Agency has determined that such a transfer does not 

constitute a “discard,” and therefore the non-hazardous secondary 

treated wood biomass is not a “waste” and may be combusted as a 

boiler fuel. For purposes of this categorical non-waste 

determination, “non-hazardous secondary treated wood biomass” 

includes wood pressure-treated with: waterborne boron-based, 

organic-based, or copper-based wood preservatives: creosote or 

creosote-boron; and oil-borne copper naphthenate and 

pentachlorophenol; but does not include wood treated with 

preservatives containing arsenic or chromium. 

 For the reasons set forth above and in TWC’s comments, TWC urges EPA to determine 

that non-hazardous secondary treated wood is a categorical non-waste, just like resinated wood, 

using the same balancing test that it uses for resinated wood under 241.4. (Attachment A 

compares treated wood to resinated wood, using EPA’s balancing criteria.) I am also attaching to 

this letter, in response to a question posed at the December 13 meeting, a list of the known types 

of non-hazardous treated wood (Attachment B). I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

 Sincerely, 

 Jeffrey T. Miller 

 President and Executive Director 
Att: 

cc: James Berlow (berlow.jim@epa.gov) 

Cortney Higgins (cortney_higgins@omb.eop.gov) 

Kevin Bromberg (kevin.bromberg@sba.gov) 
(Attachment A) 

Comparison of Treated Wood to Resinated Wood 

Resinated Wood Treated Wood 

Resinated wood is a sought-after fuel by many manufacturing and 

electricity-generating operations and is an integral part of the wood 

manufacturing process. 

9 

Resinated wood is managed as a desirable fuel for its higher BTU 

levels (due to low moisture content and the extra heat of added 

chemicals) 

9 

Resinated wood is “clearly considered and managed as a valuable 

commodity” 

9 

Contaminant levels “may not always meet the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion in every situation” 

9 

Wood product plants were “designed to specifically use these 

residuals” and “would not be able to operate as designed without this 

material” 

9 

(Implicitly) Disrupting this established, valuable commercial 

relationship would cause adverse economic consequences 

9 

“EPA recognizes that some specific types of non-hazardous secondary 

materials, such as resinated wood residuals, are more like valuable 

commodities than solid wastes. Resinated wood is a secondary 

material that, upon examination, is not discarded when used on-site or 

transferred off-site to a different company.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,499-

500. 

9 

It is appropriate to balance the legitimacy criteria and other relevant 

factors to conclude that the purpose of burning these wood residuals 

(including the resins they contain, which themselves contribute to the 

heating value of the material) is not to destroy or discard them, as they 

are clearly considered and managed as a valuable commodity to the 

manufacturing process. 76 Fed. Reg. at 80,483. 

9 
(Attachment B) 

List of Known Types of Non-Hazardous Treated Wood

[As background for comparison purposes only: Resinated wood contains 8% resin, 

which includes formaldehyde and phenol HAPS.] 

Waterbornes: 

Boron-based – up to 0.95% preservative 

Organic-based – up to 0.72% preservative 

Copper-based – up to 1.56% preservative 

The above waterborne preservatives contain no HAPS. 

Oilbornes: 

Copper naphthenate – up to 1.02% preservative (contains no HAPS) 

Pentachlorophenol – up to 1.53% preservative (this is significantly less than the 

amount of resin in resinated wood) (pentachlorophenol itself is a HAP) 

Creosote – (EPA already has extensive information on creosote treated wood.) 

 

 [Note: The percentages above reflect current standards published by the 

American Wood Protection Association or the International Code Council – 

Evaluation Service. To insure compliance, some individual pieces of treated 

wood may be treated to slightly higher levels. Also, all of the percentages above 

reflect the “penetration zone” only. For some wood species, the “penetration 

zone” may be only one inch, with no preservative in the interior of the wood or 

the heart wood. In those cases, the actual full-wood percentages may be often 

less.]