# 4 4 0 0 C C F F R R P P A A R R T T 

# 2 2 4 4 1 1 , , S S U U B B P P A A R R T T 

# B B

– – C C R R O O S S S S T T I I E

E 

# D D E E R R I I V

V E E D D 

# F F U U E E L L 

# ( ( C

C D D F F ) ) C C A A T T E E G G O O R R I I C

C A A L L 

# P P E E T T I I T T I I O

O N N F F O O R R A A 

# N N O O N N


# - - W

W A A S S T T E E 

# D D E E T T E E R R M M I I N

N A A T T I I O

O N N

M M

. . A A

. . E

E N N N E

E E R

R R G

G G Y

Y Y 

# R R E E E S

S S O

O O U

U U R

R R C

C C E

E E S

S S 

# ,

, L

L L

L C

C

Submitted By:
M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210 Submitted To:

Lisa Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 1101A Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Prepared By:

S UBMITTED : F EBRUARY 2013 2393 Kimberton Road PO Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442-0299

### TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name ......................................................................................................... Page Num ber



### ii 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 NHSM RULE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 1-3 2. NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WA STE DETERMINATION ...................................... 2-1 2.1 PETITIONER'S NAME AND ADDRESS [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(I)] ......................... 2-1 2.2 A STATEMENT OF THE PETI TIONER'S INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED ACTION [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(II)] ..................................................................................................... . 2-1 2.3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, INCLUDING SUGGESTED REGULATORY LANGUAGE [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(III)] .................................................. 2-2 2.4 A STATEMENT OF THE N EED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................................ .......... 2-2

2.4.1 The Combustion of CDF has a Significant Beneficial Environmental Impact ...... 2-2
2.4.2 CDF Meets the Legitimacy Criteria Specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d) ................... 2-3

3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 3-1 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 4-1

### LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Name



### iii Appendix A – Constituent/Contaminant Comparison Tables Appendix B – Constituent/Contaminant Raw Testing ResultsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-1 

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Ma terials that are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Com bustion Units Rule, the so-ca lled Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule (NHSM Rule), is codified at 40 CFR Part 241. The rule establishes the process or procedures by which non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSMs) are or are not considered
to be solid wastes when burned in combus tion units. The NHSM Rule has far reaching regulatory impacts for those facilities that wi sh to utilize NHSMs as alternative fuels.

1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE

This document is a rulemaking petition the purpose of which is to demonstrate that Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) is a non-waste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 241.4(b)(2), and to hereby request that U.S. EPA issue a categori cal determination specifically identifying CDF as a non-waste, exempt, NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a). CDF is not currently considered to be a tradi tional fuel and is not currently c onsidered to be a non-waste fuel under the NHSM Rule. However, M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER), an alternative fuels company that specializes in managing the logi stics associated with the collection, handling, processing, and distribution of sp ecification CDF, is committed to the process of establishing CDF as a legitimate non-waste alternative fuel. MAER strongly believes that CDF is indeed a
non-waste fuel and that U.S. EPA should issue a categorical determination that CDF is a nonwaste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2), a nd specifically list CDF
as a non-waste NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a). MAER is submitting this document in
addition to and consistent with similar s ubmissions made previously by the following stakeholders and members of the regulated community:

 American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)  Creosote Council (CC)

 Treated Wood Council (TWC)  Association of America Railroads (AAR)

 American Wood Council (AWC)M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-2 

### This document has been developed in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b) and requests a specific cate gorical NHSM non-waste determination for CDF.

1.2 NHSM RULE OVERVIEW

An NHSM considered to be a non-waste material can be burned as an a lternative fuel or an ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by ei ther of the following C AA Section 112 rules (or other applicable MACT standard):

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – National Emission Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Ins titutional Boilers and Pr ocess Heaters [i.e., the Major Source Boiler Maximum Achievab le Control Technology (MACT) Standard].

 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ – National Emission Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Inst itutional Boilers Area Sources [i.e., the
Area Source Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard].

Conversely, a NHSM considered to be a solid waste material canno t be burned as an alternative fuel or used as an ingredient in a combustion unit regulated by either th e Major or Area Source Boiler MACT rules and must instead be burned in a combustion unit regulated by either of the following CAA Section 129 rules:

 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CCCC – Standards of Performa nce for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incine ration Units for Which Cons truction is Commenced After November 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001

 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDDD – Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Inci neration Units that Commenced Construction on or Before November 30, 1999.

Without a NHSM non-waste determination, a com bustion unit that burns a NHSM fuel will be labeled an incinerator. Given the choice of being permitted as an incinerator or a boiler, the overwhelming majority of facilit ies will choose to stop utilizing alternative fuels that areM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-3 

### considered to be solid-wastes and comply with Boiler MACT. This w ould have an unintended negative environmental impact as generators of presumed “solid wastes” used as fuels would then potentially be forced to landfill materials th at are currently beneficial ly used as alternative fuels, and could also potentially increase emissi ons of regulated pollutant emissions from such facilities as they return to the use of fossil fuels.

On February 7, 2013, the United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated final revisions to the NHSM Rule. U.S. EPA’s promulgation of the final NHSM Rule revisions represents the culmination of a lo ng dialogue with stakeholde rs from a variety of industry sectors stemming back to January 2, 2009 and the original issuance of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Si nce the ANPRM, the NHSM Rule has undergone significant scrutiny and garnered considerable comm ents at each step of the regulatory process, including comments from combustors that utilize Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) as an alternative fuel to offset all or a portion of the fo ssil fuels used in their combustion units.

CDF is a non-hazardous alternativ e biomass fuel derived from railr oad crossties that have been removed from service and processed by reclama tion companies such as MAER. Approximately
17 million crossties are removed from service each year. This volume of material is roughly equivalent to an area the size of a football field with crossties pi led seventy (70) stories tall. CDF crossties are overwhelmingly comprised of North American hardwoods that have been
treated with creosote. As a func tion of its high energy content, CD F is beneficially used for heat and energy recovery in many co mbustion units across a variety of industry sectors as a nonhazardous, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION: Provides a brief overview of the NHSM Rule background and impacts on the regulated comm unity, and states the document’s overall purpose.

 SECTION 2 – NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WASTE DETERMINATION: Provides the components of a rulemaking pe tition specified by 40 CFR §241.4(b)(1) and requests a categorical determination that CDF is a non-waste fuel in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2).M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

1-4 

###  SECTION 3 – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Provides additional information as requested to U.S. EPA responses to co mments including the December 20, 2013 final rule.

 SECTION 4 – CONCLUSION: Provides a concluding summa ry of the information included in the document.

 APPENDIX A – CONSTITUENT/CO NTAMINANT COMPARISON TABLES.

 APPENDIX B – CONSTITUENT/CONT AMINANT RAW TESTING RESULTS.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-1 

## 2. NHSM CDF PETITION NON-WASTE DETERMINATION

As stated above, the NHSM Rule is codified at 40 CFR Part 241 and identifies the requirements and procedures for the identification of non wastes used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. In accordance with 40 CFR §241.4(b), “Any person may submit a rulemaking petition to the Administrator to identify additional non-ha zardous secondary materials to be listed in paragraph 40 CFR §241.4(a).” 40 CFR §241.4(a) includes a list of NHSMs that EPA has
determined are not solid wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. The required components of the NHSM CDF Petition for a Non-wa ste Determination are detailed in 40 CFR §241.4(b)(1)(i) through (iv) and are discussed in more detail below.

2.1 PETITIONER'S NAME AND ADDRESS [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(I)]

Petitioners Name:
M.A. Energy Resources, LLC

Petitioners Address:
9225 Indian Creek Parkway
Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210

2.2 A STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED ACTION [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(II)]

As stated above, MAER is an alternative fu els company that specializes in managing the logistics associated with the collection, handling, pro cessing, and distribu tion of specification CDF. MAER operates as an intermediary between the railroad industry and the end-use combustors that utilize CDF as a non-hazardous, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel.
MAER receives railroad creosote cr ossties from the railroads or the companies contracted by the railroads to remove crossties. MAER proceeds to process the crossties into specification CDF depending on the particular needs of the end-us e combustor. MAER’s primary business is theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-2 

### collection, processing, and sale of specification CDF to their di verse client base of end-use
combustors.

2.3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, INCLUDING SUGGESTED REGULATORY LANGUAGE [40 CFR §241.4(B)(1)(III)]

MAER proposes that U.S. EPA provide a determ ination that CDF is not a solid-waste and instead is a legitimate alternative fuel. MAER further proposes that U.S. EPA include CDF categorically as “crossties that have been treated with creosote” in the list of NHSMs that are not
solid-wastes when used as fuels codified at 40 CFR §241.4(a). MAER has provided proposed language to be included in 40 CFR §241.4(a) below:

40 CFR §241.4(a)(5) – Cross ties that have been tr eated with creosote.

2.4 A STATEMENT OF THE NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

As stated above, MAER is submitting this docu ment in conjunction and collaboration with stakeholders and members of the regulated community both “up-stream” and “down-stream” from MAER’s position in the CDF reclamati on-to-fuel process. MAER and the other stakeholders potentially affected by the outcome of this NHSM CDF Petition for Non-waste Determination strongly believe that the reclaime d crossties that comprise CDF are not solidwastes for the following reasons:

 The use of CDF as a non-hazardous, bioma ss derived, alternative to fossil fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact.

 CDF meets the legitimacy criteria specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d).

2.4.1 The Combustion of CDF has a Significant Beneficial Environmental Impact

The current combustion of CDF as a non-hazardous alternative biomass fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact. A determination that CDF is not a solid-waste and is instead a legitimate alternative fuel, coupled with the ca tegorical inclusion of CDF in the list of NHSMsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-3 

### that are not solid-wastes when used as fuel s codified at 40 CFR §241.4(a), would keep a significant volume of crossties from being unnecessarily land-filled.

Keeping crossties from being land-filled has a secondary affect on limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well. The utilization of CD F by end-use combustors can displace the use of fossil fuels that emit GHG. The GHG limiting eff ect of combusting CDF is magnified when one
considers that alternative fuel s derived from biomass such as wood are included within the carbon cycle while traditional foss il fuels are not. Should CDF’s st atus as a non-waste continue to be undefined and its use as an alternative fuel cease, the thermal equivalent of the CDF that is currently utilized by end-use combustors will n eed to be offset by a non-waste fuel considered legitimate by U.S. EPA or more likely a fossil fuel . Offsetting the use of CDF with a legitimate
non-waste fuel or a fossil fuel could potentially carry a significant GHG penalty. This GHG penalty will again be magnified as the CDF that has been unnece ssarily land-filled begins to undergo anaerobic decomposition, gene rating emissions of methane (CH 4 

### ), a GHG that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ).
2.4.2 CDF Meets the Legitimacy Crit eria Specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d)

Pursuant to 40 CFR §241.3(b)(4), non-hazardous s econdary materials, including fuels, are not solid wastes when combusted as long as the following criteria are met:

 The fuel is not discarded or is produced from the processing of a discarded NHSM [40 CFR §241.3(b)(4)].

 The fuel meets the legitimacy crite ria specified in 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1).

o The fuel is managed as a valuable commodity [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)].

o The fuel has a meaningful heating value and is used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy [ 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii)].

o The fuel contains contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuel(s) which th e combustion unit is designed to burn [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(iii)].M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-4 

### 2.4.2.1 The Fuel is Not Discarded or is Produced from the Processing of a Discarded NHSM [40 CFR §241.3(b)(4)]

MAER understands that a petition to categorica lly list an NHSM as a legitimate fuel must include a demonstration or justification that the ma terial either is not discarded, or if it is discarded, then the material has been sufficiently processed. MAER asserts that the vast majority of crossties used as CDF by end-use co mbustors are not discarde d as they are instead
obtained via contractual ar rangements. MAER also asserts th at those crossties that could be considered discarded are sufficiently processed into specification CDF prior to utilization by
end-use combustors.

According to the Association of American Railroads, approximately 17 million crossties are removed from railways each year. Railroads cont ract with a crosstie reclamation company to
remove and reclaim the crossties. Such contract s actually transfer owne rship of the reclaimed crossties to the removal/reclamation company for th e time that the ties are in their possession. As such, the reclaimed crossties, while not in th e control of the original generator (i.e., the railroads), are not discarded in the typical common use of the term discarde d. They are instead
transferred to the removal/recl amation company who sorts the ti es according to their condition
for different end uses. Remove d and reclaimed crossties may be temporarily stored in the railroad right-of-way or at a nother location by the crosstie recl amation companies. However, regardless of the length of time the crossties ar e stored, the crossties are not discarded in
accordance with the common use definition of discar ded in that they are not abandoned or no longer considered to be useful. The crossties are simply stored unt il such a time as their value as an alternative fuel (i.e., for use as an alternative fuel or other end-use purposes such as landscaping) can be realized. MAER understands that even long term storage does not diminish
the value of the CDF crossties as an alternative fuel. One third of the reclaimed crossties are used for landscaping. The majority of the other two thirds of the reclaimed crosstie s are used by end-use combustors for energy recovery.

Not all CDF originates from crossties removed fr om service in the same year. Some CDF is processed from crossties that were removed fro m service in prior years and stored by theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-5 

### railroads or removal/reclamation companies until their value as a landscaping element or
alternative fuel could be realized. These crosstie s are not discarded. Ther e is no record of such crossties being abandoned. Waiting un til the value of the material can be realized is relevant to a determination whether the length of time in storage is reasonable. 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15520 (Mar. 21, 2011) (reasonable time frame for storage is flexible enough to allow accumulation of materials to be cost-effective).

However, even if EPA believed that crossties rem oved from service in prio r years have not been stored for a reasonable period of time, MAER maintains that all crossties are sufficiently processed prior to utilization by the end-use combustors. Certain removal and reclamation companies sell the crossties to companies like MAER who process the cr ossties, reclaimed by the removal companies or otherwise originating from stored crossties, using a combination of the following, as appropriate:

 Removal of metal (i.e., spikes, nails, plat es, etc.) via magnetic removal. Note that depending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, magnetic removal could be applied more than once.

 Grinding or shredding of the cr ossties to specified size depending on th e particular needs
of the end-use combustors. Note that de pending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, the grinding stage of the crosstie processing may occur via primary and secondary grinding phas es or a single grinding phase.

 Additional screening of the ground or shredd ed crosstie material to specified size depending on the particular needs of the end- use combustors. Note that depending on the configuration of a facility’s processing equipment, screening may occur concurrently with grinding or as a subsequent stage of the crosstie processing.

 Applying a surfactant to minimize dust during transfer and handling of the material.

The end result of such processing is a specificati on CDF that has been sufficiently processed to improve combustion of the material, remove contam inants, and meet the pa rticular needs of theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-6 

### end-use combustor. The specification CDF is then sold directly to the end-use combustor for

energy recovery.

In conclusion, crossties that have been removed by companies contra cted directly to the railroads
have not been discarded. In a ddition, all crossties in the CDF population whether stored prior to processing are processed sufficiently to meet th e definition of processi ng codified at 40 CFR §241.2.

2.4.2.2 The Fuel is Managed as a Valuab le Commodity [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)]

Several companies in the United States, including MAER, exist using a business model that revolves entirely around the valu e created by the removal, reclamation, processing, and sale of
creosote-treated railroad crossties as CDF. Such companies generate annual industry-wide revenue of $65-$75 million. The removed/reclaimed crossties are the valuable commodity that creates this industry and the a ssociated revenue. Note that the CDF industry is a thriving marketplace where removal/reclam ation companies compete both for railroad contracts and the end-use combustor customer base who buys the CDF.

In demonstrating that an NHSM is managed as a valuable commodity U.S. EPA stipulates pursuant to 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) that storage of the NHSM prior to use as a fuel must not exceed reasonable timeframes, and that the NHSM must be managed and contained in a manner consistent with an analogous fuel to prevent releases to the environment. Processed
CDF is delivered to end-use combustors via railc ar and/or truck similar to how other biomass
fuels would be delivered. End-use combustors may also employ additional magnetic removal of metal. After receipt, the CDF is stock-piled prior to combustion in a similar manner to other analogous fuels like bark fuel, hog fuel, or bioma ss (i.e., in fuel piles or silos). Prior to combustion, which usually takes pla ce within a timeframe from a day to a week of arrival, the
CDF is transferred and/or handl ed from temporary storage in a manner consistent with the transfer and handling of other biomass fuels; pro cedures that typically in clude screening again by the end-use combustor, combining with other bi omass fuels, and transferring to the combustor via conveyor belt or front-end loader. CDF is managed as a valuable commodity since aM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-7 

### competitive marketplace exists for the removal, r eclamation, and sale of CDF crossties, and since such crossties are not stored for unreasonable lengt hs and are handled and treated similar to other analogous biomass fuels by end-use combustors.

2.4.2.3 The Fuel Must Have a Meaningful Heating Value [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii)]

In an effort to compare the constituents/contam inants of CDF to traditional fuels (i.e., coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal ta r oil), MAER has had qualitative laboratory testing performed on a sample of the specification CDF that they proces s and sell. In so doing, a heating value of 6,595 Btu/lb as fired was determined for the sample tested. U.S. EPA has previously reported that
creosoted-treated wood has a heat ing value of 6,000 Btu/lb. Othe r stakeholders and affected industry members like the Trea ted Wood Council (TWC) have pr eviously reported a heating value for creosote-treated wood of upwards of 8,000 Btu/lb. As a result, a heating value range of 6,000-8,000 Btu/lb as fired is reasonable for speci fication CDF. U.S. EPA has consistently referenced 5,000 Btu/lb as threshold for presum ing that an NHSM has a meaningful heating value. Based on the qualitative laboratory te sting that MAER has had performed, CDF has a meaningful heating value pursu ant to 40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(ii).

2.4.2.4 The Fuel Must Contain Contaminants at Levels Comparable to Traditional Fuel(s) [40 CFR §241.3(d)(1)(iii)]

As stated above, in an effort to make a comparison of the constituents/contaminants present in
CDF to those found in traditional fuels (including coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal tar oil), MAER has had qualitative labora tory testing performed on a sa mple of the specification CDF that they process and sell. MAER contracted Columbia Analytical Services to perform the qualitative testing of CDF.

The CDF sample was obtained from a CDF fuel pi le located at the facility of an end-use combustor. The operation of the CDF fuel p ile, including any associated processing and handling is performed by MAER. Note that th e tested CDF sample was obtained in accordance with the sampling provisions of 40 CFR §6 3.7521(c)(2) and composited by the analyzing laboratory in accordance with the compositi ng provisions of 40 CFR §63.7521(c)(2) and (d)(1)M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-8 

### through (7). In obtaining the composite CDF sample in accordance with the provisions referenced above, MAER understands that the CDF sampling has been conducted in a method that is compliant with the applicable 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD fuel sampling requirements. In so doing, MAER believes that the tested CDF sample has been obtained in a manner consistent with regulated procedures and is therefore, suitable for inclusion in the NHSM
CDF Petition for Non-waste Determination.

In performing the comparison of the constituents/c ontaminants present in CDF to those found in traditional fuels, MAER reviewed a list of cons tituents/contaminants using the CAA Section 112 and 129 regulated pollutants and using engin eering judgment and other internal resources
determined which constituents/con taminants could be reasonably e xpected to be present in the crossties comprising CDF. Specifically, MAER re viewed Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) data and/or industry generate d data (i.e., publicly availabl e databases and/or technical documents) to prepare a list of constituents that c ould reasonably be expected to be present in the
creosote material used to preserve wooden crossties.

Similarly, using available technical databases an d other publically available technical documents [largely obtained from the National Counsel fo r Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) technical documents], a list of cons tituents that could reasonably be expected to be present in
northern and southern North American hardw oods was compiled. This list of “expected” constituents/contaminants was then compared to the list constituents/contaminants known to exist in coal, wood biomass, and fuel oil based on publically av ailable databases and documents
from U.S. EPA’s NHSM website. This li st was also compared to a list of constituents/contaminants obtained from a repr esentative coal tar oil MSDS. Based on U.S. EPA’s response to comments pertaining to contaminant comparisons all constituent/contaminant comparisons were made on a pre-combustion basis (i.e., % weight, ppm, μg or mg/kg, etc. as appropriate).

The qualitative laboratory test data perfor med on the CDF sample represents one (1) constituent/contaminant data point. However, MAER believes that one (1) data point is sufficient to perform a meaningful constituen t/contaminant comparison because the componentsM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-9 

### of CDF, wood and creosote, are homogeneous. The wood component of CDF is homogeneous
because the source is North American hard woods. The creosote component of CDF is homogeneous because the producti on of creosote is governed by standards established by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) . AWPA has establis hed two blends of creosote, P1/P13 or P2. These standards identify the source material for creosote as well as the physical-chemical characteristics of the pesticide product. Railroad ties are typically manufactured using the P2 bl end. Given the homogeneity of the components of CDF, the qualitative laboratory test data submitted with this petition is sufficient to provide a meaningful constituent/contaminant comparison. Further, th e processing of CDF adds further homogeneity to the product, by removing contaminants and si zing the material to give it homogeneous fuel
characteristics.

Table A-1 of Appendix A presents the compiled list of constituents/contaminants that could reasonably be expected to be present in CDF and presents the results of the qualitative testing. Table A-2 of Appendix A compares the resu lts of the qualitative testing to the
constituents/contaminants of the solid fuels coal and biomass and the liquid fuels fuel oil and
coal tar oil on a concentration ba sis. Contaminant levels for coal and biomass were chosen for comparison since a combustion unit currently utiliz ing CDF could reasonably be expected to be capable of combusting coal and/or other biomass fu els as an innate feature of its original design characteristics and no separate delivery system is needed to switch from one solid fuel to
another. Fuel oil and coal ta r oil were chosen for comparison since a combustion unit currently utilizing CDF also could reasonably be expected to be capable of combusting either fuel oil or
coal tar oil as an innate feature of its original design ch aracteristics.

With respect to liquid fuels, we recognize that EPA interprets the phrase “designed to burn” to
mean that a combustor that makes a self-determi nation that its CDF is a processed fuel product may have to meet the contaminant legitimacy cr iterion by installing a nozzle for the delivery of liquid fuel into the boiler. According to EPA, this condition is to avoid the possibility that discard could be occurring in some situations. However, in the context of a specific non-waste determination under section 241.4, EPA has the opportuni ty to evaluate all th e factors relating to the use of CDF as a fuel, includi ng the fact that CDF is a comm odity that is purchased by theM.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-10 

### combustor. EPA, in granting a petition for a non-waste determination, has the discretion to recognize that when a combustor pur chases CDF and then burns it in a boiler, that combustion is not for the purpose of discarding the CDF. Rather, the combustion is for the legitimate purpose of generating energy.

In comparing the constituents/contaminants that could reasonably be expected to be present in CDF to the contaminants in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and coal tar oil, MAER is providing a meaningful comparison of CDF contaminants to a collective end-use combustor fuel contaminant profile. Such a collective fuel c ontaminant profile provides a genuine comparison of the contaminants potentially present in CDF to the contaminants present in the traditional fuels that an end-use combustor cap able of burning CDF actually burn.

MAER combined the individual co ntaminants into specific groups based on similar physical and chemical properties. Specifi cally, MAER established a Vola tile Organic Compounds (VOC) hydrocarbon group, a group comprising the comm on 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs), and a semi-VOC hydrocarbon group, which included the 16 PAH group and other semiVOCs. MAER did not choose to combine any metal contaminants. The individual contaminants have been combined into their respec tive groupings as presented on Table A-1.

As presented in Tables A-1 and A-2, the levels of the constituents/contaminants expected to be present in CDF are comparable to the levels known to exist in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and/or coal tar oil. All relevant groups of CDF constituents /contaminants tested were either non-detect or lower than the comparable levels of groups of contaminants present in one or more of the traditional fuels. For contaminants that are VOCs, the analytical data indicate that the sum of all CDF VOC contaminants are approximately 0.89 part per million (ppm) by weight which is much
less than the individual contamin ant level listed for n-hexane in fuel oil (10,000 ppm). The CDF semi-VOC contaminants are present at approxima tely 978 ppm which is considerable less than the individual contaminant level of phenol that is reported for fuel oil (7,700 ppm). The common 16 PAH plus two (2) additional PAHs (1-methylnapthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene) detected in CDF summed to 7,036 ppm while the contaminant level of naphthalene (just one of the 16M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

2-11 

### PAHs) is 7,330 ppm from fuel oil. Only two (2) metals were presen t in CDF at detectable levels (manganese and mercury) and both of these contaminants are present at levels less than either coal or biomass. Finally the concentration leve ls for the “precursor contaminants” (chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur) detected in CDF ar e less than the correspondi ng levels measured in coal, biomass, and fuel oil. Overall the groups of contaminants detected in CDF are lower than the levels of individual, representative contaminants present in traditional fuels such as coal, biomass, and fuel oil.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

3-1 

## 3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the final revision to the NHSM, U.S. EPA provided responses to a Petition for Non-Waste Determination under 40 CFR §241.4 and Request for Comfort Letter submitted by the AF&PA on December 6, 2012. In their response, U.S. EP A requested that the AF&PA provide additional
information as follows:

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to fo rest product mills, that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stoker boile rs, circulating fluidized bed, etc.) that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 3. The traditional fuels and relative amounts of th ese traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of boilers. 4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e .g., commercial or reside ntial boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creoso te-treated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibe nzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, quinoline, cresols, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene.

MAER has provided additional information in response to U.S. EPA’s request below:

1. MAER knows of 10-16 end-use combustors that utilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel use at all times that th eir combustion units are operating. CDF usage from such end-use combustors can be as much as 100-500 tons daily. MAER knows of 10-16 additional end-use combustors that utilize CDF occasionally based on availability and cost drivers. MAER also knows well over 100 more end-use co mbustors that are operationally able to utilize CDF as an alternativ e fuel to offset fossil fuel that choose not to use CDF as a result of the current solid-was te implications associated with CDF. The 20-32 end-use combustors that utilize CDF, both full-time and part-time, represent a variety of industries including pulp and paper manufacturing, cogeneration, utilities, and chemical manufacturing facilities. 2. The types of boilers operated by those end-use combustors that currently utilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel include fluidized bed, traveli ng grate, and spreader stoker. 3. Boilers operated by end-use combustors that ut ilize CDF as an alternative fuel to offset fossil fuel also burn a variety of “traditional fuels” including: coal, biomass (i.e., hog fuel, bark fuel, and other biomass fuel materi als), fuel oil, Tired Derived Fuel (TDF), Waste Derived Liquid Fuel (WDLF), a nd Waste Derived Solid Fuel (WDSF).M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

3-2 

### 4. MAER understands that the residential use of CDF for purposes of energy recovery is unlikely. However, MAER does know of severa l local utilities in the northern Midwest that utilize CDF for purpos es of power generation. 5. MAER understands that Tables A-1 and A-2 of Attachment A, and the raw qualitative laboratory test data provided in Attachment B, fulfill U.S. EPA’s fifth request as appropriate. However, note that si nce MAER developed the list of constituents/contaminants beginning with what constituents/con taminants could be expected to be present in CDF not all of the specific constituents/contaminants referenced by U.S. EPA were tested as they do not re present constituents/contaminants that would be expected to be present in CDF (i.e., dioxins).

Also, in the final revisions to the NHSM, U.S. EPA provided added four (4) elements to the definition of contaminants as precursor “contam inants” including chlorine (Cl), fluorine (F), nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S). As a result, MAER has provided data pertaining to the presence of Cl, F, N, and S in the qualitative laboratory test data provided as Attachments A and B.M.A. Energy Resources, LLC 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-waste Determination

4-1 

## 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

CDF is a non-hazardous alternativ e biomass fuel derived from railr oad crossties that have been reclaimed as part of normal railroad maintenan ce activities. As a function of its high energy content, CDF is currently beneficially used for heat and energy recovery in many combustion units across a variety of industr y sectors as a non-hazardous, bi omass derived, alternative to
fossil fuel.

Based on the information contained herein, cross ties that comprise CDF are not solid-wastes.
The use of CDF as a non-hazardou s, biomass derived, alternative to fossil fuel has a significant beneficial environmental impact by reducing emissions of GHG and decreasing the unnecessary land-filling of this valuable fuel resource. Th e CDF meets the legitimacy criteria specified by 40 CFR §241.3(d) in that the crosst ies that comprise CDF are (1) either not discarded or are sufficiently processed; (2) are managed as a valu able commodity; (3) have a meaningful heating value; and (4) have levels of constituents/contam inants comparable to the levels known to exist in coal, biomass, fuel oil, and/or coal tar oil.

For these reasons, the information presented herein, and the overabundance of previously submitted similar information, CDF is indeed a n on-waste fuel and that U.S. EPA should issue a categorical determination that CD F is a non-waste fuel in accordan ce with the provisions of 40 CFR §241.4(b)(2), and specifically list CD F as a non-waste NHSM fuel under 40 CFR §241.4(a).

## APPENDIX A

–

CONSTITUENT/ CONTAMINANT COMPARIS ON TABLESTable A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination
No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes Physical/Fuel Characteristics

1 Moisture 27.98 %wt - 0.58 %wt (as received) 0.81 %wt (moist. free) 6,595 Btu/lb (as received) 9,157 Btu/lb (moist. free) Non-HAP/Non-Metal Elements

4 Hydrogen 5.79 % wt (Moist Free) - 5 Nitrogen 0.16 % wt (Moist Free) - 6 Sulfur 0.080 % wt (Moist Free) - 7 Fluorine 0.01 % wt (Moist Free) - 8 Chlorine 0.04 % wt (Moist Free) - 9 Oxygen (diff) 32.28 % wt (Moist Free) - 10 Carbon 52.72 % wt (Moist Free) - Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

11 Benzene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 12 Ethyl benzene 57.5 ug/Kg - 13 Styrene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 14 Toluene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 15 Xylenes 325 ug/Kg (Total) 16 Cumene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 17 Acrolein 1,000 ug/Kg Non-Detect 18 Bromomethane 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 19 Carbon Tetrachloride 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 20 Carbon-Disulfide 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 21 Chlorobenzene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 22 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 23 Methylene Chloride 100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 24 m,p-xylene 178 ug/Kg - 25 o-xylene 148 ug/Kg - 26 Tetrachloroethylene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 27 Trichloroethylene 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 28 Vinyl Chloride 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect 29 n-Hexane 50 ug/Kg Non-Detect TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS

30 1,1-dichloroethylene 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 31 1,2-dichloroethane 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 32 1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.10 mg/L Non-Detect 33 Chloroform 0.10 mg/ L N on-Detec t Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID

34 Acetaldehyde 1.00 mg/Kg Non-Detect 35 Methanol 1.00 mg/Kg Non-Detect 36 Propionaldehyde 1.00 mg/K g N on-Detec t Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

37 2,4-dinitrophenol 57,400 ug/Kg Non-Detect 38 2,4-dinitrotoluene 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 39 Acetophenone 29,100 ug/Kg Non-Detect 40 Aniline 14,600 ug/K g N on-Detec t -

Heat Content 3 2 Ash

-Table A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination
No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes 41 Biphenyl 137,000 ug/Kg - 42 Dibenzofuran 798,000 ug/Kg - 43 Hexachlorobenzene 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 44 Pentachlorophenol 57,400 ug/Kg Non-Detect 45 Phenol 14,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect 46 Quinoline 40,200 ug/K g

- TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

47 o-cresol 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 48 m,p-cresol 1.5100 mg/kg - 49 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 50 Hexachloroethane 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 51 Nitrobenzene 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 52 Pyridine 0.20 mg/L Non-Detect 53 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.05 mg/L Non-Detect 54 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.05 mg/ L N on-Detec t Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM

55 1-Methylnaphthalen e 144,000 ug/K g

- 56 2-Methylnaphthalen e 251,000 ug/K g

- 57 Acenaphthene 610,000 ug/K g

- 58 Acenaphthylen e 58,600 ug/K g N on-Detec t 59 Anthracene 447,000 ug/K g

- 60 Benz(a)anthracene 201,000 ug/K g

- 61 Benzo(a)pyrene 81,900 ug/K g

- 62 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 128,000 ug/K g

- 63 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 29,300 ug/K g N on-Detec t 64 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57,900 ug/K g

- 65 Chrysene 182,000 ug/Kg - 66 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 29,300 ug/Kg Non-Detect 67 Fluoranthene 1,100,000 ug/Kg - 68 Fluorene 529,000 ug/Kg - 69 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29,300 ug/Kg Non-Detect 70 Naphthalene 444,000 ug/Kg - 71 Phenanthrene 1,930,000 ug/Kg - 72 Pyrene 930,000 ug/K g

- Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

73 Chlordane 708 ug/Kg Non-Detect TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography

74 Lindane 0.2380 mg/kg - 75 Heptachlor 0.0002 mg/L Non-Detect 76 Methoxychlor 0.0004 mg/L Non-Detect 77 Toxaphene 0.005 mg/ L N on-Detec tTable A-1 M.A. Energy Resources, LLC CDF Testing Qualitative Laboratory Results 40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste Determination
No. Analytes CDF Test Results Unit Notes Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)

78 Formaldehyde 1,600 ug/Kg Non-Detect Trace Metal HAP:

79 Antimony (Sb) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 80 Arsenic (As) <10 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 81 Beryllium (Be) <0.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 82 Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 83 Chromium (Cr) <2.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 84 Cobalt (Co) <2.5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 85 Lead (Pb) <10 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 86 Manganese (Mn) 63 mg/kg (Moisture Free) - 87 Mercury (Hg) 16.1 ppb (moisture free) - 88 Nickel (Ni) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect 89 Selenium (Se) <5 mg/kg (Moisture Free) Non-Detect

(a) Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Columbia Analytical Services, Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.Table A-2CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Grouped Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationUnitAnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)Moisture27.98 %wt---------0.58 %wt (as received)---------0.81 %wt (moist. free)---------6,595 Btu/lb (as received)---------9,157 Btu/lb (moist. free)---------Non-HAP/ Non-MetalHydrogen 57,900 - - ------Nitrogen 1,600 - N/A 13,600 – 54,000 200 – 39,500 2,200 – 4,600 42 – 8,950 2,000 – 3,000 - - -Sulfur 800 - N/A 740 – 61,300 Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100 N/A Non-Detect – 57,000 - - -Fluorine 100 - N/A Non-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128 N/A Non-Detect – 14 - - -Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A Non-Detect – 1,260 - - -Oxygen (diff) 322,800 ----------Carbon 527,200 ----------Volatile Organic Compounds0.38 - 8.6 – 56 N/A 1.6 - 27 N/A 50 – 10,000 N/A 2,410 N/A 1,500Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds977 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Detect – 7,700 N/A 1,170 6,000 – 12,000 10,30016-PAHs7,036 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Detect – 7,330 N/A 2,850 110,000 – 140,000 161,100Trace Metal HapsAntimony (Sb)<5Non-Detect 0.5 – 10 Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 15.7 Non-Detect – 3.8 - - -Arsenic (As) <10 Non-Detect 0.5 – 80 Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298 N/A Non-Detect – 13 - - -Beryllium (Be) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 15 Non-Detect – 206 N/A Non-Detect – 10 N/A Non-Detect – 19 - - -Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 3 Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3 Non-Detect – 17 N/A Non-Detect – 1.4 - - -Chromium (Cr) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 60 Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340 N/A Non-Detect – 37 - - -Cobalt (Co) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 30 Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213 N/A Non-Detect – 8.5 - - -Lead (Pb) <10 Non-Detect 2 – 80 Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 56.8 Non-Detect – 52 - - -Manganese (Mn) 63 - 5 – 300 Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800 N/A Non-Detect – 3,200 - - -Mercury (Hg) 0.0161 - 0.02 – 1 Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1 N/A Non-Detect – 0.2 - - -Nickel (Ni) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 50 Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 50.2 Non-Detect – 270 - - -Selenium (Se) <5 Non-Detect 0.02 – 10 Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0 NA Non-Detect – 4 - - -(a)Represents constituent/contaminant data converted to ppm as appropriate originally obtained from Columbia Analytical Services,Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.(b)Information obtained from U.S. EPA's"Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison"from U.S. EPA was acquired from www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf.(c)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Table A-1 - Refinery Average Stream Hazardous Air Pollutant Compositions—Default Values of theEmission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries Final ICR.(d)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Coopers Creek Chemical Corporate Safety Data Sheet for Coopersote Creosote Oil (AWPA P1/P13).(e)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Material Safety Date Sheet (MSDS) NO. US 614838 for Creosote/Coal Tar Solution andCreosote Oil.Liquid FuelCDF Test Results(a)COAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)Fuel Oil Coal Tar OilAshHeat ContentCrosstie SampleSolid FuelTable A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)Physical/Fuel Characteristics1Moisture27.98 %wt - - -------0.58 %wt (as received) - - -------0.81 %wt (moist. free) - - -------6,595 Btu/lb (as received) - - -------9,157 Btu/lb (moist. free) - - -------Non-HAP/Non-Metal Elements4Hydrogen 57,900 - - ------5Nitrogen 1,600 - N/A 13,600 – 54,000 200 – 39,500 2,200 – 4,600 42 – 8,950 2,000 – 3,000 - - -6Sulfur 800 - N/A 740 – 61,300 Non-Detect – 8,700 Non-Detect – 6,100 N/A Non-Detect – 57,000 - - -7Fluorine 100 - N/A Non-Detect – 178 Non-Detect – 300 Non-Detect – 128 N/A Non-Detect – 14 - - -8Chlorine 400 - N/A Non-Detect – 9,080 Non-Detect – 2,600 Non-Detect – 5,400 N/A Non-Detect – 1,260 - - -9Oxygen (diff) 322,800----------10Carbon 527,200----------Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS11Benzene 0.05 Non-Detect Non-Detect – 38 N/A - - Non-Detect – 75 N/A 40 - 1,30012Ethyl benzene 0.0575 - 0.7 – 5.4 N/A - - 22 – 1,270 N/A 530 - 40013Styrene 0.05 Non-Detect 1.0 – 26 N/A - - Non-Detect – 320 N/A - - 60014Toluene 0.05 Non-Detect 8.6 – 56 N/A - - Non-Detect – 380 N/A 810 - 1,50015Xylenes 0.325 (Total) 4.0 – 28 N/A - - Non-Detect – 3,100 N/A 2,410 - -16Cumene 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 6,000 – 8,600 N/A 560 - -17Acrolein 1 Non-Detect - - -------18Bromomethane 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------19Carbon Tetrachloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------20Carbon-Disulfide 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------21Chlorobenzene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------22Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------23Methylene Chloride 0.1 Non-Detect - - -------24m,p-xylene 0.178---------1,30025o-xylene 0.148- - - - - - - - - 40026Tetrachloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------27Trichloroethylene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------28Vinyl Chloride 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------29n-Hexane 0.05 Non-Detect - - - - 50 – 10,000 - 300 - -TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS301,1-dichloroethylene 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------311,2-dichloroethane 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------321,4-dichlorobenzene 0.08 Non-Detect - - -------33Chloroform 0.07 Non-Detect - - -------Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID-----34Acetaldehyde 1.00 Non-Detect - - -------35Methanol 1.00 Non-Detect - - -------36Propionaldehyde 1.00 Non-Detect - - -------2Ash3Heat ContentCDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelTable A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)CDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS372,4-dinitrophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - -------382,4-dinitrotoluene 14.6 Non-Detect - - -------39Acetophenone 29.1 Non-Detect - - -------40Aniline 14.6 Non-Detect - - -------41Biphenyl 137-----1,000 – 1,200 N/A 1,170 6,000 – 12,000 10,30042Dibenzofuran 798---------31,30043Hexachlorobenzene 14.6 Non-Detect - - ------44Pentachlorophenol 57.4 Non-Detect - - -------45Phenol 14.6 Non-Detect - - - - Non-Detect – 7,700 NA - - 60046Quinolines 40.2---------9,000TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS47o-cresol 0.05 Non-Detect - - -----800 – 2,500 -48m,p-cresol 1.51--------800 – 2,500 -49Hexachlorobutadiene 0.05 Non-Detect - - -------50Hexachloroethane 0.03 Non-Detect - - -------51Nitrobenzene 0.04 Non-Detect - - -------52Pyridine 0.20 Non-Detect - - -------532,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.03 Non-Detect - - -------542,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.03 Non-Detect - - -------Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM551-Methylnaphthalene 144---------18,000562-Methylnaphthalene 251---------48,40057Acenaphthene 610--------40,000 – 60,000 60,00058Acenaphthylene 58.6 Non-Detect - - -------59Anthracene 447--------20,000 – 40,000 37,60060Benz(a)anthracene 201---------14,00061Benzo(a)pyrene 81.9--------1,000 – 4,000 3,90062Benzo(b)fluoranthene 128--------2,000 – 4,000 4,20063Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 29.3 Non-Detect - - ------1,70064Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57.9---------2,80065Chrysene 182--------10,000 – 12,000 12,20066Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 29.3 Non-Detect - - -----200 – 400 40067Fluoranthene 1,100--------60,000 – 80,000 74,10068Fluorene 529---------43,90069Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29.3 Non-Detect - - -----500 – 1,000 1,20070Naphthalene444 - - - - -Non-Detect – 7,3302,850 30,000 – 80,000 161,10071Phenanthrene 1930--------110,000 – 140,000 141,30072Pyrene 930--------40,000– 50,000 51,400Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography73Chlordane 0.708 Non-Detect - - -------TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography74Lindane 0.2380----------75Heptachlor 0.0001 Non-Detect - - -------76Methoxychlor 0.0003 Non-Detect - - -------77Toxaphene 0.0030 Non-Detect - - -------Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)78Formaldehyde 1.6 Non-Detect - - 1.6 - 27 N/A-----Table A-3CDF Testing Qualatative Laboratory Results Traditional Fuel Comparison (i.e., Coal, Biomass, Fuel Oil, and Coal Tar Oil) (Individual Contaminant Results)40 CFR Part 241, Subpart B – Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Petition for Non-Waste DeterminationNo. AnalytesLaboratoryResult (ppm)LaboratoryCommentUS EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)US EPA LiteratureSources (ppm)US EPA OAQPSDatabase (ppm)Literature(b)Sources (ppm)OAQPS(b)Database (ppm)Refinery ICR(ppm)(c)AWPAP1/P13 (ppm)(d)MSDS Coal TarSolution (P1/P2)(e)CDF Test Results(a)Coal Tar OilFuel OilLiquid FuelCrosstie SampleCOAL(b)Wood & Biomass(b)UnitSolid FuelTrace Metal HAP:79Antimony (Sb)<5Non-Detect 0.5 – 10 Non-Detect – 6.9 Non-Detect – 26 Non-Detect – 6.0 Non-Detect – 15.7 Non-Detect – 3.8 - - -80Arsenic (As) <10 Non-Detect 0.5 – 80 Non-Detect – 174 Non-Detect – 6.8 Non-Detect – 298 N/A Non-Detect – 13 - - -81Beryllium (Be) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 15 Non-Detect – 206 N/A Non-Detect – 10 N/A Non-Detect – 19 - - -82Cadmium (Cd) <0.5 Non-Detect 0.1 – 3 Non-Detect – 19 Non-Detect – 3 Non-Detect – 17 N/A Non-Detect – 1.4 - - -83Chromium (Cr) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 60 Non-Detect – 168 Non-Detect – 130 Non-Detect – 340 N/A Non-Detect – 37 - - -84Cobalt (Co) <2.5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 30 Non-Detect – 25.2 Non-Detect – 24 Non-Detect – 213 N/A Non-Detect – 8.5 - - -85Lead (Pb) <10 Non-Detect 2 – 80 Non-Detect – 148 Non-Detect – 340 Non-Detect – 229 Non-Detect – 56.8 Non-Detect – 52 - - -86Manganese (Mn) 63 - 5 – 300 Non-Detect – 512 Non-Detect – 840 Non-Detect – 15,800 N/A Non-Detect – 3,200 - - -87Mercury (Hg) 0.016100 - 0.02 – 1 Non-Detect – 3.1 Non-Detect – 0.2 Non-Detect – 1.1 N/A Non-Detect – 0.2 - - -88Nickel (Ni) <5 Non-Detect 0.5 – 50 Non-Detect – 730 Non-Detect – 540 Non-Detect – 175 Non-Detect – 50.2 Non-Detect – 270 - - -89Selenium (Se) <5 Non-Detect 0.02 – 10 Non-Detect – 74.3 Non-Detect – 2 Non-Detect – 9.0 NA Non-Detect – 4 - - -(a)Represents constituent/contaminant data converted to ppm as appropriate originally obtained from Columbia Analytical Services,Inc., Qualitative Laboratory Test Report, Service Request No. T1201895.(b)Information obtained from U.S. EPA's"Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison"from U.S. EPA was acquired from www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf.(c)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Table A-1 - Refinery Average Stream Hazardous Air Pollutant Compositions—Default Values of theEmission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries Final ICR.(d)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Coopers Creek Chemical Corporate Safety Data Sheet for Coopersote Creosote Oil (AWPA P1/P13).(e)Constituent/contaminant data obtained from Material Safety Date Sheet (MSDS) NO. US 614838 for Creosote/Coal Tar Solution andCreosote Oil.

## APPENDIX B

–

CONSTITUENT/C ONTAMINANT RAW TESTING RESULTS

### January 29, 2013 Service Request No: T1201895

Mike Sorcher MA Energy Resources, LLC (MAER) 9225 Indian Creek Pkwy, Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210

All analyses were performed according to our laboratory’s quality assurance program. The test results meet requirements of the ISO 17025 standards except as noted in the case narrative report. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, and Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. dba ALS Environmental (ALS) is not responsible for use of less than the complete report. Results apply only to the items submitted to the laboratory for analysis and individual items (samples) analyzed, as listed in the report. For your reference, these analyses have been assigned our service request number Enclosed are the results of the sample(s) submitted to our laboratory Laboratory Results for: Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Dear Mike, November 27, 2012 T1201895.

Respectfully submitted, Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. dba ALS Enviromental

Wendy Hyatt Project Chemist



## 1 of 26 Part of the ALS Group A Campbell Brothers Limited Company Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. ADDRESS FAX PHONE 9143 Philips Highway, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256 +1 904 739 2011 +1 904 739 2277 |CASE NARRATIVE T1201895 Date Received: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client: 11/27/12

All analyses were performed consistent with the quality assurance program of Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. (CAS). This report contains analytical results for samples designated for Tier I data deliverables. When appropriate to the procedure, method blank results have been reported with each analytical test. Analytical procedures performed by the lab are validated in accordance with NELAC standards. Parameters that are included in the NELAC Fields of Testing but are not included in the lab’s NELAC accreditation are identified in the discussion of each analytical procedure.
Sample Receipt
One solid sample was received for analysis at Columbia Analytical Services on 11/27/12. The sample was received in good condition and consistent with the accompanying chain of custody form. Samples are refrigerated at < 6°C upon receipt at the lab except for aqueous samples designated for metals analyses, which are stored at room temperature.
Volatile Organic Analyses:

Method 8260B: Method Blank JQ1207986-02 contained a low level amount of Dichloromethane above the Method Detection Limit (MDL), but less than the Method Reporting Limit (MRL). The data are flagged with a qualifier to indicate the results are estimated values. The method blank results may indicate the potential for a false positive.
Semi-Volatile Organic Analyses:
Method 8081 TCLP: The confirmation comparison criteria of 40% difference for surrogate analyte Tetrachloro-m-xylene was exceeded in Laboratory Control Sample JQ1207868-02 (LCS). The higher of the two values were reported because no evidenceof a matrix interference was observed. The confirmation comparison criteria of 40% difference for surrogate analytes Tetrachlorom-xylene and Decachlorobiphenyl was exceeded in sample T1201895-001. The results from the front analytical column were reported because of a matrix interference observed on the back analytical column. The elevated RPD was likely due to a negative bias on the back analytical column. The results for this analytical sequence were reported from the front analytical column; therefore, no further corrective action was taken.
Method 8270C TCLP: The upper control criterion was exceeded for the following analyte in Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) JQ1207990-03: Quinoline. The analyte in question was detected in the associated field samples. The error associated with elevated recovery equates to a high bias. The sample data ma y be affected. No further corrective action was appropriate.
Method 8270C: The Method Reporting Limit (MRL) is elevated for all target analytes in sample T1201895-001. The sample was extracted using approximately 3.5g of sample instead of the usual 30.0g due to problems created by the sample matrix during extraction, filtration, and concentration.
Method 8081: The spike recovery of analyte Chlordane (technical) for Laboratory Control Sample JQ1208161-03 (LCS) was outside the lower control criterion at 67% (limit 70-130%). The analyte in question was not detected in the associated field sample. The error associated with reduced recovery equates to a potential low bias. The pesticide JQ1208161-02 (LCS) recovered within the acceptance criteria for all pesticide analytes, which indicates the analytical batch was in control. No further corrective action was taken.
Method 8081: The control criteria were not met for the following surrogates in sample T1201895-001 due to suspected matrix interferences: Tetrachloro-m-xylene and Decachlorobiphenyl. The extract was highly colored, viscous, emitted a strong odor, and contained particulates. All of these factors indicated the need to perform a dilution prior to injection into the instrument. The 3860 S. Palo Verde Rd., Tucson, AZ 85714 | 520-573-1061 | www.caslab.com

Approved by Date 1/29/2013 

## 2 of 26sample matrix interference was evident in the chromatography for sample T1201895-001; high concentrations of background/nontarget interference eluted within the retention time windows of interest for the surrogates. No further corrective action was appropriate.
Method 8081: The reporting limit is elevated for analytes in sample T1201895-001. The sample extract was diluted prior to instrumental analysis due to relatively high levels of non-target background components. The extract was highly colored, viscous, emitted a strong odor, and contained particulates. All of these factors indicated the need to perform a dilution prior to injection into the instrument. Clean-up of the extract was performed within the scope of the method, but did not eliminate enough of the background components to prevent dilution. The results are flagged to indicate the matrix interference.
Method 8270SIM: The control criteria for the following surrogates in sample T1201895-001 are not applicable: 2-Fluorobiphenyl and p-Terphenyl-d14 The analysis of the sample required a dilution, which resulted in a surrogate concentration below the Method Reporting Limit (MRL). No further corrective action was appropriate.
Method 8270SIM: Sample T1201895-001 required dilution due to the presence of elevated levels of target analyte. The reporting limits are adjusted to reflect the dilution. 3860 S. Palo Verde Rd., Tucson, AZ 85714 | 520-573-1061 | www.caslab.com

Approved by Date 1/29/2013 

## 3 of 26

### State Certifications, Accreditations, and Licenses

Agency Number Expire Date Florida Department of Health E82502 6/30/2013 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 02086 6/30/2013 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 958 6/30/2013 Kentucky Division of Waste Management 63 7/5/2013 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 96021001 6/30/2013 Texas Commision on Environmental Quality T104704197-09-TX 5/31/2013 Maine Department of Health and Human Services 2011006 2/3/2013 Department of Defense 66206 5/31/2013 3860 S. Palo Verde Rd., Tucson, AZ 85714 | 520-573-1061 | www.caslab.com



## 4 of 26

### + Possible Tedlar bag artifact. A TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product B Analyte found in the associated method blank as well as in the sample. BC Reported results are not blank corrected. BH The back section of the tube yielded higher results than the front. BT Results indicated possible breakthrough; back section >=10% front section. C Result identification confirmed. D Compound identified in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor D Spike was diluted out DE Reported results are corrected for desorption efficiency. E Estimated value. Concentration above calibration range E The percent difference for the serial dilution was greater than 10%, indicating a possible matrix interference in the sample. H1 Sample analysis performed past holding time. See case narrative. H2 Initial analysis within holding time. Reanalysis for the required dilution was past holding time. H3 Sample was received and analyzed past holding time. H4 Sample was extracted past required extraction holding time, but analyzed within analysis holding time. See case narrative. I Internal standard not within the specified limits. See case narrative. J Estimated Value. Concentration found below MRL. K A deflection in the QC ion may indicate interference with the quantitation of this ion. The concentration of this analyte should be considered as an estimate. K Analyte was detected above the method reporting limit prior to normalization. L1 Laboratory control sample recovery outside the specified limits; results may be biased high. L2 Laboratory control sample recovery outside the specified limits; results may be biased low. L3 Laboratory control sample recovery outside the specified limits. M Matrix interference; results may be biased high. M The duplicate injection precision not met. M1 Matrix interference due to coelution with a non-target compound; results may be biased high. N Presumptive evidence of a compound for TICs that have been identified based on a mass spectral library search. N The Matrix Spike sample recovery is not within control limits. See case narrative. P Indicates chlorodiphenyl ether interference present at the retention time of the target compound. P Pesticide/Aroclor target analyte > 40% difference for detected concentrations between GC columns Q Indicates as estimated value because the P and P + 2 theoretical abundance ratio does not meet method criteria. R Duplicate Precision not met. R1 Duplicate precision not within the specified limits; however, the results are below the MRL and considered estimated. S Surrogate recovery not within specified limits. 

## Data Qualifiers
CAS Standard



## 5 of 26

### S The reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). T Analyte is a tentatively identified compound, result is estimated. U Compound was analyzed for, but was not detected (ND). V1 The continuing calibration verification standard was outside (biased high) the specified limits for this compound. V2 The continuing calibration verification standard was outside (biased low) the specified limits for this compound. W Result quantified, but the corresponding peak was detected outside the generated retention time window. W The post-digestion spike for furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance. X See case narrative. Y Recovery outside limits Y The chromatogram resembles a petroleum product but does not match the calibration standard. Z The chromatogram does not resemble a petroleum product. i The MRL/MDL has been elevated due to a matrix interference. 

## Data Qualifiers
CAS Standard



## 6 of 26

### ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials A2LA American Association for Laboratory Accreditation CARB California Air Resources Board CAS Number Chemical Abstract Service registry Number CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CFU Colony-Forming Unit DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DHS Department of Health Services DOE Department of Ecology DOH Department of Health EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program GC Gas Chromatography GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry LUFT Leaking Underground Fuel Tank M Modified MCL Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest permissible concentration of a substance allowed in drinking water as established by the USEPA. MDL Method Detection Limit MPN Most Probable Number MRL Method Reporting Limit NA Not Applicable NC Not Calculated NCASI National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement ND Not Detected NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health PQL Practical Quantitation Limit RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SIM Selected Ion Monitoring TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons tr Trace level is the concentration of an analyte that is less than the PQL but greater than or equal to the MDL. Acronyms 

# ALS Laboratory Group

7 of 26CDF T1201895-001 11/27/2012 0000 Client: MA Energy Resources, LLC (MAER) Service Request: T1201895 Project: Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF)

SAMPLE CROSS-REFERENCE

SAMPLE # CLIENT SAMPLE ID DATE TIME

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM Sample Summary 

## 8 of 26T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS 11/27/12 00:00

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8260B Analysis Method: EPA 5035 Prep Method: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 100 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 100 U 1000 Acrolein 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 1000 U 50.0 Benzene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Bromomethane 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 100 Carbon Disulfide 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 100 U 50.0 Carbon Tetrachloride 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Chlorobenzene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 57.5 Ethylbenzene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 50.0 Isopropylbenzene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 178 m,p-Xylenes 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 100 100 Methylene Chloride 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 100 U 50.0 n-Hexane 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 148 o-Xylene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 50.0 Styrene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Toluene 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Trichloroethene (TCE) 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 50.0 Vinyl Chloride 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 50.0 U 325 Xylenes, Total 1 12/11/12 20:12 12/11/12 150

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 12/11/12 20:12 80 - 120 84 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12/11/12 20:12 64 - 135 105 Dibromofluoromethane 12/11/12 20:12 74 - 125 85 Toluene-d8 12/11/12 20:12 46 - 156 116 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 9 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS 11/27/12 00:00

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8260B Analysis Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/4/12 Pre-Prep Date: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Dil. MRL Result 0.100 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 100 12/07/12 21:47 0.100 U 0.100 1,2-Dichloroethane 100 12/07/12 21:47 0.100 U 0.100 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 12/07/12 21:47 0.100 U 0.100 Chloroform 100 12/07/12 21:47 0.100 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 12/07/12 21:47 72 - 121 102 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12/07/12 21:47 86 - 113 104 Dibromofluoromethane 12/07/12 21:47 86 - 112 103 Toluene-d8 12/07/12 21:47 88 - 115 102 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 10 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID 11/27/12 00:00

As Received mg/Kg Basis: Units:

NCASI HAPS-99.01 Analysis Method: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Dil. MRL Result 1.0 Acetaldehyde 1 12/11/12 16:19 1.0 U 1.0 Methanol 1 12/11/12 16:19 1.0 U 1.0 Propionaldehyde 1 12/11/12 16:19 1.0 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Cyclopentanol 12/11/12 16:19 50 - 150 72 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 11 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS 11/27/12 00:00

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8270C Analysis Method: EPA 3550C Prep Method: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) MA Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 57400 2,4-Dinitrophenol 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 57400 U 14600 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 14600 U 29100 Acetophenone 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 29100 U 14600 Aniline 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 14600 U 137000 Biphenyl 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 29100 798000 Dibenzofuran 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 14600 14600 Hexachlorobenzene 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 14600 U 57400 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 57400 U 14600 Phenol 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12 14600 U 40200 Quinoline 10 12/18/12 21:57 12/6/12

-

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 12/18/12 21:57 28 - 164 58 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/18/12 21:57 33 - 133 71 2-Fluorophenol 12/18/12 21:57 10 - 126 54 Nitrobenzene-d5 12/18/12 21:57 25 - 138 60 Phenol-d6 12/18/12 21:57 10 - 170 59 p-Terphenyl-d14 12/18/12 21:57 16 - 168 72 Tentatively Identified Compounds

Compound Identification RT Result ug/Kg Q CAS# No Tentatively Identified Compounds Detected Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 12 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS 11/27/12 00:00

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8270C Analysis Method: EPA 3510C Prep Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/6/12 Pre-Prep Date: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 0.0500 o-Cresol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0755 m,p-Cresols, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 0.0500 Hexachlorobutadiene, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 Hexachloroethane, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 Nitrobenzene, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.200 Pyridine, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.200 U 0.0500 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 07:45 12/12/12 0.0500 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 12/14/12 07:45 13 - 133 72 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/14/12 07:45 22 - 105 60 2-Fluorophenol 12/14/12 07:45 10 - 69 53 Nitrobenzene-d5 12/14/12 07:45 10 - 123 59 Phenol-d6 12/14/12 07:45 10 - 59 44 p-Terphenyl-d14 12/14/12 07:45 28 - 120 71 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 13 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM 11/27/12 00:00

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8270C SIM Analysis Method: EPA 3550C Prep Method: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 144000 1-Methylnaphthalene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 251000 2-Methylnaphthalene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 610000 Acenaphthene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 58600 58600 Acenaphthylene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 58600 U 447000 Anthracene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 201000 Benz(a)anthracene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 81900 Benzo(a)pyrene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 128000 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 29300 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 U 57900 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 182000 Chrysene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 29300 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 U 1100000 Fluoranthene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 529000 Fluorene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 29300 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 U 444000 Naphthalene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300 1930000 Phenanthrene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 58600 930000 Pyrene 5000 12/19/12 17:37 12/13/12 29300

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/19/12 17:37 30 - 118 0 * p-Terphenyl-d14 12/19/12 17:37 41 - 146 0 * Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:29 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 14 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography 11/27/12 00:00

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8081A Analysis Method: EPA 3541 Prep Method: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 708 Chlordane 10 12/18/12 16:47 12/18/12 708 U *

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Decachlorobiphenyl 12/18/12 16:47 32 - 170 0 * Tetrachloro-m-xylene 12/18/12 16:47 10 - 147 0 * Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 15 of 26 Superset Reference:T1201895-001 Lab Code: Sample Name: CDF

TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography 11/27/12 00:00

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8081A Analysis Method: EPA 3510C Prep Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/6/12 Pre-Prep Date: 11/27/12 09:45 T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 0.0119 gamma-BHC (Lindane), TCLP 1 12/12/12 00:14 12/11/12 0.000200 0.000200 Heptachlor, TCLP 1 12/12/12 00:14 12/11/12 0.000200 U 0.000400 Methoxychlor, TCLP 1 12/12/12 00:14 12/11/12 0.000400 U 0.00500 Toxaphene, TCLP 1 12/12/12 00:14 12/11/12 0.00500 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Decachlorobiphenyl 12/12/12 00:14 10 - 160 36 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 12/12/12 00:14 22 - 126 38 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 16 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1207986-02 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS NA

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8260B Analysis Method: EPA 5035 Prep Method: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 10.0 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 10.0 U 100 Acrolein 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 100 U 5.00 Benzene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Bromomethane 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 10.0 Carbon Disulfide 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 10.0 U 5.00 Carbon Tetrachloride 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Chlorobenzene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Ethylbenzene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Isopropylbenzene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 10.0 m,p-Xylenes 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 10.0 U 10.0 Methylene Chloride 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 10.0 U 5.00 n-Hexane 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 o-Xylene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Styrene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Toluene 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Trichloroethene (TCE) 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 5.00 Vinyl Chloride 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 5.00 U 15.0 Xylenes, Total 1 12/11/12 18:46 12/11/12 15.0 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 12/11/12 18:46 80 - 120 97 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12/11/12 18:46 64 - 135 94 Dibromofluoromethane 12/11/12 18:46 74 - 125 88 Toluene-d8 12/11/12 18:46 46 - 156 101 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 17 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1207774-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

TCLP Volatile Organics by GC/MS NA

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8260B Analysis Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/4/12 Pre-Prep Date: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Dil. MRL Result 0.100 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 100 12/07/12 13:32 0.100 U 0.100 1,2-Dichloroethane 100 12/07/12 13:32 0.100 U 0.100 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 12/07/12 13:32 0.100 U 0.100 Chloroform 100 12/07/12 13:32 0.100 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 12/07/12 13:32 72 - 121 101 4-Bromofluorobenzene 12/07/12 13:32 86 - 113 108 Dibromofluoromethane 12/07/12 13:32 86 - 112 102 Toluene-d8 12/07/12 13:32 88 - 115 100 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 18 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1208083-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

Selected HAPS in Condensates by GC/FID NA

As Received mg/Kg Basis: Units:

NCASI HAPS-99.01 Analysis Method: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Dil. MRL Result 1.0 Acetaldehyde 1 12/11/12 15:08 1.0 U 1.0 Methanol 1 12/11/12 15:08 1.0 U 1.0 Propionaldehyde 1 12/11/12 15:08 1.0 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Cyclopentanol 12/11/12 15:08 50 - 150 72 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 19 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1208159-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS NA

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8270C Analysis Method: EPA 3550C Prep Method: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 670 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 670 U 170 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 170 U 340 Acetophenone 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 340 U 170 Aniline 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 170 U 340 Biphenyl 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 340 U 170 Dibenzofuran 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 170 U 170 Hexachlorobenzene 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 170 U 670 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 670 U 170 Phenol 1 12/19/12 09:59 12/6/12 170 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 12/19/12 09:59 28 - 164 75 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/19/12 09:59 33 - 133 80 2-Fluorophenol 12/19/12 09:59 10 - 126 66 Nitrobenzene-d5 12/19/12 09:59 25 - 138 74 Phenol-d6 12/19/12 09:59 10 - 170 74 p-Terphenyl-d14 12/19/12 09:59 16 - 168 95 Tentatively Identified Compounds

Compound Identification RT Result ug/Kg Q CAS# No Tentatively Identified Compounds Detected Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 20 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1207868-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS NA

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8270C Analysis Method: EPA 3510C Prep Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/6/12 Pre-Prep Date: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 0.0500 o-Cresol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 m,p-Cresols, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 Hexachlorobutadiene, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 Hexachloroethane, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 Nitrobenzene, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.200 Pyridine, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.200 U 0.0500 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U 0.0500 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, TCLP 1 12/14/12 06:32 12/12/12 0.0500 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 12/14/12 06:32 13 - 133 95 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/14/12 06:32 22 - 105 91 2-Fluorophenol 12/14/12 06:32 10 - 69 68 Nitrobenzene-d5 12/14/12 06:32 10 - 123 88 Phenol-d6 12/14/12 06:32 10 - 59 51 p-Terphenyl-d14 12/14/12 06:32 28 - 120 97 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 21 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1208048-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

Base Neutral Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS SIM NA

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8270C SIM Analysis Method: EPA 3550C Prep Method: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 3.40 1-Methylnaphthalene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 2-Methylnaphthalene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 6.80 Acenaphthene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 6.80 U 6.80 Acenaphthylene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 6.80 U 3.40 Anthracene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Benz(a)anthracene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Chrysene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Fluoranthene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Fluorene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U 3.40 Naphthalene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 3.40 U 6.80 Phenanthrene 1 12/14/12 03:23 12/13/12 6.80 U 3.40 Pyrene 1 12/17/12 13:09 12/13/12 3.40 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed 2-Fluorobiphenyl 12/14/12 03:23 30 - 118 72 p-Terphenyl-d14 12/14/12 03:23 41 - 146 0 * p-Terphenyl-d14 12/17/12 13:09 41 - 146 124 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 22 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1208161-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography NA

As Received ug/Kg Basis: Units:

8081A Analysis Method: EPA 3541 Prep Method: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 34.0 Chlordane 1 12/18/12 15:29 12/18/12 34.0 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Decachlorobiphenyl 12/18/12 15:29 32 - 170 62 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 12/18/12 15:29 10 - 147 59 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 23 of 26 Superset Reference:JQ1207868-01 Lab Code: Sample Name: Method Blank

TCLP Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography NA

As Received mg/L Basis: Units:

8081A Analysis Method: EPA 3510C Prep Method: EPA 1311 Pre-Prep Method: 12/6/12 Pre-Prep Date: NA T1201895

Date Received: Date Collected: Service Request:

Solid Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER)

Sample Matrix: Project: Client:

Analyte Name Q Date Analyzed Date Extracted Dil. MRL Result 0.000200 gamma-BHC (Lindane), TCLP 1 12/11/12 16:47 12/11/12 0.000200 U 0.000200 Heptachlor, TCLP 1 12/11/12 16:47 12/11/12 0.000200 U 0.000400 Methoxychlor, TCLP 1 12/11/12 16:47 12/11/12 0.000400 U 0.00500 Toxaphene, TCLP 1 12/11/12 16:47 12/11/12 0.00500 U

Surrogate Name Q % Rec Control Limits Date Analyzed Decachlorobiphenyl 12/11/12 16:47 10 - 160 76 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 12/11/12 16:47 22 - 126 80 Analytical Report COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Now part of the ALS Group

Printed 1/29/2013 2:18:30 PM 12-0000232496 rev 00 

## 24 of 26 Superset Reference:

## 25 of 26

## 26 of 26ADDRESS 3860 S. Palo Verde Road, Suite 302, Tucson, AZ 85714

PHONE +1 520 573 1061 FAX +1 520 573 1063 Page 1 of 1 Rpt-T1201895 M.A. Energy Resources LLC MAER Sorcher, 12/26/2012 formerly Columbia Analytical Services, Inc

Client: M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER) 9225 Indian Creek Pkwy, Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210

Attn: Mike Sorcher Project: Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Date Received:

CDF 11/27/12 T1201895-001 27.98 0.58 0.81 6,595 9,157 16.1

CDF 11/27/12 T1201895-001 52.72 5.79 0.16 32.28 0.080 0.04 0.01

Note: Sample air dried at 35°C then ground to < 1mm prior to analysis. D6722 Mercury
Lab #:

Lab #: Ash

Nitrogen Sulfur

D4239 Oxygen

D5373 mod Sample ID: Sample Date & Time Sample ID: Sample Date & Time As Received wt% Moist. Free ppb wt% Moist. Free wt% Moisture, Total

D7582 - Automated TGA System D5865

Moist. Free wt% Carbon

D5373 Hydrogen 

### December 26, 2012

November 27, 2012 

## Certificate of Analysis

As Received BTU/lb Moist. Free BTU/lb Heating Value

5050/9056
As Received wt% Moist. Free wt% Chlorine Fluorine

Moist. Free wt% Moist. Free wt% Moist. Free wt% Moist. Free wt%ADDRESS 3860 S. Palo Verde Road, Suite 302, Tucson, AZ 85714

PHONE +1 520 573 1061 FAX +1 520 573 1063 Page 1 of 1 Rpt-T1201895 M.A. Energy Resources LLC MAER Sorcher, 12/26/2012 formerly Columbia Analytical Services, Inc

Client: M.A. Energy Resources, LLC (MAER) 9225 Indian Creek Pkwy, Suite 670 Overland Park, KS 66210

Attn: Mike Sorcher Project: Railroad Crosstie Derived Fuel (CDF) Date Received:

CDF 11/27/12 T1201895-001 < 5 < 10 <0.5 < 0.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 10

CDF 11/27/12 T1201895-001 63 < 5 < 5

Note: Sample air dried at 35°C then ground to < 1mm prior to analysis. Results with '<' are below the detection limit. Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt

Total Dissolution / ICP- OES Lead

Wendy Hyatt, Project Chemist Total Dissolution / ICP- OES Sample ID: Sample Date & Time Lab #: Mangenese Nickel Selenium

Moist. Free

mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free

mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg Moist. Free mg/kg 

## Certificate of Analysis

Sample ID: Sample Date & Time Lab #: Antimony 

### December 26, 2012

November 27, 2012