# Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 241) Implications For Forest Product Industry Fuels

June 8, 2011



### I. Introduction

On March 21, 2011 the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) published the final rule “Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste.” The final rule provides requirements and procedures for the identification of solid wastes used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units under section 1004 of the Resour ce Conservation and Reco very Act (RCRA) and sectio n 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). A non-hazardous secondary material that is determined to be a non-waste fuel may be burned in combustion units regulated by the Major Source Boiler MACT rule, Area Source Boiler MACT rule, or other MACT rule. If the material is classified a “waste,” the combustion unit must comply with the more onerous CISWI rule requirements.

Traditional fuels are not considered non-hazardous secondary materials. Alternative fuels derived from non-hazardous secondary materials are presumed to be wastes when burned for energy recovery. A person who combusts a non-hazardous secondary material can rebut that presumption if the combustor can show that the material has not been discarded and it meets the legitimacy criteria for fuels specified in §241.3(d)(1); i.e., handled as a valuable commodity, has a meaningful heating value, and has contaminants at comparable or lower levels than the traditional fuel the combustion unit is designed to fire. The forest products industry utilizes several fuels classified as n on-hazardous secondary materials which do not currently meet the EPA’s new regulatory definition of a “traditional fuel,” including: pulp and paper residuals (including logging resid ues, primary mill residues and wastew ater treatment residuals (WTRs)); tire derived fuel (scrap tires); recycling process residuals (also known as old corrugated cardboard (OCC) rejects); urban wood (sorted construction and demolition (C&D) wood); resinated wood; and treated wood (e.g., creosote treated rail tie derived fuel).

In comments on the proposed rule, the forest products industry made the case that these materials are traditional fuels for the industry. In addition, the comments made the case that these materials should be considered to meet the legitimacy criteria. These comments also asked EPA to promulgate legitimacy criteria that are flexible enough to allow overall recycling legitimacy to outweigh higher contaminant levels. It appears that EPA agreed with the forest products industry comments that the alternative fuels used by the forest products industry are not wastes because many of these materials are described in the preamble of the final NHSM rule as likely to be fuels and having fuel like characteristics. However, the codification of the legitimacy criteria in the final rule did not provide the needed flexibility to support this determination in many cases. As a result, the industry cannot rely on EPA’s preamble language and, given the exorbitant cost of meeting the CISWI standards, members of the forest products industry will have to stop using many of these materials as alternative fuels.

While these materials are valuable alternative fuels, if they were not used for their beneficial heating value most would be otherwise destined for landfills. The economic viability of many facilities depends on their ability to burn these materials as low-cost alternatives to fossil fuel. The cost of landfilling and replacing the fuel value of these materials would be at least $1 billion per year just for the forest products industry.

When determining whether these materials meet the legitimacy criteria, the contaminant level requirement specified in §241.3(d)(1)(iii) is of particular concern, due in part to variability of fuel contaminants (for bothJune 2011

2 

### NHSM and traditional fuels) and the fact that this comparison may be required for almost 200 different “contaminants.”

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the difficulty of meeting the burden of proof to show that a non-hazardous secondary material meets the legitimacy criterion for contaminant levels by summarizing a significant amount of contaminant data on different materials and showing comparisons with two traditional fuels – coal and bark. In any specific case, the range of contaminants in the alternative material compared with the coal and bark will vary showing various degrees of overlap. This analysis presents averages to simplify the comparison but individual fuel batches may be at the lower or higher end of the range. The following sections discuss existing contaminant data, contaminant characteristics, variability, and comparability of non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuel in combustion units operated by the forest products industry. These data show that for each type of alternative fuel used by the forest products industry, there is likely to be at least one contaminant that may not compare favorably to the so-called “traditional fuels.” As a result, a combustor may not be able to demonstrate that the alternative fuel meets all the legitimacy criteria, even though the treatment of this alternative fuel by the industry is indistinguishable from its treatment of other fuels.



### II. NHSM Contamin ant Data Summary

The following discussion summarizes select contaminant data for the primary alternative fuels fired in forest products industry combustion units including: waste water treatment residuals, tire derived fuel,recycling process residuals (Recycling Process Residuals), resinated wood, urban wood, and creosotetreated wood. We have attached a compilation of the tables presented below as well as the raw data upon which these tables are derived.



### A

. Traditional Fuel Data

The following table summarizes select average contaminant data for clean biomass and coal (traditional solid fuels) compiled from analyses by se veral forest products facilities and the USGS coal database 1 

### . Fuel quality varies so what is the comparable may be different depending upon the type of traditional fuel used and location of the facility.

Fuel Btu (Btu/lb) Hg (ppm) Cl (ppm) As (ppm) Be (ppm) Cd (ppm) Cr (ppm) Pb (ppm) Mn (ppm) Ni (ppm) Se (ppm)



### Coal 12,371 0.089 466 19.73 1.55 0.07 9.24 7.10 26 13.45 2.28
Bark 7,756 0.008 59 0.78 0.02 0.14 4.54 1.96 230 3.85 0.07
USGS Coal ‐ Average Values 0.18 573.32 24.55 2.13 0.41 14.02 10.51 41.38 14.76 2.87



### B. Waste Water Treatment Residuals

Available data for heating value, chlorine and metal content for wastewater treatment residuals from forest product facilities is summarized in Table 1, below. Three datasets from various sources are shown representing wastewater treatment (WWT) residuals, mixed sludge and primary sludge.

1 USGS Coal data found at: http://energy.er.usgs.gov/produ cts/databases/CoalQual/index.htmJune 2011

3 Table 1 Bark Coal WWT Residuals Dataset A

avg ppm avg ppm avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal Mixed Sludge Dataset B Primary Sludge Dataset B

HHV Mean 5800 BTU/lb avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal

Chlorine 59.48 465.73 360.6 506.20% -22.60% 520.4 775.00% 11.70% 604.2 915.90% 29.70%

Arsenic 0.78 19.73 1.15 46.70% -94.20% 14.06 1697.80% -28.70% 0.63 -19.10% -96.80%

Beryllium 0.02 1.55 0.21 1102.20% -86.70% 0.15 744.90% -90.60% 0.22 1195.20% -85.60%

Cadmium 0.14 0.07 0.38 164.40% 458.10% 2.13 1395.40% 3056.60% 0.64 350.60% 851.30%

Chromium 4.54 9.24 11.35 150.20% 22.80% 21.41 371.80% 131.60% 11.39 151.10% 23.30%

Lead 1.96 7.1 4.94 151.50% -30.40% 64.14 3166.20% 804.00% 9.1 363.30% 28.20%

Manganese 229.86 25.62 380.75 65.60% 1386.00% 318.89 38.70% 1144.50% 218.71 -4.90% 753.60%

Nickel 3.85 13.45 23.08 499.70% 71.70% 12.98 237.20% -3.50% 7.57 96.60% -43.70%

Selenium 0.07 2.28 0.18 169.60% -92.30% -- -- -- 0.61 829.60% -73.30%

Mercury 0.01 0.09 0.04 407.00% -54.70% 0.316 3859.90% 253.70% 0.081 914.70% -9.40%



### As shown in the attached Table A, the heating value for WWT residuals (unknown moisture content), from Dataset A ranges from 2,270 to 9,010 British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) with an arithmetic mean value of 5,800 Btu/lb. The heating value data for the sludge in Dataset A would appear to meet the legitimacy criteria for meaningful heating value when compared to a mean HHV value of 7,756 btu/lb for bark from various forest product facilities.

Table 1 shows that manganese is the metal of highest concentration across the three data sets with an arithmetic average of 218.7, 318.9, and 380.8 parts per million (ppm) for primary sludge, mixed sludge, and WWT residuals, respectively. The manganese values for mixed sludge from Dataset B and WWT residuals from Dataset A exceed the mean value of 230 ppm calculated for bark. All three sludge dataset values for manganese concentration far exceed the mean value calculated for coal of 26 ppm. However, the manganese content for WWT residuals in Dataset A ranges from 0.10 to 1,600 ppm. The EPA material characterization paper provides a much lower manganese concentration of 27 ppm for “pulp mill, other non-specified pulp and paper sludges.”

The arithmetic mean of mercury (Hg) determined for WWT residuals in Dataset A and for primary sludge in Dataset B were calculated to be 0.04 and 0.08 ppm, respectively. These values are comparable to the mean Hg concentration of 0.089 ppm for coal samples from the group of forest product facilities but are an order of magnitude higher than bark at 0.008 ppm. The mean Hg content for the mixed sludge in Dataset B is much higher at 0.32 ppm. No Hg content is provided for primary or secondary sludge fired in pulp mill combustion units. The variability of the mercury concentrations for the group of forest product industries in Table 1 shows that it may be difficult for a combustor to demonstrate that the legitimacy criteria are met depending on source of the sludge material and type of fuel the boiler is designed to fire.

The arithmetic mean of chlorine concentration for the WWT residuals, mixed sludge, and primary sludge are calculated to be 320.6, 520.4, and 604.2 ppm respectively. These values are comparable toJune 2011

4 

### the mean concentration of 466 ppm calculated for coal fired by the group of forest product facilities represented by Dataset A. However, these values far exceed the mean chlorine concentration for bark fired boilers which is calculated to be 59 ppm.



### C. Tire Derived Fuel

EPA classified tire derived fuel (TDF) as a NHSM that is not solid waste when combusted by the generator or outside the control of the generator if it is not discarded and meets the legitimacy criteria specified in §241.3(d)(1). TDF materials must also have been removed from vehicles and managed under the oversight of established tire collection progr ams. TDF that is not generated by removal from vehicles and/or not managed under a tire collection f uel would be considered a solid waste unless the Regional Administrator issues a non-waste determination under the provisions of §241.3(c).

Available data for heating value, chlorine and metal content for TDF fired in combustion units located at forest product facilities are summarized in Table 2. Two datasets from different sources are presented in Table 2 as TDF Dataset A and TDF Dataset B.

Table 2 Bark Coal TDF Dataset A TDF Dataset B

avg ppm avg ppm avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal

HHV Mean 14,928 Btu/lb

Chlorine 59.48 465.73 236.4 297.50% -49.20% 329.1 453.40% -29.30%

Arsenic 0.78 19.73 2.97 279.90% -84.90% 1.61 105.30% -91.90%

Beryllium 0.02 1.55 0.13 641.60% -91.80% 0.02 22.60% -98.60%

Cadmium 0.14 0.07 0.92 546.10% 1263.90% 0.67 370.30% 892.80%

Chromium 4.54 9.24 27.85 513.60% 201.20% 5.52 21.60% -40.30%

Lead 1.96 7.1 63.53 3134.70% 795.30% 38.44 1857.60% 441.80%

Manganese 229.86 25.62 430.36 87.20% 1579.50% 67 -70.90% 161.50%

Nickel 3.85 13.45 17.82 363.00% 32.50% 4.14 7.60% -69.20%

Selenium 0.07 2.28 1.52 2218.10% -33.40% 4.14 6217.30% 81.40%

Mercury 0.01 0.09 0.008 -5.50% -91.60% 0.013 68.60% -84.90%



### The heat content values from fuel analyses conducted on TDF samples for the group of forest product facilities in Dataset A range from 10,200 to 16,800 Btu/lb. TDF clearly meets this legitimacy criterion when comparing heat content values to other solid fuels burned at forest product facilities.

The manganese concentration for TDF ranges from 11.0 to 1,800 ppm with a mean value of 430.4 ppm for Dataset A and ranges from 9.1 to 220.0 ppm with a mean value of 67.0 ppm for the forest product facilities in Dataset B. The range of manganese concentration for TDF from Dataset B is below the mean concentration for bark (230 ppm) and would therefore meet the legitimacy criteria under §241.3(d)(1)(iii) for non-hazardous secondary materials when burned in a combustion unit designed to fire bark. The average manganese concentration for Dataset A is almost double the mean value for bark fired by the same group of forest product facilities. The manganese mean concentrations for both forest product datasets shown in Table B exceed the mean value determined for coal (26 ppm).June 2011

5 

### As shown in Table 2, the mean lead concentration determined for TDF fired in combustion units operated by the group of forest product industries in Datasets A and B is 63.53 and 38.44 ppm, respectively. The mean lead concentration for both datasets exceeds that of bark and coal fired by the same group of forest product industry combustion units. Based on the mean lead concentration values for each data set, it may be difficult for a combustor to demonstrate that TDF meets the legitimacy criterion for comparable contaminant concentration for lead. Although specific data are not presented here, the sulfur content of TDF is expected to be higher than bark and ranges both above and below concentrations found in coal as well.



### D. Recycling Process Residuals

Available data for heating value and contaminant c oncentration for Recycling Process Residuals used as fuel by forest product facilities is summarized in Table 3. Two datasets from various sources are presented as Recycling Process Residuals Dataset A and Recycling Process Residuals Dataset B.

Table 3 Bark Coal Recycling Process Residuals Dataset A Recycling Process Residuals Dataset B

avg ppm avg ppm avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal

HHV Mean 9399 Btu/lb

Chlorine 59.48 465.73 607.2 920.90% 30.40% 223.4 275.60% -52.00%

Arsenic 0.78 19.73 0.46 -41.20% -97.70% 0.97 23.50% -95.10%

Beryllium 0.02 1.55 0.05 201.00% -96.70% 0.04 146.40% -97.30%

Cadmium 0.14 0.07 0.39 175.00% 480.40% 0.07 -49.20% 7.10%

Chromium 4.54 9.24 3.23 -28.90% -65.10% 3.98 -12.20% -56.90%

Lead 1.96 7.1 8.34 324.80% 17.60% 3.98 102.90% -43.80%

Manganese 229.86 25.62 37.12 -83.90% 44.90% 39.54 -82.80% 54.30%

Nickel 3.85 13.45 1.52 -60.50% -88.70% 4.68 21.70% -65.20%

Selenium 0.07 2.28 0.44 572.60% -80.70% 0.65 891.70% -71.50%

Mercury 0.01 0.09 0.022 180.30% -75.00% 0.039 389.50% -56.30%



### The heat content for Recycling Process Residuals shown in Table 3 ranges from 7,430 to 11,860 Btu/lb with a mean value of 9,399 Btu/lb. The range of heating values for Recycling Process Residuals is comparable to that of traditional solid fuels fired by forest product facilities. The mean heat content value for Recycling Process Residuals falls between the mean value of 7,756 and 12,371 Btu/lb for bark and coal, respectively. Based on the range of heating values for the various forest product facilities that comprise Dataset A, a combustor should be able to demonstrate that Recycling Process Residuals meet the legitimacy criterion for meaningful heating value.

Based on the data shown in Table 3 for various forest product industries represented by Datasets A and B, the contaminant with the highest concentration for Recycling Process Residuals is chlorine . The chlorine concentration for Recycling Process Residuals fired in the group of forest product facility combustion units, represented by Dataset A, ranges from 45.0 to 1,073 ppm and has a mean chlorine content of 607 ppm. The chlorine content for the forest product facilities represented by Dataset B is somewhat lower with a range of 125 to 393 ppm and a mean value of 223.4 ppm. The meanJune 2011

6 

### concentration value for Dataset A exceeds that of bark (59 ppm) and coal (466 ppm) fired in combustion units operated by forest product facilities.

Since the mean chlorine concentration for the Recycling Process Residuals fired in combustion units operated by the forest product facilities in Dataset A is well above the mean values for bark and coal, it may be difficult for Recycling Process Residuals fired in combustion units designed for these traditional fuels to meet the legitimacy criteria under §241.3(d)(iii). The mean chlorine concentration determined for Recycling Process Residuals for the group of com bustion units represented by Dataset B is also higher than that of bark but well below the mean value for coal. Therefore, based on the mean value for chlorine content, the Recycling Process Residuals represented by Dataset B might be considered a solid waste when fired in a combustion unit designed to fire bark and a fuel when fired in a combustion unit designed to fire coal.

E. Resinated Wood.

Resinated wood is defined in §241.2 as wood products that contain resin adhesives derived from primary and secondary wood products manufacturing and may include board trim, sander dust, and panel trim. Limited available data for chlorine and metal content for resinated sander dust and metal content for panel trim combusted in units located at forest product facilities are summarized in Table 4. Heat content will be similar to dry virgin wood.

EPA has expressed concern about formaldehyde concentrations in resinated wood. The following table shows data on formaldehyde content of various resinated wood as compared to clean wood. New data suggest that clean wood has a formaldehyde c ontent of approximately 4 ppm, while Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) has a range of 8 – 140 ppm and particleboard has a range of 15 – 85 ppm. These data were obtained in 2009 before both “CARB I” and “CARB II” went into effect, and formaldehyde concentrations are likely to be lo wer now due to federal rules limiting formaldehyde releases from pressed wood products. Plywood and oriented strand board (OSB) are expected to have formaldehyde concentrations that are less than MD F and particleboard, but still ranging above the 4 ppm concentration.

Formaldehyde Range (ppm)

Clean Wood 2 

### 0.6-7.1

MDF 3 

### 8-140 4



### Particleboard 2 

### 15-85

In addition, as shown in Table 4, one set of samples was analyzed for metal content. All metal contaminant concentrations for panel trim, except manganese, are comparable or below the mean metal concentration values for the bark and coal data. The manganese concentration for the single panel trim sample is 113 ppm which is above the mean value for coal (26 ppm) but is less than half the

2 Data compiled from “Wood-borne Formaldehyde Varying with Species, Wood Grade and Cambial Age,” Forest Products Journal , Vol. 59, No. 1/2, January-February 2009

3 JENAF Joint European and North American Formaldehyde Testing Project, Preliminary Results and Furtherreaching Findings, Marutzky, et.a l., Fraunhofer Institute for Wood Rese arch, Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut, Braunschweig, February 23, 2009

4 Although the range is shown to 140, the CARB standards make it highly unlikely that values above 80 to 100 are present in today’s resinated wood. These are levels predicted to exists in resin wood correlating to particleboard classified as E1June 2011

7 

### mean value for manganese concentration in bark fired by the group of forest product facilities. The mean concentration for manganese from resinated sander dust is 67.4 which is also greater than coal but less than bark.

Table 4 Bark Coal Panel Trim Dataset B Sander Dust w/Resin Dataset B

avg ppm avg ppm avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal

Chlorine 59.48 465.73 -- -- -- 758.8 1176% 62.9%

Formaldehyde 4 359 8875%

Arsenic 0.78 19.73 <1.1 40.7% -94.4% -- -- -- Beryllium 0.02 1.55 <0.01 -41.7% -99.4% -- -- --
Cadmium 0.14 0.07 0.10 -29.7% 48.4% 0.05 -63.1% -22.1%

Chromium 4.54 9.24 0.09 -98.0% -99.0% 0.31 -93.2% -96.7%

Lead 1.96 7.10 <0.2 -89.8% -97.2% 0.22 -89.0% -96.9%

Manganese 229.86 25.62 113.00 -50.8% 341.0% 67.43 -70.7% 163.1%

Nickel 3.85 13.45 0.09 -97.7% -99.3% 0.50 -87.0% -96.3%

Selenium 0.07 2.28 <1.1 1578.2% -51.8% -- -- -- Mercury 0.01 0.09 0.002 -78.7% -98.1% 0.004 -53.4% -95.8%



### The chlorine concentration for resinated sander dust ranges from 20 ppm to 2,600 ppm and has a mean concentration of 759 ppm. This value far exceeds the mean chlorine concentration determined for coal and bark at 466 and 59 ppm, respectively. However, chloride levels are highly variable and closely related to the individual mill’s resin supplier and needs. Generally phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resins (used primarily in plywood and OSB) have much lower chloride levels than urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins (used primarily in particleboard and MDF). Many PF resins and some UF resins have no added salt (NaCl).

The nitrogen content of resinated wood can also be higher than stem wood and bark, per the following data compiled by NCASI:

Material Mean Nitrogen Content, % Typical stem wood value 0.15 Typical bark value 0.35 PF resin containing wood, Nitrogen 1.02 UF resin containing wood, Nitrogen 5.00



### F. Urban Wood

The range of heating values for urban wood is comparable to that of traditional solid fuels. The mean heat content value for urban wood falls between 7,756 and 12,371 Btu/lb for bark and coal, respectively. Therefore, urban wood most likely would meet the legitimacy criterion for meaningful heating value.June 2011

8 

### Information on the composition of urban wood varies significantly. Table 5 represents information from “Wood Products in the Waste Stream – Characte rization and Combustion Emissions,” NYSERDA, October 1996.

Table 5 Bark Coal Urban Wood (NYSERDA)

avg ppm avg ppm avg ppm % Difference from Bark % Difference from Coal
HVV Mean 8317 Btu/lb

Chlorine 59.48 465.73 528.0 787.7% 13.4%
Nitrogen 0.35 0.6 77.1%

Arsenic 0.78 19.73 4.75 507.6% -75.9%

Cadmium 0.14 0.07 0.90 532.5% 1235.2%

Chromium 4.54 9.24 15.40 239.3% 66.6%

Lead 1.96 7.10 50.30 2461.2% 608.9%

Nickel 3.85 13.45 4.20 9.1% -68.8%

Mercury 0.01 0.09 0.073 816.2% -18.2%



### The following additional data were provided by the Construction Materials Recycling Association.

Alternative Fuel Source Heating Value (BTU/lb) Sulfur (%) Chlorine (%) Fluorine (ppm) Mercury (ppm)
Other Cellulosic Biomass 33 7,600 to 10,200 0.01 0.898 to 1.021 -- --

34 3,200 to 8,700 0.07 to 0.12 0.035 to 0.065 20 to 50 --
33 Group treated wood, Subgroup demolition wood, Material waste wood (ID-number 2748) - http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/

34 Group treated wood, Subgroup demolition wood, Material wood, demolition wood, chipped (ID-number 676) - http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/



### More recent data indicate that urban wood retailers are carefully processing the incoming stream of secondary materials and users are setting more stringent purchasing standards. As a result, contaminants are minimized to the extent possible. However, there are still situations where, despite the processing, comparisons with coal or bark will show that some contaminants in the wood will exceed those in the traditional fuel – making it difficult for urban wood to consistently meet the legitimacy criterion when fired in a combustion unit designed to fire coal and bark.



### III. Conclusion

Combustors of alternative fuels at many forest products facilities may not meet be able to demonstrate that these alternative fuels meet the legitimacy criterion for contaminants, forcing additional economic burden on facilities that rely on these materials to ensure manageable energy costs and a diverse energy portfolio. Similar to the examples above, other secondary material fuels such as railroad ties and used oil present challenges when comparing them to traditional fuels.

The contaminant levels in these alternative fuels are not likely to present a health or environmental concern when burned since the units will be very well controlled under the Boiler MACT and occur at very low levels (ppm). Thus, there will be no health consequences of a regulatory approach that results in these alternative materials being considered non-wa stes which was EPA’s intent as reflected in the preamble discussions.