April 25, 2013

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg

FROM: Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Re: Revisions to Memo dated November 29, 2012: 

Summary of Waste Management C&D wood fuel data

Based on review and comment from EPA of the subject memo dated November 29, 2012, 

WM has revised the memo. The analytical data in the memo are now provided on a dry basis 

except for high heating value, which is on a wet basis. 

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

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

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

Wood fuel (fuel source) are as follows: 

 (W) Wisconsin Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA1) California #1 Facility – Positive Sorting

(CA2) California #2 Facility – Negative Sorting

(MA) Massachusetts Facility – Negative Sorting

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

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

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

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

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

wood is processed into fuel.

WM Study Procedures and Results
April 25, 2013

Page 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

laboratory analysis. The attached tables provide a contaminant comparison of the analytical 

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

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

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

1

Impacts of Processing on Contaminant Comparisons

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

facilities during the testing period. 

Table 1 Average Formaldehyde Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Formaldehyde

[ppm]

74.6 22.3 17.6 68.2

Sorting Positive Positive Negative Negative

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

conducted at these facilities. 

Likewise, the table below displaying the average concentrations of arsenic, chromium

and lead at each facility during the testing period indicates similar results.

Table 2 Average Concentrations For Each Tested Facility

Pollutant W CA1 CA2 MA

Arsenic

(ppm)

3.2 6.0 3.1 142

Chromium

(ppm)

5.3 12.2 10.3 168

Lead

(ppm)

149 89.6 58.4 260

Sorting Type Positive Positive Negative Negative

 

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

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/define/pdfs/nhsm_cont_tf.pdf
April 25, 2013

Page 3

Impact of Incoming Material Variations on Contaminant Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

details).

Table 3 Incoming Materials Comparison 

Incoming Material

Type

CA2 MA

Mixed C&D Materials 43.7 % 95.5 %

Clean Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 %

Average Arsenic (ppm) 3.06 142

Average Chromium (ppm) 10.3 168

Average Lead (ppm) 58.4 260

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

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

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

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

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

chromium and other contaminants. As a result of these varying proportions of clean and 

resinated wood, CA2’s finalized product had a cleaner feedstock to process into a wood fuel. 

Analysis of High Lead Values

In the previous submittal, the comparison of lead was based on a wet basis. That has 

since been updated. In that comparison, the lead content was essentially equal to or lower than 

the traditional wood/biomass fuel listed in the OAQPS database. Revising the wet basis data to 

be on a dry basis, we find that the lead content of two facilities, W and MA, had 90% UPL 

values of lead that exceeded the maximum value listed in the OAQPS database. 

Lead sample measurements at the W facility were 482, 323, 67.2, 54.6, 44.1, 39.5, and 

32.0 ppm. Of the five sampling days from the W facility, one day produced a value of 482 ppm 

which is above the maximum lead value in the OAQPS database (340 ppm). All of the remaining 
April 25, 2013

Page 4

values are lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database and significantly 

below the value of 482 ppm. Presuming a normal distribution of sampling data, the statistics of 

the 6 samples other than 482 ppm, have an upper 99 percent t-test range of 474 ppm. Assuming a 

6-sample t-test, for a one sided tail at 99%, the t-value equals 3.365. With an average lead 

concentration of 93.39 ppm and a standard deviation of 113.12, the upper range yields a value of 

474 ppm (93.39 + 3.365 * (113.12). Thus, the value of 482 ppm is above the 99% t-test and 

therefore, it can be argued that this value is non-normal and not representative of the typical lead 

values from the C&D wood from this facility.

Analyzing this value a bit further; lead belongs in the semi-volatile metals category along 

with cadmium and selenium. The 90% UPL for both of these metals, cadmium and selenium, are 

significantly less in the W dataset than they are in the OAQPS dataset. While the difference 

between the two datasets still does not create a SVM grouping comparison below the OAQPS 

dataset because the relative concentrations of cadmium and selenium are less than lead, the 

grouping lessens the difference between the two groups to just over 20%, as determined from the 

data in Table 4. 

Of the five sampling days from the MA facility, two of the days produced a value above 

the maximum lead value in the OAQPS database. These two days had lead concentrations, by 

dry weight, of 407 and 437 ppm. The other three days of testing shows an average lead 

concentration of 193 ppm. While these high values are likely not outliers, it is safe to say that the 

range of lead concentrations from this facility does span a wide range, with a majority of the 

values being lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database. 

When doing a grouping comparison of semi-volatile metals, a similar scenario to the W 

dataset is shown. The significantly lower cadmium and selenium values create about a 20% 

difference between the MA facility SVM grouping and the OAQPS SVM grouping. Also, as 

shown in Table 3 of Appendix A in the complete submittal, when combined with the other 

existing Massachusetts data, the 90% UPL of the complete dataset shows a value less than the 

maximum reported for traditional fuels. 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

produce similar values. 
April 25, 2013

Page 5

Table 4 90% UPL Comparison

SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT C&D WOOD FUEL STUDY

EPA Data

Wood and 

Biomass1

Waste Management C&D Wood (90% UPL)

2,3

Compound Units

Max W CA1 CA2 MA All facilities

Antimony (Sb) ppm 26 0.59 12.0 2.76 5.5 10.1

Arsenic (As) ppm 298 5.74 25.4 5.60 273 200

Beryllium (Be) ppm 10 * 0.1 0.07 0.16 0.08

Cadmium (Cd) ppm 17 0.83 0.3 0.42 1.2 0.96

Chromium (Cr) ppm 340 8.77 25.0 15.5 301 224

Cobalt (Co) ppm 213 0.6 2.5 2.5 2.72 2.52

Lead (Pb) ppm 340 449 212.0 134.8 443 357

Manganese (Mn) ppm 15800 72.3 125.3 129.5 139 116

Mercury (Hg) ppm 1.1 0.34 0.2 0.23 0.68 0.30

Nickel (Ni) ppm 540 3.43 10.7 11.0 27.4 13.0

Selenium (Se) ppm 9.0 * * * * *

Total SVM+

ppm 366 449 213 136 444 357

Total LVM+

ppm 17227 83.4 171 160 669 518

Chloride ppm 5400 364.9 3366 1272 2848 1750

Fluoride ppm 300 67 171 172 46 144

Total Halogens+

ppm 5700 400 3436 1388 2659 1881

Formaldehyde ppm 27.0 149 61.5 27.8 151 105

Nitrogen wt % 3.95 1.00 0.66 1.10 1.11 0.96

Sulfur wt % 0.87 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.21 0.15

1

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

2

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

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

All results reported on Dry Basis.

3

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

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

SVM – Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM – Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni)

+ C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.18 0.53 0.39 0.59 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.15 5.72 3.2 5.74 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.010 0.011 0.010 *

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.24 0.95 0.43 0.83 (b)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 2.11 9.52 5.30 8.77 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.19 0.54 0.39 0.6 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 32.0 482.3 149.0 449 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 55.8 74.18 63.6 72.3 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.053 0.416 0.16 0.34 (b)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 0.47 3.43 1.01 3.43 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.34 0.34 0.34 *

Total SVM+ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 32.7 483 150 449 (b)

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 65.2 85.4 73.9 83.4 (a)

Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 205 386 257.2 364.9 (a)

Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 14 67 21.9 67 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 219 400 279 400 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 25.3 171.3 74.6 149.4 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.42 1.00 0.54 1.00 (c)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 (c)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 5920 7061 6685 7319 (a)

1

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

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/6/2012. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis.

3

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

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

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

HHV – High Heat Value; SVM – Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM – Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni)

+ C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.29 12.0 5.02 12.0 (c)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.30 25.4 6.03 25.4 (c)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.1 (a)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.18 0.32 0.24 0.3 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 4.54 29.1 12.23 25.0 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.59 2.95 1.39 2.5 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 16.7 252.2 89.6 212.0 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 59.2 137.1 86.5 125.3 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.021 0.25 0.10 0.2 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 2.76 12.1 6.08 10.7 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.32 0.38 0.34 *

Total SVM+ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 17.2 253 90.2 213 (a)

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 76.4 180 117 171 (a)

Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 402 3366 956 3366 (c)

Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 69 157 123 171 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 495 3436 1079 3436 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 4.1 68.2 22.3 61.5 (b)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.23 0.65 0.46 0.66 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.10 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 5930 7103 6520 7314 (a)

1

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

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/23/2012 – 8/1/2012. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis.

3

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

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

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

HHV – High Heat Value; SVM – Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM – Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni)

+ C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.
Literary Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

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

2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.24 3.10 1.12 2.76 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 1.40 5.65 3.06 5.60 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 (a)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.18 0.45 0.27 0.42 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 5.47 13.92 10.3 15.5 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 1.09 2.39 1.72 2.5 (a)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 11.3 138.3 58.4 134.8 (a)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 68.6 126.6 95.9 129.5 (a)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.03 0.192 0.13 0.23 (a)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 4.07 10.70 7.22 11.0 (a)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.35 0.35 0.35 *

Total SVM+ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 11.9 139 59.1 136 (a)

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 83.8 155 119.4 160 (a)

Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 748 1272 1132 1272 (a)

Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 52 145 107 172 (a)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 799 1388 1240 1388 (c)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 10.3 27.2 17.6 27.8 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.48 1.12 0.80 1.10 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.18 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 5673 7169 6434 7353 (a)

1

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

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis.

3

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

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

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

HHV – High Heat Value; SVM – Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM – Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni)

+ C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.
Literary 

Sources1 OAQPS Databases1

Wood and 

Biomass Wood and Biomass

C&D Samples from MA2

Compound Units

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

Antimony (Sb) ppm ND 26 ND 6.0 0.9 0.85 4.72 3.25 5.5 (a)

Arsenic (As) ppm ND 6.8 ND 298 6.3 8.63 218 142 273 (a)

Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.05 0.16 0.08 0.16 (c)

Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0.32 1.29 0.68 1.2 (a)

Chromium (Cr) ppm ND 130 ND 340 5.9 14.8 245 168 301 (a)

Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0.61 3.53 1.32 2.72 (b)

Lead (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 167 437 260 443 (b)

Manganese (Mn) ppm 7.9 840 ND 15800 302 56.9 157 91.0 139 (b)

Mercury (Hg) ppm ND 0.2 ND 1.1 0.03 0.05 0.68 0.19 0.68 (c)

Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1.46 27.4 5.79 27.4 (c)

Selenium (Se) ppm ND 2 ND 9.0 1.1 0.33 0.33 0.33 *

Total SVM+ppm ND 345 ND 255 6.2 168 438 261 444 (a)

Total LVM+ppm 7.9 1567 ND 16842 324.7 83.4 551 411 669 (a)

Chloride ppm ND 2600 ND 5400 259 113 1580 811 2848 (b)

Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 4 46 15.2 46 (c)

Total Halogens+ppm ND 2900 ND 5528 291.4 159 1583 826 2659 (b)

Formaldehyde ppm 1.6 27.0 -- -- -- 13.2 176.8 68.2 151 (a)

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

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

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

Nitrogen wt % 0.02 3.95 0.22 0.46 0.346 0.28 1.10 0.63 1.11 (a)

Sulfur wt % ND 0.87 ND 0.61 0.070 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.21 (a)

HHV Btu/lb -- -- -- -- -- 6714 7091 6869 7067 (a)

1

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

2

 Sampling Occurred Between 7/30/2012 – 8/3/2012. All results reported on Dry Basis. HHV reported on As Received basis.

3

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

Notes: (a) Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level - Used Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level - Used Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a 

Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level - Used Nonparametric Statistics

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

HHV – High Heat Value; SVM – Semi-Volatile Metals (Pb, Cd, Se); LVM – Low Volatile Metals (Sb, As, Be, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni)

+ C&D samples, Total Min., Max, Avg., and 90% UPL are selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.