### April 25, 2013

TO: Ms. Susan Parker Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg FROM: Kerry

Kelly, Waste Management Re: Revisio ns 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 analy ti cal data in the memo are now provided on a dry b asis except for high heat ing value, whic h is on a wet basis. WM selected four C&D Wood production facilit ies to conduct a representative study of C&D Wood processing act ivit ies and the result ing characterist ic s of the wood fuel produced. The selected facilit ies and a descript io n of the genera l processing activit iesused to generate C&D Wo od f uel (f uel source) are as fo llo ws: (W) Wisconsin

F acili ty

– Posi tive Sorting (CA1) California #1 Facilit y
– Posi tive Sorti ng (CA2) California #2 Facilit y
– Negat ive Sorting (MA) Massachusetts Facilit y
– Negat ive Sorting
Posi tive sorti ng refers to sorting material (e.g., C&D) to extract the desired materials. In a posi tive sort facilit y, machinery and staff sort the inco ming 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 i s ei ther recycled or disposed, while the re ma ining 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 requi re d that each plant collect representative daily

com posi te samples overthe c our s e of one work week, as well as maintain a detailed descript io n of the inco ming material and processing practices at each facilit y. The daily com posi te samples were shipped to NE LAC
- cert ified laboratories where each sample was ho mo genized to further ensure representative results. This was achieved by f reeze drying and crushing each individual co mposite sample in accordance wit h the laboratory’s detailed standard operating procedure s. In addit io n to the qualit y assurance procedures of the NELAC laboratory, one sample fro m each facilit y was analyzed in tri plicate to evaluate the repeatabilit y of the laboratory

analysis. The attached

tablesprovide a contaminant com parison of the analyt ical resul ts to EPA’s dataset of tradit io nal wood and biomass fuels. For each analyzed contaminant, WMapplied EPA so ftware, ProUCL (versio n 4.0), to determine the 90 percent upper predict io n limit and co mpared this value to the maximum value fro m the EPA database
. 1 

### Impact sof Processingon Contaminant Comparisons Thetable below displays the average concentration of formaldehyde for each of the facilit ies 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 Posi

tive Posi

tive Negative Negative These resul

ts indicate that variat io ns in fo rmaldehyde are not based on the ty pe of sorting conducted at these facilit ies. Li kewise, the table below displayingthe average concentrations of arsenic , chromium and lead ateach facilit y 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 Chro mium (ppm ) 5.3 12.2 10.3 168 Lead (ppm ) 149 89.6 58.4 260 Sorting Ty

pe Posi

tive Posi

tive 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 Variationson Contaminant Comparisons As previously discussed, the variation o f processing methods ateach individual facilit y did not noticeably

contribute to the differences in contamin ant concentrations observed in each facilit y’sf

inished fuel product. Ho wever, the variation in inco ming materials at each facilit y has a recognizable effect on the final contaminant co ncen trations. Some f

acili ti es 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 wi th the C&D wood in the final fuel pro duct, pre

- so rted materials delivered fro m construction si tes, f rom l andfills wit h wood separation programs, or from new construction sites, which tend to have a smaller percentage of unused treated or painted wood. Revisit ing Table 2 above, it is clear that the MA

Facili ty had significant ly higher average arsenic , chromium, and lead concentrations. When reviewing the ty pes of materials that were processed during the sampling study, i t becomes evident that these contaminant levels arel argely influence d by inco ming materialsto the facilit y . Table 3 below displays the variation o f inco ming 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 Inco ming Material Ty pe CA2 MA Mixed C&DMaterials 43.7 % 95.5 % C le an Untreated Wood 56.3 % 4.5 % Average A

rsenic (ppm

) 3.06 142 Average Chro mium (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 it s incoming materials and a lower mixed C&D portion. C&D materials that have not yet been processed can potentially

have a significant concentratio n of copper chromium arsenate ( CCA) treated wood, painted wood, as well as other resinated woods , which are the primary source sof arsenic, lead , chro mium

and other contaminants
. As a result of these varying proportionsof 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 essent ia lly equal to or lower than the tradit io nal wood/bio ma ss 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 facilit ies, 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 facilit y were 482, 323, 67.2, 5 4.6, 44.1, 39.5, and 32.0 ppm . Of

the five sampling days fro m the W facilit y, 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 significant ly below the value of 482 ppm. Presuming a normal distribut io n of sampling data, the statistics of the 6 sam ples other than 482 ppm, have an upper 99 percent t

- test range of 474 ppm. Assuming a 6
- sam ple t

- test, for a onesided tail at 99%, the t

- value equals 3.365. With an average lead concentration of 93.39 ppm and a standard deviat ion of 113.12, the upper range yields a value o f 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 ty pical l ead values from the C&D wood from this facilit y. Analyzing this value a bit further; lead belongs in the semi

- vo lat ile met als category along wi th cadmium and se lenium. The 90% UPL for both of these metals, cadmium and selenium, are significant ly 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 co mpar ison below the OAQPS dataset because the relat ive concentrations o f cadmium and selenium are less than lead, the grouping lessens the difference between the two groups to just over 20%, as determined fro m the data in Table 4. Of the five sampling days fro m the MA facilit y, twoof 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 va lues are likely not outliers, i

t is safe to say

that the range of lead concentrations fro m this facili ty does span a wide range, wi th a maj ori ty of the values being lower than the maximum value reported in the OAQPS database. When do ing a grouping co mpar ison of semi

- vo lat ile metals, a similar scenario to the W dataset is shown. The significant ly lo wer cadmium and selenium values create about a 20% difference between the MA facilit y SVM grouping and the OAQPS SVM grouping. Also, as shown in Table 3 of Appe ndix A in the co mp lete submittal, when combined with the other exist ing Massachusetts data, the 90% UPL of the complete dataset shows a value less than the maximum reported for traditional fuels.
Conclusion T he WM facilit ies evaluated represent C&D woo d processing locations across the U.S. and represent the various processing p ract ices that are common across the industry
. Thus, the pollutant comparisons fo r each individual facilit y and the comparison fo rthe combined datasets were conducted to provide assurance that all C&D processing facilit ies are antici pated 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 Biomass 1 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 2 73 200 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 Lea d (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 2 7.4 13.0 Selenium (Se) ppm 9.0 * * * * * Total S VM+ ppm 366 

### 449 213 136 444 357 Total LVM+ ppm 172 2 7 83.4 171 160 669 518 Chloride ppm 5400 364.9 3366 12 72 2848 1750 Fluoride ppm 300 67 1 71 1 72 46 144 Total Halogens + p pm 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 0.0 5 0. 10 0.1 8 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) C alifornia. 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 i n "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 a nd not the combination of sample values.Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from W 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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 0.0 10 0.0 11 0.0 10 * 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 0.3 9 0. 6 (a) Lea d (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 1 49
. 4(a) Moisture wt %
-- -- -- -- -- 17.00 24.13 20.33 23.78 (a) As h 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

- U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

- U sed 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% UPLare selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA 1 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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 0.0 5 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 2 9.1 12.23 25.0(a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0. 59 2.95 1.39 2.5 (a) Lea d (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 0.0 21 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 1 71 (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) As h 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

- U sed Normal Stati stics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

- U sed 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 Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from CA2 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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 0.0 7 0.0 6 0. 07 (a) Cadmium (Cd) ppm ND 3 ND 17 0.6 0. 18 0. 45 0.2 7 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) Lea d (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 0.1 3 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 12 72 (a) Fluoride ppm ND 300 ND 128 32.4 52 145 107 1 72 (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) As h 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 0.0 7 0. 20 0.12 0.1 8 (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

- U sed Normal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

- U sed 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% UPLare selected from the individual samples and not the combination of sample values.Literary Sources 1 OAQPS Databases 1 Wood and Biomass Wood and Biomass C&D Samples from MA 2 Compound Units Min. Max Min. Max Avg. Min. Max Avg. 90% UPL 3 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 2 73 (a) Beryllium (Be) ppm -- -- ND 10 0.3 0.0 5 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 2 45 168 301 (a) Cobalt (Co) ppm ND 24 ND 213 6.5 0. 61 3.53 1. 32 2.72 (b) Lea d (Pb) ppm ND 340 ND 229 4.5 1 67 437 2 60 443 (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 0.0 5 0. 68 0.19 0. 68 (c) Nickel (Ni) ppm ND 540 ND 175 2.8 1. 46 27.4 5.79 2 7.4(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
-- -- -- 1 3.2 176.8 68.2 151 (a) Moisture wt %
-- -- -- -- -- 15.16 20.78 18.18 20.9 (a) As h 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

- U sed N ormal Statistics; (b) Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

- U sed Lognormal Statistics; (c) Data Do Not Follow a Discernable Distribution at 5% Significance Level

- Used Nonparametric Statistics *

-non - detect. Only one distinct observation valuein 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.