MEMO TO FILE: MEETING WITH ADM -7/17/2014 

DISCUSS STATUS OF CREOSOTE TREATED RAILROAD TIES PROPOSED RULE 
J VL y fj l_ ri ) t( 

{;A u. _.. rfv~v r=-

e-PA 

f?r-t 

frq_"")nt.~ o io- r.J c/ 

Prf:J m 

I+D(V1 

·/f I ) '- ~a J ~ -- 1C J (_ -

703 - 3<-fl- ~96L{ 

7of-.?f1 "' 17c] 

~ 17 .- 4 ~ j - ,} 5 3 (' 

Zoz...- ') 1-;;::;. -os-o '--/ 
Introdu ction 

Comments of the Archer Daniels Midland Company 

On 

EPA Proposed Rule 

, ttltlitiou.\· to l.isf o[Secfian 241.4 CufeJ:oric:ul Nou-Wa.rfe Fttd.\' 

EJ>A-IIQ-RCRA-2013-011 0 

79 Fed. l~ ej!. 21 (1(16 

June 13.2014 

r:or more than a century. thl' people or Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM) have transf(mned crops 

into products that serve vital needs. Today, 31.000 ADM cmrloyees around the globe conven oilsccds. com. wheat 

and oco:-~ into rroducts lor lood. :-~nim:-~1 feed. imtustrial and energy uses. With more than 270 processing plants. 

-170 cror rrocurcmcnt li1cilitics. and the world 's rrcrnier crop transronation network. ADM heirs connect the 

harvest to the horne in more than 140 countries. Our vision is to be the most admired global agribusiness. creating 

value. growing rcsr onsibly and serving vital needs. 

ADM is a member or the Council of Industrial 11oilcr Owners (CIIJO) which is submitting comments on the 

rcconsidermion of the above rule. and we suprort those comments with respect to creosmc-trcated railroad tics 

(CTRTs). Following arc some additional points speci fie to our company's operations. 

Impact on A OM's Operations nnd Relnled Businesses 

In Enderlin. Nonh Dakota. a eornmunity of 876 residents. A OM operates a biomass-tired cogcncr.11ion boiler that 

burns up to 75% crcosotc-tre:ued milroad tics in its bionwss fuel mix. The boiler is not capable ofbuming fuel oil. 

Our ability to burn tics is critical to the viability of this locntion. which is one of the top three employers in the area. 

employing 85 local residents and providing numerous attendant economic benefits to the surrounding area. A local 

rai lroad-tic grinder that employs about I 0 area residents. for instance, depends almost excl usively on our Enderlin 

plant for its n.:vcnues. and would I ikely close if it were to lose our business. If the plant were no longer able to burn 

CTRTs. it would not be able to cost-effectively access enough clean biomass to meet its energy needs Additionally. 

neither a changeover to natural gas due to delivery infrastnu;ture limitations, nor the extensive pollution-control 

chain needed to satisfy CIS WI limits would be a rcalisth: option for the facility. Thus. ADM is highly interested in 

this rule. and has followed the nile-making process closely. 

rvtoreover. if the fncility's nbility to burn tics is prevented by this rule. the impact on the CTRT market will be 

significant. EPA notes in the proposed mle that approximately 17 million CTRTs nrc removed from service each 

year, and that about two-thirds of those CTRTs arc burned for energy recovery. We estimate that the Enderlin 

racility burns in excess of 10 percent of those CTRTs. 

Gencrn l com menls 

In the rroposcd rule, EPA questions whether tics ;~rca valuable commodity irthey arc stored for longer than one 

year. The mlc docs not appear to specify what constitutes a reasonable timcfrnmc for storage. so the one-year limit 

seems somewhat arbitr:1ry, espec ially given the method in which CTRTs arc collected along thousands of miles of 

rail line. Because of their value as a fuel. the CTRTs used hy A OM's Enderlin facility arc not discarded, and arc 

instead purchased under long-term agreements for usc as a f'ucl. These CTRTs arc processed to remove 

contaminants and ground to the appropriate size for usc as fuel inn combustion unit. Notwithst:mding this 

comment. even if EPA believes that CTRTs arc discarded. it can still categorize a NIISM as a non-waste fuel 
provided it is sulliciently processed and it meets the legitimacy criteria in 2<li.J(d)( I) (i.e .. managed as ;1 valuable 

commodity. meaningful heat content. comparable contaminant ccinccntrntions to traditional fuels). 

CTRTs arc biomass mntcrials that arc treated with an energy-rich substance (coal tar) to decrease insect infestation 

and rot. The co;~ I tar treatment actually enhances the energy content of this biomass material. making it a desirable 

nltcrnativc fuel once the CTRTs nrc removed from active usc. The tics arc also m:magcd as a valuable commodity. 

similar to how the other biomass fuels arc managed at the location. 

EP/\ acknowledges in the proposed rule that CTRT:; arc sumcicntly processed by the reclamation companies and 

that two of the three legitimacy criteria arc satisfied. hut that unless those CTRTs arc burned in a boiler that is 

designed to burn fuel oil. the third criterion concerning comaminant comparison precludes CTRTs from being a nonwa~tc fu el. · 

Using this rationale. P/\ has detcnnincd that the contaminant-level comparison between CTRTs and fuel oil 

outweighs all of the other lilctors that make CTRTs sound. energy-efficient fuel sources. Table 3 of the proposal 

illustrates that the level ofSVOCs in CTRTs can be present at levels that arc much higher than those in clean wood 

and biomass. but levels of metals nnd notHnctals arc present in CTRTs at levels f.1r lower than those in clean wood 

and biomass. nnd VOCs arc present at very low levels in both CTRTs and clean wood nnd biomnss. 1\DM would 

maintain that the table illustrates that the levels of contaminants in CTiffs and clean wood and biomass as a whole 

arc comparable. Ycl. EJ>/\ requires CTRTs to be compared to fuel oil so that levels of all contaminants nrc not just 

comparable to trnditional fuels btll lower. Furthermore. EP/\ has categorii'.ed CTRTs as a non-waste fuel when. 

bumcd in boilers that arc designed to burn fuel-oil. but not when ·used in boilers designed to bum on ly biomass. 

ADM believes that this distinction is arbitrary and inconsistent. particularly since it is not likely that any boiler that 

bums fuel oil. other than ultrn-low-sulfur dil·scl. will meet the emission limits for oil-fired boilers under the Boiler 

M/\CT. 

EP !\ · s conwminant-cnmparison rationale essentially holds that because concentrations of one group of contaminants 

(SVOCs) found in CTRTs arc higher than those in other. traditional fuels. CTRTs arc only being burned to destroy 

those contaminants. IJut. 1\Drvt believes EP/\ has the authority to balance all of the legitimacy criteria to make a 

categorical non-waste determination. /\OM found a legal analysis in the docket and agrees with the commcntcr that 

EP/\ hns the authority to take into account other criteria when mqking such determinations ("Legal Ann lysis 

Supporting Listing Railroad Tic Fuel as a Nonwastc under 241.4(a)." (January I 5. 2014). EP/\-HQ-RCR/\-20 13-

0 110-0008). /\OM agrees with the commenter that the motivation oft he combustor is a signilicant factor that 

should be factored into n non-waste determination. ADM docs not burn CTRTs to destroy one group of 

contaminants: rather. it purchases tics through a tic-processor from the milroad. under long-term contracts. to 

provide the facility with n reliable. cost-effective fuel source. 

The State of North Dakota recognized this benefit when it issued a PSD permit enabling the Enderlin tacility to use 

CTRTs as fuel in its solid-fuel boiler. The facility was required to perform source testing to ensure that emissions 

produced by buming CTRTs were comparnble to emissions produced by burning other biomass. Thost: results 

indicate compliance with the emission limits in the facility's pen11it and also show compliance with the Ooiler 

MACT emission limits. (Sc:c: Allaclull£'111 A for a summw:l' (!ftlte slac:k /c:st results that demo11.W·ate such 

comparahlc: emissions). 

CTRTs arc a valuable fuel commodity that is currently used for energy recovery by 1\DM and others. This usc 

provides strong economic. environmental. and societal bcnelits. 1\DM believes CTRTs arc properly clnssilicd as 

non-wnstc fuel so that they may continue to he nppropriatcly used as fuel. Therefore. 1\DM supports hrondening the 

categorical exclusion for CTRTs to include CTRTs combusted for energy recovery in all boiler type:. capable of 

burning solid fuels. without the requirement that the boiler be designed to burn fuel oil also. This revision \\Ould 

solve a host of regulatory inconsistencies, including one that currently exists with our Enderlin biomass boiler that 

received a prior EP/\ determination stating it was properly classified as a boiler nnd not an incinerator when burning 

CTRTs for energy recovery (Sc:e corrl·spunclc:lln' alladwcl a.1· Appendix B). 

Vice President. Environmental