MEMO TO FILE: MEETING WITH ADM -7/17/2014 DISCUSS STATUS OF CREOSOTE TREATED RAILROAD T I ES PROPOSED RULE

# J V L 

# y 

# fj l_ r i ) 

# 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 Propo sed Rule , ttltlitiou.\· to l.isf o[Secfian 241.4 CufeJ:oric:ul Nou-Wa.rfe Fttd.\' EJ>A-IIQ-RCRA-20 13-0 11 0 79 Fed.

**l~ ej!.**  2 1 (1(16 June 13.2014
r:o r more than a centur y . thl' people or Archer Daniel s Midland Company (NYSE: ADM) have tran sf(mned crop s into products that se rve vital need s. Today, 31.000 ADM cmrloy ee s around the globe conven o il sccds. com. wheat and

**oco :-~**  into rro duct s l or l oo d.

**:-~nim:-~1** feed. imtustrial and energy uses. With more than 270 proce ss ing plant s . -170 cror rrocur cmcnt li1cilitic s . and the world ' s rrcrnier crop transronation network. ADM heirs connect the harvest t o the horne in more than 140 countries. Our vision is to be the most admired g l obal agribusiness. creating va lue . growing rcsr o nsibly and serving vital needs. ADM is a member or the Council of Industrial 11oilcr Owners (CIIJO) which is s ubmitting comments on the rcconsidermion of the above rule. and we s upr ort those comments wi th respect to creosmc-trcated railroad tic s (CT RT s). Following arc s ome additional points speci fie to our company's operations. Impact on AOM 's Operations nnd Relnled Bu si n esses In Enderlin. Nonh Dakota. a eornmunity of 876 re s idents . A OM operates a biomass -tir ed cogcncr.11ion boiler that burn s up to 75 % crcosotc-tre:ued milroad tics in its bionwss fuel mix . The boiler is not capable o fbuming fuel oil. Our ability to burn ti cs is critical to the viability of thi s locntion. which is one of the t op three employers in the area. employing 85 local re sidents and providing num erous attendant econom ic benefits to the surrounding area. A local rai lroad-tic grinder that employs about I0 area re s ide nt s . f or in s tan ce, depends almost excl usively on our Enderlin plant for its n.:vc nu es. and would I ikely close if it were to lo se our busine ss . If the plant we r e no longer able to burn CT RT s. it would not be able to cost-effectively access enough clean biomass t o meet its energy needs Additionall y. neither a changeover to natural gas due to delivery infrastnu;ture limitations, nor th e extensive pollution-control chain needed to sati s f y CIS W I limit s would be a rcali s th: option for the facility. Thu s. ADM is hi g hly interested in this rule. and has followed th e nil e-making pro cess closely . rvtoreo ver. if the fncility's nbility t o burn tic s is prevented 

### by th is rule. the imp act on the CTRT market will be s i

g nificant. EPA notes in th e proposed mle that approximately 17 million CTRTs nrc rem oved from ser vice each ye ar , and that ab out two -third s of those CTRTs arc burned for energy recovery. We est im ate th at the Enderlin racility burns in excess of 10 percent of those CTRTs. Ge n crn l com menl s In the rroposcd rul e , EPA que s tions whether tics

**;~rca** valuable commodity irthey arc stored for longer than one year. The mlc docs not appear to specify what constitutes a r easo nable timcfrnmc for s torage. so the one-year limit see ms somewhat arbitr:1ry, espec ially given the method in whi ch CTRTs arc collected along th ousands of mile s of rail line. Because of their value as a fuel. the C TRT s used hy AOM' s Enderlin facilit y arc not di scarded, and arc in s tead purchased un der long-term agreements for usc as a f'ucl. These CTRT s arc proce ss ed to remove contaminants and ground to the appropriate size for usc as fu el inn combustion unit. Notwith s t:mding this comment. e ven if EPA believes that C TRTs arc di scarded. it can still categorize a N I ISM as a non-waste fuelprovided it is sullicientl y 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 th at 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. makin g it 

### a desirable nltcrnativc fuel once the CTRTs nrc removed from active usc. The tics arc also m:magcd a s a valuable commodity. similar to how the other biomass fuels arc managed at the location. EP/\ acknowledges in the proposed rule that CTRT:; arc sum cicntly processed by the reclamation companie s and that two of t he 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 preclude s CTRTs from being a non **wa~tc** fu el. · Using this rationale.

**P/\** ha s 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 CT RTs can be present at levels that arc much higher than tho se in clean wood and biomass. but le ve ls of metal s nnd notHnctals arc present in CTRTs at level s f.1r lower than tho se 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 bioma ss as a whole arc comparable. Ycl. 

### EJ>/\ requires CTR Ts t o be compared to fuel o il so that le vels of all contaminants nrc not just comparable to t rnditional 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 de s igned to bum on l y 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 ofcontaminants (SVOCs) found in CT RTs arc higher than those in other. traditional fuel s . CTRTs arc only being burned to destroy th ose 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 agree s with the commcntcr that EP/\ hn s the authority to t ake into account other criteria when mqking s uch dete rmi nations ("Legal Ann lysis Supporting Listing Railroad Tic Fue l as a Nonwastc under 241.4(a)." (Januar y I5. 2014). EP/\ -HQ-R CR/\ - 20 13- 0 110 -0008) . /\OM agrees with the commenter that the motivation ofthe combustor is a signilicant factor that should be factored into n non-waste de termination . 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 facili t y with n reliable. cost-effective fuel so urce. The State of North Dakota recognized this be n efi t when it issued a PSD permit enabling the E nderlin t acility t o use CTRTs as fuel in its so lid-fuel boiler. The facility was required to perform so urce te sting to ens ure that emissions produ ced by buming CTRTs were comparnble t o emissions produced by burning other biomass. Thost: re sults indicate compliance wi th th e e mi ssion limits in the facility's pen11it an d also show compliance with th e Ooiler MAC T emission limit s. (Sc:c: Allaclull£'111 A for a summw:l' (!f tlte slac:k /c:st res ults that demo11 .W·ate such comparahlc: emissions). CTRT s arc a valuable fuel commodity that is currently used for energy recovery by 1\DM and others. This usc provides strong economic. environmental. and societa l bcnelits . 1\DM believes CTRTs arc properly clnssilicd as non-wn stc fuel so that they may continue t o he nppropriatcly used as fuel. Therefore. 1\DM s upport s hrondening the categorical exclusion for CTRTs to include CTRTs combusted for energy recovery in all boiler type:. capable of burning soli d fuels. without the requirement that the boiler be designed to burn fuel oil also. This revision \\Ould solve a host ofregulatory inconsistencies, includin g one that currently exists with our Enderlin biomass boiler that recei ved a prior EP/\ determination stating it was properly classified as a boiler nnd not an incinerator when burning C TRTs for energy recovery 

### (Sc:e corrl·spunclc:lln' alladwcl a.1· 

### Appendix B).

Vice President. Environmental