January 29, 2014

Mr. George Faison

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20460–0002

Re: 40 CFR Part 241.4 Categorical Exemption Petition for Creosote-Treated 

Railroad Ties

Dear George:

This letter is being provided to U.S. EPA as it considers the request for a 40 CFR Part 

241.4 categorical exemption petition for creosote-treated railroad ties (i.e., crosstie 

derived fuel – CDF). The categorical exemption petition that has been requested for CDF 

is supported by several organizations including the American Forest and Paper 

Association (AF&PA), the American Wood Council (AWC), the American Association 

of Railroads (AAR), the Treated Wood Council (TWC), and M.A. Energy Resources, 

LLC (MAER). Each of these organizations listed above has supplied information to U.S. 

EPA related to a categorical exemption for CDF. A significant focus of the categorical 

exemption has involved the pulp and paper industry’s usage of CDF. However, it should 

not be overlooked that the use of CDF extends beyond the pulp and paper industry. CDF 

is an equally valuable fuel to the electric utility industry and, even to a minor extent, the 

cement industry. Companies such as MAER supply CDF to customers beyond the pulp 

and paper industry and invest significant financial resources to process CDF to their 

customers’ specifications. 

A brief survey of one company with significant CDF processing operations indicates that 

their customers and potential customers are equally split between the pulp and paper 

sector and the energy sector. The end use and potential end use combustors are located 

primarily in the upper Midwest and Eastern portions of the country, and total twelve (12)

in the pulp and paper sector and fourteen (14) in the electric utility sector. Nationwide, 

processing of 700,000 tons of CDF occurs annually by approximately fifteen (15)

different CDF processing companies. It is reasonable to infer that CDF is supplied to 

customers throughout the country.

Since other industries utilize CDF as an important part of their alternate fuel profile, it 

would place companies in these other industries at a disadvantage if U.S. EPA provides a 

categorical exemption for CDF that specifies its use at pulp and paper facilities only. For 

example, a categorical exemption that includes CDF usage at biomass boilers at pulp and 

paper mills but does not extend to biomass boilers in the electric utility industry would 
Page 2 of 2

1/29/2014 01 29 2014 40 CFR Part 241 Final.docx

place these electric utility units at a disadvantage. The motivation for biomass electric 

utility boilers to utilize CDF is the same as the motivation of pulp and paper sector; CDF 

is an economically viable fuel; CDF can improve the combustion process and reduce 

some process-related emissions; CDF can be used to offset the use of fossil fuels; and 

CDF’s use is entirely unrelated to an act of disposal. It is also noted that recent 

information developed by AF&PA, AWC, and the National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement (NCASI), and provided to U.S. EPA, makes reference to several electric 

utility boilers that combust CDF. 

Regardless of whether the end use combustor is in the pulp and paper sector or in the 

electric utility sector, a categorical exemption that provides minimal flexibility would 

likely create a situation where CDF is not utilized by many sources that are physically 

capable of firing CDF. If CDF is only considered a non-waste for the subset of boilers 

that currently fire coal and fuel oil, most if not all non-qualifying combustors (i.e., boilers 

without oil-firing capabilities) will simply stop using CDF. These non-qualifying 

combustors will not choose to be regulated under the Commercial and Institutional Solid 

Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). As a 

result, the processors of CDF would experience significant financial loss, on the order of 

over $2,000,000 per processing site as well as job losses. Additionally, the nonqualifying combustors would likely fire higher priced fuels in place of the CDF.

Therefore, as U.S. EPA reviews the petition for a 40 CFR Part 241.4 categorical 

exemption for CDF, it is requested that the effect of a narrowly limited exemption be 

considered. Allowing sources to utilize CDF as a non-waste based on their industrial 

sector (i.e., excluding the electric utility sector) or allowing only those sources currently 

capable of coal and oil firing to fire CDF as a non-waste will significantly curtail the 

benefit of a 241.4 categorical exemption. End use combustors of CDF are not disposing 

of railroad ties and CDF processors are not processing railroad ties for disposal. 

The efforts and cooperation that U.S. EPA has shown regarding this important petitioning 

process are greatly appreciated. Additional background information can be provided 

regarding the combustors and processors of CDF if requested by U.S. EPA. Please 

contact me should you have questions concerning this matter at 610-933-5246 ext 115 or 

via e-mail at dholland@all4inc.com.

Sincerely

All4 Inc.

Dan Holland

Principal Consultant

cc: Mike Sorcher (MAER)

Tim Hunt (AF&PA)