January 29, 2014

Mr. George Faison U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Res ource Conservation and Recovery Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460

– 0002

Re: 40 CFR P a rt 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

- trea ted 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), t he 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 foc us 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 exten t , 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 comp any 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 uppe r M idwest and E astern portion s of the country

, and total twelve ( 12 ) in the pulp and paper sector and fourteen ( 14 ) in the electric utility sector. Nationwide,
p rocessing 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 indus tries 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 ext end to biomass boilers in the electric utility industry wouldPage 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 econom ically 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 i s entirely unrelated to an act of disposal. It is also noted that recent information d eveloped 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 th e Commercial and Institutional Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). As a result, the processors of CDF would experience significant financial los s , on the order of over $2,000,000 per processing site as well as j ob loss es . Additionally, the non

qualifying 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 narr owly 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 no n

- 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 h as 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 concerni ng this matter at 610

- 933

- 5246 ext 115 or via e

- mail at dholland@all4inc.com

.

S incerely All4 Inc.

Dan Holland Principal Consultant

cc: Mike Sorcher ( MAER ) Tim Hunt ( A F&PA )