(Delivered electronically via e-mail: lesser.ben@epa.gov )

September 22, 2009

Mr. Ben Lesser

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Mail Code 5302P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265

Identification of Priority Cl asses of Facilities for Development of CERCLA

Section 108 (b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed. Reg. 37213

(July 28, 2009)

Dear Mr. Lesser:

The Southern Pressure Treaters’ Association (SPTA) is pleased to submit these comments in response to

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s July 28, 2009 Federal Register notice regarding the

Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial

Responsibility Requirements (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265). We thank you for taking

the time to meet with Treated Wood Council (TWC) representatives and myself on August 27 th . Please

extend my appreciation to Jim Berlow, Elaine Eby, Barb ara Foster and Dale Ruhter for meeting with us

also.

Southern Pressure Treater’s Associ ation is a regional trade associati on serving the industrial wood

preserving industry in the eastern half of the United States. Our membership includes 28 wood 

## SOUTHERN PRESSURE TREATERS’ ASSOCIATION

PO Box 3219

Pineville, LA 71361-3219

TEL 318-619-8589

FAX 318-767-1388

www.spta.org CHARTERED

1954preserving companies operating ove r 45 wood preserving facilities pl us 31 allied companies that

service the industry.

The purpose of the notice is to identify classes of facilities for which financial responsibility

requirements will be first developed. The notice adds that the Agency will examine a number of

classes of facilities, including w ood treatment facilities, to see wh ether financial responsibility

requirements under CERCLA Section 108 (b) would be appropriate.

SPTA strongly supports and is in total agreement with the facts that ar e set forth in the TWC

information concerning this same matter submitted to you on September 22, 2009. We believe

that the data shared in our meeting on August 27 th and included in the TWC information explains why it

is unnecessary and inappropriate to id entify wood treatment facilities as a priority class for development

of financial assurance requirements, based on Section 108 (b)’s risk criter ia and the analysis and factors

set forth in the Agency’s notice. The fact is that the wood treatment industry has undergone

drastic changes since the 1980s as ev idenced by the current scope of e nvironmental regulations applied

to this industry which already include financial assurance requirements for post-closure care and

corrective action for releases at pres ently operating sites with historic releases, the small and declining

actual TRI releases, and the low risk it represents under CERCLA Section 108 (b).

Again, Southern Pressure Treater’s Association appreciates the opportuni ty to submit these comments to

the Environmental Protection Agency. We are availabl e to meet and discuss thes e issues with you at

any time. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Carl Johnson

Executive Director