(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 Classes 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 27th. Please 

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

also. 

Southern Pressure Treater’s Association is a regional trade association 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 

1954 
preserving companies operating over 45 wood preserving facilities plus 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 wood treatment facilities, to see whether financial responsibility 

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

SPTA strongly supports and is in total agreement with the facts that are 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 27th and included in the TWC information explains why it 

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

of financial assurance requirements, based on Section 108 (b)’s risk criteria 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 evidenced by the current scope of environmental regulations applied 

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

corrective action for releases at presently 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 opportunity to submit these comments to 

the Environmental Protection Agency. We are available to meet and discuss these issues with you at 

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

Best regards, 

Carl Johnson 

Executive Director