fi:\ ASSOCIATION OF 

\A) AMERICAN RAILROADS 

Michael J. Rush 

Sr. Vice President 

Safety and Operations 

Via Email: Johnson.barnes@Epa.gov 

Mr. Barnes Johnson, Director 

August I 4, 2015 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 

Mai l Code 5301P 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Additions to List of Section 24 I .4 Categorical Non-Waste Fuels; Rail Crosstics 

Treated with Copper Naphthenate or Copper Naphthenate and Borate 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) understands that EPA has decided that 

railroad crossties treated with creosote or a combination of creosote and borate should be added 

to the list of categorical non-waste fuels. This is a sound public policy decision. There are 

significant environmental benefits gained from burning used ties for energy rather than sending 

them to landtills. 

Similarly, EPA should also add railroad crossties treated with copper naphthenate or a 

combination of copper naphthenate and borate to the list of categorical non-waste fuels. The 

same environmental considerations underlying EPA's decision on crossties treated with creosote, 

either alone or in combination with borate, apply to ties treated with copper naphthenate, with or 

without borate. 

In commenting on EPA's proposal to add crossties treated with creosote to the list of 

categorical non-waste fuels (Additions to the List of Section 24 1.4 Categorical Non-Waste Fuels, 

79 Fed. Reg. 21006 (April 14, 20 14)), AAR observed that " ... while creosote historically has 

been the favored treatment for crossties, increasingly two other treatments of rail ties are utilized: 

ties treated with a combination of creosote and borate and ties treated with copper naphthenate." 

(Comments at 3.) In fact, an April2015, the Railway Tie Association (RTA) survey shows a 

significant 38 percent share of the market for creosote-borate dual-treated ties, and a small but 

425 Third Street, SW, Suite 1000 1 Washington. DC 20024 I P (202) 639-25031 F (202) 639-24391 

mrush@aar.org I www.aar.org 
2 -

increasing I. 7 percent share- 249,612 ties per year-for ties treated with copper naphthenate 

and borate 

(http://www.rta.org/asscts/docs/RTASponsoredResearch/Environmentallties%20smvey%20repor 

t%206apr2015.pdf at 3). As the survey notes, copper naphthenate is a relatively new 

preservative system for the railroad market, but railroads increasingly are choosing this product 

for its strong environmental and personal safety profile. Evidence in the rulemaking record 

demonstrates that crossties treated with copper naphthenate do not contain elevated levels of 

contaminants. (See Comments of DTE Energy, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-011 0-0083 (June 13, 

2014), at 10.) 

From the railroad industry's perspective, it is important that EPA act now to add crossties 

treated with copper naphthenate or copper naphthenate and borate to the list of categorical nonwaste fuels. EPA's failure to include ties treated with copper naphthenate or copper naphthenate 

and borate would create a disposal issue with ties that are viable fuel sources. In the RTA 

survey, most large railroads indicated that the ability to burn railroad ties for fuel at the end of 

their useful life in track is an important consideration in purchasing ti es (RTA survey at 3). 

Failure to act expeditiously on crossties treated with copper naphthenate or copper naphthenate 

and borate could impact current railroad purchasing decisions. 

Omitting crossties treated with copper naphthenate or copper naphthenate and borate 

from the list of non-waste fuels would be environmentally counterproductive as undoubtedly 

more crossties would be landfilled as a result. EPA and the public have a significant 

environmental interest in ensuring that ties are burned for energy rather than landfilled. 

• If all the ties currently burned as fuel were instead disposed of in landfills, the space 

required would be the equivalent of a football field 70 stories high - on an annual basis. 

• When disposed of in landfills, some of the ties will degrade anaerobically, producing 

methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 

• Unlike fossil fuels, co-generation of ties does not increase greenhouse gas emissions. If 

the ties are not burned for cogeneration, fossil fuels likely would be used instead, with an annual 

greenhouse-gas emission penalty of 1.65 million tons C02cq (C02 equivalent). 

These public policy considerations apply to crossties treated with copper naphthenate, alone or in 

combination with borate, as well as crossties treated with creosote or creosote and borate. 

From a cost perspective, landfilling ties instead of burning them for energy recovery 

would annually cost the railroads $90 million or more, the cost to dispose of 14 million ties in a 

landfill instead of shipping them to a cogeneration plant for use as a fuel. When crossties are 

removed from the railroad rights-of-way and are burned for fuel, railroad costs are close to 

break-even. 
3 

Classifying crossties treated with creosote, creosote and borate, copper naphthenate, or 

copper n·aphthenate and borate as non-waste for combustion purposes would benefit the 

environment. FUiihermore, adding these ties to the list of categorical non-waste fuels now would 

be consistent with EPA's criteria for classifying materials as non-waste for combustion purposes. 

AAR urges that EPA undertake such action quickly. 

AAR would be pleased to meet with EPA to answer any questions and discuss the 

environmental and economic benefits of burning crossties for fuel. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael J. Rush