# fi:\ ASSOCIATION OF 

# \A) A MER I C A N RAILRO A DS
M i c ha e l J
. R u s h Sr

. Vice President Safety and Operations

Via Email: John so n . barnes@Epa.gov 

### Mr. Barnes Johnson , Directo r August I 4 , 2015

Office of Resource Conservation and Reco very Offic e of Sol id Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmenta l Protect i on Agency 1200 Penn sy lvania Ave., N. W
. Mai l Code 5301P Washington, DC 20460 Re: Additions to List of Section 24 I .4 Categorical Non- Waste Fue l s; Rail Crosstics Tre ated with Copper Naphthenate or Copper Naphthenate and Borate Dear Mr. J o hnson : Th e Association of American Ra i lro a d s (AAR) understands that EPA ha s decided that rail ro a d c rossties treated with creoso te or a combination of creosote and borate s hould be added to the li s t of categorical non-was te fue l s. This i s a sound public policy d ec i s io n . There are significant e nvironmental benefits gai ned from burning u se d tie s for energy rather than sending them to landtil l s. Similarly, EPA should al so add railroad crossties treated with copper n ap hth e nate or a combination of copper n a phth enate and borate to the list of categorical non- was te fuels. The same environmental co n s id e r a tions u nderlyin g EPA's decision on crossties treated with creosot e, either a lo n e or in combination with borate , app ly to ties treated with copper naphthe n ate, w ith or withou t bora te. In co mmenting on EPA's propo sa l to add crossties treat ed with cre oso te to the list of categorical non-waste fuels (Add itions to the List o f Section 24 1.4 Categorical Non- Waste Fu els, 79 Fed. Reg. 21006 (April 14, 20 14) ), AAR observed t hat "
... while creosote historically has been the favored treatment for crossties, increasing ly t wo other treatments of rail ties are utilized: t i

es treate d with a combi nati o n of c r eosote and bo r at e and ties tr eat ed w ith copper naphthenate." (Comments at 3.) In fac t, an April2015, the Rai lway Tie Assoc iation (RTA) su r vey 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 Wash i ng t on. DC 20024 I P (202) 639 - 25031 F (202) 639-24391 mrush@aar.org I www.aar . org2

- increasing I . 7 percent share- 249,612 ties per year- for ties treated with copper naphthenate and borate ( http ://www .rta .o r g/assc ts/docs/ RTASponsoredResearch/Environmentallties%20smvey%20repor t%206apr2015.pdf at 3). A s the survey not es, copper naphthen ate is a relati vely new preservative sys tem for th e railroad market , but railroad s in creasingly are choosing this produ c t for it s strong e nvir onme nt a l and p ersona l safe ty profile. Ev idence in the rul e makin g record demonstrates tha t crossties treate d with copper naphthe nate do not contain e le vated levels of co ntamin ants. (See Comme nt s of DTE En e rgy, EPA-HQ-R CRA

- 2013

- 0 11 0

- 0083 (June 

### 13, 2014), at 

### 10.) From th e railroad indu s try 's perspectiv e, it is important th at EPA act now to add crossties treated with cop per naphthenate or copper naphthenate an d borate to the list of ca tego ri cal nonwaste fue ls. EPA 's failure to include ties treated with copper naphthenate or copper naphthenate and borate would create a disposa l issue with ties that are viable fuel sources. In th e RTA survey, most lar ge r a ilro ads indicated th at the ability to burn r a ilroad ties for fuel a t th e end of their useful li fe in track i s an import ant considerat ion in pur c h as ing ti es (RTA s urvey at 3). Failure t o act exped itiously on crosst ies treated with copper naphth e nate or copper naphthenate and borate cou ld impact current railroad purchasing decision s. Omitting crossties treated w ith copper naphthenate or copper naphth e n ate a nd b orate from th e li st of non-waste fuels would be environmentally counterproductive as und o ub tedly more cr ossties wou ld b e la ndfilled as a result. E PA and the public have a significant envi ronmental interest in ensuring that ties are burned for energy rather than landfi ll ed.
• If a ll th e ti es c urrentl y burned as fu e l were instead disposed of in landfill s, th e space required would be the equivalent of a football fie ld 70 sto ries high

- on an annual basis.
• When disposed of in landfills, som e of the ties will deg rade anaerobically, producing methane , a potent greenhou se gas.
• Un like fossi l fu els, co-ge neration of ties do es not increase g reenhou se gas em iss ion s. I f the ties are not burned fo r cogeneration, fossil fuels likely would be used in stead, w ith an annua l greenho u se - gas emission penalty of 1.65 milli o n tons 

### C02cq (C02 equ ivalent). These publi c policy cons id e rations apply to c ro ss ti es tre ated with copper naphthenate, alone or in comb inati on with borate, as well as cro ss tie s tr eated with creosote or creo so te and b orate. From a cost p er spective, landfillin g ti es instead of burning them for e ne rgy recovery wo uld annually cost th e railroads $90 milli on o r more , th e cos t to dispose of 14 million ties in a landfill instead of shipping th e m to a cogeneration plant for u se as a fuel. When crossties are r emoved from the railroad ri g hts-of-way and are burned for fue l , 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 env ironment. FUiihermore, adding these ties to th e li st of categorical non-waste fuels now would be co nsistent with EPA's criteria for classifying mate rial s as non - waste for combustion purposes. AAR 

### urges that EPA 

### undertake suc h action quickly. AAR 

### would be pleased to meet with EP A 

### to answer any questions and di scuss the envi ronmental and economic benefits of burning crossties for fuel. R espec tfully submitted,

Michael J. 

### Ru s h