Railroad Tie Fuel 

Supplemental Information 

The information provided herein supplements materials previously submitted to EPA by 

the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council 

(AWC) supporting a finding that Railroad Tie Fuel1 should be listed under 40 CFR 

241.4(a) as not a solid waste when used as fuel for purposes of the Clean Air Act 

regulations. 

Background 

Creosote-treated railroad ties have long been managed as a valuable commodity, used 

in a variety of ways including landscaping and combustion for energy, and bought and 

sold in the marketplace like other recognized fuels. On December 6, 2012, AF&PA and 

AWC submitted a draft petition to the EPA requesting that such railroad ties be listed in 

Section 241.4(a) as a “non-hazardous secondary material that is not a solid waste when 

used as a fuel in a combustion unit.” Furthermore, we requested that pending a 

national rulemaking to designate railroad ties as a non-waste fuel, EPA provide a letter 

that confirms that railroad ties that are processed and are combusted in units that 

combust or could be modified to combust liquid fuel are non-waste fuels under 40 

C.F.R. 241.3(b)(4). 

AF&PA and AWC demonstrated in the draft petition that creosote (and borate) treated 

railroad ties meet all of the legitimacy criteria identified in Section 241.3(d)(1). Railroad 

ties are managed as a valuable commodity – through collection, processing and storage 

-- so as to maintain their integrity, they have meaningful heating value (at least 6000 

BTUs) and contain contaminants comparable to other traditional fuels. 

Final Rule 

In the preamble to the final rule on Non-hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid 

Waste (78 Federal Register 9173), EPA specifically requested additional information 

about railroad tie fuels to supplement the draft petition: 

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest products mills, that burn railroad 

ties for energy recovery. 

2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) 

that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

3. The traditional fuels and relative amounts (e.g., startup, 30%, 100%) of these 

traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of 

boilers. 

 

1

 We refer to railroad ties used as fuels as Railroad Tie Fuels. We understand that the brokers of railroad 

tie fuel refer to these materials as cross-tied derived fuels or “CDF.” In either instance, we are referring to 

the same materials -- fuels generated by the use of creosote and borate-treated rail ties as fuels. 
4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e.g., commercial or residential 

boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creosotetreated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, 

specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, 

dibenzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, quinoline, crsols, and 2,4-

dinitrotoluene. 

This document provides the additional information requested by EPA as it relates to 

forest products industry use of railroad tie fuels. AF&PA and AWC are aware that M.A. 

Energy Resources has submitted a petition to EPA, including extensive analysis of 

contaminants in railroad tie fuel compared with traditional fuels, to seek a listing of 

railroad tie fuels under Section 241.4(a); we are supportive of their petition. We 

understand that the American Association of Railroads also is providing information to 

address questions 1 and 5 above. 

Responses to EPA Questions 

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest products mills, that burn railroad ties 

for energy recovery 

AF&PA and AWC will leave it to others to identify non-forest product mills that burn 

railroad tie fuels. Our data show that at least fifteen boilers at forest product mills are 

currently using railroad ties as a fuel. We know of four other mills that are permitted to 

burn these fuels, but have stopped due to the uncertainty of the regulatory status of 

railroad tie fuels or other economic factors. 

2. The types of boilers (e.g., kilns, stoker boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) that 

burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

Forest product industry boilers used to burn railroad ties are generally one of three 

types: stoker, bubbling bed or fluidized bed boilers. 

3. The traditional fuels and relative amounts (e.g., startup, 30%, 100%) of these 

traditional fuels that could otherwise generally be burned in these types of 

boilers. 

In general, all of the boilers that burn railroad ties also burn significant quantities of 

biomass given the similarity of the fuels’ characteristics. Most of these boilers are 

permitted to burn fuel oil either during start-up or during normal operations. Many 

factors determine how much fuel oil is burned. Currently, natural gas prices are low so 

that is often the fuel of choice if available. In addition, some states are trying to reduce 

SO2 emissions from sources and thus encourage greater use of biomass or natural gas 

rather than fuel oil.2

 Finally, we know of at least one boiler that had the capability to 

 

2

 It would be ironic if efforts to reduce SO2 emissions hamper the ability of mills to use clean burning 

railroad ties simply because they are moving away from fuel oil for environmental reasons. 
burn fuel oil and is still permitted to burn oil, but altered the boiler’s fuel feed system to 

accommodate only solid fuels. 

It should not matter in determining the acceptability of burning railroad ties if a mill can 

burn fuel oil, is permitted to burn fuel oil, or could modify its boiler and fuel delivery 

system to accommodate fuel oil. It makes no environmental or economic sense to force 

significant investments (up to $1 million) in nozzle systems that will rarely or never be 

used. 

The most comparable traditional fuel to railroad ties is fuel oil. However, we believe the 

question of whether a boiler is designed to burn a specific fuel is not relevant when EPA

makes a determination under section 241.4(a). With respect to liquid fuels, we 

recognize that the Agency interprets the phrase “designed to burn” to mean that a 

combustor that makes a self-determination that its railroad tie fuel is a processed fuel 

product may have to meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion by installing a nozzle for 

the delivery of liquid fuel into the boiler. According to EPA, this condition is to avoid the 

possibility that discard could be occurring in some situations. 

However, in the context of a specific non-waste determination under section 241.4, EPA 

has the opportunity to evaluate all the factors relating to the use of railroad ties as a 

fuel, including the fact that railroad tie fuel is a commodity that is purchased by the 

combustor. EPA, in granting a petition for a non-waste determination, has the discretion 

to recognize that when a combustor purchases railroad tie fuel and then burns it in a 

boiler, that combustion is not for the purpose of discarding the railroad ties. Rather, the 

combustion is for the legitimate purpose of generating energy. Any other conclusion 

would lead to the absurd result that one boiler can burn railroad tie fuel as a legitimate 

fuel and the other boiler – with essentially the same design except for a nozzle feed for 

fuel oil – would have to consider the railroad tie fuel as a solid waste. 

4. The extent to which non-industrial boilers (e.g., commercial or residential boilers) 

burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 

AF&PA and AWC do not have information about non-industrial boilers. 

5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants known to be present in creosote-treated 

railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosote, specifically 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibenzofurans, 

hexachlorobenzene, biphenyl, quinoline, crsols, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene. 

M. A. Energy Resources has developed significant data on concentrations of 

contaminants in railroad tie fuels. Similarly, the Association of American Railroads 

developed data from two of their rail yards. (Both of these sets of data have been 

submitted to EPA by the respective organizations.) We asked NCASI to review those 

data as well as other data NCASI had available on railroad tie fuels and compare them 
to contaminants found in traditional fuels (coal, biomass and fuel oil) as provided by 

EPA in its November 29, 2011 document entitled “Contaminant Concentrations in 

Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison.” This comparison is found in Attachment A. 

Table 1 of Attachment A presents the results of analysis of various railroad tie samples 

for the eleven trace metal HAPs and for several major elements including Cl, Fl, N, and 

S. Table 2 presents the results of analysis of various railroad tie samples for several 

VOC HAPs, semi-volatile VOC HAPs, total PAHs and naphthalene (also a PAH). 

Finally, Table 3 compares the maximum values in the OAQPS databases for coal, 

wood/biomass, and fuel oil with the range of values that were summarized in Tables 1 

and 2 for railroad tie fuels. The comparison is made between the groups of 

contaminants that share physical and chemical properties that influence their behavior 

in a combustion unit. The contaminants are grouped as three types of trace metal 

HAPs (volatile, semi-volatile and low volatile), total VOC HAPs, total semi-volatile VOC 

HAPs, and total PAHs, consistent with the approach EPA specified. 

The comparison shows that contaminants in railroad tie fuels are well within the range 

of traditional fuels based on the groupings EPA has suggested. 

EPA asked specifically for information about dioxins and dibenzofurans in rail tie fuels. 

We understand that this request was based on a Material Safety Data Sheet from a 

forest products company that identified the presence of dibenzofurans. However, the 

chemistry of dioxins and dibenzofurans is different. As explained in Attachment B, 

dibenzofurans are not chlorinated and thus are not considered “dioxins.” Because there 

little likelihood that sufficient chlorine would be present in rail tie fuels to form dioxins, 

we believe that EPA’s request for dioxin information is not appropriate. 

Conclusion

The information provided in this document, together with that provided in our draft 

petition, show clearly that railroad tie fuel is a legitimate fuel material, sold in the 

marketplace, and in many ways is superior to fossil fuels it is used to replace. AF&PA 

and AWC respectfully request that EPA make the determination under section 241.4(a) 

that railroad tie fuels are not solid waste when burned for energy.