Railroad Tie Fuel Supplemental Information

The information provided herein supplements ma terials previously submitted to EPA by the American Forest & Paper Associat ion (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council (AWC) supporting a finding that Railroad Tie Fuel 1 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 bee n managed as a valuable commodity, used in a variety of ways including landsc aping and combustion for energy, and bought and sold in the marketplace like other recognize d 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 t hat 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 combus t 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 cr eosote (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, pr ocessing and storage -- so as to maintain their integrity, they have meaningful heating value (at least 6000 BTUs) and contain contaminants compar able to other trad itional 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 s upplement 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, stok er boilers, circulating fluidized bed, etc) that burn railroad ties for energy recovery. 3. The traditional fuels and relative am ounts (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 fuel s 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 no n-industrial boilers (e.g., co mmercial 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 ar omatic hydrocarbons (i.e., PAH-16), dioxins, dibenzofurans, hexachlorobenzene, biphen yl, 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 wit h 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 al so is providing information to address questions 1 and 5 above.

Responses to EPA Questions

1. A list of industry sectors, in addition to fo rest 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 kn ow 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 am ounts (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 railroa d ties also burn significant quantities of biomass given the similarity of the fuels’ c haracteristics. Most of these boilers are permitted to burn fuel oil either during st art-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 choi ce if available. In addition, so me states are trying to reduce SO2 emissions from sources and thus encour age 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 r educe SO2 emissions hamper the abi lity 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 permitt ed to burn oil, but altered t he boiler’s fuel feed system to accommodate only solid fuels.

It should not matter in determining the acceptabi lity of burning railr oad 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 t hat will rarely or never be used.

The most comparable traditional fuel to railroad ti es 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 bur n” 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 c ontaminant legitimacy criterion by installing a nozzle for the delivery of liquid fuel into the boiler. Ac cording 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 factor s 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 t he same design except for a nozzle feed for

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

4. The extent to which non- industrial boilers (e.g., commer cial or residential boilers) burn railroad ties for energy recovery.

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

5. Laboratory analyses for contaminants know n to be present in creosote-treated railroad ties or known to be significant components of creosot e, 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. Simila rly, the Association of American Railroads developed data from two of thei r rail yards. (Both of t hese 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 avai lable on railroad tie fuels and compare themto contaminants found in traditional fuels (coal , biomass and fuel oil) as provided by EPA in its November 29, 2011 document ent itled “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison.” Th is comparison is found in Attachment A.

Table 1 of Attachment A presents the result s of analysis of various railroad tie samples for the eleven trace metal HAPs and for seve ral major elements incl uding 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, tota l PAHs and naphthalene (also a PAH).

Finally, Table 3 compares the maximum va lues 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 com parison is made between the groups of contaminants that share physical and chemic al properties that influence their behavior in a combustion unit. The contaminants ar e 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 c ontaminants in railroad tie fuel s are well within the range of traditional fuels based on t he groupings EPA has suggested.

EPA asked specifically for information about di oxins 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 t he presence of dibenzofurans. However, the chemistry of dioxins and dibenzofurans is di fferent. 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 ra il tie fuels to form dioxins, we believe that EPA’s request for di oxin information is not appropriate.

Conclusion

The information provided in this document, together with that pr ovided in our draft petition, show clearly that ra ilroad tie fuel is a legitimate fuel material, sold in the marketplace, and in many ways is superior to fossil fuels it is us ed 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.