Rail road 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 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 rail road ties have long been managed as a valuable commodity, used in a variety of ways incl uding 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 rail road ties be listed in Section 241.4(a) as a “ n on

- 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 ra ilroad 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 rail roa d ties meet all of the legitimacy criteria identified in Section 241.3(d)(1). Rail road ties are managed as a valuable commodity

– through collect ion , process ing and storage

-- so as to maintain their integrity, they have meaningful heating value (at least 6000 B TU s) 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 rail road 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, sto ker 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 generat ed by the use of creosote and borate

- treated rail ties as fuels.4. T he 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 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.

This document provides the additional information requested by EPA as it relates to forest products industry use of rail road 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 rail road 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 li st 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 rail road tie fuels. Our data show that at least fifteen boiler s at forest product mills are currently using rail road ties as a fuel. We know of four other mill s that are permitted to burn these fuels, but have stopped due to the uncertainty of the regulatory status of rail road tie fuels or other economic factors

.

2. T he 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 similar ity 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 encourag e greater use of biomass or natural gas rather than fuel oil. 2 Finally, w e know of at least one boi ler 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 reas ons.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 neve r be used.

The most comparable traditional fuel to rail road 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 rail road 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 determinat ion 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 pur pose 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 c onsider 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

. E nergy R esources has developed significant data on concentrations of contaminants in rail road 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 th os e data as well as other data NCASI had ava ilable 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 entitled “Contaminant Concentrations in Traditional Fuels: Tables for Comparison.” T his 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 v alues 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 rail road tie fuels are well wi thin the range of traditional fuels based on the groupings EPA has suggested

.

EPA ask ed 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 fore st products company that identified the presence of dibenzofurans. However, t he chemistry of dioxins and dibenzofurans is different. As explained in Attachment B, dibenzofurans are not chlorinated and thus are not considered “dioxins.” Because there lit tle 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 sectio n 241.4(a) that railroad tie fuels are not solid waste when burned for energy.