DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Evaluation of Alternate Materials to Treated Wood in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Evaluation of Alternate Materials to Treated Wood in California ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS TO TREATED WOOD IN CALIFORNIA prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute 7017 NE Highway 99 Suite 108 Vancouver, Washington 98665 web site: www.wwpinstitute.org prepared by Stephen T. Smith, P.E. AquAeTer, Inc. P. O. Box 1600 Helena, MT 59624 email: [email protected] May 2003 optimizing environmental resources - water; air; earth Economic Evaluation of Alternate Materials to Treated Wood In California May 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... ii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1 2. CALIFORNIA TREATED WOOD MARKET.................................................................................................2 3. CONSTANTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS.............................................................................................3 4. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................4 4.1. Market Description ........................................................................................................................................4 4.2. Evaluation......................................................................................................................................................4 4.3. Alternate Materials ........................................................................................................................................4 4.4. Cost of Alternate Materials............................................................................................................................5 5. UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................7 5.1. Market Description ........................................................................................................................................7 5.2. Evaluation......................................................................................................................................................7 5.3. Alternate Materials ........................................................................................................................................7 5.4. Cost of Alternate Materials............................................................................................................................7 6. RAILROADS ....................................................................................................................................................9 6.1. Market Description ........................................................................................................................................9 6.2. Evaluation....................................................................................................................................................10 6.3. Alternate Materials ......................................................................................................................................10 6.4. Cost of Alternate Materials..........................................................................................................................10 7. MARINE CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................................................................12 7.1. Market Description ......................................................................................................................................12 7.2. Evaluation....................................................................................................................................................12 7.3. Alternate Materials ......................................................................................................................................12 7.4. Cost of Alternate Materials..........................................................................................................................12 8. ROADS AND HIGHWAYS ...........................................................................................................................14 8.1. Market Description ......................................................................................................................................14 8.2. Evaluation....................................................................................................................................................14 8.3. Alternate Materials ......................................................................................................................................14 8.4. Cost of Alternate Materials..........................................................................................................................14 9. OTHER MARKETS........................................................................................................................................15 10. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................16 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................17 TABLES Page i Economic Evaluation of Alternate Materials to Treated Wood In California May 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislation and/or regulatory changes are being considered in California that could prohibit the use of new treated wood products. In addition, some Federal, regional and local regulatory agencies have expressed concern with treated wood and suggested that economically viable alternative materials are available and should be used. Treated wood alternatives include steel, concrete, plastic, and composite materials manufactured to perform the same end use as the treated wood products. The logical question is how economical are these alternatives on a project basis and what would be the overall impact of using alternatives. This paper seeks to address these important questions. The alternatives to treated wood products usually cost more to purchase and more to install than treated wood. The increase in installed cost generally ranges from about 50 percent to 200 percent more than treated wood. In California, about $1.0 billion is spent annually in projects using treated wood. It is estimated that the cost of the same work would increase by about $2.4 billion to a total of about $3.4 billion annually. Increased costs would impact wide segments of the California economy, including the following: • Residential and commercial construction costs increase by about $1.1 billion per year. • Utilities pole costs increased by about $100 million. • Railroads would be forced to replace existing systems at a cost of about $960 million per year for the next 10 years while also increasing tie replacement costs by about $45 million per year. • Marine construction cost would increase by about $130 million per year. • Road and highway transportation agencies costs would increase by $6 million annually. Further, indirect cost and impacts would be likely as the alternate products may not perform as well as treated wood or result in higher operational or maintenance costs. Use of unproven materials or construction methods could result in accidents, injuries, and/or loss of service by utilities or railroads. Page ii Economic Evaluation of Alternate Materials to Treated Wood In California May 2003 1. INTRODUCTION Preservative treated wood is used widely throughout California and the world. Creosote has been used to preserve wood since the late 19th century and was critical to the successful development of the railroad transportation system that benefits all today. Other preservatives entered the marketplace in the 1950s with numerous improvements over the years. Treated wood products are now common in uses such as utility poles, railroad ties, pilings, sign and guard rail posts, fencing, outdoor decks, public boardwalks, foundation sill plates, and agricultural supports. These uses have become common because wood is a strong, flexible, economic building material that, when treated, will last a long time in moist and/or outdoor environments. In fact, depending on the severity of the use and environment, treated wood lasts for more than 20 years and often as long as 100 years. Legislation has been introduced in California that would prohibit the use of most treated wood products, including nearly all that are now common. An assumption of this legislation is that alternatives to treated wood are practically and economically available. In addition some Federal, regional and local regulatory agencies have expressed concern with treated wood and suggested that economically viable alternative materials are available and should be used. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the economics of changing from the established treated wood products to alternative products. Alternatives to treated wood vary according to the uses. For residential outdoor construction, such as for decks, fences, and landscaping, products manufactured from recycled plastic or plastic wood composites have entered the market. Such products allow the homeowner a very similar end product, such as an elevated deck and railing system. Other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Producing and Inspecting Railroad Crossties Terry Conners, Department of Forestry
    FOR-108 Producing and Inspecting Railroad Crossties Terry Conners, Department of Forestry ltimately, a long-serving tie U starts with a good piece of wood. Several types of structural wooden members are used in railroad track and related struc- tures, but this article focuses on crossties—which are used to hold track in place at a defined gauge, or distance between rails—and their production and grading. This article describes what a good piece of wood looks like and how to recognize crossties with problems before they are placed in track. Understanding what tie inspec- tors look for will help tie producers make better ties and achieve a lower rate of tie rejection. smallest dimension (its depth as laid in with the heart off-center it’s possible that Crosstie track) as either a 6” grade tie or a 7” grade the surface with the heart checks might tie. Crosstie dimensions are most com- be turned upward during installation. Production monly 7” x 9”, but some 6” x 8” and 7” x 8” Upward-facing heart checks will let rain Tie Dimensions and Quality ties are also used. The wide dimension on into the unprotected heartwood and the The most common crosstie length in a crosstie is referred to as a tie face, and the tie will decay more quickly. North America is 8’ 6”. Very few 8’-long narrow dimension is called the side. In terms of quality, crossties are cat- ties are purchased (even though this is Ideally ties should be cut with the egorized either as grade or industrial grade a standard length according to the pub- heartwood centered in the tie.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardwood Press-Lam Crossties
    United States Department of Agriculture Hardwood Press-Lam Forest Service Forest Products Crossties: Laboratory Research Paper Processing and FPL 313 1979 Performance ABSTRACT Crossties were made by the Press- Lam process, in which logs are peeled into veneers, dried, and glued into billets in a continuous procedure. Billets were made from 8.5-foot-long veneers and from 4-foot-long veneers, cut into final product dimensions, and treated with preservative. In laboratory tests, bending strength and stiffness of the Press-Lam ties were found to exceed those of solid-sawn red oak crossties; shear strength was only adequate. Tie wear tests showed low surface wear for laminated ties, comparable to the performance of solid specimens. Results of spike driving tests, however, indicated problems in some species. Ail Press-Lam lies met the performance criteria in the cyclic delamination tests, and, in lateral resistance tests, Press- Lam ties were not significantly different from solid-sawn ties. Volume yields are discussed and cost estimates are provided for use in calculating total tie costs for specific cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the technical assistance of Harley Davidson, John Hillis, Romaine Klassy, William Kreul, Theodore Mianowski, Robert Patzer, and Alberto Villarreal. i CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Research Objectives 2 METHODS 3 Processing 3 Synopsis 3 Materials 3 Rotary Cutting 3 Press Drying 3 Lamination 5 8.5-Foot Veneer 5 4-Foot Veneer 6 Preservative Treating 8 8.5-Foot-Veneer Ties 8 4-Foot-Veneer
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Prestressed Afrp Bars in Concrete
    APPLICATIONS OF PRESTRESSED AFRP BARS IN CONCRETE RAILROAD TIES A Thesis by RYAN D. POSLUSZNY Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Committee Chair, Stefan Hurlebaus Committee Members, John B. Mander Gary T. Fry Anastasia Muliana Head of Department Robin Autenrieth December 2016 Major Subject: Civil Engineering Copyright 2016 Ryan D. Posluszny ABSTRACT Since the 1970’s, concrete railroad ties have become more and more prominent in the railroad industry. Their improved durability and increased safety over traditional timber ties has paved the way for new and more efficient concrete ties to be developed. Prestressing with steel strands was a key design aspect in providing the strength the ties needed to overcome the tonnage seen in heavy haul lines spread across the United States and the world. A major flaw seen with these concrete ties is deterioration due to environment or fatigue loading under the connected rail. This deterioration can lead to a change in gauge of the track structure which can then cause derailment of trains. A second issue found in concrete ties that was not found in timber is the electrical conductivity. Timber is a highly insulating material while concrete possesses insulating and conductive properties based on the amount of moisture present. This is an issue because track structures use the steel rails to carry electrical signals to detect the presence of a train within a signaled block. During construction, the steel strands may come into contact with the embedded steel shoulders on both sides of the tie, therefore creating a direct circuit that needs to be insulated from the steel rails.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusions and Summaryenvironmental Life Cycle
    Conclusions and Summary Report Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate-Treated Railroad Ties with Comparisons to Concrete and Plastic/Composite Railroad Ties ISO 14044 Compliant Prepared by: AquAeTer, Inc. © Arch Wood Protection, Inc. a Lonza Company (2013) Project Name: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of ACZA-Treated Railroad Ties Comparisons to Concrete and Plastic/Composite Railroad Ties Conclusions and Summary Report Lonza Wood Protection commissioned AquAeTer, Inc., an independent consulting firm, to prepare a quantitative evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the national production, use, and disposition of ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA)-treated, concrete, and plastic/composite (P/C)railroad ties, using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies and following ISO 14044 standards. The comparative results confirm: • Less Energy & Resource Use: ACZA-treated wood railroad ties require less total energy, less fossil fuel use, and less water than concrete and P/C railroad ties. • Lower Environmental Impacts: ACZA-treated wood railroad ties have lower environmental impacts in comparison to concrete and P/C railroad ties for all six impact indicator categories assessed: anthropogenic greenhouse gas, total greenhouse gas, acid rain, smog, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity-causing emissions. • Greenhouse Gas Levels: Compared to annual GHG emissions from national railroad fuel use, the net GHG “footprint” resulting from the railroads’ choice of tie materials is notable at 1.1% for ACZA-treated ties, 6.3% for concrete ties, and 5.5% for P/C ties. • Offsets Fossil Fuel Use: Reuse of ACZA-treated railroad ties for energy recovery in permitted facilities with appropriate emission controls will further reduce greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, while offsetting the use of fossil fuel energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Microstructural Features of Railseat Deterioration in Concrete Ties
    MICROSTRUCTURAL FEATURES OF RAILSEAT DETERIORATION IN CONCRETE TIES By T. Bakharev1 and L. J. StrubleZ ABSTRACT: Deterioration has been observed in concrete railroad ties, producing a loss of up to 40 mm at the railseat and leaving a rough surface formed mainly by aggregates. This deterioration occurs largely in cold and wet regions of western Canada and northern United States. The purpose of the present investigation was to deduce the processes responsible for this deterioration. Proposed mechanisms included abrasion, erosion, hy­ draulic pressure, freeze-thaw cycles, and chemical deterioration. Microstructural features associated with each mechanism were explored using laboratory concrete subjected to known deterioration processes or through computer simulations. Microstructural studies utilized scanning electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction. Based on the microstructural evidence, it was concluded that the railseat deterioration is produced by a combination of abrasion and freeze-thaw or hydraulic pressure. INTRODUCTION To determine which process is responsible for the railseat deterioration, microstructural features of the deteriorated ties In most countries of the world, there is a growing interest were compared to features of concrete subjected to various in the use of concrete railroad ties. Concrete ties are econom­ deterioration processes (freeze-thaw and abrasion). Because ical and their superior structural properties increase the stabil­ we were not able to reproduce damage due to hydraulic pres­ ity and performance of the track structure. However, deterio­ sure, we developed a computer model to simulate microstruc­ ration ofconcrete ties at the railseat has recently been observed tural features of this process. Microstructural examination was in North America. In its preliminary stages, the deterioration carried out in which we specifically looked for evidence of produces a shallow imprint of the rail pad on the surface of DEF and ASR.
    [Show full text]
  • National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
    ----- ----------------------------- FRA/ORD-80/63 TRACK RENEWAL SYSTEM AND WOOD TIE REUSE ANALYSIS Unified Industries Incorporated 6600 Loisdale Court, Suite 400 Springfield, Virginia 22150 OCTOBER 1980 FINAL REPORT Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20590 R£PRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENJ Of COMMERCE SI'RINGFIELQ,. V~ 2216J NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Depart· ment of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Gove~rnment assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manu· facturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. ---------------- Technical ~eport Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/ORD-80/63 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date OCTOBER 1980 Track Renewal System and Wood Tie Reuse Analysis 6. Performing Organization Code r-::---~~-:-:----------------------------1 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author/ s) G. Richard Cataldi, David N. Elkaim 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Unified Industries Incorporated 6600 Loisdale Court, Suite 400 11. Contract or Grant No. Springfield, Virginia 22150 DOT-FR-9044 13. Type of Report and Period Covered ~~--------------------~--------------------------------~12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Federal Railroad Administration August 1979-July 1980 Office of Research and Development 400 Seventh Street, SW. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Railroad Ties Survey
    2014 Railroad Ties Survey for Railway Tie Association (RTA) Association of American Railroads (AAR) and American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) by Stephen T. Smith Stephen Smith Consulting Helena, MT April 6, 2015 Revised August 12, 2015 Railroad Tie Survey Report Page 1 of 9 Revised August 12, 2015 2014 Railroad Ties Survey Introduction Information regarding the types of railroad ties being put into service and the methods of disposition of ties following use is important to the railroad and wood preserving industries and the government bodies for various reasons. In response to questions posed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Railway Tie Association (RTA) conducted a survey and provided results to the EPA about tie disposition in 2008. Since that time, the EPA has passed regulations that may limit use of used ties as fuel in the Non- Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule. As currently written, the proposed regulations will allow use of creosote treated railroad ties as fuel provided that they “are processed and combusted in units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil.”1 With the rule still not final, the industry may avoid any restrictions but it may also need to provide additional data. An additional EPA June 2, 2014 proposal, the Clean Power Plan, to cut anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions may also impact demand for ties as a renewable fuel. Finally, EPA is mandated to continue reviewing all wood preservatives in their ongoing process required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which could have future impacts on railroads.
    [Show full text]
  • To Have Been Used in the Construction of Buildings. in the Mid-1970S
    Wood is being increasingly used in large nonresidential structures such as the Tacoma Dome. to have been used in the construction of buildings. In Table &--Wood railroad tie installations1 and lumber consumption in the mid-1970s, most of the lumber and nonstructural the United States, specified years 1950-86. panel products used for buildings was retained in the structure as rafters, joists, beams, wall paneling and mill- Crossties Switch and bridge ties work, whereas the most important use for structural panels was as concrete forming or security fencing and Total other facilitating purposes (Reid 1977). These general Period volume Number Volume Number Volume trends continued into the early 1980s (Spelter 1985c, Spelter and Anderson 1985, Spelter et al. 1987). Million Million Million board~et Thousands board~et Thousands board ~et 1950-592 1,262 29,523 1,151 1,762 111 Railroad Construction 1960-692 771 17,872 705 1,048 66 1970-742 964 22,487 899 1,029 65 In 1986, about 1.1 billion board feet of lumber and 25 1975 938 21,850 874 1,016 64 1976 1,220 28,748 1,150 1,111 70 million square feet, 3/8-inch basis, of structural panels 1977 1,204 28,265 1,131 1,160 73 were used by the railroad industry for the construction 1978 1,196 28,079 1,123 1,160 73 of new track, and for the maintenance of existing track 1979 1,162 27,057 1,100 978 62 and rolling stock. 2 Of all lumber consumed in 1986 by 1980 1,115 26,247 1,050 1,028 65 the railroad industry, about four-fifths (881 million board 1981 1,122 26,719 1,069 840 53 feet) was used for the 20.4 million crossties and 1.0 mil- 1982 881 20,811 832 777 49 lion switch and bridge ties installed during the year 1983 871 20,553 822 779 49 (table 8, fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium of Definitions and Acronyms for Rail Systems
    APTA STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM APTA STD-ADMIN-GL-001-19 GUIDELINES First Published June 20, 2019 American Public Transportation Association 1300 I Street NW, 12th Floor East, Washington, DC, 20005 Compendium of Definitions and Acronyms for Rail Systems Abstract: This compendium was developed by the Technical Services & Innovation Department and published by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) to provide a glossary of commonly used definitions and acronyms in documents such as standards, recommended practices, and guidelines, so there is consistency within the rail transportation industry. Summary: APTA, through its subsidiary the North American Transit Services Association (NATSA), develops standards, recommended practices and guidelines for the benefit of public rail transportation. These tasks are accomplished by working groups consisting of members from rail transit agencies, manufacturers, consultants, engineers and other interested groups. Through the development of these documents, working groups have created a wide array of terms and abbreviations, many with varying definitions. This compendium has been developed to standardize the usage of such definitions and acronyms as it relates to rail operations, maintenance practices, designs and specifications. This document is dynamic in nature in that, over time, additional definitions and acronyms will be included. It is APTA’s intention that the document be sufficiently expanded at some point in the future to provide common usage of terms encompassing all rail industry requirements. Scope and purpose: This compendium applies to all rail agencies that operate commuter rail, heavy rail (subway systems), light rail, streetcars, and trolleys. The usage of these definitions and acronyms are voluntary. Nevertheless, it is the desire of APTA that the rail industry apply these terms to all documents such as standards, recommended practices, standard operating practices, standard maintenance practices, rail agency policies and procedures, and agency rule books.
    [Show full text]
  • FSC Product Classification
    Forest Stewardship Council® ® FSC STANDARD ADDENDUM FSC Product Classification FSC-STD-40-004a V2-1 EN CHAIN OF CUSTODY © 2013 Forest Stewardship Council A.C. All rights reserved. Title: FSC Product Classification Document reference code: FSC-STD-40-004a V2-1 EN Scope: International Approval: 16 December 2013 Contact: FSC International Center Policy and Standards Unit Charles-de-Gaulle Str. 5 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228 / 367-66-0 Fax: +49-228 / 367-6630 E-mail: [email protected] © 2013 Forest Stewardship Council, A.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the publisher’s copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, recording taping, or information retrieval systems) without the written permission of the publisher. Printed copies are uncontrolled and for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy on the FSC website (www.fsc.org) to ensure you are referring to the latest version. The Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC) is an independent, not for profit, non-government organization established to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. FSC’s vision is that the world’s forests meet the social, ecological, and economic rights and needs of the present generation without compromising those of future generations. FSC-STD-40-004a V2-1 EN FSC Product Classification – 2 of 16 – © 2013 Forest Stewardship Council A.C. All rights reserved. Foreword This document shall be used as an addendum to “FSC-STD-40-004: FSC Standard for Chain of Custody Certification” for the purpose of classifying FSC product groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Railroad Tie Survey
    Journal of Transportation Technologies, 2019, 9, 276-286 http://www.scirp.org/journal/jtts ISSN Online: 2160-0481 ISSN Print: 2160-0473 2018 Railroad Tie Survey Stephen T. Smith* Stephen Smith Consulting, Helena, MT, USA How to cite this paper: Smith, S.T. (2019) Abstract 2018 Railroad Tie Survey. Journal of Trans- portation Technologies, 9, 276-286. This article reports results of a survey of railroad tie management conducted https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2019.93017 by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) reflecting 2017 practices. Similar surveys were previously conducted for 2013 and 2008 practices. North Received: April 10, 2019 Accepted: May 18, 2019 American railroads purchase approximately 23 million new wood crossties Published: May 21, 2019 annually. Most ties are used to replace worn ties. Through this survey, the AAR seeks to provide clarity to its member railroads, the regulators, and oth- Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and er interested parties, regarding how the railroads’ tie purchase preferences Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative and used tie management choices have been changing in response to chang- Commons Attribution International ing technologies and regulations. Technology changes include use of borate License (CC BY 4.0). preservatives to dual-treat wood ties to provide longer service life in high de- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ cay environments, non-wood ties made of concrete or plastic, and energy Open Access conversion methods for used ties such as gasification and torrefaction. Pas- sage of the EPA Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule in 2011, including updates in 2013, 2016, and 2018, is reducing the potential for recy- cling used ties as fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Railroad Tie Survey
    2018 Railroad Tie Survey for Association of American Railroads (AAR) by Stephen T. Smith, P. E. Stephen Smith Consulting Helena, MT Email: [email protected] March, 2019 Railroad Tie Survey Report Page 1 of 13 March, 2019 2018 Railroad Tie Survey Introduction With approximately 207,000 miles of occupied track in the United States1 and supporting crossties of approximately 3,000 per mile, railroads have approximately 620 million crossties currently in use in the U. S. Ties wear out through normal decay, insect attack, and physical impact and abrasion and as the result of derailments, rail modifications, or other causes. Approximately 23 million new wood ties are purchased and installed in the North American rail network every year2. Most new ties are installed to replace old ties. The ties taken out of service require management by the railroads. Potential means of management include recycling for lighter duty use as ties in a railroad, reuse for landscaping or agricultural purposes, reuse as fuel, disposal via landfills or incineration, or storage pending one of the above options. Due to potential environmental impacts or human risks associated with such management options, regulatory agencies, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular, have stated concerns about how used ties are managed. In addition, information regarding the types of railroad ties being put into service and the methods of management of ties following use is important to the railroad and wood preserving industries and the government bodies for various other reasons. In response to questions posed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Railway Tie Association (RTA) conducted a survey and provided results to the EPA about tie management in 2008.
    [Show full text]