July 15, 2011 

Via Email

Mr. Brian Shrager 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-01) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

shrager.brian@epa.gov. 

Ms. Toni Jones 

Fuels and Incineration Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143-03) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

jones.toni@epa.gov. 

RE: Comments of the Auto Industry Forum on EPA’s Request for Additional 

Information Regarding Issues to Be Reconsidered for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units Regulated under Section 112 and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 28662 

 (May 18, 2011) 

Dear Mr. Shrager and Ms. Jones: 

 The Auto Industry Forum (AIF) is pleased to respond to the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s request to provide additional information regarding the issues to be reconsidered 

under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: 

Industrial Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, published at 75 Fed. 

Reg. 15,608 (Mar. 21, 2011) (the “Boiler MACT”)and Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Rule, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011) 

Shannon S. Broome 

202.625.3715 

510.287.8161 
Mr. Brian Shrager 

Ms. Toni Jones 

July 15, 2011 

Page 2 

(“CISWI Rule”). The AIF is a coalition of automobile manufacturing companies whose 

members are affected by both the Boiler MACT and the CISWI rule. The AIF has filed 

petitions for reconsideration with the Administrator and has also filed petitions for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of both of these rules. In addition, the 

AIF has filed a petition for review of the Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste; Final Rule, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15,456 (Mar. 21, 

2011) (“NHSM Rule”) and a corresponding petition for administrative stay with the 

Administrator.1

 

 As explained in detail in the attached petitions for reconsideration, the AIF requests 

that EPA reconsider the following aspects of the Boiler MACT and CISWI Rule and solicit 

comment on these issues in its proposed reconsideration action scheduled for this fall. 

I. Boiler MACT Reconsideration 

1. The treatment of landfill gas (“LFG”): While LFG has been characterized by 

EPA as an “other process gas” in the Gas 2 category, it should qualify 

automatically for regulatory treatment under the Gas 1 category. EPA’s 

provision to allow facilities to demonstrate that a Gas 2 unit deserves 

regulatory treatment under the Gas 1 category (the “demonstration 

mechanism”) is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and actually creates 

more stringent requirements for LFG than must be met by substances EPA has 

automatically deemed to qualify for Gas 1 regulatory treatment. In particular, 

the requirements to meet 40 mm/m3 mercury, and 4 ppm hydrogen sulfide are 

not reasonable. We have attached to these comments a study entitled Boiler 

MACT Fuel Classification Review for Landfill Gas, which was prepared by 

CH2MHill. This study shows that LFG is comparable to both natural gas and 

refinery gas and therefore should be classified as Gas 1. Moreover, EPA failed 

to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment on the process and 

thresholds that would allow a unit to qualify for the Gas 1 category and 

therefore, even if EPA does not automatically include all LFG in the Gas 1 

category, it is obligated to take comment on and reconsider its approach for 

allowing other gases to qualify as Gas 1 to ensure that any such process is 

workable and appropriate. 

2. Applicability and requirements for boilers and process heaters below 10 

MMBTU/hr heat input: Boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities 

up to 10 MMBTU/hr, particularly natural gas-fired units, should be exempted 

from the final work practice standard and should not be subject to unworkable 

and burdensome biannual tune up requirements. Consistent with the need for 

an exemption for boilers and process heaters up to 10 MMBTU/hr, EPA’s 

 

1

 The AIF also filed a petition for reconsideration and a petition for review of the predecessor CISWI Rule which 

was issued December 1, 2000, in light of the implications of the NHSM rule on the original CISWI rule 

applicability. 
Mr. Brian Shrager 

Ms. Toni Jones 

July 15, 2011 

Page 3 

imposition of bi-annual tune-up requirements on natural gas-fired hot water 

heaters with capacity greater than 120 U.S. gallons should be eliminated given 

the extreme burdens imposed and the lack of environmental benefits.

3. Notification requirements for alternative fuel use: The requirement to notify 

EPA within 48 hours of alternative fuel use during natural gas curtailment 

should be eliminated and any notification required should be modified to 

comport with reporting deadlines under Title V. 

4. Energy assessment requirement: The energy assessment requirement should 

be eliminated or curtailed to apply only to the boiler or process heater, not to 

the broader range of processes at a plant. 

II. CISWI Rule Reconsideration 

1. Treatment of thermal sand recycling: EPA should clarify that foundry sand 

being recycled is not a solid waste and that thermal sand reclamation (“TSR”) 

units are not considered solid waste incineration units subject to the 

requirements in the CISWI Rule (either 2000 or 2011). 

2. Treatment of paint solids: EPA should adopt an exclusion from the CISWI 

Rule for paint solids collected from automobile assembly plants that are 

thermally treated. 

3. Coating operation control devices: Consistent with a May 13, 2011, letter 

from Suzanne Rudzinski, Director of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery, to Mr. Timothy Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association, 

EPA clarify and confirm in regulatory language that the CISWI Rule does not 

apply to the burning of gaseous materials – e.g., in fume incinerators which 

may include regenerative thermal oxidizers and other control devices -- 

associated with coating operations. 

We are pleased that the Agency is moving expeditiously to address the concerns raised 

in administrative petitions and in the legal challenges that have been filed. This will ensure 

that resources are not spent litigating issues that the Agency already intends to address. In 

addition, we are pleased that EPA has stayed the Boiler MACT and CISWI Rule in order to 

allow this reconsideration process to proceed in an orderly fashion. 

Please contact me with any questions regarding this submittal at 510-287-8161 or 202-

625-3517 or shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com. The Auto Industry Forum looks forward to 

working with the Agency to address the issues presented by these rules in an expeditious and 

cooperative manner. 

 Sincerely, 
Mr. Brian Shrager 

Ms. Toni Jones 

July 15, 2011 

Page 4 

 Shannon S. Broome 
Report

Boiler MACT Fuel Classification 

Review for Landfill Gas

Prepared for

Waste Management, Inc.

July 2011
Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted 

material is not available in Regulations.gov since 

it may not be reproduced without consent of the 

copyright holder. 

Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA 

Docket Center, Public Reading Room. 

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202-566-1744 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
ATTACHMENT

Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally 

and Economically Beneficial Opportunity–EPA Landfill Methane 

Outreach Program (December 2009)
Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Opportunity 1

Utilization of landfill gas (LFG) in place of a 

conventional fuel such as natural gas, fuel oil, 

or coal in boilers is an established practice 

with a track record of more than 25 years of 

success. In the United States, more than 60 

organizations have switched to the use of LFG 

in their industrial, commercial, or institutional 

boilers, with more than 70 boilers operating 

with LFG, either alone or co-fired with other 

fuels. Boilers firing LFG range in size from 

2 to more than 150 million British Thermal 

Units per hour (MMBtu/hr). Companies 

using LFG are saving money while protecting 

the environment. General Motors fires LFG 

in boilers at four of their manufacturing 

and assembly plants and reports that they 

have realized energy cost savings of about 

$500,000 per year at each of the four plants. 

This fact sheet discusses the technical and engineering issues associated with using LFG in boilers 

designed to burn other fuels. The equipment and operational changes are relatively simple and use 

proven technologies, and dozens of firms can engineer and implement a conversion project. 

Comparison of Landfill Gas and Natural Gas

Like natural gas, LFG’s heating value is derived largely from methane, but unlike natural gas, LFG is 

comprised about 50 percent by volume of non-combustible gas, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2). LFG is 

classified as a “medium Btu gas” with a heating value of about 500 Btu per cubic foot, about half 

that of natural gas. Therefore, the volume of LFG that must be handled by the fuel train and burner 

is twice that of natural gas. This means that modifications to the fuel train and burner are usually 

required to accommodate the higher overall gas flowrate for an equivalent natural gas heating 

value. The increased gas flow, however, does not have an appreciable effect on the design and 

operation of boiler components downstream of the burner. The added volume of non-combustible 

(inert) gas in LFG is equivalent to the inert gas entering a boiler when about six percent of the 

flue gas is recirculated to the boiler. Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) is a widely applied technique 

for reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired industrial and commercial 

boilers, and boilers can typically operate at recirculation rates of 20-25 percent without adversely 

affecting boiler heat transfer and efficiency. This comparison illustrates that the increased flow 

of LFG as compared to natural gas will not adversely affect boiler operation, although the burner, 

controls, and fuel train will require some modifications.

Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: 

An Environmentally and Economically 

Beneficial Opportunity

Mallinckrodt, Inc. Raleigh, NC

December 2009
Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Opportunity 2

Burner, Control, and Fuel 

Train Modifications

The equipment for retrofitting a boiler to 

burn LFG is commercially available, proven, 

and not overly complex. The decisions that 

must be made during engineering and 

design are, however, site-specific and may 

be somewhat involved. For example, some 

installations have retained the original 

burner but modified it for LFG (e.g., by 

installing separate LFG fuel train and gas 

spuds) while maintaining the existing 

natural gas fuel train and gas ring to permit 

LFG/natural gas co-firing. Other installations 

have replaced the entire burner, controls, and fuel train with a dual-fuel burner and dual-fuel 

trains specifically designed to handle medium Btu gas. In general, the decision to furnish all new 

equipment is made based on the owner’s preference or because the existing burner and controls are 

nearing the end of their useful lives. Additional analysis may be required to determine the amount 

of LFG compression that is provided versus the modifications needed for the burner and gas train.

Because LFG is typically a wet gas often containing trace corrosive compounds, the fuel train and 

possibly some burner “internals” should be replaced with corrosion-resistant materials. Stainless 

steel has typically been the material selected.

The controls associated with fuel flow and combustion air flow need to be engineered to cope with 

the variable heat content of LFG. The complexity of the burner management system will depend 

upon whether the boiler is to be co-fired with natural gas or oil and whether the boiler is to be 

co-fired at all times or if there will be times when it will be fired with LFG only. Today’s modern 

controls, fast-responding oxygen analyzers, and responsive flame sensors make it possible to fire 

LFG with the same level of safety that is characteristic of current natural gas systems.

Boiler Deposits and Boiler Cleaning

In recent years, a family of organo-silicon compounds, known as siloxanes, commonly found in 

detergents, shampoos, deodorants, and cosmetics, have gradually found their way into the solid 

waste stream and into LFG. Their quantity in LFG is small and varies with the age of the landfilled 

material. When LFG is burned, the siloxanes are oxidized to silicon oxide—the primary chemical 

compound in sand. After firing boilers for an extended period with LFG, operators report a thin 

coating of white powder, described as similar to talcum powder, on some of the boiler tubes and 

substantial accumulations of the white powder on portions of the boiler floor. Where the material 

collects and how much of it accumulates is likely to be a function of the velocity patterns in 

the boiler and the siloxane concentrations in the LFG. One firetube boiler operator reported no 

deposits at all, probably due to the high flue gas velocity that is characteristic of the firetube boiler 

configuration. 

Mallinckrodt, Inc. Raleigh, NC
Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Opportunity 3

Operators’ experiences to date indicate 

that annual cleaning is sufficient to avoid 

operational problems related to silicon oxide 

accumulation. More frequent cleaning may 

be necessary as future installations encounter 

higher LFG siloxane concentrations or when 

low gas velocities exist in the boiler, either 

because of boiler design or continuous 

operation well below full capacity. In all 

cases, the silicon oxide powder is easily 

removed from surfaces by brushing or water 

washing.

Other Considerations 

In designing and assessing the economic 

feasibility of projects utilizing LFG in boilers, 

several factors in addition to the boiler retrofit must be considered. For example, the quantity of 

LFG available must be considered and compared to the facility’s steam needs and boiler capacities. 

Factors such as pipeline right-of-way issues and the distance between the landfill and the boiler 

will influence costs and the price at which LFG can be delivered and sold to the boiler owner. 

Because LFG is generally saturated with moisture, gas treatment is needed before the LFG is 

introduced into the pipeline and subsequently the boiler, to avoid condensation and corrosion. 

Additionally, condensate knock-outs along the pipeline are necessary as condensation in the main 

pipeline can cause blockages. Fortunately, the level of LFG clean-up required for boiler use is 

minimal, with only large particle and moisture removal needed. Other compounds in LFG, such as 

siloxanes, do not damage boilers or impair their function. Generally, LFG clean-up and compression 

systems are located at the landfill and are often installed by a developer rather than by the boiler 

owner. LFG compression provided at the landfill must be sufficient to compensate for pipeline 

pressure losses and provide sufficient pressure at the boiler to permit proper function of the fuel 

controls and burner. Proper attention to burner selection or burner modification for low-pressure 

operation can minimize the LFG compression costs.

Is My Boiler a Candidate for Landfill Gas Retrofit?

Virtually any commercial or industrial boiler can be retrofitted to fire LFG, either alone or co-fired 

with natural gas or fuel oil. The firing profile is a primary consideration, regardless of the boiler 

type, since the fuel cost savings associated with LFG must offset the costs of the LFG recovery (if a 

LFG collection system is not yet in place), the gas clean-up equipment, and the pipeline. Operation 

at substantial load on a 24-hour/7 day-per-week basis or something approaching continual 

operation is generally important to the economic viability of a potential project.

Both the smaller, lower-pressure firetube package boilers and larger, higher-pressure watertube 

package boilers are already in operation with LFG. Older field-erected brick set boilers have also 

been retrofitted for LFG fuel. Many major boiler manufacturers, such as Cleaver Brooks, Babcock & 

Mallinckrodt, Inc. Raleigh, NC
Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Opportunity 4

Wilcox, Nebraska, and ABCO, are represented 

in the population of boilers that have been 

converted for LFG service. Similarly, leading 

burner manufacturers (e.g., Todd, North 

American, and Coen) have provided specially 

designed LFG burners or have experience 

modifying standard natural gas burners for 

LFG service.

Examples of Successful Boiler 

LFG Energy Projects

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. In early 

2003, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in 

Greenbelt, Maryland, began firing LFG in two 

Nebraska watertube boilers, each capable of producing 40,000 pounds per hour of steam. The gas 

is piped approximately five miles from the Sandy Hill Landfill to the boiler house at Goddard. NASA 

modified the burners and controls to co-fire LFG, natural gas, and oil; however, LFG provides the 

total firing requirement for approximately nine months of the year. Later, a third boiler also began 

utilizing LFG. NASA estimates an annual savings of more than $350,000. Current NASA plans call for 

LFG use to continue for at least 10 years, with a possible extension to 20 years. LMOP Partners Toro 

Energy and CPL Systems developed and implemented the project.

Cone Mills White Oak Plant. The LFG retrofit project at textile manufacturer Cone Mills’ plant in 

Greensboro, North Carolina involved a very old (circa 1927) field-erected brick set boiler. In this 

instance, the developers chose to install two new, multi-fuel burners supplied by Coen Company, Inc. 

Full operation began in early 1997, with a steaming capacity of 30,000 pounds per hour from the 

LFG fuel. Additional steam is provided as needed by co-firing with natural gas or fuel oil. The gas is 

supplied to the Cone Mills plant via a three-mile pipeline originating at Greensboro’s White Street 

Landfill. The project is a partnership between the City of Greensboro, Duke Solutions (now part of 

Ameresco, Inc.), and Cone Mills. 

Information about additional projects can be found at the project profiles section of the LMOP 

Web site at www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/profiles.html. The photographs in this 

document depict a boiler retrofitted to burn LFG, courtesy of Mallinckrodt, Inc. in Raleigh, 

North Carolina.

Where Can I Obtain Further Information?

LMOP is a voluntary program that helps landfill owners, project developers, and communities develop 

LFG energy projects. LMOP offers technical support that includes finding a landfill, estimating gas 

generation, analyzing project economics, and providing other tools to help landfill owners and 

operators realize their facility’s LFG use potential. For more information, visit the LMOP Web site 

at www.epa.gov/lmop/. 

Mallinckrodt, Inc. Raleigh, NC
 

May 20, 2011 

VIA FACSIMILE - ELECTRONIC MAIL - 

CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT 

REQUESTED 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator (M/C: 1101A) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

jackson.lisa@epa.gov 

Fax No: 202-501-1450 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator (M/C: 6101A) 

Office of Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

mccarthy.gina@epa.gov 

Fax No: 202-501-0986 

 

Re: Auto Industry Forum Petition for Reconsideration and Support for Stay 

Mesdames Jackson and McCarthy: 

The Auto Industry Forum (“AIF”) hereby submits the attached petition for 

reconsideration and support for stay of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: 

Industrial Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, published at 

75 Fed. Reg. 15,608 (Mar. 21, 2011) (the “Boiler MACT”). 

Please feel free to contact me at 510-985-1710 with any questions regarding 

this petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Shannon S. Broome

Shannon S. Broome 

Counsel to the Auto Industry Forum 

Attachment 
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 

 ) 

In re: National Emission Standards ) 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major ) 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and ) 

Institutional Boilers and Process ) Docket ID. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 

Heaters, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,608 ) 

(Mar. 21, 2011) ) 

 ) 

PETITION OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY FORUM FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND SUPPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7607(d)(7)(B), and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 705, the Auto Industry Forum (“AIF”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) to reconsider portions of EPA’s 

final rule entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 76 Fed. 

Reg. 15,608 (Mar. 21, 2011) (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058) (the “Boiler 

MACT” or “Rule”). The Boiler MACT imposes emission limits based on the performance 

of the maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) for hazardous air pollutants 

(“HAPs”) generated by boiler units that are also major stationary sources. See 76 Fed. 

Reg. at 15,609-10. 

The AIF supports the stay of the Boiler MACT that EPA released on May 16, 

2011 and is attached to this petition. The AIF notes that EPA indicated in the prepublication version of the Federal Register notice regarding the state that the Agency 

will “issue a notice of proposed reconsideration of each rule that identifies the specific 

issue or issues raised in the petitions on which the Agency is granting reconsideration.” 

EPA further states that it “understands that members of the public may wish to submit 

additional data and information to inform the EPA’s proposed reconsideration, and the 

Agency will consider any additional information submitted in time to do so.” This petition 

addresses several specific issues that EPA should reconsider:1

Specifically, and as discussed below, the AIF seeks reconsideration regarding 

the following issues: 

1. Landfill gas (“LFG”) has been improperly characterized by EPA as an “other 

process gas” in the Gas 2 category and should automatically qualify for 

 

1

 The AIF also supports reconsideration of several issues raised in other petitions for 

reconsideration filed by industry groups and intends to participate fully in the reconsideration process. 

The AIF further reserves the right to supplement this petition for reconsideration. 
2 

regulatory treatment under the Gas 1 category. EPA’s provision to allow facilities 

to demonstrate that a Gas 2 unit deserves regulatory treatment under the Gas 1 

category (the “demonstration mechanism”) is unreasonable, arbitrary and 

capricious, and actually more stringent than substances automatically deemed to 

qualify for Gas 1 regulatory treatment, such as 40 mm/m3 mercury, and 4 ppm 

hydrogen sulfide. Moreover, EPA failed to provide adequate notice and 

opportunity for comment on the process and thresholds that would allow a unit to 

qualify for the Gas 1 category. 

2. Boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities up to 10 MMBTU/hr, 

particularly natural gas-fired units, should be exempted from the final work 

practice standard and should not be subject to unworkable and burdensome biannual tune up requirements. Consistent with the need for an exemption for 

boilers and process heaters up to 10 MMBTU/hr, EPA’s imposition of bi-annual 

tune-up requirements on natural gas-fired hot water heaters with capacity greater 

than 120 U.S. gallons should be eliminated given the extreme burdens imposed 

and the lack of environmental benefits. 

3. The requirement to notify EPA within 48 hours of alternative fuel use during 

natural gas curtailment should be eliminated and any notification required should 

be modified to comport with reporting deadlines under Title V. 

4. The energy assessment requirement should be eliminated. 

BACKGROUND 

The Boiler MACT imposes, pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, emission 

standards for HAPs for new and existing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers 

and process heaters located at major sources. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,608-10; 42 

U.S.C. § 7412(d). EPA proposed the new rule in response to a June 19, 2007, D.C. 

Circuit decision regarding the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(“NESHAPs”) for those sources. See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 

Process Heaters; Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 32,006 (June 4, 2010). 

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

REQUEST FOR STAY 

I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING RECONSIDERATION 

 Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator is required to convene 

a proceeding to reconsider a final rule upon a demonstration that it was impracticable to 

raise a particular objection to the rule during the period for public comment (but within 

the time specified for judicial review) if the objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). These circumstances are present 

here. 
3 

On the date on which EPA issued the final Boiler MACT, the Agency agreed to 

reconsider portions of the Boiler MACT along with several others related final rules. 

See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Notice of 

Reconsideration, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,266 (Mar. 21, 2011). EPA’s Notice of 

Reconsideration stated that the Agency “is in the process of developing a proposed 

reconsideration notice that identifies the specific elements of the rules for which we 

believe further public comment is appropriate and any provisions that we propose to 

modify after more fully evaluating the data and comments already received.” Id. at 

15,267. EPA recognized that “certain issues of central relevance to these rules arose 

after the period for public comment or may have been impracticable to comment upon,” 

and “that reconsideration is appropriate under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act.” 

Id. 

One such issue is EPA’s determination to allow facilities to qualify their boilers 

using LFG gas for regulatory treatment under the Gas 1 category, provided those Gas 2 

units can satisfy severe emission limits not normally applicable to other Gas 1 units. 

This demonstration mechanism was not properly subject to notice and comment. 

Because EPA has gone beyond its authority, including by failing to give the public a 

meaningful opportunity to comment, it must initiate reconsideration on this issue. Of 

equal relevance to the Rule’s outcome are EPA’s failure to exempt boilers with heat 

input capacities of less than 10 MMBTU/hr, particularly those fired with natural gas, from 

the work practice standard and the Agency’s decision to impose unworkable bi-annual 

tune up requirements. Moreover, EPA is inappropriately requiring notification of 

alternative fuel use during natural gas curtailment within 48 hours of the declaration of 

curtailment. Accordingly, EPA must reconsider these provisions in its the final Boiler 

MACT. Because members of the AIF will experience imminent harm from these 

provisions, the Administrator should grant the AIF’s petition to stay the effective date of 

applicability of these requirements. 

II. BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

A. EPA has – arbitrarily and without providing adequate opportunity for 

the public to comment – subjected LFG-fired units to the 

unattainable Gas 2 category’s emission limits, and the Agency’s 

newly proposed demonstration mechanism to allow LFG facilities to 

qualify for Gas 1 treatment offers no relief. 

In the final Boiler MACT, EPA defines “gaseous fuel” to include LFG and defines 

the category of units designed to burn Gas 1 to exclude LFG. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 

15,684, 15,686 (40 C.F.R. § 63.7575). Accordingly, any boiler or process heater firing 

any percentage of heat input from LFG qualifies as a unit designed to burn Gas 2, 

thereby subjecting such a source to the latter category’s stringent emission limits. See 

id. at 15,688-91. 

EPA includes a new demonstration mechanism in the final Rule, through which 

operators of Gas 2 sources can demonstrate to EPA that they should instead be subject 

to the Gas 2 emission limits. But in light of test results on emissions levels from LFG-
4 

fired units, which can vary depending on the types and quantities of wastes present in a 

particular landfill, the new demonstration mechanism’s emission standards for Gas 2 

sources are not achievable by LFG-fired units. Even more, EPA did not allow the public 

adequate notice and opportunity to comment on EPA’s new mechanism. Unless EPA 

reconsiders the regulatory scheme presented in the Boiler MACT, the Agency will likely 

effect the presumably unintended result of discouraging the use of LFG, a renewable 

fuel, as an alternative to natural gas and coal. Landfills would instead return to wasting 

LFG by flaring it. Thus, EPA should amend its regulations to allow LFG-fired units to 

automatically qualify for regulatory treatment under the standards for units designed to 

burn Gas 1. 

1. EPA’s requirement that boilers utilizing LFG meet the emission 

limits of the Gas 2 category is not feasible, and the Agency’s 

proposed demonstration mechanism is not a viable solution. 

Those AIF members with boilers utilizing LFG anticipate that they will not be able 

to meet the Gas 2 category’s emission limits (e.g., CO), particularly for units permitted 

and designed to minimize emissions of NOx (for ozone attainment). Those members 

also do not expect to be able to obtain Gas 1 classification through EPA’s new 

demonstration mechanism, in part due to the limited LFG constituent data available 

from a given landfill. The AIF cannot assure the Agency that all emission limits can be 

achieved even with the application of emissions control technology. Indeed, EPA’s 

record regarding its determination of the emission limits for dioxin, furans, and mercury 

potentially emitted by boilers utilizing LFG is inadequate and not sufficient to support the 

promulgated standard under Section 112(d). AIF cannot foresee whether compliance 

with the Gas 2 category’s limits for those pollutants is achievable. It is questionable, at 

best, whether the CO limits in the Boiler MACT (9 ppmv for existing units and 3 ppmv 

corrected to 3% oxygen for new/reconstructed units) are achievable, particularly on an 

ongoing basis. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,689 & 15,691. 

Notwithstanding the comments that EPA received alerting it to the feasibility of 

LFG-fired units achieving those emission limits, the Agency has declined to recategorize 

LFG-fired units as Gas 1 units. Instead, the Agency attempts to resolve the issue in the 

final Boiler MACT by providing the new demonstration mechanism, which would 

purportedly allow facilities to demonstrate that their Gas 2 units should be subject to the 

standards for Gas 1 units: 

. . . EPA is requiring a demonstration that other gases have levels of H2S 

and Hg that are no higher than those found in Gas 1 units. Natural gas 

purity is commonly defined considering the sulfur content of the gas, in the 

form of H2S. Sweet natural gas, which is considered pipeline quality gas, 

contains no more than 4 ppmv H2S. Information on Hg levels typical of 

natural gas was available through literature, and domestic natural gas Hg 

concentrations range up to about 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Using 

H2S and Hg concentration as parameters for establishing equivalent 

contamination levels to natural gas, EPA is providing a fuel specification 

that can be used by facilities to qualify Gas 2 units for the Gas 1 
5 

standards. The fuel specification would also allow facilities to perform precombustion gas cleanup in order to qualify Gas 2 units for the Gas 1 

standards. Boilers using process gases that do not meet the fuel 

specification and are not processed to meet the contaminant levels must 

meet the emissions limits for Gas 2 units. 

76 Fed. Reg. at 15,639. 

EPA depicts this provision as a solution for Gas 2 units that cannot meet the 

Boiler MACT’s emission limits for those sources. Yet, EPA’s demonstration mechanism 

does not offer relief to those sources’ operators. Specifically, one of the AIF’s members 

tested available LFG streams, which yielded H2S emissions levels ranging from 6 to 34 

ppmv. Even more, typical LFG streams from a limited sample group range from 

between 7 and 105 ppmv of H2S. These levels are well above the Boiler MACT’s limit 

of 4 ppmv H2S for those Gas 2 units seeking to obtain regulation according to the Gas 1 

emission levels. 

2. EPA did not provide the public with adequate notice or an 

opportunity to comment on the demonstration mechanism. 

The CAA incorporates the APA’s notice requirements by reference and expressly 

requires EPA to provide notice of its proposed rule through a statement of its basis and 

purpose, including (a) the factual data on which the proposal is based, (b) the 

methodology used in obtaining and analyzing data, and (c) the major legal 

interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule. 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(d)(3); see also 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3), incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(d)(3) (requiring notice of “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 

description of the subjects and issues involved”). This notice is provided to give the 

public a meaningful opportunity to comment. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(4), (5). “The 

significance of rulemaking cannot be underemphasized. It gives parties affected by a 

decision an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and forces EPA to 

articulate the bases for its decisions.” Donner Hanna Coke Corp. v. Costle, 464 F. 

Supp. 1295, 1305 (W.D.N.Y. 1979) (citation omitted). It also provides aggrieved parties 

the right to seek judicial review under the CAA. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)). 

EPA wholly failed to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the 

demonstration mechanism. EPA’s proposed rule made no mention of a provision that 

would allow Gas 2 units to qualify for regulatory treatment under the standards for Gas 

1 units. See 75 Fed. Reg. 32,006. Nevertheless, EPA contends that it has 

independently “determined that to the extent that process gases are comparable to 

natural gas and refinery gas, combustion of those gases in boilers and process heaters 

should be subject to the same standards as combustion of natural gas and refinery 

gas.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,639. 

EPA appears to suggest that it is “providing a mechanism by which units that 

combust gaseous fuels other than natural gas and refinery gas can demonstrate that 
6 

they are similar to Gas 1 units and will therefore be subject to the standards for Gas 1 

units,” in response to public comments. Id. 

But the Agency’s mere implication that the demonstration mechanism is being 

offered in response to public comments is not sufficient to satisfy the CAA’s notice and 

comment requirements. See McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317, 

1323 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 757 F.2d 330, 339-40 (D.C. Cir. 

1985) and Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 549-50 

(D.C. Cir. 1983)). On the other hand, a change to the final Boiler MACT in which EPA 

responded to public comments by recategorizing LFG boilers as Gas 1 units would have 

been a more logical outgrowth of EPA’s original proposal. EPA has violated the CAA’s 

notice and comment requirements. The Agency should, therefore, grant this petition for 

reconsideration and treat LFG-fired units as Gas 1 units as a categorical matter. Failing 

that, EPA must at least allow for public comment on this new demonstration mechanism 

and its impact on the operators of LFG-fired units. 

3. The Boiler MACT creates disincentives for the use of LFG, 

which is contrary to the Agency’s policies regarding LFG. 

The AIF urges EPA to consider how its new demonstration mechanism, which 

subjects LFG-fired units to unattainable criteria in order to qualify as Gas 1 sources, will 

create disincentives for the beneficial use of LFG. Indeed, because LFG-fired units 

cannot satisfy the mechanism’s emission limits, landfills would simply have to return to 

flaring their excess LFG – wasting this fuel – rather than reducing their pollutant 

emissions to the levels of boilers and other more efficient units. Facilities would also be 

compelled to use additional natural gas, or other fuels, including coal. Both the flaring 

of LFG and the increased use of fossil fuels would generate additional criteria pollutant 

emissions. 

This outcome contravenes EPA’s stated policy of encouraging the beneficial use 

of LFG, which the Agency implements through its EPA Landfill Methane Outreach 

Program (“LMOP”). On its website for the LMOP, EPA states the following: 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are the second-largest source of 

human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for 

approximately 22 percent of these emissions in 2008. At the same time, 

methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture 

and use a significant energy resource. LFG is created as solid waste 

decomposes in a landfill. 

EPA, Basic Information LMOP, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html (last 

updated Apr. 22, 2011). 

Thus, as EPA acknowledges, LFG-fired units reduce emissions both by providing 

alternatives to the flaring of LFG and to the use of fuels, such as coal, that increase 

overall criteria pollutant emissions. But EPA’s newly proposed demonstration 

mechanism in the final Boiler MACT would instead encourage increased flaring of LFG 
7 

and the use of natural gas and coal as alternatives to LFG. EPA can properly resolve 

this contradiction by recategorizing LFG-fired units as Gas 1 units. Several members of 

the AIF have invested in landfill-gas-to-energy projects that beneficially use LFG, such 

as at automobile assembly plant operations. EPA’s approach to LFG regulation in this 

final Rule sends a strong signal to companies like these that they should switch back to 

natural gas. 

4. LFG-fired units should automatically qualify for regulatory 

treatment under the Gas 1 category, as the demonstration 

mechanism sets arbitrary H2S and Hg standards that LFG-fired 

units cannot achieve. 

EPA’s demonstration mechanism in the final Boiler MACT, which the Agency 

contends would allow facilities to show that their LFG is equivalent to Gas 1 are 

unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. In fact, the provision’s emission limits – such as 

40 mm/m3 mercury and 4 ppm hydrogen sulfide – are actually more stringent than 

those for gaseous fuels automatically deemed to qualify for Gas 1 regulatory treatment. 

Refinery gas, for instance, is covered under the Gas 1 category and is limited in some 

regulations to 162 ppmv of H2S. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.100, Subparts J and Ja (limiting 

the permissible H2S in gas burned in a flare to 162 ppm on a rolling 3 hour basis). EPA 

has offered no justification for subjecting LFG-fired units to more stringent limits than 

those that would otherwise be applicable to Gas 1 units. Instead of requiring LFG-fired 

units to proceed through a demonstration mechanism, which imposes emission limits 

not attainable by those sources, to qualify for Gas 1 treatment, EPA should allow LFGfired units to automatically qualify for Gas 1 regulatory treatment. 

B. EPA inappropriately failed to exempt boilers, especially those fired 

with natural gas, with heat input capacities up to 10 MMBTU/hr from 

the final work practice standard and imposed unnecessary bi-annual 

tune up requirements. 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(h), EPA imposes a work practice standard for each 

boiler or process heater that has a heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBTU/hr per 

hour. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,613-14. Such facilities “must conduct a biennial tune-up 

of the boiler or process heater . . . to demonstrate continuous compliance.” Id. at 

15,678 (40 C.F.R. § 63.7540(a)(11)). Such facilities must also submit notifications to 

EPA or the governing state agency certifying that they are complying with the biennial 

tune-up requirements. Id. at 15,675 (40 C.F.R. § 63.7530(d)), 15,679 (40 C.F.R. § 

63.7545(e)(8)). EPA asserts that the work practice standard stems from the Agency’s 

determination that numerical emission standards for Gas 1 units are impracticable due 

to technological and economic limitations. Id. at 15,638. 

Although EPA made the decision to use a work practice standard for such 

sources in lieu of a numerical standard, EPA should reconsider the merits and 

disadvantages of imposing the standard on boilers with heat input capacities of less 

than 10 MMBTU/hr. Emissions from these sources are insignificant. EPA incorrectly 

claims that it has no authority to: 
8 

establish a de minimis exemption from emissions standards established 

under section 112, consistent with the language of section 112(d) and 

case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit requiring EPA 

to set emissions standards for all HAP emitted from a source. This 

requirement precludes EPA from establishing a de minimis threshold 

below which HAP emitted by a source would not be regulated. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“EPA has a ‘clear 

statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP,’ which 

does not allow it to ‘avoid setting standards for HAPs not controlled with 

technology.’” quoting Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. 

Cir. 2000)); see also Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 

F.3d 1364, 1371 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (affirming that EPA must establish 

emission standards for listed HAP emitted from a category, citing Sierra 

Club and National Lime).2

 

Nothing in the cited cases overruled Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 400 

(D.C. Cir. 1979), which clearly establishes EPA’s authority to exempt de minimis

situations and create exemptions based on administrative necessity. 

EPA’s approach of requiring tune-ups for all units (save hot water heaters less 

than 120 U.S. gallons) is extremely burdensome and does not provide emission 

reduction benefits. For example, at an automobile assembly plant, even the hot water 

heaters for the showers that the assembly workers use to clean up would be subject to 

the bi-annual tune-up requirement. The cost of meeting these requirements will be 

excessive and will not lead to any meaningful emission reductions. Indeed, this final 

Rule will actually create incentives for facilities to switch from natural gas-fired water 

heaters to electric water heaters. The latter type is less efficient, because the electricity 

must first be generated (likely by combusting a fuel to heat steam to mechanically 

produce electricity) and then converted to heat for heating the water – a very inefficient 

process from an energy standpoint. This is especially true if the electricity used to 

power the electric water heaters may well be obtained from non-gaseous fuels, which 

emit more pollutants than natural gas water heaters. Facilities that retain their gas-fired 

water heaters will face a large recordkeeping burden to track the compliance 

requirements and to complete annual compliance certifications. 

 Thus, EPA should reconsider its decision not to exempt larger hot water heaters 

and boilers with heat input capacities of less than 10 MMBTU/hr from this unfeasible 

and minimally beneficial biennial tune-up requirement. 

 

2 Response to Comments, Vol 1., at 339. 
9 

C. EPA’s requirement that facilities provide notification of alternative 

fuel use during natural gas curtailment within 48 hours of the 

declaration of curtailment is inappropriate and should be modified to 

comport with reporting deadlines under Title V. 

 In the final Boiler MACT, EPA imposes an additional obligation on operators of 

Gas 1 units during periods of natural gas curtailment or an interruption in supply. 

Pursuant to the new 40 C.F.R. § 63.7545(f), these Gas 1 unit operators must provide 

notification of their use of an alternative, non-Gas 1 fuel “within 48 hours of the 

declaration of each period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, [during 

which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the 

control of the facility].” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,679, 15,685. 

 EPA has improperly dismissed commenters’ concerns regarding the feasibility of 

imposing on facilities such a short timeframe for providing this notification. In its 

response to those comments, EPA contends “that curtailments are an unlikely event, so 

the burden of this requirement should be minimal.” EPA’s Responses to Public 

Comments on EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Major Source Industrial Commercial Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, Vol. 2, 

Document Control No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-2894.1, Comment Excerpt No: 6 (Mar. 

21, 2011). That such a situation requiring notice may occur infrequently does not 

change the fact that the burden of the requirement will be significant during these 

periods. 

 The requirement is unnecessary given that backup fuels are allowed by existing 

permits. Burning a backup fuel is not like burning a new fuel. At most, notification could 

be required only if the fuel used was not previously identified in a permit. While in its 

Response to Comments,3

 EPA disagrees that this notice is unnecessary on the grounds 

that “[t]he notification requirement will allow EPA to ensure that only those units that 

qualify as Gas 1 units remain in the Gas 1 subcategory,”4 that concern does not justify a 

48-hour notification requirement. EPA can clearly achieve its stated goal by receiving 

any information regarding curtailments in Title V reports. 

 Accordingly, the 48-hour notification requirement should be eliminated and, at 

most, a requirement to indicate if a natural gas curtailment occurred in the previous 6-

month period should be included in the Title V semi-annual report of required 

monitoring.5

 

D. The Energy Assessment Requirement Should Be Eliminated. 

 EPA proposed a “beyond the floor” requirement for a one-time energy 

assessment in the Boiler MACT. This energy assessment requirement goes beyond not 

just the floor but also EPA’s authority under the CAA. EPA seeks to regulate sources 

 

3

 Response to Comments, Vol. 1, at 895. 

4 Id.

5

 40 C.F.R. 70.6(c). 
10 

beyond those in the source category itself. The affected source here is the boiler or 

process heater, not the manufacturing facility as a whole. Indeed, EPA’s final Rule 

actually regulates facilities that are in other source categories and does so without 

regard to the prior determinations regarding appropriate MACT standards for them. The 

energy use system EPA is regulating is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 63.7575 to include 

compressed air systems, machine drive (motors, pumps, fans), process cooling, facility 

HVAC, building envelope, and lighting. Moreover, the requirement to conduct the 

energy assessment does not reduce HAP emissions and, therefore, is not justified 

under Section 112. Accordingly, the requirement should be eliminated or at least 

curtailed to the affected source for this Rule and justified. 

III. SUPPORT FOR STAY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

 The AIF supports EPA’s decision to stay the effectiveness of the Boiler MACT 

until the reconsideration process or litigation is completed. EPA has authority to stay 

the effective date of the applicability of the aforementioned portions of the Boiler MACT 

to the affected units, as CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) allows the Administrator to stay the 

effectiveness of this final rule pending reconsideration. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). 

Although the statute provides for a three month stay pending reconsideration, id., EPA 

has used its authority to grant a longer stay and should do so in this case to the extent 

necessary. In particular, EPA has authority to issue a longer stay under section 705 of 

the APA. When “justice so requires,” EPA may stay the effective date of a rule pending 

judicial review pursuant to section 705 the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 705. Petitions for review of 

the Boiler MACT have been filed in the D.C. Circuit, and justice demands that a stay be 

granted pending review. EPA has used this authority to “postpone” the effective date of 

a CAA rule. See, e.g., Reconsideration of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Aggregation, 75 Fed. Reg. 

27,643 (May 18, 2010). EPA may also issue a stay without notice and comment based 

on the good cause exception under subparagraph (B) of subsection 553(b) of Title 5 

pursuant to section 307(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1), and under 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3). 

EPA has already conceded that it needs to reconsider the Boiler MACT. See 76 

Fed. Reg. at 15,267. Accordingly, it makes little sense to impose substantial 

compliance costs on the regulated entities until EPA takes the time to reconsider all the 

appropriate issues. In requesting additional time to issue the Boiler MACT and related 

rules, EPA argued to the district court that several months were needed to re-propose 

the rules. Re-proposal “would result in standards that are more defensible and will yield 

environmental benefits earlier, because the final standards will more likely withstand 

substantive review.” EPA’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Amend Order of Mar. 31, 2006, 

at 20, Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C Dec. 7, 2010) (Doc. 136). 

Although the district court denied the request, EPA also stated that “to ensure that the 

final rules are logical outgrowths of the proposals,” the Agency would have to repropose its rules in an altered form. Id. EPA, in fact, has already issued a notice that it 

intends to reconsider various aspects of the final Boiler MACT, because “certain issues 

of central relevance to these rules arose after the period for public comment or may 

have been impracticable to comment upon.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,267. As described 

above, the issues identified herein require reconsideration. 
11 

Those LFG-fired units that may now be subject to EPA’s new demonstration 

mechanisms would be harmed if EPA’s new provision remains unconsidered. Because 

those units cannot satisfy the mechanism’s emission limits, landfills would flare their 

excess LFG rather than exploit these gaseous fuels for a beneficial purpose. 

Combustion can be controlled much more efficiently in a boiler or process heater than in 

a flare. Residence times at high temperatures within flares are significantly decreased, 

which increases not only potential HAP emissions, but also criteria pollutant and other 

emissions. 

In addition, impacted facilities would be compelled to increase their use of natural 

gas or coal. Both the flaring of LFG and increased use of fossil fuels to produce energy 

would also generate additional criteria pollutant emissions. 

Therefore, merely granting reconsideration is not enough to prevent the adverse 

effects of EPA’s action. 

CONCLUSION 

The AIF requests that EPA include the issues listed above in its reconsideration 

process for the Boiler MACT. The AIF stands ready to work with EPA to resolve the 

above issues offered for reconsideration. Please contact Shannon Broome at 510-985-

1710 with any questions regarding this petition. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of the preceding was sent on May 20, 2011 to the following via facsimile, email, 

and certified mail: 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building (AR), 1101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

jackson.lisa@epa.gov 

Fax No.: 202-501-1450 

Gina McCarthy 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building, 6101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

mccarthy.gina@epa.gov 

Fax No.: 202-501-0986 

/s/ Matthew Raeburn 

Matthew Raeburn 
May 20, 2011 

VIA FACSIMILE - ELECTRONIC MAIL - 

CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT 

REQUESTED 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator (M/C: 1101A) Assistant Administrator (M/C: 6101A) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

jackson.lisa@epa.gov Washington, D.C. 20460 

Fax No: 202-501-1450 mccarthy.gina@epa.gov 

 Fax No: 202-501-0986 

The Honorable Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator (M/C: 5101T) 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

stanislaus.mathy@epa.gov

Fax No. 202-566-0207 

Re: Auto Industry Forum Petition for Reconsideration and Administrative 

Stay

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 The Auto Industry Forum (“AIF”) hereby submits the attached for the 

Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider and stay its Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Rule, 

published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011); and Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Rule, published at 65 Fed. Reg. 

75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000) (“CISWI”). 

Please feel free to contact me at 510-985-1710 with any questions regarding 

this petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Shannon S. Broome

Shannon S. Broome 

Counsel to the Auto Industry Forum 

Attachment 
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 

 ) 

In re: Standards of Performance for ) 

New Stationary Sources and Emission ) 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: ) Docket ID. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste ) 

Incineration Units; Final Rule, ) 

76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011). ) 

 ) 

 ) 

In re: Standards of Performance for ) 

New Stationary Sources and Emission ) 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: ) Docket ID. A-94-63 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste ) 

Incineration Units; Final Rule, ) 

65 Fed. Reg. 75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000). ) 

 ) 

PETITION OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY FORUM FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§7607(d)(7)(B), and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§705, the Auto Industry Forum (“AIF”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) to reconsider and stay portions of 

EPA’s final rule entitled Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011) (“CISWI Rule”).1

 

The CISWI Rule imposes emission standards for hazardous air pollutants under section 

129 for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (“CISWI”) Units. 

In particular, the AIF requests that: 

(1) EPA clarify that recycled sand is not a solid waste and thermal sand 

reclamation (“TSR”) units are not considered solid waste incineration units 

 

1

 The CISWI Rule was published with a series of rules, including the final rule entitled National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,608 (Mar. 21, 2011) (referred to as the “Boiler 

MACT Rule”) and the final rule entitled Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are 

Solid Waste, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,456 (Mar. 21, 2011) (referred to as the “NHSM Rule”). The NHSM Rule 

was issued to assist facilities in determining the applicability of the CISWI and Boiler MACT Rules with 

respect to non-hazardous secondary materials burned as fuels or used in combustion units. 
2

subject to the requirements in the CISWI Rule or otherwise issue an 

exemption from the CISWI Rule for such units; 

(2) EPA continue to stay the CISWI Rule issued March 21, 2011 for all units, 

but also, to the extent they are now interpreted to apply, stay the 

application of the existing CISWI requirements to TSR units; 

(3) EPA adopt an exclusion for paint solids collected from automobile 

assembly plants that are thermally treated from the CISWI Rule; 

(4) Consistent with a May 13, 2011, letter from Suzanne Rudzinski, Director 

of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, to Mr. Timothy 

Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association, EPA clarify and confirm in 

regulatory language that the CISWI Rule does not apply to the burning of 

gaseous materials – e.g., in fume incinerators which may include 

regenerative thermal oxiders and other control devices -- associated with 

coating operations. 

 The AIF is a coalition of automobile manufacturing companies addressing issues 

under the CAA with particular effect on stationary sources in the automobile industry. 

Members of the AIF operate manufacturing plants that are subject to the rules 

promulgated by EPA, including at least two facilities using TSR units and one facility 

that is in the process of installing a TSR unit. Because these requirements are violative 

of the CAA, EPA has appropriately acted to stay the application of the CISWI Rule to 

TSR units based on the recycling of foundry sand. 

I. THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION UNITS 

A. Background 

 The CISWI Rule imposes emission standards for hazardous air pollutants under 

section 129 for CISWI Units.2

 Section 129 of the CAA specifically covers emissions 

from “solid waste incineration units,” requiring the maximum achievable control 

technology (“MACT”) for such units. 42 U.S.C. §7429. The D.C. Circuit found that “any 

unit combusting any ‘solid waste’ at all must be regulated as a ‘solid waste incineration 

unit,’ regardless of the function of the combustion device.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,461. 

 

2

 A CISWI unit is defined as “any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as that term is defined in 40 

CFR part 241. If the operating unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as defined in §241.2 that 

have been discarded, and you do not keep and produce records as required by §60.2175(v), the material 

is a solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI units will include all of the 

following components, a CISWI unit includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit 

does not include air pollution control equipment or the stack.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,762 (40 C.F.R. 

§60.2265); see also id. at 15,782 (40 C.F.R. §60.2875). Nothing in this petition should be considered to 

constitute a petition for reconsideration of the NHSM Rule. 
3

 This section of the petition addresses the application of the CISWI Rule to TSR 

units based on the recycling of foundry sand. During the core- and mold-making 

process used at foundries, sand is mixed with small quantities of resin to construct 

cores and/or molds, which are used for the pouring and casting of molten aluminum, 

iron, and other metals.3

 Enormous volumes of this sand are used in this process. In 

order to make construction of new cores and molds more economical, and to minimize 

the purchase of virgin sand and the disposal of the sand, the sand is attritioned into 

flowable sizes and is heated in a TSR unit to drive off the small amount (approximately 

1% by weight) of resins left on the sand after its initial use. For a small foundry, this can 

amount to over 25,000 tons of foundry sand (over 1270 truckloads or 23 rail cars per 

day annually) that can be reused in lieu of virgin sand and that is prevented from being 

disposed in solid waste landfills. 

 When the final NHSM Rule was published it included a section in the preamble 

that discusses, for the first time, EPA’s assertion that foundry sand that is recycled onsite using a TSR unit and reused in the same process loop is considered “discarded” 

and is, therefore, a solid waste, making the TSR unit subject to section 129 CAA 

standards. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,519. This determination was the first instance in which 

EPA suggested that TSR units could become subject to the CISWI Rule and is 

contradictory with the CAA and arbitrary. We therefore request that the Agency 

reconsider and revise it. Under EPA’s line of reasoning in the NHSM Rule, a host of 

processes not previously contemplated by EPA could become regulated under the 

CISWI Rule. It also runs counter to the purposes of the CAA,4

 and EPA’s policy to 

promote reducing, reusing and recycling, see 74 Fed. Reg. 41, 46 (Jan. 2, 2009), as this 

new regulation will promote increased sand mining, the purchase of virgin sands for the 

casting industry, and require the disposal of huge volumes of foundry sand, rather than 

its recycling and reuse. 

 Specifically, the AIF requests EPA to reconsider its determination that foundry 

sand used in TSR units are “solid wastes” within the purview of the CISWI Rule and 

should not be provided an exemption.5

 Because EPA did not give the public notice of 

this requirement, the AIF requests EPA grant this petition for reconsideration to give the 

public an opportunity to comment as required by the CAA. Moreover, because these 

requirements are onerous and invalid, EPA must immediately stay the application of the 

CISWI Rule to TSR units that recycle foundry sand. 

 

3

 Multiple cores may be assembled into a mold so further discussion referring to the term “molds” 

could include both cores and molds. 

4

 See 42 U.S.C. §7401(c) (“A primary goal of this chapter is to encourage or otherwise promote 

reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, 

for pollution prevention”). 

5

 While EPA did not make any determination with respect to exemptions or exclusions for foundry 

sand recycled in TSR units, its issuance of the rule effectively acted as such a determination, of which we 

seek reconsideration. 
4

B. Statutory Provisions Governing Reconsideration 

 Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator is required to convene a 

proceeding to reconsider a final rule upon a demonstration that it was impracticable to 

raise a particular objection to the rule during the period for public comment (but within 

the time specified for judicial review), if the objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(7)(B). Such is the case here. 

 EPA has already agreed to reconsider portions of the CISWI Rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 

15,266 (Mar. 21, 2011). On the same date it issued the CISWI Rule, EPA issued a 

notice indicating that it “is in the process of developing a proposed reconsideration 

notice that identifies the specific elements of the rules for which we believe further 

public comment is appropriate and any provisions that we propose to modify after more 

fully evaluating the data and comments already received.” Id. at 15,267. EPA 

recognized that “certain issues of central relevance to these rules arose after the period 

for public comment or may have been impracticable to comment upon,” and “that 

reconsideration is appropriate under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act.” Id. One 

such issue is the determination, which first came to light at the time of the final rule, that 

TSR units were being considered by EPA as CISWI units and that no exemption or 

exclusion for such units would be provided. Such a determination was not properly 

subject to notice and comment and is inconsistent with the CAA. Because EPA has 

gone beyond its authority, including failing to give the public notice and a meaningful 

opportunity to comment, it must initiate a reconsideration on the issue of whether 

recycling of foundry sand through use of a TSR unit is subject to the CISWI Rule 

requirements. 

C. Basis for Reconsideration of the Final Rule 

1. EPA violated the procedural requirements of the CAA. 

EPA must reconsider the CISWI Rule because EPA violated the notice and 

comment requirements of the CAA. As such, it was “impracticable” to raise this 

objection to the rule during the period for public comment. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(7)(B). 

The CAA incorporates the APA notice requirements by reference and expressly 

requires EPA to provide notice of its proposed rule through a statement of its basis and 

purpose, including (a) the factual data on which the proposal is based, (b) the 

methodology used in obtaining and analyzing data, and (c) the major legal 

interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule. 42 U.S.C. 

§7607(d)(3); see also 5 U.S.C. §553(b)(3), incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. 

§7607(d)(3) (requiring notice of “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 

description of the subjects and issues involved”); 5 U.S.C. §553(c) (requiring agency to 

“give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through 

submission of written data, views, or arguments ...”). Such notice is to give the public a 

meaningful opportunity to comment. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(4), (5). “The significance of 

rulemaking cannot be underemphasized. It gives parties affected by a decision an 
5

opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and forces EPA to articulate 

the bases for its decisions.” Donner Hanna Coke Corp. v. Costle, 464 F. Supp. 1295, 

1305 (W.D.N.Y. 1979) (citation omitted); see also Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 

1007, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (finding “[t]hat EPA allowed petitions for reconsideration is 

not an adequate substitute for an opportunity for notice and comment prior to 

promulgation”) (citation omitted). EPA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity 

for comment in this case. 

In this case, EPA provided an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

(“ANPRM”) and a proposed rulemaking. In the ANPRM, EPA indicated it was issuing 

the ANPRM as part of its rulemaking under section 129: 

We are issuing this ANPRM to assist the Agency in 

developing certain standards under sections 112 and 129 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The meaning of “solid waste” as 

defined under [the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(“RCRA”)] is of particular importance since CAA section 129 

states that the term “solid waste” shall have the meaning 

“established by the Administrator pursuant to [RCRA].” 

74 Fed. Reg. at 41. EPA’s references to foundry sand in the ANPR touted the benefits 

of its being recycled, noting “[w]e believe that it is critical to interpret which secondary 

materials are not ‘solid wastes’ pursuant to RCRA to ensure the continued legitimate 

use of secondary materials in combustion processes.” Id. at 46. In the accompanying 

document that provided a materials characterization of foundry sand, EPA did not 

address TSR units that are used to recycle foundry sand on-site, rather than ship such 

sand for disposal. See Materials Characterization Paper, Foundry Sand - Used as 

ingredient in clinker manufacture (Dec. 16, 2008) (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0248). 

EPA’s proposed NHSM Rule utilized a similar characterization of foundry sand. See

Materials Characterization Paper, Foundry Sand (Mar. 18, 2010) (used as ingredient in 

clinker manufacture) (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0461.9). EPA did not address TSR 

units that are used to recycle foundry sand on-site. In the proposed NHSM Rule, EPA 

stated that “this proposal is limited to those situations where the non-hazardous 

secondary material is used as a fuel or ingredient in a combustion process, [and] 

examples of using foundry sand in other applications is not directly relevant.” 75 Fed. 

Reg. 31,844, 31,869 (June 4, 2010) (emphasis added). 

In the final NHSM Rule, however, EPA asserted, for the first time, its 

determination that “the thermal processing of sand” would be burning of solid waste in a 

“combustion unit.”6

 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,506. Like the ANPRM and the proposed rule, 

the final NHSM Rule included a materials characterization related to foundry sand used 

in manufacture. But, unlike the prior materials characterization documents, the 

 

6

 EPA references a letter from March 28, 2001 regarding the continuous sand loop for moldmaking. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,505. This letter references recycling of foundry sand through thermal 

processing, and EPA, thus, was aware of the thermal processing at the time of the proposed rule. 76 

Fed. Reg. at 15,505. 
6

materials characterization provided with the final NHSM Rule included a reference to 

the recycling of foundry sand in TSR units, stating: 

Foundry sand can also be processed onsite in a thermal 

reclamation unit before being returned to the system for 

reuse in mold and core making as part of the foundry’s 

continuous industrial production process. The high costs of 

transporting sand offsite make thermal reclamation 

economically viable only if performed onsite for reuse within 

the foundry. (Call, 2010). 

Materials Characterization Paper: Foundry Sand (used as ingredient in clinker 

manufacture), at 4 (Feb. 3, 2011) (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1817). EPA was aware 

that TSRs are used for recycling foundry sand, but had not determined such recycled 

foundry sand to be “discarded” and never classified foundry sand as a solid waste 

before. EPA did not discuss TSRs in either the ANPRM or the NPRM for the NHSM 

rulemaking or the CISWI Rule. 

 Although EPA admits that the reuse of foundry sand in metal-casting operations 

is “a type of beneficial use that is routinely employed by foundries,” the final NHSM Rule 

states: 

It appears that the purpose of ‘processing’ foundry sand in a 

thermal reclamation unit is to destroy or dispose of the 

contaminants so that the foundry sand can be re-used. As 

such, the burning of foundry sand in a thermal reclamation 

unit is burning for discard and, thus, would be considered a 

solid waste if combusted in such a unit, which would be 

subject to section 129 CAA standards. 

76 Fed. Reg. at 15,519 (emphasis added). The final NHSM Rule was published the 

same day as that for the CISWI Rule, and, therefore, there was no opportunity for the 

public to comment on whether the CISW Rule should, even if one assumed the 

classification under the NHSM Rule was proper (which it is not), should create an 

exemption or exclusion for foundry sand recycling in TSR units. As such, EPA must 

reconsider this finding. 

This is a new determination subjecting TSR units to new requirements under the 

CISWI Rule without the requisite notice and opportunity for public comment. The D.C. 

Circuit has recognized that: 

[The APA’s n]otice requirements are designed (1) to ensure 

that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse 

public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, 

and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop 
7

evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule 

and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review. 

Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Int’l Union, 

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 

(D.C. Cir. 2005)). EPA’s mere assertion regarding the “appear[ance]” of the use of TSR 

units, with no support,7

 illustrates the need for public comment as described by the 

Court -- to provide the public with an opportunity to present evidence to the agency prior 

to regulation. Moreover, the mere fact that certain comments it received may have 

referenced TSR units does not give EPA license to ignore its obligations to provide a 

meaningful opportunity for the public to comment. See McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. 

Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 757 F.2d 

330, 339-40 (D.C. Cir. 1985) and Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force, 705 

F.2d at 549-50). 

 Because EPA made this determination for the first time at the time the final 

CISWI Rule was issued (and, in fact, appears to have moved 180 degrees from the 

position articulated at the time of the proposed rule), it was impracticable for the public 

to comment on this finding. 

2. EPA’s new determination raises significant issues because it 

violates the CAA. 

Because EPA’s conclusions regarding TSR units are inconsistent with the law 

and arbitrary, the issues raised by the AIF herein are of central relevance to the CISWI 

Rules. The CISWI Rule was never intended to cover the type of process involved in 

using TSR units. 

First and foremost, the sand in question is not discarded or spent but is a useful 

product, and, therefore, cannot be solid waste. Second, the sand placed in a TSR unit 

is not combusted. Thus, the application of section 129 of the CAA to TSR units is of 

questionable legal authority. 

 

7

 These unsupported conclusions are also insufficient to meet the requirements to explain the basis 

of EPA’s regulations. There simply is inadequate support for its determination regarding foundry sand in 

TSR units being considered a “waste,” while other recognized beneficial uses are not. See Ne. Md. 

Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 948 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[A]s we held in Appalachian Power 

Co. v. EPA, [135 F.3d 791, 818 (D.C. Cir. 1998)] the EPA at all times ‘retains a duty to examine key 

assumptions as part of its affirmative burden of promulgating and explaining a nonarbitrary, noncapricious rule,’ and therefore must justify its basic ‘assumption[s] even if no one objects ... during the 

comment period.’”) (omission and second alteration in original); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task 

Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 521 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (finding EPA cannot “ignore the procedural 

requirements of §307(d),” even if the agency “gives a decent reason for doing so.”); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 

Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (Court will defer to agency “so long as we are assured that 

its promulgation process as a whole and in each of its major aspects provides a degree of public 

awareness, understanding, and participation commensurate with the complexity and intrusiveness of the 

resulting regulations.”) (citations omitted). 
8

a. The sand in question is not discarded but is a useful 

product. 

Section 129 specifically covers emissions from “solid waste incineration units.” 

42 U.S.C. §7429. As EPA noted, the D.C. Circuit found that “any unit combusting any 

‘solid waste’ at all must be regulated as a ‘solid waste incineration unit,’ regardless of 

the function of the combustion device.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,461. Solid waste under 

section 129 “shall have the meanin[g] established by the Administrator pursuant to 

[RCRA].” 42 U.S.C. §7429(g)(6). RCRA, however, regulates materials that are 

“discarded.” 42 U.S.C. §6903(27). Foundry sand processed and reused in metalcasting is not discarded or spent and, therefore, not a solid waste. 

RCRA regulates the management of solid waste and gives EPA the authority to 

control generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and 

hazardous wastes. RCRA defines “solid waste” as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a 

waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and 

other discarded material. . ..” 42 U.S.C. §6903(27) (emphasis added). In the NHSM 

Rule, EPA established standards and procedures to determine whether non-hazardous 

secondary materials are solid wastes under RCRA when used as fuels or ingredients in 

combustion units. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,456. The NHSM Rule defines “solid waste” as 

defined in 40 C.F.R. §258.2, which mirrors the definition in RCRA. Id. at 15,550 (40 

C.F.R. §241.2). Thus, the key to being solid waste is whether or not the material is 

“discarded.” 

The D.C. Circuit has made clear that the plain language of RCRA gives authority 

only over materials that are disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away, or in other words, 

EPA’s RCRA jurisdiction only extends to discarded materials. Am. Mining Cong. v. 

EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“We are constrained to conclude that, in 

light of the language and structure of RCRA, the problems animating Congress to enact 

it, and the relevant portions of the legislative history, Congress clearly and 

unambiguously expressed its intent that ‘solid waste’ (and therefore EPA’s regulatory 

authority) be limited to materials that are ‘discarded’ by virtue of being disposed of, 

abandoned, or thrown away. While we do not lightly overturn an agency’s reading of its 

own statute, we are persuaded that by regulating in-process secondary materials, EPA 

has acted in contravention of Congress’ intent.”); Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 

208 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirming that materials that are reused within 

an ongoing industrial process are neither disposed of nor abandoned). In response to 

these cases, EPA recognized that the foundry sands used in “the process of separating 

bits and pieces of metal, fines, core sand butts, and other clumps of mold sand at the 

shakeout table and screen to create return sand for reuse in the sand loop . . . are not 

solid wastes.” Letter from EPA to Am. Foundry Soc’y, Mar. 28, 2001 (EPA-HQ-RCRA2008-0329-1738).8

 Although EPA also indicated that it was not addressing the status of 

any thermal processing of sand, the same rationale applies. 

 

8

 EPA indicated, in its revisions to the definition of solid waste addressing recycling activities, that 

the reuse of foundry sand is legitimate recycling (i.e., not discarded). 73 Fed. Reg. 64,668, 64,701 (Oct. 

30, 2008) (“The use and reuse of foundry sands for mold making in a facility’s sand loop under normal 
9

While the type and quality of sand used for foundry core- and mold-making 

varies, it is a useful product. Certain types of processes use very specific types of sand 

such as mullite. Mullite, for example, is very expensive compared to lake or inland 

sands and is a valuable product. The foundry sand recycled in the TSR units is virtually 

identical to (and may even be better than) virgin sand purchased for use in core- and 

mold-making except for a small quantity of core resin. It makes no economic or 

environmental sense to discard this useful and costly product at this early stage in its 

lifecycle. Thus, the small amount of resin is separated from the sand in the TSR unit for 

reuse again in the foundry core- and mold-making processes. 

EPA apparently is now contending, however, that because the small amount of 

resin is combusted in the process of recycling and reusing the sand, it is being 

discarded and thus the TSR processing of the foundry sand with the small amount of 

resin is a waste for purposes of the CISWI Rule. But, this separation is essentially no 

different than the separating out of contaminants on the shakeout table. Moreover, 

section 129(g)(1) does not refer to “any solid waste” but refers to the combustion of “any 

solid waste material.” 42 U.S.C. §7429(g)(1) (emphasis added). The “material” at issue 

here is the reusable foundry sand from the cores and molds, not the remaining resin. 

Only about 1% by weight of resins in the foundry sand is combusted. EPA provides no 

support for parsing out the resin to define the whole material as solid waste and render 

the TSR unit a “solid waste incineration unit.” Thus, the mere fact that the resin is 

burned off does not render the foundry sand -- the material at issue -- a “waste” subject 

to section 129 requirements.9

In addition, EPA provides no explanation as to the emissions associated with the 

burning of the resin, and, thus, provides no analysis of the appropriate emissions 

standards under section 129. EPA also provides no analysis of the impacts of the 

CISWI Rule on TSR units, including the potential to increase the disposal of foundry 

sand to avoid the increased costs associated with complying with the CISWI Rule. 

b. The sand is not combusted. 

The D.C. Circuit also made clear that section 129 defines a solid waste 

incineration unit as one that “combusts” solid waste material. Natural Res. Def. Council 

v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The definition of “CISWI” is “any 

distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts . . . any solid 

waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR Part 241.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,762 (40 C.F.R. 

§60.2265) (emphasis added). Section 129 does not refer to “treatment” or even “use” of 

 industry practices has been found to be legitimate because the sand is part of an industrial process where 

there is little chance of the hazardous constituents being released into the environment or causing 

damage to human health and the environment when it is kept inside, because there is lead throughout the 

foundry's process, and because there is a clear value to reusing the sand.”). 

9

 Moreover, under RCRA, EPA also has found certain recycled material, even where hazardous, is 

not solid waste. 40 C.F.R. §261.2. Although EPA indicates it is reconsidering portions of this definition, it 

also recognized that the principal reasoning behind excluding recycled hazardous materials from the 

definition of solid waste “is that use/reuse or recycling of such secondary materials often closely 

resembles normal industrial production, rather than waste management.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,463. 
10

solid waste material. The process at issue here is a recycling process to reuse the 

foundry sand, not for disposal purposes through combustion. 

The foundry sand here is not “combusted” as contemplated by the EPA’s 

regulations. In 40 C.F.R. §240.101(c), Guidelines for the Thermal Processing of Solid 

Waste, the term “combustibles” is defined as “...materials that can be ignited at a 

specific temperature in the presence of air to release heat energy.” Similarly, the 

dictionary definition of combustion includes “an act or instance of burning”; “a usually 

rapid chemical process (as oxidation) that produces heat and usually light.” Merriam 

Webster Online Dictionary, www.m-w.com (last visited May 17, 2011). In TSR units, the 

foundry sand is heated but is not ignited. There is no phase change or alteration in its 

physical structure. The sand is not oxidized or melted, and there are no direct products 

of combustion from the sand. 

3. If the TSR units are considered to be combusting solid waste 

based on the resin alone, then their inclusion in the CISWI rule 

should be deferred. 

Because EPA found that additional information is needed with respect to certain 

categories of “combustion units,” it determined that the CISWI Rule would not subject, 

among other units, burn-off ovens and soil treatment units to regulation at this time. 

76 Fed. Reg. at 15,734. For similar reasons, EPA should have deferred consideration 

of TSR units under the CISWI Rule, rather than, without notice and comment, make a 

determination that TSR units are solid waste incineration units for purposes of CAA 

section 129. 

a. TSR units were not contemplated to be regulated under 

CISWI. 

The CISWI Rule was part of EPA’s effort to address the vacatur of the CISWI 

Definitions Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 55,568 (Sept. 22, 2005)) by the D.C. Circuit. 75 Fed. 

Reg. 31,938, 31,938 (June 4, 2010). In the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA had defined 

the term “commercial or industrial solid waste incineration unit” to mean a combustion 

unit that combusts “commercial or industrial waste,” which EPA defined to mean waste 

combusted at a unit that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a 

useful purpose. Id. at 31,940. The D.C. Circuit vacated the definition, holding that the 

term “solid waste incineration unit” in CAA section 129(g)(1) “unambiguously include[s] 

among the incineration units subject to its standards any facility that combusts any 

commercial or industrial solid waste material at all subject to the four statutory 

exceptions identified [in CAA Section 129(g)(1)].” Natural Res. Def. Council, 489 F.3d 

at 1257-58. But, EPA’s new methodology for defining solid wastes under the NHSM 

Rule has potentially swept a host of seemingly unintended industrial processes under 

the CISWI Rule. 

TSR units have never been contemplated as being CISWI units, and there is 

minimal thermal recovery except for a simple recuperator used to preheat combustion 

air within the same unit. The purpose is neither to “combust” the sand, nor to reduce 
11

the volume of the sand, nor to generate heat for reuse. The purpose is simply to reuse 

the sand in the making of new sand cores and molds. EPA never intended to include 

these types of processes in either the Boiler MACT or the CISWI Rule. In fact the new 

suite of March 21, 2011 rules would not have been considered applicable to TSR units 

except for the short discussion on foundry sand in the preamble of the NHSM Rule.

b. TSR units are similar to burn-off ovens and soil 

treatment units, and are not incinerators. 

Even if EPA could determine that the burning off of the small amount of core 

resin constitutes combustion of solid waste to render TSR units “solid waste incineration 

units” (which it cannot), they are more akin to burn-off ovens and soil treatment units for 

which EPA declined to regulate under the CISWI Rule at this time. EPA should provide 

the same consideration here. 

A “burn-off oven” is “any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation unit, or drum 

reclamation unit.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,761 (40 C.F.R. §60.2265). A “rack reclamation 

unit” means “a unit that burns the coatings off part racks used to hold small items for 

application of a coating. The unit burns the coating overspray off the rack so the rack 

can be reused.” 40 C.F.R. §60.2265. Burn-off ovens then are basically a metal 

cleaning process that may thermally remove all types of matter off of metal parts or 

electric motor armatures. A “[s]oil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats 

petroleum contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 

15,763 (40 C.F.R. §60.2265). Soil treatment units thermally treat contaminated soils to 

eliminate contaminants that can pollute groundwater or harm human health and the 

environment via ingestion. In both cases, EPA’s definitions of these units specifically 

find that these units are not incinerators. 

Similarly, TSR units, at most, thermally treat foundry sand to remove the 

remaining small amount of core resin. The core resin may be burned off, but it is solely 

for the purpose of reusing the sand. TSR units are not incinerators. In the CISWI Rule, 

an incinerator is defined as “... any furnace used in the process of combusting solid 

waste . . . for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible 

matter.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,762 (40 C.F.R. §60.2265) (emphasis added). Assuming 

the foundry sand is “solid waste,” which it is not, TSR units are not used “for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the waste.” The vast majority by weight of the 

foundry sand remains in its original form, or better than initially purchased, and, most 

importantly, is reused, rather than disposed. The small volume reduction from the core 

resin removal is primarily due to the removal of the core resin that coats and is present 

in the interstitial space and is therefore negligible. 

c. For the same reasons EPA deferred inclusion of burn-off 

ovens and soil-treatment units in the CISWI Rule, EPA 

should have excluded TSR units. 

In the CISWI Rule, EPA recognized that burn-off ovens or soil-treatment units 

should not be subject to the CISWI Rule. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,734. EPA created 
12

exceptions to burn-off ovens and soil treatment units to further consider regulation for 

several reasons: (i) they play a vital role in the reclaiming and recycling process, 

(2) there were significantly more units than EPA was aware of, and (iii) EPA did not 

have data on all CAA section 129 pollutants needed to set emissions limits.10

To the extent EPA considered TSR units to be “combustion” units, they should 

have been considered similar to burn-off ovens and soil treatment units. TSR units are 

similar to these types of units in that they significantly reduce landfilling through reuse. 

EPA recognized the benefits of reusing foundry sand in its analysis of the reuse of 

foundry sand as an “ingredient.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 46. 

In addition, as it did with burn-off ovens, EPA will be implicating a significant 

number of units by its determination in the preamble, warranting further consideration. 

This number will be significantly higher than EPA’s estimate of 88 entities subject to the 

CISWI Rule in total. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,747. Moreover, EPA does not have and did not 

properly seek data from TSR units on all CAA section 129 pollutants needed to set 

emissions limits. 

EPA has found significant economic impacts as a result of these rules. It 

estimated only one new incinerator and no new energy recovery or waste-burning kiln 

units will be constructed as a result of the CISWI Rule. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,742-15,743. 

EPA also noted that almost 97% of the CISWI units that were considered would shut 

down. Id. at 15,729 (“Based on the analysis, we expect that all but three facilities with 

units in the incinerators subcategory will choose to cease operations once the proposed 

MACT floor limits are promulgated.”). TSR units will likely suffer the same fate, but 

rather than look for alternative disposal methods (as EPA assumes for these other, 

actual waste disposal units), it will result in the loss of a substantial economic incentive 

to reuse materials, resulting in more materials being disposed of, more depletion of 

valuable natural resources, and more potential environmental harms. This result is 

directly contrary to EPA’s RCRA intent. In addition, because the business case for 

constructing foundries or expanding existing foundry operations is based on economics 

that include the use of TSRs, it is likely that many existing foundries may close and new 

ones will be sited elsewhere outside the United States. 

 

10 EPA also noted it was not required to include such units to comply with their section 112(c)(6) 

obligations to identify categories of sources of pollutants to assure that sources accounting for not less 

than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to CAA section 112 

standards. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,708, 15,734. To the extent section 112(c)(6) is relevant, the same 

rationale applies to TSR units. 
13

d. Although EPA should defer or stay the application of 

these rules to TSR units, at a minimum, EPA should 

clarify that a TSR unit is not “new” until the date that 

EPA actually proposes coverage of such units under the 

CISWI Rule. 

In the final CISWI Rule, 40 C.F.R. §60.2015 defines “new” CISWI units as those 

that “commenced construction after May 20, 2011.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,750. The 

proposed rule, however, defined “new” units as those commencing construction after 

June 4, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,974 (40 C.F.R. §60.2015). EPA does not explain this 

change in date, and the confusion created is further evidence that EPA must reconsider 

the application of the CISWI Rule generally. 

In addition, even the May 20, 2011 date should not be used to establish when a 

TSR unit is “new” under the CISWI Rule because EPA never in fact proposed to include 

TSR units under CISWI. CAA section 129(g)(2) defines a “new solid waste incineration 

unit” as such a unit “the construction of which is commenced after the Administrator 

proposes requirements under this section establishing emissions standards or other 

requirements which would be applicable to such unit.” 42 U.S.C. §7429(g)(2) 

(emphasis added). While EPA proposed the CISWI Rule on June 4, 2010, that 

proposal did not include TSR units recycling foundry sand. Indeed, as explained above, 

EPA did not include the number of TSR units that exist in its analysis of the impacts of 

the proposed rule and EPA’s companion NHSM proposal did not indicate that the 

Agency contemplated including TSR units in CISWI Rule covered (and in fact 

suggested the opposite). Thus, EPA has not yet proposed emissions standards or 

other requirements “which would be applicable to [TSR units].” Therefore, the 

applicable date for “new unit” applicability, even if foundry sand TSR units could be 

considered a CISWI, would be the date that EPA actually proposes to include such units 

under the Rule. 

D. Support for a Stay of the Effective Date of the CISWI Rule and 

Request for Stay of the Pre-Existing CISWI Requirements to Foundry 

Sand TSR Units. 

1. EPA properly stayed the effective date of the 2011 CISWI Rule. 

 EPA has authority to stay the effective date of the applicability of the CISWI Rule 

to TSR units. CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) allows the Administrator to stay the 

effectiveness of the rule pending reconsideration. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(7)(B). Although 

the statute provides for a three month stay pending reconsideration, id., EPA has used 

its authority to grant a longer stay and should do so in this case to the extent necessary. 

In particular, EPA has authority to issue a longer stay under section 705 of the APA. 

When “justice so requires,” EPA may stay the effective date of a rule pending judicial 

review pursuant to section 705 the APA. 5 U.S.C. §705. Petitions for review of the 

CISWI Rule have been filed with the D.C. Circuit, and “justice” demands a stay be 

granted pending review. EPA has used this authority to “postpone” the effective date of 
14

a CAA rule. See, e.g., Reconsideration of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Aggregation, 75 Fed. Reg. 

27,643 (May 18, 2010). EPA may also issue a stay without notice and comment based 

on the good cause exception under subparagraph (B) of subsection 553(b) of Title 5 

pursuant to section 307(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(1), and under 5 U.S.C. §553(d)(3). 

 Indeed, EPA has admitted that the CISWI Rule needs reconsideration, and, 

therefore, it makes little sense to impose substantial compliance costs on the regulated 

entities until EPA takes the time to reconsider all the appropriate issues. In requesting 

additional time to issue the CISWI Rule, EPA argued to the district court that several 

months were needed to re-propose the rules because re-proposal “would result in 

standards that are more defensible and will yield environmental benefits earlier, 

because the final standards will more likely withstand substantive review.” EPA’s Mem. 

in Support of Mot. to Amend Order of Mar. 31, 2006, at 20, Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 

1:01CV01537 (D.D.C Dec. 7, 2010) (Doc. 136). Although the district court denied the 

request, EPA also stated that “to ensure that the final rules are logical outgrowths of the 

proposals,” the Agency would have to re-propose its rules in altered form. Id. EPA, in 

fact, has already issued a notice that it intends to reconsider various aspects of the final 

CISWI Rule, because “certain issues of central relevance to these rules arose after the 

period for public comment or may have been impracticable to comment upon.” 76 Fed. 

Reg. at 15,267. As described above, the issues identified herein require 

reconsideration. 

 The reconsideration of the CISWI Definition Rule required by the D.C. Circuit was 

not intended to address this process; the focus was on materials that had been sent to 

boilers, process heaters, or incinerators for combustion. By interpreting the definition of 

solid waste in this limited example with respect to TSR units, EPA’s casual statements 

in the preamble to the NHSM Rule may inadvertently affect a wide range of 

manufacturing activities, foundries and other related processes not contemplated in the 

development of the CISWI Rule. 

 Those TSR units that may now be subject to the CISWI Rule, without any 

opportunity to comment, would be harmed if EPA’s passing determination remains 

unconsidered. In particular, members of the AIF will be immediately affected by EPA’s 

regulation. One AIF member’s facility, for example, has plans for a new semipermanent mold technology that is expected to provide over 200 jobs. It will include a 

TSR unit for the recycling and reuse of sand used in the core- and mold-making 

process. It has received its air permit, and initial operation is anticipated in the near 

term. Because of the CISWI Rule, and the accompanying preamble statements in the 

NHSM Rule, this project and other related foundry projects are at risk. 

 In addition, the public interest is benefitted by the stay to ensure EPA is, as it 

purports to do, properly promoting reduction of wastes through reuse and recycling. 

EPA’s actions here are premised on maximizing the usefulness of secondary materials, 

reducing or eliminating waste, conserving energy, and reducing harmful emissions. The 
15

beneficial use of foundry sand would achieve these goals. As noted above, EPA has 

recognized that even recycling of foundry sand in a TSR unit is a beneficial use. 

Merely granting reconsideration is not enough to prevent the adverse effects of 

EPA’s action. A stay is necessary because there are new units that are about to be 

installed at operating facilities, and that will not be able to meet the standards based on 

the current designs. The companies that planned for and have purchased these units 

had no advanced notice that they might be covered under the CISWI Rule and therefore 

their installation is now in jeopardy. Beyond these new units, the existing units currently 

in operation will experience immediate adverse effects because companies must begin 

to plan, design and budget now for compliance with these rules. Because the 

application of the CISWI Rule to TSR units is not economical, companies may elect to 

move foundry sand operations to jurisdictions and/or countries that recognize the 

benefits of recycling and do not impose these draconian requirements on beneficial use 

the sand. 

2. To the extent the NHSM Rule has changed the regulatory 

landscape, EPA must also stay any existing requirements 

applicable to CISWI units pending reconsideration and judicial 

review. 

On May 18, 2011, EPA issued an administrative stay of the effective date for the 

CISWI Rule under the authority of the APA until the proceedings for judicial review of 

these rules are completed or the EPA completes its reconsideration of the rule, 

whichever is earlier.11 76 Fed. Reg. 28,662 (May 18, 2011). While the Forum supports 

a stay of the CISWI Rule’s effective date, this does not obviate or address all of the 

harms that the members of the Forums currently face. EPA had not previously provided 

the public with notice that the foundry sand or paint solids addressed in this request 

were subject to regulation under section 129 of the CAA. With this new determination, it 

is unclear whether parties using these materials are now subject to any existing 

requirements under section 129, including those promulgated at 65 Fed. Reg. 75,338 

(Dec. 1, 2000). EPA’s delay of the effective date of the CISWI Rule does not address 

the situation of materials that are now suddenly defined as “solid wastes” without having 

provided notice and comment rulemaking. 

For the same reasons supporting reconsideration of the CISWI Rule, EPA must 

also reconsider its existing CISWI requirements to the extent EPA’s new determination 

with respect to recycled foundry sand in TSR units has now made these requirements 

applicable. If these requirements are now deemed applicable, EPA must also stay the 

existing requirements, which were promulgated in the final rule entitled “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Rule,” published at 65 

Fed. Reg. 75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000).

 

11 The administrative stay also addresses the final rule titled “National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters,” 76 Fed. Reg. 15,608 (Mar. 21, 2011). 
16

II. TREATMENT OF PAINT SOLIDS 

Commenters on the NHSM Rule requested that EPA clarify that paint solids 

collected from automobile assembly plant operations should be considered a NHSM 

and not a solid waste subject to the CISWI requirements.12 In the Response to 

Comments on the final NHSM Rule, the Agency stated that “paint chips” would be 

required to meet the legitimacy criteria in the NHSM Rule.13 The AIF requests that EPA 

reconsider the coverage of the CISWI Rule to paint solids from automobile assembly 

operations because they provide a beneficial use as a legitimate fuel and are not 

hazardous. Paint solids are used in coal-fired boilers and managed just as coal would 

be. Moreover, state regulators have determined on the basis of test burns that 

combustion of paint solids is acceptable. Rather than promote energy recovery from 

these materials, the CISWI rule would increase the amount of paint solids diverted to 

landfill as well as increase the use of fossil fuels that would be need to combusted 

instead of the paint solids.

III. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND CODIFICATION OF CONTAINED GAS 

TREATMENT 

As noted above, with the publication of the CISWI Rule, EPA issued its NHSM 

Rule, which purports to outline what secondary materials are considered “solid waste” 

for purposes of determining whether the CISWI Rule may apply to units that combust 

those materials. See, supra n.[2]. In its response to comments on the NHSM Rule 

requesting a definition of “contained gas” consistent with its prior interpretation under 

RCRA, EPA stated: 

In the first place, we are unable to find any Agency 

reasoning supporting previous EPA interpretations that only 

gases in containers may be considered “contained.” Based 

on the facts of this case, EPA cannot see how gaseous 

secondary material that is generated in any particular system 

and is somehow sent to a gas-fired boiler, even through a 

pipeline, can be considered an “uncontained gas.” This 

even assumes that “uncontained gas” is not covered under 

the definition of solid waste, which EPA does not concede in 

this rulemaking. This would mean that a clean gas-fired 

boiler could still burn under CAA 112 secondary material that 

is handled through a seriously leaking pipeline, has little to 

no real fuel value, and is full of dirty contamination, simply 

because the material is not a “contained gas” under the 

definition of solid waste. EPA rejects any such formulation. 

Response to Comments Document - NHSM Rule, at 213-214 (Feb. 2011). These 

statements regarding what constitutes “contained gas” raised questions as to whether 

 

12 EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-1916.2 at 11-12. 

13 NHSM Response to Comments at 211. 
17

EPA was revising its long-standing interpretation that gas in pipelines is not considered 

“contained gas,” and therefore not “solid waste,” under RCRA. While the definition of 

CISWI unit makes a distinction between the CISWI unit and the attached control device, 

the AIF requests clarification that emissions streams from numerous processes ducted 

to control devices are not considered solid waste making the air pollution control unit a 

CISWI unit. In particular, regenerative thermal oxidizers (“RTOs”) used in coating 

operations are control units that combust captured VOC-laden gas. EPA should clarify 

that control units, and related equipment, transporting and burning captured gas are not 

covered by the CISWI Rule. 

 On May 13, 2011, EPA issued a letter to the American Forest & Paper 

Association (see attachment) that stated: 

This response does not change any previous EPA positions. 

We clarify here that the Agency’s previous statements and 

interpretations remain effective. Thus, burning of gaseous 

material, such as in fume incinerators (as well as other 

combustion units, including air pollution control devices that 

may combust gaseous material) does not involve treatment 

or other management of solid waste (as defined in RCRA 

section 1004(27)). 

EPA also acknowledged that, if it were to make any change to its long-standing 

interpretations, such change would have required public notice and comment. Based 

on this letter, the AIF understands that control units, and their associated equipment, 

such as RTOs used in coating operations, do not constitute CISWI units and the 

gaseous materials combusted therein are not “solid wastes” under RCRA. We request 

confirmation from EPA and codification of this interpretation.14

CONCLUSION 

The AIF requests that EPA include the issues listed above in its reconsideration 

process for the CISWI Rule, continue its stay of the CISWI requirements, and stay the 

pre-existing CISWI Rule to the extent it would regulate foundry sand TSR units as well 

as consider paint solids collected from automobile assembly plant operations to be a 

solid waste when combusted and subject to CISWI requirements. 

 For the foregoing reasons, EPA must reconsider the application of the CISWI 

Rule to TSR units, which has occurred solely as a result of some statements in the 

preamble to the NHSM Rule. The public was not given an opportunity to comment, and 

EPA’s unsupported determination is poised to shut down all these units and cancel new 

TSR projects, despite their recognized benefits for reducing wastes. To give EPA and 

the public adequate opportunity to comment, the AIF respectfully requests that EPA 

 

14 To the extent this understanding is not correct, EPA must initiate a reconsideration on this issue, 

as it changes EPA’s long-standing treatment of RTOs and imposes new requirements not contemplated 

by the CISWI Rule. EPA itself has recognized that it did not provide notice and comment on such a 

change in interpretation. 
18

immediately stay the CISWI Rule to the extent that they are interpreted to subject TSR 

units to the existing CISWI standards.

The AIF stands ready to work with EPA to resolve the above issues offered for 

reconsideration. Please contact Shannon Broome at 510-985-1710 with any questions 

regarding this petition. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of the preceding was sent on May 20, 2011 to the following via facsimile, email, 

and certified mail: 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building (AR), 1101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

jackson.lisa@epa.gov 

Fax No.: 202-501-1450 

Gina McCarthy 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building, 6101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

mccarthy.gina@epa.gov 

Fax No.: 202-501-0986 

Mathy Stanislaus 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building, 6101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

stanislaus.mathy@epa.gov

Fax No. (202) 566-0207 

/s/ Matthew Raeburn 

Matthew Raeburn