# The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in its August 7, 2012, decision in Summit Petroleum Corporation v. EPA, et al,Case Nos. 09-4348/10-4572 vacated and remanded this single source determination.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS WESTJACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590

RecycledlRecycl8ble • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based 77 

## OCT 18 2010

REPLY TOTHE ATIENTION OF 

### A-18J 

### BY CERTIFIED MAIL and ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Scott Huber SummitPetroleum Corporation P.O. Box 365 Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48804 Dear Mr. Huber: This letter supplements the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's September 8, 2009, letter to Gina Bozzer, Zimmerman, Kuhn, Darling, Boyd, regarding Summit Petroleum Corporation's (Summit) operations in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. In a February 23, 2010, letter from Cheryl Newton, Director, Region 5 Airand Radiation Division, to you, EPA granted your request for an administrative stay ofthe date by which Summit was to have submitted an application for an operating permit underTitle V ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA). Pursuantto this administrative stay, EPA gave Summitthe opportunity to submit additional information and certifications for EPA's consideration. EPA is now in receipt ofthe additional information, certifications, and maps which Summit provided under cover letter ofApril 29, 2010, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 

### §§ 71.3(e)(I) and 71.5(d). Ourlettertoday reiterates EPA's September 8, 2009, determination, pursuantto 40 C.F.R. 

### § 71.3(a)(I), that Summit's sourgas wells, sweetening plant, and associated flares constitute a single source for purposes ofpermitting under Title V 

### of theCAA. Analysis The Federal Operating Permits Program is set out at 40 C.F.R. Part 71. EPA's regulations provide that, for purposes ofthe Title V{Part 71 program, a stationary source "means any building, structure, facility, or installation that emits or may emit any regulated airpollutant or any pollutant listed under section 112(b) ofthe Act.,,1 EPA's regulations state: Major source means any stationary source (or any group ofstationary sources that are located on one or more contiguous oradjacent properties, and are under common control ofthe sameperson (orpersons under commoncontro!), belonging to a single major industrial grouping

.... For the purposes ofdefining 'major source,' a stationary source orgroup ofstationary sources shall be considered part ofa single industrial grouping ifall ofthe pollutant emitting activities at such source or group ofsources on contiguous or adjacent properties

I 40 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009).

Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (50% Postconsumer)belong to the same Major Group (i.e., all have the same two-digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classificationmanual, 1987.2 Major sources are further defined as belonging to one ofthree categories. One ofthese categories is defined as: A major stationary source ofair pollutants orany group ofstationary sources as defined in section 302 ofthe [Clean Air] Act, that directly emits, orhas the potential to emit, 100 tpy [i.e., tons peryear] ormore ofany air pollutant.

...3 In making its determination that Summit's sourgas wells, sweeteningplant, and associated flares constitute a single source for purposes ofpermitting underTitle V ofthe CAA, EPA followed the guidance provided in the September 22, 2009, memorandum entitled "Withdrawal ofSource Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries," from GinaMcCarthy, U.S. EPA's Assistant Administratorofthe Office ofAir and Radiation, to Regional Administrators ("McCarthy Memorandum,,).4 The McCarthy Memorandum recognizes the complex operational issues surrounding the operation ofsome oil and gas industries and emphasizes a case-by-case, fact-specific approach to making aggregation determinations for purposes ofNew Source Review (NSR) and Title V permitting programs. The McCarthy Memorandum notes that: Permitting authorities should therefore rely foremost onthree regulatory criteria for identifying emissions activities that belong to the same 'building,' 'structure,' 'facility,' or 'installation.' These are (1) whetherthe activities are under the control ofthe sameperson (orperson under commoncontrol); (2) whether the activities are located onone ormore contiguous oradjacent properties; and (3) whetherthe activities belong to the same industrial grouping. 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(6).5 Consistent with this Memorandum and other applicable Agency guidance, EPA has made the following analysis in support ofits determination.

240 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 340 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 'The McCarthy Memorandum specifically withdrew a January 12,2007, memorandum from William Wehrum, entitled "Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries" (Wehrum Memorandum) (SummitPetroleum Corp. v. U.S. £I/I't'lProtectionAgencvtlllIlLisa JaL'k"on, Case No. 09-4348 (6th Cir.), U.S. Administrative Record Document Ihere.fter Documentl 28) The purpose ofthe Wehrum Memorandum was to set out a "non-binding policy statement that set forth a possible methodology for making source determinations" for the oil and gas industry that made proximate distance the primary basis on which to determine whetherto aggregate multiple emissions sources into a single source for permitting purposes. Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, EPA Assistant Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Sept. 22, 2009, at I (henceforth, "McCarthy Memorandum"); available at hltp: //

www.epa.gov iregion7 iair insri nsrmemosloilgaswilhdrawaJ.pdj The McCarthy Memorandum found that "the simplified approach provided in the [Wehrum Memorandum] should not be relied on by permitting authorities as a sufficient endpoint in the decision-making process," and restored the Agency's previous methodology for making source determinations based on existing New Source Review regulations and guidance. McCarthy Memorandum at I. S McCarthy Memorandum at 2.

2l. 

### The activities are under thecontrol ofthe same person (or person undercommon control). EPA's regulations do not specify how control is defined, but EPA's practice has been to rely on a fact-specitic inquiry, and which includes a presumption that common ownership constitutes commoncontrol.6 

### The Agency looks at other factors as appropriate. 7 

### Summithas stated that it "operates a gas sweetening plant located at4725 N. Isabella Road, Rosebush, Michigan. SummitPetroleum also owns and operates approximately 100 sour gas production wells that supply gas to the gas sweetening plant."g Additionally, in attachments to an April 18,2008, letter from Ms. Bozzerto PamelaBlakley, Summitprovided a list ofemissions from wells, flares, and pumping equipment associated with the Rosebush gas sweetening plant.9 

### Ms. Bozzer's April 29, 2010, letter provides further information, described in two maps and two spreadsheets (NOx Potential to Emit Summary, and S02 Potential to Emit Summary) which detail Summit's current emissions sources, including sourgas wells, flares, and natural gas engines. The April 29, 2010, letter "reflects current PTE information and location ofrelevant emissions units for Summit."lo In an April 26, 2007, letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, EPA stated that "the gas production wells and the gas sweeteningplant are controlled and operated by the same company, SummitPetroleum,"" and Summit has not since disputed this statement. Accordingly, EPA has determined thatthe additional clarification provided by Summit in its letter ofApril 29, 2010, does not change EPA's previous determination that all ofthe emissions sources listed in Summit's submissions ofJanuary 18, 2005, April 18, 2008, and April 29, 20I0, are owned and operated by, and thus are under the common control of, Summit. 

### 2. The activities are located on one ormore contiguous oradjacentproperties. The second part ofEPA's inquiry into whether it is appropriate to aggregate multiple emissionpoints into a single source for permitting purposes turns on whether the activities are

6 Letter from William Spratlin, U.S. EPA, to Peter Hamlin, Iowa Department ofNatural Resources, September 18, 1995, at I (Document4). 7 See Memorandum from John Seitz, U.S. EPA, to Addressees, "Major Source Determinations for Military Installations under the AirToxics, New Source Review, and Title V Operating Permit Programs ofthe Clean Air Act," August 2,1996, at 3 (Document 5) (emphasizing the fact-specific nature ofcommon control determinations). See also Letter from Richard Long, U.S. EPA, to Julie Wrend, Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, November 12, 1998, at2 (Document II) ("

... EPA has established several mechanisms by which sources and permitting authorities can determine whetherthere may be 'common control' overa group ofstationary sources. First, common control can be established through ownership ofmultiple sources by the same parent corporation orby a parent and a subsidiary ofthe parent corporation. Second, common control can be established if an entity such as a corporation has the powerto direct the management and policies ofa second entity, thus controlling its operations, through a contractual agreement ora voting interest.") 8 Letter from Chris Hare, MDEQ; Scott Huber, Summit Petroleum; and Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakely, U.S. EPA, January 18,200[6], at I (Document 20). See also Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call with Chris Hare, MDEQ, April 4, 2006 (Document 23) (citing common ownership ofSummit'semissions sources). 9 Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Tables I and 2 (Document 30) ("Potential to Emit Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum"). 10 Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 3. 11 Letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document29).


### 3located on one ormore contiguous or adjacent properties.12 EPA has neverestablished "a specific distance betweenpollutant emitting activities" for determining whethertwo noncontiguous facilities are "adjacent," but EPA has historically interpreted the term to include concepts otherthan the physical distance between two facilities.13 In fact, EPA has repeatedly included anevaluation ofthe nature ofthe relationship between the facilities and the degree of interdependence between them in determining whether multiple non-contiguous emissions points should be considered a single source.14

In the initial promulgation ofthe 3-part major source definition, EPAexplained that we could not "say precisely

...howfar apart activities must be in orderto be treated separately" and directed that such determinations be made on a case-by-casebasis.IS Sincethat time, analyses conducted by EPA and state permitting authorities have continued to take the positionthat a factspecitic inquiry is necessary to establish whether emissions sources should be grouped together.16 EPAexpects that this inquiry will be based on a "case-by-case," "highly factspecific" basis, where "no single determination can serve as an adequatejustificationfor how to treat any other source determination for pollutant-emitting activities with different fact-specific circumstances." 17 As noted above, EPA has historically recognized that emissions units need not be onproperties that are physically touching in orderto be to be aggregated,18 and the McCarthy

"See40 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 13 Memo from Robert G. Kellam. EPA OAQPS, to Richard R. Long, Director ofEPA Region 8 Air Program, August 27, 1996, at 3 (explaining thatthe contiguous and adjacent analysis must be "detennined on a case-by-case basis, based on the relationship between the facilities"). 14 See guidance cited in n.l3, supra, and n. 18, infra. See also letter from Letter from Pamela Blakely, U.S. EPA, to Don Sutton, Illinois EPA, March 14,2006 at 2 (using the "common sense notion ofa plant" as the guiding principle in detennining that4 facilities operated by one company but located up to 8 miles apartwere a single title V source because "'the activities occurring at these sites all assist in supporting" the main manufacturing operation ofthe company). IS 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,695 (August 7, 1980). While this language is taken from the preambleto the fin.al rule promUlgating the major source definition for the NSR pennitting program, EPA was clear in promUlgating Ihe Title V major source definition found at 40 C.F.R. section 71.2, that the language and application ofthe Title V definition was to be consistent with the NSR program. See 61 Fed. Reg. 34,202, 34,210 (July I, 1996). 16 See e.g., Inter-office Communication from Jim Geier, et ai, to Stationary Sources Program Staffand Local Agencies, "Glycol Dehydration Units

- permit issues," January4, 1995, at 2 (Document 3): The Division will review oil and gas facilities under the operating pennit rules to detennine ifa pennit is needed for criteria pollutants. As is the case for construction pennits, emissions units on the same orcontiguous properties will be added togetherto detennine ifthe source is major. Sources owned orcontrolled by the same company that are located on widely separated, noncontiguous property will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to detennine ifan operating pennit is needed. See also Letter from Richard Long, U.S. EPA, to Lynn Menlove, Utah Division ofAir Quality, "Response to Request for Guidance in Defining Adjacent with Respect to Source Aggregation," May 21, 1998 at I (Document 10) ("'the distance associated with 'adjacent' must be considered on a case-by-case basis"). 17 McCarthy Memorandum at 2. 18 See Letter from JoAnn Heiman, U.S. EPA, to James Pray, Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskervilleand Schoenebaum, PLC, December 6,2004 at 2 ("Generally, the closertwo facilities are the more likelythey may be considered contiguous oradjacent. In addition, the existence ofa dedicated pipeline ortransportation link

... may also be relevant to this detennination."); Letter from Kathleen Henry, U.S. EPA, to John Slade, Pennsylvania DEP, January 15, 1999 at I ("detennining whetherfacilities are contiguous oradjacent depends not onlyon the physical distance between them but [also] on the type ofnexus (relationship) between the facilities."); Letter from Richard

4

### Memorandum is consistent with that guidance in recognizing that while proximity ofdisparate emissions units is important, 

### itis not necessarily the deciding factor in making an aggregation determination. 19 

### Summitprovided information to EPA in January 2006, which included the following statement: Summit Petroleum Corporation operates a gas sweeteningplant located at4725 N. Isabella Road, Rosebush, Michigan. Summit Petroleum also owns and operates approximately 100 sourgas production wells that supplythe gas to the gas sweetening plant. The closest production well is approximately 500 feet from the gas sweetening plant and the farthest production well is slightly over eight miles trom the gas sweetening plant.

... [Ilfthepotential emissions from the sour gas production wells are included with the gas sweeteningplant emissions, the aggregated sources combined may be considered a single major source for criteria pollutants, namely nitrogen oxides and sulfurdioxides

...

# .zo Summithas stated that "two ofthe well sites are within a quarter-mile radius ofthe sweetening plant," and thatthe others are "separated from the sweetening plant by a considerable distance and intervening properties."zl Summitfurther notes that the closest flare is approximately 3,000

Long, U.S. EPA, to Lynn Menlove, Utah Division ofAir Quality, "'Response to Request for Guidance in Defining Adjacent with Respect to Source Aggregation," May 21, 1998 at 2 (Document 10) ("adetennination of'adjacent' should include an evaluation ofwhetherthe distance betweentwo facilities is sufficiently small enoughthat it enables them to operate as a single 'source."'). 19 EPA has not adopted a "quartermile" presumption ofadjacency, such as Summit argues in its April 29, 2010 letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley. 'OLetter from Chris Hare, et aI., to Pamela Blakley, January 18,200[6) at I (Document 20). Summit also provided infonnation demonstratingthatthe aggregated emissions units would constitute a major source. A January 2006 summary table entitled "Potential to Emit Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum," showed potential emissions from the hydrogen sulfide combustion facility (gas sweetening plant) of98 tpy ofS02,and an additional 52 tpy ofS02 from 17 field flares. The table also showed six categories ofnatural gas engines and other emissions units with combined NOx emissions in excess of200 tpy. Letterfrom Chris Hare, et aI., to Pamela Blakley, January 18,200[6), at Tables I and 2 (Document 20) ("Potential to Emit Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum"). Supplemental infonnation submitted by Summit in April 2010 stated that the gas sweetening plant is supplied by sourgas from the Wise, Leaton, and Rosebush fields. Summit confirmed that its gas sweetening plant has a potential to emit98 tpy ofS02 and also stated that it had the potential to emit 78.3 tpy ofNOx. Additionally, Summit stated that each ofits 16 sourgas flares have a potential to emit 3.1 tpy ofS02. Summit also stated that it has 84 pumpjack engines in its oil fields, with 39 ofthese having associated equipment with the potential to emit between 0.25 and 0.31 tpy NOx. The 98 tpy ofS02 from the sweetening plant combined with the 3.1 tpy S02 from the nearest sourgas flare, alone, exceeds the 100 tpy threshold for Title V applicability. Leiter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at I. 21 Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. EPA notes that Summit appearsto have made an error in its representation ofdistances relating to the maps it submitted. The legend for Maps I and 2 give a scale of I inch to 1,000 feet, but Summit's April 29, 2010, letter states thatthe maps have a scale ofI inch to 2,000 feet. Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 20I0, at I. Based on infonnation previously submitted by Summit and the scale on the maps themselves, it appears that the correct scale ofthe maps is I inch to 1,000 feet. Contraryto Summit's assertion in its April 18,2008 letter stating that "there are no sour-gas wells located withinthe one-mile radius ofthe Plant," Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 3 (Document 30), it appears that there are a dozen or more sourgas wells within a one-mile radius ofthe sweeteningplant.


### 5feet from the sweeteningplant, with others located a mile ormore away.22 Summit argues that because the gas wells and associated flares are separated from the sweeteningplant "by a considerable distance and intervening properties,"these emissions sources "areneither 'contiguous' nor 'adjacent' and they do not fit the 'common sense notion' ofa plant.,,23 According to a schematic provided by Summit ofits sweetening plant operations, the natural gas wells from Summit's three fields are connected to the gas sweetening plant through a "collection system.,,24 Further, flares are spread throughout the 3 well fields between the wells and the collection system.25 Finally, the sweet gas wells "areplumbed to the collection system to retrieve the natural gas for sales and fuel.,,26 The natural gas wells and flares that are connected to the sweetening plant togetherproduce a single product: "gas sales.,,27 Summit has not presented any evidence to showthat the "far flung well sites"from the three fields do not provide product to the sweetening plant orthat they do orcanprovide product to any otherprocessingplants. Nordoes Summitprovide any information showing that the well sites themselves are owned by any other entity than Summit. In fact, the informationprovided by Summit shows that the sour gas wells are truly interdependent onthe sweeteningplant

- the wells provide all their sour gas to the sweetening plant, the sour gas cannot flow anywhere else, and Summitowns and operates the sweeteningplant and well sites.2s Accordingly, onthe basis ofthe information Summithas submitted through April 2010, EPAconcludes that these emissions sources are adjacent given the particularfacts Summit has presented about the interdependent nature ofits natural gas production facilities, Summit's sour gas flares, natural gas wells and associated equipment, and the sweeteningplant. Accordingly, they should not be considered separate emissions sources. 29

22 Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. 23 Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. "Letterrrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 2 (Document 30) (stating that Figure I, an attachment to the letter, consists of "amap ofthe inrrastructure (collection system) thatgathers sourgas rrom three (3) fields, all located within Isabella County, Michigan. The three fields are designated as the Wise Oil Field, the Rosebush Oil Field, and the Leaton Oil Field."). See also Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18, 2008, at Figure I (Document 30). " Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 20I0, at 3. 26 Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 3 (Document 30). See also Letterrrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Figure 3 (Document 30) ("Rosebush Plant Flow Diagram"). 27 Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Figure 3 (Document 30) ("Rosebush Plant Flow Diagram"). 28 See Letter rrom Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, January 18,200[6], at I (Document 20). 29 We note that a state permitting authority has reached a similarconclusion interpreting identical language. The routing ofthe gas to Summit's sweetening plant is similarto the routing ofcrude oil, water and hydrocarbon gases to the production centerdiscussed in the October22, 2003 Statement ofBasis for a Title V permit issued to BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., in which the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) considered adjacency ofa processing plant and production wells, which fed directly to that plant under the common sense notion ofa plant. In the Statement ofBasis, ADEC explained that, "[d]ue to the nature ofthe oil and gasextraction business, stationary sources must be scattered across the resource area .... The hub and spoke production model develops naturally rrom the logistics ofthe business." In that analysis, ADEC found that, because thewells and the central production centercould not exist without each other, they constituted a single production plant. Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Statement ofBasis ofTerms and Conditions for PermitNo. AQI068TVP02: BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Grind and Inject Facility, Oct. 22, 2003, at 5. Seealso EPA Region 10, Permitting of Forest Oi/'s Kustatan Production Facility andOspreyPlatform Pursuant to theAlaskaSIP,



### 6

### 3. Theactivities belong to the sameindustrial grouping. The third factor which EPA analyzes in making a determination as to whether to aggregate emissions sources into a single source for permitting is whetherthe activities belong to the same industrial grouping.3o
Crude petroleum and natural gas production "upto the point ofshipment for the producing property," is covered by SIC Code 1311. Michigan Department ofNatural Resources and Environment (MDNRE, previously Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality), had assigned SIC \311 to "Summit Petroleum's sweetening plant and production sites.,,3l In an April 26, 2007, letter from PamelaBlakleyto Scott Huber, Summit Petroleum, stated, "[i]nformation we have obtained from MDEQ indicates that SummitPetroleum's plant and wells belong to the same single majorindustrial grouping (SIC \311).,,32 In a conference call held between EPA and Summit officials onJune 17,2009,the parties "agreedthatthe emissionunits are under common control and belong to a single major industrial grouping code.,,33 Summit has not disputed that its production facilities and sweeteningplant share the same SIC code. 

### Conclusion EPA examined the information that Summit provided in April 2008, preliminarily concluding "[i]nthis case, the production wells supply the gas to the gas sweeteningplant located within the same oil field; therefore we believe that the sites do meet the common sense notion ofa plant.,,34 Nothing in the supplemental information Summitprovided in April 20I0, alters EPA's original conclusion ofSeptember 8, 2009, that the operations ofSummit's sweetening plant, flares, wells and associated equipment located in the Wise, Rosebush, and Leaton fields are linked together by common ownership, share industrial classification, and are adjacent given the commonpurpose ofproducing saleable, sweetnatural gas, and thus shouldbe considered a single source. Consistentwith the McCarthy Memorandum and EPA's other existing guidance on stationary source determinations, this decision has been made ona case-bycase basis considering the facts specific to this permitting scenario. Thus, neitherthe final determination northe specific facts considered are binding onother source determinations for pollutant-emitting activities with different fact specific circumstances. Accordingly, Summitmust obtain a permit from EPAunder40 C.F.R. Part 71. As required by the requirements 01'40 C.F.R. 

### §7I.S(l)(i), please submit a complete permit

August 21, 2001 (finding that two emissions points involved in shoal production and separated by almost 3 miles should be considered one source, in part, because their operations were "exclusivelydependent" on one another). 30 See40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(6) (2009); 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,694-95 (Aug. 7, 1980). 31 Email from Mark Reed, MDNRE, to Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, March 1,2007(Document47). See also Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call with Mark Reed, April 20, 2006 (Document 24); Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call with Mark Reed, March 1,2007(Document 27); Summit Petroleum Facility Registry System Facility Detail Report, undated, (Document40). 32 Letter from Pamela Blakley to Scott Huber, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document 28). See also Letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document 29). " Email from Laura Cossa to J. Scott Huber and others, "Conference Call Summary," June 17,2009 (Document 59). 34 Letter from Pamela Blakleyto Gina Bozzer, April 16,2009, at 3 (Document 34).

7application to Region 5 no laterthan April IS, 20II. This deadlinereinstates the 6 Y2 months that remained at the time ofthe February 23, 2010, stay in the original I-yearperiod which EPA provided inthe September 8, 2009, letter for you to submit yourTitle V application. Thankyoufor the opportunity to work together on these issues. Ifyou have any further questions please feel free to contact me.



# - 

# 2nerylL. 

### e on 

# G**?ire~ tb** **r ._** **Ai d**  Radiation Division

cc: via electronic mail: GinaBozzer.gabozzer@zimmerman-kuhn.com S. Lee Johnson, SLJohnson@honigman.com

8