1

June 10, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Room 3000 

Ariel Rios Federal Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Petition for Immediate Administrative Stay and Reconsideration of 

Final Rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing. 75 Fed. 

Reg. 522 (2010). Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), National Chicken Council (NCC), 

National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), National Turkey Federation (NTF) and 

the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) are industry trade associations 

whose member companies operate nearly all major feed mills in the United States. These 

organizations (Petitioners) respectfully petition the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for an immediate administrative stay and reconsideration of the January 5, 

2010 final rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Feed Mill Rule). 75 Fed. Reg. 522 (2010). 

In the final rule, EPA set a 95 percent design efficiency standard for particulate matter 

(PM) and provided a certification process to demonstrate compliance with the standard. 

Absent a reconsideration of the rule, the Petitioners’ members will suffer irreparable 

harm because facilities cannot reasonably demonstrate compliance with this inaccurate 

and inappropriate standard.
2

As demonstrated below, EPA has ample authority and justification to grant an 

administrative stay and reconsideration of the feed mill rule pursuant to Section 307 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §7607, and Section 705 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 705. Furthermore, such action is required to impart 

justice and to prevent irreparable harm.

I. INTRODUCTION

The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) is the national trade association for

the feed industry representing nearly 600 member companies. AFIA members 

manufacture 75 percent of the feed and pet food sold annually in the U.S., and 

membership includes manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, animal health companies, 

equipment manufacturers, large integrated livestock and poultry producers, international 

firms and firms providing other goods and services to the animal food industry.

The National Chicken Council (NCC) is a nonprofit member organization representing 

companies that produce and process over 90 percent of the broiler/fryer chickens 

marketed in the United States. NCC serves as an advocate on behalf of its members with 

regard to the development and implementation of federal and state programs and 

regulations that affect the chicken industry. 

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), established in 1896, consists of 

more than 1,050 grain, feed, processing, exporting and other grain-related companies that 

operate more than 7,000 facilities nationwide. Its membership includes over 350 

companies that are directly involved in feed and feed ingredient manufacturing 

operations.

The National Turkey Federation (NTF) is the national advocate for all segments of the 

turkey industry. NTF provides services and conducts activities which increase demand 

for its members’ products by protecting and enhancing their ability to profitably provide 

wholesome, high-quality, nutritious products. 
3

The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) is the world’s largest poultry 

organization, whose membership includes producers of broilers, turkeys, ducks, eggs and 

breeding stock, as well as allied companies. The Association focuses on research, 

education and technical services, as well as communications to keep members of the 

poultry industry current on important issues.

II. EPA HAS AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER AND STAY FINAL RULE

A. EPA’s Authority to Reconsider Final Rule

Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, EPA is authorized to reconsider a rule 

where it was impracticable to raise an objection during the public comment or if the 

grounds of such objection arose after the public comment period, and if such objection is 

of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Given the fact that EPA explicitly stated 

that existing control technology provided sufficient and effective hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emission control, Petitioners had no opportunity to comment on the unforeseen 

impacts of the regulation when EPA’s flawed 95 percent design efficiency certification 

provisions could not be implemented.

EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions for facilities to 

demonstrate compliance based on incomplete and inaccurate data from only a limited 

number of control equipment suppliers that focused primarily on new (or newer) units. 

In addition, EPA neither included in the rulemaking docket nor considered in rulemaking 

deliberations its own air pollution technology fact sheet on the efficiency ranges of 

cyclones. The Agency’s fact sheet, which was discovered after publication of the final 

rule, is attached as Appendix I. Specifically, the fact sheet reported typical design 

efficiency ranges for cyclones that were well below 95 percent. EPA’s failure to consider 

this critical information is of central importance to the outcome of the rule because it 

proved to be a fatal flaw in the Agency’s primary regulatory assumption that facilities 
4

with existing cyclones could easily demonstrate compliance with the design efficiency 

certification provisions.

This unintended result, i.e., facilities that are unable to certify compliance with the 95 

percent design efficiency standard, forces facilities to install new cyclones in order to 

demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirements of the rule. This is in direct 

contradiction of EPA’s assumption and primary basis for the rule that facilities did not 

need to replace cyclones to reduce HAP emissions effectively. EPA needs to revise the 

requirements for demonstrating compliance with the rule or substantially amend its

economic impact analysis, particularly with respect to small business impacts. 

Accordingly and as discussed below, reconsideration of the feed mill rule pursuant to 

section 307(d) of the CAA is appropriate.

B. EPA’s Authority to Issue a Stay of the Final Rule

The Petitioners also request a stay of the feed mill rule pending the reconsideration of the 

rule pursuant to section 307 of the CAA and section 705 of the APA. A stay of the rule is 

necessary because facilities face a January 5, 2012 deadline to demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable regulatory requirements. Unable to demonstrate compliance through 

the design efficiency certification provisions (as EPA had assumed), facilities forced to 

install new cyclones would not be able to purchase, finance, permit and install them by 

January 2012, even assuming that it would be technically and economically feasible to 

do so.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA allows EPA to grant a stay for three months, if the 

Agency decides to reconsider a rule. No other criteria or conditions are imposed on the 

Agency’s authority to issue a stay. Pursuant to section 705 of the APA, EPA may stay 

the effective date “when justice so requires.” As discussed below, the unintended 

impacts of the feed mill rule warrant a reconsideration and stay of the rule consistent with 

the statutory requirements of both the CAA and the APA.
5

III. RECONSIDERATION FOR THE FINAL RULE IS WARRANTED

EPA must reconsider the final feed mill rule because the basic assumptions underlying 

the rule are flawed. For the reasons discussed below, it was impractical to raise 

objections regarding the substantial and unintended impacts of the rule during the public 

comment period and these objections are of central importance to the outcome of the rule.

A. EPA Explicitly Stated that Existing Control Technology Is Sufficient

In promulgating the final rule, EPA assumed and explicitly stated that the existing control 

technology, i.e., cyclones, provided sufficient and effective HAP emissions control. In 

fact, EPA estimated that the requirement to install cyclones on pelleting processes at the 

facilities with average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tons per day will result 

in emission reductions of approximately 1,100 tons per year for PM, 20 tons per year for 

manganese, and less than one ton per year for chromium. 75 Fed. Reg. 522, 544 (2010). 

It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that EPA expected that these modest 

reductions would be from only a few facilities that installed cyclones with a 95 percent 

design efficiency.

EPA specifically stated in the preamble to the final rule that it:

[c]ontacted additional cyclone manufacturers after proposal, and some agreed 

with the commenters that cyclones designed to achieve 95 percent efficiency level 

for PM10 for pelleting operations are not available. All of those contacted 

indicated that many older cyclones still being used in the industry would not meet 

the proposed 95 percent PM 10 design requirement. It was not our intent to force 

prepared feeds manufacturers to replace older, well designed and properly 

operating cyclones with new high efficiency cyclones, particularly since the 

incremental emission reduction would be very low and the costs would be high 

(our estimates are that the capital cost of a new cyclone is between $50,000 to 

$100,000). [Emphasis added.] 75 Fed. Reg. at 533.
6

EPA also assumed that less than two percent of the small businesses impacted by the rule 

would potentially need to install new cyclones under the regulation. 75 Fed. Reg. at 544.

Based on these fundamental assumptions, EPA did not anticipate that many facilities 

subject to the rule would have to replace control equipment or implement any new 

management practices. Specifically, EPA stated that:

[w]e believe all prepared feed manufacturing facilities already implement the 

proposed management practices. Therefore, there will be no additional costs for 

these measures. We estimate that the nationwide capital costs for the installation 

of cyclones on the pelleting cooling operations at large facilities will be around 

$2.5 million. The associated annual costs are estimated to be just over $3 

million/year. 75 Fed. Reg. at 544.

It is clear that EPA based its technical and economic impact analysis of the final rule on 

the fundamental assumption that existing controls and management practices were 

sufficient to reduce HAP emissions effectively and that the vast majority of facilities 

subject to the rule would not have to install new cyclones or implement new management 

practices.

B. Compliance Was Based on Performance of Existing Control Measures

EPA incorrectly chose to use a design efficiency standard for cyclones even though the 

actual basis for its regulatory analysis was the performance of existing control measures. 

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA specifically stated that:

[f]or all new and existing sources, compliance with the final regulation is 

demonstrated through installation of the required equipment, adherence to the 

management practices specified in the rule, and keeping the required records and 

submitting the required notifications and reports described below. To ensure that the 

cyclone for the pelleting and pellet cooling process is operated properly at facilities 

with average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that 

the cyclone be inspected quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that 

may result in air in-leakage, and that the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, 

or fan amperage be monitored and recorded daily to ensure that it is being operated in 

accordance with specified proper operating ranges. 75 Fed. Reg. at 525.
7

The actual performance of existing control measures provides the desired environmental 

benefit of the final rule, and not the theoretical design efficiency standard that EPA 

identified to demonstrate compliance.

C. Problems Associated with EPA’s 95 Percent Design Efficiency 

Framework

As a measure to demonstrate the performance of existing control measures discussed 

above, EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions for 

facilities to demonstrate compliance. EPA’s 95 percent design efficiency certification

was based on a selected set of incomplete data from only a few suppliers that focused 

primarily on new units. Information in the rulemaking record indicates that the initial 95 

percent design efficiency requirement for cyclones in the proposed rule was based on an 

internet search and marketing materials posted on the website of two equipment suppliers 

located in the United Kingdom that pertained to high efficiency cyclones. 

In response to comments submitted by petitioners, NGFA and AFIA, EPA contacted one 

of these companies as well as two other equipment suppliers that sell cyclones to the 

prepared feed manufacturing operations. All three companies that responded indicated 

that cyclones could not achieve 95 percent efficiency for PM10 (even high efficiency 

cyclones). Two of the companies also indicated that consistently achieving 95 percent 

efficiency for PM was unlikely due to a number of variables such as particle size, specific 

gravity, heat and moisture content of the particles.

Based on this information, EPA replaced the proposed 95 percent design efficiency 

standard for PM10 with a 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM in the final rule. 

This change indicated that EPA recognized the problem with the design efficiency 

standard, but did not fully comprehend the appropriate solution. Furthermore, in the 

proposed rule, EPA did not articulate that a design efficiency standard for PM was a 

regulatory option under consideration. 
8

It does not necessarily follow that a 95 percent design efficiency standard is achievable 

for PM. Having concluded that 95 percent efficiency is not achievable for PM10, EPA 

should have requested comments on whether the standard for PM was achievable. 

Accordingly, EPA did not provide the Petitioners a meaningful opportunity to comment 

on the 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM that was included in the final rule.

D. EPA Failed to Consider its Own Technology Fact Sheet for Cyclones

Following the issuance of the final rule, Petitioners discovered via an Internet search a 

previously released EPA air pollution technology fact sheet for cyclones that had not 

been part of EPA’s rulemaking docket. The EPA fact sheet provides a detailed 

description of the operation and performance of conventional and high efficiency 

cyclones. In the fact sheet, EPA specifically stated that:

[t]he collection efficiency of cyclones varies as a function of particle size and 

cyclone design. Cyclone efficiency generally increases with (1) particle size 

and/or density, (2) inlet duct velocity, (3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas 

revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of cyclone body diameter to gas exit diameter, 

(6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of the cyclone inner wall. Cyclone 

efficiency will decrease with increases in (1) gas velocity, (2) body diameter, (3) 

gas exit diameter, (4) gas inlet duct area, and (5) gas density. A common factor 

contributing to decreased control efficiencies in cyclones is leakage of air into the 

dust outlet.

In the fact sheet, EPA also reported the following control efficiency ranges for 

conventional and high efficiency cyclones.

 Conventional Cyclones

o 70 to 90 percent for PM

o 30 to 90 percent for PM10

o 0 to 40 percent for PM2.5

 High Efficiency Cyclones

o 80 to 99 percent for PM

o 60 to 95 percent for PM10

o 20 to 70 percent for PM2.5
9

Based on this information, it is clear that a 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM 

is not appropriate for conventional or high efficiency cyclones. In fact, EPA stated in the 

fact sheet that “[c]yclone design is generally driven by a specified pressure-drop 

limitation, rather than by meeting a specified control efficiency.” This suggests that due 

to the many variables associated with control efficiency for cyclones, design efficiency 

would not appear to be an appropriate regulatory standard.

EPA did not include in the rulemaking docket or consider as part of the rulemaking 

process its own air pollution technology fact sheet regarding the achievable efficiency 

ranges for cyclones in setting the design efficiency standard in the final rule. Not only 

does EPA’s 95 percent design efficiency standard exceed the reported ranges, but control 

efficiency also does not appear to be an appropriate criterion for a regulatory standard. 

This information presented in EPA’s fact sheet demonstrates that the 95 percent design 

efficiency standard in the final rule is unreasonable and inappropriate, and should be 

reconsidered by EPA.

E. Implementation of the Design Efficiency Certification Is Problematic

When EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency standard into the final feed mill 

rule, it assumed that facilities could easily certify compliance with this requirement. As 

discussed above, the design efficiency framework is flawed. Consequently, following the 

promulgation of the final rule companies began to experience difficulties obtaining the 

mandated certification. Unable to demonstrate compliance through the certification 

process, facilities would inadvertently be forced to install new cyclones (in direct 

contradiction of EPA’s expressed intent for the rule) for the reasons discussed below.

For most facilities, manufacturers would not certify that existing cyclones would meet the 

95 percent design efficiency standard (although some manufacturers were willing to 

certify that new, or newer, cyclones would meet the 95 percent design efficiency 

standard). As a result, professional engineers (PEs) and responsible corporate officials 

had no credible basis to certify that existing cyclones meet the 95 percent design 
10

efficiency standard. These conclusions are supported by the discussion above that the 

control efficiency ranges for cyclones are below 95 percent.

For many of the same reasons discussed above regarding achievable control efficiencies, 

demonstrating compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard through 

performance testing is not a practical or cost effective method to determine compliance. 

First, based on the reported efficiency ranges for cyclones, it may be difficult, if not 

impossible, to demonstrate compliance through performance testing. Second, the costs 

associated with the sampling can be substantial (approximately $10,000 to $15,000 per 

system) and particularly burdensome to small businesses. While facilities can get 

modeled numbers for performance testing, the input values can be difficult and expensive 

to obtain as they may vary dramatically and change daily.

F. Without Reconsideration EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis Must Be 

Revised

EPA’s economic impact analysis for the final rule is inextricably linked to a “no new 

cyclone installation” assumption. If facilities are forced to install new cyclones to 

demonstrate compliance, the capital cost of the rule changes from EPA’s estimate of $2.5

million to orders of magnitude higher – a significant economic impact of approximately 

$200 million. These costs are based on EPA’s estimates and industry surveys regarding 

new cyclones.

If EPA does not revise the feed mill rule and the design efficiency certification 

provisions, the economic impact analysis must be corrected. With most facilities being 

forced to install new cyclones, EPA’s assumptions regarding the number of facilities that 

would have to install new cyclones, the estimated compliance costs, and the impacts on 

the industry (particularly small business) are erroneous and fatally flawed. Furthermore, 

substantially more than two percent of small businesses will be significantly impacted by 

the rule, thereby triggering the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
11

G. Reconsideration of the Feed Mill Rule Is Required

In summary, EPA’s reliance on the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions 

to demonstrate compliance is problematic because it: 

 is contrary to EPA’s assumptions and intent for the rule, 

 would create substantial and unnecessary compliance uncertainty for the vast 

majority of facilities that cannot secure the certification or otherwise demonstrate 

compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard, and 

 presents significant compliance certainty challenges for industry and 

enforceability challenges for EPA regarding the standard. 

The focus of the rule is on the performance of the existing control technology and 

management practices to reduce HAP emissions below baseline levels. The compliance 

certification mechanism in the final rule is, however, disconnected from reported control 

efficiencies for cyclones and EPA’s own analysis and explicitly stated intent (i.e., that 

generally available technology is sufficient to meet the objectives of the rule).

Accordingly, EPA needs to revise the rule by eliminating the arbitrary design efficiency 

certification standard and clarify the agency’s intent that the regulation is based on 

optimizing existing control technology (i.e., cyclones). This can be achieved through the 

implementation of a broad range of existing best management practices (BMPs), as 

practicable, to ensure that new and existing cyclones continue to be operated and 

maintained appropriately to control HAP emissions effectively -- an approach that EPA 

has used in promulgating several other area source NESHAP rules.

IV. AN IMMEDIATE STAY IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE

EPA has ample authority to grant a stay pending reconsideration of the feed mill rule

under both section 307 of the CAA and section 705 of the APA. Under CAA Section 

307(d)(7)(B), EPA may grant a stay for three months if the Agency has decided to 
12

reconsider a rule. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(7)(B). No other criteria or conditions are imposed 

on the Agency’s authority to issue a stay. Under APA section 705, EPA may stay the 

effective date of a rule “when justice so requires.” 5 U.S.C. § 705.

Under Section 705, EPA may grant a stay “[r]egardless of whether [the stay request] 

meet[s] the requirements of Section 307(d)(7)(B).” See Ohio: Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans, 46 Fed. Reg. at 8582 n.1. Moreover, a stay under Section 705 

may be of unlimited duration. In fact, EPA has regularly used this authority to postpone 

the effective date of a rule indefinitely. See, e.g., Reconsideration of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review NSR: Aggregation, 75 

Fed. Reg. 27643 (May 18, 2010); Final Rule, Amendments of Final Rule to Postpone 

Requirements, 61 Fed. Reg. 28508 (June 5, 1996) (staying rules to prevent facilities from 

incurring “compliance expenditures . . . which may prove unnecessary in light of the

projected amendments”); Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Hazardous Waste; Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial 

Furnaces, 56 Fed. Reg. 42874 (Sept. 5, 1991). Thus, the APA provides ample authority 

for EPA to stay the feed mill rule.

As demonstrated below, EPA has ample authority and justification to grant an 

administrative stay under section 705 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 705, pending judicial 

review, and such an administrative stay is required to impart justice and to prevent 

irreparable harm.

Justice requires a stay of the feed mill rule because the means for demonstrating 

compliance with the rule, i.e., the 95 percent design efficiency standard, cannot be 

reasonably implemented. Based on the information provided above, the design efficiency 

standard is not achievable by most facilities. In addition, EPA did not provide facilities 

with any reasonable alternatives to demonstrate compliance. As a result, facilities are 

now faced with substantial uncertainty regarding regulatory compliance with the final 

rule.
13

As an alternative, facilities would be forced to install new cyclones to demonstrate 

compliance with the rule. Such a result is contrary to EPA’s fundamental basis and 

explicit intent for the rule. Furthermore, even if facilities decide to install new cyclones, 

they would not be able to purchase, finance, permit and install the units by the January 

2012 compliance deadline. Accordingly, a stay is required to impart justice and to 

prevent irreparable harm to the Petitioners’ members.

V. A STAY IS WARRANTED EVEN UNDER MORE STRINGENT 

JUDICIAL STANDARD

While a stay is warranted under the APA, it would also be justified even under the more 

stringent standard employed by the courts. Courts typically consider four factors in 

determining whether to grant a judicial stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a 

strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be 

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure 

the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken 

v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761(2009). These factors must be balanced against one 

another, such that “[a] stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and 

some injury, or vice versa.” Cuomo v. US Nuclear Reg. Com’n, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985). All four factors are amply satisfied in this case.

A. Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits

As discussed above, EPA has promulgated a final rule that includes a 95 percent design 

efficiency certification provision for cyclones that is based on incomplete, inaccurate, and 

flawed data. In addition, the standard is inconsistent with EPA’s own air pollution 

technology fact sheet on achievable control efficiencies for cyclones. Finally, EPA failed 

to provide Petitioners with an opportunity to comment on the final 95 percent design 

efficiency standard for PM. Because of these procedural and substantive errors, facilities 

are unable to demonstrate compliance with the final rule as EPA had intended. Thus, the 

rule cannot be justified appropriately.
14

EPA’s economic impact analysis in the final rule was based on the assumption that 

facilities would not have to replace cyclones. Even though EPA assumed that existing 

control technology and management practices were sufficient to continue to control HAP 

emissions effectively from impacted facilities, most of these facilities are forced to install 

new cyclones to demonstrate compliance. Consequently, EPA’s economic impact 

analysis failed to include these substantial additional costs and assess the significant 

impacts on a substantial number of small businesses in violation of the RFA.

Based on these critical procedural and substantive errors in the rulemaking, the 

Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits in this case.

B. Stay Is Required to Avoid Irreparable Harm

Petitioners have asked for reconsideration of the final feed mill rule. Absent a stay 

pending reconsideration, Petitioners’ members will suffer irreparable harm. First, 

Petitioners’ members will face regulatory uncertainty and potential legal risks associated 

with their existing cyclones. Second, Petitioners’ members may have to install new 

cyclones at a significant cost, if at all possible, to demonstrate compliance with the final 

rule. Third, Petitioners’ members may be forced to cease its prepared feed manufacturing 

operations and incur severe financial damage to their businesses.

EPA estimated that capital costs for a new cyclone range from approximately $45,000 to 

$95,000, with estimated annualized costs ranging from $60,000 to $120,000. Even with 

these additional costs, facilities may still not be able to demonstrate compliance with the 

95 percent design efficiency standard for PM based on the reported control efficiency 

ranges in EPA’s air pollution technology fact sheet for cyclones.

Both the difficulty of demonstrating compliance by January 2012, and the additional

costs imposed on members companies constitute irreparable harm. Irreparable injury is 

injury for which a party will not be adequately compensated through money damages or 
15

other corrective relief if ultimately successful on the merits. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers 

Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Economic losses 

unrecoverable from an immune federal agency and losses threatening a company’s 

viability both constitute irreparable harm. See Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. FDA, 680 F. 

Supp. 2d 62, 76–77, n.19 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, No. 10-

5032, 2010 WL 4942132, at *7 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) (upholding the district court’s 

finding of irreparable loss as “entirely reasonable”); see also Cal. Pharms. v. MaxwellJolly, 563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2009); Kan. Health Care Ass’n v. Kan. Dep’t of Soc., 

31 F.3d 1536, 1543 (10th Cir. 1994).

Based on the severe impacts the final rule will have on Petitioners’ members and the 

significant regulatory and enforcement uncertainty associated with the rule, a stay is 

warranted to avoid irreparable harm.

C. Stay Will Not Harm Any Other Party

EPA has indicated that the existing control technology and current implementation of 

management practices are sufficient to control HAP emissions effectively, thereby fully 

protecting human health and the environment. Accordingly, a stay of the final rule will 

not cause harm to any other party.

D. The Public Interest Requires a Stay

Based on the substantive and procedural errors in EPA’s rulemaking process, the 

irreparable harm to Petitioners’ members if a stay is not granted, and the lack of harm to 

any other party if a stay is granted, the public interest requires a stay of the final rule.

VI. CONCLUSION

As demonstrated above, EPA must reconsider the final feed mill rule so that the 

unreasonable and inappropriate design efficiency certification provisions can be replaced 
16

by BMPs that will ensure the continued and effective reduction of HAP emissions from 

prepared feed manufacturing operations. In addition, EPA must stay the applicability and 

effective date of the final feed mill rule pending reconsideration.

On behalf of the Petitioners, thank you for your consideration of this petition and we look

forward to working with you on this request. If you have any questions, please contact

Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or 202-257-0250, or Jeff Hannapel at 

jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or 202-257-3756.

Respectfully submitted, 

Christian Richter

The Policy Group

On Behalf of the Petitioners

American Feed Industry Association (AFIA)

National Chicken Council (NCC)

National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)

National Turkey Federation (NTF) 

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY)

ATTACHMENT

Cc: Gina McCarthy

Janet McCabe

Edward Messina

Scott Throwe

Gretchen Graves

Wendy Blake

Gregory Green

Chebryll Edwards
Appendix 1
Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheet

EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 1

1. Name of Technology: Cyclones

 This type of technology is a part of the group of air pollution controls collectively referred to

as “precleaners,” because they are oftentimes used to reduce the inlet loading of particulate matter

(PM) to downstream collection devices by removing larger, abrasive particles. Cyclones are also

referred to as cyclone collectors, cyclone separators, centrifugal separators, and inertial

separators. In applications where many small cyclones are operating in parallel, the entire system

is called a multiple tube cyclone, multicyclone, or multiclone.

2. Type of Technology: 

Removal of PM by centrifugal and inertial forces, induced by forcing particulate-laden gas to

change direction.

3. Applicable Pollutants:

Cyclones are used to control PM, and primarily PM greater than 10 micrometers (Fm) in

aerodynamic diameter. However, there are high efficiency cyclones designed to be effective for

PM less than or equal to 10 Fm and less than or equal to 2.5 Fm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10

and PM2.5). Although cyclones may be used to collect particles larger than 200 Fm, gravity

settling chambers or simple momentum separators are usually satisfactory and less subject to

abrasion (Wark, 1981; Perry, 1984).

4. Achievable Emission Limits/Reductions:

The collection efficiency of cyclones varies as a function of particle size and cyclone design. 

Cyclone efficiency generally increases with (1) particle size and/or density, (2) inlet duct velocity,

(3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of cyclone body

diameter to gas exit diameter, (6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of the cyclone inner wall. 

Cyclone efficiency will decrease with increases in (1) gas viscosity, (2) body diameter, (3) gas exit

diameter, (4) gas inlet duct area, and (5) gas density. A common factor contributing to decreased

control efficiencies in cyclones is leakage of air into the dust outlet (EPA, 1998). 

Control efficiency ranges for single cyclones are often based on three classifications of

cyclone, i.e., conventional, high-efficiency, and high-throughput. The control efficiency range for

conventional single cyclones is estimated to be 70 to 90 percent for PM, 30 to 90 percent for

PM10, and 0 to 40 percent for PM2.5.

High efficiency single cyclones are designed to achieve higher control of smaller particles

than conventional cyclones. According to Cooper (1994), high efficiency single cyclones can
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 2

remove 5 Fm particles at up to 90 percent efficiency, with higher efficiencies achievable for larger

particles. The control efficiency ranges for high efficiency single cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for

PM, 60 to 95 percent for PM10, and 20 to 70 percent for PM2.5. Higher efficiency cyclones come

with higher pressure drops, which require higher energy costs to move the waste gas through the

cyclone. Cyclone design is generally driven by a specified pressure-drop limitation, rather than by

meeting a specified control efficiency (Andriola, 1999; Perry, 1994).

According to Vatavuk (1990), high throughput cyclones are only guaranteed to remove

particles greater than 20 Fm, although collection of smaller particles does occur to some extent. 

The control efficiency ranges for high-throughput cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for PM, 10 to 40

percent for PM10, and 0 to 10 percent for PM2.5. Multicyclones are reported to achieve from 80

to 95 percent collection efficiency for 5 Fm particles (EPA, 1998).

5. Applicable Source Type: Point

6. Typical Industrial Applications:

Cyclones are designed for many applications. Cyclones themselves are generally not

adequate to meet stringent air pollution regulations, but they serve an important purpose as

precleaners for more expensive final control devices such as fabric filters or electrostatic

precipitators (ESPs). In addition to use for pollution control work, cyclones are used in many

process applications, for example, they are used for recovering and recycling food products and

process materials such as catalysts (Cooper, 1994).

Cyclones are used extensively after spray drying operations in the food and chemical

industries, and after crushing, grinding and calcining operations in the mineral and chemical

industries to collect salable or useful material. In the ferrous and nonferrous metallurgical

industries, cyclones are often used as a first stage in the control of PM emissions from sinter

plants, roasters, kilns, and furnaces. PM from the fluid-cracking process are removed by cyclones

to facilitate catalyst recycling. Fossil-fuel and wood-waste fired industrial and commercial fuel

combustion units commonly use multiple cyclones (generally upstream of a wet scrubber, ESP, or

fabric filter) which collect fine PM (< 2.5 Fm) with greater efficiency than a single cyclone. In

some cases, collected fly ash is reinjected into the combustion unit to improve PM control

efficiency (AWMA, 1992; Avallone, 1996; STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996; EPA, 1998).

7. Emission Stream Characteristics:

a. Air Flow: Typical gas flow rates for a single cyclone unit are 0.5 to 12 standard cubic

meters per second (sm3

/sec) (1,060 to 25,400 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)). 

Flows at the high end of this range and higher (up to approximately 50 sm3/sec or

106,000 scfm) use multiple cyclones in parallel (Cooper, 1994). There are single

cyclone units employed for specialized applications which have flow rates of up to

approximately 30 sm3/sec (63,500 scfm) and as low as 0.0005 sm3/sec (1.1 scfm) (Wark,

1981; Andriola, 1999).
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 3

b. Temperature: Inlet gas temperatures are only limited by the materials of construction of

the cyclone, and have been operated at temperatures as high as 540EC (1000EF) (Wark,

1981; Perry, 1994).

c. Pollutant Loading: Waste gas pollutant loadings typically range from 2.3 to 230 grams

per standard cubic meter (g/sm3

) (1.0 to 100 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf))

(Wark, 1981). For specialized applications, loadings can be as high as 16,000 g/sm3

(7,000 gr/scf), and as low as l g/sm3 (0.44 gr/scf) (Avallone, 1996; Andriola, 1999).

d. Other Considerations: Cyclones perform more efficiently with higher pollutant

loadings, provided that the device does not become choked. Higher pollutant loadings

are generally associated with higher flow designs (Andriola, 1999).

8. Emission Stream Pretreatment Requirements:

No pretreatment is necessary for cyclones.

9. Cost Information:

The following are cost ranges (expressed in third quarter 1995 dollars) for a single

conventional cyclone under typical operating conditions, developed using an EPA cost-estimating

spreadsheet (EPA, 1996), and referenced to the volumetric flow rate of the waste stream treated. 

For purposes of calculating the example cost effectiveness, flow rates are assumed to be between

0.5 and 12 sm3/sec (1,060 and 25,400 scfm), the PM inlet loading is assumed to be approximately

2.3 and 230 g/sm3 (1.0 to 100 gr/scf) and the control efficiency is assumed to be 90 percent. The

costs do not include costs for disposal or transport of collected material. Capital costs can be

higher than in the ranges shown for applications which require expensive materials. As a rule,

smaller units controlling a waste stream with a low PM concentration will be more expensive (per

unit volumetric flow rate and per quantity of pollutant controlled) than a large unit controlling a

waste stream with a high PM concentration.

a. Capital Cost: $4,200 to $5,100 per sm3

/sec ($2.00 to $2.40 per scfm)

b. O & M Cost: $2,400 to $27,800 per sm3

/sec ($1.10 to $13.10 per scfm), annually

c. Annualized Cost: $2,800 to $28,300 per sm3

/sec ($1.30 to $13.40 per scfm), annually

d. Cost Effectiveness: $0.45 to $460 per metric ton ($0.41 to $420 per short ton),

annualized cost per ton per year of pollutant controlled

Flow rates higher than approximately 10 sm3

/sec (21,200 scfm), and up to approximately 50

sm3

/sec (106,000 scfm), usually employ multiple cyclones operating in parallel. Assuming the

same range of pollutant loading and an efficiency of 90 percent, the following cost ranges

(expressed in third quarter 1995 dollars) were developed for multiple cyclones, using an EPA

cost-estimating spreadsheet (EPA, 1996), and referenced to the volumetric flow rate of the waste

stream treated.
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 4

a. Capital Cost: $4,100 to $5,000 per sm3

/sec ($2.00 to $2.40 per scfm)

b. O & M Cost: $1,600 to $2,600 per sm3/sec ($0.75 to $1.20 per scfm), annually

c. Annualized Cost: $2,000 to $3,100 per sm3

/sec ($0.90 to $1.50 per scfm), annually

d. Cost Effectiveness: $0.32 to $50 per metric ton ($0.29 to $46 per short ton),

annualized cost per ton per year of pollutant controlled

10. Theory of Operation:

Cyclones use inertia to remove particles from the gas stream. The cyclone imparts centrifugal

force on the gas stream, usually within a conical shaped chamber. Cyclones operate by creating a

double vortex inside the cyclone body. The incoming gas is forced into circular motion down the

cyclone near the inner surface of the cyclone tube. At the bottom of the cyclone, the gas turns

and spirals up through the center of the tube and out of the top of the cyclone (AWMA, 1992).

Particles in the gas stream are forced toward the cyclone walls by the centrifugal force of the

spinning gas but are opposed by the fluid drag force of the gas traveling through and out of the

cyclone. For large particles, inertial momentum overcomes the fluid drag force so that the

particles reach the cyclone walls and are collected. For small particles, the fluid drag force

overwhelms the inertial momentum and causes these particles to leave the cyclone with the exiting

gas. Gravity also causes the larger particles that reach the cyclone walls to travel down into a

bottom hopper. While they rely on the same separation mechanism as momentum separators,

cyclones are more effective because they have a more complex gas flow pattern (AWMA, 1992). 

Cyclones are generally classified into four types, depending on how the gas stream is

introduced into the device and how the collected dust is discharged. The four types include

tangential inlet, axial discharge; axial inlet, axial discharge; tangential inlet, peripheral discharge;

and axial inlet, peripheral discharge. The first two types are the most common (AWMA, 1992). 

Pressure drop is an important parameter because it relates directly to operating costs and

control efficiency. Higher control efficiencies for a given cyclone can be obtained by higher inlet

velocities, but this also increases the pressure drop. In general, 18.3 meters per second (60 feet

per second) is considered the best operating velocity. Common ranges of pressure drops for

cyclones are 0.5 to 1 kilopascals (kPa) (2 to 4 in. H2O) for low-efficiency units (high throughput),

1 to 1.5 kPa (4 to 6 in. H2O) for medium-efficiency units (conventional), and 2 to 2.5 kPa (8 to 10

in. H2O) for high-efficiency units (AWMA, 1992). 

When high-efficiency (which requires small cyclone diameter) and large throughput are both

desired, a number of cyclones can be operated in parallel. In a multiple tube cyclone, the housing

contains a large number of tubes that have a common gas inlet and outlet in the chamber. The gas

enters the tubes through axial inlet vanes which impart a circular motion (AWMA, 1992). 

Another high-efficiency unit, the wet cyclonic separator, uses a combination of centrifugal force

and water spray to enhance control efficiency. 
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 5

11. Advantages/Pros:

Advantages of cyclones include (AWMA, 1992; Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998):

1. Low capital cost;

2. No moving parts, therefore, few maintenance requirements and low operating costs;

3. Relatively low pressure drop (2 to 6 inches water column), compared to amount of PM

removed;

4. Temperature and pressure limitations are only dependent on the materials of

construction;

5. Dry collection and disposal; and

6. Relatively small space requirements.

12. Disadvantages/Cons:

Disadvantages of cyclones include (AWMA, 1992; Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998):

1. Relatively low PM collection efficiencies, particularly for PM less than 10 μm in size; 

2. Unable to handle sticky or tacky materials; and

3. High efficiency units may experience high pressure drops.

13. Other Considerations:

Using multiple cyclones, either in parallel or in series, to treat a large volume of gas results in

higher efficiencies, but at the cost of a significant increase in pressure drop. Higher pressure

drops translate to higher energy usage and operating costs. Several designs should be considered

to achieve the optimum combination of collection efficiency and pressure drop (Cooper, 1994).

14. References:

Andriola, 1999. T. Andriola, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc., (502) 572-4000, personal communication

with Eric Albright, October 14, 1999.

Avallone, 1996. “Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,” edited by Eugene

Avallone and Theodore Baumeister, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1996.

AWMA, 1992. Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992. 

Cooper, 1994. David Cooper and F. Alley, Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, 2nd

Edition, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL, 1994.
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet

Cyclones 6

EPA, 1996. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “OAQPS Control Cost

Manual,” Fifth Edition, EPA 453/B-96-001, Research Triangle Park, NC February, 1996. 

EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Stationary Source Control

Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter,” EPA-452/R-97-001, Research Triangle Park,

NC, October, 1998.

Perry, 1984. “Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,” edited by Robert Perry and Don Green,

6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1984.

STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the

Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), “Controlling

Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options,” STAPPA/ALAPCO,

Washington, DC, July, 1996.

Vatavuk, 1990. W.M. Vatavuk, “Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control,” Lewis Publishers,

Chelsea, MI, 1990.

Wark, 1981. Kenneth Wark and Cecil Warner, “Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control,” Harper

Collins, New York, NY, 1981.