BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DETROIT JACKSONVILLE LOS ANGELES MADISON MIAMI MILWAUKEE NEW YORK ORLANDO SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO/DEL MAR SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY TALLAHASSEE TAMPA TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. June 24, 2010

V IA E-M AIL AND U.S. M AIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW

WASHINGTON HARBOUR 3000 K STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007-5109 202.672.5300 TEL 202.672.5399 FAX foley.com

WRITER'S DIRECT LINE 202.295.4021 rstoll@foley.com EMAIL

Mr. Mathy Stanislaus Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response U.S. EPA (5101T) Washington, DC 20460

Re: Document Relating to “Stigma” Missing from Rulemaking Docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640)

Dear Mr. Stanislaus:

I represent Lafarge North America Inc. in the “co-proposal” for coal combustion residuals (CCRs) published at 75 FR 35128, June 21, 2010. On behalf of Lafarge, I sent a letter on August 7, 2009, to then-ORCR Director Matthew Hale. I sent copies to Robert Sussman, Barry Breen, and

you.

We regarded this letter as quite important to Lafarge’s advocacy efforts. In that letter, we refuted in detail arguments made by public interest groups dismissing the “stigma” fears expressed by beneficial users of CCR. I enclose a copy of that August 7 letter (and attach it as a PDF in the version of this letter sent electronically).

In preparing for our written comments on the CCR co-proposal, we have just begun to review letters and comments filed by other pa rties in the “pre-proposal” stage on Regulations.gov . There are currently 380 documents listed in the docket referenced above.

Many letters from various parties are included in the docket that were written in the same time-frame of my letter to Mr. Hale , and there are many letters addr essed to Mr. Hale in the preproposal stage included in the docket. We have no ticed, however, that my letter of August 7 is not there (at least we have tried every logical se arch method we can think of, and cannot find it).

I should also note that several Lafarge personnel and I met with Mr. Hale and other ORCR personnel to discuss the upcoming CCR rulemaking in Crystal City on August 18, 2009. At that meeting, we left behind several copies of my August 7 letter. The docket includes the meetingFOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Mathy Stanislaus June 24, 2010 Page 2

attendance sheet for that meeting, as well as Lafarge’s PowerPoint slides utilized at the meeting, but this docket entry does not in clude my August 7 letter.

We are quite concerned about this omission, as it calls into question whether EPA personnel ever considered our refutation of public interest groups’ dismissal of the “stigma” problem as the EPA personnel were developing the co -proposal package. We trust that the enclosed August 7 letter will be considered by EPA personne l as they continue deliberation of the “stigma” issue in the upcoming rulemaking process, and we trust that you will now add that letter (along with this letter of today) to the docket.

We should stress in closing that we believe the points made in our Augu st 7 letter effectively refute the points EPA makes in its co-proposal at 75 FR 35186-87. In that passage, EPA gives several examples of recycled materials for which it says association with RCRA Subtitle C has not presented a “significant barrier” to reuse.

We believe our August 7 letter shows how exam ples like that are totally inapposite to the CCR reuse situation. This heightens our concern as to whether EPA personnel have ever considered our letter that apparently never made it to the docket.

Very truly yours,

Richard G. Stoll

cc (e-mail only): Suzanne M. Rudzinski Scott C. Fulton, Esquire Laurel Celeste, Esquire Cass R. Sunstein, Esquire