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 

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

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 parties 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 addressed to Mr. Hale in the preproposal stage included in the docket. We have noticed, however, that my letter of August 7 is not 

there (at least we have tried every logical search 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 meeting 
FOLEY & 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 include 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 personnel 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 August 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 examples 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