116th Metalcasting Congress Ú April 17-20, 2012 Ú Columbus, OH 

July 15, 2011 

EPA Docket Center 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code 6102T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Reconsideration of National Standards for Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators 

 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On behalf of the American Foundry Society (AFS), I hereby submit these comments on 

EPA’s May 18, 2011 reconsideration of National Standards for Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI). 75 Fed. Reg. 28662 (2011). 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide these comments on the reconsideration of the 

CISWI rule. If you have any questions or would like additional information about the 

comments, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with our AFS Washington 

office at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or 202-257-

3756. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jerry Call 

Executive Vice President 

AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY

publisher of MODERN CASTING and Metal Casting Design & Purchasing 

1695 N. Penny Lane Ú Schaumburg, IL 60173 

800/537-4237 Ú 847/824-0181 

Fax: 847/824-7848 Ú Website: www.afsinc.org

President 

H.W. Lodge 

Lodge Manufacturing Company 

 

Vice President

T.G. McMillin 

Fairmount Minerals Ltd. 

Second Vice President 

M.L. Selz 

Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co. 

Immediate Past President 

S.H. Reynolds 

Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Executive Vice President 

J. Call

Regional Vice Presidents

D.L. Ashbaugh 

United Western Supply Co. 

B.W. Dienst 

Simpson Technologies Corporation 

D.M. Drake 

American 

P. Gil 

Blackhawk de Mexico 

J.D. Simko 

Hodge Foundry, Inc. 

R. Smillie 

RWS Productivity & Consulting Services 

Directors

T. Brown 

Benton Foundry 

W.R. Carr 

Olson Aluminum Castings 

W. Chaput 

KC Consulting 

J. Cook 

Eagle Alloy, Inc. 

D.R. Cooper 

Fairmount Minerals, Ltd. 

J.M. Gartland, Jr. 

Atlas Foundry Company, Inc. 

W.R. Juergens 

TB Wood’s, Inc. 

M. May 

May Foundry and Machine Co. 

C. Norch 

Denison Industries 

T. Rhoads 

Corbitt Manufacturing 

R.E. Stewart 

Roberts Sinto Corporation 

B.T. Vecchiarelli 

Yankee Casting Co., Inc. 
The American Foundry Society 

Comments on the Reconsideration of Standards and Performance 

for New Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) 

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 

July 15, 2011 

The American Foundry Society (AFS) hereby submits these comments on the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reconsideration of Standards and Performance for New 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units (CISWI). In a May 18, 2011 Federal Register notice, EPA announced that it 

was delaying the effective date for the final CISWI rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 28662 (2011). The delay 

allows EPA to complete a reconsideration process for the CISWI rule. EPA requested additional 

data and information on issues that should be addressed as part of this reconsideration process. 

In the preamble to the March 21, 2011 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

That Are Solid Waste (NHSM) final rule, EPA for the first time asserted that the processing of 

foundry sand in a thermal sand reclamation unit is treatment of a solid waste and should be 

subject to CISWI standards. 76 Fed. Reg. 15456, 15519 (2011). In the comments provided 

below, AFS summarizes why the CISWI standards should not apply to thermal sand reclamation 

units. If after the review of the new information and the reconsideration of the rule EPA insists 

that the CISWI standards must apply to these units, then EPA should identify a separate 

subcategory for thermal sand reclamation units as part of the CISWI standards. 

I. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 

AFS is the major trade and technical association for the North American metalcasting industry. 

AFS has more than 7,000 members representing over 2,000 metalcasting firms, their suppliers 

and customers. Over one hundred AFS member facilities operate one or more thermal sand 

reclamation units that recondition and reuse foundry sand as part of the continuous industrial 

process. 
2 

The organization exists to provide knowledge and services that strengthen the metalcasting 

industry for the ultimate benefit of its customers and society. AFS seeks to advance the sciences 

related to the manufacture and utilization of metalcasting through research, education and 

dissemination of technology. AFS also provides leadership in government relations, marketing, 

management and human resources for the metalcasting industry. 

The practice of melting and casting metal into solid forms has served society’s needs for more 

than 5,000 years. Metal castings are the foundation for all other manufacturing, and metalcasters 

have been a vital building block for every nation’s economic wealth. Every sector relies on 

castings, 90 percent of all manufactured goods and capital equipment incorporate engineered 

castings into their makeup. The major industries supplied by metalcasting include agriculture, 

construction, mining, railroad, automotive, aerospace, communications, health care, defense and 

national security. 

The American metalcasting industry provides employment for over 200,000 men and women 

directly and supports thousands of other jobs indirectly. The industry supports a payroll of more 

than $8 billion and sales of more than $36 billion annually. Metalcasting plants are found in 

every state, and the industry is made up of predominately small businesses. Approximately 80 

percent of domestic metalcasters have fewer than 100 employees. 

II. THE BASIS FOR EPA’S DETERMINATION ON APPLICABILITY OF CISWI 

STANDARDS TO THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION UNITS IS FLAWED 

In developing the final March 21, 2011 CISWI rulemaking, EPA never considered or evaluated 

thermal sand reclamation units as being potentially subject to CISWI standards. As a result EPA 

did not conduct any technical or economic impact analysis for subjecting thermal sand 

reclamation units to CISWI standards. Despite the absence of any discussion of thermal sand 

reclamation units in the CISWI rulemaking process, it appears that these units were inadvertently
3 

subjected to CISWI standards based solely on EPA actions in a separate rulemaking process, i.e., 

the NHSM rule. 

Nowhere in the proposed NHSM rule did EPA suggest that thermal treatment of foundry sand 

constitutes waste disposal. In the preamble to the final NHSM Rule, EPA acknowledged that 

the foundry sand mechanically reclaimed and reused in the metalcasting process was not a solid 

waste, but nonetheless asserted that: 

[i]t 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 the section 129 CAA standards. 76 Fed. Reg. at 15519. 

EPA’s statement in the preamble of the NHSM is the first time that EPA has made a regulatory 

determination regarding foundry sand processed in thermal sand reclamation units. In addition, 

the overly broad application of solid waste provisions could potentially subject all thermal 

treatment of secondary materials to CISWI standards. Such interpretation is contrary to the 

provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), applicable case law, and 

existing Agency positions and policies on the topic. 

Consequently, the processing of foundry sand in thermal reclamation units is not treatment of 

solid waste, is not incineration, and should not be subject to CISWI standards. As part of its 

reconsideration of the CISWI standards, EPA should revise its determination and conclude that 

foundry sand processed in thermal reclamation units is not waste treatment and should not be 

subject to CISWI standards. Because EPA’s determination is simply preamble language and 

does not include any regulatory language, EPA could correct this problem by issuing guidance or 

clarification letter noting that thermal reclamation of foundry sand in not waste management and 

these units should not be subject to any CISWI standards. 
4 

III. EPA HAS MISCHARACTERIZED THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION 

In a typical thermal reclamation unit foundry sand is thermally treated by heating the sand in a 

fluidized bed at a temperature of between 1,200 and 1,500 degrees F. This heat oxidizes the 

organic compounds in the sand and also promotes the separation of clay coatings for some sands. 

The heat is typically supplied by natural gas burners located inside the reclamation unit. The 

exhaust gases are collected, often with heat recovery, and discharged into a baghouse. The 

purpose of this process is to allow reuse of foundry sand. The purpose is not to reduce the 

volume of the foundry sand, and no such reduction occurs. In fact, thermal reclamation can 

result in increases in the volume of foundry sand. 

In making its determination regarding the regulatory status of thermal sand reclamation units in 

preamble language, EPA has grossly mischaracterized foundry sand and the thermal sand 

reclamation process. First, foundry sand is the secondary material that is reused in the 

metalcasting process at the foundry and, thus, is never discarded. The sand is reused in the 

primary production process in a continuous basis in the sand loop in a foundry. 

The purpose of thermal sand reclamation is not “burning for discard” as EPA inappropriately 

asserts. In fact, the foundry sand is not burned at all, and no combustion ash is generated. The 

purpose of the thermal sand reclamation process is to adjust the physical structure of the sand to 

facilitate reuse in the metalcasting process to produce a higher quality casting. The thermal 

processing of the sand enhances and extends the reuse of the sand by removing impurities such 

as dust and excess binders. In many cases, the foundry sand could be reused for metalcasting 

without thermal reclamation, but it is thermally processed to allow a higher level of use needed 

to produce a higher quality casting. Reuse of the sand in the metalcasting process, and not 

destruction, is the purpose of thermal sand reclamation. 

By inappropriately focusing on a very small amount of constituents that are separated and 

removed from the secondary material, EPA has mischaracterized the purpose and nature of 

processing foundry sand in thermal reclamation units with significant and unnecessary negative 

consequences. Thermal sand reclamation is not much different from mechanical reclamation, 
5 

where EPA has determined that the sand is not a waste. In both instances the essential chemical 

composition of the sand is the same, and it is processed to allow reuse of the sand in the metal 

casting process. Consequently, foundry sand when reclaimed, either thermally or mechanically, 

is not a waste and the processing of the sand should not be subject to CISWI standards. 

 

IV. THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION PROCESS IS SUBSTANTIALLY 

DIFFERENT THAN INCINERATION 

Thermal sand reclamation is a significantly different process than incineration. As discussed 

above, the purpose of thermal sand reclamation is to reuse the sand in the metal casting process, 

and not destruction or discard of the secondary material. In fact the thermal processing of the 

sand does not decrease the volume of the sand. In many cases thermal sand reclamation 

increases the volume of the sand by expanding the sand grains (a preferred outcome that 

improves thermal stability, and thus facilitates tighter dimensional tolerances required in higher 

quality castings). 

Unlike typical incineration units, the feedstock for thermal sand reclamation units is more 

predictable with a relatively narrow range of constituents. Foundries know that material being 

processed in the thermal reclamation unit is primarily silica, with relatively small amounts of 

other constituents to be removed such as binders and dust that are largely removed mechanically. 

In addition, the residues from the thermal sand reclamation process are minimal – most is dust or 

particulate matter that is generally captured in baghouses or other control devices at the foundry. 

Most incinerator units include a combustion chamber and a secondary chamber or afterburner. 

Thermal sand reclamation units typically include a chamber with a fluidized bed where the sand 

is heated to a temperature necessary to separate and remove the dust and excess binders, and they 

do not employ an afterburner. 

In short, thermal sand reclamation units do not resemble incinerators in either form or function 

and should not be subject to CISWI standards. 
6 

V. THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION UNITS ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO 

REGULATORY CONTROLS 

Subjecting thermal sand reclamation units to the CISWI standards is unnecessary because these 

units are already subject to regulatory controls. Typically, thermal sand reclamation units are 

subject to federal, state, and/or local air permitting requirements. Emissions from these units are 

regulated as part of the foundry’s air operating permit and are controlled through the facility’s 

baghouse or other similar air emission control device. As a result, it is not necessary to impose 

CISWI standards on these units to control the minimal emissions that may be generated from the 

units. 

VI. THERMAL SAND RECLAMATION PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT 

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 

The thermal reclamation of foundry sand provides significant environmental benefits, in addition 

to producing a higher quality casting. Simply reclaiming and reusing foundry sand in the 

metalcasting process provides numerous environmental benefits. 

Thermal sand reclamation also allows for the prolonged use of foundry sand, so less virgin sand 

is needed at the foundry. This means that less sand needs to be mined. In addition, by allowing 

more reuse of the foundry sand in the metal casting process, less foundry sand needs to be 

disposed in landfills, thereby saving limited landfill space. As a result, when foundries buy less 

virgin sand and dispose less sand, the transportation of these materials is significantly reduced as 

well as the amount of fuel used and the potential emissions associated with the transportation. 

The savings associated with thermal sand reclamation can be substantial. One foundry indicates 

that with its thermal sand reclamation unit, it only needs to add new sand about once every three 

months. Without thermal sand reclamation, the facility would need to add new sand and dispose 

of sand approximately once a week. 
7 

In addition, the thermal sand reclamation process alters the physical structure of the sand so that 

less binder is generally needed for the metalcasting process. Using less binder results in lower 

emissions in other processes that may be associated with the binders and less transportation 

needed for deliveries of binders. 

EPA has estimated that the reuse of foundry sand can reduce the amount of greenhouse gas 

emissions generated and reduces the overall carbon footprint of the metalcasting industry. 

Thermal sand reclamation clearly makes sense from a production and product quality point of 

view, but also results in substantially direct and indirect environmental benefits and should, 

therefore, be encouraged rather than discouraged by unintended, unnecessary, and burdensome 

regulatory requirements. 

VII. THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SUBJECTING THERMAL SAND 

RECLAMATION UNITS TO CISWI STANDARDS IS SIGNIFICANT FOR THE 

METALCASTING INDUSTRY 

As noted above, approximately 100 facilities operate one or more thermal sand reclamation 

units. Recently, more foundries have installed or are planning to install thermal sand reclamation 

units to achieve the environmental and production benefits discussed above. The incentives for 

foundries using thermal sand reclamation units have been heightened because virgin foundry 

sand supplies are now being used for hydraulic fracturing in natural gas production. Apparently, 

the characteristics that make sands suitable for metalcasting are similar to those needed for 

hydraulic fracturing. As a result the demand for this sand has increased substantially and the 

cost has risen accordingly. Foundries faced with these increased costs are looking for processes 

that cannot only improve the quality of their castings, but also reduce operating costs. 

These additional costs can be substantial. As an example, one foundry that is currently using a 

thermal sand reclamation unit has estimated that its operating costs would increase by 

approximately $1,000,000 per year if it did not, or could not, operate the thermal reclamation 

unit. Such an increase in operating costs could be devastating for this facility because it has 
8 

annual revenues of only $7,000,000. The increased costs are based primarily on the need to 

purchase more sand at a higher price and pay for the cost of disposing of more sand. 

If foundries were required to meet CISWI standards for these units, they would be faced with 

substantial regulatory costs for permitting and performance testing as well as the installation of 

new control equipment. For example, the cost for typical add-on control equipment needed to 

meet these requirements would range from $1,000,000 to $2,500,000, depending on the size of 

the thermal sand reclamation unit. This dramatic increase in equipment cost does not include 

operational costs, which would increase by approximately 25 percent. Such compliance cost 

increases would make the operation of thermal sand reclamation units no longer cost effective or 

economically viable. In addition, the cost of permitting and emissions testing for these units 

could be approximately $60,000 to $100,000. 

As a result, the consequences of being subject to the CISWI standards are significant for a 

substantial number of foundries. Before imposing CISWI standards on thermal reclamation 

units, EPA must assess the actual suitability and potential technical and economic impacts of the 

CISWI rule on the metalcasting industry and facilities that operate thermal reclamation units. 

VIII. IF CISWI STANDARDS MUST BE APPLIED TO THERMAL SAND 

RECLAMATION UNITS, THEN EPA MUST DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE 

AND LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE RULE 

As discussed above, AFS does not believe that it appropriate to impose CISWI standards on 

thermal sand reclamation units at foundries. EPA should, therefore, issue a non-applicability 

determination stating that CISWI standards do not apply to thermal sand reclamation units. 

Nonetheless, if EPA insists that CISWI standards must apply to thermal sand reclamation units, 

then EPA must develop an appropriate rulemaking that is consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and other applicable federal statutes, 

policies and procedures. Specifically, EPA must develop a rule that directly considers thermal 

sand reclamation units and the potential impacts on the metalcasting industry. 
9 

First, EPA must gather data and examine the technical specifics of thermal sand reclamation 

units and determine what standards, if any, would be appropriate. After such standards are 

identified and justified, EPA would then have to provide meaningful notice and opportunity to 

comment on any such standards pursuant to the APA. These procedures are required by the 

APA and were not followed in promulgating the CISWI standards and applying them to thermal 

sand reclamation units. 

Second, because the metalcasting industry is comprised of mostly small businesses and the 

potential impact of such a regulation could be significant for a substantial number of small 

businesses, EPA is required to meet the requirements of the RFA. Under the RFA, whenever it 

is developing a proposed rulemaking EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. §603. The RFA requires EPA 

to determine if a proposed rule may impose a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the answer to that question is yes, then EPA must prepare a formal 

analysis of the potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, participate in a Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance 

Guide (final rule stage). EPA failed to conduct any such process as it applies to thermal sand 

reclamation units as part of the CISWI rule and must satisfy these requirements as part of its 

reconsideration process. 

Finally, if EPA still concludes that CISWI standards should apply to thermal sand reclamation 

units, then it should identify a new subcategory specifically for thermal sand reclamation units. 

As part of the CISWI rule, EPA identified similar subcategories for burn-off ovens and soil 

treatment units and concluded that the CISWI standards do not apply to these units. EPA did 

conclude that standards under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) may be warranted for 

these units and that EPA may develop appropriate standards, if any, specifically for these units. 

Such a process should be used for thermal sand reclamation units, whereby appropriate standards 

pursuant to section 129 of the CAA, if any, could be developed specifically for thermal sand 

reclamation units based on data from these units. If such standards are necessary for a 
10 

subcategory of thermal sand reclamation units, then AFS would welcome the opportunity to 

work with EPA in developing appropriate standards. 

IX. CONCLUSION 

EPA should not impose CISWI standards on thermal sand reclamation units because to do so 

would be contrary to RCRA, applicable case law, and Agency policy. In addition, new 

regulatory controls pursuant to section 129 of the CAA are not appropriate for these units and are 

not needed because these units are both fundamentally different in nature and function, and are 

already subject to regulatory controls for air emissions at the foundry. Furthermore, thermal 

sand reclamation units provide significant environmental benefits and should be encouraged 

rather than burdened with unintended, unnecessary, and inappropriate regulatory requirements. 

Accordingly, EPA should retract or clarify its determination made solely through preamble 

language in the NHSM rule, stating that CISWI standards do not apply to thermal sand 

reclamation units. 

In the event that EPA insists that CISWI standards must apply to thermal sand reclamation units, 

the Agency must conduct the required technical feasibility and economic impact analysis of such 

standards on the metalcasting industry and develop standards that are appropriate and 

specifically designed for thermal sand reclamation units at foundries. 

AFS appreciates this opportunity to provide these comments on the reconsideration of Standards 

and Performance for New Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI). If you have any questions or would like 

additional information about the comments, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel 

with our AFS Washington office at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or 

jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.