From: Davis, Carlos E. [Carlos.E.Davis@saint

- gobain.com]

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:04 PM

To: Reeves, David

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: RE: Residual Risk Inquiry from EPA

- CertainTeed Insulation Response

David:

I too am waiting on additional detail from the individual charged with managing our Furnace rebuild

program.

Anecdotally for initial assignment:

Chowchilla: C1 Oxy

- Fuel was rebuilt in May/June 2010 with effectively “0” chrome above the

glass contact line

Kansas City: K1 & K2 oxy

- fuel furnaces, have a significant amount of chrome refractory above

the glass contact line

Athens: A1 Electric and A2 Oxy

- fuel furnaces, both have lesser amounts of chrome refractory

above the glass contact line than the Kansas City Furnaces

MountainTop: M1 air

- fuel and M2 Oxy

- fuel furnaces, both have lesser amounts of chrome

refractory above the glass contact line than the Kansas City Furnaces

I understand that without more detailed emission information, it is conservative to assign the Kansas

City K2 emission factor to the other CertainTeed furnaces. I am presuming that you have copies of

previously submitted information regarding total chrom e emissions from other CertainTeed furnaces

(MTop & Athens) as lb/ton of glass using Method 29 testing.

Best Regards,

Carlos E. Davis

Manager

- Environment, Health and Safety

Western Region

Saint

- Gobain North America

913

- 544

- 8888 (Cell)

913

- 342

- 66 24, ext 53571 (Office)

EHS PortalFrom: Reeves, David [mailto:dwreeves@rti.org]

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:39 PM

To: Davis, Carlos E.

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: RE: Residual Risk Inquiry from EPA

- CertainTeed Insulation Response

Hi Carlos. We are preparing the modeling file for the Certain Teed facilities and were expecting some

additional information from you on the different furnaces

– as compared to the t est results from the

K2 testing last November. If you have anything that might help us today, otherwise we will be using

the K2 test results to assign default emissions to those furnaces that we do not have test data on (per

direction from Susan).

Reg ards

-

Dave Reeves

RTI International

dwreeves@rti.org

(919) 316

- 3739

From: Davis, Carlos E. [mailto:Carlos.E.Davis@saint

- gobain.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:00 AM

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Cc: Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov; Reeves, David; Alterman, Lauren P.; Angus Crane

Subject: Residual Risk Inquiry from EPA

- CertainTeed Insulation Response

Ms. Hancy:

CertainTeed has reviewed the attached spreadsheet and has made corrections as needed :

<<Wool Fiberglass Modeling Sources by Co 5 18 11

- CT.xls.zip>>

Labeled the site photos with stacks and associated control devices:

<<KC Labelled Photo.pdf.zip>> <<Athens 2nd Aerial Photo with Stacks highlighted 5_31_11.pdf.zip>>

<<Athens Aerial Vie w Showing Stacks 5_31_11.pdf.zip>> <<Chowchilla Labelled Photo.pdf.zip>>And I have converted the Athens Process Flow Diagram from AutoCad to an Adobe pdf.

<<Athens PFD.pdf.zip>>

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional in formation.

Best Regards,

Carlos E. Davis

Manager

- Environment, Health and Safety

Western Region

Saint

- Gobain North America

913

- 544

- 8888 (Cell)

913

- 342

- 6624, ext 53571 (Office)

EHS Portal

From: Angus Crane [acrane@naima.org]

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:55 PM

To: Alterman, Lauren P.; Davis, Carlos E.

Subject: Residual Risk Inquiry from EPA

- Response Requ ired

- IMPORTANT

– AvailabilitY for Call

Importance: High

Attachments: CertainTeed.zip; Wool Fiberglass Modeling Sources by Co 5 18 11

- CT.xls

Dear Lauren and Carlos:

Please find attached two files: 1) a zip file containing the aerial view of all your company’s wool fiber

glass manufacturing facilities; and 2) Excel spre adsheets for each wool fiber glass facility with EPA’s data

input, including EPA’s understanding of each source’s control device, stack configuration, and stack

parameters. EPA is specifically looking for clarification, for some sources, on whether emissi on sources

are routed together to one stack or divided into separate stacks. EPA notes that this is an important

clarification for purposes of determining “how to model emissions correctly.”

Each row in the spreadsheet is essentially a “stack” associated with an emission source. For example, if

for a particular row the source is listed as “forming, curing, cooling,” EPA understands those three

sources to be routed together to one stack. If forming, curing, and cooling are listed in separate rows,

EPA ha s concluded that those sources are routed to separate stacks. EPA requests the facilities to check

that the Agency’s interpretation of the configuration is correct, as well as the stack parameters

corresponding to the source (columns F

- I). If they are no t correct, EPA requests that the facilities

correct the spreadsheet. In addition, EPA requests each facility to do the following: Confirm the control device listed in Column F. If there is more than one control device, please

have the facility list each control device in order (i.e., Furnace  Baghouse  Thermal Incinerator

 Stack).

 Confirm or fill in the Stack IDs in Column J and mark/label them on the aerial view jpg. EPA is

only interested in stacks associated with furnaces and FCC processes. Facilities do not need to

label or mark stacks associated with other processes. You can send the aerial views directly to

EPA; do not p ost them to the FTP site.

Please provide this information to Cindy Wang Hancy of RTI at chancy@rti.org and copy Susan Fairchild

of EPA at Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov and David Reeves of RTI at dwreeves@rti.org.

In some instances, EPA asked for compan y specific information unique to certain locations. EPA was not

able to open the file extension that contained the process flow diagram for CertainTeed’s Athens,

G eorgia facility. Can CertainTeed resend this.