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 chrome 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) 

913-342-6624, ext 53571 (Office) 

EHS Portal 
From: 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 test 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).

Regards -

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 View 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 information.

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 Required - 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 spreadsheets 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 emission 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 has 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 not 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 post 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 company 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, 

Georgia facility. Can CertainTeed resend this.