From: John Rego [mailto:jrego@jonesday.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:55 PM
To: Conrad Chin Cc: Jonathan Averback; chin.conrad@epa.gov; Chuck French; Beth Friedman; Steve Fruh; jeff.mckinney@erametgroup.com; jskonrady@fpiwv.com; lmcafee@bdlaw.com; thillier@policynavigation.com Subject: Re: Ferroalloy

- recent emissions test data

Conrad:

Attached is a revised page from the stack test consultant with a correction to the flow rate discrepancy

in Table 2

- 12. Thanks for catching that error. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the co nsultant's completion of QA/QC, which is documented in the report as Appendix E, does not ensure there are no errors in the report.

In terms of data acceptable for use in the MACT analyses, as I noted in my email, the PAH result for Furnace 12 appea rs to be inconsistent, by multiple orders of magnitude, with all of the other PAH measurements at EMI and Felman, so EMI does not believe it is credible. At this point, neither EMI nor
the testers have identified anything unusual with respect to the oper ations at the time of the test that

could account for such a deviation. I will let you know if/when we come up with more.

I will also let you know if the QA/QC'd results for any other parameters seem anomalous to EMI.

John

John Rego • Environmental, Health & Safety
901 LAKESIDE AVENUE • CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
DIRECT 216.586.7542 • FAX 216.579.0212 • JREGO@JONESDAY.COM

************************************************************************************

From: Conrad Chin <Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov>

To: John Rego <jrego@JonesDay.com>

Cc: Chuck Fr ench <French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov>, "Beth Friedman" <friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, jeff.mckinney@erametgroup.com, Jonathan Averback <Averback.Jonathan@epamail.epa.gov>, jskonrady@fpiwv.com, lmcafee@bdlaw.com, Steve Fruh <Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov>, thilli er@policynavigation.com, chin.conrad@epa.gov

Date: 10/02/2012 04:09 PM Subject: Re: Ferroalloy

- recent emissions test data

Thanks John.My intention was to confirm that the test data had been reviewed and qa/qc by your party. I understand

now that your review is still ongoing. And we appreciate your effort in providing us a report as quick as you can while you are still reviewing the rep ort.

Could you please let me know once you have completed the review of the test report? We would like to know if there are any test data that we should not include in our future analysis.

For example, the email I sent you yesterday in an effort to clarify the following:

In Table 2

- 12, there was only one run.

How come the volumetric flow rate is different between the run value and the average value? (For example, the run value was 158,693 dscfm. The average value was 164,865 dscfm.)

Than ks and have a wonderful evening.

Conrad K. Chin
Mail Code D243

- 02 Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919

- 541

- 1512 (voice)

919

- 541

- 320 7 (fax)

*************************************************************************************

From: John Rego <jrego@JonesDay.com> To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" <friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, jeff.mckinney@erametgroup.com, lmcafee@bdlaw.com, jskonrady@fpiwv.com, thillier@policynavigation.com Date: 10/ 02/2012 03:40 PM Subject: Re: Ferroalloy

- recent emissions test data

Thanks Conrad. You should not, however, assume that EMI considers all reported results from the July 2012 stack test to be "accurate and representative." RTP has been relentles s in asking for the report

-- to the point of placing daily "When will we get the report?" calls

-- so EMI provided RTP with a copy of EQ's report as soon as it became available. Our review of the report is ongoing.You seem to be disregarding recent correspondence where you and EMI have both acknowledged

material differences between some of the 2010 data and some of the 2012 data, most notably the mercury and PAH data. These data demonstrate, at a minimum, variability in emission rates, which is

no t surprising given the natural variability in raw materials and operating conditions, as well as the low concentrations of some parameters, so suggesting that EMI has implicitly agreed that any single data point is "representative" is unfair and unscien tific to say the least.

Moreover, as you have previously acknowledged, the reported 2012 PAH concentration from Furnace 12 is two orders of magnitude higher than the reported 2010 concentration from the same source and, it appears, at least two order s of magnitude higher than the reported 2012 PAH concentration from any other EMI or Felman ferroalloys furnace. EMI believes the 2012 result is erroneous, but we have not yet

determined the reason.

If there is any remaining confusion regarding what may be assumed from EMI's submittal of the requested report, let me know and I will attempt to be more clear.

John

John Rego • Environmental, Health & Safety
901 LAKESIDE AVENUE • CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
DIRECT 216.586.7542 • FAX 216.579.0212 • JREGO@JONESDAY.COM

From: Conrad Chin <Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov>

To: John Rego <jrego@JonesDay.com>

Cc: Chuck French <French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov>, "Beth Friedman" <friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>,

Jon athan Averback <Averback.Jonathan@epamail.epa.gov>, Steve Fruh <Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov>,
Jonathan Averback <Averback.Jonathan@epamail.epa.gov>, jeff.mckinney@erametgroup.com

Date: 10/01/2012 02:40 PM Subject: Re: Ferroalloy

- recent emissions tes t data

Good Afternoon John

This is to acknowledge that I just received a hard copy of the complete test report for the Eramet July

tests. I assume Eramet has reviewed the results and considered the results to be accurate and representative. We will proceed with our review promptly.

Thank you!

Conrad K. Chin
Mail Code D243

- 02 Metals and Minerals GroupSector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy
919

- 541

- 1512 (voice)

919

- 541

- 3207 (fax)

========== This e

- mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney

- client or other privilege. If you received this e

- mail in error, pleas e delete it from
your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e

- mail, so that our records can be corrected.

==========