From: "Amy M. Lincoln" <ALincoln@bdlaw.com> 

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: <r.powell@optimaacq.com>, <JKonrady@fpiwv.com>, "Richard Lunn" <RLunn@fpiwv.com> 

Date: 07/10/2012 05:55 PM 

Subject: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Conrad and Chuck: 

Thanks again for making time last week to go over EMI’s fugitive emission source control plan and 

proposed HAP testing protocol and schedule. Attached are the complementary materials for Felman. 

Specifically, attached are: 

(1) A narrative description and engineering diagrams prepared by Felman’s consultants, Chu & 

Gassman, of a proposed fugitive emission control system for the Felman shop that we 

conservatively expect to eliminate 95% of the shop’s process fugitive emissions of particulate 

matter, re-routing these emissions to new and existing baghouses designed for 98% control 

efficiency; 

(2) The final test protocol for Felman’s planned July 2012 testing for mercury, PAH, 

hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde (i.e., the four pollutants EPA has proposed to add to the 

existing ferroalloy NESHAP); and 

(3) A proposed protocol for additional testing to be performed in the first quarter of 2013 and 

which would include testing for dioxin/furans and PCBs at furnace #2. The latter we are 

proposing in response to Chuck’s June 28th request for dioxin/furans and PCB data based on we 

understand to be concerns at EPA about the reliability and representativeness of the dust 

analysis data Felman collected on these pollutants per EPA’s April 2010 ICR. 

We provide the attached materials in follow up to and consistent with the written comments Felman 

submitted on the proposed rule and the various meetings and telephone conferences between EPA and 

the two companies, Felman and EMI, since that time. As we have repeatedly emphasized in our written 

comments and subsequent discussions, the proposed rule’s “total building enclosure” approach to 

emission control is infeasible and would very likely lead to the end of the U.S. ferroalloy production 

industry. Felman remains committed, however, to driving down its emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants; the attached proposal demonstrates the significant emissions improvements that are 

possible with a control system targeting key processes and equipment. Please note that the control 

system described in Chu & Gassman’s report is, at this point, merely a proposed strategy for capturing 

fugitive emissions in a more cost-effective manner than EPA’s “total building enclosure.” Felman has 

not obtained (or, indeed, even requested) management approval to implement the work laid out in the 

proposal (which we expect to cost significantly more than EPA’s estimate of the cost of implementing its 

total building enclosure strategy but below the true cost of implementing the proposed rule (as detailed 

in Felman’s submittal to the EPA on January 31, 2012). If EPA agrees with Felman that the roughly 95% 

total capture efficiency achieved by the proposed system satisfies the mandate of Section 112(f) of the 
Clean Air Act, Felman will take the next steps forward in implementing the project, namely, seeking from 

Chu & Gassman a detailed cost estimate and approximate implementation timeline. 

The test protocols, in turn, are designed to help the Agency fill in the numerous data gaps in the 

emissions profile for the industry that both Felman and EMI identified in their written comments 

(especially with respect to the wide variability in furnace operations) and which the Agency itself has 

noted with respect to Felman’s ICR data. As discussed in our telephone call on June 28th, it is not 

practical for Felman to incorporate the requested dioxin/furans and PCB testing into its July protocol, 

but we are proposing to include those pollutants in the next scheduled stack testing. The next testing 

would be in the first quarter of 2013, likely in January or February. Again, as previously discussed, the 

purpose of conducting the testing in the first quarter is to gather emissions data in the winter months 

when the HAP content of the ores is different and when the furnaces are running at a different 

temperature, both of which could have an impact on emissions. Our proposal to conduct a second 

round of stack tests in early 2013 is also in recognition of the fact that EPA is under both a statutory and 

a consent decree-specified deadline to complete its risk and technology review of the current ferroalloy 

NESHAP. We understand that, per agreement of the parties, that consent decree deadline is currently 

set at September 14, 2012. Obviously the collection of data in the first quarter of 2013 is conditioned 

upon an extension of that deadline; indeed, we would anticipate an extension to no sooner than July 15, 

2013, which we estimate to be an appropriate amount of time for EPA to review and process the 1Q 

2013 emissions data. Finally, similar to the fugitive emission control strategy, the 2013 testing is also 

subject to management approval. 

We are next scheduled to meet and discuss the details of both EMI’s and Felman’s fugitive emissions 

control efforts on July 16th. We’ve asked a representative from Chu & Gassman (Jack Wang, the 

primary author of the attached design narrative) to be available by phone on the 16th. But we are also 

happy to discuss any specific questions you may have on the control system design before then. Jack as 

well as the full Felman team are generally available this Friday, July 13th for a phone call. Please email 

me some available times if you’d like to talk that day. I appreciate your work on this and look forward to 

seeing you both on July 16th. 

Amy 

Amy M. Lincoln 

Principal 

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 

456 Montgomery Street Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

T (415) 262-4029 ~ F (415) 262-4040 

ALincoln@bdlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the law firm of 

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for 
the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware 

that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you 

have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (202) 789-6000 or by email reply and delete this message. Thank you. 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To the extent that tax advice is contained in this correspondence or any 

attachment hereto, you are advised that such tax advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used 

for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing 

or recommending to another party the tax advice contained herein. 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

(See attached file: Chu Gassman Felman - Design Report 7-10-2012.PDF)(See attached file: 

Felman Stack Test Proposal for 1Q 2013 (071012).PDF)(See attached file: Felman stack test 

Protocol for July 2012.PDF)