FwFelmanFugitiveEmissionsControlandTestProtocols.txtFrom:“AmyM.Lincoln”<ALincoln@bdlaw.com>To:ConradChin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,chuckFrench/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc:<r.powell@optimaacq.com>,<JKonrady@fpiwv.com>,“RichardLunn”<RLunn@fpiwv.com>Date:07/10/201205:55PMSubject:FelmanFugitiveEmissionsControlandTestProtocolsConradandChuck:ThanksagainformakingtimelastweektogooverEMI’sfugitiveemissionsourcecontrolplanandproposedHAPtestingprotocolandschedule.AttachedarethecomplementarymaterialsforFelman.Specifically,attachedare:(1)AnarrativedescriptionandengineeringdiagramspreparedbyFelman’sconsultants,Chu&Gassman,ofaproposedfugitiveemissioncontrolsystemfortheFelmanshopthatweconservativelyexpecttoeliminate95%oftheshop’sprocessfugitiveemissionsofparticulatematter,re-routingtheseemissionstonewandexistingbaghousesdesignedfor98%controlefficiency;(2)ThefinaltestprotocolforFelman’splannedJuly2012testingformercury,PAH,hydrochloricacid,andformaldehyde(i.e.,thefourpollutantsEPAhasproposedtoaddtotheexistingferroalloyNESHAP);and(3)Aproposedprotocolforadditionaltestingtobeperformedinthefirstquarterof2013andwhichwouldincludetestingfordioxin/furansandPCB5atfurnace#2.ThelatterweareproposinginresponsetoChuck’sJune28threquestfordioxin/furansandPCBdatabasedonweunderstandtobeconcernsatEPAaboutthereliabilityandrepresentativenessofthedustanalysisdataFelmancollectedonthesepollutantsperEPA’SApril2010ICR.WeprovidetheattachedmaterialsinfollowuptoandconsistentwiththewrittencommentsFelmansubmittedontheproposedruleandthevariousmeetingsandtelephoneconferencesbetweenEPAandthetwocompanies,FelmanandEMI,sincethattime.Aswehaverepeatedlyemphasizedinourwrittencommentsandsubsequentdiscussions,theproposedrule’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 demonstratesthesignificantemissionsimprovementsthatarepossiblewithacontrolsystemtargetingkeyprocessesandequipment.Pleasenotethatthecontrolsystemdescribedinchu&Gassman’sreport is, at this point, merely

a proposed strategy
for capturing fugitive emissions

in

a morecost—effectivemannerthanEPA’S“totalbuildingenclosure.”Felmanhasnotobtained(or,indeed,evenrequested)managementapprovaltoimplementtheworklaidoutintheproposal(which Page

1Fw Felman Fugitive Emissions control and Test Protocols.txt 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 app roxi mate implementation

ti mel

i ne. The test protocols,

in turn, are designed

to help the Agency fill in the numerous data aps 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 fu 9 itive 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

Page

2Fw Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols.txt 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 Pri nci pal Beveridge

& Diamond, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street Suite 1800 San Francisco,

CA 94104 T (415) 262-4029

F (415) 262-4040 ALi ncol n@bdl aw. corn CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information
from the law firm of Beverid9e

& 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 e-mail 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 (1) 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. ATTACHMENT

NOT DELIVERED This Email message contained

an attachment named imageool.jpg which may be

a computer program. This attached computer program could contain

a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA’S computers, network,
and data. The attachment

has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution

of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network.
EPA is deleting
all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender

is known and the attachment

was legitimate,

you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension
and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving
the revised Email, containing

the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension

to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center

at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number

is (866) 489-4900. Page

3