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

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darcie Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" 

<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <jskonrady@fpiwv.com>, 

"Laura K. McAfee" <LMcAfee@bdlaw.com>, "Richard Lunn" <RLunn@fpiwv.com>, 

<thillier@policynavigation.com>, <nelson.brad@ecrweb.com> 

Date: 08/10/2012 04:28 PM 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Conrad, 

Let me respond to your question on slag raking first. For raking (aka skimming) we employed the same 

method of calculation that EMI used in its July 2 submittal and that we discussed on July 16. That is, we 

used an emission factor that is intended to represent the full casting process, of which slag raking is a 

key part. So the slag raking emissions are indeed within our emissions estimate; they are part of the 

"casting" emissions, just as they are in EMI's table. 

Second, on the revised spreadsheet you provided, you asked if we agree with your recalculations that 

show a baseline emission level of about 22.5 tons Mn. We do not agree for the reasons I outlined on the 

phone on July 31. In short, the "furnace stack" and "furnace fugitive" emissions in your chart are all 

calculated using ICR test data; as we discussed, Felman has serious doubts about the reliability of those 

data. In fact, these concerns are the primary reason Felman is performing the detailed stack testing 

going on right now - that is, to get reliable and representative stack test data. What we provided to you 

last week were those fugitive emissions sources for which we do have some reliable data or reasonable 

emission factors. Until we receive the data from the stack tests, we cannot provide a reliable estimate 

of our furnace stack emissions (or what you have listed as "furnace fugitives," which are simply back

calculated from the ICR data). 

 

I must note that Felman was very concerned to still see the old ICR data in your emissions calculations. 

We have been very upfront with the Agency about the fact that, due to errors on the part of the test 

contractor, the ICR data do not accurately reflect the site's emissions. As you know, Felman has made --

and continue to makes -- significant efforts, at its own expense, to obtain more reliable data. We have 

worked with you every step of the way to ensure that this next round of stack testing will generate 

reliable data to assist you in developing a supportable, reasonable rule. Hence our surprise and 

disappointment to hear that the Agency is apparently proceeding based on the inaccurate ICR data, 

rather than waiting just a few more weeks to obtain the stack test data we have all been working 

toward for months. While we understand that EPA is under time pressures to complete this rule, we 

also have been reassured that an extension of several months is imminent -- so, again, we hope that you 

will wait to compile your final emissions data until the stack test data are available. 

Thank you, 
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.

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

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 8:38 AM 

To: Conrad Chin; Amy M. Lincoln 

Cc: Chuck French; Darcie Smith; Beth Friedman; Jonathan Averback; jskonrady@fpiwv.com; Laura K. 

McAfee; Richard Lunn; thillier@policynavigation.com; nelson.brad@ecrweb.com 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Good morning AmyI have another question on your recent submittal of baseline emissions. It seems the process of slag 

raking creates significant fugitive emissions, as observed by our Region 3 inspector, Mr. James 

Hagedorn. Furthermore, Felman is proposing to install the secondary exhaust system to capture fugitive 

emissions from this process. 

How come the fugitive emission from this process was not estimated in your submittal? 
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) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

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

From: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US 

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

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darcie Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" 

<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Jonathan 

Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, jskonrady@fpiwv.com, "Laura K. McAfee" <LMcAfee@bdlaw.com>, 

"Richard Lunn" <RLunn@fpiwv.com>, 

thillier@policynavigation.com, chin.conrad@epa.gov, nelson.brad@ecrweb.com 

Date: 08/07/2012 03:12 PM 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Good afternoon AmyBased on information you provided, I have compiled the draft baseline manganese emissions (in tons 

per year) at Felman. As I mentioned in my last email, we are reviewing the methodology you used in 

deriving the emission factors. 

Since you did not provide the stack emissions (for furnaces and crushers), we used the 2010 ICR test 

data. You also did not provide the stack emissions under the after-controlled scenario, we assume there 

is no change. 

Please review the attached file. and let me know if you agree/disagree, or have any questions. If we left 

out any manganese emission sources, please let me know as well. 

Thanks. 

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) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

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

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

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darcie Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" 

<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Jonathan 

Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Laura K. McAfee" <LMcAfee@bdlaw.com>, <jskonrady@fpiwv.com>, 

"Richard Lunn" 

<RLunn@fpiwv.com>, <thillier@policynavigation.com> 

Date: 08/06/2012 12:58 PM 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Conrad, 

You’re correct on the crushing and screening system calculations: there was an error in our Excel 

spreadsheet. 

Thanks for alerting us to it. Here is a corrected version. 

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.
*************************************************************************************

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 6:59 AM 

To: Amy M. Lincoln 

Cc: Chuck French; Darcie Smith; Beth Friedman; Jonathan Averback; Laura K. McAfee; JKonrady; Conrad 

Chin 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols 

Good morning AmyThis is to acknowledge that I received your submittal of the baseline and after-control manganese 

emissions. Thank you. 

While you are correct that it would be nice to have more manganese test data from your just-concluded 

July tests for the baseline manganese emission evaluation, our current schedule may not have this 

luxury. 

We are going to discuss with you shortly if we agree or disagree with your approach in using the 

emission factors for estimating fugitive emissions for tapping and casting operations. 

We noticed a possible mathematical error in your estimation of crushing fugitives. For example, the PM 

fugitives for system #1 were estimated to be 6.25 tpy total. If the Mn % is 53%, then the Mn emissions 

should be 3.3 tpy instead of 1.99 tpy. The same for system #2, Mn emissions should be 2.3 tpy instead of 

1.36 tpy. 

Please advise and thanks. 

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) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

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

From: "Amy M. Lincoln" <ALincoln@bdlaw.com> 
To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" <friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Jonathan 

Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "JKonrady" <RLunn@fpiwv.comr.powell>, Darcie 

Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Laura K. McAfee" <LMcAfee@bdlaw.com> 

Date: 08/03/2012 02:24 PM 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Conrad, 

Attached are current estimates of Felman’s baseline PM and Manganese emissions for crushing/sizing, 

casting, and tapping fugitive emissions. Also in the attached charts are our current estimates of future 

emissions after installation of the fugitive emissions controls described in the Chu & Gassman report you 

received from me on July 10. As you know, we’re currently in the process of performing stack testing at 

the site, and we need to await the results of that stack testing before estimating our baseline stack 

emissions and, therefore, the total facility emissions. 

As you’ll see in the attached, we’ve estimated emissions using the Metallic Mineral Processing and Basic 

Oxygen Furnace emissions factors that were discussed in our July 16 meeting at RTP. These factors 

appear to generate far more realistic estimates of PM emissions than the mass balance approach EPA 

used in the proposed rule. Recall that during our July 16 meeting, EPA suggested that the Crushed Stone 

Processing factors may be more appropriate to use for our operations. We reviewed that Table of 

emission factors (AP-42 Section 11.19.2) and agree that some of those factors may, indeed, be better 

estimates but there are other key processes (e.g., primary crushing) for which there are no emission 

factors provided in that Table. We’re open to discussing with your team how best to combine the 

Metallic Mineral and Crushed Stone processing factors to come up with a reasonable estimate for 

ferroalloy crushing. 

You’ll note that the %Mn we’ve used here differs from what EPA used in the proposed rule. The ICR 

stack testing indicated a %Mn of 3% at Felman. While the current stack testing may shed some light on 

this, we are confident that the 3% number underestimates the manganese in our dust. In the attached 

estimate, we have used a range of 23-53% Mn (depending on where the product is in the process –

furnace versus crushing). These numbers are derived from baghouse dust analyses, which we believe is 

the most representative data we have at this point. Again, the current stack testing will be helpful in 

estimating these numbers, but, for now, we believe the 23-53% range is a better number to rely on than 

the 3% from the ICR testing. 

Let me know if you have any questions. As I mentioned on the phone earlier this week, I am leaving my 

practice at B&D to join the in-house legal team at Chevron later this month. My colleague, Laura 

McAfee, has taken over for me on the Felman team. She is fully integrated into the team at this point 

and will be taking over the lead role upon my departure next Friday, August 10th. I will send all of you 

her contact information under separate cover. In the meantime, I’ve copied her on this email; please 

copy her on any emails you send to me and think of her as the primary contact for Felman going 
forward. I’ve enjoyed working with you all, and, since I will continue to focus on Air work in my new 

position at Chevron, I look forward to our paths crossing again soon. 

Thanks, 

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.

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

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:48 AM 

To: Amy M. Lincoln 

Cc: Chuck French; Beth Friedman; Jonathan Averback; JKonrady; Darcie Smith 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols 

Good morning AmyAs you know, Eramet provided us their own estimation of baseline emissions recently. I think Felman is 

in the process of doing the same. My understanding is this estimation would be completed no later than 

the end of July. We are looking forward to receive this information from you soon. 
Thanks and best regards, 

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) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

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

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

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "JKonrady" <RLunn@fpiwv.comr.powell>, "Beth Friedman" 

<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, 

Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/13/2012 07:04 PM 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols

Conrad, 

We don’t have a schedule breakdown for the July testing, but, as I noted in my earlier email, our testing 

contractor will be on the call on Monday to talk about the testing in more detail. We’ve asked him to put 

that schedule together and hope to be able to get that to you next week. 

On your questions 2 and 3 below, we’ve forwarded those to Jack Wang and he’ll be prepared to explain 

the basis for his estimates on Monday. On question 1, we are currently evaluating EPA emissions 

estimates. As you know, we have serious concerns about the reliability of Felman’s ICR stack testing 

data, and that was the primary basis for EPA’s estimates of stack emissions in the rulemaking. We are 

hoping the July and January testing will give us more confidence in those numbers. We are also working 

on a recalculation of the fugitive emissions estimates, both baseline and post-control. We’ve asked our 

outside contractor to complete that analysis as soon as possible, and no later than the end of this 

month. 

Thanks for your prompt review of our materials. Look forward to seeing you on Monday afternoon. 

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.

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

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:36 PM 

To: Amy M. Lincoln 

Cc: Chuck French; JKonrady; Beth Friedman; Jonathan Averback 

Subject: RE: Felman Fugitive Emissions Control and Test Protocols 

Hi AmyDo you have a breakdown of schedule, such as which baghouses and pollutants will be tested starting 

July 23 on a daily basis? 

We are still reviewing your Tuesday submittal, and I don't think we are ready to ask any meaningful 

technical questions to the Chu and Gassman representative (Mr. Jack Wang) by tomorrow. Below are 

just some preliminary questions from me: 

1. Felman did not provide its own version of baseline emissions (as Eramet did). Does that mean Felman 

is in agreement with our estimates? If Felman has its own version of emission estimates, we would like 

to review it. We would also like to see the your revised emissions after the proposed conceptual 

improvement are in place. 
2. Felman is proposing a total enclosure system for tapping capture. I am personally very positive on this 

concept. How do you support the 95% capture estimated? Can you also provide a front view of the 

conceptual design? 

3. Will the new casting shields be extending to cover the "runners" ? How do you support the 90% 

capture estimated? Can you provide a front view of the conceptual design? 

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) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

[attachment "image001.gif" deleted by Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment 

"Felman_Fugitive_Emissions 2012-08-06.pdf" deleted by Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US] 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* 

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.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. 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************