From: "Howard L. Gilberg" < Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com >

To: Jeff Telander /RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/23/2010 03:11 PM

Subject: RE: Tile Industry ICR's

Jeff:

Thank you for your email.

Just so we are rigorous, your second paragraph is intended to confirm that EPA is deleting the obligation

to perform Methods OTM 27 and 28 as stated in the five March 12, 2010 ICR's to each of five ceramic

tile plants? Assuming this is correct, stack testing is to be performed at these three plants for PM and

HAP metals (Method 29), dioxin (Method 23), and HF and HCl (Method 320). Please confirm back to me

so there is no chance of a misunderstanding.

The current stack testing schedule is begins at Monarch Ceramic Tile on May 4, then at Dal

- Italia during

the week of May 10 and possibly carrying over to the following week, and then at Florim during the

week of May 24. Timin g is more likely to change a bit due to site conditions than is the order of the site

testing.

One critical item omitted from your email is granting a suspension of the stack testing and data delivery

deadline for the American Marazzi Tile Dallas, Texas p lant and Dal

- Tile's El Paso Texas. This is integral to

the entire logistic. Since we do not know at this time whether stack testing will be performed at these

sites, it is not practical to set a stack testing schedule and data delivery deadline. Please adv ise me of

that suspension at your earliest opportunity.

Thank you.

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692

- 0009

- phone

214.692

- 6610

- fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com----- Original Message

-----

From: Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:36 AM

To: Howard L. Gilberg

Subject: RE: Tile Industry ICR's

Howard,

As indicated in my voice message, we agree with the three plants you propose for Phase I stack testing.

We also agree with elimination of PM 2.5 and condensables measu rements from the test program.

It is my understanding that stack testing will begin on May 4 and that you will provide test results as

they are received.

I would appreciate it if you would provide the current testing and analysis schedule.

Jeff Teland er

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(D243

- 02)

RTP, NC 27711

919

- 541

- 5427

919

- 541

- 5450 (FAX)

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243

- 02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709From: "Howard L. Gilberg" < Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com >

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/13/2010 07:58 PM

Subject: RE: Tile Industry ICR's

Jeff:

I need a prompt approval from EPA on the three plants I proposed last Friday for stack testing: Monarch

Ceramic Tile, Inc, Florim USA, and Dal

- Italia.

We also need an answer on the issues below. Please drop the PM2.5 stack testing requests. As you

know, Method 27 is prohibited in the presence of wet scrubbers. As you also know, a number of sources

in the industry are controlled by wet scrubbers. EPA can't ask for prohibited testing, though it has done

so, and I don't see how the industry could agree to it. I also don't see how it makes any sense to have

two different PM2.5 surrogates (one under Method 27 and one under Method 28) for the same HAP

metals emissions, the former for plants without wet scrubbers and the latter for plants that utilize

them. Further, if EPA chooses a

PM2.5 surrogate, it is choosing to negate the possible relevance of previously submitted PM data. Since

EPA has PM data, we see no need to stack test for this pollutant either.

We remain concerned about the due date in the ICR's. In good faith and in response to that due date,

we have now engaged a stack testing firm.

A notice of stack testing was sent out today stating that the first stack testing will start on May 4. This is

needed if we hope to submit data by the due date for all three plants by the ICR due date. I ca n readily

postpone the stack testing if that is needed to allow your colleagues to review this matter further and if I

have the assurances we have discussed that EPA is pushing back the due date. I can not assure you how

we will handle the ICRs PM2.5 reque st in the absence of a timely response from EPA.

Please call me with the latest. Thank you.

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692

- 0009

- phone

214.692

- 6610

- fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com----- Original Message

-----

From: Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:39 PM

To: Howard L. Gilberg

Subject: Re: Tile Industry ICR's

Howard,

I'm working on items 1 and 2 and will get back to you with an answer as soon as I can.

Jeff Telander

Sector Polici es and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(D243

- 02)

RTP, NC 27711

919

- 541

- 5427

919

- 541

- 5450 (FAX)

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243

- 02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709From: "Howard L. Gilberg" < Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com >

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bob Hurt < bob.hurt@daltile.com >, Connie O'Neal < cjames@florimusa.com >, Eric

Astrachan < eastrachan@tileusa.com >, Steve Wiederwax

< swiederwax@marazzitile.com >, Steve Wi llis < Steve_Willis@mohawkind.com >, Tim

Swaw < tswaw@florimusa.com >

Date: 04/02/2010 07:02 PM

Subject: Tile Industry ICR's

This is to confirm certain portions of our telephone conference yesterday in which I raised questions

about certain common aspects of the ICRs forwarded to major sources in the ceramic tile industry.

1. Method 27: This method calls for a 6” stack testing port.

It states:

8.3.1 Sampling Site Location and Traverse Point Determination. Follow

the standard procedures in Method 1 to select the appropriate sampling

site. Then do all of the following:

(d) Sampling ports. To accommodate the in

- stack cyclones for this

method, you may need larger diameter sampling ports than those used

by Method 5 or Method 17 for total filterable particulate sampling.

When you must use nozzles smaller than 0.16 inch in diameter, the

sampling port diameter must be 6 inches. Do not use the conventional

4

- inch diameter port because the combined dimension of the PM10

cyclone and the nozzle extending from the cyclone exceeds the

internal diameter of the port. [Note: If the port nipple is short,

you may be able to “hook” the sampling head through a smaller port

into the duct or stack.]

I have confirmed that the majority of the stacks for which Method

27 testing has been requested have ports that are well smaller

than 6” in diameter. These ports comply with state permits.

Moreover, this method is not acceptable in saturated stack gas

situations, such as those downstream of wet scrubbers. Wet

scrubbers are present on a few of the stacks for which Method 27

stack testing has been requested. I request deletion of Method 27

stack testing for all plants.

2. Method 28: I requested deletion of method 28 stack

testing. PM2.5 is not a HAP and has not been discussed as a

surrogate in any formal manner. We disagree that it can or should

be used as a surrogate. If EPA insists on method 28 stack testing

because EPA plans to use it as a surrogate, we request deletion of

method 29 testing for PM.. One or the other bu t not both will

eventually serve as surrogates. The industry sees no basis to

incur costs to stack test using both methods.3. American Marazzi Plant 1: No “representativeness”

argument has been presented to EPA to date. A wr itten

“representativeness” argument will be submitted for EPA review

that is independent of any other filings that may be made

concerning this plant. You agreed to promptly review and rule on

it.

Timely answers are possible to the first two of these items without further action on the industry’s part

and will facilitate more timely attention and completion of stack testing.

Thank you.

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dal las, TX 75201

214.692

- 0009

- phone

214.692

- 6610

- fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com