Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048-0245
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-07-28T04:00Z

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Kissell.
Mary@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Kissell.
Mary@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Tuesday,
May
11,
2004
10:
58
AM
To:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org
Cc:
kphanks@
rti.
org
Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Eric,

In
the
early
stages
of
the
PCWP
project,
we
found
that
the
TRI
data
were
not
useful
for
our
purposes
due
to
inconsistencies
in
the
reported
information.
We
prepared
our
own
estimates
of
baseline
emissions
instead
of
relying
on
TRI
data.
We
sent
out
an
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
to
PCWP
facilities
in
1998
to
obtain
information
on
process
units,
production
rates,
control
systems,
and
HAP
emission
test
data.
More
than
90
percent
of
the
ICRs
were
returned,
QA'd,
and
entered
into
data
bases.
Through
this
survey
process,
we
collected
nearly
100
HAP
emission
test
reports.
We
used
these
emission
test
reports,
speciated
HAP
data
collected
by
the
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement
(
NCASI)
in
a
29­
mill
sampling
program,
and
data
from
AP­
42
to
develop
the
most
comprehensive
compilation
of
emission
factors
available
for
the
PCWP
industry
(
which
were
later
used
to
update
AP­
42).
For
the
PCWP
project,
we
estimated
baseline
emissions
using
the
process/
throughput
data
(
from
the
ICR)
and
the
emission
factors
we
developed.

The
TRI
estimates
are
developed
by
facilities.
The
methodologies
and
data
soruces
used
to
generate
our
estimates
and
the
TRI
estimates
differ.
It
is
also
likely
that
the
methods
used
by
different
facilities
to
estimate
emissions
differ
widely.
Without
looking
closely
at
the
TRI
data
and
the
basis
for
the
TRI
estimates
for
individual
facilities,
there
is
no
way
to
know
why
our
and
the
TRI
estimates
are
very
different.
Katie
says
she
suspects
that
the
diffference
in
our
estimates
and
TRI
estimates
varies
greatly
from
facility
to
facility,
depending
on
what
each
facility
reported
(
and
how
they
arrived
at
what
they
reported).

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Eric
Schaeffer
[
mailto:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org]
Sent:
Monday,
May
10,
2004
7:
07
PM
To:
Hanks,
Katie
P.
Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Katie,
I'm
looking
at
baseline
formaldehyde
emissions
data
for
affected
softwood
plants
that
was
used
to
calculate
cancer
and
noncancer
risk,
and
comparing
to
TRI
formaldehyde
emissions.
The
TRI
data
looks
much
higher.
What
am
I
missing?

Regards,

Eric
Schaeffer
(
202)
296­
8800
(
main
number)
(
202)
263­
4440
(
direct)
(
202)
296­
8822
(
Fax)

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Hanks,
Katie
P.
[
mailto:
kphanks@
rti.
org]
Sent:
Monday,
May
10,
2004
11:
11
AM
To:
Eric
Schaeffer
Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
I
thought
I
attached
that
one
(
Appendix
C).
Here
it
is.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Eric
Schaeffer
[
mailto:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org]
Sent:
Monday,
May
10,
2004
11:
00
AM
To:
Hanks,
Katie
P.
Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Thanks,
Katie,
this
is
very
helpful.
I'm
trying
to
get
a
copy
of
one
of
these
appendices,
which
lists
plants
according
to
HEM
cancer
output,
and
HEM
noncancer
output.
It's
definitely
one
of
the
items
below,
but
the
edocket
is
just
not
working.
Is
there
any
way
you
can
email
that
pdf
file
to
me?

Regards,

Eric
Schaeffer
(
202)
296­
8800
(
main
number)
(
202)
263­
4440
(
direct)
(
202)
296­
8822
(
Fax)

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Hanks,
Katie
P.
[
mailto:
kphanks@
rti.
org]
Sent:
Monday,
May
10,
2004
9:
55
AM
To:
Eric
Schaeffer
Cc:
Mary
Kissell
(
E­
mail)
Subject:
Answers
to
your
questions
You
asked
what
the
units
were
on
the
"
concentration"
column
in
Attachment
1
to
the
February
25,
2004
memo
documenting
impacts
associated
with
facilities
potentially
eligible
for
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities.
The
units
are
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
and
the
column
represents
the
maximum
offsight
concentration
where
people
live.

You
had
also
asked
Mary
Tom
about
the
bottom
line
cancer/
noncancer
risks
for
each
plant.
These
estimates
are
attached
in
Appendix
C
to
the
risk
assessment
memo.
You
can
obtain
the
full
risk
assessment
memo
from
the
e­
docket
OAR­
2003­
0048.
You
already
have
Appendices
B
and
C.
The
other
items
are
OAR­
2003­
0048­
0116
(
memo
text),
­
0017
(
App
A),
­
0120
(
App
D),
and
­
0121
(
App
E).
The
link
to
the
e­
docket
is:
http://
cascade.
epa.
gov/
RightSite/
dk_
public_
home.
htm
Katie
Hanks
RTI
International
3040
Cornwallis
Road
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709