From: 
David Ailor <dailor@accci.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:55 PM
To: 
'Jones, DonnaLee' <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>; Allen Dittenhoefer <adittenhoefer@montrose-env.com>; Bill Osborn <bosborn@abccoke.com>; Bryan Kresak <bmkresak@uss.com>; Charles Jones <charles.jones@walterenergy.com>; Chris Hardin <cwhardin@uss.com>; Chris.Potts@aksteel.com; Chung, David <DChung@crowell.com>; Coleen Davis <cdavis@uss.com>; Dan Belack <dbelack@uss.com>; Dave Hacker <dwhacker@uss.com>; David Ailor <dailor@accci.org>; David Fanning <fanningd@dteenergy.com>; dmenotti@crowell.com; Ed Dinsmore <edinsmore@tonawandacoke.com>; hardenb@dteenergy.com; James Hosfield <jhosfield@uss.com>; Janis Deitch <jdeitch@accci.org>; Jay Cornelius <jcornelius@abccoke.com>; Joe Hanning <jehanning@uss.com>; John Hill <john.hill@arcelormittal.com>; Jonelle Scheetz <jsscheetz@uss.com>; Julianne Kurdila <julianne.kurdila@arcelormittal.com>; Katie Kistler <katie.kistler@aksteel.com>; Keith Nagel <keith.nagel@arcelormittal.com>; Krista Armentrout <kdarmentrout@uss.com>; Marian Gammon <marian.gammon@arcelormittal.com>; Mark Poling <mpoling@abccoke.com>; May, Jeffrey X <Jeffrey.May@arcelormittal.com>; Mike Dzurinko <mdzurinko@uss.com>; Nicole Siviy <nasiviy@uss.com>; Parker Adams <phadams@uss.com>; Patrick Smith <patrick.smith@mscarbonllc.com>; Peter Libell <libellp@dteenergy.com>; Randy Wiler <rwiler@eriecoke.com>; Rich Zavoda <rich.zavoda@arcelormittal.com>; Scott Kiechle <fredric.kiechle@arcelormittal.com>; Solomon Nyathi <solomon.nyathi@arcelormittal.com>; Tishie Woodwell <TWoodwell@uss.com>; Traci Self <traci.self@arcelormittal.com>; Victoria Morton <vlmorton@uss.com>; zervas@dteenergy.com
Subject: 
RE: Draft Action items, changes to ICR, under discussion - please review by COB Tuesday


Donna Lee:  The COETF's suggested revisions to the draft you sent earlier today are highlighted in yellow below; all of our suggestions appear in "Under Discussion."  I'm cc'ing the COETF on my response to you, towards the member companies correcting anything I have misstated or omitted.  Thanks, DCA


Under discussion

--Number of runs and/or length of time for tests at quench tower --Whether Facilities will be required to perform Enclosure 2 stack testing, per extended coking considerations --Schedule

--Safety concerns related to the testing of quench towers

--Concerns related to schedule, cost, safety, and non-standard testing (not being able to meet EPA Method 1 upstream and downstream at quench towers)

--Reduction of all testing to the historical 3 runs


David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: 703-795-3541
eFax.: 866-422-7794
dailor@accci.org
www.accci.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, DonnaLee [mailto:Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:19 AM
To: David Ailor (dailor@accci.org) <dailor@accci.org>
Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND <graymond@rti.org>; Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Subject: Draft Action items, changes to ICR, under discussion - please review by COB Tuesday

David - My Draft - please comment on omissions or corrections by COB Tuesday Thanks

Action Items

--By-product industry send CBI info to EPA CBI office on extended coking (EPA will supply format Tuesday) --Industry will submit any previous test data that would help EPA figure out how many test runs and sample volume to require (e.g., USS Quench tower data); will send by CD or zip (and rename as filename.abc) --Redline of Enclosure 1 and 2 by industry --Tech Memo on reference detection limits from Steff via Donna (done) --Attendee list (done)


Changes to ICR

--pushing tests only 3 runs
--no ambient testing within fenceline
--Ambient testing at fenceline for two weeks --Eliminate flow measurement during pushing (facilities will add information to enclosure 1 on their estimate for pushing capture and reasoning for estimate) --All Quench tower tests will be above baffles both PM and organic. Industry will try to get as close to isokinetic as they can but report the percent isokinetic during test regardless of whether iso or not.


Under discussion

--Number of runs and/or length of time for tests at quench tower --Whether Facilities will be required to perform Enclosure 2 stack testing, per extended coking considerations --Schedule


