From: 
Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Sent:
Monday, May 16, 2016 4:36 PM
To: 
rwiler@eriecoke.com
Cc:
Paul Saffrin <psaffrin@tonawandacoke.com>; Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>
Subject: 
RE: Erie Coke


Here is our resolution for your issue.

Method 201A vs Method 5 on Pushing Emission Control System (PECS); uses a stationary baghouse
 Sample using Method201A throughout the entire pushing time period and do not turn off sampling when moving from door to door until the full volume required by the method (2 dscm) is collected. This also will reduce the number of ovens pushed during testing.
 We understand that this testing may result in data that is significantly different from data collected at facilities with PCMs or sheds, i.e., data collected during sampling that is started and stopped for the pushes. Because there are at least three facilities with PECS, we will be examine the data collected and if significantly different can create a subcategory for regulatory purposes

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:  (919)  541-5251  Fax  (919)  541-3207
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Randy Wiler [mailto:rwiler@eriecoke.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Cc: Paul Saffrin <psaffrin@tonawandacoke.com>
Subject: 

Dr. Donna Lee Jones,

Attached is a correspondence from Montrose explaining a test problem with the pushing emission control stack (PECS) that Erie Coke would like to resolve.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely
Erie Coke Corporation

R.G. Wiler
Environmental Manager


