From:
Hanks,
Katie
P.

Sent:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
2:
40
PM
To:
'
Eric
Schaeffer'

Cc:
Mary
Kissell
(
E­
mail)

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
The
scale­
up
was
done
for
comparision
to
the
major
source
thresholds.
Thus,
the
baseline
emission
estimates
used
as
inputs
to
the
risk
analysis
were
based
on
actual
production
rate,
and
were
not
scaled
up
to
represent
full
capacity.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Eric
Schaeffer
[
mailto:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org]

Sent:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
2:
34
PM
To:
Hanks,
Katie
P.

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
I
did
see
that
discussion,
but
it
says
emissions
were
scaled
up,
"
for
purposes
of
determining
which
facilities
may
be
major
sources
based
on
potential
to
emit."
Also,
the
scale­
up
assumed
uncontrolled
emissions,
again
to
determine
whether
or
not
these
were
major
sources.
Were
these
scaled
up
numbers
reflecting
the
potential
to
emit
 
assuming
full
capacity
and
all
emissions
uncontrolled
 
used
in
running
the
risk
analyses
to
determine
potential
emissions?

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:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
2:
19
PM
To:
Eric
Schaeffer
Cc:
Mary
Kissell
(
E­
mail)

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Estimates
of
lumber
kiln
emissions
were
included
in
the
facility­
total
emission
estimates
that
were
input
into
the
risk
analysis.
The
baseline
memo
dicusses
how
we
scaled
up
the
emission
estimates
to
represent
full
capacity
(
see
section
V
near
the
end
of
the
text).

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Eric
Schaeffer
[
mailto:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org]

Sent:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
2:
13
PM
To:
Hanks,
Katie
P.

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Thanks
 
just
one
or
two
more
questions:
1.
Do
baseline
emission
estimates
assume
plants
operating
at
full
capacity?
I
think
you
took
industry
wide
average
(
e.
g.,
75%
of
capacity)
from
reading
the
document,
but
want
to
be
sure.

2.
Didn't
see
totals
for
lumber
kilns
(
just
emission
rates).

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:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
1:
53
PM
To:
Eric
Schaeffer
Cc:
Mary
Kissell
(
E­
mail)

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
The
baseline
emission
estimates
we
used
as
inputs
to
the
risk
analyses
did
not
account
for
installation
of
APCD
that
occurred
after
April
2000.
The
Boise
and
Willamette
APCD
installations
occurred
after
that
time.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Eric
Schaeffer
[
mailto:
eschaeffer@
environmentalintegrity.
org]

Sent:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
1:
49
PM
To:
Hanks,
Katie
P.

Subject:
RE:
Answers
to
your
questions
Katie,
did
the
risk
analyses
rely
on
emissions
data
from
2000?
I
know
that
Boise
and
Wilamette
had
to
install
RTO's
as
a
result
of
CD's
signed
in
2002
and
2000,
and
I'm
wondering
if
the
estimates
used
for
calculating
risk
took
those
reductions
into
account .

Regards,

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