From:
Carson,
Jim
R.
[
mailto:
Jim.
Carson@
ispat.
com]
Sent:
Tuesday,
October
28,
2003
5:
24
PM
To:
Branscome,
Marvin
R.
Subject:
RE:
Sinter
Plant
Method
9
Observations
Marvin,
Since
all
of
our
readings
at
our
Sinter
Plant
are
only
for
internal
evaluations
and
the
facility
is
also
subject
to
material
transfer
limitations
of
10%
three
minutes
average,
we
have
our
observer
record
all
fugitives
on
the
more
severe
three
minute
averaging
period.
As
I
mentioned
in
the
last
email,
the
10%
six
minute
average
is
the
fugitive
limit
for
material
processing
units
[
326
IAC
6­
1­
11.1(
d)(
7)(
A)
and(
B)],
which
I
believe
is
the
appropriate
and
applicable
section
for
the
coolers.
Therefore,
the
same
limitation
should
apply
to
the
three
Lake
County
sinter
plants
you
listed
below.
Please
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
other
questions.
Jim
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Branscome,
Marvin
R.
[
mailto:
marvin@
rti.
org]
Sent:
Tuesday,
October
28,
2003
2:
41
PM
To:
Carson,
Jim
R.
Subject:
RE:
Sinter
Plant
Method
9
Observations
Thanks,
Jim.
This
is
what
we
needed.
I
read
326
IAC
for
material
processing
to
be
10%
opacity
using
Method
9,
which
means
6­
min
averages.
However,
your
data
seems
to
be
3­
min
averages.
Is
the
applicable
standard
10%
6­
min
averages?
Could
we
say
that
Ispat­
Inland,
USS
Gary,
and
ISG
East
Chicago
are
subject
to
the
10%
limit;
therefore
it
constitutes
the
floor
for
sinter
coolers
(
3
of
5
plants)?

Marvin
Branscome
RTI
International
P.
O.
Box
12194
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709
phone:
919­
990­
8643
fax:
919­
990­
8600
marvin@
rti.
org
