# 17 July 2009

Mr. Chris LaLone, P.E.

NYSDEC - Region 6

Division of Air Resources

317 Washington Street

Watertown, New York 13601

RE: Alcoa, Response to NYSDEC 6 February 2009 Comments

Massena Modernization, Title V Permit Modification

Dear Mr. LaLone:

In response to your comments dated 6 February 2009, please find two enclosed

copies of the revised Title V Permit Mo dification application elements for the

Alcoa Massena Modernization project. Specific enclosures include the

following:

• Application introductory text (Sections 1 – 4); and

• Appendix 1 – Applicability Asse ssment Supporting Documentation

including Appendices A (Emission Un it Matrix), B (PSD Applicability

Supporting Calculations), and C (Non-attainment NSR Applicability

Support Calculations).

The enclosed documents address your comments and questions on Appendix B

– PSD Applicability Supporting Calculatio ns and Appendix C – Non-attainment

NSR Applicability Support Calculations. In addition, you will find some

additional changes presented in a third section, Design/Calculation Updates.

Your comments and questions along with Alcoa responses and design updates

are presented as follows:

Appendix B - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations:

1. Table B1-3 - There is a statement that furnace 4 emission factors are higher than

furnace 8 and thus used for the prior actual emissions calculations. I would prefer to see

Alcoa use the lower emission factors in this c ase since they will give the largest potential

emissions increase for the projec t (i.e. future actuals - prior actuals) which in this

instance would prove the most conservative.

Furnace PM emission factors assume norm al operations for 90% of the time and

worst case operations for 10% of the ti me. Furnace 4 emission factors were

chosen because they are the most representative of normal and worst case

operations and the most recent testing (Fall 2007 SMACT testing) was only

conducted on furnace 4. Fu rnace 4 emission factors were not used because they

were higher than furnace 8 emission fact ors, but because they are more current

and representative of both fu rnace 4 and fur nace 8 emissions.

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 2



# 2. Table B1-5 - For the 2006 emissions calculat ions the total TF emission factor is based

on the average of actual test ed emissions for the year. However, the PMACT TF limit

was exceeded for a portion of 2006. The TF emi ssion factor should be recalculated to use

actual TF emissions for those months that the TF emission limit was met and the

PMACT limit of 2.4 lb/TAP for the months th e facility was in violation of the standard.

When I made this calculation I came up with a 2006 total TF emission factor of 2.33

lb/TAP rather than the value of 2.59 lb/TAP used in the calculations.

The TF emission factor was recalculated to use actual TF emissions for those

months that the TF emission limit was met and the PMACT limit of 2.4 lb/TAP

for the months the facility was in violation of the standard. The TF emission

factor for the roof monitor was calculated to be 2.33 lb/TAP and the total

(primary + secondary) emission factor became 2.36 lb/TAP. This change of the

TF emission factor converted the prio r actual for the East Plant soderberg

potline from 264,990 lb/yr to 252,668 lb/yr. The project net emissions increase

remains below the PSD TF significance threshold of 3 ton/yr.

3. Table B1-8 - The emission factor for TF u sed in this table is 1.15 lb/TAP. However

the PMACT standard for new potlines is 1.2 lb/TAP. By using the 1.15 lb/TAP to

calculate future TF emissions is Alcoa prop osing to meet a TF limit more restrictive

than the PMACT limit? Using 1.2 lb TF/TAP gives a future TF emission of 4 tpy

higher than calculated.

Alcoa respectfully requests that the 1.15 lb of TF/TAP emission rate be made a

permit condition as an annual average rate in order to ensure that TF emissions

are below the PSD significance threshol d, with the PMACT standard of 1.2

lb/TAP as a monthly standard.

4. Table B1-8 - In calculating the future SO2 emissions it appears there is an error in

calculating the percentage of SO2 though the A-398’s and the roof monitors. When I

run those calculations I get 5,482,357 lb/yr through A-398’s and 111,885 lb/yr through

the roof monitors. Using these numbers the Total SO2 emitted becomes 440,826 lb/yr or

26,293 lb/yr more than calculated in this table.

The descriptions of these values were inadvertently not updated. The

description states “98% through A-398’s” and “2% through monitor,” but the

actual fume capture percent for the new East Plant potline is expected to be

98.5% as shown near the top of the page. The West Plant prebake potline has a

fume capture of 98.0%. The table values are correct and the descriptions have

been updated.

5. Table B1-13 - One of the emission sources listed in this table is #19 homogenizing

furnace. However, there is no indication of what the 2006 & 2007 actual emissions from

#19 homogenizing furnace were?

The only sources changing in the em ission unit A-00001 are homogenizing

furnaces #16, #17 and #18, which will be removed. Homogenizing furnace #19

will remain unchanged. Furnace #17 did not operate in 2006-2007, so only

emissions from furnaces #16 and #18 will be used in the netting analysis. The

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 3



# table was changed to only summarize em issions from sources that are changing

(furnaces #16, #17 and #18 - removed) for use in the netting analysis. Reference

to furnace #19 was removed from the table and the calculations remain

unchanged.

6. Table B1-14 - I believe the calculations at the bottom of this table are incorrectly

labeled and should be Emission unit A-00003, Process HM1 (not Emission unit A00001, Process HMO).

The incorrect emission unit label has been changed to identify unit A-00003,

Process HM1.

7. Table B1-21 - It doesn’t seem accurate to subtract particulate fluoride from A-398

and roof monitor particulate to come up with a total particulate emission rate from the

potline. Particulate fluoride should be count ed both as fluoride and particulate much as

lead particulate would be counted as both a particulate and a HAP. The particulate

impact on an area is not diminished simply because a portion of the particulate is

fluoride.

The total particulate emission rate was changed to be equal to the sum of the A398 and roof monitor particulate em ission rates. The average 2006-2007

emission rate changed from 1.848 lb/ton aluminum to 2.176 lb/ton aluminum.

As a result, the 2006-2007 average particul ate potroom emission changed from

262,411 lb/yr to 308,987 lb/yr. The projec t net emissions increase for PM, PM10, and PM-2.5 remain negative valu es and, therefore, well below their

respective PSD significance thresholds.

8. Table B1-22, 23, 24, 26 & 27 - All of these tables refer to the value “%S in reacted

aluminum” - I assume this is meant to be “...alumina”?

Yes, it is meant to be alumina.

9. Table B1-24 - Why was the Al2O3 feed rate doubled for the calculation of future SO2

emissions? Is Alcoa going to be doubling its use of Al2O3 in the West Plant potline?

The injection rate of Al2O3 will be doub led into the bake furnace dry scrubber

to account for doubled throughput of the ba ke furnace. This does not indicate a

doubling of the Al2O3 use in the West Plant potline.

10. Table B1-25 - Same comment as #7 above f or particulate calculations. Also, note (1)

states the process weight emission limit was u sed to calculate PM emissions but for this

table it appears that the average PM emissi on rate for 2006 - 2007 was used to calculate

PM emissions.

The total particulate emission rate was changed to be equal to the sum of the A398 and roof monitor particulate emission rates. The maximum emission rate

between 2006 and 2007 (2006) changed from 1.963 lb/ton aluminum to 2.232

lb/ton aluminum. As a result, the 2006-2007 maximum particulate potroom

emission changed from 283,302 lb/yr to 322,124 lb/yr. The project net

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 4



# emissions increase for PM, PM-10, and PM-2.5 remain negative values and,

therefore, well below their respective PSD significance thresholds. The

maximum PM emission rate between 2006 - 2007 was used to calculate PM

emissions. The process weight note was removed.

11. Table B1-28 - Same comment as #7 above for particulate calculations.

The calculations were changed and the 2006-2007 average total particulate

emission factor is currently being used without subtracting the total fluoride

emission factor. The emission factor us ed for the annual particulate calculation

changed from 0.246 lb/ton (green carbon) to 0.248 lb/ton (green carbon). As a

result, the 2006-2007 average particulate ba king furnace emission changed from

20,840 lb/yr to 20,980 lb/yr. The project net emissions increase for PM, PM-10,

and PM-2.5 remain negative values and, therefore, well below their respective

PSD significance thresholds.

12. Table B1-30 - Same comment as #7 above for particulate calculations.

The calculations were changed and the 2006-2007 average total particulate

emission factor is currently being used without subtracting the total fluoride

emission factor. The emission factor us ed for the annual particulate calculation

changed from 0.246 lb/ton (green carbon) to 0.248 lb/ton (green carbon). As a

result, the 2006-2007 average particulate ba king furnace emission changed from

44,804 lb/yr to 45,105 lb/yr. The project net emissions increase for PM, PM-10,

and PM-2.5 remain negative values and, therefore, well below their respective

PSD significance thresholds.

13. Table B1-31 - What is note (4) referencing?

The reference originally stated “Emission factor based on Method 5 Emission

Testing,” but the reference was inadverten tly removed from the final draft. It

was added as note (2).

14. Table B1-32 - My understanding is that it has been decided not to add a fourth paste

mixer to Emission Unit S-00003. However, a new anode former(s) will be added to the

emission unit. How does the anode former change these calculations?

Alcoa has opted to include the fourth paste mixer in the application and

associated calculations in the event that it proceeds with installation. Emissions

are based on throughput of paste and are independent of the addition of a

fourth paste mixer. In respect to the anode formers, information from two

anode former vendors indicates that Alco a will not have to increase the volume

of air captured from the new formers ve rsus the existing former and therefore

there will be no increase in emissions from the installation of the new formers.

15. Table B1-35 - This table has columns f or a Method A and Method B emission rate.

What is the distinction between the two methods?

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 5



# Columns in the spreadsheet were hidden. The revised table shows these

columns.Method A is based on an ERP and baghouse control efficiency. (ERP

lb/hr x (1-efficiency) Method B is based on a flow design and projected outlet

grain loading of 0.017 gr/dscf. (flow desi gn dscfm x projected outlet gr/dscf x

60 min/hr ÷ 7000 gr/lb) Proj ected emissions were based on the worst case

between the two methods.

Appendix C - Non-Attainment NSR Applicability Supporting Calculations:

1. Table C1-2 - In the table for prior COS MAP calculations the coke in sulfur content

is assumed to be 3% but there is a note next to it saying the allowable level is 2.5%

sulfur. There is no permit limit restricting coke sulfur content at the East Plant to 2.5%

sulfur. Is the note incorrect or should 2. 5% sulfur have been used in the COS

calculation. At 2.5% the COS prior MAP would be 172.7 tpy instead of the 203 tpy

using 3% sulfur in coke.

The note was erased. The calculation is correct with the assumed sulfur content

of 3%.

2. Table C1-2 - Was the propane combustion a result of pots set up solely to bake anodes

in a superstructure that wasn’t producing aluminum?

Propane combustion is a result of baking cathodes, which is an ongoing

requirement of soderberg operations.

3. Table C1-2 - In the prior VOC MAP calcul ations there is a large quantity of methane

emissions along with ethane and propane emi ssions. This is the first time I have ever

heard of generation of any of these pollutants from a potline. Is this a common pollutant

from HSS pots - I assume that the emissi ons of these pollutants are generated during

baking of the anodes in place. Since the t est data was from 2002, while still producing

anodes from paste, is it practical to assu me that the THC emissions would be as high

during 2006 & 2007 when the HSS pots operated most of the time with briquettes?

Methane and ethane generation is common from HSS pots. Due to the slow

baking, PAH compounds are broken do wn and not fully combusted. THC

emissions are not expected to be different based on the switch from paste to

briquettes.

4. Table C1-3 - In the future MAP COS calc ulations 3% sulfur in coke was used and

2.76% sulfur in baked anodes was used. A sulfu r in coke content of 2.5% and sulfur in

baked anodes content of 2.3% should have b een used since the new pre-bake potline will

be using anodes from the West Plant which h as a 2.5% sulfur in coke permit limit. Also,

the COS control is stated as 25% rather th an the 34% used for COS control for the

current East Plant pots. Since the same control equipment will be used 34% COS

control seems to be more appropriate. Using 2.5% sulfur in coke and 34% COS control

the future COS MAP becomes 177.4 tpy.

Since there is no permit limit restricting coke sulfur content at the East Plant to

2.5% sulfur, Alcoa left the sulfur in coke content at 3% and sulfur in baked

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 6



# anodes at 2.76%to accommodate the possibility of using anodes that may have

sulfur contents above 2.5%. The percen t fume capture for the new East Plant

potline is expected to be 98.5%, not 98%. This change was also made. Alcoa left

the control efficiency at 25% to be conservative and account for increased

loading of the control device. As a result of the percent fume capture change

from 98% to 98.5%, the COS MAP changed from 240.7 tpy to 240.3 tpy. Part 231

applicability remains unchanged.

5. Table C1-5 - One of the emission sources listed in this table is #19 homogenizing

furnace. However, there is no indication of what the 2006 & 2007 actual emissions from

#19 homogenizing furnace were?

The only sources changing in the em ission unit A-00001 are homogenizing

furnaces #16, #17 and #18, which will be removed. Homogenizing furnace #19

will remain unchanged. Furnace #17 did not operate in 2006-2007, so only

emissions from furnaces #16 and #18 will be used in the netting analysis. The

table was changed to only summarize em issions from sources that are changing

(furnaces #16, #17 and #18 - removed) for use in the netting analysis. Reference

to furnace #19 was removed from the table and the calculations remain

unchanged.

6. Table C1-6 - I believe the process ID for the new homogenizing furnaces is incorrectly

labeled throughout this table as HMO when it should be HM1. The maximum fuel

usage capacity for the new MH1 furnaces is listed as 0 MMCF/yr. My calculation

shows this value should be 1331 MMCF/yr.

The labeling was changed and the maximum fuel usage for the new MH1

furnaces is 1331 MMCF/yr. The cell was no t linked in the original calculations,

so the calculated emission rates remain unchanged.

7. Table C1-9 - The second table on this page should be labeled Prior and Future MAP

Anode Baking Furnace Emissions.

The label was changed.

8. Table C1-10 - Why is the potential West Plant green anode ma ximum production for

Emission Unit S-00003 different than listed for the same parameter on Table C1-9 for

Emission Unit S-00002 and Table C1-11 for Emission Unit S-00005? Shouldn’t they

all be the same?

The cell in table C1-10 with the potential West Plant green anode maximum

production was not linked. The change was made and the Prior MAP green mill

VOC emission rate changed from 4,335 lb /yr to 4,210 lb/yr and the future MAP

green mill VOC emission rate changed from 5,780 lb/yr to 5,613 lb/yr. Part 231

applicability remains unchanged.

9. Table C1-10 - A fourth paste mixer is not planned to be added to the green mill but a

new anode former(s) is - how does this change the future VOC MAP calculations?

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 7



# Alcoa has opted to include the fourth paste mixer in the application and

associated calculations in the event that it proceeds with installation. Emissions

are based on throughput of paste and are independent of the addition of a

fourth paste mixer. In respect to the anode formers, information from two

anode former vendors indicates that Alco a will not have to increase the volume

of air captured from the new formers ve rsus the existing former and therefore

there will be no increase in emissions from the installation of the new formers.

Design/Calculation Updates:

Anode Cooling :

Table B1-9: The capture efficiency (Y) for anode cooling was changed from 50%

to 95%based on design information. This change lowered the TF projected

future actual emissions from 8.2 TPY to 1.1 TPY. The project net emissions

increase remains below the PSD TF significance threshold of 3 lb/yr.

SO2 Emissions :

In 2006 and 2007 there was spent or “unuse d” carbon that was removed from

the East Potline without being consumed as either spent anodes or waste

carbon. This carbon removal was not a ccounted for in the initial calculation

submittal. The East Plant potline calcul ations have been revised based on this

information and the net emissions increase for SO2 has increased from 4.1 TPY

to 10 TPY, still well below the applicable threshold of 40 TPY.

PM Emissions:

Potline PM emissions were revised with a new calculation approach for PM 10

and PM 2.5 with condensables. The West Plant potline prior actual and future

projected emissions, as well as the mode rnized East Plant future emissions,

were calculated with adapted data from Alcoa’s South Carolina pre-bake

potline that contained condensable PM emissions for a pre-bake potline. The

soderberg potline emissions for the East Plant actual emissi ons are calculated

using 2008 emission test results and 06-07 average PM roof vent emission rates

to determine PM 2.5 with condensables, while PM 10, which was not tested in

2008, was calculated by applying the AP -42 “Percent Cumulative Mass” values

to the PM number, and then adding in condensables by assuming the percent

condensables of the total PM measured on the roof vent in 2008 is the same

percent for the control device.

Thank you for your on-going assistance with this matter. If you have any

questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Jordan Parent,

Alcoa at (315) 764 - 4737, or the undersigned at (585) 387 – 0510.

Sincerely,

# 17 July 2009

Mr. Christopher LaLone

Page No. 8



# Gary M. Keating

Partner

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Dobbs, Alcoa

Mr. Lenney, Alcoa

Mr. Parent, Alcoa

# Alcoa Massena Modernization Project

Attainment and Nonattainment Ai r Pollutant New Source Review

Determination of Applicability

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Plants

Park Avenue East, PO Box 150

Massena, New York 13662

September 2008

Revised October 2008

Revised July 2009

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

# Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world Attainment and Nonattainment Ai r Pollutant New Source Review

Determination of Applicability

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Plants

Park Avenue East, PO Box 150

Massena, New York 13662

Prepared by:

ERM

1159 Pittsford-Victor Road

Suite 200

Pittsford, New York 14534

# ERM 

# i ALCOA 

# T

ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS



# 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1

1.2 ATTAINMENT STATUS .................................................................................................1

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................2

2.0 ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING OPERATION ..................................................................3

2.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING BACKGROUND ...............................3

2.2 ALCOA MASSENA EMISSION UNITS ........................................................................7

3.0 PREVENTION OF SIGN IFICANT DETER IORATION........................................................10

3.1 SINGLE SOURCE DETERMINATION .......................................................................11

3.2 PROJECT BOUNDRY ...................................................................................................12

3.3 BASELINE ACTU AL EMISSIONS ...............................................................................16

3.4 PROJECTED ACTUAL/A LLOWABLE EMISSIONS...................................................18

3.5 PSD APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION .................................................................19

4.0 

# NONATTAIMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) APPLICABILITY ...................23

4.1 SOURCE PROJECT DEFINITION AND EMISSION UNIT MAP ANALYSIS........24

4.2 PEP AND SIGNIFICANT SOUR CE PROJECT EVALUATION................................25

4.3 SIGNIFICANT NET EMISSIONS EVALUATION......................................................25

TABLES

TABLE 1 – POLLUTANT AND NSR STA TUS...........................................................................2

TABLE 2 – EMISSIONS UNITS AND MODERNIZATION .....................................................7

TABLE 3 – PROJECT BOUNDARY EMISSION UNITS (SOURCES) ...................................13

TABLE 4 – TWENTY-FOUR MONTH AVERAGE BASELINE ACTUAL EMISSIONS ......17

TABLE 5 – PROJECTED ACTUAL EMISSIONS ADJUSTMENTS FOR EXISTING

EMISSIONS UNITS.................................................................................................19

TABLE 6 – PSD SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS INCREASE EVALUATION ...........................21

TABLE 7 - PSD SIGNIFICANT NET EMISSIONS INCREASE EVALUATION...................22

TABLE 8 – MAP SUMMARY AND SOURCE PROJECT DEFINITION ...............................24

TABLE 9 – PEP AND SIGNIFICANT S OURCE PROJECT EVALUATION..........................25

TABLE 10 – PART 231-2 SIGNIFICANT NET EMISSIONS INCREASE EVALUATION ...26

# ERM 

# ii ALCOA 

# FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – CURRENT EAST PLANT SODERBERG CELL ....................................................5

FIGURE 2 – CURRENT EAST PLANT FUME COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................5

FIGURE 3 – WEST PLANT PREBAKE REDUCTION CELL.....................................................6

FIGURE 4 – WEST PLANT FUME COLLECTION SYSTEM ...................................................6

FIGURE 5 – EAST PLANT EMISSION UNIT PROCESS FLOW .............................................9

FIGURE 6 – WEST PLANT EMISSION UNIT PROCESS FLOW ............................................9

APPENDIX A – EMISSION UNIT MATRIX

APPENDIX B – PSD APPLICABILITY SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX C – NON-ATTAINMENT NSR SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS

# ERM ALCOA 

# 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION

Alcoa is proposing to modernize their Massena East and West aluminum smelter

facilities. The modernization would bring si gnificant environmental benefits, provide a

cleaner and safer working environment for Alcoa employees, and retain at least 900 jobs.

The improvements include:

 replacing the Soderberg potline at Massena East with a modern technology pre-bake

potline;

 increasing the recent throughput of th e anode manufacturing facility at Massena

West to supply the needs of the new potline at Massena East as well as the existing

potline at Massena West, by taking advantage of historic production capacity.

Modernization activities are proposed at both the Massena East and Massena West

Facilities, which are located approximately te n miles apart. The Massena West Plant is

located adjacent to the Massena Power Canal in the Village of Massena. The Massena

East Plant is located approximately ten miles east of the Massena West Plant in

Rooseveltown.

1.2 ATTAINMENT STATUS AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLLUTANT STATUS

Massena, New York is located in an attainment area for all pollutants. New York State,

however, is located in the Northeastern U. S. Ozone Transport Region. As a result,

emissions of ozone precursor pollutants, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), are regulated in Massena as if it were a “moderate”

nonattainment area for ozone. NOx is regulated as both an attainment and a

nonattainment pollutant. VOC is regulated as only a nonattainment pollutant.

New and modified emission sources at fac ilities which are classified as “major” for

attainment and nonattainment pollutants are regulated under the Federal Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD), and St ate Nonattainment New Source Review

(Nonattainment NSR) programs, respectively. The Alcoa Massena East and West Plants

are considered major facilities under both th e attainment and nonattainment programs.

The PSD program is codified under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52.21 and

is currently implemented in New York by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). The Nonattainment NSR Program is codified under 6 New York Code of

Rules and Regulation (NYCRR) Part 231-2, and is implemented by the New York State

Department of Environmenta l Conservation (NYSDEC).

A list of pollutants emitted from Alcoa Massena operations is presented in the following

table along with NSR program applicability.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 2 Table 1 - Pollutant and NSR Status

Pollutant NSR Program Applicability

Particulate (PM) Attainment

PM10 Attainment

PM2.5 Attainment

NOX Attainment/Nonattainment

VOC Nonattainment

CO Attainment

SO2 Attainment

Fluoride (Particulate) Attainment (as Total Fluoride) no NAAQS

HF Attainment (added to particulate as Fluoride as element of

Total Fluoride) no NAAQS

POM Depending on physical state it could be an element of

measured (PM, PM10, PM2.5, and VOC)

Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) Not subject directly, element of VOC

HCl Not subject

Cl2 Not subject

Benzene Not subject directly, element of VOC

Toluene Not subject directly, element of VOC

Ethyl Benzene Not subject directly, element of VOC

Xylene Not subject directly, element of VOC

Styrene Not subject directly, element of VOC

Be Not subject directly, element of PM, PM10, PM2.5

Cd Not subject directly, element of PM, PM10, PM2.5

Mn Not subject directly, element of PM, PM10, PM2.5

Ni Not subject directly, element of PM, PM10, PM2.5



# 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this document is organized into three major sections. Section 2

provides an overview of aluminum manufacturing operations, and explains proposed

changes at the Massena East and West Plants. Section 3 presents a description of PSD

program applicability and explains the basis of baseline and projected future actual

emissions estimates necessary to determin e PSD program applicability. Section 4

presents a description of Nonattainment NS R program applicability and explains the

basis of emissions estimates necessary to determine nonattainment NSR applicability in

New York State. Both Sections 3 and 4 are supported by detailed emissions calculations

referenced in Appendices.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 3 2.0 ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS

2.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING BACKGROUND

Much of the following technical description is an excerpt from the Background Report,

AP-42 Section 12.1, Primary Aluminum dated November 12, 1998 prepared for the

USEPA by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., and available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief.

The Hall-Heroult process is used to produce aluminum metal by electrolytic reduction

of alumina that takes place in shallow rectang ular cells, or "pots," which are steel shells

lined with carbon. Carbon electrodes exte nding into the pot serve as the anodes and

the carbon lining as the cathode. Electric al resistance to the current passing between

the electrodes generates heat that maintain s the cell operating temperature. Molten

cryolite (Na 3 

# AlF 6 

# ) functions as both the electrolyte and the solvent for the alumina. The

electrolytic reduction of Al 2 

# O 3 

# by the carbon from the electrode occurs as follows:

2Al 2 

# O 3 

# + 3C → 4Al + 3CO 2



# The carbon required for this reaction comes from the electrode, which requires from 0.5

kg to 0.6 kg (1.1 to 1.3 lb) of carbon per k ilogram (2.2 lb) of metal. Carbon anodes are

continuously depleted by the reaction. In the electrolytic reduction of alumina, the

carbon anodes are lowered into the cell and are consumed at a rate of about 2.57 cm (1

in) per day. In theory, only 0.33 kg (0.73 lb ) of carbon is required per kg of aluminum.

Potline off gases contain 200 to 500 ppmv carbon monoxide, accounting for the

difference between theoretical and actual carbon consumption. Molten cryolite

functions as both the electrolyte and the so lvent for the alumina. Pure cryolite has a

melting temperature of 1010 O 

# C (1850 O 

# F). The electrolyte contains fluorospar (CaF 2 

# ),

some AlF 3 

# , and lithium in some instances, whic h along with the dissolved alumina,

reduces the melt temperature sufficiently to permit the cells to operate between 940 and

980 O 

# C (1725 and 1795 O 

# F). Aluminum is deposited at the cathode, where it remains as

molten metal below the surface of the cryo lite bath. Aluminum metal is tapped every 24

to 48 hours beneath the cryolite cover usin g a vacuum siphon. The aluminum is then

transferred to a reverberatory holding furnace where it is alloyed, fluxed and degassed

to remove trace impurities. From the holding furnace, the aluminum is cast for on- or

off-site fabrication of aluminum products.

Material conveyance operations are employ ed to unload, transport and deliver raw

materials to the process operations. At th e East Plant, these operations are addressed

by emission unit (EU) ULDG01. At the West Plant, they are addressed by EU S00004.

Two major types of aluminum reduction cells are used in electrolytic reduction:

prebaked (PB) anode cell, and Soderberg anode cell. Most of the aluminum produced

in the U.S. is processed using the prebaked anode cell process. The current Massena

East Plant operates Soderberg anode cells (EU POT001), and the Massena West Plant

operates prebake anode cells (EU S00001). The East Plant modernization project is

largely focused on replacing the East Plant Soderberg pots with prebake pots. Prebake

technology offers significant environmental an d energy related benefits as compared to

Soderberg technology.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 4 Both aluminum cell configurations require a "paste" (petroleum coke mixed with a

pitch binder). Paste preparation includes the crushing, grinding, and screening of coke

and cleaned spent anodes (butts) and blending the coke with a pitch binder in a steam

jacketed mixer. For Soderberg anodes, the th ick paste mixture is either added directly

to the anode casings while the paste is still hot, or it is cooled into briquettes and then

added to the anode casings, which are bake d in the aluminum reduction cell. In

contrast, prebaked (green) anodes are produced and baked as an ancillary operation at

a reduction plant. During PB anode manufacturing, the paste mixture is molded into

self supporting green anode blocks (EU S00003) that are baked in a direct-fired ring

furnace (EU S00002). Direct-fired ring furnaces use pitch and tars to isolate and seal off

the green anode blocks from the atmosphere during a 28-day baking process. After

baking, steel rods are inserted into the PB anode and sealed with molten iron. These

rods become the electrical connections to the PB anode. Prebaked anode cells are

preferred over Soderberg cells because they are electrically more efficient and emit

fewer volatile organic compounds. Volatile organic vapors from the pitch paste are

emitted during anode baking. Due to cell conf iguration and operations, it is possible to

achieve substantially higher fume collection e fficiencies with prebake cells as compared

to Soderberg cells. A PB cell operation, however, does require a separate anode and

rodding facility, not needed by Soderberg aluminum reduction cells.

Future East Plant anodes will be produced at the existing West Plant anode furnace.

Figures 1 through 3 below illustrate Soderber g and Prebake pot technology. Figures 2

and 4 illustrate their respective fume captur e system configurations. The nature of the

Soderberg pot design makes fume capture more challenging than with a PB pot. Alcoa

anticipates an increase in East Plant fume ca pture efficiency from 93 to 98.5% as a result

of the change from Soderberg to prebak e reduction cells at the East Plant.

# Figure 1 – Current East Plant Soderberg Cell

Figure 2 – Crust Breaking of an East Plant pot prior to an alumina ore addition

ERM ALCOA 

# 5

# Figure 3 – West Plant Prebake Cell

Figure 4 – West Plant Prebake Crust Breaking and Alumina Ore Feeding is Internal to

the Pot Superstructure - Thus Improving Fume Capture

ERM ALCOA 

# 6

# ERM ALCOA 

# 7 Following smelting, molten aluminum is transferred to reverberatory melting/holding

furnaces where it is alloyed, fluxed and dega ssed to remove trace impurities. This may

occur at both the East and West Plants. East Plant emissions sources involved with this

operation are addressed by EU EWCST1. We st Plant sources are associated with EUs

M00001 (furnaces which either do not flux, or which use only salt fluxes), and M00002

(in-line filter box gas fluxing units). From the holding furnaces, the aluminum is cast

and treated in a series of pre-heat and homo genizing heat treat furnaces located at the

West Plant (EU A00001).

In addition to the above primary aluminum manufacturing operations, the West Plant

processes recycled aluminum chips and ca stings. The recycled aluminum process

invokes regulatory requirements for second ary aluminum manufacturing. Recycled

aluminum is added to the reverberatory me lting/holding furnaces along with molten

aluminum.

2.2 ALCOA MASSENA EMISSIONS UNITS

The following table presents each Alcoa Massena East and West Plant emissions unit

using its NYSDEC Title V Permit nomenclatu re, along with a commentary on the affect

of the modernization project. A full emission s unit matrix identifying emission units,

processes, sources, controls, and points is a ttached for both the East and West Plants as

Appendix A, Table A1.

Table 2 - Emissions Units and Modernization Impact

Title V

Emission

Unit ID Description Modernization Impact

East Plant

A-NOD01 Anode Pin Room Shut Down - Emissions included in Pot Room

B-OIL01 Boilers No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

C-RSH01 Crusher Building Shut Down - Not operated since 2000. No credit taken for

prior actual emissions.

D-ROS01 Dross Storage Room No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

D-ROS02 Dross Cooling No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

C-ARB01 Carbon Plant Shut Down - emi ssions considered in netting analysis

E-WCST1 Cast House Shut Down except Homogenizing furnace, process HMO,

emissions considered in netting analysis

P-OT001 Potline Shut Down – Capacity replaced by new pre-bake pot line

P-AINO1 Paint Shop No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

P-ARTW1 Parts Washers No change - No t included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

0-CRUCE Cruce Augering Addition of Cruce Auger – New Equipment, Increased capacity



# U-LDG01 Unloading and Transfer Changes to in clude some increased utilization, equipment

elimination, and new bath fill ing, bath storage, and AlFl3

Filling Station.

W-WTR01 Wastewater Treatment No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

P-DIG01 Cathode Digging Shut Down – em issions considered in netting anlysis

# ERM ALCOA 

# 8 Table 2 - Emissions Units and Modernization Impact (continued)

Title V

Emission

Unit ID Description Modernization Impact

West Plant

A-00001 Homogenizing and Heat

Treat Furnaces Some sources will not change. Three homogenizing

furnaces will be removed.

A-00002 Insignificant Shop

Combustion Sources No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

A-00003 Homogenizing Heat Treat

and melting/holding

Furnaces with associated

filterboxes Seven homogenizing furnaces and three melting/holding

furnaces with gas fired filterbox fluxing units will be

added.

B-00001 Boilers Increase in load demand

C-00001 Chip Dryer #1 No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

C-00002 Chip Dryer #2 No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

D-00001 Misce llaneous metal

finishing and skim/dross

cooling Skim and Dross cooling will have increased throughput

F-00001 Misce llaneous fugitive

sources No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

M-00001 Melting/Holding Furnaces

with no gas fluxing (salt

only) No change – Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

M-00002 In-line filter box gas fluxing

units No change – Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

P-00001 Parts Washers No change - Not included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR

S-00001 Pre-bake Potline Increased throughput

S-00002 Anode Bake furnaces Increased throughput

S-00003 Paste Production Plant

(Green Mill) Adjustment to paste production process will be necessary

to accommodate increased paste production need.

S-00004 Material Handling

Operations Some sources will have increased throughput, others will

not change.

S-00005 Coal Tar Pitch Unloading

and Storage Increased throughput

S-00006 Smelting and anode

Fugitives (not including

potline) Some sources will have increased throughput, others will

not change. Emissions contained within respective

buildings.

W-00001 Wastewater Treatment No change - No t included in PSD/Nonattainment NSR



# Figures 5 and 6 on the following page presen t a general process flow by Emission Unit

for the East and West Plants, respectively.ALCOA9Figure 5 - East Plant Emission Unit Process FlowFigure 6 - West Plant Emission Unit Process FlowA00001Homogenizing andHeat Treat FurnacesS00006Smelting and anode Fugitives (notincluding potline)S00005Coal Tar PitchUnloadingand StorageS00004Material Handling OperationsS00003PasteProductionPlant(Green Mill)S00002Anode bakefurnacesS00001Pre-BakePotlineM00002In-line filter box gasfluxing unitsM00001Melting/HoldingFurnacesC00002Chip Dryer #2C00001Chip Dryer #1D00001Misc. metal finishingand skim/dross coolingA00002Insignificant ShopCombustion SourcesB00001BoilersW00001WastewaterTreatmentP00001PartsWashersF00001Misc. FugitivesourcesSupporting OperationsA00003Melting/HoldingFurnacesA00003HomogenizingFurnacesA00003In-line filter box gasfluxing unitsANOD01Anode PinRoomPDIG01CathodeDiggingULDG01Unloadingand TransferPOT001PotlineEWCST1Cast HouseCARB01Carbon PlantDROS02Dross CoolingDROS01Dross StorageRoomCRSH01Crusher BuildingPARTW1PartsWashersWWTR01WastewaterTreatmentPAIN01Paint ShopBOIL01BoilersSupporting OperationsKey:Red- Shut DownBlue- No ChangeOrange- Affected by Modernization ProjectERM

# ERM ALCOA 

# 10 3.0 PSD APPLICABILITY

As discussed in Table 1 above, pollut ants associated with the Alcoa Massena

Operations which are regulated under th e PSD permitting program are PM, PM10,

PM2.5, NOx, SO 2 

# , CO, and Total Fluorides (TF). The PSD permitting program is

currently being implemented in New York by the USEPA consistent with regulations

codified at 40 CFR 52.21 and which include the option to use a comparison of baseline

actual emissions to projec ted future actual emissi ons to determine program

applicability. The Alcoa East and West Plants are each deemed major stationary

sources under the PSD program since existing emissions of one or more attainment

pollutants exceed the pollutants’ respective major source thresholds. PSD permitting

obligations apply at major stationary sour ces which undergo major modifications.

Under 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(2)(i), a Major Modification means:

any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that

would result in: a significant emissions increase (as de fined in paragraph (b)(40) of this section) of

a regulated NSR pollutant (as defin ed in paragraph (b)(50) of this section); and a significant net

emissions increase of that pollutant from the major stationary source.



# There are a number of complex steps necessary to determine if the Massena

Modernization Project is a “major modifica tion” under the PSD program. The steps

are presented in summary form as follows . Additional details are provided as

necessary in the following sections and emissions estimates are supported by detailed

emission calculations in Appendix B. The applicability steps include:

 Assessing if the East and West Plants are considered a single source under the PSD

program;

 Defining the project boundary by determining which emission units (the federal

reference to emissions unit generally refers to emission sources, not NYSDEC Title V

emission units) are affected by the modern ization project. Emissions units affected

are those which are either new units, modified units, or ex isting units with emissions

that are directly or indirectly affected by upstream or downstream changes;

 Determining the baseline period for esta blishing baseline actual emissions;

 Calculating baseline actual annual emission s for each PSD regulated pollutant, for

each emission unit (source) during the baseline period determined to be within the

project boundary;

 Calculating future actual or allowable em issions for new sources, or for existing

sources, which are either directly changed by the modernization project, or indirectly

affected by upstream or downstream changes (debottlenecked). Both the directly

and indirectly affected existing source projected emissions may be adjusted

downward to exclude emissions that the source was capable of accommodating

prior to the change (demand growth emissions). New units were considered at their

PTE while modified and replacement emission s units are eligible for projections of

future actual emission s in this analysis.

 Subtracting baseline actual emissions of each pollutant from the projected

actual/allowable emissions of that pollutant (following its demand growth

# ERM ALCOA 

# 11 adjustments), and comparing the difference (in tons per year) to the PSD significance

threshold for the respective pollutant.

 For each pollutant emission which exceed s its respective significance threshold,

adding any emission increases and subtra cting any emissions decreases that are

contemporaneous with the project (within the last five years) to determine the net

emissions increase.

 Comparing the net emissions increase to the pollutant specific significance

thresholds to determine if there is a significant net emissions increase.

 Each pollutant with significant net emi ssions increase is subject to the PSD

permitting program for all contributing sour ces that are within the project boundary.

Details regarding each of the above referenc ed applicability steps are presented in the

following sections.

3.1 SINGLE SOURCE DETERMINATION

The East and West Plants have historically been managed as two distinct and separate

operating entities. The West Plant has always been owned and operated by Alcoa Inc.

The East Plant was previously owned and op erated by the former Reynolds Metals

Company. In 2000, Alcoa Inc. acquired the Reynolds Metals Company. Following the

acquisition, the East Plant continues to be operated by the Reynolds Metals Company,

now a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcoa. Up until the Massena modernization project,

the East and West Plants will operate unde r separate Title V Operating Permits.

Pending USEPA’s concurrence with the non- applicability determination for PSD, the

East and West Plants will continue to operat e under separate Title V Operating Permits.

Following modernization, the East Plant will become dependent on West Plant

operations for raw material (pre-baked anodes), and for metal product processing

capacity in the West Plant cast house. Consistent with guidance provided in the 11

October 2000 correspondence from Mr. Steven C. Riva, Chief Permitting Section Air

Programs Branch (USEPA Region 2) to Mr. John T. Higgins, P.E., NYSDEC - Director

Bureau of Application Review and Permitti ng Division, regarding the proposed St.

Lawrence Cement, Greenport Project, sour ce determinations are rooted in the

stationary source definition of 40 CFR Part 52.21 and must:

 belong to the same industrial grouping [the “Major Group” (i.e., which have the

same first two digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification

Manual, 1972, as amended by the 1977 Supplement],

 located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and

 be under the control of the same person (or persons under common control).

Both the East and West Plants are clearly un der the same industrial grouping with a

Standard Industrial Classification code of 3334 – Primary Aluminum. Likewise the

plants are clearly under the common control of Alcoa Inc.

The question of contiguous or adjacent pr operties is more involved. EPA has noted

that whether or not two facilities are adjace nt depends on the “common sense” notion

of a source and the functional inter-relation ship of the facilities and is not simply a

matter of the physical distance between th e two facilities. The physical distance

# ERM ALCOA 

# 12 between the East and West Plants (approximately 10 miles) is within the range of

distances considered to be adjacent by pr evious USEPA source determinations. For

example, in the 20 April 1999 correspondenc e from Richard R. Long, USEPA Region 8 -

Director Air and Radiation Program, rega rding the American Soda Commercial Mine

(Piceance facility) and proce ssing plant (Parachute facilit y), EPA determined that the

two facilities were considered adjacent alth ough they are located approximately 35 to

40 miles apart. In many previous USEP A determinations, two facilities although

separated by distance, are connected by a pipe line or dedicated conveyance, but this is

not the case in all determinations. For example, in a 13 March 1998 correspondence

from Cheryl L. Newton, USEPA Region 5 – Chief Permits and Grants Section, regarding

the Acme Steel Company (Acme) facilities lo cated in Chicago and Riverdale, Illinois,

USEPA made a single source determinatio n because of interdependency of the two

facilities based on materials being transported between the two via commercial rail line.

Based on the anticipated interdependency of the East and West Plants, Alcoa has

concluded that they meet the “common sense” notion of a source given the functional

inter-relationship of the facilities. Ther efore, for the purpose of PSD applicability

assessment, the East and West Plants are viewed as a single source following the

modernization project.

3.2 PROJECT BOUNDARY

The first step in characterizing emissions fr om the modernization project is defining the

project boundary. The Massena operations affected by the modernization are

represented above in Table 2, and Figure 5. Affected emissions units (sources) that are

included in the project boundary for the purpose of PSD applicability include those

which will be:

 new installations;

 directly modified existing units (sources);

 units (sources) that have an increase in em issions resulting from the removal of an

upstream or downstream production cons traints resulting from the project (debottlenecked units); and

 units (sources) which will be permanently sh ut-down (emissions will be included in

the netting analysis).

The following table presents those emission units (by their NYSDEC Title V source

identifiers) which are affected by the modern ization either directly or indirectly, along

with a characterization of how the unit is viewed from a PSD applicability point of

view.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 13 Table 3 - Project Boundary Emissions Units (Sources)

PSD Applicability Title V

Unit ID Title V Unit

Description Source ID

(PSD Emission

Unit) Source Description

Characterization

EAST PLANT

A-NOD01 Anode Pin

Room 01580 Channel Cooling Area Shutdown - Include in netting

via potline emissions

C-RSH01 Crusher

Building 00182 00282 Crushing operations Shutdown since 2000 - no

netting

00122 9.8 mmBTU/hr HTM burner

(nat gas) Shutdown - Include in netting

00122 9.8 mmBTU/hr HTM burner

(#6 fuel oil) Shutdown since 2000 – no

netting

00522 2000 ton petroleum coke storage

silo Shutdown - Include in netting

00622 2000 ton petroleum coke storage

silo Shutdown - Include in netting

01022 Anode Ball Mill Shutdown - Include in netting

01222 Misc. Handling Shutdown - Include in netting

01322 Eight carbon paste mixers Shutdown - Include in netting

01422 Coal tar pitch scales exhaust Shutdown - Include in netting C-ARB01 Carbon Plant

00322 00422 120,000 Gallon Coal Tar Pitch

Tank Coal Tar Pitch Unloading Shutdown - Include in netting

P-DIG01 Cathode

Digging 46185 Cathode Digging Process Shutdown - Include in netting

05152/05354/05556 Electrolytic Reduction Pot Line Remove Soderberg. Emissions

are used in netting.

PS001 Electrolytic Reduction Pot Line New PSD Unit

PS002 Pot Room Roof Vents Associated with the new PreBake Line P-OT001 Potline

AC001 Anode Cooling New PSD Unit

01320 Cruce Lid Cleaning No change

01420 Cruce Augering No change 0-CRUCE Cruce Augering

01520 Cruce Augering New PSD Unit

0125A Alumina unloading hopper,

elevator, and transfer point Debottlenecked

0125B Alumina/Coke conveyance Shut down

0125C Alumina/coke conveyance Shut down

0125D Alumina/coke conveyance Shut down

00325 Alumina/coke conveyance Debottlenecked

0125A Alumina/coke conveyance Debottlenecked

0125B Alumina/coke conveyance Debottlenecked

00325 Ore Gallery Coke/Briquette

Conveying Debottlenecked

00126 Bath Filling Area New PSD Unit

00127 Bath Filling Area New PSD Unit

00128 Bath Filling Area New PSD Unit

00129 Bath Filling Area New PSD Unit

00130 Transfer Pt New PSD Unit

00131 Bath Storage Silo Transfer Point New PSD Unit U-LDG01 Unloading and

Transfer

00132 Aluminum Fluoride Filling

Area New PSD Unit

# ERM ALCOA 

# 14 Table 3 - Project Boundary Emi ssions Units (Sources)(continued)

Title V

Unit ID Title V Unit

Description Source ID

(PSD Emission

Unit) Source Description PSD Applicability

WEST PLANT

AI014 6500 Ton Press Pre-Heat No change

AI15A 6500 Ton Press Pre-Heat No change

AI15B 5300 Ton Press Pre-Heat No change

AI026 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace Shutdown – Incl ude in netting

AI027 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace Shutdown – Incl ude in netting

AI043 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace Shutdown – Incl ude in netting

AI046 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace No change

AFC1A Heat Treat Furnace No change

AFC1B Heat Treat Furnace No change

AFC1C Heat Treat Furnace No change

AFC1D Heat Treat Furnace No change

AFC1E Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF01A Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF01B Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF01C Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF01D Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF01E Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF075 Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF076 Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF74A Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF74B Heat Treat Furnace No change

AF014 Heat Treat Furnace #13 No change

AF015 Heat Treat Furnace #14 No change

AF02A Heat Treat Furnace #15 No change

AF02B Heat Treat Furnace #16 No change

AF78A Heat Treat Furnace #17 No change A-00001 Homogenizing

and Heat Treat

Furnaces

AF78B Heat Treat Furnace #18 No change

AI047 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI048 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI049 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI050 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI051 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI052 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

AI053 Homogenized Heat Treat

Furnace New PSD Unit

M004A Molten Aluminum Melting and

Holding Furnaces New PSD Unit

M004B Molten Aluminum Melting and

Holding Furnaces New PSD Unit

M004C Molten Aluminum Melting and

Holding Furnaces New PSD Unit

M004D In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units New PSD Unit A-00003 Homogenizing

Furnaces,

Melting/Holding

Furnaces with

associated gas

fired Filterbox

Fluxing Units

M004E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units New PSD Unit

# ERM ALCOA 

# 15 Table 3 - Project Boundary Emi ssions Units (Sources)(continued)

Title V

Unit ID Title V Unit

Description Source ID

(PSD Emission

Unit) Source Description PSD Applicability

Characterization

A-00003 Cont. M004F In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units New PSD Unit

B0001 Boiler burning natural gas or

No. 6 Fuel Oil Debottlenecked

B0002 Boiler burning natural gas or

No. 6 Fuel Oil Debottlenecked

B0003 Boiler burning natural gas or

No. 6 Fuel Oil Debottlenecked B-00001 Boilers

B0004 Boiler burning natural gas or

No. 6 Fuel Oil Debottlenecked

D-00001 Miscellaneous point

sources DI116 Skim and Dross Area Increased Throughput

M001E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units No change

M0036 In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units No change

M003E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units No change M-00002 In-line filter box gas

fluxing units

M024E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing Units No change

S-00001 Pre-bake Potline SS198 Electrolytic reduction pot line Increased Throughput

S-00002 Anode Bake

furnaces SS078 Anode Baking Furnace Increased Throughput

S-00003 Paste Production

Plant (Green Mill) SS099 Paste Production Plant Modified - Process change

SS415 Small Induction Furnaces Debottlenecked

SS483 Electric Welder Shutdown since 2000 - no

netting

SS495 Packed Coke Drilling Operation Debottlenecked

SS490 Alumina Loading and

Unloading Debottlenecked

423AB Spent Anode Rough Cleaning Debottlenecked

423AA Bath Handling, Crushing and

Crucible Digging Operations Debottlenecked

SS441 Transfer Pt. For 2 Alumina belt

conveyors (Build 441) No change

SS438 Butt Crushing Debottlenecked

SS449 See Process Description Debottlenecked

SS486 Storage Tank 440a And 440b

Fluidizer For Alumina No change

SS492 Truck Hopper Unloading No change

SS443 Transfer Pt 441C No change

SS446 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446A No change

SS447 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446B No change

SS448 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446C No change S-00004 Material Handling

Operations

SS402 Pot Digging/Spent Potlining

Operations Debottlenecked

# ERM ALCOA 

# 16 Table 3 - Project Boundary Emi ssions Units (Sources)(continued)

Title V

Unit ID Title V Unit

Description Source ID

(PSD Emission

Unit) Source Description PSD Applicability

Characterization

SS088 Tar Pitch Storage Tank Debottlenecked

SS089 Tar Pitch Storage Tank Debottlenecked

SSFP2 Pitch Recirculating Pumps Debottlenecked

SS073 Rail Car Unloading Station Debottlenecked

SS077 Rail Car Unloading Station Debottlenecked S-00005 Coal Tar Pitch

Unloading and

Storage

SSFP1 Pitch Recirculating Pumps Debottlenecked

SSFA1 Coke Unloading Operations Debottlenecked

SSFA2 Coke Handling and Storage

Operations Debottlenecked

SSFA3 Clamshell Bucket Operations Debottlenecked

SSFAC Fugitives from passive anode

cooling No change S-00006 Smelting and anode

Fugitives (not

including potline)

SSFSM Seam Mix Oper ations No change



# 3.3 BASELINE ACTUAL EMISSIONS

Baseline actual emissions are determined using the provisions of 31 December 2002,

NSR reform rule. Specifically, consiste nt with 40 CFR 52.21 (48) Baseline actual

emissions means:

The rate of emissions, in tons per year, of a regulat ed NSR pollutant, as determined in accordance with

paragraphs (b)(48)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i ) For any existing electric utility steam generating unit...

(ii) For an existing emissions unit (other than an electric utility steam generating unit), baseline actual

emissions means the average rate, in tons per year, at which the emissions unit actually emitted the pollutant

during any consecutive 24-month period selected by the owner or operator within the 10-year period immediately

preceding either the date the owner or operator begins actu al construction of the projec t, or the date a complete

permit application is received by the reviewing authorit y for a permit required either under this section or under

a plan approved by the Administrator, whichever is earli er, except that the 10-year period shall not include any

period earlier than November 15, 1990.

(a) The average rate shall include fu gitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and emissions associated

with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.

(b) The average rate shall be adjusted downward to ex clude any noncompliant emissions that occurred while

the source was operating above an emission limitation th at was legally enforceable during the consecutive 24-

month period.

(c) The average rate shall be adjusted downward to exclude any emissions that would have exceeded an

emission limitation with which the major stationary source must currently comply, had such major

stationary source been required to comply with su ch limitations during the consecutive 24-month period.

However, if an emission limitation is part of a max imum achievable control technology standard that the

Administrator proposed or promulgated under part 63 of th is chapter, the baseline actual emissions need only

be adjusted if the State has taken credit for such emissions reductions in an a ttainment demonstration or

maintenance plan consistent with the requirements of § 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).

(d) For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project in volves multiple emissions uni ts, only one consecutive

24-month period must be used to determine the base line actual emissions for the emissions units being

changed. A different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated NSR pollutant.

(e) The average rate shall not be based on any consecutive 24-month period for which there is inadequate

information for determining an nual emissions, in tons per year, and for adjusting this amount if required by

paragraphs (b)(48)(ii)(b) an d (c) of this section.

(iii) For a new emissions unit, the ba seline actual emissions for purposes of determining the emissions increase

that will result from the initial construction and operation of such unit shall equal zero; and thereafter, for all

other purposes, shall equal the unit’s potential to emit....

# ERM ALCOA 

# 17 Alcoa has opted to use the average rate, in tons per year, from the prior two calendar

years operation. The average actual em ission rate for the two prior years is

representative of actual operations of the last five years. Although the above referenced

actual emission definition allows for the us e of any consecutive 24 month period in the

last 10 years, Alcoa has opted to limit its look back to five years to be consistent with

the anticipated revisions to NYSDEC’s NSR ru le (Part 231) anticipated early in 2009.

NYSDEC’s draft rule currently limits the look back period for all sources (both utility

and non-utility) to five years. Likewise , although the above referenced federal

definition allows the use of different baselin e periods for different pollutants, Alcoa has

opted to use a single baseline period for all pollutants to be consistent with NYSDEC’s

anticipated rule revisions.

Table 4 –Twenty-four Month Average Baseline Actual Emissions

Combined East and West Plant, Av erage Actual Emis sions (tons/year)

Year NOx SO2 TF PM PM10 PM2.5 CO

03-04 163 2,051 170 1,011 367 204 28,147

04-05 171 2,540 188 1,297 471 262 30,333

05-06 220 3,019 202 1,414 513 285 34,101

06-07 268 2,955 193 1,425 521 291 36,474

RED = Highest Value

= selected Baseline Actual Emission



# Baseline actual emissions supporting calculat ions for the selected baseline period are

provided for reference in Appendix B, Ta ble B1. Please note that baseline NOx

emissions for 2006/2007 are based on the East Plant allowable emissions cap of 99 tons

per year. Based on emission testing of the Soderberg potline in June and September of

2008, the NOx emissions rate has been determined to be greater than previous actual

emissions estimates. Theref ore baseline emissions from th e Soderber potline are based

on allowable emissions instead of actual emissions (because the allowable emission is

the lesser of the two).

# ERM ALCOA 

# 18 3.4 PROJECTED ACTUAL/ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS

Developing post modernization project actual emissions is a two step process. First

projected actual emissions are determined based on anticipated maximum production

and anticipated maximum (often permitted) emission levels. Second, the projected

actual emissions from existing units are adjusted (emissions from new units are not

adjusted) to account for emissions which are unrelated to the modernization project

and which could have been accommodated by the source prior to the change. For

reference, the 40 CFR Part 52.21(b) definition of projected annual em issions is provided

as follows:

(41)(i) Projected actual emissions means the maximum a nnual rate, in tons per year, at which an existing

emissions unit is projected to emit a regulated NSR po llutant in any one of the 5 years (12-month period)

following the date the unit resumes regul ar operation after the project, or in any one of the 10 years following

that date, if the project involves inc reasing the emissions unit’s design capacity or its potential to emit that

regulated NSR pollutant and full utilization of the unit would result in a significant emissions increase or a

significant net emissions increase at the major stationary source.

(ii) In determining the projected actual emissions under paragraph (b)(41)(i) of this section (before beginning

actual construction), the owner or operator of the major stationary source:

(a) Shall consider all relevant information, including but not limited to, historic al operational data, the

company’s own representations, the company’s expect ed business activity and the company’s highest

projections of business activity, the company’s filings with the State or Federal regulatory authorities,

and compliance plans under the approved State Implementation Plan; and

(b) Shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable and emissions associated with startups,

shutdowns, and malfunctions; and

(c) Shall exclude, in calculating any increase in emi ssions that results from he particular project, that

portion of the unit’s emissions following the projec t that an existing unit could have accommodated

during the consecutive 24-month period used to es tablish the baseline actual emissions under paragraph

(b)(48) of this section and that are also unrelated to the particular project, including any increased

utilization due to product demand growth; or

(d) In lieu of using the method set ou t in paragraphs (a)(41)(ii)(a) throu gh (c) of this section, may elect to

use the emissions unit’s potential to emit, in tons per year, as defi ned under paragraph (b)(4) of this

section.



# For each debottlenecked emissions unit, ALCO A has determined the emissions increase

consistent with the actual to projected future actual emissions methodology required by

the current PSD regulations. EPA prov ided a review of the current program

requirements regarding the determination of emissions increases associated with

debottlenecked emissions points in the September 14, 2006 Federal Register in the

preamble to its proposed regulation concer ning aggregation and debottlenecking. As

EPA noted in the preamble (71 fr 54238):

“The actual-to-projected-actu al test in the 2002 rules for existing emissions units

applies not only to the unit(s) undergoing the change but also to any other

existing emissions unit(s) at the source that experiences a change in emissions

related to the project. Thus, the current EPA rules permit emissions increases

from debottlenecked units (and any other unit that increases its utilization as a

result of the project) to be calculated using an ‘‘actual-to projected-actual’’ test.7

We believe this represents a fair read ing of our current regulatory text for

‘‘projected actual emissions’’ found at 40 CFR .21(b)(41).8”

The preamble makes clear that in projecting future actual emissions for debottlenecked

emissions points, emissions projections may be adjusted for any emissions increases

# ERM ALCOA 

# 19 that the unit could have accommodated in th e baseline period which are unrelated to

the change.

Following the development of projected actual emissions for each emission unit being

affected either directly or indirectly (deb ottlenecked) by the modernization project,

Alcoa has adjusted the projected actual emissions to exclude those emissions that the

unit could have accommodated to meet a particular level of demand (demand growth).

Additionally, debottlenecked em ission increases were adjusted, where appropriate, to

account for emissions already authorized by pre-existing permit terms. A summary of

debottlenecked or modified emission unit adjustments is provided in the following

table. Note that this table only includes those Title V emission units with PSD

pollutants. Each Title V emission unit includes one or more PSD emission units

(sources).

Table 5 - Projected Actual Adjustment Approach for Existing Emission Units (Sources)

Title V Unit

ID Unit Description Projected Actual Adjustment Approach - to account for Emissions that could have

been accommodated before modernization due to demand growth, or pre-existing air

quality permit terms

West Plant

B-00001 Boilers The maximum heat demand between 2003 and 2007 (2005) was used to calculate

combustion emissions from firing natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil as if one or the other had

been used to generate the entire heat demand. Both fuels are permitted to be used by all

boilers. No. 6 fuel oil produced the high est emissions for all of PSD pollutants.

S-00001 Pre-bake Potline Percent sulfur in coke was increased to the allowable 2.5% based on State -BACT

required by Title V Permit Condition No. 208. The maximum previous annual

aluminum production, 12 months of production from September 2007 through August

2008, was used to represent demand growth production capacity based on current

operations. TF emissions were adjusted to reflect maximum annual average lb/ton

emission rate using 2007 data.

S-00002 Anode Bake

Furnaces Maximum projected production of the West Plant anode bake furnaces of 182,243 tons of

green anode production per year was used as the anode demand is not limited to the

anodes that are used at the West plant.

S-00003 Paste Production

Plant

(Green Mill) The highest ratio of annual hours of operation to green anodes produced from 2005 to

2007 (2006) was used to determine pre-modernization production capacity assuming

8,760 hours of operation.

S-00004 Material

Handling

Operations Changed annual days of operation to 365 and left hours of operation per day the same to

account for the increase in alumin um production to capacity.



# Supporting calculations quantifying projected actual adjustments are included in

Appendix B, Table B2.

3.5 PSD APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION

As discussed above, there are a number of complex steps necessary to determine if the

Massena Modernization Project is a “major modification” under the PSD program. A

“major modification is any physical change or change in the method of operation of a

major stationary source (facility) that would re sult in a significant emissions increase of

a regulated PSD pollutant, and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant

from the major stationary source. Consistent with the NSR reform rule, PSD

applicability is determined by an actual to pr ojected actual test. As described in the

preceding sections, the actual to projected ac tual test consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Significant Emission Increase Evaluation

# ERM ALCOA 

# 20 Including the following sub-steps:

 Calculate baseline actual annual emissions fo r each PSD regulated pollutant, for each

emission unit (source) during the baseline pe riod determined to be within the project

boundary;

 Calculate future actual or allowable em issions for new units and for those units

which are either directly changed by the mode rnization project, or indirectly affected

by upstream or downstream changes (debottl enecked). For existing sources that are

directly and indirectly changed, projected emissions may be adjusted downward to

exclude emissions that the unit was capable of accommodating prior to the change

(demand growth emissions and permit accommodation). Projected emissions from

new sources are not adjusted.

 Subtract prior actual emissions of each po llutant from the projected actual/allowable

emissions of that pollutant (followi ng its demand growth and permit

accommodation adjustments). Compare the difference (tons per year) to the PSD

significance threshold for the respective pollutant.

Step 2: Significant Net Emissions Increase Evaluation

 For each pollutant emission which exceeds its respective significance threshold, add

any emission increases and subtract any emissions decreases that are

contemporaneous with the project (within the last five years) to determine the net

emissions increase.

 Compare the net emissions increase to the pollutant specific significance thresholds

to determine if there is a sign ificant net emissions increase.

 Each pollutant with significant net emi ssions increase is subject to the PSD

permitting program for all contributing sour ces that are within the project boundary.

The following table provides a summary of the Step 1 Significant Emission Increase

Evaluation. Supporting calculat ions are provided in Appendix B, Table B2. Please note

that if the significant increase evaluation for an existing emission unit produced an

emission decrease (a negative emissions increa se), the emissions increase for that unit is

counted as 0 or as no emissions increase. This occurred in a few occasions where the

demand growth/permit accommodation adjust ments resulted in a projected actual

emission which was less than the baseline actual emission for the subject unit.

Additionally, some projected actual values are dependent of the incorporation of

federally enforceable permit terms into the modified Alcoa Title V Permits.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 21 Table 6 – PSD Significant Emissions Increase Evaluation

Unit ID Description Emission Type (TPY) NOx SO 2 

# TF PM PM10 PM2.5 CO

East Plant

Baseline Actual

Projected Future Actual 47.9 207.3 92.0 263.9 153.0 73.9 14,484.1

Demand Growth Adjustment P-OT001 Pre-bake Potline

Unit Emissions Increase 47.9 207.3 92.0 263.9 153.0 73.9 14,484.1

Baseline Actual

Projected Future Actual 1.1

Demand Growth Adjustment P-OT001 Anode Cooling

Unit Emissions Increase 1.1

Baseline Actual

Projected Future Actual 49.9 25.4 7.5

Demand Growth Adjustment 0-CRUCE Cruce Augering

Unit Emissions Increase 49.9 25.4 7.5

Baseline Actual 10.6 5.4 1.6

Projected Future Actual 84.6 43.1 12.7

Demand Growth Adjustment U-LDG01 Unloading and

Transfer Operations

Unit Emissions Increase 74.0 37.8 11.1

West Plant

Baseline Actual

Projected Future Actual 65.2 0.6 7.7 14.5 14.5 14.5 83.0

Demand Growth Adjustment A-00003 Homogenizing and

Melting/Holding

Furnaces with

Filterboxes Unit Emissions Increase 65.2 0.6 7.7 14.5 14.5 14.5 83.0

Baseline Actual 36.3 75.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 2.7

Projected Future Actual 163.6 247.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 4.6

Demand Growth Adjustment 238.6 1,523.3 59.9 59.9 59.9 10.6 B-00001 Boilers

Unit Emissions Increase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Baseline Actual 1.6 1.6 1.6

Projected Future Actual 3.7 3.7 3.7

Demand Growth Adjustment D-00001 Skim and Dross

Unit Emissions Increase 2.1 2.1 2.1

Baseline Actual 42.5 2,423.5 57.4 190.0 127.9 85.7 13,766.1

Projected Future Actual 44.7 2,620.7 88.1 255.7 168.0 84.7 13,511.9

Demand Growth Adjustment 0.7 156.5 9.5 7.2 12.1 5.9 6,198.2 S-00001 Pre-bake Potline

Unit Emissions Increase 1.5 40.7 21.2 58.6 28.0 0.0 0.0

Baseline Actual 89.3 211. 5 0.4 10.5 9. 9 8.2 90.8

Projected Future Actual 203.0 454.8 9.1 25.6 24.1 20.0 231.5

Demand Growth Adjustment 112.3 243.2 0.5 12.1 11.3 9.4 104.5 S-00002 Anode Bake Furnaces

Unit Emissions Increase 1.5 0.0 8.2 3.1 2.9 2.4 36.2

Baseline Actual 0.7 0.7 0.7

Projected Future Actual 1.9 1.9 1.9

Demand Growth Adjustment 0.8 0.8 0.8 S-00003 Paste Production

Plant (Green Mill)

Unit Emissions Increase 0.5 0.5 0.5

Baseline Actual 26.7 13.6 4.0

Projected Future Actual 226.7 115.6 34.0

Demand Growth Adjustment 15.4 7.9 2.3 S-00004 Material Handling

Operations

Unit Emissions Increase 184.6 94.1 27.7

Total Project Emissions: 116.1 248.6 130.2 691.0 385.2 156.2 14,603.2

Significance Threshold 40.0 40.0 3.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 100.0



# As illustrated in the above table, all PSD po llutants are determined to have a significant

emissions increase. The following table prov ides a summary of the Step 2 Significant

Net Emission Increase Evaluation. Co ntemporaneous emissions increases and

decreases are summarized below. Supporting ca lculations are provided in Appendix B,

Table B2.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 22 Table 7 – Significant Net Emissions Increase Evaluation

Pollutant (Tons/Year) NOx SO 2 

# TF PM PM-10 PM-2.5 CO

Total Project Emissions

(Project Actual - Demand Growth - Prior Actual) 135.3 248.7 137.3 673.9 379.5 165.8 14,623.0

Contemporaneous Emissions Decreases

Unit ID Description

CARB-01 Carbon Plant 1.2 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.4

E-WCST1 East Plant Castehouse 14.7 0.1 3.0 5.4 5.4 5.4 12.3

P-OT001 Soderberg Potline 61.2 238.5 126.3 1,435.4 604.8 537.3 22,582.4

P-DIG01 Cathode Digging 0.2 0.1 0.0

A-00001 Homogenizing and Heat Treat

Furnaces 22.4 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 18.8

Total Contemporaneous Emissions Decrease 99.6 238.8 129.4 1,444. 7 614.0 546.4 22,614.0

Net Emissions Increase

(Total Project Emissions – Net Decreases): 16.6 9.8 0.9 -753.8

- 228.9 -390.2 -8,010.8

Significance Threshold 40.0 40.0 3.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 100.0

Contemporaneous Emissions Increases

Unit ID Description

M-00001 Salt Fluxing for MHA Furnaces 4.3 4.3 4.3

C-00001 Chip Dryer No. 1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0

Total Contemporaneous Emissions Increase 1.1 4.5 4.4 4.4 0.0

Net Emissions Increase

(Total Project Emissions + Net Increases): 17.6 9.8 0.9 -749.3

- 224.5 -385.8 -8,010.8

Significance Threshold 40.0 40.0 3.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 100.0



# Based on the above referenced modernizat ion project netting analysis, there are no

pollutants subject to PSD permitting.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 23 4.0 NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) APPLICABILITY

As discussed above, New York State is located in the Northeastern U.S. Ozone

Transport Region. As a result, emissions of ozone precursor pollutants VOC and NOx

are regulated as nonattainment pollutants. New and modified emission sources at

facilities which are classified as “major” for nonattainme nt pollutants are regulated

under the New York Nonattainment NSR pr ogram. The Nonattainment NSR Program

is codified under 6 NYCRR Part 231-2, and is implemented by NYSDEC. Under Part

231-2.2(a)(4), a facility is subject to Nonatta inment NSR if an emissions increase of VOC

or NOx:

at an existing major facility, it is part of a signific ant source project for any such nonattainment contaminant

which results in a significant ne t emission increase for that nonattainment contaminant.



# The Alcoa Massena East and West Plants are ex isting major facilities under Part 231.

Therefore to assess applicability th e following steps are necessary:

 Determine prior and future “maximum annual potential” (MAP) emissions of VOC

and NOx for each Title V emissions unit;

 Define the Part 231-2 “source project” by identifying any new emission units, and

existing emission units which have an associ ated increase in MAP resulting from the

project. Each emissions unit with an incr ease in MAP for either VOC or NOx is part

of the “source project”;

 For each emission unit that is determin ed to be part of the “source project”,

determine the total “project emission potential” (PEP) of VOC and NOx;

 Based on the PEP for VOC and NOx, determine if the project is a “Significant Source

Project” by comparing the PEP to the significance thresholds (40 tons per year each

for VOC and NOx);

 If the project is a “Significant Source Pr oject” for VOC or NOx, determine the net

emissions increase (the PEP plus all creditable emission increases that are

contemporaneous with the project, minus all emission reduction credits that are

contemporaneous with the project);

 Determine if there is a “Significant Ne t Emissions Increase” for the project by

comparing the net emission increase for VO C or NOx to the respective significance

thresholds (40 tons per year each for VOC and NOx). There is a “Significant Net

Emissions Increase” if the net emissions incr ease exceeds the thresholds. Part 231-2

applies to each contaminant for which there is a “Significant Net Emissions

Increase”.

Details regarding each of the above referenc ed applicability steps are presented in the

following sections.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 24 4.1 SOURCE PROJECT DEFINITION AND EMISSION UNIT MAP ANALYSIS

Consistent with Part 231-2(b)(40), a source project is:

Any of the following proposed projects at an existing facility which results in an increase in emissions of a

nonattainment contaminant but does not include any emission reductions:

(i) a new emission unit (replacement of an e mission unit with similar eq uipment is addressed under

subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph); or

(ii) a physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an emissi on unit which results in an

increase in the maximum annual potential of the emission unit; or

(iii) multiples or combinations of the above which are related actions and are included in, dependent on, or

undertaken as a result of any long range plan of which each such emission unit is a part.



# It is important to note that for the purpose of Part 231 applicability, the term emissions

unit means the NYSDEC defined Title V emissions unit (this is different than the

emission unit referred to in the PSD applic ability discussion). All current Massena

modernization activities fall into Part 231-2(b)(4 0)(ii) above. That is, all new equipment,

and physical/operational changes affect only existing Title V emissions units. In other

words, there are no new Title V emission units being added.

In order to determine which emission units are part of the source project, it is necessary

to calculate the future (post modernization) , and prior MAP for each Title V emission

unit. Consistent with Part 231-2(b)(22), MAP is defined as:

The maximum annual capacity in tons per year of an emission unit to e mit a nonattainment contaminant.

Maximum annual potential shall:

(i) be determined after control equipment has been applied using the maximum enforceable permissible

emission rate; and

(ii) be based on continuous operation for 8,760 hours per year at maximum capability under the

emission unit's physical and operational design, unl ess limited by enforceable permit conditions; and

(iii) not include either secondary emissions or fugitive emissions.



# The MAP assessment and source project determination is presented in the following table.

Supporting calculations are provi ded in Appendix C, Table C1.

Table 8 – MAP Summary and Source Project Definition

Future MAP Prior MAP Part of Source

Project?

Emission

Unit* NOX

(tons/yr) VOC + COS

(tons/yr) NOX

(tons/yr) VOC + COS

(tons/yr) Yes or No

East Plant P-OT001 47.9 240.3 92.9 333.3 No

A-00001 65.4 14.1 109.4 16.5 No

A-00003 84.4 6.7 0 0 Yes

B-00001 756.9 19.3 756.9 19.3 No

S-00001 44.7 247.9 44.7 247.9 No

S-00002 203.0 18.6 203.0 18.6 No

S-00003 2.8 2.1 Yes West Plant

S-00005 3.9 3.9 No

*Only the emission units that emit NO X, VOC, or COS and are affected by the modernization project are listed in

this analysis

# ERM ALCOA 

# 25 4.2 PEP AND SIGNIFICANT SOURCE PROJECT EVALUATION

In order to determine if the project is a sign ificant source project, it is necessary to

determine the PEP. Consistent with Part 231-2(b)(32), PEP is defined as:

(32) Project emission potential.

(i) Except for an electric utility steam generating unit, project emission potential of a proposed source project

shall consider only proposed increases in emissions of a nonattainment contaminant and shall equal the sum of

the following:

(a) for new emission units, the maximum annual potential of each such emission unit; and

(b) for existing emission units, the difference betw een prior actual annual emissions or prior allowable

annual emissions, whichever is less, and the subseque nt maximum annual potential of each such emission

unit.

(ii) For an electric utility steam generating unit....

(iii) Project emission potential do es not include secondary emissions.

(iv) At an existing major facility, fugitive emissi ons are not included in determining whether the project

emission potential exceeds the signific ant source project threshold ...unless the facility belongs to one of the 28

source categories listed in secti on 231-2.2(c) of this Subpart.

(v) At an existing major facility, regardless of whether the facility belongs to one of the 28 source categories

listed in section 231-2.2(c) of this Sub part, once the project emission potent ial of a proposed source project is

determined to exceed the significant source project th reshold in sections 231-2.12 or 231-2.13 of this Subpart

without including fugitive emissions, the project emission potential must include fugitive emissions, to the

extent they are quantifiable, for subs equent permitting purposes (such as ai r quality analyses, offsets, etc.).



# A summary of source project PEP and resu lting significance is presented in the

following table. Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix C, Table C1.

Table 9 – PEP and Significant Source Project Evaluation

Future MAP Prior Actual (avg 06-07) PEP

(Future MAP - Prior Actual) Emission

Unit*

NOX

(tons/yr) VOC + COS

(tons/yr) NOX

(tons/yr) VOC + COS

(tons/yr) NOX

(tons/yr) VOC + COS

(tons/yr)

A-00003 84.4 6.7 0 0 84.4 6.7

S-00003 2.8 1.0 1.8

Total 84.4 8.6

Significance Threshold 40 40



# 4.3 SIGNIFICANT NET EM ISSIONS EVALUATION

In order to determine if the project has a significant net emissions increase, it is

necessary to determine the net emissions. Net emissions are calculated by adding the

PEP and all creditable emission increases th at are contemporaneous with the project,

and then subtracting all emission reduction credits that are contemporaneous with the

project. A summary of the net emissions ev aluation along with comparison to the NOx

and VOC significance threshold is presented in the following table. Please note that

emission reduction credit applications for contemporaneous emission decreases will be

included in the Title V Permit modification application.

# ERM ALCOA 

# 26 Table 10 –Part 231-2 Significant Net Emissions Incr ease Evaluation

PEP Future MAP Prior Actual (avg 06-

07) (Future MAP - Prior

Actual) Emission

Unit*

NOX

(tons/yr) VOC +

COS

(tons/yr) NOX

(tons/yr) VOC +

COS

(tons/yr) NOX

(tons/yr) VOC +

COS

(tons/yr)

Source Project Contribution

A-00003 84.4 6.7 0 0 84.4 6.7

S-00003 2.8 1.0 1.8

Significant Source Project Total 84.4 8.6

Contemporaneous Emission Decreases

P-OT001 47.9 240.3 61.2 251.6 -13.3 -11.3

CARB-01 0 0 1.2 0.2 -1.2 -0.2

E-WCST1 14.7 0.8 -14.7 -0.8

A-00001 22.4 1.2 -22.4 -1.2

Contemporaneous Emission Increases

C-00001 1.1 0 1.1 0

Net Emissions Increase 33.9 -4.9

Significance Threshold 40 40



# Based on the above referenced moderni zation project netting analysis, the only

pollutants subject to Part 231-2 permitting is NOx. Also, pursuant to the netting

analysis and Part 231-2.2(a)(4), only sections 231-2.3, 231-2.4, 231-2.6, and 231-2.7 of that

Subpart apply.APPENDIX A – Emission Unit MatrixAlcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixA-NOD01 This emissions unit consists of emissionssources located adjacent to the Anode PinRoom (on occassion this may also occur inother areas of the facility). There is one processidentified within this emission unit (G01). Thisemission unit results in fugitive emissions and isnot associated with the ventilation system.G01 This process is for the channel cooling area. As thechannels are removed from the pots, they are placed on aportable rack and allowed to cool prior to reforming in thechannel press. Currently, this process is adjacent to theAnode Pin Room, but on occassion it may be done in otherareas of the facility.01580 Channel Cooling Area NA FugitiveB-OIL01 I01 0122H Facility Boiler #2 (nat gas) 00C2B0222H Facility Boiler #1 (nat gas) 00C1B0322H Facility Boiler #3 (nat gas) 00C3BI03 0222H Facility Boiler #1 (#6 fuel oil) 00C1B0322H Facility Boiler #3 (#6 fuel oil) 00C3BC-RSH01 This emissions unit consists of emissionssources, control devices and emission pointsassociated with the Crusher Building, Facility82. There is one process associated with thisemissions unit, process F01. The emission pointidentified as 82002 includes several power roofvents and therefore specific emission point datais not provided. This emissions unit alsoincludes miscellaneous fugitive emissionsgenerated from the process.F01 The crusher building is used to crush spent carbon, scrapcarbon paste, pot strippings and basement ore. Thesemateirals are then recycled into the Carbon Plant andpotrooms. The materials to be crushed may be treatedwith various wetting agents to minimize dust generationduring the crushing process. A baghouse is used tocapture particulate emissions from the crushing operations.0018200282Crushing operationCrushing operationF0182 BaghouseNA82001FugitiveD-ROS01 This emission unit consists of emissions sourcesassociated with dross cooling processes andstorage, facility 20 and 20C. This emission unitincludes miscellaneous fugitive emissions fromthe processes.Z01 This process is for the dross storage room. Dross, amixture of various metal oxides, is generated from furnaceskimmings. Dross is stored in a room prior to shipment toan outside vendor for reclamation.01520 Dross storage room FugitiveD-ROS02 This emission unit consists of emission sourcesassociated with dross cooling in process Z01.Z02 This process is for the dross cooling areas. After dross isremoved from the furnace, it is allowed to cool prior tobeing placed into the dross storage room.01720 Dross cooling areaFugitiveEAST PLANT EAST PLANTEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionThis emissions unit consists of emissionssources and emission points located in theBoiler Room, Facility 22H. There are twoprocesses identified within this emissions unit,processes I01, and I03. These processes areidentified in detail in the process descriptionsection of the application package.This process is for the combustion of natural gas toproduce steam for heating and cooling purposesthroughout the plant. Each of the plant's three boilers hasthe capability to fire natural gas.This process is for the combustion of # 6 fuel oil to producesteam for heating and cooling purposes throughout theplant. Boilers #1 and #3 have the capability to fire #6 fuelRed Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-1Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionC-ARB01 N02 This process is for a 9.8 mmBTU/ht HTM burner whilefiring natural gas. The burner is used to heat HTM oil.HTM oil is used in non-contact piping as a heat transfermedium to maintain the operation temperatures for thecoal tar pitch storage and transfer operations, and tomaintain the operation temperatures of the paste mixers inthe Carbon Plant00122 9.8 mmBTU/hr HTM burner (nat gas) 22A09N03 This process is for a 9.8 mmBTU/ht HTM burner whilefiring #6 fuel oil. The burner is used to heat HTM oil. HTMoil is used in non-contact piping as a heat transfer mediumto maintain the operation temperatures for the coal tar pitchstorage and transfer operations, and to maintain theoperation temperatures of the paste mixers in the CarbonPlant00122 9.8 mmBTU/hr HTM burner (#6 fueloil)22A09N04 This process is the storage of petroleum coke and/or pastebriquettes in two 2,000 ton petroleum coke storage silos.00522 2000 ton petroleum coke storage silo 22D01 Passive Vent00622 2000 ton petroleum coke storage silo 22E01 Passive VentN05 01022 Anode Ball Mill N0222 Baghouse 2200301222 Misc. Handling N0322 Baghouse 22001N07 01322 Eight carbon paste mixers N0422 Dry coke scrubber 2200401422 Coal tar pitch scales exhaust N0522 Dry coke scrubber 22004N10 This process includes the coal tar pitch and the unloadingoperations. Coal tar pitch (pitch) is delivered to the site byrail in tank cars and is transferred to storage tanks tomaintain an on-site inventory. The rail tank cars have aninternal dip-pipe suitable for connection to a heated,flexible-top unloading pipe, a nitrogen gas connection anda vent line connection. The unloading pipe will be coupledto the two 120,000 gallon pitch storage tanks, the nitrogengas line will be coupled to a liquid nitrogen system with anevaporator for producing medium pressure nitrogen gas,and the vent line will be connected to the closest pitchtank. Gaseous nitrogen will be admitted into the tank carforcing the transfer of liquid pitch to the storage tank.0032200422120,000 Gallon Coal Tar Pitch TankCoal Tar Pitch UnloadingN0922N1022Vented toCondensation Tank(22F), which is ventedto a 55-gallon drum22F02E-WCST1J01 0120G Furnace 7200100220G SNIF 7Fugitive0320G Furnace 8200110420G SNIF 8FugitiveJ02 This process includes each of the cast house saws. 0620G #4 Saw2001500520 #5 Saw2001800620 #3 Saw20014J04 00120 Furnace 22000200220 Furnace 32000300320 Furnace 42000401820 ACD Degasser20004HMO This process includes the gas homogenizer furnace. Thissource is not subject to SMACT.0520G Gas Homogenizing Furnace 20013This emissions unit consists of emissionssources, control devices and emission pointsassociated with the Carbon Plant (Anode side),Facility 22. There are seven processesidentified within this emissions unit, processesN02, N03, N04, N05, N07, N08 and N10. Thisemissions unit also includes miscellaneousfugitive emissions generated from theseprocesses.This process includes the miscellaneous petroleum cokehandling and processing operation in the anode portion ofthe Carbon Plant. Petroleum coke is transferred from thecoke silos to the Carbon Plant where it undergoes anumber of handling and processing operations, including,sorting, crushing (via the anode ball mill), weighing andmixing. Two baghouses are used to control particulatematter emissions from this process - one for the anode ballmill and one for the miscellaneous handling equipment.This process includes the carbon paste mixers and the coaltar pitch scales. The carbon paste mixers are used to mixand weight the appropriate ratios of petroleum coke withthe coal tar pitch to form the anode paste. The anodepaste is then dumped into portable boxes for transfer intothe potrooms. Both the coal tar pitch scales and thecarbon paste mixers are vented to a dry coke scrubber toremove particulate matter and coal tar pitch volatiles.This emission unit consists of emission sourcesand emission points located in the East andWest casthouses. There are four processesidentified within the emission unit; process J01,J02, J04 and HMO. The furnaces are naturalgas fired melter/holders. This emission unit alsoincludes miscellaneous fugitive emissionsgenerated within the East and West casthouse.This process includes furnaces 7 and 8, their associatedSNIF units. Furnaces 7 and 8 and the SNIF units usereactive flux.This process includes furnaces 2, 3, and 4, and thedegassing unit for furnace number 4. The Alcan DegassingUnit uses only Argon Gas. Furnaces 2, 3, and 4 usereactive flux introduced by flux wands.Red Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-2Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionP-AINO1 This emission unit consists of emission sourcesassociated with the paint shop, facility 31. Thereis one process associated with this emissionunit, process Q01. This emission unit consists offugitive emissions generated from the process.Q01 This process is for the facility paint shop. The paint shop isused primarily for maintenance painting, including vehicletouch-up and repair, furnace refinishing, storage tankrefinishing, etc. Paint is applied manually and with sprayguns.00131 Facility Paint Shop Fugitive Emission LossesP-ARTW1 This emission unit consists of parts washerslocated throughout the Alcoa East facility.PW1 This process consists of batch cold cleaning degreasers inuse plant wide.PART1 batch cold cleaning degreasers Fugitive Emission LossesP-DIG01 This emissions unit consists of emissionsources, control devices, and emission pointsassociated with the Cathode Digging Area,Facility 85.E02 This process represents the cathode digging process. Thecathode digging process involves several digging andskimming operations to remove the spent potliner from thecathode shell. Spent potliner is then placed in propercontainers for shipment.46185 Cathode Digging Process E4685 Baghouse 85002P-OT001A02E5152 Dry Scrubber - South N/AB5156 Wet Scrubber - North 77A01C5156 Wet Scrubber - South 77A02E5354 Dry Scrubber - Central N/AB5156 Wet Scrubber - North 77A01C5156 Wet Scrubber - South 77A02E5556 Dry Scrubber - North N/AB5156 Wet Scrubber - North 77A01C5156 Wet Scrubber - South 77A0200051 Pot Roof Vent 101-184 PRV5100152 Pot Roof Vent 201-284 PRV5200153 Pot Roof Vent 301-384 PRV5300154 Pot Roof Vent 401-484 PRV5400155 Pot Roof Vent 501-584 PRV5500156 Pot Roof Vent 601-684 PRV56A05 This process consists of cathode baking. 05152 Cathode Baking Operation05354 Cathode Baking Operation05556 Cathode Baking OperationA06 This process consists of pot cut-out. 05152 Pot cut-out operation05354 Pot cut-out operation05556 Pot cut-out operationB01E5152 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AE5354 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AE5556 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AB5156 Wet Scrubber - North 77A01C5156 Wet Scrubber - South 77A02PS002 Pot Roof VentsPRV02Anode CoolingE5152 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AE5354 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AE5556 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionN/AB5156 Wet Scrubber - North 77A01C5156 Wet Scrubber - South 77A02NA NAFugitive Emission LossesThis process consists of fugitive hydrogen fluorideemissions from transport of anodes from the potline, andhydrogen fluoride emissions from passive anode cooling.ANO AC001PS001This emission unit consists of the three potlines.One Pre-Bake Potline and the Anode CoolingArea05152 Potline 1This process is for the pots venting to the fume controlsystem.05354 Potline 205556 Potline 3This process consists of one pot line of electrolytic cellsand associated control equipment. this pot line iscategorized as a center work prebake (cwpb) as describedin the definitions section of epa's primary aluminum MACTregulations.Electrolytic Reduction Pot LineSame controls and emission points as process A02Same controls and emission points as process A02Red Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-3Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control Description0-CRUCE A03 01320 Cruce Lid Cleaning L2002 Baghouse 20F0201420 Cruce Augering 0142B Baghouse 20B0001520 Cruce Augering E4685 Baghouse 85002U-LDG01 P01 0125A Alumina unloading hopper, elevator,and trasnsfer pointP0225 Baghouse 25A010125B Coke/Briquette unloading hopper Fugitive0125C Unloading shed fugitives Fugitive0125D Coke/Briquette elevator and transferpointP0125 Baghouse 25A02P03 00125 Ore GalleryFugitive00225 Alumina conveying B0125 Baghouse 50ATP - 50A Tranfer Point00325 Alumina/coke conveyance operation B0225 Baghouse 50FTP - 50F Tranfer Point0125A Alumina/coke conveyance operation B0325 Baghouse 50GTP - 50G Tranfer Point0125B Alumina/coke conveyance operation B0425 Baghouse 50HTP - 50H Tranfer Point0125C Alumina/coke conveyance operation B0525 Baghouse 50STP - 50S Tranfer Point0125D Alumina/coke conveyance operation B0625 Baghouse 50TTP - 50T Transfer Point00325 Ore Gallery Coke/BriquetteConveyingFugitive00126 Bath Filling Area P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200127 Bath Filling Area P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200128 Bath Filling Area P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200129 Bath Filling Area P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200130 Transfer Pt for alumina P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200131 Bath Storage Silo Transfer Point P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A0200132 Aluminum Fluoride Filling Area P0125/P0225 Fabric Filter 25A01, 25A02W-WTR01 This emission unit consists of emission sourcesand emission points associated with thewastewater treatment operations, facility 63,63A-63J, 65, 65A, 65B, and 66. There is oneprocess associated with this emission unit,process WW1. This emission unit includesmiscellaneous fugitive emission sources.WW1 This process consists of water and wastewater treatmentoperations at the facility, including, but not limited to,ponds, lagoons, settling tanks, wastewater treatmentoperations, etc. This unit primarily contains fugitiveemissions.WWT01 Wastewater treatment operations FugitiveThis process includes the alumina and coke and/orbriquette conveyance systems and miscellaneous bathfilling and storage along with associated transfer points totheir storage silos. Baghouses are employed to controlparticulate emissions from this process.This emission unit consists of emission sources,control devices and emission points associatedwith the process of cruce augering and cleaningand cruce lid cleaning.This emission unit consists of emission sources,control devices and emission points associatedwith the Unloading Shed, facility 25. There are 2processes associated with this emission unit,processes P01 and P03. There are four siloslocated in the courtyard, which are inactive;however, they provide structural support to theore gallery and will not be removed. These arenot air contamination sources, as they are notused and contain no product. Therefore thesefour silos, 25A, 25B, 25C, and 25D, are notidentified as emission sources within thispackage.This process includes unloading and transfer operations foralumina ore, petroleum coke and/or paste briquettes andaluminum fluoride. The alumina hopper, elevator, andtransfer point in the ore gallery are vented to a baghouseas is the coke/briquette operation.This process consists of cruce augering and cleaning andcruce lid cleaning.Red Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-4Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionAI014 6500 Ton Press Pre-HeatAI15A 6501 Ton Press Pre-HeatAI15B 5300 Ton Press Pre-HeatAI026 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI027 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI043 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI046 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAFC1A Heat Treat FurnaceAFC1B Heat Treat FurnaceAFC1C Heat Treat FurnaceAFC1D Heat Treat FurnaceAFC1E Heat Treat FurnaceAF01A Heat Treat FurnaceAF01B Heat Treat FurnaceAF01C Heat Treat FurnaceAF01D Heat Treat FurnaceAF01E Heat Treat FurnaceAF075 Heat Treat FurnaceAF076 Heat Treat FurnaceAF74A Heat Treat FurnaceAF74B Heat Treat FurnaceAF014 Heat Treat Furnace #13AF015 Heat Treat Furnace #14AF02A Heat Treat Furnace #15AF02B Heat Treat Furnace #16AF78A Heat Treat Furnace #17AF78B Heat Treat Furnace #18FAB Small crucible located in the Fabricating Shop usedoccasionally to melt lead, lead bismuth, zinc or tin babbit.Cruce heated by natural gas fired burner.AF062 Crucible (Nat Gas fired)AF031 Small Nat Gas OvenAF063 Small Nat Gas OvenAF064 Small Nat Gas OvenAF065 Maintenance Painting RoomAF067 Maintenance Painting RoomAI047 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI048 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI049 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI050 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI051 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI052 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceAI053 Homogenized Heat Treat FurnaceM004A Molten Aluminum Melting andHolding Furnaces (permitted to usesalt fluxes)M004B Molten Aluminum Melting andHolding Furnaces (permitted to usesalt fluxes)M004C Molten Aluminum Melting andHolding Furnaces (permitted to usesalt fluxes)M004D In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsM004E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsM004F In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsB0001 Boiler (when burning nat gas)B0002 Boiler (when burning nat gas)B0003 Boiler (when burning nat gas)B0004 Boiler (when burning nat gas)B0001 Boiler (when burning #6 oil)B0002 Boiler (when burning #6 oil)B0003 Boiler (when burning #6 oil)B0004 Boiler (when burning #6 oil)A-00003 Homogenizing and Melting/Holding furnaceswith associated in-line filterbox fluxing units forthe Melting/Holding furnaces.process heaters treat solid aluminum and emitsmall quantities of process emissions due toresiduals on the aluminum. emissions comingle with products-of-combustion (poc) fromnatural gas burners.HM1 Homogenizing heat treat furnaces. each uses multipledirect fire natural gas burners. chemical additive preventsoxidation of surface of metal and produces incidentalhydrogen fluoride emissions as a by-product.A-00001heat treat furnaces #30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38.HT2 heat treat furnaces #13, #14 and #15.homogenizing heat treat furnaces. each uses multipledirect fire natural gas burners. chemical additive preventsoxidation of surface of metal and produces incidentalhydrogen fluoride emissions as a by-product.HMOB-00001 four package boilers firing either natural gas or#6 fuel oil.GAS four boilers when burning natural gas.three (3) small natural gas ovens and two (2) maintenancepainting rooms used in maintenance shops.F0014, F0015, F001A, F001B,F001C, F001D, F001E, F002A,F002B, F0075, F0076, F074A,F074B, F078A, F078B, FC01A,FC01B, FC01C, FC01D,FC01E, I0014,I0026, I0027,I0043, I0046,I015A, I015B00001, 00002OIL four boilers when burning no. 6 fuel oil.I0047, I0048, I0049, I0050,I0051, I0052, I0053,MH1 molten aluminum melting and holding furnaces which arepermitted to use salt fluxes at the time of title vapplication submission. all furnaces are reverberatory,center charged. no gas fluxing is done in any furnace.in-line filterbox fluxing units.FBBA-00002 insignificant shop sources.WEST PLANT WEST PLANTEPH one 6500 ton press pre-heat, one 1500 ton press pre-heat,and one 5300 ton press pre-heat furnace. each usesmultiple direct fire natural gas burners.HT1F0031, F0062, F0063, F0064,F0065, F0067MRSI004A, I004B, I004CI004D, I004E, I004FRed Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-5Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionCD1 chip dryer #1 dries aluminum machining chips with heated C0029 Chip Dryer #1 (Dry) C029A Single CycloneC029B Direct FlameAfterburnerCM1 chip melter #1 melts clean aluminum machining chips. C0030 Chip Dryer #1 (Melt)CD2chip dryer #2 dries aluminum machining chips heated withair.C0044 Chip Dryer #2 (Dry) C044A Multiple Cyclone W/OFly Ash InjectionC044B Thermal OxidizerCM2 chip melter #2 melts clean aluminum machining chips. C0045 Chip Dryer #2 (Melt)ALB aluminum burnisher DF142 Aluminum Burnisher DFF42 CentrifugalCCT emulsified oil and water system for the continuous caster. DII42 Emulsified Oil and Water SystemPRTfabricated aluminum bars pass through an enclosed spraychamber where a clear protective coating is applied to thebase metal. the coating is transparent and uses theundercoat aluminum as a reflective base. emissions passthrough a mist collector and vent inside the building.DF073 Enclosed Spray ChamberSKDskim and dross area used for passive cooling of skimand dross.DI116 Skim and Dross Area DI016 Fabric FilterFB1fugitives from the bull block. process applies high boilingpoint (greater than 300f) solvent to slightly hot metal toadhere metal to block. voc emissions are included on theannual emissions statement.FFFB1 Bull Block FugitivesFB2fugitives from the ink jet printer. methyl ethyl ketone (mek)used as a carrier solvent.FFFB2 Ink Jet Printer FugitivesFB3fugitives from wax dipping and air drying coils. wax ismixed with water and heated.FFFB3 Wax Dipping FugitivesFC1fugitives from the rod oiler associated with the continuouscaster.FIFC1 Rod Oiler FugitivesFC2 fugitives from the automatic lathe. FIFC2 Automatic Lathe FugitivesFC3two (2) mold shop bake ovens. small oven is used tovolatilize oil impregnated in graphite rings.FIFC3 2 Mold Shop Bake OvensM001A Molten Aluminum Melting andM001B Molten Aluminum Melting andM024C Molten Aluminum Melting andM024D Molten Aluminum Melting andM024F Molten Aluminum Melting andM001C Molten Aluminum Melting andM001D Molten Aluminum Melting andM0034 Molten Aluminum Melting andM0035 Molten Aluminum Melting andM003A Molten Aluminum Melting andM003C Molten Aluminum Melting andM001E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsM0036 In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsM003E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsM024E In-Line Filterbox Fluxing UnitsP-00001This emission unit consists of all the partswashers in the facility.PWSThis process consists of all the cold cleaning partswashers.PARTS Facility cold cleaning parts washersFugitive Emission LossesF-00001 alcoa engineered products (aep) fugitives.10036, 1024E, I001E, I003EM-00001 aluminum melting and holding furnaces. allfurnaces are reverberatory, center charged.furnace charge molten aluminum, clean scrap,alloying ingredients and salt. no gas fluxing isdone in any furnace.M-00002 in-line filter box fluxing units use a mixture ofargon and chlorine gas to purify moltenaluminum as it is being cast into ingots or rod.FBA in-line filterbox fluxing units.Fugitive Emission LossesMHA molten aluminum melting and holding furnaces. currently,these furnaces are not permitted to use salt fluxes.I001A, I001B, I001C, I001D,I0034, I0035, I003A, I003C,I024C, I024D, I024FMHS molten aluminum melting and holding furnaces which arepermitted to use salt fluxes at the time of title vapplication submission. all furnaces are reverberatory,center charged. no gas fluxing is done in any furnace.C-00002 chip dryer #2 with associated control equipment(cyclone and afterburner) and chip melter #2.I0044, I0045F0042, I0016, I0042D-00001 miscellaneous point sources.C-00001 chip dryer #1 with associated control equipment(cyclone and afterburner) and chip melter #1.I0029, I0030Red Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-6Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionSS198 Electrolytic reduction pot line SA398 Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionSA398SPRV1 Potline roof ventsPRV01S-00002anode baking furnace and associated aluminainjection dry scrubber.BAKanode baking furnace and associated alumina injection dryscrubber.SS078 Anode Baking Furnace SS78S Scrubber - Dry AluminaInjectionS0078S-00003paste production plant and associated cokeinjection scrubber.GMSpaste production plant and associated coke injectionscrubber.SS099 Paste Production Plant SS100 Scrubber - Dry CokeInjectionS0100M01 building 332 dust collection equipment includes a stub holecleaner which uses air to blow coke dust out of stub holes.process m01 also includes two small induction furnacesused for melting iron, and anthracite coal handling andstorage.SS415 Small Induction Furnaces SS015/SS016/SS017Fabric FilterM02 electric welder used to weld aluminum, copper, and steeltogether. weld is produced under high current andhydraulic pressure.SS483 Electric Welder SS083 Fabric FilterM03packed coke drilled out of anode stub holes.SS495 Packed Coke Drilling Operation SS095 Fabric FilterM04dry scrubber alumina loading and unloading area.SS490 Alumina Loading and Unloading SS090 Fabric FilterM05 rough cleaning of spent anodes. 423AB Spent Anode Rough Cleaning S23AB Fabric FilterM06bath handling, crushing and crucible digging operations.423AA Bath Handling, Crushing andCrucible Digging OperationsS23AA/S23AC Fabric FilterM07 transfer point in building 441 for two alumina beltconveyors.SS441 Transfer Pt. For 2 Alumina beltconveyors (Build 441)SS041 Fabric FilterM08 butt crushing. SS438 Butt Crushing SS038 Fabric FilterM09anode butt storage, storage filling, aggregate blending,coke crushing, storage discharge, ball mill classifying, andintermediate classifying.SS449 See Process Description SS049/SS050/SS051/SS052/SS053/SS060/SS061/SS449Fabric FilterM10 storage tank 440a and 440b fluidizer for alumina SS486 STORAGE TANK 440A AND 440B SS086 Fabric FilterM11 track hopper dust collector for alumina unloading andalumina airlift tower dust collector.SS492 Truck Hopper Unloading SS092/SS093 Fabric FilterM12 transfer point 441c serves st441c and the transfer ofalumina to st441b.SS443 Transfer Pt 441C SS043 Fabric FilterM13 alumina transfer point 446a from reactors to storagetanks.SS446 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446A SS046 Fabric FilterM14 alumina transfer point 446b from reactors to storagetanks.SS447 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446B SS047 Fabric FilterM15 alumina transfer point 446c from reactors to storage SS448 Alumina Transfer Pt. 446C SS048 Fabric FilterM16pot digging and spent potlining handling operationscontrolled by a fabric filter to limit particulate emissions tothe environment.SS402 Pot Digging/Spent PotliningOperationsSS102 Fabric FilterSS088 Tar Pitch Storage TankSS089 Tar Pitch Storage TankSSFP2 Pitch Recirculating PumpsSS073 Rail Car Unloading StationSS077 Rail Car Unloading StationSSFP1 Pitch Recirculating Pumpselectrolytic reduction of alumina into aluminum.POTone pot line of electrolytic cells and associatedcontrol equipment. this pot line is categorizedas a center work prebake-1 (cwpb-1) asdescribed in the definitions section of epa'sprimary aluminum mact regulations.S-00001S-00005 coal tar pitch unloading and storage.S0073, S0077, S0088, S0089,S073APUN coal tar pitch unloading includes a single emission point(ep) serving each of two railcar unloading stations, andfugitives including but not limited to those associated withthe pitch unloading pumps. some of these fugitives areexhausted through the ventilator building designated as ep073PST coal tar pitch includes a single emission point (ep) servingeach of two coal tar pitch storage tanks, and fugitivesincluding but not limited to those associatedwith the pitchrecirculating pumps located in building 352f.S-00004 material handling operations for alumina, carbonand other miscellaneous solid materials. eachare controlled by a fabric filter to limit particulateemissions to the environment.S0015, S0016, S0017, S0038,S0041, S0043, S0046, S0047,S0048, S0049, S0050, S0051,S0052, S0053, S0060, S0061,S0083, S0086, S0090, S0092,S0093, S0095, S0102, S023B,S23AA, S23ACRed Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-7Alcoa Massena East and West Plant Emission Unit MatrixEmission Point IDUnit ID Unit Description ProcessIDProcess Description Source ID Source Description Control ID Control DescriptionFA1 total suspended solid (i.e. particulate) fugitives from cokeunloading.SSFA1 Coke Unloading OperationsFA2 total suspended solid (i.e. particulate) fugitives from cokestorage and handling.SSFA2 Coke Handling and StorageOperationsFA3 total suspended solid (i.e. particulate) fugitives fromclamshell bucket operations in the anode baking furnaceroom.SSFA3 Clamshell Bucket OperationsFAC when spent anodes are placed in building 380 and 376 tocool, there are fugitive emissions from passive anodecooling. some hydrogen fluoride is emitted as aresult of the residual bath on the anodes. emissions areincluded on the annual emissions statement.SSFAC Fugitives from passive anode coolingFSMseam mix operations include: low temperature pitchunloading and storage, the mixing of pitch, anthracite coaland liquid methylnapthalene, and the placing of finalproduct in bags. fugitive emissions consist of polycyclicorganic matter.SSFSM Seam Mix OperationsOWT treatment of miscellaneous oily wastewaters using aprecoate vacuum filter. vacuum exhaust is the emissionpoint.W0068 Miscellaneous oily wastewatertreatmentW0070 WW Treatment Operations W0069 Sodium - AlkaliScrubbingW0071 WW Treatment Operations W0069 Sodium - AlkaliScrubbingW-00001 wastewater treatment operations.S-00006 smelting and anode plant fugitives excepting potline fugitives (the pot line fugitives are regulatedunder primary aluminum mact regulations).F0068, F0069, F0070, F0071WWT wastewater treatment consists of chemical pre-treatment,and biological treatment.Fugitive Emission LossesRed Text Indicates New SourcesBlue Text Indicates Sources to be RemovedTable A-8APPENDIX B – PSD APPLICABILITYSUPPORTING CALCULATIONSAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsEmissions SummaryNOxSO2 TF PM PM10 PM2.5COProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualProjectedActualDemandGrowth Prior ActualUnit ID Description Moderization Impactlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/Yearlb/YearEast PlantA-NOD01 Anode Pin Room Shut DownB-OIL01 Boilers No change - Not included in PSDC-RSH01 Crusher Building Shut DownD-ROS01 Dross Storage Room No change - Not included in PSDD-ROS02 Dross Cooling No change - Not included in PSDC-ARB01 Carbon Plant Shut Down2,463 153,839 3,839 3,839 862E-WCST1 Cast House Shut Down29,402 176 5,927 10,880 10,880 10,880 24,698P-OT001 Potline Replaced by new pre-bake potline122,457 477,080 252,668 2,870,868 1,209,664 1,074,575 45,164,840P-OT001 Potline New Pre-Bake Line95,864 414,533 184,046 607,772 359,928 181,131 28,968,118P-OT001 Anode Cooling New Anode Cooling Area2,2200-CRUCE Cruce Augering Cruce Augering99,751 221 50,873 113 14,963 33P-AINO1 Paint Shop No change - Not included in PSDP-ARTW1 Parts Washers No change - Not included in PSDU-LDG01 Unloading and Transfer Chages to include some equipment elimination, and newbath filling, bath storage, and AlFl3 Filling Station.169,164 21,110 86,274 10,766 25,375 3,166W-WTR01 Wastewater Treatment No change - Not included in PSDP-DIG01 Cathode Digging Shut Down479 244 72West PlantA-00001 Homogenizing and Heat Treat Furnaces Some sources will not change. Three homogenizingfurnaces will be removed.44,782 269 112 3,403 3,403 3,403 37,617A-00002 Insignificant Shop Combustion Sources No change - Not included in PSDA-00003 New Homogenizing and Heat TreatFurnaces, New Melter/Holder Furnacesand Associated Filterbox Fluxing UnitsSeven new Homogenizing Furnaces, Three newMelting/Holding Furnaces, and Three new Filterbox FluxingUnits130,343 1,185 15,330 28,907 28,907 28,907 165,908B-00001 Boilers Increase in load demand327,158 477,223 72,505 495,811 3,046,588 149,978 25,375 119,850 10,456 25,375 119,850 10,456 25,375 119,850 10,456 9,238 21,137 5,332C-00001 Chip Dryer #1 No change - Not included in PSDC-00002 Chip Dryer #2 No change - Not included in PSDD-00001 Miscellaneous metal finishing andskim/dross coolingIncrease in Skim and Dross due to increased throughput7,402 3,232 7,402 3,232 7,402 3,232F-00001 Miscellaneous fugitive sources No change - Not included in PSDM-00001 Melting/Holding Furnaces with no gasfluxing (salt only)No change - Not included in PSDM-00002 In-line filter box gas fluxing units No change - Not included in PSDP-00001 Parts Washers No change - Not included in PSDS-00001 Pre-bake Potline Increased throughput89,430 1,392 85,057 5,241,393 313,034 4,846,915 176,172 18,981 114,805 511,478 14,300 380,019 335,984 24,166 255,784 169,399 11,881 171,469 27,023,754 12,396,494 27,532,135S-00002 Anode Bake furnaces Increased throughput406,091 224,529 178,529 909,558 486,493 423,063 18,224 926 805 51,210 24,125 20,980 48,138 22,678 19,721 39,944 18,818 16,364 462,983 208,906 181,668S-00003 Paste Production Plant (Green Mill) Increased throughput3,815 1,581 1,331 3,815 1,581 1,331 3,815 1,581 1,331S-00004 Material Handling Operations Some souces will have increased thoughput, others will notchange.453,353 30,876 53,330 231,210 15,747 27,198 68,003 4,631 7,999S-00005 Coal Tar Pitch Unloading and Storage Increased throughputS-00006 Smelting and anode Fugitives (notincluding potline)Some souces will have increased thoughput, others will notchance.W-00001 Wastewater Treatment No change - Not included in PSDContemporaneous ChangesM-00001 Permitting for Salt Fluxing N/A8628 8628 8628C-00001 Chip Dryer No 1 afterburner retrofit N/A2170 13304 124 124 0B1-1Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit C-ARB01Carbon Plant1998 AP-42 Fuel Emission FactorsHTM Burner Natural Gas Usage, Process N02Natural GasSource 2006 2007 Avg 06-07 Pollutant(lb/106ft3)North End (MCF) 41,908 7,344 24,626Carbon Monoxide35-The HTM Burner did not fire #6 fuel oil in the last five years.Sulfur Dioxide0.6Particulate Matter14Nitrogen Oxides100Volatile Organic Compounds2.8*PM-Filterable ParticulateNatural Gas Combustion Emissions, Process N02Natural Gas 2006 2007 North End (lb/yr)Carbon Monoxide 1,467 257 862Sulfur Dioxide 25 4 15Particulate Matter 587 103 345Nitrogen Oxides 4,191 734 2,463Volatile Organic Compounds 117 21 69Notes:1. Maintenance included in North end.2. HTM burner included in North end.2006 Process Emissions 06-07 Avg Process EmissionsProcess DescriptionPart (lb/yr) VOC (lb/yr) Part (lb/yr) VOC (lb/yr)N04 Coke silos1,953 0 977 0N05 Coke handling4,688 0 2,344 0N07 Paste Mixers348 511 174 256N10 Pitch Storage/unloading0 105 0 53*Processes not operated in 2007B1 - 2Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B-1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmissions Unit E-WCST1 East Plant Cast HouseEmission factors for HF and F2were developed from stack testing data collected in July 1999, by Adirondack Environmental Services. Emission factors for HFand F2were developed from stack testing data collected in July 1999, by Adirondack Environmental Services.PM emission factors were obtained from the SMACT testing in the fall of 2002. Two scenarios were PM emission factors were obtained from the SMACT testing in the fall of 2002. Two scenarios weretested, as the furnace emissions are dependant on the amount of reactive flux used. Based on casthouse knowledge, tested, as the furnace emissions are dependant on the amount of reactive flux used. Based on casthouse knowledge,it can be assumed that 90% of the time the furnace operates similar to the normal case scenario and 10% of time it would meet the it can be assumed that 90% of the time the furnace operates similar to the normal case scenario and 10% of time it would meet theworst case scenario. Furnace 4 emission factors were used because they are the most representative of normal and worst case operations. worst case scenario. Furnace 4 emission factors were used because they are the most representative of normal and worst case operations.2007 Emissions Calculations Pre-October 20072006 Emissions Calculations Pre-October 2006PM (90%) 0.1100 87,048.9 65,381.1 6,473PM (90%) 0.1100 92,436.0 9,151PM (10%) 0.5100 87,048.9 65,381.1 3,334PM (10%) 0.5100 92,436.0 4,714PM oily scrap 0.1100 87,048.9 183.1 20Total PM 13,865Total PM 9,827HF 0.0594 92,436.0 5,494.9HF 0.0594 87,048.9 5,175F20.0066 92,436.0 610.2F20.0066 87,048.9 575TF 6,105.1TF 5,7492007 Emissions Calculations Oct - Dec 2007PM 0.0100 55,461.6 554.6SNIF production calculated by multiplying the casthousePM Oct.-Dec. 0.0980 87,048.9 21,484.5 2,105production by 3/5*Taken from Fall 2007 SMACT testing on furnace 4 (furnace 8 not tested)2007 Production SummaryFuel Use Natural GasSource MMCFNatural GasEast Casthouse 163.1Pollutant (lb/106 ft3) Pollutant (lbs) TPYWest Cashouse 199.6CO 84 CO30,470 15.24Total 362.7SO2 0.6 SO2218 0.11NOx 100 NOx36,274 18.14Jan - Oct. 2007 131128676 65564.338 130762473 65381.24 366203 183.10NMTOC 5.5 NMTOC1,995 1.00Oct. - Dec 2007 42969080 21484.54 42664166 21332.08 304914 152.462007 Totals:17409775687048.917342663986713.3671117335.6Pollutant 2006 2007 average TPY HMO Adj Final Lbs Final TPYNOx 36,274 38,097 37,185 18.59 7,783.0 29,402.4 14.7SO2 218 229 223 0.11 46.7 176.4 0.1TF 6,105.1 5,749 5,927 2.96 0.0 5,927.2 3.0PM 14,420 12,455 13,438 6.72 2,558.0 10,879.5 5.4CO 30,470 32,001 31,236 15.62 6,537.7 24,698.0 12.3PM 0.0100 52,229.3 522.3VOC 1,995 2,095 2,045 1.02 428.1 1,617.1 0.8SNIF production calculated by multiplying the casthouseproduction by 3/5HMO FurnaceFuel Use Natural GasMMBTU/hr Rating 18Source MMCFFurnace 7&8 production: 9,423,884 lbs/mo avg (based on Jan 08 - Aug 08 production)East Casthouse 186.4Pollutant (lb/106 ft3) Pollutant (lbs) TPY60% through HMO furnace: 5,654,331 lbs/mo avgWest Cashouse 194.6CO 84 CO32,001 16.00 200,000 lbs / firing: 28.27 firing/mo avgTotal 381.0SO2 0.6 SO2229 0.11 13 hrs / firing 367.53 hrs / moNOx 100 NOx38,097 19.05 Full Fire 6,615.57 MMBTU/moNMTOC 5.5 NMTOC2,095 1.056.49 MMCF/mo at 1,020 btu/cf7,783.0 lbs NOx/yr 428.1 lbs NMTOC/yr6,537.7 lbs CO/yr 2,558.0 lbs PM at 0.58 lb PM/hr46.7 lbs SO2/yr*No TF emissions as ammonium fluoroborate is not used in the HMO furnace at the East PlantContaminantEmissionFactor*(lb/ton)AluminumProduction(Tons/yr)2006 Cast House Process Emission CalculationsContaminantEmissionFactor(lb/ton)AluminumProduction(Tons/yr)TotalEmissions(lb/yr)ContaminantSMACTEmissionFactor (lb/ton)AluminumProductionto Oct.TotalEmissions(lb/yr)TotalEmissions(lb/yr)AluminumProduction(Tons/yr)EmissionFactor(lb/ton)AluminumProduction(Tons/yr)AluminumProductionto Oct.TotalEmissions(lb/yr)AluminumProduction(Tons/yr)TotalEmissions(lb/yr)2007 Cast House Process Emission CalculationsTotalAluminumProduction(lbs/yr)TotalAluminumProduction(tons/yr)2006 Combustion EmissionsAP-42 FactorsAluminumProduction -Oily Scrap(tons/yr)ContaminantHomogenizing Furnace AdjustmentsNatural GasOily ScrapChargedthrough Fce(MT/yr)Oily ScrapChargedthrough Fce(lbs/yr)AluminumProduction -Oily Scrap(lbs/yr)2007 Combustion EmissionsAP-42 FactorsSMACTEmissionFactor(lb/ton)ContaminantB1 - 3Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmissions Unit P-DIG01East Plant Pot DiggingPot Digging Baghouse Emissions Factor0.096 lb/ton of material dug06-07 Pot Digging EmissionsYear Spent Potliner (lb/yr) PM (lb/yr) PM10 (lb/yr) PM2.5 (lb/yr)2006 4342 416.8 212.6 62.52007 5628 540.3 275.5 81.0Average: 478.6 244.1 71.8-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)B1 - 4Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit P-OT001, Process A02Old East Plant Soderberg PotlineCarbon Monoxide Emission CalculationsCarbon monoxide (CO) emissions are calculated differently from the other pollutants. CO generation is dependent upon the2006 Plant Production:107,142.0tons"current efficiency" of the reduction operations. Current efficiency (CE) is defined as the ratio of actual aluminum productionto theoretical production:CE = Actual Production / Theoretical ProductionTheoretical production for a Soderberg facility is defined according to the following equation:CO 402.900 N/A N/A93%0%0%Theoretical Production = (17.752 lb/pot-day)(Amperage, kA)Nox-2008 Test Data 1.370 NA NA93%0%0%*Mass BalanceThus, increases in aluminum production are driven by increases in current efficiency and operating amperage.CO generation can be represented by the following chemical equation, which is referred to as the "back reaction":lb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yr*TF Emission Sum 0.029 3,107 2.33 249,641 2.36252,7482 Al + 3 CO2===> Al2O3+ 3 COHF Emission Sum 0.008 879 1.05 112,499 1.06113,378**Part F Emission Sum 0.021 2,250 1.28 137,142 1.30139,392The back reaction is the major mechanism for the loss of aluminum production in reduction cells and it decreases theFilterable PM/Test Data 1.613 172,820 21.82 2,337,838 23.432,510,658current efficiency of the reduction operations. Based on molecular weight ratios, 1.555 pounds of CO is produced perFilterable PM10(1)100,236 724,730824,966pound of Al involved in the back reaction.PM2.5(w/ condensables)(2)446,268 5.22 559,2811,005,549CO 374.697 40,145,777 28.20 3,021,725 402.9043,167,502The above information can be used to calculate CO emissions from actual production operations given the operating amperageNox 1.274 136,510 0.096 10,275 1.37146,785in kiloamps, the production rate in pounds per pot-day, and the number of pots in operation.*TF Roof Monitor Emission Factor based on actual tested emissions, averaged monthly (When calculating the the average TF emission factor for 2006,the PMACT TF limit of 2.4 lb/TAP was used for those months where the PMACT TF limit was exceeded and the tested actual TF emissions wereused for those months where the PMACT TF limit was met.)**Particulate F = TF - HFHF primary emissions based on fraction that was gaseous times the average 2004 total lb/ton calc for wet scrubberInput Data2006 2007(1)Calculated using AP-42 Table 12.1-2 (PM10: primary emissions = 58% of total PM and roof monitor emissions = 31% of total PM)Average OperatingAmperage 88.91 91.36 kA(2)Calculated using AP-42 Table 12.1-2 and 2008 tested emissions (PM2.5: primary emissions = 40% of total PM + (condensables emission rate * TAP)Average Production 1,397 1,448 lb/pot-dayand roof monitor emissions = PM2.5 (w cond.) 2008 tested emission rate * TAPAverage Production 107,142 126,611 tons/yrEquationsAverage # Pots in Operation 420 479For calculations based on Test Data:Primary Emissions = (Primary Emission Factor)(Production)CO Emission CalculationsRoof Monitor Emissions = (Secondary Emission Factor)(Production)Theoretical Production 1,578 1,622 lb/pot-dayAluminum Lost in Back Reaction 181 173 lb/pot-dayFor calculations based on other methods (Engr Report, Mass Balance, etc.):CO Generation 281 270 lb/pot-dayPrimary Emissions = (Generation Rate)(Production)(Capture Efficiency)(1 - Control Efficiency)CO Generation 402.900 372.497 lb/TAPRoof Monitor Emissions = (Generation Rate)(Production)(1 - Capture Efficiency)CO Emissions 43,167,502 47,162,179 lb/yrPRIOR EAST PLANT POTLINE ACTUAL NOX EMISSIONS CALCULATIONYearTotal EastPlantEmissionsMax (99 TPYCap)Delta (Max -Total)Initial Potroom(1)Final Potroomfor Analysis(2)2006 (lb/yr) 223,609 198,000 -25,609 146,785 121,1762007 Plant Production:126,611.0tons2007 (lb/yr) 247,720 198,000 -49,720 173,457 123,73706-07 avg (lb/yr) 235,665 198,000 -37,665 160,121 122,45706-07 avg (ton/yr)118 99 -19 80 61(1)Calculated using annual production and 2008 emission factor(2)Final Potroom emissions = Delta + (Initial potroom emissions)CO 372.50 N/A N/A 93% 0% 0%Nox-2008 Test Data 1.370 NA NA93%0%0%*Mass BalanceMassena East Roof VentEast Plant 2008Tested EmissionRatesContribution toTotal PM w/Condensables(lb/ton Al)Filter Total PM 10.42lb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yrFilter PM10 Not testedTF Emission Sum 0.015 1,899 1.98 250,690 2.00252,589Filter PM2.5 1.7HF Emission Sum 0.004 484 0.72 91,160 0.7291,644Condensable 3.52 25.3%*Part F Emission Sum 0.011 1,416 1.26 159,530 1.27160,945PM10 (w cond.) Not testedFilterable PM/Test Data 0.731 92,553 18.29 2,315,715 19.022,408,268PM2.5 (w cond.) 5.22 37.4%Filterable PM10(1)53,681 717,872771,552PM2.5(w/ condensables)(2)482,692 5.22 660,9091,143,601CO 346.422 43,860,826 26.07 3,301,352 372.5047,162,179 Pollutant / Info SourceNox 1.274 161,315 0.096 12,142 1.37173,457lb/TAP lb/yr*Particulate F = TF - HFTF Emission Sum 2.18 252,668HF primary emissions based on fraction that was gaseous times the average 2007 total lb/ton calc for wet scrubber HF Emission Sum 0.89 102,511(1)Calculated using AP-42 Table 12.1-2 (PM10: primary emissions = 58% of total PM and roof monitor emissions = 31% of total PM) *Part F Emission Sum 1.29 150,169(2)Calculated using AP-42 Table 12.1-2 and 2008 tested emissions (PM2.5: primary emissions = 40% of total PM + (condensables emission rate * TAP) PM w/ condensables/Test Data 21.23 2,870,868 -06-07 Avg. Filterable PM + (emission rate for condensables * 06-07 Avg. production)and roof monitor emissions = PM2.5 (w cond.) 2008 tested emission rate * TAPPM10 w/ condensables 1,209,664 -06-07 Avg. Filterable PM10 + (emission rate for condensables * 06-07 Avg. production)EquationsPM2.5 w/ condensables 1,074,575For calculations based on Test Data:CO 387.70 45,164,840Primary Emissions = (Primary Emission Factor)(Production)Nox 1.37 160,121 -Prior Actual NOx emissions calculated in table above by subtracting initial NOx calculatedRoof Monitor Emissions = (Secondary Emission Factor)(Production)from the difference between the Total East Plant NOx emissions and the 99 TPY CapFor calculations based on other methods (Engr Report, Mass Balance, etc.):Primary Emissions = (Generation Rate)(Production)(Capture Efficiency)(1 - Control Efficiency)Roof Monitor Emissions = (Generation Rate)(Production)(1 - Capture Efficiency)Roof MonitorEmission Factor(lb/TAP)OverallRemoval2007 Potroom Emission Calculations - Primaryand Roof Monitor EmissionsOverallRemovaRoof MonitorEmission Factor(lb/TAP)06-07 Avg Total Emissions(Primary + Secondary)Pollutant / Info SourcePollutant / Info SourceControlEfficiencyGeneration Rate(lb/TAP)CaptureEfficiencyPrimary Emissions Total EmissionsRoof Monitor EmissionsPrimary EmissionFactor(lb/TAP)2006 Potroom Emission Calculations - Primary and Roof Monitor EmissionsPollutant / Info SourcePollutant / Info SourceControlEfficiencyGeneration Rate(lb/TAP)CaptureEfficiencyPrimary Emissions (Primary + Secondary)Roof Monitor EmissionsPrimary EmissionFactor (lb/TAP)B1 - 5Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit P-OT001, Process A02Old East Plant Soderberg PotlineSulfur Dioxide and Carbonyl Sulfide Generation CalculationsMass Balance DerivationSulfur dioxide is emitted as a result of the oxidation of the sulfur contained in the anode paste. Anode paste is a mixture ofpetroleum coke and coal tar pitch. Typically, anode paste is 76% petroleum coke and 24% coal tar pitch. The conversion of sulfur to sulfur dioxide is as follows:S + O2===> SO2For the purposes of these emission calculations, it is assumed that 100% of the sulfur is converted to sulfur dioxide. Therefore the sulfur dioxide generation rate is as follows:(1 mol SO2/ 1 mol S)(1 mol S / 32.06 lb)(64.06 lb / mol SO2) =1.998lb SO2/ lb SSulfur dioxide generation rates will be developed for a range of sulfur contents in both the petroleum coke and the coal tar pitch from previous years data and with our current maximum sulfur allowed in the coke and pitch specifications.Testing at various Alcoa Smelters has determined that 91.8% of the Sulfur in the paste will evolve off as SO2, with the remaining Sulfur forming COS.(1 mol COS/1 mol of S)(1 mol S/32.06 lb)(60.065 lb/ mol of COS) =1.874 lb COS/lb SPrior Actual Emissions Summary TableYearS022006 (lb/yr) 477,3572007 (lb/yr) 476,804Average (lb/yr) 477,080Average (ton/yr) 239Parameter January February March Quarterly Total April May June Quarterly Total July August SeptemberQuarterlyTotal October November DecemberQuarterlyTotal YTD ParameterRationale for ValuesCoke Content (% by wt)73.10% 73.20% 72.40% 73.70% 73.80% 73.70% 73.70% 73.30% 73.40% 73.60% 73.60% 74.40% 73.49%Coke Content (% bywt)measuredCoke Sulfur (by wt)0.0236 0.0232 0.0225 0.0234 0.0239 0.0235 0.0234 0.0230 0.0234 0.0230 0.0239 0.02170.0232Coke Sulfur (by wt)measuredPitch Content (% by wt)26.90% 26.80% 27.60% 26.30% 26.20% 26.30% 26.30% 26.70% 26.60% 26.40% 26.40% 25.60% 26.51%Pitch Content (% by wt)measuredPitch Sulfur Content(by wt.)0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055Pitch Sulfur Content(by wt.)measuredS Generation Rate (lbS/lb paste)0.0187 0.0185 0.0178 0.0187 0.0191 0.0188 0.0187 0.0183 0.0186 0.0184 0.0190 0.0176 0.0185S Generation Rate (lbS/lb paste)SO2Generation (lbSO2/lb briquettes)0.0344 0.0339 0.0327 0.0343 0.0350 0.0344 0.0343 0.0336 0.0342 0.0337 0.0349 0.0322 0.0340SO2Generation (lbSO2/lb paste)Briquettes Poured (lbs)12,121,628 11,028,454 11,027,298 34,177,380 9,647,478 11,277,730 12,498,777 33,423,985 9,359,781 10,258,083 9,192,535 28,810,399 11,776,1338,826,593 10,544,066 31,146,792 127,558,556Briquettes Poured (lbs)GivenCarbon Waste (lbs)92,200 115,740 94,180 140,840 139,720 217,020 91,540 178,220 128,780 45,180 113,300 127,360Carbon Waste (lbs)GivenScrapped Anodes (lbs)998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680 998,680Scrapped Anodes (lbs)GivenAluminum Productionlbs21,261,246 19,222,633 20,306,559 60,790,438 19,257,285 19,751,822 17,808,156 56,817,263 16,622,497 15,421,520 14,914,460 46,958,477 15,494,220 16,197,420 18,025,483 49,717,123 214,283,301Aluminum ProductionlbsGivenAluminum ProductionTons10,631 9,611 10,153 30,395 9,629 9,876 8,904 28,409 8,311 7,711 7,457 23,479 7,747 8,099 9,013 24,859 107,142Aluminum ProductionTonsGivenSO2 Generation (lbSO2/Ton Al)41.01 40.91 37.31 36.51 42.10 50.88 40.96 47.48 44.88 53.57 40.59 39.79 43.00SO2 Generation (lbSO2/Ton Al)Pot Capture Efficiency93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93.0%Pot Capture EfficiencyGivenControl Efficiency SO296% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96.3%Control Efficiency SO2GivenOverall Control SO290% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 89.6%Overall Control SO2Primary Control (lbSO2/ton Al)1.41 1.41 1.28 1.26 1.45 1.75 1.41 1.63 1.54 1.84 1.40 1.37 1.48Primary Control (lbSO2/ton Al)Primary Control (lbSO2)15,003 13,530 13,035 12,096 14,309 15,589 11,713 12,599 11,515 14,280 11,311 12,341157,321Primary Control (lbSO2)tons Al Production*primary controlRoof Vent (lb SO2/tonAl)2.87 2.86 2.61 2.56 2.95 3.56 2.87 3.32 3.14 3.75 2.84 2.79 3.01Roof Vent (lb SO2/tonAl)Roof vent/tons Al ProductionRoof Vent (lb SO2)30,521 27,524 26,518 24,607 29,108 31,712 23,828 25,629 23,426 29,050 23,010 25,105320,036Roof Vent (lb SO2)Total SO245,524 41,054 39,553 126,131 36,703 43,416 47,300 127,419 35,540 38,228 34,941 108,710 43,330 34,321 37,445 115,097477,357Total SO2East Plant - 2006 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions byMonth(% coke content*% S in coke) + (% pitchcontent*% S in pitch)(lbSO2/lbS)*SGen.Rate*0.918Testing atvarious Alcoa Smelters has determined that91.8% of the Sulfur in the paste will evolve asSO2pot capture efficiency*SO2 controlefficiency(lb SO2/ton Al)*capture efficiency*(1-SO2 control efficiency)tons Al Production*(lb SO2/tons Al)*(1-capture efficiency)roof vent (lb COS) +primary control (lbCOS)B1-6Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit P-OT001, Process A02Old East Plant Soderberg PotlineParameter January February March Quarterly Total April May June Quarterly Total July August SeptemberQuarterlyTotal October November DecemberQuarterlyTotal YTD ParameterRationale for ValuesCoke Content (% by wt)73.63% 73.64% 73.64% 73.49% 72.81% 72.62% 72.59% 72.47% 72.67% 72.99% 72.81% 72.93% 73.02%Coke Content (% bywt)measuredCoke Sulfur (by wt)0.0231 0.0242 0.0238 0.0231 0.0231 0.0232 0.0195 0.0192 0.0203 0.0184 0.0179 0.0180 0.0212Coke Sulfur (by wt)measuredPitch Content (% by wt)26.37% 26.36% 26.36% 26.51% 27.19% 27.38% 27.41% 27.53% 27.33% 27.01% 27.19% 27.07% 26.98%Pitch Content (% by wt)measuredPitch Sulfur Content(by wt.)0.0055 0.0063 0.0055 0.0049 0.0050 0.0053 0.0056 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0057 0.0055Pitch Sulfur Content(by wt.)measuredS Generation Rate (lbS/lb paste)0.0185 0.0194 0.0190 0.0183 0.0182 0.0183 0.0157 0.0155 0.0163 0.0149 0.0145 0.0147 0.0169S Generation Rate (lbS/lb paste)SO2Generation (lbSO2/lb briquettes)0.0339 0.0357 0.0349 0.0336 0.0334 0.0335 0.0288 0.0283 0.0298 0.0274 0.0266 0.0269 0.0311SO2Generation (lbSO2/lb paste)Briquettes Poured (lbs)13,378,720 12,153,306 12,997,313 38,529,339 12,196,609 13,007,401 11,865,177 37,069,187 13,152,009 11,406,415 10,873,009 35,431,433 12,660,964 11,053,631 10,789,425 34,504,020 145,533,979Briquettes Poured (lbs)GivenCarbon Waste (lbs)176,080 76,140 170,900 93,900 42,600 124,820 0 138,520 85,400 92,780 139,240 0Carbon Waste (lbs)Aluminum Productionlbs19,187,030 17,344,949 19,993,260 56,525,239 19,657,062 21,424,464 20,991,443 62,072,969 22,424,349 22,646,008 22,004,094 67,074,451 22,610,120 22,076,746 22,863,328 67,550,194 253,222,853Aluminum ProductionlbsGivenAluminum ProductionTons9,594 8,672 9,997 28,263 9,829 10,712 10,496 31,036 11,212 11,323 11,002 33,537 11,305 11,038 11,432 33,775 126,611Aluminum ProductionTonsGivenSO2 Generation (lbSO2/Ton Al)47.74 50.22 45.77 41.89 40.64 38.17 33.81 28.81 29.64 30.84 26.92 25.44 36.66SO2 Generation (lbSO2/Ton Al)Pot Capture Efficiency93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93.0%Pot Capture EfficiencyGivenControl Efficiency SO296% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96.3%Control Efficiency SO2GivenOverall Control SO290% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 89.6%Overall Control SO2Primary Control (lbSO2/ton Al)1.64 1.73 1.58 1.44 1.40 1.31 1.16 0.99 1.02 1.06 0.93 0.88 1.26Primary Control (lbSO2/ton Al)Primary Control (lbSO2)15,760 14,986 15,745 14,167 14,979 13,785 13,043 11,225 11,221 11,997 10,225 10,005157,138Primary Control (lbSO2)tons Al Production*primary controlRoof Vent (lb SO2/tonAl)3.34 3.52 3.20 2.93 2.84 2.67 2.37 2.02 2.07 2.16 1.88 1.78 2.57Roof Vent (lb SO2/tonAl)Roof vent/tons Al ProductionRoof Vent (lb SO2)32,060 30,486 32,030 28,820 30,472 28,042 26,533 22,834 22,827 24,405 20,802 20,354319,666Roof Vent (lb SO2)Total SO247,820 45,472 47,775 141,067 42,987 45,451 41,827 130,265 39,575 34,059 34,049 107,683 36,402 31,027 30,360 97,788476,804Total SO2Pitch Sulfur Content for January and March 2007 was not available. In this case, used the average for 2007 for this value. Paste plant not functioning in 2007 - only briquettes used for anode production.East Plant - 2007 Sulfur Dioxide and Carbonyl Sulfide Emissions byMonthtons Al Production*(lb SO2/tons Al)*(1-capture efficiency)roof vent (lb COS) +primary control (lbCOS)(% coke content*% S in coke)+(% pitchcontent*% S in pitch)(lb SO2/lb S)*S Gen. Rate*0.918 Testing atvarious Alcoa Smelters has determined that91.8% of the Sulfur in the paste will evolve asSO2pot capture efficiency*SO2 controlefficiency(lb SO2/ton Al)*capture efficiency*(1-SO2 control efficiency)B1-7Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit P-OT001, Process B01Pollutant NOx SO2 TF PM PM10/2.5 CONew East Plant Pre-Bake Potline (modeled after West Plant Pre-Bake Potline)lb/yr 95,864 414,533 184,046 607,772 359,928 28,968,118Aluminum Production160,040tons/yrFume Capture98.5%COS Control25.0%Process Weight Calculations - 2007% Sulfur in Coke2.5%SO2 Control94.0%January February March April May JunePotroom emission factorsMetal Production 23,675,009 21,580,908 24,168,592 23,889,200 24,444,425 23,442,332PollutantEmissionFactorSourceGross Carbon 0.539 0.541 0.553 0.546 0.542 0.548NOx 0.599 lb/ton Aluminum (June 2008 Method 7E Emission Test) Carbon Used 8,103 7,418 8,497 8,280 8,413 8,138TF 1.15 lb/ton Aluminum (MACT Standard)Fluoride MT 167 179 164 173 172 152Monitor condensables 0.298 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Alumina MT 20,683 18,605 21,227 20,761 21,445 20,560Monitor PM 10 with condensables 0.329 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Total Alumina 45,597,742 41,016,583 46,797,044 45,769,701 47,277,647 45,326,576Monitor PM 2.5 with condensables 0.316 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Total Carbon 12,760,830 11,675,271 13,365,231 13,043,503 13,248,878 12,846,398A-398 condensables 0.202 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Cover Material 1,823,175 1,669,050 1,911,825 1,863,000 1,892,925 1,831,050A-398 PM 10 with condensables 1.920 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Soda ash lbs 15,825 13,950 14,725 5,600 7,100 12,100A-398 PM 2.5 with condensables0.816lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)Fluoride lbs 368,168394,623361,554381,396379,191 335,099Total Process Wt 60,565,740 54,769,478 62,450,380 61,063,200 62,805,742 60,351,223Potroom EmissionsDays 31 28 31 30 31 30(1)PM calculationPM10 calculationPM2.5 calculationLbs/hr 81,406 81,502 83,939 84,810 84,416 83,821607,772 lb PM w/ cond. 359,928 lb PM10 w/ cond. 181,131 lb PM2.5 w/ cond. Limit (lbs/hr) 46.8 46.8 47.8 48.1 48.0 47.7TF calculationLimit (lbs/ton) 2.94 2.92 2.94 2.90 2.92 2.93184,046 lb TFAverage: 2.93Emissions (lbs/ton) 2.05 1.32 1.48 1.26 1.63 2.13NOxcalculation routine:Emission Factor 0.599 lb/tonCarbon Monoxide Emission Calculationsthrough A-398's (98%) 94,426 lb/yrthrough monitor (2%) 1,438 lb/yrCarbon monoxide (CO) emissions are calculated differently from the other pollutants. CO generation is dependent upon the95,864 lb NOx"current efficiency" of the reduction operations. Current efficiency (CE) is defined as the ratio of actual aluminum productionto theoretical production:CO calculationCE = Actual Production / Theoretical Productionthrough A-398's (98%) 28,533,596 lb/yrTheoretical production for a Pre-Bake facility is defined according to the following equation:through monitor (2%) 434,522 lb/yrTotal CO: 28,968,118lb COTheoretical Production = (17.752 lb/pot-day)(Amperage, kA)(1)Total Particulate based on process weight emission limit scaled for increase in production from west plant to east plant and emission rates for condensablesThus, increases in aluminum production are driven by increases in current efficiency and operating amperage.Process Data Units Value Rationale for CalculationsCO generation can be represented by the following chemical equation, which is referred to as the "back reaction":Aluminum Productionlbs 320,080,340Aluminum Productiontons 160,040assumed to be the maximum production based on process limiting factors upstream in the process2 Al + 3 CO2===> Al2O3+ 3 CO%S in Baked Anodes% 2.30% S in coke * (maximum ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur from 1974-2003, see below)Pots OperatingNo. 208GivenThe back reaction is the major mechanism for the loss of aluminum production in reduction cells and it decreases theNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.419Highest averaging year for net carbon (2006) current efficiency of the reduction operations. Based on molecular weight ratios,1.555 pounds of CO is produced perRatio S converted to SO20.908Givenpound of Al involved in the back reaction.SO2 from carbonlb/ton 34.96% S in baked anodes/100*2000*(MW Ratio S to SO2)*net carbon*%S converted to SO2Total SO2:lb/ton 34.96TotalThe above information can be used to calculate CO emissions from actual production operations given the operating amperage98.5% through A-398's (SO2)lb/yr 5,510,328in kiloamps, the production rate in pounds per pot-day, and the number of pots in operation.1.5% through monitor (SO2)lb/yr 83,914SO2 Control through A-398's% 94GivenCOS control through A-398's% 25GivenProduction:160,040tonsTotal SO2:lb SO25,594,242Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)Current Efficiency: 0.945Total Emitted SO2:lb SO2414,533Total SO2*(1-SO2 Control)Theoretical Production: 169,355 tonsAl lost in back reaction: 9,315 tons18,629,014 lbs1986* 1.97 1.81 0.92Lbs CO 28,968,118 lbs*1986 had the highest ratio of anode sulfur tocoke sulfur from 1974-2003.% S in Anode% S in CokeYEARRatio of AnodeSulfur to CokeSulfurB1 - 8Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsFuture Actual Fine Particulate Emission RatesEmission Unit P-OT001, Process B01New East Plant Pre-Bake Potline (modeled after West Plant Pre-Bake Potline)Sampling Location Pollutant Emission Rate Back-half %PM2.5 Front PM10 to PM2.5 TSP>PM10 PM10 Front TSP BackTotal EmissionRate w/CondensablesContribution toTotal PM w/CondensablesTotalEmissionRate(Filterableonly)Contribution toTotal FilterablePMPotroom Roof PM2.5 0.61 lb/ton Al 49% 4.7 4.5 0.61 52.6% 0.31 36.2%PM10 0.83 lb/ton Al 36% 3.3 8 4.5 0.83 71.6% 0.53 61.6%Total PM 1.16 lb/ton Al 26% 5 13 4.5 1.16 --- 0.86Dry Scrubber PM2.5 0.21 lb/ton Al 94% 1.2 18.4 0.21 77.8% 0.01 18.9%PM10 0.24 lb/ton Al 24% 2.3 3.5 18.4 0.24 88.9% 0.04 52.9%Total PM 0.27 lb/ton Al 75% 2.7 6.2 18.4 0.27 --- 0.07Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basisMethod 202(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Potroom Roof Filter Total PM 0.862 0.049 = process weight emission limit (2.93 lb/TAP) scaled for increase in production from westplant to east plant (1.13) * 1.5% through roof monitorFilter PM10 0.531 0.030 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.312 0.018 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.298 0.298 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.829 0.329 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.610 0.316 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesDry Scrubber Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basis(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Filter Total PM 0.068 3.248 = process weight emission limit (2.93 lb/TAP) scaled for increase in production from west plant to east plant (1.13) * 98.5% through control deviceFilter PM10 0.036 1.718 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.013 0.614 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.202 0.202 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.238 1.920 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.215 0.816 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesSummary of Fine Particulate ResultsB1-8AAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit P-OT001, Process ANOPollutant HFAnode Butt Coolinglb/yr 2,220Description Production HFValue (lb/yr)Anode Butt Cooling(1)208 2,220(1)Maximum pots operating per day (pots = W):W pots (16 pairs/24 days)* (289 gram/pair) * (2.2 lb/1000 gram) * (365 day/yr) = X = 32,180X * (1-Y) + X * Y * ZY = Capture Efficiency = 95%Z = Removal Efficiency = 98%B1 - 9Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit 0-CRUCE, Process A03Cruce Auger Emission CalculationsParticulate Matter EmissionsParticulate Matter Emission FactorsA search of AP-42 emission factors found no emission factors for augering of potroom bath material. In the absenceof such a factor, a grinding and screening operation factor from Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing was selectedto estimate the uncontrolled emssions of the cruce auger.Controlled emissions will be calculated using a tested emission factor from the Alcoa East Plant pot digging dust collector exhaust.This dust collector (installed in the late 90's) controls emissions generated from materials similar to which the cruce auger processes.8.5 lb/ton material0.0062 lb/ton material0.096 lb/ton material1,2Emission Factor taken from AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1 Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, Section 11.3, Brick and StructuralClay Product Manufacturing - Table 11.3-1. Particulate Matter Emission Factors for Brick Manufacturing Operations.Factors are based on inlet and outlet measurements of a fabric filter dust collector servicing grinding and screening operationsof brick raw materials.3Emission factor obtained by stack testing on the outlet of the pot digging dust collector in March of 2000. This factor was selectedover the controlled AP-42 factor as it is more representative of the cruce auger process than the controlled AP-42 Factor.Process Assumptions and Specifications350 lb Bath/cruce1.5 cruces/hour10,057 SCFM12,571 SCFMControlled PM Emission= (Bath Generation)(Controlled Emission Factor)(# of Cruces cleaned per hour)/20000.03lb PM/hr8,760Estimated hours of use for controlled emissions221lb PM/yr113lb PM10/yr33lb PM2.5/yr-Includes Lid Cleaning Emissions-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)Bath Generation (Engineering Study conducted in 1998)New design gas flow (with dust collector installed).Average # of Cruces Cleaned - Based on 30 to 36 cruces cleaned per 24 hoursExisting exhaust design gas flow.Emission FactorDescription of the Emission FactorProcess Parameter Description of the ParameterUncontrolled Grinding and Screening Operations Emission Factor processing dry material1Controlled (fabric filter) Grinding and Screening Operations Emission Factor (Not Used)2Controlled (modern fabric filter) Pot Digging dust collector East Plant3B1 - 10Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit U-LDG01Unloading Shed, Process P03Ore Gallery, Process P01Alumina, aluminum fluoride and petroleum coke are delivered to the Plant in rail cars that are offloaded Once the raw materialshave entered the ore gallery, they are distributed to various bulk storage silos. Cokein the Unloading Shed. The Unloading Shed is split into two sections - one for alumina and aluminum is fed to one of two 2,000-ton bulk storage silos (22D or 22E) and aluminum fluoride is conveyed to a 2,500-tonfluoride and the other for petroleum coke. Alumina and aluminum fluoride are unloaded into a hopper, bulk storage silo (50A).Alumnia can be stored in any number of 2,500-ton bulk storage silos (50B, 50C, 50D,transferred up an elevator, and dropped onto the ore gallery conveyor. Each of these transfer points 50E, 50G, or 50H), but forthe purposes of these calculations it will be assumed that all fresh alumina is transferred(rail car to hopper, hopper to elevator, and elevator to conveyor) is controlled by baghouse. Petroleum to the 15,000-ton bulkstorage silo (50R). Silo 50R feeds the dry alumina scrubber and enriched ore from thecoke is unloaded into a hopper, transferred up an elevator, and dropped onto the coke conveyor. Coke scrubber is stored in oneof two 800-ton storage silos (50S or 50T). It will be assumed that 2/3 of fresh aluminaunloading into the hopper from the rail car is uncontrolled and only generates fugitive emissions (which received was fed to thedry scrubber.are assumed to "fallout" within the unloading shed due to the buildings size and design). The other transferpoints (hopper to elevator and elevator to conveyor) are controlled by a baghouse. Both baghouses are The following silos are equipped with baghouses to control particulate emissions from the transfer operations:assumed to 99% efficient in the removal of particulate emissions.50A, 50F, 50G, 50H, 50R, 50S, and 50T. Those silos without baghouses are assumed to generate minor amountsof fugitive emissions and will not be included in this analysis. Transfers from the silos to the mobile equipmentThere is no site-specific emission data for this process. EPA's Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42) will be assumed to negligible.provides particulate matter (PM) emission factors for Material Handling and Transfer in Section 11.24Metallic Mineral Processing. The PM emission factors listed are 0.12 pounds PM per ton per transfer pointfor all minerals except alumina and bauxite, and 1.1 pounds PM per ton per transfer point for alumina andbauxite. These emission factors will be used to estimate PM emissions from the unloading operations foreach raw material.2006-2007 Unloading Shed Emissions2006-2007 Ore Gallery EmissionsQuantity Received Quantity Received PM Emission 2006 2007 Quantity Processed Quantity Processed PM Emission 2006 2007in 2006 in 2007 Factor Transfer Control PM Emissions PM Emissions in 2006 in 2007 Factor Transfer Control PM Emissions PM EmissionsRaw Material (tons) (tons) (lb/ton-transfer) Points Efficiency (lbs) (lbs) Raw Material (tons) (tons) (lb/ton-transfer) Points Efficiency (lbs) (lbs)Alumina 204,592 206,310 1.1 3 99% 6,752 6,808 Alumina 204,592 206,310 1.1 5 99% 11,253 11,347Aluminum Fluoride 1,543 1,008 0.12 3 99% 6 4 Aluminum Fluoride 1,543 1,008 0.12 1 99% 2 1Petroleum Coke* 16,278 0 0.12 2 99% 39 0 Petroleum Coke 16,278 0 0.12 1 N/A 1,953 0Total 222,413 207,318 6,796 6,812 Enriched Ore 162,344 206,310 1.1 1 99% 1,786 2,269*No petroleum coke in 2007 due to 100% usage of briquettes.Total 384,757 413,628 14,994 13,618ProcessPM10 PM2.5P-225 Plant Production160,040 tonsP01 14,306 7,296 2,146Average Current East Plant Aluminum Production124,059 tonsP03 6,804 3,470 1,021Scaling Factor =1.29-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)=Emissions linked to Summary Table2006 and 2007 Average PMEmissions (lb/yr)B1 - 11Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsU-LDG01 and 0-CRUCE unitsPollutant PM PM10 PM2.5 Pollutant PM PM10 PM2.5East Plant Material HandlingU-LDG01 (lb/yr) 169,16486,27425,3750-CRUCE (lb/yr)99,751 50,873 14,963EmissionPotential Potential Potential Blower Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible PermissibleUnit Process ID Operation Operating Operating Design Outlet Emission Emission Emission Emission(hr/day) (days/yr) (hr/yr) (dscfm) (gr/dscf) (lb/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)PM PM10 PM2.5U-LDG01P0424 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,816U-LDG01P05 24 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,816U-LDG01P06 24 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,816U-LDG01P07 24 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,816U-LDG01P08 24 365 8,7604,1000.05 1.76 15,3937,8502,309U-LDG01P09 24 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,816U-LDG01P10 24 365 8,7605,0000.05 2.14 18,7719,5732,8160 - CRUCEA0324 365 8,76014,0000.05 6.00 52,56026,8067,884-Emissions for process P08 modeled after West Plant sources in Emission Unit S-00004-PM10/PM2.5 emissions based on AP-42 Factors from Appendix B.2 Category 3 of Table B.2.2 (15% PM 2.5 and 51% PM10)Emission Unit P-OT001, Process A03Existing Cruce Augering Operations Future Allowable Emissions12570 scf 0.05 grains 60 min 8760 hr = 47,191 lbs PM7000 grains24,068 PM10Emission Unit U-LDG017,079 PM2.5Unloading Shed (P01)Ore Gallery (P03)Alumina, aluminum fluoride and petroleum coke are delivered to the Plant in rail cars that are offloaded Once the raw materialshave entered the ore gallery, they are distributed to various bulk storage silos. Cokein the Unloading Shed. The Unloading Shed is split into two sections - one for alumina and aluminum is fed to one of two 2,000-ton bulk storage silos (22D or 22E) and aluminum fluoride is conveyed to a 2,500-tonfluoride and the other for petroleum coke. Alumina and aluminum fluoride are unloaded into a hopper, bulk storage silo (50A).Alumna can be stored in any number of 2,500-ton bulk storage silos (50B, 50C, 50D,transferred up an elevator, and dropped onto the ore gallery conveyor. Each of these transfer points 50E, 50G, or 50H), but forthe purposes of these calculations it will be assumed that all fresh alumina is transferred(rail car to hopper, hopper to elevator, and elevator to conveyor) is controlled by baghouse. Petroleum to the 15,000-ton bulkstorage silo (50R). Silo 50R feeds the dry alumina scrubber and enriched ore from thecoke is unloaded into a hopper, transferred up an elevator, and dropped onto the coke conveyor. Coke scrubber is stored in oneof two 800-ton storage silos (50S or 50T). It will be assumed that 2/3 of fresh aluminaunloading into the hopper from the rail car is uncontrolled and only generates fugitive emissions (which received was fed to thedry scrubber.are assumed to "fallout" within the unloading shed due to the buildings size and design). The other transferpoints (hopper to elevator and elevator to conveyor) are controlled by a baghouse. Both baghouses are The following silos are equipped with baghouses to control particulate emissions from the transfer operations:assumed to 99% efficient in the removal of particulate emissions. 50A, 50F, 50G, 50H, 50R, 50S, and 50T. Those silos without baghouses are assumed to generate minor amountsof fugitive emissions and will not be included in this analysis. Transfers from the silos to the mobile equipmentThere is no site-specific emission data for this process. EPA's Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42) will be assumed to negligible.provides particulate matter (PM) emission factors for Material Handling and Transfer in Section 11.24Metallic Mineral Processing. The PM emission factors listed are 0.12 pounds PM per ton per transfer pointfor all minerals except alumina and bauxite, and 1.1 pounds PM per ton per transfer point for alumina andbauxite. These emission factors will be used to estimate PM emissions from the unloading operations foreach raw material.Worst Case Unloading Shed Emissions from 2001-2007 Worst Case Unloading Shed Emissions from 2001-2007Quantity Received PM EmissionQuantity Processed PM Emissionin 2001 Factor Transfer Control PM Emissions in 2001 Factor Transfer Control PM EmissionsRaw Material (tons) (lb/ton-transfer) Points Efficiency (lbs) Raw Material (tons) (lb/ton-transfer) Points Efficiency (lbs)Alumina 265,036 1.1 3 99% 8,746 Alumina 265,036 1.1 5 99% 14,577Aluminum Fluoride 2,660 0.12 3 99% 10 Aluminum Fluoride 2,660 0.12 1 99% 3Petroleum Coke 54,371 0.12 2 99% 130 Petroleum Coke 54,371 0.12 1 N/A 6,525Total 322,067 8,886 Enriched Ore 176,691 1.1 1 99% 1,944Total 498,758 23,048ProcessScalingFactorPMEmissions(lb/yr)PM10Emissions(lb/yr)PM2.5Emissions(lb/yr)P-225 Plant Production160,040 tonsP01 1.29 11,448 5,839 1,717Average Current East Plant Aluminum Production124,059 tonsP03 1.29 29,694 15,144 4,454Scaling Factor =1.29-PM10/PM2.5 emissions based on AP-42 Factors from Appendix B.2 Category 3 of Table B.2.2 (15% PM 2.5 and 51% PM10)=Emissions linked to Summary Table23,0488,886Worst Case Emissions between2001 and 2007 (lb/yr)lbdscfyr yrhrBath Filling StationAlumina Filling StationBath StorageBath Filling StationTransfer Point for two alumina belt conveyors - fabric filterBath Filling StationDescriptionNew Cruce Cleaning - fabric filterBath Filling StationB1 - 12Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit A-00001Furnaces to be romoved as part of the project (emissions used in the netting analysis)Emission FactorsExisting Homogenizing FurnacesMMBTU/hr(1)MMCF/yr Fuel Type Heat InputNOx(1)VOC(2)SO2(2)TF(3)PM(2)CO(1)#16 Homogenizing Heat Treat 30.0 262.8 (MMBtu/hr)lb/MMscf#17 Homogenizing Heat Treat 35.0 306.6 Natural Gas <100 100 5.5 0.6 0.25 7.6 84#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat 33.6 294.3(1)MMBTU values are based on Alcoa Information(1)AP-42, Fifth Edition and Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-1(2)AP-42, Fifth Edition & Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-2,VOC as non-methane total organic compounds (NMTOC)(3)Based on mass balance involving 0.76 lb HF/lb of NH4BF4additiveMMBTU 8760 HR 1 MMCF=MMCFHR 1 YR 1000 MMBTU YR16 Homo 18 HomoLoads Time (hrs) % Utiliz'n Loads Time (hrs) % Utiliz'n Loads2006 268 6515.9 74.6 469 8186.6 93.7 6052007 204 5481.5 62.7 438 7691.4 88 492Existing Furnace POC EmissionsNOxNMTOC(1)SO2 TF PM CO#162006 (lb/yr) 19,605 1,078 118 49 1,490 16,468 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n2007 (lb/yr) 16,478 906 99 41 1,252 13,841 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n#17 (Idle since 2002)2006 (lb/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 02007 (lb/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0#182006 (lb/yr) 27,579 1,517 165 69 2,096 23,167 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n2007 (lb/yr) 25,902 1,425 155 65 1,969 21,757 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n06-07 Avg (lb/yr) 44,782 2,463 269 112 3,403 37,61706-07 Avg (ton/yr)22 1 0 0 2 19(1)NMTOC is calculated using VOC emission factorHMO furnace utilizationB1 - 13Alcoa Massena Moderization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit A-00003, Process HM1West Plant Homogenizing FurnacesExisting Homogenizing FurnacesMMBTU/hr(1)MMCF/yrPollutant NOx SO2 TF PM PM10/2.5 CO#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat 33.6 288.6 105,120 866 10,950 25,404 25,404 121,197#19 Homogenizing Heat Treat 30.0 257.6 42,048 309 4,380 10,162 10,162 43,285147,168 1,175 15,330 35,566 35,566 164,482Future FurnacesMMBTU/hr(1)MMCF/yr#18 size furnaces 33.6 288.6#19 size furnaces 30.0 257.6Emission Factors(1)HF 0.25 lb/hrBased on mass balance using on Aluminum Fluoroborate InputHMO Furnace #19 1999 application ERPs:PM 0.58 lb/hrNOx 2.4 lb/hrProcess Emissions hrs/yr lbs/yrHF 8760 2190.0Combustion Emissions #18 Size #19 Size Using 1999 ERPs #16 Size #17 SizeCO (lb/yr) 24,239 21,642 21,642 25,249SOx (lb/yr) 173 155 155 180PM (lb/yr) 2,193 1,958 1,958 2,284NOx (lb/yr) 14,428 12,882 25,765 30,0591998 AP-42 Emission FactorsCO SOx PM NOx(lbs/MMCF) 84.0 0.6 7.6 50.0MMBTU 8760 HR 1 MMCF=MMCFHR 1 YR 1020 MMBTU YR(1)MMBTU and HF emission values are based on Alcoa InformationWest Plant Homogenizing FurnacesNOx SO2 TF PM PM10/2.5 COEmission Unit A-00003, Process HM181,570 600 15,330 19,713 19,713 83,969NOx emissions limitationsTotal NOx emissions: 73.584 TPYDesired NOx emissions: 40.785 TPY0.08 lb 1020 MMBtu 0.0408 ton2000 lb MMCF40.785 ton 999.6 MMCF0.0408 tonCombustion EmissionsTotal Heat Input Required to Run all Furnaces: 228 MMBtu/hrCO (lb/yr) 83,969 NG required to run all furnaces at max heat input: 0.224 MMCF/hrSOx (lb/yr) 600 Hours of operation of all furnaces at max heat input: 4472.039 hrs/yrPM (lb/yr) 19,713 Percent heat input attainable for 8760 hr/yr operation: 51.1%NOx (lb/yr) 81,57021,0245,081--Two #19 Size (lb/yr)Five #18 Size (lb/yr)Total (lb/yr)PollutantTotal (lb/yr)=MMBtu MMCFton=MMCFyr yrB1 - 14Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit A-00003,NOx SO2 PM PM10/2.5 COProcesses MH1 and FBB47,235 567 58,400 58,400 79,355New Melting/Holding Furnaces at West Plant19,324 232 17,520 17,520 32,464with Gas Filterboxes66,559 799 75,920 75,920 111,819240,000 lb Unit 180,000 lb Unit 773 9 1,898 1,898 1,299MMBTU/hr 55 45MMCF/yr 472.35 386.47Charge Size (lbs) 200,000 120,000Charges Per Day 2 2Days of Operation 365 365Daily Capacity (lbs) 400,000 240,000Annual Capacity (lbs) 146,000,000 87,600,000Annual Capacity (Tons) 73,000 43,800Filter Box MMBTU/hr 0.6 0.6Filter Box MMCF/yr 5.15 5.15Process EmissionsPM (lb/yr) Furnace 29,200 17,520Filter Box 730 438Combustion EmissionsCO (lb/yr) Furnace 39,678 32,464Filter Box 433 433SOx (lb/yr) Furnace 283 232Filter Box 3 3PM** (lb/yr) Furnace 3,590 2,937Filter Box 39 39NOx (lb/yr) Furnace 23,618 19,324Filter Box 258 2580.4 lb PM/ton of aluminum produced (permit allowable emission factor for furnaces)0.01 lb PM/ton of aluminum produced (permit allowable emission factor for filter boxes)1998 AP-42 Emission Factors CO SOx PM NOx(lbs/MMCF) 84.0 0.6 7.6 50.0*NOx emission factor for low NOx burnersMMBTU 8760 HR 1 MMCF = MMCFHR 1 YR 1020 MMBTU YR**PM emissions from the process include combustion emissions, therefore these emissions are not included in the summaryPollutant NOx SO2 PM PM10/2.5 COTotal (lb/hr) 48,000 576 7,296 7,296 80,640Total NOx emissions: 33.28 TPYDesired NOx emissions: 24 TPY24 ton MMCF 960 MMCF50.0 lb yrCombustion EmissionsTotal Heat Input Required to Run all Furnaces: 155 MMBtu/hrCO (lb/yr) 80,640 NG required to run all furnaces at max heat input: 0.152 MMCF/hrSOx (lb/yr) 576 Hours of operation of all furnaces at max heat input: 6317.419 hrs/yrPM (lb/yr) 7,296 Percent heat input attainable for 8760 hr/yr operation: 72.1%NOx (lb/yr) 48,000One 180K lb UnitTwo 240K lb UnitsPollutant (lb/yr)Total MH1=yrThree Filter BoxesB1 - 15Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit B-00001West Plant Boilerhouse EmissionsAvg Fuel Usage (06-07)Yearly Units MMBTUNatural Gas 573.186106ft3584,650Propane 0 1000 gallons 0No. 2 Fuel Oil 0 1000 gallons 0No. 6 Fuel Oil 635.39 1000 gallons 95,309Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galNatural Gas Propane No. 2 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilNatural Gas Natural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant(lb/106ft3)(lb/ 1000 gal) (lb/ 1000 gal) (lb/ 1000 gal) Pollutant (lb/MMbtu) (lb/MMcf) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/ 1000 gal)Carbon Monoxide7.1419 52.0Carbon Monoxide 0.0077.140.0132.0Sulfur Dioxide 0.6 0.018 71 236 Nitrogen Oxides 0.0881.60.2741Particulate Matter 7.6 0.4 29.6Particulate Matter 0.06410Nitrogen Oxides81.614 2040.5Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfVolatile Organic Compounds 5.5 0.5 0.2 0.76 No.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galEmission Factors inredare based on 2006 boiler test data and the rest are 1998 AP-42 emission factorsYearly EmissionsYearlyNatural Gas Propane No. 2 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel Oil TotalPollutant (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)Carbon Monoxide 4,093 0 0 1,239 5,332Sulfur Dioxide 344 0 0 149,634 149,978Particulate Matter 4,356 0 0 6,100 10,456Nitrogen Oxides 46,772 0 0 25,733 72,505Volatile Organic Compounds 3,153 0 0 483 3,635Fuel Emission Factors2006 Boiler Tested Emission FactorsEmissions by Fuel TypeB1 - 16Alcoa Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit B-00001Pollutant NOx SO2 PM PM10/2.5 COWest Plant Boilerhouse Emissionslb/yr 327,158 495,811 25,375 25,375 9,23818.03% increase in MMBTU annual demand due to carbon plant production doublingPercentage increase calculated by scaling double the 2007 total carbon plant steam usage (16%) by the potline scaling factor (1.13)Max Fuel Usage (03-07)Yearly Units MMBTU MMBTUMMCF or1000 galP-225 Plant Production160,040 tonsNatural Gas 681.7106ft3695,300 125,384 125.4Average West Plant Aluminum Production141,998 tonsNo. 6 Fuel Oil 1782.2 1000 gallons 267,334 48,208 321.4Scaling Factor =1.13Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galNatural Gas Natural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant (lb/MMbtu) (lb/MMcf) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/ 1000 gal)Carbon Monoxide 0.0077.140.0132.0Nitrogen Oxides 0.0881.60.2741Particulate Matter 0.06410NOx 0.33060.345PM 0.115Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galNatural Gas No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant(lb/106ft3)(lb/ 1000 gal)Carbon Monoxide7.14 2.0Sulfur Dioxide 0.6 236Particulate Matter 7.69.6Nitrogen Oxides306 45.0Emission Factors inredare based on 2006 boiler test data and the rest are 1998 AP-42 emission factorsEmission Factors inblueare based on Permit emission limitsYearly EmissionsYearlyNatural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil Natural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil Worst Case TotalPollutant (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)Carbon Monoxide 4,867 3,475 895 627 895 9,238Sulfur Dioxide 409 419,715 75 75,687 75,687 495,811Particulate Matter 5,181 17,109 953 3,085 3,085 25,375Nitrogen Oxides 208,590 80,200 38,367 14,463 38,367 327,158Additional Emissions2006 Boiler Tested Emission FactorsEmissions by Fuel TypeFuel Emission FactorsPermit Emission LimitsB1 - 17Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit B-00001West Plant Boilerhouse EmissionsMax Heat Demand (2003)Yearly* Units MMBTUNatural Gas1996.107106ft32,036,030Propane 0 1000 gallons 0No. 2 Fuel Oil 0 1000 gallons 0No. 6 Fuel Oil13573.531000 gallons 2,036,030Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/gal*assuming entire heat demand supplied by one fuel typeNatural Gas Propane No. 2 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilNatural Gas Natural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant(lb/106ft3)(lb/ 1000 gal) (lb/ 1000 gal) (lb/ 1000 gal) Pollutant (lb/MMbtu) (lb/MMcf) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/ 1000 gal)Carbon Monoxide7.1419 52.0Carbon Monoxide 0.0077.140.0132.0Sulfur Dioxide 0.6 0.018 71 236 Nitrogen Oxides 0.0881.60.2741Particulate Matter 7.6 0.4 29.6Particulate Matter 0.06410Nitrogen Oxides81.614 2040.5Natural Gas assumes - 1,020 Btu/cfEmission Factors inorangeare based on 2006 boiler test data and the rest are 1998 AP-42 emission factorsNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galYearly EmissionsNatural Gas Propane No. 2 Fuel Oil No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)Carbon Monoxide 14,252 0 0 26,468Sulfur Dioxide 1,198 0 0 3,196,566Particulate Matter 15,170 0 0 130,306Nitrogen Oxides 162,882 0 0 549,728*No. 6 fuel oil supplying entire heat demand provides the greatest emissions per pollutantFuel Emission Factors2006 Boiler Tested Emission FactorsEmissions by Fuel TypeB1 - 18Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit D-00001, Process SKDSkim and Dross Passive CoolingSource Process Description PM PMID (lb/hr) (hr/yr) (lb/yr)Skim and DrossDI116 SKDSkim and Dross (SKD):0.3690 8,7603,232Skim/Dross Exhaust 1994 Stack Testing Resultslb/hrParticulate 0.0015 gr/dscf 0.3690B1 - 19Alcoa Massena Moderization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit D-00001, Process SKDPollutantPM PM10/2.5Skim and Dross Passive Coolinglb/yr7402 7402=Max PM Emissions * scaling factor3232 lb/yr All emissions are fugitivesMHS FurnacesCurrent UtilizationFurnaces listed in Assumptions: 294,190,000 =avg TPY (03-07)*2000 lb/tonNew Furnace Capacity(2) 240,000 lb units = 292,000,000 lbs per year180,000 lb unit = 87,600,000 lbs per year379,600,000 lbs per year TotalScaling FactorCurrent production: 294,190,000 lbs per yearTotal Future Capacity: 673,790,000 lbs per year =current production + new furnace capacityScaling Factor:2.290Annual Production from existing furnaces (14, 15, 5M, 6M, 32, and 33)2007 2006 2005 2004 2003176,055 138,251 139,030 141,717 140,422 TPYAVG 147,095 TPY*Assumptions: Three new furnaces are being installed, two 240,000 lb units and one 180,000 lb unit240,000 lb units can handle two charges of 200,000 lbs per day180,000 lb units can handle two charges of 120,000 lbs per dayassume 100% utilization of new furnaces(see Melter Holder Furnaces and Filter Box Emissions for further info)Current utilization based on average production from furnaces 14, 15, 5M, 6M, 32, and 33 for 2003 through 2007Max PM Emissions (2001-2007)B1 - 20Alcoa Massena East Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlineCarbon Monoxide Emission Calculations06-07 Avg Aluminum Production141,998tons/yrFume Capture98.0%Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are calculated differently from the other pollutants. CO generation is dependent upon theTested Emissions"current efficiency" of the reduction operations. Current efficiency (CE) is defined as the ratio of actual aluminum production2006 2007 Avg 06-07to theoretical production:A-398 Total-Fluoride 0.040 0.047 0.044 lb/ton AluminumCE = Actual Production / Theoretical ProductionMonitor Total-Fluoride 0.650 0.880 0.765 lb/ton AluminumPotline Total-Fluoride 0.690 0.9270.809lb/ton Aluminum Theoretical production for a Pre-Bake facility is defined according to the following equation:Part F - Roof 0.250 0.360 0.305 lb/ton AluminumPart F - A-398 0.019 0.027 0.023 lb/ton Calculated valueTheoretical Production = (17.752 lb/pot-day)(Amperage, kA)A-398 Filterable Particulate 0.612 0.310 0.461 lb/ton AluminumMonitor Filterable Particulate 1.620 1.810 1.715 lb/ton Aluminum Thus, increases in aluminum production are driven by increases in current efficiency and operating amperage.Total Filterable Particulate 2.232 2.1202.176lb/ton Aluminum-emission factors are given inredCO generation can be represented by the following chemical equation, which is referred to as the "back reaction":Potroom emission factorsPollutantEmissionFactorSource2 Al + 3 CO2===> Al2O3+ 3 CONOx0.599lb/ton Aluminum (June 2008 Method 7E Emission Test)Monitor condensables0.298lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)Monitor PM 10 with condensables1.355lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)Monitor PM 2.5 with condensables0.918lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)A-398 condensables0.202lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)A-398 PM 10 with condensables0.446lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) The back reaction is the major mechanism for the loss of aluminum productionin reduction cells and it decreases theA-398 PM 2.5 with condensables0.289lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) current efficiency of the reduction operations. Based on molecular weight ratios, 1.555 pounds of CO is produced perpound of Al involved in the back reaction.06-07 Avg Potroom EmissionsPM calculationThe above information can be used to calculate CO emissions from actual production operations given the operating amperage380,019 lb PM w/ cond. 255,784 lb PM10 w/ cond. 171,469 lb PM2.5 w/ cond. in kiloamps, the production rate in pounds per pot-day, andthe number of pots in operation.TF calculation114,805 lb TFInput Data 2006 2007 06-07 AvgAverage Operating Amperage 238.22 240.12 239 kANOxcalculation routine:Average Production 3977 4016 3,997 lb/pot-dayEmission Factor0.599lb/tonAverage Production 141371 142624 141,998 tons/yrthrough A-398's 83,355 lb/yrAverage # Pots in Operation 194.77 198 196through monitor 1,701 lb/yr85,057 lb NOxCO Emission CalculationsTheoretical Production 4,229 4,263 4,246 lb/pot-dayCO calculationAluminum Lost in Back Reaction 252 247 249 lb/pot-dayCO Generation 391 384 387 lb/pot-daythrough A-398's 26,981,493 lb/yrCO Generation 197 190.99 194 lb/TAPthrough monitor 550,643 lb/yrCO Emissions 27,824,582 27,239,688 27,532,135 lb/yrTotal CO: 27,532,135 lb COB1 - 21Alcoa Massena East Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual Fine Particulate Emission RatesSampling Location Pollutant Emission Rate Back-half %PM2.5 Front PM10 to PM2.5 TSP>PM10 PM10 Front TSP BackTotal EmissionRate w/CondensablesContribution toTotal PM w/CondensablesTotalEmissionRate(Filterableonly)Contributionto TotalFilterable PMPotroom Roof PM2.5 0.61 lb/ton Al 49% 4.7 4.5 0.61 52.6% 0.31 36.2%PM10 0.83 lb/ton Al 36% 3.3 8 4.5 0.83 71.6% 0.53 61.6%Total PM 1.16 lb/ton Al 26% 5 13 4.5 1.16 --- 0.86Dry Scrubber PM2.5 0.21 lb/ton Al 94% 1.2 18.4 0.21 77.8% 0.01 18.9%PM10 0.24 lb/ton Al 24% 2.3 3.5 18.4 0.24 88.9% 0.04 52.9%Total PM 0.27 lb/ton Al 75% 2.7 6.2 18.4 0.27 --- 0.07Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basisMethod 202(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Potroom Roof Filter Total PM 0.862 1.715 = 06-07 Avg. PM emission rateFilter PM10 0.531 1.057 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.312 0.620 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.298 0.298 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.829 1.355 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.610 0.918 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesDry Scrubber Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basis(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)B1 - 21AAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlinePrior Actual Emissions Summary TableYearS022006 (lb/yr) 4,890,6412007 (lb/yr) 4,803,189Average (lb/yr) 4,846,915Average (ton/yr) 2,423Process DataUnitsJanuary February March April May June July August September October November December YTD Process DataRationale for CalculationsAluminum Productionlbs 23,837,260 21,776,505 24,168,424 23,177,620 23,910,767 23,166,122 23,757,780 23,747,632 23,313,273 24,331,724 23,319,230 24,235,688282,742,025 Aluminum ProductionGivenAluminum Productiontons 11,919 10,888 12,084 11,589 11,955 11,583 11,879 11,874 11,657 12,166 11,660 12,118141,371 Aluminum ProductionGivenGreen Anode ProductionMT 6,984 6,027 6,426 6,438 7,445 6,217 5,636 6,448 5,505 6,191 6,731 6,02476,072 Green Anode ProductionGivenGreen Anode Productiontons 7,699 6,644 7,083 7,097 8,207 6,853 6,213 7,108 6,068 6,824 7,420 6,64083,855 Green Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode ProductionMT 6,423 5,526 6,392 6,393 6,642 6,294 6,445 7,448 6,030 5,977 5,787 5,97775,334 Baked Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode Productiontons 7,080 6,091 7,046 7,047 7,322 6,938 7,104 8,210 6,647 6,589 6,379 6,58983,041 Baked Anode ProductionGiven%S in Baked Anodes% 2.34 2.43 2.24 2.02 2.25 2.16 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.35 2.31 2.21 2.21%S in Baked AnodesGiven%S in Reacted Alumina% 0.302 0.274 0.261 0.251 0.260 0.313 0.264 0.311 0.332 0.332 0.358 0.359 0.301%S in Reacted AluminumGivenPots OperatingNo. 192.6 195.0 195.9 194.4 195.2 194.9 194.5 194.8 194.9 196.5 194.5 194.0 194.771Pots OperatingGivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.421 0.418 0.419 0.417 0.421 0.421 0.418 0.415 0.420 0.420 0.425 0.418 0.419Net CarbonHighest averaging year for netcarbon (2004)Al2O3 Feed Rateton/hr 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.200Al2O3 Feed RateGiven% S converted to SO20.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908% S converted to SO2GivenSO2 from carbonlb/ton 35.78 36.89 34.09 30.59 34.40 33.03 31.58 31.35 31.73 35.85 35.66 33.55 33.708SO2 from carbon% S in bakedanodes/100*2000*(64/32)*netcarbon*%S converted to SO2SO2 from Al2O3lb/ton 0.905 0.812 0.771 0.749 0.777 0.934 0.768 0.935 0.984 0.975 1.061 1.058 0.894SO2 from Al2O3All2O3 feed rate*%S in ReactedAl*(64/32)*2000/(Al productiontons/744)Total SO2:lb/ton 36.69 37.70 34.86 31.34 35.18 33.96 32.35 32.29 32.71 36.82 36.72 34.61 34.603Total SO2:Total98% through A-398'slb/yr 428,492 402,314 412,828 355,956 412,188 385,514 376,551 375,700 373,703 439,017 419,559 411,007 4,792,82998% through A-398'stotal SO2 (lb SO2) * % FumeCapture2% through monitorlb/yr 8,745 8,210 8,425 7,264 8,412 7,868 7,685 7,667 7,627 8,960 8,562 8,388 97,8132% through monitortotal SO2 (lb SO2)*(1-% FumeCapture)Total SO2:lb SO2437,237 410,524 421,253 363,220 420,600 393,382 384,236 383,367 381,329 447,976 428,121 419,3954,890,641 Total SO2:Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)2006 ALCOA MASSENA WEST PLANT POTLINE- SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MONTHB1 - 22Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlineProcess DataUnitsJanuary February March April May June July August September October November December YTD Process DataRationale for CalculationsAluminum Productionlbs 23,675,009 21,580,608 24,168,592 23,889,200 24,444,425 23,442,332 24,202,097 24,263,108 23,628,742 24,268,206 23,460,642 24,225,349285,248,310 Aluminum ProductionGivenAluminum Productiontons 11,838 10,790 12,084 11,945 12,222 11,721 12,101 12,132 11,814 12,134 11,730 12,113142,624 Aluminum ProductionGivenGreen Anode ProductionMT 6,728 5,359 7,575 6,364 6,953 6,539 6,788 5,531 5,417 6,646 7,099 6,72777,726 Green Anode ProductionGivenGreen Anode Productiontons 7,416 5,907 8,350 7,015 7,664 7,208 7,482 6,097 5,971 7,326 7,825 7,41585,678 Green Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode ProductionMT 6,519 5,883 6,516 6,312 6,497 6,321 6,541 5,898 5,770 5,962 6,298 6,65675,173 Baked Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode Productiontons 7,186 6,485 7,183 6,958 7,162 6,968 7,210 6,501 6,360 6,572 6,942 7,33782,864 Baked Anode ProductionGiven%S in Baked Anodes% 2.03 2.20 2.09 2.08 2.27 2.17 2.30 2.06 1.98 2.34 2.56 2.00 2.17%S in Baked AnodesGiven%S in Reacted Alumina% 0.319 0.337 0.338 0.294 0.318 0.333 0.320 0.294 0.305 0.316 0.320 0.309 0.317%S in Reacted AluminumGivenPots OperatingNo. 190.5 192.8 196.1 197.5 197.0 195.5 193.8 195.0 196.1 194.4 193.0 194.5 194.658Pots OperatingGivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.418 0.418 0.416 0.414 0.416 0.416 0.418 0.417 0.414 0.414 0.411 0.419 0.416Net CarbonHighest averaging year for netcarbon (2004)Al2O3 Feed Rateton/hr 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.100Al2O3 Feed RateGiven% S converted to SO20.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908% S converted to SO2GivenSO2 from carbonlb/ton 30.82 33.40 31.58 31.28 34.30 32.79 34.92 31.20 29.77 35.19 38.21 30.44 32.824SO2 from carbon% S in bakedanodes/100*2000*(64/32)*netcarbon*%S converted to SO2SO2 from Al2O3lb/ton 0.962 1.007 0.999 0.879 0.929 1.015 0.762 0.721 0.744 0.775 0.786 0.759 0.861SO2 from Al2O3All2O3 feed rate*%S in ReactedAl*(64/32)*2000/(Al productiontons/744)Total SO2:lb/ton 31.78 34.41 32.58 32.15 35.23 33.80 35.68 31.92 30.52 35.96 39.00 31.20 33.685Total SO2:Total98% through A-398'slb/yr 368,688 363,840 385,796 376,396 421,939 388,268 423,126 379,504 353,314 427,620 448,334 370,302 4,707,12698% through A-398'stotal SO2 (lb SO2) * % FumeCapture2% through monitorlb/yr 7,524 7,425 7,873 7,682 8,611 7,924 8,635 7,745 7,210 8,727 9,150 7,557 96,0642% through monitortotal SO2 (lb SO2)*(1-% FumeCapture)Total SO2:lb SO2376,212 371,265 393,669 384,077 430,550 396,192 431,761 387,249 360,524 436,347 457,484 377,8594,803,189 Total SO2:Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)2007 ALCOA MASSENA WEST PLANT POTLINE- SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MONTHB1 - 23Alcoa Massena Modnization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001Pollutant NOx SO2 TF PM PM10/2.5 COWest Plant Pre-Bake Potlinelb/yr 89,430 5,241,393 176,172 511,478 335,984 27,023,754Aluminum Production149,298 tons/yrFume Capture98.0%Process Weight Calculations - 2007% Sulfur in Coke2.5%SO2 Control0.0% January February March April May JuneWest Plant Potroom Emission FactorsMetal Production 23,675,009 21,580,908 24,168,592 23,889,200 24,444,425 23,442,332PollutantEmissionFactorGross Carbon 0.539 0.541 0.553 0.546 0.542 0.548NOx 0.599 lb/ton Aluminum (June 2008 Method 7E Emission Test) Carbon Used 8,103 7,418 8,497 8,280 8,413 8,138TF 1.18 lb/ton Aluminum (Permit Limit)Fluoride MT 167 179 164 173 172 152Monitor condensables 0.298 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Alumina MT 20,683 18,605 21,227 20,761 21,445 20,560Monitor PM 10 with condensables 0.339 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Total Alumina 45,597,742 41,016,583 46,797,044 45,769,701 47,277,647 45,326,576Monitor PM 2.5 with condensables 0.322 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Total Carbon 12,760,830 11,675,271 13,365,231 13,043,503 13,248,878 12,846,398A-398 condensables 0.202 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Cover Material 1,823,175 1,669,050 1,911,825 1,863,000 1,892,925 1,831,050A-398 PM 10 with condensables 1.911 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Soda ash lbs 15,825 13,950 14,725 5,600 7,100 12,100A-398 PM 2.5 with condensables 0.812 lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) Fluoride lbs 368,168 394,623 361,554 381,396 379,191 335,099Total Process Wt 60,565,740 54,769,478 62,450,380 61,063,200 62,805,742 60,351,223Potroom EmissionsDays 31 28 31 30 31 30(1)PM calculationPM10 calculationPM2.5 calculationLbs/hr 81,406 81,502 83,939 84,810 84,416 83,821511,478 lb PM w/ cond. 335,984 lb PM10 w/ cond. 169,399 lb PM2.5 w/ cond. Limit (lbs/hr) 46.8 46.8 47.8 48.1 48.0 47.7TF calculationLimit (lbs/ton) 2.94 2.92 2.94 2.90 2.92 2.93176,172 lb TFAverage: 2.93Emissions (lbs/ton) 2.05 1.32 1.48 1.26 1.63 2.13NOxcalculation routine:Emission Factor 0.599 lb/tonCarbon Monoxide Emission Calculationsthrough A-398's (98%) 87,641 lb/yrthrough monitor (2%) 1,789 lb/yrCarbon monoxide (CO) emissions are calculated differently from the other pollutants. CO generation is dependent upon the89,430 lb NOx"current efficiency" of the reduction operations. Current efficiency (CE) is defined as the ratio of actual aluminum productionto theoretical production:CO calculationCE = Actual Production / Theoretical Productionthrough A-398's (98%) 26,483,279 lb/yrTheoretical production for a Pre-Bake facility is defined according to the following equation:through monitor (2%) 540,475 lb/yrTotal CO: 27,023,754 lb COTheoretical Production = (17.752 lb/pot-day)(Amperage, kA)(1)Total Particulate based on process weight emission limit and emission rates of condensables through the roof monitor and the control deviceThus, increases in aluminum production are driven by increases in current efficiency and operating amperage.Process DataUnitsRationale for CalculationsCO generation can be represented by the following chemical equation, which is referred to as the "back reaction":Aluminum Productionlbs 298,596,292Aluminum Productiontons 149,298assumed to be the maximum production based on process limiting factors upstream in the process2 Al + 3 CO2===> Al2O3+ 3 CO%S in Baked Anodes% 2.30% S in coke * (maximum ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur from 1974-2003, see below)%S in Reacted Alumina% 0.3172007 averageThe back reaction is the major mechanism for the loss of aluminum production in reduction cells and it decreases thePots OperatingNo. 198Given by designcurrent efficiency of the reduction operations. Based on molecular weight ratios, 1.555 pounds of CO is produced perNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.419Highest averaging year for net carbon (2006) pound of Al involved in the back reaction.Al2O3 Feed Rateton/hr 2.4double 2007 feed rateRatio S converted to SO20.908GivenSO2 from carbonlb/ton 34.96% S in baked anodes/100*2000*(MW Ratio S to SO2)*net carbon*%S converted to SO2 The above information can be used to calculate CO emissions from actual production operations given the operating amperageSO2 from Al2O3lb/ton 0.152uses %S in Reacted Aluminum and Al2O3 Feed Rate in kiloamps, the production rate in pounds per pot-day, and the number of pots in operation.Total SO2:lb/ton 35.11Total98% through A-398's (SO2)lb/yr 5,136,565Production: 149,298 tons2% through monitor (SO2)lb/yr 104,828SO2 Control through A-398's% 0GivenTotal SO2:lb SO25,241,393Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)Current Efficiency: 0.945Total Emitted SO2:lb SO25,241,393Total SO2*(1-SO2 Control)YEAR % S in Coke % S in AnodeTheoretical Production: 157,987 tons1986* 1.97 1.81 0.92*1986 had the highest ratio of anode sulfur tocoke sulfur from 1974-2003.Al lost in back reaction: 8,689 tons17,378,620 lbsLbs CO 27,023,754 lbsSulfur to CokeSulfurB1 - 24Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsFuture Actual Fine Particulate Emission RatesEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlineSampling Location Pollutant Emission Rate Back-half %PM2.5 Front PM10 to PM2.5 TSP>PM10 PM10 Front TSP BackTotal EmissionRate w/CondensablesContribution toTotal PM w/CondensablesTotalEmissionRate(Filterableonly)Contribution toTotal FilterablePMPotroom Roof PM2.5 0.61 lb/ton Al 49% 4.7 4.5 0.61 52.6% 0.31 36.2%PM10 0.83 lb/ton Al 36% 3.3 8 4.5 0.83 71.6% 0.53 61.6%Total PM 1.16 lb/ton Al 26% 5 13 4.5 1.16 --- 0.86Dry Scrubber PM2.5 0.21 lb/ton Al 94% 1.2 18.4 0.21 77.8% 0.01 18.9%PM10 0.24 lb/ton Al 24% 2.3 3.5 18.4 0.24 88.9% 0.04 52.9%Total PM 0.27 lb/ton Al 75% 2.7 6.2 18.4 0.27 --- 0.07Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basisMethod 202(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Potroom Roof Filter Total PM 0.862 0.066 = process weight emission limit (2.93 lb/TAP) * 2% through roof monitorFilter PM10 0.531 0.041 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.312 0.024 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.298 0.298 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.829 0.339 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.610 0.322 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesDry Scrubber Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basis(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Filter Total PM 0.068 3.231 = process weight emission limit (2.93 lb/TAP) * 98% through control deviceFilter PM10 0.036 1.710 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.013 0.611 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.202 0.202 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.238 1.911 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.215 0.812 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesSummary of Fine Particulate ResultsB1 - 24AAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlineCarbon Monoxide Emission CalculationsAluminum Production Capacity144,321tons/yrFume Capture98.0%Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are calculated differently from the other pollutants. CO generation is dependent upon theTested Emissions"current efficiency" of the reduction operations. Current efficiency (CE) is defined as the ratio of actual aluminum production2006 2007 Max 06-07to theoretical production:A-398 Total-Fluoride 0.040 0.047 0.047 lb/ton AluminumCE = Actual Production / Theoretical ProductionMonitor Total-Fluoride 0.650 0.880 0.880 lb/ton AluminumPotline Total-Fluoride 0.690 0.9270.927lb/ton Aluminum Theoretical production for a Pre-Bake facility is defined according to the following equation:Part F - Roof 0.250 0.360 0.360 lb/ton AluminumPart F - A-398 0.019 0.027 0.027 lb/ton Calculated valueTheoretical Production = (17.752 lb/pot-day)(Amperage, kA)A-398 Filterable Particulate 0.612 0.310 0.612 lb/ton AluminumMonitor Filterable Particulate 1.620 1.810 1.810 lb/ton Aluminum Thus, increases in aluminum production are driven by increases in current efficiency and operating amperage.Total Filterable Particulate(1)2.232 2.1202.232lb/ton Aluminum(1)Total Filterable Particulate = 398 Filterable Particulate + Monitor Filterable Particulate-emission factors are given inorangeCO generation can be represented by the following chemical equation, which is referred to as the "back reaction":Potroom emission factorsPollutantEmissionFactorSource2 Al + 3 CO2===> Al2O3+ 3 CONOx0.599lb/ton Aluminum (June 2008 Method 7E Emission Test)Monitor condensables0.298lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)Monitor PM 10 with condensables1.414lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)Monitor PM 2.5 with condensables0.953lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)A-398 condensables0.202lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page)A-398 PM 10 with condensables0.526lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) The back reaction is the major mechanism for the loss of aluminum productionin reduction cells and it decreases theA-398 PM 2.5 with condensables0.318lb/ton Aluminum (from Mt. Holly data on next page) current efficiency of the reduction operations. Based on molecular weight ratios, 1.555 pounds of CO is produced perpound of Al involved in the back reaction.06-07 Avg Potroom EmissionsPM calculationPM10 calculationPM2.5 calculationThe above information can be used to calculate CO emissions from actual production operations given the operating amperage394,319 lb PM w/ cond. 279,950 lb PM10 w/ cond. 183,351 lb PM2.5 w/ cond. in kiloamps, the production rate in pounds per pot-day, andthe number of pots in operation.TF calculation133,786 lb TFInput Data Maximum (2003-2007)*Average Operating Amperage240kANOxcalculation routine:Average Production3,994lb/pot-dayEmission Factor0.599lb/tonAverage Production144,321tons/yrthrough A-398's 84,719 lb/yrAverage # Pots in Operation198through monitor 1,729 lb/yr86,448 lb NOxCO Emission CalculationsTheoretical Production4,349lb/pot-dayCO calculationAluminum Lost in Back Reaction355lb/pot-dayCO Generation552lb/pot-daythrough A-398's 39,130,056 lb/yrCO Generation276.67lb/TAPthrough monitor 798,573 lb/yrCO Emissions39,928,629lb/yrTotal CO: 39,928,629 lb CO*Maximum values were taken from 2007B1 - 25Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth Fine Particulate Emission RatesSampling Location Pollutant Emission Rate Back-half %PM2.5 Front PM10 to PM2.5 TSP>PM10 PM10 Front TSP BackTotal EmissionRate w/CondensablesContribution toTotal PM w/CondensablesTotalEmissionRate(Filterableonly)Contributionto TotalFilterable PMPotroom Roof PM2.5 0.61 lb/ton Al 49% 4.7 4.5 0.61 52.6% 0.31 36.2%PM10 0.83 lb/ton Al 36% 3.3 8 4.5 0.83 71.6% 0.53 61.6%Total PM 1.16 lb/ton Al 26% 5 13 4.5 1.16 --- 0.86Dry Scrubber PM2.5 0.21 lb/ton Al 94% 1.2 18.4 0.21 77.8% 0.01 18.9%PM10 0.24 lb/ton Al 24% 2.3 3.5 18.4 0.24 88.9% 0.04 52.9%Total PM 0.27 lb/ton Al 75% 2.7 6.2 18.4 0.27 --- 0.07Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basisMethod 202(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)Potroom Roof Filter Total PM 0.862 1.810 = 06-07 Max PM emission rateFilter PM10 0.531 1.116 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMFilter PM2.5 0.312 0.655 = Filter Total PM * % Contribution to Total Filterable PMCondensable 0.298 0.298 = Total PM Back-half % * Total Emission Rate w CondensablesPM10 (w cond.) 0.829 1.414 = Filter PM10 + CondensablesPM2.5 (w cond.) 0.610 0.953 = Filter PM2.5 + CondensablesDry Scrubber Mt Holly Data Mt Holly basis(lb/ton Al) (lb/ton Al)B1 - 25AAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicabilty Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlinePrior Actual Emissions Summary TableYearS022006 (lb/yr) 5,182,9622007 (lb/yr) 5,136,937Average (lb/yr) 5,159,949Average (ton/yr) 2,580Process DataUnitsJanuary February March April May June July August September October November December YTD Process DataRationale for CalculationsAluminum Productionlbs24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500288,642,000Aluminum ProductionMaximum CapacityAluminum Productiontons12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027144,321Aluminum ProductionGivenGreen Anode ProductionMT 6,984 6,027 6,426 6,438 7,445 6,217 5,636 6,448 5,505 6,191 6,731 6,02476,072 Green Anode ProductionGivenGreen Anode Productiontons 7,699 6,644 7,083 7,097 8,207 6,853 6,213 7,108 6,068 6,824 7,420 6,64083,855 Green Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode ProductionMT 6,423 5,526 6,392 6,393 6,642 6,294 6,445 7,448 6,030 5,977 5,787 5,97775,334 Baked Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode Productiontons 7,080 6,091 7,046 7,047 7,322 6,938 7,104 8,210 6,647 6,589 6,379 6,58983,041 Baked Anode ProductionGiven%S in Baked Anodes%2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30%S in Baked AnodesMaximum based on allowable2.5% S in Coke%S in Reacted Alumina% 0.302 0.274 0.261 0.251 0.260 0.313 0.264 0.311 0.332 0.332 0.358 0.359 0.301%S in Reacted AluminumGivenPots OperatingNo. 192.6 195.0 195.9 194.4 195.2 194.9 194.5 194.8 194.9 196.5 194.5 194.0 194.771Pots OperatingGivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.421 0.418 0.419 0.417 0.421 0.421 0.418 0.415 0.420 0.420 0.425 0.418 0.419Net CarbonHighest averaging year for netcarbon (2004)Al2O3 Feed Rateton/hr 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.200Al2O3 Feed RateGiven% S converted to SO20.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908% S converted to SO2GivenSO2 from carbonlb/ton 35.17 34.92 35.00 34.83 35.17 35.17 34.92 34.67 35.09 35.09 35.50 34.92 35.036SO2 from carbon% S in bakedanodes/100*2000*(64/32)*netcarbon*%S converted to SO2SO2 from Al2O3lb/ton 0.897 0.735 0.775 0.721 0.772 0.899 0.759 0.923 0.954 0.986 1.029 1.066 0.876SO2 from Al2O3All2O3 feed rate*%S in ReactedAl*(64/32)*2000/(Al productiontons/744)Total SO2:lb/ton 36.07 35.65 35.78 35.56 35.94 36.07 35.68 35.59 36.04 36.07 36.53 35.98 35.913Total SO2:Total98% through A-398'slb/yr 425,075 420,213 421,671 419,068 423,605 425,106 420,493 419,482 424,765 425,140 430,569 424,116 5,079,30298% through A-398'stotal SO2 (lb SO2) * % FumeCapture2% through monitorlb/yr 8,675 8,576 8,606 8,552 8,645 8,676 8,581 8,561 8,669 8,676 8,787 8,655 103,6592% through monitortotal SO2 (lb SO2)*(1-% FumeCapture)Total SO2:lb SO2433,750 428,789 430,276 427,621 432,250 433,782 429,074 428,043 433,434 433,816 439,356 432,7715,182,962 Total SO2:Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)2006 ALCOA MASSENA WEST PLANT POTLINE- SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MONTHB1 - 26Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicabilty Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit S-00001West Plant Pre-Bake PotlineProcess DataUnitsJanuary February March April May June July August September October November December YTD Process DataRationale for CalculationsAluminum Productionlbs24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500 24,053,500288,642,000Aluminum ProductionMaximum CapacityAluminum Productiontons12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027 12,027144,321Aluminum ProductionGivenGreen Anode ProductionMT 6,728 5,359 7,575 6,364 6,953 6,539 6,788 5,531 5,417 6,646 7,099 6,72777,726 Green Anode ProductionGivenGreen Anode Productiontons 7,416 5,907 8,350 7,015 7,664 7,208 7,482 6,097 5,971 7,326 7,825 7,41585,678 Green Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode ProductionMT 6,519 5,883 6,516 6,312 6,497 6,321 6,541 5,898 5,770 5,962 6,298 6,65675,173 Baked Anode ProductionGivenBaked Anode Productiontons 7,186 6,485 7,183 6,958 7,162 6,968 7,210 6,501 6,360 6,572 6,942 7,33782,864 Baked Anode ProductionGiven%S in Baked Anodes%2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30%S in Baked AnodesMaximum based on allowable2.5% S in Coke%S in Reacted Alumina% 0.319 0.337 0.338 0.294 0.318 0.333 0.320 0.294 0.305 0.316 0.320 0.309 0.317%S in Reacted AluminumGivenPots OperatingNo. 190.5 192.8 196.1 197.5 197.0 195.5 193.8 195.0 196.1 194.4 193.0 194.5 194.658Pots OperatingGivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.418 0.418 0.416 0.414 0.416 0.416 0.418 0.417 0.414 0.414 0.411 0.419 0.416Net CarbonHighest averaging year for netcarbon (2004)Al2O3 Feed Rateton/hr 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.100Al2O3 Feed RateGiven% S converted to SO20.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.908% S converted to SO2GivenSO2 from carbonlb/ton 34.92 34.92 34.75 34.58 34.75 34.75 34.92 34.83 34.58 34.58 34.33 35.00 34.744SO2 from carbon% S in bakedanodes/100*2000*(64/32)*netcarbon*%S converted to SO2SO2 from Al2O3lb/ton 0.947 0.904 1.004 0.873 0.944 0.989 0.766 0.727 0.730 0.782 0.766 0.765 0.850SO2 from Al2O3All2O3 feed rate*%S in ReactedAl*(64/32)*2000/(Al productiontons/744)Total SO2:lb/ton 35.87 35.82 35.75 35.46 35.70 35.74 35.68 35.56 35.31 35.37 35.10 35.77 35.594Total SO2:Total98% through A-398'slb/yr 422,716 422,204 421,412 417,903 420,712 421,237 420,583 419,141 416,222 416,829 413,691 421,548 5,034,19998% through A-398'stotal SO2 (lb SO2) * % FumeCapture2% through monitorlb/yr 8,627 8,616 8,600 8,529 8,586 8,597 8,583 8,554 8,494 8,507 8,443 8,603 102,7392% through monitortotal SO2 (lb SO2)*(1-% FumeCapture)Total SO2:lb SO2431,343 430,821 430,012 426,431 429,298 429,833 429,167 427,695 424,716 425,336 422,134 430,1515,136,937 Total SO2:Al Production*Total SO2 (lb/ton)2007 ALCOA MASSENA WEST PLANT POTLINE- SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MONTHB1 - 27Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit S-00002Anode Baking FurnaceProcess Data06-07 Avg Green Anode Production 84,767 ton/yr06-07 Avg Baked Anode Production 82,954 ton/yrBaking Furnace Emission DataTested Emissions2006 2007 06-07 AvgTotal Fluoride 0.017 0.002 0.010 lb/ton Green CarbonTotal Particulate 0.453 0.042 0.248 lb/ton (green carbon)POMS 0.060 0.030 0.045 lb/ton (green carbon)Particulate Fluoride 0.003 0.0003 0.002 lb/ton (green carbon)Emission FactorsSO25.100 5.100 5.100 *lb/ton Baked CarbonVOC 0.190 0.190 0.190 lb/ton Baked CarbonCO 2.190 2.190 2.190 lb/ton Baked Carbon (Based on June 2008 method 10 test data)NOx20.380 20.380 20.380 lb/hr (new emission factor obtained w/Innovatherm startup 2006)*Baking Furnace lb SO2/ton - In 1997 two data points were collected from testing, 4.6 and 5.1 lb/ton Baked CarbonTo be conservative, the 5.1 lb SO2/ton Baked Carbon will be used.Based on Table B.2.2 Category 9 the PM2.5 fraction is 78% and the PM10 fraction is 94%06-07 Avg Baking Furnace EmissionsPM calculationPM10PM2.520,980 lbs PM 19,721 16,364TF calculation805 lbs TFSO2calculation423,063 lb SO2CO calculation181,668 lb CONOx calculation178,529 lb NOxVOC calculation15,761 lb NOxB1 - 28Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit S-00002Anode Baking FurnaceProjected Future West Plant Green Anode ProductionMax West Plant Green Anode Production between 2003-200785,678 tons (2007)Projected Future West Plant Green Anode Production182,243 tonsScaling Factor2.13182,243 tons/yr Green 178,345 Tons/yr Baked3% S in Coke Annual AverageS-00002 Emission FactorsTF 0.1 lb/ton Green Carbon (One Half of the MACT Standard)SO25.100 lb/ton Baked Carbon (1997 Emissions Testing)CO 2.596 lb/ton Baked Carbon (June 2008 Method 10 Testing + 10% to accommodate worst-case emissions)NOx2.277 lb/ton Baked Carbon (June 2008 Method 7E testing + 10% to accommodate worst-case emissions)S-00002 Anode baking furnace PM emission factorsTest # Date PM (lb/hr)PM (lb/ton of GreenCarbon Produced)1 9/21/2003 2.03 0.2432 9/21/2003 2.3 0.2763 9/22/2003 2.35 0.2811 9/13/2004 1.73 0.2372 9/13/2004 1.21 0.1653 9/14/2004 1.35 0.1861 10/20/2005 1.09 0.1122 10/20/2005 0.43 0.0443 10/21/2005 0.64 0.0651 9/11/2006 12.06 1.2362 9/15/2006 1.04 0.1073 9/15/2006 0.16 0.0161 10/1/2007 0.43 0.0462 10/1/2007 0.39 0.0423 10/1/2007 0.37 0.039AVERAGE 1.1815 0.142MAX 2.35 0.281=outlier (not used in average or max)PM 51,210 lbs/yr -used max PM emission factor to remain conservativePM10 48,138 lbs/yr Based on AP-42 Table B.2.2 Category 9 the PM2.5 fraction is 78% andPM2.5 39,944 lbs/yr the PM10 fraction is 94%TF 18,224 lbs/yrSO2909,558 lbs/yrCO 462,983 lbs/yrNOx406,091 lbs/yrProjected Anode Baking Furnace Emissions*Assume 98% conversion of green anode to baked anode based on2006/2007 dataB1 - 29Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit S-00002Anode Baking FurnaceProcess DataGreen Anode Production Capacity 182,243 ton/yrBaked Anode Production Capacity 178,344 ton/yrBaking Furnace Emission DataTested Emissions2006 2007 06-07 AvgTotal Fluoride 0.017 0.002 0.010 lb/ton Green CarbonTotal Particulate 0.453 0.042 0.248 lb/ton (green carbon)POMS 0.060 0.030 0.045 lb/ton (green carbon)Particulate Fluoride 0.003 0.0003 0.002 lb/ton (green carbon)Emission FactorsSO25.100 5.100 5.100 *lb/ton Baked CarbonCO 2.190 2.190 2.190 lb/ton Baked CarbonNOx2.260 2.260 2.260 lb/ton Baked Carbon (new emission factorobtained w/Innovatherm startup 2006)*Baking Furnace lb SO2/ton - In 1997 two data points were collected from testing, 4.6 and 5.1 lb/ton Baked CarbonTo be conservative, the 5.1 lb SO2/ton Baked Carbon will be used.Based on AP-42 Table B.2.2 Category 9 the PM2.5 fraction is 78% and the PM10 fraction is 94%Maximum Capacity Baking Furnace EmissionsPM calculationPM10PM2.545,105 lbs PM 42,399 35,182TF calculation1,731 lbs TFSO2calculation909,556 lb SO2CO calculation390,574 lb CONOx calculation403,058 lb NOxB1 - 30Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Units S-00003Green MillPM(2)PM VOC VOCUnit Source DescriptionID ID (lb/ton) (lb/hr) (hr/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/ton) (lb/hr) (hr/yr) (lb/yr)S-00003 SS099Green Mill(1)0.0157 1,331 0.0231 1,958GRAND TOTAL: 1,331 1,958(1)06-07 AverageAnnual Green Anode Production was84,767 tons carbon(2)Emission factor based on Method 5 emission testingB1 - 31Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit S-00003Green MillProjected Future West Plant Green Anode Production182,243 tons/yrPM(2)PMDescription(lb/ton) (lb/yr)Green Mill(1)0.0157 2,861GRAND TOTAL: 2,861(1)ProjectedAnnual Green Anode Production is182,243 tons carbon(2)Emission factor based on Method 5 Emission Testing1.333333 scaling factor for Green Mill emissions factors based on the addition of a fourth paste mixerPM 0.0209 lb/ton Green CarbonRationale for CalculationsPM 3,815 lbs/yr Green Anode Production*scaled emission factorScaled S-00003 Green Mill (Paste Production Plant w/ CokeScrubber) Emission FactorsProjected Actual Green Mill (Paste ProductionPlant w/ Coke Scrubber) EmissionsB1 - 32Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Units S-00003Green MillPM(2)PMUnit Source DescriptionID ID (lb/ton) (lb/hr) (hr/yr) (lb/yr)S-00003 SS099Green Mill(1)0.0157 2,912GRAND TOTAL: 2,912(1)Annual Green Anode Production Capacity is185,497tons carbon(2)Emission factor based on Method 5 emission testington/yr hr/yr ton/hr ton/yr2005 83125 4041 20.57 180,196.72006 83855 3960 21.18 185,497.42007 85678 4321 19.83 173,695.7B1 - 33Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting Calculations2006-2007 Prior Actual EmissionsEmission Unit S-00004SMELTING MATERIAL HANDLINGSource Description ERP ERP Baghouse Actual Actual Actual PTE Actual Actual ActualID Process ID Building (lb/hr) (lb/yr) Efficiency Operation Operating Operating Emission Emission Emission Emission(hr/day) (days/yr) (hr/yr) (lb/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)PM PM10 PM2.5S0015 Stub Hole Cleaner - fabric filter M01 3323.30 28,90895% 6 260 1,5600.17 257131.2738.61S0016 Induction Furnaces - fabric filter M01 33236.70 321,49298% 6 260 1,5600.73 1,145583.97171.76S0017 Anthracite Coal Handling - fabric filter M01 33248.00 RemovedTOTAL88.000.90S0083 Flash Welder - fabric filter M02 344RemovedS0095 Stub Hole Drilling - fabric filter M03 35112.50109,50095% 8 260 2,0800.631,300663.00195.00S0090 Dry Scrubber Alumina - fabric filter M04 37837.10324,99698% 8 365 2,9200.401,168595.68175.20S023B Rough Cleaning - fabric filter M05 380330.002,890,80099.5% 12 208 2,4961.654,1182,100.38617.76S23AA Bath Crushing/Storage - fabric filter M06 435528.00 4,625,28099.5% 20 365 7,3002.64 19,2729,828.722,890.80S23AC Cruce Cleaning - fabric filter M06 43575.60 662,25699.5% 6 365 2,1900.38 828422.19124.17TOTAL603.603.02S0038 Butt Crushing - fabric filter M08 354B34.00297,84098% 10 208 2,0800.681,414721.34212.16S0049 Butt Storage (Butt Conveyor for An) - fabric filter M09 354C35.00 306,60098% 10 208 2,0800.70 1,456742.56218.40S0050 Storage Filling - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 15 173 2,5951.20 3,1141,588.14467.10S0051 Aggregate Blending - fabric filter M09 354C87.00 762,12098% 15 173 2,5952.90 7,5263,838.011,128.83S0052 Coke Crushing - fabric filter M09 354C96.00 840,96098% 15 173 2,5951.92 4,9822,541.02747.36S0053 Storage Discharge - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 15 173 2,5951.20 3,1141,588.14467.10S0060 Ball Mill Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C46.00 402,96098% 15 173 2,5950.92 2,3871,217.57358.11S0061 Intermediate Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C18.20 159,43298% 15 173 2,5950.36 945481.74141.69TOTAL426.209.20S0102 Spent Potlining Handling M16 46989.10780,51698% 0 260 1701.78303154.5045.44GRAND TOTALS1,620.518.3 53,33027,1987,999-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)B1 - 34Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsProjected Future Actual/Allowable EmissionsEmission Unit S-00004WEST PLANT MATERIAL HANDLINGMethod A Method B MaxDescription ERP ERP Baghouse Projected Projected Projected Emission Projected Flow Projected Emission Projected Projected Projected ProjectedProcess ID Building (lb/hr) (lb/yr) Efficiency Operation Operating Operating Rate Emission Design OutletRate Emission Emission Emission Emission(hr/day) (days/yr) (hr/yr) (lb/hr) (lb/yr) (dscfm) (gr/dscf) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)PM PM10 PM2.5Stub Hole Cleaner - fabric filter M01 3323.30 28,90895% 24 365 8,7600.17 1,4451,2000.017 0.17 0.17 1,532781230Induction Furnaces - fabric filter M01 33236.70 321,49298% 24 365 8,7600.73 6,43016,5000.017 2.40 2.40 21,06210,7413,159Stub Hole Drilling - fabric filter M03 35112.50 109,50095% 24 365 8,7600.63 5,4759,4000.017 1.37 1.37 11,9996,1191,800Dry Scrubber Alumina - fabric filter M04 37837.10 324,99698% 24 365 8,7600.40 3,5043,2500.017 0.47 0.47 4,1482,116622Rough Cleaning - fabric filter M05 380330.00 2,890,80099.5% 24 365 8,7601.65 14,45450,0000.017 7.29 7.29 63,82332,5509,573Bath Crushing/Storage - fabric filter M06 435528.00 4,625,28099.5% 24 365 8,7602.64 23,126110,0000.017 16.03 16.03 140,41071,60921,062Cruce Cleaning - fabric filter M06 43575.60 662,25699.5% 24 365 8,7600.38 3,31114,0000.017 2.04 2.04 17,8709,1142,681Butt Crushing - fabric filter M08 354B34.00 297,84098% 24 365 8,7600.68 5,95738,1500.017 5.56 5.56 48,69724,8357,305Butt Storage (Butt Conveyor for An) - fabric filter M09 354C35.00 306,60098% 24 365 8,7600.70 6,1322,7000.017 0.39 0.70 6,1323,127920Storage Filling - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 24 365 8,7601.20 10,5122,7000.017 0.39 1.20 10,5125,3611,577Aggregate Blending - fabric filter M09 354C87.00 762,12098% 24 365 8,7602.90 25,4042,1000.017 0.31 2.90 25,40412,9563,811Coke Crushing - fabric filter M09 354C96.00 840,96098% 24 365 8,7601.92 16,8199,8000.017 1.43 1.92 16,8198,5782,523Storage Discharge - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 24 365 8,7601.20 10,5125,4000.017 0.79 1.20 10,5125,3611,577Ball Mill Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C46.00 402,96098% 24 365 8,7600.92 8,0593,2000.017 0.47 0.92 8,0594,1101,209Intermediate Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C18.20 159,43298% 24 365 8,7600.36 3,1891,0000.017 0.15 0.36 3,1891,626478Spent Potlining Handling M16 46989.10 780,51698% 24 365 8,7601.78 15,61049,5000.017 7.21 7.21 63,18532,2249,478Total453,353231,21068,003-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)B1 - 35Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable B1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsDemand Growth EmissionsEmission Unit S-00004SMELTING MATERIAL HANDLINGSource Description ERP ERP Baghouse Actual Actual Actual PTE Actual Actual ActualID Process ID Building (lb/hr) (lb/yr) Efficiency Operation Operating Operating Emission Emission Emission Emission(hr/day) (days/yr) (hr/yr) (lb/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)PM PM10 PM2.5S0015 Stub Hole Cleaner - fabric filter M01 3323.30 28,90895% 63652,1900.17 36118454S0016 Induction Furnaces - fabric filter M01 33236.70 321,49298% 63652,1900.73 1,607820241S0017 Anthracite Coal Handling - fabric filter M01 33248.00 RemovedTOTAL88.000.90S0083 Flash Welder - fabric filter M02 344RemovedS0095 Stub Hole Drilling - fabric filter M03 35112.50 109,50095% 83652,9200.63 1,825931274S0090 Dry Scrubber Alumina - fabric filter M04 37837.10 324,99698% 83652,9200.40 1,168596175S023B Rough Cleaning - fabric filter M05 380330.00 2,890,80099.5% 123654,3801.65 7,2273,6861,084S23AA Bath Crushing/Storage - fabric filter M06 435528.00 4,625,28099.5% 203657,3002.64 19,2729,8292,891S23AC Cruce Cleaning - fabric filter M06 43575.60 662,25699.5% 63652,1900.38 828422124TOTAL603.603.02S0038 Butt Crushing - fabric filter M08 354B34.00 297,84098% 103653,6500.68 2,4821,266372S0049 Butt Storage (Butt Conveyor for An) - fabric filter M09 354C35.00 306,60098% 103653,6500.70 2,5551,303383S0050 Storage Filling - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 153655,4751.20 6,5703,351986S0051 Aggregate Blending - fabric filter M09 354C87.00 762,12098% 153655,4752.90 15,8788,0982,382S0052 Coke Crushing - fabric filter M09 354C96.00 840,96098% 153655,4751.92 10,5125,3611,577S0053 Storage Discharge - fabric filter M09 354C72.00 630,72098% 153655,4751.20 6,5703,351986S0060 Ball Mill Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C46.00 402,96098% 153655,4750.92 5,0372,569756S0061 Intermediate Classifier - fabric filter M09 354C18.20 159,43298% 153655,4750.36 1,9931,016299TOTAL426.209.20S0102 Spent Potlining Handling M16 46989.10 780,51698% 0.493 3651801.78 32116448GRAND TOTALS1,620.518.3 84,20642,94512,631-PM10/2.5 calculated from AP-42 Appendix B.2 Table B.2.2 emission factors (51% PM10, 15% PM2.5)B1 - 36Alcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable 1 - PSD Applicability Supporting CalculationsContemporaneous IncreasesSalt Fluxing of Existing MHA furnaces at West Plant Cast HouseCombustion EmissionsProcess Emissions IncreasesNo increase in PM 4.3 TPYutilization is expected, * Based on Tested Factorstherefore combustion of salt fluxing versus no fluxingemissions will notchange.Chip Dryer #1 Afterburner Retrofit177 MMCF Previous Maximum Annual Gas ConsumptionCombustion EmissionsProcess Emissions198 MMCF Future Maximum Annual Gas ConsumptionNOx1.09 TPYPM 0.152 TPYPM10 0.1 TPY THC** - TPY Pollutant AP-42 Factor Net ChangeSO2 0.01 TPYCO** - TPYlb/MMCF lb/yrTPY* Based on AP-42 Factors * Based on Tested Factors PM-10 5.7 123.69 0.06** CO/VOC emissions were significantly NOx 100 2170.00 1.09decreased as part of a compliance SO2 0.6 13.02 0.01issue, therefore not included in analysisB1 - 37APPENDIX C – NON-ATTAINMENT NSR APPLICABILITYSUPPORTING CALCULATIONSAlcoa Massena Modernization ProjectTable C1 - Part 231-2 MAP Analysis SummaryPart of SourceProject?Emission Unit*NOX(tons/yr)VOC + COS(tons/yr)NOX(tons/yr)VOC + COS(tons/yr)Yes or No NOX(tons/yr)VOC + COS(tons/yr)NOX(tons/yr)VOC + COS(tons/yr)P-OT001 47.9 240.3 92.9 333.3 No 61.2 251.6 -13.3 -11.3A-00001 65.4 14.1 109.4 16.5 NoA-00003 84.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 Yes 0.0 0.0 84.4 6.7B-00001 756.9 19.3 756.9 19.3 NoS-00001 44.7 247.9 44.7 247.9 NoS-00002 203.0 18.6 203.0 18.6 NoS-00003 2.8 2.1 Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.8S-00005 3.9 3.9 No1,260 321 1,220 316 0.0 1.0 84.4 8.640 40Significant Source Project = PEP > Significance Threshold*Only the emission units that emit NOX, VOC, or COS and are affected by the modernization project are listed in this analysisSignificance Threshold =East PlantWest Plant TotalWest PlantFuture MAP = Prior MAP because equipment will notbe modifiedFuture MAP = Prior MAP because equipment will notbe modifiedFuture MAP = Prior MAP because equipment will notbe modifiedFuture MAP = Prior MAP because there will be nophysical change or change to the method of operation.The emission unit will be debottlenecked only.Future MAP < Prior MAP because equipment will beshut downFuture MAP Prior Actual (avg 06-07)PEP (Future MAP - PriorActual)Prior MAPC1 - 1Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisExisting P-OT001Old East Plant Soderberg PotlineUnits ValuesPRIOR EAST PLANT ACTUAL NOX EMISSIONS CALCULATIONSPotential Aluminum Productiontons 135,583assumed to be the maximum production based on process limiting factors upstream in the process YearTotal East PlantEmissionsMax (99TPY Cap)Delta (Max -Total)InitialPotroom(1)Final Potroomfor Analysis(2)Potential Aluminum Productionlbs 271,166,0002006 (lb/yr) 223,609 198,000 -25,609 146,785 121,1762007 (lb/yr) 247,720 198,000 -49,720 173,457 123,73706-07 avg (lb/yr) 235,665 198,000 -37,665 160,121 122,45706-07 avg (ton/yr) 118 99 -19 80 61.2(1)Calculated using annual production and 2008 emission factorNOX 1.37093%(2)Final Potroom emissions = Delta + (Initial potroom emissions)*Based on Method 7E Stack Testing in 2008-Method 25A stack testing of the Coke Injected Scrubber in 1997PRIOR MAP NOxFuel Usage2006 2007 06-07 Avg UnitsPropane 55.661 69.2021 62.43155 1000 gallonslb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yr lb/TAP lb/yr ton/yrNOX 1.274 172,746 0.096 13,002 1.37 185,749 92.91998 AP-42 Emission FactorsEquationsPropanePrimary Emissions (lb/yr) = (Generation Rate)(Production)(Capture Efficiency)Pollutant (lb/1000 gal)Roof Monitor Emissions (lb/yr) = (Generation Rate)(Production)(1 - Capture Efficiency)VOC 0.5Prior MAP COSPRIOR EAST PLANT ACTUAL VOC AND COS EMISSION CALCULATIONSYear VOC (propane)*VOC** COS (COS+VOC)ParameterValueRationale for Values2006 (lb/yr) 28 235,776 273,541 509,345Coke Content (% by wt)76.00% Given-conservative estimate based on previous years data 2007 (lb/yr) 35 235,776 261,408 497,219Coke Sulfur (by wt)0.0300 Given06-07 avg (lb/yr) 31 235,776 267,475 503,282Pitch Content (% by wt)24.00% Given-conservative estimate based on previous years data 06-07 avg (ton/yr) 0 118 134 251.6Pitch Sulfur Content (by wt.)0.0080 Highest Pitch Sulfur content of any month from 2001-2007 *emissions from propane combustionS Generation Rate (lb S/lb paste)0.0247 (% coke content*% S in coke)+(% pitch content*% S in pitch) **Total potroom emissions not including propane combustionlb COS/lb S1.8735 = (1 mol COS/1 mol of S)(1 mol S/32.06 lb)(60.065 lb/ mol of COS)COS Generation Rate (lb COS/lb paste)0.0038 (lb COS/lb S)*S Gen. Rate*0.082 Testing at various Alcoa Smelters has determined that 8.2% of the Sulfur in the pastewill evolve as COSBriquettes Poured (lbs)157,005,114 Al Production*0.579 57.9% of Aluminum produced - based on 2007 valuesPotential Aluminum Production lbs271,166,000 GivenPotential Aluminum Production (Tons)135,583 Given - assumed to be the maximum production based on process limiting factors upstream in the processCOS Generation Rate (lb COS/Ton Al)4.40 (lb COS/lb paste)*lbs Briquettes Poured/tons Al ProductionPot Capture Efficiency93% GivenControl Efficiency SO296% GivenOverall Control SO290% pot capture efficiency*SO2 control efficiencyControl Efficiency COS34% GivenOverall Control COS31% overall SO2 efficiency*COS control efficiencyPrimary Control (lb COS/ton Al)2.69 (lb COS/ton Al)*capture efficiency*(1-COS control efficiency)Primary Control (lb COS)364,874 tons Al Production*primary controlRoof Vent (lb COS/ton Al)0.31 Roof vent/tons Al ProductionRoof Vent (lb COS)41,738 tons Al Production*(lb COS/tons Al)*(1-capture efficiency)Total COS (lb/yr)406,612 roof vent (lb COS) +primary control (lb COS)Total COS (ton/yr)203.3Prior MAP VOCGiven GivenPollutantRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Avg PollutantConc.EffluentGas*SouthScrubberFlowNorthScrubberFlowSouthScrubber North Scrubber Roof Vents** Plant TotalMAPEmissionsPPB PPB PPB PPM Molecular Wt. mg/M^3 M^3/min M^3/min lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/yrPropane180 190 210 0.19 44.0962 0.355 25,940 28,874 1.217 1.354 0.194 2.7624,220Ethane970 990 1100 1.02 30.0694 1.276 25,940 28,874 4.378 4.873 0.696 9.9587,134Methane17000 18000 19000 18.00 16.0426 12.012 25,940 28,874 41.216 45.878 6.555 93.65820,372*converted ppmv using M.W. and a 24.04 L/gmol value**back calculated based on 93% capture efficiencyPollutantRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 AvgConc.EffluentGasSouthScrubberFlowNorthScrubberFlowSouthScrubber North Scrubber Roof Vents Plant TotalMAPEmissionsPPM PPM PPM PPM mg/M^3 M^3/min M^3/min lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/yrTHC25.82 24.6 24.84 25.09 16.74 25,940 28,874 57.440 63.936 9.136 130.511,143,283Notes: On January 8th 2002,three summa can samples were collected at the fume system and analyzed by GC/MS VOC = THC + Propane -(Methane + Ethane)Calculations assume no control in the fume system and a 93% capture efficiency.VOC = 259,996 lb/yr= Input to Part 231-2 MAP Analysis Summary TableVOC = 130.0 ton/yrRoof Monitor Emissions Total EmissionsEmission FactorCOS MAP Emissions CalculationsPollutantGenerationRate*(lb/TAP)CaptureEfficiencyNOX MAP Emissions CalculationsPrimary EmissionsC1 - 2Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisFuture P-OT001New East Plant Pre-Bake Potline (modeled after West Plant Pre-Bake Potline)Units ValuesPotential Aluminum Productiontons 160,040maximum production based on process limiting factorsPotential Aluminum Productionlbs 320,080,340Future MAP NOxNOxMAP Emissions CalculationsUnits ValuesEmission Factorlb/ton 0.5992008 stack test data on West Plant Pre-Bake Potline98% through A-398'slb/yr 94,4262% through monitorlb/yr 1,438MAP NOx Emissionslb NOx/yr 95,864Potential Al Production * emission factorMAP NOx Emissionston NOx/yr 47.9Future MAP VOC (COS)COS MAP Emissions Calculations Units Values Rationale for Calculations% Sulfur in Coke3.0%Given%S in Baked Anodes2.76%% S in coke * (maximum ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur from 1974-2003)Pots OperatingNo. 208GivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.419Highest averaging year for net carbon between 06-07 (2006)% S converted to SO290.8%Given% S converted to COS9.2%GivenTotal COS:lb/ton 3.98% S in baked anodes*2000*(60/32)*net carbon*% S converted to COS% Fume Capture98.5%Given98.5% through A-398'slb/yr 628,105total COS (lb COS) * % Fume Capture1.5% through monitorlb/yr 9,565total COS (lb COS)*(1-% Fume Capture)COS Control25%GivenTotal COS:lb COS 637,670total COS(lb/ton)*potential Al production (tons)Total Emitted COS:lb COS 480,64398% through A-398's + 2% through monitor * (1-COS control)Total Emitted COS:ton COS 240.3YEAR % S in Coke % S in Anode1986* 1.97 1.81*used year with highest ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur in calculations to remain conservativeNot Included in Source ProjectRatio of Anode Sulfur toCoke Sulfur0.92Decrease in MAPC1 - 3Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisA-00001 MAPPRIOR MAP NOx and VOC (Combustion Emissions)Homogenizing Furnaces, Preheat Furnaces and Heat/Treat FurnacesEmission FactorsFuel Number Max. Fuel Usage Maximum Fuel Type Heat Input NOx(1)VOC(2)Process Description Type ofof Each Burner Fuel Usage NoxVOC(MMBtu/hr)lb/MMscfIDBurners (Mscf/hr) (Mscf/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)Natural Gas <100 100 5.5Round IngotNatural Gas (lowNOx burners)<100 50 5.5(1)AP-42, Fifth Edition and Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-1Homogenizing Furnaces(2)AP-42, Fifth Edition & Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-3,HMO Homogenizing Furnace (#16 Homogenizing Heat Treat) N. Gas 6 5.1 30.6 26,806 1,474 VOC as non-methane total organic compounds(NMTOC)HMO Homogenizing Furnace (#17 Homogenizing Heat Treat) N. Gas 7 5.1 35.7 31,273 1,720HMO Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat) N. Gas 8 4.3 34.3 30,022 1,651DescriptionHMOHomogenizing Furnace (#19 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(2)N. Gas 6 5.1 30.6 21,024 1,4741999 Permit Application ERP(3)Total Homogenizing Furnaces:100.6 109,125 6,320or 0.08 lb/MMBTUPreheat Furnaces(3)Emission factor based on vender guarantee and used in emissions calculations forhomogenizing furnace #19 and all new homogenizing furnaces modeled after #19.EPH 6500 Ton Press Preheat N. Gas many 20.4 20.4 17,870 983EPH 5300 Ton Press Preheat (NOx testing, max of 0.174 lb NOx/hr) N. Gas many 19.8 19.8 17,334 953EPH 1500 Ton Press Preheat N. Gas many 1.5 1.5 1,340 74Total Preheat Furnaces:41.7 36,545 2,010PRIOR MAP VOC (Process Emissions)Heat Treat FurnacesHeat Treat FurnacesHT1 #37 Furnace Coils in Wax (fugitive) N. Gas 2 1.84 32,167 3,217 177Process Description VOC(2)VOCHT1 Contl Atmos Furn #32,33,34,35,36 N. Gas 150 0.21 269,396 26,940 1,482(lbs/hr) (hrs/yr) (lbs/yr)HT2 Age Anneal Furnace N. Gas 4 0.97 HT1 #37 Furnace Coils in Wax (fugitive) 0.18 8,760 1,577N. Gas 4 2.67 HT1Contl Atmos Furn #32,33,34,35,36(1)0.055 8,760 482127,523 12,752 701 HT2 Age Anneal Furnace #23, 24 0.08 8,760 701HT256' Heat Treat #13, 14 15(1)N. Gas 36 0.36 HT2 Comb. Exhaust, 56' Heat TreatsN. Gas 48 0.36 HT2 Comb. Exhaust, 56' Heat Treats267,949 15,155 1,474 HT256' Heat Treat #13, 14 15(2)0.83 8,760 7,271HT2 56' Heat Treat #16, 17, 18 N. Gas 84 0.36 267,949 15,155 1,474 HT256' Heat Treat #16, 17, 18(2)0.83 8,760 7,271HT1 Heat Treat Furnace (#30,31) Electric N/A N/A N/A - - HT1 Heat Treat Furnace (#30,#31) 0.16 8,760 1,402HT1 Heat Treat/Artificial Age Furnace #38 Electric N/A N/A N/A - - HT1 Heat Treat/Artificial Age Furnace #38 0.08 8,760 701Total HT1: 301,56330,156 1,659 Total HT1 0.5 4,161Total HT2: 663,42143,062 3,649 Total HT2 1.7 15,242Total (ton/yr) 109 7 GRAND TOTAL: 2.2 19,403(1)NOx emission factor is based on source specific stack test data from #16 Homo furnace (1.73 lbs/hr)Total (ton/yr): 10(2)1999 permit application ERP for NOx was used for furnace #19.Future MAP NOx and VOC (Combustion Emissions)(1)Based on September 1994 stack test results of the 33/35 Controlled Atmosphere (CA) FurnacesHomogenizing Furnaces, Preheat Furnaces and Heat/Treat Furnaces(2)Based on September 1994 stack test results of the 56' Heat Treat FurnacesFuel Number Max. Fuel Usage MaximumProcess Description Type ofof Each Burner Fuel Usage NoxVOCIDBurners (Mscf/hr) (Mscf/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)FUTURE MAP VOC (Process Emissions)Round IngotHeat Treat FurnacesHomogenizing FurnacesProcess Description VOC VOCHMOHomogenizing Furnace (#19 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(3)N. Gas 6 5.1 30.6 21,024 1,474(lbs/hr) (hrs/yr) (lbs/yr)Preheat FurnacesHT1#37 Furnace Coils in Wax (fugitive)(1)0.18 8,760 1,577HT1Contl Atmos Furn #32,33,34,35,36(1)0.055 8,760 482EPH 6500 Ton Press Preheat N. Gas many 20.4 20.4 17,870 983 HT2Age Anneal Furnace #23, 24(1)0.08 8,760 701EPH 5300 Ton Press Preheat (NOx testing, max of 0.174 lb NOx/hr) N. Gas many 19.8 19.8 17,334 953 HT2 Comb. Exhaust, 56' Heat TreatsEPH 1500 Ton Press Preheat N. Gas many 1.5 1.5 1,340 74 HT2 Comb. Exhaust, 56' Heat TreatsTotal Preheat Furnaces:41.7 36,545 2,010HT256' Heat Treat #13, 14 15(2)0.83 8,760 7,271Heat Treat FurnacesHT256' Heat Treat #16, 17, 18(2)0.83 8,760 7,271HT1Heat Treat Furnace (#30,#31)(1)0.16 8,760 1,402HT1 #37 Furnace Coils in Wax (fugitive) N. Gas 2 1.84 32,167 3,217 177 HT1Heat Treat/Artificial Age Furnace #38(1)0.08 8,760 701HT1 Contl Atmos Furn #32,33,34,35,36 N. Gas 150 0.21 269,396 26,940 1,482Total HT1 0.5 4,161HT2 Age Anneal Furnace N. Gas 4 0.97Total HT2 1.7 15,242N. Gas 4 2.67GRAND TOTAL: 2.2 19,403127,523 12,752 701Total (ton/yr): 10HT256' Heat Treat #13, 14 15(2)N. Gas 36 0.36N. Gas 48 0.36(1)Based on September 1994 method 18 stack test results267,949 15,155 1,474(2)Based on 1997 test reportHT2 56' Heat Treat #16, 17, 18 N. Gas 84 0.36 267,949 15,155 1,474HT1 Heat Treat Furnace (#30,31) Electric N/A N/A N/A - -HT1 Heat Treat/Artificial Age Furnace #38 Electric N/A N/A N/A - -Unit is NOT included in Source ProjectTotal HT1:301,563 30,156 1,659Total HT2:663,421 43,062 3,649(1)Two new furnaces will be added identical to #19 and five new furnaces will be added identical to #18Total (ton/yr) 65 4(2)NOx emission factor is based on source specific stack test data from #16 Homo furnace (1.73 lbs/hr)(3)1999 permit application ERP for NOx was used for homogenizing furnace #19 and all new homogenizing furnaces.NOxDecrease in MAP2.4(lb/hr)C1 - 4Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisA-00001 Prior ActualEmission Unit A-00001Furnaces to be removed as part of the project (emissions used in the netting analysis)Emission FactorsExisting Homogenizing FurnacesMMBTU/hr(1)MMCF/yr Fuel Type Heat InputNOx(1)VOC(2)#16 Homogenizing Heat Treat 30.0 262.8 (MMBtu/hr)lb/MMscf#17 Homogenizing Heat Treat 35.0 306.6 Natural Gas <100 50 5.5#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat33.6 294.3 Natural Gas <100 100 5.5(1)MMBTU values are based on Alcoa information(1)AP-42, Fifth Edition and Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-1(2)AP-42, Fifth Edition & Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-3,VOC as non-methane total organic compounds (NMTOC)MMBTU 8760 HR 1 MMCF=MMCFHR 1 YR 1000 MMBTU YR16 Homo 18 HomoLoads Time (hrs) % Utiliz'n Loads Time (hrs) % Utiliz'n2006 268 6515.9 74.6 469 8186.6 93.72007 204 5481.5 62.7 438 7691.4 88Existing Furnace POC EmissionsNOx NMTOC#162006 (lb/yr) 19,605 1,078 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n2007 (lb/yr) 16,478 906 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n#17 (Idle since 2002)2006 (lb/yr) 0 02007 (lb/yr) 0 0#182006 (lb/yr) 27,579 1,517 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n2007 (lb/yr) 25,902 1,425 =(MMCF/yr)*emission factor*%Utiliz'n06-07 Avg (lb/yr) 44,782 2,46306-07 Avg (ton/yr) 22.4 1.2HMO furnace utilizationC1 - 5Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisA-00003 MAPFuture MAP NOx and VOC (Combustion Emissions)Homogenizing Furnaces, Melting/Holding Furnaces and Gas Fired Filterbox Fluxing UnitsEmission FactorsFuel Number Max. Fuel Usage Maximum Fuel Type Heat Input NOx(1)VOC(2)ProcessDescription Type ofof Each BurnerFuel UsageNoxVOC(MMBtu/hr)lb/MMscfIDBurners (Mscf/hr) (Mscf/hr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)Natural Gas <100 100 5.5Round IngotNatural Gas(low NOx<100 50 5.5(1)AP-42, Fifth Edition and Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-1Homogenizing Furnaces(2)AP-42, Fifth Edition & Supplements (7/98), Table 1.4-3,HM1Homogenizing Furnace (#19 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 6 5.1 30.6 VOC as non-methane total organic compounds (NMTOC)HM1Homogenizing Furnace (#19 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 6 5.1 30.6HM1Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 8 4.3 34.3DescriptionHM1Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 8 4.3 34.31999 Permit Application ERP(3)HM1Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 8 4.3 34.3or 0.08 lb/MMBTUHM1Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 8 4.3 34.3(3)Emission factor based on vender guarantee and used in emissions calculations forHM1Homogenizing Furnace (#18 Homogenizing Heat Treat)(1)(2)N. Gas 8 4.3 34.3 homogenizing furnace #19 and all new homogenizing furnaces modeled after #19.New Homogenizing Furnaces (capped fuel usage):119,952 8,085Total (ton/yr) 60 4.04 Three New Melting/Holding Furnaces at West Plant with Natural Gas Fired FilterboxesMelting/Holding FurnacesTwo sizes: Two 240,000 pound units and one 180,000 pound unitMH1 Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 53.9240,000 lb Unit 180,000 lb UnitMH1 Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 53.9 Max Heat Input (MMBTU/hr) 55 45MH1 Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 44.1 Max Fuel Use Capacity (MMCF/yr) 472.35 386.47New Melting/Holding Furnaces (capped fuel usage):48,000 5,280 Charge Size (lbs) 200,000 120,000Total (ton/yr) 24 2.64Charges Per Day 2 2FilterboxesDays of Operation (/yr) 365 365FBB Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 6 0.1 0.6 263 29 Daily Capacity (lbs) 400,000 240,000FBB Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 6 0.1 0.6 263 29 Annual Capacity (lbs) 146,000,000 87,600,000FBB Melting/Holding FurnaceN. Gas 6 0.1 0.6 263 29 Annual Capacity (Tons) 73,000 43,800New Filterboxes:788 87Combustion Emissions for Three New FurnacesTotal (ton/yr) 0 0.04NOx (low NOx burners) (lb/yr) 48,000 = low NOx burner emission factor*Fuel Usage Cap (MNMTOC (lb/yr) 5,280 = VOC emission factor*Fuel Usage Cap (MMCF/yr)(1)Two new furnaces will be added identical to #19 and five new furnaces will be added identical to #18NOx (low NOx burners) (ton/yr)24(2)1999 permit application ERP for NOx was used for homogenizing furnace #19 and all new homogenizing furnaces.NMTOC (ton/yr)3Maximum Fuel Usage Capacity for new HM1 Furnaces:2037 MMCF/yrMaximum Fuel Usage Capacity for new MH1 Furnaces:1331 MMCF/yrDesired Cap on Fuel Usage for new HM1 furnaces:1470 MMCF/yrDesired Cap on Fuel Usage for new MH1 furnaces:960 MMCF/yr0.08 lbs NOx 1020 MMBtu 81.6 lbs NOx 50 lbs NOx 960 MMCF 48,000 lbs NOxMMBtu MMCF MMCF MMCF yr yr81.6 lbs NOx 1470 MMCF 119,952 lbs NOx 48,000 lbs NOx ton 24 tons NOxMMCF yr yr yr 2000 lbs yr119,952 lbs NOx ton 60 tons NOxyr 2000 lbs yrUnit is included in Source Project==NOxIncrease in MAP2.4(lb/hr)===C1 - 6Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisB-00001West Plant BoilerhouseNatural Gas No. 6 Fuel Oil Natural Gas No. 6 Fuel OilPollutant(lb/106ft3)(lb/ 1000 gal) Pollutant (lb/MMbtu) (lb/MMBtu)Volatile Organic Compounds 5.5 0.76 Nitrogen Oxides 0.08 0.27Emission factors from method 7E emissions testing in 2006Natural Gas assumes - 1,000 Btu/cfNo.6 Fuel Oil assumes - 150,000 Btu/galEmission factors from 2006 emission testingBoiler Maximum Heat Input:Fuel Oil 640 MMBTU/hrNatural Gas 800 MMBTU/hrPrior and Future NOx MAP#6 Fuel Oil 640 MMBTU 8760 HR 0.27 lb Nox 1,513,728 lb Nox 757 ton NoxHR 1 YR 1 MMBTU YR YRNatural Gas 800 MMBTU 8760 HR 0.08 lb Nox 560,640 lb Nox 280 ton NoxHR 1 YR 1 MMBTU YR YRPrior and Future VOC MAP#6 Fuel Oil 640 MMBTU 8760 HR 10 gallons 1 1000 gallons 0.76 lb VOC 28,406 lb VOC 14 ton VOCHR 1 YR 1.5 MMBTU 1000 gallons 1 1000 gallons YR YRNatural Gas 800 MMBTU 8760 HR 1 MMCF 5.5 lb VOC 38,544 lb VOC 19 ton VOCHR 1 YR 1000 MMBTU 1 MMCF YR YRNot Included in Source ProjectNo Change=====1998 AP-42 Fuel Emission Factors 2006 Boiler Tested Emission Factors===C1 - 7Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisS-00001 MAPWest Plant Pre-Bake PotlineFuture MAPUnits ValuesPotential Aluminum Productiontons 149,298maximum production based on process limiting factors upstream in the processPotential Aluminum Productionlbs 298,596,000NOxMAP Emissions CalculationsUnits ValuesEmission Factorlb/ton 0.5992008 stack test data, Method 7Ethrough A-398'slb/yr 87,641through monitorlb/yr 1,789MAP NOX Emissionslb Nox/yr 89,430Potential Al Production * emission factorMAP NOX Emissionston Nox/yr 45COS MAP Emissions Calculations Units Value Rationale for Calculations% Sulfur in Coke2.5%Given%S in Baked Anodes2.30%% S in coke * (maximum ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur from 1974-2003)Pots OperatingNo. 198GivenNet Carbonlb carbon/lb Al 0.419Highest averaging year for net carbon between 06-07 (2006)% S converted to SO290.8%Given% S converted to COS9.2%GivenTotal COS:lb/ton 3.32% S in baked anodes*2000*(60/32)*net carbon*% S converted to COS% Fume Capture98.0%Given98% through A-398'slb/yr 485,809total COS (lb COS) * % Fume Capture2% through monitorlb/yr 9,914total COS (lb COS)*(1-% fume capture)COS Control0%GivenTotal COS:lb COS 495,723total COS(lb/ton)*potential Al production(tons)Total Emitted COS:lb COS 495,72398% through A-398's + 2% through monitor * (1-COS control)Total Emitted COS:ton COS 248YEAR % S in Coke % S in Anode1986* 1.97 1.81*used year with highest ratio of anode sulfur to coke sulfur in calculations to remain conservativeRatio of Anode Sulfur toCoke Sulfur0.92No ChangeNot Included in Source ProjectC1 - 8Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisS-00002Anode Baking FurnaceMax West Plant Green Anode Production between 2003-200785,678 tons (2007)Potential West Plant Green Anode Maximum Production182,243 tonsScaling Factor2.13182,243 tons/yr Green 178,345 Tons/yr BakedEmission FactorsPollutant Value UnitsVOC 0.209 lb/ton Baked Carbon Based on Method 25A Stack Testing in June 2008 + 10% to accommodate worst-case emissionsNOx2.277 lb/ton Baked Carbon Based on Method 7E Stack Testing in June 2008 + 10% to accommodate worst-case emissionsPrior and Future MAP Anode Baking Furnace EmissionsPollutant Value UnitsVOC 37,274 lbs/yr =emission factor*potential west plant baked anode maximum productionNOx406,091 lbs/yr =emission factor*potential west plant baked anode maximum productionVOC 18.6 tons/yrNOx203.0 tons/yrNo ChangeNot Included in Source Project*Assume 98% conversion of green anode to baked anodebased on 2006/2007 dataC1 - 9Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisS-00003Green Mill06-07 Average Green Anode Production84,767 tons/yrPotential West Plant Green Anode Maximum Production182,243 tons/yrVOC 0.0231 lb/ton Green Carbon -Method 25A stack testing of the Coke Injected Scrubber in 199706-07 Average Prior Actual Green Mill (Paste Production Plant w/ Coke Scrubber) EmissionsVOC 1,958 lbs/yr =current emission factor*06-07 average west plant green anode maximum productionVOC 1 ton/yrPrior MAP Green Mill (Paste Production Plant w/ Coke Scrubber) EmissionsVOC 4,210 lbs/yr =current emission factor*potential west plant green anode maximum productionVOC 2 ton/yr1.333333 scaling factor for Green Mill emissions factors based on the addition of a fourth paste mixerVOC 0.0308 lb/ton Green CarbonFuture MAP Green Mill (Paste Production Plant w/ Coke Scrubber) EmissionsVOC 5,613 lbs/yr =scaled emission factor*potential west plant green anode maximum productionVOC 3 ton/yrUnit is Included in Source ProjectIncrease in MAPScaled Emission FactorCurrent Emission FactorC1 - 10Part 231-2 MAP AnalysisS-00005Pitch Unloading/StoragePotential West Plant Green Anode Maximum Production182,243 tons/yrEmission FactorsVOCDescription(lb/hr)Pitch Unloading 0.320Pitch Storage(1)0.128(1)Derived from 1994 stack test data (pre control). Assume that all particulate organics are condensed and that 90% gaseous organics are condensPotential Hours of Operation8760 hrsUnit S-00005, Process PUN Pitch Unloading MAP EmissionsVOC 5,606 lbs/yr =emission factor*8760 hrs/yr*2 emission sourcesVOC 3 ton/yrUnit S-00005, Process PST Pitch Storage MAP EmissionsVOC 2,243 lbs/yr =emission factor*8760 hrs/yr*2 emission sourcesVOC 1 ton/yrUnit S-00005 Total MAP EmissionsVOC 7,849 lbs/yrVOC 4 ton/yrNot Included in Source ProjectNo ChangeC1 - 11