July 17, 2012 

Rochelle Boyd 

USEPA Mailroom (D243-02) 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Re: Comment Clarification Request, July 13, 2012; Secondary Aluminum MACT Proposed Rule 

Dear Ms. Boyd: 

This letter is in response to the Comment Clarification Request received by email July 13, 2012. 

The questions are: 

1) What frequency of furnace designation switches does Kaiser consider necessary and why? Do you 

have records of how often these switches occur, if your current permit allows it? Due to enforceability of 

subpart RRR, we cannot allow unlimited switches. The original rule did not prohibit the switching of 

furnace designations, but the rule was not set up to accommodate such occurrences. 

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows the issue of alternate operating 

scenarios is very important to Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC (Kaiser). Kaiser 

pursued an applicability determination to clarify the application of alternative operating scenarios 

under Subpart RRR beginning in August in 2009. After exchanges of letters explaining the 

necessity of alternative operating scenarios and extensive discussion with EPA an appropriate 

applicability determination letter was issued by EPA February 16, 2012. The letter (attached) 

provides necessary operating flexibility without unnecessary restrictions of frequency of 

classification changes. The letter does not mention any issues of enforceability with the current 

rule or related to the applicability determination. Kaiser believes any additional restrictions 

beyond those requirements specified in the applicability determination are unnecessary and 

inconsistent with EPA’s policy of accommodating sources with flexible operating requirements. 

EPA reiterated this policy in the preamble to the Flexible Air Permitting Rule (74 FR 51418, 

51419 (October 6, 2009)). In the preamble EPA sought to “reaffirm opportunities within the 

existing regulatory framework to encourage wider use of FAP [Flexible Air Permitting] 

approaches” and allow facilities “to be market responsive while ensuring equal or greater 

environmental protection than that achieved by conventional permits”. 

9141 Interline Avenue, Suite 1A Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809-1956 Tel (225) 231-5119 Fax (225) 231-5113 www.kaiseraluminum.com
Rochelle Boyd 

U.S.EPA 

July 17, 2012 

Page 2 

Additionally, restrictions on furnace classification frequency would be inconsistent with the 

alternative operating scenario provisions of Title V (40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)). EPA has made no 

assertion that the alternative operating scenario provisions of Title V, without frequency 

restrictions, are not enforceable. 

Kaiser has provided EPA with explanations of the need for alternative operating scenarios in 

order to respond to maintenance outages and to market conditions several times in the past. Our 

letter to George T. Czerniak dated June 9, 2011 (attached) contains an explanation of the need 

for flexibility. Also, our letter to you dated January 18, 2012 (attached), which was included with 

our comments on the proposed rule, contains an explanation. An explanation of the need for 

alternative operating scenarios without frequency restriction in our April 13, 2012 comments on 

the proposed rule. We explained that maintenance outages and changing marking conditions 

cannot always be predicted so there is no planned frequency of changes. Any restrictions 

beyond the requirements of the February 16, 2012 applicability determination would hinder 

operation flexibility without any additional environmental benefit. Please refer to the two attached 

letters for more detailed information in answer to your first question. 

In particular, Kaiser’s intends to operate the melting furnace at our Kalamazoo, Michigan facility 

as a Group 1 furnace with add-on control to the maximum extent possible. We would operate it 

as a furnace without add-on control, relying on work practices to achieve compliance with massbased emission limits, only when planned or unplanned maintenance outages, and when scrap 

market conditions necessitate such operation. This operating mode may not be applicable to all 

facilities that use alternative operating scenarios, but it is the basis for Kaiser’s pursuit of the 

applicability determination over the past 3 years. The common element in use of alternate 

operating scenarios in permits is the need for operating flexibility without the encumbrance of 

frequent permit modifications. 

In answer to your second question, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MiDEQ) 

would not include alternative operating scenarios in the Kalamazoo facility permit without 

concurrence from EPA. Kaiser pursued the applicability determination in order to obtain 

concurrence. The issue was litigated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, 

resulting in the February 16, 2012 applicability determination letter from EPA. Once the 

applicability determination was issued Kaiser applied for a permit modification in incorporate a 

Group 2 operation scenario and received the modified permit May 14, 2012. Kaiser modified the 

OM&M Plan, SSM Plan and Baghouse Malfunction Abatement Plan as required and submitted 

them to MiDEQ in late May. Prior to that time the option to change furnace classification was 

unavailable to Kaiser. 

Kaiser notified MiDEQ on July 12, 2012 of a change of classification from Group 1 furnace with 

add-on control to Group 2 due to a baghouse system malfunction. Subsequently, Kaiser notified 

MiDEQ on July 14, 2012 of the change back to Group 1. Due to the long delay in obtaining 

alternate operating scenario provisions on the permit this is the only time Kaiser has had the 

flexibility to continue furnace operation during a baghouse system outage. 
Rochelle Boyd 

U.S.EPA 

July 17, 2012 

Page 3 

Kaiser urges EPA not to promulgate the unnecessary and unsupported restrictions on the use of 

alternative operating scenarios that were included in the proposed rule. The current rule, along 

with clarifications included in the February 16, 2012 applicability determination are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the mass-based emission limits of Subpart RRR and provide necessary 

flexibility to operating facilities. Any additional restriction provides no additional environmental 

benefit and is inconsistent with EPA’s stated goal of providing operational flexibility when equal 

compliance is achieved. 

Kaiser would be happy to meet with you concerning this issue and others addressed in our April 

13, 2012 comments. Please call me at 225-231-5116 or email me at bill.vinzant@kaiseral.com

to establish a mutually convenient time for a meeting. 

Very truly yours, 

J. W. Vinzant 

Manager, Corporate Environmental Affairs 

cc: Scott Throwe, U.S.EPA, by email 

Roger Crawford, Kaiser, by email 

Charles M. Denton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, by email 

Tony Sullivan, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, by email 








J<AISER 

A LUI\IIINUI\II 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURI\I RECEIPT REQUESTED
 

1\10. 7001 2510 0000 18444982
 

January 18, 2012 

Rochelle Boyd 

USEPA Mailroom (0243-02) 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Re: Secondary Aluminum MACT Alternative Operating Scenarios 

Dear Ms. Boyd: 

This letter is in response to your request during our January 17, 2012 conference call 

for Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC (Kaiser) to comment on EPA's plans to 

impose frequency limits (once every six months) on changes between operating 

scenarios for aluminum furnaces in the forthcoming proposed changes to Secondary 

Aluminum MACT (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart RRR). 

Kaiser believes this restriction unnecessarily adversely affects facilities' operational 

flexibility without providing any environmental benefit. The current rule allows facilities to 

make necessary process changes as long as the facility operates consistent with its 

Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan, and meets the numerical emission limits 

and other requirements of Subpart RRR. These provisions are consistent with the 

alternate operating scenario provisions of Title V (40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)). 

There are many reasons that a facility might need to change from Group 1 with add-on 

control device operation to Group 1 without add-on control device mode or Group 2 

mode including, material availability, control device malfunction or planned 

maintenance. Once the need has passed the facility will need to change back to routine 

operation. Restricting these changes would limit a facility's ability to react to operational 

needs or changing market conditions. These restrictions are likely to unnecessarily lead 

to production curtailment or shutdowns. As long as the facility meets the numerical 

emission limits there is no environmental benefit to these restrictions. 

9141 Interline Avenue, Suite 1A Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809-1956 Tel (225) 231-5119 Fax (225) 231-5113 www.kaiseraluminum.com 
Rochelle Boyd 

U.S.EPA 

January 18, 2012 

Page 2 

It is particularly troublesome that the rule changes might limit operating mode changes 

due to control system malfunctions or to changes from operation without add-on control 

to operation with add-on control. In the first instance an operation that could otherwise 

comply with emission limits would have to curtail operations with no environmental 

benefits. In the latter case a facility that makes a change from operation with add-on 

control to operation without add-on control could not return to operation with add-on 

control until the 6 month period had run. These are just two examples of unnecessary 

disruption of operations with no environmental benefit. 

Kaiser encourages EPA not to include unnecessary regulatory restrictions in the 

forthcoming proposed rule and allow facilities operation flexibility within the framework 

of the numerical emission limits, and the operating, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of the current rule. 

Roger Crawford and I would be happy to discuss this with you and Scott Throwe prior to 

issuing the proposed rule if you think it would be useful for resolving this issue. Please 

call me at 225-231-5116 or email me at bill.vinzant@kaiseral.com to establish a 

mutually convenient time for a conference call. 

J. W. Vinzant 

Manager, Corporate Environmental Affairs 

cc:	 Scott Throwe, U.S.EPA, by email 

Roger Crawford, Kaiser, by email 

Charles M. Denton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, by email