## DATE: November 12 , 2014

SUBJECT: Development of the RTR Supplemental Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category

FROM: Mark Bahner, RTI International

TO: Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Protection Agency

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the technical approach and rationale used to develop s upplemental p roposal risk modeling input data for hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

emissions for secondary aluminum production facilities

. Similar risk modeling was performed as part of the initial proposal. 1 

## This work is being performed pursuant to section 112(f) of the

Clean Air Act as part of the residual risk assessment for facilities that ar e subject to the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR).

1. Facilities Modeled

There are an estimated 161 facilities subject to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP

. Risk assessment inputs were developed for 155 facilities (52 major sources, and 103 area sources) , as shown in Table 1

. There were six facilities that are subject to the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP that were not included in the risk assessment input files, as shown in

Table 2

. The facilities that were not included in the risk assessment input files included one major HAP source and five area HAP sources

. The major HAP source was not included because the secondary aluminum equipment at the source consi sts of group 2 furnaces, for

which the EPA did not have HAP emissions estimates

. The five area sources were not included

because they had no equipment subject to dioxins/furans emissions standards, which are the only standards in the NESHAP applicable to a rea sources.

2. Emission Process Groups Modeled

Table 3 shows the secondary aluminum emission process groups that were modeled

. Also modeled as part of facility

- wide risk assessments were primary aluminum sources that were collocated at secondary aluminum facilities

. Finally, other collocated operations such as coating

l i nes, gas

- fired boilers and other emission processes were also included in the facility

- wide modeling

. Group 2 furnaces were not included in the modeling dataset because the EPA did not

have HAP emissions estimates for those furnaces. However, Group 2 furnaces process only clean charge and conduct no reactive fluxing . Therefore, HAP emissions from Group 2 furnaces are expected to be very minimal, or possibly non

- existent.

## 2

3. Collocated Sources

T he modeling inputs for the primary aluminum operations collocated at secondary aluminum production facilities are exactly the same as the inputs used in the 2014 risk assessment for the
primary aluminum production source category. 2



## 4. Co mpound

- Specific Emissi ons for Subpart RRR Sources

The pollutants regulated under subpart RRR are particulate matter (PM), hydrochloric acid (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxins/furans (D/F)

. Emissions standards for the affected secondary aluminum sources are shown in Tabl e 4

.

Subpart RRR uses PM as a surrogate for metallic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs

. Since subpart RRR compliance testing is performed for the

s urrogate PM and THC, there are limited test data available for compound

- specific metallic and organic HAP emissions

. In order to generate compound

- specific metallic HAP and organic

HAP emissions estimates , Clean Air Act Section 114 requests (also known as Information Collection Requests or ICRs) were sent to nine comp anies, asking them to perform emissions
tests and provide the resulting data regarding metallic HAP and organic HAP emissions. 3



## The metallic HAP data reported in the ICRs consisted of metallic HAP concentrations in the particulate collected in air pollutio n control devices that controlled emissions from various pieces of equipment.

Using these test data, Table 5 presents the average, minimum, and maximum concentrations of

metallic HAPs in PM emitted from individual secondary aluminum operations

. It should b e noted that the testing ICR was not designed exclusively to obtain metallic HAP data

. Rather, the

intent was to request test data from nine companies that operated many pieces of equipment, with an emphasis on companies that operated thermal chip dryers or scrap dryer/delacquering/ decoating kilns (because the latter two pieces of equipment are relatively rare in the industry)

. However, even though gathering metallic HAP data was only one of the goals of the testing ICR, the data gathered are considered r epresentative, because in most cases, many data points from multiple plants for each piece of equipment were obtained

. See Table 5 for the results of metals testing

. T he average values in Table 5 were used to calculate the emissions estimates for

the HAP m etals which were included in the residual risk input file.

The data in Table 5 were used to calculate actual and allowable emissions of specific metallic HAPs from a particular piece of secondary aluminum equipment. For example, assume a Group

1 furnace ha ndling other than clean charge receives 100,000 tons per year (tpy) of charge. The allowable emissions of PM (from Table 4) are 0.4 0 pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) of charge, so allowable emissions of PM are 40,000 lb/year (or 20 tpy )

. The average concentration of antimony (from Table 5) in the PM is 18.6 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg or 18.6 parts per million, or ppm)

. The calculated allowable emissions of antimony are therefore equal to 20 tpy

times 0.0000186 , or 3.72E

- 04 tpy.

The ICR organic HAP data were col lected by performing stack testing on thermal chip dryers and scrap dryer/delacquering / decoating kilns, which are the two types of secondary aluminum

sources that are regulated for THC emissions

. Testing was conducted for both THC and

## 3

individual organic HA P emissions

. Test results were reported as pounds per ton of feed (lb/ton of feed)

. The collected information was used to calculate actual and allowabl e emissions for each organic HAP at the THC limit given in the standard

. For example, the THC limit for a thermal chip dryer is 0.8 0 lb/ton of feed. If the test results were 0.4 0 lb/ton of feed for THC and

0.001 lb/ton of feed for benzene, the allowable benzene emissions would be 0.002 lb/ton of feed (i.e., since the measured T HC emissions were half of the NESHAP limit, the measured benzene emissions were multiplied by two to calculate the allowable emissions )

. Results for allowable emissions of organic HAPs are summarized in Table 6 , in kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of

feed

. T he results are separated into volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)

. The results in Table 6 can be converted to allowable emission s values for each organic HAP for each piece of equipment. For example, assume a therma l chip dryer has a charge of 100,000 tpy

. The allowable emissions (in the “average” column) for acrylonitrile from a thermal chip dryer are 9.89E

- 04 kg/Mg

. Therefore, the allowable acrylonitrile emissions for this piece of equipment would be 0.0989 tons per year (i.e., 100,000

tpy, multiplied by 9.89E

- 4 kg/Mg, divided by 1000 kg/Mg).

As described above, Tables 5 and 6 were used in conjunction with charge data to estimate

allowable and actual speciated metallic and organic HAP emission s for each piece of equipment subject to Subpart RRR at each facility

. As also described above, it was necessary to do this

because the standards for metallic HAPs are in the form of a PM surrogate and the standards for organic HAPs are in the form of a TH C surrogate

. Therefore, facilities measure the PM and THC surrogates to determine compliance with the standards, rather than measuring speciated metallic and organic HAPs

. We received THC and /or PM emissions data from 50 major source

facilities in the sour ce category through an “all

- company ICR”, which is described in Section 5

below

. The speciated metal HAP and speciated organic HAP data gathered through the nine company ICR facilities were used along with the PM and THC data from the larger set of

facilit ies to calculate emissions estimates for each of the specific metal and organic HAPs for 5 2 major source facilities. This conversion ( i.e., PM and/or THC emissions to specific metal or organic HAP emissions estimates) was not necessary for HCl, since HCl i s the form of the standard, and facilities directly measur e HCl

. W e collected HC l data from most major source facilities through the all

- company ICR. Facilities also report D/F emissions; these emissions are discussed in Section 11

.

5. All

- Company ICR Responses

In addition to the nine

- company testing ICR sent on May 27, 2010, an ICR was sent on February 7, 2011 to all facilities thought to potentially be subject to S ubpart RRR. 4 

## Responses to this request were used for many of the modeling inputs, includ ing:

 Latitudes and longitudes of stacks ;

 Height, diameter, exhaust gas flow rate, and exhaust gas temperature for stack

releases ;

 Type of equipment exhausting to stacks (e.g. scrap shredder, thermal chip dryer,

group 1 furnace handling other than clean cha rge, etc.) ;

 Amount of charge (tpy) of equipment exhausting to stacks ;

## 4

 Reported actual emissions of PM (as a surrogate for HAP metals), THC (as a surrogate for organic HAPs), HCl, D/F (either reported as individual congeners or toxic equivalency quotient [ TEQ ] or both), and other HAPs, chiefly from collocated sources (except for primary aluminum, for which modeling files had already been
developed 2 

## ) ; and

 Hydrogen fluoride ( HF ) emissions from Subpart RRR sources

.

Three separate types of information regarding equipment charge or equipment capacity were requested:

 Amount of charge ( tpy )

– this was the actual charge in the most recent year (after 2004) ;

 Maximum capacity of unit ( tpy ) ; and

 Charge during most recent performance test (lb/hr)

.

The vast majority of area and major source facilities provided responses to the all

- company ICR.

6. Allowable Emissions Calculation Procedures for Subpart RRR Sources

Allowable emissions for HCl and D/F TEQ were calculated as the product of the actual amount of charge to the unit (in tpy) for the most recent year (from the all

- company ICR response) times a conversion factor that calculated the allowable emissions (in tpy) of HCl or D/F TEQ per ton of aluminum produced

. The amount of charge to the unit was used in the 2014 allowabl e emissions calculation, rather than the maximum capacity of the unit, as was used in the 2011 modeling

. Uniformly assuming that every piece of equipment is being used at maximum capacity results in an overestimate of total aluminum throughput that is much larger than the actual throughput for the facility as a whole

. Moreover, if we assume maximum capacity coupled with the assumption that all HAP are being emitted at the highest level allowed by the MACT rule (i.e., at the level of the emissions limit), this results in an overly conservative

estimate of emissions

. This overestimation is magnified for large facilities, with multiple pieces of equipment

. Therefore, for this supplemental proposal, the amount of charge to the unit from

the all

- company ICR was used in the allowable emissions calculation, rather than the maximum capacity of the unit

. Furthermore, this revised methodology is consistent with EPA’s risk assessment methodology performed in other RTR modeling projects (such as Primary Lead

Manufactur ing, 5 

## Secondary Lead Manufacturing, 6 

## and Ferroalloys Manufacturing 7 

## ).

Allowable emissions for speciated HAP metals and speciated organic HAPs were calculated as the product of the actual amount of charge to the unit (in tpy ) for the most recent calendar y ear (from the all

- company ICR response) times a conversion factor that calculated the allowable

emissions of the surrogate pollutant (e.g., PM or THC) times the concentration of the compound

- specific metallic or organic HAP (from the nine

- company testing I CR responses, as shown in Tables 5 and 6).

When facilities reported zero charge for a particular piece of equipment in the most rec ent calendar year in the all

- company ICR, they were contacted to determine whether the equipment was permanently shut down a nd no longer permitted as of 2014, or whether there were any

## 5

annual charge data for the 2004 to the 2014 time period that were representative for that piece of equipment

. If the facilities reported the equipment as permanently shut down and no longer permi tted, the annual charge was set at zero; if representative charge data were provided, the y were used; if no charge value could be obtained from the facility, then a default charge value

was used

. S ee Section 9 of this memorandum for a discussion of default factors.

Table 7 shows how conversion factors were calculated for each piece of equipment and pollutant, and Table 8 summarizes the conversion factors used in the allowable emissions

calculations. Table 9 pr ovides an example of allowable emissions calculations for a HAP metal (antimony), HCl, D/F (in toxic equivalents), a volatile organic HAP (acrylonitrile), and a semi

volatile organic HAP (acenaphthene).

Since there are no existing limits for HF emissions, allowable emissions were set equal to actual

emissions.

7. Actual Emissions Calculation Procedures for HAP Metals and non

- D/F Organic

HAPs from Subpart RRR Sources

Actual emissions were calculated as a fraction of allowable emissions, based on the ratio of

ac tual emission value for the s urrogate pollutant (from stack test reports, as reported in the all

company ICR responses) to the NESHAP emission limit (as shown in Table 4)

. It should be noted that nearly all companies provided only the surrogate pollutant i nformation (i.e., PM and THC) rather than the speciated HAP information (i.e.

, speciated HAP metals and speciated organic HAP) , although companies were asked to report speciated HAP information in the ICR

responses if they had such information available

. Further, no company (other than the nine companies that responded to the nine company ICR) provided the complete suite of metallic and organic HAPs for which extensive testing was conducted in the nine

- company ICR. Therefore, we used reported surrogate emi ssions and calculated the speciated metallic and organic HAP emissions using the nine

- company testing data. However, t he facilities’ reported emissions for organic HAPs were used if the facility was one of the facilities that conducted testing under the

ni ne

- company ICR. Table 10 provides an example of actual emissions calculations for a HAP metal (antimony), HCl, D/F (in toxic equivalents), a volatile organic HAP (acrylonitrile) and a

semi

- volatile organic HAP (acenaphthene).

8. Stack Locations and Stack Char acteristics

Stack latitudes and longitudes as reported in the ICR responses were plotted using Google

EarthTM and sent to facilities for confirmation or correction

. The confirmation or correction consisted of sending individual facilities a picture (.jpg) f ile of the ICR response latitudes and longitudes plotted in Google EarthTM, with a request that the facility either confirm or correct the plotted locations. When there was insufficient time to obtain facility responses, the results plotted in Google EarthTM were simply checked to ensure that the stack latitudes and longitudes were located on a building at the facility site, or at a control device near a building. Where the results were not located on or near a building at the facility site or a control device, the latitudes and longitudes were adjusted.

## 6

Subsequent to the 2011 modeling, it was discovered that facility RTI #195B was modeled with stack locations that were not correctly adjusted

. All stack locations were correctly adjusted for

the 2014 model ing.

9. Default Values for Subpart RRR Sources

If emissions were not reported in the ICR responses, default emission factors were used , except for HF emissions. If sources did not report HF emissions, we assumed their HF emissions were

zero

. D efault emission factors were the average values determined from test results that were

credible. Table 11 summarizes the default emission factors used for modeling

. For example, the average D/F emission rate during testing of Group 1 furnaces processing other than clean

c harge was 2.16 micrograms per megagram ( μg/Mg ) of feed, and the emission limit is 15 μg/Mg of feed

. Therefore, the average test result was 0.144 times the standard. Similarly, the average PM emission rate during testing of Group 1 furnaces firing other tha n clean charge was 0.184 lb/ton of feed, and the emission limit is 0.4 0 lb/ton of feed

. Therefore , the average test
result was 0.460 times the standard.

Default capacity factor values were also used when the actual charge in the most recent y e ar

was not given, or was claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)

. C apacity factor is

the ratio of the actual charge for the most recent year divided by the maximum capacity

. As with the default emission factors, the default capacit y factors were taken as the average capacity

factor for all equipment of the same type

. Table 12 summarizes default capacity factors.

The method in which these defaults were used can be illustrated for a facility that has reported a maximum capacity for a group 1 furnace handling only clean charge of 100,000 tpy, but reported the actual charge in the most recent year as CBI

. If so, the default capacity factor of

0.493 (provided in Table 12) would be used and the actual charge would be assumed to be
49,300 tpy

. Similarly, if HCl emissions were not reported for this furnace, the default emission

factor of 0.144 lb/ton would be used

. Therefore, the actual HCl emissions would be calculated
as 49, 300 t py times 0.144 lb/ton, or 7099 lb/yr, or 3.55 tpy.

10. Chromium and Mercury Speciation f or Subpart RRR Sources

Mercury emissions from the Secondary Aluminum Production source category are extremely

low (on the order of one pound per year for all of the secondary aluminum production major

sources )

. For risk modeling purposes, mercury emissions from Subpart RRR sources were assumed to be 80 percent elemental gaseous mercury, 10 percent divalent gaseous mercury and 10 percent particulate mercury

. For equipment not subject to Subpart RRR, mercury speciation varied according to the source category.

Chromium speciation between hexavalent chromium and total chromium was as shown in Table

5 for Subpart RRR sources

. For other facility

- wide sources, chromium speciation varied by

source category

.

11. Allowable and Actual Emissions Results for D/F from Subpart RRR Sources

D/F w ere determined to be risk driver s for both major sources and area sources. D/F w ere the only HAP modeled for area sources

. T herefore, the procedures used to calculate D/F emissions

and the resulting calculated emissions are p resented here

. The all

- company ICR requested that

## 7

facilities provide individual D/F congener data

. However, many facilities provided both individual congener data and TEQ values, and some facilities provided only TEQ values.

Calculated allowable and actual emissions of D/F (in TEQ) for major sources are presented in

Table 13 and for area sources in Table 14

.

For almost all of the facilities, the D/F emissions reported in the 2011 ICR were used for the 2014 modeling

. However, for the 10 facilities that had t he highest modeled risk from actual emissions in the 2011 modeling

, we requested submission of the test results from any additional D/F testing that had been conducted at these facilities since the 2011 ICR

. The additional data

w ere gathered to provide more accurate estimates of the dioxin /furan emissions and resulting

risk s for these facilities.

For the Supplemental Proposal modeling in 2014

, D/F emissions were modeled as individual

congeners

. Emissions of D/F (in TEQ) presented in Table 13 and Table 14 were converted into individual congeners, based on the average mass fractions of individual congeners found in the 2011 ICR responses and supporting test reports

. Table 15 shows the emissions calculations fo r individual D/F congeners

. An example of how Table 15 is used is as follows :

 RTI F acility #2 has estimated actual D/F TEQ emissions of 2.54E

- 10 tpy (from

Table 14) ;

 From Table 15, each gram (or ton) of D/F TEQ would represent 2.80E

- 01 grams (or tons) of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxi n ( 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD ) ;

 Therefore, the 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD emissions for RTI Facility #2 would be 2.54E

10 tpy times 2.80E

- 01 = 7.14E

- 11 tpy

.

This same procedure w as used to calculate emissions for other D/F cong eners

.

12. Quality Control Checks and Resulting Changes

Data reported in the ICRs were checked in several ways

. The paragraphs below discuss data quality checks that were performed and changes that were made when data reported in the ICR

responses were found to be incorrect.

 T he stack latitudes and longitudes reported by facilities were checked in Google EarthTM, as previously described.

 Anomalously high charge values for RTI #120 were resolved through discussions with a consultant for that company.

 For RTI #25 7 and #352, test reports were received but no ExcelTM workbook ICR

responses were received. Therefore, risk input files were developed from the test reports and Google EarthTM images. Similarly, air permits were available for RTI #85 and #384, but no ExcelTM workbook ICR responses were received. Risk input files were therefore developed from the air permits and Google EarthTM images.

## 8

 In general, emissions from non

- Subpart RRR equipment were input directly into risk

files. One facility (RTI #292, NEI8066) report ed anomalously high emissions of

nickel from a painting line; contacts with the facility established that the painting

line did not emit nickel.

 Source category classification (SCC) codes were defaulted where they were missing

, based on process descriptions.

 Additional QA checks were performed on the modeling files in advance of the 2014 modeling

, resulting in some changes. These are described in detail in a separate

memorandum. See memorandum from Mark Bahner (RTI International) to Rochelle Boy d (U.S. EPA), Subject: Modeling Input Revisions for the RTR Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category

.

 In a few cases, ICR responses reported emissions that appeared to be greater than allowable levels. In those cases, th e ICR responses were checked to determine whether the equipment was part of a secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). If the equipment was part of a SAPU, the allowable emission value for that piece of equipment was s et equal to the actual emission valu e , since the actual emission was allowable under SAPU calculation procedures. If the equipment was not part of a SAPU, the test reports were reviewed if available, and the ICR response values changed to test report values. For a scrap dryer/ delacquering ki ln/decoating k iln at RTI #289, and a scrap shredder at RTI #195B, test report values were not available

so the actual value was changed to a default value. For a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at RTI #307, a more recent test report was obtain ed, and the emission factor was changed from 6.5 μg/Mg to 4.5 μg/Mg.

 The exhaust temperature for the scrap shredder at RTI #352 was revised to 70°F (from 42°F), and the stack exit velocity from the scrap shredder at RTI #289 was revised to 50 ft/s (from l ess than 1 ft/s)

.

13. Acute Emissions from Subpart RRR Sources

Emissions from equipment at secondary aluminum facilities can vary over time

. In order to evaluate the acute effects of these variations, annual actual emission values (which are typically

based o n average values obtained during stack testing) were multiplied by the acute RTR default multiplier factor of ten

.

As explained in the FR Notice for this action, the EPA chose the default factor of ten for the RTR program based on process knowledge and eng ineering judgment

. The factor chosen also reflects a Texas study of short

- term emissions variability, which showed that most peak emission events in a heavily

- industrialized four

- county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were l ess than twice the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest peak emissions event was 74 times the annual average hourly emissions rate and the 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to the annual average hourly emissions rate

was 9

. C onsidering this analysis, to account for more than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we apply a conservative screening multiplication factor of 10 to the average annual hourly emissions rate in our acute exposure screening assessments as our default approach.

## 9

However, we use a factor other than 10 if we have information that indicates that a different factor is appropriate for a particular source category

. For this source category, there was no such

information available and the default factor of 10 was used in the acute screening process.

14. Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Emissions from Subpart RRR Sources

Emissions of HF were modeled as reported in ICR responses

. If facilities did not report HF emissions from individual sources, the HF emissions reported for the whole facility were divided equally among similar furnaces at the facility

. Allowable HF emissions were set equal

to actual emissions.

15. Non

- Category Facility Emissions

A dataset representing facility

- w ide e m issions was also developed

. This dataset consist ed of

H AP e m issions from all processes at the secondary aluminum production facilities, including the data described above for the secondary aluminum production source category e m issions, as

well as all HAP emitted from non

- secondary alumin um production processes

. Four modeling files were developed for use in the risk review; a file with data for only secondary aluminum major sources , a file with data for only secondary aluminum area sources

, a file for only primary aluminum major sources co llocated with 8 secondary aluminum major source facilities, and a modeling file with other noncategory emissions that are not primary aluminum units at major

sources

. A total of 52 major source facilities and 103 area source facilities were modeled

. Of the 52 major source facilities, 8 were collocated with primary aluminum units

. O f the 52 major

source facilities , 27 had noncategory emissions that were not primary aluminum units , and 6 of the 27 facilities also had primary aluminum units

. Noncategory emissi ons data were not

available for the area source facilities.

The facility

- wide e m issions dataset was created by adding non

- secondary aluminum source

category e m ission points to the secondary aluminum source category dataset

. A facility

- wide modeling file for major sources was created by combining the major source secondary aluminum file, major source primary aluminum collocated file, and noncategory non

- primary aluminum major source file

. The facility

- wide modeling file for area sources was the same as the area source secondary aluminum file

. To create the facility wide modeling file for major sources, primary aluminum emissions data for collocated sources were extracted from the primary aluminum modeling file

. 2 

## In addition, other noncate gory emissions data that were not
submitted for the s ection 114 request or extracted from the primary aluminum proposal file were

extracted from the 200 8 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

.

16. References

1. Memorandum, Mark Bahner (RTI International) to Rochelle Boyd (U.S. EPA), dated January 30, 2012. Subject: Development of the RTR Risk Modelling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category. Docket item EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0544

- 0149.

2. NESHAP fo r Primary Aluminum Production Amendments Based on the Risk and Technology Review . Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0797

.

## 10

3. Letter, Peter Tsirigotis (U.S. EPA) to Michael Palaz z olo (Alcoa) et al., “Requirement to provide information according to Title 42 of the United States Code, Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part A, section 7414 (42 U.S.C 7414),” May 27, 2010. This was the cover

letter for the nine

- company testing ICR.

4. Letter, Peter Tsirigotis (U.S. EPA) to Russell Mayfield (Mayfield Salvage Company) et al., “Requi rement to provide information according to 42 U.S.C 7414,” February 7,

2011. This was the cover letter for the all

- company data collection ICR.

5. Primary Lead Manufacturing NESHAP . See Federal Register Notice 76FR9410, dated

2

- 17

- 2011.

6. Secondary Lead Manufac turing NESHAP . See Federal Register Notice 76FR29032

, dated 2

- 19

- 2011

.

7. Ferroalloy Manufacturing NESHAP. See Federal Register Notice 76FR72508, dated 11

- 23

- 2011, and data memorandum, EPA docket item EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0895

- 0040.

## 11



# List of Tables

Table 1. List of 155 Secondary Aluminum Production Facilities Modeled for Residual

Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12

Table 2. List of 6 Aluminum Production Facilities Not Modeled for Secondary

Aluminum Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 18

Table 3. Secondary Aluminum Emission Process Groups Modeled

................................ ...... 19

Table 4. Emission Standards for New and Existing Affected Sources

................................ ... 20

Table 5. Summary of Metallic HAP Test Results

................................ ................................ ... 22

Table 6. Summary of Organic HAP Test Results, Allowable Emissions (kg/Mg charge)

...... 23

Table 7. Calculations for Conversion Factors

................................ ................................ ......... 24

Table 8. Conversion Factor Summary

................................ ................................ .................... 27

Table 9. Example of Allowable Emissions Calculations

................................ ........................ 28

Table 10. Example of Actual Emissions Calculations

................................ .............................. 28

Table 11. Default Pollutant Emission Factors

................................ ................................ .......... 29

Table 12. Default Capacity F actors

................................ ................................ ........................... 29

Table 13. Allowable and Actual D/F Emissions, Major Sources

................................ ............. 30

Table 14. Allowable and Actual D/F Emissions, Area Sources

................................ ............... 32

Table 15. Dioxin/Furan Congeners use d in 2014 Modeling

................................ ..................... 35

## 12

Table 1. List of 155 Secondary Aluminum Production Facilities Modeled for Residual Risk

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

2 NEI3AL01123SMA SMA

- Mayfield Salvage Co. P.O. Box 129 Alexander City AL 35011 Area

7 NEI3AL01109Ell Ellis Metals 231 South Brundidge AL 36010 Area

11 NEI3AL01071Imp Imperial Aluminum

– Scottsboro 7525 Roy Owens Boulevard Scottsboro AL 35769 Area

17 NEI3AR05017Liv Livingston Pecan & Metal Inc. 219 Commerce Street Lake Village AR 71653 Area

18 NEI3AR05119Met Metro Scrap Metals, Inc. 6915 Hwy. 70 E. North Little Rock AR 72117 Area

20 NEI3AR05033Dav Davis Iron & Metal 611 South 23rd Street Van Buren AR 72956 Area

23 NEI3AZ04019Amc Amcep Metals Company 4484 East Tennessee Street Tucson AZ 85714 Area

25 NEI3CA06037Tho Thorock Metals Company Inc. 435 East Weber Avenue Compton CA 90222 Area

39 NEI3FL12115Al Al's Pick N Pull, Inc. 4801 Preymore Street Osprey FL 34229 Area

50 NEI3IA19061Dit Dittmer's Recycling 19108 Herber Road Dubuque IA 52001 Area

53 NEI3IA19019Tou Tournier's Recycling Inc. 1644 Nathan Bethel Avenue Independence IA 50644 Area

55 NEI3IA19195Buc Buck's Auto Recycling 1541 A Hwy 9 Manly IA 50456 Area

56 NEI3IA19097BG B. G. Salvage 7141 Hurstville Road Maquoketa IA 52060 Area

63 NEI3IN18005Nik Nikkei MC Aluminum America, Inc 6875 South Inwood Drive Columbus IN 47201 Area

65 NEI3IN18089Uni United Tranz Core LLC 1200 145th Street 4400 Homerlee

Avenue East Chicago IN 46312 Area

68 NEI3IN18069Tra Transmetco, Inc. 1750 East Riverfork Drive Huntington IN 46750 Area

71 NEI3IN18169Met Metal Source LLC 1743 S. Wabash Street Wabash IN 46992 Area

72 NEI3IN18069Hea Heartland Aluminum 706 East 9th Street Warren IN 46792 Area

73 NEI3KS20001Ray Rays Metal Depot 320 W Highway 54 La Harpe KS 66751 Area

74 NEI3KS20151Arn Arnett Automotive 308 Pedigo Pratt KS 67124 Area

76 NEIKS20173DON Donham Company 1631 S. Hoover Court Wichita KS 67209 Area

79 NEI11365 Rio Tinto Alcan 9404 State Route 2096 Robards KY 42452 Major

80 NEI3MA25013Cen Center Street Auto 651 Center Street Chicopee MA 01013 Area

83 NEI3MA25023Mid Middleboro Recycling 128 Bedford Middleboro MA 02346 Area

85 NEIMD24005MAR Maryland Recycle Company 8920 Yellowbrick Road Baltimore MD 21237 Area

87 NEI3MD24031Mon Montgomery Scrap 15000 Southlawn Drive Rockville MD 20850 Area

89 NEI3MI26163AMP AMP Recycling Inc. 411 South Fort Detroit MI 48217 Area

91 NEI3MI26077Kai Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products,
LLC 5205 Kaiser Drive Kalamazoo MI 49048 Area

## 13

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

93 NEI3MN27063Ron Ron Rehnelt Salvage Berg Street Lakefield MN 56150 Area

95 NEI3MN27103Man Mankato Iron & Metal Company 215 West Elm Street Mankato MN 56001 Area

97 NEI3MN27015New New Ulm Steel & Recycling, Inc. 218 19th Street New Ulm MN 56073 Area

101 NEI2MO097008 Commercial Metals Company 12th and Iowa Streets Joplin MO 64801 Area

112 NEI3NH33015Web Weber Auto And Truck Parts Corp. 135 Island Pond Road Derry NH 03038 Area

117 NEI3NY36001NH N. H. Kelman, Inc. 41 Euclid Street Cohoes NY 12047 Area

118 NEI3NY36067Met Metalico Aluminum Recovery 6223 Thompson Road East Syracuse NY 13057 Area

120 NEI3AL01123Cre Crestwood Metal Company 1100 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook NY 11741 Major

124 NEI3NY360991Luf Luffman Metal Company 2790 Thorpe Road Seneca Falls NY 13148 Area

126 NEI3OH39049G

- C G

- Cor Automotive 2100 Refugee Road Columbus OH 43207 Area

134 NEI3OH39133Alu Aluminum Wheel Technologies, Inc. 446 W Lake Street Ravenna OH 44266 Area

135 NEI3OH39023Sta Staker Alloys 1075 James Street Springfield OH 45503 Area

136 NEI3OH39023Cit City Wide Towing And Auto Wrecking 930 Dayton Avenue Springfield OH 45506 Area

138 NEI3OH39099Div Diver

- Steel City Auto Crushers 590 Himrod Avenue Youngstown OH 44506 Area

141 NEI3OK40101Yaf Yaffe Iron & Metal Co., Inc. Corner G and Lexington Ave nue Muskogee OK 74403 Area

145 NEI3PA42051Ass Assad Iron & Metals, Inc. Albany Road Brownsville PA 15417 Area

154 NEI3PA42011Rea Reading Alloys Inc.

– Robesonia Old W Penn Ave nue Robesonia PA 19551 Area

156 NEI3PA42133Pen Pennex Aluminum Company 50 Community Street Wellsville PA 17365 Area

164 NEI3TN47113Mos Most, Inc.

– Jackson 355 James Lawrence Road Jackson TN 38301 Area

165 NEI3TN47059MD MD Recycling, Inc. 1230 Pottertown Road Midway TN 37809 Area

167 NEITN1190123 Tennessee Aluminum Processors, Inc. 7207 Hoover Mason Road Mount Pleasant TN 38474

- 1037 Area

169 NEI3TN47123Val Valley Recycling 325 Industrial Park Road Sweetwater TN 37874 Area

173 NEI3TX48113Bis Bishop Engine And Automotive Building B 224 North Corinth Street Dallas TX 75203 Area

190 NEI3WI55075Kar Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc. 1731 Industrial Parkway Marinette WI 54143 Area

191 NEIWI079241213720 Miller Compressing Co 1640 W Bruce St reet Milwaukee WI 53204 Area

195A NEI10933 Alcoa, Inc. (North plant) 2300 North Wright R oa d Alcoa TN 37701 Major

195B NEI10933b Alcoa, Inc. (South plant) 300 North Hall R oa d Alcoa TN 37701 Major

196 NEI3TN47119Sme Smelter Service Corp. 400 Arrow Mines R oa d Mount Pleasant TN 38474

- 1605 Area

198 NEI3KY21151Nov Novelis Corporation 302 Mayde R oa d Berea KY 40403 Major

## 14

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

199 NEI11360 Southwire Co 1987 State Route 271 North Hawesville KY 42348 Major

200 NEI11362 Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. 1372 State Route 1957 Lewisport KY 42351048

0 Major

203 NEI11394 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products,
LLC 600 Kaiser Drive Heath OH 43056 Area

207 NEI12240 Alcoa Inc. 4879 State St reet Riverdale IA 52722 Major

210 NEI1532 Golden Aluminum Inc. 1405 East 14th Street Fort Lupton CO 80621

- 2718 Area

211 NEI18317 Hydro Aluminum Wells

– Monett 120 Industrial Drive Monett MO 65708 Major

212 NEI3AZ04013Hal Halna, Inc. 249 S. 51st Ave nue Phoenix AZ 85043 Area

213 NEI3CA06001Cus Custom Alloy Scrap Sales, Inc. 2730 Peralta St reet Oakland CA 94607 Area

222 NEI22948 Vista Metals Corporation 13425 Whittram Ave nue Fontana CA 92335 Area

224 NEI3AR05115JW JW Aluminum Company 777 Tyler Road Russellville AR 72802 Major

225 NEI2AZT18161 Alcoa Forgings 6833 W. Willis Road Chandler AZ 85226 Area

228 NEI2IA01

- 089 Nichols Aluminum Casting 2101 JM Morris B oulevard Davenport IA 52802 Major

231 NEI3MI26145Ale Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 2600 Nodular Drive Saginaw MI 48601 Area

232 NEI3MI26023Ale Aleris Recycling, Inc/Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 368 West Garfield Avenue Coldwater MI 49036 Major

248 NEI3OH39019Alu Aluminum One 217 Roosevelt St reet Minerva OH 44657

- 1541 Area

252 NEI3PA42075Bec Beck Aluminum Alloys 24 Keystone Dr ive Lebanon PA 17042

- 9791 Area

253 NEI3TN47105Ale Aleris Recycling, Inc. 388 Williamson Dr ive Loudon TN 37774 Area

255 NEI3TX48181Kai Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products,
LLC 4300 S Sam Rayburn F ree w a y Sherman TX 75090

- 9311 Area

256 NEI2TXT17701 Hydro Aluminum 2000 Economic Drive Commerce TX 75428 Area

257 NEI31872 Scepter, Inc. 6487 North Scepter Road Bicknell IN 47512 Area

258 NEI32032 GM Powertrain Bedford Facility 105 GM Drive Bedford IN 47421 Area

260 NEI3IN18169Ale Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 4525 West Old 24 Wabash IN 46992

- 0466 Major

261 NEI32661 Alcoa Inc.

- Warrick Operations JCT Indiana Highways 66 & 61 Newburgh IN 47630 Major

264 NEI34464 Noranda Aluminum, Inc. 391 Saint Jude Industrial Park New Madrid MO 63869 Major

266 NEI3MO29510JW JW Aluminum, St. Louis 6100 S. Broadway St. Louis MO 63111 Major

## 15

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

269 NEI3NY36075Nov Novelis Corporation 448 County R ou t e 1A Oswego NY 13126 Major

270 NEI39458 Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant) Park Avenue East Massena NY 13662 Major

272 NEI41217 Alumax of SC, Incorporated 3575 Hwy 52 N Goose Creek SC 29445 Major

273 NEI3SC45015JW JW Aluminum Co 2475 Trenton Ave nue Williamsport PA 17701 Major

274 NEI42328 Aluminum Co. of America

- Wenatchee

Works 6200 Malaga Alcoa H igh w a y Malaga WA 98828 Major

276 NEI43018 Mercury Marine

- Fond Du Lac Complex W6250 W Pioneer Road Fond Du Lac WI 54935 Major

278 NEI47821 Trialco, Inc. 900 E. 14th St reet Chicago Heights IL 60411 Area

279 NEI3IL17031All Allied Metal Co. 4528 W. Division Street Chicago IL 60616 Area

282 NEI3LA22083Sap Sapa Extrusions, L.L.C. 142 Sapa Drive Delhi LA 71232 Area

283 NEI6464 Alcoa

- Rockdale Operations Market Road 1786 Rockdale TX 76567 Major

284 NEI3TX48067Alu Alumax Mill Products, Inc. 300 Alumax Dr ive Texarkana TX 75501 Major

288 NEI3PA42071Alu Alumax Mill Products Inc. 1480 Manheim Pike Lancaster PA 17604 Major

289 NEI7212 Alcoa Mill Products

- San Antonio 14555 Old Corpus Christi Road Elmendorf TX 78112 Major

291 NEI790 Sapa Extrusion 2500 Alumax Road Yankton SD 57078 Major

292 NEI8066 William L. Bonnell Co., Inc. 25 Bonnell St reet Newnan GA 30263 Major

294 NEI8093 Novelis Corporation 1261 Willow Run R oa d Greensboro GA 30642083

7 Major

298a NEI8522 Wise Alloys LLC

- Alloys Reclamation Plant 1009 Ford Road Muscle Shoals AL 35661 Major

298b NEI8522b Wise Alloys LLC

- Alloys Plant 4805 Second Street Muscle Shoals AL 35661 Major

299 NEI3TN47159Wil William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.(The) 53 Hwy, Bonnell Lane Carthage TN 38563 Major

302 NEI3AL01055Ten Tennessee Aluminum Processors, Inc. 205 Spurline Dr ive Gadsden AL 35903

- 3476 Area

303 NEIALT$4622 Aleris Specifi c ation Alloys, Inc. 47 Brogdon R oa d Steele AL 35987 Major

305 NEIART$10783 Reynolds Foil Inc, dba R eynolds Consumer Products Company 1333 Hwy. 270 Malvern AR 72104 Major

306 NEIAZ354 Imsamet of Arizona 3829 S. Estrella P ar k wa y Goodyear AZ 85338 Area

307 NEI3CA06037Cus Custom Alloy Light Metals 13329 Ector Street City Of Industry CA 91746 Area

310 NEI3CA06071TST TST, Inc. 11601 Etiwanda Ave nue Fontana CA 92337 Area

312 NEICAT$12566 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem Corp. 6250 E. Bandini B ou l e v ar d Los Angeles CA 90040 Area

314 NEICO1011137 Dionisio Metal and Iron, Inc. 1004 Palo Alto Street Pueblo Area CO 81001 Area

316 NEIFL1030114 Metal Industries, Inc. 301 Commerce B ou l e v ar d Oldsmar FL 34677 Area

## 16

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

318 NEIFL1090013 Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc 200 Riviera Boulevard St Augustine FL 32086 Area

322 NEI3ID16055Ale Aleris Recycling 16168 W Prairie Ave nue Post Falls ID 83854 Area

324 NEI3IL17031Ale Aleris Recycling 400 E. Lincoln Highway Chicago Heights IL 60411 Major

329 NEI3IL17091KB KB Cores

– Kankakee 288 W South Tec Dr ive Kankakee IL 60901 Area

335 NEI3IN18089Jup Jupiter Aluminum Corporation 1745

- 165th Street Hammond IN 46320 Major

336 NEIIN00286 Superior Aluminum Alloys 14214 Edgerton Road New Haven IN 46774 Major

338 NEI3IN18093Rec Recycling Services of Indiana 4635 Peerless R oa d Bedford IN 47421 Major

339 NEIIN1690003 Aleris Recycling

- Wabash Operations 305 Dimension Ave nue Wabash IN 46992 Area

341 NEIIN567 Aluminum Recovery Technologies, Inc. 2170 Production Road Kendalville IN 46755 Major

344 NEIKY0090065 J.L. French Corp 20 Prestwick Drive Glasgow KY 42141 Major

345 NEI3KY21017Ken Kentucky Smelting Technology, Inc. 140 Bellafato Dr ive Paris KY 40361 Area

347 NEIKY1010130 Hydro Aluminum

– Louisville 5801 Riverport R oa d Henderson KY 42420 Area

348 NEIKY101233 Audubon Metals, L.L.C. 3055 Ohio Drive Henderson KY 42420 Area

349 NEIKY2103100 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 609 Gardner Camp Road Morgantown, KY 42261 Major

351 NEIKY2114100 Logan Aluminum 6920 Lewisburg R oa d Russellville KY 42276 Major

352 NEIKY22700135 Owl's Head Alloys, Inc 187 Mitch McConnell Drive Bowling Green KY 42101

- 7519 Major

354 NEIKY938 Electro Cycle, Inc. 230 Baldwin Drive Madisonville KY 42431 Area

363 NEIMIN5957 Aleris Recycling 267 N. Fillmore R oa d Coldwater MI 49036 Major

364 NEIMIN6013 Continental Aluminum 29201 Milford Road New Hudson MI 48165 Area

369 NEIMO1130046 Most, Inc.

– Troy 50 Cherry Blossom Way Troy MO 63379 Area

372 NEIMST$5321 Taber Metals Gulfport L.P. 1900 34th Street Gulfport MS 39501 Area

375 NEI3NJ34007Alu Aluminum Shapes, L.L.C. 9000 River R oa d Delair NJ 08110

- 3296 Major

376 NEINJR50539 State Metal Industries, Inc. 941 South Second St reet Camden NJ 08103 Area

381 NEI3NY360991Sce Scepter Inc.

- Seneca Falls Operations 11 Lamb Road Seneca Falls NY 13148 Area

384 NEIOH15144601
GNWLM13 GNW Aluminum, Inc. 1356 Harrisburg R oa d Alliance OH 44601 Area

385 NEI3OH39165Qua Quantum Metals 3675 Taft Avenue Lebanon OH 45036 Area

389 NEI3OH39157Ale Aleris Recycling 7335 Newport Road SE Uhrichsville OH 44683 Major

390 NEIOHT$6308 Aleris Rolled Products Inc. 7319 Newport R oa d S.E. Uhrichsville OH 44683 Major

392 NEIOK1832 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 1508 N. 8th Street Sapulpa OK 74067 Area

## 17

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

394 NEI3PA42125Rit Ritchey Metals Co., Inc.

- Hendersonville

Plant 30 Georgetown R oa d Hendersonville PA 15339 Area

395 NEIPA23

- 2083 Sapa Extrusions 53 Pottsville Street Cressona PA 17929 Major

398 NEIAL01073Ber Berman Brothers Iron & Metal 616 North 33rd Place Birmingham AL 35222 Area

401 NEI3TN47085Sce Scepter, Inc. 1485 Scepter L a n e Waverly TN 37185

- 3290 Area

404 NEITNT$5135 Norandal USA, Inc. 400 Bill Brooks Drive Huntingdon TN 38344 Area

405 NEI3UT49049Sap Sapa Extrusions, Inc. 1550 N Kirby L a n e Spanish Fork UT 84660 Area

407 NEI3VA51041Ale Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. 1801 Reymet Road Richmond VA 23237

- 3794 Area

408 NEIWA0630023 Kaiser Aluminum Washington 15000 E Euclid Spokane WA 99216 Area

409 NEIWA19906 Intalco Aluminum Corp Ferndale 4050 Mountain View R oa d Ferndale WA 98248 Major

412 NEI3WI55071BB B & B Metals Processing Co. 14520 Pioneer R oa d Newton WI 53063 Area

415 NEI3WI15500JL J. L. French Corp. 4243 Gateway Drive Sheboygan WI 53081 Major

416 NEIWI4600412 J. L. French Corp. 3101 South Taylor Dr ive Sheboygan WI 53081 Major

420 NEIWIT$8394 Beck Aluminum Racine 1349 23rd St reet Racine WI 53403 Area

421 NEIWV0043 Alcan Rolled Products, L.L.C. Route 2 South Ravenswood WV 26164 Major

422 NEI3WV54095Ale2 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 3816 S State R ou t e 2 Friendly WV 26146 Area

423 NEI3WV54095Ale1 Aleris Recycling Bens Run LLC 4203 S State R ou t e 2 Friendly WV 26146 Area

## 18

Table 2. List of 6 Aluminum Production Facilities Not Modeled for Secondary Aluminum Risk

RTI

Number Facility ID Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
State Zip Code Major/Area
Source
Status

6 Bermco Bros Iron & Metal Co. 2201 Fifth Avenue, North Bessemer AL 35020 Area

69 Alcoa Inc

- Lafayette Operations 3131 East Main Street Lafayette IN 47905 Area

163 Bodine Aluminum

- Tennessee 301 James Lawrence R oa d Jackson TN 38301 Area

208 NEI12468 Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. 2000 Aluminum Drive Columbia Falls MT 59912 Major

360 NEIMIB6178 Huron Valley Steel Corp 41000 Huron River Dr ive Belleville MI 48111 Area

362 NEIMIM4547 Fritz Products 255 Marion River Rouge MI 48218 Area

## 19

Table 3. Secondary Aluminum Emission Process Groups Modeled

Emission Processing Group Description

1 Aluminum Scrap Shredder



## 2 Group 1 furnace

– handling clean charge only



## 3 Group 1 furnace

– handling other than clean charge



## 4 In

- line fluxer



## 5 Rotary dross cooler



## 6 Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln



## 7 Sweat furnace



## 8 Thermal chip dryer

## 20

Table 4. Emission Standards for New and Existing Affected Sources in Subpart RRR

Affected source/ Emission unit Pollutant Limit Units

All new and existing affected sources and emission units that are

controlled with a PM add

- on control device and that choose to monitor with a Continuous Opacity Monitor (COM) and all new and existing aluminum scrap shredders that choose to monitor
with a COM or to mo nitor visible emissions Opacity 10 Percent

New and existing aluminum scrap shredder PM 0.01 gr/dscf

New and existing thermal chip dryer THC 0.80 lb/ton of feed

D/F a 2.50 μg TEQ/Mg of feed

New and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln PM 0.08 lb/ton of feed

HCl 0.80 lb/ton of feed

THC 0.06 lb/ton of feed

Or D/F a 0.25 μg TEQ/Mg of feed

Alternative limits if afterburner has a design residence time of at

least 1 second and operates at a temperature of at least 1400 °F PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed

HCl 1.50 lb/ton of feed

THC 0.20 lb/ton of feed

D/F a 5.0 μg TEQ/Mg of feed
New and existing sweat furnace D/F a 0.80 ng TEQ/dscm @ 11% O b

New and existing dross

- only furnace PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed

New and existing in

- line fluxer c HCl 0.04 lb/ton of feed

PM 0.01 lb/ton of feed

New and existing in

- line fluxer with no reactive fluxing No limit Work practice: no reactive fluxing

New and existing rotary dross cooler PM 0.04 gr/dscf

New and existing clean furnace (Group 2) No limit Work practices: clean charge only

and no reactive fluxing

New and existing group 1 melting/holding furnace (processing PM 0.80 lb/ton of feed
only clean charge) c HCl 0.40 lb/ton of feed

or

10 percent of the HCl upstream of

an add

- on control device

New and existing group 1 furnace c PM 0.40 lb/ton of feed

HCl 0.40 lb/ton of feed

or

10 percent of the HCl upstream of

an add

- on control device

D/F a 15.0 μg TEQ/Mg of feed

## 21

Affected source/ Emission unit Pollutant Limit Units

New and existing group 1 furnace c with clean charge only PM 0.40 lb/ton of feed

HCl 1 0.40 lb/ton of feed

or

10 percent of the HCl upstream of an add

- on control device

D/F a No Limit Clean charge only

New and existing secondary aluminum processing unit a,d

(consists of all existing group 1 furnaces and existing in

- line
flux boxes at the facility, or all simultaneously constructed new

group 1 furnaces and new in

- line fluxers) PM e

HCl f

D/F g

a 

### D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area source.

b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the specifications of §63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a

performance test.

c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary aluminum processing units.

d Equation definitions: L iPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing

unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; T i = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit;

L tPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb

- ton) of feed]; L iHCl = the

HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed];

L tHCl = the overall HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L iD/F =
the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; L tD/F = the overall D/F

emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; n = the number of units

in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

e In

- line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the

PM limit.

f In

- line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the

HCl limit.

g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit. 

# ( )

( ) 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

## ×

=

n

1 i i n

1 i i i

t 

## T T L

L PM

PM



# ( )

( ) 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

## ×

=

n

1 i i n

1 i i iHCl

tHCl 

## T T L

L



# ( )

( ) 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

# ×

=

n

1 i i n

1 i i i



# T T L

L F / D

F / D t

## 22

Table 5. Summary of Metallic HAP Test Results for Secondary Aluminum Sources from the Nine

- Company ICR

Metallic HAP Concentration in Particulate (mg/kg)

Aluminum Scrap
Shredder Thermal Chip Dryer Scrap Dryer/ Delacquering/ Decoating Kiln Group 1 Furnace

-- Handling Other than
Clean Charge Group 1 Furnace

-- Clean Charge Only Dross

- only Furnace In

- line Fluxer

NUMBER OF
SAMPLES 7 (6 a ) 8 9 (8 a ) 9(10 a ) 9(10 a ) 1 1

min av g max min av g max min A v g max min av g max min av g max min av g max min av g max

Antimony 3.5 9.2 24 8.5 b 34.1 191 2.4 55.6 340 0.5 b 18.6 78 0.5 b 18.6 78 0.5 b 0.5 0.5 0.5 b 0.5 0.5

Arsenic 1.6 6.3 16 0.9 b 449.1 1370 0.5 b 4.3 44 0.5 b 1.9 9.1 0.5 b 1.9 9.1 0.5 b 0.5 0.5 0.5 b 0.5 0.5

Beryllium 0.5 b 1.4 a 4.9 0.2 b 0.9 3.2 0.1 b 2 3.3 0.5 b 0.5 0.7 0.5 b 0.5 0.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.5 b 0.5 0.5

Cadmium 0.5 b 39.1 99 0.7 17.1 42.1 0.9 34.8 48 0.5 b 13.4 51 0.5 b 13.4 51 0.5 b 0.5 0.5 1.9 1.9 1.9

Chromium III 59 289 a 540 16.1 458 1300 16.1 168 360 4.5 11 25 4.5 11 25 460 460 460 4 4 4

Chromium VI 0.0 b 0.2 a 0.3 0.0 b 3.6 11.6 0.0 b 0.2 0.5 0.0 b 0.2 a 0.3 0.0 b 0.2 a 0.3 0.3 b 0.3 0.3 0.3 b 0.3 0.3

Cobalt 2.7 14 47 5.1 b 28.8 71 1.7 9.4 37.1 0.5 b 1.3 4.3 0.5 b 1.3 4.3 2 2 2 1.1 1.1 1.1

Lead 23 936 a 2000 3.5 2768 7400 108 417 2500 2 32.7 130 2 32.7 130 4.9 4.9 4.9 0.5 b 0.5 0.5

Manganese 960 1275 a 2000 53.8 2053 4030 48 627 1370 41 101 187 41 101 187 3400 3400 3400 100 100 100

Mercury, elemental 0.02 0.534 1.36 0.04 b 0.08 0.46 0.1 0.49 2 0.008 b 0.191 a 0.88 0.008 b 0.191 a 0.88 0.008 b 0.01 0.01 0.008 b 0.008 0.008

Mercury, gaseous 0 0.067 0.17 0.00 b 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.001 b 0.024 a 0.11 0.001 b 0.024 a 0.11 0.001 b 0 0 0.001 b 0.001 0.001

Mercury, particulate 0 0.067 0.17 0.00 b 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.001 b 0.024 a 0.11 0.001 b 0.024 a 0.11 0.001 b 0 0.01 0.001 b 0.001 0.001

Nickel 34.5 118 280 20.1 1090 6670 9.4 79 190 4.7 13 24 4.7 13 24 27 27 27 14 14 14

Selenium 0.5 b 1.6 3.9 0.5 b 15.8 91.9 0.5 b 23.1 a 26 0.5 b 4.1 14 0.5 b 4.1 14 0.5 b 0.5 0.5 1.9 1.9 1.9

a 

### I ndicates that the number of samples for this pollutant was different than for other pollutants. For example, for a scrap shredder, the antimony value was based on

seven samples, where the beryllium value was based on six samples.

b 

### I ndicates that some values were below the detection limit and were calculated by the method detection limit divided by two.

## 23

Table 6. Summary of Organic HAP Test Results Converted to Estimates of Allowable

Emissions per Megagram of Charge (kg/Mg charge)

Organic HAP Thermal Chip Dryer Scrap Dryer/ Delacquering/ Decoating Kiln

n a Min Av g Max n a Min Av g Max

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Acrylonitrile 107

- 13

- 1 6 3.76E

- 05 9.89E

- 04 1.94E

- 03 7 1.22E

- 06 3.83E

- 04 1.21E

- 03

Benzene 71

- 43

- 2 12 4.28E

- 06 2.57E

- 03 4.52E

- 03 8 2.70E

- 04 1.32E

- 03 1.89E

- 03

Bromodichloromethane 75

- 27

- 4 6 3.24E

- 06 3.24E

- 06 3.24E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Carbon disulfide 75

- 15

- 0 9 3.79E

- 05 1.06E

- 04 1.74E

- 04 8 2.63E

- 07 9.60E

- 04 3.73 E

- 0 3

Carbon tetrachloride 56

- 23

- 5 9 3.57E

- 05 2.38E

- 04 4.39E

- 04 3 3.00 E

- 0 6 5.11 E

- 0 6 2.78E

- 04

Chlorodibromomethane 124

- 48

- 1 6 4.62E

- 06 4.62E

- 06 4.62E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Chloroform 67

- 66

- 3 12 3.15E

- 06 2.43E

- 04 3.90E

- 04 6 2.12 E

- 0 5 7.68E

- 05 2.54E

- 04

Chloroprene 126

- 99

- 8 3 7.34E

- 06 7.34E

- 06 7.34E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Dibromomethane 74

- 95

- 3 4 5.29E

- 06 1.21E

- 04 2.38E

- 04 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1,1

- Dichloroethane 75

- 34

- 3 6 3.24E

- 06 3.24E

- 06 3.24E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1,2

- Dichloroethane 107

- 06

- 2 9 3.98E

- 06 5.13E

- 05 9.86E

- 05 3 3.25E

- 06 5.05E

- 06 1.93E

- 04

1,1

- Dichloroethene 75

- 35

- 4 6 8.26E

- 06 8.26E

- 06 8.26E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 156

- 60

- 5 4 1.31E

- 05 9.56E

- 05 1.78E

- 04 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1,2

- Dichloropropane 78

- 87

- 5 6 4.04E

- 06 4.04E

- 06 4.04E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1,3

- Dichloropropene 542

- 75

- 6 4 8.18E

- 06 9.93E

- 05 1.90E

- 04 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Methylene chloride 75

- 09

- 2 15 4.78E

- 04 1.75E

- 03 4.75E

- 03 10 2.84E

- 05 3.52E

- 04 1.41E

- 03

Tetrachloroethene 127

- 18

- 4 12 9.10E

- 06 1.77E

- 04 3.97E

- 04 3 5.17E

- 06 1.30E

- 05 1.83E

- 04

Toluene 108

- 88

- 3 12 1.14E

- 05 1.31E

- 03 2.28E

- 03 7 1.49E

- 04 1.26E

- 03 6.63E

- 03

1,1,1

- Trichloroethane 71

- 55

- 6 6 4.28E

- 06 4.28E

- 06 4.28E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 79

- 00

- 5 6 3.98E

- 06 3.98E

- 06 3.98E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Trichloroethene 79

- 01

- 6 9 3.98E

- 06 9.62E

- 05 1.88E

- 04 3 4.62E

- 07 6.18E

- 06 2.22E

- 04

Trichlorofluoromethane 75

- 69

- 4 12 1.50E

- 05 5.06E

- 04 9.37E

- 04 6 1.08E

- 05 1.28E

- 04 5.95E

- 04

Semi

- volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)

Acenaphthene 83

- 32

- 9 12 0.00E+00 9.23E

- 06 2.50E

- 05 10 5.37E

- 07 1.05E

- 04 4.69E

- 04

Acenaphthylene 208

- 96

- 8 10 0.00E+00 3.88E

- 05 9.97E

- 05 11 9.39E

- 07 4.64E

- 04 2.12E

- 03

Anthracene 120

- 12

- 7 12 0.00E+00 8.12E

- 06 2.72E

- 05 9 5.37E

- 07 1.11E

- 04 3.03E

- 04

Benz(a)anthracene 56

- 55

- 3 9 0.00E+00 4.69E

- 07 1.46E

- 06 6 7.95E

- 08 2.81E

- 05 1.87E

- 04

Benzo(a)pyrene 50

- 32

- 8 8 0.00E+00 6.68E

- 07 2.25E

- 06 2 0.00E+00 8.81E

- 05 1.87E

- 04

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205

- 99

- 2 12 0.00E+00 4.99E

- 06 1.60E

- 05 6 4.92E

- 09 5.12E

- 07 1.87E

- 03

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191

- 24

- 2 9 0.00E+00 2.62E

- 06 7.78E

- 06 4 6.78E

- 09 6.90E

- 05 1.69E

- 04

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207

- 08

- 9 6 0.00E+00 3.07E

- 06 1.19E

- 05 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Chrysene 218

- 01

- 9 10 0.00E+00 3.59E

- 06 9.71E

- 06 7 4.29E

- 07 3.76E

- 05 2.08E

- 04

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53

- 70

- 3 7 0.00E+00 4.12E

- 07 1.23E

- 06 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Fluoranthene 206

- 44

- 0 13 9.84E

- 07 8.66E

- 05 2.41E

- 04 14 9.55E

- 07 1.85E

- 04 1.12E

- 03

Fluorene 86

- 73

- 7 14 2.79E

- 06 8.05E

- 05 2.65E

- 04 12 1.05E

- 06 1.12E

- 04 6.38E

- 04

Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene 193

- 39

- 5 9 0.00E+00 5.04E

- 07 1.60E

- 06 2 0.00E+00 1.01E

- 04 1.87E

- 04

Naphthalene 91

- 20

- 3 15 4.03E

- 05 3.04E

- 04 5.68E

- 04 15 1.02E

- 05 1.78E

- 02 1.06E

- 01

Phenanthrene 85

- 01

- 8 15 7.61E

- 06 2.11E

- 04 5.13E

- 04 15 3.10E

- 06 1.03E

- 03 5.60E

- 03

Pyrene 129

- 00

- 0 13 7.05E

- 07 4.89E

- 05 1.53E

- 04 10 1.05E

- 06 1.77E

- 04 1.12E

- 03

a n = number of samples above detection limit.

## 24

Table 7. Calculations for Conversion Factors

## 25

## 26

New and Existing Group 1 furnace - PM (limit = 0.40 lb/ton of feed)

1 ton 0.4 lb 1 ton Conversion factor = 2.00E-04

year 1 ton of feed 2,000 pounds

New and Existing Group 1 furnace - HCl (limit = 0.40 lb/ton of feed)

1 ton 0.4 lb 1 ton Conversion factor = 2.00E-04

year 1 ton 2,000 pounds

New and Existing Group 1 furnace - D/F (limit = 15.0 micrograms per megagram of feed)

1 ton 15 micrograms 1 gram 1 pound 1 ton 1 Mg Conversion factor = 1.50E-11

year 1 megagram feed 1,000,000 micrograms 454 grams 2,000 pound 1.102 ton

New and Existing Group 1 furnace with only clean charge - PM (limit = 0.40 lb/ton of feed)

1 ton 0.4 lb 1 ton Conversion factor = 2.00E-04

year 1 ton of feed 2,000 pounds

New and Existing Group 1 furnace with only clean charge - HCl (limit = 0.40 lb/ton of feed)

1 ton 0.4 lb 1 ton Conversion factor = 2.00E-04

year 1 ton 2,000 pounds

## 27

Table 8. Conversion Factor Summary

Equipment Pollutant Conversion Factor (allowable tons of pollutant per ton of feed at the regulatory limit )

Thermal Chip Dryer THC 1.00E

- 03

Thermal Chip Dryer D/F 2.50E

- 12

Scrap Dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln PM 1.50E

- 04

Scrap Dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln HCl 7.50E

- 04

Scrap Dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln THC 1.00E

- 03

Scrap Dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln D/F 5.00E

- 12

Sweat furnace D/F 3.70E

- 12

Aluminum Scrap Shredder PM 7.34E

- 05

Dross

- only furnace PM 1.50E

- 04

In

- line fluxer HCl 2.00E

- 05

In

- line fluxer PM 5.00E

- 06

Group 1 melting/holding furnace (processing only clean charge) PM 4.00E

- 04

Group 1 melting/holding furnace (processing only clean charge) HCl 2.00E

- 04

Group 1 Furnace

— Handling other than clean charge PM 2.00E

- 04

Group 1 Furnace

— Handling other than clean charge HCl 2.00E

- 04

Group 1 Furnace

— Handling other than clean charge D/F 1.50E

- 11

Group 1 Furnace

— Clean charge only PM 2.00E

- 04

Group 1 Furnace

— Clean charge only HCl 2.00E

- 04

## 28

Table 9. Example of Allowable Emissions Calculations (to units of tons per year)

RTI

Number Pollutant Equipment Amount of Charge (TPY) a Conversion

Factor b HAP Co ntent c Allowable
Emissions (TPY)

409 Antimony Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 1235 x 2.00E

- 04 x 18.6 E

- 06 = 4.59E

- 06

409 HCl Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 1235 x 2.00E

- 04 = 2.47E

- 01

409 D/F as 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQ Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 1235 x 1.50E

- 11 = 1.85 E

- 0 8

276 Acrylonitrile Thermal Chip Dryer 6953 x 1.00E

- 03 x 9.89E

- 04 = 6.88E

- 03

276 Acenaphthene Thermal Chip Dryer 6953 x 1.00E

- 03 x 9.23E

- 06 = 6.42E

- 05

a 

### Values for amount of charge (tpy) are from the all

- company ICR responses. Companies were instructed to provide data for 2009, or the latest year (after

2004) representative of normal operation.

b 

### Conversion factors are from Table 8.

c 

### HAP co ntents are from nine

- company testing ICR , as reported in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 lists metallic HAP concentrations in baghouse dust, in mg/kg. Table 6 lists organic HAP emissions, in kg/Mg of charge, assuming THC emissions are at the emission limit of the standard.



## Table 10. Example of A ctual Emissions Calculations

RTI

Number Pollutant Equipment Allowable Emissions (TPY) a Reported
Emissions b Emissions

Limit c Actual Emissions (TPY)

409 Antimony Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 4.59E

- 0 6 x 0.052 ÷ 0.40 = 5.96E

- 07

409 HCl Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 2.47 E

- 01 x 0.037 ÷ 0.40 = 2.28E

- 02

409 D/F as 2,3,7,8

- TCDD
TEQ Group 1 Furnace Handling Other than Clean Charge 1.85E

- 08 x 0.48 ÷ 15 = 1.07E

- 07

276 Acrylonitrile Thermal Chip Dryer 6.88E

- 03 x 0.022 ÷ 0.8 = 1.89E

- 04

276 Acenaphthene Thermal Chip Dryer 6.42E

- 05 x 0.022 ÷ 0.8 = 1.77E

- 06

a 

### See Table 9 for allowable emissions.

b 

### Reported emissions are from ICR responses
, and are in the units of rule limits (see Table 4)

.

c 

### Emissions limit values and units are from the rule limits (see Table 4).

## 29

Table 11. Default Pollutant Emission Factors

Pollutant Equipment Average e mission rate during testing

, from all the

available test results Rule limits Units a Fraction,
test/standard

Dioxin/Furans Group I furnace handling other than clean charge 2.16 15 μ g/Mg 0.144

Delacquering/decoating kiln 1.34 5

. μ g/Mg 0.269

Chip dryer 0.277 2. μ g/Mg 0.111

Sweat Furnace 0.35 0. ng/dscm 0.438

PM Group I furnace handling other than clean charge 0.184 0. lb/ton 0.460

Group I furnace clean charge only 0.165 0. lb/ton 0.206

Delacquering/decoating kiln 0.0390 0. lb/ton 0.130

Scrap shredder 0.00757 0. gr/dscf 0.757

Average N/A N N/A 0.388

HCl Group I furnace handling other than clean charge 0.0864 0. lb/ton 0.216

Group I furnace handling only clean charge 0.144 0. lb/ton 0.360

Delacquering/decoating kiln 0.259 1. lb/ton 0.173

Average N/A N N/A 0.266

THC Delacquering/decoating kiln 0.0485 0. lb/ton 0.243

Chip dryer 0.201 0. lb/ton 0.251

a 

### Units for emission rate during testing are the same as the units for the rule limits.



## Table 12. Default Capacity Factors

Equipment Capacity Factor (Actual charge rate versus maximum capacity)

Group I furnace handling only clean charge 0.493

Group I furnace handling other than clean charge 0.467

Sweat Furnace 0.412

Delacquering/decoating kiln 0.370

Chip dryer 0.342

Scrap Shredder 0.317

Average 0.400

## 30

Table 13. Allowable and Actual D/F Emissions, Major Sources

RTI

Number Facility Name TEQ Dioxin/Furan Emissions (TPY)

Allowable
Emissions Actual
Emissions

120 Crestwood Metal Company 1.11E

- 08 4.86E

- 09

195A Alcoa, Inc. (North plant) 2.29E

- 06 1.55E

- 08

195B Alcoa, Inc. (South plant) 5.86E

- 06 1.21E

- 07

198 Novelis Corporation 2.06E

- 06 1.22E

- 10

199 Southwire Co 1.82E

- 06 2.43E

- 07

200 Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. 6.44E

- 06 2.32E

- 07

207 Alcoa Inc. 6.91E

- 06 2.95E

- 07

211 Hydro Aluminum Wells

– Monett 1.26E

- 06 5.55E

- 08

224 JW Aluminum Company 6.72E

- 07 8.11E

- 08

228 Nichols Aluminum Casting 3.89E

- 06 9.64E

- 07

232 Aleris Recycling, Inc/Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 9.23E

- 07 2.64E

- 08

260 Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 5.41E

- 06 2.77E

- 07

261 Alcoa Inc.

- Warrick Operations 1.43E

- 05 1.58E

- 07

269 Novelis Corporation 1.06E

- 05 1.34E

- 06

270 Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant) 3.31E

- 06 8.28E

- 07

272 Alumax of SC, Incorporated 8.28E

- 07 5.63E

- 11

273 JW Aluminum Co 2.00E

- 06 3.14E

- 07

274 Aluminum Co. of America

- Wenatchee Works 7.14E

- 07 9.66E

- 09

276 Mercury Marine

- Fond Du Lac Complex 1.74E

- 08 3.55E

- 09

284 Alumax Mill Products, Inc. 1.89E

- 06 1.17E

- 08

288 Alumax Mill Products Inc. 4.98E

- 06 4.48E

- 07

289 Alcoa Mill Products

- San Antonio 1.57E

- 06 5.18E

- 08

291 Sapa Extrusion 6.85E

- 07 1.30E

- 07

292 William L. Bonnell Co., Inc. 3.52E

- 07 3.06E

- 08

294 Novelis Corporation 5.84E

- 06 1.42E

- 06

298a Wise Alloys LLC

- Alloys Reclamation Plant 4.58E

- 06 2.63E

- 07

299 William L. Bonnell Company, Inc. (The) 7.34E

- 07 5.73E

- 09

303 Aleris Specifi c ation Alloys, Inc. 1.07E

- 06 7.46E

- 07

305 Reynolds Foil Inc, dba R eynolds Consumer Products Company 2.13E

- 06 4.88E

- 12

324 Aleris Recycling 9.29E

- 07 1.09E

- 08

335 Jupiter Aluminum Corporation 1.83E

- 06 1.41E

- 08

336 Superior Aluminum Alloys 1.96E

- 06 4.96E

- 07

## 31

RTI

Number Facility Name TEQ Dioxin/Furan Emissions (TPY)

Allowable
Emissions Actual
Emissions

338 Recycling Services of Indiana 3.11E

- 07 1.95E

- 09

341 Aluminum Recovery Technologies, Inc. 6.12E

- 07 2.72E

- 13

344 J.L. French Corp 1.71E

- 06 1.06E

- 09

349 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 2.49E

- 06 4.38E

- 07

351 Logan Aluminum 2.28E

- 06 2.01E

- 12

352 Owl's Head Alloys, Inc 8.59E

- 07 2.45E

- 07

363 Aleris Recycling 8.84E

- 07 1.04E

- 08

375 Aluminum Shapes, L.L.C. 1.00E

- 06 7.61E

- 10

389 Aleris Recycling 2.66E

- 06 6.03E

- 07

395 Sapa Extrusions 2.85E

- 06 6.23E

- 07

409 Intalco Aluminum Corp Ferndale 1.85E

- 08 5.93E

- 10

415 J. L. French Corp. 1.41E

- 06 1.84E

- 07

416 J. L. French Corp. 6.03E

- 08 1.51E

- 08

421 Alcan Rolled Products, L.L.C. 3.38E

- 06 1.58E

- 07

Grand Total 1.18E

- 04 1.09E

- 05

## 32

Table 14. Allowable and Actual D/F Emissions, Area Sources

RTI Number Facility Name TEQ Dioxin/Furan Emissions (TPY)

Allowable Emissions Actual Emissions

2 SMA

- Mayfield Salvage Co. 5.81E

- 10 2.54E

- 10

7 Ellis Metals 1.16E

- 08 5.06E

- 09

11 Imperial Aluminum

- Scottsboro 5.79E

- 07 5.27E

- 08

17 Livingston Pecan & Metal Inc. 3.70E

- 10 1.62E

- 10

18 Metro Scrap Metals, Inc. 1.35E

- 09 5.91E

- 10

20 Davis Iron & Metal 2.16E

- 09 9.47E

- 10

23 Amcep Metals Company 9.92E

- 10 4.34E

- 10

25 Thorock Metals Company Inc. 5.00E

- 08 7.99E

- 10

39 Al's Pick N Pull, Inc. 1.71E

- 09 7.48E

- 10

50 Dittmer's Recycling 3.64E

- 10 1.59E

- 10

53 Tournier's Recycling Inc. 4.14E

- 10 1.81E

- 10

55 Buck's Auto Recycling 7.77E

- 11 3.40E

- 11

56 B. G. Salvage 1.52E

- 10 6.67E

- 11

63 Nikkei MC Aluminum America, Inc 4.77E

- 08 1.39E

- 09

65 United Tranz Core LLC 2.69E

- 09 1.18E

- 09

68 Transmetco, Inc. 2.70E

- 07 9.90E

- 09

71 Metal Source LLC 2.51E

- 08 1.10E

- 08

72 Heartland Aluminum 7.34E

- 08 3.21E

- 08

73 Rays Metal Depot 3.81E

- 09 1.67E

- 09

74 Arnett Automotive 1.69E

- 11 7.38E

- 12

76 Donham Company 1.94E

- 08 8.51E

- 09

80 Center Street Auto 2.96E

- 10 1.30E

- 10

83 Middleboro Recycling 2.16E

- 09 9.47E

- 10

85 Maryland Recycle Company 6.68E

- 09 2.92E

- 09

87 Montgomery Scrap 2.28E

- 09 9.96E

- 10

89 AMP Recycling Inc. 6.77E

- 09 2.96E

- 09

91 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC 3.30E

- 07 8.64E

- 10

93 Ron Rehnelt Salvage 9.25E

- 11 4.05E

- 11

95 Mankato Iron & Metal Company 1.50E

- 08 6.57E

- 09

97 New Ulm Steel & Recycling, Inc. 3.42E

- 09 1.49E

- 09

101 Commercial Metals Company 3.78E

- 08 1.65E

- 08

112 Weber Auto And Truck Parts Corp. 2.48E

- 10 1.08E

- 10

117 N. H. Kelman, Inc. 1.46E

- 08 6.38E

- 09

118 Metalico Aluminum Recovery 2.63E

- 07 7.95E

- 08

124 Luffman Metal Company 4.63E

- 11 2.02E

- 11

126 G

- Cor Automotive 4.01E

- 08 1.75E

- 08

134 Aluminum Wheel Technologies, Inc. 4.05E

- 08 7.45E

- 12

135 Staker Alloys 1.92E

- 09 8.39E

- 10

136 City Wide Towing And Auto Wrecking 8.17E

- 09 3.57E

- 09

## 33

RTI Number Facility Name TEQ Dioxin/Furan Emissions (TPY)

Allowable Emissions Actual Emissions

138 Diver

- Steel City Auto Crushers 1.24E

- 09 5.42E

- 10

141 Yaffe Iron & Metal Co., Inc. 2.00E

- 08 8.76E

- 09

145 Assad Iron & Metals, Inc. 5.83E

- 09 1.94E

- 09

154 Reading Alloys Inc.

- Robesonia 6.62E

- 08 9.54E

- 09

156 Pennex Aluminum Company 7.09E

- 07 4.45E

- 07

164 Most, Inc.

- Jackson 9.59E

- 07 2.61E

- 07

165 MD Recycling, Inc. 4.12E

- 07 3.66E

- 08

167 Tennessee Aluminum Processors, Inc. 6.82E

- 07 6.96E

- 08

169 Valley Recycling 3.52E

- 09 1.54E

- 09

173 Bishop Engine And Automotive 5.19E

- 09 2.27E

- 09

190 Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc. 1.06E

- 08 1.49E

- 13

191 Miller Compressing Co 8.66E

- 08 2.08E

- 11

196 Smelter Service Corp. 1.64E

- 06 3.89E

- 07

203 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC 1.47E

- 06 4.17E

- 07

210 Golden Aluminum Inc. 5.51E

- 07 7.27E

- 10

212 Halna, Inc. 8.17E

- 07 3.85E

- 08

213 Custom Alloy Scrap Sales, Inc. 6.05E

- 08 1.58E

- 08

222 Vista Metals Corporation 1.06E

- 08 3.08E

- 09

225 Alcoa Forgings 3.02E

- 07 3.41E

- 08

231 Aleris Specification Alloys, Inc. 1.49E

- 06 1.36E

- 09

248 Aluminum One 4.90E

- 07 2.10E

- 08

252 Beck Aluminum Alloys 3.69E

- 07 6.22E

- 09

253 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 6.72E

- 07 2.20E

- 08

255 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC 7.00E

- 07 1.10E

- 07

256 Hydro Aluminum 1.54E

- 06 9.54E

- 08

257 Scepter, Inc. 7.51E

- 07 1.22E

- 07

258 GM Powertrain Bedford Facility 3.58E

- 08 3.96E

- 09

278 Trialco, Inc. 5.19E

- 07 7.47E

- 08

279 Allied Metal Co. 6.10E

- 07 7.03E

- 08

282 Sapa Extrusions, L.L.C. 7.05E

- 07 9.89E

- 09

302 Tennessee Aluminum Processors, Inc. 6.13E

- 07 4.00E

- 07

306 Imsamet of Arizona 4.20E

- 07 2.38E

- 08

307 Custom Alloy Light Metals 5.71E

- 07 1.32E

- 07

310 TST, Inc. 8.58E

- 07 2.49E

- 07

312 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem Corp. 9.07E

- 07 4.96E

- 08

314 Dionisio Metal and Iron, Inc. 5.92E

- 11 2.59E

- 11

316 Metal Industries, Inc. 1.21E

- 07 1.21E

- 07

318 Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc 6.46E

- 07 4.05E

- 07

322 Aleris Recycling 3.83E

- 07 5.11E

- 08

329 KB Cores

- Kankakee 9.15E

- 09 4.00E

- 09

## 34

RTI Number Facility Name TEQ Dioxin/Furan Emissions (TPY)

Allowable Emissions Actual Emissions

339 Aleris Recycling

- Wabash Operations 4.28E

- 07 6.16E

- 08

345 Kentucky Smelting Technology, Inc. 5.12E

- 07 3.42E

- 09

347 Hydro Aluminum

- Louisville 1.41E

- 06 1.16E

- 06

348 Audubon Metals, L.L.C. 1.29E

- 07 1.44E

- 09

354 Electro Cycle, Inc. 5.98E

- 07 6.71E

- 09

364 Continental Aluminum 4.63E

- 07 2.67E

- 07

369 Most, Inc.

- Troy 8.47E

- 07 1.04E

- 07

372 Taber Metals Gulfport L.P. 1.23E

- 06 2.47E

- 08

376 State Metal Industries, Inc. 5.23E

- 07 2.09E

- 07

381 Scepter Inc.

- Seneca Falls Operations 4.74E

- 07 4.20E

- 08

384 GNW Aluminum, Inc. 3.20E

- 08 1.40E

- 08

385 Quantum Metals 5.81E

- 08 8.70E

- 09

392 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 7.36E

- 07 4.64E

- 07

394 Ritchey Metals Co., Inc.

- Hendersonville Plant 6.75E

- 09 9.71E

- 10

398 Berman Brothers Iron & Metal 7.63E

- 07 9.46E

- 08

401 Scepter, Inc. 9.18E

- 07 1.69E

- 07

404 Norandal USA, Inc. 2.85E

- 06 1.14E

- 07

405 Sapa Extrusions, Inc. 1.21E

- 06 1.05E

- 08

407 Aleris Rolled Products, Inc. 1.35E

- 06 1.35E

- 07

408 Kaiser Aluminum Washington 4.28E

- 06 6.45E

- 07

412 B & B Metals Processing Co. 8.81E

- 08 1.68E

- 09

420 Beck Aluminum Racine 1.67E

- 07 3.54E

- 10

422 Aleris Recycling, Inc. 4.54E

- 07 7.96E

- 08

423 Aleris Recycling Bens Run LLC 3.68E

- 07 4.47E

- 08

Grand Total 4.20E

- 05 7.64E

- 06

## 35

Table 15. Dioxin/Furan Congeners used in 2014 Modeling

Full Chemical Name Unique ID Pollutant
Code Average Weight
Fraction
for Each Congener Toxicity Equivalence

Factor (TEF) 1 DF as 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQ

(grams) Average Weight

fraction
of each

congener as 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQ Weight of

Each Congener in 1 gram of 2,3,7,8
TCDD TEQ

(grams)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD 35822469 0.0458 0.01 4.58E

- 04 2.80E

- 03 2.80E

- 01

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDF 67562394 0.0818 0.01 8.18E

- 04 4.99E

- 03 4.99E

- 01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HpCDF 55673897 0.0177 0.01 1.77E

- 04 1.08E

- 03 1.08E

- 01

1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDD 39227286 0.0118 0.1 1.18E

- 03 7.22E

- 03 7.22E

- 02

1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDF 70648269 0.0711 0.1 7.11E

- 03 4.34E

- 02 4.34E

- 01

1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDD 57653857 0.0191 0.1 1.91E

- 03 1.17E

- 02 1.17E

- 01

1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDF 57117449 0.0608 0.1 6.08E

- 03 3.71E

- 02 3.71E

- 01

1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDD 19408743 0.0148 0.1 1.48E

- 03 9.05E

- 03 9.05E

- 02

1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDF 72918219 0.0187 0.1 1.87E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.14E

- 01

1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDD 40321764 0.0313 1 3.13E

- 02 1.91E

- 01 1.91E

- 01

1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDF 57117416 0.0739 0.03 2.22E

- 03 1.35E

- 02 4.51E

- 01

2,3,4,6,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 2,3,4,6,7,8

- HxCDF 60851345 0.0575 0.1 5.75E

- 03 3.51E

- 02 3.51E

- 01

2,3,4,7,8

- pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 2,3,4,7,8

- PeCDF 57117314 0.2125 0.3 6.38E

- 02 3.89E

- 01 1.30E+00

2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 2,3,7,8

- TCDD 1746016 0.0234 1 2.34E

- 02 1.43E

- 01 1.43E

- 01

2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan 2,3,7,8

- TCDF 51207319 0.1628 0.1 1.63E

- 02 9.94E

- 02 9.94E

- 01

Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin OCDD 3268879 0.0583 0.0003 1.75E

- 05 1.07E

- 04 3.56E

- 01

Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- furan OCDF 39001020 0.0386 0.0003 1.16E

- 05 7.07E

- 05 2.36E

- 01

1 TEF values are based on World Health Organization (WHO) 2005 guidelines.