I<AISER 

ALUNIINUIVI 

Fabricated Products, LLC 

George T. Czerniak, Chief 

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 5 

Mail Code: AE-17 J 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60604-3590 

June 9, 2011 

Re: Applicability Determination October 2009; Alternate Operating Scenarios 

Under National Emissions Standards for Secondary Aluminum Production 

Dear Mr. Czerniak: 

In August 2009 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Production LLC (Kaiser) requested clarification of 

applicability of alternate operating scenarios under National Emissions Standards for Secondary 

Aluminum Production (Subpart RRR). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 

(EPA) responded with an Applicability Determination in October 2009. Subsequently, Kaiser 

disagreed and provided additional information in a March 15,2010 letter. EPA responded with a 

Revised Applicability Determination dated June 11, 2010. 

We have, in the interim, attempted to informally resolve this issue and also have been working 

through the phased operations startup at the Kalamazoo, MI facility. However, even though 

Kaiser found the Revised Applicability Determination to be helpful, we do not understand why 

the Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control alternative scenario (first alternative 

scenario) cannot be approved. Additionally, we disagree with some of the restrictions on the use 

of the Group 2 furnace alternative scenario (second alternative scenario). In case we are unable 

to reach amicable agreement, please include this correspondence in the administrative record for 

this matter. 

Necessity of Alternative Operating Scenarios 

We know that EPA is supportive of providing flexibility to business operations that enhances job 

creation and retention when doing so results in no unacceptable air emissions increase. 74 Fed. 

Reg. 51418, 51419 (October 6, 2009). Kaiser's Kalamazoo, Michigan facility employs over 175 

people producing extruded aluminum shapes and aluminum billet for sale (and has over 200 

employees. facility-wide). The aluminum melting and casting portions of the facility are integral 

parts of that production. The facility has little capacity for in-process storage of intermediate 

product. If melting/casting operations are shutdown for any reason, the downstream portions of 
George T. Czerniak, Chief 

U.S.EP A, Region 5 

June 9, 2011 

Page 2 

the process would run out of necessary material to process substantially interfering with the 

entire facility. 

Under the current Permit to Install (PTI), if the baghouse where to become inoperative, the 

melting and casting operation could not operate and would be effectively shut down until repairs 

could be made. Kaiser has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent this from happening, but 

needs alternatives if there is a catastrophic failure of the baghouse system. The requested 

alternative operating scenarios are intended to allow production to continue if the baghouse 

becomes inoperative beyond our reasonable control and despite our routine maintenance. 

The economic viability of the Kalamazoo facility relies on using painted aluminum scrap, and 

this is our primary operating scenario which we will work hard to maintain. Painted scrap is 

much less expensive than cleaner aluminum materials. The Kalamazoo facility was specifically 

designed to beneficially recycle less desirable materials in place of melting primary aluminum 

and clean scrap. Recycling of aluminum also requires much less energy than producing primary 

aluminum, and thereby provides an indirect environmental benefit. However, availability of 

sufficient quantities of suitable painted scrap cannot be guaranteed. If painted scrap is not 

available and the facility has to melt cleaner material, operation of the baghouse is an 

unnecessary expense and a waste of energy. Continuing to operate the baghouse system during 

periods when cleaner, more expensive material is being processed, but still with emission limits 

being met using RRR defined work practices, is simply not financially or environmentally 

justified. 

Neither of these adverse events (baghouse system failure or unavailability of painted scrap) can 

be predicted ahead of time. While Kaiser would certainly provide reasonable notice upon 

switching to an alternative operating scenario (as discussed below), the time and expense of 

pursuing an air permit modification is not feasible or necessary. The facility needs flexibility to 

respond in order to continue production in an economically viable way. 

First alternative scenario 

In the June 11, 2010 Revised Applicability Determination, EPA acknowledges that there could 

be more than one operating scenario but references parts of Subpart RRR ( 40 CPR 63.151 O(m) 

and 63.1510(n)) to demonstrate that operating requirements prohibit operation without the 

baghouse operating. Kaiser believes that EPA intended to reference 40 CPR 63 .1506(m) and 

63.1506(n). However, these two subparts apply separately to Kaiser's normal operation (with 

add-on control) and to the first alternative scenario (without add-on control). Kaiser proposes to 

comply fully with 40 CPR 1506(n) and all other area source requirements for a Group 1 furnace 

with add-on control under normal operation. Under the first alternative scenario Kaiser would 

comply with 40 CPR 63 .1506(n) and all other area source requirements for a Group 1 furnace 

without add-on control. 

1228 Courtland Avenue, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068 Tel (847) 430-8045 Fax (847) 770-4459 www.kaiseraluminum.com 

,. 
George T. Czerniak, Chief 

U.S.EPA, Region 5 

June 9, 2011 

Page3 

As an area source of hazardous air pollutants the Kaiser Kalamazoo facility is subject only to 

requirements pertaining to dioxin/furan (D/F) emissions and associated operating, monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Kaiser has already demonstrated compliance with 

D/F emissions under normal operation. If the first alternative operating scenario is approved, 

Kaiser would demonstrate compliance with D/F emissions limits in accordance with Subpart 

RRR using a worst case scenario for D/F emissions. Operating work practices would be 

demonstrated and parameter limits would be established during the performance test. Again, 

providing this operational flexibility would not threaten air quality. 

Second alternative scenario 

Kaiser agrees to revise the PTI to include all operating scenarios and the Operation, Maintenance 

and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan to contain compliance procedures and operating parameters, 

including charge materials, for each operating scenario. Furnace labeling requirements of 

Subpart RRR would also be applied to each scenario and a successful performance test would be 

performed for each scenario to establish parametric monitoring ranges. We can and will work 

with MDEQ on these items. However, other restrictions described in EPA's June 11,2010 letter 

are not reflected in Subpart RRR and are not feasible or necessary. Additionally, alternative 

operating scenarios provisions ofTitle V (40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)) do not contain these restrictions. 

Kaiser's permit is not a Title V permit, but the requirements of Title V set a relevant precedent. 

As discussed above, the Kalamazoo facility was specifically designed and constructed to recycle 

low quality, painted scrap. As such it would not be economically feasible to sustain operation of 

the melting furnace primarily as a Group 2 furnace, and importantly there is no such a restriction 

in Subpart RRR. 

Since the events that could trigger changing operating scenario cannot always be anticipated (as 

discussed above), applying for a permit modification or providing advance notification to MDEQ 

would not be feasible. Kaiser would agree to notify the permitting authority upon making a 

change, but any advance notice requirement could unnecessarily interrupt production-so long 

as we have the requisite RRR compliant work practices in place and assure air quality 

requirements are met. Also, when such an event occurs there likely would be some amount of 

painted scrap on-site in storage. We could set in place compliance procedures that would assure 

that this stored scrap is not charged to the melt furnace, but it would not always be feasible or 

necessary to physically remove it from the facility. 

Request for meeting 

Kaiser requests a further opportunity to meet with you and your staff at your earliest convenience 

to discuss these issues. We believe that both of the alternative operating scenarios requested are 

allowable under Subpart RRR. We request that EPA remove the restrictions placed on use of 

Group 2 scenario. This scenario is also consistent with alternative operating scenario contained 

1228 Courtland Avenue, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068 Tel (847) 430-8045 Fax (847) 770-4459 www.kaiseraluminum.com 
George T. Czerniak, Chief 

U.S.EPA, Region 5 

June 9, 2011 

Page4 

in the Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc Air Quality Permit (Permit ID F-06-035); we also 

note that to the extent competitors are allowed operational flexibility, we are placed at an unfair 

disadvantage. We also request that EPA allow the use of the Group 1 furnace without add-on 

control provided that the PTI and OM&M Plan are revised to assure compliance with Subpart 

RRR requirement related to DIF. 

Please call me at 847-430-8045 if you have any questions concerning this matter. 

Sincerely, 

J. Roger Crawford 

V.P. EHS 

cc: Deborah Carlson, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S.EPA Region V 

Charles M. Denton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP 

Charles Maxwell, Kaiser 

Bob Stabler, Kaiser 

Bill Vinzant, Kaiser 

1228 Courtland Avenue, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068 Tel (847) 430-8045 Fax (847) 770-4459 www.kaiseraluminum.com