p. 1 of 4 

From: Bilskis, Patricia A. [mailto:Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:48 AM 

To: Putney, David 

Cc: Mitchell, Kathryn M; Palazzolo, Michael A.; Shelby, Laurie M. 

Subject: RE: RE: PMACT Data for Intalco Wet Scrubbers 

DavidThanks for accepting the meeting invite. Here are the answers to your questions: 

• The meeting shows up on my calendar for this Friday (03/07/14) at 11:00 AM. I just want to 

confirm whether the meeting is at 11:00 AM east coast time or west coast time. Either way is 

okay, I just need to know. 

The meeting is scheduled for Friday March 7 at 8AM pacific (11AM Eastern). 

• The question of whether the new data is sufficient or even acceptable will depend, in part, 

upon a review of the test reports. Is there any way I can get those (electronically?) before our 

meeting? 

Attached you will find the final report for the testing that was performed the first week of 

January 2014. 

• It would be helpful to have my contractor in on the teleconference. Do you have any 

objections to me including my contractor (David Green with RTI) on the call? 

Please feel free to invite your contractor. 

Is there any other potline POM test data that you are missing that you would like to see? Please let me know 

ASAP so that I can get it to you quickly. 

Thanks again! 

From: Putney, David [mailto:putney.david@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:53 AM 

To: Bilskis, Patricia A. 

Cc: Mitchell, Kathryn M; Palazzolo, Michael A.; Shelby, Laurie M. 

Subject: EXT: RE: PMACT Data for Intalco Wet Scrubbers 

Patricia, 

I got your invitation to the discussion of Intalco’s wet scrubber emissions data – thanks for that. I have 

a couple of follow up questions: 

• The meeting shows up on my calendar for this Friday (03/07/14) at 11:00 AM. I just want to 

confirm whether the meeting is at 11:00 AM east coast time or west coast time. Either way is 

okay, I just need to know. 
p. 2 of 4 

• The question of whether the new data is sufficient or even acceptable will depend, in part, 

upon a review of the test reports. Is there any way I can get those (electronically?) before our 

meeting? 

• It would be helpful to have my contractor in on the teleconference. Do you have any 

objections to me including my contractor (David Green with RTI) on the call? 

Thanks, 

David Putney, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: putney.david@epa.gov

From: Bilskis, Patricia A. [mailto:Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:43 PM 

To: Putney, David 

Cc: Mitchell, Kathryn M; Palazzolo, Michael A.; Shelby, Laurie M. 

Subject: RE: PMACT Data for Intalco Wet Scrubbers 

DavidI will be setting up a meeting to discuss Intalco’s wet scrubber POM emission results and, the method by which 

we would collect more POM data if we decide more source testing is necessary. 

Thanks!

Patricia Bilskis

Intalco Aluminum Corporation

Environmental Staff, Air Program Administrator

4050 Mountain View Road

Ferndale WA, 98248

Office: 360-384-7267

Cell: 360-201-3430

Patricia.bilskis@alcoa.com

_____________________________________________ 

From: Palazzolo, Michael A. 

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 6:25 AM 

To: David Putney 

Cc: Bilskis, Patricia A. 

Subject: PMACT Data for Intalco Wet Scrubbers

 

 
p. 3 of 4 

David,

The table below provides a summary of POM emission tests 

performed on wet roof scrubbers at Intalco. Note that for wet 

scrubbers, a test “run” consists of simultaneously samples 

collected on three different wet roof scrubbers. So, it takes 9 

scrubber samples to make a complete 3-run compliance test. 

We completed 4 test runs (12 samples) in 2011 and 

2012. These were single point (stationary probe samples).

We completed 6 test runs (18 samples) for the ICR in 

2013. These were traversing samples. We do not believe these 

are representative due to an unidentified systematic or analytical 

error that biased these data high.

We collected two sets of paired simultaneous traversing and 

single point samples in 2013 that were invalidated due to high 

isokinetics.

We collected two more sets of paired simultaneous traversing 

and single point samples in 2014 that are considered valid 

tests. These results show similar values for traversed vs. single 

point samples. These paired tests do not make a full “test run” 

because all of the sampling was performed at a single wet roof 

scrubber.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Mike

Michael Palazzolo

Alcoa Inc.

201 Isabella Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858

Ph: 412-553-4832
p. 4 of 4 

Date Number of Runs* Potline Pound POM/ short ton Al Comments

November, 2011 1 0.86 Stationary sampling. 20 hour sampling. 400-500 dscf sampled.

March, 2012 3 0.443 Stationary sampling. 20 hour sampling. 500-600 dscf sampled.

June, 2013 6 9.3 Traversed sampling. 3-4 hour sampling. 130-200 dscf sampled.

9/18/13 0.33 0.038 Stationary sampling. 12 hour sampling. 245 dscf sampled. Did not meet iso criteria.

9/19/13 0.33 1.34 Stationary sampling. 12 hour sampling. 256 dscf sampled. Did not meet iso criteria.

9/18/13 0.33 0.021 Traversed sampling. 12 hour sampling. 291 dscf sampled. Did not meet iso criteria.

9/19/13 0.33 2.35 Traversed sampling. 12 hour sampling. 272 dscf sampled. Did not meet iso criteria.

1/8/14 0.33 1.04 Stationary sampling. 8 hour sampling. 203 dscf sampled.

1/9/14 0.33 3.11 Stationary sampling. 8 hour sampling. 215 dscf sampled.

1/8/14 0.33 0.81 Traversed sampling. 8 hour sampling. 203 dscf sampled.

1/9/14 0.33 1.99 Traversed sampling. 8 hour sampling. 215 dscf sampled.

* One run consists of sampling three scrubbers in a potline building simultaneously.