## 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 coa st 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 tes ting 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 Gre en with RTI) on the call? Please feel free to invite your contractor.

Is there any other potline POM test data that you a re 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 coa st 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 Gre en 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 so urce 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 t hat for wet scrubbers, a test “run” consists of simultaneously samples collected on three different wet roof scrubbers. S o, it takes 9 scrubber samples to make a complete 3-run complianc e test.

We completed 4 test runs (12 samples) in 2011 and 2012. These were single point (stationary probe sa mples).

We completed 6 test runs (18 samples) for the ICR i n 2013. These were traversing samples. We do not be lieve these are representative due to an unidentified systemati c or analytical error that biased these data high.

We collected two sets of paired simultaneous traver sing and single point samples in 2013 that were invalidated due to high isokinetics.

We collected two more sets of paired simultaneous t raversing and single point samples in 2014 that are considere d valid tests. These results show similar values for trave rsed vs. single point samples. These paired tests do not make a fu ll “test run” because all of the sampling was performed at a sing le 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 dsc f 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 ds cf sampled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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