From: Rufa, Nathan P. [mailto:Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:31 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Subject: RE: RE: FW: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Rochelle,

Yes, attached is the full stack test report for Furnace #31. Thanks.

Nathan Rufa

Staff Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com

From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:20 PM

To: Rufa, Nathan P.

Subject: EXT: RE: FW: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Thanks. Did you ever get the full stack test report in pdf format for furnace #31?

Rochelle Boyd, 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) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

From: Rufa, Nathan P. [mailto:Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:56 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Subject: RE: FW: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Rochelle, 

Yes, the maximum capacity would be the same at 36,000 tons/year.

Nathan Rufa

Staff Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com
From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:33 PM

To: Rufa, Nathan P.

Subject: EXT: FW: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Does the new furnace #31 have the same maximum capacity of 36000 tons/year as 

furnace #14? Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, 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) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

From: Rufa, Nathan P. [mailto:Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:17 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Cc: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: RE: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Rochelle,

Yes, in 2012 we permitted the new #31 Furnace which rendered #14 Melter inactive. The new 

dioxin/furan emission factor from #31 Furnace (M0031) should be used for the following representative 

sources: M001A, M001B, M003C, M024D, M024F and M0031. Thanks. 

Nathan Rufa

Staff Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com

From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:01 PM

To: Rufa, Nathan P.

Cc: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: EXT: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Thanks for the update. Has a request been submitted to your permitting authority to 

render #14 Melter as inactive? Otherwise, we will have to count those originally reported 

emissions.

Rochelle Boyd, 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) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207
From: Rufa, Nathan P. [mailto:Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:48 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Cc: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: RE: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

Rochelle,

You are correct, the summary we sent only had the test results for one furnace, M0031 (31 

furnace.) Here’s why:

On March 29th, 2012 the Massena West Casthouse sustained a major roof fire which completely shut down 

the entire Casthouse facility and took out all SMACT sources within it. Since then we have restarted the 

following sources: M0034 (#35 Melter/Holder), M0035 (#36 Melter/Holder), M024D (#33 Melter/Holder) 

& M024F (#32 Melter/Holder). In addition, we have permanently shut down M003A (#14 Melter/Holder) 

and have added a new source, M0031 (#31 Melter/Holder). All other sources have not restarted and there 

are no foreseeable future plans to do so.

We tested M0031 for two purposes. First it was a new source and we had to test it to show initial 

compliance. Secondly, since it was nearly an identical furnace to M024F and M024D, it was considered a 

representative source and thus the emission factors from the test will be applied to all other representative 

sources.

I have highlighted the changes in the attached excel spreadsheet tab “Modeling_File_Calc_Inputs” and 

revised table 38a. in tab “2011_MassenaWest_ICR_response” to reflect the changes.

Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you. 

Nathan Rufa

Staff Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com

From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:29 PM

To: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: EXT: FW: Alcoa Massena-West files

The summary that you sent me only had the test results for one furnace. Did you test the 

other equipment emitting dioxins and furans? Can you also review the attached 

information for accuracy? Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, 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) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207
Alcoa Massena Operations – West Plant

Massena, New York 

September 2013

Source Emission Testing of Furnace 31

SOURCE EMISSION COMPLIANCE TEST REPORT
SOURCE EMISSION COMPLIANCE TEST REPORT

More than Engineering Solutions

11423│50930

Source Emission Testing of Furnace 31

REVIEWED BY:

PATRICK GRADY, PROJECT ASSOCIATE

O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.

Alcoa Massena Operations – West Plant

Massena, New York

PREPARED BY:

DAVID OSTASZEWSKI, P.E., SENIOR MANAGING ENGINEER

O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

i |FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ii

List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................ii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Emissions Testing Program Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Emissions Testing Program Participants ........................................................................................................................... 1

2. Source Description and Process Operating Data ................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Process Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Process Operating Conditions During Testing ................................................................................................................ 2

3. Test Program Summary And Sample Procedures ................................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Sampling Site Description and Sampling Locations ...................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Diluent Gas Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.4 Moisture Content .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.5 PM/HCl Emissions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.6 NOx and CO Emissions ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.7 PCDD/DF Test Method............................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.7.1 PCCD/DF QA/QC Procedures .......................................................................................................................................... 5

4. Results, Discussions and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 PM/HCl Test Results (Table 1) ............................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 PCDD/DF Emission Results (Table 2) ................................................................................................................................. 6

4.3 NOx and CO Test Results (Table 3) ....................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................................................................................................. 7

5.1 Equipment Calibration ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Laboratory QA/QC Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. 7

5.3 NOx and CO Sampling ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

5.4 Leak Checks .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.5 Chain of Custody Documentation .......................................................................................................................................... 7

5.6 Blank and Audit Samples .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.7 Test Data and Report Review ................................................................................................................................................. 8
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

ii |FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

LIST OF TABLES

1 Summary of Particulate and HCl Emission Results

2 Summary of PCDD/PCDF Emission Results

3 Summary of Nitrogen Oxide and Carbon Monoxide Emission Results

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Facility Operating Data 

B Schematic of the Test Location

C Field Data and Calculations

D Laboratory Data

E Equipment Calibration Data
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

1 |FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

1. INTRODUCTION

O’Brien & Gere was retained by Alcoa Massena 

Operations (Alcoa) to conduct source emission testing 

on the exhaust of Furnace 31 at their West Plant 

facility located in Massena, New York. Testing was 

conducted on August 5 and 6, 2013. 

 Mr. Nathan Rufa of Alcoa was present to coordinate 

process operations with the testing. Ms. Melissa Miller

of New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) was present to witness the 

field testing.

The remaining sections of this report include a source 

description, sampling methods, test equipment 

QA/QC procedures, and test results and discussion.

1.1 EMISSIONS TESTING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

The objective of the testing was to satisfy the initial 

Secondary Aluminum Production MACT (SMACT) and 

NYSDEC source emission testing requirements. 

1.2 EMISSIONS TESTING PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

Facility

Name: Alcoa Massena Operations

NYSDEC Facility ID: 6405800003

Address: Park Avenue East

Massena, New York 13662

Contact: Nathan Rufa 

Telephone number: (315) 764-4285 

Source Testing Company

Name: O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 

Address: 7600 Morgan Road

Liverpool, New York 13090

Contact: David Ostaszewski, P.E.

Telephone number: (315) 956-6033

Sample Analysis Laboratories

Name: Maxxam Analytics, Inc.

Address: 5555 North Service Road

Burlington, Ontario, Canada 

L7L 5H7

SSAS Program ID: TNI01292

Contact: Mike Challis

Telephone number: (905) 332-8788

Samples Analyzed: Particulate and HCl

Name: SGS Analytical Perspectives

Address: 2714 Exchange Drive 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

28405

Contact: Heather Distel, Ph.D.

Telephone number: (910) 794-1613 

Samples Analyzed: PCDD/PCDF
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

2 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

2. SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND PROCESS OPERATING DATA

This section provides descriptions of the process and 

emissions control equipment, as well as process 

operating conditions during the SMACT compliance 

testing.

2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Furnace 31 is a melter/holder furnace that can 

process both clean charge as well as non-uniform 

scrap. The furnace melts the solid aluminum scrap 

into molten metal that is subsequently cast into 

aluminum ingots. The furnace uses reactive salt flux 

to remove impurities. Emissions from the source 

include PM, HCl, PCDD/PCDF and products of 

combustion. Emissions from the furnace are 

exhausted through its own stack that discharges 

directly to atmosphere. 

2.2 PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING 

TESTING

Testing of the furnace exhaust was conducted during 

a single operating condition that represented typical 

process operating conditions. During each test run 

facility personnel monitored and recorded the 

following process data:

» aluminum production (lb)

» solid and gaseous chlorine addition rate (lb)

A summary of the aluminum production information 

is included in Appendix A.
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

3 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

3. TEST PROGRAM SUMMARY AND SAMPLE PROCEDURES

This section provides a summary of the test program 

conducted and a description of the test methods that 

were utilized as part of the field testing program. 

Source emission testing was conducted on the 

exhaust of Furnace 31. A summary of the test 

parameters can be found in Table 3.1 below. Source 

testing was conducted in triplicate during normal 

process operating conditions as maintained by facility 

operators. Test run durations varied depending on 

the furnace cycle. Specific test durations can be found 

in Summary of Result Tables 1 through 3. 

3.1 SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING 

LOCATIONS

Test ports in the 58-inch by 64 inch furnace exhaust 

are located approximately 48 feet (9.6 equivalent 

diameters) downstream of the furnace exhaust and 

approximately 20 feet (4.0 equivalent diameters) 

upstream of the stack exhaust. In accordance with 

USEPA Reference Method (RM) 1, a 20-point traverse 

was conducted during each isokinetic test run. A 

schematic of the test location can be found in 

Appendix B.

3.2 GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Exhaust gas velocities were calculated from 

differential pressure, measured using a stainless steel 

S-type pitot tube and an inclined oil manometer, and 

exhaust gas temperatures, measured using a Type-K 

thermocouple attached to the pitot tube. USEPA RM 1 

was followed to establish equal areas across the 

cross-sectional area of the stack at which differential 

pressure and temperature were measured. 

Table 1 Summary of Test Program – Alcoa Massena West Plant

Test Location Test Parameters 

Reported Test 

Units

Number of 

Traverse Points 

Sampleda

Number of Test Runs/Test 

Durations 

West Plant

Furnace 31 PCDD/DF, PM/HCl, NOx, 

and CO

lb/hr and lb/ton 

of Al produced

 20 

 3/Variableb

a Traverse point test data were recorded every 6 minutes during each test run. b Test run durations varied with production cycles. See summary of result tables for specific test durations.

3.3 DILUENT GAS ANALYSIS 

Exhaust gas concentrations of oxygen and carbon 

dioxide were confirmed using a Fyrite apparatus. 

These data, along with the moisture content and 

velocity data, were used to relate pollutant

concentrations to mass emission rates (lb/hr).

3.4 MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content during each test run was quantified 

utilizing procedures identified in USEPA RM 4 in 

conjunction with each isokinetic test run. A sample of 

gas was continuously collected using a dry gas meter 

stack sampling system and condensed in a series of 

impingers. The moisture content of the gas was 

measured as a change in the volume of the water 

collected in each impinger and the increased weight 

of the dessicant during each test run.

3.5 PM/HCL EMISSIONS

PM and HCl samples were withdrawn isokinetically 

from the exhaust stack using an USEPA RM 5/26A 

sampling train. The sample train consisted of a 

Teflon® coated stainless steel nozzle, a heated glasslined probe, heated filter, six chilled impingers, and a 

metering console. Each PM sample was collected on a 

Quartz fiber filter maintained at a temperature above 

248°F. The first impinger contained 50 milliliters (ml) 

of 0.1N sulfuric acid while the second and third 

impingers contained 100 milliliters (ml) each of 0.1N 

sulfuric acid. The fourth and fifth impingers contained 

100 ml each of 0.1N sodium hydroxide. The sixth 

impinger contained a known weight of indicating type 

silica gel. Sampling was conducted isokinetically with 

readings of the flue gas parameters recorded at every 

sampling point during the traverse. Sampling was 

conducted at twenty sampling points (ten points on 

each diameter) for at least 18 minutes per point.
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

4 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

At the completion of each test run the filter was 

removed from its filter housing, placed in a petri dish, 

and labeled as sample container #1. The nozzle, 

probe, and front half of the filter housing were 

brushed and rinsed a minimum of three times with 

acetone and labeled as sample container # 2. The PM 

samples were analyzed gravimetrically in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in USEPA RM 5.

Sample recovery of the impinger train consisted of 

measuring the volume of liquid in impingers one 

through five. The contents of the first three impingers 

were placed in container #3. The back half of the filter 

holder and the first three impingers were rinsed with 

deionized water and placed in container #3. The 

contents of impingers four and five were discarded. 

The contents of container #3 were analyzed for HCl 

using ion chromatography (IC) procedures. The 

contents of the fifth impinger (indicating silica gel) 

were placed into its original container and reweighed.

PM/HCl samples were delivered under chain of 

custody to Maxxam Analytics of Burlington, Ontario 

for analysis.

3.6 NOX AND CO EMISSIONS

Emissions of NOx and CO were evaluated in 

accordance with USEPA RMs 7E and 10, respectively. 

A continuous gas sample was extracted from the 

exhaust stack at a single point through a sintered 

filter, stainless steel probe, heated Teflon® line and 

through a conditioning system used to remove 

moisture from the gas stream. All material that came 

in contact with the sample was constructed of either 

stainless steel, glass, or Teflon®. 

NOx and CO analyzer outputs were monitored using a 

laptop computer and PCMCIA card and recorded

every two seconds by a data acquisition system (DAS). 

The DAS reported emissions data as 1-minute 

averages for each test run. Pollutant emissions data 

reported by the DAS was corrected for system zero 

and span bias.

3.7 PCDD/DF TEST METHOD

PCDD/DF emissions testing was conducted following 

procedures outlined in USEPA RM 23 procedures. 

The sample train consisted of a heat-traced probe 

with a borosilicate buttonhook nozzle, and an 

attached thermocouple and Type-S pitot tube. The 

glass probe was maintained at a temperature of 250oF 

± 25oF. 

After the probe, the gas passed through a heated glass 

fiber filter. Downstream of the heated filter, the 

sample gas passed through a water-cooled module, 

then through a sorbent module containing the XAD-2 

sorbent resin. The XAD module, which was kept at a 

temperature below 20oC, was followed by a series of 

four impingers. The XAD inlet temperature was 

monitored to ensure that the proper temperature was 

maintained. 

The first impinger, which acted as a condensate 

reservoir, was connected to the outlet of the XAD 

module and was modified with a short stem so that 

the sample gas will not bubble through the collected 

condensate. The first and third impingers were each 

empty. The second impinger contained 100 mls of 

HPLC Grade or better water and the fourth impinger 

contained a pre-weighed amount of silica gel. All 

connections within the sample train were either glass 

or Teflon; no sealant greases was used. The 

impingers were followed by a pump, dry gas meter, 

and a calibrated orifice meter.

Sampling was conducted isokinetically with readings 

of the flue gas parameters recorded at every sampling 

point during the traverse. Sampling was conducted at 

twenty sampling points (ten points on each diameter) 

for at least 18 minutes per point to ensure that a 

minimum of 3 cubic meters (106 ft3) was collected 

during each test run. 

Prior to sampling all sample train glassware was 

prepared in accordance with Section 3A of the Manual 

of Analytical Methods for Analysis of Pesticide 

Residues in Human and Environmental Samples. Prior 

to use all glassware was rinsed acetone, hexane and 

methylene chloride.

Leak checks on the sampling train was conducted at 

before and after each test run. A mid test leak check 

was also conducted upon moving the sample train to 

each sample port. The sample train leak checks and 

leakage rates were documented on the field test data 

sheet for each respective run. 

Sample Recovery

Following completion of each test run the USEPA RM

23 sample train was transported to a recovery area 

on-site. The recovery procedures for the sample train 

was as follows:

1. At the end of sampling, remove probe from the 

stack and cap the nozzle. Allow the train to cool 

briefly.
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

5 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

2. Conduct a leak check to ensure a leakage rate of 

<0.02 cfm.

3. The sample probe, nozzle and front-half of the 

filter holder was brushed and rinsed three times 

each with acetone (Container #1). Following the 

acetone rinse all components were rinsed three 

times with toluene and placed in Container #1.

4. Disassemble the filter housing and transfer the 

filter to its original glass petri dish with hexane 

rinsed forceps (Container #2). Transfer any 

particulate matter and filter fibers, which adhere 

to the filter holder and gasket to the petri dish

also. Seal the container with Teflon tape and label 

it with the appropriate sample information.

5. The XAD module was removed from the train and 

was sealed immediately (Container #3). The trap 

was covered in aluminum foil to minimize the 

exposure to light and was kept cold until the time 

of analysis

6. Measure the contents of the first impinger. Rinse 

the back-half filter housing, connecting line 

between filter holder and XAD condenser and the 

first impinger itself three times with acetone, 

followed by three rinses with toluene into the 

same container (#4). Note the XAD condenser 

was soaked a minimum of 5 minutes with toluene 

as part of the recovery process.

7. Measure the volume of water in the first and 

second impinger for moisture determinations and 

place in Container #5. Rinse the impingers and 

connecting glassware three times each with 

acetone and toluene and place in Container #5.

8. Place the contents of the fourth impinger into its 

original container and reweigh to obtain net 

moisture weight gain (Container #7) to the 

nearest ± 0.5 g.

9. All containers were checked to ensure they are 

sealed, labeled and all liquid levels are marked. 

All samples were logged onto the chain-ofcustody form. The samples remained chilled until 

analysis. Analysis were conducted using high 

resolution mass spectrometry (HR/MS).

PCDD/DF samples were delivered to SGS 

Analytical Perspectives of Wilmington, North 

Carolina for analysis. 

3.7.1 PCCD/DF QA/QC Procedures

Field Blank Train - Field bias blanks and reagent 

blanks were collected at the conclusion of the 

sampling program. The field bias blank consisted of 

preparing a Method 23 train identical to the ones to 

be used for sampling. The train was leak checked on 

the stack and then was recovered following Steps 1 

through 8 above. 

Spiked Sampling Trains -Each XAD module was spiked 

with known amounts of labeled internal standards in 

accordance with specified method procedures . 

Acceptable recovery of these standards is between 60 

percent and 120 percent of the known value.

Laboratory Method Blank – A sample of the resin used 

to charge the XAD module was analyzed in the same 

manner as the field samples. The laboratory method 

blank was also spiked with known amounts of labeled 

internal standards. The laboratory method blank 

must not exceed the practical quantitation limit (PQL) 

or contain more than 5 percent of the analyte 

concentrations found in the field samples.

Laboratory Control Sample – The laboratory prepared 

spiking solutions from stock standards independent 

from the standards used for instrument calibration. 

Resin samples were spiked with these solutions and 

analyzed in the same manner as the samples to 

demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable test 

data. Acceptable accuracy of the laboratory control 

samples is 50 percent to 150 percent recovery. Note 

that no USEPA audit sample or analysis were collected 

or analyzed as part of this testing. 
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

6 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

4. RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the test program are presented in 

Tables 1 through 3. The following section briefly 

discusses the results. Field data sheets and emission 

calculations are presented in Appendix C. Laboratory 

data is presented in Appendix D.

4.1 PM/HCL TEST RESULTS (TABLE 1) 

As can be seen in Table 1, filterable PM 

concentrations from Furnace 31 were somewhat 

variable ranging from 0.0034 to 0.0061 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), and averaging 0.0051

gr/dscf. Corresponding mass emission rates 

normalized to aluminum production ranged from 

0.151 to .394 pounds of PM per ton of aluminum 

produced (lb PM/ton aluminum). Average normalized 

emissions were approximately 0.277 lb PM/ton of 

aluminum or approximately 69.3 percent of the 

Secondary Aluminum MACT limit of 0.4 lb PM/ton of 

aluminum.

HCl concentrations ranged from 3.8 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to 7.4 mg/dscm, 

averaging 6.1 mg/dscm. Corresponding normalized 

emission rates ranged from 0.07 to 0.22 lb HCl/ton of 

aluminum. Average normalized HCl emissions were 

approximately 0.15 lb HCl/ton of aluminum or 

approximately 36.2 percent of the Secondary 

Aluminum MACT limit of 0.4 lb HCl/ton Al.

4.2 PCDD/DF EMISSION RESULTS (TABLE 2)

PCDD/DF emission results outlined in Table 2 

indicate that PCDD/DF concentrations in the Furnace 

31 exhaust were considerably lower during Run 1,

approximately 50 percent lower than during Runs 2

and 3. PCDD/DF TEQ concentrations ranged from 

2.92E-06 micrograms per dry standard cubic foot 

(ug/dscf) to 8.17E-06 ug/dscf and averaged 5.84E-06

ug/dscf. Corresponding mass emission rates 

normalized to production ranged from 1.00 to 3.14 ug 

TEQ/Mg of aluminum and averaged 2.31 ug TEQ/Mg 

of aluminum. The average of the three test runs is 

approximately 15.4 percent of the Secondary 

Aluminum MACT limit of 15 ug TEQ PCDD/PCDF/Mg 

of aluminum.

4.3 NOX AND CO TEST RESULTS (TABLE 3)

As can be seen in Table 3, NOx concentrations ranged 

from 4.2 to 5.6 ppm, and averaged 5.0 ppm. 

Corresponding NOx mass emissions averaged 0.96 

lb/hr. CO concentrations were slightly higher, with 

concentrations ranging from 13.4 to 28.3 ppm. CO 

mass emission rates averaged 2.2 lb/hr during the 

three test runs conducted. 

NOx emissions normalized to furnace heat input 

ranged from 0.03 to 0.04 pounds per million BTU 

(lb/MMBtu) and averaged 0.03 lb/MMBtu. 

Normalized CO emissions ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 

lb/MMBtu and averaged 0.07 lb/MMBtu for the three 

test runs conducted.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS 

Except as noted, all testing proceeded smoothly with 

no process operating or sampling problems 

encountered. Sample train leak checks were within 

specified parameters and isokinetic sampling rates 

were within specified criteria (90 to 110 percent) 

during all three isokinetic test runs conducted. HCl 

sample audit results were within specified criteria 

(See Section 5.6 for details)
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

7 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

5. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

QA/QC was based on the recommended QA/QC 

procedures of the various sampling and analytical 

methods that were used for the compliance test. The 

sampling equipment calibration documentation are 

provided in Appendix E. This section summarizes the 

pertinent QA/QC procedures that were employed 

during the emissions testing program.

5.1 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION

Calibration of equipment was conducted in 

accordance with the procedures outlined in the 

USEPA document entitled "Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems; 

Volume III—Stationary Source Specific Methods" 

(EPA-600/4-77-027b). Equipment calibration was 

performed in accordance with USEPA guidelines 

and/or manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Documentation of all calibrations is presented in 

Appendix D. Examples of field equipment used and 

typical calibration requirements follows:

 Probe nozzles (QA Handbook Section 3.4.2, pg. 19) 

- make three measurements of the nozzle ID (to 

the nearest 0.001 in.) using different diameters 

with a micrometer. Difference between the high 

and low values should not exceed 0.004 in. Posttest check - inspect for damage.

 Pitot tubes (QA Handbook Section 3.1.2, pp. 1-13) - 

measured for appropriate spacing and dimensions 

or calibrate in a wind tunnel. Rejection criteria 

given on the calibration sheet. Post-test check - 

inspect for damage.

 Thermocouples (QA Handbook Section 3.4.2, pp. 

15-18) - verify against a mercury-in-glass 

thermometer at two or more points including the 

anticipated measurement range. Acceptance limits 

- impinger ±2°F; DGM ±5.4°F; stack ±1.5 percent of 

stack temperature

 Dry gas meters (QA Handbook Section 3.4.2, pp. 1-

12) - Dry gas meters are calibrated using critical 

orifices. The procedure entails four runs using four 

separate critical orifices running at an actual 

vacuum 1-2 in. greater than the theoretical critical 

vacuum. The minimum sample volume required 

per orifice is 5 ft3. Meter boxes are calibrated 

annually and then verified by use of the alternative 

Method 5 post-test calibration procedure. This 

procedure is referenced as Approved Alternate 

Method ALT-009 (June 21, 1994) by EPA’s 

Emission Measurement Center. The average Yvalue obtained by this method must be within 5% 

of the initial Y-value.

 Field barometer (QA Handbook Section 3.4.2, pp. 

18-19) - compare against a mercury-in-glass 

barometer or use Airport Station BP and correct 

for elevation. Acceptance criteria - ± 0.02 in. Hg; 

post-test check - same. 

5.2 LABORATORY QA/QC PROCEDURES 

Laboratory analysis utilizes a number of different 

types of QA/QC checks to document the validity of the 

generated data. Internal QA/QC procedures were 

conducted by the laboratory in accordance with 

individual method requirements. These specifications 

include the types of QA/QC checks required, the 

frequency of each check, and the QA/QC acceptance 

criteria for these checks.

The laboratory documents that both initial and 

ongoing instrument and analytical functions have 

been met. Sample analyses did not proceed unless 

these calibration requirements were met. 

5.3 NOX AND CO SAMPLING 

As discussed in Section 3, NOx and CO concentrations 

were measured on-site with real-time instrumental 

gas analyzers. These analyzers were calibrated on-site 

with USEPA Protocol 1 reference gas standards. 

Calibration error and system bias were evaluated 

each testing test day in accordance with USEPA 

method procedures. Zero and span drift were

evaluated approximately every two hours during each 

test run. Calibration gas certificates for the calibration 

gases used can be found in Appendix E. 

5.4 LEAK CHECKS

Pitot tube leak checks were conducted in accordance 

with USEPA RM 2. Leak checks were conducted on the 

isokinetic sampling trains prior to and following each 

test run in accordance with procedures specified in 

each test method. 

5.5 CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION

Chain of custody forms were completed for samples 

delivered to the laboratories. Copies of the completed 

chain-of-custody forms are included with the 

laboratory reports (Appendix D).
SOURCE EMISSION TESTING OF FURNACE 31

8 | FINAL: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\Docs\Reports\Furnace 31_ReportR1.docx

5.6 BLANK AND AUDIT SAMPLES

Field blanks were collected for each sample train in 

accordance with specified method procedures. A field 

blank of the acetone used to recover the USEPA RM 5 

sample train was analyzed to determine sample 

contamination. The results of the blank were used to 

adjust field sample results in accordance with the 

method. The blank correction weight for the acetone 

used does not exceed 0.001 percent of the weight of

the acetone blank, as described in Section 12.8 of EPA 

RM 5. 

Reagent and sorbent blanks for the USEPA RM 26A 

and RM 23 trains were also collected as part of the of 

the field test program.

In accordance with the USEPA Stationary Source 

Audit Sample Program (SSASP) a single HCl audit 

sample was procured from an accredited audit sample 

provider and analyzed in conjunction with the field 

samples. The audit sample was obtained from ERA of 

Golden, Colorado. Results of this audit were within 

specified audit analysis criteria. The ERA audit 

analytical results can be found in Appendix D.

5.7 TEST DATA AND REPORT REVIEW

Test data input and emission calculations were 

double-checked for accuracy. The test results were 

reviewed by senior personnel for reasonableness and 

accuracy. The final report was peer reviewed by 

senior personnel and certified by the project 

manager.
TABLES

More than Engineering Solutions
1 of 1 | FINAL: 9/10/2013

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\N-D\Furnace 31 PM-HCl.xlsx\Summary Table

Run Identification Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Percent of 

Standarda,b

Run Date 05Aug13 06Aug13 06Aug13

Start/Stop Time 2300-1257 1427-2305 2358-1219

Test Duration (min) 788 514 712

Production Data

Aluminum production (total tons) 67.8 44.5 42.6 51.6

Aluminum production (tons/hr) 5.16 5.20 3.59 4.65

Chlorine addition (lb/ton of Aluminum) 0.52 0.79 0.82 0.71

Exhaust Gas Conditions

Temperature (deg. F) 398 443 412 418

Moisture (volume %) 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.3

Oxygen (dry volume %) 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9

Carbon Dioxide (dry volume %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Volumetric Flow Rate

acfm 47,472 47,751 47,194 47,472

dscfm 28,206 27,040 27,834 27,693

Filterable Particulate Matter

gr/dscf 0.0061 0.0034 0.0059 0.0051

 lb/hr 1.48 0.79 1.41 1.23

lb PM/ton of aluminum 0.286 0.151 0.394 0.277 69.3

HCl

mg/dscm 7.1 3.79 7.40 6.11

lb/hr 0.75 0.38 0.77 0.64

lb HCl/ton of aluminum 0.146 0.074 0.215 0.145 36.2

a

 PM standard is 0.4 lb/PM/ton Al

b

 HCl standard is 0.4 lb HCl/ton of Aluminum

Massena, New York

Table 1

Summary of Particulate and HCl Emission Results

Furnace 31 Exhaust

Alcoa West
1 of 1 | FINAL: 9/10/2013

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\N-D\particulate-0030Alcoa.xlsx\Summary Table

Run Identification Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Percent of 

Standarda

Run Date 05Aug13 06Aug13 06Aug13

Start/Stop Time 2300-1257 1427-2305 2358-1219

Run Duration (min.) 788 514 712

Production Data

Aluminum production (total tons) 67.8 44.5 42.6 51.6

Aluminum production (tons/hr) 5.16 5.20 3.59 4.65

Aluminum production (Mg/hr) 4.69 4.72 3.26 4.22

Chlorine addition (lb/ton of Aluminum) 0.52 0.79 0.82 0.71

Exhaust Gas Conditions

Temperature (deg. F) 406 423 398 409

Moisture (volume %) 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1

Oxygen (dry volume %) 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9

Carbon Dioxide (dry volume %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sample Data

Sample Volume (dscf) 465.3 294.9 423.1 394.4

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 45,364 46,274 44,170 45,270

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 26,748 26,829 26,578 26,719

Dioxin/Furan Results

PCDD/DF TEQ (pg)b 1360 2410 2720 2163

PCDD/DF TEQ (ug) 0.0014 0.0024 0.0027 0.0022

PCDD/DF TEQ (ug/dscf) 2.92E-06 8.17E-06 6.43E-06 5.84E-06

PCDD/DF TEQ emission rate (ug/hr) 4.7 13.2 10.3 9.4

PCDD/DF emission rate (ug TEQ/Mg of Al) 1.00 2.79 3.14 2.31 15.4

a

 PCDD/DF emission limit is 15 ug TEQ/Mg Al

b

 ITEF TEQ factors used in TEQ calculation.

Table 2

 Summary of PCDD/PCDF Emission Results

Furnace 31 Exhaust

Alcoa - West Plant

Massena, New York
1 of 1 | FINAL: 9/19/2013

I:\Alcoa.11423\50930.No31-Melter-Hol\N-D\Furnace 31 CEMS.xlsx\Summary Table

Table 3

 Summary of Nitrogen Oxide and Carbon Monoxide Emission Results

Furnace 31 Exhaust

Alcoa - West Plant

Massena, New York

Run Identification Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Run Date 05Aug13 06Aug13 06Aug13

Start/Stop Time 2300-1257 1427-2305 2358-1219

Run Duration (min.) 788 514 712

Production Data

Aluminum production (total tons) 67.8 44.5 42.6 51.6

Aluminum production (tons/hr) 5.16 5.20 3.59 4.65

Aluminum production (Mg/hr) 4.69 4.72 3.26 4.22

Chlorine addition (lb/ton of Aluminum) 0.52 0.79 0.82 0.71

Average Furnace Natural Gas Flowrate (scfh) 28,762 28,762 28,762 28,762

Furnace Heat Input (MMBtu/hr)a 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6

Exhaust Gas Conditions

Temperature (deg. F) 406 423 398 409

Moisture (volume %) 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1

Oxygen (dry volume %) 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90

Carbon Dioxide (dry volume %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Volumetric Flow Rate

acfm 45,364 46,274 44,170 45,270

dscfm 26,748 26,829 26,578 26,719

Carbon Monoxide

ppm, dry 13.4 13.9 28.3 18.5

 lb/hr 1.6 1.6 3.3 2.2

lb/MMBtu 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.07

Nitrogen Oxide

ppm, dry 4.2 5.3 5.6 5.0

 lb/hr 0.81 1.02 1.07 0.96

lb/MMBtu 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03

a

 Heat content of natural gas used in furnace heat input calculation is 1,028 BTU/scf.
APPENDIX A

360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

Facility Operating Data

APPENDIX B

360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

Schematic of the

Test Location


APPENDIX C

360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

Field Data and Calculations 


































































APPENDIX D

360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

Laboratory Data












































APPENDIX E

360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

Equipment Calibration Data Equipment Calibration Data















360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions

All materials printed on recycled paper.