AE-17J

William Vinzant
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, Inc.
9141 Interline Avenue, Suite 1A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Re:

Applicability Determination for

group 1 versus group 2 furnace
designation and furnace operation

Dear Mr. Vinzant:

Thank you for your August 31, 2009, letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, requesting an Applicability Determination pertaining to the operation of a
proposed aluminum production furnace at an area source that will be affected by the
secondary aluminum production MACT at 40 C.F.R. Part 63. We cannot approve your
request as described below.
Kaisers Proposal:
You described the normal operation of the furnace as a group 1 furnace that will
accept painted aluminum scrap and reactive flux, using an adsorbent-injected baghouse
emissions control device. Alternatively, you proposed two other scenarios, specifically:
1. operating the furnace as group 2 furnace, with clean charge and no reactive
flux, and the baghouse not operating, and
2. operating the furnace as a group 1 furnace, accepting an undefined mix of
clean and purchased scrap and a fluxing agent, with the baghouse not operating.
Kaiser proposed that it would conduct performance testing for both the normal
and second operating scenarios to demonstrate compliance and establish appropriate
operating parameters for both scenarios. You indicated that at unspecified intervals,
Kaiser could switch from one operating scenario to another, and back again. Also, Kaiser
wishes to have the ability to switch between group 1 and group 2 operation (the first
alternative above) and to turn the control device on and off depending on the operating
scenario.

EPA response:
The furnace cannot be designated group 1 and 2 at the same time. At best, it
would require a formal mechanism for making a re-designation involving a written notice
to the permitting authority for each switch; however, the notice requirement at 40 C.F.R.
63.9(b) only addresses the initial start-up of a source. Also, frequent switching may be
administratively difficult and potentially unenforceable as a practical matter. The EPAs
past and ongoing position is that, while the regulations do not specifically state that the
company cannot change furnace classifications, the regulations infer that furnace
classifications are not continually changing. Kaiser can choose to re-designate a furnace
on a very infrequent basis along with a permit modification. EPA believes all companies
in this situation should designate, test, monitor and operate the furnace as a group 1
furnace to establish worse case emissions. The company may chose not to use reactive
flux in the furnace, and may use clean charge but must operate the control device, and
meet all the requirements and operating parameters for each operating cycle for group 1
furnaces.
Also, a group 1 furnace cannot be authorized to operate under more than one set
of operating parameters. The Secondary Aluminum Production MACT at 40 C.F.R.
63.1511(b) refers to establishing worst case operating conditions, specifically, by
conducting an initial performance test at the highest production level with charge
materials representative of the range of materials processed by the unit and, if applicable,
at the highest reactive fluxing rate.
Worst case furnace charge, and other parameters are established per 63.1511(g),
which states,
The owner or operator of new or existing affected sources and emission units must
establish a minimum or maximum operating parameter value, or an operating
parameter range for each parameter to be monitored as required by 63.1510 that
ensures compliance with the applicable emission limit or standard. To establish the
minimum or maximum value or range, the owner or operator must use the
appropriate procedures in this section and submit the information required by
63.1515(b)(4) in the notification of compliance status report.
This rule addresses a single worst-case scenario to establish operating parameters, and
does not address alternate operating scenarios. Moreover, a number of provisions in the
rule {such as 40 C.F.R 63.1510(m) and 63.1510(n)} specifically require that a furnace
with an add-on control device must meet operating and monitoring requirements. These
requirements can only be met while the control device is operating.
We believe the rules were intended and designed to require only one set of
operating conditions that ensure compliance under one worst-case operating scenario.

We coordinated our response with EPAs Office of Enforcement and Compliance.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, feel free to contact Jeffrey Gahris, of my
staff, at (312) 886-6794.
Sincerely,

George T. Czerniak
Chief
Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Branch

Cc:

Nien Nguyen, Environmental Engineering Specialist

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

standard bcc's: official file copy w/attachment(s)

originators copy
other bcc's:

Scott Thowe, OECA

Reza Bagherian, Region 5 (electronic)
Todd Russo, Region 4 (electronic)
Denis Kler, Region 4 (electronic)

Creation Date:

July 8, 2010

Filename:

G: Kaiser applicability determination.doc

Legend:

ARD:AECAB:AECAS(MI/WI), Gahris