Aluminum Dynamics Project

Comment From: Janelle Dobash

9/16/25 @ 10:53 PM

Dear ADEQ,

Below are my comments submitted during the formal comment period.

CAA §112(d) - Requires Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
ARS §49-427(A) - Arizona incorporates federal HAP requirements.
A...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Bidegain

9/16/25 @ 10:24 PM

ADI's Environmental Justice (EJ) review has several flaws, primarily in its interpretation of the data and its conclusion about the proposed plant's impact. The review minimizes the potential for heightened EJ concerns by focusing on a limited set of...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Patrick Wycoff

9/16/25 @ 1:49 PM

Please see attached regarding topography, elevations, wind, climate and stack height.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Crystal Anderson

9/16/25 @ 10:13 AM

This video is of the moisture in the morning on September 5th, 2025.

This shows how in a valley, everything sits, especially when it's cold. You can see how the moisture is just sitting over all of the fields and homes, not just the river.

This i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Crystal Anderson

9/16/25 @ 9:52 AM

Hello, I'm submitting videos of how the dust storm came through Benson, AZ August 31st, 2025. The dust came from the Wilcox/dragoon area and blew through Benson, the ADI site and the large density of neighborhoods next to the site.

I am against Alum...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Moran

9/16/25 @ 7:55 AM

I ask that the permit be denied because of the following reasons:

1. This company has a history of violating their current ADEQ permits so they should not be granted another Permit until they show a long history of compliance.

2. The air quality mo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pennie Reed

9/15/25 @ 11:13 PM

My family and I live in Saint David just east of Benson. Benson is where most of us buy groceries, fuel up our vehicles and dine out 90% of the time. Anything that effects Benson also effects us. The air, water and soil quality here are a major part ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Davenport

9/15/25 @ 12:01 PM

As a resident living (for over 45 years) approximately .09 miles directly east of the proposed ADI Aluminum Recycling Plant site (yet outside of the city limits for the City of Benson and thus having no voice or vote on decisions made by the Benson C...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Richard Samartino

9/15/25 @ 10:21 AM

I am writing in opposition to the air permit for the Aluminum Dynamic Project because of the following concerns:

-Statute requires control technology for hazardous air pollutants; the draft air permit proposes baghouses which will only capture parti...↓culate matter, not gaseous toxins. Therefore, the permit omits legally required controls.

-Statute requires that permits contain enforceable conditions and standards; the draft permit uses calculations instead of monitoring to verify compliance. Since compliance cannot be independently verified, the permit should not be approved.

-The draft permit does not model the cumulative effect of risks from multiple pollutants, it only analyzes thresholds for individual pollutants. This insufficiently accounts for the real-world risks of releasing multiple pollutants in the air, and the "evaluation of residual risk from combined hazardous air pollutants" is required by statute.

-The required visibility impact analysis for a Class I area, the San Pedro NCA, was omitted

-The history of the company must be taken into account. Steel Dynamics, the parent company of Aluminum Dynamics, was found to be violating its Title V permit at each of its plants in Butler, Indiana by the EPA. As part of its settlement, the company paid $475,000 in fines and was required to spend $3 million to upgrade its air pollution control equipment (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-steel-dynamics-inc-will-reduce-air-pollution-butler-indiana). We cannot afford air quality violations in such a fragile and precious area as Benson and the San Pedro Riparian area. The area could be forever degraded by pollution, and the permit omits the necessary monitoring controls to ensure adequate independent verification to prevent the company from endangering the environment yet again.

I am a resident of Cochise, AZ and have my own concerns about the air pollution emitted by this plant reaching my property. As a resident of Arizona and our beautiful and fragile planet, we cannot allow this air pollution in the San Pedro River area, or in Benson where it would endanger the health of nearby senior residents. Please fulfill your mission to protect Arizona's environment by rejecting this air quality permit.

Sincerely,
Rich Samartino

No attachments

Comment From: Jeffrey Cooney

9/14/25 @ 12:53 PM

Greetings...

My wife and I are retirees in Benson, and have been residents for around eighteen years. We chose this area for many reasons, but especially for the unique and spectacular ambience found all around us here. We both were health care p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Green

9/14/25 @ 12:45 PM

AZDEQ,
I had previously sent an email regarding the Air Quality permit that was requested by ADI. This time, I'm contacting you about ground water usage by ADI and my concerns regarding the amount of water that ADI will be using from the aquife...↓r. On Sept. 10, 2025 , AZDEQ was granted legal authority by the EPA (Federal Environmental Protection Agency) to manage the Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program in Arizona. This new responsibility puts AZDEQ in direct control and has given AZDEQ more responsive oversite of groundwater protections.

Groundwater and well oversite is especially critical in the state of Arizona, and I am sure AZDEQ has heard and received multiple concerns, orally and in writing, from the residents of Benson, AZ concerning the amount of water that is going to be used by ADI. I actually do not know the exact amount of water that ADI is going to be using and I believe that AZDEQ does not know either. But I believe it is going to be an excessively significant amount. Don't you think that this would be a critical statistic to get 100% accurate before issuing any kind of permits for ADI? This now falls under AZDEQ purview. AZDEQ can not run away from this responsibility, that AZDEQ had request on their own. Now you must take the ground water usage into consideration. We all know how fragile the water situation is in AZ.

As stated in one of the public hearings in Benson, AZ (that my wife and I attended), AZDEQ was established under the Environmental Quality Act of 1986 as the state entity for protecting and enhancing public health and the environment of Arizona. I believe it is both a health and environmental issue if the wells of the City of Benson and the surrounding private lands run out of water. This responsibility is now in your hands, and I hope that the members of AZDEQ do not blindly allow ADI to use monumental amounts of water that will damage Benson and the surrounding private land owners. We know that the track record for AZDEQ for denying a permit is non existent, since a permit has never been denied by AZDEQ. Which seriously makes me ask, then why do you even exist??? If AZDEQ didn't exist, nothing would have changed with any of the past companies that had requested permits. I'm basically saying that you essentially are not needed then. I'm not trying to be confrontational with AZDEQ, but that is basically a fact. I implore that AZDEQ takes the water consumption by ADI seriously and take a long hard look at the precious aquifer along the San Pedro River. If there is not enough water available, then deny ADI being able to build their plant in Benson. Hopefully ADI will gather their own aquifer statistics and not rely on ones provided by ADI or any entity associated with ADI. Please use a third party or gather your own information. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: daniel toplikar

9/13/25 @ 10:52 AM

I can not understand ,how looking at the overall placement of this aluminum smelter, that it would not require an inordinate amount of natural gas burning ,and directly next to a ammonium nitrate storage ,and loading area. To me this is a recipe for ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Davenport

9/10/25 @ 3:28 PM

Public input at recent ADEQ hearings reflected strong opposition to Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. This is due to the potential risks the plant poses to air quality, water resources, and the fragile ecosystem of the San Pedro River—Arizona's last free-flow...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Davenport

9/10/25 @ 3:26 PM

No attachments

Comment From: George Scott

9/10/25 @ 12:32 PM

As a property owner within the City of Benson my properties are less than a mile from the proposed ADI project. I would like to offer my support for the project as long as ADI is in compliance with all EPA and ADEQ rules and regulations. I am in su...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Chappel Susan Chappel

9/06/25 @ 10:06 AM

To whom this may concern,

I am concerned and I am in protest of this facility coming here. As a resident, I have watched as Wilcox struggled with their water, as a Benson resident I don't want that to happen here. Our costs of water will go up and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Olivia Armstrong

9/05/25 @ 12:17 PM

WE BELIEVE IN HEALTH OVER WEALTH, BECAUSE NO PAYCHECK IS WORTH POISONED AIR OR WATER. KEEP THE SAN PEDRO RIVER AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS CLEAN AND FREE OF INDUSTRY POLLUTION.

No attachments

Comment From: Berenice Pelayo

9/03/25 @ 12:26 PM

I am concerned that the applicant, Steel Dynamics (parent company of Aluminum Dynamics), has a track record of over $6.2 million in environmental fines and almost $460,000 in safety violations. This pattern of behavior gives me no reason to believe t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Christine Hermes

9/03/25 @ 7:41 AM

Dear Arizona Department of Environmental Quality:

Please consider my opposition to this air quality permit for Aluminum Dynamics Inc.

Emissions from this proposed aluminum plant in such close proximity to schools, care facilities, residential dwell...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nathan Teufel

9/03/25 @ 7:14 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Davenport

9/02/25 @ 3:31 PM

I am a resident of Benson, Arizona, where my family and I have lived for over 45 years. I am writing to express serious concerns about the proposed Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. facility and the risks it poses to public health and our environment.

Aluminu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gina Eaton

9/02/25 @ 1:46 PM

Are you taking into account our dust storms? The high winds that stem from them? How much of the pollutants will be in the dust blowing? The storms blew over my house from the direction of where ADI plans on building. (I live one mile away from the f...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: McKay Stabek

9/01/25 @ 7:49 AM

This is hazardous for Arizona. Don't do this. Don't be evil. Don't come here. This land cannot support your environmental assault. And shame on everyone involved for not realizing it. You're complicit in earth's destruction in ways that are NOT norma...↓

No attachments

Comment From: charles BREAUX

8/31/25 @ 11:26 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Katherine Rue

8/30/25 @ 12:34 AM

CAA §112(d) - Requires Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
ARS §49-427(A) - Arizona incorporates federal HAP requirements.
ADI reports dioxin/furan emissions (2.82E-09 tpy) based only on EPA emission fact...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Niana

8/29/25 @ 11:34 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Ayna Kekilova

8/29/25 @ 11:00 AM

The proposed facility requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because it has significant environmental impacts related to energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste management. The process of recycling aluminum generates byprod...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sergio Trujillo

8/29/25 @ 1:35 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Jeanie Michaels

8/28/25 @ 7:28 AM

Dear Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Title V air quality permit for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. in Benson, Arizona. Locating this facility so close to neighborhoods, schools, nurs...↓ing homes, farmland, the San Pedro River, and wildlife habitats presents an unacceptable risk to public health, the environment, and our community's long-term sustainability.

According to the permit application, the facility would be authorized to emit significant amounts of:
• Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10): Fine particles that penetrate deep into the lungs, linked to asthma, COPD, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Children, seniors, and those with existing health conditions are especially vulnerable.
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO): Both contribute to ground-level ozone (smog), which impairs lung function, worsens respiratory illness, and increases emergency hospital visits.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Chemical precursors to smog and many of which are toxic or carcinogenic.
• Hydrogen Chloride (HCl): A hazardous air pollutant that causes severe irritation of the respiratory system, eyes, and skin, with long-term exposure linked to chronic bronchitis and other health complications.

The Benson area is a rural valley with limited air circulation, which means pollutants are more likely to concentrate and linger rather than disperse. This creates a higher risk of long-term exposure compared to urban areas with more stringent air monitoring and pollution controls. This facility would worsen those risks.

Beyond direct health impacts, there are additional concerns:
• Environmental Harm: The San Pedro River is one of the last free-flowing rivers in the Southwest, supporting migratory birds, native fish, and critical riparian habitat. Increased air and potential water pollution from industrial operations threaten this fragile ecosystem.
• Odor and Quality of Life: The permit does not adequately address odor control or monitoring. Persistent industrial odors would degrade daily life for nearby residents, reducing property values and discouraging tourism, which is vital for our local economy.
• Company Track Record: Steel Dynamics, the parent company of Aluminum Dynamics, has a documented history of environmental violations, including Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act violations in other states. This pattern of noncompliance raises serious concerns about whether this facility would be operated with transparency, accountability, or adequate safeguards for public health.

Our community should not be treated as an industrial dumping ground. Rural towns like Benson deserve the same clean air protections as urban areas. Approving this permit would put short-term industrial profit over the long-term health, safety, and prosperity of our residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to deny the Title V air quality permit for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc.

Sincerely,

Jeanie & Vince Michaels
Benson, AZ 85602

No attachments

Comment From: Mark. Orvek

8/27/25 @ 10:31 AM

I attended the ADEQ information meeting earlier this month. We were told in the meeting that there is no air quality monitoring in Benson or any air quality monitoring in the local area. I understand air quality data was used from monitoring sites ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: William Coleman

8/27/25 @ 9:42 AM

I oppose water usage and air pollution this plant will have

No attachments

Comment From: Juanita Coleman

8/27/25 @ 9:36 AM

I live across from the ADI property and I oppose the water usage and air pollution this plant will bring

No attachments

Comment From: William Sellers

8/26/25 @ 2:38 PM

It facilitates the recyling of Aluminum, so do it.

#2. Lithium in batteries will soon be replace by aluminum, TESLA has already made plans to do this 100% by end of 2026. Many others also doing such. That reduces the mining potential of lithium; not...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Thomas KESTERSON

8/26/25 @ 10:33 AM

Per section IX on page 18 & 19 of the draft why is the ADI facility being allowed to emit pollutants in excess of the allowed standards? There is a study for schools but what about the impact to persons with lung impairments that might be housed at ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joey Joy

8/25/25 @ 3:57 PM

My house is not even a mile from the ADI plant. What happens when a disaster happens and they extend the evacuation limits and it affects my house and the school?

No attachments

Comment From: Jeffrey Caballero

8/21/25 @ 11:21 PM

Dear ADEQ,

The emergency response plan for this facility is incomplete and fails to account for the safety of Benson residents. Schools, nursing homes, and neighborhoods within a few miles have no clear evacuation or shelter-in-place plans in case o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ray Preciado

8/21/25 @ 11:01 PM

I am writing to request that you deny the Title V and any permits required by Aluminum Dynamics,
Inc for their proposed aluminum processing plant in Benson, AZ.
This plant will bring contamination to the river, depletion of water, air pollution and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sonia Preciado

8/21/25 @ 10:40 PM

I am writing to request that you deny the Title V and any permits required by Aluminum Dynamics, Inc for their proposed aluminum processing plant in Benson, AZ.
This plant would be extremely harmful for our community in so many ways, contamination t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Bidegain

8/21/25 @ 10:07 PM

Additional comments:

The PTE values for NOx of 93.7 tpy and VOC 93.3 tpy which sit just below the 100 tpy (PSD major thresholds) are notable. To prevent post-construction creep into PSD, I respectfully request enforceable throughput/operating limits...↓ (and monitoring) that keep annual emissions below major thresholds with margin. Please monitor for Nitrogen Dioxide (oxides).

The ADEQ presentation slides from 7/28/25 list an "AEDQ Acute Ambient Air Concentration" for HCl of 16 mg/m3 and an "EPA Health Guideline" of 2.7 mg/m3 (AEGL-1 of approx. 1.8 ppm). ADEQ's own tables confirm 16 mg/m3 as the state acute comparison level, but it's far less protective than widely used health values. I respectfully request that ADEQ correct the "benchmark" framing and show how permit limits/alerts align with the most health-protective science. I also respectfully request that alert/shutdown thresholds not exceed 2.1 mg/m3 and that early-action triggers be set lower (maybe 1.0 mg/m3) to protect sensitive groups.

Hydrogen Chloride monitors and met station are good, but I respectfully request that the permit specify method(s), Method Detection Limits (MDLs), siting at/near modeled maxima and sensitive receptors, continuous data reporting, and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

I respectfully request more transparency on your modeling. Please provide the AERMOD protocol, meteorology years, receptor grids, ambient air boundary determination, and proof of temporarily varying background per EPA's 2024 Background Concentration Guidance. Please re-run the model if needed.

The slides also show a potential for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) greater than 100.7 tpy and HCl of 92.3 tpy (potentially exceeding the 10/25 tpy major source thresholds: Who Has to Obtain a Title V Permit? | US EPA).That would make the source major for HAP and triggers the Maximum Achievable Control Technology MACT (Subpart RRR) for relevant units such as scrap dryers/decoaters, group 1 furnaces, in-line fluxers, etc. Please include the specific RRR emission limits (e.g., HCl kg/Mg feed for decorators and furnaces) and all required monitoring/recordkeeping (bag -leak detectors, operating parameter limits, etc.) directly in the permit.

Please add this statement to my original comment submission. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Janelle Dobash

8/21/25 @ 9:21 PM

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality. It's interesting that no Environmental Impact Study has been conducted for this Aluminum Dynamics secondary smelter that is 1/10 from the last free-flowing river in the Southwest. It is 140 miles and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Todd Rallison

8/21/25 @ 7:14 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Daniel Gillispie

8/21/25 @ 6:44 PM

Dear ADEQ Review Board,

Before we even get into technicalities, let's pause on a simple truth: the technologies to dramatically reduce industrial air pollution already exist. Algae-based ponds capture CO₂ from exhaust while remediating heavy metals ...↓in wastewater, as demonstrated in 2025 studies on microalgal systems for industrial effluents.

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) systems turn exhaust into valuable products like synthetic fuels or building materials, with advancements such as LanzaTech's CO₂-to-jet-fuel processes now commercially deployed. Advanced baghouses and scrubbers, paired with continuous emissions monitoring (CEM), keep particulates, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and NOx out of our lungs far better than outdated EPA Method 9 tests.

So why does this permit contain no attempt to use them—not even an exploration, not even a pilot project? Why is there no comprehensive air quality mitigation plan that incorporates these strategies to meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) under Title V? Instead, this proposal relies on minimum-effort monitoring and vague equations, while brushing past decades of scientific progress.

The Questions Local Residents Deserve Honest Answers To:
Why is there no comprehensive mitigation plan that evaluates modern controls—algae remediation, CCU, advanced baghouses—before settling for the bare minimum?

Why are residents being asked to accept this project without even the most basic assurances on siting risks—like constructing huge factory buildings in a 100-year flood plain less than one-tenth of a mile from the San Pedro River, where runoff could carry contaminants directly into the watershed? On top of that, the so-called "closed water system" is projected to consume more than 200 million gallons annually, further straining an already declining aquifer?

Take one minute and a deep breath of Benson, Arizona's clean desert air. That breath is what's at stake here. To approve this permit as written is to sentence Benson's residents, travelers along I-10, and future generations to a lifetime of diminished breathing capacity, chronic particulate exposure, and irreversible environmental damage.

I ask ADEQ to not move forward with the permit without first requiring a full air mitigation study. At a minimum, such a plan is necessary to show that the operator intends to follow the principle of the least possible footprint—minimizing pollution, using practical methods to control emissions, and committing to clean up after its own operations. Without enforceable, state-of-the-art mitigation in place, this project should not be approved. I urge ADEQ to require a comprehensive air quality mitigation plan that incorporates known, available strategies—or deny this permit outright.

Sincerely,
Daniel Gillispie
Albuquerque, NM - Tempe, AZ

No attachments

Comment From: Natasha Watson

8/21/25 @ 6:28 PM

Dear ADEQ Permitting Team,

I am submitting the following public comment regarding the Class I Air Quality Permit application for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. (ADI), proposed for Benson, Arizona. I am deeply concerned about the environmental and pub...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Carhuff

8/21/25 @ 5:13 PM

As a farmer and land owner in the San Pedro Valley, I am opposed to the Aluminum Dynamics Project. As someone who lives near the Winkelman area, I have seen firsthand the negative effects on air quality from smelting operations. Air quality alerts ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: DANIEL SPRENKLE

8/21/25 @ 4:45 PM

1. ADI will build a casting pit that will be 90 feet deep. The water table begins at 70 feet. Anything built by man can fail and our water is at risk. DO NOT APPROVE THE PERMIT.

2. The permit request does not require ALL air quality monitoring data ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dawn Davis

8/21/25 @ 4:32 PM

Should Aluminum Dynamics by allowed to build here in the Benson area in the heart of the San Pedro Basin our small community will cease to exist. There will no longer be enough water to support our small community of approximately 5,000 people. Addit...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dawn Davis

8/21/25 @ 4:28 PM

It is a known fact that Arizona is already suffering from drought and will be receiving limited resources from the Colorado River which used to supply us with 14% over and above our normal consumption. Now that number will be reduced per recent deter...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brenda Zaun

8/21/25 @ 3:36 PM

Public comment regarding proposed construction/operation of Aluminum Dynamics Project in Benson, Arizona
Environmental issues of concern are not only air quality, but also water usage, water removal from the aquifer, negative effects to riparian habi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Molly Shanahan

8/21/25 @ 3:20 PM

As a local farmer, I am writing to express my strong opposition to ADEQ granting a Title V air permit to Aluminum Dynamics. I am deeply concerned about the long-term environmental and public health impacts this facility could have on our community, e...↓specially when it comes to air, soil, and water pollution.
First, I disagree with the reliance on theoretical models to predict emissions. Using estimates instead of real-world data is not acceptable when the health and safety of our families, farms, and environment are at stake.
Even more troubling is the fact that Aluminum Dynamics will be self-reporting their emissions. This creates a clear conflict of interest. I urge ADEQ to require an independent third-party to monitor emissions and ensure accurate, transparent reporting. The public deserves confidence that emissions data is trustworthy and not influenced by corporate interests.
I also want to bring attention to a post I saw recently that raises serious concerns about the facility's design. At a recent city council meeting, it was revealed by a developer — and later confirmed by an Aluminum Dynamics employee — that the plant will include a 90-foot-deep melting and casting pit that will contain chemicals. The water table in this area is reportedly around 70 feet or higher, and after the recent monsoon season, it is likely even higher now. That means the bottom of this underground structure would be well below the water table, putting the aquifer at direct risk of contamination.
This area is also located on a fault line. If any structural failure occurs, it could allow hazardous chemicals to leech into our water supply. Yet, despite these facts, Aluminum Dynamics has not submitted an Aquifer Protection Permit, which should be required before this permit can even be considered.
As someone whose livelihood depends on clean air, healthy soil, and safe water, I am extremely concerned. If our local environment is compromised, our ability to farm and raise animals will be at risk. The impacts would be long-lasting and irreversible.
I respectfully ask ADEQ to deny this permit unless and until:
Independent third-party emissions monitoring is required
The company submits and is approved for an Aquifer Protection Permit
Full disclosure is made regarding all environmental and structural risks
Our community is depending on ADEQ to act in the public's interest and protect our shared natural resources. Please take this seriously — our future depends on it.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Local Farmer
Benson, AZ

No attachments

Comment From: Taylor -1-Amandah-1- Hancen Rios

8/21/25 @ 2:58 PM

ADI should NOT BE IN THIS TOWN! We don't have the water for it, for one thing. The San Pedro is supposed to be PROTECTED! In addition to that, who the heck builds a million-gallon guzzling cancer plant in the middle of a freaking desert that has been...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Natasha Watson

8/21/25 @ 2:54 PM

Dear ADEQ Air Quality Division,

I am submitting this formal comment regarding the draft Class I Air Quality Permit, which is subject to Title V of the Clean Air Act, for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. (ADI) in Benson, Arizona. After reviewing the permit do...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Misty Bloom

8/21/25 @ 1:31 PM

I am writing to express my opposition to this Aluminum Dynamics Casting Facility for various reasons.

At the ADEQ informal meeting the various experts presenting said publicly "they are theoretical numbers because we will not know what they'll be em...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Derek Parks

8/21/25 @ 1:30 PM

Dear ADEQ,

I urge ADEQ to deny the permit for the proposed Aluminum Dynamics plant in Benson based on unavoidable environmental and safety risks:

1. The plant is located on a known fault line, creating unavoidable seismic risks for any underground ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Stacy

8/21/25 @ 1:02 PM

I am writing to request that you deny the Title V permit required by Aluminum Dynamics, Inc for their proposed aluminum processing plant in Benson, AZ. This plant would be a disaster for our community in so many ways--air quality, noise and light pol...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Julie A Wycoff

8/21/25 @ 12:27 PM

To summarize...

I am in the county down river from the proposed Aluminum Site. I have thought alot about the topography of our valley which could be quit challenging for the proposed 100 foot stacks. In my research it appears that in a nice flat e...↓nvironment, even only 100 foot stacks, could emit a plume that can carry persistent toxins very far from the site and surrounding drainage systems. Based on the laws of physics, it would lift the heated plume high and send it far. However, when I drive into Benson from Tucson and see our very narrow and very deep valley, I can easily see there could be some challenges with that dispersion model happening correctly here.

The topography of the San Pedro River Valley in the Benson vicinity, as you likely know, is a huge drainage system. From J6/Mescal Road (Elevation 4214ft) down to the river bottom (3530 ft elevation) then back up to Dragoon Road (Elevation 4735ft) is only about 20 miles as the crow flies. That is a 670 foot drop into the valley from J6/Mescal to the proposed site (a large portion of that drop occurs within a mile of benson). Then a 1205 foot gain in elevation back out of the valley to dragoon road. (This measurement is only from I10 and dragoon exit...not the top of the peak of the Dragoon Mountain range that extends from Tombstone (Middlemarch Road) to significantly north of Benson Arizona, making this a conservative estimate in height) That means that from the proposed 100ft distribution stacks in Benson heading east it gains at least 1205 foot in only 12 miles, likely more than 100 foot per mile considering the height of the mountain range itself. From the west by J6/Mescal Road it drops in elevation 670 feet into the San Pedro River valley in only 8.68 miles with most of that drop sudden and within a mile of Benson. Prevailing winds typically from the south southwest, so usually from J6 towards Benson and continuing east-north east from there towards Dragoon Road and the Dragoon Mountain range where it navigates through and over.

With consideration to the valley topography, wind, climate and proximity to the river... we as residents downstream from Benson are concerned with the valley acting like natural channels where the wind flow constraints could limit the dispersion outside the valley, trapping persistent toxins within our valley drainage which is about 20 miles across. I have used a leaf blower enough to know that there is stagnation... seems reasonable to assume that could also be reflected within the valley river bottom which could trap emissions near the proposed plant, over Benson and over the nearby surrounding slopes of the Dragoon Mountain Range increasing pollutant concentrations.

Also with the daytime heating and nighttime cooling... which Benson is famous for... these pollutants likely will continue to be recirculated within the valley, adding to the concentration of these persistent chemicals.

So, to further complicate the issue... Temperature inversions in valleys, usually during nighttime and wintertime where the weather cools (and Benson is classic for this all year) can create a lid effect further trapping particulate into our valley drainage system. This is evidenced by what we all see in the wintertime with the woodstove smoke. Here in Benson we have nighttime freezes from October through March most every night and cooler weather the rest of the year in the evenings ... If you leave Benson early in the morning when the weather is still cold, all the woodstove smoke is trapped low settling along the San Pedro River Valley... over Benson, out to Pomerene and South towards St. David. If we apply the same principals to the 100 foot distribution stacks... it stands to reason that it will react the same. Meaning the plume will be trapped low settling along the San Pedro River Valley... over Benson, out to Pomerene and South towards St. David. This will drastically increase the potential for further trapping of pollutants close to the valley floor... creating a situation of greater distribution of persistent chemicals from the stacks. This means that particulate of persistent toxins will be distributed all around Benson, south towards St. David and north towards Pomerene. This topography and climate coupled with the stack height seems very likely to concentrate pollutants within the 20 mile on river drainage system at a higher rate than a flat terrain.

According to my research, valleys experience higher distribution of pollutants and persistent chemical concentrations. Benson topography, climate, and prevailing wind dictates this will be a prime candidate for excessive accumulation of persistent chemicals within our one river drainage system.

Now what about precipitation? We are dry most of the year. Couple this with occasional torrential rains during the Monsoon Season. This will eventually wash all of these concentrated pollutants that have been recirculated and deposited within our 20 mile wide drainage system into the river bed... and downstream in highly concentrated amounts... towards all of us who live just down river from Benson. This then could create an acute environmental emergency for the San Pedro River Valley and local wells.

Ok curious then....

Will the EPA be doing site-specific air dispersion modeling to help to determine the minimum required stack height?

What safety measures will the EPA be imposing considering this particular valleys topography, wind, climate and proximity to the river?

Will the EPA be taking soil samples routinely within this one river drainage system to ensure there will be no potential for an acute environmental disaster downstream?

How often would those samples be taken? Will they be made public?

Thank you for all your efforts in this matter~

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Derek Parks

8/21/25 @ 12:26 PM

Dear ADEQ,

I am submitting information regarding the proposed Aluminum Dynamics plant in Benson. The plant is planned to include a 90-foot-deep melting/casting pit containing chemicals.

The local water table is approximately 70 feet or higher, mean...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Craig Dziadowicz

8/21/25 @ 12:20 PM

I am a resident of Benson Arizona with property along the San Pedro River. I strongly oppose the development of the Aluminum Dynamics Project. I completely disagree with the statement that there is any bit of sustainability involved with this proje...↓ct. The actual process of breaking down heavy metals will not only introduce an unsustainable number of hazardous particulates into an immediate local delicate ecology that is the San Pedro River Riparian Corridor. Negatively impacting one of the most import Global migratory paths.

The negative impacts on the delicate local Flora will suffer immense hardships and large unnatural die-off from the near continuous expulsion of hazardous particulates such of NOx, SO2, CO2, PM10. Not only can these particulates retard the flora's natural ability to produce photosynthesis and cripple the natural plant life, but these particulates will end up in the local soil causing soil toxicity.

The expelled airborne particulates are all leading contributors to acid rain. The San Pedro Valley would be adversely affected by acid rain. This would extract additional toxins in our soils harming crops, flora, and fauna.

The San Pedro Valley additionally demonstrates climates/conditions of Thermal Inversions. Thermal Inversions trap pockets of cold air near the grounds surface. These cold air pockets will trap additional hazardous particulates expelled from the plant. Thus, exasperating unbalanced toxification on soil and low-level air quality.

These are just a few of the negative impacts on the local region of the San Pedro River Valley near and around Benson Arizona. Additional harm/negative effect would be felt throughout Southern Arizona with these particulates having the ability to travel hundreds of miles.

In conclusion our ecosystem is not built for this toxic facility, and it needs never happen. These negative impacts will cripple industries that draw people/revenue to this area of Arizona. Our local farmers, eco-tourism, scenic highways will all be negatively disrupted by toxify the air quality.

Furthermore, the ridiculous amounts of water that would be used shouldn't even come close to being expectable. It's rather embarrassing to see how far this has come with consideration that just the water use should have eliminated the very thought of this project.

Please make this right for Benson, for Arizona, for our future generations and eliminate this project from happening.

Thank you for doing the right thing.
Craig Dziadowicz

No attachments

Comment From: Sara Hedin

8/21/25 @ 12:07 PM

I am a home owner in Benson whose house is 0.2 miles from the ADI site. I've just read that the plant will include a melting pit that will sit 20 feet before the water table. This is a bit unsettling, considering that the plant is in a flood plain, o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Shannon Parks

8/21/25 @ 11:40 AM

I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the proposed Aluminum Dynamics facility in Benson, Arizona. While I understand the importance of economic development, I believe this specific location is inappropriate and dangerous due to the well...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tara Davis

8/21/25 @ 11:07 AM

According to the Modeling results in the summarized results of the modeling demonstration, provided in the Air Dispersion Modeling Report, prepared by Trinity Consultants, section 7.1, page 38:
"The results of the significant impact modeling analysi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tara Davis

8/21/25 @ 10:42 AM

Emergency Planning Issue - Hydrochloric Acid (HCI).
ADI WILL HAVE LARGE QUANTITIES OF HCI that will be stored, transported and used onsite. Even a small HCI spill would have cascading and long reaching effects for all downwind and downhill. Cochise ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jeff Boyer

8/21/25 @ 8:24 AM

Dear ADEQ,

This permit threatens Benson's resident's health and livelihood. Benson residents already face significant air quality challenges from wildfire smoke, agricultural dust, and vehicle emissions. Adding new sources of fine particulates, hea...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Zac Kruger

8/20/25 @ 8:05 PM

Please find permit application review and comments attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Emma Huang

8/20/25 @ 7:00 PM

TO: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Please deny this Class 1 Air Quality permit application requested by Aluminum Dynamics Inc.

The long-term effects of emissions from secondary processing of aluminum are concerning, particular...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Bidegain

8/20/25 @ 4:40 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Kristal Grimm

8/20/25 @ 4:37 PM

Please do not allow for the building of the Aluminum plant in our historic town. This is known to cause damage to both the environment, wildlife, and the people living here by releasing forever chemicals into the land and air.

The excerpt from the ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Weilacher

8/20/25 @ 4:15 PM

I grocery shop, eat at various restaurants, get gas, use the library and bank in Benson. I am there on a weekly basis. I am appalled that this recycling plant has been approved so close to the San Pedro River and the town proper! I have asthma and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: sally darcangelo

8/20/25 @ 4:05 PM

the San Pedro river is of major ecological importance as it hosts 2/3 of the avian diversity of the United States, including 100 species of breeding birds and almost 300 species of migrating birds. Its protection is important as 99% of the ci�negas i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peter Thomson

8/20/25 @ 3:15 PM

I am someone who lives in wonderful Southern Arizona, in constant admiration and appreciation of the beauty that surrounds us in this desert. It is a blessing to be able to inhabit this space, and I exist with an aim to minimize my impact on my surro...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Eleni Vlastaris

8/20/25 @ 2:18 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Richard Samartino

8/20/25 @ 1:56 PM

I am very concerned and opposed to the permit for the Aluminum Dynamics Project. The project is projected to emit more than 52 tons of fine particulate matter per year which poses an obvious health hazard to Benson residents and especially the nursin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dora Jans

8/20/25 @ 1:48 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kenneth Jans

8/20/25 @ 1:39 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Dave Mason

8/20/25 @ 12:42 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Mason

8/20/25 @ 11:55 AM

Dear Arizona Department of Environmental Quality:

Please consider my opposition to this air quality permit application by Aluminum Dynamics Inc.

Emissions from this proposed aluminum plant in such close proximity to schools, care facilities, resid...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Glover

8/20/25 @ 11:28 AM

As a homeowner and resident of Bisbee Arizona, a city only 40 miles south of Benson, I am formally against the continuation of this development. I have no doubts that this aluminum smelter will negatively impact the soil, air, and water of Benson, a ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bob Wright

8/20/25 @ 11:22 AM

We live in Saint David and I see the particulates from Apache Powder every morning along the river. Benson is in a valley and the emissions from the Aluminum Dynamics plant will be doing the same thing. What is it going to be doing to the soil in o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Davenport

8/20/25 @ 10:53 AM

I am strongly opposed to the proposed aluminum recycling plant. I live directly across the San Pedro river from the proposed plant, perhaps 100-200 yards to the east. Common prevailing winds will blow the toxic particulates directly toward me. Whi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Davenport

8/20/25 @ 10:48 AM

We purchased our home on the east side of the San Pedro River in 1980. We planned for it to be our forever home. We raised our two boys here. Now that we are retired and enjoying our time here even more, we are faced with the possibility of seriou...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Hunt

8/20/25 @ 9:09 AM

We own property on the east side of the San Pedro River. We have read that this type of plant will emit hazardous toxins into the air affecting the soil and water. These toxins will have a negative impact on the residents and wildlife of Benson and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jarrett Hougland

8/20/25 @ 8:56 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jill Clements

8/20/25 @ 8:47 AM

Hello, I believe it is common sense to not allow a permit of this kind, for ADI, that states in its application, it will emit 40 tons of pollutants and HAZARDOUS materials into the air in a residential area as well as a riparian area.I understand the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Rossman

8/20/25 @ 7:00 AM

Dear Reader,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the ADI proposed aluminum processing plant in Benson, Arizona. We currently enjoy clear skies and clean air in our Cochise County community, and our health and future are directly related ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bridget Gee

8/20/25 @ 1:16 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jennifer D'Angelo

8/19/25 @ 10:30 PM

Dear Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Title V air quality permit for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. The proposed facility would be located near residential communities, schools, farms...↓, and the San Pedro River—putting our air, water, health, and way of life at risk. As a person with asthma I believe this would greatly impact the air quality and my ability to breathe. My children are part of Benson School, since their dad lives in Benson. Which puts me in Benson much of the time. My young adult daughter works in Benson and she has several health issues that we have been dealing with her whole life. She also has breathing issues due to asthma.
According to the draft permit, the facility would be allowed to emit:
• Particulate Matter (PM2.5 & PM10)
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
• Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), a hazardous air pollutant
These pollutants are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, asthma, and cancer. In particular, PM2.5 is known to travel deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Rural communities like ours deserve clean air and water—and this project would put both at risk.
Additionally, the plant would use significant water resources in an already water-scarce region, and the potential for heavy metals or chemical discharge into local groundwater or the San Pedro River has not been addressed. These omissions raise serious environmental red flags.
I am concerned that the applicant, Steel Dynamics (parent company of Aluminum
Dynamics), has a track record of over $6.2 million in environmental fines and almost $460,000 in safety violations. This pattern of behavior gives me no reason to believe they would comply with regulations here.
I urge ADEQ to deny this permit on the basis of health risks, environmental injustice, water scarcity, and the applicant's history of noncompliance.
A Title V permit is considered enforceable as a practical matter only when it contains clear, specific, and measurable limitations, along with adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. These elements allow for verifiable compliance with applicable federal requirements. The projected emissions from this facility constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety as well as the natural environment, constituting a hazard to local agriculture and ranching, endangered species, and passersby.
Specific concerns related to the ADEQ Title V Permit are as follows:
1. The emissions limits on criteria pollutants on this permit are not defined. The public should not have to hire an engineer to determine what these emissions limits are and to determine if the facility is in compliance with emissions limits. Federal statutes require that the Title V permit contain clear, specific, and measurable limitations, along with adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
2. What are the annual emissions limits for this facility, for each criteria pollutant: the
Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), particulate matter, both PM10 and PM2.5, the dioxins, furans, hydrogen fluoride (HF), lead, and the hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions?
3. The opacity requirements in the permit are to be measured using EPA Method 9, which only works in daylight hours. If the facility is going to operate at night, or cloudy weather, Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) technology would be required on the stacks' emissions points and other locations, such as the fugitive emissions of particulate matter. Why is EPA Method 9 being used on a facility that would operate 24/7 and in cloudy weather when the EPA Method 9 requires daylight? Why isn't Continuous Emissions Monitoring required?
4. This Title V permit violates the requirement of federal statutes and rules to be "practically enforceable" by the public. The proposed permit recurrently states that records and monitoring/compliance data is kept on-site and is available on request. To comply with Title V requirements, all records and monitoring/compliance data have to be available to the public at the permitting agency or a public repository. How would anyone in Benson easily access this information?
5. The various Operations and Maintenance Plans for the equipment are not due until long after the permit has been issued, so how would the public be able to enforce their requirements or provide meaningful comments? The applicant should know how to operate and maintain their equipment and processes, so this information should be available in the permit. Why is it not?
6. The equipment list shows that most of the equipment to be used is To Be Determined: including all three Hot Baghouses, the Dross House Baghouse, the two cooling towers, and the Lime Silo, which all will have emissions. The equipment list has to state the specific equipment during the permit process, otherwise these determinations are going to be made after the public comment period, which makes the public comment impossible, and this violates the federal requirements. How can the public comment on unknown equipment choices and their emissions?
7. How will the three-hour public hearing time on August 21st be divided up in a way that does not negate the dignity of the concerned publics' efforts, hard work, and participation that is guaranteed by federal statutes?
8. Why are no permits required from ADEQ related to this applicant's waste water disposal?
Sincerely, Jennifer D'Angelo

No attachments

Comment From: Sandra Caballero

8/19/25 @ 9:08 PM

Dear Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Title V air quality permit for Aluminum Dynamics, Inc.

My husband died once from lung disease. He was resuscitated with 1 fully functi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: audra bidegain

8/19/25 @ 8:32 PM

ADEQ

My name is Audra Bidegain and my family has lived here and been apart of this community since 1925. I grew up here. I went to school here and now my brother and I are raising our kids here. They go to the school that's less than a mile away fro...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Myron Calkins

8/19/25 @ 7:57 PM

We now know that PM2.5 is far more damaging than previously thought. Require Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. to install appropriate filters to capture and properly dispose of or neutralize the (PM10), the (PM2.5), the (VOCs), the (NOX), and the (SO2).

Appr...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Quynn Red Mountain

8/19/25 @ 6:27 PM

Please NO to a air permit for the Aluminum Dynamics Project! This is not what we need in southern Arizona. Winds move the harmful solid particles and liquid droplets throughout the region. Considering the drought and other challenges we all are exper...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cindy Tapia

8/19/25 @ 5:11 PM

The hydrogen chloride impact model that was given left out any residential impact of the area in Benson known as the "Heights", the big mountain of residences between the proposed future ADI facility and the school. Who created the map, where did the...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tammy Boyer

8/19/25 @ 4:16 PM

I respectfully oppose the issuance of this permit for the proposed Aluminum Dynamics plant in Benson.

According to the permit application to ADEQ, the facility will emit more than 40 tons of particulate matter annually. These emissions pose serious ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Galler

8/19/25 @ 1:38 PM

I'm not a expert or even in the business. But, I recognize the need and environmental/human dangers.
I moved here from Kansas City,Mo and well aware of pollution. We had coal burning electrical plants, creasote plants and food preparation plants whic...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Emilie Arbaugh

8/19/25 @ 11:05 AM

As someone who is directly invested in agriculture in Benson, I must voice my opposition to this project. This project is environmentally reckless and puts agricultural and human health at risk. This will compromise the integrity of the soil and that...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Leonard Amburgey

8/19/25 @ 7:10 AM

I retired to Arizona five years ago to pursue my interests in Astronomy. I live as remote as possible for access to a dark sky. I was from Massachusetts where I established two observatories one dedicated to monitoring near-earth Asteroids (IAU 823)...↓ in cooperation with the Minor Planet Centers based at Harvard University. I was credited with the discovery of a major near-earth asteroid of the Apollo class crossing on each orbit inside or just outside the earth's orbit. The second was for teaching astronomical data analysis for graduate student in Earth sciences. I closed both the observatories because of light pollution from random development in the area. In 10 years, the sky brightened 10 times (2 full magnitudes) a brighter sky obscures dimmer objects (stars, nebula, galaxies) and further limits larger telescopes as does a full moon. Since I arrived, the sky dome above Benson has brightened at an accelerated rate. Even faster than rural North Central Massachusetts. Clearly, the local planning board sees increasing the tax base and limited jobs and have little interest in mitigating or enforcing existing violations. The only way to preserve the night sky is to demand: FULL SHIELDED LIGHTING, MOTION ACTIVATED LIGHTING, KEEPING LOW TEMPERATURE BULBS (<3000K OR EQUAL). Keeping the people who winter here will help the economy a lot more.

SECOND CONCERN: relates to ground water contamination, I have a deep well and eventually the plant needs to dispose of CHEMICIALS: excess aluminum, lead, iron, zinc, manganese, barium and nickel exceeding all safety standards. This can spread through the aquifer and contaminate all water supplies. If direct to surface water kill aquatic invertebrates' fish and amphibians.

THIRD CONCERN: Air quality concerns: Pollutants are released to the atmosphere.
Recycling processes—especially shredding, melting, and casting—release airborne contaminants into local environments. Key air pollutants include:
• Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10)
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
• Acid-forming gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides)
• Metals and metalloids (lead, cadmium, mercury, zinc)
Possible polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins/furans if plastics or contaminated scrap are processed.
Particulate matter released into the atmosphere also can refract stray light and brighten the sky as well
FINAL CONCERN: Tardy awareness of this pending implementation. I only heard about this from rumors, and an email. Such should have given all residents full notification. I am traveling as a vacation to bring out my last part of my equipment from Massachusetts.

Leonard & Sharon Amburgey

No attachments

Comment From: DONNA ROMAN

8/18/25 @ 5:50 PM

As a 17-year resident of Benson, Arizona, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the approval of Air Quality Permit #97894 for the Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. (ADI) aluminum recycling and casting facility planned for Benson. While economic devel...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Micah Lee

8/17/25 @ 7:57 PM

Correction to my previous comment: The San Pedro River is not a free flowing river. It has been dammed several times in the past and several of the dams are still existing.

None of the sites chosen for air modeling were in the middle of a valley a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Andrea Home

8/17/25 @ 4:45 PM

Do not steal and pollute our water natural resources and poison our citizens. Enough is enough. I hope each comment strengthens the community and our total disagreement for this greedy initiative by people who are damaging plant earth US State of AZ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dan Sprenkle

8/17/25 @ 4:21 PM

Reasons to deny Title V permit to Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. in Benson:

1. ADI provided data for computer modeling. ADI knows the emission limits that will appease ADEQ and the EPA. By allowing ADI to provide data, they can skew the modeling in their f...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Micah Lee

8/17/25 @ 2:12 PM

The ADI site is in close proximity to schools, public places, nursing homes, residential areas, local businesses and the delicate San Pedro River Riparian area. The San Pedro River is one of the last free flowing rivers in the United States and the r...↓esidents of the area as well as state agencies have an obligation to protect it. The water usage that ADI intends to use is disturbing. There is no clear number published. Any way you look at it their annual water usage will be close to that of the town of Benson. This project will essentially double the water usage by the city and is guaranteed to put a strain on the surrounding aquifers that many rely on for their water needs. Many of the monitoring wells in the area are already below regulatory levels as described in the recent lawsuit between the Center for Biodiversity and ADWR.

The emissions created by the ADI site are modeled to be within regulatory guidelines, however this still doesn't make it a suitable location for this project. ADI has reported that they will not have emissions controls on their furnaces and will be relying solely on baghouses to control emissions.

How does ADI plan to monitor the filters in the baghouses and change them at necessary intervals to prevent unnecessary pollution?
How does ADI plan to dispose of the contaminated limestone filters?
How does ADI plan to prevent further contamination from their produced waste?
What are the long term effects from exposure to the materials being exhausted from the baghouses?
What measures will be taken to protect the rivers delicate ecosystem and prevent further contamination (Apache Nitrogen Superfund site) from residual runoff from the site given the close proximity to the river?
How will emissions be reported to ADEQ?
Will there be a CEM system in operation? If not, why?
How will ADEQ hold ADI accountable for violations to their permit?
Will ADEQ have the right to shutdown operations at the ADI site in the event of non/inaccurate reporting?
What would make ADEQ deny the permit to ADI?

I do not support this project given the close proximity to the town of Benson and the area for reasons mentioned above. There are many other places better suited for an operation such as this one. I feel that a state agency such as yourself should realize that and have some authority in this matter.

No attachments

Comment From: Danielle Middlebrook

8/17/25 @ 6:49 AM

I am a resident of Benson and live at 1426 N F Triangle Ln. I strongly value clean air in our community and am deeply concerned about the proposed Aluminum Dynamics facility.

I urge ADEQ to require the strictest possible controls on emissions of par...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]