UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 999 18TH STREET- SUITE 300

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08 

## SEP 29 2006

Ref: Ref: 8P-AR

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Jon Nickel, ASARCO, Inc. P.O. Box 1230 East Helena, MT 59635 Re: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Information Request for ASARCO East HelenaPlant, Pursuant to Section l14(a) ofthe Clean AirAct (42 U.S.C. Section 74l4(a))



# ,. DearMr. Nickel: On June 19,2006, EPA received a letter from the MontanaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality (MDEQ) that stated it was withdrawing its efforts to adopt a state implementationplan (SIP) for regional haze under EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR), found at 40 C.F.R. 51.308. Due to Montana's announcement that it would not be addressing the requirements under 40 C.F.R. 51.308, EPARegion 8 is moving forward with the technical and policywork needed to implement the requirements ofthe RHRunder a Federal ImplementationPlan (FIP). See section 110(c)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §74l0(c)(1). Pursuant to Section 114 ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §74l4, and under authority duly delegated to the undersigned, you are required to provide us with the information detailed below. This information will be used byEPA in developing a regional haze FIP, or in the event MDEQ resumes development ofaregional haze SIP, in assisting MDEQ in that effort and/orreviewing a regional haze SIP for Montana. This information request pertains to the Asarco East HelenaPlant located at 100 Smelter Road, Highway 12 East, East Helena, Montana. It

### is EPA's understanding that Asarco, Inc. is the owner and operator ofthis facility. According to records EPAreceived from MDEQ, the MDEQ sent letters to Asarco on November22,2005 and January4,2006requesting BART information for stationary sources of airpollution at the Asarco East HelenaPlant. In a June 12,2006letterto MDEQ, Asarco stated that operations have beentemporarily suspended since April 2001 at the East HelenaPlant andthat Asarco hadno immediateplans to restart operations. Asarco further statedthat based on these facts theywere not required to submit information on emission units since BARTwould not be applicable. Asarco currentlyhas a Title V OperatingPermit (MT OP2557-04) for the Asarco East Helena Plant that does not expire until April 4, 2007. As far as weknow, Asarco has not surrendered this Title V Operating Permit or anyunderlying constructionpermit(s) to the State. This means Asarco potentiallymayre-start operations under its currentpermit(s). As long as a sourcehas the ability to restart operations under its current permit(s), the source is still potentially subject to BART. There is nothing in ourRHRthat exempts sources that are temporarily shut down. Basedon these facts, EPA thinks that there couldbeBART sources at the Asarco East HelenaPlant, and EPA is seekinginformation to make this determination. BARTeligible sources are those sources that were not in operationbefore August 7, 1962, but were in existence on August 7, 1977, have the potential to emit (PTE) more than 250 tons ofvisibility impairingpollutants, and whose operations specificallyfall within one ormore of26 specifically listed source categories. (See EPA's "Guidelines for BARTDeterminations Under the Regional Haze Rule", Appendix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51.) Furthermore, information requests pursuant to section 114 ofthe CAA are not limited to sources that are regulated bythe particularrule EPA is implementing. Forexample, section 114(a)(1) says that EPA may gather information from "anyperson who owns or operates any emission source" or "who the Administratorbelieves mayhave information necessary for the purposes set forth in this subsection." Under section 114(a)(1) ofthe CAA, you are required to provide EPA Region VIII with the following: 1. A complete description ofall emission units at the plant, including, butnot limited to, the following information: • The name and location ofeach unit. • The function performedby and process involved at eachunit, and how the function ofeach unit relates to theplant operations as a whole. • The dates each unit was "inoperation." • Whether each unit was ever completely orpartiallyrebuilt. Ifa unit was completely orpartiallyrebuilt, when was the unit rebuilt, the**dat~s** the unit was "inoperation" after it was rebuilt, and what were the fixed capital costs associated withtherebuild. • Whether each unit was "inexistence" on August 7, 1977. • Whether each unit is still in operation, and ifnot, when it stopped operating. • ThePTE for each unit for S02, NOx, and PM IO and any otherpollutants that may affect visibility, such as ammonia and volatile organic compounds (see 70 FR 39160), and the assumptions and calculations on which the estimates ofPTE are based. 2• The highest 24-hour emissionrates for S02, NOx, and PMJO from each unit during the mostrecent three years that the plant was in full operation. Relevant terms are defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and 51.308. 2. The informationthat is requested onthe attached spreadsheets; 3. A complete description ofAsarco's plans for future operations at the Asarco East HelenaPlant, including, butnot limited to, the following information:

• Asarco's plans regarding its Title V permit for the plant. Forexample, does Asarco intend to renew or surrenderits Title V permit or let it expire? Describe the factors that will influence Asarco's decisions regarding its Title V permit; • Whether Asarco intends to surrenderits constructionpermit(s) for theplant. • A description ofthe reasons Asarco has not surrendered its airpermits at this time. • An explanation whyAsarco told the state that it has only shut down "temporarily." • Whether Asarco intends to restart orwould considerrestarting anyplant operations and ifso, when and underwhat conditions. • Ifthere are no conditions underwhich Asarco wouldrestart plant operations, what Asarco intends to do withthe plant and the equipment located at the site. • WhetherAsarco has considered orwould consider selling the plantto another entity. • WhetherAsarco agrees that the plant would be subject to major source PSD permitting ifAsarco everrestarted operation ofthe plant. The information required bythis lettermustbe submitted and postmarked within thirty (30) business days from the date ofreceipt ofthis letter. A duly authorized officer or agent of Asarco, Inc. must certify as true, accurate, and completeAsarco's response to this information request by signing the enclosed Statement ofCertification and returning it with Asarco's response. Such officer oragent must have sufficient knowledge and authority to make such representations onbehalfofAsarco. Please submitthe information to: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 

### Vill 999 18th Street

- Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202-2466 Attention: Laurel Dygowski, 8P-AR Pursuant to section 114(c) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7414(c), and 40 CFRPart 2, Subpart B, Asarco is entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim covering anypart ofthe submitted information. Failureto assert such a claim makes the submitted information subject to public disclosure uponrequest and without further notice to you, pursuantto the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.c. Section 552. Information subjectto abusiness confidentiality claim mayonlybemade available to thepublic in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. 

### 3

### EPA has the authorityto use any ofthe infonnationrequiredbythis letter in developing a FIP for regional haze pursuant to the CAA, in assisting in development of, orin reviewing, a regional haze SIP, or in carrying out otherresponsibilities or actions underthe CAA as described in section 114(a) ofthe CAA. A knowing submittal offalse infonnationinresponse to this request maybe actionable under Section 113(c)(2) ofthe CAA, as well as 18 U.S.c. §§1001 and 1341. Failure to comply fully with the tenns ofthis request may subject Asarco to an enforcement action under Section 113 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. §74l3. Also enclosed with this Request for Infonnation is a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA) infonnation sheet. The requirements ofthis letter are not subject to the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1980, 44 U.S.C. §3501 

### etseq. Sincerely,

# (~i 

# ....---< 

# c/ {L'_-:yf,<---&{ 

# fStephen S. Tuber ' Assistant Regional Administrator Office ofPartnerships and Regulatory Assistance

4 

# *

Printed on Recycled Paper

### November 28, 2006



## u. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIn 999 18th 

### Street

- Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202-2466 Attention: Laurel Dygowski, 8P-AR

Re: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Information Request for Asarco East HelenaPlant, Pursuant to Section 114(a) ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7414(a))­ Response to Information Request

- ASARCO LLC East Helena Plant

DearMs. Dygowski: On October 2, 2006, ASARCO LLC (Asarco) received a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) dated September 29, 2006 requesting information on the stationary "air sources located at the East Helena Plant. It 

### is Asarco's understanding that the information requested by the USEPA and supplied by Asarco under this information request will be used to implement the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) under a Federal Implementation Plan. The information sought in EPA's September 29, 2006 information request was originally to be submitted by Asarco within thirty (30) business days from the date ofreceipt of the letter, or no later than November 10, 2006. Asarco requested, and the USEPA granted an extension to Asarco for submitting this information no later than December 1, 2006. 40 CFR 51.308(e) contains regulations that require certain types ofexisting stationary sources ofair pollution install best available retrofit technology (BART). The USEPA's September 29, 2006 information request requires that Asarco identify and list BART-eligible sources whose operations fall within one or more of26 specifically listed source categories, were in place during a 15-year window oftime from 1962 to 1977, and have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of visibility impairing pollutant. In formulating responses to the USEPA's information request, Asarco employed the three-tiered guidance contained in Appendix Y to Part 51 (Guidelines for BART Determination Under the Regional Haze Rule). Finally, the responses contained in this submittal were reviewed with .Tulie Merkel (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Specialist) who is familiar with the Regional Haze Rule regulations and similar information requests. Step 1 -IdentifyEmission Units in the BARTCategories 

### The BART requirement only applies to sources in specific categories listed in the Clean Air Act. Primary lead smelters are listed as one ofthe 26 specific BART source categories. The Asarco East Helena Plant is designated as a primary lead smelter and, therefore meets the definition ofa BART category. ASARCO LLC

- East Helena Plant J00 Smelter Road, P.O.**Bo~** )2-:30, East Helena, MT 59635 Tel (406) 227-4098 Fax (406) 227-2256

### Step 2 - 

### IdentifYthe Start-Up o(theEmission Units 

### Emission units identified in Step 1 are BART-eligible only ifthey were "in existence" on August 7, 1977 but were not "in operation" before August 7, 1962 or were reconstructed sources. Based on these criteria and using the emission sources identified in Asarco's Title V Pennit (#2557-03) and the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Emission Inventory Summary, six (6) potential BART-eligible emission units located at the Asarco East Helena Plant meet the 15-year window of time from 1962 to 1977 or were reconstructed sources. These sources include the 1) sinter plant baghouse stack, 2) acid plant stack, 3) high grade building, 4) acid plant Cottrell penthouse, 5) acid plant pump tank building, and 6) acid plant scrubber tower. The sources that ventilate gases through the sinter plant baghouse stack have been demolished and are no longer in existence. The four sources associated with the acid plant are not BART-eligible since the construction and use of these structures were directly related to controlling sulfur dioxide air pollution emissions. Step 3 - Compare thePotentialEmissions to the 250 Tons/Yr Cutoff 

### Finally, the high grade building does not have the potential to emit 250 tons/year of any single visibility impairing pollutant, and therefore is not BART-eligibility. Based on the guidelines contained in Appendix Y ofPart 51 and in consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Asarco has concluded that the East Helena Plant does not contain any stationary sources that are BART-eligible under the RHR. Consistent with this finding, Asarco is not providing air dispersion modeling infonnation. A spreadsheet that fully supports the conclusions described in this response is attached to this submittal. With respect to the additional infonnation requested in the USEPA's September 29, 2006 letter, Asarco plans on retaining its Title V pennit, as described in Asarco's September 25, 2006 letter to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Asarco does not intend to surrender its construction pennit(s) for the East Helena Plant. The Asarco East Helena operating status is "indefinitely suspended". Asarco preserves its right to re-start under its fonner operating status or under a new operating status, the conditions ofwhich have yet to be detennined. Asarco would consider selling the plant to another entity. Asarco neither acknowledges nor denies that it would be subject to majorPSD pennitting ifthe East Helena Plant were to restart operations. Ifyou have any questions relating to this response, please feel free to contact me at (406) 227-4529. Sincerely,· , .'

# 01,-i~~(jl'i 

# D**(~!~on** Nickel Environmental Manager Attachments: Certification Spreadsheet

- 2 ­UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08

Ret': 8P-AR Jon Nickel 

## FEB 2 6 2007 /\SARCO, Inc. P.O. Box 1230 East I-Ielena, MT 59635 Re: Results ofSubject to Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation Dear 

### Mr. Nickel: On September 29, 2006, EPA Region 8 sent ASARCO (Asarco) a letter requesting Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) information for the Asarco East Helena Plant located at 100 Smelter Road, Highway]:2 East, East Helena, Montana. Asarco responded to this letter on November 28,2006. We have reviewed Asarco's response and are writing to notifY you ofour preliminary findings. In the November 2R. 2006 letter, Asarco indicated that there are potentially six BART eligible units at its East I!elena Plant. The units Asarco identified as potentially BART eligible are the sinter plant baghouse stack OP), the acid plant stack (8P), the acid plant pump tank building (24V), the acid plant scrubber tower (27V), the Cottrell Penthouse (7V), and the high grade building dumping area (4V). However, according to Asarco, the operating status ofthe i\.sarco**I~ast** Helena Plant is "indefinitely suspended," and the sources that ventilate emissions through the stacks have been demolished or will be demolished. Based on the statements in your November 28, 2006 letter, as well as information we gathered from other sources, it is our understanding that all ofthe units mentioned above are no longer capable ofemitting pollutants through the stacks. ]n addition. we understand that Asarco is in the process ofcleaning up and reclaiming the East I!elena Plant site. These facts indicate the plant has been permanently shut down. While Asarco's ] 14 response contains indefinite statements regarding the plant's future, the demolition ofcritical parts ofthe plant indicate the plant will not operate again without major reconstruction. Thus, we will be making no t'urtber determination on the BART eligibility ofthese sources at this time. As a corollary to this decision, it is ourview that Asarco cannot rely on existing permits if it seeks to replace units that have been demolished and restart the plant. These would be new units for PSD purposes, and a new pre-construction permit would be needed. We have spokenwith the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality and they agree with us on this isslIc. I

### f for some rcason Asarco is able to rebuild and restart the plant without a new pre-construction permit, we reserve the right to revisit the issue ofBART eligibility. If you would like to discuss this mattcr further, please feel free to contact Laurel Dygowski at (303) 312-6144. Sincerely,

,.**(~.** c .(

### tic'**C'L~('** . /. (' I

.

... ...... .**~;** Melanie Pallmari, Acting Director Air and Radiation Program

2 @printedon Recycled Paper