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 

Helena Plant, Pursuant to Section l14(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 

74l4(a)) 

,. Dear Mr. Nickel: 

On June 19,2006, EPA received a letter from the Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) that stated it was withdrawing its efforts to adopt a state implementation plan 

(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, EPA Region 8 is moving forward with the technical and policy work needed to 

implement the requirements of the RHR under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). See section 

110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §74l0(c)(1). 

Pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (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 by EPA in developing a regional haze FIP, or in 

the event MDEQ resumes development ofa regional haze SIP, in assisting MDEQ in that effort 

and/or reviewing a regional haze SIP for Montana. 

This information request pertains to the Asarco East Helena Plant 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 EPA received from MDEQ, the MDEQ sent letters to Asarco on 

November 22,2005 and January 4,2006 requesting BART information for stationary sources of 

air pollution at the Asarco East Helena Plant. In a June 12,2006 letter to MDEQ, Asarco stated 

that operations have been temporarily suspended since April 2001 at the East Helena Plant and 
that Asarco had no immediate plans to restart operations. Asarco further stated that based on 

these facts they were not required to submit information on emission units since BART would 

not be applicable. 

Asarco currently has a Title V Operating Permit (MT OP2557-04) for the Asarco East 

Helena Plant that does not expire until April 4, 2007. As far as we know, Asarco has not 

surrendered this Title V Operating Permit or any underlying construction permit(s) to the State. 

This means Asarco potentially may re-start operations under its current permit(s). As long as a 

source has the ability to restart operations under its current permit(s), the source is still 

potentially subject to BART. There is nothing in our RHR that exempts sources that are 

temporarily shut down. 

Based on these facts, EPA thinks that there could be BART sources at the Asarco East 

Helena Plant, and EPA is seeking information to make this determination. BART eligible 

sources are those sources that were not in operation before August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, have the potential to emit (PTE) more than 250 tons of visibility 

impairing pollutants, and whose operations specifically fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. (See EPA's "Guidelines for BART Determinations 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 by the particular rule EPA is implementing. For example, section 

114(a)(1) says that EPA may gather information from "any person who owns or operates any 

emission source" or "who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the 

purposes set forth in this subsection." 

Under section 114(a)(1) of the CAA, you are required to provide EPA Region VIII with 

the following: 

1. A complete description of all emission units at the plant, including, but not limited 

to, the following information: 

•	 The name and location of each unit. 

•	 The function performed by and process involved at each unit, and how the 

function of each unit relates to the plant operations as a whole. 

•	 The dates each unit was "in operation." 

•	 Whether each unit was ever completely or partially rebuilt. If a unit was 

completely or partially rebuilt, when was the unit rebuilt, the dat~s the unit was 

"in operation" after it was rebuilt, and what were the fixed capital costs associated 

with the rebuild. 

•	 Whether each unit was "in existence" on August 7, 1977. 

•	 Whether each unit is still in operation, and if not, when it stopped operating. 

•	 The PTE for each unit for S02, NOx, and PMIO and any other pollutants that may 

affect visibility, such as ammonia and volatile organic compounds (see 70 FR 

39160), and the assumptions and calculations on which the estimates of PTE are 

based. 

2 
•	 The highest 24-hour emission rates for S02, NOx, and PMJO from each unit during 

the most recent three years that the plant was in full operation. 

Relevant terms are defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and 51.308. 

2.	 The information that is requested on the attached spreadsheets; 

3. A complete description ofAsarco's plans for future operations at the Asarco 

East Helena Plant, including, but not limited to, the following information: 

•	 Asarco's plans regarding its Title V permit for the plant. For example, does 

Asarco intend to renew or surrender its 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 surrender its construction permit(s) for the plant. 

•	 A description ofthe reasons Asarco has not surrendered its air permits at this 

time. 

•	 An explanation why Asarco told the state that it has only shut down 

"temporarily." 

•	 Whether Asarco intends to restart or would consider restarting any plant 

operations and if so, when and under what conditions. 

•	 If there are no conditions under which Asarco would restart plant operations, what 

Asarco intends to do with the plant and the equipment located at the site. 

•	 Whether Asarco has considered or would consider selling the plant to another 

entity. 

•	 Whether Asarco agrees that the plant would be subject to major source PSD 

permitting if Asarco ever restarted operation of the plant. 

The information required by this letter must be 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 complete Asarco's response to this information 

request by signing the enclosed Statement ofCertification and returning it with Asarco's 

response. Such officer or agent must have sufficient knowledge and authority to make such 

representations on behalfof Asarco. Please submit the information to: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region Vill
 

999 18th Street - Suite 200
 

Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
 

Attention: Laurel Dygowski, 8P-AR
 

Pursuant to section 114(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7414(c), and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart 

B, Asarco is entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim covering any part ofthe submitted 

information. Failure to assert such a claim makes the submitted information subject to public 

disclosure upon request and without further notice to you, pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.c. Section 552. Information subject to a business confidentiality claim 

may only be made available to the public in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. 

3 
EPA has the authority to use any ofthe infonnation required by this letter in developing a 

FIP for regional haze pursuant to the CAA, in assisting in development of, or in reviewing, a 

regional haze SIP, or in carrying out other responsibilities or actions under the CAA as described 

in section 114(a) of the CAA. 

A knowing submittal offalse infonnation in response to this request may be 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 of the 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 of this letter are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 

44 U.S.C. §3501 et seq. 

Sincerely, 

(~i ....---< c/ {L'_-:yf,<---&{ fStephen S. Tuber ' 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

Office of Partnerships 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 

Helena Plant, Pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7414(a))­

Response to Information Request - ASARCO LLC East Helena Plant 

Dear Ms. 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 of receipt 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 of existing stationary sources of air 

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 of 26 specifically listed source categories, were in place during a 15-year 

window of time 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 -Identify Emission Units in the BART Categories 

The BART requirement only applies to sources in specific categories listed in the Clean Air Act. 

Primary lead smelters are listed as one of the 26 specific BART source categories. The Asarco East 

Helena Plant is designated as a primary lead smelter and, therefore meets the definition of a 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 - IdentifY the Start-Up o(the Emission Units 

Emission units identified in Step 1 are BART-eligible only if they 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 of Environmental 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 the Potential Emissions 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 of Part 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 of which 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 major PSD pennitting if the East Helena Plant were to restart operations. 

If you have any questions relating to this response, please feel free to contact me at (406) 227-4529. 

Sincerely,· , .' 

01,-i~~(jl'iD (~!~on Nickel 

Environmental Manager 

Attachments:	 Certi fication 

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 of Subject 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 of our 

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 of the 

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 of the units mentioned above are no longer capable of emitting pollutants 

through the stacks. ]n addition. we understand that Asarco is in the process of cleaning 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 of critical 

parts of the plant indicate the plant will not operate again without major reconstruction. Thus, 

we will be making no t'urtber determination on the BART eligibility of these sources at this time. 

As a corollary to this decision, it is our view 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 spoken 
with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and they agree with us on this isslIc. 

If 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 of BART eligibility. 

If you would like to discuss this mattcr further, please feel free to contact Laurel 

Dygowski at (303) 312-6144. 

Sincerely, 

,. (~. c .(ti c' C'L~(' . /. (' I . ... ...... . ~;

Melanie Pallmari, Acting Director 

Air and Radiation Program 

2 

@printed on Recycled Paper