7272 E. INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 360 

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85251 

TELEPHONE: 480-505-3900 

FACSIMILE: 480-505-3901 

ERIC L. HISER 

DIRECT LINE: 480-505-3927 

e-mail: ehiser@jordenbischoff.com

LAW OFFICES

JORDEN BISCHOFF

& HISER, P.L.C.

 March 20, 2013 

Mr. Balaji Vaidyanathan 

Air Permit Section Manager, Air Quality Division 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

1110 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

 Re: BART Demonstration for ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Dear Balaji: 

 As requested, ASARCO LLC—Hayden Operations (“Asarco”) has prepared a “best 

available retrofit technology” or BART demonstration for particulate matter to assist the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) in its response to EPA’s proposed partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the Section 308 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

(the “308 SIP”). Asarco has provided a revised analysis of its BART-eligible units, a revised 

subject to BART analysis, and a BART determination for particulate matter. Asarco does not 

believe that additional BART analysis is needed for sulfur dioxide emissions for the reasons set 

forth in its comments on EPA’s proposed partial approval and partial disapproval, which Asarco 

hereby incorporates in this response. Similarly, Asarco agrees with ADEQ and EPA that a 

BART analysis for nitrogen oxide emissions is not required due to their de minimis character. 

 Please call Jack Garrity, Asarco’s Hayden Smelter Technical Services Manager, at 520-

356-3284, or me at 480-505-3927, if you have any questions about this submittal. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Eric L. Hiser 

 Counsel for Asarco 

Attachments 

Cc: J. Garrity, ASARCO LLC—Hayden Operations (w/attachments) 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 1 

ASARCO LLC -- HAYDEN SMELTER 

“BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY” (BART) 

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

A. Process Description 

Production of copper from sulfide ores, typically containing less than 1% copper, requires beneficiation of the ore 

through crushing, grinding and froth flotation. Such separation process liberates copper-bearing minerals from the 

host rock and yields a mineral-enriched material that typically contains 20 to 30 percent copper, commonly 

referred to as “concentrate”. The concentrate must be further processed by smelting to produce usable copper. 

The Hayden copper smelting process includes 3 steps: smelting concentrate in the INCO Flash Furnace to produce 

molten matte, converting matte to blister copper, and fire refining blister copper to produce anodes for electrolytic 

refining. Concentrate is combined in the bedding plant with siliceous flux and recycled process materials, and the 

resultant furnace feed is dried in the fluid-bed dryers. The dried feed is introduced, along with combustion 

oxygen, into an INCO oxygen flash furnace where iron and sulfur in the feed combust, or “flash” in the hightemperature, oxygen-rich furnace atmosphere. The resultant molten material collects at the bottom of the furnace 

as a “bath” where it naturally separates into two layers, matte and slag. This smelting process eliminates 

approximately 60 percent of the iron and sulfur in the concentrate. Iron oxidizes and combines with silica flux to 

form a molten slag, and sulfur oxidizes to sulfur dioxide gas (SO2), which is sent through a gas cleaning system 

and then to the acid plant to be made into sulfuric acid. The copper-rich layer, matte, is tapped from the furnace 

and directed via ventilated launders into ladles that are staged below the furnace floor. Matte typically contains 

45 to 65 percent copper. Once the ladles are filled, they are moved into the converter aisle for crane transfer to the 

converters. The slag is skimmed into a slag pot for movement to the slag cooling or deposition area. 

The Hayden Smelter utilizes five Peirce-Smith furnaces to convert matte to blister copper. Overhead cranes 

transfer the matte-filled ladles from the flash furnace to the converters. Converting consists of blowing air or 

oxygen-enriched air through the molten bath and adding siliceous flux and other copper-bearing materials at 

various times during the process to control bath temperature and to facilitate the chemical reactions that allow the 

formation of an iron/silica slag. A typical cycle converts ten ladles of matte to four ladles of blister copper (98% 

to 99% pure copper). 

 

Each converter at the Hayden smelter is equipped with primary and secondary hooding systems. The primary 

hooding system is designed to capture the SO2-containing gases that are evolved while the converters are blowing 

or “rolled-in”. These gases are routed through a gas cleaning system to remove particulate matter before reporting 

to the acid plant for conversion to sulfuric acid. The acid plant tail gas reports to the center of the facility’s 1,000-

foot stack. The secondary hooding system is designed to capture fugitive gases and particulates that escape the 

primary hoods or are emitted when the converter is “rolled-out” for skimming and charging. Gases that are 

collected by the secondary hoods are directed to a baghouse for particulate matter removal before being exhausted 

to the atmosphere via the annulus of the facility’s 1,000-foot stack. 

Blister copper produced by the converters is transferred to the anode furnaces via ladle and overhead crane. After 

being filled with two to three charges from the converters, air is introduced into the anode furnace to further refine 

the copper. Impurities within the copper bath form an oxide slag which is removed from the furnace and returned 

to the converters. After the slag is removed, natural gas is bubbled through the molten bath to reduce oxidized 

copper back to metallic copper. The resultant fire-refined copper (approximately 99.4% pure) is then cast into 

specifically designed shapes (anodes) and shipped by rail cars and trucks to the Amarillo copper refiner for final 

electrorefining to produce cathode copper (99.95% pure). 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 2 

B. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIALLY BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS. 

Based on EPA’s Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 ASARCO LLC (“Asarco”) 

has reviewed the Hayden Smelter’s individual primary smelting units to determine whether they are BARTeligible consistent with the Act’s and the Guidelines’ requirements. Under the Act and Guidelines, once a source 

is determined to be BART-eligible, the start-up dates of each BART emission unit must be identified.2

 In general, 

a unit that was “in existence” on August 7, 1977, but not “in operation” before August 7, 1962, is a BART-eligible 

unit. 

The best general reference for the construction dates of the potentially BART-eligible equipment at the Hayden 

Smelter is Attachment “C” to Asarco’s Title V Operating Permit No. 1000042. This permit lists the following 

equipment and dates: 

Unit Installation Date BART-eligible?

2 x Concentrate Dryers 1983 No, post 1977 

1 x Inco Flash Furnace 1983 No, post 1977 

5 x Converters Various See below 

2 x Anode Furnaces (#1 and #2) 1971 Yes 

1 x Anode Furnace (#0) 2001 No, post 1977 

Acid Plant 1983 No, post 1977 

The concentrate dryers, INCO flash furnace and acid plant were installed as part of a single modernization effort 

that occurred after the BART applicability date and were, accordingly, not “in existence” on August 7, 1977 as 

that term is defined in the BART regulations and Guidelines.

3

 

Asarco agrees that anode furnaces #1 and #2 were installed in 1971, operating no later than 1973, and are BARTeligible units.4

 Anode furnace #0 was installed in 2001 and is not BART-eligible because it was not “in 

existence” during the BART-eligibility period.5

 

The converters present a more complex picture. Based on a historical narrative authored by E. S. Godsey, Asarco 

commenced operation of the Hayden Smelter in 1912 with two converters, and operated with three converters of 

various sizes and configurations between the years of 1913 and 1966. Recent research of engineering and 

purchasing records indicates that one of the existing converters, #2, pre-dates the BART-eligibility period, and 

that one converter was added and three converters were replaced with larger units during the BART-eligibility 

period. At this time, Asarco believes that the following units are BART-eligible: 

 Converter #1 - Installed in 1966. BART-eligible. 

 Converter #2 - Purchased and installed in 1949/50 and still operating. Not BART-eligible. 

 Converter #3 - Replaced a 10’x26’ unit with a 13’x33’ unit in 1965. BART-eligible. 

 Converter #4 - Replaced a 13’x30’ unit with a 13’x33’ unit in 1966. BART-eligible. 

 Converter #5 - Replaced a 13’x30’ unit with a 13’x35’ unit in 1975. BART-eligible. 

A copy of the purchase order for converter #2 is attached. Accordingly, anode furnace #1, anode furnace #2, 

converter #1, converter #3, converter #4 and converter #5 are the only BART-eligible units. 

                                                           

1

 40 C.F.R. Part 51, App. Y [hereinafter Guidelines]. Asarco notes that the Guidelines are guidelines only and that the State 

retains discretion to weigh the five BART factors as it sees fit. Guidelines, § I.F.1. 2 Guidelines, § II.A.2. 3

 Permit 1000042, Attachment “C”; see also Guidelines, § II.A.2. 4

 Permit 1000042, Attachment “C”. 

5

 Permit 1000042, Attachment “C”; see also Guidelines, § II.A.2. 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 3 

C. SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS

Asarco acknowledges that ADEQ and the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) modeled the Hayden 

Smelter during development of the Section 308 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). Based on that 

modeling, the Hayden Smelter was shown to be “subject to BART” because it caused a visibility impact of greater 

than 0.5 dv at the most affected Class I area. While Asarco believes that the WRAP modeling effort used 

inappropriate potential to emit, rather than “steady-state operating conditions during periods of high capacity 

utilization” as recommended by the Guidelines,6 Asarco concedes that the Hayden Smelter’s converters #1, #3, 

#4, #5 and anode furnaces #1 and #2 are subject to BART for SO2 and possibly particulate matter, although 

particulate matter contributions to visibility impairment are de minimis.

7

 The Hayden Smelter’s NOx emissions 

are de minimis. 8

 Asarco also notes that the highest visibility contribution from the Smelter’s NOx emissions is 

0.01 dv in any area, and only 0.04 dv for all areas cumulatively.9

 EPA has proposed to approve the determination 

that BART for NOx is not required. 77 Fed. Reg. at 75721. 

D. PARTICULATE BART ANALYSIS 

Asarco has followed Arizona’s seven step BART determination process set forth in the Arizona Section 308 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

Step 1: Identify the Existing Control Technologies in Use at the Source 

According to Air Quality Permit 1000042, issued by ADEQ on October 9, 2001, the Hayden Smelter has installed 

and operates the following control technologies on the equipment subject-to-BART: 

Converters #1, #3, #4 and #5 

Primary hoods routed to cyclones, wet gas cleaning section, and acid plant 

 Secondary hoods routed to secondary hood baghouse 

Anode furnaces #1 and #2 

 No controls 

Substantial modifications have been made to the Hayden Smelter’s particulate matter emissions control systems 

since 1977. In 1998, Asarco made a modification to the Smelter’s existing gas handling system, and installed an 

$18.4 million wet gas handling system. This modification allowed the flash furnace off gas to be treated at 

temperatures that are less than 200° F, approximately 400° F less than the previous system. Due to the lower 

temperatures, the volume of gas being vented from the flash furnace was reduced, enabling the acid plant to 

provide additional ventilation to the converters. This additional ventilation allowed the secondary hoods to 

capture more particulate matter emissions from the converter building. 

Asarco installed the anode furnace baghouse in late 2011 as part of a “beyond RACT” commitment to the 

Governor of Arizona because the Hayden Smelter is located in an area that was being considered for lead 

nonattainment designation. Asarco believes that the anode furnace baghouse is also a “beyond BART” control 

and demonstrates the basis for its belief below. Asarco does not intend for the anode furnace baghouse to be 

construed as BART because it intends to rely on emissions reductions from the anode furnace baghouse project to 

                                                           

6 Guidelines, § III.A.3, Option 1(2). 7

 Environ, “Updated CALPUFF BART Modeling for the Asarco Hayden Facility,” at 6-7 (Mar. 4, 2013) [hereinafter Environ 

Modeling Report]. 

8

 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C). 

9

 Environ Report, at 6-7. 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 4 

facilitate the converter aisle retrofit, a beyond-BART project aimed at achieving attainment of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

Steps 2-3: (2) Identify all available retrofit control technologies with practical potential for application 

to the specific emission unit for the regulated pollutant under consideration; and (3) 

eliminate all technically infeasible control technologies. 

In the Section 308 Arizona Regional Haze SIP, ADEQ determined that the Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation’s 

continuous production of blister copper is a fundamentally different process from the process employed by 

Asarco’s Hayden Smelter. ADEQ has also determined that BART does not contain a requirement that the source 

be redesigned when the Agency considers the available control alternatives. As a result, ADEQ concluded that it 

is not necessary to consider the use of Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation’s process as a potential BART 

alternative. Section 308 SIP, § XII.C, at 88. EPA concurred with this determination. 77 Fed. Reg. 75704, 75726 

(Dec. 21, 2012). Asarco also concurs. 

Evaluation of possible control technologies. The following technologies are potentially available for particulate 

matter control from the converters and anode furnaces: 

Double contact acid plant (existing on converter primary) 

Baghouse (existing on converter secondary) 

Wet scrubbing 

Hot electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 

Cyclone/multiclone 

Technical feasibility. The converter primary off-gas stream is controlled by cyclones, wet scrubbers, and the acid 

plant. Additional controls are not deemed feasible due to the highly corrosive nature of the off-gas and the 

fineness of the particulate that may be escaping.10 Acid plants are not technically feasible for the converter 

secondary gas stream, converter tertiary ventilation, or the anode furnaces due to the low concentration of SO2

present (estimated to be well below 1%). 

The converter secondary off-gas stream is controlled by the secondary hood baghouse, which represents the most 

effective of available technologies, and addition of a less effective control thereafter is judged technically 

infeasible and unncessary. 

An ESP is judged technically infeasible for the tertiary ventilation system because the inlet particulate loading is 

too low. An ESP is technically infeasible for the anode furnaces because of the explosion hazard that would result 

during poling operations when natural gas is introduced into the furnaces and subsequently evacuated to the 

baghouse.11

Step 4. Ranking of Control Effectiveness. 

Primary off-gas. Asarco’s technical experts were not able to identify any control technology that would result in 

more substantial particulate matter emission reductions than the present combination of cyclones, wet scrubbers, 

and double absorption, double contact acid plant.12 Because the cyclone, wet scrubber and double contact acid 

plant system is the best available technology and it is already applied, no further consideration of other 

technologies is required for the primary off-gas stream.13

                                                           

10 Gas Cleaning Technologies, “Assistance for BART Determination,” at 1 (Mar. 19, 2013) [hereinafter GCT Report]. 11 GCT Report, at 2. 

12 GCT Report, at 1. 

13 Guidelines, § IV.D.1(9). 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 5 

Secondary off-gas. Similarly, Asarco’s technical experts were not able to identify any control technology that 

would result in more substantial particulate matter emission reduction than the present secondary hood baghouse 

for the converter secondary off-gas stream.14 Because the secondary hood baghouse is the most effective control 

technology, no further consideration of other technologies is required for the secondary off-gas stream.15 

The remaining technologies under consideration for converter fugitives and the anode furnace particulate 

emissionss are: 

Tertiary Ventilation: Baghouse, 99.5% control 

 Wet Scrubber, 90% control 

 Cyclone/multiclone, 0% control 

 

Anode Furnaces: Baghouse, 99.5% control 

 Wet Scrubber, 90% control 

 Cyclone/multiclone, 0% control 

 

Steps 5-7. (5) Evaluate energy and non-air quality environmental impacts; (6) Evaluate visibility impacts; 

and (7) select BART. 

In this step, Asarco evaluates energy, non-air quality environmental impacts, cost, and visibility impacts and 

based upon that analysis, recommends BART. Based on modeling conducted by Environ, Asarco has received an 

estimate that particulate emissions from the Hayden smelter’s BART-eligible units contribute approximately 0.04 

dv to haze at the most affected Class I area.16

Primary Off-gas. The existing combination of cyclones, wet scrubbers, and double contact double absorption 

acid plant represents BART for the primary off-gas stream because it represents the best current technology. No 

other technology would achieve similar results. This technology is already installed. BART is therefore selected 

as no further control beyond the cyclones, wet scrubbers, double contact double absorption acid plant system. 

Asarco considered the level of performance that should be achieved by this unit. Consistent with the Guidelines,17

Asarco has chosen to use the “streamlined approach” by relying on the particulate limit set for an acid plant in the 

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart QQQ, Primary Copper Smelting, 

which sets a limit of 6.2 mg/dscm non-sulfuric acid particulate matter.18 Compliance with this limit would be 

determined by annual testing in accordance with Section 63.1450(b) and continuous monitoring of scrubbing 

liquid flow rate over the final two towers in the acid plant established, reestablished and maintained in accordance 

with Section 63.1444(h). Monitoring and deviation reports will be provided at least semiannually at the time 

specified in the facility’s then current Air Quality Permit. 

Secondary Off-gas. The existing secondary hood baghouse is determined to be the best retrofit technology for the 

secondary off-gas. No other technology would achieve similar results. BART is therefore selected as no further 

controls beyond the secondary hood baghouse. Asarco considered the level of performance that should be 

achieved by this unit. Consistent with the Guidelines,19 Asarco has chosen to use the “streamlined approach” by 

relying on the particulate limit set for an acid plant in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart QQQ, Primary Copper Smelting, which sets a limit of 23 mg/dscm particulate 

matter.20 Compliance with this limit would be determined by annual testing in accordance with Section 63.1450(a) 

                                                           

14 GCT Report, at 1. 

15 Guidelines, § IV.D.1(9). 16 Environ Modeling Report, at 6-7. 

17 Guidelines, § IV.C. 18 40 C.F.R. § 63.1444(d)(5). 

19 Guidelines, § IV.C. 20 40 C.F.R. § 63.1444(d)(6). 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 6 

and use of a bag leak detection system in accordance with Section 63.1444(f). Monitoring and deviation reports 

will be provided at least semiannually at the time specified in the facility’s then current Air Quality Permit.

Tertiary Ventilation. Asarco investigated whether the addition of a tertiary collection and control system would 

reduce particulate matter emissions from the converters and correspondingly reduce visibility impacts. 

Installation of a tertiary ventilation system would require addition of side walls to the converter aisle, installation 

of canopy hoods over the converters, installation of duct work and a fan to create a draft, and additional ductwork 

to the existing stack or a new stack. Gas Cleaning Technologies (GCT) conducted a review of a tertiary 

ventilation system for the proposed converter aisle retrofit project, which utilizes only three converters instead of 

the existing five. GCT has assured Asarco that the cost of retrofitting the existing five-converter operation with 

tertiary ventilation would be equal to, or more likely greater than, the cost of capturing emissions from the three 

converter tertiary ventilation system that GCT had proposed. GCT has estimated the cost of the sheeting, 

ductwork, foundation and supports, induced draft fan, and connection to the main stack annulus at $19 million.21 

Operating costs are estimated at $400,000 a year. The total annualized cost of the tertiary ventilation system, 

before any control device is added, is thus $1.35 million. Asarco estimates that approximately 17.34 tons of 

particulate matter/year are lost to the atmosphere through fugitive emissions, based on the highest emissions in 

2001-2003.22 Based on this, Asarco estimates that the cost of installing any system would be at least $77,854/ton, 

even before adding the actual control device and assuming that all particulate matter was captured and controlled. 

Asarco has also considered the likely visibility impacts. As noted in Asarco’s comments, Environ modeled the 

impact of the Hayden Smelter on the most affected Class I area at 0.04 dv.23 This gives a cost per deciview of 

approximately $33.75 million/dv assuming that the control totally eliminated particulate visibility impacts, which 

is unlikely. Given the extremely small visibility impact and the magnitude of the costs incurred, Asarco 

determines that BART is no tertiary ventilation control.

Anode Furnaces. In 1977 through 2011, the anode furnaces were uncontrolled. In 2011, Asarco installed a 

baghouse on the anode furnaces as part of a voluntary commitment to the Governor of Arizona to install a “better 

than RACT” control on these units. Asarco’s position is that the anode furnace baghouse is not required to meet 

BART requirements under Clean Air Act section 169A. To test this proposition, Asarco offers the following cost 

information: 

Capital cost of anode furnace capture ducting (required for any system):24 $5,700,000 

Annualized capital cost (from above, 20 year amortization): $ 285,000 

Operating cost of anode furnace capture system (required for any system):25 $ 350,000 

Annualized total cost for capture system only: $ 635,000 

Total uncontrolled particulate matter emissions: 26 80.06 tons/yr 

Total controlled particulate matter emissions (permit limit at 0.003 gr/scf):27 7.85 tons/yr 

Tons particulate matter controlled (assumes baghouse): 72.21 tons/yr 

Maximum possible dv impact, any area: 28 0.04 dv 

Cost, $/ton, capture system only : $8,794/ton 

Cost, $/dv, capture system only: $15,875,000/dv 

                                                           

21 GCT Report, at 1. The $35 million includes a baghouse; $19 million is estimated for the capture system alone. 

22 2003 Emissions Inventory. This differs from the GCT Report, which used 27 tons based on potential to emit. 

23 Environ Modeling Report, at 6-7. 

24 Communication with GCT, March 19, 2013. 

25 Asarco internal cost records. 

26 2001 Emissions Inventory. This is the highest value during the three year period. 

27 Permit 54251. 

28 Environ Report, at 6-7. 
ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Demonstration 

March 20, 2013 

Page 7 

The cost of a baghouse, wet scrubber, or cyclone/multiclone would be in addition to the costs listed above. For 

example, the “beyond RACT” baghouse cost approximately $3 million (total project cost: $8.7 million)29 and if 

this were added, the costs would increase to approximately $10,870/ton and $19.6 million/dv. 

Wet scrubbers also have a number of operational and environmental impacts. Initially, a wet scrubber would 

require approximately 25-50 gpm of scrubbing liquid.30 In addition to the water itself, the resulting sludge 

mixture must be treated and the solids either landfilled or recycled into the system. Establishing a sludge drying 

system would add to the cost and could add emissions if drying requires more than air assist, which Asarco judges 

likely given the volume of water to solids. Natural gas drying adds to the emissions impacts, partially offsetting 

the benefits. Electric drying would be costly and would increase emissions elsewhere. Scrubbing reagents may 

render material less amenable to reprocessing. Based on the number and types of adverse environmental effects 

from wet scrubbing, it does not appear to be a desirable option for controlling this exhaust gas stream at the 

Hayden smelter. 

Cyclone/multiclones do not share the environmental downsides of the wet scrubber, but will not control significant 

particulate.31 They are therefore excluded from further consideration. 

Based on the foregoing evaluation, Asarco believes that the benefits of control, which amount to at most 0.04 dv, 

are outweighed by the substantial costs and, for wet scrubbers, by the adverse environmental effects of water 

consumption and sludge management. Asarco also notes that the particulate matter reductions achieved by the 

anode furnace baghouse project were undertaken to prepare for the converter aisle retrofit project, which is relying 

in part upon the emissions reductions in the anode furnace project. The converter aisle retrofit project is 

anticipated to bring additional particulate matter reductions through a redesign of the converter aisle, which 

should provide “beyond BART” levels of control. BART is therefore determined to be no controls for the anode 

furnaces. 

                                                           

29 Communication with GCT, March 19, 2013; Asarco internal cost records. 

30 Communication with GCT, March 15, 2013. 

31 Communication with GCT, March 15, 2013. 
1 - C.C.~Air )'.&11 

a - W••tern Engineering Dept. (C.C.Burt) , .. H.L.Plaaa M-19'" . 1 - I.MeL.tittmann 

1,&;1' Ha.Yd...cn-10'f 

All1a-Cbalmers Mrg. C";. I Inc., 

50 Cburoh Street 

New York ·1. N.Y. December 30. 1948 

\ . DPaIC 

American Smelting and Refining Co:nI=8l'l7 , 

Hayden, Ariz one. . . .\. 

CMS1.'P&P-cRI&P-SP 

/ 


AnH?rican Smelting am ·Retining Com~ 

13' Diam.ter X 30 t ••t long Copper P1eroe-Smith 

\7J>e Conwrter with riding rings on .nd, oo.pl.t. 

With 1-1/2" ahaU, abell ends aM buokataye. 

riding rinse, rollers, oradle., baaeplate, ru. 

par, driv1nc pinion and cvmpleta drive including 

Palk /il2D! reducer and a 75 HP. 8S0 RPM Motor, 

b. with the tollowinc mocU.tioatioMI 

n. mouth shall be as detaU;CS on drawings 0-3096 

aDd (]..3097 (stack and ataok baa•••taila) or all 

wldecl oonstruction. The location or tt. mouth 

aD.d t,uyeree Ihall be &a she_ OIl A.S.a. CCIJlpaDT 

drawinga. A. S.& R. Conpany 18 preparing a de.1ID 

ot the hood. It tha hood requires a dilf.rent. 

poaitiOIl ot tha mouth the Manufacturer will ba 

11\- the red* location. 

st.uk Plat. and b.... ahall tol1ow the general 

. de.111l ... ahOWD OIl drawiq Q-3194. '.ve oan turnilh 

ocmplete detaUa it this design is used. without ~itlcation. . 

1'uyerea shall be as ShOlCl 011 drawings G42~K and 

a-,21,. A.5.& R. Com~nv will turni8h the t~re 

val'Y!! _Patte G-l4232, the tUTe... 0 oupling,· Patte 

0-12660, the tU¥8re pipe and nut, steel ball and 

yalv••eat. . 

The cast ateel mmitold noraal., patte 0..1433.5, 

18 shown as the type or connection we will want on 

the bustle pipe. It TOU elect to us. this we can 

tumi.h the pattern• 

. .... 

.--'~" 

~' 

1M ,~ plat.. IIhGlfll oa drawl.. 4910-1 .bal.l be 

welclecl e..trution iDat.ad ot ltbe eal'irls 8hown. 

'!'he d••1p llhall be aod1tled to suit a OOI&1nuoua 

row ot \u7eN8 with the riDgl on the eDi of tbI 

e...ertera .AI ah O!I n OIl drawing P-83,. 

The Mvel joint tor the OOIlY.rt.. air shall tollow 

\M general d••igD .. showa oa draq HI-U,S 

with \be .11. wHaaed. to _it. t.hla oouverter. 

Two 11110. oharsiDI pna .. Slam OIl drawiDla 

0-,,099 and 7847-1. .ball be tum1abed., OM will 

be requ.ired. 011. each end ~ the cODYert.r. 

!he Buoklta,ra 011 each ea1 or the OOllvert... shall 

be arranaecl horizont.all7 •• mown on dra'W'iftl 

7823. Adeq~t. pr'OW'1aioD tor expanaloll ot the 

eODftrter lining Ihall be mad. b7 apl'1nc llount1nq 6, 800.00 

ot the end.. 'lot, net 

All tbe drawings reterred. to aboye ha.... alread7 . 

b•• givlD to 7OU. 

A'bov••a per specUlaationa shown in 70ur proposal 

of Marembv 8, 1948. 

Pl.... aupp17 Dlo••'817 apeoit1catiou and bIll.. 

prlllta in quadrllplioat. tor approyal b7 our 

BqinMrinI D.pa.rtm.ent aa quiokl7 aa pas81ble. 
rAGi THllEE 

• 

!be prioe ot the equipaant to be dellTered under 

'tJa1a order lhall be inorea.ed or decreased. (over 

• UDier the )ric•• theretor set, torth h:: rein) 

. 	"pia the baai' ot increa.e. ca' decrease. in the 

liarke' prio.. or the kim. or mat.riala and equip... 

... procured tor, and increase. or deerea.e. in ,lie .v.rag••;;,rned rates or the k1rda ot labor 

applied. t.o the equi)DeI1t al or the .pproximate 

'iMot euch p~t. U¥1 application, al _.pared with the mark.. pric•• or 81a1lar kind. 

er JDa.t erial. and equi}DeDt and ayera~ .amed. 

rate. ot .1m1lar kind. or labor as or NOY_ber 8. 

1948. . 18 DO event, nll any adjustment. in t.he 0 ontraot . priG. b,. reaaon ot the operation of the Claus • 

...-It. in aD iDona,e or deerea.. in the contract 

}'ria. 'u exc••• ot 1($ thereot. 

~I Cub when read7 and ortered. tar abipmant. ,!C Cae )0 clqa alt... date ot ah1~at. 

,% Caah 90 ~. atter date of .h1~~. 

IIIPM8I' While definite deli",el7' pr(8ie' 1, _._ 

tor Pour\h Q\arter. 1949, it i .......\OCMl u.a\ J'Ou will Wle fIft'r7 .ttort to .n.... o_pletiOil 

AI ...17 in the tOUl'Ul quart.er as it. is poe.ib1e to .., dependinc on arriyal ot ateel rrca t.he mill. 

Tot.al approx. IhippiDI vei&bt .. .316,000 lb•• 

CONFIRMS TliUPHONE CRDER. 

AS ABOVE 

lOB Milwaukee, Wi•• 

Cow _ct. at HaJd-. Jan1.8 f7 8, 1949 
March 4,

MEMO

To:

From:

Subject:

This Mem

modeling

impairme

BART mo

Western

Arizona R

BACKGRO

The purp

Air Act (C

remedy a

CAAA ide

Wilderne

related v

natural v

make rea

submit St

156 Class

become

the goal

further p

the term

program

more of a

August 7

categorie

performe

area.  If a

anticipat

                

1 http://pa

2 http://w

773 Sa

, 2013

ORANDUM

Eric H

Ralph

Updat

morandum p

g using revis

ent at Class

odeling follow

Regional Ai

Regional Haz

OUND

pose of the R

CAA) in the 1

any existing,

entified 156

ess Areas tha

values (AQRV

visibility cond

asonable pro

tate Implem

s I areas.  Th

long term re

that Congre

progress is ca

“BART‐eligi

.  BART‐eligi

a visibility‐im

, 1977, and

es.  Once a fa

ed to determ

a State deter

ted to cause

                     

ah.cert.ucr.edu

ww.azdeq.gov

an Marin Drive,

M

iser, Jorden,

Morris and

ted CALPUFF

presents upd

ed emission

I areas withi

wed the sam

r Partnershi

ze Rule (RHR

Regional Haz

1977 Clean A

, impairmen

mandatory

at are offere

Vs; e.g., visib

ditions in the

ogress towar

mentation Pla

hese RHR SIP

egional haze

ss set.  One

alled Best Av

ble source”

ble sources

mpairing air

whose oper

acility has be

mine if that f

rmines that

or contribut

                  

u/aqm/308/ba

v/environ/air/h

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

, Bischoff an

Lynsey Park

F BART Mod

dated CALPU

ns for the Asa

in 300 km of

me procedur

p (WRAP1) C

R) State Impl

ze Rule (RHR

Air Act Amen

t of visibility

Class I areas

ed special pr

bility and aci

e Class I area

rds the achie

ans (SIPs) to

Ps are intend

strategies t

of the tools

vailable Retr

to describe

are those so

pollutant; w

ations fall w

een determi

facility cause

the facility “

te to any im

rt.shtml

haze/download

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

1

nd Hiser, PLC

ker

eling for the

UFF Best Ava

arco Hayden

f the source

res and used

CALPUFF BAR

lementation

R), outlined i

ndments (CA

y caused by m

s that consis

otection aga

d deposition

as by 2064.

evement of t

address reg

ded to be the

to demonstr

provided to

rofit Techno

the sources

ources that h

were constru

within one or

ined to be B

es or contrib

“emits any a

pairment of

d/haze308sip.p

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

C

e Asarco Hay

ailable Retro

n facility to e

.  For consist

d the same d

RT modeling

n Plan (SIP2)

n Sections 1

AAA), is to pr

manmade so

t of specific

ainst adverse

n).  The goal

In the inter

this nationa

gional haze v

e first in a se

ate reasona

o the States t

logy (BART).

that are po

have the pot

ucted betwee

r more of the

BART‐eligible

butes to visib

ir pollutant

f visibility in

pdf

F: 415‐899‐070

yden Facility

fit Technolo

estimate visi

tency, the u

databases as

g that was us

subject‐to‐B

169A and 169

revent any f

ources at Cla

National Pa

e air quality

of the RHR

im, States a

l goal and ar

visibility imp

eries of actio

ble further p

to address r

.  The region

tentially sub

tential to em

en August 7,

e 26 specific

e, air quality

bility impairm

which may r

any such are

7

y

ogy (BART)

bility

pdated CAL

used by the

sed in the

BART analysi

9B of the Cle

future, and

ass I areas.  T

rks and

and air qua

is to achieve

re required t

re required

pairment in t

ons that will

progress tow

reasonable

nal haze rule

bject to this

mit 250 tons

, 1962 and

cally listed so

modeling is

ment at a Cla

reasonably b

ea,” then th

PUFF

e

s.   

ean

The

lity

e

to

the

ward

es use

or

ource

ass I

be

e
facility is

oxides of

The Arizo

Quality (A

modeling

Center (R

impacts a

WRAP RM

to the sta

On June

for each

screening

due to em

On June

modeling

“potentia

each yea

within 30

impairme

98th perc

300 kilom

Class I ar

emission

determin

On July 1

another s

one of th

CALPUFF

Class I ar

was 2.39

facility ca

98th perc

0.53 dv.  

PM emis

As a resu

BART‐elig

                

3 http://w

773 Sa

deemed to

f nitrogen (N

ona RHR SIP

ADEQ) addre

g conducted

RMC).  The W

at Class I are

MC CALPUFF

ates that the

9, 2006, ADE

potentially‐

g modeling a

missions fro

7, 2007, the

g analysis.  B

ally‐BART‐el

r averaged o

00 kilometer

ent of visibil

centile visibil

meters away

rea.  In most

s that contr

ned that the

13, 2007, AD

source that

he sources th

F BART mode

rea within 30

9.  As this val

aused visibil

centile visibil

As this valu

sions contrib

ult of these m

gible for PM

                     

ww.azdeq.gov

an Marin Drive,

be subject‐t

NOX), sulfur d

dated June

esses the BA

by the Wes

WRAP RMC u

eas due to po

F BART mode

en made the

EQ provided

BART‐eligibl

analysis to d

m facility.

WRAP RMC

Based upon t

igible” sourc

over three y

rs of the faci

ity in that Cl

lity impact w

y, the facility

cases where

ibuted to, or

facility was

EQ identifie

was recomm

hat the ADEQ

eling estimat

00 km of the

ue is above

ity impairme

lity impact a

e is greater t

butes to visi

modeling res

and SO2 em

                  

v/environ/air/h

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

to‐BART. Vis

dioxide (SO2

2011 prepar

ART program

stern Region

used the CAL

otential BAR

eling was a s

e subject‐to‐

d potential e

e facility to

determine th

C provided A

the CALPUFF

ce’s 98th per

ears) was gr

ility, the faci

lass I area.  S

was found to

y would be c

e a “potenti

r caused, im

“potentially

d eight sour

mended for f

Q identified

ted that the

e Asarco Hay

the 1.0 dv th

ent at a Clas

at any Class I

than 0.5 dv,

bility impair

sults, ADEQ d

missions (see

haze/download

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

2

sibility impai

) and particu

red by the A

m for sources

al Air Partne

LPUFF dispe

RT‐eligible so

screening an

BART determ

missions inf

the WRAP R

he predicted

ADEQ with th

F modeling r

rcentile visib

reater than 0

lity would b

Similarly, if t

o be greater

onsidered to

ally‐BART‐el

mpairment of

y‐subject‐to‐

rces that we

further evalu

as potential

maximum 9

yden facility

hreshold the

s I area.  The

area due to

then the AD

rment at a C

determined

e page 22 of

d/app_d.pdf

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

ring pollutan

ulate matter

Arizona Depa

s in Arizona.

ership (WRA

rsion model

ources in 7 o

nalysis whos

mination.

formation al

RMC, which p

visibility im

he results of

results, ADEQ

bility impact

0.5 deciview

be considere

the “potenti

than 1.0 dv

o cause impa

ligible” sour

f visibility in

‐BART.”  

re potential

uation.  The

lly subject‐to

98th percent

due to the s

en ADEQ con

e WRAP CAL

o the Hayden

DEQ conclud

lass I area.  

that the Asa

f Appendix D

F: 415‐899‐070

nts include e

r (PM).  

artment of E

  ADEQ relie

AP) Regional

l to simulate

of the WRAP

e informatio

ong with sta

performed a

mpairment at

the CALPUF

Q determine

(e.g., 8th hig

ws (dv) in any

d to contrib

ally‐BART‐e

in any Class

airment of v

ce was foun

a Class I are

ly‐subject‐to

Asarco Hay

o‐BART.  The

ile visibility i

source’s SO2

ncluded that

LPUFF‐estim

n facility PM

ded that the

arco Hayden

D of the AZ R

7

emissions of

Environment

ed on air qua

Modeling

e the visibilit

P States.  The

on was prov

ack paramet

a CALPUFF

t Class I area

FF BART

ed that if a

ghest value in

y Class I area

ute to

ligible” sour

s I area less t

visibility in th

nd to have

ea, ADEQ

o‐BART and

den smelter

e WRAP RMC

impact at an

emissions a

t the Hayden

ated maxim

M emissions w

Asarco Hayd

n facility was

RHR SIP3).

f

tal

ality

ty

e

ided

ers

as

n

a

rce’s

than

hat

r was

C

ny

alone

n

mum

was

den

s
PURPOSE

Asarco h

the WRA

to emit (

emission

existing c

modeling

from the

state ope

Guideline

RMC for

Internati

revised e

BART scr

UPDATED

Approac

The upda

15, 2006

ago and s

recomme

consisten

Modeling

The CALM

modeling

exceptio

which we

created.

the three

same ver

the three

Hayden f

exercised

areas rep

Emission

                

4 40 C.F.R.

5 http://pa

6 http://pa

773 Sa

E

as raised iss

AP RMC for t

PTE) oversta

units at the

controls at t

g analysis (e

Hayden fac

erating cond

es,4 and foun

the subject‐

onal Corpor

emission esti

eening mod

D CALPUFF B

h

ated CALPUF

CALPUFF BA

since then th

ended proce

nt with the A

g Protocol p

MET inputs a

g are availab

n to this are

ere not arch

The version

e years (200

rsion of CALP

e years using

facility emiss

d using the r

ported.

n Scenarios

                     

Part 51, App.

ah.cert.ucr.edu

ah.cert.ucr.edu

an Marin Drive,

ues with the

he CALPUFF

ated emissio

e Hayden fac

he Hayden f

.g., baghous

ility to come

ditions durin

nd that they

‐to‐BART CA

ration (ENVIR

imates.  ENV

eling.

BART MODE

FF BART mod

ART Modelin

here have be

edures for re

Arizona RHR

rocedures a

and most of

ble for down

the meteor

ived on the

n of CALMET

1, 2002 and

PUFF as used

g the new m

sions as used

revised emis

                  

Y, § III.A.3, Op

u/aqm/308/ba

u/aqm/308/ba

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

e emissions f

BART scree

on rates, rath

cility that are

facility were

se on the con

e up with the

g periods of

y are much le

LPUFF mode

RON) to perf

VIRON was p

ELING

deling follow

ng Protocol5

een updates

egulatory CA

SIP subject‐

nd models w

the CALPUF

load from th

rological inp

WRAP RMC

T used by WR

2003) using

d by WRAP (

eteorologica

d in the WRA

sions provid

tion 1(2)

rt/WRAP_RMC

rt.shtml

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

3

for the Hayd

ning modeli

her than max

e not BART‐e

accounted f

nverters).  A

e maximum

f high capaci

ess than the

eling analysi

form update

part of the W

wed the appr

.  These proc

s to the CALP

ALPUFF mode

‐to‐BART mo

were used in

FF inputs use

he WRAP RM

uts for CALP

website due

RAP (CALME

g the same in

(CALPUFF V6

al inputs fro

AP RMC CAL

ded by Asarc

C_BART_Proto

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

den facility t

ng.  These is

ximum actu

eligible.  In a

for in the su

Asarco has an

actual emis

ty utilization

emissions A

s.  Thus, Asa

ed CALPUFF

WRAP RMC a

roach outlin

cedures wer

PUFF model

eling.  Howe

odeling, the

n the update

ed in the WR

MC BART mo

PUFF (i.e., th

e to their lar

ET V6.211, Le

nputs and op

6.112, Level

m the CALM

LPUFF runs.  

co and the vi

ocol_Aug15_20

F: 415‐899‐070

hat the ADE

ssues includ

al values, an

addition, it is

bject‐to‐BAR

nalyzed actu

ssions reflect

n” as require

ADEQ provid

arco retained

BART mode

and headed u

ned in the W

re developed

ing system a

ever, in orde

WRAP CALP

ed CALPUFF

RAP RMC CA

odeling webs

e CALMET.D

rge size so h

evel 060414

ptions as use

060414) wa

MET runs and

CALPUFF w

isibility impa

006.pdf

7

EQ provided

e using pote

nd including

s not clear th

RT CALPUFF

ual emissions

tive of “stea

ed by EPA’s B

ded to the W

d ENVIRON

eling using

up the CALP

RAP RMC Au

d over six ye

and EPA’s

er to be

PUFF BART

BART model

ALPUFF scree

site6.  The

DAT output f

ad to be re‐

) was rerun

ed in WRAP.

as then run f

d the origina

as then

acts at Class

to

ential

hat

s

dy‐

BART

WRAP

PUFF

ugust

ears

ling.

ening

file),

for

.  The

for

al

I
Two emis

emission

that Asar

actual em

supposed

revised e

scenarios

fugitive s

original s

provided

facility.  T

original a

the Lamb

WRAP RM

very low

emission

(689 g/s)

original v

CALPUFF

Table 1.  

Name

Original

AZ10

AZ11

AZ12

AZ13

Revised

AZ10

AZ11

AZ12

AZ13

                

7

40 C.F.R.

773 Sa

ssion scenar

s that the A

rco provided

missions for

d to be used

emissions for

s include fou

sources who

stack parame

d by Asarco.  

There are ch

and revised H

bert Conform

MC Modelin

NOX emissio

s, whereas t

).  The bigges

value (64 g/s

F BART Mode

Original and

LCC‐X

(km)

‐1279.791

‐1279.791

‐1279.791

‐1279.791

‐1279.485

‐1279.485

‐1279.460

‐1279.474

                     

Part 51, App. Y

an Marin Drive,

rios were an

DEQ provide

d to ENVIRON

the Hayden

d in subject‐t

r Hayden are

ur sources at

ose emission

eters used in

Table 2 com

hanges in bo

Hayden emi

mal Conic (LC

g Protocol fo

ons (2.27 g/s

the revised C

st change be

s) was reduc

eling Protoco

d revised sta

LCC‐Y

(km)

1  ‐677.829

1  ‐677.829

1  ‐677.829

1  ‐677.829

5  ‐677.437

5  ‐677.437

0  ‐677.589

4  ‐677.684

                  

Y, § III.A.3, Opt

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

alyzed in the

ed to the WR

N in January

facility durin

to‐BART mod

e available f

t the Hayden

s were relea

n the WRAP

mpares the o

th the stack

ssion scenar

CC) coordina

or details on

s).  The origi

CALPUFF mo

etween the o

ced 93% in th

ol, all PM em

ack paramet

Elev

(m)

633.984

633.984

633.984

633.984

651.662

651.662

646.481

646.481

tion 1(2),

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

4

e updated C

RAP RMC in

y 2012.  The

ng periods o

deling analy

rom Asarco.

n facility, tw

ased closer t

RMC CALPU

original and r

parameters

rios.  The loc

ate system u

n the LCC def

nal CALPUFF

odeling assum

original and

he revised m

missions wer

ters for the

Height

(m)

4 304.800

4 280.416

4 198.120

4 198.10

2 304.8

2 302.24

1 25.298

1 24.872

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

CALPUFF mod

June, 2006;

revised emi

of high capac

ysis.7 Details

.  The origina

wo point sour

to the surfac

UFF and the

revised emis

s and emissio

cations of th

used in the C

finition).  Bo

F modeling a

med SO2 em

revised emi

modeling (4 g

re treated as

Asarco Hay

t Diamet

(m)

0 5.182

6 10.363

0 10.0

10.0

5.182

7.288

13.757

24.144

F: 415‐899‐070

deling: (1) th

and (2) revi

ssions repre

city  utilizati

on the deve

al and revise

rces with sta

ce.  Table 1 c

revised stac

ssions for th

on rates bet

e sources ar

CALPUFF mo

oth sets of e

assumed 1,0

missions that

issions are fo

g/s).  Follow

s fine particu

den facility.

er Temper

(K)

423.706

330.372

295.0

295.0

416.483

321.844

310.928

310.928

7

he original

ised emissio

esent maxim

on, which ar

elopment of

ed emission

acks and two

compares th

k parameter

e Hayden

tween the

re reported

deling (see

missions hav

051 g/s of SO

t were 34% l

or PM where

ing the WRA

ulate (PM2.5)

.

rature

)

Velo

(m

6 5.791

2 10.36

0.1

0.1

3 83.98

4 38.42

8 0.61

8 1.536

ns

mum

re

f the

o

e

rs

using

ve

O2

ower

e the

AP

).

ocity

m/s)

1

63

89

25

6
Table 2.  

Source

Original

AZ10

AZ11

AZ12

AZ13

Total

Revised

AZ10

AZ11

AZ12

AZ13

Total

Percent

CALPUFF

Attachm

all Class I

original r

CALPUFF

results fr

results fo

always o

Hayden f

km from

(SIAN) th

SUPE.  Ta

column f

1. T

2. T

3. D

4. M

C

5. 9

6. 9

773 Sa

Original and

SO2

(g/s)

67.800

914.40

1.710

66.840

1050.7

71.18

578.27

2.15

37.61

689.21

‐34.4%

F Modeling R

ents A, B an

I areas withi

results from

F modeling u

rom the upd

or the two cl

ccur are rep

facility are G

the Hayden

hat was 84 km

ables 3 throu

for each Clas

he Class I ar

he Class I ar

Distance from

Maximum vis

ALPUFF mod

9th percentil

8th percentil

an Marin Drive,

d revised em

NOX

(g/s

0 0.11

00 1.37

0 0.78

0 0.00

75 2.27

8 0.11

7 1.37

0.78

0.00

1 2.27

% 0.0%

Results

d C list the A

n 300 km of

the WRAP R

using the sam

ated CALPU

losest Class

peated in Tab

Galiuro (GALI

n facility; the

m from Hayd

ugh 6 and At

ss I area with

ea four lette

ea name (at

m Hayden fa

sibility impac

deling (in de

le (11th highe

le (22nd high

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

mission rate

X

s)

PM

(g/s

19 14.59

71 14.59

80 5.79

00 29.03

7 64.0

19 0.24

71 1.0

80 2.3

00 0.9

7 4.47

%  ‐93.0

Asarco Hayd

f the Hayden

RMC screeni

me (original)

FF modeling

I areas to Ha

bles 3 throug

I) and Super

e next closes

den and had

ttachments A

hin 300 km o

er identifier;

ttachments o

cility to the

ct due to Ha

eciview or dv

est day) visib

est day) visi

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

5

s for the Asa

M

s)

95

95

96

30

16

4

1

1

1

7

0%

en facility CA

n facility for,

ng modeling

emissions a

g using the re

ayden facility

gh 6 below.

stition (SUP

t Class I area

d visibility im

A, B and C h

of the Hayde

only);

Class I area

yden facility

v);

bility impact

bility impact

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

arco Hayden

ALPUFF esti

respectively

g; (B) the res

as used by th

evised emiss

y where the

The two clo

E) Wildernes

a was the Sie

mpacts ~40%

have the follo

en facility:

(km);

y on any day

t during the

t during the

F: 415‐899‐070

n facility.

mated visibi

y, three scen

sults for the

he WRAP RM

sions from A

e maximum v

osest Class I

ss Areas tha

erra Ancha W

% lower than

owing inform

y during the t

three years

three years

7

ility impacts

narios: (A) th

updated

MC; and (C) t

Asarco.  The

visibility imp

areas to the

at are 47 and

Wilderness

at GALI and

mation in ea

three years

of modeling

s of modeling

at

he

the

pacts

e

d 49

d

ch

of

g.

g;
7. N

0

8. 9

9. 9

10. 9

11. T

WRAP an

There are

updated

three yea

estimate

original e

a maxim

original e

ago, we w

are using

CALMET

results ca

CALMET

any even

estimate

1‐2% of e

Updated

The revis

years due

reduction

averaged

revised e

threshold

visibility

the origin

using the

                

8 http://w

773 Sa

Number of da

.5 dv;

8th percentil

8th percentil

8th percentil

hree year av

nd Updated

e slight diffe

CALPUFF us

ars visibility

s a 2.39 dv v

emissions (w

um 0.53 dv v

emissions.  G

would not ex

g different co

to generate

an vary grea

is run with t

nt, using the

98th percen

each other a

CALPUFF Re

sed emission

e to all (SO2,

n.  Consideri

d over 3 year

emissions are

d.  However

impact aver

nal emission

e revised em

                     

ww.epa.gov/tt

an Marin Drive,

ays during th

le (8th highes

le (8th highes

le (8th highes

verage of 98

CALPUFF Re

erences in th

sing original

metric and f

visibility imp

within 1%).  S

visibility imp

Given that th

xpect to be

omputers an

the CALPUF

tly (e.g., a fa

the same me

original emi

ntile visibility

and are all ab

esults using

ns reduce the

, NOX and PM

ing just SO2

rs is reduced

e used (37%

, for the PM

raged over 3

ns (0.54 dv) i

missions (0.04

                  

tn/scram/repo

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

he three yea

st day) visibi

st day) visibi

st day) visibi

th percentile

esults using O

he Hayden vi

emissions.  

for just the H

pact compare

Similarly, for

pacts versus

he WRAP RM

able to exac

nd compilers

FF meteorolo

actor of thre

eteorologica

issions both

y impacts of

bove the 0.5

Original and

e maximum

M) of Hayde

emissions al

d from 2.42 d

% reduction),

emissions a

years that w

s over a fact

4 dv).   

orts/EPA‐454_R

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

6

ars of model

ility impact i

ility impact i

ility impact i

e (8th highest

Original Emis

sibility impa

Using the m

Hayden SO2

ed to 2.42 d

r just PM em

0.54 dv for

MC CALPUFF

ctly duplicate

s.  This is esp

ogical inputs

ee) using diff

al input data

the WRAP a

the Hayden

5 dv significa

d Revised Em

98th percen

n’s emission

lone, the ma

dv using the

both of whi

alone scenar

was above th

tor of 10 bel

R‐12‐003.pdf

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

ing that the

in 2001;

in 2002;

in 2003; and

t day) visibil

ssions

acts between

maximum 98t

emissions a

v for update

missions alon

updated CA

modeling w

e the WRAP

pecially true

s; EPA studie

ferent CALM

just by vary

and updated

SO2 and PM

ance thresho

missions

ntile visibility

ns from 2.61

aximum 98th

e original em

ich are abov

rio, the maxi

he 0.5 dv sig

low the 0.5 d

F: 415‐899‐070

visibility im

d

ity impact.

n the WRAP

th percentile

lone, the W

ed CALPUFF

ne, the WRAP

LPUFF (with

was performe

RMC results

because we

es have show

MET output e

ying the CAL

d CALPUFF m

M emissions

old.

y impacts av

1 to 1.52 dv,

h percentile v

missions to 1.

ve the 0.5 dv

imum 98th p

gnificance th

dv significan

7

pact exceed

RMC and

averaged ov

RAP RMC

modeling w

P RMC estim

hin 2%) using

ed over 6 ye

s given that

e had to reru

wn CALPUFF

even with th

MET options

modeling

alone are w

eraged over

a 42%

visibility imp

.52 dv when

v significance

percentile

hreshold usin

nce threshold

ded

ver

within

mates

g the

ears

we

un

F

e

s

8

.  In

ithin

r 3

pacts

n the

e

ng

d
Table 3.  

emission

Class I

Area

Original W

GALI

SUPE

Updated

GALI

SUPE

Update CA

GALI

SUPE

Table 4.  

Class I

Area

Original W

GALI

SUPE

Updated

GALI

SUPE

Update CA

GALI

SUPE

Table 5.  

Class I

Area

Original W

GALI

SUPE

Updated

GALI

SUPE

Update CA

GALI

SUPE

773 Sa

CALPUFF vi

ns.

Dist

(km)

M

(d

WRAP RMC

47 5

49 5

CALPUFF wit

47 5

49 5

ALPUFF with

47 2

49 3

CALPUFF vi

Dist

(km)

M

(d

WRAP RMC

47 4

49 5

CALPUFF wit

47 5

49 5

ALPUFF with

47 2

49 3

CALPUFF vi

Dist

(km)

M

(d

WRAP RMC

47 0

49 0

CALPUFF wit

47 0

49 0

ALPUFF with

47 0

49 0

an Marin Drive,

sibility resu

Max

dv)

99th

(dv)

.20 3.04

.69 3.28

h Original W

.32 3.21

.70 3.25

Revised Emi

.47 1.89

.69 1.76

sibility resu

Max

dv)

99th

(dv)

.98 2.74

.33 3.03

h Original W

.11 2.84

.33 3.00

Revised Emi

.47 1.87

.67 1.75

sibility resu

Max

dv)

99th

(dv)

.02 0.01

.03 0.01

h Original W

.02 0.01

.03 0.01

Revised Emi

.02 0.01

.03 0.01

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

lts for the A

98th

(dv)

2.51

2.64

RAP RMC Em

2.47

2.52

ssions

1.39

1.40

lts for the A

98th

(dv)

2.24

2.40

RAP RMC Em

2.19

2.35

ssions

1.38

1.39

lts for the A

98th

(dv)

0.01

0.01

RAP RMC Em

0.01

0.01

ssions

0.01

0.01

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

7

Asarco Hayde

#Days

> 0.5 dv 2

338 3

313

missions

349 3

323

175

159

Asarco Hayde

#Days

> 0.5 dv 2

290

280

missions

296 3

292

167

155

Asarco Hayde

#Days

> 0.5 dv 2

0 0

0 0

missions

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

en facility a

98th

2001

98th

2002

3.01 2.02

2.46 2.42

3.31 2.02

2.52 2.46

1.89 1.04

1.56 1.28

en facility a

98th

2001

98th

2002

2.74 1.66

2.4 2.29

3.21 1.66

2.43 2.33

1.88 1.04

1.53 1.26

en facility a

98th

2001

98th

2002

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

F: 415‐899‐070

nd SO2, NOX

h

2

98th

2003

2 2.51

2 2.83

2 2.52

6 2.82

4 1.63

8 1.41

nd just the S

h

2

98th

2003

6 2.3

9 2.47

6 2.24

3 2.50

4 1.63

6 1.41

nd just the N

h

2

98th

2003

1 0.01

1 0.01

1 0.00

1 0.01

1 0.01

1 0.01

7

X and PM

98th

3‐Yr Avg

2.51

2.57

2.61

2.60

1.52

1.42

SO2 emissio

98th

3‐Yr Avg

2.23

2.39

2.37

2.42

1.52

1.40

NOX emissio

98th

3‐Yr Avg

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

ns.

ons.
Table 6.  

Class I

Area

Original W

GALI

SUPE

Updated

GALI

SUPE

Update CA

GALI

SUPE

CONCLUS

Asarco h

Hayden s

Asarco h

CALPUFF

The Arizo

adverse v

impacts a

which ex

that the

using the

over thre

significan

The Arizo

to visibili

year visib

threshold

eligible.  

0.04 dv, o

Hayden f

773 Sa

CALPUFF vi

Dist

(km)

M

(d

WRAP RMC

47 0

49 0

CALPUFF wit

47 0

49 0

ALPUFF with

47 0

49 0

SIONS FROM

as raised nu

smelter facil

as develope

F BART mode

ona RHR SIP

visibility imp

averaged ov

xceeded the

Hayden faci

e revised Hay

ee years visib

nt visibility im

ona RHR SIP

ity impairme

bility impact

d.  Based on

However, w

over a facto

facility PM e

an Marin Drive,

sibility resu

Max

dv)

99th

(dv)

.90 0.63

.81 0.52

h Original W

.90 0.62

.83 0.51

Revised Emi

.07 0.05

.08 0.04

M THE UPDA

merous issu

ity that wer

d revised em

eling.

concluded t

pairment at a

ver 3 years at

1 dv signific

lity SO2 emis

yden facility

bility impact

mpairment t

concluded t

ent at a Class

s was 0.53 d

these result

when using th

r of 10 below

missions sho

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

lts for the A

98th

(dv)

0.53

0.42

RAP RMC Em

0.52

0.41

ssions

0.04

0.03

ATED CALPU

ues associate

e used in the

missions for

that SO2 emi

a Class I area

t any Class I

ant visibility

ssions were

y emissions f

t at any Class

threshold.

that PM emi

s I area since

dv, which exc

ts ADEQ con

he revised e

w the 0.5 dv

ould not be

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

8

Asarco Hayde

#Days

> 0.5 dv 2

34 0

14 0

missions

33 0

14 0

0 0

0 0

FF MODELIN

ed with the o

e WRAP RM

the Hayden

issions from

a since the m

area within

y impairmen

BART‐eligib

found that th

s I area was

ssions from

e the maxim

ceeded the 0

ncluded that

missions the

v significant c

considered

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

en facility a

98th

2001

98th

2002

0.53 0.51

0.42 0.43

0.55 0.52

0.41 0.43

0.04 0.03

0.04 0.03

NG

overstateme

C subject‐to

facility that

the Asarco

maximum 98

300 km of t

t threshold.

le.  The upda

he maximum

1.52 dv, wh

the Asarco

mum 98th per

0.5 dv signif

t the Hayden

e 98th percen

contribution

BART‐eligibl

F: 415‐899‐070

nd just the P

h

2

98th

2003

1 0.55

3 0.40

2 0.55

3 0.41

3 0.04

3 0.03

ent of emiss

o‐BART CALP

t were used

Hayden faci

8th percentile

the source w

  So the ADE

ated CALPU

m 98th perce

hich is still ab

Hayden faci

rcentile aver

ficant contrib

n PM emissio

ntile visibilit

n threshold.

le.

7

PM emission

98th

3‐Yr Avg

0.53

0.41

0.54

0.42

0.04

0.04

ions for thei

PUFF modeli

in updated

ility caused

e visibility

was 2.39 dv,

EQ conclude

FF modeling

ntile averag

bove the 1 d

lity contribu

rage over th

bution

ons are BART

ty impact is o

Thus, the

ns.

ir

ng.  

d

g

ed

v

uted

ree

T‐

only
773 Sa

Asarco

(Sou

n Marin Drive,

Hayden Fa

Origina

rce:  http:/

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

ATTA

acility Visib

al WRAP R

//pah.cert

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

9

ACHMENT

bility Impa

RMC CALPU

t.ucr.edu/a

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

T A

acts at Clas

UFF Mode

aqm/308/

F: 415‐899‐070

ss I Areas f

ling

/bart.shtm

7

from  

ml)
gali Galiu

supe Supe

sian Sierra

sagu Sagua

maza Maza

moba Moun

pimo Pine 

chir Chiric

gila Gila W

pefo Petrif

syca Syca

gali Galiu

supe Supe

sian Sierra

sagu Sagua

maza Maza

moba Moun

pimo Pine 

chir Chiric

gila Gila W

pefo Petrif

syca Syca

SRC05 ASA

gali Galiu

supe Supe

sian Sierra

sagu Sagua

maza Maza

moba Moun

pimo Pine 

chir Chiric

gila Gila W

pefo Petrif

syca Syca

Class I Area

SRC05 ASA

Class I Area

SRC05 ASA

Class I Area

773 Sa

ro Wilderness

rstition Wildernes

a Ancha Wilderne

aro NM

atzal Wilderness

nt Baldy Wildernes

Mountain Wildern

cahua NM

Wilderness

fied Forest NP

more Canyon WiA

ro Wilderness

rstition Wildernes

a Ancha Wilderne

aro NM

atzal Wilderness

nt Baldy Wildernes

Mountain Wildern

cahua NM

Wilderness

fied Forest NP

more Canyon WA

ARCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness

rstition Wildernes

a Ancha Wilderne

aro NM

atzal Wilderness

nt Baldy Wildernes

Mountain Wildern

cahua NM

Wilderness

fied Forest NP

more Canyon WA

a

ARCO – Hayden S

a

ARCO – Hayden S

a

an Marin Drive,

Minimum 

(km

47

ss 49

ess 84

86

121

ss 151

ness 167

169

186

215

A 239

Minimum 

(km

47

ss 49

ess 84

86

121

ss 151

ness 167

169

186

215

A 239

Smelter: NOx O

Minimum 

(km

47

ss 49

ess 84

86

121

ss 151

ness 167

169

186

215

A 239

Smelter: SO2 On

Smelter: SO2 = 

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

Distance Max D

m) (d

7 5

9 5

4 4

6 5

1 4

1 2

7 2

9 3

6 2

5 2

9 1

Distance Max D

m) (d

7 4

9 5

4

6 5

1 4

1 2

7 2

9 2

6 2

5 2

9 1

nly: NOx = 80 TP

Distance Max D

m) (d

7 0

9 0

4 0

6 0

1 0

1 0

7 0

9 0

6 0

5 0

9

nly: SO2 = 36,52

Resultsf

36,524 TPY; NOx

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

10

Delta-dv 99th 98

dv) (dv) (d

5.2 3.04 2.

.69 3.28 2.

.07 2.02 1.

.44 2.34 1.

.15 1.7 1.

.28 1.09 0.

.66 1.23 1.

.08 1.91 1.

.33 1.04 0.

.93 1.22 0.

1.9 0.95 0.

Delta-dv 99th 98

dv) (dv) (d

.98 2.74 2.

.33 3.03 2

4 1.98 1.

.15 2.24 1

.09 1.59 1.

.24 1.06 0.

.61 1.18 0.

.98 1.86 1.

.23 1.02 0.

.89 1.19 0.

.87 0.93 0.

PY

Delta-dv 99th 98

dv) (dv) (d

.02 0.01 0.

.03 0.01 0.

.02 0.01

.01 0

.01 0

.01 0

.01 0

.01 0

.01 0

.01 0

0 0

24 TPY

rom WRAP Web

x = 80 TPY; PM =

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

8th Days

dv) > 0.5 dv

20

.51 338 3

.64 313 2

.59 136 1

.82 173 2

.31 117 1

.79 49 0

.01 74 1

.51 172 1

.87 67 0

.88 56 0

.79 54 0

8th Days

dv) > 0.5 dv

20

.24 290 2

2.4 280 2

.52 126 1

.7 156 1

.25 107 1

.77 42 0

.94 71 0

.46 161 1

.82 63 0

.85 51 0

.76 51 0

8th Days

dv) > 0.5 dv

20

.01 0 0

.01 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

98

98

bsite

= 2,225 TPY

98

F: 415‐899‐070

001 2002

.01

.46

.84

2.1

.43

.93

.02

.39

.98

.77

0.8

001 2002

.74

2.4

.71

.95

.38

.91

.99

.29

.96

.74

.78

001 2002

.01

.01

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8th Percentile fo

0.01

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

1.23

0.74

0.9

0.64

0.98

1.13

0.66

0.91

2.29

1.22

0.79

0.92

0.67

0.93

1.29

1.66

0.66

8th Percentile fo

1.42

1.05

1.21

2.02

2.42

8th Percentile fo

7

3 

Av

2.51

2.83

1.54

2.15

1.22

0.74

0.91

1.77

0.64

0.71

0.71

3 

Av

2.3

2.47

1.43

1.99

1.16

0.71

0.88

1.66

0.62

0.68

0.69

3 

Av

0.01

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

r each Year

2003

1

1

3

4

4

8

3

6

1

9

2

9

2

7

3

9

6

6

r each Year

2003

2003

2

5

1

2

2

r each Year

98th 

Year

verage

2.51

2.57

1.6

1.77

1.28

0.78

0.96

1.49

0.8

0.8

0.72

98th 

Year

verage

2.23

2.39

1.46

1.64

1.22

0.76

0.93

1.39

0.78

0.78

0.7

98th 

Year

verage

0.01

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
SRC05 ASA

gali Galiu

supe Supe

sian Sierra

sagu Sagua

maza Maza

moba Moun

pimo Pine 

chir Chiric

gila Gila W

pefo Petrif

syca Syca

SRC05 ASA

gali Galiu

supe Supe

sian Sierra

sagu Sagua

maza Maza

moba Moun

pimo Pine 

chir Chiric

gila Gila W

pefo Petrif

syca Syca

Class I Area

Class I Area

773 Sa

ARCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness

rstition Wildernes

a Ancha Wilderne

aro NM

atzal Wilderness

nt Baldy Wildernes

Mountain Wildern

cahua NM

Wilderness

fied Forest NP

more Canyon WA

ARCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness

rstition Wildernes

a Ancha Wilderne

aro NM

atzal Wilderness

nt Baldy Wildernes

Mountain Wildern

cahua NM

Wilderness

fied Forest NP

more Canyon WA

a

a

an Marin Drive,

Smelter: PM On

Minimum 

(km

47

ss 49

ess 84

86

121

ss 151

ness 167

169

186

215

A 239

Smelter: NOx + 

Minimum 

(km

47

ss 49

ess 84

86

121

ss 151

ness 167

169

186

215

A 239

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

ly: PM = 2,225 T

Distance Max D

m) (d

7 0

9 0

4 0

6 0

1 0

1 0

7 0

9 0

6 0

5 0

9 0

PM Only: NOx =

Distance Max D

m) (d

7 0

9 0

4 0

6 0

1 0

1 0

7 0

9 0

6 0

5 0

9 0

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

11

TPY

Delta-dv 99th 98

dv) (dv) (d

0.9 0.63 0.

.81 0.52 0.

.35 0.17 0.

.52 0.31 0.

0.2 0.11 0.

.11 0.05 0.

.12 0.07 0.

.25 0.15 0.

.11 0.06 0.

.11 0.04 0.

.06 0.03 0.

= 80 TPY; PM = 2

Delta-dv 99th 98

dv) (dv) (d

0.9 0.64 0.

.82 0.52 0.

.35 0.18 0.

.52 0.31 0.

0.2 0.11 0.

.12 0.05 0.

.12 0.07 0.

.25 0.15 0.

.12 0.06 0.

.12 0.05 0.

.06 0.03 0.

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

8th Days

dv) > 0.5 dv

20

.53 34 0

.42 14 0

.13 0 0

.25 1 0

.09 0 0

.04 0 0

.05 0 0

.12 0 0

.05 0 0

.04 0 0

.03 0 0

2,225 TPY

8th Days

dv) > 0.5 dv

20

.53 35 0

.42 14 0

.13 0 0

.25 1 0

.09 0 0

.04 0 0

.05 0 0

.12 0 0

.05 0 0

.04 0 0

.03 0 0

98

98

F: 415‐899‐070

001 2002

.53

.42

.15

.27

.09

.04

.05

.12

.05

.03

.03

001 2002

.53

.42

.15

.27

.09

.04

.05

.12

.05

.04

.03

0.04

0.03

0.14

0.08

0.04

0.06

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.06

0.04

0.03

0.51

8th Percentile fo

0.52

0.43

0.43

0.11

0.14

0.08

0.04

8th Percentile fo

7

3 

Av

0.55

0.4

0.13

0.29

0.09

0.03

0.05

0.14

0.05

0.04

0.02

3 

Av

0.55

0.4

0.13

0.29

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.14

0.05

0.04

0.02

4

3

4

8

4

6

2

6

2

6

2

6

4

3

1

r each Year

2003

2

3

3

1

4

8

4

r each Year

2003

98th 

Year

verage

0.53

0.41

0.13

0.23

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.03

98th 

Year

verage

0.53

0.42

0.13

0.23

0.09

0.04

0.06

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.03
773 Sa

Asarco

Updated

n Marin Drive,

Hayden Fa

CALPUFF M

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

ATTA

acility Visib

Modeling u

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

12

ACHMENT

bility Impa

using Origi

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

T B

acts at Clas

inal WRAP

F: 415‐899‐070

ss I Areas f

P RMC Emi

7

from  

issions
gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

Class I Area

Class I Area

Class I Area

773 Sa

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

SR

an Marin Drive,

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

SRC05 

RC05 ASARCO – H

SRC05 A

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

5.32

5.70

4.18

5.64

4.13

2.37

7 2.70

9 3.23

6 2.34

5 3.01

9 1.87

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

5.11

5.33

4.11

5.37

4.07

2.33

7 2.64

9 3.14

6 2.25

5 2.97

9 1.84

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

7 0.01

9 0.01

6 0.01

5 0.01

9 0.00

2012 Re‐run

ASARCO – Hayde

Hayden Smelter: S

ASARCO – Hayden

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

13

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

2 3.21

0 3.25

8 2.00

4 2.39

3 1.70

7 1.09

0 1.27

3 1.90

4 1.12

1 1.21

7 0.99

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

1 2.84

3 3.00

1 1.90

7 2.27

7 1.59

3 1.05

4 1.21

4 1.85

5 1.07

7 1.18

4 0.96

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

2 0.01

3 0.01

2 0.01

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

0 0.00

n Results ‐ Old Emi

en Smelter: NOx O

SO2 = 36,524 TPY;

 Smelter: SO2 On

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

2.47 349

2.52 323

1.56 145

1.84 183

1.34 126

0.80 53

0.99 82

1.51 178

0.85 81

0.85 61

0.80 60

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

2.19 296

2.35 292

1.50 132

1.69 166

1.32 118

0.78 47

0.95 79

1.45 165

0.83 73

0.82 54

0.78 58

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

ssions

Only: NOx = 79 TP

; NOx = 79 TPY; P

nly: SO2 = 36,524 T

F: 415‐899‐070

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

3.31 2.0

2.52 2.4

1.85 1.4

2.31 1.0

1.59 1.2

0.98 0.6

1.24 0.9

1.51 1.3

1.12 0.7

0.78 0.9

0.92 0.6

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

3.21 1.6

2.43 2.3

1.72 1.2

2.13 1.0

1.57 1.1

0.96 0.6

1.20 0.9

1.45 1.2

1.07 0.7

0.76 0.9

0.91 0.6

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

PY

M = 2,225 TPY

TPY

7

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

02 2.52

46 2.82

43 1.56

07 2.15

23 1.23

69 0.76

93 0.96

30 1.81

79 0.65

95 0.73

66 0.72

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

66 2.24

33 2.50

23 1.47

00 2.00

5 1.20

68 0.73

91 0.92

26 1.69

76 0.64

92 0.70

65 0.70

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

01 0.00

01 0.01

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

98th 

3 Year

verage

2.61

2.60

1.61

1.84

1.35

0.81

1.04

1.54

0.85

0.82

0.77

98th 

3 Year

verage

2.37

2.42

1.47

1.71

1.30

0.79

1.01

1.46

0.82

0.79

0.75

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

Class I Area

Class I Area

773 Sa

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

S

an Marin Drive,

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

SRC05 

SRC05 ASARCO – 

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.90

0.83

0.34

0.51

0.20

0.11

7 0.12

9 0.25

6 0.11

5 0.11

9 0.06

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.90

0.84

0.35

0.52

0.20

0.12

7 0.12

9 0.25

6 0.12

5 0.12

9 0.06

ASARCO – Hayde

Hayden Smelter: 

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

14

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

0 0.62

3 0.51

4 0.17

1 0.31

0 0.11

1 0.05

2 0.06

5 0.15

1 0.06

1 0.04

6 0.03

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

0 0.63

4 0.52

5 0.17

2 0.31

0 0.11

2 0.05

2 0.07

5 0.15

2 0.06

2 0.05

6 0.03

en Smelter: PM On

NOx + PM Only: N

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.52 33

0.41 14

0.12 0

0.23 1

0.09 0

0.03 0

0.05 0

0.12 0

0.05 0

0.03 0

0.03 0

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.52 34

0.41 15

0.12 0

0.23 1

0.09 0

0.04 0

0.05 0

0.12 0

0.05 0

0.04 0

0.03 0

nly: PM = 2,225 TP

NOx = 79 TPY; PM

F: 415‐899‐070

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.55 0.5

0.41 0.4

0.15 0.1

0.27 0.1

0.09 0.0

0.04 0.0

0.05 0.0

0.12 0.1

0.05 0.0

0.03 0.0

0.03 0.0

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.55 0.5

0.42 0.4

0.15 0.1

0.27 0.1

0.09 0.0

0.04 0.0

0.05 0.0

0.12 0.1

0.05 0.0

0.04 0.0

0.03 0.0

PY

M = 2,225 TPY

7

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

52 0.55

43 0.41

1 0.13

4 0.29

08 0.09

04 0.03

06 0.05

2 0.14

06 0.05

04 0.04

03 0.02

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

52 0.55

44 0.41

2 0.14

4 0.29

08 0.09

04 0.04

06 0.05

2 0.14

06 0.05

04 0.04

03 0.02

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.54

0.42

0.13

0.23

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.03

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.54

0.42

0.14

0.23

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.03
Upda

773 Sa

Asarco

ated CALPU

an Marin Drive,

Hayden Fa

UFF Model

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

ATTA

acility Visib

ling using

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

15

ACHMENT

bility Impa

Revised Em

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

T C

acts at Clas

missions fr

F: 415‐899‐070

ss I Areas f

rom Asarc

7

from  

o (Jan 2013)
gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

Class I Area

Class I Area

Class I Area

773 Sa

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

S

an Marin Drive,

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

SRC05 

SRC05 ASARCO – 

SRC05 A

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

2.47

3.69

2.78

3.92

1.93

1.69

7 1.79

9 2.54

6 1.52

5 2.31

9 1.15

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

2.47

3.67

2.77

3.91

1.91

1.69

7 1.78

9 2.54

6 1.51

5 2.30

9 1.15

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

7 0.01

9 0.01

6 0.01

5 0.01

9 0.01

ASARCO – Hayde

Hayden Smelter: 

ASARCO – Hayden

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

16

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

7 1.89

9 1.76

8 1.18

2 1.33

3 1.00

9 0.67

9 0.70

4 1.20

2 0.75

1 0.79

5 0.63

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

7 1.87

7 1.75

7 1.16

1 1.32

1 0.99

9 0.67

8 0.70

4 1.19

1 0.75

0 0.79

5 0.63

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

2 0.01

3 0.01

1 0.01

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

1 0.00

en Smelter: NOx O

SO2 = 23971 TPY

n Smelter: SO2 On

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

1.39 175

1.40 159

0.85 65

1.06 88

0.75 53

0.51 25

0.55 31

0.90 87

0.53 27

0.55 27

0.45 16

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

1.38 167

1.39 155

0.84 65

1.06 87

0.75 53

0.50 25

0.55 30

0.90 86

0.52 26

0.55 27

0.45 16

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

Only: NOx = 79 TP

Y; NOx = 79 TPY; P

nly: SO2 = 23971 T

F: 415‐899‐070

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

1.89 1.0

1.56 1.2

0.89 0.7

1.26 0.6

0.91 0.7

0.58 0.4

0.65 0.5

0.93 0.7

0.78 0.4

0.58 0.5

0.49 0.4

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

1.88 1.0

1.53 1.2

0.88 0.7

1.25 0.6

0.90 0.7

0.58 0.4

0.65 0.5

0.93 0.7

0.77 0.4

0.57 0.5

0.49 0.4

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

PY

PM = 155 TPY

TPY

7

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

04 1.63

28 1.41

75 0.85

66 1.30

71 0.75

43 0.43

50 0.54

77 1.14

47 0.41

56 0.51

42 0.45

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

04 1.63

26 1.41

75 0.84

66 1.29

71 0.75

43 0.43

50 0.54

75 1.13

47 0.41

55 0.51

42 0.45

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

01 0.01

01 0.01

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

98th 

3 Year

verage

1.52

1.42

0.83

1.07

0.79

0.48

0.57

0.94

0.55

0.55

0.45

98th 

3 Year

verage

1.52

1.40

0.83

1.07

0.78

0.48

0.56

0.94

0.55

0.54

0.45

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

gali Ga

supe Su

sian Sie

sagu Sa

maza Ma

moba Mo

pimo Pin

chir Ch

gila Gi

pefo Pe

syca Sy

Class I Area

Class I Area

773 Sa

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

aliuro Wilderness

uperstition Wilderne

erra Ancha Wildern

aguaro NM

azatzal Wilderness

ount Baldy Wilderne

ne Mountain Wilder

hiricahua NM

la Wilderness

etrified Forest NP

ycamore Canyon W

an Marin Drive,

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

Minimum D

(km

47

ess 49

ess 84

86

121

ess 151

rness 167

169

186

215

WiA 239

SRC05

SRC05 ASARCO –

Suite 2115, Nov

www.e

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.07

0.08

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.01

7 0.01

9 0.04

6 0.01

5 0.01

9 0.00

Distance Max Del

) (dv)

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.01

7 0.01

9 0.04

6 0.02

5 0.01

9 0.01

5 ASARCO – Hayd

– Hayden Smelter

vato, CA 94998 P

environcorp.com

17

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

7 0.05

8 0.04

2 0.01

3 0.02

2 0.01

1 0.00

1 0.00

4 0.01

1 0.00

1 0.00

0 0.00

ta-dv 99th

) (dv)

8 0.05

8 0.05

3 0.01

4 0.02

2 0.01

1 0.01

1 0.01

4 0.01

2 0.01

1 0.01

1 0.00

en Smelter: PM O

r: NOx + PM Only: 

P: 415‐899‐0700

m

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.04 0

0.03 0

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

98th Days

(dv) > 0.5 dv

0.04 0

0.04 0

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.01 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

Only: PM = 155 TPY

NOx = 79 TPY; PM

F: 415‐899‐070

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.04 0.0

0.04 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

98th Percentile 

v

2001 200

0.04 0.0

0.04 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.02 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.01 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

0.00 0.0

Y

M = 155 TPY

7

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

03 0.04

03 0.03

01 0.01

01 0.01

01 0.01

00 0.00

00 0.00

01 0.01

00 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

for each Year

3

02 2003 Av

04 0.04

04 0.04

01 0.01

01 0.02

01 0.01

00 0.00

01 0.01

01 0.01

01 0.00

00 0.00

00 0.00

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.04

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

98th 

3 Year

verage

0.04

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00
Metallurgical Process Specialists

Gas Cleaning Technologies LLC

4953 North O’Connor Road

Irving, TX  75062

Tel:  +1 214 613 1785

Fax: +1 214 613 1786

Date: March 19, 2013 

To: Eric Hiser

CC: Jack Garrity, Paykan Safe 

Re: Assistance for BART Determination 

Dear Eric, 

At ASARCO’s request, GCT has reviewed available particulate matter and NOx control 

technologies for copper smelting converter and anode furnace operations. 

Based on our extensive project experience with copper smelters around the world and 

participation in numerous benchmarking studies and visits, GCT has not identified any control 

technology that would result in substantial particulate matter emissions reduction for the 

existing Hayden smelter in place of the present wet gas cleaning section of the acid plant. The 

wet gas cleaning section consists of wet scrubbing, gas cooling, and wet electrostatic 

precipitators and is the best available control for PM emissions. While some converter 

operations also include a hot electrostatic precipitator upstream of the wet gas cleaning 

section, GCT would not expect the addition of a hot electrostatic precipitator to provide any 

tangible reduction in PM emissions from the acid plant tail gas since the converter off-gas 

already passes through multiple PM control technologies. Having a hot electrostatic precipitator 

simply reduces the load on the wet gas cleaning section and its associated weak acid handling 

system. 

The best available control technology for secondary gas PM emissions is the existing 

baghouse. GCT does not believe that expanding the capacity of the secondary baghouse 

system would provide any significant reduction in SO2 or PM emissions because over 98% of 

the SO2 and PM escaping the converter primary hoods is reporting to the secondary gas 

system in current operation. 

Some smelters do operate tertiary gas collection systems for the converters. These systems 

sometimes include baghouses for PM control. For the existing Hayden smelter configuration, a 

system capacity of approximately 600,000 ACFM would be required. A baghouse system of 

this capacity would cost approximately $35 million including the tertiary hoods, dampers, 

ductwork, supports, baghouse, and fan to convey the gases to the smelter stack. We estimate 

this system would reduce PM emissions by 27 tpy and have no impact on SO2 emissions. 
Metallurgical Process Specialists

Gas Cleaning Technologies LLC

4953 North O’Connor Road

Irving, TX  75062

Tel:  +1 214 613 1785

Fax: +1 214 613 1786

For the anode furnaces, the best available control technology for PM emissions is the existing 

baghouse. GCT is unaware of any NOx controls currently being used on any copper converting 

or anode furnace operations. 

Regarding an ESP for the converter tertiary system or anode furnace off-gas system, we don’t 

believe an ESP would be a viable solution for either application. For the tertiary gases, the dust 

loading is so low and fine and the gas temperature too cold such that the ESP would have 

much lower efficiency than a baghouse. For the anode furnace system, an ESP would not be 

recommended because of the potential for explosion during reduction stage, the high carbon 

content of the dust making the dust hard to charge, and the relatively low gas temperature. I 

don’t know of any other installations of ESPs being used for these two applications in a copper 

smelter. 

GCT has outlined some technologies that could reduce PM emissions from the current smelter 

configuration. However, the proposed converter retrofit project will result in much greater 

emissions reduction than applying the above technologies to the existing smelter configuration. 

 Sincerely, 

M. Russell