7272 E. I NDIAN S CHOOL R OAD , S UITE 360 S COTTSDALE , A RIZONA 85251

T ELEPHONE : 480-505-3900

F ACSIMILE : 480-505-3901
E RIC L. H ISER

D IRECT L INE : 480-505-3927 e-mail: ehiser@jordenbischoff.com 

### L AW 

### O FFICES 

# J ORDEN 

# B ISCHOFF 

# & H ISER 

# , 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 fo r ASARCO LLC—Hayden Smelter Dear Balaji: As requested, ASARCO LLC—Hayden Opera tions (“Asarco”) has prepared a “best available retrofit technology” or BA RT demonstration for particulat e matter to assist the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) in its response to EPA’s proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the Secti on 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 determina tion 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 re sponse. Similarly, Asarco agre es with ADEQ and EPA that a BART analysis for nitrogen oxide emi ssions is not requir ed due to their de minimis character. Please call Jack Garrity, Asarco’s Hayden Sm elter 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—Hayde n 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 sep aration 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: sme lting 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 su lfur in the feed combust, or “flash” in the hightemperature, oxygen-rich furnace atmosphere. The resulta nt 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 (SO 2 ), 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 conv erter aisle for crane transfer to the converters. The slag is skimmed into a slag pot fo r 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 th e converters. Converting c onsists 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 contro l bath temperature and to facilitate th e 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 SO 2 -containing gases that are evolved while the converters are blowing or “rolled-in”. These gases are routed through a gas clean ing system to remove particulate matter before reporting to the acid plant for conversion to sulfuric acid. The acid plant tail gas reports to th e center of the facility’s 1,000- foot stack. The secondary hooding system is designed to capture fugitive gases and par ticulates that escape the primary hoods or are emitted when the converter is “r olled-out” for skimming and charging. Gases that are collected by the secondary hoods are directed to a baghouse for particulate matter remova l 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 a node furnace to further refine the copper. Impurities within the copper bath form an oxi de slag which is removed from the furnace and returned to the converters. After the slag is removed, natura l gas is bubbled through the molten bath to reduce oxidized copper back to metallic copper. The resultant fire-refin ed copper (approximately 99.4% pure) is then cast into specifically designed shapes (anodes) and shipped by rail car s 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. D ESCRIPTION OF P OTENTIALLY BART- ELIGIBLE U NITS . 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 da tes of each BART emission unit must be identified. 2 In general, a unit that was “in existence” on August 7, 1977, but not “i n 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 Operat ing 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 we re 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 installe d in 1971, operating no late r than 1973, and are BARTeligible units. 4 Anode furnace #0 was installed in 2001 a nd 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 conve rters, #2, pre-dates the BART-eligibility period, and that one converter was added and th ree converters were replaced with larger units during the BART-eligibility period. At this time, Asarco believes th at 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 attach ed. Accordingly, anode furnace #1, anode furnace #2, converter #1, converter #3, conve rter #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. S UBJECT TO BART A NALYSIS Asarco acknowledges that ADEQ and the Western Regi onal Air Partnership (WRAP) modeled the Hayden Smelter during development of the Sect ion 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 visi bility 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-st ate 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 SO 2 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 co ntribution 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 determ ination process set forth in the Arizona Section 308 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. Step 1: Identify the Existing Control T echnologies 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 ven tilation to the converters. This additiona l ventilation allowed the secondary hoods to capture more particulate matter emi ssions 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 lo cated 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. Asar co does not intend for the anode furnace baghouse to be construed as BART because it intends to rely on emi ssions 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 pr oject aimed at achieving attainment of the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. Steps 2-3: (2) Identify all available retrofit control technologies with practical potential for application to the specific emission unit for the regu lated pollutant under consideration; and (3) eliminate all technically infeasible control technologies

. In the Section 308 Arizona Regional Haze SIP, ADEQ dete rmined that the Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation’s continuous production of blister c opper is a fundamentally different process from the process employed by Asarco’s Hayden Smelter. ADEQ has also determined th at BART does not contain a requirement that the source be redesigned when the Agency consid ers the available control alternatives. As a result, ADEQ concluded that it is not necessary to consider the use of Kennecott Ut ah Copper Corporation’s process as a potential BART alternative. Section 308 SIP, § XII.C, at 88. EPA concu rred with this determination. 77 Fed. Reg. 75704, 75726 (Dec. 21, 2012). Asarco also concurs. Evaluation of possible control technologies . The following technologies are pot entially 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 c ontrolled by cyclones, wet scrubbers, and the acid plant. Additional controls are not deemed feasible due to the highly corrosive na ture 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 SO 2 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 ve ntilation system because the inlet particulate loading is too low. An ESP is technically infeasible for the anod e furnaces because of the explosion hazard that would result during poling operations when natural gas is introduced into the furnaces and subse quently 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 em ission 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 Determin ation,” 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 tec hnologies is required for the secondary off-gas stream. 15 The remaining technologies under consideration for c onverter 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 envi ronmental impacts; (6) Evaluate visibility impacts; and (7) select BART
. In this step, Asarco evaluates energy, non-air quality e nvironmental impacts, cost, and visibility impacts and based upon that analysis, recommends BART. Based on m odeling conducted by Environ, Asarco has received an estimate that particulate emissions from the Hayden sme lter’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 technol ogy 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 shoul d be achieved by this unit. Consistent with the Guidelines, 17 Asarco has chosen to use the “streamlined approach” by relying on the par ticulate limit set for an acid plant in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant s (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 Secti on 63.1450(b) and continuous monitoring of scrubbing liquid flow rate over the final two towers in the acid pl ant 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 sim ilar 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 Sme lting, 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 specif ied 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 convert ers and correspondingly reduce visibility impacts. Installation of a tertiary ventilation syst em would require addition of side walls to the converter aisle, installation of canopy hoods over the converters, inst allation 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 retrof it 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 gr eater than, the cost of captu ring emissions from the three converter tertiary ventilation system that GCT had pro posed. GCT has estimated the cost of the sheeting, ductwork, foundation and supports, induced draft fan, a nd 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 estimat es that approximately 17.34 tons of particulate matter/year are lost to the atmosphere thr ough 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 th at 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 particulat e visibility impacts, which is unlikely. Given the extremely small visibility imp act 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 commitme nt 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 t est 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 em issions (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 approxim ately $3 million (total project cost: $8.7 million) 29 and if this were added, the costs would increase to approximately $10,870/t on and $19.6 million/dv.
Wet scrubbers also have a number of operati onal 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 dr ying adds to the emissions impacts, partially offsetting the benefits. Electric drying would be costly and wo uld 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 scr ubbers, by the adverse environmental effects of water consumption and sludge management. Asarco also notes th at the particulate matter reductions achieved by the anode furnace baghouse project were undertaken to prepare fo r the converter aisle retrofit project, which is relying in part upon the emissions reductions in the anode furn ace project. The converter aisle retrofit project is anticipated to bring additional partic ulate 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 :n I=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. poait iOIl 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 

### at eel 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 8 hown. '!'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 

### ret erred. 

### 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 

### adj ustment. 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

.. , depend 

## inc 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, 

### 1949March 4 ,



## MEM O

To: From: Subject:

This Me m modelin g impairm e BART m o Western Arizona R
BACKGR O
The pur p Air Act ( C remedy a CAAA id e Wildern e related v natural v make re a submit S t 156 Clas s become the goal further p the term program more of a August 7 categori e perform e area. If a anticipa t

1 http://p a 2 http://w

773 S a , 2013



## O RANDU M

Eric H Ralph Upda t

m orandum p g using revis
e nt at Class
o deling follo w

Regional Ai R egional Ha z
O UND

p ose of the R C AA) in the 1
a ny existing , e ntified 156
e ss Areas th a v alues (AQR V
v isibility con d
a sonable pr o t ate Imple m s I areas. T h long term r e that Congre p rogress is c a

“BART

‐ eligi

. BART

‐ eligi
a visibility

‐ i m

, 1977, and
e s. Once a f a e d to deter m a State dete r t ed to cause

a h.cert.ucr.ed u ww.azdeq.go v

a n Marin Drive, 

## M

iser, Jorden , Morris and t ed CALPUF F

p resents up d ed emissio n I areas with i
w ed the sa m r Partnershi
z e Rule (RH R

R egional Ha z 1 977 Clean A

, impairmen mandatory
a t are offer e V s; e.g., visi b d itions in th e o gress towa r m entation Pl a h ese RHR SI P e gional haze
ss set. One
a lled Best A v ble source” ble sources m pairing air whose oper a cility has b e m ine if that f
r mines that
or contribu t

u /aqm/308/ba
v /environ/air/ h

Suite 2115, No v www. e , Bischoff a n Lynsey Par k F BART Mod

d ated CALP U
n s for the As a

i n 300 km o f
m e procedu r

p (WRAP 1 ) C R ) State Imp l

z e Rule (RH R A ir Act Ame n t of visibilit y Class I area s e d special pr b ility and aci
e Class I are a r ds the achi e a ns (SIPs) to P s are inten d

strategies t of the tools
v ailable Ret r to describe
are those s o pollutant; w ations fall w e en determ i f acility caus e the facility “ t e to any im

rt.shtml h aze/downloa d

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m
1 n d Hiser, PL C k er eling for th e

U FF Best Ava a rco Hayde n f the source r es and use d C ALPUFF BA R l ementatio n

R ), outlined i
n dments (C A y caused by m s that consis otection ag a d depositio n a s by 2064.
e vement of t

address re g d ed to be th e t o demonstr

provided t o r ofit Techno the sources o urces that h
w ere constr u w ithin one o r

i ned to be B e s or contri b

“ emits any a pairment o f

d /haze308sip. p
P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m C

e Asarco Ha y

a ilable Retro
n facility to e

. For consis t d the same d R T modelin g n Plan (SIP 2 )

n Sections 1 A AA), is to p r m anmade s o t of specific
a inst advers e n ). The goal

In the inter this nationa g ional haze v e first in a s e ate reasona o the States t

logy (BART)

. that are po h ave the po t u cted betwe e r more of th e B ART

‐ eligibl e b utes to visi b

ir pollutant f visibility in

p df

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 y den Facilit y

fit Technol o e stimate visi t ency, the u d atabases as g that was u s subject

‐ to

‐ B

1 69A and 16 9
r event any f
o urces at Cl a National Pa e air quality of the RHR im, States a l goal and a r v isibility im p e ries of acti o

ble further p t o address r

. The regio n tentially su b t ential to e m e n August 7 , e 26 specifi c e , air quality b ility impair m which may r any such ar e

7 y

o gy (BART)

bility pdated CAL used by th e s ed in the B ART analysi

9 B of the Cl e f uture, and
a ss I areas. T rks and and air qua is to achiev e re required t re required p airment in t o ns that will p rogress to w r easonable
n al haze rul e b ject to this
m it 250 tons

, 1962 and
c ally listed s o

modeling is
m ent at a Cl a r easonably b
e a,” then th PUFF e

s.

e an

T he lity
e t o

t he

w ard

e s use

or

o urce

a ss I b e efacility is oxides o f
The Ariz o Quality ( A modelin g Center ( R impacts a WRAP R M to the st a
On June for each screenin g due to e m
On June modelin g “potenti a each yea within 3 0 impairm e 98 th per c 300 kilo m Class I a r emission determi n
On July 1 another s one of t h CALPUF F Class I a r was 2.3 9 facility c a 98 th per c 0.53 dv. PM emis
As a res u BART

‐ eli g

3 http://w

773 S a deemed to f nitrogen ( N

o na RHR SIP A DEQ) addr e g conducted R MC). The W a t Class I ar e M C CALPUF F a tes that th e 9, 2006, AD E potentially

‐ g modeling a m issions fro
7, 2007, the g analysis. B a lly

‐ BART

‐ el
r averaged o 0 0 kilomete r e nt of visibil
c entile visibi l
m eters awa y r ea. In most

s that contr n ed that the

1 3, 2007, A D s ource that h e sources t h F BART mod e r ea within 3 0 9

. As this val
a used visibil
c entile visibi l

As this valu sions contri b

u lt of these m g ible for PM

ww.azdeq.go v

a n Marin Drive, be subject

‐ t N O X ), sulfur d

dated June e sses the B A

by the We s W RAP RMC u e as due to p o F BART mod e e n made th e
E Q provide d BART

‐ eligibl
a nalysis to d
m facility.

WRAP RM C B ased upon t

igible” sour c o ver three y r s of the fac i ity in that C l l ity impact w y , the facilit y

cases wher e ibuted to, o r facility was EQ identifie
was recom m h at the ADE Q
e ling estima t 0 0 km of th e ue is above ity impairm e l ity impact a e is greater t b utes to visi

m odeling re s

and SO2 e m

v /environ/air/ h

Suite 2115, No v www. e t o ‐ BART. Vi s d ioxide (SO 2
2011 prepa r A RT progra m s tern Region
u sed the CA L o tential BA R e ling was a s e subject

‐ to

‐ d potential e

e facility to d etermine t h

C provided A t he CALPUF F c e’s 98 th pe r ears) was g r i lity, the faci l ass I area. S
w as found t o y would be c

e a “potenti
r caused, i m “potentiall y
d eight sou r m ended for f Q identified t ed that the
e Asarco Ha y

the 1.0 dv t h
e nt at a Clas
a t any Class I t han 0.5 dv, bility impai r

s ults, ADEQ d
m issions (se e

h aze/downloa d

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 2 s ibility impai

) and partic u

r ed by the A
m for source s

al Air Partn e L PUFF dispe R T

‐ eligible s o s creening a n BART deter m
missions inf t he WRAP R h e predicted

A DEQ with t h

F modeling r r centile visib
r eater than 0 lity would b S imilarly, if t o be greater o nsidered t o ally

‐ BART

‐ e l
m pairment o f

y ‐ subject

‐ to

‐

r ces that we f urther eval u as potentia l maximum 9 y den facility h reshold th e s I area. Th e area due t o then the A D
r ment at a C
d etermined
e page 22 of

d /app_d.pdf

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m ring polluta n u late matte r
A rizona Dep a s in Arizona.
e rship (WR A rsion mode l
o urces in 7 o n alysis whos
m ination.
f ormation al R MC, which p

visibility i m

h e results of
r esults, ADE Q b ility impact 0 .5 decivie w b e considere t he “potenti than 1.0 dv
o cause imp a l igible” sour f visibility in

‐ BART.”

re potential
u ation. The l ly subject

‐ t o 9 8 th percent due to the s e n ADEQ co n e WRAP CA L o the Hayde n D EQ conclu d lass I area.
that the As a f Appendix D

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 nts include e r (PM).

a rtment of E

ADEQ reli e A P) Regional

l to simulat e o f the WRA P

e informati o

ong with st a p erformed a m pairment a t

the CALPU F Q determin e (e.g., 8 th hi g w s (dv) in an y

d to contrib ally

‐ BART

‐ e in any Clas s a irment of v ce was fou n a Class I ar e

ly

‐ subject

‐ t o Asarco Hay o ‐ BART. Th e ile visibility i
s ource’s SO 2 n cluded tha t L PUFF

‐ estim
n facility P M d ed that the

a rco Hayde n D of the AZ R

7 e missions o f

E nvironmen t e d on air qu a

Modeling
e the visibili t P States. Th e o n was prov

a ck paramet a CALPUFF t Class I are a

F F BART
e d that if a g hest value i n y Class I are a ute to ligible” sou r s I area less t v isibility in t h
n d to have
e a, ADEQ

o ‐ BART and den smelte r e WRAP RM C i mpact at a n emissions a t the Hayde n ated maxi m M emissions w

Asarco Hay d

n facility wa s R HR SIP 3 ). f

t al
a lity

t y e ided

ers

a s

n a

r ce’s t han h at

r was C
n y a lone
n m um

w as den

sPURPOS E
Asarco h the WR A to emit ( emission existing c modelin g from the state op e Guidelin e RMC for Internati revised e BART sc r
UPDATE D Approac
The upd a 15, 2006 ago and s recomm e consiste n Modelin g
The CAL M modelin g exceptio which w e created. the thre e same ve r the thre e Hayden f exercise d
areas re p
Emissio n

4 40 C.F.R. 5 http://p a 6 http://p a
773 S a E

as raised iss A P RMC for t

PTE) overst a units at th e c ontrols at t g analysis (e

Hayden fac
e rating con d
e s, 4 and fou n the subject

‐ onal Corpo r e mission est i

eening mod

D CALPUFF B
h

a ted CALPU F

CALPUFF B A s ince then t h
e nded proc e n t with the A g Protocol p
M ET inputs a g are availa b
n to this are e re not arch

The versio n e years (200
r sion of CAL P e years usin g f acility emis s d using the r p orted.

n Scenarios

Part 51, App. a h.cert.ucr.ed u a h.cert.ucr.ed u

a n Marin Drive, ues with th e he CALPUFF
a ted emissi o e Hayden fa c he Hayden f .g., baghou s ility to com e d itions durin
n d that the y

‐ to

‐ BART CA
r ation (ENVI R i mates. EN V eling.

B ART MOD E

F F BART mo d A RT Modeli n h ere have b e e dures for r e A rizona RHR rocedures a

a nd most of b le for down

the meteo r ived on the
n of CALME T 1, 2002 and P UFF as use d g the new m s ions as use d
r evised emis

Y, § III.A.3, Op
u /aqm/308/ba
u /aqm/308/ba

Suite 2115, No v www. e e emissions f

BART scree o n rates, rat h
c ility that ar e f acility were s e on the co n e up with th e g periods o f y are much l e

LPUFF mod e R ON) to per f V IRON was p

E LING

d eling follo w n g Protocol 5
e en update s e gulatory C A

SIP subject

‐ nd models w
the CALPU F load from t h
r ological inp WRAP RMC T used by W R

2003) usin g d by WRAP ( eteorologic a d in the WR A sions provi d

tion 1(2) rt/WRAP_RM C rt.shtml

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 3 f or the Hay d ning modeli h er than ma x e not BART

‐ e

accounted f
n verters). A
e maximum f high capaci
e ss than the
e ling analysi f orm updat e p art of the W

w ed the app r

. These pro c s to the CAL P A LPUFF mod e

‐ to

‐ BART m o w ere used i n
F F inputs us e h e WRAP R M uts for CAL P website du e R AP (CALM E g the same i n ( CALPUFF V 6
a l inputs fro A P RMC CA L d ed by Asar c

C _BART_Proto

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m d en facility t

ng. These i s ximum actu e ligible. In a f or in the su A sarco has a n

actual emis ty utilizatio n emissions A s. Thus, As a e d CALPUFF W RAP RMC a

roach outlin cedures we r P UFF model eling. How e o deling, the
n the updat e

e d in the W R M C BART m o P UFF (i.e., th
e to their la r E T V6.211, L e n puts and o p 6 .112, Level
m the CAL M L PUFF runs. c o and the v i

o col_Aug15_2 0

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 hat the AD E s sues includ al values, a n a ddition, it i s

bject

‐ to

‐ BA R
n alyzed act u s sions reflec t n ” as requir e A DEQ provi d
a rco retaine d

BART mod e a nd headed u

n ed in the W
r e develope d ing system a e ver, in ord e WRAP CAL P e d CALPUFF

R AP RMC C A o deling web s

e CALMET. D
r ge size so h
e vel 060414 p tions as us e 060414) w a M ET runs an d

CALPUFF w i sibility imp a

0 06.pdf

7 E Q provided

e using pot e n d including
s not clear t h RT CALPUFF
u al emission s t ive of “stea
e d by EPA’s B d ed to the W d ENVIRON
e ling using

u p the CAL P

RAP RMC A u d over six y e a nd EPA’s
e r to be P UFF BART

BART mode l

A LPUFF scre e

s ite 6

. The D AT output f

ad to be re ‐ ) was rerun e d in WRAP

. a s then run f d the origin a as then
a cts at Class to e ntial

h at

s dy

‐ B ART W RAP

P UFF

u gust e ars

l ing.

e ning

f ile),

for

. The f or a l

ITwo emi s emission that Asa r actual e m suppose d revised e scenario s fugitive s original s provide d facility. T original a the Lam b WRAP R M very low emission (689 g/s ) original v CALPUF F
Table 1. Name Original AZ10 AZ11 AZ12 AZ13 Revised AZ10 AZ11 AZ12 AZ13

7 40 C.F.R.

773 S a s sion scena r s that the A
r co provide d
m issions for d to be use d
e missions fo r s include fo u s ources wh o s tack param e d by Asarco. T here are c h
a nd revised H b ert Confor m M C Modelin

NO X emissi o s, whereas t )

. The bigge s v alue (64 g/ s F BART Mod e

Original an d LCC
‐ X (km)

‐ 1279.79 1

‐ 1279.79 1

‐ 1279.79 1

‐ 1279.79 1

‐ 1279.48 5

‐ 1279.48 5

‐ 1279.46 0

‐ 1279.47 4

Part 51, App. Y

a n Marin Drive, r ios were an DEQ provid e d to ENVIRO N the Hayden d in subject

‐ t

r Hayden ar e u r sources a t o se emission

e ters used i n Table 2 co m h anges in bo H ayden emi
m al Conic (L C g Protocol f o o ns (2.27 g/ s t he revised C
s t change b e s ) was redu c e ling Protoc o d revised st a 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, Op t
Suite 2115, No v www. e alyzed in th e e d to the W R N in Januar y facility duri n t o ‐ BART mo d
e available f t the Hayde n s were rele a n the WRAP
m pares the o

th the stack ssion scena r C C) coordin a o r details o n s ). The origi C ALPUFF m o e tween the o c ed 93% in t h
o l, all PM e m

a ck parame t Elev (m)

633.98 4 633.98 4 633.98 4 633.98 4

651.66 2 651.66 2 646.48 1 646.48 1

t ion 1(2),

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 4 e updated C R AP RMC in y 2012. The
n g periods o d eling analy
rom Asarco

. n facility, t w a sed closer t

RMC CALP U o riginal and r

parameter s r ios. The lo c a te system u n the LCC de f nal CALPUF F o deling assu m o riginal and h e revised m m issions we r
t ers for the Heigh t

(m)

4 304.80 0 4 280.41 6 4 198.12 0 4 198.10

2 304.8 2 302.24 1 25.298 1 24.872

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m C ALPUFF mo d

June, 2006; revised emi
o f high capa c y sis. 7 Details

. The origin a w o point sou r

t o the surfa c U FF and the revised emi s s and emissi o c ations of th
u sed in the C finition). B o F modeling a med SO 2 e m revised em i
m odeling (4 g r e treated a s
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 d eling: (1) t h and (2) rev i ssions repr e c ity utilizati

on the dev e a l and revis e r ces with st a c e. Table 1 c revised stac s sions for th
on rates be t e sources a r C ALPUFF mo o th sets of e a ssumed 1, 0
m issions tha t

i ssions are f o g /s). Follow
s fine partic u den facility

. er Tempe r (K )

423.70 6 330.37 2 295.0 295.0

416.48 3 321.84 4 310.92 8 310.92 8

7 h e original i sed emissio
e sent maxi m on, which a r e lopment o f
e d emission
a cks and tw o c ompares th k paramete r e Hayden t ween the
r e reported deling (see missions ha v 0 51 g/s of S O t were 34% l
o r PM wher e ing the WR A
u late (PM 2.5 )

. r ature ) Vel o ( m

6 5.79 1 2 10.3 6 0.1 0.1

3 83.9 8 4 38.4 2 8 0.61 8 1.53 6 ns m um

r e f the

o e r s

using

v e O 2

ower e the A P )

.

o city
m /s)

1 6 3

8 9 2 5

6Table 2. Source Original AZ10 AZ11 AZ12 AZ13 Total Revised AZ10 AZ11 AZ12 AZ13 Total Percent

CALPUF F
Attachm all Class I original r CALPUF F results f r results f o always o Hayden f km from (SIAN) t h SUPE. T a column f

1. T
2. T
3. D
4. M C
5. 9
6. 9

773 S a Original an d SO 2 (g/s)

67.80 0 914.4 0

1.71 0 66.84 0 1050. 7

71.1 8 578.2 7

2.15 37.6 1 689.2 1

‐ 34.4 %

F Modeling R

e nts A, B an I areas withi
r esults from F modeling u r om the upd
o r the two c l
ccur are re p f acility are G

the Hayde n h at was 84 k m a bles 3 thro u f or each Cla s
he Class I ar
he Class I ar
D istance fro m
M aximum vi s

ALPUFF mo d
9 th percenti l
8 th percenti l

a n Marin Drive, d revised e m NO X (g/ s

0 0.1 1 0 0 1.3 7 0 0.7 8 0 0.0 0 7 5 2.2 7

8 0.1 1 7 1.3 7 0.7 8 0.0 0 1 2.2 7

% 0.0 %

R esults
d C list the A
n 300 km o f the WRAP R
u sing the sa m

ated CALPU l osest Class p eated in Ta b G aliuro (GAL I
n facility; th e m from Hay d
u gh 6 and A t s s I area wit h

ea four lett e

ea name (a t

m Hayden fa

s ibility impa c d eling (in d e
l e (11 th high e
l e (22 nd high

Suite 2115, No v www. e m ission rate

X s ) P M (g/ s

1 9 14.5 9 7 1 14.5 9 8 0 5.7 9 0 0 29.0 3 7 64.0

1 9 0.2 4 7 1 1.0 8 0 2.3 0 0 0.9 7 4.4 7

% ‐ 93. 0

A sarco Hayd f the Hayde n R MC screeni
m e (original)

FF modelin g I areas to H a b les 3 throu g I ) and Super
e next closes d en and ha d t tachments A h in 300 km o

e r identifier;

t tachments o cility to the

c t due to Ha e ciview or d v

e st day) visi b

est day) visi

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 5 s for the As a M

s )

9 5 9 5 9 6 3 0 16

4 1 1 1 7

0 %

en facility C A
n facility for, ng modelin g emissions a g using the r e a yden facilit y g h 6 below. stition (SUP t Class I are a d visibility i m A , B and C h
o f the Hayd e

o nly);
Class I area yden facilit y v );
b ility impac t bility impac t

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m a rco Hayde n

A LPUFF esti

respectivel y g ; (B) the re s a s used by t h evised emis s y where th e The two cl o E) Wilderne s a was the Si e m pacts ~40 % h ave the foll o e n facility:

(km);

y on any da y

t during the

t during the

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 n facility.

mated visib i y , three sce n s ults for the h e WRAP R M s ions from A e maximum v o sest Class I ss Areas tha
e rra Ancha W % lower than

o wing infor m

y during the t

three years
three year s

7 i lity impacts
n arios: (A) t h updated M C; and (C) t A sarco. The
v isibility im p areas to th e a t are 47 an d W ilderness

at GALI an d
m ation in ea

three years

of modelin g

s of modelin g at h e

t he

p acts e d 49

d ch

of

g
. g ;7. N 0
8. 9
9. 9
10. 9
11. T
WRAP a n
There ar e updated three ye a estimate original e a maxim original e ago, we w are usin g CALMET results c a CALMET any eve n estimate 1

‐ 2% of e Updated
The revi s years du e reductio n average d revised e threshol d visibility the origi n using th e

8 http://w

773 S a N umber of d a

.5 dv;
8 th percenti l
8 th percenti l
8 th percenti l
hree year a v

n d Updated

e slight diff e CALPUFF u s a rs visibility
s a 2.39 dv v e missions ( w u m 0.53 dv v e missions. G
w ould not e x g different c o

to generate a n vary grea is run with t n t, using the

98 th perce n e ach other a

CALPUFF R e

s ed emissio n e to all (SO 2 , n
. Consider i d over 3 yea r e missions ar e d

. However impact ave r n al emissio n e revised e m

ww.epa.gov/t t

a n Marin Drive, a ys during t h

l e (8 th highe s
l e (8 th highe s
l e (8 th highe s

v erage of 98
CALPUFF R e

e rences in t h
s ing original

metric and f
v isibility im p w ithin 1%). S

v isibility im p G iven that t h
x pect to be
o mputers a n

the CALPU F tly (e.g., a f a t he same m e

original em i
n tile visibilit y a nd are all a b

e sults using

n s reduce th e

, NO X and P M i ng just SO 2 r s is reduce d
e used (37 %

, for the PM
r aged over 3
n s (0.54 dv) i
m issions (0.0 4

t n/scram/rep o
Suite 2115, No v www. e h e three ye a

s t day) visib i

s t day) visib i

s t day) visib i

th percentil e

e sults using O
h e Hayden vi

emissions. f or just the H p act compar e S imilarly, fo r p acts versus h e WRAP R M a ble to exa c n d compiler s F F meteorol o a ctor of thr e e teorologic a i ssions both y impacts of b ove the 0. 5 Original an d

e maximum M ) of Hayde emissions a l d from 2.42 d % reduction), emissions a years that w s over a fac t 4 dv).

o rts/EPA

‐ 454_ R

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 6 a rs of model

i lity impact i
i lity impact i
i lity impact i

e (8 th highes t
O riginal Emi s sibility imp a Using the m H ayden SO 2 e d to 2.42 d
r j ust PM e m

0.54 dv for M C CALPUFF
c tly duplicat e s
. This is es p o gical input s e e) using dif f
a l input data

the WRAP a the Hayden 5 dv significa
d Revised E m

98 th percen n’s emissio n l one, the m a d v using th e both of wh i
a lone scena r w as above t h t or of 10 bel

R

‐ 12

‐ 003.pdf

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m ing that the

i n 2001;
i n 2002;
i n 2003; an d

t day) visibil

s sions

a cts betwee n m aximum 98 t

emissions a v for updat e m issions alon

updated CA modeling w e the WRAP p ecially true s ; EPA studi e f erent CAL M

just by var y a nd update d

SO 2 and P M a nce thresh o

m issions

n tile visibilit y n s from 2.6 1 a ximum 98 t h
e original e m i ch are abo v r io, the max i h e 0.5 dv si g l ow the 0.5 d

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 visibility im

d

ity impact.

n the WRAP t h percentile lone, the W e d CALPUFF
n e, the WRA P

LPUFF (with
w as perform e

RMC result s because w e e s have sho w M ET output e y ing the CAL d CALPUFF m M emissions
o ld.

y impacts av 1 to 1.52 dv, h percentile v m issions to 1

. v e the 0.5 d v i mum 98 th p g nificance t h d v significa n

7 pact excee d

RMC and averaged o v RAP RMC modeling w P RMC esti m h in 2%) usin g e d over 6 y e s given that
e had to rer u w n CALPUF F e ven with th

MET option s m odeling

alone are w

eraged ove r a 42%
v isibility im p

. 52 dv whe n v significanc e p ercentile h reshold usi n n ce threshol d d ed

v er

w ithin
m ates g the
e ars

we u n F e s 8

. In
ithin

r 3

p acts n the
e

n g dTable 3. emissio n Class I Area Original W GALI SUPE Updated GALI SUPE Update C A GALI SUPE

Table 4. Class I Area Original W GALI SUPE Updated GALI SUPE Update C A GALI SUPE

Table 5. Class I Area Original W GALI SUPE Updated GALI SUPE Update C A GALI SUPE

773 S a CALPUFF vi n s. Dist (km) M ( d W RAP RMC 47 5 49 5 CALPUFF wit 47 5 49 5 A LPUFF with 47 2 49 3

CALPUFF vi

Dist (km) M ( d W RAP RMC 47 4 49 5 CALPUFF wit 47 5 49 5 A LPUFF with 47 2 49 3

CALPUFF vi

Dist (km) M ( d W RAP RMC 47 0 49 0 CALPUFF wit 47 0 49 0 A LPUFF with 47 0 49 0

a n Marin Drive, sibility resu
M ax

d v) 99 th (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 M ax

d v) 99 th (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 M ax

d v) 99 th (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, No v www. e lts for the A

98 th (dv)

2.51 2.64 RAP RMC E m 2.47 2.52 ssions 1.39 1.40

lts for the A 98 th (dv)

2.24 2.40 RAP RMC E m 2.19 2.35 ssions 1.38 1.39

lts for the A 98 th (dv)

0.01 0.01 RAP RMC E m 0.01 0.01 ssions 0.01 0.01

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 7 A sarco Hayd e #Days > 0.5 dv 2

338 3 313
m issions 349 3 323

175 159

A sarco Hayd e #Days > 0.5 dv 2

290 280
m issions 296 3 292

167 155

A sarco Hayd e #Days > 0.5 dv 2

0 0 0 0
m issions 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m e n facility a
98 th 2 001 98 t h 200 2

3.01 2.0 2 2.46 2.4 2

3.31 2.0 2 2.52 2.4 6

1.89 1.0 4 1.56 1.2 8

e n facility a 98 th 2 001 98 t h 200 2

2.74 1.6 6 2.4 2.2 9

3.21 1.6 6 2.43 2.3 3

1.88 1.0 4 1.53 1.2 6

e n facility a 98 th 2 001 98 t h 200 2

0.01 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 1

0.01 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 1

0.01 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 1

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 nd SO 2 , NO X

h 2 98 th 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 98 th 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 98 th 2003

1 0.01 1 0.01

1 0.00 1 0.01

1 0.01 1 0.01

7 X and PM

98 th 3
‐ Yr Avg

2.51 2.57

2.61 2.60

1.52 1.42

S O 2 emissio 98 th 3
‐ Yr Avg

2.23 2.39

2.37 2.42

1.52 1.40

N O X emissi o 98 th 3
‐ Yr Avg

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 ns.

o ns.Table 6. Class I Area Original W GALI SUPE Updated GALI SUPE Update C A GALI SUPE

CONCLU S
Asarco h Hayden s Asarco h CALPUF F
The Ariz o adverse v impacts a which e x that the using th e over thr e significa n
The Ariz o to visibil i year visi b threshol d eligible. 0.04 dv, o Hayden f

773 S a CALPUFF vi

Dist (km) M ( d W RAP RMC 47 0 49 0 CALPUFF wit 47 0 49 0 A LPUFF with 47 0 49 0

S IONS FRO M

as raised nu s melter facil
as develop e F BART mod e

o na RHR SIP
v isibility im p a veraged o v x ceeded the

Hayden faci
e revised Ha y e e years visi b
n t visibility i m

o na RHR SIP i ty impairm e b ility impac t d

. Based on However, w o ver a facto f acility PM e

a n Marin Drive, sibility resu M ax

d v) 99 th (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 UPD A

merous iss u ity that wer d revised e m e ling.

concluded t p airment at a v er 3 years a t

1 dv signific lity SO 2 emi s y den facilit y b ility impac t m pairment t
concluded t e nt at a Clas s s was 0.53 d these resul t w hen using t h

r of 10 belo w missions sh o

Suite 2115, No v www. e lts for the A 98 th (dv)

0.53 0.42 RAP RMC E m 0.52 0.41 ssions 0.04 0.03

A TED CALPU

u es associat e e used in th e m issions for

t hat SO 2 em i
a Class I are a t any Class I ant visibilit y s sions were y emissions f t at any Clas s t hreshold.

t hat PM emi
s I area sinc e d v, which ex c t s ADEQ co n h e revised e w the 0.5 d v o uld not be

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 8 A sarco Hayd e #Days > 0.5 dv 2

34 0 14 0
m issions 33 0 14 0

0 0 0 0

FF MODELI N

e d with the o e WRAP RM the Hayden

i ssions from
a since the m area within y impairmen

BART

‐ eligib f ound that t h
s I area was

ssions from
e the maxi m c eeded the 0
n cluded tha t

missions th e v significant c

considered

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m e n facility a 98 th 2 001 98 t h 200 2

0.53 0.5 1 0.42 0.4 3

0.55 0.5 2 0.41 0.4 3

0.04 0.0 3 0.04 0.0 3

N G

o verstatem e C subject

‐ t o facility that

the Asarco
m aximum 9 8

300 km of t t threshold. le. The upd a h e maximu m 1.52 dv, wh

the Asarco
m um 98 th pe r

0.5 dv signi f t the Hayde n e 98 th perce n c ontributio n BART

‐ eligib l

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 nd just the P h 2 98 th 2003

1 0.55 3 0.40

2 0.55 3 0.41

3 0.04 3 0.03

e nt of emiss
o ‐ BART CAL P t were used

Hayden fac i 8 th percentil e t he source w

So the AD E ated CALPU
m 98 th perce h ich is still a b

Hayden faci
r centile ave r f icant contri b
n PM emissi o ntile visibili t n threshold. l e.

7 P M emissio n 98 th 3
‐ Yr Avg

0.53 0.41

0.54 0.42

0.04 0.04

ions for the i P UFF modeli in updated

i lity caused
e visibility
w as 2.39 dv, E Q conclude FF modelin g ntile averag b ove the 1 d

lity contrib u r age over th b ution
o ns are BAR T t y impact is o

Thus, the n s.

i r ng.

d g

ed
v

u ted
ree

T

‐ o nly773 S a 

### Asarco

(Sou

n Marin Drive, 

### Hayden F a Origin a

rce: http: /

Suite 2115, No v www. e 

## ATT A

a cility Visi b

a l WRAP R / /pah.cer t

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 9 

## A CHMEN T

b ility Imp a
R MC CALP U

t .ucr.edu/ a

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 

## T A

a cts at Cla s
U FF Mode

a qm/308 /

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 

### s s I Areas f ling / bart.sht m

7 

### f rom

m l )gali Galiu supe Supe sian Sierr a sagu Sagu a
maza Maz a moba Mou n pimo Pine chir Chiri c gila Gila W pefo Petri f syca Syca

gali Galiu supe Supe sian Sierr a sagu Sagu a
maza Maz a moba Mou n pimo Pine chir Chiri c gila Gila W pefo Petri f syca Syca SRC05 AS A

gali Galiu supe Supe sian Sierr a sagu Sagu a
maza Maz a moba Mou n pimo Pine chir Chiri c gila Gila W pefo Petri f syca Syca Class I Are a SRC05 AS A

Class I Are a SRC05 AS A

Class I Are a

773 S a ro Wilderness rstition Wilderne s
a Ancha Wildern e
a ro NM
a tzal Wilderness
n t Baldy Wilderne s Mountain Wilder n
c ahua NM W ilderness f ied Forest NP more Canyon Wi A

ro Wilderness rstition Wilderne s
a Ancha Wildern e
a ro NM
a tzal Wilderness
n t Baldy Wilderne s Mountain Wilder n
c ahua NM W ilderness f ied Forest NP more Canyon W A A RCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness rstition Wilderne s
a Ancha Wildern e
a ro NM
a tzal Wilderness
n t Baldy Wilderne s Mountain Wilder n
c ahua NM W ilderness f ied Forest NP more Canyon W A a A RCO – Hayden S

a A RCO – Hayden S

a

a n Marin Drive, Minimum (k m

4 7
s s 4 9
e ss 8 4 8 6 12 1
s s 15 1
n ess 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 A 23 9

Minimum (k m

4 7
s s 4 9
e ss 8 4 8 6 12 1
s s 15 1
n ess 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 A 23 9 S melter: NOx O Minimum (k m

4 7
s s 4 9
e ss 8 4 8 6 12 1
s s 15 1
n ess 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 A 23 9 S melter: SO2 O n S melter: SO2 =

Suite 2115, No v 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 T P 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 n ly: SO2 = 36,5 2 Results f 36,524 TPY; NO x

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 10 D elta-dv 99 th 9 8 d v) (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

.

D elta-dv 99 th 9 8 d v) (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

. P Y D elta-dv 99 th 9 8 d v) (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 2 4 TPY rom WRAP We b
x = 80 TPY; PM =

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 8 th Days d v) > 0.5 dv 2 0

. 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

8 th Days d v) > 0.5 dv 2 0

. 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

8 th Days d v) > 0.5 dv 2 0

. 01 0 0

. 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 9 8 b site

= 2,225 TP Y

9 8

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 0 01 2002 .01 .46 .84 2 .1 .43 .93 .02 .39 .98 .77 0 .8

0 01 2002 .74 2 .4 .71 .95 .38 .91 .99 .29 .96 .74 .78

0 01 2002 .01 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 th Percentile fo

0.0 1 0.0 1

0 0 0 0 0 1.2 3 0.7 4 0.9 0.6 4 0.9 8 1.1 3 0.6 6 0.9 1 2.2 9 1.2 2 0.7 9 0.9 2 0.6 7 0.9 3 1.2 9

1.6 6 0.6 6

8 th Percentile fo 1.4 2 1.0 5 1.2 1 2.0 2 2.4 2 8 th 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 98 th Year
v erage 2.51 2.57 1.6 1.77 1.28 0.78 0.96 1.49 0.8 0.8 0.72

98 th Year
v erage 2.23 2.39 1.46 1.64 1.22 0.76 0.93 1.39 0.78 0.78 0.7

98 th Year
v erage 0.01 0.01

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SRC05 AS A

gali Galiu supe Supe sian Sierr a sagu Sagu a
maza Maz a moba Mou n pimo Pine chir Chiri c gila Gila W pefo Petri f syca Syca SRC05 AS A

gali Galiu supe Supe sian Sierr a sagu Sagu a
maza Maz a moba Mou n pimo Pine chir Chiri c gila Gila W pefo Petri f syca Syca Class I Are a Class I Are a

773 S a A RCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness rstition Wilderne s
a Ancha Wildern e
a ro NM
a tzal Wilderness
n t Baldy Wilderne s Mountain Wilder n
c ahua NM W ilderness f ied Forest NP more Canyon W A A RCO – Hayden S

ro Wilderness rstition Wilderne s
a Ancha Wildern e
a ro NM
a tzal Wilderness
n t Baldy Wilderne s Mountain Wilder n
c ahua NM W ilderness f ied Forest NP more Canyon W A a a

a n Marin Drive, S melter: PM On Minimum (k m

4 7
s s 4 9
e ss 8 4 8 6 12 1
s s 15 1
n ess 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 A 23 9 S melter: NOx + Minimum (k m

4 7
s s 4 9
e ss 8 4 8 6 12 1
s s 15 1
n ess 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 A 23 9

Suite 2115, No v 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

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 11 T PY D elta-dv 99 th 9 8 d v) (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 D elta-dv 99 th 9 8 d v) (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 8 th Days d v) > 0.5 dv 2 0

. 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 8 th Days d v) > 0.5 dv 2 0

. 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 9 8 9 8

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070

0 01 2002 .53 .42 .15 .27 .09 .04 .05 .12 .05 .03 .03

0 01 2002 .53 .42 .15 .27 .09 .04 .05 .12 .05 .04 .03 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.1 4 0.0 8 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.1 2 0.0 6 0.1 2 0.0 6 0.1 2 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.5 1

8 th Percentile fo

0.5 2 0.4 3 0.4 3 0.1 1 0.1 4 0.0 8 0.0 4 8 th 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 98 th Year
v erage 0.53 0.41 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.03

98 th Year
v erage 0.53 0.42 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.03773 S a 

### Asarco Updated

n Marin Drive, 

### Hayden F a
CALPUFF M

Suite 2115, No v www. e 

## ATT A

a cility Visi b
M odeling u

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 12 

## A CHMEN T

b ility Imp a

u sing Orig i

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 

## T B

a cts at Cla s

inal WRA P

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 

### s s I Areas f
P RMC Em i

7 

### f rom i ssionsgali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y Class I Area Class I Area Class I Area

773 S a a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W S R

a n Marin Drive, Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9 SRC05 R C05 ASARCO – H

SRC05 A

Suite 2115, No v www. e D istance Max Del ) (dv )

5.3 2 5.7 0 4.1 8 5.6 4 4.1 3 2.3 7 7 2.7 0 9 3.2 3 6 2.3 4 5 3.0 1 9 1.8 7

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

5.1 1 5.3 3 4.1 1 5.3 7 4.0 7 2.3 3 7 2.6 4 9 3.1 4 6 2.2 5 5 2.9 7 9 1.8 4

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 7 0.0 1 9 0.0 1 6 0.0 1 5 0.0 1 9 0.0 0 2012 Re
‐ ru n

ASARCO – Hayd e H ayden Smelter: S

A SARCO – Hayden

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 13 ta-dv 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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

e n Smelter: NOx O S O2 = 36,524 TPY ;

Smelter: SO2 O n

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 98 th Days

(dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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

O nly: NOx = 79 T P ; NOx = 79 TPY; P

n ly: SO2 = 36,524 T

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 98th Percentile
v 2001 20 0 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 20 0 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 20 0 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 P Y M = 2,225 TPY

T PY

7 for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 2 2.52 4 6 2.82 4 3 1.56 0 7 2.15 2 3 1.23 6 9 0.76 9 3 0.96 3 0 1.81 7 9 0.65 9 5 0.73 6 6 0.72

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 6 6 2.24 3 3 2.50 2 3 1.47 0 0 2.00 5 1.20 6 8 0.73 9 1 0.92 2 6 1.69 7 6 0.64 9 2 0.70 6 5 0.70

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 1 0.00 0 1 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 0.00 98 th 3 Yea r v erage 2.61 2.60 1.61 1.84 1.35 0.81 1.04 1.54 0.85 0.82 0.77

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 2.37 2.42 1.47 1.71 1.30 0.79 1.01 1.46 0.82 0.79 0.75

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y Class I Area

Class I Area

773 S a a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W S

a n Marin Drive, Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9 SRC05

S RC05 ASARCO –

Suite 2115, No v www. e D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.9 0 0.8 3 0.3 4 0.5 1 0.2 0 0.1 1 7 0.1 2 9 0.2 5 6 0.1 1 5 0.1 1 9 0.0 6

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.9 0 0.8 4 0.3 5 0.5 2 0.2 0 0.1 2 7 0.1 2 9 0.2 5 6 0.1 2 5 0.1 2 9 0.0 6 ASARCO – Hayd e

Hayden Smelter:

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 14 ta-dv 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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 e n Smelter: PM O n

NOx + PM Only: N

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 98 th Days

(dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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 n ly: PM = 2,225 T P

N Ox = 79 TPY; P M

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 98th Percentile
v 2001 20 0 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 20 0 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 TP Y

7 for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 5 2 0.55 4 3 0.41

1 0.13 4 0.29 0 8 0.09 0 4 0.03 0 6 0.05 2 0.14 0 6 0.05 0 4 0.04 0 3 0.02

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 5 2 0.55 4 4 0.41 2 0.14 4 0.29 0 8 0.09 0 4 0.04 0 6 0.05 2 0.14 0 6 0.05 0 4 0.04 0 3 0.02 98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.54 0.42 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.03

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.54 0.42 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.03

### Upd a

773 S a 

### Asarco

a ted CALP U

a n Marin Drive, 

### Hayden F a
U FF Mode l

Suite 2115, No v www. e 

## ATT A

a cility Visi b
l ing using

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 15 

## A CHMEN T

b ility Imp a Revised E m

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 

## T C

a cts at Cla s

m issions f r

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 

### s s I Areas f

r om Asarc

7 

### f rom

o (Jan 20 1 3)gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y Class I Area Class I Area

Class I Area

773 S a a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W S

a n Marin Drive, Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9 SRC05 S RC05 ASARCO –

SRC05 A

Suite 2115, No v www. e D istance Max Del ) (dv )

2.4 7 3.6 9 2.7 8 3.9 2 1.9 3 1.6 9 7 1.7 9 9 2.5 4 6 1.5 2 5 2.3 1 9 1.1 5

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

2.4 7 3.6 7 2.7 7 3.9 1 1.9 1 1.6 9 7 1.7 8 9 2.5 4 6 1.5 1 5 2.3 0 9 1.1 5

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 7 0.0 1 9 0.0 1 6 0.0 1 5 0.0 1 9 0.0 1

ASARCO – Hayd e Hayden Smelter:

A SARCO – Hayde n

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 16 ta-dv 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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 e n Smelter: NOx O

SO2 = 23971 TP Y

n Smelter: SO2 O n

P : 415

‐ 899

‐ 0700
m 98 th Days

(dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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 O nly: NOx = 79 T P Y ; NOx = 79 TPY; P

n ly: SO2 = 23971 T

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 98th Percentile
v 2001 20 0 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 20 0 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 20 0 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 P Y P M = 155 TP Y

T P Y

7 for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 4 1.63 2 8 1.41 7 5 0.85 6 6 1.30 7 1 0.75 4 3 0.43 5 0 0.54 7 7 1.14 4 7 0.41 5 6 0.51 4 2 0.45

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 4 1.63 2 6 1.41 7 5 0.84 6 6 1.29 7 1 0.75 4 3 0.43 5 0 0.54 7 5 1.13 4 7 0.41 5 5 0.51 4 2 0.45

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 1 0.01 0 1 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 0.00 98 th 3 Yea r v erage 1.52 1.42 0.83 1.07 0.79 0.48 0.57 0.94 0.55 0.55 0.45

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 1.52 1.40 0.83 1.07 0.78 0.48 0.56 0.94 0.55 0.54 0.45

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y

gali G a supe S u sian Si e sagu S a
maza M a moba M o pimo Pi n chir C h gila Gi pefo P e syca S y Class I Area Class I Area

773 S a a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a liuro Wilderness
u perstition Wildern e
e rra Ancha Wildern
a guaro NM
a zatzal Wilderness
o unt Baldy Wildern e
n e Mountain Wilde r h iricahua NM la Wilderness
e trified Forest NP y camore Canyon W

a n Marin Drive, Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9

Minimum D (km

47
e ss 49
ess 84 86 121
e ss 151
r ness 16 7 16 9 18 6 21 5 W iA 23 9 SRC0 5

SRC05 ASARCO

–

Suite 2115, No v www. e D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.0 7 0.0 8 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 2 0.0 1 7 0.0 1 9 0.0 4 6 0.0 1 5 0.0 1 9 0.0 0

D istance Max Del ) (dv )

0.0 8 0.0 8 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 2 0.0 1 7 0.0 1 9 0.0 4 6 0.0 2 5 0.0 1 9 0.0 1 5 ASARCO – Hayd

– Hayden Smelte r

v ato, CA 94998 P e nvironcorp.co m 17 ta-dv 99 th ) (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 99 th ) (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 98 th Days

(dv) > 0.5 d v

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

98 th Days (dv) > 0.5 d v

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 O nly: PM = 155 TP Y

NOx = 79 TPY; P M

F: 415

‐ 899

‐ 070 98th Percentile
v 2001 20 0 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 20 0 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 Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 3 0.04 0 3 0.03 0 1 0.01 0 1 0.01 0 1 0.01 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.01 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

for each Yea r 3 0 2 2003 Av 0 4 0.04 0 4 0.04 0 1 0.01 0 1 0.02 0 1 0.01 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.01 0 1 0.01 0 1 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

98 th 3 Yea r v erage 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00Metallurgical 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 avai lable 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 ac id 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 SO 2 or PM emissions because over 98% of the SO 2 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 emi ssions by 27 tpy and have no impact on SO 2 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 NO x controls currently being used on any copper converting or anode furnace operations. Regarding an ESP for the converter tertiary syst em 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