### Appendix 5c - Additional BART information for SABIC

### This page intentionally left blank.

### BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY ( BART) MODELING PROTOCOL FOR SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS MT. VERNON, LLC

MT. VERNON, INDI

ANA “Draft- for Discussion with IDEM 02/25/08”

Submitted to: Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Air Management 100 N. Senate Avenue P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 Submitted by: Sabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC

1 Lexan Lane Mt. Vernon, IN 47620 Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC

2655 South County Road 750 East Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 Project No. TS-313 and GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 11499 Chester Road, Suite 511 Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 Project No. 20.0151188.20

February 2008

### i

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ON BART 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ON SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS 1 1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES 3 1.4 CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM 3 1.5 LOCATION OF SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS VS. CLASS I AREAS 5 2.0 COARSE MODELING APPROACH 8 2.1 MODEL SELECTION 8 2.2 MODELING DOMAIN 8 2.3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR CLASS I AREAS 9 2.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 10 2.5 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS AND CONFIGURATION 10 2.6 VISIBILITY IMPACT THRESHOLD 11 2.7 CALPOST AND POSTUTIL ANALYSIS 11 2.8 DOCUMENTATION AND CALPUFF MODEL OUTPUTS 12 3.0 FINER GRID MODELING METHODOLOGY 14 3.1 MODEL SELECTION 14 3.2 MODELING DOMAIN 14 3.3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR CLASS I AREAS 15 3.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 16 3.5 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS AND CONFIGURATION 17 3.6 VISIBILITY IMPACT THRESHOLD 17 3.7 CALPOST AND POSTUTIL ANALYSIS 17 3.8 DOCUMENTATION AND CALPUFF MODEL OUTPUTS 18 4.0 BART CONTROL MODELING 20

### ii

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 5.0 REFERENCES 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES Appendix A Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-Eligible Sources Appendix B UTM and LCC Coordinates Appendix C Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-Eligible Source Maximum 24-Hour Emission Appendix D Maps of Class I Area Receptors Appendix E CALPUFF Options

### iii

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides the modeling protocol for the application of the CALPUFF Model to determine visibility impacts and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) applicability for the Sabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC (Sabic Innovative Plastics) facility, (formerly GE Plastics Mt. Vernon, Inc.), located just southwest (about 1 mile) of Mt. Vernon, Indiana. Indiana is part of the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (Midwest RPO), which was organized and funded by the U.S. EPA to facilitate the assessment of visibility impairment in the region. The Midwest RPO has not developed any specific guidance for air quality modeling for visibility impacts in support of BART exemptions and BART application review. However, the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) developed the Single Source Modeling to Support Regional Haze BART Modeling Protocol (March 21, 2006), which they followed in providing visibility impacts for non-EGU sources across the Midwest RPO. Also, neighboring Kentucky sources along the south shore of the Ohio River have been evaluated following guidance provided by the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS). Due to the similarity between these river sites and the lack of specific Indiana or Midwest RPO BART visibility impact modeling guidance, this protocol follows guidance provided by the general guidelines of the U.S. EPA in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W and Appendix Y, the VISTAS protocol guidance, and the LADCO protocol. The specific VISTAS documentation is called the Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analysis of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (Revision 3.2 – 8/31/06) which describes “common procedures for carrying out air quality modeling to support BART determinations in the VISTAS states that are consistent with guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W and Appendix Y”. The modeling that is proposed herein focuses on the modeling analysis to determine if the visibility impacts due to the Sabic Innovative Plastics emissions from the BART-eligible source are less than or greater than the visibility level of 0.5 deciviews (dv) which is the threshold used to determine whether a source contributes to visibility impairment. Previous screening level modeling performed by LADCO on behalf of IDEM indicated that the Sabic Innovative Plastics sources would exceed the 0.5 dv threshold for visibility impacts at five Class I areas for a total of 28 days over a three year modeling period, with 19 of those days being in the Mammoth Cave National Park and six being in Mingo Wilderness. The highest exceedence in a single year was 9 days at Mammoth Cave National Park in 2003. This previous modeling used a 36km grid resolution meteorological and modeling domain and released all emissions from one combined stack at Sabic Innovative Plastics; which, by most modeling guidelines for such analyses, would be considered a screening level analysis. The modeling herein proposes to build on this baseline analysis by LADCO, and with consideration of individual stacks and their associated emissions as well as a higher resolution 4km meteorological and modeling domain. The improved modeling resolution and source apportionment are considered to be more “refined” modeling than the original coarse 36km, combined stack modeling by LADCO. Such modeling analysis will provide a more robust analysis of the visibility impacts and days of significant impact for emissions from the Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-eligible source. The refined modeling also considers applicable federally enforceable emission caps and unit limitations. If this refined modeling results in visibility impacts of 0.5 dv for < 8 days for all individual years and < 22 days

### iv

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### for all three years combined, then IDEM should exempt the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility from further BART analysis. Conversely, if the more refined modeling results in visibility impacts of 0.5 dv for≥ 8 days for all individual years and ≥ 22 days for all three years combined, the results would not support exempting the Sabic Innovative Plastics source from BART analysis. If the latter case is true, additional modeling will be performed that calculates the incremental impact of selected BART controls on specific units using the 4km refined methodology presented herein. This protocol describes the modeling methodologies to be followed for two steps, namely, the updated 36km modeling approach and the 4km refined grid modeling approach. Details regarding model selection, model options, sources, meteorological data, speciation, chemical formulation, visibility calculations, post-processing, and presentation of results are provided in this protocol. The methodology also describes the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility in Mt. Vernon, the sources and emissions, the locations of each source, and the selection of the appropriate modeling domain. Summary tables of all visibility calculations will be presented as specified in the final documentation for the modeling.

### 1

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND ON BART On 6 July 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final amendments to its 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in the Federal Register, including Appendix Y, the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172). The rule applies to any BART-eligible source that ‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. States retain the authority to exempt certain BART-eligible sources based on dispersion modeling demonstrating that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. States also have the authority to define the modeling procedures used to establish BART emissions limits on those sources for which controls are required (IDEM has not exercised such authority although they have performed preliminary exemption modeling through LADCO). To assist the states, the EPA has offered guidelines for how BART modeling should be conducted. The regional air group, the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), which is comprised of all States in the Southeast U.S. (including Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation) also has prepared guidance to follow in how BART visibility impact modeling should be conducted. Because these states are immediately adjacent to Sabic Innovative Plastics in the Midwest RPO, the VISTAS guidance provides a relevant initial framework for this proposed modeling protocol for the Sabic Innovative Plastics source in Mt. Vernon, Indiana. In developing this protocol, the LADCO single source protocol (entitled Single Source Modeling to Support Regional Haze BART Modeling Protocol (March 21, 2006) was also used as a guide. 1.2 BACKGROUND ON SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS Sabic Innovative Plastics owns and operates a chemical manufacturing source in Posey County, Indiana. The source is located on the north side of the Ohio River, near Mt. Vernon, Indiana. The area is characterized by rolling, forested, and mixed residential, farm, and industrial land use. Terrain is notable, but not a significant feature in the area and across the potential study modeling domain, and will be considered in the modeling. The facility makes a variety of polymers using chemical processes, which are supported by heaters, boilers, and non-chemical manufacturing activities. The Sabic Innovative Plastics facility is located on about 1000 acres and employs more than 1500 persons. Operations in the chemical process BART-eligible source include boilers and heaters as well as other processes that account for emissions of SO2, NOx, and PM10 in the plant. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the Sabic Innovative Plastics plant, and Figure 2 shows a topographical map (USGS 7.5’ quadrangle) of the near vicinity.

### 2

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### Figure 1. Regional Location Map of Sabic Innovative Plastics

Figure 2. USGS Map of the Mt. Vernon, Indiana Area

### 3

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### In December 2005, Sabic Innovative Plastics provided information pertaining to its BART-eligible source emission units in response to IDEM’s BART survey. The BART-eligible source point and fugitive sources, along with their source parameters, are shown in Appendix A. (Appendix A reflects updated information developed from additional evaluations conducted since the December 2005 survey.) All coordinates for the sources, originally in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 16 coordinates, were converted to the Lambert Conformal Coordinates (LCC) as presented in Appendix B (specifications for this conversion are described in Section 2.2). The maximum 24hr emission rates for each pollutant are presented in Appendix C. 1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES A recent modeling study by LADCO/IDEM at a 36km grid scale indicated that that the Sabic Innovative Plastics sources would exceed the 0.5 dv contribution threshold for visibility impacts at five Class I areas for a total of 28 days over a three year modeling period. The distribution of days above 0.5 dv was 19 days at Mammoth Cave NP (KY), six days at Mingo Wilderness (MO), and one day each at Sipsey Wilderness (AL), Linville Gorge (NC), and Hercules-Glades Wilderness (MO). The highest exceedence in a single year was 9 days at Mammoth Cave National Park in 2003. The LADCO/IDEM modeling used a 36km grid resolution meteorological and modeling domain and released the combined SO2

### , NOx

### , and PM2.5 

### emissions from one combined stack with arithmetically averaged parameters at Sabic Innovative Plastics. The objective of the modeling proposed herein is to analyze the visibility impacts of the individual stacks and their associated emissions using the coarse 36km modeling domain as well as an improved 4km meteorological and modeling domain. The improved modeling resolution and source apportionment are considered to be more “refined” modeling that will allow a more defined modeling approach than the original LADCO/IDEM coarse grid analysis and provide more representative visibility impacts. This modeling is intended to replace the coarse grid modeling. If this improved resolution modeling results in a visibility impact greater than the visibility impact threshold of 0.5 dv for ≥ 8 days for all individual years and ≥ 22 days for all three years combined, the Sabic Innovative Plastics sources that are subject to BART controls will undergo additional modeling to calculate the incremental impact of selected BART controls. 1.4 CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM The modeling for Class I area visibility impacts will be performed with the CALPUFF Model and its various companion programs, including CALMET (meteorological processing), CALPOST, and POSTUTIL (both post-processing programs). The CALPUFF modeling system has been adopted by the EPA as a guideline model for source-receptor distances greater than 50 km. CALPUFF was recommended for Class I impact assessments by the FLM Workgroup (FLAG, 2000), by the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) (EPA, 1998), and by VISTAS (VISTAS, 2006) for BART modeling. As recommended in these guidancedocuments, CALPUFF is the primary modeling system for the initial and refined grid sourcespecific modeling applications for Class I areas. The model’s formulation provides the appropriate tools for assessing and simulating the various geographical and meteorological

### 4

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### influences, the stack and stack gas conditions, the atmospheric and physical processes and the gas-phase, aerosol, and aqueous-phase chemical processes that influence ambient air concentrations, deposition, and visibility. The CALPUFF modeling system was originally developed as a component of a three-part modeling system sponsored by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the mid-1980s. The CARB sought to develop a new puff-based model, a new grid-based model and an improvedmeteorological processor that would support application of the two. CALGRID was the urbanscale photochemical grid model resulting from the project (Yamartino et al., 1992) comparable in science and capabilities to the Urban Airshed Model (UAM-IV) (Scheffe and Morris, 1993). The model formulation was aimed at overcoming the deficiencies in EPA’s steady-state Gaussian plume models that were routinely used for inert and linearly reactive materials (principally SO2

### ) from elevated point sources. Thus, the CALGRID model was designed to treat the complexities of urban-scale photochemical processes while CALPUFF was formulated to treat the non-steady state transport, diffusion, linear reaction, and deposition of primary pollutants from point sources. CALPUFF is a non-steady state numerical air quality model that simulates the transport, diffusion, deposition, and chemical transformation of SO 2

### , NOx

### , and particulate emissions from point, line, and area sources. Emissions are characterized by diffusing puffs that are transported by the wind and within which chemical reactions take place. The main components of the model are CALMET (a three-dimensional kinematic meteorological interpolator), CALPUFF (the core dispersion and chemical transformation module), and CALPOST (a post-processing package). Figure 3 from the CALPUFF User’s Guide (Scire et al, 2000) shows a flow diagram of the model. The most recent EPA approved version of CALPUFF (Version 5.8) is proposed for use in this study. The CALMET processor is used to generate meteorological data sets for modeling studies using a combination of meteorological, geophysical, land use, and elevation data. For this analysis meteorological data at the 4km resolution will be used and consists of three years of data for 2001-2003 using MM5-generated (version 3.6) data supplemented with National Weather Service surface and upper air sounding observations. Because the VISTAS RPO has already processed such 4km data through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services in Denver, Colorado in CALMET 5.8 format in a domain that covers southern Indiana and Eastern U.S., these data are proposed for use in this modeling. The CALPUFF Model contains the algorithms for determining the transport and dispersion of emissions into modeling grids at time steps commensurate with meteorology and puff tracking. To perform the most representative analysis possible of the potential visibility impacts of Sabic Innovative Plastics, the modeling study will follow the applicable guidelines as noted in more detail in the sections that follow. Post-processors will be used after the CALPUFF Model calculates hourly air concentrations. CALPOST, POSTUTIL, and CALSUM will be used as needed to generate air concentrations on an individual emission basis for various averaging times to be used in the visibility calculations.

### 5

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### The processors will then also be used to estimate potential visibility impacts, combining particle size contributions, repartitioning of nitrates, and summation of individual source impacts if required.

Figure 3. CALPUFF Modeling Schematic (Scire, et al., 2000) 1.5 LOCATION OF SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS VS. CLASS I AREAS A number of Class I areas are in the eastern U.S. region surrounding the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana. Most Class I areas considered by the LADCO/IDEM modeling will be considered in the proposed 4km analysis. Those Class I areas within 300 km of Sabic Innovative Plastics are within the range of the most credible application of CALPUFF. The distance from Sabic Innovative Plastics to the nearest receptor and the farthest receptor in each Class I area is presented below.

 Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota 1127-1211 km
 Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey 1191-1205 km
 Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, West Virginia 754-762 km
 Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New Hampshire 1570-1576 km
 Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee 437-503 km
 Hercules-Glades Wilderness, Missouri 459-468 km
 Isle Royale National Park, Michigan 1100-1154 km
 James River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia 745-753 km

### 6

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

###  Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, North Carolina 578-587 km
 Lyle Brook Wilderness, Vermont 1387-1398 km
 Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky 165-186 km
 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri 221-231 km
 Seney Wilderness, Michigan 935-947 km
 Shenandoah National Park, Virginia 799-861 km
 Sipsey Wilderness, Alabama 393-404 km
 Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota 1215-1263 km Figure 4 shows the approximate location of these areas with regard to Sabic Innovative Plastics. Some very distant areas to the north and northeast are not shown. All identified Class I areas listed above will be modeled in the 36km grid analysis while only those Class I areas with receptors within the 4km modeling domain of Sabic Innovative Plastics, i.e. Dolly Sods, James River Face, Mammoth Cave, Great Smokies, Linville Gorge, Mingo, and Sipsey will be included in the refined modeling. Outlines of the individual Class I areas and all associated receptors arranged in a gridded array over each area as found on the National Park Service website are shown in Appendix D. Only those Class I areas having impacts above the visibility threshold levels will be further modeled if BART controls are required to be evaluated.

### 7

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### (Boundary Waters, Great Gulf, Isle Royale, Lye Brook, Seney and Voyageurs not shown) Figure 4. Locations of Class I Areas

### 8

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 2.0 COARSE MODELING APPROACH The first step that is proposed in this BART visibility modeling protocol is to use the LADCO coarse 36km grid meteorology and modeling domain with Sabic Innovative Plastics unit differentiation and specific source emissions. This modeling is intended to confirm the baseline LADCO modeling as well as provide additional source and emission refinement to evaluate whether Sabic Innovative Plastics can be exempted from further BART analysis using a consistent and conservative set of meteorological and dispersion options. A pre-computed set of meteorological files provided by IDEM in the 36km format and pre-defined CALPUFF input option configurations, based on LADCO CALPUFF modeling which followed guidance in the final BART rule (70 FR 39104-39172) and other EPA and FLAG model guidance, allows relatively simple screening simulations. The regional modeling domain for the coarse modeling approach will include all Class I areas in the original LADCO modeling that are presented in Section 2 herein. The objective of this analysis is to determine whether more detailed analysis (i.e., more than the LADCO/IDEM combined source approach) of Sabic Innovative Plastics emissions for those BART-eligible sources identified by IDEM result in visibility impacts greater than the threshold of 0.5 dv. The second objective of this coarse grid modeling is to determine which Class I areas should be included in a refined analysis if the coarse modelingindicates a source may significantly impact visibility. This coarse modeling approach uses threedimensional meteorological fields and the full CALPUFF model, and thus can be considered to be a reasonable indicator of the outcome from a refined CALPUFF analysis considering a high probability of moderate conservatism. This section discusses the modeling data fields, the model options, and presentation of results that will be used and generated for performing the visibility modeling analysis for the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility. 2.1 MODEL SELECTION As recommended by recent protocols and guidance, the CALPUFF modeling system will be used for visibility impact assessment. For the 36km coarse grid modeling, the version of CALPUFF that was used by LADCO will likewise be used here even though this is not the most current regulatory version recommended by U.S. EPA. CALPUFF Version 5.771a along with the CALMET Version 5.53a 36km meteorological data will be used for this coarse visibility modeling. 2.2 MODELING DOMAIN The computational modeling domain serves as the basis for all dispersion and visibility modeling that will be performed. The domain represents the extent of the study area and the modeling grid provides a consistent format for conducting the modeling and for translating the meteorology data to the computation level. The computational grid will be specified in a Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) grid. This protocol proposes the use of the 36km grid domain that was used in the

### 9

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### LADCO/IDEM modeling. The grid consisted of 97 36km cells in the east-west direction and 90 36km cells in the north-south direction. In terms of LCC coordinates, the two matching parallels were 33o 

### and 45o, 

### the latitude and longitude of the center of the grid was 40o 

### N and 97o 

### W, respectively, and the grid origin was at -900km east and -1620km north. Figure 5 shows the overall LCC-based 36km modeling domain with the location of Sabic Innovative Plastics indicated.

Figure 5. Proposed 36-km Modeling Grid For the Sabic Innovative Plastics Modeling 2.3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR CLASS I AREAS Receptors used by the LADCO/IDEM CALPUFF modeling over the 36km grid domain for each Class I area were taken from the website of the National Park Service (NPS) Class I receptor database (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/Receptors/index.cfm). These locations were projected into the computational grid, and reformatted for input into CALPUFF. Elevations for each receptor were determined from digital elevation data from the NPS receptor data sets. A graphical representation of the locations of the Class I areas for this 36km modeling is shown in Figure 5.

### 10

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 2.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Pre-processed CALMET 5.53a meteorological files were obtained from IDEM on a 36km grid basis for the modeling domain shown in Figure 5. These will be used in all coarse grid modeling. Three years of MM5 meteorological data were processed by LADCO using CALMET Version 5.53a and are available for this regional coarse grid CALPUFF modeling effort. These base data sets include the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. These meteorological data sets were processed using CALMET in a No-Observations mode and produced annual meteorological data files at the 36km grid resolution for the overall eastern U.S.meteorological domain. The CALMET output files in the form of CALPUFF-ready threedimensional meteorological files were made available and obtained from IDEM in August 2007. 2.5 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS AND CONFIGURATION The CALPUFF modeling parameters will follow the LADCO/IDEM 2006 guidance and previous modeling. A brief discussion of several key inputs is provided below.

 Chemical mechanism: MESOPUFF II module
 Species modeled: SO2

### , SO4

### , NOx

### , HNO3

### , NO3 

### and PM2.5 

### for these coarse grid runs. All emission rates will be based on the most appropriate level of the EPA BART guidance, i.e., monitored data or the 24-hour potential-to-emit emission rate using the fuel characteristics, the maximum capacity of each unit, and the appropriate AP-42, or other, emission factor. Emissions will be included for all species originally modeled by LADCO/IDEM, namely, SO2

### , NOx

### , and PM2.5

### .  Excluded emissions: VOC and ammonia/ammonia compound emitting sources will be excluded from the modeling. All other emissions specified by BART will be included. All other emissions were greater than the de minimis levels (40 tons per year for SO2 

### and NOx 

### and 15 tons per year for PM10

### ) and thus, all will be modeled.

 Dispersion coefficients: The Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients will be used.

 Ozone dataset: Seasonal domain averaged ozone concentrations based on the LADCO modeling will be used for the coarse grid modeling. These values are monthly and equal: 31, 31, 31, 37, 37, 37, 33, 33, 33, 27, 27, 27 ppb.
 Background ammonia concentration: Seasonal domain averaged ammonia concentrations based on the LADCO/IDEM modeling will be used for the coarse grid modeling. These values are monthly and equal: .3, .3, .3, .5, .5, .5, .5, .5, .5, .5, .5, .5 ppb
 Puff representation: the integrated puff sampling methodology will be used.
 Building downwash: Building and structure downwash effects will be ignored as all Class I areas are greater than 50 km from Sabic Innovative Plastics.

### 11

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 2.6 VISIBILITY IMPACT THRESHOLD Pursuant to the final BART guidance, the LADCO/IDEM protocol (March 2006), and 326 IAC 26-1-4(a) the criteria to determine if a source is contributing to visibility impairment is the 98th 

### percentile value in the modeling that is equal to 0.5 dv. This 0.5 dv visibility impairment is a 0.5 dv change from natural conditions. The 98 th 

### percentile is interpreted as any source with ≥22 days of visibility impairment over the three year modeling period or ≥ 8 days of visibility impairment over any one year modeled. Along with this threshold determination, within each Class I area the number of days above 0.5 dv and the number of receptors greater than 0.5 dv will be determined. 2.7 CALPOST AND POSTUTIL ANALYSIS The CALPUFF Model calculates air concentrations of all species modeled, and postprocessor programs are used to generate the final visibility impairment in terms of light extinction. The visibility analysis evaluates the potential change in light extinction relative to the natural background due to the Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-eligible sources. The two main postprocessors of interest for this BART application are the CALPOST and POSTUTIL programs. CALPOST will be used to process the CALPUFF outputs. When performing visibility-related modeling, CALPOST uses concentrations from CALPUFF to compute light extinction and related measures of visibility (e.g., haze index in deciviews), with results reported for a 24-hour averaging time. The CALPOST processor contains several options for evaluating visibility impacts, including the method described in the BART guidance, which uses monthly average relative humidity values. The POSTUTIL processor is a program that allows the cumulative impacts of multiple sources from different simulations to be summed, which may be required if the number of units at Sabic Innovative Plastics require multiple CALPUFF runs. POSTUTIL also contains a chemistry module to evaluate the equilibrium relationship between nitric acid and nitrate aerosols. This capability allows the potential non-linear effects ammonia scavenging by background sulfate and nitrate sources to be evaluated in the formation of nitrate from an individual source. Inputs that will be designated for the CALPOST and POSTUTIL analysis include:

 Visibility calculations: Method 6 will be used in this coarse grid modeling approach using Class I area-specific (centroid) monthly average relative humidity values (from EPA, 2003a)
 Species considered in visibility analysis: sulfate, nitrate, and fine PM.
 Natural background light extinction: EPA (2003b) values at the haze index value in deciviews for the 20% best days will be used for the natural background light extinction. This analysis will use the LADCO natural background light extinction, Bext

### , technique which adjusts the Class I area specific chemically speciated natural background concentrations (using the Eastern U.S. as the basis).

### 12

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

###  Rayleigh scattering value: 10 Mm-1 

### (all Class I areas)
 Light extinction efficiencies: the default EPA (2003b) values will be used and are in the LADCO/IDEM input files
 Ammonia limiting technique: will be used in the initial approach modeling 2.8 DOCUMENTATION AND CALPUFF MODEL OUTPUTS For the coarse grid modeling approach a number of products documenting the analysis will be prepared. These will include:

 Map of the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility location and Class I areas (similar to that presented in this protocol),
 A table listing all Class I areas in the modeling domain and those in neighboring states, as well as a table listing the impacts at those Class I areas as shown by example in Table 2,
 A summary table summarizing the results of the initial approach modeling,
 Discussion of whether the Sabic Innovative Plastics sources were greater than or less than the impact threshold of 0.5 dv, the Class I areas affected, and the number of such events. Table 2. Format of Table of CALPUFF Model Results in the 36km Modeling

Domain to Demonstrate Sabic Innovative Plastics Visibility Impacts

Class I Area Distance from

Sabic Innovative Plastics to Nearest Class I area boundary, km # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2002 # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2003 # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2004 # of days and # of

receptors with impact >0.5 dv in Class I area for 3-yr period: 2002-2004 Max. 24-hr

impact over 3 yr period
Boundary Waters, MN 1127 Brigatine, NJ 1191 Dolly Sods, WV 754 Great Gulf, NH 1570 Great Smoky Mts., TN 435 Hercules Glade, MO 459 Isle Royale, MI 1100 James River 745

### 13

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Class I Area Distance from

Sabic Innovative Plastics to Nearest Class I area boundary, km # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2002 # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2003 # of days and # of

receptors with impact > 0.5 dv in Class I area: 2004 # of days and # of

receptors with impact >0.5 dv in Class I area for 3-yr period: 2002-2004 Max. 24-hr

impact over 3 yr period
Face, VA Linville Gorge, NC 578 Lyle Brook, VT 1387 Mammoth Cave, KY 165 Mingo, MO 221 Seney, MI 935 Shenandoah, VA 799 Sipsey, AL 393 Voyageurs, MN 1215

### 14

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 3.0 FINER GRID MODELING METHODOLOGY The coarse grid (36km) analysis outlined in Section 2 was intended to verify the LADCO/IDEM CALPUFF modeling results and to introduce better source and emissions data into the analysis. If this coarse grid visibility modeling of the Sabic Innovative Plastics sources shows 98 th 

### percentile visibility impacts that are greater than the contributing impact threshold of 0.5 dv for BART applicability, even considering the additional source differentiation and spatial allocation of emissions, further modeling analysis will be performed using a 4km refined grid modeling approach. This second modeling step uses a more detailed modeling grid at the 4km grid spacing, more robust meteorological data also at the 4km spacing, and other less conservative model assumptions in CALPUFF. This finer grid resolution modeling will allow a more representative characterization of complex terrain and wind flow in and around Sabic Innovative Plastics as well as at each Class I area. While Sabic Innovative Plastics may not be in a significant complex terrain situation, many of the Class I areas are in such situations along with intervening regions between Sabic Innovative Plastics and the Class I areas. This finer grid modeling proposes to utilize recently developed (summer 2007) CALMET 4km meteorological data sets produced by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the CALMET Version 5.8 format. These are available for five sub-regional domains in the VISTAS RPO covering much of the eastern U.S. If this modeling does not pass the visibility impact threshold for the finer grid modeling, i.e., the 98 th 

### percentile change in deciviews, further modeling of BART alternative controls will be performed following this 4km modeling approach. Pre-computed sets of meteorological files at a 4km grid spacing and a pre-defined CALPUFF input option configuration (proposed herein), based on guidance in the final BART rule (70 FR 39104-39172) and other EPA and FLAG model guidance, will allow a straightforward application of the CALPUFF Model in this finer grid modeling approach. 3.1 MODEL SELECTION The CALPUFF modeling system will be used for all sources at the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility for the finer grid visibility impact assessment. This protocol proposes to use CALPUFF Version 5.8 for all modeling which is the most recent U.S. EPA recommended regulatory version and is consistent with the CALMET Version 5.8 meteorological data sets. 3.2 MODELING DOMAIN The computational modeling domain serves as the basis for all dispersion and visibility modeling that will be performed. The domain represents the extent of the study area and the modeling grid provides a consistent format for conducting the modeling and for translating the meteorology data to the computation level. The VISTAS RPO is broken into five sub-regional domains with the 4km resolution. These are shown in Figure 6. Sub-Domain 3 was selected to be used for the finer grid modeling for Sabic Innovative Plastics as it covered the areas most likely to have Class I areas influenced by Sabic Innovative Plastics. Other areas will be included if coarse grid modeling results in visibility impacts greater than the 0.5 dv threshold. Sub-Domain 3 contains a 4 km grid meteorological data set which will be used for all computational analyses in

### 15

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### CALPUFF. This proposed modeling grid encompasses most of the Class I areas within 300-400 km of Sabic Innovative Plastics.

Figure 6. Sub-Domain 3 for 4km Grid Modeling Within All VISTAS Domains The computational grid will be specified in Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) grid coordinates. The grid will have a 4km grid cell spacing with approximately 263 columns by 185 rows. In terms of LCC coordinates, the two matching parallels will be 33o 

### and 45o

### , the latitude and longitude of the center of the grid is 40o 

### N and 97o 

### W, respectively, and the grid origin was at 538 and -638 km, respectively for east and north. Figure 7 shows the proposed 4km modeling domain. 3.3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR CLASS I AREAS The Class I area receptor locations will be taken from the National Park Service (NPS) Class I receptor database (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/Receptors/index.cfm). These locations will be projected into the computational grid, and reformatted in Lambert Conformal Conic coordinates for input into CALPUFF. Elevations for each receptor will be determined from digital elevation data from the NPS information. All Class I areas that did not pass the initial

### 16

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### screening visibility modeling in Section 2 will be included in this analysis or at a minimum all seven of those areas shown in Sub-Domain 3 that were illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 7. Sub-domain 3 for the 4km CALMET Finer Grid Modeling and Proposed Sabic

Innovative Plastics CALPUFF Computational Grid 3.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Sub-Domain 3, as shown in Figure 7, will be the data set that will be used to best characterize the Sabic Innovative Plastics impact area. Three years of pre-computed sub-regional CALMET meteorological data for Sub-Domain 3 will be used for the Sabic Innovative Plastics visibility modeling. Three years of MM5 meteorological data along with NWS observations were used by the US F&WS to generate these 4km meteorological datasets using CALMET 5.8. These data sets include the years 2001-2003:

 2001 MM5 dataset at 12-km and 36-km grid (developed for EPA)

### 17

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

###  2002 MM5 dataset at 12-km and 36-km grid (developed by VISTAS)
 2003 MM5 dataset at 36-km grid (developed by the Midwest Regional Planning Organization). These data sets were processed using CALMET in a hybrid mode using both the MM5 data to define the initial guess fields and meteorological observational data in the CALMET calculations. These 4km CALMET (Version 5.8) output files in the form of CALPUFF-ready three-dimensional meteorological files have been made available and currently reside on the Alpine Geophysics computers in Denver, Colorado. 3.5 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS AND CONFIGURATION The CALPUFF modeling parameters and options selection adhered to VISTAS, EPA, and FLM guidance documents as well as being mindful of the LADCO/IDEM protocol. A summary of the proposed modeling option selections on a parameter by parameter input basis is provided in Appendix E. Most of the discussion concerning these options that was presented in Section 2.5 of this protocol for the coarse modeling is the same for the finer grid modeling. A few exceptions are noted below which address features of the finer grid modeling that make it less conservative than the initial modeling approach and also make it more consistent with a finer grid modeling approach.

 Terrain data: use higher resolution terrain DEM data (~3 arc second USGS data)
 Ammonia limiting technique (ALM): will be used in the finer grid modeling 3.6 VISIBILITY IMPACT THRESHOLD In accordance with the final BART guidance and 326 IAC 26-1-4(a), the threshold value to define whether a source “contributes” to visibility impairment is a 0.5 dv change from natural conditions. For this finer grid BART modeling, the test for evaluating whether Sabic Innovative Plastics is contributing to visibility impairment is based on the 98th percentile modeled 24-hour visibility impact from the CALPUFF modeling. For this analysis the facility would be considered to not contribute to visibility impairment in a given year if the 7th highest day is lower than 0.5 dv and over a three year period if the 21st highest 24-hour impact is less than 0.5 DV. 3.7 CALPOST AND POSTUTIL ANALYSIS The CALPUFF Model calculates air concentrations of all species modeled, and postprocessor programs are used to generate the final visibility impairment in terms of light extinction. The visibility analysis evaluates the potential change in light extinction relative to the natural background due to the Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-eligible sources. The two main postprocessors of interest for this BART application are the CALPOST and POSTUTIL programs. CALPOST will be used to process the CALPUFF outputs. When performing visibility-related modeling, CALPOST uses concentrations from CALPUFF to compute light

### 18

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### extinction and related measures of visibility (e.g., haze index in deciviews), with results reported for a 24-hour averaging time. The CALPOST processor contains several options for evaluating visibility impacts, including the method described in the BART guidance, which uses monthly average relative humidity values. POSTUTIL also contains a chemistry module to evaluate the equilibrium relationship between nitric acid and nitrate aerosols. This capability allows the potential non-linear effects ammonia scavenging by background sulfate and nitrate sources to be evaluated in the formation of nitrate from an individual source. POSTUTIL will also be used to apply the ammonia limiting method to the results which adjusts for a hierarchy of reactivity of SO2 

### and NO x 

### in the atmosphere. Inputs that will be designated for the CALPOST and POSTUTIL analysis for the finer grid modeling include:

 Visibility calculations: Method 6 will be used in this 4km finer modeling approach using Class I area-specific (centroid) monthly relative humidity values (from EPA, 2003a)
 Species considered in visibility analysis: SO 2

### , NOx

### , and PM2.5

### . The consideration of other particulate species may be considered if the results of this PM2.5-only approach show the SABIC Innovative Plastics source contributes to visibility impairment at a Class 1 area. Elemental carbon, secondary organics and other particle sizes may be considered, as appropriate.
 Natural background light extinction: EPA (2003b) values at the haze index value in deciviews for the 20% best days will be used for the natural background light extinction. The technique employed by LADCO/IDEM will be used.
 The LADCO natural background light extinction, Bext

### , technique adjusts the Class I area specific chemically speciated natural background concentrations (using the Eastern U.S. as the basis).
 Rayleigh scattering value: 10 Mm-1 

### (all Class I areas)
 Light extinction efficiencies: the default EPA (2003b) values will be used 3.8 DOCUMENTATION AND CALPUFF MODEL OUTPUTS For the finer modeling approach a number of products documenting the analysis will be prepared. These will include:

 Map of the Sabic Innovative Plastics facility location and Class I areas that did not pass the initial modeling approach and were subject to this finer grid modeling,
 A discussion of any visibility impairment attributed to the Sabic Innovative Plastics source on 98th 

### percentile days in each meteorological year (8th 

### highest) and 98th 

### percentile days over all three meteorological years (22nd 

### highest), which ever is greater compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. The impact from Sabic Innovative Plastics is the change in visibility

### 19

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### above natural background or the delta-dv in the CALPUFF output. It is calculated by taking the total visibility impairment minus impairment on the 20% best days for natural background visibility which equals delta-dv, the visibility impact attributed to Sabic Innovative Plastics,
 For the Class I area with the maximum visibility impact, a discussion of the number of days below the 98th 

### percentile that the impact of Sabic Innovative Plastics exceeds 0.5 dv, the number of receptors where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum visibility impact will be prepared,
 A table comparing the results of the 36km coarse grid modeling and the 4km finer grid modeling for those Class I areas for which visibility impacts exceeded the 0.5 dv threshold in the 36km modeling, and
 A table comparing the results of the LADCO/IDEM modeling to this 4km modeling.

### 20

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 4.0 BART CONTROL MODELING If the Sabic Innovative Plastics BART-eligible source is determined by modeling, under this protocol, to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class 1 area, Sabic Innovative Plastics will prepare and submit to IDEM a BART analysis, in accordance with 326 IAC 26-1-6. The finer grid modeling methodology set forth in Section 3 will be used for all additional modeling for the BART analysis.

### 21

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc

### 22

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### 5.0 REFERENCES AP-42, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42, Fifth Edition, January , 1995, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Earth Tech. 2005a. Comments on observations vs. no-observations mode in CALMET. Prepared for VISTAS Technical Analysis Work Group, Asheville, NC. Earth Tech. 2005b. Summary of methods for computing visibility in CALPUFF. Prepared for VISTAS Technical Analysis Work Group, Asheville, NC. EPA, 2003a. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-454/B-03-005. EPA, 2003b. Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule”, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-454/B-03-004.. FLAG, 2000. Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Values Workgroup Phase I Report, prepared by the Federal Land Managers Advisory Group, December 2000. Grell, G. A., J. Dudhia, and D. R. Stauffer. 1994. A Description of the Fifth Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note, NCAR TN-398-STR, 138 pp. IWAQM. 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility. EPA-454/R-98-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Part, NC. Notar, J. 2005. Federal Land Managers Class I Visibility Issues. EPA Regional, State, and Local Dispersion Modeler’s Workshop, 16-20 May. New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://www.cleanairinfo.com/modelingworkshop/disp_index.htm Reisman, J. and G. Frisbie, 2004: Calculating Realistic PM10 Emissions from Cooling Towers, Environmental Progress, Volume 21, Issue 2, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Sacramento, CA. Scire, J. S., F. R. Robe, M. E. Fernau, and R. J. Yamartino, 2000a: A user’s guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (version 5.0). Tech. Rep., Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA, 332 pp. [Available online at http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuffl.htm. Scire, J. S., D. G. Strimaitis, and R. J. Yamartino, 2000b: A user’s guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (version 5.0). Tech. Rep., Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA, 521 pp. [Available online at http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuf fl.htm.]

### 23

Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### Scire, J.S., Z. Wu and G. Moore, 2003: Evaluation of the CALPUFF model in predicting concentration, visibility and deposition at Class I areas in Wyoming. Presented at the AWMA Specialty Conference: Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path Forward. Mystic, CT, 22-24 October 2003. NPS, 2006. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/ect/index.cfm, U. S. National Park Service website, July, 2006. VISTAS, 2006. Tombach, I., P. Brewer, T. Rogers, and C. Arrington. Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analysis of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), Revision 3.2 of the December 22, 2005 version, August 31, 2006.Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### APPENDIX A SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE EMISSION UNITS To Be ProvidedSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### APPENDIX B UTM AND LCC COORDINATES

To Be ProvidedSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### APPENDIX C SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE

MAXIMUM 24-HR EMISSION RATES

To Be ProvidedSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### APPENDIX D MAPS OF CLASS I AREA RECEPTORSSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.docSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc 

### APPENDIX E CALPUFF OPTIONSSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-1. Input Groups in the CALPUFF Control File. Input Group Description Applicable to Sabic Innovative Plastics? 0 Input and output file names Yes 1 General run control parameters Yes 2 Technical options Yes 3 Species list Yes 4 Grid control parameters Yes 5 Output options Yes 6 Sub grid scale complex terrain inputs No 7 Dry deposition parameters for gases Yes 8 Dry deposition parameters for particles Yes 9 Miscellaneous dry deposition for parameters Yes 10 Wet deposition parameters Yes 11 Chemistry parameters Yes 12 Diffusion and computational parameters Yes 13 Point source parameters Yes 14 Area source parameters Yes 15 Line source parameters No 16 Volume source parameters No 17 Discrete receptor information Yes

Table E-2. CALPUFF Model Input Group 0: Input and Output File Names.

Parameter FLM/EPA

Default Sabic Innovative Plastics

Refined Modeling Comments METDAT CALMET.DAT varies by year and month Met input PUFLST CALPUFF.LST varies by year Output CONDAT CONC.DAT varies by year Output concentrations DFDAT DFLX.DAT N/A Output dry deposition WFDAT WFLX.DAT N/A Output wet deposition VISDAT VISB.DAT varies Output visibility calculations OZDAT OZONE.DAT N/A Ozone data – use monthly averages LCFILES -- T File names converted to upper case NMETDAT 1 364/yr & 12/yr Number of CALMET.DAT files NPTDAT 0 0 Number of PTEMARB.DAT files NARDAT 0 0 Number of BAEMARB.DAT files NVOLDAT 0 0 Number of VOLEMARB.DAT filesSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-3. CALPUFF Model Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
Parameter FLM/EPA

Default Sabic Innovative Plastics

Initial and Finer Modeling Comments METRUN 0 0 All model periods in met file(s) were run IBYR variable Starting year – 2001, 2002, 2003 IBMO

- 1 Starting month IBDY

- 1 Starting day IBHR

- 1 Starting hour XBTZ 0 Base time zone (0 = MM5 data) IRLG

- Hrs in met set Length of run (hrs) NSPEC 5 6 Number of chemical species NSE 3 3 Number of chemical species to be emitted ITEST 2 2 Program is executed after SETUP phase MRESTART 0 0 Do not read or write a restart file during run NRESPD 0 0 File written only at last period METFM 1 1 CALMET binary file (CALMET.MET) AVET 60 60 Averaging time in minutes PGTIME 60 60 PG Averaging time in minutes

Table E-4. CALPUFF Model Input Group 2: Technical Options
Parameter FLM/EPA

Default Sabic Innovative Plastics

Initial and Finer Modeling Comments MGAUSS 1 1 Gaussian distribution used in near field MCTADJ 3 3 Partial plume path terrain adjustment MCTSG 0 0 Scale-scale complex terrain not modeled MSLUG 0 0 Near-field puffs not modeled as elongated MTRANS 1 1 Transitional plume rise modeled MTIP 1 1 Stack tip downwash used MSHEAR 0 0 (0,1) Vertical wind shear (not modeled, modeled) MSPLIT 0 0 Puffs are not split MCHEM 1 1 Transformation rates computed internally using (RIVID/ARM3) scheme MAQCHEM 0 0 Aqueous phase transformation not modeled MWET 1 1 Wet removal modeled MDRY 1 1 Dry deposition modeled MDISP 3 3 PG dispersion coefficients for rural areas (computed using ISCST approximation) and MP coefficients in urban areas MTURBVW 3 3 Use both σv and σw from PROFILE.DAT to computeσy and σz (n/a) MDISP2 3 3 PG dispersion coefficients for rural areas (computed using ISCST3 approximation) and MP coefficients in urban areas when measured turbulence data is missing MROUGH 0 0 PG σy and σz not adjusted for roughnessSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc

Parameter FLM/EPA

Default Sabic Innovative Plastics

Initial and Finer Modeling Comments MPARTL 1 1 No partial plume penetration of elevated inversion MTINV 0 0 Strength of temperature inversion computed from default gradients MPDF 0 0 PDF not used for dispersion under convective conditions MSGTIBL 0 0 Sub-grid TIBL module not used for shoreline MBCON 0 0 Boundary concentration conditions not modeled MFOG 0 0 Do not configure for FOG model output MREG 1 1 Technical option selections must conform to USEPA Long Range Transport (LRT) guidance

Table E-5. CALPUFF Model Input Group 3: Species List-Chemistry Options.
CSPEC Modeled1 Emitted2 Dry Deposition3 Output Group Number SO2 1 1 1 0 SO4-2 1 0 2 0 NOx 1 1 1 0 HNO3 1 0 1 0 NO3 1 0 2 0 PM25 1 1 2 0 Notes: 1.) 0=no, 1=yes 2.) 0=no, 1=yes 3.) 0=none, 1=computed gas, 2=computed particle, 3=user-specified
Table E-6. CALPUFF Model Input Group 4: Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters

.

Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

PMAP UTM LCC Map projection system IUTMZN

- - UTM zone for grid coordinates UTMHEM

- - Hemisphere for UTM coordinate system DATUM WGS-G NAS-C/ NWS-84 Datum-region for output coordinates NX - 97/263 Number of X grid cells in meteorological grid NY 90/185 Number of Y grid cells in meteorological grid NZ - 15/10 Number of vertical layers in meteorological grid DGRIDKM

- 36/4 Grid spacing (km) ZFACE - 0,20,40,80, 160,320,640, 1200,2000, 3000, 4000 Cell face heights in 4km meteorological grid (m)
XORIGKM - -900/538 Reference X coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1) of meteorological grid (km)Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc

Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

YORIGKM - -1600/-638 Reference Y coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1) of meteorological grid (km) IBCOMP

- 1 X index of lower left corner of the computational grid JBCOMP

- 1 Y index of lower left corner of the computational grids IECOMP - 97/263 X index of the upper right corner of the computational grid JECOMP - 90/185 Y index of the upper right corner of the computational grid LSAMP T F Sampling grid is not used IBSAMP

- 1 X index of lower left corner of the sampling grid JBSAMP

- 1 Y index of lower left corner of the sampling grid IESAMP - 97/263 X index of upper right corner of the sampling grid JESAMP - 90/185 Y index of upper right corner of the sampling grid MESHDN 1 1 Nesting factor of the sampling grid

Table E-7. CALPUFF Model Input Group 5: Output Options.
Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments ICON 1 1 Output file CONC.DAT containing concentrations is created IDRY 1 0 Output file DFLX.DAT containing dry fluxes is created IWET 1 0 Output file WFLX.DAT containing wet fluxes is created IVIS 1 1 Output file containing relative humidity data is not created LCOMPRS T T Perform data compression in output file IMFLX 0 0 Do not calculate mass fluxes across specific boundaries IMBAL 0 0 Mass balances for each species reported hourly ICPRT 0 0 Do not print concentration fields to the output list file IDPRT 0 0 Do not print dry flux fields to the output list file IWPRT 0 0 Do not print wet flux fields to the output list file ICFRQ 1 1 Concentration fields are printed to output list file every 1 hour IDFRQ 1 1 Dry flux fields are printed to output list file every 1 hour IWFRQ 1 1 Wet flux fields are printed to output list file every 1 hour IPRTU 1 3 Units for line printer output are in specified by user for concentration and for deposition IMESG 1 2 Messages tracking the progress of run are written on screen LDEBUG F F Logical value for debug output IPFDEB 1 1 First puff to trackSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc

Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments NPFDEB 1 1 Number of puffs to track NN1 1 1 Meteorological period to start output NN2 10 10 Meteorological period to end output

Table E-8. CALPUFF Model Input Group 6: Sub-Grid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs.

Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

NHILL 0 0 Number of terrain features NCTREC 0 0 Number of special complex terrain receptors MHILL

- - Input terrain and receptor data for CTSG hills input in CTDM format XHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing horizontal dimensions to meters ZHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing vertical dimensions to meters XCTDMKM

- - X origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate system (km) YCTDMKM

- - Y origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate system (km)

Table E-9. CALPUFF Model Input Group 7: Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases. Species Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments SO2 0.1509 0.1509 Diffusivity

1000 1000 Alpha star 8.0 8.0 Reactivity 0.0 0.0 Mesophyll resistance 0.04 0.04 Henry’s Law coefficient NOx 0.1656 0.1656 Diffusivity

1.0 1.0 Alpha star 8 8 Reactivity 5 5 Mesophyll resistance 3.5 3.5 Henry’s Law coefficient HNO 3 0.1628 0.1628 Diffusivity

1 1 Alpha star 18 18 Reactivity 0 0 Mesophyll resistance 0.00000008 0.00000008 Henry’s Law coefficient forSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-10. CALPUFF Model Input Group 8: Dry Deposition Parameters for Particles. Species Default East Bend Initial and Finer Modeling Comments SO4- 2 0.48 0.48 Default mass mean diameter of SO4-2 [μm] NO3- 0.48 0.48 Default mass mean diameter of NO3- [μm] PM25 0.48 0.48 Default mass mean diameter used by LADCO/IDEM

Table E-11. CALPUFF Model Input Group 9: Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters.

Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments RCUTR 30 30 Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm) RGR 10 10 Reference ground resistance (s/cm) REACTR 8 8 Reference pollutant reactivity NINT 9 9 Number of particle size intervals for effective particle deposition velocity IVEG 1 1 Vegetation in non-irrigated areas is active and unstressed

Table E-12. CALPUFF Model Input Group 10: Wet Deposition Parameters. Species Default East Bend Initial and Finer Modeling Comments 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s1] SO2 0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s1] 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s1] SO4 -2 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s1] 0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s1] NOx 0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s1] 6.0E-05 6.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s1] HNO 3 0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s1] 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s1] NO3 - 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s1]Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-13. CALPUFF Model Input Group 11: Chemistry Parameters.

Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments
MOZ 1 - Hourly ozone values will not be used BCKO3 - Varies Background ozone concentration (ppb) by month BCKNH3 12*10 Varies Background ammonia concentration (ppb) by month RNITE1 0.2 0.2 Nighttime NO2 loss rate in percent/hour RNITE2 2 2 Nighttime NOX loss rate in percent/hour RNITE3 2 2 Nighttime HNO3 loss rate in percent/hour MH202 1 1 Background H2O2 concentrations (Aqueous phase transformations not modeled) BCKH202

- 1 Background monthly H2O2 concentrations (Aqueous phase transformations not modeled) BCKPMF

- - Fine particulate concentration for Secondary Organic Aerosol Option OFRAC

- - Organic fraction of fine particulate for SOA Option VCNX

- - VOC/NOx ratio for SOA Option

Table E-14. CALPUFF Model Input Group 12: Miscellaneous Dispersion

and Computation Parameters.

Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

SYDEP 550 550 Horizontal size of a puff in meters beyond which the time dependant dispersion equation of Heffter (1965) is used MHFTSZ 0 0 Do not use Heffter formulas for sigma z JSUP 5 5 Stability class used to determine dispersion rates for puffs above boundary layer CONK1 0.01 0.01 Vertical dispersion constant for stable conditions CONK2 0.1 0.1 Vertical dispersion constant for neutral/stable conditions TBD 0.5 0.5 Use ISC transition point for determining the transition point between the Schulman-Scire to Huber-Snyder Building Downwash scheme IURB1 10 10 Lower range of land use categories for which urban dispersion is assumed IURB2 19 19 Upper range of land use categories for which urban dispersion is assumed ILANDUIN 20 20 Land use category for modeling domain XLAIIN 3.0 3.0 Leaf area index for modeling domainSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

ZOIN 0.25 0.25 Roughness length in meters for modeling domain ELEVIN 0.0 0.0 Elevation above sea level XLATIN -999 0. North latitude of station in degrees XLONIN -999 0. South latitude of station in degrees ANEMHT 10 10 Anemometer height in meters ISIGMAV 1 1 Sigma-v is read for lateral turbulence data IMIXCTDM 0 0 Predicted mixing heights are used XMXLEN 1 1 Maximum length of emitted slug in meteorological grid units XSAMLEN 1 1 Maximum travel distance of slug or puff in meteorological grid units during one sampling unit MXNEW 99 99 Maximum number of puffs or slugs released from one source during one time step MXSAM 99 99 Maximum number of sampling steps during one time step for a puff or slug NCOUNT 2 2 Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a sampling step that includes transitional plume rise SYMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma y in metres for a new puff or slug SZMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma z in metres for a new puff or slug

Table E-15. CALPUFF Model Input Group 13: Point Source Parameters.

Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments

NPT1 - 5 Number of point sources with constant stack parameters or variable emission rate scale factors IPTU 1 3 Units for point source emission rates are lb/hr NSPT1 0 0 Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions scaling factors NPT2 - 0 Number of point sources with variable emission parameters provided in external fileSabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-16. CALPUFF Model Input Group 14: Area Source Parameters.
Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments NAR1 1 Number of polygon area sources IARU 1 3 Units for area source emission rates are g/m2/s NSAR1 0

- Number of source species combinations with variable emissions scaling factors NAR2

- - Number of buoyant polygon area sources with variable location and emission parameters

Table E-17. CALPUFF Model Input Group 15: Line Source Parameters.
Parameters Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments NLN2

- 0 Number of buoyant line sources with variable location and emission parameters NLINES

- - Number of buoyant line sources ILNU 1

- Units for line source emission rates is g/s NSLN1 0

- Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions scaling factors MXNSEG 7

- Maximum number of segments used to model each line NLRISE 6

- Number of distance at which transitional rise is computed XL

- - Average line source length (m) HBL

- - Average height of line source height (m) WBL

- - Average building width (m) WML

- - Average line source width (m) DXL

- - Average separation between buildings (m) FPRIMEL

- - Average buoyancy parameter (m4/s3)

Table E-18. CALPUFF Model Input Group 16: Volume Source Parameters.
Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments NVL1

- 0 Number of volume sources IVLU 1

- Units for volume source emission rates is g/s NSVL1 0

- Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions scaling factors IGRDVL

- - Gridded volume source data is not used VEFFHT

- - Effective height of emissions (m) VSIGYI

- - Initial sigma y value (m) VSIGZI

- - Initial sigma z value (m)Sabic BART Modeling Protocol 2008 Draft for 022508 IDEM Meeting.doc Table E-19. CALPUFF Model Input Group 19: Discrete Receptor Information.
Parameter Default Sabic Innovative Plastics Initial and Finer Modeling Comments NREC

- Number per Class I area Number of discrete receptors for each Class I area

# Innovdtive**i)lasti(,~** 

# s "",;\
May 6, 2008 FedEx Tracking No. 7920 5050 3409 

### r--''''''' 

### \ i F!

.... ,") !**"~,** J ·L'i'i. 

### i8 

## I

'" _.".J
!liENTOF OO'IRONMENiALlIIANAGEMaH \**q;;~** BFAIR QUALITY J Re: BART Exemption Demonstration for SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC Mr. Ken Ritter, Section Chief Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management Air Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality 100 North Senate Avenue, MC 61-50 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2251

Dear Mr. Ritter: By letter dated February 8, 2008, the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) notified SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC (SABIC) that IDEM determined SABIC is subject to BART requirements. Pursuant to 326 IAC 26-1-6 (a), SABIC is required to submit to IDEM either (1) a BART analysis, or (2) a description and analysis ofthe BARTeligible emission units sufficient to demonstrate that the source is not subject to BART. This letter and the enclosed companion reports provide a description and analysis demonstrating that SABIC is not subject to BART. This BART exemption demonstration is being submitted by May 8, 2008 (i.e., within ninety (90) days ofIDEM's February 8 notification); accordingly, this submittal is timely pursuant to 326 IAC 26-1-6(a)(2). BART Exemption Demonstration On February 25, 2008, SABIC and its consultants (GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. and Alpine Geophysics, LLC) met with IDEM staffto discuss the draft modeling protocol proposed to be used by SABIC for BART CALPUFF modeling demonstrations. By letter, dated February 28, 2008, IDEM provided its comments and acceptance ofthe modeling protocol. CALPUFF modeling conducted for this BART exemption demonstration used the accepted protocol, as revised to incorporate the comments offered in IDEM's February 28, 2008 letter. The modeling protocol is set forth in the enclosed document "RevisedBestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocolfor SABICInnovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana", April 2008. CALPUFF model input selections, stack parameters, and emissions for the BART-eligible emission units are also provided in the enclosed modeling protocol document. The basis for emissions used in the CALPUPF model are provided in the enclosed document "BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Emission Inputsfor CALPUFF Modelingfor SABlCInnovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana", April 2008. CALPUFF Modeling Results CALPUFF modeling results, for the three (3) years 2001-2003, conducted in accordance with the enclosed protocol are provided in the enclosed report "BestAvailable Retrofit Technology

SABle Innovative Plastics One Lexan Lane Mount Vernon, IN 47620 USA T: +18128314945 F: +18128317942 E: dave.boggs@sabic-ip.com www.sablc-ip.com

### BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) EXEMPTION MODELING RESULTS FOR SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS MT. VERNON,LLC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

Submittedto:

Submittedby:

Preparedby: Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management 

### Office ofAir Management 100 N. Senate Avenue P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC 

### 1 Lexan Lane Mt. Vernon, IN 47620 Alpine Geophysics, LLC 

### 2655 South County Road 750 East Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 ProjectNo. TS-313 and GZA GeoEnvironmental,Inc. 

### 11499 Chester Road, Suite 511 Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 ProjectNo. 20.0151188.30



### April 2008

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 

### PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II 1.0 RESULTS OF THE 36KM COARSE GRID MODELING 1 2.0 REFINED GRID MODELING METHODOLOGY 4 3.0 REFINED GRID CALPUFF MODELING SCENARIOS AND RESULTS 5 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 5.0 REFERENCES 7 APPENDIX A: SABIC BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE MAXIMUM 24-HR EMISSION RATES FOR REFINED 4KM GRID SCENARIOS APPENDIX B: BART CALPUFF RESULTS FOR SABIC EMISSION SCENARIOS

1

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

### This document provides the results of the visibility exemption modeling that followed the guidelines ofthe 

## u.s. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y for the analysis of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at the SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC (SABIC) facility (formerly GE Plastics Mt. Vernon, Inc.). The facility is located just southwest (about 1 mile) of Mt. Vernon, Indiana. All Class I BART modeling followed the Revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocolfor Sabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana, (April,2008) which is an updated version ofthe draft document dated February 2008 that now includes all IDEM comments (as prescribed by IDEM in a letter to David Boggs from Mark Dert). The modeling included all BART-eligible processes at the plant with emissions ofS02, NOx, 

### and particulates (expressed in the modeling in the PM2 .5 

### size range) from boilers (coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired), heaters, process units, and plant-wide fugitive emissions at the Mt. Vernon facility. Indiana is part of the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (Midwest RPO), which was organized and funded by the U.S. EPA to facilitate the assessment ofvisibility impairment in the region. The Midwest RPO has not developed any specific guidance for air quality modeling for visibility impacts in support ofBART exemptions and BART application review. This modeling followed the combined guidance ofthe Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) in their Single Source Modeling to Support Regional Haze BARTModeling Protocol (March 21, 2006) and ofthe Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association ofthe Southeast (VISTAS) in Protocolfor the Application ofthe CALPUFF Modelfor Analysis of BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) (Revision 3.2

- 8/31/06). General guidance from the 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, the Guideline onAir Quality Models was also followed. The modeling that has been performed and is documented herein focused on analysis to determine ifthe visibility impacts due to the SABIC emissions from the BART-eligible sources are less than or greater than the visibility level of0.5 deciviews (dv) which is the threshold used to determine whether a source contributes to visibility impairment. Previous screening level modeling performed by LADCO on behalf of IDEM indicated that the SABIC sources would exceed the 0.5 dv threshold for visibility impacts at five Class I areas for a total of28 days over a . three year modeling period, with 19 ofthose days being in the Mammoth Cave National Park and six being in Mingo Wilderness. The highest single year number of visibility impacts exceeding the 0.5 dv threshold in the LADCO modeling was 9 days at Mammoth Cave National Park using a 2003 meteorological data set. This previous modeling used a 36km grid resolution meteorological and "modeling domain and released all emissions from one combined stack at SABIC; which, by most modeling guidelines for such analyses, would be considered a screening level analysis. The 36km modeling with a single representative stack was repeated in this study with identical results to that ofLADCO. More refined modeling was also performed in this study which considered individual stacks and their associated emissions as well as a higher resolution 4km meteorological and modeling

11

### domain. This modeling resolution and source apportionment were considered to be more refined

. modeling than the original coarse 36km, coinbined stack modeling by LADCO.

The refined CALPUFF runs included two scenarios. Run 1: Oil Scenario represents firing residual oil in the B&W Boiler (Source 09-001). This has not been done in 10 years and the storage tank and oil supply system is no longer operable. Since this scenario still exists as a permit condition, SABIC included emissions under this scenario in the BART exemption modeling runs. Run 2: No Oil Scenario, represents firing natural gas plus supplemental hydrogen in the B&W Boiler, which is the current and on-going scenario for this boiler. It 

### was included because its emissions are substantially lower than for the Run 1: Oil Scenario. Appendix A provides the maximum 24-hour average actual hourly (M24HAA) emission rates by emission unit for these two scenarios. The visibility analyses conducted and documented herein at the 4km resolution using the two scenarios described above for individual sources of BART-eligible emissions demonstrated visibility impacts greater than the 0.5 dv threshold for each year ofmeteorology at each Class I area reviewed but less than the 98th 

### percentile number of values greater than the 0.5 dv exemption level. For an individual year this was less than 8 day-receptor occurrences and less than 22 day-receptors for all three years combined. Thus, BART-eligible sources at the SABIC facility should be exempt from any further BART analysis. Summary tables of all visibility calculations are presented in Appendix B ofthis final documentation for the modeling.

111

### 1.0 RESULTS OF THE 36KM 

### COARSE GRID MODELING 

### The first step in the modeling was to reproduce the LADCO coarse 36kIn grid modeling visibility results using identical sources, emissions, meteorology and modeling domain. I 

### This modeling was intended to confirm the baseline LADCO modeling to ensure that additional source and emission refinement and refined analysis were performed in a consistent manner. A pre-computed set ofmeteorological files provided by IDEM in the 36kIn format and pre-defined CALPUFF input option configurations, based on LADCO CALPUFF modeling were followed. The regional modeling domain for the coarse modeling approach was identical to that of LADCO and included all Class I areas in the original LADCO modeling. Those Class I areas, along with the distances from SABIC to the nearest receptor and the farthest receptor in each Class I area are shown below:



## • Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota 1127-1211 kIn



## • Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey 1191-1205 kIn



## • Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, West Virginia 754-762 kIn


## • Great GulfWilderness Area, New Hampshire 1570-1576 kIn



## • Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee 437-503 kIn



## • Hercules-Glades Wilderness, Missouri 459-468 kIn



## • Isle Royale National Park, Michigan 1100-1154 kIn



## • James River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia 745-753 kIn



## • Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, North Carolina 578-587 kIn



## • Lyle Brook Wilderness, Vermont 1387-1398 kIn



## • Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky 165-186 kIn


## • Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri 221-231 kIn



## • Seney Wilderness, Michigan 935-947 kIn



## • Shenandoah National Park, Virginia 799-861 kIn


# • Sipsey Wilderness, Alabama 393-404 kIn


# • Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota 1215-1263 kIn The results ofthese analyses are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 compares the number ofdays where the visibility impact was above the threshold of 0.5 dv. As can be seen the analyses performed independently using theLADCO files produced identical results to those ofLADCO at every Class I area, thus demonstrating similar model performance and setting the baseline for

1 Please see RevisedBestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling ProtocolforSabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana, (April 2008), Appendix A, for the LADCO 36 km source parameters and single source emissions ofNOx, S02, PMlO and PM2.5 emissions.

.

### meteorological grid and source refinement in the refined, 4krn modeling. Table 2 shows the maximum 24-hour visibility impact in each Class I area for each year ofmeteorology used in the modeling derived from the SABle 36krn CALPUFF modeling. Table 1. Comparison ofthe LADCO and SABIC 36km CALPUFF Modeling of Class I Visibility Impacts SABIC Mt. Vernon, IN 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 Class 1 Areas LADCO SABIC LADCO· SABIC LADCO SABIC Boundary Waters
- MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brigantine Wild.
- NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dolly Sods
- WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Great Gulf Wild
- NH 0 0 0 0 0 0 Great Smokey Mount
- TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hercules
- Glades Wild.
- MO 0 0 0 0 1 1 Isle Royale
- MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 James River Face
- VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linville Gorge
- NC 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lye Brook Wild.
- VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mammoth Caves
- KY 6 6 9 9 4 4 Mingo Wild.
- MO 2 2 3 3 1 1 Seney Wild.
- MI 0 0 0 0 0 

### o· Shenandoah N.P.
- VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sipsey Wild.
- AL 1 1 0 0 0 0 Voyageurs N.P.
- MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 Days per year> 0.5 9 9 12 12 7 7 Total Days ('02-'04) > 0.5 LADCO 36 28 SABIC 28 km 36km Total Days Mammoth > 0.5 dv LADCO 36 19 SABIC 19 km 36km 

### * A source that contributes greater than 0.5 dv> 7 days per year at any Class 1 area IS consIdered to be a BART-eligible source.

2

### Table 2. Maximum 24-hour Deciview Impact for Each class I Area in the in the 36km Modeling Domain Attributable to SABle

Class I Area Distance from SABIC to Nearest Class I area boundary, km Max. 24-hr impact over 2002 Max. 24-hr impact over 2003 Max. 24-hr impact over 2004

Boundary Waters, MN 1127 0.040 0.162 0.050 Brigatine, NJ 1191 0.166 0.091 0.127 Dolly Sods, WV 754 0.106 0.107 0.137
Great Gulf, NH 1570 0.115 0.116 0.131
Great Smoky Mts., TN 435 0.140 0.253 0.343
Hercules Glade, MO 459 0.191 0.445**";~\j~t~!~!** Isle Royale, MI 1100 0.121 0.238 0.100
James River Face, VA 745 0.069 0.163 0.264
Linville Gorge, NC 578 0.132 0.210**.~~~;"** Lyle Brook, VT 1387 0.187 0.201 0.281
Mammoth Cave, KY 165**1~'J''l73** *'11/09"1"**$~~\X" ::::~:,**  {:::f:':·· ''1.058 Mingo, MO 221**.(!1;!I>ll~":** l:if028 ·rQ't74.Jl Seney, MI 935 0.144 0.269 0.194 Shenandoah, VA 799 0.157 0.154 0.188 Sipsey, AL 393**~~¥',i** 0.222 0.491 Voyageurs, MN 1215 0.019 0.095 0.021

3

### 2.0 REFINED GRID MODELING METHODOLOGY Refined modeling using a 4km spaced grid for meteorology and modeling in the CALPUFF Model was performed for SABIC sourCes. 2 

### Specific source differentiation and spatial allocation of emissions as discussed in the modeling protocol was performed using the 4km refined grid modeling approach. This finer grid resolution modeling allowed a more representative characterization ofterrain features and wind flow for the areas between SABIC and each Class I area. A map ofthe 4km modeling domain which included a subset ofClass I areas compared to the 36km domain is shown in Figure 1.

538.00 

# lQ8
160 140 120 100

80 60 40 20 1586.00 98.00

er Face



### o 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 263- 638
, SABIC 4km CALJVrET & Modeling Domaiu 31 JaulUuy 2008



### Figure 1. Refined 4km Grid Used in the SABle CALPUFF Visibility Modeling

2 Please see RevisedBestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol for Sabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt, Vernon, Indiana, (April 2008), Appendix A, for the refined 4 kIn grid analysis source parameters for individual SABle BART eligible emission units, 4

### In accordance with the final BART guidance and 326 lAC 26-1-4(a), the threshold value to define whether a source "contributes" to visibility impairment is a 0.5 dv change from natural conditions. For this refined grid BART modeling, the test for evaluating whether SABIC is contributing to visibility impairment was based on the 98th percentile modeled 24-hour visibility impacts from the CALPUFF modeling. For this analysis the facility would be considered to not contribute to visibility impairment in a given year ifthe 7th highest day is lower than 0.5 dv and over a three year period ifthe 21st highest24-hour impact is less than 0.5 dv. 3.0 REFINED GRID CALPUFF MODELING SCENARIOS AND RESULTS CALPUFF modeling for visibility impacts was performed for two scenarios of emissions at SABIC which are explained in detail in the companion report entitled "BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Emission Inputsfor CALPUFF Modelingfor SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana ", April 2008. (the Emissions Input Report) These CALPUFF runs included two scenarios. Run 1: Oil Scenario represents firing residual oil in the B&W Boiler (Source 09-00 1). This has not been done in 10 years and the storage tank and oil supply system is no longer operable. Since this scenario still exists as a permit condition, SABIC included emissions under this scenario in the BART exemption modeling runs. Run 2: No Oil Scenario, represents firing natural gas plus supplemental hydrogen in the B&W Boiler, which is the current and on-going scenario for this boiler. It 

### was included because its emissions are substantially lower than for the Run 1: Oil Scenario. This is the current and future operating scenario for this boiler. Appendix A provides the maximum 24-hour average actual hourly (M24HAA) emission rates by emission unit for these two scenarios. 3 

### Appendix B provides a series of tables summarizing the results of the two SABIC emission scenarios that were modeled for BART. Tables B-1 through B-4, present the results of the refined grid modeling for Run 1: Oil Scenario and Tables B-5 through B-8 for Run 2: No Oil Scenario. Tables B-1 and B-5 cover the number of days above the 0.5 dv threshold for each Class I area in the modeling domain for each emissions case, Run 1: Oil Scenario and Run 2: No Oil Scenario, respectively. As can be seen in the tables B-1 and B-5, the only two Class I areas with visibility impacts above the 0.5 dv were Mammoth Cave National Park and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The Run 1: Oil Scenario visibility impacts were generally about 10-15% higher than those ofRun 2: No Oil Scenario which can be primarily attributed to the difference in S02 emissions at the B&W boiler. The number ofdays above the 0.5 dv threshold over the three year period ofmeteorological data modeled was 15 and 12 for Mammoth Cave for Runs 1 and 2, respectively, and 5 and 4 for Mingo for Runs 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, the remaining tables focus on the impacts at Mammoth Cave rather than Mingo (the number ofvalues above 0.5 dv on either an annual or three year basis to identify SABle as having "contributed" to visibility impairment was not exceeded at Mingo). Tables B-2 and B-6 show the distribution ofthe number ofdays above 0.5 dv at Mammoth Cave for Run 1: Oil Scenario and Run 2: No Oil Scenario and illustrate that each year's number of values above 0.5 dv was less than the 98th 

### percentile or eight days ofoccurrence. Thus, SABIC does not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Matnmoth Cave. To further demonstrate

3 The M24HAA emission rates for the two CALPUFF model runs are also provided in Appendix C ofRevisedBest Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocolfor Sabic Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt
.

. Vernon, Indiana, (April 2008). 5

### this conclusion in a more robust manner, Tables B5 and B-9 show the estimated maximum visibility impairment change for each year for each case. Table B-5 for Run 1: Oil Scenario shows that for the 2003 meteorological data set, the sixth highest value at 0.506 isjust above the 0.5 dv threshold while the seventh highest value at 0.369 is well below 0.5 dv. Similarly, for Run 2: No Oil Scenario, the fifth highest values for years 2002 and 2003 at 0.521 and 0.507 are just above the 0.5 dv threshold while the sixth highest values at 0.392 and 0.462 are below 0.5 dv. Other years have fewer numbers ofdays greater than the 0.5 dv threshold. Finally, Tables B-6 and B-1 0 present the maximum days for each year and a contribution percentage attributable to each constituent. Sulfates due to S02 emissions are the major contributors in all cases with very little due to particulates. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 

### This report has provided detailed information on the results ofthe Run 1: Oil and Run 2: No Oil BART emission scenarios modeled for BART applicability using CALPUFF. A summary ofthe number ofdays> 0.5 deciviews during the highest single year and the total number ofdays> 0.5 deciviews over the 3 year modeling period for Mammoth Cave National Park is provided in Table 3, below, along with a summary ofthe emissions associated with each scenario.

e 3. CALPUFF Results and Emission Inputs Comparison Table CALPUFFResllUsa(**M~iliIl1oth~~ye** .....**Niltionnp~rk:Rjinl:()il** Scenario RnIl2:,Nh

### on Scenario Highest Single Year, Days> 0.5 Deciviews TotaI3-Year, Days> 0.5 deciviews BART Applicable? Total NOx Emissions, Ib/hr* Total S02 Emissions, Ib/hr* Total PMI0 Emissions, Ib/hr* Total PM2.5 Emissions, Ib/hr* Total NOx, S02 and PMI0 Emissions, Ib/hr* 6 15 No 197.8 1336.7

41.6 33.4
1576.1 5 12 No 184.2 1219.1

32.1 27.0
1435.4
*See companion "Emission Input Report" for more detailed information on the basis for the emission inputs to CALPUFF 

### The conclusion is that SABlC will not "cause or contribute to visibility impairment" in any Class I areas. These results demonstrate that the SABlC Mt. Vernon facility is exempt from having to perform a BART analysis on its BART eligible emission units because, even for Run 1: Oil Scenario (with oil utilized in the B&W Boiler), the number of days> 0.5 deciviews for the highest single year from 2001 through 2003 is 6, which is less than the BART applicability threshold of8 days in any year, and the three year total is 15 days> 0.5 deciviews, which is less 6 ALPINE

### than the 22 day threshold for the three year mOdeling period. It 

### is noted that the results using the Run 2: No Oil Scenario, where the fuel in the B&W Boiler is natural gas plus supplemental hydrogen, show even fewer days> 0.5 deciviews than the Run 1: Oil Scenario, which presumes oil firing in the B&W Boiler. 5.0 

### REFERENCES 1. 

### 40 CFR Part 51, "Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations (Appendix Y)"; Final Rule Federal Register: July 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 128) 2. Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM). Indiana Administrative Code, ARTICLE 26. REGIONAL HAZE. Rule 1. 

### Best Available Retrofit Technology (lAC 326-1). Effective February 22,2008. 3. "Revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol for SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana." April 2008. Alpine Geophysics LLC and GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. 4. "Best Available Retrofit TechnologyEmission Inputs for CALPUFF Modeling for SABle Innovative Plastics, Mt. Vernon LLC," Apri12008. Sabic Innovative Plastics and GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.

7

### APPENDIX A SABIC BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE MAXIMUM 24-HR EMISSION RATES FOR REFINED 4KM GRID SCENARIOS

### Table A-I. SABle Refined 4 km 

### Grid, Run 1: Oil Scenario in B&W Boiler
NOx Emissions S02 Emissions PM 10 Emissions PM 2.5 Emissions UnitlD BART Emission Unit Description Ib/hr Ib/hr Ib/hr Ib/hr

09-001 09-001 B& W 54.2 117.6 10.81 7.64

09-002 09-002 Erie 81.2 702.8 17.75 15.88

09-002 09-002 Lasker 42.0 363.3 8.24 7.50
09-002 Flare 08-706 (COS) going to 0.62 152.8 0.03 0.007 08-706
09-106 09-106 Riley 17.9 0.11 1.343 1.34

12-001 12-001 (H109) 1.9 0.011 0.14 0.14 Hot Oil Heater

Transfer & 00000 Finishing Fugitive 0.0 0 3.42 0.86 Emissions Emission Totals 197.7 1336.6 41.7 33.4

A-I

### Table A-2. SABle Refined 4 kIn 

### Grid, Run 2: No Oil Scenario in B&W Boiler
NOx Emissions 502 Emissions PM 10 Emissions PM 2.5 Emissions Unit ID BART Emission Unit Description Ib/hr Ib/hr Ib/hr Ib/hr

09-001 09-001 B& W 40.6 0.10 1.30 1.30

09-002 09-002 Erie 81.2 702.8 17.75 15.88

09-002 09-002 Lasker 42.0 363.3 8.24 7.50
09-002 Flare 08-706 (COS) going to 0.62 152.8 0.03 0.007 08-706
09-106 09-106 Riley 17.9 0.11 1.343 1.34

12-001 12-001 (H109) 1.9 0.011 0.14 0.14 Hot Oil Heater

Transfer & 00000 Finishing Fugitive 0.0 0 3.42 0.86 Emissions Emission Totals 184.1 1219.1 32.2 27.0

A-2

### APPENDIXB BART CALPUFF RESULTS FOR SABIC EMISSION SCENARIOS.:;;: 

### Table B-1. Summary 

### ofRun 1: Oil Scenario in B&W Boiler - CALPUFF/CALPOST Model Results FOR ALL CLASS I AREAS in the 4km Refined Grid FOR SABIC Mt. Vernon, Indiana

Distance # ofdays and # of from source # ofdays and # of # ofdays and # of # ofdays and # of

to Class I receptors with receptors with receptors with receptors with Max. 24-hr Class I Area impact> 0.5 dv in impact> 0.5 dv in impact> 0.5 dv in impact >1. 0 dv in impact over area Class I area for 3-yr 3- yr period boundary, Class I area: 200I Class I area: 2002 Class I area: 2003 km period: 2001-2003 Dolly Sods Wilderness, 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.200 WV James River Face 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.205 Wilderness, VA Mammoth 165 4 2 5 4 6 6 0 

# ..**~'** Cave, KY 0
...**i9~** Great Smoky 435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.334

Mts., TN
Linville Gorge 578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.312 Wilderness, NC Mingo National Wildlife 221 0 0 2 1 3 2 0 0**_~?~"J\** Refuge, MO Sipsey 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.423 Wilderness, AL 

# '4

B-1

### TABLE B-2. CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS OF RUN 1: OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILER AT MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK DUE TO SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA USING REFINED 4KM GRID Visibility Impairment Year Maximum Plume Extinction Number ofDays> 0.5 dv 2001 0.732 4 

### 2002 0.954 5 

### 2003 1.019 6 

### BART Threshold Maximum 0.5 N/A 

### Extinction Change in Class I Area

B-2

### TABLE B-3. SUMMARY OF RANKEDRUN 1: OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILER CALPUFF/CALPOST MODEL RESULTS FORMAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

2001 Delta- 2002 Delta- 2003 DeltaClass I Area Rank deciview deciview deciview Ranks 1-8 Ranks 1-8 Ranks 1-8

I 0.732 0.954 1.019
2 0.656 0.868 0.644
3 0.534 0.614 0.561
4 0.51 0.593 0.556 Mammoth Cave, KY 0.467 0.54 0.551 5
6 0.444 0.43 0.506
7 0.423 0.402 0.369
8 0.422 0.399 0.356 Shaded cells are greater than 0.5 dv.

B-3

### TABLE B-4. SUMMARY OF RUN 1: OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILER

- CONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO DELTA-DV FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABle MT. VERNON, INDIANA

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DELTA DV % 804 % N03 % PMF 

### 2001 55 302 0.732 76.00 22.67 1.33 2001 241 302 0.656 95.77 3.56 0.67 2001 240 119 0.534 97.02 1.86 1.12 2001 264 119 0.51 76.27 21.57 2.16 2002 347 21 0.954 88.72 10.68 0.59 2002 213 300 0.868 98.16 0.9 0.94 2002 361 297 0.614 60.68 37.42 1.9 2002 202 297 0.593 98.64 0.4 0.96 2002 358 47 0.54 67.72 29.9 2.38 2003 349 227 1.019 81.72 17.4 0.88 2003 156 65 0.644 90.46 7.74 1.8 2003 171 275 0.561 94.58 4.46 0.96 2003 340 302 0.556 78.58 19.92 1.5 2003 263 300 0.551 92.28 6.62 1.09 2003 6 297 0.506 82.14 16.44 1.42

B-4

### TABLE B-5. SUMMARY OF RUN 2: NO OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILERCALPUFF/CALPOST MODEL RESULTS FOR ALL CLASS I AREAS IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

Distance # ofdays and # of from source # ofdays and # of # ofdays and # of # ofdays and # of receptors with Max. 24-hr Class I Area to Class I receptors with receptors with receptors with impact >1. 0 dv in impact over area impact> 0.5 dv in impact> 0.5 dv in impact> 0.5 dv in Class I area for 3-yr 3- yr period boundary, Class I area: 2001 Class I area: 2002 Class I area: 2003 period: 2001-2003 km Dolly Sods Wilderness, 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.182 WV James River Face 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.187 Wilderness, VA Mammoth 165 2 1 5 4 5 5 0 0 0.934 Cave, KY
Great Smoky 435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.310

Mts., TN
Linville Gorge 578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.284 Wilderness, NC Mingo National Wildlife 221 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0.772 Refuge, MO Sipsey 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.386 Wilderness, AL

B-5

### TABLE B-6. CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS OF RUN 2: NO OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILER AT MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK DUE TO SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA USING REFINED 4KM GRID Visibility Impairment Year Maximum Plume Extinction Number ofDays> 0.5 dv 2001 0.668 2 2002 0.882 5 2003 0.934 5 BART Threshold Maximum 0.5 N/A Extinction Change in Class I Area

B-6

### TABLE B-7. SUMMARY OF RANKED RUN 2: NO OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILER CALPUFF/CALPOST MODEL RESULTS FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

2001 Delta- 2002 Delta- 2003 DeltaClass I Area Rank deciview deciview deciview Ranks 1-8 Ranks 1-8 Ranks 1-8

1 0.668 0.882 0.934
2 0.598 0.804 0.59
3 0.487 0.561 0.514
4 0.459 0.549 0.511 Mammoth Cave, KY 5 0.423 0.521 0.507
6 0.406 0.392 0.462
7 0.389 0.365 0.336
8 0.367 0.364 0.326 Shaded cells are greater than 0.5 dv

B-7

### TABLE B-8. SUMMARY OF RUN 2: NO OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILERCONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO DELTA-DV FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

YEAR



### - DAY RECEPTOR DELTADV % 804 % N03 % PMF 

### 2001 55 302 0.668 75.68 23.14 1.18 2001 241 302 0.598 95.75 3.66 0.6 2002 347 21 0,882 88.6 10.86 0.53 2002 213 300 0.804 98.22 0.92 0.85 2002 361 297 0.561 60.12 38.2 1.68 2002 202 297 0.549 98.72 0.4 0.88 2002 358 47 0.521 67.75 30.03 2.22 2003 349 227 0.934 81.49 17.73 0.78 2003 156 65 0.59 90.43 7.95 1.62 2003 171 275 0.514 94.58 4.57 0.86 2003 340 302 0.511 78.39 20.27 1.34 2003 263 300 0.507 92.24 6.78 0.98

B-8

### ALPINE.·.···.·.·.·

.... h •••••• ••••••**~EqPHY~ICS**

Atmospheric & Hydrologic SCiences June 11, 2008 Mr. David L. Boggs Principal Environmental Leader SABIC InnovativePlastics Mt. Vernon, LLC 1 Lexan Drive Mt. Vernon, Indiana47620-9364 Re: Tables ofMaximmn Days ofVisibility GreaterThan 0.5 dv forEach Class I Area in the 4 km Modeling Domain ofSABIC Innovative Plastics Dear Mr. Boggs: As we have discussed and at the request of Mr. Mark Derf of the Indiana Department of EnvironmentafManagement, I have prepared tables that smnmarize the refined grid modeling results for days with visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv in each Class I area where applicable. The two areas were Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky (as presented in the SABIC BART modeling report in Tables B-4 and B.8) and Mingo Wilderness Area in Missouri. Visibility impacts are presented for two modeling scenarios, namely, Run 1: Oil Scenario which represents firing residual oil in the B&W Boiler (Source 09-001) and Run 2: No .Oil Scenario which represents firing natural gas plus supplemental hydrogen in the B&W Boiler. The latter scenario is the current and on-going scenario for this boiler while residual oil has not been used in the B&W boiler in overten years. Tables B-4 and B-8 repeat the tables provided in the original document submitted to IDEM entitled 

### Best Available Retrofit Technology (BAR1) Exemption Modeling Results for SABIC Innovative Plastics MI. Vernon LLC, Mt. Vernon, Indiana. Tables B-4A and B-8A provide similar tables for Mingo Wilderness. Ifyou have any questions regarding these tables or their contents, please feel free to call me at 812- 432-9484. I believe these tables are responsive to the request ofMr. Derf. Respectfully yours,

George J. Schewe, CCM, QEP Partner and Principal Meteorologist Alpine Geophysics, LLC

cc: Michael Szabo

Alpine GCOpl1ysics, LLC 2655 South County Road 750 E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-9484 (8I2) 432-5013 FAX ".. ;. .

### TABLE B-4. SUMMARY OF RUN 1: OIL SCENARIO IN B&WBOILER- CONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO DELTA-DVFORMAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARKIN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DELTADV %_S04 %_N03 %_PMF 2001 55 302 0.732 76.00 22.67 1.33 2001 241 302 0.656 95.77 3.56 0.67 2001 240 119 0.534 97.02 1.86 1.12 2001 264 119 0.51 76.27 21.57 2.16 2002 347 21 0.954 88.72 10.68 0.59 2002 213 300 0.868 98.16 0.9 0.94 2002 361 297 0.614 60.68 37.42 1.9 2002 202 297 0.593 98.64 0.4 0.96 2002 358 47 0.54 67.72 29.9 2.38 2003 349 227 1.019 81.72 17.4 0.88 2003 156 65 0.644 90.46 7.74 1.8 2003 171 275 0.561 94.58 4.46 0.96 2003 340 302 0.556 78.58 19.92 1.5 2003 263 300 0.551 92.28 6.62 1.09 2003 6 "297 0.506 82.14 16.44 1.42

Alpine Geophysics, LLC 2655 South County Road 750 E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432-5013 FAXTABLE B-8. SUMMARYOF RUN 2: NO On. SCENARIOIN B&W BOn.ERCONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO DELTA-DV FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARKIN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA
YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DELTADV %_804 o/e.;..N03 %_PMF 2001 55 302 0.668 75.68 23.14 1.18 2001 241 302 0.598 95.75 3.66 0.6 2002 347 21 0.882 88.6 10.86 0.53 2002 213 300 0.804 98.22 0.92 0.85 2002 361 297 0.561 60.12 38.2 1.68 2002 202 297 0.549 98.72 0.4 0.88 2002 358 47 0.521 67.75 30.03 2.22 2003 349 227 0.934 81.49 17.73 0.78 2003 156 65 0.59 90.43 7.95 1.62 2003 171 275 0.514 94.58 4.57 0.86 2003 340 302 0.511 78.39 20.27 1.34 2003 263 300 0.507 92.24 6.78 0.98

Alpine Geophysics, LLC 2655 South County Road 750 E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432-5013 FAXTABLE B-4A. SUMMARY OF RUN 1: On. SCENARIO IN B&W BOILERCONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO »ELTA-DV FORMINGO WD...DERNESS IN THE 4KM REFINED.GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA
YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DELTADV %_804 %_N03 %_PMF 2002 345 .19 0.816 71.19 26.98 1.84 2002 187 19 0.511 98.78 0.4 0.82 2003 253 19 0.838 94.18 5.22 0.6 2003 53 46 0.806 90.19 9.12 0.69 2003 252 19 0.616 94.45 4.94 0.61

TABLE B;.SA. SUMMARY OF RUN 2: NO OIL SCENARIO IN B&W BOILERCONTRIBUTING CONSTITUENTS TO DELTA-DV FOR MlNGO WILDERNESS IN THE 4KM REFINED GRID FOR SABIC MT. VERNON, INDIANA
YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DELTADV %_804 %_N03 %_PMF 2002 345 19 0.751 71.12 27.28 1.59 2003 253 19 0.772 94.13 5.34 0.88 2003 53 46 0.742 90.05 9.34 1.8 2003 252 19 0.56 94.41 5.05 0.96

Alpine Geophysics, LLC 2655 South County Road 750 E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432-5013 FAXJuly 

### 9,2,Q08 Mr. 

### Dav!cl L. Boggs 

### 'P:clPoipal**Eri~it0i1nlental** Lead¢):' 

## SAllIe Innovative Plasties 

### Mt.**V~tnon1'** 

### LLC 

### 1Le.xan Dtive. 

### Mt. Venlo)J,Indiana 

### 47620-9364 iRe: Additional**Tabl~s** 

### B,.lAW!Jllgl1 

### !h8A**f~r** 

### 'Manm),(>tl1·Cave'NPand Min,goNational Wildlife Refuge

The methodology followed in llsing the annualave.ragenatwal background bex/was the same as that used in the previous modeling Md fQllowed the technique used in the LADCO March 21, 2006 protocol entitled 

### Single Source Modeling to S1:/Pport lJ.-egionalf:JaztJ, B.ARTModeling Protocol. As shown in the LADCO protocol, annual average backgfOundconcentrafions for the Eastern United States from Table 2-1 

### of the 

### Guidtmcefor EstimatingNatural Visihility 

### Condttions under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-005,September, 

### 200S) for specific species were scaled to higher or lower values until a Class I area-spe.cifie natural visibility is produced, Tllis scaJing procedure \VaS performed for each Class I area in the LADCQ protocol using the 

### 2;0% best visibility dElYs. In this additional analysis, the 20% best visibility background 

### was**r~p'Jaced** 

### 'bYtheannualaver<lge visibility background and each concentration rescaled. The mathematical relationship between the annual average natural background in deciviews and visual range, (l/Megameters (MID)) is: Annl.lalavg. visuc;tl range (l/Mni) = 

### 10* exp (annual avg. deciviews/lO)

. Alpine**Gcophysi~s,** LtC 2.655 Sm!th CQuptyj{o<\{) 750 IS, I)il!sPQfP, 1114iMiH7qT3 (8J2) 432-'94?4

. (812) 432-5013 FAXC,

.. The 

### anntJal**ave~e** ,Dil;¢

### i¥aiues- fQr 

### Mammoth**C~v~:and.M1ngo,** Wilderness

### .wer.etik¢j[.ftQm.~PP¢ndix 13 ofthe EPA's 

### ,tJyidanceiliJr Estimating

### Natural 'f:i!i;i:bilf'IfY

### Cp.nditions under the fe;gMiileiZllnze]ttlle 

### (EPA-4**54/B~Q@"@@~:)i: :$f~,Pi~llloor"**  

### 1003 an:dwere7

### iti9:dyand 7,;4 dv,**respective1r~** 

### '11ie-s'tt**co~mej'ents 'wen~conv€rted** **;f~ ~:i~u!!f**  t!@ge in units.ofllMm**:~sltoWn** 

### in the**fonnt;11~abQ¥~: ~q** **~1iLyea** visual range 

### of215S: 

### and 2'L:Q'3' ;(i):r Mammoth CaveN'Pand.'Mingo WIlderness,**resp'¢f.}tiv~ly,** 

### ·irihes.- e**v~lues** Were then used 

### in;th"¢;**(~qu:aJt!:!n** 

### which :rel;;\testb:e annual.average natural**hac:kgtPJ:mQ;tj;)'~a¢p: $~(;t'ies**  concentration with 

### an.**"X"ent~redin** 

### each compone1l1 contribution 

### as the scalingJactot.**Thi$~qUgl,tion** is shown below; ;, Annual avg. visual range (J/MmJ**=S~f1W*[~mmQniuI!lsu1fatej*X:+** 3 *fR:H*[ammoniumniW:wJ*:X:+4:li[OCJ*X + 10*[EC]*:X + l*ISOILJ*::>'LifO,.6*[CNi]*;X

### +RaMgb $ca:tti<f;ib:gl Where Raleigh**Bcatt~ring** 

### is**lQ/M~:** The bracketed concentrations

.are**e~q~{e~~sedgl,,5~g!m3.:rh~fRH** values represent

# annuaI'**;a¥~tage** 

# 00l

..**~alGulated** from the 

### 12 monthly site speci.'[ip 

## 'mE'**V~'!l~$\taken** 

### from TabLe

### A,.3 ofBPA.c4541.l5,.03·

...D0S. ', This relationship WaslJseq to calculate a scaling factor (X) for the naMal background concentrations for 

### the .Eastern U,S"whieh were 

### then applied to the 

### base back;ground 

### eonGentlla:tio)Js,· ··Ibe·$caiing fh:etors :were 1.013[0t"

### M~~1~th.:P§tye~d'.Q:;.~~4. torMingcWHdemess; Table

### l'b~lowsb.QWs 

## the

# ~%l~~~~~i 

# ....**\"iI'G~~~':::~~~:'~fi~~:~::t:J' b1~kiitQW9<lt~fleh**  

### orIhe two 

### Class

..Iar,eas.**Th~s~s~al~d** ..**y?tlueSl~eI:e** ,entered' 

### ,dmeetl.¥ fot 

### the**;hal;?k~~1Mil.€l, 'GQJ3lP~l;lJJiJildQns'lnthe** **,a~j)jfq:priateCALPUST** 

### filesft'JT vfsffuiHty**¢alc]J,1~tl:9ns.** Table 

### L**S¢a;led~1J}j;l A;y¢t~~¢'~~~:I;lp~t** **'B~d,k~9und.** Values**~¢~1¢.4 $~;:jI¢.!J** **:~J:)31jld. '$if~~etl~t«ted** **tJ!l~!l3.I~(!l-JJI,~d.lt4** Scaled. Amm. Annm Q!'g3i!i'jJ**El¢I!X!H!t~J ;~!l~b~(!**  :limblit:**Ni3t!!t~l' lS~d!.tnll** ***!![I!t~l$iJlfateNitrate** cat]jOfi catbou:$.:(ii! IlfllSS t,:**l~sstB.a:(jk,'gr.,** Backg'"I' Scaling llyer3ge conii'. C"iiC coil'c.**coil'~**

### .~t,i'<lJQ¥'**li1Um"~aC:f~r'** 

## .,mn-....**t~;;::~. (.:;~3)** **:(u~i;n~(u;t~~(J!gfm;;1" f!!2/ID~)** 

Ifyou haveanyqueslions 

### regarding**th:es~** tables or their contents, pleas.e feel 

### free 10ca11tneat 81:2-**4~2~94&4.** 

## . Respectfully yours,

George J. Schewe, 

### CeM, QEP Partner and Principal Meteotologist Alpine Geophysics, LLC

cc: Michael S'Zabo, GZA

Ajpine Geophysics, LtG 2<155Sp.utbCmmJY!<Q1\9 750**F~,DmslwrQ,** Indian? 470J8 (:8! 2) 432-9484 (812)432-50J3FAX

### ADDITIClN'AL 

### TABLES**APPE~DIX.B**

## -B~')?CAt:r'uFF~SUL1'$·jOi;s~lm·~Nt~~~()~;\~~E~~'OS'·**.~**

Alpine Geophysi<;$, LLC 2(J55 SQlJt!1 CP1,ll!ty RQacl 75QI;, PiJJ$PQFfJ, IMinfla47018 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432c501 3 FAXDistance fl'PIll source to Class I

area bound<rty, km # ofdays and # of receptqtsvv:itlJ impact**>()~** SCi" ;in Class Iarea: 2001 #9fd!lcys and# of reeeptors With im[!@t.>0.5 ely in Class 

### rarea: 2002 # Qf4ay§:md#9* receptors with impi\cPQ,5 dv in Class rarea: 2003 '#ofdays and #'of teQeptdrs with inmaQt >.1, 04vin**CI~ss** I area fot3- yrperiod: 2001· I" ,;W03 Max.**~4-hr** imjfactover 3-yrperi9d

M.imii1lQtlJ Cave,J<Y'l' 165 2 1 

### o o

;!

'

.. 1

/\Jpine**G~QphY:'ij~~,** JiU:: ;1S55**S04~h** Cpunty Road 750 E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-9.484 (812) 432-5013 fAXYear

2001 .2Q.()2 

### 4003 

### N'iumberoflibl:Ys >0.5 dv

2 1 

### BART**trh~eshold ··~·':i** **"M;~\li)hium** 

## · I

. . ...**~:x.t.p~tiQP** 

### Chang¢

### inCJa1!$ I 

### Are3 

## os' .'... ..... - i·)·!·

....

/\Jpill.<; qeopnY$ics,P-C 2655 South County Road 750 E, DiIlshoro, Indlalill47018 (&12) 432-9484 (8)2) 432-5013 

### FAXel'assJ Area Rank 2'001 Delta- .2002DeltaQ,e§iyj¢w' deciview Ranks 1-8;* Ranks 1-8* 2Q030enlli" deciview Ra!iksl)$*

6
7
8 0,107 0,289 0.288 0.293 0.275 0.273 0.243

AlpiucOcpphysic$, LLC**~05?$pllthC\1!mJY** R9i!d 15q E, Dillsboro, Indiana 47018 (812) 432-94$4 (812,,) 434-5013

, , fAX. {'-,'":'. 

### 2001 2DI12 

### 2002 2003 

### DAy 

### 55 3'47 213 349 

### 21**O.6.~7** 3C)OO.595 

### 2270..703

.:" .' :...... .:' ,<.: " •• , " "

...-i 

### 76.00 

### 88."12 9'8.16 81:J2 

### 10,,6$ OJ)) 

### 17.4 1.33 0.59 0.94 0.88

Alpine Gc'lphy:<;ics. I.L( 2.655Sopth CmJUt.y RQll4 750E,PHlsporo, IniJimJ1l470J8 (812,) 432"9484 (812) 432-5DJ3 FAXClass I Area**:ot~w)PC** f1i.ol'll.source to,Class'J**IlJ!~** boundary, km

. .# QLclaysll,l}d..# !'if receptOrs with impact>0.5 dv in Class I area: ZOO 1 # o:fdays,ancl.#ol rf;:ceptQJ;s**wi!l~** impa4f>cOS dV'in**C;lm;~j** 

### 'area: '2£102 #·Qfdays ancL.# of ,receptors with impact >0.5 dvin Class .I area: 2003 #oldays'iind;# of f4::f.lcpt9fs'i¥i,tfl impacf>!. J;);.dYi'n Chiss'Iatteaf6f3- yr PCrlQij,: 2001 " ':lOllS Max, 24·111' impaetover 3. yrper,iod.

.Miltiimdtl1 Gave,KY* t65

221 

### o

o o

o 2 0

220

. .".>" ,"",' I

... :,:.; 

# ° 0,529

Alpj!);;**Ge9physlps,LL,~~ 4q:5~**  $pllthCounly Road 750 E, DiJlsborq,**Il1dian~)** 470F8 (812) 432.9484 (8i2) '132.5013 F,1.{(**Ye~r** 

### 2001 2002 2003 

## BART

..**Tbr~$.bQld** 

### Ma:ximwm E<xfmcUon Change

### i:nClass**iAr~3**

Alpine Geophysics, OJ: 

# o 2 

### 0.643 1

0.$ MIA

2655 Smlth CWl1liy**RO~lC;l75Q t~;**  Dillsboro; Indiann4701$(8J2) 43Zc9484 (3J2) 432-5013 FAXClass 1 Area Rank .20.flJ :&elta- 2002Tiella**d~civ:i~w** 4¢ciyfew Ranks 1-8'1'.**Ran~s l-&~**  201!l3 De1ta- 'deciview**RaQk~1"8***

'''''''''"'';''-'''''-;'' MW);).mp:t;l),**0Iw~,RY** 1 0.461
2 00407
3 0331**O·$J~4 Q&~;2**  4 0.31%**b'~&:Q** (j.349 p 0.,2:9:0 0.35:6 0.344
6 0',2:80 0.266 0.3 16
7 0.265 024.9 0.229
g 0.251 0.·219 0.222

AJpineGcQphysics.LLC 265;; Somb Cl)Ul1.lyRoa,q 750 n,**l)jJJ~~l,n'(),** lhqi,wa**470)~** (1512) 432-9484 (812) 432-5013 'FAX..

## '''''' 2002 2'002 

### 1003 347 213**34~** 21 0.607 300 0.$50 

### 227 0,643

.;..•. :**~~A)** 

### 9822 81.49

, ...,;...•.•. "/oJ'ld3 10.86 0.92 17.73 %.PMF 

### 0.53 0,8S 

### 0.78

AJpiuc.Gcophysics, LLC 2655 SOllthCounly Road 750**I~,** Dillshor0, Indiana 470J8 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432-5013 FAX

### This page intentionally left blank.

### A

..u 

### ust8 2'(Jt)'g



### g... , ..... Mr; 

### bay.'id L**B{)l~'t!$** 

### Principal Hmvimmnental Lea:dtlf 

### $ABOCC',Innovative

### l>lasiics :NIt. 

### Vernon, LLC 1**L~xan iQriv~**  

### Mt.**V~mon.l** 

### Indiana47620-9364

:**.~.** 

### 'Re: Table**g~4Afot iRunUQilS¢¢n~ripforMfill1mpthCay,eNatiomUPatkand**  

### Tabl¢ 

### B.-4BfQr Mingo 

### N atidflalWilcHif¢

. 

### Refuge DearMr. Boggs: As**te~ueste~ bY,,Mt:,.~at~J)'~~ff::~f\t~e~ffice**  

### of Air Quality with the**Jndlananep~m~mt~~'fk** 

### '.EJ;nviromnental**Man.a~¢,fu¢n~;·** 

### T**ha.:v~~*.tt~~te(~t;§Q;p;r.,e** 

### additional 'inf'dooa'tiortcQ]j¢eming th.e 

## vlsihIWt;y

. " hnPMt§ [pr**~$gtmrc** 

### InnoMatlveTeoMologies 

## totImpg¢t§**Qp.th~MhlgpWildemessat~a** 

### inM'issoutL I**havept;¢~}tt,~daT~b1~: :$-4BforMi1tgoWi1d~t1tesSfQ(Rtm** **It'(JilS~eJX~ti,potd-~~,** as

### requestea. 

## Ihave tepeal¢,dand 

### inQluded**Tabl~B,.[A** 

### :£rpm

### the pteviutIssummary .analysts 

### as a**r~fe:t'enQe'** 

### forthe,Mingp wildemesssutmnaryof

### vislbi1i.ty**-hq1p~Gts,** 

### 1 have also

### jficl1ia~d 

### frrepre:viQusl¥pr.@sc;m.ted**T~bl~i?-44** 

### for Man:ii:tlo'th**Cav~** 

### Nationa.l Park.' All 

### of**th~$e** 

### t.ables 

### used the revisedatlhual 

### average nat\l.tal 'p1l,Rkground 

### be:xt1liatwaspt:e.'s¢hle.cl in the Ju.ly 7,20Q'8'**'1~tter** 

### aesGrl'bing the**teYisedm0.d~lingand ba¢~grpundtrrethO'dol(}8¥'**  

### ," Ifyml

### havea'nY**gJ.ie"Sil<.in$t~gatQh1g** 

### these 

### tables ortneirbOntenfs,please feeltTee 

### to 

### ¢all**trre;~l** 

### -81.2-**432-~4i84,.** 

### Respectfully yours,

# J1~~8J~~ George J. 

### Schewe, CCM, QEP 

### Pattnerand Principal Meteorologist Alpine Geophysics, LLC

cc: Michael Szabo, GZA

### AionlTIONAL**T¥&:atJE'~ APPEN'D~:@** 

..,

## ;t";;ii,?)~;[·f,:·;r:~;·:;.i~.'.·.·;..

## l>~j.~,·,.:~.. ,'.,

## :',:.·.\.·.:':JL.~;.:·,~.:~**(.·.·;~.:.~.·.-;~i**,., •..•.....(

.., •.·.i\ ..•. · .•. ,·,· ·.·u.·.:

.•...• T:f1, •.. ,.; •..

·: .•.•.'C

·'.· A

•. '••,T.

## .~.·.IJ·.· ..·..F·'Ii'

..'...•..,n ..<.··..'Ii'

•...•c.,.·.,

•.•..••:n .. ·. ,.·.T','.••...:!T1 C.·: .'U ,..,r-li.·.;

•.•.'D,'

.....•... , •....C! 'B.·fi':. ;,p.'

"'.:, :v." .·M·

"'."

..T.·'.'c.:.;C .••..· .•"):.·.·.·

..• .•...:

.. ·.:,,:.'i!il.·.·

•. ·,,:.·:T.·.·:,·

•.

## i~.·.··.·

•. · •.•·.•·.·ID.·.·.·,::'.'.'i.· .'

.. '.,' ·cj,lc!k."'·'''Y'' ;-C, .,'.

..

_ ',•• I

### ~~~W~.,**~:Li:£ .I!,.J;~.\"-;V,.L<J**  • ..l-:Q .l1'VA "".a 1I:L

### '£I,I.~@.i!Uk~ QMi.

### -i:'~:i?:~~3~:~~~k..

### ~;ti{f11~,**AlphwGGQphY$i<:;$.I~LC** 2655 SQulhC\):ulJ(Y fh1il£l75()E, f)illsbnro, lndialJil 470J 8 (8]2) 432-9484 (812) 432-50]3 FAX:I)i::;laffil" from; sOQ.f<;te lPClassi

.**~.11** boundlU¥, kill #**'Qfq~XSand** iiiof**r¢c~ptQrs ~i14**  inipacti>i.O.$ <brin .Qlll§$lllt¢a:2(lOI '# lol;:iilaysaud**fh~:f** tee:eptors'With imp.llPJ,,:?·O•.

### 54 vin (flasslat'ea.: 2002 -,. f#ofdaysand #of**r¢gl<plQ.r~** with itIwa et>O.5dvin 

### class I area:ZQOa #of days and #0/ n;peplprswLtb impact>l. O"dyin ClassI areafor3- yr periqd: 2001r 2003**M~;4.4';br** impactovet .3-yrperl'@**···.:~{'i'>** ?I<**\VithannuaJaYer~g~** @t!1.Ff!']**~a§~~oun(i**

Mammoth**c;~¥~;J<Y·**

M)'!l'!!;P 

### National Wi1q1Jfe

..Refuge,MO*- 16$ 1 .

o 1

Q :2:

.... J. ':'

. '"i 2

r-· 

### o

o o

o 0.57$

A.lpintGGQPhysi<;s.p.C 2655 SQllth Cmniy Roafl 7$OE, Dillsbm,o, Indiana. 470J8 (812) 432-9484 (812) 432-50J3 'rAJ>(

### DAY 

### 7'6.00 

### '2002 ZOOA 3'41 21$ 21 300 227**(;);.(j~7** 0595 0.703 

### [i;68.72 9.8,1l5 10;t5S**O~9** 

### 17.4**0,.5~** 0;94

19 

## 7LW 1.84 

### 2003 2003 

### 253 53 19 46 0.575 0.558 94.18 

### 9£1.19 5.22 9.12 0.60 

### 0.69

A.lpLt,cqcojJhysics, LLC 2655 South**Cl)llniyRO~Hl** 750 rs, Llil!slwrq, fn9i,lpn 470I? (8! 2)43209484 is! 2) 432-5013 FAX