# Appendix 3 - Assessment of Class 1 Areas Impacted by Indiana Sources

# This page intentionally left blank

# Appendix 3 - 1 Background

IDEM assessed each of the areas identified in the MRPO report (Appendix 1) as being impacted by Indiana sources. Information provided by th e MRPO, technical documents from the other
RPOs, and letters received from other states i ndicating their decisions regarding reasonable further progress goals were used to make these assessments.

Class 1 areas outside the comprehens ive lists in Section 5 were not analyzed further, as there was no impact from Indiana sources shown. Further, no impacts from Indiana were noted in the WRAP states and no requests for contro ls were initiated by those states.

In the following sections, these analyses are presented.

App. 3 - 1. Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

Indiana sources have shown an impact on these Class 1 areas through some modeling studies.
Minnesota has determined that several states, no t including Indiana, are significant contributors to visibility impairment in these areas at this time and is working with them as they develop their reasonable progress goals.

The following cover letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency contains this information. Indiana has participated in the consultation calls and th e MRPO modeling process used by Minnesota to reach their conclusions.

As can be seen in the map on page 6 of the letter , Indiana is barely in th e Area of Influence that impact their Class 1 areas. Minnesota has develope d a long term strategy su fficient to meet their 2018 reasonable progress goals.

Indiana concurs that this is the best approach for addressing visibility impairment at Voyagers and Boundary Waters Class 1 areas at this time. Therefore, no further analysis for this SIP is

necessary.

# Appendix 3 - 2

# Appendix 3 - 3

# Appendix 3 - 4

# Appendix 3 - 5

# Appendix 3 - 6 Attachments Showing Minnesota RPG Analysis

# Appendix 3 - 7

# Appendix 3 - 8

# Appendix 3 - 9

# Appendix 3 - 10

# Appendix 3 - 11

# Appendix 3 - 12

# Appendix 3 - 13

# Appendix 3 - 14

# Appendix 3 - 15

# Appendix 3 - 16

# Appendix 3 - 17

# Appendix 3 - 18

# Appendix 3 - 19

# Appendix 3 - 20 App. 3 - 2. Mammoth Cave

Indiana sources have shown an impact on this Class 1 area through some modeling studies. However, since sources in Kentucky and Indian a must comply with CAIR requirements, the Kentucky analysis has determined that these contro ls are sufficient to address visibility in this area. Further, VISTAS modeling has shown th at Mammoth Cave is more than meeting its uniform rate of progress (glidepath) and has dete rmined that no additional reductions are needed

from Indiana at this time.

The attached cover letter from the Kentucky De partment for Environmen tal Protection contains

this information.

The following slides from the VISTAS report, "Contribution Assessment Mammoth Cave", draft May 29, 2007, show some analyses perf ormed to reach these conclusions.



# Conclusions: Contributions

 

## On 20% Worst Days

 

## SO4 dominates light extinction most days

 

## Organic carbon smaller contribution; fire indicated on few days

 

## NO3 contribution on some winter days

 

## SO4 also dominates 20% Best Days

 

## Conclude: Focus on reducing SO2

emissions



# The following chart illustrates the impairment c ontribution from Sulfates. Note that the
contribution from the Midwest RPO states, in to tal, is small. Indi ana is not individually apportioned.

# Appendix 3 - 21 Mammoth_Cave, KY (Worst)

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

S O 2_EGU

S O 2 _

nonEGU

NOx

_Gr

o und

N O x _Po

int NH3 VOC s

P C _

Grou

nd

P C _Point PC_

F iresBext(Mm-1) Bio.

Antro.

BCs

MRPO

M-VU

CEN

VISTAS

WV

VA

TN

SC

NC

MS

KY

GA

FL

AL



# The following maps show contributions to visi bility impairment on the 20% worst days during

the 2000 - 2004 timeframe.

The following map is a meteorological back traj ectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites in 2000 - 2004. Using the descriptions from VIST AS, back trajectory anal yses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central path of air masses that arrive at a receptor at a given time. The me thod essentially follows a parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a specified le ngth of time. This map is for Mammoth Cave for the 20% worst days in 2002

Back Trajectories for 20% Worst Days for 2002
Mammoth Cave, KY



# The following map is a residence time plot. Th is was created using five years of back trajectories for the 20% worst visi bility days in 2000-2004. Residen ce time is the frequency that winds pass over a specific geographic area on the path to a Class 1 area.

# Appendix 3 - 22 Residence Time for 20% Worst Days in 2000-2004

Mammoth Cave, KY



# It can be seen that there are lesser impacts fr om most MRPO states. However, the greatest impacts are coming from sources clos er to Mammoth Cave and south.

Sulfate extinction weighted residence time plots were developed to define the geographic area with the highest probability of influencing th e receptor on the 20% worst days in 2000 - 2004 that were dominated by sulfate. Each back trajectory was weighted by sulfate extinction for that day. The resulting plots were used to define th e geographic Area of Infl uence for sources of SO 2 

# emissions. In the following plot, the area represen ting 10% or greater residence time is outlined in red, and the area representing 5% or greater residence time is outlined in gray. The VISTAS states focused their analyses on the Area of Infl uence defined 5% or gr eater sulfate extinction weighted residence time.

SO2 Area of Influence for Mammoth Cave, KY

Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10% Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%.

# Appendix 3 - 23 Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10%. Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%. 

### 2018 SO2 Emissions weighted by Residence Time
Mammoth Cave, KY



# VISTAS further examined emissions sources within the SO 2 

# Areas of Influence. Residence time plots were combined with geogr aphically-gridded emissions data based upon the 2002 baseline and 2018 projected inventories. As a way of incorporating the effects of transport, deposition, and chemical transformation of point source emi ssions along the path of the trajectories, those data were weighted by 1/d, where d was calculated as the distance between grid cell centers, in

kilometers. The distance -weighted point source SO 2 

# emissions were then combined with the gridded extinction-weighted back -trajectory residence times at a spatial resolution of 36-km. The residence times and gridded emissions data were combined into plots. The distance weighted (1/d) gridded point source SO 2 

# emissions were multiplied by the total extinctionweighted back-trajectory residence times on a grid cell by grid cell basis. These results were then normalized by the domain-wide tota l and displayed as a percentage.

The resulting plots show the relative importance of sources contributing to visibility impairment within the Area of Influence. The above plot illustrates this information for 2018 projected

emissions.

The results of the long term strategy develope d by Kentucky and VISTAS provide anticipated visibility improvements below the glidepath.

# Appendix 3 - 24 Mammoth Cave - 20% Worst Days

New IMPROVE equation 

### Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path

31.37 30.02

26.65

23.28

19.91

16.54

13.17
11.15 25.63

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Uniform rate of progress = 4.2 dv by 2018



# Analyses performed by the MWRPO show similar resu lts. Indiana concurs that this is the best approach for addressing visibility impairment at Mammoth Cave at this time. Therefore, no further analysis for this SIP is necessary.

As could be seen from the above maps and plots, sources in Indiana do co ntribute less significant amounts of sulfate on the 20% worst visibility days. For the 2013 five-year review, Indiana will work with the RPOs to determine that projected emissions reductions ar e occurring, and perform analyses to determine whether or not further SO 2 

# reductions from any sect ors are reasonable or whether other pollutants such as NO

x 

# should be controlled.

# Appendix 3 - 25 Letter from Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

# Appendix 3 - 26 App. 3 - 3. Great Smoky Mountains National Park

In the MRPO summary of Class 1 areas impact ed by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix
1), Indiana was determined to cont ribute to visibility impairment in this Class 1 area. Since that time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to assist in developing re asonable progress goals. The following slides are from the VIST AS analysis, "Great Smoky Mountain Group Contribution Assessment", Draft, May 29, 2007. The te xt explaining the plots and charts is from "Technical Analyses Supporting Regional Haze St ate Implementation Plan", June 8, 2007, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).

Sulfate reductions are the major focus.



# Conclusions: Contributions

 

### On 20% Worst Days

 

### SO4 dominates light extinction

 

### Organic carbon generally second largest

contribution; fire indicated on few days

 

### NO3 contribution comparatively small

 

### SO4 also dominates 20% Best Days

 

### Conclude: Focus on reducing SO2

emissions



# This chart below shows the sources of SO 2 

# emissions by source sectors and regions. Indiana is not addressed individually. The MRPO states have a small contribution.

Great Smoky Mtns, TN (20% Worst Days)

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

SO2_EGU

SO2 _ n on

EG

U

NOx

_Ground NOx _ Poi

n t N H 3 VOCs PC_

Gr

o und

P C_

Poi

nt

PC_

F i re

sBext(Mm-1) Bio.

Antro.

BCs

MRPO

M-VU

CEN

VISTAS

WV

VA

TN

SC

NC

MS

KY

GA

FL

AL



## Greatest benefits from SO2 reductions from Utilities and Industries



# The following three maps show analyses of areas impacting the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They show contributions to vi sibility impairment on the 20% worst days during

# Appendix 3 - 27 the 2000-2004 timeframe. As can be seen, Indi ana sources do not have significant impacts on

this area.

The following map is a meteorological back traj ectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites in 2000-2004. Using the descriptions from VISTAS and the NCDENR, back trajectory analyses use interpolated , measured, or modeled meteorologi cal fields to estimate the most likely central path of air masses that arrive at a receptor at a given time. The method essentially follows a parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a speci fied length of time. This map is for the Great Smoky Mountain National Park for the 20% worst days in 2002.

Back Trajectory Analysis for 20% Wors t Days in 2002 - Great Smoky Mountains



# The following map is a residence time plot. Th is was created using five years of back trajectories for the 20% worst visi bility days in 2000-2004. Residen ce time is the frequency that winds pass over a specific geographic area on the path to a Class 1 area.

# Appendix 3 - 28 Residence Time for 20% Worst Days in 2000-2004

Great Smoky Mtn., TN



# Sulfate extinction weighted residence time plots were developed to define the geographic area with the highest probability of influencing the receptor on the 20% worst days in 2000-2004 that were dominated by sulfate. Each back trajectory was weighted by sulfate extinction for that day. The resulting plots were used to define the geographic Area of Influence for sources of SO 2 

# emissions. In the following plot, the area represen ting 10% or greater residence time is outlined in red, and the area representing 5% or greater residence time is outlined in gray. The VISTAS states focused their analyses on the Area of Infl uence defined 5% or gr eater sulfate extinction weighted residence time.

SO2 Area of Influence for Great Smoky Mountains

Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10% Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%.

# Appendix 3 - 29 2018 SO2 Emissions weighted by Residence Time

Great Smoky Mtn., TN

Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10%. Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%.



# VISTAS further examined emissions sources within the SO 2 

# Areas of Influence. Residence time plots were combined with geogr aphically-gridded emissions data based upon the 2002 baseline and 2018 projected inventories. As a way of incorporating the effects of transport, deposition, and chemical transformation of point source emi ssions along the path of the trajectories, those data were weighted by 1/d, where d was calculated as the distance between grid cell centers, in

kilometers. The distance -weighted point source SO 2 

# emissions were then combined with the gridded extinction-weighted back-t rajectory residence times at a sp atial resolution of 36 km. The residence times and gridded emissions data were combined into plots. The distance weighted (1/d) gridded point source SO 2 

# emissions were multiplied by the total extinction-weighted backtrajectory residence times on a grid cell by grid ce ll basis. These results were then normalized by the domain-wide total and displayed as a per centage. The resulting plots show the relative importance of sources contributing to visibility impairment within the Area of Influence. The above plot illustrates this info rmation for 2018 projected emissions.

Further, the slide below shows that the long term strategy for this Class 1 area easily meets the glidepath through 2018.

# Appendix 3 - 30 New IMPROVE equation 

### Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path (Base G2a projections)

Great Smoky Mountains - 20% Worst Days

30.28 29.01

25.85

22.69

19.53

16.37 13.20

11.31 22.87

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Uniform rate of progress = 4.4 dv by 2018



# In the "Technical Analyses Supporting Regional Haze State Implementation Plan," June 8, 2007,

NCDENR stated that contributi ons from other RPOs are compar atively small and the greatest benefits would likely be from further EGU reduc tions within the VISTAS states. Indiana was not contacted by Tennessee or North Carolina regard ing consultations for this area and believes that no further analysis for a long term c ontrol strategy is necessary at this time.

App. 3 - 4. Sipsey Wilderness Area

In the MRPO summary of Class 1 areas impact ed by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix
1), Indiana was determined to cont ribute to visibility impairment in this Class 1 area. Since that time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to assist in developing re asonable progress goals. The following slides are from the VISTAS anal ysis, "Sipsey Contributio n Assessment", Draft, May 29, 2007. As in most VISTAS areas, sulfate re ductions are the major focus, although in this

case, NH 3 

# is a significant contributor. The text explaining the plots a nd charts is from "Technical Analyses Supporting Regional Haze State Implementation Plan", June 8, 2007,
NCDENR, another VISTAS state.



# Conclusions: Contributions

 

## On 20% Worst Days

 

### SO4 dominates light extinction most days

 

### Organic carbon smaller contribution; fire

indicated on few days

 

### NO3 contribution on some winter days

 

## SO4 also dominates 20% Best Days

 

## Conclude: Focus on reducing SO2

emissions

# Appendix 3 - 31 The following charts and maps show contributions to visibility impairment in this Class 1 area.
Note that the MRPO states, in total, have a sma ll contribution. Indiana is not listed individually.

Sipsey, AL (20% Worst Days)

-9.00

-8.00

-7.00

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

SO

2 _EGU

SO2_

nonEGU

N Ox

_Gro

u n d

N O x _Poin

t NH3

V OCs

PC_

G roun

d
PC _Po

in t PC_FiresBext(Mm-1) Bio.

Antro.

BCs

MRPO

M-VU

CEN

VISTAS

WV

VA

TN

SC

NC

MS

KY

GA

FL

AL



# The following three maps show analyses of areas impacting the Sipsey Wilderness Area. They

show contributions to visibi lity impairment on the 20% worst days during the 2000-2004
timeframe. As can be seen, I ndiana sources do not have signi ficant impacts on this area.

The following map is a meteorological back traj ectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites in 2000-2004. Using the descriptions from VIST AS and NCDENR, back tr ajectory analyses use interpolated, measured, or modele d meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central path of air masses that arrive at a receptor at a given time. The method essentially follows a parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a specified le ngth of time. This map is for the Sipsey Wilderness area for the 20% worst days in 2002.

Back Trajectories for 20% Worst Days for 2002 Sipsey, AL

# Appendix 3 - 32 The following map is a residence time plot. Th is was created using five years of back trajectories for the 20% worst visi bility days in 2000-2004. Residen ce time is the frequency that winds pass over a specific geographic area on the path to a Class 1 area.

Residence Time for 20% Worst Days in 2000-2004

Sipsey. AL



# Sulfate extinction weighted residence time plots were developed to define the geographic area with the highest probability of influencing the receptor on the 20% worst days in 2000-2004 that were dominated by sulfate. Each back trajectory was weighted by sulfate extinction for that day. The resulting plots were used to define the geographic Area of Influence for sources of SO 2 

# emissions. In the following plot, the area represen ting 10% or greater residence time is outlined in red, and the area representing 5% or greater residence time is outlined in gray. The VISTAS states focused their analyses on the Area of Infl uence defined 5% or gr eater sulfate extinction weighted residence time.

SO2 Area of Influence for Sipsey, AL

Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10% Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%.

# Appendix 3 - 33 Green circles indicate 100-km and 200-km radii from Class I area. Red line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 10%. Orange line perimeter indicate Area of Influence with Residence Time > 5%. 

### 2018 SO2 Emissions weighted by Residence Time Sipsey, AL



# VISTAS further examined emissions sources within the SO 2 

# Areas of Influence. Residence time plots were combined with geogr aphically-gridded emissions data based upon the 2002 baseline and 2018 projected inventories. As a way of incorporating the effects of transport, deposition, and chemical transformation of point source emi ssions along the path of the trajectories, those data were weighted by 1/d, where d was calculated as the distance between grid cell centers, in

kilometers. The distance -weighted point source SO 2 

# emissions were then combined with the gridded extinction-weighted back-t rajectory residence times at a sp atial resolution of 36 km. The residence times and gridded emissions data were combined into plots. The distance weighted (1/d) gridded point source SO 2 

# emissions were multiplied by the total extinction-weighted backtrajectory residence times on a grid cell by grid ce ll basis. These results were then normalized by the domain-wide total and displayed as a per centage. The resulting plots show the relative importance of sources contributing to visibility impairment within the Area of Influence. The above plot illustrates this info rmation for 2018 projected emissions.

Further, the slide below shows that the long term strategy for this Class 1 area meets the glidepath through 2018.

Indiana has not been contacted by Alabama rega rding consultations for this area and believes that no further analysis for a long term c ontrol strategy is necessary at this time.

# Appendix 3 - 34 Sipsey - 20% Worst Days

29.03
27.83

24.83

21.84

18.84

15.85

12.85
11.06 23.66

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction New IMPROVE equation 

### Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path

Uniform rate of progress = 4.2 dv by 2018



# App. 3 - 5. James River Face Wilderness, Shenandoah National Park, Dolly Sods/Otter

Creek Wilderness

In the MRPO summary of Class 1 areas impact ed by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix
1), Indiana was determined to contribute to visib ility impairment in these more distant Class 1
areas. Since that time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to as sist in developing reasonable progress goals. The following slides are from the VISTAS analysis, "Shenandoah Group Contribution Assessment", Draft, May 29, 2007. Since these areas are analyzed together
in the VISTAS work, it is easier to consider them together in this document. The charts and plots are the same type as in the previous sections, and so the text is omitted to keep this section

short.

As in the previous areas, sulfate reductions are the major focus.

# Appendix 3 - 35 The following charts show the emissions by se ctor and location contributing to impaired visibility on the 20% worst days.

# Appendix 3 - 36 The following maps show back trajectories for the 20% Worst Days for 2002.

Shenandoah, VA

# Appendix 3 - 37 James River Face, VA

Dolly Sods/Otter Creek, WV

# Appendix 3 - 38 The residence times for the 20% worst days in 2000-2004 are shown for th e areas in the next three plots.

# Appendix 3 - 39 The SO 2 

# Areas of Influence are show n in the next three plots.

# Appendix 3 - 40

# Appendix 3 - 41 The 2018 Emissions weighted by Residence Time pl ots are shown for all three areas. These show the relative importance and locations of sources impacting a given area.

# Appendix 3 - 42 The results of the long term strategy developed by the states and VISTAS provide anticipated visibility improvements below the glidepath.

# Appendix 3 - 43 This series of charts and plots show that imp acts from Indiana sources are minimal. Neither Virginia nor West Virginia contacted IDEM to pa rticipate in consultations for these areas. The four-factor analyses performed by the VISTAS st ates and resulting long term strategies that indicate controls closer to the Class 1 areas prov ide the most effective reductions at this time. Additionally, the long term strate gies provide antici pated visibility improvements below the glidepaths. Indiana concur s with these conclusions.

App. 3 - 6. Caney Creek Wilderness Area and U pper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR;

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness Area, MO

These areas were identified in early MRPO modeling and other an alyses as being impacted by Indiana sources. Indiana was invited to particip ate in the consultation process for these areas, and attended the conference phone calls. Arkans as and Missouri notified IDEM that they

# Appendix 3 - 44 consider the consultation process finished. They have developed long term strategies that meet rate of progress goals by 2018. At this time, they have indicated that no reductions are necessary

from Indiana. Indiana c oncurs with this finding.

The letter providing this information is below in this section.

Following the letter from Arkansas and Missouri are charts showing glidepaths resulting from the long term strategies developed by the states. All the Class 1 ar eas are projected to meet their reasonable progress goals in 2018. These charts are from the "12 Sep 2007 Appendices" found on the CENRAP website, http://www.cenrap.or g/projects.asp. They are based upon the information and strategies found in the Draft Tech nical Support Document, of the same date and

from the same location.

An additional analysis is included with informati on obtained from VISTAS and is similar to that contained in the previous sections. The focus of this work was to determine the impact of VISTAS states upon the CENRAP areas, but includes useful information regarding midwestern sources as well. This was done prior to the CE NRAP work, but is consistent with materials presented for the other areas.

# Appendix 3 - 45 Letter from Arkansas and Missouri regarding conclusion of cons ultation process.

# Appendix 3 - 46

# Appendix 3 - 47 Glidepaths generated by CENRAP showing that the long term st rategy developed by the states meets reasonable progress goals for 2018.

Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Caney Creek Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.36 25.38

22.91

20.45

17.99

15.52

13.06

11.58 21.48

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction



### Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Hercules-Glades Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.75 25.72

23.14

20.57

17.99

15.42

12.84

11.30 22.19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction

# Appendix 3 - 48 Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Mingo - 20% Data Days

28.02 26.98

24.37

21.77

19.17

16.56

13.96

12.40 23.21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction



### Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Upper Buffalo Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.27 25.29

22.84

20.39

17.94

15.49

13.04

11.57 21.61

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064

YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction



# VISTAS Analysis

In developing information to support long term strategies for its member states, VISTAS examined their impacts upon the Missouri and Arkansas Class 1 areas. Impacts from

midwestern states were also included in these anal yses. Again in this case, the focus of reduction strategies is for SO 2



# .

# Appendix 3 - 49 Results from these strategies produced results similar to CENRAP. Below are the glidepaths generated for two of the Class 1 areas, for comparison to those above.

# Appendix 3 - 50 The following plots show the back trajectories for 20% worst days for 2002 for two sites. Neither appear to be heavily impacted by Indiana sources in these plots.

# Appendix 3 - 51 The next two plots show residence time for th e 20% worst days from 2000-2004. The plot for Mingo Cave shows a greater impact from Indiana sources, although the greatest impacts are from

sources closer to the Class 1 area.

# Appendix 3 - 52 The last two plots show SO 2 

# emissions weighted by residence time for 2018 for the two Class 1 areas. Indiana is on the edge of the Area of Influence for Mingo Cave.

The bar graph below further illustrates the projected impact of Indiana sources of SO 2 

# on Mingo Cave in 2018. Because of this imp act, a further examination of the SO 2 

# control devices on EGUs in southwestern Indiana was performed.

# Appendix 3 - 53 The EGUs in this area of the state are listed by un it in the following table. Many of these units

did not have controls in the 2002 baseyear inventory. The IPM proj ections used for future years may also not have reflected curren t or future control projects.

Plant Unit Emissions

in 2002 SO 2 control

in 2002 SO 2 controls planned

A.B. Brown 1 6004 FGD existing

A.B. Brown 2 1868 FGD existing

Cayuga 1 29,379 FGD 2008

Cayuga 2 26,237 FGD 2008

Edwardsport 8 2742 current plans to

Edwardsport 7*1 2688 replace facility

with

Edwardsport 7*2 2742 IGCC prior to

2018

F.B. Culley 1 2993

F.B. Culley 2 730 FGD existing

F.B. Culley 3 3396 FGD existing

Frank E.

Ratts 1SG1 7907

Frank E. Ratts 2SG1 10,148

Gibson 1 34,698 FGD 2007

Gibson 2 37,162 FGD 2007

Gibson 3 28,477 FGD 2007

Gibson 4 9196 FGD existing

Gibson 5 17969 FGD existing

Merom 1SG1 5835 FGD existing

Merom 2SG1 7011 FGD existing

Petersburg 1 2093 FGD existing

Petersburg 2 3535 FGD existing

# Appendix 3 - 54 Plant Unit Emissions

in 2002 Existing SO 2 control SO 2 controls planned

Petersburg 3 20,936 FGD existing

Petersburg 4 20,614 FGD existing

Rockport MB1 25,943 FGD planned

2017

Rockport MB2 25,602 FGD planned

2019

Wabash 2 7912

Wabash 3 6999

Wabash 4 7131

Wabash 5 9380

Wabash 6 25,602 FGD planned

ALCOAWarrick 1 18,459 FGD in 2008

ALCOAWarrick 2 19,258 FGD in 2008

ALCOAWarrick 3 16,012 FGD in 2008

SIGECOWarrick 4 40,476 FGD in 2008



# While Indiana was not included in any requests for c ontrols from this Class 1 area, it can be seen that the vast majority of SO 2 

# emitting units will have scrubbers installed by 2018, which should help further improve the vi sibility in those areas.

# Appendix 3 - 55 App. 3 - 7. Isle Royale National Park a nd Seney Wilderness Area, MI

Indiana sources have shown an impact on these Class 1 areas through modeling studies. Indiana and the other midwestern states participated extensively in the MR PO modeling and data analysis efforts for fine particulates, ozone, and haze in these areas. Michigan determined that existing and on-the-books controls, combined with reductions necessary to meet the new 24-hour fine particulates standard and the new ozone sta ndard will be sufficient to meet their reasonable progress goals.

The letter from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, below, contains their

conclusions. Indiana concurs that this is the best approach for addressing visibility impairment at Isle Royale National Park and Seney Wilderness Area Class 1 areas at this time. Therefore, no further analysis for this SIP is necessary. Indi ana will continue to work with Michigan and the other MRPO states through LADCO to eval uate the progress and the Class 1 areas.

# Appendix 3 - 56 Letter from Michigan regarding conc lusion of consultation process.

# Appendix 3 - 57

# Appendix 3 - 58

# Appendix 3 - 59 App. 3 - 8. Acadia National Park, ME; Moosehor n Wilderness Area, ME; Great Gulf Wilderness Area, NH; Brigantine Wilderness Area, NJ; and Lye Brook Wilderness, VT
(MANE-VU)

Indiana sources have shown an impact on these Class 1 areas through LADCO and MANE-VU modeling projects. Indiana, along with the other MRPO states, has participated in consultations

with MANE-VU.

MANE-VU released “Assessment of Reasona ble Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class 1 Areas - Methodology for Source Selecti on, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four Factor Analysis, July 2007” which supported requ ests of states outside that area to examine controls for specific types of sources. This asse ssment is a large document and is not included in

this submittal. It is avai lable online at the MANE-VU we bsite, http://www.manevu.org, under “Consultations - Projects and Wo rk Products.” The resulting re quest is referred to as the

“MANE-VU Ask.”

MANE-VU Ask: In its “Statement of the Mid-At lantic/Northeast Visibi lity Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress” (June 20, 2007), pages 63 and 64 of this appendix, MANE-VU suggested that several control strategies should be pursued for adoptio n and implementation, including:

 Application of Best Ava ilable Retrofit Technology

 90% (or greater) reduction in SO 2 

# emissions from each of the EGU stacks on MANEVU’s list of 167 stacks (located in 19 states), which reflect th ose stacks determined to be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the MANE-VU

Class 1 areas

 28% reduction in non-EGU (point, area, on-road, and off-road) SO 2 

# emissions relative to on-the-books, on-the-way 2018 projections

 Continued evaluation of other measur es, including measures to reduce SO 2 

# and NOx emissions from coal-burning facilities a nd promulgation of new source performance

standards for wood combustion

 Further reduction in power plant SO 2 

# (and NOx) emissions beyond the current Clean Air Interstate Rule program

Of the 167 stacks, 15 are from 9 sources in Indiana, page 62 of this section. Most of these stacks have or will have post-combusti on emission controls (i.e., scrubbers ), see the table at the end of

this section.

The two sets of charts from MRPO "Round 5" modeling show the culpability of geographic areas to visibility conditions in two Class 1 areas in the northeast. The left charts are the best days, the right charts are the worst days.

# Appendix 3 - 60 Acadia Visibility Impact Modeling

Lye Brook Visibility Impact Modeling

The following tables further detail the impact Indiana sources have on the northeastern Class 1 areas. Impacts are calculated in terms of light extinction.

MANE-VU (worst days)

Site ID Lye Brook Acadia Brigantine

Total - Light Extinction (1/Mm) 41.27821 52.91908 71.23547

Indiana Contribution (1/Mm) 0.65769 1.62771 1.28582

Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (1/Mm) 0.10376 0.28095 0.1648

Indiana Contribution (%) 1.6% 3.1% 1.8%

Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (%) 0.3% 0.5% 0.2%

Total Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (%) 1.8% 3.6% 2.0%

# Appendix 3 - 61 MANE-VU (best days)

Site ID Lye Brook Acadia Brigantine

Total - Light Extinction (1/Mm) 18.9041 6.69923 19.35866

Indiana Contribution (1/Mm) 0.28827 0.0313 0.15311

Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (1/Mm) 0.03538 0.00681 0.03268

Indiana Contribution (%) 1.5% 0.5% 0.8%

Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (%) 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

Total Indiana/Chicago Non-Attainment Area (%) 1.7% 0.6% 1.0%



# It can be seen that Indiana sources ha ve insignificant impacts on these areas.

The MRPO has conducted modeling to evaluate the va rious levels of controls in place or planned

between 2008 and 2018. From this "Round 5" m odeling the following table was produced for

MANE-VU Class 1 areas.

MRPO Round 5 Modeling Results (dV)

Best 20% Baseline 2018 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site 2000-2004 URP Value Base Will Do Base Base Will Do

Brigantine 14.33 14.33 14. 15 14.16 14.08 13.92 13.92

Lye Brook 6.37 6.37 6.25 6.28 6.23 6.14 6.15

Acadia 8.78 8.78 8.86 8.88 8.86 8.82 8.82

Worst 20% Baseline 2018 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site 2000-2004 URP Value Base Will Do Base Base Will Do

Brigantine 29.01 25.05 25.79 25.83 25.72 25.21 25.22

Lye Brook 24.45 21.48 22. 04 22.08 21.86 21.14 21.14

Acadia 22.89 20.45 21.72 21.75 21.72 21.49 21.49



# These results show that for the northeastern Cl ass 1 areas, controls already implemented and onthe-books controls may or may not result in achievement of reasona ble progress goals. However, Indiana, along with the other MRPO states has committed to continue consultation with MANE-VU. Specifically, Indiana has agreed to support additional work and discussion to accomplish the following:

 Establish a clear understanding of the M ANE-VU “Ask” by agreeing on base emissions inventories and control assumptions;

 Draft language on a national "Ask" based on the multi-pollutant needs of the states, including potential controls for EGUs and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
boilers; and

 Reconvene the MANE-VU/MRPO Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional boiler workgroup (with participation by the Southeastern States and U.S. EPA) to re-examine the workgroup’s January 2007 straw proposal , and receive a workgroup recommendation by the end of the year.

# Appendix 3 - 62 MANE-VU has performed their own modeling. A recent status update, "Recent MANE-VU Projections of Visibility fo r 2018", MANE-VU Stakeholder Briefing, April 4, 2008, states, "The

Uniform Rate is achieved and ex ceeded at all MANE-VU Class I sites." This presentation is available on the MANE-VU website, http://www.manevu.org.

Therefore, Indiana does not believe at this time th at it can commit to any particular course of action until it is determined, through the above wo rk and further discussions, what actions may be appropriate to meet reasonable progress goals given Indiana’s marginal impact on those areas.

# Appendix 3 - 63 Sources listed in MANE-VU "Ask". Not all un its within a source were listed in the Ask, but this is a complete listing of SO 2 

# emitting units from those sources to provide a more complete view of control pr ojects at these locations.

Plant Unit Emissions

in 2002 SO 2 control

in 2002 SO 2 controls planned

Cayuga 1 29,379 FGD 2008

Cayuga 2 26,237 FGD 2008

Cayuga 1 29,379 FGD 2008

Cayuga 2 26,237 FGD 2008

Clifty Creek 1 6642 FGD Scheduled 2010 Clifty Creek 2 6712 FGD Scheduled 2010

Clifty Creek 3 6662 FGD Scheduled 2010

Clifty Creek 4 5846 FGD Scheduled 2010

Clifty Creek 5 5433 FGD Scheduled 2010

Clifty Creek 6 6902 FGD Scheduled 2010

Harding Street Station (Stout) 50 7895 Harding Street Station (Stout) 60 7919 Harding Street Station (Stout) 70 29,907 FGD 2007

Gibson 1 34,698 FGD 2007

Gibson 2 37,162 FGD 2007

Gibson 3 28,477 FGD 2007

Gibson 4 9196 FGD existing

Gibson 5 17969 FGD existing

R. Gallagher 1 11,743 R. Gallagher 2 12,252 R. Gallagher 3 23,773 R. Gallagher 4 11,161

Rockport MB1 25,943 FGD planned 2017

Rockport MB2 25,602 FGD planned 2019

Tanners Creek 1 4941

Tanners Creek 2 4779

Tanners Creek 3 6269

Tanners Creek 4 48,450

Wabash 2 7912

Wabash 3 6999

Wabash 4 7131

Wabash 5 9380

Wabash 6 25,602 FGD planned

ALCOA-Warrick 1 18,459 FGD in 2008

ALCOA-Warrick 2 19,258 FGD in 2008

ALCOA-Warrick 3 16,012 FGD in 2008

SIGECO-Warrick 4 40,476 FGD in 2008

# Appendix 3 - 64

# Appendix 3 - 65

# Appendix 3 - 66

# Appendix 3 - 67

# Appendix 4 - SIP Checklist

# This page intentionally left blank.Appendix 4 - 1

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferencesAdministrative Requirementsfrom Appendix V to Part 512.1(a) Has a letter of submittal from the governor / designee, requesting EPA approval ofthe SIP been received?NotAvailable2.1(b) Has the State provided evidence it has adopted the legally enforceable portions of theplan in the State code orbody of regulations; or issuedthe necessary permits, orders,consent agreements in final form?NotAvailable2.1(c) Has the State provided evidence it has the necessary legal authority under State lawto adopt and implement the plan?NotAvailable2.1(d) Has the official State regulation /document been signed/stamped/dated by theappropriate State officialindicating that it is fully enforceable by the State?NotAvailable2.1(e) Has the State provided evidence it followed all of the procedural requirements of theState’s laws and constitution inthe adoption/issuance of the plan?NotAvailable2.1(f) Has the State providedevidence that public notice wasgiven of the proposed changeconsistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication ofsuch notice?NotAvailable2.1(g) Has the State provided acertification that public hearings(s) were held in accordancewith the information provided in thepublic notice and theState’s laws andconstitution, if applicable?NotAvailable2.1(h) Has the State provided a compilationof public comments and the State’s responsethereto?NotAvailableTechnical Requirementsfrom 40 CFR 51.308(b) Was the SIP submitted no later than December 17, 2007? No(d) Did the State provide a table identifying each mandatory Class I Federal area locatedwithin the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the Stateaffected by emissions from within the State?Section4.2Visibility MonitoringGuidanceAppendix 4 - 2

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences* (d)(1) Did the State establish RPGs for each Class I area that provide for an improvement invisibility for the most impaired daysover the period of the SIP, and ensure nodegradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period?Section4.2p. 35730 of the 1999RHRp. 1-6 of the TrackingGuidanceAttainment Guidancedraft RPG Guidance* (d)(1)(i)(A) In establishing RPGs for each ClassI area, did the State consider the costs ofcompliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air qualityenvironmental impacts of compliance,and the remaining useful life of anypotentially affected sources,and include a demonstration showing how these factorswere taken into consideration in selecting the goal?Section4.2p. 35731-33 of the1999 RHRdraft RPG Guidance* (d)(1)(i)(B) Did the State submit the glidepath (i.e., rate of progress needed to attain naturalvisibility conditions by 2064)for each Class I area?Section4.2p. 35727-33, 35 of the1999 RHRNatural VisibilityGuidancep. 39124, 39143 of the2005 BART ruleThe Baseline Memo* (d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG for each ClassI area, did the State calculate the uniform rateof improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieveit for the period covered by the SIP?Section4.2p. 35732 of the 1999RHRdraft RPG Guidance* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, has it demonstrated, based on thefactors in (d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by2064 is not reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable?Section4.2p. 35732 of the 1999RHRAppendix 4 - 3

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences* (d)(1)(ii) If the Stateestablishes a RPG < the glidepath, didit provide to the public for reviewas part of its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain naturalconditions using its RPG?SectionSection4.2p. 35732 of the 1999RHR(d)(1)(iv) In developing its RPG, has the Stateconsulted with those States that may reasonablybe anticipated to cause or contribute tovisibility impairment in the Class I areas?SectionSection4.3p. 35735 of the 1999RHR(d)(1)(iv) If the State cannot agree with another State(s) thata goal provides for reasonableprogress, has the State described in itssubmittal the actions taken to resolve thedisagreement?Section7.9p. 35732 of the 1999RHR* (d)(1)(vi) Has the State adopted RPGs that represents at least the visibility improvementexpected from implementation of other CAA programs during the applicableplanning period?NotApplicablep. 35733 of the 1999RHR* (d)(2)(i) Has the State calculated baseline visibility conditions for each Class I area for themost impaired and least impaired days using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data?Section 6 p. 35728-30 of the1999 RHRNatural VisibilityGuidanceAttainment GuidanceTracking Guidance* (d)(2)(i) In calculating the baseline visibilityconditions, did the State estimate the averagedegree of visibility impairment for themost and least impaired days for eachcalendar year from 2000 to 2004, and thendetermine the average of these annualvalues?Section 6* (d)(2)(i) If the State has Class I areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000 - 2004, did theState use the most representative available monitoring data for 2000 - 2004 toestablish baseline values, in consultation with the EPA Regional Office?NotApplicablep. 35728-29 of the1999 RHRVisibility MonitoringGuidanceAppendix 4 - 4

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences* (d)(2)(iii) Did the State calculate natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and leastimpaired days by estimating the degree ofimpairment based on available monitoringinformation and appropriate data analysis techniques?Section 6 p. 35764, 35729-30 ofthe 1999 RHRNatural VisibilityGuidance* (d)(2)(iv)A Did the State calculate the number ofdeciviews by which baseline conditions exceednatural visibility conditionsfor the most impaired and least impaired days for thefirst planning period?Section 6 p. 35732 of the 1999RHR(d)(3) Did the State submit a LTS that addresses visibility impairment for each Class I area,inside and outside the State, which may be affected by the State’s emissions?Section 9 p. 35734-35 of the1999 RHR(d)(3) Does the LTS include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, andother measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by States having Class Iareas?Section 9 p. 35734-35 of the1999 RHR(d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to developcoordinated emission management strategiesfor cases in which it has emissions thatare reasonably anticipated to contribute tovisibility impairment in any Class I arealocated in those State(s)?Section 9 p. 35735 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to developcoordinated emission management strategiesfor cases in which those State(s) haveemissions that are reasonably anticipated tocontribute to visibility impairment in anyClass I area located within the State?Section 9(d)(3)(ii) In establishing its LTS, where multiple State(s) cause or contribute to impairment ofthe same Class I area, did the State includeall measures necessary to obtain its shareof the emission reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area?Section 9 p. 35735 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(ii) In addressing(d)(3)(ii), above, if theState participated in a RPO, did it ensure itincluded all measures needed to achieveits apportionment of emission reductionobligations agreed uponthrough that process?Section 2 p. 35735 of the 1999RHRAppendix 4 - 5

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(d)(3)(iii) In establishing its LTS, did the State document the technical basis, includingmodeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determineits apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achievingreasonable progress in eachClass I area it affects?Section 7 p. 35735 of the 1999RHREI Guidance(d)(3)(iii) In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the Stateidentify the baseline emissionsinventory on which itsstrategies are based?Section 5 p. 35728 of the 1999RHRBaseline MemoEI Guidance(d)(3)(iv) Did the State identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment consideredby it in developing its LTS, including consideration of major and minor stationarysources, mobile sources, and area sources?Section 5 p. 35735 of the 1999RHREI Guidance(d)(3)(v)(A) In developing its LTS, did the State consider the emission reductions due to ongoingair pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI?Section 5 p. 35737 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(v)(B) In developing its LTS, did the Stateconsider measures to mitigate the impacts ofconstruction activities?Section 9 p. 35737 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(v)(C) In developing its LTS, did the Stateconsider emissions limitations and schedules forcompliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal?Section 5 p. 35737 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(v)(D) In developing its LTS, did the State consider source retirement and replacementschedules?Section 5 p. 35737 of the 1999RHRAppendix 4 - 6

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(d)(3)(v)(E) In developing its LTS, did the State consider smoke management techniques foragricultural and forestry management purposes, including plans as currently existwithin the State for these purposes?Section9.2p. 35736 of the 1999RHRInterim Fire Policy(d)(3)(v)(F) In developing its LTS, did the Stateconsider enforceability of emissions limitationsand control measures?Section9.3p. 35737 of the 1999RHR(d)(3)(v)(G) In developing its LTS, did the Stateconsider the anticipated net effect on visibilitydue to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the periodaddressed by the LTS?Section 6 p. 35737 of the 1999RHR* (d)(4) Did the State submit with theSIP a monitoring strategy for measuring,characterizing, and reporting of regional hazevisibility impairment representative ofall Class I areas within the State?NotApplicablep. 35744 of the 1999RHRAttainment GuidanceTracking GuidanceVisibility MonitoringGuidance* (d)(4) Did the State coordinate the abovemonitoring strategy withthe RAVI monitoringstrategy in § 51.305?NotApplicablep. 35717, 37, of the1999 RHR* (d)(4)(i) Did the SIP provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites orequipment needed to assess whether RPGsto address regional haze for all Class Iareas within the State are being achieved?NotApplicablep. 35744 of the 1999RHRAttainment GuidanceTracking GuidanceVisibility MonitoringGuidanceAppendix 4 - 7

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences* (d)(4)(ii) Did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoringdata and other information areused in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regionalhaze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State?Section 9 p. 35744 of the 1999RHRAttainment GuidanceTracking GuidanceVisibility MonitoringGuidance(d)(4)(iii) For a State with no Class I areas,did the SIP establish procedures by whichmonitoring data and other information areused in determining the contribution ofemissions from within the State to regionalhaze visibility impairment at Class I areasin other States?Section 9 p. 35744 of the 1999RHRAttainment GuidanceTracking GuidanceVisibility MonitoringGuidance* (d)(4)(iv) Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to EPA at leastannually for each Class I area in the State?NotApplicablep. 35744-45 of the1999 RHRVisibility MonitoringGuidance(d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a statewide EI ofpollutants that are reasonably anticipated tocause or contribute to visibilityimpairment in any Class I area?Section 5 Attainment Guidance(d)(4)(v) Did the EI include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent yearfor which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions?Section 5 p. 35728-29 of the1999 RHRVisibility MonitoringGuidanceAttainment GuidanceAppendix 4 - 8

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a commitment to updatethe EI periodically? Section 5 EI Guidance(d)(4)(vi) Did the SIP include other elementsnecessary to assess andreport on visibility (e.g.,reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)?NotApplicable(e) Did the State submit a SIP containingemission limitations representing BART, andschedules for compliance with BART, for each BART eligible source that mayreasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in anyClass I area?Section 8 BART Guidelines(e)(1)(i) Did the SIP include a list of allBART-eligible sources within the State withsupporting documentation?Section 8 BART Guidelines(e)(1)(ii) Did the SIP include a determinationof BART for each BART-eligible source in theState that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause orcontribute to any impairment ofvisibility in any Class I area?Section 8 BART Guidelines(e)(1)(ii)(A) Did the SIP include a determination ofBART based on an analysis of the best systemof continuous emission control technology available, and associated emissionreductions achievable for each sourcesubject to BART within the State?Section 8 BART Guidelines(e)(1)(ii)(A) In the BART analysis, did the State take into consideration the technology available,the costs of compliance, the energy andnonair quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaininguseful life of the source, and the degreeof improvement in visibility which mayreasonably be anticipated to resultfrom the use of such technology?Section 8 BART Guidelinesp 39107, 127 of the2005 BART Rule(e)(1)(ii)(B) Did the State determine BART for fossil-fuel fired power plants > 750 megawattspursuant to the BART guidelines?Section 8 BART Guidelinesp 39108 of the 2005BART RuleAppendix 4 - 9

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(e)(1)(iii) If the State has determined that technological or economic limitations on theapplicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make theimposition of an emission standard infeasible, has the State prescribed a design,equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, to requirethe application ofBART, as an alternative toa BART emission standard?Section 8 BART Guidelines(e)(1)(iii) If the State adopted a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standardalternative to BART, did the State, to the degree possible, set forth the emissionreduction to be achieved, and providefor compliance by means which achieveequivalent results?Section 8 BART Guidelinesp 39172 of the 2005BART Rule(e)(1)(iv) Has the State required each source subject to BART to install and operate BART asexpeditiously as practicable, but no laterthan 5 years after approval of the SIP?Section 8 p 39158, 70, 72 of the2005 BART Rule(e)(1)(v) Has the State required each BART source to maintain the required control equipmentand establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated andmaintained?SectionError!Referencesourcenotfound.p 39172 of the 2005BART Rule(e)(4) If the State is using its participationin CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s fromBART, has it included supporting documentation?Section 8 p 39136-42 of the 2005BART Rule(e)(4) If the State is using its participationin CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s fromBART, did it include provisions for a geographic enhancementto the program toaddress RAVI BART under § 51.302(c)?Section 8 p 39143, 57 of the2005 BART Rule(e)(6) If a facility is seeking an exemption under §51.303(a)(2)–(h)for any of its BARTeligible emission units, has the appropriatedocumentation been included in the SIP?Section 8 §51.303(a)(2)–(h)Appendix 4 - 10

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(f) Has the State included a commitment itwill submit its SIP revision, as specified in51.308(f), by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter?Section9.3p 35745 of the 1999RHRSection 110(a)(2)(H) ofthe CAA(g) Has the State included a commitment itwill submit its SIP report, as specified in51.308(g), by an exact date named, that is within 5 years from submittal of the initialSIP?Section 9 p 35745 of the 1999RHRSection 110(a)(2)(F) ofthe CAA(h) Has the State included a commitment it will, at the time of the submission of the SIPreport, also submit a determination of the adequacy of that SIP report, as specified in51.308(h)?Section 9 p 35745 of the 1999RHRSection 110(a)(2)(F) ofthe CAA(i)(1)(i)-(ii) Did the State, by November 29, 1999, identify in writing to the FLMs the title of theofficial to which any FLM can submitrecommendations on the implementation51.308 including, (i) identification of impairmentof visibility in any Class I area(s);and (ii) identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategyrequired by §51.305 and 51.308?NotApplicablep. 35747-48 of the1999 RHR(i)(2) Did the State provide the FLM an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP (or its revision)?NotApplicablep. 35747-48 of the1999 RHR(i)(2)(i)-(ii) Did the above consultation includethe opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their: (i)assessment of impairment of visibility inany Class I area; and, (ii) recommendationson the development of the RPG and onthe development and implementation ofstrategies to address visibility impairment?NotApplicablep. 35747-48 of the1999 RHR(i)(3) Did the State include in the SIP adescription of how itaddressed any commentsprovided by the FLMs?Section 3 p. 35747-48 of the1999 RHRAppendix 4 - 11

Y / N or N/ASIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308RegulationCitationRegulation Summary (not verbatim) Locationin SIPReferences(i)(4) Does the SIP provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State andFLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and review of SIPrevisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programshaving the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas?Sections3 and 9p. 35747-48 of the1999 RHR

# Appendix 5 - BART Eligible Units

# This page intentionally left blank.

# Appendix 5 - 1 Indiana's Non-EGUs

Facility Emission Unit ID Emi ssion Unit Description Stack ID

AGC-ALCOA and Boiler #2 Dry Bottom, pulverized coal-fired boiler 241-242

ALCOA-Warrick Boiler #3 Dry Bottom pulverized coal-fired boiler 242

105m.1, 10 POTLINE #3. ROOMS 105 AND 106 gtc 105M

107M, 108M POTLINE #4. ROOMS 107 AND 108 GTC 107M

109M,110M POTLINE #5, ROOMS 109 AND 110, A-398 109M

111M,112M, POTLINE #6

130m.1,104 potline #2, Rooms 103 and 104, A-398 103m.1

134.63 HDC FURNACE COMLEXES 1EH

134.71 OFFLINES #2 134.71

BP-Whiting 120-05 Process HEATER 001

13002 PROCESS HEATER 002

13004 PROCESS HEATERS 003

16201 INCINERATOR 004

16203 FLARE 005

22401 PROCESS HEATER 008

22402 PROCESS HEATER 009

22403 PROCESS HEATERS 010

22404 PROCESS HEATER 011

22405 PROCESS HEATERS 012

22406 FLARE 006

250 PROCESS HEATER 007

51001 INCINERATOR 013

ASP HEAT ASPHALT HEATER 015

HEATER MARINE DOCK 017

PARK HEATE PROCESS HEATER 016

Carmeuse EU-1 ROTARY LIME KILN S1

EU-2 ROTARY LIME KILN S2

EU-3 ROTARY LIME KILN 3 S3

EU-4 ROTARY KILN 4 S4

EU-5 ROTARY LIME KILN 5 S5

Eli Lilly-Clinton 006 LIQUID WASTE INCINERATOR PVC9

BLR01 Natural Gas /#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21blri

BLR01 Coal Fired Boiler pvc31esp

BLR02 Natural Gas/#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21

BLR03 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21

BLR04 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21

20 EVAPORATOR PVC45

21 TRANSFER BAGHOUSE PVC47

Ash Tank Ash Tank for Coal Fired Boiler pvc31

TK05 VIBRATING BIN PVC44A

TKF FERMENTER PVC41

ESSROC-5 (Logansport) Kiln #1 Kiln #1

Kiln #2 Kiln #2

ESSROC-8 (Speed) EU20 Kiln #1 EU20

EU21 Kiln #2 EU21

# Appendix 5 - 2 Indiana's Non-EGUs

Facility Emission Unit ID Emi ssion Unit Description Stack ID

GE Plastics 08-706 CO AND ORGANIC SULFIDE STREAM FROM PHOSGENE FED 08-706 707

09-001 B&W NATURAL GAS AND OIL FIRED BOILER 09-001

09-001 LASKER BOILER 12-001

12-001 ERIE BOILER

09-002 Riley Boiler 09-002

09-002 Hot Oil Heater 09-002

ISG-Burns Harbor 460-01 #7 Boiler 4

46002 #8 Boiler 5

460-03 #9 Boiler 6

460-04 #10 Boiler 7

460-05 Boiler #11 8

460-06 #12 Boiler 9

512-06 #1 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 11

512-08 #1 Coke Battery Underfire 13

512-14 #2 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 12

512-16 #2 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRE STACK 14

520 BLAST FURNACE FUGITIVES

520-04 SINTER WINDBOX STACK 25

520-18 BLAST FURNACE D CASTHOUSE EMISSIONS 33

520-18 C BLAST FURNACE STOVES 31

520-19 BLAST FURNACE D STOVES 34

520-19 BLAST FURNACE C CASTHOUSE 33

534 STEELMAKING FUGITIVES

534-01 STEELMAKING HMD STATION #1 57

534-02 STEELMAKING HMD #2 59

534-10 STEELMAKING VESSELS #1 & #2 62

534-11 STEELMAKING VESSELS 64

534-23 STEELMAKING FM BOILER 65

595-24 CASTER #1 80

670-05 HOT STRIP FURNACE #1 90

670-07 HOT STRIP #3 FURNACE 92

670-07 HOT STRIP 91

673-14 160" OKATE MILL FURNACE #1 112

673-15 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #2 113

673-16.17 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 4&5 110

673-18.19 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 6&7 111

673-20 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #8 114

674.26,27 110" PLATE MILL FURNACES #1 122

ISG-Indiana Harbor no. 4 Blast Furnace

84 INCH HOT STRIL MILL 10

BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (BOF) 22

NO. 2 SHEET MILL 17

NO. 3 SHEET MILL

NO. 8 BOILER 9

NO. 12 BOILER 9

Ispat Inland 110 80" HOT STRIP MILL: CONDITIONING DOCK 268

# Appendix 5 - 3 Indiana's Non-EGUs

Facility Emission Unit ID Emi ssion Unit Description Stack ID

113 NO. 3 COLD MILL: NO 6 ANNEAL

134 NO. 5 BOILER HOUSE 134

141 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 141

142 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE: ROOF MONITOR 142

144 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 144

147 NO. 2 BOF: #10 FCE OFF GAS FLARE STACK IGNITOR 147

149 NO.2 BOF SECONDARY VENT 149

152 NO.2 BOF CHARGE AISLE:RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION

153 NO.2 BOF ROOF MONITOR

155 NO. 2 BOF CONTINUOUS CASTER TUNDISH PREHEAT

157 NO. 2 BOF LADLE PREHEAT & DRYING

165 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE SLAG PITS

166 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE: CASTHOUSE BAGHOUSE #2 166

170 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE STOVES 170

171 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE FUGITIVES

182 NO. 3 COLD MILL : NO 5 GALVANIZE LINE 182

193 1 & 2 BOILERS RESEARCH BUILDING 193

195 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE BFG FLARE 195

26 NO.4 BOF HOT METAL PIT: RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION 26

27 no. 4 bof hot metal pit reladle & desulfurization 27

29 NO4 BOF ROOF MONITOR 29

31 NO. 4 BOF TUNDISH PREHEAT & TORCH CUT

36 NO. 4 BOF LADLE PREHEAT 36

37 NO. 4 BOF:SECONDARY VENT SYSTEM 37

38 NO. 4 BOF STEELMAKING OFFGAS 38

45 NO. 1 LIME PLANT : NO. KILN 45

49 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: NO. 2 KILN 49

86 12" BAR MILL: BAR ANNEALING FURNACE 86

89 12" BAR MILL: REHEAT FURNACE 89

150 NO. 2 BOF ADDITIVE HADLING: LADLE ADDITIVE TRUCK D 150

151 NO. 2 BOF FLUX STORAGE:FLUX STORAGE TRANSFER 151

158 NO.2 BOF CONTINUOUS CASTER:ROOF MONITOR NONLEADED 158

172 STOCKHOUSE COKE HANDLING 172

176 NO. 3 COLD MILL:PICKLE LINE 176

28 NO.4 BOF: ADDITIVES TRANSFER HOUSE NO.2 BIN LOADIN 28

35 TRANSFER HOUSE NO.1 35

46 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: DUST STORAGE 46

47 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: STORAGE SILOS 47

48 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: TRUCK LOADOUT 48

87 12" BAR MILL GRINDERS 87

Lehigh Cement EU17 KILN #3 SKP2

EU01 PRIMARY CRUSHER SQDC2

EU02 QUARRY SURGE BIN SQDC3

EU03 SECONDARY CRUSHER SQDC4

EU05 NORTH SCREEN HOUSE SQDC5

EU06 SOUTH SCREEN HOUSE SQDC6

# Appendix 5 - 4 Indiana's Non-EGUs

Facility Emission Unit ID Emi ssion Unit Description Stack ID

EU07 BELT #718 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINT SQDC7

EU08 BELT #8/9 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINT SQDC8

EU22 KILN FEED BIN #3 SKDC5

EU23 CLINKER COOLER #3 SKDC6

EU25 SOUTH STORAGE DRAG SFDC1

EU27 SOUTH CLINKER TOWER SFDC3

EU35 FINISH MILL #4 SFDC12

F01 QUARY DRILLING/BLASTING/STORAGE

F02 BELT #9/10 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINT

LoneStar 401B Preheater/Kiln - Stack #2 2

Purdue Boiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2

Boiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2

Boiler 3 1 natural gas and distillate fuel oil fired boiler

U.S. Steel #14 FURN NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE STOVES ID6184

3 Pre Carb No. 3 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6028

CP2B0079 No. 2 Coke Battery Underfiring System CP6040

CP30086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRING SYSTEM CP6045

CP3B0086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY PUSHING

IDBF0369 NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE ID3185

NO. 4 BLAS NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE STOVES IA6160

NO. 4 FURN NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE

O4B30461 BOILER HOUSE NO. 4 BOILER NO. 3 O46270

OTB60467 TURBOBLOWER BOILER HOUSE NO. 6 OT6276

Pre Carb No. 2 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6034

SSDS0201 Number 1 BOP shop No. 1 and No. 2 Desulfurization SS6100Appendix 5 - 5Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24HourAGC-ALCOA andBoiler #2 Dry Bottom, pulverized coal-fired boiler 241-242 5131.1 5133.1 39310.4 39333.5 16.733 16.758ALCOA-WarrickBoiler #3 Dry Bottom pulverized coal-fired boiler 242 5131.1 5133.1 39310.4 39333.5 16.733 16.758105m.1, 10 POTLINE #3. ROOMS 105 AND 106 gtc 105M 7.6 N/A 950.4 N/A 1.385 N/A107M, 108M POTLINE #4. ROOMS 107 AND 108 GTC 107M 7.6 N/A 950.4 N/A 1.505 N/A109M,110M POTLINE #5, ROOMS 109 AND 110, A-398 109M 7.6 N/A 950.4 N/A 4.172 N/A111M,112M, POTLINE #6 7.6 N/A 950.2 N/A 4.318 N/A130m.1,104 potline #2, Rooms 103 and 104, A-398 103m.1 7.6 N/A 950.2 N/A 4.259 N/A134.63 HDC FURNACE COMLEXES 1EH 138.9 N/A 0.9 N/A 3.604 N/A134.71 OFFLINES #2 134.71 30.8 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.653 N/ABP-Whiting120-05 Process HEATER 001 300.1 300.2 36.1 36.113002 PROCESS HEATER 002 144.3 144.4 17.3 17.413004 PROCESS HEATERS 003 177.0 177.9 59.3 59.316201 INCINERATOR 004 16.3 16.4 5.5 5.516203 FLARE 005 205.0 205.1 20.9 21.022401 PROCESS HEATER 008 196.0 196.2 9.8 57.022402 PROCESS HEATER 009 233.4 233.5 41.3 41.422403 PROCESS HEATERS 010 291.0 291.2 35.0 35.022404 PROCESS HEATER 011 164.8 164.9 19.8 41.222405 PROCESS HEATERS 012 22.3 22.4 7.5 7.522406 FLARE 006 4468.5 4471.2 274.9 275.1250 PROCESS HEATER 007 15.0 15.0 5.2 5.251001 INCINERATOR 013 125.0 125.1 7.8 7.8ASP HEAT ASPHALT HEATER 015 5.2 5.2 1.7 1.9HEATER MARINE DOCK 017 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0PARK HEATE PROCESS HEATER 016 12.0 12.1 4.1 3.9CarmeuseEU-1 ROTARY LIME KILN S1 N/A N/A 336.1 350.7 1.21 1.25EU-2 ROTARY LIME KILN S2 N/A N/A 336.1 350.7 1.21 1.25EU-3 ROTARY LIME KILN 3 S3 N/A N/A 336.1 350.7 1.21 1.25EU-4 ROTARY KILN 4 S4 N/A N/A 336.1 350.7 1.21 1.25EU-5 ROTARY LIME KILN 5 S5 N/A N/A 336.1 350.7 1.21 1.25Eli Lilly-Clinton006 LIQUID WASTE INCINERATOR PVC9 46.0 46.0 200.0 200.2 2.550 2.552BLR01 Natural Gas /#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21blri 59.2 59.2 125.4 125.5 0.143 0.143Appendix 5 - 6Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24HourBLR01 Coal Fired Boiler pvc31esp N/A 1030.6 4718.0 4720.8 10.404 10.410BLR02 Natural Gas/#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21 59.2 59.2 125.4 125.5 0.143 0.143BLR03 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21 59.2 59.2 125.0 125.5 0.143 0.143BLR04 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21 104.7 104.8 221.2 221.9 0.253 0.25320EVAPORATORPVC4521TRANSFER BAGHOUSEPVC470.082 0.082Ash TankAsh Tank for Coal Fired Boilerpvc310.360 0.360TK05VIBRATING BINPVC44A0.114 0.113TKFFERMENTERPVC410.166 0.166ESSROC-5 (Logansport)Kiln #11958.6 1938.0Kiln #2 2108.5 1225.6ESSROC-8 (Speed)EU20 Kiln #1 EU20 1563.6 N/A 2071.2 N/A 133.7 N/AEU21 Kiln #2 EU21 1590.4 N/A 1167.3 N/A 185.4 N/AGE Plastics08-706 CO AND ORGANIC SULFIDE STREAM FROM PHOSGENE FED 08-706 707 4.8 4.8 1689.7 1690.7 N/A 0.00609-001 B&W NATURAL GAS AND OIL FIRED BOILER 09-001 784.2 784.7 574.5 574.9 1.531 1.53209-001 LASKER BOILER 12-001 372.5 372.7 1689.7 1690.7 10.317 10.32312-001 ERIE BOILER 776.1 776.5 1689.7 1690.7 21.494 21.50609-002 Riley Boiler 09-002 460.0 460.2 1689.7 1690.7 N/A 0.00609-002 Hot Oil Heater 09-002 15.8 15.8 0.1 0.1 N/A N/AISG-Burns Harbor460-01 #7 Boiler 4 N/A 118.4 N/A 911.846002 #8 Boiler 5 N/A 162.2 N/A 1030.1460-03 #9 Boiler 6 N/A 166.6 N/A 1315.1460-04 #10 Boiler 7 N/A 153.4 N/A 1056.4460-05 Boiler #11 8 N/A 184.1 N/A 1367.7460-06 #12 Boiler 9 N/A 144.7 N/A 1179.2512-06 #1 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 11 N/A 12.8 1700.4 1700.8512-08 #1 Coke Battery Underfire 13 N/A 219.2 N/A 1985.7512-14 #2 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 12 13.2 13.2 1698.4 1700.8512-16 #2 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRE STACK 14 N/A 236.7 N/A 2090.9520 BLAST FURNACE FUGITIVES N/A 0.8 N/A N/A520-04 SINTER WINDBOX STACK 25 N/A 1547.4 N/A 1753.4520-18 BLAST FURNACE D CASTHOUSE EMISSIONS 33 N/A 455.9 N/A N/AAppendix 5 - 7Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour520-18 C BLAST FURNACE STOVES 31 N/A 604.9 N/A 1139.7520-19 BLAST FURNACE D STOVES 34 N/A 455.9 N/A 1801.6520-19 BLAST FURNACE C CASTHOUSE 33 N/A 37.9 N/A N/A534 STEELMAKING FUGITIVES N/A 10.0 N/A 0.0534-01 STEELMAKING HMD STATION #1 57 N/A 2.0 N/A 10.1534-02 STEELMAKING HMD #2 59 N/A 1.2 N/A 10.0534-10 STEELMAKING VESSELS #1 & #2 62 N/A 83.4 N/A N/A534-11 STEELMAKING VESSELS 64 N/A 46.4 N/A N/A534-23 STEELMAKING FM BOILER 65 N/A 21.4 N/A 0.1595-24 CASTER #1 80 N/A 46.5 N/A N/A670-05 HOT STRIP FURNACE #1 90 N/A 482.2 N/A 186.3670-07 HOT STRIP #3 FURNACE 92 N/A 462.5 N/A 188.1670-07 HOT STRIP 91 N/A 482.2 N/A 172.1673-14 160" OKATE MILL FURNACE #1 112 N/A 97.1 N/A 105.8673-15 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #2 113 N/A 100.2 N/A 97.0673-16.17 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 4&5 110 N/A 45.2 N/A 928.0673-18.19 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 6&7 111 N/A 21.3 N/A 0.0673-20 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #8 114 N/A 28.7 N/A 32.6674.26,27 110" PLATE MILL FURNACES #1 122 N/A 245.3 N/A 278.2ISG-Indiana Harborno. 4 Blast Furnace 26.1 28.6 N/A 30.584 INCH HOT STRIL MILL 10 N/A 458.7 N/A 0.9BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (BOF) 22 N/A 36.3 N/A N/ANO. 2 SHEET MILL 17 N/A 5.0 N/A 0.0NO. 3 SHEET MILL N/A 3.0 N/A 0.0NO. 8 BOILER 9 N/A 259.4 N/A 429.3NO. 12 BOILER 9 N/A 259.4 N/A 429.3Ispat Inland110 80" HOT STRIP MILL: CONDITIONING DOCK 268 N/A N/A N/A 0.1113 NO. 3 COLD MILL: NO 6 ANNEAL N/A 64.5 N/A 0.3 N/A 0.025134 NO. 5 BOILER HOUSE 134 N/A 337.2 N/A 511.6 N/A 0.402141 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 141 N/A 83.9 N/A 306.1 N/A 1.508142 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE: ROOF MONITOR 142 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.4 N/A 0.101144 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 144 N/A 2.0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.030Appendix 5 - 8Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour147 NO. 2 BOF: #10 FCE OFF GAS FLARE STACK IGNITOR 147 N/A 181.4 N/A 90.2 N/A 1.941149 NO.2 BOF SECONDARY VENT 149 N/A 25.8 N/A 18.0 N/A 0.884152 NO.2 BOF CHARGE AISLE:RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION N/A 2.6 N/A 10.3 N/A 0.292153 NO.2 BOF ROOF MONITOR N/A 0.8 N/A 0.5 N/A 1.767155 NO. 2 BOF CONTINUOUS CASTER TUNDISH PREHEAT N/A 2.6 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.001157 NO. 2 BOF LADLE PREHEAT & DRYING N/A 20.0 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.010165 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE SLAG PITS N/A 15.3 N/A 355.5 N/A 5.657166 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE: CASTHOUSE BAGHOUSE #2 166 N/A 23.6 N/A 169.0 N/A 0.496170 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE STOVES 170 N/A 708.4 N/A 247.6 N/A 0.231171 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE FUGITIVES N/A 2.3 N/A 19.1 N/A 0.849182 NO. 3 COLD MILL : NO 5 GALVANIZE LINE 182 N/A 71.1 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.012193 1 & 2 BOILERS RESEARCH BUILDING 193 N/A 0.1 N/A N/A195 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE BFG FLARE 195 N/A 407.8 N/A 166.1 N/A 0.11926 NO.4 BOF HOT METAL PIT: RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION 26 N/A 1.7 N/A 6.8 N/A 0.09727 no. 4 bof hot metal pit reladle & desulfurization 27 N/A 1.7 N/A 6.8 N/A 0.09729 NO4 BOF ROOF MONITOR 29 N/A 1.1 N/A 0.1 N/A 2.13631 NO. 4 BOF TUNDISH PREHEAT & TORCH CUT N/A 1.5 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.07036 NO. 4 BOF LADLE PREHEAT 36 N/A 22.0 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.01237 NO. 4 BOF:SECONDARY VENT SYSTEM 37 N/A 32.1 N/A 1.6 N/A 1.72738 NO. 4 BOF STEELMAKING OFFGAS 38 N/A 49.6 N/A 46.1 N/A 7.86445 NO. 1 LIME PLANT : NO. KILN 45 N/A 267.0 N/A 20.2 N/A 0.29249 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: NO. 2 KILN 49 N/A 267.0 N/A 20.2 N/A 0.29286 12" BAR MILL: BAR ANNEALING FURNACE 86 N/A 1.9 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.09389 12" BAR MILL: REHEAT FURNACE 89 N/A 379.7 N/A 0.4 N/A 0.038150NO. 2 BOF ADDITIVE HADLING: LADLE ADDITIVE TRUCK D150N/A 0.028151NO. 2 BOF FLUX STORAGE:FLUX STORAGE TRANSFER151N/A 0.019158NO.2 BOF CONTINUOUS CASTER:ROOF MONITOR NONLEADED158N/A 0.122172STOCKHOUSE COKE HANDLING172N/A 0.017176NO. 3 COLD MILL:PICKLE LINE176N/A 0.07328NO.4 BOF: ADDITIVES TRANSFER HOUSE NO.2 BIN LOADIN28N/A 0.00435TRANSFER HOUSE NO.135N/A 0.02846NO. 1 LIME PLANT: DUST STORAGE46N/A 0.036Appendix 5 - 9Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour47NO. 1 LIME PLANT: STORAGE SILOS47N/A 0.03648NO. 1 LIME PLANT: TRUCK LOADOUT48N/A 0.0118712" BAR MILL GRINDERS87N/A 0.093Lehigh CementEU17 KILN #3 SKP2 1469.4 1563.2 1039.9 1040.5 12.1 12.1EU01PRIMARY CRUSHERSQDC20.024 0.086EU02QUARRY SURGE BINSQDC30.018 0.063EU03SECONDARY CRUSHERSQDC40.026 0.091EU05NORTH SCREEN HOUSESQDC50.006 0.023EU06SOUTH SCREEN HOUSESQDC60.028 0.100EU07BELT #718 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINTSQDC70.016 0.055EU08BELT #8/9 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINTSQDC80.016 0.055EU22KILN FEED BIN #3SKDC50.003 0.003EU23CLINKER COOLER #3SKDC60.009 0.009EU25SOUTH STORAGE DRAGSFDC10.059 0.059EU27SOUTH CLINKER TOWERSFDC30.212 0.212EU35FINISH MILL #4SFDC120.412 0.412F01QUARY DRILLING/BLASTING/STORAGE7.796 10.949F02BELT #9/10 CONVEYOR TRANSFER POINT0.004 0.006LoneStar401BPreheater/Kiln - Stack #22 2700.6 3033.4 1170.2 1095.9 5.1 5.7PurdueBoiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2 720.2 720.7 6518.0 6521.9 0.7 0.7Boiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2 720.2 720.7 6518.0 6521.9Boiler 3 1 natural gas and distillate fuel oil fired boiler 375.9 376.1 17.3 17.4 0.3 0.3U.S. Steel#14 FURN NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE STOVES ID6184 63.9 6.4 75.5 7.5 1.1 0.13 Pre Carb No. 3 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6028 64.6 6.4 9.5 0.9 4.2 0.4CP2B0079 No. 2 Coke Battery Underfiring System CP6040 988.7 98.9 266.2 26.6 12.3 1.2CP30086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRING SYSTEM CP6045 988.7 98.9 266.2 26.6 12.3 1.2CP3B0086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 18.1 1.8 34.2 3.4 1.5 0.2IDBF0369 NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE ID3185 10.5 1.1 210.3 21.0 0.2 0.0NO. 4 BLAS NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE STOVES IA6160 38.7 3.9 45.8 4.6 0.7 0.1NO. 4 FURN NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE 26.3 2.6 13.6 21.0 1.5 0.2O4B30461 BOILER HOUSE NO. 4 BOILER NO. 3 O46270 72.6 7.2 114.5 11.4 3.3 14.5OTB60467 TURBOBLOWER BOILER HOUSE NO. 6 OT6276 103.1 10.3 162.5 16.2 2.4 0.2Appendix 5 - 10Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24HourPre Carb No. 2 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6034 64.3 6.4 9.5 0.9 7.1 0.7SSDS0201 Number 1 BOP shop No. 1 and No. 2 Desulfurization SS6100 159.8 16.0 99.9 10.0 1.5 0.2Appendix 5 - 11Indiana's EGU NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/yr) PM10 (tons/yr)FacilityEmissionUnit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak24Hour Potential AllowableAEP - Tanners CreekUnit 4 Tanners Creek Unit 4 TC4 26416.1 26431.8 114550.8 114619.1 1420.5 1421.3AES/IPALCO Petersburg002 UNIT 2 2-1S 1725.4 12329.0 11305.4 226228.7 290.1 28987.4ALCOA - Warrick Power PltBoiler #4 Dry Bottom, pulverized coal-fired boiler 243 10691.3 10695.8 66219.1 66257.2 9635.0 9639.4Citizen's ThermalEU17 Oil-fired Boiler #17 CS001 171.2 N/A 299.7 N/A N/A 15.0EU18 Oil Fired Boiler #18 CS001 171.2 N/A 299.6 N/A N/A 15.0Crawfordsville E.L.&P.4911 Unit 6 1 402.1 403.3 2376.5 2378.1 75.0 74.5Hoosier Energy - MeromUnit #2 One pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boiler SV2 11145.1 11151.7 26748.2 26764.1 2229.0 2230.3Unit#1 One pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boiler SV1 11145.1 11151.7 26748.2 26764.1 2229.0 2230.3Hoosier Energy - RattsBoiler #1 PULVERIZED COAL FIRED DRY BOTTOM BOILER 1 2295.5 2296.8 30491.3 30509.4 1778.7 1779.7BOILER #2 PULVERIZED COAL FIRED DRY BOTTOM BOILER 2 2295.5 2296.8 30491.3 30509.4 1778.7 1779.7IPALCO - Harding St.Unit 70 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING BOILER #70 0013 4100.0 74213.8 21755.8 417621.0 830.9 1807.3UNIT GT1 DISTILLATE OIL FIRED STATIONARY GAS TURBINE GTI 0014 263.1 15.3 0.0 397.1 0.3 17.1Logansport Municipal L&P4911 Unit 6 2 628.1 N/A 3712.8 3715.1 2.0 N/ANIPSCO - SchahferNo survey receivedNIPSCO - MitchellNo survey receivedNIPSCO - Michigan CityNo survey receivedNIPSCO - BailleyNo survey receivedPSI - CayugaBoiler 1 Dry Bottom Pulverized coal-fired boiler stack 1 6742.4 6746.4 92563.7 92619.8 1079.2 1079.9boiler 2 Dry Bottom pulverized coal fired boiler stack 2 6742.4 6746.4 92563.7 92619.8 1079.2 1079.9PSI - Gibsonboiler #2 Dry Bottom Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Stack A 13109.8 13117.6 82104.4 82153.3 710.2 710.6Boiler No. Dry Bottom Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Stack A 13109.8 13117.6 82104.4 82153.3 710.2 710.6PSI - Wabash RiverUNIT 6 TANGENTIAL FIRED COAL ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILER STACK A 9844.1 19699.6 51326.9 51344.4 391.1 391.3Richmond P&LA.2(b) Unit #2 CS12 1439.3 3892.6 12632.7 23026.7 474.1 391.3SIGECO - A.B.BrownNo survey receivedSIGECO - F.B.CulleyNo survey received

# Appendix 5 - 12 Average Stack Parameters for BART eligible non-EGU and EGU sources

Base Stack Stack Stack Gas

Non-EGUs Elevation Height Diameter Temperature Velocity

Facility X Y m m m K m/sec

AGC-ALCOA #2-#3 844.09 -185.30 121.40 132.07 5 425 19.00

BP-Whiting 787.83 225.64 177.00 50.18 2.03 849.86 6.69

Carmeuse 817.00 225.95 177.00 26 2 471.8 3.4

Eli Lilly-Clinton 817.40 13.77 185.41 26.82 1.30 425.00 19.00

ESSROC-5 886.17 132.63 204.22 63.4 4.766 405.22 7.11

ESSROC-8 (revised) 974.63 -114.71 137.50 50.76 2.71 467.88 19.24

GE Plastics (revised) 793.80 -187.17 116.37 45.23 1.76 574.17 23.52

ISG-Burns Harbor 816.60 225.21 177.00 46.75 4.21 597.55 11.90

ISG-Indiana Harbor 790.14 225.8 177.00 53.96 6.15 626 10.36

Ispat Inland (Mittal East) 791.56 225.83 177.00 36.87 3.25 560.54 15.29

Lehigh Cement 909.58 -86.8 210.24 30.48 1.68 430.78 20.36

LoneStar 862.23 5.67 230.01 68.58 3.51 458 30.48

Purdue 850.05 93.32 195.72 76.17 2.59 430.78 22.40

U.S. Steel (revised) 803.96 220.28 177.00 48.9 3.1 402.3 10.1

Base Stack Stack Stack Gas

EGUs Elevation Height Diameter Temp Velocity

Facility X Y m m m K m/sec

AEP - Tanners Creek 1041.62 -31.84 150.62 121.92 7.16 408.3 16.34

ALCOA 843.99 -185.31 120.40 152.4 4.42 434 21.3

PSI - Gibson 801.18 -138.90 124.36 152.40 9.75 415.22 14.42

IPALCO - Harding St. 919.31 22.72 208.00 172.00 6.00 415.00 23.00

Hoosier Energy - Ratts 842.19 -118.45 132.58 91.44 3.35 411.88 24.38

AES/IPALCO Petersburg 843.78 -117.26 132.30 189.30 6.28 324.10 23.87

Hoosier Energy - Merom 815.14 -59.89 150.57 214.57 5.79 327.44 31.39

PSI - Cayuga 812.42 34.58 150.27 152.4 5.94 416.33 27.53

PSI - Wabash River 812.59 34.60 145.08 137.16 7.62 410.78 28.42

Richmond P&L 1028.04 46.82 306.31 99.06 3.58 421.89 18.30

Logansport Municipal L&P 891 136.03 183 45.72 2.13 447 13.40

Crawfordsville E.L.&P. 855.01 52.96 223 60.4 2.4 472.00 7.70

Citizen's Thermal 921.81 29.47 213.4 82.91 4.42 566.00 4.62

NIPSCO - Schahfer

NIPSCO - Mitchell

NIPSCO - Michigan City

NIPSCO - Bailley

SIGECO - A.B.Brown

SIGECO - F.B.Culley

# Appendix 5 - 13 Non-EGUs Number of Days above 0.5 DV Maximum DV Number of Days above 0.5 DV Maximum DV

NOx/SO 2 

### modeling NOx/ SO 2 

### modeling PM modeling PM modeling

Facility 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004

AGC-ALCOA 244 319 286 6.698 7.932 7.808 0 0.406

BP-Whiting 0 2 4 0.465 0.95 1.062 Not Modeled

Carmeuse 0 0 0 0.161 0.253 0.297 0 0.013

Eli Lilly-Clinton 0 1 3 0.48 0.982 0.817 0 0.022

ESSROC-5 (Logansport) 1 1 1 0.589 0.504 0.577 Not Modeled

ESSROC-8 (Speed) 10 8 7 0.793 1.091 1.254 Not Modeled

GE Plastics 9 12 7 1.617 1.077 1.058 0 0.158

ISG-Burns Harbor 37 41 44 1.521 1.978 2.36 Not Modeled

ISG-Indiana Harbor 0 0 0 0.115 0.198 0.207 Not Modeled

Ispat Inland 0 2 1 0.41 0.518 0.661 0 0.059

Lehigh Cement 1 0 0 0.656 0.319 0.465 0 0.115

LoneStar 0 1 0 0.224 0.725 0.343 0 0.009

Purdue 1 1 2 0.565 0.958 0.674 0 0.001

U.S. Steel 0 0 1 0.278 0.437 0.552 0 0.083

EGUs Number of Days above 0.5 DV Maximum DV Number of Days above 0.5 DV Maximum DV

NOx/ SO 2 

### modeling NOx/ SO 2 

### modeling PM modeling PM modeling

Facility 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004

AEP - Tanners Creek 64 2.937 0 0.072

ALCOA 288 7.173 9 0.952

PSI - Gibson 321 8.5 0 0.039

IPALCO - Harding St. 39 3.685 0 0.067

Hoosier Energy - Ratts 96 3.48 0 0.219

AES/IPALCO Petersburg 16 7.67 0 0.015

Hoosier Energy - Merom 102 4.225 0 0.161

PSI - Cayuga 317 7.596 0 0.097

PSI - Wabash River 199 5.2 0 0.017

Richmond P&L 58 2.969 0 0.019

Logansport Municipal L&P 0 0 0 0.293 0.292 0.284 0 0.001

Crawfordsville E.L.&P. 0 0 0 0.187 0.327 0.233 0 0.003

Citizen's Thermal 0 0 0 0.11 0.148 0.052

NIPSCO - Schahfer Not Modeled Not Modeled

NIPSCO - Mitchell Not Modeled Not Modeled

NIPSCO - Michigan City Not Modeled Not Modeled

NIPSCO - Bailley Not Modeled Not Modeled

SIGECO - A.B.Brown Not Modeled Not Modeled

SIGECO - F.B.Culley Not Modeled Not Modeled

# This page intentionally left blank.