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 the MRPO, technical documents from the other 

RPOs, and letters received from other states indicating their decisions regarding reasonable 

further progress goals were used to make these assessments. 

Class 1 areas outside the comprehensive 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 controls 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, not 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 the 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 the Area of Influence that 

impact their Class 1 areas. Minnesota has developed a long term strategy sufficient 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 Indiana must comply with CAIR requirements, the 

Kentucky analysis has determined that these controls are sufficient to address visibility in this 

area. Further, VISTAS modeling has shown that Mammoth Cave is more than meeting its 

uniform rate of progress (glidepath) and has determined that no additional reductions are needed 

from Indiana at this time. 

The attached cover letter from the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection contains 

this information. 

The following slides from the VISTAS report, "Contribution Assessment Mammoth Cave", draft 

May 29, 2007, show some analyses performed 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 contribution from Sulfates. Note that the 

contribution from the Midwest RPO states, in total, is small. Indiana is not individually 

apportioned. 
Appendix 3 - 21 

Mammoth_Cave, KY (Worst) -20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

SO2_EGU

SO2_nonEGU

NOx_Ground

NOx_Point

NH3

VOCs

PC_Ground

PC_Point

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 maps show contributions to visibility impairment on the 20% worst days during 

the 2000 - 2004 timeframe. 

The following map is a meteorological back trajectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites 

in 2000 - 2004. Using the descriptions from VISTAS, back trajectory analyses 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 method essentially follows a parcel of air backward 

in hourly steps for a specified length 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. This was created using five years of back 

trajectories for the 20% worst visibility days in 2000-2004. Residence 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 from most MRPO states. However, the greatest 

impacts are coming from sources closer to Mammoth Cave and south. 

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 SO2

emissions. In the following plot, the area representing 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 Influence defined 5% or greater 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 SO2 Areas of Influence. Residence time 

plots were combined with geographically-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 emissions 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 total 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 developed 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

31.3730.02

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

Year

Haziness 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 results. 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 contribute 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 are occurring, and perform 

analyses to determine whether or not further SO2 reductions from any sectors are reasonable or 

whether other pollutants such as NOx 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 impacted by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix 

1), Indiana was determined to contribute to visibility impairment in this Class 1 area. Since that 

time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to assist in developing reasonable progress goals. 

The following slides are from the VISTAS analysis, "Great Smoky Mountain Group 

Contribution Assessment", Draft, May 29, 2007. The text explaining the plots and charts is from 

"Technical Analyses Supporting Regional Haze State 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 SO2 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_nonEGU

NOx_Ground

NOx_Point

NH3

VOCs

PC_Ground

PC_Point

PC_Fires



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 visibility impairment on the 20% worst days during 
Appendix 3 - 27 

the 2000-2004 timeframe. As can be seen, Indiana sources do not have significant impacts on 

this area. 

The following map is a meteorological back trajectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites 

in 2000-2004. Using the descriptions from VISTAS and the NCDENR, back trajectory analyses 

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 method essentially follows a 

parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a specified 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% Worst Days in 2002 - Great Smoky Mountains 

The following map is a residence time plot. This was created using five years of back 

trajectories for the 20% worst visibility days in 2000-2004. Residence 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 SO2

emissions. In the following plot, the area representing 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 Influence defined 5% or greater 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 SO2 Areas of Influence. Residence time 

plots were combined with geographically-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 emissions 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 SO2 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 SO2 emissions were multiplied by the total extinction-weighted backtrajectory residence times on a grid cell by grid cell basis. These results were then normalized by 

the domain-wide total 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. 

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

30.2829.01

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

Year

Haziness 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 contributions from other RPOs are comparatively small and the greatest 

benefits would likely be from further EGU reductions within the VISTAS states. Indiana was 

not contacted by Tennessee or North Carolina regarding consultations for this area and believes 

that no further analysis for a long term control strategy is necessary at this time. 

App. 3 - 4. Sipsey Wilderness Area 

In the MRPO summary of Class 1 areas impacted by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix 

1), Indiana was determined to contribute to visibility impairment in this Class 1 area. Since that 

time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to assist in developing reasonable progress goals. 

The following slides are from the VISTAS analysis, "Sipsey Contribution Assessment", Draft, 

May 29, 2007. As in most VISTAS areas, sulfate reductions are the major focus, although in this 

case, NH3 is a significant contributor. The text explaining the plots and 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 small 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

SO2_EGU

SO2_nonEGU

NOx_Ground

NOx_Point

NH3

VOCs

PC_Ground

PC_Point

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 visibility impairment on the 20% worst days during the 2000-2004 

timeframe. As can be seen, Indiana sources do not have significant impacts on this area. 

The following map is a meteorological back trajectory analysis for IMPROVE monitoring sites 

in 2000-2004. Using the descriptions from VISTAS and NCDENR, back trajectory analyses 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 method essentially follows a parcel of 

air backward in hourly steps for a specified length 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. This was created using five years of back 

trajectories for the 20% worst visibility days in 2000-2004. Residence 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 SO2

emissions. In the following plot, the area representing 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 Influence defined 5% or greater 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 SO2 Areas of Influence. Residence time 

plots were combined with geographically-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 emissions 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 SO2 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 SO2 emissions were multiplied by the total extinction-weighted backtrajectory residence times on a grid cell by grid cell basis. These results were then normalized by 

the domain-wide total 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. 

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 regarding consultations for this area and believes 

that no further analysis for a long term control 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

Year

Haziness 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 impacted by sources from within the MRPO (Appendix 

1), Indiana was determined to contribute to visibility impairment in these more distant Class 1 

areas. Since that time, VISTAS has conducted several analyses to assist 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 sector 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 the areas in the next 

three plots. 
Appendix 3 - 39 

The SO2 Areas of Influence are shown in the next three plots. 
Appendix 3 - 40 
Appendix 3 - 41 

The 2018 Emissions weighted by Residence Time plots 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 impacts from Indiana sources are minimal. Neither 

Virginia nor West Virginia contacted IDEM to participate in consultations for these areas. The 

four-factor analyses performed by the VISTAS states and resulting long term strategies that 

indicate controls closer to the Class 1 areas provide the most effective reductions at this time. 

Additionally, the long term strategies provide anticipated visibility improvements below the 

glidepaths. Indiana concurs with these conclusions. 

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

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness Area, MO 

These areas were identified in early MRPO modeling and other analyses as being impacted by 

Indiana sources. Indiana was invited to participate in the consultation process for these areas, 

and attended the conference phone calls. Arkansas 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 concurs 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 areas 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.org/projects.asp. They are based upon the 

information and strategies found in the Draft Technical Support Document, of the same date and 

from the same location. 

An additional analysis is included with information 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 CENRAP work, but is consistent with materials 

presented for the other areas. 
Appendix 3 - 45 

Letter from Arkansas and Missouri regarding conclusion of consultation process. 
Appendix 3 - 46 
Appendix 3 - 47 

Glidepaths generated by CENRAP showing that the long term strategy 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

Year

Haziness 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

Year

Haziness 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

Year

Haziness 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

Year

Haziness 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 analyses. Again in this case, the focus of reduction 

strategies is for SO2. 
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 the 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 SO2 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 SO2 on Mingo 

Cave in 2018. Because of this impact, a further examination of the SO2 control devices on EGUs 

in southwestern Indiana was performed.
Appendix 3 - 53 

The EGUs in this area of the state are listed by unit in the following table. Many of these units 

did not have controls in the 2002 baseyear inventory. The IPM projections used for future years 

may also not have reflected current or future control projects. 

Plant Unit 

Emissions 

in 2002 

SO2 control 

in 2002 

SO2 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 SO2

control 

SO2 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 controls from this Class 1 area, it can be seen 

that the vast majority of SO2 emitting units will have scrubbers installed by 2018, which should 

help further improve the visibility in those areas. 
Appendix 3 - 55 

App. 3 - 7. Isle Royale National Park and 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 MRPO 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 standard 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. Indiana will continue to work with Michigan and the 

other MRPO states through LADCO to evaluate the progress and the Class 1 areas. 
Appendix 3 - 56 

Letter from Michigan regarding conclusion of consultation process.
Appendix 3 - 57 
Appendix 3 - 58 
Appendix 3 - 59 

App. 3 - 8. Acadia National Park, ME; Moosehorn 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 Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU 

Class 1 Areas - Methodology for Source Selection, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four 

Factor Analysis, July 2007” which supported requests of states outside that area to examine 

controls for specific types of sources. This assessment is a large document and is not included in 

this submittal. It is available online at the MANE-VU website, http://www.manevu.org, under 

“Consultations - Projects and Work Products.” The resulting request is referred to as the 

“MANE-VU Ask.” 

MANE-VU Ask: In its “Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 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 adoption and implementation, including: 

 Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology 

 90% (or greater) reduction in SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks on MANEVU’s list of 167 stacks (located in 19 states), which reflect those 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) SO2 emissions relative to 

on-the-books, on-the-way 2018 projections 

 Continued evaluation of other measures, including measures to reduce SO2 and NOx 

emissions from coal-burning facilities and promulgation of new source performance 

standards for wood combustion 

 Further reduction in power plant SO2 (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-combustion 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 have insignificant impacts on these areas. 

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

between 2008 and 2018. From this "Round 5" modeling 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 Class 1 areas, controls already implemented and onthe-books controls may or may not result in achievement of reasonable 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 MANE-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 for 2018", MANE-VU Stakeholder Briefing, April 4, 2008, states, "The 

Uniform Rate is achieved and exceeded 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 that it can commit to any particular course of 

action until it is determined, through the above work 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 units within a source were listed in the Ask, 

but this is a complete listing of SO2 emitting units from those sources to provide a more 

complete view of control projects at these locations. 

Plant Unit 

Emissions 

in 2002 

SO2 control 

in 2002 SO2 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/A 

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

 Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

Administrative Requirements from Appendix V to Part 51 

 2.1(a) Has a letter of submittal from the governor / designee, requesting EPA approval of 

the SIP been received? 

Not Availab

 2.1(b) Has the State provided evidence it has adopted the legally enforceable portions of the 

plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the necessary permits, orders, consent agreements in final form? 

Not Availab

 2.1(c) Has the State provided evidence it has the necessary legal authority under State law 

to adopt and implement the plan? 

Not Availab

 2.1(d) Has the official State regulation /document been signed/stamped/dated by the 

appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State? 

Not Availab

 2.1(e) Has the State provided evidence it followed all of the procedural requirements of the 

State’s laws and constitution in the adoption/issuance of the plan? 

Not Availab

 2.1(f) Has the State provided evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change 

consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice? 

Not Availab

 2.1(g) Has the State provided a certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice and the State’s laws and 

constitution, if applicable? 

Not Availab

 2.1(h) Has the State provided a compilation of public comments and the State’s response 

thereto? 

Not Availab

Technical Requirements from 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 located 

within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State 

affected by emissions from within the State? 

Section 4.2 
Appendix 4 - 2 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

* (d)(1) Did the State establish RPGs for each Class I area that provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period? 

Section 4.2 

* (d)(1)(i)(A) In establishing RPGs for each Class I area, did the State consider the costs of 

compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors 

were taken into consideration in selecting the goal? 

Section 4.2 

* (d)(1)(i)(B) Did the State submit the glidepath (i.e., rate of progress needed to attain natural 

visibility conditions by 2064) for each Class I area? 

Section 4.2 

* (d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG for each Class I area, did the State calculate the uniform rate 

of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the SIP? 

Section 4.2 

* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, has it demonstrated, based on the 

factors in (d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by 

2064 is not reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable? 

Section 4.2 
Appendix 4 - 3 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, did it provide to the public for review 

as part of its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions using its RPG? 

Section Section 4.2 

 (d)(1)(iv) In developing its RPG, has the State consulted with those States that may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas? 

Section Section 4.3 

 (d)(1)(iv) If the State cannot agree with another State(s) that a goal provides for reasonable 

progress, has the State described in its submittal the actions taken to resolve the 

disagreement? 

Section 7.9 

* (d)(1)(vi) Has the State adopted RPGs that represents at least the visibility improvement 

expected from implementation of other CAA programs during the applicable planning period? 

Not Applica

* (d)(2)(i) Has the State calculated baseline visibility conditions for each Class I area for the 

most impaired and least impaired days using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data? 

Section 

* (d)(2)(i) In calculating the baseline visibility conditions, did the State estimate the average 

degree of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each 

calendar year from 2000 to 2004, and then determine the average of these annual values? 

Section 

* (d)(2)(i) If the State has Class I areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000 - 2004, did the 

State use the most representative available monitoring data for 2000 - 2004 to establish baseline values, in consultation with the EPA Regional Office? 

Not Applica
Appendix 4 - 4 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

* (d)(2)(iii) Did the State calculate natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least 

impaired days by estimating the degree of impairment based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques? 

Section 

* (d)(2)(iv)A Did the State calculate the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed 

natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days for the 

first planning period? 

Section 

 (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 

 (d)(3) Does the LTS include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by States having Class I 

areas? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to develop 

coordinated emission management strategies for cases in which it has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in those State(s)? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to develop 

coordinated emission management strategies for cases in which those State(s) have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located within the State? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(ii) In establishing its LTS, where multiple State(s) cause or contribute to impairment of 

the same Class I area, did the State include all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(ii) In addressing (d)(3)(ii), above, if the State participated in a RPO, did it ensure it 

included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process? 

Section 
Appendix 4 - 5 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (d)(3)(iii) In establishing its LTS, did the State document the technical basis, including 

modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine 

its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each Class I area it affects? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(iii) In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the State identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are based? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(iv) Did the State identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered 

by it in developing its LTS, including consideration of major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(v)(A) In developing its LTS, did the State consider the emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(v)(B) In developing its LTS, did the State consider measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(v)(C) In developing its LTS, did the State consider emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal? 

Section 

 (d)(3)(v)(D) In developing its LTS, did the State consider source retirement and replacement 

schedules? 

Section 
Appendix 4 - 6 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (d)(3)(v)(E) In developing its LTS, did the State consider smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management purposes, including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes? 

Section 9.2 

 (d)(3)(v)(F) In developing its LTS, did the State consider enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures? 

Section 9.3 

 (d)(3)(v)(G) In developing its LTS, did the State consider the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS? 

Section 

* (d)(4) Did the State submit with the SIP a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment representative of all Class I areas within the State? 

Not Applica

* (d)(4) Did the State coordinate the above monitoring strategy with the RAVI monitoring 

strategy in § 51.305? 

Not Applica

* (d)(4)(i) Did the SIP provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all Class I areas within the State are being achieved? 

Not Applica
Appendix 4 - 7 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

* (d)(4)(ii) Did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoring data and other information are 

used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State? 

Section 

 (d)(4)(iii) For a State with no Class I areas, did the SIP establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas 

in other States? 

Section 

* (d)(4)(iv) Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least 

annually for each Class I area in the State? 

Not Applica

 (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a statewide EI of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area? 

Section 

 (d)(4)(v) Did the EI include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year 

for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions? 

Section 
Appendix 4 - 8 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a commitment to update the EI periodically? Section  (d)(4)(vi) Did the SIP include other elements necessary to assess and report on visibility (e.g., 

reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)? 

Not Applica

 (e) Did the State submit a SIP containing emission limitations representing BART, and 

schedules for compliance with BART, for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any 

Class I area? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(i) Did the SIP include a list of all BART-eligible sources within the State with 

supporting documentation? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(ii) Did the SIP include a determination of BART for each BART-eligible source in the 

State that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(ii)(A) Did the SIP include a determination of BART based on an analysis of the best system 

of continuous emission control technology available, and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART within the State? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(ii)(A) In the BART analysis, did the State take into consideration the technology available, 

the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining 

useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(ii)(B) Did the State determine BART for fossil-fuel fired power plants > 750 megawatts 

pursuant to the BART guidelines? 

Section 
Appendix 4 - 9 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (e)(1)(iii) If the State has determined that technological or economic limitations on the 

applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make the 

imposition of an emission standard infeasible, has the State prescribed a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, to require the application of 

BART, as an alternative to a BART emission standard? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(iii) If the State adopted a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard 

alternative to BART, did the State, to the degree possible, set forth the emission reduction to be achieved, and provide for compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(iv) Has the State required each source subject to BART to install and operate BART as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after approval of the SIP? 

Section 

 (e)(1)(v) Has the State required each BART source to maintain the required control equipment 

and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and 

maintained? 

Section Error! Referensource not found.

 (e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from 

BART, has it included supporting documentation? 

Section 

 (e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from 

BART, did it include provisions for a geographic enhancement to the program to 

address RAVI BART under § 51.302(c)? 

Section 

 (e)(6) If a facility is seeking an exemption under §51.303(a)(2)–(h) for any of its BARTeligible emission units, has the appropriate documentation been included in the SIP? Section 
Appendix 4 - 10 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (f) Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP revision, as specified in 

51.308(f), by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter? 

Section 9.3 

 (g) Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP report, as specified in 

51.308(g), by an exact date named, that is within 5 years from submittal of the initial SIP? 

Section 

 (h) Has the State included a commitment it will, at the time of the submission of the SIP 

report, also submit a determination of the adequacy of that SIP report, as specified in 51.308(h)? 

Section 

 (i)(1)(i)-(ii) Did the State, by November 29, 1999, identify in writing to the FLMs the title of the 

official to which any FLM can submit recommendations on the implementation 51.308 including, (i) identification of impairment of visibility in any Class I area(s); and (ii) identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by §51.305 and 51.308? 

Not Applica

 (i)(2) Did the State provide the FLM an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 

60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP (or its revision)? 

Not Applica

 (i)(2)(i)-(ii) Did the above consultation include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their: (i) 

assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area; and, (ii) recommendations on the development of the RPG and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment? 

Not Applica

 (i)(3) Did the State include in the SIP a description of how it addressed any comments 

provided by the FLMs? 

Section 
Appendix 4 - 11 

Y / N or N/A SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.3

Regulation Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Locatio

in SIP 

 (i)(4) Does the SIP provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and 

FLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas? 

Sections 3 and 9 
Appendix 5 - BART Eligible Units 
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 5 - 1 

Indiana's Non-EGUs 

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission 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 Emission 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 Emission 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 Emission 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 SS6100 
Appendix 5 - 5 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour PotentiaAGC-ALCOA and Boiler #2 Dry Bottom, pulverized coal-fired boiler 241-242 5131.1 5133.1 39310.4 ALCOA-Warrick Boiler #3 Dry Bottom pulverized coal-fired boiler 242 5131.1 5133.1 39310.4 

105m.1, 10 POTLINE #3. ROOMS 105 AND 106 gtc 105M 7.6 N/A 950.4 

107M, 108M POTLINE #4. ROOMS 107 AND 108 GTC 107M 7.6 N/A 950.4 

109M,110M POTLINE #5, ROOMS 109 AND 110, A-398 109M 7.6 N/A 950.4 

111M,112M, POTLINE #6 7.6 N/A 950.2 

130m.1,104 potline #2, Rooms 103 and 104, A-398 103m.1 7.6 N/A 950.2 

134.63 HDC FURNACE COMLEXES 1EH 138.9 N/A 0.9 134.71 OFFLINES #2 134.71 30.8 N/A 0.1 

BP-Whiting 120-05 Process HEATER 001 300.1 300.2 36.1 

13002 PROCESS HEATER 002 144.3 144.4 17.3 13004 PROCESS HEATERS 003 177.0 177.9 59.3 16201 INCINERATOR 004 16.3 16.4 5.5 16203 FLARE 005 205.0 205.1 20.9 22401 PROCESS HEATER 008 196.0 196.2 9.8 22402 PROCESS HEATER 009 233.4 233.5 41.3 22403 PROCESS HEATERS 010 291.0 291.2 35.0 22404 PROCESS HEATER 011 164.8 164.9 19.8 22405 PROCESS HEATERS 012 22.3 22.4 7.5 22406 FLARE 006 4468.5 4471.2 274.9 

250 PROCESS HEATER 007 15.0 15.0 5.2 

51001 INCINERATOR 013 125.0 125.1 7.8 

ASP HEAT ASPHALT HEATER 015 5.2 5.2 1.7 

HEATER MARINE DOCK 017 1.4 1.4 0.0 

PARK HEATE PROCESS HEATER 016 12.0 12.1 4.1 

Carmeuse EU-1 ROTARY LIME KILN S1 N/A N/A 336.1 

EU-2 ROTARY LIME KILN S2 N/A N/A 336.1 EU-3 ROTARY LIME KILN 3 S3 N/A N/A 336.1 EU-4 ROTARY KILN 4 S4 N/A N/A 336.1 EU-5 ROTARY LIME KILN 5 S5 N/A N/A 336.1 

Eli Lilly-Clinton 006 LIQUID WASTE INCINERATOR PVC9 46.0 46.0 200.0 

BLR01 Natural Gas /#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21blri 59.2 59.2 125.4 
Appendix 5 - 6 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potentia

BLR01 Coal Fired Boiler pvc31esp N/A 1030.6 4718.0 BLR02 Natural Gas/#2 Oil Fired Boiler pvc21 59.2 59.2 125.4 BLR03 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21 59.2 59.2 125.0 BLR04 NATURAL GAS/#2 OIL FIRED BOILER pvc21 104.7 104.8 221.2 

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 1958.6 1938.0  Kiln #2 2108.5 1225.6 ESSROC-8 (Speed) EU20 Kiln #1 EU20 1563.6 N/A 2071.2  EU21 Kiln #2 EU21 1590.4 N/A 1167.3 GE Plastics 08-706 CO AND ORGANIC SULFIDE STREAM FROM PHOSGENE FED 08-706 707 4.8 4.8 1689.7 

09-001 B&W NATURAL GAS AND OIL FIRED BOILER 09-001 784.2 784.7 574.5 09-001 LASKER BOILER 12-001 372.5 372.7 1689.7 12-001 ERIE BOILER 776.1 776.5 1689.7 09-002 Riley Boiler 09-002 460.0 460.2 1689.7 09-002 Hot Oil Heater 09-002 15.8 15.8 0.1 

ISG-Burns Harbor 460-01 #7 Boiler 4 N/A 118.4 N/A 

46002 #8 Boiler 5 N/A 162.2 N/A 

460-03 #9 Boiler 6 N/A 166.6 N/A 460-04 #10 Boiler 7 N/A 153.4 N/A 460-05 Boiler #11 8 N/A 184.1 N/A 460-06 #12 Boiler 9 N/A 144.7 N/A 512-06 #1 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 11 N/A 12.8 1700.4 512-08 #1 Coke Battery Underfire 13 N/A 219.2 N/A 512-14 #2 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 12 13.2 13.2 1698.4 512-16 #2 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRE STACK 14 N/A 236.7 N/A 

520 BLAST FURNACE FUGITIVES N/A 0.8 N/A 

520-04 SINTER WINDBOX STACK 25 N/A 1547.4 N/A 520-18 BLAST FURNACE D CASTHOUSE EMISSIONS 33 N/A 455.9 N/A 
Appendix 5 - 7 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potentia

520-18 C BLAST FURNACE STOVES 31 N/A 604.9 N/A 520-19 BLAST FURNACE D STOVES 34 N/A 455.9 N/A 520-19 BLAST FURNACE C CASTHOUSE 33 N/A 37.9 N/A 

534 STEELMAKING FUGITIVES N/A 10.0 N/A 

534-01 STEELMAKING HMD STATION #1 57 N/A 2.0 N/A 534-02 STEELMAKING HMD #2 59 N/A 1.2 N/A 534-10 STEELMAKING VESSELS #1 & #2 62 N/A 83.4 N/A 534-11 STEELMAKING VESSELS 64 N/A 46.4 N/A 534-23 STEELMAKING FM BOILER 65 N/A 21.4 N/A 595-24 CASTER #1 80 N/A 46.5 N/A 670-05 HOT STRIP FURNACE #1 90 N/A 482.2 N/A 670-07 HOT STRIP #3 FURNACE 92 N/A 462.5 N/A 670-07 HOT STRIP 91 N/A 482.2 N/A 673-14 160" OKATE MILL FURNACE #1 112 N/A 97.1 N/A 673-15 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #2 113 N/A 100.2 N/A 

673-16.17 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 4&5 110 N/A 45.2 N/A 673-18.19 160" PLATE MILL FURNACES 6&7 111 N/A 21.3 N/A 

673-20 160" PLATE MILL FURNACE #8 114 N/A 28.7 N/A 

674.26,27 110" PLATE MILL FURNACES #1 122 N/A 245.3 N/A 

ISG-Indiana Harbor no. 4 Blast Furnace 26.1 28.6 N/A 

 84 INCH HOT STRIL MILL 10 N/A 458.7 N/A  BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (BOF) 22 N/A 36.3 N/A  NO. 2 SHEET MILL 17 N/A 5.0 N/A  NO. 3 SHEET MILL N/A 3.0 N/A  NO. 8 BOILER 9 N/A 259.4 N/A  NO. 12 BOILER 9 N/A 259.4 N/A 

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

113 NO. 3 COLD MILL: NO 6 ANNEAL N/A 64.5 N/A 134 NO. 5 BOILER HOUSE 134 N/A 337.2 N/A 141 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 141 N/A 83.9 N/A 142 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE: ROOF MONITOR 142 N/A 0.1 N/A 144 NO. 1 ELECTRIC FURNACE 144 N/A 2.0 N/A 
Appendix 5 - 8 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potentia

147 NO. 2 BOF: #10 FCE OFF GAS FLARE STACK IGNITOR 147 N/A 181.4 N/A 149 NO.2 BOF SECONDARY VENT 149 N/A 25.8 N/A 152 NO.2 BOF CHARGE AISLE:RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION N/A 2.6 N/A 153 NO.2 BOF ROOF MONITOR N/A 0.8 N/A 155 NO. 2 BOF CONTINUOUS CASTER TUNDISH PREHEAT N/A 2.6 N/A 157 NO. 2 BOF LADLE PREHEAT & DRYING N/A 20.0 N/A 165 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE SLAG PITS N/A 15.3 N/A 166 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE: CASTHOUSE BAGHOUSE #2 166 N/A 23.6 N/A 170 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE STOVES 170 N/A 708.4 N/A 171 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE FUGITIVES N/A 2.3 N/A 182 NO. 3 COLD MILL : NO 5 GALVANIZE LINE 182 N/A 71.1 N/A 193 1 & 2 BOILERS RESEARCH BUILDING 193 N/A 0.1 N/A 195 NO. 7 BLAST FURNACE BFG FLARE 195 N/A 407.8 N/A 

26 NO.4 BOF HOT METAL PIT: RELADLE & DESULFURIZATION 26 N/A 1.7 N/A 27 no. 4 bof hot metal pit reladle & desulfurization 27 N/A 1.7 N/A 29 NO4 BOF ROOF MONITOR 29 N/A 1.1 N/A 31 NO. 4 BOF TUNDISH PREHEAT & TORCH CUT N/A 1.5 N/A 36 NO. 4 BOF LADLE PREHEAT 36 N/A 22.0 N/A 37 NO. 4 BOF:SECONDARY VENT SYSTEM 37 N/A 32.1 N/A 38 NO. 4 BOF STEELMAKING OFFGAS 38 N/A 49.6 N/A 45 NO. 1 LIME PLANT : NO. KILN 45 N/A 267.0 N/A 49 NO. 1 LIME PLANT: NO. 2 KILN 49 N/A 267.0 N/A 86 12" BAR MILL: BAR ANNEALING FURNACE 86 N/A 1.9 N/A 89 12" BAR MILL: REHEAT FURNACE 89 N/A 379.7 N/A 

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 
Appendix 5 - 9 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potentia

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 1469.4 1563.2 1039.9 

EU01 PRIMARY CRUSHER SQDC2 EU02 QUARRY SURGE BIN SQDC3 EU03 SECONDARY CRUSHER SQDC4 EU05 NORTH SCREEN HOUSE SQDC5 EU06 SOUTH SCREEN HOUSE SQDC6 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 2700.6 3033.4 1170.2 Purdue Boiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2 720.2 720.7 6518.0 

Boiler 2 One (1) spreader stoker coal fired boiler 2 720.2 720.7 6518.0 Boiler 3 1 natural gas and distillate fuel oil fired boiler 375.9 376.1 17.3 

U.S. Steel #14 FURN NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE STOVES ID6184 63.9 6.4 75.5  3 Pre Carb No. 3 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6028 64.6 6.4 9.5  CP2B0079 No. 2 Coke Battery Underfiring System CP6040 988.7 98.9 266.2  CP30086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY UNDERFIRING SYSTEM CP6045 988.7 98.9 266.2  CP3B0086 NO. 3 COKE BATTERY PUSHING 18.1 1.8 34.2  IDBF0369 NO. 14 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE ID3185 10.5 1.1 210.3  NO. 4 BLAS NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE STOVES IA6160 38.7 3.9 45.8  NO. 4 FURN NO. 4 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE 26.3 2.6 13.6  O4B30461 BOILER HOUSE NO. 4 BOILER NO. 3 O46270 72.6 7.2 114.5  OTB60467 TURBOBLOWER BOILER HOUSE NO. 6 OT6276 103.1 10.3 162.5 
Appendix 5 - 10 

Indiana's Non-EGUs NOx (tons/yr) SO

Facility Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potentia Pre Carb No. 2 Coke Battery Precarbonization Facility CH6034 64.3 6.4 9.5  SSDS0201 Number 1 BOP shop No. 1 and No. 2 Desulfurization SS6100 159.8 16.0 99.9 
Appendix 5 - 11 

Indiana's EGU NOx (tons/yr) SOx (tons/

Facility 

Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Description Stack ID Potential Peak24Hour Potential Peak

AEP - Tanners Creek Unit 4 Tanners Creek Unit 4 TC4 26416.1 26431.8 114550.8 114AES/IPALCO Petersburg 002 UNIT 2 2-1S 1725.4 12329.0 11305.4 226ALCOA - Warrick Power Plt Boiler #4 Dry Bottom, pulverized coal-fired boiler 243 10691.3 10695.8 66219.1 66Citizen's Thermal EU17 Oil-fired Boiler #17 CS001 171.2 N/A 299.7 N

EU18 Oil Fired Boiler #18 CS001 171.2 N/A 299.6 N

Crawfordsville E.L.&P. 4911 Unit 6 1 402.1 403.3 2376.5 23Hoosier Energy - Merom Unit #2 One pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boiler SV2 11145.1 11151.7 26748.2 26

Unit#1 One pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boiler SV1 11145.1 11151.7 26748.2 26

Hoosier Energy - Ratts Boiler #1 PULVERIZED COAL FIRED DRY BOTTOM BOILER 1 2295.5 2296.8 30491.3 30

BOILER #2 PULVERIZED COAL FIRED DRY BOTTOM BOILER 2 2295.5 2296.8 30491.3 30

IPALCO - Harding St. Unit 70 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING BOILER #70 0013 4100.0 74213.8 21755.8 417

UNIT GT1 DISTILLATE OIL FIRED STATIONARY GAS TURBINE GTI 0014 263.1 15.3 0.0 3

Logansport Municipal L&P 4911 Unit 6 2 628.1 N/A 3712.8 37NIPSCO - Schahfer No survey received NIPSCO - Mitchell No survey received NIPSCO - Michigan City No survey received NIPSCO - Bailley No survey received PSI - Cayuga Boiler 1 Dry Bottom Pulverized coal-fired boiler stack 1 6742.4 6746.4 92563.7 92

boiler 2 Dry Bottom pulverized coal fired boiler stack 2 6742.4 6746.4 92563.7 92

PSI - Gibson boiler #2 Dry Bottom Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Stack A 13109.8 13117.6 82104.4 82

Boiler No. Dry Bottom Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Stack A 13109.8 13117.6 82104.4 82

PSI - Wabash River UNIT 6 TANGENTIAL FIRED COAL ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILER STACK A 9844.1 19699.6 51326.9 51Richmond P&L A.2(b) Unit #2 CS12 1439.3 3892.6 12632.7 23SIGECO - A.B.Brown No survey received SIGECO - F.B.Culley No 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/SO2 modeling NOx/ SO2 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/ SO2 modeling NOx/ SO2 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.