## IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We Protect Hoosiers andOur Environment. Michael R. Pence 100 North Senate Avenue Governor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-8603 Thomas W. Easterly Toll Free (800) 451-6027 Commissioner www.idem.IN.gov



### Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-3950 Dear Ms. Hedman: March 28, 2013

Re: Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Maintenance Plan Update for Lake County, Indiana The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submits the , enclosed sulfur dioxide (S02 ) Maintenance Plan Update for Lake County, Indiana. This submittal demonstrates that Lake County, Indiana has remained well belowthe 1971 S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and should remain designated as attainment for the standard. IDEM requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) process this final submittal for approval as a revision to Indiana's State Implementation Plan. IDEM provided an opportunity for public hearing on the S02 Maintenance Plan Update for Lake County, Indiana if a request was received by February 18, 2013. No request for a public hearing was received and the hearing was cancelled. In addition, IDEM received no comments during the public notice process, which closed on March 11, 2013. On March 3, 1978, U.S. EPA designated a portion of Lake County, Indiana as a primary nonattainment area for S02under Section 107 ofthe federal Clean AirAct (CAA). Indiana submitted a Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Lake County nonattainment area, which was subsequently redesignated to attainment by U.S. EPA on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56129). As part ofthat document, Indiana committed to review and, if necessary, revise the Maintenance Plan eight years after the area was redesignated to attainment ofthe 802 standard, as required by Section 175A ofthe CAA. The submittal ofthis document honors that commitment. The Lake County S02 Maintenance Plan Update incorporates air quality trend data, projected emission inventory data, and updated monitoring data in orderto show maintained attainment ofthe S02 NAAQS. An updated maintenance year of2025 is also compared to the 2003 base year, as well as the original maintenance year of2015. These comparisons further support Lake County's continued attainment.

R

ecycl edPa per 

### (i) An Equal Opportunity Employer Ple ase Recycle 

## O

### Ms. Hedman Page 2

This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy ofthe required documentation. An electronic version ofthe submittal in PDF format that is identical to the hard copy has been sent to Doug Aburano, Chief of U.S. EPA Region 5's Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section. IDEM respectfully requests that U.S. EPA proceed with review ofthe Maintenance Plan Update and approval as a revision to Indiana's State Implementation Plan for the Lake County, Indiana Maintenance Area under the 1971 S02 NAAQS. Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact Scott Deloney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, at (317) 233-5694.

KB/sad/jrg Enclosures: Sincerely,
!/

. . ') 

### I) ),__·i.'-..... 

### J_) (.\.kA 

## ·<,_ .. d**~~** ,,j 

### Keith Baugues Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Quality

1. Sulfur Dioxide (S02 ) Maintenance Plan Update for Lake County, Indiana

cc: Doug Aburano, U.S. EPA Region 5 (w/ enclosures) Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA Region 5 (no enclosures) Keith Baugues, IDEM (no enclosures) Scott Deloney, IDEM (no enclosures) Jennifer Geisenhaver, IDEM (no enclosures) File Copy

# Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

# Maintenance Plan Update

Forthe Lake CountyMaintenance Area

Lake County, Indiana

PreparedBy: IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management Office ofAir Quality March 2013

### Thispage intentionally left blank.

## TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 

### 2.1 Geographical Boundaries

.................................................................................. 2 2.2 National AmbientAir Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide

............................. 4 

### 2.3 Status ofAir Quality

......................................................................................... 4 

### 3.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.............................................. 5 

### 3.1 Attainment/Emissions Inventmy

...................................................................... 5 

### 3.2 Maintenance Demonstration

............................................................................. 5 3.3 Monitoring Network/Verification ofContinued Attainment..

.......................... 6 

### 3.4 Contingency Plan

.............................................................................................. 6 4.0 ATTAINMENT/EMISSIONS INVENTORY.............................................. 6 

### 4.1 Controls and Regulations

.................................................................................. 8 5.0 DEMONSTRATION OF CONTINUED MAINTENANCE....................... 9 6.0 MONITORING NETWORK/VERIFICATION OF CONTINUED ATTAINMENT............................................................................................. 12 

### 6.1 Quality Assurance

........................................................................................... 12 

### 6.2 Continued Monitoring

..................................................................................... 12 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN .............................................................................. 12 8.0 COMMITMENT TO REVISE PLAN ........................................................ 13 9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................................................................ 13 10.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14



## TABLES
Table 2.1 Lake County 2004-2011 Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Monitoring Data (Parts per Million)

............................................................................................................. 5 

### Table 4.1 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions for All Permitted Sources in Lake County

............. 7 Table 4.2 Lake County Base Year Point Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions with Projected 2015, Projected 2025, and Actual2011 Emissions (Tons/Year)

...... 8

## FIGURES Figure 2.1 Map ofLake County Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Area

.................................. 3



## CHARTS
Chart 5. I Lake County 24-Hour Sulfur Dioxide 2ndHighestValues, 2004-2011

.......... 10 

### Chart 5.2 Lake County Annual Arithmetic Mean SulfurDioxide Values, 2004-2011

.. 10 

### Chart 5.3 Lake County 3-Hour2"d Highest Sulfur Dioxide Values, 2004-2011

............ 11



## APPENDICES Appendix A: August 12, 2005, Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Planfor Sulfur Dioxide Attainment in Lake County Appendix B: Federal RegisterNotice, Approval ofRedesignation Request, September 26, 2005, Effective October 26, 2005 Appendix C: Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment Appendix D: Complete Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory for Lake County Appendix E: AQS Quick Look Report SulfurDioxide AmbientMonitoring for Lake County for 2004-2011 Appendix F: Public Participation Process Documents



## ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATION LIST
CAA

.............CleanAir Act FR

................ Federal Register IC

.................Indiana Code IDEM

............IndianaDepattment ofEnviromnental Management NAAQS

.........National Ambient Air Quality Standards NSR

.............. New Source Review ppb

...............Parts per Billion ppm...............Parts per Million PSD

...............Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration U.S. EPA

.........United States Environmental ProtectionAgency

11

## SulfurDioxideMaintenance Plan Update Lake County, Indiana
1.0 INTRODUCTION On August 12, 2005, the State oflndiana submitted a Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Lake County, Indiana sulfur dioxide (S02) 

### nonattainment area under the 1971 sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) subsequently approved the RequestforRedesignation andMaintenance Plan for Sulfur DioxideAttainment in Lake County 

### (September 26,2005, 70 FR 56129). Section 175A ofthe federal Clean AirAct (CAA) sets forth the elements ofa maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainmentto attainment. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance planthat demonstrates attainment for tenyears following the initial ten-yearperiod. As pmt ofthat document, Indiana committed to review and, ifnecessary, revise the Maintenance Plan eight years after the area was redesignated to attainment ofthe sulfur dioxide standard, as required by Section 175A ofthe CAA. The submittal ofthis document honors that commitment. 

### 2.0 BACKGROUND On March 3, 1978, U.S. EPA designated a pmtion ofLake County, Indiana as a primary nonattainment area for sulfur dioxide under Section 107 ofthe CAA. Sulfur dioxide monitors in Lake Countyhave not recorded a violation ofthe sulfur dioxide NAAQS since before 1980. On August 12, 2005, the IndianaDepartment of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for SulfitrDioxideAttainment for Lake County 

### (Appendix A). U.S. EPA subsequently approved the Redesignation Request on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56129), with an effective date ofOctober 26,2005 (Appendix B).

1

### 2.1 Geographical Boundaries The following is a briefdescription ofthe maintenance area included inthis update. Lake County is in northwest Indiana. It

### is surrounded by the Indiana counties ofPorter, Jasper, and Newton. The S02 

### nonattainment area ofLake County is bounded by Lake Michiganto the north. To the west 

### itis bounded bythe Indiana-Illinois State line. On the south it is bounded by U.S. 30 

### from the State line to the intersection ofl-65 then following I-65 to the intersection ofi-94 then following I-94 to the Lake-Porter County line. Onthe east it is bounded by the Lake-Porter County line. (See Figme 2.1)

2

### Figure2.1 Map ofLakeCounty SulfurDioxide MaintenanceArea

Hammond- 141st St.

Date: 01/24/2013 MappedBy: C. Mitchell, OAQ Sources: Office otAir Quality

. Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83 

### Lake 

### County



# Legend Gary -IITRI



### • S02Monitor 0 2.5 5 mi 

## I I I I 0 2.5 5 km



### - Proposed NonattainmentArea



### 3

### 2.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is part ofa group ofhighlyreactive gases known as sulfur oxides (SOx). It 

### is primarily emitted through fossil fuel combustion at powerplants and other industrial facilities. Other sources include industrial processes like the extraction ofmetal from ore and the burning ofhigh sulfur fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment. U.S. EPA first promulgated the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for sulfur dioxide in 1971. The primary sulfur dioxide standards were set as an annual average of0.03 pmis per million (ppm) and a 24-hour level of0.14 ppm. The secondary sulfur dioxide standards were set as a 3-hour level of0.5 ppm and an annual level of0.02 ppm. The annual average primary and secondary standards were not to be exceeded, while the 24-hour and 3-hour standards were not to be exceeded more than once per year. On June 22,2010, U.S. EPA revoked boththe primary annual and 24-hour standards and established a newprimary 1-hour sulfur dioxide standard of75 pmis perbillion (ppb). On March 20, 2012, U.S. EPAretained the existing secondary 3-hour standard. Attainment ofthe 2010 primary 1-hour sulfur dioxide standard is determined by evaluatingthe design value ofthe 99111 

### percentile values ofthe daily maximum 1-hour averages at each monitorwithinthe area, whichmust not be equal to or exceed 75.5 ppb averaged over a three-yearperiod. On June 3, 2013, U.S. EPAwill make designations of attainment, nonattainment, orunclassifiable withregards to the 2010 standard. This document only addresses the 1971 sulfurdioxide NAAQS. 2.3 Status ofAir Quality There are two monitors currently measuring sulfur dioxide in Lake County. These monitors, located in Gary (Illinois Institute ofTechnology Research Institutes (IITRI)- #18-089-0022) and Hammond (141' 1

### Street- #18-089-2008), are maintainedbythe IDEMNmihwest Regional Office and have been in operation since 1997 and 1975, respectively. Current mnbient airquality monitoring data shows a continued downward trend well belowthe sulfur dioxide NAAQS since the area was redesignatedto attainment, as shown in Table 2.1.



### 4

### Table2.1 Lake County 2004-2011 Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Monitoring Data (Parts per Million)

1ST MAX 2ND MAX 1ST MAX 2ND MAX ANNUAL NO. OF SITE ID SITE NAME YEAR 24-HR 24-HR 3-HR 3-HR MEAN EXCEED 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2004 0.051 0.033 0.085 0.082 0.005 0 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2005 0.050 0.043 0.165 0.078 0.004 0 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2006 0.030 0.028 0.079 0.078 0.003 0 18-089-0022 Gary -IITRI 2007 0.022 0.021 0.071 0.054 0.003 0 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2008 0.019 0.017 0.095 0.044 0.003 0 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2009 0.020 0.016 0.057 0.053 0.002 0 18-089-0022 Gary- IITRI 2010 0.030 0.024 0.061 0.049 0.002 0 18-089-0022 Gary -IITRI 2011 0.024 0.019 0.060 0.043 0.002 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2004 0.022 0.015 0.038 0.035 0.004 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2005 0.017 0.016 0.045 0.037 0.003 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2006 0.016 0.016 0.029 0.027 0.004 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2007 0.022 0.017 0.048 0.036 0.005 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2008 0.011 0.010 0.029 0.028 0.004 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2009 0.009 0.009 0.035 0.028 0.003 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2010 0.012 0.010 0.024 0.023 0.002 0 18-089-2008 Hammond-141st St 2011 0.012 0.012 0.029 0.028 0.003 0 

### 3.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Section 1 07(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA lists a number ofrequirements thatmust be met by nonattainment areas prior to being considered for redesignationto attainment. U.S. EPA haspublished guidance entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" in a September 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division (Appendix C). Based on U.S. EPA's guidance, the core provisions that are requiredto be included inthe maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide nonattainment areas are listed below: 3.1 Attainment/Emissions Inventory The state is required to develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficientto attainthe NAAQS. Forthis submittal, a comprehensive emissions inventory ofmajor and minorpermitted sources in Lake County, Indiana for the base year (2003) is compared to the most recent emissions inventory (2011), as can be seen in Table 4.1 in Section 4.0. 3.2 Maintenance Demonstration The state is required to submit a revised maintenanceplan eight years afterredesignation demonsh·ating that attainment ofthe sulfur dioxide NAAQS will be maintained for ten years (2015-2025) following the initial ten-yearperiod (2005-2015).


### 5

### 3.3 MonitoringNetwork/Verification ofContinuedAttainment To verifythe attainment status ofthe area overthemaintenanceperiod, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation ofan appropriate U.S. EPA approved air quality monitoring network. 3.4 Contingency Plan The maintenance plan is required to include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs after redesignation ofthe area. Each ofthese components is discussed in greater detail in the remaining sections ofthis document. 

### 4.0 ATTAINMENT/EMISSIONS INVENTORY The state is requiredto develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify a level of emissions in the areawhich is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Forthis submittal, the attainment emissions inventory was compared to the most recent emissions inventory. Table 4.1 below shows the sulfur dioxide emissions for all major and minor permitted sources inLake County, Indiana and the change in emissions from the original maintenance plan's emissions from 2003. The cunentemissions are taken from the 2011 emissions reports submitted by each source. The 2011 emissions are the most recent quality assured data available. The complete sulfur dioxide emissions inventory for Lake County can be found in Appendix D.

6

### Table 4.1 SulfurDioxide Emissions for All Permitted Sources in Lalie County 2003 2011 Emission Change Source Emissions in Emissions in Source ID 

### Tons per Tons per fi·om 20II to 2003 Year Year BP Products North America Inc., 00003 3385.33 697.31 -2688.02 Whiting Carmeuse Lime 00112 544.31 313.45 -230.86 Incorporated US Steel Co. Gary 00121 6952.55 4201.76 -2750.79 Works Bucko Construction

- 00179 28.13 -28.13 15th Street Plant Jupiter Aluminum 00201 22.66 -22.66 Corporation Cargill, Inc. 00203 205.60 69.55 -136.05 State Line Energy, 00210 8010.93 8044.00 33.07 LLC.* Rhodia Inc. 00242 1751.03 203.56 -1547.47 Safety-Kleen Oil 00301 97.10 55.29 -41.81 Recovery Co. Indiana Harbor East 00316 2316.02 2873.83 557.81 Mittal Steel (ISG 00318 1939.23 860.00 -I079.23 Indiana Harbor West) Indiana Harbor Coke 00382 525.90 1897.98 1372.09 Company Cokenergy, Inc. 00383 6794.08 4891.50 -1902.58 Ironside Energy, 00448 165.23 118.00 -47.23 LLC. Whiting Clean 00449 0.00 Energy, Inc. LafargeNmih 00458 68.94 81.58 12.63 America Rieth Riley Construction Co., 00530 15.25 15.25 Inc. #367 Lake County Totals 33101.04 24307.80 -8793.24 *Note: State Line Energy, LLC. closed in 2012. 

### Sulfur dioxide emissions from permitted sources in Lake Countyhave decreased by approximately 8,793.24 tons (26.56%) from 2003 to 2011. The decrease in sulfur


### 7

### dioxide emissions in Lake County can be attributed to federally mandatedprograms, in addition to the closing ofpetmitted stationary sources. As stated previously in Section 2.3, Status ofAir Quality, there have been no exceedances oftheNAAQS for sulfur dioxide measured atthe two monitoring sites within Lake County. The above infmmation further demonstrates that all pmiions ofLake County continue to attainthe NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. The original maintenance plan compared the 2003 base year emissions inventory to a projected 2015 emissions inventory (tons per year). Table 4.2lists 2003 base year emissions, 2011 actual emissions, and 2015 and 2025 projected emissions. As can be seen by Table 4.2, stationary source sulfur dioxide emissions are expectedto continue decreasing in Lake Countythrough 2025, ensuring that air quality within Lake County will continue to improve and provide for an ample margin ofsafety. 

### Table 4.2 Lake County Base Year Point Source SulfurDioxideEmissions with Projected 2015 and Actua12011 Emissions (Tons per Year) Difference Between Original Base Year Base 2015 Current CmTent 2003 and Year Actual Emissions Projected Projected 2025 Source Emissions Emissions (as projected Emissions Emissions Projected Type 2003 2011 in 2005) 2015 2025 Emissions Point 33,101 24,308 43,568 17,880 17,459 -15,642 Sources

4.1 Controls and Regulations The following is a list ofseveral state and federal control measures already inplace that continue to ensure thatthe sulfur dioxide emissions will remain well below levels necessary to maintain the 1971 NAAQS. Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Rule Indianahas promulgated revised rules for Lake County sulfur dioxide emissions that reflectthe reductions ofsulfur dioxide in the area. The limits relating to Lake County are found in 326 lAC 7-4.1. These rules were submitted to U.S. EPA onAprilS, 2005 as a parallel processing request for approval into the Indiana State Implementation Plan. The state rules became effective on June 24, 2005. Implementation ofPast SIP Revisions The Indianarules controlling sulfur dioxide emissions are in effect and being enforced. Indianarule, 326 lAC 7, requires all sulfur dioxide sources in Indianato be in compliance with specified limits. In 2005, 326 lAC 7-4.1 went into effect, which applies to all new
8

### and existing fossil fuel-fired combustion sources and emissions units subject to 326 lAC 7-1.1 and contains emissions limits for specific sources ofsulfur dioxide in Lake County. The rulemakingreflects a reduction ofover 30,000 tons ofsulfur dioxideper year of allowable emissions from the emission limits set inthe 1989 State Implementation Plan.
New Source ReviewProvisions Indiana has a long standing and fully implementedNew Source Review (NSR) procedure. New Source Review is addressed in rule 326 lAC 2. The rule includes provisions for the Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration (PSD) in 326 lAC 2-2. Any facility not listed inthe 2003 emissions inventory, orfor the closing ofwhich credit wastaken in demonstrating attainment, will not be allowed to construct, reopen, modify, or reconstruct without meeting applicablepermitrule requirements. Controls to Remain in Effect Indiana does not intend to relax any ofthe control measures already implemented. Indianahereby commits that any changes to its rules, or emission limits applicableto sulfurdioxide sources, will be submittedto U.S. EPA for approval. Indiana intends to continue enforcing all rules relating to the emission ofsulfur dioxide in Lake County. 

### 5.0 DEMONSTRATION OF CONTINUED MAINTENANCE
The maintenance demonstration requirement is consideredto be satisfied for nonattainment areas ifthe mostrecentthree years ofambient monitoring data showthat themaintenance area is meeting theNAAQS for sulfur dioxide. Ambient air quality data from all monitoring sites in Lake County, Indiana indicate that the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide continues to be met. Lake County was redesignated to attainment in 2005, andthe cnnentmaintenance plan demonstrated that the sulfur dioxide standard would continue to be maintained through 2015. This update to the maintenance plan demonstrates that ambient air quality data should continue to decline. Total emissions ofsulfur dioxide from all sources have continued to decline and it is not anticipated that emissions will increase to levels that would alterthe downward trendin air quality datafor sulfur dioxide. Charts 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 showmaximum value trends in comparisonto theprimary 24-hour, primary annual, and secondary 3-hour standard, respectively.

9

### Chart5.1 Lake County 24-HourSulfur Dioxide 2nd

### Highest Values, 2004-2011 0

.1600 0

.1400 

# .. • 

# • • • • • • 0

.1200 

### --· 

# --- c 0 § 0

.1000 

### - 

# -- :iE**~** 0

.0800 c.. 

## t! 0

.0600 ro 0.. 0

.0400 0.0200 0.0000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

-+- G ary - Hnmmond __.,_Primary 24-Hour Standard



### Chart5.2 Lal{e County AnnualArithmetic Mean SulfurDioxide Values, 2004-2011 0

.035 0

.030 

# • • • 

# • • • 

# • •

c 0.025**~**

### ~ 0.020



### .... Cll**~** 0

.015 t: ro 0.. 0.010 0

.005 

## Ill: 

# I 

# '

# ;;;-' ' 

# ' • 

# ' 0

.000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

-+-Gary - Harnmoncl ....,.. PrimaryAnnual S tnndard



### 10

### Chart5.3 LakeCounty3-Hour2"d 

### HighestSulfurDioxide Values, 2004-2011

0.6000

c 0.5000 0 § 0.4000**~** 

# v 0.3000 c. 

## -t 0.2000 

## "' Q. 0.1000 0.0000 

## Lake County3-Hour Sulfur Dioxide2nd HighestValues, 2004-2011



# ..-----------**------------** 

# • • 

# • 

# • •

• 

# •• 1 ---------------·-··-··-------

.... 

### ....


# - 

# - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

-.-Gary

- Hnmmond _._Secondary3-Hour Stnndurd



### 11

### 6.0 MONITORING NETWORKNERIFICATION OF CONTINUED ATTAINMENT
To verifythe attainment status ofthe area overthe maintenanceperiod, the maintenance plan should containprovisions for continued operation ofan appropriate U.S. EPA approved air quality monitoringnetwork. There are currently two sulfur dioxide monitoring sites operatingwithin Lake County, Indiana. These sites are located in Gary-IITRI (#18-089-0022) and Hammond-141' 1

### Street (#18-089-2008) and have been in operation since 1997 and 1975, respectively. A Quick Lookreport from U.S. EPA'sAQS database which lists the quality assured monitoring data for Lake County is enclosed as Appendix E. 6.1 Quality Assurance IDEMhas quality assured all data shown in the tables above and in Appendix E in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 and the Indiana Quality Assurance Manual and found the datato be valid. IDEM has recorded the datainthe AQS database and thus, the datais available to the public. 6.2 Continued Monitoring To comply with U.S. EPA guidance, Indiana commits to continue monitoring sulfur dioxide in these areas to ensure that sulfur dioxide concentrations remain well belowthe sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Should changes become necessary in the future, IDEM will consultwith U.S. EPA Region V staffpriorto making changes to the existing monitoring network. IDEM will continue to quality assure the monitoring data to meet the requirements of40 CFR 58. IDEM will continue to enter all data into the AQS database on a timely basis in accordance with federal guidelines. 

### 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Indiana will closely monitor sulfur dioxide concentrations to determine whethertrends indicate higher values or whether emissions appear to be increasing. Ifit is determined that sulfur dioxide levels and emissions are increasing and action is necessary to reverse thattrend, Indianawill take action, priorto a violation ofthe standard occurring. Contingency measures will be consideredbased onthose that are deemed appropriate and effective at the time ofselection. Because sulfur dioxide emissions are attributed primarily to point sources, the options available are limitedto appropriate measures for the types ofculpable sources. The steps IDEM will take to detmmine accountability will include: • Determine whether the exceedances should be classified as an exceptional event pursuant to the "Guideline onthe Identification and Use ofAir Quality Data Affected byExceptional Events." • Evaluate meteorological data and conductmodeling studies to determine which point source(s), ifany, is the cause ofthe problem.

12

### • Reviewthe operating records ofthe source identified inthe above stepsto identify equipmentmalfunctions orpe1mit orrule violations

. Althoughthe point sources listed inthe inventory will be theprimary focus, the study will also encompass any other potential sources ofsulfurdioxide. The selection ofmeasures will bebased upon cost-effectiveness, emissionreduction potential, andeconomic and social considerations or otherfactors thatIDEM deems appropriate. A selected contingency measure canbe initiated immediately inresponse to anaction level response and should be inplacewithineighteen (18) months. No contingency measure will be implemented withoutprovidingthe opportunity for full public participation during whichtherelative costs and benefits ofindividualmeasures, at the time they are under consideration, can be fully evaluated. Adoption ofany control measure is subjectto administrative and legal approval. This includes an opportunity for public hearing andpublication ofnotices on IDEM's website at www.in

.gov/idem/5474.htm, as well as othermeasures required by Indiana law(IC 13- 14-8-7) for rule makingby Indianaenvironmental rule boards. This lawprovides acceleratedprocedures for adopting interimcontrol measures inthe eventofan emergency affecting publichealth. The sulfur dioxide sourcespotentially subject to future controls arebasically the same as the cunentlistofsources, found in Table4.1 in Section 4.0. Sources subjectto additional controls will be those whichthe study shows areresponsible for triggeringthe contingencymeasures and the control ofwhichwill mosteffectively helpto ensure compliancewith the standards

. In additionto reviewingthe known sources, the possibility thattheproblem is attributable to neworpreviously unknown sources willbe considered. 

### 8.0 COMMITMENTTO REVISE PLAN This submittal satisfiesIndiana's commitmentto revisitthe original maintenanceplan. Therefore, no further action is necessary since Lake County, Indianahas maintained its attainment status in the eight years since itwas reclassified to attainment. 

### 9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Indianapublished a solicitation for public comment, as well as a legal notice ofpublic hearing notification, concerningthe draftMaintenancePlan Update on IDEM's website at www.in.gov/idern/5474.htm onFebruary 8, 2013. A publichearing was scheduled for February 27, 2013, as perthe legal notice. Because no requests werereceived, the meeting was cancelled. No comments were received

13

### during the public commentperiod, which closed on March II, 2013. A copy ofthe publicnotice and a certification ofpublication are included in Appendix F. 

### 10.0 CONCLUSION Monitored air quality in Lake County, Indianahas remained well belowthe 1971 primary and secondary sulfur dioxide NAAQS as a result ofnational and local control strategies thathave been implemented. The current design values in Lake Countyhave remained well belowthe standard since the county was redesignated and are expected to continue to maintain compliance withthe standard. This plan update demonstrates that Lake County will continue to attain the 1971 primary and secondary sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Indianahas verifiedthatthe emission controls adopted to maintainthe standard continue to be permanent and enforceable, thatthere are no new significant sources ofsulfur dioxide orincreases in background emissions, and that the state has a comprehensiveprogram in place to identify sources ofviolations and address any violation through enforcement and implementation ofa contingencyplan. This plan update also demonstratesthat reductions since redesignationhave had a positive effect on sulfur dioxide levels, and existing local and national control measures will ensurethat air quality inLake Countywill continue to improve andprovide for an ample margin ofsafety. This plan satisfies Indiana's obligation under Section 175(A)(b) ofthe CAAto submit a plan for maintaining the sulfur dioxide NAAQS for the next ten years beyondthe current maintenance plan.

14

### Appendix A: August 12, 2005, Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Sulfur Dioxide Attainment in Lake County

# REQUEST FORREDESIGNATION AND MAINTENANCE PLANFOR SULFURDIOXIDE ATTAINMENT IN LAKE COUNTY

Lake County, Indiana
Developed By: The IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management
August 12, 2005

### This page left intentionally blank

ii

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background...................................................................................... I 1.2 Geographical Boundaries................................................................. 2 1.3 Status ofAir Quality........................................................................ 2 2.0 REQUIREMENTS FORREDESIGNATION 2.1 

### General............................................................................................ 2 

### 2.2 Sulfur DioxideMonitoring.............................................................. 3 2.3 

### Emission Inventory.......................................................................... 3 

### 2.4 Modeling Demonstration................................................................. 3 2.5 Controls and Regulations................................................................. 4 2.6 Corrective Actions for Potential Future Violations ofthe Standards. 4 

### 3.0 SULFUR DIOXIDE MONITORING 3.I Monitoring Network........................................................................ 4 3.2 

### AmbientData................................................................................... 6 3.3 QualityAssurance............................................................................ 7 3.4 Continued Monitoring...................................................................... 7 4.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY 4.1 Base Year Inventory........................................................................ 7 4.2 Emissions Projections...................................................................... 8 4.3 Demonstration ofMaintenance........................................................ 8 4.4 Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions......................... 8 4.5 Provisions for Future Updates......................................................... 9 5.0 MODELING 5.1 Modeling Analysis.......................................................................... 9 6.0 CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS 6.1 Lake County S02 Rule................................................................. II 6.2 Implementation ofPast SIP Revisions.......................................... II 6.3 New Source Review Provisions.................................................... II 6.4 Controls to Remain in Effect........................................................ II 7.0 

### CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 7.I Commitmentto Revise Plan......................................................... 12 7.2 Commitment for ContingencyMeasures....................................... 12 7.3 Contingency Measures.................................................................. 13 7.4 List ofSources................................................................................ 14 8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................... 14

iii

### 9.0 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 14

Figure 3.1 Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1.1 Table 5.1.2 Table 5.1.3
Graph 4.1 

### LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS Lake County NonattainmentArea and S02 Monitors

.......... Monitoring Sites with Highest Annual Reading

................. Lake County S02Emissions

.......................................... Projected Growth Summary

................................................ Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02 Attainment Demonstration 3-Hour and 24-HourResults with Desulfurized Limits Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02 Attainment Demonstration 3-Hour and 24-HourResults with Undesulfurized Limits Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02Attainment Demonstration Annual Results Lake Co. S02Emissions

............................................


### APPENDICES
A Quick Look Repoti from AQS Database B Lake County S02 Emissions, Plant-wide Totals>10 tons peryear Detailed List ofLake County S02 Emissions Data C Projected S02Emissions for 2015 D ModelingAnalysis E ProofofPublication and Transcript ofHearing Publishers Affidavits Transcript

iv 

### 6 5 

### 7 8 

### 9 10 10



### 7

### REQUEST FORREDESIGNATION AND MAINTENANCEPLAN FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE ATTAINMENT IN LAKE COUNTY

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

### This document is intended to supp01t Indiana's request that Lake County be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment ofthe sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (S02 NAAQS). The Lake County area has recorded three years ofcomplete, quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2002-2004 demonstrating attainment with the so2 standards. Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, establishes specific requirements to be met in orderfor an area to be considered for redesignation, including: (a) A determination that the areahas attained the S02 standards; (b) An approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the area under Section IIO(k); (c) A determination that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe SIP and otherfederal requirements. (d) A fully approved maintenance plan under Section 175A; (e) A determination that all Section II0 and PartD requirements have been met. This document addresses each ofthese requirements. Italso provides additional information to support continued compliance with the S02standards. 1.1 Background Based on monitored violations, a portion ofLake County in Indiana was designated as primary nonattainment with the S02NAAQS on March 3, 1978. In compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Indiana Depattment ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) developed and implemented rules designed to control emissions ofS02 in Lake County. The national primary ambient airquality standards for sulfur oxides measured as sulfur dioxide by the reference methods described in Appendix A of40 CFRPart 50 are: (I) 80 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) (0.03 ppm) annual arithmetic mean. (2) 365 ug/m3 (0.14 ppm) maximum 24 hour concentration notto be exceeded more than once per yearper site. The secondary ambient standard for sulfur dioxide is 1300 ug/m3 (0.5 ppm) maximum 3 hour concentration notto be exceeded more than once peryearper site. On January 19, 1989, the U.S. EPA approved Indiana's S02rules for Lake County as meeting all the requirements ofSection 110 and Part D ofthe CAA, 54 FR 2112. Inthe early 1990's,

### Indiana conducted several rulemakings that have amended the Lake County S02rules in 326 lAC 7. On February 8, 1994, U.S. EPAproposed disapproval ofcetiain changes affecting Lake County in those rulemakings that were determined to be relaxations ofthe SIP (59 FR 5742). On August 29, 2000, other source-specific changes submitted by Indiana were approved into the SIP. In orderto bring Lake County into attainment for the S02NAAQS, Indiana conducted extensive modeling and initiated a rulemaking to amend S02requirements for many sources in the nonattainment area. The completed rulemaking, which will be effective on June 24, 2005, reflects a reduction ofover 30,000 tons ofS02peryear ofallowable emissions from the emission limits in the 1989 State Implementation Plan. 1.2 Geographical Boundaries Following is a briefdescription ofthe area ofthe the county for which redesignation is requested. Lake County is in northwest Indiana. It

### is surrounded by the Indiana counties ofPorter, Jasper and Newton. The S02 nonattainment area ofLake County is bounded by Lake Michiganto the north. To the west it is bounded by the Indiana-Illinois State line. On the south it is bounded by U.S. 30 from the State line to the intersection ofI-65 then following 1-65 to the intersection of I94 then following I-94 to the Lake-Potter County line. On the east it is bounded by the LakePorter County line. (See Figure 3.1.) 1.3 Status ofAir Quality Airquality in Lake County has improved significantly in the pasttwo decades and S02 levels measured in the nonattainment area have been well below the air quality standard for more than ten years. This fact, accompanied by decreases in emission levels discussed in Section 4.0, justifies a redesignation to attainment for the subject area based on Section 107(d)(3)(D) ofthe CAA.

2.0 REQUIREMENTS FORREDESIGNATION 

### 2.1 General Section II0 and PartD ofthe CAA list the requirements that must be met before nonattainment areas can be considered for redesignation to attainment. In addition, U.S. EPA has published detailed guidance in a document entitled, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," issued September4, 1992, to Regional Air Directors. This document is hereafterreferred to as the "Redesignation Guidance". This Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan is based on the Redesignation Guidance, supplemented with additional guidance received from staffofthe Criteria Pollutant Section ofU.S. EPA Region V. The subsections belowrefer in greater detail to the requirements listed in Section 1.0 ofthis document. Each subsection describes how the applicable requirement has been met.

2

### 2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring (!) 

### A demonstration that the NAAQS for S02, as published in 40 CFR 50.4, have been attained. Monitoring data must show the annual standard is not exceeded in a calendaryear and the 24-hour standard not exceeded more than once per calendaryear. (2) Ambient monitoring data that has been quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.1 0, recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS) database, and available for public view. (3) A commitmentthat, once redesignated, the State will continue to operate an appropriate monitoring networkto verify the maintenance ofthe attainment status. 2.3 Emission Inventory (I) 

### A comprehensive emission inventory ofmajor sources ofsulfur dioxide completed for the base year (2003). (2) A projection ofthe emission inventory to a year at least 10 years following redesignation (2015). (3) A demonstration that the projected level ofemissions is sufficientto maintain the standard. (4) A demonstration that improvement in air quality between the year that violations occurred (pre-1979) and the year attainment was achieved (2004) is based on permanent and enforceable emission reductions and not on temporary adverse economic conditions or unusually favorable meteorology. (5) Provisions for future annual updates ofthe inventory to enable tracking ofthe emission levels including an annual emission statement from major sources. 2.4 Modeling Demonstmtion Supplemental dispersion modeling is required to comprehensively evaluate source impacts and to determine the areas ofexpected high concentration based upon current conditions. The plan must identify and describe the dispersion model or other air quality model used to project ambient concentrations. Modeling conducted to demonstrate attainment in the original federally approved PattD SIP may generally be grandfathered from new modeling requirements. Original modeling may be scaled to reflect any changes in emissions. However, new modeling may be required. The State will need to consider whether and to what extentthe siting ofnew sources or modifications will affect points ofmaximum concentration such that air quality may

3

### no longer be accurately represented by existing modeling. The State must also consider changes in U.S. EPA's Air Quality Modeling Guideline and the amount oftime since the demonstration ofattainmentwas completed. Each plan must contain a summary ofthe air quality concentrations expected to result. 2.5 Controls and Regulations (I) 

### An U.S. EPA approved SIP control strategy that includes Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for existing stationary sources covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTG) and non-CTG RACT. (2) Evidence that control measures required in past SIP revisions have been fully implemented. (3) Acceptable provisions to provide for New Source Review. (4) Assurances that existing controls will remain in effect after redesignation, unless the State demonstrates through modeling that the standard can be maintained without one or more controls. (5) Ifappropriate, a commitmentto adopt a requirement that all transportation plans conform with, and are consistent with, the SIP. 2.6 Corrective Actions for Potential Future Violations ofthe Standards (I) 

### A commitment to submit a revised plan eight years after redesignation. (2) A commitmentto enact and implementexpeditiously additional contingency control measures in response to exceeding specified predetermined levels (triggers) or in the eventthat future violations ofthe ambient standards occur. (3) A list ofpotential contingency measures that would be implemented in such an event. (4) A list ofsulfur dioxide sources potentially subject to future controls.



### 3.0 SULFURDIOXIDE MONITORING 

### 3.1 Monitoring Network There are currently two monitors measuring sulfur dioxide concentrations in Lake County. These monitors are operated by the IDEM Office ofAir Quality. A listing ofthe sites in use since 1996 with the highest reading at each from 1996through 2004 is shown in Table 3.1. The monitor locations are shown in Figure 3.1.

4

### Table 3.1 Summary ofMonitoring Results Since 1996
ISTMAX ISTMAX ANNUAL NO. OF SITE ID CITY ADDRESS YEAR 24-HR 3-HR MEAN EXCEED 18-089-0022 Gary 20I MISSISSIP 1997 0.047 0.133 0.0053 0 18-089-0022 Gmy 20I MISSISSIP 1998 0.025 0.079 0.0054 0 18-089-0022 Gary 20I MISSISSIP 1999 0.039 0.094 0.0058 0 18-089-0022 Gary 20I MISSISSIP 2000 0.049 0.068 0.0058 0 18-089-0022 Gmy 20I MISSISSIP 2001 0.033 0.083 0.0049 0 I8-089-0022 Garv 201 MISSISSIP 2002 0.037 0.094 0.006 0 18-089-0022 Gary 20I MISSISSIP 2003 0.034 0.079 0.0044 0 18-089-0022 Gary 201 MISSISSIP 2004 0.051 0.084 0.0049 0 18-089-1016 Gary Federal Bldg 1996 0.041 0.112 0.0028 0 18-089-1016 Gaty Federal Bldg 1997 0.03 0.163 0.0025 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 1996 0.036 0.11 0.0073 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 1997 0.032 0.085 0.0076 0**··~·-** 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 1998 0.075 0.171 0.0087 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 1999 0.04 0.081 0.0068 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300141 STS 2000 0.029 0.106 0.0059 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 2001 0.031 0.082 0.0059 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 2002 O.Ql5 0.054 0.004 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 2003 0.019 0.085 0.0035 0 18-089-2008 Hammond 1300 141 ST S 2004 0.022 0.037 0.004 0



### Figure3.1 Lake County Nonattainment Area and 802 Monitors

5(f) <( 

### i5 z z ;"; :J 0 :! 

### z



### 3.2 AmbientData !I Lak

0 1.5 

### Lake County S02 Monitors

6 Miles u
... ,. ••,.,.,",.,...",.

Legend -Major Roads 

### D Lake Michigan**[~]Counties** 502 Monitor • Operating

_.. Out ofOperation



### A Quick Look repmi from the AQS database is provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3.1 and Appendix A, there have been no exceedances ofthe annual (0.03 ppm), 24 hour (0.14 ppm), or 3 hour (0.5 ppm) standards in Lake County since before 1980. Therefore, the monitoring data demonstrates that the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide have been attained in Lake County. 3.3 Quality Assurance

6

### All the data shown in Appendix A have been quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, as well as the Indiana Quality Assurance Manual and found to be valid. The datahave been recorded in the AQS database and through it, made available to the public. 3.4 Continued Monitoring Indiana commits to continue monitoring sulfur dioxide levels atthe currentNational Air Monitoring Sites (NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring Sites (SLAMS) indicated in Section 3.1. IDEM will consultwith U.S. EPA Region V staffpriorto making any changes to the existingmonitoring network should changes be necessary in the future. IDEM will continue to quality assure the monitoring data to meetthe requirements of40 CFR 58. Connection to a central station and updates to the IDEM website (www.in.gov/idem) will provide real time availability ofthe data and knowledge ofany exceedances. IDEM will enter all data into AQS on a timely basis in accordance with federal guidelines.



### 4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY 4.1 Base Yearlnventory
A summary ofthe S02 

### emission data for Lake County is shown in Table 4.1 and Graph 4.1. 

### Table 4.1 Lake 

### County S02 

### Emissions (tons per ear) 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 50,736 46,629 45,171 47,693 46,329 35,940 33,086



### Graph 4.1

7(/) c:::: 

# g (/)- c::::
... 

### o ns

·- Q) (/) >. (/) 

# ... 

# ·e Q) 

### c.. w N 0 C/) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

## Lake 

## Co. 502 Emissions

1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year



### A more detailed list ofLake County S02emissions is in Appendix 

### B.
4.2 Emission Projections Table4.2 

### 802 

### Emissions for LakeCountyProjected to 2015 (tons pea· year) 2002 2015 35,957 43,568

Details ofS02 emissions for Lake County are in Appendix C. 4.3 Demonstration ofMaintenance Ambient airquality data from all monitoring sites indicate that the S02NAAQS are being met through 2004. Total emissions ofS02from all sources are projected to increase between 2004 and 2015 due to economic growth in the area. Although emissions in 2015 are projected to be higher than 2002 and 2003, emissions in 2001 and prioryears were higherthan the projections for 2015. Duringthis time, monitoring data was never higher than 29%ofthe annual standard, and in only one instance, 54%atthe Hammond site in 1998, did the maximum 24-hour value exceed 36% ofthat standard. The 3-hourmaximum values have been one-third ofthat secondary standard or less. Therefore, attainment is expected to be maintained through the maintenance horizon year of2015.
In addition, the modeling results demonstrating attainmentassume a potential to emit of 120,800 tons peryear ofS02. Therefore, the projected growth in actual emissions to 43,568 tons S02in 2015 will not cause a violation ofthe S02NAAQS. 4.4 Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions

8

### One ofthe requirements for approval ofthe redesignation SIP is a demonstration that improvement in air quality between the year that violations occurred (pre-1979) and the year that attainment was achieved (2003) was the result ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions and not because oftemporary adverse economic conditions or unusually favorable meterorology. Permanent and enforceable reductions ofS02 

### emissions in Lake County contributed to the attainment ofthe S02 

### standards. Some ofthe reductions are attributable to the closure of stationary sources oremissions units. In addition, substantial reductions were made atU.S. Steel-Gary Works in accordance with a 1996 Agreed Order with IDEM, and Cargill, !spat Inland, and Carmeuse Lime have reduced emission limits for certain units to help achieve reductions of

# so2 emissions. 4.5 Provisions for Future Updates As required by Section 175A(b) ofthe CAA, Indiana commits to submitto the Administrator, eight years after redesignation, an additional revision ofthis SIP. The new revision will contain Indiana's plan for maintaining the national primary sulfur dioxide air quality standard for 10 years beyond the first I0-yearperiod after redesignation (2015-2025).

5.0 MODELING 5

### .I Modeling Analysis The attainment demonstration modeling reflects the currentregulatory air quality model, emissions inventory, and building dimensions. Six years ofmeteorological data were used for this attainment demonstration. The year 1987 and the five years of 1991 to 1995 were selected to model. The year 1987 was included because this was the worst case year modeled from the original Lake County S02 

### SIP. The results ofthe air quality modeling show attainment ofthe 3- hour, 24-hour and annual S02 

### NAAQS. IDEM believes this attainment demonstration accurately represents the current S02 

### air quality in Lake County necessary to supportredesignation ofthe affected pmiion ofLake County to attainment. The results ofthe airquality modeling are as follows.

Table 5.1.1

9

### Year

1987 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

### Modeling Results for Lake County S02 

### AttainmentDemonstration 3-Hourand 24-HourResults with Desulfurized* Limits 3-Hour Concentration 24-Hour Concentration Modeled Background Total Modeled Background

(ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3)



### 816.9 7.9 824.8 303.8 11.0 I077.3 9.6 1086.9 331.3 12.7 1125.3 7.9 1133.2 338.8 10.7 1140.0 7.0 1147.0 341.9 11.7 1124.6 7.9 1132.5 338.0 10.2 844.9 7.9 852.8 303.5 11.8 314.8 344.0 349.5 353.6 348.2 315.3
*Desulfurized limits means when the coke oven gas desulfurization emissions unit atU.S. Steel-Gary Works is operating. 

### Table 5.1.2 Modeling Results for Lake County S02 

### AttainmentDemonstration

1987 843.0 10.5 853.5 317.9 11.0 328.9 1991 900.7 7.9 908.6 352.1 11.1 363.2 1992 933.4 14.0 947.4 343.2 10.6 353.8 1993 961.1 7.9 969.0 351.5 12.7 364.2 1994 1005.1 7.9 1013.0 356.4 8.0 364.4 1995 1052.1 11.4 1063.5 346.7 11.8 358.5



### Table 5.1.3

10

### Modeling Results for Lake County S02AttainmentDemonstration Annual Results Year Annual Concentration Modeled Background Total

(ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3) 

### (ug/m3)



### 1987 64.3 11.4 75.7 1991 67.4 11.3 78.7 1992 67.1 11.1 78.2 1993 63.0 11.3 74.3 1994 65.0 11.2 76.2 1995 65.5 11.3 76.8
A detailed modeling analysis was submitted to U.S. EPA Region V with the request for parallel processing ofthe Lake Co. S02rules on April 8, 2005. Further information onthe modeling analysis is in Appendix D. Based on the above, Indianahereby requests thatthe submitted modeling be used to satisfy the modeling requirement ofthe CAA.

6.0 CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS This section provides specific information on the control measures implemented in Lake County, including CAArequirements and additional state or local measures implemented beyond CAA requirements. 6.1 Lake County S02Rule Indianahas promulgated revised rules for Lake County S02 

### emissions that reflectthe reduction ofS02 

### in the area. The limits relating to Lake County are found in 326 lAC 7-4.1. These rules were submitted to U.S. EPA on April 8, 2005, as a parallel processing request for approval into the Indiana State Implementation Plan. The state rules will become effective on June 24, 2005. 6.2 Implementation ofPast SIP Revisions Sulfur dioxide emissions in Lake County have been regulated by 326 lAC 7-4-1.1, which contained limits for specific sources. The Lake County section ofthe Indiana S02 

### rule was in effectfrom 1991 to 2005 and was revised several times. That rule has been replaced by the new

II

### rule, 326 lAC 7-4.1, that will be effective on June 24, 2005, and contains revised emission limits for specific sources ofS02 

### in Lake County. The completed rulemaking reflects a reduction of over 30,000 tons ofS02 

### per year ofallowable emissions from the emission limits in the 1989 State Implementation Plan. In Lake County, compliance is monitored by inspectors from the Hammond Air Pollution Control Department, the Gary Division ofAir Pollution Control, and IDEM'sNmthwest Regional Office. 6.3 New Source Review Provisions Indiana has a longstanding and fully implemented New Source Review (NSR) program. This program is addressed in rule 326 lAC 2. The rule includes provisions for the Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD) in 326 lAC 2-2. Indiana'sPSD program has been approved by U.S. EPA as part ofits SIP. (Final program approval- May 20, 2004, 69 FR29071) Any facility that is not listed in the 2003 emissions inventory, or for the closing ofwhich credit was taken in demonstrating attainment, will not be allowed to construct, reopen, modify or reconstruct without meeting applicable permit rule requirements. The review process will be identical to that used for new sources. Once the area is redesignated, IDEM will implement NSR through the PSD program whichrequires an air quality analysis to ensure that the new source will notthreaten to exceed the NAAQS. 6.4 Controls to Remain in Effect Indiana commits to maintain the control measures listed above after redesignation. Fwther, Indiana commits that any changes to its rules, or emission limits applicable to S02 

### sources, as required for maintenance ofthe S02 

### standards in Lake County, will be submitted to U.S. EPA for approval as a SIP revision. This will include, where appropriate, a demonstration based on modeling that the standard will be maintained. Indiana does intend, upon redesignation, to apply 326 lAC 2-2 (Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Requirements) rather than 326 lAC 2-3 (Emission Offset) for permitting any new sources or modifications. Indiana, through IDEM's Office ofCompliance and Enforcement, has the legal authority and necessary resources to actively enforce any violations ofits rules or permitprovisions. After redesignation, Indiana intends to continue enforcing all rules thatrelate to the emission ofsulfur dioxide inLake County.

7.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

### 7.1 Commitmentto Revise Plan As noted in Section 4.5 above, Indianahereby commits to review its Maintenance Plan eight (8) years after redesignation, as required by Section 175A ofthe CAA.

12

### 7.2 Commitmentfor ContingencyMeasures Indianahereby commits to adopt and implementexpeditiously necessary corrective actions in the following circumstances: Warning Level Response: A Warning Level Response will be prompted whenever a monitored annual value or second-high 24-hour value exceed 90 percent oftheir standards withinthe maintenance area. A Warning Level Response will consist ofa study to determine whetherthere is a trend toward higher S02 

### values orwhether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whetherthe trend, ifany, is likely to continue and, ifso, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend taking into consideration ease and timing for implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Completion ofthe study in response to a Warning Level Response trigger will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than twelve (12) months from the time that IDEM is aware that the violation occurred. Should it be determined through the Warning Level study that action is necessary to reverse the noted trend, the procedures for control selection and implementation outlined under "Action Level Response" shall be followed. Action Level Response An Action Level Response will be prompted whenever a violation ofthe sulfur dioxide standard occurs within the maintenance area. In the eventthatthe Action Level is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule requirement, IDEM will determine additional control measures needed to assure future attainment ofNAAQS for S02• 

### In this case, measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place within eighteen (18) months from the time that IDEM is aware that the violation occurred. Control Measure Selection and Implementation Adoption ofany additional control measures is subjectto the necessary administrative and legal process. This process will include publication ofnotices, an opportunity for public hearing, and othermeasures required by Indiana law for rulemaking by state environmental boards. Ifa new measure/control is already promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the federal or state level, and that measure/control is determined to be sufficientto address the upward trend in air quality, additional local measures may be unnecessary. Furthermore, Indiana will submitto U.S. EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed measures are adequate to return the areato attainment.

7.3 Contingency Measures

13

### Contingency measures to be considered will be selected which are deemed appropriate and effective atthe time the selection is made. Because sulfur dioxide emissions are attributed primarily to point sources, the options available are limited to appropriate measures for the types ofculpable sources. The steps IDEM will take to determine culpability will include: • determination ofwhether the exceedance should be classified as an exceptional event pursuant to "Guideline on the Identification and Use ofAir Quality DataAffected by Exceptional Events." • Evaluation ofmeteorological data and conduct modeling studies to determine which point source(s), ifany, is the cause ofthe problem. • review ofoperating records ofsource identified in the above steps to identify equipment malfunctions orpermit or rule violations. Although the point sources listed in the inventory will be the primary focus, the study will not be limited to these sources but will encompass any other potential sources ofS02 • 

### The selection ofmeasures will be based upon cost-effectiveness, emissionreduction potential, economic and social considerations orotherfactors that IDEM deems appropriate. IDEM will solicit input from all interested and affected persons in the maintenance area priorto selecting appropriate contingency measures. A selected contingency measure can be initiated immediately in response to an action level response and should be in place within eighteen (18) months. No contingency measure shall be implemented without providingthe oppmtunity for full publicparticipation during which the relative costs and benefits ofindividual measures, at the time they are under consideration, can be fully evaluated. 7.4 List ofSources The sulfur dioxide sources potentially subject to future controls is the current list ofmajor sources which is found in Appendix B. As noted in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 above, sources subject to additional controls will be those which the study shows are responsible for triggering the contingency measures and the control ofwhich will most effectively help to ensure compliance withthe standards. In addition to reviewing the !mown sources, the possibility that the problem is attributable to new orpreviously unknown sources will be considered.



### 8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In accordance with Section IOO(a)(2) ofthe CAA, publicparticipation in the SIP is provided for as follows: Notice ofavailability ofthe S02 

### redesignation documents and the time and date ofthe public hearing has been published in the Indianapolis Star, the Gary Post-Tribune, and the Munster Times.

14

### ThePublic hearing will be held asfollows: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 6:00p.m

. in the Multi-Purpose Room ofthe Business, Science & 

### Administration Building at IvyTech StateCollege, 1440East35111 

### Avenue, Gary, Indiana 46409.

Copies oftheproofofpublication and the transcript ofthe hearing can be found in Appendix E.



### 9.0 CONCLUSION Lake County, Indiana has attained the federal ambient sulfur dioxide standards and complied withthe applicable provisions ofthe 1990 Amendmentsto the Clean AirAct regarding redesignations ofprimary sulfur dioxide nonattainment areas. Documentation to thateffectis contained herein. A StateImplementation and Maintenance Plan has been prepared that meets the requirement ofSection 11

### O(a)(l) ofthe 1990 Clean AirAct. Appendix C addresses all requirements ofthe Plan including some that maynotbe covered above. The State oflndiana hereby requests thatLake County be redesignated to sulfur dioxide attainment simultaneously with the U.S. EPA approval ofthe Indiana State Implementation Plan provisions contained herein.

15

### Appendix B: Federal RegisterNotice,Approval ofRedesignation Request, September26, 2005, Effective October26, 2005 [Federal Register Volume 70 , Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 56129-56132] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Of f i ce [www . gpo . gov] [FR Doc No: 05 -1 9065]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [ROS-OAR-2005-IN

- 0004; FRL-7972-6]
Approval and Promulgat ion of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Regulations, Redesignation and Maint enance Plan AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION : Final rule .

SUMMARY : EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for t he control of sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions i n Lake County, Indiana. The SIP revision submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) amends 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Artic l e 7

. Indiana ' s revised S02 rule con sists of changes to 326 IAC 7-4 which sets forth facil ity

- specific S02 emission limitations and recordkeeping requirements for La ke County

. The rule revisi on also reflects updat es to company names, updates to emi ssion l imits currently in permi ts , deletion of facilities that are already covered by natural gas limits , and other corrections and updates. Due to changes in section numbers, references to cit ations in other parts of the rul e have al so been updated. EPA is also approving a request t o redesignate the Lake County nonattainment area to attainment of the S02 N ati onal Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with t hese actions, EPA is also approving the maintenance plan for the Lake County nonattainment area to ensure that attainment of the NAAQS w i ll be maintained

. The SI P revision, redesignation request and maintenance plan are approvable because t hey satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act)

. DATES: This final rule is effective on October 26, 2005

. ADDRESSES : EPA has establ ished a docket for this action under Regional Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID No

. ROS-OAR-2005-IN-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the RME index at http : //docket

. epa . gov/rmepub/ , once in the system, select ''quick search,'' then key in the appropr iate RME Docket identification number. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i .e., Conf identi al Business Information (CBI ) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. [[Page 56130]] Certain other material , such as copyrighted material, i s not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket material s are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard , Chicago, Illinois 60604. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos , Envir onmental Engineer, at (31 2) 353

- 8328 before vi siting the Region 5 office. This Facility is open from 8:30a. m. to 4:30p .m., Monday t hrough Friday, excluding legal holidays

. FOR FURTHER I NFORMATION CONTACT : Christos Panos, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency, Region 5 , 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 , (312) 353

- 8328

. panos . c hristos@epa

. gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout t his document whenever ''we ,'' ''us ,'' or ''our '' is used, we m ean EPA. This suppl emental information secti on is arranged as follows : I

. What Is the Background for This Action? II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed A c tion ? I I I

. What A ction I s EPA Taking Today? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for This Action? On July 29 , 2005 (70 FR 43820) EPA proposed to approve into the Indiana SIP S02 emission limitations applicable in Lake Count y, Indiana

. Speci f i cally, EPA proposed to approve amendments to rules 326 IAC 7 -1.1 -1, 326 IAC 7

- 1

. 1

- 2 , 326 IAC 7

- 2-1, and newly creat e d 326 IAC 7

- 4

. 1. The revised rules were adopted by the I ndiana Air Pollution Control Board on M ar ch 2 , 2005 , and were s ubmit ted by I D EM to EPA on April 8 , 2005. IDEM submitted a s upplement to its submissi on on July 6, 2005 , indicating that the revised rules became effective J une 24, 2005 , and were published in the Indi ana Register on J uly 1, 2005. EPA proposed to approve the S02 r e designation request submitted by the State of Indiana on J une 21, 2005 to redesignate the Lake County S02 nonattainment area to attainment of the S02 NAAQS. IDEM submitted a supplem ent to its submissi on on August 11, 2005 , indicating that the State ' s public comment period concluded on July 29 , 2005 , and that no comments were received

. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the maintenance plan submitted for thi s area. EPA proposed t his action because the State ' s submittal for the Lake County S02 nonattainment area met the requirements of t he Act

. The revised rules amend S02 requirements for m any sources in the nonattainment area, and r e flect a reduction of over 30,000 tons of S02 per year of allowabl e em issions comparedto the emission limits in the previously approved 1989 SIP. The SIP revision provides for attainment and maintenance of the S02 NAAQS and satisfies the requirements of part D of the Act applicable to S02 nonattainment areas. Further, EPA proposed to approve the maintenance plan and redesignation of the Lake County S02 nonattainrnent area to attainment because the State has met the redesignation and maintenance plan requirements of the Act. A more detailed explanation of how the State's submittal meets these requirements is contained in our July 29, 2005 proposal. II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the proposal published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43820). We received no comments on our proposed rulemaking. III. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is approving the SIP revision for the control of S02 emissions in Lake County, Indiana, as requested by the State on April 8, 2005, and supplemented on July 6 1 2005. The revision consists of the amended rule at 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Article 7. In this rule, the requirements in the Table in 326 IAC 7-4-1.1 have been divided into separate sections for each facility for clarity and ease of future rule actions. The new rule, 326 IAC 7-4.1, replaces 326 IAC 7-4-1.1, which will be repealed. Because the State has complied with the requirements of section 107(d) (3) (E) of the Act, EPA is also approving the redesignation of the Lake County nonattainment area to attainment of the S02 NAAQS, as requested by the State on June 21 1 2005. In conjunction with these actions 1 EPA is also approving Indiana's maintenance plan for the Lake County S02 nonattainrnent area as a SIP revision because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the Act. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ''significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply 1 Distribution, or Use Because it is not a ''significant regulatory action' 1 under Executive Order 12866 or a ''significant energy action, 11 this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ''Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly 1 the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. [[Page 56131]] Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ''Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction ActThis rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a**~'major** rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 (2). Under Section 307(b) (1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 25, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b) (2) .) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: September 13, 2005. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 0 For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52--[AMENDED]
0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart P--Indiana0 2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (172) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan. 

### * * 

### * * * (c) 

### * 

### * * (172) On April 8, 2005, and as supplemented on July 6, 2005, Indiana submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP} revision for the control of sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions in Lake County, Indiana. The SIP revision submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) amends 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Article 7. Indiana's revised S02 rule consists of changes to 326 IAC 7-4 which sets forth facility-specific 802 emission limitations and recordkeeping requirements for Lake County. The rule revision also reflects updates to company names, updates to emission limits currently in perrnits 1 deletion of facilities that are already covered by natural gas limits, and other corrections and updates. Due to changes in section numbers, references to citations in other parts of the rule have also been updated. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Amendments to Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 7 SULFUR DIOXIDE RULES, Rule 1.1 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations, sections 326 IAC 7-1.1-1, ''Applicability'', 326 IAC 7-1.1-2 ''Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations'', and 326 IAC 7-2-1 ''Reporting Requirements: Methods to Determine Compliance''; newly created 326 IAC 7-4.1, ''Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations'', adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on March 2, 2005. Filed with the Secretary of State May 25, 2005, effective June 24, 2005.
0 3. Section 52.795 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.795 Control strategy: sulfur dioxide. 

### * * * * 

### * (h) Approval--On June 21, 2005, and as supplemented on August 11, 2005, the State of Indiana submitted a· request to redesignate the Lake County sulfur dioxide (S02) nonattainment area to attainment of the NAAQS. In its submittal, the State also requested that EPA approve the maintenance plan for the area into the Indiana S02 SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 0 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
02. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Lake County in the table entitled ''Indiana--302'' to read as follows:

Sec. 81.315 Indiana. 

### * * * * 

### * [[Page 56132]]

meet Cannot be classified Better than Designated area

national standards

Lake County

................................... . • . . . . • • • • • • . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . X



### * * * * 

### * [FR Doc. 05-19065 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P Indiana--S02

Does not meet Does not primary secondary standards standards



### * * * * 

### * * * 

### *

* * * 

### * * * * *

### Appendix C: Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment

.I

# ~PROGJSB~m UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

### AGE~Ci.\lrr.n~a Ofttce of Atr Oualtty Plannmg and Sta11,dards 

### U., •• • 

# n Research

### Trian~l;**;;· ;o~~**  Carohna 27711

### $~~ 

### 1992 

# u

' lll'M\IICIJOII' IV MEMOBANQQM ATLANTGA.

·SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:

Purpose Procedures for Areas to Attainment John Calca9ni,**Directok;~::!=;:::­** Air Qual.ity ManagemE!:nt Director, Air, Pestle' es and Toxics nt Division, Regions I and IV

. Director, Air and Waste Management Division,

Reqion II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,

Reqi0n III · Director, Air and Radiation Division,

Region V

.

. Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI .Director, Air and Taxies Division, Regions VII, VIII,. IX, and X

The Office of Air Quality Plannln9 and Standards (OAQPS) expects that a number of redesignation requests will be s\lbmit ed in the near future. Thus, Regions will need to have guidance on the applio.able proCedures for handlinq these requests, including maintenance plan provisions. This memorandum,· there!,'ore, 

# !· consolidates the Environmental Protection Agency.'s (EPA!s) guidance regarding the processing of requests for redesiqnation of nonattainmertt'.areas to attainment ·ror ozone (03), carbon 

### I monoxide (co), particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (So2), nitrogen dioxide (NO ), and lead (Pb). Regions should lite 'this guidance as a generaf framework for drafting Federal Register 

### I notices pertaining to redesiqnation requests. Special concern$ for areas seeking redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment will be addressed on a**o~se-by-case_basis.** Background section 107(d) (3)(£) of the clean Air-· Act·, as amended, states that an area Can be redesignated to attainment if the following conditions are met:2 1. The EPA has determihed that the national ambient air quality ·standards •(NA:AQs) have been attained. 2.' -The applicable implementation plan has been fully appro_ved by EPA under section llO(k). 3. The EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due**·~to** permanent and enforceable reductions in ·, emissions.



# .. ' 4. · The State has met· all appliCable requirements for the area**unde~** section.**~10** and Part 

### o.· 5. ·Ttie EPA. has· fully approved a maintenance.:plan, including a**contin~ency ·p~an,**  for the**a~e·a** under section 175A.**E~ch** of these criteria is**di~cUssed** in more detail in**t~e** following paragraphs. Particular attention is given to maintenance plan provisions at the end of this document since maintenance P.lans constitute a new requirement under the ·amended Clean Air Act. _Exceptions .to the quidance wil.l' be considered on a case-by-case basis. 1. Attainment of the standard The State must show that the area is attaining the applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making this demonstration which should be considered interdependently. The first component relies upon ambient air quality**data~** The data that are used to demonstrate attainment should be the product of ambient monitoring that·is repreSentative of the area of highest .concentration. -These monitors s_hould remain at the saJ!le.lccation for the duration of.the monitoring··per:iod requi:t;ed for demonstrating attainment. The data should·be collected and quality-aSsured. in accordance with 40 CFR 58 and recorded in the ·Aerometrio Information·Retrieval system (AIRS) in order for it to be availabl• to the public for review. For purposes Of re4esi9natiQn,

.the Re.qional Office.should verify that the integrity of the**ai~** quality monitoring network has been

.pres,rved•. · ·**Fqr.P~-10,** an area may be considered attaininq the 

### NAAQs if the.number,of expected**e~ceedances** per year, according to 40 CF.R 50.6, is less than or equal to 1.0

... For 

### o 3, the are·a mUst show that the average..annual number of expected exoeedances, according .to 4Q CFR 50.9, is less thah or equal to 1.0 based on data from all m.onitoring sites in the area or its affected downwind· environs.**~n** making this showing, both PM-10 and o 3 must rely on. 3 COli!-Plete·,

...;consecutiye

..**'lca·lendar;~years.tof·t~qual:~ty.-assured**..,a-1·1'7-**.J~**.. •.

### 4·- quality m'?nitoring· ·data, coll.ected:in·accorda.noe with 40 CFR 50, Appendices H and K. For CO .an area may be .-considered attaining the

### ~AAQS if the"re are no violations, as

### ~etermined in accordance.) with 40 CFR 50.8, based on 2 complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured monitoring data. For so2, accordinq to 40**-~FR** 50.4t· an.area must show no more than. one exceedanoe annually and for Pb, qccording to section so;l.2, an area l!lBY show ·no 

# I exoeedances on a quarterly basis. The second component relies Upon supplemental EPA-approved air quality mqdelinq. No such**supplem~ntal** modeling is 

### requir+d for.o3 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation. Modeling may be necessary to detemine the**representativene~s of·.t~e-·.monitoted**  data.**For-po~lutants** such as so2 and 

### co 1 a small.number of 

## I monitors typically is not representative of areawl.de a.ir qualijy or areas of highest concentration. wQen dealing with so2, Pb, PM-10 (except for a limited number of initial moderate · , nonattainment areas), and co·(except moderate areas with design**va~ues** of 12.7 parts per million or lower at ·the time of**passa~e** of the Clean Air Act Amendm·ents of 1990), dispersion modelin\l 1 will**9~nerally** be necessary to evaluate**comprehensive~y** sources' impacts a11d to· detemine the areas of expected hiqh

. · 

# I concentrations based upon current conditions. Areas which were desi9nated nonattainment· based on modeling will qenerally not**~e** redesignated to attainment unless an acceptable modeling analySis indicates attainment. Regions should consult with OAQPS for·. further guidance addressinq the need for modeling in specific circumstances. .' · · 2. .state Implementation Plan CSIPl Approyal 

### Thf SIP for the area must be fully approved under section llO(k), and must satisfy all.requirements that apply·to the area. It should be noted that approval action on SIP elements and the redesignation request may occur.**simultaneously~** 

### An area cannot be redesig"nated if a required element of·its plan is thd· subject of a·disapprcval; a findinq of failure to submit or to

## I implement the SIP; or ·partial; conditional, or .limited approvaj, However, this does not mean that earlier issues 

### with r8qard to the SIP will be reopened. Reqions should not reconsider those things that have already been approved and for which ·the Clean Air Act Amendments did not alter what is required. In contrast, to the extent the Amendments·add a requirement or alter an 

## I**existin~** requirement so that it adds something more, Regions should consider those issues. In addition, requests from areas known to be affected by dispersion techniques which are inconsistent with EPA guidance will continue to be considered unapprovable under section 110 and will not qualify for redesignation.

'1section llO(k) contains the requirements for EPA action on plan submissions: ·It addresses completeness, deadlines, full 

### and partial approval, conditional approval, ·and disapproval.4 3.

. Permanent and· Enfprceable Improyement in Air Ouali_tV

. The St'ate must be able·

## to" reisonably attribute·the ·**imprbvemen~** in air quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable. 2 Attainment resulting from temporary reductions iri emission rates (e.q., ·re:duced produCtion or shu-tdown due to temporary adverse -economic·conditions) or**unusu~lfy favo.~able**  meteoroloqy would not qualify as an aii**qua~ity** improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission

.**r.educt~pns ~**  · ·,**~** t •

. ·In**.m~king** this

.. showing; the 'State**sho~l<!** 'estiniate the

. pe_rcent t:eduction (from the year that was -used to determine the design value for designation and classification) achieved. from· Federal ·measures such as the Federal· Motor Vehicle control Program and fuel volatility**r~les** as well as control measures that have been adopted and**impl~mentecl** by the' State. This

. estimate should consider emission 

### rates, production capacities, and other related information to clearly show that' the air

. · quality improvements 

### are the result of implemented Controls. The analysis should assume that sources are operating ·at permitted · l_evels (or historic peak.levelS)· Uhless evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. · 4. Seqtion-110 and Part n Rgquiyements For the purposes·of·redesignation, &State must meet all**requi~ements** of**se~tion** 110 and Part D that were applicable prior to**sub~ittal** of the complete redesiqnation -reque"t. When · evaluating a redesiqnation request; Reqions should not consider
· whether the state has met requirements that come due**und~r ~he** 

Act after**sUbmitta~** of a complete redesignatlon request•. : 

# - 2-rhis is consistent· with EPA's existing policy on .. reclesignations as**~tatecl** 

## in an April 21, 1983·memorandum titlecl 11Section 107 Oesiqnation Policy summary• 11 This ·memorandum states that in order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the State must show that "actual enforceable emission reductions are responSible for the recent air quality improvement." This element of the poUcy retains its validity uncler the. amenclecl Act pursuant to section 193. [Note: other aspects of the April 21; 1983 memorandum have since been superseded by sUbsequent memorandums;.interested parties should consult with OAQPS before relying on·these aspects,. e.g. those relating to required years of air quality data.] 3under section 175A(o), _however, the requirements of Part o ·**remain~in** ..force: and

..ef-fect· .for.·-the .a-rea ..unt·il"·suchf;.t:i:me'· as·· it···is ·· redesignated. Upon redesiqnation to attainm'ent, the requirements th&t became clue under section 175A(c) after submittal of the · complete redesignation reque•t would no longer be applicable.5 HoWever, .any requirements 'that came due prior· to submittal of the redesiynation request must be fully approved into the plan at 

# or before the time EPA rec1.esicinates the area. ·

. To avoid confusion conce.rninq what requirements will be applicable for purposes of·redesiynation, Regions should encourage States to work closely with the appropriate Regiqnal Office early in' the process•.This will help to ensure that 8 redesignation request submitted by the State has 8 high , likelihoOd .of being approved by EPA. Regions**'sho~ld** advise states of the pr.aoti.cal planning qonsequences if EPA**d·~~approve s**  the redesiqnation request or if the request is invalidated

. because of violations recorded during EPA's review. · Under such

. circumStances, EPA does not have the discretion to adjust ·· schedules for implementinq SIP requirements. As a· result, an area may risk**sano~ions** and/or Federal implementation plan implementation that could result from failure to meet SIP**submi~tal** or implementation requirements. '

a. Segtion 1J o ijequirementp Section 110(a)(2l**co~tains** general requirements nonattainment plans. Most of the provisions of this the same as those contained in the pre-amended Aci· provide guidance on these requirements·as needed .• b. Part p Beqnirementc; for section We will are

Part 0 consists of general requirements' applicable to all areas which are designated**nonattai~ent** based on a violation of the NAAQS. The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant.**~he** general require;ents 

## I appear in subpart 1. The requirements relatinq to o3, co, PM-10, so2 ,**~0 ,**  8nd Pb appear in subparts 2 through 5. In those 

# i

instances where 

### an area is subject to bOth·the general ·nonattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as one of the pollutant-specific subparts, the general provisions may·be subsumed within, or superseded by, the more·speoific requiremen s of subparts 2 through 5.

. ··

· If an area was not·classified under ·section lBl.for

..o), or section 186 

### £or co, then that area is only subject to the · · provisions of subpart 1, 11Nonattainme'nt Areas in General. 11 In addition to relevant proVisions in subpart 1; an o3 and CO area, which is classified, must meet all applicable requirements in 

## r subpart 2, uAddit:ional Provisions for ozone Nonattainment Areas 11 and subpart 3, 11Ad.d.ltional**Provision~** for C&rbon**Moi:J.ox~t:te**

. 

## . . 

# . . 4General guidance reqardin9 the

### requirem~nts**fo~· ~IP.;s**  may be found in·the "General Preamble to Title I of the 1990 Clean ·•·.·· Air Act**Amendment~,"** ·57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).6 Nonattainment.Areas, 11 respectiVely, before the area may be
·**redE:~ignat~d** to} at-tainment. All PM-10 nonattainrnent areas

(whether**classifi~d a~**  moderate or serious) mu$t similarly meet the applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific**P~-10** provisiqns in**s.ubpar~** 4,**~•.Additional** Provisions for. PartiC:Ul.att; Matter**Nonattai~ent** Areas. 11**~ikewise,** so2, N02 , and Pb nonatta1nment areas are subject to the applicable**qener~I** nonattainment**provision~** in subpart 1 as well as the more specific requirements in subpart 5, "Additional Provisions for Areas Designated: Nonattainme,r1t for Sul,fur oxides,**'Ni.tt;Q{J~n** 1'. Dioxide, ahd Lead."

. . l i. : ·sect.ion 172(-c\ tw9uirem,ents' : ThiS seCtion**con~~ins g~neral"requirements.** **~or nonat~ain~ent**  plllns. A**~borough** d;iscuss1on of.these requirements may be· found in the General Preamble to Title I [57 FR 13498 (April 161 1992)]. The EPA. anticipates that areas will already. have IUet mo·st or all of these requirementS to the extent that theY are not superseded'by**m~re"spe~ific** Part D requirements. The requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of certain emissions increases, and other**measure~** needed for. attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only · have**mean~ng** for areas not attaininq the standard. The requirements for

..an**emissio~** inventory wlll be. satisfied by the inventory requirements of the maintenance plan. The requirements of the Part D new source review program will be replaced by theprevention of significant**deterior~tion** (PSD)**p~ogram** once the area has been redesignated. However, in order to ensure that the PS"o l'rograiU will become fully. (lffective i

... ediately upon redesignatlon, either the Stat.e must. be delegated. the Federal PSO program or the State must make any needed-modifications**~o** its rules t.o have**~e** approved PSD program apply to the affected area upon**x:edeslgn~ti~n**.... · 11_. :. ·contgrmity The State must work with EPA to**aho~'that** its SIP provisions are consis.tent with section 176(o)(4) conformity·. reQuirements. The redesignatlon request should include**c~nformi~y** procedures, if the**sta~a** already has these procedures in place. Additionally, we currently interpret the conformity · requirement to·apply.to attainment areas. However, EPA has not· yet issued its conformity regulations specifying what areas are 

### sub,ect to'the eorifprmity requirement. Therefore, if a state · doeS not have**c~nformity-proq~dures** in place at the time that it· submits a redesig!'lation. request,**th~** state·must ·commit t.o follow EPA'Q confOrmity regulation upon issuance, as applicable. If the state submits· ·thEr ·redesiqna·tion**·~requ.e·st~** sUbse'®,f!iit

... t.O' 'EPA'·s·' · 1$suance of**t~e** conformity regulations, and the**conformi~Y reqq~rement**  became appli9able to the area prior to submission, : ''7 th'e state JD.Ust adopt the applicable conformity**rec:Jui;-e,m~ntr;;** before EPA can redesignate the .are.a. 5. Maintenance Plans ' Sectlon 107(d)(J)(E) of 'the amended Act stipulates that for an area to be r.edesignated, EPA must**f~lly** approve a**ma~ntenanqe** plan which mee_t·s the requirements of section 1'75A. A. State .maY, submit both the redesiqnation request and the maintenance plan at 1;he same time**~nd** rulemakinq on bot·h .may ·proceed on a ·parallel· track. Maintenance plans may, of course, be submitted and

. · approved by EPA before a_redesignation is requested. However, acc_ording to section 175A(c) , pending_ approval of -the maintenaqce .plan and**redesigna~io~** request, all**~pplicable'nonattainment** area**re~uirements** shall remain ·in place. · . . j section 175A defines the general framework of &·maintenance plan. TQe maintenance plan will constitute a SIP revision arid

# I must provide for maintenance qf the relevant NAAQS·in the area· for at least 10 years after redesignation.**sectio~** 175A**fur~h~r** states that the-plan shall contain such additional measures, it any, as'may·be necessary to ensure such maintenance. Because the Act requires 

# a:**dem~mstration** of maintenance for 10 year& after

# ian area is redesignated (not 10 years after submittal of a redesi9nation request·) 1 the State should plan for·some lead tiute for EPA action on the request. I_n other words, the maintenanc'l demonstration should project maintenance for 10 years, beginning from a date which factors in the time n8cessary for EPA'reviewl and approval action on the**redesigna~ion** request. In**determin~ng** ·the amount of lead time to allow·, States should consider that 

# I section io?(d)(J)(D) grants the Administrator up to 18 months from receipt of a complete.submittal to procees a redesignatio1 request.**Th~** statute also requires ·the Sta-te to. submit a revision of the SIP e years ·after the original redesignation request is approved to provide for inalntenance·.of the MAAQS 

### to an additional 10 years followin9 the first**10~year** period [see section 175A(b)J, In addition, the maintenaric8 plan shall contain such contingency aeasures as_the.Administrator deems necessary to ensure prompt oorreOtiori of any. violation of the NAAQS (see section 175A(d)J. The Act provides that, at a minimum, the contingency measures must include a requlretuent that the State will implement all measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation. · Failure to maintain the NAAQS and · triggering of the contingency plan will not necessitate a revision· of the SIP unless required by the Administrator, as**state~** in section 175A(d). The follOwing is a list of core proviSions that we anticipate**wil~** be necessary. to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an·area seeking redesiqnation from8 nonattainment to attainment.. We**th~·refore** recommend that States seeking redesignati'on of a·flonattainment area consider these provisions. However, any ficial**~PA** determination regardirig the adequacy of.a**~aintenance·plan** will be made**fO~lowing** review of the plan sUbmittal in light of the particular 'circumstances !acing the area proposed for redesignation ana based on all**rel~vant inform~tion·av~ilable**  at the time.

a • · . :

### A:tta_~**~ment** InVentory ·The·

### Sta"te shoU:ld develOp an attainment emi'Ssions inventory to identi.fy .the level of emissigns in the area**w~ich** is

. sufficient to attain the HAAQS. · This inventory.should.be

.. ·.consisterit \.lith EPt.'s most J:ecent**9uid~nce** .on e-.ziission

inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time .and**sho~ld** include the emissions durinq the time6period assoCiated with the monit;.q7inq data**sho~ing** attQ.inment.

. . soufce size thresholds-are 100 tons/year fOr so2 , N02, and PM-10 areas, and 5 toils/year for Pb based upon 40."CFR 51.100(k) .and 51.322, as well as**~stablished** practice f.or AIRS data. The source slze·threshold for serious PM-10 areas is 70**.tons/yea~** 5Where the**~tate** has made an adequate demonstratiOn that air**quality·h~s** improved. as a result of the SIP (as discussed**~reviously),** the attainment inventOry will generally**beth~** actual inventory at the**t~me** the area attained**~he ~tandard.**  6The EPA's"cuJ;"rent guidance on the**prepar~tioJ,.** of. emission**inventorie~** for o3 and co nonattainment. areas iS contained in the following**docum~n~~u.** 11Procedures**fo~** the Preparation of. Emission Inventories for**~arbO~** Monoxide and Precursors of pzone: Volume I" (EPA-'450/4-91-0+6), 11ProcQ:dures for the**Prepara.tio~** of

. . Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of ozone: Volume II" (BPA-4.50/4-91-014), '!Emission IDventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-010), "Emission :,::nventory Requirements for carbon Monoxide Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-011), "Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model" (EPA•45D/4-9lOl3), uprocedures for Emission Invento.ry Preparation:. Volume· IV, Mobile sources" (EPA-450/4-Bl-0264), and "Procedures for

. Preparing·Emission Inventory Projections" (EPA-450/4-91-019). The EPA does not ourJ;"ently hav.e. specific quidance on attainment emissions inventories·.for s'o2•. In lieu thereof, States are referred to t.he 9Uidan9e 

### o11 etD.issions data ·to. be used as .input to modelinq**demonstrations~** contained in Table 9.1 of EPA's

. "Guideline on Air 'Quality Models (Revised)" (EPA-450/2-7B-027R), July 1?87t:.'• 

### .,!>Jc.;h.**i~. IJ!\Re~ally**  applicabl!! to,all.ori!:eria.•.• pollutants. ·Emission inventory proce,dures and requirements documents are <;:urrentlY being prepared by.OAQPS 'tor PM-.10 and Pb; these documents are**~ue** for**relea~e** .bY sumer 19.92.9 according to Clean**Air~** Act sectiOn 189(b)(3). HoweVer, the inventory should include sources below these size thresholds i these smaller sources were included in the SIP attainment demonstration. Where sources below the 100; 70, and 5 tonstye r- size thresholds (e.g., areas with Smaller source size · definitions) are subject to a State's minor source permit proqram, these sources need only be addressed in the aqqreqate to the extent**tha_t~** they result in areawide growth.

. :.For o3**nonattain~erit** areas, the inventory· should be based on aotu'al ntypical- summer day" emissions of ·o3 precursors-**(Volat~le** organic compounds and.nltr.ogen oxides) du.rlng the attainment 

## ·1· year. This**~ill** generally correspond to one of the periodic inventories required for nonattainment areas to reconcile milestones.**Fo~** 

### co nonattainment areas, the·inventory should e based on actual 11typioal CO season day" emise:ions for the attainment ··year. This will generally correspond to one of the**perio~ic inventor~es**  required for nonattainment·areas. b. Maintfmange DgmonstrS.tion· A state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAO by either sh"owinq_ that future emissions of a pollutant or its 

## I precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix 

### ot sources and 

# j
emission rates will not cause a ·v.j.olation of th·e NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, ·many areas are required to s9bmit ·modeled · attainment demonstrations· to·sh.ow that.pro.·posed reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS. or these areas, the maintenance demonstratioJ) should be based upo . the same· level of modeling. In area$ where. no such modeling wi required, the· state·should be able to rely on the attainment inventory. approach. In both instances, the demonstration shou ·· be for· a period of 10 .years following the redesignation·.·

. . c:: Where modeling is relied upon to demonstrate maintenance, each plan should contain a summary of the air quality concentrations expected to result from. application of the contr 1 ol strateqy.
.In the process, the plan should identify and descrUJe the dispersion model or other a.tr quality model used to projecl ·ambient concentrations (see 40 CFR 51.46). · ·· · ·

· In either**ca~e,** to satisfy the**dem~nstration** requirement t e State should project· emissions ·for the lO•year period**followin~** redesiqnation; either for t!le purpose of showinq that ·emissionr:; will not**~norease** over the attainment**invent~ry** or tor conducting modeling. The projected inventory should consider fUture growth·, inoltiding.'popU.lation and industry, should be consisten

### 7a~idance tor p,rojectinq

### ~missions may 

## be emissions inventory guidance cited**~n** footnote .• 

## ..... ·.· found in the 6 •.10 with the attainment inventpry, and 'should**dod~ment** data inputS and**a.ssumptions~** All eletnents of the demonstration .(e.q.; emission projections, new source·growth,**a~d** mgdelinq) should be consistent with.current EPA modeling guidance. For o3 and co, the projected**emi~~ions** should reflect the expected actual emissi9ns based on enforce{!ble**e~ission** rates and typical· · · ·**produc~i~n** rat,s.
. .. For co, a state should address 

## th8 areawide component of**th~** · maintenance**demon~t-ration** either by Ji\howing ·that. tuture CO· emissions will. not increase or by ·conducting areawide J:'!'IOdeling. Preferably, the state should ·carry oqt hot-spot .modeling that is**consis~ent** with the Guideline· on Air nuality Models (Revised), in order to demonstrate maintenance of·the NAAQS. In particular, if the.nonattainment**p~oble~** is related to a pattern of hot-spots then hot-spot modeling should gener;ally be.conducted. However, hot-spot modeling is not ·automatically required•. For example, if tfie nonattainment**p~oblem** was related solely to stationary. point sources, or 

### if highway improvements have been implemented and the· associated emission reductions,and travel charact•ristics can be qualitatively documented, then hot-spot modeling is not required. In such cases, adequate documentation as well as the concurrence of**·.Heftd~arters** is needed!

. •. ·...:- · Any. assumptions. concerni.\9- emission rates must re;flect permanent,**enf~rc:;::.ea~le** measures. In**other~**words, a State generally**can~ot** take credit in the maintenance demonstration for reductions unless there**are•requla~ions** in place requiring those 'reductions or the reduoti'o"s are-otherwise .shOwn to be permanent. Therefore, the ·state will be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy**~espite** redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or**a~e** . replaced with .measures that achieve_e_quiyalent reductions (sSe additional discussion under "Contingency Plari"). Emission reductions from Source shutdowns can be considered permanent and enforceable to the e_xtent. that those ·shutdowns have been reflected in**t~e.SIP** and all applicable permits have been modified aoqordingly.

_ · ·l't:odeling used to·demOnstrate**attain~~nt** may be. reli.ed upon in the. maintenance demonstration where· ·the·modeling confOru to current EPA guidance**an~.where** the State has· projected no· significant changes in the-modeling inputs during the intervening**ti~e~** Where**t~e** oriqinal attainment demonstration may no longer be relied upon, states will

.. be**~xpected** to .remodel**us~ng** current 8.The**EPA-apprOve~** modeling guidance may be found 

### ill the fOllowing documents: 11Guideline on·Air Quality Models (Revised) , 11 OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA•450/2-78-027R); July 1986; "and "PM-10 SIP. DevelopmJ>nt Guideline," OAQPS, RTP, NC "(EPA-450/2-86- 001), June 1987. ·

# .; ll EPA referenced techniques.9 This may be necessary where_, for example, there has been a chanqe in emissions or a change in t e siting of new sources or modifications· such that air quality my no longer be accurately represented by the existing modeling.

c. Monitoring Netwprk
once 'an ar'ea has been redesignated, the State should ' continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, -in accordance with 40 CFR'Part 58, to.verify the**at~alnment** status·of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such verification. In cases where measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled oon9estion) have changed over time, the state. may also need to! perform a saturation monitoring study to determine the need**fo~,** and location of, additional.**perm~nent** lllonitors. d.**yerific~tion** of Cqntinyed Attainment

· Each state should ensure that it has· the legal authority io implement and enforce all measures necessary. tO attain and to ·maintain the HAAQS•. Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (F) of the Clean

Air Act, as amended, and**r~gulations** promulgated at 40 CFR 51.110(k), suggest that one such·measure is the acquisition of ambient and source emission data t"o demonstrate attainment and maintenance. Regardless of whether the maintenance demonstration is based on a showing that future emission inventories will not exceed the attainment inventory or on modeling, the state submittal shoulq· indicate how the state will track th8 progress of the mainten"ant:e plan. ·· This is necessary due to the fact that the emission

. projections made for the ra.aintenanc.e demonstration depend on assumptions of point and area sourc• growth.

. .

.. one option for tracking the progress of the maintenance**~** · demonstration, provided here as an**exa~ple,** woUld be for the ·

.state to periodically update the emissions inventory. In this case, the maintenance plan should specify the frequency of any plan"J\ed inventory updates. Such an· upda."te could be based, in part, ·on the annual AIRS update and could indicate new source growth and other changes from the attainment inventory (e.g., changes in vehicle miles travelled or in traffic patterns). As

.an alternative to a complet' update of the invento·ry, the**Stat~** may**choos~** to do a comprehensive review of the factors.that**we~~e** used in developi.ng the**attainm~nt** inventOry to show no significant change. If this review does show a significant change, th• state**sh~uld** then perform an update of**th~** invento
9see

### referen~es for modeling guidance cited "in footnote s.12 Where the demonstration is based on modeling, an option for trackin<i 'progress would be for the State to periodically· (typically every 3 years) reevaluate the modeling assumptions and input data.- In any event, the state should monitor the**i~dicators** for triggering contingency measures (as discussed below).
e. contfngenCy Plap section 175A of.the·Act alsO requires**th~t a'maintenanc~­**  plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of.the**N~QS ~hat**  occurs after**redesign~ttion** of the area. These**qontingenoY~** measures are . distinguished from those generally required for nonattainment**ar~as** under·section 172(c)(·9) and those specifically·required for· o ·and co nonattainment areas under sections 182(c)(9) and 1a?(a)(Jr,

### respective~y. For the purposes of section l?SA, a state is not required to have fully"adopted contingency measures tha.t will take effect ·Without further action by the State in order for the tna1ntenance plan to be approved. However, the .-.cont::ingeJ?CY .plan is,conSidered to be an enfox-ceable part of the

SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are·adopted**~xpediently** once they are triqqered. "The plan should cl•arly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoptioq and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the state.· As a necessary part of the plan, the State. should also identify specific indicators, or triqgers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implem!!nted.

,**~Where ~he.**  maintenance demonstration is based On the inventorr, -.the state may, for example, identify an "action level 11 of emiss ons as the indicator. If later inventory updates show**t~at** the inventory has exceeded the _action level, the State wquld take the necessary steps to implement the contingency measures•. The indicators would allow a State to take early action to address pptential violations of the NAAQS before they occur. By taking early action, States may be able to**preven~** anY actual violations of the NAAQS and, therefore, eliminate the need on the part**o~ ~PA**  to redesignate an area to nonattainment•

. ·**Oth~r** indicators to consider include ·.monitored- or modeled.· violations of the NAAQS (due to the inadequacy of.monitoring data in some situat1ons). It is important to note that air quality · data_in**•xces~** of the**N~QS** will not automatically necessitate a revisi?n of·-the _SIP ·Where ·implementation of contingency measures is adequate tq address the cause of the violation. The need for a SIP revision is subject to the AdmiJiistrator•s lliscretion.



## . 

# .. -· 

### . . The EPA w.i:ll**~"eView** what oo'ns.titutes a**~o~tingenoy** plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, it must require that the state will implement all measures contained· in the. Part D nonattainment,-

13



### . . . ' plan for the area Prior to redesignation [see section l75A(d)Jr This language suggestS that a State may submit·a SIP revision t the_time of its redesignation request to remove or reduce the str1ngency of control measures. such a revision can be**~pproved** · by EPA if it**prov~des** for .compensating equivalent reductions. j_A demonstration that**llleasur~s** are equivalent would have.to include appropriate modeling or an adequate justification.**Altern~­** tively, a state might be able to demonstrate (through EPA-approved modeling) that the measures are not necessary for maintenance of the standard. In either C.I:\Se, the contingency plan· would have to provide for implementation of any measures that were reduced or removed**aft~r** redesignation of the area.**su~ary** As stated previously, this memorandum consolidates EPA's redesignation and maintenance plan guidance and Regions should rely upon it as a general framework in drafting Federal Beqist'er notices. It is strongly suggeSted that the ·Regional·Offices 

## I share this document ·With the appropriate States. This should give the States a better understanding·of**~hat** is expected from a**r~designation** reciuest and m.B.intenance plan un.d·er existing poliby. Any necessary changes to existing Agency policy will be aade 

# I through our action on speCific redesignation requests and the review of section**175~** maintenance plans for these particular areas, both of which are subject 

### tO notice and comment**~ulema~ing** · ·procedures. Thus, in applying this memorahdum to specific 

# I · circumstances in a rulemaking, Regions should consider the applicability of the underlying policies to the particular**~acts** and to comments submitted by any ·person. If**you~** staff**membe~ •**  have questions which**~equire** clarification, they may contact Sharon Reinders at (919·). 541-5284 for o3- and CO-:-related issues, and Eric Ginsburg at (919) 541-0877 for so2-, PM-10-, and**Pb-rela~ed i~sues.**  cc: Chief, Air B.ranch, Regions I-X John Cabaniss, OMS o·enise Devoe, OAQPS Bill Laxton, TSD

. Rich ossias, OGC John Rasnic, SSCD John Seitz, OAQPS Mike Shapiro, OAR Lydia Wegman, OAQPS

### Appendix D: Complete Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory for Lake County

·State Facility Facility Name Year Emissions in Tons per Identifier Year

00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2004 1515.35 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2005 2041.07 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whitinq 2006 1072.96 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2007 592.40 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2008 777.04 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whitinq 2009 563.26 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2010 622.47 00003 BP Products North America Inc., Whiting 2011 697.31 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2004 565.84 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2005 310.63 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated .2006 310.63 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2007 535.54 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2008 215.80 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2009 210.23 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2010 210.23 00112 Carmeuse Lime Incorporated 2011 313.45 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2004 5305.16 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2005 3599.06 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2006 4816.75 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2007 4857.71 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2008 4801.82 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2009 3600.26 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2010 4030.33 00121 US Steel Co. Gary Works 2011 4201.76 00179 Bucko Construction- 15"' Street Plant 2004 28.13 00201 Jupiter Aluminum Corporation 2004 17.66 00201 Jupiter Aluminum Corporation 2005 15.54 00203 Cargill, Inc. 2004 145.70 00203 Carqill, Inc. 2005 140.67 00203 Cargill, Inc. 2006 61.35 00203 Cargill, Inc. 2007 41.30 00203 Car!lill, Inc. 2008 42.50 00203 Cargill, Inc. 2009 15.77 00203 Cargill, Inc. 2010 45.85 00203 Car!lill, Inc. 2011 69.55 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2004 9701.31 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2005 7949.23 00210 State Line Ener!lv, LLC. 2006 7348.07 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2007 9333.23 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2008 11625.14 00210 State Line Ener!lv, LLC. 2009 9776.17 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2010 10567.32 00210 State Line Energy, LLC. 2011 8044 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 2004 921.22 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 2005 395.65 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 2006 343.71 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 2007 297.41 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 2008 357.58State Facility Facility Name Year Emissions in Tons per Identifier Year



### 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 

### 2009 332.01 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 

### 2010 202.95 00242 Rhodia, Inc. 

### 2011 203.56 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2004 38.93 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2005 45.15 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2006 59.06 00301 Safety-Kieen 

### Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2007 52.24 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2008 65.98 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2009 47.66 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2010 51.09 00301 Safety-Kieen Oil Recovery Co. 

### 2011 55.29 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2004 3503.74 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2005 2702.23 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2006 3224.15 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2007 3036.41 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2008 2905 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2009 2412.59 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2010 4758.34 00316 Indiana Harbor East 

### 2011 2873.83 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2004 1969.94 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 

### 2005 1624.86 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2006 2032.24 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2007 1678.95 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2008 1569.26 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2009 281.51 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2010 428.07 00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana HarborWest) 

### 2011 860 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2004 645.08 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2005 374.63 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2006 776.13 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2007 758.67 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2008 1162.50 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2009 1401.75 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2010 1476 00382 Indiana Harbor Coke Company 

### 2011 1897.98 00383 Cokenergy, Inc. 

### 2004 6846.70 00383 CokenerQY, Inc. 

### 2005 6499.50 00383 Cokenergy, Inc. 

### 2006 6009.34 00383 Cokenergy, Inc. 

### 2007 5911.01 00383 CokenerQY, Inc. 

### 2008 5621.70 00383 Cokenerav, Inc. 

### 2009 5475.18 00383 Cokenergy, Inc. 

### 2010 5214 00383 CokenerQy, Inc. 

### 2011 4891.50 00448 Ironside Enerqv, LLC. 

### 2004 253.15 00448 Ironside Energy, LLC. 

### 2005 147.84 00448 Ironside Energy, LLC. 

### 2006 115.20 00448 Ironside Enerqv, LLC. 

### 2007 223.15 00448 Ironside Energy, LLC. 

### 2008 209.03 00448 Ironside Energy, LLC. 

### 2009 47.10 00448 Ironside Enerqv, LLC. 

### 2010 64.38 00448 Ironside Energy, LLC. 

### 2011 117.99 00449 WhitinQ Clean EnerQy, Inc. 

### 2004 11.82State Facility Facility Name Year Emissions in Tons per Identifier Year

00458 Lafarge North America 2004 125.83 00458 LafarQe North America 2005 99.37 00458 Lafarge North America 2006 92.19 00458 Lafarge North America 2007 107.09 00458 LafarQe North America 2008 81.60 00458 Lafarge North America 2009 68.68 00458 Lafarge North America 2010 68.06 00458 LafarQe North America 2011 81.58 00530 Rieth Riley Construction Co., Inc. #367 2010 15.25 00530 Rieth Riley Construction Co., Inc. #367 2011 15.25Sulfur dioxide (42401) p 0 SITE ID 

## c PQAO CITY 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-0022 1 0520 Gary 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond 18-089-2008 1 0520 Hammond Appendix E: AQS Quick Look Report Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Monitoring for Lake Countyfor 2004-2011 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES 0 NO EVENTS 1 EVENTS EXCLUDED 2 EVENTS INCLUDED 5 EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDED Indiana

COUNTY ADDRESS

Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 201 Mississippi St litri Bunker Lake 1300 141 ST Street Lake 1301141 ST Street Lake 1302 141 ST Street Lake 1303 141 ST Street Lake 1304 141 ST Street Lake 1305 141 ST Street Lake 1306 141 ST Street Lake 1307141 STStreet YEAR METH 2004 060 2005 060 2006 060 2007 060 2008 060 2009 060 2010 060 2011 060 2004 061 2005 061 2006 061 2007 061 2008 000 2009 060 2010 060 2011 060 Air Quality System Quick Look Report (AMP 450)

1ST COMP MAX OBS QTRS 1-HR 8375 4 176.0 8198 4 216.0 8387 4 110.0 8657 4 121.0 8599 4 150.0 8556 4 75.2 8476 4 74.0 8466 4 74.2 8463 4 67.0 8354 4 57.0 8360 4 52.0 8354 4 67.0 8206 4 42.0 8673 4 49.2 8499 4 43.2 8598 4 49.6 Parts Per Billion (PPB) 2ND 1ST 2ND 99TH MAX MAX MAX PCTL 1-HR 3-HR 3-HR 1-HR 164.0 84.6 82.0 111.0 125.0 164.6 78.3 115.0 84.0 79.0 77.6 78.0 120.0 70.6 54.0 66.0 79.6 95.4 44.2 67.0 72.0 57.1 53.0 58.6 64.8 61.1 48.9 57.2 70.8 60.4 42.5 58.0 56.0 37.6 35.3 39.0 44.0 44.6 37.0 42.0 40.0 29.3 26.6 36.0 64.0 48.0 35.6 50.0 40.0 28.6 28.0 37.0 46.4 35.0 28.0 36.5 42.6 24.0 22.7 34.3 48.9 29.4 28.4 40.4 1ST 2ND Days ARITH MAX MAX >24HR MEAN 24-HR 24-HR STD AN-STD CERT EDT 50.6 32.8 0.0 4.61 y 0 49.9 42.5 0.0 4.03 y 0 29.5 28.3 0.0 2.90 0 22.1 20.6 0.0 3.30 y 0 19.1 17.3 0.0 3.25 0 20.4 15.8 0.0 1.96 0 30.1 23.5 0.0 2.42 0 24.4 19.0 0.0 1.68 0 21.6 14.5 0.0 3.93 y 0 17.3 15.5 0.0 3.02 y 0 16.1 15.5 0.0 3.74 y 0 22.2 16.8 0.0 5.13 y 0 11.3 9.9 0.0 4.07 0 9.0 8.6 0.0 2.86 0 11.7 10.4 0.0 2.46 0 12.1 11.8 0.0 2.66 0

### AppendixF: LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Maintenance Plan Update in association with the 1971 Sulfur Dioxide Standard for Lake County, Indiana Area Notice is hereby givenunder 40 CFR 51.102 thatthe IndianaDepartment of Environmental Management (IDEM) is accepting written comments andproviding an opportunity for public hearing regardingthe Draft Maintenance PlanUpdate in association with the 1971 sulfur dioxide standard, for the Lalce County, Indiana area. The areais bounded bythe following: Lalce Michiganto the north, the Indiana-Illinois State line to the west, U.S. 30 from the State line to the intersection ofl-65 thenfollowing I-65 to the intersection ofl-94then following I-94 to the Lalce-Porter county line onthe south, andthe Lake-Porter County line on the east. All interestedpersons are invited and will be givenreasonable opportunityto express theirviews concerningthe submittal oftheproposed Maintenance PlanUpdate in association withthe 1971 sulfur dioxide standard for the Lake County, Indiana area. The Lake County, Indiana area was designated as "nonattainment" for the 1971 sulfur dioxide standard in 1978 and was redesignated to "attainment"in 2005. One ofthe compliance requirements mandatedby Section 17SA ofthe CleanAirActis the revision and subsequent update ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan eight years after redesignation. This Maintenance Plan Update is being drafted and submitted consistentwithUnited States Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) guidance. Copies ofthe draft documents will be available onorbefore February 8, 2013, to any personupon request at the following locations:

• IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management, Office ofAir Quality, Indiana Government CenterNorth, 100North Senate Avenue, RoomNl003, Indianapolis, Indiana.

• IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management, NorthwestRegional Office, 8380 Louisiana Street, Merrillville, Indiana.

• Lalce County Public Library-HighlandBranch, located at2841·Jewett Street, Highland, Indiana.

• CrownPoint Community Library, 214 South Court Street, CrownPoint, Indiana.

• Gary Public Library, 220 West 51 h 

### Avenue, Gary, Indiana.

• Hammond Public Library, 564 State Street, Hammond, Indiana.

### • WhitingPublic Library, 1735 Oliver Street, Whiting, Indiana. The draft documents will also be available onthe following web page: http://www.in.gov/idern/airguality/2398.htm Anypersonmay submitwrittencomments onthe Maintenance PlanUpdate in association withthe 1971 sulfur dioxide standard, for the Lake County, Indiana area onorbefore March 11, 2013. Written comments shouldbe directed to Ms. Jennifer Geisenhaver, Mail Code 61-50, Office ofAir Quality, IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204; or fax (317) 233-5967; or email at jgeisenh@idem.in.gov. Interested parties may also present oral or written comments at the public hearing, ifheld. Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy ofthe record, statements shouldbe submitted inwriting. Written statements may be submittedto the attendant designated to receive written comments atthe public hearing. · A public hearing onthe Maintenance PlanUpdate inassociation withthe 1971 sulfur dioxide standard for the Lake County, Indiana areawillbe held ifapublic hearing request is receivedby February 18,2013. A hearing has been scheduled for February 27,2013. The hearing will convene at 6:00p.m. local time at the Lake Station-NewChicago BranchPublic Library located at 2007 Central Avenue, Lake Station, Indiana46405. Ifa requestfor a public hearing is notreceivedby February 18, 2013 the hearing will be cancelled. Interestedparties can checkthe online IDEM calendar at http://www.in.gov/idern/5390.htm or contactMs. Jennifer Geisenhaver at (317) 233-8628, after February 18, 2013, to see ifthe hearinghas been cancelled or will convene. A transcript ofthe hearing and all written submissionsprovided atthe public hearing shall be opento public inspection atIDEM and copies maybe made availableto any person uponpayment ofreproduction costs. Anypersonheard orrepresented at the hearing or requesting notice shall be given writtennotice ofactions resulting from the hearing. For additional information contact Ms. Jennifer Geisenhaver, at the Indiana Department ofEnvironmentalManagement, Office ofAir Quality, RoomN1001, Indiana Government CenterNorth, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or call (317) 233-8628 or (800) 451-6027 ext. 3-8628 (in Indiana)

. 

## ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Individuals requiring reasonable accommodationsforparticipation in this hearing, 

## if held, shouldcontact the IDEMAmericans with DisabilitiesAct(ADA) coordinator at: Attn: ADA Coordinator IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management

- Mail Code 50-10 100North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251 Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232-6565 (TDD). Pleaseprovide a minimum of72 hours notification.