IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our 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 below the 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 S02 under Section 107 of the federal Clean Air Act 

(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 of that document, Indiana 

committed to review and, if necessary, revise the Maintenance Plan eight years after the 

area was redesignated to attainment of the 802 standard, as required by Section 175A 

of the CAA. The submittal of this 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 order to show 

maintained attainment of the S02 NAAQS. An updated maintenance year of 2025 is also 

compared to the 2003 base year, as well as the original maintenance year of 2015. 

These comparisons further support Lake County's continued attainment. 

Recycled Paper (i) An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle O 
Ms. Hedman 

Page 2 

This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy of the required documentation. An 

electronic version of the 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 of the 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. If you 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 of Air 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 

For the Lake County Maintenance Area 

Lake County, Indiana 

Prepared By: 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Office of Air Quality 

March 2013 
This page intentionally left blank. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 

2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 

2.1 Geographical Boundaries .................................................................................. 2 

2.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide ............................. 4 

2.3 Status of Air Quality ......................................................................................... 4 

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

3.1 Attainment/Emissions Inventmy ...................................................................... 5 

3.2 Maintenance Demonstration ............................................................................. 5 

3.3 Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued 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 of Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Area .................................. 3 

CHARTS 

Chart 5. I Lake County 24-Hour Sulfur Dioxide 2nd Highest Values, 2004-2011 .......... 10 

Chart 5.2 Lake County Annual Arithmetic Mean Sulfur Dioxide Values, 2004-2011 .. 10 

Chart 5.3 Lake County 3-Hour 2"d Highest Sulfur Dioxide Values, 2004-2011 ............ 11 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: August 12, 2005, Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for 

Sulfur Dioxide Attainment in Lake County 

Appendix B: Federal Register Notice, 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 Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Monitoring for Lake 

County for 2004-2011 

Appendix F: Public Participation Process Documents 

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATION LIST 

CAA ............. Clean Air Act 

FR ................ Federal Register 

IC ................ .Indiana Code 

IDEM ........... .Indiana Depattment of Enviromnental Management 

NAAQS ......... National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NSR .............. New Source Review 

ppb ............... Parts per Billion 

ppm ............... Parts per Million 

PSD ............... Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

U.S. EPA ......... United States Environmental Protection Agency 

11 
Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance 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 Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) subsequently approved the 

Requestfor Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Sulfur Dioxide Attainment in Lake 

County (September 26,2005, 70 FR 56129). 

Section 175A of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth the elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to 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 plan that demonstrates 

attainment for ten years following the initial ten-year period. 

As pmt of that document, Indiana committed to review and, if necessary, revise the 

Maintenance Plan eight years after the area was redesignated to attainment of the sulfur 

dioxide standard, as required by Section 175A of the CAA. The submittal of this 

document honors that commitment. 

2.0 BACKGROUND 

On March 3, 1978, U.S. EPA designated a pmtion of Lake County, Indiana as a primary 

nonattainment area for sulfur dioxide under Section 107 of the CAA. 

Sulfur dioxide monitors in Lake County have not recorded a violation ofthe sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS since before 1980. On August 12, 2005, the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a Request for Redesignation and 

Maintenance Plan for Sulfitr Dioxide Attainment for Lake County (Appendix A). U.S. 

EPA subsequently approved the Redesignation Request on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 

56129), with an effective date of October 26,2005 (Appendix B). 

1 
2.1 Geographical Boundaries 

The following is a brief description of the maintenance area included in this update. 

Lake County is in northwest Indiana. It is surrounded by the Indiana counties of Porter, 

Jasper, and Newton. The S02 nonattainment area of Lake County is bounded by Lake 

Michigan to 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 ofl-65 then 

following I-65 to the intersection ofi-94 then following I-94 to the Lake-Porter County 

line. On the east it is bounded by the Lake-Porter County line. (See Figme 2.1) 

2 
Figure 2.1 

Map of Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Area 

Hammond- 141 st St. 

Date: 01/24/2013 

Mapped By: C. Mitchell, OAQ 

Sources: Office ot Air 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 Nonattainment Area 

3 
2.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 

Sulfur dioxide is part of a group of highly reactive gases known as sulfur oxides (SOx). It 

is primarily emitted through fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial 

facilities. Other sources include industrial processes like the extraction of metal from ore 

and the burning of high 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 of 0.03 pmis per million (ppm) and a 24-hour level of 0.14 ppm. The 

secondary sulfur dioxide standards were set as a 3-hour level of 0.5 ppm and an annual 

level of 0.02 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 both the primary annual and 24-hour standards and 

established a new primary 1-hour sulfur dioxide standard of75 pmis per billion (ppb). 

On March 20, 2012, U.S. EPA retained the existing secondary 3-hour standard. 

Attainment of the 2010 primary 1-hour sulfur dioxide standard is determined by 

evaluating the design value of the 99111 percentile values of the daily maximum 1-hour 

averages at each monitor within the area, which must not be equal to or exceed 75.5 ppb 

averaged over a three-year period. On June 3, 2013, U.S. EPA will make designations of 

attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable with regards to the 2010 standard. This 

document only addresses the 1971 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. 

2.3 Status of Air Quality 

There are two monitors currently measuring sulfur dioxide in Lake County. These 

monitors, located in Gary (Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institutes (IITRI)-

#18-089-0022) and Hammond (141 '

1 Street- #18-089-2008), are maintained by the 

IDEM Nmihwest Regional Office and have been in operation since 1997 and 1975, 

respectively. Current mnbient air quality monitoring data shows a continued downward 

trend well below the sulfur dioxide NAAQS since the area was redesignated to 

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) of the CAA lists a number of requirements that must be met by 

nonattainment areas prior to being considered for redesignation to attainment. U.S. EPA 

has published 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 required to be included in the 

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 sufficient to attain the NAAQS. For this submittal, a 

comprehensive emissions inventory of major and minor permitted 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 maintenance plan eight years after redesignation 

demonsh·ating that attainment of the sulfur dioxide NAAQS will be maintained for ten 

years (2015-2025) following the initial ten-year period (2005-2015). 

5 
3.3 Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment 

To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance 

plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an 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 of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. 

Each of these components is discussed in greater detail in the remaining sections of this 

document. 

4.0 ATTAINMENT/EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

The state is required to develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify a level of 

emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. For this 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 in Lake County, Indiana and the change in emissions from the original 

maintenance plan's emissions from 2003. The cunent emissions 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 

Sulfur Dioxide 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 20 II 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 -I 079.23 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. 

Lafarge Nmih 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 County have 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 mandated programs, in 

addition to the closing of petmitted stationary sources. As stated previously in Section 

2.3, Status of Air Quality, there have been no exceedances ofthe NAAQS for sulfur 

dioxide measured at the two monitoring sites within Lake County. The above 

infmmation further demonstrates that all pmiions of Lake County continue to attain the 

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 expected to continue 

decreasing in Lake County through 2025, ensuring that air quality within Lake County 

will continue to improve and provide for an ample margin of safety. 

Table 4.2 

Lake County Base Year Point Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 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 of several state and federal control measures already in place that 

continue to ensure that the sulfur dioxide emissions will remain well below levels 

necessary to maintain the 1971 NAAQS. 

Lake County Sulfur Dioxide Rule 

Indiana has promulgated revised rules for Lake County sulfur dioxide emissions that 

reflect the reductions of sulfur 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 on AprilS, 2005 as a parallel processing request 

for approval into the Indiana State Implementation Plan. The state rules became effective 

on June 24, 2005. 

Implementation of Past SIP Revisions 

The Indiana rules controlling sulfur dioxide emissions are in effect and being enforced. 

Indiana rule, 326 lAC 7, requires all sulfur dioxide sources in Indiana to 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 of sulfur dioxide in Lake County. 

The rulemaking reflects a reduction of over 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year of 

allowable emissions from the emission limits set in the 1989 State Implementation Plan. 

New Source Review Provisions 

Indiana has a long standing and fully implemented New Source Review (NSR) 

procedure. New Source Review is addressed in rule 326 lAC 2. The rule includes 

provisions for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) in 326 lAC 2-2. 

Any facility not listed in the 2003 emissions inventory, or for the closing of which credit 

was taken in demonstrating attainment, will not be allowed to construct, reopen, modify, 

or reconstruct without meeting applicable permit rule requirements. 

Controls to Remain in Effect 

Indiana does not intend to relax any of the control measures already implemented. 

Indiana hereby commits that any changes to its rules, or emission limits applicable to 

sulfur dioxide sources, will be submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. Indiana intends to 

continue enforcing all rules relating to the emission of sulfur dioxide in Lake County. 

5.0 DEMONSTRATION OF CONTINUED MAINTENANCE 

The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for 

nonattainment areas if the most recent three years of ambient monitoring data show that 

the maintenance area is meeting the NAAQS 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, and the cnnent maintenance 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 of sulfur dioxide from all sources have continued to decline and it is not 

anticipated that emissions will increase to levels that would alter the downward trend in 

air quality data for sulfur dioxide. Charts 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 show maximum value trends 

in comparison to the primary 24-hour, primary annual, and secondary 3-hour standard, 

respectively. 

9 
Chart 5.1 

Lake County 24-Hour Sulfur 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 

-+-Gary - Hnmmond __.,_Primary 24-Hour Standard 

Chart 5.2 

Lal{e County Annual Arithmetic Mean Sulfur Dioxide 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 ....,..Primary Annual Stnndard 

10 
Chart 5.3 

Lake County 3-Hour 2"d Highest Sulfur Dioxide Values, 2004-2011 

0.6000 

c 0.5000 

0 

§ 0.4000 ~ 

v 0.3000 c. 

-t 0.2000 

"' 

Q. 0.1000 

0.0000 

Lake County 3-Hour Sulfur Dioxide 2nd 

Highest Values, 2004-2011 

..----------- ------------

• • • • • • •• 

1---------------·-··-··-------

.... .... 

- - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

-.-Gary - Hnmmond _._Secondary 3-Hour Stnndurd 

11 
6.0 MONITORING NETWORKNERIFICATION OF CONTINUED 

ATTAINMENT 

To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance 

plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate U.S. EPA 

approved air quality monitoring network. There are currently two sulfur dioxide 

monitoring sites operating within 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 Look report from U.S. EPA's AQS database which lists the quality assured 

monitoring data for Lake County is enclosed as Appendix E. 

6.1 Quality Assurance 

IDEM has 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 

data to be valid. IDEM has recorded the data in the AQS database and thus, the data is 

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 below the 

sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Should changes become necessary in the future, IDEM will 

consult with U.S. EPA Region V staff prior to making changes to the existing monitoring 

network. IDEM will continue to quality assure the monitoring data to meet the 

requirements of 40 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 whether trends 

indicate higher values or whether emissions appear to be increasing. If it is determined 

that sulfur dioxide levels and emissions are increasing and action is necessary to reverse 

that trend, Indiana will take action, prior to a violation of the standard occurring. 

Contingency measures will be considered based on those that are deemed appropriate and 

effective at the time of selection. Because sulfur dioxide emissions are attributed 

primarily to point sources, the options available are limited to appropriate measures for 

the types of culpable 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 on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data 

Affected by Exceptional Events." 

• Evaluate meteorological data and conduct modeling studies to determine which 

point source(s), if any, is the cause of the problem. 

12 
• Review the operating records of the source identified in the above steps to 

identify equipment malfunctions or pe1mit or rule violations. 

Although the point sources listed in the inventory will be the primary focus, the study 

will also encompass any other potential sources of sulfur dioxide. 

The selection of measures will be based upon cost-effectiveness, emission reduction 

potential, and economic and social considerations or other factors that IDEM deems 

appropriate. 

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 will be implemented without providing the opportunity for full public 

participation during which the relative costs and benefits of individual measures, at the 

time they are under consideration, can be fully evaluated. 

Adoption of any control measure is subject to administrative and legal approval. This 

includes an opportunity for public hearing and publication of notices on IDEM's website 

at www.in.gov/idem/5474.htm, as well as other measures required by Indiana law (IC 13-

14-8-7) for rule making by Indiana environmental rule boards. This law provides 

accelerated procedures for adopting interim control measures in the event of an 

emergency affecting public health. 

The sulfur dioxide sources potentially subject to future controls are basically the same as 

the cunent list of sources, found in Table 4.1 in Section 4.0. Sources subject to 

additional controls will be those which the study shows are responsible for triggering the 

contingency measures and the control of which will most effectively help to ensure 

compliance with the standards. In addition to reviewing the known sources, the 

possibility that the problem is attributable to new or previously unknown sources will be 

considered. 

8.0 COMMITMENT TO REVISE PLAN 

This submittal satisfies Indiana's commitment to revisit the original maintenance plan. 

Therefore, no further action is necessary since Lake County, Indiana has maintained its 

attainment status in the eight years since it was reclassified to attainment. 

9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Indiana published a solicitation for public comment, as well as a legal notice of public 

hearing notification, concerning the draft Maintenance Plan Update on IDEM's website 

at www.in.gov/idern/5474.htm on February 8, 2013. 

A public hearing was scheduled for February 27, 2013, as per the legal notice. Because 

no requests were received, the meeting was cancelled. No comments were received 

13 
during the public comment period, which closed on March II, 2013. A copy of the 

public notice and a certification of publication are included in Appendix F. 

10.0 CONCLUSION 

Monitored air quality in Lake County, Indiana has remained well below the 1971 primary 

and secondary sulfur dioxide NAAQS as a result of national and local control strategies 

that have been implemented. The current design values in Lake County have remained 

well below the standard since the county was redesignated and are expected to continue 

to maintain compliance with the standard. 

This plan update demonstrates that Lake County will continue to attain the 1971 primary 

and secondary sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Indiana has verified that the emission controls 

adopted to maintain the standard continue to be permanent and enforceable, that there are 

no new significant sources of sulfur dioxide or increases in background emissions, and 

that the state has a comprehensive program in place to identify sources of violations and 

address any violation through enforcement and implementation of a contingency plan. 

This plan update also demonstrates that reductions since redesignation have had a 

positive effect on sulfur dioxide levels, and existing local and national control measures 

will ensure that air quality in Lake County will continue to improve and provide for an 

ample margin of safety. 

This plan satisfies Indiana's obligation under Section 175(A)(b) of the CAA to submit a 

plan for maintaining the sulfur dioxide NAAQS for the next ten years beyond the current 

maintenance plan. 

14 
Appendix A: 

August 12, 2005, Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Sulfur 

Dioxide Attainment in Lake County 

REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION 

AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR 

SULFUR DIOXIDE ATTAINMENT 

IN LAKE COUNTY 

Lake County, Indiana 

Developed By: 

The Indiana Department of Environmental 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 of Air Quality........................................................................ 2 

2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION 

2.1 General............................................................................................ 2 

2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring.............................................................. 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 of the Standards. 4 

3.0 SULFUR DIOXIDE MONITORING 

3 .I Monitoring Network........................................................................ 4 

3 .2 Ambient Data................................................................................... 6 

3.3 Quality Assurance............................................................................ 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 of Past SIP Revisions.......................................... II 

6.3 New Source Review Provisions.................................................... II 

6.4 Controls to Remain in Effect........................................................ II 

7.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

7 .I Commitment to Revise Plan......................................................... 12 

7.2 Commitment for Contingency Measures....................................... 12 

7.3 Contingency Measures.................................................................. 13 

7.4 List of Sources................................................................................ 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 Nonattainment Area and S02 Monitors ......... . 

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

Lake County S02 Emissions ........................................ .. 

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

Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02 Attainment Demonstration 

3-Hour and 24-Hour Results with Desulfurized Limits 

Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02 Attainment Demonstration 

3-Hour and 24-Hour Results with Undesulfurized Limits 

Modeling Results for Lake Co. S02 Attainment Demonstration 

Annual Results 

Lake Co. S02 Emissions .......................................... .. 

APPENDICES 

A Quick Look Repoti from AQS Database 

B Lake County S02 Emissions, Plant-wide Totals> 10 tons per year 

Detailed List of Lake County S02 Emissions Data 

C Projected S02 Emissions for 2015 

D Modeling Analysis 

E Proof of Publication and Transcript of Hearing 

Publishers Affidavits 

Transcript 

iv 

6 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

10 

7 
REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION AND 

MAINTENANCE PLAN 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 of the sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (S02 

NAAQS). The Lake County area has recorded three years of complete, 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 order for an area to be considered for redesignation, including: 

(a) A determination that the area has attained the S02 standards; 

(b) An approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the area under Section II O(k); 

(c) A determination that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and 

other federal requirements. 

(d) A fully approved maintenance plan under Section 175A; 

(e) A determination that all Section II 0 and Part D requirements have been met. 

This document addresses each of these requirements. It also provides additional information to 

support continued compliance with the S02 standards. 

1.1 Background 

Based on monitored violations, a portion of Lake County in Indiana was designated as primary 

nonattainment with the S02 NAAQS on March 3, 1978. In compliance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Indiana Depattment of Environmental Management (IDEM) developed and 

implemented rules designed to control emissions of S02 in Lake County. 

The national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides measured as sulfur dioxide 

by the reference methods described in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 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 not to be exceeded more 

than once per year per site. 

The secondary ambient standard for sulfur dioxide is 1300 ug/m3 (0.5 ppm) maximum 3 hour 

concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year per site. 

On January 19, 1989, the U.S. EPA approved Indiana's S02 rules for Lake County as meeting all 

the requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the CAA, 54 FR 2112. In the early 1990's, 
Indiana conducted several rulemakings that have amended the Lake County S02 rules in 326 

lAC 7. On February 8, 1994, U.S. EPA proposed disapproval of cetiain changes affecting Lake 

County in those rulemakings that were determined to be relaxations of the SIP (59 FR 5742). On 

August 29, 2000, other source-specific changes submitted by Indiana were approved into the 

SIP. 

In order to bring Lake County into attainment for the S02 NAAQS, Indiana conducted extensive 

modeling and initiated a rulemaking to amend S02 requirements for many sources in the 

nonattainment area. The completed rulemaking, which will be effective on June 24, 2005, 

reflects a reduction of over 30,000 tons of S02 per year of allowable emissions from the 

emission limits in the 1989 State Implementation Plan. 

1.2 Geographical Boundaries 

Following is a brief description of the area of the the county for which redesignation is 

requested. 

Lake County is in northwest Indiana. It is surrounded by the Indiana counties of Porter, Jasper 

and Newton. The S02 nonattainment area of Lake County is bounded by Lake Michigan to 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 of I-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 of Air Quality 

Air quality in Lake County has improved significantly in the past two 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) of the 

CAA. 

2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION 

2.1 General 

Section II 0 and Part D of the 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 September 4, 1992, to Regional Air Directors. This document is 

hereafter referred to as the "Redesignation Guidance". This Request for Redesignation and 

Maintenance Plan is based on the Redesignation Guidance, supplemented with additional 

guidance received from staff of the Criteria Pollutant Section of U.S. EPA Region V. 

The subsections below refer in greater detail to the requirements listed in Section 1.0 of this 

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 calendar year and the 24-hour standard not exceeded more than once per 

calendar year. 

(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 commitment that, once redesignated, the State will continue to operate an 

appropriate monitoring network to verify the maintenance of the attainment 

status. 

2.3 Emission Inventory 

(I) A comprehensive emission inventory of major sources of sulfur dioxide 

completed for the base year (2003). 

(2) A projection of the emission inventory to a year at least 10 years following 

redesignation (2015). 

(3) A demonstration that the projected level of emissions is sufficient to 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 of the inventory to enable tracking of the 

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 of expected 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 Patt D 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 extent the siting of new 

sources or modifications will affect points of maximum 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 of time since the demonstration 

of attainment was completed. 

Each plan must contain a summary of the 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) If appropriate, a commitment to adopt a requirement that all transportation plans 

conform with, and are consistent with, the SIP. 

2.6 Corrective Actions for Potential Future Violations of the Standards 

(I) A commitment to submit a revised plan eight years after redesignation. 

(2) A commitment to enact and implement expeditiously additional contingency 

control measures in response to exceeding specified predetermined levels 

(triggers) or in the event that future violations of the ambient standards occur. 

(3) A list of potential contingency measures that would be implemented in such an 

event. 

( 4) A list of sulfur dioxide sources potentially subject to future controls. 

3.0 SULFUR DIOXIDE 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 of Air Quality. A listing of the sites in use since 1996 

with the highest reading at each from 1996 through 2004 is shown in Table 3.1. The monitor 

locations are shown in Figure 3.1. 

4 
Table 3.1 

Summary of Monitoring Results Since 1996 

ISTMAX ISTMAX ANNUAL NO. OF 

SITE ID CITY ADDRESS YEAR 24-HR 3-HR MEAN EXCEED 

18-089-0022 Gary 20 I MISSISSIP 1997 0.047 0.133 0.0053 0 

18-089-0022 Gmy 20 I MISSISSIP 1998 0.025 0.079 0.0054 0 

18-089-0022 Gary 20 I MISSISSIP 1999 0.039 0.094 0.0058 0 

18-089-0022 Gary 20 I MISSISSIP 2000 0.049 0.068 0.0058 0 

18-089-0022 Gmy 20 I MISSISSIP 2001 0.033 0.083 0.0049 0 

I 8-089-0022 Garv 201 MISSISSIP 2002 0.037 0.094 0.006 0 

18-089-0022 Gary 20 I 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 

Figure 3.1 

Lake County Nonattainment Area and 802 Monitors 

5 
(f) <( 

i5 z 

z ;"; 

:J 0 

:! z 

3.2 Ambient Data 

!I 

Lak 

0 1.5 

Lake County S02 Monitors 

6 Miles 

u ... ,. •• ,.,.,",.,...",. 

Legend 

-Major Roads 

D Lake Michigan 

[~]Counties 

502 Monitor 

• Operating 

_.. Out of Operation 

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 of the 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 58.1 0, 

as well as the Indiana Quality Assurance Manual and found to be valid. The data have 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 at the current National Air 

Monitoring Sites (NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring Sites (SLAMS) indicated in 

Section 3.1. IDEM will consult with U.S. EPA Region V staff prior to making any changes to 

the existing monitoring network should changes be necessary in the future. IDEM will continue 

to quality assure the monitoring data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58. Connection to a 

central station and updates to the IDEM website (www.in.gov/idem) will provide real time 

availability of the data and knowledge of any 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 of the 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 of Lake County S02 emissions is in Appendix B. 

4.2 Emission Projections 

Table 4.2 

802 Emissions for Lake County Projected to 2015 (tons pea· year) 

2002 2015 

35,957 43,568 

Details of S02 emissions for Lake County are in Appendix C. 

4.3 Demonstration of Maintenance 

Ambient air quality data from all monitoring sites indicate that the S02 NAAQS are being met 

through 2004. Total emissions of S02 from 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 prior years were higher than the projections 

for 2015. During this time, monitoring data was never higher than 29% of the annual standard, 

and in only one instance, 54% at the Hammond site in 1998, did the maximum 24-hour value 

exceed 36% of that standard. The 3-hour maximum values have been one-third of that secondary 

standard or less. Therefore, attainment is expected to be maintained through the maintenance 

horizon year of2015. 

In addition, the modeling results demonstrating attainment assume a potential to emit of 120,800 

tons per year of S02. Therefore, the projected growth in actual emissions to 43,568 tons S02 in 

2015 will not cause a violation of the S02 NAAQS. 

4.4 Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

8 
One of the requirements for approval of the 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 of permanent and enforceable emission reductions 

and not because of temporary adverse economic conditions or unusually favorable meterorology. 

Permanent and enforceable reductions of S02 emissions in Lake County contributed to the 

attainment of the S02 standards. Some of the reductions are attributable to the closure of 

stationary sources or emissions units. In addition, substantial reductions were made at U.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) of the CAA, Indiana commits to submit to the Administrator, 

eight years after redesignation, an additional revision of this 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 I 0-year period after redesignation (20 15-2025). 

5.0 MODELING 

5 .I Modeling Analysis 

The attainment demonstration modeling reflects the current regulatory air quality model, 

emissions inventory, and building dimensions. Six years of meteorological 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 of the air quality modeling show attainment of the 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 support redesignation of the 

affected pmiion of Lake County to attainment. 

The results of the air quality modeling are as follows. 

Table 5.1.1 

9 
Year 

1987 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

Modeling Results for Lake County S02 Attainment Demonstration 

3-Hour and 24-Hour Results 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 

I 077.3 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 at U.S. Steel-Gary Works is 

operating. 

Table 5.1.2 

Modeling Results for Lake County S02 Attainment Demonstration 

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 S02 Attainment Demonstration 

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 of the Lake Co. S02 rules on April 8, 2005. Further information on the modeling 

analysis is in Appendix D. 

Based on the above, Indiana hereby requests that the submitted modeling be used to satisfy the 

modeling requirement of the CAA. 

6.0 CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS 

This section provides specific information on the control measures implemented in Lake County, 

including CAA requirements and additional state or local measures implemented beyond CAA 

requirements. 

6.1 Lake County S02 Rule 

Indiana has promulgated revised rules for Lake County S02 emissions that reflect the 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 of Past 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 of the Indiana S02 rule was in 

effect from 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 of S02 in Lake County. The completed rulemaking reflects a reduction of 

over 30,000 tons of S02 per year of allowable 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 of Air Pollution Control, and IDEM's Nmthwest 

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 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) in 326 lAC 2-2. Indiana's PSD program has been approved by 

U.S. EPA as part of its SIP. (Final program approval- May 20, 2004, 69 FR 29071) 

Any facility that is not listed in the 2003 emissions inventory, or for the closing of which 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 which requires an air quality analysis to ensure that the new source 

will not threaten 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 of the 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 of Significant 

Deterioration Requirements) rather than 326 lAC 2-3 (Emission Offset) for permitting any new 

sources or modifications. Indiana, through IDEM's Office of Compliance and Enforcement, has 

the legal authority and necessary resources to actively enforce any violations of its rules or 

permit provisions. After redesignation, Indiana intends to continue enforcing all rules that relate 

to the emission of sulfur dioxide in Lake County. 

7.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

7.1 Commitment to Revise Plan 

As noted in Section 4.5 above, Indiana hereby commits to review its Maintenance Plan eight (8) 

years after redesignation, as required by Section 175A of the CAA. 

12 
7.2 Commitment for Contingency Measures 

Indiana hereby commits to adopt and implement expeditiously 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 of their standards within the maintenance 

area. A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether there is a 

trend toward higher S02 values or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study 

will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control 

measures necessary to reverse the trend taking into consideration ease and timing for 

implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Completion of the 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 of the sulfur dioxide 

standard occurs within the maintenance area. In the event that the 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 of any additional control measures is subject to the necessary administrative 

and legal process. This process will include publication of notices, an opportunity for 

public hearing, and other measures required by Indiana law for rulemaking by state 

environmental boards. 

If a 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 sufficient to address 

the upward trend in air quality, additional local measures may be unnecessary. 

Furthermore, Indiana will submit to U.S. EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed 

measures are adequate to return the area to attainment. 

7.3 Contingency Measures 

13 
Contingency measures to be considered will be selected which are deemed appropriate and 

effective at the 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 

of culpable sources. The steps IDEM will take to determine culpability will include: 

• determination of whether the exceedance should be classified as an exceptional event 

pursuant to "Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by 

Exceptional Events." 

• Evaluation of meteorological data and conduct modeling studies to determine which 

point source(s), if any, is the cause of the problem. 

• review of operating records of source identified in the above steps to identify equipment 

malfunctions or permit 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 of S02 • 

The selection of measures will be based upon cost-effectiveness, emission reduction potential, 

economic and social considerations or other factors that IDEM deems appropriate. IDEM will 

solicit input from all interested and affected persons in the maintenance area prior to 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 providing the oppmtunity for full public participation during which the 

relative costs and benefits of individual measures, at the time they are under consideration, can 

be fully evaluated. 

7.4 List of Sources 

The sulfur dioxide sources potentially subject to future controls is the current list of major 

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 of which will most effectively help to ensure compliance 

with the standards. In addition to reviewing the !mown sources, the possibility that the problem 

is attributable to new or previously unknown sources will be considered. 

8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

In accordance with Section IOO(a)(2) of the CAA, public participation in the SIP is provided for 

as follows: 

Notice of availability of the S02 redesignation documents and the time and date of the public 

hearing has been published in the Indianapolis Star, the Gary Post-Tribune, and the Munster 

Times. 

14 
The Public hearing will be held as follows: 

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 6:00p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Business, Science & 

Administration Building at Ivy Tech State College, 1440 East 35111 Avenue, Gary, Indiana 

46409. 

Copies of the proof of publication and the transcript of the hearing can be found in Appendix E. 

9.0 CONCLUSION 

Lake County, Indiana has attained the federal ambient sulfur dioxide standards and complied 

with the applicable provisions of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act regarding 

redesignations of primary sulfur dioxide nonattainment areas. Documentation to that effect is 

contained herein. A State Implementation and Maintenance Plan has been prepared that meets 

the requirement of Section 11 O(a)(l) of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Appendix C addresses all 

requirements of the Plan including some that may not be covered above. 

The State oflndiana hereby requests that Lake County be redesignated to sulfur dioxide 

attainment simultaneously with the U.S. EPA approval of the Indiana State Implementation Plan 

provisions contained herein. 

15 

Appendix B: Federal Register Notice, Approval of Redesignation Request, September 26, 

2005, Effective October 26, 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; La ke 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 a l so been updated. EPA is also 

approving a request t o redesignate the Lake County n onattainment area 

to attainment of the S02 Nati 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 wi 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 EDocke t (RME) Docket ID No . ROS-OAR-2005-IN-00 04. 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 ide nti 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 a va ilable doc ket material s are a vailable either electronically 

in RME or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jacks on Boulevard , Chicago, 

Illinois 6060 4. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos, 

Envir onmental Engineer, at (312) 353- 8328 before v i 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 6060 4 , (312) 353- 8328 . 

panos . c hristos@epa . gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout t h is document whe never ''we ,'' 

''us,'' or ''our '' is used, we mean EPA. This suppl emental information 

secti on is a rranged as follows : 

I . What Is the Background for This Action? 

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Ac tion ? 

I I I . What Action 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 I AC 7 -1.1-1, 326 IAC 7 - 1 . 1 - 2 , 326 IAC 7 - 2-1, and n ewly 

creat e d 326 IAC 7- 4 . 1. The revised rules were adopted by the I ndiana 

Air Pollution Control Board on Ma r ch 2 , 2005 , and were s ubmit ted by 

I DEM to EPA on April 8 , 2005. IDEM submitted a s upplement to its 

submissi on on July 6 , 20 05 , indicating that the revised rules became 

effective J une 24, 2005 , and were published in the Ind i ana Register on 

J uly 1, 2005. EPA proposed to approv e 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 suppleme nt to 

its submissi on on August 11, 2 005 , 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 mainte nance plan 

submitted for thi s a rea. 

EPA proposed t his action because the State ' s submittal for the Lake 

County S02 nonattainment area met the requirements of t h e 

Act . The revised rules a mend S02 requirements for ma ny 

sources in the nonattainme nt a rea, and r e flect a reduction of over 

30,000 tons of S02 per year of allowabl e e missions compared 
to 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 substantial 
number 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 Act 
This 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--Indiana 
0 

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. 

0 
2. 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 o3, 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 co1 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 "·such f;.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·~~approves 

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 1 J 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 instances , ~0 , where 8nd Pb 

an 

appear 

area is 

in 

subject 

subparts to 2 through 

bOth·the 

5. 

general 

In those i 

·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 o 3 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.l tional 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 from 
8 

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 time6

period 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?87 t:.' • .,!>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 11 typioal 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 s9bmi t ·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 contr1

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 357.58 
State 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 Harbor West) 2004 1969.94 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2005 1624.86 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2006 2032.24 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2007 1678.95 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2008 1569.26 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2009 281.51 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 2010 428.07 

00318 Mittal Steel (ISG Indiana Harbor West) 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 11.82 
State 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 15.25 

Sulfur 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 County for 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 given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) is accepting written comments and providing an 

opportunity for public hearing regarding the Draft Maintenance Plan Update in association with 

the 1971 sulfur dioxide standard, for the Lalce County, Indiana area. The area is bounded by the 

following: Lalce Michigan to the north, the Indiana-Illinois State line to the west, U.S. 30 from 

the State line to the intersection ofl-65 then following I-65 to the intersection ofl-94 then 

following I-94 to the Lalce-Porter county line on the south, and the Lake-Porter County line on 

the east. All interested persons are invited and will be given reasonable opportunity to express 

their views concerning the submittal of the proposed Maintenance Plan Update in association 

with the 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 of the compliance 

requirements mandated by Section 17 SA of the Clean Air Act is the revision and subsequent 

update of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan eight years after redesignation. This 

Maintenance Plan Update is being drafted and submitted consistent with United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance. 

Copies of the draft documents will be available on or before February 8, 2013, to any 

person upon request at the following locations: 

• Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana 

Government Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Room Nl 003, Indianapolis, 

Indiana. 

• Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Northwest Regional Office, 8380 

Louisiana Street, Merrillville, Indiana. 

• Lalce County Public Library-Highland Branch, located at 2841· Jewett Street, Highland, 

Indiana. 

• Crown Point Community Library, 214 South Court Street, Crown Point, Indiana. 

• Gary Public Library, 220 West 5

1

h Avenue, Gary, Indiana. 

• Hammond Public Library, 564 State Street, Hammond, Indiana. 
• Whiting Public Library, 1735 Oliver Street, Whiting, Indiana. 

The draft documents will also be available on the following web page: 

http://www.in.gov/idern/airguality/2398.htm 

Any person may submit written comments on the Maintenance Plan Update in 

association with the 1971 sulfur dioxide standard, for the Lake County, Indiana area on or before 

March 11, 2013. Written comments should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Geisenhaver, Mail Code 

61-50, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental 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, if held. Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy of the record, 

statements should be submitted in writing. Written statements may be submitted to the attendant 

designated to receive written comments at the public hearing. · 

A public hearing on the Maintenance Plan Update in association with the 1971 sulfur 

dioxide standard for the Lake County, Indiana area will be held if a public hearing request is 

received by 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-New Chicago Branch Public 

Library located at 2007 Central A venue, Lake Station, Indiana 46405. If a request for a public 

hearing is not received by February 18, 2013 the hearing will be cancelled. Interested parties can 

check the online IDEM calendar at http://www.in.gov/idern/5390.htm or contact Ms. Jennifer 

Geisenhaver at (317) 233-8628, after February 18, 2013, to see if the hearing has been cancelled 

or will convene. 

A transcript of the hearing and all written submissions provided at the public hearing 

shall be open to public inspection at IDEM and copies may be made available to any person 

upon payment of reproduction costs. Any person heard or represented at the hearing or 

requesting notice shall be given written notice of actions resulting from the hearing. 

For additional information contact Ms. Jennifer Geisenhaver, at the Indiana Department 

of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Room N1001, Indiana Government 

Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or call (317) 233-8628 or (800) 

451-6027 ext. 3-8628 (in Indiana) . 

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations for participation in this hearing, if held, 

should contact the IDEM Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at: 

Attn: ADA Coordinator 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management - Mail Code 50-10 

100 North Senate Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251 

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232-6565 (TDD). Please provide a minimum of72 

hours notification.