FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

BOB MARTINEZ CENTER 

2600 BLAIRSTONE ROAD 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2400 

Via Mail and Electronic-Mail 

January 8, 2014 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

RICK SCOTT 

GOVERNOR 

HERSCHEL T. VINYARD JR. 

SECRETARY 

Re: Air Program: Addendum to State Implementation Plan Infrastructure Confirmation for the 

2010 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 

On behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), I hereby confirm that the 

requirements of Sections 11O( a)(1) and 11 O( a )(2) of the Clean Air Act are adequately addressed in 

Florida's approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) with respect to the implementation of the 2010 

revised national ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide (S02). Enclosed please find 

documentation demonstrating the correlation between the Section 11O(a)(2) infrastructure elements 

and the Florida Statutes and SIP-approved Florida rules that address each such element. An exact 

duplicate of this submittal in a searchable format has been emailed to the Air Planning Branch. A 

notice of an opportunity to request a hearing and submit written comments concerning this 

confirmation appeared in the Florida Administrative Register on May 13,2013. No hearing was 

requested, and no hearing was held. Comments were received from EPA and the public, and these 

comments have been addressed in the attached submittal. 

If you have any questions about this addendum to Florida's SIP Infrastructure Submittal for the 2010 

revised national ambient air quality standard for S02, please contact Preston McLane at (850) 717-

9089 (e-mail: Preston.McLane@dep.state.fl.us). 

Pa la Cobb, Deputy Director 

Division of Air Resource Management 

PC/mb 

Enclosure 

Cc via email: R.ScottDavis.Chief. Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4 

www.dep.statejl.us 
1

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Addendum to State Implementation Plan Infrastructure Confirmation for the

2010 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

Sulfur Dioxide

Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010. See 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 

(June 22, 2010). Within three years of EPA’s promulgation of a revised NAAQS, states must

address basic SIP “infrastructure” elements listed under section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of that new NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) & (2). EPA has historically 

referred to the submittals in which states must address these requirements as “infrastructure 

SIPs.”1 Infrastructure SIPs do not address the section 110(a)(2) elements that cannot be 

governed by the three year timeframe – i.e., section 110(a)(2)(I), which addresses SIP revisions 

for nonattainment areas, and section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to the nonattainment new 

source review (NNSR) program.

Section 403.061(35), Florida Statues, grants the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) the broad authority to “[e]xercise the duties, powers and responsibilities required of the 

state under the federal [CAA], 42 U.S.C. ss. 7401 et seq” and “implement the programs required 

under that act in conjunction with its other powers and duties.” By virtue of this statute, DEP has 

the authority and responsibility to act on behalf of the State of Florida to develop and revise a 

SIP as required by CAA section 110(a)(1) and to ensure that the SIP adequately addresses the 

required infrastructure elements prescribed under CAA section 110(a)(2).

DEP hereby confirms that the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and the infrastructure elements 

required by sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CAA are adequately addressed in Florida’s existing 

approved SIP with respect to the implementation of the 2010 revised national ambient air quality 

standard for SO2. Furthermore, DEP confirms that all elements of Florida’s approved SIP have 

undergone public notice in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102. This document 

demonstrates the correlation between the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements and the 

Florida Statutes and SIP-approved Florida rules that address each such element.

 

1 This specific term does not appear in the CAA, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed to address other different requirements, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ submissions required to address the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions required to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program submissions required to address 

the requirements of parts C and D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that 

address other specific matters.
2

Rules and Statutes

Florida’s existing SIP consists largely of Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rules adopted by 

DEP and approved by EPA through the SIP revision process. The complete list of DEP rules 

approved and incorporated by reference into Florida’s SIP is published by EPA in the United 

States Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 52.520(c). The list includes each F.A.C. rule 

section number and effective date, with a corresponding EPA approval date for each rule section. 

The F.A.C. rules are available online at the Florida Department of State website

(https://www.flrules.org/default.asp) and at the DEP Division of Air Resource Management 

website (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/rules/current.htm).

There are five rule chapters of the F.A.C. that contain SIP-approved rule sections that directly or 

indirectly address implementation of the SO2 NAAQS:

 Chapter 62-204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control –General Provisions. All EPA 

regulations cited throughout DEP’s air pollution rules are adopted and incorporated by 

reference in Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C. The purpose and effect of each such adopted 

regulation is determined by the context in which it is cited. This rule is referenced in the 

discussion below regarding the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(F), (J), and (K).

 Chapter 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources –General Requirements. This rule 

chapter establishes definitions and the general requirements for major and minor

stationary sources of air pollutant emissions. It provides criteria for determining the need 

for an owner or operator to obtain DEP authorization by permit to conduct certain 

activities involving sources of air pollutant emissions, and it establishes reporting 

requirements and requirements relating to estimating emissions. This chapter also sets 

forth special provisions related to compliance monitoring, stack heights, circumvention of 

pollution control equipment, and excess emissions. This rule chapter is referenced in the 

discussion below regarding the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(F), (J), and (K).

 Chapter 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources –Preconstruction Review. This rule 

chapter establishes the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new emissions 

units, new facilities, and modifications to existing units and facilities. The requirements 

of this chapter apply to those proposed activities for which an air construction permit is 

required. This chapter includes general preconstruction review requirements and specific 

requirements for emissions units subject to both attainment and nonattainment area 

preconstruction review (i.e., New Source Review (NSR)). This rule chapter is referenced 

in the discussion below regarding the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D), (F), (J), and (K).

 Chapter 62-296, F.A.C., Stationary Sources –Emission Standards. This rule chapter 

establishes emission limiting standards and compliance requirements for stationary 

sources of air pollutant emissions. It establishes emission limitations for specific 

categories of facilities and emissions units, including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT). This rule chapter is referenced in the discussion below regarding 

the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (D), and (F).
3

 Chapter 62-297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources –Emissions Monitoring. This rule 

chapter establishes test procedures for determining the compliance of air pollutant 

emissions units with emission limiting standards. This rule chapter is referenced in the 

discussion below regarding the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (F).

As mentioned above, many of the current SIP-approved rules have been adopted by DEP under 

the authority of section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes. Beyond the broad authority given to DEP 

by this statute to implement the CAA, DEP relies on other Florida Statutes for authority to 

conduct various air program activities such as permitting, monitoring, fee collection, compliance 

assurance, enforcement, and emergency response. These statutes are essential to Florida’s 

implementation of the SO2 NAAQS and are referenced in the discussion below regarding the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. For the most part, the Florida Statutes are 

referenced only to confirm DEP’s legal authority to implement the SIP; however, certain statutes 

have been approved and incorporated into Florida’s SIP and are noted as such. The Florida 

Statutes are available online at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes.

Section 110(a)(2) Elements – Implementing Rules and Statutes

110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other control measures: SIPs must include enforceable 

emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques; schedules for compliance; and 

other related matters.

 Rules: SIP-approved rule chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297, F.A.C.,

collectively include emission limits and other control measures for pollutant-emitting 

activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air and provide authority 

for DEP to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance 

through SIP-approved permits.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]dopt a 

comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the 

air... of the state,”) and section 403.8055, Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]dopt 

rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law....”

110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient air quality monitoring: SIPs must provide for the establishment and 

operation of ambient air quality monitors; the compilation and analysis of ambient air quality 

data; and the submission of these data to EPA upon request.

 Rules: SIP-approved rule chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require the use 

of Federal Reference Method or equivalent monitors and also provide authority for DEP 

to establish monitoring requirements through SIP-approved permits.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]pprove and 

promulgate current and long-range plans developed to provide for air and water quality 

control and pollution abatement.” Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP 

to “[a]dopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of 

pollution of the air and waters of the state....” Section 403.061(11), Florida Statutes,

authorizes DEP to “[e]stablish ambient air quality... standards for the state as a whole or 

for any part thereof.”
4

 Note: As of the date of this infrastructure submittal, the development of the SO2 

monitoring network is ongoing; therefore Florida’s SO2 monitoring strategy will be 

established per the requirements set forth in the 2013 Annual Monitoring Network plan 

and any subsequent Annual Monitoring Network plan relevant to the development of 

Florida’s SO2 monitoring network.

110(a)(2)(C) – Program for enforcement of control measures and new source review: SIPs 

must include a program that provides for: enforcement of all SIP measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in 

parts C and D of Title 1 of the CAA.

 Rules: SIP-approved rule chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., collectively 

establish a preconstruction, new source permitting program that meets the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements under part C of Title 1 of the CAA for 

pollutant-emitting activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air and 

also provide for the enforcement of SO2 emission limits and control measures. DEP’s 

EPA-approved preconstruction review program applies to both major and minor sources. 

New major sources and major modifications that are subject to PSD permitting must 

demonstrate that the source or modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of 

any NAAQS or PSD increment and provide an analysis of additional impacts of the 

source or modification, including impacts on visibility. All new or modified major 

sources of SO2 emissions will apply the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to 

reduce SO2 emissions in accordance with the CAA and EPA PSD permitting 

requirements. 

 Statutes: Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires DEP to “[e]xercise general 

supervision of the administration and enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations 

pertaining to air and water pollution.” Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP 

to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, 

and criminal prosecution for violations of any DEP rule or permit. 

 Note 1: EPA has promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Florida PSD 

program to address the preconstruction permitting of greenhouse gases (76 FR 82246). 

The FIP in conjunction with the above referenced SIP approved rules and Florida Statutes 

meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(C).

 Note 2: The “nonattainment new source review” part of this element is outside the scope 

of this infrastructure submittal because it pertains to part D, in title I of the CAA, which 

addresses SIP requirements and submission deadlines for designated nonattainment areas 

for NAAQS. 

 Note 3: SIP-approved rules 62-210.300 F.A.C., Permits Required and 62-212.300 

F.A.C., General Preconstruction Review Requirements, collectively establish Florida’s 

minor source permitting program.

 Note 4: On June 15, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s 

NSR/PSD program to recognize nitrogen oxide (NOX) as an ozone precursor (77 FR 

35862).

 Note 5: On September 19, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s 

NSR/PSD permitting regulations to adopt, into Florida’s SIP, federal NSR/PSD 
5

requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation and PSD increments.

110(a)(2)(D)(i) – Interstate transport: SIPs must include provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity within the state emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state 

with respect to any such primary or secondary NAAQS or (II) interfere with measures required 

to be included any other state’s SIP to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility.

Subsection (2)(D)(i)(I)

 DEP understands per EPA’s November 2012 memorandum addressing the vacatur of the 

2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,2that EPA does not expect this SIP infrastructure 

submission to address the requirement for SIPs to prohibit significant contribution to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any 

such primary or secondary NAAQS.

Subsection (2)(D)(i)(II)

 Rules: SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require

any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and 

thereby demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or 

PSD increment in Florida or any other state and require that the owner or operator 

provide an analysis of additional impacts of the source or modification, including impacts 

on visibility. All new or modified major sources of SO2 emissions will apply the Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce SO2 emissions in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA PSD permitting requirements. The above chapters, along with Chapter 

62-296, F.A.C., also provide for implementation of the EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR).

 Statutes: Section 403.061(14), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[e]stablish a permit 

system whereby a permit may be required for the operation, construction or expansion of 

any installation that may be a source of air pollution....” (with the definition of 

“pollution” provided in section 403.031(7), Florida Statutes), and section 403.087, 

Florida Statutes, provides specific requirements for implementation of a permit system 

for operation of reasonably expected sources of air pollution.

 Note 1: These requirements have been met through EPA’s full approval of Florida’s 

regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida’s 

visibility program into the state’s SIP (78 FR 53250). 

 Note 2: On June 15, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s New 

Source Review (NSR)/PSD program to recognize nitrogen oxide (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor (77 FR 35862).

 Note 3: On September 19, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s 

NSR/PSD permitting regulations to adopt, into Florida’s SIP, federal NSR PSD 

 

2

 McCarthy, Gina, Assistant EPA Administrator, Memo to Air Division Directors, Regions 

1-10, Re: Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and Pending State Implementation 

Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule, November 19, 2012.
6

requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation and PSD increments.

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) – Interstate and international transport provisions: SIPs must include 

provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 115 or 126(b).

 Rules: SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require 

any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and 

thereby provide notification to other potentially affected federal, state, and local 

government agencies. 

 Statutes: Section 403.061(14), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[e]stablish a permit 

system whereby a permit may be required for the operation, construction or expansion of 

any installation that may be a source of air pollution....” (with the definition of pollution 

provided in section 403.031(7), Florida Statutes), and section 403.087, Florida Statutes, 

provides specific requirements for implementation of a permit system for operation of 

reasonably expected sources of air pollution.

110(a)(2)(E) – Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local 

government: States must provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under 

state law to carry out its SIP and related issues; comply with conflict-of-interest requirements 

under CAA section 128; and ensure adequate oversight of any local government agency 

responsible for implementation of any SIP provision.

 Statutes: Florida has adequate resources and authority to carry out its SIP and related 

activities. Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is Florida’s primary environmental control 

statute. Specifically, Section 403.061(35), F.S., authorizes DEP to “exercise the duties, 

powers, and responsibilities required of the state under the federal Clean Air Act.” 

Section 403.061(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to hire “employees as may be 

necessary to effectuate the responsibilities of the department.” Section 403.061(4), 

Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[s]ecure necessary scientific, technical, research, 

administrative, and operational services by interagency agreement, by contract, or 

otherwise.” Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, authorizes local pollution control 

programs but only if they are approved by DEP as adequate, and remain adequate, to 

meet Chapter 403 requirements. Section 320.03(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to 

establish an Air Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a $1 fee on every motor vehicle 

license registration sold in the state for air pollution control purposes. Section 

112.3143(4) and section 112.3144, Florida Statutes, both of which have been adopted and 

incorporated into Florida’s SIP and, together, require disclosure of conflicts of interest by 

public officials consistent with the requirements of CAA section 128.

 Note: The DEP understands that when EPA does a completeness determination and final 

approval for any SIP submittal, it implicitly determines that the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E) are met. Each submittal must provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out the proposed SIP revision. In 

order for a submittal to be deemed complete, any local and regional implementation plans 

must be submitted through the state agency. In Florida’s case, no local or regional areas 

submit implementation plans; DEP is solely responsible for the SIP.
7

110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary source emissions monitoring: SIPs must provide for the 

establishment and operation of emissions monitoring systems by source owners or operators, and 

for the submission of periodic emissions reports from such sources.

 Rules: SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297, 

F.A.C., to the extent such rule sections require emissions monitoring and reporting for 

pollutant-emitting activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, 

including requirements for the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of 

equipment for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide authority for 

DEP to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting requirements through SIPapproved permits; and require reporting of SO2 emissions in such manner as to allow the 

state to correlate such data with applicable emission limitations and comply with the 

provisions of the EPA Air Emissions Reporting Rule.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(13), Florida Statutes, which authorizes DEP to “[r]equire 

persons engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may 

contain... any other such information as the department shall prescribe...”; also, section 

403.8055, Florida Statutes, which authorizes DEP to “[a]dopt rules substantively 

identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law....”

110(a)(2)(G) – Emergency powers: States must have authority comparable to that in section 

303 of the CAA to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public 

health and to provide contingency plans to implement such authority.

 Statutes: Section 403.131, Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to: seek injunctive relief to 

enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation or permit certification, or 

order; to enjoin any violation specified in section 403.061(1), Florida Statutes (i.e., the 

failure to obtain a permit or comply with any DEP permit or rule or comply with any 

Florida Statute administered by the DEP); and to seek injunctive relief to prevent 

irreparable injury to the air, waters, and property, including animal, plant, and aquatic 

life, of the state and to protect human health, safety, and welfare caused or threatened by 

any violation.” Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to issue 

emergency orders to address immediate dangers to the public health, safety, or welfare; 

both of which have been adopted and incorporated into Florida’s SIP.

110(a)(2)(H) – Future SIP revisions: States must have authority to revise its SIP in response to 

changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or any EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, as previously described in the 

“Introduction” above, grants DEP the broad authority to implement the CAA. Moreover, 

section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]dopt a comprehensive 

program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air ... of the state, 

and from time to time review and modify such programs as necessary.”

110(a)(2)(I) – Nonattainment areas: States must meet the applicable requirements of part D of 

the CAA relating to nonattainment areas.
8

 Note: This element is outside the scope of this infrastructure submittal because it pertains 

to part D, in title I of the CAA, which addresses SIP requirements and submission 

deadlines for designated nonattainment areas for NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government officials; public notification of NAAQS 

violations; and compliance with PSD and visibility requirements: States must consult with 

local governments and federal land managers pursuant to the provisions of section 121 of the 

CAA; provide measures for notifying the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS 

pursuant to section 127 of the CAA; and meet the requirements of part C of the CAA (relating to 

PSD and visibility protection).

 Rules: SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C. require 

intergovernmental consultation, public notice, and compliance with the requirements of 

part C and D of the CAA. SIP-approved rule chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, 

F.A.C., collectively establish a preconstruction, new source permitting program that 

meets the PSD requirements under part C of the CAA for pollutant-emitting activities 

that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air. New major sources and major 

modifications that are subject to PSD permitting must demonstrate that the source or 

modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment 

and provide an analysis of additional impacts of the source or modification, including 

impacts on visibility. All new or modified major sources of SO2 emissions will apply the 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce SO2 emissions in accordance with 

the CAA and EPA PSD permitting requirements.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]dvise, consult, 

cooperate, and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal 

Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and 

industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department” and 

section 403.061(20), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[c]ollect and disseminate 

information ... relating to pollution.”

 Note 1: Notification to the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS and 

associated health effects is provided through implementation of the Air Quality Index 

reporting system in all required areas. 

 Note 2: EPA has promulgated a FIP for the Florida PSD program to address the 

preconstruction permitting of greenhouse gases (76 FR 82246). The FIP in conjunction 

with the above referenced SIP approved new source preconstruction permitting program

meet the PSD requirements of part C of the CAA.

 Note 3: Florida’s regional haze plan for addressing visibility-impairing pollutants is, as 

of the date of this infrastructure submission, proposed to be fully approved under 

Florida’s SIP by EPA (77 FR 73369). This plan ensures that Florida will meet the 

visibility requirements in part C of the CAA.

 Note 4: On June 15, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s New 

Source Review (NSR)/PSD program to recognize nitrogen oxide (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor (77 FR 35862).

 Note 5: On September 19, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified Florida’s 

NSR/PSD permitting regulations to adopt, into Florida’s SIP, federal NSR PSD 

requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation and PSD increments.
9

110(a)(2)(K) – Air quality modeling: States must provide for the performance of air quality 

modeling as required by EPA to predict the effects on air quality of emissions of NAAQS 

pollutants and for submission of such data to EPA.

 Rules: SIP-approved sections of Chapter 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require 

use of EPA-approved modeling of pollutant-emitting sources that contribute to SO2

concentrations in the ambient air.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(13), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[r]equire persons 

engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may contain 

information relating to locations, size of outlet, height of outlet, rate and period of 

emission, and composition and concentration of effluent and such other information as 

the department shall prescribe to be filed....” Section 403.061(18), Florida Statutes, 

authorizes DEP to “[e]ncourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research relating 

to pollution and its causes, effects, prevention, abatement, and control.”

 Note: DEP has the technical capability to conduct or review all air quality modeling 

associated with the NSR program and all SIP-related modeling, except photochemical 

grid modeling which is performed for DEP under contract. All such modeling is 

conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, “Guideline 

on Air Quality Models.” DEP agrees to submit any NSR or SIP modeling files to EPA 

upon request.

110(a)(2)(L) – Permitting fees: States must assess permitting fees to cover the costs of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing major stationary source permits.

 Statutes: Paragraph 403.087(6)(a), Florida Statutes, directs DEP to “ require a processing 

fee in an amount sufficient, to the greatest extent possible, to cover the costs of reviewing 

and acting upon any application for a permit....”

 Note: The subject costs are covered by the Air Pollution Control Trust Fund, which is 

made up of various funding sources.

110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation and participation by affected local entities: States must provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP.

 Statutes: Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “[a]dvise, consult, 

cooperate, and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal 

Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and 

industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department.”

 Note 1: DEP has specific operating agreements with eight county air pollution control 

agencies (Duval, Orange, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Sarasota, Palm Beach, Broward, and 

Miami-Dade) that delineate the duties and responsibilities of each such county in carrying 

out Florida’s air program, including applicable portions of the SIP.

 Note 2: This requirement is fulfilled, as demonstrated by EPA’s full approval of 

Florida’s regional haze SIP on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53250).
Attachment A 

EPA’s written comments on DEP’s pre-hearing submittal of SIP Revision Relating to 

Section 110(a) Elements of the CAA that meet the requirements of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

Mr. Chad R. Stevens 

Administrator 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303·8960 

June 12, 2013 

Regulatory Reform & Legislative Coordioation Section 

Division of Air Resource Management 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 5000 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

RECEIVED 

JUN 18 2013 

DIVISION or AI" 

RESOURCE MANAGEMEl'I 

The Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency received the prehearing submittal on 

May 13, 2013, proposiog certification that Florida's current State Implementation Plan (SIP) contaios the 

section 11 0( a) elements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that meet the requirements of the I-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO,) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This rule is the subject of a public 

hearing (if requested) on June 14,2013, with written comments due by the close ofbusioess on June 12, 

2013. We have completed our review and offer general comments io the enclosure to this letter. 

If you have any questions, please contact Lynorae Benjamio, Chief of the Regulatory Development 

Section or have your staff contact Michele Notarianni of the EPA Region 4 staff at (404) 562-9031 or 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

~ R. tt Davis 

Chief 

Air Planniog Branch 

Enclosure 

Internet Address (UAl) • http://www.epa.gov 

A.cycl~.cycl.bl •• Pnnted w.h Vegelable 01 Based Inks on R.cyc:ted Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
Enclosure - Comments on SIP Revision Relating to 

Section 110(a) Elements of the CAA that meetthe requIrements of the I-hour SOl NAAQS 

General Comments 

1100a)(%)(C), (D)(I), and (J): The EPA suggests that the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) mention the approval dates andlor Federal Register citations for nitrogen oxides as an 

ozone precursor, new source review fine particulate matter (PM2.S) Implementation and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) increments to clearly document that these required PSD provisions are in 

fact approved into the State's PSD progranz. This information should also be included when addressing 

compliance for the PSD components of IIO(a)(2)(D)(i) and (1). 

110(a)(%)(D)(1) only: The text appears to indicate that the State's PSDINSR progranzs along with the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfY section II O( a)(2)(D)(i). However, the text also references the EPA 

memorandum dated November 19,2012, and states that FDEP understands that the EPA does not view 

this submission as satisfYing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as explained in the 2012 memorandum. Please clarifY 

FDEP's intent for the basis of the EPA's action on this submission with respect to how the State's 

submission satisfies section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

110(a)(%)(C) - minor source only: The EPA suggests that FDEP document that the State has a SIPapproved minor source permitting program by referencing applicable SIP regulatory citations. 

110(a)(%)(M): The EPA suggests that FDEP include provisions regarding its regional haze SIP as this 

may also demonstrate consultation with local entities. 
DEP’s Response to EPA’s Written Comments 

EPA’s written comments have been addressed in DEP’s Addendum to State Implementation Plan 

Infrastructure Confirmation for the 2010 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur 

Dioxide. 
Attachment B 

Sierra Club’s written comments on Florida’s Section 110(a) Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan Submittal for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

Via -Elec-tronie-Mail and U.S. -M ail 

June 12, 20 13 

Chad Stevens 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Di vision of Air Resource Management 

2600 Blairstone Road 

MS 5500 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-24000 

Chad.r .stevens@dep.state.fl.us 

Re: Comments Concerning Florida's Section I IOta) Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal for 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

On behalfofthe Sierra Club, its 27,398 Florida members, Earthjustice ', and 

others who are adversely impacted by Florida's sources of sulfur dioxide (",SO,") 

pollution, we submit the fo llowing comments on Florida's proposed Infrastructure Slate 

Implementation Plan ("SIP") addressing the requirements for the 20 10 Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards ('"NAAQS"), requ ired by Section II O(a)( I) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act ("CAN' or "Act").' We are very concerned that Florida's SIP 

submission does not include concrete measures to control SO, pollution from two 

massive coal power plants which can and have caused unsafe air quality over the Crystal 

River and the Panama City Beach regions. 

The primaryNAAQS define the levels of air quality that the EPA Administrator 

determines to be necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. J 

Indeed, the new one-hour SO, standard is necessary to protect public health from the 

, Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law organization dedicated to protecting the 

magniticent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to detending the right 

of all people to a healthy environment 

242 U.S.C. § 7410(a)( I), (2). 

3 See 42 U .S.C. § 7409(b)( I). 

50 F Street, NW. Suite 800. Washington, DC 2000 1 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 2 of2 

June 12,2013 

serious threats posed by short-term exposure to sulfur compounds, including decreased 

lung function, increased respiratory symptoms such as chest tightness, wheezing, and 

shortness of breath, and other serious indicators of respiratory illness, especiall y in 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly' The health data reli ed upon by EPA in 

promulgating the new standard overwhelmingly indicated that increased asthma attacks 

and hospital visits are attributable to short-term concentrations of sulfur CGmpounds in 

the air. Due to these and other serious impairments caused by short-tenn SO, exposure, 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ('"FDEP") must properly implement 

the one-hour SO, NAAQS to protect its citizens' health. 

I. THE FLORIDA INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE 

ENFORCEABLE ONE-HOUR SO, EM ISS ION LIMITATIONS TO 

ENSURE ATTA INMENT AND MA INTENANCE OF THE NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(I ) of the Act provides that each state shall"adopt and submit to 

the Administrator ... a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of" the NAAQS. Section II 0(a)(2)(A) requires that these plans, known as 

Infrastructure SIPs, " include enforceable emission limitations ... as well as schedules 

and timetables lor compli ance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the appli cable 

requirements" orthe CAA, including the requirement to maintain the NAAQS -' 

EPA's deference to a state's SIP submittal is conditioned on the state's submission 

of a plan "which satisfies the standards or ~ II 0(a)(2)" and which includes emission 

limitations that result in compliance with the NAAQS6 For a plan to be suflicient, it 

"must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate 

to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it 

implements.'" 

4 See Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standardfor Sulfiw Dioxide; Final Rule, 75 

Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,550 (June 20, 20 I 0) (hereinafter "Final SO, Rule"). 

5 42 U.S.c. § 74 10(a)(2)(A); Texas v. EPA, 690 F.3d 670, 674 (5th Cir. 2012) (S IPs must 

include "enlorceable limits" necessary to "meet the applicable NAAQS"); Connecticut 

Fundfor Env't.lnc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. I 982)(Clean Air Act requires 

that SIPs contain "measures necessary to ensure the attainment and maintenance of 

NAAQS"); Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 200 1) ("Each State must submit a [SIP] 

that speciflies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within 

each air quality control region in the State") (internal citations omitted). 

6 Michigan Dept. of Envtl Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 18 1 (6th Cir. 2000) (affinning 

EPA's rejection ofa SIP proposa l where the state did not offer evidence of the rules' 

impact on the NAAQS and did not demonstrate that the proposed rules would not 

interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and otherwise comply with 

the CAA). 

, 40 C.F.R. § 51.11 2(a) (noting also the adequacy of a plan's control measures "shall be 

demonstrated by means of appli cable air quality models ... "). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 3 of3 

June I 2, 2013 

On May 13, 2013, FDEP released its State Implementation Plan Infrastructure 

Confirmation for the 2010 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur 

Dioxide ("SIP Proposal") lor public comment. Even though the 20 I 0 NAAQS 

requirements represent a new, tighter standard for ambient SO" FDEp failed to impose 

restrictions on major SO, sources to ensur that they will attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. 

A. Florida must include el?/orceablc one-hour S02 emission limits/or 

sources currently permitted to cause cxceedances onhe NAAQS. 

including the Oystal River Power Plant and the Lansing Smith 

Electric Generating Plant coal:/ired power plants. 

FDEp fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations for sources of 

SO, sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 20 I 0 SO, NAAQS. 

Specifically, two coal-fired power plants, Crystal River Power Plant (Crystal River Plant) 

located in Citrus County, and the Lansing Smith Electric Generating Plant (Lansing 

Plant), located in Bay County, currently lack emission limits that prevent violations of the 

2010 SO, NAAQS.8 In order to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(A), the Florida SIP must 

be amended to ensure these sources and other large sources will not cause violations of 

the 20 I 0 SO, NAAQS. 

Florida's existing regulations have proven insufficient to prevent NAAQS 

exceedances at Crystal River Plant and Lansing Plant9 .

10 Modeling shows that those 

plants are causing NAAQS violations over the Crystal River regions and over Panama 

City Beach, respectively. 

The modeling reports for Crystal River Plant and Lansing Plant compare modeled 

ambient air concentrations from the plants' emissions with the one-hour SO, NAAQS. 

The reports used EPA's AERMOD program to measure the plant's "allowable" (based on 

the plants' cunent Title V permit) and actual (based on maximum plant-wide hourl y 

emissions obtained fTom EPA's Clean Air Markets Data and Maps database) emissions to 

detennine whether the plants would cause violations of the one-hour SO, NAAQS. II The 

8 FDEP must ensure that no other facilities in the state cause NAAQS violations. 

9 See Steven Klafka Sierra Club Evaluation a/Compliance with I-hour S02 NAAQS/or 

Oystal River Power Plal1l - Oystal River, Florida (June 25, 20 12) (hereinafter the 

"Crystal River Report"), attached hereto as Exhibit I; and see Steven Klafka SielTa Club 

Evaluation a/Compliance with I-hour SO, NAAQS/or LanSing Smith Electric 

Generating Plant - Lynn Haven, Florida (.Iune 26, 20 12) (hereinafter the "Lansing 

Rep0l1"), attached hereto as Ex hibit 2. 

10 Both modeling repOlts and all exhibits have been provided electronically, available at 

https://www.box.com/s/gsrpkkis8udoOy9h6fnk; the fil es have also been mailed to FDEP 

on aCD. 

II Crystal River Report at 2; and Lansing Report at 2. 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 4 of4 

June 12, 2013 

modeling protocol employed is consistent with all available technical guidance, including 

Appendix Wand EPA's March 2011 guidance for implementing the one-hour SO, 

NAAQS. Additionally, the reports used the most recent version of AERMOD available at 

the time of the studies. 12

.

1J Where any assumptions were made in the running of the 

model, Mr. Klatka employed conservative inputs, which favor the prediction of lower 

impacts from the plants so that the results actually li kely underslate ihe plant' s SO; 

emission impacts.

14 

The modeling repol1s demonstrate that SO, emissions fi'om the plants allowed 

under the existing SIP cause impacts that exceed the one-hour SO, NAAQS.15 These 

violations occur both at the maximum allowed emissions in the facilities' permits (both 

permits have recently been altered to impose lower limits, but those limits do not yet 

apply) and at their actual maximum emissions levels. Although we are aware, as we 

discuss below, that both plants have recently taken regional haze-related pennit 

requirements, these reductions are insufficient. 

These violations based on pennitted emission limits and actual emissions are 

impacting seven counties in Florida. Nevertheless, FDEP has not recommended that any 

county in Florida be designated as nonattainment; EPA concurred with FDEP's 

recommendation. 16 Because the two power plants are in areas which are currently 

desil,'11ated attainment and there are no plans to designate them as nonattainment, FDEP 

must submit a SIP that "provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

[the NAAQSJ within such State."" The current SIP plainly does not do so. 

Indeed, both facilities have, until recently, have been allowed emissions rates 

which produce SO, concentrations roughly five times greater than the NAAQS, as the 

table below shows. Actual emissions show modeled SO, concentrations that are nearly 

three times greater than the NAAQS level at Crystal River Plant and nearly twice the 

NAAQS level at Lansing Plant. At Crystal River pant, the modeling results show unsafe 

air quality extending for tens of miles around the plant, extending over Crystal Bay and 

12 1d. 

13 The modeling reports used AERMOD version 12060. 

14 Crystal River Report at 3; and Lansing Repol1 at 3. 

15 See Crystal River Report at 4 Table I (finding Crystal River Plant does not comply 

with the NAAQS); and Lansing Report at 4 Table I (finding Lansing Plant does not 

comply with the NAAQS). 

16 See Letter from Michael P. Halpin, Director, Division of Air Resource Management, 

Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida to Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4 (Nov. 28, 201 I), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/s02designations/reclelters/R4_FLJec2 _ wtechanalysis. pd r.- see also 

Letter from Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4 to 

Rick Scott, Governor, State of Florida (Feb. 6, 2013), available at 

http://www . epa. gov Is02designa tionsl eparesp/04 _ F L _resp. pd f. 

1742 U.S.c. § 7410(a)(I). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 5 of5 

June 12,2013 

inland. At Lansing Smith, the pollution plume covers essentially all of Panama City and 

Panama City Beach. 

The findings from each modeling report are summari zed in the table below. 18 

-.~ .• -~~~ ..•. """';,-"'''''''''-'~"-' --..!f-ot-al .- ............ "' ........... . ) .... .. C " - .. "'''''-.' ..... . -"""'-.. .:" ..... ,.-.... "" 

Facility Impact SO, Power Emission Background Facility Counties 

Pla"t Rates Impact (flg/m' ) Impact plus NAAQS Impacted (ltg/m') Background (ltg/m')" 

(ltg/m') 

Allowable 9 15.8 5.2 921.0 196.2 Citrus, eryslal Hernando, Levy, River Plant 

Maximum 529.4 5.2 534.6 196.2 & Marion 

Allowable 853.2 5.2 858.4 196.2 Bay. Lansing Washington, & Planl 

Maximum 341.3 5.2 346.5 196.2 Walton 

Based on these conservative modeling results, to achieve and maintain the onehour SO, NAAQS, FDEP must promulgate enforceable one-hour averaging time 

emission limits into its SIP which are no less stringent than the following limits. llJ These 

emission limits must apply at all times including dUJing periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

Maximum Total Required Total 

Plant Facility Emission Facility Emission 

Rate (lbs/hr) Reduction (%) 

Crystal River Plant 6,720.8 79.1 % 

Lansing Plant 4,221.9 77.6% 

As demonstrated by the modeling reports, these plants and their governing emission 

limits allow exceedances of the I-hour SO, NAAQS. 

18 See Crystal River Report at 4 Table I; and Lansing Report at 4 Table 1. 

10 The 75 ppb to Itg/m' calculation is 75/0.3823 = 196.2 ltg/Ill' . 

'0 Crystal River Report at 4 Table 3; and Lansing RepOit at 4 Table 3. 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 6 of6 

June 12, 2013 

Now, it is true that both plants have taken new SO, penn it limits last year in 

response to Florida's regional haze compliance obligations. But there remains a 

significant question as to whether they will be fully implemented, and in what fonn. 

Moreover, the 30-day rolling averaging time prevents them from ensuring compliance 

with the NAAQS, even if they are fu ll y implemented. 

Crystal River Plant, first, has agreed that it will either discontinue the use of its 

uncontrolled units I and 2 as coal-fired units by 2020, or install a dry flue gas 

desulfurization (DFGD) system that achieves 95% SO, removal efficiency or an emission 

rate of 0. 15 Ib/mmBtu either by January I, 20 18, or within five years of EPA's approval 

of Florida 's haze plan, whichever is later." However, option I would not do so until 

2020. And option 2 would not do so until five years after EPA 's approval of Florida's 

haze plan, which has not yet occurred (so at least not until June 2018). Until that time, 

illegal and unhealthfu l air quality wi ll continue to be allowed by Crystal River Plant's 

penni!. Moreover, because even the 0.15 Ib/mmBtu limit is to be achieved on a "30-day 

rolling average," " new limit cannot guarantee compli ance with the one-hour NAAQS. 

FDEP should require a one-hour averaging time to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. 

EPA has agreed that a one-hour averaging period should be implemented to protect the 

2010 SO, NAAQS from emissions from a particular sourceD 

Lansing Plant, meanwhile, has received an emissions limit of O. 74 Ib/mmBtu in a 

haze-related pennit, again on a rolling 30-day average. 24 This limit is not effective until 

EPA approves it as part of Florida's haze plan, and compliance is not required until 

March 2016. Once again, the pennit countenances illegal air quality violations for at least 

three more years, and the 30-day averaging time in the pennit cannot assure compliance 

with the one-hour NAAQS. 

In short, FDEP has made some progress, prompted by the regional haze ru le, but 

neither existing pennit limits nor those which may be imposed by the final regional haze 

SIP assure NAAQS compliance. 

Yet, FDEP considers its SIP submission a "confirmation" that it satisfies the 20 10 

SO, NAAQS. Further, FDEP stated in its submission that it "hereby confirms that the 

requirements of II O(a)( I) and the infrastructure elements required by II 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

" See Air Penn it No. 0 170004-036-AC (20 12). In principle, either of these limits might 

remove the NAAQS violation (modeli ng suggests that Crystal River could comply with 

the NAAQS with an emissions rate no greater than 0.25 Ib/mmBtu). 

2' Id. at 7. 

2J See Letter from Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 7, to Robert 

Moser, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (Feb. 3, 20 II), 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3 (recommending one hour averaging times to maintain the 

NAAQS in a PSD pennit). 

'4 See Air Pennit No. 00500 14-020-AC (2012). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page70f7 

June 12,20 13 

of the CAA are adequately addressed ... ,,25 In support of its declaration of meeting the 

requirements of II O(a)( 1)-(2), FDEP submitted several regulations that it purports to 

show the SIP's compliance with 110(a)(2)(A). However, none of these regulations 

actually include enforceable emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance 

of the 2010 SO, NAAQS. Even FDEP recognizes that it has changed absolutely nothing 

to meet the new, stringent standard.'· 

Specifically, FDEP cites Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C) Section 62-204, 

which only incorporates the Final SO, Rule, but it does not provide any specific measures 

to incorporate the final rule. This is also true of the other regulations that Florida cites, 

F.A.C. 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297, which respectively deal with stationary 

sources generally, stationary sources under preconstruction review, stationary sources' 

emission standards, and stationary sources' emission monitoring. None of the regulations 

listed to satisfy 110(a)(2)(A) guarantee any enforceable emission limits27 Thus, the SIP 

cannot ensure maintenance of the new one-hour SO, NAAQS. 

Therefore, FDEP must impose additional emission limits on the plants which will 

guarantee compliance with the NAAQS at all times. These limits must reflect emissions 

levels which will address the NAAQS violations shown in the modeling reports. Because 

the Infrastructure SIP submission does not include adequate emission limitations, and 

Florida's cun'ent regulations do not suffice, the SIP fails to comply with section 

II O(a)( I )(A). 

B. AERMOD modeling. such as that provided by the Sierra Club. is 

the appropriate toolfor evaluating the adequacy o(infi-astrllcture 

SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS 

As outlined by EPA in the Final SO, NAAQS Rule,'· air dispersion modeling is 

the best method for evaluating the sbort-tenn impacts of large sources of SO, . This is 

consistent with EPA's historic use of air dispersion modeling for attainment designations 

and SIP revisions. Furthermore, a state agency may not ignore information put in front of 

them2 ? 

FDEP has been on notice that modeling data is an imp0l1ant input in the NAAQS 

attainment and maintenance process. In pm1icular, EPA has historically used modeling in 

'5 SIP Proposal at I. 

'6 See id. ("are adequately addressed by the existing approved SIP ... "). 

27 See SIP Proposal at 3. 

" Final SO, Rule at 35,551. 

29 See generally Motor Vehicle Mfi-s. Ass 'n v. State Farm Mut. Alita Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 

29, 43 (1983) (holding that it was arbitrary and capricious for agency to ignore an 

important aspect of an issue placed before it); Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 

346 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 8 of8 

June 12,2013 

detennining attainment for the S02 standardJO For example, in EPA's 1994 S02 

Guideline Document, EPA noted that "for S02 attainment demonstrations, monitoring 

data alone will generally not be adequate," and that "[a]ttainment determinations for SO, 

will generally not rely on ambient monitoring data alone, but instead will be supported by 

an acceptable modeling analysis which quantifies that the SIP strategy is sound and that 

enforceable emission limits are responsible for altainmenL,,3 1 The. I 994 S02 Guideline. - .-

Document goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: " [fJor S02, 

dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively a source's 

impacts and to detennine the areas of expected high concentrations based upon cun-ent 

conditions. ,,32 

EPA's acceptance of modeling for making attainment designations stretches back 

decades and is equally applicable to detennining the adequacy of an Infrastructure SIP. In 

1983, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ("OAQPS") issued a Section 107 

Designation Policy Summary.33 OAQPS explained that "air quality modeling emissions 

data[] should be used to determine if the monitoring data accurately characteri ze the 

worst case air quality in the area.,,34 Of course, if there is no monitoring data for an area, 

it does not accurately characterize the worst-case air quality in an area. EPA 

acknowledged that some nonattainment designations were "based solely on 

modeling[.],,35 In fact, reliance on modeling for nonattainment designations stretches 

back to the Carter Administration. In 1978, EPA designated Laurel, Montana as 

nonattaimnent "due to measured and modeled violations of the primary S02 standard.',36 

30 See e.g. , U.S. EPA, Implementation of the I-Hour Sal NAAQS Draji White Paper/or 

Discussion at 3, fn. I, (hereinafter "EPA White Paper"), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sul furdioxide/pdfs120 120522whitepaper.pdf; see also 

Respondent's Opposition to Motion of the State of North Dakota for a Stay of EPA 's 1-

Hour SO, Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental Development 

Association 's Clean Air Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252), attached hereto 

as Exhibit 4 ("the Agency has historically relied on modeling to make designations for 

sulfur dioxide"). 

31 U.S. EPA, 1994 S02 Guideline Document, (hereinafter " 1994 SO, Guideline 

Document"), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgltl /memorandals02_guide_0921 09.pdt: at 2-1; see also id. 

at 2-5 (" For SO, attairunent demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be 

adequate."). 

32 Id. at 2-3 . 

33 See Sheldon Meyers Memorandum re Section 107 Designation Policy Summary (April 

21 , 1983), attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 

34 !d. at I. 

35 Jd. at 2. 

36 Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA , 666 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 

43 Fed. Reg. 8,962 (Mar. 3, 1978». 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 9 of9 

June 12,2013 

As such, EPA's final 20 10 SO, NAAQS rule simply continues and builds upon 

EPA's historical practice of using modeling to detenlline attainment and nonattainment 

status for SO, NAAQS. In doing so, EPA properly recogn ized the "strong source-oriented 

nature of SO, ambient impacts,,,3? and concluded that the appropriate methodology for 

purposes of detenllining compliance, attainment, and nonattainment with the new 

NAAQS is modeling.'s Accordingly, in promulgating the new SO, NAAQS, EPA 

explained that, for the one-hour standard, " it is more appropriate and efficient to 

principally use modeling to assess compli ance for medium to larger sources ... ,,39 

Similarly, EPA explained in the EPA White Paper that using modeling to detenlline 

attainment for the SO, standard "could better address several potentially problematic 

issues than would the narrower monitoring-focused approach discussed in the proposal 

for the SO, NAAQS, including the unique source-specific impacts of SO, emissions and 

the special chall enges SO, emissions have historically presented in tenllS of monitoring 

short-tellll SO, levels for comparison with the NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 

35550).,,40 

Moreover, EPA's use of modeling has been upheld by the courts. For example, in 

Montana Sulphur, the company challenged a SIP call, a SIP disapproval and a Federal 

Implementation Plan ("FIP" ) promulgation, because it was premised on a modeling 

analysis that showed the Billings/Laurel, Montana area was in nonattainment for SO,. 41 

The court rejected Montana Sulphur's argument and held that EPA's reliance on 

modeling was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unlawful. 4' 

EPA uses modeling because the agency is well aware that modeli ng produces 

reliable results. For example, as John C. Vimont, EPA Region 9's Regional 

Meteorologist, has stated under oath: 

EPA does recognize the usefulness of ambient measurements for 

infol11lation on background concentrations, provided reliable monitoring 

techniques are available. EPA does not recommend, however, that ambient 

measurements be used as the sole basis of setting emission limitations or 

.l? Final SO, Rule §at 35,370. 

38 See id. at 35,55 1 (describing dispersion modeling as "the most technically appropriate, 

efficient and readily available method for assessing short-tel11l ambient SO, 

concentrations in areas with large point sources."). 

39 Id. at 35,570. 

40 EPA White Paper at 3-4. 

41 Montana Sulphur, 666 F.3d at 11 84. 

4' Id. at 11 85; see also Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 

("Realistically, computer modeling is a useful and onen essential tool for performing the 

Herculean labors Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean Air Act"); Republic Steel Corp. 

v. Costle, 621 F.2d 797, 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use of modeling to predict future 

violations and incorporating "worst-case" assumptions regarding weather and fullcapacity operations of pollutant sources). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 100fi0 

June 12, 20 I 3 

detemlining the ambient concentrations resulting from emissions ii'om an 

industrial source. These should be based on an appropriate modeling 

analysis. 43 

Similarly, Roger Brode is currently a physical scientist in EPA's Air Quality 

Modeling Group and co-chairs the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Tmprovement 

Committee (AERMIC) and the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup 44 Mr. Brode has 

stated under oath that AERMOD is "readi ly capable of accurately predicting whether the 

revised primary SO, NAAQS is attained and whether individual sources cause or 

contribute to a violation of the SO, NAAQS:,45 Mr. Brode has explained: 

As pat1 of the basis for EPA adopting the AERMOD model as the 

preferred model for nearfield applications in the Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 , the perfonnance of the 

AERMOD model was extensively evaluated based on a total of 17 field 

study data bases (AERMOD:_ Latest Features and Evaluation Results. 

EPA-454/R-03-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park (2003), portions of which are attached to this affidavit) 

("EPA 2003"). The scope of the model evaluations conducted for 

AERMOD far exceeds the scope of evaluations conducted on an y other 

model that has been adopted in Appendix W to Part 51 . These evaluations 

demonstrate the overall good perfonnance of the AERMOD model based 

on technicall y sound model evaluation procedures, and also illustrate the 

significant advancement in the science of dispersion modeling represented 

by the AERMOD model as compared to other models that have been used 

in the past. In particular, adoption of the AERMOD model has 

significantly reduced the potential fo r overestimation of ambient impacts 

from elevated sources in complex ten'ain compared to other-models46 

The power plants discussed in these comments are clearly elevated sources. 

EPA's practice in a number of other contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a 

technicall y superior approach for ascertaining impacts on NAAQS, and the history of 

EPA's preference for modeling to evaluate compliance rather than monitoring. For 

example, all Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate Matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 

microns, and SO, NAAQS, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment 

compliance verification analyses are perfonned with air dispersion modeling, such as 

running AERMOD in a manner consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 47 

Indeed, in order to ensure consistency in how air impacts are detemlined, both existing 

43 Declaration of John C. Vimont at I, II (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 

44 Declaration of Roger W. Brode at 1,2, attached hereto as Ex hibit 7. 

45 /d. at 2. 

46 Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added). 

47 40 C.F.R. § 52 .21(1)(1). 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page II of II 

June 12,2013 

sources and newly pennitted sources should be assessed using the same methods. 

AERMOD modeling perfonns particularly well in evaluating emission sources with one 

or a handful of large emission points. The stacks are well-characterized in tenns of 

location, dimensions and exhaust parameters, and have high release heights. In addition 

many plants have S02 continuous emission monitoring system ("CEMS") data. 

AERMOD accurately models medium-to-large S02sources-even with condition·s aIlaw . wind speed, the use of oft~s it e meteorological data, and variable weather conditions. For 

example, AERMOD has been tested and perfonns very well during conditions of low 

wind speeds: 

AERMOD's eva luation analyses included a number of site-specific 

meteorological data sets that incorporate low wind speed conditions. For 

example, the Tracy evaluation included meteorological data with wind 

speeds as low as 0.39 meter/second (m/s); the Westvaco evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.31 m/s; the Kincaid S02 evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.37 m/s; and the Lovett evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns ... regarding 

AERMOD's abi lity to model low wind speed conditions seem to neglect 

the data used in actual AERMOD evaluations4 8 

EPA has noted as much for years: " [a]mbient monitoring data and air quality modeling 

data for a particular area can sometimes appear to conflict. This is primarily due to the 

fact-that modeling results may predict maximum S02 concentrations at receptors where 

no monitors are located." 49 

Moreover, EPA has found that reliance on modeling is particularly critical when 

monitors networks are sparse. EPA said: "[i]n lieu of relying on monitors to assure 

the NAAQS are protected, particularly when the monitoring network is sparse, EPA 

believes enforceable emission limits should be established that, through modeling, 

demonstrate that the NAAQS would be protected.,,50 Florida openly admits that it does 

not have a monitoring network or strategy in place to adequately ensure the attainment 

and maintenance of the 2010 S02 NAAQS.'1 As EPA suggested, the lack ofa monitoring 

network, like that in Florida, is precisely the situation in which modeling should occur. In 

this instance, reliance on modeling is vital to ensure that the NAAQS are maintained and 

that no exceedances of the NAAQS wi ll occur. 

48 Comments of Camille Sears I, at 10, attached hereto as Exhibit 8 (citing AERMOD 

evaluations and modeled meteorological data, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnlscram/dispersionyrefrec.htm . 

., 1994 S02 Guideline Document at 2-6. 

50 Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Maintenance of Air 

Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants, 71 Fed. Reg. 48,222, 4825 

(Jan. 30, 2006). 

51 See SIP Proposal at 4 (the development of a monitoring network is "ongoing".) 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 12 of 12 

June 12, 20 I 3 

In sum, neither Florida's SIP, nor the current, pennitted emission limits tor plants, 

like Crystal River Plant and Lansing Plant, ensures that counties in Florida will achieve 

and maintain the new one-hour S02 NAAQS. To satisfy Florida's obligations under the 

Act, FDEP must include adequate emissions limits in the SIP with one-hour averaging 

periods. EPA has acknowledged that for the one-hour SO, NAAQS modeling is the n,os! 

accurate means of determining attainment with the N AAQS. 5' Accordi ngl y, FD EP should 

include source-specific SO, emission limits in the SIP that when modeled show no 

exceedances of the NAAQS. 

II. THE FLORIDA INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE 

PROVISIONS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE 

PERSONEL, FUNDING, AND LEGAL AUTHORITY UN DER STATE 

LAW TO CARRY OUT ITS SIP. 

Every SIP is required to adequately provide personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under state law to carry out the implementation of a SIp53 Florida has tailed to 

demonstrate that its SIP meets this basic requirement. To fultill this requirement, Florida 

cites Florida Statute 403.061(4), which allows FDEP to "[h]ire only such employees as 

may be necessary to effectuate the responsibilities of the department.,,5. While we 

certainly appreciate that FDEP has hiring authority, it is critical that Florida also 

demonstrate that it has sufficient resources to do this hiring and to run the prob'fam. In 

this regard, Florida only cites a license registration fee of$1 per vehi cle registration sold 

in Florida as finically contributing to the FDEP funding for SIP implementation55 FDEP 

has not demonstrated that this meager amount will provide the financial support 

necessary to implement 2010 SO, NAAQS. Perhaps recognizing its inability to 

demonstrate that it satisfies the requirement of Section I 10(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, FDEP 

hopes that EPA will simply ignore these failings and approve the SIP. In this SIP 

submission, FDEP notes that when "EPA does a completeness determination and final 

approval for any SIP submittal, it implicitly determines that the requirements ofCAA 

110(a)(2)(E) are met." A completeness detennination only demonstrates that the EPA has 

enough infonnation to detennine the adequacy of the SIP. It is not a determination of the 

SIP's adequacy in itself. Rather, EPA must judge, on the record which FDEP provides, 

whether Florida in fact does have sufficient resources and personnel to fulfill its 

obligations. FDEP has not yet made this demonstration. Thus, FDEP must revise its SIP 

to comply with Section II 0(a)(2)(E). 

52 Final SO, Rule at 35,551 , 35,570. 

53 See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E). 

5. SIP Proposal at 6. 

55 {d. 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Pagel 30fl3 

June 12, 2013 

Ill. FLORIDA MAY NOT RELY ON ITS UN APPROVED REGIONAL 

HAZE PROGRAM TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SIP 

REQUIREM ENTS 

Finally, we note that Florida relies in significant part on Tts 'unapproved regional 

haze program to demonstrate that the Infrastructure SIP complies with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which requires SIPs to include provisions to ensure that in-state 

emissions do not interfere with visibility protections in other states. Moreover, this 

provision is not implicated by the EME Homer City Generation decision. 56 Because the 

plan has not yet been approved, Florida's reliance on this program is premature. Indeed, 

we have serious concerns about Florida's haze plan. We incorporate our comments to 

EPA on this point by reference. 57 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The SIP is currently inadequate to achieve and maintain compli ance with the onehour S02 NAAQS, as described above. FDEP must adopt new provisions into the SIP to 

protect the public health and comply with the Act's requirements. The Sierra Club would 

be happy to provide any other infonnati on that might assist FDEP in evaluating the 

impacts of these sources and developing a SIP in full compliance with the Act. 

Respectfully submitted, 

O;:y.?«;"'{il19h~~.d~J Ilr\ 

Elizabeth Toba Pearhnan 

Law Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 

1523 27th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

(202) 643-4068 

etplaw@gmail.com 

56 EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir 20 12) (vacating the rule 

because it required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their own significant 

contributions to downwind states' nonattainment and did not allow states to implement 

reductions through SIPs before issuing FIPs). 

57 See Comments of Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and National Parks Conservation 

Association (Jan. 9, 20 13) on EPA Docket No. -R04-0AR-20 I 0-0935, attached hereto as 

Ex hibit 9. 
To: Mr. Stevens 

Page 14 of 14 

June 12, 2013 

Robert Ukeiley 

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 

507 Center Street 

Berea, K Y 40403 

(859) 986-5402 

rukeiley@igc.org 

On behalf of Sierra Club 

Alisa Coe 

Staff Attorney 

Earthjustice 

Florida Office 

III S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 

Tallahassee, FL 3230 I 

(850) 681-003 I 

acoe@earthjustice.org 

On behalf of Earthjustice 

Cc: Marine Byrnes 
DEP’s Response to Sierra Club’s Written Comments in its June 12, 2013 

letter from Elizabeth Toba Pearlman (Sierra Club) to Chad Stevens (DEP)

In a June 12, 2013, letter from Elizabeth Toba Pearlman (Sierra Club) to Chad Stevens (DEP), the 

Sierra Club, on behalf of itself and Earthjustice, submitted written comments on several aspects of

Florida’s Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) revision relating to 

Section 110(a) elements for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In general, the Sierra Club asserts that

Florida’s ISIP is inadequate, particularly with regard to permitted emissions limits for two coalfired power plants – the Duke Energy Crystal River facility (Citrus County) and the Gulf Power 

Lansing Smith facility (Bay County).

Comment 1: In sum, the Sierra Club asserts that Florida’s ISIP must include enforceable onehour SO2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The Sierra 

Club further asserts that Florida has failed to impose restrictions on major SO2 sources to ensure 

that they will attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Sierra Club specifically identified the Duke 

Energy Crystal River power plant facility and the Gulf Power Lansing Smith power plant facility, 

both of which are coal-fired.

DEP’s Response to Comment 1: Florida’s ISIP is not a demonstration of attainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. The ISIP demonstrates that Florida has the appropriate statutory and regulatory 

authority to develop necessary rules and control measures so that areas within the state can attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. There is a separate process (SIP revision), with its own timelines and 

public participation opportunities, that will result in source emission limitations in any Florida 

areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. At present, Florida has two such 

areas, one in Tampa and one in Fernandina Beach. In accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), DEP must submit a plan to EPA by April 4, 2015, that demonstrates 

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS standard no later than October 4, 2018.

In addition, EPA is developing a separate process to identify other areas of the state with limited 

or no ambient SO2 monitors to assess compliance with the new SO2 NAAQS (see February 6, 

2013, EPA strategy paper, “Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard”). This assessment is beyond the scope of the 

ISIP. Indeed, the EPA (the agency charged with reviewing and approving the ISIP) has advised 

all states “. . . that states focus their 2013 SIP submittals on the traditional infrastructure elements 

of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and (2), rather than on modeling demonstrations showing 

future attainment of the standard by a fixed date for unclassified areas.” (see letter from EPA 

Administrator Gina McCarthy to state air program directors dated April 12, 2012). These 

“traditional infrastructure elements” are the Florida statutes and rules that allow the state to meet 

its obligations under the CAA, combined with a demonstration that the statutory and regulatory 

authority exist for Florida to develop rules and control measures such that all areas of the state can 

either maintain the new SO2 NAAQS standard or attain and then maintain the standard in the 
future. Florida will address the issue of compliance with the new SO2 NAAQS in accordance with 

the procedures developed through EPA for this process.

Component to Comment 1, the Sierra Club summarized an air quality modeling effort that it had 

performed for the Crystal River and Lansing Smith power plants, and which it had submitted to 

the DEP. As stated above, the development, performance, and assessment of such air quality 

modeling efforts are not requirements of this ISIP, although such modeling efforts may be 

undertaken in completing the SIP revision process whereby Florida will address attainment and 

maintenance of the new SO2 NAAQS.

Comment 2: The Sierra Club asserts that AERMOD modeling, such as that provided by the Sierra 

Club to DEP, is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of ISIPs and ensuring attainment 

and maintenance of the new SO2 NAAQS.

DEP’s Response to Comment 2: This comment is beyond the scope of the ISIP. As stated in 

DEP’s Response to Comment 1, the ISIP demonstrates that Florida has the appropriate statutory 

and regulatory authority to develop rules and control measures such that areas within the state can 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. Although DEP agrees that the AERMOD modeling system is 

appropriate for evaluating SO2 concentrations against the NAAQS, the use of AERMOD is not 

required for the completion of Florida’s ISIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Comment 3: Sierra Club asserts that Florida ISIP must include provisions to ensure that there is 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP.

DEP’s Response to Comment 3: DEP has addressed the adequacy of personnel, funding, and 

legal authority in its State Implementation Plan Infrastructure Confirmation for the 2010 Revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide (see, in particular, Section 110(a)(2)(E) 

under Section 110(a)(2) Elements – Implementing Rules and Statutes).

Comment 4: The Sierra Club asserts that Florida may not rely on its unapproved Regional Haze 

program to assure compliance with SIP requirements.

DEP’s Response to Comment 4: Florida’s mechanism for assuring compliance with the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is through the PSD rules and the regional haze plan. 

Florida’s PSD rules require that all new major sources, and major modifications to existing major 

sources, address visibility impacts, including impacts in other states. The regional haze plan 

addresses visibility in a broader context for all sources of visibility-impairing pollutants, assuring 

continued progress to a long-term goal. The plan addresses areas both inside and outside of the 

state. EPA has fully approved Florida’s regional haze submissions and the incorporation of all 

relevant portions of Florida’s visibility program into Florida’s SIP. As such, Florida is meeting its 

obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Attachment C

Additional written comments on Florida’s Section 110(a) Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan Submittal for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

-----Original Message-----

From: Sierra Club [mailto:information@sierraclub.org] On Behalf Of Frances Behrens

Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:05 AM

To: Stevens, Chad R.

Subject: Use scientific air modeling in our State Implementation Plan

Jun 7, 2013

Mr. Chad Stevens

FL

Dear Mr. Stevens,

I am extremely concerned about dangerous sulfur dioxide air pollution in our state, as even very short

exposures to sulfur dioxide can cause asthma attacks and respiratory distress, potentially leading to

hospitalization and even death.

Right now, coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit large amounts of sulfur dioxide in our state --

enough to violate public health standards. These pollution plumes are a particularly big problem around

Panama City, thanks to Gulf Power's Lansing Smith plant, and around Crystal River, due to the Duke

Energy Plant there. Both plants need to clean up now, and air modeling shows that. That's why I am

urging you to take into consideration all information -- including air modeling of sulfur dioxide emissions

-- in developing our state's implementation plan for how we will address dangerous sulfur dioxide

pollution.

This plan must include tight, hourly limits on sulfur dioxide to protect the public, including vulnerable

populations like children and the elderly, and to ensure that we have clean air to breathe.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Frances Behrens

1446 Cypress Trace Dr

Melbourne, FL 32940-1625
DEP’s Response to Additional written comments on Florida’s Section 110(a) 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Submittal for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

Chad Stevens, DEP’s designated contact for comments on Florida’s Section 110(a) Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan Submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, received 100 identical emails 

from citizens dated throughout the comment period.

Comment 1: Commenters asserted that coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit large quantities 

of SO2 in Florida, which leads to violations of public health standards. Commenters specifically 

referenced Gulf Power Lansing Smith plant in Panama City and the Duke Energy Crystal River 

plant near Crystal River, Florida. Commenters asserted that both plants need to “clean up,” and 

that DEP should consider air quality modeling in developing Florida’s State Implementation Plan. 

Commenters asserted that Florida’s SIP must include “tight, hourly limits” on SO2.

DEP’s Response to Comment 1: The ISIP is not a demonstration of attainment of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The ISIP demonstrates that Florida has the appropriate statutory and regulatory authority 

to develop rules and control measures such that areas within the state can attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. Thus, the expectations of the commenters with regard to specific attainment concerns 

are beyond the scope of this ISIP.

As discussed above, a separate process is being developed by EPA, state air quality agencies, and 

others to address these citizens’ comments. The EPA (the agency charged with reviewing and 

approving the infrastructure SIP) has notified all states “. . . that states focus their 2013 SIP 

submittals on the traditional infrastructure elements of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 

rather than on modeling demonstrations showing future attainment of the standard by a fixed date 

for unclassified areas,” (see letter from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to state air program 

directors dated April 12, 2012). These “traditional infrastructure elements” are the Florida statutes 

and rules that allow the state to meet its obligations under the CAA, combined with a 

demonstration that the statutory and regulatory authority exist for Florida to develop rules and 

control measures such that all areas of the state can either maintain the new SO2 NAAQS standard 

or attain and then maintain the standard in the future. Florida will address the issue of compliance 

with the new SO2 NAAQS in accordance with the procedures developed by EPA for this process.