### 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

. VINY ARD JR

. SECRETAR Y



### 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
A ddendum to State Implementation Plan Infrastructure Confirmation for the

2010 Revised Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard for

Sulfur Dioxide
Introduction The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the national ambient air quali ty standard (NAAQS) for Sulfur Dioxide ( S O 2 

### ) 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. § 74 10(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 S O 2 

### . 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 r equirements, 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 p rogram 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 S O 2 

### 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 ref erenced 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 requirem ents 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 i t 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 emissio ns. 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 requir ements 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 disc ussion below regarding the requirements in CAA section s 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 s ection 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 S O 2 

### 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: SIP s must include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means , or techniques; schedules for compli ance; and other related matters

.  Rules: SIP

- approved rule chapters 62

- 204, 62

- 21 0, 62

- 212, 62

- 296 , and 62

- 297, F.A.C. , c ollectively include emission limits and other control measures for pollutant

- emitting activities that contribute to S O 2 

### concentrations in the ambient air and provide authority for DEP to establish such limits and mea sures as well as schedules for compliance through SIP

- approved permits.

 Statutes: S ection 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 S tatutes, 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: SIP s must provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors; the co mpilation 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: S ection 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 pol lution abatement. ” S ection 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes DEP to “ [a] dopt a comprehensive program for the pre vention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air and waters of the state....” S ection 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 su bmittal , the development of the S O 2 

### monitoring network is ongoing; therefore Florida ’s S O 2 

### monitoring strategy will be established per the re quirements set forth in the 2013 Annual Monitoring Network plan and any subsequent Annual Monitoring Network plan relevant to the development of Florida’s S O 2 

### monitoring network

. 110(a)(2)(C)

– Program for enforcement of control measures and new source review: SIP s 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 meet s the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD ) requirements under part C of Title 1 of the CAA for pollutant

- emitting activities that contribute to S O 2 

### concentrations in the ambient air and also provide for the enforcement of S O 2 

### 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 ne w or modified major sources of S O 2 

### emissions will apply the Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) to reduce S O 2 

### 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 pol lution.” 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 Implem entation Plan (FIP ) for the Florida PSD program to address the preconstruction permitting of greenhou s e 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., Genera l 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 (NO X

### ) 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: SIP s 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, 2 

### that 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 ne w or modified major sources of S O 2 

### emissions will apply the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce S O 2 

### emissi ons 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), Fl orida 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 approva l 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 (NO X 

### ) as an ozone precursor (77 FR 35862).

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

- 1 0, 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: SIP s 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 impl ementation 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 provis ion

.  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 “exerci se 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

. ” S ection 403.182, Florida Statutes , authorizes local polluti on control programs but only if they are approved by DEP as adequate, and remain adequate, to meet Chapter 403 requirements . S ection 320.03(6), Florida Statutes , authorizes DEP to establish an Air Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a $1 fee on every mot or vehicle license registration sold in the state for air pollution control purposes . S ection 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 conf licts 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: SIP s must provide for the establishment and operation of emissions monitoring systems by source owners or operators, and for the submi ssion 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 S O 2 

### 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 SIP

approved permits ; and require reporting of S O 2 

### 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 subs tantively 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: S tate s 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 , authori zes DEP to : s eek injunctive relief to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation or permit certification, or order; to enjoin any violation specified in s ection 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 hu man 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 adopte d 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 governmen t 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 notif ying 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 S O 2 

### 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 S O 2 

### emissions will apply the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce S O 2 

### 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 s ection 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 prov ided 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 conjunctio n with the above referenced SIP approved new source preconstruction permitting program meet the PSD requirements of p art 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 p art C of the CAA

.  Note 4: On June 15, 2012, EPA approved a SIP revision that modif ied Florida’s New Source Review (NSR)/PSD program to recognize nitrogen oxide (NO X 

### ) 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 Flori da’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 S O 2 

### concentrations in the ambient air

.  Statutes: S ection 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 b e filed...

. ” S ection 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 4 0 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 co nsultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

 Statutes: S ection 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 agreement s 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 o f 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 c omments 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 SO 2 

### NAAQS

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

Mr. Chad R. Stevens Administrator ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANT A

. 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: 

# RE CE I VE D JUN 18 2013 DIVISI ON 

### or A I" R

ESO U R

C

E MANA G EME l'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 Pape r (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 Fl orida’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 1 3

C had Stevens Department of En vironmenta l Protection Di v ision of Air Re so urce Management 2600 Blairstone Road MS 5500 Ta ll a h assee, FL 32399-24000 C h ad.r .stevens@dep.s tate.fl.u s
Re: Comments Concerning Florida's Section I IOta) Infra s tructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal for 2010 Sulfur Dioxid e NAAQS
Dear Mr. Stevens:
On b e h a l foft he S i erra C lub , its 27 , 398 F l orida member s, Ea rthju s tice ', and ot hers who a re adverse l y impacted b y Fl orida 's so urce s of s ulfur dio x ide (",SO ," ) pollution , we s ubm it th e fo ll owi n g comments on Flo rid a 's proposed Infra s tructur e S l ate Im plementation Pl an ("S I P " ) addressing th e r e quirement s for the 20 10 Su l fur Diox id e Na ti ona l Ambient A ir Qua lity Standa rd s ('"NAAQS " ), requ ired b y Sect ion II O(a)( I ) a nd (2) of the Clea n A ir Act ("CAN' or "Act " ) .' We are very concerned th a t F lo rid a's S IP submission doe s not include concrete mea s ur es to contro l SO , pollution from two ma ss i ve coa l power plant s w hi c h can and h ave ca u sed un safe air qualit y ove r the C rystal Ri ver a nd the Panama City Beach region s
. The primaryNAAQS define the le vels of ai r quality that th e EPA Administ r ator determine s to be necessa ry to protect public healt h wit h an adeq u ate m argin of safe ty. J Ind eed , th e new one -h o u r SO , s tandard i s neces sa ry to protect pub lic health from the

, Earthjust i ce is a non-profit public in terest law organ i z ation d e dicated to protecting the magniticent p laces , natural re so urce s, and w ildli fe of thi s earth, and t o detendin g the ri g ht of a ll people to a healthy environment 2 4 2 U

. S.C. § 7410(a)( I ) , (2). 3 See 42 U .S.C

. § 7409(b)( I).

50 F Street , N W

. S uit e 800

. Was hin gton, DC 2000 1 TEL: (202) 675-23 8 0 FAX: (202) 54 7 -6009 www.sierr aclub

. orgTo: Mr. Steve n s Page 2 of2 Jun e 1 2,2013

ser ious threats po se d b y s hort-term exposure t o s ulfur co m pounds, inclu ding decrea se d lun g funct i on, increa se d respiratory sy mptom s such as chest tightne ss, wheez in g , a nd
s hortness of breath , and other se riou s indicator s of re s pirator y illne ss, especia ll y in asthmatics , chi ldren, and the e ld erl y' T he health data r e li ed upon by EPA in promulgating the new sta ndard overw h e lmin gly indicated that increased asthma attacks and ho sp ital visits are attributab le to s hort

- term concentratio ns of sulfur CGmpo und s in the a ir

. Due to the se and other se riou s impairment s caused b y s hort-tenn SO , exposure, the Flo rid a Department of En vironmen ta l Protection ('"FDEP " ) mu s t prope rl y implement th e one -h our SO, NAAQS to prot ec t its citizens ' health.
I. THE FLOR ID A I NFRASTRUCTURE S IP MUST I NCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONE-HOUR SO, EM I SS I ON LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE ATTA INMENT AND MA I NTENANCE OF THE NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(I ) of th e Act provide s that each sta te s hall"adopt and s ubmit to th e Administrato r
... a plan wh ic h provides for imp lementat i on , maintenance , and enforcement of" the NAAQS. Section II 0(a)(2)(A) require s that the se plan s , known as Infra s tructure S IP s, " include enforceab le emission limitation s
... as we ll as sc hedule s and tim etab les lor comp li ance , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the app li cab le requirements " orthe CAA, including the requirement to maintain the NAAQS -'
E PA 's deference to a state 's S IP s ubmittal i s conditioned on the s tate' s s ubmi ss ion of a plan " which sa ti s fie s the s tandard s or**~** II 0(a)(2) " and which includes emiss i on limit ations that resu lt in comp l iance wi th the NAAQS6 For a plan to be s uflicient , it

" mu s t demon s trate that the measure s , rule s, and re g ulation s contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the n ational standard that it implement s.'"

4 

### See Primar y National Ambient Air Quality Standardfor Sulfiw Dioxid e; Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 , 35 , 550 (June 20 , 20 I 0) (hereinafter "F inal SO, Rule"). 5 4 2 U.S.c. 

### § 74 1 0(a)(2)(A); 

### Texas v. EPA, 690 F.3d 670, 674 (5th Cir. 20 1 2) (S IP s mu s t include "enlorceable limit s" nece ssary to " meet the app li cable NAAQS"); 

### Connec ti cut Fundfor Env't.lnc

. v. EPA , 696 F.2d 1 69 , 1 72 (2d Cir. I 982)(C lean Air Act require s that S IP s contai n " mea s ure s nece ssary to ensure the atta inm e nt and maintenance of NAAQS " ); 

### Hall v
. EPA, 273 F.3d 114 6 (9th Cir. 200 1) ("Eac h State mu s t submit a [SIP] that s peciflie s ] the manner in which [NAAQS] wi ll be achieved and maintained w ithin each air quality contro l region in th e State " ) ( int erna l c it ations omitted)

. 6 

### Michigan Dept. of Envtl Quality v. Bro wner, 230 F.3d 1 8 1 (6th C ir. 2000) (affinning E PA 's rejection ofa S IP propo sa l w here the state did not offer evidence of the rule s' impact on the NAAQS and did not demon stra te that the propo se d rule s wou ld not int e rfere w ith the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and otherw i se comp ly with the CAA).

, 40 C

. F.R. § 5 1

. 11 2(a) (no tin g al so the adequacy of a plan 's contro l mea s ure s "s hall be demon s trated b y mean s of app li cable air qualit y mod e l s
... " ).To: Mr. Stevens Page 3 of3 June I 2, 2013

On May 13 , 2013, FDEP relea sed it s State Implementation Plan Infra s tructure 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 requirement s repre se nt a new , tighter s tandard for ambient SO" FDEp failed to impose restrictions on major SO, sources to en s ur that they will attain and maintain the NAAQS.

A. Florida must include e l?/o rceab lc one-hour S02 emission limits/or
sou r ces cu rren tl y permitted to cause cxceedances onhe NAAQS. includi ng th e Oystal Rive r Power Plant and the Lansing Smith Electric Ge n era tin g Plant coal:/ired power plants. FDEp fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitation s for so urce s of SO, sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 20 I 0 SO , NAAQS. Specifically, two coal-fired power plant s, C ry s tal River Power Plant (Crystal River Plant) located in C itrus Co unty , and the Lansing Smith Electric Generating Plant (Lansing Plant) , located in B ay County, currently lack emission limit s that preve nt violations of the 2010 SO , NAAQS.8 In order to comply with Section 110(a)( 2)( A) , the Florida SIP mu st be amended to ensure these sources and other large so urce s will not cause violations of the 20 I 0 SO , NAAQS.
Florida's existing regulations have proven in s ufficient to pre ve nt NAAQS exceedances at Crys tal River Plant and Lansing Plant 9

. 10 Modeling s how s that those plants are causing NAAQS violations over the Crys tal River regions and over Panama C ity Beach , re s pecti ve l y.
The modeling report s for C ry s tal River Plant and Lansing Plant compare modeled ambient air concentrations from the plant s' emissions with the one-hour SO , NAAQS. The report s u sed EPA ' s AERMOD program to mea s ure the plant ' s " allowable" (based o n the plants ' cunent Title V permit) and actual (based on ma x imum plant-wide hourl y emissions obtained fTom EPA ' s C lean 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 mu s t ensure that no other facilities in the s tate cause NAAQS v iolation s. 9 See Steven Klafka Sierra Cl ub Evaluation a/Compliance with I-hour S02 NAAQS/or Oystal River Power Plal1l

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

" C r ysta l River Report"), attached hereto as Exhibit I ; and see Steven Klafka SielTa Club Evaluation a/Compliance wit h I-hour SO , NAAQS/or LanSing Smith E lectric Generating Plant

- Lynn Hav en, Florida ( .Iune 26 , 20 12) ( hereinaft e r the "La nsing Rep0l1 " ) , attached hereto as Ex hibit 2.
10 Both m ode ling repOlts and all exhibits have been provid e d electronically, available at http s: // www.box.com/ s/ gsrpkkis8udoOy9h6fnk; the fil es have also been mailed to FDEP on aCD. II C r ysta l River Report at 2; a nd Lansing Report at 2.To: Mr. Stevens Page 4 of4 June 12 , 2013 modeling protocol employed i s consistent with all available technical guidance , including Appendix Wand EPA 's March 2011 guidance for impl e menting the one-hour SO , NAAQS. Additionally , the reports used the most recent ver s ion of AERMOD available at the time of the studies. 1 2

. 1J Where any a ss umption s were made in the running of the model , Mr. Klatka employed con s ervative inputs , which favor the prediction of lower impacts from th e pl ants so th a t the resu lts actua ll y li ke ly underslate ihe plant' s SO ; emi ss ion impact s
. 14

The modeling repol1s d emonstrate that SO , emi ss ion s fi'om the plant s allowed under the exi s ting SIP cau s e impacts that exceed the one-hour SO , NAAQS

. 1 5 These violation s occur both at the maximum allowed emis s ion s in the facilitie s' permits (both permits have recently been altered to impo s e lower limit s, but tho s e limits do not yet apply) and at their actual maximum emi ss ions level s
. Although we are aware , as we di s cus s below , that both plant s have recently taken regional ha z e-related pennit requirements, these reductions are in s ufficient.
The s e violations based on pennitted emission limit s and actual emi s sion s are impacting seven counties in Florida. Neverthele ss, FDEP ha s not recommended that any county in Florida be de s ignated a s nonattainment ; EPA concurred with FDEP's recommendation. 1 6 Becau s e the two power plants are in areas which are currently desil,'11ated attainment and there are no plans to de s ignate them as nonattainment , FDEP must submit a SIP that " provide s for implementation , maintenance , and enforcement of [the NAAQSJ within such State ."" The current SIP plainly doe s not do so.
Indeed , both facilities have , until recently , ha v e been allowed emi ss ions rate s which produce SO , concentrations roughly five times greater than the NAAQS , a s the table below s hows. Actual emi ss ions show modeled SO , concentrations that are nearly three times greater than the NAAQS level at Cry s tal Ri v er Plant and nearly twice the NAAQS level at Lan s ing Plant. At C ry stal River pant , the modeling result s s how un s afe air qualit y extending for ten s of mile s around the plant , extending over C ry s tal Bay and

1 2 1d. 1 3 The modeling report s used AERMOD version 12060. 14 Cry s tal River Report at 3; and Lan s ing Repol1 at 3.
1 5 S ee Cry s tal River Report at 4 Table I (finding C ry s tal Ri v er Plant does not comply with the NAAQS) ; and Lansing Report at 4 Table I (finding Lan s ing Plant does not comply with the NAAQS). 1 6 S ee Letter from Michael P. Halpin , Director , Divi s ion of Air Re s ource Management , Department of E nvironmental Protection , State of Florida to Gwendolyn Keye s Fleming , Regional Admini s trator , U.S. E PA Region 4 (No v
. 28 , 201 I) , a v ailable a t http ://www.epa.gov/ s 02designations/ reclelters/ R4

_ FLJec2

_ wtechanaly s is
.pd 

### r.- see also Letter from Gwendolyn Keye s Fleming , Regional Admini s trator , U

. S. EPA Region 4 to Rick Scott , Governor , State of Florida (Feb

. 6 , 2013), available at http :// www
.epa. gov

### I s02designa tions l eparesp / 04

_ F L

_ re s p
.pd f. 1 7 42 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 C it y Beach.
The findings from eac h modeling report are s ummari z ed in the table below. 1 8**-.~** .•**-~~~** 

# ..•.**"""';,-"'''''''''-'~"-'** --. .!f-o t-al 

### .- ............ 

### "'

........... 

### . ) .... C " 

## .. 

# -

.. "'''''-.' 

## ..... . -"""'- 

## .. .:"

.....,.-.... "" Facility Impact SO, Power Emission Background Facility Counties Pla"t Rates Impact (flg/m ' ) Impa ct plus NAAQS Impacted (ltg/m') Background (ltg/m')" ( lt g/m ' )

A ll owab le 9 1 5.8 5.2 921.0 196.2 C itru s, eryslal H ernando , Lev y , Ri ve r Plant Maximum 529.4 5.2 534.6 1 96.2 & Mar i o n

All owable 853

. 2 5.2 858.4 196 .2 Bay
. Lansing Washington, &

Planl Maximum 341.3 5.2 346 .5 196

. 2 Walt o n



### Based on the se conservative mod e ling re s ult s, to achieve and maintain the onehour SO , NAAQS , FDEP must promulgate enforceable one-hour averaging tim e emiss ion limit s into its SIP which are no le ss stringe nt than the following limit s. llJ 

### These emission limit s must apply at all times including dUJing periods of sta rtup , s hutd ow n , and malfunction

. Maximum Total Required Total Plant Facility Emission Facility Emission Rate (lbs / hr) Reduction (%) 

### Crysta l River Plant 6 , 720.8 79.1 %

Lansing Plant 4,221.9 77.6%

As demonstrated by the mode ling repo rts , these plants and their governing emis s ion limit s allow exceedances of the I-h o ur SO , NAAQS.

1 8 S ee 

### C ry sta l River Report at 4 Table I ; an d Lansing Report at 4 Table 1

. 1 0 

### The 75 ppb to Itg/m ' calculation i s 75 /0.3823 = 

### 196.2 ltg/Ill '

. '0 

### Crysta l 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 li mits l ast year in response to Florida's regional ha z e compliance ob li gations. But there remains a significant question as to whether they will be fully implemented , and in what fonn. Moreover , the 30 -d ay 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 ga s desulfurization (DFGD) system th at ac hi eve s 95% SO , removal efficiency or an em i ss ion rate of 0. 1 5 Ib / mmBtu either by January I , 20 1 8, or within five y ears of EPA ' s approva l of Flor id a ' s ha z e plan , whichever is later. " However , option I wou ld 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 unh ea lth fu l a ir quality wi ll continue t o be a ll owed by C rysta l River Plant ' s penni!. Moreover , because even the 0.15 Ib/ mmBtu l imit is to be achieved on a " 30-day
ro llin g average," " new limit cannot guarantee comp li ance with the one -h o ur NAAQS. FDEP shou ld require a one-hour averag in g time to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has agreed that a one-hour averaging period shou ld be implemented to protect the 2010 SO , NAAQS from emissions from a particular so ur ce D Lansing Plant, meanwhile , has received an emissions lim it of O. 74 Ib / mmBtu in a ha z e-related pennit, again on a ro llin g 30-day average. 24 This limit i s not effect i ve until EPA approves it as part of Flor id a ' s haze plan, and compliance is not required until March 2016. Once aga in , the pennit countenances illegal air quality vio l ations for at least three more years, and the 30 -d ay averaging time in the pennit cannot assure compl i ance with the on e -hour NAAQS.

In short , FDEP has made some progress , prompted by the regional ha z e ru le, but neither existing pennit limits nor those which may be imposed by the final regional haze S IP assure NAAQS comp li ance.
Yet , FDEP considers its S IP s ubmission a "confirmat i on " that it satisfies the 20 1 0 SO , NAAQS. Further , FDEP stated in its submission that it " hereby confirms that the requirements of II O(a)( I ) and the infrastructure eleme nt s required by II 0(a)(2)(A)-(M)

" See Air Penn it No. 0 1 70004-036

- AC (20 12). In principle, either of these limi ts might remove the NAAQS violation (mode li ng suggests that Crystal River could comp l y with the NAAQS with an emissions rat e no greater than 0.25 Ib / mmBtu). 2' 

### I d. at 7.
2J S e e 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 a s Exhibit 3 (recommending one hour averaging times to maintain the NAAQS in a PSD pennit). 

# '4

S ee 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 it s declaration of meeting the requirem e nts of II O(a)( 1)-(2) , FDEP s ubmitted seve ral re g ulations 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 recogni zes that it has changed absolutely nothing to meet the new , st ringent standard

. '· Specifically, FDEP cites Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C) Section 62-204, which only incorporates the Final SO, Rule , but it doe s not provide any specific measure s to incorporate the final rule. This is also true of the other regulation s that Florida cites, F.A.C. 62-210, 62-212 , 62-296, and 62-297, which respectively deal with stationary
so urces generally, stationary sources under precon s truction review , s tationary sources ' emission s tandards, and stationary sources' emission monitoring. None of the regulations li s ted to sa ti sfy 110 (a)(2)(A) guarantee any enforceable emission limit s27 Thus, the SIP cannot ensure maintenance of the new one-hour SO, NAAQS. Therefore, FDEP mu s t impose additional emission limit s 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. Becaus e the Infrastructure SIP s ubmis s ion does not include adequate emission limitations , and Florida' s cun'ent regulation s do not s uffice , the SIP fails to comply with section II O(a)( I )(A).


### B. AERMOD modeling

. s u ch as that provided by th e Sierra Club. is 

### the appropriat e toolfor evaluating t h e adequacy o(infi-astrllcture SIPs and ens uring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
As outlined by EPA in the Final SO , NAAQS Rule, '· air disper s ion modelin g i s the best method for evaluating the sbort-tenn impacts of large so urc es of SO , . This i s consistent with EPA ' s historic u se of air dispersion modelin g for attainment designations and SIP revisions

. Furthermore, a state agency may not ignore information put in front of them 2 ?
FDEP has been on notice that modeling data i s an imp0l1ant input in the NAAQS attainment and maintenance process
. In pm1icular, EPA ha s hi s toricall y u se d modeling in

'5 SIP Propo sa l 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 gene rall y Motor Vehicle Mfi-s. Ass ' n v
. State Farm Mut

. Ali ta 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 Ca n yon 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 S0 2 standard JO For example , in E PA's 1994 S0 2 Guideline Document , EPA noted that " for S0 2 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 analysi s which quantifie s that the SIP strategy is sound and that enforceable emi ss ion limit s ar e r es pon s ibl e fo r al t a inm enL,,3 1 Th e. I 994 S0 2 G uid e line.

- .- Document goes on to note that monitoring alone i s likely to be inadequate: " [fJor S0 2 , dispersion modeling will generally be nece s sary to evaluate comprehensivel y a source's impacts and to detennine the area s of expected high concentrations based upon cun-ent conditions. ,,32
EPA's acceptance of modeling for making attainment de s ignations s tretches 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 " ) is s ued a Section 107 De s ignation Policy Summary .33 OAQPS explained that " air quality modeling emissions data[] should be used to determine if the monitoring data accuratel y characteri z e the worst case air quality in the area. ,,3 4 Of course , if there is no monitoring data for an area , it does not accurately characteri z e the worst-ca s e air qualit y in an area. EPA acknowledged that some nonattainment de s ignation s were "ba s ed s olely on modeling[.] ,,35 In fact , reliance on modeling for nonattainment designations stretche s back to the Carter Administration. In 1978 , EPA designated Laurel , Montana as nonattaimnent " due to mea s ured and modeled violations of the primary S0 2 s tandard.' ,36

30 

### See e.g. , U.S. EPA, 

### Implem e ntation of th e I-Hour Sa l NAAQS Draji Whit e Paper/or Dis c us si o n at 3 , fn. I , (hereinafter " EPA White Paper "), 

### a v ailabl e at http: // www.epa.gov / airquality/ s ul furdioxide / pdfs 12 0 120522whitepaper.pdf ; 

### see als o Respondent's Opposition to Motion of the State of North Dakota for a Stay of E PA 's 1- Hour SO , Ambient Standard Rule at 3 , 

### National En v ironm e ntal D eve lopm e n t As s o c iation ' s C l e an Air Project v
. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252) , attached hereto
as Exhibit 4 ( " the Agency ha s historically relied on modeling to make de s ignation s for s ulfur dio x ide"). 3 1 U.S. EPA , 1994 S0 2 Guideline Document , (hereinafter " 1994 SO , Guideline Document " ) , 

### available at http :/ / www.epa.gov / ttn/ oarp gl tl /memorand al s02

_ guide

_ 0921 09

. pdt: at 2-1; 

### see also id. at 2-5 ( " For SO , attairunent demonstration s, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate."). 32 Id

. at 2 -3

. 33 

### See Sheldon Meyer s Memorandum re Section 107 De s ignation 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 ,2 013
As suc h , E P A ' s final 20 10 SO, NAAQS rule s imply continues and builds upon EPA's hi s torical practice of using modeling to detenlline attainment and nonattainment s tatu s for SO, NAAQS. In doin g so , EPA properly recogn iz ed the " s tron g so urce-oriented nature of SO, amb ien t impact s , ,, 3? and concluded that the appropriat e methodology for purpo ses of detenllining complia nce, attainmen t , and nonattainment with the ne w NAAQS i s m o delin g
. 's Accordingly , in pr om ulga t ing the new SO , NAAQS, EPA exp l ained th at , for the one -h our s tandard , " it i s more appropriate and efficient to principally u se modeling to assess comp li ance for medium to l arger so urces
... ,,39 Simi l arly , EPA exp l ained in the EPA White Paper that u s in g modeling to detenlline atta inment for the SO , s tandard "co uld better address severa l potentiall y problematic i ss ue s than wou ld the narrower monitoring-focused approach di sc us s ed in the propo sa l for th e SO , NAAQS, including the unique so urce- spec ific impact s of SO , emissions and the s pecial c h a ll enges SO, emiss ions have hi s torically pre se nt ed in tenllS of monitoring s hort-tellll SO , levels for comparison with th e NAAQS in many s itu ations (75 FR 35550). ,, 40
Moreover, EPA's use of modeling ha s been upheld by the court s
. For examp le, in 

### Montana Sulphur, the company cha ll e n ged a S IP ca ll , a SIP di sa pproval and a Federal Implementation Plan ("F IP " ) promulgation , because it was premi se d on a modeling ana lysis that showed the B illin gs / Laurel, Montana area was in nonattainm e nt for SO ,. 4 1 The court rejected Montana Sulphur 's argument and held that EPA 's reliance on modeling was not arbit rary and capricious or ot h erwise unlawful. 

# 4'

EPA use s modeling becau se the agency i s well aware that modeli ng produce s reliable result s. For examp le , as John C. Vimont, E PA Region 9 ' s Regional Meteoro logist, ha s s tated under oath:
EPA doe s recognize th e u se fulnes s of ambient mea s urement s for infol11lation on background concentrations , provided reliable monitoring technique s are availab le. EPA doe s not recommend, however , that ambient
mea s urement s be u se d as the so le basi s of s etting emission limit ations or

.l? Fina l SO , Rule §a t 35 , 370.
38 

### See id. a t 35,55 1 (de s cribing di s per s ion modeling as " the mo s t technicall y appropriate , efficient a nd readily available method for assessing s hort-tel11l ambient SO, concentratio n s in areas with large point so urce s.").
3 9 

### I d. 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. Cos tl e, 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. C ir. 1981) (" Reali s tically , computer mod e li ng i s a useful and onen essent i a l tool for performing th e Herculean l abors Co n gress impo se d on EPA in the C lea n Air Act") ; 

### R ep ubli c St ee l Corp. v
. Cost l e, 621 F.2d 797 , 805 (6th C ir. 1980) (approving u se of mod e lin g to predict future
v iolation s and incorporating " worst-case " assumptions regarding wea ther and fullcapaci ty operations of pollutant so urce s).To: Mr. Stevens Page 100fi0 June 12, 20 I 3 detemlining the ambient concentrations re s ulting from emissions ii'om an indu s trial so urce
. The s e s hould be ba se d on an appropriate modeling analysis. 43

Similarl y, Roger Brode i s currently a phy s ical s cienti s t in E PA' s Air Quality Modelin g Group and co
- chair s the AMS / EPA Regulatory Mode l Tmprovement Co mmittee (A E RMIC) and the A E RMOD Implementation Work g roup 44 Mr. Brode ha s s tated under oath that AERMOD i s "readi ly capable of accurately predictin g whether the revised primary SO , NA AQS i s attained and whether individual so urce s cau se or contribute to a v i o lation of the SO , NAAQS:,4 5 Mr. Brode ha s explained:
As pat1 of the ba s i s for E PA adopting the AERMOD model a s the preferred model for nearfield applications in the G uid e lin e on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to 40 C FR Part 51 , the perfonnance of the AERMOD model was exten s ively evaluated ba se d on a total of 1 7 field s tudy data ba ses (AERMOD:

_ Late s t Fe a ture s and Evaluation Re s ult s. EPA-454/ R-03-003. U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park (2003) , portion s of w hich are attached to thi s affidavit ) ( "E PA 2003 " )

. The s cope of the m o del eva luation s conducted for AERMOD far exceed s the sco pe of evaluation s conducted on an y o ther model that ha s been adopted in Appendix W to Part 51

. These evaluations demon s trate the overall good perfonnance of the AERMOD model based
on technicall y so und model eva luation procedures, and also illu s trate the s i g nificant advancement in the s cience of di s per s ion modeling repre se nted b y the AERMOD model as compared to other model s that have been u s ed in the p as t. In particular , adoption of the AERMOD model ha s significantly reduced the p o tential f o r overestimation of ambient impact s from elevated so urce s in complex ten 'a in compared to other-models 46

The p owe r plant s di s cu ss ed in the se comments are clearl y elevated so urc es.
EPA's practice in a number of o th e r contexts also de monstrate s that modeling is a technicall y s uperior approach for ascertaining impacts on NAAQS, and the hi s tory of E PA ' s preference for modelin g to evaluate compliance rather than m o nitorin g. For exa mple, all Nitrogen Dioxide , Particulate Matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micron s, and SO, N AAQS , and Preve ntion of S i g nificant Deteri o rati o n increment compliance ve rification analyses are perf o nned with air di s p e rs ion modeling , s uch as running AERMOD in a manner consistent with th e Guideline on Air Quality Models. 47 Indeed , in order to en s ur e consistency in how a ir imp ac t s are detemlined , b ot h e x i s tin g

4 3 Decl a ra tion of John C

. Vim o nt at I , II (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 6

. 44 Declarati o n of Roger W. Brode at 1,2 , attached hereto a s Ex hibit 7.
45 /d. at 2

. 46 I d. at 3-4 (emphasis added). 47 40 C

. F.R. § 52

. 21(1)(1).To: Mr. Stevens Page II of II June 12 ,2 013

sources and newly pennitted so urces should be assessed u s ing the same methods. AERMOD modeling perfonns particularly well in eva lu ating emission so urce s with one or a handful of l arge emi ss ion points. The stacks are well-characterized in tenns of lo cation, dimensions and exhaust parameters , and have high release heights. In addition many plants have S02 contin uous emission monitoring system ( " CEMS") data. AERMOD accurately models medium-to

- l arge S0 2 sources-even with condition
· s 

### aIlaw

. wind s peed , the u s e of**oft~s it** **e** meteorological data , and variable weather conditions. For example, AERMOD has been te s ted and perfonns very well during conditions of low wind s peeds:
AERMOD ' s eva luati on ana lyses included a number of site

- specific meteorological data sets that incorporate low wind speed conditions. For example , the Tracy eva lu ation included meteorological data with wind
s peed s as low as 0.39 meter / second (m/ s); the West vaco eva lu ation included wind s peeds as low as 0.31 m / s; the Kincaid S02 evaluation included wind speeds as low a s 0.37 m / s; and the Lovett evaluation included wind s peeds as low as 0.30 m/ s. Concerns

... regarding AERMOD ' s abi lit y to model low wind speed cond ition s seem to neglect the data used in actua l AERMOD evaluations 4 8

E PA ha s noted as much for years: " [a]mbient monitoring data and ai r qua lity modeling data for a particular area can sometimes appear to co nflict. Thi s is primarily due to the fact-that modeling re s ults may predict maximum S02 concentrations at receptors where no monitors are lo cated. " 49
Moreover , EPA has found that reliance on modeling i s particularly critica l when monitors networks are sparse. EPA sa id: " [i]n li eu of relying on monitors to as s ure the NAAQS are protected , particularly when the monitoring network is sparse, EPA believe s enforceable emission limit s s hould be estab li shed that, through modeling , demonstrate that the NAAQS would be protected.,, 50 Florida openly admit s that it does not have a monitoring network or s trategy in place to adequately ensure the attainment and maintenance of the 2010 S02 NAAQS.'1 A s EPA suggested , the lack ofa monitoring network , lik e that in Florida, is precisely the s itu ation in which modeling should occur. In this instance , reliance on modeling i s vita l to ensure that the NAAQS are maintained and that no exceedances of the NAAQS wi ll occur.

4 8 Comments of Camille Sears I, at 10, attached hereto as Exhibit 8 (citing AERMOD
eva luati ons and modeled meteorological data , availabl e at http: // www.epa.gov / ttnlscram /di s persionyrefrec.htm

.

., 1994 S02 Guideline Document at 2-6. 50 Disapproval of Air Quality Impl ementation Plans; Montana; Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plant s, 7 1 Fed. Reg. 48 , 222 , 4825 (Jan. 30 , 2006).
5 1 See SIP Proposal at 4 (the development of a monitoring network i s " ongo in g " .)To: Mr. Stevens Pa ge 12 of 12 June 12 , 20 I 3
In s um , n e ither Florida 's SIP, nor the current , pennitted emission limit s tor plant s, like Crystal River Plant and Lan s ing Plant , ensures that counties in Florida will achieve and maintain the new one-hour S0 2 NAAQS. To satisfy Florida 's obligations under the Act , FDEP must include adequate emissions limit s in the SIP with one-hour averaging period s. EPA ha s acknowledged that for the one-hour SO , NAAQS modeling i s the n,o s ! accurate me ans of determining attainment with the N AAQS. 5 ' Accordi n g l y, FD EP s hould include so urce- spec ific SO , emission limit s in the SIP that when modeled s how no exceedances of th e NAAQS.
II. THE FLORIDA I NFRAST R UCTU RE SIP MUST INCLU DE PROVISIO NS TO ENSURE T HAT THERE IS ADEQUATE PERSONEL, FUNDING , AND LEGAL AUTHORITY UN DER STATE LAW TO CARRY OUT ITS SIP. Every SIP i s required to adequately provide pers o nnel , funding , and legal authority under s tat e law to carry out the implementation of a SIp 53 Florida ha s tailed to demonstrate that it s SIP meet s thi s basic requirement. To fultill thi s requirement , Florida cites Florida Statute 403.061(4), which allows FDEP to " [h]ire only s uch employees as ma y be n ecessary to effectuate the re spo nsibilitie s 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 hirin g and to run the prob'fam. In thi s regard, Fl o rida o nly cites a licen se regi s tration fee of$1 per vehi cle regi s tration so ld in Florida as finically contributing to the FDEP funding for SIP implementation 55 FDEP ha s not demonstrated that thi s mea ge r amount will provide the financial support nece ssa ry to implement 2010 SO , NAAQS. Perhap s recogni z ing it s inability to demonstrate that it satisfie s the requirement of Section I 10(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, FDEP hopes that EPA will simp ly ignore the se failings and approve the SIP. In this SIP
s ubmi ss ion , FDEP notes that when "EPA does a completeness d eterm ination and final approval for any SIP submittal, it implicitl y determines that the requirement s ofCAA 110(a)(2)(E) are met. " A completeness det e nnination only demon s trate s that the EPA ha s enough infonnation to detennine the adequacy of the SIP. It i s not a determination of the SIP 's adequacy in itself. Rather, EPA must judge , on the record which FDEP pro v id es, whether Florida in fact does have s ufficient resources and per so nnel to fulfill it s obligations. FDEP ha s not ye t made this demonstration. Thus , FDEP must re v i se it s 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 30 fl3 June 12 , 2013

Ill. FLORIDA MAY NOT RELY O N ITS UN APPROVED RE G IO NAL HA ZE PROGRAM TO ASSURE C OMPLIA NCE WITH S IP REQ U IREM ENTS Finally , we n o te th a t Fl o rid a re li es i n s ignificant part 

### o n T t s ' unappro ve d region a l ha ze program to demonstrate that the Infr ast ructur e SIP complies w ith sec tion 110( a)(2 )(D)(i)(II) , which requires SIPs to include pro visio n s to ensure that in- s ta te emissions do not interf ere w ith v i s ibility prot ec tion s in other s tat es
. Moreover, this prov i s i o n is not implicated b y th e EME H om e r City Ge neration de c i s i o n. 56 Because the plan ha s no t ye t been approved , Florida ' s reli a n ce o n this pro g ram i s premature. Ind ee d , we ha ve se riou s concerns abo ut Florida ' s ha z e plan. We incorporate o ur comments to EPA o n thi s p o int b y refe r e nce. 57
IV. CONCLUS IO N
The SIP i s currently inadequate t o achieve and maintain co mpli a nce w ith the oneh o ur S0 2 NAAQS, as de sc rib e d above. FDEP must ado pt new provisions into the S IP to protect th e public health and co mpl y w ith the Act's requirement s
. The Sierra Cl ub would be h ap p y to pro v ide a ny other infonn a ti o n th a t might ass is t FDEP in evaluating the impacts o f these so urc es and developin g a SIP in full co mpli a n ce with th e Act.

Res pectfull y s ubmitted,

# O;:y.?«;"'{il19h~~.d~J Ilr\ Eliz a beth Toba Pearhna n Law Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 152 3 27 th Street , N W Wa s hington , D C 20007 ( 202 ) 643-4068 etplaw @ gmail.com

56 EME H o m e r City Ge n eration v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. C ir 20 12 ) (vacating the rule bec a u se it required upwind s tat es to reduce e mi ss ion s by m o re than their ow n s i g nific a nt contributions to d ow nwind s tate s ' nonattainm e nt and did n o t allow s tate s to implement reducti o n s through SIPs before is s uin g FIPs)

. 57 See Co mment s of Earthjustice, Sierra C lub , and National Park s Co n s e rvat ion Association (Jan. 9 , 20 13) o n EPA Dock e t No. -R04-0AR- 2 0 I 0 -09 35 , a ttached 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 rukeile y@ i gc.o r g On behalf of Si e rra 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 co mments on several aspects of Florida ’s Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) revision relating to Section 110(a) elements for the 1

- hour SO 2 

### NAAQS . In general, the Sierra Club asserts that Florid a ’s ISIP is inadequate, particularly with regard to permitted emissions limits for two coal

fired 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 one

hour SO 2 

### emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The Sierra Club further asserts that Florida has failed to impose restrictions on major SO 2 

### sources to ensure that they will attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Sierra Club s pecifical ly i dentified 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 I SIP is not a demonstration of attainment of the 2010 SO 2 

### 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 SO 2 

### NAAQS

. At present, Florida has two such areas, one in Tampa and one in Fernan dina 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 SO 2 

### 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 SO 2 

### monitors to assess compliance with the new SO 2 

### NAAQS ( see February 6, 2013 , EPA strategy paper, “Next Steps for Area Designations and Impl ementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard”). This assessment is beyond the scope of the I SIP. Indeed, the EPA (the agency charged with reviewing and approving the ISIP) has advised all states “. . . that states focus their 20 13 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 Adminis trator 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 it s 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 SO 2 

### NAAQS standard or attain and then maintain the standard in the

### future. Florida will address the issue of compliance with the new SO 2 

### NAAQS in accordance with

the procedures developed through EPA for this process. Component to C omment 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 s ubmitted to the DEP. A s stated above, the development, performance, and assessment of such air quality modeling efforts are n ot requirement s 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 SO 2 

### 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 evaluatin g the adequacy of I SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the new SO 2 

### NAAQS.
DEP’s Response to Comment 2: This comment is beyond the scope of the I SIP. As stated in DEP’s Response to Comment 1, the I SIP demonstrates that Florida has th e 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 i s appropriate for evaluating SO 2 

### concentrations against the NAAQS, the use of AERMOD is not required for the completion of Florida’s ISIP for the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS

. Comment 3: Sierra Club asserts that Florida I SIP 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 Implementati on Plan Infrastructure Confirmation for the 2010 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 

### ( s ee , 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 pollut ants, 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 obligation s 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, 20 13
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, tha nks 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 mod eling 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 popula tions 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 Submi ttal for the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS , received 100 identical emails from citizens dated throughout the comment period. Comment 1: Commenters asserted that c oal

- fired power plants are allo wed to emit large quantities of SO 2 

### 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 developi ng Florida’s State Implementation Plan. Commenters asserted that Florida’s SIP must inc lude “tight, hourly limits” on SO 2 

### . DEP’s Response to Comment 1: The I SIP is not a demonstrati on of attainment of the 2010 SO 2 

### 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 expectation s of the commenters with regard to specific attainment concerns
are beyond the scope of this I SIP. As discussed above, a separate process is being developed by EPA, state air quality agencies, and others to address the se citizens’ comment s . 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 it s 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 SO 2 

### NAAQS standard or attain and then maintain the standard in the future. Florida will address the issue of compliance with the new SO 2 

### NAAQS in accordance with the procedures developed by EPA for this process.