FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 1 of 6

PERMITTEE

Florida Power Corporation

d/b/a Progress Energy Florida (PEF), Inc.

299 First Avenue, North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

PERMITTING AUTHORITY

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department)

Division of Air Resource Management

Office of Permitting and Compliance

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS #5505

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

PROJECT

Air Permit No. 0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emission Standards/Controls

This final air construction permit establishes an additional NOX emission standard for Crystal River Units 1 and 2, 

authorizes installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems and authorizes physical changes to plant 

components, installation of storage tanks, and feed pumps to facilitate installation of the SCR systems. The 

proposed work will be conducted at the existing Crystal River Power Plant, which is a nominal 2,300 megawatts 

(MW) coal-fueled power plant (excluding a nuclear unit). The plant is located in Citrus County at 15760 West 

Power Line Street in Crystal River, Florida. The UTM coordinates are Zone 17, 334.3 km East and 3204.5 km 

North.

NOTICE AND PUBLICATION

The Department distributed a draft minor air construction permit package on September 20, 2012. The applicant 

published the Public Notice in the Citrus County Chronicle on September 22, 2012. The Department received the 

proof of publication on October 1, 2012. No requests for administrative hearings or requests for extensions of 

time to file a petition for administrative hearing were received. 

COMMENTS

No comments on the draft permit were received from the applicant, individual members of the public or the EPA 

Region 4 Office. Comments were received as a single submittal on behalf of the Sierra Club, the National Parks 

Conservation Association, Earthjustice, and respective members (Sierra et al.) in Florida described in the 

communication “who will be substantially affected by the draft permit for construction at Progress Energy’s 

Crystal River Plant”. 

Comments were submitted by the Sierra Club et al. as a cover letter with attachments comprising approximately 

177 pages. Link to Sierra Club et al. Comments . The key comments contained in the 12-page cover letter are 

repeated or paraphrased (in italics) below and followed by the Department’s response.

1. Sierra Club et al. overall comments: “The permit does not assure compliance with state or federal law”. 

.....“This permit, therefore, may not properly issue. „The Department may issue a permit only after it receives 

reasonable assurance that the installation will not cause pollution in violation of any of the provisions of 

Chapter 403, F.S., or the rules promulgated thereunder‟. This permit violates both prongs of this 

requirement”. (Sierra et al. footnote No. 2: F.A.C. 62-4.030; see also 62-4.070(1) (same); 62-

212.300(3)(a)(2) (requiring applicant to demonstrate that they will comply with all relevant law).

Department Response: The Department disagrees. The final permit complies with applicable state and 

federal law and implementing regulations for issuing minor source construction permits. The final permit 

complies with the Department’s Standards for Issuing and Denying Permit as the Department has reasonable 
FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 2 of 6

assurance that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not 

discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. 

[Rules 62-4.070 and 62-212.300, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)]

All applicable requirements including permits, regulations, continuous monitoring and reporting requirements

will continue to be incorporated into the facility Title V air operation permit, revisions and renewals. Taken 

together, the permits (including future permits) and enforceable requirements provide reasonable assurance of 

compliance with state or federal law.

2. Sierra et al. characterization of Crystal River Units 1 and 2 and its emissions: “These units are aging, 

largely uncontrolled coal-fired boilers which emit a variety of haze-causing pollutants including nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), a dangerous pollutant which also contributes to visibility impairment throughout the state”.

Department Response: The draft permit to install NOX controls is premised on the following two options 

under consideration by the applicant: (A) Discontinuation of operation of the older Units 1 and 2 as coal-fired 

units by December 31, 2020; or (B) Installation of NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate control 

equipment. 

The Department agrees that the units emit (combustion exhaust gases that contain) several haze-causing 

pollutants including SO2. Given the type of source, the rates emitted within the combustion exhaust gases and 

the ground-level concentrations experienced in the vicinity of the site, NOX is a criteria pollutant. EPA has 

set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants. NOX is not on the list of 

approximately 188 pollutants listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are regulated pursuant to the 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 60 (40 CFR 60). 

3. Sierra et al. reference to the Crystal River BART determination: “The Crystal River BART determination 

cannot assure compliance with the required reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants. The permit fails to 

set emissions limits for NOX which are commensurate with BART if the facility does not retire in 2020”.

Department Response: The permit is not the Crystal River Unit 1 and 2 BART determination. A draft BART 

determination was indeed submitted as an update of the Department’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) and in 

accordance with the federal process prescribed pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Issuance of the present permit 

will enhance the ultimate success of the SIP process and does not contravene the draft SIP submittal or the asyet unknown ultimate EPA decision regarding that submittal.

4. Sierra et al. claim regarding compliance of non-compliance with the Florida BART rule: “For reasons 

explained in the attached analysis, it (i.e. the permit) does not reasonably assure compliance with the Florida 

BART rule 62-296.340, the federal regional haze rule, 40 CFR § 51.308 (which is incorporated by reference 

into Florida law), or the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7491”.

Presumably Sierra et al. refer to analysis incorporated within the letter and not as an attachment. The claim 

that this permit does not reasonably assure compliance with Rule 62-296.340 (BART), F.A.C., is refuted by 

the fact that the rule does not require a BART determination for SO2 or nitrogen oxides (NOX) for any electric 

generating unit at a BART-eligible source that is subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program.

5. Sierra et al. claim regarding violation of Florida Law: “The permit offers no reasonable assurance that 

Crystal River will not „cause pollution in violation of Florida Law. (Sierra et al. footnote No. 3: “See F.A.C. 

62-4.030”) “Pollution is:

The presence in the outdoor atmosphere or waters of any substances, contaminants, noise, 

biological, or radiological integrity of air or water in quantities or at levels which are or may be 

harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property or which 

unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor recreation unless 

authorized by applicable law”

4

. (Sierra et al. footnote No. 3: “See F.S. 403.031(7)”).
FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 3 of 6

“As our comments below explain, Crystal River‟s proposed emissions, authorized by this draft permit, will 

continue to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the region‟s Class I areas and across the state due 

to the presence of NOX which, again, is a dangerous pollutant that contributes significantly towards smog and 

acid rain”.

Department Response: Refer to Figure 1. 

Figure 1. NOX Emission Trend for Crystal River Power Plant, including Units 1, 2, 4 and 5 (tons/year)

There has been a dramatic reduction of NOX emissions at the Crystal River Power Plant between 1997 and 

2011. Much of the reduction occurred following installation of add-on NOX controls on coal-fueled Units 4 

and 5 such as now proposed for Units 1 and 2. Facility NOX reductions for the time frame shown equal 

37,900 tons/year and 84 percent (%). 

Units 4 and 5 were constructed pursuant to a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit (PSD-FL007) and a BACT determination issued by the U.S. EPA in 1978. The NOX project implemented between

2008 and 2010 represents control beyond that required by that EPA BACT determination. 

Clearly, based on Figure 1, meaningful reductions have already occurred from Units 1 and 2. The shutdown 

of Units 1 and 2 under Scenario A or installation of add-on air pollution control equipment to meet a limit of 

0.09 lb/MMBtu will have a further ameliorative effect on ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations, 

ground level ozone (smog) values and regional haze. 

The four Crystal River coal-fueled units (including Units 1 and 2), operate in compliance with State laws and 

Department rules. The Department has reasonable assurance that after issuance of the permit, the facility will 

continue to comply with State laws and rules. Scenarios A or B (shutdown or implementation of the proposed 

NOX emission standard applicable to Units 1 and 2) in accordance with the final permit will provide further 

45,301

42,288

38,795

35,135

34,712

35,059

38,791

35,158

38,754

35,412

35,950

33,020

18,548

10,723

7,400

9,370

6,846

4,792 4,306 4,143 4,782 4,595 3,971 4,687 4,756

4,055 3,699 3,935

3,509

2,339

7,219

7,298 8,372

5,732 6,795

7,698

5,725 5,654 5,310 5,471 4,910 5,540

3,790

3,748

2,628

12,682

13,206

13,689

12,080

12,462

11,097

14,736

13,168

13,973

13,676

14,431

11,547

8,108

2,324

1,312

16,030

14,937

11,942

13,016

11,313

11,483

13,735

12,364

14,785

11,509

12,554

12,233

2,715

1,141 1,122 0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Facility NOx (tons) Unit 1 NOx (tons) Unit 2 NOx (tons) Unit 4 NOx (tons) Unit 5 NOx (tons)
FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 4 of 6

reductions to those already realized from the Crystal River Power Plant. The suggestion that the act of 

issuance of this permit somehow causes pollution not authorized by applicable law is without merit. 

Refer to Figure 2. 

Figure 2. NOX Emission Trends for Three Large Regional Progress Energy Facilities

Figure 2 includes graphs of the NOX emission trends (tons/year) at the PEF Crystal River Power Plant, the 

PEF Anclote Power Plant (~1,050 MW) located in Pasco County and the Bartow Power Plant (~1,200 MW) 

located in Pinellas County. The total emissions and electrical generation in gigawatts-hours (GW-hours) from 

the three facilities when combined are also shown. 

Remarkably large NOX emission reductions have been realized at all three plants even as the total electrical 

generation from the three plants has remained fairly steady. The emission reductions already achieved at the 

three plants coupled with the additional NOX project at Crystal River Units 1 and 2 authorized by this permit 

have reduced and will continue to reduce background NOX concentrations, groundlevel ozone (smog) 

impacts, regional haze and acid rain to which the three plants may have contributed. 

The foregoing discussion refutes the claim and even the notion regarding violation of Florida Law. In fact it 

demonstrates the diligence with which the company has pursued emission reductions in an atmosphere of 

great uncertainty in federal rulemaking. There is every reason to believe that the Crystal River coal-fueled 

units comply and will continue to comply with existing and future air pollution rules. There is also every 

reason to believe that the pronounced downward trend in emissions and ambient NOX concentrations will 

continue and will be facilitated by issuance of the final permit.

22,471 22,730 21,744 21,235 21,356

21,552

23,537

22,771 23,236

20,612 21,143

18,570

17,479

22,125

20,870

58,039

58,713

53,394

45,852

47,469 47,717

53,164

50,515

52,861

44,858

45,155

38,703

21,306

13,045

9,143

4,624 5,794 5,700

3,390

4,178 4,234 5,154 4,678 4,178

2,944 2,627 1,869

644 360 656

8,114

10,631

8,898

7,327

8,578 8,424 9,219

10,679 9,929

6,502 6,578

3,813

2,115 1,962 1,087

45,301

42,288

38,795

35,135 34,712

35,059

38,791

35,158

38,754

35,412

35,950

33,020

18,548

10,723

7,400

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Generation (GW-h) Total NOx Bartow NOx (tons) Anclote NOx (tons) Crystal River NOx (tons)

3-Facility Electrical Power Generation (GW-hours)

3-Facility NOx Emissions (tons/year)
FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 5 of 6

6. Sierra et al. claims that proposed emission levels are not adequate: The comments compiled from several 

parts of the letter are:

“The proposed emissions levels do not reflect an adequate NOX BART determination as they are higher than 

they should be, and so will allow visibility impairment and high levels of pollution of NOX pollution to persist 

longer and more severely than a legally-compliant permit would do”.

“The draft permit‟s NOX BART determinations are legally and technically flawed”.

“We focus our discussion on NOX BART option 2 below. Option 2 is not BART because it does not set 

emissions levels commensurate with the „best available retrofit technology,‟ and so allows impermissibly 

excessive emissions. The permit may not issue with these options in their current form”.

“The proposed draft air permit for Crystal River Units 1 and 2 correctly selects SCR as BART, but fails to set 

the appropriate control efficiency standards. The proposed 0.09 lb NOX/MMBtu allowable emission rate is 

not BART because lower emission rates can be cost-effectively achieved. When this is corrected, an emission 

limit of no higher than 0.05 lb NOX/MMBtu emerges as the appropriate control. We discuss the details 

associated with this analysis below”.

“The proposed BART determinations which this draft permit implements, appropriately identifies SCR as 

BART, but fails to set an appropriate emission limit reflecting the control efficiency of which SCR is 

capable”.

“Because the permit does not reflect BART emission levels, it therefore does not reasonably assure 

compliance with Florida‟s pollution prohibition or with relevant federal and state law relating to the haze 

program”.

“DEP therefore must not finalize this permit in its current form. Its terms clearly do not comply with the 

BART and are not approvable by EPA”. 

Department Response: Refer to Department’s response to Comment 3.

7. Sierra et al. claim that the permit is harmful: (continuation from the previous comment) “The permit 

therefore harms the health and welfare of the people, plants, and animals of the region, and further interferes 

with the enjoyment of the property affected by Crystal River‟s emissions”.

Department Response: Sierra et al. did not provide any data in support of past or present harm to the health 

and welfare of people, plants, and animals in the region and does not recognize the ameliorative effect of past 

and ongoing emission reductions upon the environment, including the Class I areas. Contrary to the claim 

that the permit is harmful and further interferes with enjoyment property, the issuance of the permit facilitates 

further improvements in ground level air pollution, acid rain, regional haze and reduction of cross-state 

pollution transport.

8. Sierra et al. discussion regarding NOX visibility impairment in Florida: (Refer to page 3, Section II of the 

comment letter available at the link given above). NOX is an important contributor to visibility impairment in 

Florida. Progress Energy Florida‟s Crystal River Plant is a BART-eligible source of NOX, so must be 

properly controlled to insure protection of wild spaces and public health”.

Department Response: The Department does not dispute this statement. The Department notes the massive 

reductions (documented above) achieved to-date from the Crystal River Power Plant, as well as from the other 

nearby power plants, that have greatly reduced the precursors of visibility impairing species including NOX. 

The present permit ensures further reductions of NOX from the Crystal River Power Plant and further 

amelioration of any remaining visibility effects. 
FINAL DETERMINATION

Progress Energy Florida Inc. Air Permit No.0170004-038-AC

Crystal River Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Standards/Controls

Page 6 of 6

9. Sierra et al. claim regarding NOX emission reductions from Units 1 and 2: “According to DEP, baseline 

visibility impacts for Crystal River Units 1 and 2 were 6.43 deciviews (apparently at the Chassahowitzka 

Class I area) for 2003 with 29.5% contributed from nitrate and NO2. Thus, NOX emissions from these units 

contribute to nearly one-third of the total visibility impacts resulting from Crystal River‟s air pollution 

emissions. Reducing NOX by over 90% will significantly improve air quality and visibility from current 

conditions”.

Department Response: The Department notes that in 2003, NOX emissions from the Crystal River Power 

Plant were nearly 38,800 tons whereas current (2011) emissions were only 7,400 tons (a reduction of 80%). 

The total contributions from Units 1 and 2 were 10,320 tons in 2003 and only 4,965 tons in 2011. Thus a 

reduction greater than 50% has already been realized since 2003 from Units 1 and 2. For reference, Units 1 

and 2 are legally permitted to emit 22,718 tons NOX/year in compliance with their federal Title IV Acid Rain 

Permit (more than four times the actual emissions in 2011). Installation of SCR systems can only further 

reduce emissions as evidenced by the excellent performance of Units 4 and 5.

10. Sierra et al. claim of inadequacy of controls: “These inadequate NOX controls will illegally allow Crystal 

River to emit excess amounts of air pollution that will continue to impermissibly and unnecessarily impair 

Class I air quality”.

Department Response: The foregoing responses overwhelmingly demonstrate a continuous program 

(including issuance of this permit) of improvement of Class I air quality (the Chassahowitzka National 

Wildlife Area) and of Class II air quality experienced where people live. 

11. Sierra et al. claim regarding permit emission standards: “Because the permit does not reflect BART emission 

levels, it therefore does not reasonably assure compliance with Florida‟s pollution prohibition or with 

relevant federal and state law relating to the haze program”.

Department Response: Refer to responses to comments above.

12. Sierra et al. conclusion regarding permit issuance: “In short, because DEP lacks any reasonable assurance 

that this permit will assure compliance with pollution control mandates, it must revise or at a minimum not 

finalize the permit”.

Department Response: The Department provided notice of its intent to issue an air construction permit to the 

applicant for the project described above and the basis that the applicant has provided reasonable assurance 

that operation of proposed equipment will not adversely impact air quality and that the project will comply 

with all appropriate provisions of Chapters 62-4, 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296 and 62-297, F.A.C. Based 

on the foregoing, the project will clearly not adversely impact air quality. The project will comply with the 

mentioned rules. 

The Department is actually compelled to finalize the permit and has determined that no changes are necessary 

to finalize the permit in its drafted form.

CONCLUSION

The final action of the Department is to issue the permit as drafted.