PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Region 4 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Preliminary Determination & Statement of Basis

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit PSD-EPA-4010 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

for

Florida Power & Light Company

Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center Project

May 29, 2013
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Applicant Information........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Applicant Name and Address........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Facility Location............................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Legal Authority and Regulatory Applicability ..................................................................................... 4

4.1 EPA Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ........................................................................................... 5

4.3 Title V............................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)................................................................................... 6

5.0 Project Emissions.................................................................................................................................. 6

5.1 Unit Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Compliance Methodology (Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting) ....................................... 9

6.0 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Recordkeeping Requirements.............................. 10

6.1 GHG BACT Analyses for 3-on-1 Combined Cycle Unit............................................................... 11

6.2 GHG BACT Analysis for Smaller Combustion Equipment: Auxiliary Boiler, Emergency 

Generators, Natural Gas Compressor Station, Diesel Fire Pump Engine, and Temporary 

Construction Boilers....................................................................................................................... 13

6.3 GHG BACT Analysis for Circuit Breakers.................................................................................... 15

7.0 Additional Requirements.................................................................................................................... 16

7.1 Endangered Species Act................................................................................................................. 16

7.2 Essential Fish Habitat of Magnuson-Stevens Act .......................................................................... 17

7.3 National Historic Preservation Act................................................................................................. 17

7.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ...................................................................................................... 17

7.5 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice............................................................................ 18

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Tribal Consultation ............................................................................... 18

8.0 Public Participation............................................................................................................................. 16

8.1 Opportunity for Public Comment................................................................................................... 19

8.2 Public Hearing................................................................................................................................ 20

8.3 Administrative Record ................................................................................................................... 20

8.4 Final Determination........................................................................................................................ 20
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 2

1.0 Introduction

Florida Power & Light Company (the Applicant or FPL) has applied for a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) air permit for the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 for the proposed

Port Everglades Project (Project). FPL is proposing a major modification which would result in

modernizing the existing Port Everglades Plant using higher efficiency, combined cycle combustion 

turbine technology. The PSD application consists of the retirement and replacement of four existing oilfired units with one nominal 1,250 megawatt (MW) 3-on-1 combined cycle unit, which will rely 

primarily upon natural gas. The Project will result in a decrease of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate 

matter (PM), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10), 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), nitrogen 

dioxides (NOx), and lead emissions and an increase of 69 tons per year (TPY) of carbon monoxide (CO)

and 28 TPY of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. GHG emissions will experience a net 

increase of 1,932,047 TPY on a carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) basis. The existing facility and 

proposed Project is located within the City of Hollywood, in Broward County, Florida. The existing 

plant is situated within approximately 92.5 acres of land owned by FPL.

EPA Region 4 is the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing CAA requirements for GHG 

sources in Florida. EPA has completed review of the application and supplemental materials and is 

proposing to issue Permit No. PSD-EPA-R4010 to FPL for the project subject to the terms and 

conditions described in the permit. The draft permit incorporates the applicable requirements from the 

federal PSD program.

This document serves as a fact sheet, preliminary determination and statement of basis for the draft 

permit. It provides an overview of the project, a summary of the applicable requirements, the legal and 

factual basis for the draft permit conditions, and EPA’s analysis of key aspects of the application and 

permit such as the best available control technology (BACT) analysis for GHG emissions. Additional

information can be found in the draft permit accompanying this document as well as in the application 

materials and administrative record for this project, as discussed in Section 8.0.

1

 

1 The procedures governing the issuance of PSD permits are set forth at 40 CFR part 124, subparts A and C. See 40 CFR §§ 52.21(q) and 

124.1. Accordingly, EPA has followed the procedures of 40 CFR part 124 in issuing this draft permit. This Preliminary Determination

describes the derivation of the permit conditions and the reasons for them as provided in 40 CFR § 124.7, and also serves as a Fact Sheet as 

provided in 40 CFR § 124.8.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 3

2.0 Applicant Information

2.1 Applicant Name and Address

Florida Power & Light Company

700 Universe Boulevard

Juno Beach, FL 33408

2.2 Facility Location

FPL is proposing to modify the existing Port Everglades Plant located within the City of Hollywood, in 

Broward County, Florida. The site location is illustrated in Figure 2-1 below.

Figure 2-1 – Port Everglades Plant

Image Source: FPL PSD Application
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 4

3.0 Proposed Project

FPL has applied for a GHG PSD air permit pursuant to the CAA from the United States EPA Region 4 

for the proposed Project. FPL is proposing a major modification which would result in modernizing the 

existing Port Everglades Plant using a higher efficiency combined cycle combustion turbine technology. 

The PSD Application consists of the retirement and replacement of four existing oil-fired units with one 

nominal 1,250 MW 3-on-1 combined cycle unit, which will rely primarily upon natural gas with ultra 

low sulfur distillate (ULSD) fuel oil as backup. 

The Project will result in a decrease of SO2, PM, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and lead emissions and an increase 

of 69 TPY in CO and 28 TPY in VOC emissions. The existing facility is situated within approximately 

92.5 acres of land owned by FPL within the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida. Based on 

emissions estimates and the applicable permitting thresholds, the Project will have significant emissions 

of GHGs on a mass and CO2e basis and is subject to the PSD program for GHGs as the measured 

pollutant. Based on FPL’s permit application, GHG emissions will experience a net increase of 

1,932,047 TPY CO2e. 

FPL’s existing facility consists of two nominal 200 MW fossil fuel-fired steam generating units 

(FFFSGU) (Units 1 and 2), two nominal 400 MW FFFSGU (Units 3 and 4), and 12 simple cycle natural 

gas turbines (GT1 - GT12). Units 1 through 4 are authorized to operate pursuant to Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Final Title V Permit No. 0110036-009-AV on natural gas, No. 6 

fuel oil, No. 2 fuel oil, propane, and on-specification used oil from FPL operations. Existing Units 1 

through 4 will be retired and replaced with one nominal 1,250 MW 3-on-1 combined cycle unit. The 3-

on-1 unit will consist of three nominal 250 MW advanced combustion turbines (CTs) and three heat 

recovery steam generators (HRSGs), which will utilize the waste heat from the CTs to produce steam to 

be utilized in a single nominal 500 MW steam turbine generator. 

Each CT will utilize inlet air cooling and may utilize evaporative cooling or an alternative system. The 

CTs will use natural gas as the primary fuel with ULSD used as a backup fuel for up to the equivalent of 

1,000 hours per year (hr/yr) per CT at baseload conditions. Natural gas for the Project will be 

transported to the facility via pipeline. No onsite storage will be provided for natural gas. Natural gas 

compressors will be installed to raise the natural gas pressure to the appropriate level for the CTs. ULSD 

oil will be delivered to the facility by truck or pipeline and will be stored in a new fuel oil storage tank.

Dismantlement of the existing generation units will be required prior to the construction of the Project.

Consequently, there will be no overlap of operation between the removal of the existing units and the 

Project, which is anticipated to commence commercial operation in June 2016. Two temporary 

construction boilers will be utilized during construction, but will be removed prior to commercial 

operation.

The emissions units to be used in the Project are detailed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

4.0 Legal Authority and Regulatory Applicability

4.1 EPA Jurisdiction

In 2010, EPA established a federal implementation plan (FIP) to apply in each state that had not 

submitted, by their established deadline, a corrective state implementation plan (SIP) revision to apply 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 5

the CAA PSD program to sources of GHGs. See FR Vol. 75, No. 250, 82246. The state of Florida does 

not currently have a corrective SIP that is applicable to GHG sources under the CAA PSD program;

therefore EPA is issuing this GHG PSD permit. FDEP is responsible for issuing a separate construction 

and title V operating permit for the Project for applicable non-GHG emissions.

4.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

The PSD program, as set forth at 40 CFR § 52.21, is applicable to major sources such as this proposed 

project. The objective of the PSD program is to prevent significant adverse environmental impact from 

air emissions by a proposed new or modified source. The PSD program limits degradation of air quality 

to that which is not considered “significant.” The PSD program requires the utilization of BACT as 

determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts,

and other costs.

Under the PSD regulations, a stationary source is “major” if, among other things, it emits or has the 

potential to emit (PTE) 100 or 250 TPY or more (depending on source category) of a “regulated New 

Source Review (NSR) pollutant” as defined in 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(50). See 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(l).

“Potential to emit” is defined as the maximum capacity of a source to emit a pollutant under its physical 

and operational design. “Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a 

pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type 

or amount of material combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the 

limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is enforceable.” See 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(4).

Beginning on January 2, 2011, GHGs became subject to regulation under the PSD major source 

permitting program as a regulated NSR pollutant when emitted in amounts greater than certain 

applicability thresholds. GHGs are a single air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(i) as the 

aggregate group of the following six gases:

 Carbon dioxide (CO2);

 Nitrous oxide (N2O);

 Methane (CH4);

 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);

 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and

 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Due to the nature of GHGs and their incorporation into the definition of “subject to regulation,” the 

determination of whether a source is emitting GHGs in an amount that triggers PSD applicability 

involves a calculation of the source’s CO2e emissions as well as its GHG mass emissions. See 40 CFR § 

52.21(b)(49). Consequently, when determining the applicability of PSD to GHGs, there is a two-part 

applicability process that evaluates both:

 The sum of the CO2e emissions in TPY of the six GHGs, in order to determine whether 

the source’s emissions are a regulated NSR pollutant; and, if so;

 The sum of the mass emissions in TPY of the six GHGs, in order to determine if there is 

a major source or major modification of such emissions.

For PSD permits issued on or after July 1, 2011, PSD applies to the GHG emissions from an existing

source if either of the following are true: (1) the modification is subject to PSD for another pollutant and 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 6

the potential to emit GHGs is greater than or equal to 75,000 TPY on a CO2e basis and greater than zero 

TPY on a mass basis; or (2) the potential emissions of GHGs from the new source would be equal to or 

greater than 100,000 TPY on a CO2e basis and the GHG emissions from the modification are greater 

than or equal to 75,000 TPY CO2e and greater than zero TPY on a mass basis.

Table 5-3 lists the PTE for each regulated NSR pollutant from the Project, as well as the significant 

emission rate for each regulated NSR pollutant. The permit application and Section 5.0 of this document 

contain information on the emissions factors used to determine the PTE for the Project. The Project is an 

existing PSD source with a PTE greater than 100,000 TPY CO2e and the net increase in GHG emissions 

associated with the modification exceeds the threshold of 75,000 TPY CO2e and is greater than zero 

TPY on a mass basis.

EPA Region 4 applies the policies and practices reflected in the EPA document “PSD and Title V 

Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases” (March 2011). Consistent with that guidance, we have not 

required the applicant to model or conduct ambient monitoring for GHGs, and we have not required any 

assessment of impacts of GHGs in the context of the additional impacts analysis or Class I area 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 (o) and (p), respectively. Instead, EPA has determined that compliance with 

the selected BACT is the best technique that can be employed at present to satisfy the additional impacts 

analysis and Class I area requirements of the rules, with respect to emissions of GHGs. Section 6.0 of 

this document contains a discussion of the BACT analysis. 

4.3 Title V

Upon issuance of this PSD permit, the State of Florida will incorporate these permit conditions into the 

existing title V permit for the facility.

4.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

On April 13, 2012, EPA published a Federal Register notice (77 FR 22392) which proposes a GHG 

emission standard under a new subpart TTTT of 40 CFR Part 60 (New Source Performance Standards), 

of 1,000 lb/MWh (gross output) for combined cycle CTs, on a 12-month annual average basis, at electric

utility power plants. This standard would be applicable to sources which commence construction after 

April 13, 2013. The definition of BACT in PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) states that “in no event 

shall application of best available control technology [BACT] result in emissions of any pollutant which 

would exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61.” If the 

currently proposed version of the NSPS becomes final, the Project would be subject to the standard;

however, the GHG emissions from the new units subject to the rule (combustion turbines) are expected 

to be below the 1,000 lb/MWh standard on a rolling 12-month basis averaged for all fuels utilized. 

5.0 Project Emissions

The maximum annual potential emissions for the Project include GHG emissions from the CT/HRSGs, 

fuel heater, emergency generators, auxiliary boiler, fire pump engine, fuel oil storage tank, natural gas

compressor station, and circuit breakers. While two CT options are being proposed, the worst case 

emissions scenario for each pollutant has been used in the annual potential emissions calculations. 

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present the maximum annual potential Project emissions with the Mitsubishi Power 

Systems (MPS) “J” and Siemens “H” CTs, respectively. These tables address the relevant regulated 

NSR pollutants, as required under NSR.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 7

Table 5-1 Project Potential to Emit Emissions, (using MPS 501J CTs)

Emission Unit 

Description

SO2 

(TPY)

PM 

(TPY)

PM10 

(TPY)

PM2.5 

(TPY) NOx

CO

(TPY)

VOC (as 

methane) 

(TPY)

Sulfuric 

Acid 

Mist

(TPY)

Lead

(TPY) GHGs 

(CO2e) 

(TPY)

CTs/HRSGs with 

Duct Burners (3) 208 120 120 120 337 914 86.2 40.4 0.049 4,410,327

Auxiliary Boiler (1) 0.56 0.74 0.74 0.74 4.99 7.98 0.54 Neg. Neg. 11,670

Emergency 

Generators (2) 0.003 0.28 0.28 0.28 4.87 6.00 0.71 Neg. Neg. 687

Gas Compressors (2) 2.60 2.98 2.98 2.98 25.2 25.6 7.3 Neg. Neg. 55,313

Fire Pump Engine (1) 0.00018 0.013 0.013 0.01 0.22 0.086 0.033 Neg. Neg. 15.2

Fuel Oil Storage 

Tank (1) NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.82 NA NA NA

Circuit Breakers (2) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.5

Temporary 

Construction Boilers

(2)*

0.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 15.4 9.3 0.6 NA NA 36,700

Total Project 210 123 123 123 371 954 100.6 40.4 0.049 4,478,017

*

Temporary construction boilers will be used during construction, but will be removed prior to commercial operation. These emissions were not included in 

the PTE calculations.

Table 5-2 Project Potential to Emit Emissions, (using Siemens H CTs)

Emission Unit 

Description

SO2 

(TPY)

PM 

(TPY)

PM10 

(TPY)

PM2.5 

(TPY) NOx

CO

(TPY)

VOC (as 

methane) 

(TPY)

Sulfuric 

Acid 

Mist

(TPY)

Lead

(TPY) GHGs 

(CO2e) 

(TPY)

CTs/HRSGs (3) 187 242 242 242 348 631 92.1 36.4 0.052 4,058,754

Emergency 

Generators (2) 0.003 0.28 0.28 0.28 4.87 6.00 0.71 Neg. Neg. 687

Gas Compressors (2) 2.60 2.98 2.98 2.98 25.2 25.6 7.3 Neg. Neg. 55,313

Fire Pump Engine (1) 0.00018 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.22 0.086 0.033 Neg. Neg. 15.2

Fuel Oil Storage 

Tank (1) NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.82 NA NA NA

Circuit Breakers (2) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.5

Temporary 

Construction Boilers

(2)*

0.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 15.4 9.3 0.6 NA NA 36,700

Total Project 189 245 245 245 377 662 105 36.4 0.052 4,114,774

*

Temporary construction boilers will be used during construction, but will be removed prior to commercial operation. These emissions were not included in 

the PTE calculations.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 8

Table 5-3 Summary of Maximum Net Emissions Increases

Pollutant PTE 

(TPY) Net Emissions (TPY) Significant Emission Rate (TPY) PSD Review Required

SO2 210 -9,284 40 No

PM 245 -358 25 No

PM10 245 -358 15 No

PM2.5 245 -157 10 No

NOx 377 -3,883 40 No

CO 954 69 100 No

VOC (as methane) 105 28 40 No

Sulfuric Acid Mist 40.4 -382 7 No

Lead 0.052 -0.046 0.6 No

GHGs (CO2e) 4,478,017 1,926,979 75,000 (subject to regulation 

threshold)

Yes

As seen in the emissions summary tables, the emissions limits are based upon net changes to emissions 

associated with existing equipment and future equipment. Further, FPL confirms that there are no other 

creditable emissions increases or decreases during the contemporaneous period as defined in 40 CFR 

52.21 (b)(3)(ii) beyond the planned shutdown of existing boiler units 1-4. PTE emissions were based 

upon the net change in the highest 2-year average of actual emissions from 2006 to 2010. For GHGs, 

the highest 2-year baseline actual emissions were 2,551,038 TPY CO2e.

5.1 Unit Analysis 

Emissions calculations for equipment used during operation of the Project were made based on the 

assumptions described below.

Unit ID: CTs/HRSGs

The Project will include the retirement and replacement of four existing oil-fired units with one nominal 

1,250 megawatt (MW) 3-on-1 combined cycle unit, which will rely primarily upon natural gas.

Maximum potential annual emissions for the CTs/HRSGs for regulated air pollutants are based on

operation at baseload conditions (100 percent load) with an ambient temperature of 75°F. This turbine 

inlet temperature is conservative, since the annual average temperature is slightly higher than 75°F. To 

produce the maximum annual emissions, it is assumed that each CT/HRSG would operate for 8,760 

hours per year. Of the 8,760 operating hours, an average of 7,760 hr/yr is based on natural gas firing, 

and the remaining average of 1,000 hr/yr is based on ULSD fuel oil operation. Emissions limits were 

based upon the simultaneous operation of all three CT/HRSGs.

Unit ID: Auxiliary Boiler

An auxiliary boiler will be used with the MPS “J” CTs, as necessary, for startup. The combustor requires 

steam for combustor cooling, which normally comes from the HRSG. The limited use auxiliary boiler 

will operate up to 2,000 hr/yr, and will have a maximum heat input of 99.8 MMBtu/hr, higher heating 

value (HHV), firing natural gas. 

Unit ID: Emergency Generators

The Project will be equipped with two 2,250 kilowatt (kW) emergency generators firing ULSD fuel oil. 

These emergency generators will be used when electric power is not available. This primarily would 

occur during catastrophic events such as hurricanes. These emergency generators may be operated up to 

2 hours per month for maintenance and reliability testing.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 9

Unit ID: Gas Compressors

The Project will include a new natural gas compressor station to increase pressure from the existing 

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) pipeline to the CTs. Pending a final agreement 

between FPL and the natural gas provider, the natural gas compressor station may be installed either 

onsite or offsite. However, the Project emissions limits include those anticipated from the compressor 

station in the event that the compressors are installed onsite. The natural gas compressor station would 

consist of three Solar Centaur 50 compressor sets or equivalent, with each set including a natural gas 

turbine and natural gas compressor. During normal operation, only two of the three compressor sets will 

operate at any given time. 

Unit ID: Fire Pump Engine

The Project will be equipped with a 300 horsepower (hp) fire pump engine using ULSD fuel oil. This 

engine will be used when necessary during catastrophic events such as fires. The fire pump engine may

be operated up to 2 hours per month for maintenance and reliability testing.

Unit ID: Fuel Oil Storage Tank

ULSD fuel oil will be either trucked or barged to the facility and stored in a new fuel oil tank at the

facility. This tank is a vertical fixed roof design, with a rated storage capacity of approximately 7 million 

gallons (165,000 barrels). 

Unit ID: Circuit Breakers

The Project will include two circuit breakers containing SF6, with a guaranteed leak rate not to exceed 

0.5 lb/yr. Each breaker will be equipped with low density alarms and thoroughly leak tested with helium 

prior to delivery.

Unit ID: Temporary Construction Boilers

The Project will include two temporary construction boilers, rated up to approximately 150 MMBtu/hr, 

which will be brought onsite for use only during construction. The boilers will provide steam for HRSG,

cleaning and associated steam blows. Each boiler will be fired with natural gas only and will operate for 

no more than 1,500 hr/yr. The boilers will be permanently shut down and removed once commercial 

operation begins. 

5.2 Compliance Methodology (Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting)

The owner/operator shall install, operate, and maintain a continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS) to monitor CO2 emissions. The installation of the CO2 monitor shall meet the performance 

specifications of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification No. 3. A single, dedicated 

ASTM certified natural gas flow meter for the CTs/HRSGs shall be installed and operated, as well as a 

single, dedicated ASTM certified ULSD flow meter for the CTs/HRSGs. The heat input to the 

CTs/HRSGs shall be calculated for each hour of operation by using the fuel flow meters and the 

corresponding fuel’s heat content. A non-resettable operating hour meter or the equivalent software to 

accurately indicate the elapsed operating time of the CTs/HRSGs, including periods of when the unit is 

in startup and shutdown operations shall be installed and maintained. 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 10

6.0 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Recordkeeping 

Requirements

A major modification of a major stationary source subject to PSD requirements is required to apply 

BACT for each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA that it would have the potential to emit in 

significant amounts. See 40 CFR § 52.21(j). Based on the emission inventory for the Project, 

summarized in Table 5-3, GHGs are a CAA-regulated pollutant that FPL has the potential to emit in 

quantities that equal or exceed the significant emission rate. Therefore, BACT must be determined for 

each new emission unit which emits GHGs.

The 3-on-1 combined cycle unit is included in the source’s potential to emit, as required by 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(4), and is subject to operating limits, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to 

ensure they will not exceed the potential emissions assumed in the application and impact review. In 

addition, the application includes an auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, a natural gas compressor 

station, a diesel fire pump engine, a fuel oil storage tank, circuit breakers, and temporary construction 

boilers, which are necessary support equipment for the 3-on-1 combined cycle unit. These are also 

subject to operating limits, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

BACT is defined in the applicable permitting regulations at 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(12), in part, as:

an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the maximum 

degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act which would be 

emitted from any proposed major stationary source or major modification which the 

Administrator, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such source or 

modification through application of production processes or available methods, systems, 

and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion 

techniques for control of such pollutant. In no event, shall application of best available 

control technology result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed the emissions 

allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. If the Administrator 

determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement 

technology to a particular emissions unit would make the imposition of an emissions 

standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or 

combination thereof, may be prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement for the 

application of best available control technology. 

The CAA contains a similar BACT definition, although the 1990 CAA amendments added “clean fuels” 

after “fuel cleaning or treatment” in the above definition. See CAA § 169(3).

On December 1, 1987, the EPA issued a memorandum describing the top-down approach for 

determining BACT. See, e.g., In re Prairie State Generating Co., 13 E.A.D. 1 (EAB 2006). In brief, the 

top-down approach provides that all available control technologies be ranked in descending order of 

control effectiveness. Each alternative is then evaluated, starting with the most stringent, until BACT is 

determined. The top-down approach consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify all available control technologies.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 11

Step 2: Evaluate technical feasibility of options from Step 1 and eliminate options that are technically 

infeasible based on physical, chemical and engineering principles. 

Step 3: Rank the remaining control technologies from Step 2 by control effectiveness, in terms of 

emission reduction potential.

Step 4: Evaluate the most effective controls from Step 3, considering economic, environmental and 

energy impacts of each control option. If the top option is not selected, evaluate the next most effective 

control option.

Step 5: Select BACT (the most effective option from Step 4 not rejected).

6.1 GHG BACT Analyses for 3-on-1 Combined Cycle Unit

Step 1: Identify all available control technologies

The applicant identified the following available control technologies in their permit application dated

January 23, 2012 for the proposed 3-on-1 combined cycle unit:

1. Energy Efficiency

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

3. Oxidation Catalyst

4. Fuel Source

In addition, EPA requested that FPL submit justification for the use of fuel oil as a backup, along with 

the appropriate BACT analysis, since a complete BACT analysis should also include the evaluation of 

clean fuels and combustion of natural gas generally results in lower GHG emissions than does the 

combustion of fuel oil.

Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency falls under the general category of lower polluting 

processes/practices. Applying technologies, measures and options that are energy efficient translates not 

only in the reduction of emissions of the particular regulated NSR air pollutant undergoing BACT 

review, but it also may achieve collateral reductions of emissions of other pollutants. There are different 

categories of energy efficient improvements:

 Technologies or processes that maximize the efficiency of the individual

emissions unit, and

 Options that could reduce emissions by improving the utilization of thermal energy and 

electricity that is generated and used onsite. 

When the efficiency of the power generation process is increased, less fuel is burned to produce the 

same amount of electricity. This provides the benefits of lower fuel costs and reduced air pollutant 

emissions (including CO2). Efficient power production is technically feasible and is proposed for the 

Project combined cycle unit.

Two CT types, the Mitsubishi Power Systems (MPS) “J” and Siemens “H”, are being considered for use 

in the Project. Only one type will ultimately be chosen. Energy efficiencies and heat rates for these units 

were evaluated and shown to be more efficient compared to other operating power generating facilities

of similar size and class.
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 12

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Carbon capture and storage (CCS) falls under the category of 

add-on controls, which are air pollution control technologies that remove pollutants from a facility’s 

emissions stream. CCS is an add-on pollution control technology that is available for large CO2 emitting 

facilities including fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities with high purity CO2 streams. 

CCS is composed of three main components: CO2 capture and/or compression, transport, and storage. 

Oxidation Catalyst: Catalytic oxidation technology, which is primarily designed to reduce CO 

emissions will also reduce CH4 emissions, but to a lesser extent. Oxidation catalysts operate at elevated 

temperatures where excess O2 in the exhaust reacts with CH4 to form CO2. The surface of an oxidation 

catalyst is typically a precious metal. Oxidation catalysts are susceptible to fine particles suspended in 

the exhaust gases that can foul and poison the catalyst. Catalyst poisoning reduces catalyst activity and 

pollutant removal efficiencies. The most effective oxidation of CO and VOC emissions is achieved if the 

catalyst bed is located prior to the HRSG in the high temperature region of the CT exhaust.

Fuel Source: The use of natural gas as a fuel source is an inherently lower emitting practice than the use 

of fuel oil. The combustion of natural gas has the lowest emissions of GHGs of any fossil fuel and emits 

almost 30% less CO2 than oil, and about 45% less CO2 than coal on a lb/MMBtu basis.

Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible control options

Energy Efficiency: Efficient power generation is technically feasible and is being proposed for the 

Project’s combined cycle unit. 

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): EPA recognizes the significant logistical hurdles that the 

installation and operation of a CCS system presents and that set it apart from other add-on controls that 

are typically used to reduce emissions of other regulated pollutants. Logistical hurdles for CCS include:

obtaining contracts for offsite land acquisition (including the availability of land), the need for funding 

(including, for example, government subsidies), timing of available transportation infrastructure, 

developing a site for secure long term storage, and environmental permitting for underground GHG 

sequestration. 

The Project will be replacing a nominal 1,200 MW oil and natural gas-fired steam electric plant with an 

nominal 1,250 MW advanced combined cycle unit on the same footprint. There is insufficient space at 

the existing plant property to provide the needed infrastructure for a CCS system. In addition, the Project

is located within the industrialized Port with no additional space for CCS facilities. Based on these 

considerations, EPA has concluded that CCS is not applicable to the Project, and consequently not 

technically feasible for this particular facility.

Oxidation Catalyst: Catalytic oxidation is an available control technology for CH4. While CH4

emissions can be reduced using an oxidation catalyst, the amount of CO2e reduced is less than 0.05 

percent. Moreover, the amount of potential CO2e that could be reduced from the Project’s combined 

cycle unit is 40 times lower than the EPA GHG thresholds. Therefore, the addition of an oxidation 

catalyst to the Project for GHG control is neither practicable nor feasible to reduce CH4 from this 

facility.

Fuel Source: The use of natural gas as the sole fuel source, while most desirable, is associated with 

numerous technical challenges. Based on the information provided by the applicant, factors that must be 

accounted for include: the need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for fuel diversity 

and supply reliability, the need for base load generating capacity, the need for adequate electricity at a 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 13

reasonable cost, and whether it is the most cost-effective alternative available. FPL’s natural gas supply 

is limited by the number of pipelines that serve the state. The limited number of independent pipelines 

represents a source of unique risk in system and fuel reliability. The potential for temporary disruption 

of supply at the critical entry points, primarily the Gulf of Mexico, could occur due to hurricanes or 

through gas industry operational issues. While the cost of electricity was identified by the applicant as 

one of the reasons for needing a varied fuel source, it was not the only reason. Based on the need for 

reliability and the risk associated with Florida’s limited pipeline system, the use of natural gas as the 

sole fuel source is not technically feasible for this project.

Step 3 & 4: Rank remaining control technologies and evaluate energy, environmental and economic 

impacts

Based on the discussion in Steps 1 and 2, the only technically feasible control option for GHGs is energy 

efficiency. There are no anticipated adverse environmental impacts associated with the use of energy 

efficiency as BACT.

Step 5: Select BACT

FPL proposed an output based GHG BACT limit of 877 lb CO2e/MWh (net basis) on a 12-month rolling 

average when operating at 100% load using natural gas as the primary fuel source and fuel oil as the 

backup fuel source. However, EPA determined that combining both fuel types and proposing a single 

limit is not appropriate for this project. Therefore, EPA proposes a net output based GHG BACT limit 

of 832 lb CO2e/MWh on a 12-month rolling average when using natural gas and a net output based 

GHG BACT limit of 1,176 lb CO2e/MWh on a 12-month rolling average when using fuel oil. The 

BACT limits are based on an annual average turbine inlet temperature of 75°F, the range in operating 

loads, 8,760 hr/yr of natural gas operation, 1,000 hr/yr of ULSD oil operation, a 2 percent margin for the 

difference between guaranteed heat rates and actual heat rates (the vendor has not yet been selected), 

and a 5 percent margin for degradation over time. The estimated heat rate efficiency is 6,488 Btu/kWh 

and 7,171 Btu/kWh for natural gas and fuel oil, respectively.

Based on the BACT analysis, the proposed net GHG BACT limits of 832 lb CO2e/MWh (natural gas)

and 1,176 lb CO2e/MWh (fuel oil) on a 12-month rolling average for the combined cycle unit is 

appropriate as BACT.

6.2 GHG BACT Analysis for Smaller Combustion Equipment: Auxiliary Boiler, Emergency 

Generators, Natural Gas Compressor Station, Diesel Fire Pump Engine, and Temporary 

Construction Boilers

CCS is not practical for control of CO2 emissions from the auxiliary boiler, emergency generators,

natural gas compressor station, diesel fire pump engine, and temporary construction boilers due to the 

small amount of CO2 emissions potential from this equipment compared to the combined cycle system. 

Moreover, these units are not operated continuously or at their rated capacities making the addition of 

control equipment problematic. Therefore, CCS was not included as an available control technology in 

the following BACT analysis.

Step 1: Identify all available control technologies

The applicant identified the following available control technologies in their permit application dated

January 23, 2012, for the proposed auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, natural gas compressor 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 14

station, and diesel fire pump engine. In their response to our request for additional information dated 

May 8, 2012, the applicant confirmed that BACT analyses for the following control options are also 

applicable to the temporary construction boilers: 

1. Energy Efficiency

2. Cleaner Fuels

Energy Efficiency: The applicant provided information supporting the improved efficiency of the 

auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, natural gas compressor station and diesel fire pump engine. The 

auxiliary boiler will be used to provide steam to the steam cycle during the startup sequences. A boiler's 

efficiency is measured by its annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE). AFUE is the ratio of heat output 

of the boiler compared to the total energy consumed by the boiler. An AFUE of 90 percent means that 

90 percent of the energy in the fuel becomes heat and the other 10 percent is lost in the system. In 

general, fossil fuel fired boilers have high AFUE rating around 90 percent. For example, based on data 

from Cleaver Brooks firetube boilers, the fuel to steam efficiencies for boilers are in the 90 percent 

range for natural gas. This energy efficiency assessment is also applicable to the temporary construction 

boilers.

The natural gas compressors are efficient natural gas turbines connected directly to natural gas 

compressors. These natural gas turbine/compressors are used to maintain the necessary pressure for 

natural gas piped to the CTs associated with combined cycle unit. The amount of compression necessary 

is regulated by matching the needed fuel to the natural gas turbines that produce the necessary pressure 

for the CTs. 

The emergency generators and diesel fire pump are designed to meet the applicable NSPS and NESHAP 

for non-road engines. These units maximize efficiency while meeting the required emissions standards.

Cleaner Fuels: EPA recognizes that, with the exception of the emergency equipment (emergency 

generator and fire pump engine), all the combustion equipment in this BACT analysis utilize natural gas 

as the only fuel source, which is a cleaner fuel with respect to GHG emissions and constitutes a lower 

polluting method of operation. For the non-emergency equipment, the GHG emissions rate for natural 

gas firing is 116.9 lb CO2e/MMBtu compared to 163.6 lb CO2/MMBtu for distillate fuel oil firing based 

on Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 98, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The emission factors 

include N2O and CH4 at the equivalent rates. Therefore, firing natural gas will generate less GHG

emissions than firing oil.

Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible control options

Energy efficiency through the regulation of the amount of fuel used is considered to be technically 

feasible CO2 control option for the auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, natural gas compressor 

station, diesel fire pump engine, and temporary construction boilers.

The use of natural gas as the only fuel source is an inherently lower emitting practice than the use of fuel 

oil. For the auxiliary boiler, natural gas compressor station, and temporary construction boilers, the use 

of natural gas is also a technically feasible control option. 

The use of natural gas in the emergency equipment (emergency generator and fire pump engine), is not 

considered technically feasible since the primary purpose of this equipment is to provide power in the 

case of an emergency, which may include the curtailment of the natural gas supply. For safety reasons, 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 15

EPA believes it is reasonable for this equipment to use diesel/No. 2 distillate oil as the primary fuel 

source. 

Step 3 & 4: Rank remaining control technologies

Based on the discussion in Steps 1 and 2, the technically feasible control options for GHGs from the 

auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, natural gas compressor station, diesel fire pump engine, and 

temporary construction boilers is energy efficiency through the regulation of fuel and use of a cleaner 

fuel (for non-emergency equipment). There are no anticipated adverse environmental impacts associated 

with the use of energy efficiency or cleaner fuel as BACT.

Step 5: Select BACT

The auxiliary boiler, emergency generators, natural gas compressor station, diesel fire pump engine, and 

temporary construction boilers, together account for less than 2 percent of the total GHG emissions 

potential of the Project. The operation of these units will be limited: the auxiliary boiler will be based on 

2,000 hr/yr; emergency generators and fire pump engine are limited to 100 hours or less; and only two 

of three natural gas turbine/compressors will normally be operated and only used to regulate natural gas 

pressure. Given the limited use of this equipment and the relatively small amount of GHG emissions, the 

EPA has determined that long-term BACT emission limits (in TPY on a 12-month rolling average) are

more appropriate than short-term emission limits. See Table 6-1 below for the proposed BACT limits. 

The limits listed in Table 6-1 are on a per unit basis. Compliance with these limits will be shown by 

tracking the fuel use and/or hours of operation, as appropriate. Furthermore, to reduce the emissions and 

maintain consistency with the emission estimates in the permit application, the permit proposes to limit 

the use of these combustion units as described above.

Table 6-1: Proposed BACT for Smaller Combustion Equipment

Emission Unit BACT Limit (TPY CO2e) Operating Limit

Auxiliary Boiler (1) 11,670 2,000 hours per 12 month 

rolling average

Emergency Generators

(2) 344

24 hours per 12 month 

rolling average per 

generator

Gas Compressors (2) 27,657 Only 2 of 3 compressors 

shall operate at a time

Fire Pump Engine (1) 15.2 24 hours per 12 month 

rolling average

Temporary 

Construction Boilers (2) 18,350 1,500 hours per 12 month rolling average

6.3 GHG BACT Analysis for Circuit Breakers

Step 1: Identify all available control technologies

The applicant identified the following available control technologies in their permit application dated

January 23, 2012, and in a letter dated May 8, 2012, for the proposed circuit breakers: 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 16

1. Minimization of SF6 Emissions and Alternative Dielectric Fluids

Modern SF6 circuit breakers are designed as totally enclosed pressure systems with low potential SF6

fugitive emissions. Leakage is typically guaranteed to be no more than 0.5% by weight. In addition, 

circuit breakers have density alarms that provide warnings if a leak is occurring. Further, this equipment 

is routinely inspected to insure proper operation since the equipment is necessary for safe operation of

the Project.

Historically, dielectric fluids such as dielectric oils have been used in high voltage applications. 

However, the use of these materials in circuit breakers has been predominantly replaced with SF6, which 

has superior dielectric and arc quenching properties. 

Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible control options

Circuit breakers using SF6 with alarms and periodic inspection are technically feasible for the Project. 

The use of alternative dielectric fluids is not practical for high voltage applications. Circuit breakers 

using SF6 are presently superior in their performance to alternative systems such as dielectric oil, high 

pressure air blast, or vacuum circuit breakers. 

Step 3 & 4: Rank remaining control technologies

Based on the discussion in Steps 1 and 2, the only technically feasible control option for SF6 in circuit 

breakers is the use of modern enclosed systems with alarms and periodic inspection. There are no 

anticipated adverse environmental impacts associated with the use of modern enclosed circuit breaker 

systems with alarms and periodic inspection.

Step 5: Select BACT

The most effective control of fugitive SF6 emissions is using a totally enclosed system equipped with 

leak detection and periodic inspection and maintenance, as defined in the proposed permit. EPA has 

determined that the proposed BACT emission limit for the circuit breakers is 4.5 TPY of CO2e based on 

the use of the proposed leak detection and periodic inspection and maintenance practices. The emissions 

of GHGs from the circuit breaker should be zero, unless a leak is actually occurring. The applicant will 

show compliance with this emission limit through the use of the proposed work practice standards to 

ensure no leakage occurs.

7.0 Additional Requirements

7.1 Endangered Species Act

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, in consultation with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (collectively, “the Services”), to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried 

out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed as threatened or 

endangered, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such 

species. See 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2); see also 50 CFR §§ 402.13 and 402.14. The federal agency is also 

required to confer with the Services on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of a species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered or which will result in the destruction or 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 17

adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. See 16 U.S.C. 

§1536(a)(4); see also 50 CFR 402.10. Further, the ESA regulations provide that where more than one 

federal agency is involved in an action, the consultation requirements may be fulfilled by a designated 

lead agency on behalf of itself and the other involved agencies. See 50 CFR § 402.07. 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, EPA consults with NOAA Fisheries and FWS to ensure that 

the Project will not cause any protected species to be jeopardized. EPA received concurrence from the 

Fish and Wildlife Service that our Section 7 ESA consultation requirements were met on November 16, 

2012. The proposed permit includes a condition requiring FPL to comply with the Biological Opinion 

issued by NOAA along with all other applicable federal regulations. The final Biological Opinion will 

be issued by NOAA prior to issuance of the final permit.

7.2 Essential Fish Habitat of Magnuson-Stevens Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires 

federal agencies to consult with NOAA with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken by 

the agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under the MSA. EPA is the lead 

agency for ESA Section 7 and MSA compliance for the Project and is currently in consultation with 

NOAA regarding both Acts (see ESA discussion above). 

7.3 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 requires the lead agency 

official to ensure that any federally funded, permitted, or licensed undertaking will have no effect on 

historic properties that are on or may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

A desktop cultural resource survey was conducted by Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. 

in September 2011 of the Port Everglades Plant property and an area that extends approximately 1 mile 

from the Site. The survey included a review of relevant archives and literature that contained cultural 

resource reports for locations in coastal Broward County, a review of information from the Florida 

Master Site File, a site reconnaissance visit, examination of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps 

(specifically for Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale South Quadrangles), and the collection and review 

of aerial photographs (color and black/white). The survey determined that there are no previously 

recorded archaeological sites or historic standing structures within the Port Everglades Plant property 

and there is a low probability for archaeological sites and features. If historical or archaeological 

artifacts are discovered during construction, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) and FDEP will be notified and proper procedures will be followed.

In consultation with EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (NHPA compliance 

group), it has been determined that no sites of historic or archaeological significance will be directly or 

indirectly impacted due to operation of the Project. No sites listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places are located in close proximity to the existing Site. No direct or indirect 

impacts are anticipated from the operation of the Project.

7.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

According to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), the State may develop and adopt a 

management program for its coastal zone in accordance with Federal rules and regulations promulgated 

by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federal agencies, 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 18

State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties 

and individuals, public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of the CZMA and is 

consistent with the policy declared in the CZMA.

The Florida Coastal Management Act (§380.205-380.27, Florida Statutes) requires that the Coastal Zone 

Management Section of FDEP be responsible for certification of consistency with the Florida Coastal 

Management Program (FCMP) for all Federal licenses, permits, activities, and projects listed in 

§380.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes, when such activities are subject to Federal consistency review and affect 

land or water use, are seaward of the jurisdiction of the state, or there is no State agency with sole 

jurisdiction for such consistency review. The issuance of Federal permits listed in §380.23(3)(c), Florida 

Statutes is not required for the Project. Nonetheless, issuance of the final Site Certification (issued by the 

FDEP Office of Siting Coordination) constitutes consistency with the CZMA. The final Site 

Certification for the Project was issued on October 8, 2012. 

7.5 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive branch policy 

on environmental justice. Based on this Executive Order, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board 

(EAB) has held that environmental justice issues must be considered in connection with the issuance of 

federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits issued by EPA Regional Offices [See, 

e.g., In re Prairie State Generating Company, 13 E.A.D. 1, 123 (EAB 2006); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, 

Gmbh, 8 E.A.D. 121, 174-75 (EAB 1999)]. This permitting action, if finalized, authorizes emissions of 

GHG, controlled by what we have determined is the BACT for those emissions. It does not select 

environmental controls for any other pollutants. Unlike the criteria pollutants for which EPA has 

historically issued PSD permits, there is no National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for GHG. 

The global climate-change inducing effects of GHG emissions, according to the “Endangerment and 

Cause or Contribute Finding”, are far-reaching and multi-dimensional (75 FR 66497). Climate change 

modeling and evaluations of risks and impacts are typically conducted for changes in emissions that are 

orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects that might be analyzed in PSD 

permit reviews. Quantifying the exact impacts attributable to a specific GHG source obtaining a permit 

in specific places and points would not be possible. See page 48 of EPA’s “PSD and Title V Permitting 

Guidance for Greenhouse Gases”. Thus, we conclude it would not be meaningful to evaluate impacts of 

GHG emissions on a local community in the context of a single permit. Accordingly, we have 

determined an environmental justice analysis is not necessary for the permitting record.

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Tribal Consultation

In accordance with EO 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (Miccosukee Tribe) and the Seminole Tribe of Florida

(Seminole Tribe) were offered the opportunity to consult regarding EPA’s consideration of the PSD 

permit application submitted by FPL. Neither Tribe requested formal consultation on the Project permit

action. EPA informed both tribes that regardless of whether they elected to consult on the permit 

application, they would also have the opportunity to submit comments during any forthcoming public 

comment period.

The objective of such consultation, in EPA’s view, is to improve EPA’s understanding of the 

perspectives of the Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe and to identify any issues or concerns they 

may have regarding EPA’s consideration of FPL’s application. During the course of any consultation on 

this matter, the EPA can offer such things as education and outreach, solicitation of comments on the 
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 19

action, holding conference call(s) to discuss issues and concerns, and providing feedback through 

written communication explaining how EPA considered any issues and concerns raised.

8.0 Public Participation

8.1 Opportunity for Public Comment

These proceedings are subject to EPA Procedures for Decision-making, set forth at 40 CFR part 124. As 

provided in part 124, EPA is seeking public comment on the Project draft air permit (PSD-EPA-R4010)

during the public comment period as specified in the public notice. 

Any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit during the public comment 

period. If you believe that any condition of the permit is inappropriate, you must raise all reasonably 

ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting your position by the end 

of the comment period. Any documents supporting your comments must be included in full and may not 

be incorporated by reference unless they are already part of the record for this permit or consist of state 

or federal statutes or regulations, EPA documents of general applicability, or other generally available 

referenced materials. 

Comments should focus on the proposed air quality permit and the GHG permit terms. Comments 

related to the other criteria pollutants and the preconstruction permitting under the jurisdiction of the 

State of Florida are outside the scope of this action. All timely comments will be considered in making 

the final decision, included in the record, and responded to by EPA. EPA may group similar comments 

together in our response, and will not respond to individual commenters directly. 

All comments on the draft permit must be received by email, submitted electronically via 

www.regulations.gov, which can be accessed through the EPA Region 4 website listed above, or 

postmarked by July 2, 2013. An extension of the 30-day comment period may be granted if the request 

for an extension adequately demonstrates why additional time is required to prepare comments. 

Comments must be sent or delivered in writing to the address above. All comments will be included in 

the public docket without change and will be made available to the public, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be 

submitted through email. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be captured 

automatically and included as part of the public comment. Please note that an email or postal address 

must be provided with your comments if you wish to receive direct notification of EPA’s final decision 

regarding the permit and responses to comments submitted during the public comment period. All 

timely comments will be considered in making the final decision and included in the public record. EPA

will respond to all significant comments. Similar comments may be grouped together in our response, 

and EPA will not respond to individual commenters directly. For questions on the draft permit, please 

contact: Mr. Andrew Parks at 404-562-8122 or parks.andrew@epa.gov. Submit comments on the draft

permit and requests for a public hearing to:
PSD-EPA-R4010; FPL 052913 20

EPA Region 4, APTMD

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

ATTN: Andrew Parks

Fax: (404) 562-9019

Email: parks.andrew@epa.gov

8.2 Public Hearing 

EPA will hold a public hearing if the Agency determines there is a significant degree of public interest 

in the draft permit. Requests for a public hearing must be received by EPA by email or mail by June 17, 

2013, at the address given above, and state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. 

You may submit oral or written comments on the draft permit at the public hearing. You do not need to 

attend the public hearing to submit written comments. If EPA determines there is a significant degree of

public interest, EPA will hold a public hearing on the draft PSD permit on July 2, 2013, at the location 

given in the public notice. If no timely request for a public hearing is received, or EPA determines that 

there is not a significant degree of public interest, the hearing will be cancelled. An announcement of 

cancellation will be posted on the EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ghgpermits/ghgpermits.html, or you may call EPA at the contact 

number above to determine if the public hearing will be held.

8.3 Administrative Record

The administrative record contains the application, supplemental information submitted by FPL, and 

correspondence, including emails, between FPL and its consultants and EPA clarifying various aspects 

of FPL’s application. The draft permit and the administrative record are available for public review at 

the EPA Region 4 office and at the addresses listed below. Please call in advance for available viewing 

times.

Broward County Library 

100 South Andrews Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

(954) 357-4444

EPA Region 4 Office

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: (404) 562-9643

The administrative record and draft permit are also available on EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ghgpermits/ghgpermits.html. 

8.4 Final Determination 

A decision to issue a final permit, or to deny the application for the permit, shall be made after all timely 

comments have been considered. Notice of the final decision shall be sent to each person who has 

submitted written comments or requested notice of the final permit decision, provided the EPA has 

adequate contact information.