State Implementation Plan

Regional Haze Periodic Progress Report

for the State of Florida

Prepared by: 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Air Resource Management

March 10, 2015
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Executive Summary

On March 19, 2010, Florida submitted for approval its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Regional 

Haze to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4. Subsequent to this 

submission, Florida amended its plan on August 31, 2010 and September 17, 2012. Florida’s Regional 

Haze Plan documents Florida’s long-term plan for improving visibility in three of the state’s federal 

Class I areas as well as assisting with improvement of visibility in Class I areas located outside of the 

state. The SIP includes specific “reasonable progress” goals for visibility improvement at milestones 

that start in 2018. The ultimate goal is to reach background visibility levels in the Class I areas by the 

year 2064. Florida’s Class I areas regulated for visibility are the Everglades National Park, 

Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and St. Marks National Wilderness Area. 

Subparagraph 40 CFR 51.308(g) of the regional haze rule requires periodic reports describing progress 

towards the reasonable progress goals. The first progress report is due five years from the submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. Therefore, Florida’s report is due to be submitted to EPA not later than 

March 19, 2015.

The document comprised within the following pages is Florida’s periodic report on the progress made 

toward Florida’s 2018 reasonable progress goals. This progress report, in accordance with EPA’s 

requirements, contains the following elements: 

• status of implementation of the control measures included in the original SIP

• summary of the emissions reductions achieved through the above-referenced control 

measures

• assessment of visibility conditions and changes for each Class I area located within 

the state

• analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within Florida

• assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within the past 

five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and 

improving visibility

• assessment of whether the current SIP is sufficient to enable Florida and other states 

to meet applicable reasonable progress goals

• review of Florida’s visibility monitoring strategy

The control strategy in Florida’s Regional Haze Plan focuses on the reduction of SO2 emissions. 

Control measures that were included in the SIP included Federal programs, Best Available Retrofit 

Technologies (BART) requirements for specified electricity generating units (EGUs) and non-EGUs 

(addressing SO2, NOX, and PM), and reasonable progress requirements for specified EGUs and nonEGU point sources (addressing SO2). The major Federal programs identified were the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) for EGUs and several rules requiring emissions reductions from on-road and 

non-road mobile sources. Consistent with EPA direction, Florida utilized the Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM), which included CAIR-related reductions, to anticipate future emissions related to 

regional haze formation. However, many states, including Florida, relied on known projected changes 

in EGUs as a result of permit requests or state rule requirements to correct projected impacts from 

ii
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

CAIR in the IPM. Florida, for example, added more than 50,000 tons of SO2 emissions to the IPM 

CAIR solution to account for the continued operation of oil-fired boilers during the first planning 

period (IPM predicted no oil use). Overall, states used CAIR and the IPM as a starting point, and not 

as a complete solution to the predictive modeling of EGU emissions that contribute to regional haze. 

Instead of relying on federal transport rules such as CAIR for BART, Florida conducted case-by-case 

determinations for each source subject to BART requirements. 

Due to court rulings, CAIR was remanded to EPA to revise elements that were deemed unacceptable 

and was ultimately replaced by the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or “Transport Rule”). At 

the time that the states were developing their regional haze plans, challenges to CSAPR had left CAIR 

in place until residual issues were decided by the D.C. Circuit and EPA had resolved implementation 

issues. In April 2014, in EPA v. EME Homer Generation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld CSAPR, and 

the D.C. Circuit subsequently entered an order allowing EPA to proceed with implementing the 

Transport Rule. In November 2014, EPA issued a ministerial rule that aligned the dates in the CSAPR 

rule text with the revised court-ordered schedule, with implementation of “Phase 1” emissions budgets 

for affected EGUs to begin in 2015, and implementation of the stricter “Phase 2” emissions budgets 

to begin in 2017. On-road and non-road emissions reduction measures have been implemented on time,

and these measures will continue to provide reductions of NOX and SO2 in the coming years. 

BART and reasonable progress requirements for reductions of emissions from EGUs and from nonEGU point sources are on-going. From 2002 to 2012, estimated emissions reductions of 212,437 tons

per year of SO2 have been achieved through implementation of BART and reasonable progress 

requirements. Actual SO2 reductions from all stationary sources between 2000 and 2013 are 487,652

tons per year when reductions due to non-regional haze rule measures are included. An estimated

2,244 tons per year of NOX emission reductions were achieved by 2012 through the implementation 

of BART requirements. Actual NOX reductions from all stationary sources between 2000 and 2013

are 227,598 tons per year. Much of this reduction is due to measures not directly related to the regional 

haze rule. An estimated 368 tons per year of PM emission reductions by 2012 were achieved through 

BART, with total actual reductions from stationary sources between 2000 and 2013 of 29,205 tons per 

year.

Other emissions control programs that have come into being since Florida’s Regional Haze Plan was 

submitted include emissions limits on ships traveling in coastal waters and the mercury and air toxics 

standard (MATS) for EGUs. Florida’s Regional Haze Plan did not account for the additional emissions 

reductions that have resulted or will result from these programs.

Records of observed visibility impairment show improvements in visibility over the period 2004 -

2013 in the St. Marks Wilderness Area, the Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and the Everglades 

National Park. For the 20 percent worst visibility days, the 2009-2013 average observed visibility 

impairment in Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades is below the uniform glide path (i.e., a 

graphed straight-line path representing the average visibility improvements necessary over time) to 

reach natural background in 2064. For the 20 percent best visibility days, the 2009-2013 average 

observed visibility impairment in all Class I areas addressed in Florida’s Regional Haze Plan is below 

the baseline visibility impairment. In sum, visibility conditions have improved at a rate greater than 

the rate that is predicted to enable Florida to meet the 2064 goal.

As detailed in the graphs below, over the period 2000 through 2013, SO2 emissions from all stationary 

source sectors in Florida have declined by 80 percent, and NOX emissions have declined by 70 percent 

over the same period.

iii
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

All control measures outlined in Florida’s regional haze SIP are on track to meet their implementation 

schedules. Emissions of SO2 from Florida sources, as of 2013, are already well below predicted levels 

for 2018, and visibility impairment observations through 2012 are better (lower) than the uniform glide 

path. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) believes, therefore, that Florida’s

current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable Florida’s Class I areas to 

meet all established reasonable progress goals.

Determination of the adequacy of Florida’s existing implementation plan

Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h), the State of Florida has determined that the

state’s existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to 

achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions.

iv
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 What is regional haze?........................................................................................................1

1.2 What are the requirements under the Clean Air Act for addressing regional haze? ....1

1.3 Class I areas in Florida .......................................................................................................2

1.4 Florida’s Long-term Strategy for Visibility Improvement..............................................3

1.5 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals for Florida’s Class I Areas..........................................6

1.6 Periodic Progress Report....................................................................................................7

2.0 Status of Implementation of Control Measures.......................................................... 9

2.1 Emissions Reduction Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP ..............................9

2.1.1 Federal Programs ............................................................................................................................9

2.1.2 State EGU Control Measures........................................................................................................13

2.1.3 Florida Reasonable Progress and BART Control Measures..........................................................13

2.2 Emission Reduction Measures Not Included in the Regional Haze SIP.......................17

2.2.1 North American Emission Control Area .......................................................................................17

2.2.2 Residual Risk Requirements .........................................................................................................17

2.2.3 New EGU Control Strategies........................................................................................................17

2.2.4 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Standards....................................................................................................18

3.0 Visibility Conditions................................................................................................... 19

4.0 Emissions Analysis..................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Change in PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 Emissions from All Source Categories......................24

4.2 EGU Point Sources: SO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions and Power Demand ..........27

4.3 Assessments of Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions...................................................29

5.0 Assessment of Current SIP Elements and Strategies............................................... 30

6.0 Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy .................................................................. 32

7.0 Consultation with Federal Land Managers.............................................................. 33

8.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 34

v
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Florida's Class I Areas....................................................................................................3

Figure 1-2. Average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days in 2006-2010 at 

Southeast and neighboring Class I areas using the IMPROVE equation..............................4

Figure 1-3. Average light extinction for the 20% best visibility days in 2006 - 2010 at 

Southeast and neighboring Class I areas using the IMPROVE equation..............................4

Figure 1-4. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) and the 

20% cleanest visibility days (right) at Everglades. ..................................................................5

Figure 1-5. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) and the 

20% best visibility days (right) at Chassahowitzka. ................................................................5

Figure 1-6. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) and the 

20% best visibility days (right) at St. Marks. ...........................................................................6

Figure 3-1. Chassahowitzka: Visibility impairment worst 20% days glide path through 206421

Figure 3-2. Chassahowitzka: Visibility impairment best 20% days............................................21

Figure 3-3. Everglades: Visibility impairment worst 20% days glide path through 2064........22

Figure 3-4. Everglades: Visibility impairment best 20% days.....................................................22

Figure 3-5. St. Marks: Visibility impairment worst 20% days glide path through 2064..........23

Figure 3-6. St. Marks: Visibility impairment best 20% days.......................................................23

Figure 4-1. Stationary Point Source SO2 Emissions (State database) (2000-2013).....................27

Figure 4-2. Florida Acid Rain Program Unit Emissions and Heat Input Data (source: EPA 

CAMD Database).......................................................................................................................28

Figure 4-3. VISTAS Acid Rain Program Unit Emissions and Heat Input Data (source: EPA 

CAMD Database).......................................................................................................................29

Figure 5-1. Class I Areas in or near Florida ..................................................................................31

vi
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Florida's Class I Areas and Responsible Federal Land Manager (FLM)....................2

Table 1-2. 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals for Visibility Impairment in Florida's Class I 

Areas.............................................................................................................................................7

Table 2-1. MACT source categories with compliance dates on or after 2002 .............................12

Table 2-2. Summary of Reasonable Progress Determinations.....................................................15

Table 2-3. Summary of BART Sources...........................................................................................16

Table 3-1. Current Observed Visibility Impairment and Change from Baseline.......................19

Table 3-2. Observed Visibility Impairment for Five-year Period through 2013 (five-year 

averages* in deciviews).............................................................................................................20

Table 4-1. PM2.5 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP 

(2007) and NEI (2011) inventories...........................................................................................25

Table 4-2. NOX emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP 

(2007) and NEI(2011) inventories............................................................................................26

Table 4-3. SO2 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP 

(2007) and NEI (2011) inventories...........................................................................................26

Table 4-4. EGU SO2 emissions for CAMD (2007 - 2013) .............................................................26

Table 6-1. IMPROVE monitoring sites for Class I areas in Florida............................................32

vii
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

LIST of APPENDICES

Appendix A: Annual Speciated Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States’ Class I Areas

Appendix B: Daily Speciated Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States’ Class I Areas, 2006

through 2010

Appendix C: Five-year Average Observed Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States’ Class I 

Areas, 2004 through 2010, 20% Worst Days

Appendix D: Five-year Average Observed Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States’ Class I 

Areas, 2004 through 2010, 20% Best Days

Appendix E: Point Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory 

Appendix F: Area and Non-road Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventories 

Appendix G: On-Road Mobile 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory

Appendix H: Fire Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory

Appendix I: VISTAS States’ EGU Emissions and Heat Inputs, 2002 through 2011

Appendix J: Federal Land Manager Consultation

Appendix K: Responses to Public Comments

viii
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

List of Acronyms

Acronym Meaning Acronym Meaning

AERR Annual Emissions Reporting 

Requirements 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments

BART Best Available Retrofit 

Technology

IPM Integrated Planning Model

CAA Clean Air Act Mm-1 Inverse megameter

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule MMBtu Million Btus

CERR Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NOx Nitrogen Oxides

CSAPR Cross-state Air Pollution 

Rule

PM Particulate Matter

DEP Department of 

Environmental Protection

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter

DARM Division of Air Resource 

Management

PSC Public Service Commission

dv deciview RPO Regional Planning Organization

EGU Electric Generating Unit SEMAP Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and 

Planning project

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency

SMP Smoke Management Plan

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

FLM Federal Land Manager tpy tons per year

FR Federal Register VIEWS Visibility Information Exchange Web 

System

FRM Federal Reference Method VISTAS Visibility Improvement – State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast

ix
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

1.0 Introduction

This section provides background information on the science of regional haze, Clean Air Act (CAA)

requirements for reducing regional haze, Florida’s Class I areas, Florida’s strategy for reducing 

regional haze, and Florida’s reasonable progress goals. This section also lists the content elements 

required for the state’s periodic progress report.

1.1 What is regional haze?

Regional haze is pollution from disparate sources that impairs visibility over large regions, including 

national parks, forests, and wilderness areas (156 of which are termed mandatory Federal Class I 

areas). Regional haze is caused by sources and activities emitting fine particles and their precursors. 

Those emissions can be transported over large areas. 

Particles affect visibility through the scattering and absorption of light, and fine particles – particles 

similar in size to the wavelength of light – are most efficient, per unit of mass, at reducing visibility. 

Fine particles may either be emitted directly or formed from emissions of precursors, the most 

important of which are sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Reducing fine particles in the 

atmosphere is generally considered to be an effective method of reducing regional haze, and thus 

improving visibility. Fine particles also adversely impact human health, especially respiratory and 

cardiovascular systems. Therefore, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set 

national ambient air quality standards for daily and annual levels of fine particles with diameter smaller 

than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). In the southeast, the most significant sources of PM2.5 and its precursors 

are coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and other combustion sources. Other significant 

contributors to PM2.5 and visibility impairment include mobile source emissions, area sources, fires, 

and wind-blown dust.

1.2 What are the requirements under the Clean Air Act for addressing regional haze?

Section 169A of the CAA established a program for protecting visibility in mandatory Federal Class I 

areas. Under Section 169A EPA issued regional haze rules, which address visibility impairment and 

establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I Federal areas. The rules require 

each affected state to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) to EPA that sets out its plan for 

complying with the regional haze rules.

The core requirements (i.e., elements) for the SIP are presented at 40 CFR 51.308(d) and include: 

• Reasonable progress goals for visibility improvement (i.e., reduced impairment) at 

milestones starting in 2018

• Calculations of baseline (2000 – 2004) and natural visibility conditions

• Long-term strategy for achieving the 2018 reasonable progress goals, including 

enforceable emissions limitations and compliance schedules

• Monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of visibility 

impairment that is representative of the State’s Class I areas

Florida submitted its Regional Haze Plan to EPA on March 19, 2010. Subsequent to this submission, 

Florida amended its plan on August 31, 2010 and September 17, 2012. The most recent amendment to 

1 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

the SIP eliminated Florida’s reliance on CAIR (or subsequently CSAPR) to satisfy the Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements of the rule. On August 29, 2013,

EPA published its full approval of Florida’s regional haze SIP submittal (78 FR 53250).

Following submission of the SIP, the regional haze rules require that states report on the success of the 

long-term strategy at specific intervals through the year 2064. 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires periodic 

reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals. The first periodic progress report is 

due five years from the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. In the periodic report, the State must 

include an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the 

State’s (and other states’) established reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(h)). If the SIP is 

determined to be inadequate, the State must take specified additional measures.

In 2018, the State is required to revise its regional haze SIP and submit the revision to EPA (40 CFR

51.308(f)). In the SIP revision the State must evaluate and reassess the core SIP elements detailed 

above. In evaluating and reassessing, the State must address:

• Current visibility conditions and progress made during the previous ten-year 

implementation period

• The effectiveness of the long-term strategy to date

• Affirmation of, or revision to, the reasonable progress goals going forward from the 

current conditions 

Additional SIP revisions are required every ten years through the year 2064. 

1.3 Class I areas in Florida

Florida has four Class I areas within its borders: Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area, St. Marks Wilderness Area, and Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area. (See Table 1-1 and 

Figure 1-1.) Bradwell Bay is not listed as a Mandatory Class I Area in 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D. As

the regional haze rule only applies to areas that are listed in 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, the rule does 

not apply to Bradwell Bay.

Table 1-1. Florida's Class I Areas and Responsible Federal Land Manager (FLM)

Class I Area Responsible FLM

Everglades National Park U. S. Park Service

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

St. Marks Wilderness Area U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area* U. S. Forest Service

 * Not subject to the regional haze rule.

2 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 1-1. Florida’s Class I Areas

1.4 Florida’s Long-term Strategy for Visibility Improvement 

In Section 7.4 of Florida’s Regional Haze Plan, atmospheric ammonium sulfate was identified as the 

largest contributor to visibility impairment in Class I areas throughout the southeastern United States 

during the baseline period. Emissions sensitivity modeling performed for VISTAS determined that the 

most effective ways to reduce ammonium sulfate were to reduce SO2 emissions from EGUs and, with 

an important but smaller impact, to reduce SO2 emissions from non-utility industrial point sources. 

SO2 reductions from point sources were therefore identified as the focus of Florida’s long-term strategy 

for visibility improvement. 

Figure 1-2 shows the speciated average light extinction for the 20 percent worst days from 2006 

through 2010 for Class I areas in the southeast and for additional areas bordering the southeast. Figure 

1-3 shows the speciated average light extinction for the 20 percent best days from 2006 through 2010

for Class I areas in the southeast and for additional areas bordering the southeast. Figures 1-4, 1-5,

and 1-6 show the speciated annual average light extinction for the 20 percent worst and best days for 

Everglades, Chassahowitzka, and St. Marks. The speciated annual average light extinction for the 20 

percent worst and best days for the other sites in the southeast and additional areas bordering the 

southeast can be found in Appendix A. The speciated daily visibility impairment in VISTAS states’ 

Class I areas from 2006-2010 can be found in Appendix B. These figures show that ammonium sulfate 

3 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

continues to be the major contributor to light extinction in these areas, as well as in the other Class I 

areas in the southeast. Reduction of SO2 emissions will therefore continue to be the focus of Florida’s 

long-term strategy for visibility improvement.

Figure 1-2. Average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days in 2006-2010 

at Southeast and neighboring Class I areas using the IMPROVE equation.

Figure 1-3. Average light extinction for the 20% best visibility days in 2006 - 2010 

at Southeast and neighboring Class I areas using the IMPROVE equation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Swanquarter, NC

Cape Romain, SC

Okefenokee, GA

Everglades, FL

Chassahowitzka, FL

St. Marks, FL

Dolly Sods, WV

Shanendoah, VA

James River Face, VA

Linville Gorge, NC

Shining Rock, NC

Great Smoky Mtns., TN

Cohutta, GA

Sipsey, AL

Mammoth Cave, KY

Brigantine, NJ

Mingo, MO

Hercules Glades, MO

Upper Buffalo, AR 

Caney Creek, AR

Extinction (Mn-1)

Southeast Inland

Sea Salt

CM

Soil

EC

POM

Amm. NO3

Amm. SO4

Rayleigh

Southeast Coastal Neighboring non-Southeast 

4 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 1-4. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) 

and the 20% cleanest visibility days (right) at Everglades.

Figure 1-5. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) 

and the 20% best visibility days (right) at Chassahowitzka.

5 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 1-6. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visibility days (left) 

and the 20% best visibility days (right) at St. Marks.

1.5 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals for Florida’s Class I Areas

Table 1-2 shows the 2018 reasonable progress goals for Florida’s Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

and the 20 percent best visibility days. When the five-year averages of the annual observed values for 

the period ending in 2018 are available, they will be compared to the 2018 goals. The reasonable 

progress goals for the 20% worst days were determined by modeling performed for the regional haze 

SIP.

6 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 1-2. 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals for 

Visibility Impairment in Florida's Class I Areas

Class I Area Baseline impairment

(dv, 2000 – 2004 avg)

2018 reasonable 

progress goal (dv)

Natural 

background (dv)

20% Worst Days

- Chassahowitzka 25.75 22.27 11.03

- Everglades 22.30 19.80 12.09

- St. Marks 26.31 22.92 11.67

20% Best Days

- Chassahowitzka 15.51 15.51 or less* 5.91

- Everglades 11.69 11.69 or less* 5.21

- St. Marks 14.37 14.37 or less* 5.39

* The regional haze requirement for the 20% best days is to maintain the visibility impairment at or 

below the baseline impairment.

1.6 Periodic Progress Report

The requirements for periodic reports are outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each state must submit a 

report to EPA every five years evaluating the progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each 

Class I area located within the state and in each Class I area located outside the state which may be 

affected by emissions from within the state. The progress report must be a formal SIP submittal and at 

a minimum, must contain the following elements:

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the SIP for achieving 

reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both within and outside the State.

(2) A summary of the emission reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of 

the measures described in (1) above.

(3) For each Class I area within the State, the State must assess the following visibility conditions and 

changes, with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of five-year 

averages of these annual values

(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions;

7 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

(iii)The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired 

days over the past five years;

(4) An analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the state. Emissions changes should be 

identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recently updated 

emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for 

emissions changes during the applicable five-year period.

(5) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State 

that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, 

or other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established 

reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of the state’s visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as 

necessary.

This periodic progress report addresses the progress made toward Florida’s 2018 goals. The progress 

report requirements are addressed in the following sections.

8 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2.0 Status of Implementation of Control Measures

This section provides the status of implementation of the emission reduction measures that were 

included in the original regional haze SIP, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). These measures 

include Federal programs, State requirements for EGUs, and State requirements for non-EGU point 

sources. As required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), Florida has estimated the SO2 emissions reductions 

achieved through 2012 from measures implemented by the state.

1

 

This section also describes other strategies that were not included in the regional haze SIP. At the time 

of the best and final inventory development process, these measures were not fully documented or had 

not yet been published in final form, and therefore the benefits of these measures were not included in 

future year inventories. Emission reductions from these measures will help ensure that each Class I 

area meets or exceeds the visibility progress goal set in the regional haze SIP.

2.1 Emissions Reduction Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP

Florida’s regional haze SIP included the following types of measures for achieving reasonable progress 

goals:

• Federal programs

• State reasonable progress and BART control measures 

These emissions reduction strategies were included as inputs to the VISTAS final modeling. The 

current status of the implementation of these measures is summarized in the following paragraphs and 

an estimate of the SO2 emissions reductions achieved is presented. 

2.1.1 Federal and Other State Programs

The emissions reductions associated with the Federal and other state programs that are described in

the following paragraphs were included in the VISTAS future year emissions estimates. Descriptions 

contain qualitative assessments of emissions reductions associated with each program, and where 

possible, quantitative assessments. In cases where delays or modification have altered emissions 

reduction estimates such that the original estimates of emissions are no longer accurate, information 

is also provided on the effects of these alterations.

Clean Air Interstate Rule2

On May 12, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required reductions 

in emissions of NOX and SO2 from large EGUs fired by fossil fuels. The emission reductions 

associated with CAIR are difficult to predict on a source by source basis due to the rule’s market-based 

system. The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) set forth a modeled approach to how CAIR might be 

implemented. This model uses a least-cost approach to distribute power generation over the grid and 

considers emissions limitations associated with rules, in this case CAIR regional caps on SO2 and NOX. 

However, states modified the IPM solution based on more certain knowledge of utility plans (e.g., 

permits, discussions with industry, etc.). States made source by source decisions on potential future 

1 For the purpose of this periodic review, data through 2012 are being used to highlight the progress made. For 

some statewide figures or charts, 2013 data are available. DEP believes the use of the most recent available data 

supports the intent of the rule.

2 As explained in the Executive Summary of this document, CAIR has been replaced by the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

9 of 34

 
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

controls and emissions, independent of the CAIR emissions cap. Florida, for example, added more 

than 50,000 tons of SO2 emissions to the IPM CAIR solution to account for the continued operation 

of oil-fired boilers during the first planning period (IPM predicted no oil use). Thus, the 2018 projected 

emissions used in the regional haze analysis reflects the state’s best estimate of that year rather than a 

specific CAIR solution.

NOX SIP Call

Phase I of the NOx SIP Call applies to certain EGUs and large non-EGUs, including large industrial 

boilers and turbines, and cement kilns. Those states affected by the NOX SIP call in the VISTAS region 

have developed rules for the control of NOX emissions that have been approved by the EPA. The NOx 

SIP Call has resulted in a 68 percent reduction in NOX emissions from large stationary combustion 

sources. For this analysis, we capped the emissions for NOX SIP Call-affected sources at 2007 levels, 

and carried forward the capped levels for the 2009 and 2018 future year inventories. Florida sources 

are not included in the NOX SIP call, but emission reductions in the applicable states benefit Florida’s 

Class I areas.

North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA)

Under the act, enacted in 2002, coal-fired power plants in North Carolina must achieve a 77-percent 

cut in NOx emissions by 2009 and a 73-percent cut in SO2 emissions by 2013. This legislation 

establishes annual caps on both SO2 and NOx emissions for the two primary utility companies in North 

Carolina, Duke Energy and Progress Energy. These reductions must be made in North Carolina, and 

allowances are not saleable. These reductions further improve regional visibility.

Consent Agreements (TECO, VEPCO) and Gulf Power Crist 7 Voluntary Agreement

• Under a settlement agreement, Tampa Electric has installed permanent emissions-control 

equipment to meet stringent pollution limits. 

• Virginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO) agreed to spend $1.2 billion by 2013 to eliminate 

237,000 tons of SO2 and NOx emissions each year from eight coal-fired electricity 

generating plants in Virginia and West Virginia. 

• Under a 2002 voluntary agreement, Gulf Power has upgraded its operation to significantly 

cut NOx emissions at its Crist generating plant. 

One-hour Ozone SIPs (Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern Kentucky)

New SIPs have been submitted to the EPA to demonstrate attainment of the one-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These SIPs require NOx reductions from specific coal fired 

power plants and address transportation plans in these cities. These reductions further improve 

regional visibility.

NOx RACT in 8-hour Nonattainment Area SIPs

The NCDAQ’s SIP for the Charlotte / Rock Hill / Gastonia nonattainment area includes Reasonable 

Achievable Control Technology (RACT) for NOx for two facilities located in the nonattainment 

area: Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA. These controls were also modeled in 2018. Additional 

RACT controls may be realized as other companies subject to RACT complete the determination, 

but RACT-level controls were assumed for just these two sources. These controls further improve 

regional visibility.

2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (40 CFR Part 86, Subpart P)

In this regulation, EPA set a particulate matter (PM) emissions standard for new heavy-duty engines 

of 0.01 gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), which took full effect for diesel engines in the 

10 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2007 model year. This rule also included standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and non-methane 

hydrocarbons (NMHC) of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and 0.14 g/bhp-hr, respectively. These diesel engine NOx and 

NMHC standards were successfully phased in together between 2007 and 2010. The rule also required 

that sulfur in diesel fuel be reduced to facilitate the use of modern pollution-control technology on 

these trucks and buses. EPA required a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of highway diesel 

fuel, from levels of 500 parts per million (ppm) (low sulfur diesel) to 15 ppm (ultra-low sulfur diesel). 

These requirements were successfully implemented on the timeline in the regulation. This program 

applies to all areas of the country, including Florida, thus, more directly affecting Florida Class I areas.

Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (40 CFR Part 80 Subpart H; Part 85; Part 86)

EPA’s Tier 2 fleet averaging program for on-road vehicles, modeled after the California Low Emission

Vehicle (LEV) II standards, became effective in the 2005 model year. The Tier 2 program allows 

manufacturers to produce vehicles with emissions ranging from relatively dirty to very clean, but the 

mix of vehicles a manufacturer sells each year must have average NOX emissions below a specified 

value. Mobile emissions continue to be reduced by this program as motorists replace older, more 

polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles. The Tier 2 program applies nationwide, including Florida, 

and, thus, has a more direct impact on Florida Class I areas.

Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule

EPA has adopted new standards for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and 

carbon monoxide (CO) from several groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. Included in 

these are large industrial spark-ignition engines and recreational vehicles. Nonroad spark-ignition 

engines are those powered by gasoline, liquid propane gas, or compressed natural gas rated over 19 

kilowatts (kW) (25 horsepower). These engines are used in commercial and industrial applications, 

including forklifts, electric generators, airport baggage transport vehicles, and a variety of farm and 

construction applications. Nonroad recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-highway 

motorcycles, and all-terrain-vehicles. These rules were initially effective in 2004 and will be fully 

phased-in by 2012. These rules apply nationwide, including Florida. 

Nonroad Mobile Diesel Emissions Program (40 CFR Part 89)

EPA adopted standards for emissions of NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide (CO) from several 

groups of nonroad engines, including industrial spark-ignition engines and recreational nonroad

vehicles. Industrial spark-ignition engines power commercial and industrial applications and include 

forklifts, electric generators, airport baggage transport vehicles, and a variety of farm and construction 

applications. Nonroad recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and allterrain vehicles. These rules were initially effective in 2004 and were fully phased in by 2012. Nonroad 

mobile emissions continue to benefit from this program as motorists replace older, more polluting 

nonroad vehicles with cleaner vehicles. 

The nonroad diesel rule set standards that reduced emissions by more than 90 percent from nonroad 

diesel equipment and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur levels by 99 percent from 

previous levels. The reduction in fuel sulfur levels applied to most nonroad diesel fuel in 2010 and 

applied to fuel used in locomotives and marine vessels in 2012. This is a nationwide program and will

impact Florida sources.

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Programs (40 CFR Part 63)

VISTAS applied controls to future year emissions estimates from various maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) regulations for volatile organic compounds (VOC), SO2, NOX, and PM for source 

categories where controls were installed on or after 2002. Control estimates are documented in the 

report entitled, “Control Packet Development and Data Sources,” Alpine Geophysics, July 14, 2004. 

11 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 2-1 describes the MACTs used as control strategies for the non-electric generating unit’s point 

source emissions. The table notes the pollutants for which controls were applied as well as the

promulgation dates and the compliance dates for existing sources.

Table 2-1. MACT source categories with compliance dates on or after 2002

MACT Source Category 40CFR63

Subpart

Original

Promulg.

Date

Compliance 

Date (Existing 

Sources)

Pollutants 

Affected

Hazardous Waste Combustion 

(Phase I)

63(EEE), 

261 and 270 9/30/99 9/30/03 PM

Portland Cement Manufacturing LLL 6/14/99 6/10/02 PM

Secondary Aluminum Production RRR 3/23/00 3/24/03 PM

Lime Manufacturing AAAAA 1/5/04 1/5/07 PM, SO2

Taconite Iron Ore Processing RRRRR 10/30/03 10/30/06 PM, SO2

Industrial Boilers, Institutional/ 

Commercial Boilers and Process 

Heaters

DDDDD 9/13/04 9/13/07 PM, SO2

Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines ZZZZ 6/15/04 6/15/07 NOX, VOC

The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) boiler MACT standard (40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD) 

was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals and remanded the regulation to EPA on June 8, 2007. 

VISTAS chose, however, to leave the emissions reductions associated with this regulation in place as 

the CAA required use of alternative control methodologies under Section 112(j) for uncontrolled 

source categories. The applied MACT control efficiencies were 4 percent for SO2 and 40 percent for 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to account for the co-benefit from 

installation of acid gas scrubbers and other control equipment to reduce hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs).

EPA finalized the revised ICI Boiler MACT on February 21, 2011. EPA subsequently reconsidered

certain aspects of the rule and proposed changes on December 2, 2011. The final rulemaking was 

published on December 20, 2012. The final compliance date for ICI boilers at major sources is 2016,

with the option to request an additional year. EPA’s estimate of nationwide SO2 emissions reductions 

under the 2012 final rule is over 500,000 tons/year, as compared to an estimate of 113,000 tons/year 

in the analysis for the 2004 rule (78 FR 7138 and 69 FR 55218). It is reasonable therefore to expect 

that the 2012 rule will bring about more SO2 reductions in Florida than were modeled in Florida’s 

12 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Regional Haze Plan. The effects of the new rule will be addressed in the next scheduled periodic 

progress report.

2.1.2 State EGU Control Measures

Emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) have been regulated through state measures in North 

Carolina and Georgia. Reductions associated with these measures were used to estimate the 2018 

visibility improvements at the VISTAS Class I areas. 

North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act

In June of 2002, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), 

which required significant actual emissions reductions from coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. 

These reductions were included as part of the VISTAS 2018 Best and Final modeling effort. Under 

the CSA, power plants were required to reduce their NOX emissions by 77% in 2009 and their SO2

emission by 73% in 2013. Actions taken to date by facilities subject to these requirements comply 

with the provisions of the CSA, and compliance plans and schedules will allow these entities to achieve 

the emissions limitations set out by the Act. This program has been highly successful. In 2009, 

regulated entities emitted less than the 2013 system annual cap of 250,000 tons of SO2 and less than 

the 2009 system annual cap of 56,000 tons of NOX. In 2002, the sources subject to CSA emitted 

459,643 tons of SO2 and 142,770 tons of NOX. In 2011, these sources emitted only 73,454 tons of SO2

and 39,284 tons of NOX, well below the Act’s system caps.

Georgia Multi-Pollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

Georgia rule 391-3-1.02(2)(sss), enacted in 2007, requires flue-gas desulphurization (FGD) and 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls on large coal-fired EGUs in Georgia. Reductions from 

this regulation were included as part of the VISTAS 2018 Best and Final modeling effort. These 

controls will reduce SO2 emissions from the affected emissions units by at least 95 percent and will 

reduce NOX emissions by approximately 85 percent. Control implementation dates vary by EGU, 

starting with December 31, 2008 and ending with December 31, 2015.

2.1.3 Florida Reasonable Progress and BART Control Measures

Unlike the other states in the Southeast, Florida completed source-specific reasonable progress and 

BART determinations for all applicable sources. In total, Florida had 46 BART-eligible sources and 

fifteen reasonable progress sources that were reviewed. Of the 46 BART-eligible sources, 26 met the 

exemption criteria in the rule, eight have been shut down and twelve were reviewed for BART

determinations. Of the fifteen reasonable progress sources, three have shut down, three took 

enforceable permit limits that rendered them no longer subject to the rule, six were also subject to 

BART (equivalent to a reasonable progress determination), and five completed a reasonable progress 

(four-factor analysis) determination. (Two sources had units split between BART and reasonable 

progress.) 

Table 2-2 lists the fifteen sources for which a reasonable progress determination was made and the 

current status. The estimated reductions are based upon both direct actions associated with the 

reasonable progress determination and other indirect reduction measures that contribute to reasonable 

progress. Emission reductions for sources shut down are based on the 2002 base-year emissions. 

Where reductions are not based on specific emission limits imposed by the reasonable progress 

determination, but are relied upon, the emission reduction is based on the actual emissions decrease 

from 2002 to 2012. The estimated reductions are representative of what is expected in 2018, the end 

of the planning period.

13 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 2-3 lists the twelve sources for which a BART review was made. Sources that were exempted 

or shut down prior to the submission of the regional haze SIP are not listed. The estimated reductions 

in 2018 are based upon the BART emission limitations.

14 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 2-2. Summary of Reasonable Progress Determinations

Plant Name

Point 

ID Type

2002 SO2 Actual 

Emissions 

(TON/YR)

2012 SO2 Actual 

Emissions 

(TON/YR)

Modeled 2018 

SO2 Emissions 

(TON/YR) Status of Controls/Reduction

Met 

Compliance 

Date? BART-Eligible

Estimated 

Reduction 

in 2018 

(TON/YR)

GRU DEERHAVEN 5 coal-fired boiler 6,969 1,177 1,062 Permit limited (5,500 tons per year) Y 1,469

FPL PORT EVER 3 oil/gas-fired boiler 6,409 146 859 Shutdown Y Y 6,409

4 oil/gas-fired boiler 6,205 239 97 Shutdown Y Y 6,205

DUKE CRYSTAL RIVER 1 coal-fired boiler 18,998 9,609 13,537 Required to shut down 12/31/20 TBD1 Y 0

2 coal-fired boiler 20,728 11,574 15,241 Required to shut down 12/31/20 TBD Y 0

3 coal-fired boiler 26,436 2,022 3,634 FGD - in operation N/A2 24,414

4 coal-fired boiler 24,635 3,430 6,120 FGD - in operation N/A 21,205

FPL TURKEY POINT 1 oil/gas-fired boiler 4,307 499 499 Fuel oil sulfur red. (1% to 0.7%); 25% operation - in effect Y Y 3,808

2 oil/gas-fired boiler 4,289 0 179 Shutdown Y Y 4,289

JEA ST JOHNS RIVER 16 coal-fired boiler 11,076 6,209 5,882 No changes N/A 0

17 coal-fired boiler 10,185 6,590 7,420 No changes N/A 0

JEA NORTHSIDE 27 coal-fired boiler 5,090 632 5,950 Permit limited (1,816 tons per year) - no longer applicable Y 3,274

3 oil/gas-fired boiler 7,146 148 7,146 No changes N/A Y 0

GULF POWER CRIST 7 coal-fired boiler 21,546 466 4,648 FGD - in operation N/A Y 0

FLORIDA POWER DEVEL. 18 coal-fired boiler 2,906 0 2,884 Converted to biomass - in effect Y 2,315

TECO GANNON 1 coal-fired boiler 5,157 0 0 Shutdown Y 5,157

2 coal-fired boiler 4,942 0 0 Shutdown Y 4,942

3 coal-fired boiler 5,602 0 0 Shutdown Y 5,602

4 coal-fired boiler 5,577 0 0 Shutdown Y 5,577

5 coal-fired boiler 8,043 0 0 Shutdown Y 8,043

6 coal-fired boiler 16,097 0 0 Shutdown Y 16,097

FPL MANATEE 1 oil/gas-fired boiler 13,930 276 4,371 Fuel oil sulfur reduction (1% to 0.7%) - in effect Y Y 4,179

2 oil/gas-fired boiler 15,073 962 6,163 Fuel oil sulfur reduction (1% to 0.7%) - in effect Y Y 4,522

ROCK TENN 15 coal-fired boiler 3,242 2,899 3,627 No changes N/A 0

DUKE ANCLOTE 1 oil/gas-fired boiler 13,879 261 13,879 Converted to NG only - in effect Y Y 13,618

2 oil/gas-fired boiler 13,225 237 13,225 Converted to NG only - in effect Y Y 12,988

DUKE BARTOW 1 oil/gas-fired boiler 6,483 0 0 Shutdown Y 6,483

2 oil/gas-fired boiler 6,149 0 0 Shutdown Y 6,149

3 oil/gas-fired boiler 11,249 0 0 Shutdown Y Y 11,249

LAKELAND MCINTOSH 6 coal-fired boiler 6,994 5,145 3,842 Eliminated pet coke - in effect Y 904

SEMINOLE ELECTRIC 1 coal-fired boiler 10,912 6,539 6,779 FGD improve(0.25 lb/MMBtu)/no pet coke - in effect 2016 TBD 5,695

2 coal-fired boiler 12,775 7,222 6,508 FGD improve(0.25 lb/MMBtu)/no pet coke - in effect 2016 TBD 7,416

336,595 66,282 133,552 1

To Be Determined- TBD 192,009

2

Not Applicable- N/A

15 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 2-3. Summary of BART Sources

SOURCE NAME EU ID EU DESCRIPTION STATUS OF CONTROLS/REDUCTION

Met 

Compliance 

Date? 2002 2012

Est. 

Reduction 

2018 2002 2012

Est. 

Reduction 

2018 2002 2012

Est. 

Reduction 

2018

GULF LANSING SMITH 1 coal-fired boiler SO2 -DSI (0.74 lb/MMBtu) approx. 50% reduction - in effect 3/31/16 TBD1 6,044 3,158 3,022 2,533 1,047 0 79 58 0

GULF LANSING SMITH 2 coal-fired boiler SO2 -DSI (0.74 lb/MMBtu) approx. 50% reduction - in effect 3/31/16 TBD 4,247 2,164 2,123 1,428 717 0 55 44 0

DUKE CRYSTAL RIVER 1 coal-fired boiler By permit, unit will cease coal operation by Dec 31, 2020 TBD 18,998 9,609 0 4,810 2,290 0 179 275 0

DUKE CRYSTAL RIVER 2 coal-fired boiler By permit, unit will cease coal operation by Dec 31, 2020 TBD 20,728 11,574 0 6,373 1,972 0 74 160 0

GULF CRIST 6 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A2 11,085 265 0 3,518 758 0 103 105 0

GULF CRIST 7 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A 21,546 466 0 6,355 1,330 0 191 161 0

TECO BIG BEND 1 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A 2,789 2,050 0 9,142 1,129 0 200 192 0

TECO BIG BEND 2 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A 2,021 2,186 0 6,625 1,204 0 718 223 0

TECO BIG BEND 3 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A 2,621 1,685 0 5,929 1,251 0 402 135 0

JEA NORTHSIDE/SJRPP 3 oil/gas-fired boiler No changes N/A 7,146 148 0 3,631 1,578 0 568 77 0

FPL MANATEE 1 oil/gas-fired boiler SO2 - lower S limit (0.7% or less) approx. 30% reduction- in effect Y 14691 276 4,407 4,630 261 0 1,177 56 0

FPL MANATEE 2 oil/gas-fired boiler SO2 - lower S limit (0.7% or less) approx. 30% reduction- in effect Y 16508 962 4,952 5,210 378 0 1,323 102 0

LAKELAND C.D. MCINTO 1 oil/gas-fired boiler SO2 - lower S limit (1% or less) - in effect Y 559 1 0 246 6 0 22 0 0

LAKELAND C.D. MCINTO 5 coal-fired boiler No changes N/A 80 2 0 168 16 0 8 0 0

FPL MARTIN 1 oil/gas-fired boiler No changes N/A 6,404 99 0 2,434 719 0 576 76 0

FPL MARTIN 2 oil/gas-fired boiler No changes N/A 8,215 58 0 2,937 612 0 730 40 0

FPL TURKEY POINT 1 oil/gas-fired boiler SO2 - lower S limit (1% to 0.7%); 25% operation - in effect Y 4307 499 3,808 2,324 852 0 369 62 0

FPL TURKEY POINT 2 oil/gas-fired boiler shutdown Y 4289 0 4,289 2,233 0 2,233 365 0 365

TALLAHASSEE PURDOM 7 oil/gas-fired boiler shutdown Y 2 0 2 11 99 11 3 3

PCS White Springs 1 No. 2 Phosphate Rock Grinder No changes N/A 0 dno3 0 0 dno 0 17 dno 0

PCS White Springs 3 A Defluorinated Phosphate Plant No changes N/A 1 dno 0 29 dno 0 11 dno 0

PCS White Springs 4 X Train No changes N/A 23 dno 0 12 dno 0 10 dno 0

PCS White Springs 8 Y Train No. 1 DAP Plant No changes N/A 1 34 0 0 3 0 0 13 0

PCS White Springs 10 No. 1 Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP) S No changes N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0

PCS White Springs 15 MAP/DAP Shipping and Screening Facility No changes N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0

PCS White Springs 21 C Sulfuric Acid Plant No changes N/A 18 846 0 limited op 34 0 0 0 0

PCS White Springs 22 D Sulfuric Acid Plant No changes N/A 27 824 0 limited op 33 0 0 0 0

PCS White Springs 32 Z Train No changes N/A 0 36 0 1 3 0 0 3 0

PCS White Springs 38 B DFP No changes N/A 1 dno 0 29 dno 0 14 dno 0

PCS White Springs 42 DFP Feed Prep No changes N/A 13 dno 0 7 dno 0 1 dno 0

PCS White Springs 44 A and B DFP Coolers No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 16 dno 0

PCS White Springs 54 Molten Sulfur System No changes N/A active active 0 active active 0 active active 0

PCS White Springs 62 DFP Silos No changes N/A active dno 0 active dno 0 active dno 0

PCS White Springs 64 Swift Creek Mine Rock Dryer No changes N/A 0 dno 0 2 dno 0 1 dno 0

PCS White Springs 65 Swift Creek Mine Silos No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 0 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 2 No. 1 Kiln Feed System No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 3 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 3 Cement Kiln No. 1 No changes N/A 5 dno 0 555 dno 0 16 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 4 Cement Plant Clinker Cooler No. 1 No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 11 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 5 Finish Mills No. 1 and 2 No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 105 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 6 Clinker Storage Silo Nos. 1 and 2 No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 1 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 8 Baghouse No. E-36 of Kiln No. 1 Blending S No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 6 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 9 Cement Plant STG Silos Dust Unit No changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 105 dno 0

CEMEX Brooksville 11 Raw Material Storage Silos and Feed SysteNo changes N/A 0 dno 0 0 dno 0 8 dno 0

1

To Be Determined- TBD 152,369 36,942 22,603 71,172 16,292 2,244 7,482 1,786 368

2

Not Applicable- N/A 3 dno - did not operate

SO2 NOx PM

16 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2.2 Emission Reduction Measures Not Included in the Regional Haze SIP

Since development of the 2018 Best and Final inventory effort, a number of regulations and requirements 

have been promulgated that were not included in Florida’s original SIP submittal. The sections below 

provide information on these requirements, and, where possible, provide estimates of additional reductions. 

These reductions provide additional assurances that the VISTAS Class I areas will meet their reasonable 

progress goals in a timely manner.

2.2.1 North American Emission Control Area

On March 26, 2010, the International Maritime Organization officially designated waters off North 

American coasts as an area in which stringent international emission standards will apply to ships. These 

standards will reduce air pollution from ships and deliver air quality benefits that extend hundreds of miles 

inland. In 2020, EPA expects emissions from ships operating in the designated area to be reduced by 

320,000 tons for NOX, 90,000 tons for PM2.5, and 920,000 tons for SO2, which is 23 percent, 74 percent, 

and 86 percent, respectively, below predicted levels in 2020 absent the Emissions Control Area designation.

Implementation of the Emission Control Area means that ships entering the designated area would need to 

use compliant fuel for the duration of their voyage that is within that area, including time in port as well as 

voyages whose routes pass through the area without calling on a port. The requirements for quality of fuel 

change over time. From the effective date in 2012 until 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in 

designated areas cannot exceed 10,000 ppm sulfur content. Beginning in 2015, fuel used by vessels 

operating in these areas cannot exceed 1,000 ppm sulfur content, and beginning in 2016, NOX aftertreatment requirements become applicable.

2.2.2 Residual Risk Requirements

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess the risk remaining after application of final technology-based air 

toxics standards to any source category within eight years of setting the technology based MACT standards. 

In the residual risk process, EPA must assess the remaining health risks from each source category to 

determine whether the MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and 

protect against adverse environmental effects. Final rules for this Clean Air Act requirement have been, or 

will be, published during the first regional haze planning period. Additional requirements to reduce toxic

air emissions under the residual risk assessment may also have co-benefits for the reduction of VOC and 

other criteria pollutant emissions between now and 2018.

2.2.3 New EGU Control Strategies

Two federal programs and one federal consent agreement will provide further reductions in SO2 from the 

EGU source sector, either as a result of SO2 requirements or as co-benefit from the reduction of HAPs. 

These benefits were not considered in the development of the VISTAS Best and Final 2018 inventories. 

Any additional SO2 emission reduction benefits achieved by the implementation of these requirements will 

help to ensure that all Class I areas in VISTAS meet their reasonable progress goals in a timely manner.

Mercury and Air Toxics Rule

On February 16, 2012, EPA finalized national CAA standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air 

pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. The final rule established power plant emission standards 

for mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants that will prevent 90 percent of the 

mercury in coal burned in power plants from being emitted to the air; reduce by 88 percent the acid gas 

emissions from power plants; and cut power plant SO2 emissions by 41 percent beyond the reductions 

originally expected from CSAPR. Reductions under this rule are expected to begin in 2015. 

17 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2010 SO2 NAAQS

On June 2, 2010, EPA strengthened the primary NAAQS for SO2 by revising the primary SO2 standard to 

75 parts per billion (ppb) averaged over one hour. This short-term standard is significantly more stringent 

than the existing standards of 140 ppb averaged over 24 hours and 30 ppb averaged annually. At present, 

Florida has two small nonattainment areas for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. Corrective measures for each 

of these areas will be in effect as expeditiously as practicable, and sufficient emissions controls will be 

implemented at affected facilities no later than 2018. Through Florida’s nonattainment area plans, and PSD 

review for new and modified sources, SO2 emissions will be reduced significantly.

Tennessee Valley Authority Federal Consent Agreement

In April of 2011, EPA announced a settlement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to resolve alleged 

Clean Air Act violations at 11 of its coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The settlement 

requires TVA to invest $3 billion to $5 billion on new and upgraded state-of-the-art pollution controls. Once 

fully implemented, the pollution controls and other required actions will address 92 percent of TVA’s coalfired power plant capacity, reducing emissions of NOX by 69 percent and SO2 by 67 percent from TVA’s 

2008 emissions levels.

2.2.4 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Standards

On April 28, 2014, EPA published its final rule implementing the Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and fuel 

standards. This rule establishes more stringent vehicle emissions standards and will reduce the sulfur 

content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor 

vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The gasoline sulfur standard will make emission control 

systems more effective for both existing and new vehicles, and will enable more stringent vehicle emission 

standards. Emission reductions of visibility-impairing pollutants are anticipated to be modest through the 

one-year period ending the first planning period for the regional haze plan, but with potentially greater 

emissions reductions likely in the future as the Tier 3 standards are met by more vehicles on the roads.

18 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

3.0 VisibilityConditions

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires the State to assess the visibility conditions for the most impaired and least 

impaired days expressed in terms of five-year averages. The visibility conditions that must be reviewed 

include: (1) the current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility conditions 

compared to the baseline; and (3) the change in visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days 

over the past five years. 

Table 3-1 shows the current visibility conditions and the difference between the current visibility and the 

baseline condition expressed in terms of five-year averages of observed visibility impairment. The baseline 

conditions are for 2000 through 2004 and the current conditions are for 2009 through 2013. The data shows 

that all Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility (i.e., reduced impairment) on the 20% worst days 

and on the 20% best days. For the 20% worst days, the current observed 5-year average values for all three 

areas are below the 2013 interpolations of the glide slope and the 2018 goal. For the 20% best days, the 

current observed 5-year average values for all three areas are below the 2018 goal.

Table 3-1. Current Observed Visibility Impairment and Change from Baseline

(five-year averages and 2013 annual values in deciviews)

Class I Area Baseline 

avg.

(2000 -

2004)

2013**

glide 

slope

2013

observed

annual

Current 

avg.

(2009 -

2013)

Change

(current -

baseline)

2018 

goal

20% Worst Days

- Chassahowitzka 25.75 23.54 20.17 21.33 -4.42 22.27

- Everglades 22.30 20.77 18.16 18.14 -4.16 19.80

- St. Marks 26.31 24.11 20.53 22.22 -4.09 22.92

20% Best Days

- Chassahowitzka 15.51 15.51 13.28 13.74 -1.77 <15.51

- Everglades 11.69 11.69 10.58 11.21 -0.48 <11.69

- St. Marks 14.37 14.37 12.59 13.33 -1.04 <14.37

** Interpolated between 2009 and 2018 values presented in the regional haze SIP submittal. 

19 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 3-2 displays the change in visibility impairment for the 20% most and 20% least impaired days over 

the past five years in terms of the five-year averages. The data shows that all three Class I areas saw an 

improvement in visibility on the 20% worst days and on the 20% best days. 

Table 3-2. Observed Visibility Impairment for Five-year Period through 2013

(five-year averages* in deciviews)

2001-

2005

2002-

2006

2003-

2007

2004-

2008

2005-

2009

2006-

2010

2007-

2011

2008-

2012

2009-

2013

20% Worst Days

- Chassahowitzka 25.36 25.40 25.39 24.83 23.68 23.32 22.59 21.79 21.33

- Everglades 22.31 22.41 22.48 21.43 20.41 19.49 18.91 18.35 18.14

- St. Marks 26.31 26.80 26.99 26.64 25.58 25.18 24.31 23.04 22.22

20% Best Days

- Chassahowitzka 15.30 15.45 15.67 15.70 15.43 15.13 14.56 14.09 13.74

- Everglades 11.87 12.20 12.29 12.14 11.92 11.65 11.42 11.39 11.21

- St. Marks 14.37 14.64 14.78 15.06 14.77 14.73 14.11 13.76 13.33

The figures that follow display the data listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, as well as the uniform rate of progress 

towards natural background for the 20% worst days. 

Figure 3-1 shows the observed five-year average impairment values for the worst 20% days in 

Chassahowitzka, as well as the associated glide slope and the predicted impairment from the regional haze 

SIP. The predicted impairment for 2018 is also the reasonable progress goal. The observed five-year 

average impairment for 2013 is below both the glide path and the predicted impairment. 

Figure 3-2 shows the observed five-year average impairment values for the best 20% days in 

Chassahowitzka, as well as the predicted impairment from the regional haze SIP. The observed five-year 

average impairment for the best 20% days of 2013 is below both the baseline and the predicted impairment. 

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the same information for the Everglades, which show similar improvement in 

visibility conditions. 

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the same information for St. Marks, which show similar improvement in visibility 

conditions. 

Appendix C contains the observed five-year average impairment values for the worst 20% days at the other 

VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring Class I areas, as well as the associated glide slope and the predicted 

impairment from the regional haze SIP. 

Appendix D contains the observed five-year average impairment values for the best 20% days at the other 

VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring Class I areas, as well as the associated glide slope and the predicted 

impairment from the regional haze SIP.

20 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 3-1. Chassahowitzka: Visibility impairment worst 20% days

glide path through 2064 

Figure 3-2. Chassahowitzka: Visibility impairment best 20% days

21 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 3-3. Everglades: Visibility impairment worst 20% days

glide path through 2064 

Figure 3-4. Everglades: Visibility impairment best 20% days

22 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 3-5. St. Marks: Visibility impairment worst 20% days

glide path through 2064

Figure 3-6. St. Marks: Visibility impairment best 20% days

23 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

4.0 Emissions Analysis

This section includes an analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the state, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4). Because SO2 is the significant pollutant contributing to visibility impairment, the emissions 

analysis will focus mostly on SO2 emissions. This section also includes an assessment of changes in 

anthropogenic emissions over the past five years, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). 

4.1 Change in PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 Emissions from All Source Categories

There are six emissions inventory source categories: stationary point, area (non-point), off-road mobile, onroad mobile, fires, and biogenic sources. 

• Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, with data provided at the facility level. Electric generating utilities and industrial 

sources are the major categories for stationary point sources. 

• Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, 

but due to the large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 

category could be significant). These types of emissions are estimated on a countywide 

level. 

• Off-road (or non-road) mobile sources are equipment that can move, but do not use the 

roadways (i.e., lawn mowers, construction equipment, marine vessels, railroad 

locomotives, aircraft). The emissions from these sources, like stationary area sources, are 

estimated on a countywide level. 

• On-road mobile sources are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway 

system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road type and 

are summed to the countywide level. 

• Fire emissions include prescribed fire and wildfire emissions and can be summed to a 

countywide level or reported as a point source. 

• Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, grasses and natural decay of plants. 

The biogenic emissions are not included in this mid-course review since they were held 

constant as part of the original regional haze SIP modeling and are not controllable 

emissions.

The typical 2002 stationary point source emissions inventory was developed jointly with VISTAS states for 

emission projection purposes. The electric generating units are adjusted so that if sources were shut down 

or operating above or below normal the emissions were normalized to a typical inventory year. This is 

necessary since the future year emissions represent a projected typical future year inventory. The 2009 and 

2018 electric generating unit’s emissions were estimated using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), and 

then adjusted based on state-specific information. Other point sources were estimated using economic 

growth factors. 

The 2002 area source emissions were estimated by taking an activity factor and multiplying by an emission 

factor. The 2009 and 2018 area source emissions were projected using economic growth factors. For the 

non-road mobile source inventory, all but the aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine emissions were 

24 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

estimated using EPA’s NONROAD2005c model for the typical 2002, 2009, and 2018 inventory years. The 

remaining non-road mobile sources were estimated by taking an activity level and multiplying it by an 

emission factor and these sources were projected to 2009 and 2018 using economic growth factors. The 

on-road mobile source emissions were estimated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model for the typical 2002 and 

projected 2009 and 2018 inventory years. The 2002 wildfire and prescribed fire emissions were normalized 

to a typical year and held constant in 2009 and 2018. 

For the purpose of evaluating more recent emission inventories with the 2002 actual and 2009 and 2018 

projected inventories used in Florida’s Regional Haze Plan, DEP utilized the SEMAP 2007 actual inventory,

the 2011 NEI inventory, and the state Annual Operation Report point source data collected each year. The 

first five-year period after the original 2002 baseline compares 2007 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions to 

2002 actual emissions. The 2007 SEMAP inventory used actual point (see Appendix E), area (see Appendix 

F), nonroad (see Appendix F), and on-road (see Appendix G) emissions and typical 2007 fire (see Appendix 

H) emissions. Although the 2008 NEI was available, DEP felt that the SEMAP 2007 inventory was a more 

accurate and more detailed inventory. Additional QA was performed on the 2007 inventory to create a SIPquality inventory. Therefore, for this review, this analysis uses 2007 instead of 2008. In addition, 2000-

2013 actual SO2 emissions for point sources are compared to VISTAS 2009 and 2018 projections.

The SEMAP 2007 and NEI 2011 PM2.5 emissions are different from the VISTAS emissions, due to 

methodology changes to reflect up-to-date emission calculations. For example, the increase in on-road 

mobile PM2.5 is due to the switch in model used (MOBILE6.2 replaced with MOVES2010a).

Table 4-1. PM2.5 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4),

and SEMAP (2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

For NOx emissions (Table 4-2), there were large decreases in point and area sources and some increases in 

on-road mobile sources in 2007. The decreases in point source NOX were due to emissions controls that 

were installed. The decrease in area source NOX is primarily due to a change in the methodology used to 

calculate this source category (removed coal and wood combustion boilers from the area source inventory

to avoid double counting with the point source category). The increase in on-road mobile NOX is due to 

the switch in model used (MOBILE6.2 replaced with MOVES2010a). If a consistent model was used for 

2002, 2007, and 2009, the SEMAP 2007 NOx emissions would have been lower than the VISTAS 2002 and 

VISTAS 2009G4 emissions. The 2011 NEI also uses MOVES.

PM2.5 VISTAS 2002A VISTAS 2002T SEMAP 2007 VISTAS 2009G4 NEI 2011 VISTAS 2018G4

Point 46,148 46,079 28,418 48,809 46,174 48,903

Area 58,878 58,878 38,238 64,589 46,027 72,454

Onroad 7,868 7,868 14,480 6,173 10,202 4,038

Nonroad 17,415 17,415 14,868 14,866 11,495 11,868

Fires 75,717 88,756 113,424 88,756 91,755 88,756

Total 206,026 218,996 209,428 223,193 205,653 226,019

25 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 4-2. NOX emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4),

and SEMAP (2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

For SO2 emissions (Table 4-3), significant decreases from point sources dominate the trend. The projection 

for 2018 is over-estimated, based on the recent NEI (2011) inventory. This is largely due to a greater 

reduction in oil use and a greater shift to natural gas than predicted by VISTAS. 

Table 4-3. SO2 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4),

and SEMAP (2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

Actual emissions reductions from the EGU sector have occurred in recent years with the installation of 

scrubbers on some of the larger power generation sources in Florida. Table 4.4 shows the CAMD emissions 

from 2007 to 2013.

Table 4-4. EGU SO2 emissions for CAMD (2007 - 2013)

NOx VISTAS 2002A VISTAS 2002T SEMAP 2007 VISTAS 2009G4 NEI 2011 VISTAS 2018G4

Point 302,834 300,827 237,474 179,660 118,203 140,604

Area 28,872 28,872 5,982 28,187 3,359 30,708

Onroad 465,640 465,640 498,935 315,840 319,370 150,180

Nonroad 180,627 180,627 179,860 163,794 152,056 127,885

Fires 15,942 19,791 30,159 19,791 22,773 19,791

Total 993,915 995,757 952,410 707,272 615,760 469,168

SO2 VISTAS 2002A VISTAS 2002T SEMAP 2007 VISTAS 2009G4 NEI 2011 VISTAS 2018G4

Point 518,721 509,473 379,591 354,482 150,894 265,838

Area 40,491 40,491 10,334 36,699 1,396 38,317

Onroad 20,915 20,915 5,151 2,612 2,064 2,533

Nonroad 20,614 20,614 26,027 8,967 8,804 7,536

Fires 4,057 4,129 7,923 4,129 10,462 4,129

Total 604,798 595,622 429,026 406,889 173,619 318,353

SO2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

CAMD 317,582 263,952 209,966 145,014 94,710 84,384 90,197

26 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 4-1 shows the trend in SO2 emissions from stationary point sources (EGUs and non-EGUs) 

compared with the VISTAS predictions for stationary sources. Florida’s emissions are well below the 

predicted VISTAS emissions. 

Figure 4-1. Stationary Point Source SO2 Emissions (State database) (2000-2013)

4.2 EGU Point Sources: SO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions and Power Demand

The large reductions in SO2 emissions from electric generating units during 2000-2013 resulted from many 

factors, including control installations, units switching to cleaner fuels, and, to some extent, a decrease in 

demand for generation during a period of economic downturn. CAMD data for Acid Rain Program units 

from 2002 through 2013 indicate that reductions in SO2 emissions appear to be maintained, and further 

reductions achieved, even though heat input to these units remains fairly steady. This generality is true for 

Florida EGUs and across VISTAS.

Figure 4-2 depicts the trends for Acid Rain Program units that report annual emissions to CAMD and are 

located in Florida. Between 2002 and 2013, heat input to these units decreased from approximately 

1,597,000,000 MMBtu to 1,548,000,000 MMBtu, a decrease of 3%. 

SO2 emissions from these units decreased from 466,904 tons annually in 2002 to 88,004 tons annually in 

2013, a decrease of 81.2%, and the average SO2 emission rate from these units decreased from 0.603

lbs/MMBtu in 2002 to 0.114 lbs/MMBtu in 2013, a decrease of 81.1%. The reductions in emissions are 

not attributable to reduced demand for power. Instead, the significant emission reductions are attributable 

to the overall emissions rate decrease that is due to the installation of controls and the use of cleaner burning 

fuels. Over the same period, NOX emissions decreased from 258,378 tons in 2002 to 54,398 tons in 2013, 

a drop of 78.9%.

27 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 4-2. Florida Acid Rain Program Unit Emissions and Heat Input Data 

(source: EPA CAMD Database)

Figure 4-3 shows the trends for the Acid Rain Program units across all VISTAS states. Trends for the ten

individual VISTAS states can be found in Appendix I. 

Between 2002 and 2011, heat input to these units decreased from 7,645,295,464 MMBtu to 7,336,055,333 

MMBtu, a decrease of 4.0%. SO2 emissions from these units decreased from 3,713,262 tons annually in 

2002 to 1,166,572 tons annually in 2011, a decrease of 69.9%, and the average SO2 emission rate from 

these units decreased from 0.971 lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2002 to 0.318 lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2011, a decrease of 

67.3%. As additional controls are installed to meet the stringent requirements of MATS, this emission rate 

may decrease even further. Over the same period, NOX emissions decreased from 1,498,143 tons in 2002 

to 464,129 tons in 2011, a drop of 69 percent.

Between 2009 and 2011, the total VISTAS states’ heat input for Acid Rain Program units increased from 

6,966,765,915 MMBtu to 7,336,055,333 MMBtu. Emissions dropped in the VISTAS states for these units 

from 1,619,348 tons of SO2 in 2009 to 1,166,572 tons of SO2 in 2011, and the emission rates of SO2 fell 

from 0.465 lbs/MMBtu to 0.318 lbs/MMBtu. 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

lbs/mmbtu

tons/year and 1000 mmbtu heat 

input

Florida Emissions and Heat Input, 2002-2013 

(Acid Rain Units Reporting to CAMD)

SO2 Annual Emissions, tpy NOx Annual Emissions, tpy Heat Input, 1000 mmbtu/yr

SO2 Rate, lbs/mmbtu NOx Rate, lbs/mmbtu

28 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 4-3. VISTAS Acid Rain Program Unit Emissions and Heat Input Data 

(source: EPA CAMD Database)

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 reflect the fact that the reductions in SO2 and NOX are a result of permanent changes at 

electric generating units through the use of control technology and fuel switching, and not reductions in 

heat input. Thus, visibility improvements from reduced sulfate and nitrate contribution should continue into 

the future even though demand for power and heat input to these units may have moderate increases.

4.3 Assessments of Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions

There does not appear to be any significant change in anthropogenic emissions within Florida that would 

have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. This is evident 

by comparing the point source SO2 emissions in the base year (2002) to the most recent SO2 emissions 

(2007-2013). There are significant decreases in point source SO2 emissions, in spite of the fact that power 

generation has remained fairly constant during the same period.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

lbs/mmbtu

tons/year and 1000 mmbtu heat 

input

VISTAS Emissions and Heat Input, 2002-2011 

(Acid Rain Units Reporting to CAMD)

SO2 Annual Emissions, tpy NOx Annual Emissions, tpy Heat Input, 1000 mmbtu/yr

SO2 Rate, lbs/mmbtu NOx Rate, lbs/mmbtu

29 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

5.0 Assessment of Current SIP Elements and Strategies

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are 

sufficient to enable the State, and other Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all 

established reasonable progress goals. For the reasons described below, Florida DEP believes that Florida’s 

current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals for the year 2018. 

In the case of Florida’s Class I areas, this progress report has documented the following:

• Speciated data collected for the period 2006 – 2010 shows that sulfates continue to be the 

most significant contributor to visibility impairment, which supports SO2 reduction as the 

appropriate control strategy (Section 1.4).

• SO2 controls documented in the SIP have been implemented. 

• Observed visibility impairment values for the 20% worst days through 2013 are better 

(lower) than the 2013 interpolated values for the 2018 reasonable progress goals and better 

than the 2013 glide slope values; all observed visibility impairment values for the 20% best 

days are below the baseline (Section 3.0). 

• A 71% reduction in the overall SO2 emissions inventory from 2002 through 2011 verifies 

that Florida’s SO2 reduction program is in fact achieving the reductions that were projected 

in the regional haze SIP (Section 4.1).

Based on the points listed above, Florida DEP believes that the State’s current implementation plan elements 

and strategies are sufficient to enable Florida to continue to realize emissions levels below the glide path 

and meet the 2018 reasonable progress goals for its Class I areas. 

In Florida’s regional haze SIP, it was determined that emission sources located in Florida may have 

significant sulfate visibility impacts on the following Class I areas in neighboring states: 

• Okefenokee NWR, Georgia

• Wolf Island NWR, Georgia

• Breton Island NWR, Louisiana

The specific emissions sources having significant impacts and the corresponding impacted Class I areas are 

shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.

The locations of these areas are shown in Figure 5-1. Visibility data through 2010 show that the 2010 fiveyear average visibility impairment on the worst 20% days in the above Class I areas is at or below the glide 

slope for each respective area (see Appendix C). Furthermore, visibility impairment in each of these areas 

decreased over the period 2008 through 2010.

30 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 5-1. Class I Areas in or near Florida

The status of SO2 controls on Florida sources that impact the out-of-state Class I areas was presented in 

Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of this progress report. All of the controls have been or will be implemented on 

time. 

Based on the observed visibility trends, the status of controls on Florida sources, Florida DEP believes that 

the State’s current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable these neighboring 

Class I areas to achieve their 2018 reasonable progress goals. This is based on the assumption that the other 

VISTAS states will also meet their commitments for emissions reductions on time. 

31 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

6.0 Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the State’s visibility monitoring strategy and any changes that 

may be needed. A visibility monitoring strategy is crucial for the assessment of reasonable progress towards 

natural background visibility and the ongoing identification of the pollutant species having the greatest 

impact on visibility in the Class I areas. Florida’s visibility monitoring strategy was described in detail in 

the regional haze SIP and the strategy has not changed.

The primary monitoring network for regional haze is the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network. The IMPROVE network is funded by EPA and the FLMs and each 

monitoring station is operated by the FLM responsible for the given Class I area. Florida’s understanding 

is that EPA and the FLMs will continue to support the IMPROVE network.

Given that IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serve as the baseline for the regional haze program, 

the future regional haze monitoring strategy should be based on IMPROVE data (or data directly 

comparable to IMPROVE data). The IMPROVE measurements provide the only long-term record 

available for tracking visibility improvement or degradation. Therefore, Florida will continue to rely on 

the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in the Regional Haze 

Rule. There are currently three IMPROVE monitoring sites in the State, as detailed in Table 6-1: one in 

the St. Marks Wilderness Area (SAMA1), one in the Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area (CHAS1), and one 

in the Everglades National Park (EVER1). 

Table 6-1. IMPROVE monitoring sites for Class I areas in Florida

Class I Area IMPROVE Site Designation

St. Marks Wilderness Area SAMA1

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area CHAS1

Everglades National Park EVER1

The Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) web site provides ready access to the 

IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. The site is maintained by the Cooperative Institute for Research 

in the Atmosphere (CIRA) and is currently sponsored by the Western Regional Air Partnership. Previous 

sponsors include VISTAS, other regional planning organizations, and EPA. Florida will continue to rely 

on VIEWS to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.

Through the year 2012, the data gathered by Florida’s three IMPROVE monitoring sites and managed on 

the VIEWS database have provided satisfactory support for Florida’s compliance with the Regional Haze 

rule. This monitoring system will be fully funded and operated into the future. DEP is not recommending 

any changes to the visibility monitoring strategy at this time. 

32 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

7.0 Consultation with Federal Land Managers

DEP provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) the opportunity to comment on the draft progress report, as 

required in subparagraph 40 CFR §51.308(i) of the regional haze rule. A copy of the progress report was 

provided to the following FLMs:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• National Park Service

• U.S. Forest Service

Correspondence with and comments from the FLMs and Florida DEP’s responses to the comments are 

included as Appendix J.

33 of 34
FLORIDA’S REGIONAL HAZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

8.0 Conclusion

This progress report documents that all control measures outlined in Florida’s Regional Haze SIP are on 

track to meet their implementation schedules and that reduction of SO2 emissions continues to be the 

appropriate strategy for improvement of visibility in Florida’s Class I areas. The change in actual emissions 

of SO2 from all sourcesfrom 2002 through 2011 is a 71% reduction (431,179 tons) and visibility impairment 

observations through 2013 are better (lower) than the 2013 interpolated values for the reasonable progress 

goals and the glide slope. DEP believes therefore that the State’s current implementation plan elements and 

strategies are sufficient to enable the State, and other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from 

Florida sources, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.

A declaration that further revision of Florida’s Regional Haze SIP is not needed at this time will be 

submitted to EPA with this progress report. This negative declaration will meet the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308 (h). 

34 of 34