# 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, 2015FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 3 1, 2010 and September 17, 2012. Florida’s Regional

Haze P lan documents Florida’s long

- term plan for improving visibility in three of the s tate’s federal
Class I areas as well as assisting with improvement of visibility in Class I area s located outside of the

s tate. 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 ru le requires periodic reports describing progress
towards the reasonable progress goals. The first progress report is due five years fro m the submittal of the initial regional h aze SIP. Therefore, Florida’s report is due to be submitted to EPA not later th an 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 elem ents:

• 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 tra cking 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 Florid a and other states to meet applicable reasonable progress goals

• review of Florida’s visibility monitoring strategy

The control s trategy in Florida’s Regional Haze P lan focuses on the reduction of SO 2 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 SO 2 , NO X , and PM), and reasonable progress require ments for specified EGUs and non

EGU point sources (addressing SO 2 )

. 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. Consist ent with EPA direction, Florida utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) , which included CAIR

- related reductions, to anticipate future emissions relat ed 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

iiFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

CAIR in the IPM

. Florida, for example, added more than 50,000 tons of SO 2 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.

Inst ead 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

an d 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 , c hallenges to CSAPR had left CAIR in place until residual issues we re decided by the D.C. C ircuit and EPA had resolved im plementation
issues. In April 2014, i n EPA v. EME Homer Generation , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld CSAPR, and the D.C. Circuit subsequently entered an order allow ing EPA to proceed with implementing the Transport Rule. In Novem ber 2014, EPA issue d a ministerial rule that aligned the dates in the CSAPR
rule text with the revised cou rt

- 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 conti nue to provide reductions of NO X and SO 2 in the coming years

. BART and reasonable progress requirements for reductions of emissions from EGUs and from non

EGU point sources are on

- going

. From 2002 to 2012, e stimated emissions reductions of 212,437 tons

per year of SO 2 have been achieved through implementation of BART and reasonable progress

re quirements

. Actual SO 2 reductions from all stationary sources between 200 0 and 201 3 are 487,652

tons per year when reductions due t o non

- regional haze rule measures are included. An estimated 2, 244 tons per year of NO X e mission reductions were achieved by 2012 through the implementation

o f BART requirements. Actual NO X reductions from all stationary sources between 2000 and 2013

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

. An estim ated 368 tons per ye ar of PM emission reductions by 2012 were ach ieved through BART, with total actual reduction s from stationary sources between 200 0 and 201 3 of 29,205 tons per

year.

O ther emissions control programs that have come into being since Florid a’s Regional Haze P lan was submitted include emissions limits on shi ps traveling in coastal waters and the mercury and air toxics
standard (MATS) for EGUs. Florida’s Regional Haze P lan did not account for the additional emissions reductions that have resulted or will result from these programs.

Records of observed visibility impairment show improvement s in visibility over the period 2004

- 201 3 in the St. Marks Wilderness Area, the Chas sahowitzka Wilderness Area, an d the Everglades
National Park. For the 20 percent worst visibility days

, the 200 9

- 201 3 average observed visibility impairment in Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades is below the uniform glide path (i.e., a graphed strai ght

- line path representing the average visibility improvement s ne cessary over time ) to reach natural background in 2064. For the 20 percent be st visibility days, the 200 9

- 201 3 average observed visibility impairment in all Class I areas addressed in Florid a’s Regional Haze P lan is below
the baseline visibility impairment . In sum, v isibility 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, o ver the period 2000 through 201 3 , SO 2 emissions from all stationary source sectors in Florida have declined by 80 percent, and NO X emissions have declined by 70 percent over the same period

.

iiiFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

All control measures outlined in Florida’s r egional h aze SIP are on track to meet their implementation
schedules. Emissions of SO 2 from Florida sources, as of 201 3 , are already well below predicted levels for 2018, and visibility impairment observations through 201 2 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

.
Det ermination 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 impro vement and emissions reductions.

ivFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS



### 1.0 I ntroduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 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 Visibil ity 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 PM 2.5 , NO X , and SO 2 Emissions from All Source Categories

...................... 24

4.2 EGU Point Sources: SO 2 and NO X 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

vFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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

Southeas t and neighboring Class I areas using the IMPROVE equation.

............................. 4

Figure 1

- 4. Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst visib ility 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 2064 21

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 SO 2 Emissions (State database) (2000

- 2013)

..................... 27

Figure 4

- 2. Florida Acid Rain Program Unit Emissions and Heat Input Data (source: EP A

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

viFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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. PM 2.5 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP

(2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

................................ ................................ ........................... 25

Table 4

- 2. NO X emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP

(2007) and NEI(2011) inventories

................................ ................................ ............................ 26

Table 4

- 3. SO 2 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4), and SEMAP

(2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

................................ ................................ ........................... 26

Table 4

- 4. EGU SO 2 emissions for CAMD (2007

- 2013)

................................ ............................. 26

Table 6

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

................................ ............ 32

viiFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

LIST of APPENDICES

Appendix A: Annual Speciated Visibil ity 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 throug h 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

Appen dix J : Federal Land Manager Consultation

Appendix K : Responses to Public Comments

viiiFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 Btu s

CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NO
x Nitrogen Oxides

CSAPR Cross

- state Air Pollution
Rule PM Particulate Matter

D EP Department of
Environmental Protection PM 2.5 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 SO 2 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

ixFLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 1.0 I ntroduction

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, Florid a ’s strategy for reducing regional haze, and Florida ’s reasonable progress goals. This section also lists the co ntent elements required for the state’s per iodic 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 ma ndatory 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 (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO

x ). Reducing fine particles in the atmosphere is generally considered to be an ef fective method of reducing regional haze, and thus improving visibility. Fine particles also adversely impact human health, especially respirat ory and cardiovascular systems. Therefore, t he United States Env ironmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has set
nation al ambient air quality standards for daily and annual levels of fine particles with diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ). In the southeast, the most significant sources of PM 2.5 and its precursors
are coal

- fired power plants, industrial boilers

, and other combustion sources. Other significant
contributors to PM 2.5 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?

Sec ti on 169A of the CAA establishe d a program for protecting visibility in m andatory Federal Class I

areas. Under Section 169 A EPA issue d regional haze rules , which address visibility impairment and establish a comprehensive visibility protection pro gram for Cl ass I Federal areas. The rules require
each affected state to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) to EPA that set s out its plan for complying with the regional haze rule s.
The core requirements (i.e., elements) for the SIP are presented at 40 CFR 51.3 08(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 Region al Haze P lan to EPA on March 19 , 2010. Subsequent to this submission, Florida amended its plan on August 3 1, 2010 and September 17, 2012. The most recent amendment to

1 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

the SIP eliminated Florida’s reliance on CAIR (or subsequently CSAPR) to satisfy the Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART ) and reasonable pro gress requirements of the rule. On August 29, 2013,

EPA published its full approval of Florida ’s regional haze SIP submittal ( 7 8 FR 53250 )

. Following submission of the SIP, the re gional haze rules re quire that states report on the success of the long

- term strategy at specific i ntervals 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 f ive years from the submittal of the initial r egional h aze SIP. In the periodic report, the S tate must include an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the State’s (and other states’) establis hed reasonable pro gress goals (40 CFR 51.308(h)). If the SIP is
determined to be in adequate, the State must take specified additional measures.

I n 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 ef fectiveness 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 a reas 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. F ish 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 R egional H aze P lan , 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 modeli ng performed for VISTAS determined that the most effective ways to reduce ammonium sulfate were to reduce SO 2 emissions from EGUs and, with an important but smaller impact, to reduce SO 2 emissions from non

- utility industrial point sources

. SO 2 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 are as 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 sou theast

. 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 am monium sulfate

3 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

continue s 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 SO 2 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 50Swanquarter, NCCape Romain, SCOkefenokee, GAEverglades, FLChassahowitzka, FLSt. Marks, FLDolly Sods, WVShanendoah, VAJames River Face, VALinville Gorge, NCShining Rock, NCGreat Smoky Mtns., TNCohutta, GASipsey, ALMammoth Cave, KYBrigantine, NJMingo, MOHercules Glades, MOUpper Buffalo, ARCaney Creek, ARExtinction (Mn-1)

Southeast Inland Sea Salt

CM

Soil

EC

POM

Amm. NO3

Amm. SO4

Rayleigh

Southeast Coastal Neighboring non

- Southeast

4 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 1

- 6 . Annual average light extinction for the 20% worst vi sibility 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 p erformed for the regional haze
SIP.

6 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 stat e 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

re asonable 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 lea st impaired days;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions;

7 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impai red days over the p ast five years;

(4) An analysis tra cking 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 act ivity. 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 significan t changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State
th at 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 elemen ts 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 modificatio ns 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 2.0 Status of Implementation of Control Measures

This section p rovides 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 SO 2 emissions reductions achieved through 20 12 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 inv entories. Emission reductions from these measures will help ensure that each Class I area meets or exceeds the visibility progress goa l set in the regional haze SIP.



### 2.1 Emissions Reduction Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP

Florida ’s r egional h aze 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

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

an estimate of the SO 2 emissions reductions achieved is presented.

2.1.1 Federal and Other State Programs

The emission s reductions associated with the F ederal an d 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, quant itative 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 Interst ate Rule 2

On May 12, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required reductions
in emissions of NO X and SO 2 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 migh t 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 SO 2 and NO X

. 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

controls and emissions, independent of the CAIR emissions cap. Florida, for example, added more than 50,000 tons of SO 2 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 e stimate of that year rather than a specific CAIR solution

.
N

O X 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 NO X SIP call in the VISTAS region
have develo ped rules for the control of NO X emissions that have been approved by the EPA. The NOx
SIP Call has resulted in a 68 percent reduction in NO X emissions from large stationary combustion sources. For this analysis, we capped the emissions for NO X SIP Call

- affected sources at 2007 levels, and carried forward the capped levels for the 2009 and 2018 future year inventories. Florida sou rces are not included in the NO X SIP call, but emission reductions in the applicable states benefi t 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 SO 2 emissions by 2013. This legislation establishes annual caps on both SO 2 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 sal eable. 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 poll ution limits.

• Virginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO) agreed to spend $1.2 billion by 2013 to eliminate 237,000 tons of SO 2 and NOx emissions each year from eight coal

- fired electricity generating plants in Virginia and West Virginia.

• Under a 2002 volunt ary agreement, Gulf Power has upgraded its operation to significantly cut NOx emissions at its Crist generating plant.

One

- hour O zone 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. The se reductions further improve regional visibility.

NOx RACT in 8

- hou r 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 vis ibility.

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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2007 model year. This rule also included standards for nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) and non

- methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) of 0.20 g/bhp

- hr a nd 0.14 g/bhp

- hr, respectively. These diesel engine NO

x and NMHC standards were successfully phased in togeth er between 2007 and 2010. The rule also required that sulfur in diesel fuel be reduced to facilitate the use of modern pollution

- control techno logy 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 L ow E mi ssion

V

ehicle (LEV) II standards, became ef fective 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 NO X emi ssions 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 impac t 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 engine s. 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 engi nes 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

motorc ycles, 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 adopte d standards for emissi ons of NO X , 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 inc lude 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 were fully phased in by 2012. Nonroad

m obile 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 emis sions by more than 90 percent from nonroad diesel equipment and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur levels by 9 9 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 w ill 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), SO 2 , NO X , and PM for source categories where controls were installed on or after 2002. Control estimates are documented in the report entitled, “Control Packet Developm ent and Data Sources ,” Alpine Geophysics , July 14, 2004.

11 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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
Source s) 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, SO 2

Taconite Iron Ore Processing RRRRR 10/30/03 10/30/06 PM, SO 2

Industrial Boilers, Institutional/
Commercial Boilers and Process

Heaters DDDDD 9/13/04 9/13/07 PM, SO 2

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ZZZZ 6/15/04 6/15/07 NO X , VOC

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

was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals and remanded th e 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 SO 2 and 40 percent for coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ) and fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) 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 I CI Boiler MACT on February 21, 2011. EPA subsequently reconsider ed 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 SO 2 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 ana lysis for the 2004 rule (78 FR 7138 and 69 FR 55218). I t is reasonable therefore to expect that the 2012 rule will bring about more SO 2 reductions in Florida than were modeled in Florida ’s

12 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Regional Haze Plan

. The effects of the new ru le will be addressed in the next scheduled periodic

progress r eport

. 

### 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 me asure s were used to est imate 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 NO X emissions by 77% in 2009 and their SO 2 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 25 0,000 tons of SO 2 and less than the 2009 system annual cap of 56,000 tons of NO X

. In 2002, the sources subject to CSA emitted 459,643 tons of SO 2 and 142,77 0 tons of NO X . In 2011, these sources emitted only 73,454 tons of SO 2 and 39,284 tons of NO X , 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, r equires flue

- gas desulphurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls on large coal

- fired EGUs in Georgia. Reductions from this regulation were inclu ded as part of the VISTAS 2018 Best and F inal modeling effort. These
controls will red uce SO 2 emissions from the affected emissions units by at least 95 percent and will
reduce NO X 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 r easonable 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
determinatio ns. Of the fifteen reasonable progress sources, three have sh ut down, three took enforceable permit limits that rende red them no longer subject to the rule , six were also subject to

BART (equivalent to a reasonabl e 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 associat ed 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 em ission 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 th e planning period.

13 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 TBD 1 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/A 2 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 TBD 1 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/A 2 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 dno 3 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 Syste No 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 ad ditional 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 emi ssion standards will apply to ships. These standards will reduce air pollution from ships and deliver air quality benefits that extend hund reds of miles inland. In 2020, EPA expects emissions from ships operating in the designated area to be reduced by
32 0,000 tons for NO X , 90,000 tons for PM 2.5 , and 920,000 tons for SO 2 , 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 requireme nts 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 e xceed 1,000 ppm sulfur content , and beginning in 2016, NO X after

treatment requirements become applicable.

2.2.2 Residual Risk Requirements

T he Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess the risk remaining after application of final technology

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

In t he 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 SO 2 from the EGU source sector, either as a result of SO 2 requirements or as co

- benefit from the reduction of HAP s

. These benefits were not considered in the development of the VISTAS Best and Final 2018 inventories. Any additional SO 2 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

O n February 16, 201 2 , EPA finali zed 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 pollutant s 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 SO 2 emissions by 41 percent beyond the reductions originally expected from CSAPR. R eductions under this rule are expected to begin in 2015

.
17 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

2010 SO 2 NAAQS

On June 2, 2010, EPA strengthened the primary NAAQS for SO 2 by revising the primary SO 2 standard to
75 parts per billion ( ppb ) aver aged over one hour. This short

- term standard is significantl y more stringent
than the existing s tandards of 140 ppb averaged over 24 hours and 30 ppb averaged annually. At present, Florida has two small nonattainment areas for the 2010 primary SO 2 NAAQS . C orrective 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

. T hrough Florida’s nonattainment area plans , and PSD review for new and modified sources, SO 2 emissions will be r educed 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, Kentuck y, 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 coal

fire d power plant capacity, reducing emissions of NO X by 69 percent and SO 2 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 hea lth. 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 visi bility

- impairing poll utants are anticipated to b e 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 3.0 Visibility Conditions

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires the S tate 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) th e current visibility conditio ns; ( 2) the difference between current visibility cond itions compared to the baseline; and ( 3) the change in visibility impairment for the most and lea st impaired days over the past five years.

Table 3

- 1 show s the current visibility conditions and the di fference between the current visibility and the
baseline c ondition 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 dat a 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% be st days, the
current observed 5

- year average values for all three areas are below the 2018 goal

.

Table 3

- 1 . Current Observed Visibility Imp airment and Change from Baseline (five

- year averages and 201 3 annual values in deciviews)

Class I Area Baseline

avg. (2000

- 2004) 20 13** glide slope 201 3
observed

annual Current

avg. (200 9

- 201 3 ) 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

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

19 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 201 3 (five

- y ear 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 pred icted impairment from the regional haze SIP. The predicted impairment for 2018 is also the reasonable progress goal. The observed five

- year average impairment for 201 3 is below both the glide path and the predicted impairment.

Figure 3

- 2 shows the obse rved 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 201 3 is below both the baseline and the pr edicted impairment.

Figures 3

- 3 and 3

- 4 show the same info rmation for the Everglades, which show similar improvement in visibility conditions.

F igures 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 haz e SIP.

20 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 3

- 1

. Chassahowitzka : Visibility impairment worst 20% days glide path through 2064

Figure 3

- 2

. Chassahowitzka : Visibility impairment best 20% d ays

21 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 3

- 3

. Everglades : Vi sibility impairment worst 20% days glide path through 2064

Figure 3

- 4

. Everglades : Visibility impairment best 20% d ays

22 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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% d ays

23 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 4.0 Emissions Analysis

This section includes a n analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities with in the s tate , as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4 )

. Because SO 2 is the significant pollutant contributing to visibility impairment, the emissions analysis will focus mostly on SO 2 emissions. This section also includes an assessment of changes in anthropogenic emissions over the past five years, as requ ired by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5).



### 4.1 Change in PM 2.5 

### , NO X 

### , and SO 2 

### Emissions from All Source Categories

There are six emission s inventory source c ategories: stationary point, area (non

- point) , off

- road mobile, on

road 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 c ountywide
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 stationa ry 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 county wide 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 a re not controllable
emissions.

The t ypical 2002 stationary point source emissions inventory was developed jointly w ith VISTAS s tates for emission projection purposes. T he 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 fut ure year emissions represent a projected typical future year inventory. The 2009 and
2018 electric generating unit ’ s emissions were estimated using the Integ rated Planning Model (IPM)

, and
then adjust ed based on state

- specific information

. Other point sou rces 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 emiss ions were

24 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

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

- road mobile sources we re est imated 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 emiss ions were estimated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model for the typical 200 2 and projected 2009 and 2018 inventory years. The 2002 wildfire an d 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 an d 2018 projected inventories used in Florida’s Regional Haze Plan , DEP utilize d t he SEMAP 2007 actual inventory

, the 2011 NEI inventory , and the state Annual Operation Report poi nt source data collected each year . T he
first five

- year period after the original 2002 baseline compares 2007 SO 2 , NO X , and PM 2.5 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 typic al 2007 fire ( see Appendix

H ) emissions. Although the 2008 NEI wa s available, DEP felt that the SEMAP 2007 inventory was a more accurate and more detailed inventory. A dditional QA was performed on the 2007 inventory to create a SIP

quality inventory. Th erefore, for this review, this analysi s uses 2007 instead of 2008 . In addition, 200 0

- 20 13 a ctual SO 2 emissions for point sources are compared to VISTAS 2009 and 2018 projections.

The SEMAP 2007 and NEI 2011 PM 2.5 emissions are different from the VISTAS emissions, due to methodology changes to reflect up

- to

- date emission calculations

. For example, t he increase in on

- road
mobile PM 2.5 is due to the switch in model used (MOBILE6.2 replaced with MOVES2010a).

Table 4

- 1 . PM 2.5 emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4)
, and SEMAP (2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

For NO

x emissions ( Table 4

- 2 ), t here were large decreases in point and area sources and some increases in

on

- road mobile sources in 2007 . The decreases in point source NO X were due to emissions controls that
were installed. The decrease in area source NO X is primarily due to a change in the methodology used to calculate this source category (re moved 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 NO X is due to the switch in model used (MOBILE6.2 replaced with MOVES2010a). If a consistent mo del was used for 2002, 2007, and 2009, the SEMAP 2007 NO

x 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Table 4

- 2 . NO X emissions (tons) for VISTAS (2002A, 2002T, 2009G4, 2018G4)
, and SEMAP (2007) and NEI (2011) inventories

For SO 2 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 . SO 2 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 SO 2 emissions for CAMD (2007

- 201 3 ) 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

F igure 4

- 1 shows the trend in SO 2 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 SO 2 Emissions (State database) (2000

- 2013)



### 4.2 EGU Point Sources: SO 2 

### and NO X 

### Emission s Reductions and Power Demand

The large reductions in SO 2 emissions from electric generating units during 200 0

- 201 3 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 201 3 indicate that reductions in SO 2 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 201 3 , heat input to these units de crea sed from approximately 1,597,000,000 MMBtu to 1, 548 ,000,000 MMBtu, a de crease of 3 %

.
SO 2 emissions from these units decreased from 466,904 tons annually in 2002 to 88,004 tons annually in
201 3 , a decrease of 81.2% , and the average SO 2 emission rate from these units decreased from 0.603
lbs /MMBtu in 2002 to 0. 114 lbs /MMBtu in 201 3 , a decrease of 8 1

. 1% . The reductions in emissions are not attributable to reduced demand for power. Instead, the significant emission reductions are attribu table 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, NO X emissions decreased from 258,378 tons in 2002 to 54, 398 tons in 201 3

, a drop of 78.9%

.

27 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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%. SO 2 emissions from these units decreased from 3,713,262 tons annually i n 2002 to 1,166,572 tons annually in 2011, a decrease of 69.9%, and the average SO 2 emission rate from
these units decreased from 0.971 lbs SO 2 /MMBtu in 2002 to 0.318 lbs SO 2 /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, NO X 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’ hea t 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 SO 2 in 2009 to 1,166,572 tons of SO 2 in 2011, and the emission rates of SO 2 fell
f rom 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 2,000,000lbs/mmbtutons/year and 1000 mmbtu heatinput 

# 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 SO 2 and NO X 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 contrib ution should continue into the future even though demand for power and heat input to these units may have moderate increase s

.



### 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 SO 2 emissions in the base year (2002) to the most recent SO 2 emissions (2007

- 2013). There ar e significant decreases in point source SO 2 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 10,000,000lbs/mmbtutons/year and 1000 mmbtu heatinput 

# 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 5.0 Assessment of C urrent SIP E lements and S trategies

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 reas ons 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:

• Spe ciated data collected for the period 2006

– 2010 shows that sulfates continue to be the most significant contri butor to visibility impairment, which supports SO 2 reduction as the appropriate control strategy (Section 1.4)

.

• SO 2 controls documented in the SI P have been implemented.

• Observed visibility impairment values for the 20% worst days through 201 3 are better (lower) than the 201 3 interpolated values for the 2018 reasonable progress goals and better
than the 201 3 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 SO 2 emissions inventory from 2002 through 201 1 verifies
that Florida ’s SO 2 reduction program is i n 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 cont inue to rea lize 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 imp acts 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 Ta bles 2

- 3 and 2

- 4

.
The locations of these areas are shown in Figure 5

- 1. Visibility data through 2010 show that the 2010 five

year average visibility impairment on the worst 20% days in the above Class I areas is at or below the glide slope for each respec tive area ( see Appendix C ). Furthermore, visibility impairment in each of these areas decreased over the period 2008 through 2010.

30 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT

Figure 5

- 1 . Class I Areas in or near Florida

The status of SO 2 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 rea sonable 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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 pol lutant 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 t he 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 directl y comparable to IMPROVE data). The IMPROVE measurements provide the only long

- term record available for tracking visibility improvement or degradation . T herefore, Florida will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze m onitoring 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 Eve rglades 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 SAMA 1

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area CHAS 1

Everglades National Park EVER 1

The Visibility Information Exchange Web System ( VIEWS ) web site provide s 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 201 2 , the data gathered by Florida ’s three IMPROVE monitoring sites and managed on the VIEWS database have provided satisfactory support for Florida ’s complianc e with the Regional Haze rule. This monitoring system will be fully funded and operated into the fut ure. DEP is not recommending any changes to the visibility monitoring strategy at this time.

32 of 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE 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, a s 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 34FLORIDA’S REGIONAL H AZE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT



## 8.0 Conclusion

This progress report documents that a ll control measures outlined in Florida ’s Regional H aze SIP are on track to meet their implementation schedules and that reduction of SO 2 emissions continues to be the appropriate strategy for improvement of visibility in Florida ’s Class I areas . The change in actual emissions
of SO 2 from all sources from 2002 through 201 1 is a 71 % reduction ( 431,179 tons) and visibility impairment
observa tions through 20 1 3 are better (lower) than the 20 1 3 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 H aze SIP is not needed at this time will be
submitted to EPA wit h this progress report. This negative declaration will meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308 (h).

34 of 34