## STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROPOSED REVISION TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

NUMBER 2010
- 01 Regional Haze Plan Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 March 19 , 2010

# EXHIBIT 1

Rules Adopted by the State

A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
a. BART Rule b. Public and EPA Comments
c. DEP Response to Comments B. Reasonable Progress Control Technology (RPCT)
a. RPCT Rule b. Public and EPA Comments
c. DEP Response to Comments

# A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)Response to EPA comments on the Florida BART rule 62-296.340, F.A.C.
– December 12, 2006 Letter from Kay Prince, Chief, Air Planning Branch to Joseph Kahn, Director, Division of Air Resource Management. Two comments were made in the EPA letter. The first comment notes that the compliance date for BART, as described in the Florida rule, is acceptable, but that formally the federal requirement is that compliance should be no later than five years after approval of the implementation plan revision. Response by DEP: Had the SIP revision been approved prior to the end of December 2008, then the compliance date in the Florida BART rule would not have met the federal requirement. However, the timing of the SIP submittal by the state, and approval of the revision by EPA, make this potentiality not possible. The second comment by EPA reminds the DEP that proper documentation of the modeling exemption threshold for BART of 0.5 deciviews must be included in the SIP submittal. Response by DEP: This documentation has been included the SIP submittal.

# B. Reasonable Progress Control Technology (RPCT)UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960



### DEC () 4 

### 200r
4 APT-APB Joseph Kahn, Director Division of Air Resource Management Bob Martinez Center 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Dear Mr. Kahn:
The Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the Florida Administrative Weekly Volume 33, Number 44, on November 2,2007, to address the Regional Haze-Reasonable Progress Control Technology Rule. We have completed our review and have provided our comments in the following enclosure.

EP A Region 4 remains committed to working with you. If you have any questions regarding our response or additional questions regarding this requirement or program implementation considerations. please contact me at (404) 562-9033. You may also contact Heidi LeSane of the EPA Region 4 Regulatory Development Section at 404-562-9074.

Enclosure Sincerely,

Richard A. Schutt Chief Air Planning Branch

Internet Address (URL) • http//wwwepa.gov Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)Comments on Florida's Regional Haze-Reasonable Progress Control Technology (RHRPCT) Prehearing Rule 62-296.341

1. "Purpose and Effect" and "Summary": A brief justification is provided to support the rule change. These two sections give the impression that proposed rule 62-296.341 addresses procedures for all future reasonable progress determinations in the State to comply with EPA's regional haze rule. The regional haze rule is not restrictive with respect to the visibility impairing pollutants that should be considered. Nor is the regional haze rule restrictive with respect to the years in which a source was constructed
or reconstructed. These sections should be clarified to explain the State's strategy for focusing on certain emission sources of sulfur dioxide (S02) for the first planning period from 2008 to 2018, and provide a rationale for thresholds in the rule, as further noted below. We also suggest that the State consider inserting a caveat either in the supporting text or the rule indicating that future revisions to this rule are likely to occur to address reasonable progress in subsequent planning periods (e.g., such revisions could include an expansion of the pollutants regulated and changes to the size threshold for emission sources, etc.). While we recognize the State will be providing this overall strategy in its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, a caveat would help to eliminate possible confusion should other sources not covered by this rule be required to make determinations for reasonable progress controls for future planning periods.

2. 62.296.341 (l)(a): Subsection (a) establishes a threshold date of "prior to August 30, 1999" for affected units. It is unclear why the State selected this date. The State should explain its rationale for selection of this date threshold in the supporting documentation
or other text as appropriate.

3. 62.296.341 (l)(b): Subsection (b) identifies the pollutant (i.e., sulfur dioxide, S02) and size category (i.e., 250 tons per year) for sources that will be subject to the RH-RPCT rule. As noted in Comment 1, EPA does not require the state to set an applicability threshold for sources that will undergo a four-factor analysis for reasonable progress. The regional haze program is a multi-decade program with many SIPs that must be periodically submitted. As currently written, S02 emissions from large major sources will only be subject to control consideration. As noted in Comment 1, the State should explain its rationale for selection of pollutant and size threshold in the supporting documentation or other text as appropriate.

4. 62.296.341 (2)(c): 

### It is unclear how the "50" was chosen to represent a "significant" baseline contribution to regional haze. The State should explain its rationale for selection of this threshold in the supporting documentation or other text as appropriate.

5. 62.296.341 (2)(c)l: It appears that this sub.section requires that actual emissions should be used pursuant to Florida Rule 62.210.370. If our interpretation is in error, please clarify

6. 62.296.341 (2)(c)2: It is unclear what the phrase "

... or within 300 kilometers of any Class I area
... " means as written.

1

### 7. 62.296-341(5): 

### Section 62-296.341(5)(a) and (b) provide exemptions from RPCT if the emission unit is subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule and has a best available retrofit technology (BART)

- equivalent emission limit for S02 or a has received a BART determination for S02 as specified in the rule. While these exemptions appear appropriate for this first planning period and in accordance with Section 4.0 of EP A's Guidancefor Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007), 

### these may be a limitation in later years if meeting reasonable progress goals prove to be difficult. Please clarify in the rule if these exemptions are intended to apply only to the first planning period as discussed in Comment 1 above.

2Response to EPA Comments on the Regional Haze/Reasonable Progress Control Technology Rule

–

Letter from Richard Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4 to Joseph Kahn, Director, Air Resource Management Division, Florida DEP Seven comments were provided by EPA. A summary of the question and DEP’s response is provided below. Comment 1: EPA makes several general suggestions pertaining to the summary language in the public notice. They believe that some clarification is needed to provide a full understanding of the purpose and requirements of the federal rules. DEP Response: The “Purpose and Effect” and “Summary” sections of the public notice were meant to be short lead-ins to the rule language itself. While it could have been more comprehensive, we believe it sufficiently introduced the rule language that followed. The rationale for the selection of sources and the limitation to SO2 only is contained in the regional haze plan.
Comment 2: 62.296.341 (l)(a): Subsection (a) establishes a threshold date of "prior to August 30, 1999" for affected units. It is unclear why the State selected this date. The State should explain its rationale for selection of this date threshold in the supporting documentation or other text as appropriate. DEP Response: The rationale for the threshold date of August 30, 1999 is that after that date, all new major sources or major modifications to existing sources were required to address visibility as part of the permit application. The August 30, 1999 date comes from the effective date of the Regional Haze Regulation published in final form on July 1, 1999. In this regulation, new or modified major sources commencing construction after this data are required to address visibility.
Comment 3: 62.296.341 (l)(b): Subsection (b) identifies the pollutant (i.e., sulfur dioxide, S02) and size category (i.e., 250 tons per year) for sources that will be subject to the RH-RPCT rule. As noted in Comment 1, EPA does not require the state to set an applicability threshold for sources that will undergo a four-factor analysis for reasonable progress. The regional haze program is a multi-decade program with many SIPs that must be periodically submitted. As currently written, S02 emissions from large major sources will only be subject to control consideration. As noted in Comment 1, the State should explain its rationale for selection of pollutant and size threshold in the supporting documentation or other text as appropriate. DEP Response: The rationale for the selection of sources, the pollutant to be reviewed, and the emissions threshold is explained and documented in the proposed Regional Haze Plan.
Comment 4: 62.296.341 (2)(c): It is unclear how the "50" was chosen to represent a "significant" baseline contribution to regional haze. The State should explain its rationale for selection of this threshold in the supporting documentation or other text as appropriate. DEP Response: The rationale for the use of the emissions to distance ratio of 50 is explained in the proposed Regional Haze Plan.
Comment 5: 62.296.341 (2)( c)l: It appears that this sub.section requires that actual emissions should be used pursuant to Florida Rule 62.210.370. If our interpretation is in error, please clarify.DEP Response: Actual emissions are used consistent with the Florida rule cited, with the exception that

for electric utility units, the actual 2002 emissions are adjusted for the average heat input over the fiveyear period 2000-2004, divided by the unit’s heat input for calendar year 2002.
Comment 6: 62.296.341 (2)(c)2: It is unclear what the phrase " ... or within 300 kilometers of any Class I area ... " means as written. DEP Response: The phrase in the final rule reads “... or within 300 kilometers of the state.” This means that any impacts to Class I area located more than 300 kilometers from the state are not evaluated.
Comment 7: 62.296-341(5): Section 62-296.341(5)(a) and (b) provide exemptions from RPCT if the emission unit is subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule and has a best available retrofit technology (BART) - equivalent emission limit for S02 or a has received a BART determination for S02 as specified in the rule. While these exemptions appear appropriate for this first planning period and in accordance with Section 4.0 of EP A's Gu idance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007), these may be a limitation in later years if meeting reasonable progress goals prove to be difficult. Please clarify in the rule if these exemptions are intended to apply only to the first planning period as discussed in Comment 1 above. DEP Response: No new rule language was inserted to clarify this point. The rule itself is time constrained with compliance required prior to the next planning period. The rule and its elements would have to be revised to conform to the requirements of the next planning period. Any exemptions would be evaluated at that time to be consistent with a revised Regional Haze Plan and its requirement for reasonable progress.

# EXHIBIT 2

BART Determinations and Permits, and Permits Necessary for BART Exemption

BART Determinations and Permits

A. CEMEX B. Florida Power and Light

– Turkey Point C. PCS D. Progress Energy

–

Crystal River E. City of Tallahassee - Purdom Permits Necessary for BART Exemption

A. Smurfit-Stone

–

Fernandina Beach B. Smurfit-Stone

–

Panama City C. Georgia Pacific D. Mosaic

–

New Wales E. Mosaic

–

Riverview F. CF Industries
Evidence of Shut-down

A. U.S. Sugar Corp.

–

Bryant B. IMC Port Sutton (now Kinder Morgan)

# BART Determinations and Permits

A. CEMEX