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 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 1 of 24
A.Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 2 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 3 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 4 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 5 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 6 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 7 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 8 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 9 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 10 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 11 of 24
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. 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 12 of 24
B.Reasonable Progress Control Technology (RPCT)

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 13 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 14 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 15 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 16 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 17 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 18 of 24
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 19 of 24
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 

Regional Haze SIP 

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 

for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 20 of 24
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 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 21 of 24
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 

Guidance 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. 

2 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 22 of 24
Response 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. 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 23 of 24
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 Guidance 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. 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 1

Page 24 of 24
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) 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 2

Page 1 of 501
BART Determinations and Permits 

A. CEMEX 

Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 2

Page 2 of 501
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 2

Page 3 of 501
Regional Haze SIP for Florida 

Exhibit 2

Page 4 of 501