[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53250-53269]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21028]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935; FRL- 9900-31-Region4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Florida; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full approval of the regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP) from the State of Florida, submitted through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on March 19,
2010, as amended on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012. Florida's
SIP submittal addresses regional haze for the first implementation
period. Specifically, this SIP submittal addresses the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') and EPA's rules that require
states to prevent any

future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused
by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. In this action, EPA finds that Florida's regional haze SIP meets
all of the regional haze requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is
finalizing a full approval of Florida's entire regional haze SIP.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
    A. Response to Comments on May 25, 2012, Proposal
    B. Response to Comments on December 10, 2012, Proposal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), commonly referred to as the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations by adding
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and establishing a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) required states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007. Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Federal
Class I areas. These implementation plans must also give specific
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment.
    On March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010, FDEP submitted and
subsequently amended Florida's SIP to address regional haze in Florida
and other states' Class I areas. On May 25, 2012, EPA published an
action proposing a limited approval of Florida's regional haze SIP to
address the first implementation period for regional haze.\1\ See 77 FR
31240. EPA's May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking covered Florida's March
19, 2010, SIP submittal, as amended on August 31, 2010, as well as the
State's April 13, 2012, draft amendment to the regional haze SIP
submission. In a July 31, 2012, draft amendment to the regional haze
SIP submission, Florida addressed the 18 reasonable progress units and
11 facilities with BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs)
subject to EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR \2\) (a total of 20
EGUs) that were not covered by Florida's April 13, 2012, draft
amendment to the regional haze SIP submission. It also amended the SIP
submission to remove Florida's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART and
reasonable progress requirements for the State's affected EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action published on December 30, 2011 (76 FR
82219), EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the Florida regional
haze SIP, and on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs for several states, but
deferred final action on the Florida regional haze SIP.
    \2\ On March 10, 2005, EPA issued CAIR, a rule which covers 27
eastern states and the District of Columbia. The rule uses a cap and
trade system to reduce SO2 and NOX from power
plant emissions. For more information, go to: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/cair-resource.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's September 17, 2012, final amendment to the regional haze
SIP

submission consolidated its draft April 13, 2012, and draft July 31,
2012, amendments to the regional haze SIP submission into a single
package. On October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, FDEP submitted
supplemental information and documentation for Progress Energy's
Crystal River facility. On November 29, 2012 (77 FR 71111), EPA
finalized a full approval of the BART determinations addressed in the
Agency's May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking action. These BART
determinations were submitted to EPA for parallel processing on April
13, 2012, in a draft amendment to the regional haze SIP submission and
submitted in final form on September 17, 2012.
    On December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73369), EPA proposed several actions
related to regional haze requirements for Florida. First, EPA proposed
to approve certain BART and reasonable progress determinations included
in Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment to the regional haze SIP
submission. Second, EPA proposed to find that the September 17, 2012,
amendment to Florida's regional haze SIP submission corrects the
deficiencies that led to the aforementioned proposed limited approval
and limited disapproval actions. Third, EPA proposed to withdraw the
previously proposed limited disapproval of Florida's entire regional
haze SIP, and alternatively proposed full approval of the entire
regional haze SIP.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is now finalizing full approval of all remaining portions of
the Florida regional haze SIP as proposed on May 25, 2012, and December
10, 2012, including the remaining BART and reasonable progress
determinations in Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment to the
regional haze SIP submission (as supplemented on October 15, 2012, and
May 2, 2013) \3\ not previously addressed in EPA's November 29, 2012,
final action.\4\ EPA finds that Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment
to the regional haze SIP submission (as supplemented on October 15,
2012, and May 2, 2013): (1) Replaces reliance on CAIR to satisfy the
BART and reasonable progress requirements for its affected EGUs with
case-by-case BART and reasonable progress control analyses; and (2)
corrects the deficiencies that led to the December 30, 2011, proposed
limited disapproval and the May 25, 2012, proposed limited approval of
the State's regional haze SIP. Consequently, EPA finds that the
regional haze SIP as a whole now meets the regional haze requirements
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, FDEP submitted
supplemental information and documentation for Progress Energy's
Crystal River facility. Additionally, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA
dated July 30, 2013, in which it committed to provide EPA with a
regional haze SIP revision no later than March 19, 2015, the
deadline for the State's five-year regional haze periodic progress
report, that will include a NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1
reflecting best operating practices for good combustion.
    \4\ Specifically, the BART determinations addressed by the
November 29, 2012, action were: Tampa Electric Company-Big Bend
Station (Units 1, 2, 3); City of Tallahassee-Purdom Generating
Station (Unit 7); Florida Power & Light (FPL)-Port Everglades Power
Plant (Units 3, 4); CEMEX; White Springs Agricultural Chemical-SR/SC
Complex; City of Gainesville-Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3);
City of Vero Beach-City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2,
3, 4); FPL-Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10); Lake
Worth Utilities-Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9); City of Tallahassee-Arvah
B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 4); FPL-Riviera Power Plant
(Unit 4); Florida Power Corp.-Bartow Plant (Unit 3); Lakeland
Electric-Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4); Ft. Pierce
Utilities Authority-H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8); FPL-Cape
Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2); Atlantic Sugar Association-
Atlantic Sugar Mill; Buckeye Florida-Perry; ExxonMobil Production-
St. Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas Plant; IFF Chemical
Holdings, Inc.; IMC Phosphates Company-South Pierce; International
Paper Company-Pensacola Mill; Mosaic-Bartow; Mosaic-Green Bay Plant;
Osceola Farms; Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op; U.S. Sugar Corp.-Clewiston
Mill and Refinery; Solutia Inc., Sterling Fibers, Inc.; U.S. Sugar
Corp.-Bryant Mill; IMC Phosphates Company-Port Sutton Terminal;
Georgia Pacific-Palatka; Smurfit-Stone-Fernandina Beach; Smurfit-
Stone-Panama City; Mosaic-New Wales; Mosaic-Riverview; and CF
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received adverse comments on the May 25, 2012, proposed limited
approval of Florida's regional haze SIP and on the December 10, 2012,
proposed approval of certain BART and reasonable progress
determinations. See Section III of this rulemaking for a summary of the
comments received on EPA's May 25, 2012, and December 10, 2012,
proposed actions and the Agency's responses to these comments. Detailed
background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed actions are
provided in EPA's May 25, 2012, and December 10, 2012, proposed
rulemakings. See 77 FR 31240 and 77 FR 73369.

III. What is EPA's response to comments received on these actions?

    EPA received two sets of comments on its May 25, 2012, rulemaking
proposing a limited approval of Florida's regional haze SIP submittals
and seven sets of comments on its December 10, 2012, proposed approval
described above. Specifically, the comments on the May 25, 2012,
proposed rulemaking were received from the Sierra Club and National
Parks Conservation Association, collectively, and from the Florida
Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.-Environment Committee. One
comment related to BART was addressed in the Agency's November 29,
2012, final rulemaking. The remaining comments are addressed in this
action. The seven sets of comments relating to the December 10, 2012,
proposed rulemaking were received from Sierra Club, EarthJustice, and
the National Parks Conservation Association, collectively; National
Park Service (NPS); Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. -
Environment Committee; FPL Company; Progress Energy; Utility Air
Regulatory Group; and numerous individual members of the Sierra Club.
The complete comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities
(hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenter'') are provided in the
docket for today's final action (Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0935). A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided
below.

A. Response to Comments on the May 25, 2012, Proposal

    Comment 1: The Commenter concludes that EPA cannot approve
Florida's reasonable progress demonstration or long-term strategy (LTS)
at this time because ``relevant portions of the SIP are incomplete in
important regards'' and because the components of the SIP are
``interdependent'' (i.e., regional haze SIPs are ``comprehensive
documents which fully address haze through linked reasonable progress
goals, an effective long-term strategy, BART requirements for
appropriate sources, and robust monitoring, amongst other
requirements''). The Commenter believes that EPA cannot approve the
reasonable progress demonstration or LTS ``because the shift from CAIR
to CSAPR [Cross State Air Pollution Rule] has fundamentally altered the
SIP, and has required Florida to reanalyze significant portions of its
SIP.'' The Commenter states that until such an analysis is complete,
the SIP is missing critically important components. According to the
Commenter, EPA cannot lawfully or rationally approve SIP provisions
that rely on future revisions that Florida has not yet adopted or
submitted to EPA or rely on CAIR to meet specific regional haze
requirements when EPA has already ``taken action to disapprove that
exact action.'' Without a complete reasonable progress demonstration,
LTS, and supporting analyses, the Commenter believes that EPA approval
of such SIP sections would be arbitrary and contrary to law.

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's conclusions and is
approving the reasonable progress demonstrations, reasonable progress
goals (RPGs), and LTS set forth in Florida's regional haze SIP. The
State has submitted a complete regional haze SIP that satisfies all CAA
requirements, and EPA is taking final action today to approve Florida's
entire regional haze SIP. When combined with EPA's November 29, 2012,
final rulemaking approving several BART determinations, there are no
outstanding regional haze SIP elements requiring action.
    Regarding the comments on the relationship between CAIR and the
regional haze SIP, Florida set its RPGs based on modeled projections of
future conditions that were developed using the best available
information at the time the modeling analysis was performed. Given the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that states must take into
account the visibility improvement that is expected to result from the
implementation of other CAA requirements, Florida set its RPGs based,
in part, on the emissions reductions expected to be achieved by CAIR
and other measures being implemented across the southeast region as
modeled for Florida by the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\5\ Although Florida no longer
relies on CAIR to satisfy regional haze requirements for any sources
within the State, the underlying emissions inventories and projections
of reductions from upwind states continue to include assumptions based
on the implementation of CAIR. As CAIR has been remanded by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or
Court), some of the assumptions underlying the development of this
element of the RPGs may change. EPA has determined that this reliance
on CAIR in upwind states in the underlying analysis does not require
EPA to withhold full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. The 2008
remand of CAIR was followed by a 2012 decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (hereafter referred to as ``EME Homer City''),
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 570 U.S. (June 24, 2013)
(No. 12-1182), to vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place pending the
promulgation of a valid replacement rule. In this unique circumstance,
EPA believes that full approval of the SIP submission is appropriate.
To the extent that Florida is relying on emissions reductions
associated with the implementation of CAIR in other states in its
regional haze SIP, the recent directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME
Homer City ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will be
sufficiently permanent and enforceable for the first implementation
period ending in 2018. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a
new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new
rule, EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs
to implement that rule. Thus, CAIR cannot be replaced until EPA has
promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit regional
haze SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be
approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating
a Federal implementation plan, if appropriate. These steps alone will
take many years, even with EPA and the states acting expeditiously. The
Court's clear instruction to EPA that it must continue to administer
CAIR until a ``valid replacement'' exists provides an additional
backstop; by definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and meets the
Court's direction would require upwind states to eliminate significant
downwind contributions. Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to
continue administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the
consequences of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of
the reliance interests accumulated over the intervening four years.''
EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests
include the interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely
on reductions associated with CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is appropriate to
allow Florida to rely on reductions associated with CAIR in other
states as sufficiently permanent and enforceable pending a valid
replacement rule for purposes such as evaluating RPGs in the regional
haze program. Following promulgation of the replacement rule, EPA will
review regional haze SIPs as appropriate to identify whether there are
any issues that need to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (RPO) is a
collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility and other air quality issues in the southeastern United
States. Member state and tribal governments include: Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band
of the Cherokee Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the
changes due to the CAIR remand. Many of the emissions units subject to
reasonable progress analysis either have already reduced SO2
emissions or will be reducing SO2 emissions in the near
future. These reductions are the result of company decisions to shut-
down or re-power certain units or to install new control equipment
(e.g., scrubbers) in response to CAIR. Furthermore, Florida has
reviewed the facilities subject to BART or reasonable progress analysis
on a case-by-case basis and has developed BART or reasonable progress
requirements for the sources for which additional controls were
appropriate. EPA expects these BART and reasonable progress
requirements to provide benefits similar to or greater than those
provided by CAIR. In fact, as Florida notes in its September 17, 2012,
SIP amendment, EGU emissions in 2010 were already lower than the
projected emissions for 2018 used in the State's RPG analysis. In
addition, unlike the enforceable emissions limitations and other
enforceable measures in the LTS, RPGs are not directly enforceable. See
64 FR 35733; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v). Because the projected
SO2 emissions reductions are sufficient to meet the RPGs,
and because actual emissions in 2010 have been shown to be lower than
projected emissions for 2018, EPA is approving Florida's RPGs and LTS.
    As noted in the May 25, 2012, proposal, EPA believes that the five-
year progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes, if
necessary, to the RPG demonstration and/or the LTS. EPA expects that
this demonstration will address the impacts on the RPGs of any needed
adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information
on the emissions for EGUs and other sources and source categories. If
this assessment determines that an adjustment to Florida's regional
haze SIP is necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a
year of the five-year progress report. See 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4).
    Comment 2: The Commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Florida's
RPGs in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
because the Agency did not specifically state that it was proposing to
approve the RPGs in the May 25, 2012, action.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the public was
not provided adequate notice that the Agency was proposing approval of
the RPGs included in Florida's regional haze SIP and that the public
did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on such a proposed
approval. In the May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking, EPA explicitly and

repeatedly stated that it proposed to grant limited approval to the
State's March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, regional
haze SIP submittals.\6\ See, e.g., 77 FR 31242, 31261. EPA described
the content of these submittals in the action and included them in the
docket. For example, in Section V.7 (77 FR 31259), entitled ``RPGs,''
EPA discussed the RPGs included in Florida's SIP subject to the
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA also stated that it would address the 18 reasonable
progress units and 11 facilities with BART-eligible EGUs subject to
CAIR (a total of 20 EGUs) that were not covered by Florida's April
13, 2012, SIP submittal in a subsequent action. See, e.g., 77 FR
31254, 31256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the May 25, 2012, action, a limited approval results
in approval of the entire SIP with regards to regional haze, even of
those parts that are deficient, preventing EPA from granting a full
approval.\7\ Because EPA identified the RPGs as part of Florida's
regional haze SIP and stated that its proposed action would act as
approval of Florida's entire regional haze SIP, the public was provided
with adequate notice that EPA's action included approval of Florida's
RPGs. Furthermore, in the December 10, 2012, action, EPA explicitly
stated that it was proposing full approval of the entire regional haze
SIP due to the changes made in Florida's September 17, 2012, final
regional haze SIP amendment to address the deficiencies leading to the
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval actions. It is not
necessary or practical for EPA to single out every element of a SIP
submission and expressly state that it is acting on each element when
it proposes to act on the SIP submission as a whole. See, e.g., Tucker
v. Atwood, 880 F.2d 1250, 1251 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a
rulemaking notice under Section 553(b) of the APA ``requires no more
than `. . . a description of the subjects and issues involved.' '');
Lloyd Noland Hosp. & Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1561, 1565 (11th Cir.
1985) (noting that a rulemaking notice ``is adequate if `it affords
interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process.' ''); Forester v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 559
F.2d 774, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``Section 553(b) does not require that
interested parties be provided precise notice of each aspect of the
regulations eventually adopted. Rather, notice is sufficient if it
affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in
the rulemaking process.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf (see footnote 3, May
25, 2012, 77 FR 31242).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's proposal to approve the RPGs is also evident through language
in Section V.7 of the May 25, 2012, action stating that the modeling
supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance
prior to the CAIR remand and that the RPGs for the Class I areas in
Florida are based on modeled projections of future conditions that were
developed using the best available information at the time the analysis
was done. EPA also explained the requirements for a review of the
reasonableness of this estimate as part of the mid-course review and
notes that FDEP has committed to follow this process.
    In addition, the proposed limited SIP disapproval for Florida and
other states (December 30, 2011, 76 FR 82219) referenced in Section I
of the May 25, 2012, proposal action (77 FR 31242) was explicit that
EPA was not proposing to disapprove the RPGs for 2018 and that EPA
believed that the five-year progress report was the appropriate time to
address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the
LTS. See 76 FR 82229. For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA's
intention to approve the RPGs for Florida was clear, unambiguous, and
consistent with the requirements of the APA.
    Comment 3: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve
Florida's RPGs because the State must re-evaluate its demonstration of
reasonable progress based on concrete, definite reductions of
visibility-impairing pollutants that result only from those programs
and emissions limits that are legally in force. The Commenter states
that there is no lawful or rational basis for assuming that the
reasonable progress projected by Florida will occur because the State's
RPGs rely on CAIR, ``a temporary program due to the CAIR remand.'' The
Commenter also asserts that Florida's RPGs should be disapproved
because they ``rely upon other control programs whose benefits are far
from certain'' (e.g., Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern Kentucky 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area SIP; consent decrees for Tampa Electric,
Virginia Electric and Power Company, and Gulf Power-Plant Crist;
Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)). The
Commenter also takes issue with EPA's assertion that Florida may
address any discrepancies between projected emissions and actual
reductions in the five-year progress report and contends that the five-
year review of RPGs is not a lawful or rational basis for approving the
SIP.
    Response 3: The technical information provided in the docket
demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately
reflects projected 2018 conditions and should be approved. In addition,
EPA does not believe that the State's reliance on CAIR in developing
its RPGs affects EPA's ability to approve these RPGs for the reasons
discussed in the response to Comment 1. EPA does not expect that the
other inventory differences like those alleged, even if they occur,
would affect the adequacy of Florida's regional haze SIP. The RPGs are
based on emissions estimates and modeling conducted by VISTAS for its
10 member states, including Florida, which reflect Florida's best
estimate of expected conditions in 2018 during the period that the
initial March 19, 2010, regional haze SIP submittal was developed.
    Florida's 2018 projections are based on the State's technical
analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and level of activity for
EGUs, other point sources, non-point sources, on-road sources, and off-
road sources based on their emissions in the 2002 base year,
considering growth and additional emissions controls to be in place and
federally enforceable by 2018. The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses that was developed by VISTAS with
assistance from Florida projected 2002 emissions (the latest region-
wide inventory available at the time the SIP submittal was being
developed) and applied reductions expected from Federal and state
regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility impairing
pollutants NOX, particulate matter (PM), and SO2.
It is expected that individual projections within a statewide inventory
will vary from actual emissions over a 16-year period (i.e., 2002-2018
for the first implementation period). For example, some facilities shut
down whereas others expand operations. Furthermore, economic
projections and population changes used to estimate growth often differ
from actual events; new rules are modified, changing their expected
effectiveness; and methodologies to estimate emissions improve,
modifying emissions estimates.
    In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated with modeled
emissions projections into the future are addressed through the
requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the
form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each
state to submit a report every five years evaluating progress

toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the state
and for each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from within the state. To minimize the differences between
projected emissions and what will actually occur at the end of the
implementation period, the RHR requires that the five-year review
address any expected significant differences due to changed
circumstances from the initial projected emissions, provide updated
expectations regarding emissions for the implementation period, and
evaluate the impact of these differences on RPGs.
    The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that these expected
differences between projected and actual emissions (in this case, for
the year 2018) are considered and that their impact on the RPGs (in
this case, for the year 2018) is evaluated. Despite the Commenter's
claims to the contrary, the projections included in the SIP are still
reasonably robust projections of emissions expected in 2018 and reflect
a reasonable estimate of visibility conditions in 2018. EPA does not
expect the five-year review will result in wholesale changes to
emissions or visibility estimates and regards the regulatory process
established in the RHR to be appropriate. The State's analysis of
projected emissions and its reliance on these projections to establish
its RPGs meets the requirements of the RHR and EPA guidance and
adequately reflects the best estimate of expected ambient conditions in
2018.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that because the RPGs for Florida's
Class I areas fail to meet uniform rate of progress (URP) projections
for 2018 for two Class I areas, and ``barely meet URP for others,'' the
RPGs are arbitrary and unlawful. The Commenter believes that without
CAIR, or any other comprehensive SO2 control program, there
is no rational basis for finding that Florida's RPGs and LTS will
provide reasonable progress. The Commenter also states that Florida has
not provided an explanation why it was reasonable for the State to fall
short of the URP for the St. Marks Class I area (located in Florida)
and the Okefenokee Class I area (located in Georgia) based upon the
four reasonable progress factors and that EPA may not approve the RPGs
until Florida provides such an explanation and has subjected it to
notice and comment. The Commenter states that EPA and Florida lack
factual support for the position that Florida is likely to do better
than predicted once it makes final BART and reasonable progress
determinations and that Florida's claims of progress illegally and
irrationally rely on emissions reductions from the CAIR program. Even
then, according to the Commenter, the plan fails to assure progress
sufficient to achieve the URP at two Class I areas and just barely
provides for such progress at others.
    Response 4: As stated in the proposal, the RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. In
setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for
the most impaired days over the first implementation period of the SIP
and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period. States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary
for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how
these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and
worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have flexibility in
how they take these factors into consideration.
    Florida followed EPA guidance and the RHR in preparing its RPGs.
The State projects that it will meet the URP at two of its Federal
Class I areas and falls just 0.03 deciview (dv) short of the URP at St.
Marks. Florida stated in its September 12, 2012, SIP submittal that
many of the sources that were projected to reduce emissions due to CAIR
have shut down or re-powered (providing greater reductions than
projected from emissions controls). The State's SIP submittal also
notes that the projected reductions from the Industrial Boiler MACT
Rule and EPA's Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule
appear to be providing greater SO2 reductions than expected
when they were evaluated and modeled for reasonable progress. With
regard to Florida's assessment of CAIR sources, Florida has reviewed
all the facilities subject to BART or reasonable progress analysis on a
case-by-case basis and determined BART or reasonable progress
requirements for the remaining sources for which additional controls
were appropriate.
    EPA expects these BART and reasonable progress requirements to
provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR. As noted in the
September 17, 2012, Florida SIP submittal, emissions from Florida EGUs
in 2010 were already below the emissions levels projected for 2018
without these additional BART limitations. As Florida stated on page
174 in its September 2012, SIP submittal, ``[t]hese modeling results
were used to set the reasonable progress goals. Because not all
expected reductions were included in the final modeling runs (due to
timing of the runs to be complete in time for SIP submittals),
reductions will likely be greater when all BART reductions and
reasonable measures are taken into account.'' In summary, Florida
believes that the RPGs remain valid and that no further assessment is
necessary for this first implementation period and EPA agrees with this
assessment.
    In addition, while SO2 reductions due to the original
Industrial Boiler MACT Rule are included in the 2018 emissions
projection, the revised Industrial Boiler MACT Rule is expected to
result in even greater emissions reductions than those reductions
previously accounted for and evaluated as part of the 2018 projections
presented in the submittal. In summary, although the sources and
control strategies evaluated as part of the VISTAS process result in a
RPG that is 0.03 dv less than the URP projection, Florida asserts, and
EPA agrees, that the emissions reductions resulting from existing
regulations, plus additional reductions from the newly-promulgated
Industrial Boiler MACT, will result in ``reasonable progress'' that
meets or exceeds the URP in all of the Florida Class I areas.
    Comment 5: The Commenter contends that Florida must ``go beyond the
uniform rate of progress analysis to evaluate whether greater progress
than the uniform rate is reasonable'' and that the SIP is deficient
because the State has not provided such an evaluation.
    Response 5: EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a
``presumptive target.'' Rather, it is an analytical requirement for
setting RPGs. See 64 FR 35731-32. If a state sets an RPG that provides
a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, a state must
demonstrate that the RPG is nonetheless reasonable and that it is
unreasonable to meet the URP for the Class I area at issue. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(ii). The RHR does not require a state to evaluate whether
it would be reasonable to set a RPG that would achieve greater
visibility improvement than the URP. In determining RPGs for Florida's
Class I areas, the State identified sources eligible for a reasonable
progress control evaluation using certain selection criteria (also
described in response to Comment 6 and at 77 FR 31251) and described
those evaluations in its SIP.

Florida performed this reasonable progress evaluation in accordance
with EPA regulations and guidance.
    Comment 6: The Commenter states that Florida's identification of
sources to assess for reasonable progress is flawed and cannot be
approved by EPA because the State selected sources for reasonable
progress control based upon its assumption that CAIR would maintain
reasonable progress towards visibility goals during the first
implementation period (i.e., the Commenter believes that the State
relied on CAIR to reduce the number of sources evaluated for reasonable
progress controls). The Commenter also states that because Florida
expected ``visibility in Class I areas to improve at or very near the
nominal straight line path to the 2064 goal'' based on this assumption,
it selected a ratio of source emissions (``Q'') divided by distance
from a Class I area (``d'') of 50 as the threshold for reasonable
progress evaluation (five times the nominal significance criteria) and
that Florida narrowed the field further by eliminating units that emit
less than 250 tons per year of SO2 and are more than 300
kilometers (km) from a Class I area, ``leaving 16 of these very large
sources unconsidered for RP controls.'' The Commenter states that
Florida's approach, in CAIR's absence, now falls ``well short of the
[RHR's] mandate that the state `consider major and minor stationary
sources, mobile sources, and area sources' as it develops emissions
limitations'' and to include all ``measures necessary to achieve the
RPGs.'' The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve Florida's
approach unless the State can demonstrate that its methodology is
warranted even in CAIR's absence and that, without CAIR in place,
Florida acted arbitrarily in increasing the nominal significance
criteria.
    According to the Commenter, the State must revise its Q/d threshold
for its BART exemption modeling to ``rationally identify those sources
which may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in one or more
Class I areas.'' \8\ The Commenter also believes that Florida's
approach was flawed because it was based solely on SO2
emissions; the State's LTS should have also considered reducing
NOX and NH3 emissions; sulfate emissions account
for only 30-60 percent of the impairment at the Everglades Class I
area; and Florida excluded all sources that commenced construction or
submitted a complete application after August 30, 1999, from its
reasonable progress review. Therefore, the Commenter believes that
Florida arbitrarily ignored a large percentage of sources that emit
visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Florida only used a Q/d threshold to identify sources
subject to a reasonable progress analysis. EPA has assumed that the
Commenter intended to refer to the reasonable progress analysis
rather than to ``BART exemption modeling'' and has responded
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: States are required to consider the improvement
expected from existing CAA programs (such as CAIR for affected states)
in setting their RPGs. Thus, Florida appropriately factored in the
expected emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement from
the implementation of CAIR in setting its RPGs. However, the
identification of the major sources in Florida contributing to
visibility impairment and the necessary emissions reductions from these
sources was not winnowed because of CAIR. As discussed below, Florida
established and applied certain criteria to identify for a reasonable
progress control evaluation the largest known sources of SO2
having the potential to impair visibility in Class I areas. The Florida
LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO,
through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification
of the emissions units within Florida and in surrounding states that
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's
Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on
all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations
for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected
visibility improvement with the URP for the State's Class I areas; and
(4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable
progress analysis for the identified emissions units to determine if
additional controls were reasonable.
    As discussed in EPA's May 25, 2012, proposal, Florida's assessment
concluded that ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to
visibility impairment at the State's Class I areas as a whole. See 77
FR 31250. For the Chassahowitzka and St. Marks Class I areas, these
ammonium sulfate particles, resulting from SO2 emissions,
contribute roughly 71 percent of the calculated light extinction on the
haziest days, and in Everglades National Park, the ammonium sulfate
contribution was 40 percent of the calculated light extinction on the
haziest days (due to a greater relative influence from organic carbon).
Visibility impairment at Everglades National Park is occasionally
dominated by organic carbon emissions due to lower SO2
emissions in South Florida and the park's greater distance from large
continental SO2 emissions sources. However, controlling
anthropogenic carbon emissions sources was determined not to be a
viable strategy for improving visibility for the first implementation
period because the organic carbon emissions are primarily biogenic in
origin. Therefore, reduction of SO2 emissions would be the
most effective means of reducing visibility impairment at Florida's
Class I areas. Because over 85 percent of 2002 SO2 emissions
in Florida were attributable to EGUs and industrial point sources, EPA
considers Florida's decision to focus on SO2 emissions from
these facilities as a reasonable application of EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program \9\
(EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (``EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance''), located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf,.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State then considered three variables that each play a strong
role in determining the impact any source may have on a particular
Class I area. The first variable is the amount of SO2
emissions (the greater the emissions, the more likely a source may
impact visibility); the second variable is distance to a Class I area
(visibility impacts decrease as distance from a Class I area
increases); and the third variable is frequency of winds (residence
time) in the direction of the Class I area from the source (trajectory
analysis). The VISTAS States considered a number of different
combinations of these variables as a surrogate for visibility impact.
    The Commenter raises concerns relating to the Q/d threshold for
BART exemption modeling in Florida. To clarify, the State used the Q/d
metric as a threshold to identify those sources of SO2
subject to a reasonable progress control evaluation, not for BART
evaluations. Florida chose to develop a reasonable progress source-
selection metric based on Q/d that would be essentially equivalent to
the VISTAS metric with several differences. Florida chose to use 2002
emissions for Q, instead of the 2018 projections that VISTAS used in
its suggested methodology for determining sources subject to a
reasonable progress evaluation developed by its member states. Because
the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) projected conversion of virtually
all of the oil-fired boilers in Florida to natural gas, using 2018
emissions estimates of SO2 from these

sources would have exempted these units from reasonable progress
review. Thus, the approach Florida used was more likely to result in
selection of certain larger SO2 sources for reasonable
progress control analysis.
    As a general strategy, Florida did not want to base its selection
of sources for a reasonable progress review on the IPM's prediction of
how the CAIR market-based reductions will occur. Rather, Florida chose
to use criteria that would include the known largest sources having the
greatest potential to impair visibility and that would ensure that
these sources are addressed through the reasonable progress process.
Because the State was evaluating existing sources for additional
control, rather than simply screening whether a proposed new facility
warranted further evaluation, Florida chose a Q/d threshold equal to 50
rather than 10 to assure that many of the largest sources of
SO2 nearest the Class I areas were required to address
reasonable progress, while smaller sources (not expected to provide
significant, cost-effective reductions) were excluded. Similarly,
Florida provided some bounds for the Q and d values. The State excluded
small (< 250 tons per year) units because any reductions from theses
sources would likely be small and not very cost-effective for the first
implementation period. Also, Florida's decision to consider only
sources within 300 km of a Class I area was consistent with the bounds
used in the protocol developed by VISTAS, Protocol for the Application
of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART),\10\ dated December 22, 2005, for the BART-exemption analysis.
Finally, Florida only considered sources that commenced construction or
submitted a complete application prior to August 30, 1999. This date
was chosen because, under Florida's permit review process, all permits
issued after that date require that visibility specifically be
addressed. Hence, it is unlikely that additional cost-effective
controls would be identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2005 VISTAS protocol is located at: http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/VISTASBARTModelingProtocol_Dec222005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that Florida's Q/d threshold must be revised. The
guidance referenced by the Commenter is not directly relevant to the
process developed by Florida for screening sources for a reasonable
progress analysis during the first implementation period.\11\ This
guidance, issued by the Federal Land Managers in 2010, refers to the
initial screening test for new or modified sources subject to EPA's New
Source Review (NSR) regulations to determine whether a visibility
evaluation is necessary for these proposed new sources. This document
is not part of the guidance developed by EPA or used by states to
develop their long-term strategies for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work
Group (FLAG), Phase I Report--Revised (2010) http://nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance \12\ and discussed
further in EPA's May 25, 2012, proposal action on the Florida regional
haze SIP (77 FR 31250), the RHR gives states wide latitude to determine
additional control requirements, and there are many ways to approach
identifying additional reasonable measures as long as the four
statutory factors are considered. Florida explained that its intent in
choosing a Q/d threshold of 50 was to assure that many of the largest
sources of SO2 that are closest to the Class I areas were
required to address reasonable progress, while smaller sources (not
expected to provide significant, cost-effective reductions in the first
implementation period) were excluded. EPA finds this explanation to be
reasonable. Florida also included a comparison between its methodology
and the VISTAS methodology and demonstrated that the differences were
minimal. For example, 15 units that were identified by the VISTAS
methodology were exempted under Florida's method, but Florida also
identified nine additional units for analysis that the VISTAS method
would have excluded. Of the 15 units identified by the VISTAS
methodology but excluded by the Florida methodology, nine have a Q/d of
less than 17 and five others are BART-subject sources. EPA regards the
Florida methodology as an acceptable approach for determining the
sources that should be subject to a reasonable progress analysis for
the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The Commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Florida's
reasonable progress control determinations as proposed because the
State's reasonable progress analysis relies on CAIR or CSAPR. The
Commenter believes that trading programs such as CAIR and CSAPR are not
reliable guarantors of emissions controls under the regional haze
program (incorporating by reference its February 28, 2012, comments on
EPA's proposed rule to find that CSAPR is better than BART). The
Commenter also states that EPA's analysis and approval of CSAPR as
being better than BART does not validate the use of the CSAPR for
reasonable progress as a matter of course and that such a determination
must be made on a state-by-state basis, upon consideration of whether
CSAPR assures reasonable progress or if further controls are required.
Additionally, the Commenter does not believe that CSAPR can assure
reasonable progress because CSAPR controls only ozone season
NOX in Florida, while Florida has determined that the bulk
of visibility impairment at its Class I areas is due to SO2
emissions.
    Response 7: EPA addressed the Commenter's February 28, 2012,
comments on CSAPR in its June 7, 2012, better-than-BART action (77 FR
33642). Regarding the comments about a relationship between CAIR,
CSAPR, and reasonable progress in Florida, see the response to Comment
1. EPA did not propose in its May 25, 2012, action, and is not
approving in this action, a conclusion that no additional controls for
EGUs in Florida beyond CAIR or CSAPR are reasonable in the first
implementation period. The State performed source-by-source analyses of
the SO2 emissions control alternatives for the affected
facilities and made case-by-case reasonable progress determinations for
each of these sources. EPA is relying on these analyses to address
reasonable progress requirements. The State has adequately justified
focusing on SO2 emissions for its reasonable progress
demonstration, as discussed in the response to Comment 6, and did not
consider additional NOX reductions in its reasonable
progress demonstration for this implementation period.
    Comment 8: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve
Florida's exemption of JEA Northside Unit 27 from a reasonable progress
analysis on the grounds that it took permit limits in 2009 to limit its
SO2 emissions.\13\ The Commenter believes that Florida's
exclusion of this facility from a reasonable progress analysis is
arbitrary and inconsistent with the RHR because visibility impacts are
measured based on a one-hour averaging time and the Commenter does not
believe that these federally enforceable limits ensure that short-term
visibility impacts are not experienced in the Okefenokee Class I area.
The Commenter states that these permit limits must be modified to
provide for a one-hour averaging time unless there is a ``reasoned and
factually

supported explanation in the SIP as to why short-term visibility
impacts will not occur despite the permit's relatively long averaging
times.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The federally enforceable SO2 emissions
limitations are 0.2 pound per million British Thermal Units (lb/
MMBtu) heat input, 24-hour average, and 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat input,
30-day rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 8: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the
differences in averaging time identified in the comment should affect
the Agency's findings and conclusions for Northside Unit 27.'' The
reasonable progress evaluation is performed for the 20 percent best and
worst days. While EPA does assess Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (``IMPROVE'') samples over a 24-hour time period
(not hourly as stated by the Commenter), none of the visibility program
requirements are based on these 24-hour peaks. Both the 20 percent best
days and 20 percent worst days represent an average over one-fifth of
monitored days of the year. Because this is a relatively long time
period, it tends to ``smooth out'' any variations that would occur over
a shorter time period. EPA finds no reason to believe that there is a
need to address any potential short-term variations in emissions with a
short-term emissions limit.
    Comment 9: The Commenter does not believe that EPA's May 25, 2012,
proposal states the Agency's intentions with sufficient clarity or that
EPA can approve SIP components that it has not clearly proposed to
approve in the notice. According to the Commenter, EPA has not met the
APA's notice and comment provisions governing rulemaking requiring that
an agency clearly state what it is proposing so that members of the
public have adequate notice and can offer informed comment. The
Commenter provides two examples of instances where it believes that EPA
has not clearly stated whether it is proposing approval or disapproval
of a particular SIP component (i.e., RPGs and the reasonable progress
demonstration).
    Response 9: As discussed in the response to Comment 2, EPA
disagrees there was any ambiguity in its clearly stated intention in
the May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking action to grant limited approval
to the March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, Florida
regional haze SIP submittals and the Agency's position that the limited
approval acted as approval of these SIP submittals in their entirety.
EPA devoted significant text in the May 25, 2012, rulemaking notice to
RPGs and the reasonable progress demonstrations, and included the three
SIP submittals (subject to the proposed action) in the docket for
public review. Because EPA identified the RPGs and reasonable progress
demonstrations as part of the SIP, and stated that its proposed action
would act as approval of the entire three regional haze SIP submittals,
the public was provided with adequate notice that EPA's action included
approval of Florida's RPGs and reasonable progress demonstrations.
Furthermore, in the December 10, 2012, action, EPA explicitly stated
that it was proposing full approval of the entire regional haze SIP due
to the changes made in Florida's September 17, 2012, final regional
haze SIP amendment to address the deficiencies leading to the proposed
limited approval and limited disapproval actions.
    It is not necessary or practical for EPA to single out every
element of a SIP submittal and expressly state that it is acting on
each element when it proposes to act on the SIP as a whole. See, e.g.,
Tucker v. Atwood, 880 F.2d at 1251 (explaining that a rulemaking action
under Section 553(b) of the APA ``requires no more than `. . . a
description of the subjects and issues involved.' ''); Lloyd Noland
Hosp. & Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d at 1565 (noting that a rulemaking
notice ``is adequate if `it affords interested parties a reasonable
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.' ''); Forester v.
Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 559 F.2d at 787 (``Section 553(b) does
not require that interested parties be provided precise notice of each
aspect of the regulations eventually adopted. Rather, notice is
sufficient if it affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process.'').
    Comment 10: The Commenter believes that it is improper for EPA to
withhold full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP because CAIR is
still in effect.
    Response 10: See the response to Comment 1. In this action, EPA is
now fully approving Florida's regional haze SIP because the State has
replaced its reliance on CAIR with source-specific emissions
limitations to satisfy both the BART requirements and the requirement
for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs.

B. Response to Comments on the December 10, 2012, Proposal

Lansing Smith
    Comment 11: The Commenter contends that FDEP improperly rejected
wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) as BART for Units 1 and 2 at Lansing
Smith. The Commenter states that it would be arbitrary and capricious
for EPA to approve the BART determination because the analysis inflated
the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD by using an emissions limit of 0.15
lb/MMBtu of SO2 rather than the removal efficiency potential
of 95 percent identified by Gulf Power and by not evaluating the most
stringent control efficiency associated with wet FGD (asserted to be 98
percent or greater). The Commenter also states that wet FGD is cost-
effective even using the ``flawed'' values provided in the SIP because
Florida's values are ``still easily within the range which EPA has
already determined to be cost-effective elsewhere'' and because they
are lower than cost-effectiveness values associated with BART controls
adopted by FDEP at FPL's Manatee power plant.
    Response 11: In evaluating the statutory BART factors for FGD, FDEP
most heavily weighed the lack of visibility improvement associated with
this control technology for Lansing Smith, not the cost of control.
States have the flexibility to determine the weight and significance of
each factor. See, e.g., 70 FR 39123, 39153, 39170 (July 6, 2005). As
discussed in EPA's December 10, 2012, proposal, the model predicted
limited visibility improvements considering both the absolute
visibility benefits of FGD from the baseline as well as the incremental
benefits from the use of FGD over dry sorbent injection (DSI). FDEP
concluded that the predicted incremental improvements in visibility of
0.07 dv for Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 98th percentile
highest day over three years were not sufficient in light of the costs
to warrant the selection of FGD as BART, regardless of whether FGD is
cost-effective on a dollars per ton basis.
    EPA agrees that if FDEP had assumed either a 95 percent or 98
percent removal efficiency for wet FGD, then Florida's cost-
effectiveness values would have been slightly lower, while the modeled
visibility improvement would have been slightly higher. As explained in
EPA's BART Guidelines,\14\ however, sources evaluating post-combustion
SO2 controls can consider a presumptive limit of either 95
percent control or 0.15 lb/MMBtu when performing a five-factor BART
analysis.\15\ Therefore, while FDEP could have used a higher removal
efficiency in evaluating wet FGD, EPA believes that it was reasonable
for FDEP to conduct its analysis using an emissions limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Moreover, even had FDEP used a higher removal efficiency, the
incremental visibility improvement expected from wet FGD over DSI would

not have increased sufficiently to render FDEP's conclusion
unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule (``BART Guidelines''), 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y.
    \15\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.E.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12: The Commenter states that the visibility benefits
associated with wet FGD are significant and that it is therefore
inappropriate for EPA to dismiss these improvements. The Commenter
concludes that EPA has overemphasized the incremental visibility
improvements between wet FGD and DSI rather than evaluating the overall
improvement associated with wet FGD and that it is improper for EPA to
disregard the incremental improvements on the basis that they are less
than 0.5 dv. The Commenter also concludes that EPA must consider the
visibility improvement from wet FGD in relation to the statutory goal
of eliminating visibility impairment. According to the Commenter, the
improvement associated with wet FGD is ``significant'' in light of the
0.244 dv annual rate of progress required to achieve the national goal
at the St. Marks Class I area and because the State is ``already
falling short of the uniform rate of progress required to restore
visibility by 2064'' at this Class I area. The Commenter further states
that it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to reject wet FGD
based on incremental visibility values when the incremental benefits
from wet FGD are greater than the incremental visibility improvement
between DSI and the switch to lower sulfur coal.
    Response 12: See the response to Comment 11. FDEP did not summarily
disregard wet FGD using a 0.5 dv threshold. FDEP evaluated the
visibility improvements associated with wet FGD for Lansing Smith under
a five-factor BART analysis and concluded that these improvements were
minimal and did not warrant the selection of wet FGD as BART for the
facility. The State has flexibility to weigh the five factors. See 70
FR 39170 (July 6, 2005). As discussed in Florida's regional haze SIP,
FDEP does not believe that St. Marks will fall short of the URP target
in light of the additional BART and reasonable progress measures added
to the regional haze SIP after the modeling of reasonable progress was
conducted and the retirement and conversion to natural gas of several
EGUs. Moreover, states need not consider the URP at a specific Class I
area in determining whether the visibility benefits associated with a
given control option warrant its selection as BART. The URP is a metric
that states use in setting their RPGs. A state's RPGs, in turn, need
not be met by requiring the most stringent control technology at a
single source, but rather can be met with a variety of control options
and strategies that apply to various sources throughout the state.
Here, EPA concurs with FDEP's assessment that the incremental
visibility improvements associated with wet FGD at Lansing Smith are
insufficient to warrant the technology's selection as BART.
    Comment 13: The Commenter argues that the energy and non-air
quality issues cited by FDEP (e.g., four megawatt (MW) power penalty,
generation of scrubber waste) are immaterial and not sufficient to
reject wet FGD as BART.
    Response 13: FDEP included an evaluation of the energy and non-air
quality impacts associated with wet FGD for completeness because these
impacts are, collectively, one of the five statutory factors to be
considered in a BART determination. This factor was not determinative
in this instance because FDEP concluded that the visibility impacts
associated with wet FGD for Lansing Smith did not warrant selection of
this control technology as BART for the facility.
    Comment 14: The Commenter contends that FDEP improperly rejected
dry FGD as BART for Units 1 and 2 because the State did not fully
consider the technology or provide any evidence supporting its cost and
control efficiency claims that a full analysis is not required based on
FDEP's determination that dry FGD is more expensive than wet FGD and
has the same or lower control efficiency. The Commenter asserts that
dry FGD is technically feasible and can achieve control efficiencies of
up to 98 percent removal. The Commenter also claims that it would be
arbitrary and capricious for EPA to approve FDEP's rejection of dry FGD
at Lansing Smith because the State approved the technology as BART at
Crystal River.
    Response 14: See the response to Comment 11. EPA's BART Guidelines
provide that in identifying control options, states must identify the
most stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that
reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies.\16\ It is not
necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that
exist for a given technology. The BART Guidelines also state that a
``possible outcome of the BART procedures discussed in these guidelines
is the evaluation of multiple control technology alternatives which
result in essentially equivalent emissions. It is not our intent to
encourage evaluation of unnecessarily large numbers of control
alternatives for every emissions unit. Consequently, you should use
judgment in deciding on those alternatives for which you should conduct
detailed impacts analyses. . . . For example, if two or more control
techniques result in control levels that are essentially identical,
considering the uncertainties of emissions factors and other parameters
pertinent to estimating performance, you may evaluate only the less
costly of these options.'' \17\ EPA does not regard the differences in
removal efficiency or cost between wet FGD and dry FGD to be sufficient
in this instance to warrant an independent assessment of dry FGD as
BART for Lansing Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D, n.12.
    \17\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D.2, item 5 under the heading
``What type of demonstration is required if I conclude that an
option is not technically feasible?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 15: The Commenter believes that FDEP's use of a 0.15 lb/
MMBtu emissions limit underestimates the visibility benefits from a FGD
system because it is equivalent to 89 percent control. The Commenter
alleges that a control efficiency of 95 percent or 98 percent is
achievable.
    Response 15: See response to Comment 11. Changing the
SO2 control rate to the level suggested by the Commenter
would not sufficiently alter the results of the modeling analysis for
Lansing Smith to change the conclusion reached by FDEP. Furthermore,
FDEP appropriately modeled FGD assuming a maximum allowable emissions
rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. The actual percent reduction associated with
this limit varies depending on the sulfur content of the coal burned.
Different assumptions regarding the sulfur content of future coal used
would result in different estimates of the emissions rate. For example,
although the 0.15 lb/MMBtu rate results in an approximately 89.5
percent reduction from baseline emissions on an annual basis, it
results in 93 and 91.5 percent reductions at Units 1 and 2,
respectively, on the maximum actual short-term (24-hour) basis used in
the baseline visibility assessment. Finally, it is also important to
note that the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit also takes into account emissions
from startup, shutdown, and malfunction because the BART limit must be
met on a continuous basis.
    Comment 16: The Commenter believes that FDEP underestimated the
visibility improvement associated with wet FGD, thereby making it less
cost-effective, by only estimating Lansing Smith's visibility impacts
on St. Marks, the only Class I area within 300 km of the facility. The
Commenter states that EPA must consider CALPUFF modeling results from
Federal Class I areas

beyond 300 km and the cumulative visibility impacts across these
multiple areas. The Commenter cites to a May 2012 report entitled
``Long Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data'' in
support of its position that changes to CALPUFF since the publication
of the 1998 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase
2 guidance requires consideration of visibility impacts beyond 300 km.
The Commenter also contends that a rough analysis based on the
visibility impacts for St. Marks using linear and simple Gaussian
dispersion assumptions reveals that the impacts at Class I areas other
than St. Marks may be significant.
    Response 16: As a general matter, EPA agrees that Florida should
have considered the visibility improvements at all affected Class I
areas in its BART visibility assessments. For the Lansing Smith BART
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at St. Marks, the only
mandatory Class I Federal area within the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF
modeling domain used by FDEP to assess visibility impacts. FDEP
conducted the visibility modeling consistent with the modeling protocol
that VISTAS developed for preparing BART analyses entitled Protocol for
the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART). (See appendix L of the Florida regional
haze SIP submittal). This modeling protocol was developed in a
transparent manner involving states, EPA, NPS, Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS), and any other interested entities that wished to participate in
the public process. The protocol establishes 300 km as the boundary
around a BART-subject source in which to model potential visibility
impacts at Class I areas, and consistent with this protocol, FDEP
modeled the highest visibility impact from the nearby Class I areas
within a 300 km radius of the source. As noted above, there are no
Class I areas other than the St. Marks area within the 300 km boundary
around Lansing Smith's BART-subject units.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that changes to
CALPUFF now support modeling at distances greater than 300 km. The
Commenter cited a May 2012 technical evaluation (Documentation of the
Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport Models Using
Tracer Field Experiment Data \18\) that evaluates several long range
transport models based on several tracer studies. The report cited by
the Commenter does not refute the IWAQM Phase 2 report which states
that ``IWAQM recommends use of CALPUFF for transport distances of order
200 km and less. Use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond 200
to 300 km should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely
problems involved.'' \19\ In fact, the May 2012 report further
``emphasizes the need for a standardized set of options for regulatory
CALPUFF modeling.'' \20\ Given these findings, EPA does not agree, as
the Commenter asserts, that it must consider CALPUFF modeling results
from Federal Class I areas beyond 300 km. EPA therefore believes that
the results of CALPUFF modeling beyond 300 km of the source should be
evaluated in light of the limitations discussed in the two guidance
documents cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
    \19\ http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf,
page 18.
    \20\ http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf,
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as discussed in the response to Comment 11, FDEP concluded
that the predicted incremental improvements in visibility of 0.07 dv
for Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 98th percentile day at St.
Marks were not sufficient to warrant the selection of FGD as BART. The
visibility improvements associated with FGD for the Class I areas
outside of the 300 km area are expected to be even lower than those
modeled for St. Marks. EPA does not believe that, even had impacts at
Class I areas beyond 300 km been modeled, the visibility benefits of
wet FGD across all Class I areas would be sufficient to make FDEP's
SO2 BART determination for Lansing Smith unreasonable. The
Commenter estimates visibility impacts based on ``linear and simple
Gaussian dispersion assumptions,'' but did not provide any further
information on how it developed these estimates or how EPA should
consider them.
    Comment 17: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the wet
FGD BART analysis without further explanation from FDEP because Gulf
Power provided emissions data for 2003-2005, while it modeled the
visibility impacts of these emissions based on meteorological data from
2001-2003.
    Response 17: FDEP chose 2001-2003 as its baseline period. It is not
necessary to match the years of meteorology with the years of emissions
in a BART analysis as long as both sets of data are representative. EPA
guidance states that the ``emissions estimates used in the models are
intended to reflect steady-state operating conditions during periods of
high capacity utilization.'' \21\ Concerning the choice of an alternate
period for the emissions data, EPA has reviewed the SO2
emissions data for the Lansing Smith power plant in the EPA Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) database \22\ for the 2000-2005 period. EPA
found that the 2002 SO2 emissions from Lansing Smith were
lower than the SO2 emissions for any other year in this
period and are not representative of steady-state operating conditions
during periods of high capacity utilization. The SO2
emissions from 2003-2005 appear to be the most representative three-
year period in this time frame and EPA supports the State's use of this
more representative data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, III.A.3, Option 1.
    \22\ http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve FDEP's
rejection of wet FGD as BART without a more thorough review of the cost
analysis. According to the Commenter: (1) The analysis is based on un-
sourced and potentially biased data from an entity within Gulf Power's
parent company; (2) the data underlying the control effectiveness
estimates is not publicly available; (3) the cost estimates likely do
not follow the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (``EPA Control
Cost Manual''); \23\ and (4) the assumptions regarding a seven percent
interest rate and 20-year scrubber lifetime are inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 18: EPA reviewed the cost estimates provided by Gulf Power
and found that they are consistent with those resulting from
application of EPA's Control Cost Manual. Appendix I of the Florida
regional haze SIP submittal describes how members of the public can
obtain access to the data underlying the cost analysis. EPA believes
that Florida has adequately addressed data access and that the State's
cost analysis is consistent with the BART Guidelines. The seven percent
interest rate used by FDEP is consistent with EPA's Control Cost Manual
and guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (Circular
A-94). Furthermore, adjusting the scrubber lifetime from 20 to 30 years
would affect the cost analysis only by approximately 10 to 11 percent.
Decreasing the estimated cost of FGD by 10 percent would not make
FDEP's conclusion that wet FGD is not SO2 BART for Lansing
Smith unreasonable given the minimal incremental visibility
improvements associated with this technology at this facility.
    Comment 19: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve the PM
BART

limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Lansing Smith, which is the existing limit in
the facility's title V permit, without considering lowering the limit
to reflect the most stringent emissions control level that the
facility's electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are capable of achieving.
The Commenter claims that it would be an arbitrary and capricious
action for EPA to approve this limit as PM BART because the existing
ESPs achieve emissions rates of 0.014 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
    Response 19: In its BART analysis, FDEP evaluated actual PM
emissions from Units 1 and 2 with current controls (high efficiency
hot- and cold-side ESPs), the impact of these emissions on visibility
at St. Marks, existing permit conditions, and the visibility
improvement associated with reducing the PM limits beyond the
facility's actual emissions. In assessing impacts due to PM emissions
at St. Marks, FDEP reviewed historic PM emissions from Units 1 and 2
and established a baseline filterable PM10 emissions rate of
47.9 lb PM/hour, equal to approximately 0.025 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and
0.021 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, derived from the highest stack test for the
three-year period of 2003-2005 combined with maximum heat input. FDEP
modeled visibility impairment using this baseline and calculated an
impact at St. Marks due to PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 of
approximately 0.02 dv, equal to 1.3 percent of the total baseline
impact. FDEP also evaluated fabric filters as a possible BART control
option, which would reduce PM emissions to a rate of 0.008 lb/MMBtu,
and found that reducing PM emissions beyond the baseline emissions rate
would result in a visibility improvement of 0.00 dv at St. Marks.
    While the existing permit limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu is above actual
controlled emissions levels and FDEP arguably should have tightened the
limit to reflect the capabilities of the existing ESPs, EPA believes
that FDEP's decision not to tighten the limit was reasonable for
several reasons. First, the impact of tightening Lansing Smith's PM
emissions limit would be minimal from a visibility perspective. Second,
Lansing Smith's current operating permit does not authorize the
facility to increase PM emissions beyond the actual controlled levels
when the facility installs DSI for SO2 BART. EPA notes that
Lansing Smith must submit a comparison of baseline actual emissions to
future actual emissions once a final design is available for the
installation of DSI at the facility. This comparison should be
available in early 2015. At that time, FDEP will need to determine
whether the installation of DSI will cause a significant increase in
the facility's PM emissions, thereby triggering PSD review. Third, MATS
was promulgated on April 24, 2013, (78 FR 24073) for existing sources
and will further limit PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 to 0.03 lb/MMBtu
by 2015. For these reasons, EPA believes that the existing permit limit
of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2 at Lansing Smith is adequate for PM
BART at this time. However, EPA expects FDEP to review the PM emissions
limit in the next regional haze implementation period, at which time
the PM impacts, if any, from the operation of DSI for SO2
BART will be clear.
    Comment 20: The Commenter claims that the modeling files have not
been made available and that EPA cannot evaluate or approve the BART
determinations for the Lansing Smith facility without this information.
The Commenter requests that EPA obtain the modeling files, evaluate
them for consistency with the BART Guidelines and Control Cost Manual,
and provide them for public review and comment.
    Response 20: Appendix I of the Florida regional haze SIP submittal
describes how members of the public can obtain access to the modeling
files. It also states that the raw meteorological, emissions, and air
quality modeling input and output datasets will in many cases surpass
any practical file size for online storage or downloading. EPA has
accessed the data in this manner and reviewed the appropriate files.
EPA believes that Florida has adequately addressed data access and that
the State's visibility modeling for Lansing Smith is consistent with
the BART Guidelines. The EPA Control Cost Manual is not relevant to
visibility modeling.
Crystal River
    Comment 21: The Commenter notes that under Option 1 (shutdown), the
underlying BART analysis does not consider the use of DSI as an interim
control for SO2. The Commenter believes that an analysis of
this control is required before EPA can approve the proposed BART
determination.
    Response 21: EPA has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DSI under
the shutdown option and concludes that, although FDEP should have
evaluated DSI as a possible interim BART control option, DSI would not
be cost-effective.\24\ EPA estimates that DSI would result in
approximately $46,000,000 in capital costs and $54,000,000 in annual
operating costs at the Crystal River facility, not including expenses
for any necessary upgrades to the ESPs due to the increased loading
from the DSI system or the potential costs due to local retrofit
constraints.\25\ Allowing time for permit approvals, engineering,
construction, and installation, and assuming that DSI could be fully
operational by the end of 2017 under an expeditious schedule, DSI would
be in operation for approximately three years before the units would be
shut down at the end of 2020. At an expected control efficiency of 50
percent, EPA estimates that the annual SO2 reduction would
be 4,644 tons from Unit 1 and 5,912 tons from Unit 2 at a cost-
effectiveness of $6,897/ton and $6,943/ton of SO2 removed,
respectively.\26\ EPA also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of
operating DSI for five years rather than three, but still found that
the cost-effectiveness values would exceed $6,000/ton. Therefore, EPA
concurs with FDEP's SO2 BART determination for Crystal River
because the cost-effectiveness of DSI is higher than what EPA or
Florida has considered to be BART in other BART determinations
selecting DSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA notes that although two Commenters submitted comments
on the state rulemaking for this BART determination, neither
identified DSI as an option for FDEP to consider in its BART
analysis.
    \25\ IPM Model--Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC
Technologies, Dry Sorbent Injection Cost Development Methodology,
Sargent & Lundy LLC, August 2010. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_4.pdf.
    \26\ To view EPA's calculations to support these figures, please
refer to ``Crystal River DSI Cost Analysis'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 22: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve
Option 2 of the Crystal River BART determination because of alleged
inadequacies in the BART analyses that resulted in BART determinations
for SO2, PM, and NOX with emissions limits that
were less stringent than the Commenter considered appropriate as BART
for this facility.
    Response 22: On May 2, 2013, FDEP supplemented Florida's regional
haze SIP with an April 30, 2013, letter from Duke Energy (formerly
known as Progress Energy) notifying FDEP of the Company's binding
decision to pursue Option 1 under the Crystal River BART construction
permit and shut down Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2020. Pursuant to
the construction permit, which was incorporated into Florida's regional
haze SIP, Duke Energy's binding determination renders Option 2 and the
corresponding permit provisions allowing for the implementation of
Option 2 void. Today's final action approving Florida's regional haze
SIP makes this shutdown

requirement federally enforceable. Hence, EPA regards any comments on
Option 2 to be moot.
    Comment 23: The Commenter recommends that selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) be re-evaluated as an interim control under Option 1
based on its contention that the technology can be installed in much
less than five years, thus improving its cost-effectiveness by
increasing its useful life.
    Response 23: EPA does not believe that SNCR would be cost-effective
as an interim control on Units 1 and 2 given the remaining useful life
of this facility. Although EPA disagrees with FDEP's conclusion that
SNCR is not a demonstrated technology for boilers of this size, it does
concur with FDEP that detailed engineering and site-specific
assessments would be necessary to design and install SNCR given the
nature of the units and that these assessments could take substantial
additional time to complete. Compared with smaller coal-fired boilers,
the engineering design for Units 1 and 2 would require consideration of
the limited access to temperature regions in the boiler, greater
variations in combustion temperatures, longer distances over which
reagent must be delivered and mixed, and increased ammonia slip due to
less optimal use of reagent. Even if FDEP had evaluated SNCR as an
interim measure and determined that SNCR was technically feasible, this
facility would likely have had until mid-2018 under the Florida BART
rule \27\ to begin operating a SNCR system, which would then have
ceased operation by no later than 2020 when the facility shut down.
Thus, the limited remaining useful life of this facility makes the
application of SNCR as an interim control option not practicable for
Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Florida Admin. Code 62-296.340, ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 24: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve
Florida's regional haze SIP until FDEP considers the visibility impacts
of Crystal River's NOX emissions on Class I areas other than
Chassahowitzka, the nearest Class I area.
    Response 24: No further visibility analysis is required for Crystal
River because Duke Energy must now shut down Units 1 and 2 by December
31, 2020. EPA agrees that Florida should have considered the visibility
improvements at all affected Class I areas in its BART visibility
assessments under Option 1; however, EPA does not believe that doing so
would have altered the outcome given the limited remaining useful life
of the facility.
Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh Jr.
    Comment 25: The Commenter believes that the visibility modeling for
Lakeland Electric's C.D. McIntosh Jr. (McIntosh) facility should have
considered cumulative visibility impacts from Everglades National Park,
Okefenokee, and Chassahowitzka.
    Response 25: As a general matter, EPA agrees that Florida should
have considered the visibility improvements at all affected Class I
areas in its BART visibility assessments. For the McIntosh BART
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at Chassahowitzka, the
nearest Class I area to the facility, as well as at Everglades National
Park and Okefenokee, the other mandatory Class I Federal areas within
the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF modeling domain used by FDEP. FDEP
conducted the visibility modeling consistent with the modeling protocol
that VISTAS developed for preparing BART analyses entitled Protocol for
the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART). (See appendix L of the Florida regional
haze SIP submittal.) This modeling protocol was developed in a
transparent manner involving states, EPA, NPS, FWS, and any other
interested entities that wished to participate in the public process.
The protocol establishes 300 km as the boundary around a BART-subject
source in which to model potential visibility impacts at Class I areas,
and consistent with this protocol, FDEP modeled the highest visibility
impact from the three Class I areas within a 300 km radius of the
source.
    While FDEP should have considered the visibility improvement at
Everglades and Okefenokee when conducting its BART analyses for
McIntosh, EPA does not believe that FDEP not doing so has rendered its
BART determinations unreasonable. As discussed in more detail in the
responses below, FDEP rejected several SO2 BART options
based on excessive cost, not visibility improvement. Moreover, while
FDEP did eliminate several NOX BART options based on low
visibility improvement, those values were so low that EPA does not
believe that a consideration of cumulative impacts would alter the
reasonableness of FDEP's conclusions, especially in light of the fact
that the baseline visibility impacts for the 98th percentile most
impacted day at Everglades and Okefenokee were only 31 percent and 27
percent, respectively, of those at Chassahowitzka.
    Comment 26: EPA received several comments regarding the adequacy of
the NOX BART analysis for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh.
According to the Commenter, EPA cannot approve the BART determination
without: (1) Fully evaluating SNCR as a retrofit technology for Unit 2;
(2) considering additional available retrofit control technologies such
as low NOX burners, overfire air systems, and flue gas
recirculation for Unit 1; (3) setting a NOX emissions limit
for Unit 1; (4) demonstrating why a selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
control efficiency greater than 80 percent is not achievable; and (5)
calculating the cost-effectiveness of SCR for each individual unit. The
Commenter also states that even the incorrect cost-effectiveness values
calculated for SCR fall within the range of acceptable values and that
SCR should therefore have been selected as BART.
    Response 26: Regarding a SNCR evaluation for Unit 2, this unit
already has combustion controls in place (flue gas recirculation),
lowering its worst case 24-hour NOX emission rate \28\ to
approximately 0.22 lb/MMBtu, comparable to what can be achieved with
SNCR for this unit. In addition, the technical feasibility of
installing SNCR on these units is uncertain because an engineering
study would need to be undertaken to ascertain whether the units
operate within the temperature range required by SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This emissions rate reflects the maximum daily actual
emissions from 2001-2003 for Unit 2 used in Florida's CALPUFF
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Commenter's remaining concerns for Units 1 and
2, the BART modeling for Units 1 and 2 predicted a total visibility
impact of 0.31 dv at Chassowitzka from their combined NOX
emissions and a visibility impact of approximately 0.20 dv from the
NOX emissions at Unit 1.\29\ Moreover, EPA reviewed the
operations of Unit 1 and concluded that the modeling based on 2001 to
2003 emissions was sufficiently conservative compared to present
operations. Unit 1 emitted a total of 12.3 tons of NOX from
2009 through 2012, according to EPA's CAMD database, whereas the
baseline BART modeling assumed that Unit 1 emitted 2,119 tons of
NOX per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The BART modeling estimates the maximum eighth highest
visibility impact at Chassahowitzka from the emissions from these
units over the baseline period to be 1.617 dv with a NOX
contribution of approximately 0.31 dv. See Exhibit 2 of the Florida
regional haze submittal, page 416. Unit 1 contributes approximately
two-thirds of the total NOX emissions from these units.
See Exhibit 2 of the Florida regional haze submittal, page 415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP placed greater weight on the lack of potential visibility
improvement from controlling NOX at Units 1 and 2 than the
other statutory factors due to

the modeling results described above and concluded that no additional
controls were required to satisfy NOX BART and that no
adjustment to the existing permits were warranted. Furthermore, because
the available controls (low NOX burners, flue gas
recirculation, and SNCR) for Unit 1 would only reduce the visibility
impacts by 25 to 50 percent, the anticipated improvement from these
controls would be as low as 0.05 to 0.1 dv assuming 2001-2003 emission
levels. Under the same logic, adjusting the control efficiency of the
modeled SCR system from 80 to 90 percent or calculating the cost-
effectiveness individually for each unit would not change the fact that
the visibility improvement associated with the installation of
NOX controls would remain low.
    Regarding a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1, the RHR
does require an emissions limit for each visibility-impairing pollutant
at each BART-subject source. FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July
30, 2013, in which it committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP
revision no later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's
five-year regional haze periodic progress report, that will include a
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best
operating practices for good combustion. The State also committed to
modify the title V operating permit for the facility by March 19, 2015,
to include this limit. The limit will be effective no later than the
effective date of EPA's approval of the SIP revision. Because of the
limited visibility impact of NOX emissions from Unit 1 and
because the BART limit will reflect the existing level of control, EPA
concludes that it is reasonable for the State to implement a
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 upon EPA's approval of
the aforementioned SIP revision. Under these unique circumstances, EPA
concludes that FDEP's NOX BART determination for the
McIntosh facility was ultimately reasonable. The major visibility-
impairing pollutant of concern at this source, SO2, has been
addressed, and the delay in establishing a NOX BART
emissions limit for Unit 1 will have no appreciable impact on
visibility at any Class I area.
    Comment 27: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur
content in its SO2 BART analysis for McIntosh and submitted
an analysis evaluating the visibility benefits of reducing the fuel oil
sulfur content and associated costs. According to the Commenter, FDEP
should have included the visibility improvements at Everglades National
Park and Okefenokee Wilderness Area associated with the 0.7 percent
sulfur fuel evaluation and should not have used the 2001-2003 baseline
period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs.
    Response 27: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. With respect to the
information provided by the Commenter, EPA finds that the Commenter
used different baselines to evaluate the costs and visibility benefits
of a lower sulfur content fuel oil. Specifically, the Commenter based
costs on lower 2009-2011 operating rates and fuel-use data, but
evaluated visibility benefits based on a 2001-2003 baseline period with
a much higher operating rate. This approach neglects to consider that
less fuel use would result in less visibility impairment. Had the
Commenter adjusted the visibility benefits to match 2009-2011 operating
rates, the visibility benefits would have been much lower. Therefore,
the Commenter's $/dv estimates are artificially low. Consistent with
the State's BART modeling protocol, FDEP's visibility modeling was
appropriately based on a 2001-2003 baseline for estimates of both
visibility impacts and fuel consumption, assuring that higher
visibility impacts from the higher level of fuel utilization in that
period were properly considered. FDEP then based total costs on the
latest estimates of fuel costs assuming baseline year consumption.
Finally, while FDEP should have considered cumulative visibility
impacts in assessing the 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil option, it is
ultimately of no consequence because FDEP selected this option as BART
for both Units 1 and 2.
    Comment 28: The Commenter states that FDEP should not have
eliminated DSI as SO2 BART for McIntosh because ``the space
required for DSI is minimal, as is the capital cost.''
    Response 28: EPA notes that DSI requires an adequate PM control
device to collect the sulfate particles generated by the sorbent
injection system. Currently, there are no add-on particulate controls
on the oil-fired units at McIntosh. Installation of DSI would therefore
require installation of a fabric filter system or ESP to capture the
sulfate particles generated. The expense of adding a new particulate
control system in addition to DSI itself would have made this control
option not cost-effective for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh.
    Comment 29: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have
evaluated the firing of 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil, 0.5 percent sulfur
fuel oil, distillate, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) in its
SO2 BART analysis for McIntosh.
    Response 29: As is discussed in more detail in EPA's response to
Comment 14, the BART Guidelines do not require states to list all
permutations of available control levels that exist for a given
technology. FDEP evaluated switching from 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil
to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil in its BART analyses for several other
facilities. In these other instances, FDEP presented the cost-
effectiveness of switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel
oils, which are the commonly-available grades of residual fuel oil. The
use of 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil would require a blending of these
two fuel oils, and its cost-effectiveness can be interpolated from the
information provided. Distillate and ULSD would be substantially more
expensive than 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil, which FDEP had already
determined was not cost-effective. FDEP did not re-perform this
analysis for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh because distillate oil and ULSD
were found to not be cost-effective in the BART analyses for other
facilities. EPA does not believe that an explicit evaluation of these
additional fuels for McIntosh would have resulted in a different
conclusion because the analysis is dependent on fuel cost, and fuel
cost is approximately uniform among the facilities evaluated by FDEP
given that the suppliers of fuel oil in Florida that service the other
EGUs are the same as those that supply Lakeland Electric, including the
McIntosh facility.
FPL Manatee
    Comment 30: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils
in the SO2 BART analysis for FPL Manatee (Manatee).
    Response 30: See response to Comment 29. The same rationale for not
assessing additional fuels at McIntosh also applies to Manatee.
    Comment 31: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the
Commenter, FDEP should have included the cumulative visibility
improvements at Everglades National Park and Chassahowitzka Wilderness
Area associated with the fuel switching options and should have used a
2009-2011 baseline period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather
than the 2001-2003 period chosen by FDEP. The Commenter contends that
0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil

is SO2 BART because FDEP overestimated the cost of switching
to this fuel oil by not considering that the use of fuel oil is
``likely to continue to decrease in favor of gas.''
    Response 31: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. In regards to
the comment on cumulative visibility benefits, while EPA agrees that
Florida should have considered the visibility improvements at all
affected Class I areas in its BART visibility assessments, EPA does not
believe that doing so would have altered the outcome here. For the
Manatee BART analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at the
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Area as well as at Everglades National
Park, the only other mandatory Class I Federal area within the
surrounding 300 km CALPUFF modeling domain. For SO2 BART,
FDEP evaluated the costs and visibility benefits associated with
switching from 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil to 0.7 percent and 0.3
percent sulfur fuel oil. FDEP selected 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil as
BART at a cost-effectiveness of $5,468/ton of SO2 reduced
and rejected 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of
$6,542/ton of SO2 reduced. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of lowering the sulfur level in fuel oil from 0.7 percent
to 0.3 percent was $7,348/ton of SO2 reduced. The Commenter
did not provide any data in support of its contention that the use of
fuel oil is likely to continue to decrease in favor of gas such that a
switch to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil would be more cost effective. EPA
agrees with FDEP's SO2 BART determination and is not
persuaded that, given the incremental cost-effectiveness of more
stringent controls, consideration of cumulative visibility benefits or
the Commenter's assumptions regarding trends in fuel oil usage would
have resulted in a different BART determination for SO2.
    Comment 32: The Commenter argues that BART should be a fuel-
specific determination and that EPA should not allow the source to
blend a fuel oil with sulfur content higher than what is determined to
be BART with natural gas. The Commenter believes that blending fuel oil
with natural gas is not a legitimate offset because natural gas would
be used anyway.
    Response 32: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's view that BART
needs to be a fuel-specific determination. Except in cases where work
practices are delineated, BART is an emissions limit, not a specified
technology.\30\ Blending fuels to lower the emissions rate is an
acceptable and cost-effective method to reduce emissions and their
associated visibility impacts, and it is allowed by the EPA New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart D rules for oil-fired boilers. The
Commenter's statement that ``natural gas would be used anyway'' is not
explained or supported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, I.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 33: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART
analysis for Manatee and cites to units in EPA's CAMD database with
lower NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as
NOX BART.
    Response 33: The Manatee units are currently equipped with multiple
NOX emissions control methods including: Flue gas
recirculation, overfire air systems, staged combustion, low
NOX burners, and re-burn. FDEP assessed SCR as a technically
feasible post-combustion NOX control, but did not evaluate
SNCR. For oil-fired units, the technical feasibility of SNCR is
uncertain because SNCR depends on the availability of an accessible
location within the furnace with relatively high temperatures where
injectors could be installed. To determine whether such a location
existed in these units would have required a detailed engineering
analysis because oil-fired boilers typically operate at lower peak
temperatures than coal-fired boilers. While the BART Guidelines
ordinarily require states to make a reasoned determination that a
widely available control technology, such as SNCR, is technically
infeasible before rejecting it, EPA does not believe that SCR would be
BART for NOX at Manatee. Six to 17 percent of the 98th
percentile visibility impact at the Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area from
2001-2003 was attributable to NOX emissions from Manatee.
FDEP evaluated SCR operating at 90 percent efficiency as part of its
BART analysis for Manatee and determined that this control technology
would improve visibility by 0.47 dv at a cost of $3,776/ton of
NOX reduced, or approximately $66 million/dv. The likely
visibility improvement from SNCR, if it were feasible for these oil-
fired units, would range from 0.1 dv to 0.2 dv (assuming a 25 to 40
percent reduction potentially achievable with the use of SNCR). EPA
concludes that, in light of the visibility improvement predicted for a
highly efficient SCR, that a more thorough evaluation of a less
effective technology would not have changed the State's BART
determination.
FPL Martin Power Plant
    Comment 34: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils
in the SO2 BART analysis for FPL Martin Power Plant
(Martin).
    Response 34: See the response to Comment 29.
    Comment 35: The Commenter contends that FDEP inappropriately
dismissed FGD systems from consideration as BART because, according to
the Commenter, FGD systems are ``feasible and in use on oil-fired
boilers'' even though these systems ``are seldom used on oil-fired
boilers because it is more cost-effective to reduce fuel sulfur
content.''
    Response 35: According to the BART Guidelines, ``[a]vailable
retrofit control options are those air pollution control technologies
with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and
the regulated pollutant under evaluation.'' \31\ Based on a review of
EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER)
Clearinghouse,\32\ EPA is not aware of any oil-fired utility boilers
currently equipped with a FGD system. As noted by the Commenter, oil-
fired utility boilers that need to reduce SO2 emissions
typically rely on lower sulfur fuel oil where the desulfurization is
conducted at the refinery rather than after combustion in the utility
boiler. Thus, EPA believes that the State's decision not to include FGD
in the BART analysis for this facility was reasonable and consistent
with the BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, IV.D.1.
    \32\ http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 36: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the
Commenter, FDEP should have included the cumulative visibility
improvements at Everglades National Park and Chassahowitzka Wilderness
Area associated with the fuel switching options and should have used a
2009-2011 baseline period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather
than the 2001-2003 period chosen by FDEP.
    Response 36: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. In regards to
the comment on cumulative visibility benefits, while EPA agrees that
Florida

should have considered the visibility improvements at all affected
Class I areas in its BART visibility assessments, EPA does not think
doing so would have altered the outcome here. For the Martin BART
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at the Chassahowitzka
Wilderness Area as well as at Everglades National Park, the only other
mandatory Class I Federal area within the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF
modeling domain. For SO2 BART, FDEP evaluated the costs and
visibility benefits associated with switching from 0.7 percent sulfur
fuel oil to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil. FDEP rejected 0.3 percent
sulfur fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of $7,348/ton of SO2
reduced. Similarly, for NOX BART, FDEP evaluated the costs
and visibility benefits associated with the installation of SCR. FDEP
rejected SCR at a cost-effectiveness of $5,323/ton of NOX
reduced, with a visibility improvement at Chassahowitzka of just 0.15
dv. EPA agrees with FDEP's SO2 and NOX BART
determinations and is not persuaded, given the cost-effectiveness
values associated with more stringent controls, that consideration of
cumulative visibility benefits would have resulted in a different BART
determination for SO2.
    Comment 37: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART
analysis and cites to units in EPA's CAMD database with lower
NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as NOX
BART.
    Response 37: See the response to Comment 33. The Martin units, like
the Manatee units, are currently equipped with multiple NOX
emissions control methods including flue gas recirculation, overfire
air systems, staged combustion, and low NOX burners. FDEP
assessed SCR as a technically feasible post-combustion NOX
control, but did not evaluate SNCR. For oil-fired units, the technical
feasibility of SNCR is uncertain because SNCR depends on the
availability of an accessible location within the furnace with
relatively high temperatures where injectors could be installed. To
determine whether such a location existed in these units would have
required a detailed engineering analysis because oil-fired boilers
typically operate at lower peak temperatures than coal-fired boilers.
While the BART Guidelines ordinarily require states to make a reasoned
determination that a widely available control technology, such as SNCR,
is technically infeasible before rejecting it, EPA does not believe
that SCR would be BART for NOX at Martin. Six to seven
percent of the 98th percentile visibility impact at the Chassahowitzka
Wilderness Area from 2001-2003 was attributable to NOX
emissions from Martin. FDEP evaluated SCR operating at 90 percent
efficiency as part of its BART analysis for Martin and determined that
this control technology would improve visibility by 0.15 dv at a cost
of $5,323/per ton of NOX reduced. Therefore, the likely
visibility improvement from SNCR, if it were feasible for these oil-
fired units, would be less than 0.1 dv (assuming a 25 to 40 percent
reduction achievable with the use of SNCR). EPA concludes that, in
light of the visibility improvement predicted for a highly efficient
SCR, that a more thorough evaluation of a less effective technology
would not have changed the State's BART determination.
    Comment 38: The Commenter states that FDEP's PM BART analysis
should have considered the increase in PM emissions resulting from the
re-injection of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP ``should prohibit
the reinjection of fly ash to provide an economical interim reduction
in PM10 emissions.''
    Response 38: EPA disagrees that FDEP should have considered the
elimination or restriction of fly ash reinjection in its PM BART
analysis. EPA has no data on the impacts of fly ash re-injection on
oil-fired utility boilers and no basis to determine whether prohibiting
fly ash re-injection would improve visibility because of the low
particulate load of the flue gas emitted from oil-fired boilers.
Although restricting fly ash re-injection is not an emissions control
technology in the conventional sense, EPA believes that the BART
Guidelines' instructions on technical feasibility are instructive.
Under the BART Guidelines, a control technology is technically feasible
if it is ``available'' (i.e., if a source owner may obtain it through
commercial channels or it is otherwise available within the common
sense meaning of the term) and ``applicable'' (i.e., it can reasonably
be installed and operated on the source at issue).\33\ An applicability
evaluation generally involves consideration of gas stream
characteristics, the capabilities of the technology, and unresolvable
technical difficulties. Operators of certain coal-fired boilers re-
inject fly ash for the purpose of energy conservation, not emissions
control. Coal-fired boilers generate substantially greater amounts of
ash and have particulate control technologies with different
characteristics than oil-fired boilers. Although fly ash re-injection
has been prohibited for certain coal-fired boilers, there is no
evidence that this methodology has been used for oil-fired boilers and
no evidence that the gas streams are similar enough such that the
process would be applicable as a PM emissions control technique for
oil-fired boilers. For these reasons, EPA believes that the Commenter's
extrapolation of a control technique from coal-fired to oil-fired
boilers is not appropriate in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FPL Turkey Point Power Plant
    Comment 39: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils
in the SO2 BART analysis and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil,
0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the PM
BART analysis for FPL Turkey Point Power Plant (Turkey Point).
    Response 39: Regarding SO2 BART, see the response to
Comment 29. With regard to PM BART, Unit 2 is shutting down and Unit 1
has a PM emissions limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and is limited under BART to
operating at no more than 25 percent of capacity on fuel oil with the
remainder of operations on natural gas. This limit will result in an
emissions reduction of over 80 percent from the baseline emissions from
Units 1 and 2 combined. EPA believes that, in light of these conditions
and because the baseline PM contribution from this facility is
approximately 0.1 dv, any additional PM measures would result in
negligible visibility improvement.
    Comment 40: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the
Commenter, FDEP should have used a 2009-2011 baseline period to
estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather than the 2001-2003 period
chosen by FDEP. The Commenter also believes that it is inconsistent for
FDEP to conclude that 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil is feasible at
$19,197/ton but that 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil is not feasible at
$16,044/ton and to conclude that its SO2 BART determination
will produce a significant visibility improvement of 0.6 dv while
``dismiss[ing] 2.5 deciview and 1.5 deciview incremental improvements
as `extremely small.' ''
    Response 40: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. Regarding the
alleged inconsistency in cost-effectiveness, FDEP did not rely on this
factor for its SO2 BART determination for Turkey Point. As
part of an alternative PM emissions reduction strategy, FDEP

approved the use of 0.7 percent low sulfur fuel oil, a reduction in the
PM emissions limit to 0.07 lb/MMBtu, and a limitation on the use of
fuel oil equivalent to a capacity factor of 25 percent. For
SO2 BART, FDEP evaluated wet and dry FGD, 0.7 percent sulfur
fuel oil, and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil. Despite the high cost-
effectiveness of 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil, FDEP determined that it
was SO2 BART due to the fact that the fuel also satisfied
the PM BART requirement.
    Comment 41: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART
analysis for Turkey Point and cites to units in the CAMD database with
lower NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as
NOX BART.
    Response 41: No further analysis was necessary for Turkey Point
Unit 2 because there is a federally enforceable requirement to shut
down the unit as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2013. Unit 1 currently employs low NOX burners
that reduce NOX formation in the combustion zone. For
NOX BART, FDEP evaluated SNCR and SCR as potential post-
combustion controls. Baseline visibility modeling for Turkey Point
showed that nitrates contributed less than three percent of the
visibility impairment associated with the emissions from both Units 1
and 2 at this facility. In light of these minimal visibility impacts,
FDEP determined that additional NOX reductions from Unit 1
were not required, and maintained the existing NOX emissions
limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu when firing natural gas and 0.53 lb/MMBtu when
firing fuel oil, with continuous emissions monitoring and a 30-day
rolling average based on a state rule, 62-296.570 F.A.C., for
NOX reasonably available control technology. EPA concludes
that FDEP's conclusions were reasonable.
    Comment 42: The Commenter states that FDEP's PM BART analysis
should have considered the increase in PM emissions resulting from the
re-injection of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP should have
included the elimination of fly ash re-injection in its PM BART
analysis.
    Response 42: See the response to Comment 38.
JEA Northside
    Comment 43: The Commenter alleges that JEA Northside had the lowest
$/ton fuel switching option rejected by FDEP and that FDEP did not
explain why it rejected this option or why it did not evaluate a more
comprehensive switch to lower sulfur fuels. The Commenter contends that
FDEP should explain why a switch from 1.0 percent to 0.7 percent sulfur
fuel oil is not cost-effective at JEA Northside when it is cost-
effective at Manatee.
    Response 43: FDEP's cost-effectiveness estimate for converting from
1.8 to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil was $7,184/ton of SO2
reduced. FDEP also estimated that the conversion would cost $31.1
million/dv. EPA concurs that these high cost-effectiveness values
provide sufficient justification for FDEP's decision to reject 1.0
percent sulfur fuel oil as SO2 BART for this facility. In
its BART analyses for other oil-fired units, FDEP presented the cost-
effectiveness of switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel
oils, which are the commonly available grades of residual fuel oil.
FDEP did not extend the analysis to JEA Northside because it was found
not to be cost-effective in the BART analyses for other facilities. EPA
does not believe that an explicit evaluation of these additional fuels
for JEA Northside would have resulted in a different conclusion because
the analysis is dependent on fuel cost, a cost that is approximately
uniform among the facilities evaluated by FDEP given that the suppliers
of fuel oil in Florida that service the other facilities are the same
as those that supply JEA Northside.
    Comment 44: The Commenter states that FDEP did not justify the use
of an 80 percent control efficiency assumption for SCR and that any
additional energy costs associated with the control should have been
included in the cost analysis and not ``double-counted.'' The Commenter
also states that the ammonia issues identified by FDEP are common to
all SCR systems and can be addressed by good operating procedures.
    Response 44: FDEP included an evaluation of the energy and non-air
quality impacts associated with SCR for completeness because these
impacts are, collectively, one of the five statutory factors to be
considered in a BART determination. The improvement in visibility at
Okefenokee associated with the installation of an SCR operating at 80
percent efficiency and Unit 3 operating at a maximum permitted capacity
of 28 percent was estimated to be 0.26 dv. A SCR operating at 90
percent efficiency would improve this estimate by roughly 0.03 dv. EPA
believes that the limited visibility improvement that would result from
adjusting the control efficiency of SCR to 90 percent would not have
changed FDEP's conclusion that SCR is not warranted as BART at JEA
Northside.
Visibility Metrics
    Comment 45: The Commenter alleges that FDEP was inconsistent in its
approach to evaluating dollars per dv values, citing the $11.3 million
(M)/dv value associated with SO2 BART for McIntosh and the
$17.7M/dv value associated with SNCR at Crystal River (a control not
selected as NOX BART at the facility). The Commenter also
states that FDEP's conclusions regarding $/dv values are not consistent
with those across the country. The Commenter further states that FDEP
does not explain why it determined that upgrading to FGD at McIntosh
and adding FGD at Lansing Smith are not reasonable when the cost-
effectiveness values associated with those controls are lower than the
$6,542/ton cost-effectiveness value associated with SO2 BART
at Manatee.
    Response 45: FDEP evaluated BART on a case-by-case basis using
facility-specific conditions. Thus, it is to be expected that the
resulting BART determinations may appear to be inconsistent when
compared using a single metric. For example, at Manatee, FDEP
determined that equivalent visibility improvements to those that can be
achieved by switching to 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil could be achieved
by removing the current prohibition on blending and co-firing 1.0
percent sulfur fuel oil with natural gas and by lowering the allowable
emissions limit to 0.8 lb/MMBtu (12-month rolling average). The
estimate of $6,542/ton for SO2 controls is based on using
lower sulfur fuel oil only for compliance, and the blending and co-
firing option is expected to be less expensive in practice. By
comparison, at Lansing Smith, the limited incremental visibility
improvement (0.07-0.09 dv) from installing a FGD was weighed heavily in
FDEP's BART determination even though FDEP concluded the cost-
effectiveness values would have been reasonable had there been greater
visibility improvement.
    Comment 46: The Commenter is concerned that the proposed source-
specific BART and reasonable progress emissions limits for the Florida
EGUs subject to CAIR would allow emissions to increase compared to 2011
actual emissions.
    Response 46: EPA does not consider the situation presented by the
Commenter to be a realistic future scenario. The Commenter assumes that
the present use of natural gas at oil/gas units will be replaced with
the use of residual fuel oil at the levels used in

2001-2003. The Commenter's concern that emissions may increase are
based on the assumption that three oil-fired Florida EGUs (Martin,
Manatee, and Turkey Point) could revert to firing residual oil rather
than the current use of natural gas. EPA does not consider reversion to
oil-firing at these units to be a plausible scenario for the first
implementation period. FDEP relied on the VISTAS IPM projections to