[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 107 (Thursday, June 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24008-24041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10035]
[[Page 24007]]
Vol. 90
Thursday,
No. 107
June 5, 2025
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second Planning Period Regional Haze Plan;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 107 / Thursday, June 5, 2025 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 24008]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0930; FRL-10403-02-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second Planning Period Regional Haze
Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on October 8,
2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, as
satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or
``Act'') and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second
planning period. Florida's SIP submissions were submitted to address
the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress toward the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas''). These SIP
submissions also address other applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective July 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0930. All documents in the docket
are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be 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 Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 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 to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pearlene Williams-Miles, Multi-Air
Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Williams-Miles can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9144 or
electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, FDEP
submitted revisions to its SIP to address regional haze for the second
planning period (``Haze Plan'').1 2 3 FDEP made these SIP
submissions to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.308. EPA has determined that the Haze Plan meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus
approving Florida's submissions into its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Haze Plan'' collectively refers to the October 8, 2021,
June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, SIP submissions. The phrase
``2021 Plan'' refers to the October 8, 2021, SIP submission; ``2024
Supplement'' refers to the June 14, 2024, SIP submission, which
supplements the 2021 Plan; and ``Second 2024 Supplement'' refers to
the October 28, 2024, SIP submission, which also supplements the
2021 Plan.
\2\ The 2021 Plan requests removal of source-specific and best
available retrofit technology (BART) limits and conditions from the
Florida SIP that address source-specific reasonable progress and
BART control measures during the first planning period. On June 14,
2024, FDEP withdrew this request from its SIP revision, and thus,
there is no action for EPA to take on this request.
\3\ The October 28, 2024, submission contains permits and a Four
Factor Analysis (FFA) for the Georgia-Pacific--Foley Cellulose Perry
Mill (Foley). In a letter dated April 8, 2025, FDEP withdrew its
request to incorporate permit conditions for Foley from its SIP
revision,and thus, there is no action for EPA to take on this
request. This letter is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on
December 27, 2024 (89 FR 105506), EPA proposed to approve Florida's
Haze Plan as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second
planning period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA described
its rationale for proposing approval of the Haze Plan in the December
27, 2024, NPRM. Comments on the December 27, 2024, NPRM were due on or
before January 27, 2025. EPA received two sets of comments on the NPRM,
one of which was a request for an extension to the public comment
period. These comments are available in the docket for this action.
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, EPA received a comment letter dated
January 27, 2025, and signed by the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, the Coalition to Protect America's
National Parks, and Friends of the Everglades (collectively referred to
as the ``Conservation Groups''). Additionally, EPA received a request
for an extension to the public comment period dated January 9, 2025,
signed by Laumann Legal, LLC, NPCA, Sierra Club, and the Coalition to
Protect America's National Parks. All comments received are available
in the docket for this action. A summary of the significant comments
received from the Conservation Groups and EPA's responses to these
comments is below.
Comment 1: The Conservation Groups contend that EPA's proposal to
approve Florida's reliance on the Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast's (VISTAS) visibility modeling is
arbitrary and capricious because the Agency ignored significant flaws
in this modeling. They state that they informed VISTAS and EPA of
significant errors in the visibility modeling through a 2021 letter and
that EPA did not acknowledge these errors in the NPRM. They contend
these errors affected the source selection process for all of the
VISTAS states. Consequently, they assert that Florida improperly
excluded major sources of haze-forming pollution from FFAs. These
alleged errors are addressed in Comments 1.a through 1.c below.
Comment 1.a: The Conservation Groups contend that the VISTAS
modeling significantly underpredicted the contribution of sulfates to
visibility impairment at Class I areas on the 20 percent most impaired
days and that this underprediction was largest during the summer months
when sulfate extinction is known to be a major contributor to
visibility impairment, and when visibility impairment is most
problematic.\4\ They also assert that these errors resulted in the
modeling not meeting VISTAS' model performance
[[Page 24009]]
goals and modeling acceptance criteria for a number of Class I areas.
They provide examples of specific Class I areas in Florida where they
contend the visibility modeling ``failed to meet the acceptance
criteria for sulfate'' at Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area
(Chassahowitzka) by -30.37 percent, and at St. Marks National
Wilderness Area (St. Marks) by -40.16 percent. They further assert
that, although Florida claims that it corrected for these
underpredictions through the use of relative response factors (RRFs)
for its 2028 future year projections, neither Florida nor EPA assessed
whether use of RRFs adequately corrected for errors in the modeling.
They state that according to EPA's 2018 modeling guidance, the
effectiveness of RRFs is dependent on the type of data used to
calculate them.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Federal Class I
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
section 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of
areas to which the requirements of the visibility protection program
apply is in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\5\ EPA's Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals
for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze (November 29, 2018) (``2018
Modeling Guidance'') is in the docket for this rulemaking and is
also available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/o3-pm-rh-modeling_guidance-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1.a: EPA disagrees that there are significant flaws in
Florida's 2028 visibility modeling that resulted in excluding major
sources of haze-forming pollution from evaluation via FFAs for the
second planning period. As the Conservation Groups state, Florida
relied upon the photochemical visibility modeling performed by VISTAS
to project the impact of the State's 2028 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions on
visibility in both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas. VISTAS
performed the modeling in accordance with the principles described
within EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals
for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze'' (2018 Modeling
Guidance).\6\ In 2018, EPA approved the Quality Assurance Project Plan
\7\ prepared by VISTAS for performing the modeling and reviewed and
provided comments on the VISTAS Modeling Protocol. EPA also reviewed
the VISTAS final modeling reports and data relied upon by Florida and
found them acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ The April 3, 2018, Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
VISTAS II Regional Haze Project is located in appendix A-1 of the
2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding sulfate predictions, figure 6-7 of Florida's Haze Plan
shows the results of the normalized mean bias and normalized mean error
statistical model performance tests for sulfates across the VISTAS
region. Figure 6-7 does show that the modeled sulfate levels are biased
low, with some values falling outside of the model performance
criteria. However, as discussed below, these biases are not uncommon in
photochemical modeling analyses and can be addressed with additional
analyses.
Model bias and error, either high or low, is not uncommon in
photochemical modeling analyses due to uncertainties in model inputs
and the scientific model formulation, and the fact that all air quality
models are simplified approximations of the complex phenomena of
atmospheric chemistry, fate, and transport of pollutants. Section 6.0
of EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance discusses uncertainties that may affect
model results and provides recommendations to mitigate modeling bias
and uncertainty. Florida acknowledges that model performance is biased
low on the 20 percent most impaired days and provided an explanation of
why this modeling was appropriate for its regulatory determinations in
the 2021 Plan (which references the 2018 Modeling Guidance in several
instances). The 2018 Modeling Guidance states that it is not
appropriate to use a ``bright-line test'' for distinguishing between
adequate and inadequate photochemical model performance for a single
performance test statistic.\8\ EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance instead
recommends using a ``weight of evidence'' approach for evaluating model
performance holistically.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 2018 Modeling Guidance at 69 (``Further, even with a
single performance test, it is not appropriate to assign ``bright
line'' criteria that distinguish between adequate and inadequate
model performance.'').
\9\ Id. (``[T]he EPA recommends that a ``weight of evidence''
approach be used to determine whether a particular modeling
application is valid for assessing the future attainment status of
an area.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section 5.2(d) of EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models'' contained in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, there are no specific
levels of any model performance metric that indicate acceptable model
performance. The decision regarding acceptability is heavily influenced
by professional judgment of the reviewing authority, which is EPA in
this case. Based upon the overall performance of the model for all
pollutants affecting visibility, considered holistically, Florida's
conclusions that the modeling is acceptable for use in the regional
haze SIP analyses are reasonable, and Florida provided a reasonable
explanation for the model bias.
Just as importantly, Florida took appropriate steps to correct for
this model bias. The Haze Plan explains that the model is applied in a
relative sense through the calculation of RRFs following the procedures
in 2018 Modeling Guidance for calculating 2028 future year visibility
impacts, which mitigates concerns about the low bias in the sulfate
model predictions. As described in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance, RRFs
are ``the fractional change in air quality concentrations that is
simulated due to emissions changes between a base and a future year
emissions scenario.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with Florida that applying the model in a relative sense
using the RRFs is an important tool in mitigating the impacts of the
sulfate modeling underpredictions in the 2011 baseline year on the
model projections for the 2028 future year. Section 4.1 of the 2018
Modeling Guidance provides a detailed explanation of why EPA recommends
photochemical modeling be applied in a relative sense and explains that
problems posed by model bias are expected to be reduced when using the
relative approach. Section 6.5 of Florida's 2021 Plan explains the
calculation of 2028 visibility estimates using the RRF approaches
contained in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance. Using the RRF approach with
an average of five years of Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) \11\ data on the 20 percent most impaired days
and 20 percent clearest days along with the relative percent modeled
change in all the particulate matter (PM) species between 2011 and 2028
reduces the influence of the bias in sulfate-modeled (and other PM
species) values in the 2011 baseline year. The 2028 visibility
impairment projection is derived primarily from the five-year average
of actual IMPROVE monitoring data in 2009-2013 that was then scaled in
a relative sense by the modeling results. If the model were being
applied in an absolute sense, the low bias in the sulfate modeled
values would have a larger impact on the 2028 visibility projections.
For these reasons, Florida's use of the VISTAS model results to inform
source selection was reasonable due to the use of RRFs to minimize the
impacts of model bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ IMPROVE visibility monitoring data is available at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24010]]
Comment 1.b: The Conservation Groups state that VISTAS relied on an
``outdated'' 2011 baseline year for its 2028 future year emissions
projections and assumed that electric generating units (EGUs) would
operate in the exact same manner in 2028 as they did in 2011. Thus,
they assert that the model assumptions and results are incorrect
because EGUs are likely to have different load utilization in 2028 than
in 2011.
Response 1.b: Florida's use of a 2011 base emissions inventory year
to project emissions out to 2028 (the end of the second planning
period) is reasonable in this instance. Although it is always
preferable to use the most recent information available for modeling,
the 2011 baseline year inventory used by VISTAS was the latest region-
wide inventory available at the time that Florida's SIP submittal was
being developed during the VISTAS technical work, which took place from
December 2017 to February 26, 2021.\12\ In EPA's experience,
coordination among states such as those in the VISTAS region takes
time, and the modeling involved is time-consuming, highly technical,
and resource intensive. The modeling generally requires hundreds of
hours of time to gather the model input data (e.g., emissions,
meteorology, land-use, etc.), prepare modeling protocols, perform the
modeling, and analyze the results. The computational resources to run
photochemical models are also very large. ``Mainframe'' clusters of a
large number of computer processors are required to run the models, and
even using these powerful computers, it takes weeks of computer run-
time for a full-year model simulation. Additionally, EPA's newer 2016-
based modeling platform only became available in September 2019,\13\
after VISTAS had already invested a considerable amount of time and
money into the regional haze modeling analysis, including the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) Particulate
Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) source apportionment
modeling that was used to identify sources to evaluate or reasonable
progress.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``Timeline'' for the VISTAS II Regional Haze Project
at: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-project-intro.
\13\ See ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Updated 2028
Regional Haze Modeling'' at: https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-support-document-epas-updated-2028-regional-haze-modeling.
\14\ As discussed in section 6.6 of Florida's 2021 Plan, Florida
evaluated the results of EPA's 2016 modeling for Everglades due to
issues with model performance in the VISTAS 2028 modeling results
for Everglades. See the September 29, 2018, memo from EPA (Richard
Wayland) regarding Availability of Modeling Data and Associated
Technical Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air
Quality Modeling in the docket for this rulemaking. Due to these
uncertainties, Florida instead relied on the results of EPA's 2016
modeling. EPA's 2016 modeling did not include PSAT tagging of
individual sources like the VISTAS modeling, so for selecting
sources to evaluate for control analyses, Florida used the VISTAS
PSAT modeling results at Everglades like it did for Chassahowitzka
and St. Marks. As discussed in section 7.4 of the 2021 Plan, both
the VISTAS Modeling and EPA's 2016 Modeling show that EGU and non-
EGU point sources contribute approximately five percent to total
light extinction at Everglades, indicating that model performance
for evaluating the impacts of EGU and non-EGU point sources is
similar. Therefore, Florida's use of the PSAT modeling for source
selection is acceptable to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA develops the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) suitable for
use in such models every three years.\15\ By design, the regional haze
program requires states to spend significant time in the planning
phase, and this generally necessitates the use of a baseline year that
is substantially earlier than the date the state submits its SIP to
EPA. There is no RHR requirement regarding the baseline year for
regional photochemical modeling (nor is photochemical modeling
required). Florida justifies the use of this particular baseline year
and states that the 2011 emissions inventory was the most recently
available quality-assured statewide emissions inventory when the VISTAS
project began for the second planning period.\16\ Moreover, prior to
using this data, Florida discussed the selection of this baseline year
emissions inventory and received confirmation from EPA to use this
emissions inventory.\17\ Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds
the use of the 2011 baseline year by VISTAS, and thus Florida,
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For more information on the NEI, see https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
\16\ See 2021 Plan at 56 (``The year 2011 was selected as the
modeling base year because the VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory is
based on the 2011 Version 6 EPA modeling platform. For the analyses
in this SIP, this period consists of those years surrounding 2011
(i.e., 2009-2013)''). See also 2021 Plan at 83 (``Calendar year 2011
satisfies the criteria in EPA's modeling guidance episode selection
discussion and is consistent with the base year modeling platform.
Specifically, EPA's guidance recommends choosing a time period which
reflects the variety of meteorological conditions that represent
visibility impairment on the 20 percent clearest and 20 percent
most-impaired days in the Class I areas being modeled (high and low
concentrations). This is best accomplished by modeling a full
calendar year. In addition, the 2011/2028 modeling platform was the
most recent available platform when VISTAS started their modeling
work. EPA's 2016-based platform became available at a later date
after VISTAS had already invested a considerable amount of time and
money into the modeling analysis. Using the 2016-based platform was
not feasible from a monetary perspective, nor could such work be
done in a timely manner.'').
\17\ See the January 29, 2018, email from EPA (Richard Wayland)
regarding use of a 2011 base year by VISTAS for regional haze in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011 emissions inventory was used to estimate emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants in 2028. VISTAS applied reductions
expected from Federal and state regulations to the visibility impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. Florida's 2028
emissions projections are based on the State's technical analysis of
the anticipated emission 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 2011 base year, considering growth and
additional emissions controls to be in place by 2028. In addition, the
VISTAS emissions inventory for 2028 accounts for post-2011 emission
reductions from promulgated Federal, state, local, and site-specific
control programs.
Although Florida used 2011 as its emissions inventory base year, as
required by the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Florida also examined
more recent emissions inventory information for SO2 and
NOX for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and compared these
emissions to the 2028 emission projections that were used for modeling
purposes in section 7.6.5, table 7-28 of its Haze Plan. This helped to
ensure that the State adequately considered more recent emissions
inventory information when developing its long-term strategy (LTS). The
technical information provided in the docket demonstrates that the
emissions inventory in the Haze Plan adequately reflects projected 2028
conditions. Given the aforementioned reasons, EPA finds the use of the
2011 baseline year by VISTAS (and thus Florida) reasonable.
Comment 1.c: The Conservation Groups state that VISTAS used
``outdated'' monitoring data for its 2028 future year projections that
did not reflect an observed shift in nitrate contribution to visibility
impairment in the southeastern United States in the recent past. They
therefore contend that this resulted in the exclusion of major
NOX sources from the modeling results.
Response 1.c: Regarding the Conservation Groups' comment that the
2009-2013 modeling base period did not reflect more recent changes in
nitrate contributions, EPA discussed its views on this issue in detail
in the NPRM. Nitrates are also discussed in Response 4, below. EPA
agrees that after the 2009-2013 timeframe, nitrate impacts have become
more significant on some of the 20 percent most impaired days,
especially considering the significant decrease in SO2
emissions and measured sulfate
[[Page 24011]]
concentrations as acknowledged in the NPRM. EPA nonetheless agrees with
Florida's conclusion that for the second planning period, sulfates
remain the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant at the Class I areas
affected by Florida and that it is therefore reasonable for Florida to
focus on SO2-emitting sources during this period.
Comment 2: The Conservation Groups state that the purported errors
in the VISTAS modeling discussed in Comment 1 were carried forward into
the source selection process for VISTAS states, including Florida, and
that those errors caused VISTAS, and the states that relied on the
VISTAS process, to improperly exclude sources from FFAs. In addition to
the modeling errors, they state that Florida adopted VISTAS'
``unreasonable'' source screening process that uses Area of Influence
(AoI) and PSAT analyses, and also applied unreasonably high source
selection thresholds. Based on these reasons, they conclude that EPA's
proposal to approve the State's source selection method is arbitrary
and capricious. The Conservation Groups' specific comments on this
topic are addressed in Comments 2.a through 2.f, below.
Comment 2.a: The Conservation Groups comment that Florida employed
unreasonably high source selection thresholds for the AoI analysis,
which were too restrictive and resulted in the identification of only
13 Florida sources at the AoI step. Specifically, they assert that by
using a percentage source selection threshold, the State's calculated
threshold in absolute terms was higher for Class I areas with the most
severe visibility impairment, meaning that fewer sources were
identified at the AoI step for Class I areas with the worst impairment.
The Conservation Groups state that for the areas with the worst
visibility impairment, more sources should be selected to make progress
toward the natural visibility goal. In addition, the Conservation
Groups state that neither Florida nor EPA have provided justification
to support the application of a five percent threshold for in-state and
out-of-state sources at the AoI step.
Response 2.a: EPA disagrees with this comment. The RHR does not
require states to consider controls for all sources, all source
categories, or any or all sources in a particular source category. Nor
does the RHR expressly specify criteria for minimum source selection
thresholds.
These flexibilities are, however, not unbounded. The RHR requires
that ``[t]he State should consider evaluating major and minor
stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area
sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a
description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or
groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' \18\ In addition, the technical basis for source selection
must also be documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). Thus,
states must utilize a reasonable source selection methodology, and
whatever choices states make regarding source selection should be
reasonably explained.\19\ Florida met these requirements. Specifically,
Florida discussed the criteria it used to determine which sources or
groups of sources were evaluated by the State, including the use of AoI
analysis, photochemical modeling (e.g., PSAT), and associated source
selection thresholds for AoI and PSAT tagging in its Haze Plan. Florida
documented its use of these approaches in extensive detail within
section 7.5 of the Haze Plan and appendix D-1 of the Haze Plan
(relating to AoI analysis) and section 7.6 and appendices E-1a, E-1b,
E-2a, E-2b, E-2c, E-2d, E-2e, E-2f, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7a, and E-8
of the Haze Plan (relating to PSAT analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\19\ See 89 FR 47481, 47493 (June 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's documentation adequately demonstrates why its source
selection methodology--including the use of an AoI threshold of five
percent of sulfate and nitrate for in-state and out-of-state sources
for follow-up PSAT tagging and a one percent PSAT threshold on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis for source selection--is reasonable. For
the reasons stated in the NPRM, EPA finds that Florida's source
selection methodology was reasonable and resulted in the selection of a
reasonable set of sources contributing to visibility impairment at
Class I areas affected by Florida's sources. The State's methods for
selecting sources for a control analysis and the State's AoI and PSAT
analyses identified sources in Florida having the highest impact on
visibility at Class I areas at the end of the second planning period
and identified sources outside of Florida having the largest impacts on
visibility at Class I areas in the State. A specific source selection
approach is not required by the RHR.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Both of these approaches (AoI and PSAT) are example methods
in EPA's August 20, 2019, guidance titled: ``Guidance on Regional
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation
Period'' (``2019 Guidance''), which is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/8-20-2019_-_regional_haze_guidance_final_guidance.pdf. See subsection ``b)
Estimating baseline visibility impacts for source selection'' on
pages 12-15 of the 2019 Guidance. PSAT is a type of photochemical
modeling which is item 4 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance. VISTAS'
AoI analyses involve items 1-3 on page 13 of the 2019 Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of this methodology were reasonable as well. Florida
selected for further analysis the 12 sources with the largest
visibility impacts (accounting for both SO2/sulfate and
NOX/nitrate \21\) at Florida and nearby Class I areas. On
the whole, SO2 emissions from the 12 in-state sources
selected by Florida for further analysis of reasonable progress--Duke
Crystal River Power Plant (Duke-Crystal River), Georgia-Pacific, Foley
Cellulose, LLC (Foley), Jacksonville Electric Authority--JEA Northside
Generating Station (JEA Northside), Lakeland CD McIntosh Jr. Power
Plant (CD McIntosh),\22\ Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--Bartow (Mosaic-
Bartow), Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New Wales (Mosaic-New Wales), Mosaic
Fertilizer, LLC--South Pierce (Mosaic-South Pierce), Nutrien White
Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. (Nutrien), Seminole Generating
Station (Seminole), Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Power Station
(TECO-Big Bend), WestRock Fernandina Beach Paper Mill (WestRock-
Fernandina), and WestRock Panama City Paper Mill (WestRock-Panama City)
\23\--are projected to impact visibility at Class I areas as described
in table 1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Florida selected sources for PSAT modeling based on the
combined impact of sulfate plus nitrate. Sulfates and nitrates were
modeled together in the PSAT modeling with the other PM species that
impact visibility (e.g., direct PM, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, etc.). There were no sources with a sulfate impact below the
PSAT threshold(s), but a sulfate plus nitrate impact above the
threshold(s).
\22\ The fossil fuel steam generating unit No. 3 (EU006) at CD
McIntosh was permanently shut down in 2021. See appendices G-3d and
G-5h of the 2021 Plan.
\23\ In June 2022, the WestRock-Panama City facility announced
its intention to permanently cease operations. See section 7.8.4 of
the 2024 supplement. FDEP included documentation for closure of the
WestRock-Panama City facility in its 2024 Supplement. In addition,
on October 18, 2024, FDEP sent a site inspection report and other
supporting documentation for the WestRock-Panama City closure as an
addendum to the 2024 Supplement. The inspection report documents the
permanent closure and inoperable status of the facility and notes
that any project to restore the facility would be subjected to
mandatory New Source Review (NSR) and that multiple new source
performance standards would inevitably apply. This additional
documentation may be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
[[Page 24012]]
Table 1--Sulfate PSAT Contributions (Percent) for the 12 Sources Selected for Further Analysis in Five Class I Areas on the 20 Percent Most Impaired
Days *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka St. Marks Okefenokee
National National Everglades National Wolf Island National
Sources ** sulfate PSAT contributions to Class I areas Wilderness Area Wilderness Area National Park Wilderness Area Wilderness Area ***
(FL) (FL) (FL) (GA) (GA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke-Crystal River.................................... 6.45 - - - -
Foley................................................. - - - 2.23 -
JEA Northside......................................... - - - - 1.34
CD McIntosh........................................... - - - - -
Mosaic-Bartow......................................... - - 2.68 - -
Mosaic-New Wales...................................... - - 2.66 - -
Mosaic-South Pierce................................... - - - - -
Nutrien............................................... - - - 2.87 -
Seminole.............................................. - - - - -
TECO-Big Bend......................................... 1.32 - 3.38 - -
WestRock-Fernandina................................... - - - 1.36 2.43
WestRock-Panama City.................................. - 4.74 - - -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that fields with a ``-``indicate that visibility impacts are below one percent.
** The Class I areas listed in table 1, above, are included because the Florida facilities in this table have a sulfate PSAT contribution of one percent
or more at one or more of these areas.
*** Wolf Island National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island) has no IMPROVE monitor. Visibility at Wolf Island is assumed to be the same as the nearest Class
I area monitor located at Okefenokee National Wilderness Area (Okefenokee).
Although these 12 sources are the largest contributors within
Florida to visibility impairment at Class I areas, table 1 shows
sulfate PSAT visibility impacts from these sources range from
approximately 1.3 to 6.5 percent at the selected Class I areas. This is
due to the fact that most anthropogenic impacts to visibility at these
Class I areas come from outside of Florida. In fact, these
anthropogenic impacts primarily originate from outside the VISTAS
states. This is illustrated in figures 7-22, 7-23, and 7-24 of the 2021
Haze Plan, which provide the contributions from 2028 SO2 and
NOX emissions to visibility impairment from all source
sectors for the 20 percent most impaired days in units of inverse
megameters (Mm-\1\). The entries in table 2, below, show the
contributions made from Florida, all other VISTAS states, and other
Regional Planning Organizations to Florida's Class I areas.
Table 2--Contributions of 2028 SO2 and NOX Emissions From All Source Sectors to Visibility Impairment for the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days for Class I
Areas in Florida
[Mm-\1\] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2028 WRAP region
impairment on All other CENRAP LADCO MANE-VU within VISTAS
Class I area ** 20% most FL VISTAS region *** region *** region *** modeling
impaired days states domain ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAS..................................................... 53.92 4.13 4.09 3.21 1.76 0.22 2.22
SAMA..................................................... 52.91 2.86 4.60 5.26 2.21 0.39 3.44
EVER..................................................... 47.70 1.49 0.22 0.68 0.17 0.03 2.05
OKEF..................................................... 54.67 2.76 6.99 2.27 3.60 1.02 2.84
WOLF..................................................... 53.59 1.69 7.44 2.15 3.44 1.15 3.41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The columns to the right of ``Projected 2028 Impairment on 20% Most Impaired Days'' do not add up to the values in the ``Projected 2028 Impairment on
20% Most Impaired Days'' column due to international emissions and boundary emissions visibility impacts not shown in this table.
** ``CHAS'' refers to Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area; ``SAMA'' refers to St. Marks National Wilderness Area; ``EVER'' refers to Everglades
National Park (Everglades); ``OKEF'' refers to Okefenokee National Wilderness Area; and ``WOLF'' refers to Wolf Island National Wilderness Area.
*** ``CENRAP'' refers to Central Regional Air Planning Association (which is associated with the Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA));
``LADCO'' refers to Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium; ``MANE-VU'' refers to Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; ``WRAP'' refers to Western
Regional Air Partnership. See also https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-planning-organizations.
Table 2, above, illustrates that Florida's in-state emissions
account for a relatively small fraction of total visibility impairment
at Class I areas impacted by Florida sources. This fraction is
approximately 7.66 percent
[[Page 24013]]
for Chassahowitzka, 5.41 percent for St. Marks, 3.12 percent for
Everglades, 5.05 percent for Okefenokee, and 3.15 percent for Wolf
Island.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``FL''
column by the ``Projected 2028 20% Most Impaired Days Column'' and
multiplying by 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, the PSAT Tag Results spreadsheet referenced in section
6.3 of appendix E-7a of the 2021 Plan shows the visibility impacts on a
facility-by-facility basis due to SO2 emissions.
Specifically, the spreadsheet referenced in Attachment A of appendix E-
7a shows the following SO2 visibility impacts to Class I
areas impacted by Florida sources on the 20 percent most impaired days
in units of Mm-\1\.
Table 3--2028 SO2 Visibility Impacts to Florida Class I Areas on the 20 Percent Most Impaired Days
[Mm-\1\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Chassahowitzka St. Marks Everglades Okefenokee Wolf Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke-Crystal River............ 0.629 0.047 0.006 0.028 0.025
Foley......................... 0.066 0.112 0.001 0.289 0.064
JEA Northside................. 0.095 0.012 0.006 0.113 0.167
CD McIntosh *................. ................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
Mosaic-Bartow................. 0.080 0.064 0.035 0.018 0.012
Mosaic-New Wales.............. 0.073 0.069 0.035 0.018 0.011
Mosaic-South Pierce *......... ................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
Nutrien....................... 0.050 0.015 0.002 0.372 0.087
Seminole *.................... ................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
TECO-Big Bend................. 0.129 0.098 0.044 0.029 0.016
WestRock-Panama City.......... 0.058 0.540 0.002 0.060 0.041
WestRock-Fernandina........... 0.090 0.014 0.008 0.176 0.304
Total of Florida Selected 1.27 0.971 0.139 1.103 0.727
Sources......................
Florida Total Contribution.... 3.35 2.40 0.89 2.30 1.42
All Sources (including out-of- 12.54 15.84 2.61 16.39 16.22
state Contribution)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CD McIntosh, Mosaic-South Pierce, and Seminole were not tagged for PSAT modeling, so no PSAT contribution
information is available.
The above data in table 3 further supports that Florida's source
selection thresholds and source selection methodology were reasonable.
Specifically, on the 20 percent most impaired days, Florida's selected
in-state sources are responsible for approximately 37.9 percent of
Florida's total in-state SO2 visibility impairment at
Chassahowitzka, 40.5 percent of total in-state SO2
visibility impairment at St. Marks, 34.1 percent of total in-state
SO2 visibility impairment at Everglades, 48.0 percent of
total in-state SO2 visibility impairment at Okefenokee, and
51.2 percent of total in-state SO2 visibility impairment at
Wolf Island.\25\ Additionally, section 7.6.4 of the 2021 Plan states
that the selected sources represent 12 of the top 18 SO2
emitting sources in Florida in 2019,\26\ which account for
approximately 35,000 tons of SO2 emissions, which is the
vast majority of all the point source emissions in Florida. States are
not required by the RHR to select every source in the state, and
Florida selected the in-state sources with the largest visibility
impacts on in-state and nearby Class I areas. The selection of the
above sources captured sufficient visibility-impairing emissions to
allow Florida to ensure that FFAs conducted for this planning period
had the potential to meaningfully reduce emissions (and thus,
associated visibility impacts at Class I areas) from in-state sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ These percentages were calculated by dividing the ``Total
of Selected Florida Sources'' row in table 3 by the ``Florida Total
Contribution'' row and multiplying by 100.
\26\ Florida's 2021 Plan states that 11 of the top 18 sources
were selected. Florida later added the Mosaic-South Pierce facility
to the list of selected sources for a total of 12 sources, not 11,
as discussed in the 2024 Supplement on pages 4-6. FDEP determined
that increases in SO2 emissions from the Mosaic-South
Pierce facility since the 2011 baseline period warranted a
reasonable progress analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 also shows that most emissions of visibility-impairing
sulfates that impact Florida's Class I areas on the 20 percent most
impaired days are emitted from outside of Florida. The same general
pattern holds for the 20 percent least impaired days as well. Florida
does not have jurisdiction through its SIP to regulate sources outside
of state boundaries. Florida did, however, request FFAs from other
states for an additional two facilities outside of Florida through the
interstate consultation process.\27\ The ``regional'' nature of the
regional haze program necessarily requires Florida to rely on
reasonable progress made by other states, just as other states must
rely on Florida to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 2021 Plan at section 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups also argue that neither Florida nor EPA
provided justification for the five percent AoI threshold for out-of-
state sources. In its 2021 Plan, Florida explained that use of an AoI
contribution of five percent or more to tag sources for PSAT captures
large sources outside of Florida. When selecting out-of-state sources,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) applies. The regulation at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires states to ``consult with those States that
have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' The use
of the five percent AoI threshold allowed Florida to identify the most
important individual out-of-state point sources that ``that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment'' \28\ at
Class I areas within Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to the Conservation Groups' other source selection
comments, they assert that by using a percentage threshold for AoI and
PSAT, the calculated threshold in absolute visibility impact terms was
higher for Class I areas with the most severe visibility impairment,
which resulted in fewer sources being evaluated for reasonable progress
for the most visibility-impaired Class I areas. Thus, the Conservation
Groups assert that the use of a percentage threshold was unreasonable.
EPA disagrees with this comment. As noted above, states have
flexibility to adopt any source selection methodology so long as the
methodology is reasonable, and their choices are reasonably explained.
A percentage threshold, rather than one using an
[[Page 24014]]
absolute visibility threshold (Mm-\1\ or deciviews), allowed
Florida--like every other VISTAS state--to select sources with the
largest visibility contributions to each Class I area regardless of the
magnitude of visibility impairment at a Class I area. This approach is
reasonable. Use of a percentage-based threshold produced a relative
ranking of visibility impairment to allow the State to focus on the
sources contributing to the largest amount of visibility impact at each
individual Class I area. These sources have the potential to reduce
visibility impacts the most. The use of a percentage threshold is
therefore consistent with the requirement to make reasonable progress
toward remedying visibility impairment in each Class I area. EPA finds
that Florida's source selection method is reasonable and adequately
explained for the reasons discussed above and within our proposal.
Comment 2.b: The Conservation Groups state that VISTAS considered
sulfate and nitrate separately in the PSAT model analyses, which the
Conservation Groups allege does not align with how these pollutants
actually function in the atmosphere, where sulfate and nitrate act in
combination, along with other precursors, to contribute to visibility
impairment. As a result, they argue that VISTAS likely underestimated
the overall visibility impact of individual sources in its PSAT
analysis.
Response 2.b: EPA disagrees with Conservation Groups' assertion
that VISTAS' separate consideration of sulfate and nirate undermines
its analysis of visibility impacts. Sulfates and nitrates were modeled
together in the PSAT modeling with the other PM species that impact
visibility (e.g., direct PM, organic carbon, elemental carbon, etc.).
Section 7.6.2 of Florida's 2021 Plan summarizes the results of the PSAT
modeling. This section states: ``[t]he adjusted PSAT results were used
to calculate the percent contribution of each tagged facility to the
total sulfate and nitrate point source (EGU + non-EGU) contribution at
each Class I area.'' Tables 7-16 through 7-18 of the 2021 Plan contain
the specific PSAT results for each of Florida's Class I areas. Florida
considered the PSAT modeled results for sulfate and nitrate separately
only to compare against its selected one percent threshold for each of
these pollutants to identify a reasonable number of sources for
reasonable progress analyses. The State's approach is reasonable for
the reasons discussed above, and it was adequately justified in the
Haze Plan and in EPA's NPRM.
Comment 2.c: The Conservation Groups state that VISTAS used an
outdated 2028 emissions projection to ``tag'' sources. They note that
although VISTAS documented that the initial 2028 emission inventory
projections were updated for the final modeling, the associated PSAT
modeling did not use the final 2028 inventory. The Conservation Groups
state that VISTAS scaled predicted sulfate and nitrate to the
corresponding changes in SO2 and NOX emissions in
the updated 2028 inventory using a linear relationship between sulfate
and nitrate concentrations. They argue ample evidence shows that there
is a non-linear relationship between emissions and sulfate/nitrate
concentrations, and that this resulted in additional errors into the
modeling. Citing the 2025 Kordzi Report, the Conservation Groups
contend that Florida significantly underestimated future 2028 emissions
for multiple sources, and that some of these estimates are unjustified
and unexplained by Florida.\29\ They also contend that Florida did not
explain the 2028 decreases from Foley, Breitburn Operating LP
(Breitburn), Mosaic-South Pierce, Monarch Hill, and Gulf Clean Energy
Center (Plant Crist).\30\ The Conservation Groups state that nothing in
the SIP revision indicates that there have been federally enforceable
changes to the Florida facilities' operating parameters that would
justify the differences between recent actual emissions and future 2028
projections, and thus, EPA must either present information as a SIP
enforceable mechanism to justify these emission reductions or
disapprove Florida's source selection process.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The 2025 Kordzi Report is Exhibit 1 to the January 27,
2025, letter from the Conservation Groups and is included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
\30\ 2025 Kordzi Report at 6-7.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2.c: EPA disagrees with this comment. VISTAS used the
original 2028 emissions inventory to perform the PSAT modeling, and the
original PSAT results were linearly scaled to reflect the updated 2028
emissions. Although linear scaling introduces some uncertainty to the
final PSAT results, EPA agrees with VISTAS and Florida that adjusting
the results to account for VISTAS' updated 2028 emissions inventory
using linear scaling is a reasonable approach to account for VISTAS'
updated 2028 emissions projections and is a better approach than
relying on the original PSAT modeling.
Linear scaling of photochemical modeling results to account for
changes in emissions is, in most cases, reasonable and is an accepted
practice by EPA. For example, EPA guidance recommends using EPA's
Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) for evaluating the
impacts of secondary particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less in
diameter (PM2.5) in Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) modeling analyses and allows for and recommends scaling of
photochemical modeling results based on emissions.\32\ This guidance
recommends an approach where the PM2.5 impacts are estimated
using an archived national-scale photochemical modeling analysis,
performed using CAMx and Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) \33\
photochemical models, that uses hypothetical emissions sources, and
then linearly scaling the photochemical modeling results using the
ratio of the PSD project-specific source emissions to the modeled
emissions from the hypothetical source (see equation 1 on page 3 of the
referenced April 30, 2024, MERPs memorandum). This approach is widely
used and accepted by state air quality agencies and EPA to account for
secondarily formed PM2.5 from precursor emissions
(SO2 and NOX) for PSD modeling analyses. Since
the VISTAS analyses used for regional haze modeling use linear scaling
with CAMx and for the same PM2.5 precursors (SO2
and NOX) as the MERPs analyses, EPA finds the method of
linear scaling of PM precursor emissions conducted by VISTAS to be
acceptable practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See ``Clarification on the Development of Modeled Emission
Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for
Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD Permitting Program,'' April
30, 2024, Memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Office Modeling
Contacts is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454_r-19-003.pdf.
\33\ See https://www.epa.gov/cmaq for further information on
CMAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Conservation Groups' comments that Florida
significantly underestimated and did not explain future 2028 emission
projections for multiple sources, including for Foley, Breitburn,
Mosaic-South Pierce, Monarch Hill, and Plant Crist, EPA also disagrees
with the Conservation Groups' statements. Florida used the best
assumptions available at the time of SIP development to project the
2011 base year emissions out to 2028, including for the facilities
noted by the Conservation Groups. The State compared 2017, 2018, and
2019 actual SO2 emissions to 2028 projected emissions in
table 7-28 of its 2021 Plan. The methodology used to make the 2028
projections is also discussed in appendix B (Emissions Preparation and
[[Page 24015]]
Processing) of the 2021 Plan. As discussed in section 4.1 of the 2021
Plan, VISTAS' initial emissions projections for 2028 were completed in
June 2018 and the initial modeling was completed in October 2019. After
comparing those results to EPA's projected 2028 emissions inventory,
which was based on a 2016 base year and was released in September 2019,
VISTAS noted differences between their projected inventory and EPA's
projected 2028 inventory. VISTAS chose to update their 2028 emissions
inventory to incorporate the best estimates of future emissions. This
inventory was ultimately used in the 2028 remodeling. The data provided
in table 7-28 of the 2021 Plan shows that the projected 2028 emissions
for some facilities increased (e.g., Mosaic-South Pierce) and some
decreased (e.g., Plant Crist) for using the best information that was
available at the time Florida was preparing the final 2021 Plan.
As discussed in Comment/Response 6.e and 8.a below, Florida
selected Mosaic-South Pierce and Foley, respectively, for reasonable
progress evaluations.\34\ Additionally, Florida considered Breitburn
and Plant Crist, and as discussed in section 7.6.4 of the 2021 Plan,
concluded that these sources did not need to be evaluated for
reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Florida selected Foley for an FFA; however, the facility
has fully shut down. See Response 8.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees that ``a SIP enforceable mechanism'' must be put
in place for these and other sources that were not selected for
evaluation of reasonable progress using an FFA. As discussed in
Response 2.a, Florida's source selection methodology is reasonable and
is adequately documented in its Haze Plan. The fact that certain
sources, including the five sources identified by the Conservation
Groups, were not selected for FFAs for either SO2 or
NOX for this planning period is the result of the reasonable
application of Florida's source selection process and source selection
thresholds.
Comment 2.d: The Conservation Groups further claim that Florida did
not justify its application of the one percent PSAT threshold for
either NOX or SO2 and that Florida's use of a
percentage-based threshold at the PSAT step biased the process against
heavily polluted Class I areas. They note that the U.S. National Park
Service's (NPS') comments on the draft SIP revision in 2021 explained
that reliance on the percent-based threshold required source impacts to
be 80 times larger for the most visually impaired Class I areas versus
the least visually impaired Class I areas in order to be selected for
an FFA. They also argue that PSAT tagging was unnecessary because the
AoI step already identified the sources that contributed to impairment
at Class I areas.
Response 2.d: EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups'
contention that Florida did not justify its application of the one
percent PSAT threshold. Section 7.6.4 of the 2021 Plan explains the
State's rationale for using a one percent PSAT threshold to select
sources for a reasonable progress evaluation. Using a percentage-based
threshold enabled the State to identify the sources that contribute
most to visibility impairment at the Class I areas, regardless of the
magnitude of visibility impairment at each Class I area. Use of a
percentage-based threshold produced a relative ranking of impacts on
visibility impairment, allowing the State to focus on the sources with
the greatest visibility impacts on each individual Class I area.
Regardless of whether a relative or absolute threshold was used,
Florida's source contribution threshold identified the largest sources
to evaluate emissions measures using an FFA. Therefore, the methodology
is reasonable and was adequately documented in its Haze Plan.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' assertion that the PSAT tagging
process was unnecessary because the AoI step already identified the
sources that contributed to impairment at Class I areas, EPA disagrees
with the premise of this comment. The standard is not whether the
State's source selection approach is necessary or required, but rather,
whether the approach is reasonable and is reasonably explained.\35\ The
two-step process of screening with the AoI analysis and then applying
the more refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources that met
the initial AoI screening criteria is a sound technical approach for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. Elements of
Florida's AoI approach are discussed in EPA's 2019 Guidance as a viable
method to assess sources' visibility impacts to Class I areas.\36\
Florida, along with many of the VISTAS states, also relied upon the AoI
initial screening approach in its first planning period Haze Plan.
VISTAS used the AoI analysis as an initial screening step because it is
a much simpler and less resource intensive approach than using PSAT
tagging to model hundreds to thousands of potential sources. The AoI
screening approach identified a smaller subset of sources that could
undergo refined analysis using PSAT modeling. EPA finds the two-step
process of first screening with the AoI analysis followed by use of the
more refined PSAT source apportionment modeling to sources is valid and
reasonable. Also, as discussed above, states have discretion under the
RHR regarding choice of source selection methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), (iii); 89 FR 105506, 105518
(December 27, 2024).
\36\ EPA's 2019 Guidance at 12-14 describes components of
Florida's AoI approach, including Q/d (emissions (Q) divided by
distance to a Class I area (d)), trajectory analyses, residence time
analyses, and source apportionment photochemical modeling (e.g.,
CAMx PSAT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2.e: The Conservation Groups contend that EPA did not
address ``significant flaws'' in the VISTAS modeling and source
selection process and that EPA improperly concluded that Florida's
selection of eighteen in-state sources was reasonable because it
enabled the identification of sources with the largest visibility
impacts. They argue that this is contrary to EPA's guidance which
states that a source selection threshold that captures only a small
portion of a state's contribution to visibility impairment in Class I
areas is more likely to be unreasonable and contrary to the CAA which
does not authorize states or EPA to select only the largest
contributors to visibility impairment. They assert that Florida should
have used a different selection method with a lower threshold, such as
a ``Q/d'' with a threshold of five or lower, to capture the largest
portion of in-state sources.
Response 2.e: EPA disagrees with the assertion that Florida's
selection of the 12 largest sources contributing to visibility
impairment at Class I areas is contrary to EPA's guidance. The PSAT
modeling performed by VISTAS found that the three sources selected by
Florida for FFAs have the largest contribution to visibility impairment
of any point sources in the State. As discussed in Response 2.a, the
PSAT modeling results show that the total cumulative contribution to
visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days at Florida's
Class I areas from all SO2 and NOX emitting
sources in the State are relatively small, ranging from 3.12 percent
for Everglades to 7.66 percent for Chassahowitzka based on table 2,
above.\37\ Given state discretion in selecting sources to evaluate for
emissions controls, and since the SO2 and NOX
emissions from all point sources in Florida contribute a relatively
small amount to the visibility impairment at its Class I areas, the
State's selection of the three largest
[[Page 24016]]
source contributors to visibility impairment is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See footnote 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Conservation Groups' claim that the State should have
adopted a different selection method (such as Q/d) with a lower
threshold to select more sources in Florida, as discussed above, a
state is not required to evaluate all sources of emissions in each
planning period. Instead, a state may reasonably select a set of
sources for an analysis of control measures. Selecting a set of sources
for analysis of control measures in each planning period is also
consistent with the RHR, which sets up an iterative planning process
and anticipates that a state may not need to analyze control measures
for all sources in a given SIP revision. Moreover, use of Q/d (which
simply involves dividing the quantity of emissions by the distance to a
Class I area) does not consider transport direction/pathway, dispersion
and photochemical processes, or the particular days that have the most
anthropogenic impairment due to all sources. Therefore, compared to
photochemical modeling, using a simple Q/d technique, as the
Conservation Groups suggest, would have resulted in a less accurate
quantification of visibility impacts on Class I areas. As discussed in
detail above, Florida's reliance on VISTAS modeling and the State's
source selection methodology are well documented within the SIP
submittal and therefore reasonable.
Comment 2.f: The Conservation Groups state that EPA asserts in its
proposal that Florida's source selection method is reasonable because:
(1) SO2 and NOX emissions have decreased since
the first planning period and are projected to continue decreasing, (2)
visibility conditions at in-state Class I areas are projected to
improve and have improved since the baseline period, and (3) Florida
sources do not contribute to any Class I areas above their respective
Uniform Rate of Progress (URP). They argue, however, that projected
visibility condition improvement at Florida's Class I areas and the
fact that those areas are below their respective URPs are not a valid
basis to approve the State's flawed selection method. They cite to EPA
guidance stating that the URP is not a safe harbor and that states
cannot avoid requiring sources to install reasonable controls merely
because there have been emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution controls since the first planning period or because
visibility is projected to improve at Class I areas.
Response 2.f: As required by the RHR, States must evaluate and
determine the emissions reduction measures that are necessary for
reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). However, we note that emissions from Florida are
not reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I areas that are above the 2028 URP, which is relevant to
whether a state needs to perform a ``robust demonstration'' based on
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) and (B). Therefore, a
comparison of the URP to projected visibility impairment in 2028 is
needed to inform that requirement. Additionally, other information
about measured progress towards natural conditions can be relevant in
evaluating the source selection process. For example, significant
improvements in visibility at impacted Class I areas since the
beginning of the second planning period (starting in 2018) are relevant
to whether a state is making progress towards natural conditions and
may provide information that could influence the selection of sources
to be analyzed for emissions controls in the second planning period.
Regardless of the visibility information listed in the proposed rule,
EPA independently evaluated Florida's SIP documentation and came to the
conclusion that Florida's source selection methodology and thresholds
for this second planning period are reasonable for the reasons stated
earlier in this response.
Comment 3: The Conservation Groups contend that Florida arbitrarily
and unlawfully refused to conduct FFAs for nine facilities despite
their undisputed contribution to visibility impairment in numerous
Class I areas. The nine facilities are Duke-Crystal River; JEA
Northside; Mosaic-Bartow; Mosaic-New Wales; Mosaic-South Pierce;
Nutrien; Seminole; TECO-Big Bend; and Breitburn. They provide the
following arguments to support this contention.
First, they state that the text of the CAA and the RHR require the
State to evaluate the four statutory factors for any source reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment at any
Class I area. The Conservation Groups contend that Florida improperly
rewrites the statute and regulation to require consideration of the
four factors only when a source ``significantly contributes'' to
visibility impairment. Second, they state the structure of the CAA
makes clear the requirement to implement emission reductions to ensure
reasonable progress is not contingent on whether a source significantly
contributes to visibility impairment. They note that Congress expressly
uses the modifier ``significant'' in numerous sections of the CAA and
argue that the modifier is conspicuously absent from CAA section 169A.
Third, they argue that the purpose of the CAA's visibility provisions
to reduce and ultimately eliminate ``any impairment of visibility''
make clear that Congress ``intended for the term `contributes' as used
in 7491(b)(2) to encompass smaller impacts than would be required to
regulate only those sources that contribute `significantly.' ''
(emphasis in original). They state that Florida ``effectively rewrites
those provisions of the Act and requires only the evaluation of
emissions that it deems significant or large enough.'' The Conservation
Groups acknowledge that there is no bright line test for assessing
contribution under the RHR, but state that EPA has ``made clear that a
state's reasonable progress analysis must consider a meaningful set of
sources and controls that impact visibility'' and that if a state fails
to do so, EPA must disapprove the SIP revision and issue a Federal
Implementation Plan.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the assertion that the CAA and RHR
require the State to evaluate the four statutory factors for any source
that is ``reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment.'' Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA uses that language, but not
for the purposes that the Conservation Groups assert. The CAA requires
an implementation plan from a state if emissions from the state ``may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area'' (referring to out-of-state Class I areas
that are impacted by emissions from the state). This is not an
individual source requirement. The phrase ``may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment'' is only applied
to the identification of individual stationary sources in the BART
provisions in CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A). But these BART provisions are
not applicable in this second planning period SIP evaluation. BART
evaluations and emissions limits were only required as part of first
planning period regional haze SIPs, and Florida has already met the
BART requirements. Additionally, EPA agrees that CAA section 169A and
the RHR do not use the phrases ``significant contribution'' or
``significantly contribute'' when discussing the four factors. The CAA
and RHR do not explicitly list factors that a state must or may not
consider when selecting the sources for which it will determine what
control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress. The
[[Page 24017]]
appropriate threshold for selecting sources may reasonably differ
across states and Class I areas due to varying circumstances. In
setting a threshold, a state may consider the number of emissions
sources affecting the Class I areas at issue, the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts, and the amount of anthropogenic visibility
impairment at the Class I areas. As discussed in Response 2.a, Florida
considered the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts at Class I
areas using AoI screening and PSAT modeling, which is a reasonable
approach to identify sources in the State that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area.
Comment 4: The Conservation Groups assert that EPA incorrectly
endorses Florida's decision to exclude consideration of NOX
controls in any FFAs. They contend that VISTAS' modeling did not
accurately reflect the shift in the 20 percent most impaired days and
the corresponding increase in the contribution of nitrate to visibility
impairment at Southeastern Class I areas. They state that more of the
20 percent most impaired days now occur in the winter, when nitrate
plays a bigger role in visibility impairment, and they note that
Florida explained in its SIP that ``occasionally nitrate is the
predominant visibility impairing pollutant on certain days, generally
in winter months.'' They also note EPA's general expectation that
states will, at a minimum, consider both SO2 and
NOX in this planning period and assert that there are
multiple sources of significant NOX emissions that Florida
should have analyzed for NOX controls.
Response 4: EPA disagrees with this comment. The RHR does not
prescribe which visibility impairing pollutants must be evaluated in
the FFAs. When selecting sources for analysis of control measures, a
state may focus on the PM species that dominate visibility impairment
at the Class I areas affected by emissions from the state and then
select only sources with emissions of those dominant pollutants and
their precursors. EPA has recommended that states that do not evaluate
SO2 and NOX in both source selection and control
evaluations show why consideration of these pollutants would be
unreasonable, especially if the state considered both of these
pollutants in the first planning period.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Florida considered SO2 for FFAs conducted in the
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida followed these recommended approaches here. Florida
considered both SO2 emissions (via sulfates visibility
impacts) and NOX emissions (via nitrates visibility impacts)
in the source selection process. As part of the 2021 Plan, FDEP
presented the results of PSAT modeling conducted by VISTAS to estimate
the projected impact of statewide SO2 and NOX
emissions across all emissions sectors in 2028 on total light
extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days in all Class I areas
in the VISTAS modeling domain. The result of this process was that
while sources were selected for SO2 control analysis
determinations, no sources in Florida met the State's nitrate source
selection thresholds. Therefore, Florida did not select any sources for
a NOX emissions control evaluation. Contrary to the
Conservation Groups' assertion that Florida made a ``decision'' not to
consider NOX controls in any FFAs, it was Florida's
application of its source selection process, in combination with data
and modeling showing that SO2 is the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant, that resulted in Florida only selecting sources
for SO2 emissions control analyses and not NOX
emissions control analyses.
Additionally, in order to better understand the trends in PM
species contributions to visibility impairment, Florida examined more
recent IMPROVE monitoring data. More recent IMPROVE monitoring data
shows that ammonium sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing
pollutant at Florida's Class I areas as discussed in section 2.5.2 of
the 2021 Plan (particularly figures 2-6 through 2-8 for the 2009-2013
period) and in section 2.6.2 (particularly figures 2-9 through 2-11 for
the 2014-2018 period). The 2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data (the most
recent data available at the time) from the IMPROVE website identifies
the relative contributions of PM species contributing to the total
visibility impairment at the Florida Class I areas, which are shown in
table 4, below. In spite of increased nitrate contributions on the 20
percent most impaired days (as the Conservation Groups note, often on
winter days), as indicated in that table, ammonium nitrate
contributions to regional haze at the State's Class I areas remain
relatively low at eight to nine percent of the total visibility
impairment as compared to ammonium sulfate at 57 to 60 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See the spreadsheet containing the 2015-2019 speciated
IMPROVE monitoring data for Florida's Class I areas included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Table 4--2015-2019 Speciated IMPROVE Monitoring Data (Percent) for Florida's Class I Areas \39\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonium Ammonium Organic Elemental Fine sea
sulfate nitrate carbon Coarse mass carbon salt Fine soils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka............................................... 57 8 16 6 7 4 2
Everglades................................................... 59 9 11 9 5 5 2
St. Marks.................................................... 60 8 16 6 4 4 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in tables 7-21 through 7-23 of the 2021 Plan, the
State provided a calculation of the sulfate and nitrate extinction
weighted residence time (EWRT) used in the AoI analysis for the Florida
Class I areas for the 20 percent most impaired days, demonstrating that
the sulfate EWRT are significantly higher than the nitrate EWRT. This
further supports the importance of focusing on SO2 emissions
reductions for this planning period. The State's rationale for focusing
on SO2 controls in the FFAs is summarized in Florida's SIP
submittal and the NPRM.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 2021 Haze Plan, section 2 (particularly figures 2-9
through 2-13), section 7 (particularly figures 7-17, 7-18, 7-20
through 7-24), and section 10 (particularly figures 10-1); 89 FR
105518-105519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Conservation Groups' assertion that nitrate is
the biggest contributor to light extinction on multiple of the 20
percent of most impaired days for these Florida Class I areas during
the 2014-2018 period (especially on winter days), as described above,
the average nitrate contribution across the 20 percent most impaired
days is still relatively small. Thus, while nitrate impairment may be
relatively high on a particular day, the data that states are required
to use for regional haze as specified in 40 CFR 51.301 and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) show ammonium nitrate only contributed eight to nine
percent of the total visibility
[[Page 24018]]
impairment (during the 2015-2019 period).
For these reasons, Florida's justification for not evaluating
sources selected for SO2 emission control analyses for a
separate NOX emission control analysis is reasonable for
this planning period. The trends in PM species' contributions to
visibility impairment will continue to be evaluated in future planning
periods. If the data warrants consideration of NOX controls
in future planning periods, EPA expects that Florida will address
potential NOX controls in future regional haze SIP
revisions.
Comment 5: The Conservation Groups assert that EPA ignores that
Florida unreasonably excluded sources from FFAs. They state that to
correct errors in the source selection method, EPA must require Florida
to assess additional EGU and non-EGU emission sources identified by NPS
and the Conservation Groups, which have emissions that likely
contribute to impairment in Class I areas. Furthermore, the
Conservation Groups assert that EPA must find that the State
arbitrarily and unlawfully refused to consider cost-effective control
upgrades or measures improving efficiency of existing controls, and
refused to conduct FFAs on additional sources that contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas. The comments regarding specific
sources identified by the Conservation Groups are addressed in Comments
6 and 7 below.
Response 5: As explained in Response 2.a and in the NPRM (89 FR
105511), the RHR does not require states to select and consider
controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or all sources
in a particular source category. Nor does the RHR expressly specify
criteria for minimum source selection thresholds. States have
discretion to choose reasonable source selection criteria, and sources
that meet the state's criteria are selected for an evaluation of
potential control options for specific visibility impairing pollutants
by considering the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1).
As discussed in Response 2.a, Florida's source selection
methodology is reasonable and is adequately documented in its Haze
Plan. The fact that certain sources, including the 28 sources
identified by the Conservation Groups, were not selected for FFAs for
either SO2 or NOX for this planning period is the
result of the reasonable application of Florida's source selection
process and source selection thresholds.\41\ As discussed in Response
4, NOX impacts were considered by the State, but no sources
were selected for a NOX control evaluation (including these
sources highlighted by the Conservation Groups) because visibility
impacts for NOX did not exceed the State's source selection
threshold. To the extent that the 28 sources identified by the
Conservation Groups were not selected by Florida, the Responses to
Comments 2 (source selection) and 4 (nitrates/NOX controls)
generally address why these sources were not selected and why EPA
agrees with the State that it was reasonable to not select these
sources for this planning period. To summarize, Florida selected a
sufficient number of sources under Florida's jurisdiction to ensure
that sources responsible for the largest visibility impacts to Class I
areas completed FFAs (or, alternatively, demonstrated that sources have
existing, effective controls) for this planning period. Florida has
discretion under the RHR to determine its source selection methodology.
EPA has found the sources that Florida selected were reasonable and
that its Haze Plan complied with the CAA and RHR for this planning
period. While Florida could have used its discretion to select other
sources in addition to those screened in during its source selection
process, including some or all of the sources that the Conservation
Groups highlight, Florida was not required to do so. As EPA has stated
elsewhere in this notice in Responses 2 and 4, and here in this
response, EPA finds Florida's approach to source selection reasonable
and appropriate for the second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In this case, the 28 sources refer to the eight sources
that Florida provided an existing, effective controls demonstration
for (see 89 FR 105522) and the 20 sources recommended by the
Conservation Groups in the January 27, 2025, Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: The Conservation Groups assert that Florida failed to
demonstrate that the nine facilities it eliminated from FFAs on the
basis that they are effectively controlled (Duke-Crystal River; JEA
Northside; Mosaic-Bartow; Mosaic-New Wales; Mosaic-South Pierce;
Nutrien; Seminole; TECO-Big Bend; and Breitburn \42\) are in fact
effectively controlled with existing measures. The Conservation Groups
maintain that there are likely cost-effective controls that can be
implemented to reduce emissions for each source, and that such controls
are therefore necessary to make reasonable progress during the second
planning period. Therefore, they assert that EPA's proposal to approve
Florida's Haze Plan based on the State's ``effectively controlled''
determinations for the facilities violates the CAA and the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Breitburn did not meet Florida's source selection criteria.
See 2021 Plan at 252. Florida therefore did not provide an existing
effective SO2 controls demonstration in section 7.6.4.1
of the 2021 Plan. The Conservation Groups' comment on Breiturn is
addressed in Response 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups comment that the plain language of the CAA
and RHR do not allow EPA or the State to eliminate sources from
analysis based on the assertion that sources are ``effectively
controlled.'' Instead, they comment that the CAA and RHR require states
to consider the four statutory reasonable progress factors for any
existing source that is reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute
to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area. They assert that
Florida determined that the nine facilities mentioned above all
contribute to the impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
but failed to conduct FFAs for them as required by the Act. The
Conservation Groups note that the concept of ``effectively controlled''
sources only appears in EPA's 2019 Guidance and 2021 Clarification
Memo, which they assert is nonbinding and cannot override the plain
language of the CAA and RHR. They also assert that EPA has repeatedly
explained that states cannot categorically exclude sources from an FFA
simply because the source has existing controls and must provide
source-specific explanations as to why their decisions for excluding
sources from FFAs are reasonable.
The Conservation Groups contend that instead of making the required
demonstration in accordance with EPA's guidance, Florida merely claimed
that the RHR does not require best available controls, but only
measures necessary for reasonable progress. They argue that there are
likely feasible and cost-effective controls available for each of the
nine facilities, including Breitburn; that the controls are likely
reasonable and therefore necessary for reasonable progress; and that
EPA must therefore require the inclusion of these controls in Florida's
SIP. The Conservation Groups' comments regarding the eight (excluding
Breitburn as discussed in footnote 42) sources with an effective
SO2 controls demonstration are addressed in Responses 6.a
through 6.h below. The comments regarding Breitburn are addressed in
Response 7.
Response 6: EPA finds Florida's determination that the affected
units at Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New
Wales, Mosaic-South Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend are
effectively controlled to be reasonable.
[[Page 24019]]
Florida determined that these sources have existing, effective
SO2 measures and concluded that it would be reasonable to
not select such sources for an FFA because an FFA would likely result
in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.\43\ This is
consistent with the discretion and flexibilities states have within the
CAA and RHR to develop their regional haze SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FDEP proposed existing SO2 measures as necessary
for reasonable progress for incorporation into the Florida SIP for
the affected units at the following eight facilities: Duke-Crystal
River, JEA Northside, Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Mosaic-South
Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend. See section 7.6.4.1 of
the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that the State cannot rely on existing controls for
these eight facilities. The RHR provides flexibility in how its
requirements may be addressed, and thus, it may be reasonable for a
state not to select a source because the source may already have
effective controls in place as a result of a previous regional haze SIP
or to meet another CAA requirement. Thus, conducting an FFA would
likely result in no new measures found necessary for reasonable
progress at the eight aforementioned sources. In Responses 6.a through
6.h, EPA evaluates whether new measures would likely be found
reasonable had an FFA been completed for the affected sources.
EPA agrees that guidance cannot override the plain language of the
CAA and RHR. EPA's citations to guidance documents in the NPRM were
intended to provide further context on what is generally considered to
be a reasonable approach to fulfill the statutory and regulatory
requirements addressing regional haze for the second planning period.
EPA acknowledges that the suggestions in those guidance documents are
not binding but are generally assumed to be reasonable. States can
deviate from the suggestions within EPA guidance documents. However,
they must do so in a reasonable way, accompanied by sufficient
justification.
Comment 6.a: The Conservation Groups argue that Florida should have
conducted an FFA for Duke-Crystal River, which is located approximately
20 kilometers (km) north of Chassahowitzka. They assert that the
facility has the highest cumulative Q/d value (624.09) of any facility
in the State and note EPA proposed to find reasonable Florida's
adoption of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) SO2
limit,\44\ 0.20 pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu), for
the Fossil Fuel Steam Generating Units 4 and 5 at Duke-Crystal River,
and the permit requirements that allow the Citrus Combined Cycle
Station Units 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B to consume only pipeline natural gas.
They contend that EPA wrongly takes at face value Florida's assertion
that no other controls are likely to be available or cost-effective for
this facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The MATS Rule is located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups state that Units 4 and 5 are capable of
operating ``well below'' the SO2 MATS limit on a continuous
basis. According to the Conservation Groups, Unit 5 consistently
operated at emission rates below 0.10 lb/MMBtu between 2010 and 2013,
with Unit 4 having similar performance. They argue that the only reason
these units do not currently operate at these lower rates is because
they are not constrained by an enforceable limit. The Conservation
Groups maintain that instead of properly responding to public comments
regarding the need for Florida to conduct an FFA for the facility, the
State merely referred to its general position that EPA's 2019 Guidance
notes that the MATS SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is ``low
enough that it is unlikely that an analysis of control measures . . .
would conclude that even more stringent control of SO2 is
necessary to make reasonable progress.'' Furthermore, they acknowledge
that their analysis of 2017-2023 scrubber efficiencies from these units
are ``very close to those EPA completed,'' but argue that EPA failed to
assess the results of its scrubber control efficiency work and
recognize that the scrubbers at Units 4 and 5 ``are operating sub-
optimally'' with large swings in the efficiencies, particularly in 2022
and 2023. The Conservation Groups conclude that an SO2 FFA
would almost certainly result in cost-effective additional
SO2 controls and that EPA cannot condone the State's lack of
support for its determination that a full FFA will likely lead to the
conclusion that no further controls are necessary. They maintain that
EPA must require an FFA for Units 4 and 5.
Response 6.a: Regarding Duke-Crystal River's visibility impacts to
Class I areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as
part of its AoI analysis and then further applied PSAT modeling, which
differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA finds
Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable and
has evaluated the PSAT data from Florida as the basis for this action
as explained in Response 2.
EPA disagrees that Florida must conduct an FFA for Duke-Crystal
River Units 4 and 5 for the reasons discussed in Response 6. EPA also
disputes that there was lack of supporting documentation for EPA's
proposed conclusions for Units 4 and 5.\45\ Scrubber systems are widely
considered the best control technology for reducing SO2
emissions, as they can achieve very high removal efficiencies, making
them highly effective at capturing SO2 from industrial flue
gases.\46\ The MATS Rule is a fairly recent CAA requirement with co-
benefits for reducing SO2. For the purpose of SO2
control measures, an EGU that has add-on flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
\47\ and that meets the applicable alternative SO2 emission
limit of the MATS Rule for power plants is one example of a scenario in
which it may be reasonable for a state not to select a particular
source for further analysis because the two limits in the rule (0.20
lb/MMBtu for coal-fired EGUs or 0.30 lb/MMBtu for EGUs fired with oil-
derived solid fuel) are low enough that it is unlikely that an analysis
of control measures for a source already equipped with a scrubber and
meeting one of these limits would conclude that even more stringent
control of SO2 is necessary to make reasonable progress.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 89 FR 105527 and EPA's analysis of EGUs in Florida
found in the spreadsheet file called ``FL EGU scrubber efficiency
analysis 2017-2023'' (hereinafter EGU scrubber efficiency
spreadsheet) included in the docket for this rulemaking.
\46\ See section 5, chapter 1, of EPA's ``Air Pollution Cost
Control Manual'' (CCM), available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\47\ FGD is a type of scrubber system.
\48\ See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that the Agency took at face value Florida's
conclusion that no other controls are likely available or cost
effective for this facility. EPA analyzed the controls and confirmed
that Duke-Crystal River Units 4 and 5 are not uncontrolled or lightly
controlled for SO2, are subject to the MATS Rule alternative
SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, and are equipped with
wet scrubber systems that routinely achieve a high SO2
control effectiveness (with the yearly averages fluctuating between
96.2 to 98.9 percent).\49\ The typical SO2 removal
efficiency range for wet scrubbers ranges from 90 to 98 percent.\50\
Thus, it is unlikely that an
[[Page 24020]]
FFA would result in the conclusion that further SO2
emissions controls (including FGD upgrades) are necessary for
reasonable progress in the second planning period. Therefore, EPA finds
FDEP's effective controls demonstration for Duke-Crystal River to be
reasonable. The ``swings'' in the control efficiencies alleged by the
Conservation Groups are attributable to their use of data points that
are not representative of the units' normal operation. For example, the
Conservation Groups determined the control efficiency for Unit 4 was
72.7 percent during February 2023.\51\ However, the facility did not
consume coal that month and did consume a small amount of distillate
fuel oil, resulting in a slightly lower average yearly SO2
removal efficiency that is not representative of that unit's normal
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 89 FR 105527. Between 2017 to 2023, the yearly average
FGD SO2 control efficiencies for Duke-Crystal River Unit
4 ranged from 96.2 to 98.9 percent and Unit 5 ranged from 96.4 to
97.6 percent. See EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet.
\50\ See table 1.1 on page 1-3, section 5, chapter 1 of the CCM.
\51\ See Exhibit 42 attached to the Conservation Groups'
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the assertion that Florida failed to properly respond to
the Conservation Groups' comments, see Response 12.
Comment 6.b: The Conservation Groups note that Florida's 2021 Plan
incorporates a permitted SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for JEA
Northside Units 1 and 2 and that Florida later supplemented its
``effectively controlled'' demonstration by incorporating the
SO2 MATS limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, which applies continuously
on a heat input-weighted 30-boiler operating day rolling average.\52\
However, they assert that the State cannot exempt a source from an FFA
by relying on controls implemented under other CAA programs. The
Conservation Groups argue that the application of the higher
SO2 MATS limit fails to demonstrate that the units are
effectively controlled because Units 1 and 2 have achieved lower
SO2 emission rates than the MATS limits. Furthermore, the
Conservation Groups state that neither JEA Northside nor the State
provided adequate documentation to assess the SO2 removal
efficiency of existing scrubbers, and that the State has not required
the facility to conduct an analysis of potential NOX
controls for Units 1 and 2. They conclude that EPA cannot approve a SIP
that does not require JEA Northside to conduct a full FFA for
SO2 and NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 2024 Supplement at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups also argue that EPA failed to distinguish
``optimized scrubber efficiencies'' from ``scrubber efficiencies.''
They assert that even small improvements in control efficiencies may
lead to significant reductions in SO2 emissions, with the
associated costs being primarily the additional reagent used,
electricity for additional spray pumps, and potentially minor capital
costs from improving the liquid to gas ratio. The Conservation Groups
maintain that EPA relied on Florida's conclusion instead of conducting
an independent analysis and that EPA's lack of independent assessment
has allowed Florida to wrongly claim that many sources in the State are
effectively controlled without considering the most stringent controls
achievable.
Response 6.b: EPA disagrees that the Agency did not independently
assess Florida's effectively controlled analysis for JEA Northside
Units 1 and 2. EPA prepared and analyzed a spreadsheet providing FGD
control efficiencies for the selected Florida power plants, including
JEA Northside Units 1 and 2, discussed the data in the NPRM, and
included the spreadsheet in the docket. See NPRM at 89 FR 105527.
Regarding the assertion that Florida must conduct a NOX
FFA for JEA Northside Units 1 and 2, see Response 4. With respect to
the contention that neither the State nor JEA Northside provided
adequate documentation to assess the SO2 removal efficiency
of existing scrubbers, the NPRM included EPA's assessment of the
SO2 removal efficiencies for both units to augment the
documentation that Florida provided. Regarding the fact that JEA
Northside Units 1 and 2 have achieved lower SO2 emission
rates than the MATS SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, these units
are each subject to a 0.15 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit and EPA
expects that these units will operate in compliance with their
permitted emissions limits, and thus, actual emissions will routinely
be below 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu.
Scrubber systems are widely considered the best control technology
for reducing SO2 emissions, as they can achieve very high
removal efficiencies, making them highly effective at capturing
SO2 from industrial flue gases.\53\ The MATS Rule is a
fairly recent CAA requirement with co-benefits for reducing
SO2. For the purpose of SO2 control measures, an
EGU that has add-on FGD and that meets the applicable alternative
SO2 emission limit of the MATS Rule for power plants is one
scenario in which it may be reasonable for a state not to select a
particular source for further analysis because the two limits in the
rule (0.20 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired EGUs or 0.30 lb/MMBtu for EGUs fired
with oil-derived solid fuel) are low enough that it is unlikely that an
analysis of control measures for a source already equipped with a
scrubber and meeting one of these limits would conclude that even more
stringent control of SO2 is necessary to make reasonable
progress.\54\ EPA's analysis confirms that JEA Northside Units 1 and 2
are not uncontrolled or lightly controlled for SO2; are
subject to the MATS Rule alternative SO2 emission limit of
0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-boiler operating day rolling average), a
SO2 emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), and a SO2 emission limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu (24-hour
block average); and are equipped with wet scrubber systems that
routinely achieve a high SO2 control effectiveness
(approximately 94.8-96.6 percent).\55\ As discussed above, the typical
SO2 removal efficiency range for wet scrubbers ranges from
90 to 98 percent.\56\ Thus, it is unlikely that an FFA would result in
the conclusion that further SO2 emissions controls
(including FGD upgrades) are necessary for reasonable progress.
Therefore, EPA finds FDEP's effective controls determination for
Northside Units 1 and 2 to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See section 5, chapter 1, of the CCM, available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\54\ See 2019 Guidance at 23.
\55\ See 89 FR 105527. Between 2017 to 2023, the yearly average
FGD SO2 control efficiencies for JEA Northside Unit 1
ranged from 94.9 to 96.3 percent and Unit 2 ranged from 94.8 to 96.6
percent. See EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet that is included in
the docket for this rulemaking.
\56\ See table 1.1 on page 1-3, section 5, chapter 1 of the CCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6.c: The Conservation Groups state that the Mosaic-Bartow,
located 105 km from Chassahowitzka, is a significant source of
SO2 and NOX based on NPCA's analysis of 2020 NEI
data (showing 2,907 tpy of SO2 emissions and 153 tpy of
NOX emissions). They also state that the facility likely
impacts six Class I areas and has a ``very high'' cumulative Q/d of
85.69. The Conservation Groups conclude that despite the facility's
significant SO2 emissions, the State determined it was
effectively controlled and failed to conduct an FFA.
The Conservation Groups argue that while Florida proposed to exempt
the SO2 emissions from Sulfur Acid Plants (SAPs) 4-6 because
they are limited to 4 pounds of SO2 per ton of 100 percent
sulfuric acid produced (lbs/ton), the State failed to specify averaging
periods, provide a monitoring plan, and provide an opportunity for the
emission limits and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to be reviewed and commented on. Furthermore, they
[[Page 24021]]
claim that Florida failed to demonstrate the facility is effectively
controlled and that an FFA would not identify additional necessary
controls. They also state that, by only looking at EPA's ``incomplete''
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
Clearinghouse (RBLC) database,\57\ the State did not conduct a
meaningful search of control options. The Conservation Groups add that
the State did not document the information it found in the database,
which they explain is contrary to the RHR's requirements to document
the information it relied on for its SIP revision, preventing the
public from being able to meaningfully review and comment on the
State's analysis for the facility. Additionally, they state that ``the
range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton represents a potential increase of 33% in
the SO2 emissions.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ EPA's RBLC is available at: https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. EPA's Clean Air
Technology Center (CATC) maintains a permit database called the
RBLC. The RBLC contains information about recent control technology
determinations submitted by state and local agencies.
\58\ Citing to 2021 Kordzi Report at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups also state that they provided these
comments to the State and the State failed to meaningfully engage and
respond. The Conservation Groups conclude that nothing in the record
supports EPA's assertion that units are effectively controlled for
SO2 and that additional reasonable controls are unlikely to
be found, stating that EPA merely replicates the State's assertions and
fails to document supporting information. Due to these issues, as well
as others highlighted in the Kordzi Reports, they contend that the
State has not demonstrated that the controls are equivalent to the best
performing controls or conduct/require an FFA. Therefore, they argue
that EPA must require Mosaic-Bartow to complete an FFA.
Response 6.c: Regarding Mosaic-Bartow's visibility impacts to Class
I areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as part of
its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling, which
differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA finds
Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable and
has evaluated the PSAT data from Florida as the basis for this action
as explained in Response 2.
EPA disagrees that Florida proposed to exempt the SO2
emissions from SAP 4-6 from an FFA because the units are limited to a 4
lbs/ton production limit. Florida determined that SAPs 4-6 are
effectively controlled and that additional reasonable controls are
unlikely to be found through an FFA because (1) SAPs 4, 5, and 6
utilize double-absorption technology with vanadium promoted catalysts
for the first three converter beds and a cesium-promoted catalyst for
the fourth bed that oxidize SO2 generated from the sulfur
furnace to form sulfur trioxide (SO3) at a conversion
efficiency of 99.7 percent or higher,\59\ and (2) the SIP contains a
three-unit cap of 1,100 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) on a 24-hour block
average (as determined by a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS)), which is more stringent than the production limit of 4 lbs/
ton,\60\ a permit limit that the State determined is consistent with
BACT determinations in the RBLC for sulfur burning, double-absorption
SAPs with cesium-promoted catalysts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 8.10 available
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/8.10_sulfuric_acid.pdf; see also ``Background Report AP-42 Section
5.17 Sulfuric Acid'' available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/final_background_document_for_sulfuric_acid_section_8.1_1.pdf; 2021
Plan at 255 and appendix G-2e.
\60\ See Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Source-
Specific SO2 Permit Limits & Redesignation of
Hillsborough-Polk 2010 1-Hr SO2 Nonattainment Area to
Attainment & Mulberry Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/
Unclassifiable, 84 FR 47216, 47219 (September 9, 2019) (noting that
the 1,100 lbs/hr limit reduced potential SO2 emissions
from 5,694 tpy (pursuant to the 4 lbs/ton production limit) to 4,818
tpy). See also FDEP, Proposed Revision to State Implementation Plan,
Submittal Number 2017-04, Incorporation of SO2 Emissions
Limits for Two Facilities in Polk County (December 1, 2017) at 11-
12, available as document EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0510-0008 in the
www.regulations.gov docket for the September 9, 2019 action
(hereinafter 2017 Florida SIP Revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility recently upgraded its catalyst beds and accepted the
1,100 lbs/hr SIP-approved limit to bring the Hillsborough-Polk
nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010 SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).\61\ The 4 lbs/ton limit, from
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart H (see 40 CFR
60.82(a)), is included in the facility's operating permit,\62\ and is
comparable to a SO2 conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent.
Florida's Haze Plan does not contain the 4 lbs/ton limit because the
SIP already contains the more stringent 1,100 lbs/hr cap.\63\ Florida
evaluated SO2 BACT determinations for sulfur burning,
double-absorption SAPs with cesium-promoted catalysts in the RBLC and
determined that they are in the range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton. EPA
performed a search of SAPs from 2000 to 2025 in the RBLC and found many
instances where the double absorption process is associated with
BACT.\64\ Regardless, a source is not required to meet BACT to satisfy
the RHR, and EPA is not performing a BACT analysis in this action.
Because Mosaic-Bartow utilizes double-absorption technology with
catalytic enhacement and is achieving a SO2 conversion
efficiency greater than 99.7 percent under the 1,100 lbs/hr cap, EPA
finds that it is unlikely that an FFA would conclude that even more
stringent control is necessary for reasonable progress and finds
Florida's effective controls determination for SAPs 4-6 to be
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 85 FR 9666.
\62\ See Condition E.6. of Permit No.1050046-091-AV.
\63\ See 85 FR 9666.
\64\ The statutory considerations for selecting BACT are similar
to, if not more stringent than, the four statutory factors for
reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23. See also EPA's RBLC
search result included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comment regarding the State's alleged failure
to specify averaging periods, provide a monitoring plan, and provide an
opportunity for public comment for the 4 lbs/ton limit, the State was
not required to perform these tasks because the State is not adding
this limit to its SIP. Although the Conservation Groups do not address
the 1,100 lbs/hr limit, EPA notes that the public had the opportunity
to comment on that limit during the 2019 rulemaking incorporating the
limit into the SIP,\65\ during the state-level public comment period on
the draft Haze Plan, and during the public comment period for EPA's
proposed rulemaking on the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The final rule at 85 FR 9666 was preceded by a notice of
proposed rulemaking published on September 9, 2019 (84 FR 47216).
The public comment period closed on October 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment that ``the range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid
produced represents a potential increase of 33% in the SO2
emissions'' is unclear as is its relationship to the 1,100 lbs/hr SIP-
approved limit, but it appears to relate to the change between these
two values to support the contention that ``such a wide range should
not be used to characterize the acceptable range of best performing
controls.'' There is no requirement in the CAA or the RHR for second
period regional haze plans to evaluate and/or select the most stringent
(``best'') control option for selected sources, and as discussed above,
the 1,100 lbs/hr limit results in a SO2 conversion
efficiency greater than 99.7 percent.
EPA disagrees that Florida is required to demonstrate that Mosaic-
Bartow has the ``best performing controls'' as part of its existing,
effective controls
[[Page 24022]]
demonstration. There is no statutory or regulatory requirement to have
each selected source evaluate and/or adopt the most stringent controls
or emission limits. Rather, states are required to include in the LTS
the measures necessary for reasonable progress, which Florida did for
Mosaic-Bartow.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The 2021 Plan explains that existing SO2
measures identified in the existing controls analysis are already
adopted into the Florida SIP for Mosaic-Bartow (85 FR 9666 (February
20, 2020)). See 2021 Plan at 255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment that Florida needs to explain a statement in
the State's December 2017 SIP revision that ``the production-based
emissions limits at the 3 sulfuric acid plants of 4 lbs SO2/
ton of 100% H2SO4 are effectively lowered to 3.4
lbs SO2/ton of 100% H2SO4'' \67\ and
how this affects the limits discussed on page 255 of the 2021 Plan, it
is self-evident that the 3.4 lbs SO2/ton production-based
limit is the effective production-based limit equivalent of the SIP-
approved 1,100 lbs/hr cap. The effectively equivalent limit does not
affect the limits discussed on page 255 of the 2021 Plan because
Florida is relying on the 1,100 lbs/hr cap for regional haze purposes,
not the 4 lbs SO2/ton production-based limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 2017 Florida SIP Revision at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the assertion that Florida's response to comments
failed to meaningfully engage and respond to the Conservation Groups'
comments, see Response 12.
Regarding Florida's use of the RBLC and documentation of
information from the RBLC, Florida evaluated SO2 BACT
determinations for sulfur burning, double-absorption SAPs with cesium-
promoted catalysts in the RBLC and determined that they are in the
range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton. The RBLC is publicly available and may be
searched by any member of the public. Although the RHR requires the
State to document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring,
cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which the State is
relying to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary
to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I area it affects,
it does not specify what that documentation must consist of. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). It was unnecessary in this instance for the State to
provide additional documentation because Florida identified the RBLC as
the source of information and provided the criteria necessary for the
public to replicate the analysis. As discussed above, EPA conducted its
own search of the RBLC for SAPs using a timeframe from 2000 to 2025 to
independently assess Florida's findings.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ EPA used the industry process type code of 62.015 for
``sulfuric acid plants,'' selecting ``SOX'' as the pollutant name.
See EPA's RBLC search result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6.d: The Conservation Groups state that Mosaic-New Wales,
located 103 km from Chassahowitzka, is a significant source of
SO2 and NOX based on NPCA's analysis of 2020 NEI
data (showing 4,002 tpy of SO2 emissions and 218 tpy of
NOX emissions). They also state that the facility likely
impacts 11 Class I areas and has a ``very high'' cumulative Q/d of
147.51. The facility was one of the sources the State determined was
effectively controlled; however, the Conservation Groups argue that the
State failed to demonstrate that the controls are equivalent to the
best performing controls or conduct an FFA.
The Conservation Groups reference their state-level comments to
Florida regarding Mosaic-New Wales, including a comment that the range
of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton is potentially a 33 percent increase in
SO2 emissions, and claim that the State failed to
meaningfully engage and respond to their comments. They argue that EPA
is rubber stamping Florida's approach, fails to recognize the issues
the Conservation Groups identified, and provides no separate
justification to exempt Mosaic-New Wales from the FFA requirement.
Therefore, they argue that EPA must require Mosaic-New Wales to be
subjected to an FFA.
Response 6.d: Regarding Mosaic-New Wales' visibility impacts to
Class I areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as
part of its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling,
which differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA
finds that Florida's source selection methodology and its results are
reasonable and has evaluated the PSAT data from Florida as the basis
for this action, as explained in Response 2.
Florida proposed to exempt the SO2 emissions from SAPs
1-5 from an FFA because (1) these units utilize double-absorption
technology with vanadium-promoted catalyst for the first three
converter beds and cesium-promoted catalyst for the fourth bed that
oxidize SO2 generated from the sulfur furnace to form
SO3 at a conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent or
higher,\69\ and (2) the SIP contains a five-unit cap of 1,090 lbs/hr on
a 24-hour block average (as determined by CEMS), which is more
stringent than the production limit of 3.5 lbs/ton, a limit included in
the facility's operating permit for SAPs 1-3, and the production limit
of 4 lbs/ton for SAPs 4-5,\70\ which is a limit that the State
determined is consistent with BACT determinations in the RBLC for
sulfur burning, double-absorption SAPs with cesium-promoted catalysts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 8.10 available
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/8.10_sulfuric_acid.pdf; see also ``Background Report AP-42 Section
5.17 Sulfuric Acid'' available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/final_background_document_for_sulfuric_acid_section_8.1_1.pdf; 2021
Plan at 255 and appendix G-2f.
\70\ See 84 FR 47216, 47219 (September 9, 2019) (noting that the
1,090 lbs/hr limit reduced potential SO2 emissions from
10,750 tpy (under the 4 lbs/ton and 3.5 lbs/ton production limits)
to 4,774 tpy). See 2017 Florida SIP Revision at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility recently upgraded its catalyst beds and accepted the
1,090 lbs/hr SIP-approved limit to bring the Hillsborough-Polk
nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\71\ The 4.0 lbs/ton limit is from NSPS subpart H (see 40 CFR
60.82(a)), is included in the facility's operating permit, and is
comparable to a SO2 conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent.
Florida's Haze Plan does not contain the 3.5 lbs/ton or 4 lbs/ton limit
because the SIP already contains the more stringent 1,090 lbs/hr
cap.\72\ Florida evaluated SO2 BACT determinations for
sulfur burning, double-absorption SAPs with cesium-promoted catalysts
in the RBLC and determined that they are in the range of 3.0 to 4.0
lbs/ton. EPA performed a search of SAPs from 2000 to 2025 in the RBLC
and found many instances where double absorption technology is
associated with BACT (e.g., Mississippi Phosphates Company in Jackson,
Mississippi; PCS Phosphate Company in Beaufort, North Carolina; Plant
City Phosphate Complex in Hillsoborough, Florida).\73\ Regardless, a
source is not required to meet BACT to satisfy the RHR, and EPA is not
performing a BACT analysis in this action. Because Mosaic-New Wales
utilizes double-absorption technology with catalytic enhacement and is
achieving a SO2 conversion efficiency greater than 99.7
percent under the 1,090 lbs/hr cap, EPA finds that it is unlikely that
an FFA would conclude that even more stringent control is necessary for
reasonable progress and finds Florida's effective control determination
for SAPs 1-5 to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 85 FR 9666.
\72\ See footnote 70.
\73\ The statutory considerations for selecting BACT are similar
to, if not more stringent than, the four statutory factors for
reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that Florida is required to demonstrate that Mosaic-
New Wales has the ``best performing controls'' as
[[Page 24023]]
part of its existing, effective controls demonstration. There is no
statutory or regulatory requirement to have each selected source
evaluate and/or adopt the most stringent controls or emission limits
for second planning period haze plan. Rather, states are required to
include in the LTS the measures necessary for reasonable progress,
which Florida did for Mosaic-New Wales.\74\ EPA finds that Florida's
conclusion that Mosaic-New Wales SAPs 1-5 has existing effective
SO2 controls to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ The 2021 Plan explains that existing SO2
measures deemed necessary for reasonable progress for the second
planning period are already adopted into the Florida SIP for Mosaic-
New Wales (85 FR 9666 (February 20, 2020)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment that ``the range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid
produced represents a potential increase of 33% in the SO2
emissions'' is unclear, as is its relationship to the 1,090 lbs/hr SIP-
approved limit, but it appears to relate to the change between these
two values to support the contention that ``such a wide range should
not be used to characterize the acceptable range of best performing
controls.'' There is no requirement in the CAA or the RHR for second
period regional haze plans to evaluate and/or select the most stringent
(``best'') control option for selected sources, and as discussed above,
the 1,090 lbs/hr limit results in a SO2 conversion
efficiency greater than 99.7 percent.
Regarding the comment that Florida needs to explain a statement in
the State's December 2017 SIP revision that ``the production-based
emissions limits at the five sulfuric acid plants of 3.5 and 4 lbs
SO2/ton of 100 percent H2SO4 are
effectively lowered to 1.6 & 1.8 lbs SO2/ton of 100 percent
H2SO4, respectively,'' \75\ and how this affects
the limits discussed on page 255 of the 2021 Plan, it is self-evident
that these 1.6 and 1.8 lbs SO2/ton production-based limits
are the effective production-based limit equivalents of the SIP-
approved 1,090 lbs/hr cap. These effectively equivalent limits do not
affect the limits discussed on page 255 of the 2021 Plan because
Florida is relying on the 1,090 lbs/hr cap for regional haze purposes,
not the 3.5 lbs SO2/ton or 4 lbs SO2/ton
production-based limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 2017 Florida SIP Revision at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the assertion that Florida's response to comments
failed to meaningfully engage and respond to the Conservation Groups'
comments, see Response 12.
Comment 6.e: The Conservation Groups state that Mosaic-South
Pierce, located 114 km from Chassahowitzka, is a significant source of
SO2 and NOX based on NPCA's analysis of 2020 NEI
data (showing 1,739 tpy of SO2 emissions and 66 tpy of
NOX emissions). They also state that the facility likely
impacts three Class I areas and has a ``very high'' cumulative Q/d of
35.81.
The Conservation Groups contend that their comments to Florida
identified numerous issues with the State's determination that SAPs 10
and 11 are effectively controlled and that Florida failed to
meaningfully consider and respond to their comments. They also contend
that EPA failed to recognize ``Florida's short-comings and
misrepresentations'' identified in NPS' comments to the State.
According to the Conservation Groups, NPS identified several facilities
in the RBLC with additional post-process controls, including scrubbers
(hydrogen peroxide or caustic scrubbers) and/or mist elimination with
emission limits as low as 0.15 lb SO2/ton of sulfuric acid
and noted that Idaho's second planning period Regional Haze SIP found
wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD), hydrogen peroxide scrubbers, and
dry sorbent injection (DSI)/caustic scrubbers to be technically
feasible. The Conservation Groups assert that Florida failed to
consider this information and responded by stating that it had reviewed
the information regarding the use of post-process scrubbers and
determined it would not be cost-effective. They argue the Second 2024
Supplement provided ``no actual documented and reasoned determination
for this position.'' The Conservation Groups conclude that EPA must
require Mosaic-South Pierce to conduct an FFA.
Response 6.e: Regarding Mosaic-South Pierce's visibility impacts to
Class I areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as
part of its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling,
which differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA
finds Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable
and has evaluated the PSAT data from Florida as the basis for this
action.
Regarding the comment that additional scrubbers could have been
evaluated at SAPs 10 and 11 at Mosaic-South Pierce, there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement to evaluate all technically
feasible control measures each period (see also Response 6). Rather,
states are required to include in the LTS the measures necessary for
reasonable progress, which Florida did for Mosaic-South Pierce.\76\
However, the RHR does not require states to evaluate or implement all
possible cost-effective controls including all available permutations
of each control option. EPA's RBLC search identified many instances
where double absorption process is associated with BACT for SAPs.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The 2024 Supplement explains that existing SO2
measures deemed necessary for reasonable progress for the second
planning period are already adopted into the Florida SIP for Mosaic-
South Pierce (see 88 FR 51702, August 4, 2023).
\77\ See EPA's RBLC search result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAPs 10 and 11 utilize double-absorption technology with vanadium-
promoted catalyst for the first three converter beds and cesium-
promoted catalyst for the fourth bed that oxidize SO2
generated from the sulfur furnace to form SO3 at a
conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent or higher.\78\ Appendix B-2 of
Florida's 2024 Supplement contains the RBLC results from Mosaic showing
that the use of double absorption technology with cesium promoted
catalyst represents BACT in the range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs/ton for
SO2 emissions.\79\ Regardless, a source is not required to
meet BACT to satisfy the RHR, and EPA is not performing a BACT analysis
in this action. Because Mosaic-South Pierce utilizes double-absorption
technology with catalytic enhacement and is achieving a conversion
efficiency of 99.7 percent or higher, EPA finds that it is unlikely
that an FFA would conclude that even more stringent control is
necessary for reasonable progress and finds Florida's effective control
determination to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 2024 Supplement and appendix B-2 of the 2024
Supplement.
\79\ The statutory considerations for selecting BACT are similar
to, if not more stringent than, the four statutory factors for
reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware that NPS identified facilities in the RBLC with
additional post-process controls and that Idaho's second planning
period regional haze SIP found WFGD, hydrogen peroxide scrubbers, and
DSI/caustic scrubbers to be technically feasible for Itafos Conda.
However, there is no CAA or RHR requirement for second period haze
plans that specifies the scope of technically feasible control options
to evaluate for each unit type and pollutant. Thus, Florida reasonably
applied this discretion by focusing on the main form of SO2
control in use currently at other SAPs: double absorption technology
with catalytic enhancement.\80\ Regarding Itafos Conda,
[[Page 24024]]
the Conservation Groups did not acknowledge the subsequent analysis the
facility submitted to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
that addressed issues with the original analysis and determined that no
additional controls beyond dual-absorption technology with catalytic
enhancement were reasonable.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See the RBLC search results included in the 2021 Plan
(appendices G-2e, G-2f, and G-2g) and 2024 Supplement (appendix B-
2). See also RBLC results documented in the Conservation Groups'
Exhibit 36 and EPA's RBLC search result.
\81\ See Idaho's ``Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for
the 2nd Planning Period'' (June 2022) (erroneously marked with a
``draft'' watermark) included in the docket for this rulemaking;
``Supplement to Idaho Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for
the Second Planning Period'' (August 2024) included in the docket;
90 FR 13516, 13531-32 (March 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the assertion that Florida's response to comments
failed to meaningfully engage and respond to the Conservation Groups'
comments, see Response 12.
Comment 6.f: The Conservation Groups state that Nutrien, located 37
km from Okefenokee, is a significant source of SO2 and
NOX based on NPCA's analysis of 2020 NEI data. They also
state that the facility likely impacts four Class I areas and has a
``very high'' cumulative Q/d of 77.26.
The Conservation Groups argue that Florida incorrectly exempted
Nutrien from an FFA based on its determination that seven-year-old
upgrades to the SAPs, required by a consent decree, are consistent with
recent BACT determinations for similar SAPs. They also argue that
Florida did not meaningfully engage and respond to their comments,
EPA's suggestion that a 10-year-old consent decree is ``recent'' is
``not true,'' and EPA's proposal contradicts the record. The
Conservation Groups assert that assuming upgrades required by a consent
decree are adequate is not a substitute for an FFA and that the record
shows that there are other plants with much lower limits than those for
the facility. The Conservation Groups conclude that EPA must require
Nutrien be subjected to an FFA.
Response 6.f: Regarding Nutrien's visibility impacts to Class I
areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as part of
its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling, which
differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA finds
Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable and
has evaluated the PSAT data from Florida as the basis for this action
as explained in Response 2.
With respect to the 2015 consent decree, as stated in the NPRM (89
FR 105523), Nutrien completed upgrades to its catalysts on SAP E and
SAP F which enabled these SAPs to meet new SO2 emission
limits of 2.6 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid on a three-hour rolling average
(excluding startups and shutdowns) and 2.3 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid on
a 365-day rolling average (including startups and shutdowns), pursuant
to the consent decree.\82\ Nutrien came into compliance with these
limits on January 1, 2018, for SAP F and January 1, 2020, for SAP E.
Thus, compliance with the consent decree occurred five to seven years
ago, within the second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ SAPs E and F utilize the double-absorption process with
vanadium-promoted catalyst for the first three converter beds and
vanadium/cesium-based catalyst for the fourth bed that oxidize
SO2 to SO3 at a conversion effiency greater
than 99.7 percent. See appendix G-2g of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comments regarding the 2015 consent decree, EPA
does not, as the Conservation Groups suggest, generally assume that
upgrades required by a consent decree are an adequate substitute for an
FFA. EPA and the State evaluated the specific requirements of the 2015
consent decree for Nutrien and determined that they reflect existing
effective controls for this facility. The consent decree resolved
allegations that Nutrien (and/or their predecessors in interest)
constructed or modified, and then operated, the Nutrien facility
without, among other things, installing BACT.\83\ This suggests that
the limits in the consent decree represented BACT for the Nutrien SAPs
at the time of execution in 2015.\84\ The 2020 effective control
analysis for the facility in appendix G-2 of the 2021 Plan also
evaluated the RBLC for BACT determinations made on sulfur-burning SAPs
with catalyst enhancement and concluded that the emission limits for
SAPs E and F are ``consistent with, and equivalent to the most recent
BACT determinations made for similar double-absorption, sulfur-burning
sulfuric acid plants.'' The analysis also states that ``there have been
no new developments in catalyst technology and/or strategies for
operating SAPs since these BACT determinations have been made.''
Regardless, a source is not required to meet BACT to satisfy the RHR,
and EPA is not performing a BACT analysis in this action. Because
Nutrien utilizes double-absorption technology with catalytic
enhancement and is achieving a SO2 conversion efficiency of
greater than 99.7 percent under the consent decree's SO2
emission limits, EPA finds that it is unlikely that an FFA would
conclude that even more stringent control is necessary for reasonable
progress and finds Florida's effective control determination to be
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See 2015 Consent Decree at 2.
\84\ As discussed above, the statutory considerations for
selecting BACT are similar to, if not more stringent than, the four
statutory factors for reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
EPA believes that a BACT determination within eight years of a SIP
submission for the second planning period should be consistent with
up-to-date, effective, and reasonable control measures. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment that other SAPs are achieving lower emissions
limits, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to achieve the
lowest possible emissions rate for reasonable progress (see also
Response 6). Rather, states are required to include in the LTS the
measures necessary for reasonable progress, which Florida did for
Nutrien. EPA finds Florida's determination that Nutrien SAPs E and F
are effectively controlled for SO2 reasonable.
With respect to the assertion that Florida's response to comments
failed to meaningfully engage and respond to the Conservation Groups'
comments, see Response 12.
Comment 6.g: The Conservation Groups argue that EPA wrongly
proposes to find Florida's determination that Seminole's Unit 1 and
Unit 2 are effectively controlled for SO2 (including the
determination to accept the MATS limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu) reasonable and
merely repeats Florida's flawed contentions without scrutiny.
Furthermore, they claim the RHR has consistently acknowledged that
scrubber upgrades are cost-effective and should be considered to ensure
reasonable progress; EPA's guidance that FGD systems installed since
2007 should achieve at least 95 percent effectiveness does not exempt
states from evaluating feasible and cost-effective reductions; and
Florida arbitrarily ignores achievable emission reductions and fails to
consider technically and economically feasible upgrades to scrubbers
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. They state that EPA's
data evaluation from 2017 to 2023 showed that Seminole is historically
capable of achieving 96.5 to 97.3 percent year average SO2
control efficiencies, with a seven-year average SO2 removal
efficiency of 96.8 percent, and acknowledge that their analysis of
2017-2023 scrubber efficiencies from these units are ``very close'' to
EPA's evaluation. However, they argue that EPA fails to recognize that
the wet scrubber systems for Seminole Unit 2 is operating sub-optimally
with large swings in efficiencies, particularly in 2022 and 2023. The
Conservation Groups state that the scrubber at Unit 2 has historic
efficiency levels as high as 97.2 percent but a 95.8 percent control
efficiency in 2023. Therefore, they claim an SO2 FFA would
almost certainly lead to additional cost-effective controls for
[[Page 24025]]
SO2 emissions because currently the wet scrubber systems are
``exhibiting large swings in their scrubber efficiencies, particularly
in 2022 and 2023.'' \85\ They state that since Florida did not provide
analysis demonstrating that Seminole Unit 2 is effectively controlled,
EPA wrongly proposes to find the State's determination reasonable.
Instead, they assert that it is necessary to conduct a full FFA of the
unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See 2025 Kordzi Report at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 6.g: EPA disagrees that the Agency did no further analysis
of Florida's demonstration that Seminole Units 1 and 2 have existing
effective controls for SO2. In fact, as acknowledged by the
Conservation Groups, EPA prepared and analyzed scrubber control
efficiency data for Seminole Units 1 and 2 using 2017-2023 data.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 89 FR 105528 and the EGU scrubber efficiency
spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups state that Seminole Unit 1 appears to have
retired. According to EPA's Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD)
website \87\ and the United States Energy Information Administration
(EIA),\88\ Unit 1 is retired as of December 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See CAMPD data available at: https://campd.epa.gov/data/custom-data-download.
\88\ See Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based
on Form EIA-860M as a supplement to Form EIA-860), specifically the
January 2024 spreadsheet available at: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber systems are widely considered the best control technology
for reducing SO2 emissions, as they can achieve very high
removal efficiencies, making them highly effective at capturing
SO2 from industrial flue gases.\89\ The MATS Rule is a
fairly recent CAA requirement with co-benefits for reducing
SO2. For the purpose of SO2 control measures, an
EGU that has add-on FGD and that meets the applicable alternative
SO2 emission limit of the MATS Rule for power plants is one
example of a scenario in which it may be reasonable for a state not to
select a particular source for further analysis because the two limits
in the rule (0.20 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired EGUs or 0.30 lb/MMBtu for
EGUs fired with oil-derived solid fuel) are low enough that it is
unlikely that an analysis of control measures for a source already
equipped with a scrubber and meeting one of these limits would conclude
that even more stringent control of SO2 is necessary to make
reasonable progress.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See section 5, chapter 1, of the CCM available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\90\ See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding comments that scrubber upgrades are not expensive and
that 95 percent scrubber control efficiency does not exempt an EGU from
further analysis as effectively controlled for SO2, EPA's
analysis confirms that the units are not uncontrolled or lightly
controlled, are subject to the MATS Rule alternative SO2
emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, and are equipped with WFGD that
routinely achieve a high SO2 control effectiveness. As
stated in the NPRM (89 FR 105528), EPA calculated FGD control
efficiencies at Units 1 and 2 at Seminole during periods when coal is
one of the fuel sources consumed over the 2017-2023 period and
calculated that the existing FGD systems routinely achieve 96.5 to 97.3
percent yearly average SO2 removal efficiencies, with a
seven-year average (2017-2023) SO2 removal efficiency of
96.8 percent.\91\ As stated above, the typical SO2 removal
efficiency range for wet scrubbers ranges from 90 to 98 percent.\92\
Thus, it is unlikely that were an FFA completed, these existing control
efficiencies could be improved cost-effectively and result in
meaningful emissions reductions. Therefore, EPA finds FDEP's effective
controls determination for Seminole Units 1 and 2 to be reasonable. The
``swings'' in the control efficiencies alleged by the Conservation
Groups are attributable to the their use of data points that are not
representative of unit's normal operation. For example, the
Conservation Groups determined the control efficiency for Unit 2 was
84.9 percent during March 2023.\93\ However, the facility did not
consume coal that month and did consume a small amount of distillate
fuel oil, resulting in a slightly lower average yearly SO2
removal efficiency that is not representative of unit's normal
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See 89 FR 105528. Between 2017 to 2023, the yearly average
FGD SO2 control efficiencies for Seminole Unit 1 ranged
from 96.6 to 97.0 percent and Unit 2 ranged from 96.5 to 97.3
percent. See EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet that is included in
the docket for this rulemaking.
\92\ See table 1.1 on page 1-3, section 5, chapter 1 of the CCM.
\93\ See Exhibit 42 attached to the Conservation Groups'
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the comment that Florida did not adequately
demonstrate that Unit 2 has existing, effective controls for
SO2 for the second planning period. Florida describes both
Units 1 and 2 as subject to the MATS SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/
MMBtu on page 254 of the 2021 Plan and includes both units in table 7-
27 of the 2021 Plan when comparing actual SO2 emissions
rates to this MATS limitation. Also, in the ``Materials to be
Incorporated into the SIP'' section of the 2021 Plan, both Units 1 and
2 are listed as affected units for which the MATS SO2 limit
of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is proposed for incorporation into the SIP.
Comment 6.h: The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's proposal to
approve Florida's determination that TECO-Big Bend Unit 4 is
effectively controlled for SO2 and that no additional
reasonable controls are likely to be identified because the SIP will
incorporate the SO2 MATS limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is
insufficient. The Conservation Groups add that the State did not
require a detailed FFA from TECO-Big Bend for Unit 4, or require the
facility to provide supporting documentation to explain why it is
effectively controlled for SO2 emissions with wet scrubbers.
The Conservation Groups assert that it is difficult to determine
the performance potential of the SCR and scrubber systems for TECO-Big
Bend Unit 4 because it is permitted to consume multiple fuel types and
periods of low SO2 and NOX could reflect the
partial use of natural gas. They also allege that the SCR system was
not being used to its full capacity and is minimally operated to
achieve its 0.10 lb of NOX/MMBtu emission limit. They
therefore assert that EPA must require the State to conduct FFAs of
SO2 and NOX emissions and must independently
review the analyses, fill in the gaps where necessary, and then
establish practically enforceable emission limits.
The Conservation Groups explain that while EPA evaluated data from
2017 to 2023 and calculated that the existing FGD system had yearly
average SO2 removal efficiencies ranging between 92.2 to
97.1 percent during periods when coal is one of the fuel sources
consumed, EPA failed to assess the results of its work and did not
provide any opinion on how these values relate to an achievable
optimized control efficiency of a modern scrubber system. They contend
that an SO2 FFA of TECO-Big Bend Unit 4 would almost
certainly result in additional cost-effective control for
SO2.
The Conservation Groups argue that an FFA is necessary to determine
if the scrubber and SCR systems can be cost-effectively upgraded or
optimized, the scrubber system is underperforming, and EPA cannot
approve a SIP that refuses to conduct an FFA because Florida failed to
explain why an FFA would result in a conclusion that no further
controls are necessary.
Response 6.h: Regarding arguments that Florida must evaluate
NOX controls for TECO-Big Bend Unit 4, see Response 4.
Regarding SO2, EPA disagrees with
[[Page 24026]]
the assertion that Florida must conduct a full FFA of Unit 4 for
SO2.\94\ Scrubber systems are widely considered the best
control technology for reducing SO2 emissions, as they can
achieve very high removal efficiencies, making them highly effective at
capturing SO2 from industrial flue gases.\95\ The MATS Rule
is a fairly recent CAA requirement with co-benefits for reducing
SO2. For the purpose of SO2 control measures, an
EGU that has add-on FGD and that meets the applicable alternative
SO2 emission limit of the MATS Rule for power plants is one
example of a scenario in which it may be reasonable for a state not to
select a particular source for further analysis because the two limits
in the rule (0.20 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired EGUs or 0.30 lb/MMBtu for
EGUs fired with oil-derived solid fuel) are low enough that it is
unlikely that an analysis of control measures for a source already
equipped with a scrubber and meeting one of these limits would conclude
that even more stringent control of SO2 is necessary to make
reasonable progress.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Unit 3 at TECO-Big Bend was permanently retired from
electric generation service on April 26, 2023, and therefore,
Florida's demonstration of existing, effective controls is no longer
relevant and no further action is required by EPA. The Retired Unit
Exemption Form for TECO-Big Bend Unit 3 is included in the docket
for this rulemaking. On December 12, 2024, FDEP provided a letter
removing the units from the Florida regional haze plan because the
unit is permanently retired. This letter is in the docket for this
rulemaking.
\95\ See section 5, chapter 1, of the CCM available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\96\ See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that the Agency did not assess the results of its
work. EPA's analysis confirms that Unit 4 is not uncontrolled or
lightly controlled, is subject to the MATS Rule alternative
SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, and is equipped with
WFGD that routinely achieves a high SO2 control
effectiveness.\97\ As stated in the NPRM (89 FR 105528), EPA evaluated
data from 2017-2023 for Unit 4 and calculated that the existing FGD
system routinely achieves 92.2 to 97.1 percent yearly average
SO2 removal efficiencies during periods when coal is one of
the fuel sources consumed, with a seven-year average (2017-2023)
SO2 removal efficiency of 95.8 percent.\98\ Additionally,
except for two months at the end of 2023, the unit routinely achieved
95 percent or great removal efficiency.\99\ Regarding the comment that
EPA failed to provide any opinion as to how the 92.2 to 97.1 percent
yearly average SO2 removal efficiencies relate to the
optimized control level that a modern scrubber system is capable of
achieving, EPA believes that it is unlikely that an FFA would result in
the conclusion that further SO2 emissions controls
(including FGD upgrades) are necessary for reasonable progress.
Therefore, EPA finds FDEP's effective controls determination for TECO-
Big Bend Unit 4 to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See EPA's EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet.
\98\ Id.
\99\ The EIA data reports Big Bend Unit 4 as burning bituminous
coal with a sulfur content between 2 and 3.15 percent for all months
in the 2017-2023 time period through October 2023. However, the Unit
is listed as burning low-sulfur coal with a sulfur content of 0.3 to
0.6 percent in November and December of 2023. The reported low
sulfur content caused the calculation of removal efficiency to be
low for those months (73 to 85 percent), which lowered the annual
average for 2023. Assuming the data is accurate, the SO2
emissions for November and December 2023 were similar or lower than
the SO2 emissions from other months in 2023, and the
emissions rate never exceeded 0.16 lb/MMBtu in any month in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges that TECO-Big Bend can consume multiple fuel
types; however, only coal and natural gas consumption were documented
in the EIA data that is a part of the EGU scrubber efficiency
spreadsheet between 2017-2023. EPA disagrees with the Conservation
Groups' assertion that it is difficult to determine a scrubber's
control efficiency if a unit is consuming multiple fuel sources. As
indicated in the EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet included in the
docket for this action, EPA determined a unit's control efficiency by
calculating the sum of the uncontrolled tons of SO2 emitted
from each fuel source and comparing it to the measured SO2
emitted after the controls (data from CAMPD). For example, if a unit
consumed a mixture of coal and natural gas, the predicted uncontrolled
tons of SO2 emitted by the unit and CEMS SO2
emissions values are only attributable to sulfur from the coal
consumed. The contribution of SO2 from natural gas to the
predicted uncontrolled tons of SO2 (by unit) would be nearly
zero. Therefore, the partial consumption of natural gas does not
meaningfully impact how the SO2 scrubber efficiency was
determined.
Comment 7: The Conservation Groups assert that Florida unreasonably
excluded several EGU and non-EGU sources ``that EPA does not cover in
its proposal'' from FFA requirements. The Conservation Groups maintain
that EPA wrongly proposes to approve the State's exclusion of Deerhaven
Generating Station (Deerhaven) from the FFA requirement based on a fuel
co-firing project that will allow the facility to burn up to 100
percent natural gas. They argue that the facility is not restricted to
consume only natural gas and that it is capable of burning all natural
gas, all coal, or a mixture of the two fuels. Hence, the Conservation
Groups assert that a proper FFA must be conducted unless the SIP
includes an enforceable commitment to burn only natural gas.
The Conservation Groups state that Breitburn, located 191 km from
the Breton National Wilderness Area (Breton), is a significant source
of haze pollution, emitting 778 tpy of SO2 and 333 tpy of
NOX in 2020. They maintain that the facility has a
cumulative Q/d of 5.98; there are issues with Florida's determination
that the facility is effectively controlled because that determination
is based solely on the facility's distance from Breton; and VISTAS'
projected 2028 decrease in emissions for this facility compared to more
recent actual emissions was not explained. They also state that Florida
did not meaningfully consider and respond to their 2021 comments to the
State on Breitburn; EPA failed to consider Breitburn in its proposal;
and this silence is arbitrary and capricious.
The Conservation Groups also assert that Florida failed to select
the following 18 sources that ``likely contribute to visibility
impairment at in-state and out-of-state Class I areas'' for FFAs:
Orlando Utilities Commission Electric Generation facility; CEMEX Miami
Cement Plant; Titan Florida Cement Plant; Department of Solid Waste
Management, Miami-Dade; Rayonier Fernandina Plant; Hernando County
CEMEX Plant; Florida Gas Transmission Company--Gadsden County; Mosaic
Florida Phosphate Plant--Hillsborough County; Argos Facility--Alachua;
Wheelabrator South Broward; Duke Energy--Pasco County; Florida Power &
Light Company--Escambia County; International Paper Company--Escambia
Mill; Pinellas County Landfill; Solid Waste Incinerator of Palm Beach;
U.S. Sugar Corporation--Hendry County; Florida Power & Light--Lee
County; and Sugar Cane Growers Co-op--Palm Beach County Mill. According
to the Conservation Groups, each source has 1,000 tpy of either total
combined emissions of SO2, particulate matter less than 10
micrometers (PM10), and NOX (based on 2020 NEI)
or total combined NOX and SO2 emissions (based on
EPA's 2023 CAMPD), and nearly all of these sources emit more than 1,000
tpy of NOX alone. They also state that the Orlando Utilities
Commission Electric Generation and CEMEX Miami Cement Plant facilities
emit the second and third highest amounts of haze-generating pollutants
in the State with Q/d values of 244.94 and 240.55,
[[Page 24027]]
respectively. Therefore, they argue that there are likely readily
available, feasible, and cost-effective controls that can be
implemented at the facilities. The Conservation Groups maintain that
the State erred in not selecting these sources for FFAs and EPA failed
to address them in its proposal. Thus, they argue that EPA must require
Florida to conduct an FFA for each facility to ensure the State meets
CAA requirements to make reasonable progress during the second planning
period.
Response 7: Regarding the 20 sources that the Conservation Groups
contend must be evaluated by Florida, EPA disagrees that the Agency
``must require Florida to conduct a Four-Factor Analysis of potential
controls for each of these facilities to ensure that the State meets
the Clean Air Act's requirements to make reasonable progress in the
second planning period.'' See Response 2, Response 5, and the NPRM (89
FR 105511) which explain that the RHR does not require states to select
and consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or
all sources in a particular source category. Nor does the RHR expressly
specify criteria for minimum source selection thresholds. Florida has
discretion under the RHR to determine its source selection methodology
and Florida's source selection process, and the sources that Florida
selected were reasonable and the Haze Plan complied with the CAA and
RHR for this planning period. While Florida could have used its
discretion to select other sources in addition to those screened in
during its source selection process, including some or all of the
sources that the Conservation Groups highlight, Florida was not
required to do so. Also, sources that did not meet the State's
reasonable source selection criteria (such as Deerhaven) were not
selected for an FFA and were therefore not required to have emission
limits and supporting conditions adopted into the LTS in the SIP to
support reasonable progress for the second planning period. Regarding
the assertion that Florida failed to meaningfully consider and respond
to the Conservation Groups' comments concerning Breitburn, see Response
12.
Comment 8: The Conservation Groups assert that EPA shirks its duty
to review Florida's source-specific FFAs. They state that EPA proposes
to ``rubber stamp'' the SIP submission without engaging in any
meaningful and independent analysis of Florida's FFAs for the four
facilities \100\ to ensure they comply with the CAA and the RHR.
Pointing to EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD), the Conservation
Groups claim EPA merely restated what Florida did and that EPA entirely
failed to grapple with the record before it and thus shirked its duties
under the Act. They explain that EPA has stated in its 2021
Clarification Memo that it expects states to ``undertake rigorous
reasonable progress analyses that identify further opportunities to
advance the national visibility goal.'' They then assert that
``[d]espite EPA's stated expectations for this planning period, in
large part, Florida does not require any of the sources to adopt
additional control measures to make reasonable progress'' and that EPA
accepts ``Florida's decisions to ignore readily available, feasible,
and cost-effective controls,'' which they contend violates the CAA and
RHR. The Conservation Groups' specific comments on the FFAs for Foley,
JEA Northside, and WestRock-Fernandina are addressed in Comments 8.a
through 8.c, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Initially, Florida completed FFAs for four facilities
(Foley, JEA Northside Unit 3, WestRock-Fernandina, and WestRock-
Panama City). As stated in the NPRM (see footnote 51 at 89 FR
105518), FDEP included documentation of the closure of WestRock-
Panama City in the 2024 Supplement. In addition, on October 18,
2024, FDEP sent a site inspection report and other supporting
documentation for the WestRock-Panama City closure as an addendum to
the 2024 Supplement. Foley has also shut down as discussed in
Response 8.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 8: EPA's approval of Florida's Haze Plan is a proper
exercise of EPA's authority under the CAA. Congress crafted the CAA
intending for states to take the lead in developing implementation
plans. However, Congress balanced that decision by requiring EPA to
review the plans to determine whether a regional haze SIP revision
meets the requirements of the CAA. When reviewing SIPs, EPA must
consider not only whether the state considered the appropriate factors
in making decisions, but acted reasonably in doing so. In undertaking
such a review, EPA does not usurp the state's authority but ensures
that such authority is reasonably exercised under the requirements of
the CAA and RHR.
Contrary to the comment that the Agency ``shirks'' its CAA
obligations, EPA has performed its duties with diligence. EPA carefully
evaluated the Haze Plan and the associated record and engaged in a
thorough analysis of each control option, including each of the
underlying cost assumptions used in the calculations. Florida conducted
extensive technical work in support of its SIP submittal, and EPA
independently evaluated each FFA, including costs, and compared each
FFA's control determination against EPA's CCM. In the TSD to the NPRM,
EPA documented the cost assumptions that the State relied upon in its
FFAs for transparency to the public.\101\ Each of the FFAs are
discussed in more detail in the responses to comments that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The NPRM contains several erroneous cross-references to
the TSD. On page 105516, the cross-reference to section I.F. should
be to section I.E.; on page 105524, the cross-reference to section
I.E. should be to section I.D.; on page 105524, the cross-reference
to section I.D. should be to section I.C. and the cross-reference to
Section I.F. should be to section I.E.; and on page 105529, the
cross-reference to section I.F. should be to section I.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8.a: The Conservation Groups contend that Foley, located 43
km from St. Marks, contributes a significant amount of SO2
and NOX (emitting 2,087 tpy and 1,596 tpy of each pollutant
in 2020, respectively) that likely impacts 15 Class I areas.
Furthermore, they maintain that the facility has an ``extremely high''
cumulative Q/d of 288.37. Florida selected Foley for an emissions
control analysis, and the facility conducted an FFA at the request of
the State. The Conservation Groups assert that there were many
significant technical issues with the FFA outlined in the 2021, 2024,
and 2025 Kordzi Reports. They provide summaries intended to identify
issues from these reports in table 1 of their comments on pages 39
through 41 of their Comment Letter.
The Conservation Groups also assert that neither Florida nor EPA
indicate that the shutdown of Foley has been made federally enforceable
through inclusion in the SIP and that EPA must therefore require that
Florida make the Foley shutdown federally enforceable. Alternatively
(i.e., if the shutdown has not occurred and is not enforceable), the
Conservation Groups provide specific comments regarding Foley's FFA.
Because the facility has shut down, the Conservation Groups' specific
comments on the Foley FFA are not reproduced here.
Response 8.a: Regarding Foley's visibility impacts to Class I
areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as part of
its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling, which
differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA finds
Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable as
explained in Response 2.
Regarding the comments on Foley's FFA, these comments are no longer
relevant because Foley has fully shut down, is incapable of restarting
without undergoing applicable New Source Review permitting for new
sources, and Florida has withdrawn the emission limits resulting from
the Foley FFA. In
[[Page 24028]]
a letter dated May 22, 2024, Foley indicated that its mill ``ceased
production operations as a pulp and paper mill and will no longer
operate the [] equipment that was included in the regional haze
analysis.'' \102\ Foley also indicated in its letter that this
equipment would ``be air-gapped by December 31, 2024.'' In a letter
dated April 8, 2025, Florida notified EPA that Foley has permanently
ceased operation of all emissions units. In its letter, Florida
confirmed that these units ``have been rendered inoperable and
permanently retired,'' and therefore, as of April 7, 2025, Florida
revoked the title V Air Operation Permit (Permit No. 1230001-127-AV)
for Foley.\103\ In the letter, Florida also notes that ``[t]he effect
of this expiration is that all existing emissions units at Foley are
considered retired and if Georgia Pacific (or any successor owner) were
to restart these units, they would be treated as new units and subject
to the Department's New Source Review program.'' Further, in Florida's
April 8, 2025, letter to EPA, the State withdrew its request to
incorporate permit conditions for Foley into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See appendix C-2 to 2024 Supplement.
\103\ FDEP's April 8, 2025, letter to EPA containing Florida's
Notice of Administratively Corrected Title V Air Operation Permit
that administratively expires the facility's current Title V Air
Operation Permit on April 7, 2025, is included in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the assertion that this shutdown must be made federally
enforceable by placing the shutdown into the SIP, EPA disagrees for the
reasons discussed immediately above. Furthermore, Florida's New Source
Review permitting requirements are in Florida's SIP and are therefore
federally enforceable.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Rules 62-210.300 (General Preconstruction Review
Requirements), 62-210.400 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permitting), 62-210.500 (Preconstruction Review for Nonattainment
Areas), and 40 CFR 52.520(c) (incorporating by reference Rules 62-
210.300, 62-210.400, and 62-210.500 into Florida's SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8.b: The Conservation Groups contend that Florida conducted
an inadequate FFA for Unit 3 at JEA Northside, a power plant located in
North Jacksonville. Unit 3 is an EGU that consumes natural gas and a
limited amount of fuel oil, but does not have add-on SO2
controls. The FFA led Florida to make the determination that switching
to lower sulfur No. 6 fuel oil would be cost-effective. The
Conservation Groups highlight Florida's statement that ``[g]iven that
JEA can timely implement a fuel switch and there are no energy or non-
air environmental impacts, [FDEP] has determined that switching to
lower sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is necessary for achieving reasonable
progress.'' \105\ However, the Conservation Groups assert that EPA, in
its Proposed Rule, failed to meaningfully review the FFA for JEA
Northside Unit 3 since it does not consider elimination of fuel oil
altogether. Furthermore, they argue that EPA's analysis of Unit 3
``rubber stamps'' the State's determination that prohibition of fuel
oils with greater than 1.0 percent sulfur content is a measure
necessary for reasonable progress. They claim that EPA condones
Florida's conclusion that switching to fuel oil that is 1.0 percent or
lower sulfur content is the most cost-effective control option.
Instead, they maintain that EPA should employ a similar analytic
approach across all sources (e.g., the four boilers at WestRock-
Fernandina) and evaluate a switch to No. 6 fuel oil with a 0.5 percent
sulfur content. The Conservation Groups assert that EPA cannot approve
a SIP that fails to evaluate eliminating fuel oil use or converting to
ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Citing the 2021 Plan at 268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 8.b: The Conservation Groups state that the ``elimination
of fuel oil altogether'' or a conversion to ULSD were not assessed as
potential measures for JEA Northside Generating Station. However, the
JEA Northside FFA presented in appendix G-2 of Florida's October 8,
2021, SIP revision includes an assessment of fuel switching the Unit 3
to ULSD. The same analysis stated that fuel oil usage in unit 3 is
extremely limited, as the unit meets the definition of a natural gas-
fired electric utility steam generating unit, as defined in 40 CFR
63.10042, based on its limited use of oil. The JEA Northside FFA showed
that from 2015 to 2019, Unit 3 fired fuel oil for a maximum of only
1.35 percent of the total annual heat input and a minimum of 0.03
percent. As Unit 3 is already almost entirely fueled by natural gas,
the complete elimination of fuel oil was not selected as a potential
SO2 control as removing the already extremely limited use of
fuel oil would result in negligible or little improvement in emissions
and, therefore, visibility. Regarding the lack of an evaluation of a
fuel switch to No. 6 fuel oil with a 0.5 percent sulfur content, the
2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and
justify the measures that it will consider, recognizing that there is
no statutory or regulatory requirement to consider all technically
feasible measures or any particular measures. A range of technically
feasible measures available to reduce emissions would be one way to
justify a reasonable set.'' As Florida has provided a range of
technically feasible measures--including considering ULSD and selecting
as a control requiring No. 6 fuel oil that does not exceed 1.0 percent
sulfur--an evaluation of No. 6 fuel oil with a 0.5 percent sulfur
content is not required.
Comment 8.c: The Conservation Groups identify WestRock-Fernandina's
FFA as flawed. First, they explain that WestRock-Fernandina is located
64 km from Okefenokee, and that according to the NPCA's 2020 NEI data
analysis, which showed it emitted 633 tpy of SO2 and 1,231
tpy of NOX, it is a significant source of haze-forming
pollution that likely contributes to visibility impairment at five
Class I areas. They note the same analysis shows the facility has a
``very high'' cumulative Q/d of 77.51.
The Conservation Groups summarize issues with the WestRock-
Fernandina FFA identified in the 2025 Kordzi Report as well as their
comment letters to Florida. They claim that Florida failed to
meaningfully engage with and respond to their comments and that EPA's
proposal rubber stamps WestRock-Fernandina's FFA. Specifically, they
state that EPA proposes to find that Florida's determinations regarding
the applicable controls for the sources at WestRock-Fernandina are
reasonable despite Florida's failure to evaluate available and
technically feasible SO2 controls based on, where
applicable, estimated values of capital costs, annualized costs, and
cost per ton of emission reductions, consistent with recommendations in
the CCM.
The Conservation Groups point to a general statement in the 2025
Kordzi Report that WestRock-Fernandina failed to provide adequate
documentation for many claims in its analysis, including cost
figures.\106\ Specifically, they say that WestRock-Fernandina claims
that the No. 7 Power Boiler is capable of running on 100 percent
natural gas, but counter that WestRock did not explore the total
conversion of this boiler to natural gas. The Conservation Groups claim
that WestRock-Fernandina's claim that such a conversion would be a
``fundamental change'' is baseless since it is already capable of
running on 100 percent natural gas.\107\ Further, they point to the
2025 Kordzi Report to claim that WestRock-Fernandina failed to provide
documentation for a $18.8 million cost to upgrade the ULSD burners on
the No. 7 Power Boiler so the
[[Page 24029]]
boiler could retain full backup capability.\108\ Additionally, they
point to the same report to assert that WestRock-Fernandina escalated
the costs from a 2001 publication, which is beyond the five-year
horizon discussed in the CCM and failed to consider the CCM's packed
bed scrubber cost-effectiveness algorithm. The Conservation Groups
claim that Florida wrongly concludes that WestRock-Fernandina's 2028
SO2 baseline is too high despite the absence of a permit
modification to restrict its SO2 emissions. They assert that
EPA must state it has reviewed WestRock-Fernandina's assertedly
confidential cost analyses and found them to be reasonable, without
unnecessary cost items, and in conformance to the CCM. They add that
EPA must require the cost analyses to be included in the SIP if it
determines they are not confidential. The Conservation Groups also
claim WestRock-Fernandina has not adequately documented or justified
its adaptation of an EGU SDA cost-effectiveness calculation using a 90
MW boiler equivalency. Finally, they claim that WestRock-Fernandina
modified the Sargent & Lundy cost algorithms for EGU SDA systems, that
some of the underlying equations were redacted, and that WestRock-
Fernandina's results cannot be reproduced. As a remedy, they claim that
WestRock-Fernandina must provide full working spreadsheets for all of
its cost-effectiveness calculations and that it must remove the general
and administrative, property tax, and insurance cost items it added at
the end, as these cost items are inherently included in the cost
algorithms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 2025 Kordzi Report at 39.
\107\ Id.
\108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups conclude that EPA did not adequately review
the record presented and ignored significant flaws in Florida's SIP
regarding WestRock-Fernandina. Therefore, they conclude that EPA must
reject the State's FFA for WestRock-Fernandina and require a full and
accurate FFA of the facility.
Response 8.c: Regarding WestRock-Fernandina's visibility impacts to
Class I areas, as discussed in Response 2, Florida considered Q/d as
part of its AoI analysis and then further conducted PSAT modeling,
which differs from the method used by the Conservation Groups. EPA
finds Florida's source selection methodology and its results reasonable
as explained in Response 2.
As discussed in Response 8, EPA carefully evaluated the Haze Plan
and the associated record and engaged in a thorough analysis of each
control option, including the underlying cost assumptions used in the
calculations for WestRock-Fernandina. The FFA for WestRock-Fernandina
is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
With respect to the assertion that Florida's response to comments
failed to meaningfully engage and respond to the Conservation Groups'
comments, see Response 12.
The Conservation Groups assert that WestRock-Fernandina failed to
provide adequate documentation for many claims in its analysis,
including cost figures. EPA independently evaluated the WestRock-
Fernandina FFA and compared the FFA's control determination against
EPA's CCM.
The Conservation Groups then state that WestRock-Fernandina did not
consider a potential shift to burning 100 percent natural gas as a fuel
source for the No. 7 Power Boiler. This is not correct. An additional
FFA for fuel switching the No. 7 Power Boiler to 100 percent natural
gas was provided in appendix B of Florida's 2024 Supplement in addition
to the State's analysis in section 7.8.2 of the SIP narrative of that
Supplement.
Regarding the assertion that WestRock did not provide documentation
for the $18.8 million total capital investment estimate to upgrade the
ULSD burners on the No. 7 Power Boiler, documentation was provided in
table A-1c of appendix B-1 of the 2024 Supplement. The supplement
provides the $18.8 million cost estimate, which includes the cost of
installing new ULSD Burners and required infrastructure.
The Conservation Groups state that WestRock-Fernandina escalated
costs from a 2001 publication, beyond the five-year horizon, as
discussed in EPA's CCM section 1, chapter 2 (Cost Estimation
Methodology). EPA agrees that escalating the costs beyond five years is
not typically recommended. However, EPA finds WestRock-Fernandina's use
of escalation in this context was appropriate. WestRock-Fernandina
scaled the costs based on the document titled ``Emission Control
Study--Technology Cost Estimates'' by BE&K Engineering for the American
Forest and Paper Associated (September 2001).\109\ The costs were
scaled from 2001 to 2019 costs using the Chemical Engineering Plant
Cost Index, as recommended by EPA's CCM. EPA reviewed the 2001 BE&K
Engineering study and found it appropriate to apply the cost scaling to
WestRock-Fernandina's Power Boilers 4, 5, and 7. EPA acknowledges the
Conservation Groups' statement that Florida could have used EPA's CCM
cost-effectiveness algorithm in lieu of escalating the 2001 scrubber
costs to current year dollars. However, in this case, the control costs
derived from an analysis specific to the pulp and paper industry are
likely to be more accurate than a generic cost estimate, even if the
original cost values needed to be escalated over a longer period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See 2021 Plan at appendix G-2, section 2.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Conservation Groups' assertion that Florida wrongly
concluded that the facility's 2028 SO2 baseline is too high
despite the absence of a permit modification restricting WestRock-
Fernandina's SO2 emissions, this assertion is incorrect.
Florida determined that WestRock Fernandina's projected 2028
SO2 baseline was too high due to the recent completion of
several SO2-reducing projects which led to large decreases
in emissions at the facility.\110\ Consequently, Florida issued Permit
No. 0890003-072-AC, establishing coal usage caps for the No. 7 Power
Boiler, the largest source of SO2 at WestRock Fernandina,
for regional haze purposes. Conditions 2 and 3 of the permit establish
two phased coal usage caps for the No. 7 Power Boiler: 250 tons per day
starting on January 1, 2022, and 125 tons per day starting on April 1,
2024, both measured using a 30-day rolling average which excludes days
on which a natural gas curtailment or supply interruption occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See section 7.8.2 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups state that EPA must affirm that it has
reviewed WestRock's confidential cost analysis and found it to be
reasonable, without unnecessary cost items, and consistent with the
CCM. EPA reviewed the WestRock-Fernandina cost analyses and finds that
the cost items provided are necessary and conform to the CCM. While EPA
found that some confidential costs were higher than costs estimated by
using values provided by the CCM, EPA still finds that Florida's
conclusion is reasonable.
The cost analysis provided by WestRock Fernandina, in appendix G of
the 2021 Plan includes cost analyses with redacted material for add-on
controls at WestRock-Fernandina. The redacted values include cost
factors and rates for cost items such as labor, utilities, maintenance,
and other operating costs. EPA did not need the unredacted costs to
make a determination due to (1) the existence of preexisting controls
on those units, and (2) the inclusion of costs from the CCM confirmed
that even using CCM costs, the costs would still be well above what
[[Page 24030]]
Florida determined was a reasonable cost of control.
An additional cost analysis for fuel switching the No. 7 Power
Boiler to 100 percent natural gas was provided in appendix B of
Florida's 2024 Supplement in addition to the State's analysis in
section 7.8.2. The publicly available cost analysis included redacted
cost factors and unit costs for landfill disposal and fuels. EPA
received the unredacted material for this cost analysis as confidential
business information (CBI) and found it to be reasonable.
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, a company may assert a
business confidentiality claim covering information furnished to EPA.
See 40 CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, the Agency must consider
the information to be confidential and must treat it accordingly unless
the Agency finds in a CBI determination that the material is not CBI.
See 40 CFR 2.205, 2.301(g). Thus, EPA is obligated to protect the
confidentiality of that information, which precludes the Agency from
publicly posting this analysis in the docket at regulations.gov.
The Conservation Groups state that the 30 percent efficiency
assumption WestRock-Fernandina uses to calculate the 90 MW boiler
equivalency appears low. However, the national average for fossil-
fueled power plants in the United States is 36 percent.\111\ Therefore,
EPA finds the 30 percent efficiency assumption is acceptable, as it is
within a reasonable range of the average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See https://www.epa.gov/chp/chp-benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups claim that WestRock-Fernandina has modified
the Sargent & Lundy cost algorithms for EGU SDA systems. EPA evaluated
the Sargent & Lundy cost algorithms for SDA systems used by WestRock-
Fernandina and found that the algorithms used were not modified. EPA
disagrees that property taxes, insurance, and administrative cost items
are inherently included in the cost algorithms. The CCM estimates these
indirect operating costs as a proportion of the source's total capital
investment, at one percent, one percent, and two percent, respectively.
WestRock-Fernandina applied the correct percentage factors and the
Florida revised cost analyses in the 2021 Plan removed property tax
costs from the FFA.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See sections 7.8.2.1.1, 7.8.2.3.1, and 7.8.2.2.1 of the
2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: The Conservation groups assert that Florida did not
consider agricultural burning of sugarcane fields in its SIP, contrary
to CAA requirements to ``identify `all anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment' '' \113\ and that Florida should discuss why it
did not consider sugarcane fields for FFAs. They claim that EPA should
have required the State to ``consider . . . in its SIP'' all major and
minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources, including
sugarcane field burning, which they argue is a major source under the
State's definition of ``major source'' and the CAA's definition of
``stationary source.'' They contend that EPA must require Florida to
conduct FFAs for sugarcane fields to identify emission reduction
measures because, according to the Conservation Groups, these fields
are stationary sources and are in close proximity to Everglades. The
Conservation Groups also argue that EPA should have required the State
to evaluate and require green harvesting under the additional basic
smoke management practices factor at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D);
Florida should have considered the cost effectiveness of green
harvesting as part of an FFA; and EPA must disapprove Florida's source
selection methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Citing to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv). The core required
elements for the first planning period SIPs (other than BART) are
laid out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). See 89 FR 105508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 9: EPA disagrees with this comment. States are not
required to ``identify `all anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment' '' in their regional haze SIPs as suggested by the
Conservation Groups. They incorrectly cite to 40 CFR 51.308(d), which
governs the first round Reasonable Progress requirements, instead of 40
CFR 51.308(f), which governs the second and additional rounds of
regional haze SIPs. Additionally, they selectively misquote 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iv), which, in its entirety, says, ``The State must
identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered
by the State in developing its long-term strategy. The State should
consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area
sources.'' (emphasis added). The source selection requirement for the
second round of Regional Haze SIPs is provided in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i), which states, ``The State should consider evaluating
major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile
sources, and area sources. The State must include in its implementation
plan a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources
or groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.'' Florida adequately addressed the source selection
criteria for the LTS as explained in Response 2, above, and section 7
of the State's 2021 Plan.
While EPA agrees that there are a large number of sugarcane fields
located relatively close to the Everglades which are burned annually,
EPA disagrees Florida must conduct FFAs for this emissions source
category in its second planning period regional haze plan.\114\
Agricultural prescribed burning of sugar cane fields produces smoke,
and the primary visibility impairing PM species in smoke are organic
carbon and elemental carbon.\115\ Figure 2-12 in Florida's 2021 Plan
shows that the combined contribution of organic carbon (labeled as
``organic mass carbon'' (OMC)) and elemental carbon (labeled as ``light
absorbing carbon'' (LAC)) to average light extinction at Everglades on
the 20 percent most impaired days in the 2014-2018 five-year period is
approximately 6 Mm-1 versus approximately 21 Mm-1
for sulfate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Because EPA disagrees that Florida must conduct FFAs for
sugarcane fields in its second planning period regional haze plan
for the reasons discussed herein, it is unnecessary for EPA to
address the comment that sugarcane fields are stationary sources.
\115\ See Mugica-Alvarez et al., ``Sugarcane Burning Emissions:
Characterization and Emissions Factors,'' Atmospheric Environment
193 (2018) 262-272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data from the IMPROVE website
identifies the relative contributions of PM species contributing to the
total visibility impairment at the Florida Class I areas, which are
shown in table 4 in Response 4. As indicated in that table, the
combined contributions of organic and elemental carbon to regional haze
at Everglades is 16 percent, which is approximately 3.7 times less than
the 59 percent contribution from sulfate. Additionally, the combined
contribution of organic and elemental carbon at Florida's other Class I
areas (23 percent at Chassahowitzka and 20 percent at St. Marks) is
larger than at Everglades (16 percent), which indicates that the
contributions of burning and other sources of carbon are similar across
the state of Florida, while in all cases much less than the
contribution from sulfate. As discussed in Response 4, Florida's
conclusion that sulfates continue to be the predominant visibility
impairing species on the 20 percent most impaired days through 2018 at
the Florida Class I areas is reasonable.
EPA also disagrees with the comment that the Agency should have
required the State to evaluate and require green
[[Page 24031]]
harvesting under the additional basic smoke management practices factor
at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D). Florida adequately addressed the
requirement to consider basic smoke management practices in section
7.9.1 of the 2021 Plan.\116\ That section discusses Florida's Smoke
Management Plan (SMP) and the burn authorization program implemented by
the Florida Forest Service, which requires burn authorizations for
agricultural burning, including burning of sugarcane. The burn
authorization process requires consideration of weather conditions and
smoke sensitive areas. Because Florida's reasonable progress source
selection process did not identify sugarcane burning as a source
category to evaluate using an FFA, PM species contribute a relatively
small amount of the total visibility impairment at the Florida Class I
areas relative to sulfate, and Florida documented that it considered
basic smoke management practices as discussed above, it was reasonable
for Florida to not have considered green harvesting in its second
planning period regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Section 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D) requires each state to
consider basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used
for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs in developing its LTS. As discussed in the
2019 Guidance, ``there are many ways a state can give consideration
to basic smoke management practices and smoke management programs.
In particular, a state does not need to shoehorn prescribed fire,
basic smoke management practices, and smoke management programs into
a formal source selection analysis or a formal analysis of control
measures.'' See 2019 Guidance at pp. 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: The Conservation Groups state that the CAA, its
implementing regulations, and guidance require EPA to act consistently
across SIPs, and they contend there are inconsistencies between the
Agency's proposal and several previous SIP actions. They argue that EPA
must ensure that the Agency's final action on Florida's SIP revision is
consistent with prior actions and therefore must remedy the following
alleged inconsistencies: application of documentation requirements
(citing Texas and California proposed actions); evaluation of what is
effectively controlled when determining whether a facility will be
required to conduct an FFA (citing a Wyoming proposed action);
treatment of undocumented cost claims (citing Missouri and Texas
proposed actions); treatment of unsupported deviations from the CCM
(citing an Arizona proposed action); justification of the use of an AoI
threshold (citing a Texas proposed action); and use of the RBLC (citing
a Texas proposed action).
Response 10: Because the Conservation Groups do not identify
specific factual inconsistencies between the Florida proposed action
and the Texas or California proposed actions in either the January 27,
2025, Comment Letter or the 2025 Kordzi Report, EPA cannot respond to
the claim that this action applies the documentation requirements of
the RHR inconsistently across the Texas and California Regional Haze
Plans. Despite these citations to previous EPA proposals, the
Conservation Groups do not identify how EPA ultimately treated any
specific documentation requirements in the Florida Haze Plan
inconsistently with either the Texas or California Regional Haze Plans.
Thus, EPA is unable to respond to this comment as it relates to
inconsistent treatment of the documentation requirements in the Florida
action in comparison to previous actions.
EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups that it evaluated what
is ``effectively controlled'' when it assessed if a facility must be
required to conduct an FFA in this action inconsistently with its
evaluation of facilities in the Wyoming Regional Haze SIP. To support
their argument, the Conservation Groups highlight EPA's proposed
partial disapproval of Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP, where the Agency
could not determine if additional emission controls for NOX
and SO2 were or were not cost-effective or reasonable to
``effectively control'' emissions at two sources due to the State's
failure to provide a sufficient technical demonstration.\117\ As a
result, EPA stated that Wyoming failed to evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures that were necessary to make reasonable
progress through the consideration of the four statutory factors for
these sources.\118\ Specifically, the Conservation Groups describe EPA
as requiring ``proof'' of post-combustion controls for the two sources
at issue in the Wyoming action, and then further contends that EPA does
not do so for similarly affected sources in Florida. The Conservation
Groups claim this amounts to EPA exercising a more stringent standard
for assessing ``effectively controlled'' claims in the Wyoming proposal
than in the Florida action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See 89 FR 63060 (August 1, 2024).
\118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that the Wyoming and Florida Regional Haze SIPs are
comparable. First, the two sources cited in the Wyoming proposal have
much lower FGD control efficiencies than the four Florida power plants
selected.\119\ In contrast, the FGD control efficiencies for the Duke-
Crystal River, JEA Northside, Seminole, and TECO Big-Bend sources in
Florida have seven-year averages for 2017-2023 that range from 95.8 to
97.0 percent.\120\ As noted above in Response 6, the typical
SO2 removal efficiency range for wet scrubbers ranges from
90 to 98 percent.\121\ Because the FGD controls for the sources in
Florida were operating at a high efficiency, EPA found it reasonable
for Florida not to select these for further analysis. Second, the
Agency did in fact require evidence that Florida's sources have
existing effective SO2 controls pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), as discussed in Responses 6.a through 6.h in the
NPRM. Florida demonstrated that the affected units at four power plants
in the State (Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, Seminole, and TECO-Big
Bend) are subject to at least the MATS 0.20 lb SO2/MMBtu
limit and use scrubbers to control SO2 emissions, which run
at high removal efficiencies. Thus, EPA disagrees that it
inconsistently evaluated whether a facility is ``effectively
controlled'' because it appropriately considered distinctions between
the Florida and Wyoming units at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ EPA's ``Response to Comments for the Federal Register
Notice for Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval;
Wyoming; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period''
regarding the Wyoming Regional Haze Plan is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0489-0480.
\120\ See EPA's EGU scrubber efficiency spreadsheet included in
the docket.
\121\ See table 1.1 on page 1-3, section 5, chapter 1 of the
CCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA cannot respond to the claim that this action treats
undocumented claims regarding costs inconsistently with how the same
issue was treated in EPA's actions in the Missouri and Texas Regional
Haze Plans because the Conservation Groups do not identify specific
factual inconsistencies between the Florida action and the Texas or
Missouri proposals in either the January 27, 2025, Comment Letter or in
the 2025 Kordzi Report. To support their argument, the Conservation
Groups cite EPA's Missouri proposal where the Agency explains that ``.
. . the EPA believes that Missouri did not correct all the deficiencies
in the cost assumptions and proposes to find certain aspects of the
cost analyses are not well supported.'' \122\ In the Texas proposal,
the Conservation Groups cite a section where EPA explains that Texas
did not adequately document the cost information on which it based its
evaluation of the cost of compliance
[[Page 24032]]
controls as required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).\123\ Despite these
citations to previous EPA proposals, the Conservation Groups do not
identify how EPA treated any specific costs in the Florida Regional
Haze Plan inconsistently with either the Missouri or Texas Regional
Haze Plans. Thus, EPA is unable to respond to this comment as it
relates to any inconsistent treatment of undocumented claims regarding
costs in the Florida action in comparison to previous proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See 89 FR 55157 (July 3, 2024).
\123\ See 89 FR 83360-83361 (October 15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA cannot respond to the claim that this action treats unsupported
deviations from EPA's CCM inconsistently with how EPA treats the same
issue in the Arizona Regional Haze Plan because the Conservation Groups
do not identify specific factual inconsistencies between the Florida
action and the Arizona proposal in either the January 27, 2025, Comment
Letter or in the 2025 Kordzi Report. The Conservation Groups cite to a
section of EPA's Arizona proposal where the Agency stated that Arizona
did not provide adequate documentation to support deviations from the
CCM with respect to two elements of the cost effective analysis it
performed for two sources (the interest rate and the remaining useful
life of the equipment elements).\124\ Despite this citation to a
previous EPA proposal, the Conservation Groups do not explain
specifically how EPA treated Florida differently than Arizona with
respect to any deviations from the CCM. Thus, EPA is unable to respond
to this comment as it relates to any inconsistent treatment of
deviations from EPA's CCM in the Florida action in comparison to the
Arizona proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See 89 FR 47428-47429 (May 31, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA cannot respond to the claim that this action treats the
justification of using an AoI threshold inconsistently with how EPA
treats the same issue in the Texas Regional Haze Plan. The Conservation
groups do not identify specific factual inconsistencies between the
Florida action and the Texas proposal in either the January 27, 2025,
Comment Letter or in the 2025 Kordzi Report. To support their argument,
the Conservation Groups cite EPA's Texas proposal where the Agency
stated that Texas selected sources using AoIs it developed for each
Class I area, and established a brightline geographic boundary within
which Texas selected sources with a Q/d of greater than or equal to
five.\125\ Despite this citation to a previous EPA proposal, the
Conservation Groups do not specifically identify how EPA treats
Florida's justification for using an AoI threshold inconsistently with
how it treats the same issue in the Texas action. Thus, EPA is unable
to respond to this comment as it relates to inconsistent treatment
concerning the justification of Florida's AoI threshold in comparison
to previous actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See 89 FR 83353-83354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups that it evaluated the
use of the RBLC in this action inconsistently with its evaluation in
the Texas Regional Haze SIP. The Conservation Groups highlight that in
the Texas proposal, EPA stated that Texas' reliance on the RBLC was not
a sufficient search for the petroleum coke calcining plants and carbon
black plants at issue because they had been constructed prior to the
start of EPA's NSR permitting program, and had generally not been
modified in ways that would trigger the permitting programs.\126\
Further, in that proposal, EPA stated that Texas should have provided a
cost analysis to document why other control technologies it was aware
of outside the RBLC that were technically feasible were cost
prohibitive.\127\ In this action, Florida provided existing effective
control demonstrations for EGUs and SAPs.\128\ In addition to using the
RBLC to search for existing effective controls for SO2 for
these source types, Florida also consulted EPA's 2019 Guidance for the
EGUs. Florida identifed existing, effective controls, and is not
required to evaluate and/or select necessarily the most stringent
controls. Florida demonstrated that an FFA would likely conclude no new
measures are necessary for reasonable progress. As discussed in
Responses 6.a through 6.h, EPA finds Florida's demonstration of
existing, effective SO2 controls adequate and agrees with
the State's conclusion that an FFA would likely conclude no new
measures are necessary for reasonable progress. Thus, EPA disagrees
with the Conservation Groups that it inconsistently used the RBLC in
this action in comparison to its evaluation of the Texas Regional Haze
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 89 FR 83356 (October 15, 2024).
\127\ Id.
\128\ See Responses 6.a-6.h for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: The Conservation Groups assert that EPA cannot approve
Florida's SIP revision because it does not contain practically
enforceable emission limits. The Conservation Groups maintain that the
LTS must contain practically enforceable emission limits, compliance
dates, and other measures that are necessary to achieve reasonable
progress. Regarding the permits proposed for incorporation into the
SIP, the Conservation Groups state that Florida failed to meaningfully
respond to their comments and did not revise the permit provisions in
response to their comments. The Conservation Groups' specific comments
are addressed in Responses 11.a through 11.h below.
Comment 11.a: The Conservation Groups provide a summary of their
earlier comments submitted to the State concerning the use of CEMS
data. The summary states that the ``use of emissions data from 40 CFR
part 75 must contain . . . requirements for SIP use,'' and lists
specific requirements such as maintaining, calibrating, and operating
CEMS in compliance with 40 CFR part 75, and methods to calculate
emissions under part 75.\129\ They note that Florida stated that its
SIP already requires continuous emission monitoring ``through various
federal programs or other provisions in Florida's SIP'' and note that
Florida stated that CEMS requirements are already in the SIP at Rule
62-210.370(2)(b). The Conservation Groups then assert that the rule
does not meet the requirements identified in the Conservation Groups'
earlier comments to the State for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ In comments submitted by the Conservation Groups to
Florida on the draft 2021 Plan, they state that this substantive
comment applies to data collected by Duke-Crystal River Citrus Co.
Combined Cycle and JEA Northside Units 1 and 2.
First, Rule 62-210.370(2)(b)1.a. ``allows for CEMS that do not
meet 40 CFR part 75 requirements because the regulation allows for
CEMS that meet `40 CFR part 60, Appendices B and F.' ''
Second, Rule 62-210.370(2)(b)1.b. ``allows for `[t]he owner or
operator demonstrates that the CEMS otherwise represents the most
accurate means of computing emissions for purposes of this rule.'
And thus allows for an alternative compliance method not specified
in the SIP.''
Third, rather than require compliance with the provisions in 40
CFR part 75, Rule 62-210.370(2)(b)2. ``allows the owner or operator
to compute emissions using other methods.''
Fourth, Rule 62-210.370(2)(b)3. ``allows for use of other
parameters.''
The Conservation Groups assert that ``EPA's final action must
ensure that the State's SIP contains the required CEMS provisions or
disapprove the Revised SIP.''
Response 11.a: EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups that the
SIP requires additional CEMS provisions. Duke-Crystal River and JEA
Northside Units 1 and 2 are required to certify, operate, and maintain
CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, and any request for a change to
a SIP-
[[Page 24033]]
approved permit condition for these sources would require a SIP
revision.\130\ To the extent the Conservation Groups are concerned with
the requirements of SIP-approved Rule 62-210.370, it untimely to raise
such comments in this action. EPA incorporated that rule into the SIP
in a separate rulemaking,\131\ and the appropriate venue to raise
concerns about the rule was in that rulemaking process. Thus, these
concerns are outside the scope of the present rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Of the facilities with permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP, only JEA Northside and Duke-Crystal
River use an SO2 CEMS subject to 40 CFR part 75.
Condition III.31(a) in JEA Northside Permit No. 0310045-003-AC,
identified for incorporation into the SIP, requires the permittee to
demonstrate compliance with the relevant SO2 emissions
limits using CEMS installed, certified, operated, and maintained in
accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Condition 3-1 in Duke-Crystal River
Permit No. 0170004-059-AC, identified for incorporation into the
SIP, requires the permittee to demonstrate compliance with the 0.20
lb/MMBtu MATS limit as determined in 40 CFR 63.10021(a) and (b) of
the MATS Rule using CEMS. For Duke-Crystal River, 40 CFR 63.10010(f)
of the MATS Rule requires the owner to certify, operate, and
maintain the CEMS according to 40 CFR part 75.
\131\ See 40 CFR 52.520(c) (listing EPA-approved laws and
regulations); 73 FR 36,435 (June 27, 2008) (approving Rule 62-
210.370 into Florida's State Implementation Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11.b: The Conservation Groups contend that the permit
provisions proposed for incorporation into the SIP lack reporting
requirements, and that Florida and EPA fail to explain how reported
compliance information will be available to the public. With respect to
Foley, the Conservation Groups assert that the permit conditions
identified for incorporation into the SIP are not practically
enforceable because they fail to contain any reporting requirements.
With respect to WestRock-Fernandina, the Conservation Groups assert
that the SIP fails to require reporting for the records tracking coal
usage. They cite to the periodic reporting requirement of section
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.211(a), and also to an EPA
SIP action for Colorado that describes multiple purposes for the
reporting requirements, including: promoting transparency, deterrence,
and effective enforcement of SIP requirements. Citing to this same EPA
SIP action, they contend that inadequate reporting can undermine the
ability of citizens to participate in SIP enforcement.
As examples, they assert the following permits provisions are not
practically enforceable because they fail to contain any reporting
requirements:
[ssquf] ``Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24 and 25 of Subsection A of Section 3 and Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9 of Subsection B of Section 3 of the Georgia-Pacific Foley
Mill Permit No. 1230001-121-AC (State-effective October 20, 2023).''
\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See appendix A of the Second 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] ``Conditions 2, 3, and 4 of Subsection A of Section 3 of
the WestRock-Fernandina Beach Mill Permit No. 0890003-072-AC (State-
effective June 24, 2021) and Condition 5 of Subsection A of Section 3
of Permit No. 0890003-074-AC (State-effective December 16, 2021).''
\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See appendix G-3j of the 2021 Plan for Permit 0890003-072-
AC and appendix A of the 2024 Supplement for Permit 0890003-074-AC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups claim that EPA must resolve the lack of
reporting requirements for all permits that Florida proposes to include
in the SIP to ensure these SIP provisions are practically enforceable.
They assert that Florida's failure to require these facilities to
report means there is no transparency in implementation of the SIP, no
deterrence against violations, and the public and EPA are thwarted from
effective enforcement of SIP requirements, contrary to the requirements
of the CAA that provide for the citizens' ability to participate in the
enforcement of the SIP.
Response 11.b: EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups'
assertion that the revised SIP fails to explain how Florida will make
reported compliance information available to the public for the
facilities with permit provisions incorporated by reference into the
SIP. The Florida SIP requires annual operating reports for all title V
sources under Rule 62-210.370(3), ``Annual Operating Report for Air
Pollutant Emitting Facility.'' This reporting requirement covers all
sources with permit conditions identified by Florida for incorporation
into the SIP and imposes reporting requirements that apply to the
specific permit conditions cited by the Conservation Groups.
Specifically, Rule 62-210.370(3)'s annual reporting requirement
includes types of fuels used, annual usage rates, and sulfur
content.\134\ Further, because all of these facilities are title V
facilities, they are required to submit a Statement of Compliance under
Florida's implementation of the title V permitting program. These
records are available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Rule 62-210.370(3) requires the use of DEP Form No. 62-
210.900(5). The current form is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permits that Florida is proposing to incorporate into the SIP
for the second planning period are construction permits. The
requirements in these permits will become federally enforceable once
EPA approves the SIP revisions, and the respective title V permits for
these sources, which document all enforceable provisions and reporting
requirements, have also been updated with the applicable requirements
from these construction permits. With respect to part 70 requirements,
the sources are required to submit a written report for each reporting
period (semi-annually or more frequently) that documents any excess
emissions, exceedances, or excursions, and any monitor malfunctions
during each reporting period, or alternatively, to submit a report
stating that excess emissions, exceedances, excursions did not occur
during the reporting period.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ The part 70 compliance reporting requirements under 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii) have been incorporated into Rule 62-213.440(1)(b).
The specific reporting requirements associated with each source's
relevant construction permit are included in each source's
subsequent title V renewal permit. For Duke Crystal River Citrus Co.
Combined Cycle, the reporting requirements for Permit No. 0170004-
047-AC and the reporting requirements for Duke Energy Florida--
Crystal River Power Plant's Permit No. 0170004-059-AC are included
in appendix RR of Permit No. 0170004-064-AV (state-effective June
19, 2024); for JEA Northside, the reporting requirements for Permit
No. 0310045-003-AC (for Units 1 and 2), Permit No. 0310045-059-AC
(for Units 1 and 2), Permit No. 0310045-057-AC (for Unit 3) are
included in Condition FW10 of Permit No. 0310045-061-AV (state-
effective September 6, 2023); for Nutrien, the reporting
requirements for Permit No. 0470002-122-AC are included in Condition
FW9 of Permit No. 0470002-139-AV (state-effective April 1, 2025);
for Seminole, the reporting requirements for Permit No. 1070025-037-
AC are included in appendix RR of Permit No. 1070025-040-AV (state-
effective March 10, 2025); for TECO-Big Bend, the reporting
requirements for Permit No 0570039-129-AC are included in Condition
FW9 of Permit No. 0570039-132-AV (state-effective April 27, 2021);
and for WestRock-Fernandina, the reporting requirements for Permit
No 0890003-072-AC and Permit No. 0890003-074-AC are included in
appendix RR of Permit No. 0890003-075-AV (state-effective February
18, 2022) as mentioned above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Foley, the Conservation Groups' comments are no
longer relevant because the facility has shut down. See Response 8.a.
With respect to the Conservation Groups' assertion that the SIP
fails to require WestRock-Fernandina to report the records for tracking
coal usage, EPA disagrees. All facilities with title V permits in
Florida are subject to Florida Rule 62-210.370(3)(c), which is already
approved into the SIP and requires reporting of annual fuel usage
rates. Again, this would include reports of annual coal usage.
Additionally, the emissions limits and associated recordkeeping
requirements for WestRock-Fernandina's Permit No. 0890003-074-AC have
been incorporated into the facility's title V permit, Permit No.
0890003-075-AV,
[[Page 24034]]
which houses all enforceable provisions and reporting requirements.
Condition RR4 of this title V permit requires the source to submit
semi-annual reports, which include all instances of deviations from
permit requirements. Furthermore, this condition requires the source to
submit a report even if there are no deviations during the reporting
period, stating that there have been no deviations during the reporting
period. These ongoing compliance reports are certified by a responsible
official. As all of the records reported under the provisions discussed
in this comment response are publicly available, EPA disagrees that the
public and EPA are ``thwarted from effective enforcement of SIP
requirements'' and that the SIP precludes ``citizens' ability to
participate in the enforcement of the SIP as authorized.''
Comment 11.c: The Conservation Groups maintain that Florida's Haze
Plan does not specify the compliance dates for purposes of the ``RH RP
SIP requirements'' and that the SIP provides some state-effective dates
for the permits but not for enforcement of the SIP. The Conservation
Groups argue that because the permits the State proposes to include in
the SIP have expired or will expire soon, the SIP does not meet the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, which require that
emission limitations and related provisions for practical
enforceability are permanently enforceable. The Conservation Groups
also contend that Florida's responses to these comments on the State's
2021 draft Plan were not entirely responsive.
Response 11.c: Compliance schedules are required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).This RHR provision specifies that the LTS must include the
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. According to
40 CFR 51.100(p), compliance schedule means ``the date or dates by
which a source or category of sources is required to comply with
specific emission limitations contained in an implementation plan . .
.'' Florida met the requirement to include a compliance schedule by
either (1) providing the effective date of the permit containing the
relevant provision with which the source is expected to comply, or (2)
including a separate date other than the effective date on which the
source must meet its obligation. Florida's action in this regard is
consistent with the requirement to include a compliance schedule.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' concern that Florida uses
permits that ``either have or will soon expire,'' FDEP explains in
appendix I-5 of the 2021 Plan that under Florida's NSR and title V
permitting programs, conditions contained within air construction
permits are applicable requirements that extend beyond the expiration
of the actual air construction permit.\136\ Florida generally includes
a statement in its permits to this effect. For example, JEA's Permit
No. 0310045-57-AC states that, ``[n]otwithstanding this expiration
date, all specific emissions limitations and operating requirements
established by this permit shall remain in effect until the facility or
emissions unit is permanently shut down.'' In evaluating Florida's Haze
Plan, EPA considered whether a specific condition of a given permit was
acceptable for approval into the Florida SIP based on the context and
enforceability of that condition. Because all applicable requirements
in the permit conditions identified for incorporation into the Florida
SIP for this action are state-enforceable beyond the expiration of the
actual air construction permits by operation of state law, they will
become federally enforceable and permanent once they are approved into
the SIP through this action, notwithstanding the expiration of the air
construction permits in which they originally appeared. Therefore, EPA
disagrees with the Conservation Groups regarding the enforceability of
these permit conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See Rule 62-210.300(1)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Conservation Groups' concern that Florida failed to
address the Conservation Groups' comments during the State's July 9,
2021, public comment period, see Response 12.
Comment 11.d: The Conservation Groups state that SIP emission
limitations must apply at all times. They cite to their 2021 comments
to Florida that Florida's Haze Plan contains provisions for JEA
Northside Units 1 and 2 that would exclude emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, that this exclusion is inconsistent with the
CAA and EPA's requirements, and that these provisions must be removed
from Florida's Haze Plan. They point to EPA's disapproval of Wyoming's
exemptions of startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions in that
state's regional haze SIP revision, where the agency explained that
``[t]he RHR states that `Section 302(k) of the CAA requires emissions
limits such as BART [and RP] to be met on a continuous basis.
Therefore, it is clear that the rule intended for BART [and RP]
emission limits to be met on a continuous basis and did not provide
either explicitly or implicitly exceptions for startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.'' The Conservation Groups state that Florida failed to
respond to its comments and that EPA must disapprove this portion of
Florida's Haze Plan because it is contrary to the requirements of the
CAA and its implementing regulations.
The Conservation Groups also assert that Florida must correct
errors in JEA Northside's Permit No. 0310045-059-AC for Units 1 and 2,
and JEA Northside's Permit No. 0310045-62 for Unit 3, regarding the
following issues: permit expiration; lack of clarity regarding MATS
compliance provisions; and failure to require reporting. They cite to
their 2024 comments to Florida, which include the following:
The permit provision providing the MATS SO2
emission limits for JEA Northside Units 1 and 2 ``provides that
compliance with the MATS SO2 emission limits must be
`demonstrated as determined in 40 CFR 63.10021(a) and (b) of the MATS
Rule.' Florida DEP's overarching reference to 40 CFR 63.10021(a) does
not specify which of the requirements in that regulation apply to this
facility. Notably, there are four different tables in the rule that
contain emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards.
The rule also includes monitoring requirements in two additional
tables. Similarly, the permit provision does not explain which
provisions in 40 CFR 63.10021(b) apply to the facility. Florida DEP
must revise this permit provision to explain exactly which portions of
40 CFR 63.10021(a) and (b) it proposes to incorporate into the Regional
Haze SIP.''
``The `Fuel Oil Sulfur Records' provision in Permit No.
0310045-062-AC for Unit 3 requires JEA Northside to maintain records of
each shipment of fuel oil and make them available to Florida DEP upon
request. Yet, it is not sufficient for Florida DEP to merely maintain
these records onsite. Florida DEP must require that these fuel shipment
records and other relevant records are reported to the State on at
least a semi-annual basis and specify how the reports shall be
submitted to at Florida DEP.''
They contend that ``EPA must resolve these issues; and must
disapprove Florida's SIP for failure to respond to these significant
issues regarding MATS.''
Response 11.d: The MATS Rule was originally promulgated by EPA
pursuant to CAA section 112, which also incorporates the CAA's general
definitional requirement that an emission limitation or emission
standard limit emissions on a ``continuous basis.'' See CAA section
302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k). Specifically, the CAA defines ``emission
limitation''
[[Page 24035]]
and ``emission standard'' to mean ``a requirement [. . .] which limits
the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on
a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation
or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and
any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard
promulgated under [the Clean Air Act].'' Id.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ EPA has historically interpreted CAA section 302(k) as
allowing various forms or a combination of forms. See 88 FR 33840,
33842 (June 12, 2015) (``The term emission limitation means, in the
context of a SIP, a legally binding restriction on emissions from a
source or source category, such as a numerical emission limitation,
a numerical emission limitation with higher or lower levels
applicable during specific modes of source operation, a specific
technological control measure requirement, a work practice standard,
or a combination of these things as components of a comprehensive
and continuous emission limitation in a SIP provision. . . . By
definition, an emission limitation can take various forms or a
combination of forms, but in order to be permissible in a SIP it
must be applicable to the source continuously.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it relates to JEA Northside Units 1 and 2, the SO2
emission limitation, a combination of numeric limits and work practice
standards, continuously applies at all times. Florida proposed for
adoption into the SIP permit conditions for Units 1 and 2 that include
a numeric SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), a numeric SO2 limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu (24-hour block
average), the MATS numeric SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-
boiler operating day rolling average), and the MATS work practice
standards. Florida identified the SO2 numeric limit of 0.15
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), the SO2 numeric limit of
0.2 lb/MMBtu (24-hour block average), the MATS numeric SO2
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-boiler operating day rolling average), and
the MATS work practice standards, together, as reflecting effective
controls for JEA Northside Units 1 and 2 because the numeric
SO2 limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (24-hour block average) and 0.2
lb/MMBtu (24-hour block average) have exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The MATS numeric SO2
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu applies during periods of normal operation and
malfunction, and the work practice standards apply at all times. The
work practice standards include conducting periodic performance tune-
ups of the EGU burner and combustion controls.
With respect to the comment regarding the expiration of JEA
Northside's Permit No. 0310045-059-AC and JEA Northside's Permit No.
0310045-62-AC, see Response 11.c.
EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comment stating that
there is lack of clarity regarding MATS compliance provisions with the
aforementioned permits. The permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP explicitly specify the associated MATS
emission limitation and cite to 40 CFR 63.10021(a) and (b) as a means
to demonstrate compliance with this limitation. The numeric MATS
SO2 emission limit being added into Florida's Regional Haze
SIP in these permits is 0.20 lb/MMBtu based on a heat input-weighted
30-boiler operating day rolling average. Florida notes in the 2024
Supplement ``[t]o ensure that the facility is subjected to
SO2 emission limits that apply continuously, JEA agreed to
supplement the SO2 emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, which
Florida included in its 2021 Regional Haze submittal, with the MATS-
based SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, which applies
continuously on a heat input-weighted 30-boiler operating day rolling
average. The supplemental permit incorporating the MATS-based
SO2 limit includes work practice standards that apply during
periods of startup and shutdown.'' The 0.20 lb/MMBtu limit is specified
in table 2 to subpart UUUUU of part 63, under the category for existing
``coal-fired unit not low rank virgin coal'' EGUs, which is the case
for the Units 1 and 2 at JEA Northside. Furthermore, table 2 also notes
that compliance with this limit will be determined using an
SO2 CEMS. Table 3 of the MATS Rule provides work practice
standards applicable to existing sources, to new sources, to coal-
fired, liquid oil-fired, or solid oil-derived fuel-fire EGUs during
startup and shutdown. Based on the information provided by Florida and
the control and monitoring of SO2 using a CEMS at both
sources, the specific applicable requirements in the relevant tables in
40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU, are clear.
In response to the comment that JEA Northside's permit provisions
fail to require reporting, EPA disagrees for the reasons stated in
Response 11.b. Additionally, these and other MATS-based permit
conditions cite to 40 CFR 63.10021(a) and (b) as a means to demonstrate
compliance. The regulation at 40 CFR 63.10021(a) requires that sources
demonstrate compliance through, among other requirements, the reporting
requirement of 40 CFR 63.10021(f), which requires units to comply with
the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.10031. These reporting
requirements include quarterly electronic emissions reports, semiannual
compliance reports, and excess emissions and deviations reporting among
other requirements. In other words, the MATS Rule requires periodic
reports with respect to the permit conditions that are being
incorporated into the SIP. Thus, these reporting requirements provide
EPA and the public with adequate, publicly available information to
evaluate compliance.
EPA disagrees that Florida did not respond to the Conservation
Groups' state-level comments regarding MATS. Florida responded to those
comments, as provided in the 2021 Plan in appendix I-5 and in the
Second 2024 Supplement.
Comment 11.e: The Conservation Groups assert that Florida must
correct the errors in WestRock-Fernandina's Permit No. 0890003-074-AC.
They claim that Florida failed to respond to earlier comments that the
permit conditions identified for incorporation into the SIP are not
practically enforceable because the permit is expired, the permit
conditions do not contain sufficient reporting requirements, and the
permit conditions lack a definition of ``calendar day,'' allowing the
source to include days when Boiler No. 7 is not operating in the 30-day
rolling average. They note that Florida points to Rule 62-
210.370(3)(a)(4) for reporting requirements but contend it is unclear
how the rule applies to facilities covered by the revised SIP because
Florida does not propose to incorporate any permit provision for an
annual report. The Conservation Groups also state that Florida's
reference to Rule 62-210.370(2)(h) is not helpful because it merely
requires the owner or operator to maintain records and it does not
contain a requirement for reporting. The Conservation Groups further
contend ``the permit provisions EPA proposes to include in the SIP for
WestRock-Fernandina regarding the coal cap and records for tracking the
coal cap requirements do not include requirements for the facility to
report the records to Florida . . . . Florida's failure to require that
the source report the records for tracking coal usage means there is no
transparency in implementation of the SIP, no deterrence against
violations, and the public and EPA are thwarted from effective
enforcement of SIP requirements, all contrary to the requirements of
the CAA and for the citizens ability to participate in the enforcement
of the SIP as authorized.'' \138\ The Conservation
[[Page 24036]]
Groups assert that EPA must ensure the SIP includes a definition of
``calendar day'' clarifying that the source must only include days when
the unit is operating and resolve the reporting issues or disapprove
the SIP on these issues. They also contend that Florida failed to
address the issue regarding the expired permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The Conservation Groups presented this argument as an
example of their concerns with the lack of transparency and other
perceived issues, which is addressed in Comment and Response 11.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 11.e: With respect to the comment that Florida's Haze Plan
lacks sufficient reporting requirements, see Response 11.b. Regarding
the comment on permit expiration, see Response 11.c.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' assertion that a definition of
``calendar day'' is needed for the applicable coal usage caps for Power
Boiler No. 7 within Westrock Fernandina Beach's Permit No. 089003-074-
AC, EPA disagrees. In the absence of a definition provided by Florida
for this term, the ordinary dictionary meaning applies. ``Calendar
day'' means ``a civil day: the time from midnight to midnight.'' \139\
The Conservation Groups do not identify a legal basis for disapproving
any portion of the SIP given the plain meaning of this term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calendar%20day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11.f: The Conservation Groups assert that Florida must
correct the errors in Georgia-Pacific's Foley Mill Permit No. 1230001-
121-AC regarding provisions for Power Boiler No. 1, Bark Boilers Nos. 1
and 2, and Recovery Furnaces Nos. 2, 3, 4 for ``improper exemptions,''
and on all units for reporting requirements. Otherwise, they claim that
EPA must disapprove Florida's SIP for failure to respond to these
significant issues. First, they contend that the permit provisions EPA
proposes to incorporate into the SIP allow Power Boiler No. 1 to fire
``liquid fuels'' if there are physical mill problems, but do not define
what constitutes physical mill problems. The Conservation Groups state
that ``Florida must clarify what constitutes the category of events
that fall within `physical mill problems' and set an alternative
reasonable progress emission limitation that would apply to Power
Boiler No. 1 when it operates during those events.'' Second, they
contend that the proposed permit provisions would allow Georgia-Pacific
to use undisclosed test methods to assess the sulfur content of
permitted fuels for Power Boiler No. 1; that the SIP must provide
appropriate test methods to assess whether covered sources are
complying with applicable emission limits; and that states cannot allow
sources to use test methods that are not approved by EPA. They also
contend that ``the permit provisions listing the applicable test
methods for assessing the sulfur content of fuels fired at Power Boiler
No. 1 would allow Florida to approve of other methods not specifically
listed.'' Thus, they state that Florida ``must remove the provision
that allows it to approve other test methods that are not currently
included in the permit provision.''
The Conservation Groups also contend the Georgia-Pacific Foley Mill
Permit No. 1230001-121-AC for Recovery Furnaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4
includes ``improper exemptions or reference materials that are not
included in the relevant permit provisions or the SIP Supplement,''
citing to their 2024 comments provided to the State. For the Recovery
Furnaces, their 2024 comments are that permit provisions would allow
FDEP to approve test methods to assess the sulfur content of fuels
fired at the furnaces that EPA has not approved. They contend that
Florida must remove the provision that allows it to approve other test
methods not currently included in the permit provision.
With respect to Bark Boilers Nos. 1 and 2, the Conservation Groups
express the same concern they did about Power Boiler No. 1 with regards
to a provision that allows the firing of ``liquid fuels'' if there are
physical mill problems. Further, they express a concern that Florida
does not include either the manufacturers recommendations or specific
calibration procedures in the permit provisions for the wet scrubber
monitoring devices used for the Bark Boilers.
Response 11.f: The Conservation Groups' comments regarding Foley
are no longer relevant because the facility has shut down. See Response
8.a.
Comment 11.g: The Conservation Groups assert that Florida must
correct errors in Mosaic-South Pierce's Permit No. 1050055-037-AC. They
state that Florida determined that existing measures for Mosaic-South
Pierce, namely, existing SO2 emission limits for SAPs 10 and
11 and associated monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements, are necessary for reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. They state that Florida then must ensure that its
Regional Haze SIP for this facility includes practically enforceable
limits. They identified the following as issues with the Mosaic-South
Pierce permit: the permit has expired; the permit fails to require that
the facility report the records to Florida at least semi-annually; and
the permit fails to include CEMS requirements. They contend that ``EPA
must disapprove Florida's SIP for failure to respond to these
significant issues.''
Response 11.g: In response to the Conservation Groups' comment that
Mosaic-South Pierce's Permit No. 1050055-037-AC has expired, EPA
disagrees that this presents a basis for disapproval. See Response
11.c. Further, the measures Florida is relying on for reasonable
progress for Mosaic-South Pierce are already incorporated into the SIP,
and therefore, are federally enforceable and permanent.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See 88 FR 51702 (August 4, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding reporting, Florida's SIP requires annual operating
reports for all title V sources under Rule 62-210.370(3), ``Annual
Operating Report for Air Pollutant Emitting Facility.'' See Response
11.b. Additionally, section II, Condition FW9 of the facility's title V
permit requires the source to submit semi-annual reports, which include
all instances of deviations from permit requirements.\141\ Furthermore,
this condition requires the source to submit a report even if there are
no deviations during the reporting period, stating that there have been
no deviations during the reporting period. These ongoing compliance
reports are certified by a responsible official. Therefore, EPA
disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comments concerning reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See Section II, Condition FW9 of title V Permit No.
1050055-039-AV in the the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comments regarding
CEMS requirements. The SIP-approved permit conditions require the use
of CEMS, as does SIP-approved Rule 62-296.402, which applies to
sulfuric acid plants such as Mosaic-South Pierce. Rule 62-296.402(5)
requires sulfuric acid plants to install, calibrate, operate and
maintain CEMS and requires performance specifications, monitor
location, data requirements, data reduction, and reporting requirements
to conform with the requirements in 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, and 40
CFR part 60, appendix B.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Any alternative procedures (as specified in section 3.9 of
40 CFR part 51, appendix P) or special considerations (as specified
in section 6.0 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix P) must be incorporated
in the air permit and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. See Rule
62-296.402(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11.h: The Conservation Groups assert Florida must correct
the errors in Nutrien's Permit No. 0470002-132-AC, which they state are
the same as those raised for Mosaic-South Pierce above.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Citing Conservation Groups 2024 Comments at 34-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24037]]
Response 11.h: In response to the Conservation Groups' comment
regarding Nutrien's Permit No. 0470002-132-AC and the concern that
Florida uses permits that ``either have or will soon expire,'' EPA
disagrees that this presents a basis for disapproval. See Response
11.c. Further, the measures Florida is relying on for reasonable
progress for Nutrien are already incorporated into the SIP, and
therefore, are federally enforceable and permanent.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See 88 FR 51702 (August 4, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding reporting, Florida's SIP requires annual operating
reports for all title V sources under Rule 62-210.370(3), ``Annual
Operating Report for Air Pollutant Emitting Facility.'' See Response
11.b. Additionally, section II, Condition FW9 of the facility's title V
permit requires the source to submit semi-annual reports, which include
all instances of deviations from permit requirements.\145\ Furthermore,
this condition requires the source to submit a report even if there are
no deviations during the reporting period, stating that there have been
no deviations during the reporting period. These ongoing compliance
reports are certified by a responsible official. Therefore, EPA
disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comments concerning reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See section II, Condition FW9 of title V Permit No.
0470002-139-AV in the the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comments regarding
CEMS requirements. The SIP-approved permit conditions require the use
of CEMS as does SIP-approved Rule 62-296.402 which applies to sulfuric
acid plants such as Nutrien. Rule 62-296.402(5) requires sulfuric acid
plants to install, calibrate, operate and maintain CEMS whose
specifications, monitor location, data requirements, data reduction,
and reporting requirements, conform with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix P, and 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Any alternative procedures (as specified in section 3.9 of
40 CFR part 51, appendix P) or special considerations (as specified
in section 6.0 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix P) must be incorporated
in the air permit and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. See Rule
62-296.402(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: The Conservation Groups assert that states are required
to respond to significant points made by the public during the public
comment period on their SIPs and that Florida failed to do so. They
also assert that Florida's response to comment documents merely
provided high-level summaries of the comments; these documents omitted
legal and technical details identified by the Conservation Groups;
Florida did not submit the public comments to EPA; and Florida's
failure to meaningfully engage and respond to the significant comments
provides another justification for EPA to disapprove Florida's revised
SIP. The Conservation Groups allege that EPA was on notice and aware of
the significant comments and that EPA nevertheless proposed to ``rubber
stamp'' Florida's SIP. They conclude by stating that Florida's failure
to meaningfully engage and respond to the significant comments provides
another basis for EPA to disapprove the SIP.
Response 12: Regarding the comment that EPA is approving Florida's
SIP revisions despite its awareness of the Conservation Groups'
significant state-level comments, the Agency evaluated the Haze Plan
and, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
published a notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting comments on its
proposal. The APA requires EPA to respond to significant comments
received on its proposal, and the Agency has responded to all such
comments in this notice.\147\ If a state-level commenter does not
believe that a state adequately addressed its comment on a SIP revision
and feels that its comment is still relevant after EPA's proposed
action, it must re-submit that comment during the federal public
comment period if it wants EPA to formally consider the comment when
taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ See, e.g., Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35-36
(D.C. Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees that Florida's response to comments provides a basis
for disapproval of its Haze Plan. Florida provided a response to public
comments, which it documented in appendix I-5 of the 2021 Plan and in
the Public Participation section of the Administrative File for the
2024 Supplement. The Conservation Groups cite to Criterion 2.1(h) in
appendix V to 40 CFR part 51, which is one of the criteria used to
determine whether a SIP revision is complete pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1)(A).148 149 These criteria are used solely to
determine whether a SIP revision is deemed an official submission for
EPA review, and the regional haze SIP revisions subject to this
rulemaking have become complete by operation of law.\150\ Therefore,
the State's alleged failure to meet Criterion 2.1(h) cannot form the
basis for disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Appendix V is titled ``Criteria for Determining
Completeness of Plan Submissions'' and ``sets forth the minimum
criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan
submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for
purposes of review under Sec. 51.103.'' See 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, section 1.0.
\149\ The Conservation Groups also cite to Home Box Office, 567
F.2d at 35-36. However, this opinion addressed the requirements for
informal Federal rulemaking under the APA, not the requirements
under the CAA governing the submission of SIP revisions. EPA's
rulemaking actions on SIP revisions are subject to APA informal
rulemaking requirements, and therefore, provide the public with
another opportunity to comment on the adequacy of these SIP
revisions.
\150\ SIP revisions are deemed complete by operation of law six
months after submission. See CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, EPA notes that Florida provided a response to public
comments that it documented in appendix I-5 of the 2021 Plan and in the
Public Participation section of the Administrative File for the 2024
Supplement. Criterion 2.1(h) simply requires a ``Compilation of public
comments and the State's response thereto'' and does not specify the
level of detail required for a state's response.
Comment 13: The Conservation Groups state that EPA's docket for the
proposed action is ``extremely disorganized,'' EPA and Florida failed
to provide reasonable notice and opportunity to comment under the CAA's
requirements for reasonable public notice and public hearing for SIPs,
and EPA failed its ``duty to present the public with a logical and
well-organized docket.'' They assert that the docket contains
duplicative files, files without descriptive or unique names, multiple
unintegrated supplement files with multiple supplements and sub-
supplements, and appendices from the State that share the same names
and are not properly integrated with the SIP submittal. The
Conservation Groups assert that EPA must correct the deficiencies with
the docket in its final determination, and at a minimum, place all SIP
materials in a logical format in one folder, place the body of the SIP
in a single file, and provide a meaningful index to the docket. The
Conservation Groups also note that they requested a 14-day extension to
the comment period given concerns with the docket and that EPA failed
to acknowledge and respond to the request.
Response 13: EPA disagrees that the docket was disorganized in a
way that falls short of its public participation obligations. The
Conservation Groups do not cite to any materials, legal or otherwise,
explaining how the organization of the docket affected EPA's compliance
with its public participation requirements or establishing a duty
regarding docket organization. Further, the order and organization of
the docket within
[[Page 24038]]
regulations.gov is outside the scope of EPA's control. Regarding the
names of the files, FDEP included within the table of contents of its
2021 Plan and the two 2024 supplements a list of each appendix along
with the filename and a description of the contents of each file. EPA
also prepared and included in the docket a document that identifies the
filename and a description of each document in the docket that was not
submitted with the 2021 Plan and the two 2024 supplements.
EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' contention that it
failed to provide reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on this
proposed action. EPA's general practice is to provide a 30-day public
comment period for SIP revision proposals.\151\ The public comment
period on EPA's NPRM for Florida's regional haze plan began the morning
of December 27, 2024, and ended on January 27, 2025. Because the 30th
day of the comment period, January 26, 2025, was a Sunday, the next
Federal business day was set as the final day of the comment period.
Further, EPA accepted comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern on the final
day of the comment period, thus providing the public, in effect, 32
days to submit comments on the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ The Administrative Procedure Act does not prescribe a
minimum public notice period. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). Nor has
EPA adopted a minimum public comment period in its regulations for
its proposed actions on SIP revisions. See 40 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the allegation that Florida failed to provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for comment, it is unclear how the organization
of EPA's docket relates to Florida's public participation obligations
for SIP revisions. FDEP provided the public the opportunity to review
its 2021 Plan during a public comment period that ran from June 9,
2021, to July 9, 2021. Since no commenter requested a public hearing,
Florida cancelled the one scheduled for July 15, 2021. Similarly, FDEP
opened a comment period for the 2024 Supplement on January 19, 2024.
That comment period was originally scheduled to run through February
19, 2024; however, it was extended at the request of the public to
March 8, 2024. The public hearing for the supplement, scheduled for
March 20, 2024, was also cancelled due to the lack of request from the
public.\152\ FDEP did not host a comment period for the Second 2024
Supplement because the material in this supplement had already been
reviewed by the public during the 2024 Supplement public comment
period. Furthermore, as explained in Response 12, EPA disagrees that
Florida's responses to comment warrant disapproval of its Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ FDEP originally scheduled the public hearing for February
27, 2024, yet rescheduled this public hearing concurrently with the
extension of the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Conservation Groups mention their January 9, 2025,
request for a 14-day extension of the comment period and note that EPA
failed to respond. Although EPA received the extension request, it was
under no obligation to respond. In general, this request stated that
the amount of time EPA provided the public to review the entire package
was insufficient under the weight of the ``scope, volume and
complexity'' of the information provided. Additionally, the
Conservation Groups pointed to the delay in adding some supporting
materials into the docket. EPA disagrees that additional time was
necessary for several reasons. First, as discussed above, the public
had 32 days to comment on the proposal. Second, 56 of the 63 supporting
files in the docket were available to the public via Florida's
website,\153\ and one file was available on another publicly available
website.\154\ The Conservation Groups had the opportunity to review
most of these materials while preparing state-level comments on the
Florida SIP revisions. Third, with respect to the six files that were
not previously available to the public, EPA added them to the docket on
second business day of the comment period, December 30, 2024,\155\
three days following publication, and much of the information contained
in these six files was already publicly available. Only three
documents--a Site Inspection Report (dated October 10, 2024) and the
letter transmitting the report (dated October 18, 2024) (encompassing a
total of 37 pages combined) and a two-page document containing an email
chain between EPA and FDEP--included information that was not
previously publicly available.\156\ As the Conservation Groups are
aware, EPA was required to take final action on Florida's Regional Haze
SIP by March 31, 2025, pursuant to a consent decree.\157\ To meet this
consent decree deadline, EPA needed time to review all comments it
received and any further delay in the comment period due to an
extension would have prevented it from being able to meet this
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ https://floridadep.gov/air/air/content/epa%E2%80%99s-regional-haze-program and https://floridadep.gov/air/air-business-planning/content/florida%E2%80%99s-supplemental-amendment-previously-proposed-regional.
\154\ The consent decree in Civil Action No. 14-707-BAJ-SCR was,
and remains, available at https://deq.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/General/Settlement_Agreements/2014/PCSConsentDecree2015.pdf.
\155\ All files were uploaded to the docket on December 30,
2024, with the exception of EPA's TSD which was added into the
docket on January 10, 2024, after EPA reviewed the NPRM and noticed
that it had inadvertently been excluded. As the Conservation Groups
point out, the TSD merely provides information found in Florida's
regional haze submissions and/or in the December 27, 2024, NPRM.
Therefore, the addition of the TSD into the docket does not provide
information that was not already publicly available on December 27,
2024.
\156\ The two-page document includes an email chain about the
courtesy copy of the June 14, 2024, submission FDEP provided to EPA,
and includes a question from EPA to the FDEP on whether they
intended to submit the supplement through SPeCS. It also includes
the FDEP's confirmation that the June 14, 2024, supplement was
submitted via SPeCS.
\157\ EPA later received an extension of this deadline from the
court to May 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: The Conservation Groups state that EPA and Florida did
not evaluate how the emissions from in-state sources impact communities
surrounding these facilities. They maintain that the regional haze
plans have significant potential to achieve co-benefits for people and
that pollution reductions required by the regional haze program could
reduce disproportionate air pollution burdens in the surrounding
communities. The Conservation Groups assert that Florida's EGUs were
responsible for significant health impacts on local communities based
on a study by Clean Air Task Force and identify the number of asthma
attacks, heart attacks, and premature deaths that the study linked to
emissions from Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, and Seminole. They
argue that EPA should consider the impacts of the facilities and
explain how a strong regional haze plan can mitigate harm to
communities.
Response 14: EPA acknowledges that emissions controls required for
regional haze may have health benefits. However, the CAA's visibility
program and RHR are focused on improving visibility at mandatory Class
I areas and not public health. EPA has evaluated Florida's SIP
submissions against sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308
and has determined that the Florida SIP satisfies those statutory and
regulatory requirements. Neither the statute nor the RHR requires
states to evaluate benefits to human health in their regional haze SIP
revisions or provides EPA with the authority to consider public health
impacts when acting on those revisions.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, and as discussed in sections I and
[[Page 24039]]
II of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference
into Florida's SIP the following conditions from the listed FDEP Air
Construction Permits: Conditions 7 and 28 in Subsection A of Section 3
of the Duke Crystal River Citrus Co. Combined Cycle Permit No. 0170004-
047-AC (State-effective December 16, 2014); Condition 1 of Section 3 of
the Duke Crystal River Permit No. 0170004-059-AC (State-effective
October 30, 2020); Conditions 9, 14(a), and 31(a) of Section III of the
JEA Northside Units 1 and 2 Permit No. 0310045-003-AC (State-effective
July 14, 1999), and Condition 2 of Subsection A of Section 3 of Permit
No. 0310045-059-AC (State-effective February 16, 2023); Conditions 2,
5, and 6 of Section 3 of the JEA Northside Unit 3 Permit Nos. 0310045-
057-AC (State-effective June 17, 2021), and Condition 7 of Permit No.
0310045-062-AC (State-effective August 24, 2023); Condition 2,
Subsection 3 of Section 3 of the Nutrien Permit No. 0470002-122-AC
(State-effective December 21, 2018); \158\ Condition 3 of Subsection A
of Section 3 of the Seminole Permit No. 1070025-037-AC (State-effective
April 14, 2021); Conditions 12 and 13 of Subsection C of Section 3 of
the TECO-Big Bend Permit No. 0570039-129-AC (State-effective August 11,
2020); and Conditions 2, 3, and 4 of Subsection A of Section 3 of the
WestRock-Fernandina Permit No. 0890003-072-AC (State-effective June 24,
2021) and Condition 2 of Subsection A of Section 3 of Permit No.
0890003-074-AC (State-effective December 16, 2021). EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ The 2021 Plan requests that EPA incorporate the 2.6 lbs/
ton and 2.3 lbs/ton emission limits from Permit 0470002-122-AC for
Nutrien, See 2021 Plan at 13-14. However, in the December 27, 2024,
NPRM, EPA inadvertently stated that ``Current restrictions in the
SIP impose SO2 emission limits at 2.6 lbs/ton, three-hour
rolling average; 2.3 lbs/ton, 365-day rolling average, which applies
during periods of shutdown and startup'' and did not identify these
limits in the ``Incorporation by Reference'' section of the NPRM.
EPA is incorporating these limits into the SIP via this rulemaking.
\159\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving Florida's October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, and
October 28, 2024, SIP submissions as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f).\160\ Thus, EPA is adopting into Florida's SIP the permit
conditions identified in section III above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ As mentioned above (see footnote 3), FDEP withdrew its
request to incorporate permit conditions for Foley from its October
28, 2024, SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2025. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 20, 2025.
Kevin McOmber,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. In Sec. 52.520:
0
a. In paragraph (d), amend the table by adding one entry each for
``Duke Crystal River Citrus Co. Combined Cycle,''
[[Page 24040]]
``Duke Crystal River,'' ``Nutrien White Springs,'' ``Seminole
Generating Station,'' and ``TECO-Big Bend''; two entries for
``WestRock-Fernandina Beach Mill''; and four entries for ``JEA
Northside'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), amend the table by adding entries for ``Regional
Haze Plan--Second Planning Period''; ``Regional Haze Plan--Second
Planning Period--Supplement 1''; and ``Regional Haze Plan--Second
Planning Period--Supplement 2'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Duke Crystal River Citrus Co. 0170004-047-AC 12/16/2014 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
Combined Cycle. [Insert Federal Subsection A,
Register page Conditions 7 and
where the 28 at EU 040--
document begins]. Unit 1A, EU 041--
Unit 1B, EU 042--
Unit 2A, and EU
043--Unit 2B.
Duke Crystal River.............. 0170004-059-AC 10/30/2020 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Condition1 at EU
Register page 003--Unit 5 and
where the EU 004--Unit 4
document begins]. (revising Section
3, Subsection B,
Condition 3.A.9
of Permit No.
0170004-054-AC).
Nutrien White Springs........... 0470002-122-AC 12/21/2018 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Condition 3 at
Register page EU066--SAP E and
where the EU067--SAP F.
document begins].
Seminole Generating Station..... 1070025-037-AC 4/14/2021 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Condition 2,
Register page Subsection 3 at
where the EU001--Unit 1 and
document begins]. EU002--Unit 2
(revising Section
3, Condition 3 of
Permit No.
1070025-019-AC).
TECO-Big Bend................... 0570039-129-AC 8/11/2020 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Subsection C,
Register page Conditions 12 and
where the 13 at EU004--Unit
document begins]. 4.
WestRock-Fernandina Beach Mill.. 0890003-072-AC 6/24/2021 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Subsection A,
Register page Conditions 2, 3,
where the and 4 at EU 015--
document begins]. No. 7 Power
Boiler.
WestRock-Fernandina Beach Mill.. 0890003-074-AC 12/16/2021 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Subsection A,
Register page Condition 2
where the (adding Condition
document begins]. 5 to Section 3,
Subsection A of
Permit No.
0890003-072-AC)
at EU 015--No. 7
Power Boiler.
JEA Northside................... 0310045-003-AC 7/14/1999 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section III,
[Insert Federal Conditions 9,
Register page 14(a), and 31(a)
where the at EU 026--Boiler
document begins]. 2 and EU 027--
Boiler 1.
JEA Northside................... 0310045-059-AC 2/16/2023 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Subsection A,
Register page Condition 2 at EU
where the 026--Boiler 2 and
document begins]. EU 027--Boiler 1.
JEA Northside................... 0310045-057-AC 6/17/2021 6/5/2025, 90 FR Section 3,
[Insert Federal Conditions 2, 5,
Register page and 6 at EU 003--
where the Boiler No. 3.
document begins].
JEA Northside................... 0310045-062-AC 8/24/2023 6/5/2025, 90 FR Condition 7 at EU
[Insert Federal 003--Boiler No. 3
Register page (adding Condition
where the 7 to Section III,
document begins]. Subsection A of
Permit No.
0310045-057-AC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
[[Page 24041]]
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Provision effective approval Federal Register Explanation
date date notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan--Second Planning 10/8/2021 6/5/2025 6/5/2025, 90 FR ..........................
Period. [Insert Federal
Register page where
the document begins].
Regional Haze Plan--Second Planning 6/14/2024 6/5/2025 6/5/2025, 90 FR ..........................
Period--Supplement 1. [Insert Federal
Register page where
the document begins].
Regional Haze Plan--Second Planning 10/28/2024 6/5/2025 6/5/2025, 90 FR ..........................
Period Supplement 2. [Insert Federal
Register page where
the document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2025-10035 Filed 6-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P