STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RYAN SALES AND SERVICE, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-0061

) SAINT LUCIE INCINERATION, NICK ) STEWART, PRESIDENT, and STATE ) OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF )

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondents, )

and )

)

RABUN AND COMPANY, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William J. Kendrick, held a public hearing in the above-styled case on February 16, 1987, in Fort Pierce, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Ryan Sales and Douglas Manson, Esquire Services, Inc. Oertel & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507

For Respondent: Bruce R. Abernethy, Jr., Esquire Saint Lucie Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & Lloyd Incineration 311 South Second Street

Fort Pierce, Florida 33450

For Respondent: Julia Cobb Costas, Esquire

Department of Department of Environmental Regulation Environmental 2600 Blair Stone Road

Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

For Intervenor: Theodore M. Burt, Esquire Rabun and Rabun and Post Office Box 308 Company Trenton, Florida 33693

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), should approve the application of Respondent, Saint Lucie Incineration, for a permit to construct an air curtain incinerator.

The transcript of hearing was filed February 20, 1987, and the parties were granted leave, at their request, until March 11, 1987, to file proposed findings of fact. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be filed within thirty (30) days of the date a transcript is filed. Rule 221-6.31, Florida Administrative Code. The parties' proposed findings of fact have been addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On September 22, 1986, Saint Lucie Incineration (Applicant), filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a permit to construct an air curtain incinerator, an air pollution source, in Saint Lucie County, Florida. The permit would have allowed the Applicant to construct, after-the-fact, the subject incinerator within an existing landfill owned and operated by Saint Lucie County. On November 5, 1986, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested permit, and Petitioner, Ryan Sales and Services, Inc. (Ryan), filed a timely request for formal administrative review.

   
   

   The Air Curtain Incinerator

   
   

2. The principles underlying the design and function of air curtain incinerators are neither new nor complex; however, their permitted use in the State of Florida is a recent development.

   
   

3. The basic components of this type incinerator are a "pit" in which the materials are confined, a blower to deliver air under the materials to increase combustion efficiency, and a plenum from which a high-speed layer of air (an air curtain) is directed at a fixed downward angle across the pit. The air curtain serves as an air pollution control device by substantially limiting the emissions that can escape from the pit and by increasing combustion efficiency. 1/ The integrity of these components is critical if the unit is to function in compliance with the Department's standards.

   
   

4. In this case, the Applicant has applied for a permit to construct a 40' air curtain incinerator manufactured by Intervenor, Rabun and Company, Inc. (Rabun). The construction of this unit was completed, with the exception of the installation of its electric supply and a steel trough to be used as a slide plate for materials entering the "pit", before the subject application was submitted to the Department. Consequently, while no tests have been run on the unit, its physical presence permits an objective evaluation of its capabilities.

   
   

   Structural Integrity Of The Rabun Unit Pit

   
   

5. The Rabun "pit is erected above ground, and rests on a concrete foundation. Its sides are manufactured of steel refractory panels, 4' wide and 6' high, which are bolted to a steel framework. Its overall dimensions are 40' long, 8' wide at the rear, 8'3 wide at the front, and l2' high from the base of the foundation.

6. The steel framework, including the columns and beams, should provide structural stiffness to the air curtain incinerator's "pit". A lack of structural stiffness will result in movement of the walls during operation, and a resulting loss of an effective air curtain.

   
   

7. The steel frame at the front of the Rabun pit, where the doors are located, is not designed or constructed in accordance with good engineering practices. The horizontal beam at the top of the unit, which connects to the vertical beams on both sides of the doors, is secured to each vertical beam by only two bolts. When debris strikes the sides of the "pit", these bolts will have to absorb 2.8 times the load of the bolts holding the vertical beams to the foundation. This unequal load will translate into a twisting of the vertical beams, and a loss of air curtain integrity.

   
   

8. The doors at the front of the Rabun pit, which are opened to remove debris from the unit, also do not conform with good engineering practices. The locking assembly of the unit is subject to failure from the impact of materials which may reasonably be expected to be loaded into the unit. The consequences of such failure during operation of the unit would be the emission of pollutants.

   
   

9. The design spacifications for the Rabun unit call for the refractory panels to be 5" thick. According to Rabun, such design would sustain operating temperatures up to 3,000 degrees, and a flash temperature of up to 4,000 degrees. The normal operating temperature is expected to be approximately 2,400 degrees.

   
   

10. The refractory panels installed on the subject Rabun unit were poured on-site by Rabun, and evidence that little quality control was exercised. The panels are severely pitted and contain imbedded paper debris which, once combusted, will reveal further pitting of the interior surface walls of the "pit". The visible pitting is, in places, as deep as 2". The Applicant offered no proof that the refractory panels, as constructed, could reasonably be expected to maintain their structural integrity under normal operating temperatures or conditions. A failure of any panel during the operation of the unit would result in the emission of pollutants.

    
    

    Structural Integrity And Design Of Rabun Unit Plenum

    
    

11. The plenum of the Rabun unit is installed on too of one of the sidewalls, and consists of a 34" diameter cylinder, with a 1" opening (nozzel) down its full 40' length. The plenum rests on five braces, which are welded to the outside frame, and is secured to three of these braces by jacks. Between the plenum nozzel and the sidewall is a gap which Rabun has filled with KAO- wool, a heat resistant insulation material.

    
    

12. The structural support design of the plenum on the Rabun unit does not comport with good engineering practices. The braces on which the plenum rests lack important diagonal bracing and the welding is poor. The three jacks which secure the plenum, are inadequate to restrain its movement once an air mass begins flowing from the plenum's nozzel. The poor design of the structural support for the plenum, as well as the failure to adequately secure it, will result in the plenum being dislodged from the unit completely, or at the very least cause a change in the orientation of the nozzel and a disruption of the air current. In either event, pollutants would be freely emitted from the

    "pit". Further, such movement would also cause the KAO- wool to become dislodged, and emissions would escape through that gap. 2/

    
    

13. In addition to failing to establish that the plenum could maintain a fixed angle on the air curtain, the applicant also failed to demonstrate that the plenum could maintain an equal distribution of air at approximately 120mph throughout its length. The proof established that, as proposed, the velocity distribution of air flow coming out of the plenum nozzel would be approximately 160mph in the center of the unit, and decrease along its length to approximately 10mph at either end of the plenum nozzel. Consequently, due to the Rabun unit's inability to maintain an even air flow at approximately 120mph across the entire length of the 40' pit, the unit's air curtain will be ineffective, and pollutants can be reasonably expected to escape the unit while it is in operation.

    
    

    Design Of The Underfire Ventilation System

    
    

14. The under fire system for the air curtain incinerator injects oxygen to super heat the materials and, thereby, increase combustion efficiency. One fan is provided by Rabun to power the underfire blower, and its intake is not screened or protected. The ingestion of foreign materials could interrupt the fan's operation, and the lack of air flow would decrease the efficiency of the burner. The proof failed to establish, however, that such inefficiency would adversely affect air quality.

    
    

15. The proof does, however, demonstrate that the injection of cold underfire air into the "pit", which would occur if the blower failed and were subsequently restarted, could precipitate an expulsion of debris and smoke from the unit or a thermal explosion. Neither the Applicant nor Rabun's "operating instructions" addressed this operational problem.

    
    

    Design Of The Air Flow Duct Work To The Plenum

    
    

16. The design of the Rabun unit's fan and duct work does not conform with good engineering practices. The intake for the fan, which generates the air flow to the plenum, is located close to the wall of the pit. So sited, the fan will be drawing hot air for the plenum, which will decrease the air flow reaching the plenum.

    
    

17. The duct work which connects the fan with the plenum is made of vinyl fabric, and no proof was offered regarding its heat resistant characteristics. This duct work is located immediately behind the KAO-wool filled gap between the plenum's nozzel and the top of the pit wall. When the plenum moves, and this KAO-wool is dislodged, ash, flame and other debris may reasonable be expected to contact the vinyl duct work. If its integrity is destroyed, there would be no air curtain to retain the pollutants in the "pit".

    
    

    Location Of The Unit

    
    

18. The subject air curtain incinerator is located a distance greater than 1,000' from an active portion of the landfill, as required by DER rules.

    
    

    A Synopsis

    
    

19. The Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Rabun air curtain incinerator would not cause pollution in violation of the

    Department's rules. No Rabun unit has ever been tested or its efficiency demonstrated. The professional who certified the subject application did little more than assure that the fan used to drive air to the plenum was sufficient to deliver an adequate volume of air. Beyond that, he assumed the structural integrity of the unit and that its design comported with good engineering practices. The engineer's assumptions in this case were sorely misplaced.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

21. By stipulation, there is no dispute regarding the standing of any party.

    
    

22. Pertinent to this case, Rule 17-4.03, Florida Administrative Code, provides:

    
    

    Any stationary installation which will reasonably be expected to be a source of pollution shall not be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified without an appropriate and currently valid permit issued by the Department, unless the source is exempted by Department rule. The Department may issue such permit only after it is assured that the installation will not cause pollution in violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 403, F.S., or the rules and regulations promulgated there- under. (Emphasis added.)

    
    

23. The standards or rules that this source is governed by are found in Section 17-2.600, Florida Administrative Code. These regulations provide as follows:

    
    

    17-2.600 Specific Source Emission Limiting Standards.

    
    

    No person shall cause, let, permit, suffer or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere emissions from the following sources greater than the emission limiting standards specified below. Where work practice standards, including requirements for specific types of pollution control equipment, are provided for in this section, such standards shall be of the same force and effect as emission limiting standards.

    1. Incinerators

       * * *

       (d) Any air curtain incinerator, new or existing, located at a landfill for any time period or at any other site for more than six months.

       1. Outside of startup periods, no visible emissions (5 percent opacity or less) shall be allowed, except that an opacity of up to 20 percent shall be permitted for not more than three minutes in any one hour.

       2. During startup periods, which shall not exceed the first 30 minutes of operation, an opacity of up to 35 percent, averaged over a six-minute period, shall be allowed.

       
       

       In this case the Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that its air curtain incinerator will comply with the requirements of Rule 17- 2.600(1)(d)1 and 2, Florida Administra- tive Code.

       
       

24. The Applicant, Rabun, and the Department suggest that the construction permit should be issued because any "bugs in the unit could be worked out during the construction phase, by "fine tuning" and adjusting the unit to meet state requirements. Such suggestion is contrary to the Department's rules which mandate that reasonable assurances be given before a construction permit can be issued.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the permit application of Saint Lucie Incinerator be DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM J. KENDRICK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1987.

ENDNOTES

1/ The air curtain is simply a sheet of air forced across the top of the unit into the opposing wall. The air curtain strikes the opposing wall at a fixed downward angle, forcing the smoke down and back into the fire. The smoke and debris are continually forced back down into the burning material until a clean burn is achieved. Maintaining a fixed angle and uniform rate of air flow at approximately 120mph on the air curtain is essential if the unit is to operate properly and within the Department's guidelines.

2/ Although on direct Mr. Rabun testified that only two items remained to be done on the unit, the electrical supply and steel through, he offered on rebuttal that he also had additional bracing to add for the plenum and that he was going to weld the plenum down. According to his rebuttal testimony, the jacks are only to initially adjust the plenum and then they will no longer be needed. Mr. Rabun's rebuttal testimony is rejected and not credited. The proof demonstrates that the design of the Rabun unit does not contemplate that the plenum will be welded or otherwise secured beyond the three jacks. See e.g.: St. Lucie's exhibit 18, page 3, item (2)C. Mr. Rabun's lack of knowledge regarding essential design and structural features for an air curtain incinerator was apparent throughout these proceedings.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0061

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1-6. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3.

7-9. Addressed in paragraphs 1 and 4.

10-11. Addressed in paragraph 3.

12-17. Addressed in paragraphs 11 and 12.

18-31. Addressed in paragraphs 13 and 19.

32-42. Addressed in paragraphs 9, 10, 19, and footnote 2.

43-47. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7.

48-50. Addressed in paragraph 8.

51-58. Addressed in paragraphs 14 and 15.

59-68. Addressed in paragraphs 16 and 17, or not necessary to result reached.

69-75. Addressed in paragraph 18.

76-77. Rejected as not shown to be relevant. The plans for the Rabun unit, Intervenor's exhibit 1, detail the design of the foundation. Ryan offered no proof that, as designed, the foundation is inadequate or structurally unsound.

78-82. Addressed in paragraph 19 and Conclusions of Law.

The Applicant's and Rabun's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraphs 1 and

   19. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the facts.

2. Addressed in paragraph 1 and the Conclusions of Law.

3. Addressed in paragraph 2 and 4, and Conclusions of Law. The suggestion that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the incinerator will meet Department requirements is rejected as contrary to the proof.

4. Addressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law.

5. Rejected as contrary to the proof and law.

6. Rejected as contrary to the proof. See footnote 2.

7. Rejected as contrary to the proof and law.

The Department's amended proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. Addressed in paragraph 1.

2. Addressed in paragraph 2.

3. Addressed in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law.

4. Rejected as contrary to the proof.

5-7. Addressed in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law, or rejected as not relevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Douglas Manson, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507

Bruce R. Abernethy, Jr., Esquire Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & Lloyd

311 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450

Julia Cobb Costas, Esquire

Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Theodore M. Burt, Esquire Post Office Box 308 Trenton, Florida 33693 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary

Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Docket for Case No: 87-000061

Orders for Case No: 87-000061