The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be issued an air construction permit authorizing its Crystal River steam generating plant Units 1 and 2 to co-fire a five to seven percent blend of petroleum coke with coal.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Florida Power Corporation (FPC), is an investor-owned public utility engaged in the sale of electricity to approximately 1.2 million customers. Among others, it operates the Crystal River Power Plant consisting of five electric-generating units in Citrus County, Florida. Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 are coal-fired, while Unit 3 is a nuclear unit. Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP), is a state agency charged with the statutory responsibility of regulating the construction and operation of business enterprises in a manner to prevent air pollution in excess of specified limits. Among other things, DEP issues air construction permits for a limited period of time to undertake and evaluate initial operations of a business enterprise; long- term approval subsequently is available under an air operation permit. As a part of this process, and pursuant to federal law, DEP engages in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review to determine if non-exempt alterations to major facilities result in net emission increases greater than specified amounts. Under certain conditions, however, the use of alternative fuels or raw materials are exempted from PSD review. Intervenor, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. (LEAF), is a non-profit Alabama corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. It is a public interest advocacy organization whose corporate purposes include securing environmental and health benefits from clean air and water. Intervenor, Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club), is a public interest advocacy organization incorporated in California and doing business in Florida. Its corporate purposes include securing the environmental and health benefits of clean air and water. On December 26, 1995, FPC filed an application with DEP for an air construction permit authorizing it to burn a blend of petroleum coke and coal in its existing coal-fired Units 1 and 2 at the Crystal River Power Plant in Citrus County, Florida. In the application, FPC did not address PSD review since it believed it qualified for an exemption from PSD permitting under Rule 62- 212.400(2)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. That rule exempts from PSD review the [u]se of an alternative fuel or raw material which the facility was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975. After reviewing the application, DEP issued an Intent to Deny on June 25, 1996. In that document, DEP stated that [a]ccording to information in Department files, both Units 1 and 2 operated on liquid fuel prior to January 6, 1975. Very substantial modifications of the boilers and pollution control equipment were implemented thereafter by [FPC] to convert the units to coal-firing mode. Therefore the project does not qualify for the exemption from PSD review claimed by the company. Contending that it was entitled to an exemption from PSD review and therefore a permit, FPC filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on October 4, 1996. In its Petition, FPC generally alleged that petroleum coke is a product with characteristics very similar to coal; Units 1 and 2 were capable of accommodating coal and petroleum coke as of January 6, 1975; and contrary to the statements in the Intent to Deny, any boiler modifications and pollution control improvements to those units were minor and not substantial. The Permitting Program The PSD program is based on similar PSD requirements found in the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (the Act). The permitting program is a federally required element of DEP's State Implementation Plan (SIP) under Section 110 of the Act. DEP has fulfilled the requirement of administering the federal PSD program by obtaining approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of state PSD regulations that meet the requirements of federal law. The requirements of the SIP are found in Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 62-212 contains the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new facilities and modifications to existing facilities. Rule 62-212.400, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the general preconstruction review requirements and specific requirements for emission units subject to PSD review. The provisions of the rule generally apply to the construction or modification of a major stationary source located in an area in which the state ambient air quality standards are being met. Paragraph (2)(c) of the rule identifies certain exemptions from those requirements. More specifically, subparagraph (2)(c)4. provides that a modification that occurs for the following reason shall not be subject to the requirements of the rule: 4. Use of an alternative fuel or raw material which the facility was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975. The rule essentially tracks verbatim the EPA regulation found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)1. Therefore, in order to qualify for an exemption from PSD review, FPC must use "an alternative fuel . . . which [Units and 2 were] capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975." In addition, FPC must show that "such change would [not] be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975." Contrary to assertions by Respondent and Intervenors, in making this showing, there is no implied or explicit requirement in the rule that FPC demonstrate that it had a subjective intent to utilize petroleum coke prior to January 6, 1975. The Application and DEP's Response In its application, FPC proposes to co-fire a five percent (plus or minus two percent) blend of petroleum coke with coal, by weight. It does not propose to make any physical changes to Units 1 and 2 to utilize petroleum coke. Also, it does not request an increase in any permitted air emission rates for the units because it can meet its current limits while burning the proposed blend rate of petroleum coke with coal. The application included extensive fuel analysis and air emissions data obtained from a DEP-authorized petroleum coke trial burn conducted from March 8 until April 4, 1995. Although it is not proposing to make physical changes to the plant, FPC applied for the air construction permit in deference to DEP's interpretation that such a permit is required when a permittee utilizes an alternative fuel. After completing his initial review, the DEP supervisor of the New Source Review program acknowledged in a memorandum to his supervisor that FPC was "entitled to a permit" but suggested that FPC be asked to "change their minds." Before the permit was issued, however, DEP changed its mind and issued an Intent to Deny on the ground that prior to January 6, 1975, Units 1 and 2 were not capable of accommodating coal or a blend of petroleum coke with coal. The Units Unit 1 has a generating capacity of 400 MW and commenced operation as a coal-fired plant in October 1966. It fired coal until March 1970, fuel oil until October 1978, and then again fired coal from June 1979 to the present. Unit 2 has a generating capacity of 500 MW and commenced operations as a coal-fired plant in November 1969. It fired coal until September 1971, fired fuel oil from December 1971 until October 1976, and then again fired coal from December 1976 to the present. Original equipment installed during the initial construction of Units 1 and 2 included the following: the barge unloader, which removes coal from barges that deliver coal from New Orleans; the stacker/reclaimer, which stacks the coal into piles and then reclaims the coal by directing it from the coal piles to conveyors that deliver it to the units; the crusher house, which has two crushers that crush the coal on the way to units down to nuggets no larger than three-quarters of an inch in diameter; the silos, which store the crushed coal; the feeders, located below the silos, which regulate the flow of coal from the silos to the pulverizers; the pulverizers, which grind the coal in preparation for combustion and then direct the pulverized coal to the burners, which are located on the corners of each unit's boiler; and the boilers, where the fuel is combusted, imparting heat to water contained in the waterwalls and thereby producing steam for electrical generation. The foregoing equipment was reflected in the plant's construction specifications and remains in operation, on site, at the plant. Components and parts of this equipment have been maintained, replaced, and repaired periodically. The original operations manual for the barge unloader, stacker/reclaimer, crushers, and conveyor systems are still kept and utilized on site. The primary fuel utilized in Units 1 and 2 is coal, although these units also co-fire from one to five percent number fuel oil and used oil. The combustion of fuel in Units 1 and 2 results in air emissions. As a result of changing regulatory requirements, there have been substantial improvements to the units' air pollution control capabilities since original construction. Existing Air Permits Unit 1 currently operates under Air Operation Permit Number A009-169341. Unit 2 operates under Air Operation Permit Number A-009-191820. Both permits were amended by DEP on October 8, 1996. Although each air operation permit contains an expiration date that has been surpassed, the permits remain in effect under DEP's regulations during the pendency of the agency's review of FPC's applications for air operation permits under the new Title V program found in Chapter 62-213, Florida Administrative Code. The air operation permits governing Units 1 and 2 contain mass emission rate limitations of 0.1 pounds/million (mm) British thermal units (Btu) or particulate matter (PM), and 2.1 pounds/mmBtu for sulfur dioxide. These mass emission rate limitations restrict the amount of each pollutant (measured in pounds) that is to be released into the atmosphere per million Btu of heat energy by burning fuel. The PM limitation is applicable to Units 1 and 2 under state regulations originally promulgated in 1972. The sulfur dioxide limitation was established in 1978 as a result of a PSD air quality analysis performed in conjunction with the permitting of Units 4 and 5. Prior to 1978, sulfur dioxide limits promulgated early in 1975 imposed a limit of 6.17 pounds/mmBtu on coal-fired operations at Units 1 and 2. Because Units 1 and 2 were subjected to a PSD air quality impact analysis along with Units 4 and 5, the units' sulfur dioxide emission limits were reduced from 6.17 to 2.1 pounds/mmBtu. The 2.1 pounds/mmBtu sulfur dioxide emission limitation applicable to Units 1 and 2 was set with the intention of assuring no adverse air quality impacts. The sulfur dioxide impacts associated with Units 1, 2, 4, and 5, after collectively being subjected to PSD air quality review, were much lower than the sulfur dioxide impacts previously associated with only Units 1 and 2. Is Petroleum Coke an Alternative Fuel? Petroleum coke is a by-product of the oil refining process and is produced by many major oil companies. The oil refineries refine the light ends and liquid products of oil to produce gasoline and kerosene, resulting in a solid material that resembles and has the fuel characteristics of coal. Both historically and presently, it has been common- place for electric utilities to rely on petroleum coke as fuel. For example, during the period 1969 through 1974, regular shipments of petroleum coke were sent to various electric utility companies throughout the United States to be co-fired with coal. In addition, DEP has issued permits for Tampa Electric Company to co-fire petroleum coke with coal. In 1987 and again in 1990, the EPA promulgated air- emission regulations which specifically define "coal" as including "petroleum coke." DEP has incorporated these regulations by reference at Rule 62-204.800(7)(b) 3. and 4., Florida Administrative Code. Given these considerations, it is found that petroleum coke constitutes an alternative fuel within the meaning of Rule 62-212.400(4)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. Were the Units Capable of Accommodating the Fuel? Petroleum coke and coal are operationally equivalent. Petroleum coke can be handled, stored, and burned with the existing coal handling equipment at Units 1 and 2. The barge unloader, stacker/reclaimer, storage areas, conveyors, silos, crusher house, pulverizers, and burners, all installed prior to 1975, can handle petroleum coke. The equipment comprising Units 1 and 2 does not require any modification in order to burn a blend of petroleum coke with coal. Also, there will be no net impact on steam generator design or operation, and there will be no decline in performance or adverse impacts to the boilers. FPC could have co-fired petroleum coke with coal historically without making physical alterations or derating the units. Similarly, petroleum coke can be fired in Units 1 and 2 now without alterations or derating. These findings are further supported by Petitioner's Exhibits 35 and 36, which are reference books published in 1948 and 1967 by the manufacturer of the equipment installed at Units 1 and 2. They confirm that prior to 1975, petroleum coke was suitable for the manufacturer's boilers and pulverizers. Unrebutted testimony demonstrated that Units 1 and 2 could have co-fired petroleum coke with oil during the oil-firing period. Even when Units 1 and 2 fired oil instead of coal for a period of time in the 1970s, the coal-handling equipment remained in existence on-site and available for use, and both units remained readily convertible to their original, coal-firing modes. Because the plant remained capable of accommodating coal, it also remained capable of accommodating petroleum coke. In light of the foregoing, it is found that co-firing petroleum coke with coal at Units 1 and 2 could have been accomplished prior to January 6, 1975. Are there Post-January 6, 1975, Prohibitions? There is no evidence to support a finding that a federally enforceable permit condition was establshed after January 6, 1975, that prohibits co-firing petroleum coke with coal. I. Miscellaneous By letters dated February 14 and June 2, 1997, the EPA Region IV office replied to inquiries from DEP regarding the instant application. The conclusions reached in those letters, however, were based on a misapprehension of the facts in this case. Therefore, the undersigned has not credited these letters. To prove up its standing, LEAF introduced into evidence a copy of its articles of incorporation and a brochure describing the organization. In addition, it asserted that the air quality for its members would be "at risk" if Units 1 and 2 did not meet PSD standards and air emissions were "increased." Intervenor Sierra Club proffered that a substantial number of members "live, work, or recreate in the vicinity of the Crystal River Units 1 and 2, and in the area subject to the air emissions by those units," and that those members "would be substantially affected by the proposed exemption."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of Florida Power Corporation and issuing the requested air construction permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James S. Alves, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gail Kamaras, Esquire 1115 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6327 Jaime Austrich, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Bay North Corporation should be issued a permit to construct a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system at Camp Weed, Franklin County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1978, Lomax Smith, a builder and developer in Tallahassee, Florida, entered into an agreement with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida to purchase some 42 acres of real property and the improvements thereon known as "Camp Weed" which is located in Franklin County, Florida. The purchase price of the property was $725,000, with an earnest money deposit of $20,000, and closing of the transaction to be on or before July 1, 1978. At the time of purchase, eight dormitory and several accessory buildings were located on the property which utilized septic tanks for sewage disposal. An existing deep well is in the northwest portion of the property for a water supply. Smith proposed to develop the property by the sale of lots, remodel some of the existing buildings, and construct new housing units. He employed the engineering firm of Broward Davis and Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, to prepare the necessary design plans and a state environmental permit application for a proposed domestic wastewater treatment plant to be located on the site. (Testimony of L. Smith, N. Smith, Exhibits 12, 13) On September 6, 1978, Smith filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to construct the sewage treatment plant (STP) at Camp Weed. He signed the application as owner of the property although he had not closed the purchase transaction nor acquired legal title at that time. The application and supporting plans were reviewed in the Northwest District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation after site investigation, and it was determined that construction of the facility would be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. A construction permit was issued to Smith for the STP on October 10, 1978, subject to certain specified conditions attached to the permit. Notification of the permit issuance was not preceded by a notice of intent to grant the permit, nor were any third parties advised of its issuance. Petitioners St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc. (then St. Teresa Dock Association) and H.S. Oven first learned of the permit issuance when their counsel was informed by Smith's counsel on November 3, 1978, that the permit had been issued. Petitioners thereafter on November 17 filed a petition for hearing with DER. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 1, 4-5, 8) Camp Weed is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 98 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The planned site for the STP is in the northeast corner of the tract which is some twelve feet above mean sea level and approximately 950 feet from the shoreline. The elevation of the property on the northwestern side is about 24 feet and is five feet in the middle. The land slopes generally toward the middle area and drains in a southerly direction to the gulf. The subdivision of St. Teresa where Petitioners' members own summer homes is located immediately west of Camp Weed. The members of the St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc., and Petitioner Hamilton S. Oven use the beach and gulf waters for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. About a dozen shallow wells in the St. Teresa subdivision provide drinking water for the residents. They are located over 1700 feet southwest from the site of the proposed STP. There are two ponds north of the St. Teresa area adjacent to U.S. Highway 98. An artesian well is located in the gulf about 25 feet south of the Camp Weed property. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Oven, Sensabaugh, Exhibits 2,7, 9-11, 22, 24) The proposed plant is designed to provide sewage treatment for 132 housing units containing an estimated population of 3 persons per unit. A gravity flow collection system to a pumping station will produce a peak influent rate of 29,700 gallons per day with an estimated biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 49.6 pounds per day. A basket strainer on the influent line will remove trash. Plant operation will involve the use of aeration tanks, clarifier, chlorination, sand filter and clear well for discharge to a percolation pond. A polishing pond was originally planned, but was deleted at the suggestion of the DER because it performs the same function as the proposed sand filter. Two percolation ponds for alternate use will be construed so that the pond bottom is twelve feet above sea level. A soil test revealed that a sand layer extends under the shallow surface top soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet before reaching the shallow ground water table and that the effluent will percolate through the sand at the rate of one inch per minute. A five foot soil boring by DER failed to encounter ground water at that level and show that rate of percolation through the sand would be acceptable. The ground water table is subject to an unknown variance indepth during the wet and dry seasons of the year depending on the amount of rainfall. Although tide fluctuations may also have some effect on depth of the ground water table, the tide most likely will be of minimum influence due to the distance of the plant site from the gulf. Percolation of at least three feet through sand before reaching ground water is sufficient to meet DER policy requirements. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Bishop, Exhibits 1, 3, 16-17). Based on the design of the STP, it is predicted by applicant's design engineer that there will be at least 90 percent removal of pollutants after chlorination and prior to passage of the effluent through the sand filter. The engineer predicts that after such filtration, there will be approximately 95 percent removal prior to percolation and that the effluent will then be pure enough to use as drinking water. Further purification will take place during the percolation process. The DER District Supervisor of Domestic Wastewater Permitting, who also is a professional engineer, substantially agrees with those predictions. Actual results of the treatment process can be determined, however, only after tests from monitoring wells are made during actual trial operations of the plant. It is further agreed by those experts that the average chlorine residual content in the effluent will be 0.5 parts per million. The DER supervisor therefore is of the opinion that, if the STP is properly operated, the processed effluent will not degrade ground waters, not adversely affect the wells in the St. Teresa Community or the waters of the gulf. After percolation, there is further dilution and ultimately the ground water which reaches the gulf in eight to ten days will be in a purer form than prior to introduction of the effluent. Although a twenty-year storm criterion was applied in the design of the percolation ponds, a catastrophic storm such as a hurricane was not taken into consideration since it would not be economically feasible to design for such an effect and, in any event, super dilution caused by such a storm would negate the possibility of water quality degradation. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The buildup of sludge in the plant's holding tank will require removal about once a year when the plant is in full operation. The applicant will employ a certified individual to operate the plant and to remove sludge periodically to an appropriate place for disposal in an authorized manner. DER regards sludge disposal to be a matter for determination at the time application is made for an operating permit. (Testimony of Huff, L. Smith, McNeill, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The applicant estimates that the construction of the plant and collection system will cost approximately $1,000 per housing unit for a total of $132,000. It is planned to recover this cost on the sale of lots. A condition of such purchases will be that the sewage system and treatment plant will be operated by a home owners association which is to be activated in the near future. Maintenance cost of the sewage plant will be shared by the individual members. Approximately twenty or twenty-five members are required for economical operation of the plant. (Testimony of N. Smith, L. Smith) The county zoning classification for the Camp Weed area is currently the subject of litigation by the applicant in the Franklin County Circuit Court and the result of that litigation as to permitted density of housing will determine the amount of units to be constructed by the applicant. In any event, if the applicant does not secure a county building permit, any DER construction permit would expire at the termination of the time granted therefor. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibit 24) At the time Intervenor Lomax Smith signed the permit application, Bay North Corporation had not been formed. It was incorporated in November, 1978, in order that Smith could obtain financing to complete the property purchase. The transaction was closed November 6, 1978, and a warranty deed to the property was issued to Bay North Corporation by the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida, Inc. The deed was recorded in the public records of Franklin County on November 7, 1978. Lomax Smith is the president and principal stockholder of Bay North Corporation. Promissory notes secured by mortgages to the Southern Bank of Tallahassee and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida in the amounts of $350,000 and $362,500 respectively, were executed by Bay North Corporation on the same date. Pursuant to a request to DER from Lomax Smith on May 15, 1979, the Northwest District DER Office, on June 29, 1979, purported to transfer the permit to Bay North Corporation and extend the expiration date to September 30, 1980. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 6, 14-15, 21) The construction permit issued in October, 1978, was subject to standard and special conditions, including the requirement that the permit holder comply with county and municipal regulations prior to construction. They provided that monthly reports be furnished to the DER prior to issuance of an operation permit setting forth wastewater characteristics during a trial period of plant operation. They also required that the facility meet the treatment requirements contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., including a 90 percent reduction in BOD and suspended solids based on concentration of the influent entering the plant. The conditions further provide that at the time of application for an operation permit, it must be shown that a certified operator under Chapter 17- 16, F.A.C., is retained, together with a copy of any contract for contract operation of the facility. Additionally, the conditions require that two monitoring wells be established upstream and downstream of the ponds and that quarterly ground water samples be analyzed and reported to DER. A further condition provides that a three-foot buffer zone must be maintained between the bottom of the percolation ponds and the maximum elevation of the ground water. (Exhibit 8)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to Bay North Corporation, subject to the conditions attached to the permit issued on October 10, 1978. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George E. Lewis, II, Esq. 316 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 William L. Hyde, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ben H. Wilkinson, Esq. Pennington, Wilkinson, Gary and Dunlap Post Office Box 3875 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Alfred O. Shuler, Esq. Post Office Box 850 Apalachicola, FL 32320
The Issue Whether construction permit No. AC41-6819 issued to Manatee Energy Company, dated June 8, 1978, should be amended, as proposed in construction permit No. AC41-6819A, dated November 7, 1978.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Manatee Chapter of the Isaak Walton League of America ("Isaak Walton League") is a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under Florida law. The Isaak Walton League's address is 5314 Bay State Road, Palmetto, Florida 33561. Manatee Energy Company ("Manatee Energy") is a Florida corporation, whose address is 108 Appleyard Drive, Post Office Box 867, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, and was formerly a subsidiary of Belcher Oil Company. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation and control of air and water pollution under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, whose address is Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The specific agency action at issue in this proceeding is DER's issuance of a revised permit to Manatee Energy to modify a crude oil splitting facility and modified or additional rundown tankage at Port Manatee, Florida. The facility at issue will be located in North Manatee County near the Hillsborough/Manatee County line in Port Manatee. On November 7, 1978, DER issued Manatee Energy Permit No. AC41- 6819A. The validity of the permit is disputed by the Petitioner. Manatee Energy has undertaken construction of the crude oil splitter and associated tankage under either Permit No. AC41-6819 and Permit No. AC41-6819A. (Exhibit 1) On June 8, 1978, after administrative proceedings conducted under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, DER issued construction permit AC41-6819 to Manatee Energy for the construction of a 15,000 BPSD crude oil splitter at Port Manatee, Florida. The permit stated that the oil splitter is to separate crude oil by distillation into three fractions; i.e., LPG, jet fuel and bunker "C." It further provided that combustion devices were to be fired with LPG or fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.7 percent or less. Various conditions were attached to the issuance of the permit, including analysis of samples of fuels to be burned in the furnace and boiler, performance testing of stacks after startup of the facility, emission limits for the furnace and boiler, and periodic monitoring and reporting of heat content and sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in the boiler and furnace. In addition, condition 5 required that all fugitive dust generated at the site be adequately controlled, and conditions 12- 13 required that steps be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any ambient particulate violations, such as paving of roads, parking lots and the like, prior to issuance of an operating permit. The Chapter 120 administrative proceedings resulted in a determination that the proposed facility would not release air pollutants exceeding ambient air quality standards, or significantly degrade applicable base line air quality. (Exhibits 1-2) On October 27, 1978, Manatee Energy applied to DER for revision of the existing permit. The proposed revision was prompted primarily by the fact that Manatee Energy had been sold by its parent company, Belcher Oil Company, and had become an independent operator subsequent to the issuance of the original permit. This change in ownership created a need for accurate recording and accounting of product volume and quality before its transfer to Belcher's storage tanks which are adjacent to the crude oil splitter facility. To accomplish this purpose, Manatee Energy proposed the addition of two 10,000 barrel JP-4 "rundown" tanks for jet fuel, and one 10,000 barrel diesel "rundown" tank in lieu of previously permitted tank No. 410. Also, a 33,000 barrel slop oil tank to temporarily receive and hold off-specification product, and a 40,000 barrel waste water tank replacing a 35,000 barrel tank previously permitted (tank No. 409), were proposed to be added. In view of the above proposed changes, the nine storage tanks owned by Belcher (tanks Nos. 401-409), four of which are leased by Manatee Energy (tanks Nos. 406-409), will store different products except for tanks Nos. 405 and 407 which will remain unchanged. Under the original permit, two 80,000 gallon tanks were to be used to store JP-4, (tanks Nos. 403-404), but under the new proposed arrangement, only one will be used for that purpose (tank No. 406). Tank No. 403 will be used exclusively by Belcher for asphalt storage. Tank No. 409 will he converted from a waste water tank to a No. 6 fuel oil tank. Based on revised determinations of hydrocarbon emission factors by the Environmental Protection Agency after Manatee's application for the original permit, secondary seals on internal floating roof tanks will be deleted, but existing floating roof tank No. 407 is proposed to be modified by adding secondary seals to reduce such emissions. Revised calculations by the applicant as to hydrocarbon emissions show that the proposed changes in tank service and design will offset expected emissions from the proposed new tanks. Such emissions from the revised facility are expected to be 16.8 tons less than the currently permitted tankage emission rate of 75.4 tons per year. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Exhibits 4, 6-9) Additional modifications to the existing permit proposed by Manatee Energy are to relocate the emergency flare stack, move the process heater, boiler and control room approximately 150 feet each from their previously contemplated locations, and to raise the crude tower approximately 16 feet. The tower produces no emissions and the change is designed to improve the distillation process. Movement of the flare stack and the other process equipment and control room are proposed for safety reasons and do not alter the process configuration or increase emissions. Finally, a Merox treating unit was added for the purpose of extracting impurities from jet fuel. This process does not involve any emissions. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Larsen, Exhibits 4, 6, 14-15) The revised permit application consisted of engineering drawings by the firm of Marsco Engineering Corporation, Tyler, Texas which was employed subsequent to issuance of the original permit, and a report concerning the proposed changes prepared by Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., an engineering consultant and design firm of New Orleans, Louisiana. A complete DER application form was not submitted or required by DER. Only a revised page 4 of the standard application form was submitted. There was no certification of the project by a professional engineer registered in Florida, although such a certification is required by DER rules. The application was reviewed and recommended for approval to DER by the Manatee County Pollution Control Director. Personnel of DER's Southwest District Office reviewed the application and determined that the applicant's calculations showing that proposed hydrocarbon emissions would be less than those projected under the original permit were correct. They further found that concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions would be unchanged by the modifications to the facility. The latter determination was supported by the results of an air quality computer model programed under standard EPA criteria to estimate the impact of such emissions from pollutant sources on ambient air quality standards at ground level. The model determined the maximum impact of sulfur dioxide pollutants which would emanate from the relocated stacks at receptor points approximately .7 to .8 kilometers south of the facility. It was found that the maximum pollutant impact during the worst twenty-four hour period would not change significantly from the former configuration of the stacks and would be well within state ambient air standards of 260 micrograms per cubic meter. A separate computer model relative to particulates was not required because such emissions when extrapolated from the sulphur dioxide model would result in basically unchanged emissions compared to the originally permitted configuration. Manatee County Pollution Control has operated an air quality monitor at Port Manatee for a number of years. This device, which is used for monitoring emission of particulates, has reflected excessive emissions on a number of occasions during 1978 and 1979. However, it is a "source" monitor which is not located in an appropriate place under EPA standards to monitor ambient air quality and, accordingly, DER does not consider the site to be "ambient oriented" or the data to be usable for determinations involving air quality standards. There have been no violations of ambient air quality revealed by monitoring at other stations in Manatee County during the past year. In fact, Manatee County's annual geometric mean for 1978 for suspended particulates were the lowest ever recorded at 33.8 micrograms per cubic meter which was significantly lower than the air quality standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. (Testimony of George, McDonald, Williams, Koogler, Subramani, Exhibits 4, 11-13, 16-21) In 1978, subsequent to the issuance of the original permit but prior to the filing of the revision application, certain rules of the DER contained in Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code, were changed. Rule 17-2.03 required the DER to make a determination of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) after receipt of an application for a permit to construct an air pollution facility in certain instances under specific criteria stated in the rule, after public notice had been given of an application which required such a determination. DER did not make a BACT determination as to the permit revision application concerning hydrocarbon emissions since it determined that there was an existing emission limiting standard for volatile organic compounds in Rule 17-2.05(5), which required known vapor emission control devices or systems in the processing and use of such substances. DER also determined that Rule 17- 2.04(6) concerning Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) did not require a BACT determination as to hydrocarbon emissions because the Rule does not apply to hydrocarbon emissions. Also, DER determined that neither the BACT nor the PSD rules were applicable to the modified facility as to sulfur dioxide and particulates because the ambient concentration of those emissions would be unchanged by the proposed modifications. (Testimony of Williams, Exhibit 13) On November 13, 1978, DER issued construction permit No. AC41-6819A to Manatee Energy for the proposed modifications. Conditions attached to the permit were the same as those of the original permit, plus conditions setting forth the modifications of the facility. Notification of the issuance of the permit revision was not made to Petitioner who had been a party to the Chapter 120 proceedings involving the original permit. Neither were the public notice provisions of Rule 17-2.04(9) complied with by DER prior to the issuance of the revised permit. The parties stipulated that opportunity for public participation and comment at the hearing held herein would cure any procedural defect in this regard. (Exhibit 5) Condition 12 of the proposed permit provides that before any startup of the facility, steps must be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any fugitive particulate problems and condition 13 states that an operating permit will not be issued until such time as the Port Authority has eliminated the "present violation of the ambient air quality standard with regard to particulates." Identical conditions were set forth in the prior permit based on findings that ambient particulate violations existed from fugitive dust created by road traffic at Port Manatee. As heretofore found above, the particulate violations at Port Manatee are not deemed to constitute violation of ambient air quality standards. Nevertheless, since the original permit was issued, various steps have been taken to reduce such emissions in the Port area by the use of a sweeper, paving of roadway, parking and driveway areas, planting of vegetation, grass, and shrubbery in critical areas, and the like. Although these efforts have shown little success, reasonable efforts are continuing to reduce the problem. (Testimony of McDonald, Subramani, Exhibit 18) Eight public witnesses testified at the hearing. Their concerns primarily focused on such subjects as lack of technology to prevent emission of hydrocarbons, oil spills, inefficiency of small facilities, opposition to "dirty industry" in the county, lack of adequate state rules for storage of hazardous waste, and the accumulation of emissions generally in the Tampa Bay area. One witness pointed out the presence of eagle and pelican habitats in the Bay area near the site in question. A statement on behalf of Sarasota County expressed the view that the modified facility should be subject to the review process of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, concerning developments of regional impact prior to the issuance of a modified construction permit. (Testimony of Burger, Chiefari, Fernald, H. Greer, Blankenship, Morris, M. Greer, Lincer, Exhibit 22, Hearing Officer Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That a permit for the construction of modifications to the facility which is the subject of this proceeding be granted to the Manatee Energy Company, subject to the conditions heretofore proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated November 7, 1978, and with a precondition that the applicant fully complies with the provisions of Rule 17-4.05, Florida Administrative Code, prior to such issuance. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul Amundsen, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue is whether Resort Village Utility, Inc., and SGI Utility, LLC, are entitled to a renewal of a permit for the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment facility with effluent disposal to a rapid-rate absorption field land application system consisting of three absorption beds on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, DEP issued Permit No. 235845 (subsequently renumbered Permit No. FLA010069-001) to RVU. The permit was issued pursuant to Adams v. Resort Village Utility, Inc. and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0863 (Final Order February 23, 1996). Petitioner, in the instant case, was the petitioner in the prior case. RVU and DEP, Respondents in the instant case, were respondents in the prior case. The original permit authorized RVU to construct and operate an advance wastewater treatment facility with associated reuse/land application system (AWT facility) in a proposed mixed-use development on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida. Mr. Ben Johnson was the owner of the proposed development and the principal of RVU when DEP issued the original permit. DEP issued the original permit for five years with an expiration date of March 1, 2001. The instant case involves a renewal of the original permit, currently designated as Permit No. FLA010069-002 (the Permit). Since the issuance of the original permit, the AWT facility has been constructed in accordance with its plans and specifications. However, at the time of the final hearing in the instant case, the AWT facility was not operational. The original permit contained certain groundwater monitoring requirements. These requirements included baseline monitoring to collect data on certain contaminants or pollutants before the AWT facility becomes operational for comparison to groundwater monitoring after the AWT facility becomes operational. The original permit did not specify the time frame for beginning and ending the monitoring. RVU furnished DEP with a baseline groundwater monitoring report in December 1997 and June 1998. By letter dated June 15, 1998, Garlick Environmental Associates, Inc., on behalf of RVU, advised DEP that further baseline groundwater monitoring would be suspended until February 1999. RVU properly suspended the baseline groundwater monitoring because of a delay in the construction and operation of the AWT facility. At the time of the final hearing, RVU had not resumed the monitoring. The AWT facility is scheduled to become operational in incremental stages beginning with 30,000 gallons of effluent per day and increasing to 90,000 gallons of effluent per day. The monitoring requirements in the original permit and the instant Permit are sufficient to show at each stage of operation whether the AWT facility will cause an increase in contaminants in Apalachicola Bay. Because the AWT facility is not currently operational, it is not responsible for causing any pollution. In October 1999, Mr. Johnson sold the subject property to SGI Limited Partnership, a Florida limited partnership. Mr. David Wilder is a principal in SGI Limited Partnership and vice-president of SGI Utility, LLC. On February 10, 2000, RVU filed an application with DEP to transfer the original permit to SGI Utility, LLC. By letter dated February 18, 2000, DEP granted the request to transfer the permit contingent upon approval of the sale of the AWT facility by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The February 18, 2000, letter states that DEP would change its records to show SGI Utility, LLC, as owner of St. George Island Resort Village domestic wastewater treatment facility. DEP's letter states that it shall be attached to and become part of domestic wastewater Permit No. FLA010069. On September 1, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, filed an application with DEP to renew the original permit. The application indicates that SGI Utility, LLC, is the applicant/owner/operator of the AWT facility. Mr. Wilder signed the application as the authorized representative of SGI Utility, LLC. A professional engineer signed the application in his professional capacity, as well as agent for SGI Utility, LLC. The application for permit renewal contains a copy of RVU's PSC certificate. The certificate grants RVU authority to provide wastewater service in Franklin County. The application included the following implementation schedule and completion dates: (a) Begin Construction, September 2000; (b) End Construction, March 2001; (c) Begin Reuse or Disposal, March 2001; and (d) Operational Level Attained, August 2001. SGI Utility, LLC, enclosed a check payable to DEP in the amount of $1,000 with the permit renewal application. The purpose of the check was to cover review fees. By letter dated September 28, 2000, DEP requested additional information. On or about October 5, 2000, the professional engineer for SGI Utility, LLC, sent DEP copies of the signed and sealed cover page for the permit renewal application. DEP subsequently sent SGI Utility, LLC, a copy of a Notice of Application. The notice stated that DEP had received the permit renewal application from SGI Utility, LLC. DEP expected SGI Utility, LLC, to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation. For the reasons set forth below, SGI Utility, LLC, never published this notice. After SGI Utility, LLC, received the Notice of Application, Mr. Wilder wrote a letter dated October 11, 2000, to DEP. The letter states that SGI Utility, LLC, as the proposed transferee of the Permit, had filed the application to renew the Permit on behalf of RVU, the current holder of the Permit. Mr. Wilder advised DEP that PSC approval was still pending. The letter states as follows in relevant part: Technically, therefore, SGI Utility, LLC is not yet the holder of the permit, although it is acting with the approval of and as the agent for Resort Village Utility, Inc. Additionally, should the publication Notice be amended to show Resort Village Utility, Inc. and SGI Utility, LLC as the applicant? By letter dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Johnson confirmed that Mr. Wilder was authorized to act on behalf of RVU with respect to all matters relating to the renewal and transfer of the Permit, including without limitation, signing all applications, documents, certificates and publication notices. Mr. Johnson's letter also states as follows in relevant part: This letter will also confirm your statement to Gary Volenac, P.E., that the form of the Notice of Application for the renewal of the permit previously submitted by the Department to Mr. Wilder by letter dated October 11, 2000, is acceptable with the exception of substituting Resort Village Utility, Inc. for SGI Utility, Inc. On November 23, 2000, the Notice of Application was published in the Apalachicola Times. The notice stated that DEP announced receipt of an application from David E. Wilder for RVU to obtain a renewal of the Permit. In a letter dated December 1, 2000, DEP advised SGI Utility, LLC, that it had been 52 days since SGI Utility, LLC, had been notified of deficiencies in the Permit renewal application. DEP reminded SGI Utility, LLC, that failure to supply the requested information might result in permit denial. Petitioner wrote DEP a letter dated December 4, 2000. Petitioner was concerned that the newspaper announcement named RVU as the applicant for renewal of the Permit instead of SGI Utility, LLC. Petitioner also noted that RVU had created a small lake on the property close to the AWT facility's largest absorption bed. Petitioner was concerned that flooding after heavy rains in the absorption bed area, together with the addition of the small lake, would present a threat of pollution to Apalachicola Bay. By letter dated December 6, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, furnished DEP with a copy of the Notice of Application that was published in the Apalachicola Times on November 23, 2000. On January 18, 2001, DEP representatives (Joe May and Dave Krieger) met with Petitioner and an employee of SGI Utility, LLC (Morris Palmer), at the site of the AWT facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a routine inspection in response to the Permit renewal application and to address Petitioner's concerns. At the time of the inspection, construction of the wastewater treatment plant had not commenced. Two of the absorption beds had been installed. The third absorption bed had been flagged for construction. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May noted that there could be a concern with rainfall run-on for one of the absorption beds. Mr. May suggested the creation of a berm at the entrance to the bed along the adjacent road to prevent rainfall run-on. Mr. May concluded that implementation of the approved stormwater plan would redirect rainfall run-off from the road. Mr. May also suggested the creation of a berm for another absorption bed. A berm between dunes adjacent to that bed would prevent run-on to the bed from high tide. During the meeting, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of heavy rainfall from a tropical storm in October 1996. The storm flooded isolated areas on St. George Island, including areas in the subject development. The isolated flooding lasted for several days. However, persuasive evidence received at final hearing indicates that the 1996 storm did not cause prolonged flooding, if any, in the absorption cells. Similar concerns about flooding in the absorption cells were addressed in the original permit. The absorption cells have been designed to ensure protection to the facility in the event of a large storm. The creation of the berms recommended by Mr. May will provide additional protection from run-on resulting from heavy rainfall. After the meeting on January 18, 2001, Morris Palmer constructed all of the berms as suggested by Mr. May. During the site visit on January 18, 2001, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of a small lake or pond created by RVU in the development after issuance of the original permit. The pond is the only change to the 58-acre development that was not contemplated prior to the issuance of the original permit. The pond is more like an isolated ditch that RVU excavated below groundwater level. RVU used the sand from the ditch to elevate the ground surface in the absorption beds and for other purposes. The pond is located approximately 527 feet from the AWT plant and 478 feet from the nearest absorption bed associated with the plant. Surface water drainage, if any, from the three absorption beds is away from the pond. Persuasive evidence indicates that the pond will not interfere with the AWT facility once it begins operation. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that possible flooding in the absorption beds will cause contaminates to collect in the pond and eventually result in a discharge of pollutants to Apalachicola Bay. Petitioner presented some evidence that the pond might act as a collection point for pollution from sources such as cars, animals, and other above-ground sources. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that excavation of the pond will have no impact on the results of groundwater flow modeling and contaminants transport modeling introduced at the prior hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-0863. DEP appropriately referred Petitioner's other concerns about the pond to DEP's Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Program. Neither the original permit nor the instant Permit requires an anti-degradation study. Such studies are required only in cases involving a direct discharge to surface waters. In this case, the AWT facility will not result in a surface water discharge. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May acknowledged that ambient monitoring data showed elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients. The elevated hydrocarbons may be caused by traffic on the road and at the airport located near the absorption beds. The elevated nutrient levels can only be attributed to animals. As stated above, the AWT facility is not operational; therefore, the elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients are not the result of the AWT facility. On March 30, 2001, DEP issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit to RVU. The Intent to Issue indicates that RVU is the applicant for an application filed by SGI Utility, LLC, and RVU. The Permit lists RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, as co- permittees. If PSC approves the transfer of RVU's certificate to SGI Utility, LLC, DEP will transfer the Permit to SGI Utility, LLC. Until then, DEP will issue the Permit in the name of both entities. The Permit sets forth requirements for continued ambient and groundwater monitoring. These requirements, like the ones in the original permit, are sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that operation of the AWT facility will comply with Chapter 62-620, Florida Administrative Code. Under cover of a letter dated May 22, 2001, Mr. Wilder provided DEP with proof that the Notice of Intent to Issue had been published in the Apalachicola Times on April 12, 2001. Mr. Wilder signed the letter as treasurer of RVU. The published notice indicates that DEP intends to issue the Permit to RVU.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP enter a final order granting RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, a renewal of Permit No. FLA010069-002. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Adams Post Office Box 791 Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 L. Lee Williams, Jr., Esquire Williams, Gautier, Gwynn & DeLoach, P.A. 2010 Delta Boulevard Post Office Box 4128 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4128 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This controversy arose as the result of an application being filed by respondent/applicant, G. T. Williams (Williams or applicant), seeking a permit to construct a biological waste incinerator at 1530 North Beal Street Extension, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The original application reflected that applicant intended to incinerate type 4 cardboard, paper and plastics furnished by area hospitals, laboratories and doctors' offices at a rate of 440 pounds per hour. Also, the proposed unit included a secondary chamber with a 3,000,000 BTU burner and controls for one second retention at 1800 degrees. However, on August 20, 1990, applicant amended its application to reflect that, instead of a one second retention chamber, it would employ a two second retention chamber to ensure total combustion in the secondary unit. After receiving the application and conducting a review and on-site inspection, respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), gave notice of its intent to grant the permit on August 23, 1990. The agency action also required applicant to publish notice of such intended action in a local newspaper of general circulation and to provide the agency with proof of publication. Because applicant had obtained a draft of the notice prior to its formal issuance by DER, it published notice of the intended action on August 1, 1990, or more than three weeks prior to the date of the formal proposed agency action. Considering such publication to be ineffective, DER gave notice on October 15, 1990, that it was reversing its earlier action and denying the permit. On October 20, 1990, applicant published notice of the agency action. After DER issued a final order denying the permit, applicant filed an appeal but later dismissed it after DER agreed to issue the permit subject to a petition for hearing filed by a third party prior to the issuance of the final order. On November 1, 1990, petitioner, Okaloosa County (County), the county in which the facility will be located, filed its petition for administrative hearing. As later amended on December 12, 1990, the petition contested the proposed issuance of a permit generally on the grounds that its employees working in nearby areas would be exposed to harmful emissions from the facility and the applicant had not given reasonable assurances that the facility would comply with all DER pollution standards. The Application Type of permit being sought In order for the facility to become operational, Williams is required to obtain both a construction and operating permit. This application concerns only a construction permit and, if approved, Williams will be allowed to construct the facility, have an initial start-up period, and perform compliance testing within the start-up period to demonstrate that the facility can meet the requirements and limitations set forth in the permit. Before obtaining an operating permit, Williams must first perform compliance testing under the auspices of a certified testing consultant employed by DER and submit those results to the agency. If the testing results do not meet all DER standards, an operating permit will not be issued until and if all deficiencies are corrected. The unit Applicant proposes to utilize an incinerator manufactured by Cleaver- Brooks, model CBU-500, with a design capacity to burn 500 pounds of Class 4 biological waste per hour. 1/ As a unit designed to burn no more than 500 pounds of waste per hour, the unit falls in the smallest of the three categories of incinerators regulated by DER. The unit was described by a DER witness as being a "relatively small" one and the size typically found "behind your medium sized hospital". It costs in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. The unit is a modular, factory built, packaged and tested system that burns combustible waste of varying heat content. The basic system consists of the main (pyrolysis) chamber, secondary chamber, which is the primary pollution control device, burners, stack and controls. The incinerator employs a two-stage waste combustion process. In more technical terms, the first stage is a pyrolysis process whereby combustible gases are generated under controlled air and temperature conditions. The main chamber receives waste through a manual batch door or from an optional hydraulically powered feeder, and with the aid of a temperature controlled burner and sub-stoichiometric underfire air supply, combustible gases with minimum particle entrainment are produced. Complete destruction of the fixed carbon and less volatile material takes place continually in the firebed. The second stage is an excess air combustion process whereby the combustible gases generated in the main chamber are ignited in the secondary chamber producing a high temperature carbon dioxide and water vapor flue gas. The secondary chamber supplies all the air for this combustion through temperature controlled forced air jets and employs temperature controlled burners to ensure complete ignition of the gases. The flue gas is then ducted to the stack and exhausted to the atmosphere. Although the applicant originally proposed to use a thirty foot stack on the unit, he has agreed to install a stack having a height that will be a minimum of two and one-half times the height of any building within one hundred fifty feet. Location The proposed site for the incinerator is on a flat, three-acre lot within an industrial park located approximately 1,150 feet east of North Beal Street Extension, a paved collector road that serves an industrial area north of the City of Fort Walton Beach. This location was selected by Williams because it was "run down", was basically "heavy industrial", and was "already polluted" with junk cars and plastic. Indeed, adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the site are undeveloped Eglin Air Force Base property, a plastic recycling plant, a landfill operated by the County, a City of Fort Walton Beach sewer plant and an auto salvage yard. According to the County engineer, the surrounding area "looks pretty bad" but is "probably an average industrial site." There is also an older residential area known as Pine Subdivision which, at its closest point, lies approximately 200 feet southeast of the edge of applicant's property. Applicant owns a 3,000 square foot metal frame building of an undisclosed height on the southeast end of his property and intends to lift up one of the garage bay doors in the front, slide the lower unit in place, peel back three or four sections of metal roof, set the horizontal unit on top, and replace the roof. A stack will then be added to the unit. The property is fenced and access may be had only by a dirt road leading into the area. Treatment process Applicant intends to provide service to various hospitals, physicians, and laboratories in the area. At the present time, approximately one-half of the medical waste in the Panhandle portion of the state is being transported to incinerators in central and south Florida for disposal because there are inadequate facilities in the Panhandle area. Williams will use a panel truck registered with the Department of Transportation to transport all materials to the site. He will also give all customers special sealed containers in which to place their waste materials. These containers, which are known as sharps containers, are designed to hold syringes, scalpels, and other objects capable of penetrating the skin, as well as cotton swabs saturated to the point of dripping. After arriving at the site the truck will be unloaded and the material and containers placed in the incinerator and burned. Because Williams contemplates burning waste as often as needed, waste materials will not be stored on premises except for very short periods of time. In addition, the unit will be operated by a state certified gas operator who has received special training from the manufacturer. The unit into which the waste is fed is approximately eight feet in diameter, nine feet high and cylindrically shaped. Through the use of natural gas, the burn chamber reaches a temperature of sixteen hundred degrees, a temperature at which no organisms can survive. The gases from the first burn chamber then circulate into the secondary burn chamber for two seconds, which is greater than the one second retention time required by DER rules. The only visible emission seen from the stack will be heat waves. All emissions will be well within the air quality standards utilized by DER. Any glass slag or ashes remaining in the unit can be handled as regular waste and disposed of in a class 2 landfill. Finally, the prevailing winds throughout most of the year are from the south and southeast and thus all emissions will blow primarily to the northwest across the sewage treatment plant area. d. DER's review of the application In connection with the processing of the application, DER reviewed it for completeness and accuracy and was satisfied that the application was complete and accurate in all respects, including the submission by applicant of a topographic map. In addition, DER staff conducted an on-site inspection of applicant's property. Also, during the course of the review, DER technical staff had a number of discussions with Williams to clarify the information submitted with the application. Finally, based upon its review of the data originally filed together with information provided by Williams during the review process, DER staff reached the preliminary conclusion that Williams had satisfied all applicable rules and statutes. Petitioner's Concerns In its amended petition, the County raised two principal concerns regarding the construction of the facility. First, it contended that its employees who worked in areas adjacent to the facility would be subject to harmful emissions from the unit. Second, it argued that the applicant had failed to give reasonable assurance that the unit would comply with all DER standards. During the course of the hearing, the County focused principally on the issues of (a) "hot spots", which are high concentrations of pollutants which may occur at a distance of ten feet up to as far as five hundred feet downwind from the point of emission if the stack height on the unit is not at an adequate height, (b) applicant's lack of a storage facility for waste to prevent the potential leaching into the ground of medical waste waiting to be incinerated, and (c) the agency's failure to require Williams to post proof of financial responsibility through a bond. These concerns will be addressed below. The agency does not have a have a specific stack height rule applicable to the incineration process but rather requires that the unit be constructed in accordance with good engineering practices and that it meet all emission requirements. At hearing petitioner's expert agreed that any potential "hot spots" problem would be resolved by applicant agreeing to utilize a stack having a height of at least two and one-half times the height of any building within one hundred fifty feet of the unit. Moreover, DER has required that Williams place a monitoring device on the stack so that all emissions can be measured 24 hours per day. Since the applicant has agreed to both of these conditions, this issue has been resolved. County employees occasionally work on several roads within Pine Subdivision, one of which is only 250 feet from the proposed facility. They also are engaged in the periodic maintenance of ditches which run along the sides of North Beal Street Extension, and eight to ten employees regularly work at the County landfill approximately 1,350 feet away. To this extent, then, it may be reasonably inferred that any potential injury suffered by County employees would differ in degree and kind from that suffered by members of the general public. Even so, with the resolution of the "hot spots" problem, the County's expert agreed that the proposed incinerator would meet all applicable requirements contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and that all pertinent agency rules would be satisfied. Thus, the employees would not be exposed to emissions that contravene DER's air pollution requirements. There is no evidence of record to support a finding that applicant should file a bond as a prerequisite to being issued a permit. Indeed, the only evidence on this issue suggests that DER requires a bond from an applicant when it believes the applicant has not proceeded in good faith or has a history of violating DER regulations. Neither situation is applicable here. As to the storage issue, the evidence shows that applicant will incinerate materials as often as needed, and waste materials will be kept on the premises only for brief periods of time when the unit is already filled and then only until those materials are burned and the unit is ready to receive new waste. Thus, as a practical matter, the facility will not be used to "store" waste materials within the meaning of that term. In addition, the area where waste materials will be kept until being fed into the unit will be an integral part of the treatment facility, and DER represents it has no authority to require Williams to submit information regarding storage areas associated with the incinerator. Put another way, in the construction permit review process, DER is concerned only with the air pollution source and the adequacy of the proposed control equipment. This was not contradicted. Finally, there was no evidence to suggest that the materials will leak into the ground. Indeed, petitioner's expert suggested only that the facility should be "secure" and that the material should be covered in the event of rain. The Required Reasonable Assurance Effective on an undisclosed date in 1991, new and more stringent DER rules became applicable to all new medical waste incinerators, including that proposed by Williams. Thus, his application was reviewed to determine its consistency with those new standards. An agency rule [rule 17-2.600(1)] provides that facilities with a capacity equal to or less than 500 pounds per hour, such as the Cleaver-Brooks 500 model, shall not have particulate matter emissions exceeding 0.100 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 0 or hydrochloric acid (HCL) emissions that exceed 4 pounds per hour. When operated as proposed by Williams, and as guaranteed by the manufacturer, emissions of small amounts of particulate matter and hydrocloric acid will not exceed those amounts allowed by rule. In addition, any emissions of water vapors and carbon dioxide will be in very small amounts and will not result in unlawful emissions. This finding is based upon the testimony of witnesses Middleswart and Dzurik which has been accepted as being persuasive on this issue. Thus, Williams has given reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not cause air pollution in contravention of DER standards. The applicant has given reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will comply will all other applicable DER standards and rules. This was not controverted. Therefore, Williams has demonstrated his entitlement to the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that G. T. Williams' application for a permit to construct a biological waste incinerator adjacent to North Beal Street Extension, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, should be GRANTED subject to the following condition: That the applicant utilize a stack height of two and one-half times the height of any building within 150 feet of his unit. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. owns and operates a sewage treatment plant at 3015 Southwest 54th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It presently services the needs of a population of about 2500 primarily located in three trailer parks, certain warehouses, a 153 room hotel, and several other business establishments. The plant was constructed and operated by a lessee of Petitioner's owners, but, in July 1979, Petitioner became the owner and operator of the facility. At that time, it was determined necessary to secure new operators and upgrade the plant equipment and method of process in order to properly service the existing and anticipated future number of customers in the area covered by a Public Service Commission franchise. Although the plant had been operating at a permitted capacity of 0.25 million gallons per day (MGD), Petitioner planned to expand the capacity to 0.60 MGD by modifying the aeration tank, and adding tertiary sand filters and equipment for clarification. Upon assuming control of the plant, Petitioner found that the 0.25 MGD permitted capacity had been exceeded by approximately 120,000 gallons per day for a number of years. Petitioner estimates that a population of 6,000 could be served under its new proposed design capacity. (Testimony of Forman, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to Petitioner's application for a construction permit, dated May 25, 1979, to modify the existing treatment plant, Respondent issued permit No. DC06-21789 on August 6, 1979. The permit specified that it was for construction of additional tank capacity for an existing 0.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant intended to approve effluent quality, and further stated that plant design capacity would remain at that figure. A subsequent letter from Respondent's subdistrict manager to Petitioner on January 15, 1980, stated that an evaluation of the quality of the surface waters receiving the plant discharge and the effect of such increased discharge would have to be made before processing a request for an increase in permitted flow. (Exhibit 7) On February 8, 1980, Respondent issued a temporary operating permit for Petitioner to temporarily operate a 0.25 MGD contact stabilization sewage treatment plant, including additional tank capacity and tertiary filtration. Specific conditions attached to the permit stated that it was issued to give the permittee a reasonable period of time to complete construction of the modification outlined in DER Permit DC06-21789 and for subsequent assessment of the effects of discharge on receiving waters. The conditions further required that the facility continue to achieve 90 percent removal of BOD5 and total suspended solids at all times with specified average daily discharges of such substances. Another condition required that the effluent from the plant be adequately chlorinated at all times so as to yield the minimum chlorine residual of 0.5 parts per million after a minimum contact period of 15 minutes. (Exhibit 8) Thereafter, on July 21, 1980, petitioner filed the instant application for an operation permit for the facility at a design capacity of 0.60 MGD. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of completion of construction. By letter of December 16, 1980, Respondent's South Florida Subdistrict Manager advised Petitioner that the application for an operating permit had been denied for the reason that monitoring of the Class III receiving waters by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board indicated that the dissolved oxygen concentration was frequently below the minimum of 5 milligrams per liter required by Section 17-3.161(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that Petitioner's plant contributed to the substandard conditions in those waters. Petitioner thereafter requested a Section 120.57(1), F.S., hearing. (Exhibits 1-2, 4, 8) Petitioner's plant discharges into the North New River Canal through a six inch effluent pipe. The canal extends from Lake Okeechobee to the intracoastal waterway approximately five miles in distance from the point of discharge of Petitioner's plant. Monitoring of water quality in the canal for the past several years by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board shows that the dissolved oxygen concentrations at various sampling stations have ranged from below one part per million to in excess of five parts per million, depending upon the season of the year. However, at no station did the dissolved oxygen concentration reach an average of five parts per million. In addition, the tests also showed that BOD5 is generally low in the canal waters. (Testimony of Mazzella, Exhibits 1, 3, 5) Petitioner's modified plant is now capable of treating 0.60 MGD and meets current basic state requirements of 90 percent (secondary) removal of BOD and total suspended solids. In fact, the plant has tertiary treatment and can consistently operate at a level of 95 percent treatment. The data submitted by the applicant as to effluent water quality characteristics showed removal of 98 percent BOD, 97 percent suspended solids, 50 percent total nitrogen, and 25 percent total phosphorus with an average chlorine residual in the effluent of 0.2 parts per million. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent has been established at 6.5 milligrams per liter. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Dodd, Exhibit 1) Respondent's district personnel took one 24-hour sample of the effluent from Petitioner's plant in March 1981 and determined that a concentrate of 14.6 milligrams per liter of ammonia was being discharged to receiving waters. Respondent therefore determined that the dissolved oxygen levels of the canal would be further degraded because approximately 48 to 50 parts per million of dissolved oxygen would be necessary to offset the effects of oxygen removal resulting from the ammonia discharge. Respondent further found that, although the effluent from the plant had 6.5 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen, the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen being discharged could lead to algal blooms and consequent eventual eutrophication of its waters. Respondent's reviewing personnel therefore considers that there would be negative impacts upon the receiving waters if Petitioner discharged its prior licensed capacity of 250,000 gallons per day, and that a discharge of 600,000 gallons per day would double such impacts. Respondent's personnel therefore believes that although Petitioner's facility meets the basic secondary treatment requirements of Rule 17-6.01, Florida Administrative Code, it does not meet the water quality-based effluent limitation specified in Rule 17-6.10. In order to meet such requirements, it would be necessary to redesign the plant for more efficient removal of nutrients or to redirect the discharge. (Testimony of Mazzella) Other facilities adjacent to or near the North New River Canal discharge directly or indirectly into the canal waters and contribute to an unknown degree to the poor quality of the canal waters. Additionally, agricultural use of land produces stormwater runoff containing fertilizer residue into the canal in an unknown amount. A sewage treatment plant operates at optimum level of treatment when it discharges at about 50 percent of its treatment capacity. (Testimony of Mazzella) In 1983, Broward County will require Petitioner's plant to conform to state advanced waste treatment criteria which will provide for additional removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. To meet this requirement, Petitioner, plans to investigate the possibilities of utilizing a landlocked lake on its property near the treatment plant as a seepage pond. Although Petitioner's plant is identified in area regional plans to be diverted to the Hollywood wastewater treatment plant in the future, there is presently no target date for tying in to such a regional facility. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent issue a permit to Petitioner for the operation of its sewage treatment plant, with appropriate conditions as designed to protect the receiving waters. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred Clark, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin S. Friedman and R.M.C. Rose, Esquires Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether applicable law authorizes the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing on the merits of issuing a permit, where the referring agency issued the permit almost three months before the objectors' petition for hearing was filed?
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the amended petition for formal proceeding under Section 120.7, Florida Statutes, filed by Freeport and STI. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Earl Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Joe W. Fixel, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire 403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FREEPORT SULPHUR COMPANY, Division of FREEPORT MINERALS COMPANY, and SULPHUR TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-527 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and AGRICO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Cargill, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida which owned and operated a phosphate mine near Fort Meade, located in Polk County Florida. Petitioner, Gloria Elder, owns residential property adjoining the Fort Meade Mine on which she maintains an individual water well for domestic and other purposes. The Respondent, District, has the responsibility for regulating the consumption and conservation of ground and surface water within its jurisdictional limits, including the well in question. For a period prior to December, 1990, Cargill had been operating under consumptive use permit No. 202297.04, issued by the District, which provided for average daily withdrawals of 12.0 MGD from wells on its property. In addition to the 12.0 MGD, Cargill also was utilizing an additional 3.3 MGD for mine pit and surficial aquifer dewatering activities which did not have to be reflected in the permit but which were lawful uses. In December, 1990, Cargill submitted its application to renew the existing water use permit with a modification including the 3.3 MGD previously being used but not officially permitted. No additional water would be drawn from the permitted wells as the newly applied for 15.3 MGD was the total of the 12 MGD and 3.3 MGD previously permitted and lawfully used. After reviewing the additional information requested of Cargill pertaining to this application, the District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action for approval of the permit. The proposed permit authorizes withdrawal of the amount requested in the application, 15.3 MGD, the exact same amount actually withdrawn under the prior permit. As a part of the proposed permit the District imposed two special conditions. These conditions, 12 and 13, require Cargill to conduct its dewatering activities no closer than 1,500 feet to any property boundary, wetlands, or water body that will not be mined or, in the alternative, to mitigate pursuant to conditions 12 and 13 any activities conducted within the 1,500 foot setback. There are no reasonable alternatives to Cargill's request. The mining process in use here utilizes a water wash of gravel-size phosphate ore particles out of accompanying sand and clay. The water used for this purpose is recycled and returned to the washer for reuse. The resulting phosphate ore mix, matrix, is transported with water in slurry form to the refining plant. This system in the standard for phosphate mining in the United States. Once at the plant, the slurry is passed through an amine flotation process where the sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water with a constant Ph balance and temperature which can be retrieved only from deep wells. Even though the permit applied for here calls for an average daily withdrawal of 15.3 MGD, typically the Cargill operation requires about 10.08 MGD from deep wells. This is a relatively standard figure within the industry. Approximately 92 percent of the water used at the site in issue is recycled. However, recycled water is not an acceptable substitute for deep well water because it contains matters which interfere with the ability of the chemical reagents utilized in the process to react with the phosphate rock. Therefore, the quantity sought is necessary and will support a reasonable, complete mining operation at the site. The Cargill operation is accompanied by a strenuous reclamation operation. Land previously mined near the Petitioner's property has been reclaimed, contoured, re-grassed and re-vegetated. This project was completed in 1990. No evidence was introduced showing that Cargill's operation had any adverse effect on the Elders' well. Water samples were taken from that well at the Petitioner's request in May, 1991 in conjunction with the investigation into a previous, unrelated complaint. These samples were submitted to an independent laboratory for analysis which clearly demonstrated that the minerals and other compounds in the water from the Petitioner's well were in amounts well below the detection level for each. Only the iron level appeared elevated, and this might be the result of deterioration of the 18 year old black iron pipe casing in the well. Another possible explanation is the fact that iron is a common compound in that part of the state. In any case, the installation of a water softener would remove the iron, and there is no indication the water would have any unacceptable ecological or environmental impacts in the area either on or off the site. No other residents in the area have complained of water quality problems. Petitioner claims not only that Cargill's operation would demean her water quality but also that its withdrawal will cause a draw down in the water level in her well. This second matter was tested by the District using the McDonald-Haurbaugh MODFLOW model which is well recognized and accepted within the groundwater community. The model was applied to the surficial, intermediate, and upper Floridan aquifers and indicated the draw down at the property boundary would be less than one foot in the surficial aquifer and less than four feet in the intermediate aquifer. The model also showed the draw down at the Petitioner's well would be less than three feet, which is well within the five foot criteria for issuance of a consumptive use permit under the appropriate District rules. This evidence was not contradicted by any evidence of record by Petitioner. All indications are that the water use proposed is both reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that WUP Permit No. 202297.05 be renewed as modified to reflect approval of 15.3 MGD average daily withdrawal. Jurisdiction will remain with the Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of evaluating the propriety of an assessment of attorney's fees and costs against the Petitioner and the amount thereof. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph N. Baron, Esquire 3375-A U.S. Highway 98 South Lakeland, Florida 33803 Rory C. Ryan, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2600 Post office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32801 Martin D. Hernandez, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Respondent Coastal Lumber Company (Coastal) has provided reasonable assurances to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that it can comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules in the Florida Administrative Code regarding odor and visible emissions, and whether DEP should issue a Title V Air Operation Permit to Coastal Lumber.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners live in Gadsden County, Florida. Their home is approximately a half a mile from Coastal's plywood plant in Havana, Florida. DEP is the agency that reviewed Coastal's application for a Title V Air Operation Permit and issued a draft permit and a notice of its intent to grant Coastal’s permit request. Coastal is the applicant for the proposed permit. Since 1971, Coastal has operated a wood products facility off of U.S. Highway 27 North in Havana, Florida. Coastal has operated various sawmill and hardwood operations during its existence. However, the sawmill and hardwood activities ceased operation in 1991 due to a shortage of logs in the area. Coastal began manufacturing plywood in 1980 and continues its plywood manufacturing activities today. Coastal employs approximately 250 people with shifts covering 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year round -- including most holidays. The shifts rotate, so the same employees cover both day shifts and night shifts. The operations of the plant, including compliance with environmental standards, are the same at night and on weekends as they are during the daytime shifts. Coastal has operated the plant at normal capacity up to and during this proceeding with the exception of its peeler operations, which ceased operating on February 8, 1998, because of a lack of logs. However, all the other equipment was operated at its normal rate throughout the hearing. Manufacturing Plywood Logs arrive at Coastal and are separated by size and stored in log yards along the southern and southeastern portions of the mill property which is bordered by 159-A and U.S. 27 North. Logs are later moved to a block conditioning area, stripped of their bark, and cut into eight-foot lengths. The eight-foot logs are then soaked in hot water for about eight hours to soften them. After that, the logs are placed in a lathe that spins the logs against a sharp knife and peels them into sheets of veneer. The sheets of veneer are placed on dryers for six to nine minutes to drive off moisture. Then, the dried sheets of veneer are layered with glue between layers of veneer and placed in a press for four to five minutes. The result is a sheet of plywood. The plywood is stacked according to its quality and some stacks are sealed by spraying the ends with canned spray paint. In a separate area, the cores of the logs are treated and shaped to be used as landscaping material. Air Pollution Sources at the Plant Coastal has been operating under seven separate DEP operating permits. The Title V permit, mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the subject of this proceeding, will combine those seven operating permits into a single operating permit. The seven permits cover five boiler systems and seven dust control systems. Two boilers (numbers 1 and 2) have restrictions on particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and visible emissions. Boiler number 3, with a “wet scrubber,” also has restrictions on particular matter, on nitrogen oxides, and on visible emissions. Boilers numbered 4 and 5 have visible emission limits. Three veneer dryers and two plywood presses are not permitted, but are proposed to be permitted to Coastal under the permit which is the subject of this proceeding. Boilers 3, 4, and 5, are operating and are used to generate steam for the plant. The boilers are all fueled with wood waste such as bark chips and saw dust generated at the plant. The boilers are incapable of operating with a different type of fuel such as fuel oil. Also, it would be inefficient for Coastal to use any other type of fuel in the boilers because Coastal Lumber has an abundance of wood waste. The dust control systems include two filters for sander dust and four cyclones. A cyclone is a device which swirls dust and air together eventually releasing the air out of the top and letting the dust settle downward. The cyclones at the Coastal facility do not have filters inside. Three of the cyclones are not currently in use because they were used for the sawmill operations or to load rail cars and, at present, Coastal uses solely trucks. Coastal has included them in the application in the event that rail loading again becomes feasible. The fourth cyclone handles chips and sawdust collected throughout the plant. The veneer dryers and plywood presses emit steam mixed with small quantities of pine oil naturally present in the wood and are operating under a construction permit until covered under the Title V permit. Coastal's Title V permit application does not contemplate an increase in operations or capacity. Specifically, Coastal could not change its permitted capacity without adding new sources to its plant which would require additional permits. Coastal can operate its Havana plant in compliance with the conditions in its draft Title V Permit. Issues Raised by Petitioners Petitioners raised two issues in challenging the issuance of Coastal's Title V Air Operation Permit: sulfur or acid odors, and "smoke" or excess visible emissions that they attribute to the Coastal facility. According to Petitioners and some of their witnesses, the odors are worse when it is humid or following a rain, at night, and on weekends. Thick smoke experienced in the past by Petitioner Chester Nalls as a result of open burning at Coastal’s facility has ceased. Burning operations at present are only those instances of permitted burning for reforestation purposes. Two of Petitioners' witnesses, however, Cathy Moore and Sondra Rowan do not have any complaints about sulfur or acid odors from the Coastal facility. Moore testified that she occasionally smells a "treated wood smell" that she associates with Coastal Lumber. Rowan described what she perceived to be smoke from the facility, but has never had a problem with smoke or odor on her property. Donald Daniels, a neighbor of Petitioners, has experienced a burning wood smell and a smell that he describes as “chemical.” Sometimes, the smoke is like a fog and not distinguishable from condensed steam. Ash has been deposited on his truck. Nancy Lowe lives near the Coastal facility and claims that her car is often coated with ash. But she was unable at hearing to testify concerning the source of the ash. She has experienced a smell that she cannot identify, which she believes is created by Coastal since she associates that smell with smoke that settles like a fog on her neighborhood. Norma Page described what she believed to be smoke, but her testimony was unclear regarding where she observed the smoke. Additionally, she was not sure that she could distinguish between fog and smoke. Linda Pickles lives an equal distance from Coastal’s facility and the Peavy and Son asphalt plant in Havana. She has experienced “smokey” smells and sulfur smells, as well as the deposit of an ash-like substance at her home. She did not testify concerning the source of the substance. Although several types of odors --mainly wood odors-- are generated by Coastal's plywood manufacturing process, Coastal does not generate any odors that could be described as acid or sulfur odors. The log yard where Coastal stores harvested pine logs has odors of cut pine logs. The block conditioning area where logs are cut into eight-foot lengths and soaked in hot water has additional odors of cut wood and wet wood. A small amount of caustic or base is added to the water occasionally to keep the pH of the water neutral because wood is naturally acidic. Caustic generally tends to smell like soap or bleach; however, no such odors were associated with the caustic at Coastal Lumber. The area where the logs are peeled into thin veneer sheets generates pine odors. The dryers used on the sheets of veneer generate a smell described alternatively as a pine oil or a cookie-baking scent. Where the gluing occurs there is a faint odor similar to Elmer's glue. Additionally, an area near the boilers where sawdust and bark are stored for fuel generates smells, but none that would be objectionable. The area where the cores of the logs are treated and sliced into landscaping timbers has a slight, treated-wood odor. Also, where the plywood is color-coded by painting the edges, there is a localized paint smell. Neither the boilers nor a re-circulating pond at the Coastal facility are associated with any odors. From 1989 until the publication of the Notice of Intent to issue the Title V permit, Coastal did not receive any complaints about its Plywood Manufacturing facility in Havana, Florida. None of the processes at the Coastal facility generate sulfur or acid types of odors. Acid odors are usually associated with chemicals that contain sulfur. Wood fuel, as is used in the boilers, does not generally generate sulfur emissions. A facility such as the asphalt plant near Coastal’s location burns fuel oil and could generate sulfur odors. The asphalt plant is subject to the same emissions limitations as Coastal. Frequent open burning of trash, including tires, by other persons occurs near the Coastal facility and could produce sulfur smells. None of the odors at the Coastal facility are likely to mix with odors produced at other facilities in the area to create objectionable odors. Nor would any of the odors or processes within the plant combine to create chemical reactions leading to objectionable odors. Coastal employees who offered testimony regarding odors have a normal sense of smell. None of the Coastal employees who have responded to the Petitioners’ complaints have been able to detect the odor conditions described by Petitioners. No employees have complained of objectionable odors at the plant. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of odors at the plant within the last five years. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of odors generated by the plant. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct emissions testing at its facility, and a consultant from Environmental Resources Management Group, hired to study odors generated by the facility, have never noticed objectionable odors at the Coastal facility. DEP inspectors have visited Coastal on rainy, humid days when the odors would be expected to be at the worst and did not detect objectionable odors. Also, DEP inspectors who responded to Petitioners' complaints were unable to detect significant levels of odors at Petitioners' residence. Coastal's operations are not offensive to neighboring businesses and residences. A restaurant, located closer to Coastal Lumber than Petitioners' residence, has not made any complaints regarding odor. No credible evidence established that the odors complained of by the Petitioners were produced by Coastal Lumber. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the odors may be caused by one or more other sources in the vicinity. No evidence was presented to indicate that odors emitted at the plant pose any danger to human health or welfare. Coastal Lumber's operations do not produce objectionable odor. The main sources of visible emissions which would be covered by the Title V permit are the three boilers used to generate steam for the plant. "Excess emissions" occur when a boiler becomes "upset" due to a malfunction of equipment or the startup or shutdown of equipment. Such conditions account for occasional dark puffs emitted by the boilers, but do not occur for long periods of time. Under DEP rules and the draft permit conditions, excess emissions may not exceed two hours in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Coastal has complied with excess emissions limits in the past and can comply with the draft permit conditions regarding excess emissions. The boilers at Coastal Lumber are equipped with oxygen sensors that regulate the rate of fuel coming into the boiler before an upset condition occurs, thus, minimizing excess emissions. Coastal Lumber has excess steam capacity so if a boiler is not operating properly it will be shut down. A computer also records the occurrence of upset conditions. Because the sensors are sent to an outside facility to be maintained and calibrated, Coastal employees can not change sensor settings or information recorded by the computers. Under its current operating permits, Coastal is required to conduct annual testing for visible emissions and has been found in compliance every year. During that testing, the plant operates under its normal procedures and at its normal capacity. Under its current operating permits, Coastal has been subject to inspections by DEP investigators, including weekend inspections. Some of the visits are scheduled so that Coastal knows the inspectors are coming, and others are not scheduled or announced in advance. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct visible emissions test have always found Coastal in compliance with visible emissions limits placed on it. Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc.'s reports and test results have always been accepted by DEP. DEP personnel have inspected the Coastal facility at least ten (10) times between December of 1996 and the hearing on February 9, 1998 -- eight of those inspections were made after January 24, 1998. Those inspections included an unannounced weekend inspection of the plant. Based on the Title V Application and Coastal Lumber's history of compliance with emissions limits, Coastal can comply with DEP emissions regulations. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of smoke at the plant. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of smoke generated by the plant. Petitioners also complained of black smoke from Coastal's log loaders. These diesel-fueled motor vehicles are not subject to the Title V air permit. Coastal has responded promptly to complaints of Petitioners and has made diligent efforts to locate excess emissions from its plant, but Petitioners' complaints can not be substantiated. In the absence of credible evidence that Coastal exceeds DEP emissions limits or that emissions from Coastal are harmful to human health or property, it is established that Coastal can operate in compliance with DEP standards for visible emissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order GRANTING Coastal's Application for a Title V Air Operation Permit subject to the conditions set forth in the Draft Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Julia E. Smith, Esquire Amundsen and Moore Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Chester Nalls Thelma Nalls Post Office Box 396 Havana, Florida 32333 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Action Instant Concrete, LLC (AIC), should be allowed to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit promulgated by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.300(4)(c)2.1
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paul and Barbara Corbiey, live at 7380 Southwest 86th Lane, Ocala, Florida, in an area called Green Turf Acres. Petitioners' property shares a boundary with property owned by AIC at State Road 200. In 2003 AIC began construction of a relatively small cement silo and area for storage of rock aggregate and sand to mix with the cement, similar to facilities at a related operation some distance away. The other operation is within the jurisdiction of DEP's Central District, which did not require a permit for the operation. AIC's operation in Ocala is in DEP's Southwest District, which is headquartered in Tampa. Periodically (and irregularly but apparently usually early in the morning) AIC receives deliveries of cement to the silo at its facility next to the Corbieys. The silo is essentially a rectangular bin with a baghouse, essentially another rectangular structure attached to the silo and containing a combination of filters. Deliveries are made using an enclosed truck with a blower and flexible hose that can be positioned and attached to the fill spot on the silo. The transfer of cement from truck to silo is accomplished pneumatically, with the air exhausted through the baghouse, which is designed to capture and retain cement particles within the silo as the air passes through to the outside of the silo. If there are particulate emissions during the process, they typically would come from the baghouse. AIC also has aggregate and sand delivered to storage areas on either side of the silo. Each of the storage areas has walls made of 4-5 courses of cement block on three sides. The walls are there mainly to contain the aggregate and sand but also serve as a partial windbreak. During AIC's operations, trucks come to pick up cement, aggregate, and sand. To load cement onto the trucks, cement is gravity-fed from a hopper on the silo, through a flexible tube, and into the truck; aggregate and sand also are loaded into trucks using a front-end loader. Unconfined emissions can and, at least sometimes, do occur during the loading processes. After loading, the trucks are driven offsite, typically to a construction site, where the cement, aggregate, and sand are batched to form concrete. When AIC began operations, its yard was covered with grass and weeds, which helped suppress fugitive dust when trucks drove in and out. Later, the grass and weeds died, and AIC installed three sprinkler heads to keep the area watered to help suppress fugitive dust. When AIC began construction and operation, Petitioners complained to numerous authorities that AIC's construction and operation were illegal, inappropriate, and should not be allowed for various reasons, including alleged particulate emissions and fugitive dust that was harmful to the health and property of Petitioners and their neighbors.13 One complaint was lodged with DEP's Central District, which referred it to DEP's Southwest District. DEP's Southwest District investigated, determined that AIC should have obtained a permit, initiated compliance action, and required AIC to make use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit promulgated by DEP in Rule 62- 210.300(4)(c)2. DEP also fined AIC in the amount of $4,150, plus $100 to reimburse DEP for its costs, for constructing and operating without a permit.14 These amounts were paid. It does not appear from the evidence in the record that DEP ordered AIC to cease operations until DEP allowed AIC to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. It does not appear that AIC ceased operations. As DEP instructed, AIC had a VE test performed in accordance with EPA Method 9 for submission with a Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, and proof of public notice. AIC retained Koogler & Associates for this purpose, and the test was performed on April 26, 2005. On April 29, 2005, AIC published notice in the Ocala Star-Banner that it intended to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. On May 5, 2005, Koogler & Associates prepared a VE Observations Report for AIC. On May 16, 2005, Petitioners filed a Petition opposing AIC's use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit and seeking its revocation. On May 19, 2005, AIC submitted a Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, proof of public notice, and VE observation report to DEP. At the hearing, John B. Koogler, Ph.D., P.E., an expert in environmental science and air quality, and the principal of Koogler & Associates, testified as to the cement and concrete industry in general, EPA Method 9, required certifications for conducting a VE test under EPA Method 9, VE testing under EPA Method 9, and the VE Observations Report prepared for AIC by Koogler & Associates. In the case of AIC's operation, VE testing measures stack emissions during standard loading of cement under pressure. Typically, if there are emissions during the process, they will be seen at the baghouse on the silo--i.e., the dust collector at the exhaust point. This is where VE is measured during testing. AIC's stack emissions were tested at a loading rate of approximately 50 tons per hour; at that rate, 25 tons of cement were loaded into the silo in half an hour. According to AIC's VE Observations Report, there were no stack emissions during testing. Dr. Koogler did not perform the test himself and did not sign the Observations Report, but the test was performed and the report was prepared under his general supervision, and experts in his field routinely rely on VE testing performed by certified technicians under general supervision and on observations reports prepared by others under general supervision. According to Dr. Koogler, the test for AIC appeared to have been performed properly and met the requirements of EPA Method 9 and DEP's statutes and rules for use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. Petitioners questioned the veracity of the VE Observations Report, primarily by speculating that the certified technician who performed the test may have fabricated the observations, either with or without his employer's knowledge. This speculation is rejected as unfounded. Petitioners also repeatedly questioned the consistent and reasonable testimony of all the experts that valid, authorized VE observations could not be performed using Petitioners' videotapes. Besides, the videotape in evidence did not show loading of the silo. As a result, Petitioners presented no evidence that VE in excess of five percent opacity occurred during cement loading of the silo. Petitioners also alleged that violations occurred during the loading of trucks at AIC's operation. Witnesses testified to seeing various amounts of dust from various distances occurring at various times, but their testimony was not specific. Parts of the videotape in evidence show some unconfined emissions occurring during the loading of at least some of the trucks. However, as indicated above, VE testing is not done for unconfined emissions; in addition, standardized opacity measurements could not have been made from a videotape. Finally, the videotape showed that AIC uses a chute, or partial enclosure, to mitigate emissions at the drop point to the truck, and the evidence was that AIC maintains its parking areas and yards and applies water when necessary to control emissions. Cf. Conclusions 22-23, infra. Dr. Koogler also opined that AIC and its operation may use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under a proper interpretation of the statutes and rules, in particular Rule 62-296.414, which states that it not only applies to "emissions units producing concrete and concrete products by batching or mixing cement and other materials" but also applies to "facilities processing cement and other materials for the purposes of producing concrete." This opinion was consistent with DEP's interpretation of the statutes and rules. Petitioners also contended that AIC was ineligible for the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit because its facility already was in existence and was operating without a permit. However, expert witnesses for DEP and for AIC testified consistently and reasonably that DEP can require a facility operating without a permit to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit in order to come into compliance. It is not necessary for the facility to dismantle its facility and rebuild after obtaining authorization to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under Rule 62-210.300(4)(a)2. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for the facility to submit VE test results along with the facility's initial Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, and proof of public notice. In the exercise of its discretion to enforce compliance, DEP allowed AIC to continue to operate before and during the pendency of this proceeding. Petitioners questioned the wisdom and propriety of this choice, but DEP's exercise of discretion in enforcing compliance is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 24, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order approving AIC's use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under Rule 62-210.300(4)(a)2. Jurisdiction is retained to consider a motion for costs and attorney fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, if filed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2006.
